在高中英文課堂中使用互惠式教學法

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學英語學系碩. 士. 技. 術. 報. 告. Technical Report for the Master’s Degree Department of English National Taiwan Normal University. 在高中英文課堂中使用互惠式教學法 The Adoption of Reciprocal Teaching in a Senior High School English Class. 指導教授：陳秋蘭博士 Advisor: Dr. Chiou-lan Chern 研究生：蘇文卿. 中華民國一o八年六月 June 2019.

(2) 摘要本研究旨在探討將互惠式教學法融入高中英文課堂中，以提升學生閱讀理解力與批判思考力的成效，並落實教育部頒布的 108 課綱的精神。本研究參與者來自臺中某高中共 34 名的高一學生，他們參與了本次為期 6 週的研究。本研究結果透過質性分析的方式來了解以下兩個研究問題： (一)學生們對於將互惠式教學法應用於閱讀非小說文本的感受為何？ (二)互惠式教學法是否有助於提升不同英語程度學習者的批判性思考力？首先，本研究結果顯示大部分學生對於將互惠式教學法融入英文課程中持正面的態度。學生們反應除了在英文閱讀力有顯著的成長外，透過｢總結｣和｢提問｣這兩項策略亦有助於寫作能力的增強。另外，對於高成就學習者而言，在互惠式教學法需要大量練習口說的情境下，英文口說能力也有明顯的提升。再者，經過布魯姆分類學將學生提出的問題分類後，高低英語程度學習者的提問層次於最後一次的練習都提升問題的層次。這個結果顯示了互惠式教學法對於提升學生們的批判性思考力有相當程度的影響。此兩個程度群體中相異的點在於提問的問題層次提升的幅度，也就是說，英語程度較低的學生提問的層次較英語程度高的學生提升的幅度小，可能的解釋為低成就者需要更多的指導與練習來精熟這些閱讀技巧。最後，本研究也提供了將互惠式教學法融入課程設計中的教學建議，期盼本研究結果能啟發更多的英語教師，將互惠式教學法整合到教學現場，以體現新課綱的精神。. 關鍵字: 互惠式教學法, 批判性思考力, 布魯姆分類學, 閱讀理解, 閱讀策略. i.

(3) ABSTRACT This present study aimed to explore the effects of implementing Reciprocal Teaching, a reading pedagogy by Palincsar and Brown (1984), into regular English classrooms to foster EFL students’ reading comprehension and develop their critical thinking, which also echoed the spirits of the “Guidelines for Senior High School English Curriculum” (MOE, 2018). In a public senior high school located in Taichung city, thirty-four 10th graders were recruited to participate in this six-week study. By conducting qualitative method, two research questions were addressed as follows. 1. How do students perceive Reciprocal Teaching adopted in reading nonfiction texts? 2. Can Reciprocal Teaching help high and low English proficiency readers develop critical thinking? Firstly, the findings revealed that students generally took a positive attitude toward implementing Reciprocal Teaching into English classes. Apart from the visible advancement in reading comprehension, students also found their writing skills improved mainly through the practice of two strategies, i.e. summarizing and questioning. Speaking, especially for high achievers, was another obvious improvement due to the social context of Reciprocal Teaching. Besides, based on the coding results of student-generated questions by Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956), both high and low English proficiency readers asked higher level questions in the final practice compared with the first round. This implied that Reciprocal Teaching had certain impact on developing students’ critical thinking. The difference between these two groups lay in the amount of progress they made. In other words, students with lower English proficiency made less improvement in. ii.

(4) question levels or critical thinking than those with higher English proficiency. The possible explanation could be more instructional assistance was needed to help students with lower English proficiency reach better comprehension and finer mastery of the four strategies. Lastly, the research offered some pedagogical implications and future suggestions regarding integrating Reciprocal Teaching into course design. It is hoped that the results of this study will inspire more teachers to adopt Reciprocal Teaching to embody the essence of the newly enacted curriculum guidelines.. Key Words: Reciprocal Teaching, critical thinking, Bloom’s Taxonomy, reading comprehension, reading strategy. iii.

(5) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS But for the guidance, assistance, encouragement and company of many people, I could not possibly have made this technical report a reality. I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to all the people who helped me in this journey. Firstly, my long-time teacher and advisor, Dr. Chiou-lan Chern deserves my very profound thanks. The door to her office was always open whenever I ran into a trouble spot or had a question about my research or writing. She consistently allowed this paper to be my own work, but steered me in the right the direction whenever she thought I needed it. I would also like to appreciate the committee members, Dr. Mei-lan Lo and Dr. Hsiu-chuan Chen, whose valuable feedback and insightful suggestions enabled me to further refine this technical report. Next, the completion of this technical report should be attributed to my teachers and classmates in the master grogram. With their dear company, taking courses on weekends became something worth looking forward to. Last but not least, I am greatly indebted to my parents and my husband, Dennis Lan, for providing me with unfailing support throughout my years of study and through the process of researching and writing this technical report. This academic accomplishment would not have been possible without them. Thank you.. iv.

(6) Table of Contents Chinese Abstract…………………..……………………………………..…......i English Abstract………….………………………………………………….. ii Acknowledgements……….………………………………………………….. iv Table of Contents…..…….………………………………………………….. v Lists of Tables….....…….………………………………………………….. vii List of Figures……..…….………………………………………………….. ix CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ………………………………………..…….01 Background and Motivation ………………………………………………….. 01 Research Questions ……………………………………………………………03 Significance of the Study ……………………………………………………...04 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………………...05 Chapter Overview ……………………………………………………………. 05 Reading Strategy Use…...……………………………………………………05 Definitions of Good Readers …….…………………………………………06 Reciprocal Teaching……..…………………………………………................08 Empirical Studies on Reciprocal Teaching………………………………...10 Critical Thinking ……………………………………………………………… 11 Empirical Studies on Critical Thinking…..…………………………………………...12 Reciprocal Teaching and Critical Thinking…….…………………………... 13 Bloom’s Taxonomy…...…………………….………………………………..14 Taxonomy Used in the Present Study….…………………………............ 17 Significance of Bloom’s Taxonomy…….………………………………............ 18 Summary…….………………………………………………………………19 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY ………………………….............................20. v.

(7) Participants ……………………………………………………………………. 20 Materials ………………………………………………………………………..20 Instructional Framework…………………………………………….................22 Data Collection…………………………………………………………………26 Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………28 Summary ……………………………………………………………………….28 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS …………………………………….............................29 Students’ Perception of Reciprocal Teaching..………………………….............29 Results of the Whole Class………….………………………………………………..29 Results of the High and Low Proficiency Readers…..………………………………..35 Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on Students.………………………………. 42 Results of the Whole Class…………………………………………………..42 Results of the High and Low Proficiency Readers…..…………………………..44 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION…………….....................48 Major Findings and Discussion………...……………………………..............48 Students’ Perception of Reciprocal Teaching.……………………………………..48 Reciprocal Teaching and Critical Thinking among H&L Proficiency Readers..50 Pedagogical Implications………………………………………………………52 Limitations of the Present Study and Suggestions for Future Research…53 Conclusion……………………..………...…………………………………..............54 REFERENCES …………………………………………............................................55 APPENDIX………………………………………………..........................................64. vi.

(8) List of Tables Table 1. Comparison Table of the Three Domains in Bloom’s Taxonomy and Core Competency ……………………………………………………………………14 Table 2. The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy in the Two-dimensional Form…………18 Table 3. The Comparison of Five Articles……………………………………........21 Table 4. The Three-stage Plan…………. ………………………………………….23 Table 5. Teacher-led Discussion Procedures for Stage 2 …………………………. 25 Table 6. Student-led Discussion Procedures for Stage 2 …………………………. 26 Table 7. The Overview of Implementation Procedures ……………………………26 Table 8. Comparison of the Percentage of the Overall Learning Benefits…………30 Table 9. Evaluation of the Four Strategies…………………………………..……...31 Table 10. The Self-Perceived Most-Improved English Abilities…….………………34 Table 11. Comparison of the Percentage of the Overall Learning Benefits From High and Low Achievers.…….............................................................................35 Table 12. Evaluation of the Four Strategies From High Achievers…………….……35 Table 13. Evaluation of the Four Strategies From Low Achievers……......................37 Table 14. Self-Assessment of Being a Better Critical Thinker.………………..…….39 Table 15. The Self-Perceived Most-Improved English Abilities From High Achievers………………………………………………………………………..40 Table 16. The Self-Perceived Most-Improved English Abilities From Low Achievers……….……………………………………………………………….41 Table 17. Willingness of Continuing to Receive Reciprocal Teaching.……...............42 Table 18. The Overview of Question Type Analysis For Five Articles From the Whole Class .………….………………………………………………………………..43 Table 19. Question Type Comparison Between Article 1 and Article 5 From the vii.

(9) Whole Class.…………………………..............................................................44 Table 20. The Overview of Question Type Analysis for Five Articles From High Achievers..... …………………………………………………………………...45 Table 21. Question Types Comparison Between Article 1 and Article 5 From High Achievers ………………....................................................................................46 Table 22. The Overview of Question Type Analysis for Five Articles From Low Achievers………………….................................................................................46 Table 23. Question Types Comparison Between Article 1 and Article 5 From Low Achievers………………..……...........................................................................47 Table 24. The Changing Sum of Percentages in Question Levels From High and Low Achievers.…........................................................................................................47. viii.

(10) List of Figures Figure 1. Bloom’s Taxonomy ……………………………………………………….14 Figure 2. The Comparison of Bloom’s Taxonomy and the Revised Version ……….17. ix.

(11) CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION. Background and Motivation For decades, the instruction of EFL reading has played an essential part in secondary schools in Taiwan, mostly due to the test contents in the College Entrance Examination (CEE), which is made up of grammar and vocabulary items, reading comprehension questions, and Chinese-English translation (Chou, 2015, 2017). Nevertheless, the traditional instruction in reading has heavily placed emphasis on the textual level, centering on knowledge-based acquisition such as grammar drills, vocabulary memorization, etc. Such exam-oriented or teacher-centered pedagogy has run a risk of failing to develop students’ reading competence and critical thinking skills required to engage in the cognitively active learning process. In fact, many Taiwanese EFL students still regard reading English materials as a great challenge even after years of learning (Yang, 2012). Building on these concerns, the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan has recently enacted an updated version of “the Guidelines for Senior High School English Curriculum” (MOE, 2018) to address this pressing issue, where one of the core competences is to cultivate learners’ critical thinking ability and stimulate creativity. In contrast to the common objectives of reading instruction in developing students’ decoding skills, vocabulary or syntax for literal understanding (Tsai & Talley, 2014), this focus on fostering higher level thinking through English learning is indeed a step forward. When it comes to the learning performances of Reading Competence for senior high students in the new curriculum, the fifteen characteristics listed in the curriculum guidelines (MOE, 2018) are as follows: 1.

(12) 3-V-1 To recognize words and phrases used in class 3-V-2 To understand common English signs 3-V-3 To understand common charts, diagrams, etc. 3-V-4 To understand common English daily phrases 3-V-5 To understand common patterns 3-V-6 To understand the content of conversations 3-V-7 To understand the content of short essays, letters, and text structure 3-V-8 To understand the content and plot in stories 3-V-9 To understand the content and plot in skits 3-V-10 To identify the elements in stories, like background, character, event, and ending 3-V-11 To read articles of different genres or themes 3-V-12 To infer meanings of words or sentences by word structure, context, sentence pattern or text organization 3-V-13 To be familiar with various reading strategies such as summarizing, inferring, or predicting, etc. to read with efficiency and apply to extensive reading 3-V-14 To guess meaning of words or infer prose from diagrams, illustrations, or contexts 3-V-15 To analyze and judge content, understand the author’s viewpoint, attitude, and purpose for writing (pp.11-12) As the above list reveals, good reading performances go beyond just decoding skills. In other words, deeper exploration of contextual meanings should be incorporated. Moreover, Dole, Duffy, Roehler, and Pearson (1991) emphasized that capable readers have the tendency to get actively involved in the reading process by 2.

(13) using a flexible repertoire of comprehension monitoring skills and regulating activities such as cognitive and metacognitive strategy use. Without a doubt, such reading competences of not only decoding a text but also truly comprehending it are keys to academic success at school and development for lifelong learning (OECD, 2010). Teachers need to familiarize ourselves with these important objectives and learn how to realize them in class. To be in line with the spirits in the new curriculum guidelines, this research will focus on implementing a prominent reading strategy training approach, Reciprocal Teaching, developed by Palincsar and Brown (1984), to foster students’ understanding of texts through effective strategy use, specifically in the nonfiction genre. The reasons are that so far, various studies about reading strategy use have been conducted in story reading (Liao, 2008; Liaw, 2007; Rafik-Galea & Nair, 2007; Shiau, 2010). Few, however, have looked into the effects of utilizing Reciprocal Teaching in the nonfiction texts. Thus, this research aims to fill in this gap by investigating the potential of employing Reciprocal Teaching in a different text genre and its further impact on students’ critical thinking among high and low English proficiency readers.. Research Questions The research questions examined in the present study are listed below: 1. How do students perceive Reciprocal Teaching adopted in reading nonfiction texts? 2. Can Reciprocal Teaching help high and low English proficiency readers develop critical thinking? The first research question will be examined with a perception questionnaire to explore students’ viewpoints. In the meantime, the effects of the four strategies in Reciprocal Teaching on students’ English ability will be probed. The second question will be addressed through qualitative analyses of students’ self-generated answers in 3.

(14) one of the Reciprocal Teaching strategies, namely, questioning, with low and high achievers. Their level of critical thinking will be gauged based on Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956) to compare and contrast the changing levels of thinking orders in the first and the last worksheets.. Significance of the Study This study explores students’ perception of using Reciprocal Teaching to comprehend nonfiction texts. Since such genre has covered a majority of the articles selected in textbooks among senior high schools in Taiwan, and textbooks function as a main medium for teachers to accomplish the learning goals in the curriculum, the researcher tries to adopt a teaching approach to fit the curriculum objectives, which are to develop students’ critical thinking and reading strategy use. Therefore, it is important to seek a credible pedagogy to explore the possibility of using textbooks to promote students’ critical thinking.. 4.

(15) CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW. Chapter Overview This chapter provides a theoretical background of the study. Theories of reading strategies will be discussed as a start, from which the definitions of good readers are illustrated. As one of the key characteristics found in good readers, critical thinking plays a crucial role when readers employ reading strategies to facilitate their reading comprehension. Reciprocal Teaching, an evidence-based teaching approach, is believed to help students with the cultivation of critical thinking. Finally, to assess students’ changes in thinking levels, Bloom’s Taxonomy will be used as the main coding scheme.. Reading Strategy Use Reading is a process to build a model of meaning (Johnston, 1983), which involves a considerable number of interaction between the reader and the text to foster understanding. This high-frequency interaction leads to reading comprehension, and its mastery signifies language achievement which has long been viewed as the ultimate goal in L2 instruction. According to some researchers (Anderson, 2002; Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002), if a reader becomes strategic, his comprehension increases. In the meaning-constructing process, a variety of strategies are utilized such as making predictions, activating background knowledge, clarifying confusions, and asking questions, just to name a few. In fact, strategy use has long been considered an efficient method to assist L2 learners in the process of comprehending texts or producing the target language 5.

(16) (Cohen, 2010). With carefully devised instructional approach, strategic reading is a teachable and learnable skill (Brown, Armbruster, & Baker, 1986). Significant as reading strategies may seem, they are not learning goals but serve as catalyst to enable learners to deal with their own reading and empower them to be self-independent in the lifelong pursuit of knowledge (Paris & Winograd, 1990). Such essence has echoed the vision stated in the Guidelines for Senior High School English Curriculum (MOE, 2018), which is to set students on the path to becoming lifelong learners.. Definitions of Good Readers Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998) explored the characteristics of good readers and indicated what distinguished them from poor comprehenders. The researchers claimed that it was in “their use of general world knowledge to comprehend text literally as well as to draw valid inferences from texts, in their comprehension of words, and in their use of comprehension monitoring and repair strategies” (p. 62). Another illustration of the traits shared among good readers is proposed by Duke and Pearson (2002), and some key features are as follows: - Good readers are active readers. - Good readers typically look over the text before they read, noting such things as the structure of the text and text sections that might be most relevant to their reading goals. - As they read, good readers frequently make predictions about what is to come. - Good readers construct, revise, and question the meanings they make as they read. - Good readers try to determine the meaning of unfamiliar words and concepts in the text, and they deal with inconsistencies or gaps as needed. 6.

(17) - When reading expository text, these readers frequently construct and revise summaries of what they have read (pp.205-206). Unlike skilled readers, poor readers possess relatively limited knowledge of reading strategies (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002; Paris & Winograd, 1990). They tend to take reading for mainly a decoding process instead of meaning-eliciting procedures (Baker & Brown, 1984; Flavell, 1979). Furthermore, they rarely spot contradictory concepts or work out inconsistencies; therefore, they fail to fully comprehend the text (Snow et al., 1998). Based on the different levels of metacognitive reading strategies employed by readers, Perkins (1992) defined four types of readers: Tactic, Aware, Strategic, and Reflective Readers. The first kind has little idea of their own thinking in the reading process, while the second knows they’ve encountered comprehension problems but has difficulty solving them. Rather than feel clueless, strategic readers can come up with effective strategies to construct the meanings from texts on their own. Applying and further revising the strategies in use, reflective readers will reflect upon what they do and how they think to reach better comprehension. The traits shown in strategic and reflective readers fit in with what Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) identified as high-skilled readers, who can actively adopt a number of appropriate metacognitive strategies throughout the reading process. To put it differently, skilled readers know when and how to make good use of their prior knowledge regarding the problems they run into to unblock reading hurdles so as to reach better comprehension. Block and Mangieri (2003) proposed that the integration of metacognitive strategy use into regular teaching practice plays an essential role in shaping learners to become more independent and self-regulated readers. To sum up, as advised by Harvey and Goudvis (2000), the instruction of reading comprehension should center on the cultivation of thinking, which is to know when and why to coordinate and deploy certain strategies 7.

(18) until a reading comprehension issue is finally resolved (Anderson, 2002).. Reciprocal Teaching The present study will implement Reciprocal Teaching (Palinscar & Brown, 1984) as the main instructional approach. Considering the prominent features commonly observed in good readers (Perkins, 1992; Pressley & Afflerback, 1995; Snow, Burns, & Griffin 1998), the four reading strategies in Reciprocal Teaching, i.e. predicting, clarifying, summarizing, and questioning, well manifest the spirit, such as actively participating in the reading process through making predictions, constructing meanings with constant questioning, and utilizing the context to guess meanings of unknown words or concepts, etc. Reciprocal Teaching is an evidence-based instructional practice which was proposed by Palinscar and Brown (1984) in order to boost and monitor reading comprehension (Rosenshine & Meister, 1994). This teaching technique encompasses four strategies which successful readers routinely employ (Duke & Pearson, 2002; Pintrich, 2002). In other words, Reciprocal Teaching is composed of predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing within the structure of guided learning in a social context (Garderen, 2004). The order of the four strategies in Reciprocal Teaching is not always linearly set, though predicting usually comes in first. In the synopsis offered by Oczkus (2003), readers can gather the clues from the text or evoke their personal background knowledge about the target reading to hypothesize and anticipate the next content. This procedure helps readers set a purpose prior to reading and interact more with the text during reading. The need for clarifying occurs whenever readers come across difficult words, sentences, passages, or even chapters. This step plays a crucial role in cultivating 8.

(19) problem-solving abilities and fostering independent learning. Readers can share strategies to tackle the problems that impair their understanding. Throughout the reading process, questioning can develop readers’ awareness of the important ideas, key details, and textual inferences or connection to their prior knowledge. The question types can take on either written or spoken forms. One trait worth notifying is that better quality questions reflect greater thinking depth, which leads to higher possibility of seeing the core of the issue and even solving it. Usually adopted after reading, summarizing requires readers to consolidate the key events in the text and rearrange them in a logical manner. This step empowers readers to do complicated integration of various skills and strategies which are the making of more competent readers. According to Palincsar (1991), Reciprocal Teaching is built on four learning principles which include: cognitive apprenticeship, theories of scaffolding, the zone of proximal development, and proleptic teaching (Seymour & Osana, 2003). To make the transfer of the cognitive responsibility workable, the leader, usually starts from teachers to students, has to model how to correctly monitor and reflect comprehension strategies. By gradually fading the leader’s support, students will become increasingly capable of self-regulating their reading process. Therefore, students can be scaffolded to a higher level of comprehension competence which is hardly possible if they are working on it alone. This advancement is termed “the zone of proximal development” by Vygotsky (1978), and is considered pivotal to Reciprocal Teaching. Proleptic teaching (Palincsar, 1991; Seymour & Osana, 2003) refers to teachers’ taking an optimistic attitude toward the students’ ultimate accomplishment. In other words, teachers firmly believe that through the four effective strategies, any student can acquire the desired ability regardless of their initial intelligence or language levels.. 9.

(20) Empirical Studies on Reciprocal Teaching. In recent years, many studies have been conducted on the effects of Reciprocal Teaching intervention. Most of them have proved Reciprocal Teaching’s positive impacts (Kelly, Moore, & Tuck, 2001; Rosenshine & Meister, 1994; Spörer, Brunstein, & Kieschke, 2009). The age of the participants ranges widely from primary school children (Schünemann, Spörer & JC Brunstein, 2013), junior high (Chern, 2005; Klingner & Vanughn, 1996), senior high students (Shiau, 2010), to university students (Coley, DePinto,Vraig, & Gardner, 1993). The subjects’ language abilities vary from at-risk kids, normal readers, to poor comprehenders (Johnson-Glenberg, 2000; Lysynchuk, Pressley, & Vye, 1990; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Salyer, 2015). Among these studies, the majority examined elementary school pupils, some on college and junior high students, but relatively few studies have been carried out with senior high school students. In this regard, this particular age group will be targeted as the participants for this study. In general, the research focus of most empirical studies lies in exploring the effect of Reciprocal Teaching in improving participants’ reading comprehension. Rosenshine and Meister (1994) concluded that the optimal instruction effect would be reached under the condition that explicit strategy teaching and extended period of practice were coupled with cognitive modeling and complementary conversations. Aside from significant gains in improvement of reading comprehension, other positive results are shown in numerous studies. In a Reciprocal Teaching study combined with remedial treatment, Yang (2010) reported college participants’ increase in not only reading comprehension but also the problem-solving ability, which is one of the highlighted competences in the newly issued curriculum guidelines in Taiwan (MOE, 2018). Schünemann, Spörer, & Brunstein (2013) examined the impact of Reciprocal Teaching inclusion on fifth graders and found that compared with 10.

(21) traditional teacher-centered instruction, Reciprocal Teaching strengthened students’ mastery of reading strategies together with their self-efficacy in reading. Frances and Eckart (1992) also found that when interacting with their learning peers, students’ oral communication skills were also sharpened. Moreover, the positive effect Reciprocal Teaching has on writing has also been concluded by Mohammad, Atefeh, and Sahar (2013) in an empirical study on 104 randomly selected intermediate female learners between 15 to 23 years old.. Critical Thinking As revealed from the above-mentioned discussion, good readers are those who have a great command of reading strategy in the reading process where thinking comes into play actively. This concept was termed as “Critical Thinking” by Cooper, Warncke, and Shipman (1988). Critical thinking is not a novel idea. Nevertheless, it has gained increasing attention worldwide nowadays. In the Framework for 21st Century Learning developed by the Partnership for 21st Century Learning and adopted in the US, Canada, and New Zealand, critical thinking is defined as one of the essential skills and knowledge for students to achieve success in the academic context in this new era (Chaffee, 2015). By the same token, since 2010, critical thinking has been incorporated into the Nine-Year Integrated Guidelines for Senior High School English Curriculum (MOE, 2018) in Taiwan till now. Fundamental and important as critical thinking is, a consensus about its precise definition hasn’t been reached yet. Over the course of decades, however, numerous attempts have been made to give various interpretations to it. John Dewey (1933) was believed to be the first to define critical thinking as “reflective thinking…active, persistent, and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge in 11.

(22) light of the grounds which support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (pp. 99-116). Beyer (1983) stated that when it comes to critical thinking, certain skills are involved, such as judging, evaluating, collecting and using information effectively, understanding different viewpoints, and solving problems. In broad terms, critical thinking refers to the purposeful, rational, evaluative, and reflective thinking when an individual is faced with a problem-solving scenario (Atkinson, 1997; Chaffee, 2015; Kim, Sharma, Land, & Furlong, 2013).. Empirical Studies on Critical Thinking. The majority of research on critical thinking used to focus on science-related or general instructional context, and it wasn’t until the late 1970s that some discussions about the correlation between critical thinking and language learning took place (Day, 2003). By 1990s, the term has obtained its recognition in the academic field. It wasn’t long before researchers and scholars have even claimed that a close link exists among critical thinking, metacognitive, and higher-order strategy use (Chamot, Barnhardt, El-Dinary, & Robbins, 1996; Magogwe & Oliver, 2007; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990). A variety of research methods have been experimented with a view to developing critical thinking in students: discussions (Qing, 2013; Walker, 2003), content-based teaching (Liaw, 2007; Nguyen, T. T. B., 2016), concept mapping (Novak, 1998), questioning (Almaliki, 2017; Browne & Keeley, 2018; Ikuenobe, 2001; Paul, Binker, Martin, & Adamson, 1995), journal writing (Paul & Elder, 2001; Walker, 2003), and so on. Among these studies, the pedagogy of questioning is the main focus in the present study. Almaliki (2017) asserted that questioning dominates an indispensable role in stimulating inquiry and fostering critical thinking. As for the types of questioning, according to Ikuenobe (2001), there are two kinds: fact-finding for 12.

(23) seeking information and analytical questioning for making analysis. The study found that the latter outweighed the first kind in that asking analytical questions demands “one to explore, explicate, examine, clarify, dissect, reflect on and relate issues or ideas” (p.335) which resembles how critical thinking is stimulated and this pushes one toward further exploration of insights and judgement (Browne & Keeley, 2018). In Qing’s (2013) study, he claimed that a learner with critical thinking knows how to ask proper questions, which requires the competence of gathering relevant information, sorting through this information skillfully and adequately, reasoning logically, and finally coming to a reliable and credible result. Taking the above-mentioned theories into account, an operational definition of critical thinking for this current study is formed: questioning is one of the credible ways to demonstrate students’ active interaction with a text, where critical thinking plays an irreplaceable role in this cognitive process. With regard to the evaluation of students’ ability to think critically through their self-generated questions, Bloom’s Taxonomy is chosen to serve as a criterion for analysis.. Reciprocal Teaching and Critical Thinking Reciprocal Teaching and critical thinking may have something in common, i.e. scaffolding. To investigate the effect of using scaffolding as a form of learning to teach critical thinking, 16 teacher trainees tried to read a short story through scaffolding (Rafik-Galea & Nair, 2007). The result showed a strong correlation between scaffolding and critical thinking in the data elicited from the recorded discussions and transcription. Similar findings are also seen in Kusumoto’s (2018) experiment where he employed various scaffolding activities to promote higher thinking skills in CLIL (content and language integrated learning) classrooms.. 13.

