See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/317055940
EFFECTIVENESS OF RECIPROCAL TEACHING VERSUS TRADITIONAL
TEACHING
Article · January 2017
DOI: 10.21506/j.ponte.2017.5.12
CITATIONS READS
2 743
2 authors, including:
Muhammad Mushtaq
Women University Azad Jammu & Kashmir Bagh
31 PUBLICATIONS 101 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Mushtaq on 13 June 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
Title: Effectiveness of Reciprocal Teaching versus Traditional Teaching
Sumaera Mehmood
Ph.D Scholar Education
Foundation University Rawalpindi Campus Pakistan
[email protected]
Muhammad Mushtaq Alvi
HoD Education
Foundation University Rawalpindi Campus Pakistan
[email protected]
135
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
ABSTRACT
The study design was to investigate the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching versus the traditional
teaching on student academic performance at secondary level. The four strategies incorporated i.e.
summarization, clarification, prediction and questioning for the purpose of measuring students’
academic performance in General Science. The Pre & Post equivalent group design was employed
based on quasi-experimental design. The experiment was conducted on 10th grade female students
in one randomly selected FG girl’s school for ten weeks. A pretest was administered and then
respondents were randomly distributed in two groups. The experimental group (n=33) was taught
through reciprocal teaching and control group (n=32) was taught through the traditional method
(Lecture method). The results reveled that reciprocal teaching was more effective strategy to
improve students’ academic performance. This study suggested that students’ academic
performance can be improved by addressing Reciprocal intervention. It would be helpful for
pedagogical setting to make the students independent and creative for the resolve of their own
academic problems.
Key words
Reciprocal Teaching, Traditional teaching, academic performance, Teaching methods
INTRODUCTION
Active learning takes place when students act as teachers for other students, communication and
knowledge is transferred easily. Cooperative learning method is also called reciprocal teaching.
Teachers who practice reciprocal teaching believe that collaborative construction paves ways to an
upper level of teaching and learning skills (Allen, 2003). The advent of informational technology
magnetize the focus of educators, researchers for application of computer assisted teaching learning
136
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
that was considered result oriented and more efficient than traditional teaching (Pucel & Stertz,
2005; Larkin, 2003; Leigh, 1996).
Reciprocal teaching curtails ownership of student’s role because they feel satisfaction when
they express their ideas, views and opinion in interactive session. Taking turn and articulating their
views, thoughts by applying learning strategies. In this process learning areas provide opportunities
to reinforce understanding, to see and observe misconceptions and amend them. It became a
community of learning whose member share responsibilities for interaction and participate learning
experiences (Hashey and Connors, 2003).
The development of cognition by social interaction as presented by Vygotsky in his theory
provided fundamentals for reciprocal teaching. Vygotsky said that; think aloud, thought discussion
help in clarification of confusing ideas and reorganization and rearrangement of learning and
thinking for development of cognition. His zone of Proximal Development is basically critically for
identification of appropriate content and scaffolding activities for improved learning and success
(Galloway, 2001). These contents need to be shared at different level, that has to be suitable to the
learner ability and comphersion level. There has to be a mechanism to support and get feedback for
carrying out reciprocal teaching activities (Oczkus,2003).
Palincsar, Brown and Campione (1989) said that reciprocal teaching is a sort of interplay
between pupil and teacher, students and students. This interaction is designed in four stages i.e.,
summarizing predicting, clarifying and questioning. The aim of this type of reciprocal teaching is in
137
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
using discussion for enhancing the students' understanding skills, development of self-regulatory
skills and promotion to achieve intrinsic value for motivation (Allen, 2003).
There are many effective teaching techniques in reciprocal teaching such as thinking aloud
cooperating with each other, scaffolding and facilitating meta cognition with all of the steps.
Teachers take every step with very carefully and cautiously until it is fully understood by students
before moving forward (Hashey et al, 2003). The teacher models the procedures; demonstrated to
the peer group. Finally, the student’s execute the procedures. This mutual interaction of the mental
processes for above mentioned strategies such as prediction, questioning, clarification and
summarization were vital for effective teaching and learning. It is also monitored and graded by the
teacher. Students become cognizant and manage the learning process.
Palincsar (1986) believes that the interactive process of learning is to facilitate group effort,
and place or develop link to meaning of the text. The process can be explained in the following
diagram:
Instructional Process of Learning
138
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
Summarizing • identify paraphrases and integrated information
Questionning • substance for self test
• unclear reference words
Clarifying
• vocabulary and difficult concepts
hypothesize test, building new knowledge and
Predicting anticipating results
Figure 1 instructional process of learning
Traditional teaching methods were teacher centered practices: such as dictation, drilling and
explanation. In many developing countries including Pakistan, traditional method is normally a
teacher led lecture method. It was a process of fact transmission. Barker (1998) says, it was the
earliest, easiest and discourse oriented and it was a tertiary based technique suitable for large
classes. Although largely criticized by current progressive educators, its suitability exists, both in
form and content. Teachers’ efficiency in using the lecture method lies in rich content, pauses
delivery, change of voice, exemplification and powerful mode of presentation. Its inherent
limitations can be improved upon by others intervention, such as reciprocal teaching and other
139
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
innovations. The present study explored the strength and weakness of the two teaching methods,
reciprocal teaching and traditional teaching.
RESEARCH PROBLEM
This research study was designed to explore effectiveness of reciprocal teaching versus the
traditional teaching method particularly in the General Science subject at secondary level.
Reciprocal teaching was used by applying fourfold process i.e. prediction, interrogation,
clarification and summarization.
OBJECTIVES
1. to investigate the effect of reciprocal teaching, and traditional teaching method through text
book of General Science at secondary level;
2. to find the comparison of reciprocal teaching with traditional teaching method on learners’
academic achievement in the subject General Science by using the text book at secondary
level;
HYPOTHESES
The subsequent null hypotheses were formulated:
Ho1. There is no significance difference in the mean of the pre-test attainment scores of
experimental group and the control group;
Ho2. There is no significance difference in the mean of the post-test performance scores in
experimental group and the control group;
140
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
SIGNIFICANCE
This study is significant for secondary school general science teachers. Teachers will
become aware of the teaching methods reciprocal teaching and their use in the class room situation.
By the use of reciprocal teaching, they may be able to improve academic achievement of the
students.
Teacher’s educators are able to benefit from this method in pre-service and in-service
teacher training programmes. Future teacher can also use reciprocal teaching if it will found
effective.
It is significant for the students because literature indicates that with help of reciprocal teaching
students becomes confidant to communicate with each other. Their creative skills are developed
and students become active learners.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Experimentation with Reciprocal teaching, and traditional teaching method to ascertain the
effectiveness of reciprocal teaching versus traditional teaching method in terms of student academic
achievement. The study population contained of all the girls’ students of 10th grade, studying in 12
F.G. Girls Secondary Schools. One School was selected randomly to conduct the experiment. It
comprises of two sections of arts group. These sections were considered as the experimental group,
and control group. Total sample was sixty five students. Thirty three were assigned to experimental
141
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
group which were taught through reciprocal teaching thirty two were assigned to the control group
which were taught through the traditional method. In fact classes were maintained to ensure the
natural treatment. Each section was represented in equal distribution of ability. As perceived by the
past performance in the light of teachers opinions.
RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS
A standardized self -prepared achievement test was used as a pretest and a posttest
(Appendix A). This test contains 48 items. These items were arranged from the three chapters of
the text book of 10th grade. Total test comprised of 48 items. The instrument was structured on four
stages of reciprocal teaching i.e., clarification, questioning, summarization and prediction. Three
chapters were selected that represented the fields of physics, biology and chemistry. Four questions
were made for each four strategy from each chapter.
RESULTS
Table No 1
Significant Difference between Pre Reciprocal Teaching and Post Reciprocal Teaching
Achievement Score
Groups N Mean Std. Deviation T P value
Pre reciprocal 33 .3869 .08 -11.4 >.000
Post reciprocal 33 .36112 .09
142
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
Df =33 t at .05 =2.021
The above table shows the pre- test and post- test academic achievement scores of the
reciprocal teaching method. The results of the table show that there was a significant difference
between mean pre- test is .3869 and post- test is .36112, academic achievement scores of the
reciprocal teaching method, since t-value (t=11.4) is higher than p value at 0.05 level. So, the null
hypothesis was rejected and the alternate hypothesis accepted as there was a significant difference
between the pre- test and post- test academic achievement score of the reciprocal teaching method.
