The People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria

Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research

Larbi Ben Mhidi University, Oum El Bouaghi

Faculty of Letter and Languages

Department of English

Investigating the Effect of Mentor Texts on Learners’ Writing

Achievement

The Case of Second Year Pupils at Abdelhamid Ibn Badis Middle

School, Tebessa

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Master in Language Sciences and Teaching English as

a Foreign Language

By: Abd-el-Kader AYADI

Supervisor: Mrs. Khadidja ZAIDI EXaminer: Mr. Haroun MELGANI

2016-2017

DEDICATION

In the name of Allah, the most Mercifull and the most Gracefull

All gratitude goes to him for helping his weak servant I dedicate

this modest work to my parents

and To my friends

I dedicate this humble work to my teachers who replaced my family

to my classmates who always supported me, laughed with me and

supported me, to Mrs. Bechoua who has been a mom for me and the

shoulder that i always needed

To Mr Taibi whom I consider my grandpa for his wisdom and precious

moments i spent with him

To the dorm rooms principles who cared about my safety and

security when i was away from home

To Mrs. Bouaziz, Ms. Guendouz who granted me with their friendship

and undivided attention

To Mrs. Bouricha and Mrs. Merrouche

i

Acknowledgement

My sincere respect to my supervisor Mrs. KHADIDJA ZAIDI, I want to thank you but

thank you is not enough, her guidance was a pillar to my work, her trust in me made this work

possible, i will never forget who wished good for me, who was patient and wise when i lost

faith in me, when i was lost and had no faith in completing my work, thank you will never be

enough, may Allah grant you paradise and light that will enlighten your life. I also want to

present my unlimited joy and happiness to my examiner Sir MELGANI Whom i Respect and

had the chance to be his student. Being a student a in the department of English was a gift, it

was the place where I leaned, lived, loved

ii

Abstract With the recent development of language teaching, researches in language methodology have

become prominent in a foreign language teaching and learning. Therefore, teachers of English

as a foreign language took the responsibility of developing effective strategies to encourage

learners develop their writing skills in the target language. The present research investigates

the effect of mentor texts on the writing achievements through a quasi-experimental design.

The sample of this study is second year middle school pupils at Abdelhamid Ibn Badis middle

school. The sample was split into two groups (experimental and control groups) of 20 students

out of 100 students. Both groups were pretested and went through the treatment periods.

Students of the experimental group performed the task with the reading aloud session of the

mentor text, while the ones in the control group worked individually. At the end of the

treatment, the two groups were post-tested. To add more validity to the results of the study, t

tests were administered. The results showed that mentor texts method was significantly

effective in improving learners’ writing achievement. Thus, the hypothesis of this study was

confirmed.

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: The Experimental and Control Groups’ Frequency of Scores on the Task

Table 2: Experimental Group’s Pre-test, Post-test, and Difference Scores on the Test

iv

LISTE OF FIGURES

Figure1: The Schematic Representation of the Different Phases of the Quasi- Experiment

Figure2: Control Group and Experimental Group’s Scores (Pre-test)

Figure3: Frequency of Control and Experimental Group’s Scores (post-test)

v

Table of the Content

Page

Dedication ……………………………………………………………………………….. i Acknowledgement ………………………………………………………………………. ii Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………. iii List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………………. iv List of Figures …………………………………………………………………………… v Table of Content ……………………………………………………................................. vi 1. Statement of The Problem ……………………………………………………………. 1 2. Aims of The Study …………………………… ……………………………………… 1 3. Research Question and Hypothesis ……………………………………………………. 1 4. Means of the Research .................................................... ……………… ................................1 5. Structure of the Study ................................................ …………………… .............................2

Chapter One: Theoretical Background

Section One: Mentor Texts Introduction ...................................................................... …………………… ..............................5 1.1.1 Mentor……………………………………………………………………………… 5 1.1.2 Mentoring … …….............. ..................................................................................................6 1.1.3 Mentor Texts Definition…….......... ....................................................................................8 1.1.4 The Use of Mentor Texts .......................................................................................................9 1.1.5 Types of Mentor Texts ............................................................................................................9

1.1.5 1 Mentor Texts for Questioning ........ ... ....................................................................9

1.1.5.2 Mentor texts to Teach Narrative Writing......……… .......................................10

1.1.5.3 Informative/Explanatory Mentor Text Questions ................................................10

1.1.5.4 Opinion Mentor Text Questions/Prompts.....………………………………. 13

1.1.5.5 Narrative Mentor Text Questions……………………………………………. 14

vi

1.1.6 The effect of Mentor Texts on Writing …………………... ........................................15

Conclusion

Section Two: Writing Introduction 20 1.2.1 Definition of Writing ...............................................................................................................20 1.2.2 History of Writing ....................................................................................................................21 1.2.3 Theories of Writing ........................................... ……………………................................21 1.2.4 Approaches to Teaching Writing…………………………………………………... 24

1.2. 4.1 The Controlled-to-free Approach .................... …………… .................................25

1.2. 4.2 The free Writing Approach ...................................................................................25

1.2. 4.3 The Pattern Paragraph Approach ........................................................................25

1.2.4.4 The Grammar Syntax Organization Approach .................................................25

1.2.4.5 The Communicative Approach .............................................................................25

1.2. 4.6 The Process Approach ............................................................................................25

1.2.4.7 The Writing Task ......................................................................................................26 1.2. 5 Stages of Writing .....................................................................................................................27

1.2. 5.1 Awareness Raising .................................................................................................27

1.2. 5.2 Awareness Raising Procedures ...........................................................................27

1.2.5.3 Support ...................................................................................................................27

1.2. 5.4 Support Procedures ................................................................................................28

1.2. 5.5 Practise ................................ ...………………………… ..................................28

1.2. 5.5 Process Feedback ............................ …………………… ...................................28

1.2.6 The Importance of Writing ..........................................................................................29

Chapter Two: The Practical Framework Introduction

vii

2.1 Choice of the Method .................................................................................................................33 2.2 The Sample .......... ..........................……………………………….. ..............................33 2.3 Research Design ...........................................................................................................................34 2.4 Procedures ......................................................................................................................................35 2.4.1 Pre-testing ...................................................................................................................................35 2.4.2 Treatment ....................................................................................................................................35 2.4.2.1 Experimental Group Instruction .......................................................................................36 2.4.2.2 Control Group Instruction ..................................................................................................36 2.4.3 Post-Testing ...............................................................................................................................37 2.5 Instruments .....................................................................................................................................37 2.5.1 Test Used in Pre-Testing and Post-Testing .......................................................................37 2.6. Scoring ...........................................................................................................................................37 2.7 Statistical Analysis ......................................................................................................................38 2.8 Results .............................................................................................................................................38 2.8.1 Results of The Task .................................................................................................................38 2.8.1.1 Results of the Control Group .............................................................................................39 2.8.1.2 Results of The Experimental .............................................................................................40 2.8.1.3 Results of Both Experimental and Control Group ......................................................42 2.8.1.1. Control Group Versus Experimental Group Scores on The Pre-test ....................42 2.8.1.2. Control Group Post-test /Pre-test Scores ...... ………………… ..............................43 2.8.1.3. Experimental Group Post-test versus Pre-test scores ................................................44 2.8.1.4 general discussion .......................................................................................... Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................45 General Conclusion ............................................................................................................................46 Limitation of The Study ……………………………………………….. ...........................46

viii

Suggestions for Further Research …………………………………… ...............................46 References Appendixes

Résumé ص�����خلم�

ix

General introduction

Statement of the Problem

For many learners of English as a foreign language, writing is very difficult, as they have

to come up with words and ideas in addition to organization, and they are usually asked to

be creative and write a well structured piece of writing. However learners find it so hard to

achieve such a task. Actually, helping learners to improve their writing achievement is one

of the teachers’ jobs via using some of the best strategies that help them in writing. In other

words, teachers have to be creative and seek the success of their learners. The use of mentor

texts is considered as one of the strategies that can be effective to help learners improve

their writing achievement.

Aim of the Study

Tutoring is a matter of hard work and creative ideas to help learners in their learning

process. One of the techniques that can be used by teachers in order to help learners improve

their writing achievement is mentor texts .This study is carried out to examine the

effectiveness of mentor texts as a teaching technique in improving learners writing

achievement.

Research Question and hypothesis

For the sake of conducting this research and providing prominent data, the following

question is asked:

Do mentor texts have an effect on pupils’ writing achievement?

Therefore, this study is based on the following hypothesis: There is a significant difference in writing achievement between pupils who are

taught using mentor texts and those who are not?

1

Means of the Research

This study follows a quasi-experimental design. Thus, there are two groups, experimental

and control groups.

The instruments that were used in this study are namely: The pre-test and the post-test.

The pre-test is conducted in the first meeting session where students were asked to write a

paragraph about something exiting that happened to them in a form of storytelling. Then,

students had explicit instructions and scaffolding where they are more guided by multiple

examples and models of the writing focus. Thus, reading was aloud followed by a writing

frame. They were also given the chance to imitate the structure.

Finally, after the treatment period a post-test was used to check student`s improvement in

writing achievements. Structure of the Study

The study includes two main chapters. The first chapter includes two sections, The first

section is about mentor texts, starting with mentor and mentoring definition, mentor texts

definition, types, in addition to its effect on writing. The second section is about the writing

in general, definition, history of writing, approaches, theories, stages and finally, importance

of writing.

The second chapter is the practical framework. It includes detailed procedures and steps

that will take place in the field, in addition to a precise description of the data and analysis

of the results.

2

Chapter One: Theoretical Background

Section One: mentor texts Introduction ...................................................................... …………………… ............................. 5 1.1.1. Mentor……………………………………………………………………………... 5 1.1.2. Mentoring … ……................................................................................................... 6 1.1.3 Mentor texts Definition……............................................ ............................................ 8 1.1.4 The Use of Mentor Texts ....................................................................................................... 9 1.1.5 Types of Mentor Texts ........................................................................................................... 9 1.1.5.1 Mentor texts for Questioning…………………... ....................................................... 9 1.1.5.2 Mentor texts to teach narrative writing.........................………………………. 10 1.1.5.3 Informative/Explanatory Mentor Text Questions ....................................................... 10 1.1.5.4 Opinion Mentor Text Questions/Prompts................………………………….. 13 1.1.5.5 Narrative Mentor Text Questions………………………………………………… 14 1.1.6 The Effect of Mentor Texts on Writing …………………………............................ 15 Conclusion 19

Section Two: Writing Introduction……………………………………………………………………………… 20 1.2.1 Definition of Writing .............................................................................................................. 20 1.2.2 History of Writing ................................................................................................................... 21 1.2.3 Theories of Writing ........................................... ……………………... ........................... 21 1.2. 4.1 The Controlled-to-free Approach...........................…………………………….. 25 1.2. 4.2 The Free Writing Approach ............................................................................................. 25

1.2. 4.3 The Pattern Paragraph Approach ............................................................................ 25

1.2.4.4 The Grammar Syntax Organization Approach ..................................................... 25

1.2.4.5 The Communicative Approach ................................................................................. 25

1.2.4.6 The process approach ................................................................................................... 25 1.2.5 Stages of Writing ..................................................................................................................... 26

1.2.5.1 Awareness Raising ........................................................................................................... 27

1.2. 5.2 Awareness Raising Procedures .................................................................................. 27

1.2. 5.3 Support ............................................................................................................................. 27

1.2. 5.4 Support Procedures ........................................................................................................ 27

1.2. 5.5 Practise..............................................………………………… ......................... 28

1.2. 5.5 Process Feedback ............................................ …………………….......................... 28 1.2.6 The Importance of Writing ................................................................................................... 28

Section One: Mentor texts

Introduction

Reading can help students improve their writing but unfortunately most of them have no

interest in reading books. The only solution to face this problem is mentor texts, a type of

texts that are made especially for this kind of problem. the whole concept about this method is

using literacy texts to model their writing skill writing workshops helped a lot of students

improving their writing achievements.

In this section, I will tackle some of the elements namely, mentor, mentoring, definition of

mentor texts, types, use of mentor texts, and its effect on writing achievements. 1.1.1. Mentor

A mentor is a guide who can support the student to find the right direction and who can

help them to develop solutions to their issues. Mentors count on their past experience to win

the students understanding of their issues. Mentoring provides the students with an

opportunity to think about career options and progress.

A mentor should help the learner to believe in himself and build his confidence. A mentor

should ask questions and challenge, while providing guidance and encouragement. Mentoring

allows the learner to explore new ideas with more confidence. It is a chance to look more

closely at opportunities and what they want in life. Mentoring is about becoming more self

aware, taking responsibility for your life and directing your life in the direction you decide,

rather than leaving it to chance. Parsloe (1943, p.34) said "Mentoring is to support and

encourage people to manage their own learning in order that they may maximise their

potential, develop their skills, improve their performance and become the person they want to

be."

Mentor teachers are recommended to use predetermined standards to guide their work with

mentees. According to Carver and Catz (2004), mentors in the BTSA programme use

5

professional teaching standards developed in 1997 by the California commission on teacher

credentialing “prompt reflection about students learning and teaching practises, formulate

professional goals for improving teaching practise, and guide the progress of teachers

developing practise towards his or her goal” (p. 451) .

The mentor teacher develops a relationship with the students, this relationship is an

important aspect of productivity tutoring by daily communications and interaction. Different

communities have different culture which the teacher needs to be familiar with. Hollins said

“listening to students voices is often an overlooked factor in teacher preparation and

professional development” (p.171). 1.1.2. Mentoring

A big number of people interpret mentoring as processes. It is commonly agreed that the

process includes the various developmental phases of the mentoring relationship, the

dynamics of the mentoring relationship itself, and the application of cognitive developmental

theory to the mentoring process (Bey & Holmes, 1992).

It is also imposing order on his or her environment and providing an explanation for

successful and unsuccessful elements in the classroom, It is also engaging in an intellectual

journey from a particular to a general form of theorizing. Levinson. (1978) described the

mentor's function as guide, counselor, and sponsor. Ragins and Scandura (1999, p.496)

referred to mentors as" influential individuals with advanced experience and knowledge who

are committed to providing upward mobility and support to their protégé” careers. “Mentoring

is the process of serving as a mentor, someone who facilitates and assists another’s

development. The process includes modeling because the mentor must be able to model the

messages and suggestions being taught to the beginning teacher” (Gay, 1995). Also, as

indicated, the mentor must be able to serve as a model of the teacher’s role. In education,

mentoring is a complex and multi-dimensional process of guiding, teaching, influencing and

6

supporting a beginning or new teacher. It is generally accepted that a mentor teacher leads,

guides and advises another teacher more junior in experience in a work situation characterized

by mutual trust and belief.

mentoring programs pair novice teachers with more experienced teachers who can ably

explain school policies, regulations and procedures; share methods, materials and other

resources, help solve problems in teaching and learning provide personal and professional

support, and guide the growth of the new teacher through reflection, collaboration, and shared

inquiry (Feiman-Nemser and Parker, 1992).

The mentoring process includes coaching as an instructional technique used in endeavors

such as sports or apprenticeship at the work place. In addition, it includes “cognitive

coaching,” a term gaining wider familiarity in education. To be effective, the mentor must be

able to demonstrate a range of cognitive coaching competencies, such as posing carefully

constructed questions to stimulate reflection, paraphrasing, probing, using wait-time, and

collecting and using data to improve teaching and learning. Mentoring, like coaching, is a

collaborative process (Gay, 1995). However, as a function—a special duty required of a

person—mentoring has considerably more dimensions than coaching or modeling. Therefore,

it is more complex and demanding (Head, Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall, 1992).

1.1.3. Mentor Texts

Mentor texts or anchor texts are any text that can be used as an example of good writing for

writers. Writers use a mentor text to inform their own writing. Fletcher (1999) explained that

mentor texts are "...any texts that you can learn from, and every writer, no matter how skilled

you are or how beginning you are, encounters and reads something that can lift and inform

and infuse their own writing, I'd say anything that you can learn from - not by talking about

but just looking at the actual writing itself" (p.490). Reading is crucial for writers, and reading

aloud becomes critical in the classroom and with adult writing groups, as well as it is through

7

reading what others have written that we are able to visualize direction for our own writing. It

is through reading that we are able to learn about writing, to ask what words structure

techniques, and strategies the writer has used to achieve her desired effect. As we begin to

read like writers, deconstructing texts, noticing, identifying, and naming what authors have

done, and turning the texts inside out, we are able then to identify the same features in other

books or texts and begin to use those moves in our own writing. We can try on the styles and

strategies of the writer we are reading. In this way, we are learning to write directly from

those who write the authors of the books and other texts we read.

A mentor text can be a sentence, a picture book, an article or an essay a poem, or a longer

work, such as a novel or informational text, it can be any text we imitate or use as a model for

our own writing. These texts are intentionally and carefully chosen. favour short texts or

excerpts because they can easily be used in one sitting Ray (2002, p. 66) explained that "as we

develop teaching relationship with authors, we will find that certain texts seem to surface as

very important to teaching. These are texts that are just full of curriculum potential" Leaving

room for several texts to be shared with the feature(s) to be modelled, easily identified, and

discussed, while still having time to write. An appropriate mentor text is well-written, with

genre, topic, format, ideas or structures those clearly challenging students to do. The ultimate

goal is that student writers begin to choose their own mentor texts that they begin to recognize

which texts can help them do what they are trying to do in writing.

1.1.4. The Use of Mentor Texts

The use of M has previously been described by teams in some of the universities of the

United Kingdom. Students who used mentor texts needed clearly professional help and

objectives for their use of the mentor text materials, the difference that was clearly taking

place is between the use of mentor text and other learning activities, the activity needs to be

made explicitly. Mentors should never forget to have a clear discussion with the member of

8

the stuff providing specific timetabled sessions for mentor text access encourages its use there

is no clear association between times spent using the mentor text materials and exam

performance. There is, however, one significant difference; all three of the mentor text

modules used more material syllabus for that topic, so the students' showed significant

performance. all in all the mentor text should be chosen with care and wisdom and as

mentioned in Hoyt (2007), Teacher’s Guide to Interactive Read-Aloud “A mentor text must

be chosen carefully to ensure that it can establish a model of quality that is worthy of guiding

our learners by opening children’s eyes to the inner workings of the selection to promote

active listening, encourage deep thinking, and support learning more about the world around

us.” (p. 4).

1.1.5. Types of Mentor Texts

1.1.5.1. Mentor Texts for Questioning

This type of mentor text is actually a strategy that a teacher in a school may use throughout

reading aloud. Of course every student in schools asks herself/himself questions about what

they are learning about what he/she is listening to, by doing that they are tuning their brains

into what they are reading in addition to every single one of the details appearing in the

illustrations. By doing that the story will look a little bit interesting and of course curiosity

about finding more about the whole subject is the concentration that a teacher is seeking to

have with his students. Sharing these details with the whole classroom will make reading

more interesting.

1.1.5.2. Mentor Texts to Teach Narrative Writing

Teachers use this strategy all the time whenever writing workshops take place. It allows

students to have the opportunity to analyse the text and think like writers. and more

importantly to notice what great writers do, so that they can use that into their writing, while

9

using this type of technique is important to isolate the writing skill which they will be looking

for. The prominent characteristic that leads to this subject is the focus that students will have

about that specific skill during the whole process and that is crucial to the lesson. Since

reading has a purpose, the main purpose out of this strategy is to teach all the possible skills

about narrative writing, Ideas, organization, sentence, fluency, work choice convictions, etc.

1.1.5.3. Informative/Explanatory

Mentor Text Questions

Check grade level reading/writing standards when choosing which questions/prompts to

address. Create additional prompts/questions based on the standards for your grade level.

To answer the questions or address the prompts, students should use evidence from the text to

support their answers. These Resource questions were adapted by Boyles (2004).

Illustrations

Did the author include illustration with the book? Who is the illustrator?

What kinds of illustrations were included? (diagrams, photos, maps, charts, graphs, tables)

What is the purpose of the illustrations or other media? Is there anything that could be added or done to improve these?

Did the illustrations help to understand the text better? Why or why not?

Were labels and captions used? If so, did they help to understand the information better?

Why or why not? Text Structure

Did you use the table of contents or the index? For what? Was the information located

quickly?

10

Are there headings and subheadings in this text? Did they help you “see” how information

is presented?

What is the topic of this piece/section/page? Is it easy to locate?

Are there other ways information is presented in the book, chapter, or passage? Examples

include:

o Information is chronologically

ordered o Information is listed

o Information is shown in comparison or contrasted

o Information is written in cause and effect relationship o

Information is narrated as a problem and solution

o Information is presented as a main idea or topic and then has ideas have supporting details

How does the author introduce the topic? What techniques does the author use to hook the reader?

How does the author develop the topic? (With facts, definitions, details, questions or other

information and examples?)

How did the author close the piece/section/book?

Content :

What does the author teach about the topic? Do we have

questions? What topic(s) does this book or chapter describe?

Is the information easy to understand? Why or why

not? What facts were easiest to learn about? Why?

What else would you like to know about this topic? How can you find it?

Was the title misleading? Did you expect to discover information that wasn’t there?

Did the book/chapter/passage give you enough information? If not, what else do you need

to know?

11

What vocabulary is important within this piece? What is provided to help determine the

definitions?

What linking words are used to create clarity and flow? Are there places in which the

sequence is not clear?

Does this book provide recent information? Is there a better source of information?

What qualifies the author to write this information? What kind of research did that author

have to do to write the text? Style :

Do you understand what the author is saying? What information is the easiest/hardest to

understand? Why?

What could the author have done to make the information easier to understand?

Would this book or information be different if it were written 10 years ago? Why?

By reading, did you discover anything that could help you outside of school? Was the

information well organized? Give an example of why or why not.

Is the information told straight to you or is it in story form?

1.1.5.4. Opinion Mentor Text Questions/Prompts

Check grade level reading/writing standards when choosing which questions/prompts to

address. Create additional prompts/questions based on the standards for your grade level.

To answer the questions or address the prompts, students should use evidence from the text to

support their answers. Resource questions were adapted from Owocki, G. (2013).

Sample Questions:

Can you tell how the author feels about the topic? How?

How is the opinion stated or shown?

12

What reasons are given or shown for the opinion? Are there other reasons or details the

author could include?

What key words and phrases are used to express the opinion?

How does the author introduce the piece? Does the introduction begin to draw the reader

toward the opinion? How? If not, what other ideas could the author try?

What reasons does the author use to help convince? Who would be drawn toward these

reasons?

How did the author close the piece? If the closing doesn’t move you, what other ideas

could the author try?

How is this piece organized?

What linking words are used?

I agree/disagree with the writer about…

Sample Prompts:

The most important thing about this book is…

I think the main thing the writer was trying to say was…

In my opinion, the most important (word, sentence, paragraph) in the book would be…

I would/wouldn’t recommend this book to a friend because…

What happened in this book was very realistic/unrealistic because… :

1.1.4.5. Narrative Mentor Text Questions

Check grade level reading/writing standards when choosing which questions/prompts to

address. Create additional prompts/questions based on the standards for your grade level.

To answer the questions or address the prompts, students should use evidence from the text to

support their answers. Author/Illustrator

Who are the characters or people in the piece? How does the illustrator show this?

13

How does the author help us get to know the characters?

What might the author had to have known to write this book?

Setting/Tone

Where does this story take place? Is there more than one place?

What is the place like?

When and where did this story take place? How do you know?

Could there be a place like this? What evidence/proof/background knowledge do you

have? Which part of the story best describes the setting?

Characters

Who are the main characters in the story?

Do you like or dislike them? Why? (Have they done something to make you feel this way?)

Do any of the characters change in the story? How? Support with evidence from text.

Does a character do things that are good/bad? What? Support with evidence from text.

Choose a character. Why is the character important to the story? Use the text to support answer.

Plot/Problem/Solution

What are the main things that have happened in the story? How does the illustrator show

this? How does the author show this?

How does the author feel about what happened? How can you tell? Is

there a challenge/goal/problem? Is there more than one problem?

What do the characters/people do to solve the challenge/goal/problem?

How do you know that the problem was solved in this way?

What would you have done differently if you had been one of the characters?

Can you think of another way that something in the story might have happened?

14

What might have happened if a certain action had not taken place?

How did the author close the piece?

Theme/Tone

Is there a message/lesson the author is trying to teach in this story? What is it? Use

evidence from text to describe it.

Why did the author write this book? Use evidence from the text.

Does the book make you feel a certain way? Are there words that the author uses that make

you feel that way?

Is there a part of the story that describes the atmosphere? How does the writer do that?

(words) 1.1.6. The Effect of Mentor Texts on Writing

The writing skill is hard to be improved, especially with young EFL middle school pupils, in

order to intervene and bring something new to their learning process. Something that scholars

still try to find about. According to Lee (2007), "Cultural Modelling (CM) takes the position

that one cannot imagine points of leverage between everyday experience and subject matter

learning without understanding the structure of disciplines in terms of both breadth and

depth"(p. 87). Applebee and Purvis (1992) cite content knowledge about authors, and said that

limited range of literary works and literary movements drives English teachers and the high

school literature curriculum to see coverage of these topics and exposure as the primary aim

of instruction rather than the process of becoming a strategic reader of any literary text.

Lee (2007) promotes engagement in literary reasoning with an emphasis on narratives that

students encounter across many media (television, film, music, as well as print literature).

Cultural Modelling draws on in the design and selection of cultural data sets used to elicit

15

students’ prior knowledge and the promotion of habits of mind or dispositions required to

engage in fundamental aspects of content knowledge of a discipline over a single focus on

authors, particular texts and literary movements. From the perspective of CM, conceptualizing

resources that students already bring with them from their experiences outside of school is a

fundamental element in the teachers Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) toolkit. Lee’s

(2007) research has consistently found in CM classrooms that students who would be

designated as seriously challenged readers, effortful processors, knowledge reliant readers,

nonstrategic processors, and resistant readers show astounding progress in engaging in literary

reasoning with very complex texts when they work with cultural data sets that make domain-

specific reading strategies public, use cultural data sets that demonstrate the relevance of the

cognitive work entailed in the literary reasoning in the everyday lives of youth, sequence texts

in ways that build on the knowledge of the text and makes the new use of existing strategies a

safer enterprise because students’ existing prior knowledge is privileged, and design

instruction in ways that privilege contextualization cues regarding language use that students

already value that provides incentives to be effortful and actively participate. When teachers

immerse students in reading and studying the kind of writing they want them to do, they are

actually teaching at two levels (Ray, 2006). They teach students about the particular genre or

writing issue that is the focus of the study, but they also teach students to use a habit of mind

experienced writers use all the time. They teach them how to read like writers (Ray, 1999

Smith, 1983), noticing as an insider how things are written. Given enough time, they will

learn to notice things about writing that other novices who do not write do not notice, and this

will help them develop a vision for the writing they will do in the future. They adopt a stance

that professional writers take and read the kind of texts that they are getting ready to write

themselves. This discipline-based stance is an inquiry approach to writing that teaches

students to read and write like writers. In order to authentically address this inquiry approach

16

to writing instruction, the students must be exposed to real-world texts that ensure that the

writing they study and notice are for the most part true to form. When teachers approach

writing instruction without real-world writing attached to it, using preconceived graphic

organizers or static grammar rule fixations, they end up teaching things about writing that are

not true 100% of the time and therefore inauthentic in their very nature. Mentor texts, or one

text, serve as a model for what the students will write. But when teachers work from an

inquiry stance, they have decided that the model for writing will come from a variety of

quality published texts that anchor the writing instruction for a particular genre. These

exemplar published texts are often referred to in pedagogical textbooks as either “touchstone”

or “mentor” texts. For the purpose of this study, the term “mentor text” has been adopted for

future reference to any published text used to model exemplar writing with students during

writing instruction. Gallagher (as cited in Anderson & Spandel, 2005) described his own

process coming to terms as a high school teacher with the understanding that placing quality

mentor texts in the hands of students and asking them to read is not enough to make them

better writers. Although he admits that reading widely often does enable students to get a feel

for crafting more sophisticated sentences and a deeper understanding of how authors approach

different genres, alone it does not necessarily guarantee quality writing. It is the pedagogical

combination of extensive reading paired with explicit writing instruction that generates

effective writing and writers. His reference to published author, King (2000) who stated that:

“If you want to be a writer, you must do two things above all else: read a lot and write a lot.

There’s no way around these two things that I’m aware, no shortcut” (p. 145). Strengthening

his stance that educators must put a number of exemplary mentor texts in front of students for

both reading and writing purposes. These models are allowing all students on the continuum

of writing development from novice to expert the same access to learning how to write from

professional writers. Allowing students the time and opportunity to internalize

17

what good writers do is critical, and for students to have any chance to do this, they need

modeling, modeling, and more modeling (Anderson & Spandel, 2005).

In writing, it is important that we start with a pillar of social and cultural perspective of

language used in and out of school. We must be able to simplify the function and features of

academic language that we expect our students to use in their own writing. When students

learn these conventions, they gain access to their comprehension and writing abilities.

Educators should always model and scaffold academic language with their students.

Classroom talk is a tool for working with information, such that it becomes knowledge and

understanding (Mercer, 2000). However, classroom talk as an instructional tool is ineffective

if it is only viewed as linear and static in nature. Nystrand, Gamoran, Kachur, and Prendergast

(1997) found that 85% of all instructional time in a sample of eighth- and ninth-grade English

classrooms was a combination of lecture, recitation, and seatwork. This type of transactional

discourse between teacher and students does not explore the type of authentic discourse that

students will meet in the real world that is often exploratory rather than didactic by nature.

Ideally, classroom discussions allow for the repetition of linguistic terms and thinking

processes that lead to language acquisition, internalization, and appropriation by students

(Bakhtin, 1981; Vygotsky, 1978).Thus, Zwiers (2008) promotes classroom discussion as a

way to push learners to think quickly, respond, organize their thoughts into sentences,

negotiate meaning, back claims with evidence, ask for clarification, and construct meaning in

real time as the dialog develops. This discussion also provides a format to make hidden

thought processes more.

Conclusion

Mentoring remains a viable policy option in education. However, for purposeful mentoring

to occur, a prerequisite is the acceptance of its complexity in carrying out the mentoring

function. This implies careful planning. Teachers are valuable resources in education, and

18

high quality performance in teaching is an essential ingredient of educational improvement or

reform. To assist beginning teachers, it is necessary to support their performance in the

classroom from the very beginning of their teaching careers. Support in the form of well-

designed mentoring programs can be pivotal in inducting new teachers into the profession and

keeping them in education. The stakes are high. Quality teaching is essential if the mission of

education is to be fulfilled. Mentoring can play a critical role in continually improving the

professional knowledge and skills that teachers need to instruct and prepare students for the

next century. However, to be effective, mentoring programs must be developed.

19

Section Two: Writing

Introduction

Writing in its many forms, is the signature means of communication in the 21st

century.

Writing is also arguably the most complex and difficult challenge facing all students in

school. It is a piece of quality literature text that students can use as an exemplar text to model

their own attempts for writing. Writing is a very demanding task, requiring the orchestration

of a variety of cognitive resources. For developing writers, it can be especially demanding, as

they have not yet mastered important writing processes, skills, and knowledge involved in

planning, drafting, and revising text. In the present study, middle school students were

directly taught strategies that facilitated the execution of each of these processes.

1.2.1. Definition of Writing

According to Tarigan (1985,p.5) writing is productive skills for writing an indirect

communication and the nature of the character is very different from that expressed by

speaking directly, therefore writing is included as an ability, According to Harmer (2001, p.

79) writing is a form of communication to deliver through or to express feeling through

written form. Jonah (2006, p 14) argues that writing is a series of activities, and involve

several phases, the preparatory phase, the content development and review, as well as

revisions or improvements posts. Jonah (2006, p. 29) argues that writing can be used as an

indirect means of communication to others to convey information. Activities are not easy to

write because writing should be able to produce something new and can give you an idea or

ideas to the reader through writing. Another definition of writing is proposed by Nation (2009,

p. 112) who states that writing is an activity that can usefully be preferred for by work in other

skills of listening, speaking, and reading. This preparation can make it possible for words that

have been used receptively to come into productive use.

20

1.2.1.2. History of Writing

Humans invented two important systems of visual signs to communicate with others: art

and writing. These two different communicative systems are independent from each other and

play different roles in the community. Writing uses a system of graphic marks that represent

units of a specific language structure, while simultaneously representing the needs and

traditions of the society that use that language system and the capacities of the human brain.

The appearance of writing transformed existing social systems by making the

communication easy across space and time, by making communications concrete (Bazerman,

2007). Writing has played a major role in the development and expansion of all social systems

in our society including the economy, government, religion, entertainment, and academia.

Writing has not only helped form these systems that serve to function in human society, but it

helps carry out fundamental processes that cut across social spheres as well. Writing can be an

avenue for individual expression, and, at the same time, it can serve to construct or proclaim

the individual author’s membership in a social group (Dyson, 2003).

According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO, 1995), one’s ability to receive an education is a universal human right. In a

society that values education, it is widely assumed that if one is successful in our education

system, then he/she will more than likely function successfully as a literate adult in society

1.2.1.3. Theories of Writing

The writing process is a crucial activity that the writer must respect, an activity that has

multiple meanings attached to its concept from both a researcher’s and a practitioner’s point

of view. Those who view the writer as the source of written text, and put the focus on the

process by which a writer exert a purpose for writing and determines the type of writing being

assembled for an audience goes within the process camp. There are two distinct groups, the

expressivists and the cognitivists. Although there is not a distinct and universal definition that

21

can be given for the term “writing process” considering classroom practice, it can offer us a

common vocabulary for talking about the nature of writing—planning, revising, editing—and

insight in to how these processes work for isolated writers in particular situations (Flood et al.,

2003). Pioneers of the expressivist movement—Donald Murray, Ken Macrorie, William

Coles, Peter Elbow and others—have published widely, advocating classroom techniques that

encourage students to take power in their own prose (Kroll, 1990). Expressivists defined

writing by the essential qualities of Romantic expressive—integrity, spontaneity, and

originality. Teachers who mentioned expressivism in their own writing instruction are

nondirective; they facilitate classroom activities designed to promote writing fluency and self-

expression in writing. Students in expressivists’ classrooms are encouraged to write freely and

uncritically and place great value on quantity. Cognitivists suggest planning and problem

solving in the writing process. Pioneers of this cognitive view include Janet Emig, James

Britton, and the work of Linda Flower and John R. Hayes.

The Flower and Hayes model of composing (1980a, 1980b, & 1981) makes strong

theoretical claims in assuming relatively simple cognitive operations produce, enormously

complex actions and, like Emig (1971) research, the Flower and Hayes model helped promote

a “science consciousness” among writing teachers. Even though cognitive researchers have

warned that “novice writers cannot be turned into experts simply by tutoring them in the

knowledge expert writers have” (Scardamalia, 1981, p. 174). Many writing teachers believed

cognitive research could provide a “deep structure” theory of the composing process, which

could in turn specify how writing should be taught (Faigley, 1986). According to the cognivist

view of writing, planning begins with identifying a rhetorical problem and then students

continue the writing process by translating their plans and thoughts into words, and by

reviewing their work through revising and editing(Kroll,1990). although it was never intended

to be a linear process, unfortunately in pedagogical practice, many classroom teachers

22

interpreted this planning stage to be a set of hard activities that are to be dictated by days of

the week such that the classroom schedule dictates Monday is planning day, Tuesday is

drafting day, Wednesday is peer response, Thursday is revision and so forth. In this sense,

students wrongly come to view writing as a static response to the teacher’s demands for

classroom unity and conformity rather than a complex individualized problem-solving process

that demands flexibility and values recycling through various subprocesses of composition

without time constraints. The work of cognitive researchers such as Emig (1971) and Hayes

and Flower (1983) attempted to dispel the need for rigid whole group writing instruction by

revealing that complex writing processes are not linear or formulaic but rather individual and

recursive. However, many researchers still find fault with pursuing a cognitive view of

composing because they accuse cognivists of neglecting the content of writing and

downplaying conflicts inherent in acts of writing. As a consequence pedagogies assuming a

cognitive view tend to overlook differences in language use among students of different social

classes, genders, and ethnic background (Faigley, 1986). The lesser well known of the

approaches, the interactive approach, sees the writer as a person involved in a conversation

with his or her audience. The text itself is the documentation between the writer and the

reader, who both share responsibility for its coherency. According to schema theory, the

coherence of a text is established through the fit between the schemata of the reader (or

audience) and the organization, content, and argument of the text made by the writer. Both the

writer and the reader are bound by language limitations. The writer should either acknowledge

the language of the reader or provide considerable schemata for the reader to assist with

comprehension, allowing for gradual revision of the reader’s previously held schemata. In this

version of interactivity between writer and text, the writer attempts to apply to the reader

through a reality upon which the writer and the reader can agree, and to convince the reader of

a particular argument within this reality (Kroll, 1990). If the writer is unable to appeal to the

23

reader, then the reader may reject the text itself. Social constructivists believe that knowledge,

language, and the nature of discourse are determined for the writer by the discourse

community for whom the writer writes and that Human language including writing can be

understood only from the perspective of a society Rather than a single individual. It rejects the

assumption that writing is the act of a private Consciousness and that everything else readers,

subjects and texts is exposed in the world the focus of a social view of writing.

1.2.1.4. Approaches to Teaching Writing

The most important difference between teaching L1 writing and L2 writing is mastery of

language expression, in native language instructions the teacher assumes that the students

have fundamental control of the language in second language writing instructions on the other

hand students command of the language plays a critical role Raimes(1983) points out that

there are many features that writers have to deal with when writing in second language

Mechanics ,word choice grammar and syntax are added to features such as content

organization the writing process and the audience given the constraints of the second language

most approaches to teaching writing includes a focus on both forms and content.

In her book Techniques in teaching writing, Raimes (1983) discusses six different

approaches to teaching writing

1) The controlled-to-free approach

2) The free writing approach

3) The pattern paragraph approach

4) The grammar syntax organization approach

5) The communicative approach

6) The process approach All of these approaches include some concentration on second language development

24

1.2.1.4.1. The Controlled to Free Approach

The approach stresses the importance of grammar and syntax generally taught sequentially

teaching writing first involves sentences exercises and then paragraph manipulation. ,most of

the writing is strictly controlled by having students change words or clauses or combine

sentences when students achieve mastery of these exercises typically at an advanced level of

proficiency they are permitted to engage in autonomous writing.

1.2.1.4.2. The Prewriting Approach

In this approach teachers value quantity over quality in writing and do minimal errors

correction. The focus of instruction is on content and audience. Students are encouraged to be

concerned about fluency and content and give cursory attention to form. Proponents of this

approach consider that grammatical accuracy will develop over time.

1.2.1.4.3. The Pattern Paragraph Approach

This approach deals with analysis and imitation of mentor texts and stresses organisation

over all. By imitating mentor texts, putting scrambled sentences in order, identifying or

writing topic sentences and inserting or deleting sentences. Students are taught to develop an

awareness of English features of writing.

1.2.1.4.4. The Grammar Sentence–Syntax-Organisation Approach

This approach requires students to focus on several features of writing at once. The

writing tasks are designed to make students pay attention to grammar and syntax while giving

them opportunities to organise their texts with word like First, then, after, finally.

1.2.1.4.5. The Communicative Approach

In this approach of writing the purpose and audience are main and of a great importance

Students are engaged in real life tasks such as writing formal and informal writing.

25

1.2.1.4.6. The Process Approach

Like in L1 writing instruction, there has been a shift, in EFL writing instruction from

product to process, rather than concentrating on the final form of the draft and errors

committed. Teachers are facilitating in helping students discover ideas and plan draft revise

and edit. The first draft is not expected to be error free. And teacher’s feedback is designed to

help students form new ideas, sentences, to use in the future drafts.

1.2.1.4.7. The Writing Task

The basics when teaching writing involves assigning topics relevant to students’ lives in

order to engage interest and motivate them to exchange ideas and thoughts and feelings.

However, just because the topic is important to students does not mean that they will write

about it.

Whether the topic is “summer vacation”, “abortion”, “women’s right”, “violence on TV”

or “premarital sex”, it is equally inert and undynamic even if names a potentially significant

range of students experience as long as unaccompanied by incentives to personal engagement

beyond the requirement to produce a certain number of pages for a teachers’ scrutiny

(Knoblauch & Brannon, 1984, 106). Motivating students to write can be elusive because the

assigned topic is often arbitrary and artificial. However, Knoblauch and Brannon (1984)

contend that when the teachers plays collaborative roles, never dominated nor insisting on

their personal views, it is imperative that the students sense that the teacher is genuinely

interested in what is being said and not only how it is being said. While it can be critical in

motivating students to write, the writing task itself plays an equally important role in

determining the success of the writing experience. Above all, the writing task must serve as A

prompt to activate students background knowledge and personal experience, (Kroll & Reid,

1994). Kroll and Reid (1994) stressed the importance of designing prompts that will allow

students writers to demonstrate their ability to write rather than to decipher writing prompt.

26

1.2.1.5. Stages of writing There are many stages Raimes (1983) provided the following.

1.2.1.5.1. Awareness-raising

In this stage learners are guided to discover/identify specific elements of good writing

previous issue and features of different text types. In a writing programme, the awareness-

raising stage always involves reading. In fact, the development of reading skills is

indispensable for the development of writing skills. The procedures marked by an asterisk (*)

below can also be used for the development of reading skills. After learners have been

familiarised with awareness-raising procedures, teachers can set awareness-raising tasks as

homework. Such practice can free valuable classroom time for 'Support' and 'Feedback'

procedures.

1.2.1.5.2. Awareness-Raising Procedures

In this stage, learners analyze a text regarding one or more elements of good writing. They

analyze a poorly formulated text in order to identify problems and propose remedies and

reformulations. analysing learner texts for merits & short comings. Comparing two texts in

terms of style/register.*Ordering jumbled sentences to create a paragraph/text.*Ordering

jumbled paragraphs to create a text.*Inserting additional or missing information into a text

(linking & signposting expressions, Sentences, paragraphs).* Diving a text into sections/

Paragraphes. *

1.2.1.5.3. Support

In this stage learners are helped to clarify/consolidate the points raised and discussed

during the Awareness-raising stage, and/or guided in their efforts to produce a text. Support

procedures can be of three different types according to the learners' needs. Firstly, learners

may be given explicit and general information and guidelines, as well as illustrative examples,

27

regarding the organisation, layout and style of specific text-types. Secondly, the teacher may

provide help regarding the specific task at hand. For example, learners can be guided to

identify the intended reader, the purpose of writing and the points to be covered, and can be

helped to generate ideas regarding organisation, vocabulary and grammar. Thirdly, the teacher

may elicit and/or pre-teach one or more of the following: relevant vocabulary, grammar, and

background information.

1.2.1.5.4. Support Procedures

Grammar input/revision and exercises, Elicitation and input of relevant vocabulary

Elicitation and or input regarding relevant ideas items of content, Elicitation or input

regarding elements of good writing. Planning guidelines (content, layout, organisation, style).

1.2.1.5.5. Practice

The Practice stage offers students the chance to use and experiment with the features of

good writing discussed in the 'awareness' stage. In turn, the product of the Practice stage will

be used in the Feedback stage. Practice procedures can be categorised according to their focus

and the amount of control. In terms of focus, practice can be of two types, focused and global

(Cook, 1989) In focused practice learners concentrate on one element of writing. In global

practice learners are given a writing task to achieve. In terms of control, practice can be

controlled or free. In controlled practice the aim is the development of accuracy. Acceptable

responses are pre-determined, or there are limitations as to the content of the text to be

written. In free practice the aim is effective communication through writing (i.e. achievement

of a writing task), and the range of acceptable responses is much greater. The teacher can

choose the focus of activities and manipulate the amount of control depending on the learners'

needs. For example, the teacher may give learners a writing task (global practice), but also

impose some control over the content by asking them to use a specified number of

words/expressions or structures in the text.

28

1.2.1.5.6. Process Feedback

It seems that Feedback is the part of a writing programme which is either underused or

misunderstood. Feedback need not be limited to the overt correction of errors and the

provision of comments and/or grades by the teacher. Feedback can (and should) be a learning

experience, which provides the link between consecutive writing lessons. During feedback,

learners are invited to identify the merits and shortcomings of their writing performance,

understand the reasons for these short comings and discuss possible improvements. When

learners have become familiar with feedback procedures, feedback activities can also be set as

homework. In order to make optimal use of the Feedback stage, teachers need to be aware of

three basic aspects of feedback procedures. These aspects can be seen as answers to the

following three questions: Who provides comments/corrections? What is the focus of

feedback? How is feedback given?

1.2.1.6 The importance of writing

The importance of writing stems from the fact that writing is the primary basis upon

which communication, history, record keeping, and art is begun. Writing is the frame work of

our communication. We are encountered with writing every day of our lives. Whether it be an

office memo, restaurant menu, or a love letter. Writing is incredibly pliable; you can use it to

give information, an opinion, a question, or poetry. Words can take a bounty of forms within

writing. The words you use can show who you are as a person, the things writing has done in

our lives and the world is profound. I cannot imagine a life That didn’t involve writing.

Writing is extremely important in today’s society. Communication is transmitted more

through writing than any other type of media. The most binding contracts and agreements are

written and signed. Writing is part of a creative project, whether it is a film, building, or a

piece of literature. Without writing, the flow of ideas halted shortly beyond the source.

29

There is a problematic trend spotted in our country and in many other countries."American

students today are not meeting even basic writing standards, and their teachers are often at a

loss of how to help them" (Gregorian, 2007, p. 2). Nowadays, learning a foreign language has

become a challenge especially with learners of English language. Today teachers and

educators noticed that learners learning English as a second language face difficulties in

speaking as well as writing, Student’s luck of motivation and interest in writing lead to a

considerable number of failure in classroom tasks, writing skills present 50% of language

competence, it is imperative that action should be taken. Writing is a lifelong skill that

students need to develop early in their schooling to carry with them throughout the reminder

of their education and career. Gregorian (2007) explains how this writing deficit can lead to

other downfalls as well: "young people who do not have the ability to transform thought.

Ideas into written words are in danger of losing touch with the joy of inquiry, the sense of

intellectual curiosity, and inestimable satisfaction of acquiring wisdom that are the

touchstones of humanity"(p. 1)

1.2.1.7 Conclusion

As you now know, writing isn’t just something you do in a sudden burst of activity

when the essay deadline starts to loom. Such a last-minute approach usually produces poorly

organized and incoherent essays, because it eliminates the idea of writing as a process, and

focuses only on the product. When it comes to writing, we are used to seeing, and reading,

finished works: books, course materials, online content. We aren’t often exposed to all of the

preparation and elbow grease that goes into the creation of those finished works.

