Fostering reading comprehension in peer-tutored tandems and in small groups: Results of a training study on reciprocal teaching methods;Förderung des Leseverständnisses in Lerntandems und in Kleingruppen: Ergebnisse Einer Trainingsstudie zu Methoden des Reziproken Lehrens

Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht

Volumn 54, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 298-313

  Spörer, Nadine ^a   Brunstein, Joachim C ^a   Arbeiter, Katrin ^a  

^a JUSTUS LIEBIG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Reading comprehension; Reading strategies; Reciprocal teaching

Indexed keywords

EID: 35448946792     PISSN: 0342183X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Artelt, C., Stanat, P., Schneider, W. & Schiefele, U. (2001). Lesekompetenz: Testkonzeption und Ergebnisse. In Deutsches PISA-Konsortium (Hrsg.). PISA2000: Basiskompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern im internationalen Vergleich (S. 69-137). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
2. Artelt, C., Schiefele, U. & Schneider, W. (2001). Predictors of reading literacy. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16, 363-383.
3. Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
4. Baumert, J. & Schümer, G. (2001). Familiäre Lebensverhältnisse, Bildungsbeteiligung und Kompetenzerwerb. In Deutsches PISA-Konsortium (Hrsg.). PISA 2000: Basiskompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern im internationalen Vergleich (S. 323-407). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
5. Demmrich, A. & Brunstein, J. C. (2003). Förderung sinnverstehenden Lesens durch "Reziprokes Lehren". In G. W. Lauth, M. Grünke & J. C. Brunstein (Hrsg.). Interventionen bei Lernstörungen (S. 279-290). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
6. Dermody, M. (1988). Metacognitive strategies for development of reading comprehension for younger children. Paper presented at the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New Orleans, LA.
7. Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. S. & Burish, P. (2000). Peer-assisted learning strategies: An evidence-based practice to promote reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 85-91.
8. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G. & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174-206.
9. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Thompson, A., Stevenson, E., Yen, L. Otaiba, S.A., Yang, N., McMaster, K. N., Prentice, K., Kazdan, S. & Saenz, L. (2001). Peer-assisted learning strategies in reading: Extensions for kindergarten, first grade, and high school. Remedial & Special Education, 22, 15-21.
10. Grissemann, H. & Baumberger, W. (2000). Züricher Leseverständnistest ZL VT für das 4.-6. Schuljahr (2. Aufl.). Bern: Hans Huber.
11. Hacker, D.J. &Tenent,A. (2002). Implementing reciprocal teaching in the classroom: Overcoming obstacles and making modifications. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 699-718.
12. Hart, E. R. & Speece, D. L. (1998). Reciprocal teaching goes to college: Effects of postsecondary students at risk for academic failure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 670-681.
13. Horn, W. (2004). Prüfsystem fur Schul- und Bildungsberatung für die 6. bis 13- Klassen (PSB-R 6-13). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
14. Keselman, H. J., Huberty, C. J., Lix, L. M., Olejnik, S., Cribbie, R. A., Donohue, B., Kowalchuk, R. K., Lowman, L. L., Petosky, M. D., Keselman, J. C. & Levin, J. R. (1998). Statistical practices of educational researchers: An Analysis of their ANOVA, MANOVA, and ANCOVA analyses. Review of Educational Research, 68, 350-386.
15. Klauer, K.J. (2001). Trainingsforschung: Ansätze - Theorien - Ergebnisse. In K.J. Klauer (Hrsg.), Handbuch kognitives Training (2. Aufl., S. 3-66). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
16. Linder, M. & Grissemann, H. (2000). Züricher Lesetest ZLT (6. Aufl.). Bern: Hans Huber.
17. Marks, M., Pressley, M., Coley, J. D., Craig, S., Gardner, R., DePinto, W. & Rose, W. (1993). Three teachers' adaptions of reciprocal teaching in comparision to traditional reciprocal teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 267-283.
18. Marston, D., Deno, S. L., Kim, D., Diment, K. & Rogers, D. (1995). Comparison of reading intervention ap-1 proaches for students with mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 62, 20-37.
19. Maxwell, S. E. (1998). Longitudinal designs in randomized group comparisons: When will intermediate observations increase statistical power? Psychological Methods, 3, 275-290.
20. McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Research on peer-assisted learning strategies: The promise and limitations of peer-mediated instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22, 5-25.
21. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read: Reports of the Subgroups. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
22. Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A. L. ( 1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
23. Palincsar, A. S., Brown, A. L. & Martin, S. M. (1987). Peer interaction in reading comprehension instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 231-253.
24. Raphael, T. & Pearson, P. D. (1985). Increasing students' awareness of sources of information for answering questions. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 217-235.
25. Rohrbeck, C.A., Ginsburg-Block, M.D., Fantuzzo, J. W. & Miller, T. R. (2003). Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 240 -257.
26. Rosenshine, B. & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479-530.