“There is now almost universal recognition around the world that ‘teaching matters’

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.

Fareha Faiz 18948501 1

Regarding professional knowledge this includes, knowing students and how they
learn and knowing the content and how to teach it (Australian Institute for Teaching
and School Leadership, 2018). Professional practice encompasses planning for and
implementing effective teaching and learning, creating and maintaining supportive
and safe learning environment, and assessing and providing feedback and report on
student learning (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2018).
Finally, engaging in professional learning, and engaging professionally with
colleagues, parents/careers and the community falls under professional engagement
(Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2011). The development of
the APST is an integral part of ensuring quality learning and teaching in Australian
schools. Thus, evidently the quality of teaching and professionalism infiltrated within
the education sector is critical. None-the-less, teachers in the current educational
landscape are inevitably faced by a string of challenges inhibiting and impeding on
teachers’ professionalism and their quality of teaching, calling for effective
management and design.

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

Fareha Faiz 18948501 2

highly impeding differences between the written curriculum, developed by experts,
and the actual curriculum being taught by teachers at school. This idea can be better
understood through recognising the interrelation between curriculum and pedagogy,
further discussed below. That is, teachers, working autonomously, tend to use their
own differentiated pedagogical approaches when enacting the curriculum based on
their own knowledge and realties of their classrooms (Cuban, 1993 as cited in
Shilling, 2013). This lack of congruency between the formally written curriculum and
the informally practiced curriculum leads to substantial misalignments somewhat
diminishing the quality of teaching and its professionalism. Hence, a current impeding
issue in teachers’ quality work and their professionalism is the Australian Curriculum
and its ineffective implementation and application in the school systems.

Academic evidence permeate the impression that schools continue to struggle in

ensuring they are working as satisfactory as they should be for both students and
teachers (Gore, 2007). The neophytes as well as more experienced and senior
teachers face many challenges in this field, one being effective pedagogy (Weaver,
1978). Gore (2007) claims, “one of the greatest challenges facing education systems
is ensuring high quality pedagogy”. Pedagogy and pedagogical practice can be
thought of as the series of actions taken by a teacher when fostering student
engagement and learning (Northern Territory Board of Studies, 2018). According to a
meta-analysis conducted by Hattie (2003), effective pedagogy occurs when teachers
integrate and combine content knowledge with students’ prior knowledge and make
lessons uniquely their own, changing it according to students’ needs, and are adept
at monitoring student problems. However, Singh, Allen & Rowan (2019) have argued
that teachers’ work and pedagogical practices are increasingly regulated by
measures developed by the Organisation for Economic Corporation and
Development. As a result, these policy discourses lead to a constrained and
controlled imagining of current teaching, and the promotion of generic, constructivist
models of pedagogy. This inevitable reduces teachers’ professional autonomy,
having grave affects on both students’ learning and knowledge acquirement as well
as teacher professionalism (Singh et al., 2019). Nevertheless, the advantages and
importance of pedagogical models such as the “Quality Teaching’ model cannot go
unmentioned. Developed in NSW, this model systematically reforms pedagogy,
improving learning outcomes for students across a variety of social backgrounds
(Gore, 2007). This initiative has two major components: a model of pedagogy with
acknowledged principles in an attempt to guide classroom and assessment practice,

Fareha Faiz 18948501 3

as well as, a set of resources designed to engage teachers in reflection and dialogue
(Gore, 2007). Academic evaluations have suggested positive indicators of the
model’s success in improving quality of pedagogy and student outcome (Gore,
2007). The ‘Quality Teaching’ model comprises of three dimensions: intellectual
quality; quality learning environment, and significance (Penney et al., 2009).
Regarding intellectual quality, this focuses on teachers creating understanding of
importance skills and concepts. Quality learning environment is a pedagogy creating
classrooms whereby students as well as teachers create a productive learning
environment. Finally, the pedagogy producing high quality student outcomes is
known as significance (Penney et al., 2009). This model is fundamental in creating a
framework for teachers to use in an attempt to ‘focus discussion and critical reflection
on the teaching and assessment practices that take place in classrooms’ and thus an
essential aspect of an effective design (New South Wales Department of Education
and Training, 2003). Thus, it is clear that although an important concept, pedagogy
can pose some issues for teachers.

A final challenge faced by teachers in the current educational landscape affecting

their professionalism and teaching quality is assessments. Assessment is a term
describing the information gathered by a teacher as evidence of a student’s current
accomplishment (Northern Territory Board of Studies, 2018). It focuses on assessing,
monitoring and evaluating students’ progress against the set curriculum achievement
standards or subject specific standards. To ensure effective assessment teachers
should provide students with a range of opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge
whilst closely monitoring their progress, ensuring regular feedback. This should be
done through informal and formal, diagnostic, formative and summative assessment
strategies (Northern Territory Board of Studies, 2018). Informal assessments include
things such as class questions and teacher observations and feedback. According to
the Educations Standards Authority (2019) teacher feedback is an essential part of
assessment and student learning, allowing students to recognise and appreciate their
strengths and areas for development. Conversely, formal assessments include
planned and coordinated tests and assignments. When conducting diagnostic tests
teachers are effectively assessing and checking students’ knowledge before
transferring to them new content. Formative assessments allow teachers to
recognise areas a student might be struggling in whereas summative assessments
are a tool used for evaluation of student learning, skill acquisition and academic
achievement at the end of the teaching period (Northern Territory Board of Studies,

Fareha Faiz 18948501 4

2018). An example of a nationwide measure and assessment is NAPLAN. This is a
point-in-time assessment for years 3, 5, 7 and 9 in areas of literacy and numeracy.
It’s aim is to assess the progression of students against national standards,
monitoring and evaluating school and student performance (National Assessment
Program). However, according to many including President of the Australian
Secondary Principals Association, Sheree Vertigan, this standardised test is
ineffective, described as being a snapshot in time, thus failing to reflect the complete
picture about what a child is capable of, wrongly used to determine student and
school competencies (ABC News Australia, 2011). Another publicised concern has
been the focus NAPLAN takes from the Australian Curriculum, with many teachers
and principals worried about the narrowing affect this standardised assessment has
on the curriculum (ABC News Australia, 2011). Consequently, it can be concluded
that a challenge in regards to effective assessment in schools is the misalignment
between the curriculum and forms of assessment. Literature has found that at times
what is being tested is not what is highlighted and formulated in the Australian
Curriculum, greatly impacting on the quality of teaching and its professionalism in
society.

Irrespective of their individual challenges, when formulated effectively these three

frameworks positively effect the development of quality teaching and professionalism,
linking together to support and improve professional practice of teachers. Education
literature such as Penney et al. (2009) recognises that there is high interdependence
between curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, leading to higher student
achievement when designed effectively. Therefore, supported by studies, factors
preventing teachers from implementing effective and quality practice include,
misalignment of teacher training with curriculum, misalignment with promoted
pedagogy, and misalignment with curriculum and assessments (Westbrook et al.,
2013). Hayward et al. (2016) found that curriculum innovation continues to pay
limited attention to assessment whilst pedagogical innovation is typically planned in
an assessment and curriculum free environment. This forces teachers to make sense
and impose coherence in a misaligned system, having grave effects on quality
teaching as they work to merely progress through the curriculum, or employ
pedagogical strategies and assess simply because they are told to do so (Hayward
et al., 2016). In an attempt to avoid such detriments the curriculum must be
appropriately pitched, not overloaded and available, whilst assessment modes are to
be aligned to pedagogic design and approach in classrooms (Westbrook et al.,
2013). For instance, when going through the prescribed curriculum, teachers should

Fareha Faiz 18948501 5

enact appropriate pedagogical approaches and strategies differentiated to students’
needs whilst teaching the content, as well as reinforcing the learnt knowledge
through assessments aligned with the curriculum. This incorporation is an effective
design ensuring quality in teaching and upholding teacher professionalism.

Hence, when considering teacher professionalism and quality teaching these

concepts are highly dependent on three factors, the Australian curriculum,
pedagogical approaches and practices utilised by teachers, and assessment. In the
absence of effective design, curriculum, pedagogy and assessment frameworks are
highly damaging to teachers and their quality of teaching where misalignments cause
huge learning and teachings curbs and gaps. By effectively interlinking the three
frameworks and developing an appropriate design teachers are able to ensure that
students receive quality teaching as well as upholding high teacher professionalism.

Fareha Faiz 18948501 6

Reference

ABC News Australia. (2011, May 6). Warning about NAPLAN tests [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAJEYhhoXCo

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2016). Curriculum.

https://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2018) Australian

Professional Standards for Teachers. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-
source/national-policy-framework/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers.pdf?
sfvrsn=5800f33c_64

Carl, A. E. (2009). Teacher empowerment through curriculum development: Theory

into practice (3rd ed.). Juta Academic Press.

Crebbin, W. (1997). Defining quality teaching in higher education: an Australian

perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, 2(1), 21-32.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251970020102

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

Education Standards Authority. (2019). NSW curriculum and syllabuses.

https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/k-10/understanding-the-
curriculum/curriculum-syllabuses-NSW

Hattie, J. (2003, October). Teachers make a difference, what is the research

evidence?. Australian Council for Educational Research. Building Teacher Quality:
What does the research tell us ACER Research Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2003/4/

Fareha Faiz 18948501 7

Hayward, L., Higgins, S., Livingston, K., & Wyse, D. (2016). Editorial. The curriculum
Journal, 27(2), 169-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2016.1179526

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

Northern Territory Board of Studies. (2018). Curriculum, pedagogy and assessment:

A framework for quality education in Northern Territory schools.
https://education.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/513419/T-12-
CurriculumPedagogyAssessmentReportingFramework.pdf

Porath, M. (2009). What makes a gifted educator? A design for development.

International handbook on giftedness, 825-837. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-
6162-2_40

Weaver, R. (2010). The challenge of quality teaching. Improving college and

university teaching, 26(2), 145-148.
https://doiorg.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.1080/00193089.1978.9927559

Fareha Faiz 18948501 8