Hands-on reciprocal teaching: A comprehension technique

Stricklin, Kelley. Hands-on reciprocal teaching: A comprehension technique. The Reading Teacher, 64(8), 620-625.

Here’s a teacher-friendly repackaging of the well-known reciprocal teaching method, wherein teachers and students, and eventually students and students, take turns “being the teacher” and modeling for each other how to predict, clarify, question, and summarize. Stricklin, a professor at the University of Southern Mississippi, field-tested her version of reciprocal teaching with upper elementary grade children in a school where she tutored weekly. She bases her work heavily on that of Lori Oczkus, the publisher of several books on comprehension strategy instruction, who in turn built upon the then-landmark studies of Palincsar and Brown in the 1980s, who in their turn built on the work of Anthony Manzo (my former professor) on the ReQuest (reciprocal questioning) Procedure in the late 1960s. To really understand reciprocal teaching, it probably is necessary to trace the lineage of the approach. All of the authors’ works are well-known, and easily accessible, both in terms of locating documents and in terms of the understandability of the writing. As one who is quite familiar with that lineage, I did just the kind of lineage trace I’m recommending after I read Stricklin’s article.

One thing I noticed about the version here: it is much more rigid than the approach that Palincsar and Brown originally tested. Palincsar and Brown’s original implementation of the four strategies of prediction, clarification, questioning, and summarization was more flowing, more natural, and seemed much more authentic than the way it is described in Stricklin’s article. The approach that Stricklin recommends here requires that all four strategies be done for each segment of text, and prescribes “roles” for student group members as they take turns being the one who predicts, clarifies, questions, or summarizes. In the original procedure, summarization took precedence and was always employed first, and questions were always done, but clarification and prediction were only done as appropriate when triggered by certain portions of text. Also, in the original, the teacher played a strong modeling role and for a much longer time before gradually releasing responsibility to students, though of course student independence was the eventual goal. In Stricklin’s version, it appears that the teacher is cautioned NOT to be directly involved in the reciprocal teaching, at least not once the original modeling of the four strategies is completed. These seem to be important changes, and while the changes to the model may reduce some of the uncertainty that is inherent in reciprocal teaching models, especially in the difficult stage where the children first try to practice the strategies themselves, and while that reduction of uncertainty may make reciprocal teaching more attractive to teachers, I wonder if the more structured version of the model has quite the same impact on comprehension as the original, in all its messy, uncertain glory? I reiterate here that the reader really must trace the lineage, back through Oczkus (where many of the modifications here originate), back through Palincsar and Brown (who gathered the original validating data), back through the work of Manzo (one of the original roots of the approach). Do this, and then decide how to implement reciprocal teaching.

I think classroom teachers will like Stricklin’s version of the approach because of the many practical ideas she presents here. Although I find some of them to be a bit contrived for my taste, others are helpful. On the contrived side, dressing up and playing the roles of the “Fab Four” strategies (Paula the Predictor, Clarence the Clarifier, Quinn the Questioner, and Sammy the Summarizer) as a fortuneteller, a Sherlock Holmes type, a game show host, and a lasso-wielding cowboy, seems to be a bit much. It would certainly be memorable to do that, but it probably isn’t necessary, and besides, the roles are a bit stereotyped, even potentially in an offensive way, with teachers encouraged to read in a “fortuneteller” or “country twang” voice. Maybe if the children helped name and develop the roles, I’d like it a bit better. In any case, kids see through this kind of performance as being corny at best and manipulative at worst, especially older kids. It’s probably not necessary to do the “Fab Four” thing; the strategies can stand alone as they are. On the helpful side, there are some good, easy-to-make manipulatives here for helping children learn the four strategies, including a “dial” made from a paper plate with an arrow attached by a brad, a “four door chart” made of construction paper with a little door for each strategy, and a sort of flip book with four layers called a 1, 2, 3, 4. Those all could be helpful for students to remember and use the strategies.

There are many good ideas here, though I still might wish for a more flexible approach to reciprocal teaching. Some texts lend themselves better to some strategies than others. At times I might find myself scraping to use one or more strategy with a particular segment of text. Also, children might need different levels or types of scaffolding at different points and with different texts. I worry that instructional models that originally were fresh and vibrant (though perhaps not always neat and tidy) can easily become reified, codified, and over-structured. I’m not saying that has happened completely here, but it is definitely a tendency and a danger. Keeping our eyes on why a model works is important, and realizing that it is the result, not the model’s structure, that is important, is necessary. That’s why a look into the lineage behind a model, especially as that lineage develops into multiple generations, is important.