Upload
borgek11
View
107
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
What is the Effect of Reciprocal Teaching on Eighth Grade Students’ Reading Comprehension and Attitudes Toward Reading?
Citation preview
1Running Head: IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
The Impact of Reciprocal Teaching:
What is the Effect of Reciprocal Teaching on Eighth Grade Students’
Reading Comprehension and Attitudes Toward Reading?
Kristen N. Borge
East Carolina University
2IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of reciprocal teaching on eighth grade
students’ reading comprehension and attitudes about reading. The sample included 48 eighth
grade students in two groups taught by the researcher. A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest
design was used, and data were collected through a reading comprehension assessment and an
adolescent attitudinal survey, as well as a researcher log. The control group received traditional,
whole-class reading instruction, and the intervention group was taught using the reciprocal
teaching method. Pre and posttest scores on the reading comprehension assessment indicated no
significant difference between the control and intervention groups. However, pre and post-survey
scores demonstrated reciprocal teaching had a positive effect on the attitude about reading of the
intervention group.
Keywords: reading comprehension, reciprocal teaching, adolescents, middle school,
collaborative learning
3IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
The Impact of Reciprocal Teaching: What is the Effect of Reciprocal Teaching on Eighth Grade
Students’ Reading Comprehension and Attitudes Toward Reading?
All teachers want students to be able to read independently. However, while reading
comprehension is regularly assessed in school, explicit instruction in reading comprehension
strategies is not commonplace in many classrooms (Durkin, 1979). When compared to the
growth that students in other countries are achieving, Snow (2002) found students in the United
States are not attaining comparable gains in reading comprehension. Nevertheless,
comprehension is critical for successful reading, and society is requiring higher levels of literacy
for high school graduates than in the past (Ogle & Lang, 2011). Experts consider making
meaning from text the most important thing when it comes to reading (Harvey & Goudvis,
2007). One method for promoting reading achievement is reciprocal teaching, a research-based
instructional technique that supports the use of comprehension strategies. Reciprocal teaching
engages students in deeper reading and peer-to-peer conversations about the text through the use
of four reading comprehension strategies: predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing.
Therefore, the purpose of this research project was to describe the impact of reciprocal
teaching as a means for teaching reading comprehension skills to eighth grade students.
Specifically, this study aimed to answer the question, “What is the effect of reciprocal teaching
on eighth grade students’ reading comprehension and attitudes toward reading?” In order to
answer this question, a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design was used to compare reading
comprehension scores and reading attitudinal survey responses before and after an eight-week
treatment. The expected outcome was that those students taught using the reciprocal teaching
model would make gains in comprehension when compared to those students taught using
traditional, whole-class instruction.
4IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
Reciprocal Teaching
Pardo (2004) defines comprehension as the process in which readers make meaning by
interacting with text through prior knowledge, information in the text, and the stance the reader
takes in relation to the content. Although reading comprehension is commonly assessed in
classrooms, research has demonstrated that little attention is paid to comprehension instruction
(Durkin, 1979). In an observational study of third through sixth grade social studies classrooms,
Durkin (1979) discovered that almost no instruction in reading comprehension occurred, despite
the complexity of the text students were required to read. More recent research has demonstrated
that not much has changed in the past three decades (Snow, 2002). Moreover, even though
comprehension training was practically nonexistent, it was frequently assessed through questions
asked by the teacher. Harvey and Goudvis (2007) suggest that when students are explicitly
taught comprehension-fostering skills, not only do students learn to apply strategies across
disciplines, but general comprehension improves as well.
Palincsar and Brown (1984) developed the reciprocal teaching technique as a method to
teach readers to monitor their own comprehension and in turn develop more sophisticated
interactions with text. The method encourages students to engage with the text by employing
four comprehension-monitoring strategies: predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing
(Palincsar & Brown, 1984). By explicitly teaching students how to appropriately utilize each
strategy before, during, and after reading, dialogue about pertinent text features is then
supported, gradually making students strategy-use a student responsibility (Stricklin, 2011).
What Palincsar and Brown (1984) discovered in their initial study, which aimed to improve
students’ abilities to learn from text, was that regular practice of reciprocal teaching led to
5IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
improvement in the quality of summaries and student-generated questions, as well as growth on
tests of comprehension.
Harvey and Goudvis (2007) offer several reasons that students have difficulty
understanding what they read. In some cases, students’ lack of comprehension has to do with
level of interest. In other instances, a lack of background knowledge interferes with student
understanding or students simply lose focus and do not realize that they are not thinking about
the words and ideas in the text (Harvey & Goudvis, 2007). However, research suggests that
reciprocal teaching can counteract issues with comprehension by teaching students to monitor
their understanding strategically (Choo, Eng, & Ahmad, 2011; Williams, 2010; Stricklin, 2011;
Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Strategic reading enriches learning and understanding, and educators
should consider strategic readers “proficient readers who have a plan of action that moves them
towards their goal or purpose for reading” (Harvey & Goudvis, 2007, p. 23). Reciprocal teaching
creates strategic readers through explicit focus on specific comprehension strategies. In the pilot
study of reciprocal teaching, Palincsar and Brown (1984) developed a procedure in which a
teacher and students took turns leading a dialogue about sections of the text. After training in
each strategy, there was a shared responsibility for generating predictions, questions, and
summarizations, as well as for clarifying misleading or complex ideas (Palincsar & Brown,
1984). This method was compared to more typical teacher-led, whole-class instruction, and
results demonstrated that reciprocal teaching contributed to comprehension growth more than the
traditional method (Palincsar & Brown, 1984).
Impact of Reciprocal Teaching on Struggling Readers and Special Populations
Reciprocal teaching has shown effectiveness among struggling readers and students
learning English as a foreign language (Choo, Eng, & Ahmad, 2011; Slater & Horstman, 2002).
6IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
In a study designed to examine how reciprocal teaching could help low-proficiency students
improve their reading comprehension scores on the Malaysian University English Test, Choo,
Eng, and Ahmad (2011) found that after nine reading lessons over the course of a month, a
significant difference in pre and posttest results indicated that reciprocal teaching strategies were
effective in helping students improve their reading comprehension scores. The researchers
attribute the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching to the group dynamic. Specifically, they state
that reciprocal teaching “encourages students to take a more active role in leading a group
dialogue, and helps to bring more meaning to the text at a personal and cognitive level” (Choo et
al., 2011, p. 140). Thus, the power of reciprocal teaching is not just in teaching students reading
strategies, but also in the interaction of the small groups. Through small-group instruction,
students are required to be active learners as opposed to passive listeners. With reciprocal
teaching, students also must take ownership of their strategy-use within their group.
Mastropieri, Scruggs, Mohler, Beranek, Spencer, Boon, and Talbott (2001) discovered
students identified as having serious reading difficulties demonstrated comprehension growth in
a peer tutoring program where reciprocal teaching was employed as the primary means for
reading instruction. Participants in the study included 24 middle school students with mild
disabilities, comprising 20 students with learning disabilities and four with “mild mental
retardation, as defined by state and federal criteria” (Mastropieri et al., 2001, p. 20). Prior to
implementing peer tutoring, all students participated in standardized reading tests, and results
were used to match students for random assignment to tutoring. The tutoring program was
implemented in the experimental group daily over five weeks during the regularly assigned 50-
minute English block. Students were taught reciprocal teaching strategies to use during tutoring
sessions. In the control group, students received traditional whole-class, teacher-centered
7IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
instruction. Data were gathered through comprehension tests, student interviews, and researcher
observations. On the comprehension tests, while there was no significant difference in the pretest
scores, students in the tutoring condition achieved an average of 81.8 percent correct compared
to 63.6 percent correct in the control group on the posttest. Moreover, in student interviews, 83
percent of students agreed that they liked the reciprocal teaching experience and 75 percent
expressed a desire to tutor in other subjects. Therefore, the student-centered instruction was
again a contributing factor to the success of the intervention. Expressly, reciprocal teaching is
effective because it provides students an opportunity to practice reading purposefully in small
groups where understanding can be extended through the insight of their peers, as well as the
focus on comprehension-fostering strategies.
Furthermore, in an examination of the National Assessment of Educational Progress’s
Reading Report Card, Slater and Horstman (2002) advocated for reciprocal teaching as the best
cognitive strategy intervention for students struggling academically in middle and high school.
The authors describe a model for using reciprocal teaching in which the student progresses from
a task where the teacher takes responsibility for students’ proficiency to one where the student
assumes full responsibility for their success with the task. According to the authors, in addition
to student-centered, small-group instruction, another driving force behind the effectiveness of
reciprocal teaching is this gradual release of control during which students learn to read
strategically (Slater & Horstman, 2002). Furthermore, this method ensures students are learning
within their zone of proximal development, or “the area between ‘the actual development level
of the child and the level of potential development’ (Vigotsky, 1978, pp. 85-86)” (Ostovar-
Namaghi & Shahhosseini, 2011, p. 1239). Teaching students within their zone of proximal
development is important because it encourages students to push themselves beyond their actual
8IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
developmental level in their learning, which has the ability to result in higher levels of
achievement growth.
Alfassi, Weiss, and Lifshitz (2009) also recommend using reciprocal teaching to support
reading comprehension in students with intellectual disabilities. In a study of the effectiveness of
strategy instruction as a means for fostering comprehension monitoring, reciprocal teaching
strategies were taught to students between the ages of 15 and 21 with mild to moderate
intellectual disabilities. Phase One of the study consisted of pretesting using the Ortar reading
test, two reading literacy assessment passages, and a strategy assessment for questioning and
summarization. Phase Two, the intervention phase, lasted 12 weeks, during which the
experimental group was exposed to reciprocal teaching methodology during two weekly 45-
minute sessions. The control group continued their regular curriculum of skill acquisition. Phase
Three occurred at the completion of the intervention period. All participants were again
administered the Ortar reading test, two reading literacy assessment passages, and the strategy
assessment. Analysis of data gathered after the intervention period showed “the experimental
group improved its performance from before to after the intervention on both comprehension
measures, whereas the control group did not improve its performance” (Alfassi, Weiss, &
Lifshitz, 2009, p. 299).
Research also demonstrates the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching in students not
identified as disabled or struggling and without limited English proficiency. Williams (2010)
found that the implementation of reciprocal teaching in her fourth-grade classroom gave many of
her students the vocabulary to confidently ask questions in class, in addition to monitor their own
comprehension of informational texts. According to Williams, reciprocal teaching reinforces the
practice of asking questions because two of the focus strategies, clarifying and questioning,
9IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
require students to do just that (Willams, 2010). Moreover, as students began to use strategies
more flexibly and with more confidence, they were able to use informational texts as a tool to
find answers to their own questions and to persuade other students about particular opinions
supported by the text. According to Harvey and Goudvis (2007), when readers have questions,
they are less likely to abandon a text. Awareness of question-generating strategies, as well as the
other strategies promoted by reciprocal teaching, provides students with metacognitive
recognition of their own comprehension (Meyer, 2010).
Overall, there are a number of factors that make reciprocal teaching conducive for all
students. Reciprocal teaching fosters a student-centered learning environment that places the
responsibility for strategic reading on the learner (Slater & Horstman, 2002). Additionally,
reciprocal teaching promotes learning within each student’s zone of proximal development,
which supports increased development and higher achievement (Ostovar-Namaghi &
Shahhosseini, 2011). Reciprocal teaching also reinforces good reading habits, such as asking
questions, and teaches reluctant students the vocabulary to do so confidently (Meyer, 2010). All
of these actions are sustained by the explicit focus on four reading strategies that encourage
deeper reading through dialogue about aspects of the text.
Impact of Collaborative Learning
An essential component of reciprocal teaching is the collaborative learning that occurs
when students work in groups. According to Igel and Urquhart (2012), “Humans are social
creatures and our brains are designed accordingly” (p. 16). Therefore, it stands to reason that
reciprocal teaching supports both social and cognitive development. Studies of brain imaging
have demonstrated that the amygdala, a portion of the brain associated with emotions, plays an
active role during learning (Igel & Urquhart, 2012). For many students, learning with others
10IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
attaches positive emotions to the experience, especially for those children who would otherwise
struggle in isolation (Igel & Urquhart, 2012).
Additionally, collaborative learning has also shown to have a positive effect on learning
outcomes. In a synthesis of 20 recently published studies on the impact of collaborative learning,
researchers at Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) determined that
highly structured collaborative learning accounted for an average 17 percentile-point gain in
student achievement (Igel & Urquhart, 2012). According to Meyer (2010), the collaborative
discussion fostered by reciprocal teaching is based on “the premise that group participation and
dialogue aids learning as well as promoting conceptual change” (p. 42). Furthermore, Freire
(1997) argues that critical thinking can only be generated through dialogue and that authentic
education is collaborative.
Implementing Reciprocal Teaching Strategies
When implementing reciprocal teaching, the goal is to scaffold students’ use of each
strategy, so that they can eventually employ them all independently. This begins with
introducing each strategy and its purpose and modeling how purposeful readers use each strategy
to support their understanding of a text. During a reciprocal teaching session, the teacher’s
responsibilities are to activate prior knowledge of words or ideas, facilitate strategy-use within
groups, and encourage students to reflect upon their reading and which strategy helped them the
most (Stricklin, 2011).
Predicting. With reciprocal teaching, students make predictions prior to reading and
check the accuracy of their predictions during reading (Stricklin, 2011). These predictions foster
motivation by helping students form a purpose for reading (Stricklin, 2011). Additionally,
research has demonstrated that when teachers use a systematic model for focusing on predictions
11IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
before reading, students’ comprehension of the text increases (Hansen, 1981). In a study of
methods intended to improve comprehension, Hansen (1981) found that asking students to use
previous experiences to predict events in a basal-reader story resulted in higher achievement on
comprehension questions when compared to students who did not engage in making predictions.
Clarifying. During reading, students should stop to clarify unknown words or confusing
ideas (Stricklin, 2011). When providing instruction in the strategy with reciprocal teaching,
students are invited to ask about anything that is not clear. The strategy also includes discussing
the type of text and the author’s purpose for writing (Stricklin, 2011). Clarifying is different from
questioning because the goal of clarifying is to explicate unfamiliar vocabulary and concepts
(Seymour & Osana, 2003). The purpose of questioning is to discover the main idea of the text.
Questioning. Harvey and Goudvis (2007) state, “Questions propel us forward and take us
deeper into reading” (p. 109), and research supports the idea that engaging students in generating
and answering their own questions results in a more comprehensive processing of the text
(Meyer, 2010). Furthermore, asking students to generate questions during and after reading is
believed to enhance recall because the technique requires students to focus on ideas they believe
are important (McCormick & Zutell, 2011). As with many reading comprehension strategies,
students must be taught how to generate questions in order for the skill to be effective. There are
many ways to help students learn how to generate questions, including teaching the difference
between thin and thick questions (questions that require limited information, as opposed to
questions that require elaboration), or teaching students question-answer relationships (Meyer,
2010).
Summarizing. Summarizing is a paraphrased retelling of a text (Harvey & Goudvis,
2007). It promotes comprehension, because in order to summarize, readers must be able to
12IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
extract the essential information from the text. With reciprocal teaching, students may
summarize a section or an entire passage (Stricklin, 2011). As they condense information into a
few important ideas or larger concepts, students may gain a fresh perspective or form an opinion
that leads to new insight (Harvey & Goudvis, 2007). One way to teach students summarization is
through retelling. The purpose is to provide a basic framework to help students begin to identify
important information in a text (Harvey & Goudvis, 2007).
Research consistently demonstrates the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching as a method
for teaching students to be strategic readers. Therefore, in order to improve the researcher’s
teaching practices and the reading comprehension abilities of students, the impact of reciprocal
teaching will be further investigated in this study. Specifically, the goal is to answer the question,
“What is the effect of reciprocal teaching on eighth grade students’ reading comprehension and
attitudes toward reading?” The following section will present the methodological details of this
study.
Methodology
In order to examine the influence of reciprocal teaching, a quasi-experimental pretest-
posttest design was employed. The study was approved by East Carolina University’s
Institutional Review Board on November 16, 2012 (Appendix A). Subjects were not randomly
assigned, because the researcher worked with two intact Language Arts classes. In order to
counteract the limitations this posed, two classes similar in size and grade point averages were
used. In this study, the independent variable is the type of reading instruction students received.
The dependent variables were reading comprehension and attitudes toward reading.
The independent variable, reading instructional method, was assigned two levels:
reciprocal teaching and traditional instruction. The group that received instruction characterized
13IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
by the reciprocal teaching model was taught the definition and purpose of the four
comprehension strategies, as well as how to address each one while working with their peers.
After that, students were divided into reading groups. Groups met between two and three times a
week. Typically, each student in the group was assigned a different strategy, and their role in the
group was to lead a dialogue about that strategy with regard to the text the class was reading that
day. Roles rotated for each text students read. The goal was for students to become proficient in
each skill and eventually make reading strategically habitual. At the traditional level, students in
the control group received reading instruction in a primarily whole-class, teacher-centered
structure. Rather than with the student-centered reciprocal teaching, reading responsibilities were
shared between the teacher and students, and discussions took place with the whole class. The
first dependent variable, reading comprehension, is operationally defined as a score on the
CASE21 assessment. The second dependent variable, student attitudes, was gauged through
responses on an adolescent attitudinal survey.
Participants and Setting
This study was conducted at a gifted and talented magnet middle school located in an
affluent suburban neighborhood in the Piedmont region of North Carolina. The school serves
1,017 students in grades six through eight. The school itself has been open since 1959, and it has
been a middle school since 1982. In that same year, the school received its magnet status.
Approximately 60 percent of the school’s students are Caucasian, 16 percent are African-
American, 10 percent are Hispanic-American, and 10 percent are Asian/Pacific Islander. Forty-
five percent of students are identified as academically or intellectually gifted, 16 percent of
students have disabilities, and 27 percent of students receive free or reduced lunch. Standardized
test scores from the 2011-2012 school year showed 76.8 percent of students were at or above
14IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
grade level in reading. Additionally, the school was identified as a School of Distinction,
meaning 80 to 90 percent of students performed at grade level and demonstrated high growth.
The researcher and classroom teacher in this study has a Bachelor of Science in Middle
Grades Education with concentrations in both language arts and social studies, and she has been
teaching three years in North Carolina. Participants in this study included two eighth grade
Language Arts classes, period 4 and period 5, which the researcher teaches. Participants were
chosen based on their enrollment in the researcher’s class. Participants aged between 13 and 15
years old. The class assigned to the intervention treatment contained 24 students. Of these
students, there were 16 girls and 9 boys. Twelve students were Caucasian, six were Asian/Pacific
Islander, five were African-American, and two were Hispanic-American. One student was
receiving English as a Second Language (ESL) services. The control class contained 24 students.
In this class, there were 8 girls and 16 boys. Seventeen students were Caucasian, three were
Asian/Pacific Islander, two were African-American, and two were Multiracial. In the control
group, one student was receiving ESL services, and three students were receiving special
programs services. According to standardized test scores from the previous year, 73.4 percent of
students in the seventh grade were at or above grade level in reading.
