102086 Design Teaching and Learning – Essay Brittany Kalauni_19051215

Assignment 1 – Essay on the Foundation of Teaching and Learning

Critical Discussion

’There is now almost universal recognition around the world that ’teaching matters’ and that the
quality of teaching is crucial in social and economic development. This is shown by the wide influence
of international rankings and reports such as the OECD PISA and TALIS reports that compare the
performance of school students, and the Mckinsey Reports that compare the economic performance
of nations. Policy makers all over the world quote these reports.’

-Ian Menter

This statement by Ian Menter reflects on the debate about what it means to be a successful
teacher in the 21st century. This ‘universal recognition’ of teaching and ‘influence of international
rankings’, sets a standard for quality teaching and professionalism (Menter, 2016). It is evident that
through government and regulatory authorities, the implementation of Professional Standards,
ensures consistency in the quality of teachers (Ryan & Bourke, 2016). However, it is argued that
‘quality teaching’ is an ambiguous term that to an extent, is measured by superficial and reductionist
outcomes (i.e. NAPLAN) (Ryan & Bourke, 2016). Understanding ‘quality teaching’ as a highly
contextualised notion, encourages continuous educational research and maintaining Professional
standards as method for best practice in the teaching profession (Ryan & Bourke, 2016).

This essay will focus on the key educational concepts that encompass quality teaching.
Curriculum, assessment and pedagogy when implemented coherently contribute to teacher’s work
and professionalism in Australia. The foundations of these key concepts will be discussed, based on
the challenges imposed to the professionalism of teachers in the current educational landscape.
Evidence of an increasingly accelerated pace for reform in teacher pedagogy and pressures on
striving for standards, demonstrate the complexity of quality teaching and significance of teacher
professionalism (Vanassche, Kidd & Murray, 2019).

– Teacher professionalism

Teacher professionalism is a significant determinant in the pursuit of quality teaching (Toh,

Diong, Boo & Chia, 1996). The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL)
established in 2011 the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (APST). The purpose of the
APST identifies the crucial role of the teacher and the responsibility teachers have in preparing
young people for the future. The standards are a public statement of what constitutes teacher
quality (AITSL, 2018) and represent an understanding between teachers, teacher educators, teacher
organisations, professional associations and the public (AITSL, 2018). The Australian Professional

1
102086 Design Teaching and Learning – Essay Brittany Kalauni_19051215

Standards for Teachers encompass seven Standards which framework what teachers should know
and be able to do. The standards are grouped into three domains of teaching; Professional
Knowledge, Professional Practice and Professional Engagement. The expectations of teachers are
identified, to which the Standards are then separated into focus areas to further illustrate the
domains of teaching into four professional career stages: Graduate, Proficient, Highly Accomplished
and Lead (AITSL, 2018). These standards include, knowing the students and how they learn, knowing
the content and how to teach it, planning for and implementing effective teaching and learning,
creating and maintaining supportive and safe learning environments and providing feedback on
student learning (AITSL, 2018). Finally, engaging in professional learning and engaging professionally
with colleagues, parents/carers and the community (AITSL, 2018).

According to Menter (2016), teachers need to have a clear understanding of both the moral
and occupational component the profession demands. Adapting to the ever-changing education
environment and using skills to assess the learning requirements of students whilst adhering to
initiatives like the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (APST). If such skills and knowledge
can be developed as part of teacher’s professionalism, then this will realize the nation’s commitment
to quality teaching (Menter, 2016).

– Curriculum

The NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) under the NSW Education Act 1990 is
responsible for creating and upholding the curriculum from Kindergarten to Year 12 for schools in
NSW (NSW and the Australian Curriculum, 2019). From 2010, NSW joined with the Australian
Government and all states and territories to develop the Australian Curriculum.

The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) developed the
Australian Curriculum that provides an understanding of what students should learn irrespective of
where in Australia they reside nor which school they attend (Curriculum, 2016). NESA works in
collaboration with ACARA providing feedback and making recommendations from the NSW
education community in relation to implementing the Australian Curriculum (NSW and the
Australian Curriculum, 2019). It is the responsibility of all states and territories to implement the
Australian Curriculum (NSW and the Australian Curriculum, 2019).

The Melbourne Declaration on Education Goals for Young Australians in 2008 stated that
“curriculum will be designed to develop successful learners, confident and creative individuals and
active and informed citizens” (Australian curriculum, 2011). Supported by the Federation, the

2
102086 Design Teaching and Learning – Essay Brittany Kalauni_19051215

initiative to release a national curriculum looked to action this statement with intention of improving
the quality, equity and transparency of Australia’s education system (Australian curriculum, 2011).

Since the introduction and collaboration state and nationwide, the development and
implementation of curriculum has been subjected to contention based on what knowledge is
selected, how it is taught and how it is assessed in schools (Atweh & Singh, 2011). What is deemed
as valid knowledge centres much of the debate on whether the aims and rationale of the curriculum
deals progressively with society’s economic, cultural and technological changes (Atweh & Singh,
2011). The Australian curriculum remains in its early stages with room for continuous improvement,
which identifies with the fact that teachers are subject to continuous improvement with
performance and practice in the classroom (Atweh & Singh, 2011). This opportunity for circular
reform raises expectations for teachers in order to provide students with access to valuable
knowledge, reiterating teacher professionalism and obligation to quality teaching.

