Literature review 2

September 2003 | Volume 61 | Number 1
Building Classroom Relationships Pages 6-13

The Key to Classroom Management

Robert J. Marzano and Jana S. Marzano

By using research-based strategies combining appropriate levels of dominance and cooperation and an awareness of student needs, teachers can build positive classroom dynamics.

Today, we know more about teaching than we ever have before. Research has shown us that teachers' actions in their classrooms have twice the impact on student achievement as do school policies regarding curriculum, assessment, staff collegiality, and community involvement (Marzano, 2003a). We also know that one of the classroom teacher's most important jobs is managing the classroom effectively.

A comprehensive literature review by Wang, Haertel, and Walberg (1993) amply demonstrates the importance of effective classroom management. These researchers analyzed 86 chapters from annual research reviews, 44 handbook chapters, 20 government and commissioned reports, and 11 journal articles to produce a list of 228 variables affecting student achievement. They combined the results of these analyses with the findings from 134 separate meta-analyses. Of all the variables, classroom management had the largest effect on student achievement. This makes intuitive sense—students cannot learn in a chaotic, poorly managed classroom.

Research not only supports the importance of classroom management, but it also sheds light on the dynamics of classroom management. Stage and Quiroz's meta-analysis (1997) shows the importance of there being a balance between teacher actions that provide clear consequences for unacceptable behavior and teacher actions that recognize and reward acceptable behavior. Other researchers (Emmer, Evertson, & Worsham, 2003; Evertson, Emmer, & Worsham, 2003) have identified important components of classroom management, including beginning the school year with a positive emphasis on management; arranging the room in a way conducive to effective management; and identifying and implementing rules and operating procedures.

In a recent meta-analysis of more than 100 studies (Marzano, 2003b), we found that the quality of teacher-student relationships is the keystone for all other aspects of classroom management. In fact, our meta-analysis indicates that on average, teachers who had high-quality relationships with their students had 31 percent fewer discipline problems, rule violations, and related problems over a year's time than did teachers who did not have high-quality relationships with their students.

What are the characteristics of effective teacher-student relationships? Let's first consider what they are not. Effective teacher-student relationships have nothing to do with the teacher's personality or even with whether the students view the teacher as a friend. Rather, the most effective teacher-student relationships are characterized by specific teacher behaviors: exhibiting appropriate levels of dominance; exhibiting appropriate levels of cooperation; and being aware of high-needs students.

Appropriate Levels of Dominance

Wubbels and his colleagues (Wubbels, Brekelmans, van Tartwijk, & Admiral, 1999; Wubbels & Levy, 1993) identify appropriate dominance as an important characteristic of effective teacher-student relationships. In contrast to the more negative connotation of the term dominance as forceful control or command over others, they define dominance as the teacher's ability to provide clear purpose and strong guidance regarding both academics and student behavior. Studies indicate that when asked about their preferences for teacher behavior, students typically express a desire for this type of teacher-student interaction. For example, in a study that involved interviews with more than 700 students in grades 4–7, students articulated a clear preference for strong teacher guidance and control rather than more permissive types of teacher behavior (Chiu & Tulley, 1997). Teachers can exhibit appropriate dominance by establishing clear behavior expectations and learning goals and by exhibiting assertive behavior.

Establish Clear Expectations and Consequences

Teachers can establish clear expectations for behavior in two ways: by establishing clear rules and procedures, and by providing consequences for student behavior.

The seminal research of the 1980s (Emmer, 1984; Emmer, Sanford, Evertson, Clements, & Martin, 1981; Evertson & Emmer, 1982) points to the importance of establishing rules and procedures for general classroom behavior, group work, seat work, transitions and interruptions, use of materials and equipment, and beginning and ending the period or the day. Ideally, the class should establish these rules and procedures through discussion and mutual consent by teacher and students (Glasser, 1969, 1990).

Along with well-designed and clearly communicated rules and procedures, the teacher must acknowledge students' behavior, reinforcing acceptable behavior and providing negative consequences for unacceptable behavior. Stage and Quiroz's research (1997) is instructive. They found that teachers build effective relationships through such strategies as the following:

• Using a wide variety of verbal and physical reactions to students' misbehavior, such as moving closer to offending students and using a physical cue, such as a finger to the lips, to point out inappropriate behavior.
• Cuing the class about expected behaviors through prearranged signals, such as raising a hand to indicate that all students should take their seats.
• Providing tangible recognition of appropriate behavior—with tokens or chits, for example.
• Employing group contingency policies that hold the entire group responsible for behavioral expectations.
• Employing home contingency techniques that involve rewards and sanctions at home.

Establish Clear Learning Goals

Teachers can also exhibit appropriate levels of dominance by providing clarity about the content and expectations of an upcoming instructional unit. Important teacher actions to achieve this end include

• Establishing and communicating learning goals at the beginning of a unit of instruction.
• Providing feedback on those goals.
• Continually and systematically revisiting the goals.
• Providing summative feedback regarding the goals.

The use of rubrics can help teachers establish clear goals. To illustrate, assume that a teacher has identified the learning goal “understanding and using fractions” as important for a given unit. That teacher might present students with the following rubric:

4 points. You understand the characteristics of fractions along with the different types. You can accurately describe how fractions are related to decimals and percentages. You can convert fractions to decimals and can explain how and why the process works. You can use fractions to understand and solve different types of problems.

3 points. You understand the basic characteristics of fractions. You know how fractions are related to decimals and percentages. You can convert fractions to decimals.

2 points. You have a basic understanding of the following, but have some small misunderstandings about one or more: the characteristics of fractions; the relationships among fractions, decimals, and percentages; how to convert fractions to decimals.

1 point. You have some major problems or misunderstandings with one or more of the following: the characteristics of fractions; the relationships among fractions, decimals, and percentages; how to convert fractions to decimals.

0 points. You may have heard of the following before, but you do not understand what they mean: the characteristics of fractions; the relationships among fractions, decimals, and percentages; how to convert fractions to decimals.

The clarity of purpose provided by this rubric communicates to students that their teacher can provide proper guidance and direction in academic content.

