Determining Central Ideas in Expository Text

Student Learning Objective

Vincent Mick

EDTP 650 – Professional Internship and Seminar

University of Maryland Global Campus – Spring 2021

Dr. Melissa Pierczynski

 2

Section I: Conceptualization

SLO Summarization Statement

This SLO will focus on improving students’ ability to determine and track the development of
central ideas in expository text. This SLO will implement direct instruction of reading skills
and peer-mediated instruction. Improvement will be measured using a series of
selected-response quizzes and an end-of-unit, selected-response exam.

Rationale/Introduction

Summarization is an “extremely complex metacognitive process,” yet it is rarely the focus of

attention in secondary classrooms (Buyuknarci et al., 2015, p. 2). In addition, comprehending
expository text is cognitively more challenging than comprehending narrative text (Lundine et
al., 2018). Consequently, summarizing expository text is a task that combines the difficulties
of a particular reading skill (summarizing) with the difficulties of particular content
(expository text).

While the secondary curriculum trends toward expository text across subjects, students may
not master comprehension of expository texts “until early adulthood” (Lundine et al., 2018, p.
552). A disjunct exists between the content students encounter in the secondary classroom and
their ability to process that content. This disjunct may be a function of the lack of explicit
instruction for reading skills like summarizing.

The current unit for 7th Grade English at Herbert Hoover Middle School focuses on expository
text. The end-of-unit assessment is a selected-response exam in which 38% of the exam
questions target the skill of determining and tracking the development of central ideas in
expository text.

Note: as made explicit in the language of CCSS RI7.2 below, “summarizing” and
“determining central ideas in a text” will be understood to indicate the same skill throughout
this SLO.

Data Review / Baseline Evidence

At the beginning of the current unit, students read a 1,026 word excerpt from a biography of
Harriet Tubman. The Lexile Measure for the excerpt was 970L. According to the Lexile
Framework, seventh-graders in the 50th percentile read texts at 1095L. Fifth-graders in the
50th percentile read texts at 950L. The excerpt on Harriet Tubman was therefore
approximately two grades below reading level for the 7th Grade.

After reading the excerpt together in class, students were given direct instruction on
annotation. The direct instruction constituted review, as the students had covered annotation in
September of the current academic year. Students then re-read the text, annotated the text, and
discussed their annotations together in class.
 3

Following this lesson, students completed ten selected-response questions on the text. The quiz
was administered through the same digital platform (StudySync) that will administer the
end-of-unit assessment. Two questions on the quiz targeted the skill of determining and
tracking central ideas in a text. 70% of the students who completed the quiz (30/43) missed at
least one of these two “central idea” questions. 30% of the students (13/43) missed both of
these “central idea” questions.

The first question asked students to determine the central idea of the text. 65% of students
(28/43) answered this correctly. The second question asked students to track the development
of the central idea. 65% of the students (28/43) answered incorrectly.

In addition to the quiz, a formative assessment asked students to write a summary of the
excerpt on Harriet Tubman. The formative assessment was implemented after a direct
instruction lesson on summarizing. Summaries consistently missed main ideas within the
excerpt, incorporated information not found in the excerpt, or relied heavily on quoted
language from the excerpt.

As baseline evidence, the above measures may be limited (e.g., not longitudinal). However,
relevant available assessments are limited during the pandemic. Montgomery County Public
Schools canceled the end-of-unit assessments for the first two quarters of the academic year. It
is therefore difficult to identify whether determining and tracking central ideas is an ongoing
challenge for these students or only a challenge specific to the current unit on expository text.

Despite the potential limitations of the baseline evidence, the evidence is aligned with the
standards targeted by this SLO. In addition, the statistically significant number of students who
had difficulty tracking central ideas on the quiz remains a point of interest for this SLO due to
the following factors: the high academic achievement of the student population (discussed
below); the Lexile Measure of the text (below grade level); and the affordance of direct
instruction prior to the quiz.

Student Population

The total number of students targeted in this SLO is 48. This represents the total number of
students in two sections of 7th Grade English. While only 43/48 students submitted the SLO’s
baseline quiz, the high percentage of students missing at least one “central idea” question
supports targeting the entire population for these sections.

The 13 students who answered both “central idea” questions correctly will remain part of the
target population as a subgroup.

In terms of academic achievement, Quarter 2 data is available for 47/48 students (one student
just enrolled). Quarter 2 grade distribution was as follows: 60% of students (28/47) earned an
A; 21% of students (10/47) earned a B; 15% of students (7/47) earned a C; and 4% of students
(2/47) earned a D. No student earned an E. 81% of students (38/47) earned either an A or a B.
 4

One student who earned a D has an IEP. One student who earned a B has a 504.

The class appears to be diverse in terms of both gender and race. However, given the
statistically high number of students missing at least one “central idea” question, collecting
data on how students identify in terms of gender or race is not of particular relevance to this
SLO. The skill of determining and tracking a central idea in expository text is a skill that cuts
across these identity categories.

Relevant perceptual data for the student population includes the researcher’s perception of
student engagement during remote learning. As observed during class, many students are
weary from, bored by, or frustrated with the remote learning experience. District-wide
lowering of academic expectations and students’ self-reported insulation from the pandemic
appear to have combined to create a space in which the target population is on “emotional
idle.” On a “Getting to Know You” survey at the beginning of the unit, a common response to
a question regarding the pandemic’s impact was “the pandemic has not impacted my family
much” or “we cannot go out to eat as much.” The students are at home feeling neither the
pinch of the pandemic nor the push of high expectations. This SLO is not on engagement, but
the success of its instructional strategies will depend on the ability of these strategies to be
engaging.

Academic Goals

Given the implementation of the SLO’s instructional strategies, students will be able to
determine and analyze the development of central ideas in expository text on a timed exam
with the target accuracies specified under “Growth Targets.”

Content Standards

The primary content standard for this SLO is CCSS RI7.2, but this standard depends upon
content standard CCSS RI7.1.

CCSS RI7.1 Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical
inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support
conclusions drawn from the text.

CCSS RI7.2 Determine two or more central ideas in a text and analyze their development over
the course of the text; provide an objective summary of the text.

Growth Targets

Under pandemic conditions, this SLO will not incorporate a “growth to mastery” target. As an
alternative, this SLO will incorporate a banded target as follows:

Population Growth Target

 5

● Students who answered 0% of the ● Answer 50% of the end-of-unit

baseline “central idea” questions assessment “central idea” questions
correctly (0 of 2 questions); this band correctly (3 of 6 questions)
includes students who did not submit
the baseline quiz

● Students who answered 50% of the ● Answer at least 66% of the

baseline “central idea” questions end-of-unit assessment “central idea”
correctly (1 of 2 questions) questions correctly (at least 4 of 6
questions)

● Students who answered 100% of the ● Answer 100% of the end-of-unit

baseline “central idea” questions assessment “central idea” questions
correctly (2 of 2 questions) correctly (6 of 6).

Section II: Literature Review

Summary of Research Findings

Common strategies emerge from the research on summarization (Appendix A: Literature

Review). The predominant strategy is direct/explicit instruction of reading skills--including not
simply summarizing but also activating prior knowledge, predicting, questioning, and
clarifying. Research supports teaching these skills explicitly and in combination.

A second strategy is peer-mediated instruction (e.g., reciprocal teaching). Engagement

positively impacts reading comprehension (Hattan, 2019; Kim et al., 2017), and peer-mediated
instruction positively impacts engagement (Casey, 2018; Singh et al., 2017; Sporer, Brunstein,
and Kieschke, 2009). Consequently, peer-mediated instruction positively impacts reading
comprehension (Casey, 2018; Singh et al., 2017; Sporer, Brunstein, and Kieschke, 2009).

While much of the research included in the Literature Review Addendum targets improving
summarization for subpopulations, Singh et al. (2017) observe that this research is applicable
to both subpopulations and general student populations. Casey (2018) confirms this broadened
applicability, citing the fact that students of a “wide range of ability levels” have demonstrated
benefits from reciprocal teaching (p. 11).

Section III: Procedures

Instructional Interval

The interval for this SLO is as much time as is available between the acceptance of the
proposal and the administration of the end-of-unit assessment for Quarter 3. The
administration date for the end-of-unit assessment has not been set, but the date most likely
will fall between March 22-26. This leaves a compressed window of opportunity for the SLO’s
intervention. However, even short interventions may produce significant results (Buyuknarci et
 6

al., 2015; Singh et al., 2017).

Evidence of Growth

● Summative: one end-of-unit selected response exam administered through StudySync

● Formative: weekly selected-response quizzes administered through StudySync
● Formative: lesson-specific, in-class products (e.g., group completion of a summary
pyramid)

Instructional Strategies

Instructional Strategy #1: Direct/Explicit Instruction

● Each lesson during the SLO interval will incorporate a direct instruction component for
at least one of the following skills referenced in the literature on summarizing:
activating prior knowledge, predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing. The
direct instruction component will 1) reintroduce the skill, 2) model the skill, and 3)
provide an opportunity for guided practice with the skill.

Instructional Strategy #2: Peer-Mediated Instruction

● Each lesson during the SLO interval will incorporate a peer-mediated component.
While breakout rooms have not been reliable sources of learning for students in the
target population during remote learning (as observed directly by the researcher and as
reported by the students’ teachers of record), the SLO will attempt to mitigate the
pitfalls of breakout rooms by tasking heterogeneous groups with the completion of
products. One example of such a product is the story pyramid (Appendix B).
● Peer-mediated learning also will feature during whole class formations. After taking
quizzes, the teacher will poll students on their answers and ask students to explain the
rationale for their answers. Even if the quiz questions are not exclusively “central idea”
questions, this strategy is relevant to the academic goal because analyzing quiz
questions and the rationale for the answers to these questions provides practice for
close reading and inferencing. Close reading and inferencing (CCSS RI7.1) are
underlying skills for summarizing (CCSS RI7.2).

Appendix A: Literature Review

Study Citation Purpose Key Findings


Boling, C. J., & Evans, W. H.
(2008). Reading success in
the secondary classroom.
Preventing School Failure,​
52​(2), 59–66.
https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.
52.2.59-66
Büyüknarci, Ö., Hennes,
A.-K., Rietz, C., & Grünke,
M. (2015). Teaching children
with learning disabilities how
to write concise summaries of
stories. ​Insights on Learning
Disabilities,​ ​12(​ 1), 1–17.
1. To explain strategies
readers may implement prior
to, during, and after reading a
text to enhance
comprehension.
1. To test the effectiveness of
direct instruction for
improving summarizing skills
in elementary and secondary
students with learning
disabilities.
7
1. Activating prior knowledge
is an evidence-based
pre-reading strategy.
2. Visualizing is an
evidence-based
during-reading strategy.
3. A story pyramid is a direct
instruction model that may be
adapted to expository texts.
4. A story pyramid may assist
the construction of a
summary after reading.
1. Direct instruction is an
evidence-based instructional
strategy for teaching the skill
of summarizing.
2. Even brief interventions
can produce significant
improvement in summarizing,
as study participants who
received direct instruction
outperformed their peers who
did not.
3. Future research is needed
to confirm the applicability of
direct instruction for other
populations.
4. The study did not verify
the durability of the learning
improvement or the necessity
of additional intervention
sessions to preserve the
learning gain--particularly for
a population of students with
learning disabilities.
5. Educators “seldom teach
summarization skills
explicitly” (Buyuknarci et al.,

Casey, J. E. (2018). The
effects of reciprocal teaching
on Hispanic students’
awareness of comprehension
strategies for expository text.
Journal of the International
Association of Special
Education​, ​18​(1), 9–22.
Hattan, C. (2019). Prompting
rural students’ use of
background knowledge and
experience to support
comprehension of unfamiliar
content. ​Reading Research
Quarterly,​ ​54(​ 4), 451–455.
https://doi.org./10.1002/rrq.27
0 2. To compare a traditional
1. To test the effectiveness of
reciprocal teaching for
improving reading
comprehension of expository
text in a population of
English Language Learners.
2. To determine whether a
difference exists between
teacher-led or
student-centered reciprocal
teaching.
1. To identify effective
alternative approaches to
activating prior knowledge
when the reading encounter
involves topics with which
students have little
experience.
method of activating prior
knowledge to a
non-traditional method:
Relational Reasoning (RR).
8
2015, p. 2).
1. A reciprocal teaching
intervention improved the
comprehension of social
studies content for both
English Language Learners
and English-only students.
2. Student-centered reciprocal
teaching produced the most
significant gains in
comprehension--though
students participated in a
student-centered phase after
they had completed a
teacher-led phase. Gains
during the student-centered
phase therefore extended
gains from the teacher-led
phase.
3. Students of a “wide range
of ability levels” have
demonstrated benefits from
reciprocal teaching (Casey,
2018, p. 11).
1. Students receiving the RR
intervention outperformed
students who experienced a
traditional approach to
activating prior knowledge.
2. RR benefitted both
high-performing students and
low-performing students.
3. Traditional approaches to
activating prior knowledge
may be “deterimental to
students’ learning when the
text topics are unfamiliar or
ill matched to their life
experiences” (Hattan, 2019,
p. 452).

Kim, J. S., Hemphill, L.,
Troyer, M., Thomson, J. M.,
Jones, S. M., LaRusso, M. D.,
& Donovan, S. (2017).
Engaging struggling
adolescent readers to improve
reading skills. ​Reading
Research Quarterly​, ​52​(3),
357–382.
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.17
1 students reading below grade
Lundine, J. P., Harnish, S.
M., McCauley, R. J.,
Blackett, D. S., Zezinka, A.,
Wei Chen, & Fox, R. A.
(2018). Adolescent
summaries of narrative and
expository discourse:
Differences and predictors.
Language, Speech & Hearing
Services in Schools​, ​49​(3),
551–568.
https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_
LSHSS-17-0105
Singh, B., Moore, D.,
Furlonger, B., Anderson, A.,
Busacca, M., & English, D.
(2017). Teaching reading
comprehension skills to a
1. To determine the benefits
of a multicomponent
intervention: the Strategic
Adolescent Reading
Intervention (STARI).
2. To include engagement and engagement had a statistically
motivation as fundamental
foci for reading interventions. reading comprehension for a
1. To understand factors
impacting comprehension of
expository text for secondary
students.
2. To determine whether
certain types of expository
text are more difficult to
comprehend than others for
secondary students.
1. To test the effectiveness of
translating the reading skills
of reciprocal teaching
(predicting, questioning,
clarifying, summarizing) to a
9
1. Students who received the
multicomponent intervention
outperformed a control group
on basic reading skills.
2. An increase in student
significant positive impact on
population of middle school
level.
3. The study legitimated
reading interventions
“designed to build student
interest and motivation” (Kim
et al, 2017, p. 374).
1. Text structure impacts
summary quality: secondary
students produced higher
quality summaries for
cause-effect text structures
than compare-contrast text
structures.
2. Comprehension of
expository text lags behind
comprehension of narrative
text and may not be achieved
until “early adulthood”
(Lundine et al., 2018, p. 552).
3. Expository discourse has a
specific cognitive load for
readers in terms of “attention,
memory, and executive
function” (Lundine et al.,
2018, p. 553).
1. The BST intervention
elevated the participant’s
reading level from
“frustration” level to
“instructional” level (Singh et

child with autism using
behaviour skills training.
Journal of Autism &
Developmental Disorders,​
47​(10), 3049–3058.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s1080
3-017-3229-7
Spörer, N., Brunstein, J. C., &
Kieschke, U. (2009).
Improving students’ reading
comprehension skills: Effects
of strategy instruction and
reciprocal teaching. ​Learning
& Instruction,​ ​19(​ 3),
272–286.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learn
instruc.2008.05.003
non-group context for a
student with autism spectrum
disorder (ASD).
2. To determine whether the
established benefits of
reciprocal teaching are due to
RT’s emphasis on group
learning or RT’s emphasis on
explicit, deliberate attention
to skills.
3. To test the effectiveness of
Behavioral Skills Training
(BST) as a reading
intervention that combines
direct instruction, guided
practice, and feedback.
1. To investigate whether the
benefits of RT are due to its
social composition or its
explicit focus on strategy
instruction.
2. To test the effectiveness of
implementing RT in pairs
rather than in small groups.
3. To determine what
differences exist between
implementing RT in pairs
rather than in small groups.
10
al., 2017, p. 3054).
2. The study confirmed
previous research indicating
that even brief interventions
can “produce rapid and
substantial gains in reading
comprehension” (Singh et al.,
2017, p. 3056).
3. The explicit attention of
reciprocal teaching to reading
skills may contribute more to
RT’s benefit as an
intervention than any group
component.
4. Of the RT focus skills,
summarizing was the most
difficult for the participant to
master.
1. Reciprocal teaching in
small peer groups was more
beneficial to study
participants than reciprocal
teaching in teacher-led
groups. However, regardless
of group makeup, participants
who received an RT
intervention outperformed a
control group on a
standardized reading
comprehension test.
2. The study confirmed
previous research indicating
that “multiple strategies can,
and should, be combined in
comprehension instruction”
(Sporer, Brunstein, and
Kieschke, 2009, p. 284).
3. The study did not identify a
significant difference or
advantage to teaching RT
 11

skills in pairs rather than in

traditional small groups.

Appendix B: Story Pyramid