Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identification of main ideas in expository texts: selection versus deletion

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Readers often struggle to identify the main ideas in expository texts. Existing research and instruction provide some guidance on how to encourage readers to identify main ideas. However, there is substantial variability in how main ideas are operationalized and how readers are prompted to identify main ideas. This variability hinders identification of best practices for instruction and intervention. The goal of the current series of experiments was to systematically examine the extent to which different tasks (e.g., selecting main ideas vs. deleting details) and different operationalizations of main ideas (e.g., “important ideas” vs. “main ideas”) influenced adult readers’ identification of sentences containing main ideas as they read 11 expository texts. Across experiments, the results showed that readers were generally unreliable in identifying main idea sentences; however, they were more reliable when they were instructed to select main idea sentences compared to when they were instructed to delete sentences comprised of details, and more skilled readers were more reliable than less skilled readers. The findings from the current experiments challenge existing instructional approaches and call for additional research to better understand readers’ main idea selection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Afflerbach, P. (1990). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers main idea construction strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 31–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Afflerbach, P., & Walker, B. (1992). Main idea instruction: An analysis of three basal reader series. Reading Research and Instruction, 32(1), 11–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., Villamor, I., & Ramani, R. S. (2021). MTurk research: Review and recommendations. Journal of Management, 47(4), 823–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, L. K., Snow, E. L., Jackson, G. T., Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). Reading components and their relation to writing. Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 114(4), 663–691.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aulls, M. W. (1978). Developing categorization, topic, main idea, and outlining skills: Developmental and remedial reading in the middle grades. Boston: Ailyn & Bacon. Axelrod, J. Getting the main idea is still the main idea. Journal of Reading, 18, 383–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumann, J. F. (1984). The effectiveness of a direct instruction paradigm for teaching main idea comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 93–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. (2006). Reading Next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Alliance for Excellent Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogaerds-Hazenberg, S. T., Evers-Vermeul, J., & van den Bergh, H. (2021). A meta-analysis on the effects of text structure instruction on reading comprehension in the upper elementary grades. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(3), 435–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boudah, D. J. (2014). The main idea strategy: A strategy to improve reading comprehension through inferential thinking. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49(3), 148–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braze, D., Tabor, W., Shankweiler, D. P., & Mencl, W. E. (2007). Speaking up for vocabulary reading skill differences in young adults. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 226–243.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrnes, J. P., & Guthrie, J. T. (1992). Prior knowledge and textbook search. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 8–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carver, R. P. (1992). Reading rate: Theory, research, and practical implications. Journal of Reading, 36, 84–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chmielewski, M., & Kucker, S. C. (2020). An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 464–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 311–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69(2), 145–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., Tackett, K. K., & Schnakenberg, J. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262–300.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Englert, C. S., & Mariage, T. V. (2020). Strategy instruction to support struggling readers in comprehending expository main ideas. Intervention in School and Clinic, 56(2), 74–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, S. (2007). Comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210–225.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garwood, J., Brunsting, N., & Fox, L. (2014). Improving reading comprehension and fluency outcomes for adolescents with emotional-behavioral disorders: Recent research synthesized. Remedial and Special Education, 35(3), 181–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. R., Lawless, K., & Manning, F. (2012). Research and development of multiple source comprehension assessment. In Reading-from words to multiple texts (pp. 194–213). Routledge.

  • Goldman, S. R. (2012). Adolescent literacy: Learning and understanding content. The Future of Children, 22(2), 89–116.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hare, V. C., & Milligan, B. (1984). Main idea identification: Instructional explanations in four basal reader series. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16(3), 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare, V. C., Rabinowitz, M., & Schieble, K. M. (1989). Text effects on main idea comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 72–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, D. J., Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. J. (2019). Common concerns with MTurk as a participant pool: Evidence and solutions. In F. R. Kardes, P. M. Herr, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in consumer psychology. Routledge.

  • Jitendra, A. K., Chard, D., Hoppes, M. K., Renouf, K., & Gardill, M. C. (2001). An evaluation of main idea strategy instruction in four commercial reading programs: Implications for students with learning problems. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 17(1), 53–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., & Van Den Broek, P. (2005). The effects of readers’ misconceptions on comprehension of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 235–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, R., Clifford, S., Burleigh, T., Waggoner, P. D., Jewell, R., & Winter, N. J. (2020). The shape of and solutions to the MTurk quality crisis. Political Science Research and Methods, 8(4), 614–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M., & McCarthy, K. S. (2021). Using graph centrality as a global index to assess students’ mental model structure development during summary writing. Educational Technology Research & Development (ETRD), 69, 971–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). The representation of knowledge in minds and machines. International Journal of Psychology, 33, 411–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loman, N. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). Signaling techniques that increase the understandability of expository prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 402–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorch, R. F., Jr., & Lorch, E. P. (1985). Topic structure representation and text recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 137–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnus, K., & Hare, V. C. (1986). The unintended road to ecological invalidity: Compromises in instrument construction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX

  • McCarthy, K. S., Guerrero, T. A., Kent, K. M., Allen, L. K., McNamara, D. S., Chao, S.-F., Steinberg, J., O’Reilly, T., & Sabatini, J. (2018). Comprehension in a scenario-based assessment: Domain and topic specific background knowledge. Discourse Processes, 55(5–6), 510–524.