– Pedagogy

In reflection of this constant shift in education values with relation to political, economic and
social challenges, we can attest to the increasing rates of curricula and assessment reform, thus
influencing quality pedagogy (Menter, 2016). There is much debate about how teacher’s
professional knowledge is constructed into practice (Loughran, 2019). According to Loughran (2019),
he argues that teachers are bound by procedures employed by authorities rather than pedagogical
reasoning purely because they are rarely given the opportunity to explore their teaching practice.
The NSW Quality Teaching Model looks to combat this issue by setting the foundation of pedagogical
practice and the knowledge of practice that influences what they do, how and why (Loughran, 2019).
This model was introduced in order to examine classroom practice and assessment across all subject
areas from K-12 (Ladwig, 2009). The NSW-OT model includes three dimensions of pedagogy:
Intellectual Quality, Quality Learning Environment and Significance. These dimensions can be found
and can be observed in all tasks given to students for learning purposes (Ladwig, 2009). Intellectual
Quality is pedagogy focused on creating deep understanding of concepts, skills and thoughts. The
Quality Learning Environment is pedagogy that creates classroom environments that allow for
productivity where students and teachers can focus on learning (Ladwig, 2009). Significance aims to
implement pedagogy that puts meaning to content by drawing to student’s identities and
experiences outside of the classroom (Ladwig, 2009).

From a PDHPE context the aim and objectives set a clear foundation and understanding for
expected teaching pedagogy (NESA, 2019). The skills highlighted in the curriculum still allow for

3
102086 Design Teaching and Learning – Essay Brittany Kalauni_19051215

creative and innovative approaches to be incorporated into a Physical Education setting. The nature
of PDHPE accounts for constant adaptation in lesson plans and pedagogical approach. Therefore, the
feedback and reports collated by the NSW Department of Education (2019) set a standard that looks
to build quality teaching. Government bodies hold teachers accountable by setting a curriculum
adhered both national and state-wide.

The nature of the curriculum teachers are expected to teach can sometimes inhibit
productive and quality pedagogy. For teachers to facilitate more engaging and meaningful lessons,
problem-based learning is recommended. By identifying the different types of learning behaviours
demonstrated throughout problem based and inquiry learning can impact how students grasp
concepts and skills (Kwon et al., 2017). A study identified different types of learning behaviours in
students after being exposed to problem based and inquiry learning activities and found that there
was a strong correlation between the level of inquiry and learning outcomes (Kwon et al., 2017). The
quality teaching model provides teachers with a standard and is indicative of effective teacher
planning and preparation. Engaging with the NSW Quality Teaching Model equips teachers with skills
and prepares them to experience the realities of the classroom (Green, Eady & Anderson, 2018). This
also allows for pedagogy to develop which is important for quality teaching.

– Assessment

The National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) was introduced in
2008 by ACARA assessing literacy and numeracy for students in years 3, 5, 7 and 9. As a significant
education reform, NAPLAN has been subject to criticism based on the standardised approach (Rose,
Low-Choy, Singh & Vasco, 2018). The competitive discourse that NAPLAN results evoke, redefine the
purpose of education, teacher professionalism and pedagogy, that affect student’s and parent’s
engagement with schools (Rose et al., 2018).

Introduced in 2008 by the Rudd Government, the NAPLAN reform aimed to promote an
Internationally recognised standard of curriculum by collecting data that would reflect a ‘world class’
standard to meet the initiatives of the Melbourne Declaration (Rose et al., 2018). The design of
NAPLAN sought to measure and standardise student achievement in areas focused in literacy and
numeracy (Rose et al., 2018).

NAPLAN also proclaimed that a public display of results would encourage a level of
transparency among schools and allow parents to make informed decisions about their child’s
education (Rose, Low-Choy, Singh & Vasco, 2018). However, controversy in recent years has many

4
102086 Design Teaching and Learning – Essay Brittany Kalauni_19051215

argue that NAPLAN is not a true indication of student’s performance and that cultural biases are
prevalent and have not be considered since its introduction in 2008 (Rose, Low-Choy, Singh & Vasco,
2018).

Despite the questioning of NAPLAN’s validity, there are benefits recognised by schools and
educators. Literacy and Numeracy are key life skills and due to NAPLAN incentives, targeted funding
and resources to schools with greater need are products of the program (Rose, Low-Choy, Singh &
Vasco, 2018). However, the program has exposed the gap between achievements of Indigenous and
non-Indigenous Australians (Ford, 2013). Despite the inclusion of the Programme for International
Student Assessment (PISA), there is little to suggest that Australia’s diversity particularly in Literacy is
showcased (Ford, 2013).

