36

# 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 5^{th}- and 6^{th}-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 5^{th }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 (5^{th}, 6^{th}, and 7^{th }graders), and with readers of their own language.