  • McCarthy, K. S., & McNamara, D. S. (2021). The multidimensional knowledge in text comprehension framework. Educational Psychologist, 56, 1–19.

  • McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., & Schraw, G. (2010). Exploring how relevance instructions affect personal reading intentions, reading goals and text processing: A mixed methods study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 229–241.

  • McMaster, K., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., White, M., Rapp, D. N., Kendeou, P., Bohn-Gettler, C., & Carlson, S. (2012). Making the right connections: Differential effects of reading intervention for subgroups of comprehenders. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 100–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S. (Ed.). (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: Theory, interventions, and technologies. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 297–384). Elsevier Science.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F., & Rice, E. (1982). The interaction of reader strategies and the organization of text. Text, 2, 155–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F., & Rice, E. (1989). Prose processing in adulthood: The text, the learner, and the task. In L. W. Poon, D. C. Rubin, & B. A. Wilson (Eds.), Everyday cognition in adulthood and late life (pp. 151–194). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. C., & Keenan, J. M. (2009). How word decoding skill impacts text memory: The centrality deficit and how domain knowledge can compensate. Annals of Dyslexia, 59(2), 99–113.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2019). The nation’s report card. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/reading/2019/

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officer. (2010). Common core state standards for english language arts. Washington DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.

  • O'Reilly, T., Best, R., & McNamara, D.S. (2004). Self-explanation reading training: Effects for low-knowledge readers. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1053–1058). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

  • Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Ghatala, E. S., Woloshyn, V., & Pirie, J. (1990). Sometimes adults miss the main ideas and do not realize it: Confidence in responses to short-answer and multiple-choice comprehension questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 232–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Edmonds, M., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (2007). Interventions for adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis with implications for practice. RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.

  • Shapiro, A. M. (2004). How including prior knowledge as a subject variable may change outcomes of learning research. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 159–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. B. (2003a). The importance of expository text: Reading and writing. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication.

  • Smith, CB. (2003b). The value of expository text for today's world. ERIC Topical Bibliography and Commentary. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English and Communication.

  • Solis, M., Ciullo, S., Vaughn, S., Pyle, N., Hassaram, B., & Leroux, A. (2012). Reading comprehension interventions for middle school students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of 30 years of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(4), 327–340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, S. A., Jacobson, M. G., Davis, C. E., & Davis, R. L. (1989). Prior knowledge and difficult vocabulary in the comprehension of unfamiliar text. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, S. A., Hare, V. C., Sinatra, R., & Gregory, J. F. (1991). Defining the role of prior knowledge and vocabulary in reading comprehension: The retiring of number 41. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(4), 487–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, E. A., & Vaughn, S. (2021). Using paraphrasing and text structure instruction to support main idea generation. Teaching Exceptional Children, 53(4), 300–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 40(3), 131–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoeger, H., Sontag, C., & Ziegler, A. (2014). Impact of a teacher-led intervention on preference for self-regulated learning, finding main ideas in expository texts, and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 799–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toonder, S., & Sawyer, L. B. (2021). The impact of adaptive computer assisted instruction on reading comprehension: Identifying the main idea. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37, 1336–1347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Broek, P., Beker, K., & Oudega, M. (2015). Inference generation in text comprehension: Automatic and strategic processes in the construction of a mental representation. In E. J. O’Brien, A. E. Cook, & R. F. Lorch (Eds.), Inferences during reading (pp. 94–121). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • van den Broek, P. W., Helder, A., & Van Leijenhorst, L. (2013). Sensitivity to structural centrality: Developmental and individual differences in reading comprehension skills. In M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman & J.-F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading: From words to multiple texts (pp. 132–146). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

  • van den Broek, P., Lynch, J. S., Naslund, J., Ievers-Landis, C. E., & Verduim, K. (2003). The development of comprehension of main ideas in narratives: Evidence from the selection of titles. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 707–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, D. (2009). Factors affecting the comprehension of global and local main idea. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 39(2), 34–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. P. (1986). Teaching children to identify the main idea of expository texts. Exceptional Children, 53, 163–168.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. P. (1988). Identifying main ideas: A basic aspect of reading comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders, 8, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M., & Stevens, V. (1972). Understanding paragraph structure. Journal of Reading, 15, 313–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winograd, P. N. (1984). Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 404–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winograd, P. N., & Brennan, S. (1983). Main idea instruction in the basal readers. In J. A. Niles & L. A. Harris (Eds.), Searches for meaning in reading/language processing and instruction, Thirty-second yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 80–86). National Reading Conference.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305A190050 to Arizona State University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Reese Butterfuss

    Present address: Human Resources Research Organization, Alexandria, VA, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Reese Butterfuss & Danielle S. McNamara

  2. Department of Learning Sciences, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Kathryn S. McCarthy

  3. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Ellen Orcutt & Panayiota Kendeou

Authors
  1. Reese Butterfuss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kathryn S. McCarthy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ellen Orcutt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Panayiota Kendeou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Danielle S. McNamara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reese Butterfuss.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Butterfuss, R., McCarthy, K.S., Orcutt, E. et al. Identification of main ideas in expository texts: selection versus deletion. Read Writ 37, 757–785 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10431-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10431-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation