The Effects of Inference Instruction on the Reading Comprehension of English Learners with Reading Comprehension Difficulties [Inference instruction intervention vs. business as usual]
Hall, Colby; Vaughn, Sharon; Barnes, Marcia A.; Stewart, Alicia A.; Austin, Christy R.; Roberts, Greg (2020). Remedial and Special Education, v41 n5 p259-270. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1266300
-
examining78Students, grades6-7
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Reading intervention (Hall et al. (2019)))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
CELF-5 metalinguistics, making inferences subtest |
Reading intervention (Hall et al. (2019)) vs. Accelerated Reader |
2 Weeks |
Full sample: inference instruction vs. BAU;
|
9.52 |
9.15 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
CELF-5 metalinguistics, making inferences subtest |
Reading intervention (Hall et al. (2019)) vs. Accelerated Reader |
2 Weeks |
English learners: inference instruction vs. BAU;
|
8.91 |
9.25 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Reading Comprehension subtest |
Reading intervention (Hall et al. (2019)) vs. Accelerated Reader |
2 Weeks |
Full sample: inference instruction vs. BAU;
|
91.84 |
86.65 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Making Inferences Reading Test |
Reading intervention (Hall et al. (2019)) vs. Accelerated Reader |
2 Weeks |
Full sample: inference instruction vs. BAU;
|
17.93 |
17.72 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Reading Comprehension subtest |
Reading intervention (Hall et al. (2019)) vs. Accelerated Reader |
2 Weeks |
English learners: inference instruction vs. BAU;
|
91.74 |
86.98 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Making Inferences Reading Test |
Reading intervention (Hall et al. (2019)) vs. Accelerated Reader |
2 Weeks |
English learners: inference instruction vs. BAU;
|
18.60 |
17.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Stanford Achievement Test Math (SAT-10): Reading Vocabulary subtest |
Reading intervention (Hall et al. (2019)) vs. Accelerated Reader |
2 Weeks |
Full sample: inference instruction vs. BAU;
|
636.71 |
633.80 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Stanford Achievement Test Math (SAT-10): Reading Vocabulary subtest |
Reading intervention (Hall et al. (2019)) vs. Accelerated Reader |
2 Weeks |
English learners: inference instruction vs. BAU;
|
639.66 |
630.46 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
77% English language learners -
Female: 50%
Male: 49% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Texas
-
Race Asian 1% Black 3% Native American 3% Other or unknown 1% White 92% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 96% Not Hispanic or Latino 4%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in an urban public charter school in Texas. The school served students in grades 6 through 9.
Study sample
The study sample comprised 6th- and 7th-grade students who were below-average readers. The average age was 12.6 years. Within the analytic sample (n=78), 96 percent of students were Hispanic, and 77 percent had limited English proficiency (LEP). Students were identified as LEP if they had a score on a test approved by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) indicating LEP. Ninety-seven percent of the students in the analytic sample received free or reduced-price lunch, and 11.5 percent received special education services. Across the sample, 3 percent of students were Black, 3 percent were American Indian, 1 percent were Asian, and 92 percent were White.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The inference instruction intervention was delivered over a period of 14 weeks to small groups of three to six students. Each small group participated in 24, 40-minute sessions each delivered 2 to 3 times per week. Students received reading instruction from the study’s lead author, or two other tutors. The text selected for the inference instruction was “Wonder” (Palacio, 2012), which has a Lexile® level of 790L. At the start of each of the first 10 intervention sessions, students received explicit instruction in generating a specific type of inference such as noticing gaps and/or lack of coherence in text, identifying clue words or phrases, and integrating information from knowledge with information in text. Tutors modeled generating each type of inference covered during the session while reading a passage from Wonder. Tutors then engaged students in guided practice using the same passage or a subsequent passage followed by students reading Wonder independently with a partner or in a small group for the remainder of the session. For the first 10 sessions, students read aloud whereas for the remaining 14 sessions they were instructed to read at least every other page silently.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group participated in business-as-usual instruction provided by the school. This consisted of 90 minutes of work with Accelerated Reader 2 to 3 times per week. Students read books that they selected and took quizzes that consisted of comprehension questions to demonstrate their comprehension of what they read.
Support for implementation
Students in the intervention group received reading instruction from the study’s lead author (a doctoral candidate) and two additional tutors (both doctoral students) each with at least five years’ experience teaching students. The lead author developed the intervention materials and protocols, and provided four hours of training to the tutors prior to the start of the study.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).