{"id":476,"date":"2014-03-04T16:06:50","date_gmt":"2014-03-04T13:06:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/users.sch.gr\/nelzafeir\/wordpress\/?p=10"},"modified":"2014-03-04T16:06:50","modified_gmt":"2014-03-04T13:06:50","slug":"mediation-in-the-multicultural-language-classroom","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nelzafeir.sites.sch.gr\/?p=476","title":{"rendered":"Mediation in the multicultural language classroom"},"content":{"rendered":"

Mediation in the multicultural language classroom: An investigation into the perceptions of Greek adolescent students <\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Nelly Zafeiriadou, EFL School Advisor<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

nelzafeir@sch.gr<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

1. INTRODUCTION <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The concept of mediation is central to the \u00a0Social Interactionist school of psychology reflected in the works of both Vygotsky (1962, 1978), and Feuerstein (1980, 1991). However, while for Vygotsky mediation refers to the use of ?symbolic tools? among which language is the most important for Feuerstein mediation refers to the intervention of\u00a0\u00a0 ?a significant other? in the learning process. In his theory the way in which the significant adult interacts with the child plays a central role in his\/her cognitive development. Where Feuerstein has not been so clear is what the child?s part is in the interactive mediated process. He is even less clear on how learners as mediates perceive this experience at different developmental periods such as childhood and adolescence.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Research on mediation in classroom contexts so far has focused only on the teacher as mediator (Chin, 1990; Deligianni, 1999; Warren; 1995; Williams and Burden, 1997); little research has been carried on the learner, particularly in multicultural contexts. The present small-scale study\u00a0\u00a0 focuses on the learner and mainly on the adolescent learner in the Greek multiculturaleducational context taking into consideration the particularities it bears for both teachers and students.<\/span><\/p>\n

Extended\u00a0\u00a0 research on adolescence (Erikson, 1968; Kimmel et al., 1995; Marcia, 1993; Urdan & Pajares, 2001) confirms that the most important aspect in this transitional phase marked by biological, intellectual, and psychological changes is identity formation, a multifaceted process that reaches at a crucial point in late adolescence. Being mainly informed by the interpretive research paradigm the study is concerned with understanding\u00a0\u00a0 how\u00a0\u00a0 adolescent students perceive the features of mediation in their school context. Moreover, it aims to investigate any school and gender differences in students? perceptions\u00a0\u00a0 in two distinct\u00a0\u00a0 Greek Senior High Schools and how mediation is implemented by teachers in the adolescent classroom. Finally, it attempts to make students? voices heard through the issues they raise and to problematize the way mediation theory is transplanted in the EFL context so far.\u00a0\u00a0 It argues that in the critical period of adolescence\u00a0\u00a0 mediation process\u00a0\u00a0 should be different and focus more on the students? identity development.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

My specific research questions were:<\/span><\/p>\n

1. How do Greek adolescent students perceive the features of mediation in their school context?<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 a. What are the similarities and differences in the adolescent students? perceptions\u00a0\u00a0 according to type of school?<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 b. What are the similarities and differences in the adolescent students? perceptions according to gender?<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0 2. According to adolescent students? perceptions which specific features of mediation are actually implemented <\/em>by their teachers?<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0 3. What other features<\/em> adolescent students perceive to be important for\u00a0\u00a0 mediation in their school context?<\/span><\/p>\n

2. LITERATURE REVIEW\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

2.1 Mediation in educational psychology: the sociocultural approach<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Mediation theory originates mainly in Social Interactionism, a school\u00a0\u00a0 in educational psychology which combines the constructivist (Bruner, 1960, 1966; Kelly, 1955; Piaget, 1966, 1972) and humanistic thoughts Erikson (1963, 1968; Maslow, 1968, 1970; Rogers, 1969, 1982). The main premise of Social Interactionism reflected in the works of Vygotsky (1962, 1978) and Feuerstein (1979, 1980, 1991) is that learning occurs in a social context through interaction with other people.<\/span><\/p>\n

In particular, Vygotsky?s views on thought and language (Vygotsky, 1962) that have been elaborated\u00a0\u00a0 into the sociocultural theory by recent researchers (Lantolf & Pavlenko 1995; Donato & McCormick, 1994) in the area of language learning. Psychological activity from the very beginning of development includes a sociocultural character. Children, do not discover on their own logical rules ; children who master their own psychological processes do so, through tools given by a culture ( Kozulin, 1994) Adults, and more competent peers, the significant others<\/em> in Feuerstein?s terms\u00a0\u00a0 introduce symbolic tools to the child and teach him\/her how to use it. Still, the role of the significant other<\/em> is not fully elaborated within the Vygotskian framework. This theoretical gap is filled with Feuerstein?s theory of learning\u00a0\u00a0 which assigns a major role to a human mediator.<\/span><\/p>\n

2.2 Feuerstein?s theory of learning <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

In contrast to Vygotsky?s mainly theoretical work Feuerstein?s theory arose from practical needs. He worked in Israel with groups of severely impaired children in their ability to learn due to traumatic war experiences and with immigrant children from culturally different countries. Refusing to accept that these children are mentally retarded and incapable of learning Feuerstein approached the phenomenon as an outcome of deprived teaching of the appropriate learning skills and strategies. He developed for this purpose his\u00a0\u00a0 theory of learning which is epitomized into four components: the Structural Cognitive Modifiability, the Mediated Learning Experience, the Instrumental Enrichment and\u00a0\u00a0 the Dynamic Assessment (Feuerstein, 1980,1991).<\/span><\/p>\n

Structural Cognitive Modifiability<\/em><\/strong> epitomizes Feuerstein?s overall philosophy that a person?s cognitive structures are indefinitely modifiable. This radical view of lifelong cognitive development contrasts with the traditional view of intelligence as a ?fixed?, mysterious and time-limited quality (Galton, 1869; Jensen, 1972) a position that impedes the true potential of every human being. Over many years of clinical work Feuerstein came to believe that children?s intelligence appears to have enormous plasticity and flexibility and\u00a0\u00a0 it can be modified by the appropriate intervention of significant adults.\u00a0\u00a0 Structural Cognitive Modifiability is the theoretical framework on which, Mediated Learning Experience, Instrumental Enrichment and the Learning Potential Assessment Device\u00a0\u00a0 are based.<\/span><\/p>\n

Instrumental Enrichment<\/em><\/strong> is a cognitive intervention program that can be applied both individually and in classroom settings. It is content ?free in nature and is built on Feuerstein?s notion of a cognitive map which is a representation of the key factors involved in performing any mental act.\u00a0\u00a0 Its main purpose it to enhance the learning potentials and cognitive functioning of the students teaching them to learn how to learn (Williams and Burden, 1997).<\/span><\/p>\n

The Learning Potential Assessment Device<\/em><\/strong> ( LPAD)<\/em> refers to a set of instruments in which assessment is a dynamic rather than a static process with goals and procedures different from those of static assessment of the IQ tests. Assessment in Feuerstein?s paradigm is permeated by the principles of Structural Cognitive Modifiability and is interlinked with the learning process and not separated by it. Its aim is to develop the students? metacognitive strategies at the same time as they are being assessed.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mediated Learning Experience (MLE)<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

In the Social Interactionist School, the Vygotskian ?paradigm? of learning is based on the notion that a child as a member of a particular sociocultural group appropriates learning tools characteristic of that group. Education in its broader sense is a process by which the child accepts instruction within his \/her Zone of Proximal Development. This is an ?area? within which the child?s functions are in a state of cognitive development. The emphasis is placed on the constructive activity of the child who uses ?psychological tools?, those symbolic mediators (signs, symbols, formulae, texts, graphic organizers) to learn (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986).In contrast, the Feuerstein ?paradigm? of learning places emphasis on the notion of Mediated Learning Experience and the role of the educator as a mediating adult in the learning process.<\/span><\/p>\n

Human mediators are important figures in the child?s learning. The way these significant others<\/em> intervene shapes the child?s experiences and cognitive development which in turn construct his\/her own view of the world. Feuerstein?s approach to learning is child-centered similar to the ones developed by Piaget and Vygotsky but in his model the human mediator is assigned a pivotal role. He actually modified Piaget?s model of Stimuli ? Organism- Response ( S-O-R) (Piaget 1966,1972) to his own model of Stimuli- Human Mediator- Organism- Human Mediator- Response ( S-H-O-H-R). The Human Mediator influences both the input and the output of the learning experience and his\/her culture, intention and relationship with the mediate affect both the selection of stimuli and the output of learning (Feuerstein & Kaniel, 1989: 168).<\/span><\/p>\n

It is worth noting that Feuerstein?s ideas have been criticized for the emphasis he gave to the powerful adult, and for the fact that he did not pay so much attention to the learner?s contribution to mediation (Williams & Burden, 1997: 97), although he advocated that the ultimate goal in his ?paradigm? of learning is to contribute to the cognitive development of the learners in such a way that they become independent and self-regulated (Feuerstein, 1991).<\/span><\/p>\n

Following Feuerstein Mediated Learning Experience is a special quality of interaction between a learner, a task and a mediator and it is permeated by twelve features which he calls parameters. Of these twelve, the first three critical parameters<\/strong> – intentionality and reciprocity, meaning and transcendence are universal and necessary conditions for an interaction to qualify as mediation . They are considered responsible for what human beings have in common: structural modifiability. The other nine parameters are task dependant and context dependant.<\/span><\/p>\n

Intentionality and reciprocity <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

In MLE the specific content of the interaction is shaped by the intention to mediate to the mediatee,<\/em> not only the particular stimuli, activity or relationship, but also to share this intention. In the classroom context it is important the teacher to present in a coherent way the tasks conveying clear instructions to the learners so that the learners realize what is expected of them. At a deeper level, this modality of interaction creates in the student awareness of the learning process and of the didactic principles underlying it. This orientation, once internalized, becomes the steering power towards more efficient learning, and in turn, leads to higher levels of modifiability (Feuerstein et al., 1991).\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Meaning<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Mediation of meaning addresses the energetic dimension of interaction<\/em>; it answers the questions of why, what for, and other questions related to the casual and teleological reasons for something to happen or to be done. In educational contexts it comprises a vital role of the teacher to convey the significance of the task and the learning experience in a way that has personal relevance and meaning to the student. At a deeper level it endows the student with the ?need? to look for the ?meaning? in a wider sense of the term, in all aspects of life (Feuerstein et al, 1991).\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Transcendence<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The meaning of transcendence is going beyond the goals of interaction<\/em> which is considered among the most important characteristics of mediation (Feuerstein et al., 1991). In classroom contexts the mediation of transcendence\u00a0\u00a0 makes students aware of the more general learning value of a task widening the primary goals of interaction t by including more remote, and often more important than the primary ones.<\/span><\/p>\n

Feeling of competence<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Research in educational psychology suggests that the most successful learners are those who feel competent (Feuerstein et al., 1991, Hamachek, 1988; Maslow, 1968, Rogers, 1969;Smith et al., 2005). However, the feeling has to be reflected in the views of others and in the interpretation given by them to one?s behavior. If children develop a negative image of themselves they will easily become low achievers (Williams and Burden, 1997). Here, the teacher?s role as mediator is crucial to mediate to the child the feeling of competence and a positive self-image.<\/span><\/p>\n

Control of behavior<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

?<\/strong>Control of behavior? is based on cognitive and metacognitive components. It has to do with taking control of one?s learning and it is associated with the notion of learner training to which it provides a strong theoretical underpinning. The notion of learner training (Ellis and Singlair, 1989; Dickinson, 1987; Ellis, 1991) refers to teaching learners how to learn so<\/em> that they are equipped with life-long skills and strategies which will make them self-regulating and autonomous learners. The following three features of mediation foster this notion of control of learning behavior: goal setting, challenge and awareness of change.<\/span><\/p>\n

Goal setting.<\/em> Mediating to the student the search for and choice of a goal enriches and articulates his\/her\u00a0\u00a0 life as a learner (Feuerstein et al., 1991). In addition it adds an organizing principle and mobilizes the necessary tools for the materialization of the chosen goal. Teachers as mediators need to encourage and help learners to set their own realistic and even short-term goals which is particularly important for adolescents being in a process of ?becoming? (Urdan and Pajares, 2001).<\/span><\/p>\n

Challenge<\/em>.<\/strong> The importance of challenge in life as an internal drive and motivation is commonly recognized. Following Feuerstein (1991) the mediation of challenging behavior should be considered the goal of education in general and enrichment in particular for all programs aiming to prepare the individual for adapting to the novelty and complexity of our world. Mediation of challenge facilitates the completion of\u00a0\u00a0 identity formation, the most important phase in adolescent development (Erikson, 1968; Marcia, 1993).<\/span><\/p>\n

Awareness of change.<\/em> The belief in modifiability may become a potent determinant of change in the individual. Teachers as mediators need to foster the belief in change and the willingness to monitor and assess the changes in oneself. Self assessment and monitoring are metacognitive strategies which involve learners in reflecting on the learning process ( Brewster et al., 1992) The absence of belief in change\u00a0\u00a0 makes ? the educational system anemic, manifesting at best a passive accepting approach? (Feuerstein et al., 1991).<\/span><\/p>\n

Positive thinking<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Cognitive therapists believe that individuals can switch focus, redescribe and change their outlook to a more positive dimension (Barnes, 1999).At its simplest, learning to dispute negative beliefs, and redescribe adverse events more positively, has the effect of changing how we feel. Positive perceptions are commonly associated with hope, tenacity and academic success. Negative perceptions are associated with passivity, low motivation and giving up easily. (Seligman, 1990). This aspect of mediation is a precursor to the mediation of the feeling of competence in the sense that unless having the firm belief that something is possible<\/em> makes the involved person become committed to the search for ways to turn the possible into a materialized experience. The three last features of mediation are concerned with fostering social development.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Sharing behavior<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Sharing behavior reflects the need of the individual to go out of his own self in the direction of participating with others and make others participate with him\/her. It is culturally bound, even though according to Maslow (1968) and Feuerstein (1991) it exists as an individual need at a very early stage of development since childhood .<\/span><\/p>\n

Individuation<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Individuation represents the need of the person to become an articulate, differentiated self as opposed to the ?other?with whom he\/she yet shares him\/herself. The process of individuation is enhanced by the feeling of belonging and acceptance which is generated by the mediation of sharing .The teacher- mediator?s role is to recognize that learners are unique individuals who have their own contribution to make and have the right to develop at their own paces. This is particularly important at the developmental phase of adolescence (Hamachek, 1992).<\/span><\/p>\n

Feeling of belonging<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

The feeling of belonging has comprised a primitive need of the human beings since life appeared and still is, although in modern technological societies the individual?s right to privacy is highly stressed. More traditional societies give it a higher priority (Feuerstein et al, 1991). In adolescence the need of belonging is exhibited into the influential role that peer relationships and peer groups play into adolescents? lives. Being accepted <\/em>by the general peer group and having friendships has been related to adolescents? emotional and academic development (Urdan and Pajares , 2001).<\/span><\/p>\n

2.3 Previous studies of mediation. A critical review <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

In my view, the research done into the mediation area that occurs in language teaching\u00a0\u00a0 focused mainly on the teacher?s perceptions and practices\u00a0\u00a0 and not on the learner. Warren (1995) evaluated teachers? performance as mediators in language classes. In her words:<\/span><\/p>\n

?one of the most important findings of the investigation was that successful teaching of the tasks did not depend simply on their design. It also depended on the Mediated Learning Experience, that is, on the way the teacher mediated in the classroom? (Warren, 1995: 182).<\/span><\/p>\n

Williams and Burden (1997) investigated teachers? perceptions of the various features of mediation and also actual classroom practices. Chin (1990) carried a pilot research with 50 primary teachers in Taiwan and her findings highlight that the features of mediation are perceived differently within different cultural contexts. Shehatah (1998), in a small-scale research study in Saudi Arabia, found that teachers do believe in the importance of many aspects of mediation even if they do not always use them in the EFL classroom. She suggested that Teacher Education programs could take this into consideration ( Shehatah, 998: 157). A similar study carried by Deligianni (1999) in Northern Greece showed that there is a discrepancy between what the majority of the teachers think of the features of mediation and their actual classroom practices. Focusing on the learner Brainin (1995) examined several cognitive curricula and in particular how Feuerstein?s Instrumental Enrichment (Feuerstein et al., 1991) can be used with low functioning pre-adolescents and adolescents in remedial educational settings. Her findings proved that Feuerstein?s statement of what failed to occur adequately in the natural settings can still occur in the planned learning context. Instrumental Enrichment and all the programs surveyed gave special importance to the teacher?s role as mediator of the student?s learning. Braining brought\u00a0\u00a0 the question of the quality of pedagogy to the forefront: ?in intervening to engage students? awareness of their own thinking and learning, the teacher has indeed, no place to hide?( Braining, 1985 :127).<\/span><\/p>\n

Gray and Feldman?s (2004) study gave another perspective to the notion of mediation assigning the human mediator?s role to the adolescent student. Their research of 196 naturally occurring interaction sequences between adolescents and much younger students in a radical alternative school, the Sudbury Valley School in Massachusetts proved that free age mixing can offer the opportunity for adolescents to act as mediators. However, they argue it is doubtful if the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development could be applied in conventional school settings where there is student segregation according to age and thus, both parties are deprived of a valuable resource for development and education. In addition, a major obstacle in conventional schools are the group structure , the mandatory curriculum , which, along with the group structure, greatly restricts students? abilities to initiate topics and thereby reduces students? motivation (Gray and Feldman, 2004: 112 ).The researchers concluded that in certain respects, and under some conditions, adolescents may be even more effective as mediators to young children than teachers or other significant others<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. 3.<\/em><\/strong>METHODOLOGY <\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n
  2. 4.1<\/strong>Students ? perceptions of mediation by School <\/strong>a)<\/em><\/strong>Mediation in the adolescent classroom should focus more on the students? identity development <\/em><\/span>\n
      \n
    1. 4.1.2<\/em><\/strong>Parameters reinforcing mediation<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n
    2. 4.3<\/strong>Implementation of mediation in the adolescent classroom <\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n
    3. <\/li>\n
    4. b)<\/em><\/strong>The role of the teacher as mediator is pivotal in the adolescent classroom and should also focus on students? identity development<\/em><\/span><\/li>\n
    5. c)<\/em><\/strong> The implementation of mediation in the adolescent classroom should be pervaded by the values of Humanistic approaches of learning.<\/em><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      \u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      Although the data collection techniques come from both positivist and interpretive approaches,\u00a0\u00a0 this small-scale study was carried out mainly informed by the interpretive paradigm since it is ?primarily concerned with human understanding, interpretation, intersubjectivity and lived truth? ( Radnor, 1994). The study had three aims: to understand how adolescents\u00a0\u00a0 perceive mediation (Feuerstein, 1991; Chin, 1990; Deligianni, 1999; Warren, 1995; Williams and Burden, 1997) within two Greek\u00a0\u00a0 Senior High Schools; to trace any school and gender differences in the students? perceptions of mediation and to investigate how mediation is implemented by teachers- mediators in the adolescent context. Grouping particular I wanted to ?give a voice? to the students in an educational context that seems to neglect it and also bring into surface other<\/em> features of mediation students\u00a0\u00a0 perceived as important.<\/span><\/p>\n

      The research lasted from November 2006 until January 2007 and covered two different Senior Comprehensive High Schools in the area of Rodopi, Thrace, North Greece. School A (SA) is a small village Multicultural Comprehensive and School B (SB) a large city Comprehensive (Appendices 1 and 2). The two schools are distinct\u00a0\u00a0 in terms of population, cultural origin and socio-economic stratum of the students attending each school.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Participants and procedures<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      Sixty five\u00a0\u00a0 adolescent students were asked to participate in the study: 25 from School A and 40 from School B. 33 participants were female and 32 were male . They were in Year 2 (ages 16-17) and Year 3 (ages 17-18) at the time of the study. All participants filled in an anonymous questionnaire to ensure confidentiality.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Then two semi-structured interviews\u00a0\u00a0 were conducted with different groups from each school, each group consisting\u00a0\u00a0 of three girls, aged 16 to 17 years old. This was caused by the unwillingness of male students to participate during their Christmas holidays. The interviews took place in different days in comfortable surroundings outside school so that adolescents would not feel pressurized. Both sets of interviews lasted for 30-35 minutes each. The Greek language was preferred in order to facilitate participants express their views without any inhibition. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and translated into English.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Methods<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      The data collection techniques\u00a0\u00a0 were\u00a0\u00a0 separate survey questionnaires and group semi-constructed interviews. The Student Mediation Questionnaire used is adapted from Williams and Burden (1997: 87) Teacher Mediation Questionnaire which was also used in earlier studies (Chin, 1990; Deligianni, 1999; Shehatah, 1998; Warren, 1995). A second part was added to the Questionnaire with the form of an open question in order to elicit qualitative data (Appendix 3). In order to further understand recurrent issues which seemed to contradict the overall picture emerged from the analysis of quantitative data of the questionnaire, two group interviews based on the questionnaire data ( Appendix 4) were conducted with one group of students from each school.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Limitations and ethical considerations <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      This is a small-scale study and as such it does not claim generalisability. It rather aims to shed light to the adolescent students? perceptions of mediation and to the parallel issues that emerged from the analysis of the results in the Greek educational context. As far as the questionnaire is concerned, time was a serious constraint to pilot and distribute it to a larger sample. In addition, after analyzing the data a bigger sample would appear be\u00a0\u00a0 necessary to reach some generalizations referring to the differences in students? perceptions according to school ( small vs. big, rural vs. inner city school) and\u00a0\u00a0 gender. Moreover, the data collection techniques could be richer. Classroom observations for a term could offer valuable data on teachers? implementation of the features of mediation and students? responses to them. With regard to the interviews more group interviews with\u00a0\u00a0 participants of both gender would offer to my investigation the male participants? views, thus making it more complete than the present one. I had also to take into consideration previous researchers? practical and epistemological concerns as to how participants respond to us based on who we are- in their lives as well as the social categories to which we belong, such as age, gender, class and race . The issue could be more complicated when there is social distance and we do not share membership with our study groups (Miller and Glassner, 1997). Interviewees may ignore or they may purposely mislead us in their responses. Being a Head Teacher at the time of the study and a power-figure often negatively associated by adolescents\u00a0\u00a0 could function as a limitation or a challenge for them. I tried to overcome the social distance issue and any possible misleading interview outcomes by\u00a0\u00a0 establishing\u00a0\u00a0 familiarity and trust with all the interviewees, being clear as to the purposes of my research ,by assuring confidentiality and not being judgmental\u00a0\u00a0 to their responses.<\/span><\/p>\n

      The issue of validity was a further issue when using group interviews. Cohen et al. (2005) identify ?bias? as the main cause of invalidity. Being at the same time a member of the context I was researching\u00a0\u00a0 I tried to\u00a0\u00a0 prevent my own biases and\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      beliefs to affect the students? attitude and to seek answers that support my preconceived notions.<\/span><\/p>\n

      4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      The results of the study are presented in three parts. First, the data related to adolescent students perceptions? of mediation according to school and gender. Then, students? perceptions of the implementation of mediation by teachers\u00a0\u00a0 and last, what other features of mediation students perceive as important in their context.<\/span><\/p>\n

      This section presents and discusses the results related to my first research question how adolescent students perceive mediation according to school.<\/span><\/p>\n

      4.1.1 Critical parameters of mediation<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      There appeared to be a differentiation by school of the critical parameters of mediation among the students? perceptions (Table 1). In School A the majority of the students value the critical parameters as very important with the highest rate for intentionality and reciprocity (88% ). In School B it is equally valued high\u00a0\u00a0 but with a considerable lower rate. Mediation of meaning and transcendence are perceived quite differently in the two schools. In School B the majority of the participants perceive them as quite important or neutral. As student A postulates on the mediation of meaning:<\/span><\/p>\n

      ?I <\/em>believe it is of not such importance and can become a little boring if Ts tells every time what is the significance of every task we do. Some things are obvious?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      Table 1 : Comparison of Critical Parameters by School<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      (n=65)<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
      \u00a0<\/span><\/td>\nVery <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      important<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n

      		Quite <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      important<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n

      		Neutral<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nNot v. <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      important<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/td>\n

      		Not <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      important<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \u00a0<\/span><\/td>\nSA<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nSB<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nSA<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nSB<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nSA<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nSB<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nSA<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nSB<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nSA<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nSB<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Intentionality and Reciprocity<\/span><\/td>\n88%<\/span><\/td>\n65%<\/span><\/td>\n12%<\/span><\/td>\n30%<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n5%<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Mediation of Meaning<\/span><\/td>\n52%<\/span><\/td>\n22.5%<\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n

      		28%<\/span><\/td>\n32.5%<\/span><\/td>\n12%<\/span><\/td>\n22.5%<\/span><\/td>\n12%<\/span><\/td>\n17.5%<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n5%<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Transcendence<\/span><\/td>\n60%<\/span><\/td>\n22.5%<\/span><\/td>\n20%<\/span><\/td>\n32.5%<\/span><\/td>\n16%<\/span><\/td>\n30%<\/span><\/td>\n4%<\/span><\/td>\n10%<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n5%<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

      \n

      \n

      In School A (Table 2), the majority of students value more the parameters of mediation fostering the notion of taking control of one?s learning ( Williams and Burden, 1997) with the highest rates for control of behavior, goal setting and positive thinking (68%) and the lowest rates for challenge and awareness of change ( 40%).<\/span><\/p>\n

      An interesting point is that ?challenge? had the lowest rates in both schools. Student A of School B explains:<\/span><\/p>\n

      ??.<\/strong>it [challenge] has to do with students? goals. In the 3rd Comprehensive [SB] students have already set their personal goals ?..<\/strong>and they focus on these goals? <\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      There is also a differentiation in students? perceptions with regard to the parameters of mediation relating to social development. In School B they are valued more than in School A with the highest rate\u00a0\u00a0 for belonging ( 57.5%).<\/span><\/p>\n

      To quote student A of School B :<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      ??I believe it is very important because if you don?t have this feeling of belongingyou cannot function properly, you cannot make any real progress if you lack this feeling of classroom community?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      and Student B from the same school expresses on sharing behavior:<\/span><\/p>\n

      ? it is very important teachers to encourage sharing behavior in the classroom and not only for learning purposes.<\/em>? <\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      A possible explanation for these differentiated perceptions may be \u00a0the population as well as the social, cultural and economic stratum of each school (Appendix 2). Students of School A coming mainly from working-class and agricultural families seem to be more school and teacher-dependent. A typical comment is a plea for a more learner-centered teaching in the state school: ?<\/em><\/strong>teachers should understand that not all the students are able to attend private language schools?. <\/em>This contrasts with the comment of one of their peers in School B: ?.. a lot of things in the English class are considered ?easy? for the students because they go to a ?frontistirio?.<\/em> These students come mainly from middle and upper- class families who can resort to private tuition.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Table 2 : Comparison of Parameters Reinforcing MLE by School <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      (n=65)<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
      \u00a0<\/span><\/td>\nVery <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      important<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n

      		Quite <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      important<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n

      		Neutral<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nNot v. <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      important<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/td>\n

      		Not <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      important<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \u00a0<\/span><\/td>\nSA<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nSB<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nSA<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nSB<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nSA<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nSB<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nSA<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nSB<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nSA<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nSB<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Feeling of competence<\/span><\/td>\n48%<\/span><\/td>\n35%<\/span><\/td>\n24%<\/span><\/td>\n27.5%<\/span><\/td>\n20%<\/span><\/td>\n12.5%<\/span><\/td>\n4%<\/span><\/td>\n20%<\/span><\/td>\n4%<\/span><\/td>\n5%<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Control of behavior<\/span><\/td>\n68%<\/span><\/td>\n62.5%<\/span><\/td>\n12%<\/span><\/td>\n25%<\/span><\/td>\n20%<\/span><\/td>\n7.5%<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n5%<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Goal setting<\/span><\/td>\n68%<\/span><\/td>\n45%<\/span><\/td>\n12%<\/span><\/td>\n27.5%<\/span><\/td>\n20%<\/span><\/td>\n20%<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n7.5%<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Challenge<\/span><\/td>\n40%<\/span><\/td>\n27.5%<\/span><\/td>\n28%<\/span><\/td>\n40%<\/span><\/td>\n20%<\/span><\/td>\n12.5%<\/span><\/td>\n8%<\/span><\/td>\n17.5%<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n5%<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Awareness of change<\/span><\/td>\n40%<\/span><\/td>\n42.5%<\/span><\/td>\n36%<\/span><\/td>\n32.5%<\/span><\/td>\n12%<\/span><\/td>\n12.5%<\/span><\/td>\n8%<\/span><\/td>\n10%<\/span><\/td>\n8%<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Positive thinking<\/span><\/td>\n68%<\/span><\/td>\n62.5%<\/span><\/td>\n12%<\/span><\/td>\n25%<\/span><\/td>\n20%<\/span><\/td>\n7.5%<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n5%<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Sharing behavior<\/span><\/td>\n44%<\/span><\/td>\n50%<\/span><\/td>\n36%<\/span><\/td>\n27.5%<\/span><\/td>\n16%<\/span><\/td>\n12.5%<\/span><\/td>\n4%<\/span><\/td>\n10%<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Individuation<\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n

      		28%<\/span><\/td>\n50%<\/span><\/td>\n28%<\/span><\/td>\n35%<\/span><\/td>\n24%<\/span><\/td>\n5%<\/span><\/td>\n20%<\/span><\/td>\n5%<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n5%<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Belonging<\/span><\/td>\n52%<\/span><\/td>\n57.5%<\/span><\/td>\n28%<\/span><\/td>\n22.5%<\/span><\/td>\n8%<\/span><\/td>\n10%<\/span><\/td>\n8%<\/span><\/td>\n10%<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n2.5%<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

      \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      In addition, the implementation of the National\u00a0\u00a0 Curriculum appears to have different impact on the students? well being and need for social development. In School B, a big, prestigious but highly competitive city school participants feel more ?pressurized by the system<\/em>? and alienated as beingin?a factory machine?<\/em>. The adolescents? needs for belonging, expressing their uniqueness as identities and sharing with others are considered more important compared to their peers in School A, who share closer relationships in their school community and social context. It appears that the results confirm Feuerstein?s view (1991)\u00a0\u00a0 that more traditional societies give sharing behavior, individuation and belonging a higher priority, although in modern technological societies the individual?s right to privacy is highly stressed.<\/span><\/p>\n

      `\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>4.2 Students? perceptions of mediation by gender <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      This section presents and discusses how female and male adolescent students perceive the parameters of mediation .<\/span><\/p>\n

      4.2.1 The critical parameters of mediation<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      Overall, there is not much differentiation in students? perceptions of the critical parameters of mediation according to gender (Table 3). Both male and female students\u00a0\u00a0 value more the mediation of intentionality and reciprocity. They perceive it as very important with rates of 75.7%\u00a0\u00a0 and 71.8% accordingly for each gender. However, the rates are very low for the other two critical parameters and in particular for the mediation of meaning . It is worth noticing that transcendence is the only parameter where the rating of male students is higher that their female peers. Female student B confirms this view of transcendence :<\/span><\/p>\n

      ??Perhaps because we are not so interested in analyzing the reasons why we learn what we learn?. <\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      Table 3: Comparison of Critical Parameters by Gender<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      \n

      (n=65)<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
      \u00a0<\/span><\/td>\nVery <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      important<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n

      		Quite <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      important<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n

      		Neutral<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nNot v. <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      important<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/td>\n

      		Not <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      important<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \u00a0<\/span><\/td>\nF<\/span><\/td>\nM<\/span><\/td>\nF<\/span><\/td>\nM<\/span><\/td>\nF<\/span><\/td>\nM<\/span><\/td>\nF<\/span><\/td>\nM<\/span><\/td>\nF<\/span><\/td>\nM<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Intentionality and<\/span><\/p>\n

      Reciprocity<\/span><\/td>\n

      		75.7%<\/span><\/td>\n71.8%<\/span><\/td>\n21.2%<\/span><\/td>\n25%<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n3%<\/span><\/td>\n3.1%<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Mediation of<\/span><\/p>\n

      Meaning<\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n

      		36.3%<\/span><\/td>\n28.1%<\/span><\/td>\n33.3%<\/span><\/td>\n28.1%<\/span><\/td>\n9%<\/span><\/td>\n28.1%<\/span><\/td>\n21.2%<\/span><\/td>\n9.3%<\/span><\/td>\n3%<\/span><\/td>\n3.1%<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Transcendence<\/span><\/td>\n36.3%<\/span><\/td>\n37.5%<\/span><\/td>\n21.2%<\/span><\/td>\n34.3%<\/span><\/td>\n30.3%<\/span><\/td>\n18.7%<\/span><\/td>\n9%<\/span><\/td>\n6.2%<\/span><\/td>\n3%<\/span><\/td>\n3.1%<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

      4.2.2 Parameters reinforcing mediation<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      Table 4 presents\u00a0\u00a0 students? perceptions of the parameters reinforcing mediationby gender. Female students seem to prioritize the parameters of mediation related to taking control one?s learning. The majority perceive them as very important with the highest rates\u00a0\u00a0 for control of behavior\u00a0\u00a0 and positive thinking (69.6%) and the lowest rate for challenge. On the contrary, male students appear to value more the parameters of mediation fostering social development with the highest rate for<\/span><\/p>\n

      ?belonging? (62.5%)<\/span><\/p>\n

      Female student B emphasizes:<\/span><\/p>\n

      ??Being a Lyceum student is so demanding and can be at times so frustrating that if you do not develop a positive thinking you cannot manage.? <\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      And\u00a0\u00a0 another female student C remarks on the male students? perceptions of the feeling of competence:<\/span><\/p>\n

      ??Perhaps boys feel it is embarrassing ?.that they are becoming vulnerable if they accept help (female student B, SA<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\n

      Table 4: Comparison of Parameters Reinforcing MLE by Gender <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      (n=65)<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
      \u00a0<\/span><\/td>\nVery <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      important<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n

      		Quite <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      important<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n

      		Neutral<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nNot v. <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      important<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/td>\n

      		Not <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      important<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

      \u00a0<\/span><\/td>\nF<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nM<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nF<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nM<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nF<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nM<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nF<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nM<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nF<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\nM<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Feeling of \u00a0 competence<\/span><\/td>\n42.4%<\/span><\/td>\n37.5%<\/span><\/td>\n27.2%<\/span><\/td>\n25%<\/span><\/td>\n12.1%<\/span><\/td>\n18.7%<\/span><\/td>\n15.1%<\/span><\/td>\n12.5%<\/span><\/td>\n3%<\/span><\/td>\n6.2%<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Regulation of<\/span><\/p>\n

      behavior<\/span><\/td>\n

      		69.6%<\/span><\/td>\n59.3%<\/span><\/td>\n21.2%<\/span><\/td>\n18.7%<\/span><\/td>\n15.1%<\/span><\/td>\n9.3%<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n3.1%<\/span><\/td>\n3%<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Goal setting<\/span><\/td>\n54.5%<\/span><\/td>\n53.1%<\/span><\/td>\n3%<\/span><\/td>\n12.5%<\/span><\/td>\n15.1%<\/span><\/td>\n25%<\/span><\/td>\n6%<\/span><\/td>\n3.1%<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Challenge<\/span><\/td>\n33.3%<\/span><\/td>\n31.2%<\/span><\/td>\n39.3%<\/span><\/td>\n31.2%<\/span><\/td>\n18.1%<\/span><\/td>\n12.5%<\/span><\/td>\n6%<\/span><\/td>\n21.8%<\/span><\/td>\n3%<\/span><\/td>\n3.1%<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Awareness of<\/span><\/p>\n

      Change<\/span><\/td>\n

      		42.4%<\/span><\/td>\n40.6%<\/span><\/td>\n36.3%<\/span><\/td>\n31.2%<\/span><\/td>\n12.1%<\/span><\/td>\n12.5%<\/span><\/td>\n6%<\/span><\/td>\n12.5%<\/span><\/td>\n6%<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Positive thinking<\/span><\/td>\n69.6%<\/span><\/td>\n59.3%<\/span><\/td>\n15.1%<\/span><\/td>\n25%<\/span><\/td>\n12.1%<\/span><\/td>\n12.5%<\/span><\/td>\n3%<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n3.1%<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Sharing<\/span><\/p>\n

      Behavior<\/span><\/td>\n

      		45.4%<\/span><\/td>\n50%<\/span><\/td>\n27.2%<\/span><\/td>\n34.3%<\/span><\/td>\n18.1%<\/span><\/td>\n9.3%<\/span><\/td>\n12.1%<\/span><\/td>\n3.1%<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Individuation<\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n

      		39.3%<\/span><\/td>\n43.7%<\/span><\/td>\n36.3%<\/span><\/td>\n28.1%<\/span><\/td>\n9%<\/span><\/td>\n15.6%<\/span><\/td>\n15.1%<\/span><\/td>\n6.2%<\/span><\/td>\n3%<\/span><\/td>\n3.1%<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Belonging<\/span><\/td>\n48.4%<\/span><\/td>\n62.5%<\/span><\/td>\n30.3%<\/span><\/td>\n18.7%<\/span><\/td>\n9%<\/span><\/td>\n9.3%<\/span><\/td>\n12.1%<\/span><\/td>\n6.2%<\/span><\/td>\n3%<\/span><\/td>\n0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

      \n

      \n

      Interestingly, male students valued the parameters related to social development more than female students. I interpreted these indications as reuting from maturation process during adolescence .<\/span><\/p>\n

      In the words of female student B :<\/span><\/p>\n

      ?<\/em><\/strong> I think boys are not so much interested in school<\/strong>?at least at this age they are interested more in other things?in having fun for instance or in having affairs?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      This may be an indication that females experience maturation process\u00a0\u00a0 at a deeper level than their male peers. Indeed , there is evidence in research that girls tend to mature more rapidly than boys in their identity achievement ( Kimmel and Wieder, 1995) and that concerns about beliefs, occupational goals and about interpersonal relatedness play different roles in the identity formation of male and female adolescents ( Christopherson et al.,1988)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      This section discusses the results related to my second and the third research questions, what are the adolescent students? perceptions of their teachers? implementation of mediation and what other features of mediation are important in their school context.<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n

      \n

      4.3.1 Perceptions of teachers? implementation of mediation <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      The analysis of the data\u00a0\u00a0 revealed a different<\/em> classroom reality. According to the participants? perceptions not all the features of mediation are implemented by their teachers.<\/span><\/p>\n

      In both schools the critical parameters of mediation are implemented with the exception of intentionality and reciprocity. Student A of School A observes : :<\/span><\/p>\n

      ? ? I also believe it is very important and perhaps students characterize it so because it is often absent?<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      Students? perceptions concerning the parameters reinforcing mediation are rather negative. They feel disappointed by the frequency and the quality of their teachers? implementation. Indicatively student A of School A notes on competence:<\/span><\/p>\n

      ? Usually it[<\/em> feeling of competence]does not happen<\/em><\/strong> because there are many students in the classroom.. Some times it happens usually in the beginning of the school year?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      Implementation of the other parameters of mediation in the classroom appears be either ? an urge of the moment?<\/em> or, it is totally absent.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Student A of School B confirms the above views commenting on control of behavior:<\/span><\/p>\n

      ? ?Well, some times teachers give us instructions to look in the sources\u00a0\u00a0 but this is not happening with a guided and a responsible way for the students?they just leave us alone<\/strong>?without making us realize the value of learning how to learn? <\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      and student B of School A emphasizes on positive thinking:<\/span><\/p>\n

      ?..<\/em><\/strong>.it is very important, but at least in my class this is not happening?for instance weaker students do not persist in their efforts when they find some difficulties, which means that nobody taught them <\/strong>how important it is in life to keep on trying and not give up?. <\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      Similar feelings permeate students concerning theparameters fostering social development .Student C of School A points out on sharing behavior :<\/span><\/p>\n

      ?It[ sharing behavior] means that students learn to be more receptive, tolerant and open minded as characters. But this principle of cooperation is not encouraged <\/strong>in the present school system, at least not at Lykeio?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      The lack of\u00a0\u00a0 proper teacher training in the adolescent context may considered one cause for the insufficient implementation of mediation.\u00a0\u00a0 It is an implication that Teacher Edugation programs should seriously take into consideration. Another may be\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 structure of the exam ?oriented curriculum which subjects students to severe levels of anxiety and transforms classrooms to?factory machines??<\/em>. Students undermine any other school subject that does not serve the exam purposes.? We feel so much pressurised by the system<\/em>?? is a repeated and a prevailing emotion among adolescents while schooling\u00a0\u00a0 should be a source of positive experiences and a process of inner development. The perceived implementation of mediation is closely related to the constucted images students? have of their teachers as mediators. Teachers are portrayed\u00a0\u00a0 incomplete as professionals, emotionally detatched , very often biased and as if being embodied to an\u00a0\u00a0 impersonal educational system. The above view is best summed up by student B:<\/span><\/p>\n

      ? Teachers do not care so much on everyone?s individuality, most of them are indifferent to the problems we face as adolescents? <\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      Students seem to challenge and be sceptical of their teachers? role as mediators. An issue to problematise here is as to what extend these perceived images\u00a0\u00a0 reflect objective realities and teaching practices or they are constructed through the lens<\/em> of adolescence, a period characterised by active uncertainty and contradictions, a state of identity diffusion<\/em> according to Erikson (1968). Indeed, there is evidence on research that during adolescence students often report a level of mistrust in teachers and a lack in meaningful communication with them\u00a0\u00a0 assigning a major role in peer relationships.( Wentzel and Battle, 2001).<\/em> Interestingly, results also implicate that adolescents expect from their teachers to act as\u00a0\u00a0 a significant other<\/em> but not with the sense Feuerstein (1991)introduced as a person who intervenes in the learning process selecting, changing, amplifying and interpreting both the stimuli that come to the learner and the learner?s responses.Adolescents? perceptions of their teachers as mediators are closely related with issues of identity formation process, which I will discuss in the following section.<\/span><\/p>\n

      4.3.2 Other features of mediation students perceive as important <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      The analysis of the qualitative data highlighted some additional features of mediation adolescents perceive as equally important. These perceptions are expressed around central\u00a0\u00a0 issues students raise as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n

      Aspects of identity development as individual differences<\/em>, social awareness<\/em> and critical<\/em> thinking<\/em>\u00a0\u00a0 appear to be of prior concern for adolescent students and should not be ignored in the mediation process. Student A of School B draws attention to the absence of any care for personal growth in the current teaching practice:<\/span><\/p>\n

      ? I think that ?different? than the norm students, or the gifted ones are squeezed<\/strong> in the Greek Comprehensive Lykeio?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      and student B stresses the need to foster social awareness:<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      ?Teachers should try to make students think and speak more on social issues in the classroom?.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      Although adolescents have been\u00a0\u00a0 very critical to their teachers? attitudes expressing often disappointment they expect the teacher -mediator to have qualities\u00a0\u00a0 of a pedagogue. <\/em>To quote student A:<\/span><\/p>\n

      ?I believe it is important the teacher to educate the kid so that he could become a better person and also to inspire him some social values<\/em>?.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Students claim for a more student-centered teaching which emphasizes on the teacher ?student rapport? the relationship between student and teacher I think as the most important? <\/em>but also involves the whole person ? students need creativity? <\/em> and minimizes criticism ? there shouldn?t be beloved ones in the classroom?.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      Research highlights identity formation as the most important phase in adolescent development. (Erikson, 1968; Marcia, 1980). Identity refers to the organization of the individual?s drives, abilities, beliefs, and history into a consistent image of self. It involves deliberate choices and decisions, particularly about work, values, ideology, and commitments to people and ideas (Marcia 1980, Penuel & Wertsch, 1995). According to Erikson (1968) if adolescents fail to integrate all these aspects and choices, or if they feel unable to choose at all, role confusion threatens. An issue to proplematise here is whether Feuerstein?s mediation theory and the way it is ? transplanted? into the TESOL area (Chin, 1990; Deligianni, 1999;Warren, 1999;Williams and Burden, 1997 ) is valid\u00a0\u00a0 in late adolescence with all developmental phases that characterize this transitional period.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Also, central to the developmental psychology of both Vygotsky (1968) and Feuerstein (1991)\u00a0\u00a0 is the idea that the secret of effective learning lies in the nature of the social interaction between two or more people with different levels of skills and knowledge ( Williams and Burden 1997). However, adolescent students? perceptions reveal that this nature of interaction between teacher ?mediator and adolescents-mediatees seems ? mutilated? <\/em> or fragmentary and incomplete<\/span><\/p>\n

      In addition, although I do not deny the validity of Feuerstein?s main philosophy in structural cognitive modifiability ( Feuerstein et al. 1991) and its implementation through mediated learning this was sprung and developed out of particular needs, in a particular era and with particular age groups ( children). Results of my research and my teaching experience with adolescents so far make me adopt the view that with this particular age group a different form of mediation is needed.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Last, the implementation of mediation in the Greek adolescent context should not ignore students? voices against the social inequalities\u00a0\u00a0 the curriculum creates in the classrooms. The current curriculum favors the flourishing of a system of ?parapaedia<\/em>?[1]<\/a> thus establishing a highly competitive climate instead of a classroom ethos with serious\u00a0\u00a0 psychological impact on adolescents? well- being.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Student B words express a prevailed feeling among participants:<\/span><\/p>\n

      ??the system itself imposes that you have to carry on alone<\/strong> and you have to count only on your self<\/strong> if you want to succeed??. <\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

      5. CONCLUSION <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      An important omission from previous research on mediation theory in the EFL classroom (Chin 1990, Deligianni 1999, Warren 1995, Williams and Burden 1997)) is that it does not focus on the role the learner as mediator plays in the interactive process. In this study, ad<\/span>olescent students? perceptions of mediation appear to be affected by the existing differences related to the area a school is situated, the population and the socio-economic and cultural stratum of each school as it happened with School A and School B of my research. In School A the critical parameters of mediation are valued highly while in School B students seem to prioritize the importance of the parameters fostering social development. Although male participants seemed to value more the features of mediation fostering social development compared to their female peers, in the main gender did not appear to influence so much adolescent?s perceptions of mediation in their context and of their teachers as mediators.<\/span><\/p>\n

      However, the data reveal a rather disappointing situation as to the implementation of mediation by EFL teachers in the classroom. According to the students? perceptions the implementation of mediation appears to be either limited as with the case of the critical parameters and superficial as with the parameters concerning taking control of one?s learning or totally absent as with the parameters fostering social development. In addition, adolescents raise important pedagogic issues and though they are critical towards their teachers? role as mediators they acknowledge the importance of teachers in their lives as\u00a0\u00a0 significant others<\/em>. They argue for a different <\/em>quality of mediation in their context closer to issues concerning identity development and they claim for a different<\/em> teacher-mediator rapport, more sensitized to the critical phases they go through.<\/span><\/p>\n

      The over-riding impression of this study is that the theory of mediation is not perceived so influential by adolescents at least under the present conditions of the teaching of English in the Greek Senior High School. It would appear that mediation theory seems to neglect adolescents? worries and concerns and the psychological phases they go through. In the adolescent\u00a0\u00a0 English language classroom that often looks\u00a0\u00a0 an arid place , where creativity, critical thinking and social awareness are absent or implemented in fragments mediation theory needs to re-establish itself and focus more on principles and parameters that foster the development of adolescents? identity and their ?fragile? process towards maturity.<\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      BIBLIOGRAPHY<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      Adamson, L. & Lyxell, B. (1996) Self-concept and questions of life: identity development during late adolescence. Journal of Adolescence. <\/em>19, 569-582.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Barnes, B. (1999). Positive teaching, Positive Learning.<\/em> London : Routledge.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Brewster, J., Ellis, G. & Girard, D. (1992). The Primary Teacher?s Guide<\/em>. London: Collins.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Bruner, J. S. (1960). The Process of Education.<\/em> Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Bruner, J. S. (1966). Towards a Theory of Instruction.<\/em> Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Chin, C. (1990). An Investigation into Teachers? Mediation with Primary Students? Learning English in Taiwan.<\/em> Unpublished M.Ed. Dissertation. University of Exeter.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1996). Research Methods in Education. <\/em>London: Routledge.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Costa, A. L. ( 1991). Creating School Conditions for Developing Intelligent Behavior. In Feuerstein, R., Klein, P. S. & Tannenbaum, A. J. ( Eds.). (1991). Mediated learning experience (MLE): Theoretical, psychosocial and learning implications. <\/em>(pp.365-373) London: Freund Publishing House.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in Language Learning. <\/em>Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Donato, R. & McCormick, D. (1994). A Sociocultural perspective on language learning strategies: the role of Mediation. The Modern Language Journal,<\/em>78(4), 453-464.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Dreyer, P. J. ( 1994). Designing curricular identity interventions for secondary schools. In S. L. Archer (Ed.) Interventions for Adolescent Identity Development.<\/em> London: Sage.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Ellis, A (1962). Reasons and Emotion in Psychotherapie.<\/em> The Institute for Rational Living; 1991 edn, New York: First Carol Publishing.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Ellis, G,& Singlair, B.(1989). Learning to Learn English: a course in learner training.<\/em> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Ellis, G.(1991). Learning to Learn. In Brumfit, C., Moon, J.& Tongue, R. (Eds.), Teaching English to Children <\/em>(pp.142-157).London: Collins.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Emerson, L. W. ( 1991) MLE and American Indian Education. In Feuerstein, R., Klein, P. S. & Tannenbaum, A. J. ( Eds.). (1991). Mediated learning experience (MLE): Theoretical, psychosocial and learning implications. <\/em>(pp.133-156) London: Freund Publishing House.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Ericson, E. H. ( 1968). Youth and Crisis.<\/em> New York: Norton.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y. & Hoffman, M. (1979). The Dynamic Assesment of Retarded Performers.<\/em> Glenview, Illinois: Scott Foresman.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M. & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental Enrichment<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Glenview, Illinois: Scott Foresman.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Feuerstein, R., & Kaniel, S. ( 1989).Special needs of children with learning difficulties. Oxford<\/em> Review of Education<\/em>, Vol.15, No 2.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Feuerstein, R., Klein, P. S. & Tannenbaum, A. J. ( Eds.). (1991). Mediated learning experience (MLE): Theoretical, psychosocial and learning implications.<\/em> London: Freund Publishing House.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Feuerstein, R., & Feuerstein, S.( 1991) Mediated Learning Experience : A Theoretical Review In Feuerstein, R., Klein, P. S. & Tannenbaum, A. J. ( Eds.). (1991). Mediated learning experience (MLE): Theoretical, psychosocial and learning implications. <\/em>(pp.3-51) London: Freund Publishing House.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Fine, G. A. and Sandstrom, K.L. (1988) Knowing Children: Participant Observation with Minors.<\/em> Newbury Park, CA: Sage.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Galton, F. ( 1869). Hereditary Genius: an inquiry into its laws and consequences. <\/em>London: Macmillan.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Jensen, A.( 1972). Genetics and Education.<\/em> New York: Harper and Row.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Hamachek, D. E. (1988). Evaluating self-concept and ego-development within Ericson?s psycho-social framework: a formulation. Journal of Counseling and Development, <\/em>April, 354-60.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Hamachek, D. E. ( 1992). Encounters with the Self.<\/em> Orlando: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovitch.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Hitchcock, G & Hughes, D. ( 2nd<\/sup> Eds) (1995). Research and the Teacher. A qualitative introduction to school-based research.<\/em> London: Routledge.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Kimmel, D.C. & Weiner, I. B.( 1995) 2nd<\/sup> Edn. Adolescence. A Developmental Transition. <\/em>New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Kelly, G.(1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs<\/em>. New York: Norton.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Kozulin, A. (1994). The cognitive revolution in learning. Piaget and Vygotsky. In J. N. Mangieri & C. Collins Block ( Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students. Diverse perspectives <\/em>(pp.269-287). New York: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In Adelson J. (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology.<\/em> (pp.159-187). New York: Willey.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Marcia, J., Waterman, A. S., Matteson, D. R., Archer, L. S.& Orlofsky, J. L. (1993). Ego Identity: a handbook for psychosocial research<\/em>. New York: Springer Verlag.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Maslow, A. H. (1968). Towards a Psychology of Being,<\/em> 2nd<\/sup> edn. New York: Van Nostrand.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and Personality,<\/em> 2nd<\/sup> edn. New York: Harper and<\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Row.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Miller, A. and B. Glassner (1997). The ?inside? and the ?outside?. Finding realities in interviews. In D. Silverman (Eds) Qualitative research. Theory, Method and Practice <\/em>(pp.124-139).<\/span><\/p>\n

      Lantolf, J. P. & Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics<\/em>, v.15, ( pp.108-124).<\/span><\/p>\n

      Penuel, W. R. &Wertsch, J. V. (1995). Vygotsky and Identity Formation. A Sociocultural Approach. Educational Psychologist<\/em>, 30,83-92.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Piaget, J.(1959). The thought and language of the child.<\/em> London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Piaget, J.(1966). The Origins of Intelligence in Children<\/em>. New York: International University Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Piaget, J.(1972). The Principles of Genetic Epistemology.<\/em> New York: International University Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Radnor, H. (2001). Researching your Professional Practice: Doing Qualitative Research. <\/em> Buchingham : Open University Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to Learn<\/em>. Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Rogers, C. R. (1982). Freedom to Learn for the 80s.<\/em>. Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Seligman, M.E.P (1990). Learned Optimism.<\/em> New York: Pocket Books, Simon &<\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Schuster.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Sikes, P., Nixon, J. & Carr, W. (Eds) ( 2003). The Moral Foundations of Educational Research: Knowledge, Inquiry and Value.<\/em> Maidenhead: Open University Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Sharron, H. (1987). Changing Children?s Minds.<\/em> London: Souvenir Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Shehatah, N. A. (1998). An Investigation into the Role of Teachers as Mediators in Teaching English as a Foreign Language in Intermediate and Secondary Schools in Saudi Arabia.<\/em> Unpublished M.Ed. dissertation. University of Exeter.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Skoe, E. & Lippe , A.L. von der ( Eds.).(1998). Personality Development in Adolescence. <\/em>London: Routledge.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Smith, A., Schneider, B. H. & Ruck, M. D. ( 2005). ?Thinking About Makin?It?: Black Canadian Students? Beliefs Regarding Education and Academic Achievement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence<\/em>, Vol.34, No.4, August 2005, pp. 347-359.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Urdan, T.& Pajares, F. ( Eds.).(2001). Adolescence and Education.<\/em> Greenwich, Connecticut : Information Age Publishing.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and Language<\/em>. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society<\/em>. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Williams, M. & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for Language Teachers.<\/em> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Wertsch, J.V. (1985). Cultural, Communication, and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives.<\/em> Cambridge University Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

      APPENDICES<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      APPENDIX 1<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      1.1 The Greek Comprehensive Senior High school. A critical review <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      The Greek Comprehensive Senior High school [ Eniaio Lykeio] belongs to the category of upper secondary non-compulsory education. The duration of studies in an Eniaio Lykeio is three (3) years, unless it operates as an Esperino (Evening school), in which case it is four (4) years.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Within the recent educational reform named ?Education 2000? the role and structure of this type of school have changed. In theory, it comprises an autonomous educational stage in its own right and not only a preparatory stage for Tertiary education as it was<\/span>previously considered to be. The general objectives of the Comprehensive Senior High are<\/span> :<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n