Inference skill is one of the most important predictors of reading comprehension. Still, there is little rigorous research investigating the effects of inference instruction on reading comprehension. There is no research investigating the effects of inference instruction on reading comprehension for English learners with reading comprehension difficulties. The current study investigated the effects of small-group inference instruction on the inference generation and reading comprehension of sixth- and seventh-grade students who were below-average readers (M = 86.7, SD = 8.1). Seventy-seven percent of student participants were designated limited English proficient. Participants were randomly assigned to 24, 40-min sessions of the inference instruction intervention (n = 39) or to business-as-usual English language arts instruction (n = 39). Membership in the treatment condition statistically significantly predicted higher outcome score on the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test Reading Comprehension subtest (d = 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.16, 1.03]), but not on the other measures of inference skill.
AhmedY.FrancisD. J.YorkM.FletcherJ. M.BarnesM.KuleszP. (2016). Validation of the direct and inferential mediation (DIME) model of reading comprehension in grades 7 through 12. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44, 68–82.
2.
BabayiğitS. (2014). The role of oral language skills in reading and listening comprehension of text: A comparison of monolingual (L1) and bilingual (L2) speakers of English language. Journal of Research in Reading, 37, 22–47.
3.
BallardW. S.TigheP. L. (2012). IDEA Proficiency Test. Brea, CA: Author.
4.
BarthA. E.BarnesM. A.FrancisD.YorkM.VaughnS. (2015). Bridging inferences among adequate and struggling adolescent comprehenders and relations to reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 28, 587–609.
5.
BarthA. E.EllemanA. (2017). Evaluating the impact of a multistrategy inference intervention for middle-grade struggling readers. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 48, 31–41.
6.
BenjaminiY.HochbergY. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B: Methodological, 57, 289–300.
7.
BintzW. P.WilliamsL. (2005). Questioning techniques of fifth and sixth grade reading teachers. Middle School Journal, 37(1), 45–52.
8.
BloomH. S.HillC. J.BlackA. R.LipseyM. W. (2008). Performance trajectories and performance gaps as achievement effect-size benchmarks for educational interventions. Journal of Educational Effectiveness, 1, 289–328.
9.
Bowyer-CraneC.SnowlingM. J. (2005). Assessing children’s inference generation: What do tests of reading comprehension measure?British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 189–201.
10.
CainK.OakhillJ.LemmonK. (2004). Individual differences in the inference of word meanings from context: The influence of reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 671–681.
11.
CappsR.FixM. (2005). Undocumented immigrants: Myths and reality. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
12.
ChoE.CapinP.RobertsG. J.RobertsG.VaughnS. (in press). Examining sources and mechanisms of reading comprehension difficulties: Comparing English learners and non-English learners within the simple view of reading. Journal of Educational Psychology.
13.
CromleyJ. G.AzevedoR. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 311–325.
14.
CTB/McGraw-Hill, Data Recognition Corporation (2012). Language Assessment Scales Links. Monterey, CA: Author.
15.
DentonC. A.EnosM.YorkM. J.FrancisD. J.BarnesM. A.KuleszP. A.. . . CarterS. (2015). Text-processing differences in adolescent adequate and poor comprehenders reading accessible and challenging narrative and informational text. Reading Research Quarterly, 50, 393–416.
16.
DentonC. A.YorkM. J.FrancisD. J.HaringC.AhmedY.BidulescuA. (2017). An investigation of an intervention to promote inference generation by adolescent poor comprehenders. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32, 85–98.
17.
DroopM.VerhoevenL. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first-and second-language learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 78–103.
18.
ElbroC.Buch-IversenI. (2013). Activation of background knowledge for inference making: Effects on reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 435–452.
19.
EllemanA. M. (2017). Examining the impact of inference instruction on the literal and inferential comprehension of skilled and less skilled readers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 761–781.
20.
GraesserA. C.PersonN. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104–137.
21.
GrantA.GottardoA.GevaE. (2011). Reading in English as a first or second language: The case of grade 3 Spanish, Portuguese, and English speakers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 67–83.
22.
HallC. (2016). Inference instruction for struggling readers: A synthesis of intervention research. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 1–22.
23.
HallC.RobertsG. J.ChoE.McCulleyL. V.CarrollM.VaughnS. (2017). Reading instruction for English learners in the middle grades: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 763–794.
24.
HwangJ. K.LawrenceJ. F.MoE.SnowC. E. (2015). Differential effects of a systematic vocabulary intervention on adolescent language minority students with varying levels of English proficiency. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(3), 314–332.
25.
KenaG.Musu-GilletteL.RobinsonJ.WangX.RathbunA.ZhangJ.. . . Dunlop VelezE. (2015). The condition of education 2015 (NCES 2015-144). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
26.
KiefferM. J. (2008). Catching up or falling behind? Initial English proficiency, concentrated poverty, and the reading growth of language minority learners in the United States. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 851–868.
27.
