Schematic, Grounded, and Probable Inference: Which one wins the STAAR chicken dinner?

 

Schematic Inference: When students make schematic inferences to answer questions on standardized assessments, it is problematic. 

Evidence: You see your friend with a broken arm. (concrete evidence) You know your friend plays football. (your personal schema). 

You infer that your friend broke their arm playing football (Schematic, predictive inference.) While it is probable that your friend broke their arm playing football, there is no concrete, text evidence to state that is how he broke his arm. This kind of thinking is not suitable for assessment situations. 

Grounded Inference: When students ground their inferences by interpreting text evidence, they are using a viable strategy for assessment success. 

Evidence: Sammy limped into the sidelines, cradling his crooked wrist against his muddy football jersey.

You infer that Sammy hurt his arm by noticing that he appears to be injured - he limps (interpretation) He also cradles, or protects (interpretation), his wrist. The wrist is crooked. Wrists are not supposed to be crooked (interpretation). 

Probable Inference: Sometimes, students go too far with the inferences. I see this habit with a lot of my gifted students. While the answer may be true, assessments to not favor this kind of thinking because it cannot be justified with the evidence on the page that all readers have access to. 

Evidence: Sammy limped into the sidelines, cradling his crooked wrist against his muddy football jersey. 

You infer that Sammy broke his arm because he slipped in the mud while playing football. 

While it is probable that Sammy slipped on the field, there is no evidence that is what caused the injury.

Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner? Grounded Inference based on interpreting evidence.