Abstract
Summary writing is an important tactic for learning from text and the summaries provide information on students’ comprehension and learning processes. We investigated the nature of the summaries produced by bilingual adolescents, and whether their summaries were related to their reading abilities in their first and second languages. In each language, we examined the performance of students identified as typically developing, poor decoders, or poor comprehenders. Participants were 246 grade 8 students enrolled in English immersion programs in China. Measures included English word reading and reading comprehension, Chinese word reading and reading comprehension, and nonverbal ability. Students’ text-absent summaries of an English 254-word expository passage were analyzed for the number of themes, main ideas, important details, and unimportant details. Using latent profile analysis, participants were identified as typical readers (TR, n = 123), poor decoders (PD, n = 74), or poor comprehenders (PC, n = 49) in English, and TR (n = 129), PD (n = 74), or PC (n = 43) in Chinese, based on word reading and reading comprehension in both English and Chinese. MANCOVA results showed that after controlling for nonverbal ability, in the English-defined groups, the TR group outperformed PD and PC on themes, main ideas, and important details; in the Chinese-defined groups, the TR group outperformed PD and PC on themes, TR performed better than PC on main ideas and important details, and PD outperformed PC on main ideas. Discussion focuses on the difficulties faced by bilingual students with reading difficulties and on the potential of summary writing instruction to improve their comprehension and learning processes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and material
Not applicable.
Code availability
Not applicable.
References
Asaro-Saddler, K., Muir-Knox, H., & Meredith, H. (2018). The effects of a summary writing strategy on the literacy skills of adolescents with disabilities. Exceptionality, 26(2), 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2017.1283626
Bialystok, E. (2013). The impact of bilingualism on language and literacy development. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism (2nd ed., pp. 624–648). Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
Branum-Martin, L., Fletcher, J. M., & Stuebing, K. K. (2013). Classification and identification of reading and math disabilities: The special case of comorbidity. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 490–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412468767
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2006). Profiles of children with specific reading comprehension difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 683–696. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X67610
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2007). Reading comprehension difficulties: Correlates, causes, and consequences. In K. Cain & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Children’s comprehension problems in oral and written language: A cognitive perspective (pp. 41–75). Guilford Press.
Chen, Y. S., & Su, S. W. (2012). A genre-based approach to teaching EFL summary writing. ELT Journal, 66, 184–192. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr061
Chew, C. S., Wu, W., Idris, N., Loh, E., & Chua, Y. (2020). Enhancing summary writing of ESL learners via a theory-based online tool: System development and evaluation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58, 398–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119837765
Chou, M. H. (2012). Implementing keyword and question generation approaches in teaching EFL summary writing. English Language Teaching, 5, 36–41. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n12p36
Choy, S. C., & Lee, M. Y. (2012). Effects of teaching paraphrasing skills to students learning summary writing in ESL. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 8, 77–89. https://doi.org/10.22329/JTL.V8I2.3145
Cohen, G. (2000). Hierarchical models in cognition: Do they have psychological reality? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 12, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/095414400382181
Deacon, S. H., Cook, K., & Parrila, R. (2012). Identifying high-functioning dyslexics: Is self-report of early reading problems enough? Annals of Dyslexia, 62, 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-012-0068-2
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (3rd ed.). American Guidance Service.
Esmaeili, H. (2002). Integrating reading and writing tasks and ESL students’ reading and writing performance in an English language test. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 599–622. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.58.4.599
Farnia, F., & Geva, E. (2011). Cognitive correlates of vocabulary growth in English language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(4), 711–738. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000038
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2019). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Friend, R. (2001). Effects of strategy instruction in summarization of college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1022
Genesee, F., & Jared, D. (2008). Literacy development in early French immersion programs. Canadian Psychology, 49, 140–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.49.2.140
Georgiou, G. K., Martinez, D., Vieira, A. P. A., Antoniuk, A., Romero, S., & Guo, K. (2021). A meta-analytic review of comprehension deficits in students with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-021-00244-y
Geva, E., & Farnia, F. (2012). Developmental changes in the nature of language proficiency and reading fluency paint a more complex view of reading comprehension in ELL and EL1. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25(8), 1819–1845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9333-8
Graham, S. (2019). Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in Education, 43, 277–303. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x18821125
Graham, S., Liu, X., Bartlett, B., Ng, C., Harris, K. R., Aitken, A., Barkel, A., Kavanaugh, C., & Talukdar, J. (2017). Reading for writing: A meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions on writing. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 243–284. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317746927
Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2011). Writing-to-read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81(4), 710–744. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.4.t2k0m13756113566
Hall-Mills, S. S., & Marante, L. M. (2022). Explicit text structure instruction supports expository text comprehension for adolescents with learning disabilities: A systematic review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 45(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487209064
Hebert, M., Gillespie, A., & Graham, S. (2013). Comparing effects of different writing activities on reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Reading and Writing, 26, 111–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9386-3
Hebert, M., Bohaty, J. J., Nelson, J. R., & Brown, J. (2016). The effects of text structure intervention on expository reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(5), 609–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000082
Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1986). Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56, 473–493. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170342
Hidi, S., Baird, W., & Hildyard, A. (1982). That’s important, but is it interesting? Two factors in text processing. In A. Flammer & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Discourse Processing (pp. 63–75). North Holland.
