Content uploaded by Roel van Steensel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Roel van Steensel on May 19, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Effects of reciprocal teaching on reading
comprehension of low-achieving
adolescents. The importance of specific
teacher skills
Mariska Okkinga
University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
Roel van Steensel
Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Amos J. S. van Gelderen
Kohnstamm Institute of University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
and Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Peter J. C. Sleegers
University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
Low-achieving adolescents are known to have difficulties with reading comprehension.
This article discusses how reciprocal teaching can improve low-achieving adolescents’
reading comprehension in whole-classroom settings (as opposed to small-group settings)
and to what extent intervention effects are dependent on teacher behaviour. Over the
course of 1 year, experimental teachers (n= 10) were given extensive training and
coaching aimed at using principles of reciprocal teaching, while control teachers
(n= 10) used their regular teaching method. Observations of teacher behaviour were fo-
cused on instruction of reading strategies, modelling and support of group work and were
performed in both experimental and control classes, comprising a total of 369 students
(mean age = 13.01). Our study shows that reciprocal teaching contributed to adolescent
low achievers’reading comprehension only when experimental teachers provided high-
quality strategy instruction. In addition, results suggest that the quality of implementation
of reciprocal teaching in whole-classroom settings should receive more research attention.
Highlights
What is already known about this topic
•Reciprocal teaching is a method of instructing and guiding learners in reading
comprehension.
Copyright © 2016 UKLA. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ,
UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
Journal of Research in Reading, ISSN 0141-0423 DOI:10.1111/1467-9817.12082
Volume 00, Issue 00, 2016, pp 1–22
•It consists of a set of three related instructional principles: (a) teaching
comprehension-fostering reading strategies; (b) expert modelling, scaffolding
and fading; and (c) students practising and discussing reading strategies with
other students, guided and coached by the teacher.
•High quality of implementation of reciprocal teaching by teachers in class-
rooms is difficult.
What this paper adds
•After 1 year of implementing reciprocal teaching, no main effects of the treat-
ment were established.
•Intervention effects were moderated by quality of instruction: strategy instruc-
tion led to higher scores on reading comprehension in the treatment condition
but not in the control condition.
•Implementation of the instructional principles was by no means optimal:
teachers were unable to provide detailed guidance to students working in small
groups and modelling of strategies requires more experience and theoretical
insight in the use and nature of reading strategies.
Implications for practice and/or policy
•Extensive training and coaching are needed for teachers to become experts in
reciprocal teaching.
•Teachers need hands-on tools to be able to guide students in their collaborative
group work and to fade the teachers’role in order to allow more individual
self-regulation by students in their use of strategies.
•Implementation quality has to be taken into account when doing effectiveness
research and when adopting new, theory-based didactic approaches.
Many adolescent students, in particular low-achieving ones, struggle with reading com-
prehension (e.g. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD],
2004; OECD, 2014). From several studies directed at adolescents, it is known that –in
contrast to younger students –their reading comprehension is not so much dependent on
efficient decoding of words but much more by their vocabulary knowledge and their stra-
tegic skills in adapting their approach of the text to their reading goals (Trapman et al.; in
press; Van Gelderen et al., 2004, 2007; Van Steensel, Oostdam, Van Gelderen, & Van
Schooten, 2014). Therefore, reading comprehension instruction is regarded as an important
part of the school curriculum. Because reading comprehension is a fundamental skill in
many school subjects, difficulties can have serious implications for students’educational
success and, consequently, for their later societal careers. Evidence-based reading compre-
hension programmes that target low-achieving adolescents are thus of vital importance. In
this study, we analyse the effects of an intervention aimed at the improvement of reading
comprehension based on principles of reciprocal teaching as introduced by Palincsar and
Brown (1984). We examined its implementation in the everyday practice of Dutch lan-
guage teachers, teaching Dutch low-achieving adolescents (mean age = 13.01), and we
analysed the association between instructional variation and intervention effects.
OKKINGA, STEENSEL, GELDEREN and SLEEGERS
Copyright © 2016 UKLA
Reciprocal teaching
Reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984) is a widely used method of instructing and
guiding learners in reading comprehension. It consists of a set of three related instructional
principles: (a) teaching comprehension-fostering reading strategies, including predicting,
question-generating, summarising and clarifying; (b) expert modelling, scaffolding and
fading; and (c) students practising and discussing reading strategies with other students,
guided and coached by the teacher. Reciprocal teaching assumes a gradual shift of respon-
sibility for the learning process from teacher to student, which includes the teacher expli-
citly modelling the use of reading strategies (Rosenhine & Meister, 1994) as well as
scaffolding the application of reading strategies within the groups of students working to-
gether. It is assumed that by gradually fading teacher’s support, students become increas-
ingly more capable of regulating their own reading process. In this study, we consider
reciprocal teaching as a method consisting of a set of several instructional principles,
including direct instruction of reading strategies, teacher and student modelling and
group work.
Effectiveness of reciprocal teaching
Many studies have confirmed the positive effects of reciprocal teaching (Rosenshine &
Meister, 1994; Kelly, Moore, & Tuck, 2001; Spörer, Brunstein, & Kieschke, 2009). In a
review by Rosenshine and Meister (1994), 16 studies were analysed. The authors found
an overall positive effect on reading comprehension, with a median Cohen’s effect size
value (d= .32) for standardised tests and a large effect size value (d= .88) for
researcher-developed tests. They also examined the effects of several moderator vari-
ables, of which two are particularly relevant for the current study: group size and type
of interventionist (teacher or researcher). Regarding the former, they found contradictory
results for studies where reciprocal teaching was applied in large groups (>18), with
two studies showing positive significant results, one study with mixed results and one
with nonsignificant results. Regarding the latter, they also found ambiguous results
for teacher-led interventions, with two studies with positive significant results, three
studies with mixed results and two studies with nonsignificant results. Thus, whether
larger group size or teacher-led reciprocal teaching matter in finding positive results is
undecided.
In a more recent synthesis concerning reading interventions targeted at struggling
readers between Grades 6 and 9 (Edmonds et al., 2009), seven studies focusing on reading
comprehension were included. Most of these studies included some kind of instruction in
reading strategies, with two of them using reciprocal teaching. The overall Cohen’s effect
size (d=1.23) on reading comprehension was very large. However, effects of possible
moderators such as those reported by Rosenshine and Meister (1994) were not reported
in this synthesis, which makes it difficult to draw definite conclusions about the question
of whether reciprocal teaching is effective in whole-classroom settings with students’
own teachers.
Reciprocal teaching was originally designed by Palincsar and Brown (1984) for small-
group tutoring under the guidance of experts, in which small groups of students were taken
out of the classroom (Palincsar, Brown, & Martin, 1987). In a whole-class setting, where
15–30 students are present, such extensive guidance as is provided in a small group might
RECIPROCAL TEACHING AND TEACHER SKILLS
Copyright © 2016 UKLA
be quite difficult, if at all possible, as the teacher needs to pay attention to multiple groups
of students within the classroom. Furthermore, small-group settings are often used in con-
trolled experiments where the intervention is executed by the researchers instead of the stu-
dents’own teachers. In comparison with researchers, who have extensive background
knowledge about the theoretical basis of reciprocal teaching, the quality of implementation
might be different for teachers because they do not have the same background knowledge.