Exhibit Assertive Behavior

Teachers can also communicate appropriate levels of dominance by exhibiting assertive behavior. According to Emmer and colleagues, assertive behavior is

the ability to stand up for one's legitimate rights in ways that make it less likely that others will ignore or circumvent them. (2003, p. 146)

Assertive behavior differs significantly from both passive behavior and aggressive behavior. These researchers explain that teachers display assertive behavior in the classroom when they

• Use assertive body language by maintaining an erect posture, facing the offending student but keeping enough distance so as not to appear threatening and matching the facial expression with the content of the message being presented to students.
• Use an appropriate tone of voice, speaking clearly and deliberately in a pitch that is slightly but not greatly elevated from normal classroom speech, avoiding any display of emotions in the voice.
• Persist until students respond with the appropriate behavior. Do not ignore an inappropriate behavior; do not be diverted by a student denying, arguing, or blaming, but listen to legitimate explanations.

Appropriate Levels of Cooperation

Cooperation is characterized by a concern for the needs and opinions of others. Although not the antithesis of dominance, cooperation certainly occupies a different realm. Whereas dominance focuses on the teacher as the driving force in the classroom, cooperation focuses on the students and teacher functioning as a team. The interaction of these two dynamics—dominance and cooperation—is a central force in effective teacher-student relationships. Several strategies can foster appropriate levels of cooperation.

Provide Flexible Learning Goals

Just as teachers can communicate appropriate levels of dominance by providing clear learning goals, they can also convey appropriate levels of cooperation by providing flexible learning goals. Giving students the opportunity to set their own objectives at the beginning of a unit or asking students what they would like to learn conveys a sense of cooperation. Assume, for example, that a teacher has identified the topic of fractions as the focus of a unit of instruction and has provided students with a rubric. The teacher could then ask students to identify some aspect of fractions or a related topic that they would particularly like to study. Giving students this kind of choice, in addition to increasing their understanding of the topic, conveys the message that the teacher cares about and tries to accommodate students' interests.

Take a Personal Interest in Students

Probably the most obvious way to communicate appropriate levels of cooperation is to take a personal interest in each student in the class. As McCombs and Whisler (1997) note, all students appreciate personal attention from the teacher. Although busy teachers—particularly those at the secondary level—do not have the time for extensive interaction with all students, some teacher actions can communicate personal interest and concern without taking up much time. Teachers can

• Talk informally with students before, during, and after class about their interests.
• Greet students outside of school—for instance, at extracurricular events or at the store.
• Single out a few students each day in the lunchroom and talk with them.
• Be aware of and comment on important events in students' lives, such as participation in sports, drama, or other extracurricular activities.
• Compliment students on important achievements in and outside of school.
• Meet students at the door as they come into class; greet each one by name.

Use Equitable and Positive Classroom Behaviors

Programs like Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement emphasize the importance of the subtle ways in which teachers can communicate their interest in students (Kerman, Kimball, & Martin, 1980). This program recommends many practical strategies that emphasize equitable and positive classroom interactions with all students. Teachers should, for example,

• Make eye contact with each student. Teachers can make eye contact by scanning the entire room as they speak and by freely moving about all sections of the room.
• Deliberately move toward and stand close to each student during the class period. Make sure that the seating arrangement allows the teacher and students clear and easy ways to move around the room.
• Attribute the ownership of ideas to the students who initiated them. For instance, in a discussion a teacher might say, “Cecilia just added to Aida's idea by saying that . . . .”
• Allow and encourage all students to participate in class discussions and interactions. Make sure to call on students who do not commonly participate, not just those who respond most frequently.
• Provide appropriate wait time for all students to respond to questions, regardless of their past performance or your perception of their abilities.

Awareness of High-Needs Students

Classroom teachers meet daily with a broad cross-section of students. In general, 12–22 percent of all students in school suffer from mental, emotional, or behavioral disorders, and relatively few receive mental health services (Adelman & Taylor, 2002). The Association of School Counselors notes that 18 percent of students have special needs and require extraordinary interventions and treatments that go beyond the typical resources available to the classroom (Dunn & Baker, 2002).

Although the classroom teacher is certainly not in a position to directly address such severe problems, teachers with effective classroom management skills are aware of high-needs students and have a repertoire of specific techniques for meeting some of their needs (Marzano, 2003b). Figure 1 (p. 10) summarizes five categories of high-needs students and suggests classroom strategies for each category and subcategory.

• Passive students fall into two subcategories: those who fear relationships and those who fear failure. Teachers can build strong relationships with these students by refraining from criticism, rewarding small successes, and creating a classroom climate in which students feel safe from aggressive people.
• The category of aggressive students comprises three subcategories: hostile, oppositional, and covert. Hostile students often have poor anger control, low capacity for empathy, and an inability to see the consequences of their actions. Oppositional students exhibit milder forms of behavior problems, but they consistently resist following rules, argue with adults, use harsh language, and tend to annoy others. Students in the covert subcategory may be quite pleasant at times, but they are often nearby when trouble starts and they never quite do what authority figures ask of them. Strategies for helping aggressive students include creating behavior contracts and providing immediate rewards and consequences. Most of all, teachers must keep in mind that aggressive students, although they may appear highly resistant to behavior change, are still children who are experiencing a significant amount of fear and pain.
• Students with attention problems fall into two categories: hyperactive and inattentive. These students may respond well when teachers contract with them to manage behaviors; teach them basic concentration, study, and thinking skills; help them divide tasks into manageable parts; reward their successes; and assign them a peer tutor.
• Students in the perfectionist category are driven to succeed at unattainable levels. They are self-critical, have low self-esteem, and feel inferior. Teachers can often help these students by encouraging them to develop more realistic standards, helping them to accept mistakes, and giving them opportunities to tutor other students.
• Socially inept students have difficulty making and keeping friends. They may stand too close and touch others in annoying ways, talk too much, and misread others' comments. Teachers can help these students by counseling them about social behaviors.

