DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 288 481
AUTHOR
TITLE
INSTITUTION
SPONS AGENCY
PUB DATE
GRANT
NOTE
PUB TYPE
EDRS PRICE
DESCRIPTORS
CS 008 959
Phillips, Linda M.
Inference Strategies in Reading Comprehension.
Technical Report No. 410.
Illinois Univ., Urbana. Center for the Study of
Reading.
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada, Ottawa (Ontario).
Sep 87
410-85-1321
32p.
Reports - Research/Technical (143)
MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
Adults; Comparative Analysis; Context Clues; Foreign
Countries; Grade 6; *Inferences; Intermediate Grades;
Prior Learning; Reader Response; Reading Ability;
*Reading Comprehension; *Reading Processes; Reading
Research; Reading Skills; *Reading Strategies;
Schemata (Cognition)
ABSTRACT
A study investigated the inference strategies used by
sixth grade students reading narratives, and the results were
compared with the inference strategies identified as those used by
skilled adult readers. Subjects, 80 sixth grade students from two
Canadian urban centers were divided into two groups: 40
high-proficiency readers and 40 low-proficiency readers. Equal
numbers of students were randomly assigned to read either three
familiar or three unfamiliar passages and to verbalize their thinking
as they constructed interpretations. Qualitative and quantitative
analyses showed that young readers' inference strategies appeared to
be a decomposition of those used by adults as reported in the study
by A. Collins and others. While some of the subjects' inference
strategies overlapped those of adults, the students appeared to use
more strategies that adults subsume into one or two strategies. The
results suggest that reading proficiency may compensate in instances
where there is insufficient background knowledge; however, whether
one has sufficient background knowledge or not makes little
difference in overall performance when the level of reading
proficiency is low. Moreover, particular inference strategies seem to
be a manifestation of an ability tc effectively use background
knowledge in reading comprehension. Because adult readers come to a
written work with years of reading and life experience, it is unknown
whether adult inference strategies w'uld be useful as models for
young readers. (References and tables are provided; two examples of
passages and a list of inference questions are appended.) (.7C)
***********************************************************************
*
*
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the be
that can be made
*
*
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
As
CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF READING
1-4
Co
co
co
ca
Technical Report No. 410
INFERENCE STRATEGIES
IN READING COMPREHENSION
Linda M. Phillips
Institute for Educational Research and Development
Memorial University of Newfoundland
and
Center for the Study of Reading
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
September 1987
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Si Gerty Drive
Champaign, Illinois 61820
U
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
11,,This document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it
0 Minor changes have been made to improve
reproduction quality
?pints of view or opinions stated in th doc u-
merit do not necessarily represent official
OERI position or policy
0
The research reported in this paper was supported in pars by a grant from the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canaua, Grant No. 410 -851321. The views expressed are those of the author and not the granting agency.
This manuscript was prepared while the author was on sabbatical leave as a Visiting
Scholar at the Center for the Study of Reading. The author would like to thank the
Center for the help of its support staff and the use of its facilities.
2
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
, II
ft
Phillips
Inference Strategies -1
Abstract
This study identified the inference strategies used by grade six readers reading three short narratives.
Differences in strategy use were studied with reading proficiency and background knowledge varied.
Eighty students comprised the sample, 40 low proficiency and 40 high proficiency readers. Equal
numbers of students were randomly assigned to read either three familiar or three unfamiliar
passages and to verbally report their thinking as they constructed interpretations. Qualitative and
quantitative analyses showed that young readers' inference strategies appeared to be a decomposition
of those used by adults as reported in the work of Collins, Brown, and Larkin (1980). Two
observations were made from comparisons of young readers' strategy use. The first has to do with
the importance of reading proficiency and the second with the relative insignificance of background
knowledge in the absence of reading proficiency. It appears that reading proficiency may compensate
in instances where there is insufficient background knowledge; however, whether a reader has
sufficient background knowledge or not makes little difference in overall performance when the level
of reading proficiency is low. Research ideas for a more detailed working out of the complexity of the
inference process are offered.
1
a
Phillips
Inference Strategies - 2
INFERENCE STRATEGIES
IN READING COMPREHENSION
The work by Collins, Brown, and Larkin (1930) with skilled adult readers is often cited on the topic
of inference in text understanding. They state that in order to construct a model of the text, the
comprehender must identify events in the story using different problem-solving methods, figure out
the goals that those methods are being used to achieve, identify whether those methods succeed or
fail, bind successes to satisfy preconditions for higher goals, and relate failures to alternative plans to
achieve the same higher goals (p. 387). This statement characterizes the complexity of the interacting
processes involved in text comprehension.
Based on the assumption that skilled adult readers know that they must do these kinds of things, it
seems reasonable to wonder whether the adult strategies are used by skilled readers of a younger age.
It might also be expected that readers of different levels of proficiency at any age level would utilize
different strategies in comprehending texts. Proficient readers at a given age level are both more
effective and more efficient than less proficient readers at that level in utilizing the textual
information and their own experiences, whether it be in inferetrt instantiation or the prediction of
information (Goodman, 1973; Tierney, Bridge, & Cera, 1978.79; Schienbein, 1978; Wilson, 1979;
Reder, 1980; Bos & Tierney, 1984). It would therefore seem likely that proficient grade six readers
might not process text in the same manner as proficient adult readers, and that proficient and less
proficient grade six readers might also process text differently.
The adult inference strategies identified by Collins, Brown, and Larkin may represent an aggregate of
processes which have become automatic for adult expert readers, just as word recognition is
automatic for proficient readers but a challenging process for beginning readers. This supposition,
coupled with my experiences with young readers, motivated the following question: Are the
inference strategies used by adults the same as those which are used by young readers?
Specifically, this study explored the inference strategies used by grade six readers to see how they
compared to those of skilled adult readers. In addition, in order to study the differences in inference
strategy use within the same age level, both reading proficiency and degree of background knowledge
of the grade six readers were varied.
Background
The assumption that the ability to make inferences is necessary to reading comprehension is widely
accepted by reading theorists and researchers. Inference is a cognitive process used to construct
meaning. It is reasoning, a step from information in the text based upon generalization,
explanation,
or both, to what is offered as a conclusion. Inferring in text understanding is a constructive thinking
process, because the reader expands knowledge by proposing and evaluating competing hypotheses
about the meaning of the text in an attempt to progressively refine comprehension.
The importance of inference in understanding even the most simple text was pointed out by
Thorndike in 1917. Inference makes it possible for a reader to comprehend the information which
the author presented (Goetz, 1977) and is an integral part of the comprehension of, and memory for,
text (Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Bransford & McCarrell, 1974; Brewer, 1977; Harris & Monaco,
1978; Kintsch, 1986; Mason, 1984; Schank, 1975; Tierney & Spiro, 1979; van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983).
Readers' background knowledge has also t!.n shown to be an integral factor in the comprehension
of text through inference. Pearson, Hansen, and Gordon (1979) found that background knowledge
had a facJitating effect on inferential comprehension. Moreover, they emphasized that it is not
sufficient to have prior knowledge because a reader must also have the ability to relate it to the text.
Nicholson and Imlach (1981) cautioned that while background knowledge is important, children will
)
I
Phillips
Inference Strategies -1
learn more from texts by learning how to learn from them, by focusing on the "right elements."
It
seems then, that a reader must rely on knowledge of the incoming text events, and impose some type
of organization on them if the text is to be understood. Furthermore, it
seems that readers must not
only be able, but also have the desire, to restructure, disambiguate and abstract information in
order
to understand text. There are thus many demands on a reader.
Other factors in inferential comprehension relate to the text. What information does
the text state
explicitly? How is the text organized? What information in the text is relevant? How is a reader to
integrate the information in the text with that in his or her head? What problem-solving strategies
do readers use to generate inferences as they construct an interpretation that
seems to be the most
plausible given the text information? A thorough-going theory of inference in
reading
comprehension will ultimately have to face up to such questions.
The present study was designed to answer the latter question. Specifically, what inference strategies
are used by grade six readers as they attempt to make sense of text?
The Collins, Brown, and Larkh Theory of Text Understanding
Since the work of Collins, Brown, and Larkin (1980) provided much guidance in the
conceptualization of this study, an overview of it is needed. They content that in creating an
understanding of text, readers progressively refine models of the text until they converge upon a
model which seems to be the most plausible. This refinement process makes use of a number of
problem-solving strategies as follows:
1.
Rebinding occurs when a value that is bound to a variable slot leads to a conflict and thence
another binding for that variable is tried by readers;
2.
Questioning a Default Interpretation happens when readers recognize that they are not
progressing in their understanding of the text so they question their use of the information
by trying to come up with another interpretation;
3.
Near or Distant Shifting of Focus comes about when readers see that they are unable to
progress in their current line of thinking so they move from a question they are unable to
solve to one which opens up other options;
4.
Questioning a Direct or Indirect Conflict takes place when readers identify a conflict between
interpretation which was either just made or previously made and subsequent new
information;
5.
Case Analyzing and Most Likely Case Assignment occurs when readers tentatively consider a
number of alternative interpretations and then decide which seems to be the most plausible.
These strategies are the model against which young readers' protocols were examined in this study.
Verbal Reports in Reading Research
In discovering the above strategies Collins, Brown, and Larkin elicited verbal reports from subjects
on their thinking processes as they interpreted text. A similar approach was used in this study. The
use of verbal reports in reading research involves many considerations. There are many concerns for
ecological validity in terms of the task demands, the probe procedures, the subject choices, analysis
of
the protocols, and the research designs. There are also questions concerning the time verbalization is
elicited, the amount and kinds of information sought, and the conditions for accessing and verbally
reporting on mental processes that must be taken under advisement. While it is beyond the province
of this paper to speak to each of these concerns extensively, I will deal with each briefly.
i
Phillips
Inference Strategies - 4
Memory i' an important factor in verbal reporting. Ericsson and Simon (1984) categorize verbal
reports into concurrent and retrospective. Concurrent reports are given at the time the task is being
performed. Thus, simultaneous demands are made for the task being performed, as well as on shortterm memory for the act of reporting. Retrospective reports do not place these simultaneous
demands, but depend more on long-term memory and thus may yield contaminated perceptions of
the task bound up with background knowledge.
In reading research, readers must read prior to verbally reporting, which makes the procedure
retrospective. However, if the reports are given while reading, then the time delay may be so small as
to make the reporting essentially concurrent with reading. On the one hand, given that
reading is for
the most part a solitary act, it is difficult to imagine that thinking aloud for another
person would not
in some way interfere with the continuity of the reading process.
Accuracy of the reports depends upon how they were procured. Often probing is used
to elicit more
information than subjects volunteer, but more information does not necessarily imply better
information. The probed information may represent considerations which would not have been
part
of the readers' normal reading (Afflerbach & Johnston, 1984), so a balance must be sought between
the amount of information to be gathered and faithfulness to how readers would normally
read. This
can be achieved in a two-tiered interviewing approach such as that used in this study: Readers
are
first given an opportunity to say all they wish without probing; then, if necessary, specific questions
are asked with care not to make them overly leading.
Despite the shortcomings and potential pitfalls in using verbal reports as data, many reading studies
since the early 1950's have been done which utilized either concurrent or retrospective verbal
reporting methods or modifications of them (Bereiter & Bird, 1985; Fareed, 1971;
Frase, 1968;
Garner, 1982; Jacobson, 19'73; Kavale & Schreiner, 1979; Olshaysky, 1975; Squire, 1964; Swain,
1953). These researchers promoted the use of such techniques as a means to provide more direct
information on cognitive processes than is possible using experimental-group methodologies.
Recently, Afflerbach and Johnston (1984) have supported the use of verbal reports on at least five
counts: (a) their valuable role in the collection of converging data
sources; (b) their veridical
descriptions of cognitive process under certain circumstances; (c) the access they provide to reasoning
processes underlying cognitive activity; (d) their provision of a unique and sometimes only avenue ftir
historical or genetic analysis of mental processes; and (e) the access they provide to analysis of the
affective components of reading processes. From among these advantages it is difficult to isolate
those which are most relevant to this study.
While all of the above researchers would acknowledge that there is no known
way to get a complete,
unbiased account of what has been comprehended, there seems to be some consensus that a
combined think-aloud and limited-probing-where-necessary is one of the most effective
procedures
available at this time for the study of comprehension processes. Furthermore, it is generally agreed
among these researchers that through using verbal reports it becomes possible for researchers to
obtain rich information beyond what can be obtained by studying the performance product from
teacher or test questions.
Method
Subjects
The students for this investigation were sixth-graders from two Canadian urban centres,
one located
in the Prairies and one in the Atlantic region. They were classified by achievement test percentile
scores as high proficiency readers (above the 85th percentile) or low proficiency readers (below the
50th percentile), based on their vocabulary and comprehension subtest scores on the Canadian Test
N
Phillips
Inference Strategies - 5
of Basic Skills (CTBS). Within each group, equal numbers of students were randomly assigned
to
read passages about topics familiar (background-knowledge-plus) or unfamiliar (backgroundknowledge-minus) to them. The familiar passages related to prairie activities and the unfamiliar ones
related to maritime activities for City 1, and vice-versa for City 2. Students were informed that they
would be expected to read aloud and verbally report what they were thinking as they read. Students
who experienced difficulty with the oral reading of the passages were excluded from the study. All
students had the option of choosing not to participate. The final samples included 80
students, 40
from each city.
Materials
The instrumentation included a set of six passages and accompanying inference and
clarification
questions which were specifically intended for use only when readers were not clear in their initial
reports. Each passage was judged by three colleagues
to ensure that key concepts and labels
accurately represented the selected topics. The interrater reliabilities of these judgments were .94 or
above for the six passages. The passages (see Appendix A for a copy of two of the
passages, one on
Skiing and the other on Fishing) were written so that explicit mention of their topics
was not made
until near the end. This approach allowed study of how young readers construct and evaluate
interpretations near the beginning of the passages, that is, study of their reasoning strategies.
The passages classified as familiar to the urban prairie students (City 1) and unfamiliar to the urban
maritime students (City 2) were about skiing, a rodeo, and grain farming. The skiing passage tells
about Marty's skiing experience. The rodeo passage tells about Marty and his dad preparing to go to
and attending a rodeo. The grain farming passage tells about some farmers harvesting their grain in
the fall of the year. These three passages were considered familiar to the prairie students
for the
following reasons: The children lived in a prairie environment in which farming accounts for
80% of
the economy; sliding is the most popular winter sport; and rodeos are often held throughout
the year.
In addition, prairie teachers were asked to write an outline of what they felt their
students knew
about farming, skiing, and rodeos. From the outlines and comments of the teachers,
there seemed to
be little question that these are three topics familiar to prairie children. Using
a similar approach, a
group of maritime teachers agreed that the topics would be unfamiliar to their students.
The passages classified as unfamiliar to the prairie students (City 1) and familiar to the maritime
students were about fishing, randying, and a garden party. The fishing passage tells about some
fishermen going ocean fishing and returning with their catch. The randying passage tells about a
group of children candying, a term used to refer to snow sliding. The garden party passage tells about
two girls preparing to go to and attending a garden party, an annual church fair held during the
summer. The fishing, randying, and garden party passages were considered familiar to the maritime
students (City 2) for the following reasons: The children lived in a maritime environment
in which
fishing accounts for 70% of the economy; randying is a very common winter sport; and garden
parties
are big events of he summer. Again, a group of approximately 30 prairie teachers
were asked to read
the passages ana to appraise whether students in a prairie setting would be likely to have background
knowledge of the topics. The teachers were unanimous in their conclusion that the content of the
passages would be unfamiliar for the prairie students. Conversely, the maritime teachers felt these
topics would be familiar to their students.
The following guidelines were employed in constructing the passages:
(a) all six passages were
written in declarative sentences; (b) each passage was constructed by first stating the
general features
of a situation and progressing to the more specific features; and (c) each passage was comprised of
five goal structures (A to E). A goal structure is part of a story in which a particular goal
or objective
of the story setting or characters is specified. The final segment of each passage (F) specified the
outcome of the goal introduced in the first episode, or goal structure A, of the passage. Length was
controlled for the number of syntactic propositions utilized in each of the passages.
