<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.3 20210610//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.3/JATS-journalpublishing1-3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3" xml:lang="en">
<front>
<journal-meta>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">46</journal-id>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="short-title">gssr</journal-id>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="doi">10.31703/gssr</journal-id>
  <journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Global Social Sciences Review</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">gssr</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group>
  <issn publication-format="print">2520-0348</issn>
  <issn publication-format="electronic">2616-793X</issn>
  <self-uri xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com"/>
  <publisher>
    <publisher-name>Humanity Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Pakistan</publisher-loc>
  </publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
  <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">391101</article-id>
  <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.31703/gssr.2021(VI-III).09</article-id>
  <article-id pub-id-type="other" specific-use="submission-id">1570</article-id>
  <article-version article-version-type="publisher">1.0</article-version>
  <article-categories>
    <subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
      <subject>article</subject>
    </subj-group>
  </article-categories>
  <title-group>
    <article-title xml:lang="en">Effect of Reciprocal Teaching on the Reading Motivation: Experimental Evidence from a Classroom Intervention</article-title>
  </title-group>
<contrib-group>
  <contrib contrib-type="author" seq="1" corresp="yes">
    <name>
      <surname>Khan</surname>
      <given-names>Sadia Khan</given-names>
    </name>
    <email>khansadia527@gmail.com</email>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Conceptualization" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/conceptualization/">Conceptualization</role>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing – original draft" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-original-draft/">Writing – original draft</role>
    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/>
    <xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"/>
  </contrib>
  <contrib contrib-type="author" seq="2">
    <name>
      <surname>Ch.</surname>
      <given-names>Abid Hussain Ch.</given-names>
    </name>
    <email>khansadia527@gmail.com</email>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing – review &amp; editing" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Writing – review &amp; editing</role>
    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"/>
  </contrib>
  <aff id="aff1">
    <label>1</label>
    <institution-wrap>
      <institution>Ph.D. Scholar, Institute of Education and Research (IER), University of Punjab, Lahore</institution>
    </institution-wrap>
    <addr-line>Punjab</addr-line>
    <country>Pakistan</country>
  </aff>
  <aff id="aff2">
    <label>2</label>
    <institution-wrap>
      <institution>Dean Education, Institute of Education and Research (IER), University of Punjab, Lahore</institution>
    </institution-wrap>
    <addr-line>Punjab</addr-line>
    <country>Pakistan</country>
  </aff>
</contrib-group>
<author-notes>
  <corresp id="cor1">Corresponding Author: Sadia Khan, Ph.D. Scholar, Institute of Education and Research (IER), University of Punjab, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.. Email: <email>khansadia527@gmail.com</email></corresp>
<fn fn-type="COI-statement" id="fn-coi">
  <p>The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.</p>
</fn>
<fn fn-type="ethics-statement" id="fn-ethics">
  <p>This study did not require formal ethics approval.</p>
</fn>
<fn fn-type="data-availability-statement" id="fn-data">
  <p>Data sharing is not applicable to this article.</p>
</fn>
</author-notes>
<pub-date pub-type="epub" date-type="pub" publication-format="electronic">
  <day>30</day>
  <month>09</month>
  <year>2021</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="collection">
  <month>09</month>
  <year>2021</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date date-type="pub" publication-format="print">
  <day>16</day>
  <month>02</month>
  <year>2022</year>
</pub-date>
  <volume>6</volume>
  <issue>3</issue>
  <season>Summer</season>
  <fpage>80</fpage>
  <lpage>87</lpage>
  <history>
    <date date-type="accepted">
      <day>16</day>
      <month>02</month>
      <year>2022</year>
    </date>
  </history>
<funding-group>
  <funding-statement>
<p>The authors received no specific funding for this work.</p>
  </funding-statement>
</funding-group>
<permissions>
  <copyright-year>2021</copyright-year>
  <copyright-holder>Humanity Publications</copyright-holder>
  <license license-type="open-access" xml:lang="en" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
    <license-p>This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.</license-p>
  </license>
</permissions>
<self-uri content-type="text/html" xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/article/effect-of-reciprocal-teaching-on-the-reading-motivation-experimental-evidence-from-a-classroom-intervention"/>
<self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/pdf/gssr/szGcWpKii5.pdf"/>
<supplementary-material id="suppl-pdf" content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/pdf/gssr/szGcWpKii5.pdf">
  <label>PDF</label>
  <caption>
    <title>Full Text PDF</title>
  </caption>
</supplementary-material>
  <abstract>
    <p>The objective of this research exercise is to examine how reciprocal teaching affects 7th-grade students reading motivation in the subject of English. To meet the desired objective, the study employed a quasi-experimental design. The intact classes were randomly allocated to the experimental and control group. The experimental group was instructed with reciprocal teaching strategies, while the control group was taught with the traditional method. The Motivations for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ) was administered before and after the intervention. The study employed Pretest-Posttest Nonequivalent Control Group Design for data collection. The data was analyzed using the independent sample and paired sample t-test. The results of the study revealed that the motivation level of students who were taught with reciprocal teaching is significantly higher than those students who were taught with the traditional method. These results suggest that reciprocal teaching should be incorporated in teacher education programs as appropriate instructional practice for reading.</p>
  </abstract>
<kwd-group kwd-group-type="author-keywords">
  <kwd>Reciprocal Teaching</kwd>
  <kwd>Experimental Evidence</kwd>
  <kwd>Classroom Intervention</kwd>
</kwd-group>
  <custom-meta-group>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>views</meta-name><meta-value>1062</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>downloads</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>html-views</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>google-scholar-citations</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>crossref-citations</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
