British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 30, No.

1
February 2004

Effective teaching in the context of a

Grade 12 high-stakes external examination
in New South Wales, Australia
Paul Ayres*1, Wayne Sawyer2 & Steve Dinham3
P.AyresSchool of EducationUniversity of New South WalesSydney2052NSWAustraliap.ayres@unsw.edu.au

1
University of New South Wales, Australia; 2University of Western Sydney,
Australia; 3University of New England, Australia

Received 11 October 2002; conditionally accepted 11 March 2003; accepted 1 May 2003.

This study identified effective teachers of high-achieving Grade 12 students in New South Wales,
Australia. Nineteen teachers, across a variety of curriculum areas, were observed teaching and
then interviewed. A further six teachers were interviewed only. Despite the high-stakes end-of-
schooling examination, generating interest in and understanding of the subject was their
paramount concern. A key common factor was an emphasis on having students apply knowledge,
rather than being ‘spoon-fed’ information. Although many aspects of the lessons were channelled
through the teachers, frequent opportunities existed for independent learning. Classrooms were
relaxed environments, but highly focused. Teachers attributed their success to four major factors:
their relationships with students, their classroom practices, the students themselves and faculty
cooperation. No evidence was found that the high-stakes examination inhibited best-practice
teaching.

Introduction
The main aim of this study was to investigate the beliefs and teaching practices of
effective teachers of Grade 12 students in the context of high-stakes examinations in
New South Wales (NSW), Australia. The American Educational Research Associ-
ation defines tests as ‘high stakes’ if serious consequences follow for students or
educators (AERA, 2000). They are controversial for a number of reasons. Concerns
are often raised about the stress they cause (see Barksdale-Ladd & Thomas, 2000),
their validity (see Smith & Fey, 2000) and their impact on motivation (Gipps,
1994). Critics also argue that they foster a climate of restrictive teaching (Madaus,
1988; Wideen et al., 1997; Barksdale-Ladd & Thomas, 2000; Passman, 2000;
Hilliard, 2000), and a narrow curriculum focus (Madaus, 1988; Gipps, 1994).
There also exists a common assumption that to do well in public examinations,
students must become ‘exam crammers’, and teachers must ‘teach to the test’.
While the research literature into effective teaching is extensive, the link between
effective teachers and high-stakes examinations is less apparent. Furthermore, much
of the research into effective teaching has focused on teachers of primary and lower
*School of Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia. Email
p.ayres@unsw.edu.au
ISSN 0141-1926 (print)/ISSN 1469-3518 (online)/04/010141-25
 2004 British Educational Research Association
DOI: 10/1080.01411920310001630008
142 P. Ayres et al.

secondary students. This present study was conducted to explore effective teaching
of older high school students (Grade 12) and to investigate the practices of effective
teachers under the pressures of high-stakes testing. We were able to access teachers
whose students had scored in the top 1% of the state in their particular subjects,
while not scoring nearly as well in other subjects. What follows is a brief description
of the NSW Higher School Certificate and an overview of some of the major findings
of the teacher effectiveness literature which underpin this study.

The NSW Higher School Certificate

The credential awarded at the end of schooling in NSW is known as the Higher
School Certificate (HSC). Each year, about 60,000 Grade 12 students complete the
HSC in NSW. The HSC requires students to study a number of different subjects
including a compulsory English course. Five to six separate subjects are a common
pattern of study. In some subject areas, students can choose differing levels of a
course to suit their abilities. Each course has a clearly defined syllabus that every
student in the state must follow. At the end of Grade 12, students sit an external
state-wide examination in each course, which contributes 50% of a student’s final
grade. The remaining 50% of the marks are accumulated from within-school
assessment tasks that are moderated externally. On graduation, students receive a
certificate (diploma) which indicates the courses studied and the final marks ob-
tained. For students applying for entry into university, the HSC marks are statisti-
cally and independently scaled into a single ranking called the University Admissions
Index (UAI). In order to gain entry into a particular university and specific
programme, students must obtain certain UAI scores designated by that university.
The importance of the external examinations to final grades and the highly compet-
itive nature of university entrance ensure that Grade 12 students in NSW experience
extreme high-stakes testing.

Effective schools research

It is often acknowledged by researchers (see Scheerens, 1992; Reynolds & Packer,
1992; Sammons et al., 1995), that the Coleman (Coleman et al., 1966) and Jencks
(Jencks et al., 1972) reports in the USA were major catalysts for research on school
effectiveness. The reason for this was their findings that schools made little impact
on academic outcomes. Instead, factors associated with students’ backgrounds were
found to be the major influences on student achievement. Since these reports were
published, considerable research has been conducted into studying schools in order
to show that schools can make a significant difference to academic and other
educational outcomes. A common criticism (see Rutter et al., 1979; Mortimore,
1998) of the Coleman and Jencks reports was their failure to control for student
differences on entering school. Consequently, many researchers since this period
have adopted value-added approaches (see Thomas et al., 1997) that use longitudinal
studies to measure changes in performance rather than raw test scores. Such studies,
 Effective teaching 143

which have controlled student intake variables, have been successful in showing that
schools do make a difference (see Sammons et al., 1995; Mortimore, 1998).
In a review of the literature, Sammons et al. (1995) identified 11 factors that were
commonly observed as important. These factors were: professional leadership;
shared visions and goals; a learning environment; concentration on teaching and
learning; purposeful teaching; high expectations; positive reinforcement; monitoring
progress; pupils’ rights and responsibilities; home–school partnership; and a learning
organization. Clearly, many of these factors are dependent upon classroom prac-
tices, and highlight the importance of teachers (Creemers, 1996).
Within the contexts of effective schools research, much time has been spent on
observing teaching practices. One rich source of data has been the Louisiana School
Effectiveness Studies. A focus of these studies (see Teddlie, 1994) has been to
compare the classroom practices of elementary teachers in ‘effective’ and ‘non-effec-
tive’ schools. Significant differences have been observed between the groups on
classroom behaviours. In particular, the teachers in the effective schools (see
Teddlie, 1994, pp. 118–123) spent more time on task, had more effective classroom
management skills and created a positive classroom climate. In addition, they had
more effective instructional methods, including superior presentation and question-
ing techniques, and managed independent study more effectively.
Two additional factors identified in the Louisiana studies of particular relevance
to our study were the role played by the faculty (department), and the stability of the
teaching staff (see Creemers, 1996, p. 44). Faculties in effective schools were found
to be warm, friendly, cohesive and stable. There existed within-faculty cooperation,
a fairly uniform approach to teaching, and help given to new members. Further-
more, teachers in the effective schools tended to be more stable in their tenure. One
example was given of third grade teachers who had an average tenure of 20 years in
the same school. Low staff turnover was also found to be an important factor in a
study on effective subject departments (faculties) in English secondary schools (see
Harris et al., 1995).

Teacher effectiveness research

It has been often noted that much of the research into effective teaching has been
conducted independently of effective schools research (Teddlie et al., 1989). As
early as 1981, Gray (1981) questioned whether school effects were being overesti-
mated. Similarly, more recent studies (Fitz-Gibbon, 1991, 1992; Tymms, 1993; Hill
& Rowe, 1996), which have utilised multilevel modelling techniques (see Goldstein,
1987), suggest that subject faculties and classrooms exert greater influence on
academic performance than whole-school factors. In teacher effectiveness research,
teachers, rather than schools, are the main focus of study. In a major review of this
literature from 1973 to 1983, Brophy and Good (1986) summarized the main
findings into two categories. The first category focused on how the time was spent
in the classroom. Effective teachers consistently allowed their students opportunity
to learn through maximizing instruction time and focusing on the curriculum.
Efficient learning was achieved by covering the curriculum quickly, but progressing
144 P. Ayres et al.

in steps which matched the students’ capabilities. Effective teachers ensured that
students achieved mastery levels in new content areas, which they were able to link
to other concepts, and then to apply such new knowledge to problem-solving.
Furthermore, effective teachers took a very active role in the classroom rather than
allowing students to work independently without supervision.
In the second category, Brophy and Good (1986) focused on the ‘form and
quality’ of the lessons. Effective teachers would provide highly structured teacher-
led lessons with an emphasis on reviewing processes. Presentations would be clear
and conducted with enthusiasm. Questioning would play an important role in the
classroom. Many questions of the drill–review type would be delivered quickly.
More open and difficult questions would be less common, but mainly used to
promote higher-level thinking. Furthermore, effective teachers were especially adept
at responding to student answers and questions.
Closely associated with research into teacher effectiveness is the study of expert
teachers. In this domain, researchers have utilized psychological theories associated
with expert–novice distinctions to build models of pedagogical expertise (see
Berliner, 1994) and to formulate a prototype of an expert teacher (see Sternberg &
Horvath, 1995). Researchers have also employed a methodology of directly compar-
ing experts with novices to identify differences in classroom behaviours (see Lein-
hardt & Greeno 1986; Borko & Livingston, 1989). In such studies, researchers have
been careful to identify expertise rather than experience (see Berliner, 1986, 1994),
and have used a number of methods to achieve this. Berliner (1986), for example,
used a combination of reputation, observation, performance on tasks, and external
nomination. Leinhardt and Greeno (1986) used student performance indicators,
while Borko and Livingston (1989) used external nomination alone.
In the studies by Leinhardt and Greeno (1986) and Borko and Livingston (1989)
that featured mathematics teachers, observable differences, such as planning and
teaching, were identified between experts and novices (student teachers). Borko and
Livingston (p. 481) found that experts were more effective in keeping lessons on
track and meeting objectives. In particular, novices had difficulty during interactive
teaching compared with the proficiency of experts. Other notable features of the
experts included using student responses as springboards for discussion, obtaining a
good balance between content-centred and student-centred instruction, and limited
use of textbooks. Leinhardt and Greeno (p. 93) identified a core of activities that the
expert teachers used to structure their lessons. Typically, lessons would progress
from presentations and reviews, through shared problem solutions, to interactive
seatwork and occasional independent work. While experts used guided practice,
novices did not. In addition, experts had a large pool of routines (p. 94) to call upon
which were flexible and interchangeable, which required little monitoring or expla-
nation. In contrast, novices did not possess these routines.
As research into effective teaching has gained momentum, researchers have also
became interested in the thinking of teachers (see Calderhead, 1981a, 1981b; Doyle,
1981; Morine-Dershimer, 1991; Brown & McIntyre, 1993; Batten, Marland &
Khamis, 1993; Cooper & McIntyre, 1996). In an early review of the literature into
teachers’ thought processes, Clark and Peterson (1986) argued that the literature
 Effective teaching 145

supported the idea that the actions of teachers were guided by their thought
processes, and therefore teachers could be considered as reflective professionals.
This is a view that has much in common with Schön’s reflective practitioner (Schön,
1983). However, accessing the thinking of teachers has proven problematic because
of the difficulty teachers have in articulating their knowledge due to its tacit nature
(see Berliner, 1986; Brown & McIntyre, 1993; Cooper & McIntyre, 1996). Research
teams such as Brown and McIntyre, and Cooper and McIntyre, have addressed this
difficulty by employing probing interviewing techniques and focusing on positive
classroom behaviours. By utilising a methodology which employs both interview and
observation, studies in Scotland (Brown & McIntyre, 1993), Australia (Batten et al.,
1993) and England (Cooper & McIntyre, 1996) have enriched our understanding of
teachers’ craft knowledge—defined by Cooper and McIntyre as follows:

Professional craft knowledge—as opposed to other forms of knowledge that teachers

might possess—is the knowledge that experienced teachers gather throughout their
careers that enables them to make decisions about how best to approach professional
studies. (p. 75)

A further feature of these studies has been the use of students to identify effective
teachers rather than performance data. A general finding of the Scottish study
(Brown & McIntyre, 1993), was that the teachers, taken from many curriculum
areas, possessed a considerable number of tactics which they could use in order to
attain their short-term goals, where each action taken was dependent upon the
particular conditions within the classroom.
Brown and McIntyre (1993) not only utilized students to identify teachers, but
also documented students’ perceptions of effective teaching. Ten categories (p. 28)
were subsequently identified as strengths of their teachers and are summarized as
follows: the teachers create a relaxed and enjoyable atmosphere in the classroom
while retaining control; they present work in a way that is interesting and motivating;
they provide conditions that enable pupils to understand; they make clear what
pupils are to do; they make clear what pupils are to achieve; they judge what can be
expected of a pupil; they help pupils with difficulties; they encourage pupils to raise
their expectations of themselves; they develop personal, mature relationships with
pupils; and they have personal talents that are subject-related or otherwise. Cooper
and McIntyre (1996) also investigated the thoughts of students on good teaching in
relation to teaching English and history. In terms of helping students learn, students
particularly found the following strategies valuable: storytelling by teacher; oral
explanation by teacher (often combined with discussion/question and answer ses-
sions or use of blackboard); use of pictures and other visual stimuli (for explanation/
information); and drama/role play (p. 101). With respect to discussion, students
found the most successful were ‘those which provided opportunities for autonomous
thought and personal expression while being carefully directed by the teacher’
(p. 107).
Similar findings to these English and Scottish studies were also identified by
Batten et al. (1993) in Australian secondary schools. In this study, it was also
discovered that of equal importance to the teaching methodology was the teacher’s
146 P. Ayres et al.

attitude towards the students. Australian students thought good teachers were
friendly and easy to get on with, cared about students and had a sense of humour.
The importance of the relationship between students and teachers has also been
found in other studies. For example, an Organization for Economic Cooparation
and Development study (1994) into quality teaching, involving 11 countries, found
that good teachers have a love of children, know their students as individuals and
have a commitment towards helping them learn.
In summary, much is known about the practices of effective teachers. Effective
teachers have classrooms which maximize learning. Students are on task, given every
opportunity to learn and cover the syllabus within a relaxed and enjoyable climate.
Effective teachers play an active role in the classroom. Clear instructions and
presentations are made. Activities range from teacher-led whole-class activities to
independent study. Effective teachers have a large ‘kitbag’ of routines and teaching
strategies at their disposal, including a variety of questioning techniques. Attitudes
towards students are clearly important. Effective teachers have friendly, mature
relationships with their students, and demonstrate caring, humour and commit-
ment. It can be seen from this summary that classroom climate, teaching strategies
and attitudes towards students are major factors associated with effective teaching.

Method
Whereas the research into teacher effectiveness has produced fairly consistent
findings, researchers have employed differing methodologies to identify effective
teachers, ranging from value-added and multilevel modelling approaches based on
performance data, to student nomination. In our study, which used external exam-
ination data, it was essential to control for school intake variables to eliminate
between-school biases based on differing student populations (see Rutter et al.,
1979; Sammons et al., 1995; Goldstein, 2001). Consequently, we employed a
strategy of within-school comparisons to find schools where students performed at
a consistently higher level in one course than in other courses at the same school.
These course outliers formed the basis of the methodology which is outlined below.

