ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research)

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

Zabanpazhuhi

Author Index

Keyword Index

News

Journal Metrics

Publication Ethics

Editorial Board

Aims and Scope

Indexing and Abstracting

FAQ

Related Links

About Journal

Peer Review Process

Executive staff

Subject Areas

Guide for Authors

Editing English articles

Conflict of interest of the author

Commitment

Publons Registration Guide

Reviewers Journal in 1999

Reviewers 2020

List of 2021 Reviewers2021

List of 2021 Reviewers 2022

Reviewers Journal 2023

Investigating the use of inference-making strategy in reading comprehension: Evidence from strong and weak Persian students in terms of reading comprehension

Document Type : Research

Authors

1 PhD in General Linguistics. Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate professor of Linguistics, Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

Abstract

 

INTRODUCTION

The ultimate goal of language processing while reading is the comprehension of written text, which requires the simultaneous interaction of cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Inference-making is a cognitive strategy that could be defined as using two or more parts of the text information to enable comprehension of implicit information in the text. The cognitive strategies are operational plans used to process the text through words' recognition, combining propositions to obtain the semantic structure of the text, and finally drawing a situation model of the affairs as presented in the text (Kintsch & Van Dijk, 1978). Inference-making is one of the cognitive strategies of reading comprehension, which could be defined as the ability to use two or more parts of the text information to get its implicates (Silagi, et.al. 2015, p. 8). An inference could be either simple like recognizing the reference of a pronoun, or so complex. In fact, it could be said that during the reading comprehension, the reader turns the sentences with a hidden and seemingly incoherent meaning into a coherent one using various inferences. Inference making is one of the main topics in psycholinguistic studies. From this perspective, it is a cognitive strategy through which the reader goes through the text to extract its implied meaning based on two sources of information, i.e., "the propositional content of the text" (the information explicitly stated) and the "prior knowledge." Most of the information extracted from the text is not directly comprehensible through reading but is possible through inference making and text comprehension at high levels. Therefore, inference making helps to create a coherent representation of text by creating a conceptual relation between its different parts (Chikalanga, 1992, p. 699). Considering the above explanations, it could be said that the cognitive strategies enable the reader to activate his/her prior knowledge based on the text and to create a mental representation that facilitates reading comprehension. This mental representation should be enriched enough to provide a deeper understanding of the apparent meaning of the text. Such enrichment could be done through strategies, such as inference making as well as using the text structure' knowledge. The main purpose of this study was to investigate the difference in the use of inference-making strategy (coherent and elaborative) in reading comprehension among the MA students with weak and strong reading comprehension abilities. Accordingly, in this research work, there was one main hypothesis and two sub-hypotheses.
 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was a quasi-experimental type. The independent variables of this study were the participants' level of reading comprehension (with both weak and strong levels) and the type of inference (with two levels of coherent and elaborative). The dependent variable was their score in the inference-making test.
The research sample consisted of 100 MA Persian speaking students of the University of Guilan; they were selected by convenience sampling method. First, the researcher-made placement test was conducted to divide the participants into two groups with weak and strong reading comprehension. The test's validity and reliability have been confirmed in the previous study (Ghavami et al., 2020). In the next step, the researcher-made inference-making test was distributed among them. This test consists of 4 texts and 16 questions. Each text has 4 questions, two of which are related to coherence inference-making and two are related to elaborative one. Then, five experts checked the content validity of the test. Its test's reliability was computed using Cronbach’s alpha. The alpha coefficient of the test was 0.72, showing that the test has rather good reliability. Finally, data were analyzed using MANOVA and independent samples t-test.
 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results showed a significant difference between MA students with weak and strong reading comprehension according to inference-making strategy, as the strong students use more inference-making strategies. More detailed analysis showed a significant difference between the graduate students with weak and strong reading comprehension regarding the coherent inference making and the elaborative one.
 
4.CONCLUSION
The significant difference between the students with strong and weak reading comprehension (in terms of using the inference making strategy) and outperformance of the strong group compared to the weak group were consistent with the findings of Cain et al. (2001) and Silagi et al., (2015). The findings of this study, theoretically, as one of the first works in using inference making strategy in reading comprehension among literate Persian-speaking adults, could somehow fill in the informational gap in the related literature in Iran. From the educational point of view, the results of this research could provide valuable information on Persian Graduate students' different inference-making strategies for those involved in higher education and planning, including instructors, educational psychologists, and curriculum developing experts.
 

