Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to determine how collaborative practice utilizing different instructional strategies (Strategy A-Collaborative Traditional, Strategy B-Collaborative GIST Summary Writing, and Strategy C-Collaborative GIST Summary Writing with Technology) would affect students’ individual performance on summary writing. The technology piece was dropped after Lesson One due to insufficient time for technology use and student frustration. Thus, Group C followed the same format as Group B. A mixed-methods explanatory design was utilized in this study. Students’ overall scores and scores on each rubric element were collected and analyzed for individual pre-, mid-, and post-assessments to determine if there were any differences among groups. Student summaries, teacher journals, and teacher and student interviews were collected to examine factors affecting the differences in student assessment scores, and teacher and student perceptions about student performance on collaborative GIST summary writing. MANCOVA tests were used to analyze the quantitative data and content analyses were used to analyze the qualitative data. The findings showed that although no significant differences were found in the post-assessment scores between the collaborative traditional summarization group (A) and the collaborative GIST groups (B and C), there was still some evidence showing the effectiveness of the GIST strategy. The evidence included (a) a slight tendency toward significant differences in the post-assessment scores between Groups A and B, and Groups A and C, (b) Group C’s post-assessment score was the highest, out-performed Groups A and B on almost every rubric element, (c) a significant difference between Groups A and B on paraphrasing, and (d) a slight tendency toward significant differences between Groups A and C on focus and conventions. The pattern found in the content analysis of student summaries also supported the quantitative results. Although the GIST strategy had a positive impact on collaborative summary writing (e.g., helping students build on prior knowledge and improve their scores on summary writing), the following issues had to be addressed to help students use it: a) giving more time to complete the lessons, b) increasing student interests in the texts, c) increasing the GIST word limit, and d) offering extra guidance or feedback strategy. The findings also showed that collaboration did have a positive impact on students’ summary writing. Both teachers and students believed that collaborative summary practice was helpful. However, it might benefit low achievers more. In addition, technology used in this study did not really help with summary writing. Both teacher and students reported negative experiences with it. More time and extra guidance should be given when integrating technology into summary writing instructions.