Reciprocal Teaching for the Primary
Grades: “We Can Do It, Too!”
Paola Pilonieta, Adriana L. Medina
With a few modifications, reciprocal
teaching can provide students
with comprehension strategy
instruction that is research based,
explicit, and age appropriate.
I
n 1978, Durkin (1978–1979) made what continues
to be an alarming observation: less than 1% of
classroom reading instruction was dedicated to
comprehension instruction. When comprehension in-
struction occurred, the focus was on asking students
questions about the text—assessing comprehension,
not providing instruction. More recently, Pressley,
Whar ton-McDonald, Mistretta-Hampston, and
Echevarria (1998) examined reading instruction in
10 fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms. They too found
little comprehension instruction and an emphasis on
assessing comprehension. Taylor, Peterson, Pearson,
and Rodriguez (2002) had similar findings when they
observed literacy instruction in 88 classrooms. They
coded for comprehension strategy instruction only
2%–9% of the time in grades 1–4. Because compre-
hension instruction is not always synonymous with
the primary grades (Block, Parris, & Whiteley, 2008;
Myers, 2005; Pearson & Duke, 2002; Reutzel, Smith, &
Fawson, 2005; Sweet & Snow, 2002; Taylor, Pearson,
Clark, & Walpole, 2000), it is not surprising to find
that only 16% of K–3 teachers include comprehension
strategy instruction as part of their literacy curricu-
lum (Neuman, 2001). Many primary-grade teachers
have not always emphasized comprehension strat-
egy instruction in their curriculum (Kragler, Walker,
& Martin, 2005; Pearson & Duke, 2002; Reutzel et al.,
2005). This sentiment is paralleled in the research
community, as there are few research studies focus-
The Reading Teacher, 63(2), pp. 120–129 © 2009 International Reading Association
120 DOI:10.1598/RT.63.2.3 ISSN: 0034-0561 print / 1936-2714 online
ing on comprehension instruction in K–3 (Reutzel et
al., 2005).
The lack of documented comprehension instruc-
tion, especially in the primary grades, has contrib-
uted to a student population in which 69% of fourth
graders read below the National Assessment of
Educational Progress’ (NAEP) proficient reading
level (NAEP, 2005). Likewise, Catts, Hogan, Barth,
and Adlof (2003) found that many second, third, and
fourth graders experienced difficulty with reading
comprehension. These results have prompted re-
searchers to conclude that comprehension instruc-
tion should be an essential part of primary-grade
reading programs (Block et al., 2008).
Comprehension Strategy
Instruction
Though comprehension instruction is not often evi-
dent in classrooms, there is a wealth of research
documenting its success in improving comprehen-
sion (Kincade & Beach, 1996). This research indi-
cates that proficient readers use comprehension
strategies with most reading tasks, whereas poor
readers use fewer strategies in a less flexible man-
ner (Kincade & Beach, 1996; Lenski & Nierstheimer,
2002; Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1983; Paris, Wasik,
& Turner, 1991). Comprehension strategies are con-
scious, deliberate, and flexible plans readers use and
adjust while reading or when comprehension breaks
down (Dole, Duffy, Roehler, & Pearson, 1991; Lenski
& Nierstheimer, 2002). The aim of strategy instruc-
tion is for students to become self-regulated learners
(Montague, 1993).
Self-regulated learners choose from several strat-
egies to accomplish a reading goal. If the chosen
strategy is unsuccessful, they will opt for a different
strategy. As a result, students need to be adept with
a variety of comprehension strategies to ensure they
have options if a particular strategy proves ineffective.
“Good readers do not use comprehension strategies
one at a time as they read. Rather they orchestrate
and coordinate a ‘set’ or ‘family’ of strategies to com-
prehend text” (Reutzel et al., 2005, p. 279). Thus, re-
cent research promotes multiple strategy instruction
whereby students are taught how to use and coordi-
nate multiple strategies as they read (Gersten, Fuchs,
Williams, & Baker, 2001; Neufeld, 2005; Pearson
& Duke, 2002; Pressley, 2002; Reutzel et al., 2005).
Reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984) is a