Keywords

References
  1. Atkinson, L. (2014). A longitudinal investigation of the social, cognitive and social cognitive predictors of reading comprehension) Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Roehampton, Roehampton, London.
  2. Bayat, N., & Çetinkaya, G. (2020). The relationship between inference skills and reading comprehension. Education and Science, 1, 1-14.
  3. Beeman M.J., Bowden E.M., Gernsbacher M.A. (2000). Right and left hemisphere cooperation for drawing predictive and coherence inferences during normal story comprehension. Brain and Language, 71(2), 310-336.
  4. Bowyer‐Crane, C., & Snowling, M.J. (2005). Assessing children's inference generation: What do tests of reading comprehension measure? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 189-201.
  5. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing, 11(5-6), 489-503.
  6. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (2006). Profiles of children with specific reading comprehension difficulties. BritishJjournal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 683-696.
  7. Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., & Bryant, P. E. (2004). Children's reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31-42.
  8. Cain, k., Oakhill, J., Barnes, M. & Bryant, P. E. (2001). Comprehension skill, inference making ability, and the relation to knowledge. Journal of Memory and cognition, 29, 850-59.
  9. Casteel, M. A., & Simpson, G. B. (1991). Textual coherence and the development of inferential generation skills. Journal of Research in Reading, 14(2), 116-129.
  10. Chikalanga, I. (1992). A suggested taxonomy of inferences for the reading teacher. Reading in a foreign language, 8(2), 697-709.
  11. Cook A.E., Limber J.E., O'Brien, E.J. (2001). Situation-based context and the availability of predictive inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(2), 220-234.
  12. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3nd ed.). New York: Sage Publications.
  13. Creswell, W.J., & Creswell, J.D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches  (5nd ed.). New York: Sage Publications.
  14. Day, R., & Park. J.S. (2005). Developing reading comprehension questions. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17(1), 60-67.
  15. Elbro, C., & Buch-Iversen, I. (2013). Activation of background knowledge for inference making: Effects on reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(6), 435-452.
  16. Franks, B. A. (1998). Logical inference skills in adult reading comprehension: Effects of age and formal education. Educational Gerontology: An International Quarterly, 24(1), 47-68.
  17. Ghavami Lahij, S., Danaye Tous, M., Tahriri, A., Rabi, A. (2020). Developing and preliminary implementation of adults reading comprehension placement test: Evidence from University of Guilan M.A. students. Journal of Language Research i, 11(33), 265-297 [In Persian].
  18. Griffith, P. L., & Ruan, J. (2005). What is metacognition and Wwat should be its role in literacy instruction? In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L. Bauserman, and K. Kinnucan Welsch (Eds), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 3-18). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associats Publishers.
  19. Johnston, A. M., Barnes, M. A., & Desrochers, A. (2008). Reading comprehension: Developmental processes, individual differences, and interventions. Canadian Psychology, 49(2), 125-132. doi:10.1037/0708-5591.49.2.125.
  20. Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., Helder, A., & Karlsson, J. (2014). A cognitive view of reading comprehension: Implications for reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(1), 10-16. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12025.
  21. Kintsch, W., & Van Dijke, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
  22. Landi, N., & Ryherd, K. (2017). Understanding specific reading comprehension deficit: A review. Language and Linguistics Compass, 11(2), 1-24.
  23. Lehman-Blake, M.T., & Tompkins C.A. (2001). Predictive inferencing in adults with right hemisphere brain damage. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44(3), 639-654.
  24. Lynch J.S., Broek P.W., Kremer K.E., Kendeou P., White M.J. & Lorch E.P. (2008). The development of narrative comprehension and its relation to other early reading skills. Reading Psychology, 29(4), 327-365.
  25. Maleki, S. & Ahmadi, S. (2014). Checking the reading literacy rates of the fourth grade of elementary students of Shahriyar city and the comparison with the average student performance of the fourth grade of elementary students in the whole country. Research in Curriculum Planning, 10(12), 69-79 [In Persian].
  26. Mirzaei Hesarian, M. B. (2011). Reading comprehension of Persian texts (for advanced level Persian learners). Qazvin: Imam Khomeini International University Press [In Persian].
  27. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (2017). Adults with poor reading skills and the inferences they make during reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(4), 292-309.
  28. Najafi Paazoki, M. (2014). Teaching how to improve reading comprehension: One way of increasing Iranian students' scores on PIRLS. QJOE. 30 (3), 45-72 [In Persian].
  29. Namdari Pezhman, M. & Kiamanesh, A. (2011). Relationship Individual and family factors with cognitive dimensions reading comprehension of primary Iranian students in PIRS 2006, Journal of Curriculum Studies ), 6 (20), 37- 57 [In Persian].
  30. Oakhill, J. (1983). Instantiation in skilled and less skilled comprehenders. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35(3), 441–450.
  31. Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & Elbro, C. (2014). Understanding and teaching reading comprehension: a handbook. London: Routledge.
  32. Oakhill, J. V., & Yuill, N. (1986). Pronoun resolution in skilled and less‐skilled comprehenders: Effects of memory load and inferential complexity. Language and Speech, 1, 25–37.
  33. O'brien, E.J., Shank, D.M., Myers, J.L., & Rayner, K. (1988). Elaborative inferences during reading: Do they occur on-line?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 410-420.
  34. Oslund, E. L., Clemens, N. H., Simmons, D. C., & Simmons, L. E. (2018). The direct and indirect effects of word reading and vocabulary on adolescents’ reading comprehension: Comparing struggling and adequate comprehenders. Reading and Writing, 31(2), 355-379.
  35. Preffeti, C. A., Landi, N. & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension.  In M. S. Snowling & C. Humle (Eds), The science of reading: A hand book (pp. 227-253). Oxford: Blockwell.
  36. Silagi, M. L., Romero, V. U., Mansur, L. L., & Radanovic, M. (2015). Inference comprehension during reading: Influence of age and education in normal adults. Codas, 26(5), 407-414.
  37. Silva, M., & Cain, K. E. (2015). The relations between lower and higher level comprehension skills and their role in prediction of early reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 321–331.
  38. Tarchi, C. (2015). Fostering reading comprehension of expository texts
    through the activation of readers’ prior knowledge and inference-making skills. International Journal of Educational Research, 72, 80–88.
  39. Vakili, M., & Masihkhah, H. (2012). Educational talent. Tehran: Khaneh Farhang Publications [In Persian]
ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research)
Volume 14, Issue 42 - Serial Number 42
March 2022
Pages 97-123
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics