3. Identifying effective literacy teaching practices in the early school years.

The purpose of our study was to identify effective teaching practices that lead to improved literacy outcomes for children in the early years of school. It aimed to build an evidential link between children's growth in English literacy and their teachers' classroom practices. The study approach combined quantitative and qualitative research strategies in eight phases (see Figure 1).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Assessing children and value adding

We identified effective literacy teachers on the basis of assessments of growth in literacy learning for the children in their classes. A nationally representative sample of first and second year (2) of school children in 200 classes was individually assessed near the beginning and end of one school year on the literacy assessment tasks developed for ACER's Longitudinal Literacy and Numeracy Study (LLANS) (Meiers & Anderson, 2001; Meiers & Rowe, 2002; Rowe, 2002). The facets of literacy that were assessed included phonological awareness, print concepts, children reading aloud, making meaning from text, and writing in response to text. 'Value added' analyses of the LLANS data were then carried out in order to identify class/teacher-level differences in students' literacy learning (Fitz-Gibbon, 1996; Tymms, 1999). Three groups of teachers were then identified: those who were more effective, as effective, or less effective than expected, based on prior achievement-adjusted, mean-point estimates of class/teacher-level residuals of children's LLANS assessments. The adjusted residuals for teachers identified as more effective were statistically significantly above the expected level, those for the teachers identified as less effective were significantly below the expected level, and those for the majority of teachers identified as effective were not significantly above or below the expected level (for details of the analyses see Louden et al., 2005).

Selecting the teachers to observe

Once the teachers had been classified in this way, we were able to approach potential participants from each of the three groups for the intensive classroom observation phase of the study. As we had estimated learning gain over a school year, the classroom observations were made in the following school year when most teachers were teaching a different group of children. Schools were selectively approached in order to secure a balance of teacher effectiveness, school geographical location and size and socio-economic, ethnic and linguistic background of children. In order to ensure that teachers in the effective group could clearly be seen to be effective, only those teachers were approached whose students' learning gain adjusted residual in standard deviation units was positive, that is they were ranked above the median of the group.

Not all teachers and schools approached were willing to participate in this phase of the project and some teachers were no longer teaching in the same school or were teaching in another year level. The final sample of teachers who were observed in their classrooms was made up of two more effective teachers, four effective teachers (3) and four less effective teachers. Seven of the teachers' classrooms contained first year of school children (one of these also contained a few second year children), two contained second year of school children and one contained children from the first three years of school. These teachers were in schools that were situated in four Australian states and in a diverse range of communities, thus ensuring that the sample of classrooms in which observations took place was inclusive in terms of social, cultural and economic factors.

Developing the Classroom Literacy Observation Schedule (CLOS)

Based on a synthesis of key findings from the research literature, the Classroom Literacy Observation Schedule (CLOS) was devised as a tool with which to observe effective teachers of early literacy. The instrument included two axes: the teaching activity axis, and the teaching practice axis. The activity axis listed 17 common teaching activities (see Table 1). Most of these activities are outlined in the widely used manuals for teachers that explain 'how to do' particular literacy activities (for example Early Years Literacy Program, Education Victoria, 1997, and the First Steps materials, EDWA, 1994), although explanations of how computers might be used in literacy classrooms are relatively recent innovations in the literature. Commercial literacy programs were included since they are widely sold to schools across Australia.

The teaching practice axis was made up of 33 literacy teaching practices that were classified into six broad dimensions and are described in Table 2. Some dimensions focus largely on teacher behaviours, while others also have a focus on the behaviours of children. The child behaviours are proxy indicators of teacher effectiveness in that it is the teacher who potentially has control over these child behaviours in the classroom.

In choosing the dimensions and associated teaching practices we took an agnostic approach in that we tried to include as many research findings as possible. In terms of the whole language/phonics debate we included, within the knowledge and support dimensions, explicit teaching at both word and text levels, along with the teacher's use of metalanguage. The teaching practices in each of the dimensions are shown in Figure 2 and examples of the research base for each practice are shown in Appendix 1.

Observing the teachers in their classrooms

The teachers in the three groups who had agreed to take part in the observation phase of the study were each visited by two members of the research team for up to four days and their literacy teaching sessions were videotaped. After they had visited each school the two researchers selected a total of two hours of videoed teaching most representative of their period of observation in each class. This set of two-hour video samples and their corresponding transcriptions were linked and entered into the vPrism 3.056 research software (see: www.lessonlab.com/ vprism/). Each two-hour section of video was then coded by the research team in terms of the CLOS schedule of literacy teaching practices derived from the research literature, and also in terms of the literacy activities used by the teacher.

Analysing the CLOS data

Three types of quantitative analysis of the CLOS data were then carried out, in order to understand the link between student achievement and classroom literacy teaching practices. The first of these was a simple descriptive analysis, by frequency, that explored the practices of each teacher in each dimension. The aim of this was to provide a picture of the differences in consistency of demonstration of teaching practices from each CLOS dimension between the three groups of teachers whose children's growth in literacy was significantly more than expected, as expected, or significantly less than expected.

The second type of quantitative analysis was a confirmatory factor analysis that was used to validate the groupings of teaching practice under each dimension. This technique allowed the placement of constraints determining which observed variables were related to specific dimensions on substantive grounds. The third type of quantitative analysis involved the Rasch model for dichotomous data that was used to develop an ordered measure of literacy teaching practices, ranging from those that were thought to be common among all the teachers regardless of their level of effectiveness, through to teaching practices that were thought to be common only among the more effective teachers. It was hypothesised that, among the class teachers whose children scored overall at higher-than-expected levels on the LLANS literacy assessments, all 33 of the literacy teaching practices were likely to be observed. Among the class teachers whose children scored overall at lower-than-expected levels on the LLANS literacy assessments it was hypothesised that only the lowest ranked literacy teaching practices were likely to be observed.

The final stage of the study took the form of a qualitative cross-case analysis of the video data and accompanying transcripts. The goal was to provide a textured and nuanced account of the application of each of the 33 literacy teaching practices in the classrooms of teachers whose students learned more than expected, as much as expected, or less than expected in one year of school English literacy teaching. This final stage is the main focus for this monograph and forms the basis of much of the following sections, but first we provide a summary of the quantitative findings in order to contextualise the classroom observations.

Summary of the quantitative findings

Literacy teaching activities

Analyses of the frequency of literacy activities in all of the coded teaching episodes showed that there was substantial overlap between the groups of teachers, which suggests only a very weak relationship between teacher effectiveness and literacy teaching activities (see Appendix 2). In addition, the literacy activities of independent silent reading and literacy related computer activities were not observed in any of these episodes, and hearing children read and use of commercial literacy program were observed in only one episode each. In terms of the weak relationship between teaching activities and teacher effectiveness, the more effective teachers made rather more use of the activities of reading to children, interactive writing, independent writing and language experience. On the other hand, the less effective teachers made somewhat more use of guided oral reading, isolated phonics and task board activities. A small group of teaching activities including shared book and modelled writing was widely used by all teachers.

Literacy teaching practices

Confirmatory factor analysis showed the Classroom Literacy Observation Schedule (CLOS) to be empirically appropriate for classroom observation of teachers' pedagogical practices. Further, the descriptive analysis by frequency of literacy teaching practices showed that these varied greatly according to teacher effectiveness. The more effective and effective teachers demonstrated a wide variety of literacy teaching practices from all six dimensions of CLOS. The less effective teachers demonstrated a limited number of literacy teaching practices that were also spread across the six dimensions of CLOS. (Results for each dimension are shown in Sections 4-9.)

Further, results of the Rasch analysis showed that the literacy teaching repertoires of the more effective and effective teachers included teaching practices that were most frequently observed, such as attention and engagement, those that were frequently observed such as pace and metalanguage, and those such as challenge that were rarely observed in classrooms. On the other hand, the literacy teaching repertoires of the less effective teachers tended to be dominated by those teaching practices that were frequently observed in classrooms (see Appendix 3).

Teaching at the word level

There was no quantitative difference between teacher groups for the teaching practice we called 'explicitness-word', that is, directing children's attention to explicit word and sound strategies. The more effective, effective, and less effective teachers all paid some explicit attention to phonics.

Introducing the effective teachers

The results reported above show that, in terms of literacy teaching practices as measured by the CLOS observational tool, there were quantitative differences between the groups of teachers identified as more effective, effective and less effective on the basis of the literacy learning gains of their children as measured by the LLANS literacy assessments. The more effective and effective teachers demonstrated more of the CLOS literacy teaching practices than the less effective teachers in the episodes that we observed and coded. In order to investigate the hypothesis that there would also be qualitative differences between these groups of teachers in the ways in which they carried out the CLOS literacy teaching practices, we conducted cross-case analyses of the teachers in terms of each CLOS dimension. In order to contextualise these cross-case analyses for the reader we provide a brief picture of the teachers who were identified as more effective or effective in terms of their students' literacy growth. All teachers' names have been replaced by pseudonyms. In order to ensure complete anonymity for the less effective teachers we do not provide any personal details.

Hannah, a more effective teacher, is responsible for a first year of school class at an average sized rural school that has a mixed population in terms of SES, and contains 15% speakers of English as an Additional Language. She has taken advantage of many opportunities to develop her knowledge of literacy teaching through practical experiences, in-service courses and postgraduate teacher education. She has qualifications and/or experience in the areas of primary education, special education, language support and teaching English as an Additional Language.

Jenny, a more effective teacher, is a deputy principal in a large rural school with a mixed population in terms of SES that contains 15% speakers of English as an Additional Language. She is a highly experienced teacher. In her role as deputy principal she is not at the time of the observational phase of the study teaching in her own classroom, but 'borrowed' the classroom of another teacher for the purposes of the project.

Sarah, an effective teacher, teaches a first year of school class in a large outer metropolitan school with a population that is mixed in terms of SES and is predominantly Anglo-Australian. She is a relatively young teacher who has been at the school for six years.

Jane, an effective teacher, teaches a first year of school class and is the literacy co-ordinator in a small rural school with a population that is low SES and predominantly Anglo-Australian. She has been at the school for a number of years, is approaching retirement, has completed several upgrades to her initial two-year training and is an avid reader of professional literature.

Sue, an effective teacher, teaches a second year of school class in a large school in a capital city that serves a population of mixed SES that is predominantly Anglo-Australian. She has been teaching for many years, was originally two-year trained and has upgraded her training to a Bachelor of Education.

Isobel and Abby were identified as an effective team of teachers on the basis of the literacy outcomes of the first and second year of school children in their composite class. With strong guidance from the literacy co-ordinator, they team teach a large class that contains children from the first, second and third years of school. Their small school, which is threatened with closure, is situated in an outer suburb of a capital city and has a population that is of low SES, ethnically diverse and contains over 50% of speakers of English as an Additional Language. They are young, recently qualified teachers.

Reading the transcripts

In the following sections the teachers can be seen in action through excerpts from transcripts of the discourse of their classrooms. In order to help the reader understand the interactions that take place, Table 3 shows the transcript conventions that we used.

Appendix 1

Examples of the research base for each CLOS
teaching practice

Ways in which the teacher organises for and motivates children's
participation in classroom literacy tasks.

Attention           Almost all children are focused on literacy
                    learning (Rowe & Rowe, 1999; Wray et al., 2000)

Engagement          Children are deeply absorbed in the literacy
                    lesson/task (Brophy & Good, 1986; DfEE, 2000;
                    Hattie, 2003; Taylor et al., 1999)

Stimulation         The teacher motivates interest in literacy tasks,
                    concepts and learning (Brophy & Good, 1986; Hattie,
                    2003; Mazzoli & Gambrell, 2003)

Pleasure            The teacher creates an enthusiastic and energetic
                    literacy classroom (Scheerens & Bosker, 1997;
                    Snow et al., 1998)

Consistency         Strong literacy routines are recognised and
                    understood by the children (Brophy & Good, 1986;
                    Hill et al., 1998)

Ways in which the teacher uses her knowledge of literacy to
effectively teach significant literacy concepts and skills.

Environment         Literate physical environment is used as a
                    teaching resource (Hattie, 2003; Snow et al.,
                    1998; Wray et al., 2000)

Purpose             Children's responses indicate tacit or explicit
                    understanding of the purpose of the task (Mazzoli &
                    Gambrell, 2003; Wray et al., 2000)

Substance           The lesson/task leads to substantial literacy
                    engagement, not busy-work (Education Queensland,
                    2002; Hattie, 2003) Explanations Explanations of
                    literacy concepts and skills are clear and at an
                    appropriate level (Brophy & Good, 1986; Hill et
                    al., 1998)

Modelling           Demonstrations of reading and writing tasks include
                    metacognitive explanations (Snow et al., 1998; Wray
                    et al., 2000)

Metalanguage        Children are provided with language for talking
                    about and exemplifying literacy concepts (Education
                    Queensland, 2002)

Ways in which the teacher manages or orchestrates the demands of
the literacy classroom.

Awareness           The teacher has a high level of awareness of
                    literacy activities and participation by children
                    (Hattie, 2003; Snow et al., 1998) Structure The
                    environment is predictable and orderly (DfEE, 2000;
                    Scheerens & Bosker, 1997)

Flexibility         The teacher responds to learning opportunities that
                    arise in the flow of literacy lessons (DfEE, 2000;
                    Hattie, 2003)

Pace                The teacher provides strong forward momentum in
                    literacy lessons (Brophy & Good, 1986; Wray et al.,
                    2000)

Transition          Minimum time is spent in transitions or there is
                    productive use of transitions (Bloom, 1976; DfEE,
                    2000; Strickland, 2001)

Ways in which the teacher supports children's literacy learning.

Assessment          The teacher uses fine-grained knowledge of
                    children's literacy performance in planning and
                    teaching (Hill & Crevola, 1999; Louden et al.,
                    2000; Wray et al., 2000)

Scaffolding         The teacher extends children's literacy learning
                    through modelling, modifying, correcting (Bloom,
                    1976; Brophy & Good, 1986; Taylor et al., 2000)

Feedback            The teacher gives timely, focused and explicit
                    literacy feedback to children (Bloom, 1976, Hattie,
                    2003; Strickland, 2002)

Responsiveness      The teacher shares and builds on children's
                    literacy contributions (Brophy & Good, 1986;
                    Hattie, 2003)

Explicitness        The teacher directs children's attention to
                    explicit

Word level          word and sound strategies (Mazzoli & Gambrell,
                    2003; NRP, 2000; Snow et al., 1998; Taylor et al.,
                    1999)

Explicitness        The teacher makes explicit specific attributes of a
Text level          text (Mazzoli & Gambrell, 2003; NRP, 2000; Snow et
                    al., 1998)

Persistence         The teacher provides many opportunities to practise
                    and master new literacy learning (Brophy & Good,
                    1986; Snow et al., 1998)

Ways in which the teacher differentiates tasks and instruction for
individual learners, providing individual levels of challenge.

Challenge           The teacher extends and promotes higher levels of
                    thinking in literacy learning (Brophy & Good, 1986;
                    DfEE, 2000; Education Queensland, 2002; Hattie,
                    2003)

Individualisation   Differentiated literacy instruction recognises
                    individual differences (Hill et al., 1998; Snow et
                    al., 1998; Wray et al., 2000)

Inclusion           The teacher facilitates inclusion of all students
                    in the literacy lessons (Education Queensland,
                    2002; Snow et al., 1998)

Variation           Literacy teaching is structured around groups or
                    individuals (Mazzoli & Gambrell, 2003; Snow et al.,
                    1998; Taylor et al., 2000)

Connection          Connections are made between class and community
                    literacy-related knowledge (Hill et al., 1998;
                    Education Queensland, 2002; Mazzoli & Gambrell,
                    2003)

Ways in which the teacher gains the respect of the children and in
which the children demonstrate respect.

Warmth              Welcoming, positive and inviting classroom is
                    focused on literacy learning (Scheerens & Bosker,
                    1997; Snow et al., 1998)

Rapport             Relationships with the children support tactful
                    literacy interventions (Brophy & Good, 1986; DfEE,
                    2000; Hattie, 2003)

Credibility         Respect for the teacher enables her to overcome any
                    challenges to order and lesson flow (DfEE, 2000;
                    Scheerens & Bosker, 1997)

Citizenship         Equality, tolerance, inclusivity and awareness of
                    the needs of others are promoted (Education
                    Queensland, 2002)

Independence        Children take some responsibility for their own
                    literacy learning (Education Queensland, 2002;
                    Mazzoli & Gambrell, 2003; Snow et al., 1998)

(2.) First and second year of school refers to the first and second years of formal compulsory schooling for which children's chronological age varies between Australian states.

(3.) Two teachers included as one case in the effective teacher group team-taught a class that contained children from the first three years of school. These teachers were ranked above the mean for their first year of school children but marginally below the mean for the second.

