السبت، 4 يوليو، 2009

The Effectiveness of Using the Process Writing Approach in Developing the EFL Writing


University of Mansoura
Faculty of Education
Department of Curriculum & Instruction



The Effectiveness of Using the Process Writing Approach in Developing the EFL Writing Skills of Al-Azhar Secondary Stage Students and their Attitudes towards it



A thesis
Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master of education – TEFL


By
Mogahed Mohamed Fathi Mogahed
An English teacher at Al-Azhar



Supervised by


Dr. Aly A. Koura Dr. Mervat M. El-Hadidy
Professor of Curriculum & Instruction – TEFL Lecturer of Curriculum & Instruction – TEFL
Faculty of Education, Mansoura University Faculty of Education, Mansoura University





2007




Summary, Results, Conclusions, Recommendations and Suggestions

Following are a summary of the study, results and the conclusions that can be drawn from the results of this study. Based on the results and conclusions of this study recommendations and suggestions are made.

1. Summary:

One of the most important aspects of recent educational reform efforts is the increased attention to the skill of writing. Writing is a powerful instrument of thinking because it provides students with a way of gaining control over their thoughts. It shapes their perception of themselves and the world. It aids in their personal growth and it affects change on their environment.
It is claimed that PW assists students whatever their ability level. Once students understand the process and trust that the teacher will accept and approve of their writing, the ability to write improves dramatically. Jarvis (2000) asserts that many students do not enjoy writing because they feel that if they cannot do it correctly the first time then they will never get it. Therefore, all students are capable of becoming excellent writers given enough practice and time.

1.1. Statement of the problem

There is a weakness in the writing skills of the first year secondary stage students. They often get low scores on their writing tasks. Consequently, they develop a negative attitude towards writing. The problem of the study was stated in the following questions:

1. What were the writing skills that first year Al-Azhar secondary stage students had to acquire?
2. What were the proposed PW activities for teaching these skills?
3. What was the effectiveness of using the proposed PW activities in developing writing performance of first year Al-Azhar secondary stage students?
4. What was the effectiveness of using the proposed PW activities in developing the first year Al-Azhar secondary stage students' attitudes towards writing?



1.2. Purpose of the study

This study aimed at:
1. Determining the writing skills that first year Al-Azhar secondary stage students should acquire
2. Developing the writing skills of first year Al-Azhar secondary stage students
3. Identifying the effectiveness of the PWA in developing the writing skills and attitudes of first year Al-Azhar secondary stage students towards writing

1.3. Significance of the study

This study gains its significance from the following:
1. Directing the attention of TEFL researchers, teachers, course designers, curriculum developers, learners and language specialists to the importance of using the PW activities in developing the writing skills and students' attitudes towards writing
2. Preparing a Teacher's Guide for second term of the school year that contains PW activities and how to teach them.

1.4. Limitation of the study

This study is limited to:
1. A sample of first year Al-Azhar secondary stage students
2. The sample of students was limited to two groups - experimental and control - of first year secondary stage students
3. The writing skills of first year Al-Azhar secondary students during the second term
4. Some PW activities that suit the objectives of the writing skills according to the course of the second term

1.5. Design of the study:

The study adopted the experimental design, i.e., using one experimental group and another control group. The experimental group students received training on the PWA and were taught writing skills through PW activities. On the other hand, the control group students were taught writing skills through the traditional method. A writing pre-post test was given to the two groups before and after the experiment. In addition, a writing attitude pre-post scale was given to the groups before and after the experiment. Subjects in the present study were first year secondary stage female students. Two classes were randomly selected from two different Al-Azhar institutes in the academic year 2005-2006.


1.6. Hypotheses of the study

1. There are statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the experimental group students and that of the control group students on the writing performance post- test favoring the experimental group.

2. There are statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the experimental group students and that of the control group students on the attitude post-scale favoring the experimental group.

3. There are statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the experimental group students on the writing performance pre-and post-test favoring the post-test scores.

4. There are statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the experimental group students on the attitude pre- post- scale favoring the post-attitude scores.

5. There are no statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the control group students on the writing performance pre-and post-test.

6. There are no statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the control group students on the attitude pre- post- scale.

1.7. Tools of the study:

The following instruments were used:

1. A Writing Performance Test for second term (prepared by the researcher).

2. A Holistic Scoring Rubric (HSR) (prepared by the researcher).

3. An Analytic Scoring Rubric (ASR) (prepared by the researcher).

4. A Writing Attitude Scale (prepared by the researcher).

1.8. Procedures
1. Preparing a list of the writing skills for the secondary stage through.

a. Studying the literature related to the writing skills for the secondary stage.
b. The objectives of teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) for the secondary stage.

2. Studying the literature related to PW activities to design PW activities that suit the writing skills of first year secondary.

3. Preparing a Teacher's Guide that contains PW activities and how they can be taught.

4. Selecting the sample and dividing it into two groups: experimental and control. The experimental group was trained on using PW activities and the control group was taught in the traditional way.

5. Preparing a pre-post test (for second term) to measure the performance of the sample in the writing skills in English as a foreign language (EFL).

6. Submitting both the pre-post writing performance test to a group of jurors for validity.

7. Measuring the reliability of the test.

8. Preparing an HSR and an ASR based on the writing skills of first year secondary stage students.

9. Submitting both rubrics to a group of jurors for validity.

10. Constructing an attitude scale to measure students’ attitudes towards writing in EFL.

11. Submitting the attitude scale to a group of jurors for validity.

12. Measuring the reliability of the attitude scale.

13. Administering the attitude scale to the two groups: experimental and control.

14. Administering the pre-writing performance test to the two groups: experimental and control.

15. The researcher trained the experimental group on using PW activities.

16. Administering the writing performance post-test and the attitude scale to measure the effectiveness of the experiment.

17. Analyzing the data statistically.

18. Reporting results, conclusions and suggesting recommendations.

2. Results:

The following results were reached:

1. There are statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the experimental group students and that of the control group students on the writing performance post- test favoring the experimental group.

2. There are statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the experimental group students and that of the control group students on the attitude post-scale favoring the experimental group.

3. There are statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the experimental group students on the writing performance pre-and post-test favoring the post-test scores.

4. There are statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the experimental group students on the attitude pre-post-scale favoring the post-attitude scores.

5. There are no statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the control group students on the writing performance pre-and post-test in terms of "Content" and "Organization" skills, but there are statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the control group students on the writing performance pre-and post-test in terms of "Sentence Fluency" and "Writing Conventions and Layout".

6. There is no statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the control group students on the attitude pre-post-scale.

