@article{KochSpoerer2017,
  author    = {Koch, Helvi and Sp{\"o}rer, Nadine},
  title     = {Students improve in reading comprehension by learning how to teach reading strategies},
  series = {Psychology Learning and Teaching},
  volume    = {16},
  journal   = {Psychology Learning and Teaching},
  publisher = {Sage Publ.},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {1475-7257},
  doi       = {10.1177/1475725717700525},
  pages     = {197 -- 211},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {In this intervention study, we investigated how we could teach university students who were majoring in education to teach reading strategies. The goal of the study was to analyze whether and to what extent students would benefit from the intervention with respect to their own learning. Did their own reading skills improve after they attended the intervention? The sample consisted of n = 61 students who were assigned to one of two conditions: (a) an adaption of reciprocal teaching; and (b) a control group that was not taught how to teach reading strategies. The evidence-based teaching method used in the intervention condition consisted of three elements: modeling, scaffolding, and repeated practice. Training success was assessed in a pre-posttest control group design with standardized reading comprehension and reading speed tests. To compare the development of the students in the two conditions, repeated measures ANOVAs were used. At posttest, intervention students outperformed control students in reading comprehension as well as in reading speed.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KochSprer2016,
  author    = {Koch, Helvi and Sprer, Nadine},
  title     = {Fostering reading comprehension in regular classrooms: Implementation and effectiveness of whole-class reciprocal teaching},
  series = {Zeitschrift f{\~A}¼r p{\~A}\idagogische Psychologie.},
  volume    = {30},
  journal   = {Zeitschrift f{\~A}¼r p{\~A}\idagogische Psychologie.},
  publisher = {Hogrefe},
  address   = {Bern},
  issn      = {1010-0652},
  doi       = {10.1024/1010-0652/a000176},
  pages     = {213 -- 225},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Zusammenfassung. Ziel war es, die Effektivit{\"a}t zweier Interventionen zur F{\"o}rderung der Lesekompetenz von F{\"u}nftkl{\"a}sslern zu untersuchen. Beide Treatments wurden von Regellehrkr{\"a}ften implementiert. Die eine Intervention war das reziproke Lehren, welches um Selbstregulationsprozeduren angereichert wurde (RT+SRL). Die zweite war eine von Lehrkr{\"a}ften konzipierte lesestrategiebasierte Unterrichtseinheit (Good Practice, GP). Zus{\"a}tzlich gab es eine No-Treatment-Kontrollgruppe (KG0). Insgesamt nahmen an der Studie N = 244 Sch{\"u}ler teil. Im Rahmen eines Pre-, Post-, Follow-Up-Test-Untersuchungsplans kamen standardisierte Leseverst{\"a}ndnisaufgaben, selbstkonstruierte Lesestrategieaufgaben und eine Selbstwirksamkeitsskala zum Einsatz. Kontrastierende Einzelvergleichsanalysen ergaben, dass sich die Sch{\"u}ler der Treatmentbedingung RT+SRL im Vergleich zu den Sch{\"u}lern der Kontrollgruppe zum Post-Test signifikant st{\"a}rker im Leseverst{\"a}ndnis, in der Lesestrategieanwendung und in der Selbstwirksamkeit verbesserten. Gleiches galt f{\"u}r die Lesestrategieanwendung zum Follow-Up-Test. Sch{\"u}ler der Bedingung GP konnten im Vergleich zu KG0-Sch{\"u}lern weder zum Post- noch zum Follow-Up-Test vorteilige Ergebnisse in den drei Kriteriumsmaßen erzielen. The aim of this longitudinal study was to examine the effects of two different teacher-led classroom reading literacy interventions in comparison to traditional literacy instruction (TLI). One of the interventions was reciprocal teaching combined with specifi c self-regulation procedures (RT + SRL). Another intervention was a good-practice program which was designed by a group of teachers (GP). Both treatments were strategy oriented programs to improve reading competence of fi fth graders. In total, there were N = 244 students taking part in this study. To evaluate the effects of the interventions in comparison to TLI we used standardized tests and experimenter-developed reading tasks, and a self-effi cacy scale. The study involved a pretest, posttest, and maintenance test design. Simple contrast analyses indicated that students in the intervention condition RT + SRL outperformed TLI students in reading comprehension and self-effi cacy at post-test and in strategy related task performance at post-and maintenance test. Students in the intervention condition GP, however, demonstrated no better results than students of TLI.},
  language  = {de}
}