Table 1. Activity axis of CLOS

Shared Book
Reading to Children
Guided Oral Reading
Independent Silent Reading
Hearing children read
Modelled writing
Shared writing
Interactive writing
Independent writing
Spelling activities
Language experience
Socio-dramatic play
Literacy related computer activities
Use of commercial literacy programs
Phonics
Organisational Activities: Independent group work
Organisational Activities: Task board discussion

Table 2. Teaching practice axis of CLOS by dimension

Participation     Teacher's organisation and motivation of children's
                  classroom literacy learning, characterised by
                  attention, engagement, stimulation, pleasure and
                  consistency

Knowledge         Teacher's application of her knowledge of literacy
                  to teach significant literacy concepts and skills,
                  characterised by use of the classroom literacy
                  environment, purpose, explanations, modelling and
                  metalanguage

Orchestration     Teacher's management or orchestration of the
                  literacy classroom, characterised by awareness,
                  structure, flexibility, pace and transition

Support           Teacher's support for children's literacy learning,
                  characterised by assessment, scaffolding, feedback,
                  responsiveness, explicitness at the word and text
                  levels and persistence

Differentiation   Teacher's differentiation of literacy tasks
                  and instruction, characterised by challenge,
                  individualisation, inclusion, variation and
                  connection

Respect           Teacher's respect for children and evidence of the
                  children's respect for her and their classmates,
                  characterised by warmth, rapport, credibility,
                  citizenship and independence

Table 3. Transcript conventions

O                    Observer speaks

SN                   New student speaks

S                    Student speaks

S?                   Unknown student speaks

Ss                   Students speak

E                    Teacher and most of class speak

T                    Teacher speaks

[stage directions]   For example [inaudible] or [laughter]

[5]                  Indicates the length of a pause of 3 seconds
                     or more

...                  Indicates a pause of 2 seconds or less

//                   Overlapping speech

/ee/, /ar/           Letter sounds and parts of words that are being
                     sounded or articulated together are italicised
                     and enclosed within slash marks e.g. /qu/, /str/.
                     These word parts may represent phonemes or larger
                     word segments that are being sounded out

elephant             Words being focused on or studied are in italics;
                     the words might be seen on the board or elsewhere

R; B                 Letter names are in capitals and italicised

Once upon a          Text read aloud is italicised
time there was ...

Figure 2. Classroom Literacy Observation Schedule
(Practice Axis) (Louden & Rohl, 2003)

Participation

  Attention           Almost all children are focused on literacy
                      learning

  Engagement          Children are deeply absorbed in the literacy
                      lesson/task

  Stimulation         The teacher motivates interest in literacy
                      tasks, concepts and learning

  Pleasure            The teacher creates an enthusiastic and
                      energetic literacy classroom

  Consistency         Strong literacy routines are recognised and
                      understood by the children

Knowledge

  Environment         Literate physical environment is used as a
                      teaching resource

  Purpose             Children's responses indicate tacit or explicit
                      understanding of the purpose of the literacy task

  Substance           The lesson/ task leads to substantial literacy
                      engagement, not busy-work

  Explanations        Explanations of literacy concepts and skills
                      are clear and at an appropriate level

  Modelling           Demonstrations of literacy tasks include
                      metacognitive explanations

  Metalanguage        Children are provided with language for talking
                      about and exemplifying literacy concepts

Orchestration

  Awareness           The teacher has a high level of awareness of
                      literacy activities and participation by children

  Structure           The environment is predictable and orderly

  Flexibility         The teacher responds to learning opportunities
                      that arise in the flow of literacy lessons

  Pace                The teacher provides strong forward momentum in
                      literacy lessons

  Transition          Minimum time is spent in transitions or there is
                      productive use of transitions

Support

  Assessment          The teacher uses fine-grained knowledge of
                      children's literacy performance in planning
                      and teaching

  Scaffolding         The teacher extends children's literacy learning
                      through modelling, modifying, correcting

  Feedback            The teacher gives timely, focused and explicit
                      literacy feedback to children

  Responsiveness      The teacher shares and builds on children's
                      literacy contributions

  Explicitness        Word level--The teacher directs children's
                      attention to explicit word and sound strategies

  Explicitness        Text level--The teacher makes explicit specific
                      attributes of a text

  Persistence         The teacher provides many opportunities to
                      practise and master new literacy learning

Differentiation

  Challenge           The teacher extends and promotes higher order
                      thinking in literacy learning

  Individualisation   Differentiated literacy instruction recognises
                      individual differences

  Inclusion           The teacher facilitates inclusion of all
                      students in the literacy lessons

  Variation           Literacy teaching is structured around groups or
                      individuals

  Connection          Connections are made between class and community
                      literacy-related knowledge

Respect

  Warmth              Welcoming, positive and inviting classroom is
                      focused on literacy learning

  Rapport             Relationships with the children support tactful
                      literacy interventions

  Credibility         Respect for the teacher enables her to overcome
                      any challenges to order and lesson flow

  Citizenship         Equality, tolerance, inclusivity and awareness
                      of the needs of others are promoted

  Independence        Children take some responsibility for their own
                      literacy learning