Monolingual curriculum frameworks, multilingual literacy development: ESL teachers' beliefs.

Cross, Russell

Teaching and knowledge production

The subjective nature of 'personal' knowledge and beliefs means they are often viewed with scepticism when advanced as the basis for pedagogy, given they represent perhaps little more than an idiosyncratic approach to instruction, in contrast to models of best practice derived from 'scientific' or 'evidence-based' educational research (Cochran-Smith, 2005; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2006; St Pierre, 2006). Indeed, Schulz's (2000, p. 516) critique of the knowledge base that underpins the preparation of language teachers focuses primarily on its reliance upon 'rhetoric, opinions, and traditional dogma', whilst remaining 'short on empirical research' to offer support for such claims.

This paper argues that teachers, as a collective, hold a body of expert knowledge about what constitutes effective pedagogy based on their own personal professional knowledge and experience. While not suggesting such knowledge be adopted as 'best practice' without further discussion or critique, I do argue of the need to at least recognise that it is more than a merely personal, subjective, or idiosyncratic view of what counts as 'good teaching'. After Cochran-Smith (2008), I argue of the importance of understanding pedagogy as more than 'a bundle of 'proven' techniques' (p. 15) that have stood 'scientific' tests of reliability and validity, [it] also involves how teachers think about their work and interpret what is going on in schools and classrooms; how they understand competing agendas, pose questions, and make decisions; how they form relationships with students; and how they work with colleagues, families, communities and social groups. (pp. 14-15)

Thus, rather than privileging one type of knowledge over another, this paper aims to simply identify how one particular form of pedagogical knowledge--teachers' own understandings of their work as literacy educators--has collective resonance with other practitioners in the same professional space. In so doing, it seeks to identify what aspects of that knowledge stands the test of professional consensus (Wise, 2005), and thus give credence to a body of expertise that has become increasingly marginalised in the move towards more so-called 'scientific', evidence-based educational research in recent years (Harper & de Jong, 2009).

The significance of teacher expertise to develop a knowledge base that better supports teachers and teaching has long been recognised within general teacher education (e.g., Elbaz, 1983; Connelly & Clandinin, 1985; Fenstermacher, 1994; Shulman, 1986, 1987; Shulman & Shulman, 2004; Loughran, 2006). Such an orientation values practitioner experience, and views teaching as knowledge producing 'work' (Thiessen, 2000, p. 528). Similarly, within the field of second language education more specifically, the trend since the mid1990s has been away from 'transfer models' of teacher education (Freeman, 1994), towards an increasingly sociocultural view of learning (Lantolf, 2000), and teachers' own understandings of teaching within the contexts that they apply that knowledge (Borg, 2006; Breen, Hird, Milton, Oliver & Thwaite, 2001; Freeman, 2002; Freeman & Johnson, 1998; Johnson, 2009; Cross, 2010). Significant contributions stemming from this expanded focus on teacher practice and knowledge include a greater awareness of the use of the first language within second language contexts (e.g., Cummins, 2007), unsettling the 'myth' (Davies, 2003) of the native speaker teacher model (e.g., Braine, 1999; Moussu & Llurda, 2008), and the impact of teachers' own linguistic and cultural identity upon teaching and professional learning (e.g., Miller, 2009; Morgan, 2004).

This paper is the second phase of a larger study on how teachers understand what it means to 'teach literacy' when working with learners who are developing those skills in English as a second language (ESL), with a particular focus on the middle years (Cross, 2009). Whereas the first phase focused on three individual case studies and those teachers' understanding of literacy teaching within their specific contexts for practice, the present analysis turns to a survey of a larger body of ESL teachers within that broader curriculum context.

Following a discussion of literacy within current Australian curriculum discourse and the initial case study findings, I then outline the research design deployed for this phase of analysis and the survey results. I conclude by considering what these insights offer current understandings of literacy, and some implications they begin to raise for teaching English literacy to second language learners in the Australian middle years.

