Ersy, Improving Students’ Reading Comprehensio Through Reciprocal Teaching 23

IMPROVING STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION THROUGH

RECIPROCAL TEACHING

Ersy Laksita Rini

Email : ersytarini@gmail.com

English Department, Faculty of Language and Science

Wijaya Kusuma Surabaya University

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study is to improve the reading comprehension of the third semester
students of English Department of Wijaya Kusuma Surabaya by applying reciprocal
teaching. Reciprocal teaching refers to an instructional strategy that the teacher takes a
part as the first model and guides to practice a set of reading comprehension strategies,
and then she is gradually giving responsibility to the students. Those comprehension
strategies are questioning, summarizing, clarifying and predicting.This study uses
classroom action research which consists of three cycles. It uses observation and test to
get the main data. The subjects are 40 students. The result of data analysis is compared
with the successful indicator. The results of the first and second cycle can not reach the
successful indicator that most of the students’ score can not reach the successful
indicator (> 70). But, in the third cycle It shows the significant improvement. The result
can reach the successful indicator. Therefore, the writer does not continue to the next
cycle. In conclusion, from the result above, reciprocal teaching can improve the students’
reading comprehension.

Key words: Reading Comprehension, Reciprocal Teaching

INTRODUCTION it is the teaching of thinking and talking about

Reading is considered as the important one
since good reading ability has an important role
to the development of student’s ability in
learning English. Dias – Rico (2004) state that
reading is the most essential skill for success in
all educational contexts. Therefore, it is
important for students to have a good reading
skill. Based on the explanation above, reading
is one of the important skills of English that
the students should master. According to
Kobayashi (1975) cited in Triyastuti (2007)
reading is considered to be the one basic tool of
language which means that every aspect of
learning uses reading as a major component. In
other word, students are hoped to read a lot
especially for them who want to increase their
knowledge and master English well. reading
has very important role in our daily life and
gathering new information. That is why,
teaching – learning process at reading has a
particular importance because reading is a basic
skill to learn something and very fundamental
for students. Mikulecky (1990) states that the
teaching of reading has an important role since
text which is required for academic success.
Unfortunately, in fact, many students consider
that reading seems to be a difficult task. The
students have problems in reading class, such
as feeling bored and having difficult in
comprehending the reading passage. In other
word, students do not enjoy reading class
because they not only have to read the text but
also to activate their prior knowledge and
match them with the information they get in
order to achieve comprehension. Nuttal
(1985:68) says that the main purpose of reading
is to achieve comprehension. This fact also
occured in the third semester students of
English Department of Wijaya Kusuma
surabaya University. Based on an observation,
the writer found that some students had
problems in reading class. First many students
were passive and had less attention to the
teacher’s instruction in teaching reading
activity because of feeling bored and having
less motivation. Second, the students failed to
comprehend a reading passage. They did not
know the meaning such as they could not catch
24
the information from the text or comprehend it.
These problems were caused by teaching-
learning process which was not able to improve
students’ reading comprehension. In the
previous reading class, the way of teacher
taught was monotonous because she did not
give the chance to the students to interact
among them. Besides, the teacher only gave
students assignment and asked them to collect
it. Next, the teacher did not give the
opportunity for students to interact and discuss
with the teacher. Students had a little
opportunity to construct meaning from text
among them. Based on the description above, it
showed that the teacher should teach reading
strategies to their students. The writer decided
to apply a technique in teaching learning
process which could help both the teacher and
the students to solve problem in reading class
especially in comprehending the text. The
suggested technique is reciprocal teaching.
Rosenshine and Master (1990) reviewed 16
studies of reciprocal teaching and concluded
that reciprocal teaching is a technique that
improves reading comprehension. In reciprocal
teaching, teacher as the first model the
comprehension strategies then she gives
students this responsibility to practice these
strategies in their groups. By using reciprocal
teaching students are taught four
comprehension strategies: summarizing,
questioning, clarifying, and predicting.
According to Palincsar and Brown (1984) four
basic strategies (predicting, clarifying,
questioning, and summarizing) help students
recognize and react to sign of comprehension
breakdown. Palincsar (1986) states that the
purpose of reciprocal teaching is to facilitate a
group effort between teacher and student as
well as among students in the task of bringing
meaning to the text. It means that reciprocal
teaching involves a high social interaction and
collaboration, as students gradually to assume
the role of teacher in helping their peers
construct meaning from text. Based on these
statements, the write chose reciprocal teaching
to improve students reading comprehension at
third semester students in class of English
Department of Wijaya Kusuma Surabaya
University.
This study is based on the statement of the
problem “Can reciprocal teaching improve the
students reading comprehension”. And the
objective of this study is to find out whether
reciprocal teaching can improve students
INOVASI, Volume XVIII, Nomor 2, Juli 2016
reading comprehension. The significance of the
study is, for teacher, to give an alernative way
which can be applied in their reading classes.
While for students, by using this strategy, they
can foster and monitor their own understanding
of reading material, and at last improve their
reading skill. In this study, the writer focuses
on applying reciprocal teaching in order to
improve students’ reading comprehension. The
writer conducted the study to the third semester
students of English Department of Wijaya
Kusuma Surabaya University, academic year
2015-2016.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The Teaching of Reading
Since reading is one of an important skill that
should to be master in learning English, so the
successful of teaching of reading should give
more attention in teaching-learning process.
Mikulecky (1990) states that the teaching of
reading has an important role since it is the
teaching of thinking and talking about the text
which is required for academic success. It
means that the teaching-learning process of
reading has a particular importance because
reading is a basic skill to learn something and
very fundamental for students. That is why
students are expected to read a lot if they want
to master English well.
Teaching of reading is not easy job and not
easy task. In line with Eskey, Abbot et al.
(1981) state that teaching reading is not an easy
task since it will not automatically follow on
from oral work. Because when the teacher
teaches reading subject she/he should give the
strategy that help the students how to
comprehend the text and think on their own
mind. So it can help them to become
independent readers. Besides, in reading
activity the students not only have to read the
text but they have to comprehend it. The goal
of reading class is to express the meaning short
of functional text and various kinds of essays in
daily life context and to access knowledge.
From this statement we can conclude that in
reading activity, students should be able to
express the meaning of text and essay. Since
the teaching of reading is important role, the
teachers are expected to teach a reading
strategy to the students in order to help them in
comprehending text and to be a good readers.
Reciprocal Teaching
Reciprocal teaching is an instructional strategy
based on modeling and guided practice in
 Ersy, Improving Students’ Reading Comprehensio Through Reciprocal Teaching
which the instructor first models a set of
reading comprehension strategies and then
gradually cedes responsibility for these
strategies to the students (Palincsar and &
Brown, 1984:20). Pioneer reciprocal teaching
researchers Palincsar and Brown (1984)
developed this strategy to reinforce compreh
ension in L1 and ESL reading classes. In other
word, reciprocal teaching is a teaching
technique in which the teacher leads a
discussions of the text while modeling reading
comprehension strategies then she begins to
have the students take the role of teacher or
dialoque reader. As students begin to lead the
dialoque process, the teacher assumes the role
of guide or facilitator, rather than leader.
Reciprocal teaching is an instructional
approach designed to improve reading
comprehension in which the students are
encouraged to use reading strategy. According
Lori D. Oczuks (2003:2) the original goal of
reciprocal teaching to improve students’
reading comprehension. Reciprocal teaching
has four main strategies that teacher and
students employ together to comprehend the
text. Those are questioning, summarizing,
clarifying, and predicting. Palincsar and Brown
(1984), in there original research, used four
discrete reading comprehension strategies
within reciprocal teaching:
questionning,summarizing,clarifying and
predicting.
1. Questioning : involves the
identification of information, themes
and ideas that are central and
important enough to warrant further
consideration. The central or important
information, themes, or ideas are used
to generate questions that are then
used as self-test for the reader. It is
used by the reader for exploring the
text more deeply and assuring the
construction of meaning.
2. Summarizing : It is the process of
identifying the important information,
themes, and ideas within a text and
integrating these into a clear and
concise statement that communicates
the essential meaning of the text. It
provides the impetus to create a
context for understanding the specifics
of a text.
3. Clarifying : It involves the
identification and clarification of
unclear, difficult, or unfamiliar aspects
25
of a text. These aspects may include
awkward sentence of passage
structure, unfamiliar vocabulary,
unclear references, or obscure
concepts.
4. Predicting : It involves previewing the
text to anticipate what may happen
next. It involves combining the
reader’s prier knowledge, new
knowledge from the next, and the
text’s structure to create hypotheses
related to the direction of the text and
the author’s intent in writing.
The general methodology of reciprocal
teaching involves the instructor and students,
usually in small groups, reading section of text.
In addition, Arends (1997) cited in Rizqi
(2009:17) states that reciprocal teaching refers
to an instructional procedure developed to teach
students in comprehending the text by applying
four
strategies:questioning,summarizing,clarifying
and predicting. From the statement above, we
can concluded that reciprocal teaching is a
strategy in which teacher as the first model then
she has the students to conduct the four
strategies (questioning,summarizing,clarifying
and predicting).
The Advantages of Reciprocal Teaching
As stated before, the original goal of reciprocal
teaching to improve students’ reading
comprehension by four strategies : questioning,
summarizing, clarifying and predicting. Here
are the advantages of Reciprocal Teaching
(http//www.ehow.com/advantages-
disadvantages-reciprocal-
teaching.html#ixzz1LrFUUph2):
1. Students involved in a reciprocal
reading activity scored higher on
reading comprehension tests than
students in a control group not
using this teaching strategy.
2. It can help the students to monitor
their own comprehension students
will be a ware of their level of
comprehension and be able to
correct in complete
comprehension.
3. It allows the teacher and students
to scaffold and construct meaning
in a social setting by using
modeling, think aloud and
discussion.
26
4. Students can improve their
summaries with practice and work
more independently.
5. The Reciprocal teaching classes
saw fewer disruptive student
behaviors, possibly because the
students were more cognitively
engaged in the material.
6. It helps students to develop
interpersonal communication skills
since they have to interact with
other students and the teacher.
The Application of Reciprocal Teaching in
Teaching Reading
There are four steps involved in implementing
the reciprocal teaching strategy, those are :
questioning, summarizing, clarifying and
predicting. In reading class by using reciprocal
teaching, the students begin by all reading the
first paragraph or passage of the same text
silently in small groups. According to the
international Journal of Teaching and Learning
( http://www.isetl.org/ijthe/ ) the general
methodology of reciprocal teaching involves
the instruction and students, usually in small
groups, reading a section of text. Then the
teacher models the reading comprehension
strategies.
1. Questioning
During this modeling process, the teacher
encourages students to ask questions about the
material at the first paragraph. Here, they are
encourage to identify key ideas of a text and
connect them to their prior knowledge
(Rosenshine & Meistes, 1994). In this step,
when the students begin generating questions,
they have to identify the information, theme
and idea that is significant enough to provide
the substance for a question. Then, they pose
this information in question form and as self-
test to ensure that they can answer their own
question.
2. Summarizing
In this step, the students are asked to retell what
they have read in their own words. They work
to identify the important information in the text.
Then they begin to summarize in one or a few
sentences.
3. Clarifying :
In this step, the students try to identify why the
text is difficult to understand, such as :
unfamiliar vocabulary, unclear references and
unfamiliar concepts, and clarify it by explaning
giving examples, or making other clarifying
statements.
INOVASI, Volume XVIII, Nomor 2, Juli 2016
4. Predicting
In this step, gets the students to speculate on
what will be discussed next in the text. Here,
students can make prediction on what the
author wants to tell the next.
After the teacher modeled these strategies at the
first paragraph, the students begin to take the
role of instructor and practice it in their groups
in the next paragraph. Here the teacher assumes
the role of guide or facilitator. When applying
this strategy, teacher gives them worksheet as
an aid. It can help teacher to monitor the
students when apply this strategy. About (1981)
says that worksheet can be an aid during the
actual reading of the text.
METHODS
This research is done to find out the
improvement of students’ reading
comprehension of the third semester students of
English Department of Wijaya Kususma
Surabaya University by using reciprocal
teaching. Based on statement of the problem
and the objective which have been mentioned
previously, this research design used in this
study is classroom action research. According
to Kunandar (2010:44) Classroom Action
Research is an action research that is done by
teacher as researcher or the researcher
collaborate with classroom teacher in
classroom. The purpose of classroom action
research is changing and improving the quality
teaching and learning.In this study, the writer
collaborated with another teacher. The writer
was applying the strategy in teaching learning
process, while another teacher took part as the
observer. The observer would observe the
application of the writer technique and write
everything that she saw in the classroom by
using observation checklist. Here, the writer
uses an action reflection spiral model as
proposed by Kemmis and McTaggart in Arends
(2001:451) which consists of planning Stage,
Action Stage, observing stage, reflecting
stage.This research started by doing
identification of the problem that happened to
the third semester students of English
Department of Wijaya Kusuma Surabaya
University. Based on an observation, the
problem was found in the class was, first the
students felt bored and less had motivation in
reading class because there were no interaction
between teacher to students and students to
student, so it made students passive, and not be
interested in reading class. Second, the students
 Ersy, Improving Students’ Reading Comprehensio Through Reciprocal Teaching
failed to comprehend a reading passage. They
did not know the meaning such as they could
not catch the information from the text. Based
on the problem above, the writer tried to give a
technique that could help the third semester
students of English Department of Wijaya
Kusuma Surabaya University to comprehend
the text by using reciprocal teaching.
Subjects of the Research
The subjects of this study is the third semester
students of English Department of Wijaya
Kususma Surabaya University This class
consist of 40 students. They are 17 male and 23
female students. The researcher took this class
because they had difficulties to comprehend the
texts that they had read. Because of this reason,
they need to improve their reading
comprehension.
The Instrument of the Study
In this stage, the researcher uses test and
observation checklist for both the teacher and
students as the main instruments of the study.
While a questionnaire was used to gather any
information which relate with the students’
problem that occured in the class. It was given
to the students before giving the treatment in
order to know their problem in the class
Data Collection Technique
The data collection techniques in this study are
doing tests and observations.The test was used
to obtain the data of learning result from the
students’ learning process in the form of score.
The form of this test was comprehension
questions. There were two kinds of test that is
used by the writer during this research. The
first is pre test. It was given to the students
before treatment in order to know the ability of
the students. This test contained of 10 items.
The second test was test that given to the
students at the end of each cycle after the
treatment had been given to them. It was used
to know the improvement of the students. This
test contained 15 items. In this research, the
writer used observation checklist to get
information while doing observation. It was
used to control the activities of the teacher and
the students in the teaching learning process in
the class.
Data Analysis
Because of the writer used a test as an
instrument, she analysed the result of the
students’ scores to know the students’
improvement. The result of their score in every
cycle was compared in order to know the
improvement of students’ reading
27
comprehension. The researcher used the mean
by using this formula:
Data Analysis:
X
M=
N
Explanation:
M = Mean
∑X = the sum of students’ score
N = the number of students
The writer also calculated the percentage
ultimate student’ success in learning and use
the formula as follows:
The standart minimum score was ≥70. It means
that the students should get the minimum score
70. The successful of indicator of this research
was 75% from the number of the students in the
class. The total of the students was 40 students.
So, 75% from 40 students was 30 students. In
other word, the successful of indicator was
reached if there were 30 students got score ≥70.
Procedure of the research
First Cycle
This first cycle was done on October 9,2015.
The allocation of time was 2x50 minutes. The
subject of this research was the thrd semester
students of English Department of Wijaya
Kusuma Surabaya University. In this cycle the
writer applied reciprocal teaching technique in
order to improve the students’ reading
comprehension. This cycle included four steps,
they are: planning, acting observing and
reflecting.Since the result of data analysis of
the first cycle did not show the significant
improvement result, the writer decided to
continue this technique to the second cycle.
Second cycle
This second cycle was done on October
18,2015. The allocation of time was 2x50
minutes. At this cycle, the writer would use the
same technique like the previous cycle to the
students.The writer arranged the lesson plan
based on the syllabus. She revised the activities
in the teaching learning activity in the lesson
plan of the first cycle. Next she began to make
a new lesson plan. Then she prepared the
teaching material which contain different topic
from the previous cycle. Besides, she also
prepared the instument which were the
observation checklist and test. The last, she
prepared the woksheet. In this cycle the writer
would apply the same technique.The writer
analyzed that the success indicator could not be
reached in this cycle. From the observation
28
result, the writer found the weakness in this
cycle. Few students still be passive because
they confused about the technique. The result
of data analysis of the second cycle did not
show the significant improvement result. From
this reason, the writer decided to continue
applying this strategy to the next cycle
Third Cycle
This third cycle was conducted on October 25,
2015. The allocation of time was 2x50 minutes
during the application of reciprocal teaching in
reading class. This was the third cycle, the
writer would apply the same technique in this
class.
In the reflecting stage, the writer would
describe the result of students’ working while
applying this technique. The students had
showed the progress. In this cycle, the students
showed the significant improvement. In other
words, the successful indicator had been
reached. Therefore, the writer stopped the
cycle.\
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Before applying reciprocal teaching technique
in reading class, the writer conducted the
identification of the problem that happened to
the third semester students of English
Department of Wijaya Kusuma Surabaya
University. This identification included the
observation, interview and result of
questionnaire. The writer found that the
students had difficulty in reading class
expecially in comprehend the text. After the
problem had been identified, the writer gave
them pre test to in order to know their first
score before giving the treatment.The writer
gave the students text and the comprehension
questions. The form of this test was subjective
and it contained of 10 items. After getting the
result of the beginning test which had been
given to the students before treatment, the
writer analyzed it in order to know their
beginning scores. During the pre test to the
students, there were two students who were
absent in the class, so the number of the
students who joined the test was 38 students,
and all of them could not reach the standart
minimum score (KKM) ≥70. Based on the
result of the pre test, the writer concluded that
the students failed to comprehend a reading
passage. Besides that, they had difficulty to
catch the information from the text or to gain
the meaning from the text. From these reasons,
the writer decided to apply reciprocal teaching
INOVASI, Volume XVIII, Nomor 2, Juli 2016
to improve students’ reading comprehension in
reading class.
As stated previously, this study took three
cycles since many of the students could not
reach the standart minimum score in the first
and second cycles. In the first cycle, the taecher
got some problems while applying the strategy.
The students could not perform well the four
steps of Reciprocal Teaching strategy:
questioning, summarizing, clarifying, and
predicting. They seemed not accustemed to
doing this strategy so that the teacher had to
repeat each step for several times, and it surely
spent a lot of time, more than it was predicted.
In the second cycle, the situation got better, but
there were still some problem encountered.
Only few students could work well, the others
could not focus on the tasks. Therefore, the
teacher changed the members of the goups.
And it worked well in the third cycle that
almost all of the students could perform and
work together anthusiastically.
The successful indicator has reached if the
students could reached the standart minimum
score (KKM) ≥70 and the percentage ultimate
student’ success in learning 75%. From the
table below, although there was an
improvement from the first cycle, but it showed
that there was no significant improvement from
this cycle. In other word, there were only 5
students who got ≥70 score. It was 12,5 %
students, and it was still lower than 75%. It
means that the successful indicator could not be
reached at the first cycle. From the result of
score of the first cycle, the writer concluded
that the successful indicator could not be
reached in this cycle. Therefore, the writer
decided to apply this technique to the next
cycle.
Based on the table bellow, it could be seen that
although there was an improvement but there
was no significant improvement from the
second cycle. There were still 19 students who
got ≥70 score, so it was 47,5%. It means that
the successful indicator could not be reached in
this cycle. Therefore, the treatment was
continued to the next cycle.
From on the table bellow, it could be seen that
there was still the improvement in this cycle.
There were 32 students got ≥70 score. It was
80% students. Based on the data, it showed the
significant improvement. It means that the
successful indicator had been reached in this
cycle. After knowing the result of the last cycle,
the writer concluded that the reciprocal
 Ersy, Improving Students’ Reading Comprehensio Through Reciprocal Teaching
teaching could improved students’ reading
comprehension.
Diagram 4.1 The Improvement Diagram
The diagram above shows the improvement of
the students. It could be seen that in each cycle
the score of the students’ tests increased. It
means that reciprocal teaching that had been
applied in the class could improve the students’
reading comprehension.
Conclusion and Suggestion
In this section, the writer will make conclusion
based on the data of the research entitled
Impoving the students’ reading comprehension
using reciprocal teaching to the third semester
students of English Department of Wijaya
Kusuma Surabaya University. First, before
doing the application reciprocal teaching
technique, the writer gave the students pre test
in order to know them first score. From the
result of the students’ pre test in form of score,
it showed that the students had low scores.
Almost all of the students in the class got score
below ≥70. Based on the result of the
observation, questionnaire and pre test, the
writer concluded that the students had problem
in comprehending a reading passage. That is
why, the writer applied reciprocal teaching
technique to improve students reading
comprehension.
Before giving the treatment, the students had
score under the average. But after giving the
treatment, the result of the studets’ score in
each cycle showed the improvement. From the
reason above and the result of the students
progress the writer concluded that reciprocal
teaching could improve students’ reading
comprehension.
The writer might give some suggestions for the
teachers that they are supposed to use
reciprocal teaching in the class especially for
teaching reading skill. By using this technique,
it allows the students to make group so they can
discuss together to understand the text. Besides,
when applying this technique in the class, the
29
Based on all cycles, the writer showed the
overall result in the diagram below:
students can be active and do not depend on the
teacher. And for the students, they can improve
their reading comprehension by using
reciprocal teaching to comprehend the text.
Besides, they know how to overcome their
comprehension failure and can find the
information from the text to answer their own
question. By applying reciprocal teaching, the
students can develope interpersonal
communication skill and thereby improve their
communication competence in the target
language.
REFERENCES
Abbot,Gery, John Greenwood, Douglas
McKeating, and Peter Wingard,1981.
The Teaching of English as an
International Language:A Practical
Guide.London:Collins.
Arends, Richard I. 1997. Classroom Instruction
and Management. USA: Mc Graw. Hill.
Cohen, Andrew D. 1990. Second Language
Learning and Use Strategies. Minnesota:
University of Minnesota.
Diaz-Rico, Lynne T.2004.Teaching English
Learners:strategies and methods. USA:
Pearson Education,Inc.
Diptoadi, L.Veronica,M.Sc. All about Reading
Doolitte,Peter E.,Hicks, David and
Triplett.Chery F.Reciprocal Teaching for
Reading Comprehension in higher
Education:A Strategy for fostering the
deeper Understanding of Texts.
International Journal of Teaching and
Learning in Higher Education.
Felipe Vela Izquierdo: 2004. English Teaching
Forum article: Reciprocal Teaching.
Volume 42. Number 2. Page 20-25
Heilman,Arthur W.,Timorthy R.Blair and
William H.Rupley.1981.Principles and
Practices of teaching Reading.Fifth
30
Edition.Ohio:Charles E.Merril Publising
Co.
Helms,Samuel. Advantages & Disadvantages
of Reciprocal Teaching. Reterieved on
May02,2011.From:http://www.ehow.co
m/info_advantages-
disadvantages.recprocal-
teaching.html#ixzz1LrFUUph2.
Hodgess and Harriss. 1995. Reading and
Information Transfer (Retrieved on May,
12th. 2011).
http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/tools/ini
tiative/summer
wokrhop/lewis/edliteslide006.html.
INOVASI, Volume XVIII, Nomor 2, Juli 2016
Kunandar,Spd,M.Si.2010. Langkah Mudah
Penelitian Tindakan Kelas sebagai
Pengembangan profesi Guru. Jakarta:PT
Rajawali Pers
Mikulecky,Lynne. T.2004. Teaching English
Learners: strategies and Methods.
USA:Pearson Education, Inc.
Nunan,David.2003. Practical English
Language Teaching.New Yotk:The McGraw-
Hill.
Oczkus,L.2003. Reciprocal Teaching at
work:Strategies for Improving Reading
Comprehension.Newark,DE:Internationa
l Reading Association.
 Learning and Instruction 19 (2009) 272e286
www.elsevier.com/locate/learninstruc

Improving students’ reading comprehension skills: Effects of strategy

instruction and reciprocal teaching
Nadine Spörer a,*, Joachim C. Brunstein a, Ulf Kieschke b
a
Department of Psychology, Justus-Liebig University of Giessen, Otto-Behaghel-Strasse 10F, D-35394 Giessen, Germany
b
Department of Psychology, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebkecht-Strasse 24/25, D-14476 Potsdam, Germany
Received 20 December 2007; revised 18 March 2008; accepted 6 May 2008

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of three different forms of strategy instruction on 210 elementary-school students’ reading
comprehension. Students were assigned to any one of three intervention conditions or to a traditional instruction condition (control condition).
Training students were taught four reading strategies (summarizing, questioning, clarifying, predicting) and practiced these strategies in small
groups (reciprocal teaching), pairs, or instructor-guided small groups. At both the post- and follow-up test the intervention students attained
higher scores on an experimenter-developed task of reading comprehension and strategy use than the control students who received traditional
instruction. Furthermore, students who practiced reciprocal teaching in small groups outperformed students in instructor-guided and traditional
instruction groups on a standardized reading comprehension test.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Reciprocal teaching; Reading comprehension; Reading strategies; Strategy instruction

1. Introduction

A widespread goal of education in the elementary school is reading comprehension for all students because reading
comprehension provides the basis for a substantial amount of learning in secondary school (Alvermann & Earle, 2003; Kirsch
et al., 2002). In the last 20 years, a major goal of reading comprehension research has been to identify effective reading strategies
that increase children’s comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000). But as Guthrie, Wigfield, Barbosa, et al. (2004) pointed
out, the evidence rests primarily on instructional research in which single cognitive strategies are taught in controlled experiments.
Relatively little is known about the issue of how multiple strategies can, and should, be combined in comprehension instruction. In
multiple strategies programs, strategy practice is often supported by peer-assisted learning arrangements (Brown, Pressley, Van
Meter, & Schuder, 1996; Klingner, Vaughn, & Schumm, 1998; Palincsar & Brown, 1984). However, only a few investigations
have addressed issues related to the identification of the effective elements inherent in multiple strategies programs. Consequently,
the aim of this study was to examine the effect of strategies being taught on reading comprehension and how these strategies are
practiced in relevant instruction.

1.1. Reading-comprehension strategies

A substantial body of research suggests that reading-comprehension instruction should include explicit cognitive strategy
instruction (Guthrie, Wigfield, Barbosa, et al., 2004). The theoretical bases for this suggestion are reading comprehension models,

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ49 641 9926194; fax: þ49 641 9926199.
E-mail address: nadine.spoerer@psychol.uni-giessen.de (N. Spörer).

0959-4752/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.003
 N. Spörer et al. / Learning and Instruction 19 (2009) 272e286 273

such as Cromley and Azevedo’s (2007) direct and inferential mediation (DIME) model which in turn is based on Kintsch’s (1988,
1998) constructioneintegration model. The DIME model hypothesizes relationships among background knowledge, vocabulary,
word reading, reading strategies, and inference that together result in reading comprehension. Reading vocabulary and back-
ground knowledge directly contribute to reading comprehension and also have effects that are mediated by inference. The model
further suggests that the effect of strategies on comprehension is mediated by inference. Reading comprehension is correlated
with a number of cognitive and metacognitive strategies, such as (a) activating background knowledge (Dole, Valencia, Greer, &
Wardrop, 1991), (b) summarizing text (Armbruster, Anderson, & Ostertag, 1987), and (c) generating questions to capture the main
idea of the passage (Rosenshine, Meister, & Chapman, 1996).
Although these cognitive and metacognitive strategies have most frequently been investigated in isolation, some researchers
have examined how they work together in more complex strategy packages (Brown et al., 1996; Guthrie, Wigfield, & Perencevich,
2004; Klingner et al., 1998; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Souvignier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006). For example, reciprocal teaching
(RT) is an instructional procedure developed by Palincsar and Brown (1984) to improve students’ text comprehension skills
through scaffolded instruction of four comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring strategies (Palincsar & Brown,
1984; Palincsar, David, & Brown, 1989; Rosenshine & Meister, 1994), that is, (a) generating one’s own questions,
(b) summarizing parts of the text, (c) clarifying word meanings and confusing text passages, and (d) predicting what might come
next in the text. These four strategies are involved in RT in ongoing dialogues between a dialogue leader and the remaining
students of the learning group. The dialogue leader, who can be a teacher or a student, models the use of the strategies, provides
conditional knowledge about strategy use, and helps students to apply a strategy to a passage. As the students in the group become
more familiar with the strategies and the procedure, dialogue leaders fade their involvement and other students take turns as
discussion leaders. An underlying assumption of RT is that by applying the strategies in a group process, especially less able
students can learn from their more knowledgeable peers. The overall goal is to promote, through scaffolding instruction and
collaboration, the self-directed and flexible use of the learned strategies. To sum, the following elements are essential to RT:
instruction of the four comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring strategies, application of the strategies using rich
and meaningful reciprocal dialogues, and providing scaffold instruction during which teachers gradually fade their modelling of
the strategies (Hacker & Tenent, 2002; Palincsar & Brown, 1984).
A theoretical basis for suggesting effects of strategy instruction (which strategies are taught) and reciprocal teaching (how are
strategies practiced) is Zimmerman’s (1998) self-regulation model. In this model, self-regulation is assumed to be organized
within a learning cycle that capitalizes on three types of self-reflective thoughts: (a) goal setting and strategic planning; (b) self-
monitoring of one’s accuracy in implementing a selected strategy, and (c) self-assessment of strategy outcome and task
performance. These processes are considered to be cyclic or recursive because each process entails information that can lead to
changes in a subsequent step of the cycle. In addition, these processes qualify as self-reflective cognitions in the sense that self-
monitoring of learning activities and associated corrective processes are central features of each step included in the cycle.
Drawing on Zimmerman’s model, during reciprocal teaching students are engaged in cognitive and metacognitive activities: they
alternate between prompting the use of a strategy, applying the selected strategy, and monitoring its accurate implementation.
Hence, self-regulation procedures as described by Zimmerman (1998) are integral to RT.
Since Palincsar and Brown’s (1984) seminal work, many studies have been conducted to test the effectiveness of reciprocal
teaching. The procedure has been applied to different settings, age groups, and populations (Alfassi, 1998; Hart & Speece, 1998;
Le Fevre, Moore, & Wilkinson, 2003; Lysynchuk, Pressley, & Vye, 1990; Palincsar, Brown, & Martin, 1987). In a meta-analysis
involving 16 studies, Rosenshine and Meister (1994) reported a mean effect size of .32 for standardized test and .88 for
experimenter-developed task favouring RT over control groups. Although there is clear evidence that RT promotes reading
comprehension, no study analyzed the separate effects of the various aspects of RT and only a few studies have examined if RT
students improved their strategies skills in terms of successfully applying a strategy to a passage. Furthermore, it is not clear if all
or only one of the taught strategies is effective in fostering students’ reading comprehension (Rosenshine & Meister, 1994; for
training college students see also Hart & Speece, 1998). So far, a training effect for summarizing only could be established. There
were significant improvements in four out of five studies in which researchers collected summarization probes. For generating
questions, five out of six studies found no reliable difference between RT and control groups, although in all six studies RT
students significantly improved in their reading comprehension relative to control students. Even though students were taught the
entire set of four strategies in 12 out of 16 studies, effects on making predictions were assessed in only one of these studies
(Dermody, 1988). No study has examined students’ mastery of clarifying strategies. At present, it is thus unclear which strategies
of RT significantly contribute to the development of students’ reading comprehension skills.
Besides these open questions regarding the empirical identification of effective strategies involved in RT, a number of diffi-
culties with implementing and practicing RT have been reported in the literature (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001; Marks et al., 1993). In
a qualitative analysis, Hacker and Tenent (2002) found that elementary-school teachers made many modifications to adapt RT to
the requirements of mainstream classroom instruction. Some teachers combined small-group activities with whole-class
instruction to make the collaborative learning process easier for students as well as for the teacher. Other teachers required their
students to write down their questions, answers, and summaries. Marks et al. (1993) observed that teachers sometimes changed RT
in a way that elements supposedly playing a critical role in promoting deeper levels of reading comprehension, such as students’
274 N. Spörer et al. / Learning and Instruction 19 (2009) 272e286

continuous engagement in reciprocal teaching, were completely dropped from the instruction. As Fuchs and Fuchs (2001) stated,
there are two main reasons why it may be difficult for teachers to implement RT in naturally constituted classrooms: First, many
teachers are unfamiliar with the procedure of reciprocal teaching. Second, the instructional technique for helping children to
develop responsibility for strategic behaviour is challenging. Also, RT may be inappropriate for elementary-school children
because students of all ability levels are assigned the role of the group leader and thereby have to take on responsibility for the
group’s learning. For young children, this may result in a cognitive overload (Rosenshine & Meister, 1994).
One possibility of implementing RT in regular classroom lessons without losing major features of the program is to combine
RT with peer-assisted learning arrangements in which students read in pairs (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001; Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, &
Simmons, 1997). Peer-assisted learning lessons consist of a set of structured activities, such as partner reading, summarizing, and
predicting, and students are taught to enact these activities independently. At the beginning, teachers use a set of briefly scripted
lessons including teacher presentations, student practice, and teacher feedback. Later on, two students are paired to share and
practice reading activities (McMaster, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2006). Similar to Palincsar and Brown’s (1984) RT program, students’
roles can be reciprocal so that both students in a pair serve as tutor during each lesson.
Compared to RT, reading in pairs has several advantages regarding the implementation of strategy instruction in regular
classrooms. First, in their pairs students keep track of their reading activities on score cards that serve as external metacognitive
guides and, thus, facilitate structured working in pairs (McMaster et al., 2006). Second, reading in pairs is more similar to
instructional procedures teachers often adopt in reading lessons (e.g., partner reading) and, thus, is more likely to be accepted by
teachers (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001). Since teachers strongly rely on their beliefs and knowledge about instruction when adding new
practices to their teaching repertoire (Borko & Putnam, 1996), Hacker and Tenent (2002) argued that researchers have to consider
that teachers, too, need to take ownership of their learning by constructing their own understanding of new curricula and methods
using their prior knowledge. Third, students who work in pairs have more opportunities to practice the use of reading strategies
than students who work together in small groups.

1.2. The present study

In our study, we adopted and further advanced the argument that there is a need for identifying effective elements of
a multiple strategies program, namely RT (Rosenshine & Meister, 1994). Accordingly, our first aim was to examine if both
strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching contribute to the acquisition of reading strategies and, thus, to the development of
young students’ reading comprehension. Our second aim was to examine the effects of a potentially more classroom-
appropriate intervention and so we created a condition in which RT was practiced in pairs. Altogether, we examined three
intervention conditions and a traditional instruction condition (control condition) in terms of their effectiveness. In the first
intervention condition (RT condition), in which students practiced traditional RT (Palincsar & Brown, 1984), we integrated
methods of direct instruction with cognitive modelling and phases of independent reciprocal teaching to help students acquire
the four reading strategies of summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting. To manipulate the presence versus absence
of reciprocal teaching as an integral part of the strategy training we created a second strategy condition labelled instructor-
guided reading condition (IG condition). In this condition, a small group of 4e6 students was guided by a graduate assistant
(the instructor) during the course of the intervention. The task of the instructor was to model the four reading strategies, ask
students to apply a strategy and give feedback about the quality of strategy used. In a third strategy condition, labelled
reciprocal teaching in pairs (RTP condition), students were first taught the four reading strategies of summarizing, ques-
tioning, clarifying, and predicting, and then led to continue practicing these strategies in pairs. Similar to RT, these pairs
engaged in reciprocal dialogues while they practiced the use of the learned strategies (see also Table 1 for a comparison of
the three intervention conditions).

Table 1
Characteristics of intervention conditions.
Instructional elements Conditions
IG RT RTP
Strategy instruction þ þ þ
Instructors use explicit instruction and cognitive modelling of reading strategies
Practice in strategy use þ þ þ
Students apply a strategy to a passage
Scaffolding instruction and reciprocal teaching þ þ
Instructors fade their involvement and students take turns as discussion leaders
Recording reading activities on worksheets þ
Students write down words to clarify, questions a teacher might ask, a summary, and a prediction
RT ¼ reciprocal teaching; RTP ¼ reciprocal teaching in pairs; IG ¼ instructor-guided reading.
 N. Spörer et al. / Learning and Instruction 19 (2009) 272e286 275

We applied three criteria to evaluate the four conditions: (a) the effectiveness of the conditions (use of reading strategies at
posttest), (b) the maintenance of strategies across time (use of reading strategies at follow-up test); and (c) the transfer of the
learned strategies to experimenter-developed task (near transfer) and standardized reading comprehension test (far transfer). So,
outcome measures included both experimenter-developed task and standardized comprehension test. As Rosenshine and
Meister (1994) stated, experimenter-developed comprehension tasks may be easier to answer because compared to standardized
tests, text passages are longer and organized in a topic-sentence-and-supporting-detail format. Furthermore, answering
experimenter-developed questions usually requires less background knowledge and searching of the text. Therefore, to examine
the level of generalization, both an experimenter-developed task as indicator of near transfer and a standardized test as indicator
of far transfer were administered. The use of the four strategies: clarifying, summarizing, questioning, and predicting was
assessed to analyze if differences in reading comprehension could be accounted for by differences in students’ strategy
acquisition.
The hypotheses guiding this investigation were as follows: First, drawing on previous reading comprehension research (Brown
et al., 1996; Guthrie, Wigfield, Barbosa, et al., 2004; Klingner et al., 1998; Palincsar & Brown, 1984) and emphasizing the
influence of explicit reading strategy instruction on reading comprehension, we predicted that compared to the control condition,
the three intervention conditions would be more effective in fostering the acquisition of reading strategies at post- and follow-up
test as well as reading comprehension assessed with near-transfer task, that is, experimenter-developed task (Hypothesis 1).
Second, as regards far-transfer tests, we expected the combination of strategy instruction with RT to be more successful than
the control condition and the condition in which students were taught strategies for reading in the absence of RT, that is, in the IG
condition (Hypothesis 2). Complying with earlier research highlighting the potential benefits of incorporating self-reflective,
metacognitive practices into the training of cognitive strategies (Elliott-Faust & Pressley, 1986; Fuchs et al., 2003), both RT and
RTP conditions should be especially effective in terms of far transfer.
Third, drawing on reading comprehension models (Cromley & Azevedo, 2007) we assumed that RT effects on standardized
reading comprehension tasks (for transfer tasks) would be mediated by the extent to which reading strategies were used correctly
at the end of the intervention (Hypothesis 3).
Finally, comparing RT and RTP conditions between them, we expected that the two conditions are similarly effective in
fostering comprehension strategies and reading comprehension. Hence, instead of formulating a hypothesis describing differences
between the two RT conditions, we posed the following question: To what extent does RTP differ from RT in influencing reading
strategies and reading comprehension?

2. Method

2.1. Participants e design

Participants were 210 third- to sixth-graders from two elementary schools serving middle-class neighbourhoods in a medium-
sized German town. Both schools are public half-day schools, without a special profile, teaching students from Grade 1 to 6.
Public schools are not stratified at this stage. So students of all ability levels are instructed. The primary language of the children
was German (86%). Their ethnic identification was predominantly (97%) Caucasian. Because we were not allowed to collect data
about parents’ household income and education level, as indicator of socioeconomic status we asked the children how many books
their family had at home. Most of the children (47%) indicated that their family had 26e100 books at home. According to
independent ANOVA and chi-square tests, respectively, there were no significant differences ( p > .05) between conditions in
demographic data (see Table 2).
The schools had no obligation to participate in the study, and the implementation of the reading intervention was completely
voluntary. Students were randomly assigned to the different conditions in two steps. First, one school was randomly assigned to
the traditional instruction condition as control group, whereas the other school was assigned to the intervention. Second, we
randomly assigned students of each intervention class to the three different intervention conditions. Students of the intervention
conditions were taught by instructional assistants in groups of 4e6 students. In the RT condition eight groups (with a total of 42
students, one group per class) were instructed. Another eight groups (42 students, one group per class) were instructed in the IG
condition. Finally, 14 groups (60 students, depending on class size, one or two groups per class) were instructed in the RTP
condition.
In the control condition, students were instructed in reading comprehension by their regular teachers in German language
lessons. In contrast, in each intervention class instruction was provided in small groups after regular lessons by graduate students.
To control for instructional time, teachers of intervention classes provided no reading instruction during the course of the training.
Therefore, even though control students received reading instruction during regular lessons, while intervention students received
after their regular lessons, the total reading instruction time was comparable across conditions.
The study involved a pretest, posttest, and follow-up test design. Pre- and posttest materials were administered one week before
and after the intervention. Follow-up test was conducted 12 weeks after the posttest.
276 N. Spörer et al. / Learning and Instruction 19 (2009) 272e286

Table 2
Participant characteristics by conditions.
Characteristics Conditions
RT RTP IG Control Total
Number of participants 42 60 42 66 210
Sex
Male 16 22 16 31 85
Female 26 38 26 35 125
Grade
3 12 16 11 18 57
4 11 16 10 18 55
5 9 18 12 18 57
6 10 10 9 12 41
Language primarily spoken at home
German 37 49 35 59 180
Other language 5 11 7 7 30
Books at home
0e10 0 6 2 1 9
11e25 8 10 6 7 31
26e100 19 23 19 38 99
101e200 7 5 9 9 30
More than 200 8 16 6 11 41
RT ¼ reciprocal teaching; RTP ¼ reciprocal teaching in pairs; IG ¼ instructor-guided reading; Control ¼ control condition (traditional instruction).

2.2. Intervention conditions

2.2.1. Reading strategy instruction

Reading strategy instruction was delivered in 14 lessons (two lessons per week) each consisting of a 45-min lesson. In the first
phase of the training, students in the three intervention conditions received the same collaborative, interactive, and scaffolding
instruction in three stages of strategy instruction: discussing, modelling, and practicing the strategies. Explicit teaching was
chosen as instruction form (Palincsar et al., 1987).
In the first six training lessons students were introduced to the four strategies, one by one, using worksheet activities led by the
instructor. The first lesson served to familiarize students with the instructor. This was done by discussing why reading strategies
are important and which strategies students already knew, outlining the upcoming training lessons, and working out behaviour
rules during training lessons. Furthermore, students received folders for storing materials and passages. In the second lesson,
students were introduced to the strategy of making predictions. Following Hart and Speece (1998), this strategy was described as
a means of determining what might be discussed next by the author in order to help the reader to think about what he or she
already knows about a topic in preparation for what might be coming next. The third lesson was devoted to instruction of question
generating and to recapitulate the strategy prediction. Here, students were informed about the types of questions teachers might
ask: questions about details, questions about cause and effect, questions that compare and contrast, questions about the main idea,
and questions that require inference.
In the next two lessons summarization and clarification were practiced. The following rules were used to teach summarization:
(a) delete minor and unimportant information, (b) combine similar ideas into categories, (c) state the main idea when the author
provides it, and (d) invent the main idea when author does not provide it (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978). In the fifth lesson, students
were taught the clarification strategy by identifying either words, concepts, or both, that may be obscure, ambiguous, or hard to
understand. In the sixth and concluding lesson of the explicit teaching part, students practiced collaboratively as well as inde-
pendently the four reading strategies and received a bookmark with the most important information about the four reading
strategies. At the end of the explicit teaching phase, students had acquired knowledge about the four strategies but still had not
applied the strategies to longer reading passages.
In the second phase of the training, students practiced applying strategies to reading passages through different forms of
teaching which are described next. (Complete reading passages, lesson plan, and instructional materials for the three treatments
are available from the first author upon request.)

2.2.2. Traditional reciprocal teaching

During the second part of the training (Lessons 7e14) students in the traditional reciprocal teaching (RT) groups received the
intervention described by Palincsar and Brown (1984). Initially, the instructor demonstrated how the reading strategies were to be
applied to a paragraph. She first read the title of the passage and made a prediction about the content of the text. After reading
aloud the first paragraph, she modelled how word meanings or confusing passages could be clarified and how the paragraph could
 N. Spörer et al. / Learning and Instruction 19 (2009) 272e286 277

be summarized. She then formulated 2e3 questions and predicted what might come next in the text. Next, the instructor asked
a student to apply one of the four strategies and provided praise and feedback. At the beginning of Lesson 9, the instructor stated
that it would now be a student’s task to lead the dialogue. At this stage, as students were encouraged to provide instructional
support for each other, the instructor explained the function of praise and feedback and helped the dialogue leader to formulate
appropriate comments. Students kept on practicing reciprocal dialogues until the end of Lesson 14.

2.2.3. Reciprocal teaching in pairs

In the RTP condition students were taught in Lessons 7 and 8 how to apply the four reading strategies. Initially, the instructor
demonstrated how to apply the reading strategies to a paragraph. Similar to the traditional RT condition the instructor modelled
how to apply a strategy to a paragraph, encouraged students to proceed, and praised students for the correct use of a strategy. In
Lesson 9 students started working in pairs and used reciprocal dialogues to practice strategies. For this purpose, the instructor
requested one student of each pair to lead the dialogue in the first paragraph. Different from the traditional RT condition, pairs
recorded their reading activities on worksheets. After the other student of the pair had read aloud the first paragraph of the
passage, he or she was asked to identify words the meaning of which was unclear. Students wrote down these words on
a worksheet, tried together to clarify the words’ meanings and, if necessary, asked the instructor for help. Next, the dialogue leader
asked the other student to formulate a question a teacher might ask. The leader provided feedback and together the two students
discussed which question they wanted to write down. Then, the dialogue leader asked the student to summarize the paragraph.
Again the leader provided feedback and together the two students formulated the summary and noted it on the worksheet. Finally,
the leader asked the other student to generate a prediction, gave feedback and wrote down what they thought the best prediction
would be. Then, the two students switched their roles. The pair discussed if the prediction came true and started to apply the
strategies to the paragraph. Students kept on practicing reciprocal dialogues in pairs until the end of Lesson 14. The task of the
instructor was to monitor the dialogues of the pairs and to provide assistance upon request.

2.2.4. Instructor-guided reading

As in the above-described conditions the instructor modelled how to apply the strategies to a text paragraph. Then she asked
a student to apply one of the strategies. In each of the remaining lessons she guided students’ activities by using prompts (‘‘What
question did you think a teacher might ask?’’), instructions (‘‘Remember, a summary is shorter than the paragraph.’’), and
modifications (‘‘If you are having a hard time formulating a summary, why don’t you first state the main idea of the paragraph?’’).
Different from both RT and RTP students, the IG students were never assigned the role of the dialogue leader. The instructor
decided which of the students applied a strategy, asked other students to help, and gave praise and feedback.

2.3. Control condition

During the course of the training, control students were instructed in reading comprehension by their regular teachers in two German
language lessons per week with traditional instruction. Traditional instruction consisted of an extensive amount of text interaction
with age-appropriate reading materials. Strategies such as activating background knowledge, clarifying, and predicting were taught
implicitly as appropriate to the text. Whole-class reading as well as reading in small groups was used for practicing reading.

2.4. Instructional assistants and treatment integrity

Instructors were six female graduate assistants who had gained in pilot work extensive experience in teaching reading skills to
elementary-school children. The instructors were randomly assigned to student groups. Every instructor taught at least one group
in each of the three intervention conditions. To prevent instructors from creating their own expectancies concerning the differ-
ential effectiveness of the three intervention procedures, we informed them that all conditions would be effective in fostering
reading comprehension.
Four months before the first training lesson the six assistants met with the first author. Each instructor received a manual
describing in detail the strategies, exercises, materials, and instructions to be taught and assigned to students in each lesson
included in the respective intervention condition. Instructors were required to model each lesson until they demonstrated a high
level of proficiency in modelling strategies, providing temporary guidance to students, fading instructional support, providing
criterion-referenced feedback, encouraging children, and praising them for good work.
Treatment integrity was assessed over time and by lesson (Gresham, MacMillan, Beebe-Frankenberger, & Bocian, 2000). In
their logs, instructors checked each step of a lesson as it was completed and jointly discussed intervention progress in weekly staff
meetings. During the first phase of the training (Lessons 1e6) estimated time of activities was compared with instructors’ needed
time. In the first six lessons of the three strategy instruction conditions 100% of the steps were completed. Hence, although our
strategy interventions were time-based, it was ensured that at the end of the explicit-teaching phase, all students had completed the
assigned activities. For the second phase of the training, instructors had no guidelines how many paragraphs students should read
per lesson. To facilitate reading comprehension, instructors encouraged students to apply the four strategies and discuss each
278 N. Spörer et al. / Learning and Instruction 19 (2009) 272e286

paragraph in detail. Instructors noted in their logs of Lessons 7 to 14 how many paragraphs were read by groups and pairs,
respectively.

2.5. Training materials

For the first phase of the training, which contained the explicit teaching of the four reading strategies, worksheets for each
strategy were handed to the students. These worksheets were originally developed for English speaking students by Brady (1990)
and were translated by Demmrich (2005) for a training study with German elementary-school students. Each student received
a bookmark that depicted the name and a symbol of each of the four reading strategies.
Eight reading passages for third- and fourth-grade students and eight passages for fifth- and sixth-grade students, comprising
topics of age-appropriate science and social studies, were selected for student practice of reading strategies during the second
phase of training. Third- and fourth graders and fifth- and sixth-graders, respectively, received the same passages in the same order
(one passage per lesson). Each expository passage was chosen on the basis of its possible appeal to a diverse student population.
Subjects and texts for reading passages were obtained from workbook and magazine sources. Passages for third- and fourth-grade
students consisted of between 179 and 312 words in length (M ¼ 260, SD ¼ 44). Passages for fifth- and sixth-grade students
consisted of between 236 and 368 words in length (M ¼ 330, SD ¼ 39). All passages were visibly divided into paragraphs. Each of
the paragraphs consisted of at least three sentences building a meaningful unit of the text to ensure that a summary could be made.

2.6. Procedure

Testing sessions lasted 90 min. In each class one of the six research assistants collected data in whole-classroom arrangement.
Students were not permitted to use any external aid throughout the testing sessions. Written measures were used to assess
students’ acquisition of reading strategies as well as reading comprehension. At each session, students were first asked to read
a passage, apply all four reading strategies step by step and answer a number of comprehension questions. After a 10-min break,
students’ reading comprehension skills were assessed with a standardized scholastic achievement test.
For each grade different testing passages were selected from German workbook and magazine sources. The length of the
passages varied between 254 and 481 words in length (Grade 3: M ¼ 255, SD ¼ 1; Grade 4: M ¼ 311, SD ¼ 40; Grade 5:
M ¼ 423, SD ¼ 5; Grade 6: M ¼ 465, SD ¼ 14).
To ensure that passages and comprehension questions were equal in difficulty passages were tested in the following way: Four
months before the training started, for each grade, four passages with 10 reading comprehension questions each were developed
and administered to 106 third- to sixth-graders from other classes. To avoid overload each student received a reading set con-
sisting of two out of four passages. Pairwise contrasts among within-subjects means revealed no significant differences between
reading comprehension scores ( p > .05). On the basis of students’ reading comprehension scores three passages with nine
questions each were chosen for the training study’s pretest, posttest, and follow-up test. Furthermore, with the teachers of the
participating classes we discussed each passage and questions and they judged the finally selected passages and questions to be
equivalent in interest value. Since the pilot testing ensured equal difficulty across texts, the reading passage sets were presented in
the same order for each student across the three measurement points. None of these passages was assigned to any of the
participating students during the instructional period.

2.6.1. Scoring
Before scoring students’ responses to the open-ended questions, each questionnaire was assigned a code number so that the
scorers, the six female graduate assistants, would be unaware of the testing session, intervention condition, student, and school.
Scorers were trained to ensure reliability and accuracy in each measure. A 3-h training session was conducted including the
presentation of procedures, rubrics for scoring each measure, controlled practice for each measure, and independent scoring of
each measure. For each measure 20% of the assessments were randomly selected for a reliability check and independently rated
by a second scorer. Interrater reliability (Pearson’s coefficient) was computed for each measure and testing period.

2.7. Measures

2.7.1. Strategy acquisition

Experimenter-developed assessments of strategy acquisition were modelled after Hart and Speece’s (1998) study in which
students were asked to apply all four strategies to a passage. For each grade, different passages were administered at pretest,
posttest and follow-up test. To assess students’ ability to make predictions, only the title and the first paragraph of the text were
printed on the first page of the questionnaire. Students were asked to read the paragraph and to write down how the text might
continue. On the second page of the questionnaire the whole passage was printed. After students had read the passage they were
asked to identify words or concepts that might need some further clarification. Then they were requested to generate questions.
Finally, students were asked to write a summary about the passage.
 N. Spörer et al. / Learning and Instruction 19 (2009) 272e286 279

These assessments were evaluated by a scorer on a 6-point scale adopted from Hart and Speece (1998) which was specific to
each strategy (available from the authors). Predictions were evaluated as follows: 0 (no response), 1 (a response but untied to the
passage), 2 (a response based on an unimportant detail of the paragraph), 3 (a response based on one feature of the paragraph), 4
(a response based on two or more features of the paragraph), 5 (a response based on two or more features of the paragraph clearly
demonstrating the link between the paragraph and what probably would come next). For each testing time, interscorer reliability
was >.85.
Clarification was evaluated as follows: 0 (no response), 1 (a word whose meaning is stated in the text), 2 (a concept whose
meaning is stated in the text), 3 (a difficult word), 4 (a difficult concept), 5 (a difficult word and a difficult concept), where difficult
meant that a word or concept was neither directly nor indirectly explained in the passage. For each testing time, interscorer
reliability was >.84.
Questions were evaluated as follows: 0 (no response), 1 (a question of detail using a sentence from the text), 2 (a question of
detail using own language), 3 (a question based on a main idea using a sentence from the text), 4 (a question based on a main idea
using own language), 5 (an inference, comparison, evaluative, or cause and effect question). For each testing time, interscorer
reliability was >.85.
Summaries were evaluated as follows: 0 (no response), 1 (only topic sentences from the text are used, minor details are
included), 2 (inclusion of topic sentences as well as of invented sentences, minor details are included), 3 (invented sentences are
used, some minor details are included, does not quite capture the gist of the passage), 4 (invented sentences are used, no minor
details are included, does not quite capture the gist of the passage), 5 (invented sentences are used, no minor details are included,
completely captures the gist of the passage). For each testing time, interscorer reliability was >.88.

2.7.2. Reading comprehension

Students’ performance in reading comprehension was measured with both experimenter-developed task and standardized test.
At pretest, posttest, and follow-up test, students’ reading comprehension skills were tested with experimenter-developed tasks.
These self-constructed tasks were administered as follows: After students read the passage and applied step by step all four
reading strategies to the text (see Section 2.7.1), they were requested to indicate that they had finished by raising their hands.
When a student indicated that s/he had finished reading, the text was removed. Students were then presented with nine
comprehension questions. Three questions were designed to tap single pieces of information about the text (scored with one point
for each correct answer) and six were designed to cover main ideas of the text and evoke longer, complex answers. Each of the
latter questions was scored as follows: 0 (incorrect answer), 1 (a meaningful answer covering details of the text paragraph), 2 (a
meaningful answer covering the main idea of the text paragraph) and, therefore, the range of responses was 0e15. For each testing
time, interscorer reliability was >.91.
Furthermore, at pretest and follow-up test all students completed Nauck and Otte’s (1980) reading comprehension test from the
‘‘Diagnostischer Test Deutsch’’ [Diagnostic Test German]; Cronbach’s alpha was .74 at pretest and .68 at follow-up test. This
standardized reading comprehension test has two parallel forms. Consequently, we administered the one test form at pretest and
the other at the follow-up test to assess transfer effects of strategy instruction. Each test form consists of two texts: Version A
comprises a letter from a friend of 146 words and a short story about wasps of 203 words; Version B comprises a fable about
a farmer of 142 words and a fable about a bishop of 236 words. Students were given 16 min to answer 20 (Version A) and 18
(Version B) multiple-choice questions, respectively. This test was more difficult than the experimenter-developed task because
passages were not organized in a topic-sentence-and-supporting-detail format and answering the questions required re-reading the
text and combining different sentences. For fourth- to sixth-graders, Nauck and Otte (1980) reported the correlation of students’
reading comprehension scores in this standardized test inventory with a measure of fluid intelligence to be .35. Performance on
this test was in standard scores, with M ¼ 50 and SD ¼ 10.

2.7.3. Social validity

At posttest students were asked questions regarding their own perception of the effectiveness of the intervention. Specifically,
students responded to eight items reflecting their motivation and involvement in the training as well as their enjoyment of working
in a group. Example item was ‘‘How much fun did you have?’’ Cronbach’s alpha for the internal consistency of the eight items
was .85. They indicated their response to each item on a 1 (no/not at all) to 4 (very much) point scale. In addition, students were
asked to respond to three open-ended questions: (a) What have you learned since we started working together? (b) What did you
like most in the lessons? (c) What would you change in the lessons?

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary analyses and overview of statistical procedures

The unit of analysis was each student’s individual score. Although students in the intervention conditions worked together in
fixed groups, control students did not. Consequently, groups of students were not used as unit of analysis.
280 N. Spörer et al. / Learning and Instruction 19 (2009) 272e286

Scores for strategy acquisition and reading comprehension measures were tested for significant differences between conditions
using ANOVAs. First, using condition as between-subjects factor, one-way ANOVAs were conducted for each measure at pretest to
evaluate differences between conditions prior to the instruction. No statistically significant differences were found (each p > .05).
Next, correlations among pretest, posttest, and follow-up test measures were calculated (see Table 3). Except for Clarifying,
a relationship was detected in the bivariate correlations of strategy acquisition scores and reading-comprehension scores.
Although treatment differences at pretest were statistically nonsignificant, for three reasons we used an analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) approach of posttest and follow-up test data: (a) to reduce the probability of a Type II error, (b) to increase power by
reducing the error variance, and (c) to control for variability in the pretest (Huck, 2000). Pretest scores did not interact with
intervention condition ( p > .05), indicating that (a) our data met the ANCOVA assumption of homogeneous regression slopes and
(b) pretest levels of reading skills did not moderate treatment effects on the dependent variables. To estimate the practical
significance of treatment effects, we computed partial eta-squared as a measure of the variance accounted for by intervention
condition in the dependent variable of interest. Significant ANCOVAs were followed by Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise contrasts
among between-subjects means with the appropriate pretest as the covariate. To calculate effect sizes, we adopted a procedure that
paralleled the ANCOVA approach: We first covaried the pretest from the dependent variable and then used the residualized means
and standard deviations to estimate the size of the effect. These effects are reported in standard deviation units (Cohen’s d; Cohen,
1988). To further explore treatment effects on students’ reading behaviour, we analyzed for each condition separately changes in
repeated assessments of the reading strategies and comprehension measures. For this purpose, we adopted a multiple dependent-
sample t test procedure preceded by a multivariate F test for the Condition  Time of Assessment effect. Because of the number
of comparisons, Bonferroni correction of alpha level was applied and alpha was set at .006 (.05/8 ¼ .00625). To test whether
training effects on far transfer (on the standardised reading comprehension test) were mediated by the correct use of reading
strategies at the end of the intervention regression analyses were run (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Further, we conducted the Sobel test
(Sobel, 1982), a statistically based method by which mediation can be formally assessed (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman,
West, & Sheets, 2002).
We were also interested in examining the extent to which potential differences in the instructional effectiveness of our research
assistants might have influenced the outcomes of each of the interventions. For each intervention separately, we thus analyzed the
reading-comprehension measures in a series of ANCOVAs, using posttest and follow-up test scores as the dependent variables and
the respective pretest as the covariate. Except for one instructor effect ( p ¼ .04) on RTP students’ reading comprehension score
(experimenter-developed task) at posttest, all effects for instructor were nonsignificant ( p > .05). In keeping with our observations
from the treatment fidelity check, these results suggest that each of the three interventions had been implemented properly with
a high degree of homogeneity across instructors.
Means, standard deviations, adjusted means, effect sizes, and gain t-values with Bonferroni-adjusted significance levels for
each condition by measure are presented in Table 4. Student gender and grade did not modify any of the inferential analyses
reported below. Therefore, these variables are not discussed further.

Table 3
Correlations among measures of pretest, posttest, and follow-up test.
Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Pretest
1. Clarifying
2. Summarizing .04
3. Questioning .03 .34
4. Acquisition of predicting .02 .46 .28
5. Reading comprehension (ED) .15 .29 .21 .34
6. Reading comprehension (ST) .10 .38 .35 .16 .22
Posttest
7. Clarifying .19 .18 .09 .02 .02 .09
8. Summarizing .01 .34 .32 .29 .10 .19 .08
9. Questioning .01 .30 .25 .26 .23 .29 .14 .42
10. Predicting .06 .24 .18 .25 .20 .20 .13 .38 .36
11. Reading comprehension (ED) .08 .29 .30 .24 .23 .40 .05 .41 .48 .35
Follow-up test
12. Clarifying .01 .25 .08 .07 .02 .05 .21 .14 .01 .05 .11
13. Summarizing .11 .36 .25 .29 .15 .28 .01 .42 .28 .30 .42 .11
14. Questioning .06 .28 .38 .26 .10 .28 .01 .35 .30 .26 .33 .05 .44
15. Predicting .10 .36 .25 .30 .20 .26 .01 .38 .24 .31 .24 .08 .42 .35
16. Reading comprehension (ED) .01 .38 .36 .37 .26 .43 .09 .45 .38 .30 .50 .09 .55 .43 .47
17. Reading comprehension (ST) .03 .22 .26 .22 .15 .44 .08 .29 .37 .19 .42 .12 .45 .32 .30 .51
ED ¼ experimenter-developed task (near transfer); ST ¼ standardized test (far transfer). Testeretest correlations are in bold. Correlations >.13 are statistically
significant ( p < .05).
 N. Spörer et al. / Learning and Instruction 19 (2009) 272e286 281

Table 4
Means, standard deviations, and adjusted means (with pretest scores as covariate), effect sizes (Cohen’s d ) and gains t for strategy measures by testing occasion and
condition.
Conditions Pretest Posttest Follow-up test
M SD M SD Adjusted M d Gains t M SD Adjusted M d Gains t
Clarifying
RT 0.75 1.04 1.41 1.29 1.45 .80 3.31* 1.29 1.28 1.29 .70 2.06
RTP 0.75 1.09 1.29 1.21 1.33 .70 3.03* 1.25 1.37 1.25 .66 2.31
IG 0.93 1.09 1.48 1.40 1.48 .67 1.98 1.00 1.22 1.00 .31 0.26
Control 1.16 1.17 0.90 1.11 0.84 1.47 0.87 1.22 0.87 1.39
Contrasts ns ns ns
Summarizing
RT 1.45 1.50 2.40 1.38 2.45 .63 3.73* 2.52 1.46 2.57 .65 4.03*
RTP 1.40 1.48 3.03 1.69 3.10 1.02 6.32* 2.48 1.39 2.55 .66 4.84*
IG 1.63 1.58 2.62 1.60 2.60 .63 4.50* 2.15 1.44 2.13 .27 1.95
Control 1.79 1.52 1.77 1.64 1.68 0.12 1.90 1.48 1.82 0.60
Contrasts ns Control < RT, RTP, IG ( p < .05) Control < RT, RTP ( p < .05)
Questioning
RT 1.97 1.53 3.31 1.48 3.38 .67 5.03* 3.20 1.33 3.31 .74 4.76*
RTP 2.66 1.51 3.40 1.29 3.31 .31 3.50* 3.01 1.58 2.87 .12 1.49
IG 2.15 1.72 2.96 1.59 2.98 .32 2.51* 2.59 1.49 2.63 .17 1.94
Control 2.17 1.54 2.48 1.58 2.50 1.26 2.36 1.39 2.39 0.91
Contrasts ns Control < RT, RTP ( p < .05) Control < RT ( p < .05)
Predicting
RT 1.46 1.24 2.62 1.22 2.65 .81 5.00* 2.95 1.26 3.01 .79 7.08*
RTP 1.58 1.18 2.46 1.17 2.47 .59 3.92* 2.37 1.42 2.38 .25 3.32*
IG 1.85 1.42 2.66 1.25 2.60 .54 3.92* 2.55 1.46 2.47 .17 3.36*
Control 1.61 1.28 1.80 1.15 1.80 1.16 2.06 1.37 2.07 2.47
Contrasts ns Control < RT, RTP, IG ( p < .05) Control < RT ( p < .05)
Reading comprehension (ED)
RT 2.84 2.51 6.63 2.70 6.82 1.44 6.87* 6.72 2.44 6.93 1.24 8.49*
RTP 3.14 3.03 6.29 2.58 6.39 1.09 7.63* 6.55 2.95 6.66 .91 7.25*
IG 3.51 2.90 6.56 2.90 6.55 1.05 6.46* 6.39 2.86 6.38 .74 6.18*
Control 4.13 1.94 4.67 2.05 4.47 1.83 5.16 2.41 4.97 3.19*
Contrasts ns Control < RT, RTP, IG ( p < .05) Control < RT, RTP, IG ( p < .05)
Reading comprehension (ST)
RT 47.26 9.05 52.62 6.13 52.36 .57 4.68*
RTP 46.93 9.32 49.92 7.26 49.77 .19 2.48
IG 46.48 9.63 48.79 5.89 48.80 .10 1.64
Control 45.65 7.40 47.44 7.12 47.73 1.92
Contrasts ns Control, IG < RT ( p < .05)
RT ¼ reciprocal teaching, RTP ¼ reciprocal teaching in pairs, IG ¼ instructor-guided reading, Control ¼ control condition (traditional instruction). ED ¼ experi-
menter-developed task (near transfer), ST ¼ standardized test (far transfer). Before group contrasts were tested for significance, variations in pretest scores were
partialled out. Cohen’s d ¼ effect size in standard deviation units (control vs. each treatment group). *p < .006 (Gains t Bonferroni-adjusted alpha level ¼ .05/8).

3.2. Strategy acquisition

We analyzed posttest and follow-up test scores of strategy acquisition with four separate one-way ANCOVAs using the pretest
as the covariate. Except for Clarifying at follow up, F(3, 205) ¼ 1.38, p > .05, all condition effects turned out to be significant,
although the effect sizes were small to moderate: for Clarifying at posttest, F(3, 205) ¼ 3.39, p < .05, partial h2 ¼ .05; for
Summarizing at posttest, F(3, 205) ¼ 9.86, p < .001, partial h2 ¼ .13; for Summarizing at follow-up test, F(3, 205) ¼ 4.16,
p < .01, partial h2 ¼ .06; for Questioning at posttest, F(3, 205) ¼ 4.53, p < .01, partial h2 ¼ .06; for Questioning at follow-up test,
F(3, 205) ¼ 4.24, p < .01, partial h2 ¼ .06; for Predicting at posttest, F(3, 205) ¼ 6.76, p < .01, partial h2 ¼ .09; and for Predicting
at follow-up test, F(3, 205) ¼ 4.40, p < .01, partial h2 ¼ .06.
Contrast analyses revealed the following results (see Table 4): (a) Summarizing: At posttest, students in each of the three
intervention conditions wrote better summaries than control students. At follow-up test IG students failed to create better
summaries than control students, but RT and RTP students did. (b) Questioning: At posttest, RT and RTP students formulated
better questions than control students. At follow-up test, only RT students outperformed control students. (c) Predicting: Similar to
the acquisition of summarizing skills, at posttest students in the intervention conditions made better predictions than control
students. At follow-up test, RT students continued to outperform control students. Except for the small effect of RTP students’
282 N. Spörer et al. / Learning and Instruction 19 (2009) 272e286

questioning skills, all effect sizes were in the medium to upper range. For Clarifying, significant differences between conditions
were not found at either posttest or follow-up test.

3.2.1. Interaction of condition with time of assessment

The Condition  Time of Assessment on strategy acquisition scores in the mixed design ANOVA with Condition as between
subjects factor and Time of Assessment as within subjects factor were significant in the following cases, although the effect sizes
were small to moderate: for Clarifying, Wilks’s lambda ¼ .92, F(6, 410) ¼ 2.97, p ¼ .01, partial h2 ¼ .04; for Summarizing,
Wilks’s lambda ¼ .86, F(6, 410) ¼ 5.48, p < .001, partial h2 ¼ .07; for Questioning, Wilks’s lambda ¼ .94, F(6, 410) ¼ 2.20,
p < .05, partial h2 ¼ .03; for Predicting, Wilks’s lambda ¼ .91, F(6, 410) ¼ 3.43, p < .01, partial h2 ¼ .05. Across testing periods,
within-subjects analyses yielded the following results (see Table 4 for t-values comparing pre- and post-/follow-up-test scores,
all p < .006): Except for Clarifying at follow-up test, RT students improved in all strategy acquisition measures from pre- to
posttest and surpassed their pretest scores at follow-up test. The quality of RTP students’ strategy acquisition improved from pre-
to posttest but at follow-up test only the quality of their summaries and predictions was significantly better than at pretest.
Finally, IG students’ strategy acquisition improved from pre- to posttest but relapsed at follow-up test (except for Predicting).
The control students did not display a significant change in strategy acquisition neither from pre- to posttest nor from pretest to
follow-up test.

3.3. Reading comprehension

Both at posttest, F(3, 205) ¼ 11.22, p < .001, partial h2 ¼ .14, and at follow-up test, F(3, 205) ¼ 6.90, p < .001, partial
2
h ¼ .09, the effect of condition with the pretest as the covariate on the experimenter-developed task (near transfer) was
significant. At post- and follow-up tests, students in each of the three intervention conditions outperformed control students. Both
at post- and at follow-up tests, the magnitude of the effects reflecting the superiority of the intervention conditions relative to the
control condition was large. The effect of condition on reading comprehension as assessed with the standardized reading-
comprehension test (far transfer) at pretest and follow-up test was significant, with moderate effect size, F(3, 205) ¼ 5.19, p < .01,
partial h2 ¼ .07. Pairwise contrasts revealed that RT students outperformed IG students (Cohen’s d ¼ .55), and control students
(Cohen’s d ¼ .57).

3.3.1. Interaction of condition with time of assessment

The Condition  Time of Assessment effect on reading comprehension scores was significant for the near transfer test, Wilks’s
lambda ¼ .82, F(6, 410) ¼ 6.97, p < .001, partial h2 ¼ .09, but not for the far transfer test, Wilks’s lambda ¼ .98, F(3, 206) ¼ 1.66,
ns. The multiple dependent-sample t tests yielded the following pattern of results: (a) At posttest, students in each of the three
intervention conditions improved their reading comprehension as assessed with the near transfer test compared to the pretest
p ¼ .006. (b) Intervention and control students displayed a significant change in the near transfer reading comprehension measure
from pretest to follow-up test, p ¼ .006. (c) Only RT students improved in their reading comprehension (assessed with the far
transfer test) from pretest to follow-up test, p ¼ .006. Table 4 shows the complete results of the within-subjects analyses.

3.4. Mediational analyses of far transfer test

Except for Clarifying, all follow-up test scores of strategy acquisition (a) were significantly ( p < .05) correlated with the far
transfer test scores (Summarizing: r ¼ .42; Questioning: r ¼ .32; Predicting: r ¼ .30) and (b) were reliably predicted by inter-
vention condition. This pattern of results met the conditions required by a mediational analysis according to the principles
specified by Baron and Kenny (1986). Therefore, for follow-up test, we examined if variations in far transfer test scores might be
accounted for by variations in the respective strategy variables with pretest reading-comprehension scores controlled for. In doing
so, we adopted a hierarchical regression approach using a dummy variable to code intervention condition (0 ¼ control and IG,
1 ¼ RT), excluding RTP students because they had failed to outperform control and IG students on the far transfer test. To test the
statistical significance of the hypothesized mediational relationships, we used the formula given by Sobel (1982). In three separate
regression analyses, Summarizing, Questioning, and Predicting each had a (nearly) significant ( p  .06) mediational effect on the
relationship between intervention condition and reading comprehension at follow-up test (see Table 5, Models 2e4). When the
three aforementioned strategies were entered simultaneously, as a set, into one and the same regression equation, the variance
accounted for by the dummy-coded treatment factor in students’ reading comprehension declined from 7.6% to 5.4% but still
remained significant (see Table 5, Model 5). So, adding strategies into the model reduced the variance accounted for by treatment
by 29%. Notably, in this multiple-mediator analysis, Summarizing constituted the only strategy that had a significant unique effect
on changes in reading comprehension from pretest to follow-up test.
 N. Spörer et al. / Learning and Instruction 19 (2009) 272e286 283

Table 5
Hierarchical regression analysis with the follow-up standardized reading comprehension scores as dependent variable and the pretest standardized reading
comprehension scores (Pretest RC), intervention condition, and strategy acquisition as predictors.
Predictors Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
b T b T b T b T b T
Pretest RC .44*** 6.36 .35*** 5.12 .39*** 5.43 .39*** 5.58 .33*** 4.67
Condition .28*** 3.97 .24** 3.53 .24** 3.36 .24** 3.38 .21** 3.09
Summarizing .30*** 4.30 .24** 2.96
Questioning .19* 2.58 .07 0.93
Predicting .20** 2.73 .08 1.05
R2 .29 .37 .32 .32 .38
F
(2, 147) ¼ 30.00, (3, 146) ¼ 28.54, (3, 146) ¼ 22.99, (3, 146) ¼ 23.36, (5, 144) ¼ 17.60,
p < .001 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001
DR2
.08 .03 .03 .09
DF
(1, 146) ¼ 18.47, (1, 146) ¼ 6.67, (1, 146) ¼ 7.44, (3, 144) ¼ 6,92,
p < .001 p < .05 p < .01 p < .001
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Clarifying was not added to the regression analysis because it was not significantly correlated with the standardized reading
comprehension measure and hence did not meet the conditions required by mediational analysis (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Condition dummy was coded (0 ¼ control
and instructor-guided reading, 1 ¼ reciprocal teaching).

3.5. Social validity

At posttest, students in all intervention conditions were asked to evaluate the intervention. The magnitude of the means
reflecting how much students liked the intervention was large for all three conditions (for RT students, M ¼ 2.95, SD ¼ 0.44; for
RTP students, M ¼ 3.22, SD ¼ 0.59; for IG students, M ¼ 3.25, SD ¼ 0.40). A single factor (condition: RT, RTP, IG) ANOVA was
conducted. There was a statistically significant main effect, F(2, 141) ¼ 4.80, p < .01, partial h2 ¼ .06 (moderate effect size).
Pairwise contrasts revealed effects in the medium range for RTP students (Cohen’s d ¼ .52) and IG students (Cohen’s d ¼ .71)
when compared with RT students.
Furthermore, students had to respond to three open-ended questions. From 144 students 92 responded to these questions. First,
we asked students what they had learned in the lessons. Most of them (65%) stated that they had learned reading strategies, 25%
answered that they had learned how to understand difficult texts and 10% indicated that they learned nothing at all. When asked
what they liked most in the lessons, students replied that they liked reading different texts and applying the strategies (50%), the
atmosphere during the lessons (25%), and cooperative learning and being the tutor (16%). Only 9% liked nothing at all. In the
final question, students were asked to tell what they would change in the lessons. Of them, 29% responded that they would change
nothing in the lessons, 20% replied that they did not like a particular strategy or text and thus would leave it out, while 33% did
not like working together with a particular classmate and 12% did not like to fill out worksheets. Finally, 6% of the students did
not like the training at all. According to chi-square tests, there were no significant differences between groups in students’
responses. In summary, students from all intervention conditions found their training useful for improving reading
comprehension.

4. Discussion

The main objectives of our study were (a) to investigate the effects of explicit instruction of reading strategies on third- to
sixth-graders’ strategy acquisition and reading comprehension achievement and (b) to study the differential impact of practicing
the strategies in reciprocal small group (RT) and pair (RTP) activities as compared to instructor-guided (IG) activities and
traditional instruction (control group). The following three major results emerged from this study.
First, compared with the control students, students in the intervention conditions were better able to use the strategies of
summarizing, questioning, and predicting when reading a text at the posttest. Our findings indicated that especially RT students
who practiced strategies in reciprocal small group activities benefited in the short as well as the long run from training lessons.
Medium to large effect sizes were obtained when RT students were compared with control students. Furthermore, RTP and IG
students outperformed control students at posttest but did not maintain their superior performance at the follow-up test.
Second, relative to control students, students in the three intervention conditions scored higher on the near transfer test of
reading comprehension both at the posttest and at the follow-up test. The associated effect sizes were large and exceeded the
effect sizes for near transfer measures of reading comprehension reported in the reciprocal teaching literature (Rosenshine &
Meister, 1994). Control students showed very limited improvement in their reading comprehension over the course of this study.
284 N. Spörer et al. / Learning and Instruction 19 (2009) 272e286

Hence, the findings of the present study confirmed the efficacy of explicit reading instruction as a feasible tool to enhance
students’ reading comprehension. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was confirmed.
Third, there was a positive improvement of performance in the far transfer test only for RT students when compared with IG
and control students. Hypothesis 2 was partially confirmed. Although this far transfer test was administered not immediately but
12 weeks after training, the obtained effect sizes were larger than the median effect size (.32) reported by Rosenshine and Meister
(1994) for reciprocal teaching interventions. Researchers and practitioners are in agreement that strategic processing of text is
critical to reading comprehension (Cromley & Azevedo, 2007). In the present study, we could show how the RT strategies
contribute to reading comprehension. A mediational analysis revealed that differences in the far transfer test at the follow-up test
were accounted for by differences in students’ acquisition of the comprehension-fostering strategies of summarizing, questioning,
and predicting. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was confirmed. Furthermore, our findings supported the viewpoint that especially summa-
rizing skills play a central role in mediating the effects of the RT method on the improvement of reading comprehension
performance. Compared to IG and control students, RT students had learned to summarize text paragraphs more concisely and this
growth in strategic reading helped them to better understand difficult, unfamiliar texts.
To summarize, students who participated in one of the three intervention conditions showed near transfer in the sense that they
reached higher reading comprehension scores as assessed with the experimenter-developed task. However, only students who
practiced reciprocal teaching in small groups showed far transfer in the sense that they got higher reading comprehension scores
as assessed with the standardized test. Compared to IG students, RT students had the opportunity to lead the dialogue. RT groups
showed lasting effects of strategy acquisition. These results add to the extant knowledge about strategy instruction and reciprocal
teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Rosenshine & Meister, 1994) in the sense that the relative advantage of RT indicates how
multiple strategies can, and should, be combined in comprehension instruction to achieve lasting effects of reading instruction.
Both the instruction of the comprehension-fostering (i.e., summarizing) and comprehension-monitoring (i.e., questioning)
strategies and the application of the strategies using reciprocal dialogues in small heterogeneous groups were identified as
effective elements of RT.
In addition, students from all intervention conditions found their training useful for improving reading comprehension.
Relative to IG and RTP counterparts, RT students, however, reported the lowest social validity scores. The findings corroborate
the view that for elementary students traditional RT is challenging, but worthwhile. With respect to RT students’ growth in reading
comprehension, the role of the teacher in encouraging students to provide instructional support for each other, therefore, is to be
emphasised.

4.1. Limitations and implications for future research

Before closing, several limitations of our study should be acknowledged. First, we assumed that students taught to monitor and
regulate their reading behaviour through reciprocal teaching (RT and RTP) would display superior performance in the stan-
dardized reading comprehension measure compared to IG students. It turned out that RT but not RTP students improved in the
standardized reading comprehension measure from pretest to follow-up test. Not only in the domain of reading but also in the
domains of writing (Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2006), and mathematics (Fuchs, Fuchs, Phillips, Hamlett, & Karns, 1995),
research on cognitive strategy instruction suggests that peer support procedures are particularly effective in stimulating meta-
cognitive activities while students work together and share their ideas. So, why did students who practiced reciprocal teaching in
small groups (but not students in pairs) perform better after the training lessons? A possible explanation is that RT students took
greater benefit from small group activities because they got more room for discussing a paragraph and exchanging their ideas. In
pairs, communication is naturally limited to two students. As the research assistants observed, the pairs filled out their worksheets
systematically. However, working in pairs was more a completing of given tasks than a lively discourse. Given that for elementary
students writing is very challenging, discussing and writing at the same time might be too difficult to handle. On the contrary,
reading without writing may have made it easier for the dialogue leader in RT groups to give full attention to metacognitive skills,
such as monitoring and regulating students’ comprehension (Zimmerman, 1998).
However, to ensure the ecological validity of small group procedures, the instructional approaches need further refinement so
that they can be implemented by teachers in naturally constituted classrooms. For instance, Hacker and Tenent’s (2002) qualitative
research in mainstream classes showed that the observed elementary-school teachers encountered different obstacles while
implementing and practicing RT in their classes and therefore made many modifications to strategy use and teaching. More
research is needed to identify instructional settings and techniques that are both effective and feasible when strategies for fostering
reading comprehension are to be integrated by teachers into the daily routine of classroom lessons. Component analysis of RT and
RTP procedures could provide insight into the unique contributions of reciprocal teaching and writing components to learning,
generalization, and follow-up test.
Second, a main aim of our study was to find out which strategies are most effective in improving reading comprehension.
Whereas a strong relationship existed between reading comprehension and the strategies of summarizing, questioning, and
predicting, no such relation was found for clarifying. Furthermore, no significant correlation could be obtained between clarifying
and the other three strategies. Before arguing that clarifying is a less effective strategy, it should be taken into consideration that
 N. Spörer et al. / Learning and Instruction 19 (2009) 272e286 285

implications might be limited by the measurement of the acquisition of clarifying. Following Hart and Speece (1998), we assessed
the acquisition of clarifying skills by asking students to note words or concepts that needed clarification. In this case, no response
(coded with 0) could represent that a student felt no need to clarify a word or concept and, thus, wrote nothing down. Hence,
a lack of correlation between reading comprehension and clarifying might have been due to the ambiguity of categories.
Additional measures and rating categories are needed to tap more exactly the acquisition of clarifying.
Third, it might be useful to consider motivation variables (e.g., a student’s interest in reading; see Guthrie, Wigfield, Barbosa,
et al., 2004) as further potential constituents of a mediation model that could explain in greater detail than we did it here how
reading strategies translate into reading comprehension. As Guthrie, Wigfield, Barbosa, et al., (2004) found out, an instructional
framework combining motivation support and strategy instruction is more successful in increasing students’ reading compre-
hension than strategy instruction alone. Even though motivation support was not an explicit part of the training, it may be that
during training lessons the role of the dialogue leader in RT groups was especially motivating for students and therefore increased
engaged reading and reading comprehension.

4.2. Conclusion

Despite these limitations, the results of our study corroborate the view that explicit instruction of multiple reading strategies is
a feasible tool to enhance students’ reading comprehension and that third- to sixth-graders benefited most from explicit reading
instruction supplemented with practice in small groups’ reciprocal teaching activities. Although it may be challenging for teachers
to practice RT in the traditional way (that is, providing scaffolding for the four strategies, applying strategies in small groups while
using reciprocal dialogues), it is worthwhile because this form of reciprocal teaching was the most effective. Above all, it is
important to mention that after a relatively short time of reading comprehension instruction students had become self-regulated
readers. Explicit strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching as part of the overall curriculum appear to be a promising procedure
to get this process off to a good start.

References

Alfassi, M. (1998). Reading for meaning: the efficacy of reciprocal teaching in fostering reading comprehension in high school students in remedial reading
classes. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 309e332.
Alvermann, D., & Earle, J. (2003). Comprehension instruction. In A. P. Sweet, & C. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 12e30). New York:
Guilford.
Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text structure/summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text? Reading Research
Quarterly, 22, 331e346.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173e1182.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673e708). New York:
Macmillan.
Brady, P. L. (1990). Improving the reading comprehension of middle school students through reciprocal teaching and semantic mapping strategies. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. University of Oregon-Eugene.
Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low achieving second-
grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 18e37.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99, 311e325.
Demmrich, A. (2005). Improving reading comprehension by enhancing metacognitive competences: an evaluation of the reciprocal teaching method. <http://opus.
kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2005/524>. Accessed 28.02.07.
Dermody, M. (February, 1988). Metacognitive strategies for development of reading comprehension for younger children. Paper presented at the American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Dole, J. A., Valencia, S. W., Greer, E. A., & Wardrop, J. L. (1991). Effects of two types of prereading instruction on the comprehension of narrative and expository
text. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 142e159.
Elliott-Faust, D. J., & Pressley, M. (1986). How to teach comparison processing to increase children’s short- and long-term listening comprehension monitoring.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 27e33.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2001). Peer-assisted learning strategies in reading: extensions for kindergarten, first grade, and high school. Remedial & Special
Education, 22, 15e21.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American
Educational Research Journal, 34, 174e206.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Phillips, N., Hamlett, C., & Karns, K. (1995). Acquisition and transfer effects of classwide peer-assisted learning strategies in mathematics
for students with varying learning histories. School Psychology Review, 24, 604e620.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Burch, M., Hamlett, C. L., Owen, R., et al. (2003). Enhancing third-grade students’ mathematical problem solving with
self-regulated learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2, 306e315.
Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., Beebe-Frankenberger, M. E., & Bocian, K. M. (2000). Treatment integrity in learning disabilities intervention research: do we
really know how treatments are implemented? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 198e205.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., et al. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through
concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403e423.
286 N. Spörer et al. / Learning and Instruction 19 (2009) 272e286

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K. C. (Eds.). (2004). Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-oriented reading instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hacker, D. J., & Tenent, A. (2002). Implementing reciprocal teaching in the classroom: overcoming obstacles and making modifications. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94, 699e718.
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. (2006). Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: effects of self-regulated strategy
development with and without peer support. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 295e340.
Hart, E. R., & Speece, D. L. (1998). Reciprocal teaching goes to college: effects of postsecondary students at risk for academic failure. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90, 670e681.
Huck, S. W. (2000). Reading statistics and research (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163e182.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363e394.
Kirsch, I., de Jong, J., LaFontaine, D., McQueen, J., Mendelovits, J., & Monseur, C. (2002). Reading for change: Performance and engagement across countries.
Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. Elementary
School Journal, 99, 3e22.
Le Fevre, D. M., Moore, D. W., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (2003). Tape-assisted reciprocal teaching: cognitive bootstrapping for poor decoders. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 73, 37e58.
Lysynchuk, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N. J. (1990). Reciprocal teaching improves standardized reading-comprehension performance in poor comprehenders.
Elementary School Journal, 90, 471e484.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable
effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83e104.
McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Research on peer-assisted learning strategies: the promise and limitations of peer-mediated instruction. Reading
& Writing Quarterly, 22, 5e25.
Marks, M., Pressley, M., Coley, J. D., Craig, S., Gardner, R., DePinto, W., & Rose, W. (1993). Three teachers’ adaptations of reciprocal teaching in comparison to
traditional reciprocal teaching. Elementary School Journal, 94, 267e283.
Nauck, J., & Otte, R. (1980). Diagnostischer test Deutsch. [Diagnostic test German]. Goettingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1,
117e175.
Palincsar, A. S., Brown, A. L., & Martin, S. M. (1987). Peer interaction in reading comprehension instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 231e253.
Palincsar, A. S., David, Y. M., & Brown, A. L. (1989). Using reciprocal teaching in the classroom: a guide for teachers. Unpublished manuscript.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: a review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479e530.
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: a review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research,
66, 181e221.
Sobel, M. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290e312).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Souvignier, E., & Mokhlesgerami, J. (2006). Using self-regulation as a framework for implementing strategy-instruction to foster reading comprehension. Learning
& Instruction, 16, 57e71.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: a self-regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 73e86.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 5; March 2012

The Effect of the Reciprocal Teaching Procedure (RTP) on Enhancing EFL

Students' Reading Comprehension Behavior in a University Setting
Saleh Freihat
Isra University
Jordan
Khalaf Al-Makhzoomi
Yarmouk University
Jordan

Abstract
The present study aimed at investigating the effectiveness of the Reciprocal Teaching Procedure (RTP), a reading
comprehension instructional technique, on enhancing 50 students' reading comprehension behavior in a
university setting. The researchers used the Nelson Denny Reading Test (NDRT), forms G and H as pre-and post
– tests to assess subjects' reading comprehension behaviors before and after the (RTP) sessions. Subjects
completed pre-and post – questionnaires to record information about their general and EFL backgrounds as well
as their attitudes to reading before and after the implementation of (RTP) sessions. Comparison of the results of
the pre- and post – tests and questionnaires showed a marked improvement in the students' reading
comprehension behavior. The students also believed the (RTP) was beneficial to their reading comprehension in
an EFL university setting throughout the study. (125) wds.
Keywords: The Reciprocal Teaching Procedure (RTP); reading comprehension performance.
Background and Research Problem
The present study aims at exploiting the rhetorical structure of the text and exploring the effect of strategy training
on reading comprehension behavior in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) situation in a university setting
with a class of EFL students based on the exploitation of both the rhetorical structure of the text and the
Reciprocal Teaching Procedure (RTP). The exploitation of text structure as a tool to improve reading
comprehension has an ultimate goal: making readers aware of and capable of using various reading strategies as
well as interpreting the rhetorical information a reading text presents in a satisfactory manner, i.e., how readers
conceive it, what textual clues they attend to, how they make sense of it, and what they do when they do not
understand it.
Palinscar and Brown (1984,117-175) reported two instructional studies directed at the comprehension- fostering
and comprehension – monitoring activities of 7th grade poor comprehenders. The 4 study activities were
summarizing (self-review), questioning, clarifying, and predicting. The training method was that of reciprocal
teaching, where the tutor and students took turns leading a dialogue centered on pertinent features of the text. In
study 1, a comparison between the reciprocal teaching method and a second intervention modeled on typical
classroom practice resulted in greater gains and maintenance over time for the reciprocal procedure. Reciprocal
teaching, with an adult model guiding the student to interact with the text in more sophisticated ways, led to a
significant improvement in the quality of the summaries and questions. It also led to sizable gains on criterion
tests of comprehension, reliable maintenance over time, generalization to classroom comprehension tests, transfer
to novel tasks that tapped the trained skills of summarizing, questioning, clarifying and improvement in
standardized comprehension scores. Many of these results were replicated in study 2.
In contrast to study 1, which was conducted by an experimenter, study 2 examined group interventions conducted
by volunteer teachers with their existing reading groups. Palincsar and Brown (1984) designed Reciprocal
Teaching, a researcher – developed instructional technique to promote reading comprehension abilities in
students. The researchers showed that Reciprocal Teaching Procedure (RTP) is successful in the development of
reading comprehension of low ability first language (L1) students. RTP involves explicit instruction by the
teacher in the student's use of the strategies, such as predicting, clarifying, questioning and summarizing, to
develop their reading comprehension.

279
© Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijhssnet.com
As the students become familiar with the use of strategies, the teacher plays a less prominent role and the students
develop the ability to work co-operatively with their peers. Palincsar and Brown found that RTP was most
beneficial to readers who were good decoders but poor in comprehension skills. Carrell (1985, 727-752) reported
a controlled training study designed to answer the question of whether English as a second language (ESL)
reading can be facilitated by teaching text structure explicitly. The training introduced the study subjects into the
use of organization as a key for understanding. The researcher gave them an explanation of description; causation;
problem / solution and comparison types of rhetorical organization and the signals that mark each type to show
subjects how to use the corresponding rhetorical organization to organize their writing. The study results indicated
that training in rhetorical organization of expository texts significantly increased the amount of information that
25 intermediate – level ESL students could recall. According to Block (1986, 463-494), reading strategies indicate
how readers conceive a task, what textual cues they attend to, how they make sense of what they read, and what
they do when they do not understand. Block's study examined reading strategies second language readers use and
considered the use of text structure as a reading strategy.
The researcher categorized reading strategies into 2 levels: general comprehension and local linguistic strategies.
General reading strategies include comprehension – gathering and comprehension – monitoring. Recognition of
text structure is included among general reading strategies. Local strategies deal with attempts to understand
specific linguistic units. Block's study showed how many L2 readers possess strategic resources to control their
reading. However, only some of them were able to use those resources as an aid; most apply them sporadically
and unsystematically. The readers who used background knowledge of textual organization improved their
reading comprehension and recall.
Da Moita Lopes (1986) indicated that a reader makes use of 2 types of knowledge in reading comprehension:
systemic knowledge, i.e., the reader's knowledge of language and schematic knowledge, i.e., the reader's
knowledge of content and formal schemata, i.e., the content area of a text and the routines of language interaction
as expressed in the rhetorical structure of language. According to the researcher's view, the rhetorical information
is interpreted from the actual interplay between local and global formal schematic knowledge and systemic
knowledge. This interpretation supposes the selection and integration of information in an intentional way: the
reader will focus on a global formal schematic level, i.e., how the different elements of the text hang together as a
whole, on the local formal schematic level, i.e., how 2 sentences may be joined by causality, contrast, etc., or on
the systemic level depending on the reading situation, i.e., the reader's knowledge of language. Chou Hare,
Rabinowitz and Schieble's (1989) drew the same conclusion: teaching structure as an aid for reading performance
(comprehension and recall of information).
Carrell, Patricia, Pharis, Becky, Liberto and Joseph (1989,674-678) reported a study of metacognitive strategy
training for reading in English as a second language (ESL). Strategy training was provided to experimental
groups. Control groups received no strategy training, but participated in pre-and posttesting. Several research
questions are addressed: "Does metacognitive strategy training enhance L2 reading? If so, "Does one type of
strategy training facilitate L2 reading better than another?" "How is the effectiveness of metacognitive strategy
training related to the learning styles of the students?" Results showed that metacognitive strategy training is
effective in enhancing second language reading, and that the effectiveness of one type of training versus another
may depend upon the way reading is measured. Further, the results showed that the effectiveness of the training is
related to differences in the learning styles of the students. In English as a second language (ESL) settings, Miller
and Perkins (1990,79-94) found the Reciprocal Teaching Procedure (RTP) to be a successful method of
improving reading comprehension for second language (L2) readers. The researchers added that they believed
RTP stimulated L2 students' awareness of the rights and roles of individuals, group and teacher in the learning
process. Pearson and Fielding (1991) indicated that reading research in the L 1 and L 2 fields has shown that
reading strategies can be taught, and when taught, they enhance students' performance on tests of comprehension
and recall.
Carrell (1991), advocated metacognitive training, especially in reading, to promote effective comprehension.
According to this researcher, the main aim of metacognitive awareness is to get the students to understand the
active role they can play as readers, employing resources to enhance understanding. Hoey (1991), Winter
(1992,131-171) and Jordan (1992, 171-227) followed a type of analysis of discourse structure which looks into
discourse structure from the point of view of the reader, trying to detect in the surface structure of discourse the
elements which the reader follows to interpret a text.
280
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 5; March 2012
According to this view of structure from the interpreter's point of view, discourse is framed at a lower level into
binary discourse relations, that is, relation such as cause – effect, condition – sequence, etc., which are themselves
part of a general level of organization (discourse macro – patterns). The rhetorical organization is manifested
through resources in the language system. Linguistic resources have a schematic function because what they do is
to prepare the reader for the recovery of discourse from the written text through interpretative procedures. Recent
research on text has provided evidence of the relationship between coherence and the comprehensibility of a text.
McKeown, Beck, Sinatra and Lexterman (1992, 79-99) used the concept of coherence to describe the extent of
which the sequencing of ideas in a text makes the nature of ideas and their relationship apparent. The study
showed that readers with the more coherent versions of a text yielded better comprehension. In an English as a
Foreign Language (EFL) context, Hasan (1994) reported the better reading behaviors of students exposed to the
Reciprocal Teaching Procedure (RTP) compared to those using traditional methods at Kuwait University. The
researcher added that the (RTP) not only improves reading comprehension but also offers students the opportunity
to use English to serve many of the language functions and notions that are typical of the communicative
approach. Garcia and Pearson (1995, 67-91) demonstrated that strategy use and awareness of reading strategies
are different in more or less proficient readers, and that more proficient readers use various types of strategies, and
they use them in more efficient ways. In this study, less able readers benefited more from the strategy training
than more able readers; students who were in the low and the intermediate reading proficiency groups exhibited
more improvement than the students who already had good reading ability prior to the training.
This finding suggested that the students in the low and the intermediate groups might not be aware of the types
and the value of reading strategies prior to the training, or might not utilize those strategies actively even though
they may be aware of them, whereas the students in the high group might already know and utilize them
efficiently. Janzen (1996, 6-9) pointed out that reading strategies range from simple fix-up strategies such as
simple rereading difficult segments and guessing the meaning of an unknown word from context, to more
comprehensive strategies such as summarizing and relating what is being read to the reader's background.
Baunmann and Duffy (1997) indicated that when reading becomes the primary vehicle for learning, the demands
on readers and the strategies they need to use in reading change. Unfortunately, just when the reading load
increases and students shift from learning to read to reading to learn, no corresponding instruction in reading is
provided to students. The scaffold of systematic and focused reading instruction diminishes or disappears
together. Students' behaviors in reading begin to widen, and increasingly, schools begin to use more single –
source instructional materials (textbooks, teacher handouts, etc.) for all students.
Thus, a gap emerges between the overall reading ability levels of students and the readability levels of the
materials they are expected to read. Teachers must match students to instructional materials for more learning to
occur. In a Thai setting, Adunyarittigun (1998) found that there were no differences between the reading
behaviors of Thai students in an experimental Reciprocal Teaching Procedure (RTP) group and in a control
regular English as a Foreign Language (EFL) group. This result is at odds with the other researchers' findings, but
may be explained by the fact that Palincsar and Brown (1984) and Palincsar (1986, 73-98) found that (RTP) was
most beneficial to readers who were good decoders but poor in comprehension skills. Adunyarittigun's
participants were weak in both decoding and comprehension. According to the researcher, lack of strong skills in
English may have required them to spend much time in decoding and translating texts into their first language,
thus limiting their time on comprehension development. Song (1998) reported a study of strategy training for
reading in an ongoing university foreign language reading classroom. The training method was modified from the
procedure developed by Palincsar and Brown (1984), which involved four concrete reading strategies:
summarizing, questioning, clarifying and predicting. The following research questions were addressed:
"Does strategy training enhance the reading ability of EFL college students?" If so, "How is the effectiveness of
reading strategy training related to the reading proficiency of the students?" "Which types of reading
comprehension questions are affected by strategy training?" Results showed that strategy training is effective in
enhancing EFL reading and that the effectiveness of the training varies with L2 reading proficiency. The result
also indicated that students' performance on certain types of reading comprehension questions is improved by the
training method. These findings suggested that foreign language reading pedagogy especially for adult students in
academic settings, should include explicit and direct strategy teaching. The National Center for Educational
Statistics (2001) showed that little attention and few resources have been focused on students in grades 7-12. Yet,
these upper grades are exactly where, according to recent international studies, emphasis is needed.
281
© Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijhssnet.com

The National Center for Educational Statistics also revealed that the reading achievement of U.S. 4 th graders ranks
among the best in the world. By 8th grade, U.S. students' performance declines and by 12th grade, students rank
even lower. The basic question to ask is why? Reading demands increase dramatically for students around 4 th
grade, when learning relies more on the textbooks. The vocabulary encountered is less familiar because it contains
more specialized or technical terms. Syntax becomes more complex. Greater reliance must be placed on
inferential thinking and prior knowledge. More independent learning is expected than in lower grades. Martinez
(2002, 81-98) investigated the use of text structure as a tool to facilitate and improve English as a foreign
language (EFL) students' comprehension of a text written in a foreign language. It explained the results of an
experimental study carried out to analyse the relationship between the use of the rhetorical organization that a text
employs, on the one hand, and the comprehension and the reproduction of information of the text on the other.
The researcher found that it is only when reproduction and conscious recognition coincide in the reader, that the
structure has a positive effect on reading comprehension and reproduction of the information presented in a text.
When the reader does not recognize the organization of the text (even if he/she reproduces it), this text structure
does not affect the reader's performance. In this way, making readers aware of the rhetorical organization
becomes the reading teachers' first criterion for an approach to text structure as a teaching instrument.
Allington (2002, 16-19) pointed out that students need textbooks they can read – especially in middle school and
high school where there is a heavy reliance on textbooks as the primary instructional resource and source for
learning. Students in the same classroom have different levels of reading proficiency, yet all of them are typically
reading the same materials. The result is a mismatch for many students, who cannot read. For them, this means,
lower comprehension, lower test scores, and less progress on attention proficiency, not just in reading, but across
the curriculum in math, science, social studies, and all other subjects. Seymour and Osana (2003, 325-344) used a
case study methodology to characterize the development of 2 teachers' thinking as they engaged in 4 separate
training sessions on Reciprocal Teaching Procedure (RTP), a reading comprehension instructional technique.
The researchers used this case study methodology to address the following questions: As they undergo training,
what are the meanings the two teachers ascribe to the 4 expert strategies used in Reciprocal Teaching
(questioning, summarizing, clarifying, and predicting) and 4 of the learning principles upon which Reciprocal
Teaching is built (cognitive, apprenticeship, scaffolding, the zone of proximal development (ZAD, and proleptic
teaching). How do the conceptions of the teachers change over the course of training? The research site was a
Midwestern middle- level (grades 6,7 and 8) school. A pilot study was conducted several months before this study
began at the same site with several teachers interested in improving their implementation of Reciprocal Teaching.
Work with these teachers allowed the researchers to approach 2 language teachers who agreed to participate in
this study because they were interested in improving their practice. The researchers' analyses suggested that the
evaluation of teachers' conceptual development revealed several misconceptions about both principles and
procedures of Reciprocal Teaching as well as cognitive growth during the intervention. As expected, the
principles and procedures were difficult for participants to understand.
Daggett (2003) explained that the importance of all students achieving reading proficiency, as well as the new
federal requirements to set proficiency standards and monitor progress across subgroups of students, continues to
influence policymakers, educators, and the American public. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requires that all
students be "proficient" in reading by 2013 and demands that all schools make adequate yearly progress (AYP)
toward that end, i.e., reading proficiency is a truly worthy goal. More recent research on first language (L 1)
contexts, as Oczkus (2004) stated, has shown the Reciprocal Teaching Procedure (RTP) to be effective with
students of different ages and abilities operating in a variety of teaching and learning situations. The studies on
assessing reading proficiency the National Capital Language Resource Center (NCLRC) (2004) conducted
revealed that reading ability is very difficult to assess accurately. In the communicative competence model, a
student's reading level is the level at which that student is able to use reading to accomplish communication goals.
This means that assessment of reading ability needs to be correlated with purposes for reading. Vocabulary
knowledge is one of the best predictors of reading achievement. Bromley (2004, 3-12) and Richek (2005, 414-
423), in a comprehensive review of research on vocabulary development, concluded that vocabulary knowledge
promotes reading fluency, boosts reading comprehension, improves academic achievement and enhances thinking
and communication. Spelling is an important consideration in reading comprehension.

282
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 5; March 2012
Templeton (2004, 118-138) argued that spelling knowledge provides the basis for explicit awareness and
understanding of morphology which, in turn, may guide the systematic growth of vocabulary knowledge in
predicting reading achievement, the complex interrelationships among these areas are significant. According to
Paynter, Bodrova and Doty (2005), reading comprehension is a complex undertaking that involves many levels of
processing. One of the most fundamental aspects of comprehension is the ability to deal with unfamiliar words
encountered in text. Readers who struggle with word – level tasks use up valuable cognitive space that could be
allotted to deeper levels of text analysis. It is not enough to rely on context cues to predict the meaning of new
words, since this strategy often results in erroneous or superficial understandings of key terms, readers need to
possess a basic knowledge of "how words work" and a set of strategies for approaching new words encountered
throughout the day.
Blachowicz, Fisher, Ogle, and Watts – Taffe (2006, 524-539) indicated that skilled language users display "word
consciousness". They have a metacognitive understanding of how words are built, and can articulate the strategies
they employ as readers to solve unfamiliar words. Martinez (2006) carried out an analysis of the capacity of
English as a second language (ESP) readers to make use of the rhetorical information and of the textual clues. The
researcher first carried an analysis of the reading of 60 Spanish students of English as a foreign language. The
second part of the study was an analysis of the relationship between the subjects' metacognitive
conceptualizations about reading in L 2 and their reading efficiency in that language. That is, the researcher
studied the relation between readers' perception about effective strategies and reading comprehension. The study
showed a relation between the use of structure and reading comprehensions, i.e., it showed how a text structure
facilitates reading comprehension when the reader identifies or recognizes the organization the text presents and
interprets those structured resources at his disposal. This, according to the researcher, characterizes the reader as
an autonomous reader who is able to use his structured resources effectively. The analysis of the capacity of the
study subjects to make use of the structured clues served the researcher to identify the reading problems these
subjects had in reading related to the use of a text structure: lack of knowledge of ways of organizing a text,
failure to exploit this knowledge to make predictions about what is going to come next, and to make decisions
about how sections of the text relate to the overall development of the topic, lack of familiarity with expressions
used as structure markers and problems with recognizing the various types of structure marker signals.
The researchers found that those readers who considered the global strategies based on the use of the contents of
the text and knowledge about the rhetorical resources of the text as effective strategies comprehended the text
better. McNamara and Scott (2009, 387-392) indicated that readers who self – explain texts aloud understand
more from a text and construct better mental models of its content. This study examined the effects of providing
self – explanation training on text comprehension, as well as course grades. Effects of prior knowledge and
reading skill were also examined in relation to the benefits of self – explaining and self – explanation training. In
general, low – knowledge readers gained more from training than did high – knowledge readers. The researchers
found that readers who explain a text, either spontaneously or when prompted to do so, understand more from it
and construct better mental models of the content. However, some readers are better self – explainers than others;
less – skilled self- explainers offer little to the text to help them better understand it. Weida and Stolley (2010)
identified 3 types of rhetorical appeals, or persuasive strategies, used in arguments to support claims and respond
to opposing arguments. According to the researchers, a good argument generally uses a combination of all three
appeals to make its case: logos, or the appeal to reason relies on logic or reason. Logos often depends on the use
of inductive or deductive reasoning, ethos or the ethical appeal which is based on the character, credibility, or
reliability of the writer and pathos, or emotional appeal, appeals to an audience's needs, values, and emotional
sensibilities.
The previous studies on ESL/EFL readers' use or exploitation of the rhetorical information or structure of the
reading texts along with strategy training for reading show that the presence or absence of rhetorical information
or textual clues as well as reading strategies tend to increase or decrease comprehension and recall of information.
The present study aimed at extending such pieces of research work by investigating whether similar results are
revealed in another sample of readers in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) reading classroom situation
based on the exploitation of Reciprocal Teaching Procedure (RTP). The researchers of the present study
motivated the reading strategy training of Brown and Palincsar (1984). In their teaching, Brown and Palincsar
taught students 4 concrete reading strategies: summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting. From their
study, they found that the Reciprocal Teaching Procedure (RTP) was effective in enhancing their students' reading
ability.
283
© Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijhssnet.com
However, they did not conduct their study in an English as a Second / Foreign Language (ESL/EFL) setting. The
subjects of their study were 7th grade native speakers of English, and they did not carry it out in a classroom
setting: they gave each study subject individual training. In other words, like most reading strategies training
studies, the researchers did not do the study in an ongoing regular class. Therefore, the present study aimed at
adapting Brown and Palincsar's (1984) to an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) university reading classroom
setting. That is, it investigated whether the (RTP) is effective in enhancing EFL students' reading comprehension
behavior. Once again, since the researchers of the present study conducted it in a university EFL reading class
where subjects' reading proficiency was mixed, its second purpose was to find out how the (RTP) influences
subjects with mixed reading proficiency. Since Brown and Palincsar tried the (RTP) with students whose reading
ability is low, it was important to investigate the effectiveness of the (RTP) on subjects with intermediate and high
levels of reading proficiency.
To serve the purposes of the present study, the researchers addressed the following two specific research
questions:
- Does Reciprocal Teaching Procedure (RTP) enhance EFL Jordanian university students' reading
comprehension behavior? If so.
- How is the effectiveness of the (RTP) related to students' reading comprehension behavior in an EFL
university reading classroom setting?
Methodology
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of the Reciprocal Teaching Procedure (RTP), a
reading comprehension instructional technique on the reading comprehension behavior of a sample of English as
a Foreign Language (EFL) Jordanian university students.
Subjects
The subjects of the present study were 50 first year EFL Jordanian students at a university setting in the Spring
semester of 2011 in Amman – Jordan.
Research Instrument
The research instruments used in the present study included pre – and post – tests: a. a pre – test, the Nelson
Denny Reading Test (NDRT) form G, to assess subjects' reading comprehension behaviors before the Reciprocal
Teaching Procedure (RTP) teaching sessions, and b. a post – test, NDRT form H, to assess subjects' reading
comprehension behaviors after the (RTP) teaching sessions. The researchers also used Pre- and post –
questionnaires: a. a pre – questionnaire to collect information on the subjects' backgrounds in English as a
Foreign Language (EFL) and b. a post – questionnaire to record subjects' responses to (RTP) and to the teaching
sessions, the model lesson and the class organization. The researchers included their maintained written
comments about the (RTP) teaching sessions along with the subjects' reading comprehension behaviors as a
third research instrument.
Procedure
The researchers of the present study presented seven ninety – minute training sessions based on the Reciprocal
Teaching Procedure (RTP) techniques prior to the onset of the training, i.e., (RTP) training involved explicit
instruction in the subjects' use of the strategies, such as predicting, clarifying, questioning and summarizing to
develop their reading comprehension behaviors. The researchers devoted two (RTP) sessions to explanations of
these strategies, to practical application of their use, and to the development of group work skills. The researchers
presented one training / teaching session as a model to illustrate both the instructional procedure and the group
process. The remaining 4 training / teaching sessions each involved an analysis of a reading text by the study
subjects in randomly assigned groups of 6 using a survey of the reading text title and sub – headings of the text to
activate the subjects' (EFL) backgrounds and to make predictions before reading followed by a silent reading of
the first paragraph of the reading text by the subjects in their groups; discussion of the paragraph led by the
assigned group leader, focusing on clarification of reading difficulties, questions, summary of the main ideas and
predictions about the paragraphs that follow, written recording of any difficulties, predictions and / or questions
and silent reading of the reading text and subsequent paragraphs with discussions led by, once again, a new group
leader for each paragraph.
284
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 5; March 2012
The subjects received 42 – hour- long instruction right after the 7- ninety – minute training sessions on the (RTP).
The researchers selected 12 reading passages which would be covered during the Spring semester of 2011 from a
variety of resources. The researchers drew 5 reading passages from the subjects' reading textbooks and 7 from
popular writings or EFL reading materials. The researchers chose the reading passages for their readability.
Data Analysis
The researchers of this study analyzed both the quantitative and qualitative data by calculating and comparing the
average scores for the pre – and post – tests and the standard deviations to reveal any changes in subjects' reading
comprehension behaviors between the pre – and post – tests. The researchers also analyzed the subjects' pre – and
post – questionnaires, i.e., the pre – questionnaire related to information about the subjects' general and English as
a Foreign Language (EFL) backgrounds and post – questionnaire which recorded the subjects' attitudes to reading,
the (RTP) training sessions and the skills the subjects developed through using the (RTP). The researchers read
and compared the subjects' completed written responses before and after the implementation of the (RTP) sessions
and made notes of frequently occurring answers. They also analyzed their maintained written comments about the
(RTP) sessions and the subjects' reading comprehension behaviors throughout the present study. They closely
read the contents of these at the conclusion of the (RTP) sessions.
Results
The researchers subjected the study data to assessment and comparison of the results of the Nelson Denny
Reading Test (NDRT) forms G and H as the pre – and post – tests in order to test the first research question of the
present study: "Does the Reciprocal Teaching Procedure (RTP) enhance EFL Jordanian university students'
reading comprehension behavior?. Comparison of the results of such tests revealed a marked change /
improvement in the study subjects' reading comprehension behaviors. The average scores in the pre – and post –
tests were 34.25 and 48. 26 respectively. The t – test indicated a significant difference between the average scores
of subjects before and after the period of instruction (14.01) at p > 0.05. Tables 1 and 2 pp. 28-29 display these
figures. Thus, in answer to the first research question, the study result suggests that the Reciprocal Teaching
Procedure (RTP) does enhance EFL Jordanian university students' reading comprehension behavior.
The second research question of the present study was the following: "How is the effectiveness of the (RTP)
related to subjects' reading comprehension behavior in an EFL university reading classroom setting?" In order
to answer this research question, the researchers of this study administered the pre – questionnaire to provide
information about the subjects' general and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) backgrounds, i.e., the ages of
the 50 subjects (30 females and 20 males) in the study ranged from 18 to 19. These had 12 years of English
education. The researchers also administered the post – questionnaire to collect data related to the study subjects'
attitudes to reading and to the (RTP) as a tool for developing reading comprehension behaviors. All subjects', i.e.,
(the 50 subjects) completed it. They commented that they were unfamiliar with the (RTP) preciously and believed
such a technique was beneficial to their reading comprehension in EFL and other subject areas as well. The
subjects also commented that the (RTP) training sessions and the model lesson were important in the study simply
because they were not, once again, familiar with the (RTP). As for group size, 6 was acceptable to the subjects
and researchers, because it allowed adequate researcher assistance and, more importantly, peer interaction. The
subjects' responses to both the pre – and post questionnaires revealed a conservative self – evaluation of their
abilities/behaviors in both reading comprehension and English vocabulary knowledge.
Table 3 p.30 shows that 1 subject (2%) thought his ability / behavior was "very good" in these two categories, 32
subjects (64%) commented their reading comprehension was "average" and 25 (50%) believed their English
vocabulary knowledge was also "average". This conservative self – evaluation of ability in both reading
comprehension and English vocabulary knowledge was even more marked when another 18 subjects (36% +
50%) placed themselves "poor" and "average" in English vocabulary knowledge. The majority of the subjects in
this study considered the process of reading an English text to be one that they undertook on their own. (Table 4
p. 31) displays that 22 of them (44%) "seldom" and 6 ( 12 %) "never" read with friends / peers. However, many
subjects were prepared to discuss their reading with other readers / friends / peers; with 6 (12%) "always" and 14
(28%) "often" talking about what they had read/ seeking confirmation and / or assistance with their interpretation
/ understanding of the reading text(s). This social approach to the process of reading was clearly evident when the
study subjects experienced reading difficulties.

285
© Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijhssnet.com
Table 4 p.31 indicated that when the subjects were unable to comprehend or uncertain about what they had read,
they sought for consulting with the researchers and / or friends / peers with 6 (12%) "always" and 14 (28%)
"often", a total of 20 subjects (40%) placed themselves "always" and "often".
As for the subjects' recognition of the importance of reading in English / the importance of developing good
English reading skills, they were positive towards the Reciprocal Teaching Procedure (RTP) as an invaluable and
effective technique / tool to improve such skills , despite their unfamiliarity with it. The present study revealed
that the (RTP) represented a challenge for the study subjects, i.e., it made great demands / expectations upon them
of approaching reading texts by predicting, questioning, clarifying and summarizing, very often in a group context
working with peers without the immediate direction of a teacher. Such a teaching and learning environment is not
part of the classroom culture of Jordanian schools and universities. The structural framework of the present study
involved the Reciprocal Teaching Procedure (RTP) using small groups for the sake of developing, once again, the
strategies of predicting, questioning, clarifying and summarizing. Such an approach represented a departure from
the whole class teacher – directed or teacher – centered structure of traditional EFL Jordanian classroom contexts
to the application of the students' skills to the readings texts in a group context. The study subjects did not expect
to direct themselves with their groups with close teacher / researcher supervision / direction, which represented a
challenge for the majority of them.
Despite the training sessions and the model lesson the study subjects experienced at the very start and throughout
this study, and as Table 4 p.31 displays, 14 subjects (28%) reported that they were not aware of their roles in the
small group context. This, of course, made initial efforts at comprehension of the reading texts difficult as they
did not know their duties, i.e., they were grappling with the reading texts in a foreign language. Again, the early
difficulties the (14) study subjects (28%) experienced in the (RTP) training sessions and model lesson, due to
their lack of awareness of their roles in the group contexts, illustrated the need to prepare for and proceed in such
roles in such groups carefully and slowly. Initially, i.e., at the very start of the (RTP) training sessions, the
researchers led the groups, but, as the (RTP) strategies, i.e., predicting, questioning, clarifying and summarizing
and group skills matured, the researchers played a less dominant role, acting as facilitators / helpers instead of
class directors / supervisors.
As for the written comments the researchers maintained throughout this study, they found that the (RTP) allowed
the study subjects to develop their reading comprehension behaviors and assisted their solution of the difficulties
they encountered with reading text comprehension. Despite the time – consuming demands of preparation and
implementation involved in the (RTP), the researchers considered it to be an invaluable teaching technique for
developing the study subjects' reading comprehension behaviors. Thus, in answer to the second research question,
the study results suggest that the (RTP) is related to its effectiveness to the subjects' reading comprehension
behaviors in an (EFL) university reading classroom setting.
Discussion
The average scores the study subjects obtained in reading comprehension pre – and post – tests (Nelson Denny
Reading Test (NDRT) forms G and H) indicated a significant increase in their reading comprehension behaviors
despite the fact that they initially worked with the Reciprocal Teaching Procedure (RTP), an unfamiliar teaching
and learning method (Sullivan, Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Miller & Perkins, 1990; Pearson & Fielding, 1991;
Hasan, 1994; Song, 1998; Seymour & Osana, 2003. Oczkus, 2004) support this study finding. These researchers
pointed out that engaging students in the 4 strategies of the (RTP), i.e., predicting, questioning, clarifying and
summarizing encourages them to monitor their own reading comprehension behavior. The subjects' responses to
both the pre – and post – questionnaires revealed a conservative self- assessment of their abilities in both reading
comprehension and English vocabulary knowledge. Generally, such a conservative self – assessment in such
categories is probably in accord with the general nature of EFL Jordanian students and it is reasonable to assume
that the study subjects' doubts about their abilities in the categories of reading comprehension and English
vocabulary knowledge are likely to be more pronounced / marked when they are working in a foreign / second
language (EFL/ESL). Once again, the majority of the present study subjects (86%) regarded the process of
reading English texts as a 'solitary' activity, i.e., an activity they undertook on their own. (10 subjects (20%) + 23
subjects (46%) + 10 subjects (20%) = 86 %). Table 5 p.32 displays this. This, in the researchers' view, suggests
that EFL Jordanian students read a certain reading text as a 'solitary' activity, but sought for understanding of their
reading socially with other readers / friends / peers as a social activity.
286
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 5; March 2012

Such a technique may suit EFL Jordanian students who are, as Table 3 p. 25 reveals, conservative in self –
evaluation of their abilities in the categories of both reading comprehension and English vocabulary knowledge.
They may be more comfortable struggling with reading texts on their own. Then, upon the completion of this
process, they are prepared to test their comprehension in the session of discussion with friends / peers seeking
confirmation of and / or assistance with their interpretation / understanding of the reading texts (s). (Martinez,
2006; McNamara & Scott, 2009) confirmed these justifications. These researchers indicated that readers who self-
explain reading texts aloud, spontaneously either when prompted to do so, or when they interpret structured
resources at their disposal, understand more from a text and construct better mental models of its content.
Again, the social approach to the process of reading a text which usually involved consultations with the
researchers and / or friends when the subjects were unable to comprehend or uncertain about what they had read,
as Table 4 p.31 displays, sits comfortably with their conservative self – assessment the researchers mentioned in
Table 3, p. 30, i.e., if a study subject is not confident about his / her ability in a certain language area, then it is
reasonable to assume that assistance with and / or confirmation of his / her interpretations of reading texts will be
eagerly sought from other friends / peers / people in an attempt to comprehend / understand such texts.
The study subjects were positive towards the (RTP) as a tool to improve their reading comprehension behaviors.
That is why when they had established awareness of its techniques, they were able to work effectively on
developing reading strategy skills and understanding the reading texts. On the other hand, the (RTP) places, as the
present study revealed, expectations on EFL Jordanian students of approaching a certain reading text by
predicting, questioning, clarifying and summarizing, very often in a group context, working with peers without
the immediate direction / supervision of a language teacher. This, in the researchers' view, represents a challenge
for the study subjects. This may be because such a culture is based on an EFL Jordanian teachers' position as a
highly respected person with superior knowledge whose role is one of imparting this superior knowledge to the
students. This is, one again, usually done in an EFL Jordanian class of often, of 50 students, more or less.
The teacher's respectful attitude and the large class sizes usually do little to promote / encourage student teacher
and /or student – student open dialogue, which is an important feature of the (RTP) tool. (Miller & Perkins, 1990,
Hasan , 1994; Oczkus, 2004; Paynter, Bodrova & Doty, 2005) give evidence to such justifications. These
researchers reported the better reading comprehension behavior of students exposed to the (RTP) compared to
those using traditional methods. These researchers also added that (RTP) not only improves reading
comprehension, but also offers students the opportunity to use English to serve many of language functions and
notions that are typical of the communicative approach. In many traditional EFL Jordanian classroom contexts,
there is, as always happens, a heavy emphasis on rote learning, involving all students doing the same language
activity, irrespective of abilities, interests and / or needs. This EFL Jordanian style of teaching and learning
usually stresses whole class activities with repetition and memorization of facts, not necessarily understanding.
Understanding and confidence in the use of predicting, questioning, clarifying and summarizing, not just a
memorization of them, is an invaluable element in the (RTP) which allows the students to adapt and employ their
abilities in a range of situations / contexts as appropriate. There also remains a tendency for EFL Jordanian
education, especially in Basic Education and secondary schools, to be teacher – centered and teacher – directed
with infrequent use of group work, discussion, and / or individual research.
In the researchers' view, this tendency may be due to the 'superiority' the EFL Jordanian teacher experiences and
may also be considered a necessity because of the demands of managing large class sizes, heavy teaching loads
and considerable administrative duties. Once again, the (RTP) is not, in its regular form, teacher – centered nor
teacher – directed. It is usually driven by the students' abilities and needs, and depends upon their skills in
handling reading texts in group contexts / situations. As a result of these features of EFL Jordanian education, the
researchers of the study believe that EFL Jordanian students may find it difficult to develop skills in creative
thinking, independent and alternative learning, questioning and / or discussion. In the researchers' view, the
pressure which is usually put upon students to conform is powerful, i.e., the majority of EFL Jordanian teachers
focus on rote learning. Submissive students who do not ask questions, teachers usually see them as well behaved.
In contrast, students who are creative, critical and analytical and who reason with them often view them as
aggressive and disobedient, and have trouble fitting into the Jordanian education systems. These justifications
receive confirmation from (Allington, 2002 & Chareonwongsak, 2002,4) .

287
© Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijhssnet.com
The researches of this study assure that there have been considerable efforts to change this approach to language
teacher training, but with varying degrees of success. The structural framework of the present study involved the
(RTP) using small group contexts / situations, without close teacher supervision / direction, which represented a
departure from the whole class teacher – centered or teacher – directed of traditional EFL Jordanian classroom
contexts. This, in the researchers' view, indicated a cultural problem that the proponents of the (RTP) in EFL
settings have to confront. The subjects' initial lack of expertise in being able to use the strategies of predicting,
questioning, clarifying and summarizing was probably due to their unfamiliarity with them and also attributed to
the fact that they were expected to direct themselves within their groups without close teacher supervision /
direction. The researchers of the present study believe that EFL Jordanian students need to develop skills using
such strategies and also require assistance in becoming acquainted with the dynamics of a new (RTP) teaching
and learning environment. (Song, 1998; Seymour & Osana, 2003; Paynter, Bodrova & Doty, 2005) give evidence
to these findings.
At the very start of the present study, (14) subjects (28%), as Table 4 p.31 displays, experienced difficulties in
both the (RTP) training sessions and the model lesson due to their unfamiliarity, once again, with the role in the
group contexts / situations. As a result, the researchers of this study started to play a less dominant role acting as
facilitators rather than directors / supervisors as the (RTP) techniques and group skills matured. This framework,
in the researchers' of the present study view, appeared to suit the EFL Jordanian study subjects who were happy to
work on their own on their reading comprehension tasks, but welcomed the assistance of and recognized the value
of their peers and researches when they experienced difficulties. (Sullivan, Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Paynter,
Bodrova & Doty, 2005; Blachowicz, Fisher, Oyle & Watts – Taffe, 2006; Martinez, 2006; McNamara & Scott,
2009; Weida & Stolley, 2010) lend support to these pedagogical justifications.
In their maintained written comments on the study subjects' reading comprehension behaviors throughout the
present study, the researchers indicated that increased subjects' awareness of their duties / roles in the group
contexts / situations led to enhanced confidence in their reading comprehension behaviors and made them
welcome and appreciate the recognition that they receive when they performed their group duties / roles properly
and correctly. What is more, the demands of comprehending a reading text in a foreign / second language usually
enhances EFL students' collaborative nature in the group, encouraging them to assist each other at a reasonable /
satisfactory rate that accommodate for all members in the reading group, irrespective of reading ability. This
supportive atmosphere may be even more significant with less capable EFL / ESL students who may be
experiencing anxiety and lack of confidence in the L 2 setting.
The researchers found that anxious students were more willing to speak up not only because group discussions
gave them a chance to rehearse their thoughts to each other in a low – risk, high – gain situation, but also because
of their peers' / friends' support. With regards to the maintained written comments on the (RTP) sessions and the
subjects' reading comprehension behaviors throughout this study, the researchers found that the study subjects'
development of their reading comprehension behavior was due to the significant role group discussions played in
providing help/ assistance with clarification and understanding for subjects as individuals. Despite the time –
consuming demands of preparation and implementation involved in the (RTP), the researchers of this study
considered it to be, once again, an invaluable teaching technique as it provided the study subjects with ample
opportunity to take responsibility for their own learning, i.e., the (RTP) does encourage the EFL / ESL student to
be an independent learner and a discoverer of knowledge, with the EFL/ ESL teacher as a facilitator. (Sullivan,
Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Miller & Perkins, 1990; Carrell, 1991; Martines, 2002; Seymour & Osana, 2003;
McNamara& Scott, 2009) give support to such pedagogical implications for EFL reading instruction.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of the Reciprocal Teaching Procedure (RTP), a reading
comprehension instructional technique, on the reading comprehension behaviors of a sample of English as a
foreign language (EFL) Jordanian university students. The findings of the study showed that the (RTP) does
enhance and improve EFL Jordanian students' reading comprehension behavior in a university setting after the
(RTP) training. Furthermore, the present study demonstrated that the (RTP) is related to its effectiveness to the
subjects' reading comprehension behavior in an EFL university reading classroom setting. Throughout this study,
the researchers noticed that reciprocal teaching with students in an EFL university setting guides them to interact
with the reading text in more sophisticated ways and leads to a significant improvement in the quality of their
reading comprehension behavior.
288
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 5; March 2012
As the students become familiar with the use of the strategies the (RTP) employs, their reading teacher plays a
less dominant role and they develop the ability to work co-operatively with peers. This, of course, increases the
amount of information students can recall. What is more, the researchers concluded that the (RTP) also promotes
English vocabulary knowledge which is one of the best predictors of reading achievement. This, in turn, promotes
reading fluency, boosts reading comprehension, improves academic achievement and enhances thinking and
communication. This study took a method of strategy training, the (RTP), shown to be successful with first
language (L 1) students, and investigated its effects on English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students in an EFL
university setting in which the teacher traditionally directed language activities, the students' reading ability was
not strong and reading was not a popular cultural pastime, i.e., something done to pass one's time in a pleasant
way. The study subjects attained improvement in reading comprehension tests over the period of the study, i.e.,
the Spring semester of 2011, and the subjects and researchers made positive comments about the benefits of the
(RTP) as an invaluable research tool. The (RTP) may have much to offer EFL Jordanian students as 'reciprocal
teaching' has been designed to be dialogic' (Palincsar, 1986, 95). The structure of the (RTP), based on students
discussing meaningsof reading texts in small group contexts / situations, using the skills of predicting,
questioning, clarifying and summarizing, could lend itself to a culturally – appropriate way in which EFL
Jordanian students can improve and monitor their own reading comprehension behaviour.
References
Adunyarittigun, D. (1998). The Effects of the Reciprocal Teaching Procedure on Thai EFL Students'
Reading Performance and Self – perception as Readers. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Maryland.
Allington , R. L. (2002). " You Can't Learn Much from Books You Can't Read," Educational Leadership, 60 (3), 16-
19.
Baumann, J.F., & Duffy, A.M. (1997). Engaged Reading for Pleasure and Learning, Athens, GA: National Reading
Research Center, University of Georgia.
Blachowicz, C., Fisher, P., & Ogle, D. (2006). Vocabulary: Questions From the Classroom. Reading Research
Quarterly, 41 (4), 524-539.
Block, E. (1986). The Comprehension Strategies of Second Language Readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 463 – 494.
Bromley, K. (2004). Rethinking Vocabulary Instruction. The Language and Literacy Spectrum, 14 (Spring), 3-12.
Carrell, P. L. (1985). Facilitating ESL Reading by Teaching Text Structure. TESOL Quarterly, 19 (4), 727-752.
Carrell, Patricia, L.; Pharis, Becky, G.; Liberto., & Joseph, C. (1989). Metacognitive Strategy Training for ESL
Reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23 (4), 647-678. Carrell, P.L. (1991). "Second Language Reading: Reading
Ability or Language Proficiency?" Applied Linguistics, 12 (2), 159-173.
Chareonwongsak, K. (2002). Ten Dimensions for New Thai Thinking Skills. Bangkonk Post, 4.
Chou Hare, V, Rabinowitz, M., & Schieble, K. (1989). Text Effects on Main Idea Comprehension. Reading Research
Quarterly, XXIV (1), 72-88.
Cristina, A., & Martinez, L. (2002). Empirical Examination of EFL Readers' Use of Rhetorical Information. English for
Specific Purposes 21(1), 81-98.
Da Moita Lopes, L. P. (1986). Discourse Analysis and Syllabus Design: An Approach to the Teaching of Reading.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of London, Institute of Education Department of English for
Spearkers of Other Language.
Duggett, W. R. (2003). Achieving Reading Proficiency for All. International Center for Leadership in Education.
Hasan, B. (1994). The Effects of the Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension Strategies on the Reading Abilities of EFL
Students at Kuwait University. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.University of Colorado.
Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Janzen, J. (1996). Teaching Strategic Reading. TESOL Journal, 6 (1), 6-9.
Jimenez, R., Garcia, G., & Pearson, P. (1995). Three Children, Two Languages, and Strategic Reading: Case Studies in
Bilingual /Monolingual Reading. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 67-97.
Jones, J. (1999). From Silence to Talk: Cross Cultural Ideas on Students' Participation in Academic Group Discussion.
English for Specific Purposes, 18 (3), 243-259.
Jordan, M. P. (1992). An Integrated Three- pronged Analysis of a Fund – Raising Letter. In W.C. Thompson. S. A.
Mann, Discourse Description. Diverse Linguistic Analysis of a Fund – Raising Text (pp. 171-227).
Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Company.
Martinez, A.C.L. (2006). The Exploitation of The Rhetorical Structure of The Text to Improve ESP Reading
Comprehension. Universidad de Oviedo, Biblioteca Universitania.
289
© Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijhssnet.com

McKeown, M. G. Beck, I.I., Sinatra, G. M., & Lextermann, J. A. (1992). The Contribution of Prior Knowledge and
Coherent Text to Comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 27 (1), 79-99.
McNamara, D. S. & Scott, J.L. (2009). Training Reading Strategies. Document, Old Dominion University; Department
of Psychology, Norfolk , USA, 387-392.
Miller, L., & Perkins, K. (1990). ESL Reading Comprehension Instruction. RELC Journal, 21 (1), 79-94.
Moore, P. (1988). Reciprocal Teaching and Reading Comprehension: A Review. Journal of Research in Reading, 11
(1), 3-14.
National Center for Education Statistics (2001). Assessing the Lexile Framework: Results of a PanelMeeting. (NCES)
Working Paper Series, Working Paper No. 2001-08 by Sheida White and John Clement). Washington, DC:
U.S Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Oczkus, L. (2004). Reciprocal Teaching at Work: Strategies for Improving Comprehension. Newark: International
Reading Association.
Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A. L . (1984). Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension – Fostering and Comprehension-
Monitoring Activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1 (2). 117-175.
Palincsar, A.S. (1986). The Role of Dialogue in Proving Scaffolded Instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21 , 73-98.
Paynter, D., Bodrova, E., & Doty, J. (2005). For the Love of Words: Vocabulary Instruction That Works. San
Francisco: Jossey – Bass.
Pearson, P.D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension Instruction. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. Pearson
(Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 815-860). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Richek , M. (2005). Words Are Wonderful: Interactive Time – Efficient Strategies to Teach Meaning Vocabulary. The
Reading Teacher, 58 (5), 414-423.
Seymour, J.R., & Osana, H. P. (2003). Reciprocal Teaching Procedures and Principles: Two Teachers' Developing
Understanding. Teaching and Teacher Education 19, 325-344.
Song, Mi-Jeong (1998). Teaching Reading Strategies in an Ongoing EFL University Reading Classroom Asian Journal
of English Language Teaching 8, 41-54.
Templeton, S. (2004). The Vocabulary -Spelling Connection: Orthographic Development and Morphological
Knowledge at the Intermediate Grades and Beyond. In J. Baumann & E.Kameenui (Eds.), Vocabulary
Instruction: Research to Practice, pp. 118-138. New York: The Guilford Press.
The National Capital Language Resource Center. (2004). Assessing Reading Proficiency. Teaching Reading.
Washington, DC.
Tsui, A. (1996). Reticence and Anxiety in Second Language Learning. In K. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from
The Language Classroom (pp. 145-167). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weida, S., & Stolley. K. (2010). Using Rhetorical Strategies for Persuasion. OWL at Purdue. owl.english
prude.edu/resource/588/04/.
Winter, E. O. (1992). The Notion of Unspecific Versus Specific as One way of Analyzing the Information of a Fund –
Raising Letter. In W.C. Mann, S.A. Thompson, Discourse Description, Discourse Linguistic Analysis of a
Fund – Raising Text (pp.131-171). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Company.