This is shown in the following figure.
Post reciprocal
35
30
25
20
15
10 Post reciprocal
5
0
33 0.3869 0.08 -11.4 >.000
N Mean Std. Deviation t P value
143
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
Table No 2
Significant Difference between Pre Traditional Teaching Method and Post Traditional Teaching
Method Achievement Score
Groups N Mean Std. Deviation T P value
Pre Traditional 32 .3695 .06 -3.0 >.005
teaching
Post Traditional 32 .4324 .10
teaching
Df =31 t at .05 =2.021
The above table shows the pre- test and post- test academic achievement scores of
traditional teaching method. The results of the table show that there was a significant difference
between mean pre- test (.3695) and post- test (.4324) academic achievement scores of the traditional
teaching method, since t-value (t=3.0) is higher than p value at 0.05 level. This meant that the null
hypothesis was rejected and the alternate hypothesis was accepted as there was a significant
difference between the pre- test and post- test academic achievement score of the traditional
teaching method as shown in the following figure.
144
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
Post Traditional teaching
35
30
25
20
15
10 Post Traditional teaching
5
0
32 0.3695 0.06 -3 >.005
N Mean Std. t P value
Deviation
145
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
Table No 3
Significant Difference between Pre Reciprocal Teaching Versus Pre Traditional Teaching Method
Achievement Score
Groups N Mean Std. Deviation t P value
Pre Reciprocal 32 .3869 .08 .84 >.404
Teaching
Pre Traditional 32 .3715 .06
teaching
Df =31 t at .05 =2.021
The above table shows the pre reciprocal teaching achievement scores and pre traditional
teaching achievement score. The results of the table purpose to a big distinction between mean pre
check ( .3869) uncountable reciprocal teaching and ancient teaching(.3715) , since t-value (t=.84) is
on top of p worth at zero.05 level. So, the null hypothesis was rejected and also the alternate
hypothesis accepted that there was a big distinction between pre check action score of reciprocal
teaching and ancient teaching. This is also presented in the following figure.
146
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
Pre Traditional teaching
35
30
25
20
15
10 Pre Traditional teaching
5
0
32 0.3869 0.08 0.84 >.404
N Mean Std. T P value
Deviation
147
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
Table No 4
Significant Difference between Post Reciprocal Teaching Versus Post Traditional Teaching method
Achievement Score
Post Reciprocal Post Traditional
Teaching Teaching
Variables M SD M SD t p
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT .61 .09 .43 .10 6.7 .000
Df =31 t at .05 =2.021
The above table shows the post reciprocal teaching achievement score and post traditional
teaching method achievement score. The results of the table reveal a significant difference between
mean post test score of reciprocal teaching (.6132) and traditional teaching method (.4324) , since t-
value (t=6.7) is higher than p value at 0.05 level. The null hypothesis was rejected and therefore the
alternate hypothesis accepted that there was a major distinction between post check accomplishment
score of reciprocal teaching and ancient pedagogics (traditional teaching). This is also presented in
the following figure.
148
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
Post Traditional Teaching
40
30
20
10
Post Traditional Teaching
0
32 0.6132 0.09 6.7 >.000
N Mean Std. T P value
Deviation
Table No. 5
The correlation among all strategies
Correlations
Summarizati
Prediction Questioning Clarification on
PREDICTION Pearson
1 .393** .531** .476**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 99 99 99 99
QUESTIONIN Pearson
.393** 1 .518** .396**
G Correlation
149
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 99 99 99 99
CLARIFICATI Pearson
.531** .518** 1 .483**
ON Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 99 99 99 99
SUMMARIZA Pearson
.476** .396** .483** 1
TION Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 99 99 99 99
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The result provided in Table 49 indicate that correlations between teaching strategies of
prediction, questioning , clarification and summarization are equal to .393, .531, .476, .393
respectively. These correlations are statistically significant with p-value .000 (p < .01).
150
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
Table No 6
Model summary of all four strategies and method
Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model R R Square Square the Estimate
1 .582a .338 .332 .67596
a. Predictors: (Constant), all methods
The regression model shows the strong and positive relationship between method and
prediction stage of teaching. The value of R >0.5 confirm the strength of the relationship. This is
also presented in the following figure.
0.8
0.67596
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4 0.338 0.332
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .582a
151
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
Table No 7
Coefficients (All four teaching strategy and method)
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) -.161 .316 -.509 .612
All
3.863 .549 .582 7.043 .000
methods
a. Dependent Variable: method
The coefficient table also confirms the significant relationship between prediction strategy
and method. The t value represents the significant impact of independent variables on dependent
variable (t value must be greater than two (t=7.043)). In the above table, the unstandardized
coefficients are the coefficients of the estimated regression model, while the standardized
coefficients or betas are an attempt to make the regression coefficients more comparable. From the
table, it can be said that the higher techniques of methods have a positive inclination towards
academic scores. This is also presented in the figure given below.
152
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
10
7.043
5 3.863
0 0 0.316 0.549 0 0.582 0.612 0
0
-0.161
Unstandardized Standardized t
-0.509 Sig.
-5 Coefficients Coefficients
Model 1 (Constant) 1 Allmethods
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the applied math analysis of knowledge and findings of the study, the subsequent
conclusions were drawn.
1. Reciprocal teaching strategy was simpler than ancient pedagogics in increasing average
educational accomplishment of tenth grade feminine student in the subject of General
Science.
2. There is a noteworthy difference between the groups taught through reciprocal teaching
strategy and traditional teaching. The experimental Group test attained scores were higher
than the control group (traditional teaching).
3. The study testified the use of reciprocal teaching versus traditional teaching method in the
subject of General Science of 10th grade female students of a typical public secondary school
in Rawalpindi.
153
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
DISCUSSIONS
In previous studies of RT the relationship of techniques simplest in term of studying
comprehension or frequency suggested, appeared doubtful for they did not launch the standards in
comparing the effectiveness of techniques inclusive of newbies’ confirmation or withdrawal of the
previous prediction, clarifying and wondering their very own comprehension and drafting and
revising the summary. similarly, the evaluation of strategies by myself regarded to be needless
because the effectiveness of approach utilization in reciprocal teaching trusted college students’
distinct reading dreams and wishes.
Secondly, students’ reading processes in recognizing and resolving their reading problems is
hardly addressed by the previous studies. it was rarely found by the Process data to specify how
students corroborate or invalidate their previous forecasts, how key words and topic sentences are
selected and reselected by them, and in order to outline and amend a summary how they used what
they had understood in annotation to. This significant information was not even reported back to
the teacher and the individual student. The teacher cannot observe his students’ reading procedure
in detail and also cannot identify their reading difficulties because he got no chance to do so. As a
result, the teacher had hardly any hints to offer suitable scaffolding. likewise, the students cannot
monitor and regulate their own reading process because they also don't have any opportunity (Yang
& Hung, 2008).
154
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
Thirdly when the reading difficulties and answers are identified, students might observe and
control their individual interpretation in the corrective teaching including the reciprocal teaching.
For some students identification of questioning strategy is a possibility to re monitor their
understanding.
Contrary to that, through producing questions, students suppose the responsibility of the
teacher who typically makes questions for students to know the key initiative of the content. In
questioning, students also be familiar with the requirements to entirely elucidate their understanding
of a content prior to they continue to produce queries for discussion. .
As an alternative, student’s appearance lower back at the route, by using answering
questions within the discussion forum, found the records that the query mentioned, and then
contemplated on how the records should match within the textual content.
A number of learners have a preference to utilize the footnote instrument to resolve their
reading troubles since they could evaluate what they had tacit and put together into their recently
obtained information .students could also identify the significant ideas in content even as reading.
Further students differentiate the performance of reading strategies in diverse sort of text
In order to support their reading comprehension it was important for them to be aware of the
use of different strategies. Importance of the instructor’s role in demonstration is likewise pointed
out by using the results of this look at given that a few students end up skilled and self-figuring out
in main and representing strategies to their peers, the instructor’s most important function should
155
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
fade out. Reciprocally, students helped as of the help of each other in reading education. In addition,
to remedy their reading troubles in exceptional context the trainer’s encouragement led college
students to practice their multiple techniques. As an instance, inside the subjects of physics,
accounting, records or some other problem students use techniques in analyzing and acquiring
domain information.
REFERENCES
Alfassi, M. (1998). Reading for meaning: the efficacy of reciprocal teaching in fostering reading
comprehension in high school students in remedial reading classes. American Educational
Research Journal, 35, 309–332.
Alfassi, M. (2004). Reading to learn: effects of combined strategy instruction on high school
students. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(4), 171. Retrieved October 30, 2014 from
Proquest database.
Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text structure/summarization
instruction facilitate learning from expository text? Reading Research Quarterly, 22,331–
346.
Baddeley, A. D. (1982). Memory: A user’s guide. London: Penguin
Bahrick, H. P.& Bahrick, L. E. & Bahrick, A. S. & Bahrick, P. E. ( 1993). Maintenance of foreign
language vocabulary and the spacing effect. Psychological Science, 4, 316-321.
156
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
Barry, K., & King, L. (2004). Beginning teaching and beyond (3rd ed.).Victoria: Thomson Social
Science Press.
Brown, A. L. (1986). Guided, cooperative learning. Cambridge, Mass: Bolt Beranek and Newman
Inc.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1985). Reciprocal Teaching of comprehension strategies: a
natural history for one program for enhancing learning. Technical Report No. 334. National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Retrieved November 15, 2013 from
ERIC database.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1985). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension strategies: A natural
history of one program for enhancing learning (Technical Report No. 334). Urbana, Illinois,
USA: Center of the Study of Reading, University of Illinois.
Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Carr, K. S. (1990). How can we teach critical thinking? Elementary and Early Childhood Education,
Urbana, Illinois. Retrieved May 26, 214 from ERIC database.
Carstairs-MacCarthy, A. (2002). An introduction to English Morphology. Edinburg: Edinburg
University Press.
Center, Y. (2005). Beginning reading: a balanced approach to literacy instruction during the first
three years at school. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
157
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
Chen, C. M., You, T. Y., Yang, Y. F., & Huang, C. C. (2004). An evaluation of English proficiency
tests for college students in Taiwan. Taiwan: Ministry of Education.
Chen, Y. H. (2004). Elementary and junior high school English teachers’ perceptions and
implementation of remedial instruction for underachievers. Master thesis, National Taiwan
Normal University, Taipei.
Chick, K. A. (2006). Fostering student collaboration through the use of historical picture books. The
Social Studies, 97(4), 152-157. Retrieved May 26, 2014 from Proquest database.
Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1996). Research methods in education. London. Routledge.
Coley, J., DePinto, T., Craig, S., & Gardner, R. (1993). From college to classroom: three teachers’
accounts of their adaptations of Reciprocal Teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2),
255-266.
Cotterall, S. (1990). Reciprocal teaching: a problem-solving approach to reading. Guidelines, 12, 2.
Craik, F. I. M.( 2002). Levels of processing: Past, present.....and future? Memory, 10, 305-318.
Dashwood, A., & Mangubhai, F. ESL students and strategy training in reading comprehension
decoding the implications for second language learning and teaching. Paper presented at the
ACTA–ATESOL (NT) National Conference and 7th TESOL in Teacher Education
Conference, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia, 1996.
Dreyer, C., & Nel, C. (2003). Teaching reading strategies and reading comprehension within a
technology-enhanced learning environment. System, 31, 349–365
158
Vol. 73 | No. 5 | May 2017 International Journal of Sciences and Research
Drucker, P. (1967). The effective executive. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
Duffy, G. G. (2003). Explaining reading. New York: The Guilford Press.
Duyar, M. S. (2005, July). Mega KDIÕ]D__$YDLODEOH_IWS__ Retrieved on Sept.9, 2014.from
www.megahafiza.com.tr /urunler/test-eng.htm.
El-Komy & Abdel, S. A. Effects of three questioning strategies on EFL reading comprehension.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of other
Languages. Chicago, IL, 30th March 1996.
159
View publication stats
