Skip to content

Join Today

Member portal

NSW Teachers Federation
NSW Teachers Federation
  • Home
  • Courses
    • All Courses
    • All Conferences
    • Primary
    • Secondary
  • Journal
    • Journal Issue
    • For your Classroom
    • For your Staffroom
    • For your Future
    • For your Research
  • Podcast
  • About
    • Who we are
    • What we do
    • Our Presenters
    • FAQ
    • Contact Us
NSW Teachers Federation
  • Home
  • Courses
    • All Courses
    • All Conferences
    • Primary
    • Secondary
  • Journal
    • Journal Issue
    • For your Classroom
    • For your Staffroom
    • For your Future
    • For your Research
  • Podcast
  • About
    • Who we are
    • What we do
    • Our Presenters
    • FAQ
    • Contact Us

Subject: Public Education

Taking the kids to the park: On-Country learning about climate change

Judith Wilks, Mark Werner and Angela Turner demonstrate the importance of learning from Aboriginal approaches to caring for Country as they tackle climate change in the classroom…

Preface

I was surfing the other day and the conditions started to change. A rip had formed where I was sitting, and water was heading back out to sea. This is not unusual, and I instinctively moved to ensure that I remained in the best position. I could have stayed where I was (but I’d probably still be there). I am also a high school teacher. My desire to learn fuels my passion to teach. As both a teacher and surfer I rely on my instincts and situational awareness to ensure my students are engaged and focused on their learning. If what I am doing is not working, then I must make changes for the benefit of my students’ learning. The ongoing challenge for teachers lies in the confines of our scope of control. I can make incremental adjustments (within my role description as classroom teacher) that will have some benefit to student outcomes. I cannot however undertake the seismic shift that is so desperately needed to support the ongoing growth of our kids’ learning. If under some miracle I could, and let’s set aside the fact that we are in a crippling staffing shortage, then I would suggest one strategy: ‘onCountry learning’ to remind ourselves what teaching was like before schools had fences, and off campus excursions didn’t involve half a dozen layers of risk assessment paperwork. [Mark Werner]

Introduction

In 2021 a collaboration between school teachers, university teacher-researchers, and a local council established an outdoor learning setting in a park known as ‘Dawkins Park Reserve’, in Macksville, rural NSW. This group coalesced around a shared desire to promote local resilience to climate change impacts, and to strengthen the local community’s understanding and engagement with local Indigenous cultural and scientific knowledge. This park was chosen as a setting primarily for two reasons: it was within walking distance of a high school, and it was suffering real and visible biodiversity breakdown due to the effects of climate change. 

Being part of this collaboration as two university researchers (Wilks and Turner) was a rich experience in terms of the lasting relationships built with local teachers and moreover, witnessing the enjoyment and significant growth in the students’ understanding of climate change. In Turner and Wilks (2022) we recounted our experiences and research findings, concluding with a concerning paradox: as the benefits of place-based environmental learning become better known, in practical terms it is getting harder to achieve with teachers increasingly burdened by layers of paperwork, risk assessment protocols, policies and procedures. The resulting disembodiment of learning from the natural environment is especially concerning, given that the endeavour of education has its very roots in nature, where over 250 years ago Jean-Jacques Rousseau recognised nature as the child’s best teacher (Taylor, 2013).  Caught in the current risk-averse milieu, many educational systems have forgotten these roots in the face of increasing litigation, and educational trends that marginalise the connectedness between nature and children and young people. (Wilks, Turner & Shipway, 2020).

Our particular focus here is to convey the experiences of collaboration that involved the teaching of climate change. We share how a different approach to teaching and learning in this rural setting might be sustained into the future through engaged environmental and Indigenous cultural learning, and creating a smoother transition for students between primary and secondary school.

The enactment of positive change is not possible without first acknowledging the need for a new direction. In the high school learning environment, collegiality and the courage to innovate are important ingredients for success in cross-curriculum and cross-cultural teaching and learning. In 2020 a small collegiate of like-minded teachers saw an opportunity for their Year 7 students to investigate climate change through authentic, active, environmental learning experiences.  Even though well-established relationships with local Aboriginal elders and Knowledge holders already existed, it was critical to invite them into our teaching collegiate. Consequently, they became integral to the students’ outdoor learning experiences.

The authors all  live and work on Gumbaynggirr Country located on the NSW Mid-North Coast, NSW. Mark Werner is a proud First Nations man from the Torres Strait, a Dauareb and member of the Ulag Clan, a clan of the Zagareb Tribe of Mer. He is also a Geography/History high school teacher.

Background

At Macksville High we were seeking to create a different type of learning environment, albeit on a shoestring budget. In order to better engage Year 7 students, we were compelled to try something new, and it turned out to be something that became a highly influential force in our teaching — the creation of a teaching and learning Year 7 ‘Hub’ [Mark Werner].

The Hub was a learning environment established to provide students with a smoother transition from local primary ‘feeder’ schools into high school. It was designed with the goal that a foundation year of focused interdisciplinary teaching and learning would support the academic success of students, and address some of the poor student learning habits we were noticing. Students coming into Year 7 are confronted with up to fifteen different teachers. This not only impacts on their sense of connectivity and engagement with the new learning environment of high school, but also on the teaching staff’s capacity to develop an understanding of each student’s strengths, capacities and inherent learning styles.

The Hub space was an open learning space (conjoined classrooms) housing up to fifty students, three teaching staff (English, Maths, Science and Geography/History), and one student learning support officer. Each lesson could be delivered to the whole group or, alternatively, a targeted skills intervention lesson could be taught on a rotation basis.

The Year 6 – Year 7 transition is often experienced by students as a difficult period,  thus there was a significant focus on student wellbeing. For students being part of this core group provided them with the continuity and consistency lacking in the traditional Year 7 structure. The establishment and maintenance of consistent classroom expectations provided a foundation for improved learning outcomes within a safe and predictable place, more attuned to the students’ social and emotional needs. The teacher-student ratio afforded staff the space to develop stronger relationships with students, target their skills, identify curriculum overlap, and withdraw struggling students to a different space without disrupting the learning of their peers.

Improving our knowledge, understanding and agency about climate change is urgent. The rapid deterioration in Earth’s natural systems presents unprecedented challenges for teaching and learning that is capable of encompassing, and bringing meaning and immediacy to the scientific, the ecological, the social, the economic/political, the moral, the cultural and the ethical dimensions of climate change (Haraway, 2015). It is not surprising that in recent years climate change learning has been embedded into Australian school curricula. In Australia, climate change learning in schools must provide the scope across key learning areas for students to be able to acquire deep knowledge about the many dimensions of human-caused ecological change. Learning about climate change therefore has played an increasingly significant role in NSW school curricula.

A series of cross curricular, collaborative learning programs and resources was developed by teachers in the Hub prioritising learning about climate change, and, under this umbrella, teaching the themes of ‘identity’ and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories, cultures and sciences. The environmental learning activities at the Park were designed to deepen students’ knowledge of climate change through authentic learning about water quality, biodiversity, ecological and technological processes in Dawkins Park Reserve.

Activities and resources were designed to promote engagement with the Australian cross curriculum priorities Sustainability and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures. Students learned about how our ecological landscape is shaped through natural and human-caused factors; the influences of this on animal behaviour patterns; how humans interact with ecosystems; and how these interactions may be achieved in a sustainable way. At Dawkins Park Reserve students were exposed to ‘real world’ hands-on activities such as collecting water ‘bugs’ as the students called them [microorganisms], identifying flora and fauna, observing bird migration patterns, testing the water, and using maps,  photos and light microscopes to analyse their water samples. 

Findings

The interconnectedness of fieldwork skills combined with a highly relevant case study at Dawkins Park Reserve engaged both students and teachers, and through this experience they developed the necessary knowledge to understand climate change at a deep level. But we were only able to examine climate change in any depth because of the Hub model. Previously there were very few interdisciplinary options and subjects were taught in silos.

Well established community relationships with local Aboriginal elders and local Knowledge holders also proved to be pivotal. Students learned about clan size and what the size of the group should be to sustain itself. They learned about sustainable lifestyles in the Indigenous context, how a typical day was broken up in the clan, and about structured lore/systems. They enjoyed the Gumbayngirr cultural narratives through stories, dance, song, and art. 

Students participated in an ‘On Country’ cultural immersion field trip. This excursion was organised to support the unit of learning called ‘Identity’. During this experience students and staff were offered an alternative learning environment. This alternative learning environment shifted behaviour and attitudes of both students and staff. The logistics of the journey focused on ensuring Aboriginal perspectives from across their valley were well represented. The day started with a Welcome to Country in Bowraville, delivered by a local knowledge and language holder, who then shared the history and narrative of his town and community. The immersive experience continued as the students travelled to Nambucca Heads and were met by traditional owners, elders and knowledge holders who shared narratives, culture and experiences. A smoking ceremony and the re-creation of a local dreaming narrative (using the students as actors and participants) enriched the students and teacher understanding of local Aboriginal culture and identity. The final leg of the journey was to Scotts Head. Once again cultural protocols were observed, and students and teachers learnt more about the Gumbaynggirr creation narratives regarding the how the sea was created and how waves were made. This was followed by the playing of Traditional Indigenous Games on the beach and reflecting on the history, purpose and relevance of these activities

Teachers’ interest, enjoyment and excitement in teaching climate change were stimulated by these events. Commensurately there was an increase in their self-efficacy and confidence as their knowledge grew and their understandings and perceptions deepened. It was clear that the growth in these attributes was connected to their own learning about climate change at the park. Teacher A recounted their journey as follows:

I think at the beginning … I kind of had that attitude of ‘nah Climate change’ … I’d glaze over.  But now I think I have a better understanding myself, and I think the enjoyment of teaching it, through the process that we followed … has improved my knowledge of climate change, as well as my enthusiasm for teaching it, and passing it onto the students, and encouraging them to do something [about it].

Teachers shared that at the Park they had been caught up in the same feelings of excitement and the fascination as the students when they were discovering new knowledge through for example, water sampling activities. And the growth in both teacher and student knowledge and enthusiasm had an entwined, spiraling effect, with each promoting the other. The teachers became co-inquirers with their students because  they were also making deeper connections between the different scales of climate change. Teacher B said “I think the connections I was able to make within my own personal life, and how little things that I can do can make a big difference on a bigger picture, certainly grew.”

While the teacher’s learning design and programming benefitted, they also stated that they now found it easier to link teaching about climate change with the Australian Curriculum’s Sustainability priority area. Furthermore, they envisioned the Park becoming a ‘centrepiece’ for future learning about the impacts of climate change at the local level, as it offered great affordance in terms of teaching, learning and benchmarking about key concepts in geography such as place; space; environment; interconnection; scale; and change. Fieldwork is geography; it is at its very heart (Laws, 1984; Bliss, 2009). From Teacher C’s perspective, the experience “gave me more time to spend investigating on a local level, and a pathway to teach it through because sometimes you think, ‘how am I going to embed this into the program?’ but here, if it’s the centrepiece of the program, it’s really simple.”

The teachers related that teaching climate change through an Indigenous lens gave students the opportunity to hear about Aboriginal perspectives of pristine environments and no trace practises. The Aboriginal guides embedded language into their stories. Although the Park is not an Aboriginal sacred site as it is human built, there are many sites in the district and the area has strong links to Gumma, where fresh water supply and the Nambucca River link to the sea. Students looked at the variety of vegetation types available, and their traditional Gumbaynggirr names and purposes. Students were shown the Lomandra grasses used for weaving baskets, and were encouraged to speculate about what type of things these baskets might have carried. Teacher D explained:

We’ve tried to open up their understanding as to what Indigenous communities are about and different aspects of their lives and we’re certainly incorporating a little bit more of that to increase the understanding because for some of them they really had limited understanding of pre-European settlement in the area.

Students came to realise that there were many places around them, in their daily lives, that have stories. Student A shared: “Just knowing about it makes you feel more connected”, and another (Student B) said, “Stories make it easier to remember things.”

Teachers not only observed the stimulation of their students’ interest, passion, enjoyment and engagement in learning about climate change, they also noticed their students were reflecting far more deeply about their responsibilities in relation to it. The following observations were made in this respect:

There were a lot of light bulb moments, a lot of students not only learning the information, but then also getting a bit of a fire in their belly, really wanting to change, really wanting to make action, and asking questions like what can they do about it to change. they’re kind of at that age where they’re starting to understand the world isn’t perfect. And we’re kind of called, aren’t we, it’s all our responsibility to all do something about it for the future. (Teacher A)

I guess for my generation we kind of feel responsible for what’s happened, and these guys kind of inherit a lot of our shortcuts and kind of short-sightedness.  Whereas you get some students who kind of straight away think, they just lay the blame, and see the dire consequences straight away. And then to get other students that kind of perk them up by saying, “How about this and for solutions? (Teacher B)

Students were excited about seeing things in ‘real life’ at the Park and teachers could see them getting ‘hooked in’ to their learning there. Teachers were not having to deal with behaviour issues because the setting catered for a wide variety of learners and all students were so engaged: “they really benefit … all of them … from experiential learning where they’re hands on. They’re measuring … they’re testing … they’re collecting, analysing and comparing … they’re really focused and on-task” (Teacher C). This reinforced for teachers how important it is for students to have place-based, authentic learning experiences and to “try and get the kids out of the classroom and give them those real-life experiences as much as we can” (Teacher D). When they returned to classroom learning the teachers noticed a real enthusiasm borne from what they had done at the Park. Students were motivated to venture hypotheses, do their own research, and give class presentations on what they had found out.

In their discussions with researchers before they went to the Park, students used terms such as ‘nervous’, ‘devastated’ ‘not confident’ to describe their thinking about climate change. Teachers observed that as a result of the activities their students demonstrated a greater confidence and a richer vocabulary when postulating connections between the local and the global in relation to climate change. They related that through being at the Park students were able to link their learning about climate change to a place with which they were familiar and in so doing enriching their knowledge and understanding. As Teacher A explained, “having something to pin it on”, and Teacher B observed “We’re having conversations with the students where they wouldn’t have made the links previously … floods in West Germany, record temperatures in Europe”; and another:“… for them to get an understanding about the relationship between fossil fuels and carbon emissions…It was kind of like just opening the door for a lot of them. They really hadn’t thought about it before, even though they’ve heard some of the phrases and things like that. But for them to get an understanding of the causes and the links, and also some of the possible solutions”.

According to Teacher D, the conversations they were having with their students and what they did at the park had opened up their thinking to beyond their ‘small world’ to “what’s happening around them and how that impacts everybody else in the world”. Moreover, Teacher B observed that the program had encouraged students to have bigger thoughts beyond themselves, to “go deeper … and tie a lot of things in with climate change.” 

Reflection

It not surprising that in recent years learning about climate change has played an increasingly significant role in NSW school curriculum. There are now frequent mentions of the term climate change, with Sustainability framing the entire curriculum as one of the three Australian curriculum priority areas. Nevertheless, such curriculum elements represent relatively new and emerging fields of study in both primary and secondary curricula, and teachers have had had to quickly ‘come on board’ with teaching them across all curriculum areas, as they are no longer just located within the traditional domains of geography and science. The students perceived the potential for cross curricula learning about climate change emanating from their experiences at the Park. They expressed a desire to see more art, mathematics, and writing, in addition to geography and science, associated with their activities there.

Through professional channels many teachers have anecdotally reported a lack of confidence in teaching climate change despite the many excellent professional development opportunities and resources that have been created for teachers. The problem has been that the majority of these are text-based and designed to be delivered in a classroom setting – either in digital or paper-based format. This has led to a focus on ‘climate science’ and environmental ‘issues’ (Loughland, Reid, and Petocz, 2010) privileging knowing facts about climate change over more experiential, sensory engagements inhibiting the creation of deep knowledge which, as Jensen and Ross argue, is so vitally important underpinning “all educational skills we value…knowledge begets knowledge”, (2022, p. 23). The experiences of teachers and students at Dawkins Park most certainly aided the development of deeper content knowledge about climate change.

Students related that they loved learning outside the classroom, that they felt more focused and “a bit more free” (Student B). Paradoxically, they felt “less distracted… if that makes sense” (Student C). They enjoyed learning through their senses – listening; seeing; touching and feeling; and smelling – and in so doing they felt more connected to the environment. They were more able to make connections between the local and the global manifestations of climate change; the interactions between plants and animals and the seasonal influences relating to climate change. Teachers observed students to be more curious, interested, engaged and both student and teacher appreciation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural, language and scientific knowledge increased. Teacher feelings about self-efficacy in teaching climate change also improved. 

As others have experienced in similar, recent programs (Burgess & Thorpe, 2024; Spillman et al., 2022), we found that well established community relationships with local Aboriginal elders were vital to the success of the program. The students thoroughly enjoyed the telling of Gumbayngirr stories by the Aboriginal knowledge holders. Through embedding an Aboriginal voice in the activities, students’ cultural awareness and engagement with holistic, spiritually-based connections to Country were enhanced. Story telling involves feelings and emotions, and helps young people to follow a series of events through a story’s structure, and to understand choices people have made in the past and the consequences of those choices (Seefeldt, Castle & Falconer, 2014, p. 232).

The Hub enabled the Year 7 student cohort to be taught as an entity, as opposed to separate classes, by a core group of teachers enabling a significant focus on student wellbeing. Students were provided with continuity and consistency during what is often experienced as a difficult transition from primary to secondary school. The synergy generated through the combined efforts of highly trained professionals created momentum and enthusiasm within the learning environment. The collaboration facilitated an even deeper mutual regard for colleagues’ professionalism, their discipline and content-specific knowledge. Sharing a teaching space between colleagues and freely exchanging ideas and feedback empowered and invigorated teaching.

Conclusion

It is imperative that our students are climate change literate. This involves understanding how our ecological landscape is shaped through both natural and human-caused factors; the ways in which water is integral to the survival of all living things; how this influences animal behaviour patterns; how humans interact with ecosystems, and how these interactions may be achieved in an environmentally sustainable way.

It was obvious to us as teachers that students were developing understandings about climate change at a deep level. As clearly beneficial as it was to take the students to this rich environmental and cultural learning setting, we were only able to examine climate change to the depth we did because of the added affordances that the Hub model offered for enriching teaching and learning. That we managed to interconnect learning about climate change with fieldwork attached to a highly relevant case study at Dawkins Park Reserve which clearly engaged the students was achieved in large part because of the Hub. Learning stations have been created at the Park for future outdoor environmental education activities, and their continued use will augment students’ understandings about climate change vulnerabilities, risks and adaptation responses.

Just as swimmers and surfers must react to the sudden formation of an ocean rip, it is imperative in teaching to change what is not working. When you change your perspective on historical, entrenched challenges in education you can deliver enhanced student engagement and success. Macksville High School in rural NSW had the courage and conviction to embrace remodelling education delivery to its newest students when it literally flung open the school gates to a world of possibilities.

Postscript

Although the ‘physical’ Hub no longer exists, relational links between the participating teachers remain strong, and the possibility still exists for cross curriculum project-based learning because of these links. Ironically, external factors associated with climate change conspired to erode teacher motivation around its continuance. These included COVID-19 and the accompanying lockdowns and extended periods of learning from home, teacher shortages and time constraints largely borne out of the COVID-19 driven workforce-wide impacts, and prolonged flooding in the region causing major disruptions to everyday life. Possible areas of future focus are teaching space redesign, classroom furniture, and redistribution of students into subject-specific skill rotation groups that coalesce around social interactions, friendship cohorts and abilities.

References

Bliss, S. (2009). Fieldwork: The heart of geography. Geography Bulletin, 41(1), 7-11. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/aeipt.183894

Burgess, C., & Thorpe, K. (2024). How teachers can use the Learning from Country framework to build an Aboriginal curriculum narrative for students. Journal of Professional Learning. NSW Teachers Federation.

Jensen, B., & Ross, M. (2022, September 23). One million left behind. The Australian. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/

Laws, K. (1984). Learning geography through fieldwork. In J.Fein (Ed.), The Geography teacher’s guide to the classroom (pp. 134-145). MacMillan.

Loughland, T., Reid., & Petocz, P. (2010). Young people’s conceptions of the environment: A phenomenographic analysis, Environmental Education Research, 8(2), 187-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220128248

Seefeldt, C., Castile, S., & Falconer, R. (2014). Social Studies for the preschool/primary child. Pearson.

Spillman, D., Wilson, B., Nixon, M., & McKinnin, K. (2023). ‘New Localism’ in Australian Schools: Country as Teacher as a critical pedagogy of place. Curriculum Pedagogies. 43, 103-114

Taylor, A. (2013). Reconfiguring the natures of childhood. Routledge.

Turner, A., & Wilks, J. (2022) Whose voices? Whose knowledge? Children and young people’s learning about climate change through local spaces and indigenous knowledge systems, Children’s Geographies. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2022.2139591

Wilks, J., Turner, A., & Shipway, B. (2020). The risky socioecological learner. In A. Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles., A. Lasczik., J. Wilks., M. Logan., A. Turner, A., & W. Boyd, (Eds.), Touchstones for deterritorializing socioecologcial learning: The anthropocene, posthumanism and common worlds as creative milieux (pp. 75-99). Palgrave Macmillan.

About the Authors

Mark Werner

Mark is Daureb and part of the Ulag Clan which is a clan of the Zagareb Tribe of Mer in the Torres Strait. He is a secondary trained teacher and holds a Masters in Indigenous Languages. He lives and works on the Mid North Coast of NSW. He is passionate about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education, the environment and creating On Country immersive learning experiences.  

Dr Judith Wilks OAM

Is Adjunct Associate Professor at Southern Cross University, Faculty of Education, and also Adjunct Associate Professor, Nulungu Research Institute of the University of Notre Dame Australia. She is an experienced educator with a significant research, teaching and community engagement track record in regional education services delivery in both the higher education and schooling sectors. In 2023 Judith was awarded the Order of Australia Medal (OAM) for Services to Education.  Her research interests and publications stretch across a number of fields. These include the promotion of agency, resilience, and citizenship skills through participatory methodologies for children and young people in environmental education learning settings.  Judith has also been an active member of national research collaboration (Nulungu Research Institute) that has sought to promote access, participation and success in higher education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. In recent years she has undertaken considerable research work in the Western Kimberley region focusing on strengthening the learning experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education students living in remote locations.

Dr Angela Turner

Dr Angela Turner has 22 years higher education teaching experience.  She holds a Bachelor of Education Technologies (Hons) and a PhD in Food Technology education. Angela has been recognised for integrating the domains of teaching and research through a Southern Cross University Vice Chancellor’s Teaching Citation (2018); School of Education Recognition Award (2018); Australian College of Educators Award (2017). Her research projects have received competitive grant success over the years for actively forming university-school community engagement with rural primary and secondary school communities that have advanced teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom as an ongoing educational enterprise. She is currently an Adjunct Senior Lecturer/Researcher at Southern Cross University and a curriculum advisor for the NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) curriculum reform for Technological and Applied Studies 7-10.

Taking-the-kids-to-the-park-Wilks-et-al-1Download

The Significance of Graduations

Melissa O’Meara looks at nurturing the learner psyche, strengthening family bonds, and shaping the affective domain in non-traditional learning environments…

High school graduations are pivotal milestones in an individual’s educational journey, wielding profound influence on the learner’s psyche, family dynamics, and the affective learning domain. This impact is particularly pronounced in cases where the learning journey has been non-linear, involving unconventional paths and challenges. Additionally, the significance of high school graduations extends to non-traditional learning environments, such as high school equivalency programs, where the achievement of graduation holds even greater importance. I will explore the importance of high school graduations, with a specific focus on non-traditional learning environments, drawing connections between the learner psyche, family dynamics, and the affective domain.

High school graduation serves as a transformative event that significantly shapes the learner’s psyche. In the context of a traditional learning journey, the achievement of this milestone represents the culmination of years of academic growth and personal development. Erikson’s psychosocial theory (Cherry, 2023) highlights the importance of successfully navigating the developmental task of identity versus role confusion during the adolescent years, and high school graduation serves as a critical marker in this process.

For learners in non-traditional learning environments (such as TAFE NSW’s high school equivalency programs), where the path to graduation may be non-linear, the psychological impact is even more pronounced. The learner’s psyche becomes intricately connected to the process of overcoming challenges, showcasing resilience, and achieving academic success. This achievement not only validates the learner’s intellectual capabilities but also instils a sense of pride and accomplishment that can positively shape their self-identity. Non-traditional learning environments, specifically TAFE NSW high school equivalency programs, cater to individuals whose educational journeys have often taken unconventional paths.

TAFE NSW, as the public provider, serves learners who face various challenges, such as academic setbacks, personal responsibilities, disability or the need for flexible learning options. A raft of research suggests that such disadvantage is often compounded by social structures of power further minimising an individual’s ability to achieve in a mainstream learning environment. Therefore, high school graduations hold unique significance in the TAFE NSW environment, symbolising triumph over adversity and resilience in the face of challenge.

The attainment of high school graduation is not solely an individual triumph, but also a shared victory within the family unit. In traditional learning environments, families play a crucial role in supporting learners, and the celebration of high school graduation becomes a testament to the collective efforts and sacrifices made. In non-linear learning journeys, families often face additional challenges, and the achievement of graduation becomes an even more significant source of pride. Moreover, family dynamics are intimately tied to the affective domain. High school graduations, particularly in non-traditional learning environments, strengthen familial bonds by providing a shared sense of accomplishment. The affective domain within the family unit is enriched through the collective emotions of pride, joy, and resilience. The celebratory nature of graduation ceremonies fosters a positive emotional connection among family members, contributing to a supportive environment that recognises and values the learner’s unique journey.

Graduations also have deep intergenerational impacts, shaping not only the graduate’s life, but that of their family and subsequently their communities. According to Sahirah and Mohd (2024) educational attainment often sets a precedent for future generations. Further, they found that a student’s academic performance was directly influenced by a mother’s educational accomplishments, with following generations viewing this as something attainable and tangible for themselves. It is not unreasonable to conclude then that this leads to the breaking of systemic access and equity issues and improves socio-economic status and opportunities for the family. It also benefits the communities in which they live, as graduates have higher levels of community engagement, are more likely to take on community leadership, mentorship and role modelling, thereby contributing to societal improvements as their credibility, due to having qualifications, lifts. There are further societal and generational effects, as education is linked to increased positive health outcomes, an increased ability to access healthcare and an increased capacity to adopt healthier lifestyles. This is in conjunction with a shift in social and cultural values due to an increase in critical thinking and the adoption of new principles that are aligned to diversity, inclusion and a challenge to community norms.