Table 1: Study Subjects' Average Scores and the Standard Deviations for the
Pre – and Post – tests (* NDRT forms G and H)

NDRT Form N Average Score Standard Deviation

G 50 34.25 10.42
H 50 48.26 11.20

 NDRT : a Pre – test, the Nelson Denny Reading Test (NDRT, form G) to assess subjects' reading
comprehension behaviors before the Reciprocal Teaching Procedure (RTP) teaching sessions.
 NDRT, Form H: a post – test, NDRT form H, to assess reading comprehension behaviors after the (RTP)
teaching sessions.
 N: Number of study subjects.

290
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 5; March 2012

Table 2: Study Subjects' Average Scores and the Standard Deviations for the
Pre – and Post – tests (* NDRT forms G and H): Paired Samples Test
Average Score Standard Deviation Significant
NDRT Form N T – value
Diff. Diff. (2 – tailed)
Forms G and H 50 14.01 10.40 9.70 * 0.000

P > 0.05
 NDRT, forms G and H : the Pre – and Post – tests, Nelson Denny Reading Test (NDRT, forms G &H ) to
assess subjects' reading comprehension behaviors before and after the Reciprocal Teaching Procedure
(RTP) teaching sessions.
 N: Number of study subjects.
 Average Score Diff.: Difference between average scores of subjects before and after the period of
instruction at p > 0.05.
 S.d.: Standard Deviation in the pre – NDRT form G and in the post – test NDRT form H.
 T- value: The t – value indicated a significant difference between the average scores of subjects before
and after the period of instruction at p > 0.05.
Table 3: Self-evaluation of Study Subjects' Abilities in Reading Comprehension and English Vocabulary
Knowledge Frequency %
Language Category Very good Good Average Poor Total
Rdg. Comprehen. 1 (2%) 11 (22%) 32 (64%) 6 (12%) 50 (100%)
Eng. Vocab. 1 (2%) 6 (12%) 25 (50%) 18 (36%) 50 (100%)

 Rdg. Comprehen. : Reading Comprehension Behavior.

 Eng. Vocab. : English Vocabulary Knowledge.
Table 4: Study Subjects' Preferred Style in Reading English Texts: Frequency %
Subjects' Preferred Rdg. Frequency %
Learning Style 5 4 3 2 1 Total
I prefer to read English 2 9 11 22 6 50
texts with friends / peers. (4%) (18%) (22%) (44%) (12%) (100%)
I talk about the reading text
6 14 17 13 50
I have read with other 0%
(12%) (28%) (34%) (26) (100%)
friends / peers / people

NB: 5= always ; 4= often ; 3= sometimes ; 2= seldom ; 1= never

Table 5: Study Subjects' Social Learning Style and Their Reading Obstacles: Frequency %
Social Learning Style & Rdg. Frequency
Difficulties 5 4 3 2 1 Total
If I don't understand /
comprehend a reading text, I 10 23 10 7 50
0
ask my teacher or friends to (20%) (46%) (20%) (14%) (100%)
explain / clarify it..
If I am not certain / sure of a
certain reading text, I check my 11 20 12 7 50
0%
comprehension with my teacher (22%) (40%) (24%) (14%) (100%)
/ friends/ peers.

NB: 5= always ; 4= often ; 3= sometimes ; 2= seldom ; 1= never

Rdg. : Reading

291
 INCREASING THE STUDENTS’ READING
COMPREHENSION BY USING RECIPROCAL
TEACHING STRATEGY

Abdul Arif

English Education Department of IKIP PGRI Pontianak

Jl Ampera no. 88 Pontianak 78116
e-mail: arif_farrel25@yahoo.com

Abstrak
Tujuan Penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui: (1) apakah strategi pengajaran
Reciprocal bisa meningkatkan nilai siswa dalam pemahaman membaca atau tidak; (2)
sejauh mana pengaruh strategi tersebut dalam meningkatkan nilai siswa. Penelitian ini
merupakan penelitian Pre-Eksperimen dengan menggunakan desain satu kelompok Pre-
test dan Post-test yang dilaksanakan terhadap siswa kelas sebelas SMA Muhammadiyah
1 Pontianak Tahun Akademik 2011/2012. Teknik pengambilan data yang digunakan
adalah teknik pengukuran. Analisa data menunjukkan bahwa nilai T lebih besar dari
tabel T (2.127>2.021) pada level signifikansi 0.05. Hasil ini menunjukkan bahwa
hipotesa keja diterima dan hipotesa nol ditolak. Nilai rata-rata pre-test siswa adalah 51.5
sementara nilai rata-rata post-test siswa adalah 80.8. Temuan ini menujukkan bahwa
strategi pengajaran Reciprocal secara signifikan dapat meningkatkan pemahaman
membaca siswa. Analisa data juga menunjukkan bahwa pengaruh strategi pengajaran
Reciprocal sangat tinggi. Dari temuan ini bisa disimpulkan bahwa strategi pengajaran
Reciprocal sangat mempengaruhi pemahaman siswa dalam membaca dan dianggap
sebagai strategi pengajaran yang efektif dalam meningkatkan pemahaman membaca
siswa.

Kata Kunci : Meningkatkan, Reciprocal, Pemahaman membaca

Abstract
This research was aimed at finding out: (1) whether or not Reciprocal Teaching Strategy
significantly increased the students’ achievement in reading comprehension; (2) the
effect size of the strategy in increasing the students’ achievement. This research was a
pre- experimental study using one group pretest-posttest design carried out at the
eleventh grade students of SMA Muhammadiyah 1 Pontianak in the Academic Year of
2011/2012. The data were collected by using measurement technique. Data analysis
showed that t-value was higher than t-table (2.127>2.021) at 0.05 level of significance.
It means that the alternative hypothesis is accepted and the null hypothesis is rejected.
The mean score of pre-test was 51.5 and the mean score of post-test was 80.8. Thus, it
can be concluded that the use of Reciprocal Teaching Strategy significantly increases
the students’ reading comprehension. The analysis of effect size showed that the effect
size was categorized as high category. Thus, it can be concluded that the use of
reciprocal teaching strategy highly influenced the students’ reading comprehension and
was considered as effective teaching strategy in increasing the students’ reading
comprehension.

Keyword: Increasing, Reciprocal, Reading Comprehension

1
 Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa, Vol. 3, No. 1, Juni 2014

INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the change of paradigm in national curriculum of teaching
and learning process in Indonesia becomes a new phenomenon in positioning the
teacher and the students’ roles in the classroom. Competency-Based Curriculum
and KTSP (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan), for example, brought a new
system by emphasizing the students as the main actor during the teaching and
learning process, which had created a new atmosphere of the classroom.
As the assumption of non-constructivist approaches toward learning has
been believed that as long as students are provided with knowledge, they will be
able to use it. Education based on that assumption is, thus, primarily concerned
with transferring substance to the students, and little importance is placed on the
role of the learning activity. From a constructivist view, on the other hand,
learning is the process of constructing knowledge - not merely obtaining it - in
social environments. Therefore, the teacher might select an appropriate teaching
and learning strategy in order to come into the process of constructing knowledge.
One of the successful strategies in increasing the students’ ability on reading
skill, particularly on understanding the meaning of text is by applying the
Reciprocal Teaching strategy. Palinscar and Brown (1984: 27) describe the
concept of Reciprocal Teaching as an instructional activity that takes place in the
form of a dialogue between teachers and students regarding to the segments of
text. The dialogue is structured by the use of four strategies: predicting, clarifying,
question generating, and summarizing. The teacher and students take turns
assuming the role of teacher in leading this dialogue.
The purpose of Reciprocal Teaching is to facilitate a group effort between
teacher and students as well as among students in the task of bringing meaning to
the text. Each strategy was selected for the following purpose: (1) Predicting (2)
Clarifying (3) Question generating, and (4) Summarizing, each of these strategies
was selected as a means of aiding students to construct meaning from text as well
as a means of monitoring their reading to ensure that they in fact understand what
they read. On the other hands, Reciprocal Teaching is a technique used to develop
comprehension of expository text in which teacher and students take turns leading

2
a dialogue concerning sections of a text. Four activities are incorporated into the
technique: prediction, clarifying misleading or complex sections of the text,
questioning, and summarizing.
Regarding to the explanation above, the use of reciprocal teaching has
attempted to develop the students in learning the language by acquiring the
knowledge through learning the language. The key point of reciprocal teaching is
the strategy built in order to set the students in process oriented of learning. When
the students read the text, they might understand the ideas. In reciprocal teaching
strategy, each step of activity is applied systematically.
In attempting this strategy, the writer selected the eleventh grade students of
SMA Muhammadiyah I Pontianak as the subject of research. The choice of this
subject is because the writer found that the students were difficult to understand
the ideas of the reading text when they were reading. Because of their lack of
vocabulary, they focused on how to translate the unfamiliar words they found
during the reading rather than try to use the context clues.
Therefore, the writer conducted an experimental research as the effort to
bring the students out from their own problems of understanding the meaning of
text in reading comprehension skill. To complete this research, the writer applied
the Reciprocal Teaching strategy as a strategy to increase the students’ reading
comprehension on the reading text.
Considering the background above, the writer formulated the problems of
this study as follows: (1) Does the use of reciprocal teaching strategy significantly
increase the students’ reading comprehension; (2) What is the effect size of
reciprocal teaching strategy in increasing the students’ reading comprehension?
Based on the problem statements above the objective of the study was to
find out: (1) whether or not the use of reciprocal teaching strategy is effective in
increasing the students’ reading comprehension; (2) the effect size of this strategy
in increasing the students’ reading comprehension.
According to Beers (2000: 12-15), reading is a process that includes three
phases: before-reading, during-reading, and after-reading. In the before-reading
phase, the reader establishes in his mind a purpose and a plan for reading. Now

3
 Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa, Vol. 3, No. 1, Juni 2014

the reader begins to read the written text - the during-reading phase. While he
reads, he will think about his purpose for reading and about his prior knowledge.
This may occur during short pauses he takes.
The after-reading phase of the process occurs when the reader finishes
reading the written text. The reader takes time to think about what he knew before
the reading and what he learned or what connections he made during the reading,
and then he links this information together to build new knowledge. Throughout
the reading process, but specifically in the during-reading phase, vocabulary
strategies can be useful to improve comprehension. While he reads, he will
recognize the connection between vocabulary knowledge and reading ability.
In the pre-reading activity, the teacher might give the students an
opportunity to talk to each other about segments of a short story, chapter, or poem
and predict what will happen next. The teacher will make inferences and
generalizations about the characters, setting, mood/tone, plot/action, conflicts, and
point of view by discussing the segments to the students. Moreover, the teacher
can also give students practice in predicting what a passage will be about. The
students will also learn to activate prior knowledge by connecting some
information concerning the topic when they approach a reading assignment. They
will further develop their skill at monitoring their own reading comprehension and
will develop their understanding of narrative conventions. Enables students to
stop and make predictions prior to reading as well as encourages students to
reflect on what they have read. Students form an impression of the chapters from
a list of words, but are not able to create entire episodes that they will encounter in
reading.
In relation to the explanation above, the teacher might also strongly concern
to the process of reading. He should help the students to make predictions about
the text; compare and contrast events, ideas, and characters; visualize the
information that is described in the text; and make connections to prior
knowledge. Then, he can help students to learn in monitoring their comprehension
silently as they read; not only that, requiring the students to find a passage in the

4
text that illustrates an example of something, such as a literary element or a
technique, specified by the teacher, then discuss and defend their choices.
The students retell specific events from the novel or retell the plot in its
entirety, either written or spoken form. The teacher can provide a strategy for
students to engage in critical thinking and reflection as they read, discuss, and
respond to the book. A collaboration between critical thinking and reflection is the
heart of this approach. This approach implies that the teacher will help the
students to improve their reading comprehension by emphasizing the importance
of careful, repeated readings of material.
Many educators believe that all teachers and parents should have access to
some resources and to the research that forms the foundation upon which they are
constructed. The central objective of reading is the comprehension of the
materials being read. Though it is not only a facet of reading, related but also
distinguished from aspects such as fluency and phonemic awareness, reading
comprehension is still the "essence of reading" (Durkin, 1993: 38).
We, the teachers therefore address it early, because it is so crucial to future
lifelong learning, and because the lesson plans, strategies, and even our
worksheets and assessment tools should go to the heart of reading comprehension
as a part of every subject. From the outset, it is clear that a student’s exposure and
experience are critical factors. Actually engaging in the study of language patterns
the writers use, rather than just discussing them, promotes "completeness" in a
student's competencies to comprehend new materials through text. As teachers
and as parents, there are numerous things we can do to provide readiness at earlier
grades and to further a student's arsenal of tools for full comprehension as they
move into the later elementary years and beyond.
There are some aspects of reading comprehension to be mastered by the students,
they are:
1. Understanding the Main Ideas
According to McNeil & Dunant (1982: 215-219), Good readers are active
readers. From the outset they have clear goals in mind for their reading. They
constantly evaluate whether the text, and their reading of it, is meeting their goals.

5
 Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa, Vol. 3, No. 1, Juni 2014

Good readers typically look over the text before they read, noting such things as
the structure of the text and text sections that might be most relevant to their
reading goals. As they read, good readers frequently make predictions about what
is to come. They read selectively, continually making decisions about their
reading--what to read carefully, what to read quickly, what not to read, and what
to re-read, and so on.
Furthermore, good readers construct, revise, and question the meanings they
make as they read. They draw upon, compare, and integrate their prior knowledge
with material in the text. They think about the authors of the text, their style,
beliefs, intentions, historical milieu, and so on. They monitor their understanding
of the text, making adjustments in their reading as necessary. Furthermore, good
readers try to determine the meaning of unfamiliar words and concepts in the text,
and deal with inconsistencies or gaps as needed. They evaluate the text’s quality
and value, and react to the text in a range of ways, both intellectual and emotional.
Good readers read different kinds of text differently. For example, when
reading narrative, good readers attend closely to the setting and characters; when
reading expository text these readers frequently construct and revise summaries of
what they have read. For good readers, text processing occurs not only during
‘reading’ as we have traditionally defined it, but also during short breaks taken
during reading, and even after the ‘reading’ itself has commenced.
Comprehension is a consuming and complex activity, but one that, for good
readers, is typically both satisfying and productive.
In addition, at the end of the reading comprehension activity, the readers are
supposed to define and to understand the main ideas and supporting ideas from
the reading text. Understanding the main and supporting ideas is a skill that the
readers can find what is the reading text telling about in general. The concept of
general or main ideas of the text can be described within three characteristics, they
are:
a) Inductive process, the process of searching the main ideas of the text that is
assumed in the beginning lines of paragraph.

6
b) Deductive process, the process of searching the main ideas of the text that is
assumed in last lines of the paragraph.
c) Beyond the lines, the process of searching the main ideas of the text is assumed
that the ideas are not mentioned in lines (written) however, it is required from the
higher understanding on the text.
The way to find out the main ideas of the text can be searched by connecting
the other information in the text that related to support the ideas we assume. Here,
supporting ideas are very important to know because we cannot find out the main
ideas whenever the supporting ideas are missed to get. Therefore, the supporting
ideas of the text should be considered as the way how the reader comes to the
main ideas of the text.
2.Understanding Details of Information

Good reading strategy helps the students to read in a very efficient and
effective way. Using it, the aim to get the maximum benefit from the reading
process/activity will spend the minimum time. It means that with strategy applied,
the students can minimize the time-consumed during they are reading the text. To
get the specific or detail ideas of the reading text, the students may seem to scan
the text till they get what they are searching. The following strategies will
describe how the strategy can minimize the time-consumed during the reading
process (Laurie, 2000: 3 - 5). They are:
a) Strategy 1: Knowing what we want to know
The first thing to ask ourselves is: Why we are reading the text? Are we reading
with a purpose or just for pleasure? What do we want to know after reading
it? Once we know this, we can examine the text to see whether it is going to move
s towards this goal. An easy way of doing this is to look at the introduction and
the chapter headings. The introduction should let you know whom the book is
targeted at, and what it seeks to achieve. Chapter headings will give you an
overall view of the structure of the subject. Asking ourselves whether the book
meets our needs. Ask ourselves if it assumes too much or too little knowledge. If
the book isn't ideal, would it be better to find a better one?
b) Strategy 2: Knowing how deeply to study the material

7
 Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa, Vol. 3, No. 1, Juni 2014

Where we only need the shallowest knowledge of the subject, we can skim
material. Here we read only chapter headings, introductions and summaries. If we
need a moderate level of information on a subject, then we can scan the text. Here
we read the chapter introductions and summaries in detail. We may then speed
read the contents of the chapters, picking out and understanding key words and
concepts. At this level of looking at the document it is worth paying attention to
diagrams and graphs.
Only when we need detailed knowledge of a subject is it worth studying the
text. Here it is best to skim the material first to get an overview of the subject.
This gives us an understanding of its structure, into which we can fit the detail
gained from a full, receptive reading of the material.
3.Interpreting the Words/Phrases

In reading the text, the students will meet some words or phrases in the
sentences. Of course, each word or phrase has its own meaning as its single
position; however, in reading comprehension the students should not define every
word or phrase they meet because the words or phrases might have different
meaning when they join together with other words. Therefore, interpreting its
meaning is an important skill in order come to what the author’s message
originally. Furthermore, reading is not translating activity. When someone reads a
text, s/he should ignore the single meaning or words or phrases. The process will
be failed when s/he comes closer to the words’ meaning without considering the
theme or topic.
A number of studies have investigated the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching.
Rosenshine et al (1996: 20) review sixteen studies of the technique and concluded
that reciprocal teaching is effective at improving comprehension of text. This was
evident from both experimenter-developed comprehension tests and, to a lesser
extent, from standardized tests of comprehension. In another review of research
on the approach, Carter (1997: 45) also found reciprocal teaching to be effective
across multiple studies. Reciprocal teaching has been compared to a number of
other approaches to comprehension instruction, including teacher modeling alone,
explicit instruction and worksheets alone, daily practice at reading test passages

8
and answering accompanying questions, and training at locating information to
address different kinds of comprehension questions. In all cases, reciprocal
teaching was found to be a more effective approach.
Based on those researches, as Palincsar (1986: 22) describes the concept of
reciprocal teaching as an instructional activity that takes place in the form of a
dialogue between teachers and students regarding segments of text. The dialogue
is structured by the use of four strategies: summarizing, question generating,
clarifying, and predicting. The teacher and students take turns assuming the role
of teacher in leading this dialogue.
In another reference, Palinscar and Brown (1984: 35) define that Reciprocal
Teaching is an instructional method that involves guided practice of reading
comprehension that follows the four concrete steps of: Prediction, Clarification,
Question generation, , and Summarization.
From the two notions above, it can be concluded that the Reciprocal
Teaching is an instructional method of teaching reading skill that involves the
students and the teacher in form of dialogues in order to encourage the students’
activities in making prediction on the text, clarifying on what they do not
understand to their friend or to the teacher, generating questions, and summarizing
on the text.
Thus, Reciprocal Teaching moves the process of reading from whole class
instruction modeled by the teacher, through whole class and small group
instruction modeled by students to individualized silent reading. In effect, students
teach themselves to read by modeling the strategies that good readers use. This
strategy is focus on how effective the role of the teacher to provide modeling,
scaffolding, feedback, and explanation for the students. Both the teacher and the
students cooperate in making efforts of understanding the material that is being
taught.
The purpose of Reciprocal Teaching is to help students, with or without a
teacher present, actively bring meaning to the written word. The strategies chosen
not only promote reading comprehension but also provide opportunities for
students to learn to monitor their own learning and thinking. The structure of the

9
 Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa, Vol. 3, No. 1, Juni 2014

dialogue and interactions of the group members require that all students
participate and foster new relationships between students of different ability
levels.
The purpose of reciprocal teaching is to facilitate a group effort between
teacher and students as well as among students in the task of bringing meaning to
the text. Each strategy is selected for the following purpose:
1.Predicting occurs when students hypothesize what the author will discuss next
in the text. In order to do this successfully, students must activate the relevant
background knowledge that they already possess regarding the topic. The students
have a purpose for reading: to confirm or disprove their hypotheses. Furthermore,
the opportunity has been created for the students to link the new knowledge they
will encounter in the text with the knowledge they already possess. The predicting
strategy also facilitates use of text structure as students learn that headings,
subheadings, and questions imbedded in the text are useful means of anticipating
what might occur next.
2.Clarifying is an activity that is particularly important when working with
students who have a history of comprehension difficulty. These students may
believe that the purpose of reading is saying the words correctly; they may not be
particularly uncomfortable that the words, and in fact the passage, are not making
sense. When the students are asked to clarify, their attention is called to the fact
that there may be many reasons why text is difficult to understand (e.g., new
vocabulary, unclear reference words, and unfamiliar and perhaps difficult
concepts). They are taught to be alert to the effects of such impediments to
comprehension and to take the necessary measures to restore meaning (e.g.,
reread, ask for help).
3.Question generating reinforces the summarizing strategy and carries the learner
one more step along in the comprehension activity. When students generate
questions, they first identify the kind of information that is significant enough to
provide the substance for a question. They then pose this information in question
form and self-test to ascertain that they can indeed answer their own question.
Question generating is a flexible strategy to the extent that students can be taught

10
and encouraged to generate questions at many levels. For example, some school
situations require that students master supporting detail information; others
require that the students be able to infer or apply new information from text.
4. Summarizing provides the opportunity to identify and integrate the most
important information in the text. Text can be summarized across sentences,
across paragraphs, and across the passage as a whole. When the students first
begin the reciprocal teaching procedure, their efforts are generally focused at the
sentence and paragraph levels. As they become more proficient, they are able to
integrate at the paragraph and passage levels.
In summary, each of these strategies was selected as a means of aiding students to
construct meaning from text as well as a means of monitoring their reading to
ensure that they in fact understand what they read.
Based on the theoretical description above, the hypotheses are formulated as
follows: (1) Null Hypothesis says that the use of reciprocal teaching strategy does
not increase the students’ reading comprehension; (2) Alternative Hypothesis says
that the use of reciprocal teaching strategy increases the students’ reading
comprehension.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research was conducted at SMA Muhammadiyah 1 Pontianak located on
Jl. Parit Haji Husin 1 Pontianak, Kalimantan Barat. A Pre experimental study with
a single group pre-test and post-test design was employed in this research. This
design was written O1 x O2 which indicated a pre-test and post-test were given to
all subjects. They were also given treatment.
The population of this research was the eleventh grade students of SMA
Muhammadiyah I Pontianak in the Academic Year of 2011/2012 which consisted
of 240 students. The sampling technique used was cluster random sampling. After
applying this sampling technique, class XI IPS7 consisted of 40 students (17%)
was selected as the sample of this research. Technique of collecting data used was
measurement technique. There were two kinds of tests conducted, pre-test and
post-test. Tool of collecting data used was the objective test which consisted of

11
 Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa, Vol. 3, No. 1, Juni 2014

the identifying the main idea, supporting idea, and interpreting words or phrases
based on the context. In order to answer the research problems and the test
hypothesis, the researcher analyzed the data by using t-test formula and Effect
Size formula.

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Based on the result of computation data, the calculation of t–value indicated
2.127. The test at 0.05 level of significance with df (the degree of freedom) N-1
(40-1)=39 is 2.021. The result indicated that t-value was higher than t-table
(2.127>2.021). It means that the alternative hypothesis is accepted and the null
hypothesis is rejected. In addition, the students’ score of pretest and post test had
significant difference. The mean score of pre-test was 51.5 and the mean score of
post-test was 80.8. Thus, it can be concluded that the use of RT (Reciprocal
Teaching) strategy significantly increases the students’ reading comprehension.
The analysis of effect size showed that the effect size (ES) was categorized as
high category. Thus, it can be concluded that the use of reciprocal teaching
strategy highly influenced the students’ reading comprehension. Thus, it can be
concluded that reciprocal teaching strategy is effective teaching strategy in
increasing the students’ reading comprehension.
Based on the research findings above, it can be inferred that the treatment
given to the students significantly influenced the students’ achievement in reading
comprehension. The treatment here was teaching reading comprehension by using
reciprocal teaching strategy. Thus, it can be concluded that reciprocal is effective
teaching strategy to teach reading comprehension. It is considered effective
because the stages of reciprocal teaching strategy help the students to understand
the reading text. In predicting stage, for example, students are helped to activate
the relevant background knowledge that they already possess regarding to the
topic. It links the students to the new knowledge they will encounter in the text
with the knowledge they already possess. The predicting strategy also facilitates
use of text structure as students learn that headings, subheadings, and questions
imbedded in the text are useful means of anticipating what might occur next. In

12
Clarifying activity, they are taught to be alert to the effects of such impediments
to comprehension and to take the necessary measures to restore meaning and
understand the meaning of difficult and unfamiliar words.
In addition, Question generating stage of reciprocal teaching strategy
reinforces the summarizing strategy and carries the learner one more step along in
the comprehension activity. When students generate questions, they first identify
the kind of information that is significant enough to provide the substance for a
question. They then pose this information in question form and self-test to
ascertain that they can indeed answer their own question. Summarizing activity
provides the opportunity to identify and integrate the most important information
in the text. Text can be summarized across sentences, across paragraphs, and
across the passage as a whole. In conclusion, each of these strategies was selected
as a means of aiding students to construct meaning from text as well as a means of
monitoring their reading to ensure that they in fact understand what they read.

CONCLUSION
Based on the research findings and discussion above, it can be concluded
that (1) the use of RT (Reciprocal Teaching) strategy significantly increases the
students’ reading comprehension. It can be proved by the value of t–test which
was higher than t-table (2.127>2.021). It means that alternative hypothesis is
accepted and the null hypothesis is rejected; (2) the analysis of effect size showed
that the effect size (ES) was categorized as high category. Thus, it can be
concluded that the use of reciprocal teaching strategy highly influenced the
students’ reading comprehension. These results indicate that the use of RT
strategy in increasing the students’ reading comprehension significantly works in
the treatment process. In short, the use of reciprocal teaching strategy is effective
in increasing the students’ reading comprehension. It is considered effective
because the stages of reciprocal teaching strategy help the students to understand
the text.

13
 Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa, Vol. 3, No. 1, Juni 2014

REFERENCES
Anderson, R.C., & Pearson, P.D. 1984. A Schema-Theoretic View of Basic
Processes in Reading. In P.D. Pearson (ed.), Handbook of reading
research (pp. 255-291). New York: Longman.

Carter, Carolyn J. 1997. Why Reciprocal Teaching. In Educational Leadership.

March 1997, v 54, n6.

Cohen, Luis et al .2005. Research Method in Education. Fifth Edition. London

and New York: Routledge-Falmer is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis
Group

Davis, F.B. 1942. Two New Measures of Reading Ability. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 33, 365-372.

Durkin, D. 1993. Teaching Them to Read (6th Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.

Laurie. 2000. Strategy for Reading Comprehension. Reading Comprehension

Strategy Journal at English Teaching Forum. Available at
www.englishteachingforum.com

McNeil, J. 1992. Reading Comprehension (3rd edition). New York:

HarperCollins.

Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. 1984. Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-

Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities. Cognition and
Instruction, 2, 117-175.

Palincsar, A.S. 1986. Reciprocal Teaching. In Teaching reading as thinking. Oak

Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

Pearson, P.D., & Camperell, K. 1994. Comprehension of Text Structures. In R.B.

Ruddell, M.R.Ruddell, & H.Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and
processes of reading. Delaware: International Reading Association.

Pressley, M., Almasi, J., Schuder, T., Bergman, J., & Kurita, J.A. 1994.
Transactional Instruction of Comprehension Strategies: The
Montgomery County, Maryland, SAIL Program. Reading & Writing
Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 10(1), 5-19.

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. 1995. Verbal Protocols of Reading: The Nature of
Constructively Responsive Reading. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rosenshine, et al. 1994 and 1996. Teaching Students to Generate Question: A

Review of the Intervention Studies. Review of Education Research.

14
 Learning reading strategies together through
reciprocal teaching
Background
The school is an EMI school with enthusiastic, collaborative and hardworking teachers. With the introduction
of Liberal Studies as a core subject in the New Senior Secondary (NSS) curriculum, teachers are very much
concerned about how they can prepare their students for the change in the junior forms. They are aware that
students need to be exposed to more reading of non-fiction texts, informational texts in particular, and they
should be taught reading strategies more explicitly so as to enhance their comprehension.

Level
S1

Strategies used
Reciprocal Teaching (RT) was identified to improve students’ comprehension. The rationale for using
Reciprocal Teaching is summarised as below:

1. Reciprocal Teaching has been regarded as effective in helping students improve their reading ability
in pre-post trials (Pearson and Doyle 1987, Pressley et al, 1987). According to Bruer (1993), Reciprocal
Teaching helps novice readers learn and internalise the strategies excellent readers employ.
2. The technique is easily understood and mastered by both teachers and students. All it takes is for
teachers to model the strategy, think aloud during the process, and give students guided practice and
independent practice. Of course, we need to equip students with the language of discussion first before
setting them out to tackle the task.
3. Most importantly, Reciprocal Teaching echoes the new definition of reading that describes the process of
reading as interactive, in which readers interact with the text as their prior experience is activated. At the
same time, meaning is constructed when they discuss with their group.

What is Reciprocal Teaching?

It is a cooperative reading strategy that engages teams of students in predicting, questioning, clarifying and
then summarising passages (Palincsar and Brown, 1984).

The goals of reciprocal teaching are:

1. To improve students’ reading comprehension using four comprehension strategies: predicting,

questioning, clarifying and summarising
2. To scaffold the four strategies by modelling, guiding and applying the strategies while reading
3. To guide students to think about their own thinking (become meta-cognitive) and reflective in their strategy
use
4. To help students monitor their comprehension using the four strategies
5. To use the social nature of learning to improve and scaffold reading

217
 Action plan
No. of Focus
lessons
1 Reading Strategy Self Assessment Survey (Pre)
• A survey was given to students to find out if they were aware of the use of reading strategies
when they read.
2 Comprehension passage 1 - modelling prediction and questioning
• Teacher taught students how to use clues given in the text to make predictions. Students
learned how to set literal questions and questions that required more thinking and researching.
2 Comprehension passage 1 – modelling clarifying
• Teacher taught students how to clarify meaning of difficult words or phrases by re-reading
the difficult part, reading on, looking for prefix and suffix, and breaking down the word into
smaller parts.
1 Comprehension passage 1 – modelling summarising
• Students learned how to summarise a text by keeping the main ideas only and leaving out
examples and elaborations. They tried to write a summary in their own words.
2 Comprehension passage 2– practising RT
• After learning the skills as a class, students practised the four strategies in small groups. They
learned how to use the role sheets and started to discuss the meaning of the passage as a
cooperative learning group.
2 Comprehension passage 2– practising RT
• As above.
2 (Pre-test )+ Comprehension passage 3 – practising RT
• Students were given a simple test to find out if they knew how to predict, clarify the meaning
of difficult words, find answers for literal and inference questions and make a summary of the
text.
• Then they worked in groups to practise the four strategies again.
2 (Post-test) + Comprehension passage 3 – practising RT
• After working in groups students helped each other to understand the passage. Then they
were given the same test to see if the group discussion would enhance their understanding.
Students were not allowed to use a dictionary to help them along.
Total: 14 Reading Strategy Self Assessment Survey (Post)
• Questionnaires were given to students to find out their views on reciprocal teaching. A
post reading strategy was also given to find out if students were more aware of the use of
strategies after the project.

218
 Reciprocal teaching in action Students are eager to express
their views

What teachers and students think

One teacher interviewed mentioned that she used to teach reading strategies to senior form students, but now
she found she could start teaching reading strategies in junior forms. She also found that reciprocal teaching
was more student-centred and students could work in groups to teach and learn from each other. To make
reciprocal teaching a success, it is important to use it regularly, but to try to avoid using it for a full week so
that students will not become bored.

Students thought that teachers in primary schools always explained everything to them. All they needed to do
was to listen and write down the answers. Yet reciprocal teaching allowed students to find answers on their
own. They predicted and asked questions when they read. They also worked together to clarify meanings
and made a summary of the passage. They generally liked the increased participation. Two students found
that being clarifiers was very difficult because it was quite difficult to guess meanings of the words since many
English words have several meanings. But they liked working in groups because each member could teach
each other.

Difficulties
Students are quite advanced in this school and have previously learned some strategies like prediction and
clarifying. If teachers do not control the pace in the lessons very well, students will become bored easily.

It is quite difficult to find the right article for reciprocal teaching. For example, many passages do not have
topic sentences, and also contain a lot of examples and illustrations. It is difficult for students to find the main
ideas and therefore not easy to make a summary.

Tips for implementing a new initiative in school

To successfully implement any new initiative in school, we need to bear in mind:

Good communication
The rationale of adopting a certain initiative must be communicated well among all teachers who take part in
the implementation process. Any doubts must be cleared up immediately with clear explanations.

Empowerment of teachers
Once the rationale is clear and accepted by teachers, the next step is to give teachers the autonomy to exercise
their professionalism. If teachers find there are certain things that need to be changed, that should be
welcomed.

219
 Breaking ‘big’ changes into smaller manageable steps
Reciprocal teaching is a teaching strategy that requires teachers to scaffold the learning process step by
step. To help students learn the strategy, teachers first demonstrated how each strategy is used to a whole
class. Then they gave their students some guided practice with a lot of support. Finally, when each student
had learned the four strategies and how to use the role sheets, they were sent to do their individual practice.
Scaffolding is therefore a very important factor that led to the success of the project.

Conclusion
Reciprocal teaching is a powerful teaching strategy which allows students to play different roles to practise
prediction, questioning, clarifying and summarising. These are important strategies for fostering and
monitoring comprehension. To make it a success, it is important to find the right passage for students to
practise these strategies and for students to practise these strategies regularly.

References
Bruer, J. (Summer 1993). ‘The Mind’s Journey From Novice to Expert.’ American Educator 17,(2): 6-45.
Palincsar, A. and A. Brown. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension –fostering and comprehension –
monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 1, (2): 117-75.
Pearson, P. D. , and J. A. Doyle. (1987). ‘Explicit Comprehension Instruction: A Review of the Research and a
New Conceptualization of Instruction.’ Elementary School Journal 18: 151-166.
Pressley, M. , B. L. Snyder, and T. Cariglia-Bull. (1987). ‘How can good strategy be taught to children?
Evaluation of Six Alternative Approaches.’ In Transfer of Learning: Contemporary Research and Applications,
edited by S. J. Cormier and J. Hagman. Orlando, Fla,: Academic Press.

Wa Ying College
Cassandra TSONG (Language Support Officer)

220
Enhancing students’ reading skills and providing them with
a platform to share reading experience
Background
In the process of implementing Reading Workshops in school, teachers encounter the problem of having
insufficient lesson time to teach both the textbook and the additional readers or reading materials. In addition,
they have to accomplish different tasks such as creating an English-rich environment, conducting English
Day/Week and promoting reading culture. Instead of handling these issues discretely, teachers should take a
holistic approach to plan the English curriculum in which different English learning activities, the teaching of
readers together with the formal General English Programme (GE Programme) can be integrated.

Levels
P3-5

Strategies used
In order to plan the GE Programme and Reading Workshops more holistically, the following three aspects
should be taken into consideration:

1. Incorporating the teaching of reading

into the formal curriculum: Aligning
Reading Workshops with the GE
Programme

Holistic
Curriculum
2. Linking the formal curriculum
Planning 3. Promoting a ‘Reading to
to the informal curriculum:
learn’ culture: Deploying
Providing opportunities for
resources effectively
students to respond to texts

1. Incorporating the teaching of reading into the formal curriculum: Aligning Reading Workshops
with the GE Programme to make students’ English learning experiences coherent
GE Programme and Reading Workshops are the key components of the English curriculum. According
to the English Language Curriculum Guide (Primary 1-6) 2004, the former focuses on intensive learning
and teaching of the English language knowledge and skills whereas the latter aims at developing learners’
reading skills. Apparently, teaching students to comprehend a text and construct meaning from a text
are the key tasks in the process of teaching reading and it can prepare students to read on their own
and become lifelong learners. Linking up the Reading Workshops and the GE Programme makes English
language learning experiences coherent and related.

2. Linking the formal curriculum to the informal curriculum: Providing opportunities for students
to respond to texts
Reading can lead to the development of speaking and writing skills. It provides content and language for

221
 the learners to use when writing and speaking so that there can be interaction between what the reader
brings to the text and what the author has provided. Students should be encouraged to reflect upon their
reading and provided with an opportunity to generate response to the text and share it in class. According
to the Senior High School English Language Arts Guide to Implementation: Responding to text and context
(2003), ‘Personal response activities help students ‘live’ the text and make it their own; therefore, students
need to be able to respond in a variety of ways individually and in groups, in writing, orally and visually,
including such ‘creative’ activities as drama and art.’

3. Promoting a ‘reading to learn’ culture: Deploying resources effectively

Schools always provide many reading opportunities for students. Inside the classroom, there are Reading
Workshops, reading comprehension exercises and silent reading period. Outside the classroom, there
are programmes such as Extensive Reading Scheme, Online Reading Scheme, Buddy Reading or Reading
Mums. As a matter of fact, these activities can be planned together to facilitate better resource and time
management. To accomplish this, the best way is to start with programmes building on the existing facilities
and resources and strengthening collaboration among staff.

The following three school cases demonstrate how teachers can work on these three aspects.

Case 1: Fuk Wing Street Government Primary School

Level: P5
Number of lessons required: 20 lessons

What happened
The school worked on aligning the Reading Workshops with the GE Programme in order to make the English
language learning experiences coherent and related. The following elements were included in the project:

1. Linking Reading Workshops with the GE Programme

Reader chosen: When it rains
Textbook unit: Magic 5B–Unit 3 Weather in Hong Kong
In order to link up the Reading Workshops and the GE Programme, similarities between the two components
were identified. The theme, vocabulary, key grammar items and sentence structures of the reader and the
textbook unit were matched.

2. Teaching reading skills at Reading Workshops

In order to learn to read, it is important to equip students with different reading skills such as predicting the
likely development of the story, visualising, recognising the format of stories,
etc. In the classroom, teachers used the think aloud approach to demonstrate
how to make use of different reading strategies to construct meaning from
the text. Worksheets were also used to help students develop these reading
skills.

Using think aloud approach Locating specific information Visualising

222
3. Setting a context for developing writing and speaking skills
After reading the story, students were given some information to write up a
weather report. They had to act as weather reporters and give suggestions to
the sailors in the story. The task provided an opportunity for students to apply
the vocabulary and sentence structures that they had learned from the textbook
unit in a meaningful context. The post-reading activities - writing a weather
report and acting as weather reporters helped students develop their writing and Students doing readers’ theatre
speaking skills.

Students discussing what the sailors should do under different Students writing up a weather report and
weather conditions acting as weather reporters

4. Monitoring students’ progress through formative assessment

A formative assessment on reading skills
was given to the students after teaching
the textbook unit and the reader. It
provided teachers with useful information
about student learning. The teachers made
use of the assessment data to adjust their
Testing students’ reading skills
teaching plans.

Case 2: Holy Family Canossian School (Kowloon Tong)

Levels: P4-5
Number of lessons required: 20 lessons

What happened
This initiative progressed from stage 1 to stage 6. Reading skills were taught to students explicitly at the initial
stage and they were then guided to respond to the text through drama.

1. Linking Reading Workshops with the P4 GE Programme

Reader chosen: Charlie and the chocolate factory
Textbook unit: Primary Longman Express 4A - Unit 3 Buying food
• Match the reader with the theme of the unit so that students can make use of the vocabulary learned
from the GE lessons and the Reading Workshops
• Teach students different reading skills such as predicting, sequencing, inferencing, book concept, etc. in
the Reading Workshops

Sequencing Identifying details that support the gist

223
 2. Monitoring students’ progress in reading through administering
formative reading assessments
• Test students’ reading skills, vocabulary and grammar points from time to
time so that teachers can monitor their progress in reading
• Prepare students better for the Territory-wide System Assessment on
reading by testing their reading skills through a variety of questions
Example of formative assessment paper:
Testing students’ reading skills

3. Familiarising students with the story and characters

• Provide more opportunities for students to discuss the characters
• Develop students’ ability to re-tell or summarise a story with the
help of a story frame or story map so that they can have a thorough
understanding of the story

Using a story frame to revise the details of

the story

4. Introducing new text types to students

• Expose students to a play script
• Introduce elements of a play script – synopsis,
dialogues and stage directions

5. Setting a context for creative writing as a way for students to respond to the
text
• Set a context for students to write a new ending to the story or new episodes
to enrich the story in the form of a play script
• Encourage students to write collaboratively so that more creative ideas can be
generated and there will be peer support among the group members
Group writing

6. Providing opportunities for students to share their response to the text through drama
• Help students warm up and project their voice through the use of theatre games
• Encourage students to act out the key movements dramatically
• Allow time for students to do rehearsal, prepare props and costumes
• Provide opportunities for students to perform on stage so as to build up their confidence in speaking and
make English learning fun for them

Students playing theatre games Students performing on English Day

224
Case 3: King’s College Old Boys’ Association Primary School No. 2
Level: P3
Number of lessons required: 40 lessons (2 textbook units and a reader)

What happened
Reading activities inside and outside the classroom were interwoven.

Inside the classroom

Two in One: Linking Reading Workshops with the P3 GE Programme

GE - 2 textbook units Reader - Magic fish
Language • Find out specific information about a person: What did you do?
• Talk about past activities
Focus Language skills Reading strategies

• The crucial linking element was the language focus – the past tense. As there was consensus that P3
students needed more help with the tense, one of the purposes of the Reading Workshops was to extend
and reinforce the learning and teaching of the past tense.
• The reader was taught in consecutive lessons for a week as a follow-up of the two related textbook units.

A worksheet on book concept Applying reading strategies

Conducting formative assessments to inform learning and teaching

• Three assessments were conducted to collect information about students’ learning in book concept, reading
strategies and the target language items.
• Teachers kept in mind what reading strategies to assess when setting the questions. This ensured an even
distribution of reading strategies being tested.

Responding to the text

• To sustain students’ reading interest, students were
guided to analyse the story by studying the characters,
plot, ending and moral
• To respond and interact with the story, they rewrote it in a
new context
• To share and celebrate their interpretations, they acted
out their own stories

Using a story map to analyse the story

225
 Rewriting the story in a different context Acting out the stories

Teachers’ peer observation

• There were arrangements for teachers to observe one another’s lessons. After observing lessons, there was
discussion on areas for improvement such as what to strengthen, avoid and change. Consideration was also
given to what adjustments had to be made to cater for learner diversity, e.g. changing the content of some
activities and providing graded worksheets.

Relating what students are learning inside the classroom to the outside can help sustain and reinforce the
impacts of classroom learning.

Outside the classroom

The school hall
• Video clips of post-reading performances were played in the school hall where all students attended their
reading period. After showing the clips, some students shared their feelings about the books and it helped
raise students’ reading interest and enrich the reading environment.

The school library

• It is common to find English books in the library left untouched. This is due to the fact that students never
think of borrowing them as they consider them irrelevant to what they are learning in the classroom.
Indeed, they do not know how to choose the right books. To help students explore the treasures there,
book displays in line with the GE Programme were conducted in the library.
• The benefits are fourfold.
1. It is easier to identify topics for the book displays as they are the same as those of the GE Programme.
2. The teacher librarian has a better understanding of what students are learning and their needs in reading
materials. When procuring books and resources for the library, she knows what is most appropriate for
students. Collaboration with English teachers helps her identify useful materials and resources for them.
Hence, the collection in the library can better reflect curriculum needs.
3. Students are more motivated to read books from the library when they are related to what they are
learning.
4. English teachers took students to the library and recommended books for them to read. These were
echoed in the book displays. At the same time, there were book recommendations on the library bulletin
board. This helped students choose the right books to read and enhanced their reading interest.

226
 Topics for book displays Students reading books selected
by the teacher librarian
Impacts
• Teachers realise the importance of aligning readers with the GE Programme, designing worksheets to teach
reading skills explicitly, administering formative assessments to find out students’ strengths and weaknesses
in reading and integrating other language skills in the Reading Workshops.
• Students start to develop a love of books when they can interact with them.
• The significant increase in the loan rate of English books indicates students’ interest in books which they find
relevant and appropriate.

Difficulties encountered
• Some teachers might have reservation about conducting the creative post-reading activities as they found
that it could take up more teaching time than scheduled.
• Teachers had tension when they had to catch up with both the reader and textbook teaching.
• Teachers found that some of the readers chosen were not satisfactory as the author had put too much
emphasis on introducing a particular language structure. As a result, the storyline was not interesting and
motivating for students.

Implications for curriculum design

• Linking the formal curriculum with the informal curriculum is important as the creative post-reading
activities conducted inside the classroom can become part of the English Day programme or extra-curricular
activities. Such reading activities can help promote a reading culture in school or build up a language-rich
environment.
• It is crucial to align the Reading Workshops with the GE Programme through careful curriculum planning so
as to avoid wasting time on teaching repetitive contents.
• Choice of readers should be careful and not confined to publisher’s series so that students can be exposed to
a variety of authentic texts.

References
Alberta Learning (2003). Senior high school English language arts guide to implementation: Responding to text
and context. Alberta, Canada.
Curriculum Development Council. (2004). English language curriculum guide (P1-6). Hong Kong: The
Education and Manpower Bureau.
Fuk Wing Street Government Primary School
Connie LAM (Language Support Officer)
Holy Family Canossian School (Kowloon Tong)
Amy FAN (Language Support Officer)
King’s College Old Boys’ Association Primary School No. 2
Maria CHAU (Language Support Officer)
227
 Writing and speaking with a purpose:
the power of real audience on students’ learning motivation
Background
Looking at the recent Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA) review, published by the HKEAA in 2006, it
is evident that junior secondary students are facing problems in both writing and speaking. In writing, they
generally had difficulty in developing ideas, elaborating appropriately and making coherent links between
paragraphs. In speaking their errors in pronunciation were already impeding communication. These findings
should be of little surprise to most educators as students are often reported to lack motivation for writing and
especially for speaking which requires even more self confidence. What students need is the motivational drive
to write and speak.

Cook et al. (2001) argues that learners are reluctant to write because they have low confidence, inadequate
writing time, limited peer collaboration and lack control over the writing tasks, which often have insufficient
relevance to real life. The adoption of process writing can reduce these problems by providing longer writing
time, peer support and regular feedback which allow more autonomy in subsequent changes. Requiring
students to write to a specific target audience and arranging them to present their work orally to the real
audience can even relate their writing to real life experiences and enhance their speaking skills in a self-
motivating way.

In this school case, students were guided to use process writing to create stories for a follow-up primary
school storytelling activity. It involved collaboration between two neighbouring schools. Storytelling has been
recommended as one of the focuses for English Language Education curriculum development in junior forms
(English Language Education Key Learning Area Curriculum Guide (P1-S3) 2002). Secondary school students
can benefit from purposeful writing and speaking training while primary school students can in turn improve
their listening and comprehension skills.

Level
S2

T.W.G.Hs. Li Ka Shing College (S2) Fanling Government Primary school (P5)

228
Strategies used
Writing task: Writing a mystery story for a group of P5 students
Speaking task: Present the mystery story to a real audience (P5 students)
Target language: Past tense, past continuous tense & reported speech
Strategies used
Pre-writing stage
Ideas and vocabulary
building
1. Teacher telling a mystery
story to show the
students what they need
to do at the end of the
unit.
2. Analysing a mystery story
from the textbook as
initial input.
3. Brainstorming of ideas
using mind maps to
stimulate thinking.
Language analysis
4. Introducing past tense,
past continuous tense
and reported speech to
strengthen the students’
language skills and
p re s e n t a t i o n i n t h e i r
writing.
Organising ideas
5. R e a r r a n g i n g s a m p l e
paragraphs in the right
order to learn the logical
flow of ideas.
Drafting stage
6. S t u d e n t s s e l e c t i n g ,
organising and drafting
ideas.
7. Te a c h e r g i v e s i n i t i a l
feedback.
What happened
1. The teacher made use of dramatic intonation, pronunciation and body
gestures to demonstrate how to tell a mystery story.
2. Students examined the structure
of a mystery story and guessed
who the murderer was by filling
out a worksheet which guided
them to unveil the truth behind
a murder case.
3. Students read more examples of mystery stories and thought about the
outline of their own stories and characters involved using mind maps. They
had not constructed a mystery plot before and so discussion among peers
was allowed.
4. To reduce language complexity which may affect learner motivation, the
teacher highlighted the practical use of the past tense forms and reported
speech in writing a story. Online interactive language games, pictorial
games and class competitions were devised to arouse the students’
interest.
5. Students sequenced events and worked out how it could be set out like a
mystery story. They also paid attention to the use of past tense forms and
dialogues.
6.
7. The teacher only focussed on reading whether the story plots were
constructed sensibly and were appropriate for primary school children. The
students then rewrote them as second (or even third) drafts.
229
 Revising stage
8. Reviewing of ideas by
peers and the writers
themselves to gather
more comments and
reflections.
Editing stage
9. Checking of grammar
by peers and the writers
themselves to enhance
language awareness.
10. E d i t i n g f o r t a r g e t
audience to make the
stories more digestible
for primary school
students.
Presentation stage
11. S e l e c t i n g t h e b e s t
3 storytellers to be
representatives of P5
storytellers.
12. P u b l i s h i n g t h e s t o r y
books to make them
look like real ones.
230
8. The students used a checklist
for writing a mystery story to
examine each other’s work.
The writers could then make
changes to their work.
9. T h e t e a c h e r p e r f o r m e d a
demonstration marking on the
visualiser first before asking
the class to check specific
grammatical items (e.g. past
tense).
10. The students used a checklist
of writing stories for young
readers to adjust their use
of language further and add
more visual stimulation such as
pictures.
11. The presenters tried to be dramatic in their
storytelling but generally they were still shy
in their performance. Other students ranked
their presentation by checking against a mark
sheet.
12.
 Further training 13. The class discussed the solutions to
13. Role playing unexpected the unexpected scenarios raised by the
scenarios to prepare for teacher and acted them out, leaving a
various responses. vivid image in their mind.

14. E x t r a s t o r y t e l l i n g
practice with the class
representatives before
the commencement of
the real event.
Public presentation to real
audience
15. Telling the stories to
the real audience – P5
students.
14. The selected storytellers were reminded intensively of the use of clear
intonation, pronunciation and dramatic delivery in their presentation. The
teacher also gave further demonstration and individual guidance. Most
of the presenters had acquired a certain level in their speaking skills.
15. Each storyteller presented the story to two P5 students, sitting next
to them, followed by three short questions to check the listeners’
understanding and a bookmark design activity to stimulate reflection on
the story. Enthusiastic feedback was collected and the secondary school
students also found it enjoyable to participate in this storytelling activity.

Impacts
What the primary school teacher and students think
The primary school teacher commented that the storytelling activity was very meaningful as the students had
learned the structure and dramatic mode of presentation of short stories. She was particularly impressed by
the storytellers’ lively way of presentation and their encouraging attempts to use English to explain difficult
words to the students. Their patience and enthusiasm was much appreciated.

The students enjoyed the activity a lot and they felt that the stories were interesting. The storytellers were very
kind to them and presented the stories clearly. They agreed that they had learned many new words, including
pronunciation and intonation, which enabled them to understand English texts better and know how to tell
a story with feeling. They also found the bookmark design activity fun and were looking forward to the next
storytelling occasion.

Bookmarks designed by the P5 students after they listened to the mystery stories
231
 What the secondary school teacher and students think
The activity coordinator from Li Ka Shing College, Mr Choi believed that his students’ writing and speaking had
improved as they had spent more time on the writing process and training of speaking skills which could help
in their TSA performance. He supported the idea of using process writing because the students could follow
a practical way of writing in a step by step manner. They also had a clear objective in mind during writing as
they were writing for a real audience—primary five students. He was interested in sustaining the activity.

The students reflected that they were a little nervous during the activity and made occasional pronunciation
mistakes but on the whole they liked the experience of storytelling. They commented that their confidence
and motivation in both writing and speaking had increased, with speaking giving them more satisfaction.

Facilitating factors
• Li Ka Shing College had experienced process writing last year and therefore some teachers were well
prepared for a continuation this year. The writing ideas involved could be passed on smoothly.
• Many English classes are used to putting students into mixed abilities groups during lessons, so the more
competent students can help the weaker ones and they can all learn from one another.
• The project is meaningful for both groups of students. For the secondary school students, there was a
genuine purpose for writing and speaking. For the primary school students, there was a genuine purpose
for reading and listening. They are eager to learn and they responded to the activity enthusiastically. The
development of social skills and peer feedback techniques were facilitated.

Difficulties and suggestions

The students reported that the real time spent on writing the mystery story was still not enough. They argued
that the idea of constructing a ‘mystery’ story was difficult for them and they expected more teaching input.
In addition, they were not familiar with the language used in primary school readers and therefore they
had difficulty in adjusting their English during writing. When presenting the stories, ensuring the listeners’
understanding of the texts was also a problem for them.

Highlighting the special characteristics of a mystery story like the addition of misleading clues and unnatural
behaviour should be added to strengthen the students’ knowledge of writing mystery plots. Also, samples of
primary school readers should be distributed to the writers for reference, for content and language use. For
speaking, regular, patient checking of the listeners’ understanding and repetition of essential lines can help
their comprehension and the successful conveyance of meaning. With careful refinement, the storytelling
activity can be carried out more effectively and sustained long term.

References
Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. (2006). Territory-wide System Assessment, 2006. Hong
Kong: Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority.
Cook et al. (2001). Increasing Motivation to Write by Enhancing Self-perception, Utilizing Collaboration,
Modelling and Relevance. ERIC.
Curriculum Development Council. (2002). English Language Education Key Learning Area Curriculum Guide
(P1-S3). Hong Kong: The Education and Manpower Bureau.
Fanling Government Primary School
T.W.G.Hs. Li Ka Shing College
Ken HO (Language Support Officer)
232
 Journal of Studies in Education
E
ISSN 2162-6952
2
2012, Vol. 2, No. 4

Reciiprocall Teach
hing Strrategy as
a an Im
mportannt Facto
or of
Im
mproviing Reaading Compre
C ehensioon
Mohamm
mad Reza A
Ahmadi (Co
orresponding
g author)
S
School of Educational
E Studies, Un
niversiti Saiins Malaysiaa
11800,, Penang, Malaysia
M
Teel: 60-17-52
27-1870 E
E-mail: mr..ahmadi2720@gmail.coom

Asssociate Proff. Dr. Hairu

ul Nizam Ism
mail
S
School of Educational
E Studies, Un
niversiti Saiins Malaysiaa
11800,, Penang, Malaysia
M
Tel: 60
0-4-653-37660 E-maiil: hairul@u
usm.my

Receiveed: Octoberr 18, 2012 Acceptedd: October 30,

3 2012 Published: November 8, 2012
doi:10.55296/jse.v2i4.2584 URL: hhttp://dx.doii.org/10.529
96/jse.v2i4.22584

Abstract
Readingg Comprehhension is one o of the m most imporrtant skills, receives thhe special focus in
foreign language teaching.
t Research
R haas suggested d that expllicit readingg strategiess can be
taught tto students and
a enhancing their reaading comp prehension. The purposse of this stu udy is to
investiggate the effeects of recip
procal teachhing on read ding comprrehension. R Reciprocal teaching
t
consistss of four bassic reading strategies: ppredicting, questioning g, clarifyingg, and summmarizing.
Cognitiive and meta-cognitive strategies aare the recip procal teachhing strategiies used to improve
studentss’ reading comprehen nsion This article wiill discuss whether ‘rreciprocal teaching t
strategies’ improvve students reading c omprehensiion or not. This lackk of good reading
compreehension skiills is exaceerbated by the central role of reading comprrehension in n higher
educatioon success. One solutiion to this pproblem of poor readin ng comprehhension skillls is the
explicitt teaching of
o reading comprehens
c ion strategiies. This paaper is going
ng to define the key
words, explain thee models of reading proocess, follow reading process p andd reading strrategies,
discuss cognitive and metaa-cognitive strategies and readin ng compreehension, elaborate
e
reciproccal teachingg and its theeoretical fraamework, mention
m the related reseearch on reeciprocal
teachingg, and statee relationshiip between reciprocal teaching
t and reading ccomprehensiion. The
findingss indicated that recipro ocal teachinng had a sig gnificantly positive effffect on the English

153 www.macroth
hink.org/jse
 Journal of Studies in Education
E
ISSN 2162-6952
2
2012, Vol. 2, No. 4

readingg comprehennsion and ussage of the four main factors

f of reeciprocal teaaching strattegies of
EFL stuudents.
Keywords: Recipprocal teach
hing, Readiing compreehension, Cognitive
C aand meta-cognitive
strategies.

154 www.macroth
hink.org/jse
 Journal of Studies in Education
E
ISSN 2162-6952
2
2012, Vol. 2, No. 4

1. Introoduction
Along with the im mprovemen nt of internnational com mmunicatioon activitiees, and inteerests in
industriial science and knowledge, the l earning of English in the world is becomin ng more
importaant. Internaational activ vities in thee world su uch as book k fairs, tradde exhibitions and
confereences whichh held annu ually in the world indiccated the immportance oof English as to be
mastereed in the worldw (Maleki & Zanngani, 2007 7). Accordinng to Channg (2006), English
languagge teachingg is one off the most important factors of internationnal commu unication
activitiees. It is ideaal to train stu
udents to bee able to use language in various cconditions: reading,
writing,, speaking and listenin ng to facilittate their in
nternational communiccation. How wever, in
foreign language learning,
l teaching metthod is mosst important factor forr the learneers to be
motivatted in their activities
a (G
Grabe & Stooller, 2002)..
Readingg compreheension is knownk as an interacttive mentall process bbetween a reader’s
linguisttic knowleddge, knowledge of the w world, and knowledge about a givven topic (RRahmani
& Sadeeghi, 2011). One solutiion to this pproblem of poor readin ng comprehhension skillls is the
explicitt teaching of
o reading comprehennsion strateg gies to both
h undergradduate and graduate
g
studentss. Hodge, Palmer,
P and
d Scott (19992) determin ned that co
ollege-aged students who were
ineffecttive readerss often did not monittor the com mprehensionn of their rreading, annd rarely
instigated any straategies to adjust
a to ddeficiencies in readingg compreheension. In addition,
a
Meyer, Young, and a Bartlettt (1989) ddemonstrateed that ex xplicit instrruction in reading
compreehension strrategies is an effectivve means for fo improvin ng reading comprehen nsion in
adults. Unfortunattely, expliciit instructioon in readin
ng compreh hension is rrarely taughht at the
higher education level
l (Wilson, 1988; P Pressley, Woloshyn,
W Lysynchuk,
L Martin, Wood,
W &
Willougghby, 1990)).
Second//foreign lannguage ressearchers hhave stresseed the importance off training language
learnerss to be straategic readers. Paris ett al., (1983)) highlight that learninng to be a strategic
s
reader ccan promotee reading co omprehensiion and “faiilure to be strategic
s in reading maay result
from eiither develoopmental inability or ppoor learnin ng” (p. 293)). Palincsar and Brown n (1984)
suggestt that strattegic readin ng helps sstudents, esspecially lo ow-achievinng learnerss, avoid
compreehension faiilure and en nhance theirr retention of
o the text. Similarly, K Koda (20044) points
out thatt strategic reeading can not
n only com mpensate foor learners’ comprehennsion deficieency but
also devvelop their critical
c thin
nking.
Reciproocal teachinng strategy explored bby Palincsaar and Brow wn (1984) iis one of the most
effectivve methods for teachin ng a foreignn language and facilitaates learningg in differeent areas
world P Pressley (20002). Oczkuus (2004) addvocated thaat reciprocaal teaching aassists learnners in a
differennt teaching and
a learning situationss and it is ann explicit teeaching by tthe instructo
or in the
learnerss’ use of thet strategiies. Recipro
rocal teachiing strategy y improvess learners’ reading
compreehension, faccilitates foreign lang nguage learnning and hellps them to improve th he ability
to workk co-operativvely with thheir classmaates. Hasan (1994) exp plained that reciprocal teaching
t
strategyy does not only facilitate readingg compreheension in an a EFL conntext; it alsso gives
learnerss the opporttunity to usse English tto serve maany of the laanguage funnctions and d notions
that are typical in communicat
c tive approacch.

155 www.macroth
hink.org/jse
 Journal of Studies in Education
E
ISSN 2162-6952
2
2012, Vol. 2, No. 4

Pressleyy (2006) coontends that language learners sh hould be tau ught strateggic reading through
explicitt instructionn. Janzen an nd Stoller ((1998) mainntain that strategic
s reaading instruuction is
rewardiing to both second lan nguage learnners and theeir teacherss. They arguue that it cuultivates
learnerss’ autonom my and selff-awareness of the meeaning con nstructing pprocess and d it also
preparees pre-univeersity studen nts for acaddemic readiing performmance. Theyy also indiccate that
readingg strategy innstruction provides
p an efficient method
m for teachers
t to motivate students’
s
particippation in theeir learning and teach thhem how too read effecttively.
2. Recip
procal Teaaching Strattegy
Stricklinn (2011) deefined recip
procal teachhing as an instructional strategy thhat directly y teaches
studentss to apply meta-cogniti
m ive thinkingg as they maake meaning from a texxt. It is a prrocess of
readingg comprehennsion as an interactive one, in wh hich readerss interact wwith the text as their
prior exxperience iss activated. Moreover, readers construct meaaning from the text by y relying
on prioor experiencce to paralllel, contrasst or affirm m what the author sugggested in the t text.
Reciproocal teachinng strategy allows
a a teaacher to model and giv ve the studennts enough practice
on thosse four maain strategiies (predictting, questiioning, clarifying andd summarizzing) to
construct the meanning of a texxt in a social
al setting (Sttricklin, 201
11).
Reciproocal teachinng strategy y is an innstruction thatt directly teaches learners to o apply
meta-coognitive thinnking as theey recognizze meaning from a con ntext (Rosennshine and Meister,
1994). CCarter (19997) advocateed that, reciiprocal teacching strateggy is the intteractive prrocess of
readingg, where learrners interaact with the passage as their backg ground know wledge is acctivated.
Using bbackground knowledgee as a way, learners leaarn new info ormation, kkey points and
a main
ideas. SSo, learners create meaning
m fromm the text by relying g on backgground kno owledge,
contrastt or affirm what the author sugggests. The content wo ould be meeaningless, if good
learnerss do not folllow this connstruction oon the passaage. And alsso learning does not tak ke place
withoutt meaning construction n.
Lysynchhuck et al.. (1990) staated that reeciprocal teeaching strategy is a model to promote p
readingg comprehennsion abilitiies in learnners with baasic decodin ng process, which can n also be
t promote their readiing compreehension
consideered as a sttrategy thatt facilitatess learners to
throughh explicit teeaching of reading
r commprehension n strategy. In I other woords, it is a method
that impproves cognnitive and meta-cogniti
m ive processees for the leearners whicch help themm to use
the strattegies of planning, con
ntrolling andd evaluating
g at their owwn reading m method. Reeciprocal
teachingg is a dialogue model among the learners themselves orr between tthe learners and the
instructtor. This moodel might exchange thhe roles bettween the in nstructor annd the studeents, and
it puts the sense ofo responsibbility on thhe learners for their ro oles in the pprocess, as well as
allowinng learners to
t support each other coontinuously y (Hacker & Tenent, 20002).
Hacker and Tenentt (2002) elaaborated recciprocal teaaching as a scaffold
s diaalogue model based
on social interactioon and read
ding compreehension leearning strattegy. This iinstructionaal model
helps teeachers to model
m mainn strategiess to constru
uct the meaaning of a ppassage in a social
interacttion and givve learners enough prractice on these
t four reciprocal
r tteaching strrategies.
During the process, learners evaluate annd monitor their own thinking
t thr
hrough readiing, and
their ccomprehensiion will be b developped. This strategy im mproves a learner’s reading

156 www.macroth
hink.org/jse
 Journal of Studies in Education
E
ISSN 2162-6952
2
2012, Vol. 2, No. 4

compreehension in order to steep further iin reaching the goal off reciprocall teaching, tot be an
indepenndent readeer. In otherr words, reeciprocal teeaching strategy can be described as a
collaborrative workk among students themsselves and students
s witth teacher too help studeents who
have prroblems recoognizing thee text (Palinncsar & Bro
own, 1984).
2.1 Com
mponent of Reciprocal
R Teaching SStrategy
According to Brow wn and Cam mpione (19 92), compo onents of reeciprocal te aching strategy are
namely predicting,, questionin ng, clarifyingg and summ
marizing. Thhese compoonents are described
in the foollowing suubsections.
2.1.1 Prredicting
In this prediction stage, stud dents will ppredict the message
m in
n the text coontent whille being
aware wwhether theiir guessing are correct or wrong (Palincsar, Brown
B &M Martin, 19877; Taylor
& Frye, 1992). Preediction stage is a channce for learrners beforee reading thhe passage tot create
importaant imaginaation of passsage’s titlee. As a co onclusion, predicting
p inncludes joinning the
reader’ss backgrouund knowleedge, new information n from thee passage, and the passage’s
construction to maake assump ptions relateed to the direction
d of the passagge and the author’s
massage in writingg. Doolittle et al. (2006 ) explainedd that studen
nts make preedictions off the text
based oon their relatted backgroound knowleedge. In thiis process, students
s desscribe a con
ntext and
guess thhe content of the nextt paragraphh or passagee. Through the inform mation in a context,
studentss will predicct which infformation m
may be in thhe next pagees.
2.1.2 Questioning
In this ssection, the instructors will ask theeir students to find the most imporrtant informmation in
the passsage. Studdents can assk a lot of questions th hat are relaated to theirr passage an
nd show
their knnowledge abbout the con ntext. For eexample, thee teacher might ask hiss/her studen nts about
the maain point of a paragraaph. By geenerating questioning
q activities, students can
c find
informaation, themees, and important pointts of the passsage that are a needed tto be more focused;
f
the maiin points annd recommeendation wiill be used for f question ning activitiies by the students.
s
Accordingly, questtioning wou uld help to reach the goal
g quickerr (Palincsar,, Brown, & Martin,
1987; TTaylor & Fryye, 1992).
2.1.3 Cllarifying
In this sstage, clariffication of difficult
d or unfamiliar aspects of a passage, wwhich mayy include
unfamilliar or unclear idioms,, vocabularyy, referencees, or unknown sentennces, will take place
(Doolitttle et al., 20006). Clarify
ying is a meeta-cognitiv
ve strategy, where readders may re--read the
passagee in order too clarify anyy unclear infformation.
Some pprocedures, such as usiing dictionaary and theesaurus, or evene askingg for help from
f the
instructtors are to be
b followed by the readders in ordeer to find thhe obstacless in the textt such as
new exppressions, iddioms or voocabularies iin order to im
mprove the understandding. In otheer words,
this stagge includes the explanaation and deefinition of unknown,
u co
omplex, or uunclear aspects of a
passagee (Palincsar,, Brown, & Martin, 11987; Taylo or & Frye, 1992).

157 www.macroth
hink.org/jse
 Journal of Studies in Education
E
ISSN 2162-6952
2
2012, Vol. 2, No. 4

2.1.4 Suummarizingg
Summaarizing is thee action of explaining tthe most siggnificant daata, issue, annd opinion within a
passagee. This strattegy allows the reader to recognizze, detect, correlate
c annd arrange the
t main
ideas inn the passagges. To rewwrite the paassage usingg their own n words whhile maintain ning the
basic pooints mightt also improove the studdents’ capabbilities to co
oncentrate oon significaant parts
of the text (Palinccsar, Brown, & Martiin, 1987; Frye F &Tayllor, 1992). They agreeed that,
instructtors might enhance
e the students’ uunderstandin
ng by asking g questions related to the
t main
point off the passagge.
In other words, suummarizing g helps readder to accoomplish the assignmennt of disting guishing
significcant informaation in the content (Paalincsar & Brown,
B 19844). This stagge is helpfuul for the
studentss to improvve their com mprehensionn because iti emphasizes on passaages, paragrraphs or
sentencces and also makes worrds understaandable in a special conntext (Dooliittle et al., 2006).
2
2.2 Histtory of Reciiprocal Teaching
Reciproocal teachinng was desig gned as an instructional approachh to improvve students’ reading
compreehension at all levels and
a in all suubject areass (Palincsarr & Brown,, 1984). Reeciprocal
teachingg was introoduced to help learneers improvee the ability to constrruct meanin ng from
passagee and controol their read
ding compreehension. Leearners stud
dy a set of ccognitive strrategies,
modeled by the innstructor and practicedd by learnerrs in collaborative worrk, that are used to
structurre discussioons of the passage (F Florida Onlline Readin ng Professioonal Devellopment,
2005a; Foster & Rotoloni, 200 05; Promisinng Practices Network, 2005).
Studentts with straategy are aw ware of theeir own reaading a tex xt and havee the ability y to use
self-corrrection in an
a attempt to t figure ouut the passaage (Floridaa Online Reeading Proffessional
Developpment, 20005b). Biemiiller and M Meichenbaum m (1992) elaborated th that the diffferences
betweenn the higheest- and low west learninng achievemment in reaading comprrehension is i in the
degree tto which stuudents becoome self-moonitoring off their own learning.
l Esssential com
mponents
of recipprocal teachhing strategy
y, such as sself-evaluatiion, goals, plans,
p requeesting for help,
h and
using mmonitoring strategies area helpful in improving reading comprehennsion, (Edu ucational
Researcch Service, 2003; Hash hey & Connnors, 2003; Oczkus,
O 20003).
2.3 Goaals of Reciprocal Teach
hing Strateggy
McLaugghlin & Alllen (2002) and Pearsoon, et al. (1 1992) elabo
orated that rreciprocal teaching
t
strategyy was desiggned by Pallincsar and Brown in 1984 with different ggoals and faacilitates
studentss reading comprehens
c ion in diffeerent grade levels. Thee goals of rreciprocal teaching
t
strategyy are as folloows:
A. To eenhance leaarners’ readding compreehension th hrough four reciprocal teaching sttrategies
(makingg predictionn, generating
g questioninng, clarifyin
ng and summ
marizing).
B. To frame the four reciprrocal teachhing strateg
gies by mod
deling, helpping, guidiing, and
providinng the strateegies while reading.
C. To ddirect learneers to becom
me meta-coggnitive and reflective in
n using the ffour strateg
gies;

158 www.macroth
hink.org/jse
 Journal of Studies in Education
E
ISSN 2162-6952
2
2012, Vol. 2, No. 4

D. To assist learnners evaluaate their reeading com

mprehension
n through rreciprocal teaching
t
strategyy.
E. To utilize thee classroom
m environm
ment of leearning to increase aand frame reading
compreehension.
F. To eempower innstruction in
n a differennt classroom
m environm
ment, help sstudents in reading
compreehension.
G. To bbe part of the bigger frameworkk of reading g compreheension strateegies that provides
p
reviewiing, generatting question
ning, makinng predictio
ons, evaluatiing and monnitoring.
3. Read
ding comprrehension
Readingg compreheension is a combinattion of thee reader’s cognitive aand meta-cognitive
processses, which a reader hass to make innferences on
o the conteext of a text xt or at the end
e of a
story byy using infoormation fro
om various sources: th
he title, the illustrations
i s, or generally from
the preevious paraagraphs. Th he reading comprehen nsion proceesses occurr when thee reader
understands the information n in a teext and meaningfully
m y interpretss it appro opriately
(Blair-L
Larsen & Vaallance, 200 04).
The coonclusion of recognition amonng readerss and the context is called reading
compreehension (Eskey, 2005)). Many of the strategiies instructiion occurreed as a resu ult of the
earlier proposal frrom Rosenb blatt (1978)), that read
ding is a traansaction aamong the text
t and
reader. It is believved that reeaders estabblish and co onstruct theeir own meeanings and d in the
context of small-grroups, readers can sharare those un nderstandinggs. Decodinng and the ability
a to
recogniize words has
h been sho own to be oone of the most
m imporrtant featurees of the beeginning
stages oof reading and
a reading g developmeent (Adamss, 1990); wh hile compprehension relies
r on
both woord recognittion skills and
a higher oorder thinkin ng skills.
Duke (2003) propposed that reading
r com mprehension is a proccess at oncce to constrruct and
recogniize the masssage of wrritten languaage; he staated furtherm more, that rreaders go through
context; evaluate meaning
m an
nd, finally aarrive at a self-selecteed location.. Accordinggly, Van
Den Brroek and Krremer (2000 0) stated thaat readers in
n reading coomprehensiion create an
a image
and its definition toward thee compreheension proccess in theirr mental. O On the otheer hand,
Martin, Chang annd Gould (2 2008) definne reading as one of the most iimportant factor f in
languagge learning. Their ideaa was suppoorted by thee fact that many
m resear
archers said reading
will hellp and imprrove languaage learningg. Reading also
a helps leearners to im mprove theemselves
in varioous situatioons such as vocabularyy knowledg ge, writing skills, andd spelling (Harmer,
2007).
Readingg is a compplex processs which inc ludes the ab bility to reaad real wordds in isolatiion or in
context with com mprehension n (Reid & Lienemann n, 2006). Students
S neeed to be able to
compreehend text inn many difffferent conteent areas; th
hey need th he ability too construct meaning
m
from wwritten langguage by manipulating
m g, construccting, and translating
t text. Acco
ordingly,
Erfani eet al. (20100) and Farh
hady (2005)) agreed thaat in Iranian n universitiies context, reading

159 www.macroth
hink.org/jse
 Journal of Studies in Education
E
ISSN 2162-6952
2
2012, Vol. 2, No. 4

compreehension is the most im mportant skikill to be acqquired by th he studentss, and it is the

t most
effectivve motivatioon factor forr them to bee successfull in their stu
udy.
3.1 Typpes of Readiing
In geneeral, readingg activity can
c be dividded into tw wo types namely Extennsive and Inntensive
Readingg. The folloowing subseections discuuss about th
he two typess in more deetails.
3.1.1 Exxtensive Reeading
Hedge (2003) em mphasized that
t extensiive reading
g is related d to scanniing and sk kimming
activitiees and otheers associatee it to quanntity of matterial. It is defined
d as rreading in quantity
and in oorder to gaiin a generall understandding of whaat is read, interactive-aactivities, obtaining
the gist to facilitatee reading co
omprehensioon. Furtherm more, Hafizz and Tudorr (1989), Grrabe and
Stoller (2002) addded that exttensive readding refers to a large amounts
a off reading in
n second
languagge texts wiithin their linguistic ccompetencee with the purpose off learning to read.
Furtherm more, it is considered d a pedagoggically efficcient metho od to teach reading by y having
studentss read manyy materials in their lingguistic proceess.
On the other hand, Richards anda Rodgerss (2003) exp plained exteensive readiing as readiing book
after boook where the
t readers need to foccus on the meaning
m of the text, whhile it givess them a
general sense of thhe passage. Field
F (19855) and Munb
by (1978) arrgued that eextensive reeading is
a rapid and effectiive method of reading a passage for
f a generaal meaning.. All interessted and
pleasuree reading iss defined as extensive rreading.
3.1.2 Inntensive Reaading
Intensivve reading is
i defined as reading inn details to understand the meaninng of the wo ords and
the deffinition of context
c (Daay & Bamfford, 1998)). Intensive readers foccus on gram mmatical
points, vocabularyy key word ds, details iin structuree, with the aims of unnderstandin ng literal
meaning and impliications. Th hey explaineed that inten nsive readin
ng is a closee study of contexts,
c
sentencces or paraggraphs and it
i will activaate the shift
ft from first language too foreign laanguage;
hence itt improves the
t learnerss’ vocabularry knowledg ge and reading comprehehension.
In Intennsive readinng, readers usually
u readd a text to understand
u t writer’s message(s)). Hedge
the
(2003) pictured inttensive read ding as readding carefullly and slow wly for detaailed undersstanding.
Hafiz annd Tudor (11989) suppo orted the deefinition by stating thatt intensive rreading is generally
g
at a sloower speed and requirees a higher degree of understandin
u ng to develoop and refin ne word
study skkills, enlargge passive vocabulary, rreinforce skkills related to sentencee structure, increase
active vvocabulary,, distinguissh among tthesis, fact,, supportivee and non--supportive details,
providee socio-cultuural insightss.
3.2. Moodels of Reaading
There aare three moodels for reading: the bbottom-up model
m whicch emphasizzes on the contexts,
c
the topp-down moddel which emphasizess on the reeaders, and the interacctive modeel which
emphassizes that thhe reading process
p is guuided by an
n interaction
n between th
the text info
ormation

160 www.macroth
hink.org/jse
 Journal of Studies in Education
E
ISSN 2162-6952
2
2012, Vol. 2, No. 4

and thee reader’s previous

p kn
nowledge ( Tolstefl, 20
007). The following
f ssubsections discuss
about eaach of the model
m in mo
ore details.
3.2.1Thhe Top–dow
wn Model
In Top--Down Moodel, backgrround know wledge actiivities, pred
diction, mai
ain idea, co
ontextual
guessinng, scanningg and skimm
ming are prrovided; thee prospects and previouus information help
readers to recognizze meaningg in their reeading proceess (Eskey, 2005). In tthis model,, readers
begin tto read a passage
p an
nd utilizing their prevviously learrned informmation to getg new
experiennces and knnowledge (A
Aebersold & Field, 199 97).
In top-ddown modeel, readers use
u their bacckground knowledge
k to
t predict m meaning (Go oodman,
1976). AAccordinglyy, active reaaders transl ate the messsage of writers in theirr own langu
uage in a
meaningful form (Smith, 2004). Thereffore, good readers do o not need to read all of the
vocabullary in a coontext, but they
t will reecognize thee message of
o the conteext by gettinng some
importaant of wordds and senttence (Coheen, 1990). In other words,w the mmodel of toop-down
emphassizes on reaading profiiciency andd focuses on o predictinng the messsage by ussing the
readers’ prior knowwledge relatted to the coontext.
3.2.2 Thhe Bottom-uup Model
Bottom
m-up Model emphasizees on surfacce meaning g, using a dictionary
d ffor translatiing new
vocabullaries for faacilitating reeading comp
mprehension (Stanovich
h, 1980; Chaastain, 1988 8; Dubin
& Byciina, 1991; Carrell,
C 199 91). This m
model is no
ormally used
d at the earrlier level of
o study
(Hayashhi, 1999).
Readingg process inn the bottom m-up modell starts with
h the decodiing of the sm
mallest elem
ments of
linguisttic especiallly phonemees and wordds, continueed with creaating meaniing from th he larger
elementts (Carrell, 1989). Go ough (1972)) added thaat bottom-u
up model foocuses on the t print
itself, w
whereas reaading is thee starting ppoint to grasp understtanding in words desccription,
letters iinformationn, linguisticc elements and sentennces before recognizinng the mean ning the
whole ttext.
The afoorementioneed descriptiions are inn line with the statemeent of VannDuzer (199 99), that
whole pprocess of defining content
c throough decodding of new w words iss called bo ottom-up
readingg process. Grabe
G and Sttoller (20022) supported
d the idea by
y stating thaat bottom-u
up model
is a meechanical model,
m wherre readers translate thhe content mentally
m frrom smallest units;
obvioussly, readers’’ previous in
nformation may not bee considered d too much in the proceess.
3.3.3 Thhe Interactivve model
Interacttive model is the commbination oof the two aforementioned modeels (bottom m-up and
top-dowwn).This model
m is baased on innformation from diffeerent parts such as semantic
s
informaation, lexical, schematta, orthograaphic and syntactic (S
Stanovich, ,1980). Intteractive
model ccovers whatt top-down or bottom-uup model uncovered
u in
n the wholee process off reading
(Rumellhart, 1977).

161 www.macroth
hink.org/jse
 Journal of Studies in Education
E
ISSN 2162-6952
2
2012, Vol. 2, No. 4

It is nott a coincideence that Sttanovich (19980) also explained

e th
hat one of thhe efficient method
based oon interactioon model is called reciiprocal teachhing method, because reciprocal teaching
t
model emphasizess on the rellationship bbetween thee text and the readerss. Anderson n (1991)
added tthat interacctive model is the mosst effectivee approach to teach thhe first and d second
languagge speakerss to read. Accordingly
A y, Grabe (1 1991) reporrted that innteractive model
m is
efficiennt to bridgge between n studentss with hig gher-level and lowerr-level of reading
compreehension prooficiency.
Stanoviich (1980) mentioned
m that
t top-dow
wn and botttom-up mod dels might assist each other in
the process of reading. It waas reported that becausse poor read
ders have liimited capaability of
bottom--up approacch, they usee top-downn model mo ore than prooficient reaaders (Eskeyy, 2005;
Stanoviich, 1980).
4. Cogn
nitive and meta-cogni
m tive strateggies and rea
ading comp
prehensionn
he students to remove barriers
Cognitiive strategiees, or learniing to thinkk strategicallly, assist th
they enncounter whhile they aree reading aand it is a kind
k of volition which planed to improve
learningg in differennt condition
ns (Alexandder, Graham m, & Harriss, 1998; Dolle, Nokes, & Drits,
2009).
Cognitiive strategiees are taugght to the leearners thro ough discussion and ssupport to enhance
readingg comprehennsion, and im mprove stuudents’ motiivation in th heir learningg (Palincsarr, David,
& Brow wn, 1989). Reciprocal teaching iss one of thee effective strategies tthat assist learners’
l
learningg through coognitive straategies by ssuitable insttructions (R
Rosenshine & Meister, 1994).
Flavell (1979) elabborated that individual information n about cognitive proceess and straategies is
called m meta-cognittive strateg
gy. Livingsston (1997)) stated thaat thinking about thin nking is
meta-coognitive innterpretation n, and thhat the concept c off meta-coggnition haas been
enthusiaastically accepted, especially withh regard to reading, for three reassons as follo ows: (1)
It emphhasizes the activities
a ( It emphaasizes cognnition of the reading
off reading inn strategic. (2)
processs. Asking questions
q fro
om young llearners ind dicated thatt they do nnot know ab bout the
readingg strategy. (3) Meta-ccognition hhas becomee significan nt and acceeptable elem ment in
investiggation on reading.
3.5 Theeories Relateed to Reciprrocal Teachhing
The recciprocal teaaching strattegies are m methods baasically imp proved by Palincsar and a Ann
Brown in1980s. Itt is consideered as thee most vitaal instructio on for readiing compreehension
strategies; which consists
c of four
f strateggies: predictting, generaating questioons, clarifying, and
summarrizing. Furtthermore, it assists learrners readin ng comprehension abiliity. The aim m of this
strategyy is to im
mprove coop peration beetween stud dents and teacher annd students among
themsellves. This cooperation
c n will enhannce learnerrs reading comprehens
c sion, impro ove their
manipuulating abiliity, checkin ng their abiility of reaading comp prehension, and enhan nce their
motivattion (Borkow wski et al., 1990; Allenn, 2003).
Theoriees of reciproocal teachin
ng are funddamentally based
b on th
hree branchhes which in
ncluded:
the zonne of proximmal improv vement, pro leptic exerccising, and skilled fram
mework (B
Brown &

162 www.macroth
hink.org/jse
 Journal of Studies in Education
E
ISSN 2162-6952
2
2012, Vol. 2, No. 4

Palincsaar, 1984). The

T Zone of o proximall improvem ment refers to
t a studennt’s capable skill to
study w
with assistannce from teaacher or a caapacity of partner.
p Thiss theory is rrelated to th
he theory
of Vygootsky (19788) who explaained that sttudents hav ve two actions of thoughghtful impro ovement:
a real im
mprovemennt action an nd a capablee improvem ment action. The real im mprovemen nt action
refers to the thougghtful actioon in whichh teenagers can fix diffficulties wiithout any helping,
while thhe capable improvemeent action iindicates to o the though htful actionn in which students
want assistance from
fr a skilll person w with assistaance from the t teacherr or a capacity of
co-workker. Nature of proximaal improvem ment is the length amo ong the reaal improvem ment and
the cappable improvement. Stu udents willl be urged from
f the reeal improveement action to the
capablee improvem ment or stu udy over thheir real im mprovementt level withh clear fraamework
throughh human acttivity till theey internalizze the method (Rosensh hine & Meiister, 1994)..
Proleptiic exercisinng is another branchh which crreates theorretical grouund for reeciprocal
teachingg. It refers to
t a program m which esttablished while
w novitiaate teachingg in which a teacher
model a student till he or shee become reeady to do the assignm ment individdually (Paliincsar &
Brown, 1984). Prroleptic teaching has a vital eleement that removes aaccountabiliity from
instructtor to learneers; in orderr to solve a problem in
nstructor elaaborates andd provides methods
m
for the students. Subsequenti
S ially, whenn the teacheer responsibbility is deccreased he/she will
removee the action of problem solving to tthe learnerss (Rogoff & Garner, 19984).
Greenfiield (1984) explained that framew work exerciising is suittable for thhe students’ present
studying. In order to improve the studentts’ ability fu
urther, moree support caan be offereed to the
learnerss. In the caase where learners
l do not need much
m assisttance, the iinstructor will
w play
his/her role as a guuide.
Framew work inflictts and enh hances autoonomous reeading com mprehensionn ability, as a these
elementts were inclluded the previous hyppotheses in reciprocal teaching byy Adunyaritttigun &
Grant ((2005). Theeir hypothesses are as ffollows: (1) The instruuctor helps the learners to suit
themsellves in using these fourr key modells. (2) The instructor
i plays his/herr role as a sp
pecialist
of recipprocal teachhing strateg
gies to help the learnerrs. (3) The learners arre assisted by
b more
skilled partners ass the instrucctor does nnot help theem any longger, in ordeer to impro ove their
autonom mous readinng comprehension abiliity.
Reciproocal teachiing strateg gy consistss of fourr importan nt key facctors for reading
compreehension forr learners to o recognize the passage/content morem than otther strategies. One
of the ccontributionns of recipro
ocal teachinng to the leaarners of reading compprehension is that it
preparees them to reead autonom mously, whiilst at the eaarly stage, it
i allows theem to comm municate
among themselves and instrucctors in ordeer to improv ve their skills.
5. Relattionship beetween Rea
ading Comp
prehension
n and Recip
procal Teacching Strategy
Readingg compreheension can be improvved by reciiprocal teacching strateegy and by making
readingg relevant too learners’ lives and atttitudes, it will
w create what
w learners rs know and d believe
and by being minndful of theeir purposess and hopes for their futures (Gu Guthrie & Wigfield,
W
2000). Instructorss will prov vide readinng environm ment that are suitablle, interestiing and
approprriate to leaarners’ read ding capabiilities to asssist in impproving theeir compreh hension.

163 www.macroth
hink.org/jse
 Journal of Studies in Education
E
ISSN 2162-6952
2
2012, Vol. 2, No. 4

Readingg compreheension is improved bby reciprocaal teaching which acttivates back kground
knowledge in ways of pre-reaading, whilee reading an
nd after read
ding, in inst
structing stu
udents to
get info
formation and
a in mon nitoring theeir reading during their readingg time (Gu uthrie &
Wigfielld, 2000).
Hacker and Teneent (2002) explained that seveeral instructors for ennhancing learners’ l
proficieency, they changed th he old moddels of read ding comprehension an and used reeciprocal
teachingg strategy in order to help leearners read ding comprehension. They stated that,
investiggators emphhasized that reciprocal teaching strrategies nott only assistted learnerss in their
readingg comprehennsion but allso helped sstudents arrrange the coonceptual sttructure of learners'
l
informaation and im
mprove theirr' high thinkking proficieency and their ability too write.
It is alsso indicated that recip procal teachhing strateg gy is more efficient tto improve reading
compreehension witth low capaability Oczkkus (2004). This strateg gy consists of explicit teaching
t
by the iinstructor inn the learneers’ use of tthe reciproccal teaching model (preediction, geenerating
questionning, clariffying and summarizat
s tion) to imp prove theirr understand
nding. Acco ordingly,
Oczkuss (2004) exxplained that reciproccal teaching g strategy facilitates
f llearning an
nd helps
studentss to increasse their vocabulary knoowledge in their readin ng comprehhension in different
d
kinds off learning situations.
Reciproocal teachinng showed th
hat instructoors want to provide thiis strategy tto improve learners'
higher proficiencyy (Plinscar & Brown, 1989; Cartter, 1997; Greenway,
G 22002; Allen
n, 2003;
Todd & Tracey, 20006). Recip procal teachhing is a asssistance straategy for leearners with
h special
needs (BBruce & Chhan, 1991; Dao,
D 1991; P Palincsar & Klenk, 199 92; Klingneer & Vangh hn, 1996;
Ledererr, 2000). Marzano (2001)
( arggued that reciprocal teaching hhelps coop peration,
responssibility and leadership; it enhanc es learners'' reading co omprehensiion, improv ves their
social ccooperationn and decreeases undeesirable beh haviors in the classrooom. Palinccsar and
Brown (1984) sateed that the goals
g of recciprocal teaching are to o improve tthe learnerss’ ability
to creatte meaning from conteent and fac ilitate the checking
c off their way to compreh hension.
These sstrategies of
o predictin
ng, questionning, clarifyying, and summarizing
s ng improve reading
compreehension (Dole et al., 19
991).
Baker and Brownn (1984) and a Palincssar and Brown (1985 5) explainedd that thesse basic
strategies were onn the followwing criteriaa: A) the su uccessful leaarners use tthese strateegies; B)
these sttrategies heelp both coomprehensioon checking g and comp prehension fostering; C) each
strategyy is used whhile there iss a problem
m in reading g a content; D) these sttrategies aree known
as metaa-cognitive models. Fo or making E English lan
nguage learn ning successsful and effective,
instructtors must teach EFL L learners with thesee strategies. As ESL//EFL invesstigators
explained teachingg productivee reading m models to ESL/EFL leaarners to mootivate read ding and
help reeading compprehension (Andersonn, 2003; Ch hern, 1993;; Eskey, 20002; Farrell, 2001;
Grabe, 2004), Whiile research hers in the U U. S. has addvocated foor teaching productive reading
strategies to ESL learners
l to motivate annd facilitatee reading (AAnderson, 22001, 2003; Eskey,
2002; FFarrell, 2001; Grabe, 2004), Engliish language teachers must m know that it is neecessary
to fosteer motivatioon and posiitive attitudde towards reading com mprehensionon between learners
and alsoo should inccorporate reeading strateegies instru
uction in Eng
glish enviroonment (Chu, 2000;

164 www.macroth
hink.org/jse
 Journal of Studies in Education
E
ISSN 2162-6952
2
2012, Vol. 2, No. 4

Yang, 22000; You, 2004). Reciprocal teaaching strattegies instru uction cannnot be avoided and
numeroous foreign language teaching stuudies have explained that t strugglle learners’ reading
compreehension devveloped after receivingg explicit in
nstruction in
n meta-cogngnition (Paliincsar &
Brown, 1984; Bakeer, 2002; Coohen, 2003;; Grabe, 200 04; Duffy, 2005).
2
Roehlerr and Duffyy (1984) streessed the crrucial role of
o teacher modeling
m in facilitating learners’
readingg comprehennsion. In th
his approachh, teachers explicitly provide
p decclarative knoowledge
(what tthe strategies are), conditional
c knowledgee (when to o use them m) and pro ocedural
knowledge (how to use them m). Scaffoldiing in instru uction and teachers’ fefeedback is reduced
when sttudents become more independen
i nt in the appplication of reading strrategies. A series
s of
Duffy aand his collleagues’ ex
xperimental studies sug ggest that less able stuudents who o receive
direct eexplanationn of comprrehension strategies which w charracterizes ddirect expllanation,
teacher modeling and guided d practice oof reading strategies
s show positivve improveement in
concepttual understtanding and
d reading acchievement (Roehler & Duffy,198 4; Pearson & Dole,
1987; DDuffy et al., 1988).
It can bbe concludeed that, therre is a stronng relationsship betweeen reading ccomprehenssion and
reciproccal teachinng strategy y which pproviding vital v readinng strategyy instruction that
emphassizes on meta-cogniti
m ive awarenness. Its pu urpose is to enhancee readers’ reading
compreehension prooficiency an nd to help thheir becoming indepen ndent readerrs. It suggests three
models: scaffoldinng and direct instructioon, practicee of the fou ur main strrategies, an
nd social
interacttion which has been in nfluenced bby Palincsarr and Brown’s reciproccal teaching g theory
Chen (22005).
6. Concclusion
According to the findings
f of this
t study, iit can be co oncluded thhat reciprocaal teaching strategy
effects strongly onn reading comprehensiion and stu udents’ meta-cognitive reading strrategies.
Based oon the resultts on this paaper, reciproocal teachin ng improvess students’ rreading prooficiency
of bothh the proficcient and leess proficieent readers.. Readers use u sub-secctions of reeciprocal
teachingg strategiess (predicting g, questioniing, clarifying and sum mmarizing)) and know w how to
use (whhen, why annd how) eacch of the fouur main straategies. Stud dents learn tto make preediction,
to makee question, to find the main point of a text, to find the meaning
m of unclear woords, and
to summ marize the text
t by theirr own senteences. The four
f main sttrategies of reciprocal teaching
t
facilitatte readers overcome
o problems
p w
while readin ng texts, ass they plan and monittor their
readingg; evaluate reading
r andd compreheension and also their outcome.
o S o, as mentiioned in
previouus sentencess, it is obvio
ous that reciiprocal teach hing is one of the mainn important strategy
and instruction thaat helps stu udents’ readding compreehension. Reciprocal
R tteaching strrategy is
one off the key factors thaat enhancee students’ meta-cogn nitive awarreness on reading
compreehension. Itt helps read ders to thinnk and plaan about th heir readingg process, improve
activitiees, monitor and evaluaate their reaading while reading a text t in ordeer to understand the
message/messages of the auth hor. Readerrs by using g reciprocall teaching sstrategies would
w be
able to become inddependent readers,
r andd could be reached thee goal of teeaching read ding foe
EFL stuudents. In conclusion,
c it is knownn that reciprrocal teachin
ng strategiees require suufficient
meta-coognitive reaading instru uction sincee those inco orporate scaaffolding annd explicit teaching
t

165 www.macroth
hink.org/jse
 Journal of Studies in Education
E
ISSN 2162-6952
2
2012, Vol. 2, No. 4

of strateegies whichh provide an

n environmeent that creaate productiive informattion processing and
readingg comprehension. To sum up, reeciprocal teeaching is one of the main pedaagogical
implicaations for reeaders, teach
hers and edducators in an EFL reaading text w which impro oves the
readers’ meta-cognnitive awarreness and reading comprehensio on. Thereforore, these reesults in
practicee can be appplies in EFL
L reading coomprehensio on classroomms as are shhown in folllows:
A. Teacchers teach students to use the fouur key factoors of reciprrocal teachin
ing to enhannce their
readingg compreheension through four rreciprocal teaching strategies (m making preediction,
generating questionning, clarify
fying and suummarizing g). The teachhers could hhelp the stu
udents to
understand the proocess and prrocedure off reciprocal teaching by y checking ttheir undersstanding
in theirr native langguage in orrder to makke sure that they underrstand and kknow these process
and proocedure.
B. Teacchers framee the four reeciprocal teaaching strattegies by modeling,
m heelping, guid
ding, and
providinng the strattegies while reading. T The teachers model explicitly annd step by step the
processs and the usee of the metta-cognitivee strategies. The studen
nts have to kknow what the four
key straategies are and
a when, why,
w and hoow to use eaach of them.
C. Teaachers direcct learners to becomee meta-cog gnitive and reflective in using the t four
strategies. They neeed to impro
ove studentss’ responsibbility and th
heir role chaanges to facilitators.
They shhould be fleexible and attentive
a to help each student.
s Thee teachers shhould help students
if the llearners havve any prob a assist leearners evaaluate their reading
blem whilee reading and
compreehension thrrough reciprrocal teachinng strategy..
D. To utilize thee classroom m environm ment of leearning to increase aand frame reading
compreehension. Too empower instructionn in a differeent classroo om environm ment, help students
in readiing compreehension. To o help studdents while they are working
w in ccooperative groups,
the teacchers shouldd circulate around the room and listen to the students’ interaction ns. If the
learnerss need help,, they shoulld be taughtt in their gro
oups using appropriatee mini-lessons. Four
main sttrategies off reciprocal teaching sshould be part p of the bigger fram mework of reading
compreehension sttrategies that t providdes review wing, geneerating queestioning, making
predictiions, evaluuating and monitoringg. Reciproccal teachin ng is one of the su uccessful
meta-coognitive reaading strateegy instrucctions for EFL E studen
nts. Thus, rreciprocal teaching
t
should bbe taken intto consideraation in ordder to adapt its implemeentation in tthe English
h reading
classrooom.
Acknow
wledgemen
nts
The ressearchers would
w like to thank M Mr Abbas Pourhossein
P n Gilakjani,, Mrs sareh
h shaker
haghighhi for their extensive
e an
nd insightfuul discussion
ns.
Referen
nces
Adams,, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking an
nd learning about printt. Cambridg
ge, m A:
MIT Prress.
Adunyaarittigun, D., & Grant,, R. (2005).. Empoweriing students through rreciprocal teeaching.
Thai TE
ESOL BULLETIN, 18((1), 1–13.

166 www.macroth
hink.org/jse
 Journal of Studies in Education
E
ISSN 2162-6952
2
2012, Vol. 2, No. 4

Aebersoold, J. A., & Field, M. L. (19997). From reader to reading teaacher. Cam
mbridge:
Cambriidge Univerrsity Press.
Alexandder, P. A., Graham, S., & Harriss, K. R. (19
998). A perrspective onn strategy research:
r
Progresss and prospects. Educatioonal Psyychology Review, 10(2), 129-154. 1
http://dxx.doi.org/100.1023/A:10
0221855029996
Allen, SS. (2003). An analyticc comparis on of threee models off reading sstrategy insttruction.
IRAL, 441, 319–3388. http://dx.d
doi.org/10.11515/iral.20
003.015
Andersoon, N. J. (19991). Indiviidual differeences in strrategy use in
n second lannguage read
ding and
testing. M
Modern Languaage Journal, 755, 460-472.
4
http://dxx.doi.org/100.1111/j.154
40-4781.19 91.tb05384 4.x
Andersoon, N. J. (22003). Metaa-cognitive rreading straategies increase L2 perrformance. Modern
Languaage Journal,, 27(7).
Baker, L
L. (2002). Meta-cognit
M tion in compprehension instruction.. In C. C. B
Block & M, Pressley.
(Eds.), Comprehension Instrruction: Reesearch based best practices,
p 777-95, New
w York:
Guilford.
Biemilller, A., & Meichenbaum
M m, D. (19922). The natu
ure and nurtu
ure of the seelf-directed
d learner.
Educatiional Leadeership (Octo
ober 1992), 75-80.
Blair-Larsen, S. M.,
M & Vallaance, K. M M. (2004). Comprehens
C sion instrucction in a balanced
b
readingg classroom
m. In S.M. Blair-Larse
B en & K. A.. Williams (Eds.), thee balanced reading
program m: Helping all studentss achieve suuccess (pp.37-52). New
wark, NJ: Intternational Reading
Associaation.
Borokoowski, J. G., Carr, M., Rellinger, L L., & Presssley, M. (19
990). Self rregulated coognition:
Interdeppendence of
o meta-cog gnition, attriibutions an
nd self esteeem. In B.J.. Jones., & L. Idol
(Eds.). D
Dimensionss of thinking
g and cogniitive instruction (pp. 533- 92). Hillssdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, A., & Cam mpione, J. (11992). Studeents as researchers and
d teachers, inn J. W. Keeefe & H.
J. Walbberg (Eds.), Teaching for
fo thinking (pp. 49-57))
Bruce, M
M., & Chann, L. (1991)). Reciprocaal teaching and trans-en nvironmenttal programm ming: A
program
m to facilitaate the reading comprehhension of students
s witth reading ddifficulties. Emedial
E
and Speecial Educaation, 12(5), 44-54. httpp://dx.doi.orrg/10.1177/0741932599101200507 7
Carrell,, P. L. (19989). Metaacognitive aawareness and second languagee reading. Modern
Languaage Journal,, 73, 120-13
33. http://dxx.doi.org/10
0.1111/j.154
40-4781.19889.tb02534..x
Carrell,, P. L. (19991). Second d language reading: Reading
R abiility or langguage profficiency?
Appliedd Linguisticss, 12(2), 159-179
Carter, C. (1997). Why
W recipro
ocal teachinng? Educatiional Leadeership, 54(6)), 64.
Chang, J. (2006). Globalization and Engglish in Chiinese higheer educationn. World En
nglishes.
25(3), 5513–525. htttp://dx.doi.o
org/10.11111/j.1467-971X.2006.00
0484.x

167 www.macroth
hink.org/jse
 Journal of Studies in Education
E
ISSN 2162-6952
2
2012, Vol. 2, No. 4

Chastaiin, K. (19888). Develo oping seconnd language skills: Th

heory and Practice. Harcourt
H
BracJovvanish, Inc. Florida: U..S.A.
Chen, JJ. C. (2005). Explicit in
nstruction oof reading strategies at senior highh school in Taiwan.
Unpubllished MA dissertation,
d , National K
Kaohsiung Normal
N University. Kaoohsiung, Taaiwan.
Chern, C. L. (1993). Chinesee students’ word-solving strategiees in readinng in English in T.
Huckin,M. Haynees, & C.C Coady (Edds.), Seconnd languag ge readingg and voccabulary
learningg(pp.67-85)). Norwood, NJ: Ablexx.
Chu, H. C. (2000). Orienting EFL readeers toward global
g strateegy use. Seelected Papeers from
the Nintth Internatiional Sympo
osium on Ennglish Teach
hing (pp. 2774-283). Taaipei: crane.
Cohen, A. D. (19990). Strateg gies in secoond languag
ge learning:: Insight fro
rom research. In R.
Phillipsson., E., Keellerman, L.., Selinker, M.S., Smitth, and M. Swain (edss,): Foreign
n/Second
Languaage P
Pedagogy Researrch. Cleve: Multilinggual matters.
http://dxx.doi.org/100.1515/iral.2
2003.013
Cohen, A. D. (20003). The learner’s
l siide of foreign languagge learningg: Where do d style,
strategies, and taskks meet? Intternational RReview of Applied
A Ling
guistics, 41,, 279-291.
Dao, MM. (1991). Designing
D asssessment prrocedures for
f educationally at riisk Southeaast Asian
–Ameriican studdents. Joournal off Learnin
ng Disab
bilities, 224(10), 594-601.
5
http://dxx.doi.org/100.1177/0022 2219491024401002
Day, R
R. R., & Baamford, J. (1998). Ext
xtensive reaading in thee second laanguage claassroom.
Cambriidge Univerrsity Press.
Dole, J.. A., Nokes, J. D., & Drits, D. (22009). Cogn
nitive strategy instructiion. In S. E.. Jam, &
G. G. DDuffy (Eds.), Handboo ok of researrch on readding compreehension (ppp. 347- 372). New
York: R
Routledge.
Doolittlle, P. E., Hiicks, D., Triiplett, C. F.., Nichols,W
W. D., & Yooung, C. A. (2006). Reeciprocal
teachingg for readinng compreh hension in hhigher education: A strrategy for ffostering thee deeper
understanding of teexts. Interna ational Jouurnal of Tea aching and Learning
L inn Higher Ed
ducation.
17(2), 1106-118.
Dubin, F., & Byycina, D. (1991). Acaademic read ding and thet EFL/ESSL teacher. In M.
Celce-M
Murcia(ed). Teaching English
E as a second or foreign
f language. Masssachusetts:: Heinle.,
& Heinnle Publisherrs.
Duffy, GG. (2005). Meta-cognit
M tion and thee developmeent of reading teacherss. In C. Blocck, S. K.
Kinnucan-Welsch, & K. Baauserman ((Eds.) (pp. 299-314). Metacognnition and literacy
learningg. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbau
um.
Duffy, G. G., Roeehler, L. R.,R & Herrm mann, G. (1 1988). Mod delling menntal processes helps
poor reaaders becom
me strategicc readers. Reeading Teaccher, 41, 76
62-767.
Duke, N
N. (2003). Comprehens
C sion instructtion for info
ormational text.
t Presenntation at thee annual
meetingg of the Micchigan Read
ding Associiation, Gran nd Rapids, MI.
M

168 www.macroth
hink.org/jse
 Journal of Studies in Education
E
ISSN 2162-6952
2
2012, Vol. 2, No. 4

Educatiional Reseaarch Servicee. (2003). H

Helping stud
dents develo
op the skillss of highly effective
e
learnerss. ERS focuss on. Arling
gton, VA: E
Educational Research Service.
Erfani, S. M., Iraanmehr, A.., & Davarri, H. (201 10). Using task-basedd instruction n as an
alternattive approacch in ESP materials
m deevelopment in Iranian academic
a coontext. Procceedings
of the fi
first conferennce on new
w perspectivees in ELT, linguistics
l and
a literaturre, Sanandaj
aj: Iran
Eskey, D. E. (20055). Reading
g in a seconnd language. In E. Hink
kel (Ed.), an
and book on
n Second
Languaage Learningg and Teachhing (pp. 5663-579). Maahwah,NJ: Erlbaum
E
Eskey, D
D. E. (20022). Reading and the teacching of L2
2 reading. TESOL
TE Journnal, 11, 1, pp.5-
p 9.
Farhadyy, H., (20055). Reflectio
ons on and directions for
f ESP matterials deveelopment in SAMT,
in Kianni & Khayaamdar (eds.) Proceedinngs of the First
F National ESP/EA AP Confereence, 3 ,
Tehran,, SAMT Pubblication.
Farrell, T. S. C. (22001). Teacching readinng strategiees: “It takess time!” Reaading in a Foreign
Languaage, 13 (2), 631-646.
Field, M
M. L. (1985). A psycho
olinguistic m
model of thee Chinese ESL
E reader. In P. Larso
on, E. L.
Judd, & D. S. Meesserschmittt (Eds.), Onn TESOL’8 84: A bravee new worlld for TESOL (pp.
173-1833). Washinggton, DC: TESOL.
T
Flavell,, J. H. (19779). Meta-ccognition aand cognitiv
ve monitoriing: A new
w area of cognitive
developpmental inquiry. Ameerican Psychologgist, 34, 906-911.
9
http://dxx.doi.org/100.1037/00033-066X.34. 10.906
Florida Online Reeading Profefessional Deevelopmentt. (2005a). Reciprocal
R teaching. for-PD’s
f
readingg strategy ofo the Mon nth, July 2 005. Retrieeved from http://forpdd.ucf.edu/strrategies/
stratreciprocalteachhing3.html.
Florida Online Reaading Profeessional Devvelopment. (2005b). Reciprocal
R teeaching. FO
OR-PD’s
Readingg Strategy of the Mon nth, May 22005. Retrieeved from http://forpdd.ucf.edu/strrategies/
stratreciprocalteachhing1.html.
Foster, E., & Rotooloni, R. (20
005). Recipprocal teach
hing. Colleg
ge of Educaation, Univeersity of
Georgiaa, Athens, GA.
G Retriev ved from http
tp://www.cooe.uga.edu/eepltt/reciproocalteaching
g.htm.
Goodmman, K. (19667). Readin ng: A psychholinguisticc guessing game.
g Journ
rnal of the Reading
R
Speciallist, 6(1), 1226-135. http://dx.doi.orrg/10.1080/1
193880767009556976
Gough, P. B. (19772). One seecond of reaading. In J. F. Kavanaaugh & I.C
C. Maltingly
y (Eds.),
Languaage by ear and
a eye (pp. 331-358). C Cambridge,, MA: MIT Press.
Grabe, W. (1991)). Current developmeents in seco ond languaage readingg research. TESOL
Quarterrly, 25(3), 375–406.
3 htttp://dx.doi.oorg/10.2307
7/3586977
Grabe, W. (2004). Research on o teachingg reading. Annual
A Reviiew of applilied Linguisstics, 24,
44-69. hhttp://dx.dooi.org/10.1017/S0267199050400003 30

169 www.macroth
hink.org/jse
 Journal of Studies in Education
E
ISSN 2162-6952
2
2012, Vol. 2, No. 4

Grabe, W., & Stooller, F. L. (2002). Teeaching and

d researchiing readingg. Harlow: Pearson
Educatiion.
Greenfiield, P. M. (1984).
( A th
heory of thee teacher in
n the learnin
ng activities of every life. In B.
Rogff & J. Lave (EEds.), Every
y day cognittion: Its dev
velopment in n social conntext (pp. 117-138).
Cambriidge, MA: Harvard
H Uniiversity Preess.
Greenwway, C. (20002). The proocess, pitfallls and benefits of impleementing a reciprocal teaching
t
intervenntion to im
mprove read ding compreehension off a group of o year 6 ppupils. Educational
Psychollogy in Pracctice, 18(2), 113-138. hhttp://dx.do
oi.org/10.1080/02667366022014455 57
Guthriee, J. T., & Wigfield,
W A. (2000). Enngagement and
a motivattion in readiing. In M.L
L. Kamil,
P. B. M
Mosenthal, P.P D. Pearsoon, and R. B
Barr (eds.), Handbook
H of
o Reading R Research. (Vol.
( III,
pp. 403-22). Mahw wah, NJ: Lawwrence Earlrlbaum Asso ociates.
Hacker,, D., & Tenent, A. (2002). Im mplementing g reciprocal teaching in the claassroom:
overcom
ming obstaccles and maaking modiffications. Joournal of Educational
E Psychologyy, 94(4),
699-7188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022--0663.94.4.6
699
Hafiz, F
F. M., & Tuudor, Ian. (1
1989). Extennsive readinng and the developmen
d nt of language skills.
ELT Jouurnal, 43(1), 4-13. http
p://dx.doi.orrg/10.1093//elt/43.1.4
Harmerr, J. (2007). How to tea
ach English.. Essex, Eng
gland: Pearsson Educatiion Limited
d.
Hasan, B. (1994). The effectss of the recciprocal teacching of comprehensioon strategies on the
readingg abilities of
o EFL stud
dents at Kuuwait Univeersity. Unpu ublished dooctoral dissertation.
Universsity of Coloorado.
Hasheyy, J.M., & Connors,
C D. J. (2003). L Learn from
m our journeey: Reciproccal teaching
g Action
researchh. The Readding Teacheer, 57(3), 2224-235.
Hayashhi, K. (1999). Reading strategies aand extensiv
ve reading in
n EFL classses. RELC Journal,
J
30(2). hhttp://dx.doii.org/10.117
77/00336888299030002207
Hedge, Tricia. (20003). Teachin
ng & learniing in the la
anguage cla
assroom. UK
K: OUP.
Hodge, E., Palmerr, B., & Sco
ott, D. (19922). Meta-co
ognitive traiining in coooperative grroups on
the reaading compprehension and vocabuulary of att-risk college studentss. College Student
Journall, 26, 440-448.
Janzen, J., & Stoller, F. L. (19
998). Integrrating strateegic reading
g in L2 instr
truction. Rea
ading in
a Foreig
ign Languagge, 12(1), 251-268.
Klingneer, J., & Vaaughn, S. (1
1996). Recipprocal teach hing of read
ding comprrehension sttrategies
for studdents with learning diisabilities wwho use En nglish as a second lannguage. Eleementary
School JJournal, 966(3), 275-29
93. http://dxx.doi.org/10.1086/461828
Koda, K. (2004).. Insights into seconnd languagee reading: A cross-liinguistic ap
pproach.
Cambriidge: Cambrridge Univeersity Press..

170 www.macroth
hink.org/jse
 Journal of Studies in Education
E
ISSN 2162-6952
2
2012, Vol. 2, No. 4

Ledererr, J. (2000).. Reciprocall teaching oof social stu

udies in incllusive elem
mentary Classsrooms.
Journall of Learning
L Disaabilities, 33(11), 91-107.
http://dxx.doi.org/100.1177/0022
2219400033300112
Livingsston, J. A. (1997).
( Metta-cognitionn: an overviiew. Retriev
ved Septem
mber 23, 200
09, from
http://gsse.buffalo.eedu/fas/shueell/CEP564//Metacog.httm
Lysynchhuck, L., Prressley, M., & Vye, N N. (1990). Reciprocal
R teeaching impproves stand
dardized
readingg comprehennsion perfo ormance in poor comp prehenders.. Elementarry School Journal,
J
90(5), 4469–484. htttp://dx.doi.o
org/10.10866/461627
Maleki,, A., & Zanngani, E. (22007). A suurvey on th
he relationsh
hip betweenn English language
proficieency and thhe academicc achievemeent of Iraniian EFL stu
udents. Asiaan EFL Jou
urnal, 9,
86-96.
Martin Chang, S. Y.,
Y & Gould d, O. N. (20008). Revisitting print ex
xposure: Exxploring diffferential
links too vocabularry, compreh
hension andd reading raate. Journall of Researrch in Read ding, 31,
273–284. http://dx.doi.org/10..1111/j.14677-9817.20008.00371.x
Marzanno, R. (2001). Classroom instrruction thaat works: research-ba
r ased strateg
gies for
increasiing studentt achievem
ment. Alexaandria, VA,, USA: Asssociation ffor Supervision &
Curricuulum Develoopment. P 42-43
4
McLaugghlin, M., & Allen, M. M B. (20002). Guided d compreheension: A tteaching mo
odel for
grades 33-8. newarkk, DE: Intern
national Reeading Asso
ociation.
Meyer, B. J., Younng, C. J., & Barlett, B
B. J. (1989).. Memory immproved reeading and memory
enhanceement acrosss the life sp
pan throughh strategic text
t structurres. Hillsdalle, NJ: Erlb
baum.
Munby,, J. (1978). Communica
ation syllabbus design. Cambridge:
C Cambridgee University
y Press.
Oczkuss, L. (20003). Reciprrocal teachhing at wo ork: strategies for iimproving reading
compreehension. Neewark, DE: Internationnal Reading Association
n
Oczkuss, L. (2004). Reciprrocal teachhing at wo ork: Strateegies for iimproving reading
compreehension. Neewark: Interrnational Reeading Asso
ociation.
Palincsaar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocall teaching off comprehen
ension-fostering and
compreehension-moonitoring activities. Cognition n and Instruction,
I 1(2), 117-175.
1
http://dxx.doi.org/100.1207/s153
32690xci01 02_1
Palincsaar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1985).. Reciprocall teaching: Activities
A too promote “reading
“
with yoour mind.” In T.L. Harris
H & E .J. Cooper (Eds.). Reeading, thinnking, and concept
developpment (pp.147–159). New
N York: T The Collegee Board.
Palinscaar, A., & Brown,
B A. (1989).
( Usiing reciproccal teaching
g in the claassroom: ag
guide for
teacherss. Unpublished manuall.
Palinscaar, A., & Klenk,
K L. (19
992). Fosterring literacy
y learning in
n supportivve contexts. Journal
of Learnning Disabiilities, 25(4)), 211-225. http://dx.do
oi.org/10.11
177/002221 949202500 0402

171 www.macroth
hink.org/jse
 Journal of Studies in Education
E
ISSN 2162-6952
2
2012, Vol. 2, No. 4

Palinscaar, A., Brown, A., & Martin, S. (1987). Peeer interactiion in readi
ding compreehension
instructtion. Educattional Psych
hologist, 222(3/4), 231-2
254.
Palinscaar, A., Davvid, Y., & Brown,
B A. ((1989). Usiing reciproccal teachingg in the claassroom:
aguide ffor teacherss. Unpublish
hed manuall.
Paris, SS. G., Lipson, M. Y., Y & Wixsson, K. K. (1983). Becoming
B a strategic reader.
Contem mporary Educcational Psyychology, 8, 293-316.
2
http://dxx.doi.org/100.1016/0361-476X(83))90018-8
Pearsonn, P. D., & Dole, J. A. (1987).. Explicit comprehens
c sion instrucction: A review of
researchh and a neww conceptuaalization off instruction
n. The Elem
mentary Schhool Journal, 88(2),
151-1655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/4615330
Pearsonn, P. D., Rooehler, L. R., A., & Dufffy, G. G. (1992). Deveeloping expertise in
R Dole, J. A
readingg comprehennsion. In S.J. Samuels & A.E. Faarstrup (Edss.), What Reesearch Has to Say
About R Reading Innstruction (2nd
( ed., ppp. 145-1999). Newarkk, DE: Inteernational Reading
R
Associaation.
Pressleyy, M. (20022). Compreh
hension straategies instru
uction: A tu
urn-of-the-ccentury statu
us report.
In C. C C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.)), Compreh hension insttruction: R
Research-bassed best
practicees (pp. 11-27). New Yo
ork: The Guuilford Presss.
Pressleyy, M. (20066). Reading instruction that works:: The case for
f balancedd teaching (3rd ed.).
New Yoork: The Guuilford Press.
Pressleyy, M. Wolooshyn, V., Lysynchuk,
L L., Martin, V., Wood, E., & Willloughby, T.. (1990).
A prim mer of reseaarch on cog gnitive straategy instruction: The important issues and how to
addresss themm. Ed
ducational Psychhology Review, 2, 1-58.
http://dxx.doi.org/100.1007/BF0
01323528
Promisiing Practtices Netw work. (20005). Reciprocal teaching. d
Retrieved from
http://w
www.promissingpracticees.net/prograam.asp?pro
ogramid=144
4.
Rahmanni, M., & Sadeghi, K. (201 1). Effectss of note--taking traaining on reading
compreehension andd recall. Rea
ading, 11(22), 116-128.
Reid, RR., & Liennemann, T. O. (20066). Strategy n for studeents with learning
y instruction
disabilitties. Guilford Press: New York.
Richardds, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (200 3). Approaaches and methods
m in language teeaching.
Cambriidge: Cambrridge Univeersity Press..
Roehlerr, L. R, & Duffy,
D G. G. (1984). Diirect explan
nation of comprehensioon process. In G. G.
Duffy, L. R. Roeehler & J. Mason (Edds.), Comp prehension instruction:: Perspectiives and
suggesttions (pp. 2665-280). Neew York: Loongman.
Rogoff,, B., & Garddner, W. P. (1984). Addult guidancce of cognitiive developm ment. In B. Rogeff,
& J. Laave (Eds.). Everyday
E cognition: Itts developm
ment in socia al context ((pp. 134–1557). NY:
Cambriidge Univerrsity Press.

172 www.macroth
hink.org/jse
 Journal of Studies in Education
E
ISSN 2162-6952
2
2012, Vol. 2, No. 4

Rosenbblatt, L. (19978). The reader,

r the text and the
t poem. Carbondale
C e: Southern Illinois
Universsity Press.
Rosenshhine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reeciprocal teeaching: A review
r of thhe research.. Review
of Educcational Ressearch, 64(4
4), 479-530 .
Rumelhhart, D. E. (1977). To oward an iinteractive model of reading. Inn Dornic, S.
S (Ed.),
Attentioon and Perfo
formance, V.1,
V 573–6033. New Yorrk. Academiic Press.
Smith, F. (2004).. Understan nding readding (6th ed.).
e Mahwwah, NJ: LLawrence Erlbaum.
E
standarddized readinng compreh
hension perfformance in
n poor comp
prehenders. Elementaryy School
Journall, 90 (5), 4669–484.
Stanoviich, K. E. (1980). Toward
T ann interactiv
ve- compen nsatory moodel of in ndividual
differennces in the developmen nt of readinng fluency. Reading Research
R Quuarterly, 16
6. 32-71.
http://dxx.doi.org/100.2307/7473
348
Stricklinn, K. (2011). Hands-on n reciprocall teaching: A compreheension technnique. The Reading
R
Teacherr, 64(8). htttp://dx.doi.o
org/10.15988/RT.64.8.8
Taylor, B., & Fryee, B. (1992). Compreheension strateegy instructtion in the inntermediatee grades.
Readingg R
Research and In
nstruction, 32((1), 39-48.
http://dxx.doi.org/100.1080/1938
880792095558104
Todd, RR., & Traceey, D. (200
06). Reciproocal teachinng and com
mprehensionn: A singlee subject
researchh study. ER
RIC document reproducction servicee No. ED 49
91502.
Tolstefll, J. (2007)). Miscue analysis
a in reading a second language. Cam
mbridge Un
niversity
Press.
VanDenn B. P., & Kremer, K.. E. (2000).. The mind in action: What
W it meeans to com
mprehend
during reading. Inn B. M. Taylor, M. F.. Graves, & P. VanDen Broek ((Eds.), Read ding for
meaningg: Fosterinng compreh
hension in tthe middle grades (ppp. 1-31). Neew York: Teachers
T
Collegee Press.
VanDuzzer, C. (19999). Read
ding and thhe adult English
E guage learnner. ERIC Digest.
lang
ED4337729.
Vygotskky, L. S. (1978). Mind
d in society: The develo
opment of hiigher psychhological prrocesses.
Cambriidge, MA: Harvard
H Uniiversity Preess.
Wilson,, J. (1988). Implication
ns of learninng strategy research annd training: What is haas to say
to the ppractitioner. In C. Weinstein, E. Goetz, & P. P Alexander (Eds.), LLearning an nd study
strategiies: Issues in
i assessmeent, instructtion, and evvaluation (p
pp. 323-3311). San Dieego, CA:
Academ mic Press.
Yang, YY. (2000). Diagnosis and remeddiation on TVES colleege students
ts’ English reading
compreehension diff
fficulties. Taaipei: The C
Crane Publisshing Co.
You, YY. L. (2004).. Curriculum
m and Reseearch Devellopment Cen
nter for Com
mmerce Ed
ducation.
Retrieved January 26.

173 www.macroth
hink.org/jse
 394

THE USE OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING

TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION SKILL

Yudo Dwi Purwoko*, A. Handoko Pudjobroto, Endang Setyaningsih

English Education Study Program
Sebelas Maret University Surakarta

Email: yudo_d@yahoo.com

The objectives of the research are: (1) to identify whether and to what extent the
use of reciprocal teaching can improve the students’ reading comprehension skill;
and (2) to describe what happens to the class climate when reciprocal teaching are
implemented in the reading class. The research is carried out at SMP Negeri 1 Jaten
Karanganyar. The subject of the research is the students of class VIIIG of SMP
Negeri 1 Jaten in the academic year of 2012/2013. In collecting and analyzing the
data, the researcher used qualitative and quantitative data. The research findings
show that the use of reciprocal teaching improves students’ reading comprehension
skill and classroom room climate. It can be seen from their interest and motivation
in learning English, and reading mean score of pre-test 5.7 increased to 6.7 in post-
test 1, and 7.6 in post-test 2.

Keywords: reading comprehension, reciprocal teaching

Grellet (1992: 7) says that reading as influenced by reader’s family, community,

an active skill that constantly involves
guessing, predicting, and asking oneself
question. Good reading requires good
thinking. Reading is not only pronouncing
the letters printed but it uses cognitive
process for obtaining its sense.
Besides Aebersold and Field (1994:
15) define that reading is what happens when
people look at a text and assign meaning to
the written text. They add that the text and
the reader are two elements in make reading
felt to be sensible. While Wallace (1996: 4)
states that reading is interpreting means
reacting to a written text as a piece of
communication; assuming some
communication intent on the writer’s part
which the reader has some purpose in
attempting to understand. Reader tries to
understand what the writer intended to. In
this activity, reader has particular purpose in
doing it. Aebersold and Field further explain
that the differences result of reading is
and cultural environment. Besides the
difference result of reading also can be
influenced by reader’s motivation, aptitude,
and other personal characteristic.
Similarly, Silberstein (1997: 12)
proposes that reading is interaction between
the reader and the text is regarded as
complex information processing skill in
order to (re) create meaningful discourse.
Reader processes the information he/she gets
based on the skill he/she has. It is reinforced
by Alyousef (2005: 144) in Octaviana states
that reading is seen as communicative
activity where the reader understands the
text by using linguistic knowledge and
schematic knowledge. Besides, Davis in
Vacca (1989: 20) explains that
“reading comprehension is
not unitary mental process: It is
apparently, a composite at least five
underlying mental skills. Those are
skills of recalling word meanings,

finding answer to question answered
explicitly or in paraphrase in the
passage, drawing inferences from the
content, recognizing a writer’s
purpose, attitude, tone, and mood,
and following the structure of a
passage”.
Likewise Anderson in Aebersold and
Field (1994: 16) states that successful
readers can comprehend the text well if they
are able to: 1) recognize words quickly, 2)
analyze unfamiliar words, 3) read for
meaning, concentrate or constructing
meaning, 3) guess about the meaning of text,
4) distinguish main ideas of the text.
Furthermore, Kennedy (1997: 12) defines
that
“reading comprehension as a
thought process through which
readers become aware of an idea,
understand it in terms of their
experiential background, and
interpret it in relation to their own
needs and purposes”
Based on the definition, it can be
concluded that reading comprehension is
process of understanding text that began
from words, phrases, sentences, and
paragraphs to grasp the meaning of words,
phrases, sentences, and paragraphs to infer
the meaning of the whole text.
Reading comprehension requires
some skills; (1) finding the main idea, (2)
mentioning the detail information and (3) the
implied information, (4) grasping the
meaning of words, (5) and the meaning of
references.
However, those skills are yet to
master by students. Based on the result of
pre-observation, the researcher still found
that the students are still difficult to (1) find
main idea; (2) find the detail information; (3)
395
interpret and grasp meaning of vocabulary;
(4) guess the implicit meaning; (4) grasp the
appropriate reference.
The researcher realizes that the
problems should be solved by using
appropriate approach in order to improve
students’ reading comprehension skill.
There are so many approaches of teaching
reading such as Group Investigation,
Reciprocal Teaching, Jig Saw, Think-Pair-
Share etc. Based on the specific problems
that faced by students above, the researcher
believes that reciprocal teaching is the most
appropriate approach that can help students
to solve the problems.
Reciprocal teaching refers to an
instructional activity that takes place in the
form of a dialogue between teachers and
students regarding segments of text. The
dialogue is structured by the use of four
strategies: predicting, clarifying, question
generating and summarizing. Palincsar &
Brown, (1984) in Slavin (1991: 175)
explains that four activities are incorporated
into the technique: prediction, clarifying
misleading or complex section of the text,
questioning, and summarizing.
There are four strategies of reciprocal
teaching technique. Palincsar and Brown
(1984) mentions the strategies of reciprocal
teaching, they are:
1. “Questioning involves the
identification of information,
themes, and ideas. The
important information, themes,
or ideas are used to appear
questions that are than use as
self-test for the reader.
Questioning provides a context
for exploring the text more
deeply and ensuring the
construction of meaning.

2. Summarizing is the process of
identifying the important
information, themes and ideas
within a text and integrating
these into a clear statement that
communicates the essential
meaning of the text.
Summarizing may be based on a
single paragraph, a section of
text, or a whole passage.
Summarizing provides the
students to create a context for
understanding the specifics of a
text.
3. Clarifying involves the
identification and clarification
of unclear, difficult, or
unfamiliar aspects of a text.
These aspects may include
unfamiliar sentence or passage
structure, vocabulary, unclear
references, or concepts.
Clarifying provides the
motivation to remediate
confusion through re-reading,
the use of context in which the
text was written and/or read, and
the use of external resources
(e.g., dictionary or
encyclopedia).
4. Predicting involves combining
the reader’s prior knowledge,
new knowledge from the text,
and the text’s structure to create
hypotheses related to the
direction of the text and the
author’s purpose in writing.”
Research has shown that when
reciprocal teaching is implemented, learners
will make substantial gains in their
comprehension skills (Education Ministry of
New Zealand, 2004). Besides, the strategy
396
training allows them to gain more self
confidence and motivation to read and even
expertise as they apply the four strategies to
variety of text (Ormrod, 1998: 616).
RESEARCH METHODS
The research method that is used by
researcher is classroom action research.
Ebbut (in Hopkin, 1993:45) defines that
action research as the systematic study of
attempts to improve educational practice by
groups of participants by means of their own
practical actions and by means of their own
reflection upon the effects of those actions.
Further classroom action research
consists of four essential moments. They are:
planning, action, observation and reflection
(Kemmis and McTaggart in Burn, 1984: 32).
The process can be seen in the following
procedures; (1) identifying the problem: the
researcher used pre-test, classroom
observation, interviewing the English
teacher and the students in finding problems,
(2) planning: the researcher prepared one
lesson plan in each meeting. In the first and
the second cycle, the researcher planed two
meeting, (3) action Implementation: in
carrying out the action research, he
implemented the lesson plan and
deliberately all the things written in the
lesson, (4) observation: the observation
phase was conducted during the teaching
learning activity in order to record the
activities happened in the classroom, (5)
reflection: after the implementation of the
action, the researcher reflects critically on
what has happened after teaching learning.
The techniques that are used by the
researcher during research are (1).
observation: the technique is used to observe
to the interaction between teacher and
students during teaching reading activity; (2)
field notes: field notes functions to record
the activities happened in the class; (3)

photographs: the photographs are used to
take a picture from students’ activity during
teaching learning activity; (4) interview: the
interview is used to identify the problem and
the source of the problem faced by the
students in learning reading activity; 5)
questionnaire: the researcher contributes
questionnaire to the students to know the
students’ opinion and feeling during their
learning reading activity; (6) test: the kind of
test that used by researcher in this research
are essay multiple choice. It is given before
(pre-test) and after (post-test) the action. In
the pre-test, the students are asked to answer
some questions based on text.
The data obtained from observation,
field notes, photographs, interview and
Cycle 1
Table 1. Improvements of Students’ Reading Comprehension
Indicator Activity
Finding Predicting
main idea  The students predict the
content of the text based on
the title.
 The students revise their first
prediction
Grasp the Clarifying
difficult  The students search difficult
words and words or phrase with their
reference partner group.
 The teacher gave some
clues related the difficult
words or phrases.
Find detail Questioning
information  The teacher gives an
and example how to make a
implicit good question.
meaning.
397
questionnaire are analyzed following the
procedure of assembling the data, coding the
data, comparing the data, building
interpretation and reporting the outcome.
Meanwhile, the data gained from test are
analyzed by comparing the mean score of
post test 2 and post test 1.
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND
DISCUSSION
The results of the research show that
the implementation of reciprocal teaching
activity was able to improve students
reading comprehension. Besides, it
improves classroom climate. The
improvements can be seen in the research
findings table below:
Result Technique
The students are able to predict the Test
content of the text
Some groups still revise their first Test
prediction and change their first
prediction into second prediction
The students discuss actively with their Test
partner to determine the appropriate
meaning of the difficult words
Sometimes the students are not able to Field note
determine the difficult words by them
self.
The students are more active to guess the Field note
clues that are given by the teacher.
The students are more critically to Field note
explore the text by giving some
questions.
They share with another group to answer Test
some questions that is given.
 398

Find detail Summarizing

information  The teacher give an example The students are able to determine the Field note
how to make summary by important point of each paragraph.
choosing an important point
each paragraph
 The students summarize The students discuss with their partner Test
what they read. group to summarize what they read.
Some of group are still confused how to Field note
make summary by recalling what they
read before

Table 2. Improvements of Classroom Climate during Teaching Reading Activity

Indicator
Students’ participation during
teaching learning process
Students’ cooperation during
teaching learning process
The students’ opportunity to
optimize their potencies
Activity
The students are given the
interesting questions during
teaching activity.
The students make a group of 4
The students discuss the written
text by applying four strategy of
reciprocal teaching (predicting,
clarifying, questioning and
summarizing)
The teacher asks the students to
present the result of their
discussion.
Result
Some students are active to answer the
questions.
They are still afraid to make mistake
when teacher ask them to express their
opinion
The students are able to make group by
them self.
Students participate actively and work
actively during learning process.
The students are more active to present
the result of their discussion and share
with another group.

Further, the result of posttest reading comprehension 1 is higher than pre test. It can be
seen in the table below:

Table 3. Students’ Reading Comprehension Mean Score Cycle 1

Kind of test Pre-Test Post-Test

Multiple Choice 5.7 6.7

From the research findings, both reading
comprehension or classroom climate, it can
be concluded that the use of reciprocal
teaching strategy is powerful way for
reading class. Meanwhile, from the result of
the findings also, the researcher felt that the
strategy was not optimal. The case was
caused from students’ motivation in
implementing the strategy. They were still
confused to implement the four of strategy
of reciprocal teaching. Based on it, the
researcher planed to revise the problem in
cycle2

Cycle 2

Table 4. Improvement of Students’ Reading Comprehension

 399

Indicator Activity Result Technique

Finding Predicting
main  The students predict the The students are able to predict the Test
idea content of the text based on the content based on the title of text.
title.
 The students revise their first Some groups still revise their first Test
prediction prediction and change their first
prediction into second prediction
Grasp the Clarifying
difficult  The students clarify difficult The students discuss actively with their Test
words and words or phrase with their partner to determine the appropriate
reference partner group. meaning of the difficult words
The students are more active to ask with Field note
the teacher and their partner group.
 The teacher gave some clues The students are more critically to Field note
related the difficult words or answer the clues that are given by the
phrases. teacher.
Find detail Questioning
information  The teacher gives an example The students are more critically to Field note
and implicit how to make a question. explore the text by giving some
meaning. questions.
 The students make questions They share with another group to Field note
based on the picture that is answer some questions that is given.
given.
They are more critically to explore the Test
detail information of the text by looking
the picture.
Find detail Summarizing
information  The teacher give an example The students are able to determine the Test
how to make summary by important point of each paragraph.
choosing an important point
each paragraph
The students discuss with their partner Test
group to summarize what they read
 The students summarize what Some of group are still confused how to Field note
they read. make summary by recalling what they
read before

Table 5. Improvements of Classroom Climate during Teaching Reading Activity

Indicator Activity Result
Students’ participation during The students are given the Some students are active to answer
teaching learning process interesting questions during the questions.
teaching activity.
They are confident to answer the
question that is given by the teacher.
Students’ cooperation during The students make a group of 4 The students are able to make group
teaching learning process by them self.
The students discuss the written text Students participate actively and
by applying four strategy of work actively during learning
reciprocal teaching (predicting, process.
clarifying, questioning and
summarizing)
The students are able to use
reciprocal teaching strategy by

The students’ opportunity to The teacher asks the students to
optimize their potencies present the result of their
discussion.
From the result findings in cycle 2, the
researcher concluded that the
implementation of reciprocal teaching
strategy was optimal. It can be seen on the
research findings table above. There is a
Table 6. Students’ Reading Comprehension Mean Score Cycle 2
Kind of test Pre-Test
Multiple Choice 5.7
From the table above, it shows that there is
an improvement of students’ reading
comprehension score from the pre test, post
test 1 and post test 2. It also shows that the
use of reciprocal teaching strategy can
improve classroom climate.
Reciprocal teaching technique
develops the abilities of students with
special needs to learn meaningful. Besides,
the reciprocal teaching is flexible and can be
modified by integrating other strategies like
cooperative teaching, whole class discussion
and dialogue in order to increase students’
participation and active their roles in
teaching learning process. It supported by
Hamzah. A. Omari (2010), he says that
strategies of reciprocal teaching are
explicitly easy to be understood. Palincsar
and Brown in Carl. A. Young (2006) used
reciprocal teaching technique to teach the
students. The strategy involved predicting,
clarifying, questioning and summarizing.
The result of the study shows that the use of
reciprocal teaching strategy is capable to
improve students’ reading comprehension.
400
applying predicting, clarifying,
questioning and summarizing.
The students are more active to
present the result of their discussion
and share with another group.
The students are able to accept the
opinion from another group.
significant improvement of students’
reading comprehension and classroom
climate. Further, the result of improvement
of students’ reading comprehension can be
drawn in the table below:
Post-Test 1 Post-Test 2
6.7 7.6
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
Based on the research findings and
discussion above, the researcher concluded
that reciprocal teaching strategy was able to
improve students’ reading comprehension
and students’ attitude. Besides, the result
also can answer the problem statement on
the previous chapter. The problem
statements are; Does and what extent
reciprocal teaching improves students’
reading comprehension? And how is the
situation when reciprocal teaching is
implemented in the teaching reading
activity?.
From the first problem statement, the
researcher concluded that the use of
reciprocal teaching in SMP N 1 Jaten
Karanganyar is able to improve students’
reading comprehension. The comprehension
of reading involves finding main idea,
mentioning the detail information, grasping
difficult words or phrases, inferring the
appropriate references and guessing the
implicit meaning is covered by using
reciprocal teaching strategy. The result of
the students’ reading comprehension

achievement can be seen in the main score of
each cycle.
From the second questions of
problem statement, the researcher concluded
that the use of reciprocal teaching is able to
help students more active during teaching
learning. The students are more critical
about the text by giving some questions.
They are not afraid to ask and give their
opinion during teaching reading activity.
Moreover, the students pay more attention
when the researcher was explaining the
material.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aebersold, Jo Ann and Feld, Mary Lee.
1994. From Reader to Reading
Teacher. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Burns, Anne. 1984. Collaborative Action
Research for English Language
Teacher. Cambridge: Cambridge
University.
Vacca, Richard. 1989. Content Area
Reading. Harper Collins: Kent State
University
De Boer, John and Dallman. 1964. The
Teaching of Reading. Chicago: Holt.
Rinchant and Winston, Inc.
Education Ministry of New Zealand. 2004.
Reciprocal Teaching. Retrieved
March 14, 2012. From
http/English.unitecnology.ac,zn/reso
urces/resources.html.
Grellet, Frncoise. 1992. Developing Reading
Skill: A Practical Guide to Reading
Comprehension Exercises.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hopkins, David. 1985. A Teacher’s Guide to
Classroom Research. Philadelphia:
Open University Press.
401
Kennedy, Eddie C. 1997. Methods of
Teaching Developmental Reading.
New York: FE Peacock Publisher
Inc.
Lidya, Octaviana. 2010. Improving
Students’ Reading Comprehension
Using Group Investigation: An
Classroom Action Research.
Unpublished Thesis: Sebelas Maret
University Surakarta.
Ormrod, Jeanne Ellis. 1998. Educational
Psychology 2nd Edition. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall, Inc.
Omari, Hamzah. 2010. Using the Reciprocal
Teaching Method by Teachers at
Jordanian School. It is accessed on
August 14th, 2012 from http:/
www.eurojournals.com/ejss_15_1_03
.pdf
Palincsar, A.S & Brown, A.L. (1984).
Reciprocal Teaching in
Comprehension Fostering and
Comprehension Reading Activities. In
Cognition and Instruction, 1 (2) 117-
175.
Silberstein, Sandra. 1997. Technique and
Resourches in Teaching Reading. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Slavin, Robert E. 1991. Educational
Psychology: Theory into Practice 3rd
edition. Massachussets: Allyn and
Bacon
Wallace, Catherine. 1996. Reading. New
York: Oxford University Press
Young, Carl. 2006. Reciprocal Teaching for
Reading Comprehension in Higher
Education; A Strategy for Fostering the
Deeper Understanding of Text. It is accessed
on August 14th, 2012 from
http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/International_Jou
rnal_of_Teaching_and_Learning_in_Higher
_Education
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 82
Ninth International Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 9)

Developing Students’ Reading Comprehension Skill

through Reciprocal Teaching Strategy
Diana Oktavia and Dina Fitriana
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
STKIP Pasundan
diannaoktav@gmail.com

which are able to improve comprehension (Shanahan et al,

Abstract - Using strategy is beneficial to make reading easier,
more effective, and more comprehensible. Dealing with the
notion that students must be independent in reading brings up
the inquiry of what strategy helps to develop reading
comprehension skill. Through a quasi-experimental study
involving test before and after intervention, the study was
aimed to find out the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching
strategy on developing students’ reading comprehension skill.
The results revealed that students were interested in using
reciprocal teaching strategy, and their achievements in
reading comprehension also improved significantly. In
conclusion, the study shows that reciprocal teaching strategy
is effective to develop students’ reading comprehension skill,
as proven by significant difference in the result between the
experimental and the control groups (to = 3.78 >t-table =
2.000). The study has implications for both teachers and
students to enrich the strategy and media in teaching and
learning reading comprehension effectively.
Keywords: reading skill; reciprocal teaching strategy;
strategy of learning reading comprehension
1. INTRODUCTION
Reading is the processes by which the meaning of a
written text is understood (Richards & Schmidt (2010,
p.483). The processes include discovering meaning from
written textin a social atmosphere through bottom-up (text-
driven) processing and top-down (conceptually-driven)
processing using strategies and skills (Gebhard, 2006, p.
194). Reading comprehension is the process of extracting
and constructing meaning together through interaction and
involvement with written language (Snow, 2002, p. 11).
Reading is still the most important skill as general
language ability’s assessments are created, it is arguably
the most essential skill to get success in all educational
contexts (Brown, 2004, p. 185).
A strategy is the purposeful actions used before,
during, or after reading a text to improve reading
comprehension. Comprehension strategies help readers to
improve understanding, overcome difficulties, and
counterbalance knowledge related to the text. In order to be
able to use reading strategies effectively, teacher should
help students learn to use comprehension strategies
independently by releasing responsibility little by little.
There are specific strategies taught individually or in
combination with other effective comprehension strategies
2010, p. 10).
The question of how to develop students’ reading
comprehension skill is an issue to the needs of reading
skill. In a technologically sophisticated society, drill-and-
practice instructional models are insufficient as students
must be independent in constructing meaning from text.
Therefore, the instructional actions must be more flexible,
interactive, and problem-focused (Pearson, Rochler, Dole,
& Duffy, 1990, p. 15). Using strategy is beneficial to make
reading easier, more effective, and more comprehensible.
Dealing with the notion that students must be independent
in reading brings up the inquiry of what strategy helps to
develop reading comprehension skill. In order to overcome
those matters, teachers should look for strategies in
teaching and developing students’ reading comprehension
skill.
Experts introduce various ways of developing reading
skills, one of them is reciprocal teaching strategy.
According to Palincsar and Brown (1984, p. 124),
reciprocal teaching is “a procedure where teacher and
student take turns leading a dialogue concerning sections
of a text”. The steps of reciprocal teaching strategy are
predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing.
Reciprocal teaching strategy can improve the quality of
summarizing, questioning, clarifying, improve
standardized comprehension scores, etc. (Palincsar and
Brown, 1984, p. 117).
Reciprocal teaching strategy has many advantages in
teaching learning reading. Those advantages are;
improving students’ ability in finding the important ideas,
developing ideas and questions, and also in summarizing
the information. Reciprocal teaching strategy can improve
students reading comprehension as Palincsar and Brown
(1984:117) stated that, “Reciprocal teaching … led to
sizable gains on criterion tests of comprehension, reliable
maintenance over time, generalization to classroom
comprehension tests, transfer to novel tasks that tapped the
trained skills of summarizing, questioning, and clarifying,
and improvement in standardized comprehension scores.”
In order to implement teaching reading
comprehension by using reciprocal teaching strategy in the
classroom, there are several things to do as the procedure
as stated by Palincsar (n.d., p. 6). First, the students are
introduced to reasons and importance of using reading

Copyright © 2017, the Authors. Published by Atlantis Press. 22

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 82
strategies. Then, the overall description and also
illustration of the procedure of reading strategies are
explained to the students. After that, the students practice
each of the reciprocal teaching strategies.
Many studies have ever investigated the effects of
using reciprocal teaching strategy in developing students’
reading comprehension. A study conducted by Sarasti
(2007) found that reciprocal teaching was an effective
intervention in increasing students’ reading comprehension
skills as they showed continuous development on the daily
comprehension. Another study conducted by DiLorenzo
(2010) showed that the intervention of reciprocal teaching
improved each student group’s science comprehension
overall, and that after the intervention of reciprocal
teaching removed, the improvements lasted for the
individual student groupings although it was not found
overall. A review of some studies about reciprocal teaching
conducted by Rosenshine and Meister (1993) stated that
reciprocal teaching, provided by explicit teaching in
advance, gave significant results due to its successful for
all types of students. Seven of eight studies reviewed
brought about significant result on at least one dependent
measure when explicit teaching used.
The study conducted a quasi-experimental study
because it was aimed to find out the effectiveness of one of
reading strategy, which is reciprocal teaching strategy, in
developing students’ reading comprehension skill. The
study focused on reciprocal teaching strategy on
developing reading comprehension skill of the first grade
students of a senior high school in Bandung. It could give
contribution to the notion of how to develop students’
reading comprehension skill in an effective way that raise
the students’ interest and improve their skills. As the
strategy was introduced to the students, it would also add
strategy choices for their own learning. In line with that,
the problem statements discussed in this study were as
follows.
1. Does reciprocal teaching strategy have significant
better result than the conventional method in
developing students’ reading comprehension skill?
2. Is reciprocal teaching strategy effective in developing
students’ reading comprehension skill?
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS
Reading Comprehension
Reading comprehension according to Snow (2002) is
the process of extracting and constructing meaning
together through interaction and involvement with written
language. The words extracting and constructing are used
to emphasize both the importance and the insufficiency of
the text as a determinant of reading comprehension. She
also added that comprehension entails three elements,
those are the reader who is doing the comprehending; the
text that is to be comprehended; and the activity in which
comprehension is a part. Reading comprehension is the
process of constructing meaning by coordinating a number
of complex processes that includes word reading, word and
world knowledge, and fluency. (Klingner et al., 2007, p.
2). When we read, we include all the capacities, abilities,
knowledge, and experiences that a person brings to the act
of reading. According to U.S. Department of Education
(2008), “Comprehension strategies are routines and
procedures that readers use to help them make sense of
texts”. For example, active readers may think about what
they already know about a specific topic after they read the
title of a magazine article. They may predict what the
article will be about. They may visualize parts of the text.
They may summarize the main points as they are reading.
They may ask questions as they read. They are aware when
the text is making sense and when it is confusing or
unclear.
Comprehension Strategies
Comprehension strategies can be taught in two ways, those
are individually and in combination. Specific strategies that
can be taught individually are strategies that are introduced
individually by practicing it for some period of time. Those
specific strategies explained by Shanahan et al. (2010) are;
activating prior knowledge or predicting, students think
about what they already know and use that knowledge in
conjunction with other clues to construct meaning from
what they read—they will also check their predictions by
continue reading; questioning, students develop and
attempt to answer questions about the important ideas in
the text while reading, using words such as where or why
to develop their questions; visualization, students develop a
mental image of what is described in the text; monitoring,
clarifying, or fix-up, students pay attention to whether they
understand what they are reading, and when they do not,
they reread or use strategies that will help them understand
what they have read; drawing inferences, students generate
information that is important to constructing meaning but
that is missing from, or not explicitly stated in, the text;
and summarizing or retelling, students briefly describe,
orally or in writing, the main points of what they read.
Apart from individually strategies, specific strategies
can be taught in combination (multiple-strategy) as
introduced at the same time and practiced in combination
so that readers learn to use them together as they read
(Shanahan et al., 2010, p. 13). Those specific strategies are
reciprocal teaching, a take turns leading conversation on
the text using four strategies (predicting, clarifying,
questioning, summarizing) modelled by the teacher;
transactional strategy instruction, focus on a few strategies
at a time, concentrating on improving the students’
memory, comprehension, and problem-solving skills. The
teacher selects from a large menu of strategies to explicitly
teach; informed strategies for learning, combine a variety
of reading comprehension strategies to show students that
the strategies they learn are useful and necessary for being
able to read with understanding. When combining
strategies, teachers can display a bulletin board linking
each strategy to a picture or themed metaphor representing
how to put each into practice; and concept-oriented reading
23
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 82
instruction, teach comprehension strategies in the context
of learning about an overarching concept, typically in the
natural sciences, in order to engage students and motivate
them to learn.
Reciprocal Teaching Strategy
Reciprocal Teaching was first introduced in the early
1980’s by Ann Brown and Annemarie Sullivan Palincsar.
According to Brown and Palincsar (1985, p. 2) reciprocal
teaching is an instructional method in which an adult
teacher and a group of students take turns leading a
dialogue aimed at revealing the meaning of the text. In this
strategy, the teacher describes all of the strategies in
succession and then models each strategy in turn and
explains why the strategy helps students understand the
text (Shanahan et al., 2010, p. 14).
The ultimate goal of reciprocal teaching is to
influence how students interact with the text. It aims to
design instruction that really works in the practical sense of
helping students to improve performance of a particular
task and to take charge of learning in the future (Brown
and Palincsar, 1985, p. 4).
Reciprocal teaching strategy has many advantages in
teaching learning reading. Those are improving students’
ability in finding the important ideas, developing ideas and
questions, and also in summarizing the information.
Reciprocal teaching strategy can improve students reading
comprehension as Palincsar and Brown (1984, p. 117)
stated that, “Reciprocal teaching … led to sizable gains on
criterion tests of comprehension, reliable maintenance over
time, generalization to classroom comprehension tests,
transfer to novel tasks that tapped the trained skills of
summarizing, questioning, and clarifying, and
improvement in standardized comprehension scores.”
Strategies in Reciprocal Teaching
There are four strategies used in reciprocal teaching as
steps to get the meaning of the reading. These four
activities provide a dual function, that of enhancing
comprehension and at the same time affording an
opportunity for the student to check whether it is occurring.
That is, they can be both comprehension-fostering and
comprehension-monitoring activities if properly used
(Palincsar and Brown, 1984, p. 121).
Predicting was attempted if the students or teachers
recognized any cues that served to herald forthcoming
material (Brown and Palincsar, 1985, p. 16). When
students make predictions, they hypothesize what the
author will discuss next. They must activate the relevant
background knowledge they already possess as predicting
gives the students a purpose for reading either to prove or
disprove their hypotheses. Additionally, it gives students
the opportunity to link the new knowledge they will
encounter in the text with the knowledge they already
possess (Bottomley & Osborn, 1993, p. 3). The predicting
strategy also encourages the use of text structure. Students
learn that headings, subheadings, and questions embedded
in the text are useful means of anticipating what might
occur next.
Questioning, according to Brown and Palincsar
(1985, p. 16), was not practiced as an isolated activity, but
as a continued goal of the whole enterprise. Questioning
gives students the opportunity to identify the kind of
information that provides the substance of a good question,
to form the question, and then to engage in self-testing.
Students become much more involved in the reading
activity and in the text when they are posing and answering
questions themselves and not merely responding to teacher
or text questions (Bottomley & Osborn, 1993, p. 3).
Clarifying is particularly important to students who
have a history of comprehension difficulty. Such students
can make a habit of not understanding what they read.
These students very likely believe that the purpose of
reading a passage is to say the words correctly; they may
not be particularly uncomfortable with the fact that the
words, and, indeed, the passage, are not making much
sense (Bottomley & Osborn, 1993, p. 4).When students are
asked to clarify, their attention is called to the fact that
there may be many reasons why the text is difficult to
understand (e.g., unfamiliar vocabulary, unclear referent
words, new concepts).They learn to be alert to the effects
of such impediments on comprehension and to take the
necessary steps to restore meaning (e.g., reread, ask for
help). Clarifying occurred only if there were confusions,
whether in the text (unclear referent, etc.) or in the
student's interpretation of the text.
Summarizing is a means for integrating the
information presented in the text. As the students proceed
through the passage, the teacher guides them in integrating
the content across paragraphs and sections of the passage
(Bottomley & Osborn, 1993, p. 4). Summarizing was
modelled as an activity of self-review, a means of
determining that the content had been understood (Brown
and Palincsar, 1985, p. 15).
Teacher’s Role in Reciprocal Teaching
The teacher's role in practicing reciprocal teaching with the
students is described by Brown and Palincsar (1985, p. 18).
The teacher's role is to model the activities and to engage
the students at a level judged to be within their grasp at any
moment in time. As student masters one level of
involvement, the teacher increases her demands so that the
students are gradually called upon to adopt the expert role
more fully and independently. The teacher then fades into
the background as the students take charge of their own
learning from texts.
Procedure of using Reciprocal Teaching Strategy
In order to implement teaching reading comprehension by
using reciprocal teaching strategy in the classroom, there
are several things to do as the procedure as stated by
Palincsar (n.d., p. 6).
First, the students will be divided into groups of four
and be asked to pick one card given to the groups. Then,
24
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 82
the tasks for each different card and how each task should
be done (in sections or in each paragraph) will be
explained. The procedure of this strategy emphasizes the
form of dialogue or discussion about the text and that
everyone takes a turn assuming the role of teacher in
discussion.
The students will be asked to just read the title and
picture of a given text. Based on the title and picture seen,
an example of prediction will be given, then the predictors
will be asked whether they have any prediction or not. The
questioners, clarifiers, and summarizers will be also treated
same as the predictors. After they get what they can
predict, ask, clarify, and summarize, they will be asked to
write it on their notes. The activities continue to each
paragraph by being given guidance. Then they then will be
asked to check and discuss whether their predictions,
clarifications, and summaries are true or not and whether
their questions can be answered in the text or not. Finally,
they will be asked to share their discussion result with the
others and answer the questions of the text together. When
the students understand, they will be asked to lead their
own groups to help another understand and to take turn as
well. The students then will be asked to practice the role on
new texts led by their own group.
3. METHODS
This study used quasi-experimental design with non-
equivalent (pre-test and post-test) control-group design. It
was chosen due to the aim of quasi-experimental design
was to “deliberately control and manipulate the conditions
which determine the events in which they are interested,
introduce an intervention and measure the difference that it
makes” (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007, p. 272). It is
in line with this study’s aim which was to find out the
effects of reciprocal teaching strategy on developing
students’ reading comprehension skill. The study
concerned on reciprocal teaching strategy and reading
comprehension skill.
In conducting the study, there were a few steps taken
as the procedure. First, the students were divided into two
groups, which were experimental group and control group.
Second, research instruments were prepared to test the
students’ ability in reading comprehension. The research
instruments were in multiple choice forms consisted of a
few text types. Third, pre-test was executed in the first
meeting in order to make sure that there was no significant
difference in the students’ score between experimental
group and control group. Fourth, lesson plans for
treatments were organized and implemented. Between the
implementation of pretest and post-test, intervention was
conducted. The intervention in form of treatment was
given four times with different topics. Four texts used on
the treatments were 130 Cars in Foggy UK Pileup
(Sudarwati & Grace, 2014), Borobudur Temple
(Sundayana, Marsongko, Sofyanda, Kurnia, & Hartati,
2004), Private Conversation (Zumakhsin & Mufarichah,
2007), and The Phone is Off (Sundayana et al., 2004).
These treatments were conducted to know the effectiveness
of using reciprocal teaching strategy in developing the
students’ reading comprehension skill. The students in the
experimental group is given treatment, while the students
in the control group was not given any treatment so they
just do silent reading and answer questions as usual steps
in learning reading comprehension. Fifth, post-test was
executed in the last meeting to find out the result of the
treatment. And last, the data collected were analysed and
interpreted to get the conclusions.
In giving the treatment, the students first were divided
into groups of four and each student chose one reciprocal
reading role card given to the groups. The tasks of each
role written on the cards and how each task should be done
(in sections or in each paragraph) were described, given
examples, and then the students asked to implement the
tasks by guidance. The procedure of this strategy
emphasizes the form of discussion about the text and that
everyone took a turn assuming the role of teacher in
discussion. Next, the students were asked to read a section
of a given text. Based on the section read, an example of
prediction is given, then the predictors were asked whether
they have any prediction or not. The questioners, clarifiers,
and summarizers were also treated same as the predictors.
After they got what they could predict, ask, clarify, and
summarize, they were asked to write it on their notes. The
activities continued to other sections by being guided.
Then they were asked to check and discuss whether their
predictions, clarifications, and summaries were true or not
and whether their questions could be answered in the text
or not. Finally, they were asked to share their discussion
result with the others and answer the questions of the text
together. When the students understood, they were asked to
lead their own groups to help other understand and to take
turn as well. The students then asked to practice the role on
new texts led by their own group.
The participants of the study were the first grade
students of a senior high schools in Bandung. There were
86 participants randomly chosen from the population
attached to two classes as the experimental group and the
control group.
In collecting the data, the instruments of this study
were pre-test and post-test. As Sugiyono (2010, p. 148)
says, “…. Instrumen penelitian adalah suatu alat yang
digunakan untuk mengukur fenomena alam mau pun sosial
yang diamati.” Pre-test on the study was used to measure
students’ reading comprehension skill before the
intervention. It was intended to make sure that the two
groups were not significantly different on their reading
comprehension skill before the intervention implemented.
Post-test was conducted to know whether or not there was
development in the scores of the students after given
intervention. It was also conducted to know whether
reciprocal teaching strategy was effective in developing
students’ reading comprehension skill or not. The texts
used in the pre-test and post-test were taken from available
books for the appropriate grade of senior high school. The
25
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 82
question items used in the pre-test and post-test were in
multiple choice form consisting of 25 items covering the
steps of reciprocal teaching strategy (predicting,
questioning, clarifying, summarizing).
The data taken from pre-test and post-test of
experimental group and control group were analysed using
t test for independent groups (Coolidge, 2000, p. 144). The
pre-test scores of experimental group and control group
were analysed and interpreted. Then the post-test scores of
experimental group and control group were also analysed,
interpreted, and conclusions were drawn.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The pre-test scores of reading comprehension
conducted on the first meeting were analyzed by using t
test formula for independent groups. The pre-test
computation revealed that the derived t value (to) was 1.28,
while the critical t value (t-table) with the df= 84 at p = .05
of two-tailed was 2.000. It showed that the value of the
derived t (to) was smaller than that of the critical t (t-
table),1.28 < 2.000. This means there was no significant
difference in the mean scores between the students of
experimental group and control group before the treatment
of reciprocal teaching strategy conducted. Thus, the
treatment by using reciprocal teaching strategy started
from similar level of students’ skill in reading
comprehension both in the experimental group and in the
control group.
The post-test scores of reading comprehension were
also analyzed by using t test formula for independent
groups. The post-test computation revealed that the derived
t value (to) is 3.78, while the critical t value (t-table) with
the df = 84 at p = .05 of two-tailed was 2.000. It shows that
the value of the derived t (to) was bigger than that of the
critical t (t-table), 3.78 > 2.000. This means that that there
was significant difference in the result between using
reciprocal teaching strategy and the conventional method
in developing reading comprehension skill to the students
of a senior high school in Bandung.
The main objective of this study was to investigate
whether or not using reciprocal teaching strategy in
developing students’ reading comprehension has
significant difference in the result between the
experimental group and the control group. The findings
showed that there was a significant difference in the result
between using reciprocal teaching strategy and the
conventional method in developing students’ reading
comprehension.This study also was aimed to figure out
whether or not using reciprocal teaching strategy is
effective in developing studentsreading comprehension.
From the findings of post-test scores computation above, it
also implied that reciprocal teaching strategy is effective
based on its results. The results of this study were in line
with the results of previous studies conducted by Sarasti
(2007); DiLorenzo (2010); and Rosenshine and Meister
(1993).
5. CONCLUSION
This study answered the intended objectives. First,
reciprocal teaching strategy had significant better result
than the conventional method in developing students’
reading comprehension skill. And second, reciprocal
teaching strategy was effective to develop students’
reading comprehension skill. The answers were gained by
interpreting the computation results of pre-test and post-
test scores. This study is expected to give contribution to
the teacher, students, and all the reader, especially in
enriching effective strategies to develop reading
comprehension skill. In addition, it is recommended for
other researchers to use various media in implementing the
strategy in order to make students interested and enrich
their knowledge of various ways in developing reading
comprehension skill. As this study was conducted in one of
senior high school in Bandung, it is better for other
researchers intending to do similar research to choose
another school in order to get various results and also
introduce and make better use of the strategy in various
schools.
REFERENCES
Bottomley, D., & Osborn, J. (1993). Implementing
reciprocal teaching with fourth- and fifth-grade
students in content area reading. Retrieved on
September 10, 2015 from
http://hdl.handle.net/2142/17937
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1985). Reciprocal
teaching of comprehension strategies: A natural
history of one program for enhancing learning.
Cambridge: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.
Brown, H.D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and
classroom practices. New York, NY: Longman.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research
methods in education (6th ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Coolidge, F. L. (2000). Statistics: A gentle introduction.
London: SAGE Publications.
DiLorenzo K. E. (2010). The effects of reciprocal teaching
on the science literacy of intermediate elementary
students in inclusive science classes. Doctoral
dissertation, Florida Atlantic University.
Gebhard, J. G. (2006). Teaching English as a foreign or
second language: A teacher self-development and
methodology guide (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan.
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Boardman, A. (2007).
Teaching reading comprehension to students with
learning difficulties. In K. R. Harris, & S. Graham
(Eds.), What works for special-needs learners. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Palincsar, A. S. (n.d.). Reciprocal teaching.
Teaching/Learning Strategies, 5-10. Retrieved from
http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~siegler/418-Palinscar.pdf
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal
teaching of comprehension-fostering and
26
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 82

comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and

Instruction, I(2), 117-175. Retrieved on July 27, 2015
from
http://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/PHS1
22/%CE%91%CF%81%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1/
Reciprocal%20teaching.pdf
Pearson, P. D., Rochler, L. R., Dole, J.A., & Duffy, G. G.
(1990). Developing expertise in reading
comprehension: What should be taught? How should
it be taught? Illinois: University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman:
Dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics
(4th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. E. (1993). Reciprocal
teaching: A review of 19 experimental studies.
Retrieved on September 10, 2015 from http://hdl.
handle.net/2142/17744
Sarasti, I. A. (2007). The effects of reciprocal teaching
comprehension-monitoring strategy on 3rd grade
students’ reading comprehension. Doctoral
dissertation, University of North Texas.
Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K.,
Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J.
(2010). Improving reading comprehension in
kindergarten through 3rd grade: IES practice guide.
NCEE 2010-4038. What Works Clearinghouse.
Retrieved on August 23, 2015 from
whatworks.ed.gov/publications/practiceguides
Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward
an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa
Monica: RAND.
Sudarwati, T. M., & Grace, E. (2014). Pathway to English
for senior high school and MA grade X: Program
peminatan. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Sugiyono. (2010). Metode penelitian pendidikan:
Pendekatan kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D.
Bandung: Alfabeta.
Sundayana, W., Marsongko, E., Sofyanda, A., Kurnia, R.,
& Hartati, A. (2004). Contextual learning:
Developing competencies in English use for SMA
kelas II semester 1. Bandung: Grafindo Media
Pratama.
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Direct, explicit
comprehension strategy instruction. Retrieved on
August 28, 2015 from http://www.adlit.org/
article/27740/
Zumakhsin, Mufarichah, Y. (2007). Progress: A contextual
approach to learning English for senior high school
IPA & IPS program grade XI. Jakarta: Ganeca Exact.

27
 Improving Students’ Reading Comprehension…..

IMPROVING STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION THROUGH THE

USE OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING TECHNIQUE AT STMIK RIAU
PEKANBARU

LIYA ASTARILLA DEDE WARMAN

liya.astarilla@gmail.com
Sekolah Tinggi Manajemen Informatika dan Komputer (STMIK) Riau

ABSTRACT

This research aimed to describe and explain to what extent Reciprocal

Teaching could improve the reading comprehension of semester II/E
students of STMIK Riau Pekanbaru and the factors that influenced the
change of their reading comprehension through Reciprocal Teaching. This
research was a classroom action research, every cycle consisted of four four
fundamental aspects namely, planning , action, observation, and reflection.
The participants of this research were the semester II/E students majoring in
Computer Science/Informatics STMIK Riau Pekanbaru totalling 35
students. The instruments of this research were a reading comprehension
test, an observation sheet, field note, and interview. There were two main
findings of this research: (1) Reciprocal Teaching could improve the
students’ reading comprehension; (2) Teaching material, class acitivity,
class management, and lecturer’s approach were the factors that could
influence the change of students’ reading comprehension.
Keywords: reading comprehension, reciprocal teaching, factors.

INTRODUCTION
Reading is one of the skills that
the students should master in learning
English in order to get information from
the English materials. The aim of
teaching reading is to enable students to
read English texts effectively and
efficiently. They do not only have to
understand the structure of the texts
explicitly but more importantly they
must comprehend the meaning
implicitly. Reading is the common
source to achieve and develop students’
knowledge and skills. Therefore,
students need to have effective reading
skills in order to improve their
knowledge of foreign language and
their ability to access the world
information which is commonly
provided in the form of electronic media
and printed materials such as textbooks,
journals, articles, newspapers,
magazines, email, etc.
Based on the researcher’s
experience and observation in teaching
Reading subject to semester II/E
students majoring in Computer
Science/Informatics at STMIK Riau
Pekanbaru in the academic year 2014, it
was discovered that the students had
low achievement in reading
comprehension tests, most of them had
problems in comprehending texts. It
was also found that the students still had
difficulties in finding information in the

Journal of English Education Vol. 1 No. 2 December 2015 ISSN: 2459-9719 |1

Liya Astarilla Dede Warman
texts and did not know the components
of reading comprehension, namely;
finding factual information, finding
main ideas, finding the meaning of
vocabulary in context, identifying
references and making inferences. The
students’ difficulties were noticeable
from the results of the test given by the
lecturer. The result of reading
comprehension test showed that none of
the students got A (>85) or A- (81-85).
There were only 2 students who got B+
(76-80), 5 students got B (71-75), and
others failed. The lowest score was 45,
and the highest score was 80. The result
of the test showed that the average score
was only 62.13. For reading skill, the
minimum standard of score is 71 (B) or
higher based on reading scoring rubric.
It seemed that the students had low
ability in comprehending texts.
The above phenomenon must
have been influenced by some factors.
This was based on the interview
conducted towards the students. First,
the students were not interested in
reading so that they had low motivation
in learning reading. Second, the
students lacked vocabulary; so, it was
difficult for them to comprehend the
texts. The third factor was teaching
technique and teaching material used by
a lecturer in teaching reading. The
lecturer only used a discussion
technique, where she gave an
explanation, asked students to read the
text and answer the comprehension
questions. This way of teaching reading
was less effective in teaching reading
because it did not encourage and
motivate the students to improve their
comprehension. The lecturer very much
relied on using reading materials from
one book whose materials might not be
appropriate for Computer
Science/Informatics students. Such a
mistake in choosing reading texts could
cause the students to have difficulties to
2| Journal of English Education Vol. 1 No. 2 December 2015
comprehend the texts that could affect
their reading comprehension.
Realizing the phenomenon
above, appropriate techniques in
teaching reading should be implemented
in the classroom because using various
teaching techniques could give a great
effect to the students’ success in
reading. The technique used by the
lecturer should be appropriate to the
students’ comprehension level. The
technique that might be implemented is
reciprocal teaching that is suggested by
Palinscar and Brown (1984). This
technique of teaching deals with a
problem-solving approach to reading. It
helps the students to find solutions to
the problems they encounter during
their reading.
Related to the description above,
the researcher was encouraged to
implement reciprocal teaching during
teaching and learning reading in order
to solve the problems in her class. For
this purpose, a classroom action
research was carried out. The objectives
of this research were to explain to what
extent Reciprocal Teaching could
improve the reading comprehension of
semester II/E students of STMIK Riau
Pekanbaru and the factors that
influenced the changes of their reading
comprehension.
Reading Comprehension
Reading is one of the skills that
should be learnt by the students. It is a
thinking process for the students to
comprehend or analyze a text or a
paragraph that encourages them to gain
more information from what they are
reading. Neufeld (2005) states that
comprehension is the process of
constructing a supportable
understanding of a text. He added that
comprehension involves two important
features: being actively involved with
the text and using appropriate
ISSN: 2459-9719

background knowledge to interpret the
text. Therefore, when students are
comprehending the material their brain
works to try to make meaning of
information presented. According to
Klingner (2007:8) reading
comprehension is a multi component,
highly complex process that involves
many interactions between readers and
what they bring to the text as well as
variable related to the text. Based on the
definition, it can be concluded that
reading comprehension is a process of
interaction between readers’
background knowledge with the
information from the text while they are
reading.
Reciprocal Teaching
The goal of Reciprocal Teaching
is to instruct students with specific
strategies that they can apply to all kind
of texts. In the process of Reciprocal
Teaching, the students work in groups,
discuss the material through some steps
of strategies that will lead them to be
effective readers. Reciprocal Teaching
consists of four strategies: predicting,
clarifying, questioning and
summarizing.
Predicting involves previewing
the text to anticipate what may happen
next. The students make predictions
about what the author might discuss in
the text by using text clues, background
knowledge, or picture clues. Then,
clarifying is the strategy that readers use
while monitoring comprehension. The
students identify when they do not
understand and take necessary steps to
restore meaning. In questioning
strategy, the students make or create
questions based on the text that they
have read. The purpose of this strategy
is to test whether the readers understand
the text and to help students to identify
important information. The last strategy
is summarizing in which readers are
Journal of English Education Vol. 1 No. 2 December 2015
Improving Students’ Reading Comprehension…..
required to identify the key idea of each
paragraph. Students have to recall and
arrange the information and construct
the overall understanding of a text.
According to Oczkus (2003:14)
Reciprocal Teaching is different from
other strategies because the strategies
used may not be fixed, being flexible
depending on the text and the reader.
Thus, the lecturer should consider the
material to be presented before using a
certain strategy. He also states that
Reciprocal Teaching can be used in a
variety of classroom settings to enhance
students’ reading comprehension, such
as whole class sessions, guided reading,
and literature circle. In addition, Herrel
and Jordan (2008) viewed that
Reciprocal Teaching is a reading
strategy in which students take turns in
predicting, summarizing, clarifying, and
questioning until all section of text have
been read and work in a small group. It
supports learning in several ways and
encourages students to self-monitor for
understanding. As a result, this
technique increases the students’ self-
confidence and success in their
understanding. Therefore, the lecturer
needs to provide guided practice in the
use of the four comprehension strategies
of reciprocal teaching. It means that
before the students use these four
strategies, the lecturer models the use of
the strategies and provides guidance in
the discussion that follows. To make the
learning process run well both lecturer
and students should follow all indicators
of Reciprocal Teaching strategies; that
is, predicting, clarifying, questioning
and summarizing.
From the definition above, it can
be concluded that Reciprocal Teaching
is a scaffold discussion method that is
based on reading comprehension
strategies of Reciprocal Teaching the
lecturer has to model all strategies to the
students, then show them the scaffold
ISSN: 2459-9719 |3
Liya Astarilla Dede Warman

until they are really independent to
implement this technique, and finally
RESEARCH METHOD
This study is kind of an action
research. It is used to help the teacher to
improve the way of teaching in
classroom. Kemmis et al (2014:5-10)
state that action research is a form of
collective self-reflective enquiry
undertaken by participants in social
justice of their own social or
educational practices, conducted by the
teachers or researchers to gain
information about how well their
particular schools execute their
educational programs, how well
teachers teach their students and how
well their students. There are four
fundamental aspects of action research
namely; planning, action, observation,
and reflection. In short, action research
is done to give an improvement to the
situation where the research is applied.
It is commonly applied to solve some
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Based on the results during
cycle 1 and cycle 2 conducted for eight
meetings, it was found that the scores of
the students’ reading comprehension in
each indicator in cycle 1 was not yet
satisfactory. Therefore, the process
continued to cycle 2; in fact, students
made some improvements. The data
.
100
80
Value
the lecturer monitors their own thinking
through reading process.
problems being faced by participants in
the classrooms and schools. The
participants of this research were the
researcher, a collaborator and the
semester II/E students majoring in
Computer Science/Informatics STMIK
Riau Pekanbaru totalling 35 students in
the academic year 2014. The researcher
decided to choose this class because she
knew this class had lower ability in
reading comprehension than other
classes. The instruments of this research
were a reading comprehension test, an
observation sheet, field note, and
interview. To analyze the quantitative
data, the researcher evaluated and
analyzed the students’ reading
comprehension test scores in order to
know the significance of their progress
before and after learning through
Reciprocal Teaching.
showed that students’ scores of reading
comprehension through Reciprocal
Teaching in each indicator increased
significantly. The difference between
the improvement of students’
comprehension before and after using
Reciprocal Teaching can be seen in the
following diagram

60
40
20
0 Factual Meaning of
Main Idea Reference Inference
Information Vacabulary
Pre-Test 73.8 71.3 53.1 60.6 52.5
Cycle 1 80.0 72.5 63.1 66.3 60.6
Cycle 2 81.0 74.4 71.0 72.5 71.3

4| Journal of English Education Vol. 1 No. 2 December 2015 ISSN: 2459-9719

 Improving Students’ Reading Comprehension…..

Diagram 1. The Comparison of the Test Results of Each Indicator of Reading

Comprehension in the Pre-test, Cycle 1, and Cycle 2
The above diagram shows that The following diagram shows
all indicators of reading comprehension the improvement of students’ average
test are improving after the use of score of reading comprehension before
Reciprocal Teaching technique. implementing Reciprocal teaching
during cycle 1 and cycle 2

100
68.25 74.00
80 62.13
60
Score

40
20
0
Pre-test Cycle 1 Cycle 2

Diagram 2. The Comparison of Students’ Average Score of Reading

Comprehension in the Pre-test, Cycle 1, and Cycle 2
Diagram 2 shows that there was
improvement on the average score in
reading comprehension before and after
implementing reciprocal teaching in
teaching reading. In fact, the average
score of students’ reading
comprehension through Reciprocal
Teaching in cycle 1 and cycle 2 is better
than before applying reciprocal
teaching. The average score of the
students’ comprehension increases 6.12
points at the end of cycle 1. The
diagram shows, however, that the
average score is not significantly
increased. At the end of cycle 2, the
average score of students’
comprehension increases 11.8 points. It
means there was significant
improvement which already reaches the
minimum standard score of reading skill
at STMIK Riau which is 71 (B) or
higher based on the rubric. What’s
more, the number of students reaching
the passing standard of reading score
increased as it was expected.
Furthermore, the results in cycle 2
showed that 80% of the students
reached passing standard. Therefore, the
researcher did not need to continue her
action to the next cycle. Based on the
research findings in two cycles, it was
discovered that the implementation of
Reciprocal Teaching could better
improve the reading comprehension of
semester II/E students of STMIK Riau
Pekanbaru. The findings were
congruent with Soonthornmanee (2002)
who found that Reciprocal Teaching
could improve Thai students’ reading
comprehension at university level.
After implementing Reciprocal
Teaching in teaching reading
comprehension and having analyzed the
results obtained from observation
checklists, field notes, and interview, it
was found that there were some factors
that influenced the changes of students’
reading comprehension, i.e. teaching
material, classroom activity, classroom
management and lecturer’s approach.
This matches what Paris and Stahl
(2005:61) state that there are factors
that can influence the students’ reading
comprehension; namely, learner factor,
text factor, and instruction factors. In
addition, Crawley and Merritt

Journal of English Education Vol. 1 No. 2 December 2015 ISSN: 2459-9719 |5

Liya Astarilla Dede Warman
(2009:124) state that the teacher’s
approach to teaching structure of
informational text could improve both
comprehension and recall of key text
information.
As a final point, Reciprocal
Teaching could improve the
CONCLUSION
After conducting this research in
two cycles, it can be concluded that
Reciprocal Teaching can better improve
the reading comprehension of semester
II/E students of STMIK Riau
Pekanbaru. The improvement can be
seen from the average score of reading
comprehension test from pre-test, cycle
IMPLICATIONS
The implications of this research
could be explain as follows; Reciprocal
Teaching technique increases students’
interest, activeness, self-confident,
SUGGESTIONS
Based on the previous
explanations and the findings of the
research, implications and some
recommendations are offered as in the
following:
1. The researcher as an English
lecturer should continue using
Reciprocal Teaching in teaching
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Crawley, S. J and Merritt, K. 2009.
Remediating Reading
Difficulties. Boston. Mc. Graw
Hill.
Herrel, A and Jordan, M. 2008. 50
Strategies for Teaching English
Language Learners(3rd Ed).
Ohio: Merrill Prentice Hall.
6| Journal of English Education Vol. 1 No. 2 December 2015
effectiveness of teaching and learning
process which is aimed to increase the
students’ reading comprehension. In
addition, the implementation of
Reciprocal Teaching in learning reading
comprehension could positively affect
the students’ reading comprehension
1, and cycle 2. There were some factors
which influenced the changes of
students reading comprehension
through Reciprocal Teaching; that is,
teaching material, classroom activity,
classroom management, and lecturer’s
approach.
leadership skills, and motivation in
learning reading. It gives them more
opportunity to share their ideas through
discussion in group
reading because it can better
improve the students’ reading
comprehension.
2. The researcher suggests to other
lecturers, who have the same
problems in teaching reading, to
apply reciprocal teaching technique
in reading class
Kemmis et al. 2014. The Action
Research Planner. Singapore:
Springer-Verlag Singapur.
Klingner, Janette K. 2007. Teaching
Reading Comprehension to
Students with Learning
Difficulties. New York: The
Guildford Press.
Neufeld, P. 2005. Comprehension
reading in content area classes.
ISSN: 2459-9719
 Improving Students’ Reading Comprehension…..

The Reading Teacher, 59(4), activities.Cognition and

302-312. instruction, 1, 117–175.
Oczkus, D Lori. 2003. Reciprocal Paris, S.G and Stahl, S.A. 2005.
Teaching at work: Strategies for Children’s Reading
improving reading Comprehension and Assessment.
comprehension. Newark, DE: New Jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum
International Reading Associates.
Association. Soonthornmanee, R. 2002. The effect of
Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. 1984. the reciprocal teaching approach
Reciprocal teaching of on the reading comprehension of
comprehension– fostering and EFL students.RELC, 33 (2),
comprehension–monitoring 125–141.

Journal of English Education Vol. 1 No. 2 December 2015 ISSN: 2459-9719 |7

Liya Astarilla Dede Warman

8| Journal of English Education Vol. 1 No. 2 December 2015 ISSN: 2459-9719

 Reciprocal Teaching 1
 
RUNNING HEAD: Reciprocal Teaching

Improving Reading Comprehension through Reciprocal Teaching

BY

Jessica Davidson

Submitted to

Professional Education Faculty

Northwest Missouri State University

Department of Professional Education

College of Education and Human Services

Maryville, MO 64468

Submitted in Fulfillment for the Requirements for

61-683 Research Paper

Term course taken

Summer 2014

April 3, 2015
 Reciprocal Teaching 2
 
ABSTRACT

This study was completed to find if there is significant improvement in reading comprehension levels in

students who were taught Reciprocal Teaching strategies. The study was completed using DRA2 scores for two

fourth grade classrooms. The dependent variable would be comprehension scores. The independent variable is

the difference in the two fourth grade classes. One class will be taught Reciprocal Teaching strategies and the

other will not. Research shows students practice Reciprocal Teaching strategies increase their reading

comprehension level. However, in this study there was no significant difference in the number of students who

increase their comprehension level between the control class and the study class. Many reasons could be

speculated as to why there weren’t any differences in the comprehension levels. One valid reason is the

students have been previously taught Reciprocal Teaching strategies but they weren’t told that was what they

were using. Speculation can be made that having all students with prior knowledge of the strategies being

taught inferred with the study taking place. One can also state since all students in the study had prior

knowledge of Reciprocal Teaching strategies, then those strategies did in fact aid in increasing reading

comprehension levels.
 Reciprocal Teaching 3
 
INTRODUCTION

Background, Issues, and Concerns

Ann Brown and Annemarie Sullivan Palincsar (1985) began experimenting with reading comprehension

strategies in the early 1980’s. Brown and Palincsar developed the Reciprocal Teaching strategies to help

students with reading comprehension. Brown and Palincsar’s goal for Reciprocal Teaching was to “help

students not only improve their performance on a particular task now, but also to take charge of their own

learning in the future” (p.6).

Originally, Reciprocal Teaching was geared towards middle school students. Currently, Reciprocal

Teaching is being taught to elementary school students. Teaching Reciprocal Teaching strategies to younger

students will not only help their comprehension skills while they are learning to read, but also prepare them for

the more difficult reading required of them in middle school and high school. The following study will show

whether or not Reciprocal Teaching strategies will improve student reading comprehension.

Practice under Investigation

The practice under investigation will be how teaching students Reciprocal Teaching strategies can

improve their reading comprehension scores. There will be an investigation to see if there is a relationship

between reading comprehension scores and learning Reciprocal Teaching strategies amongst elementary

students.

School Policy to be informed by Study

Though much research has been conducted on the benefits of Reciprocal Teaching, there aren’t many

teachers who teach the strategies in their classroom. Many teachers use question asking to determine how well

a student comprehends what they have read. If this study proves Reciprocal Teaching strategies are effective in

helping reading comprehension, perhaps more teachers will utilize the strategies in their classroom.

Conceptual Underpinning

Research by Brown and Palincsar supports Reciprocal Teaching and its ability to improve reading

comprehension scores. By practicing Reciprocal Teaching strategies, student comprehension levels will
 Reciprocal Teaching 4
 
increase due to the various parts of Reciprocal Teaching. These parts include a pre-reading strategy, during

reading strategy, and a post reading strategy. Completing these strategies while reading help students focus on

what they are reading, thus improving their comprehension levels. Current research supports the more students

practice Reciprocal Teaching strategies, the more they will take charge of their own learning in the future. The

data collected from this study will be used to help teachers understand how reading comprehension strategies,

such as Reciprocal Teaching, can improve student reading comprehension scores.

Statement of the Problem

If there is a marked difference in reading comprehension scores between students who have been taught

Reciprocal Teaching strategies and those who have not, then teachers need to make teaching Reciprocal

Teaching apart of their reading curriculum.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to determine whether Reciprocal Teaching strategies make a difference in a

student’s reading comprehension scores. The information garnered in this study will inform teachers of

Reciprocal Teaching strategies and guide them through the benefits of utilizing these strategies in their

classroom.

Research Question

Is there a significant difference in student reading comprehension scores between students taught with

Reciprocal Teaching strategies compared to students taught with traditional reading strategies?

Null Hypothesis

There is not a significant difference in student reading comprehension scores between students taught

with Reciprocal Teaching strategies compared to students taught with traditional reading strategies.

Anticipated Benefits of the Study

Through learning Reciprocal Teaching strategies, students will be able to self-monitor their own

reading, helping to make students more aware of what they are reading. Having a higher awareness of what is

being read; students will have an increase in their reading comprehension.

 Reciprocal Teaching 5
 
Definition of Terms

Reciprocal Teaching – A reading strategy geared toward making more meaning out of text to improve student

reading comprehension.

DRA2 – (Developmental Reading Assessment) identifies students’ reading level, tests for accuracy, fluency,

and comprehension.

Summary

A study was conducted to determine if there was a significant difference between students taught

Reciprocal Teaching strategies and those who were not. If the T-test shows a significant difference between

students taught the strategies and those who weren’t, more time needs to be taken in the classroom to teach

students reading comprehension strategies, such as Reciprocal Teaching. After the study is over, students will

be able to look at reading in a more meaningful way.

 Reciprocal Teaching 6
 
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Reading is a major part of life today. Children begin learning to read when they first learn to recognize

letters of the alphabet. As young students learn to recognize letters of the alphabet, they also learning the

sounds each letter makes. This skill is one of five essential components to reading called phonemic awareness.

Other components include phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary development, and reading comprehension.

These five components work together to help students improve their reading comprehension skills. (EduGuide,

2008)

Reading comprehension is defined as “constructing meaning from reading traditional text in print form,

from listening to others read, or from viewing text in one of the many media available in our world today.”

(Miller, 2015) According to Miller, reading is more than just saying the words on a page. Reading is

understanding what those words mean and how, when they are put together, they form a story. In order for

students to succeed in school, their reading comprehension level needs to be able to increase as the difficulty in

grade level reading increases.

Many students are able to read what is asked of them to read, but have difficulty comprehending what

they have read. This is because reading comprehension has to be taught. It is not naturally developed. There

are many strategies used to help students learn how to comprehend what they are reading. One such strategy is

Reciprocal Teaching. Reciprocal Teaching is a “method of instruction that involves in-depth discussions

between teachers and students which demand cognitive and metacognitive skills and strategies.” (Teach-

nology.com, 2015)

Reciprocal Teaching was first introduced in the early 1980’s by Ann Brown and Annemarie Sullivan

Palincsar. Brown and Palincsar (1985) believed the use of Reciprocal Teaching strategies, predicting,

questioning, clarifying, and summarizing, while reading would improve student reading comprehension.

Together, Brown and Palincsar set out to test their theory. Since much of the reading in the upper grades

requires more critical thinking and studying, Brown and Palincsar taught the strategies to middle school

students who had below grade level reading scores. During their testing, they found their theory to be correct.
 Reciprocal Teaching 7
 
Students who used Reciprocal Teaching strategies while reading did improve their reading comprehension of

what they read. These students also acquired a new strategy to aid them in an every changing scientific and

technological society.

Pilonieta and Medina modified Brown and Palincsar’s original Reciprocal Teaching strategies to be used

in a first grade classroom. Pilonieta and Media’s version of Reciprocal Teaching was conducted in five phases.

In phase one, the teacher introduces the strategies, taking students on a picture walk of the book being used and

help students make predictions of what they think will happen in the book. During phase two, the teacher selects

students who would make good leaders and teaches those students the Reciprocal Teaching strategies. For

phase three, the selected student leaders are then assigned groups where they will teach other students the

Reciprocal Teaching strategies. During this phase the teacher is walking around the room helping groups who

need it. Phase four has students working in independent groups completing choral, or buddy reading. In the

final phase, students are still working in their independent groups but now they are writing about what they

have read. These phases helped early readers to grasp a better understanding of what they were reading early

on. According to Pilonieta and Medina, learning reading strategies, such as Reciprocal Teaching, help students

become self-regulated learners. (Pilonieta & Medina, 2009)

In 2010, a middle school teacher in Queensland decided to expand the stages of Reciprocal Teaching to

better guide her students. Meyer found by adding orientating, connecting, and giving feedback to the original

four stages of Reciprocal Teaching, her students were able to generate higher-level questions and make greater

connections to what they were reading. These added stages also help students to have deeper, higher-level

discussions over what they were reading. The result was a higher level of reading comprehension, which is

needed for upper grade level students. (Meyer, 2010)

Castek took Brown and Palincsar’s original purpose for Reciprocal Teaching (aiding students in an every

changing scientific and technological society) and applied it to guiding her students through conducting internet

research. In her application of Reciprocal Teaching, Castek designed a series of lessons to help educate her

students on how to conduct online research. Each of her lessons scaffold each other, and help guide students
 Reciprocal Teaching 8
 
through the challenge of deciding which web page has the best information for what is being researched. These

lessons have students first choosing a topic and using a search engine to create a list of potential site to visit for

information. Students are then encouraged to visit sites they feel would be a good source of information. Then,

Castek has her students look a headings, pictures, and captions to determine if the site garners further

investigation. If so, then her students are encouraged to look at the site page by page to find the information

needed. Using her lessons to guide students through online research, Castek discovered her students had greater

inferential reasoning, were able to make predictions about the sites visited, and were able to evaluate a websites

utility for research purposes. These three developments from her lessons helped her students reading

comprehension of the sites they visited. (Castek, 2013)

In 2014, Meyer decided to take Reciprocal Teaching across curriculum. Meyer modified the Reciprocal

Teaching strategies so she could use them to teach story problems to her math students. Meyer used the original

stages of predicting, clarifying, questioning, and summarizing, but she added visualizing, connecting, and

calculating to her strategies. Using their prior knowledge, students were able to predict the type of mathematical

question being asked and what operation would be used. Students were also able to visualize what the story

problem was asking. While summarizing how they solved the problem, students engaged in self-reflection and

justification to evaluate their answer. Using Reciprocal Teaching with story problems also helped her students

pull out the important information and leave the fluff. By her students using Reciprocal Teaching math

strategies to solve word problems, Meyer’s students score higher on tests than other classes in the same grade

level.

These studies combined demonstrate the potential for Reciprocal Teaching’s place in all classrooms.

They also show how Reciprocal Teaching can be modified to help various students in a variety of grade levels

and across curriculum. Studies have shown how Reciprocal Teaching can aid students improving their reading

comprehension.
 Reciprocal Teaching 9
 
RESEARCH METHODS

Research Design

Students were given the DRA2 at the end of last school year. The end of year scores will act as a

baseline score for reading comprehension. After eighteen weeks of learning, practicing, and mastering

Reciprocal Teaching strategies, students will be given the DRA2 again. The second DRA2 scores will

determine whether there is an increase in student reading comprehension scores. If an increase is found in

reading comprehension scores, other teachers will be informed and encouraged to practice Reciprocal Teaching

strategies in their own classrooms. The dependent variable would be comprehension scores. The independent

variable is the difference in the two fourth grade classes. One class will be taught Reciprocal Teaching

strategies and the other will not.

Study Group Description

The study will take place in a public school setting. There are 317 students enrolled at the study school.

The student population is made up of a variety of ethnicities. These ethnicities include 3.5% Asian, 6.3%

Black, 10.10% Hispanic, 2.5% Indian, 7.3% Multi-race, 3.2% Pacific Islander, and 67.20% White. Also, 73.8%

of the student population qualifies for the Free/Reduced Lunch program.

The study will consist of two fourth grade classes. The control class consists of twenty-two students. Of

those twenty-three students, two have Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) and are below grade level in their

reading. In the test class has eighteen students, four of which have IEPs. Of those four with IEPs, two are below

grade level in reading.

Data Collection and Instrumentation

Students will be given daily opportunities to practice the Reciprocal Teaching strategies. Data will be

collected via the student second quarter, winter, DRA2 scores.

Statistical Analysis Methods

A T-test was used to analyze the scores of the DRA2 administered to the students to determine if there is

a significant correlation between Reciprocal Teaching strategies and comprehension scores.

 Reciprocal Teaching 10
 
FINDINGS

A t-test was conducted to decipher whether there was an increase in reading comprehension scores

of students taught Reciprocal Teaching strategies and students taught traditional reading strategies. The

following tables and chart will depict the organized findings based on the statistical raw data of two fourth

grade classrooms DRA2 scores from the spring of 2014 and the winter of 2014. There are only two classrooms’

data due to there only being two fourth grade classes in the build which the study was conducted.

Figure 1

t-Test Analysis Results for Two Fourth Grade Classrooms’ Spring DRA Scores

Source (x) Mean Mean D t-Test df p-value

Reciprocal(1) 18 39.56
Non-
20 38.7 0.856 0.249 36 0.805
Reciprocal(2)
Note: Significant when p-value <=0.25

Two fourth grade classes were selected for a study to determine if using Reciprocal Teaching

strategies while reading would increase students reading comprehension levels. Spring DRA2 data was

collected from the previous school year’s third grade teachers. The mean of class one’s spring DRA2 scores

was 39.56 and the mean of class two was 38.7. The difference between the two classes, or Mean D, was 0.856.

The t-Test was 0.249 and the df 36. By comparing the alpha level, 0.25, to the p-value, 0.805, the null

hypothesis is not rejected. Since the null hypothesis is not rejected, there was no difference between the two

fourth grade classes’ spring DRA scores.

Figure 2

t-Test Analysis Results for Two Fourth Grade Classrooms’ Winter DRA Scores

Source (x) Mean Mean D t-Test df p-value

Reciprocal(1) 18 44.67
Non-
20 43.6 1.07 0.25 36 0.801
Reciprocal(2)
Note: Significant when p-value <=0.25

The scores collected for the winter DRA2 were collected by the current fourth grade teachers. Class

one was taught Reciprocal Teaching strategies and class two used previously taught traditional strategies for
 Reciprocal Teaching 11
 
reading comprehension. The mean of class one’s winter DRA2 was 44.67 and the mean of class two was 43.6.

The difference between the two classes, or Mean D, was 1.07. The t-test was 0.25 and the df was 36. The null

hypothesis states there is not a difference in reading comprehension scores in students who use Reciprocal

Teaching strategies and students who use traditional reading strategies while reading. This null hypothesis was

not rejected because the p-value of 0.801 is greater than the alpha level of 0.25. Due to the p-values of the

spring and winter t-tests being similar, these results show there is no benefit to using Reciprocal Teaching

strategies instead of traditional reading comprehension strategies.

Figure 3

Fourth Grade Winter DRA 

1 2

The mean score of class one was 44.67. When compared to the mean score of class two of 43.6, the

graph above shows almost equal scores for both classes. The pie graph gives a visual of the study results, as

well as supporting the acceptance of the null hypothesis.

All of the findings answered the question “Is there a significant difference in student reading

comprehension scores between students taught with Reciprocal Teaching strategies compared to students taught

with traditional teaching strategies?” Figures 1-3 show how similar the DRA2 scores are for both classes. With

both classes having similar gains in test scores, there isn’t enough of a gain in class one to support Reciprocal

Teaching strategies being used instead of traditional strategies.

 Reciprocal Teaching 12
 
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

All students in the study were given the DRA 2 the spring semester of their third grade year. The mean

score of the student in the Reciprocal Teaching class was 39.59. The mean score of the Non-Reciprocal

Teaching class was 38.7. Grade level reading scores for students entering the fourth grade need to be 40 or

higher. The spring DRA2 scores show both fourth grade classes, as a whole, as being just below grade level.

This does not mean all fourth graders are below grade level for reading. However, there are several who did not

enter the fourth grade reading on grade level.

At the end of the first semester, all fourth graders were given the DRA2 again. This time, the mean

score for the Reciprocal Teaching class was 44.67, and 43.6 for the Non-Reciprocal Teaching class. These mean

scores show both fourth grade classes as being just above grade level in their reading.

Due to the similar outcomes reported in this study, the mean scores between the spring and winter

DRA2 scores show there is no benefit for students to use Reciprocal Teaching strategies over traditional reading

comprehension strategies. The study showed no significant difference between the DRA2 levels of the two

classes studied. With the t-test results showing a p-value of 0.801, which was higher than the alpha level set at

0.25, after class one was taught Reciprocal Teaching strategies the null hypothesis was not rejected with

confidence.

The conceptual underpinning of theorists Ann Brown and Annemarie Sullivan Palincsar is not supported

by the findings in this study. This is not to say Reciprocal Teaching is not an affective reading comprehension

strategy. The original research done by Brown and Palincsar was completed on students who were all below

grade level in their reading. In this study each class only had two students not increase their DRA2 levels from

spring testing to winter testing. The results of this study does show the use of comprehension strategies, any

strategies, benefit students learning to comprehend what they are reading. Teachers should teach students a

variety of strategies and let students decide what works best for them.

After concluding this study further studies should be conducted on the use of Reciprocal Teaching in the

regular education classroom. Due to Reciprocal Teaching being designed for below grade level students, it has
 Reciprocal Teaching 13
 
a place in reading programs, such as Scholastic’s System 44 and Read 180 programs. A study could be

performed on year-long comprehension scores for students using Reciprocal Teaching. Also, a study could be

performed on students using Reciprocal Teaching across curriculum in math, science, and social studies. Scores

in other subjects could be looked at as well to determine if Reciprocal Teaching strategies had any influence on

students’ final grades.

Professional developments have been conducted teaching educators how to use Reciprocal Teaching in

the classroom. Several books have been written about it as well. While conducting this study, it was discovered

many of what are now considered traditional reading comprehension strategies are very similar to the

Reciprocal Teaching strategies. After close examination of the DRA2 test that was administered to students for

this study, it was discovered the test was set up the same way as Reciprocal Teaching reading strategies are

designed to be used. Reciprocal Teaching has a place in the education system. Discovering the best place to

practice the strategies is the challenge of an educator.

 Reciprocal Teaching 14
 
REFERENCES

Brown, A.L. & Palincsar, A.S. (1985). Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension Strategies: A

Natural History of one Program for Enhancing Learning. Retrieved form ERIC database.

(ED257046)

Castek, J. (2013). Supporting Online Reading comprehension Through Internet Reciprocal Teaching.

California Reader, 47(1), 38-43. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.nwmissouri.edu:2066/Library/IPChecking.asp?http://ezproxy.nwmissouri.edu:2057/login.

aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,uid&db=ehh&AN=94145036&site=ehost-live

EduGuide. (2008, July 25). The Five Essential Components of Reading. Retrieved from

http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_Five_Components/

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://ezproxy.nwmissouri.edu:2066/Library/IPChecking.asp?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,uid&db

=ehh&AN=4858908&site=ehost-live

Meyer, K. (2014), Making Meaning in Mathematics Problem-Solving Using the Reciprocal

Teaching Approach. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 37(2), 7-14.

Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.nwmissouri.edu:2060/Library/IPChecking.asp?http://ezproxy.nwmissouri.edu:2057/login.

aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,uid&db=a9h&AN=96256134&site=ehost-live

Miller, C.P. (2015, April 3). What is Comprehension. Retrieved from

http://literacyconnections.com/WhatIsComprehension.php

Pilonieta, P., & Medina, A. L. (2009). Reciprocal Teaching for the Primary Grades: “We Can Do

It, Too!”. Reading Teacher, 63(2), 120-129. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.nwmissouri.edu:2060/Library/IPChecking.asp?http://ezproxy.nwmissouri.edu:2057/login.

aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,uid&db=a9h&AN=44618155&site=ehost-live
 Reciprocal Teaching 15
 
What is Reciprocal Reaching? (2015, April 3). Retrieved from

http://www.teach-nology.com/teachers/methods/models/recteaching.html
The Effect of Reciprocal Teaching Intervention Strategy on Reading Comprehension Skills of 5Th Grade Elementary School Students with Reading
Disabilities

The Effect of Reciprocal Teaching

Intervention Strategy on Reading
Comprehension Skills of 5Th Grade
Elementary School Students with
Reading Disabilities
Omema Mostafa Kamel Gomaa 1

1
Associate professor of Educational Psychology , Cairo University, Specific Education College , Egypt

International Journal of Psycho-Educational Sciences, Volume (4), Issue(2), September–2015 39

The Effect of Reciprocal Teaching Intervention Strategy on Reading Comprehension Skills of 5Th Grade Elementary School Students with Reading
Disabilities
Abstract
This study investigated the effect of using reciprocal teaching intervention strategy on improving
reading comprehension of reading disabled students in primary five . A total of 66 students
identified with RD participated. The sample was divided into two groups; experimental ( n= 33
boys )and control ( n= 33 boys). ANCOVA and T .test were employed for data analysis. Findings
from this study indicated the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching intervention strategy on
improving reading comprehension in the target students. On the basis of the findings, the study
advocated for the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching intervention strategy on improving reading
comprehension in reading disabled students.

Keywords :reciprocal teaching intervention strategy, reading comprehension ,reading disabilities .

Introduction
Reading comprehension is the process of constructing meaning from a text and involves the
complex coordination of several processes, including “decoding, word reading, and fluency along
with the integration of background knowledge and previous experiences” (Klinger & Geisler, 2008,
p. 65). Reading comprehension can be influenced by students' vocabulary knowledge, word
recognition skills, understanding of text structure proficiency, and cultural background differences
(Esam, 2015; Francis et al., 2006; Klinger & Geisler, 2008;; Mohammed , M. Fatah Allah,2014).
Vocabulary knowledge has been shown to be highly related to students' reading comprehension
ability (Klinger, et al., 2006). Students who struggle with reading tend to place more focus on the
“surface aspects of reading, use fewer comprehension strategies, tap less into background
knowledge, and have more limited vocabularies” (Orosco, de Schonewise, de Onis, Klinger, &
Hoover, 2008, p. 16).
Many researchers on reading strategy instruction according to Mohammed and Abbas (2012),
state that metacognitive strategy training improves students’ reading comprehension. It gives
students a chance to plan before reading, control their reading process, organize their own rules, and
evaluate themselves. Metacognitive strategy training shapes the students to become independent
readers which is the goal of reading. Thus, in the reading classrooms, students should be trained to
use metacognitive strategies to help them comprehend texts. The reciprocal teaching approach is
one of the reading instruction methods which covers both cognitive and metacognitive strategies
and helps students improve their reading comprehension and thus become independent readers.

Reciprocal Teaching Strategy and Reading comprehension

In the area of reading comprehension interventions, reciprocal teaching has been proven to
increase the reading comprehension abilities of students (Lederer, 2000). According to Palincsar,
David, and Brown (1989) reciprocal teaching is:
an instructional procedure designed to enhance students’ comprehension of text. The procedure
is best characterized as a dialogue between teacher and students. The term ‘reciprocal’ describes
the nature of interactions since one person acts in response to another. The dialogue is structured
by the use of four strategies: questioning, summarizing, clarifying, and predicting. The teacher and
students take turns assuming the role of the leader (p 5).

The reciprocal teaching approach is one of the reading instruction methods which cover the
necessary reading strategies: predicting, generating questions, clarifying, and summarizing. It helps
students improve their reading comprehension, and thus become better readers. The aim of
reciprocal teaching is to use discussion to improve students’ reading comprehension, develop self-
regulatory and monitoring skills, and achieve overall improvement in motivation (Mohammed and
Abbas ,2012).. Palincsar and Brown (1984), in there original research, used four discrete reading

International Journal of Psycho-Educational Sciences, Volume (4), Issue(2), September–2015 40

The Effect of Reciprocal Teaching Intervention Strategy on Reading Comprehension Skills of 5Th Grade Elementary School Students with Reading
Disabilities
comprehension strategies within reciprocal teaching: questioning, summarizing, clarifying, and
predicting.
1. Questioning: Questioning involves the identification of information, themes, and ideas
that are central and important enough to warrant further consideration. The central or
important information, themes, or ideas are used to generate questions that are then used as
self-tests for the reader. Questioning provides a context for exploring the text more deeply
and assuring the construction of meaning.
2. Summarizing: Summarizing is the process of identifying the important information,
themes, and ideas within a text and integrating these into a clear and concise statement that
communicates the essential meaning of the text. Summarizing may be based on a single
paragraph, a section of text, or an entire passage. Summarizing provides the impetus to
create a context for understanding the specifics of a text.
3. Clarifying: Clarifying involves the identification and clarification of unclear, difficult, or
unfamiliar aspects of a text. These aspects may include awkward sentence or passage
structure, unfamiliar vocabulary, unclear references, or obscure concepts. Clarifying
provides the motivation to remediate confusion through re-reading, the use of context in
which the text was written and/or read, and the use of external resources (e.g., dictionary or
thesaurus).
4. Predicting: Predicting involves combining the reader’s prior knowledge, new knowledge
from the text, and the text’s structure to create hypotheses related to the direction of the text
and the author’s intent in writing. Predicting provides an overall rationale for reading – to
confirm or disconfirm self-generated hypotheses.
According to Palincsar and Brown (1984), reciprocal teaching is an instructional approach that
can be best characterized by three main features: (a) the scaffolding and explicit instruction which a
teacher uses and which include guided practice and modeling of comprehension-fostering strategies,
(b) the four main reading strategies of predicting, generating questions, clarifying, and
summarizing, and (c) social interaction which provides opportunities for learners to improve their
cognitive, metacognitive and affective strategies and offers them chances to share ideas, increase
confidence, and learn from their more capable friends. These three features help improve the
students’ ability to resolve comprehension difficulties, reach a higher level of thinking, build
metacognition, and increase motivation(Mohammed and Abbas ,2012)
Further research is necessary to build on the vast amount of research into reciprocal teaching
with reading disabled students. This will allow researchers to determine how reciprocal teaching
can be best used as an intervention with learning disabled students as there is a dearth of research
with this population.
In order to address this issue with the lack of research on reciprocal teaching with reading
disabled students . Thus the present study seeks to give answers to the following questions.
1- Are there differences in post-test scores mean between control and experimental groups on
Reading Comprehension Test?
2- Are there differences in pre-post-test scores mean of experimental group on Reading
Comprehension Test ?

Methods
Participants
66 students participated in the present study. Each student participant met the following
established criteria to be included in the study: (a) a diagnosis of RD by teacher's referral.
Neurological scanning results indicated that those individuals were neurologically deficient (b) an
IQ score on the Mental Abilities Test (Mosa, 1989) between 90 and 118 (c) reading performance
scores at least 2 years below grade level (d) absence of any other disabling condition. Students were
randomly classified into two groups: experimental ( n= 33 boys ) and control ( n= 33 boys) .

International Journal of Psycho-Educational Sciences, Volume (4), Issue(2), September–2015 41

The Effect of Reciprocal Teaching Intervention Strategy on Reading Comprehension Skills of 5Th Grade Elementary School Students with Reading
Disabilities
The two groups were matched on age, IQ, and reading comprehension. Table 1. shows means,
standard deviations, t- value, and significance level for experimental and control groups on age ( by
month) ,IQ and reading comprehension ( pre-test).

Table 1. means, standard deviations, t- value , and significance level for experimental and control
groups on age ( by month),IQ, and reading comprehension ( pre-test).
Variable Group N M SD T Sig.
Age Experimental 33 133.09 1.68 0.221 Not sig.
Control 33 133.00 1.65
IQ Experimental 33 99.51 5.80 -1.433 Not sig.
Control 33 101.54 6.70
Reading Experimental 33 19.51 1.37 -.439 Not sig.
comprehension Control 33 19.66 1.42

Table 1. shows that all t- values did not reach significance level. This indicated that the two groups
did not differ in age , IQ , and reading comprehension ( pre-test) .

Instrument
Reading Comprehension Test. The test was developed to assess reading disabled children 's skills
in reading comprehension . It was based on the features of comprehension skills recognized by
Mourad Ali ( 2005). The test consists of (44) items assessing word recognition, and comprehension
with score ranging from 0-1 on each item and a total score of 44. The test has demonstrated high
internal consistency with Cronbach’s α ranging from 0.79 to 0.84.

Procedure
Screening : Primary five students who participated met the following established criteria to be included in
the study: (a) a diagnosis of RD by teacher's referral. Neurological scanning results indicated that
those individuals were neurologically deficient (b) an IQ score on the Mental Abilities Test (Mosa,
1989) between 90 and 118 (c) reading performance scores at least 2 years below grade level (d)
absence of any other disabling condition.
Pre-intervention testing : All the forty students in grade five completed the reading comprehension
test which was developed to assess reading disabled children 's skills in reading comprehension.
General Instructional Procedures: Instruction was delivered after school , in the multipurpose room
. Permissions were obtained from students' fathers , and the school principal . Students received 3
training sessions a week , lasting between 40 and 45 min . The researcher presented the lesson in
accordance with this strategy, where a schedule distributed to students by the four sub-strategies for
reciprocal teaching strategy: prediction, questioning, summarizing, and clarification. In the first
phase of the lesson the researcher leads the dialogue , applying the strategies to on of the
paragraphs. Grade students are divided into cooperative groups (each group of five individuals), in
accordance with sub-strategies involved. The following roles are distributed between the members
of each group so that each individual has only one role: Summarizer, inquirer, clarifier, and
predictor .A leader is determined for each group (the role of the teacher in the dialogue
management) taking into account exchanging roles with other members of the group. Interactive
dialogue within the group begins with the leader / teacher runs the dialogue, and each individual
within each group presents its mission to the rest of the members of the group, and answers their
questions about what he has done.

International Journal of Psycho-Educational Sciences, Volume (4), Issue(2), September–2015 42

The Effect of Reciprocal Teaching Intervention Strategy on Reading Comprehension Skills of 5Th Grade Elementary School Students with Reading
Disabilities
Design and Analysis
The effects of implementing reciprocal teaching intervention strategy on students' reading
comprehension skills were assessed using pre- post testing.

Results
Table 2. shows T. test results for the differences in post- test mean scores between experimental
and control groups in reading comprehension test. The table shows that (t) vale was (28.31). This
value is significant at the level (0.01) in the favor of experimental group . The table also shows that
there are differences in post- test mean scores between experimental and control groups in
comprehension test in the favor of experimental group .

Table 3. T- test results for the differences in post- test mean scores between
experimental and control groups in comprehension test
Group N Mean Std. T Sig.
deviation
Experimental 33 34.57 2.35 28.31 0.01
Control 33 20.57 1.58

Table 3. shows T. test results for the differences in pre- post test mean scores of the experimental
group in reading comprehension test. The table shows that (t) vale was (28.31). This value is
significant at the level (0.01) in the favor of experimental group . The table also shows that there are
differences in pre- post test mean scores of the experimental group in reading comprehension test
in the favor of post test .

Table 3. T- test results for the differences in pre- post test mean scores of the experimental group in
reading comprehension test

Testing Mean Std. T Sig.

deviation
Pre 19.51 1.37 31.70 0.01
Post 34.57 2.35

Discussion
The main objective of the present study was to explore the of effects of implementing
reciprocal teaching intervention strategy on students' reading comprehension skills.
The results of this study show that implementing reciprocal teaching intervention strategy was
effective in improving reading comprehension of students in experimental group, compared to the
control group whose individuals were left to be taught in a traditional way.
The researcher draws conclusions that are from the students’ roles and from the teacher’s roles.
First is from the students’ roles. The students’ roles are more focused on the involvement of some
certain activities. The students’ activities are paying attention to the teacher’s explanation, making a
discussion with other friends, sharing their knowledge, answering the questions enthusiastically,
helping each other in understanding the lesson material and learning from their friends who also
learn the same thing. By using reciprocal teaching, the students become more active in joining and
paying attention to the lesson. The students are given opportunities to understand the lesson
material more by asking other group member without being ashamed and afraid, since the students
International Journal of Psycho-Educational Sciences, Volume (4), Issue(2), September–2015 43
The Effect of Reciprocal Teaching Intervention Strategy on Reading Comprehension Skills of 5Th Grade Elementary School Students with Reading
Disabilities
are usually afraid to ask the difficulties to the teacher. Second is from the teacher’s roles. There are
some teacher’s roles that appear while applying reciprocal teaching in reading comprehension. The
teacher can play roles as planner, manager, quality controller, facilitator and motivator. The teacher
can play those roles well when conducting teaching reading comprehension by using reciprocal
teaching. However, the major role is the teacher as facilitator, while the other roles supported the
teacher’s role as facilitator.
Participants of this study fall into the minimum IQ of 90, nevertheless, they have learning
disability. Thus IQ score cannot account for learning disabilities. The results of the present study
support that conclusion with evidence that students who participated in the study do not fall into the
low IQ range, however they have learning disabilities. When designing a program based on
reciprocal teaching intervention strategy, they had statistical increase in reading comprehension.
This goes in line with what Mourad Ali et al ( 2006) notes that there is one problem " students
who are identified as learning disabled often cover any special abilities and talents, so their
weakness becomes the focus of their teachers and peers, ignoring their abilities.
Mourad Ali (2007), however , notes that "learning disabled, as well as gifted students can
master the same contents and school subjects", but they need to do that in a way that is different
from that used in our schools.
Experimental group gained better scores in reading comprehension than did control groups in
post-tests though there were no statistical differences between the two groups in pre- test. This is
due to the program which met the experimental group's needs and interests. On the contrary, the
control group was left to be taught in a traditional way.
This goes in line with our adopted perspective which indicates that traditional methods used in
our schools do not direct students as individual toward tasks and materials , and do not challenge
their abilities. This may lead students to hate all subjects and the school in general. On the contrary,
when teachers adopt reciprocal teaching intervention strategy that suits students interests and
challenge their abilities with its various modalities .

Implications
The results of this study have several important implications. This study adds to the literature on the
effectiveness of reciprocal teaching intervention strategy with learning disabled students. Results
appear to indicate that reciprocal teaching intervention strategy in an effective instructional strategy
for improving reading comprehension test scores of students with learning disabilities.

References
Esam, G.(2015). The effects of advance graphic organizers strategy intervention on improving
reading comprehension of struggling readers in primary five. International Journal of Psycho-
Educational Sciences ,Issue (8), Vol. 8(1),PP.24-30 .
Francis, D. J., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical guidelines for the
education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for instruction and
academic interventions. Texas: Center on Instruction.
Klinger, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Barletta, L. M. (2006). English language learners who struggle with
reading: Language acquisition or LD? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 108-128.
Klinger, J. K., & Geisler, D. (2008). Helping classroom reading teachers distinguish between
language acquisition and learning disabilities. In J. K. Klinger, J. J. Hoover, & L. M. Baca (Eds.),
Why do English language learners struggle with reading? Distinguishing language acquisition
from learning disabilities (pp. 57-74). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Lederer, J. (2000). Reciprocal teaching of social studies in inclusive elementary classrooms.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 91-106.

International Journal of Psycho-Educational Sciences, Volume (4), Issue(2), September–2015 44

The Effect of Reciprocal Teaching Intervention Strategy on Reading Comprehension Skills of 5Th Grade Elementary School Students with Reading
Disabilities
Mohammed , M. Fatah Allah Said Ahmed(2014). The Effect of Differentiating Instruction using
Multiple Intelligences on Improving Reading Comprehension of 5th Graders with Learning
Disabilities. International Journal of Psycho-Educational Sciences ,Issue 6(3), PP.10-17.
Mohammad Reza Ahmadi, Abbas Pourhossein Gilakjani(2012). Reciprocal Teaching Strategies and
Their Impacts on English Reading Comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol
2, No 10 , 2053-2060.
Mosa, Farouk. A.( 1989) Mental Ability Test, Cairo, El Nahda Al Masrya .
Mourad Ali ( 2007) . How the reading disabled brain learns , Alexandria , Dar El Wafaa.
Mourad Ali, E. Waleed El sayed,& Ahmed Gomaa (2006). Computer and learning disabilities,
theory and practice, Alexandria, Dar El Wafaa
Orosco, M. J., de Schonewise, E. A., de Onis, C., Klinger, J. K., & Hoover, J. J. (2008).
Distinguishing between language acquisition and learning disabilities among English language
learners. In J. K. Klinger, J. J. Hoover, & L. M. Baca (Eds.), Why do English language learners
struggle with reading? Distinguishing language acquisition from learning disabilities (pp. 5-16).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Palincsar, A.., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and
comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117-175.
Palincsar, A. S., David, Y. M., & Brown, A. L. (1989). Using reciprocal teaching in the classroom:
A guide for teachers. Unpublished manuscript.

International Journal of Psycho-Educational Sciences, Volume (4), Issue(2), September–2015 45

 IMPROVING STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION
ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH RECIPROCAL TEACHING TECHNIQUE
AND MNEMONIC TECHNIQUE IN SMPN 5 NATAR

(A Script)

BY

AGUNG RESTU BATARI SIREGAR

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION DEPARTEMENT
TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY
OF LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY
2016
 ABSTRACT

IMPROVING STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION

ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH RECIPROCAL TEACHING TECHNIQUE
AND MNEMONIC TECHNIQUE IN SMPN 5 NATAR

By

Agung Restu Batari Siregar

In English language teaching, one of the important skills in English is reading but
most of the students still got difficulty to comprehend the text. As a matter of fact,
the students’ reading ability in treading comprehension is still need to be
improved to achieve the goal in the curriculum. Therefore, the objective of this
research was to find out whether there is significant difference of students’
reading comprehension achievement between those who are taught through
Reciprocal Teaching Technique and those who are taught through Mnemonic
Technique.

This research was taken in VIII grade of SMPN 5 Natar, Lampung Selatan. The
populations are, VIII b that are taught trough Reciprocal Teaching Technique and
VIII c that are taught through Mnemonic Technique. Each class consists of 26
students. The research design was quantitative research with pretest and posttest
this belongs to the true experimental design. The design is used because the
researcher wants to compare students’ reading achievement between those taught
through Reciprocal Teaching Technique (RTT) and those taught through
Mnemonic Technique and which technique is more effective.

The result of the research shows that: in experimental class 1, the total score is
increased from 1296 in the pretest to 2095 in the posttest. The mean score was
improved from 49.85 in the pretest to 80.58 in the posttest. In experimental class
2, the total score is increased from 1310 in the pretest to 2180 in the posttest. The
mean score was improves from 50.38 in pretest to 83.85 in posttest.

Based on the result above, it found that the students who are taught through
Mnemonic Technique get better improvement of reading comprehension
achievement that the student who are taught through Reciprocal Teaching
Technique.

Keyword: Reciprocal Teaching Technique, Mnemonic Technique, Reading

i
 IMPROVING STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION
ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH RECIPROCAL TEACHING TECHNIQUE
AND MNEMONIC TECHNIQUE IN SMPN 5 NATAR

By

Agung Restu Batari Siregar

A Script
Submitted in a Partial Fulfillment of
The Requirements for S- 1 Degree

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION DEPARTEMENT
TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY
OF LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY
2016
 CURRICULUM VITAE

The writer was born on December 21th, 1993 in Natar. He is the first child of two
children from the happy couple Mr. Bahran and Mrs. Sri Lestari

The writer started his education from kindergarten at TK Eka Dyaksa Branti Raya
in 1998. After that, he continued his study to SDN 1 Candimas in 1999. Then, in
2005 he entered SMPN 1 Natar and in 2008 he continued his study to SMA
YADIKA Natar. After he had succeeded to pass the National Examination in
2011, he was accepted at English Study Program of University of Lampung. He
conducted the Teacher Training Program (PPL) at SMPN 3 Sukau, Lampung
Barat from July to September 2014.

vi
 DEDICATION

With love and appreciation, this script is proudly dedicated to:

My beloved parents, who always love me, pray for me, give me support
Bahran and Sri Lestari

My beloved and sister, the sweetest things of mine

Frischieella Mustika Sari Siregar

My beloved partner in my life and best friends

Dea Ardelia Juanda, Devrian Mustafa, Ewo Priyo Susanto, Ferdian
Muhammad, Galant Jodhi Pratama, M. Fauzan Pratama, Muhammad Haris,
Slamet Riyanto, and other friends whom I cannot mention one by one.

My beloved lecturers of English Study Program

My adorable Almamater, UNILA

vii
 MOTTO

“Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow.

The important thing is not to stop questioning.”

- Albert Einstein -

viii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Alhamdulillahirobbil ‘alamin, Praise is merely to the Almighty Allah SWT for the
gracious mercy and tremendous blessing that enables the writer to accomplish this
paper entitled: Improving Students’ Reading Comprehension Achievement
Through Reciprocal Teaching Technique and Mnemonic Technique in SMPN 5
Natar. This paper is presented to fulfill one of the requirements in accomplishing
S-1 Degree in English Education Study Program, Faculty of Teaching Training
and Education, University of Lampung.

It is important to be known that this research would never come into existence
without any supports, encouragements and assistances by several generous people.
Therefore, the writer would like to express his sincere gratitude and deep respect
to Drs. Ujang Suparman, M. A. Ph.D., as his first advisor, for his support, ideas,
and suggestions for the writer during the thesis process. His appreciation is also
due to his second advisor, Drs. Huzairin, M.Pd, who gave him her best criticims,
suggestions, and revision in finishing this research. The writer also would like to
express his deep gratitude to his inspiring examiner, Prof. Dr. Cucu Sutarsyah, M.
Awho has given his suggestions and criticism as well as his constructive ideas in
improving the content of this paper.

His thankfulness is also due to Lisnaini, S.Pd, M.Pd, the Headmaster of SMPN
5Natar and for English teachers of SMPN 5Natar, where the writer did his
research, and all beloved students of classes VIII B and VIII C for their
participation in this research.

The writer also would like to extend his appreciations to his beloved comrades of
English Department ‘11 for their support, motivaton, and good friendship, and
especially for Dea Ardelia Juanda who always prays, motivates, accompanies, and
becomes his partner to finish this research. Thank you so much for all of your
opportunities and supports from my deepest heart.

ix
The greatest honor and appreciation would be finally dedicated to his beloved
families, his father Bahran and his mother Sri Lestari It is truly undoubted that
loves, cares, spirits, motivation, patience and willingness to wait for his
graduation and timeless prayers during days and nights are everything for him.
His sincere thanks and love are also dedicated to his beloved sister Frischiella
Mustika Sari Siregar thank you so much for all of your prays and supports from
my deepest heart.

Hopefully this paper can give benefits to the readers and those who want to carry
out further research.

Bandar Lampung, 2 Juni 2016

Agung Restu Batari Siregar

x
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
TITLE ..................................................................................................................... i
CURRICULUM VITAE ....................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION ...................................................................................................... iii
MOTTO ................................................................................................................ iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................v
TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... ix
LIST OF APPENDICES .......................................................................................x

I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Problems ............................................................ 1
1.2 Identification of the Problems .......................................................... 4
1.3 Limitation of the Problems ............................................................... 5
1.4 Formulation of the Problems ............................................................ 5
1.5 Objectivesof the Research ................................................................ 5
1.6 Uses of the Research ......................................................................... 6
1.7 Scope of the Research…................................................................... 6
1.8 Definition of Terms .......................................................................... 7

II. REVIEW OF THEORIES

2.1Review of Previous Research ............................................................ 8
2.2Review of Related Literature ............................................................. 10
2.2.1 Concept of Reading Skills ..................................................... 10
2.2.2 Concepts of Reciprocal Teaching Technique ........................ 11
2.2.3 Concepts of Mnemonic Technique ........................................ 16
2.2.4 Theoretical Assumption ......................................................... 23
2.2.5 Hypothesis ............................................................................. 24

III. RESEARCH METHODS

3.1Research Design ................................................................................ 25
3.2Population and Sample ...................................................................... 22
3.2.1 Population ............................................................................... 22
3.2.2 Sample .................................................................................... 27
3.3 Reading Test ..................................................................................... 27
3.3.1 Tryout of the Research Instrument ......................................... 27
3.3.1.1The Criteria of Good Test ........................................... 28
3.3.1.2 Validity ...................................................................... 28
3.3.1.3 Reliability .................................................................. 30
3.3.1.4 Level of Difficulty ..................................................... 33
3.3.1.5 Discrimination Power ................................................ 34
3.4 Variable............................................................................................. 36

xi
 3.5Scoring System .................................................................................. 36
3.6 Research Procedure .......................................................................... 37
3.7 Procedure of Teaching Reading Using Reciprocal Teaching Technique...
………………. ................................................................................ 39
3.8 Procedure of Teaching Reading using Mnemonic Technique... ....... 43
3.9 Instrument ......................................................................................... 44
3.10 Data Analysis .................................................................................. 45
3.11 Data Treatment ............................................................................... 45
3.11.1 Normality Test .................................................................... 45
3.11.2 Homogeny Test ................................................................... 46
3.12 Research Schedule ................................................................................. 46

IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Result of the Research ...................................................................... 48
4.1.2 Result of Pretest ...................................................................... 48
4.1.3 Result of Posttest .................................................................... 49
4.1.4 The Increase of Students’ Reading Comprehension
Achievement ......................................................................... 49
4.1.5 Hypothesis Testing .................................................................. 52
4.2 Discussions ....................................................................................... 54
4.2.1The Treatment in Experimental Class 1 .................................. 54
4.2.2 The Treatment in Experimental Class 2 ................................. 59
4.2.3 Finding Increase of Each Aspect of Reading.. ....................... 64

V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1 Conclusion .......................................................................................... 70
5.2 Suggestion ........................................................................................... 71

REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 72

APPENDICES ................................................................................................ 74

xii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Specification of Try out Test......................................................................28

2. Specification of the Test

3. The Total of Pretest and Posttest Score in Both Classes ............................49

4. The Homogeneity Test of the students’ Posttest Scores in Both Classes ..50

5. Mean Score of Pretest and Posttest in Both Classes ..................................51

6. The Score Improvement of Both Classes ...................................................42

ix
 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

1. The Research Schedule ..............................................................................74

2. Try Out Test ...............................................................................................76

3. Upper Group of Tryout Test Tabulation ....................................................88

4. Lower Group of Tryout Test Tabulation ....................................................89

5. Computation of Reliability of Tryout Test.................................................91

6. Reliability of Tryout Test ...........................................................................92

7. Analysis of the Difficulty Level and Discrimination Power of Tryout .....93

8. Pretest .........................................................................................................94

9. Posttest .....................................................................................................103

10. Lesson Plan 1 (Experimental Class 1) .....................................................111

11. Lesson Plan 2 (Experimental Class 1 .......................................................122

12. Lesson Plan 3 (Experimental Class 1) ....................................................132

13. Cue Cards .................................................................................................141

14. Learning Logs ..........................................................................................142

15. Lesson Plan 1 (Experimental Class 2) .....................................................143

16. Lesson Plan 2 (Experimental Class 2 .......................................................150

17. Lesson Plan 3 (Experimental Class 2) .....................................................158

18. The Result of Students’ Pretest and Posttest Experimental Class 1.........165

19. The Result of Students’ Pretest and Posttest Experimental Class 2.........166

x
20. Homogeny Test of Pretest in Experimental Class 1 and Experimental Class

2 ...............................................................................................................167

21. Homogeny test of Posttest in Experimental Class 1 and experimental Class

2 ...............................................................................................................168

22. Highest Score of Tryout Test ...................................................................169

23. Lowest Score of Tryout Test ....................................................................170

24. Highest Score of Pretest in Experimental Class 1 ...................................171

25. Lowest Score of Pretest in Experimental Class 1 ....................................171

26. Highest Score of Pretest in in Experimental Class 2................................172

27. Lowest Score of Pretest in Experimental Class 2 ....................................172

28. Highest Score of Posttest in Experimental Class 1 ..................................173

29. Lowest Score of Posttest in Experimental Class 1 ...................................173

30. Highest Score of Posttest in Experimental Class 2 ..................................174

31. Lowest Score of Posttest in Experimental Class 2 ...................................174

32. Students Learning Logs............................................................................175

xi
 I. INTRODUCTION

This chapter deals with introduction to this research. The explanation about

background of the problems, objectives, uses, scope, and definition of terms are

discussed here in order to provide an insight to this research.

1.1. Background of the Problem

There are four language skills that should be mastered in English: listening, speaking,

reading, and writing. The reading skill becomes very complex in the education field;

therefore students need to be trained in order to have a good reading skill. Since

knowledge is rapidly accumulated and committed to print, the ability to comprehend

reading is primarily crucial to be improved, so that the students at junior high school

consist of those skills, which are presented with integrated. It is obviously that

teaching reading is a part of junior high school program which must be covered in

teaching learning process, and the aim of teaching reading skill in teaching English Is

to enable students to comprehend the text. In reality most of students at junior high

school level still have problems in comprehending a reading text still far from the
 2

objectives states in curriculum that many junior high school students have difficulties

in comprehending the English text.

According to the writers’ experience when he took the field practice program in

SMPN 3 Sukau 2014-2015, the writer found that one of the problems faced by the

students was that the students often found difficulty in comprehending the text. They

also thought that the way of their teacher teach them is difficult to be understood. The

teacher could not make an interesting learning activity that may make the student

more active and easy to understand the material that is given by the teacher. The

teacher also could not help the students to comprehend English text.

Based on the writers’ observation in SMPN 5 Natar, it was found that some problems

made the students difficult to comprehend English text. The problem is that: the

students are lack of vocabulary, they are lazy to look at the dictionary, and the way of

their teacher teaches the students are difficult to understand.

Therefore the students tend to be passive in the class. It is because of the students’

lack of self confidence in learning English. They are lazy to memorize the word and

to practice English in their daily life. So that, the students get lack of vocabulary.

They also need translations of unsimplified text. They get difficulty with idiomatic

expressions and easily bored to look up dictionary.

Perhaps one may have difficulties to comprehend a passage because of some

problems like unfamiliar words in the text, the amount of previous knowledge that the

reader brings to the text, the complexity of the concept expressed, and vocabulary
 3

knowledge. Besides that, teaching reading technique is also a substantial factor that

may become students’ problem in reading. As a matter of fact, the conventional

reading technique cannot give satisfied results.

Essentially considering this issue, this study tries to compare the two teaching

techniques that may help teacher to teach reading. That is, Reciprocal Teaching

Technique (RTT) and Mnemonic Technique (MT). Reciprocal Teaching Technique

(RTT) might be suitable for teaching reading because it is an effective way to

improve the student reading comprehension. This technique is used to develop

comprehension of expository text in which teacher and students take turns leading a

dialogue concerning the section of a text. The systematic sections are incorporated

into the technique: predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing. At the

beginning, teacher leads the students the steps or section correctly. Thus, students

gradually learn to assume the role of teacher in helping their peers to construct

meaning from text by doing the steps. The structure of the dialogue and interaction of

the group members require that all students participate and foster new relationships

between students of different ability levels.

Mnemonic is a strategy to make the brain work maximally so that it can make new

information as an input more memorable even though it preserves for the long term in

the memory. This technique is intended to make the student think harder to get the

information from the English text that they read. They try to get the information word

by word, sentence by sentence, and paragraph by paragraph.

 4

Considering these, the researcher decides to conduct these two techniques and

compare which one is better. This research was administered in SMPN 5 Natar as the

school that never held a sort of research before. The result finally may become a

consideration for teachers nowadays to make the teaching reading comprehension

better and increase the reading comprehension ability. Therefore, the researcher tries

to find out whether there is any significant difference of students’ reading

comprehension between students who are taught through Reciprocal Teaching

Technique and those who are taught through Mnemonic Technique (MT) at the

second grade of SMPN 5Natar.

1.2. Identification of the Problems

In relation to the background of the problem above, the following problems can be

identified are:

1. The students tend to be passive.

2. The students have difficulty to find out the main ideas, supporting ideas and

details in a reading text.

3. The teachers never try to use different techniques that can make the

students more enthusiastic to learn English.

4. The student had no good self confidence in learning English.

5. The students’ were lack of reading motivation and reading strategy.

6. The students are lazy to remember the words and practice English in their

daily life.

7. The students’ are has lack of vocabulary.

 5

8. The student’s get difficulty with idiomatic expression.

9. The students are easily bored to look up dictionary.

10. The students need translation of unsimplified text.

1.3. Limitation of the Problems

In line with the identification of the problems above, the writer would like to focus on

problem of language teaching in classroom activity by using Reciprocal Teaching

Technique (RTT) and Mnemonic Technique (MT) in order to prove the effectiveness

of Reciprocal Teaching Technique and Mnemonic Technique (MT) and to prove

which technique is effective for teaching reading.

1.4. Formulation of the Research Question

In line with the limitation of the problems above, the problem of the research is

formulated as follow:

Is there any significant difference of student’s reading comprehension achievements

between those who are taught through Reciprocal Teaching Technique (RTT) and

those who are taught through Mnemonic Technique (MT).

1.5. Objectives of the Research

In according with the research question above, the objectives of this research is:

To find out whether there is significant difference of students’ reading

comprehension achievement between those who are taught through Reciprocal

Teaching Technique (RTT) and those are taught through Mnemonic Technique (MT).
 6

1.6. Uses of the Research

The findings of the research are expected to be beneficial for both theoretical and

practical domain.

Theoretically:

This research is to contribute useful information about Reciprocal Teaching

Technique for increasing students’ reading comprehension. This research also

contributes information about the strength of teaching reading using Mnemonic

Technique (MT).

Practically:

To gives information to the English teachers, especially in SMPN 5 Natar whether

Reciprocal Teaching Technique (RTT) and Mnemonic Technique (MT) can increase

students’ reading comprehension.

1.7. Scope of the Research

This quantitative research is focused on the utilizing of Reciprocal Teaching

Technique and Mnemonic Technique (MT) and its influence in increasing of

students’ reading comprehension ability in comparison to the CTL. This research is

conducted at the first grade students of SMPN 5 Natar. Through lottery the researcher

choose two classes consisting experimental class 1, and experimental class 2. The

reading text was taken from the English Textbook for Junior High School based on
 7

KTSP and here the researcher applies recount text based on syllabus for Junior High

School.

1.8. Definition of Terms

There are some terms used by the researchers, to make them clear and to avoid

misunderstanding, they are:

1. Concept of Reading

Reading is an interactive process between the reader and the writer to show

what the writer wants to show to the reader.

2. Concept of Reciprocal Teaching Technique

Reciprocal Teaching Technique is a technique that is used to develop

comprehension of expository text in which teacher and student take turns

leading a dialogue concerning sections of a text. Four activities are

incorporated into the technique: predicting, questioning, clarifying, and

summarizing.

3. Concept of Mnemonic Technique

Mnemonic is a memory enhancing instructional strategy that involves

teaching student to link new information that is taught to information they

already know.
 II. REVIEW OF THEORIES

This chapter deals with the preview of previous research and review of related

literature.

2.1. Review of Previous Research

There are some researchers who have done some research about Reciprocal

Teaching Technique. Among other are, Palincsar and Brown (1984) conducted a

series of studies to determine the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching technique. In

their experiment, the improvements were reflected in the regular classroom as the

experimental student’s percentile rankings.

Handayani (2012) found that there is significant difference of students reading

comprehension achievement between those taught through CTL, as seen from the

result of the hypothesis testing which shows that the value of two-tail significance

is smaller than 0.05.

On the other side, previous research has been done by Ati (2014) who found that

there is an improvement of students’ reading comprehension achievement after

 9

being treated using reciprocal teaching technique at the third grade of SMPN 2

Natar. This can be seen from the difference of students’ mean score in pretest

(52.74) to post-test (69.63) with gain 16.89 point. It showed that there is an

improvement in students reading comprehension.

Sari (2012) found that, Reciprocal Teaching Technique can improve students’

reading comprehension achievements. It can be seen from her research that found

students’ scores in reading comprehension increased from Cycle 1 to Cycle 2

By using Mnemonic, Ratnanigsih (2012) found that the students’ activities have

increased as mnemonic story stimulates and attract students’ interest in learning

English The use of mnemonic story helps the teacher to enrich her teaching

performance in the target of the teachers’ teaching performance is 80.. It means

that she can teach the students better by implementing Mnemonic Technique

(MT).

Other researcher Wulandari (2010) found that more than 70% of Students of

Grade VII C in SMPN 2 Buminabung scored 60 or higher after being taught

through Mnemonic Story.

Based on the previous research above, it can be stated that if it was compared with

the other technique, the use of Reciprocal Teaching Technique and Mnemonic

Technique (MT) in teaching process can improve students’ reading

comprehension achievements significantly. So that the researcher is interested to

compare Reciprocal Teaching Technique and Mnemonic technique (MT) to

investigate which technique is more effective to improve students reading

comprehension.
 10

2.2. Review of Related Literature

In review of related literature the researcher discussed about concept of reading

skills, concept of reciprocal teaching technique and concept of mnemonic

technique.

2.2.1 Concept of Reading Skills

There are two kinds of reading activity, that is reading aloud (oral reading) and

silent reading. Reading aloud is to change the written sign (form) into oral sign

giving meaning. The most important characteristic of reading aloud are

pronunciation, tone, speed, and pause. Whereas silent reading is to use our eyes

and our ability to understand the meaning of the written sign, thus comprehending

the text will be given more emphasizes in silent reading.

Reading is an interactive process between the reader and the writer to show what

the writer wants to show to the reader.

Reading words of a composition is one thing, but comprehending is the vital point

for the reader. Rubin (1993:94) states that reading is a complex intellectual

process involving a number of abilities. The two major abilities involve word

meaning and verbal reasoning. Without words meaning and verbal reasoning,

there would be no reading.

Reading comprehension is the process of constructing meaning from text. The

goal of all reading instruction is ultimately targeted at helping a reader

comprehend text. Reading comprehension involves at least two people: The

reader and the writer. The process of comprehending involves decoding the
 11

writer’s word and then using background knowledge to construct an approximate

understanding of the writer’s message.

Reading is important to the students because with reading a book or English text

they can easily learn English. With reading the student can learn more words,

idiom, phrase etc. So that students must be intensively reading English book or

text to improve their English skill.

Here the researcher sees that in reading comprehension, the reader should know

the information or the message of written text after they read the text. With

reading, the reader can get an interaction with the writer by the written text.

Getting the information or the message is important because if they didn’t get the

information so they can’t get the comprehension. So that if the reader can get the

information of the text, the interaction between the reader and the writer doing

well.

2.2.2 Concepts of Reciprocal Teaching Technique

Reciprocal Teaching Technique is a technique that is used to develop

comprehension of expository text in which teacher and student take turns leading

a dialogue concerning sections of a text. Four activities are incorporated into the

technique: predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing. It is based on

Palinscar and Brown (1984) who developed a technique called reciprocal teaching

that taught the student to predict, summarize, clarify, and ask questions for section

of a text.
 12

The technique has positive outcomes. Since then, the use of strategies like

summarizing after each paragraph have come to be seen as effective strategies for

building students’ comprehension. The idea is that students will develop stronger

reading comprehension skills on their own if the teacher gives the explicit mental

tools for unpacking text.

According to Alverman and Phelps (1998), reciprocal teaching has two major

features: (1) Instruction and practice of the four comprehension strategies

predicting, questioning generating, clarifying, and summarizing and (2) a special

kind of cognitive apprenticeship where students gradually learn to assume the role

of teacher in helping their peers construct meaning from the text.

According to Rosenshine and Meister (1994), there are four important

instructional practices embedded in reciprocal teaching:

1. Direct teaching strategies, rather than reliance solely on teacher questioning

2. Student practice of reading strategies with real reading, not with worksheet

or contrived exercises

3. Scaffolding of instruction: student as cognitive apprentices

4. Peer support for learning

Reciprocal teaching involves a high degree of social interaction and collaboration,

as students gradually learn to assume the role of teacher in helping their peers

constructs meaning from the text. In essence, reciprocal teaching is an authentic

activity because learning, both inside and outside of school, advances through

collaborative social and interaction and the social construction of knowledge

(Alverman and Phelps, 1998).

 13

According to Palinscar and Brown (1984), the purpose of reciprocal teaching is to

facilitate a group effort between teacher and student as well as among students in

the task of bringing meaning to the text. Each strategy was selected as follows:

1. Predicting occurs when students hypothesize what the author discuss next

in the text. In order to make this successfull, student must activate the

relevant background knowledge that they already process regarding the

topic. The students have a purpose for reading: to confirm or disprove their

hypotheses. Furthermore, the opportunity has been created for the students

to link the new knowledge they already process. The predicting strategy

also facilitates use of text structures as students learn that headings,

subheading, and questions imbedded in the text are useful means of

anticipating what might occur next.

With making prediction the reader can activate their background

knowledge and make their brain work maximally.

2. Question generating reinforces the summarizing strategy and carries the

learner one more steps along in the comprehension activity. When students

generated questions, they first identify the kind of information that is

significant enough to provide the substance for a question. They then pose

this information in question form and self-test to ascertain that they can

indeed answer their own question. Question generating is flexible strategy

to the extent that students can be taught and encourage to generate

questions at many levels. For example, some school situations require that
 14

student that master supporting detail information; others require that the

student be able to infer or apply new information from text.

In using questioning generating, the students should use stems like Who,

What, When, Where, Why, and How.It makes the student more critics in

thinking and they can be easily to get the information of the text that they

read.

3. Clarifying is an activity that is particularly important when working with

students who have a history of comprehension difficulty. These students

may believe that purpose of reading is saying the words correctly; they may

not be particularly uncomfortable that the words, and in fact the passage are

not be particularly uncomfortable that the words, and in facts the passage,

are not making sense. When the students are asked to clarify, their attention

is called to the fact that there may be much reason why the text is difficult

to understand (e.g., new vocabulary, unclear reference words, and

unfamiliar and perhaps difficult concepts). They are taught to be alert to the

effects of such impediments to comprehension and to take the necessary

measures to restore meaning (eg., reread, ask for help).

Clarifying is making the meaning of the text clear to the reader. This

reading strategy is used throughout reading. Students can be taught to ask

questions, reread, restate, and visualize making the text more

comprehendible.

4. Summarizing provides the opportunity to identify and integrate the most

important information in the text. Text can be summarized across

 15

sentences, across paragraph and passage levels. As they become more

proficient, they are able to integrate at the paragraph and passage levels.

In summarizing the text, the reader should know the information of the text

and paraphrase the essential idea.

According to the explanation above, the researcher resumes the strengths and the

weaknesses of reciprocal teaching technique.

The strengths of Reciprocal teaching technique are as follows:

a. The students get the greater information from the text.

The student will discuss and predict about the themes, so they can give

prediction to their group.

b. The student will improve their language skills

- Listening skill : they can hear their friend prediction about the text.

- Speaking skill : they can give their prediction to their friends.

- Reading skill : they need to read the text to get the information.

c. Students will be more enjoying the learning process because they work in

group.

d. Students can improve cooperation between students in group.

e. Students can improve leadership ability in leading a group.

The weaknesses of Reciprocal Teaching Technique are as follows:

a. It will be confusing the student because the complex steps of activity.

b. The class might be noisy because of the dialogue in the groups.

c. The teacher will be very busy for takes control monitors the class.
 16

2.2.3 Concepts of Mnemonic Technique

Mnemonic is a memory enhancing instructional strategy that involves teaching

student to link new information that is taught to information they already know. It

means that the researcher tried to lead the students to link or associate the new

vocabulary word to the knowledge that they had already known before. Simply,

the terms of Mnemonic according to Bruning (1995: 92), are rhymes, saying and

other procedures designed to make new material more memorable. In addition,

Bruning later states those mnemonic are memory strategies that help people

remember information by making it easier to elaborate, chunk, or retrieve it from

memory (1995: 85). In short, mnemonic is a strategy to make the brain work

maximally so that it can make new information as an input more memorable even

though it preserve for the long term in the memory.

According to Levin (1993), mnemonic instruction is useful for students across a

wide range. Mnemonic instruction refers to instructional or learning strategies

designed specifically to improve memory. In many cases, it refers to modifying or

changing to-be-learned information to link it directly to information the learner

already knows. Though students in the early elementary grades are usually not

expected to learn and recall as many facts as older students, they are involved in a

number of activities that involve making association that employ mnemonic

strategy facilitates the understanding and organization of world problem. This

definition clarifies the main advantage of mnemonic device in helping someone

remember many words.

Simply, the terms of mnemonic according to Bruning are rhymes, sayings and

other procedures designed to make new material more memorable (1995: 92). In
 17

addition, Bruning later stated those mnemonics are memory strategies that help

people remember information. It helps us learn information by making it easier to

elaborate, chunk, or retrieve it from memory (1995: 85). In short, mnemonic is a

strategy to make the brain work maximally so that it can make new information as

an input more memorable even though it preserve for the long term in the

memory.

According to Burning (1995: 86), there are seven Mnemonic techniques (MT).

They are:

1. The Peg Method

The first method in mnemonic technique (MT) is the peg method. It is

simple rhyme. It is usually used to memorize new vocabulary by using

rhyme such as:

One is a bun Six is a sticks

Two is a shoe Seven is a heaven

Three is a tree Eight is a gate

Four is a door Nine is a pine

Five is a hive ten is a hen

This memory system is ideal for remembering that must be recalled in a

particular order.
 18

2. The Method of Loci

The second method is the methods of loci. The name of loci came from

Simonide’s use of location to recall information. It means that the students

could imagine what the students are going to memorize by connecting it and

a place, for example:

One student tries to memorize United State’s President; therefore he

imagines one president and one place:

1. Abraham Lincoln – sitting on the sofa

2. Gorge Washington – looking out the window

3. Jefferson – turning the television

4. Theodore Roosevelt – sitting in the armchair

The way to use this method is by imagine something that you need to

remember in the place that you familiar with.

3. The Link Method

The third method is link method. This method is used to link one thing to

another in order to make it easy to remember. The case, for example, when a

student needed to remember to bring her or his homework, lab notebook,

chemistry text, goggles, lab apron, and pencil to the class tomorrow. She

could imagine a scene in which the homework papers were tucked inside the

lab notebook. The lab notebook then could be placed into the textbook, with

her or his goggles stretched around it. Next, the total packed could be

wrapped around a pencil to make a nice bow. The next morning, when she

or he attempted to recall what she/he must take to the class, she/he would
 19

recall the image and mentally unwrap it. The interactive image makes it

probable that recall of any items on the list will cue recall of the others.

Example:

An AVON (Avon) lady knocking on a heavy oak DOoR

(Dorset).
The DOoR opening to show a beautiful SuMmER landscape
with a SETting sun (Somerset).
The setting sun shines down onto a field of CORN (Cornwall).
The CORN is so dry it is beginning to WILT (Wiltshire).
The WILTing stalks slowly droop onto the tail of the sleeping
DEVil (Devon).
On the DEVil's horn a woman has impaled a GLOSsy
(Gloucestershire) HAM (Hampshire) when she hit him over the
head with it.
Now the Devil feels SoRRY (Surrey) he bothered her.

4. Stories

The fourth method is on mnemonic is story. According to Bellezza (citied by

Bruning, 1995: 88) another simple mnemonic technique (MT) is the use of

stories constructed from the words to-be-Learned. To use this method from

the words in a list are put together in story such that the to-be-remembered

words are used plucked from the story.

Example:

I want to remember the following list of words:

HAT, RUN, FAT, BIRD, GREEN, GRANDFATHER

 20

I make up a story as follows: I see a man with very tall hat, I call him
and he runs away, but then bumps into a large, fat bird, sitting on the
village green. My grandfather appears out of thin air and grabs him
for me.

5. First-Letter Method

The fifth method in mnemonic technique (MT) is First-Letter Methods.

Among all mnemonics, the one that the student’s most often report using

spontaneously is the first-letter method. This is similar to the story method,

except that it involves using the first letter of to-be-learned words to

construct acronym or words. These acronym or words then function as the

Mnemonic. At recall, students recall the acronym and then, using its letters,

recall the items on the list.

There are two ways to use First-Letter method that are, Acronym and Story

Acrostics. Acronym is the first letters in a list of words are used to form a

word. Whereas story acrostics is the first letter in a list of words are used to

form words that tell a story.

6. The Keyword Method

The sixth method is Keyword Method. The Keyword Method is a multi-step

process used for bridging the gap between what is already known from

previous experience and the new unknown information. The process is

detailed below as documented by Terril, Scruggs, and Mastropieri, 2004;

1. A familiar, acoustically similar proxy for the new word is created by the

student and/or the teacher.

 21

2. An interactive picture is created in which the keyword and the meaning of

the word combined.

3. Learners are asked the meaning of word and to think of the keyword,

think of the picture with the keyword in it, remembered what else what

happening in the picture and retrieve the answer

This following interactive is one of the examples of keyword method. One

student tries to remember one word captive. He associates captive as settle

on a cap, which he can picture readily in imagination. He then links his

keyword with an image, in this case his Uncle Bill, who always wears a cap

and whenever he visits, hold everyone’s attention with outrageous stories.

Therefore, the student’s image is linked with the word’s meaning that is of

his uncle. Bill captivating him with a story, if all goes well, when he has his

test and sees the word captive, he will remember his keyword, cap and

remember his image of his uncle Bill and the words meaning’s.

7. Yodai Mnemonics

The last of the seventh method is Yodai Mnemonics. The previous research

is used to teach student mathematical operation with fraction, the

mnemonics uses familiar metaphors expressed in familiar words. Thus, a

fraction is called a bug with a head and a wing. The head is the numerator

and the wing is the denomerator (words such as fraction, numerator and

denominator are not used). To add fraction with equal denomerators, for

example, The child is instructed to count the heads when the wings are the
 22

same.Multiplying involves putting the heads together and putting the wings

together. The multiplication sign (x) represent the bug’s crossed horn or

feelers. Dividing fraction requires turning one of the bug’s upside down then

multiplying.

This technique is actually aimed to increase students’ vocabulary. The researcher

thinks that with increasing students’ vocabulary, they can increase their reading

comprehension. It is because of the researcher thinks that if the students mastering

vocabulary they can easily to read English text. In this technique the students

works independently to increase their reading comprehension.

From the explanation about the Mnemonic Technique (MT) above, the researcher

chose to implement or apply the sixth strategy that is Story Method as one of

technique in Mnemonic Technique (MT). From this technique student can

focused on their reading task and they will read with find the keyword (the word

that they know) to know the mean of the text about. The student also demanded to

think hardly for what is the text about by looking at the picture or imagine the

incident in the text. Because of that the researcher chose this technique.

According to the explanation above, the researcher resumes the advantages and

the disadvantages of the mnemonic technique (MT).

The advantages of Mnemonic Technique (MT) are as follows;

a. Helps the teacher to use the new teaching strategies

b. Make the student more interest in reading text.

They can look at the interesting picture when they read the text.

c. Student can be more focused on their reading text.

 23

The student may read the text with remembered the word that they know

the meaning.

d. Make the student think hardly about the mean of the text.

Student will guess what the text that they read about by the meaning of

words that they know.

The weaknesses mnemonic techniques (MT) are as follows;

a. Student cant using this strategy independently.

b. This strategy is difficult for student that has cognitive delays.

2.2.4 Theoretical Assumption

Based on the theories above, the writer assumes that reading is very complex in

learning language.It is so necessary to use appropriate teaching technique to

improve reading comprehension ability. The researcher assumes that teaching

reading through reciprocal teaching technique and Mnemonic Technique (MT) are

suitable for teaching reading. Both of the teaching techniques are effective to

improve the students reading comprehensions with active learning process. The

techniques makes the students think hard and they also can monitor their own

ability.
 24

2.2.5 Hypothesis

Based on the theoretical assumption above, the writer formulates the hypotheses

as follows:

: There is no significant difference of students’ reading comprehension

achievement between those taught through Reciprocal Teaching

Technique and those taught through Mnemonic Technique (MT).

: There is a significant difference of students’ reading comprehension

achievements between those taught through Reciprocal Teaching

technique and those taught through Mnemonic Technique (MT).

 III. RESEARCH METHODS

This part discusses the design of the research and how to collect the data from

those samples. The researcher encloses the data collecting technique and the

procedures of this research. The researcher also gives the scoring system and how

to analyze the data.

3.1 Research Design

The researcher conducts quantitative research with pretest and posttest design this

belongs to the true experimental design. The design is used because the researcher

wants to compare students’ reading achievement between those taught through

Reciprocal Teaching Technique (RTT) and those taught through Mnemonic

Technique (MT) and which technique is more effective. According to Hatch and

Farhady (1982: 22) define the basic characteristic of true experimental design into

three:

a. a control group is present

b. the students are randomly selected and assigned to the group, and

c. a pretest is administered to capture the initial differences between the

groups.
 26

Those are the three basic characteristics allowed the researcher to avoid almost all

the problems associated with internal and external validity.

In this research the researcher gave three treatments of both experimental classes.

The first class taught through Reciprocal Teaching Technique and the second

class taught through Mnemonic Technique. Both of the classes received the same

pretest and posttest. Pretest was aimed to see the basic skills of student reading

comprehension before treatments. Then, after giving the treatments the researcher

administered the posttest to both groups. The posttest was administered to prove

which technique is better for increasing student reading comprehension.

According to Hatch and Farhady (1982: 22), the research design is presented as

follows:

G1 : T1 X1 T2

G2 : T1 X2 T2

Where:

G1 : Experimental Class 1

G2 : Experimental Class 2

T1 : Pretest

T2 : Posttest

X1 : Treatment 1 (Reciprocal Teaching Technique)

X2 : Treatment 2 (Mnemonic Technique)

 27

3.2 Population and Sample

3.2.1 Population

The population of this research is the second grade of SMPN 5 Natar. There were

15 classes in this school and each grade has 5 classes. The total numbers of the

population were 336 students. In this research, the researchers choose the second

grade in the first semester of academic year 2015/2016. There were 5 classes of

the second grade students; they are VIII A, VIII B, VIII C, VIII D, VIII E and

consist of 27-28 students. Their ages range from 13-15 years old.

3.2.2 Sample

The researcher takes two classes as the sample of this research; class VIII B as the

experimental class 1 that given Reciprocal teaching technique as the treatment and

VII C as the experimental class 2 that given Mnemonic Technique as the

treatment. The classes were chosen randomly by lottery.

3.3 Reading Test

To collect the data the researcher uses reading test as the instrument. There are

two kinds of test: pretest, posttest.

3.3.1. Try out of the Research Instrument

This test has aimed to determine the quality of the test. The test was administered

before the pretest. The total items are 50 and it was allocated within 80 minutes.
 28

3.3.1.1. The Criteria of Good Test

The criteria of a good test are that it has good validity, reliability, level of

difficulty and discrimination power.

3.3.1.2. Validity

Validity refers to the extent to which instrument really measures the objective to

the measured and suitable with the criteria (Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 250). A test

can be considered to be valid if it can precisely measure the quality of the test.

There are four types of validity: (1) Face validity, (2) Content validity, (3)

Construct validity, and (4) Criterion- related validity. In this research, the writer

concern on content validity and construct validity.

To measure the whether the test has good validity; the researcher used content and

construct validity because the other two are considered to be less needed. Face

validity only concerns with the layout of the test. Criterion-related validity is

concerned with measuring the success in future, as in replacement test (Hatch and

Farhady, 1982: 251)

a. Content Validity

According to Hatch and Farhady (1982: 251) content validity is the extent to

which the test measures the representative sample of the subject matter content. A

good test is the test which is appropriate for the material which has been taught

and the material is developed from the educational goal. The test instrument is

designed to measure reading comprehension ability in line with: (1) educational

goal stated on syllabus for second grade of junior high school students and (2)

represent the material taught in the class.

 29

The validity of the instrument is referred to the content and constructs validity in

which the question represent some sort reading sub skills, i.e. analyzing visual and

context clues, identifying analogies, identifying metaphors, identifying similes,

identifying topic sentences, categorizing information, making/ confirming/

revising predictions, skimming to predict contents, identifying main idea drawing

conclusion, interpreting supporting sentences, interpreting problems/solution,

comparing and contrasting, comparing facts and opinions, determining causes and

effect, making inference, understanding the author’s view/purpose, understanding

the character’s view, evaluating story events, identifying a main character,

identifying a tone/mode and making a generalization (Suparman, 2008).

Here the researcher concern to five sub skills; identifying main idea, interpreting

specific information, finding inference, vocabulary, and finding reference. The

content validity of the test was reflected in following tables:

Table 1. Specification of Try out Test

Total Percentage
No. Reading Skills Items Number
Items of Items
1 Identifying main idea 4, 44, 48 3 6%
2, 3, 10, 11, 15, 17, 22, 25, 27,
Interpreting specific
2 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,38, 39, 19 38%
information
41, 42,
6, 8, 14, 18, 20, 21, 26, 35,
3 Finding inference 12 24%
40, 45, 46, 50
1, 5, 7, 12, 13, 16, 28, 36, 43,
4 Vocabulary 10 20%
49
5 Finding Reference 5, 9, 19, 23, 24, 47 6 12%
Total 50 Items 50 100%
 30

After the tryout test was done the researcher takes 30 items that administered to

use in pretest and posttest, while the 20 items were dropped (See appendix 6).

Table 2. Specification of the Test

Total Percentage
No. Reading Skills Items Number
Items of Items
1 Identifying main idea 44, 48 2 6,6%
Interpreting specific 10, 15, 17, 22, 25,27, 34, 37,
2 11 36,6%
information 38, 39, 41
3 Finding inference 14, 20, 21, 35, 45, 46, 50 7 23,3%
4 Vocabulary 12, 13, 16, 28, 36, 43, 49 7 23,3%
5 Finding Reference 19, 23, 47 3 10%
Total 30 Items 30 100%

b. Construct Validity

Regarding to the construct validity, it measures whether the construction had

already referred to the test construction had already in the line with the objective

of the learning (Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 251).To find the construct validity of

the tryout test, the theory of reading ability in determining main idea, finding

specific information, reference, inference, understanding vocabulary and

determining concept of text, were formulated in the test items, the table of

specification of try out test was considered as the fulfillment of construct validity

(see table 1).

3.3.1.3. Reliability

Reliability refers to the extent to which a test produces result when administered

under similar condition (Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 244). In addition, Hatch and

Farhady (1982: 246) also state that, there are three basic methods of estimating

reliability: (1) test-retest, (2) parallel test and (3) internal consistency method.
 31

The first, test-pretest is administered in order to determine the stability of the test

result. Reliability is obtained by administering a form test to the same students

twice and computing the correlation between the two administrations. The second,

parallel test is administered in order to determine the correlation between two

alternate or parallel form of test, and called as coefficient of equivalence. The test

has equivalent in length, difficulty, time limit, format and all other such aspect.

The third, internal consistency method is administered in order to estimate

reliability from a single administration of a single test. There are three basic

methods for calculating reliability from an examination of internal consistency of

the test: split-half method, Kuder-Richardson Formula 20, and Kuder-Richardson

Formula 21 (Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 246).

Split-half method was used by the researcher to estimate the reliability of the test

since this formula is simple to use. Besides that it avoids troublesome correlation

and in addition to the number of item in the test, it involves only the test, mean

and standard deviation, both of which are normally calculate (Heaton, 1991: 164).

To use the split-half method, the researcher classified the test item into two

similar parts, i.e. odd and even numbered. By splitting the test into two equal

parts, it was made as if the whole test had been taken twice. The correlation

between those two parts encounters the reliability of half test by using Pearson

Product Moment (Henning, 1987: 60). After researcher has obtained the reliability

of half test, the researcher then uses Spearmen Brown’s Prophecy formula (Hatch

and Farhady, 1982:246) to determine the reliability of the whole test. To measure

the correlation coefficient of the reliability between odd and even number
 32

(reliability of half test), the researcher use Pearson Product Moment (Henning,

1987: 60) in the following formula:

∑ (∑ )(∑ )

√[ ∑ (∑ ) ][ ∑ (∑ )]

Where:

: The correlation coefficient of reliability between odd and even

: The number of students who take part in the test

: The total numbers of odd member items

: The total number of even number items

: The square of x

: The square of y

∑ : The total score of odd number items

∑ : The total score of even number items

(Henning, 1987: 60)

Then the researcher use Spearman Brown Prophecy formula (Hatch and Farhady,

1982; 246) to determine the reliability of test as follow:

Where:

: The reliability of the whole test

: The reliability of half test

 33

The criteria of reliability are:

0.90- 1.00 = high

0.50- 0.80 = moderate

0.0- 0.49 = low

The result of the computation by using Pearson Product Moment formula showed

that the reliability of the half test ( ) of the try out was 0.83 (see appendix 5).

Then, by using Spearman Brown Prophecy formula, it was found that reliability

( ) of the try out was 0.9 (See appendix 5). Based on the criteria of the test

reliability (See Chapter 3:35), the reliability of try out was 0.9 point belong to

high level, so it indicate that data collecting instrument in this research was

reliable and good reflecting their consistent reading ability.

3.3.1.4. Level of Difficulty

Test item are too difficult or too easy for examines often show low reliability. In

simple way, level of difficulty is determined as the proportion of correct

responses; that the higher the difficulty, the lower the proportion correct and the

higher the proportion incorrect (Hening, 1987: 49).

To see the level of difficulty, the writer uses the following formula:
 34

Notes:

LD : the level of difficulty

U : the number of upper group who answer correctly

L : the number of lower group who answer correctly

N : the total number of students in upper and lower groups

(Arikunto, 1993:221)

The criteria of the difficulty level are:

< 0.30 = difficult

0.30-0.70 = average

> 0.70 = easy

The result of the tryout test showed that there were 3 easy items, 47 average items

and 0 difficult items (See appendix 6). These categories can be seen in chapter 3,

page 38.

3.3.1.5. Discrimination Power

The discrimination power is use to discriminate between weak and strong

examines in the ability being tested. The students of try out class were dividing

into two groups, upper and lower students. The upper students meant the students

who answer the question correctly more than the lower student who answer the

question correctly (upper students’ < lower students’ score).

 35

To see the discrimination power, the writer uses the following formula:

Notes:

D : discrimination power

U : the number of students from the upper who answer correctly

L : the number of students from the lower who answer correctly

N : the number of the students

The criteria are:

DP = 0.00 – 0.19 = poor

DP = 0.20 – 0.39 = satisfactory

DP = 0.40 – 0.69 = good

DP = 0.70 – 1.00 = excellent

DP = negative/minus (-), all is poor

(Arikunto, 1993:221)
 36

From the table of discrimination power of the tryout test (see appendix 6), it was shown

that there were 4 poor items, 7 satisfactory items, 27 good items and 12 excellent items.

Based on the test analysis, it was found that there were 14 items dropped and 36 item

administered. At least, there was 28% of the items omitted and 72% of the items

administered from 50 items. Finally, the researcher took 30 items as posttest.

3.4 Variables

There are three variables in this research. That is:

1. Reciprocal Teaching Technique as independent variable 1 (X1)

2. Mnemonic Technique as independent variable 2 (X2)

3. Reading comprehension as dependent variable (Y)

3.5 Scoring System

The researcher in scoring the students works the researcher uses Arikunto’s

formula. The ideal highest score will be 100. The score of pretest and posttest

calculate by using the following formula.

Where:

S : the score of the right answer

R : the total of the right answer

N : the total items

 37

3.6 Research Procedure

The procedure in administering the research is as follows:

1. Determining the problem of the research

In this research the writer would like to focus on class room activity by using

Reciprocal Teaching Technique (RTT) and Mnemonic Technique in order to

prove the effectiveness of Reciprocal Teaching Technique and Mnemonic

Technique and to prove which technique is effective for teaching reading.

2. Determining the sample of the research

The sample was chosen by simple random probability sampling, using lottery

since the students’ ability were parallel and all students has the same chance. The

researcher takes two classes of the second grade students of SMPN 5 Natar. The

class that chosen by the lottery is: VIII A as the class that chosen for tryout or

research instrument, VIII B as experimental class 1 and VIII c as the experimental

class 2.

3. Determining the research instrument

The instrument of this research is objective reading test. The objective test was

use pretest and posttest. The test was consisting of 30 questions. The question had

four alternative answers for each (A, B, C, and D), one is the correct answer and

the rest were disaster. The assessment system is by dividing 3 the correct answer.

For both reading test, most of the material were taken from students’ reading text

sheet. In this research, the researcher used one type of reading text that is recount

text.
 38

4. Administering the reading test before tryout

Try-out tests was conducted to measure the reliability of pretest and posttest and

to make sure whether the tests was good or bad for students. The tests were tried

out to the students whose level is equal to the sample of the research. The tests are

administered to find out the quality of the tests before it is used, whether the items

are good or not in validity, reliability, level of difficulty and the discrimination

power. This exam used two reading text with 50 items of multiple choices in 80

minutes of each tests. The maximum score is 100 points; each correct answer had

2 points.

5. Administering the pretest

Pretest aimed to know the students’ basic reading comprehension ability before

given the treatments. It consists of 30 items of multiple choices and was conducts

within 60 minutes. At least, if the student could answer all items correctly, s/he

got 100 points.

6. Conducting treatments

The researcher teach the students reading comprehension in reading text using

Reciprocal Teaching Technique for the experimental class 1 and Mnemonic

Technique as the experimental class 2. The researcher gave three times of

treatments in three meeting, which take 2X40 minutes in every meeting. The texts

were taken from the students’ English textbook.

