1

Evaluating  the  task  of  language  learning  

David  Rose    
In  press  B.  Miller,  P.  McCardle  &  V.  Connelly  [Eds.]  Development  of  writing  skills  in  
individuals  with  learning  difficulties  (Studies  in  Writing  Series).  Leiden:  Brill
 
Introduction  

This  contribution  is  concerned  with  the  needs  of  students  who  are  struggling  with  school,  
but  it  discusses  their  difficulties  in  relation  to  wider  issues  in  education.  The  discussion  
emerges  from  the  experience  of  a  long  term  action  research  program  known  as  Reading  to  
Learn  (Rose  &  Martin  2012,  2013,  Rose  2008,  2014,  in  press).  Reading  to  Learn  began  as  a  
project  with  Indigenous  children  whose  learning  was  on  average  4-­‐8  years  behind  their  non-­‐
Indigenous  peers  (Rose,  Gray  &  Cowey  1999,  Rose  2011a).  By  the  end  of  the  project’s  first  
year,  most  of  these  students  were  reading  at  age  appropriate  levels,  and  independent  
evaluation  showed  average  literacy  growth  at  a  rate  normally  expected  over  four  years  
(McCrae  et  al  2000,  Rose  in  press).  Since  then  Reading  to  Learn  has  grown  in  scope  as  a  
classroom  and  professional  learning  program  for  primary,  secondary  and  tertiary  teachers,  
and  in  scale  across  Australia,  Africa  and  western  Europe  (Coffin,  Acevedo  &  Lövstedt  2013).  
The  results  of  up  to  four  times  typical  literacy  growth  rates  have  been  consistently  replicated  
(Culican  2006,  Rose  2011b,  Rose  &  Martin  2013).  Significantly  for  the  focus  of  this  volume,  
this  includes  many  students  diagnosed  with  learning  difficulties  or  special  needs,  who  on  
average  attain  acceptable  writing  standards  for  their  grade  levels,  within  one  year  of  the  
program.  
 
This  paper  outlines  how  this  growth  is  achieved  and  evaluated,  but  it  is  also  concerned  with  
why  these  students  do  not  ordinarily  achieve  success  in  school.  In  doing  so  it  seeks  to  relate  
evaluation  to  language,  language  to  knowledge,  knowledge  to  pedagogy,  and  pedagogy  to  
social  justice.  Its  starting  point  is  with  a  social  theory  of  knowledge  in  schools,  in  which  
students  are  more  or  less  successful;  a  social  theory  of  learning,  in  which  learning  emerges  
from  the  teacher/learner  relation;  and  a  functional  theory  of  language,  in  which  people  
exchange  meanings  through  speaking  or  writing.  The  functional  language  model  is  applied  to  
designing  a  writing  assessment,  illustrated  with  a  student  diagnosed  with  learning  
difficulties.  This  student’s  difficulties  are  then  contextualised  in  a  discussion  of  literacy  
development  through  the  stages  of  school,  and  how  this  development  differs  between  more  
and  less  successful  students.  This  is  followed  by  an  examination  of  evaluation  and  pedagogy  
in  learning  theories  that  are  focused  on  individual  development  or  social  learning.  The  paper  
concludes  with  a  brief  description  of  the  Reading  to  Learn  pedagogy,  and  assessment  of  the  
same  student’s  literacy  growth  following  its  application.  
 
Behind  each  evaluation  can  be  found  a  theory  of  learning,  a  theory  of  knowledge,  and  a  
theory  of  language,  whether  these  theories  are  explicit  or  tacit.  But  to  be  clear  about  the  
evaluations  we  use,  we  do  need  to  be  explicit  about  the  theories  that  inform  them.  Theories  
of  learning  can  be  contrasted  between  those  that  construe  learning  as  intra-­‐individual  
processes  modelled  on  biological  development,  including  Piagetian  cognitivist  and  
behaviourist  theories,  and  those  that  construe  learning  as  a  social  process  between  teachers  
and  learners,  often  associated  with  Vygotsky’s  social  psychology.  Theories  of  language  can  
   2  

be  contrasted  between  those  that  focus  on  forms  of  words  and  syntactic  rules  for  combining  
them  in  sentences,  such  as  Chomskyan  formalism,  and  those  that  focus  on  the  social  
functions  of  meanings  exchanged  by  speakers  (Martin  &  Rose  2007a,  2008).  Theories  of  
knowledge  can  be  contrasted  between  constructivist  positions,  that  “knowledge  cannot  be  
transmitted,  but  must  instead  be  constructed  by  each  student  individually”  (von  Glasersfeld  
1998:  26),  and  social  realist  theories  such  as  that  of  Bernstein  (2000),  that  view  learning  as  
an  exchange  of  knowledge  between  learners  and  teachers.  These  options  in  theories  are  
schematised  in  Figure  1.  In  this  paper  I  will  present  an  approach  to  evaluation  based  on  a  
social  model  of  learning,  a  functional  model  of  language,  and  a  social  realist  model  of  
knowledge.  
 
Figure  1:  Theories  of  knowledge,  language  and  learning  

formal)

construc%vist)

knowledge)

individual) learning) social)

language)

realist)

func%onal)  
 
Knowledge  

Bernstein’s  theory  of  knowledge  is  embedded  in  an  analysis  of  education  as  a  social  
institution  in  which  knowledge  is  produced  and  exchanged.  In  this  model,  knowledge  is  
understood  as  an  evolving  social  resource,  that  includes  both  knowledge  about  the  natural  
and  social  worlds,  and  skills  for  acting  in  those  worlds.  Cultures  can  be  understood  as  
reservoirs  of  these  resources,  accumulated  over  many  generations,  from  which  each  
member  gradually  acquires  their  own  repertoire,  and  exchanges  them  with  others.  School  
knowledge  is  a  particular  reservoir  of  resources,  from  which  each  student  acquires  a  
repertoire  through  their  education.    
 
Briefly,  Bernstein  analyses  education  systems  in  sociological  terms,  as  institutional  
structures,  and  as  sets  of  rules  governing  institutional  practices.  In  terms  of  structures,  he  
distinguishes  1)  the  ‘production’  of  knowledge  in  the  upper  reaches  of  academia,  2)  
‘recontextualisation’  of  this  knowledge  as  state  syllabi  and  teacher  training,  and  3)  
‘reproduction’  of  recontextualised  knowledge  in  schools.  Recontextualisation  refers  to  the  
transformation  of  knowledge  and  practices  from  economic  contexts  to  pedagogic  contexts,  
for  example,  from  the  work  of  physicists  to  school  science  curricula,  or  from  the  research  of  
psychologists  to  classroom  teaching.  In  terms  of  practices,  he  distinguishes  1)  ‘distributive  
rules’  that  regulate  the  distribution  of  resources  to  social  groups;  2)  ‘recontextualising  rules’  
   3  

that  regulate  the  transformation  of  knowledge  into  curriculum  and  pedagogy;  3)  ‘evaluative  
rules’  that  regulate  the  acquisition  of  knowledge.  These  relations  are  simplified  in  Figure  2.  
 
Figure  2:  Structures  and  practices  in  education  systems  

distribu&on)
of)resources)

produc&on) recontextualisa&on) reproduc&on)

evalua&on)of)
learners)
   
 
This  model  is  useful  to  us  here  because  it  enables  us  to  relate  evaluation  of  students,  all  the  
way  up  to  the  distribution  of  resources  in  a  society.  The  relationships  produce  circular  
feedback  loops.  On  the  vertical  axis,  the  rules  that  govern  distribution  of  resources  (equal  or  
unequal)  shape  the  recontextualising  rules  that  govern  forms  of  pedagogy,  which  shape  the  
rules  governing  evaluation,  and  evaluation  of  students  determines  the  knowledge  they  will  
have  access  to  in  their  education  careers.  The  feedback  helps  to  explain  the  tendency  of  
schools  to  reproduce  social  inequalities,  as  students  from  lower  socio-­‐economic  groups  are  
likely  to  be  evaluated  as  less  successful,  and  given  access  to  different  kinds  of  knowledge  
than  more  successful  students.  For  example,  while  the  latter  may  study  sciences  and  
calculus  in  preparation  for  university,  less  successful  students  may  study  ‘life  skills’  and  
‘functional  maths’.  While  the  most  successful  may  study  literary  criticism,  the  least  
successful  may  be  given  remedial  literacy  lessons.  This  inertia  is  compounded  on  the  
horizontal  axis,  as  knowledge  about  education  is  produced  by  describing  its  reproduction  in  
schools  (education  research).  As  inequality  is  the  fundamental  structure  observed  at  the  
level  of  reproduction,  theories  of  ‘differentiation’  are  proposed  at  the  level  of  knowledge  
production.  These  theories  are  then  recontextualised  as  differentiated  curricula  and  
pedagogies,  according  to  students’  evaluations,  and  inequality  is  not  only  reproduced,  but  
legitimated  theoretically.  
 
Learning  

We  can  also  locate  evaluation  in  a  social  theory  of  learning,  in  terms  of  the  teacher/learner  
relation  unfolding  in  time.  Rose  &  Martin  (2012)  propose  that  learning  occurs  through  
activity,  that  a  learning  task  is  the  core  element  of  the  activity,  and  that  only  the  learner  can  
do  this  task.  In  this  last  sense,  the  model  might  seem  to  align  with  theories  of  learners  
‘constructing  knowledge’  for  themselves,  but  it  diverges  with  the  role  of  the  teacher.  In  
Piagetian  or  constructivist  theories  the  teacher  merely  ‘facilitates’  learning,  but  in  Vgotskyan  
or  social-­‐psychological  theories  the  teacher  is  the  authoritative  guide,  the  source  of  
knowledge  (Christie  2004).  Two  core  roles  of  teachers  in  a  learning  activity  are  to  specify  the  
learning  task  (e.g.  with  a  spoken  or  written  question),  and  to  evaluate  its  performance.  We  
can  refer  to  the  specifying  phase  as  a  Focus,  giving  a  three  phase  sequence,  illustrated  in  
Figure  3.  
   4  

 
Figure  3:  Nucleus  of  pedagogic  activity  

!  

The  Focus  gives  the  learner  the  parameters  of  the  Task,  its  performance  shows  the  teacher  
the  success  of  acquisition,  and  the  evaluation  tells  learners  how  successful  they  have  been.  
What  learners  demonstrate  in  performing  the  task  is  the  knowledge  they  have  acquired;  the  
evaluation  tells  them  how  well  they  have  learnt.  As  far  as  we  can  tell,  this  is  a  fundamental  
structure  of  learning  activities,  in  all  pedagogic  contexts,  no  matter  what  the  learning  theory.  
The  task  is  the  core  phase.  It  may  be  done  independently  without  any  specification  or  
evaluation,  but  in  formal  education  it  is  usually  specified  and  evaluated  by  teachers.    
 
The  Focus  may  give  more  or  less  explicit  criteria  for  the  task.  The  more  explicit  the  criteria,  
the  more  likely  the  task  will  be  done  successfully.  But  this  only  applies  so  far  as  the  criteria  
match  learners’  existing  knowledge.  If  a  learner  does  not  understand  the  focus  question,  
they  are  unlikely  to  do  the  task  successfully.  To  this  end,  a  teacher  may  prepare  learners  for  
a  task,  by  building  the  knowledge  required  to  do  it  successfully.  Furthermore,  successful  
performance  of  a  task  provides  a  platform  of  understanding  on  which  more  knowledge  can  
be  built.  We  can  therefore  distinguish  two  more  potential  phases  in  a  learning  activity,  
preparing  for  a  task,  and  elaborating  with  more  knowledge,  illustrated  in  Figure  4.    
 
Figure  4:  Optional  phases  of  pedagogic  activity  

 
!
This  structure  is  evident  in  many  classroom  activities,  in  which  the  teacher  provides  
knowledge  on  a  topic  or  skill,  through  demonstration,  explanation  or  discussion,  the  
students  then  do  individual  or  group  tasks,  which  the  teacher  evaluates,  and  the  knowledge  
or  skills  acquired  are  elaborated  in  the  next  lesson.  Many  learning  tasks  in  school  involve  
reading  and  writing.  By  secondary  school,  individual  reading  and  writing  may  become  the  
central  learning  tasks,  for  which  classroom  lessons  prepare  and  elaborate.  The  same  
structure  can  be  seen  at  the  level  of  teacher/learner  exchanges  in  classroom  discourse.  At  
this  level,  the  Focus  is  typically  a  question  addressed  to  the  class,  the  students’  Task  is  to  
respond  to  the  question,  which  the  teacher  always  evaluates.  If  it  is  affirmed,  the  teacher  
typically  uses  the  successful  response  to  elaborate  with  further  knowledge.  If  there  is  no  
successful  response,  the  teacher  may  prepare  with  more  specific  criteria.  This  pattern  has  
often  been  labelled  ‘IRF’  or  ‘initiate-­‐response-­‐feedback’  cycles,  but  the  analysis  is  more  
delicate,  and  expanded  in  detail  in  Martin  &  Rose  2007a,  b,  Rose  2010,  2014a,  Rose  &  
Martin  2012.  
 
   5  

Teachers’  roles  in  preparing,  specifying,  evaluating  and  elaborating  learning  tasks  require  a  
detailed  understanding  of  the  nature  of  the  task.  This  is  apparent  in  manual  activities,  in  
which  the  teacher  is  an  expert,  and  guides  the  learner  to  do  the  activity  in  steps.  Such  
modelling  and  guidance  may  be  a  fundamental  pedagogic  pattern  across  human  cultures.  
But  in  the  school,  most  learning  activities  involve  language,  and  more  often  than  not  the  task  
is  constituted  entirely  in  spoken  or  written  language.  Hence  teachers’  understanding  of  
learning  tasks  in  school  must  involve  some  model  of  language.    
 
Language  

Frequently,  the  model  of  language  applied  in  pedagogic  activities,  including  assessments,  is  
the  ‘bricks-­‐&-­‐mortar’  model  of  formal  and  traditional  school  grammars,  dating  back  to  
ancient  Greece.  Following  earlier  models,  the  Greeks  wrote  their  language  using  alphabetic  
symbols  to  represent  the  sounds  of  words.  Thus  written  words  appeared  to  be  composed  of  
letters  representing  sounds.  They  also  found  that  words  made  up  sentences.  Each  word  
expressed  a  definable  meaning  (‘bricks’),  and  words  were  combined  into  sentences  by  
grammatical  rules  (‘mortar’).  In  various  forms,  this  model  has  dominated  European  
linguistics  for  two  and  a  half  millennia.      
 
The  functional  model  of  language  takes  a  different  perspective,  although  words  and  
grammar  obviously  still  have  a  place.  In  this  social  semiotic  view,  language  is  defined  as  a  
resource  for  meaning,  as  in  Bernstein’s  model  of  knowledge  as  reservoir  and  repertoire.  
Speaking,  reading  and  writing  involve  exchanging  meanings  with  each  other.  Language  and  
its  social  contexts  are  complementary  dimensions  of  the  process  of  making  meaning,  in  
which  language  enacts  relations  between  interactants,  and  construes  their  experience.  
Social  relations  and  social  activity  are  realised  as  unfolding  patterns  of  discourse  in  texts,  
that  are  in  turn  realised  as  patterns  of  wordings,  or  grammar,  that  are  in  turn  realised  as  
patterns  of  sounds  in  speech  or  letters  in  writing.  These  three  levels  of  language  are  
illustrated  in  Figure  4  as  a  series  of  nested  circles,  with  discourse  realised  as  grammar,  
realised  as  sounds  (phonology)  or  lettering  (graphology).  A  language  consists  of  systems  of  
resources  at  each  of  these  levels.  Learning  a  language  means  accumulating  these  systems  of  
resources,  by  exchanging  meanings  with  others.    
 
Figure  4:  Three  levels  of  language    

discourse)

grammar)

phonology/)
graphology)

 
 
The  language  system  is  immensely  complex,  but  we  can  describe  its  outlines  with  a  few  basic  
dimensions,  highlighted  in  bold  as  follows.  We  can  distinguish  general  dimensions  of  the  
   6  

social  contexts  of  language,  including  the  tenor  of  social  relations,  fields  of  social  activity,  
and  the  mode  of  language,  as  dialogic  or  monologic,  spoken  or  written.  These  three  
dimensions  are  known  in  systemic  functional  linguistics  (SFL)  as  register.  A  culture  consists  of  
a  huge  variety  of  options  in  tenor,  field  and  mode,  but  these  options  are  woven  together  in  
consistent  configurations  that  are  recognisable  to  members  of  the  culture.  These  
recognisable  configurations  of  tenor,  field  and  mode  are  known  as  genres.  Each  genre  goes  
through  predictable  stage  to  achieve  its  social  purposes.  For  example,  a  narrative  may  
expect  a  complicating  event  and  a  resolution,  a  debate  expects  one  side  to  be  argued,  and  
then  another  side,  and  so  on  (Martin  &  Rose  2008).  
 