research-based instructional procedure that incorpo-
rates multiple strategy instruction.
Reciprocal Teaching
Reciprocal teaching can be used to teach students
how to coordinate the use of four comprehension
strategies: predicting, clarifying, generating ques-
tions, and summarizing. While working in small
groups, the students use these strategies to engage
in a discussion thereby jointly constructing and en-
hancing one another’s understanding of the text.
Originally designed with seventh graders, recipro-
cal teaching has been demonstrated as an effective
teaching practice in a variety of settings, by countless
researchers (Coley, DePinto, Craig, & Gardner, 1993;
Kelly, Moore, & Tuck, 2001; Myers, 2005; Palincsar &
Brown, 1984; Palincsar & Klenk, 1992; Rosenshine &
Meister, 1994).
Given the call for comprehension instruction in
the primary grades and the need for research that
documents the best practices for delivering com-
prehension instruction in these grades (Block et al.,
2008), we developed a modified version of reciprocal
teaching for use in primary classrooms that would
help meet those two criteria. To distinguish the modi-
fied version from the original reciprocal teaching
version, we called our modified version Reciprocal
Teaching for the Primary Grades (RTPG).
Theoretical Background: Key
Elements of Comprehension
Instruction
There are three key elements found in effective
comprehension strategy instruction: (1) the explicit
instruction of strategies through declarative, proce-
dural, and conditional knowledge, (2) the gradual
Reciprocal Teaching for the Primary Grades: “We Can Do It, Too!”
release of responsibility from the teacher to the stu-
dent, and (3) the coordinated use of multiple strate-
gies. First, at the elementary level, explicit instruction
of comprehension strategies is preferable over in-
struction where students are to deduce the purpose
of the lesson (Harris & Pressley, 1991). Paris et al’s
(1983) seminal piece on strategic reading serves as
a guide as to the types of cues teachers can provide
students during strategy instruction and explains the
importance of teaching declarative and procedural
knowledge. Declarative knowledge is defined as
knowing what the strategy is while procedural knowl-
edge is knowing the steps necessary to implement
the strategy. Conditional knowledge, knowledge
of when and why to apply a strategy, is needed to
transfer the application of a strategy to other contexts
(Paris et al., 1983).
Second, equally as important as using explicit
cues is a student’s transition to independent strategy
use through a teacher’s gradual release of respon-
sibility (Pearson & Fielding, 1991). When students
initially learn a strategy, the teacher assumes a large
part of the responsibility for applying the strategy. As
students gain proficiency with a strategy and move
toward becoming independent comprehension strat-
egy users, they assume more of the responsibility
for applying the strategy while the teacher gradually
releases his or her responsibility over the strategy’s
application.
Third, research supports teaching students how
to coordinate the use of multiple strategies while
reading (Gersten et al., 2001; Neufeld, 2005; Pearson
& Duke, 2002; Pressley, 2002; Reutzel et al., 2005).
Teaching multiple strategies is sensible because pro-
ficient readers use multiple strategies while reading.
Therefore, these three key elements play a pivotal role
in comprehension strategy instruction in general.
Young children need a more explicit and struc-
tured approach to comprehension instruction (Eilers
& Pinkley, 2006; Williams, 2005). Mathes, Howard,
Allen, and Fuchs (1998) argue for a decentered class-
room, one in which “children take greater responsi-
bility for their own learning while teachers serve as
facilitators by arranging the learning environment
and curriculum to enhance learning” (p. 66). Thus,
in the creation of RTPG, the instructional needs of
primary-grade children were taken into consider-
ation as were the aforementioned three key elements
of effective comprehension strategy instruction.
121
 RTPG Is Still
Reciprocal Teaching
Although RTPG has been created to facilitate imple-
mentation by first graders and modified from the
original version, the three core principles of the origi-
