Young learners: interpreting literacy practice in the preschool years.

Scull, Janet ; Nolan, Andrea ; Raban, Bridie 等

Introduction

Conceptualisations of literacy differ over time and across theoretical framings, and it seems axiomatic that the one constant of literacy education is change. Further, political and public debate about literacy often promulgates the view that teachers choose between disparate and competing sets of pedagogical approaches or work to narrowly defined views of literacy to meet standards that contrive to limit the curriculum (Mills, 2005; Snyder, 2008). In response to this educators are placed in the position of defending the differentiated and multifaceted range of literacy practices required to address children's specific learning needs. In recent times, the most promising development has been reconciling perspectives on literacy that were previously considered divergent, with particular emphasis on implications for practice. Towards this end Purcell-Gates and colleagues (2004, p. 81) attempt to reconnect the social and cognitive, considering the development of print literacy through a 'widened lens'. These authors envision the relationship between the socio-cultural and the cognitive as relating transactionally in a nested relationship, with literacy learning occurring within the context of socio-culturally constructed literacy practices. Similarly, Lo Bianco and Free-body (2001) in Australian Literacies state that 'optimally, skills development for all children should be an explicit and priority objective but one that is delivered richly embedded within meaningful pedagogies' (p. 56).

The contemporaneous development of integrated literacy skills fits well with early literacy practices prevalent in many preschool contexts. Further, the notion of supporting 'authentic' learning as a way of ensuring that what is experienced by the children does not stand outside the sociocultural practices of the children is not uncommon for teachers in the early childhood field (Raban, 2012). However, what is required is a more nuanced understanding of the literacy experiences young children see modelled around them during their preschool years, and the ways in which adults involve and include young children in every day literacy events and activities. Perhaps missing from many preschool teacher's repertoire is an explicit understanding as to what they are foregrounding, with respect to their role in relation to early literacy teaching, and a clear means of articulating their practice as they support young children's learning.

To support teachers to effectively coordinate the wide range of complementary skills and understandings associated with becoming literate, when literacy is envisioned as a social activity embedded within cultural practice and evolving technologies (Fleer & Raban, 2007), a number of useful frameworks have been developed. The Four Resources Model of Luke and Freebody (1997; 1999) assists teachers to analyse and plan for the teaching of reading, as this examines the ways readers decode, comprehend, use and critique texts. In addition, the multiliteracies pedagogy of the New London Group (1996; 2000) involves the related components: situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing and transformed practice (New London Group, 2000). These authors consider situated practice as building on the experiences children bring to the learning environment, with meaning making emphasised in authentic contexts; overt instruction whereby teachers focus on developing children's skills and understanding particular to a wide range of texts; critical framing as children interpret the social context and purpose of texts; and transformed practice when children translate what is known to new contexts. Similarly, Unsworth (2002, p. 70) describes three overlapping dimensions of literate practice: recognition, reproduction and reflection. Recognition involves learning to recognise and produce the range of codes that are used to construct and communicate meanings. Reproduction engages children in understanding and producing conventional visual and verbal text forms to construct and communicate established cultural knowledge. Reflection includes an understanding that all literacies are socially constructed and as such necessitate learning how to interrogate the visual and verbal codes that privilege or exclude certain points of view.

However, specific to preschool teaching, we have found it helpful to focus on the model of literacy developed by Green in 1988 and further articulated by Durrant and Green (2000) and Green (2002) to consider the intent of teachers in preschools with respect to their development of intentional teaching practices (DEEWR 2009, p. 15). What is apparent is that this '3D' model is not at odds with other conceptualisations of literacy as sociocultural practice (see Hasan, 1996; MackenHorarik, 1996; Street, 1997) and is also consistent with the critical-sociocultural paradigm (Luke & Freebody, 1997; 1999; Comber, 2001; Vasquez, 2004; Souto Manning, 2009).

Literacy in the '3D' Model

The 3 Dimensional Literacy Education Model (see Figure 1), highlights the importance of literacy as a sociocultural practice and emphasises learning that brings together the operational/language, the cultural/ meaning and the critical/power dimensions of literacy in equal emphases. This model views literacy holistically with the three dimensions interlocking with each other, holding equal status. Importantly, this implies it is counterproductive to start with issues of skills and techniques (operational/language) outside of authentic contexts (cultural/meaning) of situated social practice (critical/power).

Basically it involves asserting a holistic, integrated view of literacy as comprising three interlocking dimensions or aspects. (Green, 2002, p. 27)

If we consider the operational/language dimension to include aspects such as conceptual knowledge, the 'how to' knowledge or the concepts and constructs of literacy, then the cultural/meaning and critical/power dimensions build the contextual knowledge through a lens focusing on socio-historical and political aspects.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Encompassing a holistic view of literacy learning, would see the operational/language dimension focuses on developing skills and the technical competence to successfully operate the language system (Bigum et al., 1998). This would include knowledge about how the alphabet works, the role of graphemes and phonemes, letter recognition, attention to print codes and the manual process of handwriting (Durrant & Green, 2000, p. 99). This dimension of the model ensures attention is focused on building understanding of the semiotic systems used to convey meaning in printed texts (New London Group, 2000). In addition to the visual and spatial design elements it involves attending to aspects of the linguistic code. This dimension aligns with teaching early print concepts and alphabetic principles (Luke & Freebody, 1997; 1999; Clay, 2001; Hill, 2012). As Paris (2005) explains, alphabet knowledge, phonemic awareness, and understanding early print concepts pertain to a set of central and important features of text, critical to literacy acquisition processes. For preschool children this involves engagement with the phonology and orthography of letters and words, and the conventions of print such as left to right directionality, spacing and layout (Clay, 2010).

The cultural/meaning dimension is about manipulating texts in authentic contexts to achieve a purpose in the world with the focus on making meaning from the text and associated action. It is about seeing literacy as a social practice (Fleer & Raban, 2006). 'This cultural aspect of literacy necessitates understanding texts in relation to contexts--to understand what it is about given contexts of practice that makes for appropriateness or inappropriateness of particular ways of writing, reading, shaping, viewing, speaking and listening' (Ludwig, 2003, p. 3). This dimension focuses on having the ability to use different genres in order to achieve a range of purposes (Derewianka, 2011) and organise information, knowledge and ideas in socially important ways (Christie, 2005, p. 145). The way the text is constructed to make meaning, the literal and figurative meanings of words and expressions, how the text relates to personal prior knowledge and experiences, and the use of texts in social situations to achieve social purposes, to interact with others and to participate in events, are all aspects of the cultural dimension (Luke & Freebody, 1997; 1999). With respect to early literacy, this would involve young children in creating and using text relevant to the setting or activity. Indeed, Green (2002) sees 'particular pedagogic value in starting with the cultural (/meaning) dimension, as it focuses on meaning-making in context' (p. 28). Green goes on to emphasise;

   This means drawing the critical (/power) and operational
   (/language) in organically, as the occasion and
   the need arises, although it also entails making quite
   sure this does in fact happen, somewhere along the
   line ... (2002, p. 28)

The critical/power dimension considers context, history and power which requires 'an understanding that all social practices, and hence all literacies, are socially constructed' (Unsworth, 2002, p. 70). It questions the notion of universal truth, instead raising issues about the selective and partial presentation of knowledge which is a construction by someone else. 'Critical literacy is about assisting children to acquire the discursive resources for appreciation, analysis and action' (Comber, 2001, p. 171). It focuses on interrogating the text, questioning and critiquing what is presented in the text, understanding and reading the inclusions and exclusions, and even applying the text to another context or redesigning text (Souta-Manning, 2009). As Lankshear (1999) explains, the critical dimension 'makes the difference between merely being socialised into sets of skills, values, beliefs and procedures, and being able to make judgements about them from a perspective which identifies them for what they are (and are not) and recognises alternative possibilities' (np). This dimension of the model is concerned with the underlying and unstated assumptions in the text and the way the text attempts to position the reader. This involves focusing on opinions, biases and points of view in a text, comparing texts on the same topic from different viewpoints, and thinking about an author's purpose in writing a text (Luke & Freebody, 1997; 1999; O'Brien, 2001; Vasquez, 2004) During the preschool years, this is frequently achieved through discourse around texts readily available to young children like story books and shopping catalogues.

Green's articulation of Literacy in '3D' (Green, 1988; Durrant & Green, 2000; Green, 2002) brings together three interlocking dimensions of learning and practice related to literacy, and has up until now, not been explicitly considered in the examination of the practices of preschool teachers. We, the researchers, will now report on our use of the model to support the interpretation of literacy practices in preschools focusing on the aspects of literacy teachers appear to foreground when working with young children in early childhood settings.

Preschool teacher sub-study and the '3D' Model

The Young Learners' Project is a six year (2007-2012) research project which aims to identify factors in a four-year-old preschooler's educational program, home-life or personal characteristics that are positively associated with the development of strong literacy outcomes during their first year of school-education. Through investigating factors within preschool children, their family and educational settings, this project addresses a significant need to ensure all children develop the necessary early literacy skills and understandings prior to formal schooling.

The study discussed in this paper is a sub-study of this program of research that focuses on literacy teaching practice in early childhood contexts (Brown, Scull, Nolan, Raban & Deans, 2012). The teachers involved in the study were employed as preschool teachers delivering the government-funded four-year-old prior to school program and were selected on the basis of opportunistic sampling. The researchers drew upon known early childhood networks to invite preschool teachers who were interested to participate. In total it examined 19 preschool teachers, from the first two years of this research, working in Government funded preschools located in diverse parts of Melbourne, Australia. The study draws from the Young Learners' Project corpus of data, specifically video recordings of teaching practice, survey and video stimulated interview responses.

Along with demographic information, the survey questions selected for this study related to teachers' understanding of literacy in the early childhood context and how they saw their role in fostering children's early literacy (see Appendix). Teachers also participated in video-recorded observations of three short literacy focused teaching and learning events--reading, drawing/writing, and an activity chosen by the teacher. This method was used to contextualise teacher practices and reliably capture language, non-verbal interactions and resources used to support children's early literacy development. Analysis of these experiences was seen as a way of providing an insight into how literacy was conceptualised and practiced in preschool contexts. The video data was used to map teachers' views to practice and allowed the researchers to gain an insight into how these teachers embedded literacy into their early childhood programs. Interview data related to their role in children's literacy development and an explanation of the aim and purpose behind each literacy experience. These data were able to provide an understanding as to how literacy was defined and how this knowledge translated into their practices.

In combination, the methods outlined above have allowed the construction of profiles of teaching practice. Presented in this paper is a close examination of three classroom interactions, from three of the teacher participants, rich in description and detail about each teacher's practice. These have been selected as representative of literacy teaching events from the data experienced by the children who were part of the Young Learners' Project. Each one of these examples includes teaching that interweaves dimensions of the 3D model. The descriptions provided highlight a particular example of literacy teaching, and draw from the survey and interview data to capture the teachers' insights into practice and their own interpretations of the event. The 3D model is used as a lens for the analysis of the teaching events, and allowed us to consider how teachers might isolate or integrate dimensions of this model. It also allowed for an innovative application of the model to early years contexts and a consideration of its relevance to preschool literacy teaching. The vignettes of practice are presented below.

Anna (Teacher one)--Encouraging meaning-making through reading

In this first event Anna read the story of Jack and the Beanstalk. As she read the children were invited to participate, responding to her comments, joining in the repetitive refrain 'Fee, Fie, Foe, Fum' and recreating the story, as it was told, using felt characters. Together they gradually built a model of the key events in the text, as a pictorial representation, to complement the text reading. When asked to discuss the purpose of this activity, at interview, Anna stated:

   It enables them to explore how stories are told. I guess stories
   have a beginning, a middle part and an end ... it helps them see
   that there's stages through the story ... And, I think the felt
   board helps in remembering the different parts of the story, as
   well I think it enables children to go back, and they might become
   aware of something they hadn't seen before, and I guess ... make
   connections, begin to make connections between the words on the
   page with the pictures.

Analysis of the teaching through the cultural/ meaning lens, allows for reflection on how narrative texts are positioned with a socio-cultural frame of reference. This activity builds on these middle class children's familiarity with traditional tales, which for many children attending this setting, are part of their bedtime story reading routines. The repertoire of practice children have available for constructing representations and interpretations of such texts are likely to draw on the collaborative book reading experiences and discussions that take place in the home (Heath, 1982; McNaughton, 1995; Nutbrown, Hannon & Morgan, 2005) where such texts are also understood as a source of pleasure and enjoyment.

However also evident is Anna's intention to extend the children's meaning making strategies. The children's retelling and pictorial recreation of the text directed their attention to the way the text is constructed and allowed them to consider events as the intertwining occurred and to build a representation of the unfolding elements (Sandora, Beck & McKeown, 1999). The transcript excerpts below are illustrative of these interactions:

T (Child's name) would you like to put the beanstalk up and you can get Jack to climb up, up, up ... And when he reached the top he came to a magic land?

T (Child's name) would you like to find the hen and have the hen lay some beautiful golden eggs?