  </custom-meta-group>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<sec id="sec-1">
  <title>Introduction</title>
<p>In the modern education system, the student&apos;s ability to read and comprehend text is important for learning outcomes. Reading skills, reading comprehension, and students’ approach toward reading play a pivotal role in their academic success. Despite the fact that reading plays a major role in academic success, the students enrolled at the elementary level consider reading as boring and inconvenient (Guthrie, Klauda &amp; HO, 2013; McKenna, Kear, &amp; Ellsworth, 1995). Most students at the elementary level report a low level of attention in reading activity and lesser capability beliefs concerning their reading and understanding capacity (Conradi, Jang, &amp; McKenna, 2014; Fulmer &amp; Frijters, 2011; Gambrell, 2015).</p><p>In developing countries like Pakistan, these negative attitudes toward reading arise due to the new reading challenges at the elementary level, less use of teaching strategies in classroom instructional practices, and less ability of teachers to motivate and engage the students in reading (Kazi &amp; Iqbal, 2011; Teevno &amp; Raisani, 2017). There is growing evidence that positive psychological strengths of students such as motivation and engagement play a crucial role in students’ success. Then the researchers turned to investigate human resources to get competitive advantages. Special attention is diverted toward human positive psychological traits such as motivation and how to use this positive psychological construct for competitive advantages.  Existing literature documents that different factors such as motivation, engagement, and emotional quotient are positively associated with students’ performance (Fulmer &amp; Frijters, 2011; Grabe &amp; Stoller, 2002; Guthrie, Klauda &amp; HO, 2013; Husamah &amp; Pantiwati, 2014; Soonthornmanee, 2002).</p><p>Motivation to learn is aiming to achieve the learning goals, engaging in academic activities, and getting awareness of the strategies and methods to achieve them (Brophy, 2004; Wentzel, 2020).  According to Deci and Ryan (1995), there are two common kinds of motivation, inherent and extrinsic motivation.  Deci and Ryan (1985) argued that inherent motivation is related to the inner needs and requirements of the students. Children at an early age are curious, very energetic, lively and remain inspired for an extended period of time without any reward (Ryan &amp; Deci, 2000). However, with the passage of time, intrinsic motivation decreases in some aspects of life and students need some extrinsic motivation.</p><p>Reading motivation improves students’ activities that enhance learners’ ability to read and comprehend texts properly. Soonthornmanee (2002) argues that students should improve their motivation for better reading performance (Maleki &amp; Zangani, 2007). Though many students know how to read, they are not motivated for reading (Royse, 2001). Guthrie and Wigfield (2000) argued that students’ motivation for readings regulates their optimistic or undesirable feelings about reading. Similarly, highly motivated readers use different strategies to compensate for their comprehension process and usually read for pleasure. These students consider reading in their daily activities, take challenges during their process and become good readers. According to Guthrie and Wigfield (2000), reading motivation is defined as “one’s own purpose, idea and desire related to the title, action and results of the reading”.</p><p>A growing body of research showed that explicit teaching and strategic reading is very important to motivate language learners. In line with this, Paris et al. (1983) argue that planned reader can recover their motivation for reading and “failure to be strategic in reading may result from either developmental inability or poor learning”. Similarly, Palincsar and Brown (1984) find that some teaching strategies help learners to increase their attention to the context, avoid reading motivation failure. Reciprocal teaching is an instructional practice especially designed for reading comprehension. The existing literature document that reciprocal teaching positively influences the reading comprehension of the students (see, for instance, Palincsar, Brown &amp; Martin, 1987; Spo¨rer, Brunstein, &amp; Kieschke, 2009; Schu¨nemann et al., 2017; Tarchi &amp; Pinto, 2016). In a similar vein, existing literature reveals that reading motivation is positively associated with different reading outcomes such as reading comprehension (Hidi &amp; Harackiewicz, 2000; Kanonire, Lubenko &amp; Kuzmina, 2020; Guthrie, Klauda &amp; HO, 2013). Hence, instructional practices can influence the reading comprehension of the students indirectly through the channel of reading motivation (Kanonire, Lubenko &amp; Kuzmina, 2020; Guthrie, Klauda &amp; HO, 2013).</p><p>More recently, some studies have explored the outcome of reciprocal teaching on the reading motivation of the students. For instance, Kavani &amp; Amjadiparvar (2018) explore the influence of reciprocal teaching on the reading motivation of intermediate level Iranian students. The results of the study reveal that reciprocal teaching positively influences the reading motivation of the students. Similarly, Sporer and Schünemann (2014) examine the effect of reciprocal teaching along with self-regulated learning on the reading motivation of the students. The results of the study reveal that reciprocal teaching positively influences the reading motivation of the students. There are only a few studies in the existing literature that explore the influence of reciprocal teaching on the reading motivation of the students. Hence, a key objective of this research is to examine how reciprocal teaching affect 7th-grade students’ reading motivation in the subject of English. This study is different from existing literature in the sense that existing literature practice reciprocal teaching in small group settings while this study is based on the whole classroom setting. Second, this study investigates the effect of reciprocity on the reading motivation of the students in the Pakistani cultural context. There is hardly any study that investigates the effects of reciprocal teaching in the Pakistani cultural context.</p><p>In order to meet the desired objective of the study following hypotheses were tested.</p><p>H01: There is no significant difference between the mean score of experimental and control groups in the pre-test of reading motivation.</p><p>H02: There is no significant difference between the mean score of experimental and control groups in the post-test of reading motivation.</p><p>H03: There is no significant mean difference between pre-test and post-test scores of reading motivation of the experimental group.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-2">
  <title>Material and Methods</title>
<p>The study used “Pretest-Posttest Nonequivalent Control Group
Design”.  The participants of the study
were the 7<sup>th</sup>-grade students studying English at a typical public
sector school in district Muzaffarabad. The sample consists of the 90 7<sup>th</sup>
grade students in the intact classes, with 45 students in each experimental and
control group.  There was a 45 minutes
daily intervention for eight weeks in each group. The researcher herself taught
both the experimental and control group to avoid any instruction related bias.
