Inference Types in Instructional Materials for Elementary Students

References

• Anderson, R. C., Pearson, P. D., (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. M. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–291). New York, NY: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Bishop, G. (2008). A howling success! Ranger Rick, 48(11), 2.
   Google Scholar
• Cave, H. (1980). Two were left. In J. Hancock & C. Steben (Eds.), Building reading skills, Level 2. Evanston, IL: McDougal, Littell.
   Google Scholar
• Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.
   Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., Li, H., & Feng, S. (2015). Constructing inferences in naturalistic reading contexts. In E. J. O’Brien, A. E. Cook, & R. F. Lorch (Eds.), Inferences during reading (pp. 290–320). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman, J. V., Wilson, M. B., Martinez, R. A., & Sailors, M. (2011). Content analysis: The past, present, and future. In N. K. Duke & M. H. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies (2nd ed., pp. 28–49). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127–160. doi:10.1007/BF00401799
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. (2009). Journeys. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
   Google Scholar
• Keene, E.O., & Zimmermann, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Kendeou, P. (2015). A general inference skill. In E. J. O’Brien, A. E. Cook, & R. F. Lorch (Eds.), Inferences during reading (pp. 160–181). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction–integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (2013). Revisiting the construction–integration model of text comprehension and its implications for teachers. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 807–839). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
   Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–394. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGraw-Hill Education. (2017). Wonders. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
   Google Scholar
• McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99(3), 440–466. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.440
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison, T.G., Wilcox, B., Murdoch,E., & Bird, L. (2018). Textual demands of passages in three English/language arts common core assessments and one core literacy program for intermediate grades. Reading Psychology, 39(4), 362–383.
   Google Scholar
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors.
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien, E. J., Cook, A. E., & Lorch, R. F. (Eds.). (2015). Inferences during reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. (2017). PARCC English language arts/literacy assessment. Retrieved from https://parcc.pearson.com/practice-tests/english/
   Google Scholar
• Pearson, P. D. (2009). The roots of reading comprehension instruction. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 3–31). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510–519. doi:10.1598/RT.58.6.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension strategies instruction: A turn-of-the-century status report. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 11–27). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Rasinski, T. V., Reutzel, D. R., Chard, D., & Linan-Thompson, S., (2011). Reading fluency. In M. L. Kamil, P. D., Pearson, E. B., Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading instruction (Vol. IV, pp. 286–319). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Reutzel, D. R. (1985). Reconciling schema theory and the basal reading lesson. The Reading Teacher, 39(2), 194–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenblatt, L. M. (2013). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 923–956). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
   Google Scholar
• Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. J. (2013). Reading as a motivated meaning-construction-process: The reader, the text, and the teacher. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1015–1068). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
   Google Scholar
• Sadoski, M., & Pavio, A. (2001). Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2017). Smarter Balanced English language arts/literacy summative assessment. Retrieved from https://www.smarterbalanced.org/assessments/
   Google Scholar
• Snow, C. (2003). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
   Google Scholar
• Trabasso, T., & Bouchard, E. (2002). Teaching readers how to comprehend text strategically. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 176–200). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Van Allsburg, C. (1993). The sweetest fig. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Van den Brock, P., Becker, K., & Oudega, M. (2015). Inference generation in text comprehension: Automatic and strategic processes in the construction of a mental representation. In E. J. O’Brien, A. E. Cook, & R. F. Lorch (Eds.), Inferences during reading (pp. 94–121). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wharton-McDonald, R., & Swiger, S. (2009). Developing higher-order comprehension in the middle grades. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 510–530). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar