Reciprocal Teaching of Reading Comprehension Strategies for Students with LearningDisabilities Who Use English as a Second...
Reciprocal Teachingof ReadingComprehensionStrategies for Studentswith LearningDisabilities WhoUse English as aSecond Langu...
276 THEELEMENTARYSCHOOLJOURNALcomprehension rather than the develop-ment of comprehension strategies, in eitherSpanish or ...
RECIPROCALTEACHING 2771991, who taught strategies in Spanish, orPadron, 1985, who provided instruction inEnglish).Prior re...
278 THEELEMENTARYSCHOOLJOURNALschool. The population of potential subjectsinvited to participate in the study included42 s...
TABLE1. Descriptive Background Information for Individual Students1992/93Age Origin/If U.S., Free Years ClassesStudent (Ye...
280 THEELEMENTARYSCHOOLJOURNALTABLE2. Descriptive Information for the Two Treatment GroupsTutoring Group Cooperative Learn...
RECIPROCALTEACHING 281now the researcher was no longer servingas a coach or facilitator. Students in thiscondition read th...
282 THEELEMENTARYSCHOOLJOURNALGroup OutcomesA two-way analysis of variance with onebetween-subjects and one within-subject...
I++++++ +++++++ + + +cuI>U cuLnhorb- O 00 O •qtO •t O N~Ltl O •t O N~X0 •. N~C"1C"1N~N~C"1.6-&0(n4-J w r4 cQOr4q w w Q wLn...
--N•-41.4Ui I I~~cr I1"1cIaJClLr;(JmU) en.J(U)Ec(U ir 0This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:0...
RECIPROCALTEACHING 285Percentage100-90Q8070605040302010-0Baseline PhaseOne PhaseTwo Follow-up1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 WeeksLeg...
286 THEELEMENTARYSCHOOLJOURNALPercentage100-90-80-70-6050-40-30-20-10-0Baseline PhaseOne PhaseTwo Follow-up1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8...
RECIPROCALTEACHING 287TABLE5. BackgroundTestScoresforIndividualStudents,by ReadingComprehensionGrowthand by TreatmentGroup...
288 THEELEMENTARYSCHOOLJOURNALproficient in Spanish. In light of the fact thatEnglish test passages were read, and in-stru...
RECIPROCALTEACHING 289of students can benefit from comprehensionstrategy instruction than was previously be-lieved, includ...
290 THEELEMENTARYSCHOOLJOURNALSecond, both interventions were struc-tured so that students negotiated meaningwhile reading...
RECIPROCALTEACHING 291Cohen, E. G. (1986). Designing groupwork:Strat-egies for the heterogeneousclassroom.NewYork: Teacher...
292 THEELEMENTARYSCHOOLJOURNALLee, J.F. (1986). Background knowledge and L2reading. Modern LanguageJournal, 70, 350-354.Lo...
RECIPROCALTEACHING 293Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of quali-tative research.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Torgesen, J...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Reciprocal teaching klingner and vaughn

624 views

Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Reciprocal teaching klingner and vaughn

  1. 1. Reciprocal Teaching of Reading Comprehension Strategies for Students with LearningDisabilities Who Use English as a Second LanguageAuthor(s): Janette Kettmann Klingner and Sharon VaughnSource: The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 96, No. 3, Special Issue: The Language-MinorityStudent in Transition (Jan., 1996), pp. 275-293Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1001758 .Accessed: 13/06/2013 11:01Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org..The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheElementary School Journal.http://www.jstor.orgThis content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:01:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  2. 2. Reciprocal Teachingof ReadingComprehensionStrategies for Studentswith LearningDisabilities WhoUse English as aSecond LanguageJanetteKettmannKlingnerSharonVaughnUniversityofMiamiThe ElementarySchoolJournalVolume 96, Number 3o1996 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.0013-5984/96/9603-0006$01.00AbstractIn this study, we investigatedthe efficacyof 2relatedinterventionson thereadingcomprehen-sionof seventhandeighthgraderswithlearningdisabilitieswho used Englishas a second lan-guage.All 26 studentsparticipatedin reciprocalteachingfor 15 days and then were randomlyassignedfor 12 days to 1 of 2 groups:reciprocalteachingwith cooperativegrouping(n = 13) orreciprocalteachingwith cross-agetutoring(n =13). Though there were no statisticallysignifi-cant differencesbetween groupson 2 measuresofcomprehension,studentsinbothgroupsmadesignificantprogressin readingcomprehension.Analyses focusedon understandingthe perfor-mance of more and less successful studentswithin groups. Findings revealed that initialreading ability and oral language proficiencyseemed relatedto gainsin comprehension,thata greaterrangeof studentsbenefitedfromstrat-egy instructionthanwould have been predictedon the basisof previousresearch,and that stu-dents in both groups continued to show im-provement in comprehensionwhen providedminimaladultsupport.Approximately 1 million students whospeak English as a second language (ESL)also exhibit serious learning problems thatmay qualify them for placement in specialeducation programs (Baca & Cervantes,1989). These students often exhibit moreproblems with reading comprehension thando fluent speakers of English of comparableability, because of differences in back-ground knowledge relevant to what is readin school and limited English language pro-ficiency (Clarke, 1980; Lee, 1986; Pritchard,1990). Yet, as is often the case with mon-olingual students with learning disabilities(LD), ESL students with LD typically havebeen placed in programs that stress activi-ties related to word identification and literalThis content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:01:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  3. 3. 276 THEELEMENTARYSCHOOLJOURNALcomprehension rather than the develop-ment of comprehension strategies, in eitherSpanish or English (Allington, 1991; Cum-mins, 1984; Gersten & Jimenez, 1994; Her-nandez, 1991; McGill-Franzen & Allington,1990).Comprehension strategy instruction isone promising approach for improvinglearning opportunities for ESL students,particularly those with LD. Because manystudents with LD are inefficient learnerswho are unaware of their own cognitiveprocesses or of how to determine the par-ticular task demands within a learning sit-uation (Flavell, 1971, 1977; Torgesen, 1977,1980), their lack of knowledge about whenand how to apply strategies prevents themfrom using their abilities most advanta-geously (Baker & Brown, 1984; Gibson &Levin, 1975). Many strategies have been de-veloped to improve the understanding,storage, and retrieval of complex, meaning-ful, and organized information (Armbrus-ter, Anderson, & Ostertag, 1987; Dewitz,Carr,& Patberg, 1987; Schumaker & Desh-ler, 1992; for a review see Pressley, Johnson,Symons, McGoldrick, & Kurita, 1989). Theeffectiveness of some of these strategies foruse with students with LD has been doc-umented (Weisberg, 1988; Wong, 1985). In-struction in reading comprehension strate-gies has been found to be effective for ESLstudents as well (Boyle & Peregoy, 1990;Hernandez, 1991; Padron, 1985).With the exception of the work con-ducted by Bos and colleagues (Bos, Allen,& Scanlon, 1989; Bos & Anders, 1992; Gal-lego, Duran, & Scanlon, 1990), however, al-most no research has been conducted incomprehension strategy instruction for ESLstudents with LD. One approach to teachingcomprehension strategies that holds prom-ise for second-language readers is Palincsarand Browns (1984) reciprocal teachingmodel (Casanave, 1988; Hernandez, 1991;Miller & Perkins, 