The Efficacy of Reciprocal Teaching in Fostering Higher Level Thinking Dialogue as a Response to...

Running Head: RECIPROCAL TEACHING AND HIGHER LEVEL DIALOGUE

The Efficacy of Reciprocal Teaching in Fostering HigherLevel Thinking Dialogue as a Response to

Informational Texts

Abbey Raymond

CSU East Bay

RECIPROCAL TEACHING AND HIGHER LEVEL DIALOGUE

Abstract

Higher- level thinking skills have recently become more

essential due to common core. Previous studies suggest that

the combination of collaborative dialogue and the strategies

of Reciprocal Teaching increase metacognition and

comprehension. However, research is unclear if the resulted

metacognition and comprehension will also result in higher-

level discussion as well. To further explore this, twenty-

eight fifth grade students were taught the Reciprocal

Teaching strategies, and placed in heterogeneous groups of

four to discuss science and social studies texts. Their

collaboration was recorded and scored to determine the

amount of higher- level dialogue present. Findings suggest

that Reciprocal Teaching can lead to growth in higher- level

2


thinking. (Most significantly with social studies texts and

GATE students.)

The Efficacy of Reciprocal Teaching in Fostering HigherLevel Thinking Dialogue as a Response to Informational

Texts

Statement of Problem

The acquisition of strong comprehension skills in upper

elementary grades is fundamental to academic growth and

3


success. Good readers should be able to construct meaning,

make connections, and build on that knowledge base. This is

the ultimate goal of reading. However, not all students are

able to achieve this without targeted strategy instruction.

Poor comprehenders in upper elementary need strategies that

can help them “monitor their comprehension, figure out when

they are not comprehending, and adjust their approaches to

text to achieve comprehension” (Salinger, 2003, p. 81). This

requires the student to take an active role in the

development of his or her own learning.

On the precipice of 2014, as Common Core implementation

begins to take place, strong comprehension, especially of

informational texts, is fundamental to student success.

According to the Common Core State Standards Initiative

Website, new standards include, “ rigorous content and

application of knowledge through high-order skills.” In

addition, students must also “learn to read, write and think

across disciplines, evaluating information, asking questions

and engaging in dialogue” (Harvey & Goudvis, 2013, p. 431).

4


This is no easy task for students already struggling with

comprehension skills. Despite these expectations, it should

be noted that, while framers of Common Core clearly define

goals and targets of the standards, they do not describe

strategies for reaching them (Greenstein, 2013).

These common core skills require a greater depth of

knowledge and high- level thinking. Neither of these are

possible without, an already strong foundation, of effective

comprehension strategies. Palincsar and Brown (1984) found

that one way to increase active, intentional comprehension

is with a method called Reciprocal Teaching. This strategy

intervention requires students to read actively and with

intention. In addition, this strategy requires students to

ask questions and engage in dialogue.

The research that I am proposing will use reciprocal

teaching, and apply the metacognitive strategies it utilizes

to inspire higher level thinking skills and comprehension.

Metacognition is necessary for good comprehension, and

5


reciprocal teaching utilizes the active thinking required

for metacognitive strategies to develop.

However, what we do not know is if reciprocal teaching can

be an asset to students’ access of complex texts and

consequently higher level thinking skills.

Statement of Purpose

The current study was designed to advance reciprocal

teaching research and provide evidence regarding growth in

higher level thinking during collaborative dialogue for all

reading level variants. Current common core reading

standards focus on critical thinking and depth of knowledge.

Norman Webb’s four Depth of Knowledge (DOK) levels are often

used as the, “common yardstick of cognitive complexity”

(McAdoo, 2013, para. 7). In fact, proposed Common Core

assessments, such as the Smarter Balance Test, will

essentially measure the skills of (DOK) levels three and

four. These tests are expected to become operational across

the country by 2015 (McAdoo, 2013). The strategies utilized

6


in reciprocal teaching are typically lower level skills,

that according to Norman Webb’s Depth of Knowledge Chart,

(Appendix A) do not require or utilize higher level thinking

skills. However, metacognitive awareness gained from

utilization of these skills goes beyond implementation of

the strategy, and newly acquired comprehension could play a

factor in follow up dialogue. This causal link poses the

question: Will the metacognitive strategies modeled by

reciprocal teaching help contribute to higher level thinking

skills during collaborative dialogue among fifth grade

elementary school students?

It is hypothesized that all students will make

significant gains in regard to higher level thinking

dialogue, due to the strategies implemented by reciprocal

teaching.

Review of the

Literature

7


In a review of the literature, the following subtopics

emerged: informational texts, reciprocal teaching strategy

instruction, and the effects of reciprocal teaching on

diverse populations.

Metacognition of Informational Texts

By the time students get to sixth grade 75% of texts

used are non-narrative (Moss, 2004). The importance of solid

comprehension skills, especially in regard to informational

texts cannot be bypassed. Therefore, it is worth considering

exactly how strategy implementation plays into comprehension

of expository texts.

Kletzien (1991) researched strategy use of good and

poor comprehenders using expository texts of differing

levels. The purpose of his research was to examine how the

interaction of reader ability, text difficulty, and strategy

knowledge affect strategy use among good and poor

comprehenders in high school (Kletzien, 1991).

8


Kletzien used forty- eight high school students, half

of whom were good comprehenders and half of whom were poor

comprehenders. Each student read three expository passages

of increasing difficulty. (Poor comprehenders read versions

of the original passage more on their level.) Students were

asked to fill in the blank for twelve context dependent

content words, explain their reasoning for their responses,

and identify their comprehension strategy.

The results of Kletzien’s research suggested that

overall strategy use for poor comprehenders declines as

texts get more difficult. The two groups used the same types

of strategies on the easy passage, but as texts grew more

difficult good compreheders used more types of strategies and

used them more often than poor comprehenders did.

Kletzien’s research suggests that, while naturally

occurring strategies help students on easier texts, it is

not enough to carry them through when they attempt to

comprehend more challenging texts. Students of all levels

will need “direct instruction in specific strategies to

9


successfully negotiate the many types of texts they will

encounter as part of the CCSS.” (Moss, 2013, p. 13)

Additional research conducted by Cote, Goldman, and

Saul (1998) further supported Kletzien’s discoveries. These

researchers strived to examine what strategies (if any)

students use to process, understand, and recall

informational texts. What they found when transcribing and

coding data from their multiple experiments suggests that

most fourth or sixth graders who read informational text do

not utilize a multitude of strategies. Research results of

this study show that the strategy most used by both grades

was re-reading. However, when students read aloud and were

required to utilize a “think aloud” method of active

comprehension, neither grade felt the need to re-read text.

This suggests that processing activities could help resolve

some comprehension difficulties, especially in regard to

complex texts.

Recently, in 2013, Tilstra and McMaster gained

additional insight into cognitive processing activities.

10


Their study assigned specific goals to fifth grade students

prior to reading expository texts. They found that when

reading in the assigned goal conditions, readers used more

monitoring, paraphrasing, and repetitions when thinking

aloud compared with general comprehension. The results of

this study highlight the fact that reading comprehension “is

a complex process whereby readers are constructing meaning

from text as they read” (Tilstra & McMaster, 2013, p. 71).

They found that explicit instructional practices help

connect developing readers' moment-by-moment comprehension-

building processes and promote comprehension. This study

suggested that new educational practices are needed to

explicitly develop higher- level comprehension-building

processes. These acquired processes are necessary in order

to increase opportunities for comprehension building

(Tilstra & McMaster, 2013).

The need Tilstra and McMaster suggest could potentially

be remedied with a higher level processing approach such as

the use of think alouds or discussions while reading non-

11


fiction texts. As suggested by Cote, Goldman, and Saul,

these verbal strategies could resolve some comprehension

difficulties. Regardless of the fact that this subject has

been the focus of multitudes of research spanning over fifty

years, there has been no synthesis data conducted in regard

to the effect classroom discussions have on student

comprehension. Consequently, Murphy et al., (2009)

completed a meta-analysis of empirical studies on this

topic. The researchers were particularly interested in

“assessments of discourse including measurements of teacher

talk, student talk, and student to student talk” (Murphy et

al., 2009, p. 744). They were also interested in

comprehension outcomes resulting from that talk. They

researched a variety of strategies including collaborative

reasoning, which uses discussion as a method to encourage

thinking deeply about the text, questioning the author, and

book clubs.