Jitendra, A., Hoppes, M., & Xin, Y. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of summarization strategy and self-monitoring instruction. Journal of Special Education, 34, 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246690003400302
Kim, Y. S. G. (2020). Interactive dynamic literacy model: An integrative theoretical framework for reading-writing relations. In R. Alves, T. Limpo, & M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading-writing connections: Towards integrative literacy science (pp. 11–34). Springer.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363
Kirby, J. R. (1988). Style, strategy, and skill in reading. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning styles and learning strategies (pp. 229–274). Plenum Press.
Kirby, J. R. (1991). Reading to learn: Toward an applied psychology of reading comprehension. In J. B. Biggs (Ed.), Teaching for Learning: The View from Cognitive Psychology (pp. 103–125). Australian Council for Educational Research.
Kirby, J. R., & Cantwell, R. H. (1985). Use of advance organizers to facilitate higher-level text comprehension. Human Learning: Journal of Practical Research & Applications, 4, 159–168.
Kirby, J. R., & Pedwell, D. (1991). Students’ approaches to summarisation. Educational Psychology, 11, 297–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341910110306
Kirby, J. R., & Woodhouse, R. (1994). Measuring and predicting depth of processing in learning. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 40, 147–161.
Kirby, J. R., Cain, K., & White, B. (2012). Deeper learning in reading comprehension. In J. R. Kirby & M. J. Lawson (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes (pp. 315–338). Cambridge University Press.
Li, M., & Kirby, J. R. (2014). Unexpected poor comprehenders among adolescent ESL students. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.775130
Li, M., Kirby, J. R., Geva, E., Koh, P., & Zhang, H. (2022). Profiles of poor decoders, poor comprehenders, and typically-developing readers in adolescents learning English as a second language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 55(4), 306–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194211023200
MacGinitie, W. H., & MacGinitie, R. K. (1992). Gates–MacGinitie Reading Tests (2nd Canadian ed.). Nelson
Marzec-Stawiarska, M. (2016). The influence of summary writing on the development of reading skills in a foreign language. System, 59, 90–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.04.006
Mayer, R. (1995). Study habits and strategies. In L. Anderson (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Teaching and Teacher Education (pp. 434–436). Elsevier Science Ltd.
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, 51, (pp. 297–384). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51009-2
Melby-Lervåg, M., & Lervåg, A. (2014). Reading comprehension and its underlying components in second-language learners: A meta-analysis of studies comparing first-and second-language learners. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 409. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033890
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus User’s Guide: Statistical Analysis with Latent Variables (7th ed.). Muthén & Muthén
O’Connor, M., Geva, E., & Koh, P. W. (2019). Examining reading comprehension profiles of grade 5 monolinguals and English language learners through the lexical quality hypothesis lens. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52, 232–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418815646
Ouellette, G. P. (2006). What’s meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 554–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.554
Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687
Plakans, L. (2009). The role of reading strategies in integrating L2 writing task. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 252–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.05.001
Prinz, A., Golkel, S., & Wittwer, J. (2020). To what extent do situation-model-approach interventions improve relative metacomprehension accuracy? Meta-analytic insights. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 917–949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09558-6
Raudszus, H., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2019). Situation model building ability uniquely predicts first and second language reading comprehension. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 50, 106–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2018.11.003
Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Section 1: General overview. Oxford Psychologists Press; The Psychological Corporation.
