Journal of Educational Research & Indigenous Studies

Journal of Educational Research and Indigenous Studies

Volume: 3 (1), 2021
Journal website: www.jerisjournal.com
e-ISSN 2682-759X

Reciprocal Teaching and Reading Comprehension:

An Integrative Review
Ting Pick Dew1, Suyansah Swanto1 & Vincent Pang1
1Universiti Malaysia Sabah

Abstract
Article Info
The success of reading comprehension process through meaning
Received: construction is attainable when readers use linguistics and
13 May 2020 background knowledge to apply cognitive and metacognitive
reading strategies to interact with the text. Strengthened
Accepted: reading strategies facilitate more significant progress in text
16 October 2020 comprehension. In recognition of the importance of reading
strategies in improving reading comprehension, this paper
Publish therefore aims at synthesizing the existing relevant literature to
01 April 2021 establish the theoretical foundations of reciprocal teaching,
E-mail address:
highlighting the use of the four reading strategies and reviewing
research that focused on the impacts of using reciprocal teaching
*corresponding Author :
[email protected]
in reading comprehension. Conclusively, reciprocal teaching
_______________________ fulfills the key features of effective intervention as significant
gains were mostly observed in the research using reciprocal
e-ISSN 2682-759X teaching as intervention. The versatility of reciprocal teaching
makes the technique adaptable to learners of varying
background, age and levels of education.

Keyword: reciprocal teaching, reading strategies, multiple

strategy instruction, reading interventions, and comprehension.
____________________________________________

Introduction

Reading comprehension is a pervasive, complex, and multidimensional procedure that

encompasses multiple interaction in which the reader bridges their background knowledge with
the textual information through the application of reading strategies. Linguistic knowledge,
awareness on the functions of reading strategies and mutual interpretations of reader’s
background knowledge and text structure are three prerequisites to reading comprehension.
Scholars in the field of reading comprehension are adamant that application of cognitive and
metacognitive reading strategies (Anderson, 1999; Carrell, 1989; Grabe, 1991, Pressley, 2006) is
crucial in the process of comprehension regulating and monitoring. In order to establish a
methodical depiction of the information presented on the text (Cain, 2010), skilled readers use
these reading strategies for comprehension regulation and monitoring (Grabe & Stoller, 2002).

Journal of Educational Research and Indigenous Studies @ipgktaa

1
www.jerisjournal.com
 Journal of Educational Research & Indigenous Studies

Over the last decades, colossal amount of interest has been given to reading strategy instruction
(Brevik, 2019). Unequal interest inclining towards first language is worrying considering the
diverse students population and the demanding expectations for academic success that place
heavy emphasis on the needs for the English as second language (ESL) learners to acquire the
abilities to comprehend texts more efficiently. In line with the stance that a repertoire of reading
strategies employed by readers to empower them in meaning construction will result in better
comprehension, this paper therefore, reviews the most popular and influential multiple
comprehension strategy instruction; reciprocal teaching, in order to establish its theoretical
foundations by synthesizing the existing relevant literature, to accentuate the use of four reading
strategies; predict, clarify, question and summarize, and the impacts of practicing reciprocal
teaching in secondary schools’ reading comprehension classrooms.

Literature Review

Reciprocal Teaching
Reciprocal teaching which is coined by Palincsar and Brown (1984) is a collaborative
comprehension-monitoring instructional procedures in which small groups of students learn the
application of four reading strategies through scaffold instruction. Similarly, in Rosenshine and
Meister’s (1994) influential meta-analytical study, reciprocal teaching is defined as explicit
instruction that disseminates metacognition during the process of meaning construction.

Carter (1997) asserts that reciprocal teaching is parallel with the paradigm shift in reading which
views reading as concerted effort, in which the success of comprehension now depends on the
readers’ ability to construct meanings based on their background knowledge and textual evidence.
The construction of meaning from the text enables the reader to either affirm or contrast the
author’s message. McAllum (2014) refers to reciprocal teaching as a fusion of reading strategies
in an inclusive instructional practice that incorporates explicit teaching of metacognitive skills
and dialectic process that enables the construction of understanding and comprehension.

Aiming at designing an approach that helps students to acquire the reading comprehension
strategies and later become self-regulated readers, Palincsar and Brown (1984) initially
delineated that reciprocal teaching is intended for students with poor comprehension skills by
influencing the way they interact with the text using four concrete strategies. The four strategies
are summarizing, clarifying, questioning and predicting.