ESL and literacy: the interrelationship between language, literacy, and learning

For the first time in well over a decade, the Australian Curriculum initiative (Australian Curriculum, Assessment & Reporting Authority (ACARA), 2010a) presents a new platform for thinking about literacy to succeed Literacy for All (Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA), 1998), the national framework for literacy education in place since the late 1990s. The notion of literacy already apparent in drafts of the still nascent Curriculum is one noticeably more expansive than that underpinning Literacy for All, with a renewed focus on the synergy between literacy, language, and literature, and a greater awareness of speaking and listening in contrast to the almost exclusive former focus on writing and, especially, reading. Yet, perhaps due to the legacy of the framework from which the Australian Curriculum has emerged, its understanding of literacy continues to be one firmly grounded in a monolingual assumption about what it means to be a literacy learner. In the most recent online draft (ACARA, 2010a), for example, there are no direct references to the specific needs of ESL learners, other than one note appended to a point on Year 1 Reading Strategies, and then only in the supplementary 'content elaboration' material that accompanies the core document:

Children who speak English as an additional language or dialect may experience difficulty thinking about English grammatical knowledge and predicting sentence patterns in texts as the grammar and sentence patterns used in their first language is different. These children would need to explicitly learn and practise this skill before attempting to work independently. (ACARA, 2010a)

There is, then, very little acknowledgement of what is possibly 'distinctive' about being a user of another language when developing English literacy within this context, or what, by extension, might be significant for how teachers then engage with those students to develop their emergent English literacy skills. While not to presume those needs are necessarily distinctive or different from the needs of first language students, the concern lies in what is potentially 'lost' with the unquestioned acceptance that the needs of both groups are, by default, considered to be the same (Harper & de Jong, 2009).

The first phase of this study sought to understand what teachers considered important when teaching English literacy to students from another language background. With a focus on three individual teacher case studies, that phase identified three key themes around the notions of 'language for literacy', 'literacy for learning', and 'language as literacy'. These are discussed more extensively elsewhere (Cross, in press), but are summarised briefly below as the backdrop for the remainder of the paper. I then focus on survey responses from other ESL teachers in the shared professional space, and their views on key ideas related to each of these three themes.

First, in contrast to the conventional emphasis in mother tongue literacy (e.g., a knowledge of texts, and how they work [Queensland Department of Education & Training, 2010]), was the emphasis teachers placed on developing 'language for literacy'. That is, understanding not only the language of texts, but, going further still, the need to also develop an 'enabling language' that allows students to initially engage and begin talking about texts in the first instance. As one teacher argued,

We're trying to get them not to fuss about it in the sense of we want them to understand what's happening in the language ... We are trying to focus them away from the content area ... The meaning of the text is almost irrelevant, they're free, really free, to focus on what's happening in the text in terms of language. (Case Study 3, Interview 2, 238-269).

The teachers therefore explained that their primary focus was less on the text itself (i.e., an understanding of texts to be used for subsequent, secondary tasks), than on developing an understanding of how language--across all of its different dimensions (i.e., speaking, reading, writing, and listening)--can be used as an holistic, complex system to begin working effectively with texts. Although oracy is often cited as important for assisting students to work with texts (e.g., the joint construction of texts (Gibbons, 2002)), such strategies assume students already possess the basic language to at least initially engage in those activities. In such cases, literacy 'development' becomes the exploitation of existing language skills that students are assumed to already bring to texts and learning. Related issues within this theme concerned language for students to find and express their own 'voice' when working with texts and, for students from oral first language traditions in particular, the need to build a sense of 'trust' in language that appears in print. That is, understanding the value, power, and significance of written language as an authoritative social or cultural practice, rather than a reliance on the spoken word alone.

The second theme to emerge from the case study data was that of 'literacy for learning', or the teachers' emphasis on having students understand not only the relationship between language and social and cultural practices more broadly, but also the more specific relationship between language and successful classroom learning, such as language for classroom routines, teacher-student/student-student turn-taking, the difference between genuine and teacher display questions, and so on. For these teachers, the focus of 'taught' (i.e., instructed) literacy is not only about language and social use, but the language needed to be a learner within such contexts (i.e., the mainstream Australian classroom)--fundamental literacy skills that first language learners would typically acquire through early socialisation in their native language contexts, such as the primary school classroom (Pahl & Rowsell, 2005).

