EXPLORING THE TEACHING OF INFERENCE SKILLS

By

Michela Kopitski

A Capstone submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in English as a Second Language

Hamline University

Saint Paul, Minnesota

September, 2007

Committee: Cynthia Lundgren, Primary Advisor Deirdre Kramer, Secondary Advisor Tammy Bukowski, Peer Reader

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Chapter One: Introduction……………………………………………………….1

Background of the Researcher…………………………………………………3

Guiding Questions……………………………………………………………..4

Chapter Overview……………………………………………………………...5

Chapter Two: Literature Review…………………………………………………6

Introduction……………………………………………………………………6

Reading Strategies…………………………………………………………….6

Defining Inference…………………………………………………………….7

Inference and Comprehension………………………………………………...9

A Change in Views………………………………………………………..10

Background Knowledge…………………………………………………..10

Teaching Inference…………………………………………………………...13

Explicit Instruction………………………………………………………..13

Three Steps for Inferencing……………………………………………….16

Inferencing Activities………………………………………………………...17

Question­Answer Relationships…………………………………………..17

The KIS Strategy………………………………………………………….18

It Says­I Say………………………………………………………………18

iii

Marking Texts…………………………………………………………….19

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….20

Chapter Three: Methodology…………………………………………………….21

Introduction and Research Question………………………………………….21

Overview of Chapter…………………………………………………………..21

Research Paradigm……………………………………………………………21

Action Research……………………………………………………………21

Data Collection………………………………………………………………..23

Standardized Tests…………………………………………………………24

Student Surveys……………………………………………………………26

Reflective Journal………………………………………………………….26

Student Work………………………………………………………………27

Student Interviews…………………………………………………………28

Data Collection Procedures…………………………………………………...29

Standardized Tests………………………………………………………....29

Student Surveys……………………………………………………………29

Action Research Cycle…………………………………………………….30

Student Interviews…………………………………………………………31

Participants……………………………………………………………………32

Setting……………………………………………………………………..32

Participants………………………………………………………………...32

Data Analysis Procedures…………………………………………………….34

iv

Standardized Tests………………………………………………………...34

Student Surveys…………………………………………………………...34

Reflective Journal…………………………………………………………35

Student Work……………………………………………………………...36

Cycle One: Question­Answer Relationship……………………………36

Cycle Two: The KIS Strategy………………………………………….37

Cycle Three: It Says­I Say……………………………………………...37

Cycle Four: Marking Texts……………………………………………..38

Student Interviews………………………………………………………….38

Verification of Data……………………………………………………………38

Ethics…………………………………………………………………………..39

Chapter Four: Results and Discussion…………………………………………….40

Chapter Overview……………………………………………………………...40

Pre­teaching……………………………………………………………………41

Day One…………………………………………………………………….41

Day Two…………………………………………………………………….42

Day Three…………………………………………………………………...43

Action Research Results……………………………………………………….44

Cycle One: Question­Answer Relationship………………………………...44

Cycle Two: The KIS Strategy………………………………………………48

Cycle Three: It Says­I Say………………………………………………….51

Cycle Four: Marking Texts…………………………………………………52

v

Student Surveys………………………………………………………………...53

Inferential Reflection Sheet…………………………………………………53

Student Interviews……………………………………………………………...55

Authentic Assessment Measures……………………………………………….56

Standardized Tests……………………………………………………………...57

Test of Emerging Academic English………………………………………..57

ELLs and Inferencing……………………………………………………57

Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments­II………………………………....59

Northwest Evaluative Assessment…………………………………………..59

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………....60

Chapter Five: Conclusions…………………………………………………………62

Discussion of Results……………………………………………………………62

Reading Strategies……………………………………………………………62

Inference and Comprehension………………………………………………..62

Teaching Inference…………………………………………………………...63

Explicit Instruction………………………………………………………..63

Teaching Steps……………………………………………………………64

Teaching Activities…………………………………………………………...65

Limitations of Study…………………………………………………………….65

Classroom Application…………………………………………………………..67

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….68

Appendices………………………………………………………………………….69

vi

Appendix A: Types of Inferences Readers Make……………………………….69

Appendix B: It Says­I Say­And So Chart…………………………………………….71

Appendix C: Benchmarks for MCA­II Substrands…………………………………...73

Appendix D: Inferential Reflection Sheet…………………………………………….78

Appendix E: QAR Chart……………………………………………………………...80

Appendix F: Passages Used for KIS Strategy………………………………………..82

Appendix G: Determining Theme Using the KIS Strategy…………………………85

Appendix H: Parent Permission Slip…………………………………………………87

Appendix I: Excerpt from Michael Ondaatje’s Novel, The English Patient…...90

Appendix J: TEAE Score for Somali­Speaking Student……………………….92

Appendix K: TEAE Score for Spanish­Speaking Student……………………..94

Appendix L: MCA­II Reading Test Results…………………………………...96

Appendix M: NWEA Test Results…………………………………………….98

References…………………………………………………………………………100

vii

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 3.1 Data Collection Timeline……………………………………………24

Table 3.2 Minnesota Assessments: Test of Emerging Academic English……..25

Table 3.3 Standardized Test Scores of English Language Learners…………...33

Figure 4.1 Guided QAR Responses…………………………………………….45

Figure 4.2 Independent QAR Responses……………………………………….47

Figure 4.3 Independent KIS Strategy Responses……………………………….49

Figure 4.4 Inferential Reflection Sheet: Initial Student Responses…………….54

Figure 4.5 Inferential Reflection Sheet: Final Student Responses……………..55

Table 4.1 Authentic Assessment Results: Inferential Questions……………...56

Table 4.2 TEAE Score: Level 3……………………………………………….58

Table 4.3 TEAE Score: Level 4……………………………………………….59

Figure 4.6 NWEA Student Growth…………………………………………….60

viii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Reading comprehension is a complex skill that requires readers to combine a

variety of reading strategies to interact with the text. All readers need to use their English

language knowledge, world knowledge and understanding of print to understand text

(Peregoy & Boyle, 2001). With the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), teachers are

experiencing even greater pressures to have every child proficient in reading.

Federal guidelines and state standards make students and teachers accountable for

being able to comprehend texts. Many standardized tests, such as the Minnesota

Comprehensive Assessment II (MCA­II), Test of Emerging Academic English (TEAE),

and Northwest Education Assessment (NWEA), include questions that require inferential

thinking. Minnesota state standards and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) guidelines

also stress interpretation, inference and analysis.

I am a fourth grade teacher in a large rural school district in Southwest Minnesota.

In the building where I teach, there are six fourth grade classes with about twenty­five

students in each classroom. The district guides instruction by setting data driven goals.

One of our goals is to have ninety percent of the students proficient in reading. The

district uses the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment II (MCA­II) to determine the

percentage of students who are proficient in reading. The MCA­II gives each student an

overall reading score, as well as scores broken down in three areas: vocabulary

ix

expansion, comprehension and literature. The students in the district also take the

Northwest Education Assessment (NWEA) to gather data on their strengths and

weaknesses in reading and math. The teachers use this data to help guide their reading

instruction.

Inferencing is a reading strategy that is difficult for students, because of the

variety of background experiences that children come to school with. When inferencing,

readers combine clues the author provides along with information the reader already has.

This chapter introduces the issues associated with teaching the reading strategy of

inferencing to elementary students. Students come to school with a variety of experiences

and exposure to language, which means teachers need to be able to recognize these

variations and plan their instruction accordingly.

Since reading proficiency is a priority in the school district, I decided the purpose

of my study is to improve my reading instruction. I see many struggling readers, and I

want to help them develop a variety of strategies to use while reading. The number of

English language learners (ELL) in our district is significant, and we recognize that many

of these students are not proficient in reading. Providing reading instruction that is

meaningful for them will help close the gap between ELL’s and Non­ELL’s.

To improve my reading instruction, I used my colleagues’ opinions and

experiences, literature on reading strategies, and students’ test scores to determine my

areas of focus. I began by talking with other elementary teachers about which reading

strategies are most difficult for students. Inference was identified as a very difficult

reading skill for many students.

x

After talking with other teachers, I looked at test scores to see how many fourth

graders were scoring low in the area of inference. I began by looking at the NWEA

results for the students in my reading classes, and I concluded that many students were

low in interpretive/inferential comprehension. The area stated as interpretive/inferential

comprehension is based on students’ ability to make reasonable predictions before,

during and after reading, drawing inferences necessary for understanding, recognizing

cause­effect relationships, and summarizing and synthesizing information from a variety

of written materials. After looking at the data more formally, I found that 7 out of 15

(47%) students were below average in the area of interpretive comprehension, a form of

inference. I turned to the test data from the MCAs. I found students scored low in the

comprehension substrand. The comprehension substrand has a higher point value than

the other two substrands and it is the substrand where students missed the most points.

Inferencing skills are reflected in this testing strand.

Since drawing inferences is an area in which my fourth grade students are lacking,

not teaching this skill would be a disservice to the students in my classroom. At this

point, I began reading literature to find out all that I could about the reading skill of

inference. Reading practitioners, such as Harvey and Goudvis (2000), Tovani (2000),

Beers (2003), and Armbruster (2003), suggest the teaching of multiple reading strategies

to increase reading comprehension, but one of the necessary reading strategies is

inferencing. Caine and Oakhill (1999) and Keen and Zimmermann (1997) agree, the

ability to make inferences is crucial in the comprehension of text.

Background of the Researcher

xi

I have taught for six years in a district that is committed to continuous

improvement and uses data to drive instruction. With an increase in English language

learners, the district’s demographics have changed, which add new challenges to

classroom instruction. Standardized test scores show district reading scores staying

relatively flat, and English language learners not making AYP (adequate yearly progress)

in reading. The district goals reflect these results. Teachers are being provided with more

professional development opportunities in reading and second language learning in hopes

of improving reading instruction and closing the gap between ELL’s and Non­ELL’s.

Reading is a complex skill, which requires readers to use multiple strategies. Data

driven instruction is important in determining which strategies should be taught.

Explicitly teaching reading strategies at the students’ instructional level helps students

see how skilled readers comprehend texts.

Self­reflection is an important part of being a good teacher, because it allows

teachers to examine their instructional strategies. When self­reflecting, teachers recognize

strengths and weaknesses in their lessons to guide future instructional decisions. In self­

reflection, one runs the risks of justifying behavior, but a focus on student data, as in

action research, helps reduce the potential bias.

Guiding Questions

There is little doubt that reading strategies are helpful for students, but there are

fewer studies that explore how students are thinking while learning reading strategies.

The intent of my study is to find out if students’ thinking changes as a result of explicit

instruction on making inferences while reading. Action Research is a widely accepted

xii

approach for teachers to examine their own instruction with respect to student

achievement. I will be using action research to examine my reading instruction. I will

experiment with various activities during several action research cycles to help students

make inferences while reading. I want to know if I make a difference in students’ ability

to infer by explicitly teaching inferencing skills and engaging students in activities that

support inferencing. Specifically, I want to know:

§ Which teaching activities are most beneficial for teaching the reading skill

of inference?

§ How can I measure students’ reading skill of inference?

§ Will students be able to transfer these activities to other texts?

Chapter Overview

In Chapter One I introduced my research by establishing the purpose, significance

and need for the study. The context of the study was briefly introduced as was the role,

assumptions and biases of the researcher. The background of the researcher was

provided. In Chapter Two I provide a review of the literature relevant to making

inferences while reading. Some questions I address in this chapter are: which teaching

activities are most beneficial for teaching the reading skill of inference, and can I make a

difference in students’ ability to infer by explicitly teaching activities that the students

will be able to use? Chapter Three includes a description of the research design and

methodology that guides this study. Chapter Four presents the results of this study. In

Chapter Five I reflect on the data collected. I also discuss the limitations of the study,

implications for further research and recommendations for future instructional strategies.

xiii

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This chapter presents the importance of teaching and using reading strategies to

support the ultimate purpose of reading; comprehension. The literature on reading

comprehension is vast because there are many strategies students can use to support their

reading process. This chapter focuses on one such strategy in particular, that of making

inferences during reading. Making inferences during reading are particularly important

for English language learners as authors make assumptions regarding shared cultural

experiences and background knowledge. This chapter defines inference as a strategy,

explains how it works during reading, and introduces teaching activities specifically

designed to support the development of inferential skills.

Reading Strategies

xiv

In order to comprehend texts, readers need to be able to use a variety of reading

strategies to extract meaning. Reading strategies include making connections, inferring,

predicting, asking questions, summarizing, visualizing, using context clues, drawing

conclusions, and determining main ideas. Many of these reading strategies are embedded

in one another and can be adapted according to the text. Readers can consciously apply

these strategies to help them comprehend texts and monitor their reading. The explicit

teaching of reading strategies is critical in helping students apply the strategies that will

support their comprehension in reading. Students need to be explicitly taught reading

strategies, or they will not improve as readers (Beers, 2003). Ambruster, et al. (2003)

agree by saying “text comprehension can be improved by instruction that helps readers

use specific comprehension strategies” (p. 49).

Strategies, such as inferring, asking questions, and making predictions, can be

introduced in kindergarten and developed throughout high school. With practice, readers

learn to control which strategies should be used at which times based on the purpose for

reading and students’ reading ability. At first, students are consciously thinking about

using these strategies to help them comprehend text (Tovani, 2000). As students become

more skilled readers, knowing which strategies to use and when to use them will become

more automatic. Readers will also realize that in some instances, two or more strategies

need to be used together.

Although I am focusing on the reading strategy of inference, it is important to

remember that this strategy should not be taught in isolation. According to the research

in the Report of the National Reading Panel (2000), it is most effective when a variety of

xv

reading strategies are learned together. Making inferences alone does not make someone

a great reader. In addition, readers need to be able to coordinate many strategies at once.

Inference is a complex skill and is included in many other types of reading strategies,

such as asking questions, making connections, using context clues, predicting, and

summarizing. Teachers need to provide students with a variety of authentic texts that

they can use to practice these strategies.

Defining Inference

“An inference is the ability to connect what is in the text with what is in the mind

to create an educated guess” (Beers, 2003, p. 61­62). Keene and Zimmermann (1997)

say, “when we read, we stretch the limits of the literal text by folding our experience and

belief into the literal meanings in the text, creating a new interpretation, an inference.” (p.

147).

Inference is a difficult skill because there are numerous types of inferences that

readers need to make. Some inferences are grammatical, such as recognizing the

antecedents for pronouns. Other inferences help the reader to identify author’s biases,

provide details about the setting, or figure out the meaning of an unknown word. There

are many types of inferences that are crucial in helping the reader comprehend the text.

Readers may need to develop details or explanations about particular events, understand

characters’ beliefs, or offer conclusions based on facts presented in the text. These

particular inferencing skills are necessary for everyday reading activities, as well as

standardized tests. The table in Appendix A lists the different types of inferences that

readers need to be able to make.

xvi

Inferring requires higher­order thinking skills, which makes it a difficult skill for

many students. Inferential thinking skills are when a reader combines clues from the text

with their own background knowledge in order to draw conclusions. The answers are not

right in the text, so readers often need to become detectives, using the clues the author

gives to help make sense of a text. Much of the meaning comes from the readers as they

add their personal experiences and existing knowledge to the author’s words. Readers

need to read between the lines and develop their own ideas to make the story come to life.

For example, a reader may know that the main character in a story is brave because of his

actions, even though the author never uses the word brave in the entire story. Often

times, struggling readers miss the gist of the story because they do not search for clues or

make connections that help them draw inferences (Tovani, 2000).

Inference and Comprehension “Inference is the heart of the comprehension process….Even the simplest of texts

requires inferencing.” (Dole et al., 1991, p. 8) Making inferences is a skill that all readers

need in order to comprehend text. In order to figure out necessary information that the

author does not explicitly tell the reader, readers need to be able to take their general

knowledge and add it to the text. The purpose of Cain and Oakhill’s study (1999) was to

find out if there is a connection between inference making and reading comprehension

failure in young children. Three sets of students, ages six to eight years of age, read short

stories in which they were asked to answer literal and inferential questions immediately

after reading the passages. This study found that students who were competent at making

inferences were more successful readers than those who were unable to make inferences.

xvii

However, Cain and Oakhill also found that successful inference making was not a by­

product of good reading comprehension. Since being able to infer is necessary for being a

skilled reader, it is pertinent that all readers be taught how to make inferences.

Keene and Zimmermann (1997) list several reasons why learning how to make

inferences helps improve comprehension. One reason is the interaction readers have with

the text will allow them to remember more of what was read, and in turn, apply it

somewhere else in life. Inferencing helps readers expand on their current background

knowledge through reading. Inferential skill helps readers learn how to think critically

and ask questions about texts that they read. All of these activities help students reflect on

their reading, which will help students make inferences.

A Change in Views

Literature experts’ ideas of how readers comprehend text has changed

significantly throughout the years. In the past, comprehension was measured by having a

student read a short passage and circling the main idea from a few choices. Wilhelm

(1997) states comprehension has traditionally been viewed as a product in which there

was only one right answer and everyone had the same answer. Now, the focus has shifted

to defining reading comprehension as an active process, in which a reader’s thoughts add

meaning and information to the text (Fountas and Pinnell, 1996). Since readers have a

variety of experiences and background knowledge, no two readers comprehend a story

exactly the same.

According to brain­based reading, readers need to take an active role in reading

by using higher­order thinking skills in order to help them comprehend the text

xviii

(McEwan, 2002). Good readers need to think before, during and after reading in order to

comprehend. Predicting, thinking aloud and asking inferential questions can help extract

some thoughts that readers have while reading and can all add to a reader’s

comprehension. Hermann (1988) adds to this idea by saying “reading is a strategic,

meaning­getting process requiring awareness and control of complex reasoning

processes” (p. 24).

Background Knowledge

Comprehending text can be especially challenging for English language learners.

In order to comprehend, it is not enough to just read the words, but readers must add their

experiences to help them make sense of text. Because of cultural differences, English

language learners have different background knowledge than non­English language

learners. Readers’ prior experiences affect a reader’s ability to comprehend. Despite the

knowledge of these differences, English language learners are still expected to be able to

comprehend text in which they may have little background knowledge on standardized

tests and in classrooms. Much of the research done by Carrell and Eisterhold has shown

that cultural background is a major factor that affects how a reader interacts with a text,

and English language learners cannot obtain meaning from a text, if they do not have the

necessary schemata (Carrell and Eisterhold, 1988). The lack of background knowledge

directly affects a student’s ability to make inferences, since readers combine clues from

the text with their background knowledge to make inferences. Aside from using a

combination of reading skills, readers need to add their background knowledge in order

to infer (Dole et al., 1991; Pressley and Afflerbach, 1995).

xix

The idea that background knowledge has been considered essential in reading

comprehension has been prevalent for hundreds of years. Immanuel Kant (1781) stated

“new information, new concepts, new ideas can have meaning only when they can be

related to something the individual already knows” (as cited in Carrell and Eisterhold

1988, p. 81). Much of second language research has used schema theory to help

understand the cognitive process while reading. Schema theory was developed during the

1970’s and 1980’s to describe the structure and role of knowledge in the mind (Nassiji,

2002). According to schema theory, the reader’s background knowledge gives the text its

meaning (Rumelhart, 1980 as cited in Carrell & Eisterhold, 1988). Subsequently, readers’

background knowledge and how they can relate to the information in the text determine

the inferences they make. This background knowledge can be about the topic in the text

itself, knowledge about the world in general, as well as knowledge about the organization

of the text (Resnick, 1984 as cited in Dole et al., 1991 & Nassaji, 2002). Every reader’s

thoughts are different as they read, because of the connections they make to their own

lives (Keene & Zimmerman, 1997). Since people’s experiences are constantly changing,

readers can create a somewhat different meaning of a text each time they read it.

Anderson and Pearson’s work has shown increasing a reader’s background

knowledge will improve their comprehension skills (1984). Students with greater

background knowledge on the topic usually comprehend stories better than those with

little background knowledge. There are readers who have the background knowledge,

but do not use it to help them make inferences unless it is absolutely necessary in helping

them understand the text (McKoon & Ratcliff, 1992). If students were able to relate their

xx

readings to their own lives and their prior knowledge, they may be more motivated to

learn the necessary reading strategies. Students need to understand that they must be an

active part in the learning process. Reading might become more fun when students use

their background knowledge to help them make inferences (Walqui, 2000).

Many experiments in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s found that asking readers

“why” questions help students relate their background knowledge to the text (Pressley,

2001). Another way to help students relate their background knowledge is through

various prereading activities that build the background knowledge necessary for

comprehension (Nassaji, 2002). One prereading activity that helps build background

knowledge is a KWL chart. As a class, in small groups, or individually, the students

write down what they know about the topic and questions that they have about the topic.

During and after reading, the students add what they have learned to the last column.

Finding out what students know prior to reading a text can spark a discussion that will

provide necessary information before reading about a particular topic. The students can

use this activated schema to fill in the gaps in the text.

Teaching Inference Explicit Instruction

Teachers need to evaluate their students to determine what needs to be

implemented in a reading program. There will not be one single book, curriculum, or

method that will prove to be successful for all students. Teachers need to differentiate

instruction, which often requires teachers to use a variety of resources. Students learn

best when they know what is expected of them and opportunities to use what they have

learned. Dole et al. (1991) suggest using explicit instruction to provide students with an

xxi

explanation of what they will be learning, followed with guided practice, and

opportunities for the students to use what they have learned on their own. Explicit

instruction is a successful method for the teaching of reading strategies that can be

effective for all students.

Every classroom is unique and each student comes with a variety of personal

experiences. These personal experiences and cultural differences can affect a reader’s

ability to infer. Some students have had no prior school experiences, while others have

been in a much more vigorous school setting. Each culture places a different value on

education. Regardless of a reader’s personal experiences, all readers need to be able to go

beyond the literal information in a text, because so much more lies beyond that

information. In the sample reading MCA­II test, students are asked to make an inference

about the cause of a tent falling down. The two boys are in such a hurry to set the tent up

to camp in the backyard, that they do not read the directions and leave out a pole that is

needed to hold the tent up. A student who has little background knowledge of camping or

setting up tents would have a hard time inferring why the tent fell down. A child from a

war­torn country may have an entirely different set of answers as well.