 39

7. Administering the posttest

The researcher conducts the posttest to measure the students’ ability in reading

comprehension after giving treatment. It consisting 30 items of multiple choices

and reading texts which take 60 minutes.

8. Analyzing the data (pretest and posttest)

In this step, the pretest and posttest result in experimental and control class was

analyzed by using independent group T-Test to compare the data of the two

means scores (Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 108).

3.7 Procedure of Teaching Reading Using Reciprocal Teaching Technique

Based on Palinscar and Brown (1984), the procedures of teaching reading using

Reciprocal Teaching technique are as follows:

1. Pre activities

Pre-reading activities used to prepare the students for reading. During pre-reading:

a. The teacher greets the students

b. The teacher checks the students’ attendance list.

c. Firstly the teacher introduces about the technique that they will apply.

d. The teacher asks the students to make some groups.

e. The teacher delivers visual clues, cue card and learning logs.

f. The teacher asks the students to do the first steps b looking at the cue cards;
 40

1st steps: Predicting (determining main idea)

The students are encourages to predict what the author will discuss next in the text

by looking at the visual clues. In order to do this successfully, the student must

activate the relevant background knowledge that they already process regarding

the topic.

The leading question can be:

“From the title and the visual illustrations; can you predict the topic of the text?”

“What do you think may happen next in the first paragraph?”

During prediction:

- Use prediction languages:

I predict….

I think….

I imagine….

I suppose….

- Use clues or illustration from the text to support the prediction:

I predict…because….

g. the teacher ask the students to write their prediction in learning logs.

h. The teacher checks the predictions to see whether it makes sense or no.

i. The teacher delivers the first paragraph text.

j. The teacher asks the students to read the first paragraph or section.
 41

2. While activity

a. The teacher asks the students to do the second steps instruction by guiding with

cue card:

2nd step; questioning (finding specific information and part of text)

The students are encourages to generate appropriate question from the passage to

monitor how deep their comprehension is. The leading questions can be:

Make some question based on the text! (Such as main idea, detailed-oriented,

question and inferential question)

During questioning:

- Use the WH-questions, such as who, what, where, when, why, and

how.

- Ask some question that can be inferred.

b. The teacher asks the student to do the third steps instruction by looking at the

cue card:

3rd step: clarifying (finding reference, inference, and understanding vocabulary)

The students are encourage identifying what makes a given text difficult and seek

an understanding of vocabulary, unclear reference words, and unfamiliar and

perhaps difficult concepts.

The leading question might be:

- What parts were hard to understand?

- What words or ideas do not you understand?

- Do you know, what does the sentence mean?

- What word can replace the original words?

 42

During clarifying:

- Reread, reread and reread the sentence and look for the key ideas to

help you understand the word.

- Look for prefix or suffix in the word or break the word apart into

smaller words.

- Read on for clues/ illustration.

- Check the part of the word you know.

- Use the clarifying language.

I don’t understand the part about…so that I need to… (Reread slow

down, look at the pictures, try out to figure out this word etc.).

- Identify words that are difficult to pronounce.

c. The teacher asks the students to do the fourth step instruction:

4th step: summarizing

The students are encourages by the teacher to identify and integrate the most

important information in the text. The leading question can be:

1. What is the message of the text?

2. What does the author wants us to remember or learn from this passage?

3. What is the most important in the passage/ paragraph?

During summarizing

4. Use the language to summarizing

5. The most important ideas in this text are ….

6. Reread to summarize main events or important ideas from the text.

7. Include the only main events or important ideas.

 43

8. Tell main events or important ideas in order.

9. Use some vocabularies from the text.

d. The teacher asks the students to do predicting, questioning, clarifying, and

summarizing again, with all the paragraph or section in the passage.

3. Post activity

a. Reviewing what student have learnt.

b. The teacher asks the students to discuss whether they have some difficulties on

lesson or not.

c. Giving the students exercise for their homework.

3.8 Procedure of Teaching Reading Using Mnemonic Technique

The researcher conducts the procedure of teaching reading using mnemonic

technique as follows;

First meeting:

1. Pre activity

a. Open the class and greet the student.

b. Explain the student about Mnemonic technique and how to read using

Mnemonic technique.

2. While activity

c. Give the student a text that include picture about it.

d. Invite some student to read aloud.

e. Ask them to analyze the text with the following steps:

a. ask them to think of the vocabulary that they know in the text (keyword)
 44

b. ask them to think of the picture with the keyword in it.

c. ask them to remember what else happening in the picture.

d. ask them to retell about what happening in the text.

f. Ask the student to make a list about what else is happening in the text.

g. Check the student answers.

h. Discuss together.

3. Post activity

i. Close the class and make review about what have the student learn today.

3.9 Instrument

The two reading test were given to the students to check their reading

comprehension ability. They reading test are pretest and posttest. The purpose of

the pretest is to know the students’ basic reading comprehension ability before

treatments.

Before tryout, the instrument consist of 50 items, based on the result, some items

(20 items) are not used, because the items were not good on level of difficulty and

discrimination power, they are items number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 17, 24, 26,

29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 40, 42 (see appendix 6). The rest; 30 items are used and

administered.

The pretest and posttest were basically the same, but they are different order. So,

that the student were not remember the test.

 45

3.10 Data Analysis

Analyzing the data is aimed to determine whether the students’ reading

comprehension achievement is increasing or not. The researcher use independent-

group T-Test to examine the data of the research. It uses to compare the two

means of two different groups (Experimental group 1 and experimental group 2).

The data was computes statistically using Statistical Package for Social Science

(SPSS).

3.11 Data Treatment

According to Hatch and Farhady is quoted by Setiadi (2006: 168-169), using T-

Test for the hypothesis testing has three underlying assumption, namely:

1. The data is interval ratio.

2. The data is taken from random sample in a population.

3. The data is distributed normally.

Therefore, the researcher uses the following procedures to treat the data treatment:

3.11.1 Normality Test

Normality test is used to measure whether the data in experimental group and

control group are normally distribute or not (Hatch and Farhady is quoted by

Setiadi, 2006: 168- 169). The hypotheses for the normality test are as follow:

: The data is not distributes normally

: The data is distributes normally

In this research, are accepted if , and the researcher uses level of

significance 0.05.
 46

3.11.2 Homogeny Test

This kind of test is use to know the data in experimental class and control class are

homogenous or not. In this research, the researcher use independent Samples Test

in SPSS 16.0 to know the homogeneity of the test. The hypothesis for

homogeneity of variance test was:

: There is no significant difference (equal)

: There is a significant difference (not equal)

In this case, will be accepted if

( ).

Here, the researcher uses the significant level ( ) 0.05.

3.12 Research Schedule

The research was conducted based on sequenced schedule in order to make this

research runs well. Before the research was carried out, pre observation would be

conducted on Thursday, September 19th, 2015. This pre observation was

conducted in order to investigate the students’ reading comprehension

achievement has exceeded minimum completeness criteria of English subject in

SMP N 5 Natar or not. Then, the tryout test about reading comprehension of

narrative and recount test was conducted twice, the first is on Thursday,

September 19th, 2015 and the second on Monday, September 23rd, 2015 to

determine the content and construct validity of the text, also the level difficulty

and discrimination power of its. On Thursday, September 26th the pretest in

experimental class 2 and Monday, October 2nd, 2015 the pretest in experimental

class 1 was administered. The treatments in experimental class 1 was administered

 47

on October 12th, 16th, and 26th, 2015. While, in experimental class 2 the treatments

was administered on September, 16th, 23rd, and October29th, 2015. After the

treatments have been administered, the posttest was conducted in experimental

class 1 on November 12th, and in experimental class 2 in November 9th. The

schedule of the research can be seen in appendix 1.

 V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions

In line with the result of the data analysis and discussion, the researcher draws the

following conclusions:

a. There is a significant difference of students’ reading comprehension

achievement between those taught through Reciprocal Teaching technique

(RTT) in Experimental class 1 and those are taught through Mnemonic

Technique (MT) in experimental class 2, as seen from the result of the

hypothesis testing which shows that the value of two-tail significance is

smaller than 0.5. It also can be seen from the data of student’s pretest and

posttest score of both classes.

b. Mnemonic Technique (MT) is more effective than Reciprocal Teaching

Technique (RTT) to help students improve their reading comprehension. In

the experimental class 2 the students follows the reading class enthusiastically.

They enjoy the lesson because they think easier to do the learning method.

The students think easier to understand the text that had been given by looking

the keyword and the picture. Whereas, in experimental class 1 the students
 71

thinks that the lesson make them confused because the steps in Reciprocal

Teaching Technique (RTT) that is; predicting, questioning, clarifying and

summarizing is difficult to understand. It makes them not interested to the

lesson.

In addition to the conclusion above, it was found that there were 3 problems found

after being taught through Reciprocal Teaching Technique (RTT) in experimental

class 1, that is; (1) The students thinks that the four steps in Reciprocal Teaching

Technique (RTT) makes them confusing. (2) Some students were lazy to do the

steps. (3) The students think difficult to explain their learning logs to their friends.

Whereas, in experimental class 2 that taught through Mnemonic Technique (MT)

there are no valuable problems.

5.2 Suggestions

Referring to the conclusion above, the researcher suggest that the teacher should

apply Mnemonic technique in teaching reading because the technique has

advantage; (1) Makes the teaching learning activity more effective. (2) Improves

language skills, especially reading. (3) Makes student easier to understand English

text.(4) Makes students actively engaged in process of learning. (5) Increase

students’ reading comprehension achievement. It proved from the result of

research in SMPN 5 Natar, Lampung Selatan in experimental class 1. The mean

of average score of pretest and posttest is 34.30. The significant value of the

posttest in both classes was 0.000 (p=0.000) that was lower than 0.05

(0.000<0.05). T-value is 9.168 which are higher than T-table 2000 at level of

significant 0.05.
 REFERENCES

Alverman and Phelps. 1998. Reading Strategies scaffolding Students’ Interactions

with Texts. New York: Greece Central School District.
(Http://www.greece.k12.ny.us/interaction/ela/6-12/reading/Reading
Strategies/Reciprocal Teaching.rtf)

Arikunto, S. 2005. Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Dikdatik Edisi Revisi.

Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Ati, Cintia Laras. 2014. The Implementation of Reciprocal Teaching Technique to

Improve the Students’ Reading Comprehension Achievement at the Third
Grade of SMPN 2 Natar. Bandar Lampung: Lampung University.

Bruning, Roger H. 1995. Cognitive Psychology and Instruction. New Jersey:

Pretince Hall, Inc.

Handayani, Arie. 2012. A Comparative Study of Student Reading Comprehension

Achievement Between Those Who Taught Through Reciprocal Teaching
Technique and Those Taught Trough Contextual Teaching and Learning
at the Second Grade of SMP Negri 5 Metro. Bandar Lampung: Lampung
University.

Hatch, E. and Farhady, H. 1982. Research Design and Statistic for Applied
Linguistics. London: New Burry House Publishers, Inc.

Heaton, J. B. 1991. Writing English Language Testing. USA: New Burry House
Publishers.

Henning, G. 1987. A Guide to Language Testing. USA: New Burry House

Publishers.

Levin, Joel R. 1996. “Stalking the Wild Mnemos: Research that’s Easy to
Remember.” The Enlightened Educator: Research Adventures in the
School, ed. Gary G. Brannigan. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Palinscar, A. S. and Brown, A. 1984. Reciprocal Teaching Technique of

Comprehension Fastering and Comprehension Monitoring Activities
Instruction. New York: College Board Publications.

Ratnaningsih, Tri. 2012. Increasing Students’ Vocabulary Through mnemonic

Story Teaching in Grade VIII of SMP Karya Bhakti Gading Rejo (A
Classroom Action Research). Bandar Lampung: Lampung University.
 73

Rubin, D. 1993. A Practical Approach to Teaching Reading. Needham Heights,

MA. Allyn and Bacon.

Rosensine, B. and Meister, C. 1994. Reciprocal Teaching: A Review of the

Research. San Diego: Language Arts Cadre 95.

Sari, Marisa Reti Lova. 2012. Improving Students’ reading Comprehension

Achievement Through Reciprocal Teaching Technique at the Second Year
of SMPN 21 Bandar Lampung. Bandar Lampung: Lampung University.

Setiady, Ag. B. 2006. Metode Penelitian untuk Pengajaran Bahasa Asing.

Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

Shohamy, E. 1985. A Practical Handbook in Language Testing for the Second

Language Teachers. Tel-aviv University.

Suparman, 2008. Developing Reading Comprehension Skill and Strategies:

Intermediate Level. Bandung: Arvino Raya.

Terril, M.C., Scruggs, T.E. & Matropeieri, M.A. 2004. SAT Vocabulary
Instruction for Highschool Students with Learning Disabilities.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 39, 228-294.

Wulandari, Erni. 2010, Improving Students’ Vocabulary Through Mnemonic

Technique for Grade VIII Students of SMPN 2 Buminabung (A Classrom
Action Research). Bandar Lampung: Lampung University.
International Journal of Instruction July 2013 ● Vol.6, No.2
e-ISSN: 1308-1470 ● www.e-iji.net p-ISSN: 1694-609X

A Study of Students’ Assessment in Writing Skills of the English Language

Muhammad Javed
Doctoral (TESOL) Candidate, University Sains Malaysia, Malaysia
muhammad.javed@iub.edu.pk, mjaved_iub@yahoo.com
Lecturer, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Pakistan
Wu Xiao Juan
Doctoral (TESOL) Candidate, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia
wuxiaojuan2013@gmail.com
Saima Nazli
Vice Princpal, Misali Oxford Cadet High School Vehari, Pakistan
saima_nazli2004@yahoo.com

This paper addresses to evaluate and assess the students’ competency in writing
skills at Secondary school level in the English Language focusing five major
content areas: word completion, sentence making/syntax, comprehension, tenses/
grammar and handwriting. The target population was the male and female students
of grade 10 of urban and rural Secondary schools from public and private sector.
Forty (40) Secondary schools of District Bahawalnagar, Pakistan were taken using
stratified sampling. A sample consisting of 440 students (11students from each
school) was randomly selected using a table of random numbers. An achievement
test consisting of different items was developed to assess the students’ competency
and capability in sub-skills of writing such as word completion, sentence
making/syntax, comprehension, tenses/grammar and handwriting. Mean score and
standard deviation were used to analyze the students’ proficiency in each sub-skill.
The t-test was applied to make the comparison on the bases of gender, density and
public and private sector. The overall performance of all the students was better in
comprehension as compared to other sub-skills namely word completion, sentence
making/syntax, tenses/grammar and handwriting. The analysis, based on t-value,
revealed no significant difference between the performance of male and female
students and the students of public and private schools, whereas there was a
significant difference between the performance of urban and rural students.

Key Words: Language Learning, Writing Skills, Effective Communicative Skills,

Students’ Exposure, Assessment
130 A Study of Students’ Assessment in Writing Skills …

INTRODUCTION
Language is an effective way of communication of our feelings. Therefore, It is may be
confined only to human beings for communication intention. Carney (1990) defined
language as a set of a few specified vocal symbols that help the human beings to
communicate with others. According to Hadely (2001), language is a set of sounds by
means of which feelings, thoughts and sentiments are conveyed to other human beings.
A newly born baby is unable to speak. The child learns the language with the passage
of time as he/she interacts with others. In the beginning he makes various meaningless
isolated sounds. It takes time to learn a language. Finally he acquires language and
grammatical construction of the language of his group by imitation. Human language is
transferred from one generation to another generation through a sound learning process.
Language acquisition is contrasted with language learning which is used with reference
to a second language which a person learns deliberately; particularly in formal settings
like school etc. The researchers like Littlefair (1991), Dockrell and Messer (1988), and
Widdowson, (1978) distinguished language acquisition from language learning and
used the expression of first language acquisition in contrast with second language
learning but many researchers and theorists don’t distinguish between the two. Farzan
(2000) for instance, treated language acquisition as a purely stylistic alternate to
language learning.
The four main skills of the English language are reading, listening, speaking, and
writing. A person needs a mastery of various elements to use the language to convey
thoughts, wishes, intentions, feeling and information in a written form (Pamela, 1991).
The four basic English language skills are divided into two categories such as receptive
skills and productive skills. Reading and listening are considered receptive skills
whereas speaking and writing are known as productive skills. Writing is one of the four
basic skills. The students start learning to communicate through written form as they
begin to interact with others at school level. The writing skill is more complicated than
that of other language skills. Even sometimes a native speaker of the English language
may experience complication in a tricky situation. Basically the writing skill requires a
well-structured way of the presentation of thoughts in an organized and planned way
(Braine & Yorozu, 1998). Advanced writing skill is one of the basic requirements for
better academic performance as well as other activities related to writing presentation
(National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2002).
Writing is the one of the basic skills of the English language. It is generally considered
one of the most difficult that other skills for foreign language students. Even native
speakers feel difficulty in showing a good command of writing. (Johnstone, Ashbaugh,
& Warfield, 2002). The ESL teachers include writing skills in the syllabus because this
is an essential element for students' academic success. (Kellogg, 2008) because writing
helps to i) reinforce the grammatical structure, ii) enhance the students’ vocabulary, iii)
and assist other language skills such as reading, listening and speaking.
Writing success is used multifarious purposes at school level. Providing assistance to
the students inside and outside the classroom, awarding a grade, selection of students

International Journal of Instruction, July 2013 ● Vol.6, No.2

Javed, Juan & Nazli 131

for appropriate courses, evaluation of programs are considered important aspects of

assessment in writing skill. The process of assessment of written literacy should be well
organized and well managed to make it transparent and meaningful ((Elander,
Harrington, Norton, Robinson, & Reddy, 2006)
Review of the Related Literature
The ability to write something in a productive way is an indicator of success during the
learning process (Geiser & Studly, 2001). Academic achievement is considered as a
token of a good indicator in language learning process (Benjamin & Chun, 2003).
The productive writing skill is considered a cognitive challenge, because it helps to
assess language competency, recalling capability and thinking ability. It demands to
recall information from long-term memory (Kellogg, Olive, & Pilot, 2001). Moreover,
the ability of productive writing requires sound ability of thinking on comprehensible
matters (Nickerson, Perkins, & Smith, 1985).
Carney (1990) found that 95% high school English teachers opine writing as an
important but only 19% assign it as an unimportant task because the process of
assessment is time consuming especially for lengthy assignments. At college and
university level, marking of students writing is both laborious and too little rewarded
and appreciated by the administration. According to Bok (2006), the writing skill of the
students has been declining even in American students.
The cognitive domain has focused more on reading skill and numeracy than that of
writing skill (Levy, & Ransdell, 1995; Hayes & Flower, 1986; Rijlaarsdam et al.,
2005). However Garcia (2008) designed Waking Minds Writing (WMW) as web-based
supplemental writing program that can assist the English Language Learners in
developing their exposure and ability in writing. WMW helps to devise a plan to teach
the students well in all genres of writing. This program provides instruction to improve
grammatical structure and syntax. It also provides the guidelines for solid assessment
and evaluation.
The process of mature writing requires a well organized planning (Hayes & Flower,
1980; Levy & Ransdell, 1995), the writer is involved in content problem and rhetorical
problem. Furthermore, an adequate memory helps to accelerate this process (Bereiter &
Scardamalia 1987; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991).
The command over handwriting and spelling is also an essential element for writing. It
assists the students to make their writing skill more meaningful and communicative
(McCutchen, 1996; Graham, Berninger, Abbot, Abbot, & Whitaker, 1997; Graham &
Harris, 2000).
Micro-Skills of Writing
Henry (2000) mentioned the micro-skills involved in writing skills. Mastery of these
micro-skills helps the writer to have good command over writing free of mistakes and
errors. In the process of micro-skills the writer needs to:
1. use the script, spellings and punctuations correctly.
2. apply the accurate words to state the right tense, case and gender.

International Journal of Instruction, July 2013 ● Vol.6, No.2

132 A Study of Students’ Assessment in Writing Skills …

3. make use of major components such as subject, verb and object etc.
appropriately which can convey the thought of writer clearly to the reader.
4. make the text coherent to make the reader understand easily.
5. place all parts of speech properly.
6. apply the vocabulary and terminologies appropriately.
7. use the style of writing suitably to the requirements of the audience.
8. clarify the central ideas from the sustaining information.
9. avoid from jargon, slang, taboos and keep in mind the standard of language
according to the mental level of the reader.
10. judge about the prior knowledge of the audience about the subject.
Pylkkänen and McElree (2006) added that the students have to construct sentences
bearing in mind grammatical coordination, appropriate lexis and correct spellings. It
can be said that this is the best way of improving writing skills.
Writing at the secondary stage
Writing in this context, especially with reference to a language classroom in a
secondary school, means learning and practicing the grammar of a language through
written exercises. The students learn to write the sentences grammatically correct in
orthography. Wren and Marten (2006) also narrated that the student has to construct
sentences keeping in mind grammatical synchronization and variation, not to mention
using appropriate terminology and correct spellings. At this stage the learner is likely to
view words as entities of grammar, and to concentrate on the morphological changes
necessary to sentence construction, rather than to see them as vehicles of meaning,
through which he can communicate.
The ultimate meaning of writing skill is to construct grammatically correct sentences
and to communicate a meaning to the reader. Real life communicative writing tasks, on
the other hand, are letter-writing, form filling, report writing and so on. These
communicative writing tasks are rarely practiced in our language classrooms.
Communicative writing should be logical and coherent. Cohesion; the grammatical or
structural unity and coherence; the unity of sense or meanings are also essential for
high-quality writing (Shahid, 1999). Moreover the communicative writing must have a
purpose and logic.
Writing can be divided into sub-skills like descriptive, narrative and expository writing
skills (Wilcox, 2002). The style of what is written will automatically be affected by the
status of the addressee, age, profession and relationship with the writer.
Hywel (2003) bifurcated the sub-skills of writing such as descriptive skill (description
of people, places and things), narrative skill (narrating stories, incidents, events with
proper sequence in chronological order) and expository skill (writing with the purpose
to justify, explain, define, classify, compare and contrast).
English is taught as a compulsory subject from class one up to graduation level in
Pakistan. English is not the mother tongue of Pakistani students. It is a second language
for them. That’s why they feel it difficult to learn. The majority of the students think are

International Journal of Instruction, July 2013 ● Vol.6, No.2

Javed, Juan & Nazli 133

handicapped and feel an inferiority complex due to the lack of competency in the
subject of English. Acquiring facility in English gaining popularity in Pakistan in all
walks of life day by day and has become a status symbol and key to success. Therefore,
this study is an attempt to evaluate the Pakistani students’ exposure in writing sub-
skills.
Objectives of the Study
The major objectives of the study were bifurcated into following categories:
i) To find out students’ competency in different types of sub-skills of writing.
ii) To compare the students’ proficiency in sub-skills of writing on the basis of gender,
location, and public and private sector.
METHOD
The target population consists of the students of grade 10 from Secondary schools.
Three major strata: male and female students, rural and urban students and the students
of public and private schools were determined in this study. Twenty Boys Secondary
schools (ten from rural [5 public and 5 private] and ten from urban areas [5 public and 5
private]) and similarly, twenty Girls Secondary schools (ten from rural [5 public and 5
private] and ten from urban areas [5 public and 5 private]) were selected using stratified
sampling technique. The total population was 1375 students studying in grade 10 in the
District Bahawalnagar, Pakistan. A sample consisting of 440 students (11students from
each school) was randomly selected using a table of random numbers from 40
Secondary Schools of the District Bahawalnagar which is 32 % of the existing
population.
Research Instrument
An achievement test was designed to assess the students’ competency in writing sub-
skills. Different items related to writing skills namely word completion, sentence
making/syntax, comprehension, tenses/grammar and handwriting were included in the
test. Nanda and Khatoi (2005) specified such type of items for such type of research.
The material for achievement test was taken from the textbook for grade 10 students
recommended by the Punjab Text Book Board. The students were directed to complete
the achievement test. Writing test consisting of 05 sections was for thirty (30) marks.
Allowed time was twenty-five (25) minutes for the achievement test.
The validity of the instrument was tested by language experts’ opinions, followed by a
pilot study on a small scale. The items of the instrument were improved in the light of
language experts’ opinions. The reliability of the instrument was found at 0.917
Cronbach’s Alpha which was acceptable to launch the study at large scale (Gay, 2000).
Data Collection and Analysis
The written permission from all the heads of the institutions was taken before
conducting the test. The data was collected personally. Class teacher of each respective
school helped out the researcher in administering the test. The separate room in calm

International Journal of Instruction, July 2013 ● Vol.6, No.2

134 A Study of Students’ Assessment in Writing Skills …

and quiet environment was chosen in each school. To seek high response rate, the
convenient time for each school administration was chosen.
The data was analyzed on scoring basis namely one mark against one item. The correct
response got Mark 1 and incorrect received mark zero. The analysis was made in two
stages.
In the first stage, focusing on the descriptive statistics, the data were analyzed in the
following three steps.
Step 1: The average score and frequency of each item were calculated. The whole data
was fed in the form of master table to tabulate into different variables.
Step 2: The standard deviation was calculated that determined the variation in the
scores. It assisted to identify the dispersion of scores around the mean value.
Step 3: The tables were drawn to show the frequencies, mean scores and standard
deviations.
In the second stage, an analysis through the use of t-test for independent samples to
investigate significant difference at p<0.05 in male and female students, the students of
rural and urban areas and the students of public and private schools was made as
statistical inference.
RESULTS
Each item was analyzed separately. The performance of different variables namely
gender, location and public and private sectors was analyzed separately. However it
was not possible to present all those results here which expanded to 40 tables. Hence, a
result of the study is given here in eight tables only. The competency in writing sub-
skill was evaluated on the basis of Grading Formula prescribed by The Boards of
Intermediate and Secondary Education in Pakistan, e.g. (i) 80% and above =
Exceptional (ii) 70-79% = Excellent (iii) 60-69% = Very good (iv) 50-59% = good (v)
40-49% = Fair (vi) 33-39% = Satisfactory (vii) 0-32% = Fail/very poor.
Table 1: Performance of the students in the completion of words: (n=440)
Statement Sr. No. Words Frequency Mean SD
1 Disc_pline 294 0.67 0.16
Fill in the missing 2 Opp_rtunity 166 0.38 0.17
letters 3 Poll_tion 339 0.77 0.13
Annexure A 4 R_v_lation 122 0.28 0.14
Question No.1 (a) 5 Oc_as_on 281 0.64 0.16
6 Average 240 0.55 0.15

Table 1 indicates that the students’ scores in question No 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, are 67%,
38%, 77%, 28% and 64% respectively. In this way their performance in the question
No 3rd is ‘excellent’ and remained ‘very good’ in question. 1st and 5th whereas they
showed ‘satisfactory’ performance in question No 2 and ‘very poor’ in question No.4.
The mean score (55) showed their overall performance as ‘good’ in this section.

International Journal of Instruction, July 2013 ● Vol.6, No.2

Javed, Juan & Nazli 135

Table 2: Performance of the students in sentence making/syntax: (n=440)

Statement Sr. No. Words Frequency Mean SD
1 Enjoy 270 0.61 0.17
Use these words in 2 With 249 0.57 0.17
your own sentences 3 Nation 280 0.64 0.16
Annexure A 4 Quickly 211 0.48 0.18
Question No.1 (b) 5 Ups and downs 162 0.37 0.16
6 Average 234 0.53 0.17
Table 2 indicates that the students’ scores in question No 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are 61%, 57%,
64%, 48% and 37% respectively. In this way their performance in the question No. 1st
and 3rd is ‘very good’ and remained ‘good’ in Question No.2nd and ‘fair’ in Question
No. 4, whereas they showed ‘satisfactory’ performance in question No 5. The mean
score (53) showed their overall performance as ‘good’ in this section. Moreover the
arithmetic mean scores indicate that the students’ performance is comparatively better
in making sentences of ‘Verb’ (enjoy; Q.1) and ‘Noun’ (nation; Q.3) and lowest scores
in making sentence of ‘preposition’ (with; Q. 2), ‘adverb’ (quickly; Q.4), and idiom
(Ups and downs; Q.5).
Table 3: Performance of the students in comprehension: (n=440)
Statement Sr. No. Q. No Frequency Mean SD
1 1 401 0.91 0.06
Read the passage and 2 2 339 0.77 0.13
answer the following 3 3 278 0.63 0.16
questions.
4 4 173 0.39 0.17
Annexure A
Question No.1 (c) 5 5 252 0.57 0.17
6 Average 289 0.66 0.14
According to Table 3, the students’ scores in question No 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, are 91%,
77%, 63%, 39% and 57% respectively. In this way the students’ performance was
‘exceptional’, ‘excellent’, ‘very good’, satisfactory’, and ‘good’ in Question No. 1st, 2nd,
3rd, 4th and 5th respectively. The mean score (53) falls in the category of ‘good’ in this
section.
Table 4: Performance of the students in Tenses/grammar: (n=440)
Statement Sr. No. Tenses Frequency Mean SD
Put the proper 1 Past Indefinite Tense 259 0.59 0.17
form of the verb 2 Past Perfect Continuous tense 282 0.64 0.16
in the blank 3 Present Perfect Tense 236 0.54 0.18
spaces. 4 Future Indefinite Tense 239 0.54 0.18
Annexure A 5 Past Indefinite Tense (Passive Voice) 245 0.56 0.17
Question No.1 (d) 6 Average 252 0.57 0.17
According to the Table 4, the students’ performance was ‘very good’ in ‘past perfect
continuous tense’ (Q. No. 2) whereas their performance remained ‘good’ in past
indefinite tense (Q. No. 1), Present Perfect Tense (Q. No. 3), Future Indefinite Tense

International Journal of Instruction, July 2013 ● Vol.6, No.2

136 A Study of Students’ Assessment in Writing Skills …

(Q. No. 4) and Past Indefinite Tense; Passive Voice (Q. No. 5). The mean score (57)
also falls in the category of ‘good’ in this section.
Table 5: Performance of the students in handwriting: (n=440)
Statement Sr. No. Words Frequency Mean SD
1 Sadder 273 0.62 0.17
2 Consonant 252 0.57 0.17
Rewrite these 3 Quintessence 273 0.62 0.17
words in good 4 Beginning 214 0.49 0.18
handwriting keeping in 5 Stopped 207 0.47 0.18
mind the four lines. 6 Jurisprudence 257 0.58 0.17
Annexure A 7 Hopefully 216 0.49 0.18
Question No.1 (e) 8 Zoology 222 0.50 0.18
9 Psychology 282 0.41 0.17
10 Philosophy 288 0.43 0.17
11 Average 248 0.52 0.17

Table 5 indicates that the students’ scores in question No 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10,

are 62%, 57%, 62%, 49% 47%, 58%, 49%, 50%, 41%, and 43% respectively. In this
way their performance in the question No. 1st and 3rd is ‘very good’ and remained
‘good’ (Appendix B) in the 2nd, 6th, and 8th whereas they showed ‘fair/poor’
performance (Appendix C) in question No 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10. The mean score (52)
showed their performance as ‘good’ in this section. The results also indicate that
students can write easily those words which lie on upper three lines (e.g. Sadder and
Consonant, etc) but they feel difficulty in writing those words which lie on four lines
(e.g. Zoology, Psychology and Philosophy etc.).
Table 6: Comparison of male and female students’ performance in writing sub-skills: n
(Male) =220, n (Female) =220
Male Students Female Students
SN Skills
Frequency Mean SD Frequency Mean SD t-value
1 Word completion 125 0.57 0.22 116 0.53 0.24
2 Sentences
120 0.55 0.16 114 0.52 0.17
making/ syntax
3 Comprehen sion 140 0.64 0.23 148 0.67 0.25 -1.470607
4 Tenses/ grammar 131 0.60 0.14 121 0.55 0.14
5 Hand writing 119 0.54 0.14 109 0.50 0.15
6 Average 129 0.59 0.18 123 0.56 0.19

These two types of hypotheses were made to compare the performance on a gender
basis:
1- Ho: There is no significant difference between the performance of male and female
students in writing skills.
2- H1: There is a significant difference between the performance of male and female
students in writing skills.
A comparison between the performance of male and female students has been made in
Table 6 on the basis of above mentioned hypotheses. The results revealed no statistical

International Journal of Instruction, July 2013 ● Vol.6, No.2

Javed, Juan & Nazli 137

significant difference between the performance of male and female students in the
proficiency of writing skills. The t-value (-1.470607) for writing skills was not
significant at p<0.05 level of significance, because this calculated t-value lies in
between accepted region, therefore the null hypothesis (1-Ho) was accepted and it can
be said that the performance of male and female students was similar. The average
mean scores for the male and female students were 0.59 and 0.56 respectively.
Table 7: Comparison of rural and urban students’ performance in writing sub-skills: n
(Rural) =220, n (Urban) =220
Rural Students Urban Students
S. N
Skills Frequency Mean SD Frequency Mean SD t-value
1 Word completion 110 0.50 0.21 131 0.59 0.25
2 Sentences making/
101 0.46 0.16 133 0.61 0.17
syntax
3 Comprehension 130 0.59 0.27 159 0.72 0.21 3.570124
4 Tenses/grammar 112 0.51 0.14 140 0.64 0.13
5 Handwriting 231 0.53 0.15 113 0.51 0.15
6 Average 149 0.53 0.19 137 0.62 0.18

These two types of hypotheses were made to compare the performance of urban and
rural students.
2- Ho: There is no significant difference between the performance of urban and rural
students in writing skills.
2- H1: There is a significant difference between the performance of urban and rural
students in writing skills.
In the light of these hypotheses a comparison between the performance of urban and
rural students was made in the Table 7. The results revealed a significant difference
between the performance of urban and rural students in the writing sub-skills. The t-
value (3.570124) was significant at p<0.05 level of significance (which is close to
zero), because this calculated t-value does not lie in between the accepted region,
therefore the null hypothesis (2-Ho) was rejected and it can be concluded that the
performance of urban and rural students was not same in writing sub-skills. The
average mean scores for the rural and urban students were 0.53 and 0.62 respectively.
Table 8: Comparison of the students of public and private schools in writing sub-skills:
n (Male) =220, n (Female) =220
Public School Students Private School Students
S. N Skills
Frequency Mean SD Frequency Mean SD t-value
1 Word completion 116 0.53 0.24 125 0.57 0.22
Sentences
108 0.49 0.18 125 0.57 0.15
2 making/ syntax
3 Comprehension 143 0.65 0.25 145 0.66 0.23
-0.527514
4 Tenses 125 0.57 0.14 127 0.58 0.14
Handwriting 116 0.53 0.15 112 0.51 0.14
5
6 Average 125 0.57 0.19 128 0.58 0.18

International Journal of Instruction, July 2013 ● Vol.6, No.2

138 A Study of Students’ Assessment in Writing Skills …

These two types of hypotheses were made to compare the performance of the students
of public and private schools in writing skill:
3-Ho: There is no significant difference between the performance of the students of
public and private schools in writing skills.
3-H1: There is a significant difference between the performance of the students of
public and private schools in writing skills.
A comparison between the performance of the students of public and private schools in
writing skills was made in the Table 8. The results revealed no significant statistical
difference between the performance of the students of public and private schools in
writing sub-skills. The t-value (-0.527514) for writing sub-skills was not significant at
p<0.05 level of significance, because this calculated t-value lies in between accepted
region, therefore the null hypothesis (3-Ho) was accepted and it can be concluded that
the performance of the students of public and private schools was the same. The
average mean scores of the students of public schools and students of private schools
were 0.57 and 0.58 respectively.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Writing skill plays a pivotal role to improve students’ exposure and competency for the
purpose of communication and interaction. According to the nature of the examination
system in Pakistan, the students are required to show their worth in writing in the
classroom and examination hall as well. According to the results of this study, it can be
concluded that the students can fill the missing letter where a single letter is required to
fill in a word rather than filling the missing letters where more than one letter is
required in a word (Table 1). The results of this study reflect that students can use
common parts of speech like verbs and nouns in sentences but they feel difficulty in
making sentences of adverbs and idioms. (Table 2).
The results of this study revealed that the students’ mean scores in ‘word completion’,
‘sentence making/syntax’, ‘comprehension’, ‘tenses/grammar’ and ‘handwriting’ were
55% (Table 1), 53% (Table 2), 66% (Table 3), 57% (Table 4) and 52% (Table 5)
respectively. These results show that the students got the lowest marks (52%) in
handwriting as compared to other sub-skills. With regards to the handwriting, the
research carried out by Connelly, Dockrell, and Barnett, (2005) also showed that the
students feel difficulty to produce legible handwriting. On the other hand, these results
indicate that the students showed better performance in comprehension (Table 3) as
compared to other writing sub-skills.
To investigate the difference in students’ performance in the writing sub-skills on
gender bases was one of the key objectives of this study. The null hypothesis (1-Ho) to
be tested was, ‘there is no significant difference between the performance of male and
female students in writing skills’. For this Independent Sampling, t-test was applied to
investigate the difference between the performance of male and female students (Table
6). These results are similar to the findings of the research done by Berninger et al
(1997). Contrary to this, the findings regarding the gender differences are different than

International Journal of Instruction, July 2013 ● Vol.6, No.2

Javed, Juan & Nazli 139

that of the research carried out by Pajares, Miller, and Johnson (1999). Pajares, Miller,
and Johnson (1999) found that girls performed better than boys. The results of the
present research revealed that there is no significance difference between the
performance of male and female students in the competency of writing sub-skills. The
results also indicate that the students’ performance in ‘past perfect continuous tense’
was comparatively better than that of other tenses mentioned in Table 3. As regards
handwriting, the students showed better performance in writing those words that lie on
upper three lines but they feel difficulty in writing those words which lie on four lines
(Table 5).
Another objective of this study was to find out the difference between the performance
of the urban and rural students in writing sub-skills. The difference between mean
scores of urban and rural students in writing skill was 0.09 which shows a difference in
the performance of the urban and rural students in writing skill. The t-value (3.570124)
is significant at p<0.05 level of significance, therefore the null hypothesis was rejected
as can be seen in Table 7. Therefore, the students of the urban areas showed better
performance as compared to the students of rural areas. These results are similar to the
findings of the research carried out by Mahyuddin et al (2006). According to
Mahyuddin et al (2006), there is a gap between the achievements of rural and urban
learners.
With regards to the performance of the students of public and private schools, there is
no significant difference in the performance of the public and private school students in
writing sub-skills. The t-value (-0.527514) for writing sub-skills was not significant at
p<0.05 level of significance, because this calculated t-value lies in between the
accepted region, therefore the null hypothesis (3-Ho); ‘there is no significant difference
between the performance of the students of public and private schools in writing skills’
was accepted and it can be concluded that the performance of the students of public and
private schools was the same. Whereas Witte (1992) found in his research that there
was a difference between the performance of the students of public and private
institutions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are put
forward for the students, teachers and administration of educational institutions:
• All students, particularly the students of rural areas, should lay stress to improve
their writing skills which can boost them up to enhance their studies.
• Well-planned practice should be made to instruct the students so that they may
acquire maximum training for the enhancement of writing skills.
• Students should be provided training rather than mere instructions. Correct use of
grammatical rules, spellings and syntax are essential elements for effective writing.
• Students should have practice of writing from the very beginning to make their
handwriting fluent, smooth, beautiful and legible.

International Journal of Instruction, July 2013 ● Vol.6, No.2

140 A Study of Students’ Assessment in Writing Skills …

• The concerned teachers and heads of institutions should think ways to improve the
ability of students in writing skills which will help to enhance their exposure for
expression. Consequently the students may show their worth in the examination hall
easily and can get good marks.
• Similar research is also needed to be conducted in this area and other skills namely;
listening, reading and speaking to assess the students’ proficiency in these skills in
the English Language.
REFERENCES
Benjamin, R., & Chun, M. (2003). A new field of dreams: The collegiate learning
assessment project. Peer review. 5, 26-29.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K. B., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., Rogan, L. W., Brooks,
A., Graham, S. (1997). Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers:
Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89 (4),
652.
Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students
learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Braine, G. & Yorozu, M. (1998). Local area network (LAN) computers in ESL and EFL
writing classes. JALT Journal, 20 (2).
Carney, T. H. (1990). Teaching Reading Composition. Buckingham: Open University
Press Burns and Smith limited..
Connelly, V., Dockrell, J. E., & Barnett, J. (2005). The slow handwriting of
undergraduate students constrains the overall performance in exam essays. Educational
Psychology, 25 (1), 99-107.
Dockrell, A., & Messer, D. (1988). Children’s Language and communication
Difficulties, Understanding, Identification and Inventions. London: T.J International
Ltd Pad stow, Cornwall.
Elander, J., Harrington, K., Norton, L., Robinson, H., & Reddy, P. (2006). Complex
skills and academic writing: a review of evidence about the types of learning required
to meet core assessment criteria. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31 (1),
71-90.
Farzana, U. (2000). The Language Skills. Rawalpindi: Farhan Raza Printers.
Garcia, M. (2008). Waking Minds Writing (WMW) a web-based program. ELL
Department. Retrieved Feb 15, 2011from www.cdiamerica.com.
Gay, L. R. (2000). Educational research competencies for analysis and application.
Lahore: Combine Printers (Pvt) Ltd.

International Journal of Instruction, July 2013 ● Vol.6, No.2

Javed, Juan & Nazli 141

Geiser, S., & Studley, R. (2001). UC and the SAT: Predictive validity and differential
impact of the SAT and SAT II at the University of California Retrieved March 1, 2002,
from http://www.Informaword. com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a 784398315.
Graham, S., Berninger, V. W., Abbot, R. D., Abbot, S. P., & Whitaker, D. (1997). Role
of mechanics in composing of elementary school students:A new methodological
approach. Journal of Educational Psychology. 35, 170-182.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills
in writing and writing development. Educational psychologist. 35, 3-12.
Hadely, A. O. (2001). Teaching Language in context (3rd Ed). Singapore: Heinle &
Heinle Thomas Learning.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes.
In L.W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.). Cognitive processes in writing (pp.3-30).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American
Psychologist, 41, 11-13.
Henry, J. (2000). Writing workplace cultures: An archeology of professional writing.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Hywel, J. (2003). The Language Skills. (4th Ed Block A). Rawalpindi: Sigma Press.
Allama Iqbal Open University Islamabad.
Johnstone, K. M., Ashbaugh, H., & Warfield, T. D. (2002). Effects of repeated practice
and contextual-writing experiences on college students' writing skills. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 94 (2), 305.
Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective.
Journal of writing research, 1 (1), 1-26.
Kellogg, R. T., Olive, T., & Pilot, A. (2001). Verbal, visual and spatial working
memory in written language production. ACTA Psychologica. 124, 382-397.
Littlefair, A. B. (1991). Reading all types of writing. Buckingham: Open University
Press Burns and Smith Limited.
Levy, C. M. & Ransdell, S. (1995). Is writing as difficult as it seems? Memory &
Cognition. 23, 767-779.
Mahyuddin, R., Elias, H., Cheong, L. S., Muhamad, M. F., Noordin, N., & Abdullah,
M. C. (2006). The Relationship between Sstudents’ Self-Efficacy and Their English
language Achievement. Pendidik Dan Pendidikan Journal, 21, 61-71.
McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition.
Educational Psychology Review. 8, 299-325.
Nanda, G. C. & Khatoi, P. K. (2005). Fundamentals of educational research and
statistics. New Delhi: Kalyani Publications.

International Journal of Instruction, July 2013 ● Vol.6, No.2

142 A Study of Students’ Assessment in Writing Skills …

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2002). The nations report card. Writing
2002 major results. Retrieved September 23, 2010 from nces.ed.gov
/nationsreportcard/writing/results2002/.
Nickerson, R. S., Perkins, D. N., & Smith, E. E. (1985). The teaching of thinking.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pajares, F., Miller, M. D., & Johnson, M. J. (1999). Gender differences in writing self-
beliefs of elementary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (1), 50.
Pamela, J. S. (1991). Test of English as a Foreign Language. (6th Ed). New York:
Barron’s Educational Series Inc.
Pylkkänen, L., & McElree, B. (2006). The syntax-semantics interface: On-line
composition of sentence meaning. Handbook of psycholinguistics, 2.
Rijlaarsdam, G., Braaksma, M., Couzijn, M., Janseen, T., Kieft, M., Broekkamp, H.,
& Van den Bergh, H. (2005). Psychology and the teaching of writing in 8000 and
some words. Pedagogy-learning for teaching BJEP Monograph series II, 3, 127-153.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Literate expertise. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith
(Eds.). Toward a general theory of expertise: prospectus and limits (pp. 172-194).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shahid, S. M. (1999). Teaching of English. Lahore: Majeed Book Depot.
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching Language as Communication. London: Oxford
University Press.
Wilcox, B. L. (2002). Thinking and Writing for Publication. New York: International
Reading Association.
Witte, J. F. (1992). Private school versus public school achievement: are there findings
that should affect the educational choice debate? Economics of Education Review, 11 (4),
371-394.
Wren. P, C. & Marten. H. (2006). High School English Grammar and Composition. New
Delhi: S. Chand and Company Limited.

International Journal of Instruction, July 2013 ● Vol.6, No.2

Javed, Juan & Nazli 143

Appendix ‘A’
Achievement Test for Students
Question 1 a) Fill in the missing letter(s)
1) Disc__pline 2) Opp__rtunity 3) Poll__tion
4) R__v__lation 5) Oc__as__on
b) Make sentences of the following words:
1).Enjoy______________________________________________________
2)With_______________________________________________________
3)Nation _____________________________________________________
4)Quickly____________________________________________________
5)Ups and downs______________________________________________
c) Read this passage and write the answers of the following questions:
The Higher Education Commission (HEC) was established in October 2002. It
launched a very aggressive program to solve three main problems in the higher
education sector—access, quality and relevance of higher education. At the time
of establishment of HEC, a little over five years ago, only 2.7 per cent of our
youth aged between 17 to 23 years had access to higher education. In India it is
presently nine percent of the same age group. The current enrollment is 3.7 per
cent of this age group, and HEC plans to take it to 10 percent over the next 10
years. (Dawn Lahore, Pakistan Feb 6, 2008, p- 21)
1) When was HEC established? ____________
2) What were those three main problems of higher education? _______
3) What was the %age of youth who had access to higher education 5
years ago? ____________
4) What will be the enrollment after ten years? _______
5) What is the %age of youth in India who had access to higher
education?________________________________________________
d) Encircle the proper form of the verb given in the bracket.
1) In the past the people mostly (walk, walked, walking) to other places.
2) He (lives, is living, has been living) in Pakistan since 1950.
3) I have not (see, saw, seen) him for a long time.

International Journal of Instruction, July 2013 ● Vol.6, No.2

144 A Study of Students’ Assessment in Writing Skills …

4) The sun will (rise, rose, risen) at 7 o’clock tomorrow.

5) The toy was (break, broken, breaking) by the child.

e) Rewrite the following words on four lines in good handwriting.

Sadder Consonant Quintessence Beginning Stopped

Jurisprudence Hopefully Zoology Psychology Philosophy

Sample of very good/good handwriting

Sample of fair/poor handwriting Appendix ‘C’

International Journal of Instruction, July 2013 ● Vol.6, No.2

 The Impact of Reciprocal Teaching Strategies on
the Learners’ Reading Comprehension, Strategy Use
and Attitudes

‫أثر استخدام استراتيجيات التعليم التبادلي على تحصيل الطلبة في فهم المقروء‬
‫واستخدام االستراتيجيات وعلى اتجاهاتهم نحوها‬

By
Oraib Aref Ramadan

Advisor
Dr. Anwar Abdel Razeq
Birzeit University

Palestine

2017
 VIII

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................... VIII

Appendices............................................................................................................................................ XI
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................XII
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................XII
Abstract .............................................................................................................................................. XIII
‫ الملخص‬.................................................................................................................................................. XV
Chapter One: Theoretical Framework and the Research Problem ................................................. 1
Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 1
Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................................... 3
Social Constructivism ................................................................................................................ 4
Reading Comprehension (RC) ................................................................................................... 7
Reading Strategies ..................................................................................................................... 9
The Cognitive Strategies .......................................................................................................... 11
The Metacognitive Strategies and Strategy Teaching ............................................................. 13
Reciprocal Teaching (RT)..................................................................................................................... 15
How is Reciprocal Teaching Performed? ............................................................................................. 16
The Constructivist Nature of Reciprocal Teaching............................................................................... 17
Reciprocal Teaching: A Comprehension Fostering and Comprehension Monitoring Model .............. 18
The Cooperative Learning Approach (CLL) ........................................................................................ 19
The Research Problem .......................................................................................................................... 21
Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................................... 21
Significance of the Study ......................................................................................................... 23
Limitations of the Study........................................................................................................... 24
Definition of Terms.................................................................................................................. 25
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 27
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 28
Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 28
Section One: Reciprocal Teaching........................................................................................................ 30
The Hallmarks of Reciprocal Teaching ................................................................................... 30
Dialogue: the Heart of Reciprocal Teaching .......................................................................... 30
Reciprocal Teaching as a Vocabulary Enhancing Strategy .................................................... 31
Monitoring Regulation and Thinking Aloud ........................................................................... 34
 IX

Reciprocal Teaching a Scaffolded Strategy ............................................................................ 36

Reciprocal Teaching a Question Generating Strategy ............................................................. 38
The Reciprocal Teaching Context ........................................................................................................ 39
Issues in Reciprocal Teaching Strategy Training and Teaching ........................................................... 41
The Educational and Affective Panorama of Reciprocal Teaching ...................................................... 44
Reciprocal Teaching as a Remedial Intervention with Underachievers ............................................... 47
Applying RT in Non-Native Contexts .................................................................................................. 50
Reciprocal Teaching and Students with Special Needs ........................................................................ 53
Section Two: Cooperative Learning ..................................................................................................... 55
Elements of Cooperative Learning .......................................................................................... 55
The Impact of Cooperative Learning ....................................................................................... 57
The Primacy of Cooperative Learning ..................................................................................... 59
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 61
Chapter Three: The Research Methodology .................................................................................... 63
Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 63
Research Design ................................................................................................................................... 64
Population and Location of the Study ................................................................................................... 65
The Study Sample .................................................................................................................... 65
Eleventh Grade English Curriculum ........................................................................................ 67
Reciprocal Strategies Training of the Experimental Group ..................................................... 68
Teacher’s Modelling of Reciprocal Teaching Strategies ......................................................... 69
Forming the Heterogeneous Cooperative Groups ................................................................................. 71
Groups’ Processing and the Role of the Teacher ..................................................................... 73
Teaching the Control Group ................................................................................................................. 75
Instruments of the Study ....................................................................................................................... 76
Instrument’s Validity and Reability ..................................................................................................... 80
The Study Procedures ........................................................................................................................... 86
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 87
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 90
Chapter Four: Results ........................................................................................................................ 91
Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 91
Effect of Reciprocal Teaching on Reading Achievement ..................................................................... 92
Tracking the Progress in Achievement during the Reciprocal Inervention .......................................... 97
The Impact of Reciprocal Teaching on Students’ Strategy Use ......................................................... 100
Students’ Attitudes towards Reciprocal Teaching .............................................................................. 104
Descriptive Analysis of Students’ Attitudes towards Reciprocal Teaching ....................................... 105
 X

Results of the Thematic Analysis on the Group Work Interactions.................................................... 108

Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 117
Chapter Five: Discussion, Implications and Recommendations................................................... 119
Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 119
Discussion of the Results .................................................................................................................... 119
Impact of Reciprocal Teaching on Reading Achievement ................................................................. 119
Impact of Reciprocal Teaching on Reading Progress ......................................................................... 125
The Impact of Reciprocal Reading on Student’s Strategy Use ........................................................... 129
Students’ Attitudes towards Reciprocal Teaching in a Cooperative Context ..................................... 134
Leading Themes in the Cooperative Reciprocal Learning Groups ..................................................... 137
Conclusions of the Study .................................................................................................................... 149
Recommendations for Further Research ............................................................................................. 152
References........................................................................................................................................... 156
 XI

Appendices

Appendix A: Pre / Posttst Answer Key............................................................................................... 173

Appendix B: Sample of School (Teacher- Designed Tests) ............................................................... 182
Appendix C: A Questionnaire on Reading Practices and Student’s Attitudes.................................... 186
Appendix D: Arabic Version of the Questionnaire ............................................................................. 189
Appendix E: Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory .......................................... 192
Appendix F: The Teacher’s Journal .................................................................................................... 193
Appendix G: Reciprocal Teaching Handout ....................................................................................... 213
Appendix H: Reciprocal Teaching Worksheet ................................................................................... 214
Appendix I: Reading Log used by 11th Grade for Extra Reading ...................................................... 215
Appendix J: Cooperative Groups Logo .............................................................................................. 217
 XII

List of Tables

Table (3-1) Distribution of the MARSI Subcategories in the Questionnaire........................................ 79

Table (3-2) The One- Factor Analysis Value for Each of the Test Items and Its Cognitive Level....... 81
Table (3-3) The Five School Tests Correlation Coefficients ................................................................ 83
Table (3-4) Values of the One –Factor Analysis of the Questionnaire Items ....................................... 84
Table (3-5) Cronbach’s Alpha Analysis of the Questionnaire .............................................................. 85
Table (3-6) Analysis Key of the Questionnaire .................................................................................... 88
Table (4-1) Results of the Independent Sample T- Test of the Experimental and Control Groups in the
Pretest and Posttest ............................................................................................................................... 93
Table (4-2) Tracking the Progress in Achievement during the Reciprocal Intervention ...................... 95
Table (4-3) The Experimental and the Control Groups’ Means and Standard Deviations in the Five
School Tests .......................................................................................................................................... 97
Table (4-4) Descriptive Statistics of Eighteen Reading Strategies ..................................................... 100
Table (4-5) Means, Standard Deviations and Percentages of Reading Strategies’ Total Score ......... 103
Table (4-6) Descriptive Analysis of Student’s Attitudes towards Reciprocal Teaching .................... 105

List of Figures

Figure 1: The Results of the Experimental and the Control Groups in the School Tests ..................... 99
 XIII

Abstract

This quasi- experimental mixed- methods study investigated the impact of

using Reciprocal Teaching strategies on the students’ achievement in reading comprehension,

students attaining of reading skills and their attitudes towards learning by Reciprocal

Teaching in a cooperative group context. Intergroup relationships, interactions and their

evolvements over the period of teaching were investigated, as well. The participants in this

study were 165 of the 11th grade female students, distributed into two groups: Reciprocal

(Experimental = 84 students) and Non- Reciprocal (Control = 81 students). The experimental

group received explicit instruction of RT strategies for two weeks prior the real teaching

began. Then, they were distributed into heterogeneous groups of four based on their results in

a diagnostic comprehension test. Each group included a Predictor, Clarifier, Questioner and

Summarizer who worked cooperatively to apply the RT strategies to the reading texts for

three months period.

Four quantitative and qualitative instruments were used to collect the data of the

study. A pre/post test in reading comprehension was conducted for both groups to investigate

students’ reading achievement prior and post the teaching, in addition to five school tests to

notice the change in performance along the period of teaching. Comprehension skills and

attitudes of the Reciprocal group were revealed via a questionnaire. Finally, the group work

context and the intergroup relationships were observed through the teacher’s journal.

The results revealed a significant difference between the experimental and the control

groups in the post‐test scores in favour of the experimental. It also showed that the effect size

of RT on developing the high- order thinking skills was bigger than the effect size on the

low-order thinking skills in the experimental group. The results of the five school tests

revealed a difference in favour of the experimental group in the fifth test. However, the

differences did not reach statistical significance in the four precedent tests. Moreover, the
 XIV

results showed that the two groups were progressing in their performance in reading

comprehension along the period of teaching. The descriptive statistics of the questionnaire

responses indicated that the experimental group has highly resorted to the reading strategies

in their reading as a result of learning using RT. They also showed that students have

developed positive attitudes towards using RT in a cooperative context.

The qualitative data were used to triangulate with the quantitative ones. The thematic

analysis of the teacher’s journal revealed that the experimental group’ subjects were

developing positive learning values towards learning reading comprehension in

heterogeneous cooperative groups. The analysis yielded six major themes that indicated that

values such as cooperation and the group’s interdependency had reinforced the positive

learning behaviors and increased the strategic practices of the students specially the low

achievers. The study concluded that reciprocal teaching was a successful method for teaching

reading comprehension. It has the potential to skill students with the metacognitive skills

necessary to enhance reading with understanding, upgrade their reading skills and improve

their attitudes towards reading. However, the intervention duration is a sensitive factor for the

success of RT. Pedagogical implications and recommendations of the study were also

discussed.
 ‫‪XV‬‬

‫الملخص‬

‫هدفت هذه الدراسة الى تدريب طالبات الصف الحادي عشر على استخدام استراتيجيات التعليم التباادل لتيياير عملياة‬
‫ااد‬ ‫فهم المقروء باللغة االنجليزية‪ .‬بحثت الدراسة أثر استخدام اساتراتيجيات التعلايم التباادل علاى تحصايا التالباات فا‬
‫ان‬ ‫االستيعاب‪ .‬كما بحثت الدراسة أثر التريقة على هارات القراء الت اكتيبهتها التالباات و تجههااتهن نحاج هاذا الماج‬
‫التعلم ع انتهاء فتر التدخا‪ .‬اتبعت الدراسة الممهج شبه التجريبا ييات تام تج ياع ‪ 561‬طالباة ان طالباات الحاادي عشار‬
‫الااى جمااجعتين‪ :‬تبادليااة ( التجريبيااة وعااددها ‪ 84‬طالبااةو و رياار تبادليااة (الوااابتة وتياااوي ‪ 45‬طالبااةو‪ .‬تلقاات المجمجعااة‬
‫التجريبية تدريبا على استخدام استراتيجيات التعلم التبادل لمد اسبجعين قبا بادء التميياذ اليعلا للتادريع‪ .‬بعاد التادريب تام‬
‫تج يع المجم جعة التجريبية على جمجعات رير تجانية ضمت كاا واياد ارباع طالباات بمااء علاى نتاا جهن فا ا تحاا‬
‫اد االستيعاب‪ .‬وبهذا ضمت كا جمجعاة ارباع طالباات يا دين اردوار ارربعاة للاتعلم التباادل ئالمتمبا ئ‬ ‫تشخيص ف‬
‫ئالمييرئ ئالمتياءلئ و ئ الملخصئ يعملج بصجر تعاونية لتتبيق استراتيجيات التعليم التباادل أثمااء تمااول نصاج‬
‫ليتار اساتمرت ثةثاة شاهجر‪ .‬تام هماع بياناات الدراساة باساتخدام عاد أدوات ‪ :‬اساتخد ت الدراساة ا تحاانين قبلا‬ ‫القراء‬
‫وبعدي لقياس اليرق بين تحصيا التالبات ف المجمجعتين قباا وبعاد التادريع التباادل ‪ .‬تام تيمياد أسا لة هاذا اال تحاا الاى‬
‫أسا لة تقاايع هاارات ةهميااة علياا وأخاارا تقايع هااارات ةهميااة دنياا لمعرفااة أثار الااتعلم فا كااة المجاالين ‪ .‬كمااا اسااتخد ت‬
‫الدراسة خمع ا تحانات درسية كأدا لرصد التقدم الذي تحر ه التالبات طجال فتر التدخا‪ .‬اضافة الى ةلا‪ ،‬تام تصاميم‬
‫كماا هادفت الاى‬ ‫استبانة هدفت الى عرفة هارات القراء الت استتاعت التالبات اكتياابها نتيجاة التادريب االساتراتيج‬
‫كشف تجههات التلبة نحج تعلم القراء ف سياق تبادل تعاون ‪ .‬وأخيرا تم استخدام دفتار يج ياات المعلماة لمةيساة ساياق‬
‫جمجعات والعةقات على صعيد المجمجعة‪.‬‬ ‫التعلم ف‬
‫علاى وهاجد فاروق دالاة باين‬ ‫تم تتبيق طرق التحلياا المختلتاة لتحلياا بياناات الدراساة‪ .‬دلات نتاا ج التحلياا االيصاا‬
‫المجمجعتين التجريبية والوابتة لصالح التجريبياة‪ .‬كماا دلات المتاا ج علاى أ يجام االثار للتعايلم التباادل علاى المهاارات‬
‫الذهمية العليا كا أكبر ن يجمه على المهارات الذهمية الدنيا ف ةات اال تحاا ‪ .‬دلات نتاا ج اال تحاناات المدرساية الخماع‬
‫الااى وهااجد فاارق دال بااين المجمااجعتين ف ا اال تحااا الخااا ع فق ا ‪ .‬بااالررم اان ةلاا‪ ،‬أشااارت المتااا ج ا كااة المجمااجعتين‬
‫جضج فهم المقاروء طاجال فتار التادريع‪ .‬وأشاار التحلياا الجصاي اهاباات التالباات علاى‬ ‫اير ت تقد ا ف االداء ف‬
‫وعازت‬ ‫االستبانة أ المجمجعة التجريبية قد لجأت الى ياد كبيار الاى اساتخدام اساتراتيجيات القاراء أثمااء تمااول المصاج‬
‫ةلاا‪ ،‬الااى تعلاام اسااتراتيجيات الااتعلم التبااادل ‪ .‬كمااا اشااارت التحلاايةت الجصاايية الااى نجاااا التلبااة فا اسااتخدام اسااتراتيجيات‬
‫باالضافة الى وهجد تجههات ايجابية لدا التلبة نحج التعلم التبادل ف سياق تعاون ‪.‬‬ ‫تمجعة اثماء القراء‬
‫كيييااا افاار التحليااا المجاضاايع لاادفتر يج يااات المعلمااة عاان وهااجد ساات افاااار ر ييااية سااادت سااياق العمااا ف ا‬
‫المجمجعاات وفياارت العةقااات التا سااادت بااين افااراد جمجعااات التعلاايم التبااادل وشاااا التياااعةت بياامهم‪ .‬وأ هاارت هااذه‬
‫جاضاايعا ثااا التعاااو والمي ا لية الجماعيااة قااد عااز ت ساالجكيات الااتعلم االيجابيااة و ادت اان الممارسااات‬ ‫التحلاايةت ا‬
‫االستراتيجية لدا التالبات خصجصا ضعييات التحصيا‪.‬قد ت الدراسة دلية على قدر التعليم التبادل على إكياب التلبة‬
‫المهارات فجق الذهمية الة ة لتحيين فهم المقروء ‪ .‬كما استمتجت الدراسة ا طجل فتار التادخا يعتبار عاا ة يياساا فا‬
‫إنجاا التعلم التبادل ‪ .‬وبماء على ةل‪ ،‬خرهت الدراسة ببعض الموا ين التربجية والتجصيات‪.‬‬
 XVI

Acknowledgment
I would like to deeply express my gratitude to all my professors, family, friends and

students who contributed to this study with their care, support and efforts. The completion of

this work wouldn’t have been possible without the efforts of all teachers who lit the way for

me with their hearts and efforts.

My deep and sincere gratitude goes foremost to my advisor Dr. Anwar Abdul Raziq

for his endless patience, support and constructive feedback from the beginning to the last

letter of this thesis. Dr. Anwar has taught me the rule of the three Ds since my first lecture

with him at Birzeit University: Desire, Determination, and Dedication open all doors of

success. It was lifetime chance to have an advisor who urged me to shoot to the sky and

worked sincerely to make this a reality. My heart felt appreciation to you Dr. Anwar for your

high expectations and sincere efforts. You took care of every detail to make this thesis move

a step towards being perfect.

I am also indebted with thanks and gratitude to my committee members who enriched

this thesis study with their valuable feedback and critical notes. It was in Dr.Maher

Hashweh’s course when the idea of this research was born and shaped. He was very generous

with his creativity and his rich scientific background. My deep thanks to Dr. Hasan Abdul

Kareem who inspired me with his strong believes that teachers are the agents of change and

that Palestine will move on with the career development of its teachers. Thanks from the

bottom of my heart and mind.

A special note of thanks to Dr. Nader Wahbeh and Dr. Abdullah Besharat who were

very helpful and responsive in providing me with the references and valuable advice

regarding the data analysis.

To my father, who taught me the first alphabet. I am indebted to you for every single

step towards success I made in my life.

 XVII

I would also like to acknowledge the unconditional support, love and care of Sami

Khammash, my companion, friend and husband who involved me with encouragement and

help to complete this work.

Finally, to my kids who have always been asking when this work is going to be

finished: I am done Mum.

 1

Chapter One

Theoretical Framework and the Research Problem

Introduction

Reading is a key skill to gain knowledge and awareness. In fact, reading is not only a

skill. It is more a process through which people develop. The more one reads, the more

he/she will learn about a topic, develop perception and make connections to the world.

Reading at school life is specifically fundamental. Students at school are exposed to different

types of knowledge, from several sources of information. Therefore, students need to process

and understand what they read to produce meaning. The centrality of reading comprehension

(RC) also arises from being a prerequisite for success in all school subjects. In fact, reading

ability is considered as reference to how smart the student is, since students who are good at

reading are usually good at wide variety of school tasks (Cohen & Lotan,2014). However,

building understanding of any text is the crux whether reading has added to the reader’s

knowledge and experience or not. Comprehending a text involves more than the ability to

spell correctly or decode words. It involves students’ ability to understand, build

representations and explanations of what they read (Gomez & López, 2012). For reading

comprehension to take place, several operations such as cognition, reasoning and critical

thinking need to be called (Komariah, Ramadhona, & Silviyanti, 2015). Most definitions of

RC have depicted reading as an interaction between the reader and the text, which definitely

requires the reader to code and interpret what is read in the light of her/his previous

knowledge (Tarchi, 2010; Wijayatiningsih, 2013).

The previous brief viewed reading comprehension as complex process which requires

the lexical, cognitive and social skills to attend in order to construct the meaning of the text.

That may justify why students face difficulties in RC. Students in many occasions at school,

read aloud fluently. However, they are unable to tell the meaning of what they read (Lubliner,
 2

2002). Students in general encounter challenges in reading with meaning (National Reading

Panel, 2000). The percent of the struggling readers in the high school context have reached

about 70% in the USA. (Ness, 2016)

The problem of RC is a world-wide educational issue and it is not only restricted to

reading in a foreign language. However, when reading in English as a non- native language,

the challenge of comprehension gets worse. Students resort to poor reading habits such as

translation into the mother tongue or depending on the teacher to do the thinking process

instead of them (Jom’a, 2013;Raslie, Mikeng & Ting,2015).

Focusing on the product of reading, rather than the process itself is considered a key

reason why students lack the abilities to apply the metacognition skills while reading

(Komariah, et.al, 2015). The educational policies in general relate achievement only to the

grades which students get at school. These force both students and teachers to follow poor

habits in reading, which only hit the product of teaching reading. Therefore, struggling

readers at high schools may pass the tests and join colleges, but still they take their poor

reading with them to universities and the problem continues (Gruenbaum, 2012).

Research into RC has emphasized the need for more strategy teaching to assist

learners read with understanding. Yet, it seems that the efforts in teaching strategic reading

are still modest, and the National Reading Panel [NPR] (2000) has explained that RC was

only brought into research in the last thirty years. In addition, teachers still almost focus on

main ideas, retrieving facts and shallow understanding of the content. Obviously,

comprehension involves other important skills, such as reading for details and main ideas,

building clear mental representations of the ideas and understanding the text’s purpose.

Moreover, the research into RC has recommended that students need assistance to

develop effective reading habits. When students are being taught a reading strategy, and they

find that the strategy has helped them understand, it would be unforgettable tool, which

would facilitate their reading for life (Wagar, 2008).

 3

Among the variety of social learning approaches of reading, which utilize strategy

teaching for enhancing comprehension, Reciprocal Teaching (RT) comes to the view. The

method depicts the classroom as context for teaching reading comprehension on the basis of

strategy – teaching. It is a technique for enhancing and monitoring understanding that puts

great emphasis on the process of reading rather than the reading final product (Komariah,

et.al, 2015). Palincsar & Brown (1984) suggested teaching four strategies of reading:

predicting, questioning, clarifying and summarizing. They have asserted that these specific

strategies were purposely selected among the wide variety of techniques because they

function on two folds: fostering understanding and monitoring understanding. Students better

understand the text via negotiating the meaning. Additionally, they can monitor their level of

understanding after a while of a systematic practice.

Teachers and educators now seek to re-think the traditional processes of teaching RC

and replace the conventional reading methods with more strategy-based, context- supportive

methods. Moreover, there is still a need to study the impact of strategy-based reading on

students’ achievement, particularly in English as a foreign language (EFL) context. More

instructional efforts are needed to explore the most suitable strategy that serves learning EFL

and supports the learning of the struggling readers. (Wagar, 2008).

The current study was an attempt to teach RC through the use of RT strategies. These

metacognitive strategies were explicitly taught to the eleventh grade students to facilitate

reading comprehension. The study also investigated the impact of RT use on student’s

achievement in reading comprehension and explored the students’ attitudes towards learning

reading using RT as a teaching method. The group work context was also observed by the

researcher.

Theoretical Framework

Reciprocal Teaching (RT) and Cooperative Language Learning Approach (CLL)

underpinned the theoretical framework of this study. Both methods are guided with the vision
 4

and philosophy of the Social Constructivism. The three methods share the paradigm’s

consensus that learning in socially and culturally embedded context, fosters students learning,

shapes their awareness about their learning and enhances their performances. In non- English

speaking environments, reading is the main stimuli most learners use to interact with the

target language. Under the constructivist spectrum, educators and teachers’ role is to help

learners comprehend and process what they read and train them to use strategies for making

meaning out of reading (Leanne, 2003; Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Constructivism attributes

learning development to its construction, on the one hand, and its social context on the other.

RT works on fostering the aware application of the reading strategies and monitoring the

occurrence of understanding. To identify the cognitive and metacognitive processes set into

work in such social, cooperative setting, and how they work to serve learning reading

comprehension, it was necessary to review the philosophical and theoretical foundations of

these methods. This chapter considers the relationship between these theories and how they

interact to facilitate learning. Reading comprehension and its significance to students’ success

and progress is also be highlighted. In addition, the factors which support and improve

reading comprehension are reviewed. More specifically, the chapter pursues the foundations

of “strategy” concept and the strategies which are operated while meaningful reading.

Social Constructivism

Reciprocal Teaching and Cooperative Learning Approaches strike their roots in the

social constructivist theory by Vygotsky. As the name implies social constructivism stands

for constructing learning in a social interactive context. The theory of social constructivism

represents learning and development as inherent concepts; learning leads to development and

vice versa. This orientation left no space for the assumption that development is the natural

result of maturation. On the contrary, Vygotsky assumed that the learners’ advance in

education with the guidance of matures (teachers), and learning is facilitated through the

social interactive means. Vygotsky viewed language as a social tool that enhances one’s
 5

cognitive abilities. When the learners use language to make dialogues, they socially interact

and debate for what makes meaning for them. They also use it to think aloud in a try to

regulate their thinking. As a result, the social interaction leads to their cognitive growth

(Mishra, 2013).

According to the social constructivism, cognition grows and regulates itself through

the “meaningful learning”. The concept suggests that interacting with the teacher and peers

fosters the chance in filing their comprehension gaps and actuating their cognitive processes

(Cohen & Lotan, 2014). That supports the belief that students learn better when they are

actively engaged in the learning process. On account of that, social constructivism is an

interactive, student- focused approach which considers students’ needs and their current

abilities before prompting them into the task (Wagar, 2008). In this type of instructional

setting, two main factors are considered critical to the learning outcomes: the construction of

teaching and the social context that nurtures the process of interaction. The instructional

implication of such context suggests that the purposely administered interaction is a key

condition under which reading can be effective. Further, it implies that learning is facilitated

when students learn in a social active context, with the guidance and support of a more

knowledgeable person.

Vygotsky believed that the internal developmental processes are stimulated and called

into action only when the student is interacting with teacher and cooperating with peers

(Cohen & Lotan, 2014). The type of interaction promoted by the social constructivists is

based on two main concepts: scaffolding and the zone of proximal development (Wagar,

2008). When learners encounter new complexities in their learning that need to be tackled,

the teacher guides, monitors and scaffolds their current level of capacity to help them reach

the desired optimal development in their learning and reach the new level of knowledge they

are striving to reach. This distance between what learners already know and what they are

striving to learn is called the zone of proximal development ZPD (Dolya, 2009). The
 6

designing of such socially constructive setting enables the teacher “helps the students become

more aware of themselves as learners who actively monitor their learning strategies and

resources and assess their readiness for particular tests and performances”(Bransford, Brown,

Cocking, 2001, p. 67).

The theory, in this context, has assumed a central role for the teacher in designing the

settings of learning, the tasks and scaffolds which serve the natural development of the

learners’ abilities. That suggests designing reading activities which activate strategy –use and

encourage negotiating meaning for full comprehension. Learners make sense of what they

read through making connections between their previous knowledge and the newly taught

one. Designing strategic reading activities serves making these connections and facilitates

acquiring the new knowledge. Newman & Holzman (1993) explained that meaning- making,

according to the developmental process of Vygotsky, is only possible through the social

process of interaction including speaking a verbal behavior (external monologue). Language

takes the form of social representations that is fostered through repetition and becomes

internalized and normal to be used in making meaningful language. Communicative

monologue becomes by the time internalized as thoughts and ideas that are externalized again

as soon as learners face something that needs explanation or difficult to understand. Students

externalize their thoughts through “thinking aloud” and negotiating the meaning (Dolya,

2009). The teacher’s role, from this point of view, is not simply to respond to the questions of

the learners as much as providing them with tools to discover the answers and to guide their

research process through modelling, scaffolding, and taking turns with students to help them

to externalize the mental events in a collaborative context (Bransford et al., 2001). The

pedagogical possibility of learning in that sense, assumes teaching reading a social action that

promotes thinking while learning, leans on the learners’ cooperation to construct the

knowledge through making meaning, and fostering each other’s understanding (Ojo, 2015).

Reciprocal teaching premises that the distance between the students’ current level of
 7

comprehension and the upper levels of competence can be achieved through the collaborative

action of an expert knowledgeable teacher and the internalization of the reading strategies

that promote understanding. (Brown, 1992)

Reading Comprehension (RC)

Reading is considered a key condition for learning at schools. It’s the only mutual

skill that all school subjects share. Therefore, teaching reading is seen as every teacher’s craft

and not just the language teacher’s duty. This is considered the way to comprehension and

building information across all levels of education (Afrizatama, 2016).When students develop

good reading skills, they don’t only show progress in learning and development, but they also

possess a tool for life continuous learning and a skill for better interaction with life.

However, comprehension was considered the heart of reading. Mastering reading is

not that decoding of the words in a correct way. It’s about how meaning is engineered, how

connections to learners’ own experiences are established and how new knowledge is being

structured. It was until late in the twentieth century, that reading comprehension instruction

was viewed as a scientific subject that needs to be taught. Until the mid of the century,

mastery in reading was measured by the fluent reading and the oral proficiency. The

renaissance in reading instruction has shifted the focus of reading from the emphasis on

coding into the emphasis on meaning (Pearson & Dole, 1987). That renaissance started with a

group of researchers who viewed reading as a complex process which needs to be broken

down into components to be taught. Among and above those was Durkin, who regarded

comprehension as the “essence of reading” (NRP, 2000). Since then, reading was treated as

cognitively demanding load that needs to be facilitated, and was connected to three critical

components for successful instruction. First, a vocabulary teaching was seen critical for

making understanding. Second, interactive setting is necessary for building meaning. Third,

teachers’ intervention through modelling and strategy-teaching was important for preparing

independent readers. (NRP, 2000)

 8

The previous conception bases reading comprehension on the cognitive and social

interactions. From this perspective, comprehension is seen as the outcome of interaction

between the message that the text holds and the previous knowledge of the reader. The

NRP(2000) has described reading with comprehension as the deliberate, intentional use of

thinking while meaning is being constructed, as a result of interaction with the text. The

process of interaction entails activating problem solving, thinking processes and building

representations to construct meaning from the text. Resorting to the previous knowledge to

build the meaning involves readers in two levels of processing: The level of decoding words

and associating them to appropriate meaning and the communication level which involves the

interaction between the reader and the writer. Through this process, reading enhances

students’ language skills and their perception of the text (NRP,2000; Wagar,2008;

Wijayatiningsih,2013) .Based on this view, reading can be seen as a way of progressing in

gaining knowledge, through making connections between what learners already know and the

new information they are just receiving. Adapting the new information to the learners’

previous one gives it a meaning, increasing the chance of progressing awareness, and

accumulating learning experiences.

The research into reading comprehension field had provided an evidence that high

percentage of students struggle with reading comprehension (Ness, 2016). When students

grow up in learning without being able to develop good reading skills, they are more likely to

fail in reading. The lack of reading skills makes them hate and avoid reading. Consequently,

they find themselves delayed in learning as whole (Bruce & Robinson, 2001). When

student’s reading skills fall behind their mates’ skills, their vocabulary capacity falls too and

they no more have the same access to the language experience. (Fevre, Moore & Wilkinson,

2003) Unfortunate learning experiences of those learners can passively affect their future in

learning and limit their future learning opportunities (Wagar, 2008).

 9

RC research field has also provided educators with evidences that the direct

instruction of comprehension reading strategies needs to be implemented in schools for

reengaging and assisting struggling readers in comprehension. (Armbrister, 2010; Griffiths &

Oxford, 2014; Lestari, 2016; Lubliner, 2002; McHugh, 2016; Palincsar & Brown,1984; Pesa

& Somers, 2007). Teaching reading strategies implies involving students as active readers

who have central role in making meaning and creating understanding of their own, contrary

to their role in some conventional teaching methods as passive recipients of teacher’s

knowledge (Winograd & Hare, 1988). Effective strategy teaching and learning assists

struggling readers with tools that help them comprehend. When these tools make a way to

understanding the text, they become unforgotten and the learners will keep utilizing them to

achieve better reading scores (Wagar,2008). The NRP (2000) stated that across research,

students who received cognitive instruction on how to comprehend, have reported higher

comprehension gains than those who were taught in the conventional methods.

Reciprocal Teaching was reported among the most successful reading strategies

methods. It incorporates cognitive and metacognitive teaching of reading strategies through

an interactive communication (Tartchi & Pinto, 2016) The group of readers co-constructs the

meaning of the text through questioning, clarifying, summarising, and predicting strategies.

The consensus upon the collective understanding is made through dialogue, initiated by the

teacher, who explains the strategies role and significance ,and gradually withdraws, giving

his role to the learners to practice meaning- making and monitoring understanding through

the strategies, keeping his guidance role (Bruce & Robinson,1999; Fevre et al,2003).

Reading Strategies

Reading comprehension is described as complex cognitive process which bears

serious challenges to the learners at the linguistic, cognitive and metacognitive levels.

Searching meaning requires activating the previous knowledge at these three levels. Students

need to activate language proficiency to understand words and sentences. They also need to
 10

use all the available resources to engineer the meaning of the text and finally they have to

resort to their metacognition processes to monitor their understanding and check if

comprehension has taken place (Ahmadi & Gilakjani, 2012). When the text is unfamiliar or

of difficult level, students may fail to construct the meaning. They refer to specific

procedures to facilitate their understanding. These techniques were called “reading strategies”

in the National Reading Panel (2000), to refer to the mental tools used while reading to help

students become aware of how they comprehend . These tools are claimed to help learners

how to learn (Collins et al, 1988). Reading strategies were defined as “the intentional

deliberate use” of a plan while reading and monitoring the outcomes of using it (Pressley &

Harris, 2008). Palincsar & Brown (1984) has called these techniques “knowledge extending

activities” to refer to the tactics that good readers use to comprehend any unfamiliar text.

Good readers don’t use single strategies to foster their understanding. They activate a

repertoire of strategies like “prediction, question asking, imagery generation, monitoring and

seeking clarification when confused, summarization” for confirming their comprehension

(Pressley & Harris, 2008, p.21). Moreover, they can extend these strategies to build

knowledge in other subject areas. When it comes to the less proficient readers,

comprehension may fail or still have gaps as a result of not using these “debugging” skills in

dealing with reading (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). So, why don’t some students apply these

strategies? Because they do not know these activities are useful or because they do not care,

Brown (1992) answers. And in both cases, it is the instruction’s role to design strategic

teaching that makes students familiar with strategic reading. Strategy-based learning is a type

of knowledge like any other subjects; it is taught and learnt. (Oxford, 1990).

The interest in the strategy development field has witnesses a breakthrough in the 60’s

and 70’s of the last century (Pressley & Harris, 2008) . This was connected with cognitive

experiments by Flavell, Beach, and Chinsky who tested the kids’ memory to memorize and

recall. They have come to the fact that children’s ability to recall matures as they grow up.
 11

Lacking of ability to recall or rehearse was called production deficiency that can be overcome

with instruction. Research in language teaching shares the consensus that learners can

develop these strategies through repetitive practice and modeling the teacher. Therefore, it is

necessary for teachers to teach these reading strategies in an explicit way and proper steps.

However, there was a confession to the fact that teaching reading strategies is still very little

occurring at schools (Pressley & Harris, 2008). Seeing teachers teaching strategies or students

learning reading strategies is something seldom to be noticed at school (Rosenshine &

Meister, 1994).

Teaching reading strategies has been part of the language teaching renovation

worldwide. The positive impact of trying a repertoire of strategies has also been the topic of

huge body of research, as tools that assist students’ learning, keep them focus, enhance their

critical thinking and have them work cooperatively on the content of reading with variety of

tools (Ojo, 2015). Moreover, teaching the strategies and activating their use, while reading,

promotes the repetitive practice and builds reading experience. Becoming more expertise,

students internalize the strategy towards automatic rather than intentional use. This

accordingly, decreases the cognitive burden needed to attend to the appropriate strategy use

(Pressley & Harris, 2008). Activating the appropriate strategy facilitates comprehension and

involves students in the process of reading as active reader (Ahmadi & Gilakjani, 2012;

National Reading Panel, 2000; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Rosenshine & Meister, 1994).

More importantly, using the strategies helps students compensate the breakdowns in reading

through applying this “fix up strategies” to correct their misunderstanding ( Palincsar &

Brown, 1984). Overall, students who are able to apply variety of reading strategies gain better

in achievement and language proficiency (Aziz, 2005)

The Cognitive Strategies

The term “cognitive strategies” was originally established in the information

processing theories to refer to “the tools that learners use intentionally to regulate the learning
 12

process” (Lubliner, 2002). These are mental tools which students apply through their direct

interaction with the text, and were reported to facilitate and control comprehension. Further,

these are the thinking plans that readers purposely select to apply in her/his own way to

perceive the text (Pressley & Harris, 2008). Language learning strategies were best defined

by Oxford (1990) as specific tactics or actions that learners take to make their learning better

acquired, retained and retrieved. Further, she explained that using these strategies facilitates

learning and increases the chances of successful transfer of learning into new learning

situations. While interaction with a reading task, good readers activate their previous

knowledge, make use of the sentence clues, use dictionaries, use text markers, draw,

summaries and skip complex parts of the text (Ahmadi, Ismail & Abdullah,2013). The

cognitive strategies were also associated with the reader’s ability to set goals before reading,

identify the meaning of words and the important ideas while reading and review or self-

question the important parts in the after reading (Bilgi & Ozmen, 2014). The National

Reading Panel (2000) stated that teaching these strategies to students aids their independent

reading, develops their understanding of their cognitive processes and enhances regulating

their thinking and the processes used while reading. From the cognitive point of view,

students need to be given the chance to practice a repertoire of these strategies in solving

reading problems before being asked to generate or produce these skills. That implies

teaching the strategies with scaffolding, and teaching in scaling from the lower to the higher

order thinking skills (Collins et al, 1988).

There has been strong orientation towards teaching these strategies at schools to help

students regulate their thinking while solving a reading problem or working out a task. There

have also been a bulk of literature that investigated the impact of teaching these strategies;

and made enough evidence that students gained better in comprehension when given

cognitive instruction (Collins, Brown & Newman, 1988; Lubliner, 2002; The National

Reading Panel ,2000; Palincsar & Brown ,1984)

 13

The Metacognitive Strategies and Strategy Teaching

While the cognitive strategies refer to the set of conscious operations used to carry out

the task (Pressley& Harris, 2008), the metacognitive strategies monitor if the applied

cognitive option was the right one to use (Adkins, 2005). In other words, metacognitive

strategies are responsible for controlling and monitoring the cognitive ones. These are higher

order abilities that involve the reader in planning, monitoring and evaluating her/his learning

(Casanave, 1988). Monitoring reading was assented over to be the reader’s ability to detect

the success and failure in making meaning from a text, and adjust the reading behaviour in

accordance (National Reading Panel, 2000). Unquestionably, metacognitive strategies are

more associated with language learning. “Metacognitive reading strategies refers to

particular, deliberate, goal–directed, mental processes or behaviour, which control and

modify the reader’s attempts to understand texts” (Ahmadi, et.al,2013,p.4). However, it was

suggested that the use of these strategies can be intentional or automatic depending on the

degree of expertize the learners develop (Adkins, 2005). That indicates that the appropriate

metacognitive strategy can be automatically applied to the text after a while of practice, and

also successfully transferred to other areas of learning.

The different definitions of “Metacognition” have associated the word with thinking

about thinking, knowing about thinking, or the control of learning (Adkins, 2005). It is the

“knowledge about and control of one's own learning” (Brown, 1992, p.164). Whatever

combinations were made to build a mental picture of metacognition, they have all related the

word to two central components: (a) The knowledge and control of self, which connotes that

the reader is able to build positive attitude towards learning, attends to the task and adjusts

her/his attendance according to the task difficulty (Adkins, 2005). (b) The knowledge and

control of process which implies that the reader is handling the text effectively through

applying the variety of declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge (National Reading

Panel ,2000;Pressley& Harris, 2008). The knowledge of metacognition was classified into
 14

these previous components by Marzona (1988) to refer to the specific type of knowledge

which students use as they advance in learning the strategies. Declarative and procedural

knowledge are associated with the learner’s own awareness about her/his own cognitive

abilities, how do these affect learning and how to apply them to enhance knowledge. The

conditional knowledge was used to refer to the ability of recognizing when, where and why

the specific strategy is used. It’s the skill to appropriately select the strategy in its suitable

setting and adjust its use where needed. Others referred to the three elements as the “meta-

strategic knowledge” (Tajalli, & Satari,2013). No matter the classifications, metacognitive

knowledge is a regulatory skill. Students who use these strategies can regulate their learning

for better comprehension purposes. They plan what strategy could be possible for solving the

reading problem. They also monitor if applying that strategy has brought about better

comprehension. Finally, they evaluate their strategy use and adjust its use over time. The

pedagogical possibilities of teaching metacognitive strategies, has an added value, more than

having students solve the reading problems or engage in learning. The strategies bring

students to reflect on what, how, why they have learnt in the light of their learning

experiences (Ellis, et al, 2014).

The metacomprehension awareness was found fundamental for comprehension and

even the most influential in teaching reading especially in foreign language learning (EFL).

Therefore, instructors are encouraged to teach the strategies to promote better language

learning. When students use the strategies, they will become able to reflect on their cognitive

options and by time they will be able to make aware decisions about what makes their

learning improves. However, Adkins (2005) reminded instructors that strategic training

should be designed to be appropriate to age and competence. Appropriate, context-based

instruction help students better control themselves, assess their learning needs and takes their

hands towards independent strategy use that can be transferred to other areas of learning.
 15

“The application of metacognitive strategies in contexts other than those in which they were

learned is the primary goal of teaching thinking” (Adkins, 2005, p.4)

The National Reading Panel (2000) and other researchers recommended the explicit

instruction of these strategies. Others found that teaching the strategies to poor readers has

made difference in comprehension gains (Alfassi, 1998; Brown & Palincsar, 1989; Hou,

2015; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Pressley& Harris, 2008).

To remind, RT was among the pioneer methods to utilize a set of metacognitive

strategies to teach comprehension .Palincsar & Brown (1984) viewed reading as a

complicated process which requires readers to split their mental focus. Readers need to focus

on the text and on themselves, at the same time, to monitor if comprehension is taking place

or not, and to recognize areas of comprehension failure .Students’ inability to comprehend

was diagnosed as strategic deficiency, usually found in novice readers or what Palincsar &

Brown called passive comprehenders (Alfassi, 1998). Such reading deficiency can only be

overcome through instruction of strategies (Alfassi, 1998; Pressley& Harris, 2008).

Reciprocal Teaching (RT)

The instructional method implemented in this study is Reciprocal Teaching (RT) of

Palincsar & Brown (1984). RT is considered among the most successful instructional

methods in teaching reading for the past decades (Tarchi & Pinto,2016).The model came into

light after research into a variety of strategies such as inquiry teaching, Socratic dialogue and

theories, reasoning, explanation, and analogy models. The technique was designed to create a

setting for “externalizing simple comprehension-monitoring activities and to provide a

repetitive structure to scaffold student discourse” (Brown, 1992, p.148). Primarily, the

technique aimed to train learners, especially the less proficient, to read with meaning, through

promoting thinking while reading (Alfassi, 1998). RT is considered a multiple- reading

strategy for teaching reading comprehension in the National Reading Panel (2000). The

description implies the multi- purpose of applying the four used strategies. They are supposed
 16

to work as comprehension fostering and comprehension monitoring skills at the same time. In

RT class, students tackle reading texts in a systematic way (Alfassi, 1998), applying four

thinking skills: clarifying, questioning, summarizing, and predicting (Afrizatama, 2016).

Engagement in these strategies in the class is not only claimed to improve students’ reading

ability, but also their retention of what they have read (Oczkus, 2010). Palincsar & Brown

(1984) have justified choosing the four, namely, strategies to be taught as they apply to

various types of learning contexts and considered these skills are the foundations of

argument. Students use these mental tools to become active readers and gain deeper

understanding of the text. Palincsar & Brown (1984) had taught the four strategies

concurrently to foster the reading comprehension skills of middle school students who were

able to decode words, but reflected poor comprehension. When they first tested their method

in the field, Palincsar & Brown (1984) reported that an appropriate interaction between the

learners, suitable text and the active strategies has yielded in better understanding of the

reading. Additionally, learners reported higher retention and their comprehension-failures

were evaded.

How is Reciprocal Teaching Performed?

Reciprocal Teaching aims to promote understanding of the text, through monitoring

comprehension while reading. It is a “reading comprehension methodology, in which a group

of students is collaboratively applying four reading strategies (questioning, clarifying,

summarizing, and predicting) to co-construct the meaning of a written text” (Tarchi & Pinto,

2016, p.3). The model is activated in the classroom through the guided teaching of the

strategies by the teacher. The teacher models the strategies while reading a text and thinking

aloud, verbally demonstrating his mental processes to the students. Then students would take

his role of playing a teacher, and showing their thinking aloud while reading. The students

and teacher roles’ reciprocating continues to facilitate understanding. The model allows
 17

students with teacher to scaffold and construct meaning in a social setting through discussion,

dialogue and thinking aloud activities (Oczkus, 2010).

The Constructivist Nature of Reciprocal Teaching

Basically, Palincsar & Brown (1984) announced that the strategy is brought into

existence from the womb of the social constructivist theory, since it leans on the zone of

proximal development and the expert’s (teacher’s) scaffold. The strategy focuses on the

process of teaching comprehension more than on the product itself. In other words, RT is

about spending time skilling students with strategies rather than spending it assessing their

performance and giving feedback on their errors. The method is based on two principles: (a)

teaching the four concrete, cognitive strategies prior to reading comprehension, and (b)

teaching the strategies explicitly in the form of the dialogue between the teacher and learners

(Rosenshine & Meister, 1994) .Therefore, the teacher’s role is then considered central in

teaching the strategies. The teacher functions as a model for students to follow in negotiating

the reading passage. Students later exchange roles with the teacher in leading the dialogues

about the text. That explains why dialogue was considered the “heart of Reciprocal Learning”

(Casanave, 1988).The constructivist nature of the RT context is considered a key element in

scaffolding students’ skills. The teacher guides the learners and gradually withdraws from the

dialogue when students become more capable to apply the strategy for comprehending new

texts (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Moreover, the think- aloud technique allows the students to

imitate the teacher’s style in showing his mental processes as she/he reads. Gradually,

students integrate and adapt the teacher’s behavior to their abilities. By the time, students

receive the feedback which they use to monitor their thinking while they articulate and

communicate their ideas. Eventually, students’ reading monitoring improves and they gain

higher awareness of their thinking processes. Scaffolding, by that meaning, is translated in

the gradual transfer of leadership from the teacher to his students who by time become able to

share the responsibility of monitoring their understanding (Raslie, et.al, 2015).

 18

It is within this cooperative context, student’s learning is assisted. Students are

guided through making their predictions on the text, provided with helping words/hints to

generate their questions and summaries. In addition, the teacher explains whether the applied

strategy was the suitable one or not (Rosenshine & Meister, 1994). Comprehension becomes

more feasible, and students become more confident about their understanding due to sharing

the cognitive load that the text loads (Chou & Chan, 2016).

It is apparent that dialogue, gradual scaffold, thinking aloud and monitoring

comprehension are authentic traditions of the process of teaching RT. These aspects

highlights the method among the best strategies of teaching comprehension in social

constructive environments (National Reading Panel, 2000).

Reciprocal Teaching: A Comprehension Fostering and Comprehension Monitoring

Model

The function of RT is not restricted to its cognitive role as comprehension fostering

technique. Research has also considered RT’s role as a metacognitive monitoring strategy.

Brown (1992) explained that the primary focus on RT was the strategic reading. Palincsar &

Brown (1984) elaborated that the dual function of the four strategies was the reason why they

were chosen to be taught among the repertoire of reading strategies available. For example,

when students are required to compose questions, this entails focusing on the main ideas of

the text (cognitive strategy), and checking their current level of understanding (metacognitive

strategy). Similarly, clarifying strategy requires them to activate their critical thinking, make

connections between the paragraphs they have read and connections to their previous

knowledge. In predicting, students are involved in a process of anticipating the future content

and get involved in drawing inferences and testing them. Summarizing is considered a self-

review strategy. It enables students to retrieve the most important points in reading and

monitor if comprehension is taking place or not. When students are not able to highlight what

they have read clearly, then comprehension is not adequately proceeding and remedial action
 19

is needed (Palincsar & Brown, 1984, p.121-122). RT, in this meaning is activated to increase

understanding, as well as to monitor if understanding is taking place or not. When these four

strategies are internalized, they work as metacognitive sensors to decide where understanding

was successful and where the used tactic has failed. Therefore, these strategies were

specifically chosen to be taught because they were considered as “comprehension fostering

and comprehension monitoring” strategies at the same time (McHugh, 2016; Rosalia,2015).

The Cooperative Learning Approach (CLL)

The approach of teaching a variety of reading strategies in small groups, where

students work together to achieve individual goals is known as cooperative language

learning (CLL) (NRP ,2000). The teaching and learning contexts in which the teacher

scaffolds and peers support each other’s, summarizes the theoretical vision provided by the

cooperative language learning (CLL) approach. McCafferty, Jacobs, & Iddings (2006)

referred to the CLL as an approach which organizes learning on the social context of

learners who work cooperatively in small groups to negotiate their learning and exchange

knowledge in socially supportive context where every learner has accountability for her/his

learning. Group work was defined by Cohen & Laton (2014) to be “students working

together in a group small enough so that everyone can participate on a clearly assigned

learning task, … without direct or immediate supervision of the teacher (p.1). Jacobs, Lee

& Ng (1997) reported that CLL is more than just group work. Cooperative learning

involves preparing the setting of learning, planning the educational activities and

monitoring how the groups are functioning. This explains the central role of the teacher in

adopting and adapting learning environments which promote interaction over well prepared

tasks and observing how the groups are progressing. The approach has brought advantages

to ELLs/ EFLs through the key feature of the method: Interaction. Through interaction, the

quality and quantity of language practices increase. It develops the use of language, as a

result, develops cognition and skills. More importantly, interaction grants the learners the
 20

chance to act as resources of learning for each other in an active learning environment that

increases the motivation to learn and teach others (McCafferty et al, 2006). The “Positive

goal interdependence” was stated as a fundamental principle for the group success. It

assumes that each group member is responsible about his learning and the learning of other

group mates, as well. This concept means that each one in the group works for the sake of

the whole group. “Team spirit” is one important notion in CLL emphasized by Jacobs, Lee

& Ng (1997) as a strategy in its own. Students learn how to learn through interaction. Each

learner has a role that makes him responsible about the success of his learning’ and the

team’s. Academic, social and affective objectives are achieved when students help build

each other’s knowledge in an intimate context of interaction which indeed increases

motivation to learning (Jacobs, Lee & Ng, 1997).

The theoretical underpinnings of group work as a pedagogical strategy have been

discussed by Cohen & Lotan (2014) and summarized in three key principles. The first

important key to group work is “delegating authority”. The teacher allows the students to

struggle with the task to find solutions and makes them responsible about their work, but

this doesn’t mean learning process is uncontrollable; simply because learners are

accountable to the teacher of their final product. The second principle is “the need of the

group members to each other’s in the task”. Students need one another to some degree,

and no one can do everything alone. Learners, by this, share some of the teacher’s

missions by discussing, suggesting, listening to others , speaking and finding consensus

on a solution within the task’s and time’s limits. The third important principle is the

nature of the task: a well-prepared task maximizes the group abilities to work together

cooperatively, while a not well- organized one may endanger the group functioning

ability to work successfully. (Cohen & Lotan, 2014)

Concerning better language learning gains in the cooperative learning, comprehension

is facilitated when the content area is broken down from “teacher talk” to student talk
 21

(NRP,2000). When students work together cooperatively, their production skills improve

and score better in comprehension. Comprehension is definitely enhanced when students

discuss, negotiate, paraphrase, and reshape the information until they achieve a collective

understanding. In other words, they create a full understanding by filling the gaps in each

other’s perception of the idea (Cohen & Lotan, 2014). Further, cooperative learning

increases time on task and interaction over the use of the reading strategies. When

students function as tutors for each other’s, they become more independent readers,

reducing the time the teacher spends with one learner. Moreover, cooperative learning

increases motivation towards learning. Also, it gives the chance to learners of all abilities

to be equal parts in the learning process (NRP, 2000). More importantly, there is an

evidence that cooperative learning was successful in involving the less proficient students

in learning and developing their language learning and their tests’ scores (Cohen & Laton,

2014; National Reading Panel, 2000).

The Research Problem

Statement of the Problem

Following the previous theoretical framework illustrated that reading comprehension is

fundamental for building understanding in all school subjects. It also showed that teaching

the metacognitive strategies which underlie the process of understanding can be taught.

However, there is still a real need for teaching the reading strategies that facilitate reading

rather than focusing on teaching the subject matter (Pressley & Harris, 2008). When students

are taught these strategies, they are prepared with thinking tools which help them regulate

their thinking and get involved in the process of reading as active agents.

However, most studies in the metacognition field at the local level recommended

teaching the metacognitive strategies at the school level and found that students lack the

awareness of these reading techniques or don’t apply them to reading because they were not
 22

taught them (Aziz,2005; Jom’a, 2013). From a practical point of view, the researcher’s

experience in teaching EFL in the high school context revealed that big number of students

face challenges in reading comprehension although they try hard to understand. Failing to

comprehend a text affects their achievement and their attitudes towards learning English.

Within their attempts to understand the reading texts, many students resort to the “word to

word” translation or asking the teacher to explain rather than trying to make connections to

their own experience or trying to test the strategies they already have.

This experience in teaching reading aroused the researcher’s interest to practically teach

a pack of reading metacognitive strategies represented in the Reciprocal Reading Strategies to

help students facilitate their understanding of the reading passages. For students who already

have good metacognitive awareness, RT helps them regulate their thinking and the repetitive

strategy use may help them develop more experienced readers.

Purpose of the Study

Within the attempts to overcome the intricacies that mar teaching EFL, the current

study aimed to support students with group of reading strategies which they need in order to

read meaningfully. The purpose of this study was to explicitly teach reading comprehension

strategies. The study examined the effects of Reciprocal Teaching (RT) on students’ reading

comprehension in the Palestinian school context. The study also aimed to explore the

attitudes of the 11th graders who learned reading using this strategy –based approach.

Moreover, it tried to reveal what skills and reading strategies these students were able to

apply as a result of learning using RT. The study also investigated the types and features of

interaction that dominated the group work context during learning comprehension using RT.

The development of these interactions was observed within the experimental group over the

period of teaching.
 23

Significance of the Study

There is a global and local shift towards preparing more independent readers, who are

able to construct meaning out of the variety of information resources around them. The

emphasis of reading comprehension is based on the fact the reading comprehension is the

foundation of understanding in all school topics. Therefore, any trial to provide students with

an instruction which fosters their understanding and enhances their comprehension

achievement is considered a valuable addition to their learning experience and to the reading

research. A limited number of studies have addressed the role of Reciprocal Teaching (RT)

strategies in reading comprehension in EFL, in high school context. Most of the studies

targeted the primary, intermediate classes, or the college level. The secondary teaching zone

is still rarely tackled as a research aim. Nonetheless, few studies have addressed other types

of metacognitive /cognitive strategies in Palestine at the college level. This gap in the

research justifies the need more- strategy based research in the secondary teaching level.

Based on the literature reviewing, it was noticed the explicit teaching of RT has not

been utilized in teaching reading comprehension in the Palestinian context. Very little studies

have investigated the students' awareness of their knowledge and use of metacognitive

reading strategies, but none of them tried to practically teach these strategies in the classroom

context (Aziz,2005; Jom’a, 2013). Therefore, to the best of the researcher’s knowledge the

current study is the first in Palestine that couched RT strategies in a secondary school and

taught the strategies in heterogeneous group work context.

It was also noticed that the scarce studies that implemented the strategy in the Arabic

area has targeted college students, were limited in period, or limited to one measuring tool for

drawing results. This finding has motivated the researcher to carry out this study and trace its

impact on teaching reading comprehension outcomes among teenagers in the Palestinian

schools.
 24

The significance of the current study is that it has focused on the process of using the

strategies and the product of the process as well, in an appropriate period of time (3 months)

and with appropriate sample of 11th grade students (4 classes of 11th grades = 165 students).

The researcher thinks the sample and the intervention period allow the results to be

generalized to other 11th grade students in the Palestinian public high school settings, who

learn using the same approach and the same text book and do the same type of tests. The

teaching took place in cooperative group work setting with heterogeneous group - activation.

It is hoped this study was able to provide evidence into the usability of RT as a

successful method for teaching reading comprehension. It is also hoped the study have

participated in filling the gap in the strategic reading research in the Palestinian English

learning classroom.

Questions of the Study

The present study aimed to answer the following questions:

Q.1: What is the impact of using Reciprocal Teaching strategies on 11th Graders reading

comprehension ability?

Q.2: What is the effect of using RT on reading comprehension progression over the period

of intervention?

Q 3: What strategic practices have students developed while reading using RT strategies?

Q.4: What attitudes do students hold towards learning reading comprehension with

Reciprocal Teaching in a cooperative context?

Q.5: How do the process and the interaction evolve, within the group, over the period of

using the Reciprocal Teaching?

Limitations of the Study

A number of limitations needed to be acknowledged regarding the present study.

First, the study was conducted in one Palestinian public school, with limited number of

students who represent a small slice of the pie of high school students in Palestine.
 25

Second, the sample of this research was intact students who didn’t receive any form of

metacognitive training before. This has affected the time and type of the training the

teacher performed. The teaching of reading strategies in this study was only limited to

teaching Reciprocal Teaching strategies (RT) of reading comprehension. The teaching

was focused on using the four strategies of Predicting/Clarifying/Questioning and

Summarising among many other strategies known in teaching reading comprehension and

that would limit the students’ use to these strategies only. More research in strategy based

-teaching is needed to discover the best teaching strategies which best enhance students’

reading performance.

In addition, some limitations need to be taken into consideration when interpreting

this research’s results. For example, the school tests upon which results were drawn were

designed to include certain types of reading questions. Although these were purposely

designed to contain the most frequent questions in the Palestinian standard tests, other

types of reading questions could have affected the students’ performance. More validated

tools need to be developed to measure the effect of applying RT strategies to reading.

Definition of Terms

 Comprehension: the ability of the reader to understand and construct meaning of the text,

through activating previous knowledge. Comprehension is considered the top goal of any

reading activity.(Palincsar & Brown,1984)

 Comprehension Strategy Instruction: is the explicit teaching of techniques that are

particularly effective for comprehending text. The steps of explicit instruction include

direct explanation, teacher modeling ("think aloud"), guided practice, and application.

(Reading Rocket,2016)

 Cooperative Learning: Cooperative learning involves students working together in small

groups to achieve shared learning goal and complete tasks and assignments. A group can

only be described as cooperative learners when they develop five fundamental elements of
 26

group work: Positive interdependence, Individual accountability, Promotive interaction,

social skills and group processing (Johnson & Johnson, 2002).

 EFL: abbreviation for English as a Foreign Language: the teaching of English to students

whose first language is not English. For example, Palestine, Turkey or China.

(Cambridge Dictionary Online,2016)

 Metacognition: is the process of "thinking or learning about thinking. It refers to the

aware and active participation of the reader in his own cognitive processes, including the

knowledge of the strategy, task and one’s own cognition. (Ellis, Denton & Bond ,2014)

 Metacognitive Strategies: the learner’s awareness of the utility, importance, and

effectiveness of the cognitive strategies. They are the reader’s knowledge about the

reading strategies that are likely to succeed in achieving specific goals in different

cognitive undertakings. This awareness includes planning, monitoring and self-evaluation.

The direct instruction of the strategies enhances the metacognitive knowledge of readers

and results in improved reading performance (El-Koumy,2004)

 Reciprocal Teaching: a multiple-strategy approach through which the teacher

demonstrates his way of constructing meaning from the text using four strategies: asking

questions about the text he is reading; summarizing most important parts of the text;

clarifying vocabulary or ideas which seem complex or new; and predicting what might

occur next in the text. Modeling the strategies takes the form of explicit teaching of

strategies, teacher’s “thinking aloud” and “dialogue” demonstrating his cognitive process

to students at each step and gradually letting students practice towards independent use of

the strategies. The four mentioned strategies functions simultaneously as tools for

fostering comprehension and for monitoring and controlling of reading process.(NRP,

2000; Palincsar & Brown ,1984)

 27

 Scaffolding: Temporary guidance or assistance provided to a student by a teacher, another

adult, or a more capable peer, enabling the student to perform a task he or she otherwise

would not be able to do alone, with the goal of fostering the student's capacity to perform

the task on his or her own later on. (Reading Rocket)

 Thematic Analysis (TA): A “data analysing” method, widely used in qualitative

research ( Javadi & Zarea,2016) , seen as the “foundational method for qualitative

analysis” (Braun & Clarke, 2006), often called the interpretive thematic analysis since it

aims to extract the meaning (Javadi & Zarea,2016) and reflect the truth related to a set of

data (Liamputtong, 2009; Tuckett, 2005), through searching repeated patterns or themes.

This process of pattern recognition (Bowen, 2009) within the data, takes place through

an iterative cycle of identifying, analysing, comparing patterns and reporting themes

(Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Conclusion

This chapter has presented the theoretical foundations of Reciprocal Teaching method

and the Cooperative Learning Approach and their connection points with the Social

Constructivist Theory by Vygotsky. The chapter attempted to put clear the philosophical

underpinnings of teaching reading through RT in a cooperative context, scaffolded by a

teacher and supported by peers. The importance of the cognitive/metacognitive strategies for

meaningful reading and their role in enhancing reading comprehension was detailed. In

addition, RT components, its potentials for enhancing reading comprehension and the

procedures of teaching the method were covered in the chapter. Regarding the research

problem, the problem of research, its significance, purpose and questions were also stated.

The meanings of the key glossary were also included. The studies reviewed in the following

chapter expanded the variety of concepts presented in the current one.

 28

Chapter Two

Literature Review

Introduction

Palincsar & Brown (1984) presented Reciprocal Teaching (RT) strategy as a model

in fostering comprehension skills in reading comprehension. This took the way of the explicit

teaching of four metacognitive skills: clarifying, predicting, questioning and summarizing.

RT worked as a reading facilitating strategy with students who were considered average

decoders but poor or at-risk comprehenders (Palincsar, 1986). Reading is facilitated when

teacher and students take turns in leading the discussion about the text to achieve mutual

understanding through implementing the four strategies. (Palincsar & Klenk, 1991). Palincsar

& Brown (1984) work has functioned as framework for a repertoire of studies that followed

and broadened the strategy scope and implementation. Later on, series of studies presented

RT as a suitable approach for teaching comprehension to a wider audience: poor and strong

decoders, native and non-native language learners, pre-readers, learners of other curriculum

areas, students of special needs and learning difficulties (McAllum, 2014). Chains of studies

like Brown (1992); Palincsar, Brown & Campione (1993); Palincsar (1986; 1989; 2013);

Palincsar & Klenk (1991); Rosenshine & Meister (1992; 1994); Rosenshine, Meister &

Chapman (1996) have addressed the method from wider perspectives. They inquired RT in its

(a) primary features: the dialogue, meaning inference and question generating (b)

sociocultural dynamics and cooperative contexts, (c) teacher’s scaffolding and peer tutoring,

(d) metacognition and monitoring comprehension, (e) RT and achievement and other features

of the method.

Literature of Reciprocal Teaching (RT) provides perceptions of the metacognitive

strategies that are called into interaction to engineer meaning from reading comprehension.

Basically, most studies assert that for comprehension to take place, prior knowledge is to be
 29

activated (Tarchi, 2010). Reading comprehension is the process of generating meaning from

different sources. Therefore, making meaning is about interpreting information connected to

the phenomenon, in the light of previous knowledge about it, rather than absorbing it as rigid

or separate information. Through stimulating the previous knowledge, the reader creates a

new meaning of the text through adapting and integrating what is written to what is known

(Reutzel & Hollingsworth,1988). Recalling previous knowledge for making meaning is a

primary feature of RT. Decoding meaning along with generating questions and thinking

aloud are the main characteristics of this “teacher play” method. In RT, the teacher and

students reciprocate roles in guiding the discussions about specific aspects of the reading

through questioning, clarifying, predicting and summarizing. With teacher’s scaffold and

guidance, learners progress from their current proficiency level to optimal performance level

(Hartman, 1994; 2001). In this regard, Palincsar & Brown (1984) considered teacher’s role as

a mediator or a bridge for students to approach the text with comprehension and regulate their

strategy use. Collaboration between teacher and students and among students themselves

exposes students to extensive modelling of strategies and grants them the chance for

successive practices to bring meaning to the reading text. (Hartman, 1994; 2001)

Studies that have addressed these primary features of RT are reviewed in this chapter.

In some areas, literature of other strategy- based construction that intersects with RT in its

basic qualities was also reviewed to help clarify some aspects of the strategy. The chapter

will present, summarise and discuss the related research of implementing RT in cooperative

teaching context from different perspectives. Further, since this research is inquiring the

effect of RT combined with cooperative learning context, the review will appear in two

sections: the first will go over the research into the basic tenets of RT. It will review and

compare studies that examined the effectiveness of RT to student’s reading achievement.

Moreover, the section will include studies on the impact of RT as a scaffolding strategy in

teaching reading comprehension to students with learning difficulties. Studies of the strategy
 30

teaching context and its relation to the reading outcomes will also be discussed. However, the

second section of this review will go over some literature into the cooperative teaching, group

work features and strategy teaching context.

Section One: Reciprocal Teaching

The Hallmarks of Reciprocal Teaching

There has been an immense of studies that elaborated on Palincsar & Brown (1984)

code for RT. The research investigated the features of RT beyond the four metacognitive

strategies that Palincsar & Brown have passed as recipe for helping struggling readers give

meaning to the text. Research has pursued and examined the combined techniques that

accompany the process of teaching the strategies. For example, teacher’s scaffolding,

thinking aloud, dialogue and vocabulary coding and other components form the process of

teaching. Furthermore, research has examined the metacognitive elements that gear up for

comprehension to take place such as activating prior knowledge, predicting, clarifying, self-

reviewing ,self-questioning and checking comprehension( Hartman,2001). These primary

tenets of RT and the ways researchers dimensioned them will be the core of the coming

pages.

1. Dialogue: the Heart of Reciprocal Teaching

Dialogue is considered the primary feature of RT. Guided dialogues within RT classes

enabled students who haven’t mastered reading yet to engage in a meaningful learning from

the text. For example, in Palincsar & Klenk (1991), students were able to develop reading

comprehension skills and comprehension monitoring skills in just twenty classes. The reason

was attributed to the variety of roles the teacher assumed within RT. In addition to

exchanging dialogue leading between teacher and students until joint understanding takes

place. The study presented, in details, the observation of class dialogues between the teacher

and students. The dialogue aimed to facilitate understanding of the theme through employing
 31

the four RT strategies. After that, the teacher passed on her role to a student who played

teacher in discussion leading and questioning.

Similarly, Palincsar (1989) reported how six first grade teachers were able to teach

biological principles to kids who were in academic risk. Through dialogue and conversation

over the reading, each teacher with five students was able to establish comprehension. The

understanding that students were able to elaborate was not claimed to the knowledge

presented by the teacher, nor by the kids. It was the result of scaffolding students’ awareness,

tolerating with their imagination and debating over the meaning until the correct principles of

biology were built. RT provided the conversational tools needed to support the discussion, as

well as, provided the chance of cooperative work needed to build the community of learners.

A comparison between the results of the experimental and control groups showed that over a

year of teaching, the experimental group had exceedingly outperformed the control.

2. Reciprocal Teaching as a Vocabulary Enhancing Strategy

RT was used by quite a number of researchers to help their students expand their

vocabulary abilities such as word decoding, vocabulary attainment and meaning-inference

abilities. Brown (2015); Bruce & Robinson (2001); Fevre, Moore & Wilkinson (2003);

Hartman (2001) and Reutzel & Hollingsworth (1988) have investigated the effect of RT on

promoting students’ decoding and inference abilities and enlighten teachers’ strategic

teaching. They aimed to help the low proficiency students to overcome their reading and

vocabulary identification deficits. During their researches, it was found that the difference

between good and poor readers has nothing to do with their memory abilities. Simply, good

readers activate their cognitive/metacognitive skills to make connections between what they

read and their prior knowledge. While, poor readers are unaware of the appropriate strategies

to monitor and check their comprehension. (Fevre et.al, 2003). The mentioned researches

have diagnosed the reasons behind students’ reading deficiency. They have concluded that

the deficiency in constructing meaning from the text refers to: (a) the absence of age –
 32

appropriate, interesting texts results in degrading the contextual clues which help decoding

process through activating cognitive/metacognitive skills (b) quality of instruction that

focuses on teaching the word- level, (c) frustration that rises from unrewarded effort, (d)

difficulties at the phonological level represented in analysing and synthesizing speech

sounds,(e) concentrating on the coding task with all efforts, leaving little resources for

making meaning,(f) failure in decoding skills at early age results in negative attitude towards

reading which inhibits growth in vocabulary identification,( g) lack of self –efficacy specially

in mixed classes. Based on the previous reasons, Reutzel & Hollingsworth (1988) stated that

failures in making inferences “can result from a child's limited background knowledge about

the topic to be read”, or lack of the fundamental strategic ability to attend or analyse relevant

information (P.360). This breeds a lack of cultural, contextual and conditional catalysts which

encourage applying these strategies and regulating them over time. The absence of the

stimulating conditions, cause these strategies to remain inert, in spite of having the students

learnt them. (Hartman, 2001)

In the light of previous findings, Brown (2015) applied RT to improve her primary

school reading comprehension and vocabulary attainment. No significant differences were

found in the means of control and experimental groups in the reading comprehension, but the

experimental group excelled in the vocabulary attainment despite being basically lower in

their growth mean compared to the control group. However, the development in her primary

classes achievement may be attributed the explicit teaching of RT strategies and the

convenient period of intervention which continued for a year.

Moving to the high school context, Bruce & Robinson (2001) pursued the

improvement of their upper classes’ reading ability and word identification skills through

three different teaching methods for three groups. The experimental group received

metacognitive skill training to word identification accompanied with RT. The two other

control groups received traditional teaching of word identification aided by RT or by

 33

traditional comprehension teaching at other occasions. The results were in favour of the

experimental group who were basically poor readers (multi-syllabic and depends highly on

the text). With the intervention they became able to identify and decode words in new texts.

The research recommended examining RT in a peer tutoring or cooperative learning context

with optimal teaching period and adequate teachers’ training. Similarly, Fevre et al (2003)

challenged the comprehension failure and motivational difficulties of their poor readers by

combining RT with tape assisted reading to compensate the fluency problem. The researchers

aimed to examine the effect of this modified RT teaching on their students’ decoding ability.

Two studies were conducted with four groups; the first had one experimental and three

controls, while the second contained three experimental groups. Students in the experimental

groups were made in heterogeneous groups of six with poor and average coding skills, but all

were diagnosed as poor comprehenders. The cassette assisted RT along with highly

motivating expository texts were claimed to enhance students’ decoding ability. As a result,

students naturally grew in their comprehension ability, as well as their capacity of retention

and transfer.

In an interesting study by Reutzel & Hollingsworth (1988), it was found that teaching

RT techniques with highlighted vocabulary have improved third graders ability to generate

their own inferential passages. Text’s vocabulary highlighting, with visual illustrations and

textual clues were utilized in teaching. This way, they were able to scaffold learners’ abilities

to generate their own copies of the target texts. Moreover, learners were able transfer these

strategies to unfamiliar texts. Despite that the near, far and delayed transfer was assessed; the

study had few limitations related to texts’ types used in assessing the transfer on the one

hand. On the other hand, the study didn’t reveal the strategy training type that was more

effective to students’ achievement in such combined strategy teaching context.

Very similar results were reported by Mandel, Osana & Venkatesh (2013) who

applied the RT generative techniques to first grade students. Students were taught new
 34

vocabulary through illustrated pictures. Then, they were delegated the responsibility to apply

the newly learnt vocabulary in meaningful ways and create their own narratives. A

comparison of assessment results’ of the experimental and control group-who traditionally

studied an interactive text book - showed greater attainment of vocabulary in the

experimental group.

3. Monitoring Regulations and Thinking Aloud

Despite being a premise technique in building knowledge in reading, there is not

much recent research that attends to comprehension –monitoring (self-checking) in reading

(Dent & Koenka ,2015), especially in empirical literature and in non- native context.

Comprehension monitoring is associated with reading, since it implies “the ability of a reader

to be aware, while reading, whether a text is making sense or not” (Gomez, & López, 2012,

P.88). Casanave (1988) described self- monitoring technique while reading as a “neglected

essential” in ESL reading. She referred to that essential as “one kind of activity under the

umbrella of metacognition, consists of any behaviors that allow readers to judge whether

comprehension is taking place and that help them decide whether and how to take

compensatory action when necessary”(P.288). She divided these strategic behaviours into

three main facets: evaluating, planning, and regulating. In the first stage, learners monitor

their current level of comprehension, following, they attend to the reading problem and plan

the suitable strategy that applies, and then they check their understanding through self-

questioning to reflect on their performance.

These reading behaviours were the focus of Dent & Koenka (2015) who examined the

relationship between self-regulating strategies (cognitive and metacognitive) and academic

achievement. Among other factors they have investigated in their meta-analyses study, the

strongest correlation to academic success was correlated to engaging these metacognitive

processes. The use of these composite strategies has helped students to regulate themselves

for better academic achievement. The research has extended the metacognitive components
 35

of Casanave (1988) into five. These included “goal setting, planning, self-monitoring, self-

control, and self-evaluation” (P.428). Metacognitive strategies were described to be of higher

impact than the cognitive ones since they allow students to control and monitor their

cognitive application of the learning strategies. Without activating them, students will not be

able to decide when to use different cognitive strategies. Moreover, metacognitive processes

allow students to regulate their task from the beginning to the end for higher achievement.

Provided that these strategies were used simultaneously as composite measures, they will

definitely have stronger correlation to success over single strategy use.

Dent & Koenka (2015) confirmed that these strategies can be internalized as

automatic processes for students who read in their native language. However, to monitor

comprehension in classroom context, the less- proficient learners need to talk about these

processes with the teacher. The thinking aloud technique is a necessity here, especially in

non- native contexts- to enable students articulate their mental processes, their plans and

decisions. In addition, thinking aloud gives students the chance to monitor specific aspects of

reading, at the same time, teaches them how to do so (Casanave, 1988). Reciprocal Teaching,

she clarified; allow those less proficient learners and novice learners to behave like experts.

RT’s aspects such as the teacher- student dialogue, generating the teacher-like questions or

focusing on the main ideas for summarization activate monitoring reading. Moreover, the

continuous error and trial enables students bit by bit to enhance their awareness. On the other

hand, students by time adapt part of the teacher’s behaviour to their current competence and

take the teacher’s role in leading the dialogue which is the heart of RT. The researcher

advocated RT implementation in non-native context despite the challenge of the individual

and group contact.

In a relative context, Kucan & Beck (1997) defined the thinking aloud as verbalizing

the cognitive processes readers resort to while reading. RT involves students in explicitly

demonstrating their mental processes through reciprocal dialogues with teacher and
 36

classmates. In this process, the teacher tracks students’ dialogue to monitor their reading

discussions. With this consistent dialogue about the reading, students’ ability develops at the

level of managing the dialogue skill itself, and at the comprehension monitoring level.

Therefore, the teacher’s modelling and the students’ verbalization provide a positive impact

for teaching the strategies. However, the study called for extra research to determine the real

reason behind the success of Palincsar and Brown (1984) model. Does the success of RT

refer to training students systematically to the four reading strategies or to the dialogic nature

of process and the thinking aloud technique? (Kucan & Beck ,1997)

4. Reciprocal Teaching a Scaffolded Strategy

Reciprocal teaching is a scaffolded strategy, “which combines expert scaffolding,

guided practice in applying simple concrete strategies, and cooperative learning discussions,

is a successful method of improving both listening and reading comprehension”. Brown &

Palincsar, 1989, P3). When the word scaffolding is mentioned in RT, it directly connotes the

role of the teacher, in providing help to learners through dialogue or conversation. Palincsar

(1986) stated that scaffolding is the assistance provided by the adult to the novices,

supporting their inchoate learning to enable them accomplish the task or solve the problem.

However, Palincsar (1998) warns that not every classroom interaction can be considered as

scaffolding. Moreover, scaffolding is not simply summarised in providing the same type of

assistance and support to students doing the task. RT is a method that was basically designed

to boost scaffolding though its diversity in techniques and richness with teaching procedures.

Trif (2015) presented a review of the concept of scaffolding across the various

theories under the social framework of learning. In a social constructivist environment,

dialogue is an apparent feature which helps students build knowledge and develop problem-

solving strategies through observing and modelling their mature teacher or peers. The

teacher’s role as a scffolder is summarised in (a) encouraging participation and cooperative

learning, (b) designing appropriate learning activities, (c ) providing training that is suitable
 37

to learners’ and adjust it to their current skill, and (d) monitoring learners’ progress with

focusing on the mental activities. Despite having various concepts of scaffolding, it refers, in

general, to the support provided by teacher to student while performing a task that can’t be

accomplished with his current level of skill. The teacher adjusts the quality and amount of

scaffold and gradually withdraws it when the students reach the optimal performance of the

task. (Trif, 2015; Van de Pol, Volman & Beishuizen, 2010).

In a meta-analysis study, Van de Pol et al (2010) analysed 66 studies that examined

the concept and its effectiveness in different subject areas and came to the result that

scaffolding is effective. The mentioned study is important since it revealed the following:

(a) Most scaffolding studies are small –scale studies, mainly descriptive without

intervention and when intervention occurred, it was one to one interaction that focused

on literacy. Very little studies aimed to investigate the effectiveness of scaffolding.

(b) There is no consensus on defining scaffolding since every student’s building of

knowledge is different. However, it is the amount of support provided by the teacher to

the student doing the task to enable him/ her accomplishes it.

(c) Scaffolding is best performed and presented within broader frameworks and RT is the

best example of this.

The latter point regarding scaffolding appears clearly in Palincsar (2013), one of the

RT theorists. She traced the different applications of the method along those years and the

types of modifications conveyed by the researchers to the original Palincsar & Brown (1984)

model. Moreover, she compared various contexts and techniques in teaching RT. She

concluded that the most powerful aspect of RT as a reading promoting model is teaching the

four premium strategies concurrently, in an assertion that the four strategies are needed to

improve the comprehension abilities of the learners. Conducting another comparison between

several mono-strategic programs (which implement one of the RT strategies separately) and

the original program, that stands on integrating the four strategies, supports Palincsar’s claim.
 38

The writer credits the superiority of RT to its dialogic nature in teaching students to be self-

regulated learners. Palincsar (2013) intensive trace to several school context applications of

RT, showed that teaching the four same strategies- questioning, summarizing, predicting and

clarifying- in non –dialogic context was not effective in bringing large ,reliable changes in

students’ performance as the traditional RT procedures ,incorporating dialogic instruction

did.

5. Reciprocal Teaching a Question Generating Strategy

Ems (1988) has demanded teachers to teach the less- talented students how to

generate questions through RT strategy. Her call stems from the idea that teachers are busy

with generating questions that focus on the themes, characters, plot …etc. of the literature

they read. Consequently, they end up doing the metacognitive work, their students are

supposed to do. The point is that students who are called good readers are already able to

predict, summarise the important points, and use them to ask questions later on. Less talented

students don’t have these skills internalised. Reciprocal teaching gives them the chance to

develop these skills through social interaction with the teacher and classmates. This

interaction takes the form of dialogue and teacher will evaluate the relevancy and importance

of the question, either to correct errors or to encourage and praise. When learners are given

this chance to interact, it takes place within the zone of their proximal development and the

social interaction will by the time become internalization of the skill.

In a well-established study, Rosenshine, Meister & Chapman (1996), aimed to

investigate the effectiveness of different types of question- generating strategies through a

review of an immense of studies. It also aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different

prompts that teachers use to help students generate questions. In addition, the study has

discussed some further scaffolds which contribute to the success of this cognitive strategy

teaching. The research has compared teaching questioning using traditional skill-based

instructional approach via the RT approach. Moreover, the study has compared the results of
 39

generating questions in standardized tests, experimenter- developed tests and summarizing

tests of the chosen studies. The effect size of both types of tests was compared in seventeen

traditional teaching studies and nine reciprocal teaching studies. Unexpectedly, the study

revealed that:

a) Teaching students to generate questions while reading resulted in gains in reading

comprehension. Despite the fact that traditional studies taught the single strategy of

questioning and RT taught four cognitive strategies, the results of all types of tests were

very similar.

b) The effect sizes were larger in studies where teachers provided scaffolds as question

generating prompts compared to studies that didn’t provide prompts or asked students to

generate their owns. Students who received prompts made considerable difference in

reading comprehension compared to those who didn’t receive any prompts.

c) The most successful prompts used as facilitators to generate questions were (1) single

word prompt, whereby teacher provides students with question words like what, who,

when, where …etc. to generate questions. (2) generic questions where by teacher ask

detailed questions that stems from the main idea and (3) story grammar prompts which

focus on the story elements such as characters ,setting, plot ,problem and ending.

However, using the main idea to generate questions was the least effective prompt.

The Reciprocal Teaching Context

A historical narration of how RT has conceptualised the learning context, was

presented by Brown (1992). The article reviewed the theoretical and methodological

challenges that accompanied learning in the second half of the 20th century. The absence of

appropriate strategy training has resulted in passive learning and inert knowledge. As a result,

a shift into more strategy training with contextualised texts and cooperative environments,

have become a classroom necessity. Summarizing the gist of ten years of work, the writer

found that metacognition can be trained; strategy training improves memory processing and
 40

monitoring processing. Training enables students to regulate their thinking plans and revise

their learning, changing them from passive into active learners. Still, students wouldn’t be

able to put these strategies into work out of social collaborative context of learning. RT

provides both, the strategy training and the context. It takes place in social groups of learners

who exchange roles in leading the group, discuss and interpret the possible meanings of a

text, cooperatively clarify the difficult points and finally give the main idea of the reading.

These primary features have been extended over time to work as more complex classroom

dynamics. Students over time, appropriate RT as a tool to check comprehension and enhance

monitor comprehension.

Excluding the rich theoretical framework, the article gave an impressive example of

designing classroom contexts. These contexts activated RT to develop functioning learners

rather than passive audience. In one example of Brown (1992), RT was combined with jigsaw

method to create expertise learners. Seventh and eighth grades students were divided into

groups of five. Each member was given a theme to search on. When students were done, each

student became expert in his subtopic and owned fifth of the knowledge needed to complete

the missing parts other learners needed. When students were regrouped, each learner offered

his information through RT seminars to come up with the whole unit done. The researcher

here refers to RT context as a key component of forming the community of learners in which

students get involved in extensive reading for research, using computers, writing, editing and

illustrating their knowledge and so on. This means that learners create their learning and hold

the accountability about what they produce. The result of this experiment revealed that the

RT context gave the learners the chance to become data generators who read, select, edit and

revise their research. In such a process, a massive deal of cognitive monitoring takes place, in

addition to the radical change in the teacher’s role and his assessment tools.

The efficacy of RT as cooperative meaning - generating context was recently

examined by Tarchi & Pinto (2016). The study aimed to discover the impact of RT on two
 41

groups of different instructional backgrounds. Two third -grade groups were compared. The

first was (student-centred) made out of students who practiced cooperative learning before;

the other was (teacher-centred) group who usually worked individually. The contextual

elements of RT, such as the interactive dynamics, discourse moves and communication styles

were coded and analysed. Surprisingly, no differences in the results of the two groups were

found. That means both groups were able to make meaning of the text at the same level. This

finding indicated that RT was able to create rich interactional environment by itself without

the need of previous training of the student- centred group. The research results indicate that

RT is a purely context independent method which was able in this case to activate the same

processes in the two groups. Nevertheless, the only mentioned difference was that the

student- centred group are more accepting of the interaction and better understanding for the

support their mates need.

Issues in Reciprocal Teaching Strategy Training and Teaching

For positive learning outcomes to be attained, teachers and students need to receive

the appropriate training of applying the RT strategy. In an eye catching case study by

Seymour& Osana (2003) the researchers warned against the awry practice of reciprocal

strategies by teachers who get undertaken by the procedures, and forget about the basic

principles of RT. The study investigated the development of conceptions and beliefs of two

teachers as they refined their understandings of the fundamental principles and techniques of

Reciprocal Teaching during a 6-week training intervention. The intervention consisted of a

series of interactive workshops to link the teachers’ developing conceptions to their

classroom practice. The research sought to answer the questions concerning the meanings

that the two teachers hold towards the strategies used in RT. It also examined the teachers’

evolvement of the strategies upon which Reciprocal Teaching is built. The teachers received

training on the main concepts of RT such as cognitive apprenticeship, scaffolding and ZPD.

Then, the conceptual change of the teachers’ practices was observed over the course of
 42

training. Four training sessions were conducted, followed by three rounds of classroom

observations and individual interviews with the participants. The results suggested that the

evolution of teachers’ conceptual development revealed misinterpretation of principles and

procedures. By the end of training, conceptual growth was detected in beliefs about

procedures and beliefs concerning RT principles

Pesa & Somers (2007) found that the absence of explicit instruction of the reading

strategies has resulted in difficulty in transfer of reading strategies to content area subjects.

Their findings were supported by a report that reviewed 19 studies of Reciprocal Teaching

approach. Rosenshine & Meister (1994) have analysed the results of different experimental

studies that investigated the efficacy of RT. Their review revealed that the results were

usually more significant when the explicit instruction of the cognitive strategies took place

before the reciprocal teaching began, compared to the results when RT was used without

prior training. Results were mostly non-significant when below-average students were taught,

yet usually significant when all other students were taught. Moreover, results were usually

significant when experimenter-developed tests were used, yet usually non-significant when

standardized tests were used. RT was found to be effective with all students’ types who

varied in their quality from poor to good students to all students in some studies. In their

answer to the question about the most effective reading procedures in teaching RT in reading,

the researchers advised teachers to:

a) Regulate the difficulty of the materials by starting with materials below the grade level of

the students and regulate the difficulty of the instructional task by starting with the teacher

modelling the first part of the task.

b) Provide cue cards giving the prompts (i.e., teacher-generated questions or question-signal

words), which students can refer to during the dialogues.

c) Model the process of using the procedure in developing questions and summaries.

d) Provide models of good questions and summaries.

