Designing, Teaching, and Learning Assessment 1 Mitchell Cavens

The concepts of teacher professionalism, curriculum, pedagogy and assessment must all be

addressed when considering the learning needs for students from a Non-English Speaking

Background (NESB) from a teaching point of view. These concepts need to be well

understood in order to be best used by the teacher in his or her classroom in order to

adequately address the learning needs of students from a Non-English Speaking Background.

Henceforth, the reason as to why these concepts are important for the daily work of the

Australian teacher will be discussed in this writing, as well as the inherent complexity of a

teachers role in effectively administering and using these concepts in their work. Once this

has been understood using the key examples of the Australian Professional Standards for

Teachers (APST) in relation to teacher professionalism, Australian national curriculum in

relation to curriculum, NSW Quality Teaching Model in relation to pedagogy, and National

Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) in relation to assessment, the

effectiveness of these contemporary features will be critically evaluated according to the

aims of their corresponding concepts. The learning outcomes of these concepts will be

addressed in relation to how effective the examples are in meeting the outcomes, and what

the results are of students who’s learning outcomes are not met. Finally, the

interrelationship of these concepts will be discussed in relation to the learning needs of

NESB students, as well as the analysis of the teacher’s role in responding to the challenge of

how best to design curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment to cater for the full range of

student abilities in relation to the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers.

The Professional Standards Councils (2017) define the term ‘professionalism’ as a form of

conduct that “comprises the personally held beliefs about one’s own conduct as a
professional. It’s often linked to the upholding of the principles, laws, ethics and conventions

of a profession as a way of practice.” According to the definitions outlined by the council,

teaching certainly does adhere to identification as a profession, and therefore teachers are

professionals, as they are members of their profession. By this we may understand that the

concept of teacher professionalism is to do with a teachers personal beliefs about their

conduct as a teacher who aims to uphold the principles, laws, ethics and conventions of the

profession of teaching. Now it is clear that these elements define the operation of a teacher

in their day-to-day work. The concept of social theory relating to education (E.g.

functionalism and critical theory), which is seen as the “unseen half” of teaching (Sever,

2012) due to its concern with personal belief outside of policy, directly relates to the

characteristics clearly made in the first half of the definition of teaching professionalism, as

social theory is directly related to personal belief and ideologies. This shows how teaching

professionalism is very practically to do with the day-to-day activities of a teacher, as social

theory such as these is to do with little else. Challenges clearly arise here such as the fact that

many differences in personal ideologies of teachers may bring about conflict, negatively

influencing a child’s education. But according to the definition, these beliefs should align

with the second half of the definition: “the principles, laws, ethics and conventions

concerned with the profession of teaching”. These are covered in the Australian Professional

Standards for Teachers (APST). These 37 standards each include a description of ‘Graduate’

to ‘Proficient’ to ‘Highly Accomplished’ to ‘Lead’ in criteria relating to how effective each

standard is met ("Standards | Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership",

2017). These criteria demonstrate a diverse and detailed understanding of how teachers

should address the concepts of principles, laws, ethics and conventions, and therefore

proves successful in congruency with the definition of teacher professionalism.

‘Curriculum’, according to Kieran Egan (1978) in ‘Curriculum Inquiry’ is the “study of any and

all educational phenomena.” This definition being extremely broad is explained in the text

with regards to the history of the term and what it does not cover, but the broadness of the

definition still stands (Egan, 1978). In this regard, curriculum is specifically to do with all of

teaching practice, so in order to analyse and critique, the example of the Australian National

Curriculum will be evaluated. “The Australian Curriculum sets the expectations for what all

Australian students should be taught, regardless of…their background...Schools and teachers

are responsible for the organisation of learning and they will choose contexts for learning

and plan learning in ways that best meet their students’ needs and interests,”("Home - The

Australian Curriculum", 2017). The Australian curriculum involves leaning outcomes and

content descriptions of a range of subjects divided into four categories: English,

Mathematics, Science and Humanities and Social Sciences. Teachers must meet the challenge

of teaching the content in their curriculum in their Key Learning Area in order to meet the

learning outcomes of the curriculum, so knowledge of the curriculum is central in class

preparation and day-to-day activities of the Australian teacher. The Australian National

curriculum presents the issue of standardised teaching. In order to meet the outcomes

outlined in the curriculum, a teacher may need to compromise on specific students needs, or

rush through topics in order to cover the outlined topics, to the detriment of the individual

students needs.