Studies in which teachers were followed during the implementation of reciprocal teach-
ing or similar interventions suggest that the quality of implementation is indeed a serious
problem (Duffy, 1993; Hacker & Tenent, 2002; Seymoor & Osana, 2003). Duffy (1993)
described the process of teachers becoming experts in reading strategies. Teachers were
followed during the implementation of a reading comprehension programme, focusing
on instructing reading strategies. During the study, the teachers were interviewed several
times. A major conclusion from this study is that teachers realised that being able to model
the use of strategies and explicitly relating strategy use to text is not enough to induce stra-
tegic thinking in students that is useful for integrating process and content (Duffy, 1993).
Seymour and Seymoor and Osana (2003) found that teachers faced similar problems
when they were trained in reciprocal teaching. In their study, two teachers were trained
and observed during the implementation of reciprocal teaching. Interviews with the
teachers revealed that their knowledge about reading strategies increased substantially dur-
ing training, but their understanding of didactic principles was not developed optimally.
Particularly, the teachers still did not fully understand what scaffolding entails at the end
of the training.
These findings are corroborated by Hacker and Tenent (2002), who studied the applica-
tion of reciprocal teaching in regular classrooms (Hacker & Tenent, 2002). They examined
the way 17 teachers implemented reciprocal teaching and adapted the method to their
own teaching practice over the course of 3 years. The researchers showed that teachers
found it difficult to maintain the original format. First, they found that ‘student dia-
logues were hampered because of the students’poor group discourse skills’as well
as the poor application of reading strategies by the students, resulting in the observation
‘that there really was little for them to discuss’(Hacker & Tenent, 2002, p. 703). To
deal with those problems, the teachers extended whole-class instruction of reading stra-
tegies to at least 2 months, and they provided more scaffolding of strategy use in differ-
ent kinds of contexts while at the same time providing scaffolding of the collaborative
process. In other words, the teachers experienced difficulties in changing from a
teacher-centred to a student-centred approach, which hampered the implementation of
collaborative group work in discussing and practising reading strategies. Second,
Hacker and Tenent (2002) found that the students had difficulties with using all four
reading strategies (predicting, questioning, summarising and clarifying). Not all strate-
gies were used, and the strategies that were used (summarising and questioning) were
‘often being used inadequately’(p. 702). Students tended to ask superficial questions
instead of making elaborations and reflections, and their strategy use could best be de-
scribed as ‘mechanical’(p. 704).
The aforementioned studies into teachers’implementation of reciprocal teaching give
possible explanations of why previous experimental studies did not always support the suc-
cess of reciprocal teaching in fostering reading comprehension. Whole-classroom applica-
tion requires not only expert knowledge about the use of reading strategies on the part of
the teachers but also skills for regulating students’collaborative process in different groups
simultaneously.
OKKINGA, STEENSEL, GELDEREN and SLEEGERS
Copyright © 2016 UKLA
The present study
Our study aims to contribute to existing knowledge in two ways. First, we examined
whether the principles of reciprocal teaching –originally developed for small-group
tutoring (Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Palincsar, Brown, & Martin, 1987) –can be success-
fully used in whole-classroom settings in pre-vocational education to improve reading
comprehension, in which the students’teachers are delivering the lessons (Woolley,
2011). Second, we analysed whether intervention effects were moderated by the extent
to which teachers were able to apply these principles. Issues of treatment fidelity have re-
ceived little attention in reading intervention research (Edmonds et al., 2009; National
Reading Panel, 2000; Rosenhine & Meister, 1994). Therefore, this study aims to add to
the research base by analysing moderation effects of specific treatment variables included
in the principles of reciprocal teaching. This allows insight into the conditions under which
the treatment will be effective in improving reading comprehension of low-achieving ado-
lescents in whole-classroom settings.
In this study, we will answer the following research questions:
1 Is reciprocal teaching provided by students’own teachers in whole-classroom settings
effective in fostering reading comprehension of adolescent low achievers?
2 Does the quality of implementation of the three main principles of reciprocal teaching
(strategy instruction, modelling and group work) moderate effects on reading
comprehension?
Method
Sample selection and description
Our study focused on adolescent low achievers. Our operationalisation of low achievement
was based on educational track. The Netherlands has a tracked system of secondary edu-
cation. After primary education, students are placed in one of three tracks –pre-vocational
secondary education, senior general secondary education and pre-university education –on
the basis of their scores on a general attainment test (Ministry of Education, Culture, &
Science, 2006). Because students in pre-vocational education are generally characterised
by poor reading skills (Dutch Education Inspectorate, 2008; Gille, Loijens, Noijons, &
Zwitser, 2010), we selected our sample from schools offering this type of education.
We recruited schools in two ways. First, we contacted schools that had participated in a
previous study on low-achieving readers. Second, we contacted schools via a digital com-
munity of Dutch language teachers. Schools had to meet the following five criteria:
•Willingness to participate in a treatment study.
•They had (at least) two seventh grade classes.
•Each class had its own Dutch language teacher.
•The teachers were prepared to take part in the randomisation procedure, imply-
ing that (a) if their class was assigned to the treatment condition, they were
prepared to take part in our training and coaching programme and to weekly
give our experimental lessons; and (b) if their class was assigned to the control
condition, they were prepared to not use our programme nor discuss its con-
tents with the colleague in the treatment condition.
RECIPROCAL TEACHING AND TEACHER SKILLS
Copyright © 2016 UKLA
•Control teachers were requested to use their regular language programme dur-
ing the language classes.
Ten different schools in different parts of the Netherlands were willing to participate.
Within each school, two Dutch language teachers volunteered. Randomisation was carried
out at the class level within each school, resulting in a total of ten experimental and ten
control classes, each with their teacher, divided over the ten schools. At the start of the
study, these classes comprised 369 students, of which 189 were in the treatment condition
(51%) and 180 in the control condition (49%). The students’mean age was 13.01 years
(SD = 0.52) at the start of the project. There was no statistically significant difference be-
tween the two conditions on this variable, t(366) = 1.27, p= .20. There were relatively
more girls in the sample (n= 200; 54%) than boys (n= 169; 46%), with relatively more
girls than boys (59 vs 41%) in the treatment condition. The distribution in the control con-
dition, however, was more equal (49 vs 51%). The difference in distribution between the
two conditions was statistically significant (χ
2
(1) = 3.99, p= .046).
More female than male teachers participated in the study (N=15 vs N= 5), with two
male teachers in the treatment group and three male teachers in the control group. The
mean age of the teachers wa s 46.40 years (SD = 11.12 ). On average, they had 13.50
(SD = 13.73, min = 1, max = 38) years of teaching experience in secondary education. No
differences were found between the conditions on either variable, t(14) = .45, p= .66
and t(14) = .053, p= .96, respectively.
Design
We followed a pre-test–post-test randomised controlled trial (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell,
2002). The design included one independent variable (treatment vs control) and one depen-
dent variable (reading comprehension at post-test). We included four control variables:
gender, reading comprehension at pre-test, vocabulary knowledge at pre-test and IQ at
pre-test.
Gender was included, because generally, girls are shown to have substantially greater
reading skill than boys (e.g. Logan & Johnston, 2009). Vocabulary knowledge and IQ were
included, as theoretical models suggest that reading comprehension draws heavily on both
abilities (e.g. Just & Carpenter, 1976, 2004; LaBerge & Samuels, 1974; Rumelhart, 2004;
Samuels, 2004), an assumption that is confirmed by much empirical evidence (e.g. Ouelette
& Beers, 2010; Van Gelderen et al., 2004, 2007; Verhoeven & Leeuwe, 2008). We did not
include word recognition as a control in our analyses because for adolescents in the age
group of our study (age 13–16), efficient word recognition is not related to their reading
comprehension according to several studies (Trapman et al., in press; Van Gelderen et al.,
2004, 2007; Van Steensel, Oostdam, Van Gelderen, & Van Schooten, 2014).
Finally, we included three moderator variables, covering the three didactic principles be-
hind our treatment: direct instruction of reading strategies, teacher and student modelling
and group work.
Treatment
Our intervention consisted of the training of teachers in the use of the three related instruc-
tional strategies of reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984), that is:
OKKINGA, STEENSEL, GELDEREN and SLEEGERS
Copyright © 2016 UKLA
1 Direct instruction of research-based reading strategies (see further). For each strategy, it
was emphasised what the strategy entailed, how to use the strategy, when to use the
strategy and why to use the strategy (Veenman, Van Hout-Wolters, & Afflerbach,
2006). Thus, teachers were required to give whole-class instruction about the different
reading strategies, focusing on procedural knowledge.
2 Teacher and student modelling. Teachers were trained to model the use of reading strat-
egies during plenary instruction by thinking aloud when reading text. They encouraged
students to take over this role, both plenary and in small group sessions.
3 Group work. The primary objective of encouraging students to work in groups was
to have them collaboratively apply reading strategies while thinking aloud during
text reading. Teachers were given instructions on how to give feedback to the groups
of students working together. For example, if a teacher noticed that the students were
struggling with the application of a reading strategy, the teacher was instructed to
model this strategy again and encourage and aid the students in doing this
themselves.
Students received weekly lessons over a period of 7 months within one school year.
During the school year, the experimental teachers were trained and coached.
With respect to strategy instruction, the intervention focused on five strategies that were
shown to be related to reading comprehension in previous research (Dole, Duffy, Roehler,
& Pearson, 1991; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; Van Silfhout,
Evers-Vermeul, Mak & Sanders, 2014):
1. Predicting. On the basis of text features such as title, subheadings and pictures, stu-
dents are instructed to make predictions about text content before reading and to check
their predictions while reading.
2. Summarising. Students are instructed to summarise sections of text, encouraging them
to focus on main ideas and ignore irrelevant details as well as to check their understand-
ing of the text so far.
3. Self-questioning. Students are instructed to generate questions about the text being
read, helping them to focus on main ideas as well as to monitor understanding.
4. Clarifying. When confronted with a word or passage they do not understand, students
are instructed to reread, read ahead or, in the case of an unknown word, analyse it, and
see whether its meaning can be inferred by looking at parts of the word.
5. Interpreting cohesive ties. Students are instructed to look for relationships between
sentences or paragraphs that are connected, for example, by using ‘signal words’
(different types of connectives).
The treatment was offered in the context of an existing program called
‘Nieuwsbegrip’®, developed by the CED Group in Rotterdam (‘Comprehension of news’,
CED Group, 2011). Lessons were developed weekly by a team of developers at the CED
Group. They were based on recent news texts (i.e. texts that had been issued the week be-
fore) about subjects close to students’everyday life (e.g. sugar in energy drinks, abdication
of the Dutch queen or 20 years of text messaging). The use of topical, interesting texts
aimed to increase students’task motivation (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Schiefele, 1999).
Each lesson contained a news text with a work sheet. The lessons could be downloaded
by teachers from the program website (www.nieuwsbegrip.nl) every week, starting
Monday evening.
RECIPROCAL TEACHING AND TEACHER SKILLS
Copyright © 2016 UKLA
Lessons were provided in sequences of 6 weeks. Each sequence consisted of six weekly
lessons (approximately 45 minutes per lesson). In each of the first five lessons, the focus
was on one reading strategy that was practised in a central strategy assignment that was
provided on a worksheet. In addition, students could work on other assignments (i.e. an-
swering questions about the text) on the worksheet. In the final lesson of each sequence,
all strategies were practised simultaneously. The idea behind this was that students have
to be able to apply all strategies together during the reading process, selecting the right
strategy at the right moment.
Each of the five strategies was trained several times during the year. This cyclical ap-
proach was assumed to result in the consolidation of strategy knowledge. Table 1 provides
for each reading strategy an example of an assignment in which the focus is on the appli-
cation of the reading strategy. Examples were generated from several worksheets that were
used during the treatment.
Training and coaching of treatment teachers
Treatment teachers took part in an extensive training and coaching programme that was
conducted by teacher trainers from the Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, who
had, in turn, been trained by the first three authors. In the first phase (October 2011–
January 2012), teachers participated in three 1-hour training sessions. In Session 1, they re-
ceived general, practical information about the programme (e.g. how to use the program
website), theoretical information about the reading process and its components and basic
information about the three didactic principles behind the treatment (direct instruction of
reading strategies, teacher and student modelling and group work). In Session 2, in-depth
information was provided about the nature, function, importance and application of the five
central reading strategies and on the way teachers could model the use of these strategies.
Examples of modelling were provided by means of video clips and lesson protocols. In
Session 3, the focus was on group work and how, by means of scaffolded instruction,
Table 1. Examples of strategy assignments, translated from several assignment sheets from the program
‘Nieuwsbegrip’.
Strategy Example
Predicting This text has five subheadings. Write down for each subheading a) which thoughts it
evokes and b) what you already know about the subject addressed in the subheading.
Summarizing Read the text. Read paragraph by paragraph and underline in each paragraph the most
important information. For each paragraph, write one or two sentences summarizing
it. Use the words you underlined.
Self-questioning Read the text. Note at least five questions that spring to mind while reading.
Clarifying Search the text for difficult words. Try to uncover their meaning using these hints: a)
reread the previous piece of text or read on, b) look at the illustrations in the text, c)
look at the word: you might know part of the word, d) sometimes you have to use
your own knowledge to figure out word meanings, or e) use a dictionary.
Interpreting
cohesive ties
Read the text. Underline the signal words. Answer the questions, while noting the
signal words:
Which contrast is explained in lines 16–17? [signal word = however]
Why are energy boosters unfit as sports drinks? [signal word = hence]
OKKINGA, STEENSEL, GELDEREN and SLEEGERS
Copyright © 2016 UKLA
the use of reading strategies is transferred to the students. Attention was given to how the
teacher can give feedback to groups of students and how his or her expert role is gradually
faded. Two training sessions for the teachers occurred after the intervention had started, to
give the teachers room to discuss their findings so far and to relate the content of the train-
ing sessions to their own practice.
