The Impact of Sequence Map, Answering Question, and 3-2-1 Techniques on EFL Learners’ Summary Writing Ability

Document Type: Research Paper


University of Qom


Considering the challenges inherent in learning and teaching of summary writing in EFL/ ESL settings, it is crucial to look into various instructional techniques thoroughly. This study investigated the relative effectiveness of three summary writing techniques: Sequence map, answering question, and 3-2-1 technique. To this end, 60 language learners from an English language institute in Ahvaz participated in the study. Before implementing the instructional techniques, a pre-test was administered to gauge the participants' fundamental knowledge of L2 summary writing. Three experimental groups were instructed through the already-mentioned techniques for ten weeks while the control group was given no such treatment. Finally, a post-test was administered to ascertain the effectiveness of such techniques in improving EFL learners' summary writing. The TOEFL-iBT scoring rubric was adopted to score the summaries holistically.  Paired sample t-test and ANOVA were run to analyze the data. The findings revealed that the sequence map group outperformed the other three groups in terms of the written summaries. The study further implies that the employment of graphical or spatial representation of textual concepts reduces the complexity and ambiguity of the presented information.


Alsamadani, H. (2011). The effects of the 3-2-1 reading strategy on EFL reading comprehension. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 184-191.DOI: 10.5539/elt.v4n3p184

Anggrainy, S., Diem, C., Vianty, M. & Sugandi, B. (2016). The effect of graphic organizers, guided writing strategies, and reading levels on the writing achievement of the fourth-semester students of Pgmi program at Iain Raden Intan Lampung. Sirwijaya University Learning and Education International Conference, 2(1), 1029-1052.

Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F. & Osborn, J. (2003). Kindergarten through to grade 3: put reading first: the research building blocks of reading instruction: kindergarten to grade 3. Washington: National Institute for Literacy.

Ausubel, D. F. (1978). Cognitive factors in learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Baba, K. (2009). Aspects of lexical proficiency in writing summaries in a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(3), 191–208. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.003

Baxendale, B. (2003). Consistent, coherent, creative: The 3Cs of graphic organizers. Council for Exceptional Children, 36(3), 46-53. DOI: 10.1177/004005990303500307

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd Ed.). New York: Longman.

Chen, Y. S. & Su, S. W. (2012). A genre-based approach to teaching EFL summary writing. ELT Journal, 66(2), 184-192. DOI: 10.1093/elt/ccr061

Choy, S. & Lee, M. (2012). Effects of teaching paraphrasing skills to students learning summary writing in ESL. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 77-89. DOI: 10.22329/JTL.V8I2.3145

Conner, J. (2006). Instructional reading strategy: DR-TA (Directed Reading Thinking Activity). Retrieved from

Dell'Olio, J. M. & Donk, T. (2007). Advance Organizers. In Models of teaching: Connecting student learning with standards. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publication.

Ellis, E. (2004). Q&A: What is the big deal with graphic organizers?. Retrieved from Masterminds Publishing, LLC Web site:

Ellis, E., & Howard, P. (2005). Graphic organizers: Power tools for teaching students with learning disabilities. Retrieved from

Enright, M. K., Grabe, W., Koda, K., Mosenthal, P. Mulcahy-Ernt, P., & Schedl, M.A. (2000). TOEFL 2000 reading framework: A working paper. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.

Franzke, M., Kintsch, E., Caccamise, D., Johnson, N., Dooley, S. (2005). Summary Street: Computer support for comprehension and writing.  Journal Educational Computing Research, 33(1), 53 – 80. DOI: 10.2190/DH8F-QJWM-J457-FQVB

Friend, R. (2001). Effects of strategy instruction on summary writing of college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(1), 3-24. DOI:10.1006/ceps.1999.1022  

Grabe, W. & Jiang, X. (2007). Graphic organizers in reading instruction: Research findings and issues. Reading in a Foreign Language, 19(1), 34-55. 

Graham, S. & Perin, D, (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476.

Hardy, T. (2000). Far from the madding crowd. Oxford, Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press.

Harris, K. R. & Graham, S. (2005). Writing better: Teaching writing process and self-regulation to students with learning problems. Baltimore, Maryland: Brookes.

Harris, K., Graham, S., & Mason, L. (2003). Self-regulated strategy development in the classroom: Part of a balanced approach to writing instruction for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35, 1-16.

Hemmati, F., & Bemani, S. (2013). Comparing the effect of summarizing, question-answer relationship, and syntactic structure identification on the reading comprehension of Iranian EFL students. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 2, 151-156. Retrieved from

Hoffmann, K. F. (2010). The impact of graphic organizer and meta-cognitive monitoring instruction on expository science text comprehension in fifth-grade students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). North Carolina State University, Raleigh.

Jensen, M. (2010). Improving reading comprehension of junior division students as the teacher-librarian: An action research study. Retrieved from

Keck, C. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: A comparison of L1 and L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(4), 261–278.

Kim, S. (2001). Characteristics of EFL readers’ summary writing: A study with Korean university students. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 569-581. DOI: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2001.tb02104.x

Lee, L. (2010). Exploring wiki-mediated collaborative writing: A case study in an elementary Spanish course. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 260-276. Retrieved from

Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2005). A focus on comprehension.  Honolulu:  Pacific Resources for education and learning.  Retrieved from

Lin, O. P. & Maroof, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in summary writing: Student perceptions and problems. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 599-606. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.131

Marlini, L. (2015). Teaching reading comprehension by using 3-2-1 strategy to the tenth-grade students of Sma Ethika Palembang Edukasi.  Journal Pendidikan Dan Pengajaran, 2(2), 159-172. Retrieved from

McDonough, K., Crawford, W.J., & De Vleeschauwer, J., (2014). Summary writing in a Thai EFL university context. Journal of Second Language Writing, 24, 20–32. DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2014.03.001

McElroy, L. & Coughlin, C. (2010). The other side of the story: Using graphic organizers as cognitive learning tools to teach students to construct effective counter-analysis. University of Baltimore Law Review, 39, 227–253.

Melton, J. (2003). Summarizing strategies strengthen learning. Retrieved from

Mohammad Hosseinpur, R. (2015). The impact of teaching summarizing on EFL learners’ microgenetic development of summary writing. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 7(2), 69-92. DOI: 10.22099/JTLS.2015.3531

Okebukola, F. & Owolabi, T. (2007). The efficacy of question-answer-relationships (QAR) on students’ achievement and conceptual change in science. The International Journal of Learning, 14 (5) 173-178.

Otero, R. C. (2008). Summary of integration information processes form multiple documents. Retrieved from

Peng, R. G. S., Hoon, T. L., Khoo, S. F., & Joseph, I. M. (2007). The impact of question-answer relationships on reading comprehension. Retrieved from

Preszler, J. (2006). More strategy to guide learning. Rapid City BHSSC 1925: Plaza Boulevard.

Quick Oxford Placement Test (2001). Quick placement test. London: Oxford University Press and the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate.

Raphael, T. (1986). Teaching question-answer relationships revisited. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 516-522. DOI: 10.2307/20199149

Raphael, T. E., & Au, K. (2005). QAR: Enhancing comprehension and test-taking across grades and content areas. The Reading Teacher, 59(3), 206-221. DOI: 10.2307/20204340

Rini, K., Sada, C. & Salma, U. (2014). Using the 3-2-1 strategy in reading comprehension to improve students' involvement in active learning. Journal Pendidikan Dan Pembelajaran, 3(10), 1-14.

Robinson, D. H., Corliss, S. B., Bush, A. M., Bena, S. J., & Tomberlin, T. (2006). Optimal presentation of graphic organizers and text: A case for large bites?. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51 (4), 25-41. DOI: 10.1007/bf02504542

Stafford, T. (2012). The effect of question-answer relationships on ninth-grade students' ability to accurately answer comprehension questions. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Stull, A. T. & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 808-820. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.808

Tayib, A. (2015). The effect of using graphic organizers on writing: A case study of preparatory college students at Umm-Al-Qura University. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, 3(1), 15-36.

Wade-Stein, D., & Kintsch, E. (2004). Summary street: interactive computer support for writing. Cognition & Instruction, 22, 333–362. DOI: 10.1207/s1532690xci2203_3 

Wichadee, S. (2013). Improving students’ summary writing ability through collaboration: A comparison between online wiki group and conventional face-to-face group. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(13), 107-116.

Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., Lauer, K. D., Stafford, K. B., DeSisto, L. A., & deCani, J. S. (2005). Expository text comprehension in the primary grade classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 538-550. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.538

Zygouris-Coe, V., Wiggins, M. B., & Smith, L.H. (2004). Engaging students with text: The 3-2-1 strategy. The Reading Teacher, 58(4), 381–384. DOI:10.1598/rt.58.4.8