1989; OMalley &Chamot, 1990).Reciprocal TeachingThe reciprocal teaching model has beenused to improve comprehension for stu-dents who can decode but have difficultycomprehending text (Lysynchuk, Pressley,& Vye, 1990; Palincsar & Brown, 1984,1985; for a review, see Rosenshine & Meis-ter, 1991). In this model, students are taughtto use the four strategies of prediction (An-derson &Pearson, 1984; Hansen &Pearson,1983), summarization (Brown & Day, 1983;Weisberg & Balajthy, 1990), question gen-eration (Davey & McBride, 1986; Singer &Donlan, 1982), and clarification (Baker,1979).At first, the teacher models use of thesestrategies by "thinking aloud" as she readsthrough a text. The teacher then leads stu-dents in a text-related discussion, assistingthem in strategy use and gradually with-drawing support as it is no longer necessary.As students become more proficient at ap-plying the strategies, they take turns beingthe "teacher" and leading discussions abouttext content.Reciprocal teaching recognizes that cog-nitive development occurs when conceptsfirst learned through social interactions be-come internalized and made ones own.Thus, reciprocal teaching provides an en-vironment in which students, with the as-sistance of the teacher and/or more knowl-edgeable peers, become increasinglyproficient at applying comprehension strat-egies while reading text passages.Previous reciprocal teaching researchhas established the effectiveness of com-prehension strategy instruction for studentswho are adequate decoders but poor com-prehenders (Palincsar & Brown, 1984).However, further research is needed to ex-amine the effects of strategy instruction onstudents who demonstrate patterns of read-ing abilities characteristic of most studentswith LD (i.e., students who are low in bothdecoding and comprehension). Althoughreciprocal teaching has been recommendedfor second-language learners by experts inthe field (OMalley & Chamot, 1990), fewempirical studies documenting its effective-ness have been conducted (for an exception,see the exploratory studies of Hernandez,JANUARY 1996This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:01:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  4. 4. RECIPROCALTEACHING 2771991, who taught strategies in Spanish, orPadron, 1985, who provided instruction inEnglish).Prior reciprocal teaching research hasexamined the effects of teacher-facilitatedstrategy instruction without examining howstudents apply strategies when the teacheris not present. To address this issue, in ourstudy we included cross-age tutoring andcooperative learning groups as a means toenhance strategic learning followingteacher-facilitated strategy instruction. Apotential strength of these collaborative ap-proaches is that they enable second-lan-guage learners to use their native languageto explain difficult passages or confusingprocedures to one another even when theclassroomteacherdoes not speaktheirfirstlanguage. Previous research in second lan-guage learning suggests that conceptualknowledge developed through studentsnative language can transfer to Englishwhen the appropriate vocabulary is learnedin English (e.g., Cummins, 1984, 1989;Diaz, Moll, & Mehan, 1986; Hakuta, 1990;Hudelson, 1987), thereby improving un-derstanding of English-language text. Thus,reciprocal teaching in combination witheither cross-age tutoring or cooperativelearning should accommodate linguistic dif-ferences in a way that reciprocal teachingalone does not and provide a viable methodof comprehension strategy instruction forESL students with LD.Cross-Age Tutoring and CooperativeLearningCross-age tutoring has been shown to ben-efit both tutors and tutees and to provideacademic and social benefits (Cohen, Kulik,& Kulik, 1982; Goodlad & Hirst, 1989;Scruggs & Richter, 1988). However, almostall of the research on tutoring students inreading has involved word-level oral read-ing or low-level comprehension activitiesrather than comprehension strategy train-ing (Pearson & Fielding, 1991). Neverthe-less, two studies suggest that tutors can suc-cessfully teach comprehension strategies tosame-age or younger peers (Palincsar et al.,1987; Schrader & Valus, 1990). Althoughfew empirical studies with ESL students aseither the tutor or tutee have been con-ducted, this type of peer interaction hasbeen promoted strongly as a way to increaseopportunities for meaningful communica-tion about academic content in either En-glish or students native languages (Cazden,1988; Garcia, 1987/1988, 1992; Richard-Amato, 1992).Cooperative learning also appears to bean appropriate instructional approach forESLstudents with LD. Cooperative learningmethods have sometimes produced favor-able results for students with LD (e.g., Mad-den & Slavin, 1983; Stevens, Madden,Slavin, & Famish, 1987) and for ESL stu-dents (Kagan, 1986; Long & Porter, 1985).The key to academic and cognitive growthappears to be how well the learning envi-ronment is structured to promote improvedperformance-just placing students togetherand telling them to cooperate is not enough.Cooperative groups provide ESL studentsan opportunity to draw on native languagesupport from bilingual peers (Cohen, 1986;Diaz et al., 1986).Purpose of StudyThe purpose of this study was to investigatethe effect of two approaches for providingreading comprehension strategy instructionto seventh- and eighth-grade ESL studentswith LD on comprehension of English-lan-guage text: (a) reciprocal teaching in com-bination with cross-age tutoring, and (b)re-ciprocal teaching in combination withcooperative grouping. Though we exploredbetween-group differences, we focused onunderstanding the performances of individ-ual students in each treatment group in aneffort to determine which characteristicswere most likely to contribute to success.MethodSubjectsSubjects were drawn from one predom-inately (89%) Hispanic urban middleThis content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:01:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  5. 5. 278 THEELEMENTARYSCHOOLJOURNALschool. The population of potential subjectsinvited to participate in the study included42 seventh- and eighth-grade ESL studentswith LD. Of these, 28 returned permissionslips, and 26 of those met the following cri-teria: (a) a significant discrepancy of at least11/2 standard deviations between standardscores on an intelligence test and anachievement test (both administered in En-glish) and evidence that their learning dif-ficulties were not due to other conditions(e.g., second-language learning, sensoryhandicap, physical handicap); (b) Spanishspoken as their native language, as deter-mined by both the State of Florida Lan-guage Survey and a researcher-adminis-tered interview; (c) English decoding skillsat least at the second-grade level, as mea-sured by the Woodcock-Johnson Tests ofAchievement (Woodcock &Johnson, 1989),Letter-Word Identification Subtest; and(d) scores at least 2 years below grade levelon the Woodcock-Johnson Tests ofAchievement, Passage ComprehensionSubtest. For all qualifying students, socialstudies instruction in their middle schoolwas provided predominately in English, us-ing English-language textbooks.Descriptive information in the form ofmarker variables, similar to those used inthe UCLA MarkerVariable System (Keogh,1987; Keogh, Major-Kingsley, Omori-Gor-don, & Reid, 1982), was collected to provide"descriptive benchmarks" that facilitate theinterpretation of research results and allowcomparisons of findings across differentsamples. This information is provided inthree