Anna's questions throughout the text reading encouraged children to both predict and connect information in the text. This is seen as central to effective comprehension; in the process of readers tracking a character, an object or a theme across a text, a complete understanding is carefully built (Dewitz & Dewitz, 2003 p. 425). The focus on narrative structure allows children to become familiar with the global organisation of ideas, to support their understanding and memory of the gist of a text (Kintsch, 1998; 2004).

Moreover, the children were active participants in the meaning-making process, engaged as interlocutors as characters and actions in the texts were introduced, explored and extended. Anna directed the conversation with questions that attended to both literal and inferential aspects of comprehension, such as:

T There's Jack selling the cow. Does he look happy?

T Who do you think he meets on the way?

T Do you think his Mum is going to be happy about him selling the cow?

T What do you think she's going to say?

The teacher discussion prompts above, first analysed as supporting children to develop skills aligned with the cultural/meaning dimensions of literacy, can also be considered as extending children's awareness of the critical/power dimensions of literacy. Anna prompts the children to examine the points of view and multiple perspectives of characters and in doing so the children imagine how others might feel in this text. As Misson (2002) argues, this highlights the relationship between critical capacity and imagination. He states, 'we can only make sense of the text through the imagination. To understand, we need to imagine ourselves in a relationship to the kind of text it is' (2002, p. 33).

In addition, in this teaching event Anna attended to the operational/language dimension of literacy. The reading reinforced print concepts such as directionality and the connections between the two semiotic modes (print and illustrations) that create and carry the message in this story. At the end of the story reading, and seemingly incidentally, a child noticed the letter J for Jack on the cover of the text. Anna built on this child-initiated activity by encouraging the children to identify other names beginning with the letter J. This acted to reinforce sound letter knowledge and developed the children's technical competence with the written language system.

To summarise, Anna's emphasis on children's meaningful engagement with text, alongside her attention to aspects of the printed code supported the children to build a repertoire of strategies that skilfully combined the cultural/meaning and operational/language dimensions of literacy. Clearly evident was the children's engagement and enjoyment of this classic story, with the retelling and recreating of the story, invoking children as active participants in the meaning-making process. Anna's practice, largely focussed around the joint construction of the text's meaning, connects well with her definition of literacy as articulated in her survey 'the ability to read and write and through this, communicate, understand and construct knowledge'.

Kate (Teacher two)--Embedding literacy in a recognisable context

In the second event a group of four children were engaged in a cooking experience with their teacher Kate. The children were making gingerbread men and the activity related to the retelling of the story The Gingerbread Man read earlier in the day. A recipe, as an illustrated text, was displayed and the children were assisted to use this to check ingredients and follow the procedure as noted. When Kate discussed the purpose of this activity with regard to literacy learning at interview, she stated that this was particular to developing an understanding that 'print conveys meaning'. Her elaboration follows:

   They're using the pictures there to help assist that. That
   writing has a purpose, so it's meaningful. We've got
   pictures there, and so, understanding that these little
   symbolic representations actually mean something, so
   I've got the written word as well as the picture word,
   and I think it's just to show them different ways of
   reading, that you can read pictures, that you can read
   words, you can read symbols, you can read signs.

Analysing this event using the meaning/cultural lens, there is a strong focus on making meaning from the text and associated action. Through this activity children experience literacy 'embedded in recognisable contexts and purposes, and with opportunity and audience for their literacy engagements, their understanding of the process will become more sophisticated and appropriate over time' (Raban, 2012, p. 5). Intentional teaching purposes are clearly driving the use of the prepared text. The excerpt below demonstrates how Kate makes this clear to this group of young children.

When Kate commences the activity she states:

T I wasn't really sure how to make Gingerbread men, what I might need, what ingredients to put in.

The children respond by pointing to the recipe and one child states:

Ch 'That teaches us to do it'.

This event provides a strong context for drawing children's attention to the operational/language aspects of literacy. While reading to the children and encouraging the children to read the text Kate drew the children's attention to the pictures as cues to support reading. Pointing to each ingredient in turn she asked:

T What do you think that one is? (pointing to the picture)

Ch Butter

T Butter (nodding.) How about that one ... it's a hard one? That one's sugar. Can you see the picture and there's some words there that say brown sugar? (running her finger under the words)

Using the picture and print cues children are introduced to print concepts and code breaking strategies as they jointly reconstruct the text (Luke & Freebody, 1997). This interaction fits well with Kate's definition of literacy expressed in her interview as involving a range of semiotics: It's not just reading and writing, but also encompasses a range of things: talking, listening, thinking, doing/playing, observing, creating.

Kate's practice, as exemplified in the interaction discussed, is reflective of a teacher who integrates literacy concepts into content curriculum areas. Kate chooses to manipulate texts in authentic contexts that allow the children to approach the written word through actions that have meaning for them and a clear purpose and communication (Fleer & Raban, 2006; Tafa, 2008). In this way contexts for learning are created that seamlessly blend the cultural/meaning and operational/language dimensions of literacy.

Jenny (Teacher three)--Producing authentic, purposeful texts

In this third teaching event, Jenny was working with a small group of children as they documented the design of fans created from recycled materials. In this setting, children were engaged in a wide range of recycling and eco-friendly activities. In this instance, their drawings were explained and labelled, with Jenny's prompts supporting the children to elaborate their descriptions. When asked at interview about this activity Jenny stated:

It was to connect language work and the work throughout the program [around] energy recycling ... So it was a way of bringing literacy, numeracy, into some practical skills to construct something ... and later we took that work to the blocks, actually trying to use it ... so that's what I was trying to bring together, the maths and literacy, and they are just everyday tools that you will use in your life ... everyday, everywhere.

In this event, a broad critical framing provides a context for the development of children's designs. Positioned within a unit on recycling materials and renewable resources for a sustainable world the children were aware of how they become agents for social change as they contribute to making a difference to their lives. Working within the critical dimension the children were able to examine issues of significance and suggest possibilities for change or improvement (Vasquez, 2004).

Jenny also worked to develop children's literacy competencies within the cultural/meaning dimension of the 3D model. The experience of producing authentic, purposeful texts embedded children's developing awareness of the linguistic and visual semiotic codes.. Conveying meaning was central to this task, with oral language skills, around technical vocabulary, specific to children's explanations, fostered. This teaching practice aligns with the cultural/meaning dimension as children 'learn to use language in a variety of ways so they have a range of registers and genres they can recognise, read, interpret and write' (Christie, 2005, p. 49). The transcript excerpt that follows records Jenny's conversation with one child as he details his design.

T Can you tell me how this fan is going to work? Ch Well, if you touch the big button it will go slow but if you touch the other button it will go faster.

T So how will this be powered? Ch By electricity,

T And how does the electricity get powered? Ch By the sun

T Where are the solar panels?

Ch It doesn't have any solar panels it just captures it by the spinning

T When it spins which bit captures the sun

Ch That bit

T The blades catch the sun

The operational/language dimension of literacy was also explicitly demonstrated in the observed practice. As the children produced written explanations they were invited to develop an awareness of conventions of writing and how messages are recorded using the alphabetic code. Jenny's scribing of the children's explanations, and the children's own labelling of their designs, reinforced concepts of how print records language to communicate to others and oneself. Learning about print is clearly evident in the excerpt below, and Jenny gently intervenes:

T Wait a minute, how do you spell 'air'? I wrote it down for you. Look you need 'A' first ... that's the 'I', there it is ...

The integration of the cultural/meaning and operational/language dimensions, with literacy concepts and skills embedded in critical/social practice, were evident in this teaching interaction. The context in which this literacy learning occurred fulfils a real and genuine purpose that is understood by the participants. This compares well to Jenny's stated understanding about literacy teaching practices, where she writes, It's about being able to develop concepts, knowledge and skills related to all aspects of life, it's all about communication ... a way of knowing and understanding and doing.

Discussion

Green (2002) proposed that for a comprehensive literacy program all three dimensions of the '3D' model (operational/language, cultural/meaning and critical/power) need to be intertwined, with no one dimension privileged over another. The findings of the study reported in this paper, from the analysis of the 19 teachers, and represented by the three vignettes of practice described earlier, indicate differentiated practices across a range of common experiences. What is common across the vignettes and the wider data sets is the more concentrated focus on the cultural/meaning dimension of literacy by these teachers.

Within the data all three dimensions of the 3D Model were identified as being present in practice. However, what was apparent was the privileging by all of the teachers in the study of the cultural/meaning dimension. Some teachers within the cohort did attend to the operational/language dimension with the inclusion of activities and deliberate teaching practices around alphabetic knowledge and letter recognition, but this dimension was not as strongly represented across the data. Furthermore, while we were able to discern aspects of practice where the critical/power dimension was emphasised, this was not common across our data set. It is interesting to note that comments made almost a decade ago about the reluctance of teachers to embrace critical literacy in early childhood settings (Comber, 2001) may still ring true today.

With many preschool teachers holding sociocultural views of how young children learn it is not at all surprising that teachers practice revolved around opportunities for children to investigate and extend on their interests highlighting the cultural/meaning aspect of the model. This connection of the curriculum with children's everyday lives and interests is a feature of having a pedagogy influenced by sociocultural theories (Arthur, Beecher, Death, Dockett & Farmer, 2008). This view acknowledges the interactive nature of learning and the significant impact of culture on this learning. This leads to the provision of literacy-based experiences that are richly embedded, and where meaningful pedagogies, both socially and culturally, are enacted. It is the contextual responsiveness of the literacy experiences on offer which acknowledge, support and extend the child's existing knowledge as a way to support further learning (Fleer & Robbins, 2003). Working in this way teachers bridge concept formation for the children they work with (McLachlan, Fleer & Edwards, 2010).

The teachers in this study, who did practice intentional teaching using the operational/language dimension, provided opportunities for the building of understanding around the technical features of texts. This was especially evident in the writing events where attention was paid to developing alphabetic knowledge, letter recognition and letter-sound relationships, alongside the teaching of the mechanics of handwriting. These events, whilst encompassing the operational/ language dimension, were also grounded in practices and purposes familiar to the children's everyday experiences.

What is clear to us, and what can be seen in the three vignettes presented in this paper, is the potential around typical preschool events for children's engagement with critical/power literacies. Young children possess rich resources for critical/power analysis; 'they are only too aware of what's fair, what's different, who gets the best deal, long before they start school' (Comber, 2001, p. 170). A critical lens, in the first instance, might involve children in talk and activities designed to question and interrogate the socially constructed views presented in texts (O'Brien, 2001; Ryan & Anstey, 2003; Stevens & Bean, 2008). As Souta-Manning states discussion 'around texts creates an opportunity for children to question right and wrong, understand authorship and valuing, or at least respect different voices and multiple perspectives' (2009, p. 63). Engagement with the critical/power dimension might also involve children in taking action in their worlds and participation in the design of meaningful and just futures (Comber & Thomson, 2001; Vasquez, 2004). However, intentional teaching around the critical/power dimension is largely dependent on professional development and a recognised need for teacher educators to help practitioners understand the relevance of critical/power literacy pedagogy (Kincheloe, 2004), and how this can be embedded in their evident cultural/meaning practices.

We believe that by preschool teachers developing an understanding and awareness of the importance of all three dimensions being present in an early childhood program, they will be able to offer rich programs where the operational/language, cultural/meaning and critical/power aspects of literacy are represented. This process asks teachers to move from relying on tacit knowledge to becoming more aware of explicit knowledge. Teachers can then bring intentionality into their planning for literacy experiences from a more informed perspective. As Green (2002) has pointed out;

   As always, teaching is unavoidably a matter of tact and
   timing, a subtle mix of strategy and tactics, theory and
   practice. (p. 28)

Conclusion

We propose that Green's 3 Dimensional Literacy Education Model is a useful frame for preschool teachers to draw from when contemplating practice. By considering and equalising the balance in their programs between the operational/language, cultural/meaning and critical/power dimensions of the model, teachers can develop a richer, more purposeful literacy program for the young children they teach. Promoting this model during professional learning opportunities and during teacher training courses will assist teachers to develop knowledge and skills to comprehend and apply this model to their practice.

Acknowledgements

This study of teaching practice forms part of a larger project that investigates the effect of family, preschool and child factors on emerging literacy, 'The Young Learners' Project'. This research is funded by the Australian Research Council (Project No: LP0883437) in conjunction with its partner organisation the Australian Scholarships Group. The authors wish to acknowledge the parents, children and teachers who participated in this research and members of the Young Learners' Project. Further details of the study and its researchers can be found at http://www.edfac.unimelb. edu.au/younglearners.

Appendix A

Young Learners' Project: Teacher Survey

Thank you for taking time to complete this questionnaire. In the Part A, we require you to complete some background information. Part B asks for short answers to 11 questions that focus on teaching and learning practices.

Part A: Teacher Background

1. Name:

2. Sex: Male/Female

3. How many years have you worked in the early childhood field in total?

4. What types of early childhood and other educational services have you worked in?

Setting                     Years

Kindergarten
Childcare
Family day care
Outside School Hours care
Nanny
Primary School
Other--please specify

5. Please list all your professional qualifications.

6. What specific studies (if any) have you undertaken in relation to early childhood language and literacy?

7. What professional development activities (e.g. in-service) have you participated in during the past two years?

8. What professional journals (if any) inform your practice?

9. What other resources (if any) inform your understanding of language and literacy development in early childhood?

10. Do you speak any languages other than English? YES/NO (please circle) If yes, what other languages do you speak?

Part B: Teacher Knowledge and Practices

1. How do you believe young children learn?

2. What is your role in young children's learning?

3. What do you understand by the term 'literacy'?

4. What factors impact on children's literacy development?

5. What role (if any) do you consider you play in fostering children's literacy development

6. What curriculum experiences (if any) do you currently offer to foster children's language development?

7. What curriculum experiences (if any) do you currently offer to foster children's reading and writing development?

8. What resources (if any) are currently available for children in your group(s) to experiment with (a) language (b) reading and (c) writing?

9. How do you evaluate children's literacy development?

10. What role (if any) do you consider parents play in helping children learn to read and write?

11. What ways (if any) is information shared between you and parents about children's enjoyment and skills in reading and writing?

Appendix B

Young Learners' Project: Teacher Interview

1. How accurately does the SAM profile reflect you as a practitioner?

2. For each video extract:

i. What is the purpose of this particular experience?

* What guided you on the selection of the text for the reading experience?

ii. What strategies are you using here to support children's (a) language (b) reading and/or (c) writing?

iii. How often do you use these strategies?

iv. Why are these strategies important in fostering children's literacy development?

v. How effective are these strategies in fostering children's literacy development?

vi. What other strategies do use for this same purpose?

3. What informs your planning for literacy? What role do your observations play in this?

4. How useful has this research process been to your reflections on literacy teaching and learning?

5. What information and resources could be developed to support your practice?

References

Arthur, L., Beecher, B., Death, E., Dockett., S. & Farmer, S. (2008). Programming and planning in early childhood settings (4th Edn.). South Melbourne, Victoria: Thomson.

Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) (2009). Belonging, being and becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia. Commonwealth of Australia.

Bigum, C., Durrant, C., Green, B., Honan, E., Lankshear, C., Morgan, W., Murray, J., Snyder, I. and Wild, M. (1998). Digital rhetorics: Literacies and technology in education current practices and future directions. Canberra, ACT: DEETYA.

Brown, R., Scull, J., Nolan, A., Raban, B. and Deans J. (2012). Young learners: mapping the beliefs and practices of preschool teachers in relation to early literacy development. The Australian Educational Researcher, DOI: 10.1007/s13384-012-0061-0.

Christie, F. (2005). Language education in the primary years. Sydney, NSW: University of New South Wales Press.

Clay, M.M. (2001). Change over time in children's literacy development. Auckland: Heinemann.

Clay, M.M. (2010). How very young children explore writing. New Zealand: Pearson.

Comber, B. (2001). Critical literacy: Power and pleasure with language in the early years. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 24(3), 168-181.

Comber, B. and Thomson, P. (2001). Critical literacy finds a 'place': Writing and social action in a low-income Australian grade 2/3 classroom. Elementary School Journal, 101(4), 451-464.

Derewianka, B. (2011). A new grammar companion for teachers. Marrickville, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association.

Dewitz, P. and Dewitz, P. (2003). They can read the words, but they can't understand: Refining comprehension assessment. The Reading Teacher, 56(5), 422-435.

Durrant, C. and Green, B. (2000). Literacy and the new technologies in school education: Meeting the l(IT)eracy challenge? Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 23(2), 89-109.

Fleer, M. and Raban, B. (2006). 'It's the thought that counts': A sociocultural framework for supporting early literacy and numeracy. Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 13(1), 35-54.

Fleer, M. and Raban, B. (2007). Constructing cultural-historical tools for supporting young children's concept formation in early literacy and numeracy. Early Years: An International Journal of Research and Education, 27 (2), 103-118.

Fleer, M. and Robbins, J. (2003). Beyond ticking boxes: From individual developmental domains to a socio-cultural framework for observing young children. Paper presented at the New Zealand Early Childhood Research VII Annual Symposium, Auckland, New Zealand, 2003.

Green, B. (1988). Subject-specific literacy and school learning: A focus on writing. Australian Journal of Education, 32(2), 156-179.

Green, B. (2002). A literacy project of our own. English in Australia, 134, 25-32.

Hasan, R. (1996). Literacy, everyday talk and society. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in Society (pp. 377-424). London: Addison Wesley Longman.

Heath, S.B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and at school. Language and Society, 11(2), 49-76.

Hill, S. (2012). Developing early literacy: Assessment and teaching (2nd Edn.). Prahran, VIC: Eleanor Curtin Publishing.

Kincheloe, J. (2004). Critical pedagogy primer. New York: Peter Lang.

Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kintsch, W. (2004). The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In R.B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th Ed., pp. 1270-1328). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Lankshear, C. (1999). Digital rhetorics: Literacies and technologies in classrooms--current practices and future directions. Queensland Journal of Educational Research, 15(1), Retrieved from http://www.iier.org.au/qjer/qjer15/99conts. html

Lo Bianco, J. and Freebody, P. (2001). Australian literacies: Informing national policy on literacy education. Melbourne, VIC.: Language Australia.

Ludwig, C. (2003). Making sense of literacy. Newsletter of the Australian Literacy Educators' Association, February 2003. Retrieved from http://www.alea.edu.au/html/ publications/19/alea-today

Luke, A. and Freebody, P. (1997). Shaping the social practices of reading. In S. Muspratt, A. Luke & P. Freebody (Eds.), Constructing critical literacies: Teaching and learning textual practice (pp. 185-225). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Luke, A. and Freebody, P. (1999). Further notes on the four resources model. Reading Online. Retrieved from http:// www.readingonline.org/research/lukefreebody.html

Macken-Horarik, M. (1996). Literacy and learning across the curriculum: Towards a model of register for secondary school teachers. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 232-278). London: Addison Wesley Longman.

McLachlan, C., Fleer, M. and Edwards, S. (2010). Early childhood curriculum: Planning, assessment and implementation. Port Melbourne, VIC: Cambridge University Press.

McNaughton. S. (1995). Patterns in emergent literacy: Processes of development and transition. Auckland: Oxford.

Mills, K. (2005). Deconstructing binary oppositions in literacy discourse and pedagogy. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 28(1), 67-82.

Misson, R. (2002). What are we creating in creative writing. English in Australia, 141, 33-40.

New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.

New London Group (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies designing social futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 9-38). London: Routledge.

Nutbrown, C., Hannon, P. and Morgan, A. (2005). Early literacy work with families: Research, policy and practice. London: Sage.

O'Brien, J. (2001). Children reading critically: A local history. In B. Comber & A. Simpson (Eds.), Negotiating Critical Literacies in Classrooms (pp. 37-54). Mahwah NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Paris, S. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 184-202.

Purcell-Gates, V., Jacobson E. and Degener, S. (2004). Print literacy development: Uniting cognitive and social practice theories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Raban, B. (2012). Early Literacy--Audience, context and purpose. Practically Primary--Australian Literacy Educators' Association. 17(2), 4-5.

Ryan, M. and Anstey, M. (2003). Identity and text: Developing self-conscious readers. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 26(1), 9-22.

Sandora, C., Beck, I. and McKeown, M. (1999). A comparison of two discussion strategies on students' comprehension on interpretation of complex literature. Journal of Reading Psychology, 20(3), 177-212.

Snyder, I. (2008). The literacy wars: Why teaching children to read and write is a battleground in Australia. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Stevens. P.L. and Bean, T. (2007). Critical literacy: Context, research, and practice in the K-12 classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Souto-Manning, M. (2009). Negotiating culturally responsive pedagogy through multicultural children's literature: Towards critical democratic literacy practices in a first grade classroom. Journal of Early Literacy Childhood Education, 9(1), 50-74.

Street, B.V. (1997). Social literacies. In V. Edwards and D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of language and education (Vol. 2, pp. 133-141). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Tafa, E. (2008). Kindergarten reading and writing curricula in the European Union. Literacy, 42(3), 162-170.

Unsworth, L. (2002). Changing dimensions of school literacies. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 25(1), 62-77.

Vasquez, V.M. (2004). Negotiating critical literacies with young children. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Janet Scull

University of Melbourne Graduate School of Education

Andrea Nolan

Victoria University

Bridie Raban

Hong Kong Baptist University

Janet Scull is a Senior Lecturer at The University of Melbourne. She has contributed to the systemic design and evaluation of literacy programs and the implementation of interventions for students in the early years. Janet's teaching and research interests coalesce around the areas of language development, literacy acquisition and pedagogical practices that support effective learning.

Andrea Nolan is an Associate Professor at Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia. She has worked on a number of state, national and international research projects concerning literacy development, and professional learning for teachers. Her research interests include teachers' professional growth, early literacy, and early childhood pedagogy.

Bridie Raban conducts research in the field of early childhood and language and literacy development. In addition she has trained and provided professional development for teachers. She holds a Professorial Research Fellowship at the University of Melbourne and is a visiting Professor of Education at the Hong Kong Baptist University.