Summarizing
First, summarizing is modelled as a self-review activity. Summarization is simultaneously
consolidating information by allotting attention to the major content and checking for
understanding. This synthesis of key ideas and paraphrasing them in own words function as self-
assessment for content understanding. Inability to synthesize should not be regarded as
decontextualization incapability but as an alarming notification that remedial actions such as
rereading, are necessary.

Clarifying
Clarifying eventuates when there were textual uncertainties or confusions in interpretation.
Extraction of team members’ collective knowledge on the critical evaluation over the meaning of
unfamiliar words while the text is being read occur in clarifying. In addition, the discernment of
gist, main ideas and themes in the text is crucial in this stage. Williams (2010) suggests that
clarification of single words or phrases should precede the clarification of ideas. Palincsar (1986)
asserts that the process of clarification is an indication of many reasons for comprehension
difficulties such as unknown words, unclear phrases, and new concepts.

Journal of Educational Research and Indigenous Studies @ipgktaa

2
www.jerisjournal.com
 Journal of Educational Research & Indigenous Studies

Questioning
Similarly, questioning is to be practiced cooperatively among the four strategies. Performing
questioning strategy on the content places heavy emphasis on the understanding of main ideas
for meaning explication. Frequent confusions over the clarifying and questioning procedures are
highlighted by Seymour and Osana’s (2003) study that revealed the struggles experienced by the
teachers in differentiating between both procedures. In detail, elucidation of unknown vocabulary
and concepts happens in clarifying, whereas questioning provides answers that will help to
explicate the main ideas of the text.

Predicting
Predicting is less complicated as compared to questioning and clarifying. Gruenbaum (2012)
refers to prediction as generation of hypothesis or assumptions about the text. Prediction is
attempted by using background knowledge and contextual cues to prognosticate forthcoming
materials. Halting to draw and test inferences about future context at critical points in reading
helps to reevaluate the predictions and make any revision when necessary. Predictions on the
context of the text can be drawn even by reading the title. In attempting predicting for a
subsequent paragraph of a text, readers can search for hints of the overall organization from
earlier paragraphs. Their predictions, therefore, represent their postulations of the author’s
intention.

The employment of these four strategies in reciprocal teaching is able to strengthen students’
reading comprehension (Gruenbaum, 2012; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Yang, 2010). The
emergence of new meanings from difficult texts through the application of these reading strategies
supports the students’ journey of becoming active readers who have overcome their intimidation
caused by challenging texts (Gowlerski & Moon, 2011).

Theoretical Foundation of Reciprocal Teaching

The theoretical framework of reciprocal teaching as discussed by Palincsar and Brown (1984) is
based on three theories; social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978), scaffolding (Wood, Bruner &
Ross, 1976), and Proleptic Teaching (Rogoff & Gardner, 1984; Wertsch & Stone, 1979).

Social Constructivism
As envisaged by Vygotsky (1978), social interaction is rudimentary process that precedes
development as cognition resulted in socialization. This theory holds that before a learning can
be internalized by a child (intra-psychological), it has to be first mediated on a social level (inter-
psychological). This theory also indicates that inter-psychological learning often involve
mentoring provided by more knowledgeable persons such as teachers, trainers, coaches, or peers
who are engaged in the same activity. The interaction often result in the process of guidance or
collaboration, which implies the closing of gap between what is achievable individually and what
is attainable with guidance from a more skilled partner, thus leads to Vygotsky’s (1978) ZPD; the
difference in the child’s actual development and his potential capabilities in peer collaboration.

Reciprocal teaching falls comfortably within social constructivism. Palincsar and Brown (1984)
also believed that understanding is co-constructed through small groups discussion. Process of
guidance happens in the initial modelling by the expert or teacher and collaboration is seen
throughout the discussion with more knowledgeable peers assuming the role as dialogue leaders.
This type of interaction enables the new construction of ideas or understanding in learners by
shaping their background knowledge, thus allowing the learners to move across their zone of
proximal development.

Journal of Educational Research and Indigenous Studies @ipgktaa

3
www.jerisjournal.com
 Journal of Educational Research & Indigenous Studies

Scaffolding
Building upon Vygotsky’s ZPD, Wood et al.’s (1976) scaffolding theory is defined as learner’s
constructive interaction with an expert. The expert’s role is to assist the learner by guiding the
unattainable tasks. Scaffolding provides proper, sufficient and specifically tailored support to
advocate the process of learning when dealing with new concepts or ideas. These supports may
include learning tools, enthralling tasks, lesson plans or modules and could be employed through
modelling the task, giving suggestions or coaching and even guidance.

