91

2011 56391-118

E-mail: ichung@mail.npue.edu.tw
2011/01/052011/05/192011/06/272011/08/02

92

Chall, 1983

2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, PIRLS

9% 20%

2008

Duke & Pearson, 2002

Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978

Wittrock, 1974

Williams, 1988

1996Brown & Day, 1983; Brown, Day, & Jones, 1983

1998
2006

Neufeld2005

2009

93

Brown & Day, 1983; Kintsch & van Dijk,

1978
Johnson, 1983

Gajria & Salvia, 1992; Malone & Mastropieri, 1992; Nelson, Smith, &
Dodd, 1992

199920032007200320062008
200319902004

Weinstein & Mayer, 1986

94

macrostructure
Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978

Brown Day1983

Hare Borchardt1984

Mayer1996
selecting-organizing-integrating, SOI

Kintsch1998
Kintsch, 1998; Kintsch & van Dijk,
microstructure
situation model
1978

macroproposition
van Dijk, 1980

Taylor, 1980

Brown & Smiley, 1977

Brown & Day, 1983van den

Broek, Lynch, Naslund, Ievers-Landis, & Verduin, 2003

Gajria & Salvia, 1992; Malone &

Mastropieri, 1992; Nelson et al., 1992

95

Anderson &
Hidi, 1988-89Brown Day1983

Anderson & Hidi, 1988-89

Brown & Day, 1983; Garner, 1982; Hare & Borchardt,

1984

1998

Hahn & Garner, 1985

Anderson & Hidi, 1988-89

Brown & Day, 1983; Winograd, 1984

Hahn & Garner, 1985

Englert, Stewart, & Hiebert, 1988

Danner, 1976
Brown & Day,
1983; Garner & McCaleb, 1985

Paris, Lipson, &

Wixson, 1983

Pearson Gallagher1983gradual release of

responsibility model of explicit instruction

96

Gajria Salvia1992

Weisberg Balajthy1990

HeadReadence Buss1989

Hare Borchardt
1984
JitendraColeHoppes Wilson1998

JitendraHoppes Xin2000

1999200320032004

200720062008

20031990
4

4 2003

120

3 Brown & Day, 1983; Hare & Borchardt, 1984

2003 Brown Day
3
3

97

19992004
Hare Borchardt

2009

98

99

1-2
1.
2.

3-6

7-8

9-10

2
1

100

11-12

O1

X1

O3

O5

O2

X2

O4

O6

1. O1O2 1
2. X1X2

3. O3O4
4. O5O6 1

101

2 2

1 1 44 19
25
45 20 25

4 1 1 4
6
4 30-40

1999
20
1 1 Cronbach .83 .89
19991994
2001
1999

1994
500 2 38

1 1

4
1 10
80 186
D .3 4
.71 .44 .45Cronbach
.85 .89 .79
.65 .70

102

1
200
5 7

1
Garner1982 65

3 2

1 75%
2 2
2
Garner

100 91.47%93.16%
94.39% 97.27%98.06% 97.44%
2

69.09

906

9.54

20

68

66.49

746

8.48

22

52

70.36

921

8.01

38

91

64.23

710

12.91

30

68

72.48

923

9.52

31

84

61.95

699

9.85

27

53

1994

495
Fry Fry, 1968

103

33

12 40 480

2
2

20-25
15-20

1 1-2
2-3

2
2

2009 3 12
1

104

14.25SD3.64

3 ANOVA
F(1,
.05 F(1,

85)1.66,

85)

.558, MSE .001, p

MSE .001, p .05 F(1,

85)

.081, MSE

.001, p .05

N19

N25

N44

N17

N28

N36

.0700.029 .0810.030 .0770.030 .0770.024 .0840.037 .0820.033

.1160.029 .1330.027 .1260.029 .0830.028 .1110.042 .1000.033

.0920.029 .0940.028 .0930.028 .0640.039 .0910.041 .0810.042

11.052.72 16.641.41 14.233.47 10.293.18 16.681.44 14.273.84

23.794.80 28.722.97 26.594.55 21.713.41 27.144.53 25.094.89

22.896.83 27.804.61 25.686.12 18.764.67 27.465.73 24.186.80

ANCOVA

F(1, 86)1.284, MSE .001, p .05

F(1,

84)26.30,

MSE .001, p .001, 2

.238 F(1, 84)8.63, MSE .001, p .01, 2 .093

.127 .096
.120 .102

F(1,
2

84)8.173,

MSE .001, p .01, .089F(1, 84)4.574, MSE .001,

105

p .05, 2 .052
F(1, 84)2.324, MSE .001, p .05
3
.095 .077
.094

.093F(1, 41) .015, MSE .001, p .05

.067 .089F(1, 42)5.572, MSE .001, p

.05, 2 .117

F(1, 50) .253, MSE .001, p .05

3
F(1, 33)14.789, MSE .001, p .001, 2 .309

0.1

0.094 0.093

0.089

0.067

0.08
0.06

0.04

0.02
0

ANOVA
F(1, 85) .59, MSE13.731, p .05 F(1, 85) .72, MSE13.731,
p .05
F(1, 85)163.40, MSE13.731, p 001, 2 .658
M16.66, SD1.41M10.69,
SD2.93

ANCOVA
F(1, 84)3.80, MSE13.731, p .05

F(1, 85)4.91, MSE13.731, p .05 F(1, 84) .00, MSE13.731, p .05

p .055, 2 .043

106

26.5524.98

F(1, 84)2.88, MSE27.271, p .05 F(1, 85)

.75 MSE27.271, p .05 F(1, 84)1.88, MSE27.271, p .05

0 0
3 6.7 3168.9 1124.4
1 2.2 1533.3 2453.3 511.1

0 0

3 6.7 2248.9 2044.4

1840.0 2248.9 4 8.9 1 2.2

0 0
2 4.4 1942.2 2453.3

0 0
0 0 1942.2 2657.8

0 0
1 2.2 2453.3 2044.4

3 6.7 1022.2 2555.6 715.6

3 6.7 1226.7 1942.2 1124.4

1 2.2 4 6.7 2964.4 1226.7

1 2.2 817.8 2453.3 1226.7

2 4.4 2 4.4 3168.9 1022.2

2657.8 1533.3 4 8.9 0 0

107

0 0
613.3
4 8.9
2 4.4

2044.4
2146.7
1840.0
2044.4

2555.6
1840.0
2351.1
2351.1

1737.8
613.3
1226.7
1635.6

2453.3
2657.8
2044.4
2351.1

4 8.9
1226.7
817.8
4 8.9

0 0
1 2.2
511.1
2 4.4

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

00

1 2.2 2862.2 1635.6

00

1 2.2 3066.7 1431.1

00

3 6.7 3168.9 1124.4

00

1226.7 2351.1 1022.2

00

4 8.9 3680.0 511.1

12.2 3271.1 1022.2 2 4.4

24.4

920.0 2760.0 715.6

12.2

715.6 2146.7 1635.6

108

Gajria & Salvia, 1992; Hare & Borchardt,

1984; Head et al., 1989; Jitendra et al., 1998; Jitendra et al., 2000; Weisberg & Balajthy, 1990

Palincsar Brown1984

Kamil

109

et al., 2008
Vygotsky

Vygotsky1978

20032004Hare & Borchardt, 1984; Jitendra et

al., 1998

2
2

2 2

Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978; Mayer, 1996

Williams,
1988

Brown & Day, 1983; Gajria & Salvia, 1992

Afflerbach Cho2009

110

p
.055

mediational deficiencyproduction
deficiencyFlavell, 1970; Reese, 1962; Siegler & Alibali, 2005

Paris et al., 1983

cost-benefit analysis
Beach & Mitchell, 1978

Siegler & Alibali, 2005

2006

111

Siegler & Alibali, 2005

Paris et al., 1983

Siegler & Alibali, 2005

Flavell1970

Mayer, 1975; Pichert & Anderson, 1977

112

1998

pp. 123-137

Fang, C.-Y., Chung, I.-T., & Chiu, S.-C. (1998). Development of the assessment rubrics for summarizing ability of
elementary school children. In Test Development Center, National Tainan Teachers College (Ed.), Reflections
and next steps of the instructional assessment in elementary school (pp. 123-137). Tainan, Taiwan: Test
Development Center, National Tainan Teachers College.

1996

Wang, R.-Y. (1996). Evaluating how teachers guide the completion of the Chinese language arts exercise book in
sixth grade. Unpublished masters thesis, National Hualien Teachers College, Hualien, Taiwan.

2008
PIRLS 2006 2008 11
9 http://lrn.ncu.edu.tw/pirls/PIRLS%202006%20Report.html
National Science Council, Ministry of Education, & National Central University. (2008). PIRLS 2006 national
report. Retrieved November 9, 2008, from http://lrn.ncu.edu.tw/pirls/PIRLS%202006%20Report.html

1999

Kuan, M.-Y. (1999). Teaching summarization strategy to elementary school children. Unpublished masters thesis,
National Dong Hwa University, Hualien, Taiwan.

