greater gains than the traditional method. In the second study, the experimental group
interventions were conducted by volunteer teachers (not the experimenters). The results
were very similar to the ones in the first study.
Later, Brown and Palincsar (1986) compared the effectiveness of four
instructional procedures to teach the four strategies of predicting, questioning, clarifying,
and summarizing. The subjects were average 5th- and 6th-graders.
The first of the four instructional procedures was the reciprocal teaching approach
through which students received training on the four strategies. The students first
practiced using the four strategies as they interacted with the teacher. Then they worked
in groups in which they were given more responsibility to initiate and sustain the dialogue
while the teacher acted as a facilitator, providing them with clues and feedback. In the
second instructional procedure, explicit instruction, the teacher modeled and discussed
each strategy. The students were then asked to perform exercises applying the four
strategies. In the third type of instruction, the students practiced by working in groups
with no help from the teacher. They were given worksheet activities on the four
strategies. And in the last instructional procedure, the students received the same training
and procedures as group one, but they worked in groups on the 5th day of the six-day
instruction period. The findings showed that the reciprocal teaching group gained the
highest scores in reading comprehension. The group given explicit instruction and the
group with scripted intervention showed better gains than the group in which the
participants practiced by themselves.
The studies showed positive results for the use of reciprocal teaching on L1
students. Reciprocal teaching as conducted by Palincsar and Brown was effective with
different age groups (5th, 6th, and 7th graders), and with readers of their own language.