LITERACY PRACTICES AND STUDENT OUTCOMES IN YEAR 2 CLASSROOMS
John Braithwaite & Susan Buggy
Faculty of Education
University of Tasmania
Paper presented at the Annual Conference
Australian Association for Research in Education
Brisbane December, 1997
Introduction
Community concerns about literacy outcomes in schools have increased in
recent years. Driven by fears that these outcomes may not be keeping
pace with the accelerating rate of global economic, social, cultural
and technological transformation taking place in the world today,
governments have focused their policy initiatives towards improving
student literacy outcomes. Consequently all Australian educational
systems have responded by reviewing and revising literacy curriculum
documents and resources provided to schools.
This focus on improved literacy outcomes has arisen because of
considerable changes in the competencies required to function
effectively in society. Freebody and Welch (1993:3) have pointed out
that the requisite literacy outcomes for effective civil, social and
cultural functioning have increased and diversified. At the same time
the increased competitiveness of the labour market and/or the decline
in workforce numbers of low literacy occupations in our society have
led to an increase in the necessary formal credentials for employment.
In order to keep pace with these social and labour market changes the
Australian National Literacy Policy (1991:8) states that:
Australian literacy standards will have to be sustained for most
learners and dramatically improved for many, to enable effective
participation in the vastly more competitive environment which will be
a characteristic of the world in the early part of next century.
At the individual level, literacy is seen as being fundamental to
formal and informal education and training as it is the key to a
person's general level of educational achievement in school and beyond
(McGaw, Long, Morgan & Rosier, 1989).
The bottom line for students progressing through our educational
systems now and in future years is that our society will demand
increasingly higher standards of literacy of all students. CrŽvola and
Hill (1997:1) argue that:
Despite the best efforts of teachers, a significant proportion of
students continue to fail to achieve success in early literacy at
school, with severe consequences for their subsequent educational
progress, career opportunities and life chances. The extent of the
problem varies from system to system and from school to school. Within
the Australian context, Hill & Russell (1994) have suggested that a
conservative estimate ...would lead to the conclusion that some 10 to
15 per cent of Australian children in the compulsory years have
literacy skills below the minimum level deemed to be adequate for their
Year level; and some 5 to 10 per cent more have some difficulties in
literacy which need attention if their school work is not to be
hampered to some extent. For some schools, failure rates range between
20 to 50 per cent.
The problem is a matter of concern to all educators and a number of
solutions have been proposed, particularly in early childhood
education, where literacy is a key learning area.
Literacy in early childhood
Early childhood teachers are required to develop all students' literacy
outcomes to ensure that students get a strong foundation on which to
build future learning. Research (Wells, 1986, Cambourne, 1988) has
clearly demonstrated that success in literacy learning in the first
years of school is a key factor in student literacy achievement
throughout schooling. In the Commonwealth Government's national
literacy policy statement, the then Minister for Education, John
Dawkins reinforced this point stating:
Evidence suggests that if children are not making appropriate literacy
progress by the end of the third year of primary school, it is likely
that they may not make up the gap through the rest of their years of
schooling. ...We must clarify and refine our literacy goals and
implement the best available teaching methods to support them (1991:5).
Consequently there has been heightened attention devoted to the
delivery of literacy programs at the early childhood level. For example
policy outcomes generated by the Australian National Literacy Policy
(1996) in its National Program of Action has as one of its aims the
stimulation and support of more effective literacy education in the
early years of schooling.
Tasmanian initiatives
New literacy initiatives have been developed in all states to improve
the quality of literacy teaching in the early years of school, and
these state initiatives have seen the provision of extra human and
physical resources in early childhood classes.
In 1993 the Tasmanian Department of Education, Community and Cultural
Development (DECCD) published the Key Intended Literacy Outcomes
(KILOs) to guide teachers' literacy planning and implementation, and,
in 1994, established the Early Literacy Support Program for early
childhood classes. This program supported a team approach to literacy
teaching in Preparatory classes. The additional literacy resource
teachers provided under the program worked alongside existing classroom
teachers in Preparatory classrooms to develop students' literacy
skills. This program was extended to include Year 2 students in 1996
"after the success and cost effective benefits of the Preparatory
program".
'Best practices' in early childhood classes
Most of the programs that have been implemented by educational
authorities to promote successful literacy outcomes have provided
general and/or specific guidance to teachers about best practice in
literacy teaching within early childhood classrooms. Any review of
these suggestions reveals a multitude of different prescriptions about
the "best" way to structure teaching/learning strategies for students.
In perhaps no other area of the curriculum is there so much debate
about "what works" (Lesiak, 1997).
At the extremes of a literacy continuum are the views of those who
believe that a formal, structured set of learning experiences should be
presented to students using directed teaching strategies. Structured
worksheets occupy a lot of the students' time in such classrooms. At
the other end of the continuum would be those advocates who believe
that literacy development is best encouraged by matching the teaching
to the students' learning needs, an emphasis on the students' ongoing
development. In the latter case there may be no curriculum framework to
guide the teacher in the planning of literacy teaching.
In spite of the views proposed by the various advocates there is a
general consensus about the structures and processes that are found in
good literacy learning situations. The Tasmanian DECCD has published
advice to teachers in Learning to Read & Write (1992) to guide the
planning of their literacy teaching/learning. When teachers heed the
advice contained in this publication and marry it with suggestions from
other sources such as First Steps (WA Ed. Dept.,1996) and the findings
of researchers such as Marie Clay (1979, 1993), it is possible to
build up a picture of classrooms that promote best practice in literacy
teaching. Their teaching will be further enhanced when it is based on
a well-developed understanding of the theories of language and literacy
acquisition.
Such classrooms build on and actively encourage the involvement of
parents in their children's literacy learning, provide a rich tapestry
of literacy resources that are attractive and motivating to students,
and develop and tailor teaching/learning practices to the individual
needs of students. When these practices are coupled with an
expectation set on the teacher's part that all students can make
progress, given specific support and time, then quality literacy
programs can be delivered. Accompanying such an approach is the
necessity to maintain and use a detailed, systematic monitoring of the
students' progress. And probably most important of all, quality
literacy teaching occurs when the teacher provides adequate time for
the teaching of literacy that allows for the delivery of a consistent
and sustained program.
While it is important that the teacher takes responsibility for the
preparation of a quality literacy program within his/her classroom,
such programs must be integrated within the overall literacy plan
developed across the whole school. By doing this, literacy development
can be articulated across the grade levels and actions taken to ensure
that students' progress follows a carefully planned sequence of growth.
