Bou Ovington, 17383497 1

Part A

Contemporary teaching professionalism revolves around factors of political manoeuvring,

accountability, changing curriculum, increasingly diverse student cohorts and community

expectations (Ryan & Bourke, 2013). As a result, educators necessitate the development of

abilities and skills to be reflective and reflexive practitioners (Ryan & Bourke, 2013;

Thompson & Pascal, 2012).

Evaluation of teacher professionalism is salient to the quality of teaching practices

throughout Australia. A systemic approach to teacher professionalism includes the

implementation of National Professional Standards. With the inception of the Australian

Professional Standards for Teachers (APST, 2011; Santoro, Reid, Mayer & Singh, 2012) by

AITSL (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership; 2015), teachers are further

necessitating an increase to their instructional expertise in order to effectively represent

quality teaching. By definition, APST explicitly describes the components of teaching

eminence aimed at facilitating greater academic outcomes for students. With this, arises the

transference of large state government influence on education toward competency-based

notions of standards. With the performativity of students being largely based on academic

achievement, the imposition of these standards collectively and individually on teachers is

paramount to collaborative success (Sachs, 2016).

Understanding the parameters beyond teacher interaction, will provide increased

perspective in the examination of quality teaching. If any component of the teaching

framework is compromised, all levels of the teaching process become dysfunctional. The

APST’s accreditation system focuses on statements regarding competency, overlooking the

personal attributes of quality teaching demonstrations (Bahr & Mellor, 2016). The domains
Bou Ovington, 17383497 2

that pervade APST standards are: professional knowledge, professional practice and

professional engagement. Professional knowledge denotes two main points: knowing students

and their preferred forms of learning, and knowledge of the content and what methods are

most applicable to teach the content. There is a flawed concept present as knowledge of a

topic, does not necessarily predict ability in teaching practice. The standards do not require a

demonstration of these effective teaching characteristics, omitting a critical link in student

learning (Bahr & Mellor, 2016). The APST element of ‘professional practice’ connotes the

implementation of teaching strategies, endorsing a teacher’s ability to demonstrate teaching

and learning capabilities whilst using teaching strategies. However, these capabilities do not

further validate a teacher’s ability to be engaging, innovative, or motivating to any extent,

minimising effectiveness and efficiency (Bahr & Mellor, 2016).

In terms of practicality, the Australian National Curriculum will catalyse interventions

at the institutional level. The processes of professional development, state and national

dissemination, and evaluation, will restructure the contexts for skill and knowledge in

teaching and learning. Alternatively, the complexities of knowledge instruction could be

heightened at a level of technical abstraction (Luke, 2010). To enact the appropriate

modifications reflexively, educators will need to actively incorporate teaching practice with

knowledge of content, and students’ cultural schemata.

The nexus of government overregulation of the teaching profession creates the

challenge of consistent adaptability for teachers. An inability to respond to diversified

learners in Australia’s multicultural composition will unsuccessfully engage students in long-

term learning pursuits. Quality teaching in essence, is the ability to accommodate and

generate curriculum standards. This process is problematically being reduced to an objective

means of competency to determine teacher standards (Bahr & Mellor, 2016; Hénard &

Roseveare, 2012).

Subsequently, pedagogy is the methodology behind the practice of teaching. On both

a theoretical and academic basis, pedagogy fundamentally influences interactions, structuring

of activities, coursework and events of teaching in accordance with theories of identity and

academic development (Danielewicz, 2014). A reflexive praxis for teachers to adopt,

educators are implored to discover the most effective practices and evaluate the results

regardless of the institutional contexts and student populations.

Attributes of effective teaching are inclusive of, but not limited to: successful

integration of content knowledge with students’ past learning experiences, hereby uniquely

designing lesson plans in accordance to the needs of students; efficiently creating optimal

learning environments; proficient at monitoring student difficulties, and assessing their stage

of progress and understanding; and respecting and caring for student needs (Hattie, 2003).

There are two forms of teaching pedagogies: expository and constructivist (Culpan &

McBain, 2012). Expository teachers base their teaching on an emphasis of knowledge and

facts. Expositions-based pedagogy often takes the form of instruction, rather than student

autonomy. Conversely, constructivist teaching methodologies often provide multiple

depictions of the course content in order to pervade the entire classroom population

(Spronken-Smith, 2012).

The interrelationship between the concepts of pedagogy and the N.S.W Quality Teaching

Framework provides a myriad of justifications within the implementation process. The

Quality Teaching Framework is pervasive in all learning and teaching programs to ascertain

educative measures are at a high standard. There are three aspects: Intellectual quality,
Bou Ovington, 17383497 4

significance, and quality learning environments (N.S.W., Department of Education and

Training, 2008). This standardised model allows teachers to incorporate a pedagogical basis

of critical reflection; analysis of present educator structures; and to guide planning of

classroom and student valuation practices.

