Analizzare le interazioni degli studenti in coppia durante il compito di comprensione della lettura: quale procedura supporta la focalizzazione sul testo?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1970-2221/15950Parole chiave:
collaborazione, coppie, comprensione del testo, reciprocal teaching, pensare ad alta voceAbstract
Lavorare in coppia può creare condizioni favorevoli per il coinvolgimento degli studenti nelle strategie di comprensione della lettura. La letteratura ha mostrato vantaggi pratici dell'organizzazione a coppie nelle classi, assimilando il funzionamento della coppia a quello del “buon lettore” (Hall et al 1989). Facendo seguito a precedenti ricerche ispirate al Reciprocal Teaching (Calvani & Chiappetta Cajola 2019), l'obiettivo del presente lavoro è stato quello di analizzare le interazioni di alcune coppie. I processi di comprensione del testo sono stati descritti considerando il lavoro delle coppie in due diverse modalità: quando entrambi gli studenti svolgono un ruolo tutoriale alternato (procedura tutoriale) e quando due studenti affrontano congiuntamente i compiti di comprensione (procedura congiunta). Le interazioni tra i due studenti nelle coppie (cognitiva, regolativa e affettiva) sono significativamente focalizzate sui testi, sia nelle coppie più deboli sia in quelle con competenze più avanzate, con una prevalenza maggiore nella procedura congiunta.
Riferimenti bibliografici
Bertolini, C., Pintus, A., & Vezzani, A. (2019). Dentro alle classi: Un approfondimento sulla implementazione del programma RC-RT. In A. Calvani, & L. Chiappetta Cajola (Eds.), Strategie efficaci per la comprensione del testo. (pp. 393-407). SApIE.
Calvani, A., & Chiappetta Cajola, L. (Eds.). (2019). Strategie efficaci per la comprensione del testo. SApIE.
Calvani, A., Fornili, F., & Serafini, M. (2018). Comprendere e riassumere testi. Erickson.
Cao, Y., & Philp, J. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A comparison of behaviour in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System, 34(4), 480–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.05.002
Calvani, A., & Menichetti, L. (2019). La prova quantitativa di sintesi: Il Summarizing Test (ST). In A. Calvani, & L. Chiappetta Cajola (Eds.), Strategie efficaci per la comprensione del testo. Il Reciprocal Teaching (pp. 411-429). SApIE.
Cardarello, R., & Bertolini, C. (2020). Didattiche della comprensione del testo. Metodi e strumenti per la scuola primaria. Carocci.
Coiro, J., Sekeres, D. C., Castek, J., & Guzniczak, L. (2014). Comparing the quality of third, fourth, and fifth graders’ social interactions and cognitive strategy use during structured online inquiry. Journal of Education, 194(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741419400202
Castek, J., Coiro, J., Guzniczak, L., & Bradshaw, C. (2012). Examining peer collaboration in online inquiry. The Educational Forum, 76(4), 479-496. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2012.707756
Cornoldi, C., & Colpo, G. (1998). Prove di lettura MT per la scuola elementare-2. Giunti OS.
Delquadri, J., Greenwood, C., Whorton, D., Carta, J., & Hall, R. (1986). Classwide peer tutoring. Exceptional Children, 52(6), 535-542.
Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S. L., & Billman, A. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels, & A. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 51-83). International Reading Association.
ELINET. (2016). European Framework of Good Practice in Raising Literacy Levels of Children, Adolescents and Adults. http://www.eli-net.eu/fileadmin/ELINET/Redaktion/user_upload/European_Framework_of_Good_Practice1.pdf
European Council. (2018). Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on key competences for lifelong learning. 2018/C 189/01 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uris-erv%3AOJ.C_.2018.189.01.0001.01.ENG
European Council and European Commission (2015). “Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020) — New priorities for European cooperation in education and training”, Official Journal of the European Journal, 15.12.2015, GU C 417; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-con-tent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:2015:417:FULL&from=LV
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Promoting word recognition, fluency, and reading comprehension in young children. The Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 34-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669050390010401
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Mathes, P., & Simmons, D. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 174-206. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312034001174
Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. (1989). Longitudinal effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 371-383.
Hall, R. H., Dansereau, D., O'Donnell, A., & Skaggs, L. (1989). The effect of textual errors on dyadic and individual learning. Journal of Reading Behavior, 21(2), 127-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862968909547665
Horn, E. M., Collier, W., Oxford, J., Bond, C., & Dansereau, D. (1998). Individual differences in dyadic cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 153- 161. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.1.153
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1996). Apprendimento cooperativo in classe: Migliorare il clima emotivo e il rendimento. Erickson.
Kagan, S. (2000). L'apprendimento cooperativo: L'approccio strutturale. Ed. Lavoro.
Kiili, C., Coiro, J., & Raikkonen, E. (2019). Students' evaluation of information during online inquiry: Working individually or in pairs. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 42(3), 167-183. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03652036
Kiili, C., Laurinen, L., Marttunen, M., & Leu, D. J. (2012). Working on understanding during collaborative online reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(4), 448-483. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X12457166
Kiili, C., & Leu, D. J. (2019). Exploring the collaborative synthesis of information during online reading. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 146-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.033
Kovalainen, M., & Kumpulainen, K. (2005). The discursive practice of participation in an elementary classroom community. Instructional Science, 33(3), 213–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-2810-1
La Marca, A., Di Martino, V., & Gulbay, E. (2019). Il questionario metacognitivo QMeta. In A. Calvani, & L. Chiappetta Cajola (Eds.), Strategie efficaci per la comprensione del testo. Il Reciprocal Teaching (pp. 479-487). SApIE.
Larson, C., & Dansereau, D. (1986). Cooperative learning in dyads. Journal of Reading, 29(6), 516-520.
Lumbelli, L. (2009). La comprensione come problema. Il punto di vista cognitivo. Laterza.
Menichetti, L., & Bertolini, C. (2019). La prova qualitativa per la valutazione della capacità di riassunto: Il Summary Qualitative Assessment (SQA). In A. Calvani, & L. Chiappetta Cajola (Eds.), Strategie efficaci per la comprensione del testo. Il Reciprocal Teaching (p. 431-462). SApIE.
Montesano, L. (2019). Uno strumento per la valutazione del vocabolario nella scuola Primaria: la Prova di Significa-to Verbale. In A. Calvani, & L. Chiappetta Cajola (Eds.), Strategie efficaci per la comprensione del testo. Il Reciprocal Teaching (p. 463- 477). SApIE.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching Children to read: An Evidence-based Assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. U.S. Government Printing Office.
OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
Okkinga, M., van Steensel, R., van Gelderen, A. J., & Sleegers, P. J. (2018). Effects of reciprocal teaching on reading comprehension of low‐achieving adolescents. The importance of specific teacher skills. Journal of research in reading, 41(1), 20-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12082
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
Peacock, M. (1998). A useful and popular lesson? Comparing students working in pairs and threes in the ESL classroom. RELC Journal, 29(2), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829802900202
Pellegrini, M. (2019). L'efficacia delle strategie didattiche per la comprensione del testo. In In A. Calvani, & L. Chiappetta Cajola (Eds.), Strategie efficaci per la comprensione del testo. Il Reciprocal Teaching (p. 77-98). SApIE.
PIRLS. (2016). Reading Framework. https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/downloads/P16_FW_Chap1.pdf
Pontecorvo, C., Ajello, A., & Zucchermaglio, C. (2007). Discutendo si impara. Carocci.
Rosales, R., & Soldner, J. (2018). An assessment of group size in interteaching. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18(2), 105-117. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v18i2.22539
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479-530. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064004479
Schellings, G., Aarnoutse, C., & van Leeuwe, J. (2006). Third-grader's think-aloud protocols: Types of reading activities in reading an expository text. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 549–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.004
Skaggs, L., Rockling, T., Dansereau, D., Hall, R., O'Donnell, A., Lambiotte, J., & Young, M. (1990). Dyadic learning of technical material: Individual differences, social interaction, and recall. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15(1), 47-63.
Slavin, R. (1988). Student team learning: An overview and practical guide. (2nd Ed.). NEA Professional Library.
Slavin, R. (2011). Instruction Based on Cooperative Learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 388-404). Taylor & Francis.
Staarman, J. K., Krol, K., & van der Meijden H. (2005). Peer interaction in three collaborative learning environments. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40(1), 29-39.
Storch, N. (2011). Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics Cambridge University Press, 31, 275-288.
Tarchi, C., & Pinto, G. (2016). Reciprocal teaching: Analyzing interactive dynamics in the co-construction of a text’s meaning. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(5), 518-530. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.992583
Topping, K. (2014). Tutoring. Erickson.
van Keer, H., & Vanderlinde, R. (2010). The impact of cross-age peer tutoring on third and sixth graders' reading. Middle Grades Research Journal, 5(1), 33-45.
Downloads
Pubblicato
Come citare
Fascicolo
Sezione
Licenza
Copyright (c) 2023 Agnese Vezzani
Questo articolo è soggetto a licenza Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 International License.
