دوفصلنامه خواندن، یادگیری مستمر و رفتار علمی

An investigation of reciprocal teaching on EFL learner's reading comprehension

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

چکیده

Purpose: This study investigated the effects of reciprocal teaching on the English reading comprehension and metacognitive reading strategies of Iranian pre-university learners in a reading comprehension classroom.
Method: To fulfill the purpose of the study, the participants, included 60 female junior high school students were randomly assigned into two experimental and control groups each consisting of 30 learners. The experimental group was taught through reciprocal teaching while the control group was taught through traditional teaching method. Following a pretest, treatment, and a posttest, the obtained data was analyzed using paired t-test to examine the effects of the independent variables.
Findings: The results of the analysis indicated that reciprocal teaching had a significantly positive effect on the English reading comprehension and usage of the four main metacognitive reading strategies of the students. The posttest mean score of the experimental group was significantly higher than that of the control group at 0.05 level. However, less proficient learners reported high favor of the reciprocal strategy compared to the learners with higher level of proficiency. It is noteworthy that both experimental and control group had a better performance on the posttest when compared with the pretest. The findings are discussed as far as effective reciprocal teaching is concerned in a foreign language teaching context.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

An investigation of reciprocal teaching on EFL learner's reading comprehension

نویسنده [English]

  • Zahra Talebi

چکیده [English]

Purpose: This study investigated the effects of reciprocal teaching on the English reading comprehension and metacognitive reading strategies of Iranian pre-university learners in a reading comprehension classroom.
Method: To fulfill the purpose of the study, the participants, included 60 female junior high school students were randomly assigned into two experimental and control groups each consisting of 30 learners. The experimental group was taught through reciprocal teaching while the control group was taught through traditional teaching method. Following a pretest, treatment, and a posttest, the obtained data was analyzed using paired t-test to examine the effects of the independent variables.
Findings: The results of the analysis indicated that reciprocal teaching had a significantly positive effect on the English reading comprehension and usage of the four main metacognitive reading strategies of the students. The posttest mean score of the experimental group was significantly higher than that of the control group at 0.05 level. However, less proficient learners reported high favor of the reciprocal strategy compared to the learners with higher level of proficiency. It is noteworthy that both experimental and control group had a better performance on the posttest when compared with the pretest. The findings are discussed as far as effective reciprocal teaching is concerned in a foreign language teaching context.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Reciprocal Teaching
  • Reading Comprehension
  • Cognitive strategies
  • Metacognitive strategies
Ababaf, Z. (2010). Study on High School Students’ Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies in Learning in Iran. Edulearn10 Proceedings, pp. 2206-2211
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(2), 309-332.
Alvermann, D.E., and Phelps, S.F. (1998). Content reading and literacy: Succeeding in today’s diverse classrooms. Boston: Allynand Bacon.
Bartz, A. (1998). Basic statistical concepts (4th Ed.). Old Tappan, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Brady, P.L. (1990). Improving the reading comprehension of middle school students through reciprocal teaching and semantic mapping strategies. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oregon.
Billingsley, B.S., and Wildman, T.M. (1988). The Effects of Pre-reading Activities on the Comprehension Monitoring of Learning Disabled Adolescents. Learning Disabilities Research, 4 (1), 36–44.
Brooks, J., and Brooks, G. (2001). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Brown, A. and Palincsar, A. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393-451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carter, C. (1997). Why reciprocal teaching? Educational Leadership, 54, 64-66.
Cohen, A.D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Essex: Longman.
Goldenberg, C. (2006). Improving achievement for English learners: What the research tells us. Education Week, 34-36.
Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does – and does not - say. American Educator, 32(2), 8-23, 42-44.
Greenway, C. (2002).The process, pitfalls and benefits of implementing a reciprocal teaching intervention to improve the reading comprehension of a group 146 of year 6 pupils.Educational Psychology in Practice, 18(2), 113-137.
Hacker, D., and Tenent, A. (2002). Implementing reciprocal teaching in the classroom: Overcoming obstacles and making modifications. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 699-718.
Harper, C., and De Jong, E. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching English-language learners. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(2), 152-162.
Hashey, J., and Connors, D. (2003). Learn from our journey: Reciprocal teaching action research. Reading Teacher, 57(3), 224-232.
Hatch, E., and Farhady, H. (1982). Research design and statistics for applied linguists. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House. 
Himmele, P., andHimmele, W. (2009). The language-rich classroom: A research-based framework for teaching English language learners. Alexandria, VA: Associationfor Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Irwin, J. W. (2007). Teaching Reading Comprehension Processes Third Edition. Boston. Pearson Ed. Inc.
Johnston, P. H. (1983). Reading comprehension assessment: A cognitive basis. Newark,  DE: International Reading Association.
Karbalaei, A. (2010). A Comparison of the Metacognitive Reading Strategies Used by EFL and ESL Readers. The Reading Matrix, 10, Number 2.
Lachat, M. A. (2004). Standards- based instruction and assessment for English language learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.147
Lubliner, S. (2001). A practical guide to reciprocal teaching. Bothell, WA: Wright/McGraw-Hill.
Lee, L. and Gunderson, E. (2001). Select Readings. Intermediate: Oxford University Press.
Maria, K. (1990). Reading comprehension instruction: Issues and strategies. Parkton, MD:York Press.
Moghadam, M. Kh. (2010).The effect of strategies-based instruction on student’s reading comprehension of ESP texts. Retrieved November 7, 2011 from: http://esp-world.info/Articles_17/PDF/Majid_Kh_Moghadam.pdf
Myers, P. A. (2005). The princess storyteller, Clara clarifier, Quincy questioner, and the wizard: Reciprocal teaching adapted for kindergarten students. Reading Teacher, 59(4), 314-324.
Palincsar, A., and Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension- fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
Palincsar, A., Ransom, K., and Derber, S. (1988). Collaborative research and development of reciprocal teaching. Educational Leadership, 46(4), 37-40.
Wilson, B. (1996). Constructivist learning environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
دوفصلنامه خواندن، یادگیری مستمر و رفتار علمی
دوره 1، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 2
اسفند 1396
صفحه 109-121