When explicitly teaching strategies, best practice holds that a teacher models,

provides guided practice, and allows some time for the students to practice the skill

individually (Harvey and Goudvis, 2000). The whole class can work on the same

strategy, with the more skilled readers reading more difficult texts. It is important to only

teach a strategy if it is needed in a particular text or if the students have not already

mastered it (Wilhelm, 2001). Baumann, et al. (1999) found that one­fifth of each reading

xxii

period is an adequate amount of time for explicit instruction, while the other four­fifths

should be dedicated to the students applying what they have learned.

Teachers cannot expect all readers to automatically know how to go beyond the

literal and make inferences. Teachers need to teach activities to help readers understand

inferential thinking, so they are able to use them independently while reading their own

texts. A study by Baumann, et al. (1999) found explicit instruction helped students

understand how to be more strategic readers. Baumann and two fifth grade teachers used

trade books to explicitly teach reading strategies. These researchers were worried about

the gap between students’ comprehension levels and felt their basal reading program was

not adequately meeting the needs of students to close this gap. The strategy lessons

supplemented the existing basal reading program. The teachers also wanted to show

students they could enjoy reading as a result of learning strategies. The reading strategies

were explicitly taught; teachers introduced the strategy, modeled the strategy, and

provided time for guided and independent practice. As a result, the students learned the

comprehension strategies they were taught, students were able to transfer these strategies

to other reading passages, and the students appeared to enjoy reading more than they did

previously.

Duffy, et al. (1987) found students understand how to be more strategic readers,

when they receive explicit instruction. Duffy and his colleagues recognized that many

students reading at low ability levels had a difficult time selecting and applying reading

strategies to aid in text comprehension; as a result, Duffy and his colleagues trained

twenty­two teachers in the explicit teaching of reading strategies to low reading groups.

xxiii

Duffy’s study found that students who received direct instruction in reading strategies

were more aware of strategies, why they are important and how they are used.

Most skilled readers use internal thinking, but struggling readers need to be

shown exactly how skilled readers comprehend when they are reading (Beers, 2003;

Tovani, 2000). The first step is for teachers to reflect on their own inference­making

when reading and provide a context in which students are able to make inferences in a

variety of ways (Keene and Zimmermann, 1997). Harvey and Goudvis (2000) state

“Much of our responsibility when teaching reading is to make what is implicit, explicit”

(p. 12). This entails a teacher using a strategy, such as a think­aloud, to show students

how to make the process visible for students. Many students who are lacking reading

strategies often page through a book only looking at the words, instead of thinking about

what is happening in the book (Beers, 2003).

Readers also need to practice combining clues from the text with their background

knowledge in order to make inferences. When students are not taught how to make

inferences, they fail to connect their background knowledge with the author’s clues

(Tovani, 2000). Not being able to combine background knowledge with the author’s

clues can cause readers to come up with ideas that are way off base. At times,

inexperienced readers attempt to make inferences, but they provide little evidence to

support their idea. Instead, a student makes up a story and believes it is the result of

inferencing.

Explicit instruction in comprehension can help students understand and remember

what they read, as well as communicate with others about the text (Armbruster, 2003).

xxiv

Skilled readers need to talk about texts during reading in order to help them comprehend

the text. Discussing texts with others will expand their existing knowledge, as well as

clear up any misunderstandings they had while reading the text (Beers, 2003). These

interactions are extremely beneficial for English language learners, because they also

provide students the opportunity to expand their language skills. To teach students how to

use their background knowledge to comprehend, have readers preview a text first and use

the illustrations to help build the background. Going through the book pointing out clues

along the way is one way to cue into their background knowledge. Then, add personal

experiences and background knowledge to the clues to draw a conclusion.

Three Steps for Inferencing

There are three steps to teaching students how to make inferences. First, teachers

need to help the readers understand what the strategy is, why it is important and when to

use it in actual reading. Second, teachers need to provide guided practice by using short

nonfiction and fiction texts to introduce the strategy. Wilhelm (2001) suggests that when

teaching the strategies, students need to be given a variety of authentic texts, including

fiction, nonfiction, short stories, newspaper articles, the Internet, poetry, etc. Educators

have long emphasized that students need to be taught how to monitor their reading

strategies as they read (Tovani, 2000), and reading authentic texts will provide a variety

of opportunities for the readers to monitor their strategies. Aside from the students being

able to monitor their reading strategies, the teacher should use a variety of texts to

provide opportunities for the students to see how the strategies can be used in various

texts (Dole et al., 1991).

xxv

Finally, the students are given an opportunity to use the strategy by themselves.

During independent practice, the teacher should monitor student use of strategies.

Teachers can observe the students implementing the strategies using a simple text.

Students can keep a reading journal, a form of written dialogue with the teacher about

their reading. The teacher can also have short interviews with students to explore

students’ awareness and application of strategies. When students can use a particular

strategy independently, they are in a position to begin reading more difficult texts.

Successful readers must be able to monitor their reading strategies to aid in the

comprehension of text. The reader must also be able to make his or her thinking explicit.

The next section looks at four instructional activities that support making inferences.

Inferencing Activities Question­Answer Relationships

Skilled readers comprehend by asking questions before, during and after reading.

Question­answer relationships, (QAR) is a strategy created by Taffy Raphael that can

help students approach the task of reading texts and answering questions. Readers must

realize that there are different types of questions, as well as different ways of finding the

answers (Wilhelm et al., 2001). Readers must know how to answer literal questions, in

which the answers are found directly in the text; and inferential questions, in which the

reader must take clues from various parts of the text and their background knowledge to

help fill in the gaps and/or draw conclusions.

Some experts believe that readers need to have strategies to help them answer

literal questions before they can infer (Keene and Zimmermann, 1997). According to

xxvi

Hillock’s Questioning Hierarchy, students need to be able to answer simple, literal

questions before more difficult inferential questions (Wilhelm, 2001). Dole et al. (1991)

dispute this and believe literal comprehension does not need to be mastered before

readers can be taught to make inferences. Keene and Zimmermann (1997) agree, urging

teachers to help students use literal information to make predictions, draw conclusions,

and make other types of inferences.

The KIS Strategy KIS stands for: Key Words, Infer, Support. This mnemonic strategy helps students

remember the three steps in making and supporting inferences. First, students need to

underline key words and facts from the text. Next, the readers make inferences using the

key words or facts to answer the question. Lastly, the readers list background knowledge

used to support their answers.

It Says­I Say Inferring requires readers to combine information from the text with their prior

knowledge. It Says­I Say is a visual for students to use to organize their thoughts. (See

Appendix) The reader needs to show what the text states, what schema they have in their

mind and what conclusions they can make based on that information. Graphic organizers

like this one help students focus on concepts (Armbruster, et al., 2003). This strategy

would be most beneficial after the students have an understanding of different types of

questions.

xxvii

Marking texts

In order for reading strategies to be useful, students need to monitor them. This

requires readers to focus while reading. Marking texts is one way that can help students

stay focused on their reading. Harvey and Goudvis (2000) suggest using sticky notes as

one way to help students keep track of their thinking while reading. There are many

variations to how the sticky notes can be used to monitor comprehension. Teachers can

have the students jot down questions or thoughts during reading. Then questions will be

discussed during a conference or group discussion. Teachers can focus students to solicit

more specific information, such as finding examples of inferences. When the students

come across places in which they need to make an inference, they can write a note on

their sticky note and place it in the story where they inferred.

Readers can also be taught how to code the strategies they used in their text.

Some examples are I for inference, BK for background knowledge, ? for question, etc.

The teacher models how to code strategies by selecting a short text and either making a

copy for each student, or displaying it on the overhead. When the teacher makes an

inference, he labels the area with an I. The following three­column chart can be used to

show support for his inference.

Quote from Text Page

Number I Infer…

xxviii

Gradually release responsibility to the students by having them work with a partner to

label inferences they make while reading. After the students have a basic understanding

of making inferences, expand on the activity by having them label clues as textual

evidence and/or background knowledge.

Conclusion Literature expert’s views of how reading should be taught has changed throughout

the years. Current literature says students benefit from the explicit instruction of reading

strategies, such as inferencing, making connections, and asking questions. Reading

strategies require readers to take an active role in their reading by thinking before, during

and after reading. Inferencing is one of the most difficult reading strategies for students

because it requires students to combine information in the text with their background

knowledge to obtain meaning. Many authors assume every reader has the same

background knowledge and cultural experiences, which makes inferencing especially

difficult for English language learners.

Comprehension is the reason for reading and teaching reading strategies is an

effective way to improve student comprehension. Will using teaching activities

specifically designed for inferencing make readers better at making inferences? In this

study, I want to know:

1. Which activities do students feel help them make inferences?

2. Do students transfer the strategy to other texts?

In the next chapter, I present the methods for this study.

xxix

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Introduction and Research Question

This study is designed to explore the explicit teaching of reading strategies in

order to increase student comprehension. Explicitly teaching these strategies will help

students become aware of how they can use strategies while reading. Specifically, I want

to know:

§ Which teaching activities are most helpful for teaching the reading skill of

inference?

§ How can I measure the students’ reading skill of inference?

§ Will students be able to transfer this skill to other texts?

Overview of the Chapter This chapter describes the methodology used in this study. First, the rational and

description of the research design is presented. Second, the data collection and analysis

of the data methods are presented.

Qualitative Research Paradigm

Action Research This study uses action research cycles to explore the impact of four different

instructional strategies used to teach the reading skill of inference. Action research is a

xxx

classroom method chosen by many teachers to help improve instruction. Action research

is a focus to bring about change while gathering data (Grabe and Stoller, 2002). There are

many benefits of action research, including gathering useful information in a flexible

environment. Action research provides opportunities for teachers to become aware of

their current practices and the impact of student achievement through a systematic cycle

of instruction analysis and reflection. Teachers gain a better understanding of their

pedagogical beliefs, as well as becoming more aware of deeper values and assumptions

regarding teaching and learning through reflective practice. Most importantly, action

research helps teachers use data to guide instructional decisions.

This action research is particularly important to help determine how to better

implement specific lessons to teach the reading skill of inferencing for English language

learners and native­English speaking students. Action research allows me the ability to

use my classroom as a resource and use daily reflection to improve reading instruction.

Although the validity of qualitative data is sometimes questioned, qualitative data is

helpful for educators whose studies are focused on the ways context influences specific

outcomes (Hendricks, 2006). Sharing the information learned through all types of

research contributes to educational knowledge base.

This action research takes place in cycles of instruction that include these steps:

plan, gather data, analyze data and reflect, and decision making. During the planning

step, I choose a variety of teaching activities that would work to enhance the reading skill

of inferencing. As I try each teaching activity, I gather data through anecdotal notes and

collect student work. Next, I analyze the student data to determine if the intervention

xxxi

made sense. I use the results to make decisions about instructional decisions. Each of

these specific steps lead to the next step, and continues in a cyclic motion (Hendricks,

2006). Because the process of action research never ends, action research is an ongoing

process that teachers use to improve their instruction.

My study contains four action research cycles implemented over the course of

three months. While all cycles focus on the explicit instruction of inferencing, the cycles

are named for a particular activity that supports students’ independent practice and

application of the inferencing strategy.

