1989
DOI: 10.1080/19388078909557982
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An examination of summary writing as a measure of reading comprehension

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
15
0
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
1
15
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In other words, writing summaries in a constructed-response format may be more in line with the construct of writing than reading. This idea is supported by the fact that the quality of student summaries have been found to vary as a function of writing ability (Head et al, 1989).…”
Section: Identify Locate and Retrieve Important Details (Literal Cosupporting
confidence: 53%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In other words, writing summaries in a constructed-response format may be more in line with the construct of writing than reading. This idea is supported by the fact that the quality of student summaries have been found to vary as a function of writing ability (Head et al, 1989).…”
Section: Identify Locate and Retrieve Important Details (Literal Cosupporting
confidence: 53%
“…Not surprisingly, research has revealed that the quality of student summaries varies as a function of age, experience, and ability (Garner, 1985;Head, Readence, & Buss, 1989). For example, summaries written by less skilled comprehenders often lack consistency (McCutchen & Perfetti, 1982) and fail to adhere to the organizational structure of the text (Meyer, Brandt, & Bluth, 1980).…”
Section: Identify Locate and Retrieve Important Details (Literal Comentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If most of the concepts of an article were presented with the least number of sentences, the learner would obtain a better score. That is, the higher the score the students get, the better efficacy they have (Head et al, 1989).…”
Section: Measurement For Content Summarising Efficacymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition to the rating scheme, this study adopted the formula of equation (1) for evaluating the students' content summarising efficacy. The formula is a modified version proposed by Head, Readence and Buss (1989) and adapted by Wei (2003). If most of the concepts of an article were presented with the least number of sentences, the learner would obtain a better score.…”
Section: Measurement For Content Summarising Efficacymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One promising approach to enhancing recall effectiveness that has been the subject of much research in recent years is the provision of content enhancement instructions prior to a reading task; for example, instructing the reader to generate questions while reading (Rosenshine, Meister & Chapman, 1996); read with a specific study purpose in mind (Ishiwa, Sanjose & Otero, 2013), or summarize the text (Bean & Steenwyk, 1984;Doctorow, Wittrock & Marks, 1978;Head, Readence & Buss, 1989). Previous studies have found that issuing a reader with a set of instructions that encourage deep processing during the reading task can improve their ability to answer multiple choice (MC) questions (Graesser & Lehman, 2011) and, hence, creates a clearer global mental representation of the text.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%