Teachers were given a template for the lessons that would help them keep focused on the
reading strategies (Table 2). The template was designed by the developers of the CED
Group.
In the second phase (February 2012–June 2012), teachers participated in three coaching
sessions. A coaching session involved a classroom observation conducted by the trainer
during an intervention lesson, followed by a feedback meeting of approximately 20 mi-
nutes on the same day. During the classroom observations, trainers used an observation
scheme comparable with the one used by the researchers (see section on Classroom vari-
ables and treatment fidelity), directing the trainers’attention and, consequently, their feed-
back to the central principles of the intervention (direct instruction of reading strategies,
teacher and student modelling and group work).
Control classes
Control classes were ‘business as usual’. Teachers in the control classes used the regu-
lar textbook for Dutch language that was used in their school. Among our schools,
three different language textbooks were used. The textbooks and their teacher manuals
were analysed according to the three principles of instructional strategies in the treat-
ment condition: instruction of reading strategies, modelling and group work. Attention
was given to reading strategies in all three textbooks. However, not all strategies that
were covered in the treatment condition were also covered in the control textbooks.
Reading strategies that were often referred to were predicting, clarifying and attention
Table 2. Template for the lessons that the treatment teachers used.
Introduction ▪Write the subject of the text and the central strategy of the lesson on the blackboard.
▪Introduce the subject and the central strategy with a whole-class approach and activate prior
knowledge.
▪Write down questions students have about the text during orientation.
▪Read the first paragraph together and model the central strategy.
▪Invite a student to read the next paragraph while thinking aloud and applying the central
strategy. Give support when necessary, that is, ask questions that stimulate the use of the
reading strategy.
Processing ▪Instruct the students to work together in groups of two or three. Let them work on the
remainder of the work sheet.
▪Walk around to give the groups of students feedback. Focus on the central strategy and
motivate the students to apply the strategy while thinking aloud. If necessary, model the
strategy again.
Reflection ▪Reflect with the students on the reading process as well as the content.
▪Together with the students, answer the questions they had before reading the text. Did
reading the text answer those questions?
Note: The template gives an overview of the activities the teacher should initiate to keep focused on the central
strategy during the lesson. The template was designed by the developers of the ‘CED Group’.
RECIPROCAL TEACHING AND TEACHER SKILLS
Copyright © 2016 UKLA
to cohesive ties. Self-questioning did not occur, and little attention was given to
summarising.
No attention was given to modelling by teachers or students in the teacher manuals of
the control classes. Almost all of the assignments were individual, and there were only a
few instances where students were instructed to work together on an assignment.
Measures
Reading comprehension. Reading comprehension was measured by means of the SALT-
reading, a test that was validated for use among low-achieving adolescents (Van
Steensel, Oostdam, & Van Gelderen, 2013). The SALT-reading comprises eight tasks,
each consisting of one or two texts and comprehension questions about those texts.
The texts cover different genres (narrative, expository, argumentative and instructive).
They were selected from media students assumedly come across regularly in their daily
lives: (school) books, newspapers, magazines and official documents (such as regula-
tions in a youth hostel). The eight tasks comprised a total of 59 test items, which were
divided into three categories: items requiring students to retrieve relevant details from
the text, items requiring students to make inferences on a local level (e.g. draw
cause–effect relationships between sentences) and items requiring students to show their
understanding of the macrostructure of the text (e.g. by inferring the main idea of the
text or the intention of the author). The test consisted mainly of multiple choice ques-
tions but contained also five open-ended questions. Open-ended questions were coded
by the researchers. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the pre-test and post-test were
.82 and .83, respectively.
Vocabulary knowledge. Vocabulary knowledge was assessed with a 73-item multiple-
choice test, based on the receptive vocabulary test developed by Van Gelderen et al.
(2003, 2007). It measures the knowledge of nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs belong-
ing to the 23,000 words in a dictionary for junior high school students (see Hazenberg &
Hulstijn, 1996 for details). Each item consists of a neutral carrier sentence with a bold-
faced target word and four answer options, one of which represents a correct synonym.
The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the pre-test was .86.
IQ. Intellectual ability was measured by administering the Raven Progressive Matrices, a
nonverbal IQ test. The total test consists of 60 items, divided into five sets of 12 items.
Each item represents a logical reasoning puzzle. The items become more difficult within
a set, and the sets become increasingly difficult as well (Raven, Raven & Court, 1998).
For students from the lowest tracks of pre-vocational education, the last set was assumed
to be too difficult, and for this reason, this set was omitted. The Cronbach’s alpha coeffi-
cient was .82.
Classroom variables and treatment fidelity. To examine the moderator variables, we con-
ducted classroom observations twice during the year. We devised an observation scheme
for use both in the experimental and control conditions. Our aim was to examine (a)
whether the treatment teachers gave the lessons in the way we instructed them during
the training and coaching programme and (b) whether the control teachers applied treat-
ment principles, even though they were not trained by us. The scheme focused on three
OKKINGA, STEENSEL, GELDEREN and SLEEGERS
Copyright © 2016 UKLA
variables that were essential to the treatment: direct instruction of reading strategies,
teacher and student modelling and group work (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). We constructed
these variables in the following manner, resulting in three 4-point scales (0–3) to be used
for further analysis:
1. Direct instruction of reading strategies. We distinguished four categories of behaviour:
a. Teachers provided no information on reading strategies (0 points).
b. Teachers introduced the central strategy of the lesson (in the treatment condition) or
any strategy (in the control condition) but provided no further explanation (1 point).
c. Teachers introduced a strategy and explained about its nature, function, importance
and/or application (2 points).
d. Teachers introduced a strategy, explained about its nature, function, importance
and/or application and interacted with the class about the strategy (3 points).
2. Teacher and student modelling. Here also, we distinguished four categories of
behaviour:
a. Teachers did not use any modelling of strategy use (0 points).
b. Teachers modelled strategy use (1 point).
c. Teachers modelled strategy use and asked students to think aloud while using read-
ing strategies, either individually (i.e. in front of the class) or in groups (2 points).
d. Teachers modelled strategy use, asked students to think aloud and provided them
with feedback (3 points).
3. Group work, with four categories of behaviour:
a. Teachers did not have students work in groups (0 points).
b. Teachers had students work in groups but did not provide real feedback (1 point).
c. Teachers had students work in groups and provided feedback but not on collabora-
tion; that is, teachers focused mainly on whether students had understood the as-
signment correctly, on whether their answers were correct or on the meaning of
unknown words (2 points).
d. Teachers had students work in groups and provided feedback on collaboration (3
points).
The scales were constructed in such a way that a 3-point score would be the optimal
score for the purpose of the treatment. It should be noted that the scores within a scale were
conditional: one could only score a 2 if both b and c were observed. This conditional ap-
proach proved to be appropriate in the classroom observations (i.e. we did not encounter a
case in which c was observed but b was not).
Before the start of the classroom observations, the observation scheme was piloted dur-
ing two lessons, one in an experimental class and one in a control class. Two researchers
filled out the observation scheme during the lessons, after which they compared their cod-
ing and discussed causes for any differences. If these discussions revealed that items were
unclear or led to misinterpretation, the coding scheme was adjusted. Means were calculated
over the two classroom observations.
