Literature review

Teaching Reading
7318SCHP05A
TeachingReadingLiteratureReview
National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy
December 2005
Literature Review
A review of the evidence-based research
literature on approaches to the teaching of
literacy, particularly those that are effective in
assisting students with reading difficulties

Teaching Reading
Literature Review
A review of the evidence-based research literature on approaches
to the teaching of literacy, particularly those that are effective in
assisting students with reading difﬁculties
National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy
December 2005

ISBN 0 642 77575 3 (print)
ISBN 0 642 77576 1 (Internet)
© Commonwealth of Australia 2005
This work is copyright. It may be reproduced in whole or in part for study or training purposes subject to
the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source and no commercial usage or sale. Reproduction for
purposes other than those indicated above, requires the prior written permission from the Commonwealth.
Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to Commonwealth
Copyright Administration, Attorney General’s Department, Robert Garran Ofﬁces, National Circuit,
Barton ACT 2600 or posted at http://www.ag.gov.au/cca.
The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reﬂect the views of the Department of Education,
Science and Training.

iii
Contents
Contents
List of abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
1. Background and contexts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The importance of literacy in the context of schooling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The context of literacy and health outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The literacy teaching and learning context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The context of contemporary understandings of effective
teaching practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2. Review method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3. Effective teaching practices for reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Effective practices during the early years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. Implications for teacher education and
professional development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5. Substantive issues and concluding comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Instructional effectiveness and teacher quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Concluding comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Appendix: Assessment and reporting of learning progress:
The importance of monitoring growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

iv
Teaching Reading
List of abbreviations
ACER Australian Council for Educational Research
ADD Attention Deficit Disorder
ADHD Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
AEI Australian Education Index
APA American Psychiatric Association
BNR Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the [US]
Commission on Reading
CCCH Centre for Community Child Health (Victoria)
DEET Department of Education, Employment and Training
DEETYA Department of Education, Employment, Training
and Youth Affairs
DEST Department of Education, Science and Training
ERIC Eduction Resources Information Center
ES Effect size
LLANS Longitudinal Literacy and Numeracy Study
MCEETYAA Ministerial Council on Education, Employment,
Training and Youth Affairs
NICHD National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (US)
NITL National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy
NLNP National Literacy and Numeracy Plan
NRP National Reading Panel (US)
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PD professional development
PISA Programme for International Student Assessment (OECD)
PRD Preventing Reading Difficulties [in Young Children]
SES Socio-economic status
ZPD Zone of Proximal Development

v
Summary
Summary
Underlying a key purpose of the present review is the conviction that claims about
what constitute effective literacy teaching, and of reading in particular, should be
grounded in findings from rigorous evidence-based research. To this end, the present
review of the research literature on teaching practices for students, with and without
reading difficulties, relies largely, though not exclusively, on well-designed meta-
analytic syntheses that: (a) partial out methodological artefacts from the effect sizes;
and (b) base their analyses on the actual procedures and components of instruction
used in the studies reviewed.
Following a brief outline of the background and purposes related to the National
Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy, attention is given to the prevailing contexts of: they
importance of literacy in schooling; the overlap between students’ under-achievement
in literacy (especially in reading) and their poor behavioural health and wellbeing; the
complexitiesentailedinliteracyteachingandlearning;andcontemporaryunderstandings
ofeffectiveteachingpractice.Despitealackofsupportingevidenceforitseffectiveness,
the prevailing educational philosophy of constructivism (as a theory of knowing) has
had marked influences on pre-service teacher education, and subsequent professional
practice, by shaping teachers’ interpretations of how they should teach. However,
there is a strong body of evidence that constructivist approaches to teaching, including
whole-language, are not in the best interests of students with learning difficulties and
especially for those with reading difficulties.
For beginning reading during the early years of schooling, findings from meta-
analytic syntheses of a large volume of local and international evidence-based research
consistently indicate that direct, systematic instruction in phonics makes significantly
greater contributions to children’s initial and subsequent growth in reading, writing,
spelling and comprehension, than do alternative approaches involving unsystematic
or no phonics instruction. Indeed, the evidence reviewed indicates that all students
are provided with the best opportunities for success when teachers integrate the following
skills via explicit instruction in: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary
knowledge and comprehension. Emphasis is given to: (a) the need for evidence-
based pre-service teacher education and in-service professional development related
to reading/literacy instruction; and (b) the need to provide teachers with training in
the use of appropriate diagnostic and developmental assessment tools.

vi
Teaching Reading
The review concludes by highlighting substantive issues related to the vital point
that pedagogical practices and instructional strategiest per se are not independent of
the teachers who deliver them to students, whether or not those students experience
reading difﬁculties. Thus, there is need for a major focus on teacher quality, and buildingy
capacity in teachers towards quality, evidence-based teaching practices that are demon-
strably effective in maximising the developmental and learning needs of all students.

1
Background and contexts
1. Background and contexts
Background
A key policy priority for the Australian Government continues to focus on achieving
sustained improvements in the literacy and numeracy skills of Australian children to
prepare them for their futures. Achieving a goal of all children meeting appropriate
standardsinliteracyandnumeracyiscriticalinovercomingeducationaldisadvantage.1
The OECD Indicators 2005 report, Education at a glance (OECD, 2005a) shows that
Australian school students compare well with the performance of students in other
OECD countries. As a country, this is something we should celebrate. Even so, a
significant minority of children in Australian schools continue to face difficulties in
acquiring acceptable levels of literacy and numeracy.
This priority has been brought into sharper focus since the announcement of the
National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (NITL) by the Hon Dr Brendan Nelson MP,
AustralianGovernmentMinisterforEducation,ScienceandTraining,on30November
2004. The Terms of Reference for the Inquiry are available at: www.dest.gov.au/g /
schools/literacyinquir/ y q yy.yy In brief, the aims of the Inquiry are to inquire into:
g the teaching of reading in Australian schools;
g the assessment of reading proficiency including identification of students with
reading difficulties; and
g teacher education and the extent to which it prepares teachers adequately for
reading instruction.
The stated Objectives of the Inquiry are fivefold:
1. Review and analyse recent national and international research about literacy
teaching approaches, particularly approaches that are shown to be effective
in assisting students with reading difficulties.
1
TheNationalLiteracyandNumeracyPlanisavailableat:http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_educationp // g / / _ //
policy_initiatives_reviews/key_issues/literacy_numeracy/national_literacy_and_numeracy_plan.htmp y_ _ / y_ / y_ y/ _ y_ _ y_p .

2
Teaching Reading
2. Identify the extent to which prospective teachers are provided with reading
teaching approaches and skills that are effective in the classroom, and have
the opportunities to develop and practice the skills required to implement
effective classroom reading programs. Training in both phonics and whole-
language approaches to reading will be examined.
3. Identify the ways in which research evidence on literacy teaching and policies
inAustralian schools can best inform classroom teaching practice and support
teacher professional learning.
4. Examine the effectiveness of assessment methods being used to monitor the
progress of students’ early reading learning.
5. Produce a report of the Inquiry’s findings in the second half of 2005 and offer
best practice in effective approaches to literacy teaching and learning, both at
the classroom level and in the training of teachers.
The Committee of Inquiry’s report, Teaching Reading, comprises the Report and
Recommendations, a Guide to the Report and Recommendations for Parents and Carers, a
Literature Review, Submission Summaries hyper-linked to Submissions to the Inquiry
and Site Visits. These are available on the website established for the Inquiry at: www.
dest.gov.au/schools/literacyinquiryg / / y q y.yy
The specification of the Inquiry’s objectives has been influenced by the contents
of an open letter from 26 Australian academics and reading researchers addressed to
the Australian Government Minister for Education, Science and Training in March
2004.2
This letter, titled: Reading Instruction in Australian Schools, expressed concerns
about the way in which reading is typically taught in Australian schools, as follows:
As researchers, psychologists, linguists and educators who have studied the processes
underlying the development of reading, and who are familiar with the scientific research
literature relating to the acquisition of reading, we are writing to you to express our
concerns with the way in which reading is typically being taught inAustralian schools.
Wewouldlikeparticularlytodrawyourattentiontothecontinuingdiscrepancybetween
the model of reading development that forms the basis for most of our current school
curricula and teaching methods, and the model of reading development that is emerging
as a result of the research into reading that has been undertaken over the past twenty
2
See: Anderson et al. (2004). This letter and accompanying explanatory notes (de Lemos, 2004a) have
since been published by the Reading Reform Foundation, based in the United Kingdom, available at:
http://www.rrf.org.uk/the%20australian%20scene.htp // g / m.

3
to thirty years. … Given the emphasis that is now being placed on evidence-based
policy, we ask that consideration be given to setting up an independent review to
examine the research evidence relating to the teaching of reading, and the extent to
which current practices are based on this evidence.
The letter asserts that the predominant whole-language approach to the teaching
of reading is both ineffective and inappropriate.3
Moreover, it is claimed that because
it is not based on findings from the available evidence-based research about how children
best learn to read, poor reading skills are in most cases due to ineffective teaching
practices endemic to whole-language approaches during the crucial early years of main-
stream ‘first wave’ classroom teaching. Further, the letter claims that the initial gains
made by students exposed to ‘second wave’ intervention programs are not sustained
unless such students are located in classrooms with teachers who are skilled in providing
further support in explicit, systematic phonics instruction for those students.4
Effective
initial teaching of reading, it is argued, would substantially reduce the need for costly
remedial programs for under-achieving students. The same applies to ‘third wave’ inter-
vention strategies for under-achieving students during the middle-years of schooling.5
Thus, the purpose of the present review is to meet Objective 1 of the National Inquiry
into the Teaching of Literacy, noted above. That is: Review and analyse recent national and
international research about literacy teaching approaches, particularly approaches that are
shown to be effective in assisting students with reading difficulties. Whereas several reports
andinquiriesintotheteachingofliteracy,includingitsdevelopmentandachievement,
have been undertaken in Australia in recent years,6
de Lemos (2004a) asserts:
3
This predominance has been documented in several sources, including: de Lemos (2002, 2004a,b); the
1992 Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment Education and
Training (The Literacy Challenge: Strategies for early intervention for literacy and learning for Australian
children); in the Final Report of the NSW Parliament Inquiry into Early Intervention for Children with
Learning Difficulties (2003); and in the review of literacy instruction in Australian primary schools by van
Kraayenoord and Paris (1994). For a recent report of an investigation into the preparation of teachers to
teach literacy (and numeracy), see Louden et al. (2005a).
4
See, for example: Center, Freeman and Robertson (2001); Elbaum et al. (2000); Tunmer and Chapman (2003).
5
See: Clay (1985); Snow, Burns and Griffin (1998). For examples of ‘third wave’ intervention strategies,
see: Ellis (2005); Hoad et al. (2005); Purdie and Ellis (2005); Rowe and Meiers (2005); Rowe, Pollard and
Rowe (2003, 2005); Rowe, Rowe and Pollard (2004); Wheldall and Beaman (2000).
6
See, for example: DEET (1991); DEETYA (1998); Department of Education, Victoria (1997a,b); House of
Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training (1992); and New South
Wales Parliament, Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues (2003).

4
Teaching Reading
… these reports and enquiries have not addressed the fundamental question of the
effectiveness of the strategies used to teach reading, or the validity of the assumptions
on which our teaching methods are based. It is for this reason that … a new approach
to the investigation of reading instruction in our schools is required.
What needs to be addressed is the critical question of whether the teaching of reading
in Australia is based on scientiﬁc knowledge relating to how children learn to read,
and whether the methods used to teach reading in our schools are based on empirical
evidence as to the strategies that are most effective in teaching reading.
The importance of literacy in the context of schooling
Australia’s young people are the most valuable resource for the nation’s social and
economic prosperity. The key to such prosperity at both the individual and national level
istheprovisionofqualityschooling.Theglobaleconomic,technologicalandsocialchanges
underway, requiring responses from an increasingly skilled workforce, make high
qualityschoolinganimperative(Caldwell,2004).WhereasOECDEducationMinisters
have committed their countries to the goal of raising the quality of learning for all, this
ambitious goal will not be achieved unless all students receive high quality teaching.7
Most countries are seeking to improve their schools, and to respond proactively
to higher social and economic expectations. As the most valuable resource available to
schools,teachersarecentraltoschoolimprovementeffortsdirectedatstudents’learning
outcomes and achievement progress (Cuttance, 2001; Kennedy, 2001). However, because
teachingisahighlyskilledprofessionalactivity,improvingtheefﬁciencyandeffectiveness
of schooling depends, at the outset, on competent people choosing to work as teachers,
and that their pre-service and in-service education and teaching practices are of the
highest professional standards.
Since the central aim of schooling is to generate and maintain efforts towards
ongoing improvements in teaching and learning, it is vital that teachers are equipped
with evidence-based teaching skills that are demonstrably effective in meeting the
developmental and learning needs of the students for whom they have responsibility.8
Nowhere is this more important than in the teaching of literacy (i.e., reading, writing,
speaking and listening, and viewing) since literacy competence is foundational, not
only for school-based learning, but also for students’ psychosocial wellbeing, further
7
See: Hattie (2003, 2005); Louden et al. (2005a); OECD (2005a,b); Ramsey (2000); Rowe (2003, 2004a-c).
8
For explications of the importance of evidence-based orientations to educational policy, practice and reform,m
see: de Lemos (2002); Fullan (1991, 1994, 2000); Masters (1999); Slavin (2005).

5
education and training, occupational success, as well as for productive and fulfilling
participation in social and economic activity. The rapidly changing nature of computer-
based technologies and global communication systems has given rise to demands for
competence in increasingly complex multiliteracies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000).
These assertions are supported by the work of Nobel Prize winning economist James
Heckman’s (2000, 2005) overview of the economic aspects of human skills formation.
Heckman concludes that investment in the learning development of young childreng
iscrucial.ForHeckman,literacycompetenceisanessentialareaoflearninginvestment
in the young, being a ‘skill that begets many other skills’ (an index of ‘self-productivity’,
as he calls it), because it constitutes a ‘key part of our capacity to increase our capacity’.
Given that competence in reading and writing is the foundation of educational
provision, the present paper reviews findings from the local and international evidence-
based research9
that identifies effective pedagogical practices that maximise the learning
andachievementprogressofallstudentsinliteracy,andespeciallyforthoseexperiencing
reading difficulties. Due to uncertainty about operational definitions of learning difficulties
and reading difficulties in particular, however, it is difficult to provide authoritative
estimates of the proportion of children who have such difficulties. Nonetheless, Louden
et al. (2000) estimate that 80 per cent of students nominated by teachers as having
learning difficulties are identified as having problems in mastering reading skills.10
For related discussions, see: Elkins (2002); Ellis (2005); Hay, Elias and Booker (2005);
Purdie and Ellis (2005); Rowe (2003a).
9
The emphasis on findings from evidence-based research here is deliberate, since the field of educational
provision and prevailing teaching strategies for students with and without learning difficulties is replete
with untested anecdotal rhetoric that reflect ideological adherence to philosophical orientations to both
teacher education and in-service professional development programs that have little evidential justification
in terms of either their validity, reliability and/or generalisability (e.g., Wray & Medwell, 2001). The
importance of ‘evidence-based reform’ in ‘advancing the education of students at risk’ is advocated strongly
by Slavin (2005) as follows: ‘… genuine reform in American education depends on a movement toward
evidence-based practice, using the findings of rigorous research to guide educational practices and policies
… the evidence-based policy movement remains the best hope for genuine reform in US education’ (p. 1).
For a comprehensive review of findings from the evidence-based research literature that highlight ‘effective’
intervention teaching strategies for Grade 4-6 students with learning difficulties in both literacy and
numeracy, see: Ellis (2005); Purdie and Ellis (2005).
10
It should be noted that an explication of the underlying ‘causes’ of such difficulties are beyond the remit
of the present review. For recent and relevant treatments, see Coltheart (2005a) and Brunsdon (2005).
However, factors contributing to such difficulties include: socio-economic and cultural impoverishment,
indigenous status, neuro-physiological, neuro-psychological and psycho-behavioural factors, as well as
inadequate and/or inappropriate teaching and learning provision.

6
Teaching Reading
International assessments of reading literacy during 2000 and 2003 indicate that
although15-year-oldstudentsinAustralianschoolsperformnotablybetter(onaverage)
than the majority of their counterparts in other OECD countries, 12 per cent (ACT, WA)
to 28 per cent (NT) are not developing the literacy skills needed for further education,
training and work (defined as low achievers), particularly indigenous students (35%)
and males (17%).11
Similar estimates have been reported for achievement in reading
comprehension of 14-year-old Australian students between 1975 and 1998, and, with
few exceptions, the estimates have remained constant during the period.12
Furthermore, approximately 20 per cent of Australians aged 15-74 years have
been identified as having ‘very poor’ literacy skills, with an additional 28 per cent who
could be expected to experience some difficulties in using many of the printed materials
that may be encountered in daily life (ABS, 1997, p. 7). Evidence from the 1996 National
School English Literacy Survey (Masters & Forster, 1997b) indicated that the proportion
of Year 3 and Year 5 students in Australian schools who did not meet minimum perfor-
mance standards of reading required for effective participation in further schooling
was estimated to be as high as 27 per cent at Year 3, and 29 per cent at Year 5 (Masters
& Forster, 1997b, p. 15).13
In 2003, the percentages ofAustralian students not achieving
the minimum National Benchmarks for Reading are: ~8 per cent (Year 3) and ~11 per
cent (Year 5 and Year 7).14
By any criterion, these outcomes are unacceptable in terms
of the educational, psychosocial wellbeing and life chances of these Australians, as
well as the economic and social future of the nation.
11
In the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the concept of reading literacy
emphasises skill in using written information in situations that students may encounter in their life both
at and beyond school. Thus, reading literacy is defined as: ‘…y understanding, using and reflecting on written texts
in order to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and potential, and to participate in society’ (OECD,
2003, p. 108). For the PISA 2000 and 2003 results relevant to Australia, see: Lokan, Greenwood and
Cresswell (2001); Thomson, Cresswell and De Bortoli (2004).
12
See Rothman (2002), who notes: ‘For some groups, there has been improvement, most notably for
students from language backgrounds other than English. For other groups, however, results indicate a
significant achievement gap. The most significant gap is between Indigenous Australian students and
all other students in Australian schools’ (p. ix).
13
Comparative international data are of interest. From the evidence cited in the report by British House of
Commons Education and Skills Committee (2005), Teaching Children to Read, it is estimated that
approximately 20 per cent of 11-year-old children in British schools do not achieve expected success in
reading for their age. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (US), 38 per cent of
fourth graders (~9 year-olds) cannot read at a basic level – that is, they cannot read and understand a
short paragraph similar to that in a children’s story book (Lyon, 2003, p. 1).
14
See MCEETYA (2005).

7
The context of literacy and health outcomes
Literacy under-achievement has high social and economic costs in terms of both health
and crime. The overlap between students’ under-achievement and poor achievement
progress in literacy (especially in reading) and their poor behavioural health and
wellbeing, is problematic to the extent that what should be an education issue has become
a major health issue (see DeWatt et al., 2004). Dr Reid Lyon, Chief of the Child Develop-
ment and Behavior Branch of the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, US) notes:
The National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (NICHD) considers
that teaching and learning in today’s schools reflect not only significant educational
concerns, but public health concerns as well. Our research has consistently shown
that if children do not learn to understand and use language, to read and write, to
calculate and reason mathematically, to solve problems, and to communicate their
ideas and perspectives, their opportunities for a fulfilling and rewarding life are
seriously compromised. Specifically, in our NICHD-supported longitudinal studies,
we have learned that school failure has devastating consequences with respect to self-
esteem,socialdevelopment,andopportunitiesforadvancededucationandmeaningful
employment. Nowhere are these consequences more apparent than when children
fail to learn to read. Why? Simply stated, the development of reading serves THE
major foundational academic ability for all school-based learning. Without the ability
to read, the opportunities for academic and occupational success are limited. Moreover,
because of its importance, difficulty in learning to read crushes the excitement and
love of learning, which most children have when they enter school.
… By the end of first grade, children having difficulty in learning to read begin to feel
less positive about their abilities than when they started school. As we follow children
through elementary and middle school, self-esteem and the motivation to learn to
read decline even further.
…Itisimportanttonotethatthisstateofeducationalaffairsdescribesanextraordinary
and unacceptable number of children (with reading difficulties). According to the
National Center for Educational Statistics, 38% of fourth graders nationally cannot
read at a basic level – that is, they cannot read and understand a short paragraph similar
to that in a children’s book. … The educational and public health consequences of
this level of reading failure are dire. Of the 10 to 15% of children who will eventually
drop out of school, more than 75% will report difficulties learning to read. Likewise,

8
Teaching Reading
only two per cent of students receiving special or compensatory education for difficulties
learning to read will complete a four-year college program. Approximately half of
children and adolescents with a history of substance abuse have reading problems.
Failure to learn to read places children’s futures and lives at risk for highly deleterious
outcomes. For this reason the NICHD considers reading failure to reflect a national
public health problem (Lyon, 2003, pp. 1-2).
Lyons’ concerns apply equally in the Australian context. The increasing number
of anxious parents seeking help from health professionals throughout Australia for
their distressed children whose behaviour problems have arisen as a consequence of
(or are exacerbated by) learning difficulties and failure to acquire functional literacy
skillsisdisturbing.15
FollowingHaggertyetal.(1975),Oberklaid(1988,2004)appropriately
refers to this phenomenon as the ‘new morbidity’ in education and child/adolescent
health. In commenting on a study related to the ‘gap between health and education’
by O’Keeffe and McDowell (2004), Oberklaid (2004, p. 251) asserts:
The new morbidity is no longer new. Mainstream paediatrics has gone a long way to
changing training and practice models to address children with developmental,
behavioural and psychosocial conditions. … Perhaps one of the important next steps
is to advocate for more systematic paediatric input into teacher training courses and
ongoing professional development. In the same way as we now expect paediatricians
to understand the classroom implications of organic and developmental disorders,
it seems not unreasonable to expect teachers to have a sound knowledge base about
children with special needs in their classroom.
Oberklaid’s assertion is well supported from earlier comment arising from an
extensive body of evidence-based research. For example, in highlighting issues related
to ’future directions’ for ADHD16
research and intervention policies, Farrelly and
Standish (1996,h p. 81) note: ‘The impact on mental health and educational systems needs
to be examined’. The response to this recommendation is summarised by an edited
extract from Rowe and Rowe (1999, p. 92), as follows:
15
See, for example: Barkley and Pfiffner (1995a,b); CCCH (2004); DeWatt et al. (2004); Haggerty et al. (1975);
Hinshaw (1992a,b, 1994); Lyon (2003); Oberklaid (1988, 2004); Rowe (1991); Rowe and Rowe (1992, 1998, 1999,
2000, 2002); Rowe, Pollard and Rowe (2005); Sawyer et al. (2000); Silverstein, Iverson and Lozano (2002).
16
That is, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). For classification and diagnostic criteria
details, see: DSM-IV (APA 1994, pp. 78-85)V .

9
A central aim of educational systems is to generate, stimulate and maintain efforts
towards the ongoing improvement of teaching and learning practices that link directly
to the quality of educational outcomes for students. In our view, such improvements
are not likely to be brought about by academic polemic, nor by the ‘top-down-driven’
administrativefiatsofbureaucracies,sincetheproductsoftheseenterprises(mercifully,
in most cases) have an established record of rarely penetrating the classroom door.
Rather, with the ‘informed’ support of parents and health professionals, sustained
improvement can be achieved via teacher professional development that maximizes
their teaching and behavioral management skills in the classroom. It has been our
experience that under such circumstances, teachers themselves become the empowered
agents and purveyors of change, having consequent ‘domino’ effects on the teaching
and classroom behavioral management practices of other teachers, and throughout
the profession. Ultimately, of course, the measures of success or otherwise of such
efforts, like all endeavours to improve the quality of school education, will be judged
in terms of their impact on the key areas of improved student learning, behavior, and
the enhancement of teacher professionalism.
For what is demonstratively the most salient and problematic issue in child and
adolescent mental health, the challenge into the ‘new millennium’ is to refocus the
prevailing models accounting for the overlap between inattentive behavior problems
and poor academic achievement – together with their related intervention emphases
– to educational ones. In our view, the personal, social and financial costs of failure to
meet this challenge will be both unsustainable and unbearable.
Given that the central aim of schooling is to generate and maintain efforts towards
ongoingimprovementsinteachingandlearning,aswellasinstudents’social,behavioural
and achievement outcomes, it is vital that educational ‘fences’ be built at the top of
the ‘cliff’ in preference to the provision of belated and costly ‘ambulance services’ at
the bottom. Anecessary strategy in constructing such ‘fences’ requires buildingy capacityg
in teacher expertise and professionalism by ensuring that they are at least equipped
with evidence-based teaching strategies that meet the developmental and learning
needs of the students for whom they have responsibility. Nevertheless, instructional
strategies per se are not independent of quality teaching by teachers who deliver themt
to students, whether or not those students experience reading difficulties (Hattie, 2003,
2005; Louden et al., 2005b; Rowe, 2003b, 2004b,c) – a key point that is elaborated in more
detail in Section 5 of the present paper. In the meantime, it is important to acknowledge
the contexts of literacy teaching and learning, as well as contemporary understandings of
‘effective’ teaching practice.

10
Teaching Reading
The literacy teaching and learning context
Literacy teaching and learning are complex tasks for both teachers and students (Ainley
& Fleming, 2000, 2003; Ainley, Fleming & McGregor, 2002; Center, 2005; Coltheart,
2005a; Garton & Pratt, 1989). Whereas children enter school with varying degrees of
competence in speaking their language, typically they have little knowledge about
how to read and write. In this context, Center (2005, p. 7) notes:
Speech may have to be learnt, but it does not have to be taught. On the other hand,
reading and writing, for most people, will not be learned unless it is taught, and for
some people, will not be learned unless it is taught well. It is important for teacherst
to understand the dissimilarities as well as the similarities that exist between speaking
and reading/writing. Without this understanding, they could easily underestimate the
difficulties some children will have in acquiring literacy [author’s emphasis].
Thus,thepurposeofearlyandsubsequentliteracyinstructioninschooleducation
is to help students master the challenges of linking written and spoken language.
These include acquiring knowledge about the alphabetic system, learning to decode
newwords,buildingavocabularythatcanbereadonsightfrommemory,andbecoming
facile at constructing, integrating, interpreting and remembering meanings represented
in text – in whatever form such representations are presented. For students, at any
level, to be able to link their knowledge of spoken language to their knowledge of
written language, they must first master the alphabetic code – the system of grapheme-
phoneme correspondences that link written words to their pronunciations.
A characteristic feature of literacy teaching for more than 40 years has been the
disagreements among educators about how beginning reading (as a central element
of literacy) should be taught, and especially for students with reading difficulties (see
Chall, 1967).17
At the extremes of these disagreements are educators who advocate
whole-languageapproaches,whereasothersargueforsystematicphonicsapproaches.
In brief, the disagreements have focused on whether the teaching of reading should
beginwith:(a)n directort explicitinstructioninorthographicsymbol-soundcorrespondences
17
Such disagreements have their origins in the 16th
century. John Hart’s (1569) An Orthographie and Richard
Mulcaster’s (1582) Elementarie both advocated the utility of the ‘alphabetic principle’ via explicit teaching
ofletter-soundrelationshipsforbeginningreading.Incontrast,FredrichGedike(1754-1803)wasprominent
in advocating a ‘whole-to-part’ approach to the teaching of reading. For specific historical details, see
Davies (1973). [Note: the Committee is grateful to Professor Max Coltheart for supplying this historical
information]. Further, for a detailed account of reading instruction during the 20th
century, see Pearson (2000).

11
and rapid whole word recognition; and (b) whether initial instruction should be
context- and meaning-centred with symbol-sound correspondences taught incidentally
in context as needed.
Key findings from extensive meta-analytic syntheses of evidence-based reading
research – many of which are cited in this review – consistently indicate that since
systematic, explicit phonics approaches are significantly more effective than non-
systematic approaches for children with and without reading difficulties, it is vital
that children should initially be provided with direct instruction in phonics as an
essential part of a comprehensive and integrated reading program that includes
meaning-centred approaches.18
Coltheart (2005b, p. 5) notes:
…there is now a very strong body of scientific evidence that children will be greatly
assisted in learning to read if their reading tuition includes systematic, explicit direct
instruction in how to read aloud a word that has never been seen before by using
knowledge of the relationship between letters and sounds.
On the basis of a comprehensive synthesis of findings from the related evidence-
based research, Center (2005) asserts that the systematic, explicit teaching of phonics
is a necessary condition but not a sufficient conditiont for the teaching of reading. Since
reading essentially involves two basic and complementary processes: learning how
to decipher print and understanding what the print means, an integrated approach
to reading instruction is mandatory. This assertion is consistent with key findings from
Cowen’s (2003) synthesis of six major research studies of approaches to beginning reading
– each of which concur that reading for meaning and understanding cannot be taught
separately from direct phonics instruction.19
Likewise, and despite the cautions of Adams
(1991) and Moats (2000), in making the case for a ‘balanced approach to reading
instruction’, Strickland (1998) notes: ’Avoiding instructional extremes is at the heart of
providing a balanced program of reading instruction’ (p. 52). Further, and consistent
with the earlier assertions of Spiegel (1992), Pressley (1998, p. 1) observes: ’Balanced-
literacy teachers combine the strengths of whole language and skills instruction, and
in so doing, create instruction that is more than the sum of its parts’. More recently,
Center (2005, pp. 7-8) writes:
18
See: Camilli et al. (2003); Center (2005); Coltheart (2005a-c); Cowen (2003); de Lemos (2004b); Ehri et al.
(2001); Munro (1998); NRP (2000a,b); Pressley (1998); Purdie and Ellis (2005); Strickland (1998).
19
These studies, which are commented on in more detail later, are: Adams (1990); Anderson et al. (1985);
Bond and Dykstra (1967); Chall (1967); NRP (2000a,b); Snow, Burns and Griffin (1998).

12
Teaching Reading
The strengths of a whole-language approach, as I see it, are its insistence on a print-
rich environment to stimulate a child’s desire for reading. The strengths of a skills
approach are its insistence on the explicit instruction of sound-symbol associations,
both in isolation and in context to foster a child’s word recognition ability. … The
need to include explicit decoding instruction when teaching beginners to read arises
because difficulties at the word level often prevent children (particularly those at-
risk)frombecomingcompetentandinterestedreaders.Thisislargelybecausespeaking
… does not automatically translate into being able to decipher print. However, having
a goodcommandoflanguagewillcertainlyenablechildrentounderstandthelanguage
written down, once they have learnt to decipher the print.
Given this context and the tasks entailed in literacy teaching and learning,
particularly as they relate to reading, an outline of contemporary understandings of
‘effective’ teaching practice is helpful.
The context of contemporary understandings
of effective teaching practice
Teaching practices have long generated debate and ideological controversy, especially
as to best practice for the teaching of reading.As indicated earlier, two clear theoretical
orientations have provided the bases for this controversy: (a) explicit code-based
instruction in phonics; and (b) implicit, ‘holistic’ or whole-language approaches. For
several decades, whole-language has been the predominant approach for early literacy
teaching and learning throughout English-speaking countries (Pearson, 2000; Westwood,
1999, 2004).
Essentially, the whole-language approach to teaching and learning reflects a
constructivist philosophy of learning in which children are viewed as inherently active,
self-regulating learners who construct knowledge for themselves, with little or nog
explicit decoding instruction.20
However, there is a strong body of evidence that
constructivist whole-language approaches are not in the best interests of children
experiencing learning difficulties and especially those experiencing reading difficulties
(Moats, 2000). Similarly, for children from disadvantaged backgrounds who often doyy
not have rich phonological knowledge and phonemic awareness upon which to base
20
Foracomprehensiveexplicationofconstructivismanditsapplicationtoteachingandlearning,gg see:McInerney
and McInerney (1998); Selley (1999); Von Glasersfeld (1995). For recent critiques of the inappropriateness of
constructivism as an operational theory of teaching, see: Ellis (2005); Purdie and Ellis (2005); Wilson (2005).

13
new learning, being taught under constructivist modes has the effect of compounding
theirdisadvantageoncetheybeginschool(Munro,1998,1999,2000a).Thisisparticularly
the case for children from non-English speaking backgrounds including Indigenous
children, where English may be their second or third language.
In contrast, code-based approaches focus on explicit teaching of the structure
and function of written and oral language in ways that allow children, regardless of
their backgrounds, to reflect on and consciously manipulate the language. This involves
an awareness of phonemes, syllables and morphology. Thus, unlike whole-language
approaches, code-based methods typically require a high degree of teacher-centred
presentation of learning material, with an emphasis on explicit instruction, scheduled
practice, and feedback (e.g., Center, 2005; Westwood, 2003a-c, 2004).
The key element in constructivism as a theory of knowing is that the learner is an
active contributor to the learning process, and that teaching methods should focus on
what the student can bring to the learning situation as much as on what is received
from the environment. This approach has its origins in the work of Piaget, Vygotsky,
and in Ausubel’s (1968) assertion that ‘the most important single factor influencing
learning is what the learner already knows’ (p. 332). Learning that builds effectively
on the learner’s current knowledge is said to be within the child’s zone of proximal
development (ZPD). The ZPD establishes what the learner already knows, and can do
with minimal assistance by a teacher or peer – following which the individual is expected
to undertake learning tasks independently.
Hence, the role of the teacher is to be a facilitator of learning (rather than a director)r ,
and to provide opportunities for individual learners to acquire knowledge and construct
meaning through their own activities, and through discussion, reflection and the
sharingofideaswithotherlearnerswithminimalcorrectiveintervention(Cambourne,
2002; Daniels, 2001; Selley, 1999; Von Glasersfeld, 1995). Sasson (2001, p. 189) refers to
constructivism as ‘… a mixture of Piagetian stage theory with postmodernist ideology’
that is devoid of evidence-based justification for its adoption as an effective method
of teaching. For example, in highlighting the inappropriateness of constructivism as
an operational theory of teaching, Wilson (2005, pp. 2-3), argues:
… We largely ignore generations of professional experience and knowledge in favour
of a slick postmodern theoretical approach, most often characterised by the misuse
of the notion of constructivism.

