Part A

“He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches” is a quote from the 1903 play man and superman
credited to George Bernard Shaw which has become synonymous with teaching.

At the heart of this statement is the belief that becoming a teacher is a last resort for those who
have failed in another field of expertise. It is the belief that a person who is unable to succeed at a
chosen career will have the desire and the ability to succeed in teaching.

When following this line of thought the following misconceptions concerning teaching arise. Firstly
that teaching is an individualistic endeavour devoid of common standards. Secondly that teaching
requires no specific knowledge other than the subject material being taught and finally that a
teacher is motivated primarily by self-interest as opposed to the wellbeing of the student. Each of
these statements lends itself to the belief that teaching is not a profession.

To counter these arguments I will be using the definition of a profession from the Professional
standards council supported by a range of other source materials.

In contradiction to first implication of the quote: That teaching is an individualistic endeavour devoid
of common standards the definition of a profession states “A profession is a disciplined group of
individuals who adhere to ethical standards.” (Professional Standards Councils)

New teachers since 2004 and existing teachers since 2018 have been required to be accredited by
an approved teaching accreditation agency (NESA in NSW). Far from being single operators, teachers
are required to have joined a professional group through an established process. This requirement is
spelled out in the Teachers accreditation act 2004 section 28 (1) (State Government of NSW, 2016).
In addition the teachers accreditation act empowers the minister to establish and approve minimum
professional teaching standards (section 19 & 20) covering: the skills, qualification, experience and
knowledge required for accreditation, the conditions for continued accreditation such as ongoing
professional development and the ethical standards to which teachers are expected to adhere (State
Government of NSW, 2016).

Since 2014 these standards have been defined by the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers
(APST) having replaced the earlier NSW standards (NSW Education Standards Authority, 2017)

The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers consists of seven standards organised over three
separate domains of teaching. These are Professional knowledge, professional practice and
professional engagement (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2011).

When examining the first misconception the APST by its very existence shows that teaching is in fact
governed by standards which are enforced by an accreditation agency. In addition when examining
the APST the third domain professional engagement and particularly standard 7: Engage
professionally with colleagues, parents/carers and the community show that teaching is not as
suggested and individualist activity but rather that teachers are expected to interact and engage
with a wide variety of peers and stakeholders.

The second misconception that teaching requires no specific knowledge other than the subject
material being taught implies that a person trained as a chemist will be able to teach chemistry or
that a musician will have all the knowledge required to teach music. In contrast to this the definition
of a profession states “This group positions itself as possessing special knowledge and skills in a
widely recognised body of learning derived from research, education and training at a high level, and
is recognised by the public as such. (Professional Standards Councils).”

The second misconception can be countered through an examination of the first and second
domains of the APST.

Under the APST the special knowledge in the definition of a professional can be described by the
Professional Knowledge professional practice domains. The standards in the professional knowledge
section are firstly to know students and how they learn (standard 1) and secondly to know the
content and how to teach it (standard 2).

Standard 1: “Know students and how they learn” covers two aspects of knowing students. Firstly it
involves a general understanding of the stages of development such as those expressed by Piaget
(Arnett, 2013)and the limitations of human cognition and working memory (Sweller, 2012). It also
covers more specific knowledge about each of the students being taught. This knowledge includes
biological and psychological factors such as disabilities, social factors such as cultural background,
peer groups and socioeconomic status as well as the student’s natural ability (Australian Institute for
Teaching and School Leadership, 2011) (Marsh, Clark & Pittaway, 2014).

The second misconception suggests that teachers require only the subject specific knowledge that
they gain from a previous form of employment to be effective as educators. Standards 2 through 5
of the APST counter this by stating that teachers require extensive specialized knowledge and skills
in order to both provide relevant instruction and provide a safe environment conducive to learning.

Standard 2: know the content and how to teach it (Australian Institute for Teaching and School
Leadership, 2011) can best be summed up as Curriculum.

Curriculum can be defined as any knowledge, skill or attitude that is taught or modelled in an
educational environment (Egan, 1978). In the context of the APST however the term specifically
relates to the content and skills covered by the Australian curriculum. The Australian curriculum is
an attempt to provide a common set of expectations for the subject material that all Australians
should be taught regardless of a student’s location, circumstances or type of school (ACARA, 2016).
Its stated aim is to promote a high quality education for all Australian students consistent with Goal
1 and 2 of the Melbourne declaration on Education Goals for young Australians (Ministerial council
on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 2008).

