Promising Practice Profiles

KU Early Language and Literacy Initiative (KU ELLI)

The full Promising Practice Profile is available for download in PDF format (1.0 MB)

Project practice

Augmenting the knowledge and skills of early childhood staff to foster children's language and literacy development in low-income families

Project undertaken by

KU Children's Services (formerly known as the Kindergarten Union of New South Wales), Sydney, NSW

Start date

April/May 2005

Focal areas

Early learning and care

Program

Invest to Grow (ItG)

Issue

The KU Early Language and Literacy Initiative (KU ELLI) was established to develop a model of early language and literacy intervention based on the resourcing of low-income parents/carers and of early childhood staff.

The need for such intervention was identified by staff at two KU preschools in the Campbelltown Local Government Area (LGA), Sydney, who had expressed concern about:

There is evidence that many early childhood educational programs are falling short in providing the kind of support for language and early literacy development that has been shown to be especially beneficial to children from low-income families (Dickinsin, McCabe, & Essex, 2006; Raban & Ure, 2000).

A review of the research literature suggested that intervention based on resourcing the parents/carers and the staff had the potential to increase children's involvement in language and early literacy experiences in the preschool years and to decrease the literacy achievement gap in the first year of school between low and middle-to-upper income children.

Program context

The KU ELLI project was designed to build on and extend the language and early literacy experiences that were provided for children and their families at two KU preschools (Centres A and B) in the Campbelltown LGA. Staff from both of these preschools had been influenced by the family-centred ideas of Dunst and his associates (1988), and the relationship-based model of adult-child interaction developed by Dolby and her associates (2004). Although each centre offered a high-quality service to the children and their families, there were identifiable differences including:

Centre differences were identified collaboratively with the staff and the strengths of each centre were highlighted to provide a baseline for the development and implementation of KU ELLI in each setting. One of the earliest steps undertaken in this process was to meet with the staff to determine the initial implementation objectives for themselves, the children and for the families.

The KU ELLI client groups are:

The aims are to help children to meet the demands of school entry through competence in literacy by having the early childhood staff provide significant language and early literacy experiences, as well as help parents to engage their young children in ways that promote the development of language and literacy.

Practice description

The focus of this Promising Practice Profile is the work undertaken with the staff of the two centres to enhance their knowledge of language, early literacy and associated curriculum development as well as their skills in interacting responsively with the children so as to promote their language and literacy development.

The key KU ELLI practices used to achieve the targeted objective and outcomes were:

The following section provides detailed information about each of these practices and how they have contributed to achieving positive outcomes for the staff, for the children and for their families.

Resource/consultancy support

There is general agreement that "deep" learning or stable changes in teaching practice require a considerable period of time, and that the participants usually need different but continuing forms of support or interactions throughout the process. Using constructivist and enquiry based action oriented projects appears to offer the best chance of lasting change. Such an approach begins with what is known and familiar and scaffolds learning so that new learning occurs as a result of actions identified by the participants as being priorities for themselves, and/or the children and families with whom they are working (White, 2007). The evaluation of these actions provides an important opportunity for re-visiting the identified priorities, determining effectiveness and identifying new ways to proceed.

To assist with this process, two specialist project staff were engaged to work alongside the staff of the two centres targeted for the KU ELLI Project. The staff appointed were a speech pathologist and a literacy support specialist. They were each employed for 16 hours per week, at least 8 hours of which was to be spent in the centres. Their role was to:

Specialist consultancy support was also offered to the staff of one centre to help them identify ways in which they could be more emotionally available and responsive to a child who they were finding unresponsive and disruptive.

Staff development and action research

Staff development

One of the key outcomes for the KU ELLI project is to promote sustainability for enhanced evidence based practices within the pre-schools and their communities. Staff development was seen to be the key to the initial achievement of this outcome.

A series of intensive seminar sessions was conducted which provided centre staff with training in relation to the KU ELLI model and literacy related training based on the content of the NSW Government's Early Literacy and Social Justice Project resource manual Literacies, Communities and Under 5's (Jones Diaz et al, 2001). These sessions covered:

There was also a full-day session at which the staff identified the initial strategies for program development and implementation.

As the implementation of the project has progressed, in-services have been offered on a regular basis on a range of relevant topics, including for example: signing; drawing in children's lives; exploring literacy across the curriculum; playground development; and responding supportively to challenging behaviour.

