Conclusions
Subjects A, B, and C demonstrated improvement in most categories during the intervention phase of reciprocal teaching strategies. Subjects B and C demonstrated more consistent performance than Subject A. Reciprocal teaching strategies appear to have made a positive impact for Subjects B and C. Subject B demonstrated growth in all categories: main idea, details, sequence, vocabulary in context, cause and effect. Subject C demonstrated growth in all categories except inference. Subject A demonstrated growth in three categories. Some students with disabilities will require more time to acquire strategies, practice strategies, and transfer strategies. In the context of a content-loaded course, these students are at a distinct disadvantage.
Figure B shows the comparison of Subjects A, B, and C for their performance on six different question types: main idea, detail, sequence, vocabulary, cause and effect, and inference.
FIGURE B
The three students also identified more effective reading strategies post-intervention than pre-intervention. This shows that they appear more aware of what they should or could do to be more active and responsible for their comprehension. Figure 2.4 shows the increase in effective strategy identification.
With
the improved scores on comprehension questions and an increase in the number of
identified effective comprehension strategies, it would appear that the
intervention of reciprocal teaching strategies (prediction, questioning,
clarification, and summarization) has been successful.
Future
research with different populations, with a greater sample, or in large group
settings will confirm findings or lead to new directions.