Student-led discussion contained four sessions, Session 7 to Session 10, and was conducted in the form of group discussions. In this stage, all the members in a group had to take turns playing different roles, i.e. predictor, clarifier, summarizer, and questioner. Besides, the predictor has to be the group leader, too. The group leaders should be responsible for cuing other group members to do their jobs.
In the beginning of each session, the teacher distributed a worksheet to each group for them to make a record. Next, the teacher briefly reminded students what each role should do in the discussion. Table 2 lists the tasks of each of the four roles in reciprocal teaching. Then, the student-led group discussion started. The group leader cued each role. When one person was talking, the other group members either listened carefully or provided their comments. Instead of dominating the discussion, the teacher walked around as a facilitator. The teacher offered help if needed.
Table 2
Description of the Four Roles in Reciprocal Teaching
Roles Tasks
Predictor Read the paragraph first and make predictions about the target paragraph. Other group members will comment on the predictions
or provide their own.
Clarifier Read the target paragraph and report the problems he/ she
encounter. Then, share his/ her solutions to cope with the problems.
Other group members will comment on the clarifications or provide their own solution. Moreover, they may share other problems.
Summarizer Summarize the target paragraph. Other group members will comment on the summary or provide their own
Questioner Generate questions about the target paragraph. Other group members will share the answers to the questions, comment on the questions or generate their own questions.
The design of the reciprocal teaching intervention mentioned above is summarized in Table 3 below.
Table 3
The Design of the Reciprocal Teaching Intervention
Session Strategy introduced Instruments/ materials Stage I. Demonstration of four strategies
1 Prediction and clarification A handout, Worksheet 1, Article 1
2 Summarizing and questioning A handout, Worksheet 1, Article 1 Stage II. Teacher-led discussion
3 Prediction Article 2
4 Clarification Article 3
5 Summarizing Article 4
6 Questioning Article 5
Stage III. Student-led discussion
7 Worksheet 2, Article 6
8 Worksheet 3, Article 7
9 Worksheet 4, Article 8
10
Integrated strategy use
Worksheet 5, Article 9
Research Instruments
Two research instruments were adopted in the present study: an English reading comprehension test and a perception questionnaire.
An English reading comprehension test.
Similar to the study conducted by Miller, Miller, and Rosen (1988), a ten-item English reading comprehension test is used to measure the students’ performance. The
English reading comprehension test employed in the present study is chosen from GEPT based on two reasons. First, the reading comprehension test from GEPT is a standardized measurement, of which the validity and reliability have been established.
Second, the elementary level of GEPT is generally recognized as the proficiency level a graduate of the junior high school should have. For the ninth-grade participants, some of the questions in the test may appear slightly difficult. In other words, the participants needed to tackle the text using some strategies.
Though the pretest and posttest of the reading comprehension tests chosen from GEPT should be equivalent, they were still further analyzed to ensure the equivalency.
First, the two tests shared the same format. Both tests contained four passages about daily life and ten questions based on the passages. Second, each test included four types of passages: a notice, a letter, an advertisement, and a descriptive article. Third, the distribution of question objectives was similar. Among the ten questions, three questions asked for main idea while three for specific details and four for inference.
Due to the similarity mentioned above, the pretest should be equal to the posttest.
Besides, the reading comprehension test employs a set of anchor questions to determine the improvement in the students’ reading comprehension. In the pretest and the posttest, the second passage and Question 2 to Question 5 were the same. In other words, the article and the three questions that follow were identical. Since the pretest and posttest were not exactly the same, the anchor questions helped the researcher to make more accurate judgments about the students’ performance between the pretest and the posttest.
Before the instruction, a reading comprehension pretest was administered to both groups. The purpose of the pretest was to assess the reading comprehension proficiency of the participants before the teaching intervention. The pretest was composed of four articles, and each article was followed by one to three reading
comprehension questions presented in the form of multiple choices (See Appendix D).
The questions were designed to investigate the subjects’ understanding of the text and to examine if they could integrate information in the text to solve the problems they encountered during reading.
After the reciprocal teaching intervention, a reading comprehension posttest was conducted in both groups. The purpose of the posttest was to tap into the effects of the instruction. In Rosenshine & Meister’s (1994) review, to avoid practice effect, many studies assessed student comprehension improvement with questions from new passages (not seen before). Similarly, most of the test items in the reading
comprehension posttest were different from those in the pretest in the present study except for the set of anchor questions. Since both tests were adopted from the GEPT reading comprehension sections, the reliability and validity should be the same. Thus, the results of the test scores should be valid and reliable.
