Designing Teaching and Learning Assignment 1

“He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.”

-George Bernard Shaw, 1903, Man and Superman

This assignment asks you to critically discuss this famous quote. In doing so, you will evaluate the

interrelationship between key teaching and learning concepts – specifically professionalism,

curriculum, pedagogy and assessment – and discuss how effective design incorporates differentiated

instruction for student needs (Outcomes 1, 5, & 6). You are also asked to engage with educational

research as a source for best-practice in the profession (Outcome 8).

At the core of the Quote “He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches” is an implied lack of

respect for those who teach. The implication is that there is an inherent sense of failure surrounding

those who have chosen to teach, as opposed to those that can (or have chosen to) DO. This essay will

examine the various aspects of the teaching, focusing on professionalism, curriculum, pedagogy and

assessment, and how those focal points shed new light on the perception that the quote implies, in

order to advance the ideals contained within it. Furthermore, I will examine the Professional Teaching

Standards that govern the profession of Teaching within Australia, as well as the NSW Quality

Teaching model to dispel the myth that there is a lack of hard work and attainment exhibited by

teachers, and that this leads to a lack of respect within the community. It is through these and other

academic sources that I will challenge the implications of George Shaw’s quote, and how we as

teachers can be not only viewed greater respect within the community, but also that we can be seen to

be an integral part of the process that helps to lead, mould and actually become not only Doer’s, but

that our role is in fact linked directly to greatness within both our individual students and our

communities.

I begin with an examination of what it takes be a professional Teacher. The Australian

Government has created guidelines that define and outline the Standards required to be accredited as a

teacher. These standards outline the varying levels accomplishment and grading for career teachers. It
is immediately apparent to me that these standards alone could be used to counter the implications of

Shaw’s famous quote as these standards detail a level of engagement that surpasses the notion that

teachers CAN’T. They have, by the very essence of these standards already achieved a very high level

of education and training that would easily render this statement moot. The following Standards taken

from the Australian Standards for Professional Teachers (2011) illustrate that there is a sophisticated

and on-going level of engagement that teachers exhibit in their daily work that far surpasses the

implication that Teachers CAN’T.

Standard 1: 1. Know students and how they learn

Standard 2: 2. Know the content and how to teach it

Standard 3: 3. Plan for and implement effective teaching and learning

Standard 4: 4. Create and maintain supportive and safe learning environments

Standard 5: 5. Assess, provide feedback and report on student learning

Standard 6: 6. Engage in professional learning

Standard 7: 7. Engage professionally with colleagues, parents/carers

and the community. (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2011)

There are some arguments that can be made that suggest that the profession of teaching

isn’t taken seriously within the greater community. One such argument (that I disagree with) is

evident within salary and pay grade of professional teachers compared to other professions. Connell

says it well in her article regarding the teaching profession and the perceptions that exist within

society when she remarks that “teachers' pay is around the average for all professionals, and it is

certainly not in the same bracket as an experienced doctor, accountant, stockbroker or corporate

executive. You don't go into teaching in order to get rich” (Connell, 2013, p. 268). Though this pay

disparity exists, I feel that it is not a true reflection of the value of the profession to the greater

community. Society therefore takes a less than fully appreciative view of their teachers. Though

teachers are highly accomplished (as outlined above), there is however a perception within society

that is echoed with Shaw’s quote, and this is difficult to erase as it has existed for some time now.
People are generally unaware that teachers are in fact well educated and perpetually enriching their

knowledge, and this again counters Shaw’s, and societies perception of the profession.

Teachers work within the framework of Curriculum, and within this framework one can see

that teachers are bound to a pre-existing wealth of knowledge that is expected to be effectively

communicated to their students. The very existence of curriculum suggests that teachers are

DOER’S. Curriculum can be defined loosely as ‘what’ is to be taught, though I really isn’t that simple.

The definition of Curriculum has evolved through time, as has the content contained within it, and

the methods of delivery for the content (instructions) were once considered part of this evolving

definition. Egan (1978) describes the literal meaning of the word as it has been translated from Latin

to mean a race, or a course. This definition is also refined by Egan (1978) to its more contemporary

application to mean the content that is taught. The evolution of the applicable meaning of the word

follows suit with the evolution of the profession of teaching. The methods teachers employ (or the

how) is now defined as pedagogy, and is considered a separate tool in the teachers’ kit, whereas

curriculum was once inclusive of both terms. Again, we can see that teaching is not static, and

therefore not worthy of the disrespect that Shaw’s quote implies.

Though there is an active discourse surrounding the nature of curriculum within Australian

schools, there is not as yet a general consensus between the governing bodies that determine if

there will be a National curriculum that all States should (and would) adhere to. There are

arguments for and against a National curriculum, but for the purposes of this essay I will not be

entering into this debate. It is important to note that curriculum not only includes what is to be

taught in terms of concrete information and outcomes (syllabus), but it also includes things that are

taught within a more underlying cultural context. These are also part of the responsibilities of the

teacher to manage, and as with the syllabi that are ever changing and developing, these cultural

sensitivities will inevitably follow suit. The NSW Education Standards Authority’s Curriculum

Development includes this very process within its staged recommendations. These standards and

the curriculum are themselves always moving towards a higher level of understanding and
achievement and can therefore be seen to be a strong indicator that teachers should be held in high

regard.

