Making Inferences¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 4 studies (2 quant-synthesis, 1 causal, 1 associational), q2–q4 · 1 of 4 report an effect size

Description¶

Making inferences requires readers to draw conclusions from information in a text that the author does not explicitly state. Readers combine textual clues with their own background knowledge to "read between the lines," building a coherent situation model of what the text describes. Because authors routinely leave connections unstated, comprehension depends on the reader actively generating these bridging inferences rather than passively decoding stated propositions Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. [+S].

Design Implications¶

Inference-making is a teachable skill, not merely a byproduct of reading volume: explicit instruction in identifying clues, activating relevant knowledge, and verbalizing the inference improves comprehension, especially for weaker readers Activation of background knowledge for inference making. [+S]. Instruction works best when teachers model the reasoning process aloud and then fade support as learners generate and justify their own inferences.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Texts that genuinely contain implicit information worth inferring — not everything should be stated
• Instructor modeling of inference-making (Think-Aloud or narrated reasoning) before independent practice
• Sufficient background knowledge to combine with textual clues; Activation of that knowledge before reading
• Opportunities to generate inferences and receive feedback on their plausibility (Class Discussion, Coaching)

Constraints¶

• Learners lacking relevant background knowledge cannot fill the gaps the author left; the strategy fails when the knowledge base is absent rather than merely inactive [~S]
• Inaccurate or biased background knowledge produces confident but wrong inferences — learners may impose a familiar schema on text that contradicts it [~M]
• Overly literal readers who treat inference questions as recall questions, or learners who infer wildly without textual anchoring, both need explicit criteria for what counts as a warranted inference [-W]
• Working-memory demands are high: holding textual clues in mind while retrieving and integrating prior knowledge can overload novice readers; Chunking the text into shorter segments mitigates this [~M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Bridging inferences (connecting ideas across the text) versus elaborative inferences (adding world knowledge beyond the text) — bridging inferences have the stronger evidence base for comprehension gains [+S]
• Graphic organizers, clue-and-conclusion frames, or question generation ("Why did the character do that? What must be true?")
• Applied beyond reading: Case Study analysis, data interpretation, and Argumentation all require the same clue-plus-knowledge reasoning

Target Learners¶

• Struggling readers in upper elementary through secondary school, who often decode well but fail to build coherent situation models Activation of background knowledge for inference making. [+S]
• Adult learners improving reading comprehension and critical thinking
• Less effective as a standalone intervention for learners whose difficulty is word recognition rather than comprehension — decoding must be largely automatic first [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Reading comprehension: constructing meaning from implicit information
• Critical thinking: evaluating evidence and justifying conclusions
• Knowledge integration: connecting new text information with existing knowledge Self-explanation improves conceptual understanding. [+S]

Instructions¶

1. Select a text with genuine implicit content and identify the target inferences in advance.
2. Activate relevant background knowledge before reading (Activation, Advance Organizers).
3. Model inference-making aloud on a short excerpt, verbalizing the clue, the knowledge brought to bear, and the resulting conclusion (Think-Aloud).
4. Have learners generate inferences individually or in pairs, citing the textual evidence supporting each (Individual Response).
5. Discuss and evaluate inferences as a group, distinguishing well-supported from speculative ones (Class Discussion).
6. Fade support across texts until learners generate and self-check inferences independently.

Related Strategies¶

• Activating Prior Knowledge — supplies the knowledge component that inferences combine with textual clues
• Annotating — marking clues and questions in the text externalizes the inference process
• Question Generation — learners who pose "why" and "how" questions prompt their own inferencing
• Prompt children's underspecified inference responses to reveal their comprehension potential and model the standard of coherence required
• Teach three collaboration strategies for drawing collaborative inferences: information connection, information pooling, and information take-up
• Three-step procedure for adding linking changes to scientific texts

Examples¶

• In a story where a character is repeatedly late and unprepared, learners infer disorganization from the accumulated details plus their own experience — then must cite which details warrant the conclusion.
• Reciprocal Teaching (Palincsar & Brown) — small-group reading routine in which students take turns predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing, generating bridging inferences with peer feedback.
• Elbro & Buch-Iversen's inference training — Danish poor readers taught to activate background knowledge and verbalize inferences showed significant comprehension gains over controls.
• Case-based learning in business or medicine — diagnosing the underlying problem from incomplete case facts is inference-making applied to professional reasoning.

Key Sources¶

• Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371–395. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371
• Elbro, C., & Buch-Iversen, I. (2013). Activation of background knowledge for inference making: Effects on poor readers' comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(4), 249–265. doi:10.1080/10888438.2013.774005
• Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1991). Children's problems in reading comprehension: An experimental investigation. Cambridge University Press.
• McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51, 297–384.
• Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1