Dao, M. N. T. H. (1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(06A), 105–1470.
Reviewed: September 2010
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Reciprocal Teaching.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Nelson comprehension test |
Reciprocal Teaching vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4-6;
|
35.07 |
27.76 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 100% |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 100% |
The study included two public schools from a school district in an urban area of northern California.
Fifty-six fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade students from Vietnamese-American families with low socioeconomic status were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. Participating students were fluent in English. The experimental group was divided into four reading groups, each consisting of six to eight students. The control group was divided into three groups, each consisting of six to eight students. After attrition, the analysis sample included 50 students: 29 students in the experimental group, and 21 students in the control group.
Four experimental subgroups received reciprocal teaching instruction using the school’s current reading materials. Each subgroup worked with the teacher to read and discuss a passage. When reciprocal teaching was first being implemented, the teacher assigned a passage to be read and played the role of the teacher or dialogue leader. The teacher and students read silently, and the teacher modeled comprehension-monitoring strategies by asking a question on the main idea, summarizing the content, discussing, clarifying any difficulties, and making a prediction about future content. Over time, students were encouraged to assume the role of dialogue leader/teacher with the teacher’s support. The intervention was carried out over 20 consecutive days of instruction.
The control group received the regular reading curriculum. Instructional activities in the three control subgroups included asking students to read aloud, asking vocabulary questions, asking questions based on the questions appearing at the end of the text, and assigning a paper-and-pencil task that required students to answer questions, draw a picture, or write a short paragraph.
For both the pretest and the posttest, students took the paragraph subtest of the Nelson Reading Comprehension Test. For the pretest, students also took the reading comprehension subtest of the California Test of Basic Skills. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix A2.
The teacher was credentialed and trained in reciprocal teaching. Details on teacher training were not provided.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube