Martin, B. J. (1989). (Doctoral dissertation, Clemson University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50 (06A), 103-1627.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT): Comprehension subtest |
Reciprocal Teaching vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
13-21 years old;
|
47.10 |
44.66 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted in nine different vocational centers and one high school in South Carolina.
Ten districts were randomly selected to participate in the study. In nine of the ten districts, state vocational centers participated in the study; in the remaining district, a high school participated in the study. Twenty groups of students, two from each institution, were chosen by teachers to participate in the study. Teachers at each of the institutions randomly assigned their two intact groups of students to either the reciprocal teaching group or to the control group. Participating students (who were between the ages of 13 and 21) were handicapped and/or disadvantaged or enrolled in a vocational course or Job Training Partnership Act summer program. The analysis sample consisted of 59 students in the reciprocal teaching group and 59 students in the control group.
The intervention group received the reciprocal teaching intervention during 15 half-hour class sessions. In each class, a teacher and a group of students took turns leading a dialogue concerning the reading material. The dialogue included discussion, argument, and four comprehension activities: summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting. The teacher initially acted as a model, then chose students to take over the teacher role. Both the experimental and control groups used the same reading materials, which were on approximately a sixth- or seventh-grade reading level and pertained to the development of job-seeking and job-keeping skills.
Students in the control group were instructed using business-as-usual instructional methods for the same amount of time (and using the same reading materials) as the treatment group. The instructional methods used in the control group were left to the discretion of each individual teacher. For example, group discussion may or may not have occurred.
For the posttest, students took the comprehension subtest of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test. The posttest was given within a week after the end of the implementation of the reciprocal teaching program. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix A2. The similarities and picture-arrangement subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Test were also used for the posttest, but these measures were not included in this report, as they were outside the scope of the Adolescent Literacy review protocol.
Treatment group teachers were shown a video on the reciprocal teaching method and provided with a complete set of 15 lesson plans.
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