nal strategy were preserved: zone of proximal devel-
opment, proleptic teaching, and expert scaffolding
(Rosenshine & Meister, 1994).
Zone of Proximal Development
RTPG’s three phases of implementation rely on
teacher support of students within the zone of what
students can accomplish independently and with as-
sistance. In the first phase, each strategy fundamen-
tal to RTPG is individually introduced and applied.
In the second, or fishbowl, phase, some students en-
gage in RTPG while the teacher participates through
the role of facilitator/leader of the group. In the third
phase, all students participate in RTPG groups but re-
port their responses to the teacher. In this manner,
the teacher continues monitoring and scaffolding
the students as they move to independent practice.
Once the groups apply the strategies independently,
they report to the whole class so that the teacher can
monitor their progress and the class can engage in a
text-based discussion.
Proleptic Teaching
Proleptic teaching describes how the teacher gradu-
ally releases the responsibility of implementing the
strategy to the students. This is evident in the phas-
es built into RTPG. During each phase, the teacher
releases some of the responsibility for doing the
strategies and managing the RTPG routine, thereby
gradually removing himself or herself as the sole pro-
vider of support as students learn the components of
the strategy and support one another.
Expert Scaffolding
RTPG incorporates expert scaffolding. When the strat-
egies are introduced, the teacher is the expert. The
students selected to participate during the fishbowl
phase become more familiar with RTPG and scaffold
their group members during the group-to-teacher
phase. Once students are working in independent
groups, the cue cards, scripts, and worksheets contin-
ue to function as scaffolding to sustain engagement
122 The Reading Teacher      Vol. 63, No. 2      October 2009
and support strategy use. Therefore, the zone of
proximal development, proleptic teaching, and ex-
pert scaffolding, the three principles indicated as the
essence that contributes to reciprocal teaching’s suc-
cess, are maintained in RTPG.
Implementation Procedures—
Week by Week
RTPG Overview
There were five phases that the students made a
transition through to perform RTPG independently:
strategy introduction, fishbowl, group to teacher,
independent groups, and writing. Figure 1 provides
a graphical overview of these five phases. It also
shows how scaffolding is embedded through each
phase and how that scaffolding is gradually reduced.
Although the process took this first-grade class 24
weeks (engaging in RTPG once or twice a week), the
timeline suggested in Figure 1 may vary depending
on how often RTPG is implemented and how quickly
the students pick up the routines.
The RTPG cue cards were introduced first. A pic-
ture illustrated each strategy and phrases or sentenc-
es were provided to serve as cues to help students
enact each strategy. A “leader card” was included in
the set of strategy cue cards. This role functioned to
coordinate the RTPG within the small groups. Figure
2 shows the leader card and can serve as an example
for the other strategy cue cards. When students were
beginning readers, the picture cues were more help-
ful than the written ones; however, as the students
became more fluent readers the written cues played
a more prominent role. A set of cards was made for
each group; in addition, a set was enlarged to display
on the chalkboard.
RTPG was used with the reading basal, content
area textbooks, and trade books. The basal began
with controlled text and moved toward authentic lit-
erature by the end of the series. Each text was read
twice. The first time, the students read the text with
their assigned buddy and without any teacher assis-
tance. When pairing students, it was important that
the differences between their reading levels were not
too great so that they could help each other. To avoid
such situations, the students were ranked according
to their reading level. This list was then split in half
with the more proficient readers on one list and the
less proficient readers on the other. Then the first of
Figure 1
The Graphical Representation of RTPG