The  relation  between  genre,  register  and  language  is  realisation.  A  genre  is  realised  by  
patterns  of  tenor,  field  and  mode,  and  genre  and  register  are  realised  in  turn  as  patterns  of  
language.  But  language  does  not  consist  merely  of  words  in  sentences,  rather  social  contexts  
unfold  as  texts.  Patterns  of  unfolding  meanings  in  texts  are  referred  to  as  discourse.  Tenor  is  
realised  as  patterns  of  interpersonal  meanings  (such  as  moves  in  a  dialogue),  field  as  
ideational  meanings  (such  as  sequences  of  events),  and  mode  as  textual  meanings  (how  
information  is  organised).  These  patterns  of  meaning  in  texts  are  realised  as  patterns  of  
wordings  in  sentences,  or  grammar,  which  are  realised  in  turn  as  patterns  of  sounds  or  
letters.  The  whole  model  is  illustrated  in  Figure  5,  with  genre  as  the  coordinating  outer  
circle,  realised  in  turn  as  register,  discourse,  grammar,  and  phonology  or  graphology.  
 
Figure  5:  Language  in  social  contexts  

genre)

field) tenor) register)

idea/onal) discourse)
interpersonal)
mode)
grammar)
textual)
phonology/)
graphology) phonology/)
graphology)

 
 
Evaluation  of  language  resources  

This  language  model  enables  us  to  interpret  learning  tasks  in  school  in  terms  of  genre,  
register  and  the  language  patterns  that  realise  them,  and  to  evaluate  tasks  in  the  same  
terms.  Based  on  this  model,  a  writing  assessment  was  designed  in  the  Reading  to  Learn  
program,  to  accurately  analyse  the  language  resources  that  each  student  brings  to  the  
writing  task  (Rose  2014,  in  press).    
 
Teachers  identify  these  language  resources  in  students’  writing,  using  14  criteria.  At  the  level  
of  genre,  evaluation  focuses  on  the  social  purpose  of  the  text,  and  its  organisation  into  
   7  

stages,  and  phases  within  each  stage.  (A  phase  of  meaning  is  typically  expressed  as  a  
paragraph  in  writing.)  At  the  level  of  register,  it  focuses  on  the  text’s  field,  tenor,  and  mode.  
At  the  level  of  discourse,  interpersonal,  ideational  and  textual  features  are  identified.  
Ideational  features  include  ‘content  words’  (lexis),  and  conjunctions  that  link  sequences  of  
events.  Interpersonal  features  include  evaluative  items  (appraisal).  Textual  features  include  
reference  items  (pronouns,  articles).  At  the  level  of  grammar,  the  variety  and  accuracy  of  
grammatical  resources  are  evaluated.  At  the  level  of  graphic  features,  spelling,  punctuation  
and  graphic  presentation  are  marked.  The  sequence  of  analysis  is  thus  from  the  ‘top-­‐down’,  
from  genre  to  register,  to  discourse,  to  grammar,  to  graphology.  Questions  are  used  to  
interrogate  each  of  these  criteria,  summarised  in  Table  1.  
 
Table  1:  Writing  assessment  criteria  
GENRE         [Genre  stages  and  phases  can  be  marked  and  labelled.]  
Purpose   How  appropriate  and  well-­‐developed  is  the  genre  for  the  writing  purpose?    
Staging   Does  it  go  through  appropriate  stages,  and  how  well  is  each  stage  developed?    
Phases   How  well  organised  is  the  sequence  of  phases  in  each  stage?  
REGISTER         [Quick  judgements  are  made  about  these  register  criteria.]  
Field   How  well  does  the  writer  understand  and  explain  the  field  in  factual  texts,  construct  the  plot,  
settings  and  characters  in  stories,  or  describe  the  issues  in  arguments?  
Tenor   How  well    does  the  writer  engage  the  reader  in  stories,  persuade  in  arguments,  or  objectively  
inform  in  factual  texts?  
Mode   How  highly  written  is  the  language  for  the  school  stage?  Is  it  too  spoken?  
DISCOURSE         [Discourse  criteria  are  marked  in  the  text,  to  give  an  accurate  measure.]  
Lexis   What  are  the  writer’s  lexical  resources?  How  well  is  lexis  used  to  construct  the  field?  
Appraisal   What  are  the  writer’s  appraisal  resources?    How  well  is  appraisal  used  to  engage,  persuade,  
evaluate?  
Conjunction   Is  there  a  clear  logical  relation  between  all  sentences?  
Reference   Is  it  clear  who  or  what  is  referred  to  in  each  sentence?  
GRAMMAR     [Quick  judgements  can  be  made  about  grammar.]  
  Is  there  an  appropriate  variety  of  sentence  and  word  group  structures  for  the  school  stage?  Are  
the  grammatical  conventions  of  written  English  used  accurately?  
GRAPHIC  FEATURES    
Spelling   How  accurately  spelt  are  core  words  and  non-­‐core  words?  
Punctuation   How  appropriately  and  accurately  is  punctuation  used?  
Presentation   Are  paragraphs  used?  How  legible  is  the  writing?  Is  the  layout  clear.?  Are  illustrations/diagrams  
used  appropriately?  
 
Each  criterion  is  scored  0-­‐3:  0  =  no  evidence;  1  =  present  but  weak;  2  =  good  but  could  be  
improved;  3  =  excellent  for  the  student’s  grade  level.  The  assessment  thus  gives  equal  
weight  to  each  component  of  the  writing  task.  Like  all  assessments  it  involves  teacher  
judgements,  but  they  are  constrained  to  a  0-­‐3  choice  within  each  criterion.  
 
This  contrasts  with  assessments  influenced  by  the  bricks-­‐&-­‐mortar  language  model,  in  which  
teachers  tend  to  give  more  weight  to  the  lower  criteria  –  spelling,  punctuation,  presentation,  
grammar  –  as  they  are  immediately  visible.  Problems  with  conjunction  and  reference  may  be  
treated  as  grammar  errors.  Lexis  and  appraisal  are  usually  collapsed  as  ‘vocabulary’.  Genre  
and  register  may  be  construed  in  psychological  terms,  such  as  ‘intention’,  ‘comprehension’  
or  ‘audience’.  Where  the  functional  model  treats  all  criteria  equally  as  resources,  formal  
models  treat  the  lower  criteria  as  skills  that  may  be  taught  with  drills,  but  may  treat  the  
higher  criteria  as  content  or  attitudes,  learnt  through  study  or  critical  inquiry.    
 
   8  

We  can  use  the  criteria  to  assess  the  following  Text  1,  written  by  a  14  year  old  Indigenous  
student  in  Year  9.  The  writing  task  asked  students  to  write  about  themselves.    
 
Text  1:  Year  9  student  

 
 
In  the  following  transcript,  appraisals  are  underlined.  
 
d[avid]  the  best  makin  poeple  laugh  
very  cheeky  when  want  to  
can  get  loud  and  quiet  
I  am  short  temperd  
david  rules  at  chess  
good  at  making  plans  
 
Table  2:  Assessment  of  Text  1  
criteria     comments    
Purpose   1   personal  description  –  very  simple  
Staging   0   no  stages  
Phases   0   no  phases  
Field   1   brief  personal  knowledge  
Tenor   1   simple  personal  evaluations  
Mode   0   far  too  spoken  for  Year  9  –  Year  1  standard  
Lexis   1   only  two  items  -­‐  chess,  plans  
Appraisal   1   simple  judgements  (underlined)  
Conjunction   0   no  conjunction  –  simple  list  
Reference   1   only  two  personal  references  -­‐  I,  david  
Grammar   0   very  simple,  many  missing  items    
Spelling   1   most  common  words  correct,  some  errors  
Punctuation   0   no  punctuation  or  letter  cases  
Presentation   0   very  poor  handwriting  
Total   7/42   well  below  grade  standard  
 
From  a  glance  at  Text  1  this  very  low  assessment  is  intuitively  predictable,  but  the  criteria  
make  specific  weaknesses  apparent.  After  nine  years  in  school,  this  student  appears  to  have  
learnt  very  little  about  written  language.  He  is  apparently  unable  to  form  legible  letters,  or  
structure  and  punctuate  simple  sentences.  He  apparently  only  has  words  to  express  simple  
   9  

evaluations  of  his  personality  traits.  His  written  language  resources  are  so  far  behind  his  
grade  level  that  mode  is  scored  at  0.    
 
Evaluation  and  literacy  development  through  school  

This  student’s  apparent  inability  to  learn  basic  components  of  written  language  led  to  
classifications  of  ‘learning  disabilities’  and  ‘special  needs’,  for  which  he  has  been  prescribed  
remedial  literacy  programs  throughout  his  schooling.  As  he  has  been  unable  to  read  
curriculum  texts  independently,  most  school  knowledge  has  been  closed  to  him.  As  he  lacks  
such  knowledge  he  has  been  unable  to  participate  actively  in  classroom  learning.  Continual  
failure  over  years  has  contributed  to  behaviour  problems,  that  led  to  his  placement  in  a  
special  program  for  such  students,  in  which  he  was  subject  to  further  remedial  literacy  
programs.  His  attempt  in  Text  1  illustrates  the  educational  outcome  of  this  nine  year  history.    
 
This  student’s  classification  of  disability/special  needs  is  framed  within  an  intra-­‐individual  
psychological  theory  of  learning.  But  there  are  three  evident  problems  with  this  diagnosis.  
One  is  that  this  child  has  learnt  the  immensely  complex  system  of  spoken  language,  as  do  
almost  all  children  before  they  start  school;  it  is  only  the  written  mode  that  he  has  had  
difficulty  learning.  Another  is  that  he  claims  to  ‘rule  at  chess’,  a  notoriously  difficult  game  to  
learn.  The  third,  and  most  troubling,  is  that  an  alarming  proportion  of  Indigenous  students  
show  similar  problems  with  learning  the  written  mode.  For  example,  Rose,  Gray  and  Cowey  
(1999)  found  that  no  children  in  the  Indigenous  community  schools  they  tested1  were  
reading  independently  before  the  end  of  grade  3,  and  none  could  read  and  comprehend  
more  than  basal  picture  books  by  the  end  of  primary.  Consequently,  these  Indigenous  
children  were  subjected  to  remedial  alphabet,  phonemic  awareness,  phonics  and  word  
recognition  drills  year  after  year,  with  little  discernible  benefit.  
 
These  interventions,  prescribed  by  the  reductive  bricks-­‐&-­‐mortar  language  model,  seriously  
disadvantage  Indigenous  and  other  children  struggling  to  read  and  write  (Gray  1990,  Rose,  
Gray  &  Cowey  1999).  They  dis-­‐integrate  the  language  learning  task,  isolating  low  level  
grammatical  and  graphological  components  from  the  higher  strata  of  meaning  making.  
Struggling  readers  and  writers  tend  to  experience  these  activities  as  meaningless  drills,  with  
little  discernible  relation  to  meaningful  communication.  Hence,  while  these  children  may  
engage  actively  in  shared  book  reading  with  their  teachers  and  classes,  they  often  perceive  
individual  reading  as  a  meaningless  task  of  recalling  memorised  ‘sight  words’  and  decoding  
unknown  words  letter-­‐by-­‐letter.  For  these  children,  continual  failure  at  reading  and  writing  
tasks  can  induce  significant  stress  that  further  reduces  their  learning  capacities  (Rose  2011a).  
They  may  appear  to  teachers  and  specialists  to  lack  perceptive,  cognitive  and  motor  skills,  
but  these  may  be  merely  symptoms  of  problems  that  originate  with  ineffective  teaching.    
 
A  social  theory  of  learning,  together  with  a  realist  theory  of  knowledge  and  functional  theory  
of  language,  looks  beyond  characteristics  of  individual  learners,  to  pedagogic  relations  
between  teachers  and  learners,  and  their  institutional  contexts,  to  explain  differences  in  
assessments.  From  these  perspectives,  learning  in  school  is  dependent  on  capacities  to  read  
for  meaning,  and  to  learn  from  reading.  These  capacities  develop  through  each  stage  of  
schooling,  enabling  successful  students  to  accumulate  knowledge  through  reading,  and  to  
engage  actively  in  classroom  learning.    
   10  

 
In  this  social  semiotic  view,  the  most  significant  difference  between  children  when  they  start  
school  is  their  experience  of  written  language  in  the  home.  Children  from  literate  families  
have  typically  experienced  1000  hours  of  parent-­‐child  reading  before  starting  school  (Adams  
1990).  In  tertiary  educated  families,  this  reading  typically  involves  elaborate  talk-­‐around-­‐text  
that  consciously  orients  children  to  written  ways  of  meaning.  Large  scale  studies  have  shown  
that  less  highly  educated  families  may  read  with  their  children,  but  often  without  this  
elaborate  talk-­‐around-­‐text  (Williams  1995).  In  other  families  there  may  be  little  or  no  
parent-­‐child  reading,  especially  in  oral  cultures,  such  as  some  Indigenous  communities.    
 
Parent-­‐child  reading  in  literate  middle  class  families  prepares  children  for  both  the  literacy  
activities  of  the  infants  school,  and  the  talk-­‐around-­‐text  that  characterises  classroom  
learning.  The  practice  orients  children  to  reading  as  a  meaningful  mode  of  communication,  
of  exchanging  meanings  as  a  pleasurable  social  activity.  It  orients  them  to  interpreting  the  
fields  of  written  stories,  to  inferring  connections  between  meanings  as  a  text  unfolds,  and  to  
recognising  patterns  of  meanings  in  written  sentences,  along  with  building  a  rich  vocabulary.  
In  other  words,  it  provides  them  with  an  elaborate  repertoire  of  resources  at  the  levels  of  
genre  and  register,  including  genres  and  fields  of  written  stories,  and  the  tenor  of  talk-­‐
around-­‐text;  at  the  level  of  discourse,  to  infer  connections  between  meanings;  and  at  the  
level  of  grammar  patterns,  that  differ  markedly  in  speaking  and  writing  (Halliday  1985).    
 
The  only  part  of  the  reading  task  that  may  not  be  addressed  in  parent-­‐child  reading  is  the  
level  of  ‘decoding’  written  words  as  letter  patterns.  This  is  precisely  the  level  that  is  targeted  
in  early  years  literacy  activities,  with  alphabet,  phonics,  and  ‘sight  word’  memory  drills.  
These  practices,  that  date  back  to  classical  and  medieval  times,  usually  work  for  children  
with  extensive  experience  of  written  ways  of  meaning,  who  thus  rapidly  learn  to  read  and  
write  independently.  Their  experience  of  parents’  talk-­‐around-­‐text  also  prepares  them  for  
the  interpretive  question-­‐response  pattern  characteristic  of  classroom  dialogue  (Alexander  
2000,  Martin  &  Rose  2007b,  Rose  2010,  Rose  &  Martin  2012,  Wells  2002,  Williams  1995).  As  
early  years  teachers  are  trained  to  continually  assess  and  rank  their  students’  performances  
in  spoken  and  written  activities,  these  children  are  likely  to  be  assessed  with  high  learning  
abilities.  Children  with  less  or  none  of  this  experience  learn  to  read  and  write  more  slowly,  as  
they  do  not  have  the  same  orientation  to  written  ways  of  meaning.  As  a  result  they  find  it  
more  difficult  to  recognise  relations  between  alphabet,  phonics,  and  word  drills,  and  reading  
as  meaningful  communication  (Rose  2010).  Without  the  home  experience  of  talk-­‐around-­‐
text,  they  may  engage  less  actively  and  less  successfully  in  teacher/class  dialogue,  and  are  
likely  to  be  assessed  with  lower  learning  abilities.    
 
Early  years  evaluations  are  framed  in  psychological  and  neurological  terms  (e.g.  learning  
abilities,  motor  skills),  but  the  evidence  is  in  children’s  spoken  and  written  language.  What  is  
evaluated  are  differences  in  their  repertoires  of  genres,  registers  and  language  that  they  
have  acquired  before  they  start  school.  These  assessment  are  often  legitimated  as  
determining  children’s  learning  needs,  so  that  activities  can  be  tailored  to  their  abilities.  This  
differentiating  practice  provides  children  with  different  levels  of  learning  tasks,  at  different  
paces  according  to  their  assessments.  One  effect  is  that  students  assessed  with  lower  
abilities  will  acquire  smaller  repertoires  at  a  slower  pace  than  children  assessed  with  higher  
   11  

abilities.  As  a  consequence,  many  children  are  still  not  reading  independently  or  writing  
coherently  after  one,  two  or  more  years  of  school.    
 
Those  children  who  are  reading  independently  and  writing  coherently  by  the  end  of  Year  1  
or  2  are  well  prepared  for  the  next  stage  of  school,  when  they  will  learn  how  to  learn  from  
reading,  and  to  demonstrate  what  they  have  learnt  in  writing.  They  will  learn  a  variety  of  
new  genres  for  learning  and  demonstrating  curriculum  knowledge,  for  engaging  in  imaginary  
worlds  of  fiction,  and  for  evaluating  texts,  issues  and  points  of  view  (Martin  &  Rose  2008).  
Again  their  learning  abilities  will  be  assessed,  but  the  evidence  is  in  their  written  language  
resources,  and  in  their  spoken  resources  for  engaging  in  classroom  learning.  The  foundation  
of  these  repertoires  is  acquired  through  the  literacy  practices  of  the  junior  primary  years.  
Those  children  who  still  cannot  read  independently  and  write  coherently  may  be  assessed  
with  low  learning  abilities,  and  may  be  given  remedial  literacy  activities.  As  their  reading  and  
writing  displays  weak  decoding  skills,  remedial  activities  will  be  targeted  primarily  at  the  
levels  of  letter/sound  correspondences,  word  recognition,  vocabulary,  spelling  and  
grammar.  As  these  are  precisely  the  activities  that  failed  to  work  for  them  in  the  early  years,  
any  improvements  in  their  literacy  are  likely  to  be  slight.  
 
In  the  secondary  school,  successful  students  spend  six  years  practising  independent  learning  
from  reading  and  writing  for  assessment,  in  preparation  for  university  study.  Secondary  
teachers  are  generally  trained  in  specific  curriculum  fields,  on  which  students  are  assessed  
through  writing.  But  few  secondary  teachers  are  trained  in  teaching  the  literacy  skills  
involved  in  learning  from  reading  and  writing  for  assessment.  Students  who  have  not  
adequately  acquired  these  skills  in  the  primary  school  may  instead  be  given  less  demanding  
curricula,  such  as  ‘life  skills’,  ‘functional  maths’  and  remedial  literacy  activities.  Despite  
‘tracking’  of  secondary  students  into  different  classes  according  to  ability  assessments,  most  
secondary  teachers  still  struggle  to  work  with  a  wide  range  of  students’  literacy  skills  in  their  
classes.2  
 
This  sequence  of  development  in  reading  and  writing  skills  through  each  stage  of  school  has  
been  referred  to  as  a  ‘hidden  curriculum’  (Rose  2004).  For  successful  students,  each  stage  
prepares  them  for  the  reading  and  writing  tasks  of  the  next  stage.  But  as  these  tasks  become  
more  and  more  elaborate,  there  is  less  and  less  explicit  teaching  of  the  literacy  skills  
involved.  Indeed  it  is  only  in  the  junior  primary  that  foundation  skills  in  reading  and  writing  
are  explicitly  taught.  If  children  do  not  adequately  acquire  these  skills,  they  will  not  be  
prepared  for  the  next  stage.  They  may  be  given  remedial  literacy  activities  in  subsequent  
stages,  but  they  are  unlikely  to  catch  up  to  their  more  successful  peers.  While  each  stage  
prepares  successful  students  for  the  next,  all  students  are  evaluated  on  how  well  they  
acquired  skills  in  the  preceding  stages.  This  bi-­‐directionality  of  the  literacy  development  
curriculum  is  schematised  in  Figure  6.  The  pedagogic  focus  is  given  for  each  stage.  
 
   12  

Figure  6:  The  literacy  development  curriculum  through  school  

before&school&
learning(to(engage((
with(reading(

preparing) junior&primary( evalua&ng)

upper&primary&
learning(to(learn((
from(reading(

secondary&
independent(learning(of(
academic(genres(
 
 
In  this  hidden  curriculum,  successful  students  tacitly  acquire  skills  in  each  stage,  building  on  
skills  they  acquired  in  preceding  stages.  One  outcome  is  that  the  gap  between  most  and  
least  successful  students  is  maintained  throughout  the  whole  of  school.  This  pattern  is  
graphically  illustrated  in  Figure  7,  which  aggregates  writing  assessments  from  teachers  
training  in  the  Reading  to  Learn  program.  Teachers  are  asked  to  assess  writing  samples  from  
students  in  top,  middle  and  bottom  groups  in  their  classes,  before  implementing  the  
Reading  to  Learn  literacy  strategies.  Figure  7  shows  results  for  these  ‘pre’  samples,  averaged  
across  assessments  by  400  teachers  in  one  training  program  in  2010,  representing  at  least  
10,000  students  (Rose  2011b,  in  press,  Rose  &  Martin  2012,  2013).    
 
Figure  7:  Pre-­‐intervention  scores  show  gap  between  student  groups  before  R2L  teaching  

 
Figure  7  is  useful  because  it  shows  the  mean  differences  in  written  language  resources  of  
high,  middle  and  low  achieving  student  groups  in  each  school  stage.  As  this  is  a  large  sample  
across  classes  and  schools,  it  may  be  read  as  approximating  differences  in  the  Australian  and  
similar  education  systems  as  a  whole.  What  is  particularly  interesting  is  that  the  gap  
between  top  and  bottom  groups  is  comparatively  narrow  at  the  start  of  school,  labelled  K  for  
kindergarten,  but  after  a  year  or  two  the  gap  has  tripled,  and  remains  steady  through  each  
following  school  stage.  The  top  group  has  clearly  benefited  from  the  literacy  practices  of  
their  early  years  teachers,  as  their  average  results  have  shot  up  to  the  median  standard  for  
the  school  stage.  These  children  are  now  reading  and  writing  independently,  and  are  likely  
to  be  actively  engaged  in  learning  from  reading.  The  middle  group  has  also  obtained  some  
benefit,  but  the  bottom  group  appears  to  have  received  very  little  benefit  from  these  
   13  

literacy  practices;  their  results  are  still  near  zero,  and  improve  only  slightly  through  each  
subsequent  stage.  The  children  who  were  failing  at  the  start  of  primary  school  are  still  failing  
at  the  start  of  secondary,  despite  all  the  interventions  prescribed  by  various  literacy  
theories.  These  large-­‐scale  data  confirm  what  teachers  know  intuitively,  that  the  gap  
between  the  top  and  bottom  students  in  their  classes  and  schools  will  essentially  be  the  
same  at  the  end  of  each  year,  and  each  student’s  school  career,  as  it  was  at  the  start.    
 
Nevertheless,  the  mean  scores  of  bottom  groups  do  appear  to  improve  slightly  in  each  
school  stage.  Two  factors  may  contribute  to  this  growth.  One  is  that  these  students  absorb  
some  literacy  skills  over  the  school  years,  even  though  they  are  not  sufficient  to  engage  
successfully  in  curriculum  learning.  Another  is  that  those  students  assessed  with  the  weakest  
literacy  may  be  prescribed  remedial  literacy  activities,  which  marginally  improve  their  skills.  
The  assessments  and  the  remedial  interventions  are  legitimated  on  the  basis  that  students  
at  risk  are  identified  and  their  specific  learning  needs  addressed.  But  as  Figure  7  and  Text  1  
illustrate,  the  net  effect  of  both  is  that  these  students  stay  in  the  failing  range  throughout  
their  school  careers.  As  Bernstein’s  model  predicts,  the  distributive  rules  of  an  unequal  social  
order  are  recontextualised  as  evaluative  rules  that  reproduce  the  unequal  social  order.  
Theories  of  ‘differentiation’  legitimate  the  reproduction  of  inequality,  masking  it  as  
addressing  each  student’s  individual  learning  needs.    
 
Evaluation  in  a  social  learning  theory  

Vygotsky’s  famous  ‘zone  of  proximal  development’  refers  to  a  contrast  between  two  modes  
of  evaluation,  independent  or  guided.  He  defines  ZPD  as  “the  distance  between  the  actual  
development  level  as  determined  by  independent  problem  solving  and  the  level  of  potential  
development  as  determined  through  problem  solving  under  adult  guidance  or  in  
collaboration  with  more  capable  peers”  (1978:  86).  But  this  also  points  to  a  contrast  
between  two  approaches  to  knowledge  and  pedagogy.  Assessment  of  ‘actual  development’  
is  of  course  what  most  school  assessments  are  concerned  with,  in  order  to  rank  students  
and  determine  their  education  programs,  pathways  and  outcomes,  as  discussed  above.  
Concomitantly,  ‘independent  problem  solving’  is  the  ideal  learning  activity  in  constructivist  
knowledge  theories  and  individuated  pedagogies  in  general.    
 
In  these  theories  and  practices,  the  ideal  learning  activity  is  one  in  which  students  are  doing  
learning  tasks  (‘solving  problems’)  individually.  As  the  task  is  done  independently,  its  
difficulty  must  be  close  to  the  student’s  assessed  learning  ability,  sometimes  referred  as  
their  ‘instructional  level’.  As  students  have  different  assessed  abilities,  they  must  be  given  
different  levels  of  tasks.  As  they  complete  each  task,  their  performance  may  be  evaluated,  
by  observation  or  by  a  formative  assessment  task.  If  they  are  successful,  they  may  be  
deemed  ready  for  a  further  learning  task  that  is  just  beyond  their  new  competence,  and  the  
cycle  continues  for  that  task.  Thus  learning  progresses  in  incremental  steps,  from  one  
learning  task  to  the  next,  each  extending  slightly  further  than  the  last.  In  Figure  8,  such  a  
learning  sequence  is  modeled  as  development  of  skills  over  time.  Each  learning  activity  in  
the  sequence  is  represented  as  a  dot,  and  each  successive  activity  is  slightly  higher  than  the  
preceding  one.    
 
   14  

Figure  8:  Development  through  individuated  learning  tasks    

%
p%faster
%gro u p s%develo
to p

gap%is%
maintained%
skills%

r%
lop%slowe
wer% gro ups%deve
lo
&me%  
 
The  initial  dots  in  Figure  8  represent  different  groups  of  students  who  start  with  different  
levels  of  skills.  High  achieving  students  are  given  more  complex  tasks  at  each  step,  and  low  
achieving  students  are  given  simpler  tasks.  In  addition,  the  pacing  of  the  high  group’s  
learning  may  be  faster,  and  the  pacing  of  the  lower  group’s  learning  slower.  Figure  8  is  a  
conceptual  representation  of  the  trend  we  see  demonstrated  statistically  in  Figure  7.  The  
gap  is  maintained  through  each  year,  each  school  stage,  and  the  whole  sequence  of  
schooling.  It  is  reproduced  by  constraining  students’  development  to  their  assessed  ability  
levels.  It  is  simultaneously  legitimated  by  these  assessments,  as  though  ‘ability’  was  a  natural  
explanation  of  unequal  outcomes.  Bernstein  for  one  does  not  accept  this  explanation:  
 
The  school  must  disconnect  its  own  internal  hierarchy  of  success  and  failure  from  ineffectiveness  of  
teaching  within  the  school  and  the  external  hierarchy  of  power  relations  between  social  groups  
outside  the  school.  How  do  schools  individualize  failure  and  legitimize  inequalities?  The  answer  is  
clear:  failure  is  attributed  to  inborn  facilities  (cognitive,  affective)  or  to  the  cultural  deficits  relayed  by  
the  family  which  come  to  have  the  force  of  inborn  facilities  (2000:  xxiv).  
 
Bernstein’s  conclusion  proposes  a  radically  different  explanation:  rather  than  ‘inborn  
facilities’,  the  cause  of  failure  and  inequality  is  ‘ineffectiveness  of  teaching’.  This  explanation  
shifts  the  focus  of  evaluation  from  the  individual  learner,  not  simply  towards  the  teacher,  
but  onto  the  teaching  practice,  in  other  words,  onto  the  pedagogic  relation  between  learner  
and  teacher.  This  is  Vygotsky’s  second  option  for  evaluation,  the  learner’s  ‘potential  
development  as  determined  through  problem  solving  under  adult  guidance’.  This  ‘potential  
development’  is  the  knowledge/skills  that  are  possible  for  a  learner  to  acquire  with  effective  
teaching.  From  the  perspective  of  knowledge  and  pedagogy,  the  ZPD  is  the  difference  
between  what  a  learner  already  knows,  and  the  knowledge  she  could  be  taught.  This  is  a  
radically  different  view  of  knowledge  and  pedagogy  from  constructivist  and  individualist  
theories.  Vygotsky  is  quite  explicit  about  this:  
 
Any  function  in  the  child’s  cultural  development  appears  twice,  or  on  two  planes.  First  it  appears  on  
the  social  plane,  and  then  on  the  psychological  plane.  First  it  appears  between  people  as  an  inter-­‐
psychological  category,  and  then  within  the  child  as  an  intra-­‐psychological  category  (1981:  163).  
 
In  other  words,  the  notion  of  learners  ‘constructing  knowledge’  individually  is  an  illusion.  All  
‘cultural  development’,  i.e.  knowledge,  begins  with  the  pedagogic  relation  between  learner  
   15  

and  teacher.  It  is  through  this  relation  that  the  culture’s  reservoir  of  semiotic  resources  is  
negotiated,  in  order  to  build  the  learner’s  repertoire.    
 
From  evaluation  to  pedagogy  

If  we  accept  Bernstein’s  and  Vygotsky’s  views,  then  any  assessment  is  not  merely  an  
evaluation  of  individual  learners’  abilities;  what  it  actually  evaluates  is  the  effectiveness  of  
teaching  that  learners  have  experienced.  If  students  are  failing  in  school,  such  as  the  writer  
of  Text  1,  then  their  teaching  has  been  ineffective.  This  is  not  to  say  that  the  teaching  is  
ineffective  for  all,  but  that  it  is  less  effective  for  some  students  than  for  others,  creating  and  
reproducing  inequalities.  The  important  question  for  evaluation  of  struggling  students  is  
then,  not  what  skills  the  learner  lacks,  but  what  factors  make  teaching  ineffective.  Clearly  if  
the  role  of  the  teacher  is  constrained,  as  in  constructivist  and  individualist  pedagogies,  this  
would  be  one  factor.  Where  the  teacher  does  have  a  clear  authoritative  role,  another  
potential  factor  is  a  failure  to  understand  the  learning  task,  and  another  is  a  failure  to  design  
effective  preparations  for  learners  to  do  the  task  successfully.    
 
As  all  learning  tasks  in  school  involve  language,  particularly  reading  and  writing,  and  
language  is  such  an  immensely  complex  phenomenon,  it  is  hardly  surprising  that  learning  
tasks  are  often  poorly  understood  and  their  preparations  often  poorly  designed.  The  
problem  is  compounded  by  the  bricks-­‐&-­‐mortar  language  model  that  often  informs  both  
assessments  and  remedial  interventions,  divorcing  language  learning  from  curriculum  
learning.  An  alternative  is  provided  by  the  Reading  to  Learn  methodology,  that  is  informed  
by  the  functional  model  of  language  and  social  learning  theory  (Rose  &  Martin  2012).  In  this  
approach,  learning  language  is  integrated  with  curriculum  knowledge,  reading  is  integrated  
with  writing,  and  preparations  are  designed  to  enable  all  students  to  do  the  same  tasks  
successfully.  
 
Effective  design  of  preparations  can  support  students  to  succeed  with  learning  tasks  that  are  
well  beyond  their  independent  capacities.  Supported  success  with  high  level  tasks  can  
accelerate  learning  faster  than  independent  practice  with  lower  level  tasks,  as  it  targets  
learners’  ‘potential  development’,  systematically  guiding  them  to  acquire  new  skills.  Figure  9  
illustrates  this  principle,  again  starting  with  groups  of  students  with  different  levels  of  skills  
(indicated  by  the  left  hand  dots).  This  time  however,  the  learning  task  (the  open  dot)  is  
above  the  independent  skill  levels  of  both  stronger  and  weaker  students,  but  is  supported  by  
the  teacher.  The  zone  of  proximal  development  is  larger  for  some  students  than  others.  If  
they  are  then  assessed,  the  performance  of  both  groups  will  be  lower  than  the  supported  
task  level  (the  next  dots),  but  the  growth  will  be  greater  than  with  independent  practice.  
Again,  students  are  supported  with  a  high  level  task,  and  their  following  assessments  will  
again  fall  below  the  supported  level,  but  will  be  higher  than  their  previous  assessments.  As  
cycles  of  supported  tasks  are  repeated,  the  skill  levels  of  weaker  students  accelerate  faster  
than  those  of  stronger  students,  and  the  gap  between  them  narrows.  
 
   16  

Figure  9:  Supported  practice    

ZPD%
skills%

&me%  
 
In  Reading  to  Learn,  students  are  supported  with  tasks  that  may  be  well  beyond  their  
independent  competences,  through  a  carefully  designed  sequence  of  reading  and  writing  
activities,  informed  by  the  functional  language  model.  The  first  activity,  known  as  Preparing  
for  Reading,  supports  students  to  follow  a  text  with  general  comprehension  as  it  is  read  
aloud,  by  the  teacher  orally  summarising  the  sequence  in  which  it  unfolds,  in  terms  that  all  
students  can  understand.  As  the  field  of  the  text  is  prepared,  all  students  know  what  to  
expect  and  need  not  struggle  to  comprehend  as  it  is  read.  As  it  is  read  aloud,  they  need  not  
struggle  to  decode  unfamiliar  written  words.  This  massively  reduces  the  load  of  the  reading  
task,  enabling  even  the  weakest  students  to  focus  on  the  unfolding  meanings  in  challenging  
texts.  The  next  activity,  Detailed  Reading,  supports  all  students  to  visually  read  passages  of  
the  text  with  detailed  comprehension,  by  guiding  them  to  identify  wordings  in  each  
sentence,  highlight  them,  and  discuss  their  meanings.  As  they  already  have  a  general  
understanding  of  the  text,  the  load  of  recognising  words  is  reduced,  enabling  all  students  to  
comprehend  their  meanings  in  detail,  and  read  the  passage  fluently.    
 