(24) Bloom’s Taxonomy Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956) will be used as the coding scheme to classify students’ self-generated questions in the present study since it is recognized as a systematic way to gauge critical thinking and learning (Brown, 2004). This taxonomy has classified the educational objectives into three domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor, each of which requires learners to utilize different levels of mental processing to reach the desired outcomes. The qualities of these three learning categories (see Table 1) are also highly valued in the “Core Competency” as stated in the Twelve-year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines (NAER, 2015). Table 1. Comparison Table of the Three Domains in Bloom’s Taxonomy and Core Competency Learning Domains. Core Competency. Cognitive. Knowledge. verbal or visual intellectual capabilities. Affective. Attitudes. feelings, values, beliefs. Psychomotor. Skills. physical skill capabilities. Source:. Descriptions. https://www.niu.edu/facdev/_pdf/guide/learning/blooms_taxonomy.pdf. The primary focus of this study is on the cognitive domain, referring to students’ knowledge, comprehension, and critical thinking. Bloom (1956) brought up this taxonomy to elaborate on six levels, and it ranges from the lower levels - Knowledge, Comprehension and Application” to the higher levels of cognitive process dimension Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation (see Figure 1).. 14.

(25) Figure 1. Bloom’s Taxonomy Source:http://rationalexpressions.blogspot.com/2014/05/blooms-taxonomy-and-ease-o f-appearing.html As Figure 1 shows, Bloom’s Taxonomy is portrayed as a hierarchical learning framework. The accomplishment of each level indicates that students are adept at that particular level and the ones below it. Take the “Analysis” level for instance. When a student has reached this level, he also has mastered the three lower ones, i.e. Knowledge, Comprehension, and Application. Dalton and Smith (1986) offered examples of questions along with the potential products after integrating Bloom’s Taxonomy into classroom activities. Being the lowest level, Knowledge means questions which usually start with “What,” “Who,” “When,” or “Where.” Comprehension questions usually begin with “How” and “Why,” in which students explain, interpret, or restate the meaning of facts to reach the Comprehension level. As the name Application suggests, its primary focus is on the demonstration of transferring the acquired knowledge to new settings. The Analysis level questions are those that students distinguish, examine, compare or categorize elements of concepts, or make further inferences. Sometimes regarded as a synonym with creativity, Synthesis requires students to invent, devise or imagine something new. The highest level, Evaluation, refers to being able to judge situations, 15.

(26) debate opinions, verify alternatives, and come up with sensible solutions. In 2001, Anderson and Krathwohl published a revised version of Bloom’s original taxonomy with a view to better reflecting the instructional practices in the 21st century. The most discernible differences lie in three categories: Terminology, Structure and Emphasis (Forehand, 2005). As Figure 2 reveals, in the new version, the nouns were changed into verbs. Below are the definitions of those new terms: Remember: Retrieving, recognizing, and recalling relevant knowledge from long-term memory. Understand: Constructing meaning from oral, written, and graphic messages through. interpreting,. exemplifying,. classifying,. summarizing,. inferring,. comparing, and explaining. Apply: Carrying out or using a procedure through executing, or implementing. Analyze: Breaking material into constituent parts, determining how the parts relate to one another and to an overall structure or purpose through differentiating, organizing, and attributing. Evaluate: Making judgments based on criteria and standards through checking and critiquing. Create: Putting elements together to form a coherent or functional whole; reorganizing elements into a new pattern or structure through generating, planning or producing. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, pp.67-68) Besides, the order of the two highest levels “Evaluate” and “Create” was swapped in contrast with the former version as Evaluation followed by Synthesis (see Figure 2).. 16.

(27) Figure 2. The Comparison of Bloom’s Taxonomy and the Revised Version Source: https://elearningbunch.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/revised-bloom-taxonomy/ The last but not least difference worth noticing is the change of structures. While the original version is one-dimensional, the revised one takes a two-dimensional form (see Table 2). From Table 2 below, the cognitive process dimension is made up of six levels, i.e. remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate and create, while the knowledge dimension contains four levels: factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge and meta-cognitive knowledge. The intersection of these two dimensions will result in 24 cells in total.. Taxonomy Used in the Present Study Considering the scope of this current study, the research will adopt a combination of Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956) and the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (2001). In other words, a one-dimensional and hierarchical taxonomy will be utilized to illustrate the intricacy of thinking. Therefore, the six question types are as follows: (1) Remembering, (2) Understanding, (3) Applying, (4) Analyzing, (5) Evaluating, (6) Creating.. 17.

(28) Table 2. The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy in the Two-Dimensional Form The Cognitive Process Dimension Remember. Understand. Apply. Analyze. Evaluate. Create. List. Summarize. Classify. Order. Rank. Combine. Describe. Interpret. Experiment. Explain. Assess. Plan. Tabulate. Predict. Calculate. Differentiate. Conclude. Compose. Meta-Cognitive. Appropriate. Execute. Construct. Achieve. Action. Actualize. Knowledge. Use. The Knowledge Dimension. Factual Knowledge Conceptual Knowledge Procedural Knowledge. Source: Quoted from Forehand (2005). Significance of Bloom’s Taxonomy On the other hand, the significance of Bloom’s Taxonomy was illustrated by Assaly and Igbaria (2014) as below: 1. The taxonomy is educationally oriented and can be used to distinguish between groups of objectives that teachers use for writing curricula, studying programs, and planning lessons. 2. The levels are clearly and logically defined. 3. The taxonomy describes psychological phenomena. 4. The taxonomy discusses thinking processes ranging from simple to complex ones with each level resting upon the previous one. 5. It is continuous, with each objective leads to the one following it.. 18.

(29) 6. It is comprehensive in that each behavioral objective can be categorized according to the taxonomy (p.25).. Summary Reading is a meaning-constructing process which involves a lot of thinking. From the review of existing studies, Reciprocal Teaching has proven to bring about positive results to foster reading comprehension in the course of complex cognitive reading. As for the relationship between Reciprocal Teaching and critical thinking, more studies are desired to provide stronger support. This current study aims to investigate not only the claim that Reciprocal Teaching aids students’ development of critical thinking but also its different effects on low and high language achievers.. 19.

