When NAPLAN shows you need to improve inferring

I’ve noticed a bit of a pattern lately… schools are starting to analyse their NAPLAN reading data and are coming up with the same conclusion- our students struggle to infer.

This has teachers asking, “What’s the best way to teach inferring?”

BUT... what if I told you this is the wrong question?

You see, our understanding of comprehension has changed, and research now suggests we should be asking a different question.

Because inferring quite isn’t quite as straightforward as we used to believe it was.

The old way

In the old version of teaching comprehension –what I call 'comprehension 1.0'– we usually devoted a block of time to ‘teaching’ inferring, we’d model how to locate clues in a text and combine these with our own background knowledge to make ‘educated guesses’ on how characters felt, what was happening in the text, etc. We’d get students to practice the ‘skill’ of inferring by answering inferential questions on texts that we'd selected- usually easier texts to start with, before moving on to more challenging ones.

We taught inferring this way because we believed it was a discrete skill and, if students learnt the skill, they'd be able to apply it to any text they read.

This is where the problem lies, though...

The new way

Thanks to modern comprehension research, we now understand that inferring actually isn’t a discrete skill. It’s not something that can be taught once and then simply applied to all future texts.

Instead, successful inference requires many aspects of comprehension to work together, including: background knowledge, vocabulary, syntax, verbal reasoning and the ability to build meaning across a text.

Take this sentence from Adelle Frittitta’s book, My Nonna Loves, for example:

“Nonna says, ‘Our sauce is buonissimo because we made it together.’”

Imagine students were asked, "What does this tell us about how Nonna feels about cooking with her family?”

To answer this question successfully, students need much more than simply knowing how to ‘make an inference’ (text + background knowledge). They need to:

• understand that the book celebrates the special moments the narrator shares with her Nonna (meaning across the text)
• recognise that each page describes another positive experience they have together (text structure)
• use this context to infer that ‘buonissimo’ expresses something positive- even if they don't know the Italian word (vocabulary and verbal reasoning)
• understand that Nonna is saying the sauce is special because they all made it together (background knowledge + verbal reasoning) 
• infer that Nonna values spending time creating food and memories with her family. 

If a student answers this question incorrectly, it's not neccesarily because they "can't infer", it's usually because there's a break down in one (or more) of the building blocks of comprehension.

This also means that we can no longer treat all inferential questions as though they rely on the same underlying skill. Every inferential question draws on a different combination of comprehension processes. One might depend heavily on background knowledge, while another relies on vocabulary, syntax or the ability to connect ideas across the text. 

Inference is the product of successful comprehension, not a comprehension strategy that can be taught in isolation.

Which brings us back to NAPLAN…

A better question

When students struggle with inferential questions, it's tempting to think that you need to spend more time ‘teaching’ inferring.

But instead, you should treat each question uniquely and ask why this particular inference was difficult for your students.

• Did it require background knowledge that they didn’t have?
• Was there unknown vocabulary tripping them up?
• Were the sentences too syntactically complex?
• Or was it something else?

So, rather than asking:

"How do we teach inferring?"

You need to be asking:

"What does a student need to know and understand in order to make this inference?"

Answering this question requires much more than downloading a list of ready-made activities or working through an inferring slide deck. It requires deep teacher content knowledge of the building blocks that underpin reading comprehension: what they are, why they're important, how they contribute to comprehension, and how to teach them. 

When teachers have this deep understanding of comprehension, they're better able to identify why an inferential question is difficult and make better instructional decisions as a result. They can adapt lessons, respond to students' misconceptions and make better use of the resources already in front of them.

Remember: Teacher content knowledge is what transforms a resource from a script into an instructional tool.

This is exactly why I created my online course, The Comprehension Rethink.

The course takes a deep dive into the research-based building blocks that underpin successful comprehension: background knowledge, vocabulary, syntax, verbal reasoning and text structure.

Through the classic Oz Lit combination of theory plus practical classroom application, you’ll develop the teacher content knowledge required to diagnose why students struggle with comprehension and, more importantly, what to do about it.

Essentially, by the end of the course, you'll have stopped asking, "How do I teach inferring?" and started asking, "What does this text require a reader to know and understand in order to make this inference?"

The Term 3 intake of the Comprehension Rethink starts TOMORROW (July 28th).

Click here to learn more: https://www.ozlitteacher.com.au/thecomprehensionrethink 

Related Blog Posts 

• Teaching vs. Presenting. What's the Difference?

• 5 Steps to Improving Your School's NAPLAN data

• 3 Common Change Leadership Mistakes In Schools