Phillips
Inference Strategies - 6
Procedure
Data collection. Initially, students were met in groups of five. A practice passage, with accompanying
inference and clarification questions, was used to familiarize them with the data collection procedure
and to inform them about the importance of the tape recorder. When the students appeared to
understand the procedures and their preliminary questions were answered, they went back to their
classes.
Subsequently, each student was met individually in a session lasting for approximately 30 minutes.
Subjects were asked to verbally report what they were thinking immediately after they had
read aloud
each goal structure, referred to as an episode in their presence. The meetings were audiotaped and
later transcribed verbatim.
The inference and clarification questions were used sclely for purposes of clarification when students
did not independently report main& inferences or did not provide sufficient information to be
understood. The thoroughlte.sc :A the students' independent
verbalizations of what they were
thinking dictated whether any of the inference or clarification questions were needed. In cases where
further clarification was deemed necessary, the following kinds of questions were asked prior to
moving on to a new episode: (1) Why did you change your mind? (2) Why did you raise that
question? (3) Why do you think that (indicating specifically)
might happen? Was possible? (4)
What do you mean by girdie (bay, heavy sea, mares' tails)?
When students had made their initial verbal reports and had answered any questions of
clarification,
then if they had not independently made inferences, that is, if they had restated the
text information,
they were asked the corresponding inference questions. This procedure
was followed because it
cannot oe assumed that if a reader did not report on or make inferences that the reader could
not or
did not make them. The inference questions which accompanied the fishing
passage for each of the
five goal structures are provided for illustrative purposes in Appendix B.
Organization of the data. The Collins, Brown, and Larkin strategies were initially used to infer the
problem-solving strategies used by the young readers in this study. Collins, Brown, and Larkin had
defined the strategies in ternis of adult responses on difficult-to-read passages. Using these strategies
as a template for the young readers' protocols seemed to capture the essence of the children's
thinking, but not all important details of it.
After repeated careful readings of the students' protocols and several attempts to assign the Collins,
Brown, and Larkin strategies to those protocols, a conclusion became apparent. To use the Collins,
Brown, and Larkin strategies to encode the students' protocols would be to gloss ova what seemed
to be intermediate strategies used by the young readers. This conclusion was tested by asking a group
of research colleagues to independently rate five of the protocols. All agreed that the
young readers
appeared to undertake a number of strategies intermediate to those used by the skilled adult
readers
of the Collins, Brown, and Larkin study.
To capture the processes which young readers utilized in their text comprehension, the Collins,
Brown, and Larkin strategies were redefined and some strategies added to tilt it set.
Three
experienced reading researchers were asked to rate these modifications. There was unanimous
agreement with the definitions which I proposed. Also, the researchers agreed that the modified set
of strategies adequately represented the young readers' inference strategies. Interrater reliability on
the identification of strategy use ranged from .87 to .93.
This revised strategy list was used to assign scores to the young readers' protocols. The
protocols for
each of the 80 students were categorized according to strategy type and frequency of
occurrence for
each strategy type was obtained. The analysis focused on three questions:
1
1
Phillips
Inference Strategies - 7
I.
Do adult inference strategies represent those used by sixth grade readers?
2.
Do low and high proficiency sixth grade readers use similar inference strategies?
3.
Is them a difference in strategy use according to whether sixth made readers are familiar or
unfamiliar with text content?
Results
The presentation of results is divided into qualitative results in response to Question 1 above, and
quantitative results in answer to Questions 2 and 3.
Qualitative Results
The following ten strategies were used by the young readers of this study. Each strategy will be
discussed singly with .,,samples from readers' responses. The points in the protocols where strategies
are inferred are in parentheses and bolded. Due to the length of each student's protocol, only the
most relevant segments have been extracted for presentation; however, two complete protocols are
available in Phillips and Norris (1986) and Norris and Phillips (1987).
Strategy 1 - Rebinding. Strategy 1 is used when a reader suggests or hypothesizes a possible
interpretation, immediately realizes that this interpretation conflicts with previous information, and
then substitutes another interpretation. In essence, the reader binds (connects) all the information
up to a point but then changes the interpretation (rebinds) to make it a better or more plausible fit.
Example: Farming Passage
The student having already discussed that the thresher was cutting the grain and
that there were indications that the weather was getting bad says: "They're using the
auger to put it into the graineries (not the graineries but their bins)."
In this example, the student's prior knowledge about farming was activated. Graineries are common
in the prairie provinces and therefore the student was on the right track in predicting subsequent
information provided by the farming passage. Having verbalized that the farmers were putting the
grain in the graineries, the reader was immediately cognizant that grainety was not the most
acceptable interpretation, since the farmers were still in tile field, and substituted the more suitable
term "bins." Young readers seemed to do most of their rebindings
immediately, that is, to say
something and at once realize it as unacceptable.
Strategy 2 - Questioning a default interpretaion and/or a direct or indirect conflict. A reader's
initial interpretation may trigger a knowledge schema which the reader may or may not continue to
maintain. The reader may have misirterpreted certain data and/or made incorrect assumptions based
on the data available. Strategy 2 is used when subsequent information is in conflict and, rather than
questioning the current interpretation, the reader questions a previous interpretation and/or
accompanying assumptions.
Example: Fishina Passau
The student had thought that a group of sailors were heading out to sea after
reading the first episode. After the student read Episode B, he questions his
previous interpretation by saying: "They're fishermen (not sailors like I thought)
because it says here the net was hard to pull. Also, it says that they were catching
fish."
9
1
Phillips
Inference Strategies - 8
Strategy 3 - Shifting of focus. Strategy 3 is used when the immediate
information cannot he readily
resolved within a reader's interpretation and the reader addresses related questions
which have not
yet been considered.
Example: Rodeo Passage
The student had already thought that Marty was looking for his favorite jeans to go
someplace special like to a restaurant. The next expisode told about Marty
looking
up at the sky and considering the clouds. The student then thought that maybe it
was an outdoor type restaurant or that maybe Marty was going on a picnic. The next
episode of the story states, "Marty hoped that his dad was in a good mood because
he wanted him to stop by Billy's house. Marty needed to borrow Billy's
glasses." At
this point the student says: "I'm confused now cause why would
he want to go
either to a restaurant or picnic or something outside if he wanted to use glasses?
(Unless they're field glasses?)" This indicates the reader's initial failure to resolve
the need for glasses while doing something outside, and then shift of focus to raise
the possibility of other sorts of glasses.
Strategy 4 - Analyzing alternatives. Strategy 4 is used when a reader does
not settle on any one
interpretation of the data, but raises more than one possibility and remains tentative
until more
information is available. Words indicating tentativeness and the recognition of
alternatives such as,
"probably," "maybe," "or," "might," "I think," are often used with this strategy.
Example: Skiing Pass=
The student thought that the people were either skiing or tobogganing but when
asked why Marty was scared a little, raises several alternatives: "'Maybe he's
going
to do something) (or learn some lesson) (or do something he's never done before).
Those are the things that come to my mind."
Strategy S - Assigning an alternate case. Strategy 5 is used when information
cannot be interpreted
to fit with an existing interpretation and subsequent information does
not provide a solution, and the
reader temporarily digresses from the ongoing interpretation.
Example: Rodeo Passage
The student having already talked about going on a picnic or to a party wonders
about the glasses. The student then says: "He wa.-, going to a masquerade party and
he wanted to wear glasses, (Maybe they were the glasses with the big
nose and
moustache)." The student abandoned this idea and continued with the rest of the
story as if the interpretation had never been raised.
Strategy 6 - Confirming an immediate prior interpretation. Strategy 6 is used when
a reader
confirms an interpretation
on the basis of information immediately following it.
Example: Skiinglassage
The student had already thought that the children were skiing and confirms
this by
referring to the word slope. The student says: "They were skiing (because of the
word slope), (I thought about winter and skiing).
Strategy 7 Confirming a non-immediate prior interpretation. Strategy 7 is used when
a reader
considers alternate interpretations to the one already made, but on the basis of subsequent
information reverts to the earlier interpretation, confirming it as the choice.
I0
1
Phillips
Inference Strategies - 9
Example: Rodeo Passage
The student surmised early in the passage that Marty might be going to a fair or
rodeo and later in the story confirms his thoughts: "(It's a rodeo I know it's a rodeo
now cause of the calf roping, steer wrestling, and bronco riding)."
EZrategy 8 - Assuming a default interpretation and transforming information.
Strategy 8 is used
when a reader makes an incorrect interpretation and then misconstrues new data presented in
an
attempt to confirm that interpretation in spite of inconsistencies.
Example: Fishing Passage
Upon reading the word "bay" in the fishing passage the student says, " (They're
going to The Bay to go shopping')." The text then proceeds to tell that the net was
hard to pull, that the heavy sea and strong tide made it even more difficult for the
girdie, that four quintals of fish were aboard, and that the skipper saw mares' tails
in
the north. Yet the student maintained the men were going to a shopping centre. In
this case the student made a default interpretation and transformed the
data by
thinking that "(the nets could be [used] to catch baby fish in the waterfalls at the
shopping centre)," thereby misconstruing the information in the text to confirm her
previous interpretation that the bay is a shopping centre. Also, the student did not
seem to resolve how the remaining textual information would fit within the
interpretation.
Strategy 9 - Withholding or reiterating information. Strategy 9 is used
when a reader either is silent
in response to requests for information or rephrase:, a previously-made interpretation
without the
addition of any new information.
Example: Mks/2mm
He's getting up in the morning and like he's looking for his favorite jeans, (well he's
looking for his Jeans) and then his dad shouted he was about to leave (like if you
want to come, come now) (because I'm leaving), (so if you want to come, come now).
Strategy 10 - Empathizing with the experiences of others. Strategy 10 is used
when a reader, through
personal identification with the story, projects himself or herself into the
situation and experiences
another's condition. This empathizing becomes a part of the reader's interpretation
without a loss of
story focus or the introduction of inconsistencies with either the text or the reader's
interpretation.
Example: skiing Passage
"Marty's scared because it's his first time skiing, (I was sure scared the first time I
went)." When asked whether Marty felt good that he didn't crash into the lineup,
the student responds: "Yeah, I don't know because like ah (if he did, like oh God,
help me, like this Is all my new stuff and I don't want to bend any of it or something
and like he could have hurt somebody else and it wouldn't make a good run down
the hill, like because he would have gone down the hill perfectly and then he comes
crashing into the people in the lineup and then like they'd say 'Hey, get out of here,
what are you doing?' and he'd Just feel stupid)."
The question addressed by this part of the analysis is whether the strategies
used by skilled adult
readers and identified by Collins, Brown, and Larkin are representative of the
strategies used by sixth
grade readers. The answer to the question is negative. While there is
some overlap between the
Collins, Brown, and Larkin strategies and the ones presented here, there
are also divergences.
Roughly, the main points of overlap are between the Orst four strategies of the young and adult
reader strategies where there seems to be a one-to-one correspondence. The main points of
divergence are at Strategy 5 of the Collins, Brown, and Larkin adult strategies which seems to
represent as many as three, and possibly foul, of the young readers' strategies, and at Strategies 8 and
Phillips
Inference Strategies - 10
\
10 of the young readers' strategies which were not cited in the Collins, Brown, and
Larkin adult
strategies. The significance of these similarities and differences will be treated more fully in the
Discussion section.
Quantitative Results
These results respond to Questions 2 and 3: Do low and high proficiency sixth grade readers use
similar inference strategies?; and Is there a difference in inference strategy use according to whether
sixth grade readers are familiar or unfamiliar with text content?
The independent variables for the quantitative analyses were reading proficiency and background
knowledge. Subjects were chosen, as described in the Method section, so that there were 40 of low
proficiency (< 50 percentile on CTBS) and 40 of high proficiency (> 85 percentile on cms). From
each of these groups, 20 subjects were randomly chosen and assigned to read passages with content
familiar to them, and comprising the background- knowledge -plus group, and 20 to read passages
unfamiliar to them, comprising the background-knowledge-minus group. The dependent variables
were frequencies of use of each of the 10 strategies.
The mean frequency of occurrence for each strategy for both background knowledge
groups and both
levels of proficiency is presented in Table 1. From the table several observations may be made: Some
strategies (S4 and S6, for example) are used much more often than others; some strategies (S1 and
S2, for instance) are used almost equally by readers of both high and low proficiency and regardless
of their background knowledge group; and some strategies (S10, for example)
are more often used by
high proficiency readers, regardless of background knowledge group.
[Insert Table 1 about here.]
A two-way random-effects multivariate analysis of variance was performed with level of
background
knowledge and level of proficiency as independent variables and the frequencies of
use of the 10
strategies as dependent variables. The results of the analysis appear in Table 2.
Significant
interaction effects were found (p = .001) between background knowledge and proficiency level
making the main effects uninterpretable. To analyze further the nature of this significant
difference,
a multiple discriminant analysis was done using the four groups defined by the possible combinations
of level of background knowledge and level of proficiency: Group 1
= Background Knowledge Plus
and Low Proficiency (BK+, Prof-); Group 2 = Background Knowledge Minus and Low Proficiency
(BK-, Prof.); Group 3 = Background Knowledge Plus and High Proficiency (BK+, Prof+); and Group
4 = Background Knowledge Minus and High Proficiency (BK-, Prof+).
[Insert Table 2 about here.]
The multiple discriminant analysis yielded three discriminant functions, p - .001 for Function 1 and
Function 2 and p < .100 for Function 3. Function 1 accounted for 60.2% of the variance accounted
for by the three functions, Function 2 accounted for 31.1%, and Function 3 accounted
for 8.64%.
Table 3 contains values of the three discriminant functions computed at group centroids. In order to
better visualize the discriminations indicated in Table 3, two plots were made. A plot of the group
centroids on Fl and F2, the two functions which jointly account for over 90% of the variance
accounted for by three functions together, is shown in Figure 1. It can be seen that Function 1 makes
a three-way discrimination among the groups. Scoring highest on the function is Group 3. At the
other extreme are Group 1 and Group 2, whose centroids have almost identical values on Function 1.
Group 4's centroid is roughly intermediate between these extremes.
Function 2 differentiates all four groups from one another. Ranking on the function is in the
foilowing order from lowest to highest centroid: Group 2, Group 3, Group 1, and Group 4.
1
Phillips
Inference Strategies - 11
A plot of the group centroids on Fl and F3 is given in Figure 2. It can be seen that Function 3
distinguishes among all four groups. Ranking on Function 3 from lowest to highest centroid is in the
following order: Group 1, Group 3, Group 2, ana Group 4.
[Insert Table 3 about here.]
[Insert Figures 1 and 1 about here.]
In order to facilitate interpretation of the above discriminations, correlations among the three
discriminant functions and the ten strategy variables are presented in Table 4. Those coefficients
marked ''' represent correlations > .200 in absolute value and those marked "" represent correlations
> .300 in absolute value.
[Insert Table 4 about here.]
Discussion
Discussion of Qualitative Results
Since the Collins, Brown, and Larkin strategies have served as a backdrop for this study, it is
appropriate to compare those strategies to the ones herein identified. The most obvious difference is
number 5 compared to 10. It would seem important to be able to justify the need for 5 additior al
strategies for interpreting the young readers' thinking.
The first three of the strategies in each list are close enough to being identical as to be taken so for
this purpose. The fourth Collins, Brown, and Larkin strategy was found to be difficult to
operationally distinguish from the second because questioning a default interpretation may also have
been seen as questioning a conflict and vice-versa. In other words, when readers question a default
interpretation it seems to suggest that to do so readers must have recognized a conflict between their
interpretation and subsequent information. The second and fourth Collins, Brown, and Larkin
strategies are combined in Strategy 2 of the young readers' strategies.
The fifth Collins, Brown, and Larkin strategy seems to correspond in a very interesting way to the
strategies identified in this study. The fifth strategy, "Case Analyzing and Most Likely Case
Assignment," seems to be an amalgam of a number of strategies. Collins, Brown, and U.- in uplain
that their fifth strategy is a deliberate one used by adults to constrain the possible solutions to a text
so that the interpretation process will converge. Adults will choose either the most likely case or the
case that might constrain the interpretation the most. However, the results of this study suggest that
young readers may go through as many as four strategies to arrive at a similar point of convergence of
interpretation. Young readers might first raise alternatives but not choose until more information is
available (Strategy 4). They might then latch on to and think about one of these alternatives
temporarily (Strategy 5), if subsequent information does not allow them to choose from among the
alternatives they raised. Subsequently, they might withhold comment until more information is
available or just reiterate a previous interpretation they had suggested (Strategy 9). Finally, on the
basis of new information, they might confirm one of the previous alternatives (Strategy 6 or Strategy
7).
The observation that adult strategies are collapsed is consistent with the view that adults likely
process information faster than young readers. Young readers appear to have a more deliberate
procedure than adults who seem to be guided by more automatized strategies. This is not a
surprising finding and lends credibility to the conclusion which the children's protocols demanded:
The strategies identified by Collins, Brown, and Larkin, while sufficient to capture adult strategies, were
not sufficiently fine-grained to capture all that the sixth graders were doing.
Phillips
Inference Strategies - 12
This difference is consistent with differences between novices and experts on other sorts of tasks. For
example, Larkin, McDermott, Simon, and Simon (1980) report that experts solve complex physics
problems considerably faster and more accurately than novices do. They report the experts' problem
solving as automatic, flexible, and direct and the novices' problem solving as conscious, rigid, and
indirect. Morales, Shute, and Pellegrino (1985) found the same differences in older and younger
children in the case of understanding mathematics word problems.
Another difference in the Collins, Brown, and Larkin adult strategies and those identified for the
young readers are Strategy 8 and Strategy 10. These strategies are not cited among the adult
strategies. Strategy 8, "Assuming a Default Interpretation and Transforming Information,"
represents instances where young readers made erroneous assumptions and then misconstrued the
text information to make them fit. There is undoubtedly an extensive difference in knowledge
accessible by adults to that accessible by young readers, so it may be the case that children are further
into a text before they question a default assumption, whereas Collins, Brown, and Larkin indicate
their second strategy, "Questioning a Default Interpretation," is for adults an important strategy in
immediately recognizing conflicts. Thus, this second strategy perhaps precludes the explicit need for
a strategy like Strategy 8.
Strategy 10, "Emphathizing Experiences," represents a comprehension strategy explicitly used by the
young readers in this study, but one which is implicitly used by the Collins, Brown, and Larkin adults.
Empathizing as an inference strategy is undoubtedly nestled with the background experiences of the
adults, to the point where it is used automatically whereas it seems to be a conscious comprehension
strategy for young readers.
Low and high proficiency readers have been found to differ on a number of important dimensions Pf
reading and the differences have often been translated into pedagogical prescriptions to teach the
processes of the more proficient readers to the less proficient readers. The assumption seems to be
that understanding how proficient readers process text can be used to guide instructional practices
for those readers who are less proficient. Such an approach might be reasonable unless the
developmental gap were so wide that to attempt to teach expert strategies to novices would be
ineffective.
It would seem that there might exist "bands of applicability," that is, a band of reading proficiency
levels within which the kinds of strategies used by high proficiency readers becomes the goal for low
proficiency readers within the same band. Cast in the light of this study, it might be inappropriate to
use the strategies of expert adult readers as the basis of instruction for grade six readers, since not
even the high proficiency readers in grade six are using those adult strategies.
Discussion of the Quantitative Results
The first discriminant function makes a three-way distinction among the four groups of subjects. The
high proficiency readers reading material familiar to them scored highest on Function 1. Students of
low proficiency, regardless of whether they were reading material familiar or unfamiliar to them,
scored lowest and almost equally on the function. Students of high reading proficiency reading
material unfamiliar to them received intermediate scores. Thus, for high proficiency readers, the
function discriminates between those reaki.:ng familiar and unfamiliar text and it distinguishes low
preciency from high proficiency readers, regardless of the familiarity with text read.
How may Function I be understood? The [wisest positive weights ordered from highest to lowest are
for Strategy 10 (Empathizing Experiences), Strategy 6 (Confirming Immediately), and Strategy 3
(Shifting Focus). The highest negative weights ordered from highest to lowest in absolute value are
for Strategy 8 (Assuming Defaults) and Strategy 9 (Withholding Information). Thus, readers would
score high on Function 1 to the extent that they empathize with the story content, confirm their
Phillips
Inference Strategies -13
inttrpretadons immediately, and shift their focus to construct meaning while reading. Readers would
score low to the extent that they made default assumptions and withheld information.
Thus, what we see through Function 1 is a greater tendency for high than low proficiency readers and
for high proficiency readers reading familiar material to use Strategy 3, Strategy 6, and Strategy 10,
and a lesser tendency for high than (cm proficiency readers and for high proficiency readers reading
familiar material to use Strategy 8 and Strategy 9. Thus, on the assumptions that the hir' proficiency
readers would have comprehended the texts better than the low proficiency readers, and that the high
proficiency readers reading familiar text would have comprehended the texts better than the high
proficiency readers reading unfamiliar text, one could infer that the use of Strategies 3, 6, and 10
promotes comprehension and the use of Strategies 8 and 9 detract from comprehension.
While, unfortunately, the assumptions of the previous sentence are tentative, some support can be
given for them. Since each student read three passages, a score from 3-3 was assigned to each
student to indicate the number of passages for which the main theme was discerned by Episode C
(see Appendix A). This score provided a rough indicator of their comprehension, because the main
themes of the passages were transparent by the end of Episode C to students who were
comprehending. Generally, those readers who had not figured out what the p',.. .";es were about by
the end of Episode C rarely ever did. The high proficiency readers scored higher than the low
proficiency readers, regardless of whether they were reading material familiar or unfamiliar to them.
The high proficiency readers had a mean of 1.80 compared co a mean of 1.55 for the low proficiency
readers. Thus, there is some support to surest that scoring higher on Function 1 is associated, at
least in a rough sense, with better comprehension. This fact helps interpret the efficacy of Strategies
3, 6, and 10 in aiding comprehension and Strategies 8 and 9 in detracting from it.
The strategy with the largest absolute value weighting on Function 1 was Strategy 10. Thus, if the
above reasoning is justified, Strategy 10 (Empathizing Experiences) contributed more than any other
strategy to students' comprehension. What is it about empathizing that makes it such a powerful
strategy? The ability to empathize is a cognitive capability (Tavris, 1987), requiring a person to
understand or appreciate how another person must feel (Ortony, Core, & Collins, 1987), or might
feel. Empathy seems to be defined as affective-cognitive-communicative, that is, as an ability to view
the world as another sees it, to perceive information and interpret the feelings underlying it, and to
give an appropriate response to show understanding (Goldstein & Michaels, 1985). Thus, the ability
to empathize appears to require a sophisticated level of understanding. It seems then, that proficient
readers understand text to such a degree that they are able to experience the situation portrayed.
The ability to empathize in reading may thus be a strong indicator of readers' comprehension ability.
This is so because in order to empathize while reading, a reader must comprehend the experience
conveyed in the text, interpret the underlying feelings of the event, and give a response. That is, in
order to empathize, a reader must have comprehended.
Strategy 6 (Confirming Immediately) and Strategy 3 (Shifting Focus) are the other two strategies
associated with high comprehension through Function 1. It seems that comprehension was aided by
being flexible in shifting atteation to another aspect of the text when an impasse was reached and by
progressively integrating text information with background knowledge by immediately confirming
interpretations. Low proficiency readers with the advantage of background knowledge proved to
have only a marginal edge over those without it, suggesting that background knowledge needs
reading proficiency to empower it. This point endorses those made by Pearson et al. (1979) and
Nicholson and Imlach (1981) that prior knowledge alone is insufficient for text comprehension since
readers must also have the ability to use it.
Strategies 8 and 9 detracted from comprehension. When confronted with unfamiliar text, low
proficiency readers tended to make incorrect associations and to misconstrue the text in attempts to
"make it fit" their expectations, leading to poor comprehension. Comprehension entails avoiding
this
approach, as Goodman and Burke (1980) have shown. Strategy 9 (Withholding Information) seemed
Phillips
Inference Strategies - 14
to be used by low proficiency readers in the face of uncertainty. This would explain in part their poor
comprehension, because it means they lacked the confidence or proficiency, or both, to risk an
interpretation.
The second discriminant function makes a four-way distinction among the four groups of subjects.
The high proficiency readers reading material unfamiliar to them scored highest on Function 2;
students of low proficiency reading material familiar to them scored the second highest; students of
high proficiency reading material familiar to them were next; and low proficiency students reading
material unfamiliar to them scored lowest on Function 2. There is no general tendency, as there was
on ninction 1, for scoring higher on Function 2 to be associated with better comrrehension. How
may Function 2 be interpreted? The largest positive weights ordered from highest to lowest are for
Strategy 1 (Rebinding) and Strategy 6 (Confirming Immediately). The largest negative weights
ordered from highest to lowest in absolute value are for Strategy 5 (Assigning An Alternate
Case)
and Strategy 9 (Withholding Information). Thus, readers would score high
on this function to the
extent that they rebind their interpretations to fit with the story content and confirm them on the
basis of information immediately following it. Readers would score low to the extent that they assign
an alternate case a 1 withhold information.
Thus, what we see through Function 2 is a tendency for high proficiency subjects reading unfamiliar
material (Group 4) and low proficiency subjects reading familiar material (Group 1) to use Strategy 1
and Strategy 6 more than high proficiency readers reading familiar material (Group 3) and low
proficiency readers reading unfamiliar material (Group 2); and a lesser tendency for Groups 1 and 4
than Groups 2 and 3 to use Strategy 5 and Strategy 9.
The strategy with the largest positive weight on Function 2 was Strategy 1. Strategy 1 (Rebinding)
was used more by high proficiency readers without the advantage of background knowledge than any
of the other groups. Intuitively, it makes sens. that rebinding might occur more kequently with
unfamiliar materials than with familiar materials. One speculation is that with familiar materials
readers formulate the most plausible interpretation the first time, whereas with unfamiliar materials
readers may make several attempts at interpretation before settling upon the most plausible one, thus
requiring them to rebind more often.
Low proficiency readers reading familiar materials were the second highest users of rebinding. It
seems that they may gauge their interpretations against their familiarity of the topic to monitor for
a
more plausible interpretation, often using Strategy 1 to do so. Given this line of reasoning, low
proficiency readers reading unfamiliar materials would appear to be at a double disadvantage.
They
do not have the reading proficiency to compensate for the lack of topic familiarity, nor the
background knowledge against which to monitor what they think or say.
Strategy 6 (Confirming Immediately) was most extensively used by high proficiency readers reading
unfamiliar materials suggesting that reading proficiency may be used to compensate for inadequate
background knowledge. It is a strategy used to confirm an interpretation on the basis of information
immediately following it, thus enabling high proficiency readers to verify a previous interpretation.
The strategy with the largest absolute value weighting on Function 2 was Strategy 5. Thus, Strategy
5
(Assigning an Alternate Case) contributed more than any other strategy to Function 2. The reason
Strategy 5 (Assigning An Alternate Case) was used the least by high proficiency readers reading
unfamiliar material is difficult to explain. Strategy 5 may be thought of as a temporary digression
from the ongoing interpretation. Such a strategy may be something every reader does when textual
information triggers a personal bias or anecdote while reading and, as can be seen in Table 1, was
used by all readers. One hypothesis is that high proficiency readers reading unfamiliar material may
be more attentive to the text because they are sensitive to their unfamiliarity with the topic, and
therefore are less likely to digress. Less proficient readers reading familiar materials also tended to
use Strategy 5 to a lesser extent than Group 2 and Group 3. A speculation here is that less proficient
Phillips
Inference Strategies - 15
readers were attempting to capitalize upon their background knowledge to compensate for
their low
reading proficiency and in so doing, were concentrating their energies on the immediate reading task
with little room for digression. On the other hand, high proficiency readers reading familiar material
(Group 3) may be comfortable enough with the text and topic to temporarily dress without risking a
loss of meaning. Low proficiency readers reading unfamiliar
materials (Group2) are doubly
disadvantaged, so perhaps any trigger of a familiar thought would be a welcome reprieve under such
circumstances, and might account for why they used it more than any other group.
Table 1 shows that high proficiency readers reading familiar material
were least likely to use Strategy
9, that is, to withhold or to reiterate information, possibly because it would be unlikely that they
would be void of information when reading material familiar to them and at a reading level within
their level of proficiency. Thus, it seems they would have little purpose to withhold or to reiterate
information. On the other hand, low proficiency readers reading unfamiliar materials were most
likely to use Strategy 9, perhaps as a way to signal difficulty with the task and maybe
as an avoidance
strategy, rather than as an inference strategy when used in this way. Thus, although Function 2
does
not assist in associating particular strategy use with better comprehension, it does help
us understand
the strategies which different groups of students faced with different types of reading
situations are
likely to use. The question of the strategies they should be using must be left for further study.
The third discriminant function accounts for 8.64% of the variance accounted for by the three
functions together. Thus, as can be seen in Figure 2, it does not show much differentiation
among
the groups. However, there is a rough discrimination. High proficiency readers reading material
unfamiliar to them scored highest on Function 3; students of low proficiency reading material
unfamiliar to them scored second highest; high proficiency readers reading material familiar to them
were next; and low proficiency readers reading material familiar to them scored lowest on Function 3.
The largest positive weights on Function 3 ordered trom highest to lowest
are for Strategy 8
(Assuming Defaults) and Strategy 3 (Shifting Focus). The largest negative weights ordered from
highest to lowest in absolute value are for Strategy 9 (Withholding Information),
Strategy 7
(Confirming a Non-Immediate Prior Interpretation) referred to in Table 1 and
Table 4 as Confirming
Subsequently, and Strategy 2 (Questioning Defaults). Thus, readers would score high on Flinction 3
to the extent that they made default assumptions and shifted focus when they recognized that
an
interpretation did not fit. Readers would score low to the extent that they withheld or reiterated
information, subsequently confirmed an interpretation and questioned a previous
interpretation.
Generally, there is a greater tendency for readers reading unfamiliar material, regardless of
level of
proficiency to use Strategy 8 and Strategy 3 than readers reading familiar material, and a lesser
tendency to use Strategy 2, Strategy 7, and Strategy 9. In addition, according to the rough indicator
of comprehension discussed under Function 1, there was very little difference in the overall
comprehension of the background-knowledge-plus and background-knowledge-minus on identifying
the general theme of what each passage was about, 1.70 and 1.65 respectively, unlike the high
proficiency and low proficiency groups. Thus, like with Function 2, scoring higher
or lower on
Function 3 cannot be directly associated with better or worse reading comprehension. We can,
however, examine the pattern of each group.
The strategy with the largest positive weight on Function 3 is Strategy 8 (Assuming
Defaults). One
explanation is that when reading familiar and unfamiliar materials it seems reasonable that readers
would capitalize upon what they already know to assist them in their interpretation. When the
materials are familiar, it is more likely that default assumptions would be correct, but when reading
unfamiliar materials the odds of the default assumptions being correct would be reduced. However,
default assumptions, once made, are difficult to relinquish even when faced with ample
counterevidence. It seems people will point to scant positive evidence to sustain their interpretation
even though substantial negative evidence exists to suggest otherwise (Holland, Holyoak, Nisbett, &
Thagard, 1986). Therefore, whed reading familiar materials, since the default assumptions would
more than likely be correct, no problem would be created because there is no issue of
17
Phillips
Inference Strategies - 16
counterevidence. On the other hand, when reading unfamiliar materials more of the readers' default
assumptions would be incorrect and hence be faced with counterevidence from the text which they
either tend to ignore or misconstrue to advantage (Strategy 8).
