The purpose of this study is twofold: (a) to evaluate the effectiveness of training junior mentors in different mentoring styles on reading literacy in an immediate and delayed assessment; (b) to examine the effects of mentoring styles in reading literacy on transfer ability of mathematical literacy in an immediate and delayed assessment.

Participations were 205 tenth-grade students from ten Israeli high schools who participated in a mentoring program. Four mentoring styles were implemented based on the combination of two methods of metacognitive instruction: elaborated (MEI) vs. general instruction (MGI), and two techniques of teaching modeling: thinking aloud (TA) vs. transmission knowledge (TK). Three parallel versions of tests were administrated to assess reading and mathematical literacy: one at the beginning of the study, the second immediately after the end of the study, and the third at the end of the year (delayed test). The items focused on PISA's literacy theoretical framework (PISA, 2003).

Results indicated differential effects of mentoring styles on reading and transfer ability of mathematical literacy. The metacognitive elaborated instruction (MEI) was most effective on reading literacy, whereas the thinking aloud modeling technique (TA) was most effective on mathematical literacy. Students who were exposed to metacognitive elaborated instruction embedded with thinking aloud technique (MEI+TA) outperformed students of other learning styles on the immediate and delayed mathematical transfer assessment. The theoretical and practical aspects will be discussed at the conference.

Our study raises the question about the conditions which reading and mathematical literacy can be optimally enhanced in learning of junior students in a program that exposed them to different mentoring styles of reading literacy.

Most studies regarding mentoring effects on learning refer to mentoring in adult learning contexts (e.g., McDonald, 2001), whereas our study suggests implementing a mentoring program on metacognitive instruction embedded in teaching modeling techniques in high schools with junior students .

Metacognitive instruction invites students to bring their thinking to a conscious level. It could be provided as a general guide that introduces the importance of metacognitive thinking, versus an elaborated way that focuses on the needs of students’ explicit use of metacognitive strategies and explaining their thinking. However, research indicated that students need strategy support to make meaningful cognitive connections (e.g., Kramarski & Mevarech, 2003). In our study we embedded a think-aloud teaching modeling strategy with metacognitive instruction. This strategy enables teachers to verbally share with students the cognitive processes or thinking as they go through the learning process (Roehler & Duffy, 1991).

The purpose of this study is twofold: (a) to evaluate the effectiveness of training junior mentors in different mentoring styles on reading literacy in an immediate and delayed assessment; (b) to examine the effects of these training styles in reading literacy on transfer ability of mathematical literacy in an immediate and delayed assessment.

Method

Participants were 205 10^th-grade junior students from ten similar heterogeneous Israeli high schools that participated in a mentoring program. In each school one class was randomly selected to participate in the program. The students were randomly assigned to four mentoring styles MEI+TA; MEI+TK; MGI+TA, and MGI+TK. The conditions were based on the combination of two methods of metacognitive instruction: elaborated (MEI) vs. general instruction (MGI), and two techniques of teaching modeling: thinking aloud (TA) vs. transmission knowledge (TK).

Instructions

The mentoring program trained the students to mentor another 3-4 students from 9^th-grade classes at the same school. The mentoring was implemented in one lesson each week during the whole year. The training included three stages:

(1) Mentoring style instructions: During the summer vacation students were exposed to a 5 day extensive mentoring style instruction seminar. The MEI students were exposed to explicit prompt of self-questioning and elaborated explanations focused on comprehension, connection, strategic, and monitoring prompts (Kramarski & Mevarech 2003). The MGI students to general guidance regarding knowing and regulation processes (Flavell, 1989). TA students were exposed to explicit modeling and TK to traditional teaching. In addition, the mentors were exposed to workshops which focused on the importance of reading literacy.

(2) Annual meetings: During the year, junior mentors were exposed to a three day workshop, which focused on practicing ways of promoting reading literacy.

(3) Teaching guidance: Before each mentoring teaching lesson, the regular teacher of the class guided the mentors in the disciplinary content they should teach the pupils.

Measures

Three parallel versions of tests based on PISA's literacy theoretical framework were administrated to assess mentors reading and mathematical literacy: at the beginning of the program, immediately after the training program, and at the end of the year (delayed test). Reading literacy (six items) assessed skills regarding retrieving information, interpreting texts, and reflection and evaluation. Mathematical literacy (ten items) assessed skills regarding problem solving of functional relationships.

Results

Immediate assessment

Two way MANCOVA (metacognitive instruction* teaching modeling) with the pretest of reading and mathematical literacy scores used as a covariant indicated significant main effect for metacognitive instruction on reading and mathematical literacy. At the end of the study the MEI students outperformed the MGI students on reading literacy [(M=61.28; SD=4.35; M=57.32; SD=5.43; F(1,201)= 17.18, p<.00], and mathematical literacy (M=53.27; SD=4. 92; M=50.17; SD=4. 54; F(1,201)= 27.09, p<.00). A significant main effect for TA modeling on mathematical literacy was found. (M=54.56; SD=5. 36; M=48.88; SD=4. 09, F(1,201)= F(1,201)=69.13, p<.00), and also a significant interaction between metacognitive instruction and teaching modeling regarding mathematical literacy was found. MEI+TA students outperformed students in other learning conditions (F(1,201)=7.54 , p<0.007; M=56.91; SD=5. 31;M=52.21; SD=5. 41; M=49.63; SD=4.53; M=48.13; SD=3.66 for MEI+TA; MGI+TA; MEI+TK; MGI+TK).

Delayed assessment

At the end of the year significant main effects of metacognitive instruction and teaching modeling on reading literacy were found [F(1,201)=8.54, p<0.005]. The MEI students outperformed the MGI students (M=67.29; SD=4.9; M=57.32; SD=5.43), and the TA students outperformed the TK students (M=66.15; SD=5.4; M=63.26; SD=4.8) on reading literacy.

In addition, a significant interaction was found. The MEI+TA students outperformed students in other learning conditions (F(1,201)=8.54 , p<0.004 M=69. 14; SD=5. 39;M=65.44; SD=4 41; M=63.15; SD=5.41; M=61.08; SD=5.26 for MEI+TA; MEI+TK ; MGI+TA; MGI+TK). Similar findings were found regarding mathematical literacy. The MEI students outperformed the MGI students (M=59.26; SD=4.76; M=54.30; SD=4. 35), and the TA students outperformed the TK students (M=60.97; SD=5.18; M=52.59; SD=3.95) on mathematical literacy.

Again MEI+TA students outperformed students in other learning conditions (F(1,201)=7.54 , p<0.007; M=64. 55; SD=5. 27;M=57.39; SD=5.08; M=53.96; SD=4.25; M=51.21; SD=3.62 for MEI+TA; MGI+TA ;MEI+TK; MGI+TK).

Effect size indicated that at the immediate and delayed assessment the effect of metacognitive instruction on reading literacy was greater than teaching modeling (ES= 0.66, 1.01; 0.28, 0.56). However, the effect of teaching modeling was greater than metacognitive instruction on mathematical literacy (ES=1.20, 1.85; 0.66; 1.1).

Summary and conclusions

Our findings indicated positive effects of the mentoring program for promoting reading and mathematical literacy of the mentor students. The findings strengthen the conclusions that mentoring might create new learning opportunities for students. The findings raise some issues and implications for further research. We suggest assessing effects of mentoring styles on students’ achievements regarding different competence levels in reading and mathematics, as well as for students’ willingness of learning.

References

Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: Effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 281-310.

PISA. (2003). Literacy Skills for the World of Tomorrow. Further Results from PISA 2000. Paris.