(30) CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY This study implemented Reciprocal Teaching as the pedagogical approach. A description of the participants will be presented first, followed by the teaching materials for the present study. Next, the instructional framework of this 6-week study will be detailed, including data collection, and data analysis.. Participants The participants of this study were 34 first-year senior high school students in Taichung city, Taiwan. There were 13 males and 21 females in total. They attended the researcher’s English classes, which lasted 50 minutes, five times a week. Their English proficiency levels varied from elementary to intermediate. About 35% of them either attended cram schools or received tutoring sessions after school. For the purpose of the study, six students were classified as high proficiency readers, for their English average scores in the first semester were all above 80 points. Four students, whose English scores were below 60 points, were sorted into the low achieving group.. Materials Five nonfiction articles were selected as the target genre for readers based on the following reasons. First, in order to build up students’ framework for English compositions, five nonfiction articles with clear organization in paragraphs, that is, the introduction, the body, and the conclusion were chosen. In addition, a rough survey of the 12 lessons in the textbook for Grade 10 English currently in use at the participants’ school, Sanmin Senior High School English Reader Book 1, shows that 20.

(31) up to 83% fell into the category of nonfictions, while only 2 lessons belonged to short stories, which proved the significance of the nonfiction genre had in high school textbooks. Since the whole treatment was administered in a regular English classroom, choosing materials from textbooks instead of other outside sources became a natural decision. Table 3 presents the key information about each article, such as the number of words and paragraphs, as well as the readability based on Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease. The higher the score for reading ease is, the easier it is to read. As shown in Table 3, the scores range from 63.2 to 88.8, which means these articles should be easily understood by 7th to 8th graders, namely, the participants’ age. The average numbers of words and the paragraphs are 398 and 5. When given to the participants, the articles were printed on an A4 sheet of paper with the titles. Table 3. The Comparison of Five Articles Number No.. Title. of Words. 1. The Light of. Flesch. Flesch. Numbers of. Kincaid. Kincaid. Paragraphs. Reading Ease. School. Score. Level. 433. 5. 88.8. 6th. 341. 6. 63.2. 8-9th. 411. 4. 74.8. 7th. 415. 4. 75.6. 7th. 391. 5. 74.1. 7th. 398.2. 4.8. 75.3. 7th. Halloween 2. What is Written in the Stars?. 3. Inventing a Better World. 4. The Magic of Science. 5. Dancing to Nobody’s Tune Average. 21.

(32) Instructional Framework The whole study was divided into 3 stages, lasting for 6 weeks in Fall 2018 (see Table 4). At the first stage, the researcher introduced the four reading cognitive strategies of Reciprocal Teaching through demonstration and actual practice with students. A detailed lesson plan for the 100-minute course was provided in Appendix A. After the two periods of teacher-led instruction for stage 1, students had a comprehensive understanding of how these four strategies work. The next stage was the treatment, starting from the second week to the fifth. Nonfiction texts were particularly selected. Each article took two periods to complete the whole Reciprocal Teaching process. In the first half of the class, a teacher-led mode was utilized (see Table 5). Students were led to apply Reciprocal Teaching strategies one at a time, which was almost identical to teacher-led procedure for stage 1. Different articles were delivered each week. The four articles for students to read were as follows: What is Written in the Stars, Inventing a Better World, The Magic of Science, and Dancing to Nobody’s Tune. At the initial 5 minutes on the first day, the teacher gave out the target article and the worksheet “My Reciprocal Teaching Reading Journal” to the participants. After asking students to sit in groups of four based on their own choice, the teacher helped students review the four reading strategies of Reciprocal Teaching or cleared up confusion they had come across in application. When everything was ready, the teacher led students to go through the four strategies. What should be noted was that the teacher asked students to keep the worksheet themselves as they needed to finish at least one assigned role in the remaining worksheet at home for the next day’s discussion. Whoever successfully finished the homework gained 10 extra points for their English grades.. 22.

(33) Table 4. The Three-Stage Plan Stage. Time. 1. Week 1.. Descriptions. Materials. Preparation. - Article:. - Introduction of Reciprocal. (see Appendix B). Teaching through teacher-led. 1.The Light of. instruction of the four reading. Halloween. strategies 2. Weeks 2-5. Treatment. - Articles:. - Day 1: Teacher-led discussion - Day 2: Student-led discussion ※ Students must finish writing at least one assigned role in “My Reciprocal Teaching reading journals” before student-led class.. (see Appendix B) 2. What is Written in the Stars? 3. Inventing a Better World 4. The Magic of Science 5. Dancing to Nobody’s Tune - My Reciprocal Teaching Reading Journals (see Appendix C). 3. Week 6.. Wrap-up. - The Perception. - Fill in “The Perception. Questionnaire. Questionnaire”. (see Appendix D). Table 5.Teacher-led Discussion Procedures for Stage 2 23.

(34) Time 5 (min) 40 (min). Descriptions a. The teacher asks students to sit in groups of four. b. The teacher gives out the target article and the worksheet to students and reminds students to write down their own answers in blue pen. The teacher guides students to apply Reciprocal Teaching strategies to the target paragraphs step by step. a. Prediction: - The teacher asks one student to volunteer to read aloud the title first, (and if necessary, the first sentence of the paragraphs) and asks the class to guess what this article may be about based on the title. - The teacher asks students to share and discuss their guesses with group members. Students can pencil down answers they like from their members. b. Clarification: - The teacher asks everyone to read aloud the target paragraphs and underline any confusing parts. Students try to solve problems by themselves first. - Students work in pairs to share and discuss the parts they don’t understand with group members. Students can pencil down answers they like from their members. - The teacher asks students to volunteer to share their confusion and solutions orally with the whole class. c. Summary: - The teacher asks students to circle any key words they find important in the target paragraphs. After gathering one or two students’ answers, the teacher writes those key words on the blackboard and asks students to make one or two sentences by using them. - Students work in pairs to share and discuss their summaries with group members. Students can pencil down answers they like from group members. - The teacher asks students to volunteer to share their summaries orally with the whole class.. 5. d. Question: - Students write down self-generated questions in blue pen first. - Students work in pairs to share and discuss their questions with group members. Students can pencil down what they like from their members. - The teacher asks students to volunteer to share their questions orally and get the class to answer them. The teacher makes sure that everyone finishes writing their worksheets for the. (min). day and reminds them to complete the second part of the worksheets at home.. 24.

(35) As for the remaining half of the class, the discussion became student-led (see Table 6). The student leader, played by the Predictor, conducted the whole discussion and kept the time. Students changed different roles for different articles in order to become seasoned with the four strategies. After every student had sat in groups and confirmed the roles, the teacher checked their worksheets first. This round, it was the predictor who monitored the Reciprocal Teaching process. The discussion sequence went on in the following sequence: predicting, clarifying, summarizing, and questioning. While students were doing Reciprocal Teaching discussions, whenever students came across ideas they liked from their members, they were encouraged to pencil the ideas down on their worksheets as a contrast to their own ideas in blue pen. This was to distinguish the differences between original and revised answers and to develop their self-awareness of more refined thoughts and statements. Table 6.Student-led Discussion Procedures for Stage 2 Duration. Descriptions. 5. a. Students sit in groups of four, and select a different role to play from the previous round. b. The teacher checks the worksheet “My Reciprocal Teaching Reading Journal.” ※ Whoever successfully finishes the homework will gain 10 extra. (min). 40 (min). points for their English grades. The Predictor plays the leader to guide the whole discussion. The role content and procedure are as follows. a. Predictor: Reread the previous paragraphs or the summaries and share own predictions. Others listen or share their predictions. b. Clarifier: Point out the reading parts he/she has problems with and shares own solutions. Others listen or share solutions or other problems. c. Summarizer: Share his/her summaries for the target paragraph. Others listen or share their summaries.. 5 (min). d. Questioner: Share questions. Invite others to answer or share theirs. Students finish writing the discussion for the day and the teacher collects everyone’s worksheets.. 25.

(36) Early in June 2018, a pilot study was conducted by the researcher. The results corroborated the findings by Hacker and Tenent (2002), who pointed out three key factors determining the success of Reciprocal Teaching implementation: strategy use, dialogue, and scaffolded instruction. As for strategy use, weekly teacher-led discussions were specially arranged to keep students on the right track of applying Reciprocal Teaching strategies adequately. Another effort made to improve the quality of students’ answers was that students were encouraged to compare and contrast their original answers with their group members’ in class, and note down any better versions to emulate others. At the last stage, the researcher asked students to fill out the “Perception Questionnaire” for data collection and analysis in addition to the five reading journals. In a word, the overall instructional framework of this study can be briefly displayed in the following table (see Table 7). Table 7. The Overview of Implementation Procedures Steps. Time. Descriptions. 1. Jun. 2018. 2. Oct. 2018 to Nov. 2018. 3. Dec. 2018. One-week Pilot Study 1. One-week Preparation 2. Five-week Treatment Wrap up with Questionnaires. Data Collection The present study collected two sources of data for further analyses. The first one was the five My Reciprocal Teaching Reading Journals from the top six and bottom four achievers. In total, there were 50 reading journal entries to explore students’ performance. The second source was the participants’ perception questionnaire, which was to tap into students’ subjective points of view toward their own performance in. 26.

(37) the Reciprocal Teaching process. The number of questionnaires collected was 34, the whole class.. Research Instruments. This research employed the following two instruments: 1. My Reciprocal Teaching Reading Journal Adapted from Chern’s (2005) “My Reading Journal,” this reading journal was modified to suit the purpose of Research Question #2. It is used to record the participants’ responses to the four Reciprocal Teaching strategies to analyze their changes in the level of thinking after the treatment. 2. The Perception Questionnaire The questionnaire inspired by previous research (Chern, 2005; Greenway, 2002; Rosenshine & Meister, 1994; Shiau, 2010) contained 7 questions and targets at Research Question #1. Item 1 was designed to understand students’ overall learning experiences and impression about Reciprocal Teaching. Items 2 and 3 were to compare which strategy seemed the easiest and hardest for different levels of achievers. The next item was about reading comprehension, which aimed to find out the very strategy that helped foster students’ understanding the most. Item 5 checked if Reciprocal Teaching encouraged students to do higher order thinking. Item 6 was intended for students to self-assess their improvement in the four English language skills in accordance with the four Reciprocal Teaching reading strategies. The last item gauged students’ perceptions of such learning method integrated into their usual classes and also sought their suggestions to refine the procedure. Concerning the participants’ age, first-year senior high school student, the language in the questionnaire was translated into Chinese to ease their anxiety of English writing errors and allow them to express themselves more freely in their mother tongue. 27.

(38) Data Analysis The first research question: “How do students perceive Reciprocal Teaching adopted in reading nonfiction texts?” was answered through students’ response to the perception questionnaire. The researcher calculated their answers and did qualitative analysis. As for the other research question, “Can Reciprocal Teaching help high and low English proficiency readers develop critical thinking?” Bloom’s Taxonomy was implemented to examine if there were any changes exhibited in students’ level of critical thinking within the same language proficiency readers and between different-level achievers over time. Students’ self-generated questions were coded according to the six levels illustrated in Bloom’s Taxonomy: Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating. The researcher used the students’ average grades in the first semester to determine their levels. With regard to the “high achievers,” the top six students were selected due to the fact that their scores were all above 80 points. On the other hand, the bottom four students were categorized as “low achievers” as theirs were below 60 points. In short, the researcher singled 10 students out to analyze their question-generating performances.. Summary In conclusion, this present study aimed to probe whether Reciprocal Teaching could promote students’ higher level thinking. It also aimed to compare its effect on low and high achievers. Moreover, students’ perception of Reciprocal Teaching was surveyed through a self-report questionnaire.. 28.

(39) CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS This section aims to explore the results of this study. The details will be elaborated from two aspects, i.e. students’ perception of Reciprocal Teaching, and the effects of Reciprocal Teaching on students. The former will be analyzed via students’ questionnaires while the latter is through their worksheets. Additionally, the data will be discussed in two subgroups. The first is the whole class. The other one is of two groups of readers, namely, high and low achievers.. Students’ Perception of Reciprocal Teaching This section offers the information about students’ perception questionnaire. Though the original language used was Chinese, it was translated into English for the uniformity of presentation. Again, the results are displayed from two facets: the whole class and the high and low proficiency readers, while the descriptions are elaborated under the following subheadings, i.e. the appraisal of reading strategies, the effects on critical thinking, the effects on English language learning, and the perception of future implementation toward Reciprocal Teaching.. Results of the Whole Class. In reality, the first question took the form of an open-ended one: “What do you learn the most from the class?” However, in order to better present students’ content in an organized layout, their answers were categorized into three subgroups as shown in Table 8: (1) English proficiency: language skills improved in any of the four dimensions: listening, speaking, reading, and writing; (2) Learning competence:. 29.

(40) Table 8. Comparison of the Percentage of the Overall Learning Benefits Category. English proficiency. Learning. Thinking. Competence N. 16. 13. 5. P. 47 %. 38 %. 15 %. Note: N: Number of votes P: Percentage learning attitudes, habits, and strategies, time management or problem-solving techniques improved, etc; (3) Thinking: knowing how one thought and realized one’s improvement in thinking. The majority of the comments were on English proficiency, which accounted for 47% of the class. Thanks to the design of the study, students were given a lot of opportunities to practice English speaking and writing in class besides sharpening their reading skills. The following remarks offered some examples. After this class, I gained more confidence in English, for I was really using English to express myself whether in writing or speaking. (Student #5) I seldom had the chance to speak English, not to mention using it for discussion. From this class, I was given many opportunities not only to express myself in English, but also learn how to really discuss rather than chitchat. (Student #27) Learning competence was another positive result, as some students shared their feelings below. I used to read only literally. In this class, what I learned the most was the skills to summarize an article in my own words, which required much integration in the process. (Student #12). 30.

(41) I learned how to grasp the gist of articles and write questions by myself. (Student #23) I learned the way to organize paragraphs. (Student #22) As to training students’ thinking, some visible results can be found from their feedback. Prediction and summary required thinking, while questioning and clarification needed to expand ideas. I learned to do these two things gradually in the course. (Student #3) Thinking is my greatest improvement in this class. Not until I thought did I realize there was so much confusion for me to clear up. Besides, I had to think further to convey my thoughts to others. (Student #8). The Appraisal of Reading Strategies. As indicated in Table 9, the easiest strategy was clarification, which accounted for 41% among the whole class, followed by questioning (26%). On the other hand, summary and questioning appeared equally hard for students, constituting 32% each. Concerning the most helpful strategy, summary topped the ranking by amounting to 71% in total. Table 9. Students’ Evaluation of the Four Strategies Reading Strategy. Prediction. Clarification. Summary. Questioning. N. P. N. P. N. P. N. P. Easiest. 5. 15 %. 14. 41 %. 6. 18 %. 9. 26 %. Hardest. 5. 15 %. 7. 21 %. 11. 32 %. 11. 32 %. Most Helpful. 2. 6%. 6. 17 %. 24. 71 %. 2. 6%. Note: N: Number of votes, P: Percentage 31.

(42) In students’ eyes, what made clarification the easiest strategy was that one only needs to read partially rather than comprehensively, as described by students #17, # 22 and #23 below. Even if I didn’t finish reading or understand the whole article, I could still do clarifying. All I need to do is search for confusing parts and try to solve them. In my opinion, this is the basic training for a student. (Student #17) Unlike the other three strategies, which required full comprehension of the target paragraphs, I merely needed to focus on the confusing areas to clarify. (Student #22) To clarify, I just identify the unknown words and then guess their meanings. If I got the answers correct, I felt a great sense of accomplishment! (Student #23) Summary and questioning equally posed great difficulty to students. The reasons behind had something in common. Four students provided following explanations. Summary isn’t as easy as what I used to think. After this class, I learned that summary doesn’t simply mean using fewer words to describe an article; key information must be included. (Student #17) Compared with the other three strategies, I needed to write more sentences to summarize. However, the more I write, the more grammatical errors might occur. (Student #31) I used to consider it easy to ask questions. But now I know there are actually simple or hard, good or bad questions. Sometimes, even if I spent much time racking my brains to create good questions, it didn’t work out every time. (Student #23) Without understanding an article thoroughly, I couldn’t think up any 32.

(43) questions. (Student #24) The remarks by Student #23 indicated that she started to classify questions into different kinds, such as simple or hard, good or bad, etc. With respect to the next question, “Which strategy do you think helps you the most to understand the texts?” up to 24 students viewed summary as the most helpful strategy. In order to summarize a text, they had to finish reading the whole text first, identify the key points, and finally integrate them in their own words. Many students expressed their great concern about making grammatical, or spelling errors. Student #8 was one of them. To summarize, I need to read, understand, and analyze. However, I often have difficulty writing with correct grammar, sentence patterns or vocabulary. (Student #8). The Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on Critical Thinking. When answering the question “Do you think the four strategies help you become a better thinker?” almost the whole class (97%) gave positive remarks. Only one student responded negatively to this question. The real cause as explained below was indeed interesting, and it seemed that this student still thought highly of such training. No, because this is how I read all along. (Student #32) Other students gave plenty of positive feedback. Here are some examples. Yes, because before discussing with group members, I had to finish every part of the worksheets myself. Therefore, I became more involved and motivated in discussion. (Student #8) Yes. This is a two-way learning style, including input and output. (Student #23) Yes. When I was working on generating questions, I would try hard to incorporate some other related issues to enrich my questions. Very 33.

(44) dynamic and interesting! (Student #28) The Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on English Language Learning. Speaking of the most-improved English abilities after learning the four strategies of Reciprocal Teaching (see Table 10), almost half of the students (41%) found prediction didn’t bring much difference to their language competence. Clarification (56%) and summary (47%), nevertheless, produced visible effects on their English reading comprehension. As for questioning, 38% of students considered it to be beneficial to their writing skills. Table 10. Students’ Self-Perceived Most-Improved English Abilities Reading. None. Listening. Speaking. Reading. Writing. Strategies. N. P. N. P. N. P. N. P. N. P. Prediction. 14. 41 %. 0. 0. 0. 0. 13. 38 %. 7. 21 %. Clarification. 6. 18 %. 0. 0. 5. 15 %. 19. 56 %. 4. 11 %. Summary. 2. 6%. 0. 0. 1. 3%. 16. 47 %. 15. 44 %. Questioning. 8. 24 %. 4. 12 %. 3. 9%. 6. 17 %. 13. 38 %. Total. 30. 22 %. 4. 3%. 9. 7%. 54. 40%. 39. 29 %. Note: N: Number of votes, P: Percentage On the other hand, if summed all votes up from the four skills, reading (40%) ranked the top, with writing (29%) the second highest in improving students’ language proficiency after the intervention of Reciprocal Teaching. Students’ Perception of Future Implementation. 27 students (79%) would like to receive Reciprocal Teaching in their future courses. Only 7 people (2 %) expressed their unwillingness to adopt such learning style again. Although the majority of the class gave affirmative responses to this question, their reasons varied from person to person, to cite just a few as below.. 34.

(45) To be frank, I didn’t quite like Reciprocal Teaching at first, because this was the very first time I learned English in such a self-independent manner. Much to my surprise, I enjoy Reciprocal Teaching a lot now! (Student #8) Despite the high percentage of positive responses, 7 students voted against the implementation of Reciprocal Teaching into future classes. A further exploration, nevertheless, revealed the reasons why they didn’t appreciate Reciprocal Teaching were actually what credited Reciprocal Teaching with its acclaimed merits – to participate actively in the reading process within a social context. Such examples are shown below. I couldn’t doze off in class as usual because I was asked to discuss with others all the time. (Student #29) Reciprocal Teaching took me too much time to think, which curtailed the time spent on other subjects. (Student #30) Reciprocal Teaching was simply too troublesome for me. I just wanted to relax and listen to what the teacher says in class. (Student #22) Results of the High and Low Proficiency Readers. As can be seen in Table 11, the self-perceived learning benefits revealed the differences between high and low proficiency readers. Table 11. Comparison of the Percentage of the Overall Learning Benefits From High and Low Achievers English proficiency. Learning Competence. Thinking. Achievers N. P. N. P. N. P. High (N=6). 4. 67 %. 2. 33 %. 0. 0. Low (N=4). 1. 25 %. 2. 50 %. 1. 25 %. Note: N: Number of votes, P: Percentage Up to 67 % of high achievers commented that their most salient advancement lay 35.