1887
Volume 23, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-6732
  • E-ISSN: 1570-6001
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Previous research on teaching summarizing skill has focused on summarizing strategies that are appropriate for expository texts rather than narrative text. Findings of these studies showed an advantage for older over younger students but did not control for text difficulty, so age effects may have been confounded by text difficulty. The present study tested an intervention designed to improve summarizing of texts, taking into account the factor of text difficulty. Thirty fourth-grade participants (mean age = 9.7 years) were pretested for reading and summarizing skill. Participants receiving the summarizing treatment ( = 15) were taught to write summaries of narrative texts based on story grammar components. Participants receiving the writing control treatment ( = 15) were taught to write about connections between their lives and the text. Results showed that the story grammar intervention improved the quality of narrative summaries and that better summaries came from easier text than harder text. The present study reveals a shortcoming of previous summarizing studies that attributed superior performance to age without considering text difficulty. Findings show the effectiveness of teaching fourth graders to apply story grammar components to improve their skill in summarizing narrative text.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/wll.00032.hel
2020-10-19
2020-11-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Afflerbach, P.
    (1986) The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers’ main idea construction processes. Outstanding Dissertation Monograph 1986.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Akamatsu, C. T.
    (1988) Summarizing stories: The role of instruction in text structure in learning to write. American Annals of the Deaf, 133(4), 294–302. 10.1353/aad.2012.0641
    https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2012.0641 [Google Scholar]
  3. Armbruster, B., Anderson, T. H., and Ostertag, J.
    (1987) Can text structure/summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text?Reading Research Quarterly, 332–346.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baumann, J. F. and Bergeron, B. S.
    (1993) Story map instruction using children’s literature: Effects on first graders’ comprehension of central narrative elements. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25(4), 407–437. 10.1080/10862969309547828
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969309547828 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bednall, T. C., Kehoe, E. J., & Kehoe, E. J.
    (2011) Effects of self-regulatory instructional aids on self-directed study. Instructional Science, 39(2), 205–226. 10.1007/s11251‑009‑9125‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9125-6 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M.
    (1987) The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence, Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Black, J. B., & Bower, G. H.
    (1980) Story understanding as problem-solving. Poetics, 9,223–250. 10.1016/0304‑422X(80)90021‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(80)90021-2 [Google Scholar]
  8. Boulineau, T., Fore, C., Hagan-Burke, S., & Burke, M. D.
    (2004) Use of story-mapping to increase the story-grammar text comprehension of elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(2), 105–121. 10.2307/1593645
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1593645 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, A. L. and Day, J. D.
    (1983) Macro-rules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior22(1), 1–14. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(83)80002‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(83)80002-4 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown, A. L., Day, J. D., and Jones, R. S.
    (1983) The development of plans for summarization texts. Child Development, 968–979. 10.2307/1129901
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1129901 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chall, J.
    (1983) Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Common Core State Standards Initiative
    Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010) Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history. Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, 2.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cortazzi, M.
    (1993) Narrative Analysis. Washington, D.C.: The Falmer Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Curry, J. L.
    (2003) Hold up the sky. New York: Margaret K. McElderry Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Davidi, O. & Berman, R. A.
    (2014) Writing abilities of pre-adolescents with and without language/learning impairment in reconstructing an informative text. InBarbara Arfe, Julie Dockrell & Virginia Berninger (Eds.), Writing development in children with hearing loss, dyslexia and oral language problems: implications for assessment and instruction. (pp.143–157). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199827282.003.0011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199827282.003.0011 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dimino, J., Gersten, R., Carnine, D., & Blake, G.
    (1990) Story grammar: An approach for promoting at-risk secondary students’ comprehension of literature. The Elementary School Journal, 91(1), 19–32. 10.1086/461635
    https://doi.org/10.1086/461635 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T.
    (2013) Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. 10.1177/1529100612453266
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266 [Google Scholar]
  18. Faggella-Luby, M., & Wardwell, M.
    (2011) RTI in a middle school: Findings and practical implications for a tier 2 reading comprehension study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(1), 35–49. 10.1177/073194871103400103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871103400103 [Google Scholar]
  19. Faggella-Luby, M., Schumaker, J. S., & Deshler, D. D.
    (2007) Embedded learning strategy instruction: Story-structure pedagogy in heterogeneous secondary literature classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(2), 131–147. 10.2307/30035547
    https://doi.org/10.2307/30035547 [Google Scholar]
  20. Feathers, K. M.
    (2002) Young children’s thinking in relation to texts: A comparison with older children. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 17(1), 69–83. 10.1080/02568540209595000
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540209595000 [Google Scholar]
  21. Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., … Wissel, S.