The final theme, 'language as literacy', concerned language to support, articulate, and convey abstract and higher-order thought; that is, language that facilitates the link between thinking and 'speech' (and writing). As an extension to the earlier two themes, this theme is significant because it illustrates not only an understanding of literacy as being concerned with language for 'communicative' purposes (e.g., literacy for social and cultural practices (Cherland & Harper, 2007)), but also the language necessary to engage with academically and intellectually demanding tasks expected of students within the middle years curriculum, such as comparing, categorising, inferring, and ordering.

Research design

To determine the extent of consensus on these findings with other teachers in similar contexts, provocations associated with each of the above themes were identified from the initial case study interviews as the basis for a 12 item Likert-scale survey. The survey was sent to ESL teachers in Melbourne metropolitan schools to examine how other teachers interpreted and made sense of the case study teachers' understanding of literacy. As the survey used words and phrases provided by teachers in the original interviews, a 5-point Likert scale was used to allow for 'undecided' responses from teachers unsure of how to interpret particular statements. As anticipated, some statements did generate a large number of undecided responses, although the specific aim of this phase of the study was less on the definitions themselves, than how teachers describe, discuss, and share a common professional knowledge about literacy teaching. In follow-up studies, especially with larger cohorts (e.g., inter-systemic or national surveys), such statements would be refined on the basis of feedback from the current study in an attempt to move towards a more common, shared discourse across the profession.

Two hardcopy surveys were posted to each government school in Melbourne that received ESL indexed funding in 2006 (n=93), as well as 7 additional government schools and centres in Melbourne that specialised in ESL education. This made a total of 100 contact schools with 200 potential respondents. Following Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood guidelines for research in schools, surveys were addressed to principals with a request they be forwarded to ESL teachers if approval was given at school level. The final response rate was 26%, with 52 responses.

Additional demographic data was also collected about each teacher's context (e.g., whether they taught across all grades or only at senior level; in withdrawal programs or mainstream programs (or both); taught students from high first language literacy backgrounds rather than low first language literacy backgrounds, etc), but the focus in this paper is only on the overall data set to identify initial key trends. The final analysis is discussed below according to theme.

Statements 1-4: 'Language for literacy'

S1. Literacy development in ESL involves a focus on all four macroskills--which includes speaking and listening, as much as in writing and reading

S2. The main purpose of texts within an ESL class should be to carry out other tasks rather than a focus on how the language is used within those texts, which should be secondary

S3. A student's ability to interact with texts at higher levels of personal engagement is influenced by their level of speaking and listening in English

S4. Students from low literacy backgrounds in their first language find it difficult to 'trust' the authority of messages within written texts

These four statements concerned the theme of 'language for literacy', or the idea of literacy teaching as having a focus beyond those skills sometimes associated with literacy when narrowly understood as working with 'language-in-print', such as the phonetic 'encoding' or 'decoding' of text (e.g., Teaching Reading (Department of Employment, Science and Training (DEST), 2005). Within the case studies, all three teachers emphasised the need for an interrelated focus on language skills more broadly--including skills for speaking and listening--to develop not only a sense of 'how texts are used', but an 'enabling language' to assist students to find their 'way into' talking about texts.

Consistent with these views, survey respondents also clearly agreed (n=40 strong agreement; n=12 agreement) that teaching literacy to ESL students required an integrated focus on all four macroskills as much as it was about an ability to 'read' or 'write' (S1). Such strong consensus is interesting, given the almost exclusive emphasis on reading within the existing national literacy framework (Literacy for All (DEETYA, 1998)), high profile inquiries into the quality of literacy instruction in Australian schools (e.g., Teaching Reading (DEST, 2005)), and the emphasis on literacy over oracy within the national assessment and standards framework (National Assessment Program--Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) (ACARA, 2010b)). The importance of speaking and listening was similarly reinforced with clear agreement (n=29) and strong agreement (n=13) by respondents to S3, on the relationship between students' ability to speak and listen with their ability to work with written texts at higher levels of personal engagement.

What was less clear, however, was how respondents related to S4 on personal engagement, and ESL students' sense of 'trust' in the authority of messages that appear in print. This phrasing was deliberately chosen from the original interviews since it highlighted a complex and unexpected sub-theme to emerge from the initial analysis, especially when literacy is often characterised as a 'skill' that can be broken down into constituent parts (e.g., graphemes and phonics) to be taught, practised, and learned (National Reading Panel, 2000). Given the abstract nature of the idea being expressed in this statement, it is perhaps not surprising that it generated one of highest number of 'undecided' responses (n=13), with four respondents also asking what was meant by 'trust' in the space for comments. Perhaps as equally surprising, though, given its abstract quality, was the large number of respondents who did commit to a clear response, with a tendency towards overall agreement (n=20, comprising n=14 agree and n=6 strongly agree), but 17 more who clearly disagreed and 1 other who strongly disagreed. It would be worthwhile refining this statement further in follow-up surveys to better understand why, despite the overall trends towards 'agreement', the spread was still relatively large (i.e., with a long tail of respondents who still 'disagreed'), and how those currently 'undecided' might commit to a more definite answer.

Interestingly, the largest number of 'undecided' responses was generated by S2, on whether the main purpose of texts with ESL students should be to carry out other secondary tasks, or whether the focus should be the language within those texts. Overall, there was general disagreement that the focus should be on the use of texts for other tasks (n=18 disagreeing, n=7 strongly disagreeing), with less than half that number who agreed or strongly agreed (n=8 and 3 respectively). This corresponds with the beliefs of the initial case study participants. Yet, as stated above, this item also generated the most number of 'undecided' responses (n=14). Although no comments were left to indicate why respondents found it difficult to decide on their response, it is telling that just over half those who chose undecided had also indicated they taught 'mixed literacy' groups. This suggests that the focus a teacher adopts when using texts--whether as something studied for language, or as something students learn to use primarily for other tasks--is at least partially influenced by the different first language literacy levels of students. This supports the argument of the need to better recognise the heterogeneity of ESL student cohorts within education systems (Miller, Kostogriz & Gearon, 2009).

Statements 5-8: 'Literacy for learning'

S5. Students with well developed literacy backgrounds in their first language find the transition into the mainstream straightforward

S6. Literacy in ESL contexts includes developing a knowledge of the types of teaching and learning practices expected in the mainstream

S7. The focus of ESL literacy is print-based texts (i.e., books, etc), rather than multimodal texts (e.g., visual media, etc)

S8. A student's ability to read and write well by themselves corresponds with an ability to use print-based resources effectively in collaborative classroom learning tasks

The theme of 'literacy for learning' viewed literacy teaching as being as much about developing students' knowledge of classroom language practices, as on language within society more broadly. This included a recognition that even students from well developed first language literacy backgrounds can also find the transition into mainstream learning environments challenging. In other words, it was not simply the ability to read and write that provided the basis for effective classroom engagement, but a further understanding of how those skills are employed in Australian classroom contexts for teaching and learning activities. For example, the difference between simply being able to read or write by oneself, with the ability to use those skills to collaborate effectively with others. Another issue within this theme was having students introduced to the range of text-types used in classroom learning, including ICT and multimedia, rather than an overemphasis on traditional print-based texts.

Survey respondents were in very strong agreement that literacy teaching should involve a focus on the teaching and learning practices of mainstream classrooms. After the statement on literacy requiring all four macroskills (S1), this item (S6) generated the most number of participants in agreement (n=16 strongly agreeing, n=31 agreeing), with only 1 who disagreed, and 4 undecided. Perhaps not surprising then, given the emphasis on ICT within contemporary Australian classrooms (Australian Information and Communications Technology in Education Committee (AICTEC), 2010), there was also distinct disagreement that the focus of ESL literacy should be print-based texts (S7). This is again consistent with the views of the initial case study participants.

However, in contrast to the general consensus noted so far on Statements 6 and 7, a large number of respondents either agreed (n=26) or strongly agreed (n=10) that a strong first language literacy background was an indicator of straightforward transition into the mainstream (S5). Moreover, respondents also indicated a belief that an ability to read and write well by oneself corresponds with an ability to participate across classroom practices more generally (S8). Both positions were in sharp contrast to the views expressed by the case study teachers who argued, instead, that because classrooms were often culturally different spaces for ESL students, there was a need to attend to a broader set of skills than reading and writing for successful transition into the mainstream. While difficult to determine how respondents might have interpreted the 'extent' to which first language literacy has an influence on successful transition into the mainstream as no specific degree was mentioned (e.g., 'strongly correspond'), the large number of teachers who clearly committed to either strongly agree (n=16) or agree (n=22) suggests at least a strong presumption that an ability to read and write in the first language was, in itself, a strong indicator of an ability to work effectively in the mainstream classroom. Indeed, those disagreeing (n=4) or undecided (n=9) were far fewer in comparison.