ways. Table 1 lists background infor-mation other than test scores for each stu-dent. Table 2 contrasts the two treatmentgroups on selected variables. Table 5 pro-vides background test information for in-dividual students, by reading comprehen-sion growth and treatment group.Students were randomly assigned to thetutoring group or the cooperative learninggroup, so that there were 13 students ineach group. There was no attrition of sub-jects in this study.ProceduresStudents participated in modified recip-rocal teaching sessions for 27 days. First, all26 seventh- and eighth-grade students re-ceived 15 days of this modified reciprocalteaching instruction, for 40 minutes a day,in groups of six or seven students each (fa-cilitated by the first author). While theywere reading social studies passages, stu-dents learned the following six strategies(expanded from Palincsar & Browns fourstrategies, 1984): (a) predict what a givenpassage would be about, (b) brainstormwhat they already knew about the topic ofa passage, (c)clarify words and phrases theydid not understand while reading, (d) high-light the main idea of a paragraph, (e) sum-marize the main idea(s) and the importantdetails in a paragraph or passage, and(f) ask and answer questions about a pas-sage.On the first day of strategy instruction,after preparing students with purpose-set-ting statements (Deshler, Schumaker, &Lenz, 1984; Duffy et al., 1987; Palincsar &Brown, 1984; Paris, Lipson, & Wixson,1983), the researcher (the firstauthor) mod-eled the entire process of reading a passageand applying the strategies. Comprehen-sion strategy cue sheets that included de-scriptions of the strategies were distributed.On the second day, the researcher againmodeled the entire process of reading a pas-sage and applying the strategies, involvingstudents in discussions about passage con-tent. On subsequent days, students tookturns leading discussions in the role of"teacher," with the amount of support pro-vided by the researcher gradually decreas-ing as students became more proficient inleading discussions and applying the strat-egies on their own. By the tenth day of strat-egy instruction, students, in their alternat-ing roles as "teachers," required minimalassistance from the researcher, who by thenfunctioned more as a facilitator than acoach.Although text passages were read in En-glish and discussions were conducted pri-marily in English, students were encour-JANUARY1996This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:01:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  6. 6. TABLE1. Descriptive Background Information for Individual Students1992/93Age Origin/If U.S., Free Years ClassesStudent (Years) Parents Lunch Grade in LD in LDTutoring group:Jennifer 13 U.S./Cuba N 7 4 4Vicente 15 Cuba Y 7 7 4Miguel 14 U.S./Chile Y 8 5 4Luis 15 Cuba N 7 5 4Susana 13 Nicaragua Y 7 4 4Carmen 13 Costa Rica Y 7 2 3Omar 13 Nicaragua Y 7 4 2Linda 15 U.S./Cuba Y 8 5 4Trina 14 U.S./Puerto Rico Y 7 3 4and ItalyBetina 15 U.S./Cuba Y 8 1 2Manuel 13 Cuba Y 7 4 3Raul 14 Cuba Y 7 4 4Marta 14 Honduras Y 7 4 4Cooperative learninggroup:Patricia 14 Nicaragua Y 7 2 1Juan 13 Cuba Y 7 3 3Erica 12 U.S./Puerto Rico Y 7 3 3and GuatemalaAzucena 15 Honduras Y 8 6 4Francisco 13 Cuba N 7 4 3Marcos 15 Nicaragua Y 8 5 1Miriam 14 Nicaragua Y 7 5 4Cecilia 14 Nicaragua Y 7 4 4Roberto 13 U.S./Cuba Y 7 5 1Yolanda 14 U.S./Cuba Y 7 4 3Luisa 14 Cuba N 7 5 4Jesse 14 U.S./Honduras Y 8 5 3and CubaAlberto 13 U.S./Cuba Y 7 5 3NoTE.-Y = yes; N = no; LD = learning disabilities.This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:01:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  7. 7. 280 THEELEMENTARYSCHOOLJOURNALTABLE2. Descriptive Information for the Two Treatment GroupsTutoring Group Cooperative Learning GroupVariable (N = 13) (N = 13)Gender:Males 6 6Females 7 7Age (years):Mean 13.92 13.69Median 14 14Range 13-15 12-15Grade:Seventh 10 10Eighth 3 3Years in LD:Mean 4 4.3Median 4 5Range 1-7 2-6WISC-R IQ:Mean 88 85.38Median 89 81Range 70-111 71-107Language Assessment Scales(English):Mean 4.31 3.38Median 5 4Range 2-5 2-5Stanford Achievement Test(Reading):Mean % 9.27 8.75Median 6 8Range 1-20 1-16Woodcock-Johnson WordIdentification (English):Mean grade 3.38 3.56Median 2.8 3.1Range 2.0-6.2 2.0-6.7Woodcock-Johnson Compre-hension (English):Mean grade 3.87 3.42Median 4.2 3.0Range 2.0-5.8 1.7-5.6NoTE.-% = national percentile score; grade = grade-level equivalent.aged to use Spanish when they felt it mightincrease understanding of important con-cepts.Phase 2: cross-age tutoring group. Af-ter students in this group participated in 15reciprocal teaching sessions, they tutoredyounger (sixth-grade) students in compre-hension strategies. Before they tutored, stu-dents received training in best practices fortutors (Barron & Foot, 1991). Tutors thentaught the comprehension strategies to theirtutees for 12 school days, for 35-40 minuteseach day. Tutors were directed to teach bymodeling all of the strategies on the firstand second days and by having their tuteesgradually take over more responsibility forusing the strategies on subsequent days. Af-ter the first 3 or 4 days, tutors and tuteestook turns "being the teacher."Phase 2: cooperative learning group.After students in this group participated in15 reciprocal teaching sessions, they imple-mented the comprehension strategies in co-operative learning groups (of three to fivestudents) for 12 school days, for 35-40 min-utes each day. These students essentiallyfollowed the same procedures implementedin the reciprocal teaching phase, except thatJANUARY1996This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:01:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  8. 8. RECIPROCALTEACHING 281now the researcher was no longer servingas a coach or facilitator. Students in thiscondition read the same passages that wereread by the tutors and their tutees.Role of the researcherin phase 2. Dur-ing cross-age tutoring and cooperativelearning sessions, the researcher circulatedaround the room, monitoring behavior andproviding assistance as needed (e.g., read-ing words, clarifying concepts, or remindingstudents of a strategy they had skipped).The researcher spent approximately thesame amount of time with cooperativelearning groups as with tutor/tutee pairs.MeasuresDescriptive measures were administeredindividually prior to the intervention to as-sist in sample description and to aid in theinterpretation of growth. These includedthe following Woodcock-Johnson Tests ofAchievement: Letter-Word Identification,Passage Comprehension, and Social Stud-ies Subtests (Woodcock & Johnson, 1989).They also included the following languagemeasures: Woodcock Language ProficiencyBattery-Spanish Form (Woodcock, 1981),and the Language Assessment Scales-En-glish and Spanish Versions (De Avila &Duncan, 1990).Additional quantitative measures in-cluded two used by Palincsar and Brown(1984): the Gates-MacGinitie ReadingComprehension Test (Gates-MacGinitie)(MacGinitie & MacGinitie, 1989) and Pas-sage Comprehension Tests (10 passageswith comprehension questions, developedby Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Finally, a re-searcher-developed strategy interview wasadministered (similar to that used by Myers& Paris, 1978). The Gates-MacGinitie andthe strategy interview were administered aspre- and posttests only. The Passage Com-prehension Tests were administered on anongoing basis: twice before the interventionbegan, once a week during the intervention,and twice after the intervention. Adminis-tration of the