lot
never
nobody
none
often
quality
some
something
stuff
things
The list in table I.14 is not exhaustive. Teachers could have students generate additional words and phrases that might be considered imprecise and discuss better alternatives. For example, in the Batman claim, replacing the word cool with the word useful makes the grounds much more defensible; one can list the distinctive tools and features of Batman’s costume that highlight its unique practicality when compared to others. Similarly, the backing “He never kills anyone” is imprecise because villains sometimes do die as a result of their interactions with Batman. A more precise way of stating that particular backing might be “He never kills anyone on purpose.”
Another example can be found in figure I.4 (page 29), which organizes text evidence to support the claim “The author of ‘Casey at the Bat’ uses exaggerations to make fun of how seriously some people take sports games.” The student originally chooses to use “The author makes Casey seem like a god” as grounds for the claim, but then she notices that Casey’s strikeout at the end of the poem does not support these grounds very well. This realization causes the student to read the poem more closely. Based on more text evidence, she concludes that while the author does not consistently depict Casey as flawless, the audience reveres Casey throughout the poem. Therefore, the student might revise the grounds statement to read “The audience worships Casey like a god,” which supports her claim more accurately and more precisely.
Use Words and Phrases That Signal Basic Relationships
Robert Marzano, Patricia Hagerty, Sheila Valencia, and Philip DiStefano (1987) identified four types of basic relationships that students can use to refine their claims and distinguish them from alternate or opposing claims. Those relationships are:
Each of these relationships has specific subtypes, and each subtype has signal words and phrases associated with it, as shown in table I.15.
Table I.15: Subtypes and Signal Words and Phrases for Basic Relationships
Source: Adapted from Marzano & Heflebower, 2012.
A student might use the signal words and phrases in table I.15 to refine and distinguish a claim such as “Miguel de Cervantes’s Don Quixote is a funny book.” First, the student might ask herself, “Which of the four basic relationships is represented in my claim?” She decides that her claim is one of contrast; she is asserting that Don Quixote is a funny book in contrast to other, more serious books of its time on the same subject. Then, the student considers the subtypes of contrast relationships: antithesis, alternative, comparison, and concession. After she determines that her claim is essentially one of comparison, she uses the signal words and phrases associated with that subtype to restate her claim in a way that distinguishes it from alternative or opposing claims: “In contrast to other romances of its time, Don Quixote explores chivalry from a humorous perspective.” Notice that the student also refined the imprecise term funny and clarified the genre and subject of her claim.
Making Inductive Inferences
Making inductive inferences involves forming reasonable guesses based on observations and background knowledge. Marzano and Pickering (1997) highlighted the process of inductive reasoning and presented three strategies teachers can use to introduce students to that process:
1.Help students understand the mental process of making inductive inferences.
2.Give students a model for the process of making inductive inferences.
3.Help students focus on critical steps and difficult aspects of the process.
Here, we describe each strategy in detail.
Understand the Mental Process
To introduce students to the process of making inductive inferences, use a concrete example. Walk into the classroom, slam the door, throw a pile of books and papers on your desk, frown, sigh, and cross your arms in front of your chest. Ask students what conclusions they reached as they observed these actions (for example, they might say, “You’re angry”). Explain that when they make specific observations and draw conclusions from them, they are performing a mental process called making inferences. To help them understand that inferences are not necessarily true, ask them to identify other possible causes of your behavior, such as being in a hurry or being tired.
A Model for Making Inductive Inferences
Although making inductive inferences is a mental process, a concrete model can help students make high-quality inferences. Marzano and Pickering (1997) recommended the following process:
1.Without assuming anything, focus on specific pieces of information or observations.
2.Look for patterns or connections in the information and observations.
3.Make a general statement to explain the patterns or connections.
4.Gather more information and observations to see if your statement holds up; if not, adjust it accordingly.
To provide opportunities for students to practice the process, go on an inference walk around the school building or grounds. Model the process using a think-aloud. For example, in the cafeteria, you might say, “I’m looking around, and I notice that mayonnaise and pickles are set out at the condiment table. I’m also noticing that there isn’t any silverware set out by the trays today. I smell chicken cooking, and I can see hamburger buns stacked up in the lunch line. Let me put all of this information together. It could be that chicken sandwiches are today’s entrée. What else do I see or know that would support or refute that
