An investigation of the literacy demands and

SIM • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2006. pp. 240–251
support given to a Year 8 class
n

Anne Sim
D R O M A N A S E C O N D A RY C O L L E G E

This paper focuses on the demands of subject specific written literacies at Year 8
level in a large regional secondary school in Victoria. The focus is on the type of
tasks set at this level, and the scaffolding and modelling provided by subject
teachers to support and develop these literacies in students. Results support the
view that there are different demands in different subjects and there is little
support provided for students in some of them.

Introduction
Literacy, and the effective teaching and development of literacy, has become
a key concern of most schools. In secondary school, the subject English has
traditionally been seen as the focus of literacy development, but with the
increasing acknowledgement that there are key literacies specific to different
subject areas rather than a single literacy which encompasses them all, that
focus is shifting. In addition, the availability of funding for literacy pro-
grams, especially in the middle years, and the increase in accountability of
schools undertaking these programs has provided a prompt to examine the
literacy practices within the whole school and the role of each teacher within
these practices. With the competition fostered by the publishing of the
Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE) scores and standardised literacy
testing, interest is increasingly being focused on how Key Learning Areas
(KLAs) other than English can effectively promote literacy skills, in terms of
general literacy and particular skills required for success in specific subject
areas. It is increasingly recognised that all subjects have a large written com-
ponent, particularly in the VCE, and that each subject has specific demands
in relation to vocabulary, written work and text types.
Dromana Secondary College, a public school of 1000 students located on
the Mornington Peninsula, has begun to closely examine the different litera-
cies required for student success in the VCE. This focus resulted from a
number of things: a drive to increase VCE scores to promote enrolment,
240 teachers’ beliefs that students are not performing to their potential, and
Volume 29 concern over community perceptions of the school. Within the school
Number 3 concern has been expressed over the number of different tasks set for junior
October 2006 classes and students’ ability to deal effectively with the range of texts to
which they are exposed. Many staff outside the English KLA have expressed

SIM • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2006. pp. 240–251
concern over the idea of literacy teaching in their subject areas. Literacy has
been identified as a charter priority of the school and time and resources
have been allocated to develop literacy programs.
A number of recent Victorian research projects have indicated ways of
approaching whole school analysis and change. The Middle Years Research
and Development (MYRAD) Project (DET, 2002), the Successful
Interventions Literacy Research Project (DEET, 2001), the Middle Years
Literacy Research Project (Deakin University, 2001) and the Middle Years
Numeracy Research Project (Siemon, Virgona & Corneille, 2001) have all
shown that improved student outcomes occur when schools and their com-
munities recognise there is a need for change. Data-driven, evidence based
approaches to school improvement should be adopted. (Hamilton, 2004).
Primarily concerned with factors affecting student literacy and numeracy,
engagement and retention, the literacy section of the research outlines
approaches such as auditing school literacy practices, establishing shared
understandings when talking about literacy, emphasising a broad range of
literacy capabilities, teaching about language and curriculum literacies in
each key learning area, and defining roles and responsibilities in the teach-
ing of curriculum literacies (Deakin University, 2001, p. 38). These seemed a
logical place to begin to address concerns and adopt a whole school
approach for those who have no background in literacy support. There
seemed to be little research directly relevant to our specific situation and
requirements.
The starting point for proving that literacy demands can be both general
and specific is a literacy audit: an outlining of the different genres students
are required to respond to, the different styles of texts they are required to
produce and the scaffolding, modelling and support provided to students
when undertaking these tasks. Additional information was also collected on
the set assessment tasks, and also on the teachers’ perceptions of what is
important for success in the subject. The focus was to examine current prac-
tice to establish what is actually being asked of students, what tasks are
shared and which are subject specific, and what can be done to improve lit-
eracy practices in the school. This would give us evidence on which to base
future discussions and professional development.
This report outlines the results of the audit conducted on a specific Year 8
class group over the course of one semester when students undertook ten
different subjects. Using Year 8 as the initial sample avoids confusion with
transition issues in Year 7 and complications caused by the fact that Year 9 is
composed almost entirely of student-chosen elective subjects. Eventually, 241
however, the audit will be expanded to include Years 7–12 to give a continu- Australian
um of tasks and skills. Journal of Language
The aims of the audit were to provide evidence of the variety of literacy and Literacy
 demands placed on students and of the need for all teachers to shoulder