Scaffolding, as elaborated by Wood et al. (1976), is acculturated to the readers’ current learning
state and as learning independence progresses, these supports are gradually reduced or faded.
This ‘fading’ is categorized as an essential element in scaffolding by Collins, Brown and Newman
(1989) as it is necessary to facilitate learner’s independence. As readers become more competent
in applying the new knowledge or skill, the scaffolding is removed with expert ‘fades’ or reduces
his or her interference through the provision of minimal cues, treatments and feedback.
Nevertheless, substantial assistance that shape readers’ understanding can be given if they
encounter challenging texts.

Palincsar and Brown (1984) also reiterate that expert scaffolding is crucial to reciprocal teaching.
Scaffolding procedures in reciprocal teaching manifest in the form of prompts, clues or guidance
that aims at achieving the attainment of the task. The procedures include explanations, more
manageable tasks, stimulation of readers’ interest, highlighting the critical features, and solving
the problems (Palincsar & Brown, 1984), thus, enabling task performance and problem solving
with experts support until gaining learning independence. The experts in reciprocal teaching acts
as a mentor, providing support in shaping the learning process whenever necessary (Rosenshine
& Meister, 1994). As scaffolding is an adaptive process, it depends entirely on the expert’s constant
judgements over reader’s ability and knowledge (Wood et al., 1976). Within the framework of
reciprocal teaching, a common scaffold is through modelling, in which the experts actually
attempt the task and explicitly vocalize their thoughts as they attempt the task.

Proleptic Teaching
Besides social constructivism and expert scaffolding, proleptic teaching which is a procedure in
apprenticeship instruction also establishes the theoretical ground for reciprocal teaching.
Proleptic teaching refers to teaching in expectation for competency (Brown et al., 1991). One main
characteristic of proleptic teachers is their high surmises over students’ ability to accomplish the
task regardless of their level of proficiency. Guidance is however given until task accomplishment
can be performed independently.

Another prominent characteristic of proleptic teaching is teacher’s empowerment of learning

process to students. A proleptic teacher describes and instantiates the learning process, has high
expectations, believes in the students’ ability to excel beyond their current performance and
gradually empowered the cognitive responsibility to the students (Brown & Palincsar, 1989;
Rogoff & Garner, 1984).

The procedure of proleptic teaching is seen in all the reciprocal teaching activities. The
demonstration on the application of reading strategies is conducted by the teacher or team leader.
The necessary guidance from the experts and gradual empowerment of cognitive responsibility
escalate the progress of the team members in becoming more proficient readers. In order to
enable readers’ reflection upon their progress and overall purposes of the task given, the
instructions and guidance from the expert are performed throughout the entire session.

Journal of Educational Research and Indigenous Studies @ipgktaa

4
www.jerisjournal.com
 Journal of Educational Research & Indigenous Studies

Methodology

Integrative review was adopted into this study to synthesize, compare and contrast the impacts of
utilizing reciprocal teaching in ESL reading comprehension classrooms. Torraco (2005) refers to
integrative review as an emblematic type of research that effectuate the construction of new
knowledge by reviewing, critiquing and synthesizing literature of specific topic in an integrated
way so as to enable the emergence of new frameworks or perspectives.

The postulation of Whittemore and Knafl (2005) regarding the incorporation of various
methodologies advocates a greater role of integrative review in evidence-based practice. In order
to perform this review, Whittemore and Knafl’s (2005) five stages were undertaken to identify the
relevant studies to be included in this synthesis. They are: (i) problem identification stage, (ii)
literature search stage, (iii) data evaluation stage, (iv) data analysis stage, and lastly (v)
presentation stage.

In guiding the literature search, a research question was defined. The five databases that were
chosen are Scopus, ScienceDirect, Springer, JSTOR, and ERIC. Using the search terms “reciprocal
teaching” or “reciprocal reading” and “reading comprehension” or “text comprehension” for all
referred journal articles that were written in English between the years of 2010 and May 2020,
the search yielded 216 results. Duplicates removal resulted in 187 studies.

To ensure a thorough search, snowball sampling was conducted through manual searching of
reference lists from selected papers. Based on the inclusion criteria; (a) the study must have been
relevant to the instruction of reading comprehension in ESL or EFL setting, (b) the study focused
on mainstream schools, (c) the study ranged from the elementary school to university levels, and
(d) the study involved only primary data, the abstracts of the 41 articles were read. The 15 papers
that fulfilled the criteria were studied thoroughly and content analysis was performed.