Of note, the survey responses to both items above (i.e., S5 & 8) suggests a view of literacy tied more to a student's ability in language, than skills related to broader social or cultural practices; that is, so long as students can work with the linguistic elements of language, they will be equipped with the skills for teaching and learning. By way of contrast, teachers in the case studies argued the contrary: that the social and cultural challenges of classroom participation (i.e., not only matters of language) were important for identifying what was then necessary for ESL literacy to prepare students for using language in the mainstream.

Statements 9-12: 'Language as literacy'

S9. Literacy is the ability to use words to explain concepts

S10. Students should not be allowed to use first language dictionaries to check the meanings of concepts during the course of a lesson

S11. Developing an ability to 'think in English' is critical for ESL literacy development

S12. Language related to higher-order thinking skills is not a major focus of literacy for ESL

The third theme, 'language as literacy', was characterised by what teachers described as a need to develop language that supports skills in thinking. As one teacher explained, 'at the heart of school based English is the ability to categorise, order, compare, infer and all the other stuff that underpins all the tasks that they have to do in all the curriculum areas' (Case Study 3, Interview 2, 94-98). In some ways parallel to the theme of 'literacy for learning'--skills related to the social and cultural practices of mainstream classrooms--'language as literacy' was concerned with a focus on language for academic and intellectual processes common in mainstream learning environments.

In general, there was clear consensus amongst survey respondents on the relationship between literacy skills and thinking. For example, almost half of the respondents (n=25) agreed that the ability to use words to describe concepts (S9) was a key focus for teaching ESL literacy, with another 8 who strongly agreed (n=8). However, although there was only a third who disagreed or strongly disagreed (n=6 and 3 respectively), it is interesting to note that almost as many were also 'undecided' (n=10). This might be due to interpreting this statement to mean that literacy is only about using words to explain concepts, with some respondents hesitant to suggest this was the 'only' aspect of literacy they considered important. Comments left by respondents, for example, included: 'literacy is the ability to write and speak about anything at all--not just concepts', and that the statement was 'superficial in its understanding of literacy' since describing concepts was only one 'small part of literacy'.

Respondents also noted the importance of allowing students to build on concepts they could already understand in their first language, with the vast majority either disagreeing (n=21) or strongly disagreeing (n=28) that first language dictionaries should not be allowed while developing English literacy skills. Although this was also consistent with the views expressed by the case study teachers, it is interesting to note that 'conventional wisdom'--and the view often espoused in traditional language teacher training programs--typically emphasises the 'negative' influence of the first language upon second language acquisition (e.g., its distraction from second language exposure and input, or because of first language interference) (see, e.g., Cook, 2001; Levine, 2003). However, while teachers thought access to the first language was important, developing the capacity to 'think' in English was also seen by the vast majority of teachers as important for literacy development (S11). While only 7 teachers disagreed (with n=0 strongly disagreeing), there were 26 who agreed, with another 12 strongly agreeing.

Finally, a large number of respondents disagreed (n=23) or strongly disagreed (n=14) that higher-order thinking was not a major focus of ESL (S12). This was again consistent with the views of the case study teachers. However, it is still significant to note that almost a fifth did agree or strongly agree with this item (n=9 and n=1 respectively). Although this may be related to the traditional 'macroskills' focus in ESL (i.e., reading, writing, speaking, listening as 'skills' for ESL, rather than 'thinking'), one teacher commented: 'It depends on the class. Often their thinking skills are way ahead of their language skills'. In other words, there is a need to remain cognisant that different ESL students bring different stages of development--linguistic and cognitive--to their emergent skills in literacy, with some already having very well developed higher order thinking skills who only require language to express those processes through English.

Conclusion

This study aimed to explore teachers' understanding of teaching literacy when students already come to the teaching/learning relationship with a first language other than English. Moreover, this particular analysis sought to better understand the extent to which individual practitioners' beliefs about teaching, learning, and pedagogy might potentially constitute the basis for a more authoritative body of expert knowledge upon which there is collective professional consensus, rather than being dismissed as little more than a personal or idiosyncratic 'take' on good practice.

It was evident that there are, in some cases, distinct points of difference on how teachers thought about teaching literacy when working with ESL students--especially the extent to which first language literacy was considered a basis for subsequent engagement in the learning practices of the mainstream Australian classroom. On two points raised by case study participants in relation to 'literacy for learning', for example, survey respondents seemed to disagree as to whether first language literacy was an indicator of successful transition into mainstream learning environments (S5), or if an ability to read and write by oneself corresponds with being able to then participate across classroom practices more broadly (S8). Similarly, the number of undecided responses on certain items signalled the need for further clarity around some issues, including the more abstract concept of 'trust' (S4), and whether the main focus of using texts when teaching literacy to ESL students should be on the language within those texts, or the how texts are used for related, secondary tasks (S2). Thus, while clear trends were evident in the overall response to these statements, the high number of undecided responses still suggests a need to further consider why some teachers had difficulty in deciding on a position, such as the impact of their particular contexts for practice on how they understand these types of issues (e.g., whether they work with high or low first language literacy students, teach in mainstream or pull-out programs, etc).

From the overall results, however, it was clear that there is, in general, a strong consensus amongst teachers about what is important when developing literacy with students who bring to the teaching/learning relationship a first language other than English. In particular, many of the elements within the three themes that emerged from the initial case study analysis of teachers' practice--a focus on 'language for literacy', 'literacy for learning', and 'language as literacy'--resonated strongly with how the respondents approached the teaching of literacy with ESL students in their shared, broader curriculum context. From here, it would be interesting to build on these findings by refining those items identified as ambiguous to some respondents, and re-administer the survey to a wider population of teachers across Victoria or other systems (e.g., independent schools or interstate).

Significantly, though, the findings also offer new insights that both supplement and challenge the understandings of literacy we currently rely upon to frame curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment for literacy in Australian schools. Literacy and thinking, for example, is almost completely absent from the present draft of the proposed P-10 Australian Curriculum, other than one reference in Year 10 to 'recognising' and 'knowing' that language is used to facilitate higher order thinking, rather than a targeted focus on developing the effective, functional use of such skills (i.e., no corresponding application of those elements under literacy) (ACARA, 2010a). But no less important is acknowledging some problems the analysis exposes with how practitioners, themselves, engage with the concept of literacy. Missing, for example, was almost any discussion of literacy with respect to identity and culture (Lewis, Enciso & Moje, 2007). Granted, teachers did recognise the need to acknowledge the students' first culture as a basis for promoting learner engagement (O'Neill & Gish, 2008), but what seem less apparent--indeed, almost completely absent--was any consideration to developing those same students' knowledge of the role and power of literacy in shaping culture and identity. Similarly absent was any strong sense of literacy and a focus on the aesthetic, for example, or notions of literacy and the imagination (Carger, 2004; Gallas, 2003; Misson & Morgan, 2006). While not suggesting the themes that did emerge on literacy, learning, and language are not important for understanding the literacy needs of ESL learners, to concentrate only on these leaves students with a somewhat impoverished, and less richly developed, sense of what it really means to work with language beyond the merely instrumental.

Perhaps most significantly, however, these findings demonstrate that the personal professional knowledge of teachers is more than merely subjective opinion about what or how any one individual might 'feel' is the right way to teach. Rather, they offer ways of understanding teaching upon which there is collective professional consensus around those views. While not suggesting they be taken face-value without further evaluation and critique, nor should they be dismissed as subjective or invalid in favour of other forms of data, knowledge, or 'evidence' that have become increasingly privileged within the 'scientific based research' agenda now informing so much of the educational research that guides curriculum, policy, and teacher development.

References

Australian Curriculum, Assessment & Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2010a). Australian Curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/

Australian Curriculum Assessment & Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2010b). National Assessment Program--Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN). Retrieved from http://www.naplan.edu.au/

Australian Information and Communications Technology in Education Committee (AICTEC). (2010). Australian Information and Communications Technology in Education Committee (AICTEC). Retrieved from http://www.aictec.edu.au/aictec/go

Breen, M.P., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R. & Thwaite, A. (2001). Making sense of language teaching: Teachers' principles of classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 22(4), 470-501.

Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London, England: Continuum.

Braine, G. (Ed.). (1999). Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Carger, C.L. (2004). Art and literacy with bilingual children. Language Arts, 81(4), 283-292.

Cherland, M.R. & Harper, H.J. (2007). Advocacy research in literacy education: Seeking higher ground. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). 2005 Presidential Address: The New Teacher Education--For Better or for Worse? Educational Researcher, 34(7), 3-17.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2008). Toward a theory of teacher education for social justice. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, United States of America, March 2008.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S.L. (2006). Troubling images of teaching in No Child Left Behind. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 668-697

Connelly, F.M. & Clandinin, D.J. (1985). Personal practical knowledge and the modes of knowing: Relevance for teaching and learning. In E. Eisner (Ed.), Learning and teaching the ways of knowing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402-423.

Cross, R. (2009). Literacy for All: Quality language education for few. Language and Education, 23(6), 509-522.

Cross, R. (2010). Language teaching as sociocultural activity: Rethinking language teacher practice. Modern Language Journal, 94(3), 434-452.

Cross, R. (in press). Troubling Literacy: Monolingual assumptions, multilingual contexts and language teacher expertise. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice.

Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221-240.

Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. (1998). Literacy for all. Canberra, Australia: Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Department of Employment, Science, and Training. (2005). Teaching reading: Report and recommendations. Canberra, Australia: Department of Employment, Science, and Training.

Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. New York, NY: Nicholls.

Fenstermacher, G. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20, 3-56.

Freeman, D. (1994). Knowing into doing: Teacher education and the problem of transfer. In D.C.S. Li, D. Mahoney & J.C. Richards (Eds.), Exploring second language teacher development. Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR: City Polytechnic.

Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. Language Teaching, 35, 1-13.

Freeman, D. & Johnson, K.E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397-417.

Gallas, K. (2003). Imagination and literacy: A teacher's search for the heart of learning. New York NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Harper, C.A. & de Jong, E.J. (2009). English language teacher expertise: The elephant in the room. Language and Education, 23(2), 137-151.

Johnson, K.E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lantolf, J.P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Lewis, C., Enciso, P.E. & Moje, E.B. (Eds.). (2007). Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Levine, G.S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. The Modern Language Journal, 87(3), 343-364.

Loughran, J.J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. London, England: Routledge.

Miller, J. (2009). Teacher identity. In A. Burns & J.C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Miller, J., Kostogriz, A. & Gearon, M. (Eds.). (2009). Culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms: New dilemmas for teachers. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.

Misson, R. & Morgan, W. (2006). Critical literacy and the aesthetic: Transforming the English classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Moussu, L. & Llurda, E. (2008). Non-native English-speaking English language teachers: History and research. Language Teaching, 41(3), 315-348.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching Children to Read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

O'Neill, S. & Gish, A. (2008). Teaching English as a second language. South Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.

Pahl, K. & Rowsell, J. (2005). Literacy and education: Understanding the new literacy studies in the classroom. London, England: Sage.

Queensland Department of Education. (2010, 18 January). Let's talk about English: Literacy training--The four resources model. Retrieved from http://www.lear.ningplace.com.au/sc/wbb/talkaboutenglish

Shulman, L. & Shulman, J. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257-271.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Schulz, R.A. (2000). Foreign Language Teacher Development: MLJ Perspectives 19161999. The Modern Language Journal, 84(4), 496-522.

St.Pierre, E.A. (2006). Scientifically Based Research in Education: Epistemology and Ethics. Adult Education Quarterly, 56(4), 239-266.

Thiessen, D. (2000). A skillful start to a teaching career: A matter of developing impactful behaviors, reflective practices, or professional knowledge? Educational Research, 33, 515-537.

Wise, A.E. (2005). Establishing teaching as a profession: the essential role of professional accreditation. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(4), 318-331.

Russell Cross

UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE