You are on page 1of 17

Does Text Structure/Summarization Instruction Facilitate Learning from Expository Text?

Author(s): Bonnie B. Armbruster, Thomas H. Anderson and Joyce Ostertag
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Summer, 1987), pp. 331-346
Published by: International Reading Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/747972 .
Accessed: 08/11/2012 05:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

International Reading Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Reading Research Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

Est-ce qu'enseignera'rdsumer/structurer un textefacilite l'apprentissagea partir de l'exposd? UNE CERTAINE structurede texte a 6t6 enseign6e a des 61eves de cinquieme annee afin de savoir si cela pouvait ameliorerleur apprentissagedu materielde sciences humainespr6sen- ' tant une structure semblable. or to a traditionaltraininggroup. De acuerdoa las respuestasmedidaspor un ensayo de preguntasde la idea principaly por restimenesescritos de dos pasajes. which received direct instructionin recognizingand summarizinga conventionaltext structure(problem/solution). Eighty-two fifth-gradestudentswere assigned either to a structuretraininggroup. la capacit6des ' l6eves pour r6sumerla macrostructured'un texte probleme/solutionlu de faqon ind6pen- dante 6taitaugment6echez ceux ayantb6neficie de l'enseignementde la structure. la habilidadde los estudiantesde abstraerla macroestructurade texto de problema/soluci6nlefdo independiente- mente mejor6 con el entrenamientode estructura. As measuredby responses to a main-idea essay question and by written summariesof two passages. ARMBRUSTER THOMAS H. On a soumis 82 61eves de cinquieme ann6e l'un de ces groupes: soit un groupe d'enseignementde la structure.soit un groupe d'enseignement traditionneldans lequel on lisait puis discutait des r6ponses aux questions pos6es sur des ' passages de sciences humaines.b6n6ficiantde l'enseignementdirect d'une structurede texte conventionnelle(probleme/solution). students'ability to abstractthe macrostructureof problem/solu- tion text read independentlywas improvedby the structuretraining. ANDERSON JOYCEOSTERTAG of Illinois. Se asign6 a 82 estudiantesde quinto grado o a un grupo de entrena- miento de estructuraque recibi6 instrucci6ndirectaen una estructurade texto convencional (problema/soluci6n)o a un grupo de entrenamientotradicionalque discuti6 respuestasa pre- guntas sobre pasajesde ciencias sociales. 331 . SLainstrucci6npara estructuraci6n/resumende textofacilita el aprendizaje de texto expositorio? SE INSTRUYO a estudiantesde quinto grado en una estructurade texto particularpara ver si 6sta ayudabaa mejorarsu habilidadde aprenderde materialesde ciencias sociales estructura- dos de forma similar.Urbana-Champaign University STUDENTSwere instructed in a particular text structure to see whether it would FIFTH-GRADE improvetheir ability to learn from similarly structuredsocial studies material. instructionfacilitate Does textstructure/summarization learningfrom expositorytext? BONNIE B. Tel qu'evaludepar les r6ponsesa une question d6veloppe- ment portantsur l'id6e principaleet par les r6sum6s6crits de deux passages. which read and discussed answersto questions aboutsocial studies passages.

and reproductionof the essential Furthermore. 1982. Sixth-gradegood readers re- ficulty forming macrostructuresfor expository called more from short expository passages af- text. Many factors may contribute to chil.Zweiundachtzig Schiulerim flinften Schuljahr wurden entweder einerStrukturlehre- Gruppezugeteilt. in the Winograd(1984) and childrengenerally have more difficulty reading Taylor(1986) studies. lack of interest. dependson the ability to readand cause they have trouble identifying important understandexpository text. including Otherresearchon learningfrom expository insufficient prior knowledge.ob diese ihre FRhigkeit. learning. readingexpositorytext. Indeed.and hence to the rel- researchin learning from reading. In these Many currenttheories of reading compre. Although the em. informationor finding the main idea in exposi- pirical evidence is weak. tant information was significantly related to 1980). both in and have difficulty forming macrostructures be- out of school. van Dijk & Kintsch. Our focus in this study was ined the effect of readers'awarenessof the au- to explore the effect of text structureinstruction thor's text structure on their ability to recall on middle-gradechildren'sability to learn from expository text (McGee. Taylor. In the study by Meyer. Formationof macrostructures egy of using the text's top-level structure re- is thus a prerequisitefor success in tasks involv. Gemessenan den Reak- tionenauf eine HauptideeAufsatzfrage undan den schriftlichen Zusammenfassungen von zwei Abschnitten. 1983). These children may sixth-grade good readers organized their de- 332 QUARTERLY* Summer 1987 READINGRESEARCH XXII/3 . 1983) use the author'stop-level structurein organizing representsthe gist of a text organizedinto a co. das Erlernenvon erliuternden Can Textstruktur/Zusammenfassungslehre Textenerleichtern? FUNFKLASSLER WURDEN angehalten. vomgelesenen unabhdingig Problem/Ldsungstext zu abstrahieren. readerswith low comprehensionskills did not. ability to identify impor- expository than narrativetext (Spiro & Taylor. awarenessof the author'stext structure hension assume. anothercon. call appeared to be related to the sixth-grade pository text (Brown & Day. younger readers. several researchers have ter two days than sixth-grade poor readers or shown that children in the middle grades have fourth-gradegood readers.an einer bestimmtenTextstrukturfestzustellen. Taylor. 1983. For example. 1984). ability to summarizetext. Most learning from reading. verbessern wiirde. As suggested by recent ganizationof ideas in text. Brandt.readers who employed the strat- points of the text. 1980. text has demonstratedthat sensitivity to the or- and lack of motivation. This differentialre- difficulty producing written summaries of ex. whereas herent whole.von ihnlichaufgebautemSozialstudien-Material zu lernen. 1985). coding. that skilled was indexed by the readers'use of the author's readers automatically abstract a higher-order structurein organizing their own recall proto- structure of text (Meyer.welchedirekteInstruktionen durchkonventionelle Textstrukturerhielt (Problem/L6sung) oderabereinertradionellen Unterrichtsgruppe. The macrostructureguides en. Rumelhart & cols.and Bluth Ortony. in tivity to text structure-to the way the ideas in several recent studies. 1977. their free recalls of expository texts.welcheAntworten lasund diskutiertefiberFragenmit Bezugauf Sozialstudien-Abschnitte. comprehension and memory. studies. at least implicitly. called more information than those who did ing global comprehension and meaningful not. die Makrostruktur die Fihigkeitder Schdiler. Meyer. This (1980). Taylor (1980) found the same effect for Middle-gradechildrenapparentlyhave dif. ative importanceof information-is related to tributingfactormay be that childrenlack sensi. 1980. & Bluth.erwiessichals verbessertdurchStrukturlehre. Winograd. 1975. recall. researchershave exam- text are organized. Brandt. experts contend that tory text. For example. dren'sdifficulty with expository text. good readers'greateruse of text structure:More 1986. skilled ninth-grade readers tended to macrostructure (van Dijk & Kintsch.

recent research suggests that used by Taylor and her colleagues (Taylor. There higher-ordertext structure. reportor a journal article recalled significantly erately successful in improvingreaders'recall of more information after two days than either expository text. temporal sequence. college students who witz. subjectswho received the descriptionabouttext gies is that they do not necessarily help the structureafter readingor subjectswho received reader identify the macrostructure.. both good and skeletal outline based on headings. study by Barnett (1984). 333 . Taylor& Beach. This was the approach In summary. the amountof informationthey remembered. dices of text structure. including these ideas in either oral or written A third approachto teaching text structure summaries. Compared heading-subheadingorganizationalformat and to college students. ings. entific theory. results of the researchon hierarchicalsummari- Taylor (1985) examined the ability of sixth. McGee (1982) found that fifth.Also.layed recalls according to the higher-ordertext cal summarization research. Bartlett extractsa structure. seventh-gradestudents(Taylor& Beach.the reader no descriptionof text structure. (1978) found that teaching ninth-gradestudents resent the gist of the text. zation seem promising. and paragraphs. The hierarchical structurethan did sixth-grade poor readers or summarizationtask consists of first preparinga fourth-gradegood readers.& OSTERTAG ARMBRUSTER. subhead- poor readers who organized their recalls ac. In a ping (Armbruster& Anderson. of knowledge importantto understandinga sci- sentationof the organizationof ideas in exposi. 1985). 1984. instruction in conventional text structureshas stratingthat instructionabout text structurecan been demonstratedin a few recent studies. son/contrast. College students trained in the tion.description. One ap. egy is that it is highly dependent on the sages from a social studies textbook. For improve comprehension and recall.per- Text structure/summarization instruction ANDERSON. sensitivity to text structureis an importantcom- 1982.and enumeration greater awareness and use of the author's (Englert& Hiebert.which may or may not rep. 1986). grade good readersused the author'stext struc. subjectswho completedhierarchicalsummaries ture more and recalled more total and tended to outperformcontrol groups on some superordinateidea units than fifth-grade poor kinds of dependent measures. terial. subheadings. (1980). One limitation of these strate. Finally. These strategiesappearto be at least mod. articles and research reports. ponent in text comprehensionand memory. experimentswith fifth-grade(Taylor. For example. 1979) and map. such as newspaper awareness and use of text structurein macro. 1980. and McGee ventional text structures. 1984). Conventional text (1982) studies that age and reading ability are structuresfor expository text include compari- highly correlatedwith recall of expository ma. in strategies such as use of this schema significantly improved in "networking"(Dansereauet al. 1975). perhaps because of skilled readers' problem/solution. readers generate a diagram received a brief description of the appropriate representing basic ideas and relationships in text structurebefore reading either a research text.and then writing a main cording to the author'shigher-ordertext struc. their delayed recall of a scientific text. One may conclude from the Meyer is to provide instruction in one or more con- et al. cause/effect. Berko. 1984) in their hierarchi. idea statementfor every point on the outline. Taylor(1980. four expository text structuresincreased their Anotherapproachto teachingtext structure ability to identify and use the higher-order is to teach readers to use typographical cues structure of a text and significantly increased (headings. are also conventionaltext structuresfor particu- Other evidence for the importance of lar genres of expositorytext.1982) and Similarly.Finally. a limitationof the strat- grade and college students to summarize pas. The potential of structureformationcomes from studies demon.and paragraphs)as in. Meyer. In ture recalled more than readerswho did not. example. sixth-grade students had on the ability of the headings and subheadings difficulty understandingimportantideas and/or to convey the structureof the text. Brooks& Dansereau(1983) identified proachto fosteringawarenessof text structureis a structuralschema consisting of the categories to teach readers to make some concrete repre. Although the readers or third-grade good readers.

1978) were eliminated from this structure.. in the question"Whattwo cities were connected 334 QUARTERLY* Summer 1987 READINGRESEARCH XXII/3 . The booklets for the traditional training comparedto the traditionallytrainedgroup.but problem/solutionpassages.Instructionfor the experimental the study. (c) 13 problem/solu- trainingwas comparedwith the more traditional tion passages from fourth. Structure summary (see Figure 2). (b) In the study. Of the group focused on a problem/solutionstructure.how Instructional Materials they attempt to solve the problem. cial studies textbooks. and informationsimilar to that which would be dis- (d) write better organized summaries (i. questions were about informationcritical to the cluded in the macrostructure. problem/solution structure.Some of the test over specific informationnot necessarilyin. ample. thus. Meyer.as tent discussed.and the other social studies textbooks. re.(c) write summar. information on an essay (probed recall) test Each passage was accompanied by five ques- over the passage main idea. two classroomsin each school. with a problem/solution structure. For ex- summariesthat have a recognizable structure). The questionswere similarto those at the same amountof informationon a short-answer end of textbooklessons or chapters. lines for students to use in writing their sum- tate the formationof a macrostructurefor text maries of the passages. (b) recall aboutthe tions. problem/solution text structure along with a sions of expository text structure(e.haps because readers who are sensitive to text Method structure are better able to form macrostruc- tures for the text they read. the question "What did Governor An additional hypothesis was that using the Clinton decide to do?" asks about the action problem/solutiontext structureas an organiza. schematic representation(frame) of the prob- 1975). this structureconveys informationabouta prob- lem thatan individualor groupencounters. The structure training and the traditional groups. ranging in length from cussing the answersafter reading. Other questions tional framework for classroom discussion tappedparticularfacts in the passage that were should facilitate students'retentionof the con. or who scored below fourth-gradelevel on the tory text structure (including instruction on reading comprehensionsubtest of the most re- summarizing)to see how it would affect their cently administeredGates-McGinitieTest (2nd ability to comprehend expository text having edition. we gave fifth-grade who were enrolled in remedial reading classes students instructionon a conventional exposi. and (d) multiple copies of The major hypothesis was that instruction problem/solutionframesaccompaniedby blank in the problem/solutionstructurewould facili. contained(a) a definitionand descriptionof the 1985) and is mentioned in many other discus. problem/solutionstructureis described in our The booklets for the structuretrainingsubjects previous study (Armbruster and Anderson. the groupcontainedthe same problem/solutionpas- structure-trainedgroup should (a) recall more sages as those in the structuretrainingbooklets. children were taughtnot only explicit rules for how to write a summary of to recognizethe problem/solutionstructure. Subjects search suggests that readers as young as Fifth-grade students from four heteroge- fifth-gradecan benefit from instructionin text neous classroomsin two schools in a small Mid- structures.g. cussed in the structuretraininggroup. Children In the present study. Level D. not critical to the problem/solutionstructure. Expositoryprose with to traditionaltraining. taken to solve a problem. and the We prepared "workbooks" for both the results of the attemptto solve the problem. including a pattern also to use it in organizing their own written for writing and guidelines for checking the summaries of what they had read. Furthermore.. Therefore. we assigned one an organizational pattern commonly found in to the structuretrainingtreatment. western city participatedin the study. 100 to 500 words.and fifth-grade so- practice of asking students questions and dis. they tapped ies that include more passage main ideas.e. lem/solution text structure(see Figure 1). leaving a total of 82 subjects.

& OSTERTAG ARMBRUSTER. Figure 1 Problem/solutionframe PROBLEMOF ACTION RESULTS PROBLEM= somethingbad. a situationthatpeople would like to change ACTION = what people do to try to solve the problem RESULTS = what happensas a resultof the action. the effect or outcome of trying to solve the problem Text structure/summarization instruction ANDERSON. 335 .

the question Specifically. Then I and the other on the problemof getting oil from introducedthe problem/solutionframe (Figure Alaska. Other Day 1. How did they solve those problems?" 1986.practice on increasinglylonger and more diffi- tions probed recall of specific information cult passages.. plenty of guided formationfrom the passage. The instructiontook place over 11 con- a 525-word passage about homesteadingon the secutive school days. sociated with problem/solution texts. Rosenshine. for 45 minutes per day Great Plains. The test consisted of an essay The instruction for the structure training question constructed to assess comprehension subjects followed principlesof explicit or direct of the higher-orderstructure:"Whatwere the instruction (Duffy & Roehler. For example. 1983. The section described problems encoun- Test Materials tered by settlers in Jamestown. I demonstratedhow answersto sion.e. problemsthatsettlers faced on the GreatPlains? 1984.The test was an We used two categories of dependentmea."Whatwere the results of those actions?"I ex- lected from fifth-gradesocial studies textbooks. How did they solve passage. the structure training instruction "What did the settlers use instead of wood to proceededas follows: build houses on the Great Plains?"asks for a specific solution to a specific problem.essay question:"Describetwo problemsthatthe sures for the study.lem/solution structureswould help studentsfo- swer test were assigned to questionsthatprobed cus on main ideas and remember important recall of informationnot directly relatedto the information).by the National Road when it was completed?" assess students'abilityto rememberinformation Each question was accompaniedby four blank from a section of their regular classroom text- lines for answers. that social studies texts discuss many as in the question "Whatis a homestead?"Two problemsand solutions. the students The third criteriontest was designed to as. Rosenshine & Stevens. selected from a fifth-gradesocial per class. The fourth criterion test was designed to discussion questions could be recorded in the 336 QUARTERLY* Summer 1987 READINGRESEARCH XXII/3 . book which had been read and discussed in class. 1982. 1984). and independent practice. (i. Pearson& Gallagher.self and provided a rationale for the project rectly relatedto the problem/solutionstructure.The first focused on learning English colonists faced in the early years of the from independentreadingof a problem/solution Jamestown settlement. I (the first author) introducedmy- questions probed recall of informationnot di. That is. teacher monitoringwith correc- relatedto the problems and solutions discussed tive feedback. studies textbook. 1) and told the studentsthe diagramwould help them organize answers to the four problem/so- Tests of learning from structured discus. The second criterion test was a 10-item the instructionfeaturedteachermodeling of ex- short-answertest that tapped more specific in. plained that these four questions are always as- one on the problem of obtaining food in Haiti. Some of the ques.plicitly defined procedures. Pearson. so learningaboutprob- thirds of the 21 possible points on the short-an.discussed answers to the questions "Whohas a sess students' ability to write summaries of problem?" "What is the problem?" "What problem/solutionpassages. Instructional Procedures One of us instructed both the structure Testsof learningfrom independentreading. trainingand the traditionalgroups in their nor- The first criterion test was designed to assess mal classrooms with the regular teachers comprehensionof the higher-orderstructureof present.lution questions.Using the first exampleof a prob- problem/solutionstructure. The second focused on learning from those problems?" whole-class discussion of a problem/solution text. in the passage. lem/solution text in the workbook. The materialsto be actions were taken to solve the problem?"and summarized were two 200-word passages se.

As a result.") Compareyour summarywiththe originalProblem/Solutionpassage to make sure thatthe summaryis accurateand complete.& OSTERTAG ARMBRUSTER. The students copied the summaries graduallyassumed greaterindependencein the into their notebooks. 2. Students workbook. they wrote a on the two passages already "framed"in the summary of the framed information. The grammarand spellingare correct. Text structure/summarization instruction ANDERSON. Guidelinesfor CheckingSummaries of Problem/SolutionPassages Checkto see that: 1. Patternfor Writinga Summary of a Problem/SolutionPassage had a problembecause Therefore. The class used the guidelines to check Day 2. (See "Howto Write a Summaryof a Problem/SolutionPassage. Yoursummaryhas all of the informationthat should be in a summaryof a problem/solutionpassage. finally. looking for informationto an- tion. 3. they read the readingtextbooksis to summarizethe informa. I ex. recordinginforma. then they problem/solution passages (see Figure 2) and recorded notes on the passage in the provided modeled writingand checking summariesbased problem/solutionframes. consecutively throughthe workbook. Sentence 2-Tells what action was taken to try to solve the problem. then led the summary. Students continued to work questions in a frame on the blackboard. The sentences are tied togetherwithgood connectingwords. 337 . I conducteda brief review. providing correc- Figure 2 Guidelines for summarizingproblem/solutionpassages How to Summarize Problem/Solution Passages Sentence 1-Tells who had a problemand whatthe problemis. Youhave used complete sentences. I then led a discussion of last two steps. I explainedthe guidelines for summarizing swer the problem/solutionquestions. mary into their workbooks. board. I elicited a monitored individual work.9. As students worked indepen- the thirdworkbookpassage. dently in their workbooks. I circulated and tion in a frame on the blackboard.frame. Sentence 3-Tells what happened as a result of the action taken. Students filled out the frame in their summaryfrom the class and recordedit on the workbooks. recording answers to problem/solution Days 3 . book.then the studentscopied the sum- a discussion of the second passage in the work. passage silently. 4. following plained to students that one way to learn from three steps for each passage: first.

On the last 2 days of memory.) The class then discussed and provided Traditionaltraining subjects were told to use feedbackon the efforts. Students returned to their they saw fit as they studied the passage. As with the minutes. To con. Testing Procedures dents also were reminded to check their own Testingwas begun immediatelyafter the 11 summariesusing the providedguidelines. A questions accompanyingeach passage. After 20 plete answers to all questions.On the first day of testing. For this criterion test. and the second passage was distributed. to control for prac. I also shorter form of the original passage that con- asked traditionaltrainingstudentsto write com. orally. subjectswere given one of the two 200-wordpassages to sum- Meanwhile. Stu. to control for problemsof the Jamestownsettlers. The students read the same material as the The final criteriontest was administered6 structuretrainingsubjects. then. Subjects had 12 minutes to complete the rized the frame orally. had readaboutthis topic in their classroomtext- 338 READING RESEARCH * Summer1987 QUARTERLY XXII/3 . and the other was summarizedwithout ing group was "traditional"in that it entailed the text. days after the completion of instruction. a summary.) On the second day of testing. After days of instruction. Structuretraining subjects were encour- board. rion test (two were absent). to the place where regular 18 minutes. All 82 subjects completed cussed on this final day of instructionwas the these two criteriontests. group was studying. ing manner:After silently readingthe passages. (The topic read and dis. than 50 words. (Sometimes they gave the summaries aged to use the strategythey had been learning. All sub- framed. and summarized.and jects were given the essay question about the they wrote answers to questions. After 10 minutes. Then the essay question was col- frame. short-answer test. Subjects had 10 minutes to studied the same materialthe structuretraining write their summaries. summary was defined for all subjects as a trol for effects of practice in writing. the passage and all notes were re- social studies instructionhad stopped prior to moved. By the end of Day 9.Discussion after silent reading Subjects had 12 minutes to answer the essay was organized around the problem/solution question. studentshad independentlyframedand summa. and paper containing 50 blank lines. present. I recorded the discussion points in a lected. the passage was re- instruction. Eighty subjects completed this crite- reading and discussing answers to questions. the traditionaltraining group marize. we asked subjectsto read and studythe passage rized each passage. uted. jects received blank paper to use in any way Days 10 . All subjects writing practice. studentsin this group moved. tains only the most importantpoints. all any strategythey wished. problemsof the early Jamestownsettlers. I also provided them with corrective in preparation for writing a summary from feedback and assistance. could be shorter. instructionfor the traditionaltrain. and the paper with the 50 blank lines returnedto the regularclassroom textbook and was distributed. assumed greater independence throughoutthe Subjectswere told to readand study the passage project.tive feedback and assistance as needed.but not longer. notetakingand under- passages in the workbook had been read.11. one passage was summarizedwith the text Thus. the traditionaltraining group also moved. the intervention. lining were mentionedas possibilities. and that they should write the summaryon the the students discussed the answers to the five provided paper.Instructionfor the tradi. and the short-answer test was distrib- frame on the blackboard.then studentssumma. After classroom textbook. and the essay question was distributed.They were told that their summary tional trainingstudentsproceededin the follow. using complete sentences. I askedtwo or three of them "Homesteadingthe Plains"in preparationfor a to write their frames and/or summarieson the test. worked from their own workbooksfor the first Subjectswere told to readthe passage and write 9 days of instruction. passages and summaries were re- structuretraininggroup. Sub- tice with problem/solutiontext structures.

the basis of their Gates-MacGinitiescores. and for the second (delayed)essay test. for the four classrooms showed no significant aged to produce a master scoring key for each difference between classrooms. Five adults were asked to read the two passages and assigned to treatment conditions. for the short-answer test. Writing Assessment Program (Illinois State Board of Education. as well as an overallholistic. The classroom means were most importantto the meaning of the pas- (and standarddeviations)were 26. or into a fifth category. Typed versions of the summarieswere scored blind by two class- 85%. we concluded passage. and for the second (delayed) essay test. 30. The teachers portance of ideas using the following proce. room teachers (not otherwise associated with ence. score. 30. range of 1 (low) to 6 (high). a 2 beside the n idea units that were next (6.book and had discussed it on the final day of The summaries were also evaluated for instruction. Seventy-ninesubjectscom. units using a modification of the procedurein. using the Rating Guide for write their answers.and logic in the piece. workedtogetherto score each summary. the two passages were parsed into idea units. The focus the first essay test. the study) who had been trainedby the State of The summarieswere scored for relativeim- Illinois in this rating procedure. interrateragreementwas satisfied.and points (one point for each of 21 relevantpropo.3). support.8). 339 .and so on for the four levels of analysis of variance (ANOVA)with four levels importance.2 (5. which were basically independent Data Analysis clauses. including distortions and intrusions. however. the Greenhouse-Geisser (1959) de- 94%. neous ideas.1 (6. Two of us sortedthe idea der to examinethe effect of readingcomprehen- units from the summary protocols into one of sion ability. Form D) were idea units (n = 1/4 of the total idea units) that used for this purpose. for the short-answertest. we sorted subjects into the four categories of importanceidentified on three ability levels (low.In or- parsed into idea units. dure. FunctionalWritingas developedfor the Illinois pleted this criteriontest. the adult raterswere asked to place a I beside the n ing comprehension subtest of the Gates- MacGinitie Test (2nd edition. or in- and short-answertests using answer keys. lyze the data. and 30. 21 and quality of the supportinginformation. Each scale has a essay test was 89%. medium. the supportscore indicates the quantity propositions). The Rating Guide Scoring generates subscores for focus. Disagreements were resolved in confer. the organizationscore reflects the use of struc- sitions).7 (5. 28 points (one point for each of 28 relevant ture. The adult ratings were then aver. 96%. and high) on the masterkey.3). Scores on the most recently administeredread- troduced by Johnson (1970). The idea units were listed in the order Because students had not been randomly in which they appeared in the passage. the mean then rate the relative importance of the idea reading comprehension ability scores for the four classrooms were computedand compared.of extra.& OSTERTAG ARMBRUSTER. Various forms of mixed analyses of vari- formation that was not present in the original ance with unweightedmeans were used to ana- passage. Subjects were given 15 minutes to quality of writing. transitions.7 sage. A one-way most important. In all analyses in which the For a random sample of 50 summaries (about condition of homogeneity of variance was not one-thirdof the total). 1984). the subjects'summaryprotocolswere ability among the four groupsof students. Text structure/summarization instruction ANDERSON. Extraneousideas consisted of in. that there were no major differences in reading Next. Interrateragreementfor the first and integrationof the features. For tegration. the total possible score was score reflects the clarity of the subjectand main 39 points (one point for each of 39 relevant points.5). Specifically. First. Each subscore indexes a differentfeatureof the writtenpiece. The in- tegrationscore indexes the overalldevelopment propositions). and or- Two of us independentlyscored the essay ganization.