The complexity to understand human behaviour illustrates the dynamic necessitation

of individualised teaching methodologies (Liberante, 2012). Ultimately, teachers cannot

construct personal pedagogies based off of principles extracted from research. An educator

needs to be aware of the possibility of non-effectual or counterproductive theoretical

frameworks and modify teaching methods accordingly.

In contemporary learning environments, increasing technological influences are

epitomising ‘normalcy’ in the child experience. As Aldunte and Nussbaum (2013) found the

adoption of technology into teaching practice is changing the landscape of student learning,

as teachers are necessitated to make effective use of technology. In terms of complexity, there

is interplay of two variables: the type of technology, regarding its complexity and usage; and

the style of teacher, regarding their attitudes towards innovative teaching practices

(Tennyson, 2013).

Consequently, learning and associated pedagogy are dually at the core of the

educational process. Government’s determining an objective means of policy-driven

education standards progressively alters the value from how a topic is learned to what has

been learned. The learning of knowledge has transformed from traditional expositional

classifications, to form the contemporary social process that encompass human behaviour,

theoretical frameworks, and assessment practice.

Objective measures to provide evidence of quality teaching have yet to be formally

recognised (Harris, Chinnappan, Castleton, Carter, De Courcy & Barnett, 2013; Freeman,

2013). To identify teaching impact and effectiveness, National Assessment Program –

Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) was critically analysed by numerous educators at the

government level. However, the converse has ultimately been established as confusion

between effectiveness and impact has been made measurable by objective means (Bahr &

Mellor, 2016).

A necessitated element of teaching is effectual modern educators must understand

how to design and implement a valid and reliable assessment indicative of what has been

learned. Comprehending the links between pedagogy, curriculum and assessment, and by

extension, understanding the variant forms of evaluation and student progress (Cole, 2012).

Further complexities arise due to summative and formative approaches to assessments that

can potentially be employed, but must also demonstrate the learning impact throughout the

curriculum. Quality teachers need to dually appreciate the material and student, to an extent

that feedback will enhance academic performativity and future engagement. A

communicative balance between critique and positive reinforcement is needed for both

accountability and development justifications (Bahr & Mellor, 2016).

Current assessment strategies such as NAPLAN negatively link results with teaching

quality. As school administrations utilise NAPLAN results to determine success, Thompson

(2013) identified some schools suggest poorer students abstain from undertaking the

assessment, whilst others use results from previous exams to determine out-of-area student

acceptance. Subsequently, this undermines the testing methods, and the student achievement

shift.

It is the consequent of this understanding that has altered NAPLAN preparation for

many schools. The transition from curriculum based teaching to assessment focused

instruction. Due to NAPLAN being suggested as a key performance indication, the

progression of NAPLAN into the curriculum itself has been gradually becoming more

solidified in contemporary teaching. To appraise appropriately, NAPLAN has been broadly

considered as indices of quality teachers. Unfortunately the profession’s inability to respond

to such claims has inevitably counteracted these assertions (Bahr & Mellor, 2016).

Part B

Essential to teacher professionalism; curriculum, pedagogy and assessment integrate

the various elements that enable a quality teacher. These elements must consider cultural

variables. Indigenous students necessitate variant learning methodologies which an educator

must appropriately adjust and modify to facilitate learning. Flexible instruction of teaching

must be accountable when educating Indigenous students and acknowledge the needs, styles

and preferences of learning. Delivery methods must be in connotation with the requisite of

localisation to accommodate cognitive styles and cultures.

As Hall and Weatherby-Fell (2015) discuss, although the embedding of Indigenous

perspective into the curriculum provides its own complexities, at a professional level,

teachers must circumstantiate the appropriate traditional customs into their learning

objectives. It is essential for teachers to reiterate the information in an alternative form to

adequately provide Indigenous students an opportunity to engage with the topics, as

comparatively, Indigenous and non-Indigenous students learn differently (Hall & Weatherby-

Fell, 2015).

Consequently, Indigenous students have been exposed to traditional learning

experiences of different approaches to learning experience. To be contextually significant, a

teacher’s intercultural understanding is vital to produce an applicable approach. Teacher

professionalism encompasses these elements and further reinforces alternate methods in a

suitable context, in order to enhance the learning experienced for Indigenous students.
Bou Ovington, 17383497 7

The APST guidelines additionally recognize that students are distinctive in their

learning; and by extension, implore teachers to endorse professionalism, in satisfying the

requirements of diversified needs. The embedding of Indigenous perspective into learning

situations will promote intercultural composition. Thus, through integration, Indigenous

students dually enhance self-efficacy, and familiarity to produce constructive educational

outcomes (Colquhoun & Dockery, 2012).

Evaluation of teaching instruction is its inability to contextualise the learning experience;

individualised lesson planning to connote with the curriculum will further enhance this

knowledge capability. Curriculum has to adapt to the changes of Australian student

populations. As a result, teachers must require varied teaching practice based on what is the

most responsive to student needs.

There is an undeniable disparity in outcomes from an educated perspective when

comparing Indigenous and non-Indigenous students (ACARA, 2017). Activities and forms of

interaction must be aimed toward a bi-cultural learning context that acknowledges different

learning needs and diversity. To account for cultural inclusivity, a systematic approach to

incorporate community based learning and cultural contextualisation to be responsive to

learner needs. The Australian Curriculum (2017a) addresses components of self-efficacy,

developing identity an intercultural understanding in relevant learning outcomes.

In terms of curriculum, government overregulation challenges teaching ability to

diversified learners. The capability of teachers is often regarded by their ability to

accommodate and develop curriculum standards. Consequently, the necessitation of

appropriate teaching pedagogies is paramount to ensure effectiveness in a culturally diverse

oriented curriculum.
Bou Ovington, 17383497 8

In connotation, the Australian Curriculum looks to be minimising the inconsistent

disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students (Australian Curriculum, 2017b;

Booth, 2014). Subsequently, the potential success for the implemented changes will depend

on teacher implementation. Therefore, the effectiveness of these modifications will be reliant

upon the interrelation of the curriculum, and the teacher’s pedagogies in regards to

implementation.

Given the dynamic roles within teaching, every teacher has their preferred and distinct

pedagogical practice. In evaluating the role of a teacher in connotation to pedagogy; the

dissimilarities between constructivist and expository teaching must be established, and

utilised. Quality teaching will consequently convey knowledge and facts. Though, they will

facilitate this information with positive interaction to enhance the learning experience of

students. The significance of cultural appropriation, dualistically with established pedagogy

utilisation generates learning opportunities (Levinson & Hooley, 2014). The ability to teach

to variant diversified characteristics encompasses reflexive praxis, imperative in the teaching

of Indigenous students. In the reconstruction of learning dynamics to be pervasive for both,

Indigenous and non-Indigenous students, educators must enable social inclusivity to occur.

An example recommendation would be to place autonomy on Indigenous students in class

discussion of culture. Appraising Bourdeius cultural capital, intermittently with social capital

(Bourdieu, 2011), allows teachers to facilitate autonomous, socio-cultural learning, hereby,

adding personal experiences and practicality to knowledge being learned.

Assessment is a generalised predictor of performance. In 2009, Indigenous students

undertaking NAPLAN indicated higher levels of failure rates than their non-Indigenous

counterparts. The prominence of performance testing forms a dependence on NAPLAN

results.
Bou Ovington, 17383497 9

The permanence of NAPLAN testing can be of significance in the identification of

achievement gaps. In linking to Indigenous education, there is insufficient clarity when

describing the comparative achievement gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous

education. This suggestion inherently claims a potential inadequacy in the test determining

methods in modern assessment. Ford (2013) emphasised alternative means of testing should

be applicable in situations of need.

Ford (2013) further found that 150 of the lower ranked schools were Indigenous

based government schools, equating to 20,000 of the nation’s 150,000 Indigenous student

population. Consequently, the teacher’s role in responding to assessment must dually

communicate in both a positive reinforcement, and critique; whilst simultaneously

implementing further teaching strategies directed to enhance the learning experience based on

both local and cultural understanding.

Essentially, it is this complexity in understanding Indigenous student learning

parameters that inhibits the efficient provision of assessment. Potential improvements to the

contemporary strategies implemented can be made in conjunction with appropriate

curriculum, pedagogy and assessment for both, Indigenous and non-Indigenous students

(Bahr & Mellor, 2016). This integration will collaboratively work toward enhancing a

classroom culture where students become engaged and autonomous learners.

References

Aldunate, R., & Nussbaum, M. (2013). Teacher adoption of technology. Computers in

Human Behavior, 29(3), 519-524.

Australian Curriculum. (2017a). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and

Cultures. Overview. Viewed 21 March 2017. Retrieved from:

http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/crosscurriculumpriorities/aboriginal-and

torres-strait-islander-histories-and-cultures/overview

Australian Curriculum. (2017b). Version Implementation advice. Viewed 21 March 2017.