§ Cycle One: Question­Answer Relationships (QAR)

§ Cycle Two: The KIS Strategy

§ Cycle Three: It Says­I Say

§ Cycle Four: Marking Texts

Data Collection

Data was collected from several sources. Standardized assessment scores served

to provide baseline data regarding student skills. Throughout the action research cycle, I

collected student surveys, recorded anecdotal notes in a reflective journal, collected

student data and completed student interviews. Table 3.1 includes a timeline showing

when data was collected.

xxxii

Table 3.1

Data Collection Timeline ________________________________________________________________________ Data Collection Method Spring 2005 Fall 2005 Winter 2006 Spring 2006

NWEA All Students All Students All Students

MCA Native English Speakers

MCA II Native English Speakers

TEAE ELL ELL

Action Research Cycles All Students

________________________________________________________________________

Standardized Tests

Our school district uses the results from the Northwest Evaluative Assessment

(NWEA) and Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments­Series II (MCA­II) to drive

instruction. Under No Child Left Behind guidelines, schools are held accountable for

adequate academic yearly progress (AYP). AYP is based upon standardized tests, which

require students to use a variety of reading strategies. Inferencing is one of the reading

strategies that students are required to use. Since inferencing requires readers to combine

their background knowledge with information in the text, there is a bias that all students

have the same background knowledge and are able to make the same inferences.

xxxiii

In an attempt to provide a standardized test that was not bias, the state department

created the Test of Emerging Academic English (TEAE). This is a test that is used to

determine English reading and writing growth from year to year. It measures three areas

of English: reading, writing and oral language. Each student’s proficiency is given a

level 1­4 for reading, 1­5 for writing, and 1­5 for oral language. Level four is considered

proficient in reading, level five is proficient in writing, and levels four and five are

considered proficient in oral language. Table 3.2, below, shows the areas measured in the

reading portion of the TEAE test.

Table 3.2:

Minnesota Assessments: Test of Emerging Academic English ______________________________________________________________________________________

Strand What is measured? ________________________________________________________________________

Literal Comprehension Ability to answer questions clearly shown in

a picture or stated in text

Inferential Comprehension Ability to answer questions not clearly shown

in a picture or stated in text

________________________________________________________________________

At the time of my study, English language learners in Minnesota took the Test of

Emerging Academic English (TEAE) instead of the reading MCA­II. Therefore, I used

the TEAE for the baseline data for the ELL’s.

The MCA­II test is a reading and math standardized test that Minnesota schools

use to measure students’ progress towards the state standards. Students in third through

eighth grades, as well as tenth and eleventh grades take the test. Students receive a raw

xxxiv

score, as well as broken down scores in the following substrands: vocabulary expansion,

comprehension and literature (See benchmarks in Appendix B). Along with a score in

each of the above areas, a student is given one of the following achievement levels:

exceeds standards, meets standards, partially meets standards, or does not meet standards.

The NWEA is a computerized test that gives an overall reading score for each

student. The NWEA also breaks down students’ ability to determine literal

comprehension, evaluative comprehension, interpretive/inferential comprehension, word

recognition and literature. I examined students’ interpretive/inferential comprehension

scores to determine how much they increased from the fall to spring test. This score is

based on students’ ability to make reasonable predictions before, during and after

reading; drawing inferences necessary for understanding; recognizing cause­effect

relationships; and summarizing and synthesizing information from a variety of written

materials.

Student Surveys

When doing action research that focuses on student achievement, many teachers

choose to use information generated by the students to gage improvement (Hendricks,

2006). Student surveys can be used to determine what students know prior, during and at

the end of a study. The surveys used in this study can be used to show student growth in

the area of inferencing.

Each student completed the Inferential Reflection Sheet (See Appendix C) two

times during the study. This sheet asked the students for three responses:

§ In your own words, explain what an inference is.

xxxv

§ Why is this skill important to know?

§ How can using inferences be helpful in your everyday life?

The Inferential Reflection Sheet also asked the students to read two sample texts that

required them to make inferences.

Reflective Journal

Teachers reflect on a daily basis in order to improve their instruction. Reflection

is an on­going process throughout action research (Hendricks, 2006). One tool that can be

used to reflect on teaching is a reflective journal. A reflective journal helps to remember

any observations made during the lessons. The entries in the journal should focus on

answering the research questions of the study (Hendricks, 2006).

After each lesson, I recorded useful information in a journal. The entries in my

journal focused on the students’ responses as well as my own feelings about the lesson. I

asked myself the following questions:

§ What observations am I making about the students as far as their body

language, participation and eagerness?

§ How are students interacting with one another?

§ How are students interacting with the text?

§ What types of questions did students ask?

§ How do I feel about the preparation of this lesson?

§ Are there any differences in classroom interest with the ELL’s versus

native­English speaking students?

The reflective journal also contained anecdotal notes taken after reviewing a

xxxvi

videotaped lesson. I used the questions above as a guide for pertinent information. The

videotape also provides a tool that can be accessed at anytime, so there are no questions

about the anecdotal notes.

Student Work

Collecting student work is a method that helps determine if students are able to

apply what they know in authentic activities. The data collected from student work is

helpful in analysis and providing information about future instructional decisions

(Hendricks, 2006).

In each of the cycles, the students completed written work to practice the activity.

This student work was used as assessment tools to show the students’ understanding of

inferring. I kept many of these work samples and used them to answer my research

questions.

Student Interviews

At the end of the unit, I had a short informal conference with each student to

measure their understanding of how to infer while reading. An interview is a helpful tool

to help collect qualitative data needed for understanding the answers to research

questions in action research. During an interview, the teacher is able to have a person­to­

person conversation in which he/she can obtain specific information that can not be

directly observed (Merriam, 1998). Interviews also provide the opportunity for the

teacher to ask the students to expand on an answer in order to find out their complete

understanding of inferencing. Another advantage to using student interviews is some

students are able to express their thoughts more clearly orally than through writing.

xxxvii

During the individual student interviews at the end of the unit, I asked them the

following three questions:

§ What is an inference?

§ Which activity did you find most helpful for making inferences while

reading?

§ Why was that activity most helpful?

After each student answered the previous three questions, I asked the students to

show me some examples in their reading where they used one of the activities to help

them make an inference. The students then explained why they chose the particular

activity that they used. This provided me with an idea of which activities the students

found useful, and I looked to see if there were any patterns in students’ comments.

Data Collection Procedures

Standardized Tests

I used the results from the NWEA and MCA­II tests to measure the students’

ability to infer. The NWEA results are most useful, because the comprehension scores

are broken down into literal, interpretive and evaluative comprehension.

The MCA­II results lump all comprehension skills under the comprehension

substrand. The NWEA is also administered three times during the school year and the

scores are immediately available, which provides more opportunities for immediate

reflection and the ability to make adjustments in the curriculum. I am also able to better

measure student growth with the NWEA results, because 2006 was the first year the

xxxviii

MCA­IIs were given in Minnesota. Therefore, I do not have prior scores to measure the

students’ growth.

Student Surveys

In order to gather information about the students’ knowledge about inferences, the

students completed two tasks at the beginning of the study. First of all, the students read

two short passages that required them to answer inferential questions based on clues the

author gave (See Appendix C). Also, I wrote the word inference on the board and asked

each student to write down the definition on a slip of paper. I collected the students’

answers and told them they would be asked the same question at the end of the unit.

The students completed the Inferential Reflection Sheet twice during the study.

The first time was right after being introduced to inferencing. During these introductory

lessons, the students inferred others’ feelings and the jobs of uncommon household items.

After these lessons, I had each student independently complete the Inferential Reflection

Sheet. I used student responses to determine student understanding of what an inference

is and why inferencing is important. The second time the students filled out the

Inferential Reflection Sheet was at the end of the action research cycles. I handed out the

sheet that included three questions and two short passages that required the students to

infer. Each student took the written survey independently.

Action Research Cycle

To begin the study, the students learned about what inferences are and why

inferencing is important while reading. In order to help the students understand what an

inference is, I began by having the students infer others’ feelings and the uses for some

xxxix

uncommon household items. After I believed students had a grasp on what it means to

infer, I expanded on their knowledge to making inferences while reading. I modeled for

the students how I infer while I read by thinking aloud as I read a variety of short

passages.

Throughout my study, the students read a variety of narrative and expository texts

to practice making inferences. The majority of the reading passages and whole­group

lessons for this study came from the book, Comprehension Mini­Lessons: Inference and

Cause and Effect by Sarah J. Glasscock and LeAnn Nickelsen (Appendix ). I spent

approximately a week and a half practicing each of the reading activities I chose:

question­answer relationships (QAR), It Says­I Say and the KIS strategy, marking texts. I

chose these activities because they are kid friendly. QAR was the activity we did first,

because it introduced the students to different types of questions they are asked on

standardized tests and reading comprehension activities. The It Says­I Say and KIS

strategy are graphic organizers, which are helpful tools for all students, particularly ELLs

(Peregoy and Boyle, 2001).

After providing guided instruction for each activity, the students worked with a

partner or in small groups practicing the activity. Then, after a week of guided practice

and cooperative work, the students used the activity to answer inferential questions on

their own. A copy of this work was kept for analysis during and after the study.

While the students were working cooperatively and independently, I observed

their behaviors and conversations. Students used think alouds to show their thought­

process when making inferences. I listened to their think alouds and recorded my

xl

thoughts in my reflective journal. This information provided information about the

clarity of lesson delivery, student interest and understanding. After class, I wrote my

feelings about the lesson in my reflective journal.

Student Interviews

At the end of the unit, each student read a book independently and chose any of

the four activities to answer comprehension questions about the book. While the students

were completing this task independently at their desks, I called each student individually

to the back table for a short interview. I asked each student the following questions:

§ What is an inference?

§ Which activity did you find most helpful for making inferences while

reading?

§ Why was that activity most helpful?

While they were at the back table, I asked them to show me an example of where

they made an inference in the book they are reading. Each student showed me how they

used one of the activities to answer an inferential question.

Participants

Setting

Our school district is a large rural school in Southwest Minnesota. Our school is

comprised of six third and six fourth grade classes. There are approximately 275 students

in the third and fourth grades. Approximately nine percent of the third and fourth grade

population is Limited English Proficient (LEP). The majority of the immigrant

population in our district is Somali and Hispanic.

xli

I am a fourth grade mainstream teacher, so my research took place in a

mainstream classroom. The fourth grade teachers have used test scores, past grades,

observations, and teacher recommendation to assign students to appropriate reading and

math classes. The students who are below grade level in reading and/or math are

generally placed in a class together, and the students who are at or above grade level are

generally placed in the other class. If a student is high in one area and low in another, we

typically place this student in the math group in which he or she fits best. Since both of

my reading classes are divided into reading groups according to their reading level, I am

able to place the students with others at their same level. This type of placement allows

teachers to pace the class according to the students' needs.

Participants The participants in this study were fifteen fourth grade students, who were

reading between a third and fourth grade reading level. Less than fifty percent of the

participants in this study scored below average on the evaluative and interpretive

comprehension sections of the Fall NWEA reading test. The participants consisted of

seven native English­speaking boys, six native English­speaking girls, and two female

English language learners. The English language learners have been studying English for

about four and a half years, and both receive ELL services. Table 3.3 gives a brief

description of the English language learners’ reading proficiency according to two

standardized tests that were taken during the fall prior to the study.