The research revealed that the variety of discussion

approaches do vary in regard to increasing students’ high-

12


level comprehension of text. A commonality most approaches

shared, however, was that in nearly all of them, teachers

were required to “yield the floor to students.” (Murphy et

al., 2009, p. 761). This decrease in teacher talk allowed

the students the opportunity to think critically on their

own. All approaches effectively increased either

comprehension or critical thinking and reasoning skills,

however, very few discussion approaches were effective at

increasing both. The study suggests that discussion is an

important step to enhance learning and comprehension,

despite the variations of positive outcomes.

The previous studies, regarding expository text,

provide valuable insight into varying metacognitive

approaches, in a broad academic sense. However, at times,

more specific information is necessary to provide success in

independent academic areas.

Science is one subject where reading strategies are

increasingly necessary to improve overall comprehension.

This is due to several reasons. One, science texts are

13


concept- heavy and generally fail to make adequate

connections to student experiences, and students usually

have a lack of background knowledge on scientific topics and

words (Johnson 2011 & Arya, Hiebert, Pearson, 2011). Also,

the decoding of complex words may affect comprehension by,

“consuming too much working memory capacity, thus

constraining resources that could be used for deep

comprehension.” (Best, Rowe, Ozuru, Yasuihiro, 2005, p. 71)

However, research has shown that improving the reader’s

reading strategies will improve student’s overall

comprehension of science texts, despite these mentioned

difficulties (Johnson 2011). Best, Rowe, Ozuru, and

Yasuihiro suggest summarizing as one of the strategies that

will help poor comprehenders monitor their comprehension,

not just for science but for all expository texts.

Another cognitively complex content area is social

studies. The importance of higher- level thinking is central

to new common core standards. Therefore, developing higher-

level tasks and assessments is imperative to student

14


success. Stobaugh

(2008) suggests that high- level questions, focused on

critical thinking and problem solving, are key to solid

comprehension. Utilizing the DOK chart to enhance

metacognitive strategies will provide students with richer

learning opportunities. Analyzing, making inferences,

interpreting, and hypothesizing are skills that will

challenge students at a higher cognitive level.

Reciprocal Teaching Strategy Instruction

One way to access complex texts and enhance

metacognitive thinking is with a strategy called Reciprocal

Teaching. The four specific strategies, (questioning,

clarifying, summarizing, and predicting) that make up

Reciprocal Teaching are all essential to this multi-

strategy approach to learning. However, it is important to

understand some of the strengths and challenges of these

components in their singularity.

The first strategy, questioning, has been proven to be

an essential strategy for non- fiction texts (Best, 2005)

15


Shang and Chang- Chien, 2010, further supported this study

with their findings that instruction of the questioning

strategy significantly enhanced comprehension, especially

for low- level students.

Furthermore, Donlan and Singer’s (1979) findings

suggest that student generated questions, such as those

generated in RT, are more effective in promoting

comprehension than teacher generated questions. Student

asked questions are based on relevant schema of content and

as a result, these types of questions had the largest

positive effect on comprehension. In addition, Bintz and

Williams (2003) have suggested that the questioning strategy

is most effective when questions are focused on higher-

level thinking. Student generated, evaluative questions, as

a response to texts, would be the most beneficial to

students. However, teachers must train students and lead

them through this strategy in order for it to be effective

(Bintz and Williams, 2003).

16


The second strategy, clarifying, is best described as

word identification and development. Stygles (2012)

suggested that students need support in word development.

Instruction, modeling, and practice of word identification

are essential to making meaning. His study suggested that

students enjoy learning new words, but struggle with

identifying words based on context clues and word parts

(Stygles, 2012). His findings suggested that while using

Reciprocal Teaching strategies, students were more confident

discussing vocabulary (Stygles, 2012).

The third strategy, summarizing, is a strategy that is

essential to expository texts. In fact, Gillam, Fargo, and

Robertson’s (2009) posit that comprehension of expository

text was best gained through summarizing strategies.

However, they also suggested that students have difficulty

at making inferences with this kind of text. Kirmizi and

Akkaya (2011) further supported this study by calling the

strategy “ a complex and difficult skill [that] requires

high level cognition. ” (Kirmizi and Akkaya, 2011) Their

17


findings suggest that adequate training of this strategy is

essential to student success; otherwise, “meaningful

learning” will not take place.

The last strategy that makes up RT is the predicting

strategy. This strategy gives readers the opportunity to use

inferences and past connections to anticipate future events

or topics in a text. Predictions create a personal

investment in the text (Kletzien & Bednar, 1988).

Confirmation of their predictions engages reader and helps

create meaning throughout the reading process (Kletzien &

Bednar, 1988).

Together, the four strategies discussed above become a

multi- strategy approach to comprehension. This approach was

introduced during Palincsar and Brown’s (1984) seminal

study, which provided greater depth into the idea of

collaborative discussion as a means to build comprehension.

Their study introduced a multi-strategy way of learning that

focuses on dialogue as a measure of learning. The four

strategies selected to implement the broader reciprocal

18


teaching strategy were chosen because they provide duel

functions. These strategies can be both comprehension-

fostering and comprehension monitoring. In other words, they

can enhance their comprehension, while at the same time,

monitor their own comprehension progress. The theory was

that these processes would be strengthened by the

requirement of being “dialogue leader” and speaking their

interpretations, summaries, and predictions. Her study

focused on reciprocal teaching strategies in comparison to:

One, another comprehension strategy, and two, no strategies,

to determine the advantage one might have over the other.

In this study, the group that participated in

reciprocal teaching strategies had gains that suggested that

Reciprocal Teaching (RT) led to a significant improvement

in the quality of summaries and questions. It led to large

gains on comprehension and improvement on standardized test

scores.

Palincsar and Brown’s (1984) results were highly

regarded and consequently more research followed so that

19


researchers could find out more about the exact implications

this new strategy could have on comprehension. One such

group of researchers were Spörer, Brunstein, and Kieschke.

In 2009, Spörer Brunstein, and Kieschke conducted a study to

find out how multiple strategy interventions can or should

be combined in comprehension instruction. Their goal was to

“examine the effect of strategies being taught on reading

comprehension and how these strategies are practiced in

relevant instruction” (Spörer et al., 2009, p. 272).

Several implications resulted from the study. One, the

study suggested that multiple strategies do enhance

comprehension. Two, it suggested that traditional RT

(Modeling and scaffolding provided for each the four

strategies, followed by application of strategies in small

groups with collaborative dialogue) is the most effective.

While the previous two studies suggest the

effectiveness of reciprocal teaching, they offer little

research into the practicality of implementing this multi-

faceted strategy. Previous studies were conducted with

20


“researcher applied instruction” and consequently provided

little information about the applicability and replication

of these strategies in a normal classroom setting, by a

regular classroom teacher. However, Kelly and Moore (1994)

support the previous two empirical studies by suggesting the

positive effects of RT, within regular classrooms. Their

findings suggest that Reciprocal Teaching can be implemented

effectively using regular classroom teachers, with no extra

material or staffing assistance. The experimental group in

their study received RT intervention that was implemented

following guidelines adapted from Palincsar and Brown (1984)

and as expected, this group showed significant gains. In

addition, they maintained their comprehension gains at the

eight-week follow-up (Kelly & Moore, 1994).

The Effect of Reciprocal Teaching on Diverse Populations

The previously discussed studies suggest the

effectiveness of reciprocal teaching strategies in both

elementary and secondary grades. After the suggested success

21


of previous studies researchers began to consider the effect

the strategies might have on English Language Learners and

diverse populations.

Choo, Eng, and Ahmad’s (2011) findings also

supported the use of Reciprocal Teaching strategies on

expository texts. Choo, Eng, and Ahmad examined the

effectiveness of reciprocal teaching strategies on a group

of pre- university Malaysian students who had difficulty

comprehending expository English texts. The study suggested

positive comprehension effects of reciprocal teaching on

English Language Learners, who lacked motivation and had

difficulty comprehending expository texts. Student

interviews suggested that the clarifying and summarizing

strategies were the most useful and well- appreciated

strategies, from student perspectives. (Choo, 2011)

Due to the positive results of reciprocal teaching in

regard to English Language learners, researchers began to

explore the ideas of reciprocal teaching as a strategy tool

for special populations as well.

22


Alfassi, Weiss, and Lifshitz (2009) further supported

the previous findings of Choo et. al,. Their study

introduced reciprocal teaching strategies to students with

mild to moderate intellectual disability in order to

determine the effect the strategies could have on their

reading literacy. They found that reciprocal teaching has

the potential to produce great success in improving the

literacy skills of students with mild to moderate learning

disabilities. In fact, their findings, “challenge the common

perception that literacy is an organic impossibility for

people defined as intellectually disabled” (Alfassi et al.,

2009, p.304).

The suggested success of reciprocal teaching as a

comprehension strategy in both English Language Learners and

special populations is quite favorable. The next logical

step was to test the theories previously presented in a

heterogeneous classroom. This could help suggest the need

for differentiated instruction in regard to reciprocal

teaching. It could also highlight challenges of the

23


effectiveness of these populations collaborating together

while utilizing strategies simultaneously.

Further supporting previous research, Klingner, Vaugh,

and Schumm (1998) conducted an experimental study using a

cooperative learning approach, in order to “explore the

efficacy” of this approach in a classroom that includes

diverse populations, such as English language learners and

learning disabled. Outcomes of this study were measured by a

standardized reading test, social studies unit tests, and

audiotapes of work.

Students in the experimental group made greater gains

in comprehension, but equal gains in content knowledge

(Klingner, Vaugh, & Schumm, 1998). However, experimental

groups and control groups for students with Learning

Disabilities and students with limited English proficiency

were not significant. In the experimental group, only six

percent of dialogue was high -level academic discussion,

forty- six percent was academic related.

24


This study suggests that more differentiation may be

necessary in order to successfully implement these

strategies for students with learning disabilities, mixed

collaboratively in heterogeneous settings. The extent of

teacher modeling and explicit instruction must be carefully

considered.

Though Klingner, Vaugh, & Schumm’s study focused

primarily on special needs, and an additional study done by

Lysynchuk in 1990 focused on poor comprehenders, the

findings were very similar. Both groups had only small

gains. In Lysychuk’s study only one third of the

experimental group made gains over fifteen percent, and some

did not have any gains. However, despite the fact that these

gains were less than dramatic, they were still present and

optimistic to future findings.

Despite previous findings, some research, such as that

conducted by Saleh, Lazonder, and Jong (2007), suggest that

heterogenous groups are not always beneficial to all

learning levels. High- ability students tend to take on a

25


“teacher” roll, which does aide in additional comprehension.

This is especially true if the task at hand is cognitively

complex. (Neber, 2001) These types of activities provide,

“rich learning opportunities” for GATE students (Patrick,

Bangel, Jeon & Townsend, 2005). In addition, the high-

ability students usually “teach” the low- ability students,

who do gain from this arrangement. The group that often

suffers are the average students grouped heterogeneously

with the high and low ability students. If success is to be

met with these groups, additional support must be given to

strengthen positive effects and increase interaction between

all members (Saleh et. al., 2007). This study focused on how

explicit student rolls and established ground rules for

helping behavior assists average level students in

collaborative learning. Researchers did find data to suggest

that student rolls increased participation and promoted

learning. Motivation appeared to increase as well for the

average level boys. The ground rules led to higher level

thinking questions, but less helping behavior between the

26


groups. This is inconsistent with previous findings. The

study dealt only with average ability fourth grade boys,

however, there is reason to believe that these findings

could cross gender lines.

The previous research suggests that collaborative

learning, and reciprocal teaching specifically can assist in

comprehension for EL students, special needs students, and

students of all skill levels if specific scaffolds and

guidelines are set in place.

Summary

This literature review has examined the need for strong

metacognitive strategies while reading non- fiction texts.

It has also suggested the effectiveness of metacognitive

strategies utilized by reciprocal teaching. All grade

levels, linguistic backgrounds, and special populations made

gains that suggested reciprocal teaching was aiding in

comprehension of non fiction texts. Due to the success of

reciprocal teaching as a comprehension strategy in previous

27


studies, the link between the reciprocal teaching strategy

and higher level thinking skills associated with common core

standards is worth exploring. Very little research has been

conducted on reciprocal teaching in regard to higher- level

thinking and common core standards. Research from Klingner,

Vaughn, and Schumm (1998) indicated only six percent of

interactive collaborations, during reciprocal teaching

strategy implementation, was devoted to higher level

thinking skills is concerning, but more research must be

done in this area before conclusive results are determined.

Method

This study investigates the impact of reciprocal

teaching instruction on higher level thinking dialogue among

small groups of fifth grade students, utilizing grade level

science and social studies texts.

Subjects

28


The twenty- eight students who participated in this

quantitative study are all fifth grade students from the

same school located in Northern California. This school has

an Academic Performance Index (API) score of 946 and met all

adequate yearly progress criteria. 735 students are

enrolled, including 7% in special education, 29% qualifying

for English Language Learner support, and 6% qualifying for

free or reduced price lunch. The diversity percentages are

as follows: 49% Asian, 37% Caucasian, 8% Hispanic, 4% 2 or

more races, and 2% African American. 0% are American

Indian, Alaskan Native, Hawaiian Native, or Pacific

Islander.

The researcher’s class is comprised of eleven boys and

twenty- two girls. This is a high performing class, with all

but two students performing at proficient or advanced levels

in English Language Arts. There are eight students in the

class identified as Gifted and Talented (GATE), one special

need student, and eleven reclassified English Language

Learners (EL) who, for the sake of simplification will be

29


referred to as EL during the course of this study, despite

their exit out.

Materials

The following materials were used in the research: The fifth

grade level science text: California Science, (MacGraw-Hill,

2008), the grade level social studies text: History- Social Science

for California: Our Nation, (Foresman, 2006), a digital voice

recorder to record reciprocal teaching collaborative group

dialogue among students, and reciprocal teaching lesson

plans and materials (See appendix). All lessons and

worksheets were taken from the book, A Practical Guide to Reciprocal

Teaching (Lubliner, 2001).

Procedures

The researcher, who was also the classroom teacher,

assessed the thirty- two students participating in this

study by arranging students into unleveled and

heterogeneously mixed groups of four and asking them to

30


discuss the science text (after the students read the

chapter whole class.) The recordings of five, out of the

eight groups were recorded, transcribed and charted. The

researcher then analyzed the data to determine the amount of

higher- level thinking that had taken place, by using key

words and ideas taken from the previously mentioned Depth of

Knowledge Chart. Students were given a score of one to four

that summed up their higher level thinking usage. One was

equivalent to no higher level thinking, two showed some

higher- level thinking, and three represented a fair or good

amount of higher-level thinking. Due to the fact that there

were eight GATE students, who already had excellent

comprehension abilities, the researcher also included a

score of four to help determine if the gifted students (or

any other students) were able to utilize these strategies

and incorporate them into their thinking and speaking in a

superior or gifted way. A score of four would show an

extensive use of higher- level thinking.

31


After the initial assessment took place the teacher

taught four weeks of strategies that make up reciprocal

teaching: questioning, clarifying, summarizing, and

predicting. (For the entirety of the reciprocal teaching

unit taught please see Appendix B.) These lessons took place

twice a week. Each lesson was forty- five minutes long.

Following the instruction of each reciprocal teaching

strategy, students were again recorded as they discussed the

text collaboratively. Results of these recordings were

analyzed in the same way as the dialogue in the pre test was

measured. These interval assessments were done to determine

the existence of higher level thinking growth throughout the

process of strategy acquisition.

After the four weeks of instruction, students were

given two additional sessions to practice the skills taught

with teacher scaffolds. By this point, students had acquired

the strategies implemented during strategy lessons and were

ready to put it all together in a collaborative stage.

32


After the fifth week was completed the teacher assigned

the students a lesson from chapter six in their science book

to use as the text for the post- assessment. Students were

asked to read the lesson as a group, using reciprocal

teaching and then discuss the text. As this occurred

students were voice recorded for future analysis. The post-

test analysis procedure remained identical to the pre-test

procedure.

Finally, the researcher analyzed results of all

dialogue results to determine if any growth had taken place.

Data Analysis

The quantitative data was determined by collection and

analysis of transcribed dialogue recordings. Dialogue

recordings for each student were transcribed, coded, and

quantified. Those quantified scores were determined and

recorded, for pre instruction, after each phase of

instruction, and post instruction. The pre instruction score

and post instruction scores were compared for each subject

33


to determine: (a) if there was a difference between pre and

post instruction scores and (b) if greater gains were made

during any one specific phase of instruction.

The pre test scores and post- test scores were compared

to determine if there was a change. In addition, a

comparative analysis was done for each of the Reciprocal

Teaching strategies (Questioning, Clarifying, Summarizing,

and Predicting) to determine differences and gains between

each specific strategy.

Students were further divided into the subgroups EL,

GATE, and poor comprehenders. A poor comprehender is defined

as any student who scored in the intervention level on the

comprehension section of the ELA California STAR test. (The

special needs student has also been placed within this

category during the course of this research.) Each of these

groups was analyzed to determine the difference from their

pre- and post test scores. They were also analyzed for

differences and gains within each instructional strategy.

34


The qualitative data collected consisted of transcribed

accounts of verbal interactions among peer groups, recorded

during collaborative discussions. Students discussed

relevant ideas, vocabulary, and strategies for ten to twelve

minute durations. The responses of individual subjects were

compared pre, post, and throughout instructional phases in

order to observe growth in their ability to use higher-

level thinking.

Findings

Analysis of the data identified six key areas to

consider in regard to Reciprocal Teaching and higher- level

dialogue. Prior to discussion of these six findings, the

pretest results will be introduced as a baseline and a means

of comparative analysis for future data acquisition. After

baseline levels are introduced, higher- level dialogue

within each of each of the four reciprocal teaching

strategies: Questioning, Clarifying, Summarizing, and

35


Predicting, will be assessed to discover variances between

subgroups and the class as a whole. Next, higher level

dialogue will be compared pre and post test (after students

were instructed on the simultaneous use of those four

Reciprocal Teaching strategies.) Lastly, science and social

studies texts will be compared and analyzed to determine

which one worked best with Reciprocal Teaching in fostering

higher- level dialogue within the subgroups, and as a whole.

The following graph shows the initial pretest result,

which will be used as a baseline for further findings.

Prior to strategy instruction, twenty- four out of

twenty eight students used no higher- level dialogue during

group collaboration. This was represented on the Likert

Scale with a 1. Four students used a minimal amount of

36


higher -level dialogue prior to instruction, or a 2 on the

scale. No students used a significant amount (3) or an

extensive amount (4) of higher- level dialogue. For this

reason, the Likert Scale numbers 3 and 4 are not represented

on the graph.

Of the four students who utilized a small amount of

higher- level dialogue, two were GATE students, one was a

reclassified EL student, and none were poor comprehenders.

One student displayed higher- level dialogue by

utilizing knowledge of compare and contrast, which is a

level three skill on the DOK chart.

Student A: The Colonial governments were like the

governments in England because they had representatives,

but they were kind of different because they ha a king and

the King could refuse to listen if he wanted.

This student continued with his higher- level dialogue,

despite the fact that his group was not utilizing higher

level thinking in each of their individual discussion

attempts.

37


Student B: Yeah like Taxation without… you know… when

the King took money.

Student C: The tax collectors took it.

Student D: Yeah, for the king! He was greedy! I’m glad

we don’t have kings.

Student C: America can’t have a king because we have

governments. They only

had one leader.

Student B: We only have one leader. You know… Obama.

Student D: Yeah, but people help him, like Mayors and

stuff.

At this point Student A continued with an additional higher-

level comparison,

Student A: Both government have assemblies, but back

then the King could choose to only discuss problems he

wanted and ask for help, so it was different.

Student D: Yeah, and if you talked when the king said

not to you’d probably be

beheaded.

38


This group had a great collaborative discussion,

however, much of it was not higher- level thinking or

discussion. Only one student-cited evidence, drew

conclusions based on inferences, and logically supported his

thoughts. Student A earned a 2 on the Likert Scale for the

Pretest. This group was comprised of two EL students, one

poor comprehender, and no GATE students.

Questioning Strategy

The following graphs show results of higher- level

dialogue after students received instruction on the

questioning strategy. The researcher wanted to know the

overall growth in higher-level dialogue compared to the

results of the pre-test. The graph also highlights the

growth differentiation between subgroups.

39


The first strategy introduced to students was the

questioning strategy. This graph shows the overall results of

higher- level dialogue after instruction and practice with

the questioning strategy. “Other Students” seems to have made

the most growth, however EL and Gate also each had two

students who showed growth. One Gate student showed a good

amount of higher -level dialogue. Poor comprehenders made the

least amount of growth in with this strategy.

The questioning strategy was expected to work well with

social studies text that was used, as the premise of the

questioning strategy is to think deeper about the main

ideas. When students do this, they are essentially being

required to make reasonable connections to previous

40


knowledge and experiences, in order to answer them

accurately. However, these low level growth findings are

unexpected for this comprehension strategy, and could be due

to the additional requirement of initiating higher- level

dialogue based on previously learned comprehension. Another

factor to consider is that this was the first strategy

learned, and the first time students were assessed for

higher- level dialogue. It could be posited that routine and

expectations were not yet clearly set.

EL. The following graph shows the results of the EL

students only. Student growth, after instruction of the

questioning strategy, is compared individually to each EL

student’s pre test score.

41


This graph shows that two EL students who showed no

higher level dialogue demonstrated a small amount of higher

level dialogue after this strategy was introduced. Four

students who showed no higher level thinking, again, did not

demonstrate any after introduction of this strategy.

Surprisingly one student who did show some higher-level

dialogue during the pre-test did not demonstrate any in this

particular assessment. The higher- level dialogue skills

mostly utilized in this recording session were mostly level

three DOK skills, such as: strategic thinking skills such as

drawing conclusions, connecting, and developing logical

arguments.

GATE. The following graph shows the results of the GATE


questioning strategy, is compared individually to each GATE


42


This graph shows that two students made growth after

the introduction of the questioning strategy. One student,

who demonstrated no higher- level dialogue skills during the

pretest, did demonstrate a small amount after the

introduction of the questioning strategy. Another GATE

student, who already demonstrated a small amount of higher-

level dialogue began to demonstrate a larger amount after

the instruction of the questioning strategy. Six students

showed no growth. The following excerpt from the questioning

recording session captures a student who utilized compare

and contrast analysis of facts, which is a higher- level

thinking skill.

Student A: The Boston Massacre and Boston Tea Party

were similar because both situations were centered

43


around angry colonists and they were both precursors to

the Revolutionary War. However they were different

because the tea party was more of a pacifist way to show

their frustrations. This is the difference between a

modern day protest and just violent riots.

This student compared a new topic (Boston Massacre) to a new

topic (Boston Tea Party) In addition, this student also used

higher- level vocabulary such as: precursor, pacifist, and

riots. These are words not typically used by a fifth grader

and they demonstrate his thorough understanding of the

content.

Poor Comprehenders. The following graph shows the

results of students who are poor comprehenders only. Student

growth, after instruction of the questioning strategy, is

compared individually to each student’s pre test score.

44


This graph shows that one student who had not

demonstrated any higher- level dialogue during the pretest,

did show a small amount after introduction and instruction

of the questioning strategy. Four did not show any growth.

Clarifying Strategy



clarifying strategy. The researcher wanted to know the


results of the pre-test. The graph also highlights the growth

differentiation between subgroups.

45


The second strategy introduced to students was the

clarifying vocabulary strategy. This graph shows the overall

results of higher- level dialogue after instruction and

practice with the clarifying strategy. Overall, two students

who displayed no higher- level thinking displayed some

higher- level dialogue after the questioning strategy was

introduced. This strategy had very minimal higher level

thinking growth compared to the other four strategies. This

suggests that the strategy or content was not as conducive

to higher- level discussion among fifth grade students.

A vocabulary driven focus does not lend itself well to

connections and inferences that are essential to most

higher- level thinking. Synthesizing information and making

comparisons would have led to higher level thinking as well,

46


but it is possible that the difficult subject matter made

this a challenge for most students.



clarifying strategy, is compared individually to each EL


This graph shows that two EL students, who displayed no

higher -level dialogue, did utilize this kind of dialogue

after instruction of the clarifying vocabulary strategy.

Instruction of the clarifying strategy worked best with EL

students. The EL subgroup was the only group that displayed

any growth after instruction of this strategy. The growth

from this sub group is demonstrated by student A and student

B, who were in separate groups, but both displayed higher

47


level dialogue skills consisting of applying concepts,

synthesizing, and hypothesizing.

Student A: When you jump on a trampoline the

gravitational force pulls you back down. But you can

alter the pull with wings or a parachute. (Later he says:)

Gravity on Earth makes us not fall or float away. It’s

not visible. It is a force that depends on the mass and

motion.

Student B: Without gravity, the Earth wouldn’t orbit in

a circular pattern, and that would affect time, light, and

weather. I am not sure, but I think the world couldn’t

continue on like it is. It would be bad.

These are both examples of how EL students are connecting

ideas and drawing conclusions based on facts, inferences,

and predictions. These are all higher- level skills.



clarifying strategy, is compared individually to each GATE


48


The instruction of the clarifying strategy did not

yield any growth in higher level thinking for these eight

GATE students. This suggests that the GATE students had an

inability to think deeply and discuss the text using this

strategy.


results of the poor comprehending students only. Student

growth, after instruction of the clarifying strategy, is


49


The instruction of the clarifying strategy did not

yield any growth in higher-level dialogue for the subgroup

of poor comprehenders. This suggests that this strategy, or

the content, was not conducive to an in depth discussion by

students with comprehension difficulties.

Summarizing



summarizing strategy. The researcher wanted to know the




50


This graph shows that half of the class is using some,

or a good amount of higher- level dialogue. Poor

comprehenders appear to have made the least amount of

growth.

This particular strategy was suggested to be the most

essential by some researchers in comprehending expository

texts. However, while there was growth within each subgroup,

the amount of students’ higher- level dialogue was not

reflective of this strategy superseding others in regard to

comprehension growth.

Of course, as suggested with previous strategies, the

lack of higher- level dialogue does not necessarily

represent a lack of comprehension growth for each individual

student or sub group. Findings show that some students were

able to cite evidence, hypothesize, and explain phenomena in

terms of concept, but more inferential skills such as

connecting, synthesizing, differentiating, and analyzing

proved to be more challenging and less evident with use of

this strategy. This could suggest that students are able to

51


comprehend the text on a more literal level, but struggle to

draw higher- level dialogue from that understanding.


students only. Student growth after instruction of the

summarizing strategy is compared individually to each EL


This graph shows that three EL students who showed no


level dialogue after this strategy was introduced. One

student, who was already showing some higher- level dialogue

displayed a good amount after this strategy. Three students

showed no growth after this strategy.



52


summarizing strategy, is compared individually to each GATE


This graph shows that half of the GATE students

showed some kind of growth after this strategy was

introduced. Two students, who demonstrated no higher- level

dialogue skills during the pretest, did demonstrate a small

amount after the introduction of the questioning strategy.

Additionally, two other GATE students, who already

demonstrated a small amount of higher- level dialogue, began

to demonstrate a larger amount after the instruction of the

questioning strategy. Four students showed no growth.


results of the poor comprehending students only. Student

53


growth, after instruction of the clarifying strategy, is


This graph shows that one student made gains from

having no higher- level dialogue, to having some higher-

level dialogue. This suggests that perhaps the summarizing

strategy, or this particular topic was more challenging for

the students to think about and discuss critically.

Predicting



predicting strategy. The researcher wanted to know the


54




This graph shows that overall the predicting strategy

was the most successful strategy in regard to fostering

higher level thinking for all subgroups. After this strategy

only nine students still did not display any higher- level

thinking. The division of growth is mostly equitable,

suggesting that this strategy works well with all groups.

One thing to consider however, is that at this point in

the study, students could be combining multiple, previously

learned strategies. While students had not yet been

instructed on how to combine individual strategies, and

despite the fact that strategies had been taught in

55


isolation, students may have naturally used previously

taught strategies in combination with one another without

instruction or direction to do so. Using this multiple

strategy approach may have caused their comprehension and

higher- level dialogue skills to grow and be utilized in a

larger manner than if prediction had been the first and only

strategy used.



predicting strategy is compared individually to each EL


This graph shows that four EL students who showed no


level dialogue after this strategy was introduced. One

56


student, who was already showing some higher- level

dialogue, displayed a good amount after this strategy. Two

students showed no growth after this strategy.

Students utilized a large variety of higher- level

dialogue approaches during discussion after the instruction

if the prediction strategy, including: vocabulary,

analysis, comparisons, and critiques. Students used the most

variety of higher- level tools with this strategy in

comparison to previous strategies.



predicting strategy is compared individually to each GATE


57


100% of these eight students showed growth after

instruction of this strategy. Five students went form

showing no higher- level dialogue to showing some. Two went

from showing some to showing a good amount, and one student

went from showing none to showing a good amount. An example

of two students displaying higher- level analysis is

highlighted with student A and student B. Student A is a

GATE student who was already displaying some higher level

discussion during the pretest. Her score grew during this

period to the point where she was showing a good amount.

Student B was not showing any higher- level dialogue

previously, but grew to show some during the recording after

prediction instruction. The group-mates of these two

students were on task and involved in the conversation, but

their contributions were not as high level as those of

student A and student B.

Student A: They came on December 25th so that they

could surprise the Hessians. The Hessians had planned to

take their weaponry, so they wouldn’t have a chance

58


to win the war. England wanted to not only keep the

land, but also he wanted to teach the colonists a lesson.

Student B: The surprise element really eliminated a lot

of extra death because the British quickly surrendered. I

suspect if they came during a regular day, they would have

had different results. I hypothesize in that case, the

British wouldn’t have surrendered like they did here.

The conversation continues with some lower level discussion.

Student C: They surrendered because they were

surrounded. What would you think they would do? Opening

fire? They were surrounded! Surrendering was their best

bet. What do you guys think?

Student D: Yeah they had to stand down. Or get shot.

Let’s see… yup. Stand down wins.

Student B adds a compare and contrast element to the

discussion, further utilizing higher level dialogue skills.

Student B: This connects to an Egyptian war style where

they would go in a square all around them with spears and

trap whoever they were attacking.

59


Student C: Do you think they had a white flag or did

they hold up there white shirt on a stick and yell,” I

surrender! I surrender!

Student D: It was kind of mean of us to go on a holiday

like that.

Student A continues the discussion with some higher- level

concepts of comparing and analyzing different perspectives.

Student A: Yeah but we needed that, the win gave

America a sliver of hope that they could continue on

and take a chance. Now they have a chance. It’s only bad

if you look at it from the perspective of the enemy.

From the American perspective, they saved lives by

avoiding another battle.

Student D: What would have happened to us if the

British won?

Student C: We would be talking like, Holl-ow! Would you

like some tea?”

60


Lastly, student concludes the discussion with some deeper

concept applications and a hypothesis. She has formed

assessments and develops a logical argument.

Student A: Or not my family came from India because of

the values of America, who knows if those values would be

in place if all this happened. It would be like New

Britain or something. Not the U.S., and most of our class

wouldn’t be here, because they would have had no reason to

immigrate

This conversation shows how a student with strong higher-

level dialogue can persist with high- level discussion

regardless if all students are imputing to the same level.

Furthermore, Student A most likely played a part in pulling

out participation and higher level dialogue from Student B.

Their dialogue worked well together and both of these GATE

students showed growth during this conversation.

Poor comprehenders. The following graph shows the

results of the poor comprehender students only. Student

61


growth after instruction of the predicting strategy is


This graph shows that three out of the five students in

this subgroup went from showing no higher- level dialogue to

displaying some. Two students showed no growth. This was the

most successful strategy for poor comprehenders, though they

still did not share the same success other subgroups had

with the strategy.

