High percentages of newly qualified teachers (NQTs) drop out during their first 5 years in the classroom. Often, formal support systems are put in place to overcome 'practice shock'. However, in this research, it was hypothesised that it is not the formal support structure put in place that determines whether starting teachers feel satisfied in their job and show perseverance but rather the amount of knowledge exchange that takes place. This was confirmed by the results of a first quantitative study. Then, a follow-up qualitative study showed that having the principal in the role of a mentor is often experienced as a mechanism of control or evaluation. Starting teachers prefer to choose their own mentor. They prefer their mentor not to be a superior but a close colleague whom they trust, who is teaching the same course in the same year. Our results have especially implications for onboarding of novice teachers. Since social informal learning (e.g. through the exchange of feedback with colleagues) benefits newly qualified teachers, it is important to create a safe and warm learning climate in which knowledge exchange can flourish. Also, NQTs should be given the opportunity to choose their mentor.

Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d'utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne.

Tous droits réservés © Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française, 2009Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d'utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne. https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-dutilisation/ Cet article est diffusé et préservé par Érudit.Érudit est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif composé de l'

Recent literature has shown the low levels of reflexivity student teachers exhibit when doing reflective writing and the lack of a training program in their initial training to help them. A training program that was developed to support future teachers’ reflective writing was implemented and the program’s results were evaluated. The program was based on a combination of theories from the fields of teacher training and writing instruction. The training program was offered to a class of 16 future primary school teachers in French-speaking Belgium (three males and 13 females, averaging 20 years old) who were in their final year of training. They rewrote a reflective text several times and the 64 texts produced were analyzed quantitatively. The results showed that the training program enabled participants to make major progress from one draft to another and thus improve their reflective writing skills. In addition, a qualitative single case study showed how one student’s writing evolved during the training program. Among the practical implications that emerged from this study were the recommendations to include time in the training curricula dedicated to the teaching of reflective writing and to train trainers to support the writing of reflective texts.

In this contribution, we attempt to answer two research questions: (1) What effects do metacognitive questions have on students' writing skills? and (2) How do students respond to metacognitive questions? To answer these questions, we conducted an experiment with 43 students who were 11 to 12 years old. They were engaged in writing in a particular genre: book reviews. These pupils belonged to two classes at the same school, and for three weeks they experienced an instructional system combining identified principles of effective writing instruction, taught by the same teacher. They were required to rewrite their text several times, with the only difference being that in one group, metacognitive questions were introduced before, during, and after writing, unlike in the other class. A total of 172 written productions were analyzed under both conditions. Student responses in the metacognition condition were also analyzed. Our results show that students in both conditions made significant progress. But in the metacognitive condition, students made more significant progress.