To verify the difficulty level of the pretest and posttest of the reading comprehension, both tests were piloted before the start of the formal study. Two groups of students with similar background to the target participants were invited to take the pilot of pretest and posttest of reading comprehension. Two ninth grade classes in School X other than the target participants were selected to take the same tests which would be administered in the formal study. One of the pilot classes was a higher achiever class, and the other was a lower achiever class. The former was called Group A while the latter called Group B. Just like the formal study, the students in Group A and those in Group B originally came from two intact classes and were divided into two different classes based on their English proficiency.
A comparison of the reading comprehension between the pretest and posttest was made. Table 4 shows the mean scores of the two groups. Group A’s means of the pretest and posttest scores were 78.75 and 81.25 respectively. On the other hand, the
means of the pretest and posttest scores of Group B were 35.19 and 35.93 respectively.
Besides, analysis of a paired samples t-test revealed that there was no significant difference in the progress of both groups, p=.314 in Group A and p =.869 in Group B.
Thus, with either subtle or non-significant differences, the reading comprehension pretest and posttest are considered to be of equal difficulty level.
Table 4
The Results of Pre-and Posttest in Reading Comprehension in Group A and Group B
Group Pretest Means (SD) Posttest Mean (SD) Paired SamplesT-test t score Group A (N=32) 78.75 (15.69) 81.25 (14.24) .314 Group B (N=31) 35.19 (13.97) 35.93 (19.86) .869
A perception questionnaire
Adapted from Chern’s (2005) questionnaire and inspired by previous research (Rosenshine & Meister, 1994; Shiau, 2010), a Perception Questionnaire (See
Appendix E) was composed to probe into participants’ perception of reciprocal teaching. The questionnaire includes seven questions which can be further divided into four categories. The first part is about students’ overall perception in learning through reciprocal teaching. Item 1 aims at investigating the impact of reciprocal teaching on general English learning experience. The second category is about the students’ evaluation of the four strategies of reciprocal teaching. Item 2 is to locate the strategy that participants have the least problems with, while Item 3 is used to find out the most difficult strategy for the participants. Item 4 is designed to explore which strategy functions most effectively in terms of helping participants understand a
passage. The third part is about the students’ belief of reciprocal teaching in
promoting their English reading comprehension and interests. Item 5 asks participants if reciprocal teaching improves their reading comprehension. Item 6 asks participants if reciprocal teaching increases their interest in reading English articles. The fourth category is about the students’ attitudes toward reciprocal teaching. Item 7 aims to see if participants like reciprocal teaching and if they have any suggestion for
improvement. More than half of the questions are open-ended questions, except for Items 2, 3 and 4. The design of the three questions requires the students to choose the most prominent one out of the four strategies. This is to explore if there is any
significant preference between the high achiever group and the low achiever group.
Besides, in order to reduce students’ anxiety with reading in English and the
possibility of misunderstanding caused by language barriers, the Chinese version of the Perception Questionnaire (See Appendix F) was used.
Data-collecting Procedures
The design of the present study consisted of three parts. The first part was a pretest of reading comprehension for both higher achiever group and lower achiever group. Next, a reciprocal teaching intervention was conducted in each group. Finally, a reading comprehension posttest and a perception questionnaire on the reciprocal teaching instruction were administered to both groups in the third part. Table 5 presents the three parts of the present study.
Table 5
Three Parts of the Present Study
Part Time No. of sessions Activities
1 Week 1 1 A pretest of reading comprehension
2 Week 2-6 10
Reciprocal teaching intervention
1. Demonstration of four reading strategies 2. Teacher-led discussion
3. Student-led discussion
3 Week 7 1 A posttest of reading comprehension A perception questionnaire
Two kinds of data were collected in this study: the scores of the pretest and the
posttest of the reading comprehension and the responses to the questionnaire.Before the administration of reading instruction, a reading comprehension pretest was administered to both groups in the first week. With the intensive
instruction, the participants were expected to be more familiar with the application of the four strategies. The reading materials for the course were identical for both groups.
After the instruction in each group, a reading comprehension posttest was administered to all participants. Students’ scores of both tests were collected for further analysis.
Additionally, after the teaching intervention, a perception questionnaire on the reciprocal teaching instruction was administered, too. The subjects’ responses to the questionnaire were the other source of data.
