What a Long-Term Mentoring Project Revealed
About this practice test
A feature article about a secondary-school mentoring project, its routines, measured effects, expansion, and limits.
What you’ll practice
Finding detail
Locate specific information and evidence.
Interpreting ideas
Connect main points and inferences.
Evaluating arguments
Assess claims, evidence, and limitations.
What to expect:
2 questions with explanations to review after submission.
Study the questions and tasks
Work through the material below, or start the interactive practice above to complete an attempt. Try the exercises before opening any answer or transcript sections, then use them to review your work.
- Practice level
- C1. Try this level if you can follow the instructions and understand most of the language; choose an earlier level if you need more support.
- Question formats
- Cloze (text)
How to approach this practice
Read the passage for its main idea, then return to the relevant sentence or paragraph for each question. Base answers on the passage.
What a Long-Term Mentoring Project Revealed
At Riverside Secondary, the mentoring project began after teachers noticed that some Year 7 students were getting quieter after the move from primary school. Leah Morton, the deputy head, did not want another short-lived initiative with posters and speeches. She wanted something slower and more ordinary. So she asked for volunteers from Years 10 and 11 to spend time with one younger student each. The idea sounded simple, but she treated it as a test of whether the school could offer steady human contact, not just extra homework help. The volunteers were not chosen because they were top achievers. Staff looked for students who were dependable, calm in a room full of noise, and able to keep a conversation going without turning it into a lecture. Before the pairs met, the mentors took part in a short training session on asking open questions, keeping confidentiality, and recognising when advice was less useful than patience. The pairs met every fortnight in the library corner, where there was enough privacy for talk but not enough distance to make the meeting feel formal. At first, the conversations were awkward. Some younger students answered in short bursts and spent more time staring at the table than at their mentor. A few mentors, eager to prove themselves, tried to solve problems too quickly. Leah later said that the project had to resist the temptation to become a rescue mission. It worked better when meetings built small routines: a check-in, a shared drink of water, one practical question about the week, and a clear end. Those simple habits made the sessions predictable, which in turn made it easier for some students to return after a missed week. Attendance was never perfect. Examinations, family duties, part-time jobs, and tiredness all interfered. That was one reason the school stopped judging success by the number of dramatic conversations it could quote. Instead, staff watched for quieter signs: a student arriving on time for the third week in a row, a mentor noticing anxiety before it became anger, or a child asking for help before a deadline had passed. By the end of the first term, the project had not transformed anyone overnight, but it had created a small space in which regular contact could happen without much performance. In the second year, the project widened. A few students from the vocational track joined, and the school also invited pupils with special support plans when their parents agreed. This expansion revealed an important limit: mentoring was useful, but only if everyone understood that it did not replace teachers, counsellors, or family support. The best mentors learned to notice when silence meant overload rather than resistance. Instead of offering grand advice, they helped students plan homework, rehearse difficult conversations, or break a task into smaller steps. The project became less about encouragement as a feeling and more about encouragement as a practice. To find out whether any of this mattered beyond good intentions, the school compared attendance records, behaviour logs, and short interviews collected over three years. The results were modest but real. Regular pairs showed better attendance and a stronger willingness to seek help after setbacks, but grade gains were uneven and too small to claim that mentoring had raised achievement across the board. The clearest changes appeared where the same mentor stayed in place and the school made time for debrief meetings after each term. Consistency, not charisma, seemed to matter most. Mentors also changed. Several said that they became more patient in class, less eager to interrupt, and more aware of how quickly a small remark can shut someone down. A few discovered that helping another student made their own routines more disciplined. Yet the project did not convert every volunteer into an ideal helper, and the school would have been misleading if it had claimed otherwise. Some mentors completed the programme because it looked good on a form, not because they felt a strong calling. The point was not purity of motivation; it was the way the structure rewarded reliability. By the time Leah wrote the final report, the school had reached a cautious conclusion. Mentoring was not a cure for insecurity, weak attendance, or family stress, and it could not stand in for the broader support a school needs to offer. Still, when it lasted long enough and was treated as part of the timetable, it helped students feel seen rather than managed. That, Leah argued, was the deeper lesson of the project: not that one adult can fix a child, but that repeated, modest attention can change what school feels like from the inside.