Post Test

The following graphs show results of the post- test

after students received instruction on combining the previous

strategies to utilize the larger Reciprocal Teaching

strategy. The researcher wanted to know the overall growth in

62


higher-level dialogue post instruction compared to pretest.

This growth was measured with a pre and post -test. The graph

also highlights the growth differentiation between subgroups.

This graph suggests that the majority of students did

have an increase in higher- level dialogue as a result of

reciprocal teaching strategies. GATE students and “other

students” made the most amount of growth, and poor

comprehenders made the least.

This suggests that Reciprocal Teaching is an effective

means of higher- level discussion growth, despite the fact

that not all students were affected by this outcome. There

was over a 70% growth among students, and all sub groups

made some sort of growth.

63


EL. The following graph shows the results of EL

students only. Student’s pre and post test scores are

compared individually for this specific subgroup.

This graph shows the end results of this research for

EL students. Two EL students who showed no higher- level

dialogue demonstrated a small amount of higher- level

dialogue during the post- test. One student, who was already

showing some higher- level dialogue displayed a good amount

during the post test. In addition, one EL student made great

growth, going from no higher- level dialogue to a good

amount of higher- level dialogue. Three EL students showed

no growth during the entirety of this research.

64


The following discussion from EL student A shows his concept

application, conclusions, and investigation into the

content.

EL Student A: I noticed in the gas diagram the

particles move around freely, so their volume and

shape is constricted only by the container, not by the

substance itself.

Here the student is drawing conclusions and citing evidence.

EL Student A: How hot do you think the temperature

would have to be to turn a solid directly into a gas?

Now the student is investigating, and using concepts to

solve non-routine problems.

Student A: When you put a dense object in liquid it

sinks. This is because solids are packed tighter than a

liquid ever could be.

Lastly the student develops a logical argument, draws a

conclusion, and constructs an analysis of his observation

and thoughts.

65


These excerpts show an in depth analysis of the

concepts the student read about. He has high- level ideas

and is able to apply these concepts in connective ways.

GATE. The following graph shows the results of GATE

students only. Student’s pre and post- test scores are

compared individually for this specific subgroup.

This graph suggests that this Reciprocal Teaching

strategy was successful for fostering higher- level dialogue

in GATE students. Four out of seven GATE students displayed

a growth of no higher- level dialogue to some higher- level

dialogue due to Reciprocal Teaching. One student, who was

already showing some higher- level dialogue, displayed a

good amount during the post test. In addition, similarly to

the EL student above, one GATE student made great growth,

66


going from no higher- level dialogue to a good amount of

higher- level dialogue. The advanced concepts this student

discussion and applied to the academic content he was

learning was outstanding. An example of the higher- level

dialogue he demonstrated is transcribed below.

GATE student 6: I compared and contrasted the

different weights of planets and the differences are

pretty crazy. Earth things weigh more than on Mars.

Therefore weight is kind of just relative. Like time

Later in the conversation he continues with his high level

dialogue, this time he explains phenomena in terms of

concepts to his peers

Student 6: If you can’t put your hand through

something it’s a solid.”

Another student: What about cotton? I can put my hand

through it, yet it is considered a solid.

Student 6: But cotton isn’t a true solid. Cotton fibers

are and cotton is just several cotton fibers fluffed

together. But think about it. You can’t put your hand

67


through a cotton fiber. It is solid. You just don’t think

about that because it is so small. But if you were

gnome-like and small, the fibers would look solid. Large and

solid.”

Other student: Good point!

Student 6’s detailed explanation and specific application of

rather advanced concepts helped his group members understand

and differentiate between solids and gases. His level of

growth was uncommon in this study, yet particularly

interesting in highlighting specific developments and growth

areas.


results of poor comprehending students only. Student’s pre

and post -test scores are compared individually for this

specific subgroup.

68


Three out of five students showed growth in higher-

level discussion due to Reciprocal Teaching. Those students

went from no higher- level dialogue to some higher-level

dialogue. No students grew to have a good amount of higher-

level dialogue. In addition, two students had no growth at

all. This group had the least growth over all in higher-

level dialogue in a collaborative setting.

Science Verses Social Studies

The following graphs show results of strategy

assessments utilizing science texts compared with strategy

assessments utilizing social studies texts. The researcher

wanted to know if the overall growth differences were

dependent on a particular text type. The overall growth was

69


measured for dialogue recording and compared highlighting

each text type. The graph also highlights the growth


This graph shows that both Science Assessment 1 and

Social Studies Assessment 1 had the least amount of gains.

It could be assumed that students built on previous dialogue

skills thus attributing to more gains in the seocnd round of

assessments. Growth from social studies was still a fair

deal larger than the growth from science. Overall most

growth started at no dialogue and grew into some higher

level dialouge.

The limited amount of higher level dialogue science

gains gains could be attributed to a number of factors.

70


Previous researchers have stated the difficulty students

have in connected to science texts. This is due to difficult

vocabulary, content, and text structure. Whereas in social

studies the student essentially learn stories. These stories

are often relatable narratives that students can connect to

and build on. These textual differences play a huge part in

comprehension ease, and dialogue abilities.

EL. The following graph shows the results of EL

students only. Student’s higher- level dialogue using

science texts was compared to student’s growth using social

studies texts. These scores are compared individually for

this specific subgroup.

This graph shows that EL students had more higher-

level thinking overall when using social studies texts.

71


However, only two students displayed a difference in ability

when using different textbooks.

GATE. The following graph shows the results of GATE

students only. Student’s higher- level dialogue using

science texts was compared to student’s growth using social

studies texts. These scores are compared individually for

this specific subgroup.

This chart shows that again, the social studies text

was more conducive to higher- level dialogue. Only two

students had equal measures of growth with both science and

social studies texts. All other students had one more

increment of gain using the social text over the science

text. One student even made two increments of gain using the

social studies text with no gains using science.

72


Poor comprehenders. The following graph shows the results of

poor comprehending students only. Student’s higher-level

dialogue using science texts was compared to student’s

growth using social studies texts. These scores are compared

individually for this specific subgroup.

This subgroup did not make big gains, however nearly

all of the gains that were made were made with the social

studies textbook. Very little growth (one student, one

increment) was made any growth with higher- level dialogue

in science.

Conclusions

73


This exploratory study indicates that the majority of

students did have an increase in higher-level dialogue due

to reciprocal teaching strategies. Students successfully

used high- level vocabulary and ideas in collaboratively

discussing grade level texts.

Limitations

This research was conducted in an area where the

general population has a high socio- economic status. With a

city medium income of $125, 443, the students who live in

this town have resources that students in other schools may

not have. In addition, most of their parents are educated

and committed to academic excellence. Due to the fact that

this research was not conducted anywhere out of this

specific area, the findings presented may not speak for all

populations.

Another limitation of this study was the researcher’s

subjective analysis of data. While the researcher listened

to and quantified the dialogue with recordings, her own

74


personal opinion and judgment weighed heavily on what

constituted a 1, 2, or 3 for each assessment. The large

degree of varying components, including ideas, vocabulary,

and ideas that constitute higher level thinking make the

observable and measurable portion of this analysis more

ambiguous than clear cut multiple choice assessments. That

ambiguity is a limitation that is unavoidable until more

rigid definitions of higher- level thinking are created.

The last limitation the researcher wishes to note is

the method of alternating the study with science and social

studies texts. This method was intended to determine the

most effective text for this utilizing higher -level

dialogue. However, the problem with this method is that in

doing so, the researcher cannot differentiate between the

effectiveness of the individual strategy and the

effectiveness of the text. The text could be said to cause

the varying amounts of low or high level dialogue, rather

than the individual strategies being presented.

75


Questioning

Findings suggest that this strategy was least effective

with poor comprehenders and EL students. These findings are

inconsistent with the findings of Shang & Chang-Chien (2010)

who posited that poor comprehenders would especially benefit

from the questioning strategy. In addition, their findings

suggested that the strategy would be the least successful

for high achieving students, which was not the case in my

findings. The growth of the GATE subgroup was consistent

with findings from Donlan & Singer (1979) which suggested

that student generated questions are more effective in

promoting comprehension than teacher generated questions,

and as a result, these types of questions have a large

positive effect on comprehension.