Table 3.3

Standardized Test Scores of English Language Learners

xlii

________________________________________________________________________

English Reading and Fall NWEA Fall NWEA Language First Writing Interpretive Evaluative Learner Language Proficiency Comprehension Comprehension

According to Score Score ________________________________________________________________________

ELL 1 Somali Intermediate Low Average Low

ELL 2 Spanish Advanced Low Low Average

All fifteen participants receive about fifty­five minutes of reading instruction, five

days a week. The instruction mainly consists of small group instruction (four to six

students), but some whole group instruction is included as well. Reading activities are

done at the students’ instructional reading level, so the students are reading texts that they

are able to comprehend. The students also practice a variety of reading strategies, such as

using context clues, predicting, making connections, and sequencing. Writing, grammar

and spelling are also intertwined throughout this time.

Data Analysis Procedures Standardized Tests

Prior to beginning the study, I found the students’ results from the standardized

tests that they had previously taken: MCA­II, TEAE, and NWEA. I used the results to

determine the areas in which students scored low.

The NWEA was taken twice prior to the action research cycles and once after the

action research cycles were complete. On each NWEA student progress report, I

xliii

highlighted the interpretive/inferential comprehension scores. Each student’s score from

the fall and winter tests were entered into a chart. After the action research cycle, the

students took the NWEA again. The data from this test was entered into the chart and

compared to the fall and winter scores.

The MCA­II was taken in the in the spring of 2006 before the action research

cycle began. However, the results were not available until the fall of 2006. On the MCA­

II roster, I color­coded the substrands in order from the lowest to highest scores. At the

bottom of each page, I wrote the total number of students who were lowest in each of the

areas. That data was put into a color­coded table so it was all on one sheet and easy to

read. I also studied the benchmarks included in each of the substrands in order to have a

better understanding of what was expected of the students.

Student Surveys

Prior to the action research cycle, each student read two paragraphs and answered

questions that required inferencing. Each correct answer received a star, and each student

received a percentage for the number of correct answers. I then computed a total

percentage of correct answers for all students.

After completing the two practice paragraphs, I wrote the word inference on the

whiteboard. Each student then wrote what they thought the definition of inference is. I

collected all of the papers and saved them for the end of the unit. At the end of the day, I

read each student’s response in order to determine if I should begin the study with lessons

showing what an inference is.

xliv

After introducing the word inference to the class and modeling inferencing while

reading, each student completed the Inferential Reflection Sheet. They completed the

sheets individually at their desks. When the students turned in their sheets, I corrected

their answers. I sorted the papers according to students who could define, partially define

and could not define inference.

At the end of the unit, the students completed the Inferential Reflection Sheet

again. I corrected their answers and paired them with the sheet they previously

completed. I compared the answers on each of the sheets. If the students improved their

answers, I put a star next to the question.

Reflective Journal

Student comments and teacher observations were recorded in the reflective

journal. The observations of the students reading provided information on the students’

processes while reading. I also listened to see if students are able to use the word

inference correctly, and if they used it without my prompts. Listening to student

discussion on the video also allowed me to see the process students were using to make

inferences.

In the reflective journal, I color­coded the comments according to observations

about students and observations about lesson delivery. Each page of the journal was

sorted according to activity. I focused on one activity at a time and included the important

data in my report.

Student Work

xlv

Student work was saved to see which activities were done correctly to help

students make inferences. Each written assignment was sorted according to teaching

activities. At the end of the study, I made four piles of student work: one for QAR, one

for The KIS Strategy, one for It Says­I Say, and one for Marking Texts. I analyzed each

corrected assignment at this time. Answers were previously marked as right or wrong,

and it was clear if students were able to support their answers.

Cycle one: Question­answer relationship. Question­answer relationship is the activity

that I introduced first. I believe students are better able to understand what an inference

is, if they recognize when it is necessary to make an inference. Students generated

questions that could be answered from reading a selected text and wrote them on sticky

notes. Students then placed their questions on a chart divided into four quadrants labeled:

right there questions, think and search questions, author and me questions and on my own

questions (See Appendix D).

When analyzing this data, I chose one of the assignments students completed with

guidance, and one completed independently. I took the sticky notes from the first

assignment and divided them according to the four categories of questions. Then, I

charted the number of each question type generated by students and the number of

questions answered correctly with at least one support. I followed the same process with

the sticky notes from the second assignment. After this information was sorted and

charted, I looked to see which types of questions were generated the most. I also

observed what types of questions students were most likely to answer correctly, and if

they were able to provide support for their answers. Comparing the two assignments

xlvi

allowed me to see if progress was made formulating questions, making inferences or

providing support.

Cycle two: KIS strategy. The students completed three assignments using the KIS

strategy, so I made a pile for each assignment. The first assignment was a sheet titled,

Practicing the KIS Strategy (See Appendix E). This assignment contained six short

passages that asked students to underline key words, make an inference, and write

support for the inference. Each sheet had two scores: number of correct inferences and

number of correct inferences with logical support.

The other two assignments were graphic organizers that asked students to infer

the theme of two trade books they read (See Appendix F). While students were working,

I met with each student to observe the process they were using to fill out the graphic

organizer. I compared the notes from my reflective journal to these sheets when they

were turned in. Students turned in the second sheet when they were finished. I read the

students’ answers and wrote notes on the bottom of the page. If students made a correct

inference and gave more than one support, I drew a star at the bottom. If students made a

correct inference and gave one support, I wrote okay at the bottom. I also wrote specific

notes about missing information in the answers, or what made the answers good.

Cycle three: It Says­I Say. Students used a variety of trade books to practice the It

Says­I Say activity. Each student turned in answers to their questions, and I sorted their

assignments according to book titles. I corrected each question to determine if students

were able to decipher which questions required them to infer. I then checked the answers

in which students completed the It Says­I Say chart for. I drew a star under each column

xlvii

that was done correctly. After all of the assignments were corrected, I sorted the work

according to student. I compared these assignments to see if students were able to make

inferences while reading.

Cycle four: marking texts. After discussing information on the sticky notes, each

student put their sticky notes on a piece of computer paper. The students wrote the book

title and author at the top of the page and stapled the comprehension questions on the

back of the page. Having the student work organized in this way allowed me to see which

students were able to support their answers. I wanted to see if students were able to use

clues the author gave as well as clues from their background knowledge to answer

inferential questions.

Student Interviews

Student interviews at the end of the unit provided me with a variety of

information. During the interviews, I marked a star by each student’s name that was able

to give me an acceptable definition of inferencing. I also kept a tally of which activities

students found most useful in making inferences. I recorded student answers as to why

they liked particular activities and my observations of how students used the activity

underneath the tally marks.

Verification of Data The validity of qualitative studies are sometimes questioned, but they can be

helpful for educators to expand their knowledge base (Hendricks, 2006). This study

incorporates the following to ensure greater validity:

§ Triangulation of data

xlviii

§ Detailed description of action research cycles

§ Authentic assessment

§ Peer review of data

§ Participatory mode of research

Ethics

Ethical considerations are important in qualitative research and the researcher has

accepted the responsibility to respect the rights, needs, values, and desires of the

informants. Professional codes and federal regulations take into consideration the

protection of informants from harm, the right to privacy, informed consent, and

protection from deception. This study employed the following safeguards to protect

informant’s rights:

§ Human Subjects Research Long Form approved by Hamline’s Human Subjects Research Subcommittee

§ Superintendent permission

§ Parent permission letter (See Appendix G)

The next chapter presents the results of this study.

xlix

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Chapter Overview

This chapter presents the results of the four action research cycles: Question­

Answer Relationships (QAR), The KIS Strategy, It Says­I Say, and Marking Texts. I

want to know if explicitly teaching inferencing skills and engaging students in activities

that support inferencing makes a difference in students’ ability to infer. The data are

presented by cycle and will answer these questions:

§ Which teaching activities are most beneficial for teaching the reading skill

of inference?

§ How can I measure students’ reading skill of inference?

§ Will students be able to transfer these activities to other texts?

l

Each cycle presents the results of student work and teacher reflection. The data includes

observations of the teaching activities, observations and examples of student work,

standardized assessment results and student comments about the various activities.

The order of the action research cycle was intentional. QAR was taught first so

students would have a better understanding of the different question types they are

presented with while reading. The KIS Strategy and It Says­I Say were taught next

because they are graphic organizers that allow the students to organize the information

from the text and their background knowledge. Marking texts was last because it has the

least amount of structure and it is important that students have a good understanding of

what an inference is.

Pre­teaching

Day One

I began my study by determining students’ prior knowledge and ability to make

inferences. I asked students to write down a definition of inference. None of the students

were able to give an accurate definition. Then, I gave the students a sheet with two

paragraphs that required them to infer (See Appendix C), but did not tell students what it

means to infer during reading. There were ten questions on the sheet, and the average

score of the class was forty­nine percent correct. I had individual conferences with

several students asking for supporting details for their answers and to recant their

thinking about choosing their answers. I found that half the time students simply

guessed, and could not explain how they arrived at their answers. I hoped that the

teaching activities I chose for my study would improve their ability to have a deeper

li

understanding of their comprehension and the tools they use consciously or

unconsciously to determine their choices in applying strategies.

Reading experts state the first step in learning a reading strategy is understanding

what the strategy is, and when and how to use it (Harvey and Goudvis, 2000). I

determined it was necessary to begin the study by showing students what an inference is

and why it is important for them to be able to make inferences. I wrote each of the

following three questions on a piece of chart paper and hung it on the easel in the front of

the room. I explained by the end of the unit, they would be able to answer these three

questions: How do we infer? When do we need to infer? Why do we need to infer? On a

separate sheet of chart paper, I wroteWhat we know about inferences. Throughout the

study, I asked the students what we learned about inferences and added that information

to the chart.

The first day of the study, I brought in household items I thought students would

not have seen before. I asked students to write down what they thought the objects were

and had them explain their guesses. Then, I provided the students with a clue as to the

object’s purpose. For example, I showed the class a corner rounder that I use to round

corners while scrapbooking. After listening to the students’ guesses, I held up a piece of

paper that had its corners rounded. I again had each student write down their guesses as

to what the object was and asked them to share the information that helped them make

their guess. Some students knew what it was because they reported watching their moms

use a corner rounder while scrapbooking. This was a wonderful opportunity to discuss

how background knowledge affects reading. I compared this to inferring while we read

lii

by saying that sometimes we read about familiar topics and that helps us make more

inferences than when we read about less familiar topics.

Day Two

Next the students completed an activity in which we taped a feeling (mad, sad,

happy, etc.) on a person’s back and had them stand in front of the classroom. A person in

his/her desk, then gave a sentence beginning “I feel this way when….”, which were clues

as to what the feeling was. This activity provided an opportunity to show that since

everyone has had different experiences, there can be more than one correct answer when

we infer, as long as we can support our answer.

These two activities provided the students with a basic understanding of needing

to use clues to infer. This was confirmed by the information the students added to the

chart titled What we know about inferences. Students added:

§ We need to find clues to get some answers

§ We need to add clues to what we already know

§ We compare to things we have already seen

§ There can be more than one correct answer

§ We need to be able to support inferences

Day Three

The second step of explicitly teaching a strategy is modeling. I expanded on the

previous lesson by modeling how I use author’s clues and my background knowledge to

make inferences. We read an excerpt from Michael Ondaatje’s novel, The English Patient

(See Appendix H). Then, we made a two­column chart with the inference of what the

liii

girl is doing in the passage on the left side, and clues the author gave us and clues from

our background knowledge on the right side.