Passage Comprehension Testswas staggered so that, for every testing ses-sion, each of the 10 passages was read byat least two students.For the Passage Comprehension Tests,scores representing the percentage of cor-rect answers were calculated using the fol-lowing procedure. Each of the 10 questionsper comprehension test was scored as in-correct (0 points), correct and complete (2points), or correct but incomplete (1 point),so that the total number of possible pointsper test was 20. All of the tests were scoredby two independent raters, the researcherand an assistant trained in the scoring pro-cedure. The Pearson product moment cor-relation calculated on all tests to yield in-terrater reliability was .97. Scores from thefirst two administrations of the PassageComprehension Tests were averaged toyield a pretest score; scores on the tests ad-ministered immediately upon completion ofthe treatment and 1 week later were aver-aged to produce a posttest score.For the strategy interview, scores indi-cated the percentage correct of a possible 25points. The researcher and an assistanttrained in this scoring procedure indepen-dently rated all of the strategy interviews.The Pearson correlation calculated to yieldinterrater reliability was .98.Qualitative dataincluded student and re-searcher daily logs (Strauss & Corbin, 1990)and focus group interviews with all partic-ipating students (Stewart & Shamdasani,1990), conducted during and after the in-tervention.ResultsData analyses were directed toward ques-tions regarding group outcomes, patterns ofchange in reading comprehension overtime, and understanding the characteristicsthat differentiate more and less successfulstudents in each condition. Although thisanalysis of within-group variability was ofgreatest interest to us, information regard-ing group outcomes is presented first, toprovide a background for subsequent dis-cussions.This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:01:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  9. 9. 282 THEELEMENTARYSCHOOLJOURNALGroup OutcomesA two-way analysis of variance with onebetween-subjects and one within-subjectsfactor was applied to answer questions re-garding treatment outcomes. This proce-dure was conducted using pre- and posttestscores from: (a) the Gates-MacGinitie (na-tional percentile scores were used), (b) Pas-sage Comprehension Tests, and (c) thestrategy interview.Table 3 presents the pretest, posttest,and gain scores for individual seventh- andeighth-grade students on each of these mea-sures, and Table 4 presents the means andstandard deviations for each measure, bygroup.The results of the between-group analy-sis indicated that the overall difference ingrowth between groups was not statisticallysignificant on any of the three measures.The results of the analysis of pre- toposttest gains on the dependent measuressuggested that the overall reading compre-hension of the subjects in this study showedstatistically significant growth, F(1,22) =77.14, p = .0001. There was not a signifi-cant time X group interaction on a re-peated-measures multivariate analysis ofvariance, F(1,24) = 2.00, p = .1706.On the Gates-MacGinitie, the mean dif-ference between pre- and posttest percentilescores was 4.12, with a standard deviationof 7.32, t(25) = 2.87, p < .01. Inspectionof the distribution of change scores on theGates MacGinitie indicated wide variation,with three students showing negative gains,two students showing a positive gain ofmore than 26 percentile points, and the re-maining students exhibiting gains between0 and 9 percentile points (see Table 3).For the Passage Comprehension Tests,the mean gain in percentage of correct an-swers was 23.75, with a standard deviationof 19.15, t (25) = 6.32, p = .0001. For thestrategy interview, the mean gain in per-centage of correct answers was 18.88, witha standard deviation of 15.94, t(24) = 5.92,p = .0001. Because these measures are notstandardized like the Gates MacGinitie, in-terpretation of these findings must be tem-pered because of the lack of a comparisongroup.Although caution must be advised in in-terpreting these results, in light of the lackof a control group, our findings are con-sistent with the results of previous researchwith native-speaking, non-special-educa-tion students in which control groups wereincluded (Lysynchuk et al., 1990; Palincsar& Brown, 1984).Patterns of Change in ReadingComprehensionTo assist in evaluating patterns ofchange in reading comprehension, resultsof weekly administered Passage Compre-hension Tests were plotted on individualand group simple line graphs for purposesof visual analysis (Parsonson & Baer, 1992).Figures 1 and 2 depict students percentagesof correct answers during (a) baseline,(b)reciprocal teaching, (c)cross-age tutoringor cooperative learning, and (d) follow-upphases of the intervention. Figure 1 presentsseparately the mean percentage scores forthe two groups. Figure 2 shows the meanpercentage scores for all students.As assessed by the Passage Compre-hension Tests, the rates of growth for bothgroups during the reciprocal teaching andtutoring/cooperative learning phases of theintervention were similar, with the tutoringgroup scoring somewhat higher than thecooperative learning group on each test ad-ministration except the last. For bothgroups, actual increases in comprehensionwere greatest during the reciprocal teachingphase that included intensive input fromthe researcher. Improvement continuedduring the tutoring/cooperative learningphase but did flatten out somewhat (seeFig. 1).The overall reading comprehension ofstudents in this study, as measured by thePassage Comprehension Tests, improvednoticeably during intervention phases incomparison with a baseline phase and wasmaintained a month later during a follow-JANUARY1996This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:01:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  10. 10. I++++++ +++++++ + + +cuI>U cuLnhorb- O 00 O •qtO •t O N~Ltl O •t O N~X0 •. N~C"1C"1N~N~C"1.6-&0(n4-J w r4 cQOr4q w w Q wLn Lq LtLrqrL LLfq Lf~ Lfq qd Lfqlt q OINOrO) e4IN cr m 1)-1 .?• MounoK~o~omo oM~un~oo~om~mK:: +++ +++++ + + +++ +++++++++CU0-4V))tULcu r) Lf) Lt) Lf) Lft n L LnLnf Lf)S•eOnrnr in K.o o. LnLnLn)P;rucut• t•Lr r Lr-rLt-"l t l, ,c CttM C. m CmC CmCCc~ n M M Mqlt M N Oin cCirsr; qs ; r"n rim c~icunc~c~dr c ( - ~~Nc~~NNd~~dd culI h h~ Mh~ iAI C I~ CThis content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:01:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  11. 11. --N•-41.4Ui I I~~cr I1"1cIaJClLr;(JmU) en.J(U)Ec(U ir 0This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:01:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  12. 12. RECIPROCALTEACHING 285Percentage100-90Q8070605040302010-0Baseline PhaseOne PhaseTwo Follow-up1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 WeeksLegendTutoringCooperativeLearningFIG.1.