Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine whether, as a result of collaborative-online reading of a chapter from a book of an academic nature, the quality of the collaborative summary that the readers would write would be higher than that written by readers who would both read the same chapter and write a summary in a face-to-face setting. In this study we examined the difference between the summaries written by participants from two groups, each group was divided into subgroups of 3 participants who had read collaboratively a chapter of a book, and collaborated on writing a summary. The participants of the experimental group read the chapter as it appeared in a website for collaborative reading built especially for this study and the participants were asked to summarize the chapter on a shared online digital document. The participants of the control group were asked to read the chapter face-to-face and to collaboratively summarize it in hand writing. The quality of the summaries was evaluated with a tool developed by Rivard (2001). This tool was developed to measure the quality of the summaries. In our study the main and secondary ideas that were supposed to be included in the participants’ summaries were identified by three literature teachers using ten different criteria and the summaries were analyzed by two other judges based on these criteria. The findings indicated that there were significant differences in the majority of the writing indicators being measured with the tool. The findings indicated that collaborative-online reading and writing produce a summary of a higher quality than one read and hand written collaboratively face-to-face.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Allenby, B., & Sarewitz, D. (2011). The Techno-Human Condition. Boston: MIT Press.
Cox, P. L., Bobrowski, P. E., & Maher, L. (2003). Teaching first year business students to summarize: Abstract writing assignment (my favorite assignment). Business Communication Quarterly, 66(4), 36–54.
Garner, R. (1982). Efficient text summarization: Costs and benefits. Journal of Education Research, 75, 275–79.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2003). Emerging technologies, blogs, and wikis: Environments for online collaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 12–16.
Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The Effect of computers on student learning: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(1), 1–24.
Golder, S. A. (2005). Webbed footnotes: Collaborative annotation on the web. Master of science in media arts and sciences. School of Architecture and Planning, Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Hart, E. R., & Speece, D. L. (1998). Reciprocal teaching goes to college: Effects for postsecondary students at risk for academic failure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 670–681.
Hill, M. (1991). Writing summaries promote thinking and learning across the curriculum – why are they so difficult to write. Journal of Reading, 34(7), 536–540.
Katims, D. S., & Harmon, J. M. (2000). Strategic instruction in middle school social studies: Enhancing academic and literary outcomes for at-risk students. Intervention in School and Clinic, 35(5), 280–289.
Kiili, C. (2013). Argument graph as a tool for promoting collaborative online reading. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 248–259.
Kiili, C., Laurinen, L., Marttunen, M., & Leu, D. J. (2012). Working on understanding during collaborative online reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(4), 448–483.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text ccomprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.
Klingner, J., & Vaughn, S. (1998). Using collaborative strategic reading. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(6), 32–37.
Leu, D. J., Jr. (1996). Sarah’s secret: Social aspects of literacy and learning in a digital information age. The Reading Teacher, 50, 162–165.
Leu, D. J., Jr., & Kinzer, C. K. (2000). The convergence of literacy instruction with networked technologies for information and communication. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 108–127.
MacGinitie, W. H., & MacGinitie, R. K. (1989). Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (3rd ed.) Chicago: Riverside.
Palinscsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). The reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
Passig, D., & Schwartz, G. (2007). Collaborative writing: Online vs. Frontal. International. Journal on E-Learning, 6(3), 395–412.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002) Reading for understanding: Towards an R&D program in reading comprehension. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1465.pdf last accessed December 2013.
Reinking, D., McKenna, M. C., Labbo, L. D., & Kieffer, R. F. (Eds.). (1998). Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world. Erlbaum Press. New Jersey: Mahwah.
Rivard, L. P. (2001). Summary writing: A multi-grade study of French-immersion and Francophone secondary students. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 14, 171–86.
Siekmann, S. (2004). Mediational tool use and strategic behaviors during collaborative-online reading: A microgenetic case study of beginning students of German (A PhD dissertation submitted to the Department of Secondary Education, College of Education, Department of World Language Education. College of Arts and Sciences). Tampa: University of South Florida.
Standish, L. G. (2005). The effects of collaborative strategic reading and direct instruction in persuasion on sixth-grade students’ persuasive writing and attitudes. PhD dissertation submitted to the graduate school of the University of Maryland. Maryland: College Park.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. International Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.
Turkle, S. (2012). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from ourselves. NY: Basic Books.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Passig, D., Maidel-Kravetsky, J. The impact of collaborative online reading on summarizing skills. Educ Inf Technol 21, 531–543 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9337-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9337-5