Adolescent discourse summarization (Lundine et al., 2018)

Purpose: Summarizing expository passages is a critical academic skill that is understudied in language research. The purpose of this study was to compare the quality of verbal summaries produced by adolescents for 3 different discourse types and to determine whether a composite measure of cognitive skill or a test of expressive syntax predicted their performance.Method: Fifty adolescents listened to, and then verbally summarized, 1 narrative and 2 expository lectures (compare–contrast and cause–effect). They also participated in testing that targeted expressive syntax and 5 cognitive subdomains.Results: Summary quality scores were significantly different across discourse types, with a medium effect size. Analyse revealed significantly higher summary quality scores for cause–effect than compare–contrast summaries. Although the composite cognitive measure contributed significantly to the prediction of quality scores for both types of expository summaries, the expressive syntax score only contributed significantly to the quality scores for narrative summaries.Conclusions: These results support previous research indicating that type of expository discourse may impact student performance. These results also show, for the first time, that cognition may play a predictive role in determining summary quality for expository but not narrative passages in this population. In addition, despite the more complex syntax commonly associated with exposition versus narratives, an expressive syntax score was only predictive of performance on narrative summaries. These findings provide new information, questions, and directions for future research for those who study academic discourse and for professionals who must identify and manage the problems of students struggling with different types of academic discourse.Supplemental Material S1. Descriptive block-level U.S. Census values for participants and rotated structure matrix for principal component analysis with Varimax rotation of socioeconomic status (SES) variables.Supplemental Material S2. Descriptions of compare–contrast, cause–effect, and narrative lectures. Supplemental Material S3. Tests used from the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery.Supplemental Material S4. Pearson correlations for Expressive Syntax score, MLCU, and SI for compare–contrast, cause–effect, and narrative summaries (N = 50).Supplemental Material S5. Pearson correlations for total summarization quality scores for compare–contrast, cause–effect, and narrative lectures, age, socioeconomic status (SES) factors, cognitive composite score, and expressive syntax score (N = 48).Lundine, J. P., Harnish, S. M., McCauley, R. J., Blackett, D. S., Zezinka, A., Chen, W., & Fox, R. A. (2018). Adolescent summaries of narrative and expository discourse: Differences and predictors. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49, 551–568. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-17-0105

目的：概述说明性段落是一项至关重要的学术技能，然而在语言研究中却鲜有研究涉及。本研究旨在比较青少年针对三种不同话语类型产生的口头概述质量，并探究认知技能的综合度量或表达句法的测试是否能够预测其表现。方法：五十名青少年听取了1篇叙事性讲座和2篇说明性讲座（对比-对照和因果-效应），随后进行了口头概述。他们还参与了针对表达句法和5个认知子领域的测试。结果：概述质量评分在不同话语类型之间存在显著差异，中等效应量。分析表明，因果-效应概述的质量评分显著高于对比-对照概述。尽管综合认知度量对两种说明性概述质量评分的预测均有显著贡献，但表达句法评分仅对叙事性概述的质量评分有显著贡献。结论：这些结果支持了先前的研究，表明说明性话语的类型可能影响学生的表现。这些结果还首次表明，认知在这一人群中可能对确定说明性而非叙事性段落概述质量具有预测作用。此外，尽管说明性文本通常与比叙事性文本更为复杂的句法相关联，但表达句法评分仅对叙事性概述的表现具有预测性。这些发现为研究学术话语以及必须识别和管理不同类型学术话语问题学生的专业人士提供了新的信息、疑问和未来研究方向。补充材料S1：描述性块级美国人口普查值和针对社会经济地位（SES）变量的Varimax旋转主成分分析旋转结构矩阵。补充材料S2：对比-对照、因果-效应和叙事讲座的描述。补充材料S3：从美国国家卫生研究院工具箱认知电池中使用的测试。补充材料S4：对比-对照、因果-效应和叙事概述的表达句法评分、MLCU和SI的皮尔逊相关系数（N=50）。补充材料S5：对比-对照、因果-效应和叙事讲座的总概述质量评分、年龄、社会经济地位（SES）因素、认知综合评分和表达句法评分的皮尔逊相关系数（N=48）。Lundine, J. P., Harnish, S. M., McCauley, R. J., Blackett, D. S., Zezinka, A., Chen, W., & Fox, R. A. (2018). 青少年对叙事和说明性话语的概述：差异与预测。语言、言语和听觉学校服务，49，551–568. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-17-0105