Figure 1. Categories of High-Needs Students

Category		Definitions & Source	Characteristics	Suggestions
Passive	Behavior that avoids the domination of others or the pain of negative experiences. The child attempts to protect self from criticism, ridicule, or rejection, possibly reacting to abuse and neglect. Can have a biochemical basis, such as anxiety.	Fear of relationships: Avoids connection with others, is shy, doesn't initiate conversations, attempts to be invisible. Fear of failure: Gives up easily, is convinced he or she can't succeed, is easily frustrated, uses negative self-talk.	Provide safe adult and peer interactions and protection from aggressive people. Provide assertiveness and positive self-talk training. Reward small successes quickly. Withhold criticism.
Aggressive	Behavior that overpowers, dominates, harms, or controls others without regard for their well-being. The child has often taken aggressive people as role models. Has had minimal or ineffective limits set on behavior. Is possibly reacting to abuse and neglect. Condition may have a biochemical basis, such as depression.	Hostile: Rages, threatens, or intimidates others. Can be verbally or physically abusive to people, animals, or objects. Oppositional: Does opposite of what is asked. Demands that others agree or give in. Resists verbally or nonverbally. Covert: Appears to agree but then does the opposite of what is asked. Often acts innocent while setting up problems for others.	Describe the student's behavior clearly. Contract with the student to reward corrected behavior and set up consequences for uncorrected behavior. Be consistent and provide immediate rewards and consequences. Encourage and acknowledge extracurricular activities in and out of school. Give student responsibilities to help teacher or other students to foster successful experiences.
Attention problems	Behavior that demonstrates either motor or attentional difficulties resulting from a neurological disorder. The child's symptoms may be exacerbated by family or social stressors or biochemical conditions, such as anxiety, depression, or bipolar disorders.	Hyperactive: Has difficulty with motor control, both physically and verbally. Fidgets, leaves seat frequently, interrupts, talks excessively. Inattentive: Has difficulty staying focused and following through on projects. Has difficulty with listening, remembering, and organizing.	Contract with the student to manage behaviors. Teach basic concentration, study, and thinking skills. Separate student in a quiet work area. Help the student list each step of a task. Reward successes; assign a peer tutor.
Perfectionist	Behavior that is geared toward avoiding the embarrassment and assumed shame of making mistakes. The child fears what will happen if errors are discovered. Has unrealistically high expectations of self. Has possibly received criticism or lack of acceptance while making mistakes during the process of learning.	Tends to focus too much on the small details of projects. Will avoid projects if unsure of outcome. Focuses on results and not relationships. Is self-critical.	Ask the student to make mistakes on purpose, then show acceptance. Have the student tutor other students.
Socially inept	Behavior that is based on the misinterpretation of nonverbal signals of others. The child misunderstands facial expressions and body language. Hasn't received adequate training in these areas and has poor role modeling.	Attempts to make friends but is inept and unsuccessful. Is forced to be alone. Is often teased for unusual behavior, appearance, or lack of social skills.	Teach the student to keep the appropriate physical distance from others. Teach the meaning of facial expressions, such as anger and hurt. Make suggestions regarding hygiene, dress, mannerisms, and posture.
Source: Marzano, R.J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action (pp. 104–105). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

School may be the only place where many students who face extreme challenges can get their needs addressed. The reality of today's schools often demands that classroom teachers address these severe issues, even though this task is not always considered a part of their regular job.

In a study of classroom strategies (see Brophy, 1996; Brophy & McCaslin, 1992), researchers examined how effective classroom teachers interacted with specific types of students. The study found that the most effective classroom managers did not treat all students the same; they tended to employ different strategies with different types of students. In contrast, ineffective classroom managers did not appear sensitive to the diverse needs of students. Although Brophy did not couch his findings in terms of teacher-student relationships, the link is clear. An awareness of the five general categories of high-needs students and appropriate actions for each can help teachers build strong relationships with diverse students.

Don't Leave Relationships to Chance

Teacher-student relationships provide an essential foundation for effective classroom management—and classroom management is a key to high student achievement. Teacher-student relationships should not be left to chance or dictated by the personalities of those involved. Instead, by using strategies supported by research, teachers can influence the dynamics of their classrooms and build strong teacher-student relationships that will support student learning.

References

Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2002). School counselors and school reform: New directions. Professional School Counseling, 5(4), 235–248.

Brophy, J. E. (1996). Teaching problem students. New York: Guilford.

Brophy, J. E., & McCaslin, N. (1992). Teachers' reports of how they perceive and cope with problem students. Elementary School Journal, 93, 3–68.

Chiu, L. H., & Tulley, M. (1997). Student preferences of teacher discipline styles. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 24(3), 168–175.

Dunn, N. A., & Baker, S. B. (2002). Readiness to serve students with disabilities: A survey of elementary school counselors. Professional School Counselors, 5(4), 277–284.

Emmer, E. T. (1984). Classroom management: Research and implications. (R & D Report No. 6178). Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED251448)

Emmer, E. T., Evertson, C. M., & Worsham, M. E. (2003). Classroom management for secondary teachers (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Emmer, E. T., Sanford, J. P., Evertson, C. M., Clements, B. S., & Martin, J. (1981). The classroom management improvement study: An experiment in elementary school classrooms. (R & D Report No. 6050). Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED226452)

Evertson, C. M., & Emmer, E. T. (1982). Preventive classroom management. In D. Duke (Ed.), Helping teachers manage classrooms (pp. 2–31). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Evertson, C. M., Emmer, E. T., & Worsham, M. E. (2003). Classroom management for elementary teachers (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Glasser, W. (1969). Schools without failure. New York: Harper and Row.

Glasser, W. (1990). The quality school: Managing students without coercion. New York: Harper and Row.

Kerman, S., Kimball, T., & Martin, M. (1980). Teacher expectations and student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan.

Marzano, R. J. (2003a). What works in schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Marzano, R. J. (with Marzano, J. S., & Pickering, D. J.). (2003b). Classroom management that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stage, S. A., & Quiroz, D. R. (1997). A meta-analysis of interventions to decrease disruptive classroom behavior in public education settings. School Psychology Review, 26(3), 333–368.

Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249–294.

Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M., van Tartwijk, J., & Admiral, W. (1999). Interpersonal relationships between teachers and students in the classroom. In H. C. Waxman & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), New directions for teaching practice and research (pp. 151–170). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (1993). Do you know what you look like? Interpersonal relationships in education. London: Falmer Press.

Robert J. Marzano is a senior scholar at Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning in Aurora, Colorado, and an associate professor at Cardinal Stritch University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; (303) 796-7683; robertjmarzano@aol.com. His newest book written with Jana S. Marzano and Debra J. Pickering is Classroom Management That Works (ASCD, 2003). Jana S. Marzano is a licensed professional counselor in private practice in Centennial, Colorado; (303) 220-1151; janamarzan@aol.com.

