‘—4¢4C§NHI“‘&“~ .-..‘s a .m .,éf. .4“ uvlw-Ihh a st 94:.“ .. nu u. n,,x l. Hy..- - :ywkz y" magi?“ Mr. n) .‘i ‘ \Id "r"- £an u 1;: "u l a w "mu-m '4‘. uk- K .I' liQU-A I ‘4 v.75“... «. an rlviUQ. “:‘aB‘J.’ 1mm» » . 1 , *e'L'sr' ’4' um.“ an ,x," N; ”.1; . .A ”.41. f""'“ "‘ "J'Ii n’l l ’ ’ ' P' r.“— wr: w 11;“qu V - ‘ ..,I ‘4 ., m I r mru -' - luu.‘ 1 7 ‘ ( U V m. 4 ..1 .1 ' n u- v "n . . - ' 'n 1- . - . - . , n-Lg; v k -1. m. . "Hut. . .... - u“ r r. , I . ' 4 - .' A—‘q-r ”4.1:”: , e-w - w ‘.'h“'lvu' ‘ . . --\. yv-w - -‘ . . - a-na‘uA ‘ ‘ 1"" 11.: ,. . , 1“““t'n'w . a” r. .,..-. _ .. v . 61'1“ n—w‘er u". nay—my. .,...- . —. . 4.. . run «.4? ‘ \, ‘ - .Nx-. ' ‘ - — ‘ ,u .. t . an”..- #- 54 , . _, .~-.-.-.. ‘ _ “mum“... .,..«n, > m f-.-g¢, I" ' ' ' ' , nut“: .. .V 1-— ""r V g . 1w. . - . . ‘ » —~w ; - ”WNW,“ -. “a...” .l'vlJL‘ ""' ..l w . r . ~ . . r...»..:.' . _ .., , . ‘. .._.. "-,.. “nun; h, um. 1 -’ jYLaI-flyp... . ,,. v" > ‘ un' . w--. . -- 6. L ”473' “1‘4", . .. . 2".“1', "'5’."- Jaw .m .,.,,__.' "w...“ ... . . , .... 'rv'n-nam a» ........, .. .. ._. . \- ' z. 7 ' ‘ ' ,m. U 9..” -.‘.-..-....-,£ ‘ r . «. “mm. . . ‘ .,‘a-rnvv-v’lvm—F ' :- rvr . . .. . . 4 . , ‘ o . a»; W" ', _ _' v u». on“ '. . V “Hi—p ,.., ' ""“ ""m M” - v rwnmu ,.,,“..r...\,, _ . '- '€;'1‘!Q!F'-I a“... \ . . , . . :m . .H . . , ~v . . I“! -.r w”; :1: vol ,- 0 m...” n ”m 4-. ' --- :r-n an ' v mm n Nu-.. .F {31132: " - m n ._-. -. ”V." n.0,... ...... up... .. m _ - ,...-_. ..,, uh . y . '"M' r. ' -."I v.1 Ir " » ;...,_.. . ”mug-“ . ,,» .W ’ , r ~n.‘...$—.n.- "m... , "y...” ”nu-Wm...” A ‘l"‘~;r. -. ‘.v|1;‘;-' “vs a. .:.a .. o llllllllllllllllllllllllljll 2 Mama 312930078 440 r, 1 LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled HOW ARAB STUDENTS SUMMARIZE ENGLISH PROSE AND HOW THEY REVISE THEIR SUMMARIES presented by Ahmed Omer Alhaidari has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. English degree in Major professor Date %g (Q (E?/ MSU it an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU Is An Aflirmetive Action/Equal Opportunity Institution cAclmMan—D.‘ HOW ARAB STUDENTS SUMMARIZE ENGLISH PROSE AND HOW THEY REVISE THEIR SUMMARIES By Ahmed Omer Alhaidari A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of English IQQT ABSTRACT HOW ARAB STUDENTS SUMMARIZE ENGLISH PROSE AND HOW THEY REVISE THEIR SUMMARIES By Ahmed Omer Alhaidari The study investigates the extent of the application of the rules of summarization (Brown and Day, l983) by Saudi students studying at a major midwestern university. The study also investigates the language changes that Saudi students make when they are given a chance to revise their first draft of a summary. When students summarized and revised their summaries, they followed the think-aloud procedure to allow for more investigation of their strategies when they summarize and their strategies when they revise. The study found that Saudi students applied the rules of deletion of unimportant information, deletion of redundant information, and selection of available topic sentences easily. Saudi students, on the other hand, faced some difficulty applying the superordination of a term for a list of items and the invention of a topic sentence when none is available. The study also showed that when they revised their summaries, Saudi students added to their revision more than they deleted. The changes that they made in their revisions tended to make the meaning of the revision clearer and more accurate. Also the study showed that the students made grammatical and informational changes more often than mechanical ones. The think—aloud protocols showed moderate awareness of summarization rules, moderate language monitoring, and little metacognitive planning. Also, students seemed to proceed paragraph by paragraph when they summarize and that they plan what to write ahead and look back at what they have read or written. The study concludes that Saudi students need training in the summarization skills in particular and in study skills in general. Also, the study suggests that students should always be encouraged to summarize what they read and should always be encouraged to revise their summaries after they write them. The study has the following implications. First, English language centers should stress the teaching of study skills as well as of the English language. Secondly, students in English language centers should always be encouraged to summarize what they read and to revise their summaries. Thirdly, nonnative students should be encouraged to read and summarize texts with different organizational patterns. Further research might consider the quality of the summaries written by nonnative students. Second, other studies should consider nonnative female students’ summarization skills. Third, other studies should try to answer the question, “ do instructions given to students before a think-aloud task make a difference in results?” Fourth, the study suggests that some research about the summarization of Arabic prose by Arabic speakers be done. Fifth, another study should attempt to answer the question “does training in summarization rules in the first language foster summarization in the second?” Sixth, Arab students’ study skills should be more thoroughly investigated. A DEDICATION The dissertation is dedicated to my parents to whom I will be grateful to the last moment of my life. The dissertation is also dedicated to my wife and my children Abdulrahman, Abdulla, Eiman, and Mohammed. I would like also to dedicate the dissertation to my brothers Abu Baker, Adnan, Esam, and Ziad. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my thanks and gratitude, first and foremost to Allah, my Creator, who provided me with everything that I needed to complete this work. I thank my beloved parents for their patience and prayers, my wife for her support and sacrifices. Also, I would like to thank Dr. Paul Munsell, my academic advisor, for his help and guidance. I would like also to thank the members of my committee: Dr. Douglas Peterson, Dr. Jay Ludwig, and Dr. Marilyn Wilson. I thank Dr. Mohammed lsmaiel Zafer for his sincere guidance and advice. Thanks are also due to the subjects of my study, to brothers Elias Kouider and Abdulla Alshahrani for their help. I would also like to thank brother Yusuf Sulayman and Mrs. Celeste Crouch for their kind help. vi i “R"HV-‘IU'IT" 15"" 3m!!ll.'.-"r- "'rv:--;' . -u' . _. . _ n --_'__”I. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................ vii CHAPTER: I. INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............... I Introduction ........................................ I Review of the Literature ............................... 3 Summarization As a Study Skill ..................... 4 Summarization As A Developmental Process .......... 6 Summarization And The Organization of Texts ......... IO Summarization In ESL ............................. 14 Revision Strategies ............................... 14 Think-Aloud Technique ........................... I7 Rationale .......................................... l8 Importance of the Study .............................. IQ Purpose of the Study .................................. 19 Questions of the Study ................................ 2O Hypotheses of the Study ............................... 21 Limitations of the Study ................................ 21 Definition of Terms .................................... 22 2. METHODOLOGY ........................................ 23 Subjects ........................................... 23 Materials ........................................... 24 Passages ...................................... 24 Checklists ..................................... 25 Checklists I and 2. ......................... 25 Checklist 3. ............................... 25 vii Answer Keys ................................... 26 Procedure .......................................... 27 Data Analysis ....................................... 29 Number of Rules Applied by the Students ............ 29 Deletion Rules ............................. 29 Rule I ............................... 29 Rule 2 ............................... 30 Superordination Rule ........................ 30 Rule 3 ............................... 30 Topic Sentences Rule ....................... 31 Rule 4 ............................... 31 Rule 5 ............................... 3] Judging the Revision ............................. 3i Think—Aloud Protocols ............................ 32 3. RESULTS OF THE STUDY ................................... 32 The Application of Summarization Rules by Saudi Students ............................... 33 Deletion Rule ................................... 33 Delete Unimportant Information (Rule I) ...... 33 Delete Redundant Information (Rule 2) ....... 35 Superordination Rule (Rule 3) ...................... 37 Superordinate 0 Term for a List of Items ......... 37 Topic Sentences Rules ............................ 41 Select a Topic Sentence if Available (Rule 4) ..... 4i Invent a Topic Sentence if None is Available (Rule 5) ............................. 43 The Revision Strategies of Saudi Students .................. 44 Length of the Language Changes .................. 45 Accuracy of the Language Change ................ 46 Style of the Language Change .................... 47 Type of the Language Change .................... 49 Improvements in Rule Usage ....................... 5O Think-Aloud Protocols ................................. 51 Application of the Rules .......................... 5i Instances of Conscious Monitoring of Language ....... 53 viii Other Findings .................................. 54 Metacognitive Planning ..................... 54 Main Idea Summarization .................... 56 4. CONCLUSIONS ......................................... 58 Questions of the Study ................................ 59 Deletion Rules .................................. 59 Superordination Rule ............................. 59 Topic Sentences Rules ............................ 60 Hypotheses of the study ............................... 61 Revision Strategies ................................... 63 Think-Aloud Protocols ................................. 64 Other Findings ....................................... 65 Implications ......................................... 65 Suggestions for Further Research ........................ 67 APPENDICES ............................................. 69 I. THE TWO PASSAGES USED IN THE STUDY ...................... 70 Noise Passage ....................................... 70 Desert Passage ...................................... 72 2. CHECKLISTS ........................................... 75 3. ANSWER KEYS .......................................... 85 4. SAMPLE THINK—ALOUD MATHEMATICAL PROBLEM ............... 92 5. SAMPLE THINK-ALOUD (T RANSCRIBED TAPE) ................... 93 6. INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO STUDENTS ......................... 95 7. CORRESPONDENCE ..................................... 99 8. CONSENT FORM ........................................ IO2 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................... I03 ix LIST OF TABLES TABLE: I. NUMBER OF RULES APPLIED ............................... 44 2. LENGTH OF THE LANGUAGE CHANGES ...................... 46 3. ACCURACY OF THE LANGUAGE CHANGES ................... 47 4. STYLE OF THE LANGUAGE CHANGES ........................ 48 5. TYPE OF THE LANGUAGE CHANGES ......................... 50 ,(g’g/<;_. ”5! ”:I',’:: f! . fz',2{ a.» :93. Lieu @- Ia] / 5 4/, / 4 ’1 , 1 .4 I K, . ”Our Lord!" (They say), ”Let not our hearts deviate now after Thou hast guided us, but grant us mercy from Thine own Presence;for Thou art the Grantor of bounties without measure.” Quran ( II:8) CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction The many problems that non-native students (NNS) face when they compete in academic classes with native students (NS) motivated the questions of the present study. Although NNS students are required to attend English language classes before registering for academic ones, these students still face many problems. Indeed, as CarrelI and Eisterhold (I983) suggest, ‘...comprehending words, sentences, and entire texts involves more than just relying on one’s linguistic knowledge” (p. 577). Still professors face Eskey’s “maddening experience of having a student who appears to understand every sentence and yet cannot answer the simplest question about a passage as a whole” (I973: I77). Also, Coady (I979) reports that “alarming numbers of students have a great deal of proficiency in English and yet read very slowly and with poor comprehension” (p. 90). Research has suggested some of the possible reasons behind the poor performance problems of foreign students. Riley ( I975) suggests that the students are ill-equipped in the basic language skills. Chastain 2 (I976) claims that some ESL students tend to know what each word means rather than focusing on the message of the writer. CarreII (I983) concludes that ESL readers are most likely bottom-up readers and that they don't utilize their background knowledge even when they are explicitly provided with appropriate background information. Coady (I979) goes to the extreme by saying that adult foreign students “may fail to achieve the competence necessary for university instruction because they lack intellectual capacity” (p. 7). The present study looks at the problem from a different perspective. Arab students may simply fail to identify important information that they are expected to attend to. They disregard information in a passage that the US. professor considers important. The strategy used to investigate this issue is to look carefully at one type of reader response to reading: written summaries. Written summaries are also independently interesting since they represent a significant type of study skill and since they are also samples of student writing. The primary research tradition is that of Brown and Day (I983) who have conducted related research with native readers of English. This first chapter gives the basis for the present study. It reviews related literature (including Brown and Day), rationale, importance, purpose, and hypotheses. The chapter begins with the review of the literature. 3 Review of the Literature Summarizing is a tangible and direct response to reading as well as an important study skill. The ability to summarize what one reads fosters the understanding and remembering of texts. When a student summarizes a text, he must decide what information to include and what to eliminate. Also, he must reward or reorganize information keeping it true to the original meaning. In addition, each attempt to summarize gives students practice applying the rules for summarizing passages and writing abbreviated versions of these passages. This practice leads to a greater skill in writing summaries (Reder and Anderson, I980,- Garner, I982(a); Winograd, I984; Brown and Day, I983; Hahn, I983/84, etc.). The review of relevant literature will be divided into the following sections: 0 Summarization as a study skill o Summarization as a developmental process . Summarization and the organization of texts . Summarization in ESL . Revision strategies 0 Think-aloud technique Summarization As a Study Skill Summarizing a text that students had read was found to increase the students’ recall of important information in the text in addition to improving their reading comprehension. Doctorow et al. (I978) divided 488 sixth—grade students into four groups. The first group attempted to summarize a passage which lacked paragraph headings. The second group was provided with headings but not instructed to summarize. The third group was instructed only to read. The fourth group, which was provided with paragraph headings and instructed to summarize what they read, did significantly better than the other three groups on a multiplechoice recall measure. According to Linden and Wittrock (I981), teachers can facilitate reading comprehension by inducing the readers to attend to the text, to relate the text to their knowledge and experience, and to build associations and inferences from it. Linden and Wittrock induced fifth-grade students to generate metaphors, analogies, summaries, pictures, and inferences as they read three stories. Results showed that students writing summary sentences outperformed other students using more traditional methods like answering questions, identifying main ideas, events and characters. Adams (I980) taught fifth grade students, who had adequate reading skills but demonstrated deficiencies in study skills, on SQSR-like study strategy that she had developed. It contained a summarizing step. Using this strategy these 5 students made significant improvements in their ability to recall textual information and retained these improvements after a two—week delay. Some researchers, however, found that summarization was not different from any other study strategy (Arnold, I942; Stordahl and Christenson, I956; and Germane, I92I). Arnold (I942) taught freshman and college students to use the study skills of note taking, underlining, rereading, and summarization. The results of the study showed that there were no significant differences between summarizing and the other study skills on both long— and short-term measures of retention. Stordahl and Christenson (I956) studied the application of the techniques of underlining, outlining, rereading, and summarizing by Air Force trainees and found that summarizing is not more effective than the other three study skills. Germane (I921) came to the conclusion that rereading was a more practical study strategy than summarizing. However, in the Stordahl and Christenson study, students were given directions to summarize but had no instructions on how to write such summaries. In Arnold’s study, though students were given instructions on how to summarize, it was not clear if students were actually using what they were taught. In the Germane study, students were not given enough time to study and this may have lowered the effectiveness of the treatment (Rinehart et al., I986). Summarization As A Developmental Process The ability to summarize texts follows a developmental process. Research has shown that children are able to summarize but that their summaries are less efficient than those of older children and adults (Brown and Day, I983; Brown, Day, and Jones, I983; and Johnson, I978). In Brown, Day, and Jones ( I983) study, college and older high school students were developmentally better in their propensity to plan ahead, in their rating of pausal units, and in their ability to include more idea units into the same number of words than young children. Younger children (fifth and seventh grade students), on the other hand, appeared to treat the task of summarizing as one of deciding whether to include or delete information from the story into their summary. The authors call this a copy-delete strategy in which children read text elements sequentially, decide what to include and what to exclude, and if they decide to include something they copy it from the text. According to Kintsch and Van Dijk (I978), when readers read a passage they form a gist in their minds and that gist represents their overall comprehension of that passage. This gist is formed through processes of deletion, generalization, and integration. Brown and Day (I983) identified six rules for condensing text to its gist following the processes suggested by Kintsch and Van Dijk (I978). These rules are: (I) delete unimportant information, (2) delete redundant 7 information, (3) superordinate a term for a list of items, 4) superordinate a term for a list of actions, (5) select topic sentences, if any, and (6) invent topic sentences if none is provided. Brown and Day (I983) report three studies that examined the application of the rules of summarization by subjects of different ages. In the first study, first graders, fifth graders, eleventh graders, and college students were asked to write an unconstrained summary and a summary limited to 60 words for each of two passages that were modified to elicit five of the summarization rules. It was found that both the deletion rules (I and 2 above) were used effectively by all age groups since all subjects were able to delete unimportant and redundant information. The probability of efficient superordination (3 above) increased with age. Also, age differences in the selection rule (5 above) were clear. However, it was found that college students drop this rule when pressed for space. The most difficult rule to apply was the invention of topic sentences (6 above). Fifth graders rarely used this rule and college students used it on only half of the occasions when it was appropriate. What accounts for the differences in applying the rules of summarizing, according to the authors, is that each demands a different degree of text manipulation on the part of the reader. Perhaps also some of the rules depart from the already existing copy-delete strategy which younger children have learned to follow. The two rules of deletion work well with the copy-delete strategy while the superordination rule requires 8 children to add a term in place of a deleted list. Children must have some knowledge of topic sentences in order to apply the topic sentence rules. The invention rule is the most difficult because children must add rather than delete information. In their second study, Brown and Day examined the application of the five rules by experts (six graduate students who taught composition classes.) First, experts wrote a constrained and an unconstrained summary of one of the passages used in the first study. Two weeks later they were asked to do the same with the second passage while thinking aloud into a microphone about their process of summarizing the passage. Results revealed that experts used the rules of deletion and superordination effectively. There was no difference between the four- year college students from the first experiment and the experts in using the selection rule. However, for the invention rule, experts could use it with only 84% accuracy. Finally, although the experts could not identify specific rules for summarizing texts during an interview before they actually summarized, the analysis of their think-aloud protocols during actual summarization showed that they were using operations similar to those rules identified by Brown and Day. In their third experiment, Brown and Day turned their attention to junior college students, “a population thought to experience difficulty employing basic skills of critical reading and studying," (p. ID) in order to examine the diagnostic value of the author’s developmental norms from 9 the first two studies. Results showed that for the deletion rule, junior college students approached the level of the four-year college students. However, for the remaining two rules, junior college students performed at the seventh grade level and considerably below the four—year college students. These results indicate that junior college students are less skilled than college students in their critical reading and study skills. Hare and Borchardt (I984) extended the above summarizing rules by Brown and Day to include two more rules. They had a total of six rules. The first rule, collapse lists, corresponds to both deletion rules in Brown and Day. The second rule, use topic sentences, corresponds to both the selection and the invention rules in Brown and Day’s study. The third rule, get rid of unnecessary detail, corresponds to deletion of both unnecessary and redundant information in Brown and Day’s study. The fourth rule, collapse paragraphs, asks students to determine which paragraphs should be kept or gotten rid of, and which might be joined together. The authors designed two versions of a summarization program. In one version the teachers used a deductive strategy, giving a definition, rulesheets, and models. In the other version the strategy was inductive, with directed questioning and student description of the rules. No differences were found between both groups but both were significantly different from a control group in using rules of summarizing and summarization efficiency. IO Winograd (I984) chose to examine the strategy differences between good and poor readers as they summarized what they read. The subjects of the study consisted of 75 eighth-graders and 37 adults who performed several tasks. The study indicated that most students were aware of what writing a summary demands. However, good and poor readers displayed some differences. While good readers behaved like adults in identifying important information in texts, poor readers had many difficulties doing so. Also, although poor readers were consistent in identifying points in the text as being important, they failed to include these points in their summaries. This suggested that summarizing a text requires more than merely understanding the passage. Also, the need for training students on how to summarize becomes clear. Summarization And The Organization of Texts According to schema theory, reading comprehension is an interaction between a reader and a text (Carrell, I983; Carrell and Eisterhold, I983). Thus, one may conclude that the organization of a text may hinder the comprehension of that text by non—native speakers of a language. Research done by Meyer (I982) on native readers of English as they interact with different types of expository prose suggests that some types of expository organization affects readers' background knowledge and processing strategies differently from other types. e-é' I I Meyer (I979) identified five basic types of expository discourse organization: collection, description, causation, problem solving, and comparison. The collection type is a grouping of concepts or ideas by associations. The description type is a grouping by association where an element of the association is subordinate to another. Thus, the description type gives more information about the topic by presenting a particular attribute, specification, or setting. The two types of collection and description combine together to form another type of organization—the collection of description—where a number of collection of attributes, specifications, or settings are given about a topic. The causation type is the type of organization where ideas are grouped chronologically and are also causally related. In the problem/ solution type the features of cause-effect are found in addition to the feature of overlapping content between propositions in the problem and solution. The fifth type, comparison, is organized on the basis of opposing viewpoints (Carrell, I984). According to Kaplan (I97I), it is a fallacy to assume that a student can write an adequate essay in a second language just because he can write an adequate essay in his native language. Usually, teachers of English consider essays written by non—native students as out of focus, or lacking in organization or cohesion. The reason behind this, according to Kaplan, is that the foreign student ‘is employing a rhetoric and a 12 sequence of thought which violate the expectations of the native reader” (p. 247). According to Kaplan, the English paragraph ...usually begins with a topic statement, and then by a series of subdivisions of that topic statement, each supported by example and illustrations, proceeds to develop that central idea and relate that central idea to all the other ideas in the whole essay and to employ that idea in its proper relationship with the other ideas, to prove something, or to argue something (p. 248). Paragraph development in Arabic, on the other hand. can be ‘based on a complex series of parallel constructions, both positive and negative. This kind of parallelism may most clearly be demonstrated in English in the King James version of the Old Testament” (p. 250). The Old Testament is “a translation accomplished at a time when English was in a state of development suitable to the imitation of those forms" (p. 250). Kaplan (I972) examined four types of parallelism, namely, Synonymous, Synthetic, Antithetic, and Climactic Parallelism. Synonymous Parallelism is “the balancing of the thought and phrasing of the first part of a statement or idea by the second part' (p. 250). Usually these two parts are connected by a coordinating conjunction. Kaplan gives the following example of Synonymous Parallelism “His descendants will be mighty in the land and the generation of the upright will be blessed” (p. 250). Synthetic Parallelism takes place when an idea or thought of the first part is completed in the second part. A conjunctive adverb is often stated or implied. As an example consider the following sentence 13 “Because he inclined his ears to me therefore I will call on him as long as | live” (Kaplan, 1972: 250). Antithetic Parallelism takes place when an idea in the first part is emphasized by the expression of a contrasting idea in the second part. The contrast is expressed not only In thought but often in phrasing as well. Kaplan gives the following example ‘For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: But the way of the wicked shall perish” (p. 250). Climactic Parallelism takes place when an idea of the passage is not completed until the very end of the passage. Kaplan gives the following example ‘Give unto the Lord, O ye sons of the mighty, Give unto the Lord glory and strength" (p. 251). It is important, according to Kaplan, to note that in English “maturity of style is often gauged by degree of subordination rather than by coordination” (p. 251). Thus, the Arabic paragraph development ‘would strike the modern English reader as archaic or awkward, and more importantly it would stand in the way of communication” (p. 251). Carrell (1984) studied the effects of rhetorical organization of different types of expository prose on ESL readers of different native languages. The study included 80 subjects. These subjects were 32 Spanish. 16 Arabs, 12 Chinese, some Koreans, and others. Subjects read four versions of a single passage. These four versions represented four different ways of organizing expository prose suggested by Meyer (1979): description, problem/solution, comparison, and collection of description. 14 Results indicate that various discourse types had differing effects on the quantity of free recall for different language groups. For the Arabic group, there were significant differences among (1) comparison, (2) problem/solution and collection of description, and (3) causation. Thus, the reason Arabic-speaking subjects found the collection of descriptions type of discourse equal to the problem/solution type, and better than the causation type, may be, according to Carrell, “due to the preferred rhetorical pattern of Arabic, which has been described as being one of coordinate parallelism.” Summarization In ESL There is little research, if any, that investigates the summarization process of non—native speakers of English. Amuchie (1983), for example, trained two Spanish bilingual experimental groups to apply five rules of summarization. The first group was trained in Spanish and the second in English. When summarizing English texts both experimental groups improved on tests of summarization and comprehension over a control group thus showing that training in summary writing improved both summary writing and comprehension of texts. Also, students trained in rules in Spanish performed as well as those trained in English. The author concludes that reading skills are transferable. I 5 Revision Strategies According to Murray (1978), revision is “one of the writing skills least researched, least examined, least understood, and usually least taught” (p. 72). The process of revising a text is a process of discovering meaning in that text (Murray 1978; Sommers 1980). It is claimed that experienced and novice writers employ different revision strategies. Stallard (1974) showed that for the two groups in his study, a group of good writers and another randomly selected, single word changes dominated the revision process but good writers made more multiple-word and paragraph changes. Sommers (1980) found that inexperienced student writers made more single word changes to correct the mechanics and grammar of their text while experienced ones changed entire sentences in the process of conveying new meanings. Zamel (I983) discussed revision in her case study of skilled and unskilled writers. She found that skilled writers reordered paragraphs, with a greater concern for refining and adding sentences. In a study devoted to revision, Gaskill (I978) classified four Spanish- speaking students as either less or more proficient according to their writing abilities. The study revealed that all four students revised more during the actual writing of their drafts than before or between drafts and that the majority of revisions in both Spanish and English were concerned with surface changes rather than with changes in favor of meaning and organization. 16 Using a case study approach, Sommers (1980) asked twenty student writers and twenty experienced writers (those who have a greater amount of experience in writing) to write three essays, expressive, explanatory, and persuasive. The subjects were then asked to rewrite each essay twice. The author found out that student writers used different revision strategies than experienced ones. Student writers perceived the revision process as basically a rewarding activity. They approached the revision process in what the author calls a ‘thesaurus philosophy of writing” or believing that problems in essays can be solved by rewording. Thus, when these students revise, they tend to make changes on the lexical level rather than on the semantic one. They revise an already finished, produced, and communicated meaning. Experienced writers, on the other hand, perceived the revision process as a recursive process that takes several cycles with each cycle involving different objectives to complete. When these students revised their essays, they did so ‘to discover (to create) meaning in the engagement with the writing in revision” (p. 386). Available research on summarization, though concentrated on important different aspects of summarization, did not study how students might revise their summaries. This present study assumes that summarization is a powerful study skill and that to be powerful a summary has to be written well. Generally speaking, students have to revise their first draft of the summary. I7 Think-Aloud Technigue The use of the think-aloud technique provides veridical description of cognitive processes that otherwise could only be described individually. Ericsson and Simon (1980) distinguish between concurrent and retrospective verbal reports. In retrospective reporting, subjects report on what they remember thinking or doing during the experimental task. Concurrent verbal reports, on the other hand, are given by the subjects during the experimental task itself. Afflerbach and Johnston (1980: 308) give some advantages of verbal reports. Verbal reports allow access to the reasoning processes underlying higher level cognitive activity. Also, verbal reports allow the analysis of the affective components of reading processes. There are some limitations of the use of verbal reporting, however. Garner (1982)(b) lists some of these limitations. Firstly, there is always the uncertainty that people do not have the ability to describe the processes they perform. Secondly, there is the concern that verbal— reporting may handicap learners who have limited linguistic skills. Thirdly, subjects may simply report on what they should do instead of what they are actually doing. Another limitation that could be added to Garner’s list is the fact that concurrent verbal reporting, which is used in the present study, requires subjects to do two tasks at the same time. Subjects have to actually perform the experimental task, and they also 18 have to report on the process they follow in conducting the experimental task. Thus, some interference may distort the data collected. The use of the think-aloud technique, though not without controversy, offers “a unique, if sometimes less than transparent, window for viewing cognitive processes” (Afflerbach and Johnston, 1984: 320) if used appropriately. Protocol tasks require that “subjects read with some proficiency in order to insure understanding of the experimental materials and eliminate possible interference from word recognition problems” (Kavale and Schreiner, I979: 106). Good readers may face some difficulty in reporting the process of their reading simply because this process is ‘automatized' (Anderson, 1980; LaBerge and Samuels, 1974). However, it is possible to “de- automate” the process of reading by presenting to the students some difficult or unfamiliar passages (Johnston and Afflerbach, 1983). In conclusion, summary writing has been shown to be a helpful method for understanding and recall of what students read. The present study tries to diagnose the immediate needs and problems of Saudi students when they summarize. 19 M The process of summarizing English texts by non-native speakers of English is a neglected issue in the literature on summarization. Research has shown that children can apply simple rules of deletion when they are asked to summarize. However, only adults and older children are able to apply more difficult rules of using available topic sentences and inventing non-available ones. The study aims at knowing whether non- native speakers of English face similar problems when they summarize English prose. Also, another interest of this study is investigating how the students revise their first draft of a summary, another neglected issue in the literature on summarization. Importance of the Study The study attempted to combine two neglected issues in the literature on summarization. Firstly, the study investigated the application of the rules of summarizing English prose by non-native speakers of English. Secondly, the study examined the process of revising the first draft of a summary (what was revised and what were the revision strategies of non—native speakers of English). The study examined the diagnostic value of the rules of summarization (Brown and Day, 1983) by using totally new subjects, namely Saudi graduate students using English as a second language in the United States. 20 Fur ose of the Stud The study aimed at investigating the application of the rules of summarization by non—native speakers of English. Also, the study attempted to describe how these non-native students revised their summaries (what they revised and what their revision strategies were). Questions of the Study I. To what extent will Saudi students apply the following rules of summarization: A. Deletion Rule: 1. To what extent will Saudi students delete unimportant information? 2. To what extent will Saudi Students delete redundant information? B. Superiordination Rule: 1. To what extent will Saudi students superordinate a term for a list of items? C. Topic Sentences Rule: 1. To what extent will Saudi students select topic sentences when they are available? 2. To what extent will Saudi students invent topic sentences when none is available? 2T II. What is the revision process of Saudi students? Hypotheses of the Study 1. There will be no major differences in the number of deletions of unimportant information between Saudi students and the native English students in the Brown and Day study. II. There will be no major differences in the number of deletions of redundant information between Saudi students and the native English students in the Brown and Day study. Ill. There will be no major differences in the number of superordinations of a term for a list of items between Saudi students and the native English students in the Brown and Day study. IV. There will be no major differences in the number of selections of topic sentences between Saudi students and the native English students in the Brown and Day study. V. There will be no major differences in the number of inventions of topic sentences between Saudi students and the native English students in the Brown and Day study. VI. There will be no major differences between the students’ first summaries and their revised ones. 22 Limitations of the Study I. The study did not take into account the quality of the summaries written by Saudi students. II. The study concentrated on male Saudi students only. Other research should concentrate on females and on other Arab nationalities. Definition of Terms Summary, a shortened, concentrated version of a text or an article, that contains all important parts of the original passage but in fewer words, and it does not contain one’s opinion (Hare and Burchardt, 1984). CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY Subjects After approval was secured from the university committee on research with human subjects, all 21 male Saudi students studying at the graduate level at a major Midwestern university during the Spring term of 1991 and who were listed in the telephone directory of the their religious center were contacted to take part in the study. Two subjects did not wish to continue after initially agreeing to participate, two were out of the country, and one was excluded after going through the study’s procedure. The student did not wish to revise the “noise" passage which was required by the experiment. Thus, the study included 16 male graduate students. The subjects ranged in age from 25 to 37. All of these students had met the university’s language requirement. That is, they were judged by both the intensive English program and the academic department as being proficient enough in language in full- time study with no restrictions. They were, at the time of the study, all full-time students in good standing in a wide variety of fields. Most of these students, if not all, were taught English as a foreign language in 23 24 Saudi Arabia. Teaching English in Saudi Arabia begins at the seventh grade and continues through the BA. M9ler_ials Passages The study utilized the two passages (see Appendix I) used in the Brown and Day (1983) study discussed in the previous chapter. Brown and Day selected, modified, and rewrote seventh grade geography texts so that they were of equal length, comparable readability level, and had 81 and 68 idea units. The passages were constructed so that five of the six rules of summarizing could be used. Each rule could be applied at least three times but never more than five times on any given text. The first passage was entitled “Desert” and the second was entitled “Noise." The exact number of rules of summarization in each passage was not mentioned by Brown and Day (1983). Attempts to obtain this information from the two authors were unsuccessful. However, the two passages were given to the two judges used in this study (see p. 24). The judges were given a list of the rules of summarization given by Brown and Day (1983). They were asked individually to determine the number of rules in each passage. According to Brown and Day, each rule of summarization could be applied at least three times but never more than five times. The correlation between the rating of the two judges in 25 determining the location and number of rules was .89. Where the two judges disagreed, the researcher made a final decision (see Appendix 3). Checklists The processes of scoring the students’ application of the rules of summarization and of evaluating their revision strategies were simplified and standardized by having the two judges use three checklists (see Appendix 2). Two of the checklists had to do with the number of the rules applied by the students: one for the “Noise” passage and the second for the “Desert” passage. The third checklist had to do with the students’ revision strategies. Checklists 1 and 2. There were three parts in the first checklist, each part requiring the judges to identify the use of a rule of summarization. Thus, the first part asked the judges to determine the application of both Deletion Rules (rules 1 and 2) by students, the second part asked judges to determine the application of the Superordination Rule (rule 3), and the third part asked the judges to determine the application of both Topic Sentence Rules (rules 4 and 5) by students. As an example, there were four possibilities to apply the deletion of unimportant information rule in the passage “Noise.” The judges were required to circle either a (0) if the student did not apply the rule or a (2) if the student did apply the rule for each of the four 26 possibilities. There was a different checklist for each of the two passages to allow for the different number of rules in each. Checklist 3. The third checklist required the judges to identify the use of revision strategies of Saudi students. Before using this checklist the judges were instructed to underline and number everything in the revision tht was different from the summary. There were two parts in the checklist. The first part asked the judges about the language changes that took place in the revised summary of the passage “Noise” by the students. Judges had to determine the length (whether the language revision was an addition, deletion or simplification, or whether it was the same length), accuracy (whether the revision resulted in more accuracy, less accuracy, or no change), style (whether the revision made the meaning clearer, less clear, or no change), and type (whether the revision was grammatical, mechanical, or informational). In the second part of the checklist, the judges had to determine if the students improved their use of the rules of summarization in their revised version of the summary. Answer Keys There were two answer keys for the judges to use when judging the students’ written summaries. One answer key dealt with the passage “Noise” and the second dealt with the second passage ‘Desert.’ The answer keys consisted simply of the actual original texts of the two 27 passages. The possible places in the passage where rules of summarization could be applied were underlined. Each rule was coded by using the first letters of the name of the rule and this code was written in a different color and was placed in the margin next to the part it represented. Thus, “U” was used for “delete unimportant information” (1), ‘R' for ‘delete redundant information” (2), “S” for “superordination” (3), “STS” for the “Select a topic sentence” rule (4), and “ITS” for ‘invent a topic sentence” (5) (see Appendix 3). Procedure The researcher met the students individually. The researcher was present while the student was summarizing the passages. Individually, each student was given a piece of paper on which a mathematical problem was typed (see Appendix 4). Then, to explain the think—aloud procedure to him, the student listened to a think-aloud recording of the procedure of solving that mathematical problem on a cassette tape (transcribed in Appendix 5). The student was given 10 minutes to read the first passage, “Noise,” or until he felt that he understood it. Then, he was given 20 minutes to write a summary of the passage while thinking aloud in English into a microphone about his process of summarizing the passage. The student was told to imagine that his summary was a part of his preparation for an exam covering the original passage. He was told not 28 to write an outline of the passage and not to include his personal opinion in his summary. No explicit instructions on how to summarize were given. When the student finished, he was asked to put aside his first summary and not to write anything on it. However, the student had access to his summary as he might if he were actually studying for a test. The student was told to imagine that he had to revise his summary to make it a better one. Then, the student was given fifteen minutes to revise his summary and write it again in the revised form. The student was also told to think-aloud about the process as he was revising the summary. After one week, the student was asked to read the “Desert” passage in ten minutes or until he felt he understood it. Then he was given ten minutes to summarize it. In accordance with the research design no think—aloud or oral responses were required. (See Appendix 6 for instructions given to students on what to do to summarize both passages.) Handwritten texts written by students were typed by the researcher without correcting any mistakes or misspelled words. However, crossed out words, blanks, and stray marks were omitted. Two native English speakers who taught English language reading and writing were selected to serve as judges. The typed texts and answer keys were given to the judges together with the checklists on which they were 29 required to score independently. The scored checklists were received from the two judges. Because Brown and Day in their statistical analysis had not found any effects of stories, other than the effect of the ‘Noise' passage being more difficult than the ‘Desert' passage. they combined the results of the two passages. In this study also the data from the two passages were combined. The think-aloud protocols from both the summarizing and the revising procedures were transcribed by the researcher. Data Analysis The following section describes the processes that were used to analyze the data. The section begins with reviewing the process used to find out about the number of rules applied by students. Then the section reviews the process used to judge the students revision of ‘Noise.’ Finally, the section describes how the think-aloud protocols were analyzed. Number of Rules Applied by the Students Deletion Rules Rule 1 Delete unimportant information. To find out about the application of this rule of summarization by Saudi students, the judges rated each 30 rule on a two-point scale: if the rule was not used, students got a (0), and if the rule was used, students got a (2). If students applied this rule, unimportant information would not appear in their summary. There were eight possibilities to apply this rule in the two passages and thus the possible score ranged from 0 (never applied) to 16 (always applied). Rule 2 Delete redundant information. In each possible instance, students got a (0) if they did not apply this rule and they got a (2) if they did. If students applied this rule, redundant information would be deleted and would not appear in the summary. There were ten possibilities to apply this rule in the two passages and thus the possible score ranged from 0 (never applied) to 20 (always applied). Superordination Rule Rule 3 Use a superordinate term for a list of items. In each possible instance, if students used a superordinate term effectively, they got a (2), if they did not apply the rule they got a (0). If students copied the list of items as is, or used a superordinate term ineffectively they got a (1). Thus the possible score ranged from 0 to 12 for the two passages. 31 Topic Sentences Rule Rule 4 Select a topic sentence if available. If students applied this rule they got a (2) and if they did not they got a (0). There were seven possibilities to apply this rule in both passages. Thus, the possible score ranged from 0 to 14 for the two passages. Rule 5 Invent a topic sentence if none is available. In each instance, if students applied this rule they got a (2) and if they did not they got a (0). There were six possibilities to apply the rule in both passages. Thus, the possible score ranged from 0 to 12 for the two passages. Scores of the two judges were added and then divided by two for each rule alone. Judging the Revision The judges underlined and numbered on the revision each instance of a language difference between the original summary of the passage “Noise” and the revision of that summary. The judges determined the length, accuracy, style, and type of each language change. Then they wrote the number of each instance of language change in which they felt the student improved his use of a rule. The judged instances for each language change were added. Also, 32 instances of students' improvements in applying the rules of summarization in their revisions were added for each rule alone. Think-Aloud Protocols The think-aloud protocols of the students’ summaries of “Noise” and their revisions were transcribed by the researcher. To shorten the transcriptions and make the analysis easier, each instance where the subject merely repeated what was in the passage or the summary or repeated what he had already said was not included in the transcription. The remaining parts of the protocols were analyzed to allow the researcher to look for evidence for the application of rules of summarization and to spot instances of overt monitoring of language structures or forms. CHAPTER 3 RESULTS OF THE STUDY The purpose of the study was to investigate the Saudi students’ application of five of the six rules of summarization mentioned by Brown and Day (1983). This chapter reviews the results of the present study. The following points are reviewed: 0 The application of summarization rules by Saudi students 0 The revision strategies of Saudi students 0 Think-aloud protocols o Other findings The Application of Summarization Rules by Saudi Students There were five summarization rules that could be applied. The data of the two passages were combined for purposes of analysis. Thus, the number of rules considered for the last analysis was the combined number of rules in both passages. Results of the study indicated the following: according to research procedures, discussed on page 22 to page 24 the two judges used the checklists to evaluate students’ 33 summaries and revisions. The overall correlation between the ratings of the two judges was .95. Deletion Rule Delete Unimportant Information (Rule 1) Correctly to apply this rule, students had to delete unimportant information from the two passages. The two passages used in this study were written so that they contained minor information about the topics. This type of information had to be deleted in order to apply the rule successfully. The percentage of the correct application of this rule was 96.87%. In Brown and Day (1983), the percentage was 93%. Thus, Saudi students applied this rule efficiently. They were able to identify and delete unimportant information from the two passages. Consider the following example from “Noise” where three instances of unimportant information are underlined. Notice that the student deleted all these three instances in his summary: (Original passage) Being around too much noise can give people headaches, ulcers, and earaches. Imagine getting an ulcer from too many noisy days. Just getting a headache from too much noise is an awful feeling. A noisy day can leave people feeling tired, tense, and grouchy. Lis no fun to have a good mood spoiled by too much noise. (Student’s summary) Noise affects the hearing and concentration of people. Some things that make that noise: cars, trucks, and others. People are different in responding to noise. Some of the side effects of noise include headaches. 34 35 The next example from the “Desert” passage illustrates the application of the deletion of unimportant information further. Two instances for applying the rule are underlined. Notice that the student deleted both instances in his summary: (Original passage) The cactus lives through the dry periods by storing water in its stem. When it rains the water is quickly taken in by the cactus’ roots. This water is then stored in the stem. The Cactus uses the water as it is needed. One Cactus hos pleats in its stem which swell with water after a rainfall. Occasionally, however, after too much rainI the pleats become too full and the cactus bursts. (Students’ summary) Some plants and some animals can survive and adopt with these conditions. Rain is very important in the desert for those plants and those animals by which they florish. Plants keep surviving by keeping their seeds but those animals survive by staying in the ground during day time and getting out during night time. Delete Redundant Information (Rule 2) The correct application of this rule demanded that students delete redundant information from the two passages. The two passages used in Brown and Day (1983) and in the present study included redundant information by rewording and restating some of the important information. The percentage of correct answers for this rule was 98.43%. In Brown and Day (1983) the percentage was 95%. Again, Saudi students could easily identify and delete redundant information in the two passages even though this kind of information was important to the theme of the passages. Saudi students applied the rule successfully. Consider the following example from the “Noise” passage. The two 36 instances where this rule can be applied are underlined. Notice that the student deleted these instances in his summary: (Original passage) Our hearing lessens with age. It is usually most keen when we are twelve or thirteen years old. It gradually gets worse as we get older. Some old people can hardly hear anything at all. They have lost the good hearing they once had. However, the amount of hearing we lose depends on the noise around us. (Student's summary) While hearing ability decreases with age, as all other human abilities, this loss is particularly accelerated when subjected to higher levels of noise. For example. a factory worker loses his hearing more rapidly than a doctor in a quiet office. The following example from the “Desert” passage illustrates the application of this rule further. The two instances where the rule can be applied are underlined. Notice that the student deleted both instances in his summary: (Original passage) Daisies, poppies, marigolds and lilies, stay in the form of seeds and only bloom after a rain. Seeds are perfectly suited to the desert. The heat doesn’t bother them and they can do without water. After a rain, the seeds sprout and flowers bloom. Then the desert is covered with many brightly colored flowers. The desert is a beautiful place when there are red, yellow, orange, and blue flowers eveuvyhere. But soon the ground begins to dry up. As the ground dries, the flowers produce more seeds and then die. These new seeds wait for the next rainfall. When it rains, they grow, leave new seeds, and then die. (Student’s summary) Plants and animals have their own way to adjust with such conditions. The plant seeds remain in the form of seeds until it rains, then become flowers and they die again when there is not enough water. Some plants have their own way of keeping water until it needs it like the cactus, but some don’t. 37 According to Brown and Day (1983), deletion rules are the easiest to apply. As Brown, Day, and Jones (1983) have shown, children possess a copy-delete strategy in which they read the text elements sequentially, decide for each element on inclusion or deletion, and if they decide on inclusion, they will copy that element or, if they decide on deletion. they will delete it. Thus, Saudi students appear to already possess this copy— delete strategy and they can successfuly apply it. This may suggest that this copy-delete strategy is universal across other languages. Also, applying these two rules with such a percentage implies that Saudi students are sensitive to the importance of the information they read. They can easily identify the unimportant and redundant information that they had to delete from the two passages. Indeed, research has shown that even fifth grade students were able to delete both unimportant and redundant information (Brown and Day, 1983). Superordination Rule (Rule 3) Superordinate 0 Term fora List of Items The correct application of this rule demanded that students delete the subordinates and use a superordinate term in their places. Saudi students efficiently applied this rule 39.06% of the times where this rule would be appropriate. In the Brown and Day study, students efficiently applied the rule in 70% of the cases where it could be applied. 38 Examples of efficient superordination by Saudi students from the “Noise” passage include the following: (1) The use of “physical problems” and ‘physlcal consequences” for “headaches, ulcers, and earaches” in the original passage. (2) The use of “psychological problems” for “tired, tense, and grouchy” in the original passage. (3) The use of “machines,” ‘equipments,’ “products,” and ‘devices' for “trucks, motorcycles. washing machines, clothes dryers, Iawnmowers, mixers, blenders. fans, and airconditioners” in the original passage. Examples of efficient superordination by Saudi students from the “Desert” passage include the following: (1) The use of “plants” and “flowers” for “Daisies, poppies, marigolds, and lilies” in the original passage. (2) The use of “animals” for “lizards, rabbits, pack rats, and snakes.” (3) The use of “fish” for “pupfish, minnows, and shrimp.” Instead of using a superordinate term in place of the subordinates, students could copy the list of items verbatim, or delete the list entirely. Students copied the list of items verbatim 17.18% of the time when this rule could be applied. Students’ performance ranged from copying the whole list to choosing to write two or three items and deleting the remaining parts of the list. Consider for example the following from the “Noise” passage. The instances where this rule can be applied is underlined. Notice that the student copied the list verbatim: (Original passage) Being around too much noise can give people headaches, ulcers, and earaches. 39 (Student’s summary) Headaches, ulcers, and earaches can come from noise. The next example from the ‘Desert' passage illustrates application of the rule further. The instances where the rule can be applied are underlined. Notice that the student copied some of these instances verbatim: (Original passage) Daisies, poppies, marigolds, and lilies, stay in the form of seeds and only bloom after a rain. (Student’s summary) Some plants as daisies, and marigolds keep waiting for moisture coming from rain to bloom. Saudi students could also use a strategy that is considered a wrong application of the superordination rule though it shows that the students had a sense of deleting the subordinates and replacing them with a superordinate. Students could use a superordinate that does not represent the subordinates. Saudi students used inefficient superordination terms in 13.02% of the total times when this rule could be applied. Examples of inefficient superordination for the “Noise” passage included the following: (I) The use of “problems like feeling tired, tense, and grouchy” for “tired, tense, and grouchy.” (2) The use of “health problems for example headache, ulcers, etc.” for “headaches, ulcers, and earaches.” (3) The use of “machines and equipment” for “trucks, motorcycles, washing machines, clothes dryers, Iawnmowers, mixers, blenders, fans, and airconditioners.” This was judged inefficient because more than one superordinate term was used. Examples of inefficient 40 superordination for the ‘Desert' passage included the following: (1) The use of “flowers of daisies, lilies, poppies, and marigolds” for “daisies, lilies, poppies, and marigolds.” (2) The use of ‘other types of life like rats, and snakes” and “animals as lizards, rabbits, pack rats and snakes” for “lizards, rabbits, pack rats, and snakes.” (3) The use of “animals such as pupfish and shrimp” and “animals (fish)” for “pupfish, minnows, and shrimp.” Students’ inefficient superordinate terms were limited to using a superordinate with the subordinates and to using two terms instead of one. There were few cases in which students used wrong superordinate terms for lists of items (such as using “trees” to superordinate a list of flowers.) The reason behind this may be due to the fact that the subordinates used in the Brown and Day (1983) study and in the present study fall into the seventh grade reading level. Finally, Saudi students deleted 30.72% of the times when it would be appropriate not to do so. Thus, the second strategy that Saudi students followed was deleting the list of items instead of using an efficient or inefficient term or copying the list verbatim. According to Brown and Day (1983), the copy-delete strategy works well with the superordination rule where the student has to delete a list. However, the student has to add a superordinate in place of the deleted list. Saudi students applied this rule efficiently 39.06% of the times when it would be appropriate. This low percentage may be due 41 to the fact that Saudi students do not speak English as a native language. This may then simply be a problem of vocabulary. They do appear to understand the rule but they did not know how to apply it since they tended to include a superordinate term with the subordinates or tended to write two terms instead of one. However, both of these applications are considered inefficient superordination and given only one point. There are other possible reasons, however, for this low percentage of the application of the superordination rule by Saudi students. Simply, they might have been confused by the think—aloud tqsk. Normally, students will think silently with no interference of such a task. When they were asked to do the experimental task and the reporting task at the same time, they might have missed some of these possibilities to apply the superordination rule. Topic Sentences Rules Select a Topic Sentence if Available (Rule 4) Saudi students applied this rule in 50.89% of the cases where it could be applied. In the Brown and Day study, the percentage of efficient application of this rule was approximately 70%. The students’ performance ranged from copying the topic sentence to using a topic 42 sentence of their own. Examples of topic sentences used by students that are similar to the available topic sentences in the passages for the ‘Noise' passage included the following: ‘The older the person, the weaker his hearing” and “people’s hearing is declining with age” was used instead of the topic sentence available in the passage “Our hearing lessens with age.” And “Noise affects concentration and disturbs thinking” was used instead of the topic sentence available in the passage “Sometimes it is hard to hear people talk, sometimes even to concentrate, because of the noise around us.” Examples from the “Desert” passage included the following: one student wrote ‘Animals have already adjusted to such situations where they hide in the day and go out at night searching for food” instead of the topic sentence available in the passage “By night, the desert is full of life.” Also, the students used “Because it (the cactus) absorbs the water and stores it in its roots during the drying times” instead of the topic sentence available in the passage “The cactus lives through the dry periods by storing water in its stem.” This rule is more difficult to apply than the three above ones because the student “must have some realization of the unique status of the topic sentences” (Brown and Day, 1983:12). The above percentage of efficient application of this rule by Saudi students is surprising due to the fact that Saudi students are not native speakers of English. The reason behind this percentage may be the fact that most of these Saudi 43 students studied the English language in English language centers before they proceeded to their academic study. Teachers in such centers may train the students to identify topic sentences. Invent a Topic Sentence if None is Available (Rule 5) Saudi students correctly invented a topic sentence in 30.20% of the cases where this rule could be applied. In the Brown and Day study, students applied this rule 50% of the times when it could be applied. Examples of invented topic sentences from the ‘Noise” passage included the following: “Of course, people who may be able to bear one kind of noise, it may not be bearable by others,” “Even noise can be viewed differently by different people,” and “people and government institutions tend to agree upon making rules to reduce noise around them as a gesture of civilization.” According to Brown and Day (1983) the invention rule is the most difficult because students must “add something of their own, a synopsis in their own words of the implicit meaning of the paragraph” (p. 12). What adds to this difficulty is the fact that students have to find out that there is a topic sentence missing before they proceed to add one. Being non-native speakers, Saudi students cannot be presumed to have a sensitivity for the need for topic sentences. Apparently, because of the language barrier, Saudi students did not apply this rule as efficiently as the Brown and Day students mentioned above. 44 The differences in the paragraph organizational patterns between Arabic and English might have contributed to the low number of the application of both topic sentence rules. Students might have simply been looking for coordinate parallelism instead of looking for topic sentences. The number of rules that was applied by Saudi students in the present study and those applied in the Brown and Day first experiment are summarized in Table I. TABLE 1 NUMBER OF RULES APPLIED ---n-— Present 96.87 98.43 39.06 50.89 30.20 Study Brown & 93 95 70 70 Day The Revision Strategies of Saudi Students The judges examined the students’ revision of their summaries of the passage “Noise” for the length (What is the length of the language change?), accuracy (Was the language change accurate, less accurate, or made no change?), style (Did the language change make the meaning more clear, less clear, or made no change?), and type of each language change (Was the language change involving the 45 information, the grammar, or the mechanics of writing?) The judges were supplied with typed versions of both the summary and the revision. They were asked to underline and number on the revision all the language changes that took place in the revised version. Then the judges looked for any improvements in the use of the rules of summarization under consideration in the present study. Results have shown the following: Length of the Language Changes The number of language changes that involved a change in length totaled 102. In 54 cases (52.94%) students added something to their revision that was not in their original summaries. Consider the following examples: (Student’s summary) Sometimes people can not concentrate because of the noise around. Loud rock music may sound great to some but others may not like it. (Student’s revision) Sometimes people can not concentrate because of the noise around them. However, people think differently toward noise where loud rock music for example may sound great to some but others may not like it. Saudi students deleted something in their revisions that was in their summaries in 32 cases (31.37%). Consider the following example where the student deleted some information from his summary: 4o (Student’s summary) The central theme of this article is noise. Noise can give people uneasy feeling and may cause health problems for example: headaches, ulcers, etc. (Student’s revision) The central theme of this article is noise. Noise will cause health problems like: headaches, ulcers. etc. Finally, in sixteen times (15.68%) the length of the part that was changed was the same in both the summary and the revision. The following example illustrates this case further: (Student’s summary) Noise can be cut down by making quiet products (for example: blenders, vacuum cleaners...) but people seem to equate noise and power. (Student’s revision) Noise can be cut down by inventing quiet products (for example: blenders, vacuum cleaners...) but people seem to equate noise and power. Thus, results have shown that when Saudi students revise their first draft of a summary they usually add more than they delete. Table 2 summarizes the above results. TABLE 2 LENGTH OF THE LANGUAGE CHANGES ADDITION DELETION NO CHANGE 52.94 31.37 15.68 Accuracy of the Language Change Saudi students made 99 changes that affected the accuracy of their revision of the “Noise” passage. In 67 instances (67.67%), students 47 made changes that made their revision more accurate. Consider the following example: (Student’s summary) Too much noise can impair hearing ability especially for jobs that have noise environment like race—car driving, factory workers... (Student’s revision) Too much noise can impair hearing ability especially for jobs that have noisy environment like race-car driving, factory workers... In 23 cases (23.23%) they made their revision less accurate. Consider for example the following: (Student’s summary) Some professions such as doctors are not exposed to too much noise where other professions such as musicians have to cope with too much noise. (Student’s revision) Some professions such as medicine are not exposed to too much noise whereas other professions such as music have to cope with too much noise. Finally, in nine times (9.09%) there was no change in the accuracy of the revision. Consider for example the following: (Student’s summary) Government as well as people must contribute to the reduction of noise. (Student’s revision) Government as well as people must help in the reduction of noise. Table 3 summarizes the above results. TABLE 3 ACCURACY OF THE LANGUAGE CHANGES MORE ACCURATE NO CHANGE LESS ACCURATE 67-67 -i_ 23-23 48 Style of the Language Change Saudi students made 99 language changes that affected their style in the revised form of “Noise”. In 67 cases (67.67%) they made the meaning clearer. Consider for example the following: (Student’s summary) TV, radio, kids playing, and men working cause that we can’t hear people talk. (Student’s revision) There are many factors like TV, radio, kids playing, and men working outside cause that we can’t hear people talk. Saudi students made changes that made the meaning of their revision less clear in 23 instances (23.23%). Consider for example the following: (Student’s summary) People, of course, are effected by noise depending on their work environments. Doctors and musicians can be an example of environmental differences with regard to noise. (Student’s revision) People, of course, are effected by noise so that doctors and musicians are examples of environmental differences with regard to noise. Finally, in nine times (9.09%) the language change in the revised version did not change the meaning of the revision. Consider for example the following: (Student’s summary) Some people enjoy loud music such as rock and whereas others don’t. (Student’s revision) Some people may enjoy loud music but others don’t. Table 4 summarizes the above results. n. -_. nr' - I 9 a .‘efiokl' Ie «not :gniwetlot eat manic-i»... zen“; relive-3 impala rem bnonnivlrirfs! - . Iii .- ' I . " ':‘.\‘n_‘ 49 TABLE 4 STYLE OF THE LANGUAGE CHANGES CLEARER MEANING LEss CLEAR MEANING No CHANGE 67-67 23-23 “ Type of the Language Change Instances of changes under the heading of the type of change totaled 89. Saudi students made 41 (46.06%) grammatical changes in their revised form of the passage. Consider for example the following: (Student’s summary) Street drivers can end up with a health problems. (Student's revision) Street drivers can end up with health problems. Saudi students made 41 (46.06%) informational changes in their revision. Consider for example the following: (Student’s summary) Some people try to be quieter. For example. city control act. (Student’s revision) Some people like quiet, so they try to make some controls. For example, the 19703 law in the USA. Finally, Saudi students made seven (7.86%) mechanical changes in their revisions. Consider for example, the following where the mechanical change is underlined: (Student’s summary) ...a lot of disease caused because noise like headaches ulcers and earaches. 5O (Student’s revision) ...a lot of diseases are caused because of noise like headaches ulcers and earaches. Table 5 summarizes the above results. TABLE 5 TYPE OF THE LANGUAGE CHANGES GRAMMATICAL INFORMATIONAL MECHANICAL 46.06 ' 4606 Thus, it seems that when Saudi students revise their summaries they tend to add more words to them rather than to delete. Students made more accurate use of English when they revise. Also, results have shown that mechanical mistakes are the least revised mistakes in the students’ revisions. Saudi students tend to concentrate more on grammatical and informational types of mistakes. Improvements in Rule Usage Results have shown that students rarely try to improve their use of a rule in their revision of their summaries. Saudi students improved their use of a rule only five times. All these five improvements came under the invention of a topic sentence rule. Consider for example the following where the student invented a topic sentence not mentioned in his summary: (Student’s summary) Even noise can be viewed differently by different people. People tend to lose some of their hearing ability when getting older. 51 (Student’s revision) Regardless of what people think of noise, it has been scientifically proven that noise can have negative consequences on the people’s psychological and physical health. It seemed that in five cases when Saudi students had a Chance to revise their summaries, they noticed a gap where a topic sentence was needed and they supplied it. The other rules are easier and are dealt with earlier. Thus, this represents the importance of revising the summary after writing it. Students should always be encouraged to revise their first summaries. Think-Aloud Protocols Application of the Rules The study used the think—aloud technique to get more insights into the process of summarizing English texts and revising the summaries by Saudi students. The study looked at Saudi students’ explicit mentioning of Summarization rules and of conscious monitoring of language. Every repetition and readings of the contents of the passages in the students’ think-aloud protocols of the summaries and the revisions were deleted. There were so few instances of explicit mentioning of the rules of summarization under consideration that only half of the transcribed think-aloud protocols were analyzed for both summaries and revisions. Also, it was found that such instances took place more often in the summary than in the revisions. It seems that when students revised Memorandum- aoweahemu'oiqot a ewe-iv..- :3:r_-.- -. .1: ui--'- - -=4'.‘. '«h-hf'fli‘rhU! M ' ' ran: ,; fir». -"- -;:rr.-. :- . I-- '. . .' -‘ ' '\ oebeoa' I 52 their summaries they were more concerned about language than about applying the rules of summarization. Students might have had difficulties reporting the process they go through while they summarize or revise. They might have simply decided to stress the writing of the Summary and of the revision instead of stressing the reporting of their process of summarizing or revising. Another reason is the fact that students are non-native speakers with limited linguistic skills. They might have known what to do but did not possess the ability to verbalize what they were doing. Examples of the few cases where students were mentioning a rule included the following: o “the rest of the paragraph goes in details” (deletion) 0 “that is best summarized in this sentence that would eliminate so many things that would give the reader an idea rather than to go into details” (deletion) . ‘the emphasis...okay...the modification of the...ah machines” (superordination) o “the problem can be a different kind of problem like we are talking about physical problems like sickness” (superordination) Finally, very few students mentioned higher rules of summarization. These instances include sentences like “the fifth point...obstacles to reducing noise and this last point link to people perception to noise which I wrote before” and “let us put the hearing loss with age 53 first...then...mention the effects of noise.” In the first sentence, the student attempted to link ideas between paragraphs and write them together in one or two related sentences which is a rule mentioned by Hare and Burchardt (1984) as a “Collapse paragraphs” rule. This rule was not mentioned by Brown and Day. However, Brown and Day mentioned that experts in their second experiment “combine across paragraphs” and that this Is a ‘common strategy of expert summarizers” (p. 6). The second sentence mentioned above is another example of a rule not mentioned by Brown and Day (1983) but mentioned by Hare and Burchardt (1984). This rule, “Polish the summary,” requires summarizers to fix the summary to make it ‘a more natural—sounding summary” (Hare and Burchardt, I984: 66) after reductions from the original passage were made. Instances of Conscious Monitoring of Language In the transcribed versions of both the summary and the revision think-aloud protocols, few examples of conscious monitoring of language were found. Some of the cases of conscious monitoring of the language include sentences like “attempt to prevent...reduce...noise,” “reducing noise which is...leads to,” and “people perceptions...oh...l forgot the /s/...” It seems that students needed more training in the think—aloud procedure than listening to a recorded cassette tape. They 54 seem to Change their written language without saying anything about it in the thinking aloud protocols since instances of Change were found in the written versions but not in the corresponding places of that Change in the spoken versions. Other Findings Metacognitive Planning The think-aloud protocols of Saudi students' processes of summarizing and revising showed that they proceed paragraph by paragraph for both their summaries and revisions. Examples of such planning included many examples like “the second paragraph...” “the third paragraph...,” “the next paragraph,” and “the final paragraph.” Also, Saudi students seemed to plan ahead before they wrote. Evidence for such planning included the following: “this can be summed up in...,” “which can be stated as...,' “I have to mention that...,' “so, how can we do that...,' and “I have to know what the next paragraph is about...” Saudi students seemed to look back at what they had read or written and evaluate that. Examples of such processes included sentences like: “these five points summarized the whole passage...,” “it seems to me that I touched, though, briefly in the major points...,” “this paragraph seems to be an introductory one...,” “so the bottom line of 55 the paragraph is that...,” “we can put all this in one sentence...” and “from this sentence we understand that...” Finally, in the case of one student only, it was found that he read the whole passage, understood what every single paragraph said, and then he proceeded to write the summary. As an example, consider the following statements from the student’s think—aloud protocol of his summary of “Noise”: ‘30 the first paragraph is effect of noise, second paragraph is trying to simplify hearing loss, hearing loss increase with age, and the last paragraph discussing the hearing loss affected by noise...(...) now let’s do it in this way...since the whole paragraph, the whole subject is about noise and its effects, let’s put the hearing loss with age first, then mention the effects of noise as the abnormal or the factor...” The same student quoted above seemed to monitor his processes well. In another part of his think—aloud protocol he stated the following: “now to at least summarize it, what you want to do when you write the thing is to make it more small, now that you have Chosen the basic ideas you need to write it so that it is more coherent and systematic. Let’s see...,” “noise effects more concentration and the thinking. This is a sudden jump into the subject. How do you make it more small?”, “so noise effects concentration and thinking, this is very short...let’s make it longer,” “let’s modify the...l think it is good because it represents...l think is just to get to cause, the meaning of all the whole paragraph, but 56 maybe it is not smooth enough...” and “let’s go to the next paragraph...let’s make it more specified that the laws are geared towards the night when people usually rest...” The same student seemed to make extensive revisions and ask himself questions as he summarized the passage. Consider for example the following: ‘this was made...this was enforced...this law was enforced,” “this loss is particularly because...particularly accelerated...this loss become more accelerated. I think either one has the same thing...unless we change it completely,” “Cities enacted...ah...quiet Cities enacted...more Cities enacted laws to limit...to enforce this new law,” ‘how can we do that...,' and “how to make it small....” Brown and Day (1983) do not seem to cover this type of strategy. The present study assumes that it is very important to study such instances of conscious monitoring of students’ thinking since this reveals interesting findings about the processes that students follow when they summarize or when they revise their summaries. Main Idea Summarization Saudi students seemed to look for the main ideas of each paragraph sequentially. The transcribed versions of the summary in particular and also of the revisions were full of instances like “I have to look at the paragraph to see the main idea of it,” “the writer’s main idea can be summarized in the following point,” and “the bottom line of this 57 paragraph is that...” Brown and Day’s rules do not seem to account for this type of processing. Saudi students seem to try to understand the main idea of each paragraph and summarize it. This may be the reason behind the low percentage in their application of the superordination rule since they may summarize the writer’s main idea of a paragraph and decide that it is enough. This may also show why students were able to apply the selection of a topic sentence rule in half of the cases where it would be appropriate. It is easy to write topic sentences if one tries to understand what the main idea of a paragraph is and summarize it. CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSIONS The purpose of the study was to investigate how Saudi students apply the rules of summarization suggested by Brown and Day (1983) when summarizing English prose. These students were studying at graduate levels at a major midwestern university in the Spring term of 1991. Another interest of this study was to investigate how Saudi students revise their first draft of a summary when given a Chance to do so. The intent of the present chapter is to review and discuss the conclusions of the study. The chapter begins with reviewing the conclusions that relate to the application of the rules of summarization by Saudi students. Then, the Chapter lists the hypotheses of the study and thus compares the Saudi students in the present study with native speakers of English in the Brown and Day (1983) study. The Chapter then reviews the conclusions regarding the Saudi students’ revision strategies. Next, the Chapter reviews the conclusions that relate to the think-aloud protocols of Saudi students. The present Chapter next lists the implications of the present study. Finally, the chapter gives some suggestions for further research. 58 59 Questions of the Study The questions of the study were as follows: To what extent will Saudi students apply the following rules of summarization? Deletion Rules To what extent will Saudi students delete unimportant information: Finding: Saudi students are capable of identifying and deleting most unimportant information from the passages they read. To what extent will Saudi students delete redundant information? Finding: Saudi students are capable of identifying and deleting most redundant information from the passages they read. Conclusion: this higher—order ability is not surprising considering their academic level and previous experience in both English and Arabic. Superordination Rule To what extent will Saudi students superordinate a term for a list of items? Finding: Saudi students are able to identify and superordinate a term for a list of items in less than half of the cases where it would be appropriate. 60 Topic Sentences Rules To what extent will Saudi students select topic sentences when they are available? Finding: Saudi students are able to identify half of the available topic sentences from the passages they read. To what extent will Saudi students invent topic sentences when none is available? Finding: Saudi students are able to invent non-available topic sentences in less than a little more than a quarter of the cases where it would be appropriate. Results of the study have shown that Saudi students are capable of deleting both unimportant and redundant information. Results have also shown that these students face problems in superordinating a term for a list of items and in inventing topic sentences when none is available. In the middle range comes the selection of a topic sentence rule and Saudi students could select only half of them. Conclusions: 1. Saudi students need more training on how to superordinate a term for a list of items from the passages they read. 2. Saudi students need more training that help them develop a sense of topic sentences. This sense will help them select available topic sentences and invent non-available ones. 61 Hypotheses of the study The hypotheses of the study were designed to investigate how Saudi students compare to native students on summarizing English prose. The present study made use of the Brown and Day (1983) study on macrorules for summarizing texts. Brown and Day investigated the application of summarization rules by native English speakers. The hypotheses of the study read as follows: Hypothesis No. 1. There will be no major differences in the number of deletions of unimportant information between Saudi students and native English students in the Brown and Day study. Finding: No major differences in the number of the deletion of unimportant information were found between Saudi students and native students in the Brown and Day (1983) study. In the present study, Saudi students deleted 96.87% of the cases where it would be appropriate to do so and in the Brown and Day study the percentage of correct application of the rule was 93%. Hypothesis No. 2. There will be no major differences in the number of deletions of redundant information between Saudi students and native English students in the Brown and Day study. Finding: No major differences in the number of deletions of redundant information were found between Saudi students and native students in the Brown and Day (1983). While Saudi students deleted 62 98.43% of redundant information, native speakers of English in the Brown and Day study deleted 95% of them. Hypothesis No. 3. There will be no major differences in the number of superordinations of a term for a list of items between Saudi students and native English students in the Brown and Day study. Finding: Major differences in the superordination of a term for a list of items rule were found between Saudi students and native students in the Brown and Day (1983) study. Saudi students used many fewer superordinations than native students. Students in the present study used efficient superordination in 39.06% of the cases where it would be appropriate to do so and in the Brown and Day study the percentage was 70%. Hypothesis No. 4. There will be no major differences in the number of selections of topic sentences between Saudi students and native English students in the Brown and Day study. Finding: No major differences were found in the selection of available topic sentences were found between Saudi students and native students in the Brown and Day (1983) study. While Saudi students selected 50.89% of the available topic sentences, native students in the Brown and Day study selected 70% of them. Hypothesis No. 5. There will be no major differences in the number . of inventions of topic sentences between Saudi students and native English students in the Brown and Day study. 63 Finding: Major differences in the invention of non—available topic sentences were found between Saudi students and native students in the Brown and Day (1983) study. Saudi students applied this rule much less than native speakers of English in the Brown and Day study. Saudi students applied this rule correctly in 30.20% of the cases where it would be appropriate. In the Brown and Day study the percentage was 50%. Thus, the results of the present study were consistent with Brown and Day (1983) study. Both the deletion rules together with the selection of available topic sentences rule were found to be similar to the results of native English speakers in the Brown and Day study. Thus, as Brown and Day suggested, deletion rules are the easiest to apply among the rules of summarization. On the other hand, Saudi students had far more difficulty applying the superordination of a term for a list of items and the invention of a topic sentence than the native students in the Brown and Day study had. Revision Strategies Hypothesis. There will be no differences between the students’ first summaries and their revised ones. Finding: Saudi students’ revisions improved the summary they wrote. Several differences were found between the students’ first summaries and their revised ones. Saudi students seem to add to their summaries more than they delete, their additions seem to make their .m term on- a ram; tr: mama: ... -.-.-- - .40 ”rum-"c: m bloc-w new aeeea ant? usnb‘fiilli . 1:4 -- _ .. _ . ,_ ' ., -‘ "=-:'.'.t;‘- 9d 64 revisions more accurate rather than less accurate, and to make the meaning of their revision more clear rather than less clear. Also, their additions to the revised summary seem to be more grammatical and informational rather than mechanical. Conclusion. Students should always be encouraged to revise their summaries after writing them. Improvement in Rule Usage: Finding: Students did not improve their use of the rules of summarization in their revisions. They tend to Change the language but not the use of the rules. Think-Aloud Protocols Conscious Language Monitoring: Finding: Very few instances of conscious language monitoring were found in the transcribed think-aloud protocols of Saudi students. This may suggest that such poor monitoring may be one of the causes behind the students’ problems in studying. Conclusion: Saudi students seem to need training in monitoring their processes of reading and writing. Finding: The students’ think—aloud protocols showed that Saudi students did not perform well. They did not seem to say aloud what they think. 65 Conclusion: Training on how to perform the think-aloud technique is very important in conducting experiments that uses it. Other Findings Metacognitive Planning: Finding: Saudi students seem to proceed paragraph by paragraph as they summarize. They tend to plan ahead before they write and they seem to look back at what they have written or read. Main Idea Summarization: Finding: Saudi students look for the main idea of every paragraph and summarize it. This strategy was not mentioned in the Brown and Day study. Saudi students seem to look for each paragraph’s main idea and summarize it and thus tend to delete everything else in the paragraph. Implications 1. Since Saudi students failed to efficiently apply the superordination and the invention of a topic sentence rules, it is strongly suggested that training in the summarization rules should be part of the responsibilities of English language centers in the US. Thus, teachers of English as a foreign language should train non-native students on how to summarize the passages they read rather than merely asking them to summarize. 66 2. Overall, revising the summary tended to produce a better and clearer one. Thus, it is strongly suggested that students be encouraged always to revise their summaries after they write them. 3. Results have shown that Saudi students do not monitor their processes well. Training on how to monitor their processes may lead them to a better understanding of what they should look for when they read of write. Thus, it is recommended that English language centers may not be confined to teaching English language only. Instead, these centers may have more responsibilities in teaching and training students on how to apply different study skills like summarization, self-questioning, and on how to monitor their reading and writing processes. 4. Non-native students should be taught the English language text organization patterns. For example, non-native students may be trained on the organization of English prose passages, and how to identify topic sentences. 5. Saudi students should be taught to give more balance to the meaning of what they write than to the mechanics and grammar of it. 6. English language centers should stress the importance of teaching vocabulary in their programs. 7. It is recommended that teachers of English as a second language should study paragraph developmental pattern in their 67 students' native language. This will help both teachers and students overcome some of the problems of writing in the second language. Suggestions for Further Research I. Since the present study did not consider the quality of summaries written by non-native students, other research should investigate this creative aspect of summary writing. 2. Is there a difference in summaries written by male non- native students and summaries written by female non—native students? 3. Do the instructions given to students before a think-aloud task make a difference in results? 4. Are there different summarization skills for Arabic prose summarized by Arabic students? Are there different text organizations between English and Arabic? 5. Does training in writing summaries in Arabic foster summarization in English, and vice versa? 6. What are the study skills of Saudi students? 7. The present study examined Saudi students’ summarization process of seventh grade materials. It would be interesting to compare the results of this study with the students’ summarization process of university materials. 68 Several reasons might have contributed to the low percentage of the application of the superordination rule and the topic sentences rules. Differences in paragraph developmental patterns between Arabic and English might have made students expect the Arabic paragraph pattern in the English one. Students might have been looking for parallel coordination pattern instead of topic sentences. Another reason behind this low percentage might be some interference from the think-aloud task. Students were faced with a new situation which they might not have experienced before. A third possible reason might be that the schooling system in Saudi Arabia may not stress training students on different study skills which may leave the students deficient in that very important aspect of studying. The present study sees a lot of credibility for the need for more in— depth studies on cross-cultural rhetoric. In conclusion, Saudi students, like other non-native English speakers, face a lot of difficulties when they study in American universities. The present study pointed out some of the possible reasons behind such difficulties. It is assumed that the performance of Saudi students will get better if some needs are met. Training students on how to summarize will help meet one of these needs. m Cm me ztnet‘ub. eat-m avert ISIID’IDQ 1C3? mtlr'nl need Eve.”- "1.".Ire' : 2-. r ' ' -. ‘-- u’tciiiftt'fl ed"! ' "‘:'-. 'G-‘JO APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 THE TWO PASSAGES USED IN THE STUDY Noise Passage Sometimes it is hard to hear people talk, sometimes even to concentrate, because of the noise around us. When we hear cars, trucks and motorcycles driving by, the television and radio blaring next door, and kids playing and men working outside, it can be hard to think. Loud rock music may sound great to same. In fact, you may like loud rock music. But people next door may think it is awfully noisy. We may not mind the sound of our pet dog’s barking. A neighbor may feel that the same sound is a terrible bother. A young child may like to hear himself scream, but his mother may hate it. Being around too much noise can give people headaches, ulcers, and earaches. Imagine getting an ulcer from too many noisy days. Just getting a headache from too much noise is an awful feeling. A noisy day can leave people feeling tired, tense, and grouchy. It is no fun to have a good mood spoiled by too much noise. 69 70 Our hearing lessens with age. It is usually most keen when we are twelve or thirteen years old. It gradually gets worse as we get older. Some old people can hardly hear anything at all. They have lost the good hearing they once had. However, the amount of hearing we lose depends on the noise around us. Doctors, lawyers, and secretaries usually keep their hearing for a long time. They are not around loud noises every day. But race car drivers, jet plane mechanics, lumberjacks, factory workers, and street repairmen can end up with hearing problems. Those people have to deal with a lot of noise all the time. Sometimes musicians who earn their living by playing in loud rock bands have difficulty with their hearing. Some young rock musicians have 60-year-old ears. Some people voluntarily try to be quieter. They try to make less noise by turning down their stereos and televisions. However, many Cities have laws aiming at stopping noises that are not needed, like horn blowing by car drivers. Horn blowing can be awfully noisy and isn’t always necessary. Almost every City has a law to enforce quiet after 10 at night. In the early 19703, the United States government enacted a law. It is called the Noise Control Act. This law says that government must try to get rid of noise wherever it can. The law was passed by Congress in response to public conern, to limit noise. Noise can be cut down by making quiet trucks, motorcycles, washing machines and clothes dryers. Even Iawnmowers, mixers, 71 blenders, fans and airconditioners can be made to run more quietly. One company made a quiet vacuum Cleaner. But they couldn’t sell many. The vacuum Cleaners were just as good as others, but people wouldn’t buy them. People said they didn’t seem to ‘do their job.” The vacuum Cleaners were too quiet. Other companies have had the same problem. It seems people equate noise and power. Desert Passage The desert is a hot and dry place. There are no Clouds to stop the sun's burning rays. 80 the sun heats up the earth. As a result, it gets very hot, the temperature easily reaching 120 degrees. And rainfall is slight in the desert. Most deserts get less than 10 inches of rain every year. And years can pass between showers. Often five or ten years may go by without a drop of rain falling on the desert. With these harsh conditions, it is surprising that any plants or animals can live in the desert. They all need water and water is short in supply. Imagine how difficult it must be to live for two or three years without water. The heat is also a problem. It can quickly kill many living things. Daisies, poppies, marigolds and lilies, stay in the form of seeds and only bloom after a rain. Seeds are perfectly suited to the desert. The heat doesn’t bother them and they can do without water. After a rain, the seeds sprout and flowers bloom. Then the desert is covered with 72 many brightly colored flowers. The desert is a beautiful place when there are red, yellow, orange, and blue flowers everywhere. But soon the ground begins to dry up. As the ground dries, the flowers produce more seeds and then die. These new seeds wait for the next rainfall. When it rains, they grow, leave new seeds, and then die. The cactus lives through the dry periods by storing water in its stem. When it rains the water is quickly taken in by the cactus’ roots. This water is then stored in the stem. The cactus uses the water as it is needed. One cactus has pleats in its stem which swell with water after a rainfall. Occasionally, however, offer too much rain, the pleats become too full and the cactus bursts. Lizards, rabbits, pack rats, and snakes, can be seen in the desert. But they cannot be seen in the daytime. In the daytime the desert appears to be without life. The lizards, rabbits, pack rats, and snakes are not out running around. Under plants and rocks, or in the ground, the lizards, rabbits, pack rats, and snakes are asleep. By night, the desert is full of life Pupfish, minnows, and shrimp can be found in the desert. They avoid the desert dryness. Their eggs lie in dry Iakebeds until a rain. When it rains, the eggs hatch. The pupfish, minnows, and shrimp live in the lake while there is water in it. They grow up, mate and lay more , eggs in the lake. As the lake begins to dry up they die. The new eggs APPENDIX 2 CHECKLISTS Instructions Students wrote two summaries. First of all, they summarized a passage entitled “Noise" and then wrote a revised form of their summaries. Secondly, students summarized the second passage entitled “Desert.” You are provided with an answer key for each passage. Please refer to these keys when you judge the students’ answers. Do checklists in their order: 1, 2, and 3. In the first two Checklists, you will determine the number of applied rules for each passage. In the remaining Checklist you will judge the language Changes between the students’ summaries of “Noise” and the students’ revision of that passage. Please follow the instructions listed in each Checklist. Thank you, Ahmed Alhaidari 74 75 76 Checklist I NOISE Number of Rules Please see the key answer number one and the students’ summary of the “Noise” passage. For each instance of the use of a rule (U = delete Unimportant information, R = delete Redundant information, S = use a Superordinate term for a list of items, STS = Select Topic Sentence if available, and ITS = Invent Topic Sentence if not available) in the key answer determine if the student used the rule in his summary by circling the appropriate number (a = rule was not used / 2 = rule was used). I. Deletion Rule: 1.1. Delete unimportant information (U): Instances in key Rule used by student U1. 0 (included) 2 (omitted) U2. 0 (included) 2 (omitted) U3. 0 (included) 2 (omitted) U4 0 (included) 2 (omitted) 12 Delete redundant information (R): Instances in key Rule used by student RI. 0 (included) 2 (omitted) R2. 0 (included) 2 (omitted) R3. 0 (included) 2 (omitted) R4. 0 (included) 2 (omitted) R5. 0 (included) 2 (omitted) 77 Superordination Rule: Superordinate a term for a list of items (S): Please circle the appropriate number: Instance in key $1. $2. 53. Rule used by student 0 Student deleted the unit completely (didn’t include). 1 Student copied the list verbatim or near verbatim. 1 Student used a superordination term ineffectively. 2 Student used a superordination term effectively. 0 Student deleted the unit completely (didn’t include). 1 Student copied the list verbatim or near verbatim. 1 Student used a superordination term ineffectively. 2 Students used a superordination term effectively. 0 Student deleted the unit completely (didn’t include). 1 Student copied the list verbatim or near verbatim. 1 Student used a superordination term ineffectively. 2 Students used a superordination term effectively. 78 Ill. Topic Sentences Rule: lll.1 Select an available topic sentence (STS): Instances in key Rule used by student 5181. 0 (not included) 2 (included) STS2. 0 (not included) 2 (included) STSS. 0 (not included) 2 (included) ”1.2 Invent a topic sentence (ITS): Instances in key Rule used by student ITSI. 0 (not included) 2 (included) ITS2. 0 (not included) 2 (included) ITS3. 0 (not included) 2 (included) ITS4. 0 (not included) 2 (included) 79 Checklist 2 DESERT Number of Rules Please see the key answer number two and the students’ summary of the ‘Desert" passage. For each instance of the use of a rule (U = delete Unimportant information, R = delete Redundant information, S = use a Superordinate term for a list of items, STS = Select Topic Sentence if available, and ITS = Invent Topic Sentence if not available) in the key answer determine if the student used the rule in his summary by Circling the appropriate number (0 = rule was not used / 2 = rule was used). I. Deletion Rule: 1.1 Delete unimportant information (U): Instances in key Rule used by student U1. 0 (included) 2 (omitted) U2. 0 (included) 2 (omitted) U3. 0 (included) 2 (omitted) U4. 0 (included) 2 (omitted) 1.2 Delete redundant information (R): Instances in key Rule used by student R1. 0 (included) 2 (omitted) R2. 0 (included) 2 (omitted) R3. 0 (included) 2 (omitted) R4. 0 (included) 2 (omitted) R5. 0 (included) 2 (omitted) 80 Superordination Rule: Superordinate a term for a list of items (S): Please circle the appropriate number: Instance in key Rule used by student SI. 0 Student deleted the unit completely (didn’t include). 1 Student copied the list verbatim or near verbatim. 1 Student used a superordination term ineffectively. 2 Student used a superordination term effectively. $2. 0 Student deleted the unit completely (didn’t include). 1 Student copied the list verbatim or near verbatim. 1 Student used a superordination term ineffectively. 2 Student used a superordination term effectively. S3. 0 Student deleted the unit completely (didn't include). 1 Student copied the list verbatim or near verbatim. 1 Student used a superordination term ineffectively. 2 Student used a superordination term effectively. 81 III. Topic Sentences Rule: “1.1 Select an available topic sentence (STS): Instances in key Rule used by student STSI. 0 (not included) 2 (included) STS2. 0 (not included) 2 (included) STS3. 0 (not included) 2 (included) 3184. 0 (not included) 2 (included) "1.2 Invent a topic sentence (ITS): Instances in key Rule used by student ITSI. 0 (not included) 2 (included) ITS2. 0 (not included) 2 (included) 82 Checklist 3 NOISE REVISION You are provided with a typed version of the students’ summary of “Noise” and with a typed copy of the students’ revision of the summary. 1.1. Please compare both versions, underline and number on the final draft each instance where you find a language difference between the two. 1.2 Write the language Change number in the first column. 1.3 Indicate the length of the change in the second column. 1.4 Determine the accuracy of the Change in the third column. 1.5 Determine the style clarity of the Change in the fourth column. 1.6 Indicate the type of the Change in the last column. _m___ Number of Addition(+) More Clearer (+) Grammatic Change (Deletion or accurate at (G) Simplifica- (+) Mechanical tion)(—) Less (M) Same accurate (-) Informa- Length (0) No Change tional (I) 2. At the instances marked “I” (informational Change) in the first question, column “Type”, in which, if any, do you feel the student attempted to improve his use of a rule of summarization? Please list the revision instance number after the rule below and comment briefly on the extent of the Change in the use of the rule: a. deletion of unimportant information. l i APPENDIX 3 ANSWER KEYS Answer Key No. 1 “Noise” Sometimes it is hard to hear people talk, sometimes even to concentrate because of the noise around us (STSI). When we hear cars, trucks and motorcycles driven away by, the television and radio blaring next door, and kids playing and men working outside, it can be hard to think. Loud rock music may sound great to some. In fact, you may like loud rock music (ITSI, R1). But people next door may think it is awfully noisy. We may not mind the sound of our pet dog’s barking. A neighbor may feel that the same sound is a terrible bother. A young child may like to hear himself scream, but his mother may hate it. Being around too much noise can give people (ITS2, SI) headaches, ulcers, and earaches. Imagine geting an ulcer from too many noisy days (U1). Just getting a headache from too much noise is an awful feeling (U2). A noisy day can leave people feeling tired, tense, 84 85 and grouchy (S2). It is no fun to have a good mood spoiled by too much noise (U3). Our hearing lessens with age (STS2). It is usually most keen when we are 12 or 13 years old. It gradually gets worse as we get older (R2). Some old people can hardly hear anything at all. They have lost the good hearing they once had (R3). However, the amount of hearing we lose depends on the noise around us (STS3). Doctors, lawyers, and secretaries usually keep their hearing for a long time. They are not around loud noises every day. But race car drivers, jet plane mechanics, lumberjacks, factory workers, and street repairmen can end up with hearing problems. Those people have to deal with a lot of noise all the time. Sometimes musicians who earn their living by playing in loud rock bands have difficulty with their hearing. Some young rock musicians have 60-year-old ears (R4). Some people voluntarily try to be quieter (ITSS). They tm to make less noise by turning down their stereos and televisions (R5). However, many Cities have laws aiming at stopping noises that are not needed. like horn blowing by car drivers. Horn blowing can be awfully noisy and isn’t always necessam (U4). Almost every city has a law to enforce quiet after 10 at night. In the early 19703, the United States government enacted a law. It is called the Noise Control Act. This law says that government must try to get rid of noise wherever it can. The law was passed by Congress in response to public concern, to limit noise. 86 Noise can be cut down by making quiet trucks, motorcycles, washing machines and Clothes dyers (|TS4). Even lawnmowers mixers blenders fans and airconditioners (S3) can be made to run more quietly. One company made a quiet vacuum clearner. But they couldn’t sell many. The vacuum cleaners were just as good as others, but people wouldn’t buy them. People said they didn’t seem to ‘do their job.” The vacuum clearners were too quiet. Other companies have had the same problem. It seems people equate noise and power. STS = select a topic sentence if available ITS = invent a topic sentence if non is available (please see attached page) R = delete redundant information U = delete unimportant information 8 = superordinate a term for a list of items 31 = physical problems S2 = psychological problems suggested 33 = devices STS=3 |TS=4 R 5 U 4 S 3 87 Invented Topic Sentences: 1 — (paragraph #2): A particular noise may be enjoyable by some people and found annoying by others. 2 - (paragraph #3): Too much noise can cause both physical and emotional problems. 3 - (paragraph #6): Both people and government try to reduce the amount of not needed noise. 4 - (paragraph #7): The buying public seems to prefer noisy motors, which may symbolize power, to products with quiet motors. Please note that the above invented topic sentences are suggested ones. Students may invent different topic sentences. 88 Answer Key No. 2 “Desert” The desert is a hot and dm place (STSI). There are no Clouds to stop the sun’s burning rays. So the sun heats up the eart. As a result, it gets veg hot, the temperature easily reaching 120 degrees. And rainfall is slight in the desert. Most deserts get less than 10 inches of rain every year. And years can pass between showers. Often 5 or 10 years may go by without a drop of rain falling on the desert (R1). With these harsh conditions, it is surprising that any plants or animals can live in the desert (STS2). They all need water and water is short in supply. Imagine how difficult it must be to live for 2 or 3 years without water (U1). The heat is also a problem. It can quickly kill many living things. Daisies, poppies, marigolds and lilies (S1, ITSI), stay in the form of seeds and only bloom after a rain. Seeds are perfectly suited to the desert. The heat doesn’t bother them and they can do without water. After a rain, the seeds sprout and flowers bloom. Then the desert is covered with many brightly colored flowers (R2). The desert is a beautiful place when there are red, yellow, orange, and blue flowers everywhere. But soon the ground begins to dry up. As the ground dries, 89 the flowers produce more seeds and then die (R3). These new seeds wait for the next rainfall. When it rains, they grow, leave new seeds, and then die. The cactus lives through the dry periods by storing water in its stem (STS3). When it rains the water is quickly taken in by the cactus’ roots. This water is then stored in the stem. The cactus uses the water as it is needed. One cactus has pleats in its stem which swell with water after a rainfall (U2). Occasionally, however, after too much rain, the pleats become too full and the cactus bursts (U3). Lizards, rabbits, pack rats, and snakes (S2), can be seen in the desert. But they cannot be seen in the daytime. In the daytime the desert appears to be without life (R4). The lizards, rabbits, pack rats, and snakes are not out running around (U4). Under plants and rocks, or in the ground, the lizards, rabbits, pack rats, and snakes are asleep. By night the desert is full of life (8184). Pupfish, minnows, and shrimp (S3, ITS2) can be found in the desert. They avoid the desert dryness. Their eggs lie in dry Iakebeds until a rain. When it rains, the eggs hatch. The pupfish, minnows, and shrimp live in the lake while there is water in it. They grow up, mate and lay more eggs in the lake. As the lake begins to dry up they die. The new eggs wait for another rain (R5). These eggs may have to wait for 25 to 100 - years to hatch. 90 STS = select a topic sentence if available ITS = invent a topic sentence if non is available (please see attached page) R = delete redundant information U = delete unimportant information S = superordinate a term for a list of items 81 = flowers S2 = animals suggested S3=fish STS=4 ITS=2 R =5 U =4 S =3 Desert Invented Topic Sentences: 1 - (paragraph # 3): Flower seeds are perfectly suited to the desert. 2 - (paragraph # 6): Fish can be found in the desert but they avoid the desert dryness. Please note that the above invented topic sentences are suggested ones. Students may invent different topic sentences. APPENDIX 4 SAMPLE THINK-ALOUD MATHEMATICAL PROBLEM Solve the Problem: 2105 - 1007 91 APPENDIX 5 SAMPLE THINK-ALOUD (TRANSCRIBED TAPE) (In the following tape 1 am going to give an example of a think—aloud procedure...please notice that I will describe the process I go through while I solve the mathematical problem in front of you...notice that I say loudly what I think of when I solve the problem...every thing I think of when I solve the problem is said loudly...if I stop thinking aloud...and began thinking silently a lot of data will be |ost...unfortunately...lt is the data I am looking for that are lost...please listen carefully while I think— aloud about thinking the problem in front of you.) Okay...let’s see...| have to take one thousand and seven from two thousand one hundred and five...we will begin with the ones of course...ah...seven taken from five...umm...l cannot take seven from five...so I will have to borrow from the tens...okay...but the tens is a zero...so I will borrow from the hundreds...okay...so we have a seven , taken from fifteen because we already borrowed...hmmm...seven out of fifteen equals eight...then l have to move to the tens...l have a zero 92 93 taken out of a nine...which is there because I borrowed...and this equals a nine...then to the hundreds...very easy...l guess...a zero out of a zero is a zero...and the thousands...one out of a two equals a one...so...l think I finished...one thousand and ninety-eight...that’s it. APPENDIX 6 INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO STUDENTS Instructions On the following page there is a short passage. Please read the passage carefully in ten minutes or until you feel you understand it and you are able to answer some questions about it. You may do anything that helps you understand the passage like underlining, re—reading, etc. Please tell me when you feel you are ready for the next task. 94 95 Instructions Passage No. One Write what you think is an adequate summary of the WHOLE passage you have just read. Imagine that your summary is a preparation for an exam on the passage. Do not write an outline of the passage. Do not include your personal opinion in your summary. After I turn the tape recorder on, begin summarizing the passage and thinking aloud about your process of summarizing the passage. You will have (20) minutes to finish summarizing. When you finish summarizing the passage, please tell me. 96 Instructions Passage No. One You are provided with two blank sheets of paper. Set your summary aside and do not write anything on it. Imagine that you have to reflect on or revise the summary you have just written to make it a better summary. Tell me when you feel that you are ready to revise. When I turn on the tape recorder, begin revising. As you revise, think aloud about the process you go through in revising your summary of the passage. You may read the passage again or your summary but do not write on it. Write your new revised summary on one of the blank sheets of paper You will have (15) minutes to finish revising your summary. Tell me when you finish your revision of your summary. When I turn off the tape recorder, wait for the next task. 97 Instructions Passage No. Two On the following two pages there is a short passage. Read the passage carefully in ten minutes or until you feel you understand it and that you are ready to answer some questions about it. You may do anything that helps you understand the passage, like underlining, rereading, etc. Tell me when you think you are ready for the next task. 98 Instructions Begin summarizing the passage you have just read. Write what you think is an adequate summary of the whole passage. Imagine that your summary is a preparation for an exam. Do not write an outline of the passage. Do not include your personal opinion in your summary. You have (10) minutes to finish summarizing. When you finish summarizing the passage, please tell me. This was the last task to do. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Upon a written request, you will obtain a written report of the evaluation of your answers. APPENDIX 7 CORRESPONDENCE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY OFFICE Of VICE PRLSIDENT FOR RESEARCH EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 48824-1046 AND DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL February 20, 1991 Mr. Ahmed Omer Alhaidari 15400 Spartan Village East Lansing, MI 48823 RE: HOW DO NON-NATIVE SPEAKERS OF ENGLISH SUMMARIZE ENGLISH PROSE AND HOW DO THEY REVISE THEIR SUMMARIES, IRB#90-615 Dear Mr. Alhaidari: The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review. I have reviewed the proposed research protocol and find that the rights and welfare of human subjects appear to be protected. You have approval to conduct the research. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval one month prior to February 6, 1992. Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by the UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to our attention. If we can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let us know. Sincerely, D E. Wright, Ph.D. Chair, UCRIHS DEW/ deo CC; Dr. Paul Munsell 1‘00? MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSYTY ENGLISH LANGUAGE CENTER EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ° 48824-1035 CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS January 22, 1991 Dr. David E. Wright, Chair UCRIHS Michigan State University Campus Dear Dr. Wright: I have reviewed Mr. Ahmed Omer Alhaidari's Application for Review of a Project Involving Human Subjects. In my opinion, this application fully and accurately reflects the research project being proposed. Also, in my opinion, this research poses no threat at all to the subjects involved. Indeed, the work is rather similar to effective classroom instruction and might prove to be beneficial to the subjects. I would appreciate your early consideration of this request so that Mr. Alhaidari can proceed with his project. Thank you. ”pfl,__\ Sincerely yours,’ I 7 ~ 'flflr 44f ;/€> Zdoa¢4Lc/C€// L/fiaul E. Munsell Dissertation Director 101 APPENDIX 8 CONSENT FORM Dear Participant: I am a Ph.D. student in the Department of English at Michigan State University. I am conducting a research for my dissertation on summarizing English prose by non-native speakers of English. Your participation is highly important to the completion of the study, but I also hope it will assist you in your writing and reading skills. You will be asked to read two English passages and summarize them. Your responses will be completely confidential, so please do not write your name anywhere on your responses. Participation in the study is voluntary and without penalty. You may choose not to participate in the study. Thank you very much for your time and effort in helping me complete this study. Sincerely, Ahmed Omer Alhaidari Name: Signature: IO2 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, A. (1980). The Use of Direct Instruction to Teach an Independent Study Method to Skill Deficient Fifth Grade Students. DA], 41, 1912A. Afflerbach, P. and Johnston, P. (1984). On The Use of Verbal Reports in Reading Research. Journal of Reading Behavior. 16, 307-321. Amuchie, Paul. (1983). Teaching Summarization Skills to Bilingual Elementary School Children. DAI. 44/05A, 1397. Anderson, J. (1980). Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. San Francisco: Freeman and Co. Arnold, M. (1942). The Comparative Effectiveness of Certain Study Techniques in the Field of History. Journal of Educational Research. 33, 449-457. Brown, A. and Day. J. (1983). Macrorules of Summarizing Texts: The Development of Expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 22,1-14. Brown, A., Day, J. and Jones, R. (1983). The Development of Plans for Summarizing Texts. Child Development. 54, 968-979. Carrell, P. ( 1983). Three Components of Background Knowledge in Reading Comprehension. TESOL Quarterly. 33, 183-202 Carrell, P. (1984). The Effects of Rhetorical Organization on ESL Readers. TESOL Quarterly. 18. 441—469. Carrell, P. and Eisterhold, J. (1983). Schema Theory and ESL Reading Pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly. 17, 553-573. Coady, J. (1979). ‘A Psycholinguistic Model of the ESL Reader” in Reading in a Second Language, R. Mackay, B. Barkman. and R. 103 104 Jordan (eds). Rowley, Mass: Newbury House Publishers, Inc., pp. 5-12. Chastain, K (1976). Readings in Developing Second Language Skills: Theory to Practice. Chicago: Rand and McNaIIy College Publishing. Doctorow, M.; Wittrock, M.; and Marks, C. (1978). Generative Processes in Reading Comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology. 70, 109-118. Erickson, K. and Simon, H (1980). Verbal Reports as Data. Psychological Review; 87, 215-251. Eskey, D. (1973). A Model Program for Teaching Advanced Reading to Students of English as a Foreign Language. Language Learning. 23, 169—189. Garner, R. (1982)(a). Efficient Text Summarization: Costs and Benefits. Journal of Educational Research. 75, 275-279. Garner, R. (1982)(b). Verbal-Report Data On Reading Strategies. Journal of Reading Behavior. 17, 159-167. Gaskill, W. (1978). Revising in Spanish and English as a Second Language: A Process-Oriented Study of Composition. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, UCLA. Germane, C. (1921). Value of Written Paragraph Summary. Journal of Educational Research. 3, 116-123. Hahn, Amos. (1983/84). Assessing and Extending Comprehension: Monitoring Strategies in the Classroom. Reading Horizon. 24, 231- 237. Hare, V. and Borchardt, K. (1984). Direct lnsruction of Summarization Skills. Reading Research Quarterly. 20, 67-78. Johnson, N. (1978). A Structural Analysis of the Development of Story Recall and Summarization. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Johnston, P. and Afflerbach, P. (1983). The Construction of Main Idea in Reading Comprehension. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX. Tait ' 7'10 ," sjflfgufiflehli =1". 4 . - 105 Kaplan, R. (1972). Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter-Cultural Education. In Readings on English as a Second Language by Kenneth Craft. Cambridge, Mass: Winthrop Publishers, Inc., pp. 245-262. Kavale, K. and Schreiner, R. (1979). The Reading Processes of Above Average and Average Readers: A Comparison of the Use of Reasoning Strategies in Responding to Standardized Comprehension Measures. Reading Research Quarterly. 15, 102— 128. Kintsch, W. and Van Dijk, T. (1978). Toward A Model of Text Comprehension and Production. Psychological Review. 85, 363- 394. LaBerge, D. and Samuels, S. (1974). Toward a Theory of Automatic Information Processing in Reading. Cognitive Psychology. 6, 293- 323. Linden, M. and Wittrock, M. (1981). The Teaching of Reading Comprehension According to the Model of Generative Learning. Reading Research Quarterly. 17, 44—57. Meyer, Bonnie. (1979). Organizational Patterns in Prose and Their Use in Reading. In Reading Research: Studies and Application. Michael Kamil and Alden Moe (eds.), 109—117. Clemson, S. Carolina: National Reading Conference. Meyer, Bonnie. (1982). Reading Research and the Composition Teacher: the Importance of Plans. College Composition and Communication. 33, 37—49. Murray, D. (1978). Internal Revision: A Process of Discovery. In C. Cooper and L. Odell (Eds). Research On Composing (pp. 85103), Urbana, IL: NCTE. Reder, L. and Anderson, J. (1980). A Comparison of Texts and Their Summaries: Memorial Consequences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 19, 121-134. Riley, P. (1975). Improving Reading Comprehension. The Art of TESOL, Part II, 198-200. Rinehart, 5.; Stahl, 8.; and Erickson, |. (1986). Some Effects of Summarization Training on Reading. Reading Research Quarterly. 2 1, 422-438. 106 Sommers, N. (1980). Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers. College Composition and Communication. 3 1, 148-156. Stallard, C. (1974). An Analysis of the Writing Behavior of Good Student Writers. Research in the Teaching of English. 8, 206-218. Stordahl, K. and Christenson, C. (1956). The Effects of Study Techniques on Comprehension and Retention. Journal of Educational Research. 49, 561-570. \Mnograd, P. (1984). Strategic Difficulties in Summarizing Texts. Reading Research Quarterly. 19, 404-425. Zamel, V. (1983). The Composing Process of Advanced ESL Students: Six Case Studies. TESOL Quarterly. 17, 165-187. ' upwards? visits 1.. - '---_.‘-.1.3 an; ,.- ---.. .-- . . .. _ r~ MICHIGAN STQTE UNIV, LIBRQRIES . Ill ‘11 llllll 1 31293007864402 . ”ruin”... um...- Fill: In p- v41.‘ 1 .4 .. 4