the group who had received full strategy instruction. No significant difference was found
among any of the groups’ pretest and posttest results. However, the test scores of the
group that received instruction on all four key strategies were higher than the group that
received instruction on only one strategy.
Clark (2003) studied the efficacy of reciprocal teaching with adult high school
students on reading comprehension. Fifteen students of mixed abilities and ethnicities,
aged sixteen to fifty, participated in the 5-week study. The instruments in this study
consisted of written assignments, group discussions, and surveys of the students’ opinions
on reciprocal teaching. Group discussions and written assignments were analyzed. The
results from the surveys showed that 90% of the students reported benefits from using
reciprocal teaching and preferred it to traditional instruction; 40% of them stated that
reciprocal teaching improved their reading comprehension.
In conclusion, most studies on reciprocal teaching in first language (L1) context at
high school level also showed positive effects. The students improved their reading
ability significantly in groups of mixed abilities. In addition, students who received
explicit instruction on the four strategies before reciprocal teaching were having a better
performance than when reciprocal teaching only was used. Finally, students showed a
more positive attitude on reciprocal teaching than on traditional teaching.
Hart and Speece (1998) investigated the effects of reciprocal teaching on
postsecondary students at risk for academic failure. The sample consisted of 50 students
in a community college in Maryland, in the United States, who were divided into two
groups: an experimental group and a control group. The results showed that the reciprocal
teaching group performed significantly better than the general teaching group on reading