KEYWORDS

Issues In Educational Research, 2011, Vol 21(3), 281-294
[ Contents Vol 21 ] [ IIER Home ]

How does teaching experience affect attitudes towards literacy learning in the early years?

Noella M. Mackenzie, Brian Hemmings and Russell Kay
Charles Sturt University

Teachers bring a complex array of beliefs and attitudes to the teaching of literacy. The purpose of the study reported in this article was to investigate the nature of teacher attitudes towards the learning and teaching of writing in the first year of school and to identify any broad underlying attitudinal dimensions. The secondary aim was to examine the influence of experience on these attitudinal dimensions. Government school teachers (n=228), from two Australian states, were surveyed using an instrument consisting of attitude statements which related to the learning and teaching of early literacy and more specifically early writing. An exploratory factor analysis was undertaken which indicated that, although most items appeared to be unrelated, a set of eight items coalesced to form a scale referred to as Teacher Attitudes towards Language, Thinking and Scaffolding. Analyses of variance were conducted to examine the relationship between teaching experience in general as well as specific early years teaching experience with the teacher attitude measure as the dependent variable. General teaching experience was not found to be significantly related to teacher attitude but increased amounts of early years teaching experience were found to significantly relate to support for a Vygotskian approach to the learning and teaching of writing in the first year of school. The outcomes identify the potential impact of accrued early years experience on teacher attitudes towards the learning and teaching of literacy to young children. While many of the teacher attitudes appeared to be disparate, the identified dimension indicates that there may be a consistent pattern of attitudes related to a Vygotskian approach to learning and teaching early writing. A second implication may be that longer periods of early years teaching experience may foster positive attitudes towards a Vygotskian teaching approach more quickly than general teaching experience in other settings.

---

Introduction

The purposes of this article are to investigate the nature of teacher attitudes to the learning and teaching of early writing and to examine the influence of teaching experience on these attitudes. The article begins with a contextualisation of the issues under consideration. The work of Vygotsky provides the theoretical framework for the discussion of learning and teaching generally and literacy and writing more specifically. Literature relating to teacher beliefs and attitudes, early literacy learning, and early writing is then provided prior to a methodology section. Next, the findings are introduced, followed by a discussion of these findings and their implications.

The data discussed in this article originate from a program of research which examines the learning and teaching of writing in the first year of school. This research program addresses a number of questions, although the discussion here is limited to the attitudes of Kindergarten/Preparatory teachers towards the learning and teaching of early writing and the link between such attitudes and accrued teaching experience. Attitudes were defined as "evaluated beliefs which predispose the individual to respond a preferential way" (Burns, 1997, p. 456). The attitudes were identified through a survey conducted in late 2008.

It has been argued that "beliefs elicited through questionnaires may reflect teachers' theoretical or idealistic beliefs - beliefs about what should be", while "actual classroom practice may be more rooted in reality...and reflect teachers' practical or experiential knowledge" (Phipps & Borg, 2009, p. 382). However, this does not appear to be a serious problem as previous studies using survey methods to examine teachers' literacy practices are substantiated by findings from observational research (Gambrell, Morrow, & Pressley, 2007).

The survey used in the present study provided an opportunity for Kindergarten/Preparatory teachers to respond to statements about the learning and teaching of literacy, and specifically early writing, from a variety of perspectives. Some teachers believe that literacy learning is skills-based and subsequently they teach literacy using traditional teacher-directed, didactic approaches (Stipek, 2004). Other teachers use a socio-cultural framework to form the basis of their teaching program (McNaughton, 2002). This framework takes account of the many factors that shape classroom learning. Of course, many teachers apply elements of both approaches. The attitudinal statements appearing in the survey reflected differing perspectives and were gleaned from a variety of sources, trialled with a small group of teachers, refined, and then used in a study with 89 teachers in 2007. The survey was subsequently revised before its use in the study discussed here.

Background

A Vygotskian approach to learning and teaching

There are a few assumptions, derived from Vygotskian theory, underlying the work described in this article. Firstly, that children develop a number of culturally transmitted mental tools through their interactions with more experienced 'others'; in this case teachers. Secondly, that literacy is identified as one of these tools (Bodrova & Leong, 2006). Thirdly, that the teachers' role is not just about direct teaching of facts or skills; rather it involves enabling children to use culturally transmitted mental tools independently and creatively. Vygotskian theory stipulates the essential role of mediating agents (in this case teachers), in the development of children's higher mental processes. As such, construction of knowledge cannot be separated from its social context: in this case, the classroom. Within the classroom, what teachers attend to (or neglect) in relation to literacy generally, and writing specifically, will influence what knowledge children construct about literacy and writing. "The teacher's ideas mediate what and how the child will learn; they act as a filter in a sense, determining which ideas the student will learn" (Bodrova & Leong, 2007, p. 9). Instruction according to Vygotsky (1987), contributes to cognitive development by moving "ahead of development, pushing it further and eliciting new formations" (p. 198). Therefore teachers' attitudes towards the learning and teaching of writing will determine what they choose to focus on, how they interact with children, and consequently what opportunities their charges will be afforded and what responses will be rewarded.

Why is literacy learning such a 'big ticket' item?

Success with language and literacy is fundamental to children's academic development and achievement (Bennett, Weigel, & Martin, 2002). To be literate, is to have access to significant amounts of knowledge stored in coded form (Egan & Gajdamaschko, 2003). However, the process is complex, and involves developing the "skills and knowledge to create, locate, analyse, comprehend and use a variety of written, visual, aural and multi-modal texts for a range of purposes, audiences and contexts" (Wing Jan, 2009, p. 3). Early reading and writing experiences work in concert with oral language experiences, play, music, and art to support the early learner to "create his[/her] own network of competencies which power subsequent independent literacy learning" (Clay, 1991, p. 1). However, children can begin to disconnect from literacy learning as early as the first year of school. Rationalisations made by practitioners for these disconnections often refer to children's intelligence, family background, or socio-economic status (D'Anguilli, Siegel, & Hertzman, 2004).

Teaching literacy is particularly challenging at a time when a range of views flourish on how to promote literacy learning and teaching (Taylor, 2007). Shifting understandings of literacy and multi-literacies make it increasingly difficult for teachers to know how to approach the teaching of literacy (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; McDougall, 2010). An institutional and political push for formal literacy instruction and testing in the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and Australia (Genishi & Dyson, 2009) has impacted on literacy instruction in classrooms with a press for more formalised approaches to instruction.

In Australian classrooms, literacy instruction is usually divided into a number of strands which come under the banner of the 'literacy block'. The literacy block is often divided into instructional units and usually includes: reading; writing; spelling; handwriting; grammar; listening and speaking; phonics and phonemic awareness; and may include viewing and representing. This approach seems likely to continue as the new Australian Curriculum organises English into three strands: Language, Literature, and Literacy (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2010). The literacy strand includes reading, writing, listening, speaking, vocabulary development, spelling, handwriting, and phonics. Consequently, the learning and teaching of writing is seen as one part of literacy learning and as such may be taught in isolation.

Teachers' beliefs and attitudes

Beliefs and attitudes are socially and culturally constructed, deeply seated, resistant to change, and central to our way of thinking, doing, and being (Rivalland, 2007). Beliefs are also the end result of an individual's upbringing, life experiences, and in the case of teachers, the result of socialisation processes in schools they have attended as students and worked in as teachers (McLachlan, Carvalo, de Lautour, & Kumar, 2006). Wherever they stem from, it appears that teachers' implicit beliefs are enduring and difficult to change (Hall, 2005; McLachlan, et al.; 2006; Sumsion, 2003) and are used to evaluate existing and new ideas about pedagogy. Beliefs, knowledge, and practice are inextricably intertwined (Foote, Smith, & Ellis, 2004; Vygotsky, 1978), acting as a 'contextual filter' through which teachers screen their classroom experiences, interpret them, and adapt their subsequent practice (Clark & Peterson, 1986, cited in Wilcox-Herzog, 2002). "Teachers' beliefs about literacy can [thus] be understood as including what they assume, think, and know about how young children develop literacy skills; what they perceive a teacher's role in this process to be; and how they feel they should implement these practices in the classroom" (Hindman & Wasik, 2008, p. 480). Since teachers play a pivotal role in providing children with opportunities for literacy learning, their attitudes and beliefs directly and indirectly impact upon children's developmental outcomes (Arbeau & Coplan, 2007). To approach the teaching of literacy from a Vygotskian perspective is to recognise literacy as a complex cultural phenomenon that will give children access to a new set of cognitive tools (Egan & Gajdamaschko, 2003).

The teacher as mediator of learning

Although teachers work in teams for some things, for most of their day they work independently within their own classrooms, largely informed by their personal beliefs and theories of how children learn, despite systemic attempts to standardise curriculum using mandatory syllabus documents. It has been argued that a good teacher is "the most important factor accounting for the quality of student learning" (Ramsey, 2000, p. 16), a statement which is supported by many authorities (Australian Council of Deans of Education, 2004; Australian Labor Party, 2007; Buckingham, 2003; Department of Education Science and Training, 2003; Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Hattie, 2009; Ingvarson, 2001; Rowe, 2003). On the other hand, the effect of poor quality teaching on student outcomes can be "debilitating and cumulative" and "greater than those that arise[s] from students' backgrounds" (Darling-Hammond, 2000a, p. 3). Classrooms with the most effective literacy teachers are characterised by commonalties (high academic engagement, effective classroom management, and explicit teaching of skills), but there are marked differences in the way these common components come together (Gambrell et al., 2007). The authors are not suggesting that all teachers should operate in the same ways, but it is proposed that all children deserve a 'good' teacher and these children are never more vulnerable than when they are in their first year of schooling. A poor beginning can lead to frustration, avoidance, and a negative attitude towards school literacy, while, on the other hand, early success often leads to future success and a positive attitude towards school and literacy.

Teaching which reflects Vygotsky's theories of learning involves organising teaching and learning experiences in ways that are often prevalent in early years classrooms. That is, instruction is planned to give practice within the zone of proximal development for individual children, cooperative learning activities are designed with groups of children operating at different cognitive levels, and scaffolding is a commonly-used strategy to assist and promote individual growth (Bodrova & Leong, 2007; Talay-Ongan, 2004; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976)

Experience versus experiences

Even though teachers have often gained similar pre-service qualifications (e.g., Bachelor of Education), these may reflect courses with varied content, taken in different institutions, reflecting different educational philosophies over a range of 30+ years. A further difference might be seen between teachers who have continued to study at a post-graduate level and those teachers who may not have studied since they obtained their original qualifications. Changes to teacher demographics have also been apparent. For example, the median age of teachers in Australia increased from 34 to 43 years over the 15 years to 2001 (Department of Education, Science and Training, 2003). In 2009, 80% of all full-time teaching staff members in primary schools in Australia were female (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009).

During the 1970s and 1980s it was suggested that there was a relationship between teachers' effectiveness and years of experience (Murnane & Phillips, 1981; Klitgaard & Hall, 1974), although not necessarily significant or linear. While some studies (see for example, Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004) established that inexperienced teachers (i.e., those with less than 3 years of experience) were typically less effective than more senior teachers, Darling-Hammond (2000b) argued that the benefits of experience appeared to level off after 5-8 years. More recent studies suggest that experience may assist with effectiveness, although some experienced teachers actually become less effective later in their careers (Chingosa & Peterson, 2010). Hattie (2009) differentiates between experienced and expert teachers, suggesting that experience alone is not enough to determine effectiveness. In a study conducted by Hindman and Wasik (2008), the more experienced teachers expressed greater levels of agreement with research-based findings about learning and teaching oral language.

Purpose of the study

It is reasoned above that teaching beliefs, knowledge, and practice are intertwined and may impact on teacher effectiveness. As a means of examining this argument further, the present study is designed to explore some of these relationships using literacy (or more specifically writing) as a vehicle. The main aim of the study is to investigate the nature of teacher attitudes towards the learning and teaching of writing in the first year of school and to identify any broad underlying attitudinal dimensions. The secondary aim is to examine the influence of experience on these attitudinal dimensions. Arguably, a realisation of these aims will add to the on-going debate on how best to support the learning and teaching of literacy in the early years of schooling.