These issues influence teacher pedagogy based on achievement gaps that do not necessarily
reflect the students or their teachers. From an already overloaded curriculum teachers are under
pressure that impact practice and resource distribution (Polesel, Rice & Dulfer, 2013). As mentioned
by Polesel et al., (2013), NAPLAN also serves for school’s accountability. However, instead of acting
to inform pedagogy, the program questions teachers who experience the effects NAPLAN has on
their students, teaching practice and the wider community (Polesel, Rice & Dulfer, 2013). Whether
NAPLAN serves to encompass student interest and engagement in school and promote quality
teaching and equity is uncertain (Polesel, Rice & Dulfer, 2013). However, research and
improvements made in future can be reflected on what we have learnt on assessments
implemented so far. Quality improvement in curriculum expectations, assessment standards all
contribute to improving teaching quality.

In conclusion, curriculum, assessment and pedagogy in collaboration aims to meet the

standards set by Federal and State authorities (Atweh & Singh, 2011). The professionalism of
teachers sees to continuous educational reform as challenges and issues in the current educational
landscape test quality teaching practice (Green, Eady & Andersen, 2018). Despite, controversy and
public opinion, it is evident that governing education authorities such as NESA and ACARA,
implement evidence-based practice into curriculum, assessment and suggested pedagogy contribute
to the convictions and aspirations of quality teaching (Rose et al., 2018). Issues are prevalent and
reform is needed to address inequities, curriculum overload and considerations to diversity being
implemented in an effective way. Teacher professionalism is held accountable by APST and AITSL
and create a standard teachers can rely on (Toh, 19996). Curriculum nation and state-wide,
incorporates a level of transparency that allows for students across the country to receive the same
level of education (Ladwig, 2009). Finally, education research is conducted with arguments in favour

5
102086 Design Teaching and Learning – Essay Brittany Kalauni_19051215

of curriculum reform which is encouraging for student’s learning and best-practice teaching
pedagogy (Menter, 2016).

6
102086 Design Teaching and Learning – Essay Brittany Kalauni_19051215

References

Atweh, B., & Singh, P. (2011). The Australian curriculum: Continuing the national
conversation.  Australian Journal of Education,  55(3), 189-196. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.uws.edu.au/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/913147164?accountid=36155

Australian curriculum. (2011). Education,  92(8), S4-S5. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.uws.edu.au/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/892501650?accountid=36155

Curriculum. (2016). Retrieved from https://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum

Ford, M. (2013). Achievement gaps in Australia: what NAPLAN reveals about education inequality in
Australia. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 80–102. doi: 10.1080/13613324.2011.645570

Green, C., Eady, M., & Andersen, P. (2018). Preparing quality teachers. Teaching & Learning
Inquiry, 6(1), 104–125. doi: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.6.1.10

Kwon, K., Shin, S., Brush, T. A., Glazewski, K. D., Edelberg, T., Park, S. J., … Alangari, H. (2017). Inquiry
learning behaviors captured through screencasts in problem-based learning. Interactive
Learning Environments, 26(6), 839–855. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2017.1419496

Ladwig, J. (2009). Working backwards towards curriculum: on the curricular implications of Quality
Teaching. Curriculum Journal, 20(3), 271–286. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.1080/09585170903195886

Loughran, J. (2019). Pedagogical reasoning: the foundation of the professional knowledge of

teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 25(5), 523–535. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2019.1633294

Menter, I. (2016). Helga Eng lecture 2015: What is a teacher in the 21st century and what does a
21st century teacher need to know? Acta Didactica Norge, 10(2), 11–25. doi:
10.5617/adno.2647

NESA. (2019). Retrieved from https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/k-

10/learning-areas/pdhpe/pdhpe-k-10-2018/aim-and-objectives

New South Wales Department of education (2019) Key learning areas: pedagogy
https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/curriculum/key-learning-
areas/pdhpe/general-information/pedagogy

7
102086 Design Teaching and Learning – Essay Brittany Kalauni_19051215

NSW and the Australian Curriculum. (2019). Retrieved from

https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/k-10/understanding-the-
curriculum/curriculum-syllabuses-NSW/nsw-and-the-australian-curriculum

Polesel, J., Rice, S., & Dulfer, N. (2013). The impact of high stakes testing on curriculum and
pedagogy: a teacher perspective from Australia. Journal of Education Policy, 29(5), 640–657.
doi: 10.1080/02680939.2013.865082

Rose, J., Low-Choy, S., Singh, P., & Vasco, D. (2018). NAPLAN discourses: a systematic review after
the first decade. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 1–16. doi:
10.1080/01596306.2018.1557111

Ryan, M., & Bourke, T. (2016). Spatialised metaphors of practice: how teacher educators engage
with professional standards for teachers. Critical Studies in Education, 59(2), 167–186. doi:
10.1080/17508487.2016.1185641

Toh, K. A., Diong, C. H., Boo, H. K., & Chia, S. K. (1996). Determinants of Teacher
Professionalism. British Journal of In-Service Education, 22(2), 231–244. doi:
10.1080/0305763960220209

Vanassche, E., Kidd, W., & Murray, J. (2019). Articulating, reclaiming and celebrating the
professionalism of teacher educators in England. European Journal of Teacher
Education, 42(4), 478–491. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2019.1628211