Overview of RTPG’s five phases of instruction

Phase 1: Strategy Introduction

1 Picture walk

Prereading Making
1 Review
strategies predictions
strategies
2 Set purpose
Introduce Provide
individual declarative,
strategies procedural, and
3 Clarify
and conditional
add group knowledge
components Generating
4
Postreading questions
Continue
strategies incorporating
5 Visualizing group work

6 Summarizing

Timeframe: Timeframe:
1 week per strategy 2 weeks

Phase 2: Phase 3: Phase 4: Phase 5:

Fishbowl Group to teacher Independent groups Writing (optional)

Group students
Cue cards
introduced Collaborative
Group students Group students
engagement
A fishbowl RTPG
Collaborative Collaborative
group is
engagement engagement
formed Individual
in RTPG in RTPG
accountability
Other students through written
Teacher support Reduced
observe and responses
for strategy teacher
attend to
implementation support
routine of Reduced
RTPG teacher
support

Timeframe: Timeframe: Timeframe: Timeframe:

2 weeks 5–6 weeks 7–8 weeks Indefinitely

Reciprocal Teaching for the Primary Grades: “We Can Do It, Too!” 123
 Figure 2
Leader Cue Card Used to Assist Students in Enacting
Each Strategy
1. Tell the group to do a picture walk.
2. Tell the predictor to make a prediction.
3. The leader sets the purpose.
Buddy Read
Whole-class choral reading
4. Tell the prediction-maker to check predictions.
5. Tell the clarifier to find two words to clarify.
6. Tell the questioner to ask questions.
7. Tell the visualizer to start working on his or her
picture.
8. Tell the summarizer to summarize.
9. Tell the visualizer to share his or her picture with the
group.
the proficient readers was paired with the first of the
less proficient readers. For example, if there were 10
students in a class, student one (the most proficient
reader) would be matched with student six (the high-
est of the less proficient readers), student two with
student seven, and so forth. Student pairings were
changed as determined by periodic assessment of
reading levels.
Choral reading, when the class reads the text
aloud together, was used to read the text the second
time. Not only did this help develop fluency, but also
this second reading helped students who encoun-
tered difficulties reading the text with their buddy or
who were not able to finish the text on their own. In
this way everyone had at least one complete, fluent
reading of the story prior to participating in RTPG.
Phase 1: Strategy Introduction
During the strategy introduction phase, the teacher
provided the declarative, procedural, and condi-
tional knowledge for each strategy (see Table 1). For
each strategy, it was important to develop definitions
that were relevant to the students. Students’ internal-
ization of the strategies’ meaning were facilitated
through consistent use of the definitions developed.
The first time the strategy was introduced, the teach-
er explained and modeled it and the class then prac-
ticed using the strategy through guided practice. The
second time, the aspect of group work was added
while the students continued practicing the strategy.
124 The Reading Teacher      Vol. 63, No. 2      October 2009
Three strategies were added for RTPG: picture
walk, set purpose, and visualization. Picture walk
was included to help students make predictions. Set
purpose and visualization were incorporated be-
cause of the research that show their effectiveness
in reading comprehension (Pressley, 2000; Tierney
& Cunningham, 1984), and because visualization
served as a stepping stone to scaffold students while
they were learning to summarize.
The strategies were categorized as prereading
and postreading. Figure 1 further illustrates which
strategies are part of each category and shows the or-
der in which the strategies were introduced. Picture
walk and making predictions were the only two strat-
egies introduced simultaneously because children
do a picture walk so that they will have enough infor-
mation to make a prediction. Although visualization
is implemented at the end of the RTPG routine, it was
introduced before summarization to provide students
support while they summarized.
The last couple of weeks of Phase 1 were devoted
to reviewing the strategies. Though a certain level of
familiarity with the strategies was attained by the stu-
dents before moving to the next phase, students were
not held back because they were not proficient with
the strategies; proficiency came in time as students
continually used the strategies while reading. Figure 3
illustrates how strategies were introduced and group
work was facilitated during weeks 1 and 2. Figure 3
can be used as a model for the subsequent weeks.
It should be noted that during clarifying, students
were instructed to find a word that was difficult to read
or understand instead of students clarifying an idea
they found confusing in the text. Clarification at the
word level was appropriate for primary students be-
cause they were more likely to encounter difficulties
with decoding and vocabulary. The word level focus
during the clarification strategy allowed the teacher to
coach students while they applied phonics skills dur-
ing authentic reading situations. As Taylor et al. (2000)
noted “it is what teachers do to promote application of
phonics knowledge during the reading of connected
text that matters most [in phonics instruction]” (p. 157).
Summarizing was introduced last because of the diffi-
culty most children encounter while summarizing.
Phase 2: Fishbowl
During the fishbowl phase, the teacher selected stu-
dents who could serve as potential leaders for the
Table 1
Declarative, Procedural, and Conditional Knowledge for Each Strategy

