Westera, Julia; Moore, Dennis W. (1995). Psychology in the Schools, v32 n3 p225-32. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ517409
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Progressive Achievement Test: Comprehension subtest |
Reciprocal Teaching vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 8;
|
10.52 |
13.41 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Pacific Islander | 50% |
The study took place in one New Zealand high school.
The authors selected 46 students to participate in the study. Thirty-five of these students came from five classes taught by four teachers who volunteered to implement recip-rocal teaching as part of the study. The remaining 11 students (from the two remaining classrooms) comprised the comparison group. Treatment group teachers implemented the program to different degrees. Teachers that provided 12–16 sessions of reciprocal teaching were classified as part of the extended-duration program group (20 students in three classes), and teachers that provided 6–8 sessions of reciprocal teaching were classified as part of the short-duration program group (15 students in two classes).The study participants were students with adequate decoding skills but poor comprehension skills (on average, more than two age-equivalent years behind). About half of the participants were Maori or Pacific Islanders. This review focused on comparisons of the 15 students in the reciprocal teaching short-duration group and the 10 students in the comparison group.
The students in the short-duration intervention group received six to eight reciprocal teaching intervention sessions over a five-week period (as opposed to the 15–20 sessions recommended by Palincsar). The teachers conducted the 30-minute reciprocal teaching sessions while an in-class assistant supervised the rest of the class. In classes with more than one reciprocal teaching group, the in-class assistant also taught a reciprocal teaching group. According to the authors, high interest and culturally relevant books and expository and narrative articles at the 11–13-year-old age-equivalent reading level were used in the reciprocal teaching sessions.
The comparison group was exposed to business-as-usual instructional methods.
For both the pretest and posttest, students took the comprehension subtest of the Progressive Achievement Test (PAT). The pretest was form A, and the posttest was form B. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix A2.
The four participating teachers and two support staff received approximately three hours of reciprocal teaching training, which included an introduction to assessing students’ reading levels and their understanding of class texts, as well as a discussion of scaffolding and ideal classroom interactions between a more-expert person and a less-expert person in a learning situation. The teachers were introduced to the rationale behind reciprocal teaching. They also observed, rehearsed, and were given feedback on the four comprehension-fostering strategies and the instructional process that together constitute reciprocal teaching.
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