Explcit Instruction

CHAPTER I
The Problem and Its Background
Introduction
It is the set of practices that emerged from the process-product research of the 1960s
and 1970s. Briefly, researchers visited classrooms, recorded various teacher
behaviours and then looked for correlations between those behaviours and students’
academic gains.
The experimentalists note that this model emerged out of epidemiological research – a
set of correlations – rather than from experiments. This is true. But, as Rosenshine
points out, it has since been verified in a range of different contexts.
Explicit instruction is clearly not lecturing because it is highly interactive. Rosenshine
suggests asking lots of questions. This serves two purposes. Firstly, students will pay
attention if they think they might be called upon to contribute at any time. Secondly,
teachers suffer from the ‘curse of knowledge‘, a cognitive bias that makes us assume
that students understand more than they do. By constantly asking questions, we are
forced to backtrack and re-explain concepts that they haven’t grasped. It essentially
provides real-time feedback on the student’s performance. The goal of this research is
to identify how explicit instruction can help improve the contextual inferenicing strategies
of Grade 6 students from Malainen Bago Elementary School.

Statement of the Problem
This study entitled, The Effect of Explicit Instruction in Contextual Inferencing Strategies
of Grade 6 Teachers of Julugan Elementary School for SY 2017-2018: Attitudes
towards Reading, aims to identify the effects of explicit instruction tot eh ability of a
Grade 6 pupil to do contextual inferencing in his/her reading tasks. More specifically, it
iams to answer the following questions:
1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of:
1.1. Age
1.2. Sex
1.3. Civil Status
1.4. Highest Educational Attainment
1.5. Present Position
1.6. Years in Service
1.7. Number of seminars attended in Teaching
2. What are the effects of using explicit instruction to the contextual inferencing of a
student?
2.1. The use of Explicit Instruction allows students to master contextual inferencing
skill
2.2. The use of Explicit Instruction allows students to improve the reading ability of
the students
2.3. The use of Explicit Instruction allows students motivate the student to gain
positive attitude towards reading

2.4. The use of Explicit Instruction allows the teacher to discuss contextual
inferencing all the while ensuring that it ahs a positive impact on the students’s
reading skill
Theoretical Framework
This study is framed on the theory of cognitive constructivism. A review of studies on
cognitive styles shows that, as a psychological process, such styles differentiate
learners in terms of how they proceed with learning, in general, and second language,
in particular. As many studies conducted on the contribution of learning styles show
(Cakan, 2000), leaning styles can influence learners’ achievement on different fields at
school. According to Luke (2008), cognitive styles affect the way an individual
processes and transfers information and classifies newly absorbed knowledge as well
as the manner in which he/ she integrates this information with the memory structure.
Jonassen and Grabowski (1993) reviewed the literature on learning styles and classified
them as follows: 1-visualhaptic, 2-visualize-verbalize, 3-leveling-sharpening, 4-serialist-
holist, and 5- FD-FI. This study aims to investigate field dependent–field independent
style in relation with using explcit instruction to contextual inferencing to improve the
reading ability and create positive attitude to students towards reading.
One aspect of inferencing is Contextual inferencing, which involves making informed
guesses as to the meaning of a word through all available linguistic clues plus the
learner’s general knowledge of the world, the awareness of context and the related
linguistic knowledge (Haastrup, 2011). If the informed guess is successful, it can work
for purposes of instant understanding in a listening, or reading context, and under

different circumstances, it may cause retention of the word form in addition to semantic
and other lexical information (Paribakht & Wesche, 2009). Besides, according to Moran
(2011), writers, researchers, and writers of reading textbooks suggest using explicit
instruction to teach contextual inferencing as a useful strategy to improve reading ability
of a students. Also, Moran (2011) stated that the great majority of reading textbooks at
all levels since the early 2000’s feature tasks in which it needs the reader to be able to
guess the meaning of unknown words. Moreover, in top-down reading models, the
importance of contextual inferencing is highlighted (Goodman, 2006; Smith, 2008).
These models of reading emphasize the important role played by the reader, who uses
his or her knowledge to be a better reader who uses short-cuts in bottom-up processing
of letters and words. The improvement of interactive models of reading has renewed
interest in exploring lower-order reading skills (Morrison, 2006). These models allow a
great deal of communication between the divergent bottom-up and top down models
(Hudson, 2008). Three main types of cues are available for learners when making
lexical references. Carton’s (2011) taxonomy of knowledge sources comprises of three
main cue types which are contextual, intralingual, and interlingual.
On the other hand, the role of contextual cues to be helpful for word inference, Li (2008)
showed that the results of their study revealed that the use of Explicit Instruction allows
students to master contextual inferencing skill, to improve the reading ability of the
students, to motivate the student to gain positive attitude towards reading and to allow
the teacher to discuss contextual inferencing all the while ensuring that it has a positive
impact on the students’ reading skill. They also concluded that Contextual guessing is a
very difficult task due to the text complexity or the limitations of the reader, or both. But
through the use of explicit instruction contextual inferencing has been a lot easier.
Conceptual Framework
INPUT
1. What is the demographic profile of the

respondents in terms of:
1.1. Age
1.2. Sex
PROCESS
1.3. Civil Status
1.4. Highest Educational Attainment
1.5. Present Position OUTPUT
1.6. Years in Service
1.7. Number of seminars attended in Teaching
2. What are the effects of using explicit
instruction to the contextual inferencing of a student? SURVEY METHOD
2.1. The use of Explicit Instruction allows
students to master contextual inferencing skill
students to improve the reading ability of the students
students motivate the student to gain positive attitude
towards reading
2.4. The use of Explicit Instruction allows the
teacher to discuss contextual inferencing all the while
ensuring that it ahs a positive impact on the students’s
reading skill
Figure 1.1 IPO Model
The figure shows the paradigm of the study. It will involve Grade 6 Students from
Elementary School who will undergo survey method for data collection procedure in
order to obtain the effects of using explicit instruction in contextual inferencing strategies
of Grade 6 Teachers of Julugan Elementary School for SY 2017-2018: Attitudes
towards Reading
Scope and Delimitation
This study is aimed in identifying the effects of using explicit instruction in teaching
contextual inferencing to improve the ability of the student in reading. It will cover 8
Grade 6 Teachers in Julugan Elementary School for Sy 2017-2018. The study is
descriptive in nature and will apply survey method as research instrument.
Significance of the study
The results of the study will be significant to the following:
Teachers. They will have a concrete basis as to the extent of the effectivity of using
explicit instruction in teaching students to do contextual inferencing and also improve
their reading ability all at the same time.
Students. Once validated that explicit instruction can really aid in learning how to do
contextual inferencing easier, students will be able to utilize the said instruction in their
day to day reading tasks.
Future researchers. For researchers who wish to pursue the same topic they will have
a basis in Filipino setting of a study about the effects of explicit instruction and the
results of this study will guide them if they wish to pursue a research about it.
Definition of Terms
Effects- A result or change of something