30

Chapter Two: The Practical Framework

Introduction

2.1. Choice of the Method............................................................................ ………………………… 33

2.2. The Sample ...................................……………………………………… 33

2.3. Research Design.................................................................................................................................... 34

2.4. Procedures.............................................................................................................................................. … 35

2.4.1 Pre-Testing........................................................................................................................................ … 35

2.4.2. Treatment........................................................................................................................................ 35

2.4.2.1. Experimental Group Instruction .................................................................................................... 36

2.4.2.2. Control Group Instruction ................................................................................................................ 36

2.4.3. Post-Testing ......................................................................................................................................... 37

2.5. Instruments......................................................................................................................................... 37

2.5.1. Test Used in Pre-Testing and Post-Testing.................................................................................... 37

2.6. Scoring.......................................................................................................................................... 37

2.7. Statistical Analysis.................................................................................................................................. 38

2.8. Results.................................................................................................................................................... 38

2.8.1. Results of the Task.......................................................................................................................... 38

2.8.1.1 Results of the control group........................................................................................................ 39

2.8.1.2 Results of the Experimental........................................................................................................ 40

2.8.1.3 Results of both Experimental and control group.......................... 42

2.8.1.4. Control Group Post-test /Pre-test Scores..... …………………... 43

2.8.1.5. Experimental Group Post-test versus Pre-test scores.................. 44

Conclusion................................................................................................ …………………….. 45

General Conclusion.................................................................................. ……………………… 46

Limitation of the Study ……………………………………………….. 46

Suggestions for Further Research …………………………………… 46

References ……………………………………………………………. 48

Chapter Two: Field Work Introduction

The previous chapter tackled the idea that mentor texts are an effective strategy for

teachers to carry out in EFL classes since it stimulates learners’ involvement in the class and

they foster writing achievements through literacy, as well as it strengthens the grammar, style

skills. Furthermore, it discussed the importance of mentor texts in EFL classrooms along with

some teaching and learning strategies.

In addition, the fostering technique as a successful instruction methodology in a variety of

EFL classes might have a positive result on developing learners’ writing skills. In addition to

discussing the methodology followed in this study, this chapter deals with the specification of

the population and the sample, and the different procedures starting from data collection to the

analysis moving to the findings.

2.1. Choice of the Method

The study followed quasi experimental design. Two groups (Experimental and Control)

were chosen to represent the whole population. The two groups were already divided by the

administration at the beginning of the year. Moreover, the aim behind the study is to

investigate the effect of mentor texts on learner’s writing achievement.

2.2. The Sample

In the Algerian educational system, EFL teaching and learning starts basically in the

middle school, adopting the competency based approach as a standard methodology of

teaching (Benadla, 2012). On this basis, the current study put under light third year EFL

learners at Abdelhamid Ibn Badis middle school in Tebessa in the academic year 2016-2017.

Therefore, from a total of 113 learners, 40 were randomly selected in respect of the current

research, 19males and 21 females between the age of 13 and 17, divided into two groups

(experimental and control group). The reason behind choosing third year pupils is that they do

meet the Characteristics of the pre-intermediate level since they studied EFL for two years at

33

Least.

2.3. Research Design

The present study is performed with an experimental design where two Variables were under

scope: Mentor Texts and Writing Achievements. the research question, is stated as follows:

Do mentor texts have an effect on pupils’ writing achievement?

Statistically speaking, this question is read in the way below: Is there a significant difference in writing achievements between learners who were

taught using mentor texts and those who do not?

Thus, the following hypotheses can be formulated:

H ׃1 There would be a significant difference in writing achievements between the Learners,

who were taught using mentor texts and those who do not.

H ׃0 There would be no significant difference in writing achievements between the Learners

who were taught using mentor texts and those who do not.

Moreover, the study followed a quasi experimental design that can be represented as

follow: Figure1: The Schematic Representation of the Different Phases of the Quasi-

Experiment

Experimental group/ pre-test Treatment (Mentor Texts) Post-test

Control Group/Pre-test Treatment (Ordinary Method) Post-test

34

2.4. Procedures

2.4.1 Pre-testing

Both groups (experimental and control group) were pre-tested though their actual

competence in writing; short story as it was instructed and given in the pre-test. The pupils

were informed that the pre-test is just part of teacher’s evaluation and is given for their own

benefit. Thus, and the results will not be included in their real evaluation so that to avoid

copying their friends answers and to put them in a comfortable atmosphere. In addition to

that, the story was about something that happened to them in the past in order to trigger their

imagination.

2.4.2. Treatment

After conducting the pre-test, learners in the the experimental group received the treatment

in 4 sessions Learner were all listening to the teacher reading aloud the short story written by

Eileen Spinelli illustrated by Anne Wilsdorf and the pigeon book of Patrick suskind they were

given a cheat of paper with a space to draw and write a story about something they did in the

past or happened with them in a form of an accident, the teacher’s assistance was always

present for guidance through the writing task. However, learners of the control group were

taught using the ordinary method, the usual instructions with no teacher assistance, the task

were course performed individually.

2.4.2.1. Experimental Group Instruction

The Experimental group was provided with a book chosen specially for the writing

workshop to teach them structure, style, as well as form and word choice. The pupils were

also given a simple story convenient to their linguistic and cognitive competence.

Students started with writing expectations about what they are supposed to do for instance;

listen think, share ,write and illustrate ,after that the teacher gave oral questions about the

writer’s story structure, the teacher trying to draw the parts of the story on the board for the

35

students to have another visual image about the story and that will help them organize their

own story in their heads. Of course, the story illustrations made the story more interesting and

easy to remember. The first sessions, the teacher’s assistance was required because of the new

method and breaks the routine through multiple examples. After that, learners were expected

to draw the parts of the story depending on their own understanding of the teacher’s

illustrations and modelling.

2.4.2.2. Control Group Instruction

The control group learners were taught with the old way of teaching used by their

instructors; therefore, they accomplished the tasks given to them individually. Then with the

help of the teacher, the task will be solved.

2.4.3. Post-Testing

The treatment period finished with the post-test. The later was of treatment after 4 sessions

to ensure that learners will not remember their answers in the pre-test.

The post-test contained the same tasks as the pre-test to indicate whether learners have

learned new vocabulary items used by the author and to see also if they grasped the way of

story-telling in through the use of mentor texts, or whether their texts did not have much

effect on learners progress progress in the EFL classroom. Therefore, the results of both

groups on the (pre-test and post-test) were compared and analysed in the section related to

findings. This was meant to accept or reject the two hypothesis stated.

2.5. Instruments

2.5.1. Test Used in Pre-testing and Post-testing

The pre-test and post-test was in a form of instructions simply given to pupils, the

Writing workshop session, learners were asked to write a small story just like the one the

teacher was reading aloud, the mentor text that was read was a story of the pigeon written by

Patrick suskind.

36

2.6. Scoring

The test was scored out of 20 points. Ten points were distributed on grammar, accuracy,

word choice, vocabulary, structure, and style. The first thing that received the major amount

of points is the pupil’s personal efforts. The sheet of paper represented two parts, one part was

reserved to drawing and the second part represented the written part of the story that was

scored on ten points.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

To confirm one of the hypothesis, and depending on the research question. The first

Test used to confirm whether mentor texts had an effect on learner’s writing achievements

was the T-test, after receiving the treatment of course. Through the calculation of both pre-test

and post- test of the Experimental group, the results showed a significant improvement. In

order to compare between results of the post test for the experimental and the control group

After the treatment period.

2.8 Results

The following section deals with the statistical analysis of the results of in the pre-test and the

post-test. 2.8.1.1 Results of the Control Group pre-test and post-test

Control Group Mean N Std. Std.Error

Deviation Mean

Pair 1

pretest 4.4000 20 1.69830 .37975

posttest 6.2000 20 1.60918 .35982

37

Paired Samples Test of The Control Group

Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-

Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence tailed)

Deviation Error Interval of the Mean Difference

Lower Upper Pair pretest - -

1.10501 .24709 -2.31716 -1.28284 -

19 .000 1 posttest 1.80000 7.285

2.8.1.2 Results of the Experimental Group pre-test and post-test Experimental Group

Mean N Std. Std.Error

Deviation Mean

Pair 1

pretest 5.7500 20 1.80278 .40311

posttest 10.5500 20 1.95946 .43815

Paired Samples Test of The Experimental Group Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-

Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence tailed)

Deviation Error Interval of the Mean Difference

Lower Upper Pair pretest - -

1.57614 .35244 -5.53766 -4.06234 -

19 .000 1 posttest 4.80000 13.620

38

2.8.1.3 Results of Experimental Group and Control Group pre-tests

Group Statistics N Mean Std. Std.Error

Deviation Mean

pretest of 20 4.4000 1.69830 .37975 control group

pretests pretest of experimental 20 5.7500 1.80278 .40311 group

Independent Samples Test

Levene's t-test for Equality of Means

Test for Equality of Variances

F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of

(2- Difference Difference the Difference

tailed) Lower Upper

Equal -

-

variances .420 .521 38 .020 -1.35000 .55381 -.22886

assumed 2.438 2.47114

pretests Equal variances -

37.865 .020 -1.35000 .55381 -

-.22873 not 2.438 2.47127 assumed

The results of the control and Experimental group post-tests

39

Independent Samples Test

Levene's t-test for Equality of Means Test for Equality of Variances

F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence

(2- Difference Difference Interval of the

tailed) Difference

Lower Upper

Equal -

variances .463 .500 38 .000 -4.35000 .56696 -5.49776 -3.20224

assumed 7.672

posttests Equal variances -

36.616 .000 -4.35000 .56696 -5.49918 -3.20082not 7.672 assumed

Table 1: The Experimental and Control Groups’ Frequency of Scores on the Task

scores C pré-test C post- E pré- E post- test test test

1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 4 0 2 0 4 3 1 5 0 5 5 7 2 1 6 3 7 2 0 7 1 1 6 0 8 1 1 2 0 9 0 2 1 4 10 0 1 0 5 11 0 0 0 4 12 0 0 0 3 13 0 0 0 2 14 0 0 0 1 15 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 N 20 20 20 20

40

2.8.1.1. Control Group Vs Experimental Group Scores on the Pre-test

Table 1 exhibits the results of both groups performance in the task (writing workshop using

mentor texts) before and after the application of the treatment. In the pre-test, the calculated

mean of the control group was e= 4.4000, and for the experimental group it was e= 5.7500.

For a total number of 20 scores in the control group and 20 scores in the experimental group,

we have:

Control group: 20 ≥ 8 100% ≥ 8

Experimental group: 20 ≥ 9 100% ≥ 9

2.8.1.2 Control Group Vs Experimental Group Scores in the Pre-test

Frequency Polygon (figure2): control group and experimental group’s scores (Pre-

test)

45

40

35

30

25 E pré-test

20 C pré-test

15

10

5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 N

From frequency polygon 1, it could be noted that the control group’s scores polygon starts at

1 (the lowest score) and ends at 9(the highest score) .On the other hand, the experimental

group’s scores polygon begins at 3(the lowest score) and ends at 9(the highest score).

Comparing the most frequent scores of both groups, the control group most frequent score is 5

while the experimental group most frequent score is 7 (Figure 1).

41

2.8.1.3 Experimental Group Vs Control Group in the (Post-test)

Figure 3: Frequency of Control and Experimental Group’s Scores (post-test)

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

E post-test

C post-test

From frequency polygon 4, it could be noted that the control group’s frequency polygon

starts at 4 (the lowest score) and ends at 10 (the biggest score). On the other hand, the

experimental group’s frequency polygon begins at 5 (the lowest score) and ends at 14(the

biggest score). with. Comparing the most frequent scores of both groups, the control group

most frequent score is 6 and 5 those of the experimental group are 10.11 and 9. (See figure2).

42

Experimental Group Pre-test Vs Experimental Group Post –test

Table 1: Experimental group’s pre-test, post-test, and difference scores on the test

Individual E pre-test E post-test différence students 1 6 12 6

2 7 10 3

3 7 13 6

4 7 12 5

5 6 11 5

6 4 11 7

7 8 11 3

8 7 14 7

9 4 10 6

10 9 13 4

11 7 12 5

12 7 11 4

13 4 9 5

14 3 9 6

15 3 9 6

16 8 10 2

17 4 9 5

18 5 10 5

19 5 10 5

20 4 5 1

43

Figure 3: Experimental group’s pre-test, post-test scores

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 N

E post-test

E pré-test

From table 1 and figure 3 we can notice that the experimental group’s scores improved

significantly between pre- and post-test. All post-test scores are above the average whereas

nearly all pre-test scores are below the average.

Conclusion

The writing skill is considered as important and not detachable from the language

learning process. To master this skill of new methods have been put into practise to see

whether there has been a sort of improvement in this field of research or not. Starting from

middle school pupils, mentor texts were suggested to bring effective results. Thus, Literacy

texts were chosen especially for the purpose of mentoring learners in writing workshops. and

were a positive presence in the classroom. It was proved after the treatment period that mentor

texts improved learner’s writing achievements.

General Discussion

1) The non-significant improvement of the control group was due

to: Luck of guidance No experience of the story telling task 2) Significant improvement of the experimental group was because of:

44

The reading aloud method that helps with listening attentively

[The high level of concentration during the story telling

The Modeling and sharing of the story parts as group with the guidance of the teacher the

mentor text taught them the structure and style of how to write like writers

The pigeon story of Susskind chosen purposefully for teaching the story telling

45

General conclusion

The debate over improving middle school learners of EFL in middle schools hasn’t been

settled yet. On the one hand there are researchers who support the idea of using mentor texts

in their writing workshops and they recognized many significant potential in their writing it

and on the other hand, there are those who believe that using mentor texts it is not effective as

a teaching technique. Results of the present study indicate that the use of mentor texts in EFL

classes affect positively learners writing skills. In the other hand, the alternative hypotheses

which states that using mentor texts had a significant effect on learners writing achievement

was confirmed.

Limitations of the Study

While there were problems with this study, its design worked fairly well, for the most part.

However, Because of the circumstances in which it was carried out, it was not possible to

design the experiment exactly as it was planed. For example, it would be better if the

experiment was conducted in the secondary school. Time constraints too were among the

serious difficulties we faced because it would have been better if we could had a

The period of treatment was longer.

Suggestions for Further Research

After examining the results of the study, some suggestion can be stated as follow:

It would be amazing and of a great importance if this method is to be applied in high school

Thus, further researches can depend on conducting experiment in secondary or high schools to

bring about better results. Moreover, the college teachers can start using mentor books to

teach subjects related to numerous fields of study. In addition, it would be so useful to use

mentor texts in professional areas of learning professional maybe, to help more in modelling

and teaching professional subjects.

46

Appendix B: Treatment Period Instruction

Topic: write a paragraph in which you will tell a story like the story of the pigeon and draw al

the parts of the story.

Appendix A: write a short story .

References

Adler, E. M., & Schwartz, P. J. (2006). Teaching resources. The Sherlock Holmes lab: investigations in neurophysiology. Sci.STKE., 2006(334), tr6. https://doi.org/10.1126/stke.3342006tr6

Allen, T. (2007). Mentoring Relationships from the perspective of the Mentor. The

Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Theory, Research, …, 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1997.1596

Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (2008). Mentor commitment in formal mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(3), 309–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.10.016

Anderson, D. R. (2005). The Importance of Mentoring Programs to Women’s Career Advancement in Biotechnology. Journal of Career Development, 32(1), 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845305277039

Anderson, G. (2004). How to write a paper in scientific journal style and format. Copyright Bates College, 1–17. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:How+to+Write+a+Paper+in+Scientific+Journal+Style+and+Format#3

Anderson, L., Silet, K., & Fleming, M. (2012). Evaluating and Giving Feedback to Mentors: New Evidence-Based Approaches. Clinical and Translational Science, 5(1), 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00361.x

Anderson, N. D. (2001). Gnosticism and Later Platonism: Themes, Figures, and Texts (review). Journal of Early Christian Studies, 9(4), 600–601. https://doi.org/10.1353/earl.2001.0051

Applebee, A. N. (2000). Alternative Models of Writing Development. In Perspectives on

writing: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 90–110).

Applebee, A. N. (1977). A sense of story. Theory Into Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405847709542723

Attokaran, M. (2011). Parsley. In Natural Food Flavors and Colorants (pp. 333–335). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470959152.ch83

Avery, R. J. (2011). The potential contribution of mentor programs to relational permanency for youth aging out of foster care. Child Welfare, 90(3), 9–26.

B, P. (2004). Becoming a good mentor. Nursing Standard, 19(13), 2p–2p. Retrieved from http://zh8wk8vq8w.search.serialssolutions.com/?genre=article&issn=00296570&title=Becoming a good mentor.&volume=19&issue=13&date=20041208&atitle=Becoming a good mentor.&spage=2p&pages=&sid=EBSCO:CINAHL Plus with Full Text&au=Price B

Bailey, J. E. (2010). Virtual Mentor. Ethics, 12(7), 197–201. https://doi.org/10.1001/virtualmentor.2010.12.8.medu1-1008

Bennetts, C. (2002). Traditional mentor relationships, intimacy and emotional intelligence. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390110111893

Bradbury, L. U. (2010). Educative mentoring: Promoting reform-based science teaching through mentoring relationships. Science Education, 94(6), 1049–1071. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20393

Brown & Levinson, S. (2011). Politeness ( Brown and Levinson 1987 ). Reading, 1–2.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Studies

in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4, 55–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587263

Bullough, R. V. (2005). Being and becoming a mentor: School-based teacher educators and teacher educator identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.12.002

Caldas-Coulthard, C. R., & Coulthard, M. (1996). Texts and Practices. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.2307/3737104

Caldeira, S. M. G., Petit Lobão, T. C., Andrade, R. F. S., Neme, A., & Miranda, J. G. V. (2006). The network of concepts in written texts. European Physical Journal B, 49(4), 523–529. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2006-00091-3

Campbell, J. (2012). Hoyt memorial lecture - Stop pouring, start casting. International

Journal of Metalcasting, 6(3), 7–18.

Christy, T. C. (2013). Vygotsky , Cognitive Development and Language. Historiographia

Linguistica, 40((1/2)), 199–227. https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.40.1.07chr

Davydov, V. V, & Kerr, S. T. (1995). Vygotsky on Education. Educational Researcher, 24(3), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01378_6.x

Escobar Alméciga, W. Y., & Evans, R. (2014). Mentor texts and the coding of academic writing structures: A functional approach. HOW, A Colombian Journal for Teachers

of English, 21(2), 94–111. Retrieved from http://howjournalcolombia.org/index.php/how/article/view/6%5Cnhttps://www.academia.edu/8769480/Mentor_Texts_and_the_Coding_of_Academic_Writing_Structures_A_Functional_Approach

Everson, B. (1991). Vygotsky and the Teaching of Writing. The Quarterly.

Feiman-nemser, S. (2003). What New Teachers Need to Learn. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 25–29.

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Parker, M. B. (1993). Mentoring in context: A comparison of two U.S. programs for beginning teachers. International Journal of Educational

Research, 19(8), 699–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(93)90010-H

Fletcher, S. (1997). “From Mentor to Mentored.” Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in

Learning, 5(1), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/0968465970050105

Fletcher, S. (2012). Mentor education: challenging mentor’ beliefs about mentoring. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 1(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1108/20466851211231585

Fletcher, S., Strong, M., & Villar, A. (2008). An Investigation of the Effects of Variations in Mentor-Based Induction on the Performance of Students in California. Teachers

College Record, 110(10), 2271–2289. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1926.0099

Gainer, J. (2013). 21st-century mentor texts: Developing critical literacies in the information age. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.210

Gallagher, K. (2014). Making the Most of Mentor Texts. Educational Leadership, 71(7), 28–33. Retrieved from http://proxy.geneseo.edu:2094/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=2d46c57b-e371-4d95-aedb-b445768d86ae%40sessionmgr4006&hid=4203&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=EJ1043767&db=eric%5Cnhttp://proxy.geneseo.edu:2094/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=2d46c57b

Gay, B. (1994). What is mentoring? Education & Training, 36(5), 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400919410062257

Gay, G. (1995). Modeling and mentoring in urban teacher preparation. Education and

Urban Society, 28, 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124595028001008

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher

Education, 53(2), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053002003

Gay, G. (2013). Teaching To and Through Cultural Diversity. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/curi.12002

Gay, T. (1970). Effects of filtering and vowel environment on consonant perception. The

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 48(4), 993–8. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5480393

Gewin, V. (2005). Learning to mentor. Nature, 436(7049), 436–437. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7049-436a

Gopen, G., & Swan, J. (1990). The science of scientific writing. American Scientist, 78, 550–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-77415-2

Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). Assessing Writing: Introduction. Assessing Writing, 8(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1075-2935(02)00030-2

Hoel, T., & Hollins, P. (2008). Learning technology standards adoption - how to improve process and product legitimacy. In Proceedings - The 8th IEEE International

Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2008 (pp. 587–589). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2008.14

Holley, K. A., & Colyar, J. (2009). Rethinking Texts: Narrative and the Construction of Qualitative Research. Educational Researcher, 38(9), 680–686. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09351979

Hollins, E. R. (2011). Teacher Preparation For Quality Teaching. Journal of Teacher

Education, 62(4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487111409415

Hollins, E. R. (2015). Culture in School Learning: Revealing the Deep Meaning: Third

Edition. Culture in School Learning: Revealing the Deep Meaning: Third Edition. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315813615

Hollins, E. R. (1993). Assessing Teacher Competence for Diverse Populations. Theory

Into Practice, 32(2), 93. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849309543581

Hynd, C. R. (1999). Teaching Students to Think Critically Using Multiple Texts in History. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42(6), 428–436. https://doi.org/10.2307/40014056

Itzkovich, M., Tamir, A., Philo, O., Steinberg, F., Ronen, J., Spasser, R., … Catz, A. (2003). Reliability of the Catz-Itzkovich Spinal Cord Independence Measure assessment by interview and comparison with observation. American Journal of

Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation / Association of Academic Physiatrists, 82(4), 267–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PHM.0000057226.22271.44

Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2001). “Just plain reading” : A survey of what makes students want to read in middle school classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4), 350–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21593

Jaspers, W. M., Meijer, P. C., Prins, F., & Wubbels, T. (2014). Mentor teachers: Their perceived possibilities and challenges as mentor and teacher. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 44, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.08.005

Johnson, W. B. (2007). Transformational supervision: When supervisors mentor. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(3), 259–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.38.3.259

Koppel, M. (2002). Automatically Categorizing Written Texts by Author Gender. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 17(4), 401–412. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/17.4.401

Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the Mentor Relationship. Academy of Management

Journal, 26(4), 608–625. https://doi.org/10.2307/255910

Lavelle, E., Smith, J., & O’Ryan, L. (2002). The writing approaches of secondary students. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(Pt 3), 399–418. https://doi.org/Doi 10.1348/000709902320634564

Lee, I. (2007). Feedback in Hong Kong secondary writing classrooms: Assessment for learning or assessment of learning? Assessing Writing, 12(3), 180–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2008.02.003

Lee, I. (2010). Writing teacher education and teacher learning: Testimonies of four EFL teachers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(3), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.05.001

Lee, J. (2013). Can Writing Attitudes and Learning Behavior Overcome Gender Difference in Writing? Evidence From NAEP. Written Communication, 30(2), 164–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313480313

Leibniz, G. W., Franks, R., & Woolhouse, R. S. (1998). Philosophical Texts. Oxford

Philosophical Texts.

Lewis, L. L., Kim, Y. A., & Ashby Bey, J. (2011). Teaching practices and strategies to involve inner-city parents at home and in the school. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 27(1), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.005

Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: methods and methodologies. The

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(Pt 1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709909X479853

Mertz, N. T. (2004). What’s a Mentor, Anyway? Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 541–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X04267110

Morgan, B., & Smith, R. D. (2008). A Wiki for Classroom Writing. The Reading

Teacher, 62(1), 80–82. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.62.1.10

Mulcahy, M., Dalton, S., Kolbert, J., & Crothers, L. (2016). Informal mentoring for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students. The Journal of Educational

Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.979907

Nelson, B., Christensen, L. M., Lan, J. A., Anderson, J., & Sheridan, K. (2004). Transforming the Topography of Teaching with Technology: A PT3 Holmes Partnership Project. Journal of Interactive Online Learning. Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/2.4.1.pdf

Newman, B. M. (2012). Mentor texts and funds of knowledge: Situating writing within our students’ worlds. Voices from the Middle, 20(1), 25–30.

Nokes, J. D., Dole, J. a., & Hacker, D. J. (2007). Teaching high school students to use heuristics while reading historical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 492–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.492

Nolen, S. B. (1995). Effects of a Visible Author in Statistical Texts. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 87(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.87.1.47

Norman, P. J., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2005). Mind activity in teaching and mentoring. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(6), 679–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.05.006

O’Brien, M. J., & Meehan, W. P. I. (2014). Virtual Mentor. American Medical

Association Journal of Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1001/virtualmentor.2010.12.8.medu1-1008

Odell, S. J., & Schwille, S. a. (2008). Effects of Teacher Induction on Beginning Teachers’ Teaching: A Critical Review of the Literature. Journal of Teacher

Education, 59, 132–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487107314002

Pawson, R. (2003). Nothing as practical as (a) good theory. Evaluation, 9(4), 471–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305276176

Pytash, K. E., & Morgan, D. N. (2014). Using mentor texts to teach writing in science and social studies. Reading Teacher, 68(2), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1276

Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 1177–1194. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556344

Ragins, B. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1990). Perceptions of mentor roles in cross-gender mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37(3), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(90)90048-7

Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1994). Gender Differences in Expected Outcomes of Mentoring Relationships. The Academy of Management Journal Academy of

Management Journal, 37(4), 957–971. https://doi.org/10.2307/256606

Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1994). GENDER AND THE TERMINATION OF MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS. In Academy of Management Best Papers

Proceedings (Vol. 82, pp. 361–365). https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.1994.10345888

Reckelhoff, J. F. (2008). How to choose a mentor. The Physiologist, 51(4), 152–154.

Rosen-Zvi, M., Griffiths, T., Steyvers, M., & Smyth, P. (2004). The author-topic model for authors and documents. Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Uncertainty in

Artificial Intelligence, 487–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2010.11.062

Rowley, J. B. (1999). The good mentor. Educational Leadership 56(8), 56(May), 20–22. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/818448211?accountid=10344

Scandura, T. A., & Ragins, B. R. (1993). The effects of sex and gender role orientation on mentorship in male-dominated occupations. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 43(March 2016), 251–265. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1993.1046

Scandura, T. A., & Ragins, B. R. (1993). The effects of sex and gender role orientation on mentorship in male-dominated occupations. Journal of Vocational Behaviour. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1993.1046

Scandura, T. A., & Ragins, B. R. (1993). The Effects of Sex and Gender Role Orientation on Mentorship in Male-Dominated Occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43(3), 251–265. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1993.1046

Scheerer, E. W. (2002). The benefits of mentoring. Hawaii Dental Journal, 37(1), 8–9, 11. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.36719956607

Serafini, F. (2012). Reading multimodal texts in the 21st Century. Research in the

Schools, 19(1), 26–32. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506200710779521

Shing, S. (2012). Politeness in mentor-mentee talk. International Journal of Human

Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.j-humansciences.com/ojs/index.php/IJHS/article/view/2332

Smith, G. (2013). Dream Writing: A new creative writing technique for secondary schools? English in Education, 47(3), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/eie.12020

Smith, R. (1998). The big picture: Writing psychology into the history of the human sciences. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 34(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6696(199824)34:1<1::AID-JHBS1>3.0.CO;2-X

Smith, S. (2003). The Role of Technical Expertise in Engineering and Writing Teachers’ Evaluations of Students’ Writing. Written Communication, 20(1), 37–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088303253570

van der Veer, Rene; Valsiner, V. (1994). The Vygotsky Reader. PsycCRITIQUES, 40(6), 1–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/003765

Vance, C. N. (1982). The Mentor Connection. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 12(4), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1986.4282688

Viator, R. E. (1999). An analysis of formal mentoring programs and perceived barriers to obtaining a mentor at large public accounting firms. Accounting Horizons, 13(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch.1999.13.1.37

Walker, D. F., Ahmed, S., Milevsky, A., Quagliana, H. L., & Bagasra, A. (2013). Sacred texts. In Spiritual interventions in child and adolescent psychotherapy. BT -

Spiritual interventions in child and adolescent psychotherapy. (pp. 155–180). https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/13947-008

Wang, J., Odell, S. J., & Schwille, S. A. (2008). Effects of Teacher Induction on Beginning Teachers’ Teaching: A Critical Review of the Literature. Journal of

Teacher Education, 59(2), 132–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487107314002

Weinberg, F. J., & Lankau, M. J. (2010). Formal Mentoring Programs: A Mentor-Centric and Longitudinal Analysis. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1527–1557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309349310

Zwiers, F. W., & Hegerl, G. (2008). Attributing cause and effect. Nature, 453, 296–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-010-0632-1

Zwiers, J. (2008). Academic Classroom Discussions. In Building Academic Language:

Essential Practices for Content Classrooms, Grades 5-12. (pp. 101–133).

Adler, E. M., & Schwartz, P. J. (2006). Teaching resources. The Sherlock Holmes lab: investigations in neurophysiology. Sci.STKE., 2006(334), tr6. https://doi.org/10.1126/stke.3342006tr6

Allen, T. (2007). Mentoring Relationships from the perspective of the Mentor. The

Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Theory, Research, …, 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1997.1596

Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (2008). Mentor commitment in formal mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(3), 309–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.10.016

Anderson, D. R. (2005). The Importance of Mentoring Programs to Women’s Career Advancement in Biotechnology. Journal of Career Development, 32(1), 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845305277039

Anderson, G. (2004). How to write a paper in scientific journal style and format. Copyright Bates College, 1–17. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:How+to+Write+a+Paper+in+Scientific+Journal+Style+and+Format#3

Anderson, L., Silet, K., & Fleming, M. (2012). Evaluating and Giving Feedback to Mentors: New Evidence-Based Approaches. Clinical and Translational Science, 5(1), 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00361.x

Anderson, N. D. (2001). Gnosticism and Later Platonism: Themes, Figures, and Texts (review). Journal of Early Christian Studies, 9(4), 600–601. https://doi.org/10.1353/earl.2001.0051

Applebee, A. N. (2000). Alternative Models of Writing Development. In Perspectives on

writing: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 90–110).

Applebee, A. N. (1977). A sense of story. Theory Into Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405847709542723

Attokaran, M. (2011). Parsley. In Natural Food Flavors and Colorants (pp. 333–335). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470959152.ch83

Avery, R. J. (2011). The potential contribution of mentor programs to relational permanency for youth aging out of foster care. Child Welfare, 90(3), 9–26.

B, P. (2004). Becoming a good mentor. Nursing Standard, 19(13), 2p–2p. Retrieved from http://zh8wk8vq8w.search.serialssolutions.com/?genre=article&issn=00296570&title=Becoming a good mentor.&volume=19&issue=13&date=20041208&atitle=Becoming a good mentor.&spage=2p&pages=&sid=EBSCO:CINAHL Plus with Full Text&au=Price B

Bailey, J. E. (2010). Virtual Mentor. Ethics, 12(7), 197–201. https://doi.org/10.1001/virtualmentor.2010.12.8.medu1-1008

Bennetts, C. (2002). Traditional mentor relationships, intimacy and emotional intelligence. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390110111893

Bradbury, L. U. (2010). Educative mentoring: Promoting reform-based science teaching through mentoring relationships. Science Education, 94(6), 1049–1071. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20393

Brown & Levinson, S. (2011). Politeness ( Brown and Levinson 1987 ). Reading, 1–2.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Studies

in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4, 55–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587263

Bullough, R. V. (2005). Being and becoming a mentor: School-based teacher educators and teacher educator identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.12.002

Caldas-Coulthard, C. R., & Coulthard, M. (1996). Texts and Practices. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.2307/3737104

Caldeira, S. M. G., Petit Lobão, T. C., Andrade, R. F. S., Neme, A., & Miranda, J. G. V. (2006). The network of concepts in written texts. European Physical Journal B, 49(4), 523–529. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2006-00091-3

Campbell, J. (2012). Hoyt memorial lecture - Stop pouring, start casting. International

Journal of Metalcasting, 6(3), 7–18.

Christy, T. C. (2013). Vygotsky , Cognitive Development and Language. Historiographia

Linguistica, 40((1/2)), 199–227. https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.40.1.07chr

Davydov, V. V, & Kerr, S. T. (1995). Vygotsky on Education. Educational Researcher, 24(3), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01378_6.x

Escobar Alméciga, W. Y., & Evans, R. (2014). Mentor texts and the coding of academic writing structures: A functional approach. HOW, A Colombian Journal for Teachers

of English, 21(2), 94–111. Retrieved from http://howjournalcolombia.org/index.php/how/article/view/6%5Cnhttps://www.academia.edu/8769480/Mentor_Texts_and_the_Coding_of_Academic_Writing_Structures_A_Functional_Approach

Everson, B. (1991). Vygotsky and the Teaching of Writing. The Quarterly.

Feiman-nemser, S. (2003). What New Teachers Need to Learn. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 25–29.

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Parker, M. B. (1993). Mentoring in context: A comparison of two U.S. programs for beginning teachers. International Journal of Educational

Research, 19(8), 699–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(93)90010-H

Fletcher, S. (1997). “From Mentor to Mentored.” Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in

Learning, 5(1), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/0968465970050105

Fletcher, S. (2012). Mentor education: challenging mentor’ beliefs about mentoring. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 1(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1108/20466851211231585

Fletcher, S., Strong, M., & Villar, A. (2008). An Investigation of the Effects of Variations in Mentor-Based Induction on the Performance of Students in California. Teachers

College Record, 110(10), 2271–2289. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1926.0099

Gainer, J. (2013). 21st-century mentor texts: Developing critical literacies in the information age. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.210

Gallagher, K. (2014). Making the Most of Mentor Texts. Educational Leadership, 71(7), 28–33. Retrieved from http://proxy.geneseo.edu:2094/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=2d46c57b-e371-4d95-aedb-b445768d86ae%40sessionmgr4006&hid=4203&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=EJ1043767&db=eric%5Cnhttp://proxy.geneseo.edu:2094/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=2d46c57b

Gay, B. (1994). What is mentoring? Education & Training, 36(5), 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400919410062257

Gay, G. (1995). Modeling and mentoring in urban teacher preparation. Education and

Urban Society, 28, 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124595028001008

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher

Education, 53(2), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053002003

Gay, G. (2013). Teaching To and Through Cultural Diversity. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/curi.12002

Gay, T. (1970). Effects of filtering and vowel environment on consonant perception. The

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 48(4), 993–8. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5480393

Gewin, V. (2005). Learning to mentor. Nature, 436(7049), 436–437. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7049-436a

Gopen, G., & Swan, J. (1990). The science of scientific writing. American Scientist, 78, 550–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-77415-2

Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). Assessing Writing: Introduction. Assessing Writing, 8(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1075-2935(02)00030-2

Hoel, T., & Hollins, P. (2008). Learning technology standards adoption - how to improve process and product legitimacy. In Proceedings - The 8th IEEE International

Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2008 (pp. 587–589). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2008.14

Holley, K. A., & Colyar, J. (2009). Rethinking Texts: Narrative and the Construction of Qualitative Research. Educational Researcher, 38(9), 680–686. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09351979

Hollins, E. R. (2011). Teacher Preparation For Quality Teaching. Journal of Teacher

Education, 62(4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487111409415

Hollins, E. R. (2015). Culture in School Learning: Revealing the Deep Meaning: Third

Edition. Culture in School Learning: Revealing the Deep Meaning: Third Edition. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315813615

Hollins, E. R. (1993). Assessing Teacher Competence for Diverse Populations. Theory

Into Practice, 32(2), 93. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849309543581

Hynd, C. R. (1999). Teaching Students to Think Critically Using Multiple Texts in History. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42(6), 428–436. https://doi.org/10.2307/40014056

Itzkovich, M., Tamir, A., Philo, O., Steinberg, F., Ronen, J., Spasser, R., … Catz, A. (2003). Reliability of the Catz-Itzkovich Spinal Cord Independence Measure assessment by interview and comparison with observation. American Journal of

Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation / Association of Academic Physiatrists, 82(4), 267–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PHM.0000057226.22271.44

Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2001). “Just plain reading” : A survey of what makes students want to read in middle school classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4), 350–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21593

Jaspers, W. M., Meijer, P. C., Prins, F., & Wubbels, T. (2014). Mentor teachers: Their perceived possibilities and challenges as mentor and teacher. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 44, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.08.005

Johnson, W. B. (2007). Transformational supervision: When supervisors mentor. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(3), 259–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.38.3.259

Koppel, M. (2002). Automatically Categorizing Written Texts by Author Gender. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 17(4), 401–412. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/17.4.401

Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the Mentor Relationship. Academy of Management

Journal, 26(4), 608–625. https://doi.org/10.2307/255910

Lavelle, E., Smith, J., & O’Ryan, L. (2002). The writing approaches of secondary students. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(Pt 3), 399–418. https://doi.org/Doi 10.1348/000709902320634564

Lee, I. (2007). Feedback in Hong Kong secondary writing classrooms: Assessment for learning or assessment of learning? Assessing Writing, 12(3), 180–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2008.02.003

Lee, I. (2010). Writing teacher education and teacher learning: Testimonies of four EFL teachers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(3), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.05.001

Lee, J. (2013). Can Writing Attitudes and Learning Behavior Overcome Gender Difference in Writing? Evidence From NAEP. Written Communication, 30(2), 164–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313480313

Leibniz, G. W., Franks, R., & Woolhouse, R. S. (1998). Philosophical Texts. Oxford

Philosophical Texts.

Lewis, L. L., Kim, Y. A., & Ashby Bey, J. (2011). Teaching practices and strategies to involve inner-city parents at home and in the school. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 27(1), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.005

Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: methods and methodologies. The

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(Pt 1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709909X479853

Mertz, N. T. (2004). What’s a Mentor, Anyway? Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 541–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X04267110

Morgan, B., & Smith, R. D. (2008). A Wiki for Classroom Writing. The Reading

Teacher, 62(1), 80–82. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.62.1.10

Mulcahy, M., Dalton, S., Kolbert, J., & Crothers, L. (2016). Informal mentoring for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students. The Journal of Educational

Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.979907

Nelson, B., Christensen, L. M., Lan, J. A., Anderson, J., & Sheridan, K. (2004). Transforming the Topography of Teaching with Technology: A PT3 Holmes

Partnership Project. Journal of Interactive Online Learning. Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/2.4.1.pdf

Newman, B. M. (2012). Mentor texts and funds of knowledge: Situating writing within our students’ worlds. Voices from the Middle, 20(1), 25–30.

Nokes, J. D., Dole, J. a., & Hacker, D. J. (2007). Teaching high school students to use heuristics while reading historical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 492–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.492

Nolen, S. B. (1995). Effects of a Visible Author in Statistical Texts. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 87(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.87.1.47

Norman, P. J., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2005). Mind activity in teaching and mentoring. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(6), 679–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.05.006

O’Brien, M. J., & Meehan, W. P. I. (2014). Virtual Mentor. American Medical

Association Journal of Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1001/virtualmentor.2010.12.8.medu1-1008

Odell, S. J., & Schwille, S. a. (2008). Effects of Teacher Induction on Beginning Teachers’ Teaching: A Critical Review of the Literature. Journal of Teacher

Education, 59, 132–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487107314002

Pawson, R. (2003). Nothing as practical as (a) good theory. Evaluation, 9(4), 471–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305276176

Pytash, K. E., & Morgan, D. N. (2014). Using mentor texts to teach writing in science and social studies. Reading Teacher, 68(2), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1276

Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 1177–1194. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556344

Ragins, B. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1990). Perceptions of mentor roles in cross-gender mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37(3), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(90)90048-7

Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1994). Gender Differences in Expected Outcomes of Mentoring Relationships. The Academy of Management Journal Academy of

Management Journal, 37(4), 957–971. https://doi.org/10.2307/256606

Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1994). GENDER AND THE TERMINATION OF MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS. In Academy of Management Best Papers

Proceedings (Vol. 82, pp. 361–365). https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.1994.10345888

Reckelhoff, J. F. (2008). How to choose a mentor. The Physiologist, 51(4), 152–154.

Rosen-Zvi, M., Griffiths, T., Steyvers, M., & Smyth, P. (2004). The author-topic model for authors and documents. Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Uncertainty in

Artificial Intelligence, 487–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2010.11.062

Rowley, J. B. (1999). The good mentor. Educational Leadership 56(8), 56(May), 20–22. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/818448211?accountid=10344

Scandura, T. A., & Ragins, B. R. (1993). The effects of sex and gender role orientation on mentorship in male-dominated occupations. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 43(March 2016), 251–265. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1993.1046

Scandura, T. A., & Ragins, B. R. (1993). The effects of sex and gender role orientation on mentorship in male-dominated occupations. Journal of Vocational Behaviour. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1993.1046

Scandura, T. A., & Ragins, B. R. (1993). The Effects of Sex and Gender Role Orientation on Mentorship in Male-Dominated Occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43(3), 251–265. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1993.1046

Scheerer, E. W. (2002). The benefits of mentoring. Hawaii Dental Journal, 37(1), 8–9, 11. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.36719956607

Serafini, F. (2012). Reading multimodal texts in the 21st Century. Research in the

Schools, 19(1), 26–32. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506200710779521

Shing, S. (2012). Politeness in mentor-mentee talk. International Journal of Human

Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.j-humansciences.com/ojs/index.php/IJHS/article/view/2332

Smith, G. (2013). Dream Writing: A new creative writing technique for secondary schools? English in Education, 47(3), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/eie.12020

Smith, R. (1998). The big picture: Writing psychology into the history of the human sciences. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 34(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6696(199824)34:1<1::AID-JHBS1>3.0.CO;2-X

Smith, S. (2003). The Role of Technical Expertise in Engineering and Writing Teachers’ Evaluations of Students’ Writing. Written Communication, 20(1), 37–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088303253570

van der Veer, Rene; Valsiner, V. (1994). The Vygotsky Reader. PsycCRITIQUES, 40(6), 1–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/003765

Vance, C. N. (1982). The Mentor Connection. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 12(4), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1986.4282688

Viator, R. E. (1999). An analysis of formal mentoring programs and perceived barriers to obtaining a mentor at large public accounting firms. Accounting Horizons, 13(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch.1999.13.1.37

Walker, D. F., Ahmed, S., Milevsky, A., Quagliana, H. L., & Bagasra, A. (2013). Sacred texts. In Spiritual interventions in child and adolescent psychotherapy. BT -

Spiritual interventions in child and adolescent psychotherapy. (pp. 155–180). https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/13947-008

Wang, J., Odell, S. J., & Schwille, S. A. (2008). Effects of Teacher Induction on Beginning Teachers’ Teaching: A Critical Review of the Literature. Journal of

Teacher Education, 59(2), 132–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487107314002

Weinberg, F. J., & Lankau, M. J. (2010). Formal Mentoring Programs: A Mentor-Centric and Longitudinal Analysis. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1527–1557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309349310

Zwiers, F. W., & Hegerl, G. (2008). Attributing cause and effect. Nature, 453, 296–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-010-0632-1

Zwiers, J. (2008). Academic Classroom Discussions. In Building Academic Language:

Essential Practices for Content Classrooms, Grades 5-12. (pp. 101–133).

47

List of Appendices Appendix A: The Pre-test and the Post-test Appendix B: The Treatment Given to the Experimental Group

Resumé

Avec le développement récent de l'enseignement des langues, les recherches en méthodologie

linguistique sont devenues importantes dans l'enseignement et l'apprentissage des langues

étrangères. Par conséquent, les enseignants de l'anglais en tant que langue étrangère ont pris la

responsabilité d'élaborer des stratégies efficaces pour encourager les apprenants à développer

leurs compétences en écriture dans la langue cible. La présente recherche étudie l'effet des

textes de mentor sur les réalisations de l'écriture à travers une conception quasi expérimentale.

L'échantillon de cette étude est l'école secondaire de deuxième année à l'école secondaire

Abdelhamid Ibn Badis. L'échantillon a été divisé en deux groupes (groupes expérimental et

témoin) de 20 élèves sur 100 élèves. Les deux groupes ont été prétestés et ont subi les

périodes de traitement. Les élèves du groupe expérimental ont effectué la tâche avec la lecture

à haute voix du texte du mentor, tandis que ceux du groupe de contrôle ont travaillé

individuellement. À la fin du traitement, les deux groupes ont été post-testés. Pour ajouter

plus de validité aux résultats de l'étude, les tests t ont été administrés. Les résultats ont montré

que la méthode des textes de mentor était significativement efficace pour améliorer la réussite

de l'écriture des apprenants. Ainsi, l'hypothèse de cette étude a été confirmée.

Mots clés: textes de mentor, réalisation d'écriture

ملخص

لذلك، فإن المعلمين من اللغة . دريس اللغة، أصبحت األبحاث في منھجية اللغة بارزة في تعليم اللغة األجنبية والتعلمومع التطور الحديث في ت

يبحث ھذا . اإلنجليزية كلغة أجنبية أخذت مسؤولية وضع استراتيجيات فعالة لتشجيع المتعلمين على تطوير مھاراتھم في الكتابة باللغة المستھدفة

وتكونت عينة الدراسة من تالميذ المرحلة اإلعدادية الثانية . نصوص الموجه على اإلنجازات الكتابية من خالل تصميم شبه تجريبيالبحث في تأثير

. طالب 100طالبا من أصل 20من ( المجموعتين التجريبية والضابطة)تم تقسيم العينة إلى مجموعتين . في مدرسة عبد الحميد بن باديس المتوسطة

قام طالب المجموعة التجريبية بمھمة القراءة بصوت عال لنص الموجھة في حين أن . تم اختبار كلتا المجموعتين وذھبت خالل فترة العالج

نتائج وإلضافة المزيد من الصالحية إلى. في نھاية العالج تم اختبار المجموعتين بعد االختبار. المجموعة في المجموعة الضابطة عملت بشكل فردي

وھكذا، تم تأكيد . وأظھرت النتائج أن أسلوب النصح الموجه كان فعاال بشكل ملحوظ في تحسين تحصيل الطالب. الدراسية تم إجراء االختبارات

.فرضية ھذه الدراسة

النصوص معلمه، وتحقيق الكتابة :كلمات البحث