SIM • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2006. pp. 240–251
responsibility for literacy teaching and support. It was hoped that the audit
would pinpoint areas for improvement, highlight unsupported areas, identi-
fy common and subject specific literacy tasks and show where literacy is
already being supported as part of curriculum teaching. The results of this
sample have many implications for individual teachers, for the school, and
for literacy instruction as a whole.

Background
Schools, education authorities and the general public place a high priority
on literacy. The media, and at times politicians, focus on it, often suggesting
there is a ‘literacy crisis’ in our schools and that students fail to meet certain
standards. This has led to an increased focus by teachers and schools on pro-
moting literacy and measuring and improving student performance. It is
widely thought by parents and educators that ‘students who have difficulty
converting written information to knowledge are at a severe disadvantage in
the world of the twenty-first century. Not only are they less able to access
information, but they have less opportunity to display what they know in
written ways’ (Munro, 2002, p. 23). Problems arise, however, when looking
at how best to promote literacy in schools, particularly secondary schools, or
even to settle on a working definition of literacy applicable in a secondary
school setting.
The question of what exactly is literacy has been, and continues to be,
debated. Time and changes in society have impacted on the demands placed
on students and schools, and with developments in educational theory and
practice, ‘the nature of literacy itself is changing such that what constitutes
literate practice for adolescents at the edge of the twenty-first century
encompasses a broader repertoire of knowledges, skills and capabilities than
at any earlier time in history’ (Culican & Emmitt, 2002, p. 5). The definition
of literacy has moved beyond literacy being the ability to decode written
symbols and write them, and now focuses on the elements of making
meaning from texts. The importance of context in student understanding of
words and concepts has led to the acknowledgement that ‘while each learn-
ing area shares some aspects of literacy, each also has its own discourse, or
specific language patterns and ways of presenting information’ (Wooldridge,
2000, p. 61). Students encounter specialised vocabulary, texts and writing
forms which differ significantly between individual curriculum subjects, as
‘Literacy is not a single, neutral tool’ (Bryce-Heath, 1982, p. 50).
The idea of multiple literacies, rather than a single literacy, has gained
momentum. Literacy is about more than just techniques for reading and
writing, and the consideration of the impact of social context and shared
242

meanings leads to the idea that there are multiple literacies that vary with
Volume 29

time and place, and which are embedded in specific cultural practices
Number 3
October 2006
(Street, 1997). It is now considered that students can be fluent in one or many

SIM • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2006. pp. 240–251
literacies connected to particular subjects or discourses, rather than there
being a single set of skills and abilities. The multiple knowledges, skills and
capabilities required for literate practice are referred to as ‘literacies’ or ‘mul-
tiliteracies’, terms that ‘acknowledge the multiple dimensions of literacy
(such as visual, spatial and digital dimensions), increasingly recognised in
the use of terms such as “literacy in the key learning areas”, “curriculum lit-
eracies” or “subject specific literacies”’ (Deakin University, 2001).
A similar change has occurred when viewing who exactly in a school is
responsible for the teaching of literacy skills. Traditionally the English
teacher has been viewed as primarily, often solely, responsible for ensuring
students are literate. However, with the recognition that subjects have their
own specific literacy requirements there has been acknowledgement that
these specifics need to be addressed by the teachers of individual subjects.
The demands of the English curriculum means that ‘it is not feasible to
expect that students will transfer the skills learnt in one … English period to
every other subject area, where language is used differently, and for different
purposes’ (Kiddey 2000, cited in Culican & Emmitt, 2002, p. 9). It is also not
feasible, given that literacy can no longer be viewed as a homogenous set of
skills that are equally valid in all subject areas, to expect that English teach-
ers are even capable of teaching all of the specific literacies. ‘As English
teachers, they do not teach or pursue learning in other areas of study, nor
develop the discourse – the meaning making patterns of specific terminology,
taxonomies, technical language – required to make meaning in other subject
areas’ (McLoughlin & Mifsud, 1998, cited in Culican & Emmitt, 2002, p. 9).
Teaching the structure of texts and writing tasks from across the curricu-
lum assists students faced with differing literacy requirements from subject
to subject. It helps students to ‘develop an understanding of the relationship
between context and text; the importance of identifying the purpose and
audience before selecting the text type to write’ (Wing, 2000, p. 4). This
concept of purpose and audience can then be developed further to introduce
elements of critical literacy. While the exact definition of critical literacy is
still contested, the concept refers to the fact that literature can be used to per-
petuate the current social hierarchy and norms (Comber, 1994). Critical liter-
acy, then, in its most basic form is about using literacy to question the social
construction surrounding the student. It is about looking at the ways texts
position the reader (Frye, 1997). This adds a metacognitive aspect to literacy
activities.
Standardised testing has focused attention on literacy levels as well as
given government bodies a basis to comment on the standard of literacy in
schools and to compare schools. These tests, however, focus on the English
243