3. Conclusions:

Upon reviewing the data and analyzing the results, the following points were concluded:

1. Instruction in PWA improves students' performance. This conclusion adds to the validity of other studies such as that of Moerler (1991), Wells (1992), Cox, Holden & Pickett (1997), Kapka & Oberman (2001), Buhrke et al (2002) and Ahmed (2003).

2. Using the PWA has helped develop a positive relationship between students' attitudes and their writing performance. Students who displayed low attitude scores towards writing displayed low writing performance and vice versa. This conclusion is consistent with the conclusions of other studies such as that of LaRoche, (1993), Adams et al (1996), Robertson, Cumberworth & Hunt (1998), Suzie (2001), Ensio & Boxeth (2000) and Gau et al (2003). This conclusion can be elaborated as follows:

A. Since a positive attitude change occurred due to the introduction and implementation of PWA in this study, it is important to realize that teaching writing as a process encouraged students to become writers. Students learned by being active participants rather than by passively absorbing information. PWA forced students to become participants in their learning. They were required to take charge of their writing by selecting their own topics to write about, by deciding how their topics would be developed and what the finished product would be. A focus on PW provided the natural development of written language. It focused attention on the process of learning and not the finished product. It is concluded that all students can write and that they have something worth writing. It allowed for the growth of writing subskills because PW activities took place in a non-threatening climate where students were not afraid to take risks. It was within this environment that students developed their own style and choices.

B. Through making writing purposeful, students became better writers because they had a sense of audience. The sense of audience developed through various aspects: constructive peer revising / editing, presenting writing to an audience (Author's Chair) and posting writing on pocket bulletin boards; these things were powerful incentives. Additionally, the purpose is motivated by writing on topics that affect them (friendly letter, describing one's hometown, describing the job one likes and for and against TV), it was then that their writing became purposeful. Hence, proposing writing that is real and meaningful was essential in creating a writing-rich environment. The researcher hoped to make writing an everyday reality for students. Other studies reached the same conclusion such as that of Adipattaranun (1992), Goldstein & Carr (1996), Loudermilk (1997) and Ensio & Boxeth (2000).

3. The change in the writing teacher's role from the traditional role which has been evaluating the learner's first draft as if it were the final product, and assuming the role of a consultant, facilitating the learner's step-by-step creation of the piece of writing, is crucial in helping students write better.

4. Providing safe, encouraging, non-threatening environment, i.e. creating settings that motivate students' writing, helps them improve their writing performance. Student-writers need to feel support and acceptance from the teacher and peers to take the kind of risk involved in the process of producing good writing. When they feel safe from criticism, they become eager to write and to share their writing. Therefore, the class becomes a community of writers and students respond positively to a supportive writing atmosphere. This is consistent with the results of other studies such as Mouritzen (1993), Edwards et al (1995), Tai Po Old Market Public School (2000) and Hill ( 2000).

4. Recommendations

The following recommendations are based on the results and conclusions drawn in this study:

1. Teachers need more training in writing, especially on PWA. For those unfamiliar with writing as a process, it would be advisable to read books by experts in the field. Teachers should talk to other teachers who use the process approach to become familiar with what is happening in the field of writing. They will have a stronger base for discussions concerning what writers do and how they feel when writing. These types of discussions are important to the development of the students' writing subskills.

2. Teachers should also provide students with frequent and lengthy opportunities to write. Collaboration is highly valued and encouraged at every step of the process, especially during the revising and editing phases.

3. In successful writing classes students need to be reminded of the purpose for their writing: publishing and communicating. Teachers are expected to help students make connections between writing in the classroom and in the world at large.

4. Teachers need to encourage their students, guide and support their hesitant steps, reassure them it is acceptable to make mistakes on first drafts and remind them the purpose of the initial writing is to communicate ideas.

5. Students, whatever their age or level of ability, need to feel that writing is fun.

6. As mastering the writing subskills can be achieved gradually, students need periodical experiences to practice it. Frequency of writing increases fluency. Therefore, sufficient time to writing instruction is needed.

7. As an interested audience is helpful and effective, it is recommended to adopt a sense of audience other than the teacher such as classmates, schoolmates and family members.

8. Student-writers should choose their own topics of writing that are of interest to them and their lives.

9. Teachers should view students as authors and real writers and give them the opportunities to engage in writing as "professionals" do.
10. The use of student-teacher conference is recommended as the teachers ask key questions (such as what kind of help might you need now?) and students raised their problems about using PW stages (prewriting, drafting, revising, editing and publishing) and the teacher responded to these problems and at the same time invited the whole class for a discussion. The conferencing was effective in tackling students' writing problems.

11. The students’ audiences should be real and interested in reading what the writers have to say (peers, friends from other classes, family members and so on).

12. When all teachers are encouraged to use the same scoring rubric, this will greatly enhance the consistency of assessment.


5. Suggestions for further research:

· Further research is needed to seek the effectiveness of using PWA in developing writing subskills for university, preparatory and primary stages.
· Further research is needed to explore the effectiveness of process approach in developing reading subskills for different stages.
· Further research is needed to explore the effectiveness of PWA in developing translation subskills for different stages.
· Further research is needed to find out the relationship between computer-assisted learning (CAL) and PWA.


References:






References:

· Abdu, F. (1993). Developing the Writing Skill of Secondary School Students through Small Group Instruction. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Education, University of Zagazig.

· Accomando, K. et al. (1996). The Development of Writing: A Social Experience among Primary Students. Unpublished M.A. Project, Saint Xavier University, Illinois, U.S.A., ERIC Research Report (ED 399543).

· Adams, D. et al. (1996). Improving Writing Skills and Related Attitudes among Elementary School Students. Unpublished M.A. Project, Saint Xavier University, Illinois, U.S.A., ERIC Research Report (ED398595).

· Adams, P. (1991). Revising: An approach for all Seasons. Writing Notebook. English Journal, vol. 2, no. 9, pp. 11-12.

· Adipattaranun, N. (1992). An Examination of the Variables in the Writing Process of ESL/EFL Students in a Process-oriented Freshman Composition Course. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University, Dissertation Abstracts International, vol. 53-06, p. 1826.

· Ahmed, N. (2003). Using School Journalism for Developing some Writing Skills for Secondary Stage Students. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Faculty of Education, University of Zagazig.

· Applebee, A. (1986). Problems in Process Approaches: Toward a Reconceptulization of Process Instruction. The National Society for the Study of Education, Part II, Chapter 6, pp. 95-113.

· Applebee, A. et al. (1986). The Writing Report Card: Writing Achievement in American Schools. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; Washington, DC. (ED 273 994).