Strategy Declarative Procedural Conditional

Picture walk Look at the title, pictures,
heading, graphs, and
diagrams in the text.
Prediction A smart guess about what the
text is about.
Set purpose Why we want to read the text. Think about your picture walk
What we are trying to find out. and predictions. What are you
wondering about?
Clarify Look for words that are hard
to read or that we don’t
understand.
Ask questions Ask questions about things
that happened in the text.
Ask questions about parts of
the text a kindergartner might
find tricky.
Visualize Draw a picture of the most
important part of the text.
Summarize Telling what the text is about
in a shorter way.
Turn the pages. Look at the
pictures and headings. Think
about what the text might be
about.
Think about the pictures.
What did you notice? Make a
guess.
When we were reading, which
word was hard to read? For
which word did we ask for
help? Which word we didn’t
understand?
Ask questions using the words
what, when, where, why, who,
and how.
Think of the most important
part of the text. Draw a
picture that shows this part.
If the text is fiction, tell what
happened at the beginning,
middle, and end of the story,
or the problem/solution. If it’s
nonfiction, tell the topic of the
text and the most important
information.
We do this before we read
because it helps us make
predictions later.
We do this before reading to
get ready to read. It warms up
our brains.
We do this before reading.
This helps us focus our brains.
We do this after reading, so
that the next time we see this
word we will be able to read
and understand it.
We do this after reading
because it helps us
understand the text better.
We do this after reading to
remember and understand the
text better.
We do this after reading
because it helps us remember
the text better.

collaborative groups. The students chosen engaged
in RTPG as the teacher scaffolded their progress. The
fishbowl phase allowed the teacher to guide the stu-
dents through RTPG while modeling and monitoring
the social interactions and walking students through
the routine. This phase gave the rest of the class an
opportunity to see how students interacted during
RTPG. Figure 4 demonstrates the dialogue during
the fishbowl phase. Although this phase was an im-
portant one in the process, it may not be possible to
conduct a fishbowl too often as it is difficult to sustain
the rest of the class’s attention.
During the fishbowl phase, the roles and cue
cards that corresponded to RTPG were introduced
to the students. There were eight cue cards in all,
one for each strategy and an additional card for the
leader. There were six students in each group. The
leader (who had three cards: the leader card, picture
walk card, and set purpose card) told each student
when to do his or her strategy, told the group to do
the picture walk, and set the purpose for reading
the text. The remaining five students each received
one strategy cue card and used it at the appropriate
time in the process. The prediction maker made the
prediction, the clarifier clarified difficult words, the
questioner asked questions, the summarizer summa-
rized the text, and the visualizer drew a picture of the
most important part of the text.
During this phase, the talking stick, a simple pop-
sicle stick, was introduced. Only the student holding

Reciprocal Teaching for the Primary Grades: “We Can Do It, Too!” 125
 Figure 3
Weeks 1 and 2 Introduction of Strategies and Group Work

Week 1: Introduce the following strategies: picture walk and making predictions.
Explain how, when, and why to do each:
n Picture walk: Before reading the story, look through the pictures and read the captions to try to find out what the

story is about. We do picture walks to help us make predictions.

n Prediction: Using the information you already know about the topic and the information you gained through the

picture walk, make a guess that makes sense about what you think the story is about—these guesses don’t always
have to be correct. Just as athletes warm up before a big game, good readers make predictions before reading.
Predictions can also be done while reading. We are going to do them before reading the story, but you can also
do them while we are reading. Good readers make predictions to get their brains ready to read.
Teacher: Guide the class through a picture walk. Do a think-aloud of questions and ideas you have about the story
during the picture walk. Also indicate when the students should turn the page. Have a couple of students volunteer
predictions. Read the story chorally. Afterwards, review the accuracy of the predictions and remind students that
predictions do not always need to be correct.

Week 2: Review the previously learned strategies and add set purpose for reading.
n Set purpose for reading: Provide declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge for the set purpose

strategy.
n Adding group work to predictions: Choose a member from each group to lead the prediction conversation.