Results

Background Characteristics: Research Design and Samples

Experimental design (n = 8) tops the list, followed by mixed methods (n = 4) and qualitative
studies (n = 3). Of the 15 studies, 6 were conducted in the Taiwan, 3 studies in Iran, 2 studies from
Malaysia and a study from Jordan (AlSaraireh & Ku Hamid, 2016), Netherlands (Muijselaar et
al., 2017), the Philippines (Cuartero, 2018) and Indonesia (Komariah et al., 2015).

The 15 studies totaled 1416 ESL/EFL students. The size of the sample varies from 14 to 510
students, with 695 (49%) college or university students, taken from 10 studies, 4 studies
amounted 211 (15%) secondary school students and a study (Muijselaar et al., 2017) focused on a
large sample size of 510 (36%) elementary school students.

These participants were identified from an immense range of measurement specifications for
individuals who are known as good decoders with limited comprehension skills. These
measurements include teacher nominations and standardized tests. Standardized test results
were used in 9 studies. For instance, Test of English as International Communication (TOEIC)
were used by Yang (2010), Yeh et al. (2016) and Tseng and Yeh (2017), whereas General English
Proficiency Test (GEPT) was performed by Hou (2015) and Huang and Yang (2015), to confirm
the required criteria for their study. The selection of participants who fit into the criterion of good
decoder but weak in comprehension through teachers’ nominations was employed by the
remaining 6 studies.

Journal of Educational Research and Indigenous Studies @ipgktaa

5
www.jerisjournal.com
 Journal of Educational Research & Indigenous Studies

Based on the methods of measurement, 818 (57.7%) students from 7 studies (Komariah et al.,
2015; Hou, 2015; Humaira et al., 2015; Izadi & Nowrouzi, 2016; Jafarigohar et al., 2013;
Muijselaar et al., 2017; and Navaie, 2018) were categorized as mixed abilities while the remaining
8 studies resulted in 598 (42.3%) struggling readers.

Characteristics of Intervention: Duration and Types

A great difference in the duration of intervention is discerned in the studies. Out of the 15 studies,
11 indicated the duration in weeks, 3 studies used sessions and a study did not include the details
regarding the duration of the intervention. The 4 weeks (n =3) and 12 weeks (n = 3) duration were
preferred by the researchers who indicated the duration in weeks in their studies. This is followed
by 10 weeks (n =2) and 18 weeks (n = 2).

Hou’s (2015) study was the only one that incorporated 16 weeks of intervention. The mean of
intervention weeks of the 11 studies was 10.9 weeks (SD = 5.24), ranging from 4 to 18 weeks. For
the duration of intervention indicated by sessions, the mean was 8.6 sessions (SD = 5.50), with 5,
6 and 15 sessions respectively for the 3 studies.

The intensity of each intervention session was detailed in 10 studies. Within the range of 60
minutes to 240 minutes per intervention session in a week, it averages up to 120 minutes (SD =
65.99) per weekly intervention. In totaling the intensity (minutes per session) and frequency
(number of sessions) of the sessions for the 10 studies, an average of 1445 minutes (SD = 988.05)
was reported. This ranges from from 320 minutes to 2880 minutes of total minutes spent.

It is important to highlight that the intervention of the 15 studies were conducted in 3 ways; face-
to-face, online platforms and blended learning. The most prevalent type of intervention was
conducted face-to-face (n = 10), followed by online platforms (n = 4) which were all from studies
conducted in Taiwan and only Chang and Lan’s (2019) study used blending learning; both face-
to-face and online.

Characteristics of Implementation: Sequence, Group Structure and Materials

In regard to the sequence of strategies in Reciprocal Teaching; predicting (P), clarifying (C),
questioning (Q) and summarizing (S), during implementation, the most preferred sequence
started with the predicting strategy (n = 9); P-C-Q-S (n = 5), followed by P-Q-S-C (n = 2), P-Q-C-
S (n = 2). The 2 studies that used questioning as the first strategy are conducted by Izadi and
Nowrouzi (2016); Q-P-S-C, and Navaie (2018); Q-S-C-P. Interesting the study by Chang and Lan
(2019) incorporated 4 combinations; P-Q-C-S, S-P-Q-C, C-S-P-Q and Q-C-S-P. The 3 studies that
did not mention the sequence of reciprocal teaching in implementation were Jafarigohar et al.
(2013), Hou (2015) and Huang and Yang (2015).