The experimental group received reciprocal education, while the control group
received traditional grammar-translation education.</p> <p>To measure
reading motivation, this study adopted the Motivations for Reading
Questionnaire (MRQ). This questionnaire assesses the different dimensions of
reading. The questionnaire is designed for children to reply to each question
on a 1 to 4 scale where scale can be defined as “1 = very different from me, 2
= a little different from me, 3 = a little like me, and 4 = a lot like me”. MRQ
was given to the student in the classroom, with the researcher reading each
item to them. The researcher herself administered the final version of MRQ as
pre-test and post-test</p> <p>By taking into
account the local setting, the MRQ was translated into Urdu.  To make the translation more accurate and
reliable, the back-translation method was used to make the correspondence of
the English and Urdu version of the RRQ. Moreover, for the accuracy of the translation,
the MRQ was translated with the help of a bilingual professor in the subject of
English and Urdu. The final version of the MRQ encompassed questions in both the
first &amp; second language of the students that is Urdu and English,
respectively. The sub-constructs wise information regarding different questions
of the final version of MRQ is reported in table 1</p> <p><break/></p>  <p><bold>Table 1.</bold> Sub-constructs of MRQ with Relevant
Statements</p> <table-wrap id="table1"><label>Table 1</label><caption><title>Table 1</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td> <p><bold>S. No</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Sub-constructs</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Statements no.</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>Reading
  Curiosity</p> </td><td> <p>2,6,11,15,18</p> </td><td> <p>5</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>2</p> </td><td> <p>Reading
  Challenge</p> </td><td> <p>1,3,5,10,12</p> </td><td> <p>5</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>3</p> </td><td> <p>Self-efficacy</p> </td><td> <p>9, 8, 13</p> </td><td> <p>3</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>4</p> </td><td> <p>Reading
  Involvement</p> </td><td> <p>4, 7,14,16,17</p> </td><td> <p>5</p> </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td> <p>Total</p> </td><td>  </td><td> <p>18</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>  <p><break/></p><p>The validity and
reliability of the instrument were checked. The researcher requested the
experts to review the questionnaire for assurance of content validity. These
experts comprised of the supervisor of the study and university faculty member
with five years’ experience of teaching the subjects of educational psychology
at the university level.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-3">
  <title>Pilot Testing</title>
<p>To
ensure reliability, a questionnaire was pilot tested on 90 students of 7<sup>th</sup>
graders bearing similar features. The Cronbach’s alpha values are presented in
table 2.</p> <p><break/></p>  <table-wrap id="table2"><label>Table 2</label><caption><title>Cronbach alpha for MRQ</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td> <p><bold>S. No</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Sub-scales</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Cronbach alpha
  value</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>Reading
  Curiosity</p> </td><td> <p>.794</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>2</p> </td><td> <p>Reading
  Challenge</p> </td><td> <p>.854</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>3</p> </td><td> <p>Self-efficacy</p> </td><td> <p>.863</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>4</p> </td><td> <p>Reading
  Involvement</p> </td><td> <p>.763</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>  <p><break/></p> <p>The adopted instrument with
the established theoretical background and empirical support can be directly
tested by the confirmatory factor analysis without employing the exploratory
factor analysis (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="file:///D:/Fulltext/GSSR/2021/Summer/9%20Effect%20of%20Reciprocal%20Teaching%20on%20the%20Reading%20Motivation%20-%20Sadia%20Khan.docx#Baker">Baker
&amp; Wigfield, 1999</ext-link>; <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="file:///D:/Fulltext/GSSR/2021/Summer/9%20Effect%20of%20Reciprocal%20Teaching%20on%20the%20Reading%20Motivation%20-%20Sadia%20Khan.docx#Kline">Kline,
2013</ext-link>).
The confirmatory factor analysis allows the researcher to explicitly specify
the indicators for each construct (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="file:///D:/Fulltext/GSSR/2021/Summer/9%20Effect%20of%20Reciprocal%20Teaching%20on%20the%20Reading%20Motivation%20-%20Sadia%20Khan.docx#Kline">Kline,
2013</ext-link>).
Hence, to check the construct validity of the MRQ, confirmatory factor analysis
was used. The appropriate sample size is important for the correct estimation
in the framework of structural equation modelling and confirmatory factor
analysis. The online calculator designed for structural equation modelling was
used to calculate sample size for confirmatory factor analysis. The sample size
for four constructs and eighteen items should be greater than 88. Hence, MRQ
was administered in two 7<sup>th</sup> grade classes with 45 students in each
classroom. These were the students in another girl’s higher secondary school in
the same city. The results of confirmatory factor analysis are reported in Table
3</p> <p><break/></p>  <p><bold>Table 3.</bold> Factor Loading
for Items in the MRQ (CFA)</p> <table-wrap id="table3"><label>Table 3</label><caption><title>Table 3</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td>  </td><td colspan="4"> <p><bold>Latent</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>observed</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Reading
  Efficacy</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Reading
  Curiosity</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Reading
  Challenge</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Reading
  Involvement</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Mot_9</p> </td><td> <p>.876<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Mot_13</p> </td><td> <p>.725<sup>***</sup></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Mot_8</p> </td><td> <p>.546<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Mot_2</p> </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.925<sup>***</sup></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Mot_6</p> </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.632<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Mot_15</p> </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.763<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Mot_16</p> </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.662<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Mot_11</p> </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.469<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Mot_1</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.841<sup>***</sup></p> </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Mot_12</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.828<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Mot_5</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.793<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Mot_3</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.435<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Mot_10</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.865<sup>**</sup></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Mot_14</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.763<sup>**</sup></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Mot_17</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.814<sup>**</sup></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Mot_18</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.537<sup>**</sup></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Mot_7</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.596<sup>***</sup></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Mot_4</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.468<sup>**</sup></p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>Note: Loadings are
standardized loadings from the maximum likelihood estimation. <sup>**</sup> p
&lt; 0.05, <sup>***</sup> p &lt; 0.01</italic></p>  <p><break/></p><p>The results show
the standardized factor loading for confirmatory factor analysis. Nearly all of
the factor loadings were statistically significant at 5 percent level of
significance (p&lt;.05).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-4">
  <title>Results of the Study</title>
<p>The study employed an independent
sample t-test to check whether the group that was taught with reciprocal
teaching and control groups were equal in pre-test scores. The results of the t-test
are reported in Table 4</p> <p><break/></p>  <p><bold>Table 4.</bold>Results for Mean
Difference of Pre-test Scores</p> <table-wrap id="table4"><label>Table 4</label><caption><title>Table 4</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td> <p><bold>Groups</bold></p> </td><td colspan="2"> <p><bold>t-test</bold></p> </td><td colspan="2"> <p><bold>Test of
  homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test)</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td> <p>T</p> </td><td> <p>p-value</p> </td><td> <p>F</p> </td><td> <p>p-value</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Equal
  variances assumed</p> </td><td> <p>1.24</p> </td><td> <p>0.219</p> </td><td> <p>1.029</p> </td><td> <p>0.313</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>  <p><break/></p> <p>Above
table 4 show that Levene’s test of homogeneity is insignificant (F=1.029,
p=0.313), which validate that the variance of the two groups was roughly equal.
Moreover, the mean difference in pre-test between the group that was instructed
with reciprocal teaching and the control group is statistically insignificant
(t=1.24, p=0.219). Therefore, the hypothesis “there is no significant
difference between the mean score of experimental and control groups in the pre-test
of reading motivation” was accepted.</p> <p>To analyze the
second hypothesis, the descriptive statistics related to the post-test is
presented in table 5.</p> <p><break/></p> <p><bold>Table 5.</bold> Descriptive
Statistics for Post-test Scores</p> <table-wrap id="table5"><label>Table 5</label><caption><title>Table 5</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td> <p><bold>Groups</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>N</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>M</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>SD</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>SE (mean)</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Min</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Max</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Experimental</p> </td><td> <p>45</p> </td><td> <p>60.12</p> </td><td> <p>7.73</p> </td><td> <p>1.15</p> </td><td> <p>47.22</p> </td><td> <p>80.56</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Control</p> </td><td> <p>45</p> </td><td> <p>51.35</p> </td><td> <p>5.97</p> </td><td> <p>0.89</p> </td><td> <p>37.72</p> </td><td> <p>68.06</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>  <p><break/></p> <p>The results reported in table 4.11 show that
the mean score in the post-test of the group that was taught with reciprocal
teaching (M=60.12, SD=7.73) is more than the mean score in the post-test of the
group that was taught with the traditional method (M=51.35, SD=5.97).</p> <p>The study employed the independent sample
t-test to check the mean difference in post-test scores of reading motivation.