Explain that after the picture walk everyone in the table is to think of a prediction for the story. The leader will go
around asking everybody what his or her prediction is. After hearing everyone’s prediction, the leader will try to
make a prediction based on everyone’s ideas. The leader will share this new prediction aloud and ask the group if
this prediction is OK.
Teacher: Have the leaders share their predictions with the class as you write them down on the chalkboard. Read
the story chorally. After reading the story, the class reviews each prediction and votes (thumbs up, down, so-so) on
the accuracy of each prediction.

the talking stick was allowed to speak. The leader
was responsible for passing the talking stick to the
student who would perform the next strategy. The
talking stick acted as a visual symbol to primary-
grade students and helped remind them of turn tak-
ing when speaking and of listening when somebody
else had the talking stick.
Phase 3: Group to Teacher
Once the students were familiar with the roles and
strategies of RTPG, they were ready for the group-to-
teacher phase. During this phase, students who par-
ticipated in the fishbowl were assigned as leaders to
other groups because they had a bit more experience
with the RTPG routine. Students were assigned the
same roles for a couple of weeks so that they could
become more proficient with their strategy and
groups could become accustomed to the routine and
focus more on discussing the text.
The teacher gave the leader and group members
cues, but the leader asked the next student to guide
the group through his or her assigned strategy using
the fishbowl dialogue (see Figure 4). It was helpful
to give students a limited time—approximately three
minutes—in which to guide their group through each
strategy. Once each strategy was performed, the stu-
dent responsible shared his or her work with the en-
tire class by reporting to the teacher. This allowed
the teacher to monitor and scaffold each group’s
progress while they performed each strategy, provide
guidance to students who needed it, and focus the
students’ attention on pertinent information within
the text.
Phase 4: Independent Groups
Once students became more proficient with the strat-
egies and their discussions became more focused on
the text and flowed more naturally, they were ready
to work more independently. In the independent

126 The Reading Teacher      Vol. 63, No. 2      October 2009
Figure 4
Fishbowl Phase Dialogue and Steps

Week 10–11: The fishbowl phase allows students to see one group performing the complete strategy.
Steps
  1. Review each card/strategy.
  2. Assign roles.
  3. Teacher tells Leader to tell his or her group to take a picture walk.
  4. Teacher tells Leader to tell Prediction-Maker to make predictions.
a. Teacher tells Prediction-Maker to ask the group members for their predictions.
b. Teacher tells Prediction-Maker to use the group’s suggestions to make his or her own predictions.
c. Teacher asks Prediction-Maker to stand up and share prediction while he or she writes it down.
  5. Teacher tells Leader to set the purpose for reading.
a. Teacher asks Leader to ask his or her group for their purpose.
b. Teacher tells Leader to use his or her group’s suggestions to set purpose.
c. Teacher asks Leader to share his or her purpose.
  6. Buddy read text.
  7. Chorally read text.
  8. Teacher tells Leader to ask Prediction-Maker to check the predictions.
  9. Teacher asks Leader if his or her purpose for reading was met.
10. Teacher tells Leader to tell Clarifier to find two words that are hard to read or understand. Teacher follows same
routine as in Steps 4 and 5.
11. Teacher tells Leader to tell Questioner to ask the group two questions about the story.
a. Teacher tells Questioners to ask the group for questions.
b. Teacher tells Questioner to use the group’s suggestions to create two questions.
c. Teacher tells Questioner to ask his or her question and pick someone from the group to answer.
d. Teacher has Questioner stand up and ask the whole class his or her question. Questioner picks someone from
the class to answer the question.
12. Teacher tells Leader to tell Visualizer to start working on his or her picture.
13. Teacher tells Leader to tell Summarizer to make a summary about the story. Teacher follows same routine in
Steps 4 and 5.
14. Teacher tells Leader to tell Visualizer to show and explain his or her picture to the group.

groups phase, students worked in their groups for ap-
proximately 10 minutes and did all of the prereading
strategies together without reporting to the teacher
and class. During this time, the teacher walked
around and provided assistance to the groups if nec-
essary. Then the groups took turns reporting their
predictions and purposes for reading to the class
while the teacher recorded them. This allowed the
teacher to continue to monitor the students’ use of
strategies and scaffold their progress when needed.
This also allowed for whole-class discussions to oc-
cur. Afterwards, the students engaged in buddy read-
ing and choral reading of the text. The class checked
predictions and purposes. Finally, students rejoined
their groups and performed the postreading strate-
gies without reporting to the class. After working in
their groups for approximately 15 minutes, the groups
reported their words, questions, summaries, and pic-
tures to the rest of the class.
Phase 5: Independent Groups
and Writing
Once students were proficient in their independent
groups, the writing component was added. The writ-
ing phase took place once students were finished
with RTPG, after sharing their strategy with the class,
or while still in their groups before sharing with the
class. A worksheet was provided for each student
with the list of the strategies and space to write down
his or her own responses. The writing component
allowed for assessment because the teacher had
evidence from which to measure students’ progress
with each strategy. The writing component was also
useful for individual student accountability.