With only 9 studies indicated the grouping structure, the dominant structure in all the 15 studies
is groups, specifically small groups of 3 or 4 students (n = 6). Huang and Yang (2015) used a
formation of large group; 6 in a group, Tan et al. (2011) combined individual and group tasks
during implementation, whereas only Yang (2010) preferred individual task. Furthermore, of the
14 studies that mentioned the types of reading materials used in their study, the most favorable
type of texts used is expository texts (n = 10), while 3 studies used narrative texts and a study
utilized both expository and narrative texts.

Outcomes of Intervention
In general, majority of the intervention resulted in positive outcomes in reading comprehension
(n = 14). Only the study conducted by Muijselaar et al, (2017) resulted in challenging outcome,
denoting the failure of reciprocal teaching in improving young learners’ reading comprehension.

Journal of Educational Research and Indigenous Studies @ipgktaa

6
www.jerisjournal.com
 Journal of Educational Research & Indigenous Studies

Discussion

This integrative review aims at scrutinizing the empirical researches focused on intervention to
improve reading comprehension that incorporated reciprocal teaching for ESL or EFL learners.
The findings, though preliminary due to predetermined criteria, provide a summary of the
reviewed literature that provides assistance for future studies. The variety of methodological
quality and limitation in the available information do not hinder the identification of a wide range
of intervention criteria for ESL or EFL learners.

A general result from this integrative review demonstrates the importance of engaging students
in learning, providing explicit reading comprehension instruction to small groups of students, and
gradually transferring the responsibility of learning to students after modelling and guidance.
Building on the potential benefits that could be gained from these characteristics, reciprocal
teaching combines these elements in its instructional procedures to ensure the success in the
knowledge transfer of reading strategies after the intervention on the reading comprehension.

Intervention in the reviewed studies was generally focused on small group setting, college or
university students identified through standardized test measurement as adequate decoder with
limited comprehension skill, followed by secondary school students. Only the study by Muijselaar
et al. (2017) focused on elementary school students (n = 510), and of all the 15 studies, their study
is the only study that reported challenging outcomes as their intervention resulted in the increase
of awareness and knowledge of reading strategies but did not have any significant impact on the
scores of the students’ reading comprehension. The 3 reasons that were accountable for this result
are: (a) inappropriate dissemination of reading strategies, (ii) the young age of the participants,
and, (iii) the use of standardized test measures that might not be as closely-aligned to researcher-
developed test.

A variety of intervention duration and types were also construed from the synthesis of the 15
studies. With a minimum duration of 4 weeks to a maximum intervention length of 18 weeks,
face-to-face intervention was a more preferred method as compared to using online platforms or
blended learning as it is easier to foster collaboration in the traditional face-to-face method. The
sequence of reciprocal reading strategies, group structure and reading materials also contributed
to the positive outcomes in reading comprehension.

Classification criteria
The first notable issue is the selection criteria. A wide range of criteria can be imposed in
identifying good decoder with comprehension difficulties. However, they could be categorized
under teachers nominations and standardized test. A dominant preference (9 studies) used
standardized language proficiency tests such as TOEIC or GEPT to select participants for their
study.

One possible explanation for this preference may be due to the objectiveness of this method in
applying a cut-off value for selecting the participants. Theoretically, achievement tests are carried
out to measure the extent to which a student has mastered certain skill or area of knowledge.
Similar to imposing diagnostic tests to identify problematic areas, executing standardized tests
and cut-off value in participant selection may resulted in identifying distinct groups of students
that fit well into the category of good decoders but with poor comprehension skill.

Beside standardized tests, 6 studies used teacher nominations in their selection process. Referred
as ‘gatekeeper’ by McBee (2006), teacher nominations were believed to be a better method than
standardized tests (Schroth & Helfer, 2008). This is probably due to the reasons that teachers

Journal of Educational Research and Indigenous Studies @ipgktaa

7
www.jerisjournal.com
 Journal of Educational Research & Indigenous Studies

recognize their students and are able to recognize the characteristics, hence are able to make
accurate nominations. This process can be as informal as asking the teachers to just think about
a few students in their class who might qualify as participants, or as formal as completing
checklists or rating scales of perceived behaviors and known characteristics of their students using
specific forms.

One way to ensure the validity of selection methods would be to precede the use of standardized
language proficiency test with teacher nominations method. By combining these two methods, it
enables the students’ objective performances to be measured via tests and their subjective
elements to be highlighted by teacher nomination.

