Reciprocal Teaching Improves Standardized Reading-Comprehension Performance in Poor Comprehenders.
Lysynchuk, Linda M.; And Others (1990). Elementary School Journal, v90 n5 p469-84. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ409158
-
examining36Students, grades4-7
Reciprocal Teaching Intervention Report - Adolescent Literacy
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2010
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Daily Questions |
Reciprocal Teaching vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
60.14 |
49.08 |
No |
-- | |
|
Canadian Test of Basic Skills (CTBS): Vocabulary subtest |
Reciprocal Teaching vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
40.62 |
31.44 |
No |
-- | |
|
Metropolitan Achievement Test: Comprehension subtest |
Reciprocal Teaching vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
37.34 |
28.33 |
No |
-- | |
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Comprehension subtest |
Reciprocal Teaching vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 7;
|
32.56 |
24.89 |
No |
-- | |
|
Daily Questions |
Reciprocal Teaching vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 7;
|
45.03 |
41.53 |
No |
-- | |
|
Daily Retelling |
Reciprocal Teaching vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
25.07 |
22.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Daily Retelling |
Reciprocal Teaching vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 7;
|
8.17 |
8.86 |
No |
-- | |
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Vocabulary subtest |
Reciprocal Teaching vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 7;
|
19.44 |
30.89 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 44%
Male: 56% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
International
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in eight schools in Canada.
Study sample
Thirty-six fourth-grade students enrolled in six schools and 36 seventh-grade students enrolled in two schools participated in the study. Study participants were nominated by their teachers as students with adequate decoding skills (able to decode at least 80% of the words at their grade level as measured by their performance on the Diagnostic Reading Scales) but poor comprehension skills (scoring below the 50th percentile on the comprehension subtest of the Metropolitan Achievement Test for fourth grade, or the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test for seventh grade). All participants were English-speaking Canadians. Students were ranked according to their pretest comprehension scores and then placed into pairs starting with the two lowest-scoring students and ending with the two highest-scoring students. Students within each pair were then randomly assigned to either the control group or the reciprocal teaching group. At the beginning of the study, participants in the treatment and control groups had comparable reading comprehension scores. The grade 4 analysis sample included 18 students who received reciprocal teaching and 18 control group students. The grade 7 analysis sample also consisted of 18 students who received reciprocal teaching and 18 control group students.
Intervention Group
The intervention incorporated all the features of reciprocal teaching as described by Palincsar and Brown (1984), but the instruction lasted only 13 days instead of the recom-mended 15–20 days.
Comparison Group
Students in the control group were exposed to the same materials as students in the reciprocal teaching group but were not exposed to the strategy instruction that is part of the reciprocal teaching approach.
Outcome descriptions
For both the pretest and posttest, students in grade 4 took the comprehension subtest of the Metropolitan Achievement test and the vocabulary subtest of the Canadian Test of Basic Skills. Students in grade 7 took the comprehension and vocabulary subtests of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test. Additional researcher-designed assessments, called the “Daily Retelling” and “Daily Questions” assessments, measured student comprehension after the first half and second half of each day’s instruction. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix A2.
Support for implementation
No information on teacher training was provided in this study.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Lysynchuk, L., Pressley, M., & Vye, N. J. (1989, March). Reciprocal instruction improves standardized reading comprehension performance in poor grade-school comprehenders. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
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).