definition of texts and literacy and it is difficult to generalise as in most sec-

Australian

ondary school subjects ‘the reading provided is factual and seeks to inform,
Journal of Language
and Literacy
 explain or teach … and also include illustrations such as graphs, pho-

SIM • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2006. pp. 240–251
tographs, maps, line diagrams, cross sections, charts and so on’ (Morris &
Stewart-Dore, 1984, p. 21). The focus on literacy often decreases in the post-
testing years, but the importance of literacy does not increase. Instead, the
debate over the definition of literacy and its measurement has focused atten-
tion on what should be taught and assessed (Wyatt-Smith & Cumming,
1998), and this focus increases as students progress throughout secondary
school. The range of different subjects available to students challenges them
to develop control of the literacy demands and learning expectations of
increasingly sophisticated and specialised areas of knowledge represented in
the curriculum. As knowledge becomes more specialised within these areas,
so too ‘the literacies associated with the ways this knowledge is constructed
and represented becomes more complex’ (Deakin University, 2001. p. 4). As
a student progress to VCE level, there is a large written component required
for all subjects, even those traditionally viewed as practical or ‘hands-on’
subjects.
The challenge, through all of the debates and concerns, remains to
‘develop students’ literacy so that it reflects the diversity of social, techno-
logical, cultural, linguistic, and economic contexts of which it forms a part’
(Ludwig, 2000, p. 37). Problems arise because while the idea of subject spe-
cific literacy is not new, and is recognised in policy and referred to in cur-
riculum documents such as the Middle Years reports, it is also generally
recognised that ‘most subject area teachers still need to be better-equipped to
support students to develop literacy in their learning area’ (Cambourne,
1993, cited in Wooldridge, 2000, p. 62). Many secondary teachers are con-
cerned about their students’ ability to read, comprehend and respond to
texts. Many students do not seem to transfer their skills from one subject to
another. A large number of students cannot express ideas in their own
words, and do not process or make critical judgements on the information
they are using (Morris & Stewart-Dore, 1984). This is of concern to all teach-
ers, no matter what subject area they are teaching in. Often, however, teach-
ers in areas other than English have not been provided with sufficient
framework to ensure that they can and do employ strategies to promote lit-
eracy. ‘The curriculum has been mapped out into eight separate areas with
no strategies or professional development being given to enable all teachers
to address the literacy needs of their students in each specific learning area’
(Eppingstall, 1999, p. 29). While it was accepted that ‘effective instruction
develops students’ abilities to comprehend, discuss, study, and write about
multiple forms of text (print, visual and oral)’ (Alvermann, 2001, p. 9), pro-
fessional development is needed to support teachers’ ability to promote
these things.
244

The question ‘What is literacy?’ will never have a simple answer. It is a

Volume 29

complex term that means different things to different people depending on

Number 3
October 2006
where they stand in relation to the education process. While the debate is