Of necessity the teacher delivering a quality literacy program needs to
be supported by effective professional staff development programs.
The Year 2 component of the Early Literacy Support Program
The Year 2 Early Literacy Support Program was designed to improve the
literacy outcomes of all Year 2 students in Tasmanian state schools.
The introduction of this program was motivated by the evaluation
outcomes of the Preparatory Literacy program which indicated that the
program achieved its intended goals and that students' literacy
performances in the Preparatory classrooms were helped by the provision
of the extra resources.
The Year 2 program provides for an extra resource teacher to work
alongside the classroom teacher as a team to assess students' progress
in literacy, and plan specific objectives and learning experiences that
will promote student literacy development. The program was designed to
be inclusive, supporting all students and endeavoured to suggest ways
that teachers may use in working with parents.
Because the program was based on the development of specific activities
that matched each students' needs, it is not possible to detail what
the components of all the programs were. However, all teachers were
required to take into consideration that the program was set within a
technology context in order to provide a specific example of curriculum
integration. Through engaging in the four strands of design, make &
appraise, materials, information and systems, students were provided
with the opportunity to use the key communication and critical thinking
components of literacy to question, investigate and solve problems.
The two teachers were to work as a team in their classroom in
delivering the literacy program and were advised to plan the program
together. It was believed that the smaller pupil/teacher ratio in the
literacy lessons would provide improved learning outcomes for students.
However, specific attention was to be directed towards those students
whose literacy progress was a matter of concern. It was expected that
the teachers would work with individual students or groups of students
on planned strategies to achieve intended outcomes.
The key to the program was the identification of specific objectives
for each student, the planning of appropriate strategies and their
implementation to promote the attainment of desired learning outcomes.
It is against the framework and the specific initiatives described
above that the following evaluation of the Year 2 literacy program was
conducted.
Research methodology
This study of literacy teaching in Year 2 classes was designed to
answer the following questions:
What literacy performances do Year 2 students display and/or produce?
What are the practices evident in classes demonstrating best literacy
outcomes?
This evaluation focused on the following areas:
student literacy performances; and
teacher literacy planning and implementation.
school literacy planning
Evaluation sample
Data were collected from a sample of 31 Year 2 classes in schools
across the state. These data came from teachers, students and school
executives over the period from February 1996 to April 1997. The
schools in the sample were representative of Tasmanian schools and were
situated in both urban and rural areas. Some schools were classified
by the Tasmanian DECCD as disadvantaged schools. The class grouping
practices in the schools included straight Year 2 classes as well as
combined Year 1/2 and Year 2/3 classes. Table 1 details the number of
schools in each of the sample categories. One Year 2, or composite
Year 2 class from each school was the focus of this study.
Table 1: Sample Details
Categories of Schools Number of Schools
CATEGORIES OF SCHOOLS_NUMBER OF SCHOOLS__
Size of school: Large ( > 400) 10 Medium ( > 200 < 400) 13 Small (< 200) 8
Geographical Location: Urban 25 Rural ( > 40 k from CBD*) 6
Educational Needs Indices** Disadvantaged 8 Not Disadvantaged 23
Grouping Practices of Year 2 Classes Year 2 12 Year 1-2 9 Year 2-3 10 * Based
on DECCD data **Based on DECCD indices
Data collection
Data about variables that research has indicated affect literacy
outcomes were collected wherever possible. These independent variables
were:
school disadvantaged status, as determined by DECCD;
class formation policies;
teacher knowledge about literacy and their use of this knowledge;
resource use; and
parental participation/interest in literacy
Student literacy baseline data were collected at the beginning of Year
2 and outcome data collected from the same students, at the beginning
of Year 3. These data covered the following areas:
¥ reading;
¥ a cloze task;
¥ a dictation task; and
¥ a production task.
In addition, comprehensive observational data were collected about
student behaviours in the literacy classrooms and the teachers'
implementation of the Year 2 Literacy program. These were complemented
by extensive interviews with teachers to determine their constructions
of literacy and the processes they followed in planning and
implementing their programs. Where schools had developed school-wide
literacy policies these were analysed and compared with the teachers'
own individual planning to see the extent to which the two complemented
each other. The scheduling and focus of these data collection
procedures are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Evaluation Timeline
TERM 1 1996
TERM 2 1996
TERM 3 1996
TERM 1 1997 Establish contact person responsible for Yr 2 in each of
the sample schools._Interview teachers concerning literacy practices:
- knowledge about
teaching;
- planning
- preferred approaches to.
literacy teaching
- structural links with
technology_Observe student behaviours in the sample 'literacy'
classes.
Collect data from individual students from one Yr 2 class per sample
school.
Audit of literacy/ technology resources in Year 2 classrooms._
Collect data from Yr. 3 students in sample classes.____Interview senior
teachers responsible for Yr.2 re school literacy policy to determine
how school literacy planning is conducted.___
It was intended that classes achieving significant outcomes be
identified so that teaching processes that promoted best practices
could be identified. For this evaluation best practice referred to
classes where the student literacy outcomes were judged to represent
added value to the literacy outcomes that could reasonably be predicted
of students in the classes.
Nature of the literacy assessment tasks
Four assessment tasks were developed to gather data about young
children's literacy development in this project. They included a
Running Record of Reading; a Cloze passage; a Dictation task; and a
Production task. The assessment tasks used in the project to gather
data about young children's literacy learning were designed to identify
how young children understand and use written language as a resource
for making meaning and the extent of control that they have developed
over this resource. Specifically, these tasks provide 'windows' into
how children make sense of and with written language. In addition,
the tasks provide some evidence of children's control over the
conventions of writing, namely spelling, punctuation and grammatical
correctness.
In and of themselves, the assessment tasks used in this project have
credibility as strategies for assessing and/or diagnosing literacy
learning (see Clay, 1993; Freebody and Austin, 1992; and Kemp, 1987).
While they do not reveal the rich data that are available through
"close observation of (authentic) language activities in a variety of
different contexts" (Rivalland, in Derewianka, 1992:19), they do
provide strong indications of whether children see sense-making as a
central issue in their reading and writing, and of the kinds and range
of strategies that children employ to make sense in and through written
texts. In Clay's Running Record of Reading, for example, the focus is
on mapping the child's attention to and perception of print as a
resource for making meaning (see Clay, 1993). Similarly, a Cloze
passage constitutes a tool for identifying the kind of information a
child uses to make meaning from print (see Freebody and Austin, in
Derewianka, 1993). In the analysis of a sample of a child's writing,
both content or meaning and structure or syntax can be assessed, as and
where one realises or finds expression in the other (see Rothery, in
Derewianka, 1993). In the discussion that follows, each of the
assessment tasks used in the first phase of this project are described,
in terms of their general form and function; how they were adapted for
use in this project; how they were administered; and how they were
analysed.
