Teaching students to summarize: Applying textlinguistics

Abstract The findings from research on written and oral summarization are discussed under three headings: summarizers' strategies, improving summarizers' performance, and the assessment of summary quality. Most research on summarizers' strategies has been based on the Macrostructure model of van Dijk and Kintsch, and provides broad confirmation of it. Clear-cut rules for summarization have been devised and successfully taught, although the central strategy, that of selecting important information, is least understood and most resistant to instruction. Summarizers' performance divides into two classes: “mature” performance involves a deep-level transformation of a text, departing from surface wording and the original order of propositions; “immature” performance is confined to the deletion, or verbatim retention, of surface elements. The objective measures of summary quality used by researchers are described, and ways in which these could be adapted for use in higher education assessment are indicated.

[1]  R. Garner.  Efficient Text Summarization Costs and Benefits , 1982 .

[2]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Macrorules for summarizing texts: the development of expertise , 1983 .

[3]  Victoria Chou Hare,et al.  Direct Instruction of Summarization Skills. , 1984 .

[4]  Wendy G. Lehnert.  Plot Units and Narrative Summarization , 1981 .

[5]  Ruth Garner,et al.  Text Summarization Deficiencies Among Older Students: Awareness or Production Ability? , 1985 .

[6]  Jeanne D. Day,et al.  The development of plans for summarizing texts. , 1983 .

[7]  Ruth Garner,et al.  Effects of text manipulations on quality of written summaries , 1985 .

[8]  David E. Kieras,et al.  Thematic Processes in the Comprehension of Technical Prose. , 1982 .

[9]  Peter N. Winograd.  Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts , 1984 .

[10]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures , 1978 .

[11]  C. Sjostrom,et al.  Teaching High School Students to Identify Main Ideas in Expository Text , 1984 .

[12]  John Long,et al.  Summary and Recall of Text in First and Second Languages: Some Factors Contributing to Performance Differences , 1978 .

[13]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Summarizing Stories After Reading and Listening. , 1977 .

[14]  Nancy Lockitch Loman,et al.  SIGNALING TECHNIQUES THAT INCREASE THE UNDERSTANDABILITY OF EXPOSITORY PROSE , 1983 .

[15]  Gene L. Piche,et al.  The Effects of Selected Text-Forming Structures on College Freshmen's Comprehension of Expository Prose. , 1984 .

[16]  E. Crothers.  Paragraph Structure Inference , 1979 .

[17]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  An Integrated Understander , 1980, Am. J. Comput. Linguistics.

[18]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Toward a model of text comprehension and production. , 1978 .

[19]  Carol Sherrard,et al.  Summary Writing , 1986 .

[20]  Ronald E. Johnson.  Recall of prose as a function of the structural importance of the linguistic units. , 1970 .

[21]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Comment on se rappelle et on resume des histoires (How We Remember and Summarize Stories). , 1975 .

[22]  Kathryn Boar.  Text representations , 1990 .

[23]  Charlotte Basham,et al.  A Discourse Analysis Approach to Summary Writing , 1984 .

[24]  B. K. Britton,et al.  Effects of Text Structure on Use of Cognitive Capacity during Reading. , 1982 .