    (2016) Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten through 3rd Grade. Educator’s Practice Guide. NCEE 2016–4008. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
  22. Franzke, M., Kintsch, E., Caccamise, D., Johnson, N., & Dooley, S.
    (2005) Summary Street®: Computer support for comprehension and writing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(1), 53–80. 10.2190/DH8F‑QJWM‑J457‑FQVB
    https://doi.org/10.2190/DH8F-QJWM-J457-FQVB [Google Scholar]
  23. Friend, R.
    (2001) Effects of strategy instruction on summary writing of college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 3–24. 10.1006/ceps.1999.1022
    https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1022 [Google Scholar]
  24. Genereux, R., & McKeough, A.
    (2007) Developing narrative interpretation: Structural and content analyses. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 849–872. 10.1348/000709907X179272
    https://doi.org/10.1348/000709907X179272 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gough, P. and Tunmer, W.
    (1986) Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10. 10.1177/074193258600700104
    https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104 [Google Scholar]
  26. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T.
    (1994) Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371–395. 10.1037/0033‑295X.101.3.371
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371 [Google Scholar]
  27. Graesser, A., Golding, J. M., & Long, D. L.
    (1991) Narrative representation and comprehension. InR. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, and P. D. Pearson (Eds.), The Handbook of Reading Research: Volume II, (pp.171–205). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Graham, S., & Herbert, M.
    (2010) Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. New York: Carnegie Corporation.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hammann, L. A., & Stevens, R. J.
    (2003) Instructional approaches to improving students’ writing of compare-contrast essays: An experimental study. Journal of Literacy Research, 35(2), 731–756. 10.1207/s15548430jlr3502_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3502_3 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hare, V. C. and Borchartdt, K. M.
    (1984) Direct instruction of summarization skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 62–78. 10.2307/747652
    https://doi.org/10.2307/747652 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hebert, M., Gillespie, A., & Graham, S.
    (2013) Comparing effects of different writing activities on reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Reading and Writing26(1):111–38. 10.1007/s11145‑012‑9386‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9386-3 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hidi, S. and Anderson, V.
    (1986) Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56,473–493. 10.3102/00346543056004473
    https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543056004473 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hill, M.
    (1991) Writing summaries promotes thinking and learning across the curriculum – but why are they so difficult to write?Journal of Reading, 536–539.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Idol, L.
    (1987) Group Story Mapping A Comprehension Strategy for Both Skilled and Unskilled Readers. Journal of learning disabilities, 20(4), 196–205. 10.1177/002221948702000401
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002221948702000401 [Google Scholar]
  35. Idol, L., & Croll, V. J.
    (1987) Story-mapping training as a means of improving reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10(3), 214–229. 10.2307/1510494
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1510494 [Google Scholar]
  36. Jitendra, A. K., & Gajria, M.
    (2011) Main idea and summarization instruction to improve reading comprehension. InR. E. O’Connor and P. F. Vadasy (Eds.), The Handbook of Reading Interventions, New York: Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Johnson, N. S.
    (1983) What do you do if you can’t tell the whole story? The development of summarization skills. InK. E. Nelson (Ed.), Children’s Language (Vol. 4). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Keene, E. O. and Zimmerman, S.
    (1997) Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kintsch, W. and van Dijk, T. A.
    (1978) Towards a model of text comprehension and production, Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–394. 10.1037/0033‑295X.85.5.363
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kintsch, E.
    (1990) Macroprocesses and microprocesses in the development of summarization skill. Cognition and Instruction7(3), 161–195. 10.1207/s1532690xci0703_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0703_1 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kintsch, W. and Kozinksy, E.
