What settings, participants and approaches have been involved in the AJLL 2000-2005 archive?
What implications and recommendations are identified across the AJLL 2000-2005 archive?
Examining the roles of the 122 contributors who have participated in knowledge production in the AJLL archive, and where they are located in the three fields of the pedagogic device, we found that:
Exploring what has been on literacy researchers' agendas in the AJLL 20002005 archive, the range of research topics is summarised in Table 1.
These are topics more in line with what has been researched and reported in the AJLL 2000-2005 archive and have their evidence base more in qualitative approaches to research.
The Teaching Reading Report's selection of topics and related research was more narrow than topics found in the AJLL archive and the NRP Report, although both the Teaching Reading and NRP reports focused on experimental reading research.
Classroom realities are quite extensively documented in the AJLL 20002005 archive that, combined with other research sources, can inform policy by contributing to a comprehensive range of research approaches that provide various kinds of evidence and insights into effective practices and critical issues facing literacy educators today.
This variety is reflected in the AJLL 2000-2005 archive, where we found several definitions of literacy in terms of its scope, media and modes, as overviewed in Table 2.
Settings, participants and approaches involved in AJLL 2000-2005 archive
In exploring methodologies used to produce knowledge in the AJLL 2000-2005 archive, we sought to understand how these approaches relate to the 'gold standard' approaches advocated in recent literacy policy initiatives.
The type of research setting in the AJLL 2000-2005 studies is dominated by primary school settings (71%, including the 7% of studies that combined primary and secondary schools); and teachers and students are participants in the large majority (80%) of reported studies.
Lack of specificity in these AJLL studies inadvertently may make the 'all children' frame easier to hold sway, instead of more specifically acknowledging and demonstrating the significance of diversity in literacy education.