Selecting the schools and teachers

The first phase in this process was to identify schools in which students had, over a
period of time, demonstrated significant success in Grade 12 courses as part of their
HSC. To achieve this, confidential data was obtained from the NSW Board of
Studies (BOS)1 on the top 1% of students for each HSC course over a six-year
period in all government schools in NSW. Courses with candidatures less than 1000
were not considered.
Courses were ranked individually within each school according to the number of
students in the top 1% (an ‘internal’ ranking) over this period. We then identified
schools where there was evidence to suggest that the influence of the teacher was a
significant factor in obtaining the student success. It was assumed that, for a given
cohort of students, if some were achieving outstanding results in a particular course
 Effective teaching 147

within a school, over and above the ‘general’ level of performance of that school’s
HSC students, then the teaching in that course could be a considerable influence.
On this basis, schools were identified where there were relatively large differences
between the ‘first’ (and sometimes ‘second’) internally ranked course and all other
courses at the school. In addition, to avoid biases arising from differences in
candidature size within schools, an ‘external’ ranking was obtained for schools, in
which the number of students in the top 1% of a course was compared against other
schools on that course.
It was thus possible to reduce the data set for each course by only considering
schools with either high internal or external rankings, and, in some cases, both. An
additional analysis separated selective high schools and other schools in areas of
socio-economic advantage and compared them against each other in all courses in
which they appeared on the database. From this comparison, it was possible to
reduce the data set by rejecting such schools (by course) which did not compare
favourably with their socio-economic/selective ‘peers’. Each course was then system-
atically analysed in order to find the most effective schools according to the
external–internal ranking relationships.
Thirty-two schools (18 metropolitan and 14 non-metropolitan) of varying socio-
economic status were thus identified. Twenty-five of the schools were comprehen-
sive and seven were selective schools. Five schools made the list in two courses each.
The final phase in this process was to identify the teachers most responsible for
teaching the students at the given schools for the final HSC year. This was achieved
by consulting the school principals. For many courses, especially with small candida-
tures, we found that only one teacher had been responsible for teaching that course
over the given time period. However, for some larger courses, we found students had
been taught by several members of the faculty. In these situations more than one
teacher was invited to participate.

Profile of the teachers

Twenty-five teachers (8 male and 17 female) with an average age of 44 years were
included in the study. Overall they had a mean length of service of 21 years and a
mean tenure of 13 years in their current schools. Seven were teachers of mathemat-
ics, four of English, four of history, four of social sciences, two of science, two of
visual arts, and one each of music and PDHPE (personal development, health and
physical education). Due to time constraints, principal and/or teacher consent, and
teacher availability, 17 of the 32 schools previously identified were visited.

Procedure
Because the literature (see Brown & McIntyre, 1993) had highlighted the difficulty
that successful teachers seem to have in articulating what they do in the classroom,
it was determined that the most appropriate methodology would be a research
design based on classroom observation and follow-up interview. Nineteen teachers
were observed teaching a lesson and then interviewed. In most cases, teachers were
148 P. Ayres et al.

observed for ‘double’ lessons (up to two hours). A further six teachers were
interviewed only, as we were unable to observe them teaching.

Classroom observations
At the beginning of the study all three researchers attended the first two observa-
tions. From these collective observations the method of data collection was stan-
dardized. In each observation we recorded in note-form the particular teacher
behaviours and classroom practices which could be identified. In particular, a focus
was made on the following:

• the general classroom climate;

• the relationship between the teacher and the students;
• the interactions between the teacher and students, and between the students
themselves;
• the type of teaching with respect to whole class, individuals and groups;
• the role and type of questioning and discussion;
• the types of tasks set; and
• other notable or unexpected classroom strategies.

Following this standardization of data collection, a further nine teachers were

observed by two researchers, and eight by individual researchers. Where more than
one researcher was involved in observations, a consolidated set of notes was formed.

Teacher interviews
In most cases, the researchers were able to interview the observed teacher immedi-
ately after the lesson, using an interview schedule. This schedule included two
questions that asked the teacher to identify successful outcomes of the lesson, and
then asked them to consider the strategies they employed. Earlier research (see
Brown & McIntyre, 1993; Cooper & McIntyre, 1996) had indicated the benefits of
focusing on successful aspects of the lesson. A further four questions required the
teachers to think beyond the actual lesson observed, and to consider other successful
strategies they utilised at HSC level. The literature has noted the problems of
identifying how teachers acquire their ‘craft knowledge’, and the difficulties involved
in passing this on to others. Hence, these questions probed how the teachers
concerned obtained their present repertoire of successful teaching strategies, sought
to probe the issues of lesson planning and presentation and attempted to promote
deeper reflection on the factors responsible for the teacher’s success. A further four
questions required a deeper, more personal perspective, including taking up the
issue of possible stages in the development of pedagogical expertise, the issue of
school-wide or school-based factors underlying teaching success, and the extent to
which their expertise was shared with others. A final question was open-ended and
allowed the teachers to comment on any other aspect of effective teaching at the
HSC. Interviews normally took about one hour to complete.
 Effective teaching 149

How the data were analysed

The basic technique used to analyse the observational and interview data was that
of content analysis. Briefly, a list of ‘raw’ concepts was identified from the transcripts
of the observation and interview. Once we were satisfied that we had identified the
relevant concepts, we returned to the observational and interview transcripts and
coded all concepts consistently with this final list. To investigate common beliefs
and teaching practices amongst the teachers, we counted the number of teachers
who could be identified with each concept. For example, 20 teachers reported that
their faculty shared ideas and resources. Consequently, the concept ‘Faculty share
ideas/resources’ was given a total score of 20.
Individual concepts, where related, were grouped together to form subcategories.
Related subcategories were then grouped together to form a general category. For
example, the four identified concepts, ‘Little use of note taking’, ‘Emphasis on
individual note making’, ‘Teacher builds notes’, ‘Teacher fills gaps in notes’, were
grouped together to form the subcategory Note making. This particular subcategory
was one of many subcategories that formed the category Teaching Strategies. In total,
eight categories were generated from the nature of the questions asked, any extra
information proffered by the teachers and classroom observations. The eight cate-
gories were as follows: School Background and Students, Subject Faculty, Personal
Qualities, Relationships with Students, Professional Development, Resources and Planning,
Classroom Climate and Teaching Strategies.

Results
The main findings associated with each of the eight categories, defined above, are
discussed separately. The data for the first six categories (School Background and
Students, Subject Faculty, Personal Qualities, Relationships with Students, Pro-
fessional Development, and Resources and Planning) were gathered entirely from
interview and represent the teachers’ beliefs on factors which contribute towards
successful teaching of the HSC. Table 1 summarizes the items within these six
categories that were most frequently identified as important. Data on the seventh
category, Classroom Climate, was collected from observations only. The final
category, Teaching Strategies, consists of both interview and observation data. The
items most frequently identified for the last two classroom-focused categories are
listed in Table 2.

Classroom contexts
School background and students. The strong impression given by teachers was a high
degree of positiveness about their schools. The majority agreed that the students had
a positive attitude towards the school and this was an important factor for HSC
success. Students were variously described by these teachers as ‘motivated’, ‘focused
on learning’, ‘disciplined’ and ‘friendly’ or just as ‘good kids’. One teacher also
mentioned student loyalty to the school and appreciation of staff efforts. A second
150 P. Ayres et al.

Table 1. Common perceptions of factors contributing towards successful teaching of the HSC

Frequency
Category Item description (%)

School Background Students seen as having positive attitudes 60

and Students Very good school 32
Good atmosphere in the school 24
Caring school 20
Subject Faculty Faculty share ideas & resources 80
Faculty are a close team 76
Our faculty is the dominant school culture 56
Success starts in years 7–10 48
Success breeds success ethos 24
Faculty staff involved in school more than most 20
Faculty has sense of vitality and enthusiasm 20
Faculty very experienced 20
Personal Qualities Strong content knowledge 60
Hardworking and committed 60
Approachable 52
Love of subject 44
Like to try different things 32
Well organized 28
Motivator 20
Sense of humour 20
Relationship with Relationship with students seen as important 88
Students Sees raising student confidence as important 40
Teacher is readily available 40
Faculty has good rapport with students 40
Relationship built on mutual respect 36
Professional Learnt through experience 56
Development Currently, little use of formal in-service 40
Main source of in-service within faculty 40
Share expertise in rationed fashion 36
Courses on content valuable 32
Mentor on staff 32
Determines own PD needs and priorities 20
Professional associations/curriculum committees 20
Programmes respected and sought by others 20
Resources and Planning important 80
Planning Plans in great detail 28
Develops own workbooks and resources 28

teacher also highlighted a strong HSC focus in the school among students and also
the competitive nature of the students as factors. Another teacher referred to the low
socio-economic nature of her comprehensive high school’s drawing area as creating
a challenging school but even this was not given in the nature of a negative comment
(the teacher in question had been in the school for 16 of her 17 years of teaching and
had become head of her department).
 Effective teaching 151

Subject Faculty. A high number of teachers (80%) identified the faculty (department)
as playing an important factor in their HSC teaching success. The faculty’s closeness
as a team in one form or another was seen as important in contributing to teacher,
and therefore student, success. Teachers’ responses were sometimes general, such as
identifying the staff as ‘cohesive’ or as having a ‘team or community spirit’ but other
responses fell into more specific areas. Teachers were seen in these environments as
assisting each other with ideas and resources, but also, in some cases, as team-teach-
ers in classrooms. This assisting, or deferring to, as one aspect of the teachers as
‘team players’ was identified by twelve teachers while eight teachers nominated their
faculty staffroom as a crucial source of exchange for teaching ideas and opinions on
school-related issues. Sharing resources was seen as desirable in many faculties. One
English Head of Department, for example, reported that he took certain steps to
ensure resources were shared.
I encourage sharing. We have common filing cabinets and resources sharing. I try to
remove the idea that classroom teachers own their resources and the children they
teach.

Over half the teachers also reported that HSC success was built on the earlier
secondary years (7–10). This factor was closely linked to the faculty because the
teachers believed that these years were influenced by faculty policies, as well as by
HSC teachers also teaching the junior groups. The faculty’s subject was also
considered by some teachers to have become a dominant culture of their school,
providing a success breeds success cycle by attracting good students to the subject.
Typically, teachers related that students in their subject expected to do well and that
the subject was valued by students and made them feel confident, as the following
quotations illustrate:
Kids know there is a tradition of success. They are very confident and it’s a self-
fulfilling prophecy. (Visual arts teacher)

Kids have said ‘I love biology because it makes me feel clever’. (Biology teacher)

Teacher’s personal qualities. In terms of articulating personal strengths, most teachers

identified a number of diverse characteristics, as the following two examples demon-
strate:
I have the ability to motivate them and get them interested in the subject. I am
experienced and know what works. There is my own love of literature—I never get sick
of it. I have high expectations and the kids know that they have to get the work in. I
am tough on discipline and conformity is assumed. I emphasize essay work and I mark
at least one a fortnight over and above assessment tasks. (English teacher)

I am very approachable. I have a great relationship with the kids. I have the ability to
talk to them. I use lots of real world examples. I have a lot of knowledge of what’s
required in both content and HSC structure. (Business Studies teacher)

In spite of this diversity of responses a number of common themes emerged.

Approachability was a trait readily identified. The teachers on the whole identified
a willingness to relax and ‘be themselves’ in the classroom and hence not to present
152 P. Ayres et al.

a remote figure to the students. Teachers’ mastery of content knowledge was also
crucial and they believed that this was a key factor in their success. ‘You’ve got to
know your stuff’ was probably the most common answer given in interviews.
Content knowledge was seen as a key factor in building student confidence, while a
love of, or passion for, the subject was also considered an important key to success,
particularly in the motivation of students. One teacher, after identifying this as a key
factor, had her interview interrupted by a former Year 12 student who was ‘signing
out’ her books. The interviewer was present and asked the student what she thought
made ‘Mrs …’ a good teacher. ‘She loves the subject’ was the immediate reply.
Many teachers described themselves as hardworking and committed in one way or
another. Good organization was also seen as a key contributing factor to student
confidence. Interestingly, nearly a third of the teachers related that an important
attribute was ‘to try different things’. This was often reported as both a teacher and
student motivator. One English teacher, for example, commented that he often
chose texts that he was unfamiliar with, in order to motivate himself as well as the
students.

Relationships with students. The student/teacher relationship was identified as a major

factor in teaching success; only three of the 25 teachers interviewed did not make
this link. Furthermore, 68% of the teachers reported that their good relationship
with students was a major strength. Strong positive classroom relationships were an
integral feature of the context against which the teaching strategies to be discussed
were enacted. Relevant aspects included relating to students as people (including the
importance of interacting with students outside class), such as through sports
coaching, or simply conversation in the playground. In addition, there was an
expectation mutually held by students and teachers that order and purpose—within
agreed limits of informality—was the classroom norm.
Ten teachers also linked good rapport with students as one of the positive features
of their faculty. The following comment by a Visual Arts teacher was a typical
response across the curriculum; only the ultimate career path varied:

We [the faculty] have a strong rapport with the kids. We care and they appreciate that.
We presume they also like us as they often come back after they leave school. A lot of
them go into art. (Visual Arts teacher)

Most often mentioned was the way the faculty would spend time giving advice to
students. This was often about courses, but equally often could be about more
general areas of students’ lives. (Our study included among its 25 individual teachers
seven current or former year advisers and eight heads of departments).

Teachers’ professional development. The majority of teachers attested to important

professional learning coming through experience. Nine teachers reported that ex-
perience alone was their main source of professional development, five reported that
a combination of experience and mentoring was influential, while three reported
mentoring to have been a significant factor. In the case of mentoring, the mentor
 Effective teaching 153

was mostly a head teacher (faculty head), and the mentoring had occurred as a result
of a personal intervention by the mentor, rather than organized by school or
education authority policy:
My first head teacher was an inspiration. He was extremely well organized and taught
me the subject was worthwhile. (PDHPE teacher)
I modelled myself on my first head teacher. She was very understanding and encourag-
ing to the kids. She was also always enthusiastic. (Music teacher)
I get a lot from the head teacher, who inspires me to keep going. He is the best teacher
I’ve ever seen; his number one priority is students and he has endless energy.
(Mathematics teacher)

Ten teachers identified their professional development as most importantly based in

their own faculties—usually through formally organized staff activities such as
reporting back from professional association meetings or giving demonstration
lessons. A few teachers saw networking with peers as an important basis of their
professional development, such as through membership of professional associations
and/or curriculum committees, or through links with relevant professions outside
school—artists, musicians, lawyers etc. There occurred an observable, almost even,
split between teachers who identified external professional development as import-
ant in their teaching and teachers who were explicit about rarely attending in-service
courses. Of those teachers who currently make use of external formal courses for
professional development, all identified courses on ‘content’ as valuable, while four
also identified courses on teaching strategies as valuable. Ten teachers stated that
they had rarely attended in-service courses of any sort. Three main reasons were
given for this were:
• lack of quality or relevance of what was on offer (‘All in-service these days is on
administration’);
• reluctance to leave class;
• lack of availability of in-service meant that even if they wished to, or used to,
attend in-service courses regularly, they no longer could.
These reasons do not suggest lack of interest in professional development by these
teachers. Certainly, some had identified, and taken charge of, meeting their pro-
fessional development needs, but, for others, lack of recent in-service education
reflected either lack of opportunity or judgements about priorities and the value of
such courses.

Resources and planning. Eighty per cent of the teachers identified planning as a key
aspect of their success. Six teachers reported that they planned both content and
strategies. Five teachers reported that they were more likely to plan content, whereas
three favoured strategies. Seven teachers emphasized the importance of developing
their own resources. Textbooks alone were seen by these teachers as inadequate
resources—in some cases, because the subject demanded topical material, but in
others, because the material in particular books was not considered sufficiently
challenging or innovative. Four of these teachers were also recognized leaders in
154 P. Ayres et al.

resource development in their fields. For example, one English teacher had written
for one of the widely produced commercial books of units on HSC topics; one
Ancient History teacher wrote textbooks herself and two Mathematics teachers on
the same staff had produced a series of videotapes and CD-ROMs on various topics
that were being marketed overseas.

Classroom practices
Table 2 lists both the most frequent (at least 20%) practices identified by teachers
as important teaching strategies and also lists the most frequent strategies observed
by the researchers (at least 30%). Of importance here is that teachers were observed
using many more types of teaching strategies than they themselves nominated at
interview. This supports the findings of previous research that teachers have
difficulty articulating their craft (see Berliner, 1986; Brown & McIntyre, 1993;
Cooper & McIntyre, 1996). It was rare for the teachers to describe a teaching
methodology that was not observed. The table also contains data on classroom
climate, which is reported first.

Classroom climate. Although there are many definitions of classroom climate, we take
it to refer to the ‘mood’ or ‘atmosphere’ created in the classroom by the teacher (see
Muijs & Reynolds, 2001). In this study, all classes were clearly non-threatening,
displaying an excellent relationship between the teacher and the students. Within
these relaxed environments there were unspoken expectations that behaviour would
be ‘on task’, yet acceptable ‘off-task’ behaviour was tolerated. In many cases there
often appeared to be an ethos of cooperation, sharing and community within the
classroom. In-class face-to-face time was the central learning element, rather than
home study or any form of private individual research. It is as if the very interaction
of the community of learners was regarded as basic for each individual learner.
Generally there was no ‘dead time’ in class and class time was regarded as sacred.
In some classes, the sheer speed of topic coverage was noteworthy. Some teachers
often made the point during interview of explaining their need for classroom speed.
It’s deliberately quick to keep them focused and motivated, and keep up the energy. I
often use a couple of quick questions to keep the energy going. Although sometimes I
think maybe it’s too quick. I then use ‘perspective’ time to recap. (Business Studies
teacher)

Teaching strategies.
Teacher reflections on the observed lesson. When asked to reflect on what pleased the
teachers about the observed lesson, 42% of the teachers responded that the main
objectives of the lesson had been met. Furthermore, 32% were also pleased that the
students demonstrated that they could apply the main objective of the lesson and
32% were pleased that students were able to recall previous information. With
respect to the teaching strategies used, the most frequent techniques identified were:

• discussion (26%);
 Table 2. Common teacher reflections on teaching strategies and classroom observations

Frequency (%)
Category Item description Interview Observation

Classroom Non-threatening environment — 100

Climate High level of student involvement — 42
Unpressured but focused — 42
Expectation of ‘on-task behaviour’ — 37
Rapid pace in the classroom — 32
Ethos of sharing — 32
Teaching strategies
HSC Focus Discusses HSC in terms of the rules of a game 52 63
Specific HSC pointers given 20 58
Teaching is HSC dominated 20 58
Little or no mention of the HSC — 42
HSC marking is seen as important 40 —
Practices on specific components 36 —
Building Understanding Uses student’s responses, works to build understanding — 63
Tries to show bits of subjects as interrelated — 63
Knows and communicates steps to achieve desired outcomes — 47
Understanding built in layers to achieve final breakthrough — 37
Forcing thinking through application, problem-solving 32 32
Questioning Whole-class questioning — 100
Frequent use of questions — 58
Mostly closed questions — 58
Questions directed at particular students — 47
Pattern of question/answer/explain — 37
Probing questions—doesn’t give up — 26
Note making Teacher builds notes 36 58
Emphasis on individual note making, ownership — 42
Little use of note taking 40 32
Problems Often does not give answers — 37
Problems used to challenge students 40 —
Discussion One on one help/discussion while class works — 68
Effective teaching

Important to use discussion 24 —

Group work Small group work used to reach understanding 40 32
155
156 P. Ayres et al.

• group work (21%);

• question and answer sessions (16%).

Overall, nearly 50 differing strategies were identified.

HSC focus. Over half the teachers reported that they created in their classrooms a
‘culture’ in which the HSC was treated as a kind of game, in the sense of it being
a ritual with its own set of rules that had to be followed and a challenge that had to
be faced:

HSC is seen as a game by me and that’s how I put it to kids: ‘You know how the game
goes; you know what the rules are; now lets put it aside and see what this book is
about’. The HSC does NOT [original emphasis] direct my teaching to a large extent.
(English teacher)

Despite the necessary HSC focus, nearly half of the lessons were not considered to
be dominated by the HSC, and, indeed, in some observed lessons there was virtually
no reference to the HSC in any form. This was remarkable given the ever-present
nature of the examination in Year 12 classes. Against what might be expected about
what makes a successful HSC teacher, these teachers were not examination ‘cram-
mers’, despite the fact that, necessarily, the HSC provided the focus for their
teaching. One teacher made the following point about deliberately avoiding easy
options:

We are not dominated by the exam here. We chose the hardest options. We (the
department) have made the decision not to choose easy options. (Modern History
teacher)

An English teacher, who used the more difficult text for motivational purposes, also
made a similar point.

I try to do new things and choose unusual texts, rather than stay with the same ones.
I enjoy the challenge and it motivates me.

Certainly, the HSC examination was a rationale for many of the lessons observed,
but even these were not conducted as ‘cramming’ content for the examinations. In
total, eight teachers reported that the examination was not unduly restrictive
because they taught for understanding rather than the examination. In contrast, five
teachers thought that their teaching approach was dominated by the final examin-
ation.
Overall, a group of teachers felt that regular practice on specific components of
the examination was important and many (40%) felt that their experience in
marking the actual HSC2 was a vital ingredient in their success. This was usually
stated in terms of the ‘networking’ that HSC marking made possible, the ‘in-service’
value of marking and the understanding that was gained of what is valued and
rewarded in HSC responses.
 Effective teaching 157

Building understanding. In terms of aiding students’ understandings of the subject

matter, the researchers classified a large number of classroom strategies under the
rubric of ‘Building understanding’. This referred to ways in which teachers helped
develop students’ understanding of subject matter. The most common interview
responses entered in this subcategory emphasized the importance of having students
apply knowledge, often through solving problems. This element was usually con-
trasted with copying notes and with being told answers too readily. It was also linked
closely to maximizing the use of in-class time and to the interrelatedness of areas of
the subject. Related to the idea of application, problem-solving and thinking was the
emphasis on interpretation, rather than simple reproduction, of knowledge.
In nearly two-thirds of the observed lessons, drawing on the interrelatedness of
different areas of the subject was an important teaching device. Many teachers did
not proceed in a lock-step fashion through a series of demonstrations of new
material, but rather, continually tried to develop the ‘big picture’ of what different
areas of the subject meant for each other. This kind of interrelatedness manifested
itself in obvious ways, such as quick reviews of previous material to lead into the
current topic or simply building on a previous topic in a sequentially logical way.
A noteworthy number of teachers across the curriculum had their observed
lessons proceed by using student responses as the building blocks towards new
knowledge. Typically, this would take the form of building up a set of blackboard
notes from student responses or leading students through a series of questions
towards some moment of insight. In one English lesson in which this was a strong
feature, a number of students were sent to the front of the class after completing
some group discussion and asked a series of questions about a poem being studied,
each of which was based on the logical consequence of their previous answer: ‘If X
is important, what does that mean for Y?’. This episode was marked by the teacher
encouraging, prompting (‘Keep going …’; ‘What does that mean about …?’), even
demanding, as students were led to a point which the teacher perceived as an
end-moment of insight into the poem.
Just as was stated in the interviews, the emphasis on applying knowledge was also
observed. And again, related to the idea of application, problem-solving and think-
ing was the emphasis on interpretation of, rather than simple reproduction of,
knowledge.

Questioning. Every teacher participated in whole-class questioning to some de-

gree—although interestingly, few teachers made a direct reference to questioning
(see Table 2) in their interviews and tended to focus more on discussion. However,
more than half of the lessons observed had extensive questioning phases. Whole-
class question-and-answer sessions were used to link different aspects of a topic,
especially with past material. Almost all of the questions were closed (questions for
which there is only one answer (see Barnes, 1974) and followed a pattern of
question/answer/explain. Often teachers would lead a student or students through a
long sequence of questions which continually probed connected concepts. It was
clear that this type of questioning was used as a major strategy in building under-
standing, often step by step, and aimed at the whole class. In these whole-class
158 P. Ayres et al.

question-and-answer sessions, the teachers were making links to previous knowledge

and assessing what students knew. The questioning style used here should be
strongly distinguished from the questions given to students when working indepen-
dently of the teacher (alone or in groups)—which were almost invariably open
questions (Barnes, 1974)—and used to apply and interpret knowledge.

Note-making. Nineteen teachers indicated that they thought the way students
made notes was important. The distinction between what might be termed ‘note-
taking’ (the teacher writing up, dictating or otherwise producing notes for the
students to directly copy) and ‘note-making’ (the production of notes by the student
through means other than copying the teacher’s) was an important issue. Many
teachers wanted students to think independently about the issues/problems and did
not want to ‘spoon-feed’ information. Making notes was an integral part of this
process. The following are typical of some of the teacher attitudes:
I hand out notes to cover formulae, examples etc., but class time is to be spent in
applying the knowledge. I’m not a great note-giver because I’m more concerned that
they understand, which doesn’t necessarily happen when they are copying notes.
(Mathematics teacher)

If I dictated notes why don’t I just copy them and hand them out? It wastes class time.
If I give any notes I leave gaps for them to discover things and reinforce class
discussions. (Business Studies teacher)

I want them to find the problems, not just copy notes. If I just put notes on the board,
they won’t learn anything from them. (Legal Studies teacher)

The key theme in this issue of note-taking was that of students having ownership of
their notes, presumably because only such ownership maximized student retention
and application in the examination situation.
Not one example of simply copying notes was observed. Typically, teachers would
help students build a set of notes from:
• combining previously-made student notes (usually on the blackboard);
• having students build notes from research based on a question they are set;
• recording the main points of student discussion;
• filling in any gaps in student-made notes through class discussion;
• having students make notes based on student presentations;
• directing the note-making of students;
• facilitating the development of student summaries (‘Read X and underline or
highlight all evidence about Y to develop your own set of notes’).
While a few teachers were observed quickly distributing typewritten notes for
students to read later, or from which students were to extract information to solve
a problem, nevertheless, no significant class time was spent with students ‘taking
notes’. In fact, the distribution of notes by teachers was always seen by them as a
way of supplying necessary information quickly in order to move to having students
do something with the information. Teachers, moreover, displayed a variety of ways
of encouraging independent note-making by students. The key theme here again
 Effective teaching 159

was ‘student ownership’—either in the decision about what notes to make and/or in
the methods used to make them. This was one of the key findings of the research.
Teachers continually found ways of encouraging students to make their notes ‘their
own’. This tied directly to the general theme of wanting students to think indepen-
dently about the issues/problems and not wanting to ‘spoon-feed’ information.

Whole-class discussion, group work and independent student activity. Nearly half of the
teachers pointed to the importance of ‘stretching’ or ‘challenging’ students through
the use of problems, and especially to having high expectations and carrying these
through. Teachers in this study tended to stress that students should not be ‘taught
down to’ or even ‘led by the hand’ to too great a degree. Small group work in HSC
classes was identified by 40% of the teachers as important. Different reasons were
given for this use of group activities. These included:
• allowing opportunities for simply using the English language (in an English as a
Second Language class);
• wanting students to make deductions from source material, ‘which is preferable to
the teacher telling them’; and
• wanting students to learn from what they each bring to the subject.
As noted above, teachers displayed different behaviour according to whether stu-
dents were working alone (or in groups) or whether they (the teachers) were
teaching to the whole class. The latter tended to involve extensive closed question-
ing, whereas the former was dominated by a thinking, interpretative, problem-solv-
ing, application set of approaches. In classes where whole-class discussion was
observed (as opposed to whole-class question-and-answer sessions), there was open
debate, the presentation of opposing views and respect for all opinions in the class,
although the discussions were mainly filtered through the teacher. One teacher
strongly made a link between discussion and writing.
Lots of discussion. I believe that talk underlies writing and so I want them to be able
to articulate ideas before writing. Discussion is mostly whole class. I don’t do enough
group work, though we do some work in pairs. Mostly, discussion is filtered through
me. I say to them, ‘Have I understood this correctly?’ and spend a lot of time restating
their ideas. Discussion is about exploring ideas, ordering ideas as a rehearsal for
writing. This inspires confidence in themselves. (English teacher)

Small group work in HSC classes occurred in a third of observed lessons.

I use group work to get all the students to talk. It’s my major strategy, although other
teachers here don’t like it. It allows all kids to offer things. (Modern History teacher)

One crucial aspect of work completed in groups—or individually by students—was

the behaviour of teachers while students were working independently. In almost
every lesson observed, when students were working alone or in groups, teachers
spent their time moving among students providing one-on-one assistance. This in
itself is not remarkable, but of interest is the forms which this monitoring took—
which tended generally (and paradoxically) to emphasize student independence.
Two ancient history teachers did tend to provide direct answers to student questions
160 P. Ayres et al.

on the material they were working on in groups, but other teachers refused. For
example, in a Biology lesson, while the teacher moved among students to clear up
problems, she refused to supply answers to the task questions. One Mathematics
teacher would explain concepts and ask questions of the students, but avoided
supplying answers to problems. A Modern History teacher would prompt students
and ask further questions, but supplied no answers, while an English teacher gave
students answers to questions about the form of a poem, but assiduously avoided
providing any answers on themes or issues in the poem being studied. In all these
situations, the teacher was determined that the students should work out the
particular problems themselves.
Paradoxically, these same teachers also downplayed the relative importance of
that work which was done outside the classroom, despite its opportunities for
independent student work. Interviews stressed the preciousness of in-class time as
where the ‘real work’ was done. It seemed to us that the issue of independence was
contained within a context—that independent thinking and the real cognitive work
of the curriculum was actually most available in the social setting of the classroom.
This accords with earlier findings by Barnes that it is those teachers who value social
relationships in the classroom who also value higher-level intellectual exchange
(Barnes, 1976).

General Discussion
Overall, many of the observed classroom practices in this study have been reported
in other teacher effectiveness research. The teachers had classrooms that were
relaxed, pleasant and highly focused. There was little or no ‘dead time’ and class
time was regarded as sacred (see Brophy & Good, 1986; Borko & Livingston, 1989;
Teddlie, 1994; Department for Education and Employment, 2000). Relationships
with students were a crucial aspect of their functioning (see Brown & McIntyre,
1993; Batten et al., 1993). Teachers alluded to, and practised, a policy of mutual
respect in their classrooms and this obviated any necessity for overt disciplinary
measures. In nearly all cases, the classes were highly structured and teacher-led (see
Brophy & Good, 1986). Questioning, discussion and independent study were all
important aspects of lessons (Brophy & Good, 1986; Borko & Livingston, 1989;
Teddlie, 1994; Cooper & McIntyre, 1996). The teachers themselves were clearly
passionate about their subject area, felt that subject expertise was extremely import-
ant and enjoyed their teaching of, and association with, their subject and their
students.
An important element in assessing teaching methodology under the pressures of
the high-stakes HSC is to determine the degree to which the classroom activity is
dominated by the HSC examination itself. In a very obvious sense, the curriculum
is entirely determined by the subject content laid down for the HSC. But given that
constraint, the study was interested in observing the extent to which classrooms
became ‘exam factories’ as a result of this content-focus, dominated by simply
practising examination routines and examination answers, or whether teaching
 Effective teaching 161

practices were still concerned with having the students engage with the material with
interest and understanding.
In the event, what were observed were teaching practices that attempted to
continue the kind of engagement and understanding one would expect from enlight-
ened educational practice. Certainly, the HSC examination was a rationale for many
of the lessons observed, but these were not conducted as cramming content for the
examinations. Examination ‘pointers’ were commonly relayed by teachers and there
was a general culture that though the HSC was their dominating constraint/raison
d’être, nevertheless, it was not going to prevent the generation of interest and
genuine understanding about the subject. Such statements reflect a clear sense,
expressed by almost half of the teachers, of a dichotomy between ‘teaching to the
HSC’ and ‘teaching for understanding’. This was one of the clearest messages that
came out of interviews. Teachers were making strong statements about not being
‘exam-driven’ where such an approach might prevent deeper student understanding.
This finding was in contrast to that of other research (Madaus, 1988; Wideen et al.,
1997) which has argued that high-stakes examinations restricted teaching.
Very closely related to this theme is that, while teachers used a wide range of
teaching strategies to build student understanding, a key common factor was an
emphasis on having students think, solve problems and apply knowledge. Simply
reporting back knowledge or practising formulae outside of the context of appli-
cation was unusual. Teachers strongly saw their role in the classroom as challenging
students, rather than ‘spoon-feeding’ information. They demonstrated ways of
building notes and assisted in this process, but were never observed dictating a
complete set of notes or having students simply copy notes without a context
developed or a lead-up involving student responses. Instead, teachers demonstrated
and discussed a variety of ways of helping students to become independent note-
makers.
While questioning in the whole-class situation was dominated by closed questions,
this contrasted to the strategies teachers used when having students work alone or
in groups. In fact, group work was more prominent than might have been expected
in HSC classes and was used for a variety of reasons, particularly activities oriented
towards problem-solving. The closed questions that teachers used in the whole-class
situation tended to be used to carefully build understanding of the material in layers
and to make links to other aspects of the content. In effect, it served to both look
back and look forward in the subject.
Most of the lessons we observed had two distinct phases. The first phase tended
to be heavily teacher directed and focused on building links with previous material,
assessing student understanding, developing new ideas and concepts and placing
these in the context of material already covered. The second phase tended to involve
more independent learning and focused on application and problem-solving.
Throughout the whole class time, the teachers were constantly involved.
Within the context of the study and the questions asked, it became apparent that
the teachers attributed their success to four major factors: their relationships with
students, their classroom practices, the student themselves and faculty cooperation.
Of less importance appeared to be other school-based factors. It is clear that
162 P. Ayres et al.

teachers’ personal qualities and professional development had significantly

influenced their classroom practices. Teachers reported a development pattern
dominated by learning through experience, with unofficial mentoring and faculty
influences as additional factors. However, these teachers were not denying the value
of formal professional development when available. Indeed, their claims to have
learnt ‘through experience’ were often made in the context of lamenting cutbacks to
formal professional development. It is quite feasible that some teachers who declared
that they had ‘picked up’ a particular teaching strategy through experience may have
done so much earlier given the greater availability of formal professional develop-
ment.
In common with the other studies (see Teddlie, 1994; Harris et al., 1995), the
teachers in our study were very experienced and had been at the same school for a
considerable number of years. Mostly, they belonged to very stable faculties. In
these situations, the environment was ripe for inexperienced members of the
faculties to develop their teaching skills in much the same way as the observed
teachers had. However, in NSW, and indeed, in Australia generally, where positions
in more remote areas or low socio-economic areas are difficult to fill, faculties in
many government schools tend to be less stable and have a high proportion of many
early-career teachers. Without expert help, such teachers may be slow to develop
and, subsequently, students in these schools would appear to be further disadvan-
taged. This is another key factor in the cycle of economic and educational disadvan-
tage. To avoid this scenario, education authorities must begin to seriously address
the professional development needs of early-career teachers, so that all teachers have
the chance to become more effective.

Limitations of the study

The study has a number of limitations. Firstly, only a small sample of teachers
participated. Our identification methodology that focused on within-school differ-
ences and outliers would have naturally excluded effective teachers in schools where
students achieve outstanding results across many subjects. Secondly, the teachers
were only observed teaching for a maximum of two hours. One extended lesson
might be considered a snapshot of any particular teacher at work with his/her class,
and there is always the possibility of an atypical lesson being observed. However, as
it transpired, a wealth of data was generated in each such observation, and the
degree of commonality suggested that the observed situations were probably typical
rather than otherwise. Lastly, we employed teachers on the basis of successful
teaching at the ‘top end’ of the performance scale only. A question which naturally
arises is: do the identified teaching behaviours work for all HSC students or just the
most able? Our tentative answer to this question would be ‘Yes’, on the grounds that
many of the teaching practices observed were consistent with the findings of other
studies into effective teaching, including elementary school teachers. In summary, it
is acknowledged that the study has a number of limitations and consequently a high
degree of caution needs to be shown in any attempt to generalize our results.
Obviously, a larger study could address these issues. Nevertheless, it should be
 Effective teaching 163

noted that little research has been conducted into teachers of Grade 12 students,
especially with a focus on high-ability students.

Conclusion
Many of the teaching practices identified were consistent with the findings of other
studies; however, some strategies may be crucial in teaching older students. In
particular, the emphasis on note-making, the complexity of question sequencing and
the management of independent study, group work and problem-solving may be
crucial factors in effective teaching for this age. The observed teachers all engaged
in these activities to a crucial degree. Leinhardt and Greeno (1986) found that the
lessons of expert teachers would generally progress from presentations and reviews
to interactive seatwork and independent work. Borko and Livingston (1989) also
found that experts had a balance between content-driven activities and student-cen-
tred ones. Consequently, how teachers manage the more independent activities
within the classroom, especially in their relationship to whole-class teaching, may be
an important aspect of effective teaching at this level.
Perhaps equally important as classroom strategies were the beliefs of these
teachers. At least a quarter of the teachers strongly believed in the value of
discussion. Many of these teachers expressed the view that it was a significant
teaching strategy and a major reason why in-class time was so important. It was
quite notable how little emphasis there was on homework, although undoubtedly the
students completed it. Class time was seen as a precious resource. Discussion was
seen as vital as a tool for student development of note-making, problem-solving and
independence. Furthermore, a number of teachers in this sample expressed a firm
view that the HSC did not restrict their teaching. In some cases, it was reported that
it was often necessary or desirable to go outside the set syllabuses. Others related
that they deliberately did not choose easy options in order to maximize student
understanding and achievement. It may be that a strong belief that the HSC should
not be restrictive, and actively teaching for understanding rather than the test, is also
a significant factor in successful HSC teaching.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the New South Wales Department of Education and
Training for funding this research and the NSW Board of Studies who provided us
with data files of the examination results. We wish to thank the relevant principals
for allowing us access to the schools and the teachers themselves who gave up much
of their valuable time. We also thank Professor Mick Dunkin and anonymous
reviewers for comments on earlier drafts.

Notes
1. The New South Wales Board of Studies is the organisation which oversees HSC creden-
tialling and marking, as well as curriculum development and other support services.
164 P. Ayres et al.

2. Many HSC teachers are employed by the Board of Studies as markers of the external
examinations. However, many teachers do not get this opportunity because of the limited
number of markers required and because marking centres are restricted to Sydney and a
small number of regional centres.

References
American Educational Research Association (2000) Position statement of the American Educa-
tional Research Association, concerning high-stakes testing, Educational Researcher, 29,
24–25.
Barksdale-Ladd, M. A.& Thomas, K. F. (2000) What’s at stake in high-stakes testing: teachers
and parents speak out, Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 384–397.
Barnes, D. (1974) Language in the secondary classroom, in: D. Barnes, J. Britton & H. Rosen
(Eds) Language, the learner and the school (Harmondsworth, Penguin).
Barnes, D. (1976) From communication to curriculum (Harmondsworth, Penguin).
Batten, M., Marland, P. & Khamis, M. (1993) Knowing how to teach well: teachers reflect on their
classroom practice. ACER Research Monograph No. 44 (Hawthorn, Australian Council for
Educational Research).
Berliner, D. C. (1986) In pursuit of the expert pedagogue, Educational Researcher, 15, 5–13.
Berliner, D. C. (1994) Teacher expertise, in: T. Husen & T. Postlethwaite (Eds) The international
encyclopedia of education (2nd edn) (Oxford, Pergamon).
Borko, H. & Livingston, C. (1989) Cognition and improvisation: differences in mathematics
instruction by expert and novice teachers, American Educational Research Journal, 26,
473–498.
Brophy, J. & Good, T. L. (1986) Teacher behaviour and student achievement, in: M. C. Wittrock
(Ed.) Handbook of research on teaching (3rd edn) (New York, Macmillan).
Brown, S. & McIntyre D. (1993) Making sense of teaching (Buckingham, Open University Press).
Calderhead, J. (1981a) A psychological approach to research on teachers’ classroom decision-
making, British Educational Research Journal, 7, 51–57.
Calderhead, J. (1981b) Stimulated recall: a method for research on teaching, British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 51, 211–217.
Clark, C. M. & Peterson, P. L. (1986) Teachers’ thought processes, in: M. C. Wittrock (Ed.)
Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd edn) (New York, Macmillan).
Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., et al.(1966) Equality of educational opportunity
(Washington DC, US Office of Health, Education, and Welfare).
Cooper, P. & McIntyre, D. (1996) Effective teaching and learning: teachers’ and students’ perspectives
(Buckingham, Open University Press).
Creemers, B. (1996) The school effectiveness knowledge base, in: D. Reynolds, R. Bollen, B.
Creemers, D. Hopkins, L. Stoll. & N. Lagerweij (Eds) Making good schools (London,
Routledge).
Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (2000) The Hay McBer report into teacher
effectiveness (London, DfEE).
Doyle, W. (1981) Research on classroom contexts, Journal of Teacher Education 32, 3–6.
Fitz-Gibbon, C. T. (1991) Multilevel modelling in an indicator system, in: S. W. Raudenbush &
J. D. Willms (Eds) Pupils, classrooms and schools: international studies from a multilevel
perspective (London, Academic Press).
Fitz-Gibbon, C. T. (1992) School effects at A level: genesis of an information system? in: D.
Reynolds & P. Cuttance (Eds) School effectiveness: research, policy and practice (London,
Cassell).
Gipps, C. V. (1994) Beyond testing: towards a theory of educational assessment (London, Falmer
Press).
 Effective teaching 165

Goldstein, H. (1987) Multilevel models in educational and social research (London, Charles Griffin
& Co.)
Goldstein, H. (2001) Using pupil performance data for judging schools and teachers: scope and
limitations, British Educational Research Journal, 27, 433–442.
Gray, J. (1981). A competitive edge: examination results and the probable limits of secondary
school effectiveness, Educational Review, 33, 25–35.
Harris, A., Jamieson, I. & Russ, J. (1995) A study of effective departments in secondary schools,
School Organisation, 15, 283–299.
Hill, P. & Rowe, K. (1996) Multilevel modelling in school effectiveness research, School Effective-
ness and School Improvement, 7, 1–34.
Hilliard, A. (2000) Excellence in education versus high-stakes standardized testing, Journal of
Teacher Education, 51, 293–304.
Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H. et al. (1972) Inequality: a reassessment of the effect of family and
schooling in America (New York, Basic Books).
Leinhardt, G. & Greeno, J. (1986) The cognitive skill of teaching, Journal of Educational
Psychology, 78, 79–95.
Madaus, G. F. (1988) The distortion of teaching and testing: high-stakes testing and instruction,
Peabody Journal of Education, 65(3), 29–46.
Morine-Dershimer, G. (1991) Learning to think like a teacher, Teaching and Teacher Education,
7, 159–168.
Mortimore, P. (1998) The road to improvement: reflections on school effectiveness (Lisse, Swets &
Zeitlinger).
Muijs, D. & Reynolds, D. (2001) Effective teaching: evidence and practice (London, Paul Chap-
man).
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1994) Quality in teaching
(Paris, OECD).
Passman, R. (2000) Pressure cooker: experiences with student-centered teaching and learning in
high-stakes assessment environments, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the SW
Educational Research Association.
Reynolds, D. & Packer, A. (1992) School effectiveness and school improvement in the 1990s, in:
D. Reynolds & P. Cuttance (Eds) School effectiveness: research, policy and practice (London,
Cassell).
Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P. & Ouston, J. (1979) Fifteen thousand hours: secondary
schools and their effects on children (London, Open Books).
Sammons, P., Hillman, J. & Mortimore, P. (1995) Key characteristics of effective schools: a review
of school effectiveness research (London, International School Effectiveness & Improvement
Centre, Institute of Education, University of London).
Scheerens, J. (1992) Effective schooling: research, theory and practice (London, Cassell).
Schön, D. A. (1983) The reflective practitioner (London, Temple Smith).
Smith, M. L. & Fey, P. (2000) Validity and accountability in high-stakes testing, Journal of
Teacher Education, 51, 334–344.
Sternberg, R. & Horvath, J. (1995) A prototype view of expert teaching, Educational Researcher,
24, 9–17.
Teddlie, C. (1994) The integration of classroom and school process data in school effectiveness
research, in: D. Reynolds, B. Creemers, P. Nesselrodt, E. Schaffer, S. Stringfield & C.
Teddlie (Eds) Advances in school effectiveness research and practice (Oxford, Elsevier).
Teddlie, C., Kirby, P. C. & Stringfield, S. (1989) Effective versus ineffective schools: observable
differences in the classroom, American Journal of Education, 97, 221–236.
Thomas, S., Sammons, P. & Street, H. (1997) Value added approaches: fairer ways of comparing
schools, Sin Research Matters No. 7, Institute of Education, University of London.
Tymms, P. (1993) Accountability—can it be fair? Oxford Review of Education, 19(3), 291–299.
Wideen, M. F., O’Shea, T., Pye, I. & Ivany, G. (1997) High stakes testing and the teaching of
science, Canadian Journal of Education, 22, 428–444.