program that used the reciprocal teaching strategy with ninth-grade students. He compared the
results of the reading comprehension tests of two groups, one whose instructors used reciprocal
teaching and one whose instructors did not. The group that received instruction with reciprocal
teaching had higher comprehension scores.
Galloway (2003) evaluated research on the effectiveness of using reciprocal teaching to
improve reading comprehension. She used a traditional meta-analysis and reported a moderate
improvement in reading comprehension for teaching using the reciprocal teaching strategy.
Galloway also found that there was no difference between effects for norm-referenced and
experimenter or teacher-generated tests. She suggests that the results of reciprocal teaching are
maintained over time and that instruction using reciprocal teaching can help readers improve
In an investigation of meta-cognitive reading strategies, teachers were observed
implementing instruction using two of the four reciprocal teaching strategies: clarification and
summarization (Hess, 2004). Hess reported that students improved the quality of their
discussions of expository text, demonstrated a higher level of critical thinking in their
questioning, and achieved higher comprehension test scores on district norm-referenced tests.
Diehl (2005) studied the effects of reciprocal teaching on fourth-grade students with
low reading skills. Specifically, he looked at students who had difficulty decoding words and
who demonstrated poor comprehension skills. Students relied heavily on their knowledge of
the real world when using the predicting strategy, and questioning and clarification of ideas
were the impetus for group discussions leading to the construction of meaning. Diehl states
that the construction of meaning appeared to result from the interconnectedness of the four
reciprocal teaching strategies.