Staff of both centres have demonstrated an ability to identify emerging concerns regarding the communication development of children who had already been assessed (e.g., the onset of stuttering in children). Regular intensive discussions have been held on early language development to enable teachers, trained staff, untrained staff, and volunteer staff working in the preschools to program more effectively for the communication needs of children attending their preschools.

Action research

Action research has been described as "a powerful tool for helping teachers to work on the many challenges they confront in the teaching-learning process" (Johnson, 2005, cited in Lewin, 2007, p.17). Lewin (2007) suggested that action research is not unlike what teachers usually do when identifying and solving problems but it is usually done more purposefully. She stated that the goal of action research is to systematically find ways of doing things better. Action research offers teachers a way of going beyond the known and familiar to determine new ways of thinking about learning and interacting.

The KU ELLI project undertook regular action research planning and evaluation meetings with the staff in both centres to facilitate and monitor the implementation of the project. Initially these meetings were held each term, however, in 2007 as the project continued they were undertaken half yearly.

These action research sessions have provided an opportunity for centre staff to reflect on the priorities and strategies identified previously and to evaluate the effectiveness of what they have done over the previous period of 3-6 months respectively. From this, staff determine what aspects of the program development and implementation they wish to make a priority for their work with the children and families over the next 3-6 months, and the strategies/ actions to support this.

Initially these planning and evaluation meetings were held for the staff of the two preschools together. At the end of the first 6 months of service delivery, it became apparent that these planning and evaluation meetings needed to be held with the staff of each centre separately. These meetings were facilitated by professionals who were not part of the KU ELLI Team. The facilitators were each given a set of prompts to guide the discussion at these sessions and were required to write a summary report which was first shared with the respective centre staff before being submitted to the KU ELLI evaluation team.

An example of activities driven by action research sessions was the decision by staff of one centre to focus on enhancing communication via alternative and augmentative communication systems (focusing on sign and visual systems) to better meet the needs of children in the centre. As a result, staff undertook training, and developed resources for use by children and parents.

The action research meetings undertaken with the staff of both centres have provided a very useful forum for them to plan and evaluate the work that they have undertaken and to identify ways of continuing to develop and refine the implementation of the KU ELLI project in their individual centres.

Staff reflections and purposeful planning

Staff reflections

It is recognised that thoughtful teachers are competent observers of young children and they are capable decision makers (Katz, 1994). Thinking about or reflecting enables them to assign value and interpret what they have observed and recorded. In addition, it enables teachers to recognise the strengths of the child/ren and their potential as learners and to consider how to respond as well as to generate ideas about what the next steps in the learning process might be.

Staff of both centres have maintained a reflective journal, in which they have recorded their observations of the language and literacy outcomes of the experiences that have been implemented with the children and other aspects of the program. Documenting the processes that children have engaged in has offered the teachers an important opportunity to reflect on the learning and development that has taken place and to determine ways in which they could build on this learning and development in their ongoing planning. The circular nature of the documenting, reflecting and planning processes is not new, but the way in which it has been used in these two centres to facilitate more in-depth thinking about what is happening for and with the children has been an important element in the success of the KU ELLI project.

Purposeful planning

Generating a plan, as part of the reflection process, allows the thoughtful teacher to act on their ideas about ways to follow up and extend the learning and engagement of the child/ren. In particular, generating plans that build on the teacher's knowledge of the children and incorporate opportunities for the stimulation of the child's language and literacy development was, and is, an essential element in the implementation of KU ELLI. Dickinson et al. (2006) emphasised the critical importance of purposeful planning for the language and early literacy development of young children and especially for children from low-income populations.

To facilitate purposeful planning staff have drawn on their reflective journals as well as more formal observation of the children. The preschool staff assessed the pre- and post-language and early literacy development of all children attending the selected preschools. The analysis of this data has influenced the planning undertaken for both the language and literacy development of the children. Within the context of their ongoing planning they have included activities that focus on:

The assessment data obtained also provided a snapshot of the children's emerging literacy development that was used as a basis for implementing strategies that addressed the strengths of the children in each preschool. The following provides more concrete examples of strategies implemented as a result of planning:

A writing centre. Children had access to a range of materials, including a variety of writing tools, papers and name cards. They were encouraged to draw, write letters, invitations, create recipes and make maps.

A literacy room. Staff of one of the centres have put all of the reading, writing, computing, and office play in a single space.

Writing books. These allow the children to practice their emergent writing or drawing skills in a personalised format, and as authors. They also offer them the opportunity to extend or embellish a previous work, which enhances their feeling of empowerment, as the work is finished when they decide and is not constrained by time.

Visual displays in the preschools. Staff prepared displays which illustrated many ways in which parents can be involved in everyday early literacy experiences with their children (e.g., writing shopping lists).

Children's photos were placed on the blocks that were part of block corner at one of the preschools.

Accessible message pockets. Each had a child's name, so they could locate their own name whenever they worked on a project which they wanted to label. This can be extended to include other words meaningful to each child, so children can develop their own written vocabulary resources. These message pockets have also been used to "send" a message to other children.

Environmental print. Children have been encouraged to recall and talk about signs and logos they have seen in the local environment.

Concept books. One centre has developed folders that contain explorations of concepts that have been investigated by staff and children. Snow and cold weather, flowers and spiders are some of the subjects that have been documented as a follow-up of children's interests. After initial investigations, children are encouraged to record their impressions and express their interest by painting, drawing and writing using a variety of mediums. These concept books have been used repeatedly with the children to recall and discuss events and experiences they have had whilst at the centre. They have also been displayed on a shelf in the Literacy Room so that the children could look at them independently or share them with other children or with members of their family.

Projects. Both centres have undertaken a number of projects with the children. Several methods have been used to document these including children's drawing, recording what they have said, photos and videos, as well as map-making exercises.

Scribing. The development of the concept books and the projects that have been undertaken with the children have provided many opportunities for the children to recall past events and share their more recent experiences with the staff and use them as scribes to record these for them.

Popular literature. Adding comics to one centre's book corner.

Popular culture. Magazines, catalogues and junk mail have been included in many of the experiences offered in both centres (e.g., cutting and pasting, dramatic play, writing centre).

Word games. For example, "I spy" and variations of this kind of activity have been used to enhance phonemic awareness.

Rhyming games and books. Phonemic awareness has been fostered through nursery rhymes, sharing rhyming books and stories, and playing with rhyming sounds.

Reading stories. Sharing books with the children is a regular occurrence in both centres. This provides an opportunity for the children to acquire book knowledge, that is, concepts about books and about reading.

Pretend story reading. There are many examples of the children sharing books with each other and pretending to tell the story. This has been facilitated by the children having ready access to suitable picture books.

Curriculum resources. These have been developed by staff for use on an ongoing basis with the children. One cetre  created resource boxes around a number of topics that frequently emerged in the play of the children, for example, weddings, holidays and body parts. The other centre has created a series of booklets containing ideas for the literacy learning to be included in the many experiences that are offered in the centre.

Research base

How children learn

The theoretical basis for KU ELLI comes from the social constructivist view of how children learn. According to this view, a child learns to talk by interacting with others and sees language and literacy as essentially social activities. A child learns by actively participating in social exchanges, relating to physical objects and actions within the physical world, and acquiring a shared system of symbols that can be used to communicate with others (Bochner & Jones, 2003).

Reid and Comber (2002) pointed out that literacy is learned in meaningful socially specific situations in the everyday life of home, preschool, and school. According to this view, literacy learning for young children is certainly not a set of dull, meaningless, and incomprehensible drill and practice routines, "phonics for four year olds", or a downward extension of a traditional school curriculum. It is rather an inherently social experience, an interactive developmental process by which the child constructs a social reality involving making their own meaning of sounds, words, reading, and writing according to the rituals of the family, the culture of the family and their ethnic group, and early out of home learning experiences such as pre-school or long day-care. Language development is central since without language development there can be no literacy development.

The nature of parent language and literacy activities

Young children engage in reading and writing practices from an early age (Neuman & Roskos, 1997). There is considerable evidence that parents exert a powerful influence on the nature of their children's language and literacy and of their subsequent school achievement (Hart & Risley, 1995).

Families vary enormously in the way they promote their child's language and literacy (Hart & Risley, 1995). Literacy seems to be related to different things that parents do: a valuing of literacy; a press for achievement; the availability and use of reading materials; reading aloud with children; and the quantity of verbal interaction.

Middle and higher income families tended to provide a language rich environment with many conversations (e.g., over meals) and book readings. Low income families tended not to. A study by Freeman and Bochner (2002) investigated the effect of helping the parents of young Aboriginal children understand culturally appropriate ways of supporting literacy development. They showed that there were positive effects on the children's language and literacy. It is possible to conclude that programs which encourage parents to increase the ways they support their child's literacy development will impact on the child's literacy level.

The role of preschool

There is considerable research evidence that children from low income backgrounds do not enter school at 5 years of age with the literacy skills that enable them to easily acquire the reading skills that children from higher income levels are able to acquire. There is evidence that these low income children, on transition to school experience difficulty with reading and writing (Snow, 1988). Some children have not had the opportunity of significant language and literacy experiences with their parents. Others have not had the opportunity of a preschool experience. Others may not have had the opportunity of a preschool program that provided an adequate focus on language and literacy. Snow identified 6 family-based risk factors: (a) a family history of reading problems; (b) the nature of the home literacy environment; (c) verbal interaction with children; (d) home languages other than English; (e) use of a non-standard English dialect; and (f) family socioeconomic status. There may well be a mismatch between what the children know and can do, what they bring to their beginning school experience, and the school's expectations of kindergarteners.

There is considerable evidence that a pre-school program is able to prepare children to succeed in school (Boocock, 2000). Preschool experience seems to be particularly powerful for low income children in the first year of school in narrowing the achievement gap with the middle and higher income children.

Without competency in literacy, formal educational achievement is seriously limited. Further, language development is central since without language development there can be no literacy development. Yet to date there seems to have been no applied Australian project that links language learning with early literacy learning in any systematic way.

Dickinson, McCabe, and Essex (2006) cited evidence that "the pre-school years are a time when literacy specific aspects of development may be particularly responsive to intervention" (p.14), therefore providing a window of opportunity for low income children to acquire the language and associated early literacy skills that they will need for later school achievement. Further, they propose that for any intervention to be successful, the program offered also needs to provide opportunities to enhance the social, affective and self regulatory capacities of these young children.

The uncertainty about the role of literacy in early childhood programs

Early childhood teachers do not agree with each other about preparing children for school. Hannon and James (1990) found that such teachers did not see literacy as a central concern of their curriculum. Studies by Raban and Ure (2000) suggested that teachers saw the development of literacy as the role of the school. They reported that teachers were uncertain about how young children became readers and writers and did not know how to advise parents. They also were not knowledgeable about reading programs in the first year of school.

Raban (2000) reported the impact of a professional development literacy program for teachers addressing how literacy development was being conceptualised and what the implications were for preschool practice. The teachers identified four relevant dimensions: (a) creating a literacy environment in the preschool; (b) encouraging and supporting children's attempts at writing for themselves; (c) giving reading and writing a purpose; and (d) creating an awareness of the conventions of print. The efficacy of working with early childhood teachers to assist them to appreciate the value of providing a curriculum that promotes the language and literacy development of children during the pre-school years was demonstrated by Raban (2000) who found that children who had experienced a print-rich environment with supportive interactions around language and early literacy made more rapid literacy progress in their first year of school.

It is possible to conclude that a program which enables teachers to draw out implications for language and literacy in their day to day practice may well enable them to impact on children's language and early literacy development.

Outcomes

The focus of this Promising Practice Profile is the practice of augmenting the knowledge and skills of early childhood staff in programming for language and literacy development for low income children and their families.

The specific outcomes associated with this are for staff to incorporate evidence-based practice in programming for language and literacy experiences; and for children to be engaged in language and literacy experiences at preschool, leading to language and literacy development by the children.

Evidence of outcomes

A range of methods have been used to collect data in relation to each of the three outcome areas. These are listed below.

The language and literacy development of the children has been evaluated with:

The children's engagement in language and literacy experiences offered in the preschool includes engagement in both the settings of the preschool and home environments. Their engagement in the preschool environment has been documented through centre planning and child observational records. Their engagement in language and literacy experiences offered in the home has been documented through the collection of family narratives, as well as broader data on family participation in a range of language and literacy activities at home, pre-school and in the community. This family participation has been documented through:

Finally, the extent to which staff incorporate evidence-based practice in programming for language and literacy experiences has been documented through:

This is accompanied by documentation of the level of professional development and support provided for the pre-school staff including:

Language and Literacy development of the children

Dickinson, McCabe, and Sprague (2001) had developed a teacher rating tool for oral language and for early reading, the Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy (TROLL) based on the body of theory that provided the foundation for Speaking and Listening From Preschool Through Third Grade (New Standards, 2000) and the related research-based standards. Dickinson et al. (2001) report high levels of reliability with Cronbach alphas above .89 for all age ranges. The present data indicate a similarly high level of reliability above .90 for the oral language, and the early reading scales.

Teachers administered the TROLL at the start of intervention and 6 months later at the end of the first year to 57 children aged 3-5 years.

Impact on language development

Pre- and post- median TROLL oral language scale for the total group

Pre- and Post- Median TROLL Oral Language Scale for the Total Group

The pre-median for the total group (N = 57) was 2.63, indicating that the children were typically engaging in brief and limited conversations. The post-median was 3.00 indicating that the children were now asking interesting questions, involved in pretend play, and expressing curiosity.

Impact on literacy development

On the TROLL Reading Scale, the pre-median for the total group (N = 56) was 2.09 indicating that the children were typically beginning to be involved with books and stories. The post-median was 2.36 indicating that the children were now somewhat more involved than previously.

Pre- and post- median TROLL reading scale for the total group

Pre- and post- median TROLL reading scale for the total group

One centre director summed up children's development as follows:

The children that are moving on to school at the end of 2007 are so much better prepared for their transition to school than the children who have moved on to school in previous years.

Children to be engaged in language and literacy experiences at preschool

The two centres have developed a range of strategies to engage children (listed under Purposeful Planning in the "Practice Description" section above). Each centre has documented a range of case studies demonstrating examples of children's engagement in language and literacy activities. These case studies, submitted as part of the peer review of the Promising Practice Profile, document engagement of children in diverse activities with a literacy and language focus including: writing a diary; phonemic awareness and rhyming whilst at the playdough table; listening to stories; and using post-it notes. Additionally, purposeful planning and action research undertaken each 3 or 6 months identified objectives, strategies within each centre and, through later reflection, outcomes in relation to these. Again, two case studies were submitted as part of the peer review process. Both case studies documented outcomes in regard to children's engagement as a result of specific strategies including the use of alternative and augmentative communication, and increasing the number of targeted literacy elements in the centre environment. In the first case, children increasingly used visuals to communicate their needs to staff and to each other. In the second case, children were engaged in an increased range of literacy activities including staff "scribing" of oral stories, the use of "communication pockets" for each child, and environmental print experiences.

Staff to incorporate evidence-based practice in programming for language and literacy experiences

From the programming and developmental records maintained in each centre and the numerous examples of the work undertaken with the children it is clear that the staff of both centres are incorporating evidence-based practice in their programming for language and literacy experiences and the children are engaged in a language and literacy rich environment. Within the pre-school environment staff: (a) have created a literacy rich environment both in the indoor and outdoor contexts; (b) are encouraging and supporting children's attempts at writing for themselves; (c) are giving reading and writing a purpose (the big picture); and (d) are creating an awareness of the conventions of print.

Evidence-based literacy practices are reflected in the pre-school program, the indoor/outdoor environment and staff reflective journals.

Journal reflections

Staff have reported that they are now feeling much more confident about their work with the children particularly in implementing a language and literacy rich program with them. Sample entries in staff journals and training evaluations report on this confidence and changed practice:

Last week's workshop ... did help to make me a better early childhood teacher ... It pushed me when I didn't think I really needed pushing and it extended my skills in reflecting on my practice.

The reflections that I used to write ... were very valuable to me as well ... It was like thinking out loud and it helped with planning and with the children's portfolios.

The new knowledge gained through training sessions has led to meaningful shared reflections by all staff. Staff are now working towards sharing their language/early literacy based knowledge with families in conversations that respect families values, input and expertise about their own child.

KU ELLI has provided us all with a unique opportunity to reflect on our practice, acquire new competencies and as a result we are now able to engage with the children in more complex and challenging experiences that we would not previously have been able to offer.

Reflective diaries, day books, feedback after workshops and notes of all meetings, conference attendances and in-services were maintained. Analysis of materials written by staff members, and the formal feedback gained after staff action research meetings has indicated an increased awareness of the importance of planning purposefully for language and early literacy learning in the preschool environment. Staff have acknowledged that language and early literacy extension could be incorporated purposefully into activities across the day (sometimes spontaneously), and that it required much more than reading quality children's literature, important though that is.

Policy analysis

The project is a positive example of a program designed to improve outcomes for young children through prevention and early intervention and to build the Australian evidence base about what works in prevention and early intervention in early childhood. It contributes to the evidence base around capacity building of early childhood personnel in the areas of language and literacy as a means of effectively increasing children's development in these areas.

Evaluation

The project was submitted for consideration for the Promising Practice Profiles (Promising Practice Profile). The project was assessed across a range of criteria relating to how the service results in positive outcomes for children, families and communities. The submission was peer reviewed and validated as evidencing promising practice. More information on the Promising Practice Profile selection process.

The project has been evaluated by a local evaluator.

Project related publications

Booth, K., Croll, J., Davis, M., Lewis F., Stock, L., & Wise, T. (2007). Early language and literacy as social practice: Engaging families, children and pre-school staff in a low income Australian community. Paper presented at the Re-designing pedagogy: Culture, knowledge and understanding Conference in Singapore, May.

References

Bochner, S. & Jones, J. (2003). Child language development: Learning to talk. London: Whurr.

Boocock, S. (2000). Early childhood programs in other nations: Goals and outcomes. The Future of Children, 5(3), 94-115.

Department of Community Services. (2001). NSW Curriculum Framework for Children's Services: The practice of relationships. Essential provisions for Children's Services. Sydney, NSW: Office of Childcare.

Dickinson, D., McCabe, A., & Essex, M. (2006). A window of opportunity we must open to all: The case for preschool with high quality support for language and literacy. Chapter 1 in D. Dickinson & S. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol 2). New York, NY: Guildford Publications.

Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., & Sprague, K. (2001). Teacher rating of oral language and literacy (TROLL) (CIERA Report #3-016). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement.

Dolby, R., Swan, B., & Croll, J. (2004). Developing the community within a preschool setting: Strengthening the relationship between staff, children, and families achieves positive outcomes for the children. Paper presented at the World Association for Infant Mental Health World Congress, Melbourne, Australia, January 17, 2004.

Dunst, C., Trivette, C., & Deal, A. (1988). Enabling and empowering families: Principles and guidelines. Cambridge, Ma.: Brookline.

Early Literacy Research Group. (1998). Childhood Environment Language and Literacy Scale. Sydney, NSW: Early Literacy Research Group.

Freeman, L., & Bochner, S. (2002). Bridging the gap: Improving literacy for Aboriginal students. Report for the Department of Education, Science, and Training. Sydney, NSW: Macquarie University.

Hannon, P., & James, S. (1990). Parents' and teachers' perspectives on preschool literacy development. British Educational Research Journal, 16(3), 259-272.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences: The everyday experiences of young American children. Baltimore, Md: Brookes

Johnson, A. (2005). A short guide to action research(2nd Ed.). Boston, Mass: Allyn & Bacon.

Jones Diaz, C., Beecher, B., Arthur, L., Ashton, J., Hayden, H., Makin, L., McNaught, M., & Clugston, L. (2001). Literacies, communities and under 5's. Sydney, NSW: Department of Education and Training, Department of Community Services.

Katz, L. (1994). Images of the world: Study seminar of the municipal infant-toddler centers and preprimary schools of Reggio Emilia, Italy. Paper published in L. G. Katz and B. Cesarone (Eds.). (2004). Reflections on Reggio Emilia approach. Urbana, Il: ERIC Clearinghouse on elementary and early childhood education.

Lewin, D. (2007). Action research What is it? Why is it important? Boston, Mass: Wheelock.

Neuman, S., & Roskos, K. (1997). Literacy knowledge in practice: Contexts of participation for young readers and writers. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(1), 10-32.

New Standards. (2000). Speaking and listening for preschool through third grade. Washington DC: Author.

Raban, B. (2000). Just the beginning... Report prepared for the Research and Evaluation Branch International Analysis and Evaluation Division, Department of Education, Training, and Youth Affairs. Canberra, ACT.

Raban, B., & Ure, C. (2000). Literacy in the preschool: An Australian case study. In J. Hayden (Ed.), Landscapes in early childhood education: Cross cultural perspectives on empowerment. A guide for the new millennium. New York: Peter Lang.

Reid, J., & Comber, B. (2002). Theoretical perspectives in early literacy education: Implications for practice. In L. Makin & C. Diaz (Eds.), Literacies in early childhood: Changing views, challenging practice. Sydney: McLennan & Petty.

Snow, C. (Ed.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. National Research Council. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

White, M. (2007). Maps of narrative practice. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.

Contact

Judith Croll
KU ELLI Project Consultant

Phone (02) 9264 8366

Email: judy.croll@ku.com.au

Website

http://www.ku.com.au

More information

More information on the Promising Practice Profiles can be found on the Communities and Families Clearinghouse Australia website.