Foundations of Teaching and Learning

Brooke Grech - 18893641

Western Sydney University

 Foundations of Teaching and Learning

The teaching profession in Australia consists of a multifaceted design, that has

developed over the years through political and educational practices. Current features of the

design include: the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (APST), the Australian

national curriculum, Quality teaching models and National Assessment Programs. All of

which are important when analysing the teacher-learner relationship. Each student is

individualistic in their abilities and capabilities of learning. Some students require variation to

the design to facilitate more effective learning. For this reason, it is important to discuss and

understand the phenomena of professionalism, curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, and

how these together effect the teaching-learning environment. In regards to design and the

features stated above, this essay will firstly assess the importance of teaching phenomena and

its effect on the daily work of Australian Teachers. Secondly, these concepts will be

integrated to evaluate the learning needs of gifted and talented students.

Professionalism is a complex term that shifts depending on historical and social

context (Evans, 2008). Its interpretation varies across different people, thus making the

teaching profession controversial in its labelling of ‘profession’ (Evans, 2008). However,

with policies and guidelines administered over the years, the teaching occupation has evolved

into a widely accepted professional practice (Ryan & Bourke, 2013; Mayer, 2006). Teachers

hold a responsibility that separate them from other professions; that is, shaping the younger

generation into professionals of the future. Although this can be a rewarding thought, it also

comes with numerous social and political pressures. One of which is ensuring that quality of

teaching is effective and properly executed (Ryan & Bourke, 2013). For this reason, the

APST was introduced, providing a set of seven standards for professional teaching over four

stages of the occupation (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL],

2017). The standards focus on distinct areas of professional development, giving teachers the
ability to analyse their own competencies, reflect on their practice and develop areas in need

of improvement (AITSL, 2017; Ryan & Bourke, 2013). Although the APST is methodical

and provides clear direction for professionalism, there is little empirical evidence to whether

its purposes correlate with what is displayed (Ryan & Bourke, 2013). Ryan and Bourke

(2013) suggest that the APST provides little focus on the emotional, cognitive and reflective

matters of teaching in the unique individual context. Therefore, as much as the APST

provides a strong framework for teaching as a ‘profession’, the many requirements may pose

as emotionally and cognitively burdening in the work life of Australian teachers.

Many have debated on the definition of ‘curriculum’, especially in the educational

context. However, by the nineteenth century it was commonly accepted that the term referred

to ‘content’, or ‘what’ was taught in schools (Egan, 1978). Curriculum establishes

consistency and professionalism across schools, giving teachers a clear overview of what

needs to be taught and what should be planned (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and

Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2013; Woods, Luke & Weir, 2013). Teachers can only

employ deep knowledge in their students when the content of a lesson is of clear focus, thus a

method of consistency is important (Gore, 2007). This idea of consistency has taken a step

further with the introduction of the ACARA, a curriculum that manages all states in Australia

irrespective of socioeconomic and demographical context (ACARA, 2017). The national

curriculum proposes that it is ‘equitable’ in its globalisation of skills and knowledge and that

it better prepares students for the competitive occupational market (Savage & O’Connor,

2015). However, disregarding certain contextual variables suggests that individuals are not

unique in their learning capabilities and can be categorised into one box. Reports made on

‘arty’ subjects such as drama, claimed that it may be removed from the curriculum and

combined with English instead (Stinson & Saunders, 2016). Not only is this unsettling to

students who are passionate and gifted in these areas, but also to teachers who share these
desires. Taking into consideration individual differences, Egan (1978) suggests that the more

important question of curriculum is ‘how’ the teacher implements content.

Pedagogy explores the methods by which content can be taught and how teachers can

effectively deliver it – bearing in mind student individuality (Egan, 1978). Standard two in

the APST states that teachers should “know the content and how to teach it” (AITSL, 2017).

This means that teachers cannot simply know content, but also how they can best administer

it to ensure quality learning. With quality teaching being an important concept in the teaching

profession, Ladwig and Gore (2009) proposed a model that would assist teachers in their

pedagogical approach. The Quality Teaching model (QTM) covers three aspects of quality

teaching, namely: ‘intellectual quality’, ‘quality learning environment’ and ‘significance’

(Ladwig & Gore, 2009). These are designed for teachers to assess whether their teaching

practices promote deep and meaningful experiences in learning (Gore, 2007). Constructive

features of the model include: guiding teachers with clear principles related to pedagogy and

a reflective coding system with scores ‘one to five’ symbolising ‘low to high’ (Ladwig &

Gore, 2009; Gore, 2007). However, because of its extensive nature, it may be difficult for

teachers to obtain a ‘four or five’ score in every category. The ‘check-list’ nature of the

model may be overwhelming and add to the high demands teachers already face daily.

Despite this, the breadth of the model overall helps eliminate matters that may be deemed

‘less important’ and connect the foundations of quality learning back to the development of

teachers’ pedagogical practice (Gore, 2007).

Assessment encompasses professionalism, curriculum and pedagogic practice. It gives

an indication of students’ skill level, direction for further professional development and

determines whether the selected curriculum and pedagogic models were effective in practice

(Ladwig & Gore, 2006). The question of how students’ skill levels should be assessed has

created a controversial discourse amongst political and educational groups. Three of these
assessment methods include: norm-referencing, which compares the performer’s score

against others who sit the test; criterion-referencing, which assesses according to set criteria

of a task; and standardised testing, which grades students in the same way, using the same

questions over all contexts (Popham, 1999; George et al., 2006). The most prevalent form of

assessment in Australian schools today is the National Assessment Program – Literacy and

Numeracy (NAPLAN), which uses a standardised/norm-referencing technique. The purpose

of the NAPLAN is to give parents and teachers an indication of a child’s numeracy and

literacy skill level, and where improvement can be made (McGaw, 2012). Although the

NAPLAN’s fundamental goals are beneficial, it has progressively grown into a competitive

ordeal – negatively influencing how teachers, parents and students approach the test. The

test’s ‘content’ is another concern for teachers, as its approach to language and cultural

diversity is quite narrow, creating bias for disadvantaged students such as those from

Indigenous backgrounds (Ford, 2013). Increased government funding and resources seems to

correlate with higher NAPLAN scores, which also begs concern for schools with a lower

socioeconomic status (SES) (Perry & McConney, 2010). Overall, these are deep concerns

that teachers must bear in mind during the NAPLAN testing period. More so, considering the

context of each unique student within assessment, is a challenging responsibility that teachers

must face in their day-to-day work.

It was once believed that gifted and talented students (GATS) would excel in school

despite surrounding factors such as teaching methods, personality, social environment etc.

(Rowley, 2008). Research throughout the years has shown that this is not the case, and

specifically teachers, have a significant role to play in creating strategies and content that will

help bring out the potential in these students (Rowley, 2008).

It is important for teachers to firstly identify GATS, so that curriculum, assessment

and their pedagogic approach can be shaped to fit the students’ learning needs (Kaya, 2015).
The first standard in the APST states that teachers should “know students and how they

learn” (AITSL, 2017). Renzulli’s (1978) research suggests that gifted and talented students

can be identified by having or having the potential to acquire three specific characteristics

and apply them to their area of specialty. That is having: general abilities higher than average;

high commitment to tasks given; and high levels of creative-thinking (Kaya, 2015; Renzulli,

1978).

To accommodate these abilities, GATS require challenging content that deepens their

creative thinking and encourages problem-solving (Rowley, 2008). Although the national

curriculum is quite rigid in its design, teachers can do this by providing strategies that focus

on challenging concepts and encourage students to make decisions independently and

manage their own activities (Swan et al., 2015). For example, while other students are given

websites to research a topic, GATS could conduct independent research by finding their own

websites. Assessments can also draw upon these methods to help gage the level of GATS’

independence and need for more or less challenging content. Another way teachers can give

GATS the opportunity to learn in challenging and autonomous environments, is the use of

part/full-time special classrooms; displayed by having less students per teacher in a classroom

(Rowley, 2008; Reis & McCoach, 2002). By changing the atmosphere of the classroom into a

less traditional scope, students can explore their own learning capabilities and strategies in

their gifted areas, without the restriction of predictable types of learning (Reis & McCoach,

2002).

As much as independent learning is beneficial for GATS, group work and social

support is also important in developing their gifts (Swan et al., 2015). Teachers should aim to

create learning environments for GATS, where they encourage each other to problem-solve

and engage in higher-order thinking (Rowley, 2008). Teachers might be able to do this by

assigning challenging group tasks or assessments that encourage them to: problem-solve as a
team; and think about how each of their strengths can be used respectively to benefit the task.

GATS enjoy the challenge and opportunity to explore their talents and capabilities. For

example, a student from Swan et al’s (2015) virtual learning lab program expressed that: “It’s

hard and challenging. It’s also satisfying. Overall, it’s somewhat enjoyable to do what we’re

doing because of the challenge” (p. 311). If teachers fail to facilitate these needs, GATS may

become: bored, distracted easily, distract others from learning, and dissatisfied with their

educational experience. Reis and McCoach’s (2002) research demonstrates this with the

example of a third-grade boy, who can concentrate for hours constructing complex rockets

with his father, but struggles to focus and participate in classroom activities.

Encouragement from teachers and peers and appreciation of their talents is an

important aspect in GATS learning development (Rowley, 2008). Standard 3.7 of the APST

states that teachers should “engage parents in the educative process” (AITSL, 2017).

Involving parents and peers in extracurricular activities or events may motivate students to

continue their efforts and develop their gifts. For example: community nights, carnivals and

academic events can be held; this gives parents and peers the opportunity to witness

educational achievements of GATS. Depending on the area of speciality, this could be in the

form of performances, art/science displays, races, trivia or etc.

Furthering the topic of support; identification of underlying social factors is important

for teachers to consider when developing curriculum and assessment methods for GATS. The

APST emphasises the responsibility to identify the diverse social backgrounds of each

student whilst “[creating and maintaining] supportive and safe learning environments”

(AITSL, 2017). Rowley’s (2008) research showed that teachers who facilitated successful

learning amongst GATS, made it a priority to attend to their social and personal needs.

Sometimes ways of teaching the curriculum and forming assessments will need to be

formatted around a GATS’ unique needs (Rowley, 2008). This is to ensure that their potential
is not being dampened by surrounding factors unique to them, for example: social, economic,

emotional, psychological or physical hindrances (Reis & McCoach, 2002).

Underachievement in GATS is a common consequence of failure to identify and meet their

unique learning needs. Standard 1.5 in the APST states that teachers should be able “to meet

the specific learning needs of students across the full range of abilities” (AITSL, 2017).

Teachers need to identify these unique factors, and base their pedagogic practice and

development of curriculum and assessment accordingly (Rowley, 2008). In a practical

manner, teachers can involve parents in meetings that discuss these needs and create an

educational plan that the child can undergo whilst also being involved in traditional

classrooms (Swan et al., 2015). This may come in the form of: specialised online programs

and activities; one-on-one counselling/tutoring sessions; and added/amended textbooks and

homework sheets.

In conclusion, the current design that encompasses teaching as a profession, covers a

broad range of phenomena and tools that influence how teachers work daily. Professionalism,

curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, were discussed in line with their corresponding

features to outline their effect on the daily work of Australian teachers and evaluate the

learning needs of GATS. Emphasis was made on the importance of meeting the needs of each

student individually and how this can be a challenging responsibility for the teacher.

Nonetheless, it can be rewarding to reflect on the positive impact teachers can facilitate on

learning, when conducted appropriately.

 References

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority,. (2013). Curriculum Design

Paper (pp. 1-28). Sydney: ACARA Copyright Administration. Retrieved from
https://acaraweb.blob.core.windows.net/resources/07_04_Curriculum_Design_Paper_ver
sion_3_1_June_2012.pdf

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority,. (2017). ACARA -

Curriculum. Acara.edu.au. Retrieved 23 March 2017, from
http://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum

Egan, K. (1978). What Is Curriculum?. Curriculum Inquiry, 8(1), 65.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1179791

Evans, L. (2008). Professionalism, Professionality and the Development of Education

Professionals. British Journal Of Educational Studies, 56(1), 20-38.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2007.00392.x

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

George, S., Haque, M., & Oyebode, F. (2006). Standard setting: Comparison of two
methods. BMC Medical Education, 6(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-6-46

Gore, J. (2007). Improving pedagogy: Challenges of moving teachers toward higher levels of
Quality Teaching. Making A Difference: Challenges For Teachers, Teaching And
Teacher Education, 15-33.

Kaya, F. (2015). Teachers’ Conceptions of Giftedness and Special Needs of Gifted

Students. TED EĞİTİM VE BİLİM, 40(177). http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/eb.2015.2885

Ladwig, J., & Gore, J. (2006). Quality teaching in NSW public schools: An assessment
practice guide (2nd ed., pp. 1-56). Sydney, Australia: NSW Department of Education
and Training.

Ladwig, J., & Gore, J. (2009). Quality teaching in NSW public schools: A classroom practice
guide (3rd ed., pp. 1-60). Sydney, Australia: NSW Department of Education and
Training.
Luke, A., Woods, A., & Weir, K. (2013). Curriculum, syllabus design, and equity (1st ed.).
New York: Routledge.

Mayer, D. (2006). The Changing Face of the Australian Teaching Profession: New
generations and new ways of working and learning. Asia-Pacific Journal Of Teacher
Education, 34(1), 57-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598660500480142

McGaw, B. (2012). NAPLAN myths: it's not a high-stakes test. The Conversation. Retrieved
23 March 2017, from http://theconversation.com/naplan-myths-its-not-a-high-stakes-
test-11057

Perry, L., & McConney, A. (2010). School Socio-Economic Composition and Student
Outcomes in Australia: Implications for Educational Policy. Australian Journal Of
Education, 54(1), 72-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000494411005400106

Popham, W. J. (1999). Why standaridized tests don't measure educational

quality. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 8-15. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/224845589?accountid=36155

Reis, S., & McCoach, D. (2002). Underachievement in Gifted and Talented Students With
Special Needs. Exceptionality, 10(2), 113-125.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327035ex1002_5

Renzulli, J. (1978). What Makes Giftedness? Reexamining a Definition. The Phi Delta
Kappan, 60(3), 180-261. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20299281

Rowley, J. (2008). Teaching strategies to facilitate learning for gifted and talented
students. Australasian Journal Of Gifted Education, 17(2), 36-42. Retrieved from
<http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/fullText;dn=173202;res=AEIPT>

Ryan, M., & Bourke, T. (2013). The teacher as reflexive professional: making visible the
excluded discourse in teacher standards. Discourse: Studies In The Cultural Politics Of
Education, 34(3), 411-423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2012.717193

Savage, G., & O’Connor, K. (2015). National agendas in global times: curriculum reforms in
Australia and the USA since the 1980s. Journal Of Education Policy, 30(5), 609-630.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2014.969321
Standards | Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2017). Aitsl.edu.au.
Retrieved 23 March 2017, from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-
standards-for-teachers/standards/list

Stinson, M., & Saunders, J. (2016). Drama in the Australian national curriculum: decisions,
tensions and uncertainties. Research In Drama Education: The Journal Of Applied
Theatre And Performance, 21(1), 93-104.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13569783.2015.1126173

Swan, B., Coulombe-Quach, X., Huang, A., Godek, J., Becker, D., & Zhou, Y. (2015).
Meeting the Needs of Gifted and Talented Students: Case Study of a Virtual Learning
Lab in a Rural Middle School. Journal Of Advanced Academics, 26(4), 294-319.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1932202x15603366