Research by Reed et al (2012) emphasises the importance of recognising the diverse needs of learners in non-traditional settings. High school equivalency programs, designed to provide an alternative pathway to graduation, acknowledge the complexities of learners’ lives and offer tailored approaches to education. The achievement of graduation in these environments becomes a symbol of empowerment, demonstrating that individuals can successfully navigate non-linear paths and attain academic success despite challenges. In the TAFE environment, the affective domain plays a central role in the educational experience. High school equivalency programs often cater to adult learners, and the affective domain becomes a key factor in shaping their attitudes, motivations, and emotional connections to education. The achievement of high school graduation in these settings can have a profound impact on learners’ perceptions of themselves and their lifelong educational journey.

Learners in high school equivalency programs often harbour a range of emotions, including anxiety, self-doubt (imposter syndrome), and a desire for self-improvement. If the current trends around school refusal and childhood and adolescent mental health continue, neurodiversity will be a huge driver of students to the TAFE NSW learning environment, as students fail to thrive in the mainstream ecosystem (evidence of an overworked, underfunded, and under-resourced learning environment and not a failure of teachers). Given this range of emotions, and current learner trends, there is a clear link that graduation serves as a catalyst for positive emotional experiences, contributing to a more favourable attitude toward education and the creation of lifelong learners.

Moore and Anderson (2003) emphasise the importance of recognising and addressing the affective needs of learners to enhance educational outcomes and, thereby, meeting TAFE NSW’s core value of creating lifelong learners. Graduations in non-traditional learning environments also influence learners’ motivations. The accomplishment becomes a source of intrinsic motivation, inspiring individuals to pursue further educational and career goals. The affective domain, in this context, becomes a driving force behind continued learning and personal development.

High school graduations wield profound importance for learners, their families, and the affective domain, particularly in the context of non-traditional learning environments. The achievement of graduation shapes the learner’s psyche, providing a sense of pride, persistence and resilience in the face of challenges. Family dynamics are enriched through shared victories, characterised by a supportive learning environment and are often symbolic of a student’s first experience of educational success. Improvements within the affective domain, which is intrinsically connected to attitudes and motivations, foster a lifelong love for learning. Recognising the increased significance of high school graduations in non-traditional settings like TAFE NSW and a consistent approach to such – as opposed to shooting a student out of a funding system – is crucial for promoting inclusivity and acknowledging the diverse pathways individuals take to achieve educational success.

References

  • Cherry, K. (2023) Identity vs. Role Confusion in Psychosocial Development, Verywell Mind. Available at: https://www.verywellmind.com/identity-versus-confusion-2795735 (Accessed: 07 December 2023).
  • Michael Grahame Moore and Anderson, W.G. (2003). Handbook of Distance Education. Routledge.
  • Reed, D et al. (2012) An Effectiveness Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Registered Apprenticeship in 10 States. Available at: https://www.doi.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/publications/ETAOP_2012_10.pdf (Accessed: 07 December 2023).
  • Sahirah Ag Isha, D. N., & Rahaya Mohd, H. S. (2024, March 7). Determinants of students’ academic performance among undergraduate students in Universiti Malaysia Sabah: A structural equation modelling approach. The 6th ISM International Statistical Conference 2023, 3123(1). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0192226
  • Walsh, F. (2003). Family Resilience: A Framework for Clinical Practice. Family Process, 42(1), pp.1–18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2003.00001.x.

About the Author

Melissa O’Meara is a teacher at TAFE NSW. Her specialities include neurodiversity and LLND. The youngest daughter of migrants, Melissa came to teaching late in life after finishing her first degree in 2018. Prior to this Melissa spent nearly 20 years as a qualified financial planner and bank manager.

Melissa is currently the Women’s Contact for TAFE Teachers Association as well as a member of the Teacher Workload Committee. Melissa is proud to teach, learn and live on Ngambri, Ngunnawal and Gundungurra country. She predominately teaches on the high school equivalency programs at Goulburn TAFE Campus, as well as the occasional specialist program.

Melissa has been active in the NSW Teachers Federation since joining the teaching profession and credits her sanity to activism and the collegiately, compassion and collaboration that it brings to her teaching practice.

The-Significance-of-Graduations-OMearaDownload

Music Education: Right from the Start

Anita Collins delves into her area of expertise – neuro musical research – and gives an explanation as to why quality musical education for all students is an essential part of  their academic development …

The teaching value of music education

For primary teachers, music education is just one subject area on a long list of subjects that must be fitted into the timetable, effectively taught and appropriately assessed. However, for the majority of primary teachers, teaching music can be a very daunting task.

Why is it daunting? The overwhelming reason that I hear from primary teachers in NSW sounds something like this: “I’m not musical” or “I can’t sing”. These reasons are not about the curriculum, the need for equipment or the need for teaching resources. These reasons are centred on the primary teacher’s confidence and competency to make music themselves.

This is nothing to be ashamed of or embarrassed about. This is something that needs to be addressed promptly, for both NSW students and NSW teachers. We need to make sure that every NSW teacher feels confident to teach music in their classrooms and has the necessary personal and professional skills and knowledge to do so.

Importantly, this step will lead to teachers feeling a greater sense of efficacy in their everyday work. More than this, research has shown it will also lead to improvements for students in their ability to learn, their general wellbeing, self-regulation skills and sense of safety, and capacity to engage in learning. Teaching music in the classroom is not just teaching students how to sing in tune and read the notes on the board, it is about teaching HOW to learn.

Teaching students how to learn

There is a field of research that lives predominantly in the neuroscience area called neuromusical research. This field used music listening and music learning to understand how the human brain grows and learns. In the mid-1990s, researchers using then new technology that could monitor brain functioning in real time somewhat accidently discovered that listening to music engaged more parts of the brain simultaneously than any other activity.

In the early 2000s, neuroscientists used music listening as a way to understand how the human brain processed all information; made, sorted and retrieved memories, and how the brain healed itself after traumatic injury(Peretz & Zatorre, 2003) [i]. Music was a vital tool in this process as it showed that the auditory processing network processed all sounds for their musical qualities, and our auditory processing network is our largest information gathering sense.

In the late 2010s, the same researchers began to look at children between the ages of 6-12 years who had learned music. Why did they focus on this group of students? The reason was that musically trained students seemed to have brains that learned faster, were more consistently reliable, had greater connectivity and brain density, and displayed greater synchronisation (Hallam & Himonides, 2022). [ii]. This final aspect was possibly the most important one for teachers to understand – students who have brains that exhibit higher levels of synchronisation take less time to incorporate new knowledge, are better at problem solving, can maintain their attention for longer, and can manage frustration in their learning far more effectively (Miendlarzewska & Trost 2014 p279)[iii].

The obvious question arose, was it just the more able and high-performing students who were attracted to music learning; those you might expect to be exhibiting the higher levels of brain function? In short, was it the smarter students who happened to be learning music who were the ones being researched? The answer was no. Randomised control studies were conducted using music learning as the experiment, and improvements in brain structures and functions were observed in all students (Martin-Requejo  et al, 2024 pp1 -15)[iv].

The neuromusical research is about to move into its third decade, and the findings have been replicated and rigorously examined. The consensus is that music learning has a small to moderate effect on a student’s ability to learn effectively( Guhn et al,2020 p308.)[v]; it can mediate disadvantage and trauma (Hille & Schupp, 2015)[vi], and can significantly support learners with ASD (Sharda et al, 2018 p231) [vii], ADHD (Puyjarinet  et al , 2017 p11550 )[viii] and Dyslexia ( Hornickel & Kraus, 2013 pp3500 -3504)[ix].

It follows that, with this new neuroscientific research pointing to music education as both an enhancement and intervention tool for all students, shouldn’t we be ensuring that every NSW student is receiving a quality, ongoing and sequential music education? Such a focus could have the potential to improve literacy and numeracy levels, help teachers to manage complex learning needs in their classroom, and – possibly the most deeply needed improvement – to make the act of teaching easier, more enjoyable and even more fulfilling.

What is happening with music education in NSW?

The answer is many things are happening in NSW.

In June 2024, the NSW parliamentary Joint Select Committee into Arts and Music Education and Training was established and calls for submissions were made. The Committee is specifically inquiring into the quality and effectiveness of music education and training.

In July 2024, just as the new Creative Arts Syllabus hit the stands, the first public hearing was conducted with key education, music industry, music providers and philanthropic experts appearing before the Committee. A second hearing was held in late August. On 29 November 2024, the Committee is due to release its final report into the current state and future needs of music education in NSW government schools.

The results from this Inquiry will be important for every NSW teacher who has ever thought or said, “I’m not musical” or “I can’t sing”. This Inquiry could prove to be a game-changer: recognising that primary schooling should be much more than numeracy and literacy rankings; actively encouraging and providing tailored, substantial support for classroom teachers; enhanced opportunities for specialist music educators; classroom resources, and improved facilities.

We know that every primary teacher can be supported to bring quality music education to their students with all the benefits that this offers.

The Inquiry is one significant development, delivering the baseline knowledge to inform change is another. And where better to go for this information than to go direct to those in the know: primary teachers themselves.

The Music Education: Right from the Start initiative, in collaboration with the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) and the NSW Department of Education, ran the NSW Primary Teachers Survey. This survey resulted in a statewide picture of the current state and future needs of NSW teachers in the area of music education. The results from this survey are in the process of being publicly released. The aim is to support the NSW Department of Education and school principals to get a better handle on your experience and circumstances for the express purpose of better supporting you in the classroom.

This survey was not for the shelf; it was an opportunity to inform change. It was released into NSW schools during Term 3 2024, and as a NSW primary teacher, you might have seen a request from your school principals to complete the survey. The survey took less than 20 minutes and could have been your contribution to improving not only music education in NSW, but also the use of a tool to improve an enormous number of issues that teachers face every time they enter their classroom.

It is hard to think of a time when you had the Parliament, the government, the department, Teachers Federation, industry, researchers, educators, organisations like ours and those we work with all in sync on the value of a quality, sequential and ongoing music education – and willing to look at what it’s going to take to deliver on the promise. It’s early days, but it’s a pretty good start.  

About the author

Dr. Anita Collins is an acclaimed educator, researcher, and writer renowned for her groundbreaking work in the intersection of brain development and music education. She is the creative force behind Bigger Better Brains, an initiative aimed at bridging the gap between neuroscience and practical music education globally.

Recognized for her leadership as the inaugural Creative Chair of Learning & Engagement at the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, Anita drives innovative educational programs and was instrumental in the acclaimed “Don’t Stop the Music” documentary.

Through her influential writings and advocacy, including the seminal book “The Music Advantage,” Anita continues to shape music education policy and practice, ensuring its integration from the grassroots to national strategy levels.


Endnotes

i. Guhn, M., Emerson, S. D., & Gouzouasis, P. (2020). A population-level analysis of associations between school music participation and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(2),

ii. Hallam, S., & Himonides, E. (2022). The power of music: An exploration of the evidence. Open Book Publishers.

iii. Hille, A., & Schupp, J. (2015). How learning a musical instrument affects the development of skills. Economics of Education Review, 44.

iv. Hornickel, J., & Kraus, N. (2013). Unstable representation of sound: a biological marker of dyslexia. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(8),

v. Martin-Requejo, K., González-Andrade, A., Álvarez-Bardón, A., & Santiago-Ramajo, S. (2024). Mediation of study habits and techniques between music training and academic achievement in children. European Journal of Psychology of Education

vi. Miendlarzewska, E. A., & Trost, W. J. (2014). How musical training affects cognitive development: rhythm, reward and other modulating variables. Frontiers in neuroscience, 7

vii. Peretz, I., & Zatorre, R. J. (Eds.). (2003). The cognitive neuroscience of music. OUP Oxford.

viii. Puyjarinet, F., Bégel, V., Lopez, R., Dellacherie, D., & Dalla Bella, S. (2017). Children and adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder cannot move to the beat. Scientific Reports, 7(1)

ix. Sharda, M., Tuerk, C., Chowdhury, R., Jamey, K., Foster, N., Custo-Blanch, M., … & Hyde, K. (2018). Music improves social communication and auditory–motor connectivity in children with autism. Translational psychiatry, 8(1)

Music-Education-Collins-1Download

‘Evidence-based teaching’ –  the term is everywhere at the moment.

Misty Adoniou explains why evidence based learning is not a new phenomenon. It has always been a part of a teacher’s pedagogy and is used in every classroom every day…

The Federal government committed $34.6 million in the 2024 Budget ‘to make evidence-based curriculum and student wellbeing support and professional development materials. In July NSW launched a ‘revamped’ curriculum that is ‘clear, evidence-based and carefully sequenced’. (NSW Government, 2024)

Who can argue? We all want our children taught by methods that have evidence behind them. Yet these political pronouncements, and the accompanying media frenzy, seem to imply that up until now this has not been the case.

But of course, our children have always been taught through evidence-based methods. All teacher education degrees are evidence-based. Departments of Education have always used evidence to develop curricula and provide professional learning for teachers.

Teacher Education has been an academic discipline for over a century. That is about 50 years longer than Macroeconomics, 60 years longer than Cognitive Psychology and 75 years longer than Media Studies.

To be a member of the ‘academy’, the field of Teacher Education fulfils the requirements of being a science. This means conducting studies under defined conditions to ensure validity, reliability and accuracy, and submitting those studies for peer review to have them questioned, clarified, rejected or accepted. This is how knowledge is built in the sciences – including in Teacher Education which has about 130 years of this scientific knowledge building behind it.

The NSW and Federal governments have both declared initiatives to make curricula ‘evidence-based’. Yet, the national Australian Curriculum we have today, and which is taught in some form or other in every Australian school, including NSW, drew on a huge evidence base from domestic and international studies, and several years of research consultations with academics and educators before it was finally released in 2011. It has undergone many reviews since then, making changes in response to new evidence from research studies in curriculum, teaching and learning. The latest review was in 2021, and we are now at Version 9 of our national curriculum. We have always had evidence-based curricula – it has always been the task of the various federal, state and territory curriculum authorities to ensure this.