1994

Hu, Y.-C. (1994). Effects of metacognitive strategies instruction on the reading comprehension of reading disabled
students in elementary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National Changhua University of Education,
Changhua, Taiwan.

1999

Ko, H.-W. (1999). Reading Comprehension Screening Test. Taipei, Taiwan: Special Education Unit, National
Science Council.

1999

Hung, P.-H., & Chiu, S.-C. (1999). Chinese language arts achievement test for junior high and elementary students.
Taipei, Taiwan: Special Education Unit, National Science Council.

1994Readability
NSC82-0301-H-017-009

Gingchi, Y. L. (1994). Text readability of Chinese language arts textbooks. Report of National Science Council
(NSC82-0301-H-017-009). Kaohsiung, Taiwan: National Kaohsiung Normal University.

113

2008 11
9 http://140.127.45.25/Readability/index.aspx
Department of Industrial Technology Education, National Kaohsiung Normal University. (n.d.). A system for online
analysis of Chinese text readability. Retrieved November 9, 2008, from http://140.127.45.25/Readability/
index.aspx

1994

Lu, L., & Liu, S.-H. (1994). Peabody picture vocabulary test-revised. Taipei, Taiwan: Psychological.

2003

Huang, Y.-C. (2003). Effects of concept mapping and summarization instructional strategy on students learning.
Unpublished masters thesis, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.

2001

Huang, H.-S. (2001). Chinese character recognition test for elementary and secondary school. Taipei, Taiwan:
Psychological.

2007

Huang. M.-T. (2007). The action research of self-explanation learning strategies by elementary school fourth
graders in main ideas construction. Unpublished masters thesis, National Tainan University, Tainan, Taiwan.

2003

Huang, C.-Y. (2003). The effects of different reading comprehension strategy interventions on the reading
comprehension of elementary students with reading disabilities. Unpublished masters thesis, National Taipei
Teachers College, Taipei, Taiwan.

2006

Chen, A.-W. (2006). An instructional research about implementing summarization struction in a sixth grade
classroom. Unpublished masters thesis, National Pingtung University of Education, Pingtung, Taiwan.

1999

Chen, M.-F. (1999). Auditory memory test. Taipei, Taiwan: Special Education Unit, National Science Council.

200911

Chen, T.-C., & Liao, H.-C. (2009, November). Examining the text structure of three editions of Chinese language
arts textbooks used in Taiwan. Paper presented in The International Conference on Primary Education, Hong
Kong.

2008

Chen, H.-Y. (2008). The action researches in summary teaching in mandarin with the graphical organizers to
students at grade three with low school achievement. Unpublished masters thesis, National Taipei University
of Education, Taipei, Taiwan.

114

2003

Chang, L.-C. (2003). Comparison research on strategies of story-mapping and summarization toward 6-grades
with low reading skills. Unpublished masters thesis, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taoyuan County,
Taiwan.

1990

Ceng, C. M.-T. (1990). Childrens metacognition and its relations with reading comprehension. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.

2004

Wei, C.-W. (2004). The effects of mind mapping and summary instruction on reading comprehension and
summarizing ability of fifth graders in elementary school. Unpublished masters thesis, National Taiwan
Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive
comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy
(Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 69-90). New York: Routledge.
Anderson, V., & Hidi. S. (1988-89). Teaching students to summarize. Educational Leadership, 46(4),
26-28.
Beach, L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1978). A contingency model for the selection of decision strategies.
Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 439-449.
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.
Brown, A. L., Day, J. D., & Jones, R. S. (1983). The development of plans for summarizing text.
Child Development, 54(4), 968-979.
Brown, A. L., & Smiley, S. (1977). Rating the importance of structural units of prose passages: A
problem of metacognitive development. Child Development, 48(1), 1-8.
Chall, J. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Danner, F. W. (1976). Childrens understanding of intersentence organization in the recall of short
descriptive passages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(2), 174-183.
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practice for developing reading comprehension. In A.
E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp.
205-242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Englert, C. S., Stewart, S. R., & Hiebert, E. H. (1988). Young writers use of text structure in

115

expository text generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 143-151.

Flavell, J. (1970). Developmental studies of mediated memory. In H. W. Reese & L. P. Lipsit (Eds.),
Advances in child development and behaviour (Vol. 5; pp. 217-247). New York: Academic
Press.
Fry, E. B. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading, 11(7), 513-516.
Gajria, M., & Salvia, J. (1992). The effects of summarization instruction on text comprehension of
students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58(6), 508-516.
Garner, R. (1982). Efficient text summarization: Costs and benefits. Journal of Educational
Research, 75(5), 275-279.
Garner, R., & McCaleb, J. L. (1985). Text summarization deficiencies among older students:
Awareness or production ability? American Educational Research Journal, 22(4), 549-560.
Hahn, A. L., & Garner, R. (1985). Synthesis of research on students ability to summarize text.
Educational Leadership, 42(5), 52-55.
Hare, V. C., & Borchardt, K. M. (1984). Direct instruction of summarization skills. Reading
Research Quarterly, 20(1), 62-78.
Head, M. H., Readence, J. E., & Buss, R. R. (1989). An examination of summary writing as a
measure of reading comprehension. Reading Research and Instruction, 28(4), 1-11.
Jitendra, A. K., Cole, C. L., Hoppes, M. K., & Wilson, B. (1998). Effects of a direct instruction main
idea summarization program and self-monitoring on reading comprehension of middle school
students with learning disabilities. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 14(4), 379-396.
Jitendra, A. K., Hoppes, M. K., & Xin, Y. P. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for
students with learning problems: The role of a summarization strategy and self-monitoring
instruction. Journal of Special Education, 34(3), 127-139.
Johnson, N. (1983). What do you do if you cant tell the whole story? The development of
summarization skills. In K. E. Nelson (Ed.), Childrens language (Vol. 4; pp. 315-383).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving
adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practice (NCEE #2008-4027).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute
of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved October 25, 2008, from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production.

116

Psychological Review, 85(5), 363-394.

Malone, L. D., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). Reading comprehension instruction: Summarization
and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58(3),
270-279.
Mayer, R. E. (1975). Different problem-solving competencies established in learning computer
programming with and without meaningful models. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(6),
725-734.
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.
Nelson, J. R., Smith, D. J., & Dodd, J. M. (1992). The effects of teaching 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.
Neufeld, P. (2005). Comprehension instruction in content area classes. The Reading Teacher, 59(4),
302-312.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and
comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 8(3), 293-316.
Pearson, P., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317-344.
Pichert, J. W., & Anderson, R. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 69(4), 309-315.
Reese, H. W. (1962). Verbal mediation as a function of age level. Psychological Bulletin, 59(6),
502-509.
Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2005). Childrens thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Taylor, B. M. (1980). Childrens memory for expository text after reading. Reading Research
Quarterly, 15(3), 399-411.
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(4), 707-718.
van Dijk, T. A. (1980). Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse,
interaction, and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

117

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315-327). New York: Macmillan.
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.
Williams, J. P. (1988). Identifying main ideas: A basic aspect of reading comprehension. Topics in
Language Disorders, 8(3), 1-13.
Winograd, P. N. (1984). Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts. Reading Research Quarterly,
19(4), 404-425.
Wittrock, M. C. (1974). A generative model of mathematics learning. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 5(4), 181-196.

118

Journal of Research in Education Sciences

2011, 56(3), 91-118

Examining the Effects of Summarization

Strategy Instruction on Summary Skills and
Reading Comprehension of Fifth Graders
I-Chung Lu
Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling,
National Pingtung University of Education
Associate Professor

Abstract
This study designed a summarization strategy instruction for elementary students and examined
its effects on the summary skills and reading comprehension of fifth graders. Four fifth-grade classes
from two elementary schools in Pingtung County participated in the study. Using a
quasi-experimental pretest-posttest control group design, one class in each school was assigned to
the experimental group, which received the summarization strategy instruction, while the other class
in each school served as the control group, which took practice tests on language arts and received
feedback from the teacher. Before, immediately after, and four weeks following the experiment, both
groups were tested on summary skills and reading comprehension. The experimental group also
filled out a questionnaire after the experiment on their perceptions of the instruction. The results
indicated that the experimental group scored significantly higher than the control group did in
summary skills in both the posttest and delayed posttest and interaction effect was found between
instruction and reading ability in the delayed posttest. The two instruction groups did not differ in
reading comprehension after the experiment. Students in the experimental group were positive
toward the strategy and the instruction.
Keywords: elementary school children, summary skills, summarization strategy instruction,
reading comprehension

Corresponding Author: I-Chung Lu, E-mail: ichung@mail.npue.edu.tw