Reciprocal Teaching: Investigation of its effectiveness as a method of whole class reading comprehension instruction at Key Stage Two Frances Elsie Hampson-Jones Supervisor: Professor J. Masterson Institute of Education, University of London Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2014 1 Abstract Reciprocal Teaching (RT) is a metacognitive training programme that was found to improve reading comprehension during the 1980s (Palincsar and Brown, 1984). Four strategies: predicting, clarifying, questioning and summarising are taught, then students gradually assume control of teaching within a heterogeneous small group until they are actively involved in constructing meaning from text. A review of the literature revealed that there is “very little” research on RT in the UK (Brooks, 2013), little research worldwide in whole class settings, and little evidence that RT is effective for children under twelve (Cain, 2010). Three intervention studies presented here investigated the effectiveness of RT in whole class UK settings with young readers, and the effect of incorporating visualisation as an additional strategy (RTV). Study 1 was delivered by the researcher with three Year 5 classes (N=50). Results revealed a significant improvement in comprehension scores for the RT groups over a normal instruction group after ten hours of training, but no difference between the RT and RTV groups. A second mixed-methods study (Study 2) involved Year 3 children (N=12) with ten weeks of RT instruction, followed by ten weeks of RTV, delivered by the class teacher. Think-aloud protocols and interviews revealed an increase in strategy use. There was a significant improvement in reading comprehension scores immediately after the intervention, and a one year follow-up assessment showed improvement close to significance (p=.09). The third study (Study 3) in a different school with Year 3 children (N=28), replicated the results from Study 2, but with a significant increase in reading comprehension scores at the one-year follow-up assessment. Overall, the results revealed that RT was effective in three different whole class settings, with children as young as seven. Qualitative measures indicated that the instruction worked by increasing strategy use. 2 I hereby declare that, except where explicit attribution is made, the work presented in this thesis is entirely my own. .............................................................................................. Word count (exclusive of appendices and reference section): 79,703 3 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor, Jackie Masterson, for her help and guidance, and for always giving me the feeling that this was achievable. I would like to thank all the children and teachers who participated in these studies, and who gave so willingly of their time and enthusiasm. I would also like to thank my family for their support and patience. Finally, a huge thank you to my father for all the encouragement he always gave me. I am sorry he did not see the finished product, but I know he would have read every word 4 Contents Figures .............................................................................................. 12 Tables ............................................................................................... 15 Appendices ....................................................................................... 18 Chapter 1: Introduction and rationale ................................................ 20 1.1. Introduction ............................................................................... 20 1.2. Thesis structure ........................................................................................................... 21 1.3. What is reading? The Simple View, and is it too simple? ............................................ 22 1.4. What is reading comprehension?................................................................................ 24 1.4.1. Why does comprehension fail? ............................................................................ 26 1.4.2. Comprehension strategies ................................................................................... 28 1.5. Reciprocal Teaching - strategy teaching combined with metacognitive awareness.... 30 1.5.1. Reciprocal Teaching – the content ....................................................................... 32 1.5.2. Reciprocal Teaching – the method ....................................................................... 33 1.5.3. Why might visualisation help? ............................................................................. 41 1.5.4. Alternatives to Reciprocal Teaching ..................................................................... 42 Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................. 45 2.1. The early studies ......................................................................................................... 45 2.1.1. The effects of strategy instruction ....................................................................... 46 2.1.2. Teacher and one-to-one effects ........................................................................... 46 2.1.3. Reciprocal Teaching and groups of different ability ............................................. 47 2.1.4. Peers as teachers ................................................................................................. 47 2.1.5. Does Reciprocal Teaching work for all students? ................................................. 48 2.1.6. Decoding proficiency ............................................................................................ 48 2.1.7. Peer tutoring and misinformation ........................................................................ 48 5 2.1.8. Reciprocal Teaching and other skills .................................................................... 49 2.2. Rosenshine and Meister 1994 ..................................................................................... 49 2.3. Research since 1994 .................................................................................................... 54 2.3.1. Galloway’s (2003) meta-analysis .......................................................................... 54 2.3.2. The What Works Clearinghouse review (2010) .................................................... 59 2.3.3. Reviews of research in the UK .............................................................................. 63 2.3.4. Research in Germany ........................................................................................... 69 2.4. Research on Reciprocal Teaching within a whole class setting ................................... 74 2.5. The crucial role played by assessment ........................................................................ 79 2.6. Criticisms of Reciprocal Teaching and Palincsar’s response ........................................ 80 2.7. What we still need to know about Reciprocal Teaching.............................................. 82 2.7.1. How does Reciprocal Teaching work? .................................................................. 82 2.7.2. Does it work in the UK? ........................................................................................ 82 2.7.3. Does it work for younger children? ...................................................................... 83 2.7.4. Does Reciprocal Teaching work in a whole class situation, without the need for the additional resources which small group work implies? ........................................... 84 2.7.5. Could Reciprocal Teaching be improved by the addition of visualisation?........... 84 2.8. What did reviews tell us a new study on Reciprocal Teaching needs to incorporate? 85 2.8.1. A randomised trial including a control group ....................................................... 85 2.8.2. Controlling characteristics of the comparison group ........................................... 87 2.8.3. A way of establishing fidelity to the Reciprocal Teaching programme ................. 88 2.8.4. Careful consideration of outcome measures ....................................................... 88 2.8.5. Outcome measures examining strategy application as well as reading comprehension .............................................................................................................. 88 2.8.6. Follow-up measures ............................................................................................. 89 2.9. Aims of this research ................................................................................................... 89 Chapter 3: Study 1 - Testing the effectiveness of Reciprocal Teaching in children aged 9 to 10 ......................................................................... 91 6 3.1. Research Aims ............................................................................................................. 91 3.2. Study 1 Methodology .................................................................................................. 91 3.2.1. Participants .......................................................................................................... 91 3.2.2. Ethical issues ........................................................................................................ 93 3.2.3. Pre- instruction measures .................................................................................... 93 3.2.4. Post-instruction measures...................................................................................