To  provide  more  support,  Detailed  Reading  may  be  followed  by  Sentence  Making,  in  which  
the  teacher  writes  sentences  from  the  Detailed  Reading  passage  on  cardboard  strips,  and  
guides  students  to  cut  them  into  chunks  of  meaning,  and  manually  manipulate  them.  This  
manual  practice  gives  students  total  control  over  words  and  meanings.  It  is  particularly  
effective  for  young  or  struggling  students.  Sentence  Making  then  leads  to  Spelling,  in  which  
individual  words  are  cut  into  their  letter  patterns,  which  students  practise  writing  on  small  
whiteboards.  They  then  practise  using  these  words  in  Sentence  Writing  on  their  
whiteboards.  Sentence  Making,  Spelling  and  Sentence  Writing  are  key  strategies  for  students  
diagnosed  with  special  needs.  Rather  than  drilling  foundation  skills  in  isolation,  they  are  
practised  in  the  meaningful  context  of  texts,  passages  and  sentences  that  students  
understand  and  are  engaged  in,  which  rapidly  accelerates  their  learning.    
 
In  the  next  activity,  Joint  Rewriting,  students  are  guided  to  write  a  new  passage,  using  what  
they  have  learnt  from  Detailed  Reading.  For  stories,  rewriting  follows  the  precise  language  
patterns  of  the  reading  passage,  but  changes  the  plot,  setting  and  characters.  This  supports  
students  to  use  the  language  resources  of  accomplished  authors  in  their  own  writing.  For  
factual  texts,  rewriting  begins  by  students  writing  notes  on  the  class  board,  of  the  
information  that  has  been  highlighted  in  the  reading  text.  The  teacher  then  guides  the  class  
to  use  this  information  in  a  new  passage.  Finally,  after  building  knowledge  and  language  
resources  through  this  sequence  of  activities,  the  teacher  guides  students  to  construct  
   17  

whole  new  texts,  in  the  activity  known  as  Joint  Construction.  The  sequence  thus  follows  the  
functional  language  model,  focusing  on  each  component  of  the  language  task  from  the  ‘top-­‐
down’,  beginning  with  genre  and  register  in  Preparing  for  Reading,  followed  by  discourse  
and  grammar  in  Detailed  Reading,  then  graphology  in  Sentence  Making,  Spelling  and  
Sentence  Writing.  It  then  builds  back  up  through  the  model,  through  grammar  and  discourse  
in  Joint  Rewriting,  to  genre  and  register  in  Joint  Construction.  Relations  between  levels  of  the  
language  task  and  the  teaching  sequence  are  illustrated  in  Figure  10.  
 
Figure  10:  Reading  to  Learn  sequence  and  language  levels  

Sentence)Making)
Preparing) Detailed)) Spelling)) Joint) Joint)
for)Reading) Reading) Sentence)Wri6ng) Rewri6ng) Construc6on)

genre)&) grammar)&) graphology/ grammar)&) genre)&)

 
 
These  activities  are  repeated  through  daily,  weekly  and  monthly  cycles,  as  the  school  
program  permits,  embedding  literacy  learning  in  curriculum  teaching.  Students’  literacy  
growth  can  be  extremely  rapid  with  consistent  practice.  Text  2  was  written  by  the  same  
student  as  Text  1,  after  a  few  weeks  of  these  activities.  It  is  a  brief  biography  of  the  
Indigenous  Australian  leader,  Shirley  Smith  or  ‘Mum  Shirl’.  It  was  written  independently,  
following  a  series  of  whole  class  activities,  studying  biographies  of  Mum  Shirl,  and  practising  
writing.    
 
   18  

Text  2:  Same  student  following  intervention    

 
 
Shirl  Smith  was  also  know  as  “Mum  Shirl”.  Mum  Shirl  was  famous  for  helping  people  who  were  needy,  
and  prisoners.  Her  education  was  difficult  because  of  her  illnes  (epilepsy).  Her  schooling  failed  because  
she  couldn't  go  to  school.  Back  then  times  were  difficult  for  aboriginal  people.  They  took  away  your  
children.  It  was  hard  to  trust  anybody  after  it.  Mum  Shirl  helped  people  become  happy  and  
comfortable.  She  fought  for  others.  She  helped  others  get  on  with  their  lives.  
 
Table  3:  Assessment  of  Text  2  
criteria     comments    
Purpose   1   biography  –  simple  
Staging   1   brief  Orientation,  no  Life  stages  
Phases   1   clear  phases  -­‐  identity,  early  life,  social  context,  life  work  
Field   1   Mum  Shirl’s  work,  early  life,  social  context,  but  no  detail  of  life  
Tenor   1   objective  evaluations  
Mode   1   written  language  –  middle  primary  standard  
Lexis   1   builds  simple  field  -­‐  prisoners,  education,  epilepsy,  schooling,  Aboriginal  people  
Appraisal   1   positive  judgements  of  Mum  Shirl,  evaluates  problems  of  Aboriginal  people  
Conjunction   1   reasons  -­‐  because,  historical  sequence  –  back  then,  after  it  
Reference   1   keeps  track  with  pronouns  -­‐  she,  her,  it,  their,  and  comparison  -­‐  others  
Grammar   1   appropriate  but  relatively  simple    
Spelling   2   variety  of  words  correct  
Punctuation   2   correct  punctuation  and  letter  cases  
Presentation   1   legible  handwriting,  no  paragraphs  for  phases  
Total   16/42   below  grade  standard  
 
The  assessment  in  Table  3  shows  consistent  improvements  in  all  areas  of  genre,  register  and  
language.  A  glance  at  the  text  shows  that  grammar  and  graphic  criteria  are  vastly  improved  
   19  

on  Text  1.  This  is  not  a  result  of  drilling  these  features,  as  in  remedial  literacy  programs.  
Rather  it  is  an  effect  of  gaining  control  of  higher  level  features  -­‐  genre,  register,  discourse  -­‐  
and  practising  grammar  and  graphic  features  in  this  meaningful  context.  However  the  
student’s  language  resources  are  still  weak  in  most  areas,  below  the  standard  expected  for  
middle  secondary  school.  This  is  not  surprising,  considering  how  much  further  Text  1  was  
below  the  standard.  What  may  be  surprising  is  the  extraordinary  gains  this  student  has  made  
in  just  a  few  weeks,  after  nine  years  of  failure.  Crucially  these  gains  were  not  achieved  by  the  
student  alone,  but  with  the  support  of  the  teacher  with  the  whole  class.  In  the  terms  of  
Figure  9,  Text  2  demonstrates  growth  after  one  or  two  iterations  of  supported  practice  with  
high  level  tasks.  At  the  time,  the  teacher  was  undergoing  training  in  the  Reading  to  Learn  
program,  and  applying  what  he  learnt  with  his  class.    
 
Figure  11  shows  results  for  the  same  teachers  and  students  as  Figure  7,  after  6-­‐8  months  of  
Reading  to  Learn  training  and  classroom  practice.  Comparing  results  between  Figures  7  and  
11,  post-­‐intervention  scores  show  average  growth  in  kindergarten  is  70%  above  pre-­‐
intervention  scores;  all  groups  are  now  scoring  in  the  high  range,  and  the  gap  between  low  
and  high  achieving  groups  is  halved.  In  the  other  year  levels,  growth  is  30-­‐40%  above  the  
pre-­‐intervention  scores,  and  the  gap  has  halved  from  50%  to  around  25%.  These  results  
were  achieved  after  three  or  more  iterations  of  supported  practice.  Crucially  they  were  
achieved  mainly  by  teachers  working  with  whole  classes.  Although  Reading  to  Learn  can  be  
used  for  additional  support  with  groups  or  individual  students,  Culican  2006  reports  that  
“the  whole  class  model  of  delivery  produces  better  outcomes  than  withdrawal  groups.”  
While  the  ZPD  is  much  larger  for  weaker  than  for  stronger  students,  the  Reading  to  Learn  
strategies  support  all  students  to  do  the  same  high  level  tasks  together,  as  illustrated  in  
Figure  9.
 
Figure  11:  Post-­‐intervention  scores  show  gap  between  student  groups  after  R2L  teaching  

     
Conclusion  

There  is  no  question  that  a  proportion  of  school  students  diagnosed  with  learning  difficulties  
may  have  significant  neurological  impairments  that  constrain  their  capacity  to  develop  as  
readers  and  writers.  But  in  my  experience  working  with  teachers  of  Indigenous  and  other  
groups  of  students  diagnosed  with  learning  difficulties,  the  problem  is  overwhelmingly  not  
neurological  but  pedagogic;  the  failure  is  not  in  the  student  but  in  the  ineffectiveness  of  
teaching.  I  have  argued  in  this  paper  that  this  ineffectiveness  stems  from  an  individuated  
view  of  learning,  that  fails  to  properly  analyse  the  nature  of  learning  tasks,  and  hence  fails  to  
   20  

design  effective  preparations  for  learners  to  succeed  with  tasks.  This  failure  is  partly  the  
result  of  a  naïve,  reductive  ‘bricks-­‐&-­‐mortar’  model  of  language,  that  dis-­‐integrates  the  
language  learning  task,  and  focuses  on  the  lowest  levels  of  language,  prescribing  remedial  
literacy  activities  that  are  unlikely  to  ever  enable  struggling  students  to  catch  up  with  their  
more  successful  peers.      
 
