http://top.sagepub.com/Teaching of Psychology

http://top.sagepub.com/content/22/2/113The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1207/s15328023top2202_4

1995 22: 113Teaching of PsychologySally A. Radmacher and Elizabeth Latosi-Sawin

Summary Writing: A Tool to Improve Student Comprehension and Writing in Psychology  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  Society for the Teaching of Psychology

can be found at:Teaching of PsychologyAdditional services and information for    

  http://top.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://top.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

What is This? 

- Apr 1, 1995Version of Record >>

at UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LIBRARY on October 8, 2014top.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LIBRARY on October 8, 2014top.sagepub.comDownloaded from

METHODS AND TECHNIQUES Summary Writing: A Tool to Improve Student Comprehension and Writing in Psychology

Sally A. Radrnacher Missouri Western State College

Elizabeth Latosi-Sawin Writing Across the Curriculunt P r o p Missouri Western State College

A psysychdogy insrmnor and a Writing Acrosr the C&lm director used summary writing w toimprove text comprekmh and develop snuknt m'ting sbk. The mean score on tk fmal emm for the c h s withsummmy witingwas 8% hi&rhanrktwmsmofthe dnss without summmy um'ting. S&ts e& lhece duties as effectlie tools w (a) learn the content of the come; (b) &lop more effeaive SN& for re* ten; and (c) make their own m'ting clearer, more d e , and more ocnrmte.

The Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) movement has been very influential in psychology courses (Nodine, 1990). Psychology faculty are beginning to realize the im- portance of teaching writing within their discipline and to understand that writing is a process of thinking and learning (McGovern & Hogshead, 1990).

We (a psychology instructor and a WAC director) col- laborated on a series of summary-writing activities because the first exam scores in an indusuial/organizational (1/0) psychology course were lower than the previous year's class. We reasoned that students would increase their compre- hension of the challenging text (Landy, 1989) if they de- veloped their summaywriting skills.

Summav witing is an effective learning strategy because students must make decisions about the relative importance of elements in a text in order to summaize it; therefore, they comprehend the text at a higher level than they would from simply readirq: it (Kintsch & van Dijk. 1978; Winograd. 1984).

To teach summary writing, we used an instructional method developed by the WAC director called readlrankl rewiew, a process in which students read and evaluateselected models of writing (Allen & Latosi-Sawin. 1992; Latosi- Sawin& Krueger, 1993). Later, students collaborated weekly on their summaries to improve their comprehension of the COUTS text.

their text that described the process of constructing tests for job applicants. The psychology instructor ranked all the summaria on a 4-point scale ranging from needs least revision (1) to nee& most revision (4). A representative paper from each of the rankings wa5 reproduced with all individual identifications and rankings removed.

During the next class, students were given the first- and fourth-ranked models to compare. They were asked to de- cide which of the two papers needed less revision and to justify their rankings in writing. The WAC director led a class discussion in which students shared their analyses and evaluations of the two models. She wrote their observations on the board, made connections among them, and helped students find the right words to express their ideas. Through this process, students clarified the content of the text and discovered the criteria for a successful summary. Students unanimously agreed with the instructor's prior evaluations of these two papers. This process took approximately half of the 50-min class period.

During the second half of class, students compared the second-ranked paper to the first two models. After briefly discussing their written evaluations of the second-ranked paper, students read and evaluated the third-ranked sum- mary and ranked all four models. Although a few students reversed the instructor's rankings of the second- and third- ranked models, most students agreed with the instructor's rankings.

During the next class, students explained in writing what they had learned from the read/rank/review activity. They were encouraged to be as specific as possible. These brief self-reflective explanations also sewed as evaluative data.

Classroom Collaboration

Procedure After the read/rank/review activity, at least one class per week was devoted to summarizing a section of the text that

Read/Rank/Rm>iew contained much information that was not conceptually dif- ficult. In their summaries, students identified the most im-

Sixteen of 19 students enrolled in a third-year I10 psy- portant points of the text. The instructor occasionally chology course participated in this activity. As a take-home collected the written summaries and substituted them for the assignment, students read and summarized the section of 10-point quizzes that counted for 20% of the semester grade.

Vol. 22, No. 2, April 1995 113

at UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LIBRARY on October 8, 2014top.sagepub.comDownloaded from

At the beginning of classes when summaries were due, students were given 5 min to review their assignments. A student volunteer then wrote on the board the key points suggested by class members. After several points were listed, the class decided whether each point was essential to un- derstanding the text. They also suggested examples to illus- trate each key p i n t .

The instructor did not lecture o n sections assigned for summary, but she guided the discussions to ensure that all key points were addressed and appropriate examples were given. She resewed lectures for presentations of information not included in the text and for explanations of complicated theor~es or models.

Evaluations

Exam Grade Comparisons

We compared exam scores from the previous year's class without summary writing and exam scores of the class with summary writing to determine whether writing summaries increased student comprehension of the text. The first exam sewed as a pretest because the activities were not imple- mented until after the first exam. The class without sum- mary writing used the same text and took exams created fmm the same test bank. This quasi-experimental design is frequently used for evaluation (Cook & Campbell. 1979). Although students who wrote summaries may have obtained copies of the exam fmm the previous class, this pssihility is unlikely. The insmctor routinely scrambles item5 on mul- tiple-choice tests and accounts for all exam booklets.

Although the mean score on the first exam for the sum- mary writing cla9s was 4 points (7%) lower than that earned by the class without summary writing, the final exam mean score for the summary writing class was 5 points (8%) higher (see Table 1 ). Both classes had lower final exam mean scores compared to the first exam scores. Lower final exam scores are a common phenomenon in chis instructor's classes, but the decrease between the first and final exams was only 2 points for the summary-writing class compared to 11 points for the class without summary writing. An analysis of co- variance (with first exam scores as the covariate) showed a statistically significant main effect for class on the final exam scores, F(2, 33) = 10.03, p < ,003.

Sixteen students wmte explanations for their rankings of the model summaries. Five observed that a summary should have an opening statement that introduces the information being presented. Thirteen students learned that a succcssful summary reduces processes such as test consmction into concise, clear, and orderly steps. Ten students observed that a summary should have just enough detail so that someone who had not read the text could understand what it con- tained.

Although only 4 students mentioned the reader's needs in their first private rankings of the models, 14 of 15 students reported a heightened awareness of the reader's needs in their written evaluations of the read/rank/review process. Being aware of their audience helped these 14 students see

Table 1. Mean Exam Scores and Standard Deviations of Classes With Summary Writing

and Without Summary Wrlting

Exam l a Exam 2 Final

SummaryWfiling M SD M SD M SD

Note. Maximum swre = 60. aExam 1 sewed as the pretest. bstudent absences account for the discrepancies between the number of students mentioned in the ariicle and in Table 1. Cn = 19. On= 17.

the importance of an opening statement that gives a reader an overview of the text material and identifies the author and the title of the piece. All 15 students saw the need for clarity and conciseness in summary writing. One student wrote:

In writing a gwd summary, a person must draw a fme line between lisr~ng che facts and using enough deta~l for an outs~de reader and gotng Into such great detatl that it is po~ntless to call the work a summary.

Classroom Collaboration

After 4 weeks of classroom collaboration, 13 students wrote evaluations of the activity. Eleven students reported increases in understanding and retention of the material, and 4 students reported an increased interest in 110 psy- chology.

A few students expressed some reservations about the strategy. One student complained that it forced her to think. Another snxlent was concerned because this activity was more time-consuming than the traditional lecture.

Discussion

We are encouraged by the results achieved through sum- mary writing. Students' evaluations and the comparison be- tween the final exam scores for the class without summary writing and the class with summary writing suggest that we made pmgress toward our goals of improving students' text comprehension and developing their writing skills.

We do not want to leave the impression that the activities described herein are flawless. Classroom collaboration is more time-consuming than lectures. However, we agree with Mathie (1993) that more attention needs to be given to stratcgics that encourage active learning. She defined active Learning as "an army of learning situations in and out of the classroom in which students enjoy hands-on and 'minds-on' experiences" (p. 185). Summarizing text is cer- tainly an active-learning strategy, and it is reasonable to assume that student? will he more involved in discussions if they have organized their thoughts in writing beforehand.

Although this instructor used about one third of class time for these activities, other instructors may want to use them less frequently. The amount of time used depends on the course; however, the read/rank/review process and the related

Teaching of Psychology

at UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LIBRARY on October 8, 2014top.sagepub.comDownloaded from

classroom collaboration could be applied in any course that uses a challenging text, a baok of readings, or original sources.

T h e psychology instructor implemented the summary writing activities without the W A C director's assistance in the 110 course the following year. She learned that leading the read/rank/review discussion requires practice. She made the mistake of occasionally describing the mcdel summaries with the terms exellent and pwr instead of needs leost revision and needs most revision. Excellent and poor are more judg- mental terms and thus more intimidating to students. Two students from this second cl;lss wmte in their evaluations that using student writing as models may offend some stu- dents. The previour class made n o comments of this sort in their evaluations. However, the written evaluations from this second class were still very positive. For example, one student wrote:

This information was stamped into our memory, and it gave us an opportunity to examine the clarity of our writing and to compare it to other smdenu. After comparing the sum- maries, we could determine the important criteria for sum- mary writing. We will be able to use these criteria in other classes.

We hope that the student who complained that these activities "made her think" was accurate in her observation. The challenge for educators is t o prepare students for a "lifetimeofcontinuous, autonomous leaming" (Miller, 1987, p. 9). The ability to exmct the key points from a text is just one of many ways t o prepare students to meet this goal.

References

Allrn, R. I., 61 Larosi-Sawin, E. (1992, March). Teaching mid work wiring skius: An inmion of& mm~inity. Paper presented at the 1992 Annual Progmm Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, Kansls City, MO.

Cwk, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Qtmi-e~'mentntion: Design # analysis issles for field settings. Rosron: Houghton Mifflin.

Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a mcdel of text comprehension and production. Psycho~cal Review, 85. 363- 394.

Landy, F. 1. (1989). Psychology ofwork behavior (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: BrookslCole.

Latosi-Sawin. E.. & Kmeger. D. (1993). Cawing out the cluner: Dam neduction and interpretation. In W. A. Hamel (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1 I th Annual Conference of the A s ~ t i o n of Manqrmolt (pp. 41-46). Newport News, VA: Maximilian.

Mathie, V. A. (1993). Promoting active learning in psychology courses. In T. V. McGovem (Ed.), Handbwk for enhancing ~rndergrod~mre educarion in pychology (pp. 183-212). Washing- ton, E: American Psychological Association.

McGovem, T. V.. & Hogshead, D. L (1990). Learning about writing, thinking about teaching. Teaching of Psychdogy, 17, 5-1 n. . . ..

Miller, N. E. (1987). Education for a lifetime of leaming. In G. C. Stone, S. M. Weiss. 1. D. Matarazzo. N. E. Miller. 1. Rodin, C. D. Relar,]. j. Follick. & J. E. Singer (Eds.). Health psychologv: A diwil~line and a profession (pp. 3-15). Chicago: Universiry of Chicago Ress.

Nodine, 13. F. (Ed.). (1990). Psychologists teach writing [Special issue]. Teaching of Psycho&. 17(4).

Winograd, P. N. (1984). Srraregic difficulties in summarizing texts. Reading Research Qmnerly. 19, 404-425.

Notes

1. This article is based on a paper presented at the 16th Annual National Institute on the Teaching of Psychology, St. Peten- burg Beach. FL, January 1994.

2. Requests for reprints should be sent to Sally A. Radmacher, Department of Psychology. Missouri Westem State College, St. Joseph, MO 64507.

Experiential-Learning Activities in Undergraduate Developmental Psychology

Andrea D. Clements West Georgia College

In two studies, I examined student responses to an i m e a e d exphential sections rated the vdue of and interest in the subject emphis on e - intial activiW- matter higkr and the courtesy and cons&ration o f t k instructor -' deve opmental psychobgr course. For four e.rpen'rntia1 sections significanrly more positively than did rk lecture sections. Sru-

' ~ ~ e S X i r i j 7 i , = a s ~ ? e ! a t e d to a specific, real-world dents in the two types of sections did not difler significantly in @plication. Four o d w sections (n = 187) were taught primarily achievement. A follow-up study identified the ori@n of chnnge hy lecture, with one out-of-clas observation asi@ment. Tk in attitudes toward the course.

Vol. 22, No. 2, April 1995 115

at UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LIBRARY on October 8, 2014top.sagepub.comDownloaded from