Improving Iranian EFL students reading comprehension skills: examining the effects of self-regulated strategy and modified reciprocal teaching
Subject Areas : Journal of Teaching English Language Studies
Atefeh Jafari
1
(Islamic Azad University, Takestan Branch)
Bahador Sadeghi
2
(Islamic Azad University, Takestan Branch)
Keywords: reading comprehension, Self-regulation, metacognitive strategy, modified reciprocal teaching,
Abstract :
The purpose of this study was to investigate how reciprocal teaching and self-regulation affected reading comprehension of EFL learners at the high school level. 60 participants were selected and randomly assigned into two groups: an experimental group and a control group. The experimental group was taught through reciprocal teaching while the control group was taught through skill-based teaching. The researcher used reading section of the National University Entrance Exam in the Field of English 1391 as pre-test, and post-test to collect the data. Data were analyzed by the covariance analysis and the results indicated that reciprocal teaching had a significantly positive effect on the English reading comprehension and usage of self-regulation strategy of high school students. Students who were taught by reciprocal teaching had better scores at post-test rather than the other students in skill-based group.
Allen, S. (2003). An analytic comparison of three models of reading strategy instruction. IRAL, 41, 319–338.
Bruce, M.E., & Robinson, G.L. (2004). Clever kids: a metacognitive and reciprocal teaching program to improve both word identification and comprehension for upper primary readers experiencing difficulty. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 9 (3), 19–33.
Carrell, P.L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 120–133.
Carrell, P., Pharis, B.G., & Liberto, J.C. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23 (4), 646–678.
Carter, C. (1997). Why reciprocal teaching? Educational Leadership, 54 (6), 64-71.
Chandavimon, M. (1998). Reading Comprehension: An active Engagement or a Passive Experience? PASAA, 28, 31–42.
Diehl, H.L. (2005). The effects of the reciprocal teaching struggling readers. Published dissertation, West Virginia University, West Virginia, United States. Retrieved December 6, 2006, from
Dole, J.A., Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.R., & Pearson, P.D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61 (2), 239–264.
Hacker, D.J., & Tenent, A. (2002). Implementing Reciprocal teaching in the classroom: overcoming obstacles and making modifications. Journal Psychology, 94 (4), 699–718.
Johnson, G., & Catherine, M. (1998). Strategy training for poor reading comprehenders: Strengthening the visual code with visualizing/verbalizing versus strengthening the verbal code with reciprocal teaching. PublishedPh.D. dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, United States.Retrieved April 23, 2007, fromhttp://0–proquest.umi.com.library.ecu.edu.au/pgd.web?did=733067551.
Kelly, M., Moore, D.W., & Tuck, B.F. (1994). Reciprocal teaching in a regular primary school classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 53–61. King, C.M., & Parent, L.M. (1999). Constructing meaning via reciprocal teaching. Reading Research and Instruction, 38, 169–186.
Klingner, J., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. Elementary School Journal, 96 (3), 275–293.
Miller, L.D., & Perkins, K. (1990). ESL reading comprehension instruction. RELC Journal, 21 (1), 31–42.
O’Malley, J.M., & Chamot, A.U. (1987). The effects of training in the use of learning strategies on learning English as a second language. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning, pp. 133–144. New York: Prentice–Hall. ford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: a synthesis of studies with implications for strategy training. Systems, 17 (2), 235–257.
Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension– fostering and comprehension–monitoring activities. Cognition and instruction, 1, 117–175.
Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1985). Reciprocal teaching: Activities to promote “reading with your mind.” In T.L. Harris & E.J. Cooper (Eds.). Reading, thinking, and concept development (pp.147–159). New York: The collage-board.
Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1986). Interactive teaching to promote independent
learning from text. The Reading teacher, 39 (8), 771–777.
Palincsar, A.S., Brown, A.L., & Campione, J. (1989). Structured dialogues among communities of first grade learners. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California. Retrieved April 2007 from http://www.proquest.umi.com.library.ecu.edu.au
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64 (4), 479–530.
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66 (2), 181–221.
Rumelhart, D.E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In Dornic, S. (Ed.), Attention and Performance, V.1, 573–603. New York. Academic Press.
Russell, V.M. (1998). Effects of reciprocal teaching on reading and oral language proficiency and reader self–perception of six–grade ESL students. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Fordham University, New York, United States. Retrieved April 23, 2007, from http://www. proquest.umi.com.library.ecu.au/pgdweb?did=736654861.
Soonthornmanee, R. (2002). The effect of the reciprocal teaching approach on the reading comprehension of EFL students. RELC, 33 (2), 125–141.
Soranastastaporn, S., & Ratanakul, S. (2000). An experimental study of the use of grammar translation and the reciprocal teaching technique in teaching English reading comprehension. SLLA Studies in Language and Language teaching, 9, 1–17.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of the higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.