-
Question 1 · Cloze (text)
Complete each blank with the missing word or phrase.
Write NO MORE THAN SIX WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage for each gap. Complete the summary below using words from the passage. Riverside Secondary launched a mentoring project to support quieter Year 7 students. The school chose volunteers who could offer 1___ rather than quick fixes, and the pairs met in 2___. Before starting, the mentors had 3___ on asking open questions and keeping confidentiality. Early meetings improved when staff encouraged 4___ and a clear end. Although attendance was affected by examinations, 5___, part-time jobs, and tiredness, the school decided that the project should not turn into 6___.
Return to the passage, recording or visualCheck answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- steady human contact
- Blank 2
- the library corner
- Blank 3
- a short training session
- Blank 4
- small routines
- Blank 5
- family duties
- Blank 6
- a rescue mission
Gap 1: The project aimed to provide “steady human contact” rather than only homework help or quick solutions. Gap 2: The pairs met in “the library corner”. Gap 3: Mentors completed “a short training session” before meeting students. Gap 4: Meetings became more effective when they built “small routines”. Gap 5: Attendance was affected by “family duties”, alongside examinations, jobs, and tiredness. Gap 6: Leah said the project should not become “a rescue mission”.
She wanted something slower and more ordinary. So she asked for volunteers from Years 10 and 11 to spend time with one younger student each
Before the pairs met, the mentors took part in a short training session on asking open questions, keeping confidentiality, and recognising when advice was less useful than patience
Examinations, family duties, part-time jobs, and tiredness all interfered
-
Question 2 · Cloze (text)
Complete each blank with the missing word or phrase.
Write NO MORE THAN SIX WORDS AND/OR A NUMBER from the passage for each gap. Complete the summary below using words from the passage. In the later stages, the mentoring project expanded, but the school stressed that it could not replace teachers, counsellors, or family support. Effective mentors learned to read silence as 1___ and helped students to 2___. After comparing attendance records, behaviour logs, and 3___ over three years, the school found 4___ results rather than dramatic ones. The strongest results came when the same mentor stayed in place and the school made 5___ after each term. Leah’s final conclusion was that mentoring works best when it is treated as 6___.
Return to the passage, recording or visualCheck answers and explanations
- Blank 1
- overload rather than resistance
- Blank 2
- break a task into smaller steps
- Blank 3
- short interviews
- Blank 4
- modest but real
- Blank 5
- time for debrief meetings
- Blank 6
- part of the timetable
Gap 1: Silence could mean “overload rather than resistance”. Gap 2: Mentors helped students “break a task into smaller steps”. Gap 3: The school compared the records with “short interviews”. Gap 4: The results were “modest but real”, not dramatic. Gap 5: Stronger changes appeared when the school made “time for debrief meetings”. Gap 6: Leah concluded that mentoring worked best when treated as “part of the timetable”.
The best mentors learned to notice when silence meant overload rather than resistance
To find out whether any of this mattered beyond good intentions, the school compared attendance records, behaviour logs, and short interviews collected over three years
The clearest changes appeared where the same mentor stayed in place and the school made time for debrief meetings after each term
What to review next
Find the words that support each answer. For a mistake, compare the question with the evidence and identify the detail or inference you missed.
A focused practice result shows how you did on these tasks. Use several activities across skills to decide what to study next; one practice score does not certify an overall CEFR level.
Before you practise: a worked example
Look for evidence in the text. Separate what the writer says from what you already know about the topic.
The library normally closes at six, but on Fridays it stays open until eight. When does it close on Friday?
The answer is eight. But introduces an exception to the normal closing time, so the first time mentioned is not the answer.
This teaching example is separate from the scored questions. After your test, compare any mistakes with the explanation and revisit the topic before trying again.