Learning from Each Other: Literacy, Labels and Limitations.

Dooley, Karen

C. Davison and A. Williams 2001, Learning from Each Other: Literacy, Labels and Limitations (Vol. 2). Language Australia, Melbourne.

Significant questions are addressed in this collection of articles written by language and literacy specialists from Victorian schools, universities, educational systems and professional organisations:

* What counts as `literacy curriculum'?

* How adequate are available assessments of literacy?

* Why, and how, should teachers, academics, systems personnel and professional leaders collaborate in classroom literacy research?

The collection originated in a major quasi-longitudinal K-12 study conducted by Language Australia's Victoria branch to investigate language and literacy education for English as a second language (ESL) and English-speaking background (ESB) students. A detailed report of the study was presented in an earlier volume; issues of interest to the research team are explored in detail in this volume. The articles are organised thematically, with the first set addressing the construction of literacy curricula; and the second set, assessment. Questions about literacy research occur throughout both sets of articles.

The first set of articles is consistent with the now widely accepted idea that literacy curricula, and hence, literacy failure, are socially constructed. The value of the articles thus arises primarily from their extension of useful concepts to points of predictable tension in curriculum construction processes, namely transitions between educational sectors, and the classroom implementation of official versions of curriculum.

The many classroom examples presented by Judy Shaw illuminate the multimodality of literacy in preschool settings where drawings and pre-conventional writing are counted as literate practices. Disjuncture between preschool literacies and literacies of home and school are highlighted by Kay Moulton in an article that is well grounded in relevant literature and illustrated vividly with interview data. Moulton argues for the incorporation of emergent literacy and digital and popular literacies into the education of all early childhood teachers. The aim is to redress the systematic construction of failure for students whose literacy practices are not recognised and valued by educators. Disjuncture is at the heart of Pam Green's article on primary-secondary transition. Green shows how students' high expectations of secondary school academic programs are not met by tasks that are counted as writing in high school: copying, question and answer, fill-the-gap and listing. Like Moulton, Green advocates meaningful literacy practices and continuity of practice at a point of transition in students' educational trajectories.

Relations between the classroom and the official policy arena are the focus of Cheryl Semple's intensive case study of one teacher's implementation of Victoria's 1995 English Curriculum and Standards Framework (CSF). Semple shows how implementation of the CSF with its genre and critical literacy assumptions was constrained by the teacher's child-centred, whole language commitments, a problem attributed to inadequate professional development. Despite its local concerns, the article is cause for wider consideration by both policymakers and school-level personnel charged with responsibility for implementing curricular reform.

In the second set of articles, attention turns from the social construction of curriculum to the development and assessment of students' English language and literacy practices. The tone is cautionary.

Current thought about assessment and reporting is problematised by Howard Nicholas in an article that points to a contradiction between the ideology of autonomous individual authoring inherent in assessment instruments (NLLIA ESL Bandscales in this case) and more social assumptions enacted by teachers who co-construct texts with learners in the course of everyday classroom practice. Current Australian thought about public accountability is likewise problematised. In an incisive article, Chris Davison argues that public accountability is not well served by benchmarking processes that deliberately exclude ESL considerations, and hence render ESL students' strengths and weaknesses invisible.

At the classroom level, Tony Ferguson points to the limited predictive value of narrowly linguistic assessment data. On the basis of case studies of 3 ESL students whose Year 12 writing performance was not predicted by Year 10 results, Ferguson emphasises the intervening effects of life experiences, settlement factors, sociolinguistic contexts, multiple identities and out-of-school responsibilities. In contrast, Alan Williams highlights the effects of disjuncture between classroom cultures, showing how the academic competence of ESL, Indigenous, immigrant and low socio-economic students may not be recognised in mainstream schooling.

Two articles address teachers' competence as assessors. Trisha Hughes argues that anomalies in the application of CSF bandscales at the point of primary-secondary school transition reflect the imprecise nature of outcome descriptions rather than teacher carelessness. In contrast, Kris Allen points to limitations of teacher competence. She indicates that ESL students are penalised by implicit and culturally-bound world views and discourse conventions that inform teachers' use of explicit marking criteria.

The final article in the collection is reflexive, analysing the experience of teacher-researchers in the Language Australia study. The study was methodologically innovative because classroom teachers bore major responsibility for selecting case studies, designing and implementing data production, and undertaking data analysis. Support was provided by experienced university research-facilitators. From a survey of two of the teacher-researchers, lan Fry identifies personal and professional satisfaction and growth as benefits of collaboration in the study. Fry concludes that collaborative research is critical to a thriving education industry. Given the relative silencing of educators in many educational reform processes of the last decade, this call for a strong and united professional voice is timely.

Learning from Each Other is clearly relevant to a broad audience of language and literacy educators. Individual articles are, like the volume, of interest in their own right. However, the volume would have been strengthened by a more elaborated treatment of the context of the articles. Why did the themes of the construction of literacy curricula and assessment emerge as key concerns of the research team? To what extent are these concerns local examples of more widespread issues in Australian education? At the level of mechanics, the volume would have benefited from more thorough proofreading. These minor reservations aside, I suggest that Learning from Each Other has much to offer, especially to educators interested in ESL provision, language and literacy assessment and collaborative educational research.

SCHOOL OF CULTURAL AND LANGUAGE STUDIES IN EDUCATION, QUT