This brief experimental study investigated the initial promise of an intervention designed to promote inference generation in adolescents with reading comprehension difficulties. The intervention, provided for nine sessions, included multisyllable word study, teacher explanation and modeling of inference generation and other comprehension processes, and having students practice by thinking aloud about text. Research questions addressed proximal effects on measures of the intermediate goals of the intervention and effects on reading comprehension. Participants were 48 ninth grade students with reading comprehension difficulties, randomly assigned to experimental or time–on–task control conditions. No significant group differences were detected; however, effect sizes in the moderate range indicated meaningful effects on some proximal measures, suggesting that further study of the approach is warranted.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhmedY., FrancisD. J., YorkM., FletcherJ., BarnesM. A. & KuleszP. (2016). Validation of the direct and mediated (DIME) model of reading comprehension in grades 7 through 12. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44, 68–82.
2.
ArcherA. L., GleasonM. M., & VachonV. L. (2003). Decoding and fluency: Foundation skills for struggling older readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(2), 89–101.
3.
BarnesM.A., DennisN, & Haefele–KalvaitisJ. (1996). Effects of knowledge availability and knowledge accessibility on coherence and elaborative inferencing in children from six to fifteen years of age. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 61, 216–214.
4.
BenjaminiY., & HochbergY. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 57(1), 289–300.
5.
BereiterC., & BirdM. (1985). Use of thinking aloud in identification and teaching of reading comprehension strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 2(2), 131–156.
6.
BhattacharyaA., & EhriL.C. (2004). Graphosyllabic analysis helps adolescent struggling readers read and spell words. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 331–348.
7.
Bohn–GettlerC. M., & KendeouP. (2014). The interplay of reader goals, working memory, and text structure during reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(3), 206–219.
8.
Brasseur–HockI. F., HockM. F., KiefferM. J., BiancarosaG., & DeshlerD. D. (2011). Adolescent struggling readers in urban schools: Results of a latent class analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 438–452.
9.
BrownsteinA. L., & ReadS. J. (2007). Situation models and memory: The effects of temporal and causal information on recall sequence. Memory, 15(7), 730–745.
10.
CainK., & OakhillJ. V. (1999). Inference making and its relation to comprehension failure. Reading & Writing, 11, 489–503.
11.
CirinoP. T., RomainM. A., BarthA. E., TolarT. D., FletcherJ. M., & VaughnS. (2013). Reading skill components and impairments in middle school struggling readers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26(7), 1059–1086.
12.
CromleyJ. G., & AzevedoR. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 311–325.
DentonC. A., EnosM., YorkM. J., FrancisD. J., BarnesM. A., KuleszP. A., et al. (2015). Text processing differences in adolescent adequate and poor comprehenders reading accessible and challenging narrative and informational text. Reading Research Quarterly, 50, 393–416.
15.
EdmondsM. S., VaughnS., WexlerJ., ReutebuchC., CableA., TackettK. K., et al. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262–300.
16.
GerstenR., FuchsL. S., WilliamsJ. P., & BakerS. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279–320.
17.
GhaithG., & ObeidH. (2004). Effect of think alouds on literal and higher–order reading comprehension. Educational Research Quarterly, 27(3), 49.
18.
GreeneJ. F. (1996). LANGUAGE! Effects of an individualized structured language curriculum for middle and high school students. Annals of Dyslexia, 46(1), 97–121.
19.
HockM. F., BrasseurI. F., DeshlerD. D., CattsH. W., MarquisJ. G., MarkC. A., et al. (2009). What is the reading component skill profile of adolescent struggling readers in urban schools? Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 21–38.
20.
JohnstonP. H., & WinogradP. N. (1985). Passive failure in reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17, 279–301.
21.
KaakinenJ. K., & HyönäJ. (2005). Perspective effects on expository text comprehension: Evidence from think–aloud protocols, eyetracking, and recall. Discourse Processes, 40(3), 239–257.
22.
KendeouP., & van den BroekP. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 1567–1577.
23.
KintschW. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49, 294–303.
24.
KintschW., & Van DijkT. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363.
25.
LaingS. P., & KamhiA. G. (2002). The use of think–aloud protocols to compare inferencing abilities in average and below–average readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 437–448.
26.
MacGinitieW. H., MacGinitieR. K., MariaK., & DreyerL. G. (2002). Gates–MacGinitie reading tests (4th ed.,), Technical report: Forms S and T. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.
27.
MaglianoJ. P., & MillisK. K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think–aloud procedure and latent semantic analysis. Cognition & Instruction, 21, 251–283.
28.
MaglianoJ. P., TrabassoT., & GraesserA. C. (1999). Strategic processing during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 615–629.
29.
MaglianoJ. P., TodaroS., MillisK., Wiemer–HastingsK., KimH. J., & McNamaraD. S. (2005). Changes in reading strategies as a function of reading training: A comparison of live and computerized training. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32, 185–208.
30.
McCorkleJ. (1990). Ferris beach. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.
31.
McNamaraD. S., & KintschW. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22(3), 247–288.
32.
McNamaraD. S., O'ReillyT. P., BestR. M., & OzuruY. (2006). Improving adolescent students’ reading comprehension with iSTART. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(2), 147–171.
NarvaezD., van den BroekP., & RuizA. B. (1999). The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 488–496.
35.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). The Nation's Report Card: 2015 mathematics and reading assessments. Washington, DC: Institute for Education Sciences. Retrieved from www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#?grade=4
36.
National Commission on Adult Literacy. (2008, June). Reach higher, America: Overcoming crisis in the U.S. workforce. New York: Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED506605.pdf
37.
O'ConnorF. (1955). A good man is hard to find and other stories. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
38.
OzuruY., BrinerS., BestR., & McNamaraD. S. (2010). Contributions of self–explanation to comprehension of high–and low–cohesion texts. Discourse Processes, 47(8), 641–667.
39.
PenneyC. G. (2002). Teaching decoding skills to poor readers in high school. Journal of Literacy Research34, 99–118.
40.
PikeM. A., BarnesM. A., & BarronR. W. (2010). The role of illustrations in children's inferential comprehension. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105, 243–255.
41.
PressleyM., & AfflerbachP. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. New York: Routledge.
42.
RappD. N., & KendeouP. (2007). Revising what readers know: Updating text representations during narrative comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 35(8), 2019–2032.
43.
RobertsG., VaughnS., FletcherJ., StuebingK., & BarthA. (2013). Effects of a response–based, tiered framework for intervening with struggling readers in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 237–254.
44.
ScammaccaN. K., RobertsG., VaughnS. & StuebingK. K. (2015). A Meta–Analysis of Interventions for Struggling Readers in Grades 4–12 1980–2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(4), 369–390.
45.
ScruggsT. E., MastropieriM. A., BerkeleyS., & GraetzJ. E. (2010). Do special education interventions improve learning of secondary content? A meta–analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31(6), 437–449.
46.
SilvénM., & VaurasM. (1992). Improving reading through thinking aloud. Learning and Instruction, 2(2), 69–88.
SwansonH. L., & HoskynM. (2001). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: A component and composite analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(2), 109–119.
49.
SwansonE., WanzekJ., McCulleyL., Stillman–SpisakS., VaughnS., SimmonsD., et al. (2015). Literacy and text reading in middle and high school social studies and English language arts classrooms. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 32, 199–222.
50.
TangS., & HallV. (1995). The overjustification effect: A meta–analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9(5), 365–404.
51.
TrabassoT., & MaglianoJ. P. (1996). Conscious understanding during comprehension. Discourse Processes, 21(3), 255–287.
52.
TrabassoT., & SperryL. L. (1985). Causal relatedness and importance of story events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(5), 595–611.
53.
TrabassoT., & SuhS. (1993). Understanding text: Achieving explanatory coherence through online inferences and mental operations in working memory. Discourse Processes, 16, 3–34.
54.
TrabassoT., SuhS., PaytonP., & JainR. (1995). Explanatory inferences and other strategies during comprehension and their effect on recall. In LorchR. F. & O'BrienE. J. (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 219–239). New York: Routledge.
55.
van den BroekP., LorchR. F.Jr., LinderholmT., & GustafsonM. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on interference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29(8), 1081–1087.
56.
van den BroekP., RappD. N., & KendeouP. (2005). Integrating memory–based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 299–316.
57.
van DijkT. A. & KintschW. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
58.
What Works Clearinghouse, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. (2014). WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 3.0). Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/documentsum.aspx?sid=19
59.
WigfieldA., & EcclesJ. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.
60.
WoodcockR. W., McGrewK. S., & MatherN. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson III tests of achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
61.
ZwaanR. A., & RadvanskyG. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162–185.