272) = 45. Essay test.14. unweighted means for the traditional were significant.7 .6 > 3. ordered set.001) than medium-ability stu. In addition.0001.001.7. There was a tendency for For the summaries. who scored significantlyhigher (p < importancefactorwith the other four factors. higher (p < . 1984). 70) = 17. The protocols were group also included significantly more Level 5 parsed into idea units and sorted into five cate.2). F(1. training. p < . 70) = 28.8). tion effects.9) scored significantlyhigher ability. two trainingconditions. 340 QUARTERLY* Summer 1987 READINGRESEARCH XXII/3 .8. the structuretraining dents wrote to this limit.9. we are not training group (M = 25. The high-ability interestedin main effects for school. portancelevel.001.6). Learning from Independent Reading There were five factors in this analysis. and the levels ranged in importanceof Results idea units from 1 (most important)to 5 (extra- neous).grees-of-freedom adjustmentfactor was used.0001. No other main or interactioneffects 21. p < . Significantmain effects text).5 < < = 25. < 26. the test of the experimentalhypotheses 7.6) scored significantly portance interactioneffect. the structuretraining group (M = 37. The score for each category means were tested by pooling sums of squares was converted into a "percentof total"metric. F(4. traininggroupwere 34.16. A significantmain effect was found for im- There were no other significantmain or interac.6 > > 14. and using the Newman-Keulsmultiplecompari.8 . According to the Newman-Keuls condition factors) is whether there are signifi- tests. p < .F(2. the structuretraininggroup to have more Level tive index of how subjects chose to distribute 1 (most important)idea units.1 . most stu. or summarizingcondition. Differences between individual group ideas (Level 5). .01) than the traditional portance factor. and ideas across importance levels. other (unweighted M = 40.6 < Writtensummariestest-Importance levels. students(M = 46. given limited fewer Level 4 (least important)idea units. Unweighted means for the struc- dents (M = 49. p (representedby the training and summarizing < . p < . Subjects included a significantly higher per- Short-answer test. gories: four normed levels of importance(Lev- and the resulting conservativeF value was re. 70) = ipsative.we were interestedin a rela. 272) = 17. in their summaries than the traditional restrictedto a maximumof 50 words. Percentage correct centage of idea units at Level 1 (most important) scores on the 10-item (21-point) short-answer than at the other four levels. there were two within- Great Plains were analyzed using a 2 (school) subject factors: five levels of importance and x 3 (ability) x 2 (trainingcondition) between. However. and ability. None of the other test were also analyzed using a 2 (school) x 3 four means was significantlydifferentfrom any (ability) x 2 (trainingcondition) ANOVAde.5 > > 13. p < . We also found a significantTrainingx Im- ability students(M = 68. F(2. Therefore. (extraneous)idea units. p < .01) thanthe medium-abilitystudents(M cus of the analysis is on the interactionof the = 32.' for ability. who scored significantly ture traininggroup for the five importancelev- higher (p < .24. els 1 to 4) and a fifth category for extraneous ported. in that the sum of all five category scores was equal to 100 for each student.9 .01. Scores consisting of percentage The three between-groupsfactors were the two correctof total possible points (39) on the essay schools. and three abil- test for the passage about homesteadingon the ity groups.4 > > 11.7 - sign. Results showed a significant main effect 13.05.8).4) cant changes in the patternor profile of the im- scored higher (p < .0001.11. Because the main dependent measure is were found for trainingcondition. F(4.5. Recall that the summaryprotocols were .5). the main fo- (p < . these repeated measures composed son technique(Glass & Hopkins. High. p < space. two summarizingconditions (with and without groups ANOVAdesign.7 > > 15.001) thanlow-ability students(M els were 46. Therefore.45.5.14.001.6). traininggroup. an ipsative.01) than the low-ability students (M = 15.

9).p < .7. whereas the summariesof the low- few idea units at Levels 2.0 . the percentagesof Level 1 and of Level 5 idea tion factors. tion is the effect due to training. importance.. Traditional Training 40 n- 0 35 35 i. 272) = 4.01. For the medium.17.but superimposedon that interac.2 < < idea units thanthose of the high-abilitygroup. medium-abilitygroups performed at about the tant) and Level 5 (extraneous) idea units. < . p < .. 3. 20 . 341 . 30 S25 25 . p < .) The means for the two summarizingcon.when subjectswrote summariesfrom and ability was significant. the profile group.001. p < . Summarizing With Text 50 Summarizing Without Text - 45 45 - "StructureTraining 40. the significant interactionof The effect of the triple interactionbetween importanceprofile with summarizingcondition importancelevel. however. 38. The profiles show that the high.7 > > 5.001. F(4. significant. ..9. However.17. 272) = 2. dents.07.the profile of impor. .79.and importancelevel factors 50 . p < .22. . As units in their summaries.and summarizingcon- is apparent. dition was also significant.17. 15 10 10 1 2 3 4 5 5 0 i I I I 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 IMPORTANCELEVEL Textstructure/summarization instruction ANDERSON.training.3 > > 21.01. ..p 27. ability. the differencebetweenthe percentagesof p < . t 30 0".the low-ability cant effect of the triple interactioninvolving the group showedno significantdifferencebetween training. and 4 (unweighted ability group had significantly fewer Level 1 M = 42.9 > > 8.and high-ability stu- ditions differed significantly at Levels 2 and 5. Level 1 and of Level 5 idea units was large and As shown in Figure 3.12.and tance levels shows many Level 1 (most impor.. p memory (textunavailable).001. As illustratedin Figure4.1 .001.4 . When subjects traneousidea units than the traditionaltraining wrote summarieswith text available. discussed above. 272) = 3. F(8. The interaction between importance level However. 20 . There was also a significant Importancex structure training group did not have a text SummarizingConditioninteractioneffect.3 . available. but same level. both groups in- of importance level decreases from a high at cluded significantly more Level 5 idea units Level 1 to a low at Level 5 (unweightedM = withoutthe text than with the text. . and summarizingcondi.00001. they included significantly more ex- 272) = 19.. < . F(4.& OSTERTAG ARMBRUSTER.05. F(8. When the p < . there was a signifi..0001. the profiles Figure 3 Interactionbetween summarizing.

001. the pro.81.82.the 1.2. training condition.and .3.01.75. and 2. ferent pattern. 66) = 99.74.00001. Al- Recall that the summaries were also rated on thoughthe structuretraininggroup wrote better four dimensions of quality: integration.8. 198) = 69.. There was also a significant when the text was not availableshow a very dif. The profile curves generally de.05. medium-. 2. summaries in both summarizing conditions. p < . and of Level 1 and Level 5 idea units. p < .42 > Profile curves based on the summaries > 1. However. Only ity dimension. and organization.. maineffect of ability. organization. On the other hand. p < curves is that the summaries of the high.01). LowAbility 40 - 35 35 30 30 \ 25 \ S22 3 4 5 20 15 goo 15 \ .quality dimension and summarizing did not differ significantly between the three condition. p < . integration than at any other level. 66) = 6..56).. and two ing group wrote summaries that were slightly Figure 4 Interactionbetween ability. High Ability Medium Ability so - 45 I 0.71) than without it (M = Three factors-school.were within-subjectfactors. p < ..focus. The structuretraining group received medium-ability groups included significantly much higher ratings (unweighted M = 2.64) more Level 1 ideas thanideas at any otherlevel. whereasthe low-abilitystudentshad a 1. the traditionaltrain- ability-were between-groupsfactors.. 10 10 ' 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 IMPORTANCELEVEL 342 READING RESEARCHQUARTERLY * Summer 1987 XXII/3 . These they wrote slightly better ones with the text measureswere analyzed in a five-way ANOVA.01. For each ability group. ing condition and summarizingcondition was Writtensummaries test-Quality ratings. F(1. Finally.. p < .F(2. and summarizingfactors S 55 Summarizing With Text 55 Summarizing Without Text S 50 50 C 45 ---- . than did the traditional training group (M = p < .F(1. unweighted overall means for the four quality maries significantly more idea units at Level 1 conditions of focus. available (M = 2.of importancelevels when the text was available factors.8. F(3.63 . and support/elaborationwere 2..29.00001. there was a significant main ef- critical difference between these three profile fect of trainingcondition. p < . file curve is U-shapeddue to higherpercentages and low-ability groups were 2.96 > 1. significantly higher percentageof idea units at The effect of the interactionbetween train- Level 5 thanat any other level.05.46. ability levels. significant. the unweightedmeans for the high-. There was a significantmain effect of qual- crease smoothly from Level 1 to Level 5. the high-ability group included in their sum.importancelevel. 66) = 6. support/elaboration.

34. on all training group should recall more information quality categories except the category of sup.comparedto the traditionaltrain- training. treatmentand ability did not interact. 2.Furthermore. 198) = 2. withouttext. items on the short-answertest asked for specific and 1. Indeed. 1. with three between-groups factors: school.50.31. the structure higher than the medium-ability group (M = traininggroup should write Summariesthat in- 2. Comparedto traditional structuretraining group on the quality dimen. M = 2. Recall that most of the the three ability levels (low. Apparently. p < . called about 50% more of the macrostructure and organization were 2.05.95). in particular. The second hypothesiswas also confirmed. and 1. comparedto (M = 1. M = 1. structure-trainedstudents re- sions of integration. but not significantly the traditional training group.00001. M = 2.97. had difficulty when the port the major hypothesis that instructionin a text was unavailable(Figure4). support/elaboration.instructionin the The percentagesof idea units remembered problem/solution structurehelped students ex- after a classroom discussion about a problem/ tract the main points of problem/solutionpas- solution passage were analyzed in an ANOVA sages.48. 3.82.29. and ability. and ideas of a 525-wordtextbookpassage read inde- 2. This effect may problem/solutiontext structure. students of lower The data analyses provide evidence to sup. mation of macrostructuresfor text having that The significant effect of the interactionbe. middle. p < .The evidence comes from confirma- tween quality dimension and trainingcondition tion of four out of the five hypotheses. the mean rating for the medium-ability cluded more passage main ideas.42).how. 343 . and training students to include more Level 5 idea high-abilitygroups were 13.06. there were main effects for treatmentand abil- As for the significanteffect for the interac. respectively.6. However.54. 198) = 12. 2. We found only a weak ing group. the high-abilitygroup (M = 2. comparedto significantlyhigher than the traditionaltraining the traditional training group. for although 1. more Level 1 (most important)and significantly fewer Level 4 (least important) idea units in Learning from Classroom Discussion their summaries. training students. medium-. focus. significantly higher than the low-ability group The thirdhypothesiswas that.would facilitatethe for- text. We did not expect that text structuretrain- tively). be due to the confoundingof summarizingcon- Textstructure/summarization instruction ANDERSON.6.92.54.92) scored type of information. units in their summarieswas especially evident in the interactionswith summarizingcondition: Structure training students tended to include Discussion more Level 5 idea units when the text was un- available (Figure 3). tion between ability and quality dimension. M = 1. ing would necessarily facilitate recall of this ever. on an essay test over the main idea of a prob- port/elaboration. their summaries. the structuretraininggroup also in- main effect for ability. 14. structure.81. The mean ratings for the lem/solution passage. ture.91).& OSTERTAG ARMBRUSTER. M = 1.67. it did not affect performanceon elaborationwere not significantly different for the short-answer test. F(6. and no significant interactioneffect.01. p < .7.97.focus. and support/ performance. 2. the group was not significantly different from that structuretraining group included significantly for the low-abilitygroup.00.92. marginallysignificantat cluded more Level 5 (extraneous)idea units in p = .20. and 21.the trainingwas effec- group on those same dimensions were 1. tive for all three ability groups. ability. the ratingson the Although structuretrainingfacilitatedessay test dimensions of integration.lower in quality with the text available (with marizationinstruction. The means for the traditional training pendently. F(3. facts that were independentof the macrostruc- and high. The tendency for structure Unweighted means for the low-. and 1. respec.59.58. Also. shows that the structuretraining group scored The first hypothesis was that.including sum. 2.77. ity. and 1.10. On the dimensionof organization. the structure group.

they could also indi- failure to instantiatethe frame with the appro. two of the four problem of getting oil from Alaska to other subheadings were "What problems did these states.dition with passage (recall that subjectssumma. cussion points in a frame on the chalkboard- nificant effect of the ability by quality dimen. differentialperformancein the two not do as well on the importantdimensionof or- summarizingconditionscould be attributableto ganization.29. medium-. but is badly confused Jamestown. apparentlynot a very powerfuldifference. The datado not supportthis hypothesis.82 out of a possible 6 points. though the low-ability group did as well as the rized one passage that was available and a high-abilitygroupon the dimensionsof integra- differentpassage that was no longer available). An- priate informationat encoding.One reasonfor our their summaries.they did Therefore. When the text was unavailable. sion interactionshowed that the instructionwas Another possible explanation is that stu- not equally effective for all ability groups. The structure In fact.46. ratings were so low: For the high-. The studenthas clearly learnedto use the room textbook about the settlement of problem/solutionframe. However. it was still up to them to in. Therefore. success?"(actions and results). cussions for the treatmentgroups was that. dentget oil fromtexasthereforetheybuiltpipe The reasonfor this resultmay be thatthe partic- lines as a resultthe oil waspumpedfromtexas ular classroom discussion that was the basis for to Alaska.the understand or remember the actual passage scores do appear to reflect relative differences content. in fact. and low-ability groups. as well the structuretraining group. and 1. 2. In other words. the means were 2. however. passage differences.) "What new plan helped to make the colony a The results also confirmed the fourth hy. Texas was mentioned merely as another early settlers have to solve?" (problems) and oil-producingstate. or (b) failureto other reason for our suspicion is that categories recall the appropriateinformationto instantiate such as focus and support/elaborationdo not the frame at retrieval. The selection was clearly about about the content. Al- structure training students may have suffered though these low means could reflect relatively from one or both of the following problems:(a) poor-quality summaries. Our final hypothesis was that using the An example of a summary text that sup.[sic] the criteriontest was very similar for the struc- ture training and traditional training groups. a le- pothesis: Comparedto the traditionaltraining gitimate classroom discussion of the selection group. solution framewith extraneousinformation. mation. (The passage discussed the problemsand solutions. in the independent suspicion is that the composite means for the reading situation.Despite possi- structuretraining students did not sufficiently ble problemswith the ratingscale. tion. cussed. and support/elaboration. better organized summaries. the structuretraininggroup should write would have to focus on problemsand solutions. for ings on the dimension of organization. cate an invalid index of summaryquality. This summarywas writtenby a studentfromthe For both groups. The structuretraininggroup had Writing Assessment Program's Rating Guide learned the kind of informationthat is included for FunctionalWritingmay not be very appro- in a problem/solutiontext and that should be in priatefor ratingsummaries. tered arounda selection from the regularclass- able. they tended to instantiatethe problem/ in the qualityof the writtensummaries. the only real differencebetweenthe dis- traininggroupreceivedmuch higher qualityrat. stantiatethe frame with the appropriateinfor. dents need to be actively involved in the forma- 344 READING RESEARCHQUARTERLY * Summer 1987 XXII/3 . we believe that We qualify conclusions aboutthe qualityof the following explanationis also consistentwith summarywriting by observing that the Illinois these results. however. the sig. Al.However. the classroomdiscussion cen- low-ability group when the text was unavail. when seem appropriatefor summaries. problem/solutiontext structureas an organiza- ports this explanationis the following: tional framework for classroom discussion should facilitate retention of the content dis- The Alskanshada problembecausetheycoul. focus. we recorded dis- as on focus and integration.

Children's developing instructionshould probably provide considera. Journal of Educational bly less actively involved.L. Ratingthe importance passages read independently. J. There were two componentsto the instruc. MACGINITIE. & GEISSER.J.L. 9. the results for functional writing..R.H. 811-820. HOL- LEY. Duffy.J.Journal of Reading Be. & ROEHLER. 1-14.E. Brown & Smiley. Theeffect of Quarterly. mappingon thefree recall of expositorytext (Tech. and using a text structureto write summaries. G. tive contribution of each component. IL: Author.D..Amsterdam:North-Holland. 1983. then. Macrorulesfor summa- suggest that direct instructionof a conventional rizing texts: The developmentof expertise. L.S. BROWN. & JONES. Awareness of text structure: Effects on REFERENCES children's recall of expository text.. and suggestions (pp. Reading Research Quar- The technologyof text (Vol. Chicago. D. 75.W. 64-73. S.K. Journal of text structurecan facilitateformationof a mac.they have to gen. NJ: Prentice-Hall. BERKOWITZ.. Mean.J. In general. (1978). A. 90-104). 160). J. the ENGLERT.E (1983).ReadingResearch Quarterly. Direct instructionof comprehension:Whatdoes it really mean?ReadingHo- Brown. 95-112. C. Springfield. The develop- rostructurefor thattype of text. & SMILEY.. & DANSEREAU.M. Textstructure/summarization instruction ANDERSON. Rep. DUFFY. particularlyfor younger ogy. Centerfor the Study of Reading. the class worked reading. A.S. PEARSON. (1970).). awareness of text structures in expository materials.). 16. (1984). writing!) in contentarea classrooms. Use of ARMBRUSTER. (1980).H. ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION.R. On methods in Future research should investigate the distinc. EnglewoodCliffs.L. For students of lower ability.E.Tempe. 1978).). A. 161-178.G.. Child Develop- dents were successfully taught to form a ment.D.H. BROOKS. JOHNSON.. The organization of prose and its ef- No. 1076-1088. (1978). Englewood terly. S. 54.tion of the macrostructureif they are to benefit BARTLETT.B.. (1984). & J. Recall of prose as a function of the of this instructionalprogramshould be encour. 12-20. 1-13. (1980). 76. and less able students (Brown & Day. NJ: EducationalTechnologyPublications. Psychology. S.H. Reading Research ARMBRUSTER.R.21. Day. The development of task. New York:Longman.B.F (1975). Statistical methods in tion in this study: recognizing a text structure education and psychology (2nd ed.G. group.. (1977).W. rizons. For the essay question BROWN. IL: Riverside. L.. 72-103.E. GREENHOUSE. B. 1454- 1466. summarization task. 1977. 581-590. (1959). T. In D.B. B. tional strategyfor recall of classroomtext. as assessed by of structuralunits of prose passages: A problemof me- both an essay question over main points and a tacognitivedevelopment. & SMILEY. L. (1984). (1983). the in.. & BLUTH. 71.& OSTERTAG ARMBRUSTER. Child Development.24. & HOPKINS. 23. 22.G. BRANDT. Roehler. (1979).ChildDevelopment. 1983. G..D.B.17. (1984). GLASS.P. & EVANS.. In the lecture situation.J.A..L.. DIEKHOFF. & ANDERSON. & Jones.H.C. Facilitating retention through in. ment of plans for summarizing texts. Psychometrika.Journal of Educational Psychol- task of summarizing. Ratingguide while. Unpublished doctoraldissertation. 345 . For the summarizationtasks. A.J. most individualswere proba- tory prose processing. MCGEE.Arizona StateUniversity. MCDONALD. & HIEBERT. & ANDERSON. & DAY. Journal of EducationalPsychology. Gates-MacGinitieReading Tests. 16. MEYER. K. the instructionwas effective for all ability strategies for studying texts.In G. as we await furtherresearch. S. B. Frames: top-level structurein text: Key for reading comprehen- Structuresfor informativetext. B. pp. GARLAND.E. 222-233). 49. therefore. (1982). Comprehension instruction: Perspectives havior. comprehension. studentsare actively involved. MEYER. macrostructurefor problem/solution textbook BROWN. COLLINS. Developmentand evaluationof a learningstrat- search has demonstratedthe difficulty of the egy trainingprogram. (1985).. bly more practiceand feedback. R. G.D. Effects of instructionin text orga- erate the problem/solution structure on their nization on sixth-gradestudents'memory for expository own. Ma- struction about text structure. groups. Direct explicit teaching of reading BARNETT.D. (1984).. other re. Cliffs. (1986). T. Top-levelstructureas an organiza- from it. In an independent reading situation. Fifth-gradestu. the analysis of profile data. This result is not surprising. (1983). S..M. 65-74. (1978).V. DAY. Effects of struc- collectively to fill in the problem/solution tural schema training and text organizationon exposi- frame.S. J. fects on memory.W. 35-40..S. 968-979. D. S. 2. VerbalLearningand VerbalBehavior. D. struction was least effective for the low-ability DANSEREAU.F. Journal of aging to educatorsconcernedwith reading (and VerbalLearningand VerbalBehavior. Jonassen(Ed.L. (1982). Urbana-Champaign:University of Illinois. structuralimportanceof the linguistic units. sion of ninth-gradestudents.48.W. the results of this study BROWN. J. son (Eds.

. (1983). B. researchperspective.). hension and productionof expository text. and William Vickers. Schooling and the ac- quisition of knowledge (pp.N. 745-798).W. (1977). D.E. In R. R. 8. (1983). 195). Illinois.B.In J. the sign tional Reading Conference (pp.05.M. & ORTONY. 193-208. (1980). ReadingResearchQuarterly. the sign . 317-344. Reading Research Quarterly. no significantdifferencebetween means. & GALLAGHER. NationalInstituteof Education. & BEACH. T. tion in reading. R. (1986).It does not.B. WINOGRAD.43. B.M. The work upon which this publicationis based was per- sification (Tech. Urbana-Champaign: formed pursuantto contract No.21.P. Synthesis of research on explicit search Quarterly. Strategies of dis- reading research (pp. Centerfor the Study of Reading.01. Thirty-fourthyearbookof the Na.W.K. ReadingRe- ROSENSHINE. P. Coordinator 399-411.B. Anderson.. Spiro. helpful commentson earlierdraftsof this paper. NJ: Erlbaum.19. > indicatesgreater than at p < ..C.M.. (1984). Hillsdale. R. Public TAYLOR.E. R. RUMELHART. Niles (Ed. Pearson (Ed. 15. 99-136).K. B. of Chapter 1 Reading for the Springfield. the sign > > indicatesgreater than at p < . The authorsare gratefulto KathrynRansom. & STEVENS. In P. Rochester.B. M. On investigatingchil- dren'stransitionfrom narrativeto expositorydiscourse: Footnotes The multidimensionalnatureof psychological text clas. teaching. SPIRO. & KINTSCH. (1982). (1984).J.Journalof Maddox. (1986).New York:AcademicPress.indicates NY: NationalReadingConference. Montague(Eds. Children's memory for expository sarily reflect the views of this agency..A. Toward an understanding of factors Barak Rosenshine and several anonymous reviewers for contributingto children'sdifficulty summarizingtext. EducationalLeadership. Phyllis Lape. NIE-400-81-0030 of the University of Illinois. book material.C. ROSENSHINE. New York:Longman.J. The effects of text of reading comprehension. (1980). A. Schools. (1985).19. The instruction TAYLOR. 60-69. 74. 134-146.M.. and to their students who EducationalPsychology. Rep. 404-425. however. Summary writing by young children. text after reading. Classroominstruc. (1984).). Handbook of VAN DIJK. Issues in literacy:A 'In reportedmeans from multiple comparison analyses. TAYLOR. to teachersDouglas Goss. 125-131). & TAYLOR. 346 READING RESEARCHQUARTERLY * Summer 1987 XXII/3 . The representa. Text structure and children's compre.).PEARSON. Strategicdifficulties in summariz- tion of knowledge in memory.A. course comprehension. 323-340.neces- TAYLOR. No. ReadingResearchQuarterly.D. & W. ContemporaryEducational structureinstructionon middle-gradestudents'compre- Psychology. ing texts.D. participatedin the study.M. Margaret hension and memoryfor expositorymaterial. The authors are also grateful to TAYLOR.