Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DTL Assessment 1 - Final
DTL Assessment 1 - Final
and that the quality of teaching is crucial in social and economic development”
(Menter, 2014). In an attempt to uphold this newly established social idea and
recognition surrounding the teaching profession in Australia, close consideration of
curriculum, pedagogy and assessment is critical. Posing as detrimental challenges
these three fundamental professional frameworks, irrespective of their importance,
threaten the overall quality of classroom teaching and learning as well as teachers’
professionalism. This can be attributed to the frequent misalignments that take place
between these structures due to a lack of congruence. Thus, an effective design
whereby curriculum, pedagogy and assessment are interlinked and work to support
each other is fundamental in the assurance of Australia’s quality teaching and the
professionalism of educators in the school system.
Present decades have offered politicised issues surrounding quality teaching and its
meaning in the Australian higher education system (Crebbin, 1997). Thus, defining
what constitutes as being quality teaching is far from being straightforward
(Henderson & Jarvis, 2016). None-the-less according to the views of Berliner (2001),
Gardner (1983), Mayer et al. (2000) and such, quality teaching requires teachers to
be capable of managing their own affective state and developing understanding of,
and relationships with, their students in an attempt to effectively evaluate students’
needs, motivations and interests, thereby determining how to teach them
successfully (as cited in Henderson & Jarvis, 2016). Porath (2009) went beyond this
somewhat simplistic understanding of quality teaching and described how “gifted
educators orchestrate meaningful, dynamic student-environment transactions that
take place in rich contexts and encourage participation in valued social practices”. To
better articulate and communicate teacher professionalism and what it constitutes, as
well as to raise the status of the profession, in 2011, the Australian Institute for
Teaching and School Leadership introduced a set of Australian Professional
Standards for Teachers (APST) (Henderson & Jarvis, 2016; John, 2013). The APST
works at defining the work of teachers by making explicit the elements of high-quality
teaching through the provision of a framework which highlights specific knowledge,
practice and engagement required across teachers’ careers, in an attempt to improve
educational outcomes (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership,
2018). The framework comprises of seven standards grouped into three domains:
professional knowledge, professional practice and professional engagement.
According to many literatures, including that written by Weaver (1978), teaching and
it’s anticipated level of professionalism and quality is difficult to achieve. Thus, a
challenge for teacher professionalism and quality can be viewed through the lens on
curriculum. Curriculum is a key reference point for educators in their teaching,
encoded in the official teacher guides (Westbrook et al., 2013). It links the macro, the
official government formulated educational goals and content, with the micro, the act
of teaching through pedagogy and assessments in classrooms (Westbrook et al.,
2013). Under the NSW Education Act 1990, the NSW Education Standards Authority
monitors the kindergarten to year 12 school curriculum. However, in 2010, NSW,
along with all other states, joined together in order to construct an Australian
curriculum. This lead to the development of the Australian Curriculum by ACARA
providing teachers, students, and parents with a clear outline of what students are to
learn irrespective of state of residence in Australia, improving the transparency of
Australia’s education system (ACARA, 2016). Regardless of this transparent learning
syllabus, there remain weighty challenges in its effective implementation. It is a well-
known fact that curriculum development has customarily been the liability of outside
experts (Shilling, 2013). That is, according to Carl (2009, as cited in Shilling, 2013),
teachers have historically had restricted active participation in the process of
developing a school curriculum, posing as a challenge for teachers attempting to
implement it. Consequently, as indicated by research, there remain significant and
ABC News Australia. (2011, May 6). Warning about NAPLAN tests [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAJEYhhoXCo
Cuban, L. (1993). The lure of curriculum reform and its pitiful history. Phi Delta
Kappa International, 75(2), 181-185. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20405055
Henderson, L., & Jarvis, J. (2016). The gifted dimension of the Australian
professional standards for
teachers: implications for professional learning. Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 41(8), 60-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n8.4
New South Wales Department of Education and Training. (2003, May) Quality
teaching in NSW public schools. Professional Support and Curriculum Directorate.
Discussion Paper, Sydney, NSW. http://www.darcymoore.net/wp-
content/uploads/2012/02/qt_EPSColor.pdf