the impact of reciprocal teaching

1Running Head: IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING

The Impact of Reciprocal Teaching:

What is the Effect of Reciprocal Teaching on Eighth Grade Students’

Reading Comprehension and Attitudes Toward Reading?

Kristen N. Borge

East Carolina University

2IMPACT OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of reciprocal teaching on eighth grade

students’ reading comprehension and attitudes about reading. The sample included 48 eighth

grade students in two groups taught by the researcher. A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest

design was used, and data were collected through a reading comprehension assessment and an

adolescent attitudinal survey, as well as a researcher log. The control group received traditional,

whole-class reading instruction, and the intervention group was taught using the reciprocal

teaching method. Pre and posttest scores on the reading comprehension assessment indicated no

significant difference between the control and intervention groups. However, pre and post-survey

scores demonstrated reciprocal teaching had a positive effect on the attitude about reading of the

intervention group.

Keywords: reading comprehension, reciprocal teaching, adolescents, middle school,

collaborative learning


The Impact of Reciprocal Teaching: What is the Effect of Reciprocal Teaching on Eighth Grade

Students’ Reading Comprehension and Attitudes Toward Reading?

All teachers want students to be able to read independently. However, while reading

comprehension is regularly assessed in school, explicit instruction in reading comprehension

strategies is not commonplace in many classrooms (Durkin, 1979). When compared to the

growth that students in other countries are achieving, Snow (2002) found students in the United

States are not attaining comparable gains in reading comprehension. Nevertheless,

comprehension is critical for successful reading, and society is requiring higher levels of literacy

for high school graduates than in the past (Ogle & Lang, 2011). Experts consider making

meaning from text the most important thing when it comes to reading (Harvey & Goudvis,

2007). One method for promoting reading achievement is reciprocal teaching, a research-based

instructional technique that supports the use of comprehension strategies. Reciprocal teaching

engages students in deeper reading and peer-to-peer conversations about the text through the use

of four reading comprehension strategies: predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing.

Therefore, the purpose of this research project was to describe the impact of reciprocal

teaching as a means for teaching reading comprehension skills to eighth grade students.

Specifically, this study aimed to answer the question, “What is the effect of reciprocal teaching

on eighth grade students’ reading comprehension and attitudes toward reading?” In order to

answer this question, a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design was used to compare reading

comprehension scores and reading attitudinal survey responses before and after an eight-week

treatment. The expected outcome was that those students taught using the reciprocal teaching

model would make gains in comprehension when compared to those students taught using

traditional, whole-class instruction.


Reciprocal Teaching

Pardo (2004) defines comprehension as the process in which readers make meaning by

interacting with text through prior knowledge, information in the text, and the stance the reader

takes in relation to the content. Although reading comprehension is commonly assessed in

classrooms, research has demonstrated that little attention is paid to comprehension instruction

(Durkin, 1979). In an observational study of third through sixth grade social studies classrooms,

Durkin (1979) discovered that almost no instruction in reading comprehension occurred, despite

the complexity of the text students were required to read. More recent research has demonstrated

that not much has changed in the past three decades (Snow, 2002). Moreover, even though

comprehension training was practically nonexistent, it was frequently assessed through questions

asked by the teacher. Harvey and Goudvis (2007) suggest that when students are explicitly

taught comprehension-fostering skills, not only do students learn to apply strategies across

disciplines, but general comprehension improves as well.

Palincsar and Brown (1984) developed the reciprocal teaching technique as a method to

teach readers to monitor their own comprehension and in turn develop more sophisticated

interactions with text. The method encourages students to engage with the text by employing

four comprehension-monitoring strategies: predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing

(Palincsar & Brown, 1984). By explicitly teaching students how to appropriately utilize each

strategy before, during, and after reading, dialogue about pertinent text features is then

supported, gradually making students strategy-use a student responsibility (Stricklin, 2011).

What Palincsar and Brown (1984) discovered in their initial study, which aimed to improve

students’ abilities to learn from text, was that regular practice of reciprocal teaching led to


improvement in the quality of summaries and student-generated questions, as well as growth on

tests of comprehension.

Harvey and Goudvis (2007) offer several reasons that students have difficulty

understanding what they read. In some cases, students’ lack of comprehension has to do with

level of interest. In other instances, a lack of background knowledge interferes with student

understanding or students simply lose focus and do not realize that they are not thinking about

the words and ideas in the text (Harvey & Goudvis, 2007). However, research suggests that

reciprocal teaching can counteract issues with comprehension by teaching students to monitor

their understanding strategically (Choo, Eng, & Ahmad, 2011; Williams, 2010; Stricklin, 2011;

Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Strategic reading enriches learning and understanding, and educators

should consider strategic readers “proficient readers who have a plan of action that moves them

towards their goal or purpose for reading” (Harvey & Goudvis, 2007, p. 23). Reciprocal teaching

creates strategic readers through explicit focus on specific comprehension strategies. In the pilot

study of reciprocal teaching, Palincsar and Brown (1984) developed a procedure in which a

teacher and students took turns leading a dialogue about sections of the text. After training in

each strategy, there was a shared responsibility for generating predictions, questions, and

summarizations, as well as for clarifying misleading or complex ideas (Palincsar & Brown,

1984). This method was compared to more typical teacher-led, whole-class instruction, and

results demonstrated that reciprocal teaching contributed to comprehension growth more than the

traditional method (Palincsar & Brown, 1984).