Running record of reading
Clay's Running Record of Reading (1979) is an adaptation of Goodman and
Burke's miscue analysis (1972). It was designed to reveal something of
the processes by which the child monitors and corrects his/her own
reading performance. The nature of a child's reading errors can guide
analysis of reading behaviours for teachers and/or researchers.
In this project, the Running Record of Reading strategy was applied by
asking children to read a text specifically designed for the task.
This text, The Video Camera was based on an actual child's experience
of constructing a model of a video camera using 'junk' materials. The
text was designed to present young readers with progressively more
complex sentence structures, vocabulary, punctuation, and words per
page. The field of the text was deliberately drawn from the technology
learning area, and included both print and visual elements. The text
was organised in two parts, the first being an instance of the Recount
genre, with a strongly developed Description element (Derewianka, 1993;
Iles, 1995). The second part of the text comprised a challenge for the
reader to use the text as a springboard for their own design processes.
In the main, only highly skilled/confident readers attempted to read
this section of the text. In total, the text comprised 327 running
words (272 words in the first part of the text). In administering the
Running Record to individual children, the research assistant provided
assistance to those experiencing levels of stress or frustration in
reading the text. These assists were coded as miscues.
Individual subjects' scores on the running record of reading were
calculated in terms of running words read, total number of miscues made
and the total number of self-corrections made. From these a
'percentage accuracy' and a self correction rate was calculated. These
were entered into a computer data base as variables for analysis of the
literacy baseline.
The cloze task
The Cloze passage developed for use in the project (Kim's Robot) was
also drawn from the technology learning area. A variable deletion
strategy was used, based on both syntactical and semantic cues. These
deletions represented a progression from 'highly predictable' to 'less
readily retrievable' lexicogrammatical items. Like The Video Camera
text, Kim's Robot comprised two parts, the first being a personal
Recount, with a strongly developed Description element. the second part
of Kim's Robot was an instance of the Procedure genre. The field of
the text was deliberately 'technological', but was realised mainly
through everyday language rather than high levels of technical
vocabulary.
The cloze, dictation and production tasks were administered to the Year
2 students involved in the study by their classroom teachers in order
to save time and alleviate test-stress conditions and to encourage
students to produce more authentic responses. Protocols for the
administration of each activity were designed by the researcher and
supplied to teachers. In addition, teachers were asked to fill in a
feedback sheet providing information regarding any variations they made
to the protocols. Teacher assistance was allowed, to alleviate
children's stress or frustration, and marked on the passage where it
occurred. No score was recorded in these cases.
In analysing responses to the cloze task students were allocated a
score of one for each blank filled in with a semantically or
syntactically acceptable word. The maximum possible score was 17.
Spelling accuracy/inaccuracy did not affect a score. In cases where
the teacher read the cloze passage for an individual child, a zero
score was allocated for the task.
The dictation task
The Dictation task used in the project (Ben's Toy) was an adaptation of
the Dictation Task developed by Marie Clay (1993). This text was more
syntactically and lexically complex than the text used by Clay (1993),
and again, was drawn from the technology learning area. Everyday
language was used to construct the field of the text, which comprised
28 words in total. The first sentence was a single clause of seven
words, while sentences two and three were clause complexes of 12 and 10
words respectively. Sentence three comprised two clauses linked by a
contrastive conjunction.
Analysis of the dictation task involved two stages. First, one point
was scored for each sound (phoneme) the child analysed and recorded and
a total out of 73 possible phonemes was noted. Second, one point was
scored for each word that the child spelt correctly, and a total out of
28 was recorded.
The production task
The Production task designed for use in the project comprised the most
direct technology-literacy link. How and what young children write in
school contexts has not been extensively researched in recent years
(Iles, 1995), yet there are relatively high expectations held at system
levels for children to learn to write a range of genres during their
early school years (see for example English - A Curriculum Profile for
Australian Schools, 1994; and Key Intended Literacy Outcomes, 1994
[KILOS]). The Production task was specifically framed as a written
appraisal of a child designed and made object, following a pre-writing
discussion. Teachers were free to vary the specific 'content' of the
task, but were asked to maintain the appraisal component. There was a
diverse range of responses to this task, in terms of text length,
control of conventions, and more importantly, genre choice. Within
this range of choices there was also considerable variation in control
over key structural and linguistic features of these genres. Teacher
feedback sheets also indicated differential levels of framing of the
task.
The production task was analysed both qualitatively and quantitatively.
First, qualitative categories that noted the kinds of meanings made in
students' writing samples were recorded. These categories included
Description, Explanation, Procedure, Recount, Evaluation/Appraisal. An
indication of the evidence of each category and the extent to which it
occurred in each students writing was recorded. Second, to enable a
measure of the children's control of writing conventions, the samples
were analysed in terms of evidence of the achievement of
grade-appropriate literacy outcomes as stated in KILOs.
Literacy outcomes assessment tasks
The same type of tasks were used to assess the students' literacy
performances in the post-testing period Term 1, 1997 viz. Running
Record of Reading, a Cloze passage, a Dictation task and a Production
task. All the tasks were developed at a level suitable for Year 3
students.
The correlation between student performances on the baseline testing in
Year 2 and testing in Year 3 on the four tasks is shown in Table 3
Table 3: Correlations of Student Performances on Tasks at Year 2 & Year 3.
_Running Record_Cloze_Dictation__Running
Record_.761**____Cloze__.803**___Dictation___715**__ ** Significant @
p<.05
Because of the qualitative aspects of the production tasks it was not
considered appropriate to correlate student performances on these
tasks.
Teacher interviews
Teachers of the Year 2 students who undertook the literacy assessment
tasks were interviewed to discover their constructions of literacy.
Specifically the interview questions probed the following issues
concerning the teaching of literacy:
¥ teachers' philosophical beliefs about literacy and the teaching of literacy;
¥ teaching methodologies used by the teachers in their classrooms;
¥ planning strategies used by teachers for their literacy teaching/learning lessons;
¥ resources used by teachers in their literacy teaching;
evaluation approaches used by teachers in their literacy
teaching/learning lessons; and
teachers' perceptions about the implementation of the Year 2 Early
Literacy Support Program.