Intervention Intensity
Besides the selection criteria, another notable issue is the intensity of intervention. The intensity
of intervention is congruent with the duration and frequency of the intervention, session length,
the size of the instructional group and other relevant factors, including the settings of the
intervention, the knowledge of the experts, and how each task is carried out during the
intervention. Students’ characteristics and their needs are the main determinants for the intensity
level of an effective intervention.

Although the information regarding the frequency of the intervention is missing, information
regarding the duration of the intervention and length per session are enclosed. They range from
4 weeks to 18 weeks, with a minimum of 60 minutes per week to a maximum of 240 minutes per
week. Three studies disclosed the information in terms of sessions, ranged from 5 to 15 sessions.

In the meta-analysis of one-on-one instruction performed by Elbaum et al. (2000), better results
are seen in the interventions of 20 weeks or less as compared to those interventions longer than
20 weeks. This indicates the possibility of students making sizeable gains early in intervention.
Therefore, instead of prolonging the duration of intervention, a better alternative is to intensify
the intervention by increasing the the number of sessions over the same numbers of weeks or the
hours of intervention. A good example of an intense intervention is the study conducted by
Torgesen et al. (2001) that focused on intervention on word reading and comprehension for sixty
students of the aged 8 to 10 years old, with severe reading disabilities. They received one-to-one
instruction over the duration of 8 weeks, with 2 sessions of 50 minutes per day. Substantial
improvements resulted from these 67.5 hours of intense one-on-one instruction. Their study also
reported that their improvements were sustained over the next 2 years of follow-up.

In addition, the review also elicited different sequence combinations of the four strategies;
predicting, clarifying, questioning, and summarizing. Although in Palincsar and Brown’s (1984)
study, summarizing is the first strategy introduced to the learners, followed by clarifying,
questioning and lastly predicting, this is not a fixed sequence for reciprocal teaching. Hence,
allowing researchers to experiment with divergent combinations. Nonetheless, one conspicuous
pattern is the preference to kick start the reciprocal cycle with predicting as this is perceived to be
the easiest strategies among the four. A conjecture that the success of reciprocal teaching relies
strongly on the strategies and not the sequence was affirmed when Chang and Lan’s (2019)
incorporation of the 4 combinations; (i) P-Q-C-S, (ii) S-P-Q-C, (iii) C-S-P-Q and (iv) Q-C-S-P, did
not provide any statistically significant result.

Apart from the varying sequence of reciprocal teaching strategies, the size of instructional group
is of equal significance. Consistent findings demonstrated positive effects of small-groups reading
interventions; elementary (Faggella-Luby & Wardwell, 2011; Nielsen & Friesen, 2012) and
secondary school levels (Bemboom & McMaster, 2013). A variation of group structure is found in

Journal of Educational Research and Indigenous Studies @ipgktaa

8
www.jerisjournal.com
 Journal of Educational Research & Indigenous Studies

the reviewed studies. However, the most prominent type is small groups of 3 or 4 students. The
incline towards this group structure is understandable considering the benefits gained from it.
Small groups discussion is more likely to engage active participation from all the members as
compared to larger grouping.

This is evident in Vaughn et al.’s (2003) study that compared the effects of the three variations of
group structures; (a) a group of 10 students, (b) a group of 3 students, and (c) one-on-one
instruction, on the outcomes of reading intervention. Results showed that significant gains in
reading comprehension scores was achieved by the students in small groups and one-to-one
instruction than those in groups of 10. When comparison was made in between the students who
received one-to-one instruction and small groups of 3, statistically significant differences were
not observed, thus implies the unnecessity in increasing the intervention intensity.

Furthermore, Lowry et al. (2006) and Pollock et al. (2011) also perceived active student
engagement and higher quality of interaction in small face-to-face groups, thus explained the
preference of the majority of the studies towards face-to-face interaction. When discussions are
involved, small face-to-face groups seem to galvanize students’ interest, thus enhance their
engagement with the materials (Pollock et al., 2011).

Lastly, a majority of the reviewed studies focused on higher levels of education such as college or
university students, in order to meet the demands of the reading comprehension classrooms, a
common practice would be incorporating expository texts in their study. The characteristics of
expositions such as technical facts, high density of information, complex and cognitively
demanding concepts have positioned expository texts as difficult texts to comprehend, Hall et al.,
(2005) and Williams (2005) agreed that exposing students to expository texts as early as Grade
2, either at whole class instruction or guided reading in small groups. has proven to be beneficial
to the students. Early exposure ensures that children are able to master these texts as they are not
only essential component in reading classrooms but a constant companion in everyday life.

Conclusion

This integrative review presented the methods and procedures of reciprocal teaching as reading
comprehension intervention over the last 10 years for students who have good decoding skill but
lacking in comprehension skill. Two conclusions derived from the findings of this review. First,
reciprocal teaching is an amalgamated approach that has been used extensively in reading
comprehension intervention for students with comprehension difficulties. Reviewed studies have
proven that reciprocal teaching is effective in improving reading comprehension with students of
varying ages, backgrounds and abilities.

Second, three key features that attributes the success of reciprocal teaching are; (a) the use of the
four strategies, (ii) the explicit instruction and scaffolding, and (iii) the collaborative interaction
among the students (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). The concerted efforts of these features ensure the
improvement in students’ ability to resolve comprehension difficulties. Consequently, enables
them to internalize new knowledge and develop their reading potential. Therefore, future research
should address these features in order to enhance the effectiveness of the reading intervention.

Journal of Educational Research and Indigenous Studies @ipgktaa

9
www.jerisjournal.com
 Journal of Educational Research & Indigenous Studies

References

AlSaraireh, M. Y., & Ku Hamid, K. M. N. (2016). The effect of the reciprocal teaching model on
developing jordanian students' reading comprehension at mutah university. International
Journal of Linguistics, 8(6), 69-93.
Anderson, N. J. (1999). Exploring second language reading: Issues and strategies. Boston:
Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Bemboom, C. M., & McMaster, K. I. (2013), A comparison of lower-and-higher resourced-tier 2
reading interventions for high school sophomores. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
28, 184-195.
Brevik, L. M. (2019). Explicit reading strategy instruction or daily use of strategies? Studying the
teaching of reading comprehension through naturalistic classroom observation in English L2.
Read Writ, 32, 2281–2310
Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C, Ferrare, R. A., Reeve, R. A., & Palinscar, A. S. (1991). Interactive
learning and individual understanding: The case of reading and mathematics. In L. T.
Landsman (Ed.), Culture, schooling, and psychological development: Vol. 4. Human
development (pp. 136-170). Norwod, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Brown, A. L. & Palinscar, A. S. (1989). Guided cooperative learning and individual knowledge
acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: essays in honour of
Robert Glaser (pp. 393-451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cain, K. (2010). Reading development and difficulties. UK: BPS Blackwell.
Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. The Modern
Language Journal, 73(2), 121-134.
Carter, C. J. (1997). Why reciprocal teaching? Educational Leadership, 54(6), 64–68.
Chang, M. M., & Lan, S. W. (2019). Exploring undergraduate efl students’ perceptions and
experiences of a moodle-based reciprocal teaching application. The Journal of Open, Distance
and e-Learning. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2019.1708298
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts
of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and
instruction: Essays in honour of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Cuortero, Z. R. R. (2018). Reciprocal cooperative learning in the teaching of reading
comprehension. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, 3(1),
526-547.
Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Watson Moody, S. (2000). How effective are one-to-one
tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-
analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 605-619.
Faggella-Luby, M., & Wardwell, M. (2011). RTI in a middle school: Findings and practical
implications of a tier 2 reading comprehension study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34, 35-
49.
Gorlewski, J., & Moon, S. (2011). Research for the Classroom: Trying on Reciprocal Teaching: A
Novice's Struggle Becomes a Veteran's Success. The English Journal, 101(2), 97-100. Retrieved
Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly,
25(3), 375-406.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F.L. (2002). Research on teaching reading. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 24, 44-69
Gruenbaum, E. A. (2012). Common literacy struggles with college students: Using the reciprocal
teaching technique. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 42(2), 109- 116.
Hall. K. M., Sabey, B. L., & McClellan, M. (2005). Expository text comprehension. Helping
primary-grade teachers use expository texts to full advantage. Reading Psychology, 26(3), 211-
234.