KiefferM. J. (2011). Converging trajectories reading growth in language minority learners and their classmates, kindergarten to grade 8. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1187–1225.
28.
KintschW. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.
29.
KintschW.van DijkT. A. (1978). Towards a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.
30.
KuleszP. A.FrancisD. J.BarnesM. A.FletcherJ. M. (2016). The influence of properties of the test and their interactions with reader characteristics on reading comprehension: An explanatory item response study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 1078–1097. doi:10.1037/edu0000126
31.
LawrenceJ. F.CapotostoL.Branum-MartinL.WhiteC.SnowC. E. (2012). Language proficiency, home-language status, and English vocabulary development: A longitudinal follow-up of the Word Generation program. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(3), 437–451.
32.
LeeC. D.SpratleyA. (2010). Reading in the disciplines: The challenges of adolescent literacy. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
33.
LesauxN. K. (2006). Development of literacy. In AugustD.ShanahanT. (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 75–122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
LesauxN. K.KiefferM. J. (2010). Exploring sources of reading comprehension difficulties among language minority learners and their classmates in early adolescence. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 596–632.
35.
LesauxN. K.KiefferM. J.KelleyJ. G.HarrisJ. R. (2014). Effects of academic vocabulary instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence from a randomized field trial. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 1159–1194.
36.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
37.
MacGinitieW. H.MacGinitieR. K.MariaK.DreyerL.HughesK. E. (2000). Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.
38.
McKeownM. G.BeckI. L. (2003). Taking advantage of read-alouds to help children make sense of decontextualized language. In van KleeckA.StahlA. A.BauerE. B. (Eds.), On reading books to children: Parents and teachers (6th ed., pp. 159–176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
McNamaraD. S.MaglianoJ. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51, 297–384.
40.
MenkenK.KleynT.ChaeN. (2012). Spotlight on “long-term English language learners”: Characteristics and prior schooling experiences of an invisible population. International Multilingual Research Journal, 6, 121–142.
41.
NakamotoJ.LindseyK. A.ManisF. R. (2007). A longitudinal analysis of English language learners’ word decoding and reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 20, 691–719.
42.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). The nation’s report card: 2015 mathematics and reading assessments. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
43.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). English language learner (ELL) students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools, by grade, home language, and selected student characteristics: Selected years, 2008-09 through fall 2014 (Table 204.27). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_204.27.asp
44.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author.
45.
OakhillJ.CainK. (2012). The precursors of reading ability in young readers: Evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 91–121.
46.
OlsenL. (2010). Reparable harm: Fulfilling the unkept promise of educational opportunity for California’s long-term English learners. Long Beach, CA: Californians Together.
47.
OlsenL. (2014). Meeting the unique needs of long term English language learners. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
48.
PalacioR. J. (2012). Wonder. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
49.
Pearson (2012). Stanford English Language Proficiency Test. New York, NY: Author.
50.
Pearson (2015). Test of English Language Learning. New York, NY: Author.
51.
PerfettiC.StafuraJ. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 22–37.
52.
ReedD. K.LynnD. (2016). The effects of an inference-making strategy taught with and without goal setting. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39, 133–145.
53.
Renaissance Learning. (2015). The research foundation for accelerated reader 360. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author.
54.
Richards-TutorC.BakerD. L.GerstenR.BakerS. K.SmithJ. M. (2016). The effectiveness of reading interventions for English learners: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 82(2), 144–169.
55.
Riverside Publishing, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (2010). Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey–Revised. Rolling Meadows, IL: Author.
56.
ScammaccaN. K.RobertsG.VaughnS.StuebingK. K. (2013). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in Grades 4-12: 1980-2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 369–390.
57.
SpencerM.QuinnJ. M.WagnerR. K. (2014). Specific reading comprehension disability: Major problem, myth, or misnomer?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29, 3–9.
58.
SpencerM.WagnerR. K. (2017). The comprehension problems for second-language learners with poor reading comprehension despite adequate decoding: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 40, 199–217.
59.
SwansonH. L. (2000). Issues facing the field of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23(1), 37–50.
60.
TigheE. L.SchatschneiderC. (2014). A dominance analysis approach to determining predictor importance in third, seventh, and tenth grade reading comprehension skills. Reading and Writing, 27, 101–127.
61.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (2012). TOWRE: Test of word reading efficiency, 2nd edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
62.
VaughnS.FletcherJ. M. (2012). Response to intervention with secondary school students with reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 244–256.
63.
VaughnS.WanzekJ. (2014). Intensive interventions in reading for students with reading disabilities: Meaningful impacts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29, 46–53.
64.
WiigE. H.SemelE.SecordW. A. (2013). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals, fifth edition (CELF-5). Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.
65.
WolfeM. B.WoodwykJ. M. (2010). Processing and memory of information presented in narrative or expository texts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 341–362.
66.
YuillN.OakhillJ. (1988). Effects of inference awareness training on poor reading comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2, 33–45.