As the interview data represent teachers' self reporting the question
arises about the validity of the responses they make in the interview
situation. While there is a body of literature that suggests that
teachers' construction of their teaching practices, by and large
represents valid descriptions of their practice, there is a need to
validate their responses. It was planned to do this through the
collection of observational data about the teachers' classroom
practices, and compare what they claim they do in the interview data
with their observed behaviours in the classrooms.
The interviews were analysed for their content and a matrix was
developed based on the responses obtained in the interviews. For each
interview question a series of sub-items was developed to reflect the
recurring responses of the teachers during the interviews. Once the
matrix of questions and sub items were developed the interview data
were reviewed again to ensure that all of the points made by the
teachers in the interviews could be accommodated in the content
analysis contained in the matrix. Where data were 'lost' in fitting in
the interview data into the matrix, additional sub items were added to
include the 'lost' interview data.
Classroom observations
The observation schedule was developed to collect data that portrayed
the behaviours of students during literacy learning sessions. Actual
observational data were supplemented by a classroom environment profile
which recorded resources, seating patterns etc. in the classroom. As
well, short descriptive statements were compiled about teacher
behaviours and the general climate in the classrooms. Observations
were followed by brief follow-up interviews with the classroom teachers
regarding the primary aims for their lessons. These data enabled an
environmental profile of each Year 2 class in the study sample to be
established.
The observational schedule included four components: observations of
student behaviour in the literacy classroom; teacher behaviour in the
literacy classroom; classroom environment details; and the general
climate in the classroom.
Observational data of student behaviours identified a number of
variables these included where the student was in the classroom, who
the student was interacting with and the intended task the student was
undertaking. Coupled with this information was a list of the materials
being used by the student. Another variable considered was student and
adult talk. The amount, purpose and audience of observed talk were
recorded. Two other overall perceptions were also recorded during the
observations. These were student attentiveness to their tasks and the
general ambience or affect while doing the literacy task.
While the predominant focus was on the observed student behaviours
during the observational periods, records were also kept of the
teachers' predominant activities during the observational periods.
Classroom environment details recorded included a rating of the
classroom's physical environment in terms of an exemplary literacy
learning environment identified in First Steps (W.A. Ed. Dept.,
1996:7). The classroom environment itinerary used, was an adaptation
of a checklist included in First Steps. The checklist of physical
layout and resources comprises a list of questions designed for
classroom teachers to consider when evaluating their literacy learning
environment.
The content validity of the observation instrument was established by
comparing the categories with the suggested activities featured in Key
Intended Literacy Outcomes (KILOs) and other major literacy
publications such as First Steps. Observational reliability came from
writing categories (where appropriate) in behavioural terms so that the
student behaviours could be readily identified. In addition the
Research Assistant who carried out all of the observations trialed the
instrument with another observer to ensure that the record was a
practical one to use and to ensure that there was no ambiguity when
behaviours were recorded. As the same Research Assistant conducted all
the observations, internal reliability was judged to be high. External
reliability was also enhanced by having observational data gathered on
many students rather than having a greater number of observations
focused on a comparatively small number of students.
The other situation that can contaminate observational data, the
presence of a 'new' person in the classroom, was not believed to be an
issue in this study. The Research Assistant had worked with all the
students previously and both students and teachers were accustomed to
her presence in the classroom. Hence it was believed that she was a
regular visitor to the classrooms. However, to safeguard that she
'fitted into the background' as unobtrusively as possible, she recorded
environmental scan data first and then spent some time generally
observing classroom operations before observing the target students.
Observations of classrooms were conducted by the research assistant
during scheduled 'literacy-learning sessions', usually one morning
'block' of one and a half hours duration. The sessions were nominated
by the classroom teacher as the key literacy-teaching-learning session.
It should be noted that the majority of teachers claimed that they held
sustained silent reading sessions at other times of the day.
Prior to visiting schools to collect observational data, a list of 14
randomly selected students from each class was drawn up. The list
consisted of 12 students to be observed and 2 'reserves' to allow for
absentees. The sample was equally divided into male and female
subjects. As a proportion of whole class attendance this number ranged
from 100% of the total Year 2 class enrolment down to 40% of the Year 2
class.
It was argued above that the observational data provide a reliable and
valid 'snapshot' of student behaviours during the literacy lessons and
provided sufficient contextual information in which to ground the
collected data.
Results
To analyse the data from the reading (running record), cloze and
dictation tasks analyses of variance (regression model) and associated
pairwise comparisons were used to explore the data. The assumptions
underlying the applications of analysis of variance and pairwise
comparisons were tested and were found to be adequate with respect to
the data set under investigation. The production task data were
categorised according to their genre and the children's' control of
writing conventions, and the two distributions compared.
The unit of analysis used to examine these outcomes was the class group
comprising the individual scores of all the Year 2 students in each
class. There were 592 students tested at the baseline stage and 508
tested at the outcomes stage in Year 3. This attrition rate of 14.2% is
equivalent to the rate found in other similar Australian studies. There
were no significant differences between the distributions of the
numbers of students in the schools between the initial testing in Year
2 and the Year 3 testing.
How to measure change over time has been a matter of considerable
debate in the educational community for some time. The difference
between the score on an outcomes task and the score on a baseline task
is widely used within schools to determine changes in academic
performances. Such a use of gain in scores to determine change has been
demonstrated to be unreliable and correlated with initial status
(Cronbach & Furby, 1970). The problem is confounded when either the
baseline or outcomes scores demonstrate a ceiling effect which was
clearly the case with the outcomes scores from the Year 3 data. Modern
methods of overcoming problems associated with measuring change over
time, such as the use of multiwave analyses of outcomes based on
continuous data collection, were not available for this evaluation
because of resource restrictions. The nature of the data set suggested
that multi-level data analyses techniques would not have contributed
significantly to the analysis of the data set given the potential
confounding that was present in the data.
The initial plotting of the outcome data suggested that all students
did not make similar "gains" under the Year 2 program which common
sense suggests would be a likely outcome. However, when the data were
analysed it was seen that the slope illustrating the relationship
between the magnitude of change in performance and baseline scores for
mean class performances on the cloze task, represented a negative
relationship between baseline and outcomes scores.
This result means that in this illustration some of the performances of
the high achieving classes regressed over the year on the cloze task.
In reality the high achieving classes did not, as there was less
opportunity for them to improve. The mean of their performance was near
the ceiling score on the task on the baseline score, whereas the poorer
performing classes often had substantial "room" to improve their
performances. Similar slopes were generated for the reading record data
set. These graphical analyses were confirmed by subsequent attempts to
fit a model which tests for a common slope for the trend line in the
plot of outcomes scores against baseline scores within classes. For all
the outcomes measures the model failed to provide an adequate fit to
the data.
The practical impact of these modelling attempts is that comparisons
across all classes in respect of change in performance are only
reasonable among classes which had similar levels of performance on the
baseline scores.
The data set was then analysed to determine whether there were
significant differences in outcomes among the independent background
variables. Table 4 reports the results of these analyses and shows
comparisons that are significant at p>0 .05.
Table 4: Analysis of Variance by Independent Background Variables on
Outcomes Tasks
Background Variables*_Reading Accuracy_Cloze_Dictation-Spelling_Dictation-
Phonemic__Classes_0.0001_0.0001_0.0003_0.0001__Gender_0.0004_0.02_ns_ns__Class
Type_ns_ns_ns___Educational needs_ns_0.02_0.03_0.02__School
Size_0.02_ns_ns_ns__Locality_0.01_ns_ns_ns__* Classes: 31 classes in 31
different schools. Gender: Females and Males.
Class type: Year 2; Year 1/2; and Year 2/3. Disadvantaged school:
Yes or No.
School size: <200; >201; <400; and 400+. Locality: urban and
rural.
It may be seen from Table 4 that there are significant differences
among the classes on all of the outcomes measures. The nature of these
differences is further examined in other analyses reported below.
The gender comparison was tested after allowance was made for school
differences. One of the significant comparisons reported in Table 4 is
the significant differences shown on the two reading tasks. After
allowing for initial school differences the boys made greater gains
than the girls on these two outcome measures. This finding is contrary
to those generally reported in literacy assessments of students of this
age range. Why this may be so is a matter of conjecture but the
observational data showed that the resource teachers involved in the
Early Literacy Support Program worked more with boys than they did with
girls. Whether this extra work lifted the literacy outcomes of the
usually poorer performing boys in Year 2 is difficult to say.
Experience suggests that the individual work given these students by
the resource teachers generally has an effect on improving students
outcomes.
The class groupings necessitated by smaller enrolments in some of the
schools did not produce any significant differences on any of the
outcome measures. Students in composite classes did equally as well (or
poorly) as students in non composite Year 2 classes.
One could anticipate that the extra resourcing provided to classes in
schools classified by DECCD as being in need of special educational
support would benefit from the extra inputs provided by programs such
as the Year 2 Literacy Support Program more than so-called "normal"
classes. This assumption is based on the reality that the provision of
the resource teacher together with other support found in the
disadvantaged schools would create smaller student/teacher ratios than
would be the case in "normal classes. Yet such is the power of
disadvantage, as defined by the variables that determine DECCD's
ratings, that on three of the outcomes where significant differences
were found, classes in the non-disadvantaged schools performed
significantly better than the classes in disadvantaged schools. Only on
the reading (running record) task was there no significant difference
between the two groups of classes on this outcome measure.
In terms of school size one significant difference was reported and
that was on the reading task. Here the analyses indicated that the
smaller the size of the school the better the outcome on this task.
The final comparison analysed was the locality factor and here the
urban schools performed significantly better than the rural schools on
the reading (running record) task but no significant differences were
found on the other outcomes.
Another analysis undertaken compared the performances of different
groups of students within the classes to determine whether there were
differential effects created by the Year 2 program. Within each class
students were divided into three approximately equally sized bands
based on their baseline scores - low, medium and high performers.
Comparisons of mean performances among the three bands were undertaken
for each of the outcome measures. The results of these analyses are
shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Comparison of Performances of Students on Outcome Measures Who
Lie Within the Lowest, Middle and Upper Performance Bands Within Each
Class*
Bands_Reading Task_Cloze task_Dictation Task -Spelling_Dictation Task
-Phonemic___N_Mean Change_N_Mean Change_N_Mean Change_N_Mean
Change__Lowest_145_8.3_139_-1.2_139_-2.7_140_26.2__Middle_185_0.7_171_-4.7_176_-4.2_17
2_25.5__Highest_163_-0.6_167_-6.9_151_-5.0_156_24.8__
significant differences @p<0.001__
yes__
yes__
yes__
no__* Missing values excluded from analyses
The results of the analysis of variance procedures shown in Table 5
indicates that three outcomes generated significant differences in the
mean changes. The mean change in the scores of the students in the
lower band were significantly higher than the mean changes in the two
other groups of students on the reading (running record) task. The
difference between the mean changes of the middle and highest group on
this task was not significant. To some extent the greater mean change
recorded by the lowest band of students on the reading (running record)
task could be attributed to the ceiling effect imposed on the
performances of the students in the highest band and the artefact
created by "regression to the mean".
On the cloze task all of the pairwise comparisons examining mean
changes among the three groups were significant; a result that was
repeated for the dictation-spelling task.
Which classes performed "best" on the outcome measures?
Further multivariate analyses indicated that the results on the reading
and cloze tasks were the two tasks that best distinguished between the
classes' performances on the outcomes. The two spelling tasks did not
contribute significantly to these analyses. Consequently in
distinguishing between the classes' outcomes it is the performances of
the classes on the reading and cloze tasks that were used as
discriminating variables for subsequent analyses. While it may be
argued that relying on these two measures may represent a restricted
set of variables on which to frame subsequent discussion it needs to be
remembered that the analyses indicate that these two tasks are the
strongest discriminating variables.
An additional comment has to be introduced at this stage and that
relates to the consequences of analysing data sets where there are
problems created by ceiling effects. In this instance the decision was
made not to make overall comparisons among the classes on the outcomes
but to make comparisons among classes that displayed similar levels of
performance on these tasks.
The performances of the classes on the baseline-test tasks and changes
in performance from baseline to outcomes scores were analysed. Table 4
illustrated that there were significant differences among the mean
scores of the classes on the outcomes. To overcome some of the
objections about comparing the classes only on baseline test changes
raised above, the schools were divided into groups based on their
baseline scores. This analysis identified classes that were not
significantly different in their baseline performances. This grouping
does not imply that there are not differences among the classes
performances on these baseline outcomes. Rather there is a continuum of
baseline performances among the classes on all of the tasks. The
classes in each group are not significantly different from each other
which represents a statistical rather than a real difference in
performance. The classes do vary but within each group they do not vary
significantly statistically.
Table 6 (on page 17 below) presents the grouping of schools on the two
outcome measures reading and cloze .
The class in school 31 showed the greatest change on the reading task
and is significantly different from the classes in schools 7 and 22 but
not from other classes in the band. There were no significant
differences among the classes in the higher band on this task. On the
cloze task approximately half of the schools were placed in the lowest
band and the differences among the scores of the classes in this band
were not significant. There were no significant differences among the
performances on this task among the classes in the higher band.
Classes in four schools were placed in the bottom third band for the
two reading tasks - 7, 10, 20 and 28. Three classes were placed in the
top third band for the same tasks. These classes were in schools 13, 23
and 29. The class in school 27 was excluded from the analyses because
it was a very low performer on the baseline tasks.
It should be pointed out at this stage that not all of the "best"
classes are located in the so-called "best" urban locations nor are all
of the "worst" classes in disadvantaged schools in isolated rural
locations. Some of the "best" classes are in disadvantaged schools in
rural locations and two of the three "best" classes are in rural
locations. Two out of five of the "worst" classes are in schools
classified as disadvantaged, with one being an urban school and the
other a rural school. Two of the "worst" classes are in urban schools
and three in rural schools.
Table 6: Grouping of Schools on Based on Results of Baseline Tasks
Reading Task_Cloze Task__Class_Baseline Score_Class_Baseline
Score__27_60.5_3_8.7__31_73.3_27_8.8__7_74.8_20_8.9__22_77.8_25_8.9__10_78.4_16_9.0__28_79.4_2
4_9.5__20_81.7_10_9.9__12_84.2_18_10.0__11_84.8_15_10.2__24_85.1_7_10.3__1_85.5_21_10.3__3_86.6_28_10.4
__18_86.7_11_11.0__8_87.6_6_11.3__21_88.2_12_11.4__30_88.7_14_11.5__19_88.7_4_12.3__16_88.8_31_12.4__14_8
9.1_2_12.6__9_89.8_22_12.8__17_89.8_17_12.8__15_91.2_26_12.8__2_91.4_5_12.9__25_92.3_19_13.2__4_92.5_13
_13.9__5_92.8_1_14.0__23_92.9_29_14.3__29_93.0_23_14.7__26_93.2_9_14.9__6_93.9_30_14.9__13_94.8_8_16.3__
Teaching practices evident in successful literacy learning classrooms
To enable a picture to be built up of successful literacy classrooms,
data from the classes in the higher band identified in the previous
section as achieving significant outcomes were re-analysed and compared
with the data from the classes in the lower band. The data used to
portray successful classes were drawn from the teachers' interview and
classroom observational data. Terminology about the way to identify
"best practice" is contentious. In this paper, the terms "most
effective" and "least effective" are used to describe classes in the
two groups used for comparison purposes.
It is important at this stage to make the following point quite
strongly. In portraying teachers' opinions and classroom practices it
is necessary to avoid crude prescriptions about teaching approaches.
The labels used to categorise the two groups of classes are very
problematic. What is "good" in teaching practice has been shown by
research to be inappropriate in a different context (Berliner, 1994).
Further, what is "good" or "bad" in literacy teaching practices may not
be applicable in other areas. However we are heartened by the
conclusions of Cooper and McIntyre (1996) in a recent study whose
conclusions support many of the findings presented in the following
sections. And to reinforce the point further they draw attention to
the interrelationship between the affective and cognitive dimensions of
teaching and learning with data about the latter not being collected in
this study. Cooper & McIntyre state:
It is important to intertwine affective and cognitive dimensions of
teaching and learning. When teachers were explicit about this they
revealed the high degree of skill and sophistication necessary for
effective management of pupils and learning. Of particular importance
here were consistent references to the need to create a positive social
climate in the classroom, and the need for teaching approaches and
learning tasks to be consistent with this endeavour(1996:158)
This dimension has not been wholly picked up in this study but must be
kept in mind when considering the following analyses.
Comparing the 'most effective' and the 'least effective' was
purposefully done in order to discover whether there were clearly
established messages in the data that could be used to inform teachers'
literacy practices. There is no attempt to suggest that if teachers
view literacy the way that the teachers in the most effective
classrooms did that the teachers will transform all classrooms into the
most effective practice classroom. Teaching is not that simple a task.
Rather it is believed that teachers may wish to consider the evidence
that is presented and determine what aspects of it may be adopted in
their classrooms.
To draw out possible points for emphasis about what constitutes the
most effective literacy practices, the teachers' views about literacy
teaching from the most effective classrooms were compared with those of
their peers from the least effective classrooms. The intention was
that these comparisons would reveal significant findings that may
inform practice. Similarly, comparisons were made between the
observational data collected from the most effective classrooms and
those from the least effective classrooms. As is the case with a
considerable amount of educational research the findings do not always
portray stark differences. The differences are at times subtle and the
effects generated by these differences work interactively in most
classrooms. The findings do not portray recipes for action. They
indicate ideas and processes that teachers may wish to consider in
their literacy teaching.
Comparing teachers' views about literacy teaching
The views of the teachers in the most effective classrooms were
compared with those of their peers in the least effective classrooms.
The following presentation analyses teachers' views about literacy
teaching obtained during the interviews. It is believed by the author
that the views about literacy teaching held by teachers will influence
and shape their literacy planning, teaching and evaluation practices.
The first comparison examined background variables concerning
experience and preservice education. The teachers in the most
effective classes were very experienced in terms of years of teaching
and were slightly more experienced than the teachers in the least
effective classes, though this difference was not significant.
However, there was a significant difference between the most effective
teachers and the least effective in terms of initial specialisation in
their preservice teacher education. The former were all trained as
early childhood teachers compared with the other group who were mainly
trained as primary teachers.
Analysing the views of the two groups about literacy teaching and their
perceptions of the processes to be followed in teaching literacy
revealed significant differences between the two groups.
Compared with their peers in the other group, literacy teachers in the
"best" classrooms:
¥ expressed clear and cohesive views about the meaning of the term
'literacy' compared with a diverse range of views espoused by the other
group of teachers. The teachers in the most effective classes mirrored
the views proposed in the National Curriculum statements and profiles.