Inter-rater reliability was calculated by means of observed agreement between two ob-
servers. In total, 16 from a total of 38 classroom observations were performed by two
coders. Across these 16 observations, 94.22% observed agreement was obtained.
RECIPROCAL TEACHING AND TEACHER SKILLS
Copyright © 2016 UKLA
Procedure
The reading comprehension pre-test and the vocabulary and IQ tests were administered
in the fall of 2011, just before the start of the treatment, and the reading comprehension
post-test was administered during May–June of 2012. All test administrations took place
in classroom settings. The test sessions were introduced by a trained test leader. A
familiar teacher was present to maintain order. Questions were answered by the test
leaders following a standardised protocol. Students and teachers remained ignorant of
test scores.
Classroom observations took place during January–February 2012 and during
April–May 2012. During the classroom observations, the researcher(s) sat at the back
of the classroom to observe the teacher. In order to be able to check codings after
the observation, the lessons were recorded using an audio-recorder carried by the
teacher.
Attrition
There was some attrition among teachers, but not due to a lack of motivation. One
teacher in the treatment condition became terminally ill halfway during the school year.
Because a replacement was only found after about 2 months, this class did not receive
the treatment in this period. When a new teacher was found, she continued giving the
treatment lessons and participated in our training programme. Because of the replace-
ment, we were not able to do classroom observations in this class. Therefore, we were
not able to include this class in the analysis. A second teacher in the treatment condi-
tion became pregnant towards the end of the school year. During her leave, she was
temporarily replaced by a new teacher, who continued giving the lessons and took part
in the training. Finally, a teacher in the control condition found another job halfway
during the school year; a new teacher immediately replaced her. Both classes were
included in our final analysis because we succeeded in carrying out the planned class-
room observations.
1
There was some attrition among students, mainly because of transfers to different
schools (seven students), and one student was ill for a long period of time. During the
school year, six new students entered the experimental and control classes.
Analysis
Our sample had a hierarchical structure (students nested in classes and nested in
schools). Because there was significant random variability at the class level, we per-
formed multi-level analyses with the use of MLwiN 2.16 (Rasbash, Steele, Browne,
& Goldstein, 2009). We tested whether (a) the treatment had a significant positive effect
on reading comprehension and (b) whether the quality of teacher instruction moderated
the effect of the treatment. Adding variables was carried out in the following order
(Hox, 2010). First, all control variables were added (gender, reading comprehension
at pre-test, vocabulary at pre-test and IQ at pre-test), with the final three variables
centred around the grand mean (Hox, 2010; Snijders & Bosker, 1999). Second, the
moderator variables (strategy instruction, modelling and group work) were entered. It
was not necessary to centre the moderator variables around the grand mean, as zero
was meaningful in the scoring of the classroom variables (see section on Classroom
OKKINGA, STEENSEL, GELDEREN and SLEEGERS
Copyright © 2016 UKLA
variables and treatment fidelity). Third, the independent variable (treatment vs control)
was entered to answer the first research question. Finally, the interactions between the
independent and moderator variables were entered to answer the second research
question.
Of the 369 cases, 75 were incomplete owing to missing values, either with missing
values within a test or questionnaire or because students were not present at one of the
test sessions because of illness (despite the fact that at each school, at least one extra test
session was organised). To prevent loss of information, single imputations using SPSS
missing value analysis were performed for each variable at the item level; that is, missing
items (as opposed to ‘wrong’items) within a test or questionnaire were imputed. No
missing values were imputed if the student was not present during the test session. As
a result, 44 of the 75 cases (58.6%) with missing values could be included in the analyses
(total N= 338).
Results
Descriptive statistics
Table 3 shows the mean student scores for all continuous variables, as well as correlations
(post-test reading comprehension, pre-test reading comprehension, IQ and vocabulary).
No significant differences are found between the treatment and the control condition.
The highest correlation is found between post-test and pre-test reading comprehension
(r= .69, p<.01).
In Table 4, means and standard deviations are presented for the variables resulting
from the classroom observations. As expected, the mean scores of the treatment group
are higher than those of the control group, indicating that in the experimental class-
room modelling, strategy instruction and group work were more often observed than
in the control classrooms. The difference between both groups is statistically signifi-
cant on the .05 level for all variables, except for modelling. Given the small sample
(N= 19), the nonsignificant difference in the case of modelling should not be given
much weight. Because the scoring of the three variables is qualitatively different,
the means and standard deviations presented in Table 4 cannot be compared one-
on-one (see section on Classroom variables and treatment fidelity for an explanation
of each variable).
Table 3. Comparison of treatment and control students in terms of reading comprehension (post-test and pre-
test), vocabulary and IQ, as well as correlations between the variables.
Variable
Treatment
(n= 168)
Control
(n= 170)
Correlations
(N= 338)
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)t-value 2 3 4
1. Post-test reading comprehension 37.37 (7.20) 36.22 (8.91) 1.30 .69* .54* .25*
2. Pre-test reading comprehension 35.20 (7.24) 34.51 (8.53) 0.80 .57* .29*
3. Vocabulary 48.02 (8.28) 47.35 (9.17) 0.71 .54*
4. IQ 35.95 (5.62) 35.19 (5.20) 1.28
*p<.01.
RECIPROCAL TEACHING AND TEACHER SKILLS
Copyright © 2016 UKLA
Bar charts (Figures 1–3) for each classroom variable show that only in a few instances
treatment teachers scored maximally.
Multi-level analyses
As a first step, we examined whether the data had a multi-level structure. A model with
only a student level had an IGLS of 2373.309. A model with both a student and a class
level had a significantly better fit(IGLS = 2321.862; ΔIGLS = 51.447, df =1, p<.001).
Adding a school level did not improve model fit(IGLS = 2320.221; ΔIGLS = 1.641,
df =1, p>.05). Therefore, in all further analyses, a two-level structure was used. The
empty two-level model is further referred to as Model 0.
Subsequently, the control variables were entered. Inclusion of these variables signifi-
cantly increased model fit. As expected, both reading comprehension and vocabulary at
pre-test positively contributed to post-test reading comprehension. There was also an effect
of gender: boys scored significantly lower on post-test reading comprehension than girls.
The effect of IQ was nonsignificant, however: it appeared that pre-test reading comprehen-
sion and vocabulary already accounted for the variance in IQ. Therefore, IQ was dropped
from the model. The resulting model (Model 1; Table 5) represented a significant increase
in fit compared with Model 0 (ΔIGLS = 210.156, df =3, p<.001).
Table 4. Comparison of treatment and control teachers in terms of classroom observations: strategy instruc-
tion, modelling and group work.
Variable Treatment (n= 9) Control (n= 10)
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)t-value p-value
Strategy instruction 1.89 (0.82) 0.80 (0.75) 3.02 .008
Modelling 1.11 (0.86) 0.50 (0.47) 1.95 .068
Group work 1.94 (1.21) 0.50 (0.67) 3.27 .005
Figure 1. Bar chart for strategy instruction, for both the control and treatment teachers. Scores are calculated as
the mean over two classroom observations per teacher.
