Inference HOOEY: Part One

1. "Take what the text says, add it to your schema: You've made an inference!"

2. "It says _____________. I say _______________. So ________________."

3. "Read between the lines."

Tadah. Problem solved. Unless it isn't. These three statements are some of the most common things I have used to teach inference. But I don't think those things help someone make an inference.

Let's take the first statement as an example. Here's a perfect example about why that statement doesn't really help.

"The procedure is quite simple. First you arrange things into different groups. Of course, one pile may be sufficient depending on how much there is to do. If you have to go somewhere else due to a lack of facilities, that is the next step. Otherwise, you are pretty well set. It is important not to overdo things. That is, it is better to do too few things at once than too many. In the short run this may not seem important, but complications can easily arise. A mistake can be expensive as well. At first the whole procedure will seem complicated. Soon, however, it will become just another facet of life" (Bransford & Johnson, 1972, p. 722). 

I'm not having a problem at all with what the text says at all. I can read and understand all of the words. But I have absolutely no idea what it is talking about. My schema says that you can sort lots of things into groups. But I don't have any clarity here about how to make a decision about the kinds or numbers of groups. That I can use only one group after being told to make different groups is confusing. Facilities? Are we talking about the restroom now? At this point, I begin skimming to see if anything is going to make sense. I chuckle a little when I get to the part about the procedure being complicated. Yep. Sorting out this paragraph is a little too complicated and the irony makes me grimace.

But one word changes it all: Laundry. Read it again. Because you have a schema  and the vocabulary for the term and concept of laundry, you almost don't have to read it again. But what if you're from Burma and your family doesn't wash clothes like that? What if you are 7 and you haven't ever done laundry? You have what the text says, you add it to your schema, and you got nothin. No inference.

Which brings us back to why saying that first statement to kids is HOOEY. Sometimes kids don't have the same funds of knowledge or schema as the rest of us. Then when the rest of the class exclaims their comprehension lightbulbs as the word laundry is revealed, these kids wonder what's wrong with them. They think they can't infer. Even worse, they think they are dumb. Hooey! Sure they can infer. They  certainly aren't the dumb ones; we aren't helping them infer with that statement. We might as well add "Abracadabra: You made an inference!" because our instructional approach didn't identify the magic of what happens in the brain when readers make an inference.

Now, let's examine that second prompt that's supposed to reveal how inferences are made. The text said a lot of stuff about a procedure. I can tell that it's supposed to be advice because it warns us not to "overdo things" and that it is "better to do too few things" rather than too much. I know that I'd better be careful or it's going to cost me a lot of money. ALL of those are inferences. But they aren't helping me arrive at the what this passage is about. These inferences give me a general idea of what's going on in the text, but I have no idea whether this is talking about choosing a date or a recipe. I can't fully comprehend the text. And if I am asked a multiple choice question, I'm going to have to guess. This instructional approach is also Hooey.

The last statement, telling people to read between the lines is just as obtuse. Perhaps even more so. It's an idiom that asks the thinker to make a decision about something that isn't there. At least not explicitly or openly. Metaphors and language can be powerful tools in teaching abstract concepts. But does it really work here as a set of instructions that guide the reader in exactly how that thinking process is completed? I can try to reread the passage and see if I can discover something that is not openly present. I can reread and see if there is something not explicitly stated. So, I'm rereading to find the nothing that I didn't see when I read it in the first place? Hooey!

Bransford, J.D., & Johnson, M.K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717-726.