. If we see curriculum as the what is taught in schools, then pedagogy is the how. The word

pedagogy (like curriculum) is derived from the Latin word paidigogia, which can be translated to

mean ‘to lead a child’. If children are the future assets of society, then teachers can easily be

regarded as being not only guides for these future assets, but can be seen as an integral and valuable

part of this process. As the aforementioned standards and outcomes improve and escalate, the

method that teachers use in order to reach these higher levels must also improve. In an article

regarding the ongoing evolution of pedagogy Gore (2007) states that

if pedagogy is to improve significantly, teachers need a clear set of concepts as to what

constitutes good practice with specific detail about what that practice looks like and that this

set of concepts needs to be framed as a support for teacher development, not as a system

for judging relative performance. (p. 16)

The NSW Quality Teaching model provides these concepts and supporting framework and will be

discussed further in the next paragraph. Here we can see that teachers would be required to need

support for their growing and developing pedagogy in a very similar way to those of their students,

and it is here that the idea that teachers are seen to be the leaders within the educational system as

well as within the community. The active concept of an ever-developing pedagogy is therefore a very

strong counter to the negative implications of Shaw’s famous quote.

The NSW Quality Teaching Model provides a framework for a developing pedagogy to

follow. This framework consists mainly of 3 Dimensions and their descriptive elements. The 3

Dimension are

* Intellectual Quality

* Quality Learning Environment

*Significance
These 3 dimensions of a working pedagogy are indeed complex, and cover all aspects of the learning

environment and content that a teacher should be engaged with. This Quality Teaching Model also

provides a framework for assessing a teacher and their effectiveness at incorporating these

dimensions into their pedagogy. Teachers are required to not only present knowledge and

information to their students, but to enhance each of these dimensions with deeper cognitive

processes that may involve communication and Higher-Order Thinking. The model further illustrates

the importance of setting high expectations for students within the learning environment, as well as

giving them adequate directions in order to meet these goals. Finally, teachers can be graded on

their ability to incorporate Cultural and Background Knowledge in order to create and connect a

cohesive narrative. With all of these expectations for teachers to meet and exceed the outcomes for

student learning, we can see that Shaw’s assertions about teachers are fast losing credibility. Such a

vast and developing pedagogy suggests that the achievements and expectations upon teachers are

far from those who according to Shaw, CAN’T.

Assessment is a key part of the learning process within our education system, and is

therefore a key part of the teaching process. Assessment can give both teachers and students an

indication of both their strengths and weaknesses, and subsequently lead to areas for each to

develop in future. Though Assessment is generally seen as a positive, it can however bring into light

areas of inequality in terms of achievement across different cultural or Ethnic groups. This too can

lead to a positive outcome as it illustrates an area for improvement in an ever-developing system.

Some of these inequities were highlighted in an article by Margot Ford (2013) titled ‘Achievement

gaps in Australia: what NAPLAN reveals about education inequality in Australia’. The gap that is

being refereed to here is that between students of Indigenous backgrounds and those of a non-

Indigenous Background. The NAPLAN testing (which will be further discussed in the following

paragraph) revealed that there is a significant gap in the achievements of these 2 Ethnic groups.

Though the immediate implication here is a negative one, it is important to note that this
Assessment has now highlighted an area that needs to be addressed, in a similar way to how a

teacher may approach individuals within their classroom.

Assessment, and essentially the NAPLAN testing in Australia is a useful tool for Students,

Teachers, Schools and Parents alike. Not only is Assessment another tool in the teachers’ kit, but the

results provide important information that is useful to all those mentioned above. Teachers can see

how their students’ measure up compared to students in other schools (as well as their own results

from previous testing), Students can gauge their own levels of performance, as well as Parents being

able to access results from entire Schools in order to determine which School they wish to send their

child. All of these factors indicate a level of competition that belies the implication that teachers

have failed somehow at DOING, and are therefore reduced to teaching as a secondary, lesser

occupation. This level of Assessment and competition doesn’t exist in many other fields. Sure, life

itself is competitive, but to suggest (as SHAW has done with his famous quote) that teachers are a

group of individuals that CAN’T is almost bordering on ridiculous. Teachers are constantly being

assessed, as are the achievements of their students, and their schools, in a sense suggesting that

teachers never rest in their pursuit of educating young people.

In conclusion, it is inherently evident that through professional Practices and Standards,

Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment, teachers cannot be categorised or labelled by the negative

implications of Shaw’s famous quote that “He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches”. With an ever

active and developing array of tools, teachers can be seen to not only be an integral part of society, but

also to be seen as the leaders. In order to achieve, young people need guidance, support and direction

from those who hold a wealth of knowledge and experience, the Teachers. To suggest that teachers

can be viewed as those who can’t is an outdated and reductionist way of viewing the profession, and

serves only to belittle and devalue those who are essentially responsible for each generation on young

people that pass through the education system.

References

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (2011). Australian Professional

Standards for Teachers.

Connell, R (2013). Education, change and Society. Teachers, 12(1), 261-275.

Egan, K. (1978). What Is Curriculum? Curriculum Inquiry, 8(1), 65-72. doi:10.2307/1179791

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

Gore, J. (2007) Improving pedagogy: The challenges of moving teachers toward higher

levels of quality teaching

State of NSW, Department of Education and Training Professional Learning and Leadership

Development Directorate (2006). Quality Teaching Model in NSW Public Schools: An

Assessment practice guide