The results of the test are presented in Table 6</p> <p><break/></p>  <p><bold>Table 6.</bold> Results for Mean Difference of Post-test
Scores</p> <table-wrap id="table6"><label>Table 6</label><caption><title>Table 6</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td valign="top"> <p><bold>Groups</bold></p> </td><td colspan="2"> <p><bold>t-test</bold></p> </td><td colspan="2"> <p><bold>Test of
  homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test)</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td> <p>T</p> </td><td> <p>Sig</p> </td><td> <p>F</p> </td><td> <p>Sig</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Equal
  variances assumed</p> </td><td> <p>6.014</p> </td><td> <p>0.000</p> </td><td> <p>3.017</p> </td><td> <p>0.095</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>  <p><break/></p> <p>The results
reported in Table 6 reveal that the variance of two groups is approximately
equal as the null hypothesis of homogeneity of variance was not rejected
(F=3.017, p=0.095) at a five percent level of significance. The results further
reveal that the mean difference of post-test scores between the two groups was
statistically significant (t=6.014, p=0.000). Hence, the hypothesis “there is
no significant difference between the mean score of experimental and control
groups in post-test of reading motivation” was rejected. The results validate
the claim that reciprocal teaching strategies enhance the reading motivation of
students.</p> <p>Finally, the
study employed the paired-sample t-test to check the mean difference between
pre-test and post-test of the group that was taught with reciprocal teaching
strategies. The descriptive statistics are reported in table 7.</p> <p><break/></p>  <p><bold>Table 7.</bold> Descriptive Statistics of the Experimental
Group.</p> <table-wrap id="table7"><label>Table 7</label><caption><title>Table 7</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td valign="top"> <p><bold>Dependent measure</bold></p> </td><td valign="top"> <p><bold>N</bold></p> </td><td valign="top"> <p><bold>M</bold></p> </td><td valign="top"> <p><bold>SD</bold></p> </td><td valign="top"> <p><bold>SE (mean)</bold></p> </td><td valign="top"> <p><bold>Min</bold></p> </td><td valign="top"> <p><bold>Max</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>pretest</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>45</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>45.61</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>5.45</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>0.81</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>34.72</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>59.72</p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>posttest</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>45</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>60.12</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>7.73</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>1.15</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>47.22</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>80.56</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>  <p><break/></p> <p>The results
reported in table 4.13 show that mean scores of the post-test (M=60.12,
SD=7.73) is higher than the mean scores of the pre-test (45.61, SD=5.45) of the
experimental group.</p> <p>To test the last
hypothesis, the paired-sample t-test was used. The results are reported in
table 8.</p> <p><break/></p>  <p><bold>Table 8.</bold> Results of mean difference in Pretest and
Posttest Scores of Experimental Group</p> <table-wrap id="table8"><label>Table 8</label><caption><title>Table 8</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td> <p><bold>MD</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>SE</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>t-value</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Sig</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p>Pair
  pretest-posttest</p> </td><td> <p>14.50</p> </td><td> <p>1.59</p> </td><td> <p>9.12</p> </td><td> <p>0.000</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>  <p><break/></p><p>The results reported in
table 8 show that the mean difference (MD=14.50, SE=1.59) of pre-test and post-test
of the group that was taught with reciprocal teaching is statistically
significant (t=9.12, p=0.000). Hence, the null hypothesis “there is no
significant mean difference between pre-test and post-test scores of the
reading motivation of experimental group” was rejected. Hence, these results
again validate the claim that reciprocal teaching strategies enhance the
reading motivation of the students.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-5">
  <title>Discussion</title>
<p>The students who enjoy reading are more likely to comprehend texts better as they allocate more time to reading. Hence, reading motivation plays a pivotal role in reading comprehension. Existing literature finds a positive and statistically significant association between reading motivation and reading outcomes, such as reading comprehension (Barber &amp; Klauda, 2020; Miyamoto, Pfost &amp; Artelt, 2019; Schiefele et al.,2012; Schaffner &amp; Schiefele, 2016). More recently, some studies have explored the link between instructional practice and reading motivation. For instance, Wigfield et al. (2015) explore the effect of concept-oriented reading instruction on reading motivation. Hence, this study examines the effect of reciprocal teaching on the reading motivation of the 7th-grade student in the subject of English. The results of the study reveal a statistically significant positive effect of reciprocal teaching on the reading motivation of the students. These results are in line with the literature that explores the link between strategy acquisition and reading motivation (for instance, see Aarnoutse &amp; Schellings, 2003; Miyamoto, Pfost &amp; Artelt, 2019). Similarly, these results are consistent with few studies that find evidence for the positive effect of reciprocal teaching and self-regulation procedure on reading motivation (Spörer Schünemann, 2014; Kavani &amp; Amjadiparvar, 2018).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-6">
  <title>Conclusion</title>
<p>The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of reciprocal teaching on the reading motivation of the 7th-grade students in the subject of English. To meet the desired objective, the study employed a quasi-experimental design. The intact classes were randomly allocated to the experimental and control group. The experimental group was instructed with reciprocal teaching strategies, while the control group was taught with the traditional method. The Motivations for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ) was administered before and after the intervention. The study used “Pretest-Posttest Nonequivalent Control Group Design” for the collection of data. The data was analyzed using the independent sample and paired sample t-test. The results of the study reveal that students who were instructed with reciprocal teaching strategies were on average more motivated and enjoyed reading than those students who were taught with traditional teaching practices. Hence, it is concluded that reciprocal teaching positively influences the reading motivation of the 7th-grade students in the subject of English. Moreover, the findings of the study support the claim that reciprocal teaching is the suitable instruction practice to improve reading motivation and enjoyment in the subject of English. Hence, the study suggests that reciprocal teaching should be incorporated in teacher education programs as appropriate instructional practice for reading.</p>