14
Teaching Reading
… Australian operational views of constructivism … confuse a theory of knowing
with a theory of teaching. We confuse the need for the child to construct her own
knowledge with a form of pedagogy which sees it as the child’s responsibility to
achieve that. We focus on the action of the student in the construction of knowledge
ratherthantheactionoftheteacherinengagingwiththechild’scurrentmisconceptions
and structuring experiences to challenge those mis-conceptions. … The constructivist
theory of knowing has been used to justify a non-interventionist theory of pedagogy,
whereas it is a fair interpretation to argue that constructivism requires vigorous
inter-ventionist teaching: how, after all, is a student with misconceptions supposed
to challenge them unaided? How does she even know they are misconceptions?
We need, instead, a view of teaching which emphasises that the role of the teacher is
to intervene vigorously and systematically; that is done on the basis of excellent
knowledge of a domain and of student conceptions and misconceptions in that domain,n
assembled from high quality formative assessments; and that the purpose of the
intervention is to ensure that the child’s construction of knowledge leads her to a
more correct understanding of the domain.
These statements by Wilson are consistent with expressed concerns that too many
faculties and schools of education in Australian universities currently providing pre-
service teacher education base their programs on constructivist views of both learning
and teaching.21
Westwood (1999), for example, highlights the results of a South
Australian study which found that most teachers (79%) had been strongly encouraged
to use a constructivist approach in their initial teacher-education courses and during
in-service professional development programs. Even more notably, 67 per cent of the
teacher trainees in this study indicated that constructivism was the only teaching
approachtowhichtheyhadbeenexposedintheirteachingmethodcourses.Commenting
on these findings, Westwood (1999, p. 5) notes:
At the same time as constructivist approaches have been promoted, direct teaching
methods have been overtly or covertly criticised and dismissed as inappropriate,
with the suggestion that they simply don’t work and are dull and boring for learners.
The message that most teachers appear to have absorbed is that all direct teaching is
old-fashioned and should be abandoned in favour of student-centred enquiry and
activity-based learning.
This assertion corresponds with the purpose of the present paper, namely to
review existing local and international evidence-based research findings that identify
‘best practice’ for students experiencing learning difficulties, especially in reading.
21
See: de Lemos (2002, 2004a); Fielding-Barnsley and Purdie (2005); Louden et al. (2005a); Rohl and
Greaves (2004); Westwood (1999, 2004).

15
Review method
2. Review method
Toidentifyabroadrangeofstudies,computersearcheswereconductedintheEducation
ResourcesInformationCenter(ERIC),PsychINFO,ProfessionalDevelopmentCollection,n
andAustralian Education Index (AEI) databases from 1960 to 2005. Several key words
and terms were used to locate studies, such as literacy teaching, reading instruction,
learning difficulties, learning disabilities, reading difficulties, or at risk, paired with variationsk
of approaches, interventions, treatments, instruction, meta-analysis, synthesis, primary and
elementary school. Several criteria were used to select research articles, namely, those that:
1. Related to students experiencing difficulties in literacy learning, and reading in
particular.Thisincludedstudentswithlearningdifficultiesorlearningdisabilities,
but excluded those with other forms of disability (such as physicaly or sensory
impairment);
2. Included students of school age;
3. Wereclassroom-based(inpreferencetohome-basedorinterventionsprovided
by health professionals). This includes both experimental inter-ventions and
research on teachers’ regular classroom practices;
4. Related to literacy and reading, although some studies also reported findings in
other areas such as mathematics and science; and
5. Were data-informed rather than theoretical or speculative in nature.
After eliminating studies that did not meet these criteria, a large pool of studies
remained. To access the literature in a convenient and economical way, priority was
given to previously conducted syntheses and meta-analyses.22
These reviews were
supplemented by a selection of research reports. Selections were made via informed
judgement among acknowledged experts and researchers in the field of early literacy/
reading and learning difficulties. The research reviewed has been reported in a variety
of formats, including journal articles, book chapters, reports, and dissertations.
22
Meta-analysis is a statistical method used for summarising findings from many studies that have
investigated a similar problem. The method provides a numerical way of assessing and comparing the
magnitudes of ‘average’ results, known as ‘effect size’ (ES) – expressed in standard deviation (SD) units.
An effect size is calculated as the difference in performance between the average scores of a group in a
trial or experimental condition and those in a comparison condition, divided by the SD of the comparison
group (or more often, divided by the pooled SD of both groups). An effect size ≤ 0.2 is regarded as
‘weak’; 0.5 is considered ‘moderate’; and 0.8 or larger as ‘strong’.

16
Teaching Reading
3. Effective teaching
practices for reading
Certain teaching approaches for the teaching of reading have emerged in the empirical
literature as effective for all students, whether or not they experience reading difficulties.23
This review (inter alia) summarises key findings from evidence-based research that
identify teaching practices which have been shown to be effective in assisting students
with and without reading difficulties. Evidence related to the particular components
or activities that characterise effective instructional approaches is presented. The
review concludes with a discussion of: (a) the implications for pre-service teacher
education and in-service professional development; (b) assessment approaches that
support teachers’ work with students with and without reading difficulties; and (c)
the importance of building quality teacher professional capacity.
Effective practices during the early years
Contemporary reviews of the literature and meta-analyses of research findings indicate
that considerable progress has been made in identifying key teaching practices that
underlie effective reading and literacy instruction during the early years of schooling
(e.g., Center, 2005; Louden et al., 2005b). For example, a publication from the International
Reading Association (Cowen, 2003) provides a summary and review of six influential
research studies of beginning reading instruction in the United States of America (US).
The following extracts from this summary are provided as a basis for what follows.
Before doing so, Cowen’s criteria for selecting the six studies are helpful:
g each study provides a synthesis of current knowledge about beginning reading
instruction;
g each study contains elements of a balanced approach to reading instruction
that can be construed as a recurring theme throughout;
g each study is supported by a nationally recognised and authoritative council,
academy or research body;
23
For example, see: Adams (1990); Anderson et al. (1985); Bond and Dykstra (1967); Camilli, Vargas and
Yurecko (2003); Chall (1967); NRP (2000a,b); Johnston and Watson (2005a,b); Snow, Burns and Griffin
(1998); Slavin (2005); Vaughn, Gersten and Chard (2000).

17
Effective teaching practices for reading
g each study is important not only to reading professionals, but continues to
influence policy makers and the general public;
g each study is easily recognised by reading professionals, educators and policy
makers and, therefore, provides credibility and authority in establishing
future resources for literacy improvement programs and materials;
g thestudiesprovideahighdegreeofconvergingevidencethatcanbedistributed
widelyinbuildingsupportfordevelopingfutureexemplaryliteracyprograms
that will help meet diverse students’ needs; and
g the studies as a whole serve as a retrospective screening process for analysing
future beginning literacy research investigations that promote balanced literacy.
The six US studies reviewed by Cowen (2003) are based primarily on evidence-
based empirical research restricted mostly to controlled groups and laboratory settings
in contrast to qualitative, action research conducted in classrooms. Cowen’s objective
in undertaking this synthesis is expressed as follows:
The synthesis of the research on balanced reading instruction for beginning readers
can serve as a catalyst to provide greater dialogue and opportunity for putting an end
to the senseless reading wars that have distracted and even disrupted our youngest
children from learning to read successfully. The synthesis provided here should also
provide a clearer perspective of current knowledge about beginning reading research,
particularly in regard to findings on the importance of phonics instruction in creating
a balanced approach to reading instruction (Cowen, 2003, pp. xii-xiii).
Cowen goes on to assert that, from the findings of many years of conclusive
evidence-based research (and common sense), there is strong convergent evidence to
convince reading professionals to put into practice what has been proven to work in
helping all children to read successfully. A brief summary of the six studies follows.
The Cooperative Research Program in First-Grade Reading Instruction (Bond &
Dykstra, 1967). These 27 experimental studies among first-grade children were the
first US national studies on beginning reading instruction. The findings indicated that
a strong phonics emphasis is significantly more valuable than a basal-driven, meaning
orsight-wordapproachtoearlyreadinginstruction,whileemphasisingotherimportant
language factors that require more than just alphabetic code-breaking skills to support
reading instruction. The conclusion that systematic phonics is a necessary and effective
way to teach all children to read, regardless of method and students’ socio-economic

18
Teaching Reading
background, was a major contribution to the teaching of reading. That is, Bond and
Dykstra (1997, p. xx) conclude: ‘We can summarize the results of 60 years of research
dealing with beginning reading instruction by stating that early systematic instruction
in phonics provides the child with the skills necessary to become an independent
reader at an earlier age than is likely if phonics instruction is delayed or less systematic’.
Learning to Read: The Great Debate (Chall, 1967). Chall set out to answer the
question ‘Do children learn to read better with a beginning method that stresses meaning,
or with one that stresses learning alphabetic letter-sound correspondences?’ Similar
to Bond and Dykstra (1967), Chall reviewed relevant research from 1900 to 1965, and
found converging evidence that the explicit teaching of phonics is essential for successful
reading acquisition. Chall found that the emphasis on a systematic alphabetic code
approach is more effective than using a basal reading series, which focused on reading
for meaning, and concluded that learning the alphabetic code, combined with good
teaching and the use of appropriate-level reading materials, leads to successful achieve-
ment. Chall is one of the first researchers to point out the importance of extensive reading
for developing fluency and understanding, as well as the need to practice reading
challenging texts to develop a fuller understanding of newly acquired skills. Chall also
advocated the early use of direct, explicit instruction of the code prior to practising these
skills (with a meaning emphasis soon to follow) through active engagement with
literature, writing and comprehension.
Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the Commission on Reading
(Anderson et al., 1985). Using a ‘methods-comparison’ research design, findings from
this research, known as the BNR, advocated that (a) phonics instruction should be
taught explicitly and early, ending by second-grade for most children; and (b) provided
insight into the need for teachers to pay more attention to students’ comprehension
as part of an integrated approach to the teaching of reading, including more time for
students to read meaningful text and quality children’s literature. Results of the BNR
study point to the reciprocal impact that writing has in influencing reading, and how
both conventional spelling and phonics instruction contribute to better reading achieve-
ment. BNR is one of the first reports to emphasise helping at-risk children learn how
to read, a consequence, perhaps, of the US National Commission on Excellence in
Education’s (1983) highly publicised and controversial document, A Nation at Risk:
The Imperative for Educational Reform (NCEE, 1983).

19
Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print (Adams, 1990). This book,
about basic processes and instructional practices for word and letter identification in
early reading, built on several new bodies of research, including phonemic awareness
and invented spelling, orthographic knowledge, the importance of concepts about
print, and the processes involved in learning to read and write. Although this study
does not indicate that one reading approach is better than another, it does stress the
value of teaching phonograms using a phonics approach with onset and rime. The
study also confirms that letter recognition facility and phonemic awareness are necessary
early code requisites for beginning reading success. In contrast to the three national
studies mentioned above, Adam’s findings more fully recognised the importance of
the home and community on beginning reading preparedness, recommending the
necessity of such mediated learning opportunities as (a) developing young children’s
literacy understanding through regular reading aloud, (b) the importance of the spoken
word, (c) learning the letters of the alphabet, (d) learning how print and words ‘work’
on the page in a book, and (e) the importance of teaching children nursery rhymes as
prerequisites to learning phonemic awareness and phonics.
Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998).
This study (PRD) provides a synthesis of the available research on the best practices
in teaching reading to children in preschool through Grade 3. The intended purpose
of the study was to help prevent reading problems from arising, while at the same time
identify methods of instruction that might work best for at-risk children and for other
children demonstrating problems learning how to read. The findings and conclusion,
however, indicate that there are few approaches that are more effective with high-risk
readers compared with low-risk readers. In fact, PRD research concludes that excellent
instruction is the best intervention for all children, including the need for intensive
support with high-risk readers. Findings from the study indicate that progress in learning
to read English (or any alphabetic language) beyond the initial level depends on:
g having a working understanding of how sounds are represented alphabetically;
g sufficient practice in reading to achieve fluency with different kinds of texts;
g sufficient background knowledge and vocabulary to render written texts
meaningful and interesting;
g control over procedures for comprehension and repairing misunderstandings;
and
g continued interest and motivation to read for a variety of purposes.

20
Teaching Reading
WhereasPRD’sresearchbasicallysupportsthefindingsofitspredecessorsoutlined
above,itplacesgreaterimportanceonphonemicawarenessandphonologicalknowledge,
andtheneedtoprovidedirectinstructioninthesebasicskills.Thestudyalsoestablished
guidelines for literacy instruction beginning as early as preschool.
Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read (NRP, 2000a,b)
is perhaps the most influential investigation to date into the relative effectiveness of
different approaches to the teaching of reading. In 1997, the US Congress directed the
Director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD),
in consultation with the Secretary of Education, to establish a national panel on research
in early reading development. The panel, consisting of 14 members, known as the
National Reading Panel (NRP), was charged with conducting a thorough research study
to determine what research findings were suitable for classroom application, and to
recommend methods of dissemination. Known for its meta-analysis of findings from
the scientific, evidence-based research literature, the report was published in two
volumes: a Summary Report (NRP, 2000a), and a more comprehensivet Reports of the
Subgroups (NRP, 2000b) that presented findings and recommendations for classroom
practice. The NRP was specifically assigned to analyse the findings designated by the
National Reading Council’s report (Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998) as central to learning
to read: alphabetics, fluency and comprehension. After public hearings were conducted,
the Panel included two additional topics relating to reading instruction, namely:
teacher education and computer technology.
Five approaches to the teaching of reading were eventually examined, and an
influential report, Teaching Children to Read (NRP, 2000a) was released in December 2000.d
The report stirred much controversy among reading experts, and both critics and
supporters have been highly visible at national and international levels (e.g., Coles,
2003; Ehri & Stahl, 2001; Garan, 2001, 2002; Krashen, 2000, 2001; Manzo, 1998, 2000;
Meyer, 2003; Pressley & Allington, 1999). The report has played an important role inr
subsequent US federal policy regarding reading instruction (Manzo, 2002; Manzo &
Hoff, 2003). One of the five areas of reading research examined by the NRP was
phonics instruction. According to the NRP report:
An essential part of the process for beginners involves learning the alphabetic system,
that is, letter-sound correspondences and spelling patterns, and learning how to
apply this knowledge in their reading. Systematic phonics instruction is a way of
teaching reading that stresses the acquisition of letter-sound correspondences and
their use to read and spell words (NRP, 2000b, p. 2-89).

21
Employing a meta-analytic research methodology (see footnote 22, p. 15), the
NRP estimated the effect magnitudes of systematic phonics instruction compared to
un-systematic or no phonics instruction on learning to read, across 66 treatment-
control comparisons in 38 experimental or quasi-experimental studies. The results
indicated that while the overall effect size (ES) of phonics instruction on reading was
moderate (ES = 0.41), the positive effects persisted after instruction ended. Effects
were larger when phonics instruction began early (ES = 0.55) than after first grade
(ES = 0.27), benefiting decoding skills, word reading, text comprehension and spelling
in many readers. Phonics helped low and middle socio-economic status (SES) readers,
students for whom English was a second language, younger students at risk for
reading difficulties, and older students with reading difficulties. Synthetic phonics
and larger-unit systematic phonics programs produced a similar advantage in students’
reading achievement progress. In sum, systematic phonics instruction helped children
learn to read significantly better than all forms of control group instruction, including
whole-language. The report concluded that since systematic phonics instruction
provedtobeuniversallyeffective,itshouldbeimplementedaspartofliteracyprograms
to teach beginning reading, as well as to prevent and remediate reading difficulties
(see NRP, 2000b, p. 2-89).24
The NRP also provided evidence of how children’s reading comprehension is
developedastheybuildletter-soundlinks,vocabularyknowledgeandfluencyinreading.
Similarly, the NRP highlighted evidence of how fluency can be developed through
repeatedreadings,providedthatchildrenreceiveteacherfeedbackandencouragement.
Fluencyalsoistaughtbyhelpingchildrenlearnthevalueandimportanceofpunctuation
asitrelatestoreadingformeaning.TheNRPfurtheridentifiedspecifictextcomprehension
skillsthatenablechildrentodevelophigherorderthinkingskills,andhowtheintegration
of and comprehensive approaches to literacy enable children to develop reading for both
learning and pleasure. However, this process is not established as discrete steps but
as an integration of all the following skills via explicit instruction in: phonemic awareness,
phonics, fluency, vocabulary knowledge and text comprehension. Like other studies before
it, the NRP report emphasised that teacher professional development in literacy
instruction is crucial to children’s literacy achievements.
24
The findings of the National Reading Panel report on phonics, however, have not been without critique
and controversy (e.g., Garan, 2001; Meyer, 2003).

22
Teaching Reading
These results are supported by findings from a more recent meta-analytic study
of phonics (direct instruction) and whole-language (constructivist) approaches to the
teaching of beginning reading undertaken by Camilli, Vargas and Yurecko (2003). Theg
findings from this synthesis of 40 studies, involving a reanalysis of the data reported
earlier by the National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000a,b) summarised above, indicate that a
combination of tutoring (strategy instruction) and whole-language reading activities
(print-rich and meaning-based) yielded effect sizes at least as large as systematic
phonics alone. In addition, the findings suggest these effects are additive. That is,
provided that phonics formed the basis of initial instruction, the combined effects of
phonics and whole-language approaches yielded effect sizes (in some cases) up to
four times greater than phonics instruction alone. Camilli, Vargas and Yurecko (2003)
note that their findings for students with and without reading difficulties are consistent
with two conclusions from the NRP reports:
Programs that focus too much on the teaching of letter-sounds relations and not enough
on putting them to use are unlikely to be very effective. In implementing systematic
phonics instruction, educators must keep the end in mind and ensure that children
understand the purpose of learning letter-sounds and are able to apply their skills in
their daily reading and writing activities (NRP, 2000b, p. 2-96).
Finally, it is important to emphasize that systematic phonics instruction should be
integrated with other reading instruction to create a balanced reading program. Phonics
instruction is never a total reading program (NRP, 2000b, p. 2-97).
Camilli, Vargas and Yurecko (2003) warn that if effective instruction in reading
focuses on phonics to the exclusion of other instructional approaches, both policy
and practice are likely to be misdirected. Program administrators and teachers need
to understand that while ‘scientifically-based reading research’ supports the teaching
of foundational reading skills promoted via phonemic awareness and systematic phonics
instruction, it also supports a strong whole-language approach that provides indivi-
dualised strategy instruction, especially for students during their middle years of
schooling.25
As such, it is important that teachers not over-emphasise one aspect of a
complex process. This conclusion is consistent with the observations made in the
25
In contrast to direct instruction, which focuses primarily upon the acquisition of foundational skills (a ‘bottom-
up’ approach), strategy instruction aims to develop students’ higher-order cognitive abilities (a ‘top-down’nn
approach) via the construction of meaning through the interrogation of existing and new knowledge,
and the flexible use of cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies to foster, monitor, regulate and master
comprehension. For an outline of the utility of both direct instruction and strategy instruction approaches,
particularly for students with literacy learning difficulties, see: Ellis (2005); Purdie and Ellis (2005).

23
British report by the House of Commons Education and Skills Committee: Teaching
Children to Read (March 2005, pp. 3-4), as follows:
It is unlikely that any one method (of teaching reading) … would lead to a complete
elimination of underachievement in reading; however, it seems at present around
20% of eleven-year-olds are not reading at an age-appropriate level. We recommend
a review of the NLS [National Literacy Strategy] to determine whether its current
pre-scriptions and recommendations (re: synthetic phonics) are the best available
methodology for the teaching of reading in primary schools. Further large-scale,
comparative research on the best ways of teaching children to read, comparing synthetic
phonics ‘fast and first’ with other methods (for example analytical phonics and the
searchlights model promoted in the NLS) is necessary to determine which methods of
teaching are most effective for which children. It may be that some methods of teaching
(such as phonics) are more effective for children in danger of being left behind.
Notwithstandingtheseconclusions,findingsfromtheseven-yearstudyundertaken
by Johnston and Watson (2005a,b) clearly indicate the superior efficacy of synthetic
phonics instruction,26
and are worthy of mention here. This study was carried out in
Clackmannanshire primary schools (Scotland) in mostly disadvantaged areas, with a
fewschoolsfrommoderatelyadvantagedareas.Threetrainingprogramswereconducted
with 300 children for 16 weeks, beginning soon after entry to the first year of formal
schooling. For 20 minutes per day, children were taught either: (a) by a synthetic
phonics program; or (b) by an analytic phonics program; or (c) by an analytic phonics
plus phonological-awareness training program.
At the end of these programs, the synthetic-phonics-taught group were: (a) reading
words around seven months ahead of the other two groups; (b) were around seven
months ahead for their chronological age in reading; (c) were spelling around eight
to nine months ahead of the other groups; and (d) were again performing around
seven monthsaheadofchronologicalageinspelling.Thegrouptaughtsynthetic-phonics
also read irregular words better than the other groups, and was the only group that
could read unfamiliar words by analogy.
26
For the distinction between analytic and synthetic phonics instruction, see Glossary in the Report and
Recommendations. Note that synthetic phonics is used in Germany and Austria and is mostly taught
before children are introduced to books or reading. It involves teaching small groups of letters very
rapidly, and children are shown how letter sounds can be co-articulated to pronounce unfamiliar words.
In another version of synthetic phonics (i.e. the Hickey Multi-Sensory Language Course; Augur and Briggs
1992), the first block of letter sounds is ‘s’, ‘a’, ‘t’, ‘i’, ‘p’, ‘n’, which make up more three-letter words than any
other six letters. Children are shown many of the words that these letters generate (e.g. ‘sat’, ‘tin’, ‘pin’).

24
Teaching Reading
By the end of the children’s seventh year of primary schooling, the gains made
in reading achievement by the children who had been taught synthetic phonics during
their first year had increased six-fold, increasing from seven months to three years six
months ahead of chronological age. The gain in spelling was 4.5-fold, improving from
seven months to one year nine months ahead of chronological age. Johnston and Watson
note that although children from disadvantaged backgrounds typically had poorer
literacy skills at school entry, the children from less disadvantaged backgrounds who
hadinitiallybeentaughtsyntheticphonicswerestillperformingatorabovechronological
age on word reading, spelling and reading comprehension. Johnston and Watson
(2005b, p. 8) claim:
It can be concluded that the synthetic phonics programme led to children from lower
socio-economicbackgroundsperformingatthesamelevelaschildrenfromadvantaged
backgrounds for most of their time in primary school. It also led to boys performing
better than or as well as girls.
These results provide further support to findings from the extensive, evidence-
based research supported by the NICHD cited earlier via the extended citation from
Lyon (2003). This work is important in the context of the present review, since in response
to the question: ’Can children with reading problems overcome their difficulties?’,
Lyon responds in the affirmative.27
Consistent findings from this work indicate that
the majority of children who enter the early years of schooling at-risk of reading
difficulties can and do learn to read at average or above average levels:
… but only if they are identified early and provided with systematic, explicit, and
intensive instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary,
and reading comprehension strategies. Substantial research supported by NICHD
shows clearly that without systematic, focused and intensive interventions, the majorityt
of children rarely ‘catch-up’. Failure to develop basic reading skills by age nine predicts
a lifetime of illiteracy. Unless these children receive the appropriate instruction, more
than 74% of the children entering first grade who are at-risk for reading failure will
continue to have reading problems into adulthood. On the other hand, the early identifi-
cationofchildrenat-riskforreadingfailure,coupledwiththeprovisionofcomprehensive
early reading interventions, can reduce the percentage of children reading below the
basic level in the fourth grade (i.e. 38%) to six per cent or less (Lyon, 2003, pp. 3-4).
27
Further details about findings from the reading research supported by NICHD derive from an interview
between Dr Norman Swan and Dr Reid Lyon on ABC Radio National’s Health Report on 17 January 2005.t
A full transcript of this interview is available at: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrp // / / / / ppt//
stories/s1266657.htm/

25
Thus, the incontrovertible finding from the extensive body of local and inter-
national evidence-based reading research is that for children during the early years
of schooling, they must first master the alphabetic code via systematic, explicit, and
intensive instruction in: phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary,
and reading comprehension strategies. Because these are foundational and essential
skills for the development of competence in reading, writing and spelling, they must
be taught early, explicitly, and taught well.28
Against the background of this evidence it is interesting to note the model of
literacy acquisition initially proposed by Freebody and Luke (1990) and subsequently
refined by Luke and Freebody (1999, pp. 7-9). Despite its lack of supporting evidence-
based research, the ‘four resources’ model (which is cited below in full) is useful by
postulating that effective literacy draws on a repertoire of interdependent practices
that allow learners, as they engage in reading and writing activities, to:
1. break the code of texts by recognising and using the fundamental features
and architecture of written texts including: alphabet, sounds in words, spelling,
conventions and patterns of sentence structure and text;
2. participate in the meanings of text via understanding and composingt
meaningful written, visual and spoken texts from within the meaning systems
of particular cultures, institutions, families, communities, nation-states and
so forth;
3. use texts functionally by traversing the social relations around texts; knowing
about and acting on the different cultural and social functions that various texts
perform both inside and outside school, and knowing that these functions
shape the way texts are structured, their tone, their degree of formality and
their sequence of components; and
4. critically analyse and transform texts by understanding and acting on the
knowledge that texts are not neutral, that they represent particular views and
silence other points of view, influence people’s ideas; and that their designs
and discourses can be critiqued and redesigned, in novel and hybrid ways.
28
It is worth noting that following the ground-breaking work of Liberman (1973), a comprehensive review
of the research literature on the mental processing that underlies skilled reading and on how reading
should be taught has been undertaken by a group of leading experts in the field under the aegis of the
American Psychological Society (Rayner et al., 2001). A more general article on the same topic by these
authors was published in the following year in the March issue of Scientific American under the title How
should reading be taught (Raynert et al., 2002).

26
Teaching Reading
Luke and Freebody indicate that the underlying proposition of their model is
that all of these repertoires are variously mixed and orchestrated in proficient reading
and writing. Since the key concept in the model is necessity and not sufficiency, each
practice is necessary for literacy in new conditions, but of themselves, none of the four
practices is sufficient for literacy competence.t
Commenting on this model, Hay, Elias and Booker (2005) note: ‘Students with
reading difficulties can have persistent problems in engaging with texts in these various
ways, and teachers must be able to select and implement suitable interventions for
them’ (p. 5). However, whereas this ‘four resources’ model is widely acknowledged
and espoused among Australian teacher educators and classroom teachers, concern
has been expressed (as already mentioned) that many teachers do not have the
necessary training, knowledge and teaching strategies to provide their students with
the essential alphabetic code-breaking ‘resources’ (see, for example: Anderson et al.,
2004; Center, 2005; Coltheart, 2005b,c; de Lemos, 2002, 2004a,b; Louden et al., 2005a;
Rohl & Greaves, 2004; Westwood, 1999, 2004).
In concluding the present section related to the evidence base for effective teaching
practices during the early years, especially for children experiencing reading difficulties,
the summary provided by Hay, Elias and Booker (2005, pp. 4-5) is worthy of note.
Thissummaryappliestobothearlyandsubsequentdevelopmentofreadingcompetence
during the later years of primary and middle years of schooling. To this end, the
relevant text is reproduced below.
Learning to read
The ability to read and comprehend depends on the rapid and automatic recognition
of single words. All words are visually unfamiliar when encountered for the first time
andapowerfulstrategyinthissituationisforthestudenttousephonologicalknowledge
to identify the word. That is, students recognise the unfamiliar word by identifying
and blending its phonological (sound) elements and comparing that sound pattern
to the sound patterns of words in their oral/aural vocabulary. The beginning reader
must learn to decode some thousands of words that are initially visually unfamiliar
and to commit those visual patterns to memory.
Whereas most students achieve the necessary levels of phonological awareness, this
isnotthecaseformanystudentswithreadingdifficulties.Improvementsinphonological
skills usually result in increases in students’ ability to identify single words as well
as enhancing their spelling skills (Schlagal, 2001). There is considerable debate in the

27
literature regarding the optimal levels and intensity of phonological instruction
components in the total reading programme. The notion that any one intervention can
be a ‘one-size-fits-all’ model denies the reality of the diverse range of problems within
this group of students. Unless the student is able to read words fluently, heavy demands
are made on memory during a slow and tedious word decoding process that requires
the reader to identify each succeeding word (Spencer & Hay, 1998).As a result, memory
capacity becomes overtaxed and comprehension is detrimentally affected. By the time
these readers reach the end of a sentence, they have little or no memory of the text
information that they identified earlier. One of the advantages in re-reading text is
that the increasing familiarity of the material reduces the demands made on memory
by the decoding process, thereby allowing students to attend to the meaning.
Comprehension
Reading,however,involvesmorethantherapidandaccurateidentificationofindividual
words. Many students in the middle and upper school with reading difficulties cannot
identifyandprocesstheinformationcontainedinphrases,sentencesandrelationships
between sentences and so cannot comprehend the text. They do not understand the
purpose of reading a particular text and are unaware that they are failing to meet the
requirements of the reading task. Frequently, readers in the middle primary grades
struggle to make the transition from learning-to-read, to being independent readers
able to read to meet the various demands of the curriculum (reading to learn).
As successful readers process text, they are active, they skim the text and make
predictions, they relate ideas in text to their prior know-ledge, they construct images,
generate questions and summaries (Woolley & Hay, 2004). Furthermore, they identify
the purpose of the reading task and the main ideas in the text, monitoring their ongoing
understanding of the story or content, repairing breakdowns when comprehension
failures occur and integrating the content of the text with what they already know.
In addition, the reader monitors the effectiveness of their reading. This monitoring
is referred to as metacognitive since it refers to the reader/learner ‘thinking about
thinking’. When the goals of the reading task are not being met, the successful reader
modifies and/or substitutes strategies to remedy the situation (e.g., re-reading).
Reading strategies
There is considerable agreement among researchers that students with reading
difficulties are frequently unable to use strategies that will best enable them to achieve
the goals of the reading task (Duke & Pearson, 2002). For example, if students wish
to monitor their own learning they may choose to summarise the text and identify
the main ideas. Effective readers know what the strategies are, how to carry them

28
Teaching Reading
out and when and where to use them. Although their academically more successful
peers often develop such strategies incidentally, these strategies must be explicitly
taught to many children with reading difficulties. One contentious question concerns
whether reading comprehension instruction should be taught in or out of the context
of regular curriculum (authentic) tasks. For students with learning difficulties, another
concern is the amount of time teachers should devote to teaching a particular strategy
before aban-doning it if students fail to master it. Although some have suggested
that the teaching of a particular strategy should be reconsidered after a period as short
as two weeks, others have pointed to the difficulties associated with learning new
strategies and propose that the learning of an unfamiliar strategy can take as long as
six months and emphasise that too-early abandonment will confuse the student.
In summary, research indicates that students with learning difficulties make greater
progress when instructional interventions are multifaceted combining a range of
approaches. For example, some of the best results are achieved in intervention prog-
rammes when they include a variety of elements such as awareness of sound and
letter relationships, vocabulary development and strategy teaching (Jordan, Snow &
Porche, 2000).
For a comprehensive review of findings from the evidence-based research for
effective intervention teaching practices for students (during the middle years of
schooling) with learning difficulties in both literacy and numeracy, see: Ellis (2005);
Purdie and Ellis (2005).

29
Implications for teacher education and professional development
4. Implications for teacher education
and professional development
Quality teaching requires deep knowledge of content and extensive knowledge of
how students learn that content. It also requires pedagogical content knowledge; that
is, knowledge about how to teach the content. In the case of the teaching of reading,
quality teaching involves knowledge of how students learn to read, knowledge of how
toassessreadingproficiencyandgrowth(e.g.,Griffin&Nix,1991;Griffinetal.,19995a,b;
Rowe, 2005; Rowe & Hill, 1996), and knowledge of how to use assessment information
to apply the appropriate strategies from a repertoire of practices that are demonstrably
effective for teaching students to read. To sustain quality teaching in reading, ongoing
professional learning is essential.
The provision of opportunities for professional learning, at all stages of a teacher’s
career, is vital to building capacity in teacher professionalism – provided that such
professional learning is firmly grounded in findings from evidence-based research.
Whereas professional learning commences in pre-service teacher education, it is crucial
thatitcontinueviaongoingprofessionaldevelopmentactivities,includingparticipation
in school-based professional learning teams. Opportunities for professional learning
can take many forms, including teachers’ shared and collaborative learning in school,
work in professional learning teams, and professional development for principals and
school literacy leaders.
Findings from the evidence-based research reviewed here demonstrate that teaching
approaches based on models of explicit instruction produce significantly higher positive
effects for students with reading difficulties than other approaches. Furthermore, when
an integrated approach is adopted in which teachers have the necessary knowledge and
skills to combine the essential elements of explicit-based and meaning-based approaches,
the outcomes for students are likely to be most positive. However, in designing pre-
serviceteachereducationcourses,aswellasin-serviceprofessionaldevelopmentprograms
that build capacity in teachers to maximise the schooling outcomes for students with
learning difficulties, Spiegel’s (1998) observation concerning student and task variation
is worth noting:

30
Teaching Reading
Learners, teachers, curricula, and schools vary. Not everyone learns in the same way;
not every task requires the same strategies; not every teacher has the same talents;
not every school has the same combination of learners and teachers. Rather than
trying to shoot each child with the same silver bullet, we need to recognise, celebrate,
and work with this wonderful diversity. A balanced literacy program allows each
teacher to select what is right for each child and each task and to change the emphasis
easily.Abalanced literacy approach is flexible, and that flexibility empowers teachers
to tailor what they do for each child each day.
Because not all children, tasks, and teachers are the same, teachers must have a full
repertoireofstrategiesforhelpingchildrendevelopliteracyandaclearunderstanding
of how and when to implement each strategy (p. 118).
As indicated by Purdie and Ellis (2005), although some educators have argued
that a pure or radical form of constructivism is the key to addressing students’ difficulties
inlearning,suchassertionsbasedonanysingleparadigmneedtobetreatedwithextreme
caution. At the same time, the continuing need for stimulation and critical evaluation
engendered by theoretical separation and competing models should be recognised
andvalued.AnintegrationofknowledgeandsuccessfulpracticesiscriticalinAustralian
schools – provided that such knowledge and practices are firmly grounded in findings
from sound evidence-based research. For teachers of students with learning difficulties,
such knowledge and practice relate to:
(a) literacy (and numeracy) processes per se (e.g., the reading process involves both
knowledge of the written code and an ability to extract meaning from the
written code (Center, 2005; Foorman et al., 1998; Wheldall & Beaman, 2000);
and
(b) students’ developmental, cognitive, affective, social-behavioural processes and
auditory processing abilities (i.e., students’ ability to hold, sequence and
process accurately what is heard) have strong effects on their literacy progress,
attentive behaviours in the classroom and general wellbeing (Rowe, Pollard
& Rowe, 2003, 2005; Rowe & Rowe, 1999; Rowe, Rowe & Pollard, 2004).
Thus, content of both pre-service and in-service teacher education should be
informed by a thorough knowledge of what works,t why it works, and how it works.
To this end, the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), with funding
supportfromtheAustralianGovernmentDepartmentofEducation,ScienceandTraining
(DEST), has developed a trial teacher professional development package entitled:
Working-Out What WorksWW (WWOW) Training and Resource Manual: A teacher professional