SIM • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2006. pp. 240–251
continuing, there is still an increasing acknowledgement that ‘literacy is not
only one of the principal goals of education but also the principal means by
which it is carried out’ (Hannon, 2000, p. 8). In secondary school, a degree of
functional literacy is expected and assumed, but the increasing demands of
the various subject areas means that a focus on general literacy skills is not
enough. Students are expected to have some degree of independence in their
work in each KLA, particularly when dealing with print materials such as
worksheets and reference materials. Subject specific literacies are necessary
for students to do well in each area, and literacy teaching and support needs
to be integrated into the pedagogy and teaching practice of all staff to best
benefit students.

Audit methodology
Students in Year 8 undertake a wide range of core subjects, ten in total.
English takes up seven 70 minute periods in the schools’ two week cycle, as
does Mathematics. SOSE and Science each have four periods per cycle,
LOTE, Art and Health/PE three, the two technology subjects Systems
Electronics and Foods have two each. Classroom Music has two periods.
This audit focused on the types of texts students were asked to read and
use in the classroom, and those they were asked to produce. This relatively
narrow focus allowed a starting point to be developed for an eventual
expanded study into other aspects of literacy in the classroom.
The audit was conducted as interviews with the subject teachers for this
particular form, which involved the filling out of a proforma about texts,
tasks and related details. Teachers were asked what writing tasks were set
during semester one, and these tasks were examined. They were also asked
what types of texts students were asked to read and respond to. Further
questions were asked about what scaffolding and modelling was provided
on set tasks and the aim of each assignment. Scaffolding was taken to mean
the provision of a worksheet or diagram which explained in written form
how the literacy components of a task should be done, and which gave a
structure to follow. Modelling involved the teachers constructing an
example of part or all of the expected task on the board or in worksheet form
to support the students’ ability to complete it. Direct instruction was when
the literacy aspects of the task were explained verbally to students with no
written support. A supported task was one in which examples, written scaf-
folds or direct verbal instructions were given.
Results were converted into percentages of supported and unsupported
tasks. The summary of the results, presented in Table 1 in the discussion,
shows the range of tasks and expectations set across the curriculum. Table 2
245

shows factors associated with the place of the subject in the school timetable
Australian

and assessment as a whole for a Year 8 student.

Journal of Language
and Literacy
Subject Texts Used Assignments/ Tasks Aims of assignments Percentage of
scaffolding &
modelling
English Fiction: novels, Context and comprehension Showing an understanding of, 80%
poems and short questions, informative and ability to find, key facts as
stories. Non-fiction: paragraphs, creative tasks, well as elements of
autobiographies journal writing, oral characterisation, plot, empathy
and newspaper presentations, informative and and awareness of audience.
articles, persuasive essay writing, Producing reflective work,
encyclopaedias, summarising and constructing explanations and arguments.
reference books and narratives, conducting and Summarising and identifying key
websites. writing up a research project. elements.
Producing a written research
report with a bibliography.
Maths Textbook Problem solving report, research Explaining a problem solving 20%
project, reading and answering process in words, constructing a
questions. mathematical model and
reporting on it and working out
problems expressed in words
rather than numbers.
Science Textbook and other An investigative research task, Producing extended pieces of 10%
reference materials, reading or viewing and prose using a number of specified
magazine articles answering content questions, sources; comprehending and
and visual texts summarising, producing lab summarising key concepts in
such as videos. reports in a set format. material; hypothesising and
discussing the confirmation or
otherwise of the hypothesis.
SOSE Research books, A report on life in the past, Locating key concepts, write short 10%
internet resources, journal writing, essay writing, and extended informative pieces,
textbook extracts. answering questions on locating summaries.
key information, summaries.
LOTE - Research books and A research assignment on Producing written reports, and 30%
Indonesian encyclopaedias, Indonesia, writing with a expository writing; finding,
textbook, videos. persona, answering questions comprehending and summarising
on key points in written key concepts; writing short and
material, summaries. usually informative paragraphs in
Indonesian.
Music Research books, A report on a particular branch Producing informative essay; 10%
textbook extracts, of rock and roll, reading and locating and summarising key
internet sources. answering questions on key concepts.
points, summaries.
Technology Set texts. Researching a particular food in Producing summaries, and 10%
– Foods provided texts, producing a informative pieces. Identifying
report, reading and answering and discussing key concepts in
set questions. written pieces.
Technology Research books, Research task on the history of a Producing flowchart, and 10%
– Systems internet and videos. product, report of practical informative writing as an essay
experiences, journal writing, and as a report; summarising key
answering comprehension concepts.
questions.
PE/Health Non-fiction texts Research tasks on health issues Producing essays about set topics, 5%
and pamphlets, which lead to essays, reports clear and informative reports,
textbook extracts. interpreting fitness results, sentence and paragraph answers
answering comprehension to comprehension questions;
questions. summarising key points.
Discussion