Impact of Reciprocal Teaching on Struggling Readers and Special Populations

Reciprocal teaching has shown effectiveness among struggling readers and students

learning English as a foreign language (Choo, Eng, & Ahmad, 2011; Slater & Horstman, 2002).


In a study designed to examine how reciprocal teaching could help low-proficiency students

improve their reading comprehension scores on the Malaysian University English Test, Choo,

Eng, and Ahmad (2011) found that after nine reading lessons over the course of a month, a

significant difference in pre and posttest results indicated that reciprocal teaching strategies were

effective in helping students improve their reading comprehension scores. The researchers

attribute the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching to the group dynamic. Specifically, they state

that reciprocal teaching “encourages students to take a more active role in leading a group

dialogue, and helps to bring more meaning to the text at a personal and cognitive level” (Choo et

al., 2011, p. 140). Thus, the power of reciprocal teaching is not just in teaching students reading

strategies, but also in the interaction of the small groups. Through small-group instruction,

students are required to be active learners as opposed to passive listeners. With reciprocal

teaching, students also must take ownership of their strategy-use within their group.

Mastropieri, Scruggs, Mohler, Beranek, Spencer, Boon, and Talbott (2001) discovered

students identified as having serious reading difficulties demonstrated comprehension growth in

a peer tutoring program where reciprocal teaching was employed as the primary means for

reading instruction. Participants in the study included 24 middle school students with mild

disabilities, comprising 20 students with learning disabilities and four with “mild mental

retardation, as defined by state and federal criteria” (Mastropieri et al., 2001, p. 20). Prior to

implementing peer tutoring, all students participated in standardized reading tests, and results

were used to match students for random assignment to tutoring. The tutoring program was

implemented in the experimental group daily over five weeks during the regularly assigned 50-

minute English block. Students were taught reciprocal teaching strategies to use during tutoring

sessions. In the control group, students received traditional whole-class, teacher-centered


instruction. Data were gathered through comprehension tests, student interviews, and researcher

observations. On the comprehension tests, while there was no significant difference in the pretest

scores, students in the tutoring condition achieved an average of 81.8 percent correct compared

to 63.6 percent correct in the control group on the posttest. Moreover, in student interviews, 83

percent of students agreed that they liked the reciprocal teaching experience and 75 percent

expressed a desire to tutor in other subjects. Therefore, the student-centered instruction was

again a contributing factor to the success of the intervention. Expressly, reciprocal teaching is

effective because it provides students an opportunity to practice reading purposefully in small

groups where understanding can be extended through the insight of their peers, as well as the

focus on comprehension-fostering strategies.

Furthermore, in an examination of the National Assessment of Educational Progress’s

Reading Report Card, Slater and Horstman (2002) advocated for reciprocal teaching as the best

cognitive strategy intervention for students struggling academically in middle and high school.

The authors describe a model for using reciprocal teaching in which the student progresses from

a task where the teacher takes responsibility for students’ proficiency to one where the student

assumes full responsibility for their success with the task. According to the authors, in addition

to student-centered, small-group instruction, another driving force behind the effectiveness of

reciprocal teaching is this gradual release of control during which students learn to read

strategically (Slater & Horstman, 2002). Furthermore, this method ensures students are learning

within their zone of proximal development, or “the area between ‘the actual development level

of the child and the level of potential development’ (Vigotsky, 1978, pp. 85-86)” (Ostovar-

Namaghi & Shahhosseini, 2011, p. 1239). Teaching students within their zone of proximal

development is important because it encourages students to push themselves beyond their actual


developmental level in their learning, which has the ability to result in higher levels of

achievement growth.

Alfassi, Weiss, and Lifshitz (2009) also recommend using reciprocal teaching to support

reading comprehension in students with intellectual disabilities. In a study of the effectiveness of

strategy instruction as a means for fostering comprehension monitoring, reciprocal teaching

strategies were taught to students between the ages of 15 and 21 with mild to moderate

intellectual disabilities. Phase One of the study consisted of pretesting using the Ortar reading

test, two reading literacy assessment passages, and a strategy assessment for questioning and

summarization. Phase Two, the intervention phase, lasted 12 weeks, during which the

experimental group was exposed to reciprocal teaching methodology during two weekly 45-

minute sessions. The control group continued their regular curriculum of skill acquisition. Phase

Three occurred at the completion of the intervention period. All participants were again

administered the Ortar reading test, two reading literacy assessment passages, and the strategy

assessment. Analysis of data gathered after the intervention period showed “the experimental

group improved its performance from before to after the intervention on both comprehension

measures, whereas the control group did not improve its performance” (Alfassi, Weiss, &

Lifshitz, 2009, p. 299).

Research also demonstrates the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching in students not

identified as disabled or struggling and without limited English proficiency. Williams (2010)

found that the implementation of reciprocal teaching in her fourth-grade classroom gave many of

her students the vocabulary to confidently ask questions in class, in addition to monitor their own

comprehension of informational texts. According to Williams, reciprocal teaching reinforces the

practice of asking questions because two of the focus strategies, clarifying and questioning,


require students to do just that (Willams, 2010). Moreover, as students began to use strategies

more flexibly and with more confidence, they were able to use informational texts as a tool to

find answers to their own questions and to persuade other students about particular opinions

supported by the text. According to Harvey and Goudvis (2007), when readers have questions,

they are less likely to abandon a text. Awareness of question-generating strategies, as well as the

other strategies promoted by reciprocal teaching, provides students with metacognitive

recognition of their own comprehension (Meyer, 2010).

Overall, there are a number of factors that make reciprocal teaching conducive for all

students. Reciprocal teaching fosters a student-centered learning environment that places the

responsibility for strategic reading on the learner (Slater & Horstman, 2002). Additionally,

reciprocal teaching promotes learning within each student’s zone of proximal development,

which supports increased development and higher achievement (Ostovar-Namaghi &

Shahhosseini, 2011). Reciprocal teaching also reinforces good reading habits, such as asking

questions, and teaches reluctant students the vocabulary to do so confidently (Meyer, 2010). All

of these actions are sustained by the explicit focus on four reading strategies that encourage

deeper reading through dialogue about aspects of the text.

Impact of Collaborative Learning

An essential component of reciprocal teaching is the collaborative learning that occurs

when students work in groups. According to Igel and Urquhart (2012), “Humans are social

creatures and our brains are designed accordingly” (p. 16). Therefore, it stands to reason that

reciprocal teaching supports both social and cognitive development. Studies of brain imaging

have demonstrated that the amygdala, a portion of the brain associated with emotions, plays an

active role during learning (Igel & Urquhart, 2012). For many students, learning with others


attaches positive emotions to the experience, especially for those children who would otherwise

struggle in isolation (Igel & Urquhart, 2012).

Additionally, collaborative learning has also shown to have a positive effect on learning

outcomes. In a synthesis of 20 recently published studies on the impact of collaborative learning,

researchers at Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) determined that

highly structured collaborative learning accounted for an average 17 percentile-point gain in

student achievement (Igel & Urquhart, 2012). According to Meyer (2010), the collaborative

discussion fostered by reciprocal teaching is based on “the premise that group participation and

dialogue aids learning as well as promoting conceptual change” (p. 42). Furthermore, Freire

(1997) argues that critical thinking can only be generated through dialogue and that authentic

education is collaborative.

Implementing Reciprocal Teaching Strategies

When implementing reciprocal teaching, the goal is to scaffold students’ use of each

strategy, so that they can eventually employ them all independently. This begins with

introducing each strategy and its purpose and modeling how purposeful readers use each strategy

to support their understanding of a text. During a reciprocal teaching session, the teacher’s

responsibilities are to activate prior knowledge of words or ideas, facilitate strategy-use within

groups, and encourage students to reflect upon their reading and which strategy helped them the

most (Stricklin, 2011).

Predicting. With reciprocal teaching, students make predictions prior to reading and

check the accuracy of their predictions during reading (Stricklin, 2011). These predictions foster

motivation by helping students form a purpose for reading (Stricklin, 2011). Additionally,

research has demonstrated that when teachers use a systematic model for focusing on predictions


before reading, students’ comprehension of the text increases (Hansen, 1981). In a study of

methods intended to improve comprehension, Hansen (1981) found that asking students to use

previous experiences to predict events in a basal-reader story resulted in higher achievement on

comprehension questions when compared to students who did not engage in making predictions.

Clarifying. During reading, students should stop to clarify unknown words or confusing

ideas (Stricklin, 2011). When providing instruction in the strategy with reciprocal teaching,

students are invited to ask about anything that is not clear. The strategy also includes discussing

the type of text and the author’s purpose for writing (Stricklin, 2011). Clarifying is different from

questioning because the goal of clarifying is to explicate unfamiliar vocabulary and concepts

(Seymour & Osana, 2003). The purpose of questioning is to discover the main idea of the text.

Questioning. Harvey and Goudvis (2007) state, “Questions propel us forward and take us

deeper into reading” (p. 109), and research supports the idea that engaging students in generating

and answering their own questions results in a more comprehensive processing of the text

(Meyer, 2010). Furthermore, asking students to generate questions during and after reading is

believed to enhance recall because the technique requires students to focus on ideas they believe

are important (McCormick & Zutell, 2011). As with many reading comprehension strategies,

students must be taught how to generate questions in order for the skill to be effective. There are

many ways to help students learn how to generate questions, including teaching the difference

between thin and thick questions (questions that require limited information, as opposed to

questions that require elaboration), or teaching students question-answer relationships (Meyer,

2010).

Summarizing. Summarizing is a paraphrased retelling of a text (Harvey & Goudvis,

2007). It promotes comprehension, because in order to summarize, readers must be able to


extract the essential information from the text. With reciprocal teaching, students may

summarize a section or an entire passage (Stricklin, 2011). As they condense information into a

few important ideas or larger concepts, students may gain a fresh perspective or form an opinion

that leads to new insight (Harvey & Goudvis, 2007). One way to teach students summarization is

through retelling. The purpose is to provide a basic framework to help students begin to identify

important information in a text (Harvey & Goudvis, 2007).

Research consistently demonstrates the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching as a method

for teaching students to be strategic readers. Therefore, in order to improve the researcher’s

teaching practices and the reading comprehension abilities of students, the impact of reciprocal

teaching will be further investigated in this study. Specifically, the goal is to answer the question,

“What is the effect of reciprocal teaching on eighth grade students’ reading comprehension and

attitudes toward reading?” The following section will present the methodological details of this

study.

Methodology

In order to examine the influence of reciprocal teaching, a quasi-experimental pretest-

posttest design was employed. The study was approved by East Carolina University’s

Institutional Review Board on November 16, 2012 (Appendix A). Subjects were not randomly

assigned, because the researcher worked with two intact Language Arts classes. In order to

counteract the limitations this posed, two classes similar in size and grade point averages were

used. In this study, the independent variable is the type of reading instruction students received.

The dependent variables were reading comprehension and attitudes toward reading.

The independent variable, reading instructional method, was assigned two levels:

reciprocal teaching and traditional instruction. The group that received instruction characterized


by the reciprocal teaching model was taught the definition and purpose of the four

comprehension strategies, as well as how to address each one while working with their peers.

After that, students were divided into reading groups. Groups met between two and three times a

week. Typically, each student in the group was assigned a different strategy, and their role in the

group was to lead a dialogue about that strategy with regard to the text the class was reading that

day. Roles rotated for each text students read. The goal was for students to become proficient in

each skill and eventually make reading strategically habitual. At the traditional level, students in

the control group received reading instruction in a primarily whole-class, teacher-centered

structure. Rather than with the student-centered reciprocal teaching, reading responsibilities were

shared between the teacher and students, and discussions took place with the whole class. The

first dependent variable, reading comprehension, is operationally defined as a score on the

CASE21 assessment. The second dependent variable, student attitudes, was gauged through

responses on an adolescent attitudinal survey.

Participants and Setting

This study was conducted at a gifted and talented magnet middle school located in an

affluent suburban neighborhood in the Piedmont region of North Carolina. The school serves

1,017 students in grades six through eight. The school itself has been open since 1959, and it has

been a middle school since 1982. In that same year, the school received its magnet status.

Approximately 60 percent of the school’s students are Caucasian, 16 percent are African-

American, 10 percent are Hispanic-American, and 10 percent are Asian/Pacific Islander. Forty-

five percent of students are identified as academically or intellectually gifted, 16 percent of

students have disabilities, and 27 percent of students receive free or reduced lunch. Standardized

test scores from the 2011-2012 school year showed 76.8 percent of students were at or above


grade level in reading. Additionally, the school was identified as a School of Distinction,

meaning 80 to 90 percent of students performed at grade level and demonstrated high growth.

The researcher and classroom teacher in this study has a Bachelor of Science in Middle

Grades Education with concentrations in both language arts and social studies, and she has been

teaching three years in North Carolina. Participants in this study included two eighth grade

Language Arts classes, period 4 and period 5, which the researcher teaches. Participants were

chosen based on their enrollment in the researcher’s class. Participants aged between 13 and 15

years old. The class assigned to the intervention treatment contained 24 students. Of these

students, there were 16 girls and 9 boys. Twelve students were Caucasian, six were Asian/Pacific

Islander, five were African-American, and two were Hispanic-American. One student was

receiving English as a Second Language (ESL) services. The control class contained 24 students.

In this class, there were 8 girls and 16 boys. Seventeen students were Caucasian, three were

Asian/Pacific Islander, two were African-American, and two were Multiracial. In the control

group, one student was receiving ESL services, and three students were receiving special

programs services. According to standardized test scores from the previous year, 73.4 percent of

students in the seventh grade were at or above grade level in reading.

Research Procedures

The intervention period lasted for eight weeks. The initial pretest and attitudinal survey

were administered the week students returned to school from winter vacation on January 3, 2013,

and the intervention period began on January 4, 2013. The intervention period ended March 1,

2013, and the posttest was administered that day. In the first two weeks of the intervention

period, students in the intervention group were trained in the use of predicting, clarifying,

questioning, and summarizing as comprehension strategies. This was done through explicit focus


lessons created by the researcher on how to use each strategy, why the strategy was important to

use, and how each strategy aids comprehension. For example, students were taught that

predictions create a focus for reading. The researcher modeled how to make predictions before

and during reading, as well as check the accuracy of those predictions. During this type of

whole-class lesson, individual students were asked how they would use each strategy.

Throughout the process, they were able to see the strategy modeled and practice using the

strategy together and independently. Gradually students assumed full responsibility for their

employment of these strategies while in their reading groups. Once that control was released to

the students, the researcher’s role was to facilitate by keeping students on task and monitor their

discussions to make sure each strategy was utilized.

In the last six weeks of the intervention period, students in the intervention class

participated in during-class reading in groups. There were five groups consisting of four students

and one group of five students. Students were grouped with others who scored similarly on the

pretest. This was done to create an environment within their groups that would be conducive to

the learning of every student. For the first four reading group sessions, students only focused on

one strategy at a time. The entire group was responsible for making predictions, clarifying

confusing or unfamiliar concepts, asking questions, or summarizing. After those initial sessions,

students assigned roles each time they met with their group, and each group member was

responsible for leading a discussion using a particular strategy. Roles rotated each time the

students worked with their group. The types of texts varied and different activities were used to

keep students engaged in these dialogues and aware of strategy-use, such as reciprocal teaching

prompt cards, charts, and sticky notes. Reciprocal teaching prompt cards, included in Appendix

B, contain sentence starters to spark discussion for each strategy and tasks that must be


completed for documentation (Meyer, 2010). Charts and sticky notes were used to jot down

predictions, words and ideas that need clarifying, questions, and details that should be included

in the summary (Stricklin, 2011). It is important to note that during the intervention period,

learning was almost entirely student-centered. Each of the aforementioned activities was used for

accountability and as documentation of the discussions that happened within each group.

The intervention took place at least two to three times a week for 30 to 45 minutes during

students’ regularly scheduled Language Arts class. Figure 1 shows the timeline for collecting

data in the intervention period. On the first and last days of the intervention period, students in

both the intervention and control groups were administered a reading comprehension assessment

and an adolescent attitudinal survey. The expectation was that, through reciprocal teaching,

students would become strategic readers able to monitor their own comprehension of a variety of

texts.

Validity and Reliability or Trustworthiness

There were a few threats to the validity and reliability of this study. Random selection

and assignment of participants was not possible, so this study was not truly experimental and

cannot be generalized. Moreover, there was an existing relationship between the students and the

researcher, and the novelty of employing reciprocal teaching may have caused the researcher to

treat the intervention group differently. Therefore subject attitude and researcher bias towards

implementation were also a potential threat. In order to regulate this threat, high expectations

were maintained for both the intervention and the control group. The researcher log served as a

way to promote the conservation of neutrality.

Due to working with students at an age when change is to be expected, maturation was a

potential threat as well. Observations noted in the researcher log were helpful when interpreting


whether or not participants have changed as a result of the intervention. Finally, there was a

testing threat due to using the same assessment for the pretest and posttest, as well as the

attitudinal survey, thus creating a practice effect that might have influenced how students

responded to questions. Furthermore, the comprehension test used was created by the researcher,

and while the questions were provided by a test publisher, the instrument may not have been the

best measure of reading comprehension abilities, in reference to reliability.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were collected using a pre and posttest comprised of reading comprehension items

from CASE21 assessments and an adolescent attitudinal survey regarding reading. CASE21

assessments are produced by a company called Training and Education in the 21st Century. A

reading comprehension assessment aligned with the Common Core State Standards using the

CASE21 question item bank was generated, and the first reading selection is included in

Appendix A. The pretest was administered on January 3, 2013, prior to the intervention period.

After eight weeks, on March 1, 2013, the same test was administered once again.

The attitudinal survey that was used was published in a study about adolescents’

motivation to read (Pitcher, Albright, DeLaney, Walker, Seunarinesingh, Mogge, Headley,

Ridgeway, Peck, Hunt, & Dunston, 2007). The survey included 20 multiple-choice items that ask

students to respond to statements about reading habits and activities. The survey was scored

using a four-point scale, in which selections that show the most positive attitude received a four,

while the most negative received a one (Pitcher, et al., 2007). The multiple-choice section of the

survey, included in Appendix B, was administered on the first and last day of the intervention

period. Finally, throughout the intervention period, a researcher log was used to record


observations, reflections, and other information relevant to the impact of the intervention during

the study.

The data collector in this study was both the researcher and the teacher of the

intervention and control groups. She was trained through graduate coursework and obtained

Institutional Review Board certification (Appendix D) prior to the implementation of this study.

Researcher log data were hand-written during observation of the intervention class, and then

entered in an online document sharing program (Google Docs). Numerical data were also

transcribed first and entered into a spreadsheet, which was saved on a password-protected flash

drive.

The change scores of the two groups were compared using a t-test on gain scores.

Because the intervention and control groups were not matched, an independent samples t-test

was used to determine whether the difference between the means of the gain score of each group

is significant (Zhang, 2012). The same test was also used to compare the mean gain scores on the

attitudinal survey. Change scores were entered in the Del Siegle t-test spreadsheet calculator in

order to determine the statistical significance. The mean scores, the two-tailed p value, and the

Cohen effect size were reviewed in the data analysis in order to determine the impact of the

intervention.

Findings

The data analysis revealed that there was no statistically significant difference in reading

comprehension scores between the intervention and control groups as a result of the reciprocal

teaching method employed. Specifically, because the equal variance two-tailed p value was

greater than 0.05 (p=0.50), the gains demonstrated cannot be considered significant (Table 1).

However, the mean change score on the reading comprehension test for Group 1, the control


group, was 1.90. The mean change score for Group 2, the intervention group, was 3.96.

Therefore, while the results can be deemed statistically insignificant, the intervention group

showed higher growth than the control. Additionally, the Cohen effect size demonstrated that the

intervention treatment had a small effect (d=0.23).

Table 1

Reading Comprehension Scores

Group M SD n

1 (Control)

2 (Intervention)

1.90

3.96

8.88

11.09

21

23

t (33) = -0.67, p = 0.50, d = 0.23

With regard to the attitudinal survey, the data analysis demonstrated that reciprocal

teaching positively impacted the reading attitudes of the intervention group, but not in a

statistically significant way. In this case, an unequal variance test was used because the Del

Siegle t-test spreadsheet calculator revealed the variance of the two groups differed. Again, the

two-tailed p value was greater than 0.05 (p=0.09), so the gains reflected are not significant

(Table 2). Nevertheless, the mean change score on the attitudinal survey for Group 1, the control

group, was -0.33. Conversely, the mean change score for Group 2, the intervention group, was

1.92. Furthermore, the Cohen effect size suggests that reciprocal teaching had a medium to large

effect on the participants attitudes towards reading (d=0.72).

Table 2

Adolescent Attitudinal Survey Scores

Group M SD n

1 (Control)

2 (Intervention)

-0.33

1.92

3.14

5.59

21

24

t (20) = -1.69, p = 0.09, d = 0.72


Discussion and Conclusions

The positive influence of reciprocal teaching on reading comprehension has been well-

documented. Research has continually demonstrated the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching as

method for teaching reading comprehension. The purpose of this investigation was to discover

the impact of reciprocal teaching on the comprehension scores and attitudes about reading of a

group of eighth grade students. Specifically, the goal was to answer the question, “What is the

effect of reciprocal teaching on eighth grade students’ reading comprehension and attitudes

toward reading?” I anticipated that this study would reflect results similar to the existing

literature on reciprocal teaching. That is, I expected high growth from the intervention group.

However, according to the results of the study, the comprehension gains made by the

intervention group were not statistically significant, so reciprocal teaching did not have an

irrefutable impact on the reading comprehension of the participants. Nevertheless, the findings

demonstrate that reciprocal teaching positively affected the participants’ attitudes toward

reading. This is consistent with research that suggests collaborative learning has emotional

benefits (Igel & Urquhart, 2012). Furthermore, the lack of definitive gains in reading

comprehension could be due to a range of factors, including my lack of experience with the

teaching method and disruptions to the timeline of the intervention.

When I began the process of researching reciprocal teaching, my conception of what it is

in theory was different than what I learned it to be in practice. For example, I learned through

this study the process of gradually releasing responsibility for learning to the students.

Theoretically, after having adequate time to learn and apply the focus strategies, students are to

assume full control of their learning. The teacher’s role is to activate prior knowledge, and then

“monitor, guide, and encourage individuals or groups” (Stricklin, 2012). I struggled with


releasing responsibility initially, and therefore, I do not think my implementation of reciprocal

teaching was as true to the model as it could have been. Additionally, during the intervention

period, I found it challenging to continually hold students accountable for playing their role and

using the four strategies. When I required students to document their strategy use, I observed the

authenticity of the reading experience diminish. In my researcher log, I stated:

I recommended that groups who are having trouble with this stick to the defined roles. I

think the fact that I haven't made them more accountable for this may be an

implementation error on my part, but when I had them using the note-taking sheet to

write down all of their predictions, questions, clarifications, and a summary, it seemed to

distract from the reading itself.

As a result, I believe I was unsuccessful at finding a way to confirm students were using the

strategies without completely detracting from the reading. Consequently, implications for

educators who are also novices in the implementation of reciprocal teaching include a more

gradual removal of supports than the one I was able to accomplish in eight weeks. I believe if I

had spent more time on each individual strategy and required students to more efficiently

document their use of that strategy in the beginning, the transition to an authentic reading

experience using all four strategies would have been more effective.

One of the reasons I did not spend more time training students or make the release of

responsibility more gradual was the limitation of an eight-week intervention treatment. Within

the timeline of my intervention, numerous interruptions (inclement weather delays, early release

days, school-wide testing, assemblies, pep rallies, and state-mandated drills) occurred. These

events are one of the drawbacks of performing research in a school setting. It was difficult to

adhere to the schedule I set for my intervention, because when I lost instructional time with the


intervention class, I felt the need to make up for it by rushing some part of the process.

Accordingly, the implication is that a true execution of reciprocal teaching should be measured

and ongoing. To effectively use reciprocal teaching in my classroom, I would expand the time

frame for training students in purposeful strategy-use and releasing responsibility. I would also

use a formative assessment measure to determine how well students understand and apply each

strategy.

Ultimately, although the findings of this study were not statistically significant as far as

improving reading comprehension, reciprocal teaching is still a method I would encourage other

teachers to attempt in their classrooms. The mean change scores of the intervention group

reflected a small amount of growth, suggesting that if certain aspects of instruction were

developed, the treatment would have resulted in more significant gains. Additionally, I observed

students support each other as readers and engage in meaningful discussions about text with one

another. I plan to continue to utilize reciprocal teaching with the intervention group, as well as

use what I have learned during this study to apply the reciprocal teaching model to the other

classes I teach.

Reflection

The conceptualization of this research project was the result of reading about reciprocal

teaching as a best practice on multiple occasions without ever gaining a clear understanding of

what the method entails. I decided I wanted to perform my own investigation to truly understand

what reciprocal teaching means. There were several benefits to implementing reciprocal teaching

as the intervention in my study. For one, it does not require the purchase of a published reading

program. Additionally, there is an incredibly large body of research already detailing its

effectiveness. Therefore, in the planning stages, I was able to model my own study after those

that had already been conducted with similar conditions. For example, a common theme in much


of the literature I read was a comparison of reciprocal teaching and whole-class, teacher-led

instruction, so that is how I structured my intervention and control groups.

The most challenging aspect of the research project was the implementation. Challenges

primarily arose as the result of conducting research in a school. I became painfully aware of the

amount of interruptions to instructional time that occur in an eight-week period. It was difficult

to compensate for time lost, and as a result, aspects of the gradual release model were rushed.

Moreover, I believe that because reciprocal teaching was not something my students were

already familiar with, these disruptions made maintaining a routine problematic.

Another challenge in the implementation of the intervention was assuming the role of

teacher researcher. I found it necessary to regularly evaluate whether what I was doing to

preserve the fidelity of the research was what was right for my students. For instance, it was

difficult to know when to mediate their group discussions. As a teacher, I had certain learning

outcomes I wanted to achieve in order to prepare students for assessment on the reading material.

Therefore, it was a struggle to know when to be the teacher and guide their attention to important

details or when to be the researcher and watch them make their own discoveries. I believe if

reciprocal teaching was just an instructional practice I was using, rather than an intervention in a

research project meant to evaluate its efficacy, the balance between discussion leader and

facilitator would have been easier to achieve. Instead, I worried whether interjecting made me

too much of a leader, thus whether I was implementing the intervention true to form.

Ultimately, these challenges may have diminished the outcomes of the research project. I

was disappointed to learn that the intervention did not have a greater impact on the

comprehension scores of the students in that group. However, all things considered, I believe if

the intervention period had been longer, the gains would have been more significant. As it was,


the mean change scores of the intervention group still reflected higher growth than those in the

control group. Additionally, I was not expecting the attitude scores to change as they did. It was

a pleasant surprise to see that the intervention positively affected the intervention group’s

attitude about reading. Given the nature of eighth grade students, I assumed they had already

made up their minds on how they felt about reading and that those feelings were not likely to

change until later in their educational careers, if at all.

Overall, all teachers should seek to continually refine their practices and expand their

content knowledge, so the action research process is immensely valuable. Personally, I learned

more about how students develop comprehension-monitoring reading habits and how I can foster

these skills in my classroom, and I intend to apply that knowledge to make my instructional

approach more student-centered and effective. However, at the heart of action research is the

willingness to attempt something new with the purpose of improving student learning. Particular

aspects of the intervention method I employed required me to step outside my comfort zone,

especially when it came time to allow students to take control of their learning. The result though

was that I learned one method for explicitly teaching students strategies that will improve their

reading comprehension abilities, as well as what I would do differently the next time to

maximize the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching. As an educator, it would be negligent to not

participate in some form of action research, because the goal for any teacher should always be to

improve instruction for the advancement of student achievement.


References

Alfassi, M., Weiss, I., & Lifshitz, H. (2009). The efficacy of reciprocal teaching in fostering the

reading literacy of students with intellectual disabilities. European Journal of Special

Needs Education, 24(3), 291-305. doi:10.1080/08856250903016854

Choo, T., Eng, T., & Ahmad, N. (2011). Effects of reciprocal teaching strategies on reading

comprehension. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 11(2), 140-149.

Retrieved from http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/april_2011/choo_eng_ahmad.pdf

Durkin, D. (1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension

instruction, Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4), 481-533. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/747260

Freire, P. (1997). Pedagogy of the oppressed (20th anniversary ed.). New York: The Continuum

Publishing Company.

Hansen, J. (1981). The effects of inference training and practice on young children’s reading

comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(3), 391-417. Retrieved from


Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2007). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension for

understanding and engagement. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse.

Igel, C., & Urquhart, V. (2012). Generation Z, meet cooperative learning. Middle School

Journal, 43(4), 16-21. Retrieved from

http://ehis.ebscohost.com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=15444fcf-

12d0-492b-a5d0-5b42f7eaeee2%40sessionmgr115&vid=4&hid=101

Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T., Mohler, L., Beranek, M., Spencer, V., Boon, R.T., & Talbott, E.

(2001). Can middle school students with serious reading difficulties help each other and

http://ehis.ebscohost.com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=15444fcf-12d0-492b-a5d0-5b42f7eaeee2@sessionmgr115&vid=4&hid=101

http://ehis.ebscohost.com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=15444fcf-12d0-492b-a5d0-5b42f7eaeee2@sessionmgr115&vid=4&hid=101



http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/april_2011/choo_eng_ahmad.pdf


learn anything?. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice (Blackwell Publishing

Limited), 16(1),18. Retrieved from

http://jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=4673570&site=ehost-live

McCormick, S., & Zutell, J. (2011). Instructing students who have literacy problems. (6th ed.).

Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Meyer, K. (2010). ‘Diving into reading’: Revisiting reciprocal teaching in the middle years.

Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 18(1), 41-52. Retrieved from

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/38645/1/38645P.pdf

Ogle, D., & Lang, L. (2011). Best practices in adolescent literacy instruction. In L. Morrow & L.

Gambrell (Eds.), Best Practices in Literacy Instruction (4th ed., pp. 138-173). New York,

NY: The Guilford Press.

Ostovar-Namaghi, S.A., & Shahhosseini, M.R. (2011). On the effect of reciprocal teaching

strategy on EFL learners’ reading proficiency. Journal of Language Teaching and

Research, 2(6), 1238-1243. doi:10.4304/jltr.2.6.1238-1243

Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and

comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition & Instruction, 1(2), 117. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1

Pardo, L. S. (2004). What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. Reading Teacher,

58(3), 272-280. doi:10.l598/RT.58.3.5

Pitcher, S. M., Albright, L. K., DeLaney, C .J., Walker, N. T., Seunarinesingh, K., Mogge, S.,

Headley, K. N., Ridgeway, V. G., Peck, S., Hunt, R., & Dunston, P. J. (2007). Assessing

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/38645/1/38645P.pdf

http://jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=4673570&site=ehost-live



adolescents’ motivation to read. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50 (5), 381-382,

389-390. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/10.1598/JAAL.50.5.5

Seymour, J. R., & Osana, H. P. (2003). Reciprocal teaching procedures and principles: Two

teachers’ developing understanding. Teaching & Teacher Education, 19(3), 325.

doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00018-0

Slater, W. H., & Horstman, F. R. (2002). Teaching reading and writing to struggling middle

school and high school students: The case for reciprocal teaching. Preventing School

Failure, 46(4), 163. Retrieved from

http://jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=7213955&site=ehost-live

Snow, C.E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading

comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. doi:10.1598/RT.64.8.8

Stricklin, K. (2011). Hands-on reciprocal teaching: A comprehension technique. Reading

Teacher, 64(8), 620-625. doi:10.1598/RT.64.8.8

Williams, J. A. (2010). Taking on the role of questioner: Revisiting reciprocal teaching. Reading

Teacher, 64(4), 278-281. doi:10.1598/RT.64.4.6

Zhang, G. (2012). Basic research designs and data analyses [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from

Lecture

Notes Online Web site: http://moodle.aos.ecu.edu/course/view.php?id=806

http://moodle.aos.ecu.edu/course/view.php?id=806



http://dx.doi.org.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/10.1598/JAAL.50.5.5


Appendix A


Appendix B


Appendix C


Appendix D


Figure 1

Data Source Administration 1 Administration 2

Adolescent Attitudinal

Reading Survey

January 3, 2013 March 1, 2013

CASE21 Reading

Comprehension Assessment

January 3, 2013 March 1, 2013

Teacher Researcher Log Throughout the duration of the

study, beginning on January 4,

2013 and ending on March 1,

2013.

Throughout the duration of the

study, beginning on January 4,

2013 and ending on March 1,

2013.

the impact of reciprocal teaching

Documents

revisiting reciprocal teaching

standardized test scores

adolescent attitudinal survey

eighth grade students

implementing reciprocal teaching

ortar reading test

activate prior knowledge

reading comprehension abilities