</sec>
</body>
<back>
<fn-group content-type="conflict-of-interest">
  <title>Conflict of Interest</title>
  <fn fn-type="conflict">
<p>The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<fn-group content-type="ethics-statement">
  <title>Ethics Statement</title>
  <fn fn-type="ethics">
<p>This study did not require formal ethics approval.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<fn-group content-type="data-availability">
  <title>Data Availability</title>
  <fn fn-type="data-availability-statement">
<p>Data sharing is not applicable to this article.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<app-group>
  <app id="app-suppl">
    <title>Supplementary Materials</title>
<supplementary-material id="suppl-pdf" content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/pdf/gssr/szGcWpKii5.pdf">
  <label>PDF</label>
  <caption>
    <title>Full Text PDF</title>
  </caption>
</supplementary-material>
  </app>
</app-group>
<ref-list>
  <title>References</title>
<ref id="Aarnoutse">
  <label>1</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Aarnoutse, C., &amp; Schellings, G</person-group>
    <year>2003</year>
    <article-title>. Learning reading strategies by triggering reading motivation</article-title>
    <source>Educational Studies</source>
    <volume>29</volume>
    <issue>4</issue>
    <fpage>387</fpage>
    Aarnoutse, C., &amp; Schellings, G. (2003). Learning reading strategies by triggering reading motivation. Educational Studies, 29(4), 387- 409.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Baker">
  <label>2</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Baker, L., &amp; Wigfield, A</person-group>
    <year>1999</year>
    <article-title>. Dimensions of children&apos;s motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement</article-title>
    <source>Reading Research Quarterly</source>
    <volume>34</volume>
    <issue>4</issue>
    <fpage>452</fpage>
    <lpage>477</lpage>
    Baker, L., &amp; Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children&apos;s motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4), 452-477.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Barber">
  <label>3</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Barber, A. T., &amp; Klauda, S. L</person-group>
    <year>2020</year>
    <article-title>. How reading motivation and engagement enable reading achievement: Policy implications</article-title>
    <source>Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences</source>
    <volume>7</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>27</fpage>
    <lpage>34</lpage>
    Barber, A. T., &amp; Klauda, S. L. (2020). How reading motivation and engagement enable reading achievement: Policy implications. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7(1), 27-34.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Brophy">
  <label>4</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Brophy, J</person-group>
    <year>2004</year>
    <article-title>. Motivating students to learn</article-title>
    <source>Routledge</source>
    Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn. Routledge.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Conradi">
  <label>5</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Conradi, K., Jang, B. G., &amp; McKenna, M. C</person-group>
    <year>2014</year>
    <article-title>. Motivation terminology in reading research: A conceptual review</article-title>
    <source>Educational Psychology Review</source>
    <volume>26</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>127</fpage>
    <lpage>164</lpage>
    Conradi, K., Jang, B. G., &amp; McKenna, M. C. (2014). Motivation terminology in reading research: A conceptual review. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 127-164.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Deci">
  <label>6</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Deci, E. L., &amp; Ryan, R. M</person-group>
    <year>1985</year>
    <article-title>. The general causality orientations scale: Self- determination in personality</article-title>
    <source>Journal of Research in Personality</source>
    <volume>19</volume>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <fpage>109</fpage>
    <lpage>134</lpage>
    Deci, E. L., &amp; Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self- determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109-134.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Fulmer">
  <label>8</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Fulmer, S. M., &amp; Frijters, J. C</person-group>
    <year>2011</year>
    <article-title>. Motivation during an excessively challenging reading task: The buffering role of relative topic interest</article-title>
    <source>The Journal of Experimental Education</source>
    <volume>79</volume>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <fpage>185</fpage>
    <lpage>208</lpage>
    Fulmer, S. M., &amp; Frijters, J. C. (2011). Motivation during an excessively challenging reading task: The buffering role of relative topic interest. The Journal of Experimental Education, 79(2), 185-208.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Gambrell">
  <label>9</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Gambrell, L. B</person-group>
    <year>2015</year>
    <article-title>. Getting students hooked on the reading habit</article-title>
    <source>The Reading Teacher</source>
    <volume>69</volume>
    <issue>3</issue>
    <fpage>259</fpage>
    <lpage>263</lpage>
    Gambrell, L. B. (2015). Getting students hooked on the reading habit. The Reading Teacher, 69(3), 259-263.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Grabe">
  <label>10</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Grabe, W., &amp; Stoller, F.L</person-group>
    <year>2002</year>
    <article-title>. Teaching and researching reading</article-title>
    <source>Harlow: Pearson Education</source>
    <page-range>earson</page-range>
    Grabe, W., &amp; Stoller, F.L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. Harlow: Pearson Education.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Guthrie">
  <label>11</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Guthrie, J. T., &amp; Wigfield, A</person-group>
    <year>2000</year>
    <article-title>. Engagement and motivation in reading</article-title>
    <source>In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, &amp; R. Barr (Eds.), Hand-book of reading research (pp. 403- 422)</source>
    <page-range>B</page-range>
    Guthrie, J. T., &amp; Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, &amp; R. Barr (Eds.), Hand-book of reading research (pp. 403- 422).
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Hidi">
  <label>13</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Hidi, S., &amp; Harackiewicz, J. M</person-group>
    <year>2000</year>
    <article-title>. Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century</article-title>
    <source>Review of Educational Research</source>
    <volume>70</volume>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <fpage>151</fpage>
    <lpage>179</lpage>
    Hidi, S., &amp; Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151-179.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Husamah">
  <label>14</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Husamah &amp; Pantiwati, Y</person-group>
    <year>2014</year>
    <article-title>. Cooperative learning STAD: Motivation, thinking skills, and learning outcomes in Biology students</article-title>
    <source>International Journal of Education Learning &amp; Development (IJELD)</source>
    <volume>2</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>77</fpage>
    Husamah &amp; Pantiwati, Y. (2014). Cooperative learning STAD: Motivation, thinking skills, and learning outcomes in Biology students. International Journal of Education Learning &amp; Development (IJELD), 2(1), 77- 94.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Kanonire">
  <label>15</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Kanonire, T., Lubenko, J., &amp; Kuzmina, Y</person-group>
    <year>2020</year>
    <article-title>. The Effects of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Reading Motivation on Reading Performance in Elementary School</article-title>
    <source>Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 1-13</source>
    <page-range>erformance</page-range>
    Kanonire, T., Lubenko, J., &amp; Kuzmina, Y. (2020). The Effects of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Reading Motivation on Reading Performance in Elementary School. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 1-13.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Kavani">
  <label>16</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Kavani, R., &amp; Amjadiparvar, A</person-group>
    <year>2018</year>
    <article-title>. The effect of strategy-based instruction on motivation, self-regulated learning, and reading comprehension ability of Iranian EFL learning</article-title>
    <source>Cogent Education</source>
    <volume>5</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>1556196</fpage>
    Kavani, R., &amp; Amjadiparvar, A. (2018). The effect of strategy-based instruction on motivation, self-regulated learning, and reading comprehension ability of Iranian EFL learning. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1556196.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Kazi">
  <label>17</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Kazi, A. S., &amp; Iqbal, H. M</person-group>
    <year>2011</year>
    <article-title>. Use of language learning strategies by students at higher secondary level in Pakistan</article-title>
    <source>International Journal of Social Sciences and Education</source>
    <volume>1</volume>
    <issue>4</issue>
    <fpage>557</fpage>
    <lpage>574</lpage>
    Kazi, A. S., &amp; Iqbal, H. M. (2011). Use of language learning strategies by students at higher secondary level in Pakistan. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education, 1(4), 557-574.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Kline">
  <label>18</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Kline, R. B</person-group>
    <year>2013</year>
    <article-title>. Assessing statistical aspects of test fairness with structural equation modelling</article-title>
    <source>Educational Research and Evaluation</source>
    Kline, R. B. (2013). Assessing statistical aspects of test fairness with structural equation modelling. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19(2-3), 204-222.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Maleki">
  <label>19</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Maleki, A., &amp; Zangani, E</person-group>
    <year>2007</year>
    <article-title>. A survey on the relationship between English language proficiency and the academic achievement of Iranian EFL students</article-title>
    <source>Asian EFL Journal</source>
    <volume>9</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>86</fpage>
    <lpage>96</lpage>
    Maleki, A., &amp; Zangani, E. (2007). A survey on the relationship between English language proficiency and the academic achievement of Iranian EFL students. Asian EFL Journal, 9(1), 86-96.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="McKenna">
  <label>20</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., &amp; Ellsworth, R. A</person-group>
    <year>1995</year>
    <article-title>. Children&apos;s attitudes toward reading: A national survey</article-title>
    <source>Reading Research Quarterly</source>
    <volume>30</volume>
    <fpage>934</fpage>
    <lpage>956</lpage>
    McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., &amp; Ellsworth, R. A. (1995). Children&apos;s attitudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 934-956.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Miyamoto">
  <label>21</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Miyamoto, A., Pfost, M., &amp; Artelt, C</person-group>
    <year>2019</year>
    <article-title>. The relationship between intrinsic motivation and reading comprehension: Mediating effects of reading amount and meta- cognitive knowledge of strategy use</article-title>
    <source>Scientific Studies of Reading</source>
    <volume>23</volume>
    <issue>6</issue>
    <fpage>445</fpage>
    <lpage>460</lpage>
    Miyamoto, A., Pfost, M., &amp; Artelt, C. (2019). The relationship between intrinsic motivation and reading comprehension: Mediating effects of reading amount and meta- cognitive knowledge of strategy use. Scientific Studies of Reading, 23(6), 445-460.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Palincsar">
  <label>22</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Palincsar, A. S., Brown, A. L., &amp; Martin, S. M</person-group>
    <year>1987</year>
    <article-title>. Peer interaction in reading comprehension instruction</article-title>
    <source>Educational Psychologist</source>
    <page-range>alincsar</page-range>
    Palincsar, A. S., Brown, A. L., &amp; Martin, S. M. (1987). Peer interaction in reading comprehension instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3-4), 231-253.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Paris">
  <label>23</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., &amp; Wixson, K. K</person-group>
    <year>1983</year>
    <article-title>. Becoming a strategic reader</article-title>
    <source>Contemporary Palinscar, A. S., &amp; Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension- fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction</source>
    <volume>1</volume>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <fpage>117</fpage>
    <lpage>175</lpage>
    Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., &amp; Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Palinscar, A. S., &amp; Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension- fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Ryan">