31
Implications for teacher education and professional development
development program designed to support teachers to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes
for students with learning difficulties (Hoad et al., 2005). The contents of this trial professional
development (PD) program are informed by findings from the evidence-based research
reviewed by Purdie and Ellis (2005), and in the present report as such findings relate
to literacy teaching and learning.
Key findings from this research, particularly in respect of reading, consistently
indicate that although systematic phonics approaches are significantly more effective
thannon-systematicapproachesforallchildren(includingthosewithreadingdifficulties),
children should at least be provided with systematic phonics instruction as part of an
integratedreadingprogramthatincludeswhole-language,meaning-centredapproaches
(e.g., Camilli et al., 2003; Center, 2005; Ehri et al., 2001; NRP, 2000a,b). In one sense,
however, the evidence presented in this literature review can only alert tor what workst
for all students, including those with reading difficulties. It is not possible to provide
the detail of what andt how teachers should implement effective teaching and learning
strategies. Nevertheless, although the present review has focused on summarising
the findings from research reports of effective teaching strategies, many of those reports
provide valuable information of how the strategies were implemented, or have referred
to other sources containing relevant detail.
Such limitations aside, there are key components that differentiate successful
strategies from less successful ones, with important implications for teacher education
courses, as well as in-service professional development programs. At the very least,
such courses and PD programs should be designed to assist teachers of all students,
including students with learning difficulties to:
g Use psychometrically sound diagnostic assessment tools that are capable of:
(a) testing essential reading skills to identify students’ learning needs, with
specific implications for practical pedagogical interventions (e.g., Center
2005; Clay, 2002; Munro, 1997, 2000b)29
and (b) locating students’ achievement
progress over time on qualitatively-described, developmental measurement
scales (an example of this approach to monitoring student achievement progress
has been outlined by Masters, Meiers & Rowe, 2003 – an adaptation of which
is attached as an Appendix to this review).
29
Two assessment scales from Clay (2002) that are used widely for such purposes include: Hearing and
RecordingSoundsinWords(HRSW)andConceptsAboutPrint(CAP).Furtherdiagnosticassessmentapproachest
are provided by Center (2005, chp. 17, pp. 221-236).

32
Teaching Reading
g Engage with the evidence-based research literature on what works for students
with and without reading difficulties, and understand what constitutes evidence.
g Avoid faulty assumptions about the nature of the skill to be taught (e.g., reading
acquisition process) by being informed from the extensive body of related
knowledge available from cognitive science research (e.g., Bates et al., 2004;
Center, 2005; Coltheart, 2005a-c; Jackson & Coltheart, 2001; Rayner et al., 2001,
2002); that is, draw on: (a) the expert knowledge of reading researchers; and
(b) education systems advisors (if available).
g Via structured observation, develop a deep understanding of how particular
students best learn specific skills (e.g., Comber & Kamler, 2005).
g Develop a thorough and up-to-date knowledge of subject-matter knowledge,
together with child and adolescent development.
g Avoid or question educational fads and ideologies that promote a philosophy or
pedagogical approach that is not grounded in findings from evidence-based
research.
g Be knowledgeable about a range of approaches from which to make informed
pedagogical choices, depending on student and context characteristics.
g Practise using a range of approaches.
g Work in partnership with parents, other teachers, researchers and health
professionals, to share expertise and seek solutions for particular problems
(see: Fielding-Barnsley & Purdie, 2003; Rowe & Rowe, 1999).

33
Substantive issues and concluding comments
5. Substantive issues and
concluding comments
Instructional effectiveness and teacher quality
Despite focus on the relative effectiveness of instructional strategies in the present
review, it is important to stress that pedagogical practices and instructional strategies
per se are not independent of the teachers who deliver them to students, whether or
not those students experience learning difficulties and externalising behaviour problems.
That is, educational effectiveness for all students is crucially dependent on the provision
of quality teaching by competent teachers (especially in reading instruction) who areg
supported by capacity-building towards the maintenance of high teaching standards
via strategic professional development at all levels of schooling (Darling-Hammond
& Bransford, 2005; Hattie, 2003; 2005; Hill & Crévola, 2003; Kennedy, 2001; OECD, 2001,
2005b;Rowe,2003b,2004,b,c,d).30
Suchoutcomes,however,callformajorreformrequiring
an investment in teacher quality that can then be used to change the ways in which
students are taught and learn. Sadly, many educational reforms stop short of changing
what happens beyond the classroom door, and thus fail to deliver improved teaching
and learning outcomes for teachers and students, respectively. Rather, real reform
directed at improving outcomes for all students calls for substantial change in the quality
of teaching and learning provision, but unless there is total commitment to new ways
of working, reform efforts soon falter.
30
It should be noted that teaching quality and teacher professional development constitute major foci of thet
2000 US No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy (for specific details, see: Center on Education Policy 2003;
LaTrice-Hill, 2002; US Department of Education, 2002). The importance of these elements have been
particularly evident in findings from a longitudinal evaluation of the Restart Initiative in Victorian
government secondary schools undertaken and reported by Rowe and Meiers (2005). Reading pre-
assessment was used to identify Restart students, who were the lowest achieving group, and a ‘control’t
group, whose performance was slightly higher than the identified Restart group. Key findings from thet
evaluation of the Restart Initiative from 2002 to 2004 indicate that significant and sustained gains in
reading achievement progress were achieved by students taught by Restart teachers, many of whom
had been trained in strategic reading instruction techniques, and supported by professional development
in explicit reading instruction strategies provided by Dr John Munro – a reading research specialist at
the University of Melbourne.

34
Teaching Reading
Professor John Hattie from the University ofAuckland (New Zealand) has provided
compelling evidence for the importance of quality teaching via a meta-analyticg
synthesis of the relevant evidence-based research, drawn from an extensive review of
literature and a synthesis of over half a million studies (Hattie et al., 1995; Hattie,
Biggs & Purdie, 1996). In drawing from this research, Hattie (2003, pp. 2-3) asserts:
When I review the initiatives of the previous Ministries of Education up to a couple
of years ago, and when I review the policies in so many New Zealand schools, I note
thatthefocusofdiscussionsaremoreabouttheinﬂuencesofthehome,andthestructures
of schools. We have poured more money into school buildings, school structures, we
hear so much about reduced class sizes and new examinations and curricula, we ask
parents to help manage schools and thus ignore their major responsibility to help
co-educate, and we highlight student problems as if students are the problem whereas
it is the role of schools to reduce these problems. Interventions at the structural,
home, policy, or school level is like searching for your wallet which you lost in the
bushes, under the lamppost because that is where there is light. The answer lies
elsewhere – it lies in the person who gently closes the classroom door and performs
the teaching act – the person who puts into place the end effects of so many policies,
who interprets these policies, and who is alone with students during their 15,000
hours of schooling.
I therefore suggest that we should focus on the greatest source of variance that can
make the difference – the teacher. We need to ensure that this greatest inﬂuence is
optimised to have powerful and sensationally positive effects on the learner. Teachers
can and usually do have positive effects, but they must have exceptional effects. We
need to direct attention at higher quality teaching, and higher expectations that
students can meet appropriate challenges – and these occur once the classroom door
is closed and not by reorganising which or how many students are behind those
doors, by promoting different topics for these teachers to teach, or by bringing in
more sticks to ensure they are following policy.
It is important to note that the ‘myth’ of educational effectiveness is grounded in a
widespread failure to understand the fundamental distinction between structure and
function in school education (e.g., Zvoch & Stevens, 2003). Whereas a key function of
schools is the provision of quality teaching and learning experiences that meet the
developmental and psychosocial needs of students is dependent on funding and
organisational structures that support this function, the danger is a typical proclivity
on the part of teachers and educational administrators to stress structure (e.g., single-

35
sex schooling, class size,31
etc.) and pedagogical strategies at the expense of function
(quality teaching and learning). Unfortunately, such emphases are indicative of a
pervasiveignoranceaboutwhatreallymattersinschooleducation(i.e.,qualityteaching
and learning), and the location of major sources of variation in students’ educational
outcomes (i.e., the classroom). It seems we need to be constantly reminded that
schools and their structural arrangements are only as effective as the those responsible
for making them work (school leaders and teachers) – in cooperation with those for whom
they are charged and obligated to provide a professional service (students and parents).
Unfortunately, there continue to be several barriers to reform that: (1) perpetrate pre-
vailing ‘myths’of‘schooleffectiveness’(or‘ineffectiveness’);and(2)generatemisinformed
and/or misdirected rationalisations of students’ differential experiences and outcomes
of schooling. Perhaps the most pervasive of these is the widespread tendency to place
undue credence on various outmoded forms of biological and social determinism which
assume that individual children – whether they be boys or girls – do poorly or well
at school because of developmental differences, because they are ‘dumb’ or ‘smart’ or
come from ‘disadvantaged’ or ‘advantaged’ backgrounds. In this context, Edmonds
(1978, p. 33) long ago made the following insightful comment:
The belief that family background is the chief cause of the quality of student
performance … has the effect of absolving educators of their professional responsibility
to be instructionally effective.
Thelongstandingandwidespreadacceptanceofthesebeliefsandtheirexpectations
at the teacher, school and system levels have little substantive justification in the lightt
of findings from emerging evidence-based research. These findings provide strong
31
Foralmost70years,thecontentiousissuessurroundingthelinkbetweenclasssizeandstudents’educational
outcomes have been hotly debated and extensively researched – particularly in the US and Britain.
Reviews of this research, including rigorous meta-analytic syntheses, consistently indicate negligible
improvements to student achievement outcomes, even when class sizes of 30 students are reduced to 15.
The weight of evidence suggests that reductions in class size do not yield improvements to student
learning independent of changes to teachers’ classroom teaching practices, nor to students’ behaviours in
the classroom (e.g., Rowe, 2004b,c). That is, the personal and professional characteristics of the teacher
appear to be key factors associated with notable gains in students’ learning outcomes. Slavin (1990)
argues that reducing class sizes is a low-yield and expensive policy option. Rather, he suggests that providing
additional teachers for one-to-one tutoring in the early years of schooling yields far greater improvements
in student achievement and is more cost effective. For relevant reviews of ‘class size’ issues and research,
see: Blatchford and Mortimore (1994); Glass (1992); Glass and Smith (1979); Glass et al. (1982); Goldstein
and Blatchford (1997); Harder (1990); Hattie (1987); Hill and Holmes-Smith (1997); Prais (1996); Robinson
(1990); Slavin (1989, 1990).

36
Teaching Reading
support for the proposition that it is the identity of the class/teacher groups to which
students are assigned that is a key determinant of their perceptions and experiences
of schooling, as well as their achievement progress in literacy and attentive-inattentive
behaviours in the classroom. For example, Professor David Monk cites a number of
studies in support of the observation that:
One of the recurring and most compelling findings within the corpus of production
function research is the demonstration that how much a student learns depends on
the identity of the classroom to which that student is assigned (Monk, 1992, p. 320).
Similarly, based on multilevel analyses of students’ results on the Year 10 General
Certificate of School Education and final year A-levels assessments in the UK, Tymms
(1993, pp. 292-293) commented:
In every case (subjects) more variance was accounted for by the departmental level
(than between schools), and the proportion of variance accounted for at the class level
was more than for the departmental level. A general principle emerges from data
such as these and that is that the smaller the unit of analysis and the closer one gets
to the pupil’s experience of education, the greater the proportion of variance explicable
by that unit. In accountability terms the models indicate that teachers have the greatest
influence [author’s emphasis].
More recently, and consistent with the longitudinal research findings reported
by Hill and Rowe (1996, 1998) and by Rowe and Hill (1998), Cuttance (1998, pp. 1158-
1159) concluded:
Recent research on the impact of schools on student learning leads to the conclusion
that 8-15% of the variation in student learning outcomes lies between schools with a
further amount of up to 55% of the variation in individual learning outcomes between
classroomswithinschools.Intotal,approximately60%ofthevariationintheperformance
of students lies either between schools or between classrooms, with the remaining
40% being due to either variation associated with students themselves or to random
influences.
Likewise, from the related British research, Muijs and Reynolds (2001, p. vii) report:
Alltheevidencethathasbeengeneratedintheschooleffectivenessresearchcommunity
shows that classrooms are far more important than schools in determining how
children perform at school.

37
In sum, teachers can and do make a difference – regardless of students’ social
backgrounds and ‘intake’ characteristics, and whether or not they have learning
difficulties.As Slavin and colleagues’ evaluations of the ‘Success forAll’ program among
low SES schools in Baltimore and Philadelphia have shown, students who, regardless
of their gender, socio-economic or ethnic backgrounds (including ‘compositional
effects’) are taught by well-trained, strategically focused, energetic and enthusiastic
teachers, are fortunate indeed (Slavin, 1996, 2005; Slavin et al., 1994, 1997).
In contrast to mainstream, ideologically-driven opinion, the empirical evidence
indicates that the proportion of variation in students’ achievement progress due to
differences in student background (~9-15%) is considerably less important than variation
associated with class/teacher membership (~30-55%).32
Rather, the key message to be
gained from educational effectiveness research is that quality teachers and their
professional development do make a difference, and that it is not so much what students
bring with them that really matters, but what they experience on a day-to-day basis
in interaction with teachers and other students in classrooms. In providing advice to
parents of children with ADHD about schooling, Barkley and Pfiffner (1995a, pp. 206-
207) suggest:
Teachers frequently respond to the challenging problems exhibited by children with
ADHD by becoming more controlling and directive. Over time, their frustrations with
these difficult children make them more negative in their interactions as well. While
wearenotsurehowanegativechild-teacherrelationshipaffectsthelong-termadjustment
of ADHD children, experience tells us that it can certainly worsen the already poor
academic and social achievement of these children, reduce the motivation to learn
and participate in school, and lower self-esteem. All of this could ultimately result in
school failure and dropping out.
A positive teacher-student relationship, to the contrary, improves academic and
social adjustment, not only in the short term but also in the long term. Adults who
had been hyperactive as children have reported that a teacher’s caring attitude, extra
attention and guidance were ‘turning points’ in helping them to overcome their
childhood problems.
The fact is that the single most important ingredient in your ADHD child’s success at school
is your child’s teacher [author’s emphasis]. It is not the name of the school programr
your child is in, the school location, whether it is private or public, whether or not it
32
See: Cuttance (1998); Hattie (2003, 2005); Hill and Rowe (1996, 1998); Louden et al. (2005b); Rowe (2004b,c,d);
Rowe and Hill (1998).

38
Teaching Reading
is relatively wealthy, or even the size of the class. It is ﬁrst and foremost your child’s
teacher, the teacher’s experience with ADHD, and his or her willingness to provide
the extra effort and understanding your child will require to have a happy and
successful school year.
Concluding comments
So what matters most? Certainly not student compositional characteristics such as
learning difﬁculties, educational disadvantage, disruptive student behaviours, nor school
structuralarrangementsofinteresttoschooleffectivenessresearchers,buttheimperative
ofqualityteachingandlearningprovision,supportedbyg teachingstandardsandongoing
teacher professional development focused on evidence-based practices that are
demonstrably effective in maximising students’ learning outcomes and achievement
progress. Since the most valuable educational resource available to any school is its
teachers, the need for a refocus of the prevailing educational effectiveness policy and
research agenda (e.g., Scheerens, 1993; Scheerens & Bosker, 1997) to one that focuses
on quality teaching andg learning provision is obvious (OECD, 2001, 2005a,b).g
The fact that teaching quality has strong positive effects on students’ experiences
of schooling, including their attitudes, behaviours and achievement outcomes, is of
vital importance with profound implications.At the very basis of the notion of educational
effectiveness, however, is what students themselves nominate as key characteristics of
effective teachers, and are particularly worthy of note. For example, evidence cited in
the NSW Report of the Review of Teacher Education (Ramsey, 2000, p. 12) indicates that
students want their teachers to:
g know and understand their subject(s);
g treat each student as an individual;
g make learning the core of what happens in the classroom; and
g manage distractions that disrupt and prevent learning.
Similarly, from the work of Rowe and Rowe (2002), Slade (2002),33
Slade and Trent
(2000), students consistently report that ‘good’ teachers are those who:
33
From extensive interview data, Slade (2002, pp. 175-177) provides a list of 68 characteristics and practices
of ‘good teachers’ reported by students. The chapter in which this list is provided (Chapter 10) is
compelling reading that should be prescribed for pre-service teacher education courses.

39
g ‘care about me and encourage me’;
g ‘know what they are doing, are enthusiastic about what they teach, and want
me to share in their enjoyment of learning’; and
g ‘are fair’ [this is a particularly salient issue for boys at any school-age level inrr
consequence of what is demonstrably shown to be a highly developed sense
of ‘injustice’].
While it is not feasible to legislate such quality teaching into existence, the fact that
teachers and teaching make a difference should provide impetus and encouragement
to those concerned with the crucial issues of educational effectiveness, quality teaching andg
teaching standards, to at least invest in quality teacher recruitment, pre-service education
andprofessionaldevelopment.Inthisregard,theworkandcontributionsofIngvarson
and of Bond et al. (2000) are of vital importance. For example, in the Australian context,
Ingvarson has long been an advocate for the necessity of establishing teaching standards,
the certification of highly accomplished teachers, as well as strategic teacher professional
development that are linked to both status and salary recognition (Ingvarson, 1998a,b,c,t
1999a,b, 2000, 2001a,b, 2002a,b, 2003, 2005; Kleinhenz & Ingarson 2004).
Finally, the summary of findings from evidence-based research for the effects of
quality teaching on student outcomes provided by Linda Darling-Hammond at Stanfordg
University (US) are pertinent and require emphasis:
The effect of poor quality teaching on student outcomes is debilitating and cumulative.
… The effects of quality teaching on educational outcomes are greater than those
that arise from students’ backgrounds. … A reliance on curriculum standards and
statewide assessment strategies without paying due attention to teacher quality
appears to be insufficient to gain the improvements in student outcomes sought. …
The quality of teacher education and teaching appear to be more strongly related to
student achievement than class sizes, overall spending levels or teacher salaries
(Darling-Hammond, 2000, p. 3).
For the sake ofAustralia’s students and teachers, let alone its social and economic
future (or those of any nation), the enduring hope is that current emphases on the
importance of quality teaching and teacher quality that continue to be granted strong
support by the Australian Government, will be evident in the reality of major
improvements to teacher professionalism and students’ learning, behaviour, health
and wellbeing outcomes. But such reality will not be realised until teachers are at least
in receipt of quality pre-service education and in-service professional development

40
Teaching Reading
support that are commensurate with their essential status in terms of the invaluable
contributions they are able to make to the enrichment of students’ wellbeing and life
chances, as well as to capacity-building for the nation’s social and economic futureg 34
.
Perhaps there is a need to be reminded that: ‘Ultimately, most of what we do in school
education – including our efforts to improve administrative structures and the qualitye
of the teaching-learning environment – can be judged in terms of their implications
for enhanced student learning’ (Masters, 1994, p. 2).
34
For example, see the offerings in: Cochran-Smith and Zeichner (2005); Darling-Hammond and Bransford
(2005).

41
References
References
ABS (1997). Aspects of literacy: Assessed literacy skills. Canberra, ACT: Australian Bureau
of Statistics (4228.0). Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/
0/887AE32D628DC922CA2568A900139365?Open.
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Adams, M.J. (1991). Why not phonics and whole language? In W. Ellis (Ed.), All language
and the creation of literacy (pp. 40-52). Baltimore, MD: Orton Dyslexia Society.
Ainley, J., & Fleming, M. (2000). Learning to read in the early primary years: A report from
the Literacy Advance Research Project to the Catholic Education Commission of Victoria.
Canberra, ACT: Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Ainley, J., & Fleming, M. (2003). Five years on: Literacy advance in the early and middle
primary years: A report from the Literacy Advance Research Project to the Catholic
Education Commission of Victoria. Canberra, ACT: Department of Employment,
Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Ainley, J., Fleming, M., & McGregor, M. (2002). Three years on: Literacy advance in the
early and middle primary years. Melbourne: Catholic Education Commission of Victoria.
Anderson, R.C., Hiebert, E.H., Scott, J.A., & Wilkinson, I.A.G. (1985). Becoming a Nation
of Readers: The Report of the Commission on Reading. Washington, DC: National
Institute of Education.
Anderson, V., Bowey, J., Bretherton, L., Brunsdon, R., Castles,A., Coltheart, M., Coltheart,t
V., Cupples, L., de Lemos, M., Fielding-Barnsley, R., Fletcher, J., Heath, S., Hogben,
J., Iacono, T., Joy, P., McArthur, G., Newell, P., Nickels, L., Smith-Lock, K., Stuart,
G.W., Wheldall, K., Byrne, B., Hempenstall, K., Leito, S., Pammer, K., & Prior, M.
(2004, March). Reading instruction in Australian schools: An ‘open’ letter to Dr Brendan
Nelson, Australian Government Minister for Education, Science and Training.Available
at: http://www.rrf.org.uk/the%20australian%20scene.htm.
APA (1994). DSM-IV: Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th
ed.).
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

42
Teaching Reading
Augur, J., & Briggs, S. (1992). Hickey Multi-Sensory Language Course. London: Whurr
Publishers Ltd.
Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.
Barkley, R.A., & Pfiffner, L.J. (1995a). Off to school on the right foot: Managing your
child’s education. In R.A. Barkley, Taking charge of ADHD: The complete authoritative
guide for parents (pp. 206-221). New York: Guilford.
Barkley, R.A., & Pfiffner, L.J. (1995b). Enhancing education at school and at home: Methods
for success from kindergarten through Grade 12. In R.A. Barkley, Taking charge of
ADHD: The complete authoritative guide for parents (pp. 222-239). New York: Guilford.
Bates, T.C., Castles, A., Coltheart, M., Gillespie, N., Wright, M., & Martin, N.G. (2004).
Behaviourgeneticanalysesofreadingandspelling.Acomponentprocessesapproach.
Australian Journal of Psychology, 56, 115-126.
Blatchford, P., & Mortimore, P. (1994). The issue of class size for young children in
schools: What can we learn from research? Oxford Review of Education, 20, 411-428.
Bond, G.I., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first-grade reading
instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 5-142.
Bond, L., Smith, T., Baker, W., & Hattie, J.A. (2000). The certification system of the National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards: A construct and consequential validity study.
Center for Educational Research and Evaluation: Greensboro, NC.
Brunsdon,R.(2005).Assessmentandtreatmentofreadingdisorders:Acognitiveneuropsychological
perspective.Keynoteaddresspresentedatthe‘LearningAboutLearningDifficulties’
conference, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, NSW, 1-2 September, 2005.
Caldwell, B.J. (2004). Re-imagining the self-managing school. London: Specialist Schools Trust
Cambourne, B.L. (2002). Literature-based/constructivist approaches to reading and
language arts instruction. In A.E. Farstrup and S.J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has
to say about reading instruction (3rd edition). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Camilli, G., Vargas, S., & Yurecko, M. (2003). Teaching Children to Read: The fragile link
between science and federal education policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
11(15). Retrieved [July 16, 2003] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n15/p // p / p / /.

43
References
CCCH (2004). “Let’s Read” literature review. Parkville, VIC: Centre for Community Child
Health. Available at: www.rch.org.au/ccch/researcg / / h.
Center on Education Policy (2003). State and federal efforts to implement the No Child Left
Behind Act. Washington, DC: Author.
Center, Y. (2005). Beginning reading: A balanced approach to reading instruction in the first three
years at school. Sydney, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Center, Y., Freeman, L., & Robertson, G. (2001). The relative effect of a code-oriented
andameaning-orientedearlyliteracyprogramonregularandlowprogressAustralian
students in Year 1 classrooms which implement Reading Recovery. International
Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 48(2), 207-232.
Chall, J.S. (1967). Learning to read: The Great Debate. New York: McGraw Hill.
Clay,M.M.(1985).Theearlydetectionofreadingdifficulties(3rd
ed.).Auckland,NZ:Heinemannnn
Education.
Clay, M.M. (2002). An observation survey of early literacy achievement (2t nd
ed.). Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann Education.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K.M. (Eds.) (2005). Studying teacher education: The
report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Coles, G. (2003). Reading the Naked Truth. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Coltheart, M. (2005a, September). Understanding reading and spelling difficulties. Keynote
addresspresentedatthe‘LearningAboutLearningDifficulties’conference,Westmead
Hospital, Sydney, NSW, 1-2 September 2005.
Coltheart, M. (2005b). Quality teaching and the ‘literacy debate’. Professional Educator, 4(1), 5.
Coltheart, M (2005c). Direct, explicit, systematic teaching of phonics is essential in teaching
reading. Submission to the National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (No.
377). Macquarie University. Available for download at: http://www.dest.gov.au/p // g /
schools/literacyinquiry/ y q y//.
Comber, B., & Kamler, B. (2005). Turn-around Pedagogies: Literacy interventions for at-risk
students. Newtown, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association.

44
Teaching Reading
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.) (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design
of social futures. Melbourne: Macmillan.
Cowen, J.E. (2003). A balanced approach to beginning reading instruction: A synthesis of
six major U.S. research studies. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Cuttance, P. (1998). Quality assurance reviews as a catalyst for school improvement in
Australia.InA.Hargreaves,A.Lieberman,M.FullanandD.Hopkins(Eds.),International
handbook of educational change, Part II (pp. 1135-1162). Dordrecht: Kluwer Publishers.
Cuttance, P. (2001). The impact of teaching on student learning. In K.J. Kennedy (Ed.),
Beyond the rhetoric: Building a teaching profession to support quality teaching (pp. 35-
55). Deakin West, ACT: Australian College of Education; College Year Book 2001.
Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. London: Routledge-Falmer.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of
state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1); at: http://epaa.asu.p // p
edu/epaa/v8n/ p / 1.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.) (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing
world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Davies, F.W.J. (1973). Teaching reading in early England. London: Pitman and Sons Ltd.
DEET(1991).Australia’slanguage:TheAustralianLanguageandLiteracyPolicy.Department
of Employment, Education & Training, Canberra:Australian Government Publishing
Service.
de Lemos, M. (2002). Closing the gap between research and practice: Foundations for the
acqui-sition of literacy. Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Available at: http://www.acer.edu.au/research/reports/Literacy_numeracy_p // / / p / y_ y_
reviews.html.
deLemos,M.(2004a).ReadinginstructioninAustralianschools:Explanatorynotestoaccompany
Letter to Dr Brendan Nelson, March 2004. Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for Edu-
cational Research.Available at: http://www.rrf.org.uk/the%20australian%20scene.htp // g / mtt .
de Lemos, M.M. (2004b). Effective strategies for the teaching of reading: What works,
and why. In B.A. Knight and W. Scott (Eds.), Learning difﬁculties: Multiple perspectives.
Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education.

45
References
DEETYA(1998).Literacyforall:ThechallengeforAustralianschools.Canberra,ACT:Department
of Employment, Education, Training & Youth Affairs. Available for download in PDF
andRTFformatsat:http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/schools/literacy&numeracy/p // g / / / y y/
ppublications/lit4all.htm/ .
Department of Education, Victoria (1997a). Teaching readers in the early years. South
Melbourne, VIC: Longman.
Department of Education, Victoria (1997b). Professional development for teachers: Reading.
South Melbourne, VIC: Longman.
DeWatt, D., Berkman, N.D., Sheridan, S., Lohr, K.N., & Pignone, M.P. (2004). Literacy and
health outcomes: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of General Internal
Medicine, 19(12), 1228-1239.
Duke,N.K.,&Pearson,P.D.(2002).Effectivepracticesfordevelopingreadingcomprehension.
InA.E.FarstrupandS.J.Samuels(Eds.),Whatresearchhastosayaboutreadinginstruction
(3rd ed.), (pp. 205-243). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Edmonds, R. (1978). A discussion of the literature and issues related to effective schooling. Paper
presented to the National Conference on Urban Education, CEMREL, St. Louis, US.
Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Stahl, S.A., & Willows, D.M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction
helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 393-447.
Ehri, L. & Stahl, S. (2001). Beyond the smoke and mirrors: Putting out the fire. Phi Delta
Kappan, 83(1), 17-20.
Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., & Moody, S. (2000). How effective are one-to-one
tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk of reading failure? A
meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,
605-619.
Elkins, J. (2002). Learning difficulties/disabilities in literacy. Australian Journal of Language
and Literacy, 25(3), 11-18.
Ellis, L.A. (2005). Balancing approaches: Revisiting the educational psychology research on
teaching students with learning difficulties. Australian Education Review No. 48.
Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research.

46
Teaching Reading
Farrelly, J., & Standish, J. (1996). Consensus statement on ADHD: A summary of the
discussion by the delegates to the CEDP scientiﬁc retreat on ADHD. The Australian
Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 13, 79-81.
Fielding-Barnsley, R., & Purdie, N. (2003). Early interventions in the home for children
at risk of reading failure. Support for Learning, 18, 77-82.
Fielding-Barnsley, R., & Purdie, N. (2005). Teachers’ attitude to and knowledge of
metalinguistics in the process of learning to read. Asia-Paciﬁc Journal of Teacher
Education, 33(1), 65-76.
Foorman,B.R.,Francis,D.J.,Fletcher,J.M.,&Schatschneider,C.(1998).Theroleofinstruction
in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90(1), 37-55.
Freebody, P. & Luke, A. (1990). Literacies’ programmes: Debates and demands in
cultural context. Prospect: a Journal of Australian TESOL 11, 7-16.
Fullan, M.F. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M.F. (1994). Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies for educational
reform. In R.F. Elmore and S.H. Fuhrman (Eds.), The governance of curriculum (pp.
186-202). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Fullan, M.F. (2000). The return of large-scale reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1(1), 5-8.
Garan, E.M. (2001). Beyond the smoke and mirrors:Acritique of the National Reading
Panel report on phonics. Phi Delta Kappan, March, 500-506.
Garan, E.M. (2002). Resisting reading mandates. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Garton,A.F., & Pratt, C. (1989). Learning to be literate: The development of spoken and written
language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Glass, G.V. (1992). Class size. In M.C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research
(pp. 164-166). New York: Macmillan.
Glass, G.V., Cahen, L.S., Smith, M.L., & Filby, N.N. (1982). School class size: Research and
policy. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Goldstein, H., & Blatchford, P. (1997). Class size and educational achievement. New York:
UNESCO.

47
References
Griffin, P.E., & Nix, P. (1991). Educational assessment and reporting: A new approach.
Sydney, NSW: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Griffin, P.E., Smith, P., & Burrill, L. (1995a). The Literacy Profile Scales: Towards effective
assessment and reporting. Clifton Hill, VIC: Robert Anderson & Associates.
Griffin, P.E., Smith, P., & Burrill, L. (1995b). The American Literacy Profiles. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Haggerty,R.J.,Roghmann,K.,&Pless,I.B.(Eds.)(1975).ChildHealthandtheCommunity.
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Harder, H. (1990). A critical look at reduced class size. Contemporary Education, 62, 28-30.
Hattie, J.A. (1987). Identifying the salient facets of a model of student learning: A
synthesis of meta-analyses. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(2), 187-212.
Hattie, J.A. (2003, October). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence?
Backgroundpapertoinvitedaddresspresentedatthe2003ACERResearchConference,
Carlton Crest Hotel, Melbourne, Australia, October 19-21 2003. Available at: http://p //
www.acer.edu.au/workshops/documents/Teachers_Make_a_Difference_Hattie.pdf/ p / / _ _ _ _ p .
Hattie, J.A. (2005). What is the nature of evidence that makes a difference to learning?
Research Conference 2005 Proceedings (pp. 11-21). Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council
for Educational Research [ISBN 0-86431-684-4]. Available at: http://www.acer.edu.ap // u.
Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student
learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 99-136.
Hattie, J.A., Clinton, J., Thompson, M., & Schmidt-Davies, H. (1995). Identifying highly
accomplished teachers: A validation study. Greensboro, NC: Center for Educational
Research and Evaluation, University of North Carolina.h
Hay, I., Elias, G., & Booker, G. (2005). Students with learning difficulties in relation to
literacy and numeracy. Schooling Issues Digest No. 2005/1. Canberra, ACT: Australian
Government Department of Education, Science and Training. Available at: http://p //
www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/schooling_g / / _ /p _ / g_
issues_digest/schooling_issues_digest_learning_difficulties.ht_ g / g_ _ g _ g_ m.
Heckman, J.J. (2000). Invest in the very young. Working Paper, Harris Graduate School
of Public Policy Studies. Available at: http://www.HarrisSchool.uchicago.edp // g u.

48
Teaching Reading
Heckman, J.J. (2005). Lessons from the technology of skills formation. National Bureau of
Economic Research, Working Paper #1142, February 2005.
Hill, P.W., & Crévola, C.A.M. (2003). The literacy challenge in Australian primary
schools. In V. Zbar and T. Mackay (Eds.), Leading the education debate (pp. 100-111).
Melbourne, VIC: Incorporated Association of Registered Teachers of Victoria
[ISBN 1 876323 79 5].
Hill, P.W., & Holmes-Smith, P. (1997). Class size: What can be learnt from the research?
Paper commissioned by the Department of Education (Victoria). Melbourne, VIC:
Centre for Applied Educational Research, the University of Melbourne.
Hill, P.W., & Rowe, K.J. (1996). Multilevel modelling in school effectiveness research.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7(1), 1-34.
Hill, P.W., & Rowe, K.J. (1998). Modelling student progress in studies of educational
effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(3), 310-333.
Hinshaw, S.P. (1992a).Academic underachievement, attention deficits and aggression:
Comorbidity and implications for intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 60yy , 893-903.0
Hinshaw,S.P.(1992b).Externalizingbehaviorproblemsandacademicunder-achievement
in childhood and adolescence: Causal relationships and underlying mechanisms.
Psychological Bulletin, 111, 127-155.
Hinshaw, S.P. (1994). Attention deficits and hyperactivity in children. Developmental
Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry Series, Volume 29. London: Sage.
Hoad, K-A., Munro, J., Pearn, C., Rowe, K.S., & Rowe, K.J. (2005). Working Out What Works
(WOWW) Training and Resource Manual: A teacher professional development program
designed to support teachers to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes for students
with learning difficulties. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government Department of
Education, Science and Training; and Australian Council for Educational Research.
House of Commons Education and Skills Committee (2005, March). Teaching children
to read: Eighth Report of Session 2004-05. London, UK: The Stationery Office Limited.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment Education and
Training (1992). The literacy challenge: Strategies for early intervention for literacy and
learning for Australian children. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

49
References
Ingvarson, L. (1998a). Professional development as the pursuit of professional standards:
The standards-based professional development system. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 14(1), 127-140.
Ingvarson, L.C. (1998b). Assessing English teachers for professional certification: A
challenge for the Australian Association for the Teaching of English. English in
Australia, 122, 31-45.
Ingvarson,L.C.(1998c).Teachingstandards:foundationsforthereformofprofessional
development. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan and D. Hopkins (Eds),
International Handbook of Educational ChangeHH . Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Ingvarson, L.C. (1999a). The power of professional certification. Unicorn, 25(2), 52-70.
Ingvarson, L.C. (1999b). Science teachers are developing their own standards. Australian
Science Teachers Journal, 45(4), 27-34.
Ingvarson, L.C. (2000). Control and the reform of professional development. In J. Elliott
(Ed.), Images of Educational Reform. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Ingvarson, L.C. (2001a). Strengthening the profession: A comparison of recent reforms in
the USA and the UK. Canberra, ACT: Australian College of Education Seminar Series.
Ingvarson, L.C. (2001b). Developing standards and assessments for accomplished
teaching:AcomparisonofrecentreformsintheUSAandtheUK.InD.Middlewood
and C. Cardno (Eds.), Developments in Teacher Appraisal. London: Routledge.
Ingvarson, L. (2002a). Development of a National Standards Framework for the teaching
profession.An Issues paper prepared for the MCEETYATaskforce on Teacher Quality
andEducationalLeadership.Camberwell,VIC:AustralianCouncilforEducational
Research.
Ingvarson, L. (2002b). Building a learning profession. Paper prepared for the Australian
College of Educators. Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Ingvarson, L. (2003). A professional development system fit for a profession. In V.
Zbar and T. Mackay (Eds.), Leading the education debate: Selected papers from a decade
oftheIARTVSeminarSeries(pp.391-408).Melbourne,VIC:IncorporatedAssociation
of Registered Teachers of Victoria (IARTV).
Ingvarson, L.C. (Ed.) (2005). Assessing teachers for professional certification: The National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

50
Teaching Reading
Jackson, N.E., & Coltheart, M. (2001). Routes to reading success and failure: Toward an
integrated cognitive psychology of atypical reading. Hove, UK: Psychology Press,
Taylor & Francis.
Johnston, R.S., & Watson, J.E. (2005a). The effects of synthetic phonics teaching on reading and
spelling attainment: A seven-year longitudinal study. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish
Education Executive.
Johnston, R.S., & Watson, J.E. (2005b).Aseven-year study of the effects of synthetic phonics
teaching on reading and spelling attainment. Insight 17. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish
EducationExecutive.Availableat:http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/education/p // g / y / /
ins17-00.aspp.
Jordan, G.E., Snow, C.E., & Porche, M.B. (2000). Project EASE: The effects of a family
literacy project on kindergarten students’ early literacy skills. Reading Research
Quarterly, 35, 524-546.
Kennedy, K.J. (Ed.) (2001). Beyond the rhetoric: Building a teaching profession to support
quality teaching. Deakin West, ACT: Australian College of Education; College Year
Book 2001.
Kleinhenz, E., & Ingvarson, L. (2004). Teacher accountability in Australia: Current
policiesandpracticesandtheirrelationtotheimprovementofteachingandlearning.
Research Papers in Education, 19(1), 31-49.
Krashen, S. (2000). Reading Report: One Researcher’s ‘Errors and Omissions.’ Education
Week, 19(35), 48-50.
Krashen, S. (2001). More smoke and mirrors: Acritique of the National Reading Panel
(NRP) report on ﬂuency. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(2), 118-122.
LaTrice-Hill, T. (2002). No Child Left Behind Policy Brief: Teaching quality. Denver, CO:
Education Commission of the States.Available at: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghousep // g/ g //.
Liberman, I.Y. (1973). Segmentation of the spoken word and reading acquisition.
Bulletin of the Orton Society, 23, 65-77.
Lokan, J., Greenwood, L., & Cresswell, J. (2001). 15-up and counting, reading, writing,
reasoning: how literate are Australia’s students: the PISA 2000 survey of students’
reading, mathematical and scientiﬁc skills. Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for
Educational Research.

51
References
Louden, W., Chan L.K.S., Elkins, J., Greaves, D., House, H., Milton, M., Nichols, S.,
Rivalland, J., Rohl, M., & van Kraayenoord, C. (2000). Mapping the territory. Primary
students with learning difficulties: Literacy and Numeracy (Volumes 1-3). Canberra,
ACT: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Louden,W.,Rohl,M.,Gore,J.,Greaves,D.,Mcintosh,A.,Wright,R.,Siemon,D.,&House,
H. (2005a). Prepared to teach: An investigation into the preparation of teachers to teach
literacyandnumeracy.Canberra,ACT:AustralianGovernmentDepartmentofEducation,n
Science and Training.
Louden, W., Rohl, M., Barrat-Pugh, C., Brown, C., Cairney, T., Elderfield, J., House, H.,
Meiers, M., Rivalland, J., & Rowe, K.J. (2005b). In teachers’ hands: Effective literacy
teaching practices in the early years of schooling. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government
Department of Education, Science and Training.
Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1999). A map of possible practices: Further notes on the four
resources model. Practically Primary, 4(2), 5-8.
Lyon, G.R. (2003). Reading disabilities: Why do some children have difficulty learning
to read? What can be done about it? Perspectives, 29(2). Available from the
International Dyslexia Association’s website at: www.interdys.ory gg.
Manzo, K.K. (1998). New National Reading Panel faulted before it’s formed. Education
Week, 27(23), 18.
Manzo, K.K. (2000). Reading Panel urges phonics for all in K-6. Education Week, 19(32),
1 & 14.
Manzo, K.K. (2002). New panels to form to study reading research. Education Week,
21(20), 5.
Manzo, K.K., & Hoff, D.J. (2003). Federal influence over curriculum exhibits growth.
Education Week, 22(21), pp. 1, 10 & 11.
Masters, G.N. (1994, March). Setting and measuring performance standards for student
achievement.Paperpresentedattheconference“PublicInvestmentinSchoolEducation:
Costs and Outcomes”, sponsored by The Schools Council and The Centre for Economic
Policy Research, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 17 March, 1994.
Masters, G.N. (1999, December). Towards a national school research agenda. Keynote
address presented at the joint NZARE/AARE Conference, Melbourne.

52
Teaching Reading
Masters, G.N., & Forster, M. (1997a). Mapping literacy achievement: Results of the 1996
National School English Literacy Survey. A report on behalf of the Management
Committee for the National School English Literacy Survey. Canberra, ACT:
Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Masters, G.N., & Forster, M. (1997b). Literacy standards in Australia. Canberra, ACT:
Commonwealth of Australia.
Masters, G.N., Meiers, M., & Rowe, K.J. (2003). Understanding and monitoring children’s
growth. Educare News, 136, 52-53.
MCEETYA(1999). The Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-
First Century. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth
Affairs.Availableat:http://www.curriculum.edu.au/mceetya/nationalgoals/natgoals.htp// / y / g / ghh mtt .
MCEETYA (2005). National Report on Schooling in Australia 2003, Preliminary paper,
National Benchmark results for Reading, Writing and Numeracy, Years 3, 5 and 7.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. Available
for download in PDF format at:http://cms.curriculum.edu.au/anr2003/pdfs/2003_p // / /p / _
benchmarks3_5_7.pd_ _ p f.
McInerney, D.M. & McInerney, V. (1998). Educational psychology: Constructing learning
(2nd ed.). Sydney: Prentice Hall.
Meyer, R.J. (2003). Captives of the script – killing us softly with phonics: A critical
analysis demonstrates that scripted phonics programs hold students and teachers
as curriculum hostages. Rethinking Schools Online, 17(4). Available at: www.
rethinkingschoolg s.orgg.
Moats,L.C.(2000).Wholelanguageliveson:Theillusionof“balanced”readinginstruction.
Available at: http://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/reading/whole_language_lives_p // g/ _ p / g/ _ g g _ _
on.html.
Monk, D.H. (1992). Education productivity research: An update and assessment of its
role in education ﬁnance reform. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 307-332.
Munro, J. (1997). Assessing a child’s level of phonological knowledge. Camberwell, VIC:
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Munro, J. (1998). Phonological and phonemic awareness: Their impact on learning to
read prose and to spell. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 3(2), 15-21.

53
References
Munro, J. (1999). The phonemic-orthographic nexus. Australian Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 4(3), 27-34.
Munro, J. (2000a). Phoneme awareness span: A neglected dimension of phonemic
awareness. Australian Developmental and Educational Psychologist, 17(1), 76-89.
Munro, J.K. (2000b). Assessing and teaching phonological knowledge. Camberwell, VIC:
Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2001). Effective teaching: Evidence and practice. London: Paul
Chapman Publishing.
NCEE, National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
New South Wales Parliament, Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social
Issues. (2003). Realising potential: Final report of the Inquiry into Early Intervention for
ChildrenwithLearningDifficulties.Sydney:LegislativeCouncilStandingCommittee
on Social Issues.
NRP, National Reading Panel. (2000a). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for readingo
instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development (NICHD).
NRP, National Reading Panel (2000b).Alphabetics Part II: Phonics Instruction (Chapter
2) in Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-
based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction. Reports of the subgroups. Rockville, MD: National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Clearinghouse.
Oberklaid, F. (1988). Australian paediatricians and the new morbidity: A national
survey of changing paediatric practice patterns. Australian Paediatric Journal, 24, 5-9.
Oberklaid, F. (2004). The new morbidity in education: The paediatrician’s role. Journal
of Paediatrics and Child Health, 40, 250-251.
O’Keeffe, M.J., & McDowell, M. (2004). Bridging the gap between health and education:
Words are not enough. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 40, 252-257.
OECD (2001). Teachers for tomorrow’s schools: Analysis of the World Education Indicators,
2001 edition. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and
UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

54
Teaching Reading
OECD (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework: Reading, mathematical and scientific
literacy. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
OECD(2005a).Educationataglance:OECDindicators2005.Paris:OrganisationforEconomic
Cooperation and Development.
OECD (2005b). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers.
Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Pearson, P.D. (2000). Reading in the 20th century. In T. Good (Ed.), American education:
Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education (pp. 152-208). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Prais, S.J. (1996). Class size and learning: The Tennessee Experiment – what follows?
Oxford Review of Education, 22, 399-413.
Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced instruction. New
York: Guilford Press.
Pressley,M.,&Allington,R.(1999).Concludingreflections:Whatshouldreadingresearch
be the research of. Issues in Education, 5(1), 165-175.
Purdie,N.,&Ellis,L.(2005).Areviewoftheempiricalevidenceidentifyingeffectiveinterventions
and teaching practices for students with learning difficulties in Years 4, 5 and 6. A report
prepared for the Australian Government Department of Education, Science and
Training. Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Available for download in PDF format at: http://www.acer.edu.au/research/p // / /
programs/documents/lp g / / iteraturereview.pdp f.
Ramsey, G. (2000). Quality matters – revitalising teaching: Critical times, critical choices.
Report of the Review of Teacher Education. Sydney, NSW: NSW Department of
Education and Training [ISBN 073107 8842].
Rayner, K., Foorman, B.R., Perfetti, C.A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M.S. (2001) How
psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the
Public Interest, 2(2), 31-74.
Rayner, K., Foorman, B.R., Perfetti, C.A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M.S. (2002). How
should reading be taught. Scientific American, 286(3), 84-91.
Robinson, G.E. (1990). Synthesis of research on the effects of class size. Educational
Leadership, April, 80-90.

55
References
Rohl, M., & Greaves, D. (2004, June). What’s happening with pre-service preparation of
teachers for literacy and numeracy teaching in Australia. Paper presented at the Sixth
British Dyslexia Association (BDA) international conference, London, UK, 14 June
2004.Available for download at: http://www.bdainternationalconference.org/20p // g/ 04//
presentationsp //.
Rothman, S. (2002). Achievement in literacy and numeracy by Australian 14 year-
olds, 1975-1998. Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth, Research Report No. 29.
Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research. Available at:
http://www.acer.edu.au/research/projects/lsay/reports/lsay29.pdfp // / /p j / y/ p / y p
Rowe, K.J. (1991). The influence of reading activity at home on students’ attitudes
towardsreading,classroomattentivenessandreadingachievement:Anapplication
of structural equation modelling. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(1), 19-35.
Rowe, K.J. (2003a). Program for Students with Disabilities: Achieving effective outcomes. A
consultancy report to the Evaluation Branch, Evaluation and Audit Division,
Office of Portfolio Integration, Department of Education and Training (Victoria).
Rowe, K.J. (2003b). The importance of teacher quality as a key determinant of students’
experiencesandoutcomesofschooling.Backgroundpapertoinvitedaddresspresented
at the 2003ACER Research Conference, Carlton Crest Hotel, Melbourne, 19-21 October
2003. Available in PDF format at: http://www.acer.edu.au/research/programs/p // / /p g /
learningprocess.htmgp l.
Rowe, K.J. (2004a). Educating boys: Research in teacher and school effectiveness, with
practical pedagogical implications. Learning Matters, 9(2), 3-11.
Rowe, K.J. (2004b). In good hands? The importance of teacher quality. Educare News,
149, 4-14.
Rowe, K.J. (2004c,August). The importance of teaching: Ensuring better schooling by building
teacher capacities that maximize the quality of teaching and learning provision – implications
of findings from the international and Australian evidence-based research. Background
paper to invited address presented at the Making Schools Better summit conference,r
Melbourne Business School, the University of Melbourne, 26-27 August 2004.
AvailableinPDFformatfromACER’swebsiteat:http://www.acer.edu.au/researchp // / //
programs/learningprocess.htmp g / gp l.

56
Teaching Reading
Rowe, K.J. (2004d). Invited submission to Inquiry into the Sex Discrimination Amendment
(Teaching Profession) Bill 2004, by the Australian Senate Legal and Constitutional Legis-
lation Committee. Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Available in PDF format on the Australian Senate’s website at: http://www.aph.p // p
gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctteg / / / g _ // and at: http://www.acer.edu.au/research/p // / /
Rowe, K.J., & Hill, P.W. (1998). Modeling educational effectiveness in classrooms: The use
of multilevel structural equations to model students’ progress.f Educational Research
and Evaluation, 4(4), 307-347.
Rowe, K.J., & Meiers, M. (2005). Evaluation of the Restart Initiative in Victorian Government
secondary schools 2002-2004. A research and evaluation report to the Targeted
Initiatives Unit, Student Learning Division, Department of Education and Training,
Victoria. Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Rowe,K.J.,&Rowe,K.S.(1992).Therelationshipbetweeninattentivenessintheclassroom
and reading achievement (Part B): An Explanatory Study. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31(2), 357-368.
Rowe, K.J., & Rowe, K.S. (1998, June). Modeling the overlap between students’ attentive-
inattentive behaviors in the classroom and their literacy progress. Monograph of invited
paper/poster presented at the First International Conference on Child &Adolescent
Mental Health, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, June 2-6 1998. Melbourne,
VIC: Centre for Applied Educational Research and Department of Paediatrics, the
University of Melbourne.
Rowe, K.J., & Rowe, K.S. (1999). Investigating the relationship between students’
attentive-inattentive behaviors in the classroom and their literacy progress.e International
Journal of Educational ResearchJJ , 31(1-2), 1-138 (Whole Issue).
Rowe, K.J., & Rowe, K.S. (2000). Literacy and behavior: Preventing the shift from what
shouldbean‘educationalissue’towhathasbecomeamajor‘healthissue’.International
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 7 (Supplement 1), 81-82.7
Rowe, K.J., & Rowe, K.S. (2002). What matters most: Evidence-based ﬁndings of key factors
affecting the educational experiences and outcomes for girls and boys throughout their
primary and secondary schooling. Invited supplementary submission to House of
RepresentativesStandingCommitteeonEducationandTraining:InquiryIntotheEducation
of Boys (MIMEO). Melbourne, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research,
and Department of General Paediatrics, Royal Children’s Hospital. Available in
PDFformatassubmissionNo.111.1at:http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/p // p g / / /
edt/eofb/index.ht/ / m.

57
References
Rowe, K.S., Pollard, J., & Rowe, K.J. (2003). Auditory processing: Literacy, behaviour and
classroom practice. Speech Pathology Australia: ACQuiring Knowledge in Speech,
Language and Hearing, 5e (3), 134-137.
Rowe, K.S., Pollard, J., & Rowe, K.J. (2005). Literacy, behaviour and auditory processing:
Does teacher professional development make a difference? Background paper to Rue
Wright Memorial Award presentation at the 2005 Royal Australasian College of
Physicians Scientiﬁc Meeting, Wellington, New Zealand, 8-11 May 2005. Available
for download in PDF format at: http://www.acer.edu.au/research/programs/p // / /p g /
learningprocessgp .html.
Rowe, K.S., Rowe, K.J., & Pollard, J. (2004). Literacy, behaviour and auditory processing:
Building ‘fences at the top of the cliff’ in preference to ‘ambulance services’ at the
bottom.ResearchConference2004Proceedings(pp.34-52).Camberwell,VIC:Australian
Council for Educational Research [ISBN 0-86431-755-7]. Available for download in
PDF format at: http://www.acer.edu.au/research/programs/learningprocess.htmp // / /p g / gp l.
Sasson, G.M. (2001). The retreat from inquiry and knowledge in special education.
Journal of Special Education, 34(4), 178-193.
Sawyer, M.G.,Arney, F.M., Baghurst, P.A., Clark, J.J., Graetz, B.W., Kosky, R.J., Nurcombe,
B., Patton, G.C., Prior, M.R., Raphael, B., Rey, J., Whaites, L.C., & Zubrick, S.R. (2000).
Child and adolescent component of the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing:
The mental health of young people in Australia. Canberra, ACT: Mental Health and
Special Programs Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care
[ISBN 0 642 44686 5].
Scheerens, J. (1993). Basic school effectiveness research: Items for a research agenda.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 4(1), 17-36.
Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Schlagal, B. (2001). Traditional, developmental and structured language approaches
to spelling: Review and recommendation. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 147-176.
Selley, N. (1999). The art of constructivist teaching in primary school. London: Fulton.
Silverstein, M., Iverson, L., & Lozano, P. (2002).An English-language clinic-based literacy
program is effective for a multilingual population. Pediatrics, 109, e76.

58
Teaching Reading
Slade, M. (2002). Listening to the boys: Issues and problems influencing school achievement
and retention. Series: Flinders University Institute of International Education Research
Collection, Number 5. Adelaide, SA: Shannon Research Press.
Slade, M., & Trent, F. (2000). What the boys are saying: An examination of the views
of boys about declining rates of achievement and retention. International Education
Journal, 1(2), 201-229.
Slavin, R.E. (1989). Class size and student achievement: Small effects of small classes.
Educational Psychologist, 24, 99-110.
Slavin,R.E.(1990).Classsizeandstudentachievement:Issmallerbetter?Contemporary
Education, 62, 6-12.
Slavin, R.E. (1996). Education for all. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Slavin, R.E. (2005). Evidence-based reform: Advancing the education of students at risk. Report
prepared for Renewing Our Schools, Securing Our Future: A National Task Force
on Public Education (A joint initiative of the Center for American Progress and the
Institute for America’s Future). Available at: http://www.americanprogress.org/sitep // p g g/ //.
Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., Dolan, L.J., Wasik, B.A., Ross, S.M., & Smith, L.J. (1994).
Whenever and wherever we choose: The replication of ‘Success for All’. Phi Delta
Kappan, 75, 639-647.
Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., Dolan, L.J., Wasik, B.A., Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J., & Dianda, M.
(1997). Success for All: A summary of research. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk, 1, 41-76.
Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Spencer, R., & Hay, I. (1998). Initial reading schemes and their high frequency words.
Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 21, 222-233.
Spiegel, D. (1992). Blending whole language and direct instruction. The Reading Teacher,
46, 38-44.
Spiegel, D.L. (1998). Silver bullets, babies and bath water: Literature response groups
in a balanced literacy program. The Reading Teacher, 52, 114-124.
Strickland, D.S. (1998). Teaching phonics today: A primer for educators. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.

59
References
Thomson,S.,Cresswell,J.,&DeBortoli,L.(2004).Facingthefuture:Afocusonmathematical
literacy among Australian 15-year-old students in PISA 2003. Camberwell, VIC:
Tunmer, W.E., & Chapman, J.W. (2003). The Reading Recovery approach to preventive
early intervention. Reading Psychology, 34, 337-360.
Tymms, P. (1993). Accountability – can it be fair? Oxford Review of Education, 19, 291-299.
USDepartmentofEducation(2002).NoChildLeftBehind:Adesktopreference.Washington,
DC:Author.Availableat:http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbreference/p // g / / / / /
index.html
van Kraayenoord, C.E., & Paris, S.G. (1994). Literacy instruction inAustralian primary
schools. The Reading Teacher,r 48(3), 218-228.
Vaughn,S.,Gersten,R.,&Chard,D.J.(2000).TheunderlyingmessageinLDintervention
research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67(1), 99-114.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London:
Falmer Press.
Westwood, P. (1999). Constructivist approaches to mathematical learning: A note of
caution. In D. Barwood, D. Greaves , and P. Jeffrey. Teaching numeracy and literacy:
Interventions and strategies for ‘at risk’ students. Coldstream, Victoria: Australian
Resource Educators’ Association.
Westwood, P.S. (2003a). Commonsense methods for children with special educational needs
(4th edition). London: Routledge-Falmer.
Westwood, P.S. (2003b). Reading and learning difficulties: Approaches to teaching and assessment.
Westwood, P.S. (2003c). Numeracy and learning difficulties: Approaches to teaching and
assessment. Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Westwood, P.S. (2004). Learning and learning difficulties: A handbook for teachers.
Wheldall, K., & Beaman, R. (1999). An evaluation of MULTILIT: Making up for lost time
in literacy. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth Department of Education, Training
and Youth Affairs.

60
Teaching Reading
Wilson, B. (2005, September). Unlocking potential. Paper presented at the 2005 ANZSOG
conference, University of Sydney, 29 September 2005.
Woolley G., & Hay, I. (2004). Using imagery as a strategy to enhance students’
comprehension of read text. In B.A. Knight and W. Scott (Eds.), Learning difﬁculties:
Multiple perspectives (pp. 85-98). Frenchs Forrest, NSW: Pearson Australia.
Wray, D., & Medwell, J. (2001). Teaching literacy effectively. London: Routledge-Falmer.
Zvoch, K, & Stevens, J.J. (2003). A multilevel, longitudinal analysis of middle school
math and language achievement. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 11(20).
Retrieved 11 December 2004, from: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n20p // p / p / /.

61
Appendix
Appendix
Assessment and reporting of learning progress:
The importance of monitoring growth35
The fundamental notion of growth
Noconceptismorecentraltotheworkofteachersthantheconceptofgrowth.Aseducators
we use many different terms to describe cognitive, affective and personal growth,
including learning, development,t progress and improvement. However we describe it, the
concept of individual growth lies at the heart of our work as a profession. It underpins
oureffortstoassistlearnerstomovefromwheretheyaretowheretheycouldbe:todevelop
higher levels of reading ability, broader social skills, deeper scientiﬁc understandings,
more advanced problem solving skills, and greater respect for the rights of others.
Closely linked to the concept of individual growth is our fundamental belief that
all learners are capable of progressing beyond their current levels of attainment –
including those with learning difﬁculties. As educators we understand that children
of the same age are at different stages in their learning and are progressing at different
rates. Nonetheless, we share a belief that every child is on a path of development. The
challenge is to understand each learner’s current level of progress and to provide
opportunities likely to facilitate further growth.
Aprofessional commitment to supporting growth requires a deep understanding
of growth itself. What is the nature of progress in an area of learning? What are typical
paths and sequences of student development? What does it mean to improve? What
can be watched for as indicators of progress, and what needs to be done to maximise
progress? Teachers who are focused on supporting and monitoring the long-term
growth of individuals have well-developed understandings of how learning in an
area typically advances and of common obstacles to progress—tacit understandings
grounded in everyday observations and experience, and perhaps also informed by
theory and research.36
35
Adapted from Masters, Meiers and Rowe (2003).
36
For a longitudinal, essentially qualitative study of factors affecting children’s educational progress
during the early years of schooling, see: Hill et al. (1998, 2002).

62
Teaching Reading
The assessment and monitoring of progress
Monitoring individual learners and their progress over time requires assessments of
students’ progress on well-constructed, common, empirical scales (or quantitative
‘maps’) that are qualitatively described. The use of such ‘maps’ enables the monitoring
of both individuals and groups across the years of schooling (and sometimes beyond
school). Such ‘maps’ and their reporting products (see Figure 1) provide deeper under-
standings of learning progress than can be obtained from ‘cross-sectional snap-shots’
that merely assess the achievements of different students at different times. Moreover,
the‘maps’areamajoraidinmonitoringprogresswithstudents,aswellascommunicating
with parents and other teachers.
Further, by tracking the same individuals across a number of years it is possible
to identify similarities in learners’ patterns of learning and achievement progress.
Assessments of this kind show that, in most areas of school learning, it is possible to
identify typical patterns of learning, due in part, no doubt, to natural learning sequences
(the fact that some learning inevitably builds onto and requires earlier learning), but
also due to common conventions for sequencing school learning and teaching.
The fact that most students make progress through an area of learning in much
the same way makes group teaching possible. However, not all children learn in precisely
the same way, and some children appear to be markedly different in the way they
learn. An understanding of typical patterns of learning facilitates the identiﬁcation and
appreciation of individuals who learn in uniquely different ways, including those
with learning difﬁculties.
The utility of progress ‘maps’
Based on the notion of developmental assessment,t 37
a ‘map’ of typical progress through an7
area of learning provides a useful framework for measuring, describing and monitoring
growth over time at the individual and group levels, as illustrated in Figure 1. Such
‘maps’ make explicit what is meant by growth (or progress) and introduce the possibility
of plotting and studying the growth trajectories for both individuals and groups of
learners.
37
See: Forster, Mendelovits and Masters (1994); Masters (2004); Masters and Forster (1996a,b, 1997).

63
Appendix
Figure 1. A growth map of achievement progress in literacy showing individual and
norm-referenced growth against descriptions of domain-referenced criteria

64
Teaching Reading
38
For specific details of this ongoing study, see: Meiers (1999a,b, 2000); Meiers and Anderson (2001);
Meiers and Forster (1999); Meiers and Rowe (2002); Stephanou, Meiers and Forster (2000). Note also, the
LLANS assessment instruments were used in Louden et al. (2005).
39
See: Embretson and Hershberger (1999); Masters (1982); Masters and Keeves (1999); Masters and Wright
(1997); Rowe (2002, 2005); Wilson (2005); Wright and Mok (2000).
40
Note that the initial sample of 1000 children was drawn from a national, randomly-selected sample of
100 government Catholic and independent schools.
Figure 1 illustrates the progress ‘map’ of literacy learning during the early years
of school – developed as part of the Longitudinal Literacy and Numeracy Study (LLANS).y 38
Using modern measurement theory (or more particularly, Rasch measurement),39
the
map describes how the literacy skills of participating children typically developed
over their first few years of school.40
Growth in literacy is described on the left of each
map, from early skills at the bottom to more advanced competencies at the top. These
summary descriptions are valuable in that they provide a ‘window’ that ‘opens-up’
tomoredetailedinformationaboutwhatstudentshaveactuallyachieved–asdocumented
in portfolio records, class/school-based assessments, etc.
TheliteracyachievementprogressofchildrenintheLLANSstudyonfiveoccasions
is shown on the right of Figure 1. For example, the map shows that: (a) on average,
children’s literacy skills developed steadily during their first three years of school;
and (b) the achievement progress of Angelico Jefferson indicates less-than-expected
progress during the second and third years of school.
Concluding comments
The LLANS example provided here illustrates three important advantages of monitoring
children’s learning and achievement progress over time. First, the focus is on under-
standing learning as it is experienced by the learners. Through such approaches an
attempt is made to understand the nature of growth within an area of learning across
theyearsofschool.Theuseof‘progressmaps’oflearningtomonitorandstudychildren’snn
progress stands in contrast to more traditional curriculum-based approaches that
impose a list of learning objectives (or outcomes) that students are expected to learn,
followed by assessments to determine the extent to which these objectives have been
achieved.
Second, empirically-based ‘maps’ of learning provide a basis not only for charting
individual and group progress, but also for studying influences on children’s learning
trajectories – similar to those reported by Hill et al. (1998, 2002). The potential of such

65
Appendix
‘maps’ lies in the opportunity they provide to identify and understand the nature of
factors associated with successful learning and rapid progress, as well as those that
work to impede student growth. Third, such ‘maps’ provide a valuable framework
for: (a) actively engaging students in the monitoring of their own learning progress;
(b) reporting to parents; and (c) communicating with other teachers in the same school
or those in different schools.
Clearly, these advantages point to important implications for how educational
progress is measured, monitored and reported over time. In contrast, when evidence
about a student’s achievement is reduced to a yes/no decision concerning a year-level
performance standard, valuable information about that student’s learning is lost.
Rather, the improvement of students’ school learning and its reporting depends on
anunderstandingofthevariationinstudents’levelsofdevelopmentandachievement;
a willingness to monitor and report individual growth in an area of learning across
their years at school; and a commitment to tailoring learning activities to students’
current interests and levels of achievement regardless of their age or grade levels.
Appendix References
Embretson, S.E., & Hershberger, S.L. (Eds.) (1999). The new rules of measurement: What
every psychologist and educator should know. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
Forster, M., Mendelovits, J., & Masters, G.N. (1994). Developmental Assessment Resource for
Teachers (DARTEnglish).Camberwell,VIC:AustralianCouncilforEducationalResearch.s
Hill, S., Comber, B., Louden, W., Rivalland, J., & Reid, J-A. (1998). 100 children go to school.
Hill, S., Comber, B., Louden, W., Rivalland, J., & Reid, J-A. (2002). 100 children turn 10.
Louden, W., Rohl, M., Barrat-Pugh, C., Brown, C., Cairney, T., Elderﬁeld, J., House, H.,
Meiers, M., Rivaland, J., & Rowe, K.J. (2005). In teachers’ hands: Effective literacy teaching
practices in the early years of schooling. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government
Department of Education, Science and Training.
Masters, G.N. (1982). ARasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149-174.7

66
Teaching Reading
Masters, G.N. (2004, October). Continuity and growth: Key considerations in educational
improvement and accountability. Background paper to keynote address presented at
the joint Australian College of Educators and Australian Council for Educational Leaders
national conference, Perth, Western Australia, 6-9 October 2004.
Masters, G.N., & Forster, M. (1996a). Developmental Assessment. Assessment Resource
Kit (ARK). Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Masters, G.N., & Forster, M. (1996b). Progress Maps. Assessment Resource Kit (ARK).
Masters, G.N., & Forster, M. (1997). Mapping literacy achievement: Results of the National
School English Literacy Survey. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth Department of
Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Masters, G.N., & Keeves, J.P. (Eds.) (1999). Advances in measurement in educational research
and assessment. New York: Pergamon (Elsevier Science).
Masters, G.N., & Wright, B.D. (1997). The partial credit model. In W.J. van der Linden
and R.K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of item response theory. New York: Springer.
Masters, G.N., Meiers, M., & Rowe, K.J. (2003). Understanding and monitoring children’s
growth. Educare News, 136 (May 2003), 52-53.
Meiers, M. (1999a, September). A national longitudinal literacy and numeracy study.
Paper presented at the 24th
Annual Congress of theApplied LinguisticsAssociation
of Australia, Perth, Western Australia.
Meiers, M. (1999b, July and November). The Longitudinal Literacy and Numeracy Study.
Paper presented to Targeting Excellence, the 1999 Early Years of Schooling P-4
Conferences, Melbourne, Victoria.
Meiers, M. (2000). Assessing literacy development and achievement: The importance
of classroom assessments. Australian Language Matters, 8 (3), Aug/Sept 2000.
Meiers, M., & Anderson, P. (2001, December). Better than beige: Designing assessment tasks
to enhance learning and measure growth in the early years of school. Paper presented at the
AARE Conference, Fremantle, WA, December, 2001.
Meiers, M., & Forster, M. (1999, October). The Longitudinal Literacy and Numeracy
Study(LLANS).PaperpresentedattheACERResearchConference1999,Improving
Literacy Learning, Adelaide.

67
Appendix
Meiers, M., & Rowe, K.J. (2002, December). Modelling children’s growth in literacy and
numeracy in the early years of schooling. Paper presented at the 2002 Annual
Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, University of
Queensland, December 1-5, 2002 [Paper Code: MEI02176].
Rowe, K.J. (2002). The measurement of latent and composite variables from multiple items
or indicators: Applications in performance indicator systems. Background paper to
keynote address presented at the RMIT Statistics Seminar Series, October 11, 2002.
Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research. Available at:
http://www.acer.edu.au/research/programs/learningprocess.htmp // / /p g / gp l.
Rowe, K.J. (2005). Evidence for the kinds of feedback data that support both student
andteacherlearning.ResearchConference2005Proceedings(pp.131-146).Camberwell,
VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research [ISBN 0-86431-684-4]. Available
in PDF format from ACER’s website at: http://www.acer.edu.au/research/p // / /
Stephanou, A., Meiers, M., & Forster, M. (2000, October). Constructing scales for reporting
growth in numeracy: the ACER Longitudinal Literacy and Numeracy Studyrr . Paper presented
at the ACER Research Conference 2000, Brisbane, 15-17 October 2000.
Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An Item Response Modelling approach. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Wright,B.D.,&Mok,M.(2000).Raschmodelsoverview.JournalofAppliedMeasurement,
1 (1), 83-106.

Literature review

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked (17)

Similar to Literature review (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Literature review