Siu, T.-S.C., & Ho, S.-H.C. (2020). A longitudinal investigation of syntactic awareness and reading comprehension in Chinese-English bilingual children. Learning and Instruction, 67, 101327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101327
Siu, F. K. P. (2018). The usefulness of using generalizing words for teaching summary writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8, 482–491. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0805.04
Stein, B. L., & Kirby, J. R. (1992). The effects of text absent and text present conditions on summarization and recall of text. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969209547773
Stevens, E. A., Park, S., & Vaughn, S. (2019). 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517749940
Sweller, J., Kalyuga, S., & Ayres, P. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE). PRO-ED.
Volk, H. E., Henderson, C., Neuman, R. J., & Todd, R. D. (2006). Validation of population-based ADHD subtypes and identification of three clinically impaired subtypes. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part b: Neuropsychiatric Gemetics, 141B, 312–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.b.30299
Westby, C., Culatta, B., Lawrence, B., & Hall-Kenyon, K. (2010). Summarizing expository texts. Topics in Language Disorders, 30, 275–287. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0b013e3181ff5a88
Yang, H.-C. (2014). Toward a model of strategies and summary writing performance. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11, 403–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2014.957381
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Authors Li and Kirby designed the study and all authors participated in the data analysis and writing.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
This research was cleared through the Queen’s University General Research Ethics Board.
Consent to participate
Informed consent was provided by parents and students assented to participation.
Consent for publication
In the letter of information and informed consent, parents agreed that findings could be published as long as no individual identifying information was provided.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Passage read by students titled “Cities”
“Cities”
In the Middle Ages, cities were growing larger and larger, but had many problems. The Middle Ages were about 1000 years ago. You probably know them as the time of knights fighting with long lances on horseback. These fights were called jousts.
The cities had grown larger because so many people wanted to move there to make more money or to have an easier life. But there were not enough houses. People had to live in very crowded conditions, so sickness spread very quickly. How would you like to share your house with five other families?
Sometimes new houses were built poorly. The houses were close together, so that when a fire started, many houses caught fire. Many people died. The city of London in England had a fire in which 70,000 homes were destroyed – that fire had started in a bakery!
Garbage was another problem. They did not have any garbage pick-up, so people just tossed their garbage out the window into the street. Herds of wild pigs ran through the streets eating the garbage! There were rats everywhere, and the rats also spread disease.
Cities in the Middle Ages did not have any police. Powerful people could do anything they wanted, and the poor people just had to suffer. Criminals could walk into your house and take anything they wanted!
There were many problems, but people worked hard to solve them. Cities still have many problems, but they are not as bad as the ones the cities in the Middle Ages had.
Cities text organized by Propositions
T = Themes.
M = Main Ideas.
ID = Important Details.
UD = Unimportant Details.
T-1: In the Middle Ages, cities were growing larger and larger, but had many problems.
ID-1: cities were growing larger and larger.
ID-3: The Middle Ages were about 1000 years ago.
UD-1: You probably know them as the time of knights fighting.
UD-2: These fights were called jousts.
ID-2: The cities had grown larger because so many people wanted to move there.
ID-4: to make more money or to have an easier life.
ID-5: But there were not enough houses.
M-1: People had to live in very crowded conditions,
ID-6: so sickness spread very quickly.
UD-3: How would you like to share your house with five other families?
M-2: Sometimes new houses were built poorly.
ID-7: many houses caught fire.
ID-8: Many people died.
UD-4: The city of London in England had a fire.
UD-5: 70,000 homes were destroyed.
UD-6: that fire had started in a bakery.
M-3: Garbage was another problem.
ID-9: They did not have any garbage pick-up.
ID-10: so people just tossed their garbage out the window into the street.
UD-8: Herds of wild pigs ran through the streets.
UD-7: There were rats everywhere.
ID-11: the rats also spread disease.
M-4: Cities in the Middle Ages did not have any police.
ID-12: Powerful people could do anything they wanted.
ID-13: and the poor people just had to suffer.
UD-9: Criminals could walk into your house.
T-2: Cities still have many problems, but they are not as bad as the ones the cities in the Middle Ages had.
ID-14: There were many problems, but people worked hard to solve them.
ID-15: Cities still have many problems.
Summary Diagram for “Cities” organized by propositions
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Li, M., Chan, J. & Kirby, J.R. The summary writing performance of bilingual learners with reading difficulties. Ann. of Dyslexia 73, 109–129 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-022-00258-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-022-00258-0