  <label>24</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Ryan, R. M., &amp; Deci, E. L</person-group>
    <year>2000</year>
    <article-title>. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions</article-title>
    <source>Contemporary Educational Psychology</source>
    <volume>25</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>54</fpage>
    <lpage>67</lpage>
    Ryan, R. M., &amp; Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Schaffner">
  <label>25</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Schaffner, E., &amp; Schiefele, U</person-group>
    <year>2016</year>
    <article-title>. The contributions of intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation to the development of reading competence over summer vacation</article-title>
    <source>Reading Psychology</source>
    <volume>37</volume>
    <issue>6</issue>
    <fpage>917</fpage>
    Schaffner, E., &amp; Schiefele, U. (2016). The contributions of intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation to the development of reading competence over summer vacation. Reading Psychology, 37(6), 917- 941.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Schiefele">
  <label>26</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Schiefele, U., Schaffner, E., MÃ¶ller, J., &amp; Wigfield, A</person-group>
    <year>2012</year>
    <article-title>. Dimensions of reading motivation and their relation to reading behavior and competence</article-title>
    <source>Reading Research Quarterly</source>
    <volume>47</volume>
    <issue>4</issue>
    <fpage>427</fpage>
    <lpage>463</lpage>
    Schiefele, U., Schaffner, E., MÃ¶ller, J., &amp; Wigfield, A. (2012). Dimensions of reading motivation and their relation to reading behavior and competence. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 427-463.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Schunemann">
  <label>27</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Schunemann, N., Sporer, N., Vollinger, V. A., &amp; Brunstein, J. C</person-group>
    <year>2017</year>
    <article-title>. Peer feedback mediates the impact of self-regulation procedures on strategy use and reading comprehension in reciprocal teaching groups</article-title>
    <source>Instructional Science</source>
    <volume>45</volume>
    <issue>4</issue>
    <fpage>395</fpage>
    Schunemann, N., Sporer, N., Vollinger, V. A., &amp; Brunstein, J. C. (2017). Peer feedback mediates the impact of self-regulation procedures on strategy use and reading comprehension in reciprocal teaching groups. Instructional Science, 45(4), 395- 415.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Soonthornmanee">
  <label>28</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Soonthornmanee, R</person-group>
    <year>2002</year>
    <article-title>. The effect of the reciprocal teaching approach on the reading comprehension of EFL students</article-title>
    <source>RELC Journal</source>
    <volume>33</volume>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <fpage>125</fpage>
    <lpage>141</lpage>
    Soonthornmanee, R. (2002). The effect of the reciprocal teaching approach on the reading comprehension of EFL students. RELC Journal, 33(2), 125-141.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Sp">
  <label>29</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">SpÃ¶rer, N., &amp; SchÃ¼nemann, N</person-group>
    <year>2014</year>
    <article-title>. Improvements of self-regulation procedures for fifth graders&apos; reading competence: Analyzing effects on reading comprehension, reading strategy performance, and motivation for reading</article-title>
    <source>Learning and Instruction</source>
    <page-range>rocedures</page-range>
    SpÃ¶rer, N., &amp; SchÃ¼nemann, N. (2014). Improvements of self-regulation procedures for fifth graders&apos; reading competence: Analyzing effects on reading comprehension, reading strategy performance, and motivation for reading. Learning and Instruction, 33, 147- 157.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Sporer">
  <label>30</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Sporer, N., Bruinstein, J.C., &amp; Kieschke, U</person-group>
    <year>2009</year>
    <article-title>. Improving students: reading comprehension skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching</article-title>
    <source>Learning and Instruction</source>
    <volume>19</volume>
    <issue>3</issue>
    <fpage>272</fpage>
    <lpage>286</lpage>
    Sporer, N., Bruinstein, J.C., &amp; Kieschke, U. (2009). Improving students: reading comprehension skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 272-286.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Tarchi">
  <label>31</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Tarchi, C., &amp; Pinto, G</person-group>
    <year>2016</year>
    <article-title>. Reciprocal teaching: Analyzing interactive dynamics in the co-construction of a text&apos;s meaning</article-title>
    <source>The Journal of Educational Research</source>
    <volume>109</volume>
    <issue>5</issue>
    <fpage>518</fpage>
    <lpage>530</lpage>
    Tarchi, C., &amp; Pinto, G. (2016). Reciprocal teaching: Analyzing interactive dynamics in the co-construction of a text&apos;s meaning. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(5), 518-530.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Teevno">
  <label>32</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Teevno, R. A., &amp; Raisani, R. B</person-group>
    <year>2017</year>
    <article-title>. English Reading Strategies and their Impact on Students&apos; Performance in Reading Comprehension</article-title>
    <source>Journal of Education &amp; Social Sciences</source>
    <volume>5</volume>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <fpage>152</fpage>
    <lpage>166</lpage>
    Teevno, R. A., &amp; Raisani, R. B. (2017). English Reading Strategies and their Impact on Students&apos; Performance in Reading Comprehension. Journal of Education &amp; Social Sciences, 5 (2), 152-166.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Wentzel">
  <label>33</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Wentzel, K. R</person-group>
    <year>2020</year>
    <article-title>. Motivating students to learn</article-title>
    <source>Routledge</source>
    Wentzel, K. R. (2020). Motivating students to learn. Routledge.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Wigfield">
  <label>34</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Fredricks, J. A., Simpkins, S., Roeser, R. W., &amp; Schiefele, U</person-group>
    <year>2015</year>
    <article-title>. Development of achievement motivation and engagement</article-title>
    <source>In M. E. Lamb &amp; R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Socioemotional processes (pp. 657-700)</source>
    <page-range>sychology</page-range>
    Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Fredricks, J. A., Simpkins, S., Roeser, R. W., &amp; Schiefele, U. (2015). Development of achievement motivation and engagement. In M. E. Lamb &amp; R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Socioemotional processes (pp. 657-700).
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>