--Mean percentage scores for tutoring and cooperative learning groups on the Passage ComprehensionTests.up phase (see Fig. 2). Students achievedtheir highest mean score during the middleof the tutoring and cooperative learningphase (on the seventh test administration);subsequent scores were slightly lower.An examination of individual perfor-mances showed that there was high varia-bility in scores, both across subjects (withindividual scores ranging from 0% to 95%)and within subjects, with many studentsshowing much fluctuation across test ad-ministrations (for individual graphs of allsubjects, see Klingner, 1994).Characteristics of Students WhoShowed More and Less GrowthWe examined the data in two differentways to identify students who showed moreand less improvement in reading compre-hension. First,we inspected pre- to posttestdifference scores on the Gates-MacGinitie(see Table 3). Students with percentile gainsof 6 points or higher were considered tohave demonstrated more growth, and stu-dents with gain scores of 0 or less were con-sidered to have demonstrated no growth.The second procedure involved visualinspection of the individual Passage Com-prehension Tests graphs. Using this pro-cedure, the five students who exhibited themost growth and the five students whoshowed no growth were identified andadded to the lists that are summarized inTable 5. The entire process yielded final liststhat included 10 "more-growth students"(about 40% of the sample) and 10 "less (orno)-growth students" (about 40% of thesample).The descriptive data collected prior tothe intervention, transcripts of interviews,and students daily logs were evaluated byusing the constant comparison procedure(Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin,1990) to identify trends and draw tentativeconclusions regarding the characteristicsthat distinguished more and less successfulstudents. Two factors emerged that seemedto relate substantially to students potentialto profit from this intervention: initial read-ing ability (as assessed by the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement) and orallanguage proficiency (as measured by theLanguage Assessment Scales). Three factorsthat did not appear to relate strongly to per-formance were reading achievement as as-sessed by the Stanford Achievement Test,This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:01:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  13. 13. 286 THEELEMENTARYSCHOOLJOURNALPercentage100-90-80-70-6050-40-30-20-10-0Baseline PhaseOne PhaseTwo Follow-up1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 WeeksFIG.2.-Mean percentage scores for all students on the Passage Comprehension Testsintelligence as measured by the EnglishWechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Reading, and treatment group membership(see Table 5).Initial reading ability. Initial readingability (as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement) was prob-ably the most important factor in determin-ing who benefited from comprehensionstrategy instruction. Students with low de-coding skills (below a third-grade level)were the least likely to show improvement.And all of the students who showed themost growth (except for one) had either de-coding or comprehension scores at a fourth-grade level or higher. Of the students whodid improve, there were two distinct typesof readers, those who began the interven-tion with adequate decoding skills but sig-nificantly lower comprehension and thosewho started with relatively low decodingability and significantly higher comprehen-sion.The students who showed the most dra-matic gains began with a combination ofadequate decoding skills and low compre-hension. In fact, reciprocal teaching wasoriginally intended for this type of student(Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Of the five stu-dents who began the study with decodingskills at least at a fourth-grade level andwith lower levels of comprehension, fourearned a place on the list of students show-ing more growth (Miguel, Manuel, Cecilia,and Jesse), and two, according to the Gates-MacGinitie, were the most successful. (Ce-cilias initial grade-level scores were 6.7 indecoding and 2.8 in comprehension, andshe improved by 27 percentile points on theGates-MacGinitie; Jesses grade-level scoreswere 6.2 in decoding and 5.1 in compre-hension, and he improved by 26 percentilepoints.)Students who began with comprehen-sion grade-level scores at least 1 year higherthan their decoding grade-level scores (anddecoding grade-level scores ranging from2.0 to 4.1) exemplified the other type ofreader who showed substantial growth.This group somewhat surprisingly includedeight students, five of whom made it to themore-growth list (Luis, Linda, Susana, Car-men, and Marcos). One of the most suc-cessful students, Susana, started with a 2.9grade-level score in decoding but a 5.8 levelin comprehension.Oral language proficiency. Oral lan-guage proficiency also appeared to be re-JANUARY1996This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:01:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  14. 14. RECIPROCALTEACHING 287TABLE5. BackgroundTestScoresforIndividualStudents,by ReadingComprehensionGrowthand by TreatmentGroupEnglish SpanishEnglish Spanish English WJ Spanish WJ SAT EnglishStudent LAS LAS WJID Comp. WJID Comp. Reading WISC-RMoregrowth:Tutoring:Miguel 4 5 6.2 3.6 4.2 3.9 1 70Susana 5 5 2.9 5.8 1.9 1.9 ... 98Vicente 5 5 2.8 2.6 1.7 1.5 3 100Manuel 5 4 4.7 4.2 2.3 3.2 6 92Carmen 5 4 3.8 5.6 1.6 1.8 15 87Luis 5 4 3.3 4.6 2.3 3.5 13 76Cooperativelearning:Marcos 4 3 4.1 5.1 1.7 1.4 7 88Cecilia 2 2 6.7 2.8 4.5 3.5 6 77Jesse 5 5 6.2 5.1 2.4 2.9 12 87Yolanda 4 5 4.1 5.6 3.5 7.1 9 71Median 5 4.5 4.1 4.9 2.3 3.1 7 87Mean 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.5 2.6 3.1 8 84.6Lessgrowth:Tutoring:Betina 3 3 2.1 2.0 1.2 1.4 3 75Linda 5 4 2.0 3.9 1.6 1.8 1 89Omar 4 4 6.2 4.6 3.5 4.0 20 85Marta 4 5 2.4 2.0 2.8 3.2 ... 74Cooperativelearning:Roberto 2 1 2.1 3.0 1.0 1.4 ... 79Francisco 4 4 3.3 3.6 1.6 1.8 9 80Azucena 2 5 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.4 1 74Miriam 2 2 2.6 2.0 1.8 2.1 16 81Luisa 3 2 2.8 2.4 1.9 1.8 7 81Patricia 2 5 2.9 2.2 3.9 5.0 15 89Median 3 4 2.5 2.3 1.6 1.8 8 80.5Mean 3.1 3.5 2.8 2.7 2.1 2.4 9 80.7Other:Tutoring:Jennifer 5 5 2.8 4.8 2.2 1.4 6 89Trina 4 4 2.8 4.6 2.3 2.9 16 111Raul 2 3 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.9 1 98Cooperativelearning:Juan 4 4 4.4 4.6 2.3 2.9 15 98Erica 4 5 3.1 3.6 1.8 2.9 6 107Alberto 4 3 2.0 2.8 1.0 1.0 3 98Median 4 4 2.8 4.1 2.3 2.9 6 98Mean 3.8 4 2.9 3.7 2 2.3 7.8 100NoTE.-EnglishWISC-RIQ scoresmay not accuratelyreflectstudentsactualabilities,be-causeof less thanfully developedcognitive/academicproficiencyin Englishas a second lan-guage.LAS= LanguageAssessmentScales;WJ= Woodcock-JohnsonTestsof Achievement;ID = WordIdentificationSubtest;Comp.= PassageComprehensionSubtest;SAT= StanfordAchievementTest;WISC-R= WechslerIntelligenceScalefor Children-Reading.lated to success with this intervention.Ofthe eight studentswith Englishproficiencyscores of 3 or lower on the LanguageAs-sessment Scales(indicatinglimitedEnglishproficiency), six qualified for the less-growth list. Of these, four also obtainedSpanish proficiencyscores of 3 or lower,suggestinglimitedorallanguageproficiencyregardlessof language.The othertwo lim-ited-English-proficientstudents were fullyThis content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:01:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  15. 15. 