Method

Participants

Two hundred and twenty-eight Kindergarten/Preparatory teachers from New South Wales and Victoria participated in the study. These teachers were all volunteers and were not known to the researchers. The vast majority of the teachers were female and their teaching experience ranged from 1-40 years, with an average teaching experience of approximately 15 years. Experience in teaching Kindergarten/Preparatory spanned 1-30 years, with an average experience of about 6 years. Even though the participating teachers were not required to provide their teaching qualifications, Kindergarten/Preparatory teachers in Australia generally hold a bachelor's degree awarded by a university. This degree may be a specialist Early Childhood (Birth-8 years) award, a combined Early Childhood and Primary (Birth-8 years) award, or a General Primary (5-12 years) award. These degree courses invariably take four years of full-time study.

Procedure

Following approval from the respective ethics committees of the various organisations implicated in the study, a survey was despatched to the principals of 200 New South Wales and 200 Victorian government primary schools that had been randomly selected from a number of regions within each of these Australian states. Both metropolitan and rural schools were part of this selection. Generally, only one copy of the survey was sent to each school, although larger schools received two or three copies. The principal was requested to pass on the survey to Kindergarten/Preparatory teachers. A total of 228 responses were received from teachers employed in some of the selected schools. However, only 193 of these responses (84.6%) were complete and for some items of data a lesser number of responses were accessible for subsequent analysis.

Instrumentation

A draft survey was trialled with 12 teachers and then a pilot was conducted with 89 teachers. This pilot resulted in substantial changes, including the addition of new items and the rewording of items. The final survey was composed of two parts. Part 1 contained questions relating to background e.g., gender and teaching experience; whereas, Part 2 was made up of 40 items which sought responses on a 5-point Likert scale with anchor points strongly disagree to strongly agree. The latter set of items endeavoured to measure attitudes to a number of early education issues some of which overlapped with individual items, such that a single item sometimes encompassed more than one issue e.g., Item 2 'Young children do not clearly distinguish writing from drawing, suggesting that drawing may be a necessary part of early writing' cuts across issues pertaining to writing, drawing, and learning. The range of issues covered by the items also included: teacher confidence; educational theory; traditional approaches; socio-cultural approaches to literacy learning and instruction; bridging from the known to the unknown; and, provision of feedback. The data obtained from the survey were analysed by programs in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, Version 16.0).

Identification of the measures

Several items were discarded because the content was viewed as peripheral to the main issues being examined or in a small number of cases because there was almost unanimous agreement resulting in a minimum amount of variance. By reason of the size of the sample, it was not possible to undertake a single exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with the remaining 36 items. Consequently, items with similar or related content were grouped in clusters first and then subjected, in turn, to an EFA. In spite of this approach, only one salient factor, which included eight items, emerged. Subsequent scale analysis of the eight items in this factor produced a Cronbach alpha, for a scale using standardised items, of .70. All eight items were found to enhance the overall reliability of the scale and this measure was deemed to be a measure of Teacher Attitudes towards Language, Thinking, and Scaffolding (refer to Table 1). The distribution of the measure was checked using kurtosis and skewness values. Kurtosis and skewness describe the distribution of a set of data around the mean, and these values were -.305 and -.141, respectively. Values between -1 and +1 are considered acceptable and indicate a close to normal distribution (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006).

The majority of the other items in the survey appeared to be quite discrete and did not contribute to any coherent factor structure. Some examples of these items are listed in the Appendix.

Table 1: Items forming the measure/scale

Item

Language enables thought, making children's talk an essential part of the writing classroom.

Language development is facilitated by interaction between inexperienced (children) and experienced (teachers and adults) language learners.

Learning to write is enhanced if children are encouraged to build on their home and community experiences.

Children use drawing to communicate and as a scaffold, rehearsal, or elaboration technique in their writing.

Children learn best when their learning is scaffolded by a more experienced other who can teach to the point of need.

Kindergarten children should be encouraged to think 'out loud' (e.g., talk as they write).

Expressing their own ideas is the major purpose for writing in Kindergarten.

Drawing may act as a bridge between a child's home/community experiences and school by providing opportunities for meaningful conversations.

Results

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed using the attitudinal scale measure as the dependent variable and four categories of teaching experience in years, viz., 0-4, 5-10, 11-20, and 21+, as the independent variable. The descriptive statistics for these categories are shown in Table 2. The result did not reveal an overall significant difference F(3,177) = 1.38, p=.25 and, thus, it was concluded that there was no relationship between years of teaching experience and the attitudinal measure. However, it should be noted that the pattern of means indicates a trend such that those with least experience had the lowest scale scores with progressive increases for groups with greater teaching experience.

Table 2: Descriptive statistics for overall teaching experience (standardised scores)

Teaching experience (years)	Mean	Standard deviation	N
0-4	-.097	.593	48
5-10	-.028	.524	38
11-20	-.029	.561	40
21+	.121	.566	55
Total	-.002	.566	181

A further one-way ANOVA was carried out to investigate the relationship between the attitudinal scale measure and three categories of Kindergarten/Preparatory teaching experience in years, viz., 0-2, 3-6, and 7+. The descriptive statistics for these categories are given in Table 3. It needs to be noted that the 0-2 category is made up of about 66% of teachers with less than four years of general teaching experience, the 3-6 category has approximately 53% of teachers with 11 or more years of general teaching experience, and the 7+ category has 70% of teachers with more than 21 years of general teaching experience.

Table 3: Descriptive statistics for Kindergarten/Prep (K/P) teaching experience (standardised scores)

K/P teaching experience (years)	Mean	Standard deviation	N
0-2	-.176	.559	65
3-6	.128	.490	60
7+	.062	.607	56
Total	-.002	.566	181

The analysis was significant, F(2,178) = 5.26, p=.006 and the adjusted R2 (or effect size) was .045. Group comparisons were undertaken using the Tukey HSD which showed that there was a significant difference between the 0-2 group and the 3-6 group (p=.007). And, that there was also a significant difference between the least experienced group (0-2 years) and the most experienced group (7+ years) at the 5% level. Figure 1 displays a graph for the means of these groups. Taken together, these results indicate that Kindergarten/Preparatory teaching experience has an effect on teacher attitude with respect to language, thinking, and scaffolding. In particular, those teachers with little experience in Kindergarten/Preparatory settings are less likely to hold positive attitudes towards language, thinking, and scaffolding compared to their more experienced counterparts. However, this result may be partly due to the interaction between overall lack of teaching experience and lack of specific K-2 experience.

