Reading Comprehension: Reciprocal Teaching

Ailsa Crockett

Angela Drysdale Primary Teacher

Head of Primary – Learning Enhancement

Reading Comprehension:

Reciprocal Teaching

In 2018, the Primary School conducted a research project. A key component of this research was to improve students’ reading comprehension by teaching them specific comprehending strategies. This article provides the background to the project, a review of the literature that informed the project and a short summary of the results.

Background

The impetus for this research arose from the analysis of the previous year’s NAPLAN results in terms of value adding from Year 3 to Year 5. The NAPLAN results showed that Year 3 and Year 5 students were achieving above the state and national average in reading; however, the growth in attainment, from Year 3 to Year 5, was not on the desired trajectory. Consequently, Years 3 and 4 were identified as the target group for this research project on developing reading comprehension skills. The St Margaret’s Framework for Quality Teaching and Learning is the foundation for all learning at our school. It articulates the characteristics of the learning environment, the learning process and the pedagogy that links the two.

Embedded in this framework is the Taxonomy of Learning which categorises thinking according to surface, deeper and deepest. ‘Surface understandings are gained through literal comprehension, while deeper understandings emerge from a more analytical and critical approach to the material encountered. The deepest level is attained when students can transfer their understandings by applying them in an unfamiliar context or employing synthesis to create something with a level of originality’ (St Margaret’s Framework of Quality Teaching and Learning 2015). The Taxonomy of Learning is central to the learning process and informs all learning experiences, as it is applicable across all areas of learning. This is evidenced by it being the foundation for four research projects conducted in the Primary School including two mathematics projects described in Sunata (Edition 5 2017 and Edition 8 2018) and the project described within this article. Ultimately, the aim is for students to develop the ability to transfer known knowledge to an unknown situation.

Literature that informed our project

The Taxonomy of Learning is the process that moves from surface, to deep, to transfer, which aligns with the work of Fischer, Frey and Hattie (2016). It is the role of the teacher to ensure that students are offered learning experiences that encourage students to be strategic learners who know when to focus on surface level and when to be deep (Fischer et al. 2016). The teacher has a vital role in supporting students to transfer learning and do this by helping students make their learning visible (Hattie 2009) or by ‘moving students into the realm of metacognitive functioning’ (St Margaret’s Framework of Quality Teaching and Learning 2015). Visible learning involves pedagogical practice that is consistent, research-based and effective practice that impacts students’ learning (Fisher et al. 2016). To make learning visible, teachers need to understand and know which strategies and instructional routines are useful in which teaching situation. Teachers also need to know when to concentrate on the surface and when to direct focus to a deep level (Fischer, Frey & Hattie 2016). Through a synthesis of meta-analysis, Hattie (2009) identifies strategies that have been found to have a high impact. Those strategies that have an effect size above 0.4 are considered within the zone of desired effect. The strategies employed by deep learners include being able to: think metacognitively (effect size 0.69); organise and transform (effect size 0.85); discuss ideas (effect size 0.82); and self-question (effect size 0.64) (Fischer et al. 2016). These strategies support a student’s ability to comprehend. SUNATA 15

SUNATA 16

Comprehension

Reading comprehension is the extraction of information. When a reader extracts meaning from the written text, it requires deep understanding (Fisher et al. 2016). Years 3 and 4 are pivotal times in the development of reading comprehension as it is when students are moving from 'learning to read' to 'reading to learn'. At this developmental stage, reading comprehension is the most important part of the reading process and it is the optimal time to formally introduce comprehension strategies that teach the student how to interpret the text (Willingham 2017). Comprehension requires a complex active process, ‘involving knowledge, experience, thinking and teaching’ (Fielding & Pearson 1994, p. 63). Fluent readers naturally acquire some comprehension strategies informally. However, as text complexity increases, simple surface strategies are insufficient for full understanding. To move students from surface to deep understanding, they need to be explicitly taught metacognitive strategies which build metacognitive awareness (Palinscar 1987). Metacognitive awareness is a vital component of the learning process and defined as ‘the ability to observe our own thinking’ (Fischer et al. 2016). Metacognitive awareness is developed through metacognitive strategies which have a high impact (effect size 0.69). Reciprocal teaching is a metacognitive strategy which helps monitor comprehension (effect size 0.74).

Reciprocal Teaching

Reciprocal teaching is an explicit instructional process focusing on developing students’ cognitive strategies which can contribute to enhanced learning outcomes in reading comprehension (Hattie 2009). Reciprocal teaching is an approach that involves employing four reading comprehension strategies – questioning, clarifying, summarising and predicting – through the process of peer teaching (Palincsar & Brown 1987). Each of these elements of reciprocal teaching (strategies and process) have been found to have an influence on cognitive outcomes and a positive effect size (effect size 0.74). Hattie (2009) found that ‘the effects were highest when there was explicit teaching of cognitive strategies before beginning reciprocal teaching dialogue’ (p. 204). In this project, these strategies were explicitly taught and practised using the gradual release of responsibility approach.

Gradual Release of Responsibility

Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) (Pearson & Gallagher 1983) was initially developed regarding instructional processes in comprehension. This work is clearly influenced by scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, & Ross 1976), a process where the expert scaffolds the learner from a novice learner to mastering the skills. Similarly, Vygotsky’s work on zone of proximal development (1978) relates to the learner working within a zone and, with the support of a more knowledgeable person, the student is supported to reach a level of mastery (Webb et al. 2019). The common element embedded within each of these approaches is the moving of the learner from novice to master; that is, to release the responsibility to the learner (Kelley & Clausen-Grace 2007). This approach relies upon a three-part structured approach, succinctly summed up in the catchphrase I Do, We Do, You Do. In this project, the teacher participants followed a threepart structured approach. Firstly, the teacher modelled the comprehension strategy through think-alouds; that is, the teacher interacts aloud with the text and articulates the associated thought processes (Kelley & Clausen- Grace 2007). In doing so, the teacher provides explicit instruction about the comprehension strategy. In the second stage, the teacher helps students apply the strategy in guided practice. The teacher guides students’ attempts at using the strategies through prompts, noticing the approximations that learners are making. The teacher also flexibly and responsively provides additional modeling and demonstrations when needed. At times the teacher found it necessary to model a strategy again, recapturing some responsibility if students were not understanding or applying the strategy effectively. Finally, in the third stage, students assume the responsibility for using the strategy. Whilst this approach suggests a sequence, it is not linear but rather students move back and forth until mastery is attained (Fisher 2008). Through using GRR, the teachers in this project explicitly taught the strategies associated with the metacognitive strategy, reciprocal teaching. The comprehension strategies taught were questioning, clarifying, summarising and predicting.

Comprehension Strategies

The four comprehension strategies used in Reciprocal Teaching help readers make meaning as they read. Effective readers not only have strategies for making sense of what they read but also develop strategies for monitoring how well they are comprehending (Baker & Brown 1980). The four identified reading strategies are described as follows: 1. Questioning involves asking both literal, text explicit and inferential, text implicit questions of one another. 2. Clarifying is a way to clear up any misconceptions or misunderstandings through group discussion. 3. Summarising the main points in the section of text just read. 4. Predicting is discussing what the writer will mention next, based on what is known. These strategies are developed in Reciprocal Teaching through peer teaching.

Peer Teaching

The social aspect of instruction and its influence on cognitive outcomes are quite powerful and found to have an effect size of 0.55. Guided interactions with an adult, or a more skilled peer, supports facilitation of a higher level of thinking within

SUNATA 17

data was used to determine the effect size of the process. An average gain in effect size month period is 0.4. The results for students involved in this project – Year 3, an effect size of 0.98 and Year 4, an effect size of 0.70 – were identifying well above 0.4 and reflecting their the proximal zone (Vygotsky 1978). It is also effective when The impact of these results had broader implications. In students, not just teachers, teach their peers to engage in discourse (Palincsar & Brown 1987). deepened comprehension skills. 2019 a reading coach role was introduced with focus on the implementation of Reciprocal Teaching for the Years 3 to 6 More recently, Fisher and Frey (2008) added a fourth stage to GRR: the collaborative stage, in which students work together, as ‘through peer and collaborative learning, students gain access Cluster Program. In Semester 1, the cluster program focus was guided reading using non-fiction texts with Reciprocal Teaching used as a way to unpack the content of these texts.mpact of these results had broader implications. In 2019 a reading coach role was introduced to one another’s thinking processes’ (Fielding & Pearson 1994, In the same year our NAPLAN results reflected the impact of with focus on the implementation of Reciprocal Teaching for the Years 3 to 6 Cluster Program. In p. 65). Fisher (2008) changed the third step of GRR and added the project and the cluster explicit teaching program. Overall another to the catchphrase to become ‘I do it, we do it, you do it together, you do it alone’ as outlined in Figure 1. the school achieved first in the state in Year 3, fifth in Year 5 and was named the top performing Primary School in the state. , the cluster program focus was guided reading using non-fiction texts with Reciprocal Peer teaching or collaborative learning aligns with the Reciprocal Teaching process developed initially by Palincsar and Brown (1987). It is described as an interactive learning game through which students learn to work together to understand text. Once students understand the four strategies of Reciprocal Teaching, they work in groups together with small chunks of a whole text, stopping at the end of each chunk to discuss the text more deeply and apply the four strategies. This is repeated until the whole text has been read and discussed. It is this continuous repetition of the four strategies in Reciprocal Teaching which increases its impact and ‘fosters consolidation of knowledge and comprehension’ (Fisher et al. 2016, p. 127). In summary, the impact of the explicit teaching of the four strategies through the gradual release of responsibility approach and reciprocal teaching in collaborative peer groups is reflected in the project results.

Project Results

The project data was used to determine the effect size of the process. An average gain in effect size over a twelve-month period is 0.4. The results for students involved in this project – Year 3, an effect size of 0.98 and Year 4, an effect size of 0.70 – were identifying well above 0.4 and reflecting their deepened comprehension skills. In terms of reading, the results identified that Year 5 were now

SUNATA 18

Figure 1

back on the desired trajectory.

References

Baker, L & Brown, AL 1980, Metacognitive skills and reading, Technical Report No. 188, University of Illinois, Cambridge, MA. Fielding, LG & Pearson, PD 1994, ‘Reading comprehension: what works’, Educational Leadership, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 62-67. Fisher, D 2008. Effective use of the gradual release of responsibility model, Macmillan/McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Fisher, D & Frey, N 2008, ‘Releasing responsibility’, Educational Leadership, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 32-37. Fisher, D, Frey, N & Hattie, J 2016, Visible learning for literacy, grades K-12: Implementing the practices that work best to accelerate student learning, Corwin Press, USA. Hattie, JAC 2009, Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement, Routledge, New York. Kelley, MJ & Clausen-Grace, N 2007, Comprehension Shouldn't Be Silent: From Strategy Instruction to Student Independence, International Reading Association, Newark, DE. Palincsar, AS & Brown, DA 1987, ‘Enhancing instructional time through attention to metacognition’, Journal of learning disabilities, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 66-75. Pearson, PD & Gallagher, MC 1983, ‘Instruction of reading comprehension’, Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 317-344. Vygotsky, LS 1978, Mind in Society: the development of higher psychological processes, (M Cole, V John-Steiner, S Scribner & E Souberman, (Eds), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Webb, S, Massey, D, Goggans, M & Flajole, K 2019, ‘Thirty-five years of the gradual release of responsibility: scaffolding toward complex and responsive teaching’, The Reading Teacher, viewed 20 May 2019, from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/trr.1799 Willingham, DT 2017, The reading mind: A cognitive approach to understanding how the mind reads, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Wood, D, Bruner, JS & Ross. G 1976, ‘The role of tutoring in problem solving’, The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 89-100.

Acknowledgements

This article reports on the findings from a ‘Researchers in Schools Project’ (2018) funded by an Independent Schools Queensland (ISQ) school grant, provided by Education Futures Fund (a Commonwealth Government Initiative).