· Arlington County Public Schools. (1997). Arlington County, VA Spanish Partial-Immersion Program for Writing and Speaking in English and Spanish for Grades 1-5. Office of Vocational and Adult Education (ED), Washington, DC, National Workplace Literacy Program

· Atwell, N.(1998). In the Middle: New Understandings about Writing, Reading and Learning. Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc., Portsmouth, New Hampshire, US.

· Bada, A. (1996). Language Arts through ESOL: A Guide for ESOL Teachers and Administrators. Florida Department of Education, Office of Multicultural Student Language Education. Online available at: http://www.fldoe.org

· Balajthy, E. (1986). Do Writers Really Revise? Paper presented at the Conference on Language and Literacy. Geneseo, NY, (ED 274 997).

· Baskoff, F. (1990). New Worlds: A Course in Guided Composition. HEINLE & HEINLE.

· Bello, T. (1997b). Writing Topics for Adult ESL Students. Paper presented at the 31st Annual Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Convention, Orlando, FL.

· Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of WrittenComposition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

· Berg, E. (1999). The Effects of Trained Peer Response on ESL Students, Revision Types and Writing Quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 8, no. 3.

· Berkenkotter, C. (2000). Writing and Problem Solving. In Fulwiler, Toby & Young, Art (Eds), Language Connections: Writing and Reading across the Curriculum. National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, Illinois. Online available at: http://wac.colostate.edu/books/language_connections

· Berry, S. et al. (1999). Improving Children's Writing. Unpublished Master's Action Research Project, Saint Xavier University / IRI Skylight, Illinois, U.S.A. ERIC Research Report (ED437662).

· Biffignani, S. (1995). A Study of the Writing Process in One-Sixth-Grade Classroom. Missouri, U.S.A. ERIC Research Report (ED 444166).

· Blackford, H. (2004). First Year Writing Instruction: Ideas & Examples for Inspiration. Rutgers University, Camden, Department of English, (NJ 08102).

· Bleck, J. et al. (2000). Improving Student Spelling in Daily Written Work. Unpublished M.A Research Project, Saint Xavier University and Sky Professional Development. Illinois; U.S.A. ERIC Research Report (ED 443130).

· Bobb-Wolff, L. (1996). Brainstorming to Autonomy. Forum, vol. 34, no. 3, July – September.

· Booth, W. (1988). The Vocation of a Teacher: Rhetorical Occasions. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

· Boughy, C. (1997). Learning to Write by Writing to Learn: A Group-Group Approach. ELT Journal, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 126-135.

· Brigman, D. et al. (2001). Assessment and Instructional Guide for the Georgia High School Writing Test. Georgia State Dept. of Education, Atlanta. Online available at: http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/sla/ret/ghswt.pdf.

· Buhrke, L. et al. (2002). Improving Fourth Grade Students' Writing Skills and Attitudes. ERIC (ED471788).

· Byrne, D. (1991). Teaching Writing Skills. London, Longman Group UK Limited.

· Calderonello, A. & Edwards, B. (1986). Rough Drafts the Process of Writing. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company.

· Calkins, L. (1986). Lessons from a Child: On the Teaching and Learning of Writing. Heinemann Educational Books Inc.,Portsmouth, New Hampshire, US.

· Calkins, L. (1994). The Art of Teaching Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. (ED 263 613).

· Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary. (2003).


· Caudery, T. (1995). What the "Process Approach" Means to Practicing Teachers of Second Language Writing Skills. TESL-EJ, vol. 1, no. 4.

· Caudery, T. (1997). Process Writing. In Kennedy C., ELT Review: Writing in the English Language Classroom. Hertfortshire: Prentice Hall Europe ELT.

· Cerbin, B. & Beck, T. (2001). Why Learning to Write Well in College is Difficult. University of Wisconsin – La Cross.

· Chan, D. (1989). A Collegial Approach to the Redesigning of a Writing Program for Grades K-5. Unpublished Ed.D. Practicum. Nova University, Florida; U.S.A. ERIC Research Report (ED 312656).

· Collins English Dictionary. (2000). HarperCollins Publishers. Online available at: http// www.wordreference.com

· Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia (CEN). (2002). Columbia University Press.

· Cotton, K. (1997). Teaching Composition. Research on Effective Practices. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, Oregon, USA.

· Covey, D. (1991). The Influence of Teaching the Main Idea, Drawing Conclusions and Making Inferences on the Improvement of Writing Skill. Unpublished M.S. Practicum Nova University, Florida; U.S.A. ERIC Research Report (ED340035).

· Cowell, R. & Butler, J. (2001). Improving Writing Skills: River Mill Elementary School. School Improvement Research Series. U.S. Department of Education.

· Cuevas, R. (1995). Teaching Writing as a Process in a 9th Grade English Class. ERIC (ED393122).

· Cumberworth, T. & Hunt, J. (1998). Improving Middle School Student Writing Skills and Attitudes toward Writing. Unpublished M.A. Action Research Project, Saint Xavier University and IRI / Skylight, Illinois, U.S.A. ERIC Research Report (ED420865).

· Danielson, L. (2000). The Improvement of Student Writing: What Research Says. Journal of School Improvement, vol. 1, no, 1.

· Darling, C. (2004). Guide to Grammar and Writing. Hartford, Connecticut

· DeLost, L. (1999). Post Baccalaureate, Pre-medical Minority Students Exploring Writing-as-a-Process in a Collaborative Learning Environment: A Teacher Researcher Study of Student Writers Preparing for a Timed Essay Exam. Dissertation Abstracts International, vol. 59, no. 8, p. 2959-A.

· Devine, T. (1990). Caveat Emptor: The Writing Process Approach to College Writing. Journal of Developmental Education, vol. 14, no. 1.

· Donato, M. (1990). Cooperative Learning and Process Writing Experiences to Improve the Writing of Fifth Grade Students. ERIC (ED321291).

· Dreher, M. (1990). Preservice Early Childhood Teachers' Attitudes toward the Process Approach to Writing. Early Child Development and Care, vol. 56.

· Dukpa, L. (1997). Using the Writing Process Model to Teach Writing at the Junior High School Level in Durk Yul: An Action Research (Bhutan). Unpublished MED Dissertation, University of New Brunswick, Canada. Dissertation Abstracts International, vol. 36-03, no. AAIMQ23789, p. 671

· Dyson, A. & Freedman, S. ( 1990). On Teaching Writing: A Review of the Literature. The National Center for the Study of Writing, U.S. Department of Education.

· Edwards, L. et al. (1995). Improving Student Writing Skills and Attitudes through the Increase of Writing Experience. Research Project, Saint Xavier University. ERIC (ED 386750).

· Elbow, P. & Pat, B. (1989). Sharing and Responding. Random House, New York.

· El-Marsafy, A. (2002). Utilizing the Process Writing Approach to Activate EFL Prospective Teachers' Content and Organization Writing Skills. Journal of Educational Research: National Center for Educational Research & Development, Cairo, Egypt, Third Year, no. 1, January.

· Emig, J. (1971). The Composing Processes of Twelfth-Graders. Research Report no.13, Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

· Ensio, T. & Boxeth, K. (2000). The Effects of Publishing on Student Attitudes toward Writing. ERIC (ED 448471).

· Estrin, H. (1993). Teaching Minority Students to Write Effectively. ERIC Digest (ED358487).

· Evans, J. (2001). The Writing Classroom. London: David Fulton Publishers.

· Faigley, L. (1986). Competing Theories of Process; A Critique and a Proposal. College English, vol. 48.

· Finley, P. (2002). Perspectives on Teaching Composition in the Secondary School. Case Study. ETAP, University of Albany, Spring. Online available at: http// www.albany.edu/

· Gau, E. et al. (2003). Improving Student Attitudes and Writing Abilities through Increased Time and Opportunities. Research Project, Saint Xavier University and Skylight Professional Development Field-Based Master's Program. ERIC (ED 481441).

· Gearhart, M. et al.(1995). Towards the Instructional Utility of Large-Scale Writing Assessment: Validation of a New Narrative Rubric. Assessing Writing, vol. 2, no. 2, PP. 207-242. (EJ 562433).

· Gefvert, C. (1988). The Confident Writer: A Norton Handbook, 2nd Ed. New York: Norton.

· Gibisch, M. et al. (1995). Improving Writing across the Curriculum. Unpublished M.A. Research Project. Saint Xavier University, Illinois; U.S.A. ERIC Research Report (ED 386748).

· Gocsik, K. (1999). Invention Strategies. Trustees of Dartmouth College.

· Goldstein, A. & Carr, P. (1996). Can Students Benefit from Process Writing? National Center for Education Statistics, vol. 1, no. 3.

· Gomez, R. et al. (1998). Process Versus Product Writing with Limited English Proficient Students. The Bilingual Research Journal, vol. 20, no. 2.

· Graves, D. (1978). Balance the Basics: Let them Write. Durham, New Hampshire: University of New Hampshire, Education Department.

· Graves, D. (1990). Discover your Own Literacy. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.

· Greenberg, J & Rath, C. (1985). Empowering Students through Writing. Educational Leadership, vol. 42, no. 5.

· Gudschinsky, S. (1999). A Manual of Literacy for Preliterate Peoples. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

· Hacker, D. (2000). Bedford Handbook: Cycles of Global Revision. The Millikin Writing Center, Millikin University.

· Hansen, J. (1987). When Writers Read. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, (ED 282 226).

· Hansen, T. (1989). A Comparison of the Effects of two Process Writing Programs and a Traditional Writing Program on the Writing Development of First-Grade Children. Unpublished EDD Project, University of South Dakota. Dissertation Abstracts International, vol. 50-11A, no. AA19009521, p. 3474

· Harlin, R. & Lipa, S. (1993). Assessment: Insights into Children's Beliefs and Perceptions about Process Writing. Reading Horizon, vol. 33, no.4.

· Harste, J. et al. (1988). Creating Classrooms for Authors: The Reading Writing Connection. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, (ED 320 168).

· Haskew, B. (1995). Process Writing. Talents Unlimited, Inc.

· Hassan, B. (1994). The Effects of Quick Writing Technique on the EFL Students’ Essay Writing. Mansoura Faculty of Education Journal, vol. 25, Part 1, pp.115-135.

· Hayes, J. & Flower, L. (1986). Writing Research and the Writer. American Psychologist, vol. 41,pp. 1106-1113.

· Heald-Taylor, G. (1994). Whole Language Strategies for ESL Students. Carlsbad: Dominie Press, Inc.

· Heine, P. (1990). Writers Supporting Writers (Collaboration, Process Writing). Unpublished EDD, Indiana University, Dissertation Abstracts International, vol. 52-03A, no. AA1907533, p. 971.

· Helal, E. (2003). A Proposed Self-Access Reading Program for Developing English Language Writing Skills for First Year Secondary Student. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Women's College, Ain Shams University.

· Hernandez, A. (1987). Increasing Fifth Grade Students' Writing Skills through the Use of Process Writing. ERIC (ED286206).

· Heyden, W. (1996). Teacher-Student Interactions in a Process Writing Course: The Experience of Three Freshmen their Instructor. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, New York University, Dissertation Abstracts International, vol. 57-10A, no. AA19710920, p. 4295.

· Hill, D. (2000). Student Goal Orientation in a Writing Workshop Process Classroom and a Traditional Literacy Classroom. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of North Carolina at Greensbo. Online available at: http:/www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/fullcit/99980237?gotoCite=9

· Holmes, N. (2003). The Use of a Process-Oriented Approach to Facilitate the Planning and Production Stages of Writing for Adult Students of English as a Foreign or Second Language. Online available at: http// www.developingteachers.com

· Hopkins, J.; Dufour, R. & Strauss, J. (1987). Writing as Process: A Step-by-Step Guide. The Center for Humanities, Inc., Communications Park, Box 1000, Mount Kisco, NY 10549.

· Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for Language Teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.

· James, P. (1993). Teachers in Action: Tasks for In-service Language Teacher Education and Development. Cambridge University Press.

· Jarvis, D. (2000). The Process Writing Method. TESL Journal, vol. 8, no. 7, July.

· Jobst, J. (2000). Audience and Purpose in Writing. In Fulwiler, Toby and Young, Art (Eds), Language Connections: Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, Illinois.

· Johnson, D. ; Johnson, R. & Smith, K. (1998). Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

· Johnston, H. (1996). Survey Review: Process Writing in Course books. ELT Journal, vol. 50, no. 4. Oxford University Press.

· Johnson, R. (1999). Improve your Writing Skills. Mantex, Manchester M20 6GZ – UK.

· Jordan, R. (1997). English for Academic Purposes. CUP

· Kapka, D. & Oberman, D. (2001). Improving Student Writing Skills through the Modeling of the Writing Process. ERIC (ED453536).

· Kaufman, D. (1999). Psychology Glossary. Kaufman Research and Consulting Group, Inc.

· Keh, C. (1990a). A Design for a Process Writing Course. English Teaching Forum, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 44-51.

· Keh, C. (1990b). Feedback in the Writing Process: A Model and Methods for Implementation. ELT Journa,l vol. 50, no. 4. Oxford University Press.

· Kelly, D. (2000). Portfolio. Classroom Connect, vol. 6, no. 7.

· Kies, D. (2005). Coherence in Writing. Composition English 101. Department of English, College of DuPage.

· Kim, J. (1996). Product and Process Aspects of NES/EFL Students' Persuasive Writing in English: Differences between Advanced and Basic writers. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, vol. 2, no. 2.

· Kinneavy, J. (1987). The Process of Writing: A Philosophical Base in Hermeneutics. JAC, vol. 7.

· Kneebone, N. & Hakari, M. (1997). Process Writing. West Iron County Middle School.

· Koca, J. (2000). Make your Classroom Newspaper. Middle School Language Arts. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

· Kuskin, K. (1997). Creating a Classroom of Writers Using the "Meet the Author" Collection. Education World.

· Lannon, J. (1995). The Writing Process. New York: HarperCollins.

· LaRoche, K. (1993). A Focus on Using Prewriting and Knowledge Level Strategies and Skills to Improve the Attitudes and Writing Skills of Middle School Students. ERIC (ED 366974).

· Lawton, P. (2001). Revision Checklist for Essay Writing. Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

· Lehr, F. (1995). Revision in the Writing Process. ERIC Digest (ED 379664).

· Lim, J. (2002). College ESL Writers' Journeys through the Process Approach to Writing: Eight Case Studies. Dissertation Abstracts International, vol. 63, no. 2, p. 579, Aug.

· Lin, C. (2002). Process Approaches to EFL Advanced Writing Instruction in the In-service English Teacher Classroom: Awareness and Invention. The Fourth Annual Wenshan International Conference, National Chengchi University, China.

· Lindsay, P. (2000). Teaching English Worldwide: A New Practical Guide to Teaching English. San Francisco, Alta Book Center Publishers.

· Liou, H.(1993). Investigating of Using Text-Critiquing Programs in a Process-Oriented Writing Class. CALICO Journal, vol. 10, no.4.

· Lipkewich, A. (2001). Time to Write! Westmount School. Online available at: http://www.angelfire.com/wi/writingprocess

· Long, V. & Gardiner, S. (2002). Interactive Six Trait Writing Process. Montana State University-Billings. Online available at: www.senior.billings.k12.mt.us

· Loudermilk, S. (1997). The Affective Dimension of the Writing Process: An Ethnographic Study of the Freshman Writing Experience. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, the University of Texas at Arlington, Dissertation Abstracts International, vol. 58-09A, 3439, no. AA19810467.

· Luttmer, R. & Labercane, G. (1994). Getting the Right Meaning with the Right Words: Applying Elbow in the Writer's Workshop. Alberta; Canada. ERIC Research Report (ED 373338).

· Manktelow, J. (2000). Brainstorming: Generating Many Radical Ideas. Mind Tools Ltd of Signal House, Station Road, Burgess Hill, West Sussex, RH15 8DY, United Kingdom.

· Martin, A. (1998). Graphic Organizers. CedarNet and Area Educational Agency. Online available at: http://www.cedarnet.org/

· Martin, L. et al. (2005). The Writing Process: Three First Grade Teachers and Their Students Reflect on What Was Learned. Reading Psychology, vol. 26 no. 3.

· McArthur, T. (1992). The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford University Press.

· McDowell, D. (1999). Process Guide:Brainstorming. The Triton and Patterns Projects of San Diego Unified School District.

· McKenzie, J. (1997). Graphical Organizers as Thinking Technology. From Now On: The Educational Technology Journal, vol. 7, no. 2.

· McKenzie, J. (1999). Questions and Questioning: The Most Powerful Technologies of All. From Now On: The Educational Technology Journal, vol. 9, no. 3.

· McLean, M. (1994). Increasing the Writing Process Skills of Second Graders through the Implementation of Portfolios. Unpublished Ed.D. Practicum, Nova Southeastern University, Florida; U.S.A. ERIC Research Report (ED 376494).

· Meriwether, N. (1997). Strategies for Writing Successful Eessays. NTC publication, The Millikin Writing Center. Millikin University.

· Ministry of Education. (2004). Directives for General Secondary School Teachers. Egypt.

· Mittan, R. (1989). The Peer Response Process: Harnessing Students' Communicative Power. In Johnson, D. & Roen, D, (Eds) Richness in Writing: Empowering ESL Students. New York: Longman, pp. 207-219.

· Moerler, L. (1991). A Learning Activity for Secondary Level Students: an Introduction to Occupation Class in Improving Written Communication. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, New York Institute of Technology, U.S.A. ERIC Research Report (ED 341988).

· Monteith, S. (1991). Writing Process versus Traditional Writing Classrooms: Writing Ability and Attitudes of Second Grade Students. ERIC (ED 340024).

· Mooney, J. (2004). Demystifying the Writing Process. Pearson Education, Inc. Online available at: http://www.familyeducation.com

· Morgan, M. (1995). How to Proofread and Edit your Writing: A Guide for Student Writers. Bemidji State University, Writing Resource Center.

· Mostafa, A. (2002). The Effectiveness of a Proposed Interactive Process Model in the Writing Performance, Self-Efficacy and Apprehension of ESP College Students. Mansoura Faculty of Education Journal, vol. 49, pp.75-102.

· Mouretzen, G. (1993). Improving Writing Skills in an Alternative High School English Class through Writers' Workshop. Practicum, Nova University, Florida; U.S.A. ERIC Research Report (ED 354543).

· Mouser, S. (2002). Style Guide. Alexander Communications.

· Moynihan, W. ; Lee, D. & Weil, H. (1969). Reading, Writing & Rewriting. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co.

· Muncie, J. (2002). Process Writing and Vocabulary Development: Comparing Lexical Frequency Profiles across Drafts. System, vol. 30, issue 2, pp. 225-235.

· Muschia, G. (1993). Writing Workshop Survival Kit. Centre for Applied Research in Education.

· Murphy, C. & Sherwood, S. (1995). The St. Martin's Sourcebook for Writing Tutors. New York: St. Martin's.

· Murray, D. (1992). Writing for your Readers. Old Saybrook, Connecticut: The Globe Pequot Press.

· Musgrove, L. (1998). Attitude: for “Coming to Terms”. English Journal, April.

· Nancy, S. et al. (2001). English Language Arts Curriculum Standards. Tennessee State Board of Education.

· National Center for Education Statistics. (1990). Selection of Assessment Methods: Specific and General Considerations. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Dept. of Education, K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006, USA.

· National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (1977). Write/Rewrite: An assessment of Revision Skills. Selected Results from the Second National Assessment of Writing. Denver: Education Commission of the States, (ED 141826).

· Nealy, C. (1991). A Study of Two Instructional Methods Process- and Product in Improving the Writing Ability of Selected College Freshmen. Dissertation Abstracts International, vol. 51.

· Nelson, G. & Murphy. J. (1992). An L2 Writing Group: Task and Social Dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 171-194.

· Nielsen, L. & Tuner, S. (1984). Teaching Writing as A Process. Evaluation for District Decision-Making. Florida Journal of Educational Research. vol. 26, no. l.

· Nolan, F. (1988). Caution: Process Writing in Progress. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Reading Association, Toronto, Canada. ERIC (ED 295169).

· North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL). (2000). Process Writing. East Diehl Road, Suite 200, Naperville, Illinois.

· Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NREL). (2001). Six-Trait Analytical Writing, Assessment Model, Scoring Guide (Rubric). Online available at: www.nwrel.org

· Norton, A. (2001). Language Arts Writing Process. Corporation for Educational Technology, the Indiana General Assembly, the Indiana Department of Education.

· Novelli, J. (1990). Young Writer's Workshop: It is Time to Publish: Teaching Children How to Publish their Writings. Instructor, May-June.

· Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching & Learning. Heinle & Heinle Publisher.

· Oracle Education Foundation. (2003). Process Writing. Online available at: http: www.thinkquest.org

· Parson, G. (1985). Hand in hand: The Writing Process and the Microcomputer, Two Revolutions in the Teaching of Writing: A Manual for Secondary Teachers. Juneau, AK: Alaska State Department of Education, (ED 264598).

· Peregoy, S & Boyle, O. (1993). Reading, Writing and Learning in ESL. A Resource Book for K-8 Teachers. New York: Longman.

· Peyton, J. & Staton, J. (1996). Writing our Lives: Reflections on Dialogue Journal Writing with Adults Learning English. Washington, DC and McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.

· Pica, T. (1986). An International Approach to the Teaching of Writing. English Teaching Forum, vol. XXIV, no. 3.

· Pierce, J. et al. (1997). Motivating Reluctant Writers. Unpublished M.A. Project, Saint Xavier University, Illinois; USA. ERIC Research Report (ED 408617).

· Power, B. & Hubbard, R. (1991). Literacy in Process. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.

· Qiyi, L. (1993). Peer Editing in my Writing Class. Forum, vol. 31, no. 3, p. 30.

· Quinn, L. (2000). An Examination of the Drafting-Responding Process Used to Develop Students' Writing in English Language for Academic Purposes Course. Rhodes University Electronic Theses Collection, RU Library Webteam, TR 00-111.

· Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the Woods: Emerging Traditions in the Teaching of Writing. TESOL Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 407-429.

· Reimer, C. (2001). Strategies for Teaching Writing to Primary Students Using the Writing Process. ERIC (ED 459471).

· Ribeiro, C. & Alice, M. (1999). The Adoption of Process Writing To Develop Learners' Competence in the Use of More Refined Forms of "But." ERIC (ED 429458).

· Richardson, G. (1992). Determining Attitudes toward Writing / Thinking. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Knoxville, TN. ERIC (ED 353336).

· Richardson, L. (2000). Why are we not Teaching those who can? Primary Grade Writing Instruction in Fayette County, Georgia. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Georgia State University. Online available at: http:// www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/fullcit/9977045

· Rico, G. (1983). Writing the Natural Way. Los Angeles: JP. Tracher, Inc. Online available at, http://www:volcan.und.edu/vwdocu/vwdocs /msh/llc/is html

· Risinger, C. (1987). Improving Writing Skills through Social Studies. ERIC Digest (ED 285829).

· Robertson, S. (2001). E-mail and Learning to Write in French: TheInfluence of E-mail on the Attitudes and Writing Development of Grade 2/3 Early French Immersion Students. Online available at: http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~srobertson/Suzie2a.htm

· Robinson, D. & Kiewra, K. (1995). Visual Argument: Graphic Organizers are Superior to Outlines in Improving Learning from Text. Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 455-67.

· Rooney, P. (1999). Improving Rewriting through Direct Instruction: An Integrated Process-Oriented Approach. Dissertation Abstracts International, vol. 59, no. 10, p. 3728-A.

· Sasaki, M. (2000).Toward an Empirical Model of EFL Writing Processes: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 9, issue 3, September, pp. 259-291.

· Saskatchewan Education. (1997). English Language Arts: A Curriculum Guide for the Secondary Level. Regina, SK: Saskatchewan Education. Online available at: http://www.sasked.gov.skca/

· Scholes, R. & Comely, N. (1989). The Practice of Writing, 3rd Ed. New York: St. Martin's.

· Schorn, S. (2002). Drafting Techniques. SWC Resources. The University of Texas.

· Shafer, G. (2003). Process & Voice in the Writing Workshop, 3rd ed. Robbie Dean Press.

· Shin-Mei, K. & Jin-Jou, T. (2000). A Virtual Writing Lab: An Internet-Aided Process Writing Program. JALTCALL. Online available at:http://anny.linjo-u.ac.jp/~houser/jcp

· Simic, M. (1993). Publishing Children's Writing. ERIC Digest, Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication, Bloomington, IN.

· Simpson, A. (2004). A Process Approach to Writing. CALL Centers, Istanbul. Bilgi University. Online available at: http://www.developingteachers.com

· Singh, M. (1992). A Students' Guide to Process Writing. English Teaching Forum, vol. 30, no 2.

· Sloane, S. (2004). Brainstorming and Listing Exercise Student Instructions. Colorado State University.

· Smith, F. (1986). Insult to Intelligence: The Bureaucratic Invasion of our Classrooms. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

· Spandel, V. & Stiggins, R. (1990). Creating Writers: Linking Assessment and Writing Instruction. Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc. p. 130

· Stanley, G. (2000). Approaches to Process Writing. British Council, London SW1A 2BN, UK.

· Steele, K. (2004). Organization Rubric. Kim's Corner for Teacher Talk. Online available at :www.kimskorner4teachertalk.com

· Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative Writing; English (Second Language); Adult Students; Student Attitudes; Writing (Composition); Writing Instruction; Cooperative Learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 14, no. 3.

· Strong, G. (1995). A Survey of Issues and Item Writing in Language Testing. Thought Currents in English Literature, vol. 68, Dec.

· Sturm, J. & Rankin-Erickson, J. (2002). Effects of Hand-Drawn and Computer-Generated Concept Mapping on the Expository Writing of Middle School Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, vol. 17.

· Sutton, K. (1992). Developing the Academic Writing Ability of English Second Language Students at University. Rhodes University, Grahamstown

· Tai Po Old Market Public School. (2000). A Journey from Process to Product in Writing. Collaborative Action Research on Process Writing in English. Hong Kong. Online available at: http://www.cd.emb.gov.hk/contents/AR/processwrititng.htm

· Taylor, M. (1992). The Language Experience Approach and Adult Learners. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse on ESL Literacy Education. ERIC Digest (ED 350887).

· Temple, C.; Nathan, R. & Burris, N. (1988). The Beginnings of Writing, 2nd Ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

· The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.(2000). Houghton Mifflin Company. Fourth Edition.

· Thomas, L. (1992). A Process of Metamorphosis: Changing Children's Attitudes toward Writing. ERIC (ED 379668).

· Tomlinson, S. (1998). English on the Internet. Online available at: http://www.delmar.edu

· Tompkins, G. (1990). Teaching Writing: Balancing Process and Product. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Publishing Company.

· Tremmel, Robert. (1990). Going Back and Paying Attention: Solving the Problem of the Writing Process. Journal of Teaching Writing, v9 n1 p71-83 Spr-Sum.

· Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. OUP.

· Troyka, L. (2000). Concise Handbook: Major Activities during Revision. The Millikin Writing Center: Millikin University.

· Tsui, A. (2000). Do Secondary L2 Writers Benefit from Peer Comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 9, no. 2.

· Tsujimoto, J. (1998). Teaching Poetry Writing to Adolescents. National Council of Teacher of English.

· University of Kansas Writing Center. (2004). Prewriting Strategies. Online available at: www.writing.ku.edu/

· Wasson, K. (1993). Implementation of a Publishing Center to Enhance the Writing Process for Primary Students. ERIC Digest (ED 359526).

· Wells, C. & Wollac, J. (2003). An Instructor’s Guide to Understanding Test Reliability. Testing & Evaluation Services. University of Wisconsin.

· Wells, M. (1992). Improving Students' Expertise and Attitudes during the post Writing Stage of the Writing Process through Collaborative Revision. ERIC (ED 347554).

· Western Campus Writing Center. (1998). Process Writing. Cuyahoga Community College.

· White, R. & Arndt, V. (1991). Process Writing. Longman.

· Wikipedia Encyclopedia. (2007). The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Online available at: en.wikipedia.org


· Wood, J. (2000). A Marriage Waiting to Happen: Computers and Process Writing. Education Development Center, Inc.

· Wood, K. & Fisher, C. (2001). Building Assets in the Classroom through Creative Response. National Middle School Association, USA.

· Wood, N. (1993). Self-Correction and Rewriting of Student Compositions: The Correction Code. Forum, vol. 31, no. 3, p. 38.

· Wright, J. et al. (2000). Pondering a Process Approach to Writing: An Action Research Project. Dept. of Physical Sciences, Faculty of Science, Peninsula Technikon, Bellville, South Africa.

· Yancey, K. (1992). Portfolios in the Writing Classroom: A Final Reflection. Urbana: NCTE, 102-116.

· Yao, Y. & Warden, C. (2000). Process Writing and Computer Correction: Happy Wedding or Shotgun Marriage. CALL Electronic Journal, vol. 1, no. 1. Online available at: http://www.lc.tut.ac.jp/callej/callej.htm.

· Yeung, S. (1994). The Use of Model Essays in a Process-Based Writing Program and their Effects on Schematic Structure. English Language Institute, University of Surrey Guildford Surrey.

· Yoder, S. (1993). Teaching Writing Revision: Attitudes and Copy Changes. Journalism Educator, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 41-47.

· Zamel, V. (1987). Writing: the Process of Discovering Meaning." In Long, M. & Richards, J. (Eds.), Methodology in TESOL: A Book of Readings. Newbury House Publishing. Pp. 276-278.

· Zaragoza, N. & Vaughn, S. (1992). The Effects of Process Writing Instruction on Three 2nd Grade Students with Different Achievement Profiles. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, vol. 7, no. 4.




الأحد، 15 فبراير، 2009

السيرة الذاتية



السيــرة الذاتيـــة (عربي)

المعلــــومات الشخصيــــة :
الاســــــــــــــــم : مجاهد محمد فتحي مجاهد
تاريخ ومحل الميلاد : 9/7/1972- مدينة نبروه
الحالة الاجتماعيــة : متـــزوج
الجنسيـــــــــــــة : مصـــري
الوظيفـة الحاليــة : مدرس لغة إنجليزية بالمرحلة الثانوية بالأزهر الشريف
العنـــــــــــــوان : جمهورية مصر العربية- محافظة الدقهلية - مدينة نبروه - شارع البحر بجوار مسجد التوحيد
رقـــــم الهاتــــف : 0502404139
محمـــــــــــــول : 0107192688
البريد الإلكترونـي : mogahed72@windowslive.com.com
المؤهلات العلمية :
· ليسانس آداب, قسم اللغة الإنجليزية, كلية الآداب – جامعة المنصورة عام 1995 بتقدير عام (جيد).
· دبلوم عام في التربية, كلية التربية – جامعة المنصورة عام 1997 بتقدير عام ( جيد ).
· دبلوم خاص في التربية, قسم المناهج وطرق التدريس, شعبة اللغة الإنجليزية, كلية التربية – جامعة المنصورة عام 1998 بتقدير عام ( جيد ).
· الماجستير في التربية, قسم المناهج وطرق التدريس, شعبة اللغة الإنجليزية, كلية التربية – جامعة المنصورة عام 2007 بتقدير عام ( ممتاز ).
الإنتاج العلمي :
رسالة ماجستير في التربية, فرع المناهج وطرق التدريس, لغة إنجليزية, بعنوان:
فعالية استخدام مدخل الكتابة كعملية في تنمية مهارات الكتابة باللغة الإنجليزية لطلاب المرحلة الثانوية الأزهرية و اتجاهاتهم نحوها .
The Effectiveness of Using the Process Writing Approach in Developing the EFL Writing Skills of Al-Azhar Secondary Stage Students and their Attitudes towards it.
الدورات التدريبية :
· شهادة تكنولوجيا المعلومات: دورة التدريب الأساسي في مجال تكنولوجيا المعلومات, مركز الحساب العلمي, جامعة المنصورة, في الفترة من 30 / 9 / 2000 إلى 26 / 11 /2000 , بتقدير جيد .
· دورة تدريبية في الترجمة الدبلوماسية والسياسية من الجمعية الدولية للمترجمين واللغويين العرب (واتا).
www.arabswata.org
·
الخبرات العملية :
· مدرس لغة إنجليزية بالمرحلة الثانوية بالأزهر الشريف من 20 / 4 / 1999م وحتى الآن .

عضوية الجمعيات:
· عضو الجمعية الدولية للمترجمين واللغويين العرب (واتا).
www.arabswata.org
· عضو نادي اللغة الإنجليزية العالمي.
http://www.englishclub.com/





Curriculum Vitae

Personal Details :
Name : Mogahed Mohamed Fathi Mogahed
Date and Place of Birth : July 9, 1972, Nabarou City
Marital status : Married
Nationality : Egyptian
Present Position : An English teacher at Al-Azhar
Address : Egypt, Dakahlia Governorate, Nabarou, Al-Bahr Street, near Al-Tawheed Mosque
E-mail: mogahed72@windowslive.com

Qualifications :
· (1995) B.A. in English, Faculty of Arts, Mansoura University, with Good.
· (1997) General Diploma in Education, Faculty of Education, Mansoura University, with Good.
· (1998) Special Diploma in Education, Department of Curriculum & Instruction, Faculty of Education, Mansoura University, with Good.
· (2007) Master Degree in Education, Department of Curriculum & Instruction, Faculty of Education, Mansoura University, with Excellent.
The Master Thesis under the title:

The Effectiveness of Using the Process Writing Approach in Developing the EFL Writing Skills of Al-Azhar Secondary Stage Students and their Attitudes towards it

Training Courses
· Information Technology Certificate(IT): Basic Training Course in Information Technology, Scientific Computer Center, Mansoura University, from September 30, 2000 to November 26, 2000, with Good.
· A training course in diplomatic and political translation from World Association of Arab translators and Linguists (wata).
http://www.arabswata.org/
·


Work Experience
A secondary school teacher of English since April 20, 1999, up till now.


Associations Membership:
· A member of World Association of Arab translators and Linguists (wata).
http://www.arabswata.org/

· A member of English Club.
http://www.englishclub.com/

السيرة الذاتية



السيــرة الذاتيـــة (عربي)

المعلــــومات الشخصيــــة :
الاســــــــــــــــم : مجاهد محمد فتحي مجاهد
تاريخ ومحل الميلاد : 9/7/1972- مدينة نبروه
الحالة الاجتماعيــة : متـــزوج
الجنسيـــــــــــــة : مصـــري
الوظيفـة الحاليــة : مدرس لغة إنجليزية بالمرحلة الثانوية بالأزهر الشريف
العنـــــــــــــوان : جمهورية مصر العربية- محافظة الدقهلية - مدينة نبروه - شارع البحر بجوار مسجد التوحيد
رقـــــم الهاتــــف : 0502404139
محمـــــــــــــول : 0107192688
البريد الإلكترونـي : mogahed72@windowslive.com
المؤهلات العلمية :
· ليسانس آداب, قسم اللغة الإنجليزية, كلية الآداب – جامعة المنصورة عام 1995 بتقدير عام (جيد).
· دبلوم عام في التربية, كلية التربية – جامعة المنصورة عام 1997 بتقدير عام ( جيد ).
· دبلوم خاص في التربية, قسم المناهج وطرق التدريس, شعبة اللغة الإنجليزية, كلية التربية – جامعة المنصورة عام 1998 بتقدير عام ( جيد ).
· الماجستير في التربية, قسم المناهج وطرق التدريس, شعبة اللغة الإنجليزية, كلية التربية – جامعة المنصورة عام 2007 بتقدير عام ( ممتاز ).
الإنتاج العلمي :
رسالة ماجستير في التربية, فرع المناهج وطرق التدريس, لغة إنجليزية, بعنوان:
فعالية استخدام مدخل الكتابة كعملية في تنمية مهارات الكتابة باللغة الإنجليزية لطلاب المرحلة الثانوية الأزهرية و اتجاهاتهم نحوها .
The Effectiveness of Using the Process Writing Approach in Developing the EFL Writing Skills of Al-Azhar Secondary Stage Students and their Attitudes towards it.
الدورات التدريبية :
· شهادة تكنولوجيا المعلومات: دورة التدريب الأساسي في مجال تكنولوجيا المعلومات, مركز الحساب العلمي, جامعة المنصورة, في الفترة من 30 / 9 / 2000 إلى 26 / 11 /2000 , بتقدير جيد .
· دورة تدريبية في الترجمة الدبلوماسية والسياسية من الجمعية الدولية للمترجمين واللغويين العرب (واتا).
www.arabswata.org
·
الخبرات العملية :
· مدرس لغة إنجليزية بالمرحلة الثانوية بالأزهر الشريف من 20 / 4 / 1999م وحتى الآن .

عضوية الجمعيات:
· عضو الجمعية الدولية للمترجمين واللغويين العرب (واتا).
www.arabswata.org
· عضو نادي اللغة الإنجليزية العالمي.
http://www.englishclub.com/





Curriculum Vitae

Personal Details :
Name : Mogahed Mohamed Fathi Mogahed
Date and Place of Birth : July 9, 1972, Nabarou City
Marital status : Married
Nationality : Egyptian
Present Position : An English teacher at Al-Azhar
Address : Egypt, Dakahlia Governorate, Nabarou, Al-Bahr Street, near Al-Tawheed Mosque
E-mail: mogahed72@windowslive.com

Qualifications :
· (1995) B.A. in English, Faculty of Arts, Mansoura University, with Good.
· (1997) General Diploma in Education, Faculty of Education, Mansoura University, with Good.
· (1998) Special Diploma in Education, Department of Curriculum & Instruction, Faculty of Education, Mansoura University, with Good.
· (2007) Master Degree in Education, Department of Curriculum & Instruction, Faculty of Education, Mansoura University, with Excellent.
The Master Thesis under the title:

The Effectiveness of Using the Process Writing Approach in Developing the EFL Writing Skills of Al-Azhar Secondary Stage Students and their Attitudes towards it

Training Courses
· Information Technology Certificate(IT): Basic Training Course in Information Technology, Scientific Computer Center, Mansoura University, from September 30, 2000 to November 26, 2000, with Good.
· A training course in diplomatic and political translation from World Association of Arab translators and Linguists (wata).
http://www.arabswata.org/
·


Work Experience
A secondary school teacher of English since April 20, 1999, up till now.


Associations Membership:
· A member of World Association of Arab translators and Linguists (wata).
http://www.arabswata.org/

· A member of English Club.
http://www.englishclub.com/

صورتي


ترحيب

أهلا بكم في هذه المدونة التي تهتم بمناهج وطرق تدريس اللغة الإنجليزية والترجمة
أرحب بمساهمتكم واقتراحتكم