The Effect of Collaborative Strategic Reading and Reciprocal Teaching on Reading Comprehension Among Middle School Students
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aimed to: (a) promote reading comprehension skills among middle school English Language Learners (ELL) and (b) determine whether Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) or Reciprocal Teaching (RT) was more effective for promoting reading comprehension. In total, 55 ELL students, ages 12–14, were conveniently sampled into one of two cooperative learning technique interventions. Classroom A received CSR instruction while Classroom B received RT. Interventions occurred biweekly for six weeks. A quasi-experimental pre-test, post-test research design was utilized whereby the effects of CSR and RT were investigated based on participants’ reading comprehension assessment scores. Pre-test results indicated that CSR participants had an average score of 69.56%, while the RT students averaged 66.57%. At α = .05, there was no significant difference between the CSR and RT groups at pre-test (p = .42). Then, students in each group received 10 treatment sessions entailing approximately eight hours. The post-test assessment was completed during session 12. Post-test analysis revealed an increase in total score for the CSR group (M = 5.11), and this growth is attributed to the improvement in the vocabulary subtest (M = 16.83), implying that CSR was beneficial in promoting vocabulary skills. The RT group experienced no statistically significant gains.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright: Asia-Pacific International University reserve exclusive rights to publish, reproduce and distribute the manuscript and all contents therein.
References
Abidin, M. J., & Riswanto, R. (2012). Collaborative strategic reading (CSR) within cognitive and metacognitive strategies perspectives. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(3), 192–198.
Ahmadi, M. R., & Gilakjani, A. P. (2012). Reciprocal teaching strategies and their impacts on English reading comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(10), 2053–2060. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.10. 2053-2060
Chiu, M. M., & McBride-Chang, C. (2006). Gender, context, and reading: A comparison of students in 43 countries. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(4), 331–362.
Choo, T. O. L., Eng, T. K., & Ahmad, N. (2011). Effects of reciprocal teaching strategies on reading comprehension. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 11(2), 140–149.
Doolittle, P., Hicks, D., Triplett, C., Tech, V., Nichols, W., & Young, C. (2006). Reciprocal teaching for reading comprehension in higher education: A strategy for fostering the deeper understanding of texts. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(2), 106–118. https://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/ IJTLHE1.pdf
Gani, S. A., Yusuf, Y. Q., & Susiani, R. (2016). Progressive outcomes of collaborative strategic reading to EFL learners. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 37(3), 144–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2016.08.004.
Homand, D. M., & Moughamian, A. C. (2017, April 27–May 1). Assessment of reading comprehension by text genre in English language learners and English-fluent adolescents [Paper presentation]. AERA Online Paper Repository: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Antonio.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2013). The impact of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning environments on achievement. In J. Hattie & E. Anderman (Eds.), International handbook of student achievement (pp. 372–374). Routledge.
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 99(1), 3–22. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/1002223
Learning Point Associates. (2004). A closer look at the five essential components of effective reading instruction a review of scientifically based reading research for teachers (Report No.1605R_2004). U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED512569.pdf
Levine, A., Ferenz, O., Reves, T. (2000). EFL academic reading and modern technology: How can we turn our students into independent critical readers? TESL-EJ 4(4). https://tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume4/ ej16/ej16a1/
Logan, S., & Johnston, R. (2010). Investigating gender differences in reading. Educational Review, 62(2), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911003637006
Mikulecky, B. S. (2011). A short course in teaching reading: Practical techniques for building reading power. Pearson Longman.
Miller, J. W., & McKenna, M. C. (2016). World literacy: How countries rank and why it matters (1st ed.). Routledge.
Mills, G. E., & Gay, L. R. (2016). Educational research competencies for analysis and applications (12th ed.). Pearson.
Mvududu, N., & Thiel-Burgess, J. (2012). Constructivism in practice: The case for English language learners. International Journal of Education, 4(3), 108–118.
Smarter Intervention. (2019, October 8). 5 core components of reading – Comprehension https://www.ascendlearningcenter.com/blog-highlights/reading-comprehension
Vygotsky, S., Cole, M., Jolm-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Yurko, N., & Protsenko, U. (2020). Reading comprehension: The significance, features and strategies. Collective Monographs, 106–114. https://doi.org/10.36074/rodmmrfssn.ed-1.10