Kletzien’s findings (1991) suggests that despite the

benefits of specific metacognitive strategies, poor

comprehenders often do not access and utilize as many

strategies as their peers when using complex texts.

Therefore, it can be posited that poor comprehenders did not

76


utilize the instructional strategy despite initial findings

that highlight its effectiveness.

Clarifying

Findings suggest that this was the least successful

strategy. Two groups did not show any growth at all.

However, it is important to note that these findings do not

mean that these strategies were unsuccessful, just that they

were unsuccessful in fostering higher- level dialogue. It

can be posited that this strategy does not lend itself well

to connections and inferences that are essential to most

higher- level thinking. If students had synthesized

information or made textual comparisons, this may have led

to higher level thinking as well, but the difficult subject

matter made this a challenge for most students. This is

consistent with findings from Arya, Hiebert, Pearson, 2011

who suggested that complex science vocabulary words may

hinder comprehension acquisition due to student’s inability

to connect in a personal sense to these heavier concepts.

77


My findings were however inconsistent to those of

Stygles, 2012, who found that the clarifying vocabulary

portion of the RT strategy “fostered meaningful

comprehension and vocabulary discussions that the students

enjoyed.” This strategy did not foster meaningful discussion

during my study. Stygles did suggest that in order for these

conversations to transpire, much direct instruction on

specific vocabulary words were required. Since my

participants had instruction only in the strategy and not on

specific vocabulary, this could explain the difference in

results.

The strategy was most successful with EL students, but

on a very minimal level. This portion of findings on the

clarifying strategy was consistent with previous research by

Choo, 2011 who suggested that the clarifying and summarizing

strategies were the most useful and well- liked strategies

of Reciprocal Teaching among EL students.

Summarizing

78


This strategy had the most growth by EL and GATE

students, with poor comprehenders making only minimal

growth. These findings are partially consistent with the

findings of Gillam, Faro, and Robertson’s 2009 Think Aloud

Data Study. Their findings posited that comprehension of

expository text was best gained through summarizing

strategies. While there was growth within each subgroup, the

students’ higher- level dialogue recorded in my study was

not reflective of this strategy superseding others in regard

to comprehension growth. However, it is possible that the

students did make more comprehension growth than was shown,

but did not reflect that growth in their higher- level

dialogue.

Gillam, Faro, and Robertson’s findings also suggested

that students have difficulty at making inferences with this

kind of text. If this is the case, then that would explain

the discrepancy between comprehension and higher- level

dialogue. Students may be able to comprehend the text, but

not have the ability to infer meaning, connections, or

79


analysis that would take their understanding from lower

level, up to higher- level thinking.

My findings support this and suggest that some students

were able to cite evidence, hypothesize, and explain

phenomena in terms of concept, but more inferential skills

such as connecting, synthesizing, differentiating, and

analyzing proved to be more challenging and less evident

with use of this strategy.

In addition, findings in regard to specific subgroups

the poor comprehenders in my study were consistent to those

of Kimizi and Akayla (2010) who’s findings showed that while

students were able to summarize, very little “meaningful

learning” had taken place as words were repeated without

actual understanding. This initial lack of understanding

made higher- level discussion difficult. Insights offered

were often a reflection of those within their collaborative

group.

80


Predicting

Predictions are generally based on inferences,

background knowledge and connections. For this reason, it

was an effective strategy for higher level thinking growth.

Findings suggest that this strategy was the most effective

in fostering higher- level dialogue for every one of the

subgroups.

This large overall growth could also be explained by

the fact that at this point in the study, students could be

combining multiple, previously learned strategies. While

students had not yet been instructed how to combine

individual strategies into Reciprocal Teaching, and despite

the fact that strategies had been taught in isolation,

students may naturally use previously taught strategies in

combination with one another without instruction or

direction to do so. In doing so, they are essentially using

a multiple strategy approach, which a wealth of empirical

evidence has suggested enhances comprehension. These

81


findings are consistent with previous findings by Palinscar

(1984), Spörer, Brunstein, and Kieschke (2009), and Kelly

and Moore (1994) all of who saw great comprehension growth

while using these specific strategies (questioning,

clarifying, summarizing, and predicting) in combination.

Pre Test verses Post Test

This research suggests Reciprocal Teaching is an

effective means of higher- level discussion growth, however

not all students were affected by this outcome. There was

over a 71% growth among students, and all sub groups made

some sort of growth. Overall, poor comprehenders showed the

least growth. These findings expand on findings of

Klingner, Vaugh, and Schumm (1998) whose students made great

gains in comprehension, but limited gains in high- level

academic discussions. Students in that study used

collaborative discussion, but did not utilize RT strategies.

The RT strategies could be representative of the growth in

this study.

82


In regard to specific subgroups, my findings were

consistent with that of Neber, 2001, and Patrick, Bangel,

Jeon, and Townsend (2005) who suggested that collaborative

group settings provide excellent learning opportunities and

possibility for growth for GATE students. My research

suggested growth for GATE students due to this heterogeneous

collaboration as well. Saleh, Lazonder, and Jong (2007),

also posited that in heterogeneous collaborative settings,

the high- ability students usually “teach” the low- ability

students and end up benefiting from this arrangement, which

was consistent with my own findings.

However, Saleh, Lazonder, and Jong (2007) also found

that that lower- ability students also benefit from the

direction from high- level students, while average students

suffer from the arrangement and do not show growth. However,

my lower leveled students benefitted the least from this

arrangement. In addition, my findings show that average

students made the most growth, after the high achieving

students.

83


My findings are more consistent with the findings of

Lysynchuk (1990). She found small gains (13% growth) when

using RT to improve comprehension with poor comprehenders.

My findings with this subgroup were more consistent with

these smaller gains.

Science verses Social Studies

The findings of this study suggest that social studies

texts are more conducive to higher- level dialogue growth.

Students can relate and make connections to certain aspects

of social studies. The stories in the text can be relevant

to their lives in different applicable ways. Having an in

depth discussion on the properties of matter is very

difficult for a fifth grader to relate to. This finding

corresponds to multiple findings including ones by Johnson,

2011 and by Arya, Hiebert, and Pearson 2011. Both claimed

that students generally fail to make meaningful connections

84


with science texts. This inability to connect has

significant impact on comprehension. (Arya, Hiebert, and

Pearson, 2011) Student background knowledge is limited in

this area, and connections are more direct (i.e.-

experiences with the subject matter rather than personal

situations that have parallels.) Examples of these

limitations have been depicted in this study and are

consistent with the above findings.

In addition, both text types showed growth from the

first use to the second use suggesting that expectations and

criteria were clarified during actual performance follow

through. Despite initial slow starts, the end result of both

of texts types are consistent with findings of Murphy, 2009,

who suggested that increased student talk would result in

high- level comprehension of text.

Implications

This study could be continued by replicating the

instruction and assessments of the current design, with some

85


adjustments to enhance the clarity of eventual findings. One

suggested change is that this research be conducted with

three classes, rather than one. In doing so, one class could

be the control group and the other two could deal

exclusively with one text type. This way the researcher

would be able to pinpoint which Reciprocal Teaching strategy

caused the higher level gains, without worrying about how

the textual content may have affected those results.

In addition, the researcher suggests conducting this

research in a school with a greater variety of socio-

economic backgrounds. Creating sub groups with this

information would lead to more specific knowledge and

validity in findings.

86


References

Alfassi, M., Weiss, I., & Lifshitz, H. (2009). The efficacy of reciprocal teaching in fostering the reading literacy of students with intellectual disabilities. European Journal Of Special Needs Education, 24(3), 291-305.

Arya, D. J., Hiebert, E. H., & Pearson, P. (2011). Theeffects of syntactic and lexical complexity on thecomprehension of elementary science texts. InternationalElectronic Journal Of Elementary Education, 4(1), 107-125.

Best, R. M., Rowe, M., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2005).Deep-Level Comprehension of Science Texts. Topics In

87


Language Disorders, 25(1), 65-83.

Bintz, W. P., & Williams, L. (2005). Questioning Techniquesof Fifth and Sixth Grade Reading Teachers. Middle SchoolJournal, 37(1), 45-52.

Choo, T., Eng, T., & Ahmad, N. (2011). Effects of ReciprocalTeaching Strategies on Reading Comprehension. Reading Matrix:An International Online Journal, 11(2), 140-149.

Coté, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students Making Sense of Informational Text: Relations BetweenProcessing and Representation. Discourse Processes, 25(1), 1-53.

Donlan, D., & Singer, H. (1979). Active Comprehension ofShort Stories.

Gillam, S., Fargo, J. D., & Robertson, K. (2009).Comprehension of Expository Text: Insights GainedFrom Think-Aloud Data. American Journal Of Speech-LanguagePathology, 18(1), 82-94.

Greenstein, L. (2013). Formative Assessment and the Common Core: Blending the Best in Assessment. Voices From The Middle, 21(2), 36-42.

Hackett, Jay K. (2008). California Science. New York: Macmillan McGraw-Hill.

Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2013). Comprehension at the Core.Reading Teacher, 66(6), 431-439.

Hui-Fang, S., & I-Ju, C. (2010). The Effect of Self-Questioning Strategy on EFL Learners' ReadingComprehension Development. International Journal Of Learning,

88


17(2), 41-54.

Johnson, B. E., & Zabrucky, K. M. (2011). Improving middleand high school students' comprehension of sciencetexts. International Electronic Journal Of Elementary Education,4(1), 19-31.

Kelly, M., & Moore, D. W. (1994). Reciprocal teaching in a regular primary school classroom. Journal Of Educational Research, 88(1), 53.

Kirmizi, F., & Akkaya, N. (2011). A Qualitative Study on theUse of Summarizing Strategies in the ElementaryEducation. Hacettepe University Journal Of Education, (41),267-277.

Kletzien, S. B., & Bednar, M. R. (1988). A framework forreader autonomy: An integrated perspective. Journal of Reading, 32, 30-33.

Kletzien, S. (1991). Strategy use by good and poor comprehenders reading expository text of differing levels. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(1), 67-86.

Klinger, J., Vaughn, S., & Shay Schumm, J. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social studiesin heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 99(1), 3.

Lubliner, S. (2001). A practical guide to reciprocal teaching. Bothell,WW: Wright Group/McGraw-Hill.

Lysynchuk, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N. J. (1990).

89


Reciprocal Teaching Improves Standardized Reading-Comprehension Performance in Poor Comprehenders.Elementary School Journal, 90(5), 469-484.

McAdoo, Maisie. (Feb. 2013). Common Core Tests Signal New Frontier. United Federation of Teachers. volume LIV (11). Retrieved from http://www.uft.org/insight/common-core-tests-signal-new-frontier.

Moss, B. (2004b). Teaching expository text structures through information trade book retellings. The Reading Teacher, 57(8), 710–719.

Moss, B. (2013). Ten Essentials for Teaching Informational Texts. California Reader, 46(3), 9-21.

Murphy, P., Wilkinson, I. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the Effects of Classroom Discussion on Students' Comprehension of Text: A Meta-Analysis. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 740- 764.

Neber, H., Finsterwald, M., & Urban, N. (2001). CooperativeLearning with Gifted and High-achieving Students: areview and meta-analyses of 12 studies. High AbilityStudies, 12(2), 199-214.

Palinscar, A., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal Teaching ofComprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities. Cognition & Instruction, 1(2), 117.

Patrick, H., Bangel, N. J., Jeon, K., & Townsend, M. R.(2005). Reconsidering the Issue of Cooperative

90


Learning With Gifted Students. Journal For The Education OfThe Gifted, 29(1), 90-108.

Saleh, M., Lazonder, A. W., & Jong, T. (2007). Structuring collaboration in mixed-ability groups to promote verbal interaction, learning, and motivation of average-ability students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 314-331.

Salinger, T. (2003). Helping Older, Struggling Readers. Preventing School Failure, 47(2), 79.

Shraw, G., & Graham, T. (1997). Helping Gifted Students Develop Metacognitive Awareness. Roeper Review, 20(1), 4-8.

Slater, W. H., & Horstman, F. R. (2002). Teaching Reading and Writing to Struggling Middle School and High School Students: The Case for Reciprocal Teaching. Preventing School Failure, 46(4), 163.

Spörer, N., Brunstein, J. C., & Kieschke, U. (2009). Improving students' reading comprehension skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning & Instruction, 19(3), 272-286

Stobaugh, R. (2008). Boosting Cognitive Complexity in SocialStudies Assessments: Southern Social Studies Journal, 34(1),5-19.

Stygles, J. (2012). The role of vocabulary awareness in comprehension at the intermediate level. New England Reading Association Journal, 47(2), 43-50.

Tilstra, J., & McMaster, K. L. (2013). Cognitive processes

91


of middle grade readers when reading expository text with an assigned goal. Learning & Individual Differences, 2866-74.

White, William E. (2006). History-social Science for California: Our Nation. Glenview, IL: Pearson Scott Foresman.

Williams, J. A. (2010). Taking on the Role of Questioner: Revisiting Reciprocal Teaching. Reading Teacher, 64(4), 278-281.

Appendix A

Model 1

92

RECIPROCAL TEACHING AND HIGHER LEVEL DIALOGUE 93


Appendix B

Instructional Sequence

Pre-test

Day One: Teacher provided explicit instruction of

questioning strategy using social studies text. Teacher

modeled main idea questions using the think aloud method

with whole class. Next students used the “Picture This”

activity by (Lubliner, 2001) to work on their main idea

questions. The teacher used scaffolds to help students as

they attempted using this strategy.

Day Two: The students played “Hot Seat,” a questioning

strategy game, (Lubliner, 2001) after a whole class reading

of lesson one, in chapter five, of social studies text. The

teacher modeled good higher level thinking questions first,

then, the students tried. Once the game was complete the

94


student groups discussed the chapter. The teacher recorded

this collaborative session.

Day Three: The researcher introduced the clarifying

vocabulary strategy, (Lubliner, 2001) clarifying vocabulary

cue card, and social studies text. The teacher modeled the

strategy, and again, used the think aloud method to show how

it worked. Students then continued reading the science text

and, using post-its, clarified vocabulary words. They stuck

newly clarified words on a chart. The chart was then read

and reflected on, at end of that daily session.

Day Four: Students completed the “Very Important Word”

worksheet (Lubliner, 2001) using a key word from their

science text. After completion, students got into their

collaborative dialogue groups and discussed how the word

they completed the worksheet on was important to the text.

This session was recorded and analyzed.

95


Day Five: The teacher provided direct instruction on the

summarizing strategy. She modeled the strategy by reading

a paragraph of the science text and then used the think

aloud method to show how to identify key points and put them

into their own words. Students practiced this skill using

the “Shrink Wrap” (Lubliner, 2001).

Day Six: On this day students continued practicing the

summarizing skill by completing the “Terrific Tiles”

(Lubliner, 2001). Upon completion, students got into their

reading groups and took turns reading and summarizing

sections of the science text. They then discussed what they

had read. This collaborative session was recorded.

Day Seven: The teacher provided direct instruction on how to

make predictions. Using the social studies text, the

researcher read a paragraph and predicted what would happen

next. The teacher used the think aloud method and made note

of how to use inferences to make predictions. Students

96


completed “Picture Perfect” activity (Lubliner, 2001) to

practice this strategy.

Day Eight: Students took turns reading the social studies

text. They used the “Present your Predictions” worksheet

(Lubliner, 2001) to record and check predictions as the went

through the required reading.

Day Nine: The teacher modeled how to put these strategies

together for reciprocal teaching. First, the teacher modeled

the combination of strategies, acting as a group leader.

Then, students got into pairs and, working at the

collaborative stage, implemented the four strategies of

reciprocal teaching using the science text. Teacher provided

feedback and scaffolds.

Day Ten: Students should be ready for the reciprocal

teaching stage. They got into reading groups and took turns

reading paragraphs and acting as the group leader.

97


Post Test

98

The Efficacy of Reciprocal Teaching in Fostering Higher Level Thinking Dialogue as a Response to...

Documents

Transcript of The Efficacy of Reciprocal Teaching in Fostering Higher Level Thinking Dialogue as a Response to...