What kinds of relationships exist between educational policy, research and the professional knowledge of the teachers that implement these policies in practice? This article reports research that examined the role of teachers working in an environment formed by links between research, policy and practice. By adopting a contextual focus upon the Victorian Early Years Literacy Program, its research and teachers who implement the program, the study analysed how early years reading is being constructed. Critical issues are identified about the impact of policy and research upon the teaching profession and the links that are present in the research—policy—praxis nexus.
AllardA.JohnsonE. (2002, 1–5 December) Interrogating the discourse of ‘social literacies’ in an era of uncertainty. Paper presented at the Australian Association of Research in Education Conference, University of Queensland, Brisbane
2.
AngusL.BrownL. (1997). Becoming a school of the future: The micropolitics of policy implementation. Monash University, Faculty of Education Publications, Melbourne.
BeckerH. (1970). Sociological work: Method and substance. Chicago: Aldine.
5.
BrooksM.GrennonJ. (1999). The courage to be constructivist. Journal of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 57(3). 18–28.
6.
ButtR.RaymondD.McCueG.YamagishiL. (1992). Collaborative autobiography and the teacher's voice. In GoodsonI. (Ed.) Studying treachers' lives. London: Routledge.
7.
ClandininD.ConnellyM. (1995). Teachers' professional knowledge landscapes. New York: Teachers College Press.
8.
ComberB. (2001). Critical literacies and local action: Teacher knowledge and a new research agenda. In ComberB.SimpsonA. (Eds), Negotiating critical literacies in classrooms. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
CrevolaC.HillP. (1997, March). The early literacy research project: Success for all in Victoria, Australia. Paper presented as part of a symposium on International Adaptations of Success for All at the Annual Conference of the American Education Research Association, Chicago.
DinhamS.ScottC. (2000). Teaching in context. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
12.
DoeckeB.GillM. (2001). Setting Standards: Confronting Paradox, STELLA. A combined issue of English in Australia, December 2000–February 2001, 129–130, and Literacy Learning: the Middle Years9(1), 5–15.
13.
EarlL. (2004). Measuring effectiveness and improvement in schools: Why accountability is not about painting by numbers. Melbourne: Incorporated Association of Registered Teachers of Victoria.
14.
GeeJ. (1990). Social Linguistics and Literacies. London: Falmer Press.
15.
GlaserR.StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.
16.
GoodsonI. (2003). Professional knowledge, professional lives, studies in educational change. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
17.
GoodsonI.HargreavesA. (1996). Teachers' Professional Lives. London: Falmer Press.
18.
HeathS.B. (1983) Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19.
IngvarsonL.KleinhenzE. (2003, November). A review of standards of practice for beginning teaching. ACER Policy briefs, Issue 4.
20.
LankshearC.SnyderI.GreenB. (2000). Teachers and technoliteracy; Managing literacy, technology and learning in schools. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
21.
LockeT. (2001). English Teaching in New Zealand: In the frame and outside the Square. L1-Education Studies in Language and Literature, 1(2), 135–148.
22.
LukeA.FreebodyP. (1997). Critical literacy and the question of normativity: An introduction. In MusprattS.LukeA.FreebodyP. (Eds.). Constructing critical literacies. New Jersey: Hampton Press.
23.
MilesM.mHubermanM. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
24.
OzgaJ.MooreR. (1990). Curriculum policy: a reader. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
25.
PerkinsR.DavidsonJ. (2001, December). What Do We Value? Where Do We Stand? English In Australia, 129–130.
26.
ReddyM.J. (1979) The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in language about language. In OrtonyA. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
RobertsB. (2002). Biographical research. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
28.
SchonD. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
29.
ScottD. (2000). Responses to Crick and citizenship education. The curriculum journal, 11(1), 1–7.
30.
SeddonT. (2000). Advanced studies in educational research and practice 1., EDF8101 Core Unit for the degree of Doctor of Education, Monash University, Australia.
31.
ShrofelS. (1991). Review essay: School reform, professionalism, and control. Journal of Educational Thought25(1), 58–70.
32.
SlavinR.MaddenN.DolanL.WasikB. (1996). Every child, every school: Success for all. Baltimore, MR: Johns Hopkins University.
33.
StevensL. (2003). Reading first: A critical policy analysis. The Reading Teacher.56(7), 662–669.
34.
TaylorD. (2004). Teaching reading and the new word order. In B. Doecke, D. Homer & H. Nixon. English teachers at work: Narratives, counter narratives and arguments, 29–49. Adelaide: Wakefield Press.
35.
WhiteheadM. (1999). Supporting language and literacy development in the early years. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