The concept of ‘pedagogy’ is concretely defined as “the method and practice of teaching,

especially as an academic subject or theoretical concept,”("pedagogy - definition of pedagogy

in English | Oxford Dictionaries", 2017). So if pedagogy is simply concerned with ‘how

teachers teach’, then we must consider what makes for effective pedagogy in the classroom,

and what is ineffective pedagogy, in order to effectively highlight the challenges teachers
face in regards to how they teach, and how they may improve. John Hattie, after synthesising

over 500,000 studies of the effects of the educational influences on a student, made 16

conclusive statements in regards to the nature of an “expert teacher”(Hattie, 2003).

Adhering to these criteria is a great challenge for the teacher, but is critical in the

educational development of the students. Summarised as best as possible, expert teachers

adapt according to their situation in the classroom using a problem-solving stance in order

to best engage students to develop them individually. Expert teachers have positive

influences on student achievement, integrating appropriately challenging tasks in the

classroom in order to make links with previously learned content (Hattie, 2003). So how

well do these elements link with the NSW quality teaching model? James Ladwig and Jenifer

Gore developed this model in association with the NSW Department of Education and

Training as an aim to reform pedagogy (Gore, 2007). The model is split into three segments:

Intellectual Quality, Quality Learning Environment, and Significance, with each segment

offering six individual elements designed to address the goals of the segment. According to

Jenifer Gore, this model is designed to ensure that in classrooms,”…learning is deep and

meaningful” (Gore, 2007). She goes on to explain each of the 18 individual elements in order

to display how this goal is achieved. This is congruent with the conclusions of the Hattie

study as to the nature of an expert teacher, and thus is an effective model at improving

teacher pedagogy.

‘Assessment’ “describes activities undertaken by teachers to obtain information about

students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes” (Berger, 2017). Assessment is often divided into

two categories: Formal and informal assessment. Informal assessment is constantly in place,

it involves situations where teachers may question students in order to obtain knowledge
about them without the students knowing they are being assessed. Formal assessment

involves the traditional assignments and exams; students know that they are being assessed.

The challenge for teachers is formative assessment that may cater to the individual needs of

all students. It is critical that this is the case, as a students wellbeing and learning capabilities

can be influenced negatively if they are measured to standards which they may well be

unable to meet due to their backgrounds. There is a range of different styles of formative

assessment, but one example has caused a great deal of controversy in teaching recently, and

that is the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN). This

nationwide exam assesses literacy and numeracy ability of students in years 3, 5, 7, and 9, in

order to rank student/school achievement (publically listed results) in the hope of problem

identification in order to bring about change for improvement. However, through the

analysis of detailed research, it has been discovered that NAPLAN results offer extreme

misrepresentation of results, and is bias towards English-speaking country born students

(Creagh 2013).

So how well do these four concepts address the learning needs of NESB students? In order to

answer this question, it should be made clear that a students need regardless of background

will differ individually, so what we must then conclude is that in order to best address the

learning needs of NESB students, the goal must be equity for each individual student.

Henceforth, we must address the question as to how well these concepts facilitate equitable

learning. Practically speaking, there are no issues with these concepts; all should easily

facilitate equitable learning. The criticism then must be placed over the ‘features’ of these

concepts. Now teacher professionalism when aimed at achieving the standards outlined in

the APST should cater and even produce an equitable approach. This is due to the fact that in

order to meet these standards, a teacher should acquit his or he pedagogy using the basis of
educational social theory in order to meet the target of equity. One theory that encourages

equitable learning is critical theory, which arises from the belief that nothing is beyond

criticism (Sever, 2012). This theory allows the teacher to treat each member of his or her

classroom as individually as possible, with no advantage given to any specific student,

encouraging a responsive teaching pedagogy, one of the aspects of an expert teacher

outlined in the Hattie study. Unfortunately, the NAPLAN test fails to promote or even adhere

to an equitable standard. NESB students feel the need to study greatly for the exam, focusing

their efforts and time on literacy skills, removing time away from other potential needs of

that individual (Ford, 2013). The public showing of NAPLAN results promotes the view of an

understanding of results as a measure of intelligence or skill, when a student may achieve

greatly in subjects that are not English or numeracy focused, advocating a false view. The

Australian National Curriculum also fails to achieve the goal of equity outlined in the APST.

The Australian National Curriculum places unnecessary pressure on the teacher to address

content outlined in the curriculum that may or may not be at the level of her or his

classroom, forcing the teacher to compromise his or her pedagogy, generating an inequitable

teaching approach for her students. This will cause it to be virtually impossible for teachers

to adhere to the NSW quality-teaching model, as NESB students struggle to meet the English

standards outlined in the curriculum, unlike local born students. Therefore, in order to

effectively address this issue, it is important to draw attention back to individualised

learning in order to increase teacher professionalism via improved pedagogies through

reference to the NSW quality-teaching model, correlating with the criteria outlined in the

Hattie study.

