Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol 2, No 10 (2012), 2053-2060, Oct 2012
doi:10.4304/tpls.2.10.2053-2060

Reciprocal Teaching Strategies and Their Impacts on English Reading Comprehension

Mohammad Reza Ahmadi, Abbas Pourhossein Gilakjani

Abstract


Whenever teachers are faced with the problem of students who do not have adequate comprehension skills, they need to be able to train those students to use metacognitive strategies; otherwise, these students will continue to read texts emphasizing only words and not meaning. One set of metacognitive strategies are the reciprocal teaching strategies used to improve students’ reading comprehension. Reciprocal teaching involves four main metacognitive reading strategies: predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing. The aims of this paper are to define the key terms, explain the models of reading process, review reading process and reading strategies, discuss cognitive and metacognitive strategies and reading comprehension, elaborate reciprocal teaching and its theoretical framework, mention the related research on reciprocal teaching, and state relationship between reciprocal teaching and reading comprehension. The findings indicated that reciprocal teaching had a significantly positive effect on the English reading comprehension and usage of the four main metacognitive reading strategies of EFL students.

 



Keywords


reciprocal teaching; reading comprehension; cognitive strategies; metacognitive strategies; models

References


 

[1] Adunyarittigun, D. (2004). The effects of reciprocal teaching procedure on Thai EFL students reading performance and self-perception as readers. Published doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, United States of America. [2] Adunyarittigun, D., & Grant, R. (2005). Empowering students through reciprocal teaching. Thai TESOL BULLETIN, 18 (1), 1–13. [3] Alderson, J.C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732935 [4] Allen, S. (2003). An analytic comparison of three models of reading strategy instruction. IRAL, 41, 319–338.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iral.2003.015 [5] Baker. L., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive skill and reading. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil & P. Mosenthal (Eds.). Handbook of reading research (vol 2, pp. 353–364). NY: Longman. [6] Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 120–133.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb02534.x [7] Carter, C. (1997). Why reciprocal teaching? Educational Leadership, 54 (6), 64-71. [8] Cohen, A.D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Essex: Longman. [9] 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. [10] 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.
PMCid:3300458 [11] Fillenworth, L. (1995). Using reciprocal teaching to help at-risk college freshmen study and read. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota. [12] Goodman, K. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6 (1), 126-135.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388076709556976 [13] Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25 (3), 375–406.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3586977 [14] Grabe, W., & Stoller, F.L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. Harlow: Pearson Education. [15] Graves, M.F., Connie J., & Bonnie G. (1998). Teaching reading in the 21st century. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. [16] Hacker, D.J., & Tenent, A. (2002). Implementing Reciprocal teaching in the classroom: overcoming obstacles and making modifications. Journal Psychology, 94 (4), 699–718. [17] 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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.4.670 [18] Kern, R. (1989). Second language reading strategies instruction: Its effects on comprehension and word inference ability. Modern Language Journal, 73, 135–149.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb02535.x [19] Klingner, J., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. Elementary School Journal, 96 (3), 275–293.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/461828 [20] Konpan, T. (2006). A comparison of reciprocal teaching technique and communicative teaching technique in developing Mattayom Suksa 4 Students'Reading Comprehension. Unpublished master dissertation, Srinakarinwirot University, Thailand. [21] Lederer, J. (2000). Reciprocal teaching of social studies in inclusive elementary classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33 (1), 99–107.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300112 [22] Lysynchuck, L., Pressley, M., & Vye, N. (1990). Reciprocal teaching improves standardized reading comprehension performance in poor comprehenders. Elementary School Journal, 90 (5), 469–484.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/461627 [23] Manning, H.B., & Payne, D.B. (1996). Self talk for teacher and students. MA: Allyn & Bacon. [24] 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. [25] Nunan, D. (1990). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publisher. [26] Nuttall, C. (1996). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. Heinemann. [27] Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: a synthesis of studies with implications for strategy training. Systems, 17 (2), 235–257. [28] Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension–fostering and comprehension–monitoring activities. Cognition and instruction, 1, 117–175.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1 [29] Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1985). Reciprocal teaching: Activities to promote "reading with your mind." In T.L. Harris & E.J. Cooper (Eds.). Reading, thinking, and concept development (pp.147–159). New York: The collage board. [30] Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1986). Interactive teaching to promote independent learning from text. The Reading teacher, 39 (8), 771–777. [31] 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. [32] 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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.6.1239 [33] Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at gender and strategy use in L2 reading. Language Learning, 53, 649–702.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-9922.2003.00239.x [34] Pressley, M. Woloshyn, V., Lysynchuk, L., Martin, V., Wood, E., & Willoughby, T. (1990). A primer of research on cognitive strategy instruction: The important issues and how to address them. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 1-58.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01323528 [35] Ratanakul, S. (1998). An experimental study of the use of the reciprocal teaching technique in teaching English reading comprehension. Unpublished master dissertation, Faculty of Graduate Studies, Mahidol University, Thailand. [36] Rogoff, B., & Gardner, W.P. (1984). Adult guidance of cognitive development. In B. Rogeff, & J. Lave (Eds.). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 134–157). NY: Cambridge University Press. [37] Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64 (4), 479–530. [38] Royse, D. (2001). Teaching tips for college and university instructors: A practical guide. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. [39] Rumelhart, D.E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In Dornic, S. (Ed.), Attention and Performance, V.1, 573–603. New York. Academic Press. [40] Salataci, R., & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2 reading. Reading in a Foreign Language. 14 (1), April. Retrieved April 2006, from http://www.proquest.umi.com.library.ecu.edu.au. [41] Soonthornmanee, R. (2002). The effect of the reciprocal teaching approach on the reading comprehension of EFL students. RELC, 33 (2), 125–141.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003368820203300206 [42] Stanovich, K. (1980). Concept of Developmental theories of reading skills: Cognitive resources, automaticity, and modularity. Developmental Review, 10, 72-100.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(90)90005-O [43] Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of the higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [44] Wenden, A.L. (1999). An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language learning: beyond the basics. Systems, 27, 43–441. [45] Wilson, J. (1988). Implications of learning strategy research and training: What is has to say to the practitioner. In C. Weinstein, E. Goetz, & P. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp. 323-331). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. [46] Zabrucky, K., & Ratner, H.H. (1992). Effects on reading ability on children's comprehension evaluation and regulation. Journal of Reading Behavior, 21 (1), 69–83.


Full Text: PDF


Theory and Practice in Language Studies (TPLS, ISSN 1799-2591)

Copyright @ 2006-2014 by ACADEMY PUBLISHER – All rights reserved.