Research Procedures
The intervention period lasted for eight weeks. The initial pretest and attitudinal survey
were administered the week students returned to school from winter vacation on January 3, 2013,
and the intervention period began on January 4, 2013. The intervention period ended March 1,
2013, and the posttest was administered that day. In the first two weeks of the intervention
period, students in the intervention group were trained in the use of predicting, clarifying,
questioning, and summarizing as comprehension strategies. This was done through explicit focus
15IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
lessons created by the researcher on how to use each strategy, why the strategy was important to
use, and how each strategy aids comprehension. For example, students were taught that
predictions create a focus for reading. The researcher modeled how to make predictions before
and during reading, as well as check the accuracy of those predictions. During this type of
whole-class lesson, individual students were asked how they would use each strategy.
Throughout the process, they were able to see the strategy modeled and practice using the
strategy together and independently. Gradually students assumed full responsibility for their
employment of these strategies while in their reading groups. Once that control was released to
the students, the researcher’s role was to facilitate by keeping students on task and monitor their
discussions to make sure each strategy was utilized.
In the last six weeks of the intervention period, students in the intervention class
participated in during-class reading in groups. There were five groups consisting of four students
and one group of five students. Students were grouped with others who scored similarly on the
pretest. This was done to create an environment within their groups that would be conducive to
the learning of every student. For the first four reading group sessions, students only focused on
one strategy at a time. The entire group was responsible for making predictions, clarifying
confusing or unfamiliar concepts, asking questions, or summarizing. After those initial sessions,
students assigned roles each time they met with their group, and each group member was
responsible for leading a discussion using a particular strategy. Roles rotated each time the
students worked with their group. The types of texts varied and different activities were used to
keep students engaged in these dialogues and aware of strategy-use, such as reciprocal teaching
prompt cards, charts, and sticky notes. Reciprocal teaching prompt cards, included in Appendix
B, contain sentence starters to spark discussion for each strategy and tasks that must be
16IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
completed for documentation (Meyer, 2010). Charts and sticky notes were used to jot down
predictions, words and ideas that need clarifying, questions, and details that should be included
in the summary (Stricklin, 2011). It is important to note that during the intervention period,
learning was almost entirely student-centered. Each of the aforementioned activities was used for
accountability and as documentation of the discussions that happened within each group.
The intervention took place at least two to three times a week for 30 to 45 minutes during
students’ regularly scheduled Language Arts class. Figure 1 shows the timeline for collecting
data in the intervention period. On the first and last days of the intervention period, students in
both the intervention and control groups were administered a reading comprehension assessment
and an adolescent attitudinal survey. The expectation was that, through reciprocal teaching,
students would become strategic readers able to monitor their own comprehension of a variety of
texts.
Validity and Reliability or Trustworthiness
There were a few threats to the validity and reliability of this study. Random selection
and assignment of participants was not possible, so this study was not truly experimental and
cannot be generalized. Moreover, there was an existing relationship between the students and the
researcher, and the novelty of employing reciprocal teaching may have caused the researcher to
treat the intervention group differently. Therefore subject attitude and researcher bias towards
implementation were also a potential threat. In order to regulate this threat, high expectations
were maintained for both the intervention and the control group. The researcher log served as a
way to promote the conservation of neutrality.
Due to working with students at an age when change is to be expected, maturation was a
potential threat as well. Observations noted in the researcher log were helpful when interpreting
17IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
whether or not participants have changed as a result of the intervention. Finally, there was a
testing threat due to using the same assessment for the pretest and posttest, as well as the
attitudinal survey, thus creating a practice effect that might have influenced how students
responded to questions. Furthermore, the comprehension test used was created by the researcher,
and while the questions were provided by a test publisher, the instrument may not have been the
best measure of reading comprehension abilities, in reference to reliability.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data were collected using a pre and posttest comprised of reading comprehension items
from CASE21 assessments and an adolescent attitudinal survey regarding reading. CASE21
assessments are produced by a company called Training and Education in the 21st Century. A
reading comprehension assessment aligned with the Common Core State Standards using the
CASE21 question item bank was generated, and the first reading selection is included in
Appendix A. The pretest was administered on January 3, 2013, prior to the intervention period.
After eight weeks, on March 1, 2013, the same test was administered once again.
The attitudinal survey that was used was published in a study about adolescents’
motivation to read (Pitcher, Albright, DeLaney, Walker, Seunarinesingh, Mogge, Headley,
Ridgeway, Peck, Hunt, & Dunston, 2007). The survey included 20 multiple-choice items that ask
students to respond to statements about reading habits and activities. The survey was scored
using a four-point scale, in which selections that show the most positive attitude received a four,
while the most negative received a one (Pitcher, et al., 2007). The multiple-choice section of the
survey, included in Appendix B, was administered on the first and last day of the intervention
period. Finally, throughout the intervention period, a researcher log was used to record
18IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
observations, reflections, and other information relevant to the impact of the intervention during
the study.
The data collector in this study was both the researcher and the teacher of the
intervention and control groups. She was trained through graduate coursework and obtained
Institutional Review Board certification (Appendix D) prior to the implementation of this study.
Researcher log data were hand-written during observation of the intervention class, and then
entered in an online document sharing program (Google Docs). Numerical data were also
transcribed first and entered into a spreadsheet, which was saved on a password-protected flash
drive.
The change scores of the two groups were compared using a t-test on gain scores.
Because the intervention and control groups were not matched, an independent samples t-test
was used to determine whether the difference between the means of the gain score of each group
is significant (Zhang, 2012). The same test was also used to compare the mean gain scores on the
attitudinal survey. Change scores were entered in the Del Siegle t-test spreadsheet calculator in
order to determine the statistical significance. The mean scores, the two-tailed p value, and the
Cohen effect size were reviewed in the data analysis in order to determine the impact of the
intervention.
Findings
The data analysis revealed that there was no statistically significant difference in reading
comprehension scores between the intervention and control groups as a result of the reciprocal
teaching method employed. Specifically, because the equal variance two-tailed p value was
greater than 0.05 (p=0.50), the gains demonstrated cannot be considered significant (Table 1).
However, the mean change score on the reading comprehension test for Group 1, the control
19IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
group, was 1.90. The mean change score for Group 2, the intervention group, was 3.96.
Therefore, while the results can be deemed statistically insignificant, the intervention group
showed higher growth than the control. Additionally, the Cohen effect size demonstrated that the
intervention treatment had a small effect (d=0.23).
Table 1
Reading Comprehension Scores
Group M SD n
1 (Control)
2 (Intervention)
1.90
3.96
8.88
11.09
21
23
t (33) = -0.67, p = 0.50, d = 0.23
With regard to the attitudinal survey, the data analysis demonstrated that reciprocal
teaching positively impacted the reading attitudes of the intervention group, but not in a
statistically significant way. In this case, an unequal variance test was used because the Del
Siegle t-test spreadsheet calculator revealed the variance of the two groups differed. Again, the
two-tailed p value was greater than 0.05 (p=0.09), so the gains reflected are not significant
(Table 2). Nevertheless, the mean change score on the attitudinal survey for Group 1, the control
group, was -0.33. Conversely, the mean change score for Group 2, the intervention group, was
1.92. Furthermore, the Cohen effect size suggests that reciprocal teaching had a medium to large
effect on the participants attitudes towards reading (d=0.72).
Table 2
Adolescent Attitudinal Survey Scores
Group M SD n
1 (Control)
2 (Intervention)
-0.33
1.92
3.14
5.59
21
24
t (20) = -1.69, p = 0.09, d = 0.72
20IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
Discussion and Conclusions
The positive influence of reciprocal teaching on reading comprehension has been well-
documented. Research has continually demonstrated the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching as
method for teaching reading comprehension. The purpose of this investigation was to discover
the impact of reciprocal teaching on the comprehension scores and attitudes about reading of a
group of eighth grade students. Specifically, the goal was to answer the question, “What is the
effect of reciprocal teaching on eighth grade students’ reading comprehension and attitudes
toward reading?” I anticipated that this study would reflect results similar to the existing
literature on reciprocal teaching. That is, I expected high growth from the intervention group.
However, according to the results of the study, the comprehension gains made by the
intervention group were not statistically significant, so reciprocal teaching did not have an
irrefutable impact on the reading comprehension of the participants. Nevertheless, the findings
demonstrate that reciprocal teaching positively affected the participants’ attitudes toward
reading. This is consistent with research that suggests collaborative learning has emotional
benefits (Igel & Urquhart, 2012). Furthermore, the lack of definitive gains in reading
comprehension could be due to a range of factors, including my lack of experience with the
teaching method and disruptions to the timeline of the intervention.
When I began the process of researching reciprocal teaching, my conception of what it is
in theory was different than what I learned it to be in practice. For example, I learned through
this study the process of gradually releasing responsibility for learning to the students.
Theoretically, after having adequate time to learn and apply the focus strategies, students are to
assume full control of their learning. The teacher’s role is to activate prior knowledge, and then
“monitor, guide, and encourage individuals or groups” (Stricklin, 2012). I struggled with
21IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
releasing responsibility initially, and therefore, I do not think my implementation of reciprocal
teaching was as true to the model as it could have been. Additionally, during the intervention
period, I found it challenging to continually hold students accountable for playing their role and
using the four strategies. When I required students to document their strategy use, I observed the
authenticity of the reading experience diminish. In my researcher log, I stated:
I recommended that groups who are having trouble with this stick to the defined roles. I
think the fact that I haven't made them more accountable for this may be an
implementation error on my part, but when I had them using the note-taking sheet to
write down all of their predictions, questions, clarifications, and a summary, it seemed to
distract from the reading itself.
As a result, I believe I was unsuccessful at finding a way to confirm students were using the
strategies without completely detracting from the reading. Consequently, implications for
educators who are also novices in the implementation of reciprocal teaching include a more
gradual removal of supports than the one I was able to accomplish in eight weeks. I believe if I
had spent more time on each individual strategy and required students to more efficiently
document their use of that strategy in the beginning, the transition to an authentic reading
experience using all four strategies would have been more effective.
One of the reasons I did not spend more time training students or make the release of
responsibility more gradual was the limitation of an eight-week intervention treatment. Within
the timeline of my intervention, numerous interruptions (inclement weather delays, early release
days, school-wide testing, assemblies, pep rallies, and state-mandated drills) occurred. These
events are one of the drawbacks of performing research in a school setting. It was difficult to
adhere to the schedule I set for my intervention, because when I lost instructional time with the
22IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
intervention class, I felt the need to make up for it by rushing some part of the process.
Accordingly, the implication is that a true execution of reciprocal teaching should be measured
and ongoing. To effectively use reciprocal teaching in my classroom, I would expand the time
frame for training students in purposeful strategy-use and releasing responsibility. I would also
use a formative assessment measure to determine how well students understand and apply each
strategy.
Ultimately, although the findings of this study were not statistically significant as far as
improving reading comprehension, reciprocal teaching is still a method I would encourage other
teachers to attempt in their classrooms. The mean change scores of the intervention group
reflected a small amount of growth, suggesting that if certain aspects of instruction were
developed, the treatment would have resulted in more significant gains. Additionally, I observed
students support each other as readers and engage in meaningful discussions about text with one
another. I plan to continue to utilize reciprocal teaching with the intervention group, as well as
use what I have learned during this study to apply the reciprocal teaching model to the other
classes I teach.
Reflection
The conceptualization of this research project was the result of reading about reciprocal
teaching as a best practice on multiple occasions without ever gaining a clear understanding of
what the method entails. I decided I wanted to perform my own investigation to truly understand
what reciprocal teaching means. There were several benefits to implementing reciprocal teaching
as the intervention in my study. For one, it does not require the purchase of a published reading
program. Additionally, there is an incredibly large body of research already detailing its
effectiveness. Therefore, in the planning stages, I was able to model my own study after those
that had already been conducted with similar conditions. For example, a common theme in much
23IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
of the literature I read was a comparison of reciprocal teaching and whole-class, teacher-led
instruction, so that is how I structured my intervention and control groups.
The most challenging aspect of the research project was the implementation. Challenges
primarily arose as the result of conducting research in a school. I became painfully aware of the
amount of interruptions to instructional time that occur in an eight-week period. It was difficult
to compensate for time lost, and as a result, aspects of the gradual release model were rushed.
Moreover, I believe that because reciprocal teaching was not something my students were
already familiar with, these disruptions made maintaining a routine problematic.
Another challenge in the implementation of the intervention was assuming the role of
teacher researcher. I found it necessary to regularly evaluate whether what I was doing to
preserve the fidelity of the research was what was right for my students. For instance, it was
difficult to know when to mediate their group discussions. As a teacher, I had certain learning
outcomes I wanted to achieve in order to prepare students for assessment on the reading material.
Therefore, it was a struggle to know when to be the teacher and guide their attention to important
details or when to be the researcher and watch them make their own discoveries. I believe if
reciprocal teaching was just an instructional practice I was using, rather than an intervention in a
research project meant to evaluate its efficacy, the balance between discussion leader and
facilitator would have been easier to achieve. Instead, I worried whether interjecting made me
too much of a leader, thus whether I was implementing the intervention true to form.
Ultimately, these challenges may have diminished the outcomes of the research project. I
was disappointed to learn that the intervention did not have a greater impact on the
comprehension scores of the students in that group. However, all things considered, I believe if
the intervention period had been longer, the gains would have been more significant. As it was,
24IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
the mean change scores of the intervention group still reflected higher growth than those in the
control group. Additionally, I was not expecting the attitude scores to change as they did. It was
a pleasant surprise to see that the intervention positively affected the intervention group’s
attitude about reading. Given the nature of eighth grade students, I assumed they had already
made up their minds on how they felt about reading and that those feelings were not likely to
change until later in their educational careers, if at all.
Overall, all teachers should seek to continually refine their practices and expand their
content knowledge, so the action research process is immensely valuable. Personally, I learned
more about how students develop comprehension-monitoring reading habits and how I can foster
these skills in my classroom, and I intend to apply that knowledge to make my instructional
approach more student-centered and effective. However, at the heart of action research is the
willingness to attempt something new with the purpose of improving student learning. Particular
aspects of the intervention method I employed required me to step outside my comfort zone,
especially when it came time to allow students to take control of their learning. The result though
was that I learned one method for explicitly teaching students strategies that will improve their
reading comprehension abilities, as well as what I would do differently the next time to
maximize the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching. As an educator, it would be negligent to not
participate in some form of action research, because the goal for any teacher should always be to
improve instruction for the advancement of student achievement.
25IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
References
Alfassi, M., Weiss, I., & Lifshitz, H. (2009). The efficacy of reciprocal teaching in fostering the
reading literacy of students with intellectual disabilities. European Journal of Special
Needs Education, 24(3), 291-305. doi:10.1080/08856250903016854
Choo, T., Eng, T., & Ahmad, N. (2011). Effects of reciprocal teaching strategies on reading
comprehension. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 11(2), 140-149.
Retrieved from http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/april_2011/choo_eng_ahmad.pdf
Durkin, D. (1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension
instruction, Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4), 481-533. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/747260
Freire, P. (1997). Pedagogy of the oppressed (20th anniversary ed.). New York: The Continuum
Publishing Company.
Hansen, J. (1981). The effects of inference training and practice on young children’s reading
comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(3), 391-417. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/747409
Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2007). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension for
understanding and engagement. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse.
Igel, C., & Urquhart, V. (2012). Generation Z, meet cooperative learning. Middle School
Journal, 43(4), 16-21. Retrieved from
http://ehis.ebscohost.com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=15444fcf-
12d0-492b-a5d0-5b42f7eaeee2%40sessionmgr115&vid=4&hid=101
Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T., Mohler, L., Beranek, M., Spencer, V., Boon, R.T., & Talbott, E.
(2001). Can middle school students with serious reading difficulties help each other and
26IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
learn anything?. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice (Blackwell Publishing
Limited), 16(1),18. Retrieved from
http://jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=a9h&AN=4673570&site=ehost-live
McCormick, S., & Zutell, J. (2011). Instructing students who have literacy problems. (6th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Meyer, K. (2010). ‘Diving into reading’: Revisiting reciprocal teaching in the middle years.
Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 18(1), 41-52. Retrieved from
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/38645/1/38645P.pdf
Ogle, D., & Lang, L. (2011). Best practices in adolescent literacy instruction. In L. Morrow & L.
Gambrell (Eds.), Best Practices in Literacy Instruction (4th ed., pp. 138-173). New York,
NY: The Guilford Press.
Ostovar-Namaghi, S.A., & Shahhosseini, M.R. (2011). On the effect of reciprocal teaching
strategy on EFL learners’ reading proficiency. Journal of Language Teaching and
Research, 2(6), 1238-1243. doi:10.4304/jltr.2.6.1238-1243
Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and
comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition & Instruction, 1(2), 117. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
Pardo, L. S. (2004). What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. Reading Teacher,
58(3), 272-280. doi:10.l598/RT.58.3.5
Pitcher, S. M., Albright, L. K., DeLaney, C .J., Walker, N. T., Seunarinesingh, K., Mogge, S.,
Headley, K. N., Ridgeway, V. G., Peck, S., Hunt, R., & Dunston, P. J. (2007). Assessing
27IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
adolescents’ motivation to read. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50 (5), 381-382,
389-390. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/10.1598/JAAL.50.5.5
Seymour, J. R., & Osana, H. P. (2003). Reciprocal teaching procedures and principles: Two
teachers’ developing understanding. Teaching & Teacher Education, 19(3), 325.
doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00018-0
Slater, W. H., & Horstman, F. R. (2002). Teaching reading and writing to struggling middle
school and high school students: The case for reciprocal teaching. Preventing School
Failure, 46(4), 163. Retrieved from
http://jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=a9h&AN=7213955&site=ehost-live
Snow, C.E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading
comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. doi:10.1598/RT.64.8.8
Stricklin, K. (2011). Hands-on reciprocal teaching: A comprehension technique. Reading
Teacher, 64(8), 620-625. doi:10.1598/RT.64.8.8
Williams, J. A. (2010). Taking on the role of questioner: Revisiting reciprocal teaching. Reading
Teacher, 64(4), 278-281. doi:10.1598/RT.64.4.6
Zhang, G. (2012). Basic research designs and data analyses [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from
Lecture
Notes Online Web site: http://moodle.aos.ecu.edu/course/view.php?id=806
28IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
Appendix A
29IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
Appendix B
30IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
Appendix C
31IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
32IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
33IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
Appendix D
34IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
35IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
36IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING
Figure 1
Data Source Administration 1 Administration 2
Adolescent Attitudinal
Reading Survey
January 3, 2013 March 1, 2013
CASE21 Reading
Comprehension Assessment
January 3, 2013 March 1, 2013
Teacher Researcher Log Throughout the duration of the
study, beginning on January 4,
2013 and ending on March 1,
2013.
Throughout the duration of the
study, beginning on January 4,
2013 and ending on March 1,
2013.