So how can teachers address and meet the positive outcome of equity? First we must

understand what happens when this outcome is not met in regards to NESB students.
President of the Australian Council of TESOL Associations, Dr Penny McKay (2008) makes

note of the effect inequity of ESL learners will have on future policy: “Without specific ESL

goals…these students will lag behind and become invisible to policy makers.” This presents a

major issue; if equity to NESB students cannot be provided quickly, it will be less likely the

government will produce policy or alter curriculum to promote equity. But what is the

impact of failing to promote equity for NESB students personally? Results in the

International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations show how the

inequity NESB students experience in schools cause underachievement in university, leading

to proportionately less employment (Patton, 2007). Furthermore, detailed investigation is

not necessary in finding the vast effects a lack of equity on NESB students have in regards to

ethical issues such as discrimination due to the requirement of having these students match

a standard in which they are set-up to be disadvantaged due to their background. It is by

reason of these issues that it is possible to conclude that high-level ethical and equitable

teaching on a classroom level is essential to the growth and success of NESB students.

Teachers must make full use of effective pedagogy designed around the curriculum, as well

as designing assessment that is able to accurately assess all students according to equitable

standards. So how may teachers achieve this? This is the most complex and challenging task

for teachers in NSW, and is impossible to answer in detail in this paper. A great tool and

guide is found in the APST, with a positive approach being to best attempt to meet all of the

standards through practice and review of other teachers work, according to the same

standards in order to be best aware of what it practically looks like to achieve or

underachieve these standards in reference to research results and conclusions made in

academia such as the Hattie study. Furthermore, positive and equitable assessment can be

improved through research and observation.

Through the understanding of the concepts of curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, and

teacher professionalism, it is possible to conclude that the APST and the NSW quality

teaching model are effective in catering for the necessary outcome of equity for all students,

and specifically NESB students. The Australian national curriculum and NAPLAN negatively

affect this outcome by prompting teachers to compromise on his or her pedagogies in order

to meet unhelpful targets, negatively influencing the issue of equity for NESB students. It is

therefore necessary for teachers to expertly address their pedagogies through reference to

the APST, taking on the challenge of meeting the various standards through practice and

review, prompting the teaching quality standard to increase, positively influencing equity for

all students, NESB students in particular. This should also be done in association with

research and observation, in order to best design assessment, and to best improve pedagogy

when observing research such as the Hattie study.

Reference list

Berger, N. (2017). Designing, Teaching, and Learning. Lecture, Western Sydney University.

Creagh, S. (2013). ‘Language Background Other Than English’: a problem NAPLaN test
category for Australian students of refugee background. Race Ethnicity and Education, 19(2),
252-273.

Egan, K. (1978). Curriculum Inquiry (8th ed.). Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Ford, M. (2013). Achievement gaps in Australia: what NAPLAN reveals about education
inequality in Australia. Race, Ethnicity And Education, 16(1), 80-102.

Gore, J. (2007). Making a difference: Challenges for teachers, teaching, and teacher
education (1st ed., pp. 15-33). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers Make a Difference, What is the research evidence?. Australian
Council For Educational Research, 1(1), 1-17. Retrieved from
http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2003/4/

Home - The Australian Curriculum. (2017). Australiancurriculum.edu.au. Retrieved 24 March

2017, from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/

Patton, M. (2007). Why International Students are at Greater Risk of Failure. The
International Journal Of The Diversity In Organisations, Communities & Nations, 6(6), 101-
111.

pedagogy - definition of pedagogy in English | Oxford Dictionaries. (2017). Oxford Dictionaries

| English. Retrieved 24 March 2017, from
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pedagogy

Professional Standards Councils. (2017). Psc.gov.au. Retrieved 24 March 2017, from

http://www.psc.gov.au

Sever, M. (2012). A Critical Look at the Theories of Sociology of Education. The International
Journal of Human Sciences, 9(1), 650-671.

Standards | Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2017). Aitsl.edu.au.
Retrieved 24 March 2017, from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-
for-teachers/standards/list

The Australian Council of TESOL Associations - Literacy goals fail ESL students.
(2008). Tesol.org.au. Retrieved 24 March 2017, from http://www.tesol.org.au/Literacy-
goals-fail-ESL-students