Advertisement

Exploring Students’ Integrated Reading and Summary Writing Processes Through an Online System

  • Hui-Chin Yeh
  • Shih-Hsien YangEmail author
  • Gia-Ling Chen
Original Paper

Abstract

English-as-a-Foreign-Language (EFL) students often encounter difficulties with English writing due to limited vocabulary and an inability to integrate reading and writing skills effectively. Summary writing is one of the most effective means of integrating English reading comprehension while developing writing skills. However, writing summaries requires unobservable cognitive processes of identifying main ideas in order to convert paragraphs into concise statements. This study contributes to the existing literature on summary writing by developing and testing an online summary writing system designed to support the cognitive processes of integrated reading and writing. The findings highlight the key factors and functions involved in the design system to support summary construction. The online writing system comprises Selecting, Organizing, and Integrating (SOI) modules with the functions of Vocabulary Helper, Online Dictionary, and Reference tools. The participants were 20 students in a reading class who were recruited to receive 11 weeks of English summary writing instruction. The data included pre- and post-TOEIC reading test scores, summary writing efficiency, action logs in the online system, and responses to a questionnaire. The results showed that the system functioned to scaffold students’ integrated reading and writing with the SOI functions, providing them with opportunities for repeated review of the selected vocabulary, main ideas, and important sentences. These were the fundamental factors in facilitating summary writing processes. Pedagogical implications are discussed.

Keywords

Summary writing SOI model Reading strategies 

探究線上系統中學生整合閱讀和摘要寫作過程

摘要

以英語為外語的學習者在面對英語寫作時常常會遇到單字量不足或無法有效率地整合閱讀和寫作。摘要寫作就是在養成寫作技巧時整合閱讀理解資訊最有效率的方法之一。然而摘要寫作需經歷將文章要旨精要的陳述的認知歷程。此篇研究開發了一個線上摘要寫作系統以探究其對學習者在整合閱讀及寫作時的認知歷程及影響, 以期對現有文獻有所貢獻。此研究結果點出主要支援摘要寫作的關鍵和系統功能。參與者是二十位參與閱讀課程的學生並進行了11週的英語摘要寫作教學。研究資料包含前後、測的多益閱讀成績, 摘要寫作的成效, 在線上系統的行為紀錄和問卷調查結果。研究結果顯示這個系統的選擇、組織及整合模式的設計對建立學生的閱讀整合及寫作能力有正面的成效, 並且提供他們機會去重複複習精選單字、大意和重要的句子以協助摘要寫作的歷程。