Data Analysis
To investigate the first research question, “Do both higher achievers and lower
achievers improve their reading comprehension after reciprocal teaching?,” the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) was used for data analysis. Two paired sample t-test was employed to measure the scores of the pretest and posttest in reading comprehension in each class. With this analysis, the first research question would be answered based on whether there were significant differences in the participants’ reading comprehension in each group.To explore the second research question, “How do higher achievers and lower achievers perceive reciprocal teaching procedures?,” the participants’ responses to the perception questionnaire would be analyzed. The participants’ perceptions to the reciprocal teaching intervention would be shown with frequency counts to find the most salient items on the questionnaire. Descriptive statistics would be utilized to analyze the results from the response questionnaire. With this analysis, the second research question could be answered.
Chapter Four Results and Discussion
This study was designed, firstly, to investigate whether both the higher achievers and lower achievers in a junior high school in Taiwan can improve their reading comprehension after reciprocal teaching. Secondly, it was to compare the potential difference in the responses of higher achievers and lower achievers toward the reciprocal teaching procedure. Therefore, two sections are included in this chapter.
The first section describes the results of the reading comprehension tests in the pretest and posttest in both groups. The second part presents the perceptions toward the reciprocal teaching instruction.
Results of the Reading Comprehension Tests
In order to evaluate the effects of reciprocal teaching on the participants in the
higher achiever group and the lower achiever group, a paired sample t-test was performed to compare the difference of the pretest and the posttest in each group.Table 6 presents the means of both groups in the reading comprehension test.
Results of the statistical analysis suggested that the higher achiever group’s means of the pretest and the posttest were 71.88 and 89.69 respectively. A paired sample t-test indicated a significant difference between the means of these two tests performed by the thirty two participants in the higher achiever group, p=.000.
Compared with the higher achiever group, the lower achiever group yielded even more improvement in grades. Results of the statistical analysis revealed that the lower achiever group’s means of the pretest and the posttest were 23.44 and 47.19 respectively. Moreover, a paired sample t-test showed a significant difference between these two tests performed by the thirty two participants in the lower achiever group,
p=.000.
Table 6
Results of the Pre-and Posttest in Reading Comprehension in Both Groups
Group Pretest Means (SD) Posttest Mean (SD) Paired Samples T-test
t sore
High (N=32) 71.88 (15.33) 89.69 (8.98) 6.14***
Low (N=32) 23.44 (16.97) 47.19 (25.93) 5.85***
Note: High= Higher-achiever Group and Low= Lower-achiever Group
***: P < .001
Table 7 provides information about the participants’ improvement concerning the three anchor questions. Except for the 21 participants who got the full mark in the anchor questions, nine of the remaining 11 (82%) improved their scores from pretest to posttest. Results of the statistical analysis suggested that the nine participants’
means of the pretest and the posttest were 17.78 and 28.89 respectively. A paired sample t-test indicated a significant difference between the means of the pretest and that of the posttest performed by 9 participants who made progress in the higher achiever group, p=.013.
Similar to the higher achiever group, the lower achiever group yielded improvement in grades in terms of the anchor questions. Except for the only
participant who got the full mark in the anchor questions, 17 out of the 31 remaining participants (53%) made progress from pretest to posttest. Results of the statistical analysis revealed that the lower achiever group’s means of the pretest and the posttest were 6.77 and 16.45 respectively. Besides, a paired sample t-test showed a significant difference between the means of the pretest and posttest by 17 participants who
improved in the lower achiever group, p=.000.
Table 7
Result of the Anchor Questions in Reading Comprehension in Both Groups
Group People makingimprovement
Pretest Means (SD)
Posttest Means (SD)
Paired Samples t-test t score
High (N=11) 9(82%) 17.78(8.33) 28.89(3.33) 3.16*
Low (N=31) 17(53%) 6.77(7.48) 16.45(10.50) 5.303***
*: P < .05
***: P < .001
Table 8 below contains details about the improvement in the three anchor questions.
Table 8
Improvement in Anchor Questions
Group The Number of the Participants Who Got Improved
Question 2 Question 3 Question 4
High (N=11) 2(18%) 2(18%) 6(55%)
Low (N=31) 7(23%) 11(35%) 12(39%)
As can be seen from the data presented in Table 8, the most prominent improvement in Group H was consistent with that in Group L. To be more specific, the most salient improvement fell on Question 4 in both groups. One explanation for this consistency is that Question 4, which required participants to utilize the context to make an
inference, is relatively easier than any other anchor questions. On the other hand, Question 2 needed participants to make an overall inference on the main idea while Question 3 evaluated whether they were sure of more details, the four facts.
Among the three questions, Question 3 appeared to be the most difficult with the least number of participants getting it right.
Results of the Perception Questionnaire
This section explores the participants’ perception toward reciprocal teaching
instruction. The exploration was presented by analyzing the results of the perception questionnaire. The results were discussed following the sequence of the fourcategories described in the previous chapter (See a perception questionnaire, P.33): (1) students’ overall perception towards learning via reciprocal teaching, (2) students’
reflection on their practice of the four reading strategies, (3) students’ belief of reciprocal teaching in promoting reading comprehension and interests, (4) students’
attitudes toward using reciprocal teaching in the future.
Students’ overall perception towards learning via reciprocal teaching.
The participants’ responses to the first question “What do you learn most from the class” fell into the following five categories: (1) the four reading strategies of
reciprocal teaching, (2) motivation to learning English (including being moreinterested in English, being more motivated to learn English, being more involved in English class, etc.), (3) metacognitive awareness (including being more aware of one’s own thinking and being more aware of how to read), (4) language proficiency (including improvement in listening, speaking, reading, writing, etc.), and (5) cognitive awareness (including knowing one’s strengths and weaknesses, etc.).
Table 9 below summarizes the categories and provides the numbers and percentages
of the participants who mentioned them as helpful.
Table 9
Overall Perceptions towards Learning via Reciprocal Teaching in Both Groups
High (N=32) Low (N=32)
Categories
Frequencies (Percentages) Frequencies (Percentages) Reading strategies of
reciprocal teaching
19 (59%) 17 (53%)
Motivation to learning 8 (26%) 16 (50%)
Metacognitive awareness 9 (28%) 5 (16%)
Language proficiency 8 (26%) 4 (13%)
Cognitive awareness 5 (16%) 4 (13%)
More than half of the participants in each group mentioned that they learned a lot about the four reading strategies via reciprocal teaching. The replies from both groups are presented as follows. Participants H1 to H32 belong to higher achiever group whereas participants L33 to L64 belong to lower achiever group. All of them wrote down their responses in Chinese, and the researcher translated them into gists in English.
I’ve learned how to clarify. I always saw a lot of new words while reading.
I didn’t know what they meant so I gave up moving on. Now I know what to do when I see unknown words. For example, I can use the context to make a guess. It is easy and fun for me. It’s like gambling. (Participant H2)
I’ve learned a lot about predicting. In the past, I didn’t predict after I read
the title of the article. Now I like predicting because it is easy and helpful.
I could easily make precise predications based on the information I had known. Besides, I couldn’t wait to read the next paragraph because I wanted to know if I was right. (Participant H11)
I’ve learned how to ask questions as if I were an English teacher. This strategy helped me to think like a teacher and predict what may be tested on a reading comprehension test. (Participant L35)
I’ve learned about summary. I used to know nothing about summary. In the very beginning, I could only summarize an article with intuition. Now I know I may start from the topic sentence. It may not work every time. But, it’s easy and worth trying. I will apply this technique to my writing in the future. (Participant L44)
As can be seen from the above remarks, the four reading strategies not only helped participants understand the texts better but also provided them with something beyond reading comprehension. Participant 11 was motivated to read on after he made
reasonable predictions. Instead of giving up reading, Participant 2 considered it interesting to guess the meaning of unknown words. Participant 44 learned a new tip to write and was willing to apply it in the future. Participant 35 found a new way to prepare for reading comprehension tests.
Sixteen participants (50%) in the lower achiever group considered reciprocal teaching intervention motivated them to learn English while only eight participants (25%) in the higher achiever group made such responses.
It was great to do brainstorming with my group members. It was even greater to figure out an unknown word or phrase by ourselves. I like to learn English by discussing with my friends. (Participant H4)
I liked to discuss with my group members because it is more interesting and less stressful. “Two heads are better than one.” (Participant L37)
I was poor at English. I used to nod in English class because I didn’t understand what the teacher was talking about. But, when we had the English class in the discussion room, the class seemed to be interesting. I had to read, so I could do the discussion with my group members. I really enjoyed working with my classmates. (Participant L62)
As can be seen from the remarks above, interests in group discussion motivated them to read. Staying with their group members made many participants feel at ease, and employing the four strategies helped them make contribution to the discussion.
After accomplishing the task, they also gained confidence and sense of achievement.
Similar feedbacks were found in the higher achiever group.
As for metacognitive awareness, nine (28%) participants from the higher achiever group talked about the awareness of thinking while five (16%) participants from the lower achiever group mentioned it.
I learned how to think efficiently and how to figure out unknown words and phrases. (Participant H18)
Summarizing helps me a lot. When I had to do summary, I reminded