The second highest positive strategy on Function 3 is Strategy 3. On Function 1, Strategy 3 was used
the most often by high proficiency readers reading material familiar to them, whereas on Function 3
it is used the most by high proficiency readers reading unfamiliar materials followed by low
proficiency readers reading unfamiliar materials. This interaction is another instance pointing to the
importance af knowing why particular strategies are used and under what conditions. Why Strategy 3
was used the most on Function 3 by the two groups of readers reading unfamiliar materials,
regardless of proficiency level, is perplexing. When Strategy 3 is studied in conjunction with Strategy
8, it makes some sense to expect that high proficiency readers reading unfamiliar materials to shift
their focus more frequently than high proficiency readers reading familiar materials because they
made default assumptions which turned out to be erroneous. Consequently, they had to shift their
focus more frequently in order to continue construction of their interpretation. Low proficiency
readers reading unfamiliar materials would likely shift their focus as a result of latching on to any
piece of information w" tich might make sense to them.
Strategies 2, 7, and 9 are negatively weighted in Function 3. Strategy 2 (Questioning Defaults) and
Strategy 7 (Confirming Subsequently) do not have significant weightings on either Function 1 or
Function 2, yet the two strategies are most often used by high proficiency readers reading material
familiar to them, and intuitively they appear to be reasonable strategies to use because they are an
indication of comprehension monitoring.
The foregoing discussion of the quantitative results on Functions 1, 2, and 3 point to the complexity
of the interactions among reading proficiency, backgromtfl knowledge, and strategy use. The
quantitative results suggest that how we understand the strategies depends upon how they are used.
While it was not the purpose of this research project to study the quality of the inferences made by
young readers, evidence from the discriminant analyses points to differences in strategies used by
readers of low and high proficiency reading famiiiar or unfamiliar reading material which can be
loosely tied to differences in the quality of interpretations, especially when examining Function 1.
These results also suggest the importance of 'Knowing what strategies are used, why they work, and
under what conditions. For instance, Strattjv 3 (Shifting Focus) was used the most by high
proficiency readers reading familiar material. But this fact is of little use without also knowing to
what end, when, and how it is to be used. Another example of a strategy which is important to
understand when and how it is to be used is Strategy 10, empathizing experiences which could on
some occasions be effective, and on others ineffective. Consider a case where a reader allows
background knowledge to override the text information, where a strong personal bias leads a reader
off track. In such a case, it seems that empathizing from experience might not be a beneficial strategy
to use. Thus, effective strategy use seems to be contingent upon knowing when and how to use it.
It is important to acknowledge that use of any one or another of these strategies may vary with the
particular context for which it is required since reading purposes vary widely. Furthermore, certain
strategies may be better for some people and other strategies better for others as there may be
several roads to comprehension. In the end, the important issue is whether interpretations are
consistent and complete in response to the text.
Conclusion
This study identified differences in the inference strategies used by adult readers and those used by
young readers; in the inference strategies used by high proficiency and low proficiency sixth grade
readers; and, differences in the inference strategies used when young readers read familiar or
unfamiliar material. While these findings are consistent with previous research on related measures
of reading performance, they do flag at least two important distinctions. The first distinction has to
t
Phillips
Inference Strategies - 17
do with the importance of reading proficiency and the second with the relative unimportance of
background knowledge in the absence of reading proficiency. It appears that reading proficiency may
compensate in instances where there is insufficient background knowledge; however, whether one has
sufficient background knowledge or not makes little difference in overall performance when the
level of reading proficiency is low. It seems then, that reading proficiency is a necessary condition for
overall performance while background knowledge is not.
It is important to be able to adapt to unfamiliar situations in life and to unfamiliar texts in the case of
reading. Readers are never going to have all the necessary background knowledge to deal with all
new situations, so it seems that the development of strategies to make effective use of existent
knowledge is of critical importance. How background knowledge is organized and applied in new
situations is an area about which little is known (Spiro, Vispoel, Schmitz, Samarapungaven, &
Boerger, 1987). This statement is significant in !fight of the findings
of this research, since an
underpinning of most current theories of reading comprehension rely upon the activation and
application of background knowledge (Phillips & Walker, 1987). The results of this study suggest
that the activation and application of background knowledge seems to be inextricably bound up with
reading proficiency. Particular inference strategies seem to be
a manifestation of an ability to
effectively use background knowledge in reading comprehension. Reading comprehension is an
extremely complex act, an act about which much is to be learned at all developmental levels.
The difference in the adult and young readers' strategies may be summarized as conceptual, where
adult readers have a greater breadth and depth of understanding of reading comprehension than do
the young readers. Such breadth and depth is the product of years of reading and other life
experiences, it seems then that an important question is whether educators ought to be looking tc the
strategies of expert readers as models for teaching novice or young readers since it is not known
whether conceptual knowledge may be taught. These queries and others, such as how readers know
what information to use, when to use it, and to what degree, highlight areas for research and
strengthen the need for continued study of reasoning at all developmental levels in order to develop a
comprehensive picture of such an important cognitive process as inference in reading comprehension.
19
I
Phillips
Inference Strategies - 18
References
Afflerbach, P., & Johnston, P. (1984). Research methodology on the
use of verbal reports in reading
research. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16(4), 307-322.
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic
processes in reading
comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255-292).
New York:
Longman.
Bereiter, C., & Bird, M. (1985). Use of thinking aloud in identification
and teaching of reading
comprehension strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 2(2), 131-156.
Bos, C. S., & Tierney, R. J. (1984). Inferential reading abilities of mildly
mentally retarded and
nonretarded students. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 89(1), 75-82.
Bransford, J. D., & McCarrell, N. S. (1974). A sketch of a cognitive approach
to comprehension:
Some thoughts about understanding what it means to comprehend. In
W. G. Weimer & D. S.
Palermo (Eds.), Cognition and the symbolic processes (pp. 189-229). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brewer, W. F. (1977). Memory for the pragmatic implications of sentences.
Memory and Cognition, 5,
673-678.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Larkin, K. M. (1980). Inference in text
understanding. In R. J. Spiro, W.
F. Brewer & B. C Bruce (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension
(pp. 385-407).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ericsson, K., & Simon, H. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (pp. 357-371). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Fareed, A. (1971). Interspective responses in reading history and biology:
An exploratory study.
Reading Research Quarterly, 6, 493-532.
Frase, L T. (1968). Questions as aids to reading: Some research and
Research Journal, 5, 319-332.
a theory. American Educational
Garner, R. (1982). Verbal-report data on reading strategies. Journal of Reading
Behavior, 14, 159167.
Goetz, E T. (1977). Inferences in the comprehension of and
memory for text (Tech. Rep. No. 49).
Urbana University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
Goldstein, A. P., & Michaels, G. Y. (1985). Empathy (pp. 1-33). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Goodman, K. S. (1973). Miscues: Windows on the reading
process. In K. S. Goodman (Ed.), Miscue
analysis: Applkatio»! w reading (pp. 3-14). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers
of
English.
Goodman, Y. M., & Burke, C. (1980). Reading strategies: Focus
on comprehension. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Harris, R. J., & Monaco, G. E. (1978). The psychology of pragmatic
implication: Information
processing between the lines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, /07,
20
1022.
I
1
Phillips
Inference Strategies - 19
Holland, J. H., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E., & Thagard, P. R. (1986).
Induction: Processes of
inference, learning, and discovery (pp.
191-195). Cambridge, MP : MIT Press.
Jacobsen, M. V. (1973). A linguistic feature JnaOsis of verbal protoco:s associated
with pupil responses
to standardized measures of reading comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Minnesota.
Kavale, K., & Schreiner, R. (1979). The reading processes of above
average and average readers: A
comparison of the use of reasoning strategies in responding to standardized
comprehension
measures. Read* Research Quarterly, 15(1), 102-128.
Kintsch, W. (1986). On modeling comprehension. In S. de Castel!, A.
Luke, & K. Egan (Eds.),
Literacy, society, and schooling (pp. 175-195). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D., & Simon, H. (1980). Expert and
novice performance in solving
physics problems. Science, 208, 1335-1342.
Mason, J. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of the reading process as a basis for comprehension
instruction. In G. Duffy, L Roehler, & J. Mason (Eds.), Comprehension
instruction (pp. 26-38).
New York: Longman.
Morales, R. V., Shute, V.I., & Pellegrino, J. W. (1985). Developmental differences
in understanding
and solving simple mathematics word problems. Cognition and
Instruction, 2(1), 41-57.
Nicholson, T., & Imlach, R. (1981). Where do their answers
come from? A study of the inferences
which children make when answering questions about narrative stories.