SIM • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2006. pp. 240–251
Even this relatively narrow view of the literacy demands on Year 8 students
provided a great deal of information and evidence of the myriad of tasks
required of them. Findings of the variety of tasks set can be generalised
across other forms in the year level. Indeed, extrapolating further about
other aspects of literacy not surveyed in this audit, the ‘sheer number of lit-
eracy related behaviours in which the student engages during the course of
an academic year begin to take on astronomical proportions’ (Wyatt-Smith &
Cumming, 1999, p. 23). This requires much of students, and of their teachers.
It can be seen from Table 1 that there are in fact ‘literacies’ that students
need to be fluent in – the number of subjects that set a research task and have
totally different aims and expectations serves as an example of that. Success
in the range of subjects depends on ‘learning the language patterns and the
text types or typical ways of organising and presenting information and
ideas used in that learning area’ (Wooldridge, 2001, p. 61). This highlights
the need for teachers in individual subjects to instruct students in the
specifics required.
English as a subject has by far the widest range of written activities and
types of texts. This is in some ways the result of the traditional focus of
English as a subject. English alone scaffolds and models almost every task
involving reading and writing. There are many occasions when knowledge
of how to approach a task or deal with a text is assumed by teachers in sub-
jects other than English. Little scaffolding or modelling is provided, because
it is believed students should already have the skills needed or be able to
transfer them from what is learned in English classes. This is not necessarily
the case, and is a particular problem when the task is set to be completed
outside of class time. Teachers need the skills, and the will, to include scaf-
folding and modelling for students when the curriculum task itself is being
set and explained.
The assumption that the literacies students need for success in all sub-
jects can and will be taught in English is incorrect. English tasks are often
very different, as outlined in the audit. The range of tasks in subjects other
than English shows that there should be explicit instruction in all subjects, as
the aims and format of most set tasks are subject specific. In addition, the
specific language of the informative text types of each subject need to be
addressed by the subject teacher.
Excluding English tasks and a single LOTE task, texts and writing tasks
encountered by students in the classroom at this year level were solely infor-
mative. Therefore, it is vital that students at this level be able to effectively
247
Australian
Left: Table 1. Summary of audit findings: tasks set semester 1 for Year Journal of Language
8 subject group , 2004. and Literacy
 read, interpret, summarise, and construct informative texts. They need to

SIM • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2006. pp. 240–251
effectively interpret non-narrative forms such as tables and graphs. Success
in English, with its emphasis on narrative and persuasive texts, is not neces-
sarily an indicator of how well students can perform in the literacy compo-
nents of other subjects.
The number of tasks in different KLAs with the same name but different
aims and structures needs to be looked at. For example, a range of subjects
require students to write a ‘report’, but in the different subjects, the tasks
referred to as a report have different aims and formats and teachers expect
very different written products. The formats were not always taught explic-
itly to students and knowledge of how to complete the tasks was assumed.
The idea of research assignments also needs to be looked at as a whole
school. Some tasks defined by teachers as research tasks, but which require
single word answers, are in contrast with those requiring detailed individual
research. The array of structures, methods and requirements could be nar-
rowed down to ensure students are focusing on the key skills considered
desirable for them to gain from research, as well as the specific content
required. Alternatively, clear strategies for approaching the tasks in each
area need to be outlined and reinforced by the individual subject teachers.
The recognition of these differences by staff is an important step in address-
ing the literacy needs of students in all subjects.
Almost every subject surveyed requires students to construct summaries
and complete set tasks in which identifying key information is the goal. The
skills to successfully do this, however, are not explicitly taught or modelled
in any subject other than English. The texts involved in this vary from
subject area to subject area, but summarising is such a key skill that the
method should be explicitly reinforced in all subjects. This commonality is
an opportunity for whole staff professional development, to ensure that all
staff have the skills to teach summarising and reinforce how to locate a key
idea.
Tasks set at this year level, shown in Table 2, are primarily content based,
generally about finding and reiterating key concepts being studied. There is
very little in the way of critical literacy, in re-examining or evaluating the
texts looked at. Introducing elements of this into the programs across the
curriculum could help introduce a metacognitive aspect and increase the
students’ concepts of the purposes of texts and their relationship to society
as a whole.
Teachers acknowledge that there is a necessary literacy component in
every subject, and that effective reading and writing is important for student
248 success, through their priorities are in assessment and reporting. When
Volume 29 asked to state in a single sentence what a student needs to be able to do to do
Number 3 well in their subject area, all teachers, with the exception of art teachers, said
October 2006 reading, writing and following instructions were the key skills. The inclu-
Table 2. Timetable and assessment details by subject.

SIM • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2006. pp. 240–251
Subject Periods Tasks assessed on the report To do well in this level,
per cycle students need to be able to …

English 7 Text response, issues, oral Read and write, follow

presentations, workbook instructions, adapt to different
timed writing tasks, writing tasks.
folio and research project.

Maths 7 Subject tests, problem solving, Follow instructions, do as the

project, homework, workbook. teacher demonstrates.

Science 4 Workbook, practical work, Listen and follow instructions,

assignments, earth and space complete written work.
tests, physical science tests.

LOTE - 4 Listening/oral Complete set work.

Indonesian communication,
reading/written
communication, workbook,
project.

Technology – 3 Investigation, Keep up to date with prac.

Food production/evaluation,
homework, bookwork.
Technology – 2 Mechanical production/
Systems evaluation, electronic
production/evaluation,
research assignment.
book, complete a research
project, and demonstrate
capability in the kitchen.
Read and write, and cope with
visual learning and listening.

Health/PE 3 Fitness, motor Discuss and work in groups;

skill/coordination, read, write and answer
individual/group activity, questions.
workbook, minor projects.

Music 2 Performances, critical Think of things in context;

responses, research explore things in different
assignment. ways; express verbally and in
writing.

Art 2 Folio (selection of four best Demonstrate the skills taught:

works) rendering, composition, line,
Arts Research. form, shape. Have a good
folio.

SOSE 4 Workbook, research Research properly; keep

assignment, document/article
analysis, oral tasks.
things up to date; be able to 249
write essays; use the computer Australian
to find what is needed; listen
and follow instructions.
Journal of Language
and Literacy
 sion of written tasks in the semester reports for every area acknowledges

SIM • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2006. pp. 240–251
their importance for success, and mirrors the arrangement students will
encounter in the VCE. This acknowledgement of the importance of effective
reading and writing on the reports needs to be reflected in the explicit teach-
ing of literacy strategies as part of the content to increase the chance of suc-
cessful completion of the assessment tasks.