288 THEELEMENTARYSCHOOLJOURNALproficient in Spanish. In light of the fact thatEnglish test passages were read, and in-struction and discussions were conductedprimarily in English, these students ap-peared to lack sufficient English proficiencyto benefit from this intervention.The one student who was clearly an ex-ception to this pattern was Cecilia. Al-though her scores on the Language Assess-ment Scales were 2 in English and 2 inSpanish (indicating very low proficiency),Cecilia was one of the most successful stu-dents, gaining 27 percentile points on theGates-MacGinitie. She was very differentfrom the other students with low oral lan-guage skills in that she possessed close-to-grade-level decoding skills in English andthe highest decoding skills in Spanish. Allof the other limited-language-proficientstudents were quite low in decoding andcomprehension in both languages. She wasdifferent from the other students on themore-growth list, who all obtained Englishlanguage scores of 4 or 5 on the LanguageAssessment Scales. Perhaps Cecilias suffi-cient decoding skills helped to override herweak oral language skills in affecting com-prehension growth.One student did not fit the patterns dis-cussed so far. Vicentes 2.8 decoding and2.6 comprehension grade-level scores weremuch more typical of students who showedless growth ratherthan more growth duringthis intervention. Yet Vicente improved onboth the Gates-MacGinitie and PassageComprehension Tests enough to earn a spoton the more-growth list. Vicente was dif-ferent from the other students who wereinitially low in both decoding and compre-hension in that he scored a 5 on the Lan-guage Assessment Scales in both Englishand Spanish, indicating full oral proficiencyin both languages. His case was somewhatthe opposite of Cecilias. His strong oralskills possibly overrode weak reading skills.DiscussionOverall, this intervention appeared to im-prove the reading comprehension of ESLstudents with LD. Key findings were that(a) a wide range of students benefited fromstrategy instruction; (b) initial reading leveland oral language proficiency emerged asfactors related to success; and (c) studentsin both the cross-age tutoring and cooper-ative learning groups continued to exhibitimprovement in comprehension even whenthe researcher provided only minimal sup-port.Benefits to a Range of StudentsMore students were successful with thisintervention than would have been pre-dicted on the basis of previous research (Ly-synchuk et al., 1990; Palincsar & Brown,1984). Not only did ESL students with LDwho were adequate decoders but poor com-prehenders improve (the subtype of readermost similar to the non-LD, non-ESL read-ers most successful in other reciprocalteaching studies), but ESLstudents with LDwho demonstrated comprehension abilitiessubstantially higher than their decodingskills also improved (although the stan-dards used to measure success were some-what different in this study than in previousresearch). In the Palincsar and Brown(1984) study, the criterion for success wasattainment of at least 75% accuracy on thePassage Comprehension Tests (the level setby good comprehenders in their study). Ifwe had applied the same criterion level inthis study, seven of the 26 students wouldhave achieved success by the end of theintervention. And, of these seven students,five were of the low-decoding/higher-com-prehension subtype rather than the ade-quate-decoding/low-comprehension sub-type. In other words, a subset of ESLstudents with LD who began the interven-tion with decoding grade levels rangingfrom 2.9 to 4.1 was able to answer com-prehension questions about passages writ-ten at the seventh-grade level from memoryas well as average readersby the end of thestudy.This finding has important implicationsfor classroom instruction. If a wider rangeJANUARY1996This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:01:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  16. 16. RECIPROCALTEACHING 289of students can benefit from comprehensionstrategy instruction than was previously be-lieved, including some students with rela-tively low decoding skills and students whohave not yet achieved full English profi-ciency, reading instruction in special edu-cation and English-for-speakers-of-other-languages classes should include more in-struction in comprehension strategies. Fur-ther, because grade-level materials wereused, this procedure could presumably beimplemented with success in heteroge-neous general education classrooms inwhich students with special needs are in-cluded for instruction.Factors Related to PerformanceInitial reading level and oral languageproficiency were related to performance forthe students in this study. Initial readingability was probably the most importantfactor in determining who would benefitfrom comprehension strategy instruction.Students with decoding skills below a third-grade level were least likely to show im-provement. However, one cannot concludefrom the results of this study that the ESLstudents with LD who had very low de-coding skills (second-grade level or lower)would not benefit from further strategy in-struction because they failed to show sub-stantial gains in this study. Grade-level ma-terials were employed; perhaps if easierpassages, written at a second- or third-gradelevel, had been used for instructional pur-poses, students of this subtype might havebenefited more from instruction. Alterna-tively, perhaps an appropriate course of ac-tion for ESL students with LD who areemergent readers would be to teach thestrategies as tools to aid listening compre-hension while concurrently providing in-tensive literacy instruction. This approachwould build on Palincsars efforts (Palinc-sar, 1986; Palincsar & Klenk, 1992) to teachlistening comprehension strategies to at-risk first graders through the reciprocalteaching model. Future research should ex-plore this method.Oral language proficiency (as assessedby the LAS) also affected students abilityto profit from this intervention. With a fewexceptions, students tended to be eitherhigh in both English and Spanish oral lan-guage proficiency or low in both. Studentswith high proficiency showed more im-provement than students with weak orallanguage skills. Perhaps the students whowere relatively proficient in both their na-tive language and English improved inreading comprehension in part becausethey were able to draw on skills in bothlanguages to enhance their understandingof new concepts. And conversely, perhapsstudents who were low in both languagesshowed little improvement in part becausethey had difficulty understanding the nu-ances of the comprehension strategies andthe social studies passages.Continued Student ImprovementAnother important finding was that stu-dents in both the cross-age tutoring and co-operative learning groups continued to ex-hibit improvement in comprehension evenwhen the researcher was providing onlyminimal support. Several reasons might ex-plain why these gains in comprehensionwere realized. First, task engagement washigh among both groups. Even studentswho had not contributed to discussionswhile part of a group of seven students dur-ing the reciprocal teaching phase of the in-tervention participated frequently duringtutoring or cooperative learning sessions.For example, observational notes documentthat two students, Azucena and Raul, par-ticipated infrequently during teacher-facil-itated reciprocal teaching sessions. In fact,Azucena privately asked the researcher notto call on her. Yet during phase 2 of theintervention, when placed in a cooperativelearning group with only girls (at her re-quest, because the boys "bothered her toomuch"), Azucena contributed regularly.And in his role as tutor, Raul was compelledto read and implement all of the strategieson a daily basis to a younger student.This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:01:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  17. 17. 