After finishing this lesson, this is what students added to the chart titled What we

know about inferences:

§ The author does not always tell us the answer

§ The author always gives us clues to help us find the answer

§ We really need to think, because sometimes it is easy to make incorrect

inferences

Finally, we referred back to the three questions posted on the board several days

earlier. In answering the question, How do we infer? the class determined: Clues from

the text and pictures + what we already know = an inference. This equation was helpful

throughout the unit. While observing independent work, I saw students reciting this

equation numerous times. During the end­of­the­unit interviews, many students recited

the equation when asked for a definition of inferencing. One student said, “When I

would get stuck trying to support an inference, I thought about that equation.”

Students could also answer the question When do we need to infer? after this

lesson. The class answer was that sometimes the author does not give us all the

information to answer a question, so we need to think about what we know to fill in the

gaps. The students thought that knowing how to infer would be helpful when taking tests

and understanding a story.

The next section discussess the four action research cycles.

Action Research Results

liv

Cycle One: Question­Answer Relationships

QAR is an activity that helps readers understand the different types of

comprehension questions they are required to answer before, during and after reading.

During this cycle, students were introduced to four types of questions: on my own,

author­and­me, think­and­search, and right there. On my own questions ask the reader to

answer questions using their background knowledge, and author­and­me questions

require the reader to combine their background knowledge with clues the author gives in

the text. Readers need to find information from various places in the text to answer think­

and­search questions. The answers to right there questions are found directly in the text.

QAR made students aware of the different types of questions. Working in small

groups, students were able to generate a variety of question types and sort them according

to those types. One student told me, “QAR kinda helped me understand what an inference

is, but it was hard to know when I needed to make an inference.” Two other students also

commented that QAR was helpful in expanding their understanding of what an inference

is.

Figure 4.1 shows the types of questions generated by students and how they

sorted the questions from the first text. Figure 4.1 also shows the number of questions

answered with at least one support.

Figure 4.1. Guided QAR Responses.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Right There

On My Own

Think and Search

Author and Me

Number of Questions Generated

Number of Questions Answered Correctly with at least One Support

lv

___________________________________________________________________

Figure 4.1 shows that eighteen out of twenty­four questions were on my own and

author and me questions. During modeled think alouds, many of my questions began

with the phrase I wonder. I noticed many of the students’ questions also began with I

wonder. The modeling may account for the increased number of on my own and author

and me questions generated by the students. I noted a significant change from the right

there questions that I had noticed students asking prior to the first action research cycle.

Although students were able to generate a variety of question types during this

cycle, many lacked the ability to support their answers. My observation notes on the

manner in which students supported their answers led me to conclude that students

struggled with recognizing which answers required inference and which answers could be

found directly in the reading. Some students had a difficult time finding the support for

the right there questions and the author and me questions. If students found one clue in

the text, they often stopped looking for more information and consequently missed other

pertinent information to help them support their answers. Although the students used

their background knowledge to answer questions, many times they did not recognize that

they were combining their background knowledge with information found directly in the

text.

At the end of this first cycle, students were not able to support their inferences any

better than before the cycle began. In the last independent assignment of this cycle, the

Type of Question

lvi

students were asked to generate four questions they had while reading a text. The

students were assigned to try to come up with at least one of each type of question. When

talking with classmates about their thought process, they could formulate general

questions with no problem, but they had difficulty generating particular types of

questions when asked. As a result, some students did not complete the expectation of

writing four different question types. Students’ work samples showed a decrease in I

wonder statements and an increase in right there questions. Figure 4.2 illustrates the

student responses during the end of this cycle.

Figure 4.2. Independent QAR Responses.

___________________________________________________________________

0

5

10

15

20

25

Right There

On My Own

Think and Search

Author and Me

Number of Questions Generated

Number of Questions Answered Correctly with at least One Support

Type of Question

lvii

Many students’ answers did not answer the question they wrote. For example,

one student wrote:

There were also questions students made no attempt to answer. These tended to be on my

own questions. It is possible there was not enough information given in the text for

students to come up with an answer. Students may have lacked background knowledge

necessary to answer the question.

Cycle Two: The KIS Strategy

The KIS Strategy is an acronym that stands for Key words, Inference, and

Support. Students can use this activity to help them remember to use key words in the

text and their background knowledge to make an inference.

During the first independent assignment, only thirteen out of twenty­seven correct

inferences were made. Their errors included: 1) students did not underline or use all of

the necessary key words to make their inference and/or 2) students did not include their

lviii

background knowledge in the answer. This may be due to students’ inability to pick out

necessary and relevant information from the text.

The following examples of students answers show how an inference can be wrong

when all of the pertinent given information is not recognized and used by the student.

Figure 4.3. Independent KIS Strategy Responses.

______________________________________________________________

Example 1:

Question: Where were they?

Student Response: Inference: Frankie probably heard screams from a car accident.

Support: Sometimes a car will screech when they get into a car accident.

lix

_______________________________________________________________

Example 2:

________________________________________________________________

In the first example, the inference is not logical because if there were a car accident,

Frankie would not hear excitement in the screams, like the author stated. Student two’s

inference is not logical because there are not elevators in airplanes and the wind does not

blow through your hair while you are in an airplane.

Lack of background information may have also played a role in an incorrect

inference. Only two out of the nine students made the correct inference that Frankie heard

Question: Where were they?

Student Response: Inference: A airplane in New York City

Support: You can see a great view when you are in an air plane

lx

people on a roller coaster. Some of the answers students gave were that she was at a

birthday party, she heard kids playing hide­and­go­seek, and she was at a circus. It would

have been interesting to know how many kids have been to an amusement park or

observed a roller coaster.

Many students did not include their background knowledge in the support, so it

was unclear if the background knowledge was lacking, or if the students were unsure how

to use it as support. The student sample below shows the student was able to make the

correct inference, but was not able to support it with their own knowledge.

The students inferred the theme of trade books for the second and third

assignments. All of the students were able to infer a logical theme for the story, but

continued to struggle providing support for their inference. Most students provided

examples from the text, but did not include any information based on their background

knowledge into their support. The work sample below is an example of how one student

did include her background knowledge into the support:

Question: Where were they?

Student Response: Inference: in a tall building

Support: tall buildings have elevators. cars looked like toys.

lxi

Even though the students still need more practice inferencing, I found the

sequence of steps in the KIS strategy to be helpful for students organizing their

information: find key words in the text, make an inference, and support the answer.

The interviews revealed five students preferred the KIS strategy, and identified it

as the most helpful in making inferences. Students reported the KIS strategy was easy.

Some students said they used the KIS strategy in combination with the It Says­I Say on

questions that were more difficult. Students found KIS underlining strategies helpful

with the It Says column. This strategy is presented in Cycle Three.

Cycle Three: It Says­I Say

Using the It Says­I Say chart was the activity that nine out of fifteen students

identified as most helpful in making inferences. When the students were working

independently, many chose to use the It Says­I Say chart to support their answers to

inferential questions. The students explained how the graphic organizer helped them to

better organize their thoughts. For some students, the It Says­I Say chart was easy to use

because they could put one example in each column and then make an inference. Other

lxii

students found it easier to make the inference first and then add information in the It Says

and I Say columns to support their answer.

When the students first began using the It Says­I Say chart on their own, they had

a difficult time organizing their information. One common complaint was the lack of

writing space on the chart. To accommodate, I had students fold their papers in thirds to

keep information organized under the correct columns and provide the necessary space

for writing.

I liked the way this strategy required students to think and relate the story to their

own lives. I found that the I Say column was difficult for most students, but improved

with practice. Many students commented that the I Say column was most difficult. This

finding may be due to students having more experience answering literal questions than

inferential questions.

Cycle Four: Marking Texts

Marking texts is an activity that can help readers monitor their reading strategies

and help them focus on their reading. When the students answered an inferential

question, they placed sticky notes in the text where they found clues to their inference.

The sticky notes were also a place for the students to jot down any notes or thoughts that

they wanted to remember. During class discussion, marking texts is helpful, because it is

easier for students to recall what they were thinking while reading.

Several students remarked marking texts was helpful, even if it was not their first

choice. One reason students liked using sticky notes to record their thoughts because they

had a lot of room to write down their ideas. Sticky notes were also helpful for students

lxiii

because they were able to mark their thoughts directly on the page where it was found,

which is very important when textbooks are non­consumable. The sticky notes acted as

bookmarks, which gave the students an easy reminder while they shared their thinking

during discussion. Despite the positive feedback on sticky notes, only one student

identified sticky notes to mark texts as the most helpful in making inferences.

Marking Texts may have been more effective if students had more experiences

using sticky notes and recording their thoughts. Using sticky notes is an activity I would

like to use more in my classroom because it seemed to help students organize their ideas.

Knowing that the students liked the idea of using sticky notes is another positive reason

to include marking texts in my regular reading instruction.

Student Surveys

Inferential Reflection Sheet

The Inferential Reflection Sheet provided a measure of each student’s

understanding of inference and why inferencing is an important strategy to use in reading.

The first sheet was filled out after I introduced what an inference is, how to make

inferences, and why it is important to know how to make inferences. At this point, I

found that twelve out of fifteen students had a general idea of what an inference is and

why it is important to be able to make inferences. Figure 4.4 shows three students’

responses on the Inferential Reflection Sheet.

lxiv

Figure 4.4. Inferential Reflection Sheet: Initial Student Responses.

____________________________________________________________________

At the end of the unit, nine out of fifteen students were able to express a clear

understanding of inferences in writing. Figure 4.5 gives three examples of the students’

responses at the end of the unit.

lxv

Figure 4.5 Inferential Reflection Sheet: Final Student Responses.

____________________________________________________________________

Student Interviews

The first question I asked students when they came to the back table for their

individual interviews was to tell me what an inference is. All fifteen students could give

me a definition that included combining clues from the text with background knowledge.

Next, I asked students to tell me which activity they found most helpful while

reading, and explain why that activity was most helpful. Nine of fifteen students said

using the It Says­I Say chart is most helpful activity for making inferences. These

students said that the chart works like a graphic organizer, in which they are able to

organize their thoughts. Five other students said the KIS strategy is most helpful in

lxvi

making inferences. These students like how this activity had three steps: find key words,

make an inference, support the inference. One student reported marking texts is most

helpful for making inferences. This student liked being able to place sticky notes directly

on the page in which he made an inference. None of the students chose QAR as the most

helpful activity.

Authentic Assessment Measures

Table 4.1

Authentic Assessment Results: Inferential Questions Activity Total Number Answered Total Number Correct

QAR 0 0

The KIS Strategy 2 1

It Says­I Say 24 19

Marking Texts 3 2

Students showed they were able to answer inferential questions by applying the

activities learned during the action research cycles. At the end of the study, each student

read a trade book and answered literal and inferential questions about the story. When

answering the inferential questions, students had to show their thinking by using one of

the four activities. Table 4.1 shows the number of times students chose particular

activities to answer inferential questions, as well as, the number of questions students

were able to answer correctly when using the activities introduced in this study. The It

Says­I Say chart was the activity students used most often when answering inferential

questions during independent practice. During student interviews, most students reported

lxvii

the It Says­I Say activity as most helpful in answering inferential questions. Students may

have chosen to use the It Says­I Say chart most often, because it is an activity they felt

comfortable using.

Standardized Tests

I used the results from the NWEA and MCA­II tests to measure the students’

ability to infer. The NWEA results were most useful because the comprehension scores

are broken down into literal, interpretive and evaluative comprehension. The MCA­II

results lump all comprehension skills under the comprehension substrand. The NWEA is

also administered three times during the school year and the scores are immediately

available, which provides more opportunities for immediate reflection and the ability to

make adjustments in the curriculum. The NWEA is a better measure of student growth

because there is cumulative data on the NWEAs. Last year, 2006, was the first year the

MCA­IIs were given in Minnesota, so there are no previous results to measure.

Test of Emerging Academic English

Two of the students in this study are English language learners. One student

speaks Somali, the other speaks Spanish. These two students took the Test of Emerging

Academic English (TEAE) in lieu of the reading portion of the MCA­II. The TEAE is

divided into three portions: reading, writing and oral proficiency. Students receive

separate scores for literal and inferential comprehension on the TEAE.

lxviii

ELLs and inferencing. The Somali student was not considered a proficient reader of

English, and received a level 3 score (See Appendix G). Table 4.2 shows the skills that a

student who is considered a Level 3 in the reading section of the TEAE is able to do.

Table 4.2

TEAE Score: Level 3 _______________________________________________________________________ Students at this level of reading ability succeed at many English reading tasks. These students can: ___________________________________________________________________ • Understand some infrequently­used school vocabulary

• Understand articles written for young readers

• Understand reading passages with few pictures or other supports

• Make simple inferences from reading passages

This student’s literal comprehension score of 84% was much higher than her

score 61% in the area of inferential comprehension. It would be helpful to see what this

student’s inferential comprehension score was prior to the study. On a positive note, you

can see that she is above the state average in both areas of literal and inferential

comprehension. The second English Language Learner was considered to be at an

advanced level of English reading and writing according to the LAS test.

lxix

The Spanish­speaking student received 94% on the literal comprehension

questions and 83% on the inferential comprehension questions (See Appendix I). This

data supports the fact that inferential comprehension is more difficult than literal

comprehension. Table 4.3 shows what a student who is considered Level 4 on the TEAE

is able to do.

Table 4.3

TEAE Score: Level 4 ___________________________________________________________________

Students at this level of reading ability succeed at many English reading tasks. These students can: ___________________________________________________________________ • Understand most school vocabulary

• Understand longer stories and subject­area reading passages

• Retell and summarize reading passages

• Make inferences from reading passages

___________________________________________________________________

Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment­II

As previously described, the MCA­II is a standardized test for Minnesota students

to take each spring. This test measures math and reading proficiency. The MCA­II was

first given in 2006, so comparison scores to measure the students’ growth are not

lxx

available. However, the MCA­IIs were valuable to determine students’ overall

comprehension levels (See Appendix J). Unfortunately, these results are lumped together

under one comprehension substrand. It would be more useful for practitioners if

inferential comprehension had a separate score from literal comprehension.

Northwest Evaluative Assessment

Students take the NWEA each fall, winter and spring to measure growth in

reading and math (Appendix K). A small number of students showed growth in

interpretive/inferential comprehension from winter to spring of 2006.

Figure 4.7. NWEA Student Growth ______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Conclusion

Showed Improvement

Remained the Same

Showed Loss

lxxi

The purpose of my study was to determine if the explicit teaching of reading

strategies increases comprehension. I specifically asked:

§ Which teaching activities are most helpful for teaching the reading skill of

inference?

§ How can I measure the students’ reading skill of inference?

§ Will students be able to transfer this skill to other texts?

Standardized test scores showed little change in students’ inferential skills.

However, anecdotal notes and student work show students developed a stronger

awareness of making inferences after explicit teaching of reading strategies. Students

were able to define inferencing and improved on determining when it is necessary to

make inferences while reading. When answering inferential questions, students were

better at providing support for their answers.

Students found the It Says­I Say chart most helpful in making inferences while

reading. The It Says­I Say chart is a graphic organizer that allowed students to easily

organize their thoughts. Students needed to include information in all three columns,

which reminded them to include clues from the text and background information to make

an inference.

In the following chapter, I will discuss the results of this study and how other

reading teachers and I can use the information to teach the reading skill of inference. I

will also discuss more thoroughly the implications of this study, as well as ideas of how I

will apply what I have learned in my classroom instruction.

lxxii

lxxiii

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS

Discussion of Results Reading Strategies

Based upon the results of my study, teaching reading strategies, such as inferring,

questioning, summarizing, etc., is an important part of reading instruction. Giving

strategies, such as inferring, a name was helpful for students and me as a teacher.

Learning how to be a strategic reader provides the students with a better understanding of

the process of reading comprehension. After my study, I concluded that although each

student improved upon making inferences while reading, they did not have the skill

mastered. Therefore, each strategy needs to be introduced to students, and slowly built

upon over years of instruction. Since reading strategies can coincide, teachers can refer to

inferences while teaching other strategies to reinforce what students already know.

Inference and Comprehension

Based on student work and conversations, it is evident that students were better

able to answer inferential questions after the study. First of all, the students understood

that they are expected to answer different types of questions; some that required them to

make inferences and some that did not. When inferring, the students knew that they

needed to support their answers using clues from the text and their background

knowledge. Since the students were able to provide support for their answers, the

lxxiv

students were better able to reflect on their reading, which improved their

comprehension.

I was disappointed to see that the students’ standardized test scores did not reflect

the students’ increase in inferencing. I question standardized test validity, when the

results do not show the progress that I see in student work. As a teacher, it is rewarding to

see student scores increase, but it would be more helpful to know what caused certain

scores to increase. Teachers often judge a student’s understanding of content based on

student work and conversations with students. Politicians and administration base

academic progress and teacher accountability on standardized tests. There is so much that

standardized tests do not show, which can also be frustrating for the students who are

pressured into scoring well on these tests.

Teaching Inference

Explicit instruction. Research has shown that explicit instruction is helpful in teaching

students reading strategies, such as summarizing, predicting and inferring. Explicit

instruction provides a better understanding of these reading strategies, so the students are

able to explain the strategies and know how to use them.

At the beginning of the study, the students were told they would be able to answer

the following questions by the end of the study: How do we infer? When do we need to

infer? Why do we need to infer? The results of my study show that all of the students

were able to define inference. I was pleased when my students would comment in science

class how they had to infer an answer. This is a great first step in the process, but the

results from the NWEA, MCA­II, and TEAE show that the students still need more

lxxv

practice. More time and repetition is needed, and the strategy of inference needs to be

discussed with other reading strategies to be most effective.

The students also understood that the author does not always give us all of the

information necessary to answer a question. Readers need to combine their background

knowledge with clues the author gives us to answer these inferential questions. The

students need more guidance to determine which information is most important when

making inferences.

Teaching steps. When teaching reading strategies, it is effective to explain the strategy

and why it is important, model and provide guided practice, and finally, provide time for

independent practice. Before introducing the teaching activities for making inferences, I

wanted the students to be able to accurately define inference and have an understanding

of why inferencing is important. There were two short activities I used to show students

how we infer in our everyday lives: inferring the use of uncommon household items, and

other people’s feelings. After these two activities most of the students were able to tell

me what an inference is.

Think alouds were helpful in modeling how to make inferences while reading.

The students picked up the process of how we combine clues from the text to our

background information very quickly. The students were eager to try the process on their

own. Even though the students had a good understanding of the process, they needed

guidance on finding the important clues in the text and how to combine those clues with

their background knowledge. I found that even though the students appeared ready to

lxxvi

work on their own, a gradual release of independence was most effective. It is also

necessary that the students are provided with a lot of independent work time.

Teaching Activities

When planning my study, the goal of the teaching activities was to provide an

easy­to­follow framework that would help the students organize their thoughts while

inferring. The two activities that I found to be most effective and student­friendly were

the KIS strategy and the It Says­I Say chart. Both of these activities were graphic

organizers that helped the students organize the support for their inferences. Students said

they liked these activities, and I was able to see their thought­process and how they came

up with their answers.

Limitations of Study

Although this study provided me with an idea of how this particular group of

students improved on making inferences, it may not be generalized for all groups of

students. With only fifteen students participating in the study, I cannot say that future

groups of students will show the same progress. There may also be a difference in which

teaching activities are most effective.

Another limitation of my study was the timing and length of the study. My study

took place at the end of the year, when there are a lot of interruptions to the regular

schedule. If I could spend more time on particular activities or touch on inferencing

throughout the year, students may have shown more improvement. As an example, the

KIS strategy could be more effective if more time was spent focusing on finding the most

important words in the text. Without guided instruction, many students would underline

lxxvii

an entire sentence or unimportant words, such as linking verbs and articles. Another

problem with such a short study, is that the information may be in the students’ short

term memory, but the skill needs to be used more frequently before it is mastered.

My initial plan was to use two standardized test scores to help determine student

achievement: MCA­II and NWEA. I found authentic assessment more valuable in

measuring student learning, because I felt standardized test scores were not indicative of

what students can do and did not provide me with clear results. MCA­II results were not

as helpful as I had hoped, because there was not a previous score to compare. The MCA­

II results lump all comprehension skills under the comprehension substrand, so it is

difficult to determine if students’ inferential skills improved.

NWEA results had implications as well. Students receive a low, low­average,

average, high­average or high score in each area. For the purpose of this study, it may

have been more helpful to have numerical scores in order to see student growth. The

interpretive/inferential score also encompasses areas other than making inferences. For

example, it also measures a students’ ability to make reasonable predictions before,

during and after reading; recognizing cause­effect relationships; and summarizing and

synthesizing information from a variety of written materials. Therefore, I feel that even

though a student’s ability to make inferences increased, their inability to summarize,

synthesize or recognize cause­effect relationships could have impacted their score. Since

the NWEA is administered three times during each school year, data could be more

valuable if it was studied for a longer period of time. Having a number of test scores to

compare is helpful in determining students’ skills.

lxxviii

Since my study was action research, I was able to use my own students as the

participants. I had formed a relationship with these students throughout the year, and this

relationship may have swayed some results. When conducting the final student

interviews, students may have given me answers that they thought I would want to hear.

Students may have also felt as if they had to like at least one of the teaching activities and

did not want to tell me that none of the activities were helpful.

Classroom Application

This study provided the awareness of how important it is to teach reading

strategies explicitly. Research states that readers need to be an active part of the

comprehension process, and explicit instruction can do that by making the readers more

aware of what they need to do to increase comprehension. I also realize that if I can find

one or two helpful activities to show kids how to use the various strategies and provide

them with enough time to practice, the students will learn how to use the strategies.

Being a strategic reader helps students improve their reading comprehension.

The students found the It Says­I Say chart and the KIS strategy helpful, so I

would definitely spend more time using these activities in the future. These activities

provided a template that students found easy to use. Since the students had to be able to

support their inferences in order to complete the charts, I was able to see if students were

able to support their answers.

QAR was useful in helping students recognize that there are different types of

questions. I would introduce QAR to teach questioning right along with inferring. Like

the other activities, I would spend more time teaching and using QAR, so it becomes

lxxix

easier for the students. It would be most effective, if I used it throughout the year and in

other subject areas as well.