Conclusion
The results highlighted many different elements in literacy teaching and
support which provide a number of key points for discussion and consider-
ation when evaluating current literacy teaching and support and planning
for the future. From here, it is possible to move on to look at the reasons why
teaching is not always explicit and tasks are not modelled and scaffolded.
Teacher attitude and knowledge need to be surveyed. Subjects with common
tasks should be examined in terms of the structure they require, and the type
of tasks and the number of tasks set across the year level can be discussed.
Assessment and teacher feedback was not included in this audit, but is an
area for future review.
This is the first step in assessing the literacy demands placed on students,
and the preparation provided for students for the literacy demands of senior
classes. Further attention needs to be paid to things such as teacher assess-
ment and the type of feedback provided to students in literacy areas. Also,
other aspects of literacy such as speaking and listening and the impact of
ICT should be examined.
This audit has shown that indeed all teachers are teachers of literacy.
Skills in reading and writing and overall meaning-making are necessary for
success in every subject. They influence teacher perceptions of student
progress and they are embedded in the assessment tasks required to suc-
cessfully pass a subject. This study has established the basis from which to
conduct further research and examine other areas of literacy, such as the spe-
cific skills that are shared across the curriculum and the problems that this
sharing entails; for example, the problem that a research report means some-
thing different in every subject. This audit will continue to be expanded over
time. Ongoing reflection on literacy practices needs to be conducted and
maintained, for the good of the individual students, for the development of
pedagogy in different KLAs, and for the quality of teaching in the whole
school.

250
Volume 29
Number 3
October 2006
References

SIM • AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2006. pp. 240–251
Alvermann, D. (2001). Effective Literacy Instruction for Adolescents. Executive
Summary and Paper Commissioned by the National Reading Conference.
University of Georgia.
Bryce-Heath, S. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home
and school. Language in Society, 11, 49–76.
Comber, B. (1994). Critical literacy: An introduction to Australian debates and
perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(6), 655–668.
Culican, S. & Emmitt, M. (2002). The Middle Years Literacy Research Project and
some issues and implications for English teachers. Idiom, 38(1), 5–10.
Deakin University (2001). Literacy and Learning in the Middle Years. Major Report
on the Middle Years Literacy Research Project to CECV, DEET, AISV and
DETYA.
Department of Education and Training (2002). Middle Years Research and
Development (MYRAD) Project. University of Melbourne: Centre for Applied
Educational Research.
Department of Employment, Education and Training (1991). Australia’s Language,
The Australian Language and Literacy Policy. Canberra: DEET.
Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (1998).
Literacy for All: The Challenge for Australian Schools. Australian Schooling
Monograph Series No.1. Canberra ACT: Australian Government Publishing
Service.
Department of Employment, Education and Training (2001). Successful
Interventions Literacy Research Project. Melbourne: Communications Division for
the Early and Middle Years of School Branch: Department of Education,
Employment and Training.
Eppingstall, S. (1999). Writing across the subject areas: What school -based
research can tell us, English in Australia, 124, 22–30.
Frye, P. (1997). Critical literacy: Using ‘Frontline’, English In Australia, (120),
101–109.
Hamilton, K. (2004). Middle Years (Years 5–9) Support Kit. Middle Years.
sofweb.vic.edu.au/mys/pdf/Support_kit/Middle.pdf
Hannon, P. (2000). Reflecting on Literacy in Education. London: Routledge Falmer.
Ludwig, C. (2000). Literacy in the learning areas: A proposition’, Literacy
Learning: the Middle Years, 8(1), 37–53.
Morris, A. & Stewart-Dore, N. (1984). Learning to Learn from Text: Effecting Reading
in the Content Areas. North Ryde NSW: Addison-Wesley.
Munro, J. (2002). High reliability literacy teaching procedures: A means of foster-
ing literacy learning across the curriculum. Idiom, 38(1), 23–31.
Siemon,D., Virgona, J. & Corneille, K. (2001). The Middle Years Numeracy Research
Project: 5–9. Bundoora, Vic.: RMIT University.
Street, B. (1997). The implications of the ‘New Literacy Studies’ for literacy edu-
cation. English in Education, 31(3), 45–59.
Wing, J.L. (2000). Write Ways: Modelling Writing Forms, (2nd Edn). Melbourne:
Oxford University Press.
Wooldridge, N. (2000). Literacy in learning area textbooks. Australian Journal of
Language and Literacy, 8(1), 61–72.
Wyatt-Smith, C. & Cumming, J. (1999). Examining the literacy demands of the
251
enacted curriculum. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 7(2), 1–31. Australian
Journal of Language
and Literacy