290 THEELEMENTARYSCHOOLJOURNALSecond, both interventions were struc-tured so that students negotiated meaningwhile reading expository text passages, ap-plying the strategies, and assisting one an-other.Third, although text passages were readin English and discussions were conductedprimarily in English, students used Spanishduring cross-age tutoring or cooperativelearning sessions to clarify or emphasizeimportant points. By providing a formatthat enabled students who speak the samelanguage to communicate with each otherregarding content material, the instructionalprocedures implemented in this study wereconsistent with practices recommended byCummins (1984, 1989), Diaz et al. (1986),Hakuta (1990), and Hudelson (1987).That students can implement compre-hension strategies while working in peergroups has important implications for class-room instruction-teachers do not need tosit constantly with a group for learning tooccur. Once students have learned the strat-egies, a class can divide into several groupsoperating simultaneously while the teachermoves from group to group, facilitatingprogress.NotePreparationof this articlewas supportedinpartby a grantfromthe U.S. Departmentof Ed-ucation Office of Special EducationPrograms(H023B20041).We gratefullyacknowledgethehelpfulsuggestionsprovidedby ourconsultants,AnnemariePalincsarand MichaelPressley,andby our editor,RussellGersten.We also appre-ciate the expertassistancewith data collectionand analysisprovidedby YolandaMusa-Ris.ReferencesAllington,R.L. (1991). How policy and regula-tions influenceinstructionfor at-risklearn-ers,or why poorreadersrarelycomprehendwell and probablynever will. In L. Idol &B.F.Jones(Eds.),Educationalvaluesandcog-nitiveinstruction:Implicationsforreform(pp.273-296). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Anderson, R.C., & Pearson, P.D. (1984). Aschematheoreticview of basic processesinreading.In P. D. Pearson(Ed.),Handbookofreadingresearch(pp. 255-291). New York:Longman.Armbruster,B.B., Anderson,T.H., & Ostertag,J.(1987).Does textstructure/summarizationinstructionfacilitatelearningfromexpositorytext? ReadingResearchQuarterly,22, 321-346.Baca,L., & Cervantes,H. (1989). Thebilingualspecialeducationinterface.Columbus, OH:Merrill.Baker, L. (1979). Comprehensionmonitoring:Identifyingandcopingwith textconfusions.JournalofReadingBehavior,11, 363-374.Baker,L.,& Brown,A. L.(1984).Metacognitiveskills of reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.),Handbookof readingresearch(pp. 353-394).New York:Longman.Barron,A., &Foot,H. (1991).Peertutoringandtutortraining.EducationalResearch,33, 174-185.Bos,C. S., Allen, A. A., & Scanlon,D. J.(1989).Vocabularyinstructionandreadingcompre-hensionwithbilinguallearningdisabledstu-dents. In S. McCormick& J. Zutell (Eds.),Cognitiveand socialperspectivesfor literacyinstruction(Thirty-eighthYearbookof theNationalReadingConference,pp. 173-179).Chicago:NationalReadingConference.Bos,C. S., &Anders,P. L.(1992).A theory-dri-ven interactiveinstructionalmodel for textcomprehension and content learning. InB.Y.L. Wong (Ed.),Contemporaryinterven-tionresearchin learningdisabilities:An inter-national perspective (pp. 81-95). New York:Springer-Verlag.Boyle, O. F., & Peregoy, S. F. (1990). Literacyscaffolds:Strategiesforfirst-andsecond-lan-guage readersand writers.ReadingTeacher,44, 194-200.Brown,A. L.,&Day,J.D. (1983).Macrorulesforsummarizingtexts. Child Development,54,968-979.Casanave,C. P. (1988). Comprehensionmoni-toringin ESLreading:A neglectedessential.TESOLQuarterly,22, 283-302.Cazden, C.B. (1988). Classroomdiscourse:Thelanguage of teaching and learning. Ports-mouth, NH: Heinemann.Clarke,M.A. (1980). The shortcircuithypoth-esis of ESLreading-or when language com-petenceinterfereswithreadingperformance.ModernLanguageJournal,64, 203-209.JANUARY 1996This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:01:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  18. 18. RECIPROCALTEACHING 291Cohen, E. G. (1986). Designing groupwork:Strat-egies for the heterogeneousclassroom.NewYork: Teachers College Press.Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C. C. (1982).Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American EducationalResearchJournal,19, 237-248.Cummins,J.(1984).Bilingualismandspecialed-ucation:Issues in assessmentand pedagogy.San Diego, CA: College Hill.Cummins, J.(1989). A theoretical framework forbilingual special education. ExceptionalChil-dren, 56, 111-119.Davey, B., & McBride, S. (1986). Effects of ques-tion generating training on reading compre-hension. Journalof EducationalPsychology,78, 256-262.De Avila, E. A., &Duncan, S. E. (1990). LanguageAssessment Scales. Monterey, CA: CTBMacMillan McGraw-Hill.Deshler, D., Schumaker, J., & Lenz, K. (1984).Academic and cognitive interventions for LDadolescents.AnnualReviewof LearningDis-abilities, 2, 57-66.Dewitz, P., Carr, E. M., & Patberg, J.P. (1987).Effects of inference training on comprehen-sion and comprehension monitoring. Read-ingResearchQuarterly,22, 99-121.Diaz, S., Moll, L., & Mehan, H. (1986). Socio-cultural resources in instruction: A context-specific approach. In California State De-partment of Education, Beyond language:So-cial andculturalfactorsin schoolinglanguageminoritystudents (pp. 187-230). Los Angeles:California State University Evaluation, Dis-semination and Assessment Center.Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe,G., Book, C., Meloth, M., Vavrus, L., Wes-selman, R., Putnam, J., & Bassiri, D. (1987).The effects of explaining the reasoning as-sociated with using reading strategies. Read-ingResearchQuarterly,22, 347-368.Flavell, J. H. (1971). Stage-related properties ofcognitive development. CognitivePsychology,2, 421-453.Flavell, J.H. (1977). Cognitive development. En-glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Gallego, M. A., Duran, G. Z., & Scanlon, D. J.(1990). Interactive teaching and learning: Fa-cilitating learning disabled students transi-tion from novice to expert. In J. Zutell & S.McCormick (Eds.), Literacy theory and re-search:Analysesfrommultipleparadigms(pp.311-319). Chicago: National Reading Con-ference.Garcia,E. E. (1987/1988). Effective schooling forlanguage minority students. New Focus, 1.Silver Spring, MD: National Clearinghousefor Bilingual Education.Garcia, E. E. (1992). "Hispanic" children: The-oretical, empirical and related policy issues.EducationalPsychologyReview,4, 69.Garcia, G. E. (1991). Factors influencing the En-glish reading test performance of Spanish-speaking Hispanic children. ReadingResearchQuarterly,26, 371-392.Gersten, R. M., & Jimenez, R. T. (1994). A deli-cate balance: Enhancing literacy instructionfor students of English as a second language.ReadingTeacher,47, 438-449.Gibson, E. J., & Levin, H. (1975). Thepsychologyof reading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The dis-coveryofgroundedtheory.Chicago:Aldine.Goodlad, S., & Hirst, B. (1989). Peer tutoring:Aguideto learningbyteaching.New York:Ni-chols.Hakuta,K.(1990).Bilingualismandbilingualed-ucation:A researchperspective.Washington,DC: George Washington University, Centerfor Applied Linguistics.Hansen, J., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). An instruc-tional study: Improving the inferential com-prehension of fourth-grade good and poorreaders.JournalofEducationalPsychology,75,821-829.Hernandez, J.S. (1991). Assisted performance inreading comprehension strategies with non-English proficient students. Journal of Edu-cationalIssuesofLanguageMinorityStudents,8, 91-112.Hudelson, S. (1987). The role of native languageliteracy in the education of language minor-ity children. LanguageArts, 64, 827-841.Kagan, S. (1986). Cooperative learning and so-ciocultural factors in schooling. In CaliforniaState Department of Education, Beyond lan-guage:Socialandculturalfactorsin schoolinglanguageminoritystudents (pp. 231-298). LosAngeles: California State University, Evalu-ation, Dissemination and Assessment Cen-ter.Keogh, B. K. (1987). A shared attribute model oflearning disabilities. In S. Vaughn & C. Bos(Eds.),Researchin learningdisabilities:Issuesand future directions (pp. 3-12). Boston: Col-lege-Hill.Keogh, B. K., Major-Kingsley, S., Omori-Gor-don, H., & Reid, H. P. (1982). A system ofmarkervariablesfor thefield of learningdis-abilities. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse UniversityPress.Klingner, J.K. (1994). Students helping students:Scaffoldedcross-agetutoringin readingcom-prehensionstrategiesforstudentswithlearningdisabilitieswho use Englishas a secondlan-guage. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Miami.This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:01:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  19. 19. 292 THEELEMENTARYSCHOOLJOURNALLee, J.F. (1986). Background knowledge and L2reading. Modern LanguageJournal, 70, 350-354.Long, M., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, in-terlanguage talk, and second language ac-quisition. TESOLQuarterly, 19, 207-228.Lysynchuk, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N. J.(1990). Reciprocal teaching improves stan-dardized reading comprehension perfor-mance in poor comprehenders. ElementarySchool Journal,90, 469-484.MacGinitie, W. H., & MacGinitie, R. K. (1989).Gates-MacGinitieReadingTests (Level5/6,FormsK and L).Chicago: Riverside.Madden, N.A., & Slavin, R. E. (1983). Main-streaming students with mild handicaps: Ac-ademic and social outcomes. Review of Ed-ucationalResearch,53, 519-569.McGill-Franzen, A., & Allington, R. L. (1990).Comprehension and coherence: Neglectedelements of literacy instruction in remedialand resource room services. Journalof Read-ing,Writing,andLearningDisabilities,6, 149-180.Miller, L. D., & Perkins, K. (1989). ESLreadingcomprehensioninstruction(ReportNo. CS00-9-519). Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEducation. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 303 779)Myers, M., & Paris, S. G. (1978). Childrensmetacognitive knowledge about reading.Journalof EducationalPsychology,70, 680-690.OMalley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learn-ing strategiesin secondlanguageacquisition.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Padron, Y. (1985). Utilizing cognitive readingstrategiesto improveEnglishreadingcompre-hensionofSpanish-speakingbilingualstudents.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer-sity of Houston.Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue inproviding scaffolded instruction. EducationalPsychologist, 21, 73-98.Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Recip-rocal teaching of comprehension-fosteringand comprehension-monitoring activities.CognitionandInstruction,1, 117-175.Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1985). Recip-rocal teaching: A means to a meaningful end.In J. Osborn, P. T. Wilson, & R. C. Anderson(Eds.),Readingeducation:Foundationsfor aliterate America (pp. 299-310). Lexington,MA: Heath.Palincsar, A. S., Brown, A. L., & Martin, S. M.(1987). Peer interaction in reading compre-hension instruction. EducationalPsychologist,22, 231-253.Palincsar, A. S., & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering lit-eracy learning in supportive contexts. Journalof LearningDisabilities,25, 211-225, 229.Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K.(1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contem-poraryEducationalPsychology,8, 293-316.Parsonson, B. S., & Baer, D. M. (1992). The vi-sual analysis of data, and current researchinto the stimuli controlling it. In T. R. Kra-tochwill & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Single-case re-search design and analysis (pp. 15-40). Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum.Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Compre-hension instruction. In R. Barr,M. L. Kamil,P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Hand-bookof readingresearch(Vol. 2, pp. 815-860).White Plains, NY: Longman.Pressley, M., Johnson, C. J., Symons, S., Mc-Goldrick, J.A., & Kurita, J.A. (1989). Strat-egies that improve childrens memory andcomprehension of text. Elementary SchoolJournal,90, 3-32.Pritchard, R. (1990). The effects of cultural sche-mata on reading processing strategies. Read-ingResearchQuarterly,25, 273-295.Richard-Amato, P. A. (1992). Peer teachers: Theneglected resource. In P. A. Richard-Amato& M. A. Snow (Eds.), The multiculturalclass-room:Readingsfor content-areateachers(pp.271-284). White Plains, NY: Longman.Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1991, April). Re-ciprocalteaching:A reviewof nineteenexper-imental studies. Paper presented at the an-nual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, Chicago.Schrader, B., & Valus, A. (1990). Disabled learn-ers as able teachers: A cross-age tutoringproject. Academic Therapy,25, 589-597.Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D. D. (1992). Val-idation of learning strategy interventions forstudents with learning disabilities: Results ofa programmatic research effort. In B. Y. L.Wong (Ed.), Contemporaryinterventionre-search in learningdisabilities(pp. 22-46).New York: Springer-Verlag.Scruggs, T. E., & Richter, L. (1988). Tutoringlearning disabled students: A critical review.LearningDisabilityQuarterly,11, 274-286.Singer, H., & Donlan, D. (1982). Active compre-hension: Problem solving schema with ques-tion generation for comprehension of com-plex short stories. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 17, 166-186.Stevens, R., Madden, N., Slavin, R., & Famish,A. (1987). Cooperative Integrated Readingand Composition: Two field experiments.ReadingResearchQuarterly,22, 433-454.Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Fo-cus groups:Theoryand practice.NewburyPark, CA: Sage.JANUARY1996This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:01:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
  20. 20. RECIPROCALTEACHING 293Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of quali-tative research.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Torgesen, J. K. (1977). The role of nonspecificfactors in the task performance of learning-disabled children: A theoretical assessment.Journalof LearningDisabilities,10, 27-34.Torgesen, J. K. (1980). Conceptual and educa-tional implications of the use of efficient taskstrategies by learning disabled children. Jour-nalof LearningDisabilities,13, 364-371.Weisberg, R. (1988). 1980s: A change in focusof reading comprehension research: A re-view of reading/learning disabilities re-search based on an interactive model of read-ing. LearningDisabilityQuarterly,11, 149-159.Weisberg, R., & Balajthy, E. (1990). Develop-ment of disabled readers metacomprehen-sion ability through summarization trainingusing expository text: Results of three stud-ies. Reading,Writing,andLearningDisabili-ties, 6, 117-136.Wong, B. Y. L. (1985). Self-questioning instruc-tional research: A review. Review of Educa-tional Research,55, 227-268.Woodcock, R. W. (1981). WoodcockLanguagePro-ficiencyBattery(SpanishForm).Chicago:Riv-erside.Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989).Woodcock-JohnsonTestsof Achievement.Al-len, TX:DLM Teaching Resources.This content downloaded from 160.94.27.151 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:01:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

×