Cover not available

Article published In: Written Language & Literacy
Vol. 23:1 (2020) ► pp.29–58

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

The impact of story grammar instruction and text difficulty on students’ skill in summarizing narratives

 | Fairleigh Dickinson University
 | City University of New York
Published online: 19 October 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00032.hel
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 narrative 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 (N = 15) were taught to write summaries of narrative texts based on story grammar components. Participants receiving the writing control treatment (N = 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.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Summarization strategies and text structure
      • 1.1.1Structure of narratives
    • 1.2Summarizing behaviors and age effects
    • 1.3Current study
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Participants
      • 2.1.1Materials
        • Literacy and verbal ability pretests
          • Stanford achievement test, tenth edition, reading vocabulary subtest
          • Stanford achievement test, tenth edition, reading comprehension subtest
          • Otis-Lennon school ability test, level D, eighth edition, verbal
        • Literacy pretests and posttests
    • 2.2Text passages
    • 2.3Intervention procedures
      • Pretests
      • Intervention sessions
        • Summarizing intervention
        • Writing control intervention
      • Posttest
    • 2.4Scoring procedures
      • Absenteeism and attrition
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Pretest literacy skills
      • 3.1.1Passage effects and order effects
    • 3.2Impact of text difficulty
    • 3.3Posttest performance
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Story grammar knowledge and intervention
    • 4.2Text difficulty
    • 4.3Implications for instruction
    • 4.4Study limitations
    • 4.5Future studies
  • References
References (83)
References
Afflerbach, P. (1986). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers’ main idea construction processes. Outstanding Dissertation Monograph, 1986.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence, Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Black, J. B., & Bower, G. H. (1980). Story understanding as problem-solving. Poetics, 91,223–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, A. L. and Day, J. D. (1983). Macro-rules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22(1), 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, A. L., Day, J. D., and Jones, R. S. (1983). The development of plans for summarization texts. Child Development, 968–979. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chall, J. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history. Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, 21.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cortazzi, M. (1993). Narrative Analysis. Washington, D.C.: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Curry, J. L. (2003). Hold up the sky. New York: Margaret K. McElderry Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davidi, O. & Berman, R. A. (2014). Writing abilities of pre-adolescents with and without language/learning impairment in reconstructing an informative text. In Barbara 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friend, R. (2001). Effects of strategy instruction on summary writing of college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 261, 3–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Genereux, R., & McKeough, A. (2007). Developing narrative interpretation: Structural and content analyses. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 849–872. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gough, P. and Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 71, 6–10. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371–395. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graesser, A., Golding, J. M., & Long, D. L. (1991). Narrative representation and comprehension. In R. 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Graham, S., & Herbert, M. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. New York: Carnegie Corporation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hare, V. C. and Borchartdt, K. M. (1984). Direct instruction of summarization skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 62–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hebert, M., Gillespie, A., & Graham, S. (2013). Comparing effects of different writing activities on reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Reading and Writing 26(1):111–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hidi, S. and Anderson, V. (1986). Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 561,473–493. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Idol, L. (1987). Group Story Mapping A Comprehension Strategy for Both Skilled and Unskilled Readers. Journal of learning disabilities, 20(4), 196–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Idol, L., & Croll, V. J. (1987). Story-mapping training as a means of improving reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10(3), 214–229. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jitendra, A. K., & Gajria, M. (2011). Main idea and summarization instruction to improve reading comprehension. In R. E. O’Connor and P. F. Vadasy (Eds.), The Handbook of Reading Interventions, New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, N. S. (1983). What do you do if you can’t tell the whole story? The development of summarization skills. In K. E. Nelson (Ed.), Children’s Language (Vol. 4). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keene, E. O. and Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. and van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Towards a model of text comprehension and production, Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–394. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kintsch, E. (1990). Macroprocesses and microprocesses in the development of summarization skill. Cognition and Instruction 7(3), 161–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. and Kozinksy, E. (1977). Summarizing stories after reading and listening. Journal of Educational Psychology 69(5), 491–499. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1997). Some further steps in narrative history. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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, 271, 40–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Long, D. L. & Golding, J. M. (1993). Superordinate goal inferences: Are they automatically generated during comprehension? Discourse Processes, 161, 55–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McConaughy, S. H., Fizhenry-Coor, I., and Howell, D. C. (1983). Developmental differences in schemata for story comprehension. In K. E. Nelson (Ed.), Children’s Language (Vol. 4). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MetaMetrics. (n.d.). The Lexile framework for reading. Retrieved on March 1, 2011, from [URL]
Meyer, B. J. F. and Rice, G. E. (1984). The structure of text. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal (Eds.) Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 11). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
NCS Pearson Inc. (2003). Stanford achievement test series, tenth edition: Directions for administration. San Antonio, TX: Pearson Education Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olson, C. L. (1976). On choosing a test statistic in multivariate analysis of variance. Psychological Bulletin, 83(4), 579–586. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Otis, A. S. & Lennon, R. T. (2003). Otis-Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT) technical manual. San Antonio, TX: Pearson Education Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pearson, D. P. and Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317–344. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pressley, M. and Harris, K. R. (2006). Cognitive strategies instruction: From basic research to classroom instruction. In P. A. Alexander and P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.), (pp.265–285). New York, NY: Routeldge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Psychometrica. (2020, February 27). Norm score calculator. [URL]
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ravid, D., & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model. Journal of child language, 29(2), 417–447. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rinehart, S. D., & Thomas, K. F. (1993). Summarization ability and text recall by novice studiers. Reading Research and Instruction, 32(4), 24–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rylant, C. (2001). Henry and Mudge and Annie’s perfect pet. New York: Aladdin Paperbacks.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Annie and Snowball and the pink surprise. New York: Aladdin Paperbacks.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sachar, L. (1978). Sideways stories from Wayside School. New York: Scholastic Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1989). Wayside school is falling down. New York: Lothrop, Lee and Shepard Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Rand Corporation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spirgel, A. S. & Delaney, P. F. (2016). Does writing summaries improve memory for text? Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 171–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stenner, A. J. (1996). Measuring reading comprehension with the Lexile framework. Paper presented at the meeting of the Fourth North American Conference on Adolescent/Adult Literacy, Washington, D.C.
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, Retrieved January 10, 2018.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thiede, K. W., & Anderson, M. C. M. (2003). Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(2), 129–160. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wade-Stein, D., & Kintsch, E. (2004). Summary Street: Interactive computer support for writing. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 333–362. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Westby, C., Cullata, B., Lawrence, B., & Hall-Kenyon, K. (2010). Summarizing expository texts. Top Lang Disorders, 30(4), 275–287. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Psychology 94(2), 235–248. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winograd, P. N. (1984). Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 404–424. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yu, G. (2009). The shifting sands in the effects of source text summarizability on summary writing. Assessing Writing, 141, 116–137. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). The use of summarization tasks: Some lexical and conceptual analyses. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10 (1), 96–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Eroğlu, Ebubekir & Serpil Özdemir
2024. THE EFFECT OF MACROSTRUCTURE AND SUPERSTRUCTURE TEACHING ON SUMMARIZATION ACHIEVEMENT. Problems of Education in the 21st Century 82:1 ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue