Enrich College English Teacher’s Knowledge of Summarizing Strategies Instruction and Expository Text Comprehension with Kintsch’s Reading Model
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.16.564Keywords:
Teacher Knowledge, Expository text, Summarization, Summarizing strategies instruction, Kintsch’s CI modelAbstract
College English teachers’ knowledge of summarizing strategies instruction with expository text can be enhanced by their understanding of Kintsch’s Construction-Integration (CI) model. The argument is based on the exploration of how Kintsch’s CI model, being a reading model, could serve as a theoretical base to explain the comprehension process of expository text, and the functioning process of summarization. Rooted in cognitive theories, Kintsch’s reading model consists of two reading phases (i.e., a construction phase and an integration phase) that make it suitable to explain readers’ text comprehension process when they come across unfamiliar reading material, which is exactly the case when post-secondary students read to learn from content area textbooks mostly written in the genre of expository text. Moreover, the generation of three levels of text representation (i.e., surface structure, textbase and situation model) conveyed in this model reveal what reading strategies can be derived from this model and how one type of the reading strategies, namely, macrostructure strategies, is closely related to summarization. This relatedness is supported by researchers’ studies on and educators’ practice of summarization instruction to college students. Kintsch’s CI model is, thus, an appropriate reading model for college English teachers to add to their knowledge base to facilitate their teaching of summarizing strategies with expository text at the tertiary level.References
National Center for Research on Teacher Education (1988). Teacher education and learning to teach: A research agenda. Journal of Teacher Education, 32(6), 27-32.
. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational View, 57, 1-22.
. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press, Inc.
. Kintsch, W. (2004). The Construction-Integration model of text comprehension and its implication. In R. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed. ; pp. 1270-1362). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A Construction-Integration Model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
. van Dijk, T. A. (1980). Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction, and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
. Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49, 294-303.
. Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
. Kintsch, W. (1992). How readers construct situation models for stories: The role of syntactic cues and causal inferences. In A. F. Healy, S. M. Kosslyn, & R. M. Shiffrin (Eds.), From learning theory to connectionist theory: Essays in honor of William K. Estes (Vol. II, pp.261-278). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
. Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarization texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14.
. Friend, R. (2000). Teaching summarization as a content area reading strategy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44, 320-329.
. Reynolds, R. E., Sinatra, G. M., & Jetton, T. L. (1996). Views of knowledge acquisition and representation: A continuum from experience centered to mind centered. Educational Psychology, 31, 93-104.
. Morton, E. V., & Hosey, J. G. (1984). Reading and studying for success. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess International Group.
. Garner, R., Gillingham, M. G., & White, S. (1989). Effects of “seductive details” on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and Instruction, 6 (1), 41-57.
. Dymock, S. J. (1998). A comparison study of the effects of text structure training, reading practice, and guided reading on reading comprehension. In T. Shanahan & F. V. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), 47th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 90-102). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
. Dymock, S. J., & Nicholson, T. (1999). Reading comprehension: What is it? How do you teach it? Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council of Educational Research.
. Pearson, P. D., & Duke, N. K. (2002). Comprehension instruction in the primary grades. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 247-258). New York: Guilford.
. Dymock, S. J. (2005). Teaching expository text structure awareness. The Reading Teacher, 59, 177-181.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors wishing to include figures, tables, or text passages that have already been published elsewhere are required to obtain permission from the copyright owner(s) for both the print and online format and to include evidence that such permission has been granted when submitting their papers. Any material received without such evidence will be assumed to originate from the authors.