 43

e) Increase student responsibility during the dialogues by gradually diminishing the prompts

and models, increasing the complexity of the material, and putting all the component parts

or steps together.

Further, Bruce & Robinson (2001) aimed to assess the effectiveness of a

metacognitive and RT approach for improving the word identification and reading

comprehension skills of upper primary poor readers in a regular classroom situation. The

researchers conducted pre, mid and post-tests to the experimental and control groups. Their

findings suggested that the combination of metacognitive word identification strategies and

reciprocal teaching of comprehension was clearly more effective than normal classroom word

study and comprehension activities. It was also more effective than reciprocal teaching of

comprehension with traditional methods of word identification. The results of the study also

indicated that classroom-based model of implementation appears to be more successful when

teachers have the responsibility for its implementation on their own.

From a wider perspective, beyond the boundaries of RT, the efficacy of strategy –

based context in general, has been explored by Gibson (2009). He explored the effectiveness

of strategy- based reading instruction for improving student’s reading comprehension. At the

same time, he questioned the teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of implementing

strategy based reading instruction in their classrooms. Gibson’s study presented a seven- key

strategy program to be applied to reading comprehension classes for school learners’ age

from kindergarten to the 8th grade. The strategies included making connections, questioning,

making inferences, determining importance, synthesizing information, visualizing and self-

monitoring while reading. The program was delivered to teachers who applied them to their

classes without any intervention from the researcher, who at the end encompassed the

perception of the participant teachers toward them.

Teachers’ perception of the effectiveness of the program was investigated through an

online survey of eight questions answered by nine teachers. Results of the study suggested
 44

that the participants were in favour of strategy- based reading instruction, and enjoyed

teaching with strategy based reading instruction. The participants in this study all agreed that

strategy -based reading instruction is an effective way to improve reading comprehension.

Despite being very important study that provided a package of strategies to cope

with different learning styles and needs, the study sample consisted of 9 teachers which is

relatively small to be representative. In addition, the researcher didn’t train teachers to the

program and only depended on choosing teachers with good teaching experience. That would

limit the results to the perception of some experienced teachers, which may affect the results

in a way or another. Finally, it would be more influential if the questionnaire encompassed

learners’ perception of the strategy-based teaching instead of teachers’.

However, it is finally clear that strategy based instruction creates a context for more

meaningful reading. Strategies, when trained, activate learners’ hidden abilities to explore the

meaning, build mental relationships and present their reasoning.

The Educational and Affective Panorama of Reciprocal Teaching

RT as a rich strategy based method was widely used by educators of all learning

levels. Teachers who wished to improve their students’ language competence, performance

and achievement, have tried RT. The strategy was also implemented by teachers who rebelled

against the traditional low- affective contexts. RT was applied for the purpose of improving

enhancing motivation, self- esteem and other affective factors. Moreover, RT was applied by

instructors who hoped to skill their students with reading strategies that may work as

comprehension tools for life. In short, RT was considered a form of the reading

comprehension reform in teaching.

At the university level, Gruenbaum (2012) called for more RT strategy-based teaching

of the university students in transitional courses. She claimed that many college students lack

the meta-comprehension skills to figure the meaning of texts. The researcher’s students faced

difficulties in bringing meaning to the text in order to succeed in other tasks they are required
 45

to do, most necessarily, writing. The research found a need at college – level students to

analyse and evaluate what they read in the age of information, think critically about the text,

connect ideas and concepts and solve problems they face while reading. Reciprocal teaching

was taught to help students to encounter the previous challenges. The research results showed

a real need to teach the strategies of prediction, questioning, clarification, and summarization

to improve reading comprehension at college level. The research recommended that teaching

RT method to teaching reading strategies to college students, providing scaffolding through

modelling, encouraging interaction through couching students to lead the discussions.

In addition, Stygles (2014) offered a chance for his 6th graders to acquire and practice

reciprocal learning through lyrics study. In this experiment, the teacher scaffolded the

learners’ comprehension skills through discussion of the lyrics towards mastering the

meaning. The scaffolding took different forms in different texts towards being independent

readers.

The researcher used the gradual release model, broke the songs up by stanzas to scaffold

readers' independence and used reciprocal teaching to model the way students need to

approach meaning, in the first stanza. Guided reading was used with the second stanza. Small

group work was used with the third stanza to give learners the chance to think aloud and

provide support to each other. In the fourth, students worked independently. In the following

stanzas, learners shared predictions and expanded thinking through conversation. The writer

collected his data through observation and students’ reflections and found that RT and

strategy training in general is critical in building learners’ concepts. Strategy provides a

scaffold for learning even with “boring” social studies concepts and themes. In addition, it

was found that using “easier” texts builds the readers curiosity to find a new purpose for

reading non-fiction, linking texts together to clarify, find answers, confirm predictions, and

expand the knowledge base of the learners.

 46

Following the same route, Wijayatiningsih (2013) implemented reciprocal teaching to

improve the eleven grade students’ reading comprehension achievement. The researcher used

quantitative and qualitative research methods. The quantitative research is a case study. It

means she chose only one class and gave them the treatment. Firstly, conventional teaching

was done. Secondly, reciprocal teaching was done. Tests were given to the students using

same text after every teaching. She also observed the process of every teaching. The

researcher found that the achievement of reciprocal group surpassed the conventional group

in the tests results. Although the period of training or number of class periods weren’t

mentioned, she concluded that:

a) The strategy training allowed students to gain more self-confidence and motivation to read

and even expertise as they apply the four strategies to a variety of texts.

b) RT involved students in the discussion of text and increased cooperation and the

leadership skills when students played the role as discussion leaders.

c) RT left a positive effect on students’ reading comprehension achievement.

Murray (2010) implemented two approaches of teaching to teach summarization to

college freshmen students. Reciprocal Teaching and Peer Tutoring were used. The study

examined students’ reading level and their use of strategies for summarizing narrative texts in

two different cooperative teaching approaches for 77 college students from four remedial

reading classes with different social and lingual backgrounds. Each two classes were using

different approach: two classes were taught by RT. In the other two, peer tutoring was the

teaching approach.

The RT approach was made of small groups in which the students worked together

summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting. In turn, played the role of teacher and

kept their own group on task. The role of the teacher was a facilitator, who with the use of

think-aloud, engaged in reciprocal modelling and encouraged student interaction. The peer

tutoring approach engaged two partners who, under the supervision of the teacher,
 47

alternatively played the role of tutor and learner. The two asked each other a set of

cognitively developed questions based on generic question stems.

This study generated attractive results, among which:

a. Students’ reading level affected their ability to determine the main idea. The high-level

readers in both the RT and the peer tutoring approaches were significantly stronger in

identifying the main idea in a reading.

b. Low-level readers in the RT group were significantly stronger in problem identification

than the high-level readers.

c. RT approach appeared to be especially beneficial in influencing and enhancing students’

ability to identify the problem in a reading.

Moreover, Lestari (2016) investigated the effect of RT on the critical thinking ability

of the second graders, and their perception of the method. RT was used to help students to

obtain information from a reading text and to solve the problems of reading. Students were

encouraged to present their reasoning with reference to their own experience, knowledge or

believes. At the same time, they were required to justify their answers. It was found that

students’ ability to communicate their reflections is related to their vocabulary mastery. The

more vocabulary they knew, the more they were able to express their ideas clearly. The

research’s positive results regarding the student’s critical thinking ability and perception were

associated to the teaching of RT strategies.

Reciprocal Teaching as a Remedial Intervention with Underachievers

There is an immense of research devoted to foster self-monitoring and comprehension

monitoring while reading. A bulk of this research aimed to reveal the impact of strategy- use

on the overall process of comprehension, especially with learners labelled as poor

comprehenders, poor readers, underachievers, at –risk learners or reading disability (Aaron,

1997). Whatever designations are given to those learners, they are diagnosed as barely good

or adequate decoders, but unable to read with meaning (Alfassi, 1998). Many researchers
 48

drilled for the tangible reasons that may attribute to underachievement in comprehension,

claiming that even in the native language where students are fluent readers; there is a

deficiency in comprehension. McHugh (2016), for instance, refused the claim that

underachievement may attribute to the fact that students put effort on decoding the words and

that leads them to fluency at the word level, leaving little cognitive space devoted to

comprehension. She believed that underachievement in reading is not just connected to poor

decoding ability. Instead, she attributed underachievement to reasons such as the lack of self-

efficacy, lack of explicit reading strategies, the interest in the text itself and the absence of

thinking aloud and conscious practice of the strategy while reading. In her action research,

McHugh (2016) investigated the effectiveness of RT program on five underachievers in

comprehension for six weeks intervention. The results of the research showed an increase in

the learners’ self- efficacy and better class interaction as the thinking aloud strategy was used

during reading.

However, Raslie, Mikeng &Ting (2015) reported that a sufficient duration of RT

intervention, and guiding the reading groups to share their monitoring of comprehension are

crucial conditions in implementing RT with struggling reader.

Aaron (1997) has recommended RT as a reading model for learners with reading

deficits, regardless to the classifications given to their disabilities. In this meta- analysis, he

went over different researches which consequently outlined the reasons behind reading

disability in poor decoding ability, poor comprehension ability or both. Whatever was the

problematic component that impedes acquisition of the reading skill, it is critical to apply the

strategy that makes up for that weak component. Among the findings of some studies he

reported, some showed that poor readers who were taught metacognitive strategies have

surpassed their normal mates who received traditional teaching, in the test performance.

According to this finding, it’s recommended to teach comprehension in regular classrooms

instead of special need rooms. This being under the framework of RT, provided that the
 49

teachers of these classes receive “special training in remedial reading methods that are

designed to improve skills such as phoneme awareness, decoding, vocabulary knowledge,

and comprehension strategies”. (Aaron,1997, p 489). A similar suggestion was made by

Mothus & Lapadat (2006). The researchers suggested that strategy teaching approach is the

best alternative to all learning assistance approaches, since it hits cognitive and metacognitive

elements in a socially supportive setting. These strategies help learners plan, make decisions,

select and monitor their use.

In a similar context, Alfassi (1998) investigated the efficacy of RT in teaching

comprehension compared to the conventional methods of skills acquisition in high school

context, during eight -week intervention. The sample consisted of 75 students who were

adequate decoders but poor comprehenders. The control and the experimental groups were

exposed to two types of assessment: the teacher- developed tests which aimed to test the

difference in achievement along the intervention period and the standardized test which was

given prior and post the intervention to reveal the change in achievement in the two groups.

The results of four school tests indicated a difference in performance for the sake of the

experimental group from the first to the last round. This significant improvement in the

experimental showed that RT instruction was able to support students with the tools they

need to dominate reading texts in a context that was more challenging before the intervention.

Yet, the results of the standardised test showed no significant effect for either of the groups in

comprehension or vocabulary sections.

Contrary to the previous findings, Lysynchuk, Pressley & Vye (1990) found that 7 th

and 4th grade poor readers have made great improvement in the standardized test, and their

results were significant in both the experimental and the control groups. However, their

vocabulary performance did not.

On the other hand, Rosalia (2015) has implemented RT strategy for teaching

comprehension to his eighth grade students, who have showed problems in reading
 50

comprehension since the previous year. In this action research, he examined the ability of the

technique to improve his students’ reading competence, and to what extent. Indications of

performance were collected through checklist and field notes. Students’ achievement was

tracked through cloze tests. The findings of the qualitative data showed that despite the

teamwork settings and the collaborative environment, some students didn’t understand the

technique and were inattentive to the activities. A number of students didn’t react positively

in the first stage of the research. Yet, the majority paid good attention and were able to

respond to the reading and the teamwork positively. The quantitative data revealed a

significant improvement in the reading achievement. The researcher concluded that RT had

the ability to enhance the students’ ability to predict, clarify, summarize and question about

the text. In addition it had positive impact on students’ enthusiasm for reading, in spite of the

challenges in class management.

Finally, Englert & Mariage (1991); Klingner & Vaughn (1996); Mothus & Lapadat

(2006) have all reported positive results of their RT interventions with reading disabilities.

Applying RT in Non-Native Contexts

In the non-English speaking classrooms, several studies have aimed at scaffolding

students’ cognitive/metacognitive awareness, enhancing reading comprehension competence

or both through applying RT. Dabarera, Renandya & Zhang (2014) have sought to raise their

first – year college students’ metacognitive awareness and reading comprehension through

teaching reading with RT strategies in the university of Singapore. The teaching of the

strategies followed the explicit way and the results of qualitative and quantitative data

revealed a positive relationship between using RT and raising the students’ reading

competence and reading awareness.

In this regard, Komariah et al (2015) has focused on the process of performing RT

activities in an Indonesian classroom setting. They collected their data through classroom

observation, school tests and interviews with the students. Their findings showed active
 51

classroom dynamics attributed to the strategy instruction. Students became more active,

cooperative and gained higher self –efficacy as a result to their roles in the groups.

Furthermore, students were able to apply the four RT strategies successfully and gain

strategic awareness. Students found summarizing a difficult strategy to apply. However,

predicting and questioning were the most favourable to them.

Armbrister (2010) tried to know how RT may impact 3rd through 5th grade ELLs’

reading comprehension in a Florida rural county intermediate elementary school. The

researcher explored how the use of the four strategies of reciprocal teaching would help ELLs

construct meaning from any given genre and transfer that into independent performance. The

data of the research were collected through observations, interviews, field notes, and

interpretations of how students interact with this particular reading strategy. The results of

this study demonstrated the positive effects on the reading comprehension of ELLs as a result

of the introduction, study, and practice of reciprocal teaching. Improvement in student

performance produced self-sufficient and confident second language learning readers. The

strategies implemented in this collaborative reading approach proved progress with students

reading comprehension.

In the Arab area, Al Debes (2005) had investigated the effect of using reciprocal

teaching with semantic mapping strategies on developing the reading comprehension of ninth

grade students.176 male and female students were chosen according to their conveniences to

participate in the study. The participants were distributed into two control and two

experimental groups. Pre and post tests were used to reveal the change in students’

performance. The findings of the research showed that students who received strategy

instruction have outperformed students who received traditional teaching. The experimental

group showed a progress in the reading comprehension and the reading sub skills.

Additionally, the effect of RT on enhancing the critical thinking ability was discussed

by Al-Qatawneh (2010). The research agrees with the doctrine that reading is all about
 52

reasoning and building meaningful relationships rather than decoding words or sounds.

Unfortunately, little effort is given to support beginner readers with cognitive strategy to help

them read meaningfully. In his research, RT strategy teaching was used with seventh grade

students, with the goal to develop conscious reading practices and metacomprehension skills.

After the teaching period was finished, a posttest was administered for the experimental and

control groups. The results indicated that the experimental has performed the control in the

three domains of the reading comprehension test, literal, inferential, and critical reading

skills. The researcher recommended studying the effect of RT in a cooperative context to

reveal if teamwork context can be more effective than the individual one

The issue of comprehension deficit among the Jordanian students was also questioned

by Hasan (2006). The researcher referred the poor reading gains to the lack of strategic

teaching of comprehension. Learners are provided with little chances to draw analogies,

inferences, explanations and summaries of the reading materials. Yet, meaningful learning

takes place when the instruction succeeds in creating cognitive representations in the working

memory. RT with its sub strategies is claimed to relate learners’ previous experiences with

the new ones and build schemas that enables better retention of the reading. The research

investigated this claim, through designing a teaching content built on RT activities. The

participants of the study consisted of eighty four 11th graders; equally males and females,

classified into experimental and control groups, two groups each. The data was collected via

reading test and a questionnaire to reveal students perspective towards learning with RT

strategy. The findings of this study showed significant differences in the mean scores of the

four groups in favour of the experimental. The questionnaire answers showed a positive

impact of the strategy use. In addition, a significant difference in achievement was reported in

favour of girls. The research recommended holding workshops for teachers and supervisors

for extensive RT training.

 53

Reciprocal Teaching and Students with Special Needs

Strategy instruction wasn’t limited to teaching students with low reading abilities. RT

was also implemented and revealed positive results with students of other special needs, such

as students with hearing problems or mental issues. In an emphatic study, Bilgi & Ozmen,

(2014) tested the impact of strategy use to reading comprehension with mentally retarded

students in a six- month study. The sample consisted of three students (one-5th grader female,

two 7th grader males) from inclusive classes. The researchers designed descriptive texts to

teach to kids with mild mental retardation. The intervention took the form Cognitive Strategy

Instruction. These strategies included: setting a goal for reading and motivating the students

for reading, activating the background knowledge about the topic and predicting the text

content, placing the predicted ideas and information units on a graphic organizer for before

reading, comparing the predicted ideas with ideas in text and summarizing the text in writing

for after reading.

The study used a qualitative method. Semi-structured metacognitive interview were

conducted for data collection. Metacognitive interviews in comprehension examined the

processes used by readers while reading. The results of the study are typical examples of the

reading behavior of readers who lack sufficient cognitive and metacognitive skills. The

results of the interviews showed that students had had inadequate meta-cognitive knowledge

about text comprehension strategies before the instruction. Moreover, mental retardation

learners directly begin to read without setting the goals of reading in advance. They begin to

read without predicting or thinking about the content. They do not know what to do when

they cannot comprehend what they are reading. In addition; they cannot determine which

strategies to use in order to comprehend the text, nor establish links between background

information and new information.

After being instructed, participating students acquired the strategy knowledge before,

during, after reading that is used by competent readers. They started predicting the text,
 54

setting a goal for reading, monitoring comprehension processes, underlining important ideas

while reading, and writing a summary of the text after reading. The study has obviously

highlighted the significance of training students to metacognitive strategies in reading

comprehension. Even though, the sample is very small and the community of research is

mentally retarded, it can be assumed that lacking cognitive and metacognitive strategies of

reading is really the challenge that normal poor comprehenders face.

Likewise, Tajalli & Satari, S. (2013) examined the impact of using a combination of

RT and self-instruction program on ten learners with hearing disorders. The students’ reading

ability was assessed after eight sessions of intervention and a significant difference was

reported in the reading skills of the experimental group.

Furthermore, Doganay & Ozmen (2014) have experimented the effect of a modified

program of cognitive strategy on developing the metacognitive awareness of three mentally

retarded students. The components of their program included modelling the strategy, thinking

aloud, guided and independent dialogues. In addition, graphic organizers were used to

illustrate the comprehension passages. Predicting and summarizing were basic practices

elements of the teaching, too. The qualitative results showed that the three students were able

to develop metacognitive awareness and they showed a positive change in their reading

comprehension.

At last, Todd & Tracey (2006) has used the reciprocal teaching strategies to train four

at –risk students in an inclusive class to vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension.

During a six –week training, two types of intervention took place alternatively; reciprocal

teaching and guided reading. The intervention resulted in a noticeable improvement in

vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension skills in three of the subjects of the study

and no significant change in the fourth. Overall, reciprocal teaching was found to be an

effective method to use with at-risk students. Participants succeeded in reaching their literacy

goals as well as in their own personal growth.

 55

Section Two: Cooperative Learning

This study has paired RT technique with cooperative learning. It was an attempt to

relate the learning outcomes equally to the teacher’s scaffold on the one hand, and the

cooperation between learners, on the other. RT was intentionally taught in cooperative

groups, since most students in foreign language classroom lack confidence, participation

skills and motivation (Nilsson & Hay, 2016). Therefore, the current study has taken place in a

cooperative group work that may offer more social support to learners. At the same time,

these groups had a heterogeneous structure to realise higher social equity. The sensitive point

here is that not all students sitting around a table are doing cooperative learning (Johnson &

Johnson, 2002). The way the interaction patterns are structured, is deeply connected with

shaping the learning outcomes. However, the way students interact and perceive each other’s

is according to Roger & Johnson (1994) a neglected area in instruction. To be consistent with

the cognitive psychology and social learning theories that underpin the current study, this

section will cover different studies on cooperative learning and group work in the classroom.

It is in the light of these studies, the research assumptions will be examined and findings will

be discussed.

Elements of Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning as a social learning context has been presented in many studies.

Roger & Johnson (1994), for instance, have put instructors in front of two structures of their

classes: The competitive class, where each student competes to be the best; and the

cooperative, where students encourage each other’s, celebrate each other’s success and share

the tasks, regardless to their social backgrounds. However, the first way of classroom

interaction is still the dominant in the worlds’ classrooms and studies to the second are still

rare. In spite of the bright picture of the second way, the research has warned the teachers of

the trap of cooperative learning concept; putting students in groups doesn’t necessarily
 56

produce a cooperative work. That could be individual work with talking, some students are

working and the others are just doing nothing. The crucial point in deciding whether the

group are working cooperatively or just individually, while sitting together is: the goal. That

is when all group members work together to achieve the task and feel responsible about the

team success. The elements that make a group really constructive and productive were

summarised by Johnson & Johnson (2002, 2009); Roger & Johnson (1994) .

1. “Positive interdependence”, which refers to the idea that each group member is linked to

others, and can’t achieve his goal unless the others were able to. Such interdependence

requires sharing a goal, rewards, and resources.

2. “Personal accountability”, which is tightly connected with the previous factor, and is

realised when the group is assisting each member to be stronger learner.

3. “Face to face interaction” is recommended to promote support among group members,

through verbal and non-verbal actions. Through interaction, members provide

explanations of how to solve a problem, help in drawing conclusions and reasoning. In

sum, face to face interaction promotes higher order thinking skills among groups’

members.

4. “Interpersonal and small group skills”. Group members need to be taught how to

communicate in appropriate way to achieve the mutual goal. These skills imply mutual

trust, clear communicative language, accepting others, and solving problem cooperatively.

5. “Group process”. This is realised when members assess each other’s actions, evaluate

other members’ decisions, and whether to continue or change their tactics towards

achieving the group’s goal.

These elements are basic conditions for organizing cooperative work. Still, teachers need

to create lessons with tasks that can address the multi abilities in the group. A task that targets

the wide range of abilities conveys a message to the group that every contribution is needed

to accomplish the goal. That may also solve the issue of “status ordering” in the group. Status
 57

issues appear when a high ability in a student is assumed as high competence by the teacher.

Heterogeneous groups are considered a chance for those students elaborate other abilities;

and for low achievers to advance their current cognitive level.( Cohen& Press,2015)

The Impact of Cooperative Learning

The effect of cooperative learning on achievement has been explored by Slavin

(1990). He analyzed 60 studies that compared the results of cooperative learning to control

methods. The findings of this meta-analysis revealed a strong correlation between

implementing cooperative learning and achievement. Slavin commented that this finding was

excluded to grades 2-9 and that the strategy effectiveness in grades 10 -12 was rarely

explored. Moreover, the research went over the conditions, under which cooperative learning,

adds fat to achievement. These have highlighted group’s goals and group’s accountability as

key elements of cooperative learning. However, analysed studies, at college level, have

showed positive impact of cooperative learning on achievement in reading comprehension

strategies, without establishing group goals or individual accountability.

On the other hand, the effect of group’s structure on the language development in the

non-native classrooms has been discussed by Nilsson & Hay (2016). In a non-native

classroom, the group is needed as a tool to encourage students talk and reveal the ambiguity

of the text. Providing each other’s with clarification and feedback, students unlock higher

level potentials. Though, the research pointed out that realizing the social and cognitive

growth in a group should necessarily entail: a good preplanning and stemming from the

cooperative learning theories. Yet, this is not normally the case. To investigate this claim,

Nilsson & Hay (2016) investigated how teachers structure their groups and whether their

practices stem from the cooperative learning theory. They collected their data through a

questionnaire and interviews with six EFL teachers who taught classes 4-6 in cooperative

context. Their findings declared that the majority organized their groups according to their

students’ developmental level, and they construct the group work without reference to any
 58

certain method, “Many teachers believe that they are implementing cooperative learning

when in fact they are missing its essence” (Johnson & Johnson, 2002.p 12).Regarding the

group size, 50% of the teachers used pair work, and they didn’t use more than four-

participant groups.

Nilsson & Hay’s findings were correspondent to Johnson & Johnson (2009) regarding

the group size. Johnson & Johnson indicated that large group size negatively affects their

ability to communicate and reduces the amount of information needed to reach a joint

decision. On the contrary, when students work in small groups, their social accountability

increases and they believe their participation is more important.

While Nilsson & Hay’s teachers preferred to construct their groups out of same –level

students, Cohen, (1994) advocated heterogeneous structure because she found an evidence of

the positive impact of this structure on the low- achievers. There was also evidence that

average achievers were more benefited when working in homogeneous groups; contrary to

high and low achievers. In addition, Cohen pointed out that teachers are all the time worried

about the types of groups they structure, paying little attention to the type of interaction that

takes place within the group. In a comparison between the post test results of 8th graders, who

worked in both homogenous and heterogeneous groups, it was found that low achievers had

benefited from working cooperatively with the high achievers. More importantly, she

elaborated that low achievers scored higher in the recall questions, whereas high achievers

scored high in the problem-solving questions. The reason behind that, she explained, is not

attributed to the group structure, rather than to the roles’ division within groups. Labour in

groups is always divided in a way that associates tasks of reasoning, problem –solving and

high- order thinking skills to high achievers, while low level thinking tasks are associated

with the low - achievers. She concluded that mixing high and low achievers can certainly

enhance the high order thinking abilities of the low achievers. Mixing the medium and low
 59

achievers will only result in the medium achievers giving explanations that wouldn’t motivate

higher cognitive levels of the low achievers.

The nature and impact of cooperative, reciprocal teaching groups were discussed by

Brown & Palincsar (1989). The cooperative feature of RT according to them is attributed to

the type of scaffold and interaction within the group. Debating over meaning allows learners

to come to consensus over meaning. The discussion among the group’ members regarding the

meaning or the information relevancy, allow decisions to be made. This provides novice

learners with the chance to practice their raw skills. In addition, they would feel that the

comprehending everything isn’t their responsibility alone. These learners wouldn’t feel let

down, for example, when they are given the role of group leader because other group

members and even the teacher will lead them and continue the discussion when they fail to

continue. As a result, tension and anxiety will be revealed as the responsibility of thinking is

shared among all. This direct supervision by the teacher was refused by Cohen & Lotan

(2014) who suggested delegating authority to the students, by giving them the chance to

struggle with the task and suggested teacher’s control to be delayed until the final product is

ready.

It is believed that one of the most important positive outcomes of working in a group

is making decisions. Decisions taken cooperatively at the group level are considered more

accurate and efficient, compared to those taken individually, because group discussions allow

gathering expertise and producing a consensus. Furthermore, decisions taken cooperatively

are fairer since each member controls the other members’ biases. Moreover, when decisions

are taken collectively, they are more applicable and easier to implement. (Levine & Moreland,

2006).

The Primacy of Cooperative Learning

There is evidence that the outcomes of group work are bigger than the sum of its

parts. (Cohen & Lotan, 2014; Forsyth, 2009; Johnson & Johnson, 2009). That’s because the
 60

final product of the group is smarter than that presented by any of its individual members.

Individual member doesn’t provide a perfect or creative solution to the task, when students

present their minds face to face, they stimulate each other’s thinking and together they can

offer new representations or solutions to the problem. As a result, the final solution is a right

to every group member, but beyond his own individual abilities. Moreover, in cooperative

learning, resources to learning are more available to members. For example, students can ask

and receive help, feedback and adequate challenge to their reasoning and social behaviour as

team members. In addition, positive impact on achievement has been reported in big number

of studies (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Cooperative learning is also a sensitive tool for

promoting conceptual learning. Cohen & Lotan (2014) suggested that mixing the low -

achievers with more knowledgeable mates, gives them the chance to discuss the problem and

receive illustrations from those who understand it better. Interaction helps low achievers

understand and build representations for abstract concepts from the peer’s process. More

importantly, they added that cooperative learning is an effective tool for escalating language

acquisition, especially in ESL classes. Interaction in the group enhances the verbal exchange

because students talk to each other’s. Students receive help from other peers to complete the

task and correct each other’s utterances. Even in the writing tasks, students cooperate to fine

the final product as they exchange ideas about the content and the style. At the psychological

level, cooperative learning promotes higher self –esteem, motivation and talking ability.

(Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Additionally, at the social level, cooperative learning fosters

helping others, cooperative behaviour, interpersonal relationships and the feeling of social

equity since everybody in the group contributes to solve the problem.

 61

Conclusion

This chapter has attempted to highlight a selected literature review concerning RT and

metacognitive reading strategies. A review of the previous studies indicated that reciprocal

teaching was effective in drawing the meaning from reading passages. Many of the studies

have proved RT’s ability to foster understanding of the reading texts. Understanding is made

accessible through dialogue as a primary aspect of interaction, guided by the teacher as a

model and facilitator. Furthermore, the studies have drawn on the importance of modelling as

scaffolding technique to help students incorporate self-regulating strategies at a

metacognitive level. Studies have also showed that RT is applicable to different age students

and different learning contexts. Applying the approach to scaffold reading comprehension

skills of students with reading disabilities clarifies the basic goal of RT as a model to foster

reading comprehension of struggling and poor comprehenders. However, the studies

suggested that teachers, like students, require a suitable training to RT before implementing it

in their classes in order to achieve optimal performance of their students. Moreover, these

studies were in favour of teaching metacognitive strategies explicitly before implementing

the reciprocal teaching approach since this may increase learners’ awareness of self and task.

On the other hand, it worth saying that most of the previous studies were limited either in

period of intervention or the sample upon which results were drawn.

The chapter has summarised a body of literature to the cooperative learning and group

work. These studies have presented cooperative learning as tool for positive learning

outcomes. Interaction within peers has positive impact on achievement, productivity and

building the community of learners.

Finally, it’s worth mentioning that the researcher has noticed that

A . None of the previous studies was conducted in the EFL/ESL contexts in Palestine.
 62

B . To the best of the researcher knowledge, no intervention studies either in Palestine

or in the Arab World have investigated the impact of RT aided by cooperative learning in a

heterogeneous group context.

The researcher contemplates these facts strongly justifies the current study, which

investigated the impact of teaching RT strategies on the 11th Palestinian graders, in a

cooperative learning context for a long school semester . As well, the study explored the

learner’s attitudes towards learning English using this method. The analysis of several tests’

results over this period tended to reveal the evolvement on the students’ strategy use after

training. Applying mixed methods in analysing the data and investigating the approach in an

authentic context is another factor added to the rationales of this study.

 63

Chapter Three

The Research Methodology

Introduction

Strategy teaching in reading is becoming an educational demand all over the world.

There is evidence in literature that reading strategies assist learners with tools to read with

meaning. Reciprocal Teaching is considered one of the most successful methods in

supporting the cognitive and metacognitive abilities of the readers. The method helps readers

to learn a set of strategies to read with understanding and develop more independent reading

habits. In the current study, RT was used with 11th grade students who study EFL. The

intervention took place in cooperative, group work context. The supportive cooperative

context of learning was consistent with the philosophical foundations the research embedded.

Social Constructivism stems from the idea that learning in a social supportive context

scaffolds learning helps learners learn through interaction and reduces the cognitive load

through the mutual understanding. Based on these facts, the current study investigated

students’ comprehension gains as a result of utilizing RT. The research has also investigated

the reading skills that students were able to utilize as a result of learning with RT. Moreover,

students’ attitudes towards the learning contexts were questioned. The nature of group work

was observed by the teacher and analysed by the end of the intervention to provide deeper

insights into the intergroup relationships and the themes that controlled the group work

The current chapter presents the design and methodology of the study. It represents

the population, sample, location of the research. It also elaborates on presenting the

implementation of RT strategies in the classroom. Data collection instruments, their validity

and reliability, as well as the study procedures, are explicated. Analysis procedures for the

research questions will appear at end of this chapter.

 64

Research Design

The main purpose of this study was to examine the impact of using Reciprocal

Teaching Strategies on the Reading Comprehension Ability of 11th Grade students. It also

aimed to reveal the reading skills that students were able to gain after learning using RT, and

their attitudes towards learning English using the RT strategies, too. The study is quasi-

experimental research. It was designed with experimental and control groups, randomly

assigned by school administration. The study used mixed methods since qualitative and

quantitative methods were needed, each to tackle different aspects of the research questions.

Quantitavely, a pretest/posttest in reading comprehension were used to trace the effect of

intervention on students’ achievement. The use of these two tests aimed to find the difference

in comprehension achievement between the Reciprocal group and the Non- reciprocal one.

The pretest was conducted for the experimental and the control groups before the RT began.

The same test was repeated for both groups after the teaching ended. To measure the progress

in the students’ achievement in the experimental and control groups along the period of

teaching, five comprehension school tests were also conducted along the period of teaching.

In addition, a binary- function questionnaire was used to reveal the strategies and reading

skills which the reciprocal group students employed to overcome the difficulties in reading.

The second part of the questionnaire aimed to explore the same group’s attitudes towards

leaning in cooperative groups using RT.

Qualitatively, Group work interactions were intensively observed by the teacher

along the period of teaching. The teacher wrote every noticeable detail or situation that would

interpret how the relationships and interactions evolved along the period of teaching on the

group level.
 65

Population and Location of the Study

The population of this study included all 11th graders who study in the public schools of

Ramallah & AL-Bireh district for the scholastic year 2015/2016. According to the last report

by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (2011), the number of these schools was 109,

in the two cities and the surrounding, teaching about 4000 male and female eleventh graders.

Al-Bireh Secondary School where the study was performed is considered the biggest

secondary female school. The school usually has eight to nine classes of the 11th graders.

More than half of them join the literary stream; the others choose the scientific stream. All of

them join the school for their first time after they finish the 10th grade in other basic schools.

They come from several basic schools in Ramallah, Al-Bireh, Jerusalem and the surrounding

villages and refugee camps. The number of the 11th graders who joined the literary stream

was 156 students distributed to four classes.

The Study Sample

The study sample of this study consisted of (165) students. These were distributed to

four classes. The researcher taught the four of them. Randomly chose two as an experimental

group (classes B+ D) and the two others were the control (classes A+E). Based on this fact,

all the 11th literary classes were a sample of this study. The experimental group consisted of

(84) students in two classes, while the control group’s students were (81). The experimental

group was called the Reciprocal group and was taught comprehension using RT strategies in

heterogeneous group context. Whereas, the control group (the Non- Reciprocal) one was

taught using the traditional methods of teaching reading comprehension. In the Palestinian

context, students- at least the researcher’s students- were encountering difficulties in meeting

the grade level’s expectations in English and depending to a high degree on the teacher’s

explanations of the reading texts. At the same time, they were struggling to develop their

performance and become better language learners. Generating meaning from higher-level

texts was the most challenging for the majority, whose attitudes towards learning English
 66

were also disappointing. This fact was the major reason which called the researcher to invest

in the strategy - based teaching as a tool that may positively affect students achievement and

attitudes in EFL.

Choosing this specific study sample was not a coincidence. The researcher had

various considerations to perform the study in her place of work. From the logistic point of

view, the researcher is a teacher at the same school, who is not allowed to leave her teaching

load to randomly teach any other sample. In addition, being familiar with the school and its

students made it easier to understand much about the students’ needs and their social and

educational backgrounds. Second, the school has a team of four English teachers and that

made it easier for the researcher to choose the four literary classes to teach as long as other

colleagues are ready to teach the scientific stream. From the spatial point of view, the issue of

crowded 11th grade classes was another reason that encouraged the researcher to organise her

students in groups to fit with the limited classes’ space. The small groups’ context created

more organised setting for learning, where students negotiated and disseminated their

answers inside their groups instead of whole class individual answers which usually caused

mess and interruption in the class. Sitting in groups was a good investment of the space and

made students feel they are all at the same distance from the teacher and from each other’s in

the group. The final reason for choosing 11th grade students as an experimental group was a

social reason. Students of 11th grade come from different schools and have different social

and educational backgrounds with much misunderstanding about the school. Most of these

students feel strange in their first year, they usually don’t know each other’s, and in some

cases, they discriminate against each other’s based on achievement, background and social

status. Therefore, having them to work cooperatively in heterogeneous groups was a good

chance to have these students remove the barriers they raised between them, understand that

learning is better done cooperatively not competitively and understand that “two heads are

better than one”. Lotan &Cohen (4014) stated that group work has impressive social
 67

implications. Students who work together come to understand, help and support each other’s

learning. “When groups engage in cooperative tasks, they are more likely to form friendly

ties, to trust one another, and to influence one another, than when the tasks simulate

competition among members” (P.18). Roger & Johnson (2009), Slavin (1989) assured that

embracing the cooperative learning, regardless to achievement outcomes, yields a spectrum

of social positive outcomes. For example, Students from different backgrounds work for one

goal, they foster their friendships and respect, and they enhance their acceptance of others.

Cooperative learning enhances their ability to work in team with others and fosters their

creativity and self-esteem.

Eleventh Grade English Curriculum

Both the experimental and control groups studied the same English textbooks

distributed to the public schools by the Palestinian Curriculum Centre and designed by

MacMillan Ltd. Students go over two textbooks during the scholastic year. The first is a basic

book that integrates the four skills of reading, writing, listening and speaking in each unit

underpinned by the functional approach. The second is more advanced that focuses mainly on

reading comprehension and essay writing. Both books include reading comprehension

passages with various cultural, educational, scientific,….and historical dimensions. In both

books the reading comprehension skills win the lions share, either in the books focus or in the

marks distribution on the four skills (65 marks out of 150 averages). A report issued by

General Administration of Curricula for Public Schools Grades 1-12 (2015) asserted that

reading is the most important skill needed to be taught in the Palestinian schools. The

Ministry of Education has determined three areas students need to practice while reading:

“information and understanding” (P.18), “aesthetic response and critical analysis” (P19), and

“evaluation” (P.19). The first point implies students to generate information from the text,

through finding analogies and differences, drawing relations and finding facts. The second

point entails appreciating the reading relating it to self and context. The third requires
 68

students to judge and evaluate the text. This general view to the curriculum aims shows that

students are required to apply their high order thinking skills for building understanding.

Further, students are required to apply their critical thinking and recall their previous

experiences to interpret the text’s purpose. Corresponding to this overarching framework of

the curriculum leaves teachers with a challenge to create more interactive teaching which

engages all learners of all reading abilities. On the other hand, teachers are demanded to train

students to reading skills to enable them approach the text with understanding and elaborate

on it critically. These skills were considered essentials for preparing global learners who

understand and use English as a universal language.

Reciprocal Strategies Training of the Experimental Group

Training the experimental group to use the RT strategies continued for two weeks

before teaching the authentic texts of the textbook started. The instruction took the explicit,

verbal, directive form. The aim was to scaffold students’ awareness of the four strategies

through providing a model which they can replicate. Strategy research stated that most

students cannot attain academic concepts at the formal level unless they receive explicit

instruction of it (Marzano, 1988). For that purpose, various reading passages and worksheets

were chosen to be appropriate to their level. The teacher explained the declarative,

pprocedural and conditional techniques in each step. Palincsar & Klenk (1991) noted that

when teaching a tool to students, it is not enough to teach what it is, they need to learn how

and when to use it.

The teacher taught each skill separately, articulating its name and time in the reading,

trying to equip students with the skills needed to deal with the reading task. For example, the

teacher read a short paragraph aloud, stopped by some new words trying to clarify their

meanings from the context or through making analogies to other known words, then asked

herself questions about the text, after that tried to summarise the main idea and at last looked

at the pictures and subheadings trying to predict what is coming next in the text. All the
 69

previous steps were done by the teacher aloud. She read and questioned herself aloud; so that

students get able to replicate her strategic behaviour and understand how the dialogue was

built.

When using each strategy, the teacher announced the name of the strategy she was using.

Along the training period students were reminded in every lesson with the four strategies and

the purpose of each one. A poster that illustrates the four strategies was fixed to the wall to

remind students of them all the time. Students were also shown some video lessons of other

teachers using RT with their students to make the four concepts even clearer for them.

Teacher’s Modelling of Reciprocal Teaching Strategies

The four strategies were modelled to the experimental group by the teacher during the

training period. She led the class dialogue after scaffolding the use of the strategies as the

following

A) Predicting

The predicting strategy was modelled in front of the class using the text pictures,

visuals, maps, layouts, diagrams, titles and subtitles. Students were shown how to build

connections to their previous knowledge or experience about the topic. They were also

encouraged to participate and try to make predictions about the text content and theme.

Predicting training took the form of thinking aloud to guide the discussion into more true,

reasonable predictions. A student from each group was coming to the board together writing

their predictions under the numbers of their groups and going back to their circles letting the

rest see each other’s predictions on board to discuss and compare them. Tarchi (2010) have

found that prior knowledge is crucial to successful reading, since it fills the knowledge gap

the text didn’t detail explicitly.

B) Questioning

Question generating is a cognitive, self-regulatory strategy that makes students dig

deep in the text for better understanding of the ideas; recall information and check the current
 70

state of understanding (Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Rosenshine et.al ,1996). The researcher

modelled questions generating strategy by reading a short paragraph aloud and stopping at

each questionable point asking herself questions about the main ideas, the information she

read, the meaning of a word or the event she passed by. Meanwhile, students were watching

and listening, and more questions were also growing in their heads. At the same time, the

researcher encouraged them to help her find the answers through recalling their previous

knowledge or experience about the topic. As the reading was advancing, she started to ask

herself more reflective, evaluative questions, then more complex opinion questions. The

students were becoming more confident and eager to take part in class discussions as they

were gaining a better understanding of how the reading process works. (Foster & Rotoloni,

2005)

C) Clarifying

When students became familiar with the topic and theme, teacher read aloud again,

highlighting on board some new words or unclear points she wanted to demonstrate to the

class. The researcher tended to use different strategies like tapping students’ previous

knowledge, trying to guess the meaning from the context, the sentence clues, or derivations

that the students have learnt before. She also used the dictionary when the previous tools

didn’t work. Each group of learners was provided with a dictionary to help them check

words’ meanings.

D) Summarizing

The last strategy taught was summarizing of the reading texts. Students were

encouraged to find the topic sentence in a paragraph and retell it in their words. The strategy

was modelled through writing a topic sentence, supported by sub ideas and asking students

rewrite it into a short paragraph. Students were reminded to drop any marginal, trivia details

or examples when summarizing. Further, they were instantly reminded to write summaries

that they themselves understand. Thus, they were encouraged to use their own words and
 71

reflect their own understanding. Students were asked to use colourful markers to underline

key sentences or highlight words which can form a thread of their summaries. To help

students always remember what summarizing is about, the researcher prepared a class poster

of the most important points to remember when summarizing, and kept it in front of the

students to look at it often. Students by the time were asked to summarize general ideas of the

text, and give their own point of view. Modelling the strategies continued for two weeks until

students become familiar with them.

Forming the Heterogeneous Cooperative Groups

Once the formal teaching began, students were seated in heterogeneous groups of

four. Group members were chosen according to their grades in the diagnostic test, trying to

mix all reading abilities in each group as possible. In each group, each student chose to

represent the group in one of the strategies. Every group had a Summarizer, Questioner,

Clarifier, and Predictor, with a card to label the member’s role. Assigning roles didn’t aim at

strictly limiting each student’s role to practicing one strategy, as much as it aimed at giving

formal feeling of sharing accountability in the group, promoting order, and fostering the team

spirit. However, members of the group exchanged the RT roles each reading class.

Distributing a variety of roles to the group fostered their cooperation. Each strategy

contributed to make members understand the text at different level. This cooperation in

making meaning shifted the learning responsibility gradually from the teacher to the learners.

Palincsar et, al. (1991) supposed the direct central role of the teacher in the process of RT,

suggests more emphasis on the cooperative spirit in the whole class to help students decode

meaning and comprehend the text.

There were various reasons that justify grouping students according to their abilities.

First, there was a large number of these students with reading challenges and needed social

support to foster their understanding. Therefore, from the educational perspective, this was a

chance to put students with high, medium and low abilities in one group, so that good readers
 72

support and scaffold their peers’ use of the strategy. Mixing the abilities provided the

students with a chance to observe the strategic behaviors of their peers while reading and

imitate these behaviors. High and medium achievers will recognize that no one in the group

has the superiority to the others, and that every member is important to the success of the

others as long as she has distinctive role. The teacher explained the philosophy and aims of

the group work at the beginning of teaching. “Swim Together or Sink Together” was written

clearly on a large sheet and fixed over the board as a class logo (Appendix J) to guide the

class into the aim of their cooperation. Students were told that their cooperation can be

successful on the bases of positive interdependence. That is when the group members agree

on common goal to achieve, receive same rewards when they reach the goal, share their

resources for completing the task and when every member has a distinctive role, necessary to

achieve the task.(Roger & Johnson ,1994;2009). Second, the researcher wanted those “left

behind” learners to feel secured with others who can support and help and not feel neglected

as in traditional teaching. Students become stronger when their abilities are considered.

Trusting learners’ abilities encourages them get more responsible about their learning. In

addition, giving roles to every group member enhances learners’ feeling of equality.

Promoting social equity was a strong case for grouping students heterogeneously. When

engaged in the group, the less proficient students will find it normal to share what they know

with the group. By communicating their ideas, students can find others in the group to correct

the errors they commit. In such context, students feel accountable for their individual learning

and the success of other group members.

Third, the researcher is concerned with the issue of increasing achievement and higher

order thinking skills of the whole class through mixing abilities together. Johnson & Johnson

(2009) found that positive interdependence in the group enhances achievement of the

individual and other group members when each feels responsible about the group success as

his. a positive correlation was found between working cooperatively in small groups and
 73

achievement (Davidson & Major, 2014). Overall, researcher were in favour of group work

over individual memorization or drilling since students in groups talk to each other’s and

exchange their thoughts and ideas using contextual language which accelerates their language

learning.

Groups’ Processing and the Role of the Teacher

The teacher has assumed different roles in the RT classes. Social constructivist

approaches place the teacher as one of the central tools in scaffolding and monitoring

learners’ development. It is teacher’s responsibility to scaffold and guide learners to the

optimal performance. This is done by guiding and monitoring their current level of

performance until they reach the desired level. In the current study, the teacher was

responsible about organizing and monitoring the newly formed groups. These groups didn’t

directly get organized and active. They needed sometime to stabilize. Moreover, the study

was performed with intact sample of learners who didn’t receive RT training before and are

not accustomed to the systematic group work. Therefore, the teacher needed time to train

them to the necessary social values to run their groups. Moreover, RT strategies needed time

and modelling to enable every group members to perform them correctly. In addition, the

teacher was processing the groups at the formation level. She was forced to replace some

students with others who were expected to get on well with the group’s members. That step

was necessary to raise the harmony among the members of the one group. The teacher took in

consideration replacing some members with others of the same proficiency level to keep the

heterogeneous formation of the groups. When every student became satisfied with her place,

groups were asked to work cooperatively on the textbooks’ reading tasks. The teacher

continued scaffolding students’ awareness of the strategy use and helping them internalize the

strategies. In an advanced stage, students became more familiar with RT roles and most of

them were able to use them independently. However, there were some poor readers who kept

asking for the teacher’s help until the end of the intervention period.
 74

The teacher has utilized different contextual and conditional resources to engineer and

construct a social supportive context, through which all learners will receive equal logistic

and social support. For example, the teacher performed the strategies directly and verbally to

the students and gradually withdrew from the scene, giving the students the chance to play

the teacher’s roles. Then, the teacher designed four labels that hold the four roles of the group

members. Students exchanged these labels each time they changed their roles in the group.

Moreover, the teacher distributed graphic organizers to help each group members cooperate

but at the same time every member was doing one of the strategies to complete the task. That

is one of them was a predictor, the second was questioner, the third was a clarifier and the last

one was a summarizer. Graphic organizers (Appendices G+ H) were used as cognitive tools

to help student visualize their ideas into ready- to use forms. The strength of the organizer

was to encourage students think dissimilarly, to make best use of the RT strategy they have

learnt, but to come to the same conclusion. (Rasinski & International Reading Association,

2000). Students were also given a hand-out to remind them of each strategy use. Teacher’s

practices were also illuminated by Oczkus (2010) who suggested the four-door chart which

incorporates the four strategies in one sheet to make it easier for students to fill in as they

read.

After the groups were ready to work independently, the teacher still had many roles to

play in the class. Sometimes, she was a facilitator. When new topic was presented, teacher

needed to make connections by recalling students’ previous knowledge. Students made great

recalls to their previous knowledge and experiences when they were asked. That helped them

very much in building cognitive schemata to connect the new knowledge. The researcher

monitored the group work, making sure every group was adhering to the task, applying the

strategies toward achieving the goal of reading. At many other times, the researcher was a

group participant. She joined a group and played one of the RT roles within of the group.

That was of a great impact on the students, especially when they felt really trapped and
 75

needed a hand. It was a chance for the teacher, too, to scaffold students’ current knowledge

and leave them more confident, into the next step. From time to time, students were asked to

write their feedback and comments on the work of the group and their feelings towards the

process and the cooperation in the groups. All notes were taken in consideration by the

researcher who made her best to solve problems of groups’ cooperation or even acceptance of

certain members. At other occasions, when all the groups were working well, the teacher’s

role was confined to supporting students, reinforcing the correct practices and encouraging

those hesitant or shy learners.

Teaching the Control Group

On the contrary to the experimental group, the control group didn’t receive any type

of strategic training. They were taught reading comprehension in a traditional setting.

Students sat in rows not groups and worked individually. Students read the passage silently

and took notes. Meanwhile, the teacher would highlight some new words on the board.

Students usually copied the meaning of these words in their notebooks, but definitely, there

were always active students who prepare at home and negotiate the teacher about the

meaning. It is worth mentioning that the same worksheets in reading were given to both

groups. However, in the reciprocal group students were seated in groups and worked

cooperatively to discuss the questions and apply the four reading strategies to them. In the

control group, students worked independently to answer the reading questions. The text was

discussed and the answers were collected after giving a suitable time to think about them. In

the control group case, there were discussions in the class, but were led by the teacher.

Sometimes, students themselves asked the teacher to gather for short time and discuss some

points. These gatherings were spontaneous and contained from five to ten students, but the

teacher didn’t observe their processing. When the task time was finished, students raised their

hands to discuss the answers. On the contrary, reciprocal students didn’t raise hands to
 76

answer because every group had a turn to discuss, every group was given a different

paragraph to discuss and every group member had a role to perform.

Instruments of the Study

A major purpose for this study was to reveal the change in reading comprehension

ability before and after the intervention. For that purpose, students in the experimental and

control groups were exposed to types of tests. Both groups did a pre and posttest in reading to

compare their achievement before and after the intervention. Additionally, participants of the

two groups did five school tests in reading comprehension along the period of teaching. The

five tests investigated the differences in the reading progress of the two groups. The third

instrument of the study was a questionnaire of two folds. The first part aimed to recognise the

reciprocal students’ adaption of the reading strategies while reading, after being taught with

the RT approach. The second has considered the learners’ attitudes towards learning reading

using the RT method. The qualitative tool of the research was the researchers’ journal. This

was used to pursue the classroom interactions while working in heterogeneous cooperative

groups. The qualitative measure used in analysing the journals was the thematic analysis

protocols which were applied to the data to extract the main themes. Findings related to the

mentioned tools were used to explain the impact of using RT in a cooperative context, and its

implications to teaching strategic reading in the Palestinian high school context.

1) Pretest/ Post Comprehension Tests: The same standard test was conducted for the

experimental and control groups prior and posts the reading intervention (for the pre/

post-test, see appendix A). The test was adapted from TOEFL Tests for juniors. TOEFL

tests are standard tests, well- known about their validity, reliability. They are also known

with their content and construct related evidences. The test included three parts of

reading texts appeared according to their complexity level. The test starts with a “festival

announcement” passage followed by four questions. The second passage is a short

dialogic story followed by seven questions and the last part a short historical narration
 77

followed by eight questions. All the questions were multiple choice answers

accompanied with an answer sheet. The total number of the questions was twenty and

scored out of twenty points. The original test consisted of three parts that target listening

comprehension, language form and meaning and reading comprehension. The first part

of the text was excluded due to its irrelevancy to the teaching goals. RT implemented in

this research is basically based on the relationship to the written text. Students read for

decoding meanings of the text in order to achieve understanding. Hence, the meaning

and reading comprehension part was only included for the purpose of this study.

Analysing the cognitive levels of the test items showed that ten of the questions belong

to the high order-thinking skills (mainly reasoning) and the other ten represented low-

order thinking skills (mainly comprehension). Students of both groups sat to the test

again after three months when the period of teaching had finished.

2) School Tests (Teacher’s Designed Tests): students of the experimental and control

groups were exposed to five school tests (for school test sample, see appendix B).

Students used to get ready for a test every two weeks. Every test was marked out of thirty

points. The tests’ questions were written by the researcher herself. The researcher tried

her best to design reading tests which simulate the themes and vocabulary covered in the

English textbooks. Moreover, each test was designed to include the same questions’

patterns every time. That means every test included a reading expository text followed by

same question rubric in all tests. The questions started with information questions,

followed by information completion question, true/false question, reference questions

and meaning -generating questions. Two purposes were behind giving the tests the same

structure, and using the same question rubric each time. First, the teacher wanted to train

students to apply the strategies to most the common types of questions on the reading

comprehension. Moreover, she hoped the students will get more confident and secured
 78

when they are familiar with types of questions in the test. It was expected that students

will get more independent in dealing with such questions and better prepared for their

final year tests the following year.

3) Students’ Questionnaire: By the end of the intervention period, the experimental

group was called to fill in a questionnaire of two- parts (Appendix C). This

instrument aimed, in its first part, to trace the frequency of strategic practices in

handling the reading passages. In its second part, it aimed to explore the learners’

attitudes to the learning experience they had. A closed- responses’ questionnaire was

found the best tool for exploring students’ opinions since their verbal abilities were

limited and it was found difficult to ask them to report their reading practices

through open questions. Therefore, closed responses questionnaire was found the

best solution to overcome any fluency obstacles. Moreover, the questionnaire

revealed the students’ knowledge about self as readers and their knowledge on the

reading strategies they implemented. The first part of the questionnaire (items 1-18)

was adapted from Mokhtari & Reichard (2002) who has developed their instrument

of Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) as a self-

report instrument. This targets assessing metacognitive awareness and perceived

strategy use of school students from 6th to 12th grades, reading school materials and

subjects. The primary tool (MARSI Version 1.0, Appendix E) is made of thirty items

that groups the strategies into three subcategories: global reading strategies, problem-

solving strategies and support reading strategies.

 79

Table (3-1)

Distribution of the MARSI Subcategories in the Questionnaire

MARSI Subcategory Questionnaire Items

Global Strategies 1-6

Supportive Strategies 7-12

Problem solving Strategies 13- 18

As illustrated in table (3-1), this questionnaire has included only eighteen of the original

survey items. Items (1-6) were global subcategories, taught as general strategies, used

intentionally to predict reading or set a goal for reading. Items from (7-12) represented

reading -support strategies, such as tactics used when the text complicates. Items (13-18)

were problem- solving strategies. These refer to the functional or logistic tools, learners use

to overcome reading problems. (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002).

It is worth mentioning that the (MARSI Version 1.0) has been adapted and used by several

researchers to assess students’ metacognitive awareness and increase their monitoring to their

own practices (Dabarera et al,2014; Fitrisia, Tan & Yusuf, 2015; Henter, 2012; Hong-Nam,

Leavell & Maher, 2014; Shikano, 2013). The second part of the questionnaire was designed

by the researcher herself and revised by referees to guarantee its validity and to refine any

ambiguous or odd items that can be irrelevant or indirect. This part aimed to explore students’

attitudes towards practicing RT strategies, enthusiasm regards working in groups and

working with different -levelled students. Summers (1977, P. 153) confirmed that “Attitude

research will add an important dimension to the study of affective functioning,… similar

pattern will evolve in education and the study of reading attitudes, in particular, could play a

significant role in such research”. The whole tool was validated after several revisions of its

items, suitability of language and closeness to the students’ learning context.

 80

4) Teacher’s Journal: the researcher’s journal (Appendix F) was used to offer a thorough

description of the groups’ interactions and the way these interactions evolved over the period

of teaching. Every interesting event, action or note by students was recorded to provide

deeper insight on how the groups’ dynamics developed and matured over the period of

teaching with RT. Writing the journal was about recording the noticeable features in the

groups’ interaction and growth. The process of writing accompanied the process of teaching.

Since it was the first time the teacher performed a research with systematically –organised

groups, there were no prior intentions to record specific aspects of neither the process, nor

any outcomes regarding the group work. On the contrary, classes’ routines and students’

activities during reading were recorded, in the hope of being analysed by the end of

intervention, without anticipating much assumption about the themes that may appear in the

analyses. Predictions about later themes were not easy to make.

Instruments’ Validity and Reliability

A) The Pre/posttest: The main instrument in this study was a multiple choice reading

comprehension test adapted from TOEFL tests for juniors. The test consisted of twenty items;

each with four options. Students needed to decide about one of them as the right answer.

TOEFL tests are international standardized tests known about their validity. However,

different steps were taken to confirm validity. AMIDEAST office in Ramallah had been

consulted on the tests’ content appropriateness and relevance to the target age group.

Moreover, the test was also reviewed by the researcher’s supervisor and English teachers’

committee at the school to prove its face and content validity. Test validity was introduced by

Brown & Abeywickrama (2010) as the extent to which results drawn from the assessment are

suitable and meaningful, in the light of the test’s purpose. They have also conveyed that a

valid test of reading ability should actually measure the reading skills not any other related

abilities. Therefore, the test was found valid as long as it only promoted the use of the reading

strategies taught in RT.

 81

The internal consistency of the test items was also investigated through using the

SPSS one factor- analysis to check the correlation between the test items. Previously, the test

items were grouped according to their cognitive levels. Ten of the questions were found to

measure low- order reading skills. For instance, items that hit skills like knowledge,

comprehension and recalling. The other ten items were analysed as high- order reading skills.

These were questions that required reasoning, analysis, synthesizing and evaluating skills.

Table (3-2)

The One- Factor Analysis Value for Each of the Test Items and Its Cognitive Level

Question Cognitive One-Factor Question No Cognitive One-Factor

No Level Analysis Value Level Analysis Value
1. Low-order 0.30 11. High –order 8.84
2. Low-order 0.65 12. High –order 8.80
3. Low-order 0.49 13. Low-order 8.10
4. Low-order 0.61 14. High –order 8.80
5. High –order 0.57 15. Low-order 8.10
6. Low-order 0.43 16. Low-order 8.68
7. High –order 0.45 17. High –order 8.64
8. High –order 0.43 18. High –order 8.85
9. High –order 0.48 19. Low-order 8.80
10. High –order 0.49 20 Low-order 8.84

Table (3-2) shows that the test has good correlation between the variables. The one

factor analysis indicates that the tool measures the purpose it was established for. Despite the

medium coefficient of the correlation, it was considered sufficient for the study purpose.

The Pre/post-test’s reliability was tested as well, using the split –half technique and Kuder-

Richardson Formula 21 calculation for test reliability. Kuder& Richardson (1937, P. 151)

assumed that “most test technicians use the split –half method of estimating reliability” “The

correlation coefficient thus obtained is taken as an estimate of the reliability of either half,

and the Spearman-Brown formula for double length is then used to estimate the reliability
 82

coefficient of the whole test”, they explained (P.52). The correlation coefficient appeared

using the split half. The odd items of the test (1,3 ,5,…19) and the even (2,4,6,8,…20) of the

test were analysed and compared. The comparison of the two halves yielded consistent results

which indicated that the reliability of the test is acceptable. Odd items coefficient value was

(70%) and for the even items was (80%) which was a statically acceptable percentage and

indicated good reliability of the test. Kuder-Richardson Factor for reliability of the whole test

items (20 items) in its final edition revealed high reliability of the test (0.845) which confirms

that the test is reliable and suitable enough to be used on the study subjects.

B) The School Tests: The validity of the school comprehension tests were also established

through showing the first test as the primary instrument to the General Directorate for

Assessment and Examinations in the Palestinian Ministry of Education. Depending on

analysing the most common used questions in the secondary level tests, five high frequency

questions were agreed to be used in these tests, and was described earlier in the chapter, thus

experts’ validity was established for the tests. Moreover, English language committee

members at the researcher’s school and two of the school English supervisors evaluated the

tests’ content and relevancy to the curriculum topics and the school teachers also used some

of them in their classes. Using these tests, by other English language committee members at

school served the inter–rater’s reliability to be established. The colleagues’ suggestions were

discussed until consensus upon the sample answers was held. In addition, tests papers were

exchanged with other colleagues to check the correction. It was through the colleagues’

evaluation, the face and content validities were also established. The one factor analysis of

the five test results showed that the tests items were reliable and consistent since the one –

factor analysis value for the five tests was (96%) and considered a high reliability percentage

in researches.
 83

Table (3-3)

The Five School Tests Correlation Coefficients

Test No Value of One –Factor Analysis

1 0.87
2 0.87
3 0.90
4 0.87
5 0.85

Table (3-3) shows high correlation between the five test items and high internal

consistency which indicates that the tests were reliable.

C) Student’s Questionnaire: In order to confirm the questionnaire validity, its first version

was put under the supervisor’s and the committee members’ evaluation. Upon their

recommendations, some changes were made in the language, order of items, number and

domain of items to finalize the questionnaire in its current edition. Items that were

considered complex, duplicating other items or irrelevant to RT strategies were excluded

or replaced based on the supervisor’s recommendations. Language was simplified to

suite the students’ proficiency level. Clarity and punctuation marks were also noted. The

first part of the questionnaire adapted from Mokhtari &Reichard (2002) was supposed to

measure the metacognitive practices of the 11th graders during reading and the second

part was designed to reveal the attitude students hold toward learning by RT strategies.

The second part of the questionnaire (items 19-33), was also refined in language and

order of items based on the committee recommendations and the pilot study results.

Ambiguous and difficult items were removed or replaced until consensus upon the current

tool was reached. The language of the questionnaire as well as the Arabic version were

revised and edited by two of the researcher’s colleagues at school. The reliability of the first

section of the tool is basically high (Cronbach’s Alpha =89% for the whole subcategories),

since it is considered an international tool used by many researchers and was validated after
 84

many cycles of testing its items on different grade levels. However, Reliability of the new

tool was provided using Cronbach Alpha analysis as the tool was piloted to twenty students,

ten from each of the two classes who were practicing RT, chosen according to their names

appearance in the school records. Reliability of the applied instrument was tested using the

one factor analysis of the questionnaire items.

Table (3-4)

Values of the One –Factor Analysis of the Questionnaire Items

Item No One-factor analysis value Item No One-factor analysis value

1. 0.76 20 0.66
2. 0.76 21 0.59
3. 0.66 22 0.62
4. 0.62 23 0.85
5. 0.62 24 0.74
6. 0.69 25 0.78
7. 0.71 26 0.74
8. 0.81 27 0.68
9. 0.62 28 0.66
10. 0.77 29 0.78
11. 0.69 30 0.58
12. 0.80 31 0.74
13. 0.63 32 0.77
14. 0.65 33 0.71
15. 0.70
16. 0.63
17. 0.49
18. 0.71
19 0.63

The factor analysis provided in table (3-4) above shows medium – high internal

consistency of the questionnaire items and that proves its validity to be officially used as a

study tool. The reliability of the tool was also tested by computing Cronbach Alpha after

applying the tool on the experimental group. The overall reliability of the questionnaire

seemed statistically acceptable (86.4%).

 85

Table (3-5)

Cronbach’s Alpha Analysis of the Questionnaire

Number of Domain Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach’s Cronbach’s

Items percentage Alpha Alpha of the
of the Pilot study whole study

Reading Practices of
18 students who study 0.773
using RT
Attitudes towards using 85.2% 86.4%
the 0.820
15 Reciprocal Teaching
Method in teaching
reading

D) Thematic Analysis Validity

The validity of the researcher’s journal stems from the fact it is a primary source of data,

collected on a day to day bases through watching and interacting with the agents in their

authentic learning context. On the other hand, the journal was written by the researcher

herself and sought to record the events, behaviours, actions and learning processes without

any prior assumptions or expectations regarding the outcomes. Moreover, three outside

reviewers have evaluated the emerging themes through comparing them to the original text.

Their feedback was important to reveal any conflicting results and modify them to reach a

consensus regarding the problematic themes. Thus, the reliability of the thematic analysis was

established. (Alhojailan, 2012). In addition, the TA has followed the six phase analysis

presented by Braun & Clarke (2006). Therefore, the researcher communicated with Mrs

Virginia Braun, one of the TA six-phase analysis pioneers, via email. Braun confirmed the

correct procedures that the researcher has followed in analysing the data. She has also

conveyed the correct way in presenting the themes in its final report.
 86

The Study Procedures

The first step of this study was getting the approval of AlBireh Secondary School

principal and the Directorate of Education in Ramallah to conduct the study and consider the

students as subjects of the research. The school helped the researcher in distributing the

students of 11th grade to the four classes and authorised the teacher to teach two of them as

an experimental group and two as control. The study completion and data collection were

possible through the following procedures. First, a random class was chosen for piloting

teaching RT at the beginning of the year, then directly all 11th graders of the literary stream

at the school were doing their pretest in reading comprehension. Second, all the students in

the experimental group were trained to the Reciprocal Teaching strategies for a two-week

period through explicit construction of RT strategies before teaching the authentic textbook

topics. Third, the students of the experimental group were assigned to heterogeneous groups

of four according to their results in a diagnostic test in comprehension. After that, students in

each group exchanged roles to be able to practice the four strategies in a cooperative

environment. The teacher’s guidance was present all through the process, scaffolding

student’s abilities and holding their hands to overcome the difficult skills by providing a good

model, and encourage cooperation at the group level. Students in both groups were exposed

to the same comprehension test after each unit was finished. A rubric for each test was used

by the researcher in her classes to guarantee reliability. By the end of the intervention,

students of both groups were exposed to a posttest to detect differences in performance

between them. The experimental group was also called to reflect on their learning experience

and attitudes towards the reading techniques and strategies they used through a questionnaire.

Finally, the researcher’s journals were an additive resource of data to enlighten the

description of group work atmosphere and the types of interaction in the classroom while

learning with RT.

 87

Data Analysis

This quasi- experimental study used mixed methods for analysing and interpreting its

data. Quantitative and qualitative protocols were followed for answering the five questions of

the study.The Statistical Package of the Social Sciences Program (SPSS) was used to analyse

the pre/ posttest data, the school tests and the questionnaire as the following:

First, the independent sample T test was used to compare the means of the

experimental and control groups in the pre/posttest and reveal the effect of using RT

strategies in reading comprehension. The means of the two groups in both tests were

compared to find any difference in their reading performances. Moreover, to elaborate on the

first research question, the test’s questions were categorised into two groups after being

analysed to their cognitive levels. Questions that included recall or understanding were

labelled as low- order cognitive skills. Those were questions (No.1,2,3,4,6,13,15,16,19,20).

Questions which involved problem-solving, analysing and reasoning were labelled as High

order thinking skills (questions No.5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18). Accordingly, the

performance of the experimental group’s subjects was compared in these two specific

domains. In addition, the η 2 - Eta square was applied to the tests’ results to examine the

effect size of using RT. In fact, this statistic analysis was used to elaborate on the effect of

using RT as a method. It aimed to discover whether the method’s impact on students was

small, medium or large. Second, the independent sample T test was also used to answer the

second question of the study. Five unit tests were analysed in means and frequencies to reveal

the change in the two groups’ achievement over the period of the study.

Third, the questionnaire was also used to answer the third and fourth questions of this

research. The third inquired the strategic practices and reading skills that the experimental

group students were able to apply as a result of learning by RT. Students’ responses on this

part of the questionnaire were coded as: 1=never, 2= occasionally, 3= sometimes, 4= often

and 5= always. The second part of the questionnaire answered the forth question concerning
 88

the students’ attitudes towards learning by Reciprocal Teaching strategies. To answer this

question, the second part of the questionnaire elicited students’ answers on fifteen items that

focused on the attitude towards using RT, working in cooperative context and heterogeneous

groups. The researcher tried to reveal the attitude towards different aspects of learning.

Responses on this part were also measured through five Likert scale that started from (1)

strongly disagree,(2) agree, (3) undecided, (4) agree and ended with (5) strongly agree.

Reverse coding was applied to negative items. Means of responses were calculated using the

same key used in part one of the questionnaire, and descriptive analysis were provided

through calculating the means, standard deviations and percentages of items. Likert scale

was used to elicit the responses from the questionnaire and analysing them by the SPSS. In

agreement with this five Likert scale, the following key was implemented to interpret the

means:

Table (3-6)

Analysis Key of the Questionnaire

Mean Degree
less than5.4 Too low
1.8 -9.10 Low
2.6 - 0.00 Medium
3.4 - 8.50 High
4.2 and higher Too high

Table (3-6) represents a key of how the questionnaire’s means were described. Means

of the responses that were less than 1.8 is considered too low and connotes negative

responses on the item. Whereas, items means which ranged between 3.4 and 4.19 were

considered high strategy use or practice or high attitude in the attitudes section. Means, which

were higher than 4.2, were considered very high.

Finally, the thematic analysis of the researcher’s own journal answered the fifth

question of the research concerning the groups’ dynamics and interactions. The step by step
 89

analysis has followed the six phase process by Braun &Clarke (2006). In phase (1) which is

known as the reduction phase, the researcher went back to read and reread the journals that

have been written six months prior to the analysis, making herself more familiar with the

content and the aspects it covers in the group work features. It was in this phase, the

researcher was, unintentionally, driven to the literature of group work dynamics, interactions

and protocols. Thoughts about what ideas can emerge from the journals and what codes will

appear, guided her towards the related literature. Literature made some ideas in the journals

speak, revealing few initial codes and some codes were actually allocated, whereas a mass

body of the writing was still undecided. In phase (2), the initial coding stage, the journals

were read again and again for the purpose of finding consistencies or differences regarding

some codes such as group’s identity, interdependency, cooperation’ responsibility,

motivation, etc. Paragraphs or sentences that served certain patterns were marked. Since the

journals were a word document, paragraphs that support each code, were given different font

colour to be distinguished. Cut and paste was applied to same colour extracts and under each

code each went. In phase (3) code analysing started, broader chunks of information were

attached to each code, elaborating the codes into meaningful themes. For example, all ideas,

details or narratives that were evolving around the theme “group’s interdependency” were

written on the same paper, in search for meaning of this theme. This stage was the beginning

of creating links between the codes and their references in the text, trying to give meanings

for each that would help in elaborating a theme around each. Themes were revised in phase

(4) seeking coherence and refining them in relation to the authentic text and excluding themes

that don’t contribute to the research question or don’t fit the concept of groups’ dynamics. In

the next step, writing of a full meaningful themes started by naming the themes and

supporting every theme with the narrative details which reasonably serves the research

question. In phase (6), the final, fully written themes were presented, supported with

necessary evidences and examples, ready for the illustrative analysis in chapter four. The
 90

inductive and deductive approaches were both used in reading the data. This is a process for

obtaining themes from the text through moving forth and back and between, as continuous

process which guarantees comprehensive rich description of the themes. The back and forth

interplay with the data allows the researcher to check and recheck the codes and concepts

(Bowen, 2009).

Conclusion

The current chapter has presented all the logistics involved in implementing and

testing RT as a reading- fostering approach in school context. It discussed the research

methodology, presented the rationale for choosing the mixed method design of the study.

Then, the setting of the study was featured through describing the population, the sample,

location and time of the research. The chapter has described the actual process of teaching RT

for the 11th grade students, the preparation that preceded the actual teaching of RT. In

addition, instruments of the study, their reliability and validity were established through

testing the correlation of the tests items and using the one factor analysis for the questionnaire

items. The journals reliability was established through an iterative process of decoding,

identifying and validating the themes, then comparing them to the authentic script. Protocols

followed for validating each tool was discussed in details. Finally, the data analysis process

was described in preparation for the results in the next chapter.

 91

Chapter Four

Results

Introduction

The overarching intent of the current study was to investigate the impact of teaching

Reciprocal Teaching (RT) in 11th grade context. Reciprocal Teaching is a reading instruction

method, developed by Palincsar & Brown (1984). The strategy is based on training students

to cognitive/metacognitive strategies through promoting four thinking skills: clarifying,

questioning, summarizing, and predicting. Another major aim of the study was to discover

the reading practices that students have developed following the instruction, and to reveal

students’ attitude towards learning using RT technique. Hence, the qualitative part of the

research has examined the impact of the intervention on 11th grade students’ achievement,

strategic practices and attitudes. Student’s achievement was calculated through two types of

comprehension tests. Reading practices and attitudes were collected through a questionnaire.

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Program (SPSS) was applied to the mentioned

data sources to answer the first four questions of the study. The independent sample T- test

results indicated a significant impact of RT on the 11th graders reading skills. Further,

question number five answered the qualitative part of the study. It shed the light on the

group’s interaction and group work features which were recorded through the teacher’s

journals. The thematic analysis of these notes revealed much about the RT instruction in a

cooperative heterogeneous groups’ context. The composite outcomes of both parts will be

discussed thoroughly in chapter five to generate deeper insights of using Reciprocal Teaching

in a cooperative group context. However, this chapter is going to present the analysis of the

five research questions respectively.

 92

Q.1: What is the impact of using Reciprocal Teaching strategies on 11th Graders reading

comprehension ability?

Q.2: What is the effect of using RT on reading comprehension progression over the period of

intervention?

Q 3: What strategic practices students developed while reading using RT strategies?

Q.4: What attitudes do students hold towards learning reading comprehension with

Reciprocal Teaching in a cooperative context?

Q.5: How do the process and the interaction within the groups evolve over the period of using

the four strategies of Reciprocal Teaching?

Effect of Reciprocal Teaching on Reading Achievement

The study aimed to reveal the effectiveness of using RT on reading comprehension

abilities and its impact on students’ achievement. For that purpose, two types of tests were

conducted. A pre/posttest and five school (teacher- designed) tests. The pre/ posttests have

mainly aimed to reveal the difference in achievement between the experimental and control

groups prior and after the intervention. The five school test tracked the progress in the

reading abilities along the period of intervention. For comparison between groups, this

current study used two independent groups drawn from the same population. The reciprocal

group consisted of 84 students and the Non-reciprocal was 81.

To answer the first question, the independent sample T test was applied to the results of

the pre and post-tests for both groups. The means and standard deviations of the control

group and the experimental group before and after the intervention were compared.
 93

Table (4-1)

Results of the Independent Sample T- Test of the Experimental and Control Groups in

the Pretest and Posttest

Std. Eta
Group N Mean T Sig. (2-tailed)
Deviation Squared
Exp 84 6.98 3.77
Pretest 1.11 0.27
Cont 81 6.28 4.25
51.0
Exp 84 11.42 5.28
Posttest 2.97 0.00*
Cont 81 9.27 3.84
* Statistically significant at the level of statistical significance (α≤0.05)

** Total pre/posttest grade = 20 points

Table (4-1) presents the results of the control and the experimental groups in the pre

and post-tests. Comparing both groups’ results in the pretest shows that the means of the two

groups’ scores were very similar. The experimental group’s average mean was (6.98),

whereas the control group’s mean was (6.28) before the RT instruction began. This

comparison shows that there was no significant difference in the mean scores of the two

groups prior the intervention. It also indicates that both groups were almost similar in their

reading achievement before teaching began. Comparing the mean scores of the two groups in

the posttest shows the experimental group mean was (11.42), while the control group’ mean

was (9.27) for the same test. Table (4-1) also shows that there was no difference in the two

groups’ performance in the pretest. (Sig = 27%) in the pretest indicates that the difference is

insignificant at (α ≤0, 05). However, significance level was (0.00) which is less than (α ≤0,

05) in the posttest. The level of significance shows that there was a difference in performance

for the benefit of the experimental group in the posttest.

Comparing the results at the one group -level shows that the mean average of both

groups has increased from the pretest to the posttest. The control group’s average was (6.28)

in the pretest and rose to (9.27) in the posttest. Whereas, the experimental group’s average

mean was (6.98) in the pretest and rose to (11.42) in the posttest. Yet, there is a significant
 94

difference for the benefit of the experimental group when comparing the two groups’ means

in the posttest. In other words, the experimental group who studied reading comprehension

using reciprocal teaching strategies outperformed the control group in the posttest. However,

the statistics shows an advance of the control group reading achievement along the period of

teaching. Furthermore, table (4-1) shows the effect size of reciprocal teaching (RT) on the

reading ability. This was calculated through applying the Eta square statistics to the test

results. The table shows η 2 Eta square value was (0.15). This percentage suggests that the

effect size of RT on students’ reading ability was big, since it is higher than the average

(0.14). It should be noted that according to Cohen’s rules of thumb (1988), the Eta square for

the effect magnitude is considered small at (0.2), medium (0.13) and large at (0.26).

The previous findings clarified the overall achievement differences between the two

groups. However, the research has investigated the effect of the RT at deeper level. Provided

the claim that RT instruction enhances the cognitive/metacognitive abilities of the learners,

the statistics were used to trace the method’s impact on the cognitive growth of the subjects.

It investigated the impact of RT on developing the different cognitive abilities of the

experimental group learners. For that purpose, the same previous test items were classified

into two cognitive levels. Ten out of the twenty multiple choice questions represented high-

order thinking skills. The other ten questions required low- level thinking abilities. Analysing

the test items, higher level thinking skills that the test promoted were reasoning, inferring and

problem- solving questions. Meanwhile, the low-order thinking skills were mainly recalling,

knowledge and comprehension questions. To examine the difference in the experimental

subjects’ performance in the two cognitive levels, the score of every student in every question

was recorded. This implies that every cognitive field is made of ten questions and marked out

of ten points for every student. Results of the experimental group were compared in the pre

and post-tests using the independent sample T- test and the Eta Square, as shown in the

flowing table.
 95

Table (4-2)

Pretest and Posttest Results in the Low and High -Order Cognitive Levels

Std. Sig.(2- Eta

Comprehension Cognitive Level N Mean T
Deviation tailed) Squared

Low-Order 84 4.9 0.25

Pre -2.91 0.00** 0.12
Thinking Skills
Exp. Post 84 6.1 0.27

High-Order Pre 84 2.1 0.20

-7.70 0.00** 0.32
Thinking Skills Post 84 5.3 0.31

** Statistically significant at the level of statistical significance (α≤0.05)

Table (4-2) shows the mean scores of the experimental group in the pre and post-tests

in different cognitive domains. The independent sample T-test shows a significant difference

between the mean scores of the high – order cognitive level and the low-order cognitive level

in the pre and posttest. The low- order reading skills means was (6.1) in posttest, whereas it

was (4.9) in the pretest. That suggests a slight improvement of the students’ low-order

thinking skills such as recalling, comprehension and remembering levels. Regarding the

performance at the higher- cognitive level, experimental group’s means was (2.1) in the

pretest which is considered very weak performance. This have improved to (5.3) in the

posttest which a very noticeable advance in the experimental group’s performance. The result

indicates a significant difference in the results of the experimental group in their pre and

posttest. The difference was clear in the students’ performance in the high cognitive level

questions despite the slight difference in their performance at the low-order thinking level.

Comparing the performance of the subjects in the two cognitive levels, the means

show that students performance have increased in both levels. Both means had a ( sig .0.00)

which are considered significant at (α≤0.05). Yet, the differences in means indicate that
 96

students have advanced better in their performance in the high- order thinking skill than in

their performance in the low order thinking skills.

To investigate the impact of RT on students’ performance in the both cognitive levels,

Eta Square statistics was operated, the difference between the two levels’ means was

calculated to check the effect size of the method in both levels. The results show the effect

size of RT on the high -order thinking skills was greater than its effect size on the low-order

cognitive level. To elaborate, Eta Square for the low-cognitive level was (0.12) which less

than (0.14). This is construed as a medium size effect of the method on the low-order

thinking skills of the subjects. However, the size effect was great regarding the high-level

skills like reasoning and problem-solving, since Eta Square was (0.32), which is much higher

than (0.14). These results indicate that due to the extensive RT practice, students high

thinking skills have developed higher than their low order cognitive skills. They also indicate

that the same subjects have more applied the low order thinking skills to the test questions in

the pre and post conditions. However, their high order thinking skills have grown much better

in the posttest.

To conclude, the results show a significant difference in the performance of the

reciprocal group in both cognitive levels. Yet, the same groups’ performance has enhanced in

the high order thinking skills more apparently than their performance in the low order

thinking skills. These results were supported by the Eta Square statistics for calculating the

method’s effect magnitude. The size effect of Reciprocal Teaching was found higher in the

high order thinking skills case. This implies a positive impact of the strategy on promoting

the cognitive/metacognitive abilities of the experimental group.

 97

Tracking the Progress in Achievement during the Reciprocal Intervention

To answer the second question of the study, the research tracked the performance of

the experimental and the control groups along the period of the intervention. The study aimed

to find the difference between the experimental and control groups in their performance in

reading comprehension through five school tests. Those tests included the five most frequent

prompts in the secondary stage tests and were scored out of thirty marks for each. After

administering each test; scores of students in the two groups were recorded. By the end of the

teaching period, mean scores and standard deviations of the five tests were analysed for the

both groups. The analysed data appear in table (4-3) below, show the mean scores, standard

deviations and the independent T test values for the five tests of the experimental and control

groups.

Table (4-3)

The Experimental and the Control Groups’ Means and Standard Deviations in the Five

School Tests

Std. Sig. (2-

Group N Mean T
Deviation tailed)
Exp. 83.00 13.43 7.54
Test 1
Cont. 80.00 11.44 7.51 1.69 0.09
Exp. 84.00 14.99 7.14
Test 2
Cont. 79.00 14.38 7.12 0.54 0.59
Exp. 81.00 18.35 7.37
Test 3
Cont. 79.00 16.66 7.54 1.43 0.15
Exp. 82.00 19.39 7.07
Test 4
Cont. 80.00 17.40 7.31 1.76 0.08
Exp. 83.00 20.73 6.74
Test 5
Cont. 80.00 18.09 7.57 2.36 0.02*
* Statistically significant at the level of statistical significance (α≤0.05)

** Maximum Test Grade =30 Pts, Minimum Grade = 15 Pts.

The table shows the Independent Samples T- Test results for the two groups in five school

tests. The independent sample T- test clarifies that there was a difference in the mean scores
 98

of the two groups in favour of the experimental in the fifth test. The mean score of the

experimental group in this test was (20.73), whereas the mean score of the control was

(18.09). The Significance level of the first, second, third and fourth tests of the two groups as

(0.09 0.59 0.15 0.08), which is higher than (0.05) for both groups. This indicates no

significant differences in the two groups reading achievement in the first four school tests.

Whereas, the Sig value of the fifth test = (0.02) which is apparently significant at α≤0.05 and

reveals a significant difference between the two groups for the favour of the experimental. In

other words, the results of both groups in school comprehension tests had no significant

difference until the fifth and final test. This suggests that the students of the experimental

group have outperformed the control group in the fifth comprehension test. Despite the fact

that difference between the two groups only appeared in test five, the achievement scores of

the experimental group gradually rose from the first to the final test. However, a look at the

mean scores of the experimental group shows that their achievement in the tests was

gradually rising along the five tests. The means scores of the tests appeared as (13.43, 14.99,

18.35, 19.39 and 20.73) respectively. These means show a continuous rise in the

experimental group achievement from one test to the other. Similarly, the control group’s

means were (11.44, 14.38, 16.66, 17.40 and 18.09) respectively. This finding indicates that

the control group subjects -who were learning using the conventional method – were also

progressing in their reading comprehension performance along the intervention period. The

different performances of the experimental and control groups in the five school tests are

made clear in figure 1 below.

 99

The Progress of the Experimental and the

Control Groups across the Five School Tests
25

20

15
Exp.
10 Cont.
5

0
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5

Figure 1: The Results of the Experimental and the Control Groups in the School Tests

Figure (1) shows a comparison of the two groups’ performance in each test. As clarified the

experimental group tests’ means were higher than the means of the experimental from the

first to the fifth test. The means indicate that the reciprocal subjects performed better in the

school tests than their mates in the non- reciprocal group. The figure shows that the

experimental group’s means were higher than the control group means from the first school

tests and continued higher until the end of the intervention. When comparing any two means

in any of the five tests, the experimental group’s mean was higher, but insignificant in the

first four tests. These means clearly show that students who studied reading comprehension

through the RT reading strategies have made progressive improvement in their mean scores

in the successive reading tests at school. In conclusion, the statistics clarifies that comparing

the mean scores of the experimental and control groups in five unit tests was for the favour in

the experimental. The difference wasn’t significant in the first four tests and didn’t appear

until the fifth. That suggests that the RT effect on the reading ability progress didn’t make a

significant difference until late stage of the instruction period. Moreover, it suggests that the

experimental group reading ability has grown, yet at slow pace.

 100

The Impact of Reciprocal Teaching on Students’ Strategy Use

Concerning the third question of the study regarding the impact of RT on students’

strategy use, the questionnaire was statistically analysed to provide a clarification of the

reading practices that the experimental group students implemented while reading.

The first part of the questionnaire was under the title of “Practices of Reading” to refer to the

reading strategies that the experimental group used while reading. The part was adapted from

“MARSI” questionnaire by Mokhtari &Reichard (2002) which was designed to assess

reading strategic awareness for academic purposes, but items were chosen to correspond to

the closet practices of RT. The questionnaire included three subscales of strategies that

students resort to while reading to foster their understanding. The first part covered the

Global Strategies, followed by Support Reading Strategies and then the Problem Solving

Strategies. In order to answer the question, descriptive analysis was operated to calculate the

means, standard deviations and percentages of the items.

Table (4-4)

Descriptive Statistics of Eighteen Reading Strategies

No Item Mean Std. Percentage

Deviation
Global Reading Strategies
1 I read the heading and sub-headings of the passage first. 71.4 5140 %30100
2 I refer to the diagrams / illustrations when they are available
01.3 514 %43100
to help me understand the topic.
3 I try to make connection between the text that I am reading
0130 5140 %46164
and previous knowledge / experience.
4 Before reading, I ask myself what I already know about the
01. 5164 %431.5
topic and predict what will come next in the passage.
5 I skim the text first to find out its type and the way it is
0160 51. %401.5
organized.
6 I try to figure out the meaning of new words or phrases from
0133 5144 %44163
the context.
Support Reading Strategies
7 I look up unknown words in the dictionary. 016. 5133 %431.7
8 I underline or circle information in the text to help me
0104 5140 %4.170
remember it.
 101

9 I discuss what I read with the group to check my

0160 51.3 %43163
understanding
10 I ask myself questions about the text during reading. 01.3 5146 %60104
11 I summarize what I read to reflect on important information
0157 .1.0 %6514.
in the text.
12 I go back and forth in the text to find relationships among
0130 5133 %67103
ideas in it.
Problem- Solving Strategies
13 When I don’t understand, I keep on reading hoping for
0103 5146 %4.164
clarification further on.
14 I stop from time to time and think about what I’m reading. 0144 513. %40173
15 I skip words or parts I don’t understand. 01.. .156 %6013.
16 I give up and stop reading when I don’t understand. 31.0 .150 %701.5
17 When text becomes difficult, I reread to increase my
01.0 .150 %63163
understanding.
18 I try to guess the meaning of unknown words or phrases
010. .150 %64136
when reading.

Table (4-4) shows the means, standard deviations and frequencies of three categories of

reading practices. It is clear that the first subcategory of the strategies was dominant in the

students’ practices while reading. The percentages of using them were between 83.33% and

73.10%, and both are considered high percentages. Initially, it seems that the majority of

students attended to headings and titles when reading. Among the six used strategies, the

highest mean (4.17) went to the item (No.1) “I read the heading and sub-headings of the

passage first”. Further, responses showed that pictures and illustrations combined to the

reading were also a source of help. That is clear from the high mean of strategy (No.2)( M=

3.92 )“I refer to the diagrams / illustrations when they are available to help me understand the

topic”. Self-questioning/checking was also a present during reading, as strategy No.4 came

third in its mean ( M=3.9) “Before reading, I ask myself what I already know about the topic

and predict what will come next in the passage”. Strategy (No.6) mean was (3.88) “I try to

figure out the meaning of new words or phrases from the context” and strategy No.3

(M=3.83) “I try to make connection between the text that I am reading and previous

knowledge / experience”. However, the least attention was paid to structure and organisation
 102

of the text as a reading technique. Therefore, responses to item (No.5) calculated the lowest

mean (3.65) among the six global strategies used “I skim the text first to find out its type and

the way it is organized”. To sum, the means of the responses to the six items were high which

suggests they were commonly used during reading.

In addition, a look at the second subscale shows the percentages and mean scores of

responses on using the Support Reading Strategies. Item (No.9) “I discuss what I read with

the group to check my understanding” got the highest mean (3.63) among the six supportive

strategies that students adopt. The mean of item suggests that dialogue and debates on the text

were found useful to arrive to common understanding of the text, give meaning to reading

and confirm understanding. Strategy No.7 (M=3.61) “I look up unknown words in the

dictionary” and No.8 (M= 3.57) “I underline or circle information in the text to help me

remember it” also appeared as high frequently used while reading. However, item No.10 “I

ask myself questions about the text during reading” was (M=3.18). Still, it indicates that

nearly half of students have developed self- questioning strategy of RT while reading.

Strategy (No.11) “I summarize what I read to reflect on important information in the text”

came with the lowest mean (3.04), among the support reading strategies which students use to

overcome their reading problems. Compared to other responses, it could be considered a

mediocre use of the strategy. However, according to the used scale, it still belongs to the high

frequently used strategies.

The third part of the table covered the strategies that students utilized as problem-

solving techniques. Foremost, the highest mean (M= 3.77) of item (No.14) “I stop from time

to time and think about what I’m reading” suggests that thinking about reading was the most

frequently followed by students to check whether the text was meaningful or not. Then, the

mean responses on item No.13 (M=3.58) “When I don’t understand, I keep on reading hoping

for clarification further on”, show that students continued reading and didn’t give up when

they didn’t understand a certain part, hoping for understanding as they move on in the text.
 103

Text clues and previous word knowledge were also frequently used to solve the reading

problems. This idea was clear through the means of item No 18 (M= 3.39) “I try to guess the

meaning of unknown words or phrases when reading”. The lowest mean of responses (2.15)

was on item (No. 16) “I give up and stop reading when I don’t understand”. The item’s mean

indicates that low number of students quit reading when they didn’t understand and continued

the task. However, not a high percentage of students did this because items (No.15) “I skip

words or parts I don’t understand” and (No.17) “When text becomes difficult, I reread to

increase my understanding” were reported of medium frequency. The two items’ means were

(M=3.19) and (M=3.13) respectively. These means show that these two strategies were not

among the high frequently used. However, they mean that almost half of the students didn’t

get stuck when they did not figure the meaning of a word and read again to foster

understanding.

In general, comparing the total score of each subcategory shows that the global reading

strategies appeared first as the most frequent skills used, followed by support reading

strategies and the problem- solving strategies. The comparison between the three subscales

overall use appears in the following table:

Table (4-5)

Means, Standard Deviations and Percentages of Reading Strategies’ Total Score

Strategy -Subscale Mean Std. Percentage Degree

Deviation

Global reading strategies 013. 5140 44136% High

Support reading strategies 0103 51. 64105% Medium

Problem- solving strategies 013 51.6 6715.% Medium

Total Score of “My Reading Practices” 017. 5134 45% High

 104

Table (4-5) shows a comparison of the means of each subcategory of the strategies.

The three are compared in their total means, percentage and overall degree of use according

to Likert scale. Global reading strategies were the most used by students with (M=3.89). The

percentage of using these strategies was (77.86%). That indicates students resorted to these

general, low level cognitive or surface skills with a high degree of frequency. Support reading

strategies (M-3.38) fell within a medium or moderate level of frequency. This means that

learners “sometimes” made use of these strategies. The overall percentage of using them was

(67.50%), which is considered a of a medium use degree. On the contrary, problem- solving

strategies came last (M=3.2) with a (64.09%) percentage. This pointed to a moderate use or

frequency of these strategies; however, less than the supportive strategies.

To conclude, the overall mean of “The Reading Practices” part was (M= 3.49) which falls

within high degree of frequency. These statistics indicate that students in general resorted to

reading strategies to a high degree. However, the highest percentage of their reading

strategies went to the global strategies, followed by support reading strategies and finally to

the problem solving. The subscale means and percentages showed that in spite of using

reading strategies while reading English texts, their use was decreasing as the subscale was

advancing.

Students’ Attitudes towards Reciprocal Teaching

Students’ own perception of RT and their attitude towards reading in cooperative,

heterogeneous group context was also investigated in this study. The second part of the

questionnaire aimed to answer the research’s fourth question to explore the experimental

group’s attitudes towards the learning context. Means of responses were calculated using the

same key used in part one of the questionnaire, and descriptive analysis were provided

through calculating the means, standard deviations and percentages of items as presented in

the table below.

 105

Table (4-6)

Descriptive Analysis of Students’ Attitudes towards Reciprocal Teaching

Item Mean St. Percentage Degree

Deviation
19 The reading strategies I learnt in the
English reading lessons using the
0100 51.7 66164% High
Reciprocal Teaching Method can be
applied to other reading contexts.
20 The summarizing strategy was very
014. 5143 4713.% High
helpful in understanding the passage.
21 The predicting strategy was very helpful
7157 5160 3514.% High
in understanding the passage.
22 The clarifying strategy was very helpful
716. 5106 .013.% Too high
in understanding the passage.
23 The questioning strategy was very
014. . 4713.% High
helpful in understand the passage.
24 Practicing reading strategies improved
014 5144 47150% High
my reading skill.
25 Cooperative group work in Reciprocal
Teaching (RT) helped me participate in 0130 . 60155% Medium
the discussions.
26 Communicative activities used in
Reciprocal Teaching (RT) encouraged 0130 .153 67103% Medium
me to communicate in English.
27 I didn’t like group work. I prefer to read
3144 .1. 00173% Medium
quietly alone.
28 Using RT strategies encouraged me to
0136 5133 60137% Medium
ask for clarifications.
29 Using RT strategies made me more
01.4 51.7 60100% Medium
enthusiastic in the reading class.
30 Using the RT strategies in group work
313 5133 77150% Low
was boring.
31 Using the RT strategies in reading
0134 5136 60173% Medium
English made it more enjoyable.
32 I like my teacher to continue using RT
method in all reading classes for the rest 01.7 .1.. 63136% Medium
of the year.
33 Using RT method didn’t affect my
31.. 51.3 7013.% Low
reading ability.
Overall Items of “My Attitude Towards
3.43 0.88 68.50% High
Learning with RT Strategies
 106

As illustrated in table (4-6), students were asked about the most useful RT strategy

among the four they practiced. Items (20, 21, 22, and 23) reflected students’ perception of the

four strategies. The mean of Summarising Strategy was (M=3.71), Predicting Strategy

(M=4.04), Clarifying Strategy (4.69) and Questioning Strategy (3.71) respectively, as

appeared in the questionnaire. It’s clear that the four strategies were appealing for students to

use, and their attitude towards the strategy was very positive, especially the Clarifying

strategy that holds the highest mean. In fact, (4.69) is the highest mean among all the items of

the questionnaire and the only item that is interpreted as “very high” compared to overall

items and to the rest three RT strategies’ means. That is to say students found “Clarifying”

the most useful among the four strategies. Predicting and Questioning strategies came next

with very close means. Summarizing was found the less helpful in supporting understanding

despite that its mean is interpreted as high and that students agree that the other three

strategies facilitated their understanding.

Furthermore, students were asked about their perception of RT instruction in relation to

their learning, and the way RT affected their ability of reading. The statistics showed that

most students agree that the reading strategies they learned this year helped them read better.

This appears in the item 24 (M= 3.7) “Practicing reading strategies improved my reading

skill”. Students also “agree” that they can transfer the strategies to learn new texts, and that is

clear in item 19 (M=3.33) “The reading strategies I learnt in the English reading lessons

using the Reciprocal Teaching Method can be applied to other reading contexts”. Further,

students’ perception of the learning settings was also questioned. Item 25 (M= 3.25)

“Cooperative group work in Reciprocal Teaching helped me participate in the discussions”

and item 26 (M=3.23) “Communicative activities used in Reciprocal Teaching (RT)

encouraged me to communicate in English” reflect that nearly half of the students agree that

RT affected their ability to participate, take part in discussions and use English in their

dialogues. These two means suppose that working cooperatively, using RT and engaging in
 107

communicative activities have helped almost half of the students to participate and engage in

reading discussions. Moreover, students’ opinions on the context of learning, attitudes

towards reading in cooperative heterogeneous groups were also covered. It is clear that

students have enjoyed using RT strategies in their reading. Item 31 “Using the RT strategies

in reading English made it more enjoyable” got ( M=3.27),which suggests that almost half

students agree they enjoyed learning using this strategy. This fact is reinforced through

calculating the mean of item 30 (M=2.2) “Using the RT strategies in group work was

boring”, which falls within a low degree of attitude and suggests that low number of students

didn’t enjoy learning with RT. Item 29 (M=3.17) “Using RT strategies made me more

enthusiastic in the reading class”, indicates that RT has promoted enthusiasm towards reading

and made the class more active when they were using the strategy. Besides, intermediate

percentage of students reported that RT gave them the chance to ask for clarification when

reading became complex. That was clear from the responses to item 28 (M= 3.26) “Using RT

strategies encouraged me to ask for clarifications”. Further, item 32 (M= 3.14) “I like my

teacher to continue using RT method in all reading classes for the rest of the year”, item

27(M=2.77) “I didn’t like group work. I prefer to read quietly alone” expressed that more

than half students have positive attitudes towards using RT and preferred to continue their

reading classes using the strategy. They believed that the strategy helped them to ask the

teacher and the group about unclear points in reading and preferred to use RT technique in

the reading activities for the rest of the year. On contrary to these findings, item 33 ( M=

2.19) “Using RT method didn’t affect my reading ability”, shows that high percentage of

students agree that RT has positively affected their reading ability. However, the final degree

of students’ opinions towards the context of learning is interpreted as medium. To conclude,

the highest mean was item (4.69) that indicates students made use of the clarification strategy

best and the lowest mean was (M= 2.2) “Using the RT strategies in group work was boring”.
 108

From the statistics presented above, some conclusions can be drawn. First, students

have developed positive attitude towards RT and enjoyed using the strategy in reading, hoped

to continue using the strategies for the rest of the year (items,30,31,32). Second, students’

responses show that they have found predicting, clarifying, questioning and summarising

strategies helpful in understanding the text and generating the meaning of reading. They

found clarifying strategy the most helpful to them in comprehending the text. However,

questioning and summarizing were the least attractive for them to use (items, 20, 21,22,23).

Third, students thought that that using RT has promoted better reading skills, positively

affected their ability to extend using RT to new reading context.(items 19,24,33). Students, in

general, also believed the cooperative reading context gave them the chance to participate and

engage better in discussions using English (items 25,26). That attitude attributes to their

perception of items (28,29) which indicates RT gave students the chance to ask teacher and

peers for help when needed. Finally, the statistics showed that learners preferred working in

groups over working individually (items 25,27,28). So far, the mean of the attitude overall

items was (3.43). This mean indicates a positive attitude towards reading using RT in a

cooperative group context. The overall percentage of the responses was considered high

(68.50%). In conclusion, the findings of this questionnaire in its two parts are reinforced by

the pervious findings of the tests results. As well, they will be better understood in the light of

the qualitative data. The thematic analysis of the classroom interactions will help understand

the spirit of learning and the patterns of relationships that dominated RT classes during the

intervention period.

Results of the Thematic Analysis on the Group Work Interactions

The final and fifth question of this research aimed to provide deeper insights into the

group work dynamics and interactions. It aimed to discover the themes that ruled the group

work with regard to values that students developed within their groups. The analysis also dug

deep to depict students’ own perception of heterogeneousness, cooperation and adaption of

 109

RT strategies. This question was qualitatively answered through applying the Thematic

Analysis (TA) to the teacher’s journals. The journals were written along the period of

intervention to record observations on the classroom context, interactions and the way

students perceived the values of RT group work. The thematic analysis of (Brown and

Clarke, 2006) model was carried out on all the qualitative data, collected by observing

students during reading lessons and the teacher’s field notes and observations. Six major

themes appeared throughout the data. These included: Harmonious relationships,

Socialization, Cooperation, Interaction, Interdependency and Motivation. The codes have

been developed into subthemes and initial themes which were allocated and justified for

writing the final themes. A report and description of each theme will follow with supporting

evidence and examples from the journals to weave the full story of the relationships and

interactions in the RT classroom.

Theme 1: “From sensitive heterogeneity to harmonious relationships at the group level”

Preparing students to work in heterogeneous relationships was a challenge at the

beginning of teaching. Grouping students according to their language competence was also

sensitive for both categories of students: the high competent students and the low competent

students. For example, it was reported that “friends wanted to be grouped together but due to

the research purposes, I distributed them according to their abilities to heterogeneous

groups” and “I am still receiving complaints from some members who don’t feel they want to

stay in their groups”. For a period of time, at the beginning, some proficient students didn’t

get on well with the rest of group members. They didn’t take things seriously and thought

they don’t have to put serious effort in cooperating with their peers, “but some students who

have good English competence don’t participate as they should”. They sometimes showed

superiority to their group member, basically the less proficient ones. One of the students told

the teacher: “I think we now learn better, but X in my group thinks she is perfect in English

and doesn’t want us to explain everything, she thinks we should hurry in doing the task and
 110

she thinks she’s perfect in English!!”. With efforts paid to promote the idea of heterogeneous

groups and how this will enhance the whole class performance, positive relationships began

to grow. Encouraging both types of students to be positive towards their group members and

rewarding the cooperation of some groups helped much, though. For example “Harmony and

friendship between the one group members were noticed to be an effective factor to scaffold

low achievers skills, they were imitating their competent partners who have mastered the

strategy, without feeling embarrassed and they ask for help with higher attendance”.

Adaptation of students to work together and accept each others as they are, worked at last, but

with effort and at slow pace. “Students interact in their groups comfortably as friends now.

Drilling the reading strategies each reading class made them follow the routines smoothly;

they don’t need much time now to prepare themselves for the class. Moreover, they scaffold

each other’s to be ready for their roles as predictors, clarifiers, questioners and

summarizers”. Finally, it is concluded that students were able to accept each other’s, avoid

floundering that appeared in some groups’ cases at first. For some, it was a real chance to

build friendships with others who didn’t really know before and for others it was actually a

great chance to advance their skills.

Theme 2: “Group work the route to social values”

Group work has offered a chance for students to expand their social and learning

opportunities. In clarifying how group work was a chance and challenge simultaneously,

many students told the teacher “I have never engaged in group work before”. The picture

was even worse when other students reported that even when they were in groups, they were

not given any responsibilities. “When we were in a group, we were used to copy the answers

from the clever girl and that’s it!!”, some said. The previous statements can manifest the

challenge in getting the students to work in systematic groups with definite task for each

member. Even structuring the groups at beginning was a challenge. Students didn’t adapt to

organizing and regulating themselves in neat groups within the class space. For instance, it
 111

was reported that “It was not easy to train students how to sit in their groups and organize

themselves quickly before the class started/ I used to go to the class and find them still

moving here and there looking their group members and moving their chairs to join in”.

However, these obstacles were minimized over time. “Students now understand the meaning

of working cooperatively, the group has become more stable, and students recognise their

group member very well. They also use badges that hold the role of each member during that

class”. Beyond the values of organization and labour division, students became better aware

of each others social conditions, even better understand the type of help their groups peers

need. For example, “Students needed to feel closer to each other’s; they suggested making

same T-shirts for all of them. They worked actively and happily to search the net for ideas,

colours and designs to make special thing, collected money and donated for those who can’t

pay. In two weeks, the whole classes of 11th grade were wearing the same T-shirt even me

and that really gave us a positive feeling of being friends who have many things in common.

In addition, sensitivity built on achievement differences has reduced as students recognised

that group work assumed equal roles for members. In the reading class, every group member

was equally charged with a task regardless to her achievement in tests. “Students feel more

equal now; there are no biases against any of them based on their test grades. They

understand they receive appreciation and reward according to their commitment to the

cooperative task and the effort they pay”. To sum up, group work was not only about

improving in reading skills. It was also about developing social values such as self and group

organization, commitment to group members and group tasks, in addition to appreciating

others based on who they are, not on what grades they receive.

Theme 3: “Cooperation the anchor to the group’s survival”

Cooperation among the group didn’t automatically regulate. “It was noticed that some

students especially the less competent, are still reluctant to share. Sometimes, some high-

achievers came to me complaining that their colleagues are not completing their tasks”.
 112

More effort was paid from the teacher to overcome this obstacle and enforce the mutual

assistance between the one group members. First, more teacher intervention was paid to the

ill groups. “I sat with the group as a member of them, doing the task of the low- achiever,

asking her to repeat what I did”. There was a need to encourage the less competent students

by praising what they did in front of others. That made difference in their contribution in the

group. Second, some side meetings with individuals who complained about the group’s

performance were needed to debug their conceptions about the group work. For example, “It

took time and patience to talk to some high achievers. I wanted them to feel comfortable as

possible. I needed them to understand that improving the group’s performance depends

highly on their cooperation with mates. These conversations helped them understand that

their groups improve when they share knowledge and skills with the team instead of nagging.

I notice they more now enjoy the work with others, instead of thinking of beating or excelling

them”. Finally, to achieve optimal collaborative performance, more effort was paid to task’s

administering and missions’ distribution. The teacher needed to modify the way tasks are

presented and distributed among group members. “I brought in the four-door chart that

visualizes the four RT strategies. This will help each member of the group recognise and

remember her role. I made many copies, so that students use new papers at new tasks”. In

addition, “every group was given four badges, holding the four strategies names. Students

needed to exchange them every class in order to play all RT roles. After all, it can be

concluded that cooperation between members worked very well by time. Tasks were noticed

to become more automatically distributed. For example, “some less competent members were

charged in using the dictionary for finding the meanings of new words. I notice they are

happy to function as clarifies for students who are used to achieve higher than them”.

Students have qualitatively improved their shared efforts for the sake of the whole group. “I

was proud to see that groups’ leaders have prepared their lists of new vocabulary and

distributed them among their group to confirm reading with understanding for their less
 113

proficient mates”. For example, students were noticed to “correct the inaccurate summaries

of their partners”. “Their cooperation is transforming the class into bees’ cell. They are all

busy. That showed me that students are now taking the ownership of their own learning”.

Theme 4: “Task- directed interaction has replaced the chaotic one”

Interaction among group members was high, but the teacher found that sometimes it wasn’t

panned or controlled. For example, “some enthusiastic readers were gushing their answers

without consulting the others”. At other occasion it was stated “some groups weren’t that

active/ Some group members didn’t get on well with the rest”. That is interpreted in having

hasty students who were keen to give answers, paying no attention to their roles in the group

or to their turn. In the contrast, there were students who were hesitant to talk. Teacher

reported she needed to make some modifications some group’s structure to realize balanced

interaction among them. It was stated “I added another member to the group so that the

group will interact and function better. Usually the member was of intermediate level. This

was found the mean of both low and high achievers. Both can find their ways to interact with

her”. Time was needed to make students commit to their roles in the group and better

understand the needs of their less competent mates. However, things turned on much better as

a result of understanding that no group member can move to the next task until others have

achieved theirs. “we exchange the roles each class. When I predict about the text, another

friend prepares the questions, another one uses the dictionary to tell us the meanings and a

fourth one summarises. But we consult each others of course before we declare our

answers”. One student has told the teacher. It was also noticed that the level of interaction

was decreasing or increasing following the topic of reading. Therefore, when some topics

were very culturally related, students showed a high degree of interaction. It was mentioned

that when the unit about global folk tales were presented, students were very attentive, active

and every group’s members were working hard together to produce the writing task. Every

group was asked produce their folk tale, considering the elements of that type of writing. In
 114

that regard the teacher wrote: “every group was given a story map to establish their own folk

tale; they consulted me often about the logic in their stories, and then ran back to their

groups to continue”. On the same idea, she commented, “groups were competing in a

fantastic way to give their best; they gave me more than what I asked them to do. They had

made their folk tales clear by attaching pictures and illustrations of their drawings. The

collective effort of the group has produced very well written tales which decorated the walls

of the class”.

Theme 5: “Interdependency among group members has yielded more independent readers”

Despite the labour division among the one group, there were students who depend on their

colleagues to explain to them what to do. It was noticed that “Students use the graphic

organizers to divide the task and roles, but still we have students who depend on their group

members to help them read and perform their tasks”. Those were generally the very poor

readers. However, some average achievers have very well improved as a result of sharing the

task with other group members. For example, one student told the teacher “when I read the

text at home I feel happy I understand what is written there. Because I write all the meanings

and main ideas at class, I understand better when I reread”. It was also found that

interdependency among group members have helped less confident students to share. High

and average achievers can do what the teacher couldn’t do “they have succeeded to push

their less proficient reading partner to overcome her shyness, stand up and read her

summary. She didn’t stop reading when she committed mistakes in reading”. Despite having

successful cases, teacher reported that some members were still encountering difficulties in

acquiring the four strategies. For example “students are still facing a problem with the

strategy of summarising. Some groups are still giving the role of summariser to the high

achievers”. In addition, mutual feeling of responsibility toward each other’s has matured.

Dialogue as a target of teaching found its way among group members. For instance, it was

stated “sometimes I saw them in the playground gathering in a group preparing for the class
 115

and that really gave me the ultimate happiness”. Regarding the mutual sense of

responsibility, the teacher wrote “good readers feel more now about the concerns and

challenges “weak readers” face. They became aware of the importance of their roles as

facilitators to their colleagues”. It is clear that positive relationships and sharing the task

has improved along the period of intervention. The teacher concluded that “learning

ownership is improving. More positive behaviours are replacing the competitive feeling they

used to have at the beginning”. At the same time, responsibility towards each others grew. It

was found that they continued scaffolding their less talented peers to give them the chance to

share during the class. It was reported for example, that “when I asked groups to send one

predictor to the board to write the group’s predictions, I was surprised to find that most

groups have delegated one of the low achievers to do the task”. That implies that groups had

structured dialogues prior the task to write initial predictions. It also implies that they have

arrived a consensus regarding the titles and illustrations before sending one of each to write

the prediction points.

Theme 6: “Motivation to read peaked when texts were non-textbook”

Motivation towards reading using RT was great. At the beginning of the intervention,

the teacher used some texts from outside the text book as model to illustrate the four

strategies. When she was reading and questioning her self-aloud, students were very

attentive, focusing and interactive. They were answering her when she asked herself a

question. She commented “Students always showed their enthusiasm when I was doing this,

they even hurried to help me predict, answer questions or recall a background of a word or

its meaning. They were so happy to help me understand!!”.

Motivation to learn was apparent in students’ plans to change their reading habits. They

desired to become better readers. For example, it was reported “some of them kept coming

and telling me their plans and strategies to organise themselves and become better readers.

In other occasions students came to me before the class started. They wanted to show their
 116

preparation for the lesson. It was an effort they did at home to function higher during the

class. … of course I kept encouraging and supporting their efforts”.

It was noticed that motivation towards reading has increased when students were

asked to read a book from the library. Each student was given a book appropriate in level to

her abilities, on a reading level from 2-5. Students were also given a reading log to write the

meanings of some new words, main characters, ideas, and a summary. Students showed great

interest in reading, filling the log and returning it to the teacher. To elaborate, the teacher

commented “When I collected the logs for evaluation, I noticed the amount of effort done

(especially by the low achievers) to complete and return them in time. This experience

increased my trust in my students and their abilities. Some low-academic achievers reported

to me that they were reading for long time at home to complete their logs. They were using

the dictionaries to continue reading. I guess they wanted to show me they are not stupid and

can function well to fill in their logs”.

At the level of classroom setting, competition between groups was a motif to combine each

group’s efforts. Every group members wanted to show that they were the best in doing the

task to receive the teacher’s reward. It was stated that “students in the class are like bee cells,

whispering, discussing and writing down their answers quickly. They are making use of the

available time to prove their group is the best”.

To summarize, the previous themes were the most standing out in the researcher’s

journals. These journals, as stated before, emerged from the teacher’s observation of the RT

class settings and contacting with individual students. They have also contained the

researcher’s personal reflection on the way interactions and relationships have evolved over

the period of teaching.

Analysing these journals using the TA approach has demonstrated a positive trend towards

cooperative group work in general.

 117

A look at the previously stated themes has generated different conclusions. First, students

were not accustomed to group work norms before. They were intact subjects who were never

grouped heterogeneously to practice RT. Though, they have shown great willingness to

cooperate and learn. Second, groups were dynamic structures that can be modified either in

their nature or tasks to achieve optimal performance in reading. No rigid rules were applied to

the group structure. Modifications were made all the time to make them function better in

reading and demonstrate healthy interaction. Third, groups in general were able to accept the

differences among them, adapt better social values, cooperate for the sake of whole group,

and improve their positive interaction. They have also showed high motivation, shared their

responsibilities and were interdependent at the group level. However, time factor was crucial

for students to develop the previous themes. Students needed time, training and patience to

get adapted to these values and to integrate them as bases of their reading groups.

Conclusion

The current chapter has presented the results of data analysis. Quantitative sources

included the results of a pre/post tests, five teacher designed tests and the results of the

students’ questionnaire. The qualitative data was represented through the thematic analysis

(AT) of the teacher’s journals. The independent sample T test was used to compare students’

performance in the pre/post-tests. Comparing the means and standard deviations of both tests

revealed that the experimental group has outperformed the control in the posttest despite

having no significant differences among them in the pre-test. Further, η 2 Eta square for

calculating the effect size of RT was used. Its value was (0.15) which indicates a large effect

size of using this approach in promoting strategic reading. Independent sample T- test was

applied again to measure the differences in the experimental group’s performance in two

cognitive levels in the pre and post-tests. Means and standard deviations of the tests were

compared. Results revealed a difference in the post test results in both: the low- order

cognitive skills and high- order cognitive skill, in favour of the post. In addition, the results of
 118

five school tests were compared for the experimental and control groups. The independent

sample T test showed no significant difference between the two groups in the first four tests.

However, the experimental has outperformed the control in the fifth test. Result of the five

tests also revealed a gradual advance in the both groups performance throughout the five

tests. The mean scores of the experimental group were higher than those of the control group,

though, didn’t reach a statistical significance until the fifth test. Moreover, the results of the

questionnaire was analysed to demonstrate the reading practices of the experimental group

students, in addition to exploring their attitudes towards learning using the RT approach.

Means, percentages and standard deviations of the subjects’ responses indicated that students

have resorted to a repertoire of reading strategies while reading and students had positive

attitudes towards reading using RT strategies. Finally, applying the TA approach to the

qualitative source of data resulted in six themes which triangulated the quantitative findings.

Themes showed that students were developing positive social and learning values along the

period of learning by RT and started adapting the cooperative group work values despite

being novice strategic learners.

 119

Chapter Five

Discussion, Implications and Recommendations

Introduction

The dominant aim of this quasi-experimental study was to evaluate the effect of RT

on the 11th graders reading ability. RT strategies were explicitly taught prior to teaching the

authentic passages of the textbook. The four strategies were verbally and directly modeled by

the teacher. Then, students were guided to clarify, predict, question and summarize the

reading text. Students’ strategy use and their attitudes towards RT were also explored in this

study. This chapter is devoted to provide a summary of the findings, an interpretation of these

findings, and implications for theory and practice. Recommendations for future research are

provided, as well.

Discussion of the Results

In this section, the intervention’s impact on achievement, reading strategic practices

and attitudes are discussed and on the basis of the research questions in chapter one and the

data analyses presented in Chapter four.

Impact of Reciprocal Teaching on Reading Achievement

The first research question of this study investigated the impact of RT on the students’

achievement in English as a foreign language. The findings in chapter four provided a

statistical evidence (Table 4-1) of the positive impact of the method on the students’ reading

ability. The results from independent sample T-test analysis revealed that the experimental

group performed significantly higher than the control group in the posttest. This statistical

evidence indicated that students who received the RT training achieved higher percentage

grades than those who didn’t receive any strategic training. The positive impact of the RT

training was also supported by the data from the pretest. The results analysis showed that the

two groups were almost equivalent in their pretest results. This suggests that the two groups
 120

were almost equal in their reading skills prior to the intervention. The findings from this

study on learners’ achievement are consistent with results from studies conducted by several

other researchers who enquired the role of RT on enhancing the cognitive /metacognitive

abilities of the learners, consequently, established the legitimacy of the approach in teaching

reading (NRP, 2000). In general, these findings are in line with Palincsar and Brown's (1984),

who trained students to apply the four metacognitive strategies of RT to the reading texts.

Their study found the RT has enhanced the standardized reading of the students who were

adequate decoders, but poor at comprehension. Their 7th graders achieved better

comprehension gains, maintained the RT strategies for long time and they became more able

to apply the strategies to more sophisticated texts. The findings of the current study are in the

same direction of Palincsar and Brown's (1984) in its findings since the reciprocal group of

this study has outperformed their mates in the non-reciprocal group and results showed that

students have improved in their performance in the reading achievement as well in their

application of the high order thinking skills to the texts. However, the current study has

longer training duration and utilized the cooperative environment of the group work rather

than the individual teaching. Further, the finding of the present study is consistent with the

findings of Armbrister (2010); Dabarera et .al (2014); Hasan (2005) that applying RT to the

non-native contexts enhances students’ awareness of the metacognitive strategies and

improves their performance in reading. These results are also in the same direction of Brow

(2015); Moore & Wilkinson (2003) in confirming the utility of strategy teaching in

improving the vocabulary attainment and meaning inference abilities of the learners.

Although the results of the current study provided evidence that the experimental

group surpassed their mates in the control in the posttests, the calculation of their test results

shows that their performance wasn’t high (M=11.42). Knowing that the highest mark of the

test was twenty, suggests two points: first, the students were basically poor comprehenders

who possess little reading strategies. Second, students became able to overcome their reading
 121

deficits due to their use of the RT strategies. As a result, they were able to make the

difference in their means in the posttest. Reciprocal Teaching as a remedial method was used

with learners who were considered as low- achievers or low- comprehenders by Alfassi

(1998) and McHugh (2016). Both studies reported similar results in the utility of RT in

assisting less proficient student to read with meaning and in increasing the classroom

interaction. Moreover, Aaron (1997) reported some studies in which poor readers who were

taught metacognitive strategies have surpassed their normal mates who received traditional

teaching.

The results of the first question also indicated a large effect size of the RT strategies

on the experimental group. The magnitude of the mean differences of the two groups was big

(eta squared 0.15) and suggested a significant impact of the method on the reciprocal

subjects’ reading abilities .A further analysis of the performance of the reciprocal group on

the different cognitive levels revealed an upturn in their use of the high –order thinking skills

in the posttest. The research best interpret this change in the strategic behavior of the learners

by the explicit training of the strategies and the scaffolding provided by the teacher and the

peers along the training period. When the strategies were explicitly replicated by the teacher,

a bit by bit students were able to adapt them to their current competence level and started

applying them to new texts. Even when students failed to apply them, the errors and trials

with the teacher’s and peers’ scaffold helped students monitor their application of the

strategies and enhanced their awareness of the strategies’ use. These findings are in line with

Casanave (1988); Dent & Koenka (2015) statements that the teacher’s articulation of these

mental processes through guided dialogues and the think- aloud techniques, help the less

proficient learners to monitor specific parts of reading and regulate their thinking. The

finding that students’ high order skills was enhanced is in the direction of Collins te.al (1988)

statement that offering the students the chance to practice the strategies explicitly scaffolds

their awareness of the strategies, helps them produce these skills and scales their strategy use
 122

from the low order to the high order thinking skills. Similar results were reported by

Palincsar, Brown & Campione (1993) and suggested that students improve in reading when

they study with RT because they are offered the chance to practice the strategies that

successful readers utilize. Training the students of this study through using the explicit

strategy teaching helped students observe the way the teacher thinks in her dealing with the

text using the four strategies. When the teacher modeled the strategies, for a sufficient

training period, students were given a good chance to imitate her behavior in questioning,

predicting, summarizing or clarifying the text. The articulation of the strategies while using

helped students monitor the researcher’s use and internalize these processes of reading into

their own behaviour. Similar results were reported by Lysynchuk, Pressley & Vye (1990),

who taught the four strategies of RT to students with reading difficulties and reported

measurable gains in their standardized reading competence. They found that when the four

strategies were modelled by knowledgeable person the chance increased for the students to

ask questions about the strategies and about the text of reading. Consequently, along the

period of training, students can internalize these strategies towards more independent

cognitive/metacognitive behaviours.

Another important factor that may interpret the change in the students’ high- order

thinking skills is the length of the intervention period. In fact, two weeks training and three

months of teaching were barely enough to make a difference in the students’ strategic

behavior. It was clear that students need sufficient time to replicate the teacher’s method,

adapt the strategies, practice them and adjust the use of each strategy. Moreover, with a

sample of 84 students, the time factor was critical to spend some time with each student and

observe her performance. In fact, the teaching period which was needed to make the

difference the current study raises a question mark about the truthfulness of some studies

which reported positive results in very short time of teaching. This finding is consistent with

Raslie et.al (2015) that a sufficient duration of RT intervention, and guiding the reading
 123

groups to share their monitoring of comprehension are crucial conditions in implementing RT

with struggling reader.

However, the current research strongly attributes the positive results of the

experimental group to the teaching context that accompanied the process of teaching. For

example, Brown (1992) found that when learning takes place in cooperative, contextualized

environments, students are more likely to activate the strategies they learnt. Practicing the

strategies regulate their thinking and enhances their metacognitive abilities. However,

students wouldn’t be able to put these strategies into work out of social collaborative context

of learning. RT intervention of the current study has provided both: The strategy training and

the cooperative context necessary to articulate these strategies through interaction.

Subjects of the current study exchanged roles in leading the group, discussing and

interpreting the meanings of texts, and cooperatively clarified the ambiguous words and

ideas, and finally gave summaries of the basic ideas of the reading. In the heterogeneous

groups, the meaning was cooperatively produced. The clarifying strategy helped the less

proficient learners monitor how the meaning is produced through the shared understanding of

the members. This is consistent with the finding of Lubliner (2002) that teaching children to

deliberately use their memory in learning the new words of the text made the difference to

their vocabulary acquisition. Instead of Lubliner (2002) concluded that teaching children to

deliberately use their memory in learning the new words of the text made the difference to

their vocabulary acquisition. Instead of leaving vocabulary learning to be randomly learnt

through reading, clarifying was taught in the current study to help students retrieve words in a

systematic learning to develop the word learning proficiency. The fact about the importance

of the clarifying strategy in increasing the students awareness was confirmed by the

questionnaire responses in this study. Students’ responses showed that they found clarifying

strategy more useful to their learning than the rest of the strategies. In addition, task

distribution in the group context reduced the cognitive load that each students need to spend
 124

when working independently and made each member purposely focus in the strategy she is

using. Moreover, when the meaning is made collectively, students fill the gaps in each other’s

understanding. This finding is also in line with Nilsson &Hay (2016) that students who work

in group are provided a tool to encourage them talk and reveal the ambiguity of the text.

Group work provides the clarification and feedback to unlock higher level potentials of

thinking.

One last result of the first question is about the performance of the control group. A

comparison between this group and the experimental showed that the experimental group has

outperformed the control significantly in the posttest. Yet, comparing the performance of the

control group in the pre and posttest revealed that the control group has also made a progress

in reading along the period of teaching. This indicates that the students who learnt reading

using the traditional method have also improved in their learning performance. From the

researcher’s perspective, the control group’s subjects were taught by the same teacher of the

experimental group and were exposed to the same reading content, same exercises and same

tests. This clarifies the equivalent performance of the two groups in the pretest prior the

intervention. In the case of this group, the necessary conditions for learning were available

through the teacher’s facilitating of the reading, the discussion with students and the content.

Being exposed to the same content and exercises implies that students practiced some reading

strategies during their reading activities and naturally with the repetitive exercise they were

able to improve their performance. What was missing in the control group’s case was the

explicit teaching of the strategies and the cooperative context. That means that the control

group’s subjects possessed some cognitive /metacognitive strategies, but they were not

exposed to a regular strategy training to regulate their strategy use. Moreover, the absence of

the cooperative context deprived the poor readers from the cultural and social catalysts which

are necessary for constructing the meaning cooperatively or the chance to acquire and
 125

develop some of the reading habits that their mates utilize. Based on this fact, the explicit

teaching of the RT strategies attributed to the difference in favor of the experimental.

Impact of Reciprocal Teaching on Reading Progress

The second research question in this study aimed to track the progress that the two

groups made over the intervention period. The findings of the five school tests revealed no

significant differences between the means of the independent sample T- test until the fifth test

was done. However, a significant difference in the comprehension gains appeared in the fifth

test, for the interest of the experimental group (Table 3-4). Moreover, the experimental

group’s means continued rising from the first to the last school test. That indicates a positive

effect of RT on the learners reading ability along the period of the intervention. Yet, the

control group has also showed an advance in the means of the independent sample T test, but

the reciprocal group’s means were higher along the five tests.

Different conclusions can be drawn from these findings. First, Reciprocal teaching is

a successful method in enhancing reading skills and increasing the comprehension gains.

However, the results from the school tests show that RT is a time consuming method which

required students a period of three months learning to show a difference in their reading

performance. Such finding explains that the explicit teaching of the strategies can be fruitful

with a sufficient period of teaching, especially with intact learners who haven’t been exposed

to strategic training before. In addition, having no difference in the performance of the two

groups in the first four tests implies that RT practice was essential condition for students to

adapt the strategies to their own reading behaviours and adjust the use and appropriateness of

each strategy in the reading text. Students needed time to activate the strategies they learned

in solving the reading problems they face and to transfer these strategies to new unfamiliar

texts. The difference in the fifth reading text illustrated that practice and time factors are

sensitive components for the success of any strategic training. The reciprocal group was only

able to make the difference in reading performance with the intensive practice of the
 126

strategies in a suitable learning period. That enabled the students to enernalise the strategies

slowly and according to the cognitive perspective change their deliberate strategy use to the

more spontaneous use. Thus, the strategic behaviour of the subjects transformed into more

automatic one after a time of practice. This result implies that longer teaching period would

have generated more significant difference in the two groups learning. If there were sixth or

seventh tests, the reciprocal subjects would have been given extra chance to show a change in

their reading abilities.

The findings of this question also showed that students were progressing in their

performance from one test to the other along the five tests in both group. The researcher

refers the previous result to the nature of the five tests’ content. It was mentioned earlier that

the five tests included the same type of questions each test. That may have helped students to

retain the tests’ rubrics and get familiar to the type of questions. From test to the other

students recognized that questions were the same but with different reading text and that may

have limited their strategy use to a set of strategies and constrained their thinking to specific

areas in the text. If the researcher have used a repertoire of questions which are different from

one test to the other, results may have been different. However, this finding is consistent with

Rosalia (2015) that students were progressing in their reading achievement from one test to

the other along three successive tests in reading comprehension. In addition, the higher means

of the reciprocal group and the significant difference in their fifth test provides evidence that

RT has the power to skill students with reading techniques which enable them progress in

their reading performance.

Second, a comparison of the students’ performance in the standardised pre/post-tests

and the school tests shows that the students’ performance was more apparent and significant

than their performance in the teacher- designed tests. There are various factors that may

justify such results. For example, (a) the lack of same level texts’ difficulty, (b) the nature of

required responses and (c) the quality of the texts in the teacher designed tests may have
 127

contributed to the absence of difference at first. It was impossible to include texts of the exact

difficulty level throughout the five tests. Further, the responses required in the teacher

designed tests were open answers. Students needed to read and write the answers they find

suitable. Moreover, the tests included a variety of expository and narrative texts. This was

contrary to the questions in the pre/post tests which required closed responses and provided

four multiple choices for each question. This type may have been easier for students since it

provides limited choices. Students in this case can make proximities to the text for choosing

the best answer. Moreover, the three texts which were included in the pre/posttest were all of

expository type. The current findings coincided with Leung’s (2005) who declared that

maintaining the same text level was not possible throughout all the tests. Further, he added,

students’ gains in the expository texts were higher than those in the narratives. In contrast to

results of question two, the findings of Alfassi (1998) have revealed a significant difference

in the reading gains when students did the teacher’s designed tests; whereas, no significant

differences were reported when they did the standardised test. The nature of the texts in the

two types of tests could highly contribute to the results of both. Alfassi’s designed tests

included only expository texts, while the standardized tests have only included narrative

texts. The current research school tests incorporated both. It seems that narrative texts hold

higher challenges to the readers since they require higher attendance of imagination and

critical thinking. Further, narrative texts require digging the hidden meanings of reading

rather than the surface one or facts like the expository ones. Finally, Pearson & Dole (1987)

have discussed the centrality of content in some texts over the successful application of the

strategies. That is to say, some social or scientific texts emplace making meaning on reader’s

previous knowledge and the ability to use linguistic clues. If these were unfamiliar to the

reader, strategies will find little space to work.

Students’ varied performance in the school tests and the standardised tests was

justified by Raslie, Mikeng & Ting (2015) who stated that RT has proved its potential in
 128

scaffolding students who are reading expository texts. Whereas, the effectiveness of RT in

improving students’ comprehension of narrative texts is very little explored. However, the

researcher tends more to the opinion that the issue is not only about the texts’ type. It is more

about the degree students have developed independent reading practices. In non –test

situations, less proficient readers receive teacher’s scaffold, group’s assistance and they have

the chance to think aloud and receive corrections from the group members. Students may also

get help from their more proficient peers in doing the task. In the test, these reading facilities

are not available, thus, students who are accustomed to receive guidance may fail to make

meaning independently. Adkins (2005) stated that students will succeed in applying the

strategies depending on the degree of expertise the have developed. Most probably, when

they got stuck at the word level, they forget to apply the reading strategies or fail to do so.

This opinion was discussed by many researchers such as, Bruce & Robinson (1999); Fevre et

al (2003) and Wagar (2008). RT relates the comprehension outcomes to the teacher’s gradual

guidance. However, no studies were really found that examines the differences in

performance with guidance and after the guidance is withdrawn.

Third, the results showed that the mean scores of the experimental group results in the

five school tests were gradually rising. This shows that the gains in comprehension were

growing even if no differences were found between them and the control group’s means in

the first four. Palincsar & Brown (1984) imputed the improvement in achievement to the

improvement in learning the RT skills. Students progress in reading as a result of the gradual

internalisation of these behaviours in reading. The contextual support provided by the teacher

in the process of teaching provides the learners with a chance to receive help, think

cooperatively for meaning, and receive feedback, until they become able to independently

apply the skills in the school tests. These statements strongly justify why students of the

current study didn’t make differences at the beginning, and then outperformed their mates in

the control group in the fifth test. This statement also supposes that if the experimental group
 129

of this study has continued studying with RT for longer time and was given more tests; their

chances of excelling the control group would have been increased. RT is a time consuming

method in which intervention period is critical in scaffolding students’ strategic ability.

Raslie et al (2015), for example, concluded that a sufficient duration of RT intervention and

patient guidance of the teacher are crucial conditions in implementing RT, particularly with

struggling reader. Likewise, based on the declaration of Palincsar & Brown (1984), it can be

concluded that the longer time students are given to practice the RT dialogues in reading, the

more they will be able to internalize and transfer these skills to new reading texts. What adds

more to this justification is that the students of the current study were of intact category who

didn’t receive RT or other strategic training before. Moreover, in more than one question,

students were asked to make inferences from the reading. That task may have been

complicated one, especially at the beginning when they were just novices in practicing RT

strategies. Making inferences is to a high degree depending on activating previous knowledge

about the topic, which not many students may possess. Sometimes, even when students have

previous knowledge about the topic, they can’t apply appropriately in new reading situations.

Reutzel & Hollingsworth (1988) concluded that students fail to make inferences when they

have little or no previous knowledge about the topic or when they lack the fundamental

strategic ability to attend or analyse relevant information. Hartman (2001) assumed that

students need to find cultural, conditional or contextual connections to the text in order to

activate the strategies they learnt. The lack of these catalysts leads to a failure in applying the

strategies. In such case, strategies will not work properly in regulating thinking.

The Impact of Reciprocal Reading on Student’s Strategy Use

The descriptive analysis of the data on the first part of the questionnaire revealed that

students have utilized the reading strategies during reading to a high degree. The reading

strategies were utilized to high percentage (70 %), with a mean score of (3.49), which

considered high degree of use. However, the findings also revealed some inconsistencies in
 130

their use. The current study’s findings were in accordance with Mokhtari & Reichard (2002).

It illustrated that as the strategy becomes more lexically, contextually and cognitively

demanding, its use decreases. That’s to say the mean scores of each subscale shows that

students’ were decreasing in their use as the subscale was advancing. That justifies why the

global strategies got the highest mean (3.89), while the problem solving got the lowest

(M=3.2). Among the most successfully implemented strategies students have followed, for

example, reading the titles and subtitles of the text to help them predict the content.

Moreover, students made use of the pictures and illustrations attached to the text to gain more

on the topic. They asked themselves questions before reading to make more predictions on

the text and activated their previous knowledge to connect the current text to their existing

experience and tried to understand the meaning contextually before resorting to the

dictionary. Moreover, students paid attention to the text organisation through skimming and

scanning the text before reading.

The high mean score of the previous mentioned practices shows that Global reading

strategies were the most used by students with (M=3.89). This suggests that students have

successfully activated these strategies, mostly as pre reading practices. Students made use of

the text’s clues like titles, illustrations and organization to illuminate their reading as they go

deeper in the text. They have also tried to make connections to their previous knowledge on

the topic. Resorting to these strategies gave them the chance to check their predictions when

they read and discuss the meaning. The high degree of turning to this type of strategies was

best justified by Gomez & Lopez (2012). In their study, they explained why global strategies

come first. Global strategies refer to the understanding the text at macro level. Students need

to put together cut pieces of text’s information before they are required to cut the appropriate

information pieces out of the text. Thus, global strategies provide students with chance to

build mental representations of the text through title, illustrations and main ideas, and offer
 131

basic awareness of how these pieces fit together before asking them to produce the pieces

themselves.

The statistics have also provided an evidence that students have frequently turned to

the supportive strategies (m= 3.38), when the text complicated. Supportive strategies are the

tactics or tools that readers use to break and facilitate the text for making understanding. It is

clear from the data that students have depended to a high degree on finding the dictionary

meaning of the difficult words. They underlined or circled information in the text to help

them remember it. In addition, students fostered their understanding through discussing the

text with group members, asking questions on the text, and summarizing the main ideas.

Finally, students tried to find relationships among ideas through reading back and forth in the

text.

Concerning the strategies that students utilized as problem- solving techniques, the

data suggests that these were the least circulated. However, some items were reported of high

means, which indicates they were successfully implemented by the majority. Foremost,

students positively responded that they stop from time to time and think about what they are

reading. That suggests that thinking about reading was the most frequently followed by

students to check whether the text was meaningful or not (item 14). Further, it suggests that

students didn’t only depend on negotiating the meaning, but also turned to their individual

appreciation of the text. They controlled their comprehension through stopping for making

sense and then continued reading. Then, students declared that they don’t quit reading when

they don’t understand. This was an indicator that they kept on reading and didn’t give up

when they didn’t understand a certain part, hoping for understanding as they move on in the

text. Text clues and previous word knowledge were also frequently used to solve the reading

problems. Students also tried to guess the meaning of unknown words or phrases when

reading. This indicates they counseled their previous vocabulary knowledge. It means they

tried to retrieve the word history or tried to manipulate the meaning for understanding.
 132

However, this result is inconsistent with (item 7) which showed that students have resorted to

the dictionary to a high degree to look up the meanings of new words (M=3.61).

Responses also showed that students didn’t give up or stop reading when they didn’t

understand. The item’s mean indicates that low number of students quit reading when they

didn’t understand and they continued the task. It illustrates that students were motivated to

read, they didn’t quit reading easily during RT classes. To increase their understanding,

students also reported that they read over again and again when the text complicates.

Moreover, to keep on with reading, they responded that they skip parts or words they don’t

understand. The medium means of the latter two items suggests that almost more than half of

the students didn’t get stuck when they did not figure the meaning of a word and read again

to foster understanding. On the other hand, this apparently shows that there is a percent of

students who didn’t skip the word level domain and got stuck when they didn’t figure the

meaning of a word.

Despite that, it can be concluded that the overall strategy use of students was high.

70% of the responses on the reading practices indicated that RT cooperative groups were

successful in promoting strategy use while reading. The research attributes the positive

outcome in implementing reading strategies to the teaching method. It is thought that

activating RT in cooperative multi- levels groups had a positive impact on promoting these

strategies among students while reading. These findings were found consistent with a huge

body of research on strategy instruction. For instance, Tajalli & Satari (2013) encouraged

teachers to teach reading strategies in EFL. Training students to these strategies improves

their language learning. Once they become familiar with these techniques, they will have a

repertoire of cognitive options to select from and apply to the reading problems. Leanne,

(2003); Palincsar & Brown (1984) stated that reading strategies promote reading as students

turn on to them to make meaning of what they read. Moreover, the positive impact of

learning reading strategies is the way to teaching thinking, according to (Adkins,2005). When
 133

students learn these strategies they will able to use them to solve problems in other areas of

thinking (Oxford, 1990). However, some strategy based instruction methods were found more

useful than others in promoting thinking and fostering comprehension. RT is among the top

methods that were reported as superior in teaching reading strategies due to its dialogic nature

(Palincsar et al, 1991). Among several strategy instruction methods that Davis (2010)

investigated, he reported that very few other approaches appeared to be equal or more

effective than RT at enhancing comprehension achievement. The success of the method to

promote strategic reading is justified with the following facts. First, RT is enables students to

mature in their strategy use through the social interaction. When they discuss and think aloud,

they are offered the chance to regulate their thinking, thus, their cognitive abilities grow

through meaningful learning (Cohen & Lotan, 2014). Second, RT strategies provide students

with systematic cyclic structure for learning the strategies. That is when one student fails to

make a summary of a paragraph; the remedial action of scaffold is offered to her and then

gradually fades as she improves (Brown, 1992). Moreover, the research justifies students’

progress in applying the reading strategies to explicit teaching of the strategies prior teaching.

It was mentioned that the teacher has trained students to RT strategies explicitly two weeks

before actual teaching started. During this period students got familiar with the four strategies

and how to apply them during reading. However, teacher’s guidance and peers assistance

continued available during the teaching period. In fact, the findings of question number three

are found in line with the findings of big number of studies, which established the

effectiveness of teaching reading strategies for promoting comprehension. For example,

Armbrister (2010); Bilgi & Ozmen (2014); Bruce & Robinson (1999); Casanave (1988);

Dabarera et al (2014); Davis (2010); Griffiths & Oxford (2014); Lestari (2016); Palincsar

(2012); Palincsar & Brown (1984); Pesa & Somers (2007); Wagar (2007) and others.

To sum up, subjects of this study were able to apply reading comprehension strategies

to a high degree during their reading tasks. Students reported positive responses regarding
 134

using reading strategies. The mostly used strategies were the global strategies, followed by

reading support and finally problem solving strategies. In general, the high frequency of

using the strategies reflects that the students found them useful in monitoring understanding

and fostering comprehension.

Students’ Attitudes towards Reciprocal Teaching in a Cooperative Context

To answer the fourth question of the study, the second part of the questionnaire was

analysed using the statistical analysis. The descriptive analysis of the responses revealed that

students hold positive attitudes towards learning reading comprehension using RT technique,

aided by cooperative heterogeneous groups. First, students considered the four strategies

useful in facilitating reading comprehension. However, comparing the mean scores of

responses on the four RT strategies indicates that 93.81% of responses “strongly agreed” that

clarifying helped them the most to understand the text. Then, they agreed that predicting and

clarifying have helped them understand better. Lastly, came summarising as useful strategy in

increasing the gains in comprehension. Despite receiving the least positive responses, the

mean score of the strategy was still high (3.71), thus indicating its usefulness in

understanding the text. These findings are consistent with the statement of Adkins (2005) that

students develop positive attitudes toward learning as result of learning the strategies. When

students are explicitly guided to these strategies before reading, they are equipped with tools

to navigate the text with meaning, thus, reducing the cognitive load of the text (Chou &

Chan, 2016). Moreover, RT strategies are considered comprehension fostering and

monitoring fostering. Therefore, when students become more controlling of the process and

self, their perception of their learning enhances and they develop more positive attitudes.

Adkins (2005) was in favour of teaching RT as it promotes self- regulation through the

natural dialogue in practicing summarizing, predicting or questioning. In this study, clarifying

was found the most beneficial strategy for fostering understanding and summarising was

found difficult strategy to practice. This finding coincides with the results of many researches
 135

in strategy teaching field. For instance, this was consistence with Lestari (2016) who

concluded that clarifying provides learners with opportunities to interact and construct the

meaning cooperatively. Which more, clarifying provides other peers help in making logical

inferences, finding the meaning of difficult words and explaining the difficult ideas. That

may create an encouraging environment especially for the poor readers. When it comes to

summarising or retelling the idea, students are challenged in their vocabulary store and their

ability to write coherent paragraph. Summarising is considered challenging to poor readers,

regardless to the teaching method implemented. This was also fostered by the findings of

Murray (2010) who stated that students’ reading achievement affected their ability to

determine the main idea. The high-level readers were significantly found stronger in

identifying the main idea in a reading. In contrast, low-level readers are stronger in problem

identification than the high-level readers. Students of Komariah et.al (2015) preferred

predicting and questioning. Yet, summarizing was found challenging to them. Questioning

according to Ciullo & Billingsley (2013) is a fundamental strategy of comprehension

monitoring, keeping students on task and increasing the chances of correct responses.

Further, the statistics showed that students reported that RT assisted them to read

better and that the strategies they learnt can be applied to other reading texts items. In

addition, most responses showed positive perception of the learning context. They thought

that RT gave them the chance to participate in the English class and that the cooperative

activities offered them the chance to engage in groups discussions. Students also reported that

RT group work gave them the chance to ask for clarification to foster their understanding and

wished that the teacher would continue using this approach for the rest of the school year.

Regarding their feeling towards their learning, responses revealed that more than the half

preferred group wok to individual work (55.48%) and that RT made them enjoy reading

classes better. In general, students found that RT and group work have promoted enthusiasm

to learning, gave the chance for higher engagement and made learning more enjoyable.
 136

This positive affective impact of RT is found consistent with Lestari (2016) who

stated that when students hold positive attitude towards RT, they enjoy the reading class.

Students develop these attitudes when they become sure that group’ interaction will provide a

context for better understanding, especially that they receive help and clarification from their

mates to foster their comprehension. Group’s discussion helped students reach their goals and

expand their knowledge on the topic of reading. This, in turn, will positively influence their

reading achievement. When they notice, they have benefited from working in RT groups;

they become more enthusiastic and will not feel bored during the class. The current research

strongly justifies the positive impact of RT on students’ attitude to the supportive learning

context it provided. Group work and RT roles have systematically engaged all students in a

meaningful learning. This involved all students in tasks for constructing the meaning of the

reading cooperatively. Less proficient readers, who seldom or never were charged with real

roles in class, were given the role to work as group predictor, summariser, questioner or

predictor at each class. Despite the fact that they were receiving the help of the teacher and

mates, this has inevitably enhanced their self-perception as important elements of the process

of learning. Their engagement created a feeling of equality among high and low achievers.

This made students realize the only way to receive teachers reward is to cooperate. Ostovar-

Namaghi & Shahhosseini (2011) believed that “regardless of a student s’ perceived ability or

level of intelligence, the teacher assumes that the student is capable and will eventually be

able to accomplish the task as an expert would” (p.1239). Moreover, less proficient readers

will be given the chance to mix with more proficient reads and benefit from their use of high

thinking reading skill. This was supported by the finding of Chang (2011). Pairing abilities

empowers them to go beyond their primary strategies (word decoding, vocabulary

identification) into practicing high order reading strategies like predicting and forming

questions. When struggling students find that interaction has increased their comprehension

outcomes, their attitudes towards learning naturally nurture. Finally, less proficient students’
 137

attitudes are likely to improve as they are taught what they lack for reading: the strategies. RT

explicitly teaches less proficient readers what good readers implicitly use while reading.

Thus, prepares them with the theoretical bases to equally interact in their groups (Palincsar et.

al, 1991)

Leading Themes in the Cooperative Reciprocal Learning Groups

To note the relationships, interactions and the progress within the group, it was

necessary for the teacher to record her observations in a journal. These journals were

analysed using the thematic analysis approach (AT) and produced six leading themes on the

types of interactions that dominated the RT context and how they evolved over the period of

intervention. Cohen & Lotan (2014) clarified that this observation is very necessary for

teachers not to fall in troubles when working with the groups. Through noting groups’

behaviours, teacher can detect any undesirable actions, dominations or attitude and make her

decisions regarding the group formation. The following few pages will try to give an

explanation of each of the six themes as appeared in the final report in chapter four in

consistence with the conceptual framework of this research.

Theme (1): Heterogeneous group formation.

Heterogeneous relationships were established in each group and produced positive

impact on students’ achievement in the first place. It also affected students’ acceptance to

differences among them and granted them the chance to exchange different experiences.

Jacobs et al (1997) recommended heterogeneous groups when teachers want to promote peer

tutoring or second language use. The results in chapter four showed that mixing students

according to their achievement was not easily accepted by them, but succeeded at last. In fact,

grouping students in heterogeneous or homogeneous groups is still a controversial issue

(Palincsar et.al, 1991). There is no evidence, though, that grouping students in homogenous

groups is effective (Cohen & Lotan, 2014). However, for pedagogical considerations, each

group was organized to have high, middle and low proficient abilities. The challenge of not
 138

easily accepting the differences was taken in consideration by the teacher. The subjects of the

research were intact students who are not accustomed to work in groups or to work with

others who don’t basically have social contact with. It was their first real experience to

serious grouping and RT classes. Before that, group work to them meant non-systematic

gathering to do a task, during which, usually less proficient readers often copied the answers

from more proficient ones. This was made clear by Cohen & Press (2015). Students may

assume status orders in their relationships, based on their competence, social status, gender

…etc. For teachers to hinder that hierarchy grow in the classroom groups; they need to

encourage positive social relationships and reinforce new behaviours. Results in this regard

show that big efforts were made to encourage social skills and help students consider each

other’s differences. However, RT’s different roles offered a successful natural chance for

different abilities to interact. Some students in the groups were great in brainstorming and

recalling previous knowledge, others were good in clarifying as a result of their vocabulary

knowledge, and other students were also good in writing questions or summarizing. The

diversity of roles of RT helped the learning process to assume different roles for learners as

they participate in their groups. This finding was supported by Palincsar et al (1991) findings

regarding RT context. They found that RT promotes heterogeneity due to its diversity in the

instruction levels. Learners assume different learning roles as predictors, clarifiers,

questioners and summarisers, which definitely suppose different cognitive demands each

time. Moreover, students of the current research were mixed to realise better engagement of

low proficient students. When these students are engaged in dialogues, their learning

experience increases. When they interact with high achieving ones, their higher- order

thinking skills are positively affected. A strong correlation between heterogeneity and

boosting higher thinking abilities was supported by Cohen et al (2004). She concluded that

mixing high and low achievers can certainly enhance the high order thinking abilities of the

low achievers. This finding was also assisted by the results of the pre/post-tests. The results
 139

suggested a significant difference in the results of the experimental group in their

performance in the high cognitive level skills. Cohen & Laton (2014) commented that mixed

groups had registered better comprehension gains in several standardized tests. They

explained that learners benefit more in heterogeneous groups because they serve as academic

and linguistic resources for each other’s. For example, those proficient in reading can read the

instructions for others, the other members may work to suggest solutions. Less proficient

readers, as a result of interaction, can diagnose what still makes a problem for them and ask

for further explanation. Moreover, according to Cohen & Laton (2014) traditional classes

have the problem of status. In these classes, proficient readers are given the chance to

participate more and consequently increase their achievement status. Less proficient readers

talk less and get less academic rank. Working in heterogeneous groups, thus, increased the

chance of equal chances of participation, based on administered tasks and roles. Working in

heterogeneous groups made students and teacher also discover the ignored abilities of many

class members. When proficient readers started to read, several times there were comments,

from those assumed less proficient, which contributed to solve the problem of the task and

made them receive better appreciation from their mates. Hence, every member in the group

found the contributions made by others useful in completing the missing part in their

understanding.

Theme (2) Developing Social Values in Groups

Coding the data has given a strong indication to the idea of socialization. Students

have developed more positive social attitudes toward each others. Group work offered them

the chance to socialise with students in their class who they didn’t know before. Through

groups, they became more considerate to the differences in abilities and social backgrounds

of their group’s members. It is worth mentioning that the school only teaches 11th and 12th

grades. That is why 11th graders are considered new comers and in this class they are in their

first year at school. They also come from different public and private schools, city, refugee
 140

camps or rural areas. They are also diverse in their language achievement. Mixing them in

groups resulted in two positive ideas. On the one hand, it was a chance for them to introduce

to each other’s, make new friends and experiences. Second, it was a chance to limit making

“coalitions” based on the previously mentioned backgrounds. Mixing students according to

achievement may also have held some bias also, but definitely, it was better than leaving

students choose their group members based on their socioeconomic relationships or other

considerations. At the end, they discovered it was not bad and it has extended their

friendships and their learning experience. Moreover, grouping students that way, offered

more equal chances to everyone to share and learn. Feeling of equity is considered a vital

condition for building self-confidence and increasing motivation to learning. In addition,

groups have set students to work cooperatively based on one fact: achieving the task. This

gave them the feeling they are a team of different abilities but at the same time of same aim

and rights. Cohen, Brody & Sapon-Shevin (2004) summarised the social values that this type

of leaning holds in encouraging the mutual respect among learners. They become more

considerate to the different abilities, values, talents and social background every student has.

In this learning environment, the group becomes familiar with each individual’s strength and

needs. More importantly, the rule for deciding who is the smartest is intercepted because the

group understands that their success depends on the final product of the task, not on the

individual answers. To conclude, this research has found that group work has promoted

positive social values among students. It was successful in bringing students to work together

and consider the different abilities. Definitely it has succeeded to limit the prejudices among

them.

Theme (3) Cooperation as Learning Drive

Analysing the third theme in the data showed that cooperation in the groups grew over

the period of intervention and was productive in achievement and participation. Consistent

with questionnaire’s results, students found cooperation in small groups useful in increasing
 141

their learning gains. However, the results indicate that for cooperative groups to succeed two

important conditions were taken into consideration. First, teacher’s scaffold was essential in

encouraging students to the cooperative work values and monitoring the relationships at the

group level. Teacher’s role in organizing and monitoring the groups was found consistent

with Roger & Johnson (1994). They declared different roles for the teacher in processing the

group including : promoting good working relationships among members, facilitating group’s

task the learning of cooperative skills, giving feedback on their participation and reinforcing

the positive behaviors of group members. Second, teacher’s scaffold was needed to support

the less competent students’ strategy use and interaction. There were many less proficient

students who have already developed several reading strategies but apply them wrongly.

Those students didn’t regulate their strategy use and needed a lot of scaffold to function

better in their tasks. Several tools were used to help students regulate their thinking at the

cognitive/metacognitive level. Graphic organisers such as four-door chart were used to clarify

the RT strategies in one sheet to make it easier for them to fill in as they read. RT worksheets

were also used. Feedback was instantly provided. In addition, cards that hold the four

strategies names were available for each group to assign roles among them each reading

class. The previous scaffolds were recommended by several researchers to control the groups

and increase interaction during group work (Laton & Cohen, 2014; Oczkus, 2010; Rasinski &

International Reading Association, 2000).

Analysing how the cooperative relationships among the group evolved showed that

(1) group’s scaffolding and processing were key elements in regulating and encouraging

cooperative practices among the group. McCafferty et al (2006) referred to this as organizing

the social context of the learners.(2) administering definite tasks is vital for group work to

succeed. RT has helped to distribute roles among the group members. Each member

represented one strategy and talked about during reading. Though students worked together

to make summary, for example, one group member was officially responsible to tell the rest
 142

of the class the summary they made. That was true regarding the other strategies. Dividing

the whole comprehension task into sub sequential small skills rather than separate subskills is

unique feature of RT strategy according to Pearson & Dole (1987) who believed that when

each subskill is performed the whole task is being performed in a different way. This type of

group labour was supported by Cohen & Laton (2014) who considered the clearly assigned

working task a key condition for the group’s success. (3) Students of this research succeeded

in developing good cooperative behaviour taking in consideration they are novice in the

approach. Good achievers scaffolded and helped their group mates and showed high

responsibility towards their mates. Less competent learners made big efforts to hold their

responsibilities and perform their roles in the reading task. (5) Cooperative work in this

research reduced the social and cognitive burdens which are usually imposed on the poor

readers. They were guided by the teacher and supported by their peers. In addition, it was

easier for them to understand through their interaction with different abilities in their groups.

This finding relate to what Brown & Palincsar (1989) stated regarding RT potential. The

method facilitates comprehension since meaning is constructed through cooperative effort

and at different cognitive levels. RT, according to them, provides novice learners with the

chance to practice their raw skills. In addition, less proficient readers will not feel left

because comprehension is viewed as a collective responsibility and not theirs alone to

struggle with (Doganay & Ozmen, 2014). (6) Social interactive with group members helped

students enhance their metacognitive awareness through imitating the explicit reading

strategies of teacher and group members. This finding was fostered by De Backer et al (2015)

that during collaborative learning, students monitor their own cognition and observe the

strategic behaviours of their peers. Thus, when students become cognitively challenged by

peers through clarifying, questioning or predicting, the chances of regulating their monitoring

skills and cognitive regulation increase. In the same regard, Chang (2011) clarified that

struggling readers may have acquired a repertoire of reading strategies, however, fails to use
 143

them appropriately to draw inferences. Strategic teaching was proved to regulate the strategy

use of struggling readers. Metacognition abilities of this research subjects’ may have

developed as a result of drilling with RT strategies, verbalizing the appropriate strategy when

reading, and observing the strategic behaviour so called good readers. Above all, in these

cooperative groups, students were provided with the opportunity to check and adjust the

strategic plan with peers. Achieving understanding gave all the members of the group the

chance to participate equally in the class.

Theme (4): The Relation between Interaction and Organization

It was found that students’ interaction should be organized and not left to be

spontaneous. Basically, the purpose of grouping students was to give roles to everyone of

then and engaging the poor achievers in tasks. There will be no meaning of group work if

high achievers continue rushing their answers without consulting the group members and

working cooperatively to achieve the task. Groups became more active and organized when

chemistry was higher between group members. Using RT helped organize students’ at two

levels. First, RT is self-regulating method. Hence, practicing the four strategies, helped

students of all levels to plan and regulate their strategy use (Bilgi & Ozmen,2014). Second,

RT is a procedural strategy; it is operated through giving roles to learners. The group of four

has four tasks to perform in order to reach their final production (Palincsar & Brown,1983).

Therefore, it can be confirmed that RT has brought order to students’ work settings at the

personal and social levels .It doesn’t lean on the incidental responses of members. Rather, it

builds on the cooperative engineering of meaning among the group, as well as declaring the

answer is based on the group’s consensus. Brown (1992) has concluded that RT is used to

contextualize the learning setting, promote collaboration and regulate cognition. According to

her experience, when students work with definite task for each member, every student

becomes expert in his subtopic and owns part of the knowledge needed to complete the

missing parts his colleagues need. Sharing information with the group, everyone has
 144

informative part that the others need to complete their knowledge on the topic. In this

research, RT and cooperative learning has helped regulate and shape the context of learning,

consequently, resulted in greater interaction, engagement and better group’s organisation.

The findings show that groups in this research were progressing in their organisation,

cooperation and their interaction was taking more systematic way due to the strategy use.

Inevitably, RT in its own has helped bring order among group members, who by the time

became more familiar with the strategies. This helped them divide the tasks among the group

more automatically, and work cooperatively for the final outcomes. Exchanging the roles of

predictor, questioner, clarifier and summariser anticipated highly in labour division and

cooperation on one hand. On the other, it apparently gave equal opportunities to members of

all achieving levels take parts in their groups.

However, two factors were discovered to affect the levels of interaction among the

group. Task design and task type. When tasks are well designed to address all the cognitive

levels, students are better engaged and become more committed towards the task and the

group. Varying the task level’s made each student feel she needs to adhere to her role since it

is fundamental in completing her mates’ understanding. This was found of great effect on

dividing the labour and promoting serious cooperation among members. These results were

in harmony with Herrenkohl (2006) regarding the cooperative reciprocal learning. The

explicit practice of the procedures within small groups promotes labour division and the

feeling of equality. When roles shift every day, students are more likely to do several tasks

and this promotes equity among them. Assuming different roles in their groups, students

perform unique social and cognitive roles every reading period. Moreover, taking turns in

leading the group’s discussions fosters the social and intellectual roles of the learners. The

second factor that affected students’ cooperation and interaction was the types of texts used

for reading. When texts are more culturally and socially related, students’ interaction and

adherence to task increased. Ciullo & Billingsley (2013) stated that using the reading
 145

strategies for regulating reading is hindered when the text is challenging in its readability

level, contains many new vocabularies or doesn’t relate to student’s previous knowledge.

Alfassi (1998) has confirmed on presenting materials that intersects with students’ prior

experience. Wagar (2008) stated that struggling comprehenders need to be given questions

that build on previous knowledge and experience. Moreover, these texts need to be

meaningful to students and delivered in context. Likewise, Palincsar & Klenk (1992) have

used in their assessment texts that hold similar themes to ones taught at class in order to

assess students’s ability to build analogies to the texts based on previous knowledge .

Moreover, Spörer & Brunstein (2009) clarified that students better regulate in their work

when the first step is correct. That is when the prediction phase is correct; students continue

the second step on generating questions and summarising. The role of the text was also

highlighted in the findings of Palincsar et. al (1991) as a critical component of the learning

outcomes. In the current study, groups showed higher task organisation when topics of

reading were appealing to students and held similarities to their previous knowledge or

cultural orientations. To sum up, cooperative learning with RT was able to regulate students

thinking, and regulate their group relationships under the conditions of appropriate task and

appropriate text.

Theme (5): Group’s Interdependency Established in Reciprocal Teaching Groups

The fifth theme in this research reveals that students have developed a sense of

responsibility towards each other’s and a mutual support was established among them at the

academic and personal levels. These results correspond to the statement of Johnson, &

Johnson (2002) that cooperative groups promote greater personal and task support among

members. Mutual cooperation and social accountability have grown among group’s members.

They became more socially and cognitively dependent on each other’s. Johnson & Johnson

(2002, 2009) confirmed that shared goals and resources in the group create a positive

interdependence. It is a situation by which students work together to increase the learning of

 146

every member, offer mutual support and celebrate the team success. A strong correlation can

be drawn between developing positive communicative skills and the teaching method. RT has

offered students with the necessary tools to interact and cooperate. First, RT is a social

learning method. It has provided teachers’ and peers’ support where needed. Thus, less

proficient readers became more interactive and involved when social support was assured.

When teacher and peers model the strategies, and explicitly show their problem- solving

techniques, struggling readers are more likely to integrate and use them. RT, in this sense, has

scaffolded students’ ability to function more actively in their groups ( Palincsar 2013; Trif ,

2015). Second, RT has contextualised students’ interaction due to its dialogic nature. Results

showed that dialogue and negotiating meaning had had positive results on high and low

achievers in the groups. When the mental processes are verbalized through discussing the

meaning, student monitors his and others strategic thinking. This provided the chance for

students to provide feedback within the group, allowing more corrective steps in their

reading. According to Kucan & Beck (1997) findings, RT’s thinking aloud increases

student’s social interaction through the collaborative discussion to construct meaning. Tarchi

& Pinto (2016) confirmed that students develop cognitive, affective and regulative

behaviours when they receive training on them and when they are provided the context to

practice them.

Moreover, developing social accountability within the group had positive impact on

students of all levels. Struggling readers were supported and cared for. They had roles in their

groups. Even if the task was not a complex one, it was a strong indication that they were

gaining status in the group (Cohen & Laton, 2014), interacting with peers and regulating their

skills’ use. This was also an indication that groups were replacing the competitive spirit with

the team spirit. For example, challenged readers were given the role of presenting the

predicting or summary of reading to the class. It is known to the teacher that this was the

summative effort of the whole group and not their personal achievement. However,
 147

struggling readers were encouraged by teacher and peers to stand and read aloud the reading

summary. The role of reporter who presents the group work to the entire class, was

considered a difficult work by Herrenkohl (2006) who confirmed that exchanging roles in the

group ensures the feeling of equity and help learners adapt scientific behaviours. In addition,

intermediate achievers were improving fast due to receiving scaffold and working in teams.

Situating them in groups, offered them the chance to practice the strategies while reading,

compare their performance with the lower and higher achievers, consequently enhanced their

strategy use and regulation. However, Palincsar (1986) stated that RT roles were better

played and strategies were better interchanged when group members were of intermediate

level of proficiency neither high nor low achievers. Results also reveal that high achievers

were enjoying the group work and celebrating the success of their peers. In fact, in most

groups, high achievers have shown commitment to their groups and supported their mates

socially and intellectually. Group work has helped them practice RT strategies and diagnose

what they needed to learn for better reading. At the social level, they were making new

friends and better appreciating the needs of the less proficient readers. Jacobs et. al (1997)

clarified that the gains that high achievers make through group work are more affective and

social such as the feeling of belonging, friendship and contribution to the group’s success.

Theme (6): Motivation to Read Maximized under Certain Conditions

Results show that the cooperative context has affectively influenced students’

aptitude. The context of RT daily activities, the social influence of the group and the

teacher’s expectations from the group were in fact extrinsic motifs. However, when members

started to realise that working cooperatively had individually affected their performance and

their social status, it is thought that a motivation of intrinsic type began to urge them work.

Motivation to read and use RT strategies was manifested in various forms. For

example, (a) showing up full attendance to the explicit teaching of the strategies, (b)

enthusiasm in imitating the teacher’s procedures of RT prior teaching the book’s texts,
 148

commitment to the roles students were given in their groups, (c) cooperation with other

group’s members, (d) perseverance to understand, (e) developing some good reading habits(

checking the dictionary continuously), (f) preparation for the class, (g) checking reading

comprehension with teacher and peers before or after the class.

The findings also show that students’ motivation to read was maximized when

cooperative work was rewarded and when the texts of reading were of their own choice. This

is consistent with Johnson & Johnson (2009) declaration that positive goal interdependence is

enough for increasing the comprehension input; however, combining the goal with rewards

maximizes the achievement and productivity. Cheng et al (2008) considered group rewards

and praise a basic component of group work which leads to higher motivation and

achievement. Praising the group performance creates a type of group norms which encourage

performance. That means members support each other’s success to increase their portion of

reward. Jacobs et al (1997) commented that students’ motivation increases when they act as

mutual resources to reinforce the learning of each member. Cohen (1994) confirmed the

whole group reward and warned against praising individuals on competitive bases. Though it

is effective in increasing motivation, individual reward would harm intergroup relationships.

Concerning the finding that students were higher motivated to read topics of their own

choice rather than textbook’s, Pearson & Dole (1987) aroused the ever dialectic question

about what makes students understand better. Sometimes, they claimed, students who read

books outside the textbook and not good at applying the strategies or exercises outperform

those who always complete skill exercises. Regardless to the paradigm that controls the

comprehension instruction, it was concluded that determining the ability to comprehend is

strongly related to how much one already knows about the topic. This implies that students of

the current study chose to read texts that connected to their previous knowledge and so the

chance of building meaning out of reading increased. This also implies that students

motivation to read may have witnessed rising and falling according to the topics under
 149

discussion of the textbook. At some other place of this discussion, it was found that a text that

holds cultural, contextual and conditional catalysts were more appealing for students to read.

Linguistic and cultural cues of the text help students structure the meaning especially in

social and science studies (Pearson & Dole, 1987). This finding holds a serious implication of

what topics should be included in the Palestinian English curriculum to motivate students’

comprehension grow and learn more about everything. However, implications and

recommendations of this study will directly follow this discussion.

Conclusions of the Study

This mixed-methods study investigated the effects of an intervention, which

implemented the reciprocal teaching and the cooperative context, on the reading

achievement, strategy use and attitudes of the Palestinian students who study EFL. The

context of learning was designed to support the cognitive and social aims of RT under the

social constructivist paradigm. To measure the impact of strategy teaching on comprehension

gains, two groups of the 11th graders were compared. The first received RT in cooperative

heterogeneous group work setting, the other was taught by the conventional way.

The findings of the current study indicated that the intervention was helpful to the

learners on their achievement, strategy use and attitudes towards learning. It also indicated

that the RT training condition was more beneficial for teaching reading than the non-

reciprocal or traditional condition. Despite the fact that the subjects of this study were intact

strategy learners, the results showed they were able to increase their reading gains and to

expand their strategy use. Students showed improvement in their strategy awareness and

maximized their use of the high- order thinking skills. Their attitudes were positively affected

by the reciprocal cooperative context, as a well. In addition, the findings revealed that the

heterogeneous group work context have largely affected the growth of the group work values,

which in turn, facilitated the strategy acquisition cooperatively , especially for the poor

readers. Accepting the values of group’s interdependency, cooperation and group’s

 150

heterogeneity served in providing a rich learning environment and made up the for the

deficits in reading abilities for many learners. Such a context generated the feeling of equity,

engagement and belonging of the group members. At the same time, it provided the teacher’s

and group’s scaffold have increased students’ input in reading comprehension and motivated

them to invest the social, cultural and contextual clues to increase their comprehension of

English as ELLs. However, the finding that the difference in the reciprocal group

performance only showed a significant difference in a late period of this intervention

indicates that RT is a time consuming method which requires a sufficient time of training and

practice to make a difference in the learners reading ability. In addition, the findings of the

questionnaire showed that students needed more time to regulate their use of strategies such

as summarizing or questioning. It was concluded that longer term RT training and practice

can generate more independent reading behaviors and better strategic awareness.

Implications of the Study

The findings of this study have some implications for practice and theory.

The findings of the current study which taught RT in group work environment demonstrate

that RT was useful for the learners in their reading achievement, strategy use and attitudes.

The cooperative group work setting was also useful in promoting some vital social learning

values which enhanced the strategy learning of the group over the individual. Therefore, the

researcher strongly recommends adopting RT strategy in teaching English reading

comprehension.

The study findings also imply that comprehension is a process of thinking that can be taught.

EFL students can improve their comprehension gains through applying the reading strategies.

These strategies promote thinking, and are more likely to enhance students’

cognitive/metacognitive abilities of the learners regardless to their language competence. The

results of the study shed the light on the centrality of strategic teaching that provides students
 151

with thinking tools to approach all types of texts with understanding. When students of this

research were explicitly taught the RT strategies, they showed a statistical evidence of

improvement in their comprehension ability and their high order thinking skill.

Beyond the statistical gains in comprehension, the researcher has come to realise that

structuring the context of teaching and learning occupies the lion’s share in creating

meaningful learning. The present study provided a learning context through which students

were explicitly taught how to think and monitor thinking, how to articulate their thinking

processes, and receive feedback from teacher and peers. Students cooperated for making the

text comprehensible and produced their knowledge based on their negotiated understanding.

Such rich engaging context is by no means comparable to the setting of the conventional

class where teacher is the only source of facts and where individual competition rules the

students’ relationships. Reciprocal Teaching in this study provided the students with tools to

regulate their thinking and plan their next step for achieving understanding. In each step of

the four comprehension processes, they were fostering their understanding and checking their

comprehension. Predicting, questioning, clarifying and summarising were not practiced as

separate strategies. On the contrary, each time students used any of them, they were checking

understanding using a different technique. That enabled them to negotiate the meaning,

connect what they read with their previous knowledge to build new one. Such interactive

scaffolding atmosphere justifies the necessity to strategy teaching and the centrality of the

teaching context as fundamentals of learning EFL.

Based on the effectiveness of RT in facilitating reading comprehension, the researcher

thinks that RT in particular and strategy- based instruction, in general, are what actually ELLs

need in the 21st century. Students are living in an era of fast changing data. Understanding the

enormous changes in the different fields of knowledge stipulates building connections to their

current knowledge, checking and appreciating what they read, accepting or rejecting

hypotheses while reading. It was found that teaching these strategies of thinking are effective
 152

in dealing with all types of texts. Applying the right strategy in the right place enables the

learners comprehend and judge the reading, which in turn, increases learners’ knowledge and

makes them successfully deal with the massive amount of knowledge around them critically.

In addition, the current study implies and recommends utilizing the positive social

values among learners to encourage mutual learning through peers’ support. Through group’s

interaction, the quality and quantity of learning is increased. When students act as resources

of learning for each other’s, they learn through interaction. This shifts the pedagogy of

teaching into more learner- centered approach. The social accountability of the learners

makes each one feels responsible about his team’s success. Thus, learning becomes a

learners’ product instead of teacher’s prophecy.

The researcher hopes the study will add to the rationale for adopting more strategy-

based teaching in Palestine. Moreover, it is hoped the study will enlighten the prospective

teaching practices of other Palestinian teachers to encourage learning comprehension that

invests in students’ cooperation and utilizes the differences among students to foster

cooperation rather than competition.

Recommendations for Further Research

Despite the success of this research in promoting reading comprehension and

cooperative learning, more research needs to be devoted to examine the strategic, cooperative

contexts of EFL. The following recommendations will reinforce any future research in the

field of strategy teaching:

 Textbooks, reading materials and schools’ policies have been the focus of research for

long time. The researcher believes time has come to shift this focus towards teaching

itself. Teachers and schools need to really rethink what makes teaching successful. More

serious efforts need to be paid to know what type of teaching engage students in reading

and what teaching is able to acquire them with lifelong skills.

 153

 Strategy- based instruction is rarely implemented in the Palestinian classrooms. Few

studies have examined the impact of strategic teaching on students’ abilities, often

limited in their duration and sample. Therefore, a longitude study that investigates the

impact of RT or other reading strategies in a developmental pattern will be a

precedent case of research in Palestine and will inevitably enrich the theory of

learning and teaching.

 The results of the school tests in this study were drawn upon the teacher- designed tests.

These tests were examined in their validity by the teacher’s colleagues. Yet, for future

research, an additional work may be needed to develop this type of instrument for more

sufficient results. Likewise, the qualitative results were drawn upon analysing the teacher

of her own journals. For higher reliability of future research of the same type, it will be

more valuable if additional researcher works out the coding phase and compares the

results to the researcher’s.

 The current study has examined the impact of RT on teenagers’ ability to read

comprehensively. However, a replication of this study in basic education will be effective

in improving children’s cognitive /metacognitive abilities and support them with reading

tools that fosters their long term reading skills.

 The current study could be replicated to investigate the impact of RT with a variable like

the text type. This can be done by comparing the effect of RT on two groups. The first will

study using expository texts. The other will be applying RT strategies to the narrative

texts. Such a study will offer perceptive insights into the most effective types of texts to

develop the metacognitive strategies of reading, taking into consideration that the impact

of RT with narrative texts is rarely studied in literature.

 A teaching that promotes cooperative learning will not only yield better group

performance in reading, but will also establish for cooperative education in Palestine.
 154

Cooperative practices need to be promoted, processed and rewarded among all learning

levels. Promoting the social values of cooperation and joint group goals will shift the

whole pedagogy of learning into more learner- centered approach and bound the

educational outcomes to their social foundations.

 The current study can be replicated investigating other variables like gender. The

population of this study consisted of girls only. Therefore, it will be interesting to reveal if

RT’s comprehension outcomes differ when two groups of boys and girls study using this

cognitive strategy.

 A qualitative study in diagnosing the affective outcomes of cooperative strategy teaching

will fill a gap the qualitative research in this field and provide rich data on the nature and

types of the learners’ interactions and the impacts on their learning.

 A study that compares RT instruction in group work context to RT individual learning will

reveal much about the most effective environment for teaching this strategy.

 There is a serious need for a research that questions the real reading strategies that students

actually implement while reading. Asking students to describe what strategies they utilize

to make meaning while reading will curtail the scope and cost of research in the field of

reading comprehension. Knowing the most beneficial strategies that makes readers

understand a text will support EFL teachers to teach and train such strategies.

 Thematic Analysis which was applied to the qualitative part of this research is a pioneer

research method which is distinctive in its ability to provide rich condensed results.

Applying the method to students’ journals or teachers’ journals will be a great addition to

the literature of qualitative research. It is recommended to train different teachers who

teach different learning levels to the RT protocols. Teachers may be observed or asked to

write their own reflections on their teaching process. Moreover, students could be asked to

write their journals and register what cognitive processes they applied while reading.
 155

Analysing teachers’ and students’ reflections using the thematic analysis approach by an

outside researcher will more objectively assess the effectiveness of the RT, diagnose the

most dominating values and provide deeper insights into the qualitative research regarding

the process of teaching and learning EFL. Applying the TA to such a study will reinforce

using the method in education, knowing that TA is much intensively used and related to

the fields of health psychology and nursing.

 “The impact of RT on the far transfer of reading strategies” is a suggested title for a

quantitative study that would investigate students’ ability to extend the strategies they

learnt into new reading texts. Such a study will provide deep insights into the quality of

strategies that students can transfer beyond the reading text.

 156

References

Aaron, P. (1997). The Impending Demise of the Discrepancy Formula. Review of Educational

Research,67(4),461-502.

Adkins, J. (2005). Metacognition: Designing for transfer. University of Saskatchewan,

Canada.

Afrizatama, D. (2016). Teaching reading through reciprocal teaching strategy. ELT

Perspective Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, 4(2).

Ahmadi, M. R., & Gilakjani, A. P. (2012). Reciprocal teaching strategies and their impacts on

English reading comprehension. Theory and Practice in language studies, 2(10),

2053.

Ahmadi, M. R., Ismail, H. N.& Abdullah, M.K K. (2013). The importance of metacognitive

reading strategy awareness in reading comprehension. English Language

Teaching, 6(10), 235.

Al Debes, I. M. (2005). The effect of using Reciprocal Teaching and Semantic Mapping

Reading Strategies on the development of English Reading Comprehension of upper

basic stage students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Amman Arab University for

Graduate Studies, Amman, Jordan.

Alfassi, M. (1998). Reading for Meaning: The Efficacy of Reciprocal Teaching in Fostering

Reading Comprehension in High School Students in Remedial Reading Classes.

American Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 309-332.Retrieved Oct,12,2016 from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1163426

Alhojailan, M. I. (2012). Thematic analysis: A critical review of its process and

evaluation. West East Journal of Social Sciences, 1(1), 39-47.

 157

Al-Qatawneh, K. S. (2010). The Effect of the Reciprocal Teaching Method on Enhancing

Critical Reading to Skills of Jordanian Secondary School Student.Dirasat:

Educational Sciences, 34(1).

Armbrister, A. (2010). Non-native speakers reach higher ground: A study of reciprocal

teachings' effects on English language learners (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved on

March,20,2016 from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.

Aronson, J. (1995). A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. The qualitative report, 2(1), 1-3.

Aziz, K. (2005). Assessment of language learning strategies used by Palestinian EFL

learners. Foreign language annals, 38(1), 108.

Ballantine, J. H., & Spade, J. Z. (2009). Social Science Theories on Teachers, Teaching, and

Educational Systems. In L. J. Saha & A. G. Dworkin (Eds.), International handbook

of research on teachers and teaching (21st ed., pp. 81-102). New York: Springer.

Bilgi, A., & Ozmen, E. (2014). The Impact of Modified Multi-component Cognitive Strategy

Instruction in the Acquisition of Metacognitive Strategy Knowledge in the Text

Comprehension Process of Students with Mental Retardation. Educational Sciences:

Theory & Practice, 14(2), 707-714. Retrieved from www.edam.com.tr/estp

Bongratz, K.M.Bradley, J.C.Fisel, K. L. Orcutt, J. A. & Shoemaker, A. J. (2002). Improving

Student Comprehension Skills through the Use of Reading Strategies.

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative

research journal, 9 (2), 27-40.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., National Research Council, National

Research Council, & National Research Council. (2001). learning and transfer. In

How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school (pp. 51-78). Washington, DC:

National Academy Press.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research

in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

 158

Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Terry, G. (2014). Thematic analysis. Qual Res Clin Health Psychol,

95-114.

Brown, A. (1992). Design Experiments: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in

Creating Complex Interventions in Classroom Settings. The Journal of the Learning

Sciences, 2 (2) ,141-178. Retrieved on April, 26. 2016 from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1466837

Brown, A.L. & Palincsar, A.S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual

knowledge acquisition. Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert

Glaser, 393-451.

Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language Assessment principles and classroom

practices. NY: Pearson Education.

Brown, S. B. (2015). The Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on Third and Fourth Grade

Students’ Reading Comprehension and Vocabulary Attainment (Doctoral dissertation,

Baker University).

Bruce, M., & Robinson, G. (1999). A Metacognitive Program for Improving the Word

Identification and Reading Comprehension Skills of Upper Primary Poor Readers

(143).

Bruce, M. E., & Robinson, G. L. (2001). The Clever Kid's Reading Program: Metacognition

and Reciprocal Teaching.

Caracelli, V. J., & Greene, J. C. (1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation

designs. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 15(2), 195-207.

Casanave, C. (1988). Comprehension Monitoring in ESL Reading: A Neglected Essential.

TESOL Quarterly, 22(2), 283-302. doi:1. Retrieved on nov,21,1016 from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3586937 doi:1

Chang, S. H. (2011). Reading Strategies of Struggling Readers. Journal of Research in

Education, 21(2), 2-13.

 159

Cheng, W. Y., Lam, S. F., & Chan, C. Y. (2008). When high achievers and low achievers

work in the same group: The roles of group heterogeneity and processes in project‐

based learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 205-221.

Cheshire, B., Friese, B., & Howell, M. (2005). Reciprocal Teaching - Emerging Perspectives

on Learning, Teaching and Technology.

Choo, T., Eng, T., & Ahmad, N. (2011). Effects of Reciprocal Teaching Strategies on

Reading Comprehension. The Reading Matrix, 11(2), 140-149. Retrieved on July,

10.2016 from

http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/april_2011/choo_eng_ahmad.pdf

Chou, C. Y., & Chan, T. W. (2016). Reciprocal tutoring: design with cognitive load sharing.

International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 512-535.

Ciullo, S., & Billingsley, G. (2013). Strategies for Improving Understanding of and

Engagement with Expository Text for Students with Emotional and Behavioral

Disorders. Beyond Behavior, 23(1), 3-11. Retrieved on Aug,7.2017 from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/24011909

Cleary, T. J., Callan, G. L., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). Assessing self-regulation as a

cyclical, context-specific phenomenon: Overview and analysis of SRL microanalytic

protocols. Education Research International, 2012.Cohen, E. G. (1994).

Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of

educational research, 64(1), 1-35.

Cohen, E. G., Brody, C. M., & Sapon-Shevin, M. (2004). Teaching cooperative learning: The

challenge for teacher education. Suny Press.

Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (2014). Designing Groupwork: Strategies for the

Heterogeneous Classroom Third Edition. Teachers College Press.

Cohen, E. G., & Press, C. (2015). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous

classroom. Hawker Brownlow Education.

 160

Coley, J., DePinto, T., Craig, S., & Gardner, R. (1993). From College to Classroom: Three

Teachers' Accounts of their Adaptations of Reciprocal Teaching. The Elementary

School Journal, 94(2), 255-266.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1988). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the

craft of reading, writing and mathematics. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for

Children, 8(1), 2-10.

Dabarera, C., Renandya, W. A., & Zhang, L. J. (2014). The impact of metacognitive

scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System, 42, 462-473.

Davidson, N., & Major, C. H. (2014). Boundary crossings: Cooperative learning,

collaborative learning, and problem-based learning. Journal on Excellence in College

Teaching, 25(3/4), 7-55.

Davis, D. S. (2010). A meta-analysis of comprehension strategy instruction for upper

elementary and middle school students (Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University).

Dent, A. L., & Koenka, A. C. (2015). The relation between self-regulated learning and

academic achievement across childhood and adolescence: a meta-

analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 1-50.

Doganay Bilgi, A., & Ozmen, E. R. (2014). The Impact of Modified Multi-Component

Cognitive Strategy Instruction in the Acquisition of Metacognitive Strategy

Knowledge in the Text Comprehension Process of Students with Mental

Retardation. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(2), 707-714.

Dolya, G. (2009). Vygotsky in action in the early years: The key to learning curriculum.

Routledge.

Educational Testing Service (ETS, 2015). TOEFL Junior. Retrieved on july,16th 2015 from

(https://www.ets.org/toefl_junior/prepare/standard_sample_questions/reading

El-Koumy, A. S. A.(2004). Metacognition and reading comprehension: Current trends in

theory and research. Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), USA.

 161

Ellis, A. K., Denton, D. W., & Bond, J. B. (2014). An analysis of research on metacognitive

teaching strategies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4015-4024.

Ems, D. (1988). Research in the Classroom: Reciprocal Teaching: The Question Is the Thing. The English

Journal, 77(5), 103-105. doi:1. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/818990 doi:1

Englert, C. & Mariage, T. (1991). Making Students Partners in the Comprehension Process:

Organizing the Reading "POSSE" Learning Disability Quarterly, 14(2), 123-138.

doi:1. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1510519 doi:1

Fevre, D. M., Moore, D. W., & Wilkinson, I. A. (2003). Tape‐assisted reciprocal teaching:

Cognitive bootstrapping for poor decoders. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 73(1), 37-58.

Fitrisia, D., Tan, K. E., & Yusuf, Y. Q. (2015). Investigating metacognitive awareness of

reading strategies to strengthen students’ performance in reading comprehension. Asia

Pacific Journal of Educators and Education, 30, 15-30.

Forsyth, D. R. (2009). Group dynamics. Cengage Learning.

Foster, E., Rotoloni, R. (2005). Reciprocal Teaching: General overview of theories.. In M.

Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved

on ( June 12, 2016) from http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/

Frances, S., & Eckart, J. (1992). The effects of reciprocal teaching oncomprehension. ERIC.

Gibson, K. D. (2009). Teachers’ perceptions of strategy based reading instruction for reading

comprehension (Master Thesis).

Goldman, S. (2012). Adolescent Literacy: Learning and Understanding Content. The Future

of Children, 22(2), 89-116. Retrieved on May, 10, 2016 from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23317413

Gomez, A., & López, V. S. (2012). Effectiveness of Comprehension Monitoring strategies in

EFL of nonbilingual Spanish university students reading science texts. RAEL: revista

electrónica de lingüística aplicada, (11), 87-103.

 162

Gorlewski, J., & Moon, S. (2011). Research for the Classroom: Trying on Reciprocal

Teaching: A Novice's Struggle Becomes a Veteran's Success. The English Journal,

101(2), 97-100. Retrieved July, 18, 2016 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41415436

Griffiths, C. & Oxford, R. (2014). Twenty-first century landscape of language learning

strategies. System, 43, 1-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2013.12.009

Gruenbaum, E. A. (2012). Common literacy struggles with college students: Using the

reciprocal teaching technique. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 42(2), 109-

116.

Hartman, H. (1994). From Reciprocal Teaching to Reciprocal Education. Journal of

Developmental Education, 18(1), 2-32. Retrieved Jan,22,2016 from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/42775535

Hartman, H. (2001). Developing students’ metacognitive knowledge and skills.

In Metacognition in learning and instruction (pp. 33-68). Springer Netherlands.

Hasan, N. R. (2006). The Impact of A reciprocal Teaching Strategy on Enhancing the

Jordanian Secondary Stage Students’ Reading Comprehension in

English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Amman Arab University.

Helfeldt, J., & Henk, W. (1990). Reciprocal Question-Answer Relationships: An Instructional

Technique for At-Risk Readers. Journal of Reading, 33(7), 509-514. Retrieved April,

5, 2016 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40032012

Henter, R. (2012). Metacognitive training for awareness of reading strategies. In International

Conference of Scientific Paper AFASES.

Herrenkohl, L. (2006). Intellectual Role Taking: Supporting Discussion in Heterogeneous

Elementary Science Classes. Theory Into Practice, 45(1), 47-54. Retrieved Jan,

9,2016 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3497016

 163

Hong-Nam, K., Leavell, A. G., & Maher, S. (2014). The relationships among reported

strategy use, metacognitive awareness, and reading achievement of high school

students. Reading Psychology, 35(8), 762-790.

Hou, Y. J. (2015). Reciprocal Teaching, Metacognitive Awareness, and Academic

Performance in Taiwanese Junior College Students. In Proceedings of International

Academic Conferences (No. 2703285). International Institute of Social and Economic

Sciences.

Implementing Cooperative Learning. (2002). In J. C. Richards & W. A.

Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current

practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Jacobs, G. M., Lee, C., & Ng, M. (1997). Co-operative learning in the thinking classroom.

In International Conference on Thinking, Singapore.

Javadi, M., & Zarea, K. (2016). Understanding Thematic Analysis and its Pitfall.Journal of

Client Care, 1(1), 33-39.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Learning together and alone: Overview and meta‐

analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22(1), 95-105.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social

interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational researcher, 38(5), 365-

379.

Jom’a, F. (2013). Investigating Berziet Students Awareness of their Knowledge and Use of

Metacognitive Reading Strategies (Master's thesis, BirZeit University, Ramallah,

Palestine).

Kim, H. I., & Cha, K. A. (2015). Korean Learners' Metacognition in Reading Using Think-

Aloud Procedures with a Focus on Regulation of Cognition. English Language

Teaching, 8(6), 178.

 164

Klingner, J., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. (1998). Collaborative Strategic Reading during

Social Studies in Heterogeneous Fourth-Grade Classrooms. The Elementary School

Journal, 99(1), 3-22. Retrieved Feb,9,2016 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1002223

Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension

strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second

language. The Elementary School Journal, 275-293.

Komariah, E., Ramadhona, P. A. R., & Silviyanti, T. M. (2015). Improving reading

comprehension through Reciprocal Teaching Method. Studies in English Language

and Education, 2(2), 88-104.

Kucan, L., & Beck, I. (1997). Thinking Aloud and Reading Comprehension Research:

Inquiry, Instruction, and Social Interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67(3),

271-299. Retrieved May,20,2016 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170566

Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). the theory of the estimation of test reliability.

psychometrika, 2(3), 151-160.

Leanne, C. (2003). Reciprocal Teaching Strategy and Adult High School Students (Master's

thesis). Retrieved on Jan,11,2016 from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

database.ERIC

Lee, S., & Colin, T. (2003). The Effect of Instruction in the Paraphrasing Strategy on

Reading Fluency and Comprehension. ERIC.

Lestari, A. A. (2016). The Effectiveness of Reciprocal Teaching Method Embedding Critical

Thinking Towards MIA Second Graders’ Reading Comprehension of MAN 1

Kendari. Journal of Teachers of English, 1(1).

Leung, W. G., & 梁韞璣. (2005). Reciprocal teaching to improve English reading

comprehension of a group of form three students in Hong Kong. HKU Theses Online

(HKUTO).
 165

Levine, J. (1993). Learning English as an additional language in multilingual classrooms. In

H. Daniels (Ed.), Charting the agenda: Educational activity after Vygotsky (pp. 191-

215). London: Routledge.

Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (Eds.). (2008). Small groups: key readings. Psychology

Press.

Liamputtong, P. (2009). Qualitative data analysis: conceptual and practical

considerations. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 20(2), 133-139.

Lien, H. Y. (2014). Reading Strategy Awareness of English Major Students. Reading, 1,

11924.

Lubliner, S. (2002). The power of clarifying: A comparative analysis of strategies that

strengthen comprehension (Report No. TM034270). Hayward, CA: California State

University Hayward.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED466691).

Lysynchuk, L., Pressley, M., & Vye, N. (1990). Reciprocal Teaching Improves Standardized

Reading-Comprehension Performance in Poor Comprehenders. The Elementary

School Journal, 90(5), 469-484. Retrieved Feb, 13,2016 from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1001797

Mandel, E., Osana, H. P., & Venkatesh, V. (2013). Addressing the effects of reciprocal

teaching on the receptive and expressive vocabulary of 1st-grade students. Journal of

Research in Childhood Education, 27(4), 407-426.

Marks, M., Pressley, M., Coley, J., Craig, S., Gardner, R., DePinto, T., & Rose, W. (1993).

Three Teachers' Adaptations of Reciprocal Teaching in Comparison to Traditional

Reciprocal Teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 267-283. Retrieved

June,25,2016 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1001975

 166

Marzano, R. J. (1988). Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction.

The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 125 N. West St.,

Alexandria, VA 22314-2798

McAllum, R. (2014). Reciprocal Teaching: Critical Reflection on Practice.Kairaranga, 15(1),

26-35.

McCafferty, S. G., Jacobs, G. M., & Iddings, A. C. D. (2006). Cooperative learning and

second language teaching. Cambridge University Press.

McHugh, M. (2016). The effectiveness of reciprocal reading as an intervention for

underachieving children. The STeP Journal, 3(1), 134-157.

McNamara, D. S. (Ed.). (2012). Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions,

and technologies. Psychology Press.

Meyer, A., & Fraser, C. (2012). RC-MAPS: Bridging the Comprehension Gap in EAP

Reading. TESL CANADA JOURNAL, 29(2), 103-119.

Mihara, K. (2011). Effects of Pre-Reading Strategies on EFL/ESL Reading Comprehension.

TESL CANADA JOURNAL, 28(2), 51-73.

Mishra, R. K. (2013). Vygotskian perspective of teaching-learning. Innovation: International

Journal of Applied Research, 1(1), 21-28.

Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students' metacognitive awareness of

reading strategies. Journal of educational psychology, 94(2), 249.

Mothus, T. G., & Lapadat, J. C. (2006). A Strategy Intervention to Increase the Reading

Comprehension of Junior High School Students with Reading Disabilities. Online

Submission.

Murray, B. P. (2010). College students' strategic reading: Examining two teaching

approaches for summarization expertise. S. Szabo, T. Morrison, L. Martin, M. Boggs

& L. Raine (Eds.), 85-101.

 167

Naiditch, F. (2016). Critical Pedagogy and the Teaching of Reading for Social

Action. Developing Critical Thinking: From Theory to Classroom Practice, 87.

National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development

(US). (2000).

Nelson, J. M., & Manset-Williamson, G. (2006). The impact of explicit, self-regulatory

reading comprehension strategy instruction on the reading-specific self-efficacy,

attributions, and affect of students with reading disabilities.Learning Disability

Quarterly, 29(3), 213-230.

Ness, M. K. (2016). Reading comprehension strategies in secondary content area classrooms:

Teacher use of and attitudes towards reading comprehension instruction. Reading

Horizons, 49(2), 5.

Newman, F.,&Holzman, L.(1993). Lev Vygotsky:Revolutionary scientist. London: Routledge.

Nilsson, O., & Hay, P. (2016). Group works impact on the cognitive learning processes in the

ESL classroom.

Oczkus, L. D. (2010). Reciprocal teaching at work: Powerful strategies and lessons for

improving reading comprehension. International Reading Assoc.

Ojo, Gbemisola Motunrayo. Reflective-reciprocal teaching strategy on student teachers'

academic achievement and attitude. Diss. 2015.

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.

Oxford, R. L. (2002). Language learning strategies in a nutshell: Update and ESL

suggestions. Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice,

124-132.
 168

Oxford, R. L. (1997), Cooperative Learning, Collaborative Learning, and Interaction: Three

Communicative Strands in the Language Classroom. The Modern Language Journal,

81: 443–456. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05510.x.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies (Vol. 210). New York: Newbury House.

Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (2011) .retrieved on Sep, 11.2016 from

http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Downloads/book1790.pdf

Palincsar, A. (2013). Reciprocal Teaching. In E. Anderman & J. Hattie (Eds.), International

Guide to Student Achievement (pp. 369-371).

Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Keeping the Metaphor of Scaffolding Fresh—-A Response to C.

Addison Stone's “The Metaphor of Scaffolding Its Utility for the Field of Learning

Disabilities”. Journal of learning disabilities, 31(4), 370-373.

Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Structured Dialogues among Communities of First Grade Learners.

Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction.Educational

psychologist, 21(1-2), 73-98.

Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and

Comprehension-Monitoring Activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.

Retrieved Jan, 11,2016 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233567

Palincsar, A. S., Brown, A. L. & Campione, J. C. (1993). First-grade dialogues for

knowledge acquisition and use. Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in

children’s development, 43-57.

Palincsar, A. S., David, Y. M., Winn, J. A. & Stevens, D. D. (1991). Examining the context

of strategy instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 12(3), 43-53.

doi:10.1177/074193259101200306

Palincsar, A. S., & Klenk, L.J (1992). Fostering literacy learning in supportive

contexts. Journal of learning disabilities, 25(4), 211-225.

Palincsar, A. S., & Klenk, L. J. (1991). Learning Dialogues to Promote Text Comprehension.
 169

Pearson, P., & Dole, J. (1987). Explicit Comprehension Instruction: A Review of Research

and a New Conceptualization of Instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 88(2),

151-165. Retrieved on March,16.2016 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1002039

Pesa, N., & Somers, S. (2007). Improving Reading Comprehension through Application and

Transfer of Reading Strategies. Online Submission.

Pressley, M., & Harris, K. R. (2008). Cognitive strategies instruction: From basic research to

classroom instruction. The Journal of Education, 189(1/2), 77-94. retrieved on

June,26.2016 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42748661

Rasinski, T. V., & International Reading Association. (2000). Teaching comprehension and

exploring multiple literacies: Strategies from the reading teacher. Newark, DE:

International Reading Association.

Raslie, H., Mikeng, D., & Ting, S. H. (2015). Reciprocal teaching and comprehension of

struggling readers. International Journal of Education, 7(1), 131-142.

Reading Rockets (2015). Reciprocal Teaching Worksheets and handouts retrieved on

June,9,2015from

http://www.readingrockets.org/content/pdfs/reciprocalteaching_worksheet.pdf and

http://www.readingrockets.org/content/pdfs/reciprocalteaching_handout.pdf

Reutzel, D., & Hollingsworth, P. (1988). Highlighting Key Vocabulary: A Generative-

Reciprocal Procedure for Teaching Selected Inference Types. Reading Research

Quarterly, 23(3), 358-378. doi:1. Retrieved on Aug,23.2016 from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/748047 doi:1

Roger, T., & Johnson, D. W. (1994). An overview of cooperative learning. Creativity and

collaborative learning. Retrieved on July,10th ,2016 from http://www.co-

operation.org/pages/overviewpaper.html
 170

Rosalia, U. (2015). Improving Students’ Reading Comprehension in Recount Text through

Reciprocal teaching technique: A Classroom Action Research at the Eighth Grade

Students of Junior High School in Pontianak in the Academic Year 2014/2015. West

Kalimantan Scholars: Studies on English Language and Education, 2(1), 68-94.

Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal Teaching: A Review of the Research.

Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479-530. Retrieved on Jan,12,2016 from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170585

Rosenshine, B. and Meister, C. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level

cognitive strategies. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 26-33.

Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions:

A review of the intervention studies. Review of educational research, 66(2), 181-221.

Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field methods, 15(1),

85-109.

Schünemann, N., Spörer, N., & Brunstein, J. C. (2013). Integrating self-regulation in whole-

class reciprocal teaching: A moderator–mediator analysis of incremental effects on

fifth graders’ reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4),

289-305.

Serran, G. (2002). Improving Reading Comprehension:A Comparative Study of

Metacognitive Strategies (Unpublished master's thesis). Kean University.

Seymour, J. R., & Osana, H. P. (2003). Reciprocal teaching procedures and principles: two

teachers’ developing understanding. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(3), 325-

344.

Shikano, M. (2013). A quantitative survey on metacognitive awareness of reading strategy

use in English by Japanese university students. International Education Center

Journal, 14, 11-24.

 171

Slavin, R. E. (1989). Cooperative learning and student achievement: Six theoretical

perspectives. Advances in motivation and achievement, 6, 161-177.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Research on cooperative learning: Consensus and

controversy. Educational leadership, 47(4), 52-54.

Spörer, N., & Brunstein, J. C. (2009). Fostering the reading comprehension of secondary

school students through peer-assisted learning: Effects on strategy knowledge,

strategy use, and task performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(4),

289-297.

Stygles, J. (2014). Building Schema: Exploring Content with Song Lyrics and Strategic

Reading. In The Language and Literacy Spectrum (pp. 101-114). Retrieved on

May,10,2016 from justin.vocabularyteacher@yahoo.com

Summers, E. G. (1977). Instruments for Assessing Reading Attitudes: A Review of Research

and Bibliography ab. Journal of Reading Behavior, 9(2), 137-165.

Tajalli, P., & Satari, S. (2013). Effectiveness of metacognitive strategies on reading skills of

students with hearing disorders. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, 139-

143.

Tarchi, C., & Pinto, G. (2016). Reciprocal teaching: Analyzing interactive dynamics in the

co-construction of a text's meaning. The Journal of Educational Research, 1-13.

Tarchi, C. (2010). Reading comprehension of informative texts in secondary school: A focus

on direct and indirect effects of reader's prior knowledge. Learning and Individual

differences, 20(5), 415-420.

Todd, R. B., & Tracey, D. H. (2006). Reciprocal Teaching and Comprehension: A Single

Subject Research Study. Online Submission.

Trent, S., Artiles, A., & Englert, C. (1998). From Deficit Thinking to Social Constructivism:

A Review of Theory, Research, and Practice in Special Education. Review of

 172

Research in Education, 23, 277-307. Retrieved on Jan,3rd,2016 from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1167293

Trif, L. (2015). Training Models of Social Constructivism. Teaching Based on Developing A

Scaffold. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 978-983.

Tuckett, A. G. (2005). Applying thematic analysis theory to practice: a researcher’s

experience. Contemporary Nurse, 19(1-2), 75-87.

Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student

interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271-296.

Wagar, M. G. (2008). Comprehension Strategies for Instructing Readers. ProQuest.

Wijayatiningsih, T. (2013). Reciprocal Teaching for improving eleventh grade students’

reading comprehension achienement. In 60th TEFLIN international conference (p. 8).

Retrieved on Feb,10th ,20216 from testiana_dw@yahoo.com

Winograd, P., & Hare, V. C. (1988). Direct instruction of reading comprehension strategies:

The nature of teacher explanation. Learning and study strategies: Issues in

assessment, instruction, and evaluation, 121-139.

Zhang, L. J. (2008). Constructivist pedagogy in strategic reading instruction: Exploring

pathways to learner development in the English as a second language (ESL)

classroom. Instructional Science, 36(2), 89.

 173

Appendix A: Pre / Posttst Answer Key

Al-Bireh Secondary School for Girls

Reading Comprehension Test

11th Grade

Sections A, B, C & D

Literary Stream

Teacher

Oraib Ramadan

Scholastic Year

2015/2016

Mark: / 20
 174

Section One : Read the following announcement and answer questions 1-4:

Student Volunteers Needed!

On Saturday, December 12th, from 10 A.M. until 4 P.M., Victory Middle School will be

holding a music festival in the school gymnasium. The special event will feature a variety of

professional musicians and singers.

Task Time Date

Make posters 1 P.M.–4 P.M. December 5th

Set up gym 11 A.M.–4 P.M. December 11th

Help performers 9 A.M.–4 P.M. December 12th

Welcome guests 10 A.M.–2 P.M. December 12th

Clean up gym 4 P.M.–7 P.M. December 12th

Interested students should speak with Ms. Braxton, the music teacher. Students who would

like to help at the festival must have written permission from a parent or guardian.

1. What time will the festival begin?

A. 10 A.M. B. 11 A.M.
C. 1 P.M. D. 2 P.M.
2. In line 2, the word feature is closest in meaning to _______.
A. look B. keep
C. include D. entertain
3. What job will be done the day before the festival begins?
A. Making posters B. Setting up the
gym
C. Cleaning up the gym D. Helping the
performers
4. Who is told to talk to Ms. Braxton?
A. Parents B. Students

C. Teachers D. Performers
 175

Section Two: Read the following story and answer questions 5- 11:

"Did you see that?" Joe said to his friend Bill. "You're a great shooter!"

Bill caught the basketball and bounced it before throwing it again. The ball flew into

the net. "Bill, you never miss!" Joe said admiringly.

"Unless I'm in a real game," Bill complained. "Then I miss all the time."

5 Joe knew that Bill was right. Bill performed much better when he was having fun

with Joe in the school yard than he did when he was playing for the school team

in front of a large crowd.

"Maybe you just need to practice more," Joe suggested.

"But I practice all the time with you!" Bill objected. He shook his head. "I just can't

play well when people are watching me."

10 "You play well when I'm watching," Joe pointed out.

"That's because I've known you since we were five years old," Bill said with a smile. "I'm

just not

comfortable playing when other people are around."

Joe nodded and understood, but he also had an idea.

The next day Joe and Bill met in the school yard again to practice. After a few minutes, Joe

excused

15 himself.

"Practice without me," Joe said to his friend. "I'll be back in a minute."

Joe hurried through the school building, gathering together whomever he could find—two

students, a math teacher, two secretaries, and a janitor.

When Joe explained why he needed them, everyone was happy to help.
 176

20 Joe reminded the group to stay quiet as they all went toward the school's basketball

court. As Joe had hoped, Bill was still practicing basketball. He made five baskets in a row

without noticing the

silent people standing behind him. "Hey, Bill!" Joe called out finally.

Bill turned. A look of surprise came over his face. "I just wanted to show you that you

could play

well with people watching you," Joe said. "Now you'll have nothing to worry about for the

next game!"

5. What would be the best title for the story?

A. Joe Joins the Team B. Practice Makes Perfect

C. Bill Wins the Big Game D. Bill's Basketball Problem

6. In line 5, the word performed is closest in meaning to _______.

A. acted B. played C. moved D. changed

7. Why is Bill upset?

A. He plays better in practice than he does during games.

B. The school yard is not a good place to practice.

C. Joe watches him too closely when he plays.

D. His team loses too many games.

8. Why does Bill play well when Joe is watching him?

A. He is comfortable with Joe.

B. Joe tells him how to play better.

C. He does not know that Joe is there.

D. He wants to prove to Joe that he is a good player.

9. Why does Joe decide to gather a group of people?

A. Because he wants more players for his team

B. Because he wants to help Bill feel less nervous

 177

C. Because he wants to show them his talent

D. Because he wants more people to see the next game

10. At the end of the story, all of the following people watch Bill practice EXCEPT _____.

A. Joe B. a janitor C. a math teacher D. the basketball coach

11. Why does the group have to be quiet when they go to the basketball court?

A. Because Joe is telling Bill what to do

B. Because they do not want Bill to know they were there

C. Because Bill likes to practice alone

D. Because the group needs to listen to Joe’s instructions

Section Three: Read the following passage and answer questions 12-20:

When another old cave is discovered in the south of France, it is not usually news. Rather, it

is an ordinary event. Such discoveries are so frequent these days that hardly anybody pays

heed to them. However, when the Lascaux cave complex was discovered in 1940, the

world was amazed.

Painted directly on its walls were hundreds of scenes showing how people lived thousands

of years ago.
 178

5 The scenes show people hunting animals, such as bison or wild cats. Other images

depict birds and, most noticeably, horses, which appear in more than 300 wall images, by far

outnumbering all other animals.

Early artists drawing these animals accomplished a monumental and difficult task. They

did not limit

themselves to the easily accessible walls but carried their painting materials to spaces that

required 10 climbing steep walls or crawling into narrow passages in the Lascaux complex.

Unfortunately, the paintings have been exposed to the destructive action of water and

temperature changes, which easily wear the images away. Because the Lascaux caves have

many entrances, air movement has also damaged the images inside.

Although they are not out in the open air, where natural light would have destroyed them

long ago, 15 many of the images have deteriorated and are barely recognizable.

To prevent further damage, the site was closed to tourists in 1963, 23 years after it was

discovered.

12. Which title best summarizes the main idea of the passage?
A. Wild Animals in Art B. Hidden Prehistoric Paintings
C. Exploring Caves Respectfully D. Determining the Age of French Caves
 179

13. In line 2, the phrase pays heed to is closest in meaning to ______.

A. discovers B. watches
C. notices D. buys

14. Based on the passage, what is probably true about the south of France?
A. It is home to rare animals. B. It has a large number of caves.
C. It is known for horse-racing events. D. It has attracted many famous artists.

15. According to the passage, which animals appear most often on the cave walls?
A. Birds B. Bison
C. Horses D. Wild cats

16. In line 5, the word depict is closest in meaning to _______.

A. show B. hunt
C. count D. draw

17. Why was painting inside the Lascaux complex a difficult task?
A. It was completely dark inside. B. The caves were full of wild animals.

C. Painting materials were hard to find. D. Many painting spaces were difficult to reach.

18. In line 8, the word “They” refers to _______.

A. walls B. artists

C. animals D. materials

19. According to the passage, all of the following have caused damage to the paintings

EXCEPT _______.

A. temperature changes B. air movement

C. water D. light
 180

20. What happened to the site in 1963?

A. Visitors were prohibited from entering.

B. A new lighting system was installed.

C. Another part was discovered.

D. A new entrance was created.

 181

Key Answers

1. A

2. C

3. B

4. B

5. D

6. B

7. A

8. A

9. B

10. D

11. B

12. B

13. C

14. B

15. C

16. A

17. D

18. B

19. D

20. A
 182

Appendix B: Sample of School (Teacher- Designed Tests)

AlBireh Secondary Girls’ School

11th Grade/ Sections A,B,C,D Reading Comprehension Test Total Marks:30

Name -----------------------------

________________________________________________________________________

Read the following text carefully, then answer the attached questions.

DISAPPEARING BEAUTY NABIL HAMED

As a child, Nabil Hamed used to wander in the hills and valleys of Palestine with his father,

a shepherd. After taking a break to continue his education abroad, he returned to Palestine

and continued hiking, simply for the love of walking and nature. As time went by, he began

to notice irreversible changes: the beauty of this ancient land was being destroyed by the

Israeli occupation, sometimes rapidly, sometimes gradually. Olive trees and grapevines were

pulled up, old stone buildings and even whole villages were pulled down to make room for

more and more settlements, their roads and dividing walls.

The walks he describes in this book cover the hills of Ramallah, the wild countryside around

Jerusalem and the valleys near the Dead Sea, and each takes place at a different period of

Palestinian history. Today, many Palestinian natural treasures have become impossible to

visit. Nabil Hamed, now in his sixties, has written this book to preserve them, at least in

words. It tells the story of how a pleasure so many of us take for granted is being taken away:

the freedom to wander through the countryside.

Disappearing Beauty is Nabil Hamed’s first book. It has been highly praised and has won

several international awards, including the Marshall Prize for political writing.

Sunday Journal
 183

How the nature of Palestine is being changed

Answer the following questions.(7Pts)

1. Why was Nabil, as a child, given the chance to wander in the hills and valleys?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mention two things the Israeli occupation has done to change the land?

a.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. What areas in Palestine has the writer covered in his book? ---------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. What pleasure was stolen from the Palestinians?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Based on your observation, mention other two changes that took place in the Palestinian nature

lately.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 184

Complete the following statements with sentences from/about the text.(3 Pts)

1. In his sixties, Nabil still practices hiking in the mountains because -----------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The main reason Nabil wrote this book is to -------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decide if each of the following sentences is True or False.(6 Pts)

1. Palestinian natural pressures are easy to visit. --------------

2. The book of Nbil Hamed won a prize for a historical narration. -----------------

3. The comment by the Sunday Journal is considered a form of book - review.------------

What does each of the underlined words or phrases refer to?(6Pts)

1. “this ancient land” -------------------------------------------------------------------

2. “them” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. “a pleasure so many of us take for granted” --------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complete the following sentences with the suitable words and phrases from the text.

Choose only from the bold typed.(8 Pts)

1. After many years under-------------------------- , the country has finally become

independent.

2. They ------------------------------------ the wall in the park to make a bigger play area.

3. We don’t have any plans, so we have time just to--------------------------- around the city on

foot.

4. Some people don’t even think about basic freedoms. They just -----------------------------

them-----------------------------------------------------
 185

5. His decision is -------------------------------. There’s no going back to how things were

before.

6. This event ---------------------------- every year on the same date.

7. I sometimes --------------------------- fruit in sugar to stop it from going bad.

8. The film was highly------------------------------------- . Everyone said how good it was

Reader are Leaders

 186

Appendix C: A Questionnaire on Reading Practices and Student’s Attitudes

The Effect of Reciprocal Teaching Method on Students’ Reading Comprehension Ability

and Their Attitudes Towards Using It

Dear Student,

Attached is a questionnaire on attitudes towards using the Reciprocal Teaching (RT) method

in teaching reading. The purpose of the survey is to find out your attitudes towards reading

and the reading strategies that you have used during the Reciprocal Teaching method reading

activities used in the class during instruction. The questionnaire takes 10 -15 minutes to

complete. The information collected will be used confidentially and for research purposes

only. Please answer all questions by putting a check mark ✓in the appropriate box that best

describes your views / actions. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Most Truly,

Ms. Oraib Khammash

English Teacher
 187

Survey on Reading Practices, Effect of Reciprocal Teaching Method on Reading

Comprehension and Students’ Attitudes towards Using It

Never Occasionally Sometimes Often Always

Part 1: Reading Practices 1 2 3 4 5

1 I read the heading and sub-headings of

the passage first.
2 I refer to the diagrams / illustrations
when they are available to help me
understand the topic.
3 I try to make connection between the
text that I am reading and previous
knowledge / experience.
4 Before reading, I ask myself what I
already know about the topic and
predict what will come next in the
passage.
5 I skim the text first to find out its type
and the way it is organized.
6 I try to figure out the meaning of new
words or phrases from the context.
7 I look up unknown words in the
dictionary.
8 I underline or circle information in the
text to help me remember it.
9 I discuss what I read with the group to
check my understanding
10 I ask myself questions about the text
during reading.
11 I summarize what I read to reflect on
important information in the text.
12 I go back and forth in the text to find
relationships among ideas in it.
13 When I don’t understand, I keep on
reading hoping for clarification further
on.
14 I stop from time to time and think
about what I’m reading.
15 I skip words or parts I don’t
understand.
16 I give up and stop reading when I don’t
understand.
17 When text becomes difficult, I reread
to increase my understanding.
18 I try to guess the meaning of unknown
words or phrases when reading.
 188

Part 2: Attitudes Towards Using the Reciprocal Teaching Method in Teaching Reading:
Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree
Disagree 2 3 4 5
Item 1

19 The reading strategies I learnt in the

English reading lessons using the
Reciprocal Teaching Method can be
applied to other reading contexts.
20 The summarizing strategy was very
helpful in understanding the passage.
21 The predicting strategy was very helpful
in understanding the passage.
22 The clarifying strategy was very helpful
in understanding the passage.
23 The questioning strategy was very
helpful in understand the passage.
24 Practicing reading strategies improved
my reading skill.
25 Cooperative group work in Reciprocal
Teaching (RT) helped me participate in
the discussions.
26 Communicative activities used in
Reciprocal Teaching (RT) encouraged
me to communicate in English.
27 I didn’t like group work. I prefer to read
quietly alone.
28 Using RT strategies encouraged me to
ask for clarifications.
29 Using RT strategies made me more
enthusiastic in the reading class.
30 Using the RT strategies in group work
was boring.
31 Using the RT strategies in reading
English made it more enjoyable.
32 I like my teacher to continue using RT
method in all reading classes for the rest
of the year.
33 Using RT method didn’t affect my
reading ability.
 ‫‪189‬‬

‫‪Appendix D: Arabic Version of the Questionnaire‬‬

‫أثر استخدام طريقة التعلم التبادلي على فهم المقروء لدى الطلبة واتجاهاتهم نحو استخدام هذه الطريقة في التدريس‬

‫عزيزتي الطالبة‪،‬‬

‫ف تعليم هارات القراء باللغة االنجليزية‪ .‬ويهدف هذا‬ ‫ا يل استبانة لقياس ااتجاهات نحج استخدام التعلم التبادل‬ ‫ف‬

‫الميح الى كشف اتجاهات‪ ،‬و جاقي‪ ،‬يجل القراء واالستراتيجيات الت استخد تها أثماء يصص القراء ن خةل التعلم‬

‫ن ‪ 51- 58‬دقيقة لمأله ‪.‬المعلج ات ف هذه االستبانة ستبقى سرية وررراض‬ ‫جمجعات‪.‬يحتاج هذا االستبيا‬ ‫التبادل ف‬

‫البحت فق ‪.‬‬

‫الرهاء ااهابة على هميع ارس لة ن خةل وضع إشار ✓ ف المربعات الت تصف بصدق جقي‪ /،‬سلجك‪. ،‬‬

‫ع الشار الجزيا على تعاون‪،‬‬

‫ع الشار الجزيا‬

‫عريب خماش‬

‫علمة لغة انجليزية‬

 ‫‪190‬‬

‫استبانة حول ممارسات القراءة باللغة االنجليزية‪،‬أثر استخدام استراتيجية التعلم التبادلي على فهم المقروء لدى الطلبة‬

‫وإتجاهاتهم نحو استخدام هذه الطريقة ‪1‬‬

‫دائما‬ ‫عادة‬ ‫أحيانا‬ ‫نادرا‬ ‫أبدا‬ ‫الجزء االول‪ :‬طريقتي في القراءة‬

‫‪0‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬

‫‪ 5‬أقرأ العمجا الر يي والعماوين اليرعية للمص أوال‬

‫‪ 9‬أستعين بالرسجم التجضيحية والبيانية اةا تجفرت ع المص‬

‫‪ 0‬أياول ا ارب بين المص الذي اقرأه و عرفت وخبرات اليابقة عن المجضج‬

‫‪ 8‬قبا القراء أسأل نيي عما أعرف يبقا يجل هذا المجضج وأياول أ اتمبأ عما سيحتجيه‬

‫المص اليقا‬

‫‪ 1‬أتصيح المص سريعا ن خةل ةيسة نم المص وترتيبه‬

‫‪ 6‬أياول أ أستدل على عان الميردات والعبارات الجديد بالرهج الى سياقها ف المص‬

‫‪ 0‬أبحت عن عان الميردات الجديد ف القا جس‬

‫‪ 4‬أضع ختجط أو دوا ر يجل المعلج ات الت أود تذكرها ف المص‬

‫‪ 0‬أناقش المص الذي اقرأه ع المجمجعة للتأكد ن فهم له‬

‫‪ 58‬أنا أسأل نيي أس لة أثماء القراء اعتاء عمى للمص الذي أقرأه‬

‫‪ 55‬ألخص المص الذي أقرأه لمعرفة االهزاء المهمة فيه‬

‫‪ 59‬أتمقا بين أهزاء المص لمعرفة العةقة بين أهزاءه‬

‫‪ 50‬يين ال افهم استمر ف القراء آ لة الحصجل على تجضيح اليقا‬

‫‪ 58‬أتجقف بين يين الخر وافار فيما اقرأه‬

‫‪ 51‬أتختى الالمات واالهزاء الت ال افهمها‬

‫‪ 56‬استيلم وأتجقف عن القراء يين ال افهم المص‬

‫‪ 50‬يين تزيد صعجبة المص أعيد القراء رتأكد ن فهم له‬

‫‪ 54‬أياول أ أيزر عان الالمات والميردات أثماء القراء‬

 ‫‪191‬‬

‫أوافق‬ ‫ال اعرف أوافق‬ ‫ال‬ ‫ال أوافق‬

‫بشدة‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬ ‫أوافق‬ ‫بشدة‬ ‫الجزء الثاني‪ :‬موقفي من استخدام طريقة التعلم التبادلي في تعلم مواضيع االستيعاب‬

‫‪0‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬

‫ن خةل التعلم‬ ‫تعلمتها اثماء يصص القراء‬ ‫الت‬ ‫استراتيجيات القراء‬ ‫‪50‬‬

‫هديد بميردي‬ ‫ساعدتم على تماول نصج‬ ‫التبادل‬

‫‪ 98‬استراتيجية التلخيص ساعدتم هدا ليهم المص‬

‫‪ 95‬استراتيجية التمب ساعدتم هدا ليهم المص‬

‫‪ 99‬استراتيجية التجضيح ساعدتم هدا ليهم المص‬

‫‪ 90‬استراتيجية طرا االس لة ساعدتم هدا ليهم المص‬

‫مارسات القراء الت قمت بها اثماء هذا اليصا ساعدتم ف القراء بصجر‬ ‫‪98‬‬

‫أفوا‬

‫جمجعات تعاونية أعتان اليرصة للمشاركة ف يصة اللغة‬ ‫‪ 91‬التعلم التبادل ف‬

‫االنجليزية‬

‫شجعتم على المشاركة ف المقاش باللغة‬ ‫ارنشتة التياعلية للتعلم التبادل‬ ‫‪96‬‬

‫اانجليزية‬

‫جمجعات الن افوا القراء ويدي وبهدوء‬ ‫‪ 90‬لم أيب طريقة العما ف‬

‫‪ 94‬التعلم التبادل أعتان اليرصة لي ال علمت و يةت يين ال افهم المقروء‬

‫‪ 90‬استخدام استراتيجيات التعلم التبادل ف القراء باالنجليزية هعلم أكثر يماسا‬

‫ف يصة القراء‬

‫مة‬ ‫جمجعات تعاونية كا‬ ‫‪ 08‬استخدام التعلم التبادل ف‬

‫‪ 05‬استخدام طريقة التعلم التبادل ف القراء باالنجليزية هعلها اكثر تعة‬

‫جمجعات لبقية هذا العام‬ ‫‪ 09‬ايب ا نيتمر باستخدام طريقة التعلم التبادل ف‬

‫الدراس‬

‫‪ 00‬استخدام التعلم التبادل لم يحدث اي تغيير على هارات ف القراء‬

 192

Appendix E: Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory

(MARSI) Version 1.0

 193

Appendix F: The Teacher’s Journal

Teacher’s Journal

August 28

11th grade students of the literary stream were distributed into four classes. The

average class number is 40 students and still, more students may come or leave the school along

the semester.

I teach English for those four classes who will be divided into two groups: experimental and

control.

Students were distributed to classes by a committee of teachers who checked their records

and classified them according to their results in the previous class. That’s why it is expected

that the level of achievement among these classes is similar if not equal.

I chose two classes randomly to be the experimental group; they were classes (B +D). At the

same time, I held the pretest for the two groups and left it unmarked until I conduct the

posttest by the end of teaching with Reciprocal Teaching and the two tests will be marked

together after the end of the experiment.

September 1

For me as a teacher, Teaching RT was the same as it will be for my students. It’s the first time

I teach using the reciprocal teaching strategies (RT). Therefore, I have to prepare myself very

well. I read intensively about the method and watched many videos, but when things come to be

implemented in class, it’s amazing how each class context presents itself as a unique context in

terms of numbers, students’ fluency, harmony and interaction.

I told my students that I am going to use RT to teach reading comprehension for this semester

and encouraged them that using the strategy will enable them to work cooperatively in groups

and understand texts better and will result in better achievement in English. I made it clear to
 194

students that in RT students and teachers exchange roles after students will be able to master

the four strategies of RT and be able to lead the dialogue in their groups.

I started to explain to my classes what RT is using the explicit strategy instruction. I divided

the board into four sections with four headings: Predicting, Clarifying, Questioning,

Summarizing.

September 6

I started modelling each strategy and writing my notes under each heading, reading a random

short passage aloud and thinking aloud in front of them. For a week, students watched short

videos for teachers and classes modelling the strategy followed by my own modelling through

passages from their book. For example, I chose a short text about “learning styles” in the first

unit in their book and started looking at the title, subtitles and pictures asking myself aloud

what this text is going to be about and writing my notes on the board. I wrote correct and

incorrect predictions to show them that mistaken predictions will not be that big problem

because they will exclude them when they read and clarify. Then I read the text aloud and

paused myself when I found difficult words or new expressions, I wrote them under the

heading: Clarification, and tried to guess some of them referring to their word families if it is

more familiar, or referring to their word type and when I couldn’t totally guess I opened my

dictionary, found the meaning and wrote it on board. Many times, I pretended not to know the

meaning of words. I wanted to challenge their memories to recall similar words. I referred to

them to ask if they know it and they were very happy to help me.

I read for the second time aloud ,this time with higher comprehension since all words in the

text are now familiar to me and ask myself questions about the text and write them on board , I

also asked myself about linking words and what is their role between the two paragraphs, are

they conveying an example? Addition? Contradiction? or any other purposes and wrote that down

too, under the questioning headline.

 195

When it came to the last heading: Summarising, I choose one paragraph and tried to give the

main idea of the paragraph on board.

I repeated that modelling for two weeks when they were still sitting in columns in their desks

and not in groups yet. In the second and third class, students were competing with me to model

the strategies and do what I do. Later in other classes, I used to write the four strategies on

board every period and collect ideas from students that tell me what each strategy imply.

Teaching the strategies in this explicit, declarative way was the best and the fastest to

scaffold students’ awareness of how to use them and to shape their cognition regarding using

them since understanding will be the ultimate goal for these comprehension classes. Saying the

name of the strategy and how we practice it confirm that students were involved in the process

of comprehension especially low achievers who I guess are majority in the class.

September 10

A diagnostic test in reading comprehension was conducted for the students to enable the

teacher distribute them to heterogeneous groups according to their abilities and to make sure

that each group is equivalent to the others. Results of the test were used to distribute the

students into heterogeneous groups of four students with different abilities. I prepared

coloured labels, each with a name of the four strategies, each student in a group was given a

card holding her role in the group, for example one will be a predictor, the second will be

clarifier, the third is questioner and the fourth will be summarizer. Groups themselves are given

numbers that students put in front of them to make it easier for me to call the group with its

number.

I brought RT hand-outs and worksheets to my students. The hand-out is divided into four

section ,each section clarifies a strategy of the four that each student should keep in front of

her in the class to remind her what things she need to be careful about when she performs the

task. The worksheet is also divided into four sections with four heading strategies to make it
 196

easier for students to write down their predictions, clarifications, questions and summaries

under these titles for every text they study.

September 14

I recorded the numbers of the groups and the names of each group members on cards that I

carried to the class with me for the first few classes until I be able to recognise each group

and its members. It was not easy to train students how to sit in their groups and organize

themselves quickly before the class started. I have no special English room at my school to

organise the tables and chairs in fixed group order. Therefore, I have to teach my classes in

their classrooms. Some teachers didn’t like students to keep sitting in groups in their classes

and students needed to change the way they sit before the English class begins. At the

beginning I used to go to the class and find them still moving here and there searching their

groups and moving their chairs to join in, but after may be a week and with some tips to make

things easier, things went better and students got accustomed to move quickly and match their

groups by helping each other to turn each two desks opposites to others before they move to

their groups. Within a week I went to the class to find them already sitting in their groups

quietly without that much mess. They also used badges that hold the role of each member in her

group during that class. Students began to show their enthusiasm towards working in the groups

and helping eachothers. However, they were still not accustomed to their intergroup roles. Some

enthusiastic readers were gushing their answers without consulting the others. Those needed

more time and advice to pay attention to cooperative work and attend to their mates roles.

Sep 20

Friends wanted to be grouped together but due to the research purposes, I distributed

them according to their abilities to heterogeneous groups. Some group members didn’t get on

well with the rest ,therefore I needed to exchange them with other students from other groups

who are of the same proficiency level and can work better with them. That also took some time
 197

of the class but scored better with group work later. Moreover, I was still receiving complaints

from some members who didn’t feel they want to stay in their groups. In other occasions, it was

noticed that some students especially the less competent, are still reluctant to share.

Sometimes, some high- achievers came to me complaining that their colleagues are not

completing their tasks. Again, I needed to talk to those students and convince them that they

need to be more patients and hold their less achieving partners hands for better achievement

of the whole group. It took time and patience to talk to some high achievers. I wanted them to

feel comfortable as possible. I needed them to understand that improving the group’s

performance depends highly on their cooperation with mates. These conversations helped them

understand that their groups improve when they share knowledge and skills with the team

instead of nagging. I started using my ways to comfort them by encouraging them and convincing

them that this experiment is not about competition but rather cooperation. I had to make them

understand that they need to see thing from different point of view, and enjoy the work and

help of others instead of thinking about beating or excelling them.

September 30

We wrote a big logo on a poster “either we swim together or sink together” and kept

repeating it each class to encourage each other’s that our success is about the success of the

group not our individual preponderance over the team. After a time, the majority of those

students changed their attitudes toward their groups and in mostly very positive towards the

group work. I notice they more now enjoy the work with others. The quantity of dialogue has

increased, too. There was still one student who was achieving well in her tests but insisted on

her attitude that she’s a solitary learner and can’t function well in the group. Nevertheless, she

respected the rules of the work and kept working with her group but I added another member

to the group so that the group will interact and function better. Usually the member was of

intermediate level. This was found the mean of both low and high achievers. Both can find their
 198

ways to interact with her. However, in other successful case, good achievers were vey positively

cooperating in their groups. In one of the groups, they kept trying and they have succeeded to

push their less proficient reading partner to overcome her shyness, stand up and read her

summary. She didn’t stop reading when she committed mistakes in reading”

Some students who have good English competence don’t participate as they should. I didn’t get

surprised to find students who oppose working with others simply because our traditional

teaching methods encourage competitive over cooperative spirit among learners. However, I

didn’t ignore those students, on the contrary, I had many conversations with them and I told

them privately that they are very important in their groups and without their work the group

will not improve. It seems that was the way to overcome this obstacle: some students needed to

tell them they are important in the class and the teacher depends highly on them .I kept telling

them I trust their abilities and I’m sure they will play great role to make their groups develop.

Those were magic words to many students who had passive attitudes at the beginning especially

when I started praising their groups and the effort they do together.

October 2

Students interact in their groups comfortably as friends now. Drilling the reading strategies

each reading class made them follow the routines smoothly; they don’t need much time now to

prepare themselves for the class. Moreover, they scaffold each other’s to be ready for their

roles as predictors, clarifiers, questioners and summarizers Interaction in the groups began to

take more confident form by the time students got accustomed to the strategies they practice.

Practice made students more comfortable in work and repetition of the strategies every reading

class encouraged those hesitant students to become more confident because the now share with

their answers after they have discussed them with the group and some of students specially of

those known to be low achievers kept coming to me after classes to tell me how happy they feel
 199

when they participate and how confident they became when they started writing their answers

on the board.

It really surprised me that some students confessed to me that despite they are in the 11th

grade ,they have never before wrote on the board in the English classes !

Students also expressed their gratitude and surprise of having the teacher sitting in their

groups, taking a role and participating as group member. I sat with the group as a member of

them, doing the task of the low- achiever, asking her to repeat what I did. Honestly, I

preferred to sit around the tables with the groups as much as I can to do the role of the

learner, over sitting to my table as a supervisor. I felt this way I will hit two birds with one

stone: I will have the chance to imitate the strategy when I am closer to the students as group

member and this way it will influence them highly. Taking part in the group, I found a chance to

send messages to two categories of students. Show some arrogant students it is normal and

enjoyable to work with others and help them and show those who are shy to participate and talk

it is normal to make mistakes when I “predict” or “question” because later the discussion with

the group and the comparison with the other groups answers will reveal the mistake and

everybody will discover the correct answers or predictions.

October 7

Test maps/ Graphic organizers/ Study guides

I wanted my students to develop cognitive reading skills and be aware about these skills in order

to be able to transform them consciously to other reading texts. At the beginning I wanted my

students to feel secured while they are studying for their reading comprehension tests so I

designed a test map that included different question types that might be expected in reading

tests, I hanged the paper on board so that they can review it any time they liked. I told them

that my tests will contain similar questions’ rubrics. For example, they will be answering

information questions about the text, cloze completion question, matching the meanings,
 200

summarising a paragraph, completing sentences with the opposites or word families and pack of

other questions. I supplied my test map with answers for students to revise. I thought that

would help them build a mental representation of what tests will look like. Students welcomed

this step and I often found them standing in front of the board revising the paper and the

expected types of questions. In addition, I brought in the four-door chart that visualizes the

four RT strategies. This will help each member of the group recognise and remember her role. I

made many copies, so that students use new papers at new tasks. This was used as graphic

organizers for applying the four strategies on ready designed papers. It was easier for each

student to keep a group of papers that are already divided and sub-headed with the name of the

four strategies and each reading class take a new paper out of their files and just write the

title of the lesson and the date and start working together under each of the four strategies.

The worksheet reminded students with the name of the strategy and provided some tips under

each strategy to remind them what we do when we predict/question/explain or summarize.

Leaving students with helping tools made them more organized and felt safer while working or

even studying because they can expect what questions they might face in the test and that

created another sort of dialogue among groups regarding the test content and the expected

questions.

October 11

I often sat with a group, held a worksheet and started thinking aloud in front of them,

predicted using the available illustrations and sub-headings, questioned myself about a meaning

or information and recalled my previous knowledge and summarized a paragraph using suitable

simple language. Students always showed their enthusiasm when I was doing this, they even

hurried to help me predict, answer questions or recall a background of a word or its meaning.

They were so happy help me understand!!

October 13
 201

Students now understand the meaning of working cooperatively, the group has become a family

for them; they compete with other groups to finish their tasks first and when one of their

groups is not performing well, the other members help. Students feel more equal now; there are

no biases against any of them based on their test grades. They understand they receive

appreciation and reward according to their commitment to the cooperative task and the effort

they pay. Some high achievers who didn’t show high enthusiasm towards group work became

more active in their groups now. Their feeling of responsibility toward other group members has

matured. Sometimes I saw them in the playground gathering in a group preparing for the class

and that really gave me the ultimate happiness. I was proud to see that groups’ leaders have

volunteered to prepare lists of new vocabulary and distributed them among their group to

confirm reading with understanding for their less proficient mates. It must have taken time and

effort from them, but their true feelings toward their colleagues and high motivation to work

pushed them to prepare vocabulary or correct mistaken answers for their partners which

created very positive environment in the class and showed me that students are now taking the

ownership of their own learning. When the groups were on task, every member had a role. Some

less competent members were charged in using the dictionary for finding the meanings of new

words. I notice they are happy to function as clarifies for students who are used to achieve

higher than them

October 16

Students kept working in their groups, following the reciprocal learning routines. I noticed after

this period that students are still facing a problem with the strategy of summarising and that

they do the summarising in each group mainly depending on the high achievers, so it was

necessary for me to stop little by this strategy and show them the rules of summarizing in a

simple way. I prepared a poster at home which was like a reminder of what to include and

exclude when summarising and what should I focus on or ignore. I fixed my poster on the board
 202

and started reading the lesson of the class then I returned to my poster and followed the rules.

I was doing this while I was speaking and applying aloud to the board what I am doing. Then I

chose a paragraph and asked every group to follow the poster tips and start summarizing. I did

this for a week, many students improved but many others are still facing a problem with the

strategy. However, students were cooperating to correct the inaccurate summaries of their

partners. The lack of previous knowledge, language and practice of the strategy when they were

younger was the main reason behind this I guess. It was not easy for them to put the idea using

their own language and keeping to the meaning.

October 20

Scaffolding students metacognitive process needed more time than expected, but it was ok

with me as I understand that I need to create the most supportive environment for learning and

I also understand I need to talk very seriously and patiently to the weakest student in the group

to give an example to the other members of the team, how important the dialogue is in our

process and that the guided dialogue will produce positive results with those weak students.

Student with low abilities kept coming to me in their breaks and before or after class to show

their gratitude about the care and effort I do for them, or to tell me how satisfied they are

with the method we are using, at other times some of them kept coming and telling me their

plans and strategies to organise themselves and study better. In other times, students came to

show their preparation of the lesson they did at home to function higher during the class and of

course I kept encouraging and supporting their efforts. Some students who are known to

achieve low in other school subjects told me that they started seriously studying and preparing

their English lessons, they have bought their own dictionaries to keep them with them all the

time and that they intend to pass their English tests successfully despite their weakness just to

reward my effort with them!! Students were amazing …they were able to recognise that I
 203

believe in them, and I needed them to believe in themselves. They worked hard to confirm to me

that they are making a difference.

October 26

Socially supportive environment is known to be key element of reciprocal work. Learners need to

feel appreciated and find help of others to move on. Some students suggested starting a

Facebook group with only 11th graders as members and the page was created by them. The

teacher and some students added almost all the students to the page; we started using the page

for sharing worksheets, resources, materials about our unit topics and exchanging ideas.

Students found the movies about the stories and novels we read this year and shared them so it

was easier to discuss them later after they have watched them. At each unit students or I

provided the page with different illustrations or exercises that made understanding easier and

discussed them whether on the page or later in class. Nowadays, students find social media a

life necessity, so creating the page made them more active to search the units’ topics, read

about them and share the relevant material to the page. The page is still the place where all my

students meet and discuss specially that they have units in their book about virtual learning and

about internet and technology so they found the learning and conversation through the page a

practical example of what they have in their book.

November 1

I asked my students to write their reflection on the group work they do if they like. I gave

them the freedom to express in English or Arabic, I also recommended writing the positive and

negative feelings. Some students wrote their impressions on pieces of paper and gave them to

me the same day.

Some of the writings were the following:

“It was a very nice chance to learn in a different way specially that I love to work in a group, I

feel I am spending the English class in active environment and my partners understand the text
 204

better now. However, we are still facing the challenge of timing to finish the task because this

way is time consuming”.

“I see this way of learning as a time saving because we share our knowledge with others and by

sharing the meanings and information with others the texts becomes clear faster than reading

alone, but I guess some weak students need to spend more effort like reading before the class

or preparing at home to interact better with the group”.

“I am happy to understand with others, I have never engaged in group work before”.

“RT gave me the chance to understand better and learn the new words and know their meanings

because I didn’t do this before, but some students who have good English level don’t participate

as they should”

“Now I go home more comfortable, when I read the text at home I feel happy I understand

what is written there, as I write all the meanings and main ideas at class”

“I loved the way we trained to work in the group, it has made me and my colleagues in the group

read with bigger understanding, I think we now learn better, but X in my group thinks she is

perfect in English and doesn’t want us to explain everything, she thinks we should hurry and she

thinks she’s perfect in English!!”

“We exchange the roles each class. When I predict about the text, another friend prepares the

questions, another one uses the dictionary to tell us the meanings and a fourth one summarises.

But we consult each others of course before we declare our answers”

“my group is now highly organised ,we exchange the roles each class, predict ,question ,explain

and summarise all together in the group and consult each other’s, we have our dictionary on our

table ,we make use of it every class, we are not anymore shy to think allowed, as you did.”

“When we were in groups in last years, we were used to copy the answers from the clever girl

and that’s it”

 205

Many other students preferred talking to me orally to writing their opinions or feelings. Many

notes have been taken into consideration to modify the work of the groups. In some cases we

needed to exchange group members with others, at other cases I just needed to give some

notes to some students on how to do better, in others I needed to sit again with the group

during the class and work with them to return them back to the track. I can feel the

cooperation and passion to work in its perfect situation. Students interact in their groups

comfortably as friends and family members, drilling the strategies each reading class made

them follow the routines smoothly, they don’t need much time now to prepare themselves for

the class. Most of the time now ,I go to my class to find the groups already organised, RT

worksheets are already on the desks, title on the board and the board is neat and divided into

four parts with four headings of the four strategies.

November 7

Sometimes we needed some refreshment in the class, at the same time I needed to tap previous

knowledge, critical thinking, predicting and summarising without reading the topic. I didn’t

forget my role as a facilitator in the class but I needed sometimes just to guide students to

create the theme themselves. For example, I only write the title in the middle of the board and

start asking questions tapping previous knowledge and generating relevant vocabulary. Students

as usual search their memories and give me many words, I write them around the topic in a net

or a semantic map. When I’m satisfied with the words, I point with the pointer to the words to

write them as sentences, then provide some linking words to connect the sentences and ask

them to put the paragraph in order and that in fact is the summary of their lesson. Students

write and read the paragraph they made cooperatively and when they finish, I ask them to turn

their books on and read the lesson. They get very impressed that they already understand this

and just summarised it before minutes!! At many other times I gave them only a look for a

minute at the text before closing the book and starting the same process on board. I used to
 206

recall vocabulary, create a map and write a paragraph that says everything about the lesson

they are going to read. Students were having much fun and learning with these activities and at

the same time I was making sure they are developing their vocabulary, writing skills and cross-

subject knowledge.

November 12

Despite I have made sure that teaching in groups is one way of controlling and organising large

classes, it was hard to take all the groups to present in the same period. I had eight groups in

the class; I had to find way to enable them all to participate so I distributed the activities

among them. I used to ask four predictors from groups 1-4 to come to the board and write their

predictions, then I would ask questioners from groups 5-8 to come to the board and write their

questions and collect answers, next I will return to clarifiers in groups 1-4 to write their new

words on board with their meanings or word families or opposites, and back to the groups 5-8 to

read their summaries to the class if we didn’t have much time to write them. It was much

pressure on me not on students to control the activity and the available time to work. But, at

the same time it was very interesting and fun to see students from the different groups

competing friendly to present and excel other groups in their answers and get the teacher’s

compliment and rewards. Their cooperation is transforming the class into bees’ cells. They are

all busy. That showed me that students are now taking the ownership of their own learning. Each

group was investing well in the available time to prove their group is the best!

November 19

I wanted to adapt my students to regular reading norms. I wanted them to understand but not

in an automatic way. I had bought a number of English novels for the school library last year and

I asked the principal to buy more this year so the novels available would be enough for every

student to borrow one. I bought the series of stories from levels 2- 6 so I can give every

student the suitable level to read. I designed a reading log for my students and distributed the
 207

novels, gave a deadline to give the reading logs done. Students expressed their thanks as it was

the first time the school was reading English and students of all fluency levels felt they possess

the same tools. “When I collected the logs for evaluation, I noticed the amount of effort done

(especially by the low achievers) to complete and return them in time. This experience increased

my trust in my students and their abilities. Some low-academic achievers reported to me that

they were reading for long time at home to complete their logs. They were using the dictionaries

to continue reading. I guess they wanted to show me they are not stupid and can function well to

fill in their logs”.. Some low achievers reported to me that they were reading for long time at

home to complete their logs, using the dictionaries and making connections to show me they are

not stupid ,but they don’t care about school text books because they are bored of them and of

the way they study!!

November 24

Students’ interaction in the groups became higher, I guess, and they feel better about each

other’s concerns as for many times they come to talk to me as a group about their roles in the

group and how they now organise themselves to achieve best understanding of the themes they

are studying. Cooperation was growing also. Good readers feel more now about the concerns and

challenges “weak readers” face. They became aware of the importance of their roles as

facilitators to their colleagues. In teaching a unit about “the different genres of fiction”

students agreed to focus on “folk tales”, its characteristics, origins and themes. After studying

them, it was agreed that every group should compose its own folk tale with full elements, theme

and a lesson to teach. I gave my students a graphic organizer on the folk’s elements which they

used to analyse a folk in their books into its elements including: title, characters, problem,

solution, ending and the lesson we learn. In the next class, each group was asked to think about

their own folktale. Every group was given a story map to establish their own folk tale; they

consulted me often about the logic in their stories, and then ran back to their groups to
 208

continue I couldn’t believe the how great the class climate was. They were working very actively

and cooperatively to compose their own folk tales. Students used the same story map to

establish their own stories; they consulted me often about the logic in the story then ran back

to their groups to continue. Groups were competing in a fantastic way to give their best; they

gave me more than what I asked them to do. They had made their folk tales clear by attaching

pictures and illustrations of their drawings. The collective effort of the group has produced

very well written tales which decorated the walls of the class.

November 30

Group work with RT is more mature now and the relationship within the one group is very stable.

Students feel equal in the treatment and effort they pay. RT rise from the social

constructivism where the process of learning develops with the scaffolding of the skill through

the teacher and other students. That shows that the trust, respect and cooperation are key

elements for the process to mature. At the beginning of teaching it was impossible to drive

many students to talk. With dialogue (as a primary feature of RT), I could slowly create a

simple, easy –to understand language, through which many students acknowledged they

understand what the dialogue mean. Through dialogue and question generating from the very

simple to the more complicated, I can say now that many silent or hesitant students raise their

hands with more confidence to answer and share. Group members were supporting each other’s

learning. when I asked groups to send one predictor to the board to write the group’s

predictions, I was surprised to find that most groups have delegated one of the low achievers to

do the task They now come to the board without fear to write with mistakes, after I was able

to convince them that the process is about understanding rather than writing perfectly without

mistakes. Sharing roles, dividing work into four strategies in which every student has a role

helped less competent reader define what they will do and reduced the burden of doing the

whole task alone. Unfortunately, I still have students who are unfortunate to pass the tests yet,
 209

but I can tell they have the confidence to participate and interact within groups in a very

positive way and by the way those less fortunate students are the ones who spread fun and

smile in the class.

December 3

Reciprocal “manners” have grown among the students in my classes. They are sharing knowledge,

strategies of learning, helping each other’s to give meaning to the text and at the same time

becoming closer to each other’s. Reciprocal relationship in English class has extended to the

social context of the whole class. Students from different social backgrounds feel more

comfortable in their relationship outside the class. “Well established” readers feel more now

about the worries and challenges “weak readers” encounter and became more familiar of the

“teacher’s role” as a facilitator to their colleagues. Feeling of responsibility and learning

ownership have expanded and good feelings towards the group have replaced the competitive

feeling they used to have at the beginning. Students needed to feel closer, so they suggested

making same T-shirts for all of them. They worked actively and happily to search the net for

ideas, colours and designs to make special thing, collected money and donated for those who

can’t pay. In two weeks, the whole classes of 11th grade were wearing the same blouse even

me and that really gave us a positive feeling of being family and real friends.

December 8

As the process of learning moves on, I notice that the degree of understanding and the amount

of interaction in the groups varies according to the themes students learn. When the themes

are more culturally related to them, they become more active and keen to participate and share

their own opinions and reflections to it. Topics like “Going places”, “Political Systems”, “A good

read” or “The food on your table” were more appealing to students to discuss and generate

dialogues about, I guess, because these themes are connected to their culture, personal

interest or daily life. That supported my point of view about the role of culture in reinforcing
 210

language learning .When themes were close to students interests and values, they were more

active in turns taking and responding to the theme. May be “clarification” and “predicting

strategies” consumed less effort as they could quickly refer to their previous knowledge to

build understanding. On the other hand, understanding as well as interaction was lower when the

texts were not culturally related or the text itself was of a complicated nature or language.

December 15

Interaction in the groups varied also according to the social contexts and the harmony

among the students of the one group. Harmony and friendship between the one group members

were noticed to be an effective factor to scaffold low achievers skills, they were imitating their

competent partners who have mastered the strategy, without feeling embarrassed and they ask

for help with higher attendance. Feeling like in a family or sense of “community” of learning

created a strong ground for many hesitant students to stand on. They were watching teacher

and partners, imitating the strategy and trying themselves. In my plan to encourage learning

norms, I encouraged my slow readers to monitor their reading and make use of the community

work they interact with. Having a variety of roles of people who predict, ask, clarify and

summarise was a non- preceded chance for those students to make use of through dialogue,

observing, and imitating. Thinking with others made the difference.

December 18

Teaching with RT in such large classes, on the other side, was very exhausting and consuming to

me as teacher for many reasons. On the one hand, focusing on the poor readers required great

effort to keep up with them as a majority in the class. The necessity to move from one group to

another to model and foster their learning couldn’t give me time to breath in the class time. On

the other hand, the challenge of the large class with only one teacher of multifunction was a big

burden. I found myself required to be a teacher, director, facilitator and organizer at the same

time, which fact exhausted me but the high spirit my students spread encouraged to me to
 211

continue. I think if classes were more focused less in numbers or had a co-teacher, things would

move on easier and RT would be more effective.

I can’t say that large classes were totally bad idea, it was demanding but at the same time,

having a variety of students with different abilities was one of the factors that helped the

process of learning continue. Having large number of students among them were skilled ones,

average students and weak readers created the chance to work in heterogeneous groups where

students can reshape eachothers skills and improve together as a small community supporting its

members.

December 26

Decoding the meaning from a text and put it in their own words, was still a challenge to many

students after this period of teaching with RT. Poor strategy teaching when they were younger

and getting used to drilling traditional ways of reading wasn’t easy to demolish in one semester

and replace with strategic thinking about the text. Average students made the clear difference

in class by using RT. Those are the ones who have appetite to learn but didn’t match with the

traditional teaching styles they used to be taught with. Those students showed fast improve in

adapting the strategies of RT and representing them in their groups. The fast improve in the

average students reading is not only ascribed to their willingness to perform better, but also to

the social climate of RT, where these students were brought into light as leaders of the groups

and responsible about couching their weaker colleagues. RT gave them the chance to be more

confident and equal to the high achievers in the roles they perform in the group. Large group of

these students have touched the change that happened to their status in the class, specially

with the improvement of their tests results. The feeling of accountability of these students

encouraged them to start their project with me. The aim was to promote RT as a comprehensive

schooling method. I suggested the idea of starting a learning support room; my students were

very enthusiastic about the idea. We got a permission to start our project and those students
 212

started making use of every unit topic in their books to perform a new poster, illustrated

materials, summaries, dimensional shapes and many other ideas. Some of these students

considered the project their own, they are performing the ideas and my role is limited to some

revisions of their work or giving advice. As usual, I always get surprised of the abilities students

have and I weren’t given the chance to notice before. They draw and make illustrations and maps

of the reading. That was the best evidence that these students read with meaning and analysed

what they have read in order to model it or represent it in a different way.

 213

Appendix G: Reciprocal Teaching Handout

 214

Appendix H: Reciprocal Teaching Worksheet

 215

Appendix I: Reading Log used by 11th Grade for Extra Reading

AlBireh Secondary Girls School 11th Grade A\B\C\D

Reading novels sharpens your reading comprehension skills and enriches your vocabulary.
To apply the different comprehension strategies, assignments related to reading will be given
throughout the year.
Novel Assignment 1 {due date December 15th, 2015}
1. Title of the novel .---------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Name of the author \illustrator.--------------------------------------------------------------
3. Main characters of the novel:--------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Use your dictionary to find the meaning of ten new words, use five of them in full
sentences.
Word Meaning Sentence
1 ------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Write two questions about the story and answer them in complete sentences:
Q1:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------?
A:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q2:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Main idea of the story --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 216

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. After reading the story ,use the table format to find the following:
Verbs in Verbs Singular Plural Compound Words Feelings you
the in the nouns(5) nouns(5) words(3) with lived during
present past prefixes reading(3)
form(5) form \suffixes
(5)
 217

Appendix J: Cooperative Groups Logo

Journal of Research in Reading, ISSN 0141-0423 DOI:10.1111/1467-9817.12082
Volume 00, Issue 00, 2016, pp 1–22

Effects of reciprocal teaching on reading

comprehension of low-achieving
adolescents. The importance of specific
teacher skills

Mariska Okkinga
University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

Roel van Steensel

Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Amos J. S. van Gelderen

Kohnstamm Institute of University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
and Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Peter J. C. Sleegers
University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

Low-achieving adolescents are known to have difficulties with reading comprehension.

This article discusses how reciprocal teaching can improve low-achieving adolescents’
reading comprehension in whole-classroom settings (as opposed to small-group settings)
and to what extent intervention effects are dependent on teacher behaviour. Over the
course of 1 year, experimental teachers (n = 10) were given extensive training and
coaching aimed at using principles of reciprocal teaching, while control teachers
(n = 10) used their regular teaching method. Observations of teacher behaviour were fo-
cused on instruction of reading strategies, modelling and support of group work and were
performed in both experimental and control classes, comprising a total of 369 students
(mean age = 13.01). Our study shows that reciprocal teaching contributed to adolescent
low achievers’ reading comprehension only when experimental teachers provided high-
quality strategy instruction. In addition, results suggest that the quality of implementation
of reciprocal teaching in whole-classroom settings should receive more research attention.

Highlights

What is already known about this topic

• Reciprocal teaching is a method of instructing and guiding learners in reading

comprehension.

Copyright © 2016 UKLA. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ,
UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
 OKKINGA, STEENSEL, GELDEREN and SLEEGERS

• It consists of a set of three related instructional principles: (a) teaching

comprehension-fostering reading strategies; (b) expert modelling, scaffolding
and fading; and (c) students practising and discussing reading strategies with
other students, guided and coached by the teacher.
• High quality of implementation of reciprocal teaching by teachers in class-
rooms is difficult.

What this paper adds

• After 1 year of implementing reciprocal teaching, no main effects of the treat-

ment were established.
• Intervention effects were moderated by quality of instruction: strategy instruc-
tion led to higher scores on reading comprehension in the treatment condition
but not in the control condition.
• Implementation of the instructional principles was by no means optimal:
teachers were unable to provide detailed guidance to students working in small
groups and modelling of strategies requires more experience and theoretical
insight in the use and nature of reading strategies.

Implications for practice and/or policy

• Extensive training and coaching are needed for teachers to become experts in
reciprocal teaching.
• Teachers need hands-on tools to be able to guide students in their collaborative
group work and to fade the teachers’ role in order to allow more individual
self-regulation by students in their use of strategies.
• Implementation quality has to be taken into account when doing effectiveness
research and when adopting new, theory-based didactic approaches.

Many adolescent students, in particular low-achieving ones, struggle with reading com-
prehension (e.g. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD],
2004; OECD, 2014). From several studies directed at adolescents, it is known that – in
contrast to younger students – their reading comprehension is not so much dependent on
efficient decoding of words but much more by their vocabulary knowledge and their stra-
tegic skills in adapting their approach of the text to their reading goals (Trapman et al.; in
press; Van Gelderen et al., 2004, 2007; Van Steensel, Oostdam, Van Gelderen, & Van
Schooten, 2014). Therefore, reading comprehension instruction is regarded as an important
part of the school curriculum. Because reading comprehension is a fundamental skill in
many school subjects, difficulties can have serious implications for students’ educational
success and, consequently, for their later societal careers. Evidence-based reading compre-
hension programmes that target low-achieving adolescents are thus of vital importance. In
this study, we analyse the effects of an intervention aimed at the improvement of reading
comprehension based on principles of reciprocal teaching as introduced by Palincsar and
Brown (1984). We examined its implementation in the everyday practice of Dutch lan-
guage teachers, teaching Dutch low-achieving adolescents (mean age = 13.01), and we
analysed the association between instructional variation and intervention effects.

Copyright © 2016 UKLA

RECIPROCAL TEACHING AND TEACHER SKILLS

Reciprocal teaching

Reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984) is a widely used method of instructing and
guiding learners in reading comprehension. It consists of a set of three related instructional
principles: (a) teaching comprehension-fostering reading strategies, including predicting,
question-generating, summarising and clarifying; (b) expert modelling, scaffolding and
fading; and (c) students practising and discussing reading strategies with other students,
guided and coached by the teacher. Reciprocal teaching assumes a gradual shift of respon-
sibility for the learning process from teacher to student, which includes the teacher expli-
citly modelling the use of reading strategies (Rosenhine & Meister, 1994) as well as
scaffolding the application of reading strategies within the groups of students working to-
gether. It is assumed that by gradually fading teacher’s support, students become increas-
ingly more capable of regulating their own reading process. In this study, we consider
reciprocal teaching as a method consisting of a set of several instructional principles,
including direct instruction of reading strategies, teacher and student modelling and
group work.

Effectiveness of reciprocal teaching

Many studies have confirmed the positive effects of reciprocal teaching (Rosenshine &
Meister, 1994; Kelly, Moore, & Tuck, 2001; Spörer, Brunstein, & Kieschke, 2009). In a
review by Rosenshine and Meister (1994), 16 studies were analysed. The authors found
an overall positive effect on reading comprehension, with a median Cohen’s effect size
value (d = .32) for standardised tests and a large effect size value (d = .88) for
researcher-developed tests. They also examined the effects of several moderator vari-
ables, of which two are particularly relevant for the current study: group size and type
of interventionist (teacher or researcher). Regarding the former, they found contradictory
results for studies where reciprocal teaching was applied in large groups (>18), with
two studies showing positive significant results, one study with mixed results and one
with nonsignificant results. Regarding the latter, they also found ambiguous results
for teacher-led interventions, with two studies with positive significant results, three
studies with mixed results and two studies with nonsignificant results. Thus, whether
larger group size or teacher-led reciprocal teaching matter in finding positive results is
undecided.
In a more recent synthesis concerning reading interventions targeted at struggling
readers between Grades 6 and 9 (Edmonds et al., 2009), seven studies focusing on reading
comprehension were included. Most of these studies included some kind of instruction in
reading strategies, with two of them using reciprocal teaching. The overall Cohen’s effect
size (d =1.23) on reading comprehension was very large. However, effects of possible
moderators such as those reported by Rosenshine and Meister (1994) were not reported
in this synthesis, which makes it difficult to draw definite conclusions about the question
of whether reciprocal teaching is effective in whole-classroom settings with students’
own teachers.
Reciprocal teaching was originally designed by Palincsar and Brown (1984) for small-
group tutoring under the guidance of experts, in which small groups of students were taken
out of the classroom (Palincsar, Brown, & Martin, 1987). In a whole-class setting, where
15–30 students are present, such extensive guidance as is provided in a small group might

Copyright © 2016 UKLA

 OKKINGA, STEENSEL, GELDEREN and SLEEGERS

be quite difficult, if at all possible, as the teacher needs to pay attention to multiple groups
of students within the classroom. Furthermore, small-group settings are often used in con-
trolled experiments where the intervention is executed by the researchers instead of the stu-
dents’ own teachers. In comparison with researchers, who have extensive background
knowledge about the theoretical basis of reciprocal teaching, the quality of implementation
might be different for teachers because they do not have the same background knowledge.
Studies in which teachers were followed during the implementation of reciprocal teach-
ing or similar interventions suggest that the quality of implementation is indeed a serious
problem (Duffy, 1993; Hacker & Tenent, 2002; Seymoor & Osana, 2003). Duffy (1993)
described the process of teachers becoming experts in reading strategies. Teachers were
followed during the implementation of a reading comprehension programme, focusing
on instructing reading strategies. During the study, the teachers were interviewed several
times. A major conclusion from this study is that teachers realised that being able to model
the use of strategies and explicitly relating strategy use to text is not enough to induce stra-
tegic thinking in students that is useful for integrating process and content (Duffy, 1993).
Seymour and Seymoor and Osana (2003) found that teachers faced similar problems
when they were trained in reciprocal teaching. In their study, two teachers were trained
and observed during the implementation of reciprocal teaching. Interviews with the
teachers revealed that their knowledge about reading strategies increased substantially dur-
ing training, but their understanding of didactic principles was not developed optimally.
Particularly, the teachers still did not fully understand what scaffolding entails at the end
of the training.
These findings are corroborated by Hacker and Tenent (2002), who studied the applica-
tion of reciprocal teaching in regular classrooms (Hacker & Tenent, 2002). They examined
the way 17 teachers implemented reciprocal teaching and adapted the method to their
own teaching practice over the course of 3 years. The researchers showed that teachers
found it difficult to maintain the original format. First, they found that ‘student dia-
logues were hampered because of the students’ poor group discourse skills’ as well
as the poor application of reading strategies by the students, resulting in the observation
‘that there really was little for them to discuss’ (Hacker & Tenent, 2002, p. 703). To
deal with those problems, the teachers extended whole-class instruction of reading stra-
tegies to at least 2 months, and they provided more scaffolding of strategy use in differ-
ent kinds of contexts while at the same time providing scaffolding of the collaborative
process. In other words, the teachers experienced difficulties in changing from a
teacher-centred to a student-centred approach, which hampered the implementation of
collaborative group work in discussing and practising reading strategies. Second,
Hacker and Tenent (2002) found that the students had difficulties with using all four
reading strategies (predicting, questioning, summarising and clarifying). Not all strate-
gies were used, and the strategies that were used (summarising and questioning) were
‘often being used inadequately’ (p. 702). Students tended to ask superficial questions
instead of making elaborations and reflections, and their strategy use could best be de-
scribed as ‘mechanical’ (p. 704).
The aforementioned studies into teachers’ implementation of reciprocal teaching give
possible explanations of why previous experimental studies did not always support the suc-
cess of reciprocal teaching in fostering reading comprehension. Whole-classroom applica-
tion requires not only expert knowledge about the use of reading strategies on the part of
the teachers but also skills for regulating students’ collaborative process in different groups
simultaneously.

Copyright © 2016 UKLA

RECIPROCAL TEACHING AND TEACHER SKILLS

The present study

Our study aims to contribute to existing knowledge in two ways. First, we examined
whether the principles of reciprocal teaching – originally developed for small-group
tutoring (Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Palincsar, Brown, & Martin, 1987) – can be success-
fully used in whole-classroom settings in pre-vocational education to improve reading
comprehension, in which the students’ teachers are delivering the lessons (Woolley,
2011). Second, we analysed whether intervention effects were moderated by the extent
to which teachers were able to apply these principles. Issues of treatment fidelity have re-
ceived little attention in reading intervention research (Edmonds et al., 2009; National
Reading Panel, 2000; Rosenhine & Meister, 1994). Therefore, this study aims to add to
the research base by analysing moderation effects of specific treatment variables included
in the principles of reciprocal teaching. This allows insight into the conditions under which
the treatment will be effective in improving reading comprehension of low-achieving ado-
lescents in whole-classroom settings.
In this study, we will answer the following research questions:

1 Is reciprocal teaching provided by students’ own teachers in whole-classroom settings

effective in fostering reading comprehension of adolescent low achievers?
2 Does the quality of implementation of the three main principles of reciprocal teaching
(strategy instruction, modelling and group work) moderate effects on reading
comprehension?

Method

Sample selection and description

Our study focused on adolescent low achievers. Our operationalisation of low achievement
was based on educational track. The Netherlands has a tracked system of secondary edu-
cation. After primary education, students are placed in one of three tracks – pre-vocational
secondary education, senior general secondary education and pre-university education – on
the basis of their scores on a general attainment test (Ministry of Education, Culture, &
Science, 2006). Because students in pre-vocational education are generally characterised
by poor reading skills (Dutch Education Inspectorate, 2008; Gille, Loijens, Noijons, &
Zwitser, 2010), we selected our sample from schools offering this type of education.
We recruited schools in two ways. First, we contacted schools that had participated in a
previous study on low-achieving readers. Second, we contacted schools via a digital com-
munity of Dutch language teachers. Schools had to meet the following five criteria:

• Willingness to participate in a treatment study.

• They had (at least) two seventh grade classes.
• Each class had its own Dutch language teacher.
• The teachers were prepared to take part in the randomisation procedure, imply-
ing that (a) if their class was assigned to the treatment condition, they were
prepared to take part in our training and coaching programme and to weekly
give our experimental lessons; and (b) if their class was assigned to the control
condition, they were prepared to not use our programme nor discuss its con-
tents with the colleague in the treatment condition.

Copyright © 2016 UKLA

 OKKINGA, STEENSEL, GELDEREN and SLEEGERS

• Control teachers were requested to use their regular language programme dur-
ing the language classes.

Ten different schools in different parts of the Netherlands were willing to participate.
Within each school, two Dutch language teachers volunteered. Randomisation was carried
out at the class level within each school, resulting in a total of ten experimental and ten
control classes, each with their teacher, divided over the ten schools. At the start of the
study, these classes comprised 369 students, of which 189 were in the treatment condition
(51%) and 180 in the control condition (49%). The students’ mean age was 13.01 years
(SD = 0.52) at the start of the project. There was no statistically significant difference be-
tween the two conditions on this variable, t(366) = 1.27, p = .20. There were relatively
more girls in the sample (n = 200; 54%) than boys (n = 169; 46%), with relatively more
girls than boys (59 vs 41%) in the treatment condition. The distribution in the control con-
dition, however, was more equal (49 vs 51%). The difference in distribution between the
two conditions was statistically significant (χ 2 (1) = 3.99, p = .046).
More female than male teachers participated in the study (N = 15 vs N = 5), with two
male teachers in the treatment group and three male teachers in the control group. The
mean age of the teachers was 46.40 years (SD = 11.12). On average, they had 13.50
(SD = 13.73, min = 1, max = 38) years of teaching experience in secondary education. No
differences were found between the conditions on either variable, t(14) = .45, p = .66
and t(14) = .053, p = .96, respectively.

Design
We followed a pre-test–post-test randomised controlled trial (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell,
2002). The design included one independent variable (treatment vs control) and one depen-
dent variable (reading comprehension at post-test). We included four control variables:
gender, reading comprehension at pre-test, vocabulary knowledge at pre-test and IQ at
pre-test.
Gender was included, because generally, girls are shown to have substantially greater
reading skill than boys (e.g. Logan & Johnston, 2009). Vocabulary knowledge and IQ were
included, as theoretical models suggest that reading comprehension draws heavily on both
abilities (e.g. Just & Carpenter, 1976, 2004; LaBerge & Samuels, 1974; Rumelhart, 2004;
Samuels, 2004), an assumption that is confirmed by much empirical evidence (e.g. Ouelette
& Beers, 2010; Van Gelderen et al., 2004, 2007; Verhoeven & Leeuwe, 2008). We did not
include word recognition as a control in our analyses because for adolescents in the age
group of our study (age 13–16), efficient word recognition is not related to their reading
comprehension according to several studies (Trapman et al., in press; Van Gelderen et al.,
2004, 2007; Van Steensel, Oostdam, Van Gelderen, & Van Schooten, 2014).
Finally, we included three moderator variables, covering the three didactic principles be-
hind our treatment: direct instruction of reading strategies, teacher and student modelling
and group work.

Treatment
Our intervention consisted of the training of teachers in the use of the three related instruc-
tional strategies of reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984), that is:

Copyright © 2016 UKLA

RECIPROCAL TEACHING AND TEACHER SKILLS

1 Direct instruction of research-based reading strategies (see further). For each strategy, it
was emphasised what the strategy entailed, how to use the strategy, when to use the
strategy and why to use the strategy (Veenman, Van Hout-Wolters, & Afflerbach,
2006). Thus, teachers were required to give whole-class instruction about the different
reading strategies, focusing on procedural knowledge.
2 Teacher and student modelling. Teachers were trained to model the use of reading strat-
egies during plenary instruction by thinking aloud when reading text. They encouraged
students to take over this role, both plenary and in small group sessions.
3 Group work. The primary objective of encouraging students to work in groups was
to have them collaboratively apply reading strategies while thinking aloud during
text reading. Teachers were given instructions on how to give feedback to the groups
of students working together. For example, if a teacher noticed that the students were
struggling with the application of a reading strategy, the teacher was instructed to
model this strategy again and encourage and aid the students in doing this
themselves.

Students received weekly lessons over a period of 7 months within one school year.
During the school year, the experimental teachers were trained and coached.
With respect to strategy instruction, the intervention focused on five strategies that were
shown to be related to reading comprehension in previous research (Dole, Duffy, Roehler,
& Pearson, 1991; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; Van Silfhout,
Evers-Vermeul, Mak & Sanders, 2014):
1. Predicting. On the basis of text features such as title, subheadings and pictures, stu-
dents are instructed to make predictions about text content before reading and to check
their predictions while reading.
2. Summarising. Students are instructed to summarise sections of text, encouraging them
to focus on main ideas and ignore irrelevant details as well as to check their understand-
ing of the text so far.
3. Self-questioning. Students are instructed to generate questions about the text being
read, helping them to focus on main ideas as well as to monitor understanding.
4. Clarifying. When confronted with a word or passage they do not understand, students
are instructed to reread, read ahead or, in the case of an unknown word, analyse it, and
see whether its meaning can be inferred by looking at parts of the word.
5. Interpreting cohesive ties. Students are instructed to look for relationships between
sentences or paragraphs that are connected, for example, by using ‘signal words’
(different types of connectives).

The treatment was offered in the context of an existing program called

‘Nieuwsbegrip’®, developed by the CED Group in Rotterdam (‘Comprehension of news’,
CED Group, 2011). Lessons were developed weekly by a team of developers at the CED
Group. They were based on recent news texts (i.e. texts that had been issued the week be-
fore) about subjects close to students’ everyday life (e.g. sugar in energy drinks, abdication
of the Dutch queen or 20 years of text messaging). The use of topical, interesting texts
aimed to increase students’ task motivation (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Schiefele, 1999).
Each lesson contained a news text with a work sheet. The lessons could be downloaded
by teachers from the program website (www.nieuwsbegrip.nl) every week, starting
Monday evening.

Copyright © 2016 UKLA

 OKKINGA, STEENSEL, GELDEREN and SLEEGERS

Lessons were provided in sequences of 6 weeks. Each sequence consisted of six weekly
lessons (approximately 45 minutes per lesson). In each of the first five lessons, the focus
was on one reading strategy that was practised in a central strategy assignment that was
provided on a worksheet. In addition, students could work on other assignments (i.e. an-
swering questions about the text) on the worksheet. In the final lesson of each sequence,
all strategies were practised simultaneously. The idea behind this was that students have
to be able to apply all strategies together during the reading process, selecting the right
strategy at the right moment.
Each of the five strategies was trained several times during the year. This cyclical ap-
proach was assumed to result in the consolidation of strategy knowledge. Table 1 provides
for each reading strategy an example of an assignment in which the focus is on the appli-
cation of the reading strategy. Examples were generated from several worksheets that were
used during the treatment.

Training and coaching of treatment teachers

Treatment teachers took part in an extensive training and coaching programme that was
conducted by teacher trainers from the Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, who
had, in turn, been trained by the first three authors. In the first phase (October 2011–
January 2012), teachers participated in three 1-hour training sessions. In Session 1, they re-
ceived general, practical information about the programme (e.g. how to use the program
website), theoretical information about the reading process and its components and basic
information about the three didactic principles behind the treatment (direct instruction of
reading strategies, teacher and student modelling and group work). In Session 2, in-depth
information was provided about the nature, function, importance and application of the five
central reading strategies and on the way teachers could model the use of these strategies.
Examples of modelling were provided by means of video clips and lesson protocols. In
Session 3, the focus was on group work and how, by means of scaffolded instruction,

Table 1. Examples of strategy assignments, translated from several assignment sheets from the program
‘Nieuwsbegrip’.

Strategy Example
Predicting This text has five subheadings. Write down for each subheading a) which thoughts it
evokes and b) what you already know about the subject addressed in the subheading.
Summarizing Read the text. Read paragraph by paragraph and underline in each paragraph the most
important information. For each paragraph, write one or two sentences summarizing
it. Use the words you underlined.
Self-questioning Read the text. Note at least five questions that spring to mind while reading.
Clarifying Search the text for difficult words. Try to uncover their meaning using these hints: a)
reread the previous piece of text or read on, b) look at the illustrations in the text, c)
look at the word: you might know part of the word, d) sometimes you have to use
your own knowledge to figure out word meanings, or e) use a dictionary.
Interpreting Read the text. Underline the signal words. Answer the questions, while noting the
cohesive ties signal words:
Which contrast is explained in lines 16–17? [signal word = however]
Why are energy boosters unfit as sports drinks? [signal word = hence]

Copyright © 2016 UKLA

RECIPROCAL TEACHING AND TEACHER SKILLS

the use of reading strategies is transferred to the students. Attention was given to how the
teacher can give feedback to groups of students and how his or her expert role is gradually
faded. Two training sessions for the teachers occurred after the intervention had started, to
give the teachers room to discuss their findings so far and to relate the content of the train-
ing sessions to their own practice.
Teachers were given a template for the lessons that would help them keep focused on the
reading strategies (Table 2). The template was designed by the developers of the CED
Group.
In the second phase (February 2012–June 2012), teachers participated in three coaching
sessions. A coaching session involved a classroom observation conducted by the trainer
during an intervention lesson, followed by a feedback meeting of approximately 20 mi-
nutes on the same day. During the classroom observations, trainers used an observation
scheme comparable with the one used by the researchers (see section on Classroom vari-
ables and treatment fidelity), directing the trainers’ attention and, consequently, their feed-
back to the central principles of the intervention (direct instruction of reading strategies,
teacher and student modelling and group work).

Control classes
Control classes were ‘business as usual’. Teachers in the control classes used the regu-
lar textbook for Dutch language that was used in their school. Among our schools,
three different language textbooks were used. The textbooks and their teacher manuals
were analysed according to the three principles of instructional strategies in the treat-
ment condition: instruction of reading strategies, modelling and group work. Attention
was given to reading strategies in all three textbooks. However, not all strategies that
were covered in the treatment condition were also covered in the control textbooks.
Reading strategies that were often referred to were predicting, clarifying and attention

Table 2. Template for the lessons that the treatment teachers used.

Introduction ▪ Write the subject of the text and the central strategy of the lesson on the blackboard.
▪ Introduce the subject and the central strategy with a whole-class approach and activate prior
knowledge.
▪ Write down questions students have about the text during orientation.
▪ Read the first paragraph together and model the central strategy.
▪ Invite a student to read the next paragraph while thinking aloud and applying the central
strategy. Give support when necessary, that is, ask questions that stimulate the use of the
reading strategy.
Processing ▪ Instruct the students to work together in groups of two or three. Let them work on the
remainder of the work sheet.
▪ Walk around to give the groups of students feedback. Focus on the central strategy and
motivate the students to apply the strategy while thinking aloud. If necessary, model the
strategy again.
Reflection ▪ Reflect with the students on the reading process as well as the content.
▪ Together with the students, answer the questions they had before reading the text. Did
reading the text answer those questions?
Note: The template gives an overview of the activities the teacher should initiate to keep focused on the central
strategy during the lesson. The template was designed by the developers of the ‘CED Group’.

Copyright © 2016 UKLA

 OKKINGA, STEENSEL, GELDEREN and SLEEGERS

to cohesive ties. Self-questioning did not occur, and little attention was given to
summarising.
No attention was given to modelling by teachers or students in the teacher manuals of
the control classes. Almost all of the assignments were individual, and there were only a
few instances where students were instructed to work together on an assignment.

Measures

Reading comprehension. Reading comprehension was measured by means of the SALT-

reading, a test that was validated for use among low-achieving adolescents (Van
Steensel, Oostdam, & Van Gelderen, 2013). The SALT-reading comprises eight tasks,
each consisting of one or two texts and comprehension questions about those texts.
The texts cover different genres (narrative, expository, argumentative and instructive).
They were selected from media students assumedly come across regularly in their daily
lives: (school) books, newspapers, magazines and official documents (such as regula-
tions in a youth hostel). The eight tasks comprised a total of 59 test items, which were
divided into three categories: items requiring students to retrieve relevant details from
the text, items requiring students to make inferences on a local level (e.g. draw
cause–effect relationships between sentences) and items requiring students to show their
understanding of the macrostructure of the text (e.g. by inferring the main idea of the
text or the intention of the author). The test consisted mainly of multiple choice ques-
tions but contained also five open-ended questions. Open-ended questions were coded
by the researchers. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the pre-test and post-test were
.82 and .83, respectively.

Vocabulary knowledge. Vocabulary knowledge was assessed with a 73-item multiple-

choice test, based on the receptive vocabulary test developed by Van Gelderen et al.
(2003, 2007). It measures the knowledge of nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs belong-
ing to the 23,000 words in a dictionary for junior high school students (see Hazenberg &
Hulstijn, 1996 for details). Each item consists of a neutral carrier sentence with a bold-
faced target word and four answer options, one of which represents a correct synonym.
The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the pre-test was .86.

IQ. Intellectual ability was measured by administering the Raven Progressive Matrices, a
nonverbal IQ test. The total test consists of 60 items, divided into five sets of 12 items.
Each item represents a logical reasoning puzzle. The items become more difficult within
a set, and the sets become increasingly difficult as well (Raven, Raven & Court, 1998).
For students from the lowest tracks of pre-vocational education, the last set was assumed
to be too difficult, and for this reason, this set was omitted. The Cronbach’s alpha coeffi-
cient was .82.

Classroom variables and treatment fidelity. To examine the moderator variables, we con-
ducted classroom observations twice during the year. We devised an observation scheme
for use both in the experimental and control conditions. Our aim was to examine (a)
whether the treatment teachers gave the lessons in the way we instructed them during
the training and coaching programme and (b) whether the control teachers applied treat-
ment principles, even though they were not trained by us. The scheme focused on three

Copyright © 2016 UKLA

RECIPROCAL TEACHING AND TEACHER SKILLS

variables that were essential to the treatment: direct instruction of reading strategies,
teacher and student modelling and group work (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). We constructed
these variables in the following manner, resulting in three 4-point scales (0–3) to be used
for further analysis:

1. Direct instruction of reading strategies. We distinguished four categories of behaviour:

a. Teachers provided no information on reading strategies (0 points).

b. Teachers introduced the central strategy of the lesson (in the treatment condition) or
any strategy (in the control condition) but provided no further explanation (1 point).
c. Teachers introduced a strategy and explained about its nature, function, importance
and/or application (2 points).
d. Teachers introduced a strategy, explained about its nature, function, importance
and/or application and interacted with the class about the strategy (3 points).
2. Teacher and student modelling. Here also, we distinguished four categories of
behaviour:

a. Teachers did not use any modelling of strategy use (0 points).

b. Teachers modelled strategy use (1 point).
c. Teachers modelled strategy use and asked students to think aloud while using read-
ing strategies, either individually (i.e. in front of the class) or in groups (2 points).
d. Teachers modelled strategy use, asked students to think aloud and provided them
with feedback (3 points).
3. Group work, with four categories of behaviour:

a. Teachers did not have students work in groups (0 points).

b. Teachers had students work in groups but did not provide real feedback (1 point).
c. Teachers had students work in groups and provided feedback but not on collabora-
tion; that is, teachers focused mainly on whether students had understood the as-
signment correctly, on whether their answers were correct or on the meaning of
unknown words (2 points).
d. Teachers had students work in groups and provided feedback on collaboration (3
points).

The scales were constructed in such a way that a 3-point score would be the optimal
score for the purpose of the treatment. It should be noted that the scores within a scale were
conditional: one could only score a 2 if both b and c were observed. This conditional ap-
proach proved to be appropriate in the classroom observations (i.e. we did not encounter a
case in which c was observed but b was not).
Before the start of the classroom observations, the observation scheme was piloted dur-
ing two lessons, one in an experimental class and one in a control class. Two researchers
filled out the observation scheme during the lessons, after which they compared their cod-
ing and discussed causes for any differences. If these discussions revealed that items were
unclear or led to misinterpretation, the coding scheme was adjusted. Means were calculated
over the two classroom observations.
Inter-rater reliability was calculated by means of observed agreement between two ob-
servers. In total, 16 from a total of 38 classroom observations were performed by two
coders. Across these 16 observations, 94.22% observed agreement was obtained.

Copyright © 2016 UKLA

 OKKINGA, STEENSEL, GELDEREN and SLEEGERS

Procedure
The reading comprehension pre-test and the vocabulary and IQ tests were administered
in the fall of 2011, just before the start of the treatment, and the reading comprehension
post-test was administered during May–June of 2012. All test administrations took place
in classroom settings. The test sessions were introduced by a trained test leader. A
familiar teacher was present to maintain order. Questions were answered by the test
leaders following a standardised protocol. Students and teachers remained ignorant of
test scores.
Classroom observations took place during January–February 2012 and during
April–May 2012. During the classroom observations, the researcher(s) sat at the back
of the classroom to observe the teacher. In order to be able to check codings after
the observation, the lessons were recorded using an audio-recorder carried by the
teacher.

Attrition
There was some attrition among teachers, but not due to a lack of motivation. One
teacher in the treatment condition became terminally ill halfway during the school year.
Because a replacement was only found after about 2 months, this class did not receive
the treatment in this period. When a new teacher was found, she continued giving the
treatment lessons and participated in our training programme. Because of the replace-
ment, we were not able to do classroom observations in this class. Therefore, we were
not able to include this class in the analysis. A second teacher in the treatment condi-
tion became pregnant towards the end of the school year. During her leave, she was
temporarily replaced by a new teacher, who continued giving the lessons and took part
in the training. Finally, a teacher in the control condition found another job halfway
during the school year; a new teacher immediately replaced her. Both classes were
included in our final analysis because we succeeded in carrying out the planned class-
room observations.1
There was some attrition among students, mainly because of transfers to different
schools (seven students), and one student was ill for a long period of time. During the
school year, six new students entered the experimental and control classes.

Analysis
Our sample had a hierarchical structure (students nested in classes and nested in
schools). Because there was significant random variability at the class level, we per-
formed multi-level analyses with the use of MLwiN 2.16 (Rasbash, Steele, Browne,
& Goldstein, 2009). We tested whether (a) the treatment had a significant positive effect
on reading comprehension and (b) whether the quality of teacher instruction moderated
the effect of the treatment. Adding variables was carried out in the following order
(Hox, 2010). First, all control variables were added (gender, reading comprehension
at pre-test, vocabulary at pre-test and IQ at pre-test), with the final three variables
centred around the grand mean (Hox, 2010; Snijders & Bosker, 1999). Second, the
moderator variables (strategy instruction, modelling and group work) were entered. It
was not necessary to centre the moderator variables around the grand mean, as zero
was meaningful in the scoring of the classroom variables (see section on Classroom

Copyright © 2016 UKLA

RECIPROCAL TEACHING AND TEACHER SKILLS

variables and treatment fidelity). Third, the independent variable (treatment vs control)
was entered to answer the first research question. Finally, the interactions between the
independent and moderator variables were entered to answer the second research
question.
Of the 369 cases, 75 were incomplete owing to missing values, either with missing
values within a test or questionnaire or because students were not present at one of the
test sessions because of illness (despite the fact that at each school, at least one extra test
session was organised). To prevent loss of information, single imputations using SPSS
missing value analysis were performed for each variable at the item level; that is, missing
items (as opposed to ‘wrong’ items) within a test or questionnaire were imputed. No
missing values were imputed if the student was not present during the test session. As
a result, 44 of the 75 cases (58.6%) with missing values could be included in the analyses
(total N = 338).

Results

Descriptive statistics
Table 3 shows the mean student scores for all continuous variables, as well as correlations
(post-test reading comprehension, pre-test reading comprehension, IQ and vocabulary).
No significant differences are found between the treatment and the control condition.
The highest correlation is found between post-test and pre-test reading comprehension
(r = .69, p < .01).
In Table 4, means and standard deviations are presented for the variables resulting
from the classroom observations. As expected, the mean scores of the treatment group
are higher than those of the control group, indicating that in the experimental class-
room modelling, strategy instruction and group work were more often observed than
in the control classrooms. The difference between both groups is statistically signifi-
cant on the .05 level for all variables, except for modelling. Given the small sample
(N = 19), the nonsignificant difference in the case of modelling should not be given
much weight. Because the scoring of the three variables is qualitatively different,
the means and standard deviations presented in Table 4 cannot be compared one-
on-one (see section on Classroom variables and treatment fidelity for an explanation
of each variable).

Table 3. Comparison of treatment and control students in terms of reading comprehension (post-test and pre-
test), vocabulary and IQ, as well as correlations between the variables.

Treatment Control Correlations

(n = 168) (n = 170) (N = 338)
Variable Mean (SD) Mean (SD) t-value 2 3 4
1. Post-test reading comprehension 37.37 (7.20) 36.22 (8.91) 1.30 .69* .54* .25*
2. Pre-test reading comprehension 35.20 (7.24) 34.51 (8.53) 0.80 .57* .29*
3. Vocabulary 48.02 (8.28) 47.35 (9.17) 0.71 .54*
4. IQ 35.95 (5.62) 35.19 (5.20) 1.28
*p < .01.

Copyright © 2016 UKLA

 OKKINGA, STEENSEL, GELDEREN and SLEEGERS

Table 4. Comparison of treatment and control teachers in terms of classroom observations: strategy instruc-
tion, modelling and group work.

Variable Treatment (n = 9) Control (n = 10)

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) t-value p-value
Strategy instruction 1.89 (0.82) 0.80 (0.75) 3.02 .008
Modelling 1.11 (0.86) 0.50 (0.47) 1.95 .068
Group work 1.94 (1.21) 0.50 (0.67) 3.27 .005

Bar charts (Figures 1–3) for each classroom variable show that only in a few instances
treatment teachers scored maximally.

Multi-level analyses
As a first step, we examined whether the data had a multi-level structure. A model with
only a student level had an IGLS of 2373.309. A model with both a student and a class
level had a significantly better fit (IGLS = 2321.862; ΔIGLS = 51.447, df = 1, p < .001).
Adding a school level did not improve model fit (IGLS = 2320.221; ΔIGLS = 1.641,
df = 1, p > .05). Therefore, in all further analyses, a two-level structure was used. The
empty two-level model is further referred to as Model 0.
Subsequently, the control variables were entered. Inclusion of these variables signifi-
cantly increased model fit. As expected, both reading comprehension and vocabulary at
pre-test positively contributed to post-test reading comprehension. There was also an effect
of gender: boys scored significantly lower on post-test reading comprehension than girls.
The effect of IQ was nonsignificant, however: it appeared that pre-test reading comprehen-
sion and vocabulary already accounted for the variance in IQ. Therefore, IQ was dropped
from the model. The resulting model (Model 1; Table 5) represented a significant increase
in fit compared with Model 0 (ΔIGLS = 210.156, df = 3, p < .001).

Figure 1. Bar chart for strategy instruction, for both the control and treatment teachers. Scores are calculated as
the mean over two classroom observations per teacher.

Copyright © 2016 UKLA

RECIPROCAL TEACHING AND TEACHER SKILLS

Figure 2. Bar chart for modelling, for both the control and treatment teachers. Scores are calculated as the mean
over two classroom observations per teacher.

Figure 3. Bar chart for group work, for both the control and treatment teachers. Scores are calculated as the mean
over two classroom observations per teacher.

In Model 2 (Table 5), the moderator variables (strategy instruction, modelling and group
work) were entered. This did not result in a significant increase in model fit
(ΔIGLS = 3.095, df = 3, p > .05). This means that, overall, the quality of instruction did
not influence students’ reading comprehension.
Adding the treatment variable to the model (Model 3) did not result in a better fitting
model either (ΔIGLS = 0.458, df = 1, p > .05). In other words, no main effect of the treat-
ment on students’ reading comprehension was found.
In the three subsequent models (Model 4a–c), we added the interactions between the in-
dependent and moderator variables (i.e. the interactions of treatment and each of the three
observed instruction variables: strategy instruction, modelling and group work). Of these
three models, only Model 4a resulted in a significant improvement of fit compared with
Model 3 (ΔIGLS = 5.033, df = 1, p < .05), implying that the strategy instruction variable
was a significant moderator of the treatment effect on reading comprehension (B = 3.183,

Copyright © 2016 UKLA

 Table 5. Results of the multi-level analyses, predicting post-test reading comprehension by gender, pre-test reading comprehension, pre-test vocabulary (as control variables),
strategy instruction, modelling, group work (as moderator variables) and treatment (yes/no).

N = 338 Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4a Model 4b Model 4c

Fixed effects
Intercept 36.409 (0.984) 37.431 (0.625) 37.398 (0.857) 37.875 (0.912) 36.621 (0.950) 37.460 (0.975) 38.637 (1.245)
Gender (male = 1) 1.442 (0.600)* 1.364 (0.601)* 1.368 (0.601)* 1.363 (0.600)* 1.355 (0.601)* 1.370 (0.601)*
Reading comprehension 0.572 (0.048)*** 0.570 (0.048)*** 0.572 (0.048)*** 0.572 (0.048)*** 0.581 (0.049)*** 0.573 (0.048)***
pre-test
Vocabulary pre-test 0.167 (0.043)*** 0.166 (0.043)*** 0.166 (0.042)*** 0.171 (0.042)*** 0.167 (0.042)*** 0.165 (0.042)***
Strategy instruction 1.144 (0.704) 1.327 (0.746) 0.201 (0.898) 1.379 (0.724) 1.588 (0.787)
Modelling 0.048 (0.883) 0.004 (0.876) 0.171 (0.766) 1.380 (1.616) 0.018 (0.857)
Group work 0.252 (0.510) 0.077 (0.565) 0.618 (0.540) 0.161 (0.554) 0.803 (1.137)
Treatment (treatment = 1) 0.976 (1.434) 0.210 (1.276) 0.680 (1.418) 1.650 (1.595)
Treatment * strategy instruction 3.183 (1.311)*
Treatment * modelling 1.866 (1.854)
Treatment * group work 1.211 (1.371)
Level 1 random variance 50.831 (4.025) 28.138 (2.228) 28.129 (2.227) 28.129 (2.227) 28.160 (2.229) 28.150 (2.229) 28.139 (2.228)
Level 2 random variance 15.379 (5.961) 4.267 (1.920) 3.404 (1.638) 3.285 (1.599) 2.068 (1.198) 2.979 (1.497) 3.063 (1.526)
Level 1 explained variance 45% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Level 2 explained variance 72% 20% 3% 37% 9% 7%
Deviance (IGLS) 2321.862 2111.706 2108.611 2108.153 2103.120 2107.180 2107.394
Difference (ΔIGLS) 210.156*** 3.095 0.458 5.033* 0.973 0.759
df 3 3 1 1 1 1

Note: IGLS, Iterative Generalized Least Squares.

#
p < .10.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
***p < .001.

Copyright © 2016 UKLA

OKKINGA, STEENSEL, GELDEREN and SLEEGERS
RECIPROCAL TEACHING AND TEACHER SKILLS

SE = 1.311, df = 14, p < .05). In other words, elaborate strategy instruction had a positive
effect on reading comprehension in the treatment classes but not in the control classes.
The size of this effect was considerable: the interaction effect was responsible for
explaining an additional 37% of class-level variance.

Discussion

Our study set out to analyse how reciprocal teaching can improve low-achieving
adolescents’ reading comprehension in whole-classroom settings and to what extent
intervention effects are dependent on teacher behaviour. Apart from analysing the overall
effects of the treatment in a whole-classroom setting (research question 1), our aim was to
examine whether effects were larger when teachers provided more elaborate instruction
of reading strategies, engaged more in teacher modelling and promoted more student
modelling, and when they supported more collaboration during group work (research
question 2). Answering our first research question, our study revealed no overall treat-
ment effects: no significant differences were found between students in the treatment
classes and the control classes on the reading comprehension post-test. Answering our
second research question, we did find a moderator effect of instruction of reading strate-
gies. This moderator effect implied that in the experimental condition, more elaborate
explanations of the nature, function, importance and application of reading strategies
positively contributed to students’ reading comprehension. The effect was substantial: it
explained an additional 37% of the differences between classes after individual and
class-level variables had been taken into account. In the control condition, there was
no effect of strategy instruction. It thus seems that the frequent, systematic and cyclical
offering of reading strategies in our treatment set the stage for successful reading compre-
hension instruction.
Our results underscore the relevance of focusing on the quality of implementation of
treatments in teacher-delivered classroom intervention studies. First of all, it is likely that
there are important differences in implementation quality among teachers who are trained
‘on the job’. As we have shown, neglecting such variation can result in overlooking mean-
ingful effects. The effect of our reciprocal teaching intervention only appeared after taking
the differences between teachers’ application of strategy instruction into account.
Moreover, repeatedly measuring instructional behaviours essential to the treatment gives
insight in the degree to which treatments such as these are successfully implemented by
‘real teachers’ (as opposed to researchers) and whether some elements are harder to apply
than others. Our experience showed that even after a year of intensive training and
coaching, application of the three instructional principles was less than optimal. Particu-
larly, our observations showed that making students to model reading strategies during
group work was a challenge. Similar observations were made by Hacker and Tenent
(2002) in an elaborate implementation study of reciprocal teaching: they showed that
teachers found it particularly difficult to engage students in meaningful dialogues. More-
over, there was considerable variability among our experimental teachers in applying prin-
ciples of reciprocal teaching: while some teachers fairly quickly succeeded in modelling
reading strategies and having their students work in groups, others had more difficulties
in incorporating these principles in their lessons. The latter seemed to be partly the result
of classroom management issues: in instances where students were unmotivated and
showed oppositional behaviour, teachers found it hard to gradually transfer control to

Copyright © 2016 UKLA

 OKKINGA, STEENSEL, GELDEREN and SLEEGERS

students. These classroom management issues were nonexistent in the original set-up of
small groups of students under the guidance of a tutor (Palincsar & Brown, 1984;
Palincsar, Brown, & Martin, 1987) and may explain why in previous research positive re-
sults were found of reciprocal teaching (Rosenshine & Meister, 1994; Kelly, Moore, &
Tuck, 2001; Spörer, Brunstein, & Kieschke, 2009).
Interestingly, we found a moderator effect of instruction of reading strategies but not of
modelling or group work. There are at least two explanations for this observation. First, the
difference between instruction of reading strategies and modelling or group work can be
explained in terms of the extent of teacher versus student control. A higher score on the
strategy instruction variable indicates more elaborate instruction by the teacher about the
nature, function, importance and/or application of reading strategies. This is the component
of the treatment that is the most teacher-controlled and is also the most familiar, both for
teachers and students (such instruction is commonly used in education, in every domain)
and, thus, is probably easiest to implement. Also, it may be assumed that teachers have
prior knowledge about reading strategies. Both direct instruction and knowledge of reading
strategies are consistent with existing knowledge and practice of teachers, whereas model-
ling and group work are relatively unknown areas and therefore harder to master.
Second, modelling and group work are dependent on initiatives afforded to students:
higher scores on the former imply that more modelling is being carried out by both teachers
and students; higher scores on the latter imply more attention to group work. These com-
ponents are dependent on teachers transferring control to their students and may not be part
of many teachers’ repertoire. For low-achieving students in Dutch secondary education, it
is quite uncommon that students work on tasks collaboratively in language arts lessons (De
Milliano, 2013). Thus, both modelling (especially by students) and group work differ from
regular classroom practice and require new skills from teachers, as they need to adapt their
feedback to the level of the student and use techniques for motivating students to collabo-
rate without direct teacher supervision.
Therefore, one explanation of the absence of moderator effects of modelling and group
work is that these instructional strategies did not reach a certain ‘threshold level’ to become
significant moderators (Simmons et al., 2014). The observational data of the classrooms
seem to support this. The maximum score for modelling includes students being success-
fully encouraged to model reading strategy use themselves. However, only one treatment
teacher managed to reach this stage. The same holds for group work: the maximum score
for group work includes teachers changing the focus from correct responses to assignments
to learning to apply reading strategies collaboratively. Only three treatment teachers
reached this stage, implying that most teachers did not attain this level of practice. Our
findings are supported to some extent by the outcomes of the study by Hacker and Tenent
(2002) mentioned earlier. In this study, a number of teachers were followed over the course
of one or more years to examine how they implemented reciprocal teaching in their class-
rooms and to what extent they modified the method. The authors first of all observed that
‘the most pervasive problem that teachers faced with RT [Reciprocal Teaching] was
getting students to learn and use the RT strategies in group dialogues’ (2002: 712). In re-
sponse, teachers tended to become more directive, providing more scaffolding in the form
of whole-class instruction, teacher modelling and direct guidance. This was particularly
true in classes with many struggling readers.
It appears that the training and coaching offered in our study were sufficient for the ap-
plication of one of the main elements of reciprocal teaching to bear fruit, namely, strategy
instruction. However, even for this component, not all trained teachers profited sufficiently

Copyright © 2016 UKLA

RECIPROCAL TEACHING AND TEACHER SKILLS

to produce a significant difference between the experimental and the control condition.
Some experimental classes were receiving significantly more strategy instruction than
others, resulting in a moderating effect of this instructional variable. For the two other main
instructional components of reciprocal teaching, modelling and group work, however, we
did not find significant moderating effects. Despite the fact that our teachers were provided
with a quite extensive training and coaching programme, we believe that even more train-
ing and coaching are needed for teachers to adapt new ways of teaching to such an extent
that it enhances the learning process of their students, as compared with control students.
This is in line with the findings of Hacker and Tenent (2002). In their research, teachers
found it difficult to embrace new practices, such as letting students work together, and
clung more tightly to practices that were known, such as direct instruction.
As for limitations, even though there was randomisation at the class and the teacher
level, students were not randomly distributed across the intervention and control group.
For future research on reciprocal teaching, we recommend a more strict design with
randomisation at the student level. Secondly, more classroom observations could have pro-
vided more insight into the development of teachers’ implementation of the treatment and
consequently provide more valid conclusions. In this case, two observations were enough
to find significant effects, but it would be a great addition in future research to show the
developmental patterns of teachers in implementing an intervention.
Finally, in future research, we recommend a study with teachers that are trained more
extensively and more frequently than in this study. Teachers should probably be pro-
vided with more tools to be able to guide the students in their collaborative learning
process. Coaching should be directed at increasing the quality of the dialogues among
the students. Teachers in our study did not have many tools to facilitate the students
in their collaborative group work. For teachers to become seasoned in new ways of
teaching, they need to practise rigorously, up to the point where reciprocal teaching
becomes routine; similar to the way we want students to become seasoned in the use
of reading strategies.

Notes

1. We checked whether results were different when these classrooms were excluded from
the analysis. This was not the case.

References

CED-Groep. (2011). Algemene Handleiding Nieuwsbegrip [Manual “News comprehension”].

Curtis, M. E. (2002, May). Adolescent reading: A synthesis of research. Washington, DC: National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development. Department of Education. http://216.26. 160.105/conf/nichd/synthesis.
asp.
De Milliano, I.I.C.M. (2013). Literacy development of low-achieving adolescents: The role of engagement in
academic reading and writing (dissertation). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Dole, J.A., Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.R. & Pearson, P.D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on
reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239–264. DOI:10.3102/
00346543061002239.
Duffy, G.G. (1993). Teachers’ progress toward becoming expert strategy teachers. The Elementary School
Journal, 94(2), 109–120 Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1001963.

Copyright © 2016 UKLA

 OKKINGA, STEENSEL, GELDEREN and SLEEGERS

Dutch Education Inspectorate (2008). Basisvaardigheden taal in het voortgezet onderwijs: Resultaten van een
Inspectieonderzoek naar taalvaardigheid in de onderbouw van het vmbo en praktijkonderwijs [Basic language
skills in secondary education: Results of an inspectorate study into language skills in the first two years of
prevocational secondary education and practical training]. Utrecht: Dutch Education Inspectorate.
Edmonds, M.S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., Tackett, K.K. & Schnakenberg, J.W. (2009). A
synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers.
Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262–300. DOI:10.3102/0034654308325998.
Gille, E., Loijens, C., Noijons, J. & Zwitser, R. (2010). Resultaten PISA-2009, Praktische kennis en vaardigheden
van 15-jarigen [PISA Results 2009, Practical knowledge and skills of 15-years old students]. Arnhem: Cito.
Guthrie, J.T. & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal,
P.D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume III, (pp. 403–422). New York:
Erlbaum.
Hacker, D.J. & Tenent, A. (2002). Implementing reciprocal teaching in the classroom: Overcoming obstacles and
making modifications. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 699–718. DOI:10.1037//0022-
0663.94.4.699.
Hazenberg, S. & Hulstijn, J.H. (1996). Defining a minimal receptive second-language vocabulary for non-native
university students: An empirical investigation. Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 145–163. DOI:10.1093/applin/
17.2.145.
Hox, J.J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. (Second edn). New York: Routledge.
Just, M.A. & Carpenter, P.A. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 441–480.
DOI:10.1016/0010-0285(76)90015-3.
Just, M.A. & Carpenter, P.A. (2004). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. In R.B. Ruddell
& N.J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading. (Fifth edn), (pp. 1182–1218). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Kelly, M., Moore, D.W. & Tuck, B.F. (2001). Reciprocal teaching in a regular primary school classroom. Journal
of Educational Research, 88, 53–61. DOI:10.1080/00220671.1994.9944834.
LaBerge, D. & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive
Psychology, 6, 293–323. DOI:10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2.
Logan, S. & Johnston, R. (2009). Gender differences in reading ability and attitudes: Examining where
the differences lie. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(2), 199–214. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.
01389.x.
Ministry of Education, Culture, & Science (2006). The education system in the Netherlands 2006. The Hague:
Ministry of Education, Culture, & Science/Dutch Eurydice Unit.
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific re-
search literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute
of Child Health and Human Development.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2004). The PISA 2003 assessment frame-
work: Mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2014). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do – student performance in mathematics, reading
and science (volume I, revised edition, February 2014). PISA: OECD Publishing. doidoi: 10.1787/
9789264201118-en.
Ouellette, G. & Beers, A. (2010). A not-so-simple view of reading: How oral vocabulary and visual-word recog-
nition complicate the story. Reading and Writing, 23(2), 189–208. DOI:10.1007/s11145-008-9159-1.
Palincsar, A.S. & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-
monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. DOI:10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1.
Palincsar, A.S., Brown, A. & Martin, S.M. (1987). Peer interaction in reading comprehension instruction.
Educational Psychologist, 22(3–4), 231–253. DOI:10.1080/00461520.1987.9653051.
Pressley, M. & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive read-
ing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rasbash, J., Steele, F., Browne, W. J., & Goldstein, H. (2009). A user’s guide to MlwiN. Version 2.10. Bristol:
University of Bristol, Centre for Multilevel Modelling.
Raven, J., Raven, J.C. & Court, J.H. (1998). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales.
Section 1: General overview. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
Rosenshine, B. & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational
Research, 64(4), 479–530. DOI:10.3102/00346543064004479.
Rumelhart, D.E. (2004). Toward an interactive model of reading. In R.B. Ruddell & N.J. Unrau (Eds.),
Theoretical models and processes of reading. (Fifth edn). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Copyright © 2016 UKLA

RECIPROCAL TEACHING AND TEACHER SKILLS

Samuels, S.J. (2004). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading, revisited. In R.B. Ruddell
& N.J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading. (Fifth edn), (pp. 1127–1148). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 257–279. DOI:10.1207/
s1532799xssr0303_4.
Seymoor, J.R. & Osana, H.P. (2003). Reciprocal teaching procedures and principles: Two teachers’ developing
understanding. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 325–344. DOI:10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00018-0.
Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D.T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for
generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Simmons, D., Fogarty, M., Oslund, E.L., Simmons, L., Hairell, A., Davis, J., Anderson, L., Clemens, N., Vaughn,
S., Roberts, G., Stillman, S. & Fall, A. (2014). Integrating content knowledge-building and student-regulated
comprehension practices in secondary English arts classes. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness,
7, 309–330. DOI:10.1080/19345747.2013.836766.
Snijders, T.A.B. & Bosker, R.J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel
modeling. London: Sage.
Spörer, N., Brunstein, J.C. & Kieschke, U. (2009). Improving students’ reading comprehension skills: Effects of
strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 272–286. DOI:10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2008.05.003.
Trapman, M., Gelderen, A. van, Schooten, E. van, & Hulstijn, J. (in press). Reading comprehension level and de-
velopment in native and language minority adolescent low achievers: Roles of linguistic and metacognitive
knowledge and fluency. Reading and Writing Quarterly. doi 10.1080/10573569.2016.1183541
Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., De Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P. & Stevenson, M. (2003).
Roles of linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge and processing speed in L3, L2 and L1 reading com-
prehension; a structural equation modelling approach. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7(1), 7–25.
DOI:10.1177/13670069030070010201.
Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., de Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P. & Stevenson, M. (2004).
Linguistic knowledge, processing speed, and metacognitive knowledge in first- and second-language reading
comprehension: A componential analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 19–30. DOI:10.1037/
0022-0663.96.1.19.
Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., Stoel, R.D., De Glopper, K. & Hulstijn, J. (2007). Development of adolescent
reading comprehension in Language 1 and Language 2: A longitudinal analysis of constituent components.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 477–491. DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.477.
Van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., Mak, W.M. & Sanders, T.J.M. (2014). Connectives and layout as processing
signals: How textual features affect students’ processing and text representation. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 106(4), 1036–1048. DOI:10.1037/a0036293.
Van Steensel, R., Oostdam, R. & Van Gelderen, A. (2013). Assessing reading comprehension in adolescent low
achievers: Subskills identification and task specificity. Language Testing, 30(1), 3–21. DOI:10.1177/
0265532212440950.
Van Steensel, R., Oostdam, R., Van Gelderen, A. & Schooten, E. (2014). The role of word decoding, vocabulary
knowledge and meta-cognitive knowledge in monolingual and bilingual low-achieving adolescents’ reading
comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading. DOI:10.1111/1467-9817.12042.
Veenman, M.V.J., Van Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M. & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Concep-
tual and methodological considerations. Metacognition & Learning, 1(1), 3–14. DOI:10.1007/s11409-006-
6893-0.
Verhoeven, L. & Leeuwe, V. (2008). Prediction of the development of reading comprehension: A longitudinal
study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(3), 407–423. DOI:10.1002/acp.1414.
Woolley, G. (2011). Reading comprehension: Assisting children with learning difficulties. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer International.

Mariska Okkinga studied psychology at Leiden University. She did a research internship for her
Research Master in Developmental Psychology at Cambridge University, after which she earned
her MSc degree in 2011. She is currently working as a PhD researcher at the University of Twente.

Dr. Roel van Steensel is an assistant professor at the Department of Pedagogical Sciences at Eras-
mus University Rotterdam. His research interest are emergent literacy development, adolescent read-
ing and writing development, literacy education and family literacy.

Copyright © 2016 UKLA

 OKKINGA, STEENSEL, GELDEREN and SLEEGERS

Dr Amos van Gelderen is professor at Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences and senior re-
searcher at the Kohnstamm Institute of the University of Amsterdam. Areas of interest are language
learning and education in L1/L2, language awareness and interrelations between the abilities of
speaking, writing, reading and listening.

Dr Peter Sleegers is Professor of Educational Organization and Management at the University of

Twente. Dr. Sleegers has published extensively on leadership, innovation and educational policy in
more than 60 referred journal articles and several edited books. Current research projects are studies
into the effects of educational leadership on student motivation for school, longitudinal research into
sustainability of reforms and design studies into professional learning communities.

Received 18 February 2015; revised version received 29 June 2016. Accepted

01 July 2016.

Address for correspondence: Mariska Okkinga, University of Twente, PO Box 217,

7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands. E-mail: m.okkinga@utwente.nl

Copyright © 2016 UKLA

 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Copyright © 2008, Park, H.

Critical Review: The use of reciprocal teaching to improve reading comprehension of both normal-
learning and learning disabled individuals in the reading to learn stage.

Park, H.
M.Cl.Sc. (SLP) Candidate
School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, U.W.O.

This critical review examines whether implementing a reciprocal teaching program will
improve the reading comprehension of participants in the reading to learn stage. Study
designs include: a systematic review, experimental, and quasi-experimental designs.
Overall, research supports that reciprocal teaching can improve the reading
comprehension of participants in the reading to learn stage, including adults and
learning disabled participants.

Introduction monitoring” strategies: summarizing,

In the past 28 years there has been a
surge in empirical evidence on the positive
association between metacognitive knowledge
and reading comprehension (Kelly, Moore, &
Tuck, 1994). Metacognition is “the ability to
plan, organize, and reflect on our own cognitive
strategies” (Paul, 2001, p. 536). Comparatively,
comprehension monitoring strategies consist of
“evaluating the issues or failure of the meaning-
making process [(comprehension)] and selecting
strategies to remedy comprehension problems”
(Irwin, 2007, p. 125).
Palincsar and Brown (1984) discuss a
teaching method which aims to equip subjects
with techniques to increase the use of
metacognition and reading comprehension
strategies. Their program is called reciprocal
teaching (RT). RT is an “instructional technique
in which reading comprehension is viewed as a
problem-solving activity in which thinking is
promoted while reading” (Glaser, 1990, p. 30).
Palincsar and Brown (1984) explain that
comprehension (assuming adequate decoding
ability) is the product of “(1) considerate texts,
(2) the compatibility of the reader’s knowledge
and text content, and (3) the active strategies the
reader employs to enhance understanding and
retention, and to circumvent comprehension
failures” (p. 118). This illustrates that
metacognitive factors affect reading
comprehension, because while one reads, s/he
must attend to his/her comprehension of the
material. Palincsar and Brown (1984) elected to
study the reading strategy element of
comprehension. Through a literature review of
traditional reading education and theoretical
treatments, the authors developed four
“comprehension-fostering and comprehension-
questioning, clarifying and predicting (p. 121).
Summarizing helps one to monitor his/her
progress by finding and retaining information.
Questioning text meaning leads to active
monitoring of ones own comprehension.
Clarification and prediction improve
comprehension and help one to monitor his/her
own comprehension.
Hart and Speece (1998) explain “the
goal of [RT] is to improve students’ skill in
independently comprehending text” (p. 671). RT
has two major features. (1) Instruction and
practice of the four comprehension-fostering
strategies. During this stage, the teacher models
these strategies, and may use a ‘think-aloud
model’, illustrating why they are used as well as
the mental processes involved in their use
(Alfassi, 2004, p. 172). (2) Dialogue between the
teacher and student acts as a vehicle for learning
and practicing these four strategies (Rosenshine
& Meister, 1994). It also acts to focus on
“planning, implementing and evaluating the
strategies during the discussion of text” (Hart &
Speece, 1998, p. 671). Dialogue allows novices
to learn from the contributors of more capable
peers and it exposes the learner to various points
of view which may clarify his/her initial
understanding (Alfassi, 2004). Heterogeneous
grouping by age or reading ability may maximize
the value of RT by providing effective peer
models for poor comprehenders. Great emphasis
is also placed on encouraging students to provide
instructional support for each other.
Traditionally the direct instruction can be done
with the entire class, and the dialogue is carried
out within smaller class groups (Alfassi, 2004).
RT is considered better than explicit
teaching or instructional methods alone, in which
transfer or generalization effects are rarely found
(Palincsar & Brown, 1984). RT takes into
consideration Vygotsky’s developmental theory
and the benefits of expert scaffolding and
proleptic teaching. Firstly, Vygotsky describes a
child’s “zone of proximal development” as the
difference between what a child can accomplish
unaided and what s/he can accomplish with the
help of a more knowledgeable person (Palincsar
& Brown, 1984, p. 123). “Vygotsky believed
that a great deal of development was mediated
by expert scaffolding” (Palincsar & Brown,
1984, p. 123). Expert scaffolding plays a
significant role in RT. In “the early stages of
RT, the instructor assumes the major
responsibility for instruction by explicitly
modeling the four strategies. After the initial
stage…the students take turns leading the group
dialogue and practicing the strategies on other
sections of text. At that stage, the teacher
becomes a mediator who provides guidance and
feedback tailored to the needs of the current
dialogue leader and his or her respondents”
(Palincsar & Brown, 1989, as cited by Alfassi,
2004, p.172). As the students use the four
strategies more competently, the teacher begins
to diminish his/her scaffolded assistance.
Lastly, “proleptic means “in
anticipation of competence,” and in the context
of instruction refers to situations where a novice
is encouraged to participate in a group activity
before she is able to perform unaided, the social
context supporting the individual’s efforts”
(Palincsar & Brown, 1984, p. 123). This means
the novice performs a simple task while s/he
observes and learns from an expert model.
Many studies, including Palincsar and
Brown’s (1984), have found that young readers
and poor readers do not use effective strategies
for monitoring and constructing meaning from
text. Poor readers include individuals who have
language disorders which is an “impaired
comprehension and/or use of spoken, written
and/or other symbol systems” (Larson, 2003, p.
1). However, “experimental studies have also
clearly shown that any student can be taught
these higher order skills, and that significant
gains in students’ reading comprehension may be
brought about through such explicit
metacognitive instruction” (Haller, Child, &
Walberg, 1988, as cited by Kelly et al., 1994, p.
53). RT has been proven to successfully increase
ones metacognition and reading comprehension
(Palincsar & Brown, 1984).
Objectives
The primary objective of this paper is to
critically evaluate existing literature regarding
the influence of RT on improving the reading
comprehension of individuals in the reading to
learn stage, including young children and adults
as well as normal-learning and learning disabled
individuals. The secondary objective is to
propose evidence-based recommendations for
future research and implications for the use of
reciprocal teaching programs.
Methods
Search Strategy
Computerized databases, including
Cochrane Library (current), Eric Plus Text,
PsycINFO, PubMed, MEDLINE--OVID,
ProQuest Education Journals (ProQuest
Education complete) and EBSCO Host Research
Databases were searched using the following
strategies: Search 1: ((reciprocal reading) OR
(reciprocal teaching)) AND ((reading
comprehension) OR (comprehension)). Search 2:
((reciprocal teaching) OR (reciprocal reading))
AND (metacognition) AND (reading) AND
(comprehension)
The search was limited to articles
published in English between 1993 and 2007.
Reference lists of articles were hand searched for
further relevant studies.
Selection Criteria
Research studies selected for inclusion
in this critical review paper were required to
examine the effects of reciprocal teaching on the
comprehension of individuals in the reading to
learn stage. Therefore, participants in RT
programs were required to be older than eight
years, or beyond grade three. Studies were to
include expert scaffolding, as well as, Palincsar
and Brown’s four strategies to improve
comprehension.
Data Collection
Results of the literature search yielded
the following six studies: one systematic review,
five experimental/ quasi-experimental controlled
trials.
Results
The following studies are ranked in
order of credibility.
 Rosenshine and Meister (1994)
conducted a systematic review of studies to
determine the overall effects of RT interventions.
The reviewed literature included articles
obtained through ERIC and Dissertation
Abstracts International databases, as well as
programs from the annual meetings of the
American Educational Research Association.
Articles were required to meet stringent
inclusion criteria and had to consist of
comparable experimental and control groups.
Each study was rated in quality. The median
effect size was .32 when standardized tests were
used to measure comprehension and .88 when
experimenter developed tests were used. Effect
size by type of student and type of test was also
measured. Students good in decoding but poor
in comprehension obtained an effect size of .29
on standardized tests and .88 on experimenter
developed tests. Below average students
obtained an effect size of .08 on standardized
tests and 1.15 on experimenter developed tests.
The authors noted effective results by means of
experimenter-developed outcome measures,
regardless of grade level, number of instructional
sessions, class size, number of strategies taught,
or whether a teacher or experimenter provided
the instruction. However, they did find a
significant result by type of student interaction,
which may have been due to type of measure
used. It was noted that experimenter developed
tests were used more often with participants who
were good at decoding but poor in reading
comprehension. These tests revealed significant
results. If experimenter generated tests were
shown to produce more significant results in
general, then the type of test chosen to assess
comprehension could have skewed the test
results. This suggests that different results may
have been obtained if different tests were used
on the aforementioned population. The type of
test measure could have skewed the results
because experimenter developed tests produced
more significant results than standardized tests,
as the former is easier in nature. Another
weakness was the inclusion of unpublished data
and non-peer reviewed data. These studies may
not have been published for methodological
reasons which may have skewed the review’s
results.
Alfassi (2004) carried out two studies,
study one was utilized in the present review.
Alfassi (2004) hypothesized that students
exposed to RT incorporated within a language
arts class would show greater improvements in
reading comprehension than would students
exposed to only traditional methods of literacy
instruction and immersion. A comparative study
was carried out. Two equivalent mainstream
freshman classes of good readers were randomly
assigned to a condition, with an experimental
group (RT) consisting of 29 subjects, and a
control group (traditional literacy instruction) of
20 participants. Equivalent teachers taught the
lessons and received six hours of training.
Intervention lasted 20 days and was outlined
well, however, fidelity of treatment was not
measured. Both groups were assessed pre-,
throughout, and post- intervention and
maintenance testing was completed.
Experimenter developed comprehension
questions were used and rated independently,
generating a chronbach’s alpha of .71 to .85.
Participants were also assessed using a
standardized test. No effect size was given. A
MANCOVA was carried out with post testing,
revealing a significant difference favouring the
experimental group on reading assessments and
standardized measures. The experimental group
significantly improved, both experimenter
developed and standardized testing showed
significant changes between pre- and post-
testing. Therefore, the educational benefits of
incorporating RT into the English Language arts
curriculum were verified.
Lovett, Borden, Warren-Chaplin,
Lacerenza, DeLuca, & Giovinazzo (1996)
conducted a controlled comparison of two
different approaches, Text Content and Structure
Program (TCS) and RT, to train text
comprehension skills of a group of adolescents
(grade 7/8) with multifaceted reading disabilities.
Matched pairs participants were randomly
assigned to a program, teacher, and instructional
test. There were two experimental groups with
16 participants and a control group with 14
participants. All participants (33 boys and 13
girls) were poor readers (<25th percentile) and
37% were deficient in word identification. The
25 day intervention was led by special education
teachers who taught pairs of children matched
for reading level. The intervention was not well
explained and fidelity of treatment was not
reported. Pre- and post-testing occurred using
both experimenter developed and standardized
tests. However, no assessments occurred during
the study to measure progress. Assessment of
both taught to (TT) and not taught to (NTT)
materials occurred. Three types of
comprehension measures were considered
separately using a MANCOVA, ANCOVA, and
univariate ANCOVA with post hoc Tukey tests.
Results indicated that program effects were large
for the RT group and attributable to post test
superiority of RT trained group on both TT and
NTT texts. Effect sizes of RT on both TT and
NTT texts ranged from medium to large on the 4
strategies. Transfer effects for the 4 strategies
were evident.
Lederer (2000) conducted a study
illustrating the effectiveness of RT on text
comprehension in social studies classes. He
found that the use of scaffolding approaches,
such as RT, in general educational classrooms
can educate both regular and LD students. This
experimental study had control groups but lacked
randomization which may bias effects and
reduce reproducibility. Participants were
students in inclusive classrooms, grades 4-6,
with approximately 5/22 LD students per
classroom. During the 17 day intervention the
researcher served as the principle teacher and
class participants were split into several working
groups. The intervention was not described well
and fidelity of treatment is unknown. Further,
the way in which the leader led the sessions was
not analyzed, therefore, there could have been
significant differences in instruction between
groups, which may have skewed the results.
Nonstandardized experimenter developed
comprehension assessments were conducted pre-
, throughout and post-intervention and 20% of
the assessments were scored independently by
two different raters. Interrater agreement was
94.55%. A MANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc
testing found a significant change in reading
comprehension for treatment and as a function of
grade. Also a significant improvement was seen
in the experimental group’s ability to answer
questions, generate questions, and compose
summaries. A specific comparison between
LD’s in experimental and control groups was
carried out using an ANOVA. No significant
difference was found in the ability to generate
questions, but a significant difference was found
in the ability to compose summaries. An
independent-test indicated that the experimental
classes at the 4th and 5th grade performed higher,
but not significantly higher than the control
groups. The 4th and 6th grade experimental
classes demonstrated significant comprehension
gains 30 days post intervention. Lederer
explained possible teacher confounds for grade
five. Medium to large effect sizes were found for
answering questions, generating questions, and
creating summaries. A problem with this study
was that it only assessed the use of answering
and generating questions and summarizing.
Hart & Speece (1998) examined the
effects of RT on reading comprehension in post
secondary developmental reading programs.
They conducted a quasiexperimental,
nonequivocal control group design with pre- and
post-testing. The intervention was led by the
researchers, which may have biased the results.
The participants were below average readers in
community college. Pre- and post-test scores
were obtained from standardized and
nonstandardized testing. Prior to test scoring,
high interrater reliability of .80 was established.
After scoring was completed, 25% of the
assessments were randomly selected to check
reliability, revealing a coefficient of .80.
Various statistical analyses were carried out
consisting of a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test,
MANCOVA, ANOVA, and Tukey’s honest
difference procedure. The analyses revealed a
significant difference favouring the experimental
groups on post-test scores on all four strategies
with an effect size of .30. Post test scores
revealed a significant difference between scores
on all four strategies for poor readers, and on
questioning for better readers and a significant
difference between pre- and post-testing on all
strategies. This study had a high treatment
fidelity index of 95% and 93%. A weakness was
that this study had a few drop outs and the
authors did not indicate what was done to
account for the missing data.
Kelly, Moore and Tuck (1994) assessed
the effects of RT with the four strategies on poor
reading comprehenders in a regular classroom
setting. A multiple baselines across group
design with between phase comparisons was
utilized. Participants were proposively chosen
by academic delays. Twelve participants in the
experimental group (received RT) were in two
parallel standard three and four classrooms. The
attention only comparison group consisted of six
students in one class who were performing at
average or above average levels.
Comprehension probes occurred daily, however,
the three groups did not receive identical testing
throughout the sessions. Therefore, between
group comparisons may have been limited. The
authors did not address this issue. As well the
sample size was small, therefore, the results may
not be replicable. No effect size was reported. A
strength of this study was that participants
received frequent testing and interrater reliability
of assessments revealed a mean of 98%
agreement. Fidelity was addressed by examining
audiotape recordings of six baseline and 18
intervention sessions with experimental group
one for all instances where one of the strategies
was used. However fidelity index was unknown.
Recommendations
Several concerns were apparent
regarding the design and methodology of the
research reviewed. It is recommended that
future research focus on the following to provide
higher levels of evidence: randomly assign
participants to groups; outline intervention
clearly to increase reproducibility; assess and
document implementation to improve fidelity;
assess quality of leader-student dialogues
because of the importance of scaffolding; assess
post-test measures on all four strategies; blind
raters who are analyzing the intervention and
assessments; and test for transfer and
generalizability.
It is hypothesized that if RT is
implemented by a Speech-Language Pathologist
(S-LP), participant comprehension may increase.
This is because the success of RT depends
somewhat on a teacher’s ability to provide an
“on-line diagnosis that will guide her own level
of participation, a level of participation that is
finely tuned to the student’s changing cognitive
status” (Palincsar & Brown, 1984, p. 169). S-
LP’s have considerable training and experience
in remediation for learning disabilities,
comprehension processes, comprehension
breakdowns, and scaffolding. Therefore, S-LP’s
may be well-attuned to the student’s needs and
posses the ability to competently scaffold
accordingly.
Conclusion
In general, the studies included in this
review are relatively strong. Minor weaknesses
were evident in the lack of proper randomization
and in describing the intervention, which created
unknown treatment fidelity. According to
Dollaghan (2007), a well known researcher and
teacher of evidence-based practice, the
information in this analysis is overall compelling
for both validity and importance. According to
the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine
(2001), the study designs lend to a high level of
evidence (levels 1 and 2), which strongly
supports the hypothesis (grade A/B). Therefore,
the present research findings suggest that
implementing the use of RT in the classroom
setting or in small groups can increase the
reading comprehension of participants of various
ages who are either normal-learners or learning
disabled.
References
Alfassi, M. (2004). Reading to Learn: Effects of
Combined Strategy Instruction on High
School Students. Journal of
Educational Research. 97(4), 171-184.
Retrieved November 14, 2007, from
EBSCO Host Research Databases.
Billingsley, B.S. (1993). Strategies to Facilitate
Reading Comprehension In students
with Learning Disabilities. Reading and
Writing Quarterly: Overcoming
Learning Difficulties, 9, 263-27.
Brown, A.L., & Campione, J. (1986).
Psychological theory and the study of
learning disabilities. America
Psychologist, 14, 1059-1068.
Dollaghan, C. A. (2007). The Handbook for
Evidence-Based Practice in
Communication Disorders. Baltimore:
Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Glaser, R, (1990). The reemergence of learning
theory within instruction at research.
American Psychologist. 45, 29-39.
Hart, E. R., & Speece, D. L. (1998). Reciprocal
Teaching Goes to College: Effects for
Postsecondary Students at Risk for
Academic Failure. Journal of
Educational Psychology. 90(4), 670-
681. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from
Psych INFO database.
Irwin, J. W. (2007). Teaching Reading
Comprehension Processes Third
Edition. Boston. Pearson Ed. Inc.
Kelly, M., Moore, D. W., & Tuck, B. F. (1994).
Reciprocal Teaching in a Regular
Primary School Classroom. Journal of
Educational Research. 88(1) 53-61.
Retrieved November 14, 2007, from
EBSCO Host Research Databases.
Larson, B. & McKinley, N. (2003).
Communication solutions for Older
Student: Assessment and Intervention
Strategies. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking
Publications.
Lederer, J.M. (2000). Reciprocal Teaching of
Social Studies in Inclusive Elementary
Classrooms. Journal of Learning
Disabilities. 33 (1), 91-106. Retrieved
on October 23, 2007, from MEDLINE--
OVID database.
Levels of Evidence and Grades of
Recommendation. Oxford Centre for
Evidence-Based Medicine. Retrieved
May 2001, from http://www.cebm.net/
levels_of_evidence.
Lovett, M. W., Borden, S. L., Warren-Chaplin,
P. M., Lacerenza, L., DeLuca, T., &
Giovinazzo, R. (1996). Text
Comprehension Training for Disabled
Readers: An Evaluation of Reciprocal
Teaching and Text Analysis Training
Programs. Brain and Language. 54,
447-480. Retried October 23, 2007,
from MEDLINE--OVID database.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A, L. (1984).
Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension
Fostering and Comprehension-
Monitoring Activities. Cognition and
Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
Paul, R. (2001). Language disorders from
infancy to adolescence: Assessment and
intervention. St. Louis: Mosby.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal
Teaching: A Review of the Research.
Review of Educational Research. 64(4),
479-530. Retrieved November 1, 2007,
from Eric Plus Text database.
 Reciprocal Teaching:
A Reading Comprehension Strategy
from my ASE Classroom

By
Anita L. Green
Central Carolina Community College
Institute 2015
Goals of Reciprocal Teaching
To improve students’ reading comprehension using
four strategies:

Predicting
Questioning
Clarifying
Summarizing
Goals of Reciprocal Teaching
• To scaffold the four strategies by modeling, guiding
and applying strategies while reading

• To guide students to become reflective in their

thinking

• To strengthen instruction in a variety of settings:

whole-class and guided reading
Reciprocal Teaching

To be part of a broader framework of

comprehension strategies that include:
• Previewing
• Self-questioning
• Making connections
• Visualizing
• Monitoring
• Evaluating
• Knowing how words work
What Reciprocal Teaching Is..

• “Reciprocal teaching is a powerful research-based

teaching technique.”

• “Reciprocal teaching was designed to focus on

just four important strategies that good readers
use to comprehend text.”

Oczkus, Lori D. (2003). Reciprocal Teaching at Work: Strategies for Improving Reading Comprehension. Delaware: International Reading
Associations
What Reciprocal Teaching is not….
• “Reciprocal Teaching is not a pencil-and-paper
activity. It was designed as a discussion technique in
which think-alouds play an integral part.”

• Reciprocal teaching is “not comprehensive enough to

stand alone as a method for teaching reading
comprehension.”
Reciprocal Teaching Strategies

“The Fabulous Four”

Madam, the Powerful Predictor
• Previewing the text to
anticipate what might
happen next
• Assists students in
setting a purpose for
reading and in
monitoring their
comprehension
 Predicting
The predictor helps the group to identify the organizational
structure of the text and to connect sections of the text to
one another and to the overall text structure. The predictor
could use the following prompts to help the group.

 Which type(s) of text structure did this most closely match?

 What evidence identifies that text structure?

 Based on the type(s) identified, what predictions can be

made about what will happen next?
Text types can usually be classified in the
following ways:

• Descriptive
• Chronological
• Cause and effect
• Analytical
• Persuasive
• Compare and contrast
 Predicting
• I think…..
• I’ll bet….
• I wonder if….
• I imagine….
• I suppose….
• I predict….
Quincy, the Quizzical Questioner
• Good readers ask
questions throughout
the reading process
• Students learn to
generate questions
about a text’s main
idea, important details
and textual inferences
 Questioning
Language of questioning:

• Who?
• What?
• Where?
• When ?
• Why?
• How?
• What if?
 Questioning
The questioner helps group members ask and answer
all types of questions about the text.

As the questioner, you might ask the group:

 What questions arose during the reading?
 Can anyone else help answer that question?
 What kind of question was that?
 What did we do to find answers?
Clara, the Careful Clarifier
• Clarifying helps students
monitor their own
comprehension as they
identify problems that
they are having
comprehending parts of
the text.
• Teacher and the student
share “fix-up” strategies
to construct meaning.
 Clarifying

The clarifier assists in identifying words, phrases, clauses,

sentences, and sections of the text that may be unclear and asks
members for ways in clearing up these problems. In the initial
stages of implementation the clarifier may use the following
prompts to help the group clear up difficulties.

 What is still not clear?

 Reread what is still unclear and try rereading the section right
before what was unclear.
 Chunk the text into smaller segments. For example, break
complex sentences into component clauses or phrases.
 .
 Lets visualize what is described in the text. If there are
diagrams or pictures depicting the difficult material look at
them carefully and read the captions that accompany the
graphics. Also try mental visualizing using these phrases as
aids, I picture …, I can see …

 Connect what has been read to things from other experiences.

For instance, this is like …, this reminds me of …

 Get outside help. For instance, if it’s a word we don’t

understand lets try the glossary in the text, a dictionary, or an
encyclopedia.
 Clarifying
Language of clarifying:
• I didn’t understand the
part where…
• This {sentence, paragraph,
page, chapter} is not clear.
• I can’t figure out…
• This is a tricky word
because…
 Clarifying Strategies
To clarify an idea: To clarify a word:

• Reread the parts that • Reread.

they didn’t • Look for word parts they
understand. know.
• Read on to look for • Find another word that
clues. looks like this word.
• Ideas about what they • Read on to find clues.
know. • Try another word that
makes sense.
• Talk to a friend.
 Sammy, the Super Summarizer
• To summarize
effectively, students
must recall and
arrange in order only
the important events
in the text.
• Summary organization
is based on the type of
text: narrative or
expository.
 Summarizing
The summarizer helps group members restate the main
ideas in the reading. Reminder - Summaries are formed by
the reader and are not found in the text. They do not
include the details. Summarizing helps us understand and
remember what we have read.
As the summarizer you might ask the group:
 What are the main ideas in this chunk of text?
 Restate the main idea in one sentence?
 Which parts could be left out and still get the point across?
 Can ideas be combined into one summary?
 Summarizing
The language of summarizing:
• The most important ideas
in this text are…
• This part was about…
• The book was about…
• First…
• Next…
• Then…
• Finally…
• The story takes place…
• The main characters are…
• A problem occurs when…
 Does RT Work with Math?

YES!
Summarize:
What is does the problem say? Restate in your own words.
Clarify:
What math language is used in the problem? What do we need
to solve the problem?
Question:
What is the problem asking? What do we already know?
What do we need to find out? What operations are targeted?
Predict:
What should we do first/next? Estimate the answer.
Remembering?
EDUCATION

LORI D. OCZKUS

RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

In this fully revised and expanded third edition of the best

RECIPROCAL
selling Reciprocal Teaching at Work, Lori D. Oczkus provides
both tried-and-true and fresh solutions for teaching reading

LORI D. OCZKUS comprehension.

Reciprocal teaching is a scaffolded discussion technique

TEACHING
that builds on the Fab Four strategies that good readers use

RECIPROCAL
to understand text: predicting, questioning, clarifying, and
summarizing.
With a focus on these four evidence-based and classroom-

TEACHING
tested strategies, Oczkus presents new ways to use reciprocal
teaching to improve students’ comprehension while actively

AT WORK
engaging them in learning and encouraging independence.
Appealing to students and teachers alike, reciprocal teaching
encompasses social aspects of teaching and learning with

••••
AT WORK
modeling, think-alouds, and discussion.
This helpful guide is packed with fresh material, including
• More than 40 new and updated step-by-step lessons Powerful
Powerful and minilessons that reflect current thinking and best
Strategies

3RD EDITION
practice.
Strategies • Dozens of rich suggestions for diving into informational
and Lessons
and Lessons texts.

for Improving Reading

• Updated research and relevant results that show the for Improving Reading
effectiveness of reciprocal teaching.
Comprehension • Creative and targeted tips that capitalize on the specific Comprehension
benefits of whole-class settings, guided reading groups,

••••
3RD EDITION and literature circles.
• Ideas for differentiating instruction for struggling readers 3RD EDITION
and English language learners.
• New and newly designed support materials, including

OCZKUS
reproducibles, posters, bookmarks, and a lesson plan-
ning menu.
With a wealth of ideas to get you started—and keep you
going—this is the all-inclusive resource you need to help
students become active, engaged, and independent readers
$XX.95 U.S. who truly comprehend what they read.

ISBN will be inserted when book

price is established F E AT U R I N G
40 NEW LESSONS
FOREWORD BY
JOHN HATTIE
ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
 ..
..
— CONTENTS —
..
..
Acknowledgments..........................................................................................................ix
Foreword by John Hattie............................................................................................ xiii
Introduction................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1: The Fab Four: Reciprocal Teaching Strategies......................................... 13
Chapter 2: Getting Started: Introducing and Reinforcing Reciprocal Teaching...... 55
Lesson 1: Read-Alouds to Introduce/Reinforce the Fab Four.......................... 84
Lesson 2: Fab Four Bookmarks...........................................................................91
Lesson 3: The Reciprocal Teaching Team.......................................................... 97
Minilesson: Text Feature Walk Predictions......................................................107
Minilesson: Four Kinds of Questions..............................................................109
Minilesson: Pause to Clarify Chart................................................................... 111
Minilesson: Ten-Finger, Twenty-Finger Summary...........................................114
Chapter 3: Reciprocal Teaching in Whole-Class Sessions.......................................118
Lesson 1: Cooperative Table Groups and the Fab Four..................................131
Lesson 2: The Four Door Chart—Discussion Guide and Assessment Tool.... 135
Lesson 3: Which One Do We Need? Name That Strategy!............................ 142
Lesson 4: Pass the Mat..................................................................................... 148
Lesson 5: Close Reading—Read it Again, Sammy!......................................... 154
Minilesson: Big Prediction, Small Predictions............................................... 159
Minilesson: It’s Your Question........................................................................ 162
Minilesson: Reread It! Eyeball It!.................................................................... 164
Minilesson: Favorite Part Summarizing Mat.................................................. 166
Chapter 4: Reciprocal Teaching in Guided Reading Groups...................................171
Lesson 1: “Generic” Guided Reading Plan...................................................... 190
Lesson 2: Graphic Organizers for Guided Reading........................................ 199

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 7 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 viii RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

Lesson 3: Coaching and Meeting Individual Needs....................................... 208

Lesson 4: Mind Your Qs and Cs!......................................................................212
Lesson 5: Close Reading Rewind......................................................................218
Minilesson: Skim It! Scan It!............................................................................221
Minilesson: Question Starters......................................................................... 223
Minilesson: Bring in Another Word................................................................ 225
Minilesson: Expert Summaries........................................................................ 227
Chapter 5: Reciprocal Teaching in Literature Circles and Book Clubs.................. 230
Lesson 1: Fishbowl: It’s Your Role!.................................................................. 248
Lesson 2: Jigsaw Expert Huddles..................................................................... 260
Lesson 3: Rotating Roles.................................................................................. 265
Lesson 4: Do-All-Four Challenge.................................................................... 268
Lesson 5: Read Like a Detective....................................................................... 270
Lesson 6: Fab Four Free-for-All........................................................................ 273
Minilesson: See the TOC!................................................................................ 277
Minilesson: Pick a Question............................................................................ 279
Minilesson: Clarify It! Picture It! Talk About It!............................................ 281
Minilesson: Draw or Dramatize Summaries.................................................. 283
Conclusion................................................................................................................. 287
Appendix A: Informal Assessments............................................................................301
Appendix B: Strengthening Comprehension with
Cross-Age Tutors and Parents.......................................................................... 309
Appendix C: Lesson Planning With the Fab Four.....................................................319
Appendix D: Reciprocal Teaching Reproducibles..................................................... 323
Appendix E: Icon and Strategy Posters...................................................................... 339
Mentor Texts for Reciprocal Teaching....................................................................... 345
References....................................................................................................................351
Index ........................................................................................................................... 356
About the Author....................................................................................................... 364

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 8 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 ....
Introduction

An Alarming Need for Reciprocal Teaching

Problems with reading comprehension continue to plague our students and
schools. Teachers everywhere are concerned about their students’ reading
comprehension. In today’s culture—where critical thinking, collaboration,
and creativity matter—our classrooms need to grow learners who are college
and career ready. Students are bombarded by online texts that require close,
critical reading. Standards call for more rigor and complex materials in both
literary and informational texts (National Governors Association Center for
Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). In recent years, an
alarming 64 percent of 4th graders and 66 percent of 8th graders read below
the proficient reading level on the National Assessment of Educational Prog-
ress (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). Many educators complain
that students are not engaged and can’t remember what they’ve read. As I work
in classrooms across the United States and with educators around the world, I
hear some of the same concerns about reading comprehension.
Do any of the following problems with comprehension sound familiar to
you? Students often

• Decode text fluently but don’t remember what they’ve read.

• Are not interested or engaged in the reading material.
• Read two or more years below grade level.
• Experience difficulty comprehending informational text.
• Are unable to figure out challenging words. 1

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 1 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 2 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

• Are challenged to find text evidence that supports higher-level questions.

• Are overwhelmed by vocabulary (especially struggling readers or English
language learners).
• Cannot identify or discriminate between main ideas and
supporting details.
• Are not aware that they didn’t comprehend text after “reading” it.

The Powerful Reading Vitamin: Reciprocal Teaching

Reading research suggests an urgent need for educators to teach comprehension
strategies at all grade levels—from the very youngest children to high school
students (Block, Parris, & Whiteley, 2008; Kincade & Beach, 1996; Pearson &
Duke, 2002). Many of our students could definitely use a “reading vitamin
boost” to give them the energy, stamina, and power to attack any text they
encounter! With that in mind, what proven strategies deliver the “high-yield,
low-prep” results that educators today are searching for? Reciprocal teaching is
a research-based comprehension technique that has enjoyed over 30 years of
success in dramatically improving reading comprehension (Palincsar & Brown,
1986). This technique consistently produces results of .74 growth per year
(Hattie, 2008), which translates to just under two years’ worth of growth in just
one year. The stunning and widely respected research of Dr. John Hattie (2008,
2015) ranks reciprocal teaching as one of the 10 most effective teaching tech-
niques (out of 138 practices).
Reciprocal teaching is a scaffolded discussion technique that is built on
four strategies that good readers use to comprehend text: predicting, question-
ing, clarifying, and summarizing (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Students take
turns discussing all four strategies with a given portion of text, and the teacher
models ways to extend and deepen comprehension using the four strategies.
Although reciprocal teaching was introduced in reading journals during the
1980s, this research-proven technique for teaching multiple comprehension
strategies is now more widely recognized and implemented due to Hattie’s
meta-analysis.
Today’s version of reciprocal teaching has grown and developed. It’s “not
your grandmother’s reciprocal teaching,” yet the goal of improved comprehen-
sion remains. In the original model, reciprocal teaching lessons involved read-
ing text paragraph by paragraph with a team of students who would take turns
running through each of the four strategies. They would essentially “be the

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 2 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 Introduction 3

teacher.” Since the original protocol was developed, however, various research-
ers have field tested other protocols and lesson ideas that built on the original
intent of reciprocal teaching (e.g., Cooper, Boschken, McWilliams, & Pistochini,
2000; Eggleton, 2007; Lubliner, 2001; Oczkus & Rasinski, 2015).
I have given the reciprocal teaching strategies a more student-friendly
­nickname—The Fab Four—which teachers and students seem to enjoy using.
Today, teachers incorporate many rich and varied scaffolds to enrich the
technique, including the use of technology, student book club discussions,
close-reading lessons, small-group guided reading, and hands-on supports such
as posters, realia, bookmarks, dials, and nonlinguistic representations with ges-
tures, drama, and art (Dean, Hubbell, Pitler, & Stone, 2012).
This book includes dozens of creative proven classroom ideas for actively
engaging students in The Fab Four to improve their reading. Reciprocal teach-
ing allows the teacher and students to scaffold and construct meaning in a
social setting by using modeling, think-alouds, and discussion. The goals of
reciprocal teaching are as follows:

• Improve students’ reading comprehension using four comprehension

strategies: predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing.
• Scaffold the four strategies by modeling, guiding, and applying the strate-
gies while reading.
• Guide students to become metacognitive and reflective in their strategy use.
• Help students monitor their reading comprehension using the four strategies.
• Use the social nature of learning to improve and scaffold reading
­comprehension.
• Strengthen instruction in a variety of classroom settings: whole-class
­sessions, guided reading groups, and literature circles.
• Be part of the broader framework of comprehension strategies that
includes previewing, self-questioning, making connections, visualizing,
knowing how words work, monitoring, summarizing, and evaluating.

My Journey with Reciprocal Teaching

What do you know about reciprocal teaching? When I work with teachers, I
use an exercise metaphor to help them categorize themselves according to their
level of knowledge about reciprocal teaching. Are you a bystander? If so, you’ve
heard about reciprocal teaching but haven’t tried it. Are you a walker? Walkers

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 3 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 4 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

have only dabbled in using the four reciprocal teaching strategies. Maybe you’re
a jogger, and you’ve actually used reciprocal teaching full force for some time.
Or perhaps you’re a runner or someone who has years of experience using
reciprocal teaching. When I work with audiences around the country and
abroad, the experience levels I see varies. Once I define the strategy, more heads
begin to nod with familiarity, but many teachers admit to having little direct
experience with reciprocal teaching.
I enjoy sharing my own experiences with reciprocal teaching because it has
revolutionized my teaching and constantly reinforces the knowledge that I can
affect student achievement in any setting. Speaking, consulting in schools, and
writing books on the topic has provided me with even more opportunities to
help more than 100,000 teachers dramatically improve comprehension in their
classrooms. Countless others have benefitted from the work of staff developers
whom I’ve never met but have shared my spin on reciprocal teaching in their
own settings.
My interest in reciprocal teaching was first awakened while I was serving
as a literacy coach and consultant in an urban school in Berkeley, California,
where the staff and I used the technique as part of an intervention for strug-
gling readers (Cooper, Boschken, McWilliams, & Pistochini, 2001). Many of the
intermediate students in our intervention read two or three years below grade
level. Although they could decode words, they were severely lacking in reading
comprehension skills. After just three months of using the reciprocal teaching
strategies with these students three times per week, we witnessed dramatic
results. Many of the struggling students had jumped one or two grade levels in
reading ability. We also saw their attitudes change from reluctant and negative
to more confident and assured. We witnessed students who had previously
struggled and were now learning to love reading. I was hooked!
I asked myself, if reciprocal teaching yields such promising longitudinal
results in an intervention group, why not weave this strategy into the fabric of
classroom reading instruction so all students could benefit from it? So began
my journey. I found research to support student growth in reading comprehen-
sion in a variety of settings—not just with struggling readers (e.g., Carter, 1997;
Hattie, 2008; Palincsar & Brown, 1984, 1986; Palincsar, Brown, & Campione,
1989; Palincsar & Klenk, 1991, 1992; Takala, 2006).
As a literacy consultant and coach in many schools in the San Francisco
Bay area and around the United States, I began sharing reciprocal teaching with
thousands of teachers in myriad classrooms and at a variety of grade levels. As

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 4 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 Introduction 5

I continued using reciprocal teaching with struggling readers, their teachers

reported that within a few weeks, the below-level readers became more con-
fident and motivated readers. After further results revealed that students had
improved by one to two entire grade levels, I began to wonder if reciprocal
teaching could be applied to other teaching contexts.
Many of the schools in which I work also have large English language
learner (ELL) populations, and we saw growth with these students as well. At
one school in the Chicago area, test scores among students of Hispanic heritage
(across all grades) rose significantly after reciprocal teaching was introduced.
I began to experiment with reciprocal teaching in my own teaching during
whole-class sessions, guided reading groups, and literature circles. Although it
took time to introduce, model, and reinforce the reciprocal teaching strategies,
the lessons were worth the effort; my students’ use of reading comprehension
strategies and their understanding improved dramatically.
Because most students already had some experience with predicting, ques-
tioning, clarifying, and summarizing, I built on that knowledge by presenting
the four strategies as a package. I have since implemented the Fab Four for over
25 years—in many different grade levels and settings. In every case, students
show growth in just a few months and continue to improve their reading all
year long. In my project schools today, we continue to use reciprocal teaching
in every possible way to strengthen students’ comprehension. We teach the
strategies—predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing—to the whole
class through read alouds, content-area textbooks, novels, and short newspaper
and magazine articles (e.g., Time for Kids, Scholastic News, Newsela).
Reciprocal teaching can be employed in a variety of literacy lessons and
groupings, including close reading, guided reading, and with cross-age tutors.
When close reading made its debut along with the most recent standards, we
naturally gravitated to the Fab Four as an engaging way of actively involving
students in rereading text; they marked their questions, words to clarify, and
ideas to summarize. I worked with Dr. Tim Rasinski to develop a close reading
protocol that also incorporates fluency work for even more reading benefits
(Oczkus & Rasinski, 2015). Close reading requires that students reread text,
which naturally promotes fluency. When students use the Fab Four, they reread
text at least three or four times and focus on each of four strategies. The power
of reciprocal teaching is in its simple, consistent lesson format that can be used
at any grade level during guided reading. For example, during book clubs, stu-
dents take on the roles of the predictor, questioner, clarifier, and summarizer

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 5 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 6 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

as they work together to construct the meaning of a text while deepening their
understanding of the four strategies. Cross-age buddies—older and younger
children paired together—also focus on reciprocal teaching strategies as they
read and discuss picture books together. By employing these strategies in a vari-
ety of settings, you too can provide your students with many opportunities to
use the strategies to dramatically improve their reading comprehension!

What’s New in the Third Edition

The literacy demands of our modern world made a third edition of Reciprocal
Teaching at Work a necessity, and it was my pleasure to step up to the challenge
and responsibility of updating what has become a classic text on the topic of
reciprocal teaching! Fortunately, I constantly work side by side with educators
in schools and couldn’t wait to share our exciting lessons and results. Although,
pedagogically, the second edition still makes sense, I desperately felt compelled
to share fresh new lessons and expanded thinking from the past seven years in
schools. Think about the changes brought on by the Common Core State Stan-
dards (regardless of whether your state embraces them or not), the increased
role of technology in our lives, the demands of massive amounts of informa-
tional text, and the increasing deluge of online reading material that might
be real or “fake.” Our world is changing and the need for reciprocal teaching
is becoming ever more urgent. We must be able to give our students the tools
they need to truly be literate in today’s world.
Here are some of the lessons, ideas, and features I am excited to share with
you in this book. This third edition includes

• Many rich suggestions for informational texts and the Fab Four. Recip-
rocal teaching and informational text is a match made in literacy heaven!
Good readers naturally flow through the four strategies as they work to
discover meaning in informational texts. Suggestions throughout every
chapter reinforce teaching students how to use text evidence as they think
critically and navigate text with text structures and features unique to
informational texts.
• New research and results to support your work. I’ve made a concerted
effort to include the most important, relevant, and promising new
research, encompassing many educators who’ve shared their stunning for-
mal and informal data and results.

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 6 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 Introduction 7

• A close reading lesson format and close reading lessons in every chap-
ter. On top of a proven and reliable “generic” close reading protocol
for fiction or informational texts, the whole-class, guided reading, and
whole-group chapters include exciting and engaging ways to teach stu-
dents to use the Fab Four.
• Over 40 new and updated lessons. Between the 20 informational text
minilessons, the 16 refreshed minilessons, and the close reading lessons
sprinkled throughout the book, the book has 40 new lessons for you to
use and enjoy. All lessons have been updated where necessary to reflect
current thinking!
• New photos of charts and students in action. Lots of new photo sup-
ports help you envision reciprocal teaching in your classroom.
• Suggestions for “chunking” text for effective lessons. Learn how to
select texts and how to divide them for truly effective lessons.
• Exciting mentor text suggestions. Which texts work to help students
internalize the strategies at their grade level?
• New gestures. I’ve suggested additional gestures for reciprocal teaching
that make a difference when providing text evidence.
• New and newly designed reproducibles. New and redesigned favorites
include the Fab Four Puzzle, Fab Four Dice, and Reciprocal Teaching
Role Cards.
• ELL and struggling reader suggestions. Additional tips are included for
reaching ELLs and struggling readers.
• Suggestions for incorporating technology. Fresh, classroom-proven ways
to practically use technology support all reciprocal teaching discussions.
• Behavior indicators for every lesson. Behavior indicators provide ideal
checklists for assessing and reporting student progress.
• Guidelines for facilitating talk and promoting the use of academic
language. Students need to be taught the social skills required to be 21st-­
century learners. You will find suggestions for strengthening those social
skills and helping students grow their ideas through better discussions.
• Parent letter and bookmark. Parents will appreciate some guidelines and
practical suggestions for home use of reciprocal teaching discussions.
• End-of-chapter discussion prompts. Every chapter includes a summary
and questions to use in group or individual self-study.
• Online study guide. The new Reciprocal Teaching At Work study guide that
accompanies this book (available at www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/books/
Oczkus118045.pdf) includes a plan for a staff book club complete with

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 7 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 8 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

outlines for meetings. Whether you have 10 minutes at a staff meeting or

a longer PD day, you’ll find detailed plans for facilitating trainings around
each chapter of the book. The guide includes Read and Discuss, Try
Reciprocal Teaching in Your Room, Professional Development Breakout
Groups, Teacher as Reader, and Before the Next Meeting.

Overview of the Third Edition

The chapters of this book are organized around classroom settings and can be
read in any order to suit the needs of your students and teaching style. How-
ever, I recommend reading Chapter 1 first, because it covers the rationale and
important understandings central to reciprocal teaching, outlines the four
reciprocal teaching strategies, and provides research behind the staggering
results that reciprocal teaching can deliver. Whether you implement reciprocal
teaching during whole-class lessons, guided reading groups, or literature circles,
the principles of this multiple-strategy approach are the same. However, the
teaching method varies slightly in each of these settings, and you will also need
to make adjustments for your grade level (Figure 0.1).
Chapter 1 includes many critical foundational ideas to help you begin
using reciprocal teaching with your class and keep it going all year long. Each
of the four strategies—predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing—is

FIGURE 0.1
Reciprocal Teaching in Different Classroom Settings
Classroom Setting Why Use Reciprocal Teaching in This Setting?
Whole-Class Session • Introduce the class to reciprocal teaching strategies.
• Continually model the four strategies for students in teacher think-alouds.
• Establish common academic language and terms.
• Provide reinforcement in core required reading and content-area reading through-
out the school day.

Guided Reading Group • Reinforce or introduce reciprocal teaching strategies in a teacher-led,

small-group setting.
• Provide extra support or intervention to students who struggle or to English
­language learners (ELLs).
• Differentiate instruction based on informal assessments and students’ needs.
• Provide a Response to Intervention (RTI).

Literature Circle / Book Club • Release responsibility to students for reciprocal teaching strategies.
• Reinforce and strengthen student use of reciprocal teaching strategies.

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 8 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 Introduction 9

described in detail, with ideas for prompting students to use the language
unique to it. Suggestions for incorporating reciprocal teaching into a broader
list of comprehension strategies are outlined. Twenty brand-new minilessons
using informational text features—super short lessons you can teach on the
fly and then repeat with different texts—are included in a handy chart. A close
reading protocol for use with any text is also outlined.
Because teachers sometimes encounter obstacles when implementing recip-
rocal teaching, Chapter 1 also includes practical ways to overcome such difficul-
ties and information about the four foundations necessary for getting the most
from reciprocal teaching: scaffolding, thinking aloud, thinking metacognitively,
and learning cooperatively. The critical role of gradual release of responsibility
is outlined for the reader as well. Teaching students to discuss using reciprocal
teaching is truly an art that requires knowing when to model and when to let
students do the work on their own. Guidelines for providing the right dose of
student support are given. Models for using reciprocal teaching as a Response
to Intervention (RTI) plan are also outlined with suggestions for using the strat-
egies during each tier of instruction.
Chapter 2 is loaded with many practical ways to introduce reciprocal teach-
ing in your classroom. How to use reciprocal teaching to meet the needs of
students at primary, intermediate, and secondary grades are shared. The many
ways to start reciprocal teaching that are modeled in this chapter are not just
for the start of the school year. You might also try a variety of these lessons
throughout the year to continue deepening your students’ understanding of the
strategies. The chapter also addresses which texts to use and how to “chunk” or
divide those texts. Introductory lesson ideas include sharing the Fab Four using
read-alouds and poetry, incorporating characters to represent each strategy, and
using hand gestures to cue the strategies. New gestures for the word because plus
one for clarifying with synonyms add additional scaffolding to lessons. Icons,
posters, and bookmarks provide support for students as they work in pairs
and teams to practice the strategies. A discussion of texts and materials to use
during reciprocal teaching lessons is provided.
Chapter 3 offers engaging lessons that introduce the whole class to the
four reciprocal teaching strategies by depicting each strategy as a character,
modeling the use of a variety of resources, and scaffolding with collaborative
and partner activities. The Four Door Chart (see Figure 3.1 on page 139), pop-
ular with students and teachers, serves as a useful discussion guide and prog-
ress monitoring assessment. The close reading lesson Read it Again Sammy!

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 9 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 10 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

engages students in rereading to better understand text. Practical lessons assist

students in remembering and internalizing reciprocal teaching strategies for
eventual independent use.
Chapter 4 provides many new ideas for leading students in reciprocal
teaching discussions in guided reading groups. Lessons for use with fiction and
informational text are outlined. These teacher-led, small-group lessons can be
the training ground for students’ transfer to literature circles. Guidelines for
developing discussion skills are also outlined. This chapter includes a variety
of suggestions for using graphic organizers and charts, learning cooperatively,
rereading closely, and teaching word analysis. In addition, intervention lesson
ideas for struggling students are provided, along with suggestions for the effec-
tive use of coaching prompts during guided reading. Practical ideas for keeping
the rest of the class busy during guided reading are outlined. Ties to the pop-
ular Daily Five (Boushey & Moser, 2014) and Café (Boushey & Moser, 2009)
are outlined.
Chapter 5 explores reciprocal teaching in literature circles, which is an
excellent way to continue to provide students with opportunities to strengthen
their use of reciprocal teaching strategies as they become more independent.
Even young children can learn to run their own book clubs! Middle school and
high school students naturally enjoy talking with one another and gravitate to
the ease of reciprocal teaching discussions. Lessons for introducing the roles of
predictor, questioner, clarifier, and summarizer are provided. This chapter also
outlines a special discussion director role that rounds out the literature circle
with prompts for connecting students’ background knowledge and questions
to the text. Many innovative tools, such as role sheets, a discussion spinner, and
minilessons on each of the four strategies, are included. Easy options for get-
ting started with literature circles are included, as are suggestions for teaching
students literature circle social skills. Finally, this chapter offers literature circle
assessment tools for both students and teachers.
The Conclusion summarizes the main points about reciprocal teaching as
an effective method for teaching reading comprehension, and it offers a quick
reference for readers who have specific questions about how or why recipro-
cal teaching should be part of their classroom agenda. In this section, teach-
ers’ common questions about reciprocal teaching are addressed in a practical
­question-and-answer format.
The appendixes in this book are loaded with useful tools to support recip-
rocal teaching in the classroom:

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 10 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 Introduction 11

• Appendix A: Informal Assessments

• Appendix B: Strengthening Comprehension with Cross-Age Tutors
and Parents
• Appendix C: Lesson Planning With the Fab Four
• Appendix D: Reciprocal Teaching Reproducibles

Special Features in This Book

The lessons in Chapters 2 through 5 all follow a similar format:

Background and Description • Thoughts and reflections on and experiences from using the lesson.
• Brief description of the lesson.
• Emphasis on reciprocal teaching strategies (along with what else may
be needed).

Materials • Supplies needed for the lesson.

Teacher Modeling • Scaffolded instruction.

• Strategies modeled for students as think-alouds.

Student Participation • Steps toward a gradual release of responsibility for using the strategies
with partners, in collaborative teams, and independently.

Assessment Tips • Post-lesson assessments of understanding.

Minilessons that focus on individual reciprocal teaching strategies are found

near the end of each chapter and can be used when students need reinforcement
for a particular strategy. The minilessons follow the same format as the longer
lessons. Keep in mind that reciprocal teaching strategies should be taught in
concert with one another, so if you focus on only one strategy during a miniles-
son, let your students know how that strategy fits back into the larger framework
of all four reciprocal teaching strategies used to comprehend text. Remind stu-
dents that readers rarely use one strategy at a time while reading; instead, they
use the four strategies together as they make their way through a text.
Throughout this book you will also find the Classroom Story feature, which
includes detailed accounts of reciprocal teaching lessons taken from classrooms
across the United States. Some of these stories focus on the strategies specifi-
cally, whereas others show you what the strategies look like at a variety of grade
levels. You will also find many classroom examples throughout each chapter to
give you a better idea of what reciprocal teaching looks like at a variety of grade
levels. So as you read, you’ll find dozens of classroom examples to provide you
with a variety of examples of reciprocal teaching in action!

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 11 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 12 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

This book extends the successful research of those who have so generously
shared their reciprocal teaching ideas. The chapters are organized in a practical
manner to make it easy for you to implement this instructional method in your
own classroom. In addition to the many chapter features previously described,
each chapter contains ready-to-use reproducible forms that will help students
understand the reciprocal teaching strategies and the texts they are reading.
The goal of this book is to provide you with the practical, motivating tools you
need to improve the reading comprehension of all students by using reciprocal
teaching strategies.

....

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 12 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 The Fab Four:
Reciprocal Teaching Strategies 1

Fab Four Classroom Poster (photo courtesy of Kara Collins)

Prediction is when you say what you think is going to happen in

the book and you look at all the clues like the cover, pictures, and
­chapter headings.
—Rachael, 4th grade 13

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 13 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 14 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

Reciprocal teaching is a scaffolded, or supported, discussion technique that

incorporates four main strategies—predicting, questioning, clarifying, summa-
rizing—that good readers use together to comprehend text. Think about how
you use these strategies in your own reading as an adult. For example, when
you read an article in a newspaper, in a magazine, or on the Internet, you prob-
ably first look at the visuals and skim as you predict what the piece is about.
Then, as you read, you alternate between clarifying ideas and words by reread-
ing and using other strategies such as asking questions or wondering about
something you don’t understand. You summarize throughout your reading and
predict what will come next along the way. Good readers do all of this naturally
every time they read.
I refer to the reciprocal teaching strategies as the Fab Four (or Be the
Teacher strategies) because students can relate to and understand these terms.
When I work with educators, I share a metaphor using the original Fab Four—
The Beatles—as an example. Although each member of The Beatles built a
successful solo career, they are still widely known for their work as a group.
Likewise, the reciprocal teaching strategies each enjoy very separate, distinct,
and important roles as research-based reading strategies. However, when we
“keep the band together,” their effect is even more powerful! I often model and
explain how I use these four strategies in concert during reading to make the
point that all readers use the Fab Four as they engage with text. By explicitly
naming each of the reciprocal teaching strategies as we use them, we teach stu-
dents to draw on them throughout the reading process. Research supports the
direct instruction of comprehension strategies for students of all ages and skill
levels (Duke & Pearson, 2002; Hattie, 2008; Pearson, Roehler, Dole, & Duffy,
1992). Lets take a peek inside some classrooms to see what reciprocal teaching
looks like across grade levels.
Reciprocal teaching fits with any grade-level lesson using fiction or informa-
tional text. Following are just a few examples of how all four strategies can be
used in lessons at a variety of grade levels ranging from K to 12:

• A group of 1st graders gather on the rug as Mrs. Chang reads aloud the
picture book Into the A, B, Sea by Deborah Lee Rose, which she also
projects on the interactive whiteboard. Mrs. Chang pauses periodically
throughout the reading for students to make hand gestures that represent
each of the strategies: predict, question, clarify, and summarize. (See ges-
tures on page 72.) The text is loaded with rich, lyrical vocabulary such as

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 14 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 The Fab Four: Reciprocal Teaching Strategies 15

barnacles cling and kelp forests sway, and as Mrs. Chang pauses, partners
turn to each other and use the strategies to share their thoughts. Together,
the class makes a list of new words to clarify and strategies they can use
for figuring out their meanings. Students also create gestures to go with
this new vocabulary.
• Down the hall, the 5th graders in Mr. Erickson’s class read the class novel
Esperanza Rising by Pam Muñoz Ryan in their book clubs. Each student
takes on a different role—discussion director, predictor, clarifier, ques-
tioner, summarizer—as they work their way through the chapters together
and use the reciprocal teaching strategies. The discussion director leads
the group members in a lively exchange as they predict, question, clar-
ify, and summarize the novel. Mr. Erickson rotates among the groups
to coach their efforts and model using examples from the text. After the
book clubs finish reading and discussing the day’s chapter, they each
create a poster with a 25-word summary and a drawing to share with
the class.
• Across town at the high school, 9th graders form discussion circles to
dive into the stories of Edgar Allan Poe. They each jot down a quick-write
prior to the discussion and then fill in their four door charts in their note-
books as they record their ideas for each of the four reciprocal teaching
strategies (see page 139). Students turn their desks to work in groups of
four as they share their brief predictions, questions, words and ideas to
clarify, and summaries. They also share a “Why do you think . . .” discus-
sion starter and informally run through the reciprocal teaching strategies
as they naturally come up in conversation. Students use text evidence in
their responses.

This foundational chapter offers an overview of the research behind recip-

rocal teaching and the staggering results that point to growth at all grade levels
K–12. Reciprocal teaching is an effective protocol for close reading (Oczkus
& Rasinski, 2015), and I’ve included a generic model for you to use with any
text! Also included are descriptions of each of the four strategies, the research
that drives them, and ways the Fab Four fit into broader reading programs.
The role of gradual release of responsibility is included to illustrate ways to
help students become independent in their strategy use (Pearson & Gallagher,
1993). Tied to this, I’ve included steps for conducting engaging think-alouds,
ways to scaffold the Fab Four, ideas for increasing student independence and

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 15 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 16 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

metacognition, examples of cooperative learning, practical ideas for using

reciprocal teaching with informational texts, and ideas for intervention and
other schoolwide applications. Finally, this chapter also explores some of the
obstacles that educators encounter as students implement the Fab Four.

What the Research Says About Reciprocal Teaching

Palincsar and Brown (1984, 1986), the creators of reciprocal teaching, found
that when the strategies were used with a group of students for just 15–20 days,
assessments of students’ reading comprehension increased from 30 percent to
70–80 percent. According to a study by Palincsar and Klenk (1991), students
not only improved their comprehension skills almost immediately but also
maintained their improved comprehension skills when tested a year later. More
recently, Hattie’s research (2008) points to the consistent success of reciprocal
teaching and its promise of .74 growth—or almost two years in just one school
year! Hattie’s reporting of reciprocal teaching is significant because he looked
at over 800 studies and 138 different practices and their effect sizes. Hattie
ranks practices according to their effectiveness in yielding results with stu-
dents, and reciprocal teaching ranks ninth (out of 138 practices) for its power
to yield results! These exciting results, drawn from 15 years of studies, point
to reciprocal teaching as a proven teaching strategy that has a strong effect on
student achievement.
In addition, Rosenshine and Meister (1994) reviewed 16 studies of recip-
rocal teaching and concluded that reciprocal teaching is a technique that
improves reading comprehension. Reciprocal teaching techniques are especially
effective when incorporated into intervention programs for struggling readers
(Cooper et al., 2000) and when used with low-performing students in urban
settings (Carter, 1997). Although originally designed for small-group instruc-
tion with struggling middle school students, reciprocal teaching has been
shown to yield positive and consistent results with primary and upper-grade
elementary students taught in large-group, teacher-led settings and in peer
groups (e.g., Coley, DePinto, Craig, & Gardner, 1993; Cooper et al., 2000; Kelly,
Moore, & Tuck, 1994; Myers, 2005; Palincsar & Brown, 1984, 1986; Palincsar &
Klenk, 1991, 1992).
Reciprocal teaching also yields positive growth in reading comprehension
for ELL students who often experience problems with comprehension due
to vocabulary load and background experiences (Fung, Wilkinson, & Moore,

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 16 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 The Fab Four: Reciprocal Teaching Strategies 17

2003; Hashey & Connors, 2003; Sollars & Pumfrey, 1999). Additionally,
researchers have credited ELL students’ success to reciprocal teaching instruc-
tion that utilizes students’ native languages in tandem with collaborative learn-
ing opportunities with peers and cross-age tutors (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996).
Students who engage in and benefit from reciprocal teaching not only
improve their reading level but also retain more of the material covered in the
text (Reutzel, Smith, & Fawson, 2005). With the addition of more informa-
tional texts in classrooms, this is good news even for our most gifted readers!
The information load for all readers is increasing, and reciprocal teaching can
be scaffolded so readers at all levels have access to more rigorous texts. Indeed,
the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (part of the
National Institutes of Health) concluded that reciprocal teaching is an effective
practice that is recommended to improve reading comprehension with all types
of texts (NICHD, 2000).
Lubliner (2001) also points out that reciprocal teaching is an effective
teaching technique that can improve the kind of reading comprehension neces-
sary not only for improved test scores but also for life in the Information Age.
There is a growing need for students to learn sophisticated reading skills they
can employ in both the workforce and a world bursting with data. Students
should be prepared to comprehend and evaluate a wide variety of complicated
texts—from printed books to electronic sources—and reciprocal teaching strat-
egies can help them achieve that goal.

Exciting Results from Educators

In my travels to schools and conferences in the United States and abroad, I
have met many educators who eagerly shared dramatic results using recipro-
cal teaching. Following are some of the inspiring success stories that teachers
around the world experience after using the Fab Four with their students. Note
that student growth in reading is usually consistent with Hattie’s findings of
.74 in one year (2008), but sometimes students jump as much as several lev-
els in three to six months! In my project schools—where I work with teachers
throughout the year and across the country—we experience similar results.
Keep in mind that, just like a diet, once a week for the method is not enough to
make a difference in student achievement. Success stories and student growth
are based on students participating in reciprocal teaching lessons two or more
times per week.

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 17 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 18 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

You’ll find a few classroom stories here to whet your appetite. Other success
stories are sprinkled throughout the book in a text feature called Classroom
Snapshots and Results. Appendix A also contains two success stories. Thanks
to all the colleagues who eagerly shared their wonderful data so other students
may benefit.

Oakland, Illinois: 2nd–5th Grade

Improved comprehension and overall reading level across the entire
school. Melissa Wheeler from Lake Crest Elementary, a rural school with a high
free-and-reduced-price lunch population, reports significant gains in reading
growth using running records and observations.
Melissa shares, “During the 2015–16 school year, we assessed 76 children,
or all the students in grades 2–5, including those with IEPs, to measure reading
level growth. Eighty-two percent of our students showed one year’s growth or
more. Even more astounding is that 60 percent of the students in our school
posted a growth of 1.5–4 years!
“Those results swept the range of students. Some of our lowest readers
showed 3–4 years’ growth, which allowed them to catch up and even surpass
their grade levels. Readers who were on or above grade level also showed a sig-
nificant improvement.
“Reciprocal teaching has changed both the way we teach reading in our dis-
trict and the way our students analyze and monitor their own comprehension.”

Queens, New York: 6th Grade ELL Students

Improved comprehension, oral language, writing, and reader self-­
perception. Dr. Virginia Russell (2011) of Hunter College designed a study in
an urban school with ELL students who spoke 14 different languages. After just
20 days of reciprocal teaching instruction, the experimental group dramatically
improved their oral language proficiency with an effect size of +1.09 and their
general reading progress with an effect size of .66. Reciprocal teaching also
showed statistically significant improvement in the writing proficiency of the
students (Russell & McCormack, 2014).

Melrose Park, Illinois: 4th–12th Grade

Improved motivation, comprehension, and engagement during inde-
pendent reading. Karen Walker, Ed.D., from Rockford University, reports

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 18 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 The Fab Four: Reciprocal Teaching Strategies 19

positive results using reciprocal teaching with 4th–8th graders by extending the
strategies from whole-class and small-group instruction to independent daily
reading time (IDR). Before the project began, at least 50 percent of the stu-
dents were observed participating in “fake reading” while exhibiting low com-
prehension during conferences with the teacher. After applying the reciprocal
teaching strategies during individual conferences—and instructing students in
them—student engagement during IDR increased to 80 percent, comprehen-
sion improved during independent conferences, and group discussions became
more lively and vibrant. Dr. Walker also found reciprocal teaching to be an
effective method to improve comprehension and reading motivation during
individual tutoring sessions with high school students.

How Reciprocal Teaching Fits Into the Literacy Program

It is important to understand how the Fab Four strategies fit into an entire com-
prehensive plan for teaching reading comprehension. I like to think of recip-
rocal teaching as a “powerful reading vitamin” that ensures reading success
and strengthens overall comprehension. The core reading program provides a
healthy diet of comprehension from a broader list of strategies, but when stu-
dents also benefit from at least two weekly doses of reciprocal teaching, they
become stronger readers. In short, reciprocal teaching complements core read-
ing instruction. In the schools in which I consult, reciprocal teaching is deliv-
ered alongside the other essential comprehension strategies.
Keep in mind that reciprocal teaching is a subset of a larger group of
comprehension strategies. Reading is a complex, multifaceted process, and
reciprocal teaching is designed to focus on only four of the most important
strategies that good readers use to comprehend text (i.e., predict, question,
clarify, summarize). Many researchers and educators provide a broader frame-
work for teaching comprehension that includes the following eight strategies,
which are necessary for teaching students to understand what they read (e.g.,
Harvey & Goudvis, 2017; McLaughlin & Allen, 2002; Oczkus, 2004; Pearson
& Duke, 2002):
1. Previewing: activating prior knowledge, predicting, and setting a
purpose.
2. Self-questioning: generating questions to guide reading.
3. Making connections: relating reading to self, text, and world.
4. Visualizing: creating mental pictures.

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 19 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 20 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

5. Knowing how words work: understanding words through strategic

vocabulary development, including the use of graphophonic, syntactic,
and semantic cueing systems.
6. Monitoring: asking whether a text makes sense and clarifying by adapt-
ing strategic processes.
7. Summarizing: synthesizing important ideas.
8. Evaluating: making judgments.

Although the names and total number may differ slightly, these strategies
are founded on the same strong research base used to develop reading curric-
ulum and standards. In my project schools, I work with the staff to teach one
of the comprehension strategies from the broader list of eight strategies each
week. We focus on that strategy during whole-class and small-group instruction
and call it the “focus strategy of the week.” Then the teachers select a regular
time for students to employ the four reciprocal teaching strategies so they can
experience the power of multiple-strategy instruction. The kid-friendly term I
use for the broader list of comprehension strategies is the “Super Six,” which
include making connections, predicting/inferring, questioning, monitoring/
clarifying, summarizing/synthesizing, and evaluating (Oczkus, 2004, 2009).
By combining predicting and inferring and synthesizing and summarizing, I’ve
narrowed the list to a more manageable number of strategies. Note that visual-
izing is included in the clarifying step since good readers pause to clarify words
by picturing the meanings in their heads.
The Super Six and Fab Four work together in the context of literacy instruc-
tion. The broader list of comprehension strategies provides a comprehensive
framework for the entire literacy program. Textbook publishers often build
programs around the list of 6–8 strategies and suggest teaching one per week.
The Fab Four is a subset of strategies that provides a framework or protocol for
classroom discussions. All four strategies are used in concert with one another
at least several times per week as a multiple strategy technique. For example,
in Mrs. Langham’s 5th grade classroom, she posts the Super Six comprehen-
sion strategies on the wall and teaches one strategy each week with her basal
reader and social studies text. The Fab Four is posted beside that list and is
arranged in a circle, which demonstrates that these four strategies are a subset
of the longer list and can be experienced in any order. Her students also enjoy
the analogy that the Fab Four is a vitamin pill to boost reading skills, and the
circular shape helps keep the metaphor alive. Mrs. Langham’s students follow

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 20 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 The Fab Four: Reciprocal Teaching Strategies 21

the Fab Four as a discussion protocol during literature circles with novels twice
during the week.
A 1st grade teacher, Mr. Romero, displays the strategies in the same way.
However, he uses a character for each of the reciprocal teaching strategies and
displays props to represent and prompt each one. His students understand that
when it is time to read with the Fab Four, they should employ all four strategies
in the same lesson—which usually occurs during a read-aloud or partner read-
ing. In this way, students benefit from ongoing instruction in all of the compre-
hension strategies as well as the Fab Four.
The Fab Four, though extremely effective, is not an entire literacy program.
Students need more than just reciprocal teaching strategies. A 6th grade teacher
at one of my schools recently announced, “Since my students are so needy and
read well below grade level, I am abandoning everything else and only focusing
on the Fab Four!” This teacher understood the research on reciprocal teaching
and figured it was the lifeline his students so desperately needed. Even though
his conclusion made sense, his students still need a wide variety of literacy
experiences. With that in mind, I encouraged him to continue using the district-­
adopted materials that incorporate multiple reading skills and strategies and to
use reciprocal teaching during guided reading and literature circles. This way, his
students would benefit from many rich strategies and texts. (See Figure 1.1 for a
list of resources on incorporating reciprocal teaching into your lessons.)

FIGURE 1.1
Resources on Lessons That Strengthen Reciprocal Teaching

Cooper, J. D., Boschken, I., McWilliams, J., & Pistochini, L. (2001). Soar to success: The intermediate intervention
program. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Oczkus, L. D. (2008). The fabulous four: Reading comprehension puppets. Berkeley, CA: Primary Concepts.
Oczkus, L. D., & Rasinski, T. (2015) Close reading with paired texts (K–5 series). Huntington Beach, CA: Shell
Education.
Taylor, B. M. (2011). Catching readers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

The Fab Four: A Powerful Package for the Age of Standards

Reciprocal teaching strategies help educators effectively implement the type
of close, evidence-based reading called for in any standards-based curriculum,
including the Common Core State Standards. With an increase in both infor-
mational texts and more rigorous reading material, students need reciprocal

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 21 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 22 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

teaching now more than ever to help them comprehend. Since reciprocal
teaching is a discussion technique, many listening and speaking standards are
naturally met. Each of the four strategies plays an important role in meeting a
variety of standards:

• Predict: Students make predictions using evidence from the text, such as text
features. Students also predict the author’s purpose and text organization.
• Question: Students cite textual evidence and draw on multiple sources to
ask and answer questions in order to understand the text better.
• Clarify: Students apply grade-level phonics and word analysis skills to
decode new and unfamiliar words. They rely on context to confirm,
self-correct, and reread when necessary. They also analyze how parts of
the text fit together and clarify by rereading or reading on to figure out
confusing points, words, or phrases.
• Summarize: Students identify main ideas and details and compare and
contrast the structure of a text to determine themes and summarize nar-
rative text. They also integrate and evaluate information from the text and
support their claims with text evidence.

Reciprocal teaching is considered a multiple strategy approach since all four

strategies need to be included in each session to yield the best results. Research
indicates that strong readers employ more than one strategy at a time as they
read (Reutzel et al., 2005). However, each of the four strategies comes with its
own legacy of research and rigor that affects reading achievement. Once you’ve
introduced reciprocal teaching to your students, it’s possible to teach miniles-
sons that focus on strengthening them independently.
Let’s take a look at each of the strategies to see what they bring to the com-
prehension equation.

Predicting
Many students have been exposed to this popular strategy. Students often
define predicting as a form of guessing, and they seem to enjoy making predic-
tions. However, predicting goes beyond merely guessing and involves preview-
ing the text to anticipate what may happen next. Readers can use text evidence
and information from the text along with their prior knowledge to make logi-
cal predictions before and during reading (Pearson & Duke, 2002). The actual
process of predicting differs when reading fiction or informational text (Figure
1.2). When reading fiction, students may consider the theme and characters’

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 22 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 The Fab Four: Reciprocal Teaching Strategies 23

FIGURE 1.2
Predicting with Fiction and Informational Text
Predicting with Fiction
• Preview cover art, title, author, and illustrations.
• Flip through the text to preview visuals.
• Preview to consider text structure, setting, characters,
problem, characters’ feelings and motives, events,
and theme.
• Consider whether the author’s purpose is to entertain,
inform, or persuade.
• Return to predictions both during and after reading to
confirm or revise them.
• Use the sentence frame “I think this is about ____
because ____” or “I think ____ will happen because
____.”
Predicting with Informational Text
• Preview cover art, title, author, and illustrations.
• Flip through text for clues and text features, including:
– headings
– maps
– tables, charts, diagrams, graphs
– photos, drawings, captions
– table of contents, index, glossary
• Preview to determine text structure, sequence
of events, main idea and details, or cause-effect
relationships.
• Consider whether the author’s purpose is to inform,
entertain, or persuade.
• Return to predictions both during and after reading to
confirm or revise them.
• Use the sentence frame “I think I will learn ____
because ____.”

motives and feelings; when reading informational text, they need to pay atten-
tion to text features and the author’s purpose.
Many students experience problems with predicting because they share
“bland” or simplistic predictions, such as “I think it is about a frog.” After
studying the title and cover of a book, students should first try to figure out if
the author’s purpose is to inform, persuade, or entertain. They can then make
a stronger prediction based on that, such as “I think it is about how frogs are
becoming endangered because . . .” They should also be able to provide infor-
mation and clues from the text to support their more detailed predictions.
Teacher modeling is essential, as is the use of sentence or strategy frames that
students use to help guide their own thinking and discussion.
For both fiction and informational texts, it’s important to stop periodically
during the reading and ask students to gather clues to make predictions for
the next portion of the text. Students need to understand that they can—and
should—confirm or change their predictions while they read and gather new
information from a text. Giving students the opportunity to preview what they
read by discussing text features and using graphic organizers (such as a story
map or Venn diagram) provides them with visual clues for predicting.
The language that students should use when making predictions includes
the following phrases (Mowery, 1995; Oczkus, 2009). The word because is

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 23 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 24 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

included so students will include text evidence and their own inferences as
they predict:

• I think . . . because . . .
• I’ll bet . . . because . . .
• I wonder if . . . because . . .
• I imagine . . . because . . .
• I suppose . . . because . . .
• I predict . . . because . . .
• I think I will learn . . . because . . .
• I think . . . will happen because . . .

Predicting is a strategy that helps students set a purpose for reading and
monitor their reading comprehension. It allows students to interact with the
text, and it makes them more likely to become interested in the reading mate-
rial while simultaneously improving their understanding (Duffy, 2009; Duke &
Pearson, 2002; Duke, Pearson, Strachan, & Billman, 2011; Fielding, Anderson,
& Pearson, 1990). In my experience, students seem to enjoy predicting, and
they do so with exuberance. The key is to scaffold the discussion so students
will make logical and increasingly sophisticated predictions.

Questioning
Good readers ask questions throughout the reading process (Brigham,
Berkeley, Simpkins, & Brigham, 2007; Cooper, 1993; Palincsar & Brown, 1986),
but formulating questions is a difficult and complex task. Poor readers often
become so lost they can’t even begin to ask a question about the text, let alone
answer a teacher’s question. Questioning is an integral part of reciprocal teach-
ing. Students pause throughout the reading to address questions that come up.
There are many types of questions that are important for students to know how
to ask and answer—from text-dependent questions, to wondering and hypothe-
sizing about the topic, to asking author questions.
I often bring in a toy microphone to serve as a metaphor for question-
ing. During reading, we ask “game show questions” that can be answered or
inferred using text clues. Many students begin by asking questions about unim-
portant details. However, as I continue to model question formulation and
students share their own questions with the class, the quality and depth of their
questions increase. I also model how to ask questions based on inferences and
main points in a text. Finally, I model how to ask thinking or discussion-type

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 24 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 The Fab Four: Reciprocal Teaching Strategies 25

questions, such as “Why do you think . . . ?” or “How do you think . . . ?” These

question stems motivate students to discuss the text with one another, and
questioning in general motivates students to interview, quiz, and challenge one
another to think deeply about a text.
Younger students naturally wonder and ask questions about the world
around them. When students are encouraged and taught to ask questions as
they read, their comprehension deepens (Armbruster, Lehr, & Osborn, 2001;
Keene & Zimmermann, 2007). When students know—prior to reading—that
they need to think of a question about the text, they read with an awareness of
the text’s important ideas. They automatically increase their reading compre-
hension when they read and generate questions (Lubliner, 2001).
Students also enjoy the opportunity to “be the teacher” and ask questions
during reciprocal teaching discussions. For example, during guided reading
sessions, try giving each student a sticky note to mark a portion of text that he
or she wants to turn into a question. Then have students share their questions
with one another and the larger group. Students need modeling to improve
the quality and depth of their questions, but with practice, students learn to
generate questions about main idea and details and their textual inferences. I’ve
found that questioning often becomes the favored strategy of many students.

• Who . . . ?
• What . . . ?
• Why . . . ?
• Where . . . ?
• When . . . ?
• How . . . ?
• What/How/Why do you think . . . ?

Younger students and ELL students sometimes struggle with question for-
mulation, so make a point of giving these students longer question starters or
stems. For example, instead of inviting students to ask a question with just the
word why, provide a longer stem for students to complete, such as “On page 10,
why did the . . . ?” (See Figure 1.3 for how the actual process of questioning dif-
fers when reading fiction or informational text.)

Clarifying
Clarifying—or monitoring comprehension—involves more than just
figuring out difficult words in a text (see Figure 1.4). A broader definition

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 25 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 26 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

FIGURE 1.3
Questioning with Fiction and Informational Text
Questioning with Fiction
• Ask, “I wonder” questions before reading and while pre-
viewing the cover, title, and text. Base these “wonderings”
on the art and by skimming the text.
• Ask “I wonder” questions throughout reading.
• Formulate thinking questions about the setting, charac-
ters, problem, events, resolution, and theme.
• Ask thinking questions about whether you agree or dis-
agree with the characters actions or the author’s choices
in words and storyline.
• Ask text-dependent questions, such as “What examples
does the author include?” and “Why did the author use the
word ____?”
• Ask thinking questions about whether you agree or dis-
agree with the author’s choice of story line, vocabulary, or
organization.
Questioning with Informational Text
• Ask “ I wonder” questions before reading and
while previewing the cover, title, and text. Base
these “wonderings” on the art and by skimming
the text.
• Use text features (e.g., headings, maps, tables,
charts, photos) to formulate questions.
• Ask questions about the text using the text struc-
ture, sequence of events, main idea and details, or
cause-effect relationships.
• Ask thinking questions about whether you agree
or disagree with the author’s choice of words, text
features, or ideas.
• Ask text-dependent questions about choices the
author made, such as “What examples does the
author include?” and “How does the heading/
map/etc. help you understand . . . ?”

of clarifying includes keeping track of one’s comprehension of the text and

employing fix-up strategies to maintain meaning during reading. Research
clearly indicates that monitoring is an important strategy that distinguishes
strong readers (Paris, Wasik, & Turner, 1991). Unfortunately, many young read-
ers don’t recognize when meaning has broken down as they read (Routman,
2003). I once observed a creative 2nd grade teacher use a toy car and tool belt
to help explain this concept to her students. She placed the toy car under a
poem she had printed on a chart. Then, while she read it aloud, she pretended
the car got stuck as she stopped at a difficult word or sentence to clarify. She
wore a toy tool belt and pulled out various gadgets to help her clarify, includ-
ing a pointer or “rereader” to go over confusing passages or words, a different
pointer to read ahead for clues to figure out unfamiliar words, a word chopper
for breaking words into known parts, and a glittery pair of glasses to help stu-
dents visualize and make pictures in their minds. What a great metaphor for
what it means to clarify while reading!
Clarifying helps students monitor their comprehension as they identify
problems, misunderstandings, and the meaning of new and unfamiliar words
(Allington, 2001). It’s also a complex strategy that involves two basic steps:
(1) identifying or admitting that one is stuck on a word or idea, and (2) figur-
ing out how to remedy the situation. Most students can easily identify words

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 26 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 The Fab Four: Reciprocal Teaching Strategies 27

with which they need help deciphering, yet many are reluctant and embar-
rassed to admit that vocabulary or larger portions of text have caused them
problems. A go-to strategy is to ask them to find a word (or part of a text) that
they figured out but might be difficult for a younger student. Then ask them
to describe how they would teach the word or passage to that younger reader.
This is one of my favorite tried-and-true “tricks” for getting kids to open up and
identify potential difficulties with a text. This works because students feel like
they’re doing it for someone else!
Although students can be taught to identify difficult words and work
through them, it is far more difficult for some students to recognize unclear
sentences, passages, or chapters. Perhaps these difficulties occur because, even
though students can read every word in a given portion of text, they still do
not understand the main idea of the reading. During reciprocal teaching,
the teacher and students have an opportunity to share fix-up strategies that
will help them construct meaning. I find it extremely helpful to model this
approach using the strategy frame “I didn’t get the sentence . . . so I . . .” Mod-
eling with a document camera or interactive whiteboard, I then highlight an
entire sentence and model how to reread, read on, and clarify meaning. Next,
I ask students to find another sentence that is tricky and mark it using a sticky
note. Using the strategy frame prompt encourages students and gives strug-
gling readers and ELLs concrete language on which they can rely. Stephanie
Tanner and Laurie Lawrence—two educators in Ohio—came up with a nice
way to give their students “a bit of grace” with the frame “I wasn’t sure about
. . . but then I . . .”
Educators often wonder where the strategy of visualizing fits into the recip-
rocal teaching protocol. In my project schools, we weave sensory images into
the clarifying step quite naturally. Think about what happens when you’re read-
ing and suddenly realize you’re merely looking at the words; you’re not really
reading. You’ve stopped visualizing. This happens all the time! You quickly
reread to get yourself back on track as you make a picture in your head. I ask
students to use the clarify stem “I didn’t get the part where . . . so I reread and
visualized” (or smelled, tasted, felt, etc.).

Summarizing
Summarizing is a challenging strategy, so it’s no wonder that students (and
teachers) often moan and groan when we say, “Time to summarize!” Teaching
students to summarize is a research-based, effective way to improve overall

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 27 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 28 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

FIGURE 1.4
Clarifying with Fiction and Informational Text
Identifying the problem or breakdown in meaning:
• I didn’t get [the word, sentence, part, visual, chapter], so I [used fix-up strategies, reread, read on, broke the word
into parts, visualized, skipped it, asked a friend, thought about my connections].
• I wasn’t sure about . . . , but then I . . .
• I didn’t understand the part where . . .
• This [sentence, paragraph, page, chapter] is not clear. This doesn’t make sense, so I . . .
• I can’t figure out . . .
• This is a tricky word because . . .
• I am having trouble pronouncing . . .
• This is a hard or tricky word for a . . . grader.

Clarifying an idea/part/sentence/phrase:
• I reread the parts that I don’t understand.
• I read on to look for context clues.
• I checked the pictures, visuals, or text features.
• I thought about other words that mean the same thing.
• I thought about what I know.
• I talked to a friend.

Clarifying a word:
• I reread.
• I looked for word parts that I know.
• I tried to blend the sounds together.
• I thought of another word that looks like this word.
• I read on to find clues.
• I replaced the word with another word or synonym that makes sense.
• I looked up the word in the index or dictionary.

Clarifying to visualize or use other senses:

• I reread to get a picture in my head.
• I looked for key words that helped me make pictures in my head.
• I looked for key words or phrases that helped me experience senses while reading.

comprehension (Duke & Pearson, 2002). Reciprocal teaching provides students

with many opportunities to exercise their summarizing muscles as they for-
mulate frequent verbal summaries throughout the reading of a text. Summa-
rizing is a complex process that requires the orchestration of various skills and
strategies, including recalling important events and details, sequencing, para-
phrasing, and using synonyms or selecting vocabulary. When summarizing a
story, students may use the setting, characters, problem, events, and resolution
to guide their summaries. By contrast, informational text requires students to

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 28 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 The Fab Four: Reciprocal Teaching Strategies 29

determine important points or categories of information and arrange them in a

logical order.
There are many creative ways you can engage students in summarizing.
To provide more practice and improve students’ abilities to summarize, try
stopping more frequently throughout a text to allow students to share verbal
summaries or dramatize text. You might ask them to select a favorite part of
a chapter and sketch a quick drawing to represent that scene (Oczkus, 2009).
Other students in the group can then share their favorite parts, and the group
can place those scenes in order and practice putting together a group summary.
Alternatively, students can write down five key points from an informational
text and make up hand motions for each to be used in a physical, hand motion
summary. The main point to remember is that summary practice doesn’t have
to be boring!
During reciprocal teaching, the teacher and students should take turns sum-
marizing different parts of a text. Students may use the following prompts to
guide their summaries:

• The most important ideas in this text are . . .

• This part was mostly about . . .
• This book was about . . .
• First . . .
• Next . . .
• Then . . .
• Finally . . ..
• The story takes place . . .
• The main characters are . . .
• A problem occurs when . . .
• In the beginning/middle/end . . .

Summarizing is extremely important because strong evidence exists that

practice in summarizing improves students’ reading comprehension of fiction
and informational text alike, helping them construct an overall understanding
of a text, story, chapter, or article (Rinehart, Stahl, & Erickson, 1986; Taylor,
1982). In reciprocal teaching lessons, students are provided with frequent
opportunities to benefit from others’ summaries and participate in creating
their own, which helps them become more proficient readers. (See Figure 1.5
for how the actual process of summarizing differs when reading fiction or
informational text.)

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 29 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 30 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

FIGURE 1.5
Summarizing with Fiction and Informational Text
Summarizing with Fiction Summarizing with Informational Text
• Use text structure to summarize the text. • Use text structure to summarize the main idea and
• Use chapter headings and visuals to help summarize. details, sequence, causes and effects, and problem
and solution.
• Tell the events in order and include the characters,
problem, events, and resolution. • Use text features (e.g., table of contents, headings,
visuals) to summarize.
• Share the theme of the story or novel.
• Talk about characters’ feelings and motivations and
share text evidence.

Essential Lesson Foundations and Gradual Release

Simply running through the mechanics of the four reciprocal teaching strat-
egies is not enough to yield maximum growth in reading comprehension. In
order to ensure that students internalize the Fab Four and use the strategies on
their own, a strong gradual release model is essential (Pearson & Gallagher,
1983). Gradual release of responsibility is a research-based proven process
that begins with teacher modeling and think-alouds, is followed by guided
cooperative practice with feedback from the teacher and peers, and ends with
independent practice and reflection (Fisher & Frey, 2007). The goal is to pro-
vide just the right dose of teacher support and know when to let up gradually
so students become metacognitive and eventually able to employ the strategies
on their own.
Regie Routman (2008) calls the gradual release model “I do. We do.
You do. ” We might increase our modeling with more challenging texts and
include two “I dos” or increase the guided practice with a few more “we dos.”
Reciprocal teaching offers opportunities for providing students with plenty of
meaningful feedback in every part of the lesson (Hattie, 2008). While mod-
eling, students should talk to partners briefly and discuss their responses.
During the guided practice and independent steps, the teacher and other stu-
dents talk about the text and give one another feedback on ideas and strategy
use. The landmark work of famous psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1978) also
supports reciprocal teaching discussions. His ideas focus on the importance
of learning and social interaction. His well-known quote reinforces what we
know about gradual release: “What a child can do in cooperation today, he
can do alone tomorrow.”

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 30 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 The Fab Four: Reciprocal Teaching Strategies 31

Gradual release applies to anything you’re learning. For example, I attend

yoga and carefully observe the teacher as she demonstrates various pretzel-like
positions. Then, while I try to copy her models, she talks the class through each
move. She circulates during guided practice and gives pointers or pushes a par-
ticipant’s limb further down or up as part of her coaching moves. Finally, we
try practicing on our own while she continues circulating to provide feedback
or corrections. After each sequence, I reflect on how well—or poorly, which is
more often the case—I executed the poses. After a while, I notice that my joint
pain is relieved if I attend twice a week. Think of reciprocal teaching like you
would any sport or activity. You’ll see more improvement the more you prac-
tice, especially when someone is giving you meaningful feedback and guid-
ance! Gradual release applies to any learning situation where we watch, receive
coaching, and practice on our own.
To provide teachers with concrete tools for building gradual release with
reciprocal teaching, we incorporate the following four instructional founda-
tions (Figure 1.6):

• Scaffolding
• Think-alouds
• Metacognition
• Cooperative learning

In my project schools, we study these four foundations to improve our

coaching sessions after classroom demonstrations or observations. When we
strengthen the foundations, our lessons go from good to great and student
growth soars. Sometimes, just a small adjustment to the lesson delivery makes
an enormous difference. Here are some examples of situations where I worked
with teachers to improve their lessons using the four foundations.
One 4th grade teacher did a great job scaffolding her lessons during guided
reading groups by providing teacher modeling and giving time to reflect. She
posted the strategies and stems for students to see during the lesson. However,
she rarely if ever provided opportunities for students to speak to one another.
When we discussed her lesson, she realized she was missing the cooperative
learning piece and was just calling on individuals. In a later lesson, I observed
her asking students to turn and talk to one another to find examples of the
strategies in the text. She also taught basic group discussion rules such as mak-
ing eye contact, taking turns, and piggybacking. Her 4th graders’ reading scores
shot up, with most jumping two grade levels in just five months! Discussion

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 31 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 32 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

FIGURE 1.6
Overview of the Essential Lesson Foundations
Scaffolding • Did the students experience teacher modeling before guided practice?
• Is there supported guided practice with peers?
• Are grade level–appropriate visuals and supports (e.g., posters, charts, bookmarks, gestures,
strategy starters, prompts) available to cue students to use the strategies?
• Does the teacher observe students using the reciprocal teaching strategies and give specific
feedback to individuals and the group?
• Does the teacher adjust and plan instruction based on students’ needs?
• Is the text appropriate for the instruction? Is another needed?

Think-alouds • Did the teacher conduct one or more think-alouds and read aloud from the text?
• Did the teacher give a specific example(s) of one or more of the strategies and demonstrate his
or her thinking?
• Did the teacher truly model and not just assign the strategies?
• Were students engaged during the think aloud? Did they follow along in their copy of the text?
Did they talk to partners about the example or annotate the text?

Metacognition • Did the lesson open with a quick review of the reciprocal teaching strategies and their definitions?
• Did the lesson end with a discussion of how the strategies helped students comprehend the text
that day? Did students reflect on their strategy use?
• During reading, did the teacher and students discuss the “how to” steps for each of the
strategies?

Cooperative • Did students work in pairs or groups to discuss the Fab Four?
learning • Were students required to participate and record their individual responses for accountability, or
did they respond as partners or in teams?
• Did students follow the protocol for discussions, including making eye contact, taking turns, and
adding on to one another’s comments?

really does promote comprehension (Lapp, Flood, Ranck-Buhr, Van Dyke, &
Spacek, 1997).
An 8th grade science teacher put students into teams to read articles and
textbook chapters together while taking on the roles of predictor, questioner,
clarifier, and summarizer. She had complained that students were “stuck” and
seemed bored with the process. After observing, I suggested that she model for
three to five minutes at the beginning of class using a challenging example and
applying one of strategies. Then I told her to check in after the groups met to
discuss student examples of the same strategy. Besides making group posters
and presentations, each student filled in a four door chart for the chapter or
article and used the Fab Four bookmarks to guide their responses and discus-
sions. By providing more explicit teacher modeling while tightening scaffolding
and accountability, students participated with more enthusiasm and urgency.

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 32 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 The Fab Four: Reciprocal Teaching Strategies 33

Keep these building blocks in mind when introducing and extending recip-
rocal teaching lessons in any setting—from whole-class groupings to literature
circles. The four foundations work together in the following ways to make les-
sons successful:

• The teacher models using constant think-alouds.

• Students work in cooperative pairs or teams to practice on their own.
• The teacher provides the right amount of scaffolding, which might
include a language frame or prompt (e.g., “I didn’t get . . . so I . . .”).
• The lesson includes a sufficient amount of metacognition so students and
the teacher can discuss the steps involved in each strategy and identify
which one was most helpful.

When I demonstrate and coach lessons, I ask teachers to watch carefully for
each of the foundations that support students as they employ reciprocal teach-
ing strategies. Please note that for each of the four foundations, I’ve included
a classroom example to show how it enhances the reciprocal teaching lessons
and—ultimately—comprehension.

Scaffolding is the Art of Teaching

Scaffolding is often considered the skilled “art” of teaching. Before any
instruction takes place, we must consider students’ strengths and needs. Then
we study the required text and standards and consider how to scaffold the les-
son to create multiple ways for students to access the material. Scaffolding read-
ing instruction is similar to teaching a child how to ride a bicycle. He or she
begins by watching other people ride bicycles to get the idea and motivation.
Then a parent or other adult holds on to the bicycle’s seat and guides the child
for a time. Eventually, the adult lets go of the seat but remains nearby (possibly
even running next to the bicycle) in case support is needed. Finally, the child
pedals away on his or her own.
During reciprocal teaching, instruction is clearly scaffolded, or supported.
Students see models of the four strategies, experience some “seat holding” as
they try out reciprocal teaching in a supported environment, and finally work
independently as they read and use reciprocal teaching strategies to help them
comprehend the text. Every time students are engaged in reciprocal teaching,
they have the opportunity to participate in scaffolded instruction. Modeling,
support, and feedback are integral steps of the reciprocal teaching model.

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 33 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 34 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

Therefore, students are propelled to the next reading level as the support they
receive guides them through more difficult texts and reading tasks.
Concrete scaffolds support students as they try out the strategies. Optional
supports, such as characters, props, or hand motions, represent each strategy.
Visual scaffolds include icons, bookmarks, and posters with relevant language
clearly displayed so students can refer to it as they use the strategies with peers
and on their own. These tools also provide you with ways to prompt students
as they practice the reciprocal teaching strategies in a variety of texts.
Classroom Example. Mrs. Valentino reads aloud from a 2nd grade basal
text and stops to model her predictions after reading the first page. She uses the
strategy frame “I think . . . because . . .” and bases her prediction on the events
that just occurred in the text. She explains the rationale or evidence for her
prediction by rereading a portion of the text and then asks students to turn to
a partner and use the frame to discuss predictions and text evidence. She con-
tinues modeling, using the strategy frames for clarifying, questioning, and sum-
marizing. When partners work together to practice the strategies, they use their
bookmarks and a classroom poster with icons and strategy frames to guide
their discussions. (These materials will be discussed in Chapter 2.)

Scaffolding the Reciprocal Teaching Discussion During Guided Reading (Animal Architects [2012] by Timothy Bradley
used with permission from Teacher Created Materials.)

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 34 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 The Fab Four: Reciprocal Teaching Strategies 35

Think-Alouds Make Comprehension Visible

Reciprocal teaching was designed as a discussion technique in which think-
alouds play an integral part. Think-alouds are a research-based method of
improving comprehension (Baumann, Jones, & Seifert-Kessell, 1993; Wilhelm,
2001). Think-alouds show students what a good reader is thinking while read-
ing, which again provides scaffolding toward developing good reading compre-
hension. In reciprocal teaching lessons, both students and teacher participate in
thinking aloud.
The steps to reading comprehension are less tangible than, say, the steps to
solve a math problem, so this type of instruction may be new to teachers and
students alike. Successful reciprocal teaching gives students ongoing opportu-
nities to witness and conduct think-alouds using the four strategies. Teacher
modeling in the form of think-alouds should occur every time students engage
in reciprocal teaching lessons and should be conducted by the teacher and
students, who can take turns verbalizing the use of the strategies. This method
allows students to see more clearly the steps to create understanding while
reading. Figure 1.7 shows the steps to good think-alouds (Oczkus, 2009).
Classroom Example. Mr. Clark’s 5th graders pull out their weekly news
magazines and prepare to read about earthquakes. Mr. Clark reads aloud the
first column of the page-long article and pauses to model his thinking. After
asking his students what they know about summarizing, he rereads the text,

FIGURE 1.7
Think-Aloud Steps
1. Introduce the strategy.
• Ask students what they know about the strategy and how it helps them.
• Define the strategy (e.g., “Questioning is when . . .”) and its importance.
• Use a prop, such as a toy microphone, for questioning.

2. Model each strategy with • Think aloud using a specific example from the reading material (e.g., “When I
an interactive think-aloud. read this, I [predict, question, clarify, summarize]” or “Watch me as I summarize
the chapter so far.”).
• Use strategy prompts.

3. Provide support and • Guide students to work together on an example of the strategy in the text.
guided practice. • Have pairs or teams of students turn and talk and find examples.
• Circulate to assist and lead a class discussion to share.

4. Provide independent • Have students look for examples to share later with their pairs or groups.
practice.

5. Wrap up. • Ask students what they learned about the reading and which strategy helped
them the most as they read, predicted, questioned, summarized, and clarified.

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 35 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 36 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

tells how he selects the important key points, summarizes, and asks students
to turn and share a summary with their partner. Mr. Clark continues alternat-
ing between modeling aloud and allowing partners to turn and chat about
the remaining three strategies: predict, question, and clarify. The students read
the rest of the article independently and share questions, words, or sentences
to clarify with their partners. To end the lesson, Mr. Clark asks his students to
reflect on which strategy helped them the most in understanding earthquakes.

Build a Metacognitive Sandwich

Metacognition is the awareness of one’s own thinking processes (Brown,
1980). The think-aloud process goes hand in hand with metacognition, as
students talk about their thinking and how they use predictions, questions,
clarifications, and summaries. As the teacher, you can lead your students by
sharing how the strategies have helped you comprehend a given text. Think of
comprehension lessons as “metacognitive sandwiches,” because you begin the
lesson with an objective—such as a minilesson on predicting—and end with a
student-led review of how the strategy helped them.
I find that most students can name the strategy that helped them most
during the lesson but find it difficult to describe how or why. When you first
ask students to explain how a particular strategy helped them, you will need to
provide explanations and assistance. For example, when a student replies that
predicting helped him most but can’t explain why, you might add, “Predicting
helps us stay interested in the text so we keep on reading to see what happens
next.” Eventually, students will begin to explain their strategy use without as
much prompting.
Another technique I really like to use, especially with elementary-aged stu-
dents, is to ask, “Which strategy did you like using the most today?” Students
tend to answer this one with zeal. For example, one 1st grader told me she
liked questioning because we used the toy microphone, it was fun, and it made
her feel smart. What could be better than that?
A discussion rich with metacognitive thinking will include student com-
ments such as these:

• Prediction helped me the most today because it got me interested in

the reading.
• Clarifying helped me figure out the word citizen. I thought of the word
city, and I reread the sentence to see what made sense.

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 36 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 The Fab Four: Reciprocal Teaching Strategies 37

• Summarizing helped me remember all of the important events in

the story.
• I had to reread the book to get the main idea so I could ask a question.

Metacognition is an integral component in reciprocal teaching, because

students learn to consciously think about and reflect on their strategy use. Ulti-
mately, all students are trained to employ the same strategies good readers use
when monitoring their reading comprehension.
Classroom Example. The students in Mrs. Carr’s 4th grade class finish
reading a social studies lesson on the California Gold Rush. She asks students
to reflect on how the Fab Four helped them understand the text. Sammy says
that summarizing several times throughout the reading helped him remember
the main points. Kadeem felt that clarifying using the frame “I didn’t get the
sentence, so I . . .” helped him reread to make sure he understood the hardest
concepts. Questioning was fun for Sara as she stumped her group members,
who were forced to reread and infer to answer her question. Kendra enjoyed
scanning the text and studying the pictures and captions before reading to
make predictions.

Cooperative Learning: Discussion is the Key

Because reciprocal teaching is intended to be a discussion technique, coop-
erative learning is an essential part of what makes the technique work. When
students engage in purposeful talk with one another, they expand their think-
ing about a text (Fisher & Frey, 2008), and cooperative learning serves as a way
for students to deepen their reading comprehension, especially in content-area
texts (Armbruster et al., 2001). Cooperative learning also provides opportu-
nities for struggling readers and ELLs to participate in discussions, even when
the text may be above their reading level. This instructional foundation may
include “turn and talk” opportunities with partners, triads, and table groups.
Although in this book I show how to make quick-write tools, such as sticky
notes or a four door foldable (that students use to record their ideas for each
of the strategies: predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing), keep in
mind that the positive research results were achieved with reciprocal teaching
as an oral discussion technique—not with lengthy writing assignments. If you
wish to achieve positive growth in your students’ comprehension, it’s impera-
tive to provide time for cooperative discussions using reciprocal teaching. Keep
the writing to a minimum with the purpose of prompting discussions.

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 37 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 38 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

The cooperative nature of reciprocal teaching is an important part of

the scaffolded instruction, think-alouds, and metacognition inherent to the
approach. Even when I teach whole-class lessons, I incorporate quick activities
that require students to turn to a partner and engage in more cooperative learn-
ing practices, which occurs when students and teachers think aloud and give
voice to their metacognition. According to Kagan (1989), cooperative learn-
ing needs to encompass positive interdependence, individual accountability,
equal participation, and simultaneous interaction. When students participate
in reciprocal teaching lessons, they are held accountable for their role and have
ample opportunities to participate.
If the class is reading a social studies text, I may model a summary of a por-
tion of it and ask partners to work together to create a summary for the next
section. When reading a novel as a class, groups of students may be assigned a
strategy to report on to the class. Even during guided reading group sessions,
I might have pairs ask each other their questions after reading. Cooperative
learning is, of course, already in place during literature circles when students
work together to construct a recording sheet that includes their group members’
collaborative efforts for predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing.
Classroom Example. After each two-page spread of the 6th grade science
text, Mrs. Fox pauses to model the use of the Fab Four. She selects one of the
four strategies to model with a think-aloud and then asks students to turn and
talk to partners as they work their way through a verbal summary, quiz ques-
tions, and words and ideas to clarify. They also take a quick look to predict
what the next pages will cover. Mrs. Fox circulates around the room to assist
and prompt each group as students work cooperatively. Each student records a
question, a word to clarify, a prediction, and a one-sentence summary on a four
door chart

Informational Text and Reciprocal Teaching

Reciprocal teaching is an ideal technique to strengthen comprehension with any
text—but especially informational texts. Researchers have found that reciprocal
teaching not only strengthens student comprehension but also helps students
retain content-area material (Reutzel et al., 2005). In schools where recipro-
cal teaching is unfamiliar to the staff, we often begin with informational texts
because the strategies make content-area reading more engaging and accessible to
students. Teachers are constantly searching for ways to strengthen comprehension

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 38 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 The Fab Four: Reciprocal Teaching Strategies 39

Cooperative Discussions Are Key to Comprehension

of informational texts, and the Common Core State Standards have affected the
quantity and rigorous quality of the informational texts in our classrooms.
The reciprocal teaching strategies naturally fit the way strong readers think
as they process informational text. When readers encounter an informational
text, they skim and scan the headings, visuals, and text to take in the big picture
and predict what they will learn from the reading. They also draw on their prior
knowledge as it applies to the topic. Then, as they begin reading the text, they
naturally encounter challenging words and sentences that need to be clarified.
All kinds of questions pop up—from possible test questions to “I wonders”
and text-dependent questions that require evidence from the reading.
Throughout, summarizing is necessary to digest and process the material.
A focus on text organization helps students comprehend and summarize bet-
ter. In my project schools, we utilize the text features and structures unique to
informational text to design interactive lessons. Throughout this book, you will
find many lessons and suggestions for teaching informational text using the
Fab Four. Figure 1.8 includes some examples of how to use text features with
each of the Fab Four strategies and informational text.

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 39 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 40 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

FIGURE 1.8
The Fab Four and Informational Text: 20 Miniliesson Ideas
Charts, Maps,
Table of Contents Headings Photos, Sketches Diagrams Index. Glossary
Predict • Study the table of • Take a text walk • Look over the • Preview the • Skim the index
I think I will contents. with a partner or pictures and cap- charts, maps, and glossary
learn . . . • Page through the small group and tions in the text and diagrams in before taking a
text and return use the headings with a partner. Tell the text to make text walk. Keep the
to the table of to predict what what you think logical predictions words in mind as
contents to predict you will learn. you will learn from about what you you preview the
what you will learn • Use sentence the visuals. Sketch will learn. Share text.
in each chapter. frames to help you your favorite visual. with partners and • Identify glossary or
Discuss. discuss headings: • Determine whether small groups. index words you
• Which chapters This heading says the visuals will be already know and
look most interest- . . . I think I will important to the want to know.
ing? Why? learn . . . text. Why or why
not?

Question • Before reading, • Turn headings into • Ask and answer • Ask and answer • Use the glossary
Who, what, write “I wonder” questions to quiz questions about the questions using and index to help
when, questions on yourself and a pictures/visuals. the maps, charts, you review import-
where, sticky notes and partner. • Think about what and diagrams. ant words from
place them next to • Divide the head- the visuals make Discuss your the text.
why, how, I the chapter titles questions with
wonder ings in a text so you wonder. • Ask and answer
in the table of each pair or group • Think of questions partners or small questions about
contents. takes one or two that might be on groups. the words.
and creates a a test.
question to go with • Quiz a partner
it. Share. using informa-
tion found in the
visuals.

Clarify • Return to the table • Read a section • Study the pictures • Explain the map, • Look up words in
I don’t of contents in the of text, and then and captions as chart, or diagram the glossary as
understand middle of reading return to the head- you read. to someone else. you read to help
. . . so I the text. How is ing. Why do you • Think about • Identify parts that you clarify what
it keeping you think the author whether the are confusing. they mean.
will . . . on track? Are you chose it? Does visuals help you • Reread and clarify.
confused? Do you the heading make understand the
need to reread or sense to you? • Determine why the
text better. How? author included
discuss the text? • Determine if you • Identify any visuals this visual.
are on track, if that are confus-
you need to talk to ing? Why were
someone, or if you they so?
should reread?
How can headings
help you stay on
track?

Summarize • Go back to the • Take turns with • Discuss your • Draw a replica of • Reread the text
I learned . . . chapter titles after a partner. Read a favorite visuals your favorite map, to identify 5–10
reading, and either heading and tell from the text with chart, or diagram. important words.
dramatize or draw what you remem- a partner. Why are Share with others. • Use those words
what you learned. ber. Reread if you they favorites? • Tell why you like in a summary with
are not sure. • Use the visuals it or why it is a partner or small
in the text to help important. group.
you summarize. • Summarize the • Sketch or dra-
text and tell how matize the most
the visuals support important words.
the information.

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 40 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 The Fab Four: Reciprocal Teaching Strategies 41

Close Reading and Reciprocal Teaching

Is close reading the new black? Just like the trusty little black dress or black
blazer that have become reliable stapes in our wardrobes, close reading plays
an important role in literacy instruction (Oczkus, 2016). Close reading is called
upon when students (or the teacher) identify a challenging text or portion
of text that requires multiple rereadings to fully comprehend. Close reading
involves rereading to highlight and underline key ideas, asking and answering
questions, determining author’s purpose and word choice, developing fluency,
and discussing the text with others (Oczkus & Rasinski, 2015). The unfortunate
truth is that too many students are tempted to skip entire sections of text rather
than make sense of it (Fisher & Frey, 2012). With so much text bombarding
students today, they desperately need a toolkit of strategies to help them learn
how and when to read closely.
Teachers also complain that close reading lessons can be boring as
students and teachers alike dread rereading assigned passages. In the hunt
for a more lively close reading protocol, reciprocal teaching—with its four

Teacher Modeling During Close Reading Lessons (text from [Oczkus 2014; Oczkus & Rasinski 2015]. Printed with
permission from Shell Educational Publishing, a division of Teacher Created Materials)

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 41 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 42 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

distinct strategies—emerged as an engaging option. For a number of years, I

relied on reciprocal teaching as a way to actively engage students in reread-
ing texts. I then worked with Dr. Timothy Rasinski to further develop a
research-based model for repeated close readings using reciprocal teaching
(Oczkus & Rasinski, 2015). We incorporated rereadings of paired fiction
and informational texts centered around the reciprocal teaching strategies.
Since close reading involves repeated readings—and because repeated read-
ings build fluency (Samuels, 1979)—a focus on reading fluency is a natu-
ral bonus objective to the lessons. Close reading with reciprocal teaching
works with practically any text and at any grade level! The key is to have
students skim a text to make predictions and then reread the same text
three times to clarify, question, and summarize. Between rereadings, stu-
dents discuss their findings with partners or small groups, which improves
engagement and comprehension.
Here are some practical examples of close reading with reciprocal teaching
across the grade levels:

• Eleventh graders write about Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry

Finn as they circle sections of text with dialogue and idioms to clarify,
box key sections to create discussion questions, and star main parts to
include in a summary.
• Eighth graders read several online articles about “fake news,” using
close reading techniques as they mark and underline words and chal-
lenging portions of text to clarify. They also write down questions to
ask and identify main ideas and details to contrast and summarize.
• Fourth graders read and mark up a poem about Arbor Day by under-
lining descriptive passages to clarify and circling the most important
key words to include in their summaries.
• First graders, in preparation to meet a guide dog that will visit the
school, listen to relevant texts read aloud by the teacher. The teacher
makes a copy of one text for students to read closely and identify
questions to ask one another, words to clarify, and key points to sum-
marize. Students use different colored crayons to mark each of the Fab
Four strategies.

Figure 1.9 includes a generic lesson plan that can work with any text (fic-
tion or informational text) and at any grade level.

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 42 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 The Fab Four: Reciprocal Teaching Strategies 43

FIGURE 1.9
Fab Four Close Reading Lesson Outline
Lesson Notes:
Make copies of the text for students to mark or annotate. Be sure to also project a copy so you can model and students can easily
follow along. Have students use different colored pencils, crayons, or markers as they reread and mark up their texts. Use symbols
such as brackets, boxes, stars, circles, and underlining to interact with the text. Allow students to discuss their markings and thoughts
between rereadings. Select a text that is challenging or thought-provoking and worthy of rereading.

Materials:
sticky notes, writing utensils in different colors, copies of text for students

Lesson Objectives:
• Students will reread a text multiple times to apply each of the reciprocal teaching strategies, including predict, clarify, question, and
summarize.
• Students will participate in partner, team, and class discussions.

Meeting the Needs of ELL Students and Struggling Readers:

• Use sentence frames for each of the four strategies to scaffold academic vocabulary.
• Discuss vocabulary that students may not know. Create gestures, visuals, and/or drawings for the words.
• Use a variety of rereading techniques, such as echo reading and partner reading, to build fluency.
• Send passages students have read closely home for rereading practice. Have them perform in small groups.

Predict: Students skim and scan the text, glancing at the topic, text organization, theme, tone, story elements, and author’s purpose.
They briefly turn to partners and share predictions.
Read: Students read silently and mark or circle tricky or interesting words. The teacher reads the passage again aloud while students
follow along.
Reread to Clarify: Students reread to find more tricky words or sentences to mark and then discuss with partners or small groups.
Reread to Question: Students reread to ask and answer questions. They write questions directly on the text or on a sticky note placed
on the relevant paragraph or page. They should also underline answers and text evidence.
Reread to Summarize: Students summarize verbally in pairs or small groups. They underline, box, circle, and star main ideas, details,
and favorite parts.

Source: Adapted from Close Reading with Paired Texts: Series K–8, by L. D. Oczkus and T. Rasinski, 2015, Huntington Beach, CA: Shell Publishing. Copy-
right 2015 by Shell Publishing. Reprinted with permission.

Overcoming Obstacles When Implementing Reciprocal Teaching

It’s clear that students benefit from instruction using reciprocal teaching, but
teachers may still encounter some common problems when implementing
the strategies in their classrooms. Figure 1.10 lists some of these problems
and their possible solutions. Teachers also can anticipate difficulties with a
specific reciprocal teaching strategy and overcome them with the suggestions
provided in Figure 1.11. These tables are adapted from the work of Hacker and
Tenent (2002).

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 43 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 44 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

Close Reading with Paired Texts (Oczkus & Rasinski, 2015). Printed with permission from Shell Educational
Publishing, a division of Teacher Created Materials.

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 44 3/20/18 11:11 AM


FIGURE 1.10
Potential Problems with Reciprocal Teaching and Suggested Solutions
Problem
You can’t fit all four strate-
gies into your lessons.
Your students have trouble
using the four strategies in
longer texts.
You are not sure how to
assess your students’
progress.
Even with teacher model-
ing, your students are not
employing the strategies on
their own.
ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 45
The Fab Four: Reciprocal Teaching Strategies 45
Solution
• It is critical for all four strategies to be present in a reciprocal teaching lesson to yield higher results.
One student can be the “checker” and check off each of the strategies as the group works through
each one.
• Don’t provide full-blown teacher models for all four strategies every lesson.
• Model one strategy, and then have students participate in the other three with peers.
• Take away any writing that may slow down the lesson.
• Allow students to turn and talk to a partner instead of participating in a whole-class discussion.
• Spend more time discussing the strategy students need most, and whip through the rest, calling it a
“quick Fab Four.”
• Read a designated portion of the text using reciprocal teaching, and then have students read the
rest independently or with partners.
• Start by using small chunks of text, such as a few paragraphs, and try to gradually increase the
chunks used during reciprocal teaching lessons to pages, lessons, and eventually entire chapters.
• Observe students’ verbal responses. Jot down notes. Date and compare findings.
• Call on any student in the group to share, or collect written responses.
• Watch for growth on district and other reading comprehension assessments.
• Use the Showing Growth with The Fab Four chart on page 307.
• Use teacher modeling to introduce reciprocal teaching. Frequent teacher modeling is necessary.
Model using different kinds of fiction and informational texts.
• Ask students to verbalize why each strategy is important. Metacognition will help them use the strat-
egies when they read on their own.
• Ask students at the start of a lesson to share examples of how they used the Fab Four in their reading
at home or on their own. Encourage specific examples.
• Bring in your reading material from home and demonstrate a think-aloud using a brief excerpt. Tell
how you use the Fab Four strategies.
• Have students work with cross-age buddies. When older students have to “teach” a younger child to
use the strategies, the strategies are internalized.
(continued)
3/20/18 11:11 AM
 46 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK
FIGURE 1.10
Potential Problems with Reciprocal Teaching and Suggested Solutions (continued)
Problem
The classroom is sometimes • Instruct students on how to work together quietly. Reciprocal teaching does require discussion and
noisy during reciprocal
teaching lessons.
You feel that you do not have
enough time for reciprocal
teaching in your curriculum.
Your struggling readers and
ELL students have trouble
using reciprocal teaching
strategies with peers in
grade-level material.
Reciprocal teaching has
become boring.
ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 46
Solution
a certain amount of noise, but teach “six-inch voices” whereby students speak at a level heard by a
partner six inches away—but no farther.
• Circulate around the room to observe and listen in on groups. Call on groups to perform for the class
and model quiet discussions.
• Have one group at a time meet in a designated spot in the classroom to discuss a text using the
reciprocal teaching strategies. This works well during stations or independent work time while you
teach a guided reading group.
• Have pairs of students work through the strategies while reading a text.
• Find time by weaving the strategies throughout the day into your core reading and content-area
lessons. Once students are familiar with the four strategies, you can fit them into lessons you are
already teaching.
• Use the Fab Four in close reading lessons with short articles, the weekly news, or poetry. Do so at
least twice a week.
• Only use reciprocal teaching in discussions without writing to save time and increase opportunities
for practice.
• Once students are familiar with all four strategies, select just one or two per lesson to model in a
think-aloud. Students should talk about the other strategies in pairs.
• Use reciprocal teaching at least two or three times per week in any combination of settings in
order to see results. Once might be with a poem, and a second time might be with part of a social
studies chapter.
• Meet individually with struggling students or ELL students to select a chunk of grade-level text to
work through using the strategies. Then have them work with the class in heterogeneous teams.
• Meet as an intervention group twice a week to discuss a variety of texts.
• Keep modeling each of the strategies! Provide sentence frames to scaffold the discussions.
• Allow ELL students to practice the reciprocal teaching strategies in their first language. Use this as a
bridge to help them learn the thinking involved.
• Use reciprocal teaching as a Tier II Response to Intervention plan for struggling readers. Monitor
and assess weekly. Move students into Tier III lessons with fewer students in the group and even
easier text.
• Do not use teacher-led lessons all the time. Let students select reading material, and group by inter-
est. Bring in high-interest articles and books to read.
• Use the lesson ideas for each strategy found in this book. Try something fun with one of the four
strategies in each lesson.
• Use reciprocal teaching with high-interest texts. Provide student choice in texts.
ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
3/20/18 11:11 AM

FIGURE 1.11
Overcoming Difficulties Students Experience with Reciprocal Teaching Strategies
Common Problems
• Making imaginative predictions
that are not based on textual
clues.
• Making wild predictions that
don’t relate to the text.
• Making simple, surface-level
predictions.
• Not returning to predic-
tions after reading to check
accuracy.
• Not predicting using prior
events in fiction.
• Predicting awkwardly with
informational text.
• Not using text features to pre-
dict in informational text.
• Asking only literal or superficial
questions.
• Asking silly, trivia type
questions.
• Not asking inferential
questions.
• Not understanding what a
question entails.
• Needing more practice asking
questions.
• Skipping the clarifying step
altogether because they think
there is nothing to clarify.
• Clarifying words—not ideas.
• Letting the teacher do all the
clarifying.
• Confusing clarifying and
questioning.
• Using little variety in ways to
clarify.
ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 47
The Fab Four: Reciprocal Teaching Strategies 47
Suggestion Solutions
Predicting
• Model predictions by using think-alouds and textual clues.
• Model surface-level predictions and below-the-surface predictions (e.g., theme, characters’
feelings).
• Invite the discussion director of small reciprocal teaching groups to return to predictions after
reading to check accuracy.
• Periodically stop and summarize what has happened so far. Add “Now I think . . .
because . . .” and use text evidence to support ideas.
• Take text walks using text features, such as table of contents, headings, visuals, index, and
glossary.
• Require students to use the word because at the end of all predictions and showing in the
text what inspires their thinking.
• Have students tell how their background knowledge affected their predictions.
Questioning
• Model how to formulate different types of questions, including higher-level, inferential, and
critical thinking questions.
• Ask students to reflect: How does this question help us understand the text?
• Provide question starters, such as “Why do you think . . . ?”
• Give students three-word question starters such as “How did the . . . ?”
• Use a toy microphone to prompt questioning.
• Ask students to read the material and write several questions before meeting with a group.
• Ask students to “flip” sentences and parts of a text into questions.
• Ask partners to alternate roles—one student reads aloud and the other asks a question.
• Have students first read the material silently while hunting for questions, then read the mate-
rial aloud before writing questions to discuss.
Clarifying
• Model words and ideas to clarify.
• Use the prompt “I didn’t get the [word, idea, chapter] so I . . .”
• Require that every student provides an example. If they have nothing to clarify, they should
select a word or an idea a younger student might have trouble reading.
• Have students hunt for places in the text where they visualized or had difficulty visualizing
and reread. Sketch a drawing of what they “see.”
• Provide copies of one page of a text and have students underline words to clarify in one color
and sentences to clarify in another.
• Model and teach the difference between questioning and clarifying.
• Remind students that questions start with question words.
• Model how to clarify idioms, similes, metaphors, and literary devices to bring a level of
sophistication to discussions.
• Keep an ongoing list of ways to clarify, such as using synonyms, rereading, reading on,
chunking words into parts, using context, using background knowledge.
(continued)
3/20/18 11:11 AM
 48 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

FIGURE 1.11
Overcoming Difficulties Students Experience with Reciprocal Teaching Strategies (continued)
Common Problems Suggestion Solutions

• Giving summaries that are
word-by-word retellings of
the text.
• Providing summaries that miss
main points or that are too
long or too short.
• Rarely including main themes
in summaries.
• Disliking summarizing because
it is difficult.
Summarizing
• Have students work in groups on other strategies but as a class to contribute to a teacher-­
guided shared summary.
• Ask groups to write a summary to share with the class for comments and feedback, and then
have students rewrite to share again on large posters.
• Have groups write and share summaries, and ask the class to vote for the strongest summary
(from a rubric).
• Get at deeper themes by asking students to write letters to you or a classmate telling what
they learned from the text.
• Use graphic organizers to capture main ideas, details, and text structure.
• Use text features to guide summaries.
• Try engaging ways to summarize, including hand motion summaries (gestures for key vocab-
ulary) and pantomimes.
• Have students sketch favorite parts and put them in order.

Reciprocal Teaching as an Intervention or RTI Model

RTI, or Response to Intervention, is “a process of implementing high-quality,
scientifically validated instructional practices based on learner needs, monitor-
ing student progress, and adjusting instruction based on the student’s response”
(Bender & Shores, 2007, p. 7). The goal of RTI is to help struggling students catch
up and avoid special education by providing intense, research-based levels of
assessment, instruction, and interventions (Howard, 2009). RTI is often included
in a Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), which is more comprehensive
and focuses on providing all students with equitable access and opportunities to
achieve. Reciprocal teaching and its promise of results makes a sensible strategy
to use not only in the regular classroom but also in an RTI model.
Typically, RTI is organized around three tiers of high-quality instruction.
In many ways, RTI is what good teachers have always done as they adjust
instruction to meet the needs of struggling students. In Tier I, all students are
exposed to high-quality literature, varied grouping formats, and assessments
(including an initial screening). Students who have difficulties, in spite of this
well-­designed instruction, are assessed further and receive additional and more
intense Tier II small-group instruction. The reading specialist or classroom
teacher delivers Tier II lessons and continually assesses struggling students. If
the target students do not respond to this intensive small-group model, a Tier III

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 48 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 The Fab Four: Reciprocal Teaching Strategies 49

plan is administered, which includes lessons delivered in an even smaller group

or one on one by a reading teacher or literacy specialist. Frequent assessments
inform instruction throughout all tiers (Cooper, Kiger, & Robinson, 2011).
Reciprocal teaching strategies can be incorporated as the basis of instruc-
tion in all three tiers of an RTI plan. In my work in schools, I’ve witnessed
many strong models using reciprocal teaching as an intervention for struggling
students. In every instance, whether it was an in-class model or an after-school
small-group intervention, students have shown improvement in comprehen-
sion after the extra dose of strategies.
The following are some examples of successful intervention models with
reciprocal teaching:

• The intermediate teachers at diverse Randall School taught whole-class

and literature circle reciprocal teaching lessons with district-adopted texts.
The teachers assessed and identified struggling readers and met with them
briefly during class at least three times per week in small guided reading
groups to provide more intensive reciprocal teaching instruction. The
teachers monitored the target students’ progress using informal weekly
observations, running records, and administration of the Qualitative
Reading Inventory (QRI) three times over the year.
• At Washington School, an inner-city site, educators documented dramatic
growth on the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) by teaching an
after-school intervention using leveled texts and reciprocal teaching three
times per week. In class, students employed the same strategies during
whole-group and cooperative lessons as well as in a cross-age tutoring
program. Most of the students read on or near grade level after just three
months of instruction. The 4th graders, who had been reading on a 2nd
grade level, went up two grade levels in just three months!
• Cypress School, a rural site, designed an innovative intervention for pri-
mary students using informational texts and reciprocal teaching during
guided reading for improved comprehension and reading scores.
• Cooper and colleagues (2000) found that after just 76 days of instruction,
students in their research group performed significantly better than the
control group on measures of retelling, answering, and reading comprehen-
sion. The students in the research group also read at a higher level. Since
this initial study, many schools across the United States use their method
and materials as an intervention. (This program is called Soar to Success.)

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 49 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 50 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

Although there are other important comprehension strategies, researcher

Barbara Taylor (2008) suggests that because instructional time is limited, teach-
ers implementing RTI should focus on the strategies that many studies support.
The most effective strategies include the following:

• Predicting by using graphic organizers with fiction and informational text.

• Asking and answering questions using text evidence.
• Comprehension monitoring.
• Summarizing.

According to studies (e.g., Fuchs, Fuchs, & Vaughn, 2008), these strategies
improve student comprehension when taught explicitly. It’s also suggested that
teachers incorporate cooperative learning, a foundation of reciprocal teaching,
to improve student comprehension. Most important, we must pay attention to
the research that supports teaching students to use multiple strategies in small-
group discussions and other natural contexts (NICHD, 2000; Pressley, 2006).
Because reciprocal teaching is a multiple-strategy approach that invites students
to use all four recommended strategies along with cooperative learning, it is a
solid and effective option for providing research-based instruction to students
in all three tiers of an RTI plan.
When reinforced in all three tiers, students receive the same powerful strat-
egies with varying levels of intensity. In Figure 1.12, you will find an outline of
ideas for using reciprocal teaching in each of the tiers, along with assessments
to monitor student progress.

Tier I
Tier I revolves around high-quality classroom teaching using proven
research-based methods and rich literature with all students. During Tier I
instruction, teachers vary the grouping methods and materials to differentiate
instruction for all learners. After an initial screening, such as the Benchmark
Assessment System (Fountas & Pinnell, 2007a, 2007b), the teacher continues
to assess student progress during instruction to determine which students need
more instruction or intervention. Throughout Tier I, students are exposed to a
variety of rich literature and explicit teacher modeling. Allington (2009) sug-
gests that we provide all students with easy access to a wide range of interesting
texts they enjoy reading. He tells us that the single most important factor that
determines the success of an intervention for struggling readers is matching stu-
dents to texts they can read fluently, accurately, and with comprehension.

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 50 3/20/18 11:11 AM


FIGURE 1.12
Reciprocal Teaching with Response to Intervention
Characteristics
• Exposure to rich and varied reading
materials.
• A variety of groupings for differentiating
instruction in whole-class, small-group,
and independent structures.
• Mix of heterogeneous and homoge-
neous groupings; flexible groupings.
• Smaller groups of 3–6 students.
• Meets daily or several times per week.
• Taught by classroom teacher or
specialist.
• More frequent assessment.
• Meets daily with classroom teacher or
reading specialist.
• One on one or small group of two or
three.
• Daily assessments and observations.
ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 51
The Fab Four: Reciprocal Teaching Strategies
Ideas for Using Reciprocal Teaching
Tier I
(high-quality instruction for all students)
• Teach all four reciprocal teaching strat-
egies together as a multiple-strategy
package: predict, question, clarify,
summarize.
• Use tools to model reciprocal teaching
strategies: teacher think-alouds, post-
ers, bookmarks, spinners.
• Incorporate reciprocal teaching in a
variety of grouping formats, based on
need (e.g., whole group, small groups,
teacher led).
• Provide targeted instruction through
minilessons on predicting, questioning,
clarifying, and summarizing.
• Use reciprocal teaching with reading
materials at instructional and indepen-
dent reading levels for both fiction and
informational text.
• Incorporate reciprocal teaching in read-
alouds, shared reading, small groups,
partner reading, and independent
reading.
Tier II
(targeted small-group instruction)
• Meet with target students and provide
small-group instruction using all four
reciprocal teaching strategies and texts
at the group’s instructional reading
level.
• Teach quick minilessons based on
student needs and the four strategies:
predict, question, clarify, summarize.
• Provide extra word work and support in
phonics and phonemic awareness after
reading texts using the Fab Four.
Tier III
(intensive one-on-one instruction)
• Provide more direct instruction at the
student’s instructional level using all
four reciprocal teaching strategies.
• Continue to provide the specific word
work needed based on observations.
• Provide minilessons on each of the
strategies when needed.
51
Ongoing Assessment Tools
• Administer overall screening device
several times per school year (e.g.,
Fountas & Pinnell, 2016).
• Provide frequent informal ongoing
assessments for all students (e.g.,
retelling, running records, observations
rubric page).
• Ask students to give predictions, iden-
tify words or points to clarify, ask ques-
tions, and make summaries (record
observations).
• Administer more frequent assessments
for struggling students (once a week
or more).
• Use a four door chart (page 139) for
students to record their responses.
• Ensure high-quality instruction and
fidelity by making sure all lessons
are built on the four foundations of
reciprocal teaching: modeling and
think-alouds, cooperative learning,
metacognition, and scaffolding.
• Coach students daily during guided
reading and record observations.
• Give frequent running records and
retelling assessments (once per week).
• Coach each student daily during guided
reading using all four strategies, and
provide prompts.
• Give daily running records and retelling
assessments.
• Provide necessary additional word
work to target specific needs.
3/20/18 11:11 AM
 52 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

Tier I includes strong whole-group instruction and guided reading groups

with reciprocal teaching. Literature circles and cross-age tutoring with “little
buddies” might also be part of Tier I instruction with the Fab Four strate-
gies. Students can be grouped heterogeneously or homogeneously based on
need. Targeted minilessons on each of the four strategies may be taught to
strengthen their use. Informal observations as well as written responses pro-
vide glimpses into students’ thinking. It is especially important that instruc-
tion in reciprocal teaching be scaffolded and grounded with think-alouds,
metacognition, and cooperative learning to promote maximum gains and
success. Teachers may want to observe one another or work with a literacy
specialist to ensure they are teaching all four strategies using the foundations
throughout all lessons.

Tier II
Second-level, or Tier II, instruction also takes place in the regular classroom
and usually involves providing small-group instruction with students of similar
needs grouped together. Either the classroom teacher or the reading specialist
may provide this extra dose of targeted instruction. Studies have shown that the
schools using the most small-group instruction consistently make more gains
in reading (e.g., Taylor, 2008). The teacher uses frequent—usually weekly or
even daily—assessments to document struggling students’ progress and needs.
Please note that small-group instruction is also part of Tier I. However, Tier II
involves targeting struggling students and placing them in even smaller groups
that meet daily if possible.
In Tier II, students work with reciprocal teaching using all four strategies
but in a smaller group of only three to six students. The students meet daily or
several times a week for an additional dose of reciprocal teaching that is deliv-
ered by either the reading specialist or classroom teacher, using easier-to-read
texts. Constant assessment in the form of running records and retellings or
commercial assessments provides valuable information on the students’ prog-
ress. Minilessons in each of the four strategies may be delivered when students
show a need for targeted instruction. Intensive word work around phonics
and phonemic awareness elements found in the texts may follow the recipro-
cal teaching comprehension lessons. If students do not respond with enough
growth with this intensive small-group version of reciprocal teaching, a Tier III
intervention may be necessary.

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 52 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 The Fab Four: Reciprocal Teaching Strategies 53

Tier III
If a student still struggles after Tier II instruction, then it may be determined
that he or she needs a Tier III intervention or an even more intensive dose of
instruction—this time in a very small group of students (two or three) or even
one on one. It is best if the Tier III instruction is provided daily by either a liter-
acy specialist or a highly trained teacher who employs frequent assessments to
monitor progress.
Tier III instruction using reciprocal teaching involves working with a small
group of just one to three students. Daily assessments and observations are nec-
essary to guide instruction at this level. When reciprocal teaching is used across
all three tiers of instruction, students benefit from the consistent but varied
exposure to the comprehension strategies that make the biggest difference in
their achievement.

Chapter 1 Wrap-Up and Reflection

• Reciprocal teaching is a scaffolded discussion technique based on the
four strategies all strong readers use: predicting, questioning, clarifying,
and summarizing. These strategies (the Fab Four) are used flexibly and in
any order.
• Reciprocal teaching can be used with any reading material, fiction or
informational text, in grades K–12 or even with adults.
• Reciprocal teaching is supported by solid research.
• Struggling readers and ELL students grow one or two years or more in one
school year when they use reciprocal teaching strategies. Stronger readers
benefit as well. Readers of all ages K–12 (and beyond) show growth in
reading comprehension and reading levels with these strategies.
• Good readers use text structure, clues from the text, and their own expe-
riences to make logical predictions. Questioning is important because
strong readers self-question before, during, and after reading. Clarify-
ing helps students identify problems or areas of confusion as they read
and offers ways to solve problems. Summarizing is a complex skill that
requires students to select and arrange in order only the most important
points from a text.
• The Fab Four strategies may be used with fiction or informational texts.

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 53 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 54 RECIPROCAL TEACHING AT WORK

• The essential foundations, or building blocks, to successful reciprocal

teaching instruction are scaffolded instruction, think-alouds, metacogni-
tion, and cooperative learning.
• The Fab Four strategies are part of a larger comprehensive reading pro-
gram that is based on all of the strategies that good readers use, such as
previewing, self-questioning, visualizing, making connections, monitor-
ing, knowing how words work, summarizing, and evaluating.
• When implementing reciprocal teaching, teachers and students may face
obstacles and difficulties.
• Reciprocal teaching makes for an effective, research-based strategy to
incorporate into all three tiers of an RTI plan.

Reflect and Discuss

• In what settings and with which students does reciprocal teaching yield
results? Why do you think it is so effective?
• How do the four foundations strengthen instruction? Reflect on a par-
ticular lesson you’ve taught and share how each foundation was used in
the lesson. Discuss ways you can strengthen your lessons with each of the
foundations.
• List ways you want to try reciprocal teaching in your classroom to help
students better comprehend texts. What students? What texts? How often?

....

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 54 3/20/18 11:11 AM

 ....
About the Author

Lori D. Oczkus is a literacy coach, author, and popu-

lar speaker across the United States. Tens of thousands
of teachers have attended her motivating, fast-paced
workshops and read her practical, research-based pro-
fessional books. Lori has extensive experience as a bilin-
gual elementary teacher, intervention specialist working
with struggling readers, staff developer, and literacy
coach. She works regularly with students in classrooms
and really knows the challenges that teachers face in
teaching students to read! Lori was inducted into the California Reading Hall
of Fame by the California Reading Association for her contributions to the field
of reading in California and throughout the United States.
This is the third edition of Lori’s best-selling book Reciprocal Teaching at
Work. Lori’s other popular titles include Just the Facts! Close Reading and Compre-
hension of Informational Text (Shell, 2014), Literacy Strong All Year Long (ASCD/
ILA, 2018), Best Ever Literacy Survival Tips: 72 Lessons You Can’t Teach Without
(ILA, 2012), Interactive Think-Aloud Lessons: 25 Surefire Ways to Engage Students
and Improve Comprehension (Scholastic & International Reading Association,
2009), The Fabulous Four Reading Comprehension Puppets (Primary Concepts,
2008), Guided Writing: Practical Lessons, Powerful Results (Heinemann, 2007),
and Super Six Comprehension Strategies: 35 Lessons and More for Reading Success
(Christopher-Gordon, 2004). Lori is also a coauthor on a variety of read-
364 ing materials and programs, including Close Reading with Paired Texts Grades

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 364 3/20/18 11:12 AM

 About the Author 365

K–5 Series (Shell/TCM, 2015), Talk About Books Guided Reading Program K–3
(Mondo, 2017), and Exploring Reading Program K–8 (TCM, 2017–2018).
Lori resides in northern California with her husband Mark and Charley
their multi-poo. They have three wonderful young adult children who some-
times move back in for awhile! She enjoys spending time with family and close
friends, taking photos, traveling anywhere by any means, reading historical fic-
tion, hiking and walking, swimming and snorkeling, in fresh or salt water.
For feedback, questions, and information on professional development,
you can contact Lori Oczkus through her website at www.lorioczkus.com or by
email loczkus52@earthlink.net.

ADVANCE UNCORRECTED COPY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

ReciprocalTeachingAtWork_revfinal.indd 365 3/20/18 11:12 AM

This article was downloaded by: [Universite Laval]
On: 13 July 2014, At: 08:45
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Scandinavian Journal of Educational

Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csje20

The Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on

Reading Comprehension in Mainstream
and Special (SLI) Education
a
Marjatta Takala
a
University of Helsinki , Finland
Published online: 24 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Marjatta Takala (2006) The Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on Reading
Comprehension in Mainstream and Special (SLI) Education, Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 50:5, 559-576, DOI: 10.1080/00313830600953824

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313830600953824

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research
Vol. 50, No. 5, November 2006, pp. 559–576

The Effects of Reciprocal Teaching

on Reading Comprehension in
Mainstream and Special (SLI)
Education
Marjatta Takala*
University of Helsinki, Finland
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 08:45 13 July 2014

Reading comprehension of fourth and sixth graders was promoted with reciprocal teaching in three
mainstream classes, and three special classes for pupils with specific language impairment (SLI).
Four cognitive strategies were used to enhance these pupils’ reading comprehension skills. Six
coordinated, 5-week interventions were held during regular class sessions in the spring and autumn
terms of 2003. These interventions, which varied in length from 10 to 15 lessons, were given to all
students attending fourth-grade and sixth-grade science classes in general science and sixth-grade
history lessons. A control group/experiment group design was used. According to pre-, post- and
retention tests the intervention proved to be beneficial, especially to the mainstream fourth-grade
class. Some positive development could also be noticed in the SLI groups. The results of children
improved mostly in expert-designed tests on reading comprehension. According to the interviews,
children and teachers were pleased to have had the opportunity to participate in the interventions
and to learn a new method of improving reading comprehension.

Keywords: Reciprocal reading; Reading strategies; SLI; Mainstream

Introduction
Reading comprehension can be described as a function of decoding skills and
language comprehension skills. Decoding skills are necessary, but not sufficient to
understand a text (Gough & Turmer, 1986). Some children may have weak word-
decoding skills and yet have good reading comprehension skills. However, those who
are weak in both have correspondingly magnified learning problems. As a result, it is
essential to practise both these skills, as it would appear that they are distinct skills.
Reading comprehension relies on the use of metacognitive strategies, which can and
should be practised. This is important because it will promote reading for

*Department of Applied Sciences of Education, University of Helsinki, Box 26 (Teollisuuskatu

23), FIN-00014, Finland. Email: marjatta.takala@helsinki.fi
ISSN 0031-3831 (print)/ISSN 1470-1170 (online)/06/050559-18
ß 2006 Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research
DOI: 10.1080/00313830600953824
 560 M. Takala

information as well as for pleasure. When the reader has a repertoire of

comprehensive strategies, they can be used flexibly in different situations (Carter,
1997; Chapman & Tunmer, 2003; Lederer, 2000). This study was undertaken in an
effort to determine whether reading comprehension skills can be improved via
reciprocal teaching strategies.

Reciprocal Teaching and Reading Strategies

Reciprocal teaching refers to a method of instruction that is designed to teach pupils
cognitive strategies that will help them to improve their reading comprehension skills
(Palinscar & Brown, 1984). The four strategies that are in current use are: (1)
predicting, (2) clarifying, (3) questioning, and (4) summarising. Predicting allows
the reader to draw inferences and use schemes. Asking for clarification allows the
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 08:45 13 July 2014

reader to verify that he or she has understood the text. Developing questions forces
the reader to concentrate on main ideas (main points), rather than on details.
Finally, while summarising a text, the reader has to concentrate on the major
content. At the same time, the reader will discover whether he or she understands the
text. All these activities demand the use of previous knowledge and have a dual
function: they are both comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring
activities. Both good and weak readers seem to benefit from reading strategies
(Lovett et al., 1996; Palinscar & Brown, 1984; Rosenshine & Meister, 1994).
The two main features of reciprocal teaching are instruction in the four
comprehension strategies and the use of dialogue between the teacher and the
pupils that will contribute to using the strategies while discussing the text. The
reciprocal method is designed to improve reading comprehension in children who
can decode, but experience difficulty understanding text (Johnson-Glenberg, 2000;
Palinscar & Brown, 1984; Rosenshine & Meister, 1994). These four strategies are
not goals in themselves, but are taught in a classroom context in which reading
comprehension skills are necessary (Swanson & De La Paz, 1998).
In their meta-analysis of 16 quantitative controlled studies on reciprocal teaching,
Rosenshine and Meister (1994) found that the effect of these strategies was not
dependent on whether the researcher or the teacher was teaching them. Neither was
success dependent on the size of the group (n52–23) or lessons used (6–10 hr). The
best results in outcome measures were received when expert-designed, not
standardised tests, were used. Children from the fourth grade on received significant
results (Rosenshine & Meister, 1994).
Reciprocal teaching is mostly used in primary and secondary schools, less in high
schools (Alfassi, 1998). Encouraging results have also been obtained with post-
secondary students at risk of academic failure (Hart & Speece, 1998). Little research
has been done in elementary schools on the use of reciprocal teaching with children
with special needs. Reciprocal teaching has been used with children with learning,
behavioural and mild disabilities in elementary groups (Marston, Dend, Kim,
Diment, & Rogers, 1995; Speece, MacDonald, Kilsheimer, & Krist, 1997). Positive
results have also been obtained among middle-school students with learning
 Reciprocal Teaching and Reading Strategies 561

disabilities and behavioural problems, when using both reading strategies and
tutoring (Mastropieri, 2001), as well as with children with learning disabilities in
inclusive elementary classrooms (Lederer, 2000). In Finland reciprocal interventions
(Arvonen, 2002; Aro, 2002) have been documented less than reading comprehen-
sion, which has been studied extensively (e.g. Holopainen, 2003; Inovaara &
Malmio, 2002; Karjalainen, 2000).

Aim of the Study

The aim of this study was to find out if reciprocal teaching was superior to traditional
methods when teaching fourth and sixth graders in mainstream education with
typically developing children and when teaching children who had specific language
impairment (SLI). Because decoding skills have a role in reading comprehension, the
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 08:45 13 July 2014

decoding skills of children were also studied. In addition, opinions of the teachers
and pupils about the intervention were taken into account in evaluating the success
of the classroom interventions.

Special Education for SLI Children in Finland

In Finland every child between 7 and 16 has a right and obligation to basic
education. During the primary stage (first 6 school years) they are taught by class
teachers and in special education by special class teachers. All class teachers hold a
Master’s degree in education, which normally requires 4–5 years of university study.
The special class teachers have usually studied 1 additional year, which adds to their
skills, knowledge and salary. SLI children are usually taught by special class teachers
in special classes, but according to a normal curriculum. This curriculum can be
adapted in some subjects for some children, but in general the same demands are
made of SLI pupils as of mainstream children. However, SLI children start school 1
year earlier, at the age of 6, if their SLI is diagnosed early enough.
When SLI (also called dysphasia) is diagnosed, language comprehension,
productive grammar and phonology are usually measured. Children with SLI differ
from their age-matched peers in all these parameters (Hansson & Nettelbladt, 2002).
Their problems are more serious and permanent than those of late talkers
(Dollaghan, 1998). Typical problems are language comprehension defects and
difficulties in finding the right word(s) (Korpilahti, 1996). Children with SLI usually
have problems with reading comprehension (e.g. Catts, 1993).
In Finnish schools, a normal lesson is 45 minutes and a double lesson 90 minutes.
The spring term starts in January and ends at the end of May, and the autumn term
starts on about 15 August and ends on about 20 December.

Method
This study included six similar interventions, three in mainstream classes and three
in special education classes (Table 1). One average primary school and one special
 562 M. Takala

Table 1. Structure of the six interventions (t1–65teacher, altogether six teachers; r5researcher; for
example t1 5+r 85teacher 1 had five lessons alone and 8 with the researcher)

Mainstream Special Education

Class Intervention started Number of lessons Intervention started Number of lessons

fourth January 13 (t1 5+r 8) January 15 (t4 5+r10)

sixth March 10 (t2 5+r 5) February 10 (t5 5+r 5)
sixth September 15 (t3 5+r 10) September 15 (t6 5+r10)

school in Helsinki were informed about the possibility of taking part in the study in
November 2002. These schools were chosen because they were good representatives
of mainstream and special education, and the researcher had easy access to both
schools. The special school was a segregated school for children with SLI. Children
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 08:45 13 July 2014

with mild SLI are usually integrated in mainstream education, but children in this
school have moderate or severe SLI. All pupils participating were able to speak and
understand ordinary speech. They came from different parts of the city so the socio-
economic status of the families varied. Pupils in the mainstream classes were
Finnish-speaking, except one in each class, who was bilingual. The socio-economic
status of the area of the mainstream school was middle-class.
In January 2003 the intervention started in one fourth-grade and one sixth-grade
class in both schools. There were two parallel classes in both grades, and one of each
was randomly chosen to be an experiment class, while the parallel class was a control
class. In spring 2003, an SLI class from a normal school served as a control group at
the sixth-grade level because there was no parallel class in the segregated school.
The interventions were planned for 5 weeks each, two lessons per week, for a total
of 10 lessons. However, in spring, the fourth-grade intervention was conducted in
three lessons per week, with one of them a double lesson, making for a total of 15
lessons, while the intervention in the sixth grade remained 10 lessons long. Because
of different results in the fourth and in the sixth grade, an extra 15-lesson
intervention was held in autumn 2003 in one sixth-grade class in the mainstream
school and one sixth-grade class in the SLI school, with the parallel classes again
serving as control groups. The six teachers involved were trained to teach the four
cognitive strategies and to use reciprocal teaching. Outcomes were measured 1 week
before the intervention, a few days after the end of the intervention, and 5 weeks after
the intervention (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Structure of the intervention study

 Reciprocal Teaching and Reading Strategies 563

Table 2. The number of the participants

Spring 2003 Mainstream (girls/boys) SLI (girls/boys)

Fourth-grade experiment 25 (10/15) 8 (3/5)

Fourth-grade control 28 (13/15) 8 (0/8)
Sixth-grade experiment 26 (13/13) 11 (2/9)
Sixth-grade control 28 (12/16) 7 (2/5)

Autumn 2003
Sixth-grade experiment 23 (10/13) 8 (3/5)
Sixth-grade control 24 (9/15) 8 (4/4)
Total 154 (67/87) 50 (14/36)

The number of children participating can be seen in Table 2. Due to absences, the
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 08:45 13 July 2014

number of participants varied for each test. The average age of the children was 10
years in the fourth grade and 12 years in the sixth grade.

Themes and Duration of the Intervention

In spring 2003 the intervention in the fourth grade took place in natural science
lessons, which had the themes ‘‘Nordic countries’’ (mainstream), and ‘‘Life in the
forests during winter’’ (SLI). In the sixth grade the intervention was in history
lessons, themes being ‘‘The Middle Ages’’ (mainstream) and ‘‘Fifteenth-century
Scandinavia’’ (SLI). History and natural science were chosen because the teachers
considered them difficult for the children. The theme of the extra intervention in
autumn 2003 was ‘‘Life on a farm’’ both in mainstream and in special education.
As it proved possible to extend the fourth-grade lessons in fourth-grade
mainstream and special education by one lesson per week when the researcher
was present, a decision was made to hold a double lesson in the special class and to
lengthen the lessons in the mainstream class only by about 20–30 minutes in order
not to interfere with the lunch break. All in all, the interventions in spring lasted
about 15 lessons in the fourth grade and 10 in the sixth grade. The extra intervention
in the autumn took place in 15 lessons in the sixth grade.

Teaching the Strategies

During each of the first four lessons, all the strategies were presented to the pupils
and discussed with examples, one strategy per lesson. After that, any strategy that
suited the subject was used. The instruction always took place with the whole class,
and no special arrangements were made. A lot of discussions and group work was
done. After five intervention lessons, a note was sent home explaining all of the
strategies. The strategies took the form of ‘‘Rules of a good reader’’ and were also posted
on the classroom wall: (1) Think first what you already know about the subject
(prediction); (2) If there are words you don’t know, find out what they mean
(clarification); (3) Formulate main questions about the text (questioning), and (4) After
 564 M. Takala

reading, think what it was about and what were the main points (summarising). The
teachers recommended that the pupils use these strategies when doing homework.
The researcher was present once a week in both the mainstream and the special
school. She taught together with the class teacher, and also wrote down comments
and answers made by the children and collected material they wrote (such as summaries
and questions). This observational data was used to triangulate the results.
During the intervention the strategies were practised in several different ways.
Prediction was practised by writing the title of a text on the blackboard and making
guesses about the text. Pictures from the textbook were also used. On one occasion,
the children had to think which Nordic country the pictures were from; after that
they said what they already knew about that country.
Clarifying was often practised in pairs. The children looked for unfamiliar words
and concepts and tried first to find out what they meant by themselves. If necessary,
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 08:45 13 July 2014

they then asked for help from classmates or a teacher.

Questioning was practised by having the children make questions for which the
answer was very short, often only one word. The children soon noticed that the
answer was easy to find in the textbook, usually in one sentence. These easy
questions were called minor or small questions or questions about details. Then the
children were asked to make questions whose answers had to be gleaned from several
different paragraphs; they could not be one-word answers. These questions were
called major or main point questions (or large questions). All interrogatives were
used and different kinds of questions were practised. The teacher and the students
discussed the difference of the answers to various kinds of questions.
Summarising was practised by giving groups of children short text pieces. After
reading them, the children had to create a suitable headline for the text. In addition,
longer texts had to be shortened to a limited number of sentences. Sometimes the main
points were underlined and then compared. Occasionally the following comment could
be heard during these group sessions: ‘‘That’s not so important. This is the main point’’.
In all classes, but especially in the SLI classes, the texts were dramatised. The children
were given, for example, essential historical roles and situations to act. In natural science
lessons some of the children acted as clouds, some mountains and a third group
demonstrated how rain develops when these two groups meet.

Outcome Measures and Data Analysis

Standardised and expert-designed tests were used; only expert-designed tests
(Table 3) with the fourth-graders (no suitable standardised test was available for
the fourth grade), but both test-types with the sixth-graders. The tests were
administered during normal school lessons.

Decoding Skills (Fourth Grade and Sixth Grade)

This is a test with a text taken from the fairytale ‘‘Tarzan’’ (Burroughs, 1964) with
nonsense words included. The pupils had 3 minutes to mark the nonsense words.
 Reciprocal Teaching and Reading Strategies 565

Table 3. Tests used

Purpose Pre-test Post-test Delayed post-test Scoring

1. Decoding skills Tarzan – – 0- no maximum

Standardised tests
2. Summarising Hierarchy 1 and 2 Hierarchy 2 and 1 Hierarchy 1 and 2 0–20
Expert-designed tests
3a. Summarising Text 1 and Text 2 Text 2 and Text 1 Text 3 0–4
3b. Questioning Text 1 and Text 2 Text 2 and Text 1 Text 3 0–4

This test was designed in special teacher education (Mynttinen & Lahti, 1999) in
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 08:45 13 July 2014

Helsinki. Children received scores based on how many nonsense words were
marked. In the original version of the test, tested in many classes by special education
students, the sixth graders mean was 23.7 and SD was 9.2; min-max 0–45 and
median 24 (N552). The fourth-grade test was not in the original test, but it was pre-
tested now. According to the pre-test, the general mean was 17, with SD being 8 and
median 17, min-max 2–37 (N553). These means were used as norms now.

Summarising (Sixth Grade)

The hierarchy-rating test (Lyytinen & Lehto, 1998) consists of an expository text
and 16 text-based statements concerning the text. The subjects are to read the text
and then select the two most important statements (topics) and, thereafter six main-
point statements. The remaining eight statements are about minor details. This test
probes particularly the mental macrostructure of expository texts. The hierarchy-
rating test correlates highly significantly with performance in the school subjects
(Lyytinen & Lehto, 1998). Two hierarchy texts were used in such a way that half of
the class received Text 1—The Castle (about an old Finnish castle), and the other half
received Text 2—The Alps (about climbing and all the facilities used) in the pre-test.
In the delayed post-test, the order was reversed in order to counterbalance the test.
The maximum score was 20.

Summarising and Questioning: Texts 1, 2 and 3 (Fourth and Sixth Grade)

(a) Summarizing. Text 1—North Pole (describes nature in polar area) and Text 2—
Dogs (about the history of dogs). In this test pupils received a one-page expository
text (Aro, 2002, p. 91 and p. 131) without headlines, and the researcher had made
three headline choices for the whole text and for each of three paragraphs. All texts
were counterbalanced: the two texts were used in such a way that one half of the class
received text 1, and the other half of the class received Text 2. The headlines for the
different paragraphs were chosen so that one was the main idea, one was a detail and
one was more suitable to another paragraph. The maximum score possible was 4.
 566 M. Takala

(b) Questioning. Text 1—North Pole and Text 2—Dogs. The texts were the same as in
(a). The children had to choose a main idea question from three choices for each
paragraph. The researcher had made these questions. One question referred to the
main point, one to a detail, while the third was from the text, but from another
paragraph. The pupils were asked to write the fourth question. No points were given
if the pupil wrote ‘‘I don’t know’’ or ‘‘What do you think about it?’’ A half point was
awarded for any question that would have elicited a one- or two-word answer. One
point was awarded for a question that required a full sentence from a main point.
The maximum score possible was 4. Because tests (a) and (b) used the same text,
they are also handled as one unit, called Text 1 and Text 2. Here, the maximum
score was eight.
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 08:45 13 July 2014

(c) Text 3—Whales (tells the main facts about whales). This text (Aro, 2002, p. 81)
was used as a delayed post-test. The structure of the task was similar to that of Texts
1 and 2. A text was presented, along with headlines and questions from which to
choose. The children had to create one question by themselves. This text is called
here Text 3. The maximum score was eight, four from the headlines and four from
the questions.
All tests were pre-tested before the intervention in two mainstream classes from
another school in the same area as the mainstream experiment school. Based on the
results of this pre-test, the following changes were made in the Summarising and
questioning tests. In the original version half of the children had the possibility of
writing their own headlines and own questions. However, these were difficult to
score, and as some weak pupils could not do the task, multiple-choice tests were used
instead.

Questionnaires
In addition to these tests, teachers were given a short questionnaire about the
intervention after each intervention. They were asked about their motivation,
amount of work, transfer effect to teaching other subjects and if they had been using
the strategies after the experiment. The pupils were asked to evaluate the lessons by
answering two questions: ‘‘What was it like to have two teachers teaching you? and
‘‘What have you learned?’’

Data Analysis
For data analysis, means and medians before and after the intervention were
computed. In addition, for purposes of analysis, the scores of the pre-tests were
subtracted from the scores of post-tests and delayed post-tests. The significance of
the differences was tested using t-test (mainstream) and Mann–Whitney test (SLI).
Content analysis was used with the questions children wrote in Test 3, as well as with
the pupil’s responses and the comments made in the teachers’ questionnaire.
 Reciprocal Teaching and Reading Strategies 567

Results
Decoding Skills
The mainstream pupils were better decoders than the SLI pupils (Table 4). The best
decoders in the SLI classes were pupils whose special class was in the mainstream
school. In the mainstream school the fourth-grade control group had better decoding
skills than the experiment group. Also in special education the sixth-grade control
group had better results than the experiment group. In the latter case one reason for
better results was that the sixth control SLI-class was in a mainstream school and the
dysphasia of these children was not that severe. The results of boys and girls were
equal.
The decoding skills of the mainstream pupils were better than the decoding skills
of SLI in all grades. The scores of the mainstream pupils reached the norms, but
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 08:45 13 July 2014

those of the SLI-children did not.

Hierarchy-Rating Test (Sixth Grade)

Half of the pupils did the Hierarchy 1 test (The Castle) and half did the Hierarchy 2
test (The Alps). The Hierarchy 2 test was a little easier for mainstream pupils. Both
the hierarchy tests were quite difficult for SLI children, and a delayed post-test was
not used in the spring. The experiment and control groups in special education
received somewhat better scores on the post-test, but no clear effect of the
intervention could be documented. After the autumn interventions, some progress
was noted in the post-test and delayed post-test in the experiment group of SLI
children (Table 5). The results were not much better, but the direction of the
development was positive. It seems that this method had raised interest among
teachers and it had been used since the spring.
No effects of the intervention in the mainstream were detected on the basis of the
hierarchy test scores in the spring. The results of the autumn test showed some
improvement, as the mean rose from 12.5 to 13.6, but analysis of the differences
between the pre-test scores and the scores on the post-tests and the delayed post-
tests in spring or in autumn with t-test or with Mann–Whitney test (used with

Table 4. Decoding skills of pupils in the mainstream school and the special education school
(e5experiment group, c5control group)

Class Mainstream Special education

2003 spring mean SD N mean SD N

4e 18.9 5.3 25 14.3 5.5 9

4c 24.3 9.9 28 8.6 4.7 8
6e 26 8.8 26 9.1 6.6 8
6c 29.5 6.6 28 20 7.4 7
6e fall 28.3 8 22 15.8 8.8 8
6c fall 23.6 6.9 23 16.8 4.3 8
 568 M. Takala

Table 5. Hierarchy test scores for the sixth-grade SLI pupils in spring and autumn 2003

Experiment group Control group

Spring pre-test post-test delayed pre-test post-test delayed

Mean/SD 7.5/3.2 10.9/3.8 – 7.4/4.5 10.4/3.6 –

N 8 10 – 7 7 –
Autumn pre-test post-test delayed pre-test post-test delayed
Mean/SD 10.9/3.5 11.4/3 12.1/3 10.5/4.1 10.3/4 10.4/5
N 8 8 7 8 8 8

SLI-groups) showed no significant differences between the groups. However, the

direction of the development was again positive.
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 08:45 13 July 2014

Summarising and Questioning

Mainstream in spring (fourth and sixth grades) and in autumn (sixth grade). The fourth
mainstream experiment group progressed, while the control group received almost
the same scores in the pre- and post-test (Figure 2). In the delayed post-test the
experiment group still received better scores, but it is important to note that Text 3
appeared to be easier than the first two texts. The average difference between the
post-test scores and the pre-tests scores was significant (t5.024), as was that
between the delayed post-test scores and the pre-test scores (t5.007). No progress
could be documented in the sixth-grade experiment group in the spring.

Figure 2. Text-test results of the 4th grade mainstream pupils in spring (4e5experiment,
4c5control class)
 Reciprocal Teaching and Reading Strategies 569

In autumn the post-test in the sixth-grade mainstream class (Figure 3) showed

progress in the experiment group, but the delayed post-test, which was easier,
showed results that were almost identical to those of the control group. This can be
considered as a positive result because in the initial phase the experiment group was
at a lower level than the control group. In the experiment group the difference
between the post-test results and the pre-test results was significant (t5.085), but
not that between the delayed post-test and the pre-test.

Special education in spring (fourth and sixth grades) and autumn (sixth grade). The
fourth-grade SLI experiment group made some progress in the text tests in the spring
(Figure 4), but the differences between the pre-test scores and the scores received on
the post-tests and the delayed post-tests were not significant.
The sixth-grade pupils in special education in spring and in autumn (Table 6 and
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 08:45 13 July 2014

Figure 5) showed a little progress, but this progress was not significant when the
differences between the results on the various tests were tested with the t-test and
Mann–Whitney test.
The results achieved on the expert-designed test showed the positive effect of the
intervention, especially in the fourth-grade mainstream classes, and some progress in
the sixth-grade mainstream classes. The effect in special education was modest, but
the trend was positive.

Questions
Mainstream education. In spring the percentage of main questions produced by the
fourth grade experiment group increased from 33% (pre-test) to 52% (post test),

Figure 3. Text-test results of the 6th grade mainstream pupils in autumn

 570 M. Takala
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 08:45 13 July 2014

Figure 4. Text-test results of the 4th grade SLI-pupils in spring

Table 6. The text-test results of the special education (SLI) sixth-grade classes in spring and
autumn

Experimental group Control group

Spring Pre-test Post-test Del.p-t* Pre-test Post-test Del. p-t*

Mean/SD 3.5/2.9 2.7/2 4.1/1.4 2.6/1.3 3.5/1.9 4.6/2

N 10 10 11 7 7 7
Autumn
Mean/SD 3.4/2.1 4.6/1.7 5.4/1.6 3.3/2.2 4.2/0.7 5.5/1.2
N 8 8 7 8 8 8

*delayed post-test

and then fell back to 48% (delayed post-test). The comparable percentages in the
control group were 44%, 35% and 36%. No such progress was observed in the sixth
grade in spring. However in autumn 2003 the percentages of main questions
produced in the sixth-grade experiment group were 23%, 41% and 41%, while in the
control group the comparable percentages were 36%, 25% and 32%. The effect of
the intervention was positive.

Special education. In spring the fourth-grade SLI group made some progress,
producing two additional major questions. The sixth-grade class showed no progress
in spring. In autumn the sixth-grade experiment group produced three more major
questions in the post-test, but no progress was observed in the delayed post-test.
Here are some typical examples of questions formulated by the mainstream pupils:
 Reciprocal Teaching and Reading Strategies 571
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 08:45 13 July 2014

Figure 5. Text-test results from the 6th SLI class in fall (6e5experiment, 6c5control class)

Tell about the animals and plants in the polar area. (major)
What is the history of dogs like? (major)
What colour are the animals in the winter? (minor)

The SLI pupils typically asked questions similar to the following:

Is it cold there? (minor)

When does the fur change? (minor)
What’s a whale like? (major)

In general, pupils found it easier to choose the correct headlines than to choose the
correct questions. The differences were not significant, but in every test (pre-test,
post-test and delayed post-test) more correct choices were made with headlines than
with questions.

Decoding Skills and Reading Comprehension

Decoding skills did not correlate with test success: the highest correlation between
the results on the Hierarchy test and decoding skills was .28, and with the text test
.26. Some pupils with weak decoding skills also received weak text-test scores. Their
teachers reported that these pupils were generally weaker pupils. No significant
correlations between decoding skills and test scores were found for other children.
According to this test, weak decoding skills do not necessarily indicate weak reading
comprehension skills.
 572 M. Takala

Feedback from Teachers and Pupils

Six teachers participated in the intervention. During the final discussion everyone
was satisfied with the intervention and said that they will use the strategies in the
future. The number of lessons (15) was considered suitable, but in the spring, both
sixth-grade teachers said that the 10-lesson intervention was too short. Two teachers
expressed the opinion that they had done a bit more work than usual, while others
thought the workload was similar to that of ordinary lessons. According to the
teachers, the children liked the lessons. Two SLI teachers reported that the lessons
were sometimes hard and laborious for their pupils. This was understandable, as SLI
children have problems with language, and reciprocal teaching operates mainly on
the verbal level. For this reason, among others, the texts were often dramatised in
order to highlight the main points and to give a different way of processing
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 08:45 13 July 2014

information to learners who were more visually oriented, both in special and in
mainstream education. Teachers placed special value on the fact that they had
learned a new way to teach, and they noticed that the reading comprehension skills
of their pupils had improved. Another benefit was that the SLI children were no
longer afraid of longer texts. Some teachers also observed that the textbooks they
were using were not very good. The texts were so packed with information and so full
of unfamiliar words that the pupils found it difficult to summarise them or to draw
conclusions about the meaning of the words from other parts of the text.
The anonymous feedback about the intervention from the pupils was mostly very
positive. They had received more personal teaching because they had been taught by
two teachers, and they had learned natural science and history in a non-traditional
way. Typical responses from fourth- and sixth-graders included such comments as:

More interesting than before, because we have been allowed to find out headlines and do
presentations. (sixth grade).
I have learned to separate small things from major things. (fourth grade)
Not so nice, they [the teachers] were very precise together. (fourth grade)
It was nice, but we got more homework. I learned a lot about northern Europe. (sixth
grade)
It was nice because we have been making presentations and reading in groups. (sixth
grade)
Fun, because we sometimes act and do other nice things. (sixth grade)

Discussion
The reading comprehension was promoted by teaching four cognitive strategies both
in mainstream and in special education. Although the children with SLI have the
biggest challenges in language, they benefited from this kind of cognitively oriented
way of learning, which was slightly modified for them. The best results were achieved
by the mainstream fourth- and sixth-graders during the 15-lesson intervention in
natural science on the basis of expert-designed tests. This confirms the results of
 Reciprocal Teaching and Reading Strategies 573

prior research (Rosenshine & Meister, 1994). It also proves that 10 lessons are not
enough for most children to learn new skills. The most positive results received in the
delayed tests, were in the fourth mainstream class. Most delayed tests showed,
however, a positive direction in the development, which was encouraging. The
results of the Hierarchy test also indicated modestly positive results. Pupils in the
special school experiment groups also showed some progress. The reading
comprehension and decoding skills of mainstream children were better than those
of SLI children, however the tests used here did not show any correlations between
decoding skills and reading comprehension ability.
Similar teaching techniques were used in both special education and mainstream
education, but it is self-evident that each teacher adapts a given technique to suit his
or her own preferences and abilities (Hacker & Tenent, 2002). The tempo of
teaching was slower in the special groups; pupils needed individual tutoring and a lot
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 08:45 13 July 2014

of repetition. In addition, more time was spent in teacher-directed teaching in the

SLI groups, which were small and heterogeneous. The intervention was not long
enough to reveal clear differences between the SLI groups. They would have needed
more time and repetition to achieve better results.
Several comments should be made about the length, the place and the subject of
the interventions. The 15-lesson intervention in science produced the best results in
the fourth- and sixth-grade lessons. The 10-lesson intervention in history in the sixth
grade at the end of the school year was not successful. Aside from the fact that this
intervention was shorter, it was in history, whereas the questions in post-test were
about nature. In addition, the last month of the school year was hot, summer was just
arriving and the motivation to study was perhaps not as high as it might have been.
The comments of some pupils also reflected on self-image, as in one response: ‘‘This
is only for the good pupils’’.Is it already too late at the end of primary school to
change habits or self-image, or to learn a new way of processing subject matter? It
seems quite possible that, given the circumstances of these interventions, deficiencies
in reading comprehension skills can have a negative effect on self-confidence
(Chapman & Tunmer, 2003).
The teachers had learned a useful new tool. The pupils also commented
favourably, but some also mentioned that they had had to work hard. The special
teachers thought that the interventions were short, but if, in their opinion, they had
been longer, learning the strategies would have needed a somewhat different
approach. Some teachers commented that the four strategies and the methods used
to practise them were deterministic and rigid, in comparison to more visual, more
appealing and humorous approaches (Johnson-Glenberg, 2000). The SLI children
were quite tired after verbally processing the texts. When dramatisations were used
in some lessons, some pupils, especially in the SLI groups, were able to concentrate
better. A combination of reciprocal teaching and drama-pedagogy might be useful in
some educational settings. Reading strategies that have visual elements and that use
action methods have often been successful with children, who have problems in
reading (Hibbing & Ranking-Erickson, 2003; Johnson-Glenberg, 2000; Oakhill &
 574 M. Takala

Yuill, 1996). Drawing illustrations of the main ideas while reading has been found to
help comprehension, as students can use pictures to generate summaries of the texts
they have read (Rich & Blake, 1994). Some teachers have used metaphors to explain
the strategies, such as ‘‘casting a net’’ to refer to prediction (Seymor & Osana, 2003).
These would be interesting dimensions to test in the future. Reading the tests aloud
might also have had some positive effect on the results (Holopainen, 2003; Johnson-
Glenberg, 2000).
Although the results were promising and both teachers and pupils were satisfied,
from the researcher’s point of view the dialogue between the teachers and pupils, as
well as among the pupils themselves, could have been more active. More time would
have been needed to improve this aspect of the interventions. Similar observations
have been made before; teachers have dealt with the texts too rapidly, and pupils
have been involved only on the verbal level, not on the level of ideas (Rosenshine &
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 08:45 13 July 2014

Meister, 1994). We have also to keep in mind the small size of the data when
interpreting the results.
Teaching students to become active strategic readers helps to remediate learning
difficulties (Schmidt, Rozendal, & Greenman, 2002). Most traditional teaching
methods, if used alone, will not sufficiently respond to the diverse needs in
classrooms. Strategies are also more trainable than other components of
comprehension, such as prior knowledge, working memory or inferential skills.
Teaching these strategies is often time-consuming, but after learning to use them,
pupils are equipped to comprehend what they read in different situations (Johnson-
Glenberg, 2000; Swanson & De La Paz, 1998). More research is needed on teaching
strategies in normal settings for the whole class, as well on retention (Williams,
2002).
The main innovation of this study was that the reciprocal teaching of four
cognitive strategies was carried out as part of normal teaching for the whole class. No
small groups were used, the lessons were in their normal location, and the material
used was from the pupils’ own study books. However, the small number of pupils in
the SLI classes has to be remembered as well as the fact that no random assignment
(see also Lederer, 2000) of the participants to different groups was used. Because of
these, no far-reaching generalisations can be made. Prior research has shown
reciprocal teaching to be suitable for students with mild disabilities (Marston et al.,
1995) and for middle and high school pupils with reading problems (Slater &
Horstman, 2002). It has also been found to be suitable for mainstream pupils, and
SLI pupils, especially when supplemented with additional motivators, such as
dramatisations (see also Arvonen, 2002). Reciprocal teaching can be used as a
regular part of school routine in mainstream and special education. It requires no
special arrangements, only trained and enthusiastic teachers.

Acknowledgement
This study was funded by Ebeneser-foundation, the Institute of Childhood.
 Reciprocal Teaching and Reading Strategies 575

References
Alfassi, M. (1998). Reading for meaning: The efficacy of reciprocal teaching in fostering reading
comprehension in high school students in remedial reading classes. American Educational
Research Journal, 35, 309–332.
Aro, T. (2002) Luetun ymmärtämisen teoriaa ja harjoituksia. Kummi 1 [Practising reading
comprehension; in Finnish]. Jyväskylä, Finland: Jyväskylän yliopistopaino.
Arvonen, J. (2002) Toiminta lukemisen tukena. Näkymöintistrategia toisluokkalaisten kirjallisuuden
opetuksessa [Activities supporting reading. Envisioning in teaching literature to 2nd graders; in
Finnish]. Academic dissertation, University of Turku, series C, part 182. Scripta lingua
fennica edita. Turku, Finland: Painosalama.
Burroughs, E. (1964) Tarzan apinain kuningas [Tarzan—The king of the Apes; in Finnish].
Helsinki, Finland: Taikajousi.
Carter, C. J. (1997). Why reciprocal teaching. Educational Leadership, 54, 64–68.
Catts, H. W. (1993). The relationship between speech-language impairments and reading
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 08:45 13 July 2014

disabilities. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 948–958.

Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (2003). Reading difficulties, reading-related self-perceptions,
and strategies for overcoming negative self-beliefs. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 5–24.
Dollaghan, C. (1998). Late talker or SLI? The story of Jay X. Seminars in Speech and Language, 19,
7–14.
Gough, P. B., & Turner, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading disability. Remedial and
Special Education, 7, 6–10.
Hacker, D. J., & Tenent, A. (2002). Implementing reciprocal teaching in the classroom:
Overcoming obstacles and making modifications. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94,
699–718.
Hansson, K., & Nettelbladt, U. (2002). Assessment of specific language impairment in Swedish.
Logopedic Phoniatrics Vocology, 27, 146–154.
Hart, E. R., & Speece, D. L. (1998). Reciprocal teaching goes to college: Effects for postsecondary
students at risk for academic failure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 670–681.
Hibbing, A. N., & Rankin-Erickson, J. L. (2003). A picture is worth a thousand words: Using
visual images to improve comprehension for middle school struggling readers. Reading
Teacher, 56, 758–771.
Holopainen, E. (2003). Strategies for listening and reading comprehension and problematic listening and
reading comprehension of the text during the third and ninth grades of primary school. Jyväskylä,
Finland: University of Jyväskylä. Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research,
218.
Inovaara, M., & Malmio, A. (Eds.). (2002) Lukuhaastetta koko elämä [Reading is a challenge for
the whole life; in Finnish]. Äidinkielen opettajain liiton vuosikirja XLVI [Finnish language
teachers association, annual book]. Helsinki, Finland: Painorauma.
Johnson-Glenberg, M. C. (2000). Training reading comprehension in adequate decoders/poor
comprehenders: verbal versus visual strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 772–782.
Karjalainen, R. (2000). Tekstinymmärtämisen kehittyminen ja kehittäminen peruskoulun ala-asteella
[The development of reading comprehension during primary school; in Finnish]. Academic
dissertation, University of Joensuu. Kasvatustieteellisiä julkaisuja, no. 63.
Korpilahti, P. (1996). Kielen kehitykselliset häiriöt; viivästynyt ja poikkeava kielenkehitys
[Developmental disorders in language; in Finnish]. In K. Launonen & A-M. Korpijaakko-
Huuhka (Eds.), Kommunikoinnin häiriöt—syitä, ilmenemismuotoja ja kuntoutuksen
perusteita [Disorders in communication; in Finnish] (pp. 39–58). Tampere, Finland:
Tammer-Paino.
Lederer, J. (2000). Reciprocal teaching of social studies in inclusive elementary classrooms. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 33, 91–107.
 576 M. Takala

Lovett, M. W., Borden, S. L., Warren-Chaplin, P. M., Lacerenza, L., Deluca, T., & Giovinazzo,
R. (1996). Text comprehension training for disabled readers: An evaluation of reciprocal
teaching and text analysis training programs. Brain and Language, 54, 447–480.
Lyytinen, S., & Lehto, J. (1998). Hierarchy rating as a measure of text macro processing:
Relationship with working memory and school achievement. Educational Psychology, 18,
(pp. 157–169).
Marston, D., Dend, S. L., Kim, D., Diment, K., & Rogers, D. (1995). Comparison of reading
intervention approaches for students with mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 62, 20–37.
Mastropieri, M. A. (2001). Can middle school students with serious reading difficulties help each
other and learn anything? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 18–28.
Mynttinen, S., & Lahti, P. (1999) Hiljainen lukeminen [Quiet reading; in Finnish] (A seminar study
in special teacher education). Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki.
Oakhill, J., & Yuill, N. (1996). Higher order factors in comprehension disability: Processes and
remediation. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties. Processes
and intervention (pp. 69–92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 08:45 13 July 2014

Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and

comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117–175.
Rich, R., & Blake, S. (1994). Using pictures to assist in comprehension and recall. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 29, 271–275.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of
Educational Research, 64, 479–530.
Schmidt, R. J., Rozendal, M. S., & Greenman, G. G. (2002). Reading instruction in the inclusion
classroom: Research-based practices. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 130–140.
Seymor, J. R., & Osana, H. P. (2003). Reciprocal teaching procedures and principles: Two
teachers’ developing understanding. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 325–344.
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, 163–166.
Speece, D. L., MacDonald, V., Kilsheimer, L., & Krist, J. (1997). Research to practice: Preservice
teachers reflect on reciprocal teaching. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12, 177–187.
Swanson, P. N., & De La Paz, S. (1998). Teaching effective comprehension strategies to students
with learning and reading disabilities. Intervention in School & Clinic, 33, 209–218.
Williams, J. P. (2002). Reading comprehension strategies and teacher preparation. In A. E. Farstup
& S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 243–260).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311633371

The Effect of the Reciprocal Teaching Model on Developing Jordanian

Students' Reading Comprehension at Mutah University

Article · December 2016

DOI: 10.5296/ijl.v8i6.10448

CITATIONS READS

0 970

2 authors, including:

Mohammad Yousef Alsaraireh

Al-Balqa' Applied University
4 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Article View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Yousef Alsaraireh on 17 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

The Effect of the Reciprocal Teaching Model on

Developing Jordanian Students' Reading
Comprehension at Mutah University

Mohammad Yousef Ahmad AlSaraireh

Ph. D Student, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, Malaysia
E-mail: mo_sar_1985@yahoo.com

Ku Mohd Nabil Ku Hamid

Senior Lecturer, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, Malaysia

Received: October 27, 2016 Accepted: November 6, 2016 Published: December 12, 2016
doi:10.5296/ijl.v8i6.10448 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v8i6.10448

Abstract
The aim of this study is to examine the impact of using the reciprocal teaching model on
Jordanians’ first year students at Mutah University in the academic year 2015/2016. 176
participants took part and were arbitrarily selected and divided into two gender mixed groups;
the experimental group which was exposed to the reciprocal teaching model (RT), and the
control group which was taught using the traditional method (TM). A total of fourteen
independent sample T-tests and paired samples T-tests were used for the purpose of
comparing and analysing the scores of the pre-tests and the post-tests, and with the intention
to pinpoint the effect of using RT as well as to measure the extent of such effect on the
development of the students’ reading comprehension skills. Through the analysis of the
results and in line with the two questions of this study, it has emerged that the use of the RT
model has a positive effect on the first year students’ reading comprehension achievement in
the experimental group; a fact that is reflected in the significant statistical difference when
compared to the reading comprehension achievement of the students from the control group
taught using the TM. It has also emerged that although the male students’ scores are better
than the scores attained by the female students, the use of the RT remains of great benefits for
both; male and female students.
Keywords: Reciprocal teaching model, Traditional method

69 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

1. Introduction and Background of the Study

English language in Jordan is taught mainly as a foreign language (EFL), and one of its aims
is to communicate (Al-Omari, Smadi, & Bataineh, 2015; CHE, 2000). For learners to be able
to communicate effectively in the foreign language, they are required to develop the
commonly known four skills associated with language learning which are; reading and
listening skills (receptive skills), and speaking and writing skills (productive skills). However,
Grabe and Stoller (2002) argue that the reading skill is the most crucial of all skills and
requires learners to engage in its practice within the classroom context as well as in the extra
extracurricular environment.
Nowadays and among other language problems and obstacles, reading represents a major
problem for Jordanian EFL students. This is reflected in their performance while carrying out
reading comprehension tasks, and evident in the difficulties they often experience when
providing answers to designated reading comprehension questions in exam papers or
assignments. Unfortunately, this ultimately leads to low achievement by learners. As previous
research indicates, EFL students generally achieve marks that are less than satisfactory
reading comprehension (DeFoe, 1999). This low achievement is chiefly attributed to three
reasons which are; firstly, the students’ limited experience in reading strategies may be a
hindering factor that consequently stands in their way to develop an appropriate
understanding of texts. Secondly, there appear to a number of inconsistencies in relation to
the instructional methods applied by the teachers themselves. Here, it is vital to note that
traditional method involves the teacher asking the students to silently read the text or part of
it, and then answer the comprehension questions. After completion of the task, the teacher
asks individual students to provide answers and comments afterwards only to indicate
whether the answers given are right or wrong. In fact and in some cases, the latter do not
allocate sufficient time for learners to carry out tasks, nor do they create the opportunity for
learners to develop their language skills. Last but not least, some learners are more reluctant
and less prepared to engage in higher level reading, and therefore show a little or no interest
in developing the appropriate skills and strategies needed for foreign language learning
(Collins and Cheek, 2000).
In broad terms, there are three models used in the teaching of reading skill: the top-down
model, the bottom-up model and the interactive model. Reading is one of the complex
cognitive processes which involve the reader of the text, the text in itself, and finally the
interaction between them (Kern, 1989). Carrell (1989) states that during the process of
reading, the reader attempts to construct the meaning of the text by interacting with it by way
of using his/her previous knowledge and experience of the world, by relying upon his/her the
linguistic knowledge of the sentences and the cognitive abilities. Cohen (1998) suggests that
reading comprehension is complex by nature as it incorporates the process of the reader’s
cognition, the language proficiency and the metacognitive process. Such as; a reader may
make inferences relying upon information provided within the title of the text, the previous
paragraphs and/or any type of illustrations used by the author. Besides, he/she tends to
monitor his/her reading behaviour through checking their understanding of the text (Grabe
and Stoller, 2002). Nonetheless, when a passage appears to be complex or challenging for

70 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

readers, they may read the text more than once or re-read a part of it, and/or may ask their
teacher for further clarification and assistance in aid of establishing understanding (Paris,
Cross and Lipson, 1984). This strongly suggests that reading comprehension takes place only
when readers understand the information presented in the text and are able to interpret it
meaningfully (Grabe and Stoller, 2002).
Cohen (1998) states that for a reading process to be effective, it has to undergo three
fundamental stages: the first stage is the pre-reading stage, the second one is the actual
reading, and the last stage is the post reading stage. He goes on to assert that these main steps
play a vital role in the reading process which is set to help readers practice various reading
strategies. In the pre- reading stage, readers may apply a number of strategies such as;
guessing, scanning, predicting the genre of text they are going to read or identifying any
difficulties apparent in the text. In doing so, the readers read the title of the text, relate the
title to the readers’ schemata, and then they predict the content of the text. These strategies
provide readers with an insight into how to construct a small picture about the text and offer
them the opportunity to check if their predictions are correct or not (Mejang, 2004).
The actual reading stage, in this stage readers require to deploy strategies to help them with
the comprehension of the text such as; self-questioning, problem-solving and self-monitoring
(Allen, 2003). This implies that readers should be provided with adequate training in how to
pose questions in relation to the main point of the text as in for example; asking about the
topic sentence of the text, or the main idea of the text. Self-monitoring is another strategy
which readers may employ to test out their reading comprehension (Allen, 2003), and
comprises both; evaluation and regulation (Wenden, 1999). Such strategies are of a great
value to learners in terms of assisting them in resolving the problems they generally
encounter during the reading tasks.
In the last stage which is the post reading, Alderson (2000) says readers of the text evaluate
the strategies that they tried to understand and comprehend the text, and reflect their
understanding and comprehension. In addition, they need to undergo this evaluation by
asking questions about the text to check their reading process.
Recent researches that are mainly concerned with the instruction of reading comprehension in
the classroom, have found that there is a lack of use of effective strategies and instructions in
the comprehension spectrum of reading (Farstrup, 2002). On this note, it is essential to direct
teachers’ attention to some instructional methods and strategies that potentially could help
students understand the reading text, and to offer them tips and useful hints on how such
instructions and strategies could be used to develop their students’ comprehension skills,
particularly, when the latter may at times show signs of low understanding or comprehension
of the reading texts. To sum up, it is very important to acknowledge that the implementation
of effective strategies and instructions is extremely beneficial to learners as through such
strategies; comprehension and understanding of texts is facilitated, reading comprehension
skills are gradually developed, and understanding of reading texts various genres is
established and developed.
2. Reciprocal Teaching Model

71 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

Reciprocal teaching model was brought forward by Palincsar and Brown in the early 1980s,
and considered as one of the most effective teaching models that serve to help readers
comprehend and understand what a particular given text is about. Ever since its initiation, the
reciprocal teaching model received a great deal of attention from different researchers and
teachers for its utility as a major tool in improving learners’ comprehension skills and driving
them towards becoming independent readers. It is hence, as a model of teaching, recognised
as a valuable teaching method.
Adunyarittigun and Grant (2005), Duffy (2002), Soonthornmanee (2002) and Cherryholmes
(1999) report the following definition by Annemarie Palincsar and Ann Brown (1984):
‘Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring
Activities’ (1999:56).
Cherryholmes (1999) also declares that the reciprocal teaching model has been designed for
those students who have difficulties in reading, and claims that it is an effective model for
enhancing the reading comprehension level of poor readers. He continues to argue that it
‘attempts to produce the orderly consumption of organized tests. The four activities of
summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting were conceptualized in terms of more or
less well formulated rules and procedures for bringing them about and for assessing them’ (P.
58).
Hayes (1991) defines the reciprocal teaching model as “an adaptation of the direct reading
thinking activity (DRTA) developed by Palinscar and Brown. Like the DRTA, reciprocal
teaching enables teacher to use the same text with readers of different ability levels while
varying the instructional support that students receive” (P.117). Therefore, lessons should be
highly interactive in their approach so as to teach students to read the text and learn from the
content area material.
The purpose of this model is to instruct pupils and provide them with strategies that can be
applied in a new passage. Palincsar and Brown (1984) stats that RT can be characterised by
three prominent features:
 Teachers use explicit instruction and scaffolding which is the basis of a
comprehension-fostering model.
 Teachers use prediction, questioning, clarifying, and summarising, which are the main
reading strategies.
 Finally, the model promotes social interactions among learners, and between learners and
teachers, which in turn leads to improving the learners’ cognitive abilities, sharing their
ideas, feeling more confident, and learning from the more skilled peers.
These features are thought of as influential and play a major role in resolving any difficulties
that learners may come across in comprehension. They can also lead to increasing learners’
motivation and can enable them to attain a sound level of thinking. Also, founded on these
features, learners could ameliorate their metacoginitve awareness, and could plan ahead prior
to the initiation of the reading process, as well as monitor their comprehension in the reading

72 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

process and the self evaluation stage during both; the post-reading and the actual reading
stages.
2.1 Four Strategies of Reciprocal Teaching
RTM consists of four strategies which are; predicting, questioning, clarifying, and
summarising. These four strategies play an important role in the comprehension process
during the reading of a text and can be used either separately or together, depending on the
situation, the target of the reader, and the problems he/she faces (Wiseman, 1992).
Predicting
Predicting involves triggering the students’ previous knowledge and/or the hypotheses that
might be presented in the reading text (Routman, 2000). According to Duffy (2002),
predicting relies upon generating and using the readers' past experience and knowledge about
the text through finding the comprehensive clues. This strategy works as a connective device
which serves to link the reader’s previous knowledge about the text with the new knowledge
that he/she will acquire during the reading process.
Clarifying
Clarifying refers to the process of recognising the organisation of written materials, pointing
out obstructions and difficulties that stand in the way of understanding the text and asking
questions and for explanations within the discussion (Routman, 2000). Also defined as a
strategy, clarifying is used by readers during the comprehension monitoring process,
particularly, when they are confused or face comprehension problems (King and Johnson
1999). In a reverse order, Ledaree (2002) asserts that readers monitor their comprehension
when they use the clarifying strategy to find out the extent of comprehending what they have
read. To sum up, clarifying is a strategy that is used by readers to help them attain or question
any information that appears to be ambiguous or unfamiliar in the reading text. Hence its
importance and its major role lay in the fact that it lures student into engaging in with the
process of comprehension monitoring during and after the reading of the text.
Questioning
Questioning strategy refers to the information that is needed to construct a cogent question
(Routman, 2000). Such a strategy requires readers to formulate questions so as to detect the
significant information in the text and with the primary purpose of figuring out the main idea
within the text. As a strategy, it allows readers to examine how much they understand the text
and enables them to specify the necessary information, as well as develop their reading
comprehension in a constructive manner (Andre and Anderson, 1979; Rosenshine, Meister &
Chapman, 1996).
Summarising
The last reading strategy of the reciprocal teaching model is summarizing; it means to retell
what others have told from what you have read while focusing only on the main points of the
text, and to predict the proceeding section of the text (Routman, 2000). In this strategy,

73 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

readers are asked to point out the main idea in each passage they read and ignore unrelated
details as they are not considered to be characteristics of a good summary. A positive aspect
of summarising is that; it enables readers to use the various text structures such as; main ideas,
headings, topic sentences...etc in order to produce a good summary of the text they have read.
More specifically, in the summarising strategy, readers should extract the main idea of each
paragraph and the purpose of the whole text. By summarising the main ideas of each
paragraph in the reading text, readers are firstly able to link the knowledge they have
acquired in the current paragraph, and secondly, able to predict the information to come in
the following paragraph for the purpose of checking out how accurate their predictions are
in both paragraphs (Greenway, 2002). The prediction of the readers is continuing and
interrelated process as it starts from the first paragraph and continues to the next until the
whole text is completely read (Lysynchuck and Pressley, 1990).
Application Phases of RTM
As for the structure and the sequence of a typical RTM lesson, in a small group of students,
the classroom teacher appoints a student to act as a teacher for the group. The latter’s role is
to direct the group through planned dialogue in which the four strategies of RT are orderly
discussed. Then the lesson proceeds while adhering to the following phases:
 Phase 1: the classroom teacher initiate the discussion by asking the students in the
group(s) to make predictions about what they are going to read.
 Phase 2: at this stage, the classroom teacher may ask the students to independently read a
small part of the text or he/she may read the selected part of the text to the whole class.
 Phase 3: in this phase, the classroom teacher acts as a facilitator helping students with
generating questions. down words or phrases that they are unfamiliar with
 Phase 4: at this point of the lesson, the student- acting teacher asks members of the group
to note down phrases or words that they are unfamiliar with, or to highlight parts of the
text that are unclear about. This activity is carried out collectively by the group for the
purpose of clarifying the meanings of the listed unfamiliar words and phrases.
 Phase 5: once again the classroom teacher resume the leadership and asks a student(s) to
provide a summary of the section of the text that has been read.
 Phase 6: in this phase, the process starts again with the student-acting teacher assuming
control of the group and the sequence of the lesson following the model presented by the
classroom teacher. The student-acting teacher asks the rest of the group to make
prediction about the proceeding part of the text prior to continuing to read.
In this study, the six phases of implementing the RTM mentioned above were orderly
followed in the teaching of the experimental group.
In view of the above discussion about RT and its main strategies, it is safe to conclude that
this model of teaching is of significant to both, teachers and students. For the former, it
provides a framework for the teaching of the required skills for improving comprehension,

74 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

offers a way of evaluating students’ comprehension skills and pinpointing any pertinent
aspects that need to be further developed, and can be adapted to be applied across the
curriculum. Moreover, it can be used to a great effect for all students, regardless of their
abilities, in group tasks, individual tasks or a whole class lesson. For students, it is an
opportunity that is presented to them to develop their overall comprehension skills and to
benefit from the support that emerges from their peers and the teacher. Noticeably, it is a
positive step towards active learning and encourages learners’ autonomy.
2.2 Reciprocal Teaching Related Studies
Clark (2003) conducted a study in which fifteen students of mixed abilities took part, and was
aimed at investigating the impact of using Reciprocal Teaching model and exploring the
development of the reading comprehension skills. The results of this study shows that 90% of
the participants claimed to have benefited from the use of this model and voiced their
preference of using such a model as opposed to the traditional method. In addition, 40% of
the students stated that using the Reciprocal Teaching model, has immensely helped them
improve their comprehension in the reading text. Clark concluded that RT model is a
mechanism that can be used by students in group discussions to help them organise ideas that
they produce and reflect on their understanding.
On the university level, Hart and Speece (1998) studied the impact of using RTM on this
level. Their study was conducted in a community college in Maryland, USA and involved
fifty students who were enrolled in 2 sections: the control and the experimental. In regards to
the results, the overall results of the study reveal that the experimental group achieved much
better than the control group that used the traditional method, in the strategy acquisition and
the reading comprehension. Although both groups had the same level of study skills
perception, the results interestingly indicate that weaker readers who were taught by using the
reciprocal model benefited a great deal and more so than the weaker readers in the control
group in the strategy acquisition and the reading comprehension.
Hasan (1994) carried out a comparative study to show the differences between reciprocal
teaching model and the translation technique used by ESL students at Kuwait University. The
results of this study show that the students who were exposed to the RTM had a better
achievement rate than those who were taught using the traditional teaching in the reading
performances. Furthermore, the reciprocal teaching group, according to the researcher, had
more of the opportunity to use English as a tool of communication than the control group.
Similarly, Ratanakul (1998) conducted a comparative study to examine the differences
between reciprocal teaching and the translation technique in Thailand. Sixty Nursing students
studying English as a foreign language at Mahidol University participated in this study. The
participants were divided into two groups: a controlled and experimental. The control group
exposed to the translation technique, whereas the experimental group was exposed to the
RTM. The researcher also made use of the Pre-test and the post-test stages for the purpose of
analysis. The results of this particular study reveals higher scores among the experimental
group's results compared to the results of the control group. In addition, the attitude towards
the reciprocal teaching model was more positive than the attitude towards the translation

75 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

technique used by the control group.

The results of the above studies clearly demonstrate the effectiveness and the positive impact
the reciprocal teaching model has on the achievement level in comprehension among L1 (first
language speakers) and L2 (second language speakers) groups and at various ages. These
studies also highlight the scale of the problem that reading comprehension present to both;
high school and university students, and how this problem is overcome by using the
reciprocal teaching model in a way that the readers’ achievement in the reading
comprehension is vastly improved.
In broad terms, most ESL and EFL contexts are mostly set for higher education students and
despite the fact that there are fewer studies which studied the impact of the RT on high school
students, the results shown in the reading comprehension are positive. Finally, most of the
students who participated in the experimental groups of the reciprocal teaching model
showed overall better results and positive attitudes.
Reciprocal Teaching Model as a method has proved to be of immense benefits, and a number
of studies have pointed out its effectiveness and success in the classrooms setting in terms of
enhancing the reading comprehension skills of the students, particularly, in the middle and
elementary stages of education. However, in this present study, the researcher will carry out
an investigation on first year students at Mutah University to examine the effectiveness of
this model on the development of reading comprehension skills, to unravel how it enhances
comprehension, and to explore any potential differences in reading comprehension between
male and female students, and those between students in association with their General
Secondary Certificate.
In first language classrooms, several studies have been conducted on the Reciprocal Teaching
Model for the purpose of testing and examining its effectiveness on different levels of
proficiency and language skills. In such studies students from the primary schools and
colleges are considered (Fillenworth, 1995; Palincsar and David, 1990). Lederer (2000) has
studied the effect of the reciprocal reading comprehension on students with learning
disabilities. All of these studies in the first language have demonstrated the positive effect of
using the RTM on the reading comprehension of the students.
In Jordan, however, only a small number of studies have studied on the effect of using the
RTM. In their research, Omari and Weshah (2010) investigate the extent to which Jordanian
teachers use the reciprocal teaching model in public schools. The sample of their study
consisted of 523 teachers, and as for data collection, the researchers used a 30-question
questionnaire to which participating teachers responded. The results yielded in their study
shows that the overall mean rating of using this model by Jordanian teachers is moderate
leading the researchers to conclude that:
‘the overall mean ratings of using the RT method by Jordanian teachers were moderate.
Independent sample T-test results indicated that there were statistically significant (α <0.05)
in the mean ratings of teachers in favor of the secondary school teachers. However, the One
Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results indicated no statistically significant differences

76 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

in the mean ratings of teachers that can be attributed to teachers' specializations’ (ibid: 26).
Statement of the Problem
Most of the previous studies stated above examine the effect of using the reciprocal teaching
model in the first language classrooms, while some other studies focus on examining the
reciprocal teaching model`s effect on EFL classrooms. Nonetheless, the results in both cases
demonstrate positive effect on the comprehension of the students’. Based on the above, the
researcher adapts Plaincsar and Brown’s reciprocal teaching model to apply for the teaching
of first year students at Mutah University (Jordan) so as to examine the effect of the model on
the students' reading comprehension.
Purpose of the Study
The principal aim in this study is to provide an insight into the use of the reciprocal teaching
model on Jordanians’ first year students at Mutah University and to examine the impact of
such model of teaching.
Research Questions
The present study is set and attempts to provide answers to the following questions:
- Does the use of Reciprocal Teaching Model have any effect on the achievement in the
reading comprehension skills among first year university students?
- Are there any significant differences, resulting from the use of the Reciprocal Teaching
Model, between male and female students in terms of the reading comprehension skills
achievement among first year students of the English 99 Course at Mutah University?
Significance of the Study
This study aims at investigating the effectiveness of the reciprocal teaching model in
developing Jordanian students’ reading comprehension and understanding of the reading texts
at Mutah University. As a research, it is highly significant as it seeks to find out an effective
instructional teaching model that is adequate enough to assist in the development of
Jordanian students’ reading comprehension skills. In so far as the data collected for this study
is concerned, it might act as a drive and a motivational factor that may lead researchers and
teachers to devise an effective instructional teaching model in the reading comprehension
area. It is also hoped that the results of this study are taken into consideration by teachers of
reading as they may help to trigger the latter’s awareness in respect to the effectiveness of
teaching models that are geared to enhance the development of reading comprehension.
Definition of Terms
The terms below are used in this study and defined as follows:
 Reciprocal teaching model: it is a model which has been initiated by Plaincsar and
Brown (1984) and it consists of 4 main strategies; prediction, clarifying, questioning and
summarising. This model, with its strategies and steps, identifies the roles of both; the
teacher and the students in each strategy.

77 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

 Jordanian first year students: they are those students, male and female, who study
English (E99) at Mutah University in Jordan.
 Traditional Method: it is a method in which students assume a passive role in learning
and offers no opportunity for students- students or teacher-students interaction.
3. Methods and Procedures
The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of using RTM on first year University
students in Jordan through their achievements in the reading skill focusing students' gender.
The achievement in the reading comprehension by male participants is compared to that
attained by female participants.
The population of this study consists solely of first year male and female students studying at
Mutah University in Jordan. 176 participants enrolled on a course labelled E-99 took part in
this study and were using “Total English” textbook as required in their program of study.
This coursebook is written by Richard Acklam and Araminta Grace and published in 2005.
The course itself is a compulsory module for all students at Mutah University. The
participants in the study were arbitrarily selected and separated into two groups; the
experimental group and the control group, and as in the words of Gay and Airasian (2003),
‘all the individuals in the defined population have equal and independent chance of being
selected’ (p.117). By implementing a random selection of the samples in this study, the
researcher conforms to the notion that such an approach is effective in preventing researchers
from engaging in a biased process of selection (Rosenthal and Rosnow, 2008). The
experimental group is a mixed-gender group and comprises 90 students, and likewise, the
control group is made up of both male and female participants and consists of 86 students. In
terms of location and the temporal circumstance, this study was carried out at Mutah
University in the academic year 2015/2016.
A Reciprocal Teaching model was devised to examine the effect of its application on the
readers' comprehension. “College Reading: English for Academic Success”, authored by
Cheryl Benz and Myra M. Medina (2006), was used prior to the initiation of the reciprocal
teaching model as a pre-test stage of the reading comprehension so as to demonstrate the
participants’ proficiency in reading. The experimental group was taught for a period of four
weeks during which the students were instructed through the use of the reciprocal teaching
model during the reading process. Conversely, the control group was instructed through the
use of traditional method of teaching.
After the pre-test stage, a post-test was set for both groups to investigate the following;
 whether the reciprocal teaching model has any impact on improving the participants’
reading comprehension,
 to check whether there are any significant differences in the level of achievement in
the reading comprehension skills between first year male and female students at
Mutah University,
Mutah University was carefully selected as a prime location for this present research due to

78 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

its use of the coursebook ‘Total English” in the teaching of English as a foreign language in
the E99 module. All necessary and required procedures in this study were followed and
permission was sought from the university and granted by the English Department. Moreover,
the researcher conducted a workshop that lasted for the period of one week for the purpose of
training the teacher in charge in the implementation of the Reciprocal teaching model. To
ensure that the reciprocal model principles and stages were adhered to, the researcher
attended some classes to observe how the procedures were being used within the teaching
process.
The E99 course is a remedial course which aims at helping students acquire the primary skills
of the English language to expand their knowledge and proficiency in the field concerned. To
achieve the above-mentioned goal, the course focuses on developing the students’ vocabulary
and grammar which can be activated through various communicative skills such as; speaking
and making dialogues related to some social situations relevant to their daily lives.
4. Instruments
This study relied upon the use of three main instruments; the reading comprehension
achievement test, the pre-test and the post-test. To test the reading comprehension
achievements of the first year students at Mutah University, the reading comprehension
achievement test was conducted using the “College Reading: English for Academic Success”
textbook by Cheryl Benz with Myra M. Medina, 2006.
The pre-test and the post-test were conducted after the nature of their design was shown to
the teacher who was involved in the teaching process, and who was aware of the difficulties
that students might have during the course as an accumulative experience of teaching English
to students. Then, the EFL instructors at Mutah University approved both; the tests’ questions
and all the texts used in this study, as they found them to be extremely useful and suitable for
the students. The process of demonstrating and consulting these experts (teacher in charge
and EFL instructors) was the initial stage prior to producing the fine and final copy of the
pre-test questions which was later on made ready and issued to the students.
The key aim of the pre-test and the post-test was to measure the students’ achievement in
reading comprehension. This was conducted as follows:
First, the researcher prepared and conducted the pre-test to assess both; male and female
students’ overall reading comprehension achievement in general within a population among
students who were enrolled on the E99 module at Mutah University for the academic year
2015/2016. These students constituted the sample and were divided into two groups; the
control group and the experiment group. The test was conducted for both groups, and the test
papers were collected and later on marked in preparation for the next step of the process
which is the post-test phase.
Second, after having collected the data and the scores of the pre-test, a general idea was
formulated in regard to the students’ level in reading comprehension in both groups, and the
data from the pre-test was used to prepare the post-test. The post-test was conducted after the
researcher had applied the reciprocal teaching model on the experimental group for a period

79 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

of four weeks and obviously after the pre-test was carried out. The aim of the post test was to
measure the overall reading comprehension achievement of the students in the experimental
group after the use of the RTM by way of; comparing the results obtained from the posttest to
those recorded for the pre-test. It was also aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and the impact
of the RTM on the experimental group reading comprehension in comparison with the
control group which was taught by the traditional method.
For the experimental group, “College Reading: English for Academic Success” by Cheryl
Benz and Myra M. (2006) was used during the lessons that fostered the reciprocal teaching
model. This particular book is not used for teaching by the Language Center faculty at Mutah
University. Nonetheless, the teachers who were involved in the reciprocal teaching model
workshop that was formerly organized and conducted by the researcher, agreed to its use
during a consultation session. The texts used from this book were carefully selected and
shown to the EFL faculty teaching experts within the university who agreed on the suitability
of the book and the texts to the level of students on the E99 module. In more specific terms;
the texts selected from “College Reading: English for Academic Success” met the needs of
the reciprocal teaching model in the sense that they allow students to predict, make questions,
clarify and summarise. At the same time, these texts allow the teacher to model dialogues and
demonstrate the appropriate use of the reciprocal teaching model for the benefits of students
to improve their reading comprehension skills, and same materials were used for both groups.
Two texts were chosen from “College Reading: English for Academic Success” and both
texts included twenty questions in total: ten questions for each text.
The first text is entitled “Science and Technology” and consists of 500 to 600 words. The
researcher prepared ten questions on the text which were shown to the teaching experts for
evaluation to see if they could be used to measure the students’ level accurately. Each
question about the first text was awarded ten marks; making up a total of one hundred for the
ten prepared questions. Similarly, 100 marks were allocated for ten questions about the
second text which was, as previously indicated, chosen from the same book and was used for
the purpose of measuring the level of both groups after applying the reciprocal teaching
model on the experimental group. The questions were once again shown to the same experts
for evaluation in the same manner as it was conducted in evaluating the questions for the first
text.
The students were given 60 minutes to read the texts, and then to answer the questions that
followed. Multiple choice questions were used in both; the pretest and the post test. In respect
of the use of multiple choice questions, Benz and Medina (2006) state that It is ‘one type of
reading comprehension exercise that is used frequently on test’ (p.117).
The procedures followed in the pre-test for the population of the study were as follows:
A copy of the test was given to each student by the examiner and all the students were asked
to write down their ID numbers and the branch of study they are affiliated with. After having
explained the content and the marking scheme of the test, the students were asked to silently
commence reading the text relevant to the test paper. On completion of the silent reading, the

80 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

examiner instructed the students to answer the questions and asked them not to resort back to
the text during this process. It was explained that each correct answer was worth ten marks.
Once the pre-test was conducted and completed, as a second step, the researcher applied the
reciprocal teaching model for a period of four weeks on the students who were selected
randomly to form the experimental group. By the end of the four weeks, preparation for the
post-test took place in readiness for it to be conducted for the whole sample. As for the
purpose of such a test, the aim was to determine if there were any significant differences in
the achievement in the reading comprehension of the students who were exposed to the RTM
(experimental group), compared to that of those who were taught via the use of the
traditional method (control group). In the post-test, the second text “MICHELANGELO’S
DAVID”, which was also selected from “College Reading: English for Academic Success”
book, was used. Besides, the researcher asked the examiner to adhere to the same
procedures that had been applied in the pre-test phase to maintain the consistency element
within this research.
5. Participants
All participants who took part in this study were students selected from two first-year classes
who were enrolled on the E99 compulsory module at Mutah University in the academic year
2015/2016. Also, the participants are native speakers of Arabic and of a mix gender (male
and female students). They were 176 participants; they were in control and experimental
group.
The population and the sample of this study are all of students who study English as a
Foreign Language (EFL). In line with Mutah University’s curriculum standards, the E99 is a
mandatory module for all the students at the University. It is also important to point out here
that this research constitutes a case study since it fits in within the definition of such a type of
study as defined by Gay, Millis and Airasian (2009) who argue that; it is ‘a qualitative
research approach in which researchers focus on a unity of study known as a bounded system
(e.g., individual teachers, a classroom, or a school)’ (p.426).
6. Sampling
The two classes selected performed a pre-test, and then an experimental group was randomly
selected from those two classes. The experimental group consisted of 90 male and female
students who were taught by using the RTM instruction for the duration of four weeks.
Subsequent to performing the pre-test, the post-test was conducted in both groups; the
experimental and the control group that was instructed using traditional teaching methods.
It is noteworthy to mention that all the students in both groups were consulted about taking
part in this study and gratefully agreed to participate. They were also assured that any scores
and data that might occur in the experiment would be kept confidential.
In so far as the confidentiality of the study is concerned, this research focuses on two key
elements; the participants’ confidentiality, and their responses.. After conducting the pre-test
and the post-test, the papers were marked, made ready for analysis and kept away from the
students to maintain confidentiality. Gay, Mills and Airasian (2009) define confidentiality

81 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

vis-à-vis the purpose it serves by stating that ‘perhaps the most basic and important ethical
issues in research are concerned with protection of participants, broadly defined, which
requires that research participants not be harmed in any away (i.e., physically, mentally, or
socially) and that they participate only if they freely agree to do so (i.e., give informed
consent)’ (p.20).
6.1 Procedures of Applying the Reciprocal Teaching Model
The instruction of reciprocal teaching model involves four key stages which are; inducting
the model, describing the strategies of the model, the actual reading and applying the
strategies.
The first stage (inducting the model): In this stage, the teacher asks the students to assume
their role in the classroom and informs them that this new model relies upon the use of
discussions between students while taking into account that each student is given the
opportunity to take part and to lead the discussion.
The second stage (describing the strategies): Here, the four strategies of the reciprocal
teaching model are introduced by the teacher and explained to the students. The teacher then
focuses on explaining what is meant by predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarising
respectively. In predicting, the teacher ensures that students understand that this strategy is
used to help them build up some expectations in the sense that they are required to envisage
what the text might be about and what its aims might be. Through such a strategy, the
teacher acts as an additional motivational factor prompting students to read the text as they
wish to find out if their expectations and predictions are correct or not while they are
proceeding further with the reading. In questioning, the teacher informs the students that
every question they ask about the text, ultimately, helps them to get closer to understand what
they read. Hence, the teacher encourages and allows the students to ask questions,
particularly, those in relation to the significant parts of the text during the reading. After
questioning, the teacher is to clarify any misunderstanding or misconception that is assumed
by the students. Subsequent to the introduction of the three strategies mentioned above, the
teacher goes on to introduce the final strategy of the RT model which is summarising. The
students are made fully aware of the importance of summarising as a strategy as it enables
them to further develop and enhance their understanding of texts they read.
The third stage (starting the reading/actual reading: here, both the teacher and the students
read the passage silently. However, the teacher may first demonstrates the use of the
predicting strategy and ask the students to only read the title or/and the subheadings in the
text to predict the forthcoming events. Afterward, the teacher demonstrates to the students
the use of questioning and how to formulate questions about the text, and introduces the
concept of clarification and its benefit in countering any difficulties encountered by students
during their reading of the text. Finally, the teacher asks the students to summarise all the
information they have read and points out that their summary should be no more than a
paragraph with the main ideas of text.
The fourth stage (applying the four strategies on students): Once the teacher demonstrates to

82 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

the students the use of the four strategies of the RTM, the latter should be able to make
predictions, ask questions, ask for clarification and summarise the main ideas of the text.
Therefore, students are strongly advised to collaborate with the teacher in steering a
discussion in order to unravel whether their predictions are right or wrong. In addition, they
should attempt to provide answers to the questions they have initially made about the text and
use the discussion as an opportunity for clarifying misunderstanding and countering
difficulties in comprehension. Finally, they should end the discussion with a summary that
covers only the main ideas of the text and ignores the small details. The discussion process is
a procedure where participants assume the role of the teacher in leading the discussion. This
does not suggest that the role of the class teacher stop at this point as he/she should pay more
attention to students who might not be able to generate questions about the text, and help
them through this process in constructing pertinent questions to the text. The teacher should
re-read the text and specify the main ideas in the text. It is also important to state that if the
students show any signs of inability in respect of making questions or predicting, then they
will fail to use the model.
7. Findings and Discussions
To answer these questions, the class teacher taught the experimental group using the RTM,
whereas the control group was taught using the traditional method. An independent sample
T-test was used to find out if there were any statistical significant differences in the
achievement of students’ reading comprehension. The students on the E99 course who
participated in this study were divided into two groups; the control group and the
experimental group. The control group, as previously mentioned, was taught using the
traditional method, whereas the reciprocal teaching model was used to teach the experimental
group. The reading comprehension achievement test was used for the two groups and in both;
the pre-test and the post-test.
7.1 Findings Related to the First Question
To answer the first question of this study; “Does the use of Reciprocal Teaching Model have
any effect on the achievement in the reading comprehension skills among first year students
at Mutah University?”, two independent sample T-tests are carried out to measure the
equality means of the overall results achieved in the reading comprehension achievement
tests by the students of both groups; the experimental group and the control group, and as
documented in the pre-test and post-test scores. A further two paired samples T-test are
conducted to compare the results of the pre-test and the post-test scores; focusing on each
group individually so as to assess whether there is any significance difference in the means
scores where there is no change in the instruction condition as opposed to where RT is used.
According to the T-test results of the pre-test where both groups are compared, the mean
score for the experimental group is 66.22 and its standard deviation is 18.99. Conversely, the
mean score for the control group is 65.69 and its standard deviation is 20.20. The T-value of
0.178 shows that the difference in the results of the two groups are statistically insignificant
at α = .05. This is a clear indication that both groups appear to have been of similar level in
their reading comprehension achievement prior to using the reciprocal teaching model

83 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

(table1).
Table 1. An Independent Sample T-test for the Equality of Means for Both Groups of the
Pre-test Scores
Group N Mean Standard T df Sig.
Deviation
Experimental 90 66.22 18.99
.178 174 .859
Control 86 65.69 20.20

For the assessment of whether there is any significant difference in the control group
students’ reading comprehension where there is no change in the instructional method, a
paired sample T-test comparing the scores achieved in the pre-test against those achieved in
the post-test is carried out. This test results reveal no significant difference in the means
scores as this is indicated to be 65.6977 in the pre-test with a deviation of 20.2072, and
66.5116 with a standard deviation of 16.5755 in the post-test (Table2). 7
Table 2. Paired Samples T-test for the Equality of Means for Control Group Pre-test –
Post-test
Group N Mean Standard T P
Deviation
Control Group pre test 86 65.6977 20.2072 - 0.773
Control Group post test 86 66.5116 16.5755 0.316

As for the experimental group, a similar test is conducted to assess any significant difference
in the means scores that might be attributed to the intervention of the RT model. The results
in this test clearly illustrate a significant difference in the mean scores for this group; with a
mean of 66.2222 and a standard deviation of 18.9960 recorded for the pre-test, and a mean of
80.6667 and a standard deviation of 16.9467 for the post-test (Table3).
Table 3. Paired Samples T-test for the Equality of Means for Experimental Group Pre-test -
Post test
Group N Mean Standard T P
Deviation
Experimental Group 90 66.2222 18.9960 - 0.000
pre test 7.114
Experimental Group 90 80.6667 16.9467
post test

In respect of the comparison of the post-test scores of the two groups, the analysis of the
results yielded shows a mean score of 80.66 with a standard deviation of 17.01 for the
experimental group. On the other hand, the results for the control group in the post-test
demonstrate a mean score of 66.51 with a standard deviation of 16.57. During this process, an
independent sample T-test is carried out to identify any differences between the two groups in
their reading comprehension achievement in the post test. In the view of the t-value of 5.58,

84 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

the results of this test show that statistically, there is a significant difference between the
achievements in the reading comprehension of both groups in favour of the experimental
group (table4).
Table 4. An Independent Sample T-test for the Equality of Means for Both Groups of the
Post-test Scores
Group N Mean Standard t df Sig.
Deviation
Experimental 90 80.66 17.01 5.58 174 .000
Control 86 66.51 16.57

Based on the results illustrated above, and in response to the first question; “Does the use of
Reciprocal Teaching Model have any effect on the achievement in the reading
comprehension skills among first year students at Mutah University?”, evidence strongly
suggests that the use of the reciprocal teaching model has substantially led to improving the
reading comprehension achievement of the first year students enrolled on the E99 module at
Mutah University. It is therefore safe to conclude that the use of the reciprocal teaching
model appears to have more of an effect on the first year students on the E99 module in their
reading comprehension achievement than the traditional method.
7.2 Findings Related to the Second Question
The second question of this study is; “Are there any significant differences, resulting from the
use of the Reciprocal Teaching Model, between first year male and female students in the
reading comprehension achievement in the English E99 Course at Mutah University?”. This
question seeks to unravel if gender can be considered as a major factor influencing the
outcome of using the RT or not.
In response to this question, six independent sample T-tests and four paired samples T-tests
are carried out to identify any differences between the male and female students’ reading
comprehension achievement scores in both groups in the pre-test and the post-test.
The first independent T-test is set to compare the pre-test scores of the male participants in
the experimental group to those of the male students in the control group. The results, with a
T-value of 0.578, indicate that there are no significant differences between the two groups at
this stage as reflected in the means scores. For the experimental group, the mean score is
65.2273 with a standard variation of 19.8235, whereas for the control group, the mean score
is 62.5581 with a standard deviation of 23.1036 (see Table 5). Hence, both groups appear to
be of similar level of proficiency in the reading comprehension amid the use of the traditional
method in developing their reading skills.
Table 5. An Independent Sample T-test for the Equality of Means for the Male Gender in
Both Groups of the Pre-test Scores.
Gender N Mean Standard T P
Deviation
Male in Experimental 44 65.2273 19.8235 0.578 0.564

85 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

Male in control 43 62.5581 23.1036

The second independent T-test is concerned with comparing the post-test scores of the
experimental group against the scores of the control group. Interestingly and with a T-value
of 6.43, the results show that experimental group is significantly better in the post-test as
indicated; with a mean score of 88.1818 and a standard deviation of 15.8881 as opposed to a
mean score of 64.6512 and a standard deviation of 18.8881 for the control group (Table 6).
This in fact demonstrates the effectiveness of the RT in developing learners reading
comprehension skills compared to the traditional method.
Table 6. An Independent Sample T-test for the Equality of Means for the Male Gender in
Both Groups of the Post-test scores
Gender N Mean Standard T P
Deviation
Male in Experimental 44 88.1818 15.8881 6.43 0.000
Male in control 43 64.6512 18.1723

In focusing on the differences between the pre-test and the post-test scores in individual
groups and from a gender point of view, four paired sample tests are carried out. In the first
paired samples T-test, the scores achieved in the pre-test are compared to those achieved in
the post-test in the male population of the control group. The results of this test reveal that
with a T-value of 0.513, there is no substantial improvement in the reading comprehension of
the male students in this group. The mean score recorded for the pre-test is 62.5581 with a
standard variation of 23.1036, and 64.6512 and 18.1723 respectively for the post-test (Table
7). This is a clear indication that although there appears to be some kind of difference
between the scores of both tests, it is nonetheless minimal and not of any great significance.
This comes as a no surprise as the conditions for both tests are the same.
Table 7. Paired Samples T-test for the Equality of Means for the Male in the Control Group
Pre-test to Post-test.
Group N Mean Standard T P
Deviation
Control Group pre test 43 62.5581 23.1036 - 0.611
Control Group post test 43 64.6512 18.1723 0.513

The second paired samples T-test focuses on the comparison between the scores achieved in
the pre-test and those attained in the post-test within the male population of the experimental
group. The results show a significant difference with a mean score of 65.2273 and a standard
deviation of 23.1036 for the pre-test, and 84.5455 and 18.1723 for the post test. The T-value
7.710 appears to be quite high which is a clear indication that the use of the RT has in fact
considerably led to improving the male students’ reading comprehension in the experimental
group (table 8).
Table 8. Paired Samples T-test for the Equality of Means for the Male in the Experimental
Group Pre-test to Post-test

86 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

Group N Mean Standard T P

Deviation
experimental Group 44 65.2273 23.1036 - 0.000
pre test 7.710
experimental Group 44 84.5455 18.1723
post test

The third independent sample T-test is carried out to compare the scores attained by the
female participants within both groups in both; the pre-test and the post-test. The mean score
for the experimental group is 67.1739 and the standard variation is 18.3379, whereas for the
control group, the mean recorded is 68.8372 and the standard deviation is 16.5053. With a
T-value of -0.44, evidence suggests that the difference between the performances of female
students of these groups is insignificant at this stage (Table 9).
Table 9. An Independent Sample T-test for the Equality of Means for the Female participants
in Both Groups of the Pre-test Scores
Gender N Mean Standard T P
Deviation
Female in 46 67.1739 18.3379 -0.44 0.651
Experimental
Female in 43 68.8372 16.5053
control

In contrast, this difference becomes more significant and prominent when comparing the
mean score achieved in the post-test to those achieved in the pr-test through the fourth
independent sample T-test. The results for this particular test show that the female students’
achievement in the experimental group is much better and improved than in the female
population of the control group. For the experimental group, the mean is 73.4783 and the
standard deviation is 14.7900 as opposed to 68.3721 and 14.7890 respectively for the control
group. Yet again, this places the RT in a more favorable position than the traditional method
(Table 10).
Table 10. An Independent Sample T-test for the Equality of Means for the Female Gender in
Both Groups of the Post-test Scores
Gender N Mean Standard T P
Deviation
Female in 46 73.4783 14.7900 1.62 .032
Experimental
Female in 43 68.3721 14.7890
control

The third paired samples T-test focuses on the comparison of the scores attained in the
pre-test and the post-test by the female population of the control group. The mean score in the
pre-test is 68.8372 and the standard deviation is 16.5053, whereas for the post-test, the mean

87 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

score is 68.3721 with a standard variation of 14.7890. The T-value is relatively low at 0.147
which suggests that there is no significant statistical difference between the female students
in the control group as indicated in the comparison between the scores of the pre-test and the
post-test within the control group (Table 11).
Table 11. Paired Samples T-test for the Equality of Means for the Female in the Control Group
Pre-test to Post–test

Group N Mean Standard T P

Deviation
Control Group pre test 43 68.8372 16.5053 0.147 0.884
Control Group post test 43 68.3721 14.7890

The fourth paired samples T-test is set to compare the scores achieved in the pre-test against
those achieved in the post-test by the female students of the experimental group. The results
of this test show that there is a significant difference between the means scores of the pre-test
and the post test. For the former, the mean is 67.1739 and the standard deviation is 18.3379,
whereas for the latter, the mean is 73.4783 with a standard deviation of 14.7900. This implies
that the use of the RT is quite effective in improving female learners’ reading comprehension
(see Table 12).
Table 12. Paired Samples T-test for the Equality of Means for the Female in the Experimental
Group Pre-test to Post-test
Group N Mean Standard T P
Deviation
experimental Group 46 67.1739 18.3379 - 0.000
pre test 3.950
experimental Group 46 73.4783 14.7900
post test

The fifth independent sample T-test focuses on the comparison of the pre-test scores achieved
by the male students against those achieved by the female students within the experimental
group. The results of this test indicate that in the experimental group, the female students are
slightly better than their male counterparts with a mean score of 67.1739 and a standard
deviation of 18.3379 as opposed to 65.2273 and 19.8235 respectively (Table 13).
Table 13. An Independent Sample T-test for the Equality of Means for Both Genders of the
Pre-test Scores in the Experimental Group

88 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

N Mean Standard T P
Gender Deviation
Male in the 44 65.2273 19.8235 - 0.630
Experimental 0.484
Female in the 46 67.1739 18.3379
Experimental
Group

The final independent sample T-test carried out in the treatment of the second hypothesis of
this study concentrates on the comparison of the post-test scores achieved by the male
students versus the female students within the experimental group. On this occasion, the male
students’ scores are much better than those of the female participants as the recorded mean
score for the former is 88.1818 and the standard deviation is 15.881 as opposed to 73.4783
and 14.7900 respectively for the latter. This is a clear indication that the RT is beneficial to
both; the male and female learners in the experimental group irrespective of the variation in
the level of improvement between the two genders (Table 14). This variation in the results in
this test may be due to the possibility that the male students were more motivated as a result
of being instructed using the reciprocal teaching model than the female students. This also
may suggest that the male students executed the role of the teacher and applied the four
strategies of the reciprocal teaching model more effectively as this was apparent in the brief
conducted observation.
Table 14. An Independent Sample T-test for the Equality of Means for Both Genders of the
Post-test Scores on the Experimental Group
Gender N Mean Standard T P
Deviation
Male in the 44 88.1818 15.8881 0.000
Experimental 4.547
Female in the 46 73.4783 14.7900
Experimental
Group

8. Conclusion and Recommendations

This study is initially set to respond to two hypothesizes in relation to the use of the
reciprocal teaching model in higher education setting. The first hypothesis investigates the
effect of the RT on the achievement in the reading comprehension skills among first year
students at Mutah University and examines the extent of this effect in terms of developing the
reading comprehension of the students participants involved in this research. The second
hypothesis is set to address any significant differences in the reading comprehension skills
between first year male and female students of the English E99 Course at Mutah University.
These aims are achieved through the various procedures incorporated in this experiment such
as; conducting the pre-test to assess the students overall reading comprehension skills, and

89 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

the posttest subsequent to the use of the reciprocal teaching model (RT) by the teacher while
instructing the experimental group for a period of four weeks. During such a period, this
group was introduced to RT and implemented its four strategies; predicting, questioning,
clarifying and summarizing, whereas the other group - the control group- was instructed
using the traditional method (TM). This was done to serve as a point of comparison between
the two groups in the development of their reading comprehension skills during the analysis
stage of the post-test results so as to determine whether RT has any effect on the reading
comprehension of the students exposed to it or not.
For the first hypothesis and in view of the independent sample T-tests and the paired samples
T-test carried out, both groups; the experimental and the control group appear to have been of
almost a similar level in their reading comprehension achievement prior to the use of the
reciprocal teaching model (pre-test). However, as a result of the intervention of the RT model,
the experimental group’s overall achievement in the reading comprehension is significantly
improved in comparison to the pre-test results for this group and in comparison to the control
group achievement in the post-test. Therefore, it is safe to argue that undoubtedly the use of
the reciprocal teaching model has a positive effect on the first year students on the E99
module in their reading comprehension achievement as opposed to the traditional method.
In the treatment of the second hypothesis, a number of tests are used leading to the
conclusion that the use of the RT is in fact beneficial to both; the male and female learners in
the experimental group. However, the results in this study reveal a higher level of
improvement in the male population of this group compared to that of the female participants.
Nonetheless, the post-test scores reveal that the female students in the experimental group are
considerably better in the reading comprehension than the female students in the control
group. Thus, once again, the use of RT proves to be vital for the improvement of learners’
reading comprehension abilities regardless of their gender.
Overall, the results in this present study support the findings of some previous studies (Hart
and Speece, 1998; Hansan, 1994; Clark, 2003; Ratanakul, 1998), and further emphasise the
effectiveness of using the Reciprocal Teaching model at different educational levels; primary
school, high school and university, and its major contribution towards enhancing students’
overall reading comprehension skills and raising their achievement.
Based on the results of the present study, the study proposes the following recommendations:
1. The Reciprocal Teaching Model should be used as an alternative model and alongside
other teaching methods in relation to the reading comprehension.
2. Teachers should be trained in the use of the Reciprocal Teaching Model so as to be able
to effectively apply it in the teaching of reading.
3. Other researchers should conduct further research to investigate and further study the
Reciprocal Teaching Model and its effects in their quest for effective methods for
developing the English reading comprehension level of EFL students.

90 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

References
Acklam, R., & Grace, A. (2005) Total English: Pre-intermediate Student’s Book. Longman:
Persona.
Adunyarittigun, D. & Grant, R. (2005) ‘Empowering students through reciprocal teaching.’
Thai TESOL Bulletin, 18(1), 1–13.
Aebersold, J. A., & Field, M. L. (1997) From Reader to Reading Teacher. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allen, S. (2003) ‘An analytic comparison of three models of reading strategy instruction.’
IRAL, 41, 319–338.
Al-Omari, T. A., Smadi, O. M., & Bataineh, R. F. (2015). Potential Inclusion of Multiple
Intelligences in Jordanian EFL Textbooks. Bellaterra journal of teaching and learning
language and literature, 8(1), 0060-80.
Andre, M. E., & Anderson, T. H. (1979) ‘The development and evaluation of a
self–questioning study technique.’ Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4), 605–623.
Brown, A., & Palincsar, A. (1982) ‘Inducing Strategic Learning from Text by Means of
Informed, Self-Controlled Training.’ Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 1-17.
Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern
Language Journal, 73, 120–133.
Cherryholmes, C. (1999) Reading Pragmatism. New York: Teacher College Press.
Clark, L. (2003). Reciprocal Teaching Strategy and Adult High School Students’ (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 478 116).
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Essex: Longman.
Collins, M., & Cheek, E. (2000) Assessing and Guiding Reading Instruction. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Council of Higher Education (CHE). (2000). Report of Disseminating the Computer Skills
and English Language Skills to the students in the Jordanian universities. CHE Decree,
Session 13, Dec. 25, 2000. Amman, Jordan: CHE.
DeFoe, M. (1999). Using directed reading-thinking activity strategies to teach students
reading comprehension skills in middle grades language arts. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 432 011)
Duffy, G. (2002). The case for direct explanation of strategies. In C. Block, & M. Pressley
(Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research–based best practices (pp. 28–41). New York:
Guilford Press.
Farstrup, A. (2002). ‘What Research Has to Say about Reading Instruction.’ Newark, DE:

91 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

International Reading Association.

Fillenworth, L. (1995) Using reciprocal teaching to help at-risk college freshmen study and
read. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Gay, L., & Airasian, P. (2003) Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and
Applications (7th Ed). Pearson International Edition.
Gay, R. Mills, G., & Airasian, P. (2009) Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis
and Application (9th edition). Pearson International Edition.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. Harlow: Pearson
Education.
Greenway, C. (2002). ‘The process, pitfalls and benefits of implementing a reciprocal
teaching intervention to improve reading comprehension of a group of year 6 pupils.’
Educational Psychology in Practice, 18(2), 113–138.
Hart, E. R., & Speece, D. L. (1998). ‘Reciprocal teaching goes to college: Effects for
postsecondary students at risk for academic failure.’ Journal of Educational Psychology,
90(4), 670–681.
Hasan, B. (1994). The effects of the reciprocal teaching of comprehension strategies on the
abilities of EFL students at Kuwait University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Colorado.
Hayes, B. (1991). Effective Strategies for Teaching Reading. Newton, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Kern, R. (1989).‘Second language reading strategies instruction: Its effects on comprehension
and word inference ability.’ Modern Language Journal, 73,135–149.
Lederer, J. (2000). Reciprocal teaching of social studies in inclusive elementary classrooms.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(1), 99–107.
Lysynchuck, L., Pressley, M., & Vye, N. (1990). ‘Reciprocal teaching improves standardized
reading comprehension performance in poor comprehenders.’ Elementary School Journal,
90(5), 469–484.
Mejang, A. (2004). The development of an English reading strategy instruction model based
on collaborative learning principles for enhancing reading learning outcomes of university
students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand.
Omeri, H., & Weshah, H. (2010). Using the Reciprocal Teaching Method by Teachers at
Jordanian Schools.’ European Journal of Social Sciences, 15(1), 26-39.
Palincsar, A., Brown, A., & Martin, S. (1987). Peer Interaction in Reading Comprehension
Instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 231-253.
Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension–fostering and
comprehension–monitoring activities. Cognition and instruction, 1, 117–175.

92 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

Palincsar, A. S., & David, Y. M. (1990). Learning Dialogues for Comprehension and
Knowledge Acquisition. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council for Exceptional
Children, Toronto.
Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., & Lipson, M. Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: a
program to improve children’s reading awareness and comprehension.’ Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1239–1252.
Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2003). ‘FLUENCY: THE BRIDGE FROM DECODING TO
READING COMPREHENSION’. Houghton Mifflin Company. 1- 12.
Ratanakul, S. (1998). An experimental study of the use of the reciprocal teaching technique in
teaching English reading comprehension. Unpublished MA dissertation, Mahidol University,
Thailand.
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions:
A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. (2008). Essentials of Behavioral Research Methods and Data
Analysis (3rd Ed.). NY: The McGraw-Hill.
Routman, R. (2000). Conversations: Strategies for Teaching, Learning, Learning and
Evaluating. Portsmouth, NH: Heinmann.
Soonthornmanee, R. (2002). The effect of the reciprocal teaching approach on the reading
comprehension of EFL students.’ RELC, 33(2), 125–141.
Wenden, A. L. (1999). An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language
learning: beyond the basics. Systems, 27, 43–441.
Wiseman, D. L. (1992). Learning to Read with Literature. NY: Allyn and Bacon.

Copyright Disclaimer
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to
the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative
Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

93 www.macrothink.org/ijl

View publication stats