Victoria’s Education Minister announced in June 2024 that his Department will mandate ‘evidence-based teaching and learning’ from 2025.

Victoria has always provided evidence-based teaching and learning guidance for its teachers, most recently in 2018 with its ten High Impact Teaching Strategies (HITS) highlighting clear goals, structured lessons and explicit teaching as its top 3 strategies. These were developed from researcher John Hattie’s evidence base gathered in his synthesis of 800 meta-analyses of research studies on school achievement.

So if we have always used evidence-based practices and curricula in schools, what are these most recent pronouncements about?

Why give this public impression that our teacher education faculties, education departments, school leaders, and teachers have been operating for decades on a whim, rather than on the evidence?

Why? Because ‘Evidence-based teaching’ is actually being used as shorthand for ‘the approach I favour’ or  ‘the approach that worked for someone I know’, or even ‘the approach I have a vested interest in’.

And too many of those advocating for these ‘evidence-based practices’ either misunderstand, or deliberately misrepresent what evidence is.

This is what evidence is NOT.

Evidence is NOT proof.

Evidence is NOT static or absolute.

Evidence is NOT neutral.

Evidence IS contextual.

Evidence IS open to interpretation.

Evidence is not neutral. Studies are designed to gather evidence within a theoretical paradigm. Both the goals and the methods of the study are informed by a theory. If the informing theory of learning is behaviourist, where learning is deemed cognitive and moderated by repetition and reward, the research study will look for different evidence than a study situated within a social constructivist theory, where learning is deemed social and moderated by interactions with expert others in the pursuit of meaning.

Evidence is contextual. Each research study context has multiple variables: historical context, socio-economic context, cultural context, situational context, the number, age, gender, social and economic status, the cognitive and emotional wellbeing of the participants.  Evidence gathered in one context is not proof similar evidence will be generated in another context.

Indeed the contextual variability of classrooms is a nightmare for clinical scientists, whose methods are highly dependent upon controlling variables. It is impossible to recreate classroom conditions in a lab. And even when studies are conducted in classrooms, it is impossible to control the variables and replicate the conditions from one classroom to another.

However we have always known this challenge. Researchers reviewing data sets or conducting clinical experiments are not the only people gathering evidence to inform teaching practice. Teachers gather evidence every hour, every day, in every classroom in Australia. Teachers are scientists.

It is why teacher education institutions train teachers in the scientific method. Over their 4 year degree, primary school teachers are taught how to conduct their own studies, gathering evidence from their own classrooms to build robust evidence-based practices that work in their contexts for their students. They plan and record these studies in a document called a lesson plan – the equivalent of a lab report – for every lesson they conduct.

The lesson plan starts with a learning goal – or hypothesis – which describes the learning that will occur in the lesson. These goals come directly from the government mandated evidence-based curricula.

The plan then states how achievement against the goal will be measured e.g. through observation, collection of work samples, interviews, testing etc

Materials and resources required to achieve the learning goal are listed.

Conditions for the learning are described with time allocations, and organisational structures for the lesson. E.g. in pairs, whole class, self-assigned groups, teacher-assigned groups and how much time will be allocated to each task

The plan describes how the teaching will deal with known variables. E.g. audio support for learning impaired student, supplemental written and visual instructions on task cards for student with autism etc

A method is given – a sequential and detailed account of what will occur during the lesson to achieve the learning goal. The method is shaped by the informing theory for the lesson.

An assessment is conducted of the students’ achievements against the learning goal and the results recorded.

Finally an evaluation occurs – a discussion of the results. Was the learning goal achieved – by whom? Why did it work or not work? Were there limitations? What adjustments need to be made for the next lesson?

Teachers conduct this scientific gathering of evidence with every planned lesson they teach, as many as 6 per day. Teachers spend all day every day building evidence-based teaching practices. Yet their voices, and their findings are strangely absent from these most recent and most earnest evidence-based directives from government.

Every time an educator hears the term ‘evidence-based’ practice it is incumbent upon the educational scientist within each of us to ask:

Evidence of what?

Why was it generated – what question were they seeking to answer?

How was the evidence gathered – what was the informing theory?

Where was it generated?

When was it generated?

Who were the study participants?

This allows us to firstly decide whether it is a practice we need to trial in our own context – is it solving a problem that we have, and secondly understand its limitations due to contextual differences and the possible need to make adjustments to its implementation.

For example, let’s say the proposed practice or program has evidence it improves decoding skills in 6 year old monolingual urban students with language delays.

A target school’s testing shows their 6 year olds have good decoding skills but their 10 year olds have poor comprehension skills. Thus there would be no reason for the school to trial the proposed evidence-based practice as it does not address their issue.

Another target school in a low SES regional area has 6 year old multilingual students with poor decoding skills. The school may trial the practice but make adjustments for the fact that the evidence base is for a student cohort in a different location and with different language needs.

If the practice is shown to also be effective for their cohort they should report the results to their peers so the entire education community can learn from their study. Equally, if it is found to be ineffective for their cohort, they should drop the trial, and report the results. They should not continue blindly with an evidence-based practice which is ineffective in their context or irrelevant to their needs simply because it has been ‘mandated’.

This is actually what evidence-based practice means. Trialling evidence-based research in your own teaching context, seeing whether it works and being agile and informed enough to adjust the practice, or reject it, when it isn’t working. 

We can only hope that our Education Ministers have understood this. Their words and actions so far suggest they haven’t.

References


NSW Government Media release (July 24, 2024) Landmark new primary school curriculum to drive better education outcomes

https://www.nsw.gov.au/media-releases/landmark-new-primary-school-curriculum-to-drive-better-education-outcomes#:~:text=The%20Minns%20Labor%20Government%20is,receive%20the%20best%20education%20possible.

Premier of Victoria media release (June 2024)Making Best Practice Common Practice In The Education State

https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/making-best-practice-common-practice-education-state


About the author


Misty Adoniou is an Adjunct Associate Professor in Language, Literacy and TESOL at the University of Canberra, and a Principal Fellow at Melbourne Graduate School of Education. She has received numerous teaching awards, including a National Citation for Outstanding Contribution to Student Learning and the Vice-Chancellor’s Award for Teaching Excellence.

She was a lead writer for the national English as an Additional Language Teachers Resource which accompanies the Australian Curriculum. She was a contributing writer for ACARA’s Language Learning Progressions. She also wrote the Federal government’s Orientation curriculum for newly arrived adult refugees.

She believes in the advocacy power of professional voices and the importance of professional associations in corralling that strength. She has served as the President of two national teachers associations – TESOL Greece, and the Australian Council of TESOL Associations. She is currently on the board of Directors of TESOL International, an affiliation of 105 teachers associations around the globe.

She currently works directly with schools, overseas and around Australia, leading professional learning in the teaching of spelling, grammar and writing.

Evidence-Based-Teaching-AdoniouDownload

Achieving excellence and equity in Australian schools

Professor Jenny Gore shares the history of the use of Quality Teaching Rounds in NSW public schools and explores the positive impact of the approach on student outcomes . . .

Lost in the growing call in NSW for a “back-to-basics” approach to curriculum, teaching and learning is recognition of the complex, intellectual work teachers do in every lesson to ensure relevant, meaningful, and powerful learning experiences. More than ever, in the face of growing classroom complexity, burgeoning workloads, budget constraints, high stress and burnout, the realities of teachers’ work should be recognised.

Our research on Quality Teaching Rounds professional development provides such recognition. It supports teachers by building morale, efficacy, and collegiality while simultaneously improving the quality of teaching and lifting student academic achievement.

The Quality Teaching approach

More than 20 years ago, Associate Professor James Ladwig and I were commissioned by the NSW Department of Education to develop an evidence-based pedagogical framework to improve teaching quality across the state. Drawing on a wide body of research and hundreds of hours of lesson observations, the Quality Teaching (QT) Model was born (Ladwig & King, 2003). The Model addresses three key ideas:

  1. Intellectual Quality: Developing deep understanding of important knowledge
  2. Quality Learning Environment: Ensuring positive classrooms that boost student learning
  3. Significance: Connecting learning to students’ lives and the wider world

Under these dimensions sit 18 elements based on evidence of teaching practice that improves student outcomes. Launched in 2003, the QT Model has been the Department’s framework for teaching since. But creating a framework is never enough to change practice and impact teachers and students. We needed a powerful way to support teachers to embed the Model in their everyday work.

A series of research studies between 2009 and 2012 developed and refined the approach to professional development we call Quality Teaching Rounds, or QTR (Bowe & Gore, 2017). QTR brings teachers together to learn from each other and improve their practice. Any four teachers form a professional learning community (face-to-face or online) and then observe, analyse and discuss one another’s lessons using the QT Model across four days of professional learning.

QTR treats teachers as professionals and builds on what they already know and do. Importantly, it doesn’t dictate particular teaching methods but focuses attention on improving pedagogy to make a difference where it matters most – ensuring high quality student learning experiences.

Improving the quality of teaching

In 2014–15, with funding from the NSW Department of Education, we undertook the first randomised controlled trial on QTR. This trial set out to investigate the impact of QTR on the quality of teaching, teacher morale, and sense of recognition and appraisal. The trial, which involved 192 teachers from 24 NSW government schools, found significant positive effects on teaching quality for primary and secondary teachers, those in metropolitan and rural locations, regardless of their years of experience. Importantly, these effects were sustained six months later (Gore et al., 2017).

We also found participation in QTR had significant positive effects on teacher morale and sense of recognition and appraisal, and our qualitative data showed it improved collaboration among teachers, boosted beginning teacher confidence, and rejuvenated experienced teachers (Gore & Bowe, 2015; Gore & Rickards, 2021).

Our theory of change was supported by these findings. Improve the quality of teaching to improve student learning. But we needed to test the causal link between QTR and student achievement.

Funded by a $17.2M philanthropic grant from the Paul Ramsay Foundation, the Building Capacity for Quality Teaching in Australian Schools, 2018–2023, remains unprecedented in the Australian education research landscape for its investment, scope, and ambition. The project also received funding and support from the NSW Department of Education, the Australian Research Council, and the University of Newcastle.

Through three interrelated activities – research, scaling, and setting up a sustainable business model – we set out to comprehensively explore what QTR could do for schooling in Australia (Gore et al., 2023).

Australia’s largest education randomised controlled trial

Between 2019 and 2023 we conducted a series of randomised controlled trials to investigate the impact of QTR on student and teacher outcomes in a range of contexts. These trials are the “gold standard” for research because voluntary participants are randomly allocated to either “intervention” (in our case QTR) or “control” (PD as usual) groups.

Randomised controlled trials are common in medicine. But they are much rarer in education because they typically involve “clustered” groups (students within classes within schools) and, therefore, require really large samples of teachers and students to account for this complexity. The need to collect data ourselves, using ACER’s progressive achievement tests (because NAPLAN data wasn’t fit for purpose due to the two year interval), made these trials hugely expensive.

Our first trial in NSW involved almost 500 teachers from 120 public schools and was the largest randomised controlled trial in Australian education. In total our four trials in this program of research involved 1,400 teachers and 14,500 students from 430 schools across New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland.

As well as experimental evidence in the form of randomised trials, the program of research included case studies, longitudinal research (where we tracked teachers over the five years of the study), and evaluations of a partnership model for whole-school engagement in QTR which focused on improving outcomes for teachers and students in disadvantaged schools.

No other school-based intervention has been so thoroughly tested in Australian schools or amassed such a comprehensive body of evidence.

QTR improves student outcomes

These trials replicated the results of the 2014–15 study, demonstrating that teacher participation in QTR improves the quality of teaching, teacher morale, sense of recognition and appraisal, and school culture. For the first time, we also tested for, and found, increased teacher efficacy.

Most importantly, three of the four trials in the Building Capacity project produced robust evidence of positive effects on student achievement. Excitingly, we found these results were stronger in disadvantaged schools, signalling the potential for QTR to help narrow pervasive equity gaps (Gore et al., 2021; Harris et al., 2022; Povey et al., 2023).

Our studies compared students’ scores on progressive achievement tests in mathematics and reading. Across the four trials (including one conducted by the University of Queensland and one by ACER to provide independent replication), we tested students in Term 1 to provide a baseline score and then again in Term 4 after their teachers had participated in QTR (intervention group) or completed their usual PD (control group).

While we didn’t see an identical set of results in every study, three of the four trials produced statistically significant positive effects on student learning. These improvements ranged from two-to-three months’ worth of additional achievement growth in mathematics and reading for the students whose teachers participated in QTR compared to teachers who didn’t.

Education research is messy. Mixed results are common in education given the complexity of conducting research in schools. An analysis of large-scale education randomised trials in the US and UK found that only one quarter of trials produced a statistically significant result. For example, a trial of Dylan Wiliam’s formative assessment program found improvements of one month’s growth, however, these improvements were not statistically significant.

Achieving significant results in multiple trials is especially rare and even more remarkable considering the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that QTR professional development is “distal” from the student achievement measure – meaning, we changed teachers’ pedagogy and improved academic achievement, rather than a “proximal” intervention focused specifically on the instruction of mathematics or reading.

Importantly, these results were amplified by the qualitative insights of teachers and principals throughout the project. These rich qualitative data enabled a deeper understanding of how, why, and under what conditions QTR is effective (Gore et al., 2023). Here are just two examples:

“Long after the QTR process is done, I don’t think I’ll ever not think about these 18 elements to some level as I go through my practice. Even now when I start thinking about planning the next area or planning the next unit, I will run through the things in my head like, “How am I going to make sure I’m inclusive? How am I going to make sure that I look at different cultural knowledge? Where can I draw on the kids’ background knowledge?” I just find it’s going to be beneficial and helpful long term.” (Ava, teacher in a metropolitan secondary school)

“QTR is the vehicle through which we can achieve our school’s goals. It’s not the end point. It’s enabling that professional learning, that reflection, that dialogue to happen. And that’s going to improve our knowledge of students, improve explicit teaching, improve lesson planning. That’s going to improve all those elements that sit underneath the QT Model. That’s all going to be what we achieve through Rounds.” (Gwen, principal in a metropolitan secondary school)

What next?

Thanks to the funding provided in the Building Capacity project, teachers across Australia can access QTR through our non-profit social enterprise, the QT Academy.

The Australian Government has also provided funding for 1,600 teachers to take part in a free QTR workshop between 2023 and 2026 as part of the National Teacher Workforce Action Plan (Department of Education, 2022). The Strengthening Induction through QTR project aims to improve the morale, confidence, job satisfaction, and retention of early career teachers across Australia (Teachers and Teaching Research Centre, 2024).

Our partnership with Cessnock High School, one of the most disadvantaged schools in NSW, led to the school achieving the greatest NAPLAN growth from Year 7 to 9 in the Hunter region and the 11th greatest in the state by engaging in whole school Quality Teaching Rounds (Duffy, 2024). Simultaneously, teachers reported greater morale and improved school culture, which are critical factors in addressing the current teacher shortage crisis.

“We are really proud of the results we have achieved so far. We’re not just trying to help kids through school here, we’re trying to help the Cessnock community by producing kids who are capable of getting quality jobs, being able to operate as a community member, and adding to our community.” (Peter Riley, Principal, Cessnock High School)

Thanks to additional funding from the Paul Ramsay Foundation, this partnership model is now being rolled out to 25 disadvantaged schools in NSW to support teachers and improve outcomes with a key focus on equity.

Our research shows the Quality Teaching approach, which was born here in NSW, has clear potential to address many of the most pressing concerns facing education in this country. By engaging in QTR on a wide scale, we can support the teaching workforce while achieving excellence and more equitable outcomes for Australian students.

References

Bowe, J. M., & Gore, J. M. (2017). Reassembling teacher professional development: The case for Quality Teaching Rounds. Teachers and Teaching, 23, 352–366.

Department of Education. (2022). National Teacher Workforce Action Plan. https://www.education.gov.au/national-teacher-workforce-action-plan

Duffy, C. (2024, April 14). Teachers once feared working at Cessnock High, now it’s a model for best practice. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-14/formerly-violent-nsw-high-school-sets-model-for-teaching/103675354

Gore, J. M., & Bowe, J.M. (2015). Interrupting attrition? Re-shaping the transition from preservice to inservice teaching through Quality Teaching Rounds. International Journal of Educational Research, 73, 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.05.006

Gore, J., Lloyd, A., Smith, M., Bowe, J., Ellis,H., & Lubans, D. (2017). Effects of a professional development on the quality of teaching: Results from a randomised controlled trial of Quality Teaching Rounds. Teaching and Teacher Education, 68, 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.08.007

Gore, J., Miller, A., Fray, L., Harris, J., & Prieto-Rodriguez, E. (2021). Improving student achievement through professional development: Results from a randomised controlled trial of Quality Teaching Rounds. Teaching and Teacher Education, 101, Article 103297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103297

Gore, J., Miller, A., Fray, L., & Patfield, S. (2023). Building capacity for quality teaching in Australian schools 2018–2023. Teachers and Teaching Research Centre, The University of Newcastle. http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1493345

Gore. J. M., & Rickards, B. (2021). Rejuvenating experienced teachers through Quality Teaching Rounds professional development. Journal of Educational Change, 22, 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09386-z

Harris, J., Miller, D., Gore, J., & Holmes, M. (2022). Building capacity for quality teaching in Australian schools: QTR Digital RCT final report. Teachers and Teaching Research Centre, University of Newcastle. http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1471857

Ladwig, J. G., & King, M. B. (2003). Quality teaching in NSW public schools: An annotated bibliography. NSW Department of Education and Training, Professional Support and Curriculum Directorate.

Povey, J., Porter, M., Kennedy, L., Potia, A., Bellotti, M., & Austerberry, S. (2023). Building capacity for quality teaching in Australian Schools: Queensland replication study – final report. Institute for Social Science Research, University of Queensland. http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1471855

Teachers and Teaching Research Centre. (2024). Strengthening Induction through Quality Teaching Rounds. The University of Newcastle. https://www.newcastle.edu.au/research/centre/teachers-and-teaching/quality-teaching-rounds/strengthening-induction-through-qtr

About the author

Laureate Professor Jenny Gore AM is the Director of the Teachers and Teaching Research Centre at the University of Newcastle. With almost $35 million in external funding since 1992, Jenny’s research is driven by the notion that all children should experience high quality teaching. Her ongoing work with colleagues on Quality Teaching and Quality Teaching Rounds over the last decade has shown how this framework can effectively support teacher professional development, increase teacher satisfaction, enhance teaching quality in schools, and improve student achievement while narrowing equity gaps. Jenny’s research on improving teaching and learning saw the QT Academy established in 2020. She has received awards and recognition from the ACDE, ACEL, AARE, AERA, ASSA, Royal Society of NSW, the Paul Brock Memorial Medal and was most recently awarded a Member of the Order of Australia (AM) in the 2024 Australia Day Honours for significant service to tertiary education.

Achieving-Equity-and-Excellence-in-Australian-Schools-GoreDownload

Public Education and Privatisation in Australia

Maurie Mulheron offers a timely analysis of the impact privatisation has had on Australia’s public education system…

Debunking the myth of privatisation’s benefits to education

It was the economist Milton Friedman decades ago who described public education as “an island of socialism in a free market” society.[1] As a high priest of neo-liberal economic theory, the highly influential Friedman and others called for all public services to be privatized including public education, which they argued needed to be turned into a free market characterized by competition and choice. Initially regarded as the viewpoint of extremists this ideology has, certainly since the 1980s, become a political and economic orthodoxy central to policy positions of many governments across the globe, including Australia.

Schools

Australian schooling was always characterized by deep inequalities but, as neo-liberal economics became dominant from the 1980s onwards, the divide between socially advantaged and disadvantaged students widened considerably as policy settings designed to favour private schooling were enacted. Enrolments in private or non-government schools in Australia, almost all of which are owned and run by religions, have now reached approximately 40 per cent of all students.

Private schools have the right to charge uncapped fees, have total autonomy as to which students they enrol, and are exempted from anti-discrimination laws. What this has created is a form of educational apartheid where over 80 per cent  of low socio-economic status (SES) students are enrolled in public schools with only approximately 18 per cent  enrolled in private schools. Similar enrolment ratios remain constant for Indigenous students, those living in remote locations, students from a refugee background, those with a language background other than English, and students with a disability.

School funding policies introduced to embed ‘competition and choice’ have meant that private schools in Australia receive significant annual federal government funding, including huge grants for capital works. In addition, at the state government level, private schools receive recurrent and capital funding. A landmark review in 2011 created a national Schooling Resource Standard (SRS) intended to measure the amount of additional public funding schools should receive based on student need.[2] Despite this, it is estimated that private schools were over-funded by approximately $1 billion for the period 2020–23 while public schools were under-funded by $19 billion.[3] Essentially, the public system which is doing the ‘heavy lifting’ is vastly under-resourced for the challenges its teachers face on a daily basis.

Successive Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) reports have confirmed that social segregation is a defining feature of Australian schooling. The ideology of treating schooling as a market-place has resulted in Australia having the highest degree of school choice of any OECD country but with huge concentrations of disadvantaged students, low equity in provision, and social segregation.

There are now massive gaps across Australia in academic achievement between high SES and low SES students of up to several years of schooling. For example, recent national testing data reveals that 29% of low SES Year 9 students (15 years of age) were below the writing standard and 16 percent were below the numeracy standard. For Year 9 Indigenous students, the proportion not achieving the national reading standard is 11 times higher than for high SES students.[4]

Choice has not enlarged the educational opportunities of the poor. Indeed, the tendency for choice to segregate children in the lower bands of socio-economic status has created worsening conditions for the populations who most depend on the effectiveness of public schools. Growth in public and private spending in the non-government sector has operated to remove more culturally advantaged children and young people from the public systems, leaving these systems less supported culturally by a balanced mix of students from different family backgrounds.[5]

While the history of how Australia found itself in this situation is as complex as it is torturous, the experience of prioritizing private advantage over social good contrasts with other countries as shown in a 2013 comparative study of Australia and Canada,

The relationship between school SES and student outcomes is generally stronger in Australia than in Canada. An important and visible difference between the Australian and Canadian educational systems is the degree to which they are marked by school choice, privatisation, and social segregation. In Australia, these features of educational marketization have provided unequal access to resources and “good” schools and have led to levels of social exclusion and segregation higher than in comparable, highly developed countries such as Canada.[6]

Of course, while funding policies have weakened the public education system in Australia, there are other forces at play. Governments in Australia, as elsewhere, no longer regard the provision of public services as primarily their responsibility with privatisation occurring throughout the public sector including in: postal and communication services, transport, roads, shipping ports, airports, health care, welfare, prisons, security services, employment services, housing, and energy. It could be argued that schooling is the last great public enterprise. But since the 1980s national systems of education have been left unprotected from an emerging global education industry that sees compulsory schooling as an under-capitalized market with a permanent and ever-increasing customer base, children.

Governments have created the conditions for the commercialization of education services. National testing regimes, such as the Australian National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) along with accompanying accountability and data infrastructures, have gifted enormous influence to education technology giants, sidelining teachers and too often wresting control of the curriculum from them. Further, as government education departments retreat from providing professional support and resources to teachers, the vacuum is filled by firms in the obvious areas of student assessment, but also in school administration, student well-being, teacher professional development, and curriculum delivery. “Commercialization is big business. Many commercial providers generate large profits for shareholders by selling goods and services to schools, districts, and systems.”[7]

However, the role of large corporations is much more opaque at the government level. Global consultancy firms, such as the “Big 4”: PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler (KPMG), Deloitte, and Ernst and Young, work inside of government departments such as the New South Wales (NSW) Department of Education with direct influence over policy development and strategic planning. In the state of NSW, tens of millions of dollars have been paid to these firms, without consultation with the teaching profession and in the absence of public scrutiny.[8] In a report commissioned by the NSW Teachers Federation the researchers found that:

The reduced capacity of the state has opened up spaces and opportunities for edu-businesses to expand their role in schools and schooling systems, largely on a for-profit basis. Private corporations have also sought an enhanced role in all stages of the policy cycle in education (from agenda setting, research for policy, policy text production, policy implementation and evaluation, provision of related professional development, and resources) in what has been referred to as the ‘privatisation of the education policy community’.[9]

Since the report was published, the direct influence of the corporate consultancies and edu-businesses has increased dramatically. It should come as no surprise that the Big 4 consultancy firms are generous donors to Australia’s two major political parties.[10]

Vocational Education and Training: A case study

The most striking example of the catastrophic impact of the application of market forces to education is in the area of Australia’s post-compulsory Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector.

Until relatively recently, the provision of vocational education and training was largely the responsibility of the public system known as Technical and Further Education (TAFE). It existed as a national system in every state and territory of Australia, administered at a state level, and with an enormous reach into local communities. Despite chronic underfunding compared to other sectors, TAFE was highly regarded, providing skills training for industries, trades, small business, and emerging professions. In addition, it provided more general and further education, particularly to those re-joining the workforce, or those mature age citizens seeking additional qualifications including entry to university. In contrast to the Australian university sector, enrolments by students from a disadvantaged background was much higher in TAFE.

The watershed moment was April 2012 when all state and territory governments met with the federal government at a Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting and agreed to introduce a radical restructuring of vocational education and training. Within a short period, a new funding regime based on the market model was introduced. There were two key requirements which became the architecture for the privatisation of the sector and the destruction of the public provider, TAFE. Firstly, what was called entitlement funding was introduced. This was simply a voucher system. Secondly, a student loan scheme, an income contingent loan model, was introduced. Both these mechanisms were underpinned by a requirement that state governments had to open up all funding to the private sector and that the funding had to be allocated on a competitive basis.

It soon became clear what the national agreement meant. Voucher funding detached the funding from the actual TAFE college and attached it to the individual student. The connection between funding and the TAFE college was severed. In short, the public provider’s funding was now precarious, no longer guaranteed.

VET students were to pay the full cost of a qualification, without any government subsidy, to either private for-profit providers –  which under the national agreement were allowed to charge fees up to AUD$99,000 – or to TAFE. This became the incentive for private for-profit training companies to increase tuition fees dramatically, and offer only those courses that would maximize profits. Students and their families soon found that the charging of fees was completely unregulated. Within the first two years of the scheme, 84% of income contingent loans from government to students went to private for-profit companies.

Student debt ballooned but many students also discovered that the private training organisations did not necessarily complete the course or even offer the actual training. Students in this situation were left with the debt but no qualification. Media stories began to appear of private training organisations aggressively targeting disadvantaged students with brokers waiting outside employment agencies to sign up students or setting up kiosks in suburban shopping malls offering incentives such as free iPads.

The impact of the 2012 national agreement on the teachers in TAFE was devastating. Without guaranteed funding, the employer attacked salaries and working conditions. In some states of Australia, the levels of casualisation grew to 80% of the workforce. Across Australia some TAFE colleges closed, courses were scrapped, and student numbers plummeted. In 2012, the number of permanent and temporary teaching positions in New South Wales, was 17,104. By 2022, ten years on from the national agreement this had dropped to 8,197, a net loss of 8,907 teachers from the public system in just one state.

Of course, VET teachers, through their national and state unions, and academics working in this area had warned government of the dire consequences if the market model was introduced.[11] They were ignored.


Conclusion

While education has always been an area of public policy that has been contested, where historically, tensions between church and the state have played out, where individual privilege keeps challenging the very idea of public good, and where social conservatives have consistently attempted to control the school curriculum, in recent years we have witnessed a much more aggressive, coherent, and global campaign against public education that is underpinned by the ideology of the market. It is this influence of neoliberal ideology that is having the most dramatic effect on public education around the world. It is up to teachers, professional allies, and the community to be alert to the dangers and to fight to retain control. Our children and young people deserve nothing less.

*This article was originally published as “Public education and privatization in Australia” in the December 2023 edition of Education Forum, the official magazine of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF). Republished with permission. See Public education and privatization in Australia – Education Forum (education-forum.ca)

About the author

Maurie was a teacher and principal with 34 years of experience teaching in public high schools in rural, regional and metropolitan New South Wales.  From 2012-2020, he served as President of the NSW Teachers Federation, and concurrently as Deputy Federal President of the Australian Education Union from 2015-2020. During this time, Maurie was a key member of Education International’s Global Response Network which coordinated international opposition to the growing commercialisation and privatisation of education.

Endnotes


[1] Fiala, Thomas J. and Owens, Deborah (April 23, 2010) “Education Policy and Friedmanomics: Free Market Ideology and Its Impact on School Reform” Paper presented at the 68th Annual National Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, USA p22.

[2] https://www.education.gov.au/school-funding/resources/review-funding-schooling-final-report-december-2011

[3] Rorris, Adam (May 2022) “School Funding in Australia —Overview and a RoadMap” Centre for Public Education Research. https://www.cper.edu.au/podcasts/school-funding-in-australia-an-overview

[4] Cobbold, Trevor (December 2022) “Close the Gaps Between Rich and Poor.” https://saveourschools.com.au

[5] Teese, R. (2011), From opportunity to outcomes. The changing role of public schooling in Australia and national funding arrangements, Centre for Research on Education Systems, University of Melbourne.

[6] Perry, Laura B and McConney, Andrew (2013) “School socioeconomic status and student outcomes in reading and mathematics: A comparison of Australia and Canada” Australian Journal of Education 57(2) p138.

[7] Hogan, Anna and Thompson, Greg (December 2017) “Commercialization in Education” in Noblit, G W (Ed.) Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Oxford University Press, United Kingdom, pp. 1-19.

[8] “NSW Education pays Deloitte $9.1m to write documents for NSW Treasury” (3 March 2021) Australian Financial Review.

[9] Lingard, Bob; Sellar, Sam; Hogan, Anna; and Thompson, Greg; (2017) “Commercialisation in Public Schooling (CIPS)”. New South Wales Teachers Federation: Sydney, NSW. pp7-8.

[10] “Spend a buck, gain a thousand: Big Four political donations reach record levels” (4 February 2020). Big Four consulting firms’ political donations reach record levels (crikey.com.au)

[11] Wheelahan, Leesa “The race to the bottom in the VET market & why TAFE cannot win” (1 May 2013) Submission to House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment Inquiry into TAFE.

Public-Education-and-Privatisation-in-Australia-MulheronDownload

Continuity and change: Some key moments in the history of junior secondary English in New South Wales

As teachers grapple with a revised English K-10 Syllabus, Professor Jackie Manuel provides a thorough and engaging history of secondary English in NSW…

Introduction

The release of a revised New South Wales (NSW) English K-10 Syllabus (NESA, 2022) is an opportune moment to revisit some of the historical milestones that have shaped the subject over the past 113 years. As Reid (2003) reminds us:

[r]etrieving intellectual history is not an antiquarian pursuit. Anyone wanting to be a well informed professional needs to understand certain continuities that link English curriculum discourses and practices with previous discourses and practices (p. 100).

What follows is a version of a presentation to NSW secondary English teachers in 2023 for the Centre for Professional Learning (CPL) at the NSW Teachers’ Federation. My aim was to highlight just some of the ‘continuities’ between the current and previous 7-10 English syllabus documents and to identify aspects of the conceptualisation of the subject that have shifted over the course of more than a century. In other words: where have we come from; what has changed; and what has endured?

The history of English curriculum in NSW is deep and complex[1]. For that reason, the discussion here is limited to a handful of syllabus documents that provide some insights into the formation, continuities and shifts in secondary English since the early 1900s. I focus on particular features of the:

  • inaugural Courses for Study in High School released in 1911;
  • NSW version of ‘Newbolt’ English in the 1953 syllabus;
  • introduction of film, media, comics in the 1961/1962 syllabus; and the
  • ‘Growth’ 7-10 syllabus of 1971.

Where have we come from?

Secondary English in NSW as we know it today has its roots in the colonial period of the mid-to late 1800s when ‘[e]conomic and social transformation’ in the state ‘prompted a widening of the concept of the purposes of education’ (Hughes & Brock, 2008, p. 16). During this period, public education was increasingly viewed ‘as an important means of creating a skilled workforce to increase Australia’s competitiveness with the rest of the world’ (p. 16). Following the Public Instruction Act of 1880 the administration of public education became vested in the Minster of the Crown, supported by the NSW Department of Public Instruction. For the first time, public primary school education became accessible for all students and the state assumed responsibility for government secondary education (p. 10).

During the subsequent decades of the nineteenth century, however, criticism of state education intensified, leading to a Royal Commission in 1902 under the stewardship of G. H. Knibbs and J. W. Turner (Crane & Walker, 1957). The published findings of this inquiry identified a ‘lack of co-ordination’ within the secondary sector (p. 15), with the only unifying factor in secondary education being the attempts by teachers and students to meet the requirements of the Public Examinations held by the University of Sydney (Wyndham, 1967). While the scope of the Knibbs-Turner Report was limited to the reorganisation of the ‘administration of education’, the major reforms led by the first Director of Education in NSW, Peter Board (appointed in 1905) can be understood to have had the most significant and long-lasting influence on secondary English curriculum in this state (Brock, 1984a; Hughes & Brock, 2008).

1911: Courses of Study for High Schools

Introduced in NSW in 1911, the inaugural Courses of Study for High Schools (Courses) (NSW Department of Public Instruction) was part of the systematic reforms to establish universal, secular and free state-based education. The wide-scale changes taking place in education in NSW during the early twentieth century mirrored the rapid advances in education occurring in many countries, fuelled by the trans-cultural New Education movement (see, for example, Brock, 1984a; 1984b; 1986; Cormack & Green, 2000; Crane & Walker, 1957; Green, 2003; Green & Beavis, 1996; Green & Cormack, 2008; Hughes & Brock, 2008; Manuel & Carter, 2019; Patterson, 2000; Reid, 2002, 2003; Sawyer, 2009a, 2009b, 2010; Selleck, 1968). Hallmarks of the New Education are beliefs, discourses, ‘ideas and practices’ such as:

  • child-centred education, drawing on the philosophies and perspectives of, for example, Rousseau, Wordsworth, Arnold, Dewey and Newbolt (Sawyer, 2009a);
    • the Romantic ideal of the ‘child as artist’ (Mathieson, 1975, p. 56);
    • experiential and active education or ‘learning by doing’: ‘students are not to be passive recipients, but active participators – they must be fired to do things’ (Newbolt, 1921, p. 277);
    • education that had a close and ‘practical bearing on life’ (Newbolt, 1921, p. 3);
    • an emphasis on emotions, creativity, imagination, and interiority (Sawyer, 2009a);
    • education as a source of emancipation, optimism and aspiration;
    • education for identity formation, including the fostering of citizenship;
    • holistic child development that was socially mediated and relational; and
    • education as a powerful force in shaping social cohesion.

In NSW, these beliefs, discourses, ‘ideas and practices’ were keenly embraced by Peter Board. His role in championing and carrying forward the spirit and vision of a ‘new education’ system and the innovations occurring in Britain and elsewhere at the time cannot be over-estimated. Board’s determination to establish a centralised system of comprehensive primary and secondary education in NSW was inspired, in large part, by his ‘conversion’ to the New Education during his extensive study tours of England, Scotland, Europe, the United States and Canada between 1903 and 1911. Whilst abroad, he witnessed first-hand the revolutionary ‘ideas and practices’ flourishing in schools in those countries. His growing philosophical and practical commitment to the New Education was unambiguously instantiated in the 1911 Courses.

Figure 1: Facsimile of the cover of Courses of Study for High Schools (NSW Department of Public Instruction, 1911).

One of the more immediately striking features of the Courses (1911) is the relative brevity of the document compared to contemporary NSW syllabus documents. In a modest 100-odd pages, the 1911 document includes a syllabus for 10 subjects (English, History, Mathematics, Science, Geography, Languages, Drawing, Domestic Arts, Music and Economics and Commerce) along with:

  • a general introduction setting out the aim, rationale and purpose of secondary education;
  • timetables for each course;
  • Notes and Suggestions for teachers for each subject; and
  • prescribed text lists for subjects where relevant.

The Introduction to the Courses, which Board himself wrote and signed, enunciates that:

the aim of secondary education should be to combine the liberal elements of a curriculum with such studies as will furnish the student with a body of knowledge, habits of thought and trend of interests that have a distinctly practical outcome (1911, iv) (Emphasis added).

This belief in the need for education to be at the service of developing every student’s self-activity, interest, freedom of thought and feeling, identity and citizenship is inscribed in the discourse of the Introduction. For instance, it asserts that ‘whatever may be the path to which the teacher has directed the pupil, the pupil himself [sic] has travelled it and made all its features his [sic] own’ (1911, p. 7, p. 8). In fact, the child-centred rhetoric continues throughout the 1911 document in its explicit references to education:

  • as growth towards ‘self-dependence’;
  • nurturing the ‘art of independent study’;
  • cultivating ‘taste’, ‘conduct and character’; and
  • positioning the student as ‘an investigator, an experimenter’ (NSW Department of Public Instruction, 1911).

For Board, this new model of liberal education for all promised a singular pathway to forging a unified democracy in a new nation. The 1911 Introduction stresses the role of the high school in creating the ‘well educated citizen’ (p. 5) through both the study of certain subjects as ‘common ground’ and the kind of ‘fellowship’ engendered through the school’s social, cultural and intellectual activities: ‘[o]ut of these will grow the self-government … and the cultivation of social obligations, training in organisation and opportunities for leadership’ (1911, p. 8).

The rationale for the curriculum

The rationale for the inclusion of 10 subjects in the curriculum foregrounds the social, cultural, political, economic and epistemological values and agendas of the time, with stratified courses to prepare the professions, white collar workers, blue collar workers and, for the majority of females, domestic life. The gendered, class-based model of curriculum as an authorised but ideological construct functions to ‘preserve and distribute what is perceived to be “legitimate knowledge”’ (Apple, 1979, p. 63) and to ‘confer cultural legitimacy on the knowledge of specific groups’ (p. 63).

At the same time, however, the Introduction lays claim to the non-utilitarian purpose of education: all students were required to study a mandatory common core of subjects in each of the four courses, ‘having no immediate bearing on vocational ends’ (1911, p. 5): namely, English, History, Mathematics and Science. In the hierarchy of this curriculum, these four subjects were ascribed pre-eminent status as the ‘common meeting ground for all students of the High School’ (1911, p. 5). Despite the considerable shifts and advances in curriculum theory and educational research, and enormous socio-cultural changes since 1911, the current Australian Curriculum began with the development of curricula in these same four subjects. This reproduction of a curriculum hierarchy, and the attendant assumptions about the purpose of education that inhere in such a hierarchy, point to the powerful continuities in conceptualisations of secondary education, knowledge and the ‘well educated’ citizen (1911, p. 5).

English as the hub of the curriculum

Of the four mandatory ‘common ground’ subjects in the curriculum, English is singled out as the subject which, through the study of literature, ‘the High School will exercise its highest influence upon the general training of the pupils’ (1911, p. 5). Board’s blueprint for public secondary education, and for English education in particular, relied not only on the tenets of the New Education movement: it also placed a heavy emphasis on the moral, ethical and aesthetic formation of the child and his or her holistic growth, personal experience, creativity, and ‘self-activity’ (Hughes & Brock, 2008, p. 20).

From a total of seven-and-a-half pages, the content for English occupies one-third of the syllabus, while the Notes and Suggestions for teachers comprises two-thirds of the syllabus. The content of the English syllabus is structured in two parts.

  1. Literature – with prescribed text lists for each of the four years of secondary schooling that included:
  • Fiction
    • Poetry
    • Drama
    • Shakespearian Drama
    • Non-fiction (e.g. essays, biographies)

Figure 2: Facsimile of Courses of Study for High Schools (NSW Department of Public Instruction, 1911, p. 16)

  1. Language

(a) Composition – Oral and written.

(b) Grammar, Prosody, Word Composition. Practice in speaking and reading (p. 15).

In contrast to the Literature component of the syllabus, the Language component is brief and general. It discourages the explicit teaching of grammar or decontextualised language skills, emphasising instead the aim of meaningful engagement with language through reading and writing:

Formal instruction in the theory of expression will scarcely be needed. In any case, it is doubtful whether such instruction is effective in securing a good style of composition. The aim in this course is to develop an intelligent interest in the mother tongue and not to acquaint pupils with a body of details (1911, p. 21, p. 22) (Emphasis added).

The syllabus recommends that teachers ‘leave scope for variations in detail of the programmes’ (1911, p. iv) which extends to the practice of encouraging students to choose their own reading materials in addition to those prescribed and initiate their own topics for composition.

The Timetable in the Courses allocates the time to be spent in each subject area (pp. 10-14). The mandating of, and legislation for minimum hours for each subject area in the curriculum has remained a feature of education in NSW to the present, although the allocation of half of the school timetable to the individual student’s pursuits in the 1911 syllabus was steadily eroded as the number of subjects in the curriculum grew substantially in the early decades of the twentieth century.

English is positioned in the syllabus as a subject

having no immediate bearing on vocational ends, but designed to provide for the common needs and the common training for well educated citizenship … it is especially in the use of the mother tongue and the study of its literature that the High School will exercise its highest influence upon the general training of pupils (1911, p. 5, p. 18) (Emphasis added).

The ‘mother tongue’ is of course ‘English’ – and the literature referred to in this excerpt is predominantly British canonical literature. Foreshadowing the Newbolt Report’s (1921) belief in literature as ‘a possession and a source of delight, a personal intimacy and the gaining of personal experience, an end in itself and, at the same time, an equipment for the understanding of life’ (p. 19) is the view of literature conveyed in the 1911 syllabus:

The special educating power of Literature lies in its effect in developing the mind, filling it with high ideals and in its influence on refining and ennobling character’ … the works in the Literature Course have been chosen not merely for their value as a means of information, but as a source of higher pleasures, as a means of knowing life, and for their ethical or their literary value (1911, p. 5, p. 18) (Emphasis added).

Here the English syllabus stakes out the territory and defines the purpose of the subject by proclaiming the ethical, ‘moral, spiritual and intellectual value of reading literature’ (1911, p. 18). Literature, it states, is a ‘source of higher pleasures’, knowledge and understanding. The evangelistic tenor of the early twentieth century debates about the centrality of literature as a civilising force in the education of the young was equally captured in more public conversations such as, for example, in a piece by Professor Perkins published in the NSW Education Gazette in 1905. Perkins declared that ‘in our literature we have the most sacred relics of our race … the love of it idealises and humanises life … in general, unless a taste for literature be acquired in early life, it but rarely lightens our ways in the after times’ (NSW Education Gazette, 1905, p. 137).

Subject English is conceptualised as the curricular path to the ethical, moral, spiritual, intellectual and social development of the student. On this point, a critical dimension of the 1911 English syllabus is the mission to reclaim literature and literary study from what was perceived to be the overly ‘bookish’, ‘too remote from life’ (Newbolt, 1921, p. 165), and elitist nature of the study of Classics. The English syllabus warns that if a ‘book is merely to supply the pupil with something which he [sic] has to learn in order that he [sic] may afterwards reproduce it, the book will hinder rather than help the pupil’s real education’ (1911, p. 7). The belief that the ‘book’ must be at the service of enriching and expanding the student’s experience and knowledge is yet another example of the New Education ideas and values being imprinted in the 1911 English syllabus.

The English teacher as the ‘true starting point and foundation’

In the 1911 English syllabus, the teacher is charged with the primary responsibility for fostering a personalist, inquiry-based and problem-solving approach to teaching. The Introduction to the 1911 Courses advises that this goal can be achieved by the teacher selecting

the material that … will best give them a knowledge of the most influential thoughts of men [sic], what will best stimulate their own thought, what knowledge will best serve the practical purposes of the type of career they are likely to follow (p. 7) (Emphasis added).

The Notes and Suggestions for English, addressed directly to the teacher-as-audience, further reinforce the need for teacher professional judgment, informed by the needs of their students. They shed further light on the conceptualisation of English, the view of the student as an active participant in their own development, and the teacher as what Green and Cormack (2008) describe as a ‘sympathetic figure’ (p. 262) instantiating a Rousseau-inspired vision balancing authority with benevolent intentionality and attentive guidance through the ‘artifice and manipulation of “well-regulated” liberty’ (p. 254).

Summary of key features of the 1911 English syllabus

  • English as a compulsory subject in the curriculum;
  • literary study as the core of the syllabus;
  • prescribed types of texts and a text list for each year of the four years of secondary school;
  • sustained emphasis on child-centred approaches to teaching and learning that values student agency, choice and growing autonomy;
  • an aim and purpose that relies on discourses about the moral, spiritual, intellectual, social, physical and ethical development of the student; and
  • the need for the teacher to ensure student enjoyment, pleasure, aesthetic experience, skill development, knowledge and understanding.

Mid-century reforms: The 1953 syllabus

The 1911 NSW Courses of Study for High Schools and the secondary English syllabus within it, remained relatively unaltered through 15 subsequent editions. In 1953, a reformed secondary curriculum was developed (NSW Board of Secondary School Studies, 1953). Appearing more than 50 years after the inaugural 1911 syllabus, the 1953 English syllabus is widely recognised as the syllabus that enshrined the Newbolt conceptualisation of English in NSW (see Brock 1984a, 1984b, 1996). It served to further embed a set of ‘ideas and practices’, ‘epistemic assumptions’ and ‘disciplinary norms’ (Reid, 2002, p. 21) originating in 1911 that remained largely uncontested in successive syllabus documents in NSW.

As a means of more deliberately integrating the content of English so that the student’s use and understanding of and engagement with language through reading and listening serve as the overarching organising principle, the 1953 English syllabus saw a change in structure from Literature and Languageto:

A. Expression of Thought (speech, writing)

B. Comprehension of Thought (reading, listening)

C. Literature (reading, speaking, listening, composing)

(NSW Board of Secondary School Studies, 1953, p. 1).

The ideological commitment student-centred experiential learning; engagement with literature as a vehicle for expanding language use, knowledge and understanding and thereby self-development; emotions; enjoyment; imagination; and expressing and comprehending their own and others’ thought is clearly evident in the aim and rationale for this syllabus:

Preamble

Intention

The intention of this syllabus is to give pupils an experience of their language as a means of transmitting thought. Thought – its expression and its comprehension – is, therefore, the foundation of the syllabus …

Teachers will not confine themselves to the purely rational processes but will also deal with emotion and fantasy. Emotion and fantasy are the special care of the teacher of English. Literature, within whose province they come, has been made a separate section (p. 1) (Emphasis added).

Interestingly, the syllabus reprises the need for teachers to exercise professional judgment, based on the needs of their students. This syllabus explicitly recognises the diversity of both teachers and students. It unequivocally states that the syllabus is ‘suggestive rather than prescriptive’:

[i]t is recognised that the syllabus will be used by many teachers, each of whom is an individual, instructing many equally individual pupils with widely different abilities and backgrounds. Under these circumstances, teachers should regard it as suggestive rather than prescriptive, and should use it with due regard to the varying needs of the pupils (p. 1) (Emphasis added).

All composition should arise from the needs of the pupil, i.e. from the kind of thought that he (sic) needs to express … opportunity should be provided for personal writing (p. 13) (Emphasis added).

The Literature component of the syllabus continues to highlight the crucial elements of student pleasure and enjoyment, wide reading and the cultivation of ‘taste’:

C. Literature

1. The Objects of the Course in Literature are –

(i) To develop a liking for reading.

(ii) To widen, deepen, and sharpen the literary taste.

General Principles

The first object in teaching literature should be the creation of a liking for reading. No teaching can be held to be successful if it has not encouraged the pupil to read for himself [sic]; and if the pupil has been persuaded to take up a book of his [sic] own accord and read it for pleasure, something has been achieved.

The second object should be the widening, deepening and refining of literary taste. Literature is a humanising influence, a vicarious experience of man’s [sic] thought and actions (p. 18, p. 19) (Emphasis added).

Teachers are advised that ‘Literature should be interpreted very liberally’ (p. 19). For the first time, this syllabus includes film, radio and comics. There is a section on the principles that should guide text selection and these once again underline the need for teacher judgement and autonomy, student ‘taste and interest’, and student enjoyment:

  1. Choice of books
    … the teacher should see that both imaginative and non-imaginative literature receive fair representation.
    But other things governing the choice must be considered. The suitability of a book can only be determined by the class teachers. The taste and interests of the pupils must be of considerable influence.
    Include Modern literature and Australian literature.
    The first aim must be to encourage reading by making pupils realise the pleasure and satisfaction they can derive from books (p. 21) (Emphasis added).

As is the case in the 1911 syllabus, the 1953 syllabus pays special attention to the role of the school library in catering for students’ interests and ‘directing them to free reading’. It also carries through the 1911 approach to pedagogy by suggesting that: ‘[a] great deal of the teaching of poetry should be done through performance. Poetry was meant to be read aloud and it is only by reading aloud that pupils can experience the charm of poetic sound’ (p. 29). Importantly, the syllabus encourages students’ active composition of, for instance, poetry and narratives and advises that teachers should select worthwhile drama ‘from all available sources – stage, radio, screen’ (p. 19).

The Notes and Suggestions for teachers remained as Commentary in this syllabus, with the syllabus content on the left-hand page and the Commentary on the right-hand page. As is the case in the 1911 English syllabus, the content comprises around one-third of the syllabus, with the Commentary being two-thirds (with a total of 35 pages, compared to the seven-and-a-half pages in the 1911 English syllabus). The established practice of prescribing texts for each year continued (fiction, poetry, drama, Shakesperean drama, and non-fiction).

Reforms to secondary English in 1961/1962

The revised secondary English syllabus of 1961/1962 (NSW Secondary Schools Board, 1961/1962) includes a number of changes to the structure of the content. The tripartite structure of the 1953 syllabus (Expression of Thought, Comprehension of Thought, and Literature) is replaced by five sections:

  1. The Speaking of English.
    1. Reading and Comprehension.
    1. Written Expression.
    1. Language.
    1. Literature – (a) prose (b) poetry (c) drama.

(NSW Secondary Schools Board, 1961/1962, p. 2)

Although the structure is now broader, the syllabus notes that ‘for convenience, the activities of this English course, though intended to be integrated, are set out under separate headings … it is understood that work in the various sections will be simultaneous and cumulative’ (p. 2) (Emphasis added). The other major shift in this syllabus is the removal of prescribed text lists for each year. Instead, types of texts are prescribed with the teacher responsible for selecting the titles within the mandatory categories. The change implemented in this 1961/1962 syllabus for junior secondary has remained in place to the present.

The introductory comments, together with the aim and rationale, resonate with the now familiar discourses from earlier syllabus documents:

This syllabus presents a course in speaking, writing, reading and listening in English. Its primary intention is to develop in pupils, by experience in the use of language, a three-fold skill: the ability to express themselves in speech and writing; the ability to understand the speech and writing of others; and the ability to feel and appreciate the appeal of literature (p. 2).

Aim and Rationale

In its importance to the individual and society, however, the study of English goes far beyond the acquisition of mere skills in the subject. For the pupil, no other form of knowledge can take precedence over a knowledge in English … it is basic to comprehension and progress in all studies; it is, moreover, an important influence in the shaping of personality. … Civilisation is based on people’s awareness of human qualities, problems and values; and there is no better way of gaining this knowledge than through the reading of literature (p. 3) (Emphasis added).

Like the syllabus documents before it, the 1961/1962 syllabus encourages the use of the library for wide reading and personal interest:

  1. To provide pupils with a wide and enjoyable reading experience.
  2. To foster in them a desire to read by cultivating an awareness of the values of reading.
  3. To develop their powers of comprehension and judgment (p. 11).

It also encourages participation in drama as a means of ‘liberating personality and of developing clear and confident expression’ (p. 36).

These discourses about the purpose of English, student-centred, experiential learning, and the critical role of the teacher’s professional judgment and agency are expressed even more fulsomely in the English syllabus that followed in 1971 (NSW Secondary Schools Board).

The 1971 ‘Growth’ English syllabus

A substantial corpus of research and scholarship has focused on the 1971 English syllabus. Sawyer’s extensive contributions to this research and scholarship are particularly significant. Summing up the influences on and the impact of this syllabus, Sawyer states that:

[c]ommentators on the Syllabus have generally agreed that it was: (1) a ‘revolutionary’ document, certainly within NSW itself and (2) an institutionalised manifestation of the ‘growth model’ as then espoused especially by Dixon, Britton and others of the ‘London School’ (Brock 1984, vol. 1, 204; Homer 1973, 212; Watson 1994, 40; Davis and Watson 1990, 159). Brock (1993, 30) has even called it ‘[t]he first “personal growth” model syllabus anywhere in the English speaking world’.

Brock sees the two dominant factors in the creation of the Syllabus, so soon after Dartmouth, as the expansion and influence of the NSW English Teachers’ Association and the personal commitment of the chairman of the Syllabus Committee, Graham Little (Brock 1984, vol. I, 204–5) (Sawyer, 2010, p. 288).

Breaking with tradition, the first page of this syllabus presents 11 quotes taken from contemporary and historical educators and a previous syllabus, with the leading quote being from Dixon’s Growth Through English (1967): ‘English is the meeting point of experience, language and society’. These quotes signal both the new directions of this syllabus and an acknowledgement of the inheritance of a number of principles and philosophies of previous syllabus documents.

The syllabus contains the ‘triangle’ as a representation of the integration of the parts to the whole based on the principles, ideas and intended practices informing the teaching and learning. Little himself designed the triangle (Brock 1984, vol. I, p. 248). It is worth noting that this diagram stands as a precedent, paving the way for other diagrammatic representations of syllabuses to follow.

Figure 3: Facsimile of the triangle from the 1971 English 7-10 Syllabus (Secondary Schools Board, p. 7)

This 1971 syllabus includes Stage and Level Statements (another feature carried through to the present) and is organised according to a new layout and a new structure consisting of seven ‘contexts’:

  • Language
  • Literature
  • Listening and Observing
  • Speaking
  • Reading
  • Writing
  • Media

Media and Listening and Observing (what we now term as ‘viewing’) are added to the explicit ‘contexts’, thereby elevating their status in the formal curriculum. The syllabus still contains what had previously been known as Notes and Suggestions, and later as Commentary, although the Notes for the 1971 syllabus were updated yearly. The syllabus itself runs to 17 pages, while the Notes total 38 pages.

The Introduction, like those in syllabus documents that preceded it, identifies the rationale, aims and purpose:

Introduction

This syllabus assumes that English for twelve to sixteen year-olds should be an active pursuit: a matter of pupils developing competence by engaging in an abundance of purposeful language activities, enjoyable because they are appropriate to needs, interests and capacities …

For this reason, all objectives of English are stated as the ‘ability to do something’: to listen, read, speak and write and in doing so to interpret, discriminate, communicate, evaluate … to understand and use words to express ideas and personality and experience past and present culture. The competence sought is no mere utilitarian skill, but involves essentially human qualities of thought and feeling, because it is by language that we organise our human experience (p. 2) (Emphasis added).

The discourse here is redolent of that discernible in earlier syllabus documents and clearly instantiates the ideas and principles of the Growth model of English. The Introduction goes on to explicitly recognise the agentic role of the teacher and explicitly states that the syllabus is not prescriptive:

In stating the aims and objectives of English in this way, the syllabus does not prescribe, even by implication, the details of selection and organisation of any English course. Within the broad framework of the syllabus, those responsible for course-planning are free to use their professional judgment to develop their own courses according to the needs of their pupils (p. 2) (Emphasis added).

To those of us accustomed to lengthy, prescriptive syllabus documents, the notion of teachers being ‘free to use their professional judgment to develop their own courses according to the needs of their pupils’ (p. 2) may seem striking. It may also be sobering to reflect on the dramatic shifts in the conceptualisation of, assumptions about and professional regard for the teacher that have occurred since this syllabus was released 50 years ago. 

Just as the 1961/1962 syllabus insisted that the component sections of the syllabus should be integrated, the 1971 syllabus emphasises ‘the integration of the various facets of English’ (p. 3). Once again, this principle of integration of the parts to the whole has continued to the present.

The main objective for Reading is the ‘enjoyment of reading’, the use of the library, and the critical role of choice in the selection of reading material:

the choice of appropriate texts is crucial … it is not necessary for the fulfilment of the syllabus objectives that all pupils read the same texts … English should be very closely integrated with the work of the school library … full opportunity should be given to exploratory reading by pupils and the sharing of their responses to reading experiences.

Above all, it is the pupil’s own responses to literature that is to be nurtured (Notes, p. 1) (Emphasis added).

Although the ‘context’ of Literature appears to be on equal footing with the other six contexts, the syllabus states that ‘of all the “contexts” of English, none is more important than literature. For the purposes of the syllabus, the term includes pupils’ own writing’ (Notes, p. 1) (Emphasis added). While the conceptualisation of the subject still relies on the presence of Literature (as it has since 1911), for the first time students’ own writing is formally recognised as part of the Literature continuum.  This principle is further evidence of the influence of Growth on this syllabus.

The syllabus continues to mandate the types of texts to be included:

Figure 4: Facsimile of the 1971 syllabus (NSW Secondary Schools Board, p. 13)

Summary

The preceding discussion, albeit partial and at times over-simplified is intended to offer some insights into the providence of secondary English in NSW and to highlight certain features of syllabus documents since 1911 that provide evidence of continuities and shifts in the discourses, ideas, practices and ‘disciplinary norms’ (Reid, 2002, p. 15) shaping the identity of English.

By briefly sampling aspects of key syllabus documents from 1911 to 1971[2], it is possible to glimpse ‘certain continuities that link English curriculum discourses and practices with previous discourses and practices’ (Reid, 2003, p. 100). When we read the Aim and Rationale of the current syllabus (2022), for example, the resonances with past discourses are immediately apparent:

The aim of English in Years K–10 is to enable students to understand and use language effectively. Students learn to appreciate, reflect on and enjoy language, and make meaning in ways that are imaginative, creative, interpretive, critical and powerful.

Rationale

Language and text shape our understanding of ourselves and our world. This allows us to relate with others, and contributes to our intellectual, social and emotional development. In English K–10, students study language in its various textual forms, which develop in complexity, to understand how meaning is shaped, conveyed, interpreted, and reflected.

…

By exploring historic and contemporary texts, representative of a range of cultural and social perspectives, students broaden their experiences and become empowered to express their identities, personal values and ethics. 

The development of these interconnected skills and understandings supports students to become confident communicators, critical and imaginative thinkers, and informed and active participants in society (NESA, 2022) (Emphasis added).

Obviously, our context in 2024 is profoundly different to the contexts that produced previous syllabus documents. We now contend with a big data driven approach to education manifesting the ideology of performativity, with vastly increased regulation, surveillance, compliance demands and government and bureaucratic intervention. We are also living with ubiquitous forms of technology that did not exist for most of the twentieth century.

To conclude, I want to summarise the discussion by drawing attention to what has shifted and what has endured since the Courses of Study for High Schools in 1911. The summary is by no means intended to be a comprehensive representation of syllabus documents over the past 113 years.

What has shifted since 1911?

One of the most significant shifts since 1911 is the positioning of the teacher in syllabus document. Most of the syllabus documents from the twentieth century implicitly or explicitly recognise and even celebrate the central role of the teacher.  Many are written with a teacher audience in mind. Shifts have occurred in the assumptions about the role of the teacher, especially in terms of teacher professional judgement. From the late twentieth century, there is a steady dilution of discourses that recognise teacher autonomy and agency. It is notable that the teacher as a palpable presence in the syllabus becomes incrementally marginalised and erased from the discourse of syllabus documents of the twenty-first century. By contrast, the student occupies a significant place in current syllabus documents, that now recognise and address students’ language and other backgrounds.

The structure and a number of organisational features of the syllabus have shifted. For example, from the structure of Literature and Language in 1911 successive syllabuses have aimed for a greater integration of the literature and language components of the subject with a widening of content cohering around the principles of student-centred learning and development. Since the mid-twentieth century, there has been a broadening of types of texts for study to include media, multimedia and digital texts and the incorporation of the modes of listening, viewing and representing. Importantly, the syllabus documents since the mid-1900s have recommended the inclusion of ‘modern and Australian’ texts, in contrast to early versions of the syllabus that prescribe text lists dominated by British canonical literature.

The content in syllabus documents is now organised in terms of outcomes and since 1971, they have also included Stage Statements and provision for students from diverse language backgrounds and with special needs. The degree of prescription has not only shifted but also intensified. Current syllabus documents are heavily prescriptive in terms of outcomes, content, types of texts, assessment, and reporting, reflecting the erosion of trust in teacher professional judgement, increasing government intervention, and the standardisation movement. Since 1911, English syllabus and support documents have exponentially ballooned in volume. Until the late twentieth century, standardisation, external testing (7-10) and matters of compliance and surveillance along with performativity measures for teachers did not figure as prominently as they do today. The external examination for the School Certificate at the end of Year 10, however, was phased out after 2011.

All syllabuses for secondary education are contained in one document from 1911 to the mid-1900s when subjects become siloed in separate syllabuses. Hard copies of syllabus documents have been provided for all teachers until the 2022 syllabus. Syllabus and support documents are now online and fragmented. It is up to the teacher to print a hard copy of one or more sections, not only adding to teachers’ workload but also potentially undermining the principle of integration and a holistic perspective on the syllabus.

What has endured from 1911 to the present?

The continuities in junior secondary English from 1911 through to the present are substantial and include, for example:

  • a student-centred philosophy and set of beliefs about the affordances of English in the curriculum that emphasise the development of students’ skills, knowledge and understanding through increasingly competent and confident language in use;
  • a focus on English as a vehicle for promoting identity-formation, citizenship, aesthetic appreciation (formerly referred to as ‘taste’), and self-dependence and autonomy;
  • Literature (texts) and language as the core with mandated types of texts – fiction, poetry, drama, non-fiction, Shakesperean Drama (until 1953), media (since 1971);
  • reading and wide reading for pleasure and enjoyment, and until recently, attention to the crucial function of the school library;
  • personal response to reading/texts and writing from personal experience;
  • learning as an active pursuit through ‘making and doing’;
  • attention to the centrality of thought, feeling, imagination and creativity; and
  • an introduction, rationale, aims, content, and prescribed content.

Importantly, the modes of reading and writing in English are still privileged as they have been in syllabus documents for more than a century. Similarly, from 1911 to the present, syllabus development in NSW has continued according to a top-down model, closely managed by arms and agencies of government.

Concluding remarks

The quest to ‘understand certain continuities that link English curriculum discourses and practices with previous discourses and practices’ (Reid, 2003, p. 100) is particularly urgent in our current context as English teachers. As Doecke (2017) argues, when ‘[c]onfronted by a neoliberal culture that is characterised by a loss of historical memory, we need to posit a history in which we might locate our ongoing practice as English teachers’ (p. 236). The pursuit of historical knowledge and understanding is not merely an ‘antiquarian pursuit’ (Reid, 2003, p. 100): rather, it offers us another potent source of collective disciplinary wisdom and professional agency.

References

*References with a particular focus on the history of English curriculum

Apple, M. W. (1979). Ideology and Curriculum. London: Routledge.

*Barcan, A. (1988). Two centuries of education in New South Wales. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

*Brock, P. (1984a). A History of the development of English syllabuses in New South Wales secondary education, 1953–1976: A ‘continuum’ or a ‘series of new beginnings’? Unpublished PhD thesis. Armidale: University of New England.

*Brock, P. (1984b). Changes in the English syllabus in N.S.W. Australia: Can any American voices be heard?” English Journal, 73(3), pp. 53–58.

*Brock, P. (1996). Telling the story of the NSW secondary English curriculum: 1950–1965. In B. Green & C. Beavis (Eds.). Teaching the English Subjects: Essays on English Curriculum and History in Australian Schooling. (pp. 40-70). Geelong: Deakin University Press.

*Cormack, P. & Green, B. (2000). (Re) Reading the historical record: Curriculum history and the linguistic turn. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study of Curriculum History, New Orleans, Louisiana. April 23-24.

*Crane, A. R. & Walker, W.G. (1957). Peter Board: His contribution to the development of education in New South Wales. Melbourne: ACER.

*Departmental Committee of the Board of Education (DCBE) (1921). The teaching of English in England: being the report of the departmental committee appointed by the president of the Board of Education to inquire into the position of English in the educational system of England. The Newbolt Report. London: HMSO.

Doecke, B. (2017). What kind of ‘knowledge’ is English? (Re-reading the Newbolt Report). Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education. 24(3), pp. 230-245. DOI: 10.1080/1358684X.2017.1351228

Dixon, J. (1967). Growth through English. Great Britain: National Association for the Teaching of English.

*Green, B. (2003). (Un)changing English – Past, present, future? In B. Doecke, D. Homer & H. Nixon (Eds.), English teachers at work: Narratives, counter-narratives and arguments (pp. 2-13). South Australia: Wakefield Press/Australian Association for the Teaching of English.

*Green, B. & Beavis, C. (Eds.). (1996). Teaching the English subjects: Essays on English curriculum history and Australian schooling. Geelong: Deakin University Press.

*Green, B. & Cormack, P. (2008). Curriculum history, ‘English’ and the New Education; or, installing the empire of English? Pedagogy, Culture and Society. 16(3), pp. 253-267.

*Hughes, J. & Brock, P. (2008). Reform and resistance in NSW public education: Six attempts at major reform, 1905-1995. Sydney: Department of Education and Training.

*Manuel, J. & Carter, D. (2019). Resonant continuities: the influence of the Newbolt Report on the formation of English curriculum in New South Wales, Australia. English in Education. DOI: 10.1080/04250494.2019.1625709

*Manuel, J. & Carter, D. (2017). Inscribing culture: The history of prescribed text lists in senior secondary English in NSW, 1945-1964. In T. Dolin, J. Jones & P. Dowsett (Eds.) Required reading: Literature in Australian schools since 1945 (pp. 78-105). Melbourne: Monash University Press.

Mathieson, M. (1975), The preachers of culture: A study of English and its teachers. London: George Allen and Unwin.

New South Wales Department of Public Instruction (1911). Courses of Study for High Schools. Sydney: NSW Department of Public Instruction.

New South Wales Department of Education (1953). Syllabus in English. Sydney: NSW Department of Education.

New South Wales Department of Education (1961/1962). English Syllabus for Forms I-IV. Sydney: NSW Department of Education.

New South Wales Department of Education (1971). Syllabus in English Years 7-10. Sydney: NSW Department of Education.

New South Wales Education Gazette (1905), Vol. 1 No. 1

New South Wales Education Standards Authority (NESA) (2022). English K-10 Syllabus. Available at: https://curriculum.nsw.edu.au/learning-areas/english/english-k-10-2022/overview

*Patterson, A. (2000). Australia: questions of pedagogy. In R. Peel, A. Patterson, & J. Gerlach (Eds.). Questions of English: ