Can the Diversity of all Learners Benefit from Reciprocal Teaching
Introduction
It is safe to assume that all teachers would like it best when their students learn to be independent leaders. To accomplish this goal, comprehension skills among the students must be of a high priority. However, studies have shown that even though it is a common practice to assess the comprehension level of students in the classroom, teaching comprehension skills using a specific strategy is rare, this is where the strategy of reciprocal teaching comes in. (Stricklin, 2011).
Reciprocal teaching is a technique which employs four main components which include: predicting, clarifying, questioning, and summarizing to increase comprehension among students (Stricklin, 2011). In this strategy, students are trained to predict before reading and afterwards, they compare their predictions while reading. They also take pauses to clarify unknown words while reading through the same text. It is also important to note that teachers only show students how to apply the strategy but do not them directly. For example, instead of questioning students about a piece of text, a teacher would ask the students to come up with their own (Stricklin, 2011).
At first, the idea of how vocabulary and comprehension during reading are related may seem direct, that is, if you do not understand the meanings of the words you are seeing in a text, you will not be able to comprehend the piece of text (Wagner & Meros, 2010). However, if you look at it closely, it is not as straightforward as it seems. This is because studies have shown that the idea of how vocabulary and reading comprehension interact involves consideration of reciprocal influences, indirect, direct and also the chance that they are comparable by a third variable (Wagner & Meros, 2010). All these factors will be discussed below in the attempt to answer the pressing question; can the diversity of all learners benefit from reciprocal teaching?
Recently, a large-scale study named Reading First carried out on samples drawn throughout the state of Florida was able to provide relevant information on the issue of the nature of reading comprehension problems (Wagner & Meros, 2010).This program was the largest Federal program which focussed on students who are majorly at risk of becoming poor readers. Approximately, 1/3 of the sample were black students, 1/3 were white and ¼ were Hispanic.
The following measures were used in carrying out the study: First, reading comprehension was measured using the reading comprehension section of the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT 10) (Wagner & Meros, 2010).Secondly, decoding fluency was measured by use of the DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency and lastly, vocabulary was measured using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. On the other hand, the analysis proceeded by identifying students who were poor at reading comprehension, secondly, those who were adequate at decoding yet poor at reading comprehension were also identified and lastly, from the group of pupils who showed adequate decoding skills but were poor at reading comprehension yet adequate at vocabulary were also identified (Wagner & Meros, 2010).
The results are as shown in the table below:
TABLE 2 (Wagner & Meros, 2010).
Frequencies of First- and Second-Grade Students Who are Poor at Reading Comprehension yet Adequate in Decoding and Vocabulary
First Grade
Frequency
Percent
Total Sample Size 35,314 100.00
Poor Reading Comprehension 1,669 4.73
Yet Adequate Decoding 85 0.24
Yet Adequate Vocabulary and Decoding 23 0.7
Second Grade Frequency Percent
Total Sample Size 100.00 32820 100
Poor Reading Comprehension 1403 4.73
Yet Adequate Decoding 735 2.25
Yet Adequate Vocabulary and Decoding 72 0.22
The results for first graders supports the argument that decoding is the main hindrance for beginning readers. On the other hand, the study on second graders supports the idea that half of student who go beyond initial level of learning to read and who are still poor at comprehension have difficulties other than decoding (Wagner & Meros, 2010).
While attempting to introduce the reciprocal reading framework in Devon Primary School in 2001 which teaches students the reading and comprehension strategies of prediction, questioning, summarising and clarification (Thomson, 2006).
It was noted that even though many students of a class had been graded as “good readers’’, they were not finding it easy to adopt confidently in the reciprocal guided reading strategy (Thomson, 2006). For this reason, it was decided that a more in-depth analysis of the underlying cause should be carried out. After the analysis of the children’s reading assessments results over a 2 year period, the results from two reading measures namely ‘PM Benchmark’ (2000) and the New Zealand ‘PROBE Reading Assessment’ (2002) were compared. The studies showed disturbing and yet consistent discrepancies between the children’s reading abilities and their general comprehension compared to the reading level in which they were compared to. Some of these comprehension failures noted in the ‘PROBE’ analysis were also the same as those noted in the 2003 review of the NLS reading guidelines by Professor Morag Stuart which included (Thomson, 2006):
• Poor knowledge in the structure of the story and the differing methods of collecting literal, evaluation and inference information from a piece of text (e.g. why, what, when, where, and how information)
• Little or no understanding of the fact that there are clues in the text that provide hidden or implied meaning which also carry the author’s intention.
• Failure to connect/link from new information with that of past knowledge or experience.
• Inadequate interpretation skills caused by poor knowledge and/or vocabulary and grammar.
• Wanting scanning and skimming skills and the tendency to depend on memory rather than new information to respond to questions from a piece of text.
During the early stages of a child’s reading, most of them experience reading difficulties especially in word decoding. Other problems might be encountered as well but the inability to read a piece of text or certain words on a page is the most significant problem that may become evident in case they get past this necessary step. However, it has been noted that as children develop their decoding skills with time, up to half of the remaining cases of reading impairments may be caused by other things other than poor decoding skills (Wagner & Meros, 2010).
Training studies have provided some potential evidence on potential direct influences that vocabulary may have on comprehension during reading. For instance, in training studies where intervention programs meant to improve vocabulary were provided, improved comprehension also came out as a result (Wagner & Meros, 2010). However, it’s critical to note that training studies could also fail to detect a direct influence of vocabulary on reading comprehension if (Wagner & Meros, 2010):
i. Vocabulary had a direct influence on comprehension but not impacted by training
ii. Vocabulary was influenced by the training but the transfer to reading comprehension was not automatic and or both.
O n further analysis of the Primary National Strategy guidelines (2005) (PNS) for guided reading practice, it was apparent that neglecting the development of language comprehension was a big mistake. It was also noted that further studies were needed in order to achieve further improvements in teaching and learning (Thomson, 2006).
In an urgent response to the above mentioned results, a programme was created in support for the implementation of the reciprocal progress for young students of 5-6 years. The programme relied on a generic framework which was meant to organically facilitate the thinking skills, promote independent learning and also widen children’s comprehension and enjoyment of their day to day reading (Thomson, 2006).
The programme was able to produce encouraging results. For instance, the SATs results for 6 participating children indicated an outstanding comprehension outcome of 90% passed at level 4/5 accompanied by a dramatic increase in standards in just 2 terms (Thomson, 2006). The school was particularly encouraged by these results especially due to significant number of children with dyslexic tendencies that were involved in the study and included in the score. Teachers also reported that their students were more willing to learn from each other’s assumptions and also keen to question or challenge one another concerning a piece of text and the author’s intention within the process of reciprocal reading.
Introducing Reciprocal Teaching
When a teacher is introducing his/her students to reciprocal teaching, it is critical to make an impact. The main aim is to have students recall the “Fab Four” so they can learn to use these strategies without any directions. This includes introducing elements of fun such as adventure, costumes and the use of props (Stricklin, 2011).
The component of questioning promotes the comprehension among students since pupils have to understand whatever they’ve read so as to ask their classmates/peers any knowledgeable questions. Summarizing, on the other hand helps pupils concentrate on the major ideas brought out in a text (Stricklin, 2011).
Students should practice in groups on how to effectively use the “Fab Four” before they venture on their own. To keep them engaged and entertained, the teacher should make the learning sessions fun and exciting, this can be achieved by the use of charts, bookmarks, paper plate dials, props and sticky notes (Stricklin, 2011).
From all the points discussed above, we can conclude that the diversity of all learners benefit from Reciprocal teaching, an observer with the NLS, Dr. Maureen Lewis, who visited the school where the study had been carried out reported that class sessions seemed to have “opened the gates to children’s learning of prediction, clarification, questioning and summarising” (Thomson, 2006, p. 13). Reciprocal teaching has proved to be a fun and effective approach which has had a huge positive impact on children’s ability to learn hence enabling them move up a whole level in their writing, reading in just one lesson.
References
Stricklin, K. (2011). Hands-On Reciprocal Teaching: A Comprehension Technique. The Reading Teacher, 64(8), 620-624.
Thomson, D. (2006). Thinking to read, reading to think –engaging children meaningfully in the reciprocal reading process. Literacy today, 1-13.
Wagner, R, K. & Meros, D. (2010). Vocabulary and reading comprehension: Direct, indirect, and reciprocal influences. Focus On Exceptional Children, 43(1), 1-10.
