Chapter+11+Summarizing+and+Synthesizing

Summarizing and Synthesizing Information: The Evolution of Thought
Pages 179 - 202 photo: Zoë Hagerman

In this chapter, Harvey and Goudvis explain the difference between summarizing and synthesizing. They say, "When we summarize information during reading, we pull out the most important information and put it in our own words to remember it. Each bit of information we encounter adds a piece to the construction of meaning" (p. 179). They go on to explain their view of synthesis, "Sometimes, when we synthesize, we add to our store of knowledge and reinforce what we already know. Other times, we merge new information with existing knowledge to understand a new perspective, a new line of thinking, or even an original idea" (p. 179).

Summarizing and synthesizing are similar in that they require students to bring together information but synthesis, as Harvey and Goudvis also emphasize, relies heavily on the ability to make connections to background knowledge. "When readers synthesize, they use a variety of strategies to build and enhance understanding. They summarize the information, listen to their inner voice, and merge their thinking so that the information makes sense and is meaningful to them. They connect the new to the known, they ask questions, they pick out the most important information -- all of these strategies intersect to allow us to synthesize information and use it" (p. 180).

__Professional References to Extend Your Learning__
Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., Tackett, K. K. & Schnakenberg, J. W., (2009). Comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers: A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading. //Review of Educational Research, 79//, 262-300. doi:10.3102/0034654308325998 [[|Abstract]]
 * This meta-analysis summarizes the effects from a broad range of studies to determine which interventions seem to work best for older (grades 6-12) struggling readers. We provide this reference because it is a well-conducted meta-analysis that provides real insight into the methods that have been found to support children who, too often, are left to their own devices to decipher disciplinary texts across middle- and high-school curricula. In one study (Alfassi, 1998) (see pages 288-289) summarizing, when used in conjunction with previewing, clarifying and generating questions (Brown & Palincsar, 1984), resulted in significant comprehension gains for struggling readers.
 * Another study reported in this meta-analysis (Moore & Scevak, 1995), focused on teaching students to use text structure and features to summarize expository text. In this case, no significant effects were reported (effect size = –0.57 to 0.07).

Kucan, L., & Beck, I. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction and social interaction. //Review of Educational Research, 67//, 271-299. doi: 10.3102/00346543067003271 [[|Abstract]]
 * Once again, summarizing is not the central focus of this article. However, Kucan and Beck do explain how teachers can use thinking aloud to model summarizing for their students. This article also refers to Reciprocal Teaching (Brown & Palincsar, 1984), a method of collaborative learning that integrates summarizing (see page x). Kucan and Beck also summarize an article by Bereiter & Bird (1985) that found much better learning when thinking aloud and explanations were used to teach specific reading strategies. This is an important finding.

__Tech Tips to Support Summarizing and Synthesis Strategies__
[|Diigo.com]: Harvey and Goudvis recommend paraphrasing (p. 182) as a strategy that kids can use to help them summarize expository texts. [|Diigo.com] is a free, web-based bookmarking tool that allows Internet readers to highlight important ideas, and insert notes and comments directly onto a webpage which, amazingly, can then be stored -- notes and all -- for later reference and shared with others. Students can therefore visit a content-related website, bookmark it to Diigo, and insert their own paraphrased notes directly onto the page (much like the Comments function in Word). (Imagine the possibilities here!) Using Diigo, your students could highlight important passages, paraphrase them, summarize main ideas, and collaborate with one another to build a richer understanding of any text. Plus, all of their webpages are kept in their Diigo library for ready access at any time. There are also Diigo apps for iPad, iPhone and Android.

[|Google Docs:] Many of the activities that Harvey and Goudvis recommend in this chapter can easily transfer to web-based contexts. For instance, "comparing and contrasting" in science and social studies" or "summarizing the content and adding personal response" (p. 185) could easily work by using shared Google Docs. Students could easily set up compare and contrast note structures in a doc, record their thoughts and SHARE with others or LINK to a digital portfolio. They could write in a doc just as they would a journal. As the teacher, you could then read their summary and use the comments function to provide feedback directly in the shared document. Imagine how much more powerful "synthesizing to access content" (pp. 192-195) would be if teacher and students built their content notes together in a shared document. This could be done synchronously by projecting the document with a digital projector, with all students editing at the same time, and/or asynchronously over a period of time. When students use paper, where does their thinking go when they're done with the activity? Is it saved in a digital portfolio as evidence of their year-long learning trajectory? Is it shared with their peers? Can you go back to it when you're writing report card comments for review?

Video Resources [|Summarizing]by using the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model