During the upcoming school year, I would like to implement more reading

strategies in the classroom. Since we combine a variety of reading strategies when we

read, I would like to do the same in my reading instruction. I would like to come up with

a plan to introduce the various reading strategies throughout the year. Too often, I

introduce a strategy, but then rarely touch on it again. There was not enough consistency

for the students, and they often forgot what the strategy is and how to use it.

Conclusion

I will use what I have learned in this study to improve my reading instruction, and

I hope that other educators can use some of the activities that worked for me. Doing this

study has provided me with more confidence when talking to my colleagues and parents

about the reading instruction in my classroom. Reading is one of the core subject areas

and needs to be used in all academic areas. What I have learned through this study will

provide me with an opportunity to offer my students a better chance at making academic

gains, which is a teacher’s overall goal.

lxxx

APPENDIX A

TYPES OF INFERENCES READERS MAKE

lxxxi

TYPES OF INFERENCES SKILLED READERS MAKE

_________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Recognize the antecedents for pronouns

2. Figure out the meaning of unknown words from context clues

3. Figure out the grammatical function of an unknown word

4. Understand intonation of characters’ words

5. Identify characters’ beliefs, personalities, and motivations

6. Understand characters’ relationships to one another

7. Provide details about the setting

8. Provide explanations for events or ideas that are presented in the text

9. Offer details for events or their own explanations of the events presented in the

text

10. Understand the author’s view of the world

11. Recognize the author’s biases

12. Relate what is happening in the text to their own knowledge of the world

13. Offer conclusions from facts presented in the text _____________________________________________________________________ Note. From When Kids Can’t Read: What Teachers Can Do, by K. Beers, 2003.

lxxxii

APPENDIX B

IT SAYS­I SAY­AND SO CHART

lxxxiii

IT SAYS­I SAY­AND SO CHART

Question It Says I Say And So __________________________________________________________________

1. Read the 2. Find information 3. Think about what 4. Combine what

lxxxiv

question. from the text you know about the text says

that will help you that information. with what you

answer the question. know to come up

with the answer. __________________________________________________________________ Note. From When Kids Can’t Read: What Teachers Can Do, by K. Beers, 2003.

APPENDIX C

BENCHMARKS FOR MCA­II SUBSTRANDS

lxxxv

lxxxvi

lxxxvii

lxxxviii

lxxxix

xc

APPENDIX D

INFERENTIAL REFLECTION SHEET

xci

xcii

APPENDIX E

QAR CHART

xciii

xciv

APPENDIX F

PASSAGES USED FOR KIS STRATEGY

xcv

xcvi

xcvii

xcviii

APPENDIX G

DETERMINING THEME USING THE KIS STRATEGY

xcix

Name ________________________________ Date _____________________

Book Title_________________________________________________________

Author ___________________________________________________________

Key Words from the Text

Infer: What is a theme of this book.

Support: Why did you infer the theme above?

c

APPENDIX H

PARENT PERMISSION SLIP

ci

March 5, 2006

Dear Parent/Guardian:

As you know, I am your child’s 4 th grade teacher. I am also a graduate student working on an advanced degree at Hamline University. An important part of my degree is a research project. The purpose of this letter is to get your permission for your child to participate in my project.

The purpose of my project is to use various activities and texts to teach students how to make inferences while reading. I will be showing them how to use clues the author gives and combining them with what the readers already know to make an inference. My main goal is to improve my reading instruction so students’ reading achievement increases.

Your child’s participation would consist of ordinary reading activities during the months of March and April 2006. No additional homework or activities outside our class or the regular school schedule will be required for participation. Participation in this project does not entail any risks.

I will be video taping and audio taping some lessons to reflect on my teaching. I will be the only one who listens to or views these tapes. I may include samples of student papers in my final paper. If your child’s work is selected, his or her identity will be kept confidential. I will report study results either as a group’s statistics or in tables. No real names will be used. Your child’s participation is voluntary and is free to withdraw from this project at any time without any negative consequences.

I have received approval for my study from the Graduate School of Education at Hamline University and from the Marshall Public School district. My study will be described in my final paper, called a capstone. It will be catalogued and shelved at Bush Library, Hamline University. My results might also be included in an article for publication in a professional journal or in a report at a professional conference. In all cases, your child’s identity will be kept confidential.

Please return the bottom portion of this page to indicate your permission for your child to participate in this study. If you have any questions, please call me at school (507)537­6962 between 7:45 am and 3:45 pm or e­mail me at kala.kopitski@marshall.k12.mn.us. Ann Mabbott can also be contacted about questions or concerns at (651)523­2446 or at amabbott@hamline.edu. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Michela Kopitski West Side Elementary

cii

__________________________________________________________________________________ Dear Mrs. Kopitski:

The purpose of this letter is to confirm that I have received and read your recent request

and that I give permission for my child,_______________________________________,

to participate in the research project you are conducting as part of your graduate degree.

I understand that the purpose of this research is to study children’s level of achievement

in reading following the use of various activities to help students make inferences. The

main goal of this project is to improve your reading instruction, so students’ reading

achievement increases.

Signed,

_____________________________________________________ Parent or Guardian

Date:_________________________________________________

ciii

APPENDIX I

EXCERPT FROM MICHAEL ONDAATJE’S NOVEL, THE ENGLISH PATIENT

civ

EXCERPT FROM MICHAEL ONDAATJE’S NOVEL, THE ENGLISH PATIENT

__________________________________________________________________

She moves backwards a few feet and with a piece of white chalk draws a

rectangle onto the wood floor. Then continues backwards, drawing more

rectangles, so there is a pyramid of them, single then double then single, her left

hand braced flat on the floor, her head down, serious…

She drops the chalk into the pocket of her dress. She stands and pulls up

the looseness of her skirt and ties it around her waist. She pulls from another

pocket a piece of metal and flings it out in front of her so it falls just beyond the

farthest square.

She leaps forward, her legs smashing down, her shadow behind her

curling into the depth of the hall. She is very quick, her tennis shoes skidding on

the numbers she has drawn into each rectangle, one foot landing, then two feet,

then one again until she reaches the last square.

cv

APPENDIX J

TEAE SCORE FOR SOMALI­SPEAKING STUDENT

cvi

TEAE SCORE FOR SOMALI­SPEAKING STUDENT

Reading Not Proficient: Level 3

Strand Points Earned

Points Possible

State Average

What was measured?

Literal Comprehension 32 38 30.4

Ability to answer questions clearly shown in a picture or stated in text

Inferential Comprehension 11 18 9.2

Ability to answer questions not clearly shown in a picture or stated in text

cvii

APPENDIX K

TEAE SCORE FOR SPANISH­SPEAKING STUDENT

cviii

TEAE SCORE FOR SPANISH­SPEAKING STUDENT

Reading Proficient: Level 4

Strand Points Earned

Points Possible

State Average

What was measured?

Literal Comprehension 36 38 30.4

Ability to answer questions clearly shown in a picture or stated in text

Inferential Comprehension 10 12 9.2

Ability to answer questions not clearly shown in a picture or stated in text

cix

APPENDIX L

MCA­II READING TEST RESULTS

cx

MCA­II READING TEST RESULTS

Student Achievement

Level Raw Score

Vocabulary Expansion Substrand

Comprehension Substrand

Literature Substrand

Points Possible

Points Possible

Points Possible

8 22 16 A E 40 7 18 15 B M 30 6 11 13 C ** ** ** ** ** D P 24 5 10 9

cxi

E M 33 6 15 12 F M 35 7 18 10 G P 29 4 13 12 H M 32 6 16 10 I P 27 6 14 7 J E 39 8 16 15 K E 42 8 20 14 L ** ** ** ** ** M M 36 7 17 12 N M 34 4 17 13 O P 28 6 11 11

Achievement Levels: **Did not take MCA­II. See D= Does not meet standards results of Test of Emerging P= Partially meets standards Academic English (TEAE) M= Meets standards E= Exceeds standards

APPENDIX M

NWEA TEST RESULTS

cxii

NWEA INTERPRETIVE/INFERENTIAL COMPREHENSION

TEST RESULTS

Student Fall Score Winter Score Spring Score A Low Average Average B Low Average Average C Low Average Average D Low­Average Low­Average Average

cxiii

E Low­Average Average Low F Low­Average Average Low G Low­Average Low­Average High H Average Low­Average High­Average I Average Low­Average Low­Average J Average Average Low­Average K High­Average High Average L High­Average High High M High High High­Average N High High­Average High­Average O High High Average

REFERENCES

cxiv

Anderson, R.C., & Pearson, P.D. (1984). A schema­theoretic view of basic processes in reading. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Armbruster, B.B., Lehr, F., Osborn, J. (2003). Put reading first: The research building blocks of reading instruction, kindergarten­grade 3. (2 nd ed.). National Institute for Literacy.

Baumann, J.F., Hooten, H., White, P. (1999). Teaching comprehension through literature: A teacher­research project to develop fifth graders’ reading strategies and motivation. [Electronic Version] The Reading Teacher, 53(1), 38­52.

Beers, K. (2003). When kids can’t read: What teachers can do. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cain, K., & Oakhill, J.V. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11. 489­503.

Carrell, P.L., & Eisterhold, J.C. (1988). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. In P. Carrell, J. Devine & D. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive Approaches to Second Language reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dole, J.A., Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.R., & Pearson, P.D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239­264.

Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M.S., Vavrus, L.G., Wesselman, R., Putman, J., & Bassiri, D. (1987). Effect of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(3), 347­368.

Fountas, I., & Pinnell, G.S., (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F.L., (2002). Teaching and Researching Reading. Harlow, England: Longman.

Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Hendricks, C. (2006). Improving Schools through Action Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Educators. San Francisco, CA: Pearson Education Inc.

cxv

Hermann, B.A. (1988). Two approaches for helping poor readers become more strategic. The Reading Teacher, 24­28.

Keene, E.O., & Zimmermann, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. [Electronic Version]. Psychological Review, 99,440­466.

McEwan, E. K. (2002). Teach them all to read: Catching the kids who fall through the cracks. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey­Bass Publishers.

Nassaji, H. (2002). Schema theory and knowledge­based processes in second language reading comprehension: A need for alternative perspectives. [Electronic Version] Language Learning, 52(2), 439­481.

Nickelsen, L., & Glasscock, S. (2004). Comprehension mini­lessons: Inference and cause and effect. New York: Scholastic.

Peregoy, S. & Boyle, O. (2001). Reading, Writing, & Learning in ESL: A Resource Book for K­12 Teachers. New York: Longman.

Pressley, M. (2001). Comprehension instruction: What makes sense now, what might make sense soon. Reading Online, 5(2) [Electronic Version] Retrieved February 1, 2006 from http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF= handbook/pressley/index.html.

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. (2000). National Institute for Literacy.

Tovani, C. (2000). I read it, but I don’t get it: Comprehension strategies for adolescent readers. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

cxvi

Walqui, A. (2000). Strategies for success: Engaging immigrant students in secondary schools [Electronic version]. CAL Digest, June: Retrieved February 16, 2005 from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/0003strategies.html.

Wilhelm, J.D. (2001). Improving comprehension with think­aloud strategies. New York: Scholastic Professional Books.

Wilhelm, J.D., Baker, T.N., & Dube, J. (2001). Strategic reading: Guiding students to lifelong literacy 6­12. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Wilhelm, J.D. (1997). You gotta be the book: Teaching engaged and reflective reading with adolescents. New York: Teachers College Press.