1Running Head: IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING27IMPACT 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. BorgeEast Carolina
University
AbstractThe 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
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.Reciprocal TeachingPardo
(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 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 PopulationsReciprocal teaching has shown effectiveness
among struggling readers and students learning English as a foreign
language (Choo, Eng, & Ahmad, 2011; Slater & Horstman,
2002). 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 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 Progresss 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 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, 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 students 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 LearningAn 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 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 StrategiesWhen 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 teachers
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
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 authors 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 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 researchers 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.MethodologyIn order to examine the influence
of reciprocal teaching, a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest
design was employed. The study was approved by East Carolina
Universitys 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 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 SettingThis 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 schools
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 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 researchers 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 ProceduresThe 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 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 researchers 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 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
TrustworthinessThere 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 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 AnalysisData 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
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.FindingsThe 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 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 1Reading
Comprehension Scores
GroupMSDn
1 (Control)2 (Intervention)1.903.968.8811.092123
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
2Adolescent Attitudinal Survey Scores
GroupMSDn
1 (Control)2 (Intervention)-0.331.923.145.592124
t (20) = -1.69, p = 0.09, d = 0.72
Discussion and ConclusionsThe 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 teachers role is to activate prior knowledge, and
then monitor, guide, and encourage individuals or groups
(Stricklin, 2012). I struggled with 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
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.ReflectionThe
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 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, 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 groups 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.
ReferencesAlfassi, 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:10.1080/08856250903016854Choo, 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.pdfDurkin,
D. (1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading
comprehension instruction, Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4),
481-533. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/747260Freire,
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 childrens
reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(3), 391-417.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/747409Harvey, 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=101Mastropieri,
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 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-liveMcCormick,
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.pdfOgle,
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.2.6.1238-1243Palincsar,
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_1Pardo, L. S. (2004).
What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. Reading
Teacher, 58(3), 272-280. doi:10.l598/RT.58.3.5Pitcher, 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 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.50.5.5Seymour, 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)00018-0Slater, 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-liveSnow,
C.E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program
in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
doi:10.1598/RT.64.8.8Stricklin, K. (2011). Hands-on reciprocal
teaching: A comprehension technique. Reading Teacher, 64(8),
620-625. doi:10.1598/RT.64.8.8Williams, J. A. (2010). Taking on the
role of questioner: Revisiting reciprocal teaching. Reading
Teacher, 64(4), 278-281. doi:10.1598/RT.64.4.6Zhang, 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
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Figure 1Data SourceAdministration 1Administration 2
Adolescent Attitudinal Reading SurveyJanuary 3, 2013March 1,
2013
CASE21 Reading Comprehension AssessmentJanuary 3, 2013March 1,
2013
Teacher Researcher LogThroughout 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.