Figure 1: Means for the three groups of teachers with Kindergarten/Prep experience

Discussion

The main purpose of this study was to investigate the nature of teacher attitudes towards the learning and teaching of writing in the first year of school and to identify any broad underlying attitudinal dimensions. While many of the teacher attitudes appeared to be disparate, the results of an EFA demonstrated that only one dimension comprised of eight items, referred to as Teacher Attitudes towards Language, Thinking, and Scaffolding, was evident. This identified dimension indicated that there is a consistent set of attitudes related to a Vygotskian approach to learning and teaching early writing (Roehler & Cantlon, 1997; Vygotsky, 1962, 1978, 1987). A close inspection of the items forming this dimension revealed that the four key principles of a Vygotskian approach, namely, active construction of knowledge, the social context, organisation of learning, and the critical role of language in learning, are represented in this dimension (Bodrova & Leong, 2007).

A subsidiary aim of the research was to examine the influence of teaching experience on any attitudinal dimensions found. Through the use of ANOVAs it was shown that no significant relationship between years of teaching experience and the identified dimension was evident; however, a significant relationship between years of Kindergarten/Preparatory teaching experience and the attitudinal dimension was recorded. That is, those teachers with limited experience teaching in Kindergarten/Preparatory classrooms were less likely to hold positive attitudes towards a Vygotskian approach to the learning and teaching of writing compared to their more experienced colleagues. To sum, it would seem that accrued early years teaching experience may foster positive attitudes towards a Vygotskian approach in a way that general teaching experience in other settings may not. Of course, this may not be a simple cause-and-effect relationship. For example, teachers with more Vygotskian attitudes may seek teaching placement at the K-2 level. However, the emphasis on the need and skills to become a reflective practitioner in teacher preparation programs over the last 25 years (see, for example, Drew & Bingham, 2001; Gibbs, 1988) might support the view that exposure to K-2 classrooms is necessary to help teachers develop individual frameworks that are socio-cultural. Such frameworks align with Vygotskian principles stated earlier in this article. This possibility is worthy of further research.

At least three qualifications must be borne in mind when assessing the results of the study, particularly in relation to the participants. First, the sample was based upon volunteering for participation. Second, with respect to K-2 experience, at the lower end in particular, teachers tended to be inexperienced generally and inexperienced at K-2 teaching. And third, a reasonable proportion of the participants' responses could not be used in the analysis and this poor response could not be investigated.

Despite these limitations, the study's findings point to a number of important considerations for teachers and those preparing teachers for the classroom. To begin with, if teaching drawing on a Vygotskian approach is seen as an ideal, as supported by teachers with significant exposure to K-2 classrooms, then neophyte teachers need to be encouraged through a mentoring program to use such an approach. This mentoring could involve visits to junior classrooms if the beginning teacher is placed full-time on a more senior class. A system of rotating beginning and seasoned teachers more frequently so that experience is gained on classes in the early years is arguably another way of ensuring more positive attitudes towards a Vygotskian approach to learning and teaching writing and any related skills.

Another consideration involves those preparing teachers for entry to their profession. Maybe greater emphasis needs to be given to the teaching of writing, and one way of achieving this is to have teacher trainees spend additional time in Kindergarten/Preparatory classrooms modelling the practices of effective teachers. An alternative way of having teacher trainees exposed to Kindergarten/Preparatory classrooms is to have a mandated professional experience (or practicum) in such a classroom setting.

A final consideration is that teacher appointments target junior classes in the first instance, if feasible, to promote positive attitudes towards a Vygotskian teaching approach. Valuable experiences in these settings allow early career teachers to then move to more senior classes with increased confidence and skill to support especially struggling students with broader literacy concerns.

Further study, beyond the current research, would be necessary to validate and check the reliability of the Teacher Attitudes towards Language, Thinking, and Scaffolding scale across other samples and jurisdictions. Additional refinement of the scale may make it a useful diagnostic instrument for use in teacher in-service training. Another issue for future research deals with the impact of teacher qualifications and whether or not those teachers who have specialised postgraduate or even extensive in-service training have particular attitudes towards the learning and teaching of writing when compared to other groups of teachers.

It is worth exploring the result that many of the survey items appeared to be quite discrete. This was, no doubt, partly due to high levels of consensus on some items, hence lack of variance, but also because many responses seemed to be unrelated. A possible explanation for this latter finding was that many of the teachers sampled had not yet developed a fully-integrated educational philosophy and drew on a selection of unrelated beliefs/attitudes.

The present study has added to a body of literature pertaining to teaching literacy and teaching experience. Even though the study was not aiming to explore the notion of teaching effectiveness, it does offer some useful insights as to how teaching experience impacts on attitudes to professional practice, and how experience in a particular educational context tends to shape the attitudes of teachers. As advanced by Arbeau and Coplan (2007), this formation of attitudes can have both a direct and indirect influence on students' developmental outcomes.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Dr Christina Davidson, Dr Doug Hill, and Ms Caroline Byrne for their respective contributions to manuscript.

References

Arbeau, K.A., & Coplan, R.J. (2007). Kindergarten teachers' beliefs and responses to hypothetical prosocial, asocial, and antisocial children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53(2), 291-318.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2009). Schools, Australia, 2009. http://abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4221.02009?OpenDocument

Australian Council of Deans of Education (2004). New teaching, new learning: A vision for Australian education. Canberra.

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (2010). Australian Curriculum Consultation Portal, Explore K-10, English. http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/

Australian Labor Party (2007). National platform and constitution. Retrieved 24/5/09, from http://www.nit.com.au/downloads/files/Download_161.pdf

Bennett, K.K., Weigel, D.J., & Martin, S.S. (2002). Children's acquisition of early literacy skills: Examining family contributions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17(3), 295-317.

Bodrova, E., & Leong, D.J. (2007). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Buckingham, J. (2003). Missing links: Class size, discipline, inclusion and teacher quality (Vol. 29). St. Leonards, NSW: Centre for Independent Studies.

Burns, R. (1997). Introduction to research methods (3rd ed.). Melbourne, Vic.: Addison Wesley Longman.

Chingosa, M.M., & Peterson, P.E. (2010). It's easier to pick a good teacher than to train one: Familiar and new results on the correlates of teacher effectiveness. Economics and Education Review, 30(3), 449-465.

Clay, M. M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Auckland: Heinemann.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social features. South Yarra, Vic.: MacMillan Publishers.