CHAPTER II
Review of Related Literature
Foreign Literature
Explicit instruction is based on research studies relating to effective teaching practices.
This research aimed to identify educational interventions that were the most effective in
supporting the learning of students with learning disabilities (LDs) in the core subjects of
reading, writing and mathematics. Explicit instruction involves using highly structured
and sequenced steps to teach a specific skill. With this approach, the educator
intentionally aims to teach students with LDs using a series of actions in three main
stages: preparing for the lesson, interacting with students over the course of the lesson,
consolidating the lesson taught (Gauthier, Bissonnette & Richard, 2013).
It is important that educators take the time to prepare their lessons in advance. During
this stage, they should reflect on the anticipated learning outcomes, on the educational
activities to be performed, in the execution of the various stages, on the required
materials, on the estimated time required for each step, and how the anticipated
learning outcomes will be evaluated. Ultimately, the teacher must specify the learning
objectives they will pursue with their students with LDs: that which drives planning
activities in reverse (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2010), which consists of determining: the
anticipated results, what constitutes as evidence of learning and educational activities. It
is thus apparent that the explicit determination of learning outcomes and evidence of
learning in advance will help to facilitate the learning of students with LDs.
Over the course of the lesson, the implementation of explicit instruction, when planning
for educational activities should be adopted: the educator demonstrates to students with
LDs what they must do (modeling the practice); then guides students through a group
activity (guided or directed practice) so that students have the necessary skills to
complete the task, and then the students practice the task independently (autonomous
practice).
Bissonnette et al. (2010) published an article in The Review of Applied Research on
Learning (translated title) entitled What Teaching Strategies are Effective in Promoting
Fundamental Learning for Students with Learning Disabilities at the Elementary Level?
The article was a meta-synthesis that aimed to identify strategies that promoted
reading, writing and math skills for students with LDs who were at risk for failure. The
meta-synthesis grouped results reported in 11 meta-analyses, from 362 research
studies over a period of 40 years, involving 30 000 students with LDs at risk for failure,
both at the elementary and secondary levels. These studies were carried out using
experimental designs that permitted the researchers to establish comparisons and to
draw reliable conclusions (Bissonnette et al., 2010).
Commenting on this variety in the naming of inferences, Graesser et al. (1994)
concluded researchers in psycholinguistics and discourse processing have proposed
several taxonomies of inferences [cites eight publications] but a consensus has hardly
emerged, (p. 374). A suitable starting point is perhaps the work of the British
researchers, Cain, Oakhill and Yuill, aided over the years by numerous colleagues, who
have been studying various aspects of comprehension since the 1980s. Their distinction
(Cain and Oakhill, 1999) was between text-connecting or intersentence inferences and
gapfilling inferences. The difference they specified was that intersentence /
textconnecting inferences are necessary to establish cohesion between sentences and
involve integration of textual information. Gap-filling inferences, by contrast, make use
of information from outside the text, from the reader’s existing background knowledge.
Interestingly, in a more recent study published in 2001, these authors (like Barnes et
al.,1996; Calvo, 2004; Bowyer-Crane and Snowling, 2005 and DfES, 2006) adopted the
more current terms of coherence versus elaborative inferencing, which roughly equate
to text-connecting and gap-filling respectively. Coherence inferences maintain a
coherent text and involve adding unstated but important information such as causal
links, e.g. The rain kept Tom indoors all afternoon. In this sentence, the reader
understands that Tom wanted to go out but that the unpleasant weather conditions
prevented this. They are seen being essential to constructing meaning, and as a result,
only minimally affected by knowledge accessibility because cognitive activity will keep
going until the necessary information to make the inference is found. Elaborative
inferences embellish and amplify. As unnecessary to achieve comprehension, these
inferences will be influenced by accessibility of knowledge.
Bowyer-Crane and Snowling (2005) have also espoused the current terminology of
coherence versus elaborative inferencing in their analysis of inferential questions used
in reading tests. They extended and refined the distinctions by addingknowledge-based
and evaluative. The particular feature of the two additionalinference types was that
although they depend on the application of life experienceand outside knowledge (like
elaborative inferences) they were still deemed essentialto the understanding of text.
Knowledge-based inferences rely on the activation of a‘mediating idea’ from the

reader’s own world-knowledge, without which the text isdisjointed. Evaluative inferences
relate to the emotional outcome of the text, such asthe emotional consequences of
actions in a story. It is worth restating that theauthors view knowledge-based and
evaluative inferences as not optional tounderstanding and maintain that these
inferences have to be drawn in order toachieve comprehension.It is interesting to note
that in one of the most recently published articles in this field,Cromley and Azevedo
(2007) use none of the terms outlined above but refer insteadto text-to-text and
background-to-text inferencing which equate to the coherence ortext-connecting and
elaborative or gap-filling distinctions described above. Inaddition, they specify anaphoric
inference as a separate category on its own.Previous researchers had assigned this
type of inference to coherence or textconnectingas it generally involves cross-
referencing between synonyms or betweenpronouns and their referents.
In other studies, the dividing line has been defined in different terms. There is,
forexample, the difference between local and global (Graesser et al., 1994;
Beishuizenet al., 1999; Gygax et al., 2004) Local inferences create a coherent
representation atthe local level of sentences and paragraphs while global covers the
whole text.Graesser et al. (1994) necessitate special attention because of their
comprehensivediscussion of inference on many levels. The difference between the work
of theseresearchers and others is that they identified several ways of categorising
groups ofinference types whereas others tended to focus on a distinction on one
dimensionbetween usually (though not necessarily) two types. The categories they
recognisedincluded both text-connecting / knowledge-based and local / global. They
were,however, primarily interested in the on-line / off-line distinction, in determining

whichinferences are carried out automatically during reading (on-line) and which only
ariseif prompted (off-line). In the course of their work, they discriminated and coined
13different forms of inference, which are listed in Table 2.Interestingly Singer, who was
one of the contributors to the comprehensive taxonomyin Graesser et al. (1994), also
used the term bridging inference (Singer et al., 1992,Singer et al., 1997). This term does
not feature in the Graesser et al. taxonomy,despite its thoroughness, and adds further
evidence of the lack of consensus.Bridging inferences are cited in the Primary National
Strategy document ‘DevelopingReading Comprehension’ (DfES, 2006) as being a
common way of referring tocoherence-preserving inferences.
Different types of inferences: How many inferences are there?
While most of the work conducted focuses on distinctions between two or three typesof
inference, two studies - Graesser et al. (1994) and Pressley and Afflerbach (1995)-
stand out because of their detailed and thorough cataloguing of as many inferencesas
they were able to find. Table 2 below presents a summarised version of their lists.It
should be added that due to their method of data collection, i.e. use of the
thinkaloudprotocol, Pressley and Afflerbach described their list of inferences as those
ofwhich readers were consciously aware and which they were able to describe in
theirown words. As ‘think-aloud’ methodology involves questioning subjects
duringreading about the cognitive processes that they are carrying out, the implication
isthat there may be other inferences which readers carry out subconsciously and
whichare not therefore included in their list.There is some overlap in the two lists, such
as inferencing about characters andabout the author but the two lists reflect different
ways of looking at inference.Graesser et al. (1994) emphasise the focus of the inference
(character, theme,instrument), whereas Pressley’s list catalogues the processes
(confirming,concluding, relating).Despite the lack of unanimity about the range of
inferences, how to refer to andcategorise them, there is only one aspect that has
excited a public disagreement. Byno stretch of the imagination could this be termed a
fiercely raging debate, but it does
remain a source of contention. The divergence of opinion lies principally betweenthose
who ally themselves with Graesser et al. representing the ‘constructionist’ viewand
those that follow the ‘minimalist’ theory of McKoon and Ratcliff (1992).
Theconstructionist theory assumes that the reader is engaged in a constant ‘search
(effort) after meaning’ to build a situation model of the text that is coherent both atlocal
and global level and will draw all the inferences needed to explain why thingsare
mentioned in the text in order to achieve coherence. The minimalist view is ‘thatthere is
only a minimal automatic processing of inferences during reading…readersdo not
automatically construct inferences to fully represent the situation described bythe text’
(McKoon and Ratcliff, 1992, p. 440). According to this model, inferences thatare not
required to establish local coherence (i.e. elaborative inferences) areencoded only to
the extent that they are supported by readily available worldknowledge (Long et al.,
1996, p. 192). Long et al.’s own study did not help to settlethe issue but only concluded
that good readers carry out more inferences than theless able, as indicated in the
closing remark of their article: …Our data suggest thathigh-ability readers encode
knowledge-based inferences that low-ability readers failto encode…only high-ability
readers encode topic-related inferences. (p. 210)

As the main purpose of this review is to inform pedagogy throughout Key Stages 2and
3, the debate is largely of academic interest. The question is what practical stepscan a
teacher take to get all readers to do more of what good readers usually doautomatically
and instinctively. Even the inferences that are not usually carried outduring reading are
of interest to English teachers, as these are often those that areinvolved in literary
criticism and analysis. All inferences are therefore the subject ofthis review - whether or
not they are carried out on-line.
What are the skills involved in inference?
The first aim of this review was to uncover what is known about the different skills
ininference and deduction. One might argue that listing the plethora of inference
labelsand classes in sections 1.1 and 1.2 is not especially informative in providing
answersto the first research question posed. However, in the absence of much
evidence ofthe actual skills that readers need to be good inferencers, this information
helps toshed some light on what is involved in an inference. The same is true of the
cognitiveprocesses.While there seems to be little written about the inherent abilities and
skills involved,the literature is revealing about the processes that are thought to take
place in theinstant of inferencing and there has been research and discussion of
thepreconditions that permit inferences to happen. This section will therefore reflect
theavailable literature by outlining what is known about the cognitive processes and
theother factors that influence inferencing.
Cognitive processes involved in an inference

Although there is no consensus about which inferences are drawn consciously
orsubconsciously, automatically or strategically, the following section will
demonstratethat various experts appear to have arrived at similar conclusions about the
cognitivesteps involved in an inference.
What happens in working memory?
One of the most comprehensive works conducted in the field was that of Graesser etal.
(1994). Not only did the authors identify a large number of inference types (asseen
above), they looked at the constituent stages of inferencing and identifiedtriggering
processes that fire the production of an inference. Their analogy, in whichthey equate
inferencing to the solving of a mental syllogism, was based on Singer’smodel (Singer et
al., 1992) and is frequently reflected in the literature. They proposedthat the reader
constructs a mental syllogism, from two available premises in the text,but with a third
missing. The reader solves the syllogism by supplying the missingpremise (a ‘mediating
idea’), which is the inference. In supplying the missingpremise, the reader:
1. searches for information in the long term memory and the working memory
2. searches in other places (perhaps looking further back in the text)
3. brings the content of the working memory back into play (ie reactivates thetwo
premises that originally prompted the searches in 1 and 2)
4. checks that the inference adequately explains and agrees with the twopremises held
in the working memory.

In the work of Graesser et al. it is the importance of the capacity of the workingmemory
that becomes apparent and is taken up again and again by otherresearchers. In their
constructionist interpretation of reading, the authors believe thatsuch is the need of
readers to make sense of a text that they will even keepunsatisfactory explanations /
inferences in play, until a more plausible explanationcomes along.With text-connecting
inferences, the current clause is related to a previous explicitstatement, which is then
re-instated or re-activated and inferentially linked to thecurrent clause. In the case of
knowledge-based inferences, it is backgroundknowledge, stored in long-term memory
(such as: experiences, other texts or evenearlier sections of the current text which have
already been encoded in the long-temmemory), that becomes activated and encoded in
the meaning representation ofcurrent text. If the knowledge-based inference is directly
‘copied’ from knowledge,then this can pose little demand on working memory. If,
however, a novel knowledgebasedinference is required, the demand on the working
memory increases as itinvolve cycles of memory search and accumulating information
from multiplesources.
In their 1997 article, Singer et al. explained how coherence-preserving inferences
areconstructed using a type of equation. They suggested that the stages involved are
(p.200):
1. formulating a thought along the lines of: What idea combined with fact A(from text)
accounts for result B (in text)?
2. the mediating idea is compared with world / background knowledge in
longtermmemory
3. if the mediating idea coincides with knowledge, the inference is validated
Amongst other factors, Calvo (2004) also stressed the importance of the capacity ofthe
working memory. It has to keep active a current mental representation of therelevant
piece of text while processing subsequent information. If the workingmemory is good at
holding provisional representations, it saves times integratinginformation as reading
progresses.The only authors who diverged slightly in their view of inferencing were
Hannon andDaneman (1998), who saw it more as a process of reasoning, rather than
settlinginconsistencies or finding solutions. This is how they represented the stages
involved(p. 152):
1. identify important passage words
2. activate important facts about those words
3. do reasoning about those facts, computing relationships between thewords
4. the result is a coherent abstract discourse representation
Although they viewed inference as a different cognitive process to others
describedabove, nonetheless it is clear that the four stages outlined here impose an
equallyheavy toll on the working memory.
Triggering processes
Throughout much of the discussion above, many have chosen to express inferenceas a
need to solve or satisfy some textual inconsistency or to fill in the missing part ofa
textual equation. However, it is only in extreme cases that a reader is consciouslyaware
of carrying out an inference, let alone formulating a query in order to infer ananswer.
Competent and fluent readers generate inferences as they go along withoutconsciously
experiencing any ‘textual inconsistency’.The work of Pressley and Afflerbach (2000) has
been useful in outlining two schoolsof thought about how prior knowledge relates to the
interpretation of text. Priorknowledge will be covered in detail in section 2.2.4 below, but
it is relevant tomention here how one of these theories in particular, schema theory,
explains thetriggering of inferences. The central premise of schema theory is that much
ofknowledge is stored in complex relational structures, schemata…once some smallpart
of a schema… is encountered, the activated schema causes reasonableinferences to
be made. It is ‘top down’ because the higher order idea occurs first andaffects thinking
about the details of the situation. For this to affect text processing, areader must have
experiences permitting schemata to develop; the richer a child’sworld experiences and
vicarious experiences, the richer the child’s schematicknowledge base on which s/he
can draw (p. 549). Second, they describe the bottomup‘propositional’ theory of experts
such as Graesser et al. (1994). According to thisview, the reader processes many
individual ideas or ‘propositions’ and how the ideasare related to each other to construct
a network of propositions andmacropropositions. In order to understand the current text,
the propositions are notonly related to each other, they are related to prior knowledge.
In both models,therefore, background knowledge plays a part in constructing meaning,
but inschema theory it is also responsible for prompting the inferences that contribute
tothis process.In their comprehensive 1994 publication, Graesser et al. proposed six
triggering or‘production rules’ for firing inferences, which are listed below in Table 3.
They are‘fired’ either by something present in the text or by having reached some
threshold inworking memory that activates it. The authors maintain that all six
production rulesare evaluated and possibly fired at each comprehension cycle, as text
iscomprehended on-line, statement by statement (p. 380). The first column of the
tablelists the stimulus present in the text that ‘fires’ an inference, while the second gives
asuccinct description of the cognitive processes that ensue. In the original article,
thicolumn is followed by a third which details elaborate descriptions of the
cognitiveprocesses involved.
Preconditions to inference
In conducting this review, it was notable that many authors were interested in theprecise
cognitive steps involved in processing an inference but surprisingly few wroteabout the
initiation of an inference in the first place. The area that attracted the mostinterest
focussed on the conditions that favour inferencing and why some readersappear to infer
much more readily than others. This section will attempt to summarisethe various
factors that have been found to promote inferences.
Being an active reader
Stemming directly from the work of Graesser et al. (1994), the need to be an
activeparticipant in reading is seen as a major precondition to inferencing. Many
authorsshare the view that the reader wants to and is actively engaged in the search
formeaning and will invest effort in the search. As inferencing is a taxing
activity,imposing a demand on the working memory, being actively engaged
isindispensable, as suggested by Cain and Oakhill (1998) in this quotation about

thepossible reasons why poorer readers do not draw sufficient inferences in
theirreading: They do not see reading as an active, constructive process: It is only
whentheir incorrect answer and therefore inadequate understanding is brought to
theirattention and they are required to search for some information, that these
childrenmake such links (p. 339).
Zero tolerance of inconsistency
Part of being an active reader is constantly checking one’s own understanding. Anactive
adult reader does not normally allow inconsistencies to pass unchecked andwill fill gaps
in understanding, as they arise, without thinking about it. Cain et al.(2001) hypothesised
that skilled comprehenders may generate more inferences thando less skilled because
they regularly monitor their comprehension and see the needto make inferences to fill in
the missing details (p. 856).Over the last quarter of a century, much of the work of Cain,
Oakhill and Yuill hasconcerned the differences between good and poor comprehenders
and thedifficulties faced by those who are less successful readers. In their 1996 review
ofstudies conducted into reading comprehension difficulties, Oakhill and Yuill
lookedspecifically at comprehension monitoring, quoting the experiment conducted by
Yuill,Oakhill & Parkin (1989). They used an ‘anomaly resolution task’ with
storiescontaining an apparent inconsistency. They found all readers equally good
atresolving inconsistencies when the inconsistency and the resolving information werein
adjacent sentences, but less skilled readers’ performance declined when therelevant
pieces of information were further apart, when the demands on workingmemory
increased.
In a later appraisal of reading comprehension difficulties, Cain and Oakhill (2004)cited
the use of an ‘inconsistency detection task’ by Oakhill, Hartt and Samols (1996).They
found that poor comprehenders were less able to detect nonsense words,anomalous
phrases and pairs of contradictory sentences: problems which were allattributed to the
capacity of the working memory. Good readers were seen to spendlonger reading
inconsistent parts of text and were more likely to look back: allevidence of the fact that
better readers monitor their comprehension and sort outanomalies as they proceed.
Cataldo and Oakhill (2000) demonstrated that goodcomprehenders regulate reading to
match the goal they were set. To poorcomprehenders it made no difference; they
tended to approach all texts the sameway.
Harrison (2004) hypothesized about the reason why young readers seem to be
muchmore tolerant of ambiguity or inconsistency. Perhaps because so much of what
isencountered in their world seems inconsistent or is only partly understood,
youngreaders, and particularly less proficient young readers, are … remarkably
relaxedabout dealing with nonsensical or contradictory information in a story.
Harrisonspeculated on two ideas to explain this tolerance for the incomprehensible in
youngreaders. Perhaps young readers simply update their schema to accommodate
whatfor us would be a contradiction. Or, more likely in the case of poorer readers,
theyare processing text mainly at the phrase level and therefore consistency checks
withthe reader’s internal models of the world just don’t get done (p. 89).The consensus
from these studies and reviews seems to be that less able readersare less aware. They
are less aware:
1. that a text should make sense to them