OKKINGA, STEENSEL, GELDEREN and SLEEGERS
Copyright © 2016 UKLA
In Model 2 (Table 5), the moderator variables (strategy instruction, modelling and group
work) were entered. This did not result in a significant increase in model fit
(ΔIGLS = 3.095, df =3, p>.05). This means that, overall, the quality of instruction did
not influence students’reading comprehension.
Adding the treatment variable to the model (Model 3) did not result in a better fitting
model either (ΔIGLS = 0.458, df =1, p>.05). In other words, no main effect of the treat-
ment on students’reading comprehension was found.
In the three subsequent models (Model 4a–c), we added the interactions between the in-
dependent and moderator variables (i.e. the interactions of treatment and each of the three
observed instruction variables: strategy instruction, modelling and group work). Of these
three models, only Model 4a resulted in a significant improvement of fit compared with
Model 3 (ΔIGLS = 5.033, df =1, p<.05), implying that the strategy instruction variable
was a significant moderator of the treatment effect on reading comprehension (B= 3.183,
Figure 2. Bar chart for modelling, for both the control and treatment teachers. Scores are calculated as the mean
over two classroom observations per teacher.
Figure 3. Bar chart for group work, for both the control and treatment teachers. Scores are calculated as the mean
over two classroom observations per teacher.
RECIPROCAL TEACHING AND TEACHER SKILLS
Copyright © 2016 UKLA
Table 5. Results of the multi-level analyses, predicting post-test reading comprehension by gender, pre-test reading comprehension, pre-test vocabulary (as control variables),
strategy instruction, modelling, group work (as moderator variables) and treatment (yes/no).
N= 338 Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4a Model 4b Model 4c
Fixed effects
Intercept 36.409 (0.984) 37.431 (0.625) 37.398 (0.857) 37.875 (0.912) 36.621 (0.950) 37.460 (0.975) 38.637 (1.245)
Gender (male = 1) 1.442 (0.600)* 1.364 (0.601)* 1.368 (0.601)* 1.363 (0.600)* 1.355 (0.601)* 1.370 (0.601)*
Reading comprehension
pre-test
0.572 (0.048)*** 0.570 (0.048)*** 0.572 (0.048)*** 0.572 (0.048)*** 0.581 (0.049)*** 0.573 (0.048)***
Vocabulary pre-test 0.167 (0.043)*** 0.166 (0.043)*** 0.166 (0.042)*** 0.171 (0.042)*** 0.167 (0.042)*** 0.165 (0.042)***
Strategy instruction 1.144 (0.704) 1.327 (0.746) 0.201 (0.898) 1.379 (0.724) 1.588 (0.787)
Modelling 0.048 (0.883) 0.004 (0.876) 0.171 (0.766) 1.380 (1.616) 0.018 (0.857)
Group work 0.252 (0.510) 0.077 (0.565) 0.618 (0.540) 0.161 (0.554) 0.803 (1.137)
Treatment (treatment = 1) 0.976 (1.434) 0.210 (1.276) 0.680 (1.418) 1.650 (1.595)
Treatment * strategy instruction 3.183 (1.311)*
Treatment * modelling 1.866 (1.854)
Treatment * group work 1.211 (1.371)
Level 1 random variance 50.831 (4.025) 28.138 (2.228) 28.129 (2.227) 28.129 (2.227) 28.160 (2.229) 28.150 (2.229) 28.139 (2.228)
Level 2 random variance 15.379 (5.961) 4.267 (1.920) 3.404 (1.638) 3.285 (1.599) 2.068 (1.198) 2.979 (1.497) 3.063 (1.526)
Level 1 explained variance 45% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Level 2 explained variance 72% 20% 3% 37% 9% 7%
Deviance (IGLS) 2321.862 2111.706 2108.611 2108.153 2103.120 2107.180 2107.394
Difference (ΔIGLS) 210.156*** 3.095 0.458 5.033* 0.973 0.759
df 331111
Note: IGLS, Iterative Generalized Least Squares.
#
p<.10.
*p<.05.
**p<.01.
***p<.001.
OKKINGA, STEENSEL, GELDEREN and SLEEGERS
Copyright © 2016 UKLA
SE = 1.311, df = 14, p<.05). In other words, elaborate strategy instruction had a positive
effect on reading comprehension in the treatment classes but not in the control classes.
The size of this effect was considerable: the interaction effect was responsible for
explaining an additional 37% of class-level variance.
Discussion
Our study set out to analyse how reciprocal teaching can improve low-achieving
adolescents’reading comprehension in whole-classroom settings and to what extent
intervention effects are dependent on teacher behaviour. Apart from analysing the overall
effects of the treatment in a whole-classroom setting (research question 1), our aim was to
examine whether effects were larger when teachers provided more elaborate instruction
of reading strategies, engaged more in teacher modelling and promoted more student
modelling, and when they supported more collaboration during group work (research
question 2). Answering our first research question, our study revealed no overall treat-
ment effects: no significant differences were found between students in the treatment
classes and the control classes on the reading comprehension post-test. Answering our
second research question, we did find a moderator effect of instruction of reading strate-
gies. This moderator effect implied that in the experimental condition, more elaborate
explanations of the nature, function, importance and application of reading strategies
positively contributed to students’reading comprehension. The effect was substantial: it
explained an additional 37% of the differences between classes after individual and
class-level variables had been taken into account. In the control condition, there was
no effect of strategy instruction. It thus seems that the frequent, systematic and cyclical
offering of reading strategies in our treatment set the stage for successful reading compre-
hension instruction.
Our results underscore the relevance of focusing on the quality of implementation of
treatments in teacher-delivered classroom intervention studies. First of all, it is likely that
there are important differences in implementation quality among teachers who are trained
‘on the job’. As we have shown, neglecting such variation can result in overlooking mean-
ingful effects. The effect of our reciprocal teaching intervention only appeared after taking
the differences between teachers’application of strategy instruction into account.
Moreover, repeatedly measuring instructional behaviours essential to the treatment gives
insight in the degree to which treatments such as these are successfully implemented by
‘real teachers’(as opposed to researchers) and whether some elements are harder to apply
than others. Our experience showed that even after a year of intensive training and
coaching, application of the three instructional principles was less than optimal. Particu-
larly, our observations showed that making students to model reading strategies during
group work was a challenge. Similar observations were made by Hacker and Tenent
(2002) in an elaborate implementation study of reciprocal teaching: they showed that
teachers found it particularly difficult to engage students in meaningful dialogues. More-
over, there was considerable variability among our experimental teachers in applying prin-
ciples of reciprocal teaching: while some teachers fairly quickly succeeded in modelling
reading strategies and having their students work in groups, others had more difficulties
in incorporating these principles in their lessons. The latter seemed to be partly the result
of classroom management issues: in instances where students were unmotivated and
showed oppositional behaviour, teachers found it hard to gradually transfer control to
RECIPROCAL TEACHING AND TEACHER SKILLS
Copyright © 2016 UKLA
students. These classroom management issues were nonexistent in the original set-up of
small groups of students under the guidance of a tutor (Palincsar & Brown, 1984;
Palincsar, Brown, & Martin, 1987) and may explain why in previous research positive re-
sults were found of reciprocal teaching (Rosenshine & Meister, 1994; Kelly, Moore, &
Tuck, 2001; Spörer, Brunstein, & Kieschke, 2009).
Interestingly, we found a moderator effect of instruction of reading strategies but not of
modelling or group work. There are at least two explanations for this observation. First, the
difference between instruction of reading strategies and modelling or group work can be
explained in terms of the extent of teacher versus student control. A higher score on the
strategy instruction variable indicates more elaborate instruction by the teacher about the
nature, function, importance and/or application of reading strategies. This is the component
of the treatment that is the most teacher-controlled and is also the most familiar, both for
teachers and students (such instruction is commonly used in education, in every domain)
and, thus, is probably easiest to implement. Also, it may be assumed that teachers have
prior knowledge about reading strategies. Both direct instruction and knowledge of reading
strategies are consistent with existing knowledge and practice of teachers, whereas model-
ling and group work are relatively unknown areas and therefore harder to master.
Second, modelling and group work are dependent on initiatives afforded to students:
higher scores on the former imply that more modelling is being carried out by both teachers
and students; higher scores on the latter imply more attention to group work. These com-
ponents are dependent on teachers transferring control to their students and may not be part
of many teachers’repertoire. For low-achieving students in Dutch secondary education, it
is quite uncommon that students work on tasks collaboratively in language arts lessons (De
Milliano, 2013). Thus, both modelling (especially by students) and group work differ from
regular classroom practice and require new skills from teachers, as they need to adapt their
feedback to the level of the student and use techniques for motivating students to collabo-
rate without direct teacher supervision.
Therefore, one explanation of the absence of moderator effects of modelling and group
work is that these instructional strategies did not reach a certain ‘threshold level’to become
significant moderators (Simmons et al., 2014). The observational data of the classrooms
seem to support this. The maximum score for modelling includes students being success-
fully encouraged to model reading strategy use themselves. However, only one treatment
teacher managed to reach this stage. The same holds for group work: the maximum score
for group work includes teachers changing the focus from correct responses to assignments
to learning to apply reading strategies collaboratively. Only three treatment teachers
reached this stage, implying that most teachers did not attain this level of practice. Our
findings are supported to some extent by the outcomes of the study by Hacker and Tenent
(2002) mentioned earlier. In this study, a number of teachers were followed over the course
of one or more years to examine how they implemented reciprocal teaching in their class-
rooms and to what extent they modified the method. The authors first of all observed that
‘the most pervasive problem that teachers faced with RT [Reciprocal Teaching] was
getting students to learn and use the RT strategies in group dialogues’(2002: 712). In re-
sponse, teachers tended to become more directive, providing more scaffolding in the form
of whole-class instruction, teacher modelling and direct guidance. This was particularly
true in classes with many struggling readers.
It appears that the training and coaching offered in our study were sufficient for the ap-
plication of one of the main elements of reciprocal teaching to bear fruit, namely, strategy
instruction. However, even for this component, not all trained teachers profited sufficiently
OKKINGA, STEENSEL, GELDEREN and SLEEGERS
Copyright © 2016 UKLA
to produce a significant difference between the experimental and the control condition.
Some experimental classes were receiving significantly more strategy instruction than
others, resulting in a moderating effect of this instructional variable. For the two other main
instructional components of reciprocal teaching, modelling and group work, however, we
did not find significant moderating effects. Despite the fact that our teachers were provided
with a quite extensive training and coaching programme, we believe that even more train-
ing and coaching are needed for teachers to adapt new ways of teaching to such an extent
that it enhances the learning process of their students, as compared with control students.
This is in line with the findings of Hacker and Tenent (2002). In their research, teachers
found it difficult to embrace new practices, such as letting students work together, and
clung more tightly to practices that were known, such as direct instruction.
As for limitations, even though there was randomisation at the class and the teacher
level, students were not randomly distributed across the intervention and control group.
For future research on reciprocal teaching, we recommend a more strict design with
randomisation at the student level. Secondly, more classroom observations could have pro-
vided more insight into the development of teachers’implementation of the treatment and
consequently provide more valid conclusions. In this case, two observations were enough
to find significant effects, but it would be a great addition in future research to show the
developmental patterns of teachers in implementing an intervention.
Finally, in future research, we recommend a study with teachers that are trained more
extensively and more frequently than in this study. Teachers should probably be pro-
vided with more tools to be able to guide the students in their collaborative learning
process. Coaching should be directed at increasing the quality of the dialogues among
the students. Teachers in our study did not have many tools to facilitate the students
in their collaborative group work. For teachers to become seasoned in new ways of
teaching, they need to practise rigorously, up to the point where reciprocal teaching
becomes routine; similar to the way we want students to become seasoned in the use
of reading strategies.
Notes
1. We checked whether results were different when these classrooms were excluded from
the analysis. This was not the case.
References
CED-Groep. (2011). Algemene Handleiding Nieuwsbegrip [Manual “News comprehension”].
Curtis, M. E. (2002, May). Adolescent reading: A synthesis of research. Washington, DC: National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development. Department of Education. http://216.26. 160.105/conf/nichd/synthesis.
asp.
De Milliano, I.I.C.M. (2013). Literacy development of low-achieving adolescents: The role of engagement in
academic reading and writing (dissertation). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Dole, J.A., Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.R. & Pearson, P.D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on
reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239–264. DOI:10.3102/
00346543061002239.
Duffy, G.G. (1993). Teachers’progress toward becoming expert strategy teachers. The Elementary School
Journal, 94(2), 109–120 Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1001963.
RECIPROCAL TEACHING AND TEACHER SKILLS
Copyright © 2016 UKLA
Dutch Education Inspectorate (2008). Basisvaardigheden taal in het voortgezet onderwijs: Resultaten van een
Inspectieonderzoek naar taalvaardigheid in de onderbouw van het vmbo en praktijkonderwijs [Basic language
skills in secondary education: Results of an inspectorate study into language skills in the first two years of
prevocational secondary education and practical training].Utrecht: Dutch Education Inspectorate.
Edmonds, M.S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., Tackett, K.K. & Schnakenberg, J.W. (2009). A
synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers.
Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262–300. DOI:10.3102/0034654308325998.
Gille, E., Loijens, C., Noijons, J. & Zwitser, R. (2010). Resultaten PISA-2009, Praktische kennis en vaardigheden
van 15-jarigen [PISA Results 2009, Practical knowledge and skills of 15-years old students]. Arnhem: Cito.
Guthrie, J.T. & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal,
P.D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume III, (pp. 403–422). New York:
Erlbaum.
Hacker, D.J. & Tenent, A. (2002). Implementing reciprocal teaching in the classroom: Overcoming obstacles and
making modifications. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 699–718. DOI:10.1037//0022-
0663.94.4.699.
Hazenberg, S. & Hulstijn, J.H. (1996). Defining a minimal receptive second-language vocabulary for non-native
university students: An empirical investigation. Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 145–163. DOI:10.1093/applin/
17.2.145.
Hox, J.J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. (Second edn). New York: Routledge.
Just, M.A. & Carpenter, P.A. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 441–480.
DOI:10.1016/0010-0285(76)90015-3.
Just, M.A. & Carpenter, P.A. (2004). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. In R.B. Ruddell
& N.J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading. (Fifth edn), (pp. 1182–1218). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Kelly, M., Moore, D.W. & Tuck, B.F. (2001). Reciprocal teaching in a regular primary school classroom. Journal
of Educational Research, 88, 53–61. DOI:10.1080/00220671.1994.9944834.
LaBerge, D. & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive
Psychology, 6, 293–323. DOI:10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2.
Logan, S. & Johnston, R. (2009). Gender differences in reading ability and attitudes: Examining where
the differences lie. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(2), 199–214. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.
01389.x.
Ministry of Education, Culture, & Science (2006). The education system in the Netherlands 2006. The Hague:
Ministry of Education, Culture, & Science/Dutch Eurydice Unit.
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific re-
search literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.Washington, DC: National Institute
of Child Health and Human Development.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2004). The PISA 2003 assessment frame-
work: Mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills.Paris: OECD.
OECD (2014). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do –student performance in mathematics, reading
and science (volume I, revised edition, February 2014). PISA: OECD Publishing. doidoi: 10.1787/
9789264201118-en.
Ouellette, G. & Beers, A. (2010). A not-so-simple view of reading: How oral vocabulary and visual-word recog-
nition complicate the story. Reading and Writing, 23(2), 189–208. DOI:10.1007/s11145-008-9159-1.
Palincsar, A.S. & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-
monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. DOI:10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1.
Palincsar, A.S., Brown, A. & Martin, S.M. (1987). Peer interaction in reading comprehension instruction.
Educational Psychologist, 22(3–4), 231–253. DOI:10.1080/00461520.1987.9653051.
Pressley, M. & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive read-
ing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rasbash, J., Steele, F., Browne, W. J., & Goldstein, H. (2009). A user’s guide to MlwiN. Version 2.10. Bristol:
University of Bristol, Centre for Multilevel Modelling.
Raven, J., Raven, J.C. & Court, J.H. (1998). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales.
Section 1: General overview. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
Rosenshine, B. & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational
Research, 64(4), 479–530. DOI:10.3102/00346543064004479.
Rumelhart, D.E. (2004). Toward an interactive model of reading. In R.B. Ruddell & N.J. Unrau (Eds.),
Theoretical models and processes of reading. (Fifth edn). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
OKKINGA, STEENSEL, GELDEREN and SLEEGERS
Copyright © 2016 UKLA
Samuels, S.J. (2004). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading, revisited. In R.B. Ruddell
& N.J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading. (Fifth edn), (pp. 1127–1148). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 257–279. DOI:10.1207/
s1532799xssr0303_4.
Seymoor, J.R. & Osana, H.P. (2003). Reciprocal teaching procedures and principles: Two teachers’developing
understanding. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 325–344. DOI:10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00018-0.
Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D.T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for
generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Simmons, D., Fogarty, M., Oslund, E.L., Simmons, L., Hairell, A., Davis, J., Anderson, L., Clemens, N., Vaughn,
S., Roberts, G., Stillman, S. & Fall, A. (2014). Integrating content knowledge-building and student-regulated
comprehension practices in secondary English arts classes. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness,
7, 309–330. DOI:10.1080/19345747.2013.836766.
Snijders, T.A.B. & Bosker, R.J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel
modeling. London: Sage.
Spörer, N., Brunstein, J.C. & Kieschke, U. (2009). Improving students’reading comprehension skills: Effects of
strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 272–286. DOI:10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2008.05.003.
Trapman, M., Gelderen, A. van, Schooten, E. van, & Hulstijn, J. (in press). Reading comprehension level and de-
velopment in native and language minority adolescent low achievers: Roles of linguistic and metacognitive
knowledge and fluency. Reading and Writing Quarterly. doi 10.1080/10573569.2016.1183541
Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., De Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P. & Stevenson, M. (2003).
Roles of linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge and processing speed in L3, L2 and L1 reading com-
prehension; a structural equation modelling approach. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7(1), 7–25.
DOI:10.1177/13670069030070010201.
Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., de Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P. & Stevenson, M. (2004).
Linguistic knowledge, processing speed, and metacognitive knowledge in first- and second-language reading
comprehension: A componential analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 19–30. DOI:10.1037/
0022-0663.96.1.19.
Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., Stoel, R.D., De Glopper, K. & Hulstijn, J. (2007). Development of adolescent
reading comprehension in Language 1 and Language 2: A longitudinal analysis of constituent components.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 477–491. DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.477.
Van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., Mak, W.M. & Sanders, T.J.M. (2014). Connectives and layout as processing
signals: How textual features affect students’processing and text representation. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 106(4), 1036–1048. DOI:10.1037/a0036293.
Van Steensel, R., Oostdam, R. & Van Gelderen, A. (2013). Assessing reading comprehension in adolescent low
achievers: Subskills identification and task specificity. Language Testing, 30(1), 3–21. DOI:10.1177/
0265532212440950.
Van Steensel, R., Oostdam, R., Van Gelderen, A. & Schooten, E. (2014). The role of word decoding, vocabulary
knowledge and meta-cognitive knowledge in monolingual and bilingual low-achieving adolescents’reading
comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading. DOI:10.1111/1467-9817.12042.
Veenman, M.V.J., Van Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M. & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Concep-
tual and methodological considerations. Metacognition & Learning, 1(1), 3–14. DOI:10.1007/s11409-006-
6893-0.
Verhoeven, L. & Leeuwe, V. (2008). Prediction of the development of reading comprehension: A longitudinal
study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(3), 407–423. DOI:10.1002/acp.1414.
Woolley, G. (2011). Reading comprehension: Assisting children with learning difficulties. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer International.
Mariska Okkinga studied psychology at Leiden University. She did a research internship for her
Research Master in Developmental Psychology at Cambridge University, after which she earned
her MSc degree in 2011. She is currently working as a PhD researcher at the University of Twente.
Dr. Roel van Steensel is an assistant professor at the Department of Pedagogical Sciences at Eras-
mus University Rotterdam. His research interest are emergent literacy development, adolescent read-
ing and writing development, literacy education and family literacy.
RECIPROCAL TEACHING AND TEACHER SKILLS
Copyright © 2016 UKLA
Dr Amos van Gelderen is professor at Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences and senior re-
searcher at the Kohnstamm Institute of the University of Amsterdam. Areas of interest are language
learning and education in L1/L2, language awareness and interrelations between the abilities of
speaking, writing, reading and listening.
Dr Peter Sleegers is Professor of Educational Organization and Management at the University of
Twente. Dr. Sleegers has published extensively on leadership, innovation and educational policy in
more than 60 referred journal articles and several edited books. Current research projects are studies
into the effects of educational leadership on student motivation for school, longitudinal research into
sustainability of reforms and design studies into professional learning communities.
Received 18 February 2015; revised version received 29 June 2016. Accepted
01 July 2016.
Address for correspondence: Mariska Okkinga, University of Twente, PO Box 217,
7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands. E-mail: m.okkinga@utwente.nl
OKKINGA, STEENSEL, GELDEREN and SLEEGERS
Copyright © 2016 UKLA