Journal of Reading
Behavior, 13(2),111 -129.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L M. (1987). Explanations of reading comprehension:
Schema theory and
critical thinking theory. Teachers College Record 89(2).
Olshaysky, J. (1975). An exploratory analysis of the reading process (Education
dissertation, Secondary
Education, University of Indiana). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Microfilms
International.
Ortony, A., Clore, G. L, & Collins, A. (1987). The cognitive structure of
emotions (p. 91). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Pearson, P. D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect of
background knowledge on young
children's comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal
of Reading Behavior,
11(3), 201-210.
Phillips, L M., & Norris, S. P. (1986). Reading well is thinking
Philosophy of Education 1986 (pp. 187-197). Normal, IL: Philo'
Phillips, L M., & Walker, L. (1987). Three views of language and t,
reading and writing. Educational Theory, 37(2), 135-144.
Reder, L M. (1980). The role of elaboration in the comprehension and
review. Review of Educational Research, 50, 5-53.
I. C. Burbules (Ed.),
ucati on Society.
ence on instruction in
retention of prose: A critical
Schank, R. C. (1975). The structure of episodes in memory. In D.
Laberge & S. J. Samuels (Eds.),
Basic processes in reading perception and comprehension (pp. 237-272).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21
1
Phillips
Inference Strategies - 20
Schienbein, D. (1978). An investigation of differences in inferencing behavior between average and low
readers. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
Spiro, R. J., Vispoel, W. L, Schmitz, J. C., Samarapungavan, A., & Boerger, A. E (1987). Knowledge
acquisition for acquisition: Cognitive flexibility and transfer in complex content domains. In B.
C. Britton & S. Glynn (Eds.), Executive control processes (pp. 177-199). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Squire, J. (1964). The responses of adolescents while reading four short stories. Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Swain, E. (1953). Conscious thought processes used in the interpretation of reading materials.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
Tavris, C. (1987). Thinking critically about emotion and the role of emotion in critical thinking.
Paper
presented at Fifth International Conference on Critical Thinking and Educational Reform,
Sonoma State University, California
Thorndike, E. L (1917). Reading as reasoning: A study of mistakes in paragraph reading.
The
Journal of Educational Psychology, 8, 323-332.
Tierney, R. J., Bridge, C., & Cera, M. J. (1978-79). The discourse processing operations of
children.
Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4), 539-573.
Tierney, R. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1979). Some basic notions about reading comprehension: Implications
for teachers. In J. Harste & R. Carey (Eds.), New perspectives in comprehension (pp. 132-137).
Bloomington: Indiana University Monographs on Language and Thinking.
van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Wilson, M. M. (1979). The processing strategies of average and below average readers answering
factual and inferential questions of three equivalent passages. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11,
235-245.
22
Phillips
Inference Strategies - 21
Footnote
1In Canada, "The Bay" in a context like this refers to the Hudson Bay Company,
a large
department store chain.
23
Phillips
Inference Strategies - 22
Table I
Mean Frequency of Strategy Use by Background Knowledge and Proficiency Levels
Background
Knowledge
Plus
Background
Knowledge
Minus
Low
Prof.
High
Prof.
Low
Prof.
High
Prof.
S1 Rebinding
1.30
.85
.65
1.50
S2 Questioning Defaults
3.85
4.85
3.95
3.45
S3 Shifting Focus
1.20
6.25
2.90
3.65
23.10
33.20
28.15
27.85
3.70
5.25
5.95
2.15
S6 Confirming Subsequently
86.55
103.25
76.05
94.10
S7 Confirming Nonimmediat
3.15
3.60
3.30
1.85
S8 Assuming Defaults
13.60
6.70
13.95
14.95
S9 Withholding Information
18.30
14.45
19.35
14.70
S10 Empathizing Experiences
.40
3.60
.15
1.65
Strategy
S4 Analyzing Alternatives
S5 Assigning Alternates
24
1
Phillips
Inference Strategies - 23
Table 2
MANOVA Summary Table: Background Knowledge by Reading Proficiency
Effect
DF
Approx. F
Wilks'
Lambda
Sig. of F
Background
Knowledge
1
5.97
.523
.000
Proficiency
1
6.87
.494
.000
BK X Prof
1
3.41
.663
.001
Within Cells
76
25
Phillips
Inference Strategies - 24
A
Table 3
Canonical Discriminant Functions Evaluated at Group Centroids
Group
Function 1
Function 2
Group 1 (BK+, Prof-)
-0.852
0.519
-0.646
Group 2 (BK-, Prof-)
-0.929
-1.245
0.206
Group 3 (BK+, Prof+)
1.980
-0.262
-0.125
Group 4 (BK-, Prof+)
-0.199
0.988
0.566
Function 3
Phillips
Inference Strategies - 25
Table 4
Correlations between Functions 1, 2, 3, and Strategies 1-10
Strategy
S1 Rebinding
Function 1
-0.059
Flinction 2
0.392"
Function 3
0.045
S2 Questioning Defaults
0.191
-0.147
S3 Shifting Focus
0.380"
-0.095
0.370"
S4 Analyzing Alternatives
0.213
-0.122
0.255'
S5 Assigning Alternates
0.063
-0.448"
- 0.207'
S6 Confirming Immediately
0.450'
0.341**
-0.002
S7 Confirming Subsequently
0.049
S8 Assuming Defaults
-0.449"
S9 Withholding Information
-0.235*
S10 Empathizing Experiences
= >.200
>300
0.597"
-0.150
0.165
- 0.224'
-0.259*
0.373**
-0.223
-0.279*
0.130
0.169
1
$
Phillips
Inference Strategies - 26
Figure Captions
Figure 1. Plot of Group Centroids on Functions 1 and 2.
Figure 2. Plot of Group Centroids on Functions 1 and 3.
28
1
u.
Group 3
NW+.
mom
1.5
1.0
0.5
Function 2
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0,5
0.5
1.4
1.5
Group 4
-0.5
Group 2
-1.0
PROF -)
-1.5
-2.0
PROF0
4-
Group 1
mKt
2.0
1
Group 3
21K+. PROF+)
1.5
1.0
0.5
Function 3
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.511
P
1.0
Group 4
-0.5
Group 1
-1.0
MO MOH
PROF +)
Group 2
MK-, PROF-)
- 1.5
- 2.0
Figure 2
30
1.5
2.0
4
APPENDIX A
Two Examples of Passages
Skiing (Students did not see title)
A. The slope was covered with people But there was room for lots more. B. Marty's heart pounded
with excitement as he raced past the chalet to join them. He was scared a little. .. He had all new
gear. He was anxious as he waited in line for the chairlift. He checked his boots and bindings. D.
The run was steep and had powder snow at the top. Marty dodged and weaved
every mogul without
a wipeout. E. The steel edges saved him from crashing into the lineup. F. Yes, skiing is a good way
to spend a winter's day.
Fishing (Students did not see title)
A. The stillness of the morning air was broken. The men headed down the bay. B. The
net was
hard to pull. The heavy sea and strong tide made it even more difficult for the girdle. The
meshed
catch encouraged the men to try harder. C. With four quintals abroad, the men were now ready to
leave. The skipper saw mares' tails in the north. D. They tied up to the wharf. They hastily grabbed
their prongs and set to work. The catch was left in the stage while they had breakfast. E. The
splitting was done by the skipper. The boys did the cutting and gutting. F. Catching fish is filled with
risk.
1
x
APPENDIX B
Inference Questions Used to Accompany the Fishing Passage
A.
1.
Where were the men? 2. Where were they going? 3. What questions come to your
mind? So where do you think they were going?
B.
1.
Why was the net hard to pull? 2. Why was it important for them to pull the net? 3.
What questions come to mind? So where do you think they were going?
C.
1.
What was the nature of their cargo? 2. Why were they worried about the mares' tails?
3. What questions come to mind?
D.
1.
Why did they tie up to the wharf? 2. Why was the catch unloaded with prongs? 3.
What questions come to mind?
E.
1.
If A(2) is not answered--where were they going? Why? 2. What kind of fish do
think they had? 3. What do you think they did with the fish?
F.
So were you on track about where the men were going?
you