Reciprocal Teaching for the Primary Grades: “We Can Do It, Too!” 127
 Student Outcomes
There were two types of outcomes observed during
and after the implementation of RTPG: outcomes
that were easily measured and those that were in-
tangible. Preliminary results indicated that students
learned the strategies, they were able to apply them
to new content and texts, they learned the sequence
of RTPG, and declarative, conditional, and proce-
dural knowledge of RTPG was retained six months
later when students were in second grade. However,
it is beyond the scope of this “how-to” article to detail
all of the academic growth experienced by the first
graders.
As to the intangible outcomes, it was clear to
the researchers and the classroom teachers that stu-
dents were engaged, motivated, and looked forward
to RTPG. Students were observed actively participat-
ing in higher order thinking as they discussed the
material read. Over time students were able to inde-
pendently navigate the RTPG routines with minimal
conflict and disagreements.
Benefits of RTPG
All the components research has deemed essential
to the success and effectiveness of reciprocal teach-
ing (Palincsar & Brown, 1984) have been retained in
RTPG. Implementing RTPG in first grade allowed for
a student-centered reading program that focused on
the three key elements of comprehension strategy in-
struction. Students were engaged in the application
of strategies during authentic reading experiences
while being scaffolded by their teacher and their
peers. Through the use of the phases and cue cards,
RTPG became routine and students were able to de-
vote more attention to discussing and comprehend-
ing the text read. With the support provided within
RTPG, first graders were able to learn, coordinate,
and apply comprehension strategies and work in col-
laborative groups; primary students can do it, too!
References
Block, C.C., Parris, S.R., & Whiteley, C.S. (2008). CPMs: A kines-
thetic comprehension strategy. The Reading Teacher, 61(6),
460–470. doi:10.1598/RT.61.6.3
Catts, H.W., Hogan, T.P., Barth, A.E., & Adlof, S.M. (2003, June).
The simple view of reading: Changes over time. Paper pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of
Reading, Boulder, CO.
Coley, J.D., DePinto, T., Craig, S., & Gardner, R. (1993). From
college to classroom: Three teachers’ accounts of their
128 The Reading Teacher      Vol. 63, No. 2      October 2009
adaptations of reciprocal teaching. The Elementary School
Journal, 94(2), 255–266. doi:10.1086/461765
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.
Durkin, D. (1978 –1979). What classroom obser vations re-
veal about comprehension instruction. Reading Research
Quarterly, 14(4), 481–533. doi:10.1598/RRQ.14.4.2
Eilers, L.H., & Pinkley, C. (2006). Metacognitive strategies help
students to comprehend all text. Reading Improvement, 43(1),
13–29.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L.S., Williams, J.P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching
reading comprehension strategies to students with learning
disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational
Research, 71(2), 279–320. doi:10.3102/00346543071002279
Harris, K.R., & Pressley, M. (1991). The nature of cognitive strat-
egy instruction: Interactive strategy construction. Exceptional
Children, 57(5), 392–404.
Kelly, M., Moore, D.W., & Tuck, B.F. (2001). Reciprocal teaching
in a regular primary classroom. The Journal of Educational
Research, 88(1), 53–61.
Kincade, K.M, & Beach, S.A. (1996). Improving reading
comprehension through strategy instruction (Research
into P r act ice). R e a d in g P s ycholog y, 17(3), 273 –281.
doi:10.1080/0270271960170304
Kragler, S., Walker, C.A., & Martin, L.E. (2005). Strategy instruc-
tion in primary content textbooks. The Reading Teacher,
59(3), 254–261. doi:10.1598/RT.59.3.5
Lenski, S.D., & Nierstheimer, S.L. (2002). Strategy instruction from
a sociocognitive perspective. Reading Psychology, 23(2), 127–
143. doi:10.1080/027027102760351034
Mathes, P.G., Howard, J.K., Allen, S.H., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Peer-
assisted learning strategies for first-grade readers: Responding
to the needs of diverse learners. Reading Research Quarterly,
33(1), 62–94. doi:10.1598/RRQ.33.1.4
Montague, M. (1993). Student-centered or strategy-centered in-
struction: What is our purpose? Journal of Learning Disabilities,
26(7), 433–437. doi:10.1177/002221949302600703
Myers, P.A. (2005). The princess storyteller, Clara clarifier, Quincy
questioner, and the wizard: Reciprocal teaching adapted for
kindergarten students. The Reading Teacher, 59(4), 314–324.
doi:10.1598/RT.59.4.2
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2005). The nation’s