2. that they should be monitoring their understanding for potential
3. inconsistencies
4. about strategies to adopt when embarking on a text
5. about strategies to adopt when an inconsistency occurs
6. about the need to draw inferences at all
7. about the information that is relevant to the drawing of inferences (see
8. following section below).
Background knowledge
The importance of background knowledge cannot be over-stressed. It would bepossible
to select apt quotations about its role in inferencing from every articlereviewed. Instead,
just a few will be cited here. Studies demonstrate that access to
world knowledge can be obligatory in the sense that a text cannot be
completelyunderstood without it (Long et al., 1996). This includes information about the
realworld referents of words, properties attributed to objects and knowledge about
thesituation (p. 190). Referring to several studies including one by Marr and
Gormley(1982), Cain et al. (2001) also underlined the indispensable role of
generalknowledge: indeed, relevant background knowledge for a passage is a
betterpredictor of fourth graders’ ability to generate inferences from and elaborate on
thattext than is their comprehension skill (p. 850). In his systematic coverage of both
the‘top down’ schema theory and the ‘bottom up’ propositional theories of
reading,Pressley (2000) could not overstate the importance of background knowledge
inpermitting inferences to take place in either view of reading. The relationshipbetween
background knowledge and inferencing is not reciprocal. Elaborativeinferences cannot
be drawn without the prerequisite knowledge. However, justbecause a reader has that
background knowledge does not automatically guaranteethat the reader will necessarily
make the inference. The knowledge may not be easilyaccessible or seem pertinent to
the reader. This is fully discussed in the two followingsections.
Foreign Studies
The results of the various meta-analyses showed that structured and guided teaching,
also known as explicit instruction, were those which favoured the learning of
fundamental skills in reading, writing and math for students with LDs at risk for failure at
the elementary level. Bissonnette et al. (2010) concluded that explicit instruction should
be utilized as the basis for teaching reading, writing and math, which could also include
steps for reciprocal teaching. Reciprocal teaching is an interactive verbal technique
where students with LDs work in small groups and take turns acting as the teacher. An
example of this would be in order to explain and apply the four strategies which result in
readers who are able to understand a text, which includes: predicted, questioning,
clarifying and summarizing. It is therefore interesting to see explicit instruction used in
combination with reciprocal teaching, especially during the guided practice stage.
Additional educational supports also support additional effective methods for supporting
students with LDs, according to these researchers. These include tutoring, information
available to educators and students with LDs and communications with parents, which
all constitute additional educational support mechanisms that can help improve the
performance of students with LDs in the areas of reading, writing and math. In addition,
these methods can be used in tandem with explicit instruction and reciprocal teaching.
Finally, according to Bissonnette et al. (2010), the effects obtained using a constructivist
approach for students with LDs on reading, writing and math achievement were below
the minimum level chosen for this study. Consequently, the authors do not recommend
this teaching strategy when there are other educational strategies that have proven to
be much more effective, including explicit instruction and reciprocal teaching.
According to Gauthier, Bissonnette and Richard (2013), explicit instruction can be
divided into three sequential steps: modeling, guided or directed practice, and
independent practice. The modeling step promotes the understanding of the learning
objectives for students with LDs. Guided practice allows students to practice using the
technique and to consolidate their understanding through group work. Independent
practice provides students with learning opportunities to acquire and master the target
skills.
In another study of Bronte (2011) Explicit instruction begins with modeling. This step
consists of the teacher demonstrating a task for students and describing exactly what is
being done as it is being done. The goal of the study is to show that modeling step is for
the teacher to explicitly state the what, why, how, when and where of what they are
doing. The information is presented in small units, in a graduated sequence, usually
ranging from simple to more complex, not only to meet the working memory limitations
of students with LDs, but also to enhance the connections between new and prior
knowledge. The teacher can then use examples of what to do and what not to do to
more directly highlight the skills they are trying to teach to students with LDs, to facilitate
their understanding of the learning objectives and thus improve the quality of modeling.
After modeling, the next step of explicit instruction is guided practice, also referred to as
directed practice, which allows students with LDs (with the proper supports) to succeed
in achieving the desired learning objectives. It also helps students to gain the
confidence and motivation necessary to continue their learning. This step is conducive
to group work activities, which gives the teacher the opportunity to circulate and confirm
that all students with LDs have understood the lesson. It also allows students not only
the opportunity to try the tasks that were modeled, but ensures that they receive
feedback on their finished work. Guided practice helps students with LDs to “verify,
adjust, consolidate and to deepen their understanding of the learning taking place, by
connecting their new learning with that which is already present in their long term
memories” (translated from Gauthier et al., 2004, p.28).
Finally, independent practice allows students with LDs to put themselves in new
learning situations where they can apply what they have understood from the modeling
and guided practice steps. This final learning step provides students with LDs an
opportunity to test out their understanding in order to obtain the highest level of mastery
possible, with the goal of consolidating their learning. This step also identifies any
students with LDs who may be in need of some additional support before they move on.
Additional Resources include Rosenshine who has written a separate piece that helps
explain why I prefer the term ‘explicit instruction’ to ‘direct instruction’. The latter term is
ambiguous, with Rosenshine identifying five different meanings.
One meaning of ‘direct instruction’ is any form of teacher-led instruction, whether it uses
the practices identified in the process-product research or not. Another use of ‘direct
instruction’ is pejorative where it is portrayed as a harsh, authoritarian system or as
lecturing.Reading in a foreign language has been one of the primary foci of second
language acquisition researchers in recent years. Zhou (2008) states that the
acquisition of L2 reading skills is a priority for many language learners around the world.
Many EFL students rarely experience a situation where they have to speak English on a
daily basis, but they might need to read in English quite often in order to benefit from
various pieces of information, most of which is recorded in English (Eskey, 1996).
Moreover, reading is fundamental for all academic disciplines (White as cited in Lei,
Rhinehart, Howard, & Cho, 2010). Therefore, reading skills must be promoted in order
for students to be able to deal with more sophisticated texts and tasks in an efficient
way (Ur, 1996).
Local Literature
In order to foster such an important skill in Filipino students, it is important to consider
the close relationship between their reading and vocabulary knowledge, which is the
most important factor with regard to the comprehension of a text (Baldo, 2010; Naguas,
2008; Amante, 2006;Reyes, 2004). Although vocabulary knowledge is not sufficient on
its own to explain reading comprehension (Baldo, 2010), Carmona (as cited in Naguas,
2008) point out that a learner’s vocabulary knowledge profile is the best predictor of that
learner’s level of ability to understand the text. In a consistent way, Santos (2004) also
asserts that the percentage of known and unknown vocabulary is one of the most
significant factors determining the difficulty of a text for a learner. Therefore, the strong
relationship between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension makes the
need for teaching students more words apparent. However, the massive size of the
vocabulary learning task makes it clear that direct instruction cannot be sufficient on its
own for all vocabulary acquisition (Naguas, 2008).
Wanda (2004) reports that readers have several ways to cope with unknown words
while reading: they can look up the word in a dictionary, they can consult someone
about the meaning of the word, they can try to guess the meaning from context, or they
can ignore the word. However, excessive dictionary use is discouraged by many
educators and researchers due to the fact that looking up words frequently interferes
with short-term memory and hinders the comprehension process.
Local Studies
Similarly, in addition to being impractical, asking someone what the word means may
also have some distracting effects on text comprehension and it seems to be impossible
in every reading situation. As to a recent study about using explicit instruction to
contextual inferencing strategies to improve readings skills of students as a result, it
was found out appropriate for teachers of English as a foreign/second language to
consider teaching learners about the use of context to guess the meaning of unknown
words. It is important that learners have methods that they can apply on their own,
outside the instructional setting (Andalajao, 2004). As far as ways of dealing with
unknown words in a reading text are concerned, guessing the meaning from context is
recognized as a powerful strategy by many researchers (Naguas, 2008; Karganilla,
2008;), so it is crucial to make learners aware of contextual inferencing strategies.
Context refers to the text surrounding a word or passage, and contextual inferencing,
namely lexical inferencing, is usually defined as informed guessing of the meaning of
unknown words with the help of context clues (Jelic, 2007). According to Rivera (2009),
in his study of explicit instruction to contextual inferencing and ability of the students to
read and understand, identifying an appropriate meaning of a word requires finding
useful cues from the word or the context. The process of inferring word meaning from
context is not simple, though. It is a challenging task, especially for learners, due to their
limited knowledge of the target language (Reyes, 2006). Therefore, the need to present
students with a solution to solve the difficulty of the task is evident. Teaching strategies
to L2 learners and training them in the use of context to guess word meanings might be
considered as an ideal way to manage this. As Naguas (2008) asserts, it is worth the
time and effort in the classroom. In addition to vocabulary knowledge, another important
factor that influences success in reading is students’ attitudes towards this skill, since
many researchers agree that motivation can be thought of as one of the key predictors
of success in second/foreign language learning (Mori, 2004). According to Patonia
(1997), students’ attitudes toward or feelings about reading affect their willingness to
actively participate in activities. They investigated different aspects of children’s reading
motivation and how it is related to the amount and depth of their reading, and they found
that children’s motivation predicted their reading amount and depth. Angeles et.al
(2010) also attempted to explore the relationship between successful reading instruction
and students’ attitudes towards reading, and he concluded that students who received
effective reading instruction had higher scores with regard to their attitudes toward
reading. The results of his study suggest that it is possible to help learners’ build
positive feelings towards reading by providing them with successful reading instruction.
Training students to use contextual clues in order to infer the meaning of unknown
words can be an ideal way of helping students to repair the negative effects of
vocabulary problem. Many studies have been conducted to investigate the effects of
using explicit instruction in contextual inferencing.
Whether experimental or review in purpose, most studies have laid out meticulously
detailed analyses of the types of inference that exist in their authors’ view of
comprehension. The literature has been prolific in distinguishing various types and
categories of inference, ranging from thirteen, described in Ildefonso et al. (2004), nine
in Pressley and Afflerbach (1995), to the more usual two, adopted by many more
researchers. Even amongst those experts who have identified essentially the same
single distinction between two types of inference, therehas been identified effects of
using explcit instruction to contextual inferencing which this study also aimed to
validate. Said effects included the ability of the student to master contextual inferencing
skill, to improve the reading ability of the student, to motivate the student to gain positive
attitude towards reading and to allow the teacher to discuss contextual inferencing all
the while ensuring that it has a positive impact on the students’s reading skill
CHAPTER 3
Research Methodology
This chapter presents the research design, population of the study, sampling
procedure, research instrument, validation, data gathering procedure, and statistical
treatment of data.
Research Design
The descriptive type of research was used by the researcher to find out and
determine the Effects of Explicit instruction in the Contextual Inferencing Strategies on
Grade 6 Students of Malainen Bago Lementary School. The researcher believed that
this type of research will best describe the results of the investigation since according to
Best and Khan (2003), the descriptive type of research describes and interprets what is.
It is concerned with conditions or relationships that exist, practices that prevail, beliefs,
point of views, or attitudes that are help, processes that are going on, effects that are
felt, and the trends that are developing.
Respondents of the Study
The population of the study involved all the ____#____Grade sixstudents in
Malainen BagoElementary School school year 2017-2018 which is the inclusive period
of the study. Total enumeration or universal sampling was used in this study. This
means that all Grade six pupils were involved and included in the study.
Table 1 presents the respondents of the study.
Table 1
Respondents of the Study
Malainen Bago Elementary