    (1977) Summarizing stories after reading and listening. Journal of Educational Psychology69(5), 491–499. 10.1037/0022‑0663.69.5.491
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.69.5.491 [Google Scholar]
  42. Labov, W.
    (1997) Some further steps in narrative history. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7. 10.1075/jnlh.7.49som
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jnlh.7.49som [Google Scholar]
  43. Lemaire, B., Mandin, S., Dessus, P., and Denhiere, G.
    (2005) Computational cognitive models of summarization assessment skills. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meetings of the Cognitive Science Society, Italy 2005, 1266–1271.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Leopold, C., Sumfleth, E., & Leutner, D.
    (2013) Learning with summaries: Effects of representation mode and type of learning activity on comprehension and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 27, 40–49. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  45. Long, D. L. & Golding, J. M.
    (1993) Superordinate goal inferences: Are they automatically generated during comprehension?Discourse Processes, 16, 55–73. 10.1080/01638539309544829
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539309544829 [Google Scholar]
  46. McConaughy, S. H., Fizhenry-Coor, I., and Howell, D. C.
    (1983) Developmental differences in schemata for story comprehension. InK. E. Nelson (Ed.), Children’s Language (Vol. 4). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. MetaMetrics
    MetaMetrics. (n.d.). The Lexile framework for reading. Retrieved onMarch 1, 2011, fromwww.lexile.com
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Meyer, B. J. F. and Rice, G. E.
    (1984) The structure of text. InP. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal (Eds.) Handbook of Reading Research (Vol.1). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Mok, W. S. Y., & Chan, W. W. L.
    (2016) How do tests and summary writing tasks enhance long-term retention of students with different levels of test anxiety?Instructional Science, 44(6), 567–581. 10.1007/s11251‑016‑9393‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9393-x [Google Scholar]
  50. NCS Pearson Inc.
    NCS Pearson Inc. (2003) Stanford achievement test series, tenth edition: Directions for administration. San Antonio, TX: Pearson Education Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Olson, C. L.
    (1976) On choosing a test statistic in multivariate analysis of variance. Psychological Bulletin, 83(4), 579–586. 10.1037/0033‑2909.83.4.579
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.83.4.579 [Google Scholar]
  52. Otis, A. S. & Lennon, R. T.
    (2003) Otis-Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT) technical manual. San Antonio, TX: Pearson Education Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Pearson, D. P. and Gallagher, M. C.
    (1983) The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317–344. 10.1016/0361‑476X(83)90019‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83)90019-X [Google Scholar]
  54. Pressley, M. and Harris, K. R.
    (2006) Cognitive strategies instruction: From basic research to classroom instruction. InP. A. Alexander and P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.), (pp.265–285). New York, NY: Routeldge.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Psychometrica
    Psychometrica (2020, February27). Norm score calculator. www.psychometrica.de/normwertrechner_en.html
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Ravid, D., & Berman, R. A.
    (2006) Information density in the development of spoken and written narratives in English and Hebrew. Discourse Processes, 41(2), 117–149. 10.1207/s15326950dp4102_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4102_2 [Google Scholar]
  57. Ravid, D., & Tolchinsky, L.
    (2002) Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model. Journal of child language, 29(2), 417–447. 10.1017/S0305000902005111
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000902005111 [Google Scholar]
  58. Rinehart, S. D., & Thomas, K. F.
    (1993) Summarization ability and text recall by novice studiers. Reading Research and Instruction, 32(4), 24–32. 10.1080/19388079309558130
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19388079309558130 [Google Scholar]
  59. Rinehart, S. D., Stahl, S. A., and Erickson, L. E.
    (1986) Some effects of summarization training on reading and studying. Reading Research Quarterly, 422–438. 10.2307/747614
    https://doi.org/10.2307/747614 [Google Scholar]
  60. Roller, C. M., & Schreiner, R.
    (1985) The effects of narrative and expository organizational instruction on sixth-grade children’s comprehension of expository and narrative prose. Reading Psychology, 6(1–2), 27–42. 10.1080/0270271850060104
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0270271850060104 [Google Scholar]
  61. Rylant, C.
    (2001) Henry and Mudge and Annie’s perfect pet. New York: Aladdin Paperbacks.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. (2007) Annie and Snowball and the pink surprise. New York: Aladdin Paperbacks.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Sachar, L.
    (1978) Sideways stories from Wayside School. New York: Scholastic Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. (1989) Wayside school is falling down. New York: Lothrop, Lee and Shepard Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Saddler, B., Asaro-Saddler, K., Moeyaert, M., & Ellis-Robinson, T.
    (2017) Effects of a summarizing strategy on written summaries of children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 38(2), 87–97. 10.1177/0741932516669051
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516669051 [Google Scholar]
  66. Schellings, G. L. M. and van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M.
    (1995) Main points in instructional texts as identified by students and their teachers. Reading Research Quarterly, 742–756. 10.2307/748196
    https://doi.org/10.2307/748196 [Google Scholar]
  67. Shanahan, T.
    (2013) Letting the text take center stage: How the Common Core State Standards will transform English Language Arts instruction. American Educator, 37(3), 4.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J.
    (2010) Improving Reading Comprehension in Kindergarten through 3rd Grade: IES Practice Guide. NCEE 2010–4038. What Works Clearinghouse.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Snow, C.
    (2002) Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Rand Corporation.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Spirgel, A. S. & Delaney, P. F.
    (2016) Does writing summaries improve memory for text?Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 171–196. 10.1007/s10648‑014‑9290‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9290-2 [Google Scholar]
  71. Stenner, A. J.
    (1996) Measuring reading comprehension with the Lexile framework. Paper presented at themeeting of the Fourth North American Conference on Adolescent/Adult Literacy, Washington, D.C.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Stevens, E. A., Park, S., & Vaughn, S.
    (2018) A review of summarizing and main idea interventions for struggling readers in grades 3 through 12: 1978–2016. Remedial and Special Education, RetrievedJanuary 10, 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Thiede, K. W., & Anderson, M. C. M.
    (2003) Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(2), 129–160. 10.1016/S0361‑476X(02)00011‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00011-5 [Google Scholar]
  74. Wade-Stein, D., & Kintsch, E.
    (2004) Summary Street: Interactive computer support for writing. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 333–362. 10.1207/s1532690xci2203_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2203_3 [Google Scholar]
  75. Wang, Z., Sabatini, J., O’Reilly, T., & Feng, G.
    (2017) How individual differences interact with task demands in text processing. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(2), 165–178. 10.1080/10888438.2016.1276184
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2016.1276184 [Google Scholar]
  76. Weisberg, R., & Balajthy, E.
    (1990) Development of disabled readers’ metacomprehension ability through summarization training using expository text: Results of three studies. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International, 6(2), 117–136. 10.1080/0748763900060204
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0748763900060204 [Google Scholar]
  77. Westby, C., Cullata, B., Lawrence, B., & Hall-Kenyon, K.
    (2010) Summarizing expository texts. Top Lang Disorders, 30(4), 275–287. 10.1097/TLD.0b013e3181ff5a88
    https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0b013e3181ff5a88 [Google Scholar]
  78. Williams, J. P., Laurer, K. D., Hall, K. M., Lord, K. M., Gugga, S., Bak, S., Jacobs, P. R., and deCani, J. S.
    (2002) Teaching elementary school students to identify story themes. Journal of Educational Psychology94(2), 235–248. 10.1037/0022‑0663.94.2.235
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.235 [Google Scholar]
  79. Williams, J. P., Stafford, K. B., Lauer, K. D., Hall, K. M., & Pollini, S.
    (2009) Embedding reading comprehension training in content-area instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 1. 10.1037/a0013152
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013152 [Google Scholar]
  80. Winograd, P. N.
    (1984) Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 404–424. 10.2307/747913
    https://doi.org/10.2307/747913 [Google Scholar]
  81. Yu, G.
    (2009) The shifting sands in the effects of source text summarizability on summary writing. Assessing Writing, 14, 116–137. 10.1016/j.asw.2009.04.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2009.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  82. (2013) The use of summarization tasks: Some lexical and conceptual analyses. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10 (1), 96–109. 10.1080/15434303.2012.750659
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2012.750659 [Google Scholar]
  83. Yussen, S. R., Mathews II, S. R., Buss, R. R., and Kane, P. T.
    (1980) Developmental change in judging important and critical elements of stories. Developmental Psychology, 16(3), 213–219. 10.1037/0012‑1649.16.3.213
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.16.3.213 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/wll.00032.hel
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/wll.00032.hel
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error