report card. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics.
Neufeld, P. (2005). Comprehension instruction in content area
classes. The Reading Teacher, 59(4), 302–312. doi:10.1598/
RT.59.4.1
Neuman, S.B. (2001). The role of knowledge in early literacy.
Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4), 468–475. doi:10.1598/
RRQ.36.4.6
Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of
comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring
activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. doi:10.1207/
s1532690xci0102_1
Palincsar, A.S., & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering literacy learning in
supportive contexts. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(4),
211–225. doi:10.1177/002221949202500402
Paris, S.G., Lipson, M.Y., & Wixson, K.K. (1983). Becoming a stra-
tegic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3),
293–316. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(83)90018-8
Paris, S.G., Wasik, B.A., & Turner, J.C. (1991). The development of
strategic readers. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, & P.D.
 Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 2, pp.
609–640). New York: Longman.
Pearson, P.D., & Duke, N.K. (2002). Comprehension instruction
in the primary grades. In C.C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.),
Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices
(pp. 247–258). New York: Guilford.
Pearson, P.D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction.
In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.),
Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 2, pp. 815–860). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension be the instruc-
tion of? In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr
(Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 3, pp. 545–561).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension strategies instruction: A turn-
of-the-century status report. In C.C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.),
Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp.
11–27). New York: Guilford.
Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampston, J.M., &
Echevarria, M. (1998). Literacy instruction in 10 fourth- and
fifth-grade classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies
of Reading, 2(2), 159–194. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0202_4
Reutzel, D.R., Smith, J.A., & Fawson, P.C. (2005). An evaluation
of two approaches for teaching reading comprehension
strategies in the primary years using science information
texts. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20(3), 276–305.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2005.07.002
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A re-
view of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4),
479–530.
Sweet, A.P., & Snow, C.E. (2002). Reconceptualizing reading com-
prehension. In C.C. Block, L.B. Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.),
Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research,
theory, and classroom practice (pp. 17–53). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Reciprocal Teaching for the Primary Grades: “We Can Do It, Too!”
Taylor, B.M., Pearson, P.D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000).
Effective schools and accomplished teachers: Lessons about
primary-grade reading instruction in low-income schools. The
Elementary School Journal, 101(2), 121–166. doi:10.1086/499662
Taylor, B.M., Peterson, D.S., Pearson, P.D., & Rodriguez, M.C.
(2002). Looking inside classrooms: Reflecting on the “how”
as well as the “what” in effective reading instruction. The
Reading Teacher, 56(3), 270–279. doi:10.1598/RT.56.3.5
Tierney, R.J., & Cunningham, J.W. (1984). Research on teaching
reading comprehension. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr, M.L. Kamil,
& P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp.
609–655). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Williams, J.P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for
primary-grade students: A focus on text structure. The Journal
of Special Education, 39(1), 6–18. doi:10.1177/0022466905039
0010201
Pilonieta teaches at the University of North Carolina
at Charlotte, USA; e-mail pilonieta@uncc.edu. Medina
also teaches at the University of North Carolina at
Charlotte; e-mail amedina1@uncc.edu.
For related lesson plans, visit ReadWriteThink.org
to find
4Using the Prediction Strategy to Set Purposes
for Reading
4Questioning: A Comprehension Strategy
for Small-Group Guided Reading
4Guided Comprehension: Summarizing Using
the QuIP Strategy
129