Grade Two Percent
School Pupils
Section A
Section B
Section C
Total
Research Instrument
The survey form was used as the main instrument for gathering the needed data
for the study. This was answered by the Grade Six teachers. It shall comprised of three
parts.
Part 1 comprised of the profile of the Grade Six teacher respondents in terms of
age, sex, civil status, highest educational attainment, present position, years in service
and number of seminars attended in Reading.
Part 2 Includes the questions to the Grade Six Students as to the Effects of using
Explicit Instruction in their Contextual Inferencing.

Data Gathering Procedure
The researcher first sought permission from the principal of Malainen Bago
Elementary School to allow her to distribute survey forms, conduct informal interviews
and teaching sessions to Grade 6 pupilsto gather the needed data for the study.
Upon approval, she personally administered the questionnaires to her target
respondents, the Grade 6 teachers, for her to be able to explain the mechanics of
answering and the actual purpose of the study.
On the part of the Grade Six pupils she endeavoured to conduct the survey to the
three sections of Grade three pupils in amlainen Bago Elementary School.
Statistical Treatment of Data
The data gathered through the questionnaires and pre and post tests were
treated statistically using the following statistical tools:
1. For problem number 1, percentage was used.
Percentage
𝑓
𝑃= 𝑥 100
𝑁
where: P = percentage
f = frequency of responses
N = total number of respondents
2. For problems number 2 and 3. Weighted Mean and Standard Deviations were
used.
Weighted Mean
∑𝑓𝑥
𝑊𝑀 =
𝑁
where: M = mean
f = frequency of respondents
x = category weight
N = total number of respondents
∑ = summation sign
Scale Ratings Description Interpretation

When the item described has
Very
5 4.50-5.00 effects that are very beneficial or
Beneficial
has very positive effects.
Moderately effects that are moderately

4 3.50-4.49
Beneficial beneficial or has moderately
positive effects.
3 2.50-3.49 Beneficial effects that are beneficial or has
positive effects.

Slightly
2 1.50-2.49 effects that are slightly beneficial
Beneficial
or has nearly positive effects

Not
1 1.0-1.49 effects that are not beneficial or
beneficial
has no positive effects.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter provides the data collected by the researcher in a tabulated form and its
interrpretation after applying appropriate statistical treatment to the collated data.
Problem No. 01 What is the demographic profile of the respodnents in terms of age;
sex, civil status, highest educational attainment, present position, years in service and
number of seminars attended in teaching?
Table 4.1
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS ACCORDING TO AGE
AGE BRACKET FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE (%)

20-25 years old 1 12.5
26-30 years old 2 25
31-35 years old 2 25
36 years old and above 3 37.5
TOTAL 8 100
The table above provides the distribution of teh respondents according to age. It shows
that majority of the respondents comprising 37.5 of the population is within hte age
bracket of 36 years old and above. Secondly, 25% or a quarter of the population aged
31-35 years old; similarly another quarter, 25% represents the respondents within the
age bracket of 26-30 years old. Lastly, the remaining 12.5% or 1 out of the 8
respondents is within the bracket of 20-25 years old.

Table 4.2
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS ACCORDING TO GENDER
GENDER FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE (%)

Male 3 37.5
Female 5 62.5
TOTAL 8 100
The table above provides the distribution of the respondents according to gender. The
figures from the table shows that majority of the population, 62.5% are female teachers
while 37.5% are male respondents.
Table 4.3
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS ACCORDING TO CIVIL STATUS
CIVIL STATUS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE (%)

Single 2 25
Married 6 75
Widow/Widower 0 0
TOTAL 8 100
Accordingly, in Table 4.3 it can be interpreted that majority of the respondents are
married given the percentage 75%. On the other hand, 2 out of the 8 respondents or
25% are single.

Table 4.4
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS ACCORDING TO HIGHEST EDUCATIONAL
ATTAINMENT
HIGHEST EDUCATIONAL FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE (%)

ATTAINMENT
Undergraduate 7 12.5
Graduate Course 0 25
Master’s Degree 1 25
TOTAL 8 100
Comprising the majority of the population as manifested by the percentage 87.5% are
the teacher respondents who are all undergraduate degree holders for their higheste
ducational attainment while 12.5% represents 1 out of 8 respondents who has obtained
a Master’s Degree.
Table 4.5
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS ACCORDING TO CURRENT POSITION
CURRENT POSITION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE (%)

Teacher I 4 50
Teacher II 3 37.5
Teacher III 1 12.5
Master Teacher 0 0
TOTAL 8 100
The table above provides the distribution of the respondents according to their current
position. It shows that majority of the respondents comprising 50% of the population are
currently Teacher I. Secondly, 37.5% are Teacher II and a respodent identified as
12.5% of the population is currently Teacher III.
Table 4.6
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS ACCORDING TO YEARS IN SERVICE
YEARS IN SERVICE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE (%)

0-5 years 3 37.5
6-10 years 4 50
11-15 years 1 12.5
16 years and above 0 0
TOTAL 8 100
It can seen in the table above that majority or 50% of the respondents are already in 6-
10 years of service while 37.5% is within the bracket of 0-5 years in service and a sole
respondent composing the 12.5% identified her profile according to her length of service
as 16 years and above.
Table 4.7
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS ACCORDING TO NUMBER OF SEMINARS
ATTENDED IN TEACHING
NUMBER OF SEMINARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE (%)

1- 5 4 50
6-10 3 37.5
11-15 1 12.5
16 and above 0 0
TOTAL 8 100
Table 4.7 tabulates the responses of the populaiton according to the number of
seminars they have attended in teaching. Significantly, 50% of the population identified
that they have 1-5 seminars attended in teaching while 37.5% remarked having 6-10
seminars attended while a respondent composing the least 12.5% answere having 11-
15 seminars attended.
Problem No. 02 What are the effects of using explicit instruction to the contextual
inferencing of a student in terms of mastering contextual inferencing skill; improving
reading ability; motivate the stduent to agin positive attitude towards reading and
providing positive impact on students’ reading skill?
Table 4.8
Distribution Of Responses As To The Effect Of Using Explicit Instruction To The
Contextual Inferencing Of A Student In Terms Of Mastering The Contextual
Inferencing Skill
Mastering Contextual Inferencing Skill 5 4 3 2 1 Weighted Verbal

Mean Description
Allows student to identify context Very
5 3 0 0 0 4.625
clues easily Beneficial
Allows student to infer the answer
Very
absed on the context clue given via 4 4 0 0 0 4.50
Beneficial
explicit instruction
Allows student to initiate infering
based on the explicit instruction given Very
5 2 1 0 0 4.50
and the context clue Beneficial
Allows student to continuously
perform the skill even without
Very
suoervision as long as explicit 5 2 1 0 0 4.50
Beneficial
instruction is given and context clues
are available
Very
GENERAL WEIGHTED MEAN 4.53
Beneficial
Table 4.8 identifies the the effect of explicit instruction in contextual inferencing
strategies of Grade 6 Teachers of Julugan Elementary School and its effect on the
students attitudes towards reading in terms of Mastering The Contextual Inferencing
Skill. The general weighted mean of 4.53 can be used to interpret that the respondents
observes that the use of explicit instruction to the contextual inferencing skill of the
student is very beneficial on mastering contextual inferencing skill. The students are
allowed to identify context clues easily, to infer the answer based on the context clue
given via explicit instruction, to initiate inferring based on the explicit instruction given
and the context clue, to continuously perform the skill even without supervision as long
as explicit instruction is given and context clues are available. Because of these very
beneficial effects the students attitudes towards reading has been affected positively.
Table 4.9
Contextual Inferencing Of A Student In Terms Of Improving Reading Ability
improving reading ability 5 4 3 2 1 Weighted Verbal

Mean Description
Allows student to understand the Very
4 4 0 0 0 4.50
context of the story Beneficial
Allows student to summarize the story Moderately
3 4 1 0 0 4.25
in his own words Beneficial
Allows student to read the story faster Moderately
2 5 1 0 0 3.88
and with accuracy Beneficial
Allows student to easily relate the gist Moderately
3 5 0 0 0 4.38
of the story Beneficial
Moderately
Beneficial
students attitudes towards reading in terms of improving reading skill. The general
weighted mean of 4.53 can be used to interpret that the respondents observes that the
use of explicit instruction to the contextual inferencing skill of the student is moderately
beneficial on improving their reading skill. The use of explicit instruction allowed
students to understand the context of the story, to summarize the story in his own
words, to read the story faster and with accuracy and to easily relate the gist of the
story. These effects has been moderately beneficial hence has positive effect on the
attitude of the students in their reading skill.
Table 4.10
Contextual Inferencing Of A Student In Terms Of Motivating The Stduent To Gain
Positive Attitude Towards Reading
Motivating The Stduent To Gain 5 4 3 2 1 Weighted Verbal

Positive Attitude Towards Reading Mean Description
Provides students a helpful tool in Moderately
4 3 1 0 0 4.38
reading Beneficial
Provides student a recreational tool in Moderately
2 4 2 0 0 4.00
reading Beneficial
Provides students reinforcement in Moderately
2 5 1 0 0 4.13
reading Beneficial
Provides student guidance in the Moderately
2 5 1 0 0 4.13
course of reading exercis Beneficial
Moderately
Beneficial
students attitudes towards reading in terms of positive attitude to. The general weighted
mean of 4.53 can be used to interpret that the respondents observes that the use of
explicit instruction to the contextual inferencing skill of the student is moderately
beneficial on improving their reading skill. The use of explicit instruction allowed
students to understand the context of the story, to summarize the story in his own
words, to read the story faster and with accuracy and to easily relate the gist of the
story. These effects have been moderately beneficial hence has positive effect on the
attitude of the students in their reading skill.
Table 4.11
Contextual Inferencing Of A Student In Terms Of Providing Positive Impact On
Students’ Reading Skill
Providing Positive Impact On Students’ 5 4 3 2 1 Weighted Verbal

Reading Skill Mean Description
Allows student to view reading as a Very
5 3 0 0 0 4.625
form of educational recreation Beneficial
Provides encouragement to students
Very
to continue reading even when not 4 4 0 0 0 4.50
Beneficial
tasked
Encourages student to appreciate Moderately
3 4 1 0 0 4.25
reading and develop the skill Beneficial
Provides a venue for the student to Moderately
4 3 1 0 0 4.38
voluntarily enhance his reading skill Beneficial
Moderately
Beneficial
students attitudes towards reading in terms of providing positive impact on student’s
reading skill. The general weighted mean of 4.44 can be used to interpret that the
respondents observes that the use of explicit instruction to the contextual inferencing
skill of the student is moderately beneficial on their reading skill. The use of explicit
instruction allowed students to view reading as a form of educational recreation, it
provides encouragement to students to continue reading even when not task and it
encourages student to appreciate reading and develop the skil. Also it provides a venue
for the student to voluntarily enhance his reading skill.
These effects have been moderately beneficial hence has positive effect or impact of
the students in their reading skill.

Table 4.13
Analysis of Variance for The Effect Of Using Explicit Instruction To The
Inferencing Skill if Profiled by Age
ANOVA
Source of P-
Variation SS df MS F value F crit
Between Groups 5.6875 3 1.8958 1.7843 0.2036 3.4903
Within Groups 12.75 12 1.0625
Total 18.438 15
From the results of the Analysis of variance where the P-value is less than 1 it can be
interpreted that there is no significant difference to the effect of using explicit instruction
to the contextual inferencing of a student in terms of mastering the contextual
inferencing skill if the respondents were profiled by age. The use of explicit instruction in
classroom to help students master the contextual inferencing skill is not affected by the
age of the respondent.

Table 4.14
Contextual Inferencing Of A Student In Terms Of In Terms Of Improving Reading
Ability if Profiled by Age
ANOVA
Source of P-
Between Groups 1 3 0.3333 0.6667 0.5885 3.4903
Within Groups 6 12 0.5
Total 7 15
to the contextual inferencing of a student in terms of Improving Reading Ability if the
respondents were profiled by age. The use of explicit instruction in classroom to
Improving Reading Ability is not affected by the age of the respondent.

Table 4.15
Contextual Inferencing Of A Student In Terms Of In Terms Of Motivating The
Stduent To Gain Positive Attitude Towards Reading if Profiled by Age
ANOVA
Source of P-
Between Groups 4.1875 3 1.3958 3.5263 0.0487 3.4903
Total 8.9375 15
from the results of the analysis of variance where the p-value is less than 1 it can be
to the contextual inferencing of a student in terms of motivating the student to gain
positive attitude towards reading if the respondents were profiled by age. the use of
explicit instruction in classroom to motivate the student in order for him to gain positive
attitude towards reading is not affected by the age of the respondent.

Table 4.16
Contextual Inferencing Of A Student In Terms Of In Terms Of Providing Positive
Impact On Students’ Reading Skill if Profiled by Age
ANOVA
Source of P-
Between Groups 2.1875 3 0.7292 1.6667 0.2267 3.4903
Total 7.4375 15
From the results of the analysis of variance where the p-value is less than 1 it can be
to the contextual inferencing of a student in terms of providing positive impact on
students’ reading skill if the respondents were profiled by age. the use of explicit
instruction in classroom to providing positive impact on students’ reading skill in order
for him to gain positive attitude towards reading is not affected by the age of the
respondent.
Table 4.17
Inferencing Skill if Profiled by Gender
ANOVA
Source of P-
Between Groups 1.0225 1 1.0225 3.6759 0.1037 5.9874
Total 2.6914 7
inferencing skill if the respondents were profiled by Gender. The use of explicit
instruction in classroom to help students master the contextual inferencing skill is not
affected by the Gender of the respondent.

Table 4.18
Ability if Profiled by Gender
ANOVA
Source of P-
Between Groups 0.2485 1 0.2485 1.2672 0.3033 5.9874
Total 1.4252 7
respondents were profiled by Gender. The use of explicit instruction in classroom to
Improving Reading Ability is not affected by the Gender of the respondent.

Table 4.19
Stduent To Gain Positive Attitude Towards Reading if Profiled by Gender
ANOVA
Source of P-
Between Groups 0.02 1 0.02 0.0667 0.8049 5.9874
Total 1.82 7
positive attitude towards reading if the respondents were profiled by Gender. the use of
explicit instruction in classroom to motivate the student in order for him to gain positive
attitude towards reading is not affected by the Gender of the respondent.

Table 4.20
Impact On Students’ Reading Skill if Profiled by Gender
ANOVA
Source of P-
Between Groups 0.2485 1 0.2485 1.2672 0.3033 5.9874
Total 1.4252 7
students’ reading skill if the respondents were profiled by Gender. the use of explicit
for him to gain positive attitude towards reading is not affected by the Gender of the
respondent.
Table 4.21
Contextual Inferencing Of A Student In Terms Mastering The Contextual
Inferencing Skill if Profiled by Civil Status
ANOVA
P-
Source of Variation SS df MS F value F crit
Between Groups 1.0082 1 1.0082 315.06 2E-06 5.9874
Total 1.0274 7
inferencing skill if the respondents were profiled by Civil Status. The use of explicit
affected by the Civil Status of the respondent.

