Designing Teaching and Learning Assignment 1 Essay

“Not just anyone can teach. I know from personal experience that many people have given
it a go, but frankly, they just can’t do it. Teaching is a vocation and a profession” (Australian
Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL], n.d.). The debate around whether
teaching is a vocation or a profession has been prominent in the educational discourse. By
examining the four factors that constitute the daily work of teachers and their
contemporary features, including teacher professionalism (APST), curriculum (Australian
National Curriculum), pedagogy (The NSW Quality Teaching model), and assessment
(NAPLAN), this essay argues that teaching is a profession. The essay starts by providing a
definition of “profession” and “professionalism”, followed by discussions on how the four
factors above each supports or challenges the professionalism of teachers.

Before discussion, a definition of “profession” and “professionalism” is needed. The

Professional Standards Council defines a “profession” as “a disciplined group of individuals
who adhere to ethical standards. This group positions itself as possessing special knowledge
and skills in a widely recognised body of learning derived from research, education and
training at a high level, and is recognised by the public as such. A profession is also prepared
to apply this knowledge and exercise these skills in the interest of others” (Professional
Standards Council, n.d.). In addition, “professionalism” is defined as “the personally held
beliefs about one’s own conduct as a professional. It’s often linked to the upholding of the
principles, laws, ethics and conventions of a profession as a way of practice” (Professional
Standards Council, n.d.). The following discussions will what constitute a profession with
teacher professionalism, curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment to analyze the complexity
of the teaching profession.

First of all, the teaching profession in Australia is regulated by the Australian Professional
Standards for Teachers, which provide a framework that support teachers’ professional
learning and ensure that teachers are governed by codes of ethics. According to Buijs
(2005), a profession “implies a set of standards that regulates the activities of the
profession”, which are “set and maintained by the members of the profession” (p. 329). The
Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (APST) are developed by the Australian
Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). By having over 6,000 teachers to
examine and validate the standards and their descriptors, AITSL ensured that the APST
reflects an effective, high quality teaching practice in contemporary Australian classrooms
(Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL], 2011). The APST facilitate
the development of teacher professionalism by clearly outlining the professional
knowledge, practice, and engagement required within the teaching profession. The
standards are used to assist teachers’ professional learning and practice, to guide the
improvement of teacher quality, and to enhance the status of the teaching profession in
Australian society (AITSL, 2011; Sachs, 2013). ‘’Standard 6: Engage in professional learning’’
addresses the importance of teachers’ active engagement in professional learning and
improve practice (AITSL, 2011, p.20). The standards also ensure that as professionals,
teachers are governed by codes of ethics, and they can be held accountable to students and
to society. “Standard 7: Engage professionally with colleagues, parents/carers and the
community’’ stresses that teachers should maintain high ethical standards and they are
encouraged to engage with the wider community (AITSL, 2011, p.22). A study of a pilot
project showed that the teachers’ engagement with the standards assisted them with
critical reflection on practice and professional efficacy (Mayer, Mitchell, Macdonald & Bell,
2005). However, Tuinamuana points out that the standards could potentially reduce
teachers’ autonomy in the classrooms, and intensify teachers’ workload as they need to
spend extra time on professional learning (Tuinamuana, 2011).

In addition, the APST support the complex day-to-day work of teachers by indicating aspects
of curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment. ‘’Standard 2: Know the content and how to teach
it’’ requires teachers to know the content of their teaching areas and curriculum. (AITSL,
2011, p.12). ‘’Standard 3: Plan for and implement effective teaching and learning’’ addresses
that teachers need to incorporate a range of teaching strategies, resources, and effective
communication in their professional practice, which relates to pedagogy (AITSL) 2011, p.14).
‘’Standard 5: Assess, provide feedback and report on student learning’’ requires teachers to
interpret and use assessment data to provide feedback and facilitate learning (AITSL, 2011,
p. 18). Therefore, the APST are essential to the teaching profession, as they ensure that
teachers are governed by ethical standards; they possess specialised knowledge of their
teaching areas, and they are able to apply pedagogy and assessment strategies in the
interests of the students.

Secondly, the Australian National Curriculum provides curriculum content and achievement
standards, which assist teachers with applying specialized knowledge and exercising
teaching skills in professional practice. The basis of professional work is the mastery of a
complex body of knowledge and skills (Cruess, Johnston, & Cruess, 2004; Buijs, 2005). As
members of the teaching profession, teachers are expertise in their key learning areas, and
they are prepared to apply knowledge to facilitate student learning. Therefore, it is
important that teachers know what students should learn and what is to be taught at
different year levels. Designed by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment And Reporting
Authority (ACARA), the Australian National Curriculum aims at improving the quality and
equity of the educational system (Australian Curriculum, n.d.). As the primary audience of
the Australian Curriculum, teachers are provided with clear descriptions of the subject
content, achievement standards of students, and work sample to support their practice. In
addition, Helsby and McCulloch (2002) states that the professionalism of teachers refers to
teachers’ right and obligation to negotiate and use their knowledge in the classrooms. The
Australian Curriculum gives teachers flexibility to ‘personalised student learning and
respond to student need and interest (Department of Education and Training, n.d.). It
should be noted, however, that the national curriculum reform and its implantation could
potentially lead to low teacher morale as the rapid changes to the curriculum and syllabus
require teacher to quickly adjust their teaching practice, which reduce their autonomy
(Helsby & McCulloch, 2002). Aside from specifying disciplinary knowledge, the Australian
Curriculum support teachers’ pedagogical practices and assessment. On the one hand,
teachers can use the curriculum achievement standards to identify different levels of
learning in their classrooms, and make adjustments to their pedagogical strategies. On the
other hand, the achievement standards can be used by teachers to evaluate the quality of
learning, using the assessment data conducted over the course of the teaching period.

Thirdly, teachers can reflect on and improve their professional practices by using the NSW
Quality Teaching model. The fundamental difference between a profession and a vocation is
that, while a vocation implies the commitment of individuals, a profession emphasizes the
consistently high levels of performance of professionals (Buijs, 2005). Pedagogy skill is the
core of the teaching profession (NSW Department of Education and Training, 2003). As
professionals, teachers are expected to regularly reflect on their pedagogical practices, in
order to produce high levels of quality teaching. And as stated by Gore (2007), “teachers
need a clear set of concepts as to what constitutes good practice” and that “this set of
concepts need to be framed as a support for teacher development” (p.16). The NSW Quality
Teaching model was created for this purpose. Developed by Jennifer Gore and James Ladwig
(Gore, 2007), the model categorizes pedagogical practices into three dimensions:
“intellectual quality”, “Quality learning environment” and “Significance” of teachers’ work;
each dimension is described by a number of elements, which indicate the levels of quality of
teaching practices (NSW Department of Education and Training, 2003, p.9). Research has
shown that the Quality Teaching Model has positive effects on closing achievement gaps
between students (Amosa, Ladwig, Griffiths, & Gore, 2007), and improving teachers-
students relationships (Liberante, 2012). Yet, some scholars concern that the model may not
work on under-achieved students from low SES backgrounds, as these students are not
motivated to achieve in school (Archer, 2009). Moreover, The NSW Quality Teaching model
is closely connected to curriculum and assessment, because pedagogy acknowledges the
interrelationship between how teachers teach, what they teach, and how they assess
student learning (NSW Department of Education and Training, 2003). The “Deep
knowledge” element requires teachers to familiarize themselves with the curriculum
content, in order to organizes lesson and activities around the key concepts (Gore, 2007,
p.18). The “Deep Understanding” element requires teachers to engage students in activities
that allow them to demonstrate their understanding of concepts and ideas (Gore, 2007, p.
19), which is related to informal assessment.

Lastly, teachers use different forms of assessments to evaluate the outcome of their
professional practice. However, standardized testing like “National Assessment Program –
Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN)” (National Assessment Program, n.d.) could challenge the
professionalism of teachers. Managed by The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and
Reporting Authority (ACARA), NAPLAN is an annual standardized test for students in Year
3,5, 7, and 9; it assesses the foundational skills that students need to progress through life
and schools, such as reading, writing, spelling, and numeracy (National Assessment
Program, n.d.). The test was originally designed as a “summative assessment” (Berger, 2019,
p. to provide parents and teachers information on the performance of students at the end
of a learning stage. However, in recent years, it has become controversial within the
education system, as politicians use the test outcomes a reference to determine school
funding and the employment of teachers (Berger, 2019, p.10). As a result, the high-stakes
test has negative impacts on curriculum and pedagogy in classrooms. Teachers spent more
time preparing students for the test and less time on the curriculum content; also, teachers
are required to adapt to a teacher-centered teaching style, which limit students’ creativity
and critical thinking (Thompson & Harbaugh, 2013). One of the crucial element of the
teaching as a profession framework is that teachers use their skills and knowledge in the
interests of their students (Professional Standards Council, n.d.). However, because of the
competitiveness of high-stake test like NAPLAN, teachers might use their expertise for
personal gain, which has a damaging effect on the professionalism of teachers.

In conclusion, by examining the concepts of teacher professionalism, curriculum, pedagogy,

assessments, and their contemporary features, the essay provides a critical discussion on
why teaching is a profession. The essay starts by explaining the notion of “profession” and
“professionalism”, which lays a foundation for the discussion followed. The first discussion
of the essay examines how teacher professional standards like APST support the
professional learning of teachers and also regulate teachers’ behaviors. The section followed
analyzes the Australian National Curriculum, and its implications on teachers’ assessment
and pedagogical practices. The third discussion introduce explain the NSW Quality Teaching
Model, which can be used as a tool for teacher to reflect on and improve their professional
practices. The last part of investigate the negative impacts that high-stakes standardized
testing like NAPLAN can have on curriculum and pedagogy, and damage the professionalism
of teachers.
Reference List
Amosa, W., Ladwig, J., Griffiths, T. & Gore, J. (2007). Equity effects of Quality Teaching:
Closing the gap. Conference Paper, Retrieved from
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/3623458/amo07284.pdf?
AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1554475029&Signature=1AzHCdRdm
pDIayxJAHq266zvlAk%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename
%3DEquity_effects_of_Quality_Teaching_Closi.pdf

Archer, J.(2009). Motivational Implications of the Quality Teaching Model in New South
Wales. In Chi-hung. C. Ng & P.D. Renshaw (Eds.), Reforming Learning: Concepts, Issues and
Practice in the Asia-Pacific Region, (5th ed. pp.277-292). Australia. Springer.

Australian Curriculum. (n.d.a). About the Australian Curriculum. Retrieved from

https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/about-the-australian-curriculum/

Australian Curriculum. (n.d.b). Implications for teaching, assessing and reporting. Retrieved
from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/implications-for-teaching-
assessing-and- reporting/?searchTerm=Implications+for+teaching
%2c+assessing+and+reporting#dimension-contnet

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL], (n.d.). Not just anyone can
teach. Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/secondary/news-and-media/not-just-
anyone-can-teach

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). Australian Professional
Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from: https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards

Berger, N. (2019). Designing Teaching & Learning: Lecture 4: Assessment. [ilecture].

Retrieved from https://vuws.westernsydney.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-3912359-dt-content-
rid-29917837_1/courses/102086_2019_1h/DTL%20Lecture%204.pdf

Buijs, J. A. (2005). Teaching: Profession or Vocation?. Journal of Catholic Education, 8(3).

http://dx.doi.org/10.15365/joce.0803042013

Cruess, S.R., Johnston, s. & Cruess, R.L. (2004). “Profession": A Working Definition for
Medical Educators. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 16(1), 74-76,
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328015tlm1601_15

Department of Education and Training, (n.d). Australian Curriculum. Retrieved from

https://www.education.gov.au/australian-curriculum-0

Gore, J. (2007). Improving Pedagogy: The challenges of moving teachers toward higher
levels of quality teaching. In J.Butcher. & L, McDonald (Eds.), Making a difference:
Challenges for teachers, teaching and teacher education, (1st ed. pp. 15-34). Rotterdam.
Sense Publishers

Helsby, G. & McCulloch, G. (2002) Teacher Professionalism and Curriculum Control. In I.F.
Goodson (Ed), Teachers' Professional Lives, (1st ed. ). doi: 10.4324/9780203453988

Liberante, L. (2012). The importance of teacher–student relationships, as explored through

the lens of the NSW Quality Teaching Model, Journal of Student Engagement: Education
Matters, 2(1), 2-9. Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/jseem/vol2/iss1/2

Mayer, D., Mitchell, J., Macdonald, D. & Bell, R. (2005). Professional standards for teachers:
A case study of professional learning. Asia - Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33 (2). 159-
179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660500121977

National Assessment Program. (n.d.). About. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu.au/about

NSW Department of Education and Training. (2003). Quality teaching in NSW public schools
Discussion paper. Retrieved from http://www.darcymoore.net/wp-
content/uploads/2012/02/qt_EPSColor.pdf

Professional Standards Council, 2015. What is a profession. Retrieved from

https://www.psc.gov.au/what-is-a-profession

Sachs, J. (2003). Teacher Professional Standards: Controlling or developing teaching?.

Teachers and Teaching, 9(2), 175-186. DOI: 10.1080/13540600309373

Thompson, G. & Harbaugh, A.G. (2013). A preliminary analysis of teacher perceptions of the
effects of NAPLAN on pedagogy and curriculum. The Australian Educational Researcher,
40(3), 299-314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-013-0093-0

Tuinamuana, K. (2011). Teacher Professional Standards, Accountability, and Ideology:

Alternative Discourses. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(12).
h5p://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2011v36n12.8