D'Anguilli, A., Siegel, L.S., & Hertzman, C. (2004). Schooling, socioeconomic context and literacy development. Educational Psychology, 24(6), 867-884.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000a). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-46. from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000b). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 166-173.

Department of Education, Science and Training (2003). Australia's teachers: Australia's future. Advancing innovation, science, technology and mathematics. Main report. Canberra: Australian Government.

Drew, S., & Bingham, R. (2001). Study skills guide (2nd ed.). London: Gower.

Egan, K., & Gajdamascko, N. (2003). Some cognitive tools of literacy. In A.E. Kozulin, B.E. Gindis, V.S.E. Ageyev, & S.M.E. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context (pp. 83-98). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.

Foote, L., Smith, J., & Ellis, F. (2004). The impact of teachers' beliefs on the literacy experiences of young children: A New Zealand perspective. Early Years International Research Journal, 24(2), 135-147.

Gambrell, L.B., Morrow, L.M., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (2007). Best practices in literacy instruction (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Genishi, C., & Dyson, A.H. (2009). Children, language and literacy: Diverse learners in diverse times. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford: Further Education Unit, Oxford Polytechnic.

Hair, J.F., Black,W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Hattie, J.A.C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.

Hindman, A.H., & Wasik, B.A. (2008). Head start teachers' beliefs about language and literacy instruction. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(3), 479-492.

Ingvarson, L. (2001). Strengthening the profession? A comparison of recent reforms in the UK and the USA. Quality Teaching Series, Australian College of Education, Paper no. 4.

Klitgaard, R.E., & Hall, G.R. (1974). Are there unusually effective schools? Journal of Human Resources, 10(3), 40-106.

McDougall, J. (2010). A crisis of professional identity: How primary teachers are coming to terms with changing views of literacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 679-687. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.003

McLachlan, C., Carvalo, L., de Lautour, N., & Kumar, K. (2006). Literacy in early childhood settings in New Zealand: An examination of teachers' beliefs and practices. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 31(2), 31-46.

McNaughton, S. (2002). Meeting of minds. Wellington: Learning Media Limited.

Murnane, R.J., & Phillips, B.R. (1981). Learning by doing, vintage, and selection: Three pieces of the puzzle relating teaching experience and teaching preformance. Economics of Education Review, 1(4), 453-465.

Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L.V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237-257.

Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions bewteen teachers' grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System, 37(3), 380-390.

Ramsey, G. (2000). Quality matters. Revitalising teaching: Critical times, critical choices. Report of the Review of Teacher Education NSW, Executive Summary. Sydney, NSW: NSW Department of Education andTraining.

Rivalland, C.M.P. (2007). When are beliefs just 'the tip of the iceberg'? Exploring early childhood professionals' beliefs and practices about teaching and learning. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 32(1), 30-37.

Roehler, L.R., & Cantlon, D.J. (1997). Scaffolding: A powerful tool in social constructivist classrooms. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 6-42). New York: Brookline Books.

Rowe, K. (2003). The importance of teacher quality as a key determinant of students' experiences and outcomes of schooling. Melbourne, Vic.: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Stipek, D. (2004). Teaching practices in kindergarten and first grade: Different strokes for different folks. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(4), 548-568.

Sumsion, J. (2003). Rereading metaphors as cultural texts: A case study of early childhood teacher attrition. The Australian Educational Researcher, 30(3), 67-87.

Talay-Ongan, A. (2004). Early development risk and disability: Relational contexts. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.

Taylor, C. (2007). Literacies in childhood. In L. Makin, C. J. Diaz & C. McLachlan (Eds.), Literacies in childhood: Changing views, challenging practice (2nd ed.) ( pp. vii-viii). Sydney: MacLennan & Petty, Elsevier.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1987). The collected works of L.S Vygotsky (Volume 1): Problems of general psychology. New York: Plenum.

Wilcox-Herzog, A. (2002). Is there a link between teachers' beliefs and behaviors? Early Education and Development, 13(1), 81-106.

Wing Jan, L. (2009). Write ways: Modelling writing forms (3rd ed.). South Melbourne, Vic.: Oxford.

Wood, D., Bruner, J.C., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 80-100.

Appendix: Examples of survey items

1. I feel confident supporting the children in my class who have language development problems.
2. Teaching sight words should not be a priority in a kindergarten writing program.
3. Poor handwriting may influence perceptions about a child's competence as a writer.
4. Early writing instruction should prioritise the teaching of print conventions (directionality, spaces, spelling and punctuation).
5. Teaching text types is an important part of my kindergarten writing program.

Authors: Dr Noella Mackenzie is a lecturer in literacy studies in the Faculty of Education at Charles Sturt University. Noella's research interests include early writing development, the relationship between drawing and writing, literacy transitions and pedagogies, teachers' data literacy, and issues associated with teacher morale and the status of the teaching profession. Noella has also published in The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, The Australian Educational Researcher, The Australian Journal of Education and The Journal of Reading, Writing and Literacy. Email: nmackenzie@csu.edu.au Dr Brian Hemmings is the Sub-Dean (Graduate Studies), Faculty of Education at Charles Sturt University. Brian's research interests are quite varied (e.g., the productivity of academics, career change outcomes, and factors affecting school achievement) and his work has been published in journals such as the Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Higher Education, Australian Educational Researcher, and the International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. Email: BHemmings@csu.edu.au Mr Russell Kay is an Adjunct Senior Lecturer in Education at Charles Sturt University. His research interests concentrate on schooling performance and he draws on the use of multivariate statistics. Russell has published widely and his most recent journal publications appear in the International Journal of Educational Management and Education in Rural Australia. Email: rwkay@exemail.com.au Please cite as: Mackenzie, N. M., Hemmings, B. & Kay, R. (2011). How does teaching experience affect attitudes towards literacy learning in the early years?. Issues In Educational Research, 21(3), 281-294. http://www.iier.org.au/iier21/mackenzie.html

---

[ PDF version of this article ] [ Contents Vol 21 ] [ IIER Home ]
© 2011 Issues In Educational Research. This URL: http://www.iier.org.au/iier21/mackenzie.html
Created 16 Dec 2011. Last revision: 16 Dec 2011.
HTML: Roger Atkinson [rjatkinson@bigpond.com]