The  evidence  of  assessments  presented  in  this  paper  confirms  that  such  remedial  
interventions  have  minimal  effects  on  the  inequality  of  learning  and  outcomes  in  schools.  
Students  who  are  evaluated  in  the  failing  range  at  the  start  of  school  are  likely  to  remain  in  
this  group  through  each  stage  of  primary  and  secondary.  Taking  a  wider  view,  this  continual  
failure  appears  an  endemic  pattern  of  the  school,  which  “necessarily  produces  a  hierarchy  
based  on  success  and  failure  of  students”  (Bernstein  2000:xxiv).  As  the  problem  lies  with  the  
school,  the  solution  cannot  be  found  by  focusing  on  the  difficulties  of  individual  students.  
Rather  we  must  look  to  teaching  practices  of  the  school  that  create  and  maintain  these  
inequalities,  and  re-­‐design  these  practices.    
 
This  has  been  the  approach  of  Reading  to  Learn,  which  uses  a  functional  model  of  language  
to  integrate  the  language  learning  task  in  a  carefully  designed  sequence  of  activities,  and  
uses  a  social  model  of  learning  to  guide  all  students  in  a  class  to  practice  high  level  reading  
and  writing  tasks,  no  matter  what  their  assessed  abilities.  The  writing  assessment,  designed  
as  part  of  the  Reading  to  Learn  professional  learning  program,  shows  the  full  range  of  
language  resources  that  students  bring  to  the  writing  task.  It  also  shows  the  power  of  the  
methodology  to  close  the  gap  between  the  most  successful  and  least  successful  students,  
including  those  diagnosed  with  learning  difficulties.  
 
   
   21  

References  

Adams,  M.  J.  (1990).  Beginning  to  read:  Thinking  and  learning  about  print:  A  summary.  
Urbana-­‐Champaign:  University  of  Illinois.  
Alexander,  R  (2000).  Culture  &  Pedagogy:  international  comparisons  in  primary  education.  
Oxford:  Blackwell.  
Bernstein,  B.  (2000).  Pedagogy,  Symbolic  Control  and  Identity:  theory,  research,  critique.  
London  &  Bristol,  PA:  Taylor  &  Francis.  [Revised  edition  Lanham,  Maryland:  Rowan  &  
Littlefield.  
Christie,  F.  (2004).  Authority  and  its  role  in  the  pedagogic  relationship  of  schooling.  In  L.  
Young  and  C.  Harrison  [Eds.]  Systemic  Functional  Linguistics  and  Critical  Discourse  
Analysis.  Studies  in  Social  Change.  London  and  New  York:  Continuum,  173-­‐201.  
Culican,  S.  (2006).  Learning  to  Read:  Reading  to  Learn,  A  Middle  Years  Literacy  Intervention  
Research  Project,  Final  Report  2003-­‐4.  Catholic  Education  Office:  Melbourne.    
http://www.readingtolearn.com.au  
Gray,  B.  (1990).  Natural  language  learning  in  Aboriginal  classrooms:  reflections  on  teaching  
and  learning.  C  Walton  &  W  Eggington  [Eds.]  Language:  maintenance,  power  and  
education  in  Australian  Aboriginal  contexts.    Darwin,  N.T.:  Northern  Territory  
University  Press.    105-­‐139.  
Martin,  J.R.  &  D.  Rose  (2007a).  Working  with  discourse:  meaning  beyond  the  clause.  London:  
Continuum.  
Martin,  J.R.  &  D.  Rose  (2007b).  Interacting  with  Text:  the  role  of  dialogue  in  learning  to  read  
and  write,  Foreign  Languages  in  China,  4(5),  66-­‐80.  
Martin,  J.R.  &  D.  Rose  (2008).  Genre  Relations:  mapping  culture  .  London:  Equinox.  
Rose,  D.  (2004).  Sequencing  and  Pacing  of  the  Hidden  Curriculum:  how  Indigenous  children  
are  left  out  of  the  chain.  In  J.  Muller,  A.  Morais  &  B.  Davies  (eds.)  Reading  Bernstein,  
Researching  Bernstein.  London:  RoutledgeFalmer,  91-­‐107.  
Rose,  D.  (2008).  Writing  as  linguistic  mastery:  the  development  of  genre-­‐based  literacy  
pedagogy.  R.  Beard,  D.  Myhill,  J.  Riley  &  M.  Nystrand  (eds.)  Handbook  of  Writing  
Development.  London:  Sage,  151-­‐166.  
Rose,  D.  (2010).  Meaning  beyond  the  margins:  learning  to  interact  with  books.  Martin,  J.,  
Hood,  S.  &  Dreyfus,  S.  (ed.)  Semiotic  Margins:  Reclaiming  Meaning.  London:  
Continuum,  177-­‐208.  
Rose,  D.  (2011a).  Beating  educational  inequality  with  an  integrated  reading  pedagogy.  In  F.  
Christie  and  A.  Simpson  (eds.)  Literacy  and  Social  Responsibility:  Multiple  
Perspectives.  London:  Equinox,  101-­‐115.  
Rose,  D.  (2011b)  Implementation  and  outcomes  of  the  professional  learning  program,  2010:  
Report  for  Western  NSW  Region,  Department  of  Education  and  Training.  Sydney:  
Reading  to  Learn.  http://www.readingtolearn.com.au  
Rose,  D.  (2014).  Reading  to  Learn:  Accelerating  learning  and  closing  the    gap,  Sydney:  
Reading  to  Learn.  http://www.readingtolearn.com.au  
Rose,  D.  in  press  (2014).  New  developments  in  genre-­‐based  literacy  pedagogy.  In  C  A  
MacArthur,  S  Graham,  J  Fitzgerald  (eds.)  Handbook  of  Writing  Research,  2nd  Edition.  
New  York:  Guildford,  30pp.  
Rose,  D.,  Gray,  B.  &  Cowey,  W.  (1999).  Scaffolding  Reading  and  Writing  for  Indigenous  
Children  in  School.  In  P.  Wignell  (ed.)  Double  Power:  English  literacy  and  Indigenous  
   22  

education.  Melbourne:  National  Language  &  Literacy  Institute  of  Australia  (NLLIA),  23-­‐
60.  
Rose,  D.  &  J.R.  Martin  (2012).  Learning  to  Write,  Reading  to  Learn:  Genre,  knowledge  and  
pedagogy  in  the  Sydney  School.  London:  Equinox.  
Rose,  D.  &  J.  R.  Martin  (2013).  Intervening  in  contexts  of  schooling  J  Flowerdew  [ed.]  
Discourse  In  Context:  Contemporary  Applied  Linguistics  Volume  3.  London:  
Continuum,  447‐475.  
von  Glasersfeld,  E.  (1998)  Why  constructivism  must  be  radical.  In  Constructivism  and  
Education,  ed.  by  M.  Larochelle,  N.  Bednarz  &  J.  Garrison.  Cambridge  &  NY:  
Cambridge  University  Press,  23-­‐28.    
Vygotsky,  L.S.  (1978).  Mind  in  Society:  The  Development  of  Higher  Psychological  Processes.  
edited  by  Michael  Cole,  Vera  John-­‐Steiner,  Sylvia  Scribner  and  Ellen  Souberman.  
Cambridge,  MA:  Harvard  University  Press.  
Vygotsky,  L.S.  (1981).  The  genesis  of  higher  mental  functions.  In  The  Concept  of  Activity  in  
Soviet  Psychology,  edited  by  James  Wertsch.  Armonk:  M.E.  Sharp.  
Wells,  G.  (2002).  Learning  and  teaching  for  understanding:  the  key  role  of  collaborative  
knowledge  building.  J  Brophy  [Ed.]  Social  Constructivist  Teaching:  affordances  and  
constraints.  London:  Elsevier,  1-­‐41.  
Williams,  G.  (1995).  Joint  book-­‐reading  and  literacy  pedagogy:  a  socio-­‐semantic  examination.  
Volume  1.  CORE.  19(3).  Fiche  2  B01-­‐  Fiche  6  B01.  
 
 
 
                                                                                                           
1
 Reading  accuracy  and  comprehension  was  tested  by  Rose,  Gray  and  Cowey  (1999)  with  running  records  and  
comprehension  questions.  
2
 In  his  large  scale  meta-­‐analysis  of  education  research,  Hattie  (2009:89-­‐90)  reports  “individualized  instruction  
to  be  barely  more  effective  than  the  traditional  lecture  approach”,  that  “tracking  has  minimal  effects  on  
learning  outcomes  and  profound  negative  equity  effects”,  and  that  ability  grouping  in  primary  classes  has  very  
low  benefits  for  the  learning  of  any  group.