關鍵詞

摘要寫作 選擇-組織-整合模式 閱讀策略 

Notes

Funding Information

This project is supported by the Mistry of Science and Technology under grant number 106-2628-S-224-001-MY3.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, V., & Hidi, S. (1989). Teaching students to summarize. Educational Leadership, 46(4), 26–28.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baba, K. (2009). Aspects of lexical proficiency in writing summaries in a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baleghizadeh, S., & Babapur, M. (2011). The effect of summary writing on reading comprehension and recall of EFL students. New England Reading Association Journal, 47(1), 44–57.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belcher, D., & Connor, U. (2001). Reflections on multi-literate lives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blachowicz, C., & Ogle, D. (2017). Reading comprehension: Strategies for independent learners. New York: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: the development of exercise. Journal of Memory and Language, 22, 1–14.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown, C., Snodgrass, T., Kemper, S. J., Herman, R., & Covington, M. A. (2008). Automatic measurement of propositional idea density from part-of-speech tagging. Behavior Research Methods, 40(2), 540–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caccamise, D. (2011). Improved reading comprehension by writing. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 18(1), 27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen, Y. S., & Su, S. W. (2011). A genre-based approach to teaching EFL summary writing. ELT Journal, 66(2), 184–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen, N. S., Kinshuk, Wei, C. W., & Chen, H. J. (2008). Mining e-Learning domain concept map from academic articles. Computer & Education, 50, 1009–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61, 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 205–242). Newark: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Elish-Piper, L., & Hinrichs, S. R. (2010). Writing summaries of expository text using the magnet summary strategy. In B. Moss & D. Lapp (Eds.), Teaching new literacies in grades 4–6 (pp. 327–339). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning strategies that promote understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Franco, C. D. P. (2008). Using wiki-based peer-correction to develop writing skills of Brazilian EFL learners. Novitas-ROYAL, 2(1), 49–59.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frey, N., Fisher, D., & Hernandez, T. (2003). What’s the gist? Summary writing for struggling adolescent writers. Voices from the Middle, 11(2), 43–49.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Friend, R. (2001). Effects of strategy instruction on summary writing of college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gajria, M., & Jitendra, A. K. (2016). Effective strategies for developing reading comprehension. In S. Rachel & J. Malatesha (Eds.), Interventions in learning disabilities (pp. 119–137). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Garner, R. (1982). Efficient text summarization: cost and benefit. Journal of Educational Research, 75(5), 275–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Godwin-Jones, B. (2008). Emerging technologies: web-writing 2.0: enabling, documenting, and assessing writing online. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 7–13.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grabe, W., & Zhang, C. (2013). Reading and writing together: a critical component of English for academic purposes teaching and learning. TESOL Journal, 4(1), 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2005). Improving the writing performance of young struggling writers. The Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Graham, S., & Herbert, M. A. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. A Carnegie Corporation time to act report. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hare, V. C., & Borchardt, K. M. (1984). Direct instruction of summarization skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(1), 62–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hedgcock, J. S., & Ferris, D. R. (2009). Teaching readers of English: Students, texts, and contexts. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Janopoulos, M. (1986). The relationship of pleasure reading and second language writing proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 20(4), 763–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jitendra, A. K., & Gajria, M. (2011). Main idea and summarization instruction to improve reading comprehension. In R. E. O’Connor & P. F. Vadasy (Eds.), Handbook of reading interventions (pp. 198–219). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Karbalaei, A., & Rajyashree, K. S. (2010). The impact of summarization strategy training on university ESL learners’ reading comprehension. The International Journal of Language Society and Culture, 30, 41–53.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kiewra, K. A. (2005). Learn how to study and SOAR to success. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kim, S. A. (2001). Characteristics of EFL readers’ summary writing: a study with Korean university students. Foreign Language Annals, 34(6), 569–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kobayashi, M. (2002). Method effects on reading comprehension test performance: text organization and response format. Language Testing, 19(2), 193–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee, S., & Hsu, Y. (2009). Determining the crucial characteristics of extensive reading programs: the impact of extensive reading on EFL writing. The International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 5(1), 12–20.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lee, S., & Krashen, S. (2002). Predictors of success in writing in English as a foreign language: reading, revision behavior, apprehension, and writing. College Student Journal, 36(4), 532–543.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lund, A. (2008). Wikis: a collective approach to language production. ReCALL, 20(1), 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ma, Y. H., & Lin, W. Y. (2015). A study on the relationship between English reading comprehension and English vocabulary knowledge. Education Research International, 2015, 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/209154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mak, B., & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary school students in Hong Kong. System, 36(3), 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works. Alexandria: ASCD.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Marzec-Stawiarska, M. (2016). The influence of summary writing on the development of reading skills in a foreign language. System, 59, 90–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: the SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review, 8(4), 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 43–71). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mermelstein, A. D. (2015). Improving EFL learners’ writing through enhanced extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 27(2), 182–198.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010). Empirical research on learners’ perceptions: Interaction equivalency theorem in blended learning. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning (EURODL). Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2010/Miyazoe_Anderson.pdf.
  46. 46.
    Nelson, J. R., Smith, D. J., & Dodd, J. M. (1992). The effects of a summary skills strategy to students identified as learning disabled on their comprehension of science text. Education and Treatment of Children, 15(3), 228–243.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Neufeld, P. (2005). Comprehension instruction in content area classes. The Reading Teacher, 59, 302–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language: a longitudinal case study. Written Communication, 14(1), 3–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Taylor, K. (1986). Summary writing by young children. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(2), 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tiffin-Richards, S. P., & Schroeder, S. (2015). The component processes of reading comprehension in adolescents. Learning and Individual Differences, 42, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Turgut, Y. (2009). EFL learners’ experience of online writing by PBWiki. In G. Siemens, & C. Fulford (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 3838–3847).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    van den Broek, P., Lynch, J. S., Naslund, J., Ievers-Landis, C. E., & Verduin, K. (2003). The development of comprehension of main ideas in narratives: evidence from the selection of titles. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 707–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Williams, J. P. (1988). Identifying main ideas: a basic aspect of reading comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders, 8(3), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11(2), 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24(4), 345–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Yang, Y. F. (2006). Reading strategies or comprehension monitoring strategies? Reading Psychology, 27(4), 313–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Yang, Y. F. (2014). Preparing language teachers for blended teaching of summary writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(3), 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Yang, Y. F. (2016). Transforming and constructing academic knowledge through online peer feedback in summary writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 683–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Yu, G. (2007). Students’ voices in the evaluation of their written summaries: empowerment and democracy for test takers? Language Testing, 24(4), 539–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Yu, G. (2008). Reading to summarize in English and Chinese: A tale of two languages? Language Testing, 25, 521–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Taiwan Normal University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Foreign LanguagesNational Yunlin University of Science and TechnologyDouliuTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Applied Foreign LanguagesNational Formosa UniversityHuweiTaiwan
  3. 3.Taichung City Chang Yi High SchoolTaichungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations