Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995
From: Bill Blanton (BLANTONWE+@conrad.appstate.edu)
Subject: Blanton review of chapter 2

Palincsar, A. A., Brown, A. L. & Campione, J. c> (1993). First-grade dialogues for knowledge acquisition and use. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick & C. A. Stone (Eds.). Contexts for learning (pp. 43-57). New York: Oxford University Press.

For over a decade, this reserch team has been exploring the effects of reciprocal teaching on increasing comprehension and learning from text. The research reported in this chapter describes the results of using reciprocal teaching with first-grade children engaged in instruction designed to assist them in understanding biological concepts.

The researchers predict that children in a reciprocal teaching group will perform better on reading task than a control group because reciprocal teaching involves more and less accomplished learners coming together in a social community where language is used as a tool. As the teacher provides a scaffold for learners as they move through zones of proximal development, learners internalize knowledge structures to mediate similar tasks.

Reciprocal teaching is an instructional strategy where the teacher and a group of students take turns leading discussion on a common text. A set of strategies (asking questions, summarizing, clarification, and prediction) are used to engaged children in the joint construction of the meaning of text. The role of the teacher is to scaffold children's use of the strategies by providing explicit instruction and feedback.

The subjects for the study were 6 experimental teachers who taught groups of 6 children to understand biological concepts presented in text, using reciprocal teaching. A matched control group listened to the same passages read by the experimental group. A set of pretests and posttests measuring comprehension (recall and inference) and use of principles presented in the texts were administered. A similar set of comprehension measures was administaered periodically during treatment. Treatment lasted for 20 days (reading/discussion of 20 texts with reciprocal teaching as the instructional strategy.

The findings of the study are compelling. At the end of the first 10 days of treatment, experimentals scored 49%, compared to 37 % for controls, on comprehension. At 20 days, experimentals were at the 70% level and controls were at 39%. Similar results were obtained for identifying analogy between instructional and assessment texts. On a sorting task, the experimental group used thematic information 54% of the time. The controld group used thematic information 14% of the time.

In reflecting on the study, the team identifies two issues: (1) by what processes does individual performance (mastery or internalization) rise from activity of the collective, (2) how can the tension between discovery learning and predetermined curriculum be resolved (The issue was discussed at length last year on xlchc in the goal discussion. Check the contributions made by Wells and Lemke).

Along with the two issues above, I would add a third. Instruction of this kind calls for teachers to give/share instruction with children. Teachers do not seem to be willing to give up their power for many reasons. As a result when children are exposed to instruction of this kind, its effects wash out. One solution is to find what Wertsch calls institutional spaces for this practice.

Comments?

Bill Blanton

Date: Sat, 07 Oct 1995
From: Bill Blanton (BLANTONWE+@conrad.appstate.edu)
Subject: Chap. 2. What makes it Vygotskian?

Mike

This chapter on reciprocal teaching has a number of links to cultural-historical activity theory. Understanding text is approached as a problem solving task attained through joint-construction. The writers draw on Vygotsky's idea that the greatest change is children's use of language is when the socialized language used to address adults moves inward on the intrapsychological plane. Palinscar et al. discuss how chldren begin to use the statements of the teacher to regulate their interactions during lessons. Thus internalization is one link to the theory.

There is reference made to scaffolding. However, the discuss is brief. One must take it on faith.

Although not mentioned by the writers, I think that there is a link to Vygotsky's idea of scientific concepts. This research does focus on mastering systemic knowledge, along with formal instruction. Analysis of dialogue reveals that the content begins to drive discourse. After a number of lessons, children began to bring related topics from other actvity to their discussions.

Thus pre-post measures are used to show differences between the treatment and control groups. But an analysis of joint activity explains results from a Vygotskian perspective.

Bill Blanton

Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995
From: Mike Cole (mcole+@weber.ucsd.edu)
Subject: comment on ch2

Re: Palincsar, Brown, & Campione on reciprocal teaching

Hi Bill;

A couple of comments on Ch2:
1) Same query as to Francoise. You use the terms scaffolding and zoped to describe reciprocal teaching, implying that some sort of cultural-historical psychologuical theory is important in the work. What is the link?

2) The question of institutionalization neatly links this work to the earlier discussion on school reform. I know that Brown and Campione have been involved for the last several years using this approach to structure instruction in an entire elementary school, but are having a LOT of difficulty institutionalizing it. Their experience ought to have a good deal to say about the instittuional mediation of cognition and instruction. Some of that experience is written up, but getting it summarized for xmca seems more of a chore than is likely to get done spontaneously.

And if we cannot instititionalize successful new practices? then what's the point?

mike