Table 4.22
Ability if Profiled by Civil Status
ANOVA
P-
Between Groups 0.6786 1 0.6786 3.5577 0.1082 5.9874
Total 1.8231 7
respondents were profiled by Civil Status. The use of explicit instruction in classroom to
Improving Reading Ability is not affected by the Civil Status of the respondent.
Table 4.23
Stduent To Gain Positive Attitude Towards Reading if Profiled by Civil Status
ANOVA
P-
Between Groups 1.2561 1 1.2561 6.5001 0.0435 5.9874
Total 2.4156 7
positive attitude towards reading if the respondents were profiled by Civil Status. the
use of explicit instruction in classroom to motivate the student in order for him to gain
positive attitude towards reading is not affected by the Civil Status of the respondent.
Table 4.24
Impact On Students’ Reading Skill if Profiled by Civil Status
ANOVA
P-
Between Groups 0.6786 1 0.6786 29.193 0.0017 5.9874
Total 0.8181 7
students’ reading skill if the respondents were profiled by Civil Status. the use of explicit
for him to gain positive attitude towards reading is not affected by the Civil Status of the
respondent.
Table 4.25
Inferencing Skill if Profiled by Highest Educational Attainment
ANOVA
P-
Between Groups 1.5842 1 1.5842 3.3841 0.1154 5.9874
Total 4.393 7
inferencing skill if the respondents were profiled by highest educational attainment. The
use of explicit instruction in classroom to help students master the contextual
inferencing skill is not affected by the educational attainment of the respondent.

Table 4.26
Ability if Profiled by Highest Educational Attainment
ANOVA
P-
Between Groups 1.7298 1 1.7298 9.9873 0.0196 5.9874
Total 2.769 7
respondents were profiled by educational attainment. The use of explicit instruction in
classroom to Improving Reading Ability is not affected by the educational attainment of
the respondent.
Table 4.27
Stduent To Gain Positive Attitude Towards Reading if Profiled by Highest
Educational Attainment
ANOVA
P-
Between Groups 3.498 1 3.498 217.1 6E-06 5.9874
Total 3.5947 7
positive attitude towards reading if the respondents were profiled by educational
attainment. the use of explicit instruction in classroom to motivate the student in order
for him to gain positive attitude towards reading is not affected by the educational
attainment of the respondent.

Table 4.28
Impact On Students’ Reading Skill if Profiled by Highest Educational Attainment
ANOVA
P-
Between Groups 2.2898 1 2.2898 13.221 0.0109 5.9874
Total 3.329 7
students’ reading skill if the respondents were profiled by educational attainment. the
use of explicit instruction in classroom to providing positive impact on students’ reading
skill in order for him to gain positive attitude towards reading is not affected by the
educational attainment of the respondent.
Table 4.29
Inferencing Skill if Profiled by Current Position
ANOVA
Source of P-
Between Groups 1.1293 2 0.5646 0.9626 0.418 4.2565
Total 6.4082 11
inferencing skill if the respondents were profiled by current position. The use of explicit
affected by the current position of the respondent.

Table 4.30
Ability if Profiled by Current Position
ANOVA
Source of P-
Between Groups 2.7998 2 1.3999 5.2134 0.0314 4.2565
Total 5.2165 11
respondents were profiled by current position. The use of explicit instruction in
classroom to Improving Reading Ability is not affected by the current position of the
respondent.
Table 4.31
Stduent To Gain Positive Attitude Towards Reading if Profiled Current Position
ANOVA
Source of P-
Between Groups 0.165 2 0.0825 0.2622 0.775 4.2565
Total 2.9967 11
positive attitude towards reading if the respondents were profiled by current position. the
use of explicit instruction in classroom to motivate the student in order for him to gain
positive attitude towards reading is not affected by the current position of the
respondent.
Table 4.32
Impact On Students’ Reading Skill if Profiled by Current Position
ANOVA
Source of P-
Between Groups 2 2 1 2.1176 0.1763 4.2565
Total 6.25 11
students’ reading skill if the respondents were profiled by current position. the use of
explicit instruction in classroom to providing positive impact on students’ reading skill in
order for him to gain positive attitude towards reading is not affected by the current
position of the respondent.
Table 4.33
Inferencing Skill if Profiled by No. of years in Service
ANOVA
P-
Between Groups 3.2426 2 1.6213 5.104 0.033 4.2565
Total 6.1015 11
inferencing skill if the respondents were profiled by the number of years in service. The
use of explicit instruction in classroom to help students master the contextual
inferencing skill is not affected the number of years in service of the respondent.
Table 4.34
Ability if Profiled by by No. of years in Service
ANOVA
P-
Between Groups 2.9048 2 1.4524 4.7504 0.0391 4.2565
Total 5.6565 11
respondents were profiled by the number of years in service. The use of explicit
instruction in classroom to Improving Reading Ability is not affected the number of years
in service of the respondent.

Table 4.35
Stduent To Gain Positive Attitude Towards Reading if Profiled by No. of years in
Service
ANOVA
P-
Between Groups 1.495 2 0.7475 3.6729 0.0682 4.2565
Total 3.3267 11
positive attitude towards reading if the respondents were profiled by the number of
years in service. the use of explicit instruction in classroom to motivate the student in
order for him to gain positive attitude towards reading is not affected the number of
years in service of the respondent.

Table 4.36
Impact On Students’ Reading Skill if Profiled by No. of years in Service
ANOVA
P-
Between Groups 2 2 1 2.1176 0.1763 4.2565
Total 6.25 11
students’ reading skill if the respondents were profiled by the number of years in
service. the use of explicit instruction in classroom to providing positive impact on
students’ reading skill in order for him to gain positive attitude towards reading is not
affected the number of years in service of the respondent.
Table 4.37
Inferencing Skill if Profiled by No. of Seminars Attended
ANOVA
Source of P-
Between Groups 1.1293 2 0.5646 0.9626 0.418 4.2565
Total 6.4082 11
inferencing skill if the respondents were profiled by the number of seminars attended.
The use of explicit instruction in classroom to help students master the contextual
inferencing skill is not affected the number of seminars attended of the respondent.
Table 4.38
Ability if Profiled by by No. of Seminars Attended
ANOVA
Source of P-
Between Groups 2.7998 2 1.3999 5.2134 0.0314 4.2565
Total 5.2165 11
respondents were profiled by the number of seminars attended. The use of explicit
instruction in classroom to Improving Reading Ability is not affected the number of
seminars attended of the respondent.

Table 4.39
Stduent To Gain Positive Attitude Towards Reading if Profiled by No. of Seminars
Attended
ANOVA
Source of P-
Between Groups 0.165 2 0.0825 0.2622 0.775 4.2565
Total 2.9967 11
positive attitude towards reading if the respondents were profiled by the number of
seminars attended. the use of explicit instruction in classroom to motivate the student in
order for him to gain positive attitude towards reading is not affected the number of
seminars attended of the respondent.

Table 4.40
Impact On Students’ Reading Skill if Profiled by No. of Seminars Attended
ANOVA
Source of P-
Between Groups 2 2 1 2.1176 0.1763 4.2565
Total 6.25 11
students’ reading skill if the respondents were profiled by the number of seminars
attended. the use of explicit instruction in classroom to providing positive impact on
students’ reading skill in order for him to gain positive attitude towards reading is not
affected the number of seminars attended of the respondent.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study entitled,____, aims to identify if the use of explicit instruction has an effect on
the contextual inferencing skill of a student in terms of mastering contextual inferencing
skill; improving reading ability; motivate the stduent to agin positive attitude towards
reading and providing positive impact on students’ reading skill.
In order for teh researcher to achieve this, she utilized a descriptive type of research
The researcher believed that this type of research will best describe the results of the
investigation since according to Best and Khan (2003), the descriptive type of research
describes and interprets what is. It is concerned with conditions or relationships that
exist, practices that prevail, beliefs, point of views, or attitudes that are help, processes
that are going on, effects that are felt, and the trends that are developing.
She also used universal sampling which meant that all the Grade 6 teachers from
malainen Bago Elementary School were purposively chosen as population size. A
survey form was drafted and attached to the request letter adressed to the principal for
approval and due authorization to conduct the research.
The data were collected and tabulated and percentage and weighted mean were used
to interpret the results of the survey. Accordingly the researcher arrived to the following
results:
1. From the tabulated responses of the teacher-respondents according to the effect
of using explicit instruction in helping the student gain mastery in contextual
inferencing skill. Cumulatively, through the general weighted mean of 4.53 teh
respondents strongly agreed that using explicit instruction allows student to gain
mastery in contextual inferencing skill because through its use it allows student to
identify context clues easily, allows student to infer the answer absed on the
context clue given via explicit instruction, allows student to initiate infering based
on the explicit instruction given and the context clue and allows student to
continuously perform the skill even without suoervision as long as explicit
instruction is given and context clues are available which all gained a weighted
mean equivalent to a verbal description of strongly agree.
2. It can be interpreted from the table of responses above that the respondents
agreed that the use of explicit instruction to the contextual inferencing skill of a
studnets results to imporved reading ability as manifested by the general
weighted mean of 4.25. Significantly, the respondents strongly agreed that its
use allows student to understand the context of the story. On the other hand they
ahve all agreed that it caters improved reading skill because it allows student to
summarize the story in his own words; allows student to read the story faster and
with accuracy and allows student to easily relate the gist of the story as
interrpreted from the weighted means of 4.25, 3.88, 4.38 respectively.
3. The use of explicit instruction to the contextua inferencing skill of the student in
terms of motivating the to gain positive attitude towards reading has been agreed
upon by the population as interpreted from the general weighted mean of 4.16.
Moreso, the respondents arrived at this generalization becasue they agreed that
the students are motivated because the use of explicit instruction provides
students a helpful tool in reading, provides student a recreational tool in reading,
provides students reinforcement in reading and provides student guidance in the
course of reading exercise as interpreted from the weighted mean of their
responses which are respectively, 4.38; 4.00; 4.13; and 4.13.
4. The respondents have agreed that providing positive impact on student’s reading
skill as an effect of using explciit instruction to contextual inferencing of a student,
as interpreted using the computed general weighted mean of 4.44. Remarkably,
the respondents strongly agreed that through the use of explicit instruction in
contextual inferencing the students are allowed to view reading as a form of
educational recreation, weighted mean of 4.625. Moreover, they have agreed
taht its use Provides encouragement to students to continue reading even when
not tasked, encourages student to appreciate reading and develop the skill and
rovides a venue for the student to voluntarily enhance his reading skill. All of
which are interpreted after computing their respective weighted means of 4.50;
4.25; 4.38.
Statement of the Problem Conclusion Recommendation
What is the demographic 1.1 majority of the For future researchers who
profile of the respondents in respondents comprising wish to conduct further
terms of: 37.5 of the population is study, it is recommended
1.1. Age within hte age bracket of 36 for them to select a larger
1.2. Sex years old and above. popualtion size given that
1.3. Civil Status Secondly, 25% or a quarter the scope of this study is
1.4. Highest Educational of the population aged 31- confined to a population
Attainment 35 years old; similarly size of 8 grade 6 teachers.
1.5. Present Position another quarter, 25% Increase int eh number of
1.6. Years in Service represents the respondents respondents would
1.7. Number of seminars within the age bracket of determine a more accurate
attended in Teaching 26-30 years old. Lastly, the generalization of results.
remaining 12.5% or 1 out of
the 8 respondents is within
the bracket of 20-25 years
old.
1.2 majority of the
population, 62.5% are
female teachers while
37.5% are male
respondents.
1.3 majority of the
respondents are married
given the percentage 75%.
On the other hand, 2 out of
the 8 respondents or 25%
are single.
1.4 majority of the
population as manifested
by the percentage 87.5%
are the teacher
respondents who are all
undergraduate degree
holders for their higheste
ducational attainment while
12.5% represents 1 out of 8
respondents who has
obtained a Master’s
Degree.
1.5 majority of the
respondents comprising
50% of the population are
currently Teacher I.
Secondly, 37.5% are
Teacher II and a respodent
identified as 12.5% of the
population is currently
Teacher III.
1.6 majority or 50% of the
respondents are already in
6-10 years of service while
37.5% is within the bracket
of 0-5 years in service and
a sole respondent
composing the 12.5%
identified her profile
according to her length of
service as 16 years and
above.
1.7 Significantly, 50% of the
population identified that
they have 1-5 seminars
attended in teaching while
37.5% remarked having 6-
10 seminars attended while
a respondent composing
the least 12.5% answere
having 11-15 seminars
attended.
What are the effects of 2.1. The use of Explicit To the Grade VI Teachers,
using explicit instruction to Instruction allows students the results of the study
the contextual inferencing to master contextual suggests that the use of
of a student? inferencing skill explicit instruction has
2.2. The use of Explicit positive effects to the
Instruction allows students contextual inferencing skill
to improve the reading of the student and even to
ability of the students their reading abilities.
2.3. The use of Explicit Hence, it is then
Instruction allows students recommended that the
motivate the student to gain method be adopted and
positive attitude towards applied in their day-to-day
reading reading exercise inside the
2.4. The use of Explicit classroom. Adoption of
Instruction allows the which may further imporve
teacher to discuss the students reading skill
contextual inferencing all and comprehension as they
the while ensuring that it will gain mastery in the use
ahs a positive impact on the of contextual inferencing.
students’s reading skill To the School
Administration, the results
of the study poses a viable
methd to assist the student
in impproving his contextual
inferencing skill. This skill is
important in order for them
to better comprehend the
text theya re reading.
Formal adoption of the
method of using explciit
instruction will define a
responsive strategy for the
teachers in assisting their
students infer, read and
comprehend.
For the purposes of the study after careful evalluation of the results and the scope and
limitations of the study, the researcher came up witht eh following recommendations:

Explcit Instruction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Explcit Instruction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER I

The Problem and Its Background

and 1970s. Briefly, researchers visited classrooms, recorded various teacher

points out, it has since been verified in a range of different contexts.

Explicit instruction is clearly not lecturing because it is highly interactive. Rosenshine

of Grade 6 students from Malainen Bago Elementary School.

of Grade 6 Teachers of Julugan Elementary School for SY 2017-2018: Attitudes

Grade 6 pupil to do contextual inferencing in his/her reading tasks. More specifically, it

iams to answer the following questions:

1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of:

1.3. Civil Status

1.4. Highest Educational Attainment

1.5. Present Position

1.6. Years in Service

1.7. Number of seminars attended in Teaching

positive attitude towards reading

This study is framed on the theory of cognitive constructivism. A review of studies on

cognitive styles shows that, as a psychological process, such styles differentiate

in particular. As many studies conducted on the contribution of learning styles show

them as follows: 1-visualhaptic, 2-visualize-verbalize, 3-leveling-sharpening, 4-serialist-

reading ability and create positive attitude to students towards reading.

One aspect of inferencing is Contextual inferencing, which involves making informed

for purposes of instant understanding in a listening, or reading context, and under

instruction to teach contextual inferencing as a useful strategy to improve reading ability

importance of contextual inferencing is highlighted (Goodman, 2006; Smith, 2008).

lexical references. Carton’s (2011) taxonomy of knowledge sources comprises of three

main cue types which are contextual, intralingual, and interlingual.

1. What is the demographic profile of the

Figure 1.1 IPO Model

of Grade 6 Teachers of Julugan Elementary School for SY 2017-2018: Attitudes

Grade 6 Teachers in Julugan Elementary School for Sy 2017-2018. The study is

descriptive in nature and will apply survey method as research instrument.

Significance of the study

The results of the study will be significant to the following:

explicit instruction in teaching students to do contextual inferencing and also improve

their reading ability all at the same time.

day to day reading tasks.

Effects- A result or change of something

Review of Related Literature

Explicit instruction is based on research studies relating to effective teaching practices.

consolidating the lesson taught (Gauthier, Bissonnette & Richard, 2013).

activities to be performed, in the execution of the various stages, on the required

anticipated results, what constitutes as evidence of learning and educational activities. It

Bissonnette et al. (2010) published an article in The Review of Applied Research on

meta-synthesis grouped results reported in 11 meta-analyses, from 362 research

experimental designs that permitted the researchers to establish comparisons and to

draw reliable conclusions (Bissonnette et al., 2010).

Commenting on this variety in the naming of inferences, Graesser et al. (1994)

concluded researchers in psycholinguistics and discourse processing have proposed

textconnecting inferences are necessary to establish cohesion between sentences and

involve integration of textual information. Gap-filling inferences, by contrast, make use

to text-connecting and gap-filling respectively. Coherence inferences maintain a

inferences embellish and amplify. As unnecessary to achieve comprehension, these

inferences will be influenced by accessibility of knowledge.

coherence versus elaborative inferencing in their analysis of inferential questions used

in reading tests. They extended and refined the distinctions by addingknowledge-based

Knowledge-based inferences rely on the activation of a‘mediating idea’ from the

actions in a story. It is worth restating that theauthors view knowledge-based and

evaluative inferences as not optional tounderstanding and maintain that these

inferences have to be drawn in order toachieve comprehension.It is interesting to note

background-to-text inferencing which equate to the coherence ortext-connecting and

elaborative or gap-filling distinctions described above. Inaddition, they specify anaphoric

inference as a separate category on its own.Previous researchers had assigned this