The second part of standard 2: knowing how to teach the content and Standard 3: Plan for and
implement effective teaching and learning (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership,
2011) refer to methods and strategies for student instruction which can be best summed up as
pedagogy. Modern pedagogy is intended to be both constructivist in nature and student centred
(Cakir, 2008). By this we mean that the student rather than the teacher is the focus of the classroom
practice. The constructionist paradigm is the understanding that knowledge is built on previous
knowledge by an active mind rather than simply received (Cakir, 2008). The role of the teacher in
modern pedagogy is therefore to engage the students in authentic learning experiences in which
they share responsibility with the teacher for outcomes. Two specific strategies that lend themselves
to this model are Inquiry Based Learning (IBL) (Patrick Blessinger and John M. Carfora, 2015) and
Problem Based Learning (PBL) (Williams, 2015). Both of these strategies operate on the basis of
presenting students with authentic real world situations and providing them with the necessary
knowledge, skills and tools to solve them.

In order to encouraging high quality pedagogy and to provide teachers with a platform for critical
reflection and analysis of their own teaching practice the NSW Department of Education and
Training has created the NSW Quality teaching framework (NSW department of Education and
Training, 2008). The NSW quality teaching framework covers 3 domains. Two of these domains:
Intellectual quality and significance relate specifically to pedagogy while the third Quality learning
environment will be discussed in relation to standard 4 of the APST.

The Intellectual quality Domain refers to pedagogies which focus on assisting students to develop a
deep understanding of content through a higher thinking and analysis and providing them with tools
to communicate this knowledge to others in a substantive way. (James Ladwig, 2003)

The significance domain in contrast is focused on creating substantiative links between the student’s
day to day existence and the content being studied in the classroom. This involves providing context
for the material being studied in terms of the students own experiences, cultural background and
interests. (James Ladwig, 2003)

standard 4 of the APST: Create and maintain supportive and safe learning environments (Australian
Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2011) and the quality learning environment domain of
the NSW quality teaching framework (James Ladwig, 2003) both refer to teachers creating a
classroom environment in which students are engaged and able learn effectively without disruption.

Both Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1943) and Glasser’s Control theory (William Glasser &
Pauline B.Gough, 1987) state that students have specific needs that must be met prior to a student
being able to learn effectively. Failure to meet these needs will result in boredom disengagement
and ultimately disruption (William Glasser & Pauline B.Gough, 1987). According to Maslow beyond
purely physiological needs students require and environment in which they feel emotionally safe,
have a sense of belonging and in which they feel that they are valued (Maslow, 1943). Glasser
identified these needs as love (or a sense of belonging and being valued), power (a sense of control),
Freedom (the ability to make choices for yourself and fun (William Glasser & Pauline B.Gough, 1987).

The final piece of specific knowledge required for teaching is covered by Standard 5 of the APST:
Assess, provide feedback and report on student learning. Assessment is a continuous process of
gathering information concerning students’ knowledge skills and attitudes. Its purpose is to assess
students existing knowledge in order to inform the design of teaching (diagnostic assessment), to
assess student’s progress during the teaching process (formative assessment) and to report on
student’s performance at the end of a teaching program (summative assessment).

Assessment can be either formal or informal in nature. Informal assessment occurs constantly in the
classroom and can range in nature from probing questions through to evaluation of class
discussions. Typically a student is not aware that informal assessment is occurring. Formal
assessment on the other hand exists where a student is fully aware of the nature of the assessment.
This includes class tests, assignments or essays or external examinations such as NAPLAN (Australian
Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2016)or the HSC.

The final misconception arising from the quote that teachers act primarily in their own interest runs
contrary to the following definition “A profession is also prepared to apply this knowledge and
exercise these skills in the interest of others (Professional Standards Councils).”

It has been well documented that of the various factors in student education over which we have
influence, quality teaching plays the greatest role in determining learning outcomes for students.
Indeed this influence accounts for up to 30 percent of the variation in student achievement and is
second only to the student’s intrinsic ability. (Hattie, 2003).

The purpose of standards such as the APST, the NSW quality teaching framework and the Melbourne
declaration is to utilise the influence to improve student educational outcomes.

When examining each of the standards, knowledge, pedagogy, learning environments and
assessment taught and implemented it is clear that at the heart of each of these domains is the
wellbeing of the student. Far from acting out of self-interest teachers are required to know their
students such that they can assess their knowledge and abilities in order to plan and execute
teaching strategies that focus on individual student achievements.

From examining these details it is clear that the quote “He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches”
and the ideas derived from it do not fit with the modern practice of teaching.

Part B

Gifted and talented students are students whose potential is distinctly about average in one or more
following domains of human activity: intellectual, creative, social and physical (Gagné, 2010)
(Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority). It has been noted that gifted and
talented students all tend to learn at faster rates, more easily identify and solve problems and are
able to manipulate abstract ideas to an advanced degree. However the specific adjustments
required for a gifted student vary from one student to another (Australian Curriculum Assessment
and Reporting Authority). It is therefore necessary for a teacher to differentiate for each gifted
student under their care. The areas of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment all contribute to the
process of differentiation.

At the heart of differentiation is the need to constantly assess both the student’s existing knowledge
but also their level of engagement. Failure to continuously assess can result in student
disengagement due a mismatch between the student’s ability and the work being prescribed
(Gagné, 2010).

Adjustments according to student needs can be made both in the areas curriculum and pedagogy.
While the objectives of the Australian curriculum apply equally to all students the level of depth of
the content can be adjusted according to student needs and ability. This can include adjustments to
the complexity or variability of particular examples or variations in the methods of teaching. As an
example a teacher when scaffolding a research task may ask a gifted student to conduct additional
research or to conduct research with less support than other members of the class. In addition the
gifted student may be asked to assess their product using higher order thinking than is expected of
other class members (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority).

When making adjustments for gifted and talented students it is clear that the three elements of
curriculum, pedagogy and assessment all play a role in differentiating such that the student can
reach their potential.

Bibliography
ACARA. (2016). About the Australian Curriculum. Retrieved 03 28, 2018, from Australian Curriculum:
https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/about-the-australian-curriculum/

Arnett, J. J. (2013). chapter 3. In J. J. Arnett, Adolenscence and emerging adulthood (pp. 66-71,75-
79). Boston: Pearson.

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (n.d.). Gifted and Talented Students.
Retrieved 2018, from The Australian Curriculum:
https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/student-diversity/gifted-and-talented-
students/

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2016). National Assessment Program,
Literacy and Numeracy National report for 2016.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011, Feburary). Australian Professional
Standards for Teachers. Retrieved 08 14, 2017, from Australian Institute for Teaching and
School Leadership: https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/apst-
resources/australian_professional_standard_for_teachers_final.pdf

Cakir, M. (2008). Constructivist Approaches to Learning in Science and Their Implications for Science
Pedagogy: A Literature Review. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education,
193-206.

Egan, K. (1978). What Is Curriculum? Curriculum Inquiry, 65-72.

Gagné, F. (2010). Transforming Gifs into Talends: the DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability
Studies, 119-147.

Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Building Teacher
Quality: What does the research tell us ACER Research Conference. Melbourne: ACER
Research Conference.

James Ladwig, J. G. (2003). A Classroom Practice Guide. Ryde: State of NSW, Department of
Education and Training.

Marsh, Clark & Pittaway. (2014). How Students Develop and Learn. In C. &. Marsh, Becoming a
teacher (6th Ed) (pp. 16-38). Frenchs Forest: Pearson Australia.

Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of Human Moivation. Psychological Review, 370-396.

Ministerial council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (2008). Melbourne
Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Retrieved from Australiand
Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority

NSW department of Education and Training. (2008). Quality Teaching Framework. Retrieved 03 22,
2018, from Elements of Learning and Achievement:
http://www.theelements.education.nsw.gov.au/the-elements-manual/policy-reforms-and-
focus-areas/quality-teaching-framework

NSW Education Standards Authority. (2017). AUSTRALIAN PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS FOR

TEACHERS. Retrieved 08 14, 2017, from NSW Education Standards Authority:
https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/teacher-accreditation/how-
accreditation-works/guide-to-accreditation/professional-standards

Patrick Blessinger and John M. Carfora. (2015). Inquiry-Based Learning for Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Math (STEM) Programs : A Conceptual and Practical Resource for
Educators. In P. B. Carfora, Inquiry-Based Learning for Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Math (STEM) Programs : A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators (pp. 3-19).
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Professional Standards Councils. (n.d.). What is a profession. Retrieved 08 15, 2017, from
Professional Standards Councils: http://www.psc.gov.au/what-is-a-profession

State Government of NSW. (2016, 10 19). Teacher Accreditation Act 2004 No 65. Retrieved 08 14,
2017, from NSW legislation: https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/inforce/d9353372-37f4-
40f7-9822-41745331573c/2004-65.pdf

Sweller, J. (2012). Human Cognitive architecture: Why some instructional procedures work and
others do not. In Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (pp. 295-
325). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

William Glasser & Pauline B.Gough. (1987). The Key to Improving Schools: An Interview with William
Glasser. Phi Delta Kappa International, 656-662.

Williams, D. P. (2015). Problem Based Learning Approaches to Teaching Chemistry. In Inquiry-Based

Learning for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Programs : A Conceptual
and Practical Resource for Educators (pp. 93-112). Emerald Publishing Limited.