The other teachers frequently used terms such as "all encompassing" and
"communication" when describing what they meant by the term literacy
and were not as precise in their elaborations;
¥ favoured classroom literacy practices that had a whole language
approach reinforced by the use of skill based teaching in areas such as
phonics. Teachers in the other group repeatedly stressed the need to
have an eclectic approach to literacy teaching but could not always
articulate what that meant;
¥ justified their approach to teaching literacy on the grounds that it
"works" compared with the other group of teachers who stated that the
eclectic approach enabled them to cater for the needs of a wide range
of students in their classrooms;
¥ claimed that their strengths in literacy teaching lay in their
enthusiasm to deliver their programs whereas the other group of
teachers cited their experience as teachers as the reason for their
perceived success;
¥ believed that they had to consolidate their students' literacy skills
whereas the other group of teachers claimed they had to broaden their
students' abilities;
¥ believed in grouping students with similar abilities in their classes
compared with the other teachers who grouped students on their
perceived similar interests;
¥ were more proactive when it came to planning for parental involvement
in their literacy programs while the other groups of teachers were more
likely to "let it happen";
¥ used checklists more to record students' progress whereas the other
group of teachers relied more on anecdotal recording of students'
progress;
¥ were more likely to plan specific meeting with parents to report
student progress than the other group of teachers who relied more on
incidental meetings;
¥ were more likely to evaluate their teaching on a continuous basis
than the other group of teachers who stated that they evaluated their
work when things were not working.
¥ stated clearer understanding of the objectives of the Year 2 literacy
program, than the other teachers who held varying views about its
objectives;
¥ claimed that they worked together as a team to plan their teaching
for the Early Literacy Support Program while the other group of
teachers were more likely to work independently in their planning;
¥ claimed that they worked together in the same classroom more
frequently, in delivering the Early Literacy Support Program, than was
the case with the other group of teachers; and
¥ were more likely to state that they felt comfortable working with
another teacher in the classroom than was the situation with the other
group of teachers.
The areas that the two groups of teachers held similar views covered
the following areas:
¥ the necessity to focus on the individual needs of students;
¥ their concern about their inability to keep up with changing trends
in literacy teaching;
¥ the need to extend the above average student and to encourage their
development of independent research skills;
¥ their reliance on teachers' resource books for their ideas;
¥ their positive opinions about the value of the KILOs; and
¥ the number of interruptions they get in their lessons.
Examining the above statements if it were possible to summarise the
differences between the two groups it may be said that the teachers in
the most effective classes were more certain about their approaches to
literacy teaching, were more likely to plan and evaluate more
systematically, worked together as a team and proactively sought to
involve parents in their literacy programs.
The next section examines the observational data to determine if there
was similar differentiation between the two groups in these data.
Comparing the two groups of classrooms
The observational data enabled comparisons to be made of the student
behaviours in the two groups of classrooms. These data are presented
in two parts- the first describes the literacy environments and the
second the student behaviours as they worked under the guidance of
their teachers or other adults. While there were individual
differences to be found in the classroom environments and the student
behaviours in each of the classes, there was sufficient commonality to
be able to draw out generalised pictures of the two groups of classes.
Classroom environments
While it may be argued that the environments of any two classrooms are
different, there are commonalities present in most classroom. So in
trying to present aspects of classroom environments that are present in
the most effective classrooms compared with other classrooms the
comparisons are not as clear cut as in the interview data.
It should be said at this stage that all of the classes appeared to be
effective literacy environments with only a few items distinguishing
between the two groups of classes. The analyses of the significant
differences between the classroom environments suggested that the most
effective classrooms had:
¥ more general literacy resources available for students;
¥ more quality children's fiction available;
¥ a wider range of texts available for students;
¥ more displays about print conventions than was the case in the other
classes; and
¥ displayed students' texts around the room more frequently.
On all of the other areas in which classroom data were collected there
were no differences between the two groups of classrooms.
Student behaviours
Examining the location of students in the classes revealed some
interesting patterns. The students in the most effective classes were
more likely to be at their desks working on their set tasks than was
the case in the other classes. In the latter, more students were
observed wandering around the classrooms than was the situation in the
other classes. Both groups of students spent the same amount of time
in groups on the floor under the direct control of the teachers.
However, students in the most effective classes spent significantly
more time (33%) in small groups with a teacher than was the case in the
other groups of classes (9%). During these interactions the teachers
were discussing or questioning the students' work and monitoring
students' task behaviour.
Literacy tasks set by teachers
The student tasks set by teachers in their classrooms gave some
indication of the teachers' anticipated outcomes. The teachers in the
most effective classrooms set significantly more independent tasks for
their students than the teachers in the least effective classrooms.
Students in the former classrooms engaged in independent writing tasks,
both formal and creative, significantly more frequently (69%) than the
other students (53%).
There were fewer off-task behaviours (0%) observed of students in the
most effective classes compared with students in the other
classes(18%).
One of the surprising findings from this comparison was that students
in the least effective classes illustrated less obvious enjoyment as
they went about their tasks than students in the most effective
classes.
One of the clear differences between the two groups of students was the
amount of observed time the students engaged in worksheet activities.
Students in the least effective classes were observed to spend three
times as much time on worksheet type activities (25%) than was the case
in the other group of students. Conversely students in the most
effective classes were observed to spend about a third of their time reading for
information compared with 13% of the other students.
When spelling activities were observed, students in the most effective
classes spent significantly more time in whole class activities than
the students in the other classes. The latter group of students spent
significantly more time working on their personal dictionaries or
working on their personal spelling journals than was the case in the
other classes. Students in the most effective classes wrote in their
own exercise books more frequently than student in the other classes.
In the latter case these students usually wrote on loose sheets of
paper.
Clear differences were apparent in the amount and type of student and
adult talk in the two groups of classes. Students in the most
effective classes spent 77% of the time they were observed to be
talking, talking with their peers compared with 66% of the time in the
other classes. The observational instrument did not collect data
indicating the quality of the student talk in the classrooms
Significant differences between the two groups in the amount of adult
talk were observed. In the most effective classes the teacher talked
for 93% of the time compared with 70% of the time for the teacher in
the other classes. The majority of the adult talk in the most
effective classes was spent discussing issues with students (36%) and
modelling appropriate outcomes (11%). In the other group of classes the
predominant adult talk observed involved the teacher explaining
something (35%) to students and questioning (35%) their students.
Conclusion
The outcomes data presented above suggest that the identified gains are
consistent among the classes that have similar levels of performance on
the baseline tasks. Ceiling effects restrict the ability to compare
across the whole data set. Further this ceiling effect on the tasks
limits the assessed performances of the students in classes where the
baseline scores were comparatively high. Within all classes it is
apparent that the performance gains are greater for students who are in
the lower third of the class with respect to baseline performance.
Increasing the literacy abilities of this group of students is one of
the objectives of the Year 2 Early Literacy Support Program. To some
degree this outcome may be attributed to the greater focus on these
students by the resource teacher and to some degree on statistical
effects created by regression to the mean.
Somewhat surprisingly, it is the male students who made the greater
gains on the reading and cloze tasks. This finding is different from
evidence presented in similar studies for students of this age group.
Students in the non-disadvantaged classes made more significant gains
that their peers in disadvantaged classes. This is not an unexpected
result. The students in classes in the large urban schools obtained
greater gains in reading scores but not on any of the three other
tasks.
Obtaining the outcome scores of the students in the 31 classes was not
an end in itself. The data were collected as a means to identify
classrooms where the literacy outcomes were empirically shown to be of
high quality. These classes are not in schools which are located in
high socio-economic areas. One of the classes is in a disadvantaged
school and two of them are in rural locations. While research indicates
the chances are that the students in middle class schools are more
likely to achieve higher literacy outcomes than students in
disadvantaged, low income areas, the results of these analyses indicate
that this is not always the case. As such general conclusions are often
based on correlational analyses rather than causal analyses, exceptions
will always be found to such expectations. These results indicate that
ÒgoodÓ literacy planning and teaching will promote significant
outcomes.
At times educational research does not produce findings which can give
guidance to the practising teacher. The data above do provide ideas
that teachers can use to frame their thinking, planning and
teaching/learning activities. They also suggest ideas that schools can
use to develop appropriate literacy plans across the Year levels, an
area that the data suggest is not being well done. Implications for
teachers and schools are presented in turn.
It should be stressed that it is not the intention that the findings
are to be used as a recipe for 'good' literacy teaching. Rather they
can provide teachers with talking points as they come to terms with
their literacy teaching practices. The ideas can provide pointers for
goodness of fit, Cooper and McIntyre's (1996) term to describe the
relationship between teachers' planning, students' learning and the
attainment of significant outcomes. In general, the adoption of some of
the pointers identified above does not constitute a major change in the
ways teachers go about their teaching. Most of the findings only ask
teachers to consider an extension of their existing practices and
expertise rather than embarking upon a wholesale revision of their
existing repertoires. The latter approach does not work.
Consideration of these ideas allows teachers to plan for effective
teaching, especially if this planning is supported by:
¥ the establishment of a supportive social environment in the classroom
that enables students to feel accepted and valued;
¥ catering for the different cognitive styles of students;
¥ conveying a clear agenda for each lesson that ensures that students
know where they are supposed to do;
¥ ensuring that activities are worthwhile and engage and extend
students;
¥ an overall conception of the learning pathways the teacher wishes
students to follow but allowing for important deviations to occur; and
¥ a willingness to acknowledge the different student backgrounds and
plan accordingly to build on and extend the students' abilities.
At the school levels the interview and observational data suggest
certain actions that merit consideration. These include:
¥ having the school develop an overall school plan that allows the
school community to consider what it wants the students to learn, both
in the short term and the longer term;
¥ working out ways whereby teachers share craft knowledge about the
teaching of literacy and breaking down the apparent isolation that
occurs from Year level to Year level;
¥ considering ways by which the schools' executives can support and
facilitate the quality of the classroom teacher's expertise; and
¥ reviewing the school ethos to ensure that successful learning is the
business of the school.
References
Berliner, D. C. (1994) Expertise, the wonder of exemplary
performances, in Mangieri, J. N. & Collins-Block, C. (eds) Creating
Powerful Thinking in Teachers and Students: Diverse Perfectives,
Sydney: Harcourt Brace
Cambourne, B. (1988) The whole story: Natural learning and the
acquisition of literacy in the classroom, New Zealand: Ashton
Scholastic
Christie, F. (1985) Language Education, Victoria: Deakin University
Clay, M. (1979) The Early Detection of Reading Difficulties: A
Diagnostic, New Zealand: Heinemann
Clay, M. (1993) An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement,
New Zealand: Heinemann
Cooper, P. & McIntyre, D. (1996) Effective Teaching And Learning -
Teachers' And Students' Perspectives, Buckingham: Open University
Press
CrŽvola, C.A. & Hill, P. W. (1997) The Early Literacy Research
Project: Success for All in Victoria, Australia, Paper presented at the
Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago, March, 1997
Cronbach, L.J. & Furby, L. (1970) How should we measure change - or
should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74, 1, p.68-80
Curriculum Corporation, (1994) English - A Curriculum Profile for
Australian Schools, Victoria: Curriculum Corporation
Department of Employment, Education and Training, (1991) Australia's
Language, The Australian Language and Literacy Policy, Canberra:
Australian Government Publishing Service
Derewianka, B. (1990) Exploring How Texts Work, NSW: Primary English
Teaching Association
Derewianka, B. (ed.) (1992) Language Assessment in Primary Schools,
NSW: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
Elbaz, F. (1983) Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge,
New York: Nichols
Freebody, P. & Welch A. (eds.), (1993) Knowledge, Culture and Power:
International Perspectives on Literacy as Policy and Practice,
Washington: Falmer Press
Goodman, Y.M. & Burke, C. (1972) Reading Miscue Inventory, New York:
Macmillan
Language Australia, (1996) The National Literacy Policy for Australia:
Commonwealth Program of Action for Literacy and Language Education,
Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service
Lesiak, L. (1997) Research based answers to questions about emergent
literacy in kindergarten, Psychology in the Schools, 34, 2 p. 143 -
159
McGaw, B., Long, M. G., Morgan, G. & Rosier, M.J. (1989) Literacy and
Numeracy in Australian schools, ACER Research Monograph No. 34 ,
Hawthorn: ACER
Tasmanian Department of Education (1993) Key Intended Literacy
Outcomes (KILOs), Hobart: Tasmanian Government Printer
Tasmanian Department of Education (1993) Key Intended Literacy
Outcomes: Support Materials (KILOs), Hobart: Tasmanian Government
Printer
Tasmanian Department of Education (1992) Learning to Read & Write,
Hobart: Tasmanian Government Printer
Wells, G. (1986) The Meaning Makers, London: Hodder & Stoughton
Western Australian Education Department (1996) First Steps: Writing
Resource Book, Western Australia: Longman
Preparatory classes are recognised as the first year of formal
schooling in the Tasmanian education system.
DECCD background paper on Year 2 Early Literacy Support Program.
Material presented in this paper is based on data reported in the
following research report:
Braithwaite, J. et al, (1997) Literacy Processes and Student
Outcomes in Year 2 Classes, Tasmania: University of Tasmania