Journal of Educational Research and Indigenous Studies @ipgktaa

10
www.jerisjournal.com
 Journal of Educational Research & Indigenous Studies

Hou, Y. J. 2015 Reciprocal teaching, metacognitive awareness, and academic performance in

taiwanese junior college students International Journal of Teaching and Education, 3(4), 15-
32
Huang, C. T., & Yang, S. C. 2015 Effects of online reciprocal teaching on reading strategies,
comprehension, self-efficacy, and motivation. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
52(3), 381–407.
Humaira Raslie, Mikeng, D. & Ting, S. H. 2015 Reciprocal teaching and comprehension of
struggling readers. International Journal of Education, 7(1), 131-142.
Jafarigohar, M., Soleimani, H., & Soleimani, Z. (2013) The effects of reciprocal teaching vs.
thinkaloud on reading comprehension of pre-intermediate students in Iran International
Journal of English and Education, 2(1), 191-202.
Lowry, P. B., Roberts, T. L., Romano, N. C., Cheney, P. D., & Hightower, R. T. (2006). The impact
of group size and social presence on small-group communication: Does computer-mediated
communication make a difference? Small Group Research, 37(6), 631–661.
McAllum, R. (2014). Reciprocal teaching: Critical review on practice. Kairaranga, 15(1), 26-35.
McBee, M. (2010). Examining the Probability of Identification for Gifted Programs for Students
in Georgia Elementary Schools: A Multilevel Path Analysis Study. Gifted Child Quarterly,
54(4), 283–297. doi:10.1177/0016986210377927
Muijselaar, M., Swart, N., Steenbeek-Planting, E., Droop, M., Verhoeven, L., & de Jong. P. 2017
The effect of a strategy training on reading comprehension in fourth-grade students The
Journal of Educational Research, doi: 10.1080/00220671.2017.1396439
Navaie, L.A. (2018). The effects of reciprocal teaching on reading comprehension of Iranian EFL
learners. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 5(4), 26-30.
Nielsen, D. C., & Friesen, L. D. (2012). A study of the effectiveness of a small-group intervention
on the vocabulary and narrative development of at-risk kindergarten children. Reading
Psychology, 33, 269-299.
Palincsar, A. S. (1986). Reciprocal teaching. In 'leaching reading as thinking. Oak Brook, IL: North
Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and
comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Pollock, P. H., Hamann, K., & Wilson, B. M. (2011) Learning Through Discussions: Comparing
the Benefits of Small-Group and Large-Class Settings, Journal of Political Science Education,
7(1), 48-64, DOI: 10.1080/15512169.2011.539913
Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Rogoff, B., & Gardner, W. P. (1984). Adult guidance of cognitive development. In B. Rogoff, & J.
Lave (Eds.). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 134-157). London:
Cambridge University Press.
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A
review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181-221.
Schroth, S. T., & Helfer, J. A. (2009). Practitioners’ Conceptions of Academic Talent and
Giftedness: Essential Factors in Deciding Classroom and School Composition. Journal of
Advanced Academics, 20(3), 384–403. doi:10.1177/1932202x0902000302
Seymour, J. R., & Osana, H. P. (2003). Reciprocal teaching procedures and principles: two
teachers’ developing understanding. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 325-344.
Tan, O. L. C., Tan K. E. & Norlida Ahmad (2011) Effects of reciprocal teaching strategies on
reading comprehension The Reading Matrix, 11(2), 140-149
Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K. S., & Conway, T.
(2001). Intensive Remedial Instruction for Children with Severe Reading Disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(1), 33–58. doi:10.1177/002221940103400104
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human
Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. doi:10.1177/1534484305278283

Journal of Educational Research and Indigenous Studies @ipgktaa

11
www.jerisjournal.com
 Journal of Educational Research & Indigenous Studies

Tseng, S. S., & Yeh, H. C. (2017). Integrating reciprocal teaching in an online environment with
an annotation feature to enhance low-achieving students’ English reading comprehension,
Interactive Learning Environments, DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2017.1412989
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Kouzekanani, K., Bryant, D. P., Dickson, S., & Blozis, S. A.
(2003). Reading instruction grouping for students with reading difficulties. Remedial and
Special Education, 24, 301-315.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V., & Stone, C. A. (1979). A social interaction analysis of learning disabilities
remediation. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Association for Children
with Learning Disabilities, San Francisco.
Williams, J. A. (2010). Taking on the role of questioner: Revisiting reciprocal teaching. The
Reading Teacher, 64(4), pp. 278–281.
Williams, J. P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary-grade students: A focus
on text structure. The Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 6-18.
Whittemore, R. & Knafl, K. (2005) The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 52, 546-553. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
Yang, Y. F. (2010). Developing a reciprocal teaching/learning system for college remedial reading
instruction. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1193-1201.
Yeh, H. C., Hung, H. T., & Chiang, Y. H. (2017). The use of online annotations in reading
instruction and its impact on students’ reading progress and processes. ReCALL, 29(1), 1–17.

Journal of Educational Research and Indigenous Studies @ipgktaa

12
www.jerisjournal.com