Retrieved from: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/curriculum/overview

Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority. (ACARA). (2017). Curriculum. Viewed 20

March 2017. Retrieved from:

http://www.acara.edu.au/contact-us/search

results?indexCatalogue=acarasearch&searchQuery=close+the+gap&wordsMode=0

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (AITSL). (2015). Evaluation of the

Implementation of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Interim Report

2- 2014 Key Findings. Melbourne Graduate School of Education. Viewed 21 March

2017. Retrieved from: http://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/national-policies-

resources/apst-interimreport-2014-key-findings.pdf?sfvrsn=10

Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (APST). (2011). AITSL: Standards. Viewed
Bou Ovington, 17383497 11

18 March 2017. Retrieved from: http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional

standards-for-teachers/standards/list

Bahr, N., & Mellor, S. (2016). Australian Education Review: Building Quality in Teaching

and Teacher Education. Australian Council for Educational Research. Viewed 20

March 2017. Retrieved from:

http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=aer

Booth, S. (2014). Teaching Aboriginal curriculum content in Australian high schools.

Viewed 20 March 2017. Retrieved from: http://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/1522/

Bourdieu, P. (2011). The forms of capital.(1986). Cultural theory: An anthology, 81-93.

Cole, P. (2012). Linking effective professional learning with effective teaching practice.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, Melbourne.

Colquhoun, S., & Dockery, A. M. (2012). The link between Indigenous culture and

wellbeing: Qualitative evidence for Australian Aboriginal peoples.

Culpan, I., & McBain, S. (2012). Constructivist pedagogies for Olympism education. Asia

Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 3(2), 95-108.

Danielewicz, J. (2014). Teaching selves: Identity, pedagogy, and teacher education. SUNY

Press.

Ford, M. (2013). Achievement gaps in Australia: What NAPLAN reveals about education

inequality in Australia. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 80-102.

Freeman, L. (2013). NAPLAN: A Thin Veil of fairness-excerpt from senate submission into
Bou Ovington, 17383497 12

the effectiveness of NAPLAN. TESOL in Context, 23(1/2), 74.

Hall, G., & Weatherby-Fell, N. L. (2015). The Australian Professional Standards for

Teachers, and professionalism. Learning to Teach in the Secondary School, 241.

Viewed 22 March 2017. Retrieved from:

https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=UdkoCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=

A241&dq=professionalism+teaching+Indigenous+Australians&ots=9JkpBR1Iy9&si

=5LqfENSvg_A55MGwzT_4E6TMF9o#v=onepage&q=Indigenous&f=false

Harris, P., Chinnappan, M., Castleton, G., Carter, J., De Courcy, M., & Barnett, J. (2013).

Impact and consequence of Australia's National Assessment Program-Literacy and

Numeracy (NAPLAN)-using research evidence to inform improvement. TESOL in

Context, 23(1/2), 30.

Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers Make a Difference, What is the research evidence?.

Hénard, F., & Roseveare, D. (2012). Fostering quality teaching in higher education: Policies

and Practices. An IMHE Guide for Higher Education Institutions, 7-11.

Levinson, M., & Hooley, N. (2014). Supporting the learning of nomadic communities across

transnational contexts: exploring parallels in the education of UK Roma Gypsies and

Indigenous Australians. Research Papers in Education, 29(4), 373-389. Viewed 23

March 2017. Retrieved from:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02671522.2013.772223?scroll=top&ne

dAccess=true
Bou Ovington, 17383497 13

Liberante, L. (2012). The importance of teacher–student relationships, as explored through

the lens of the NSW Quality Teaching Model. Journal of student engagement:

education matters, 2(1), 2-9.

Luke, A. (2010). Will the Australian national curriculum up the intellectual ante in

classrooms?. Curriculum Perspectives (Journal Edition), 30(3).

Ryan, M., & Bourke, T. (2013). The teacher as reflexive professional: Making visible the

excluded discourse in teacher standards. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of

education, 34(3), 411-423.

Santoro, N., Reid, J. A., Mayer, D., & Singh, M. (2012). Producing ‘quality’ teachers: the

role of teacher professional standards.

Sachs, J. (2016). Teacher professionalism: why are we still talking about it? Teachers and

Teaching, 22(4), 413-425.

Spronken-Smith, R. (2012). Experiencing the process of knowledge creation: The nature and

use of inquiry-based learning in higher education. In International Colloquium on

Practices for Academic Inquiry. University of Otago.

Tennyson, R. D. (2013). Artificial intelligence and computer-based learning. Instructional

technology: foundations, 319.

Thompson, N., & Pascal, J. (2012). Developing critically reflective practice. Reflective

practice, 13(2), 311-325.

Thompson, G. (2013). NAPLAN, MySchool and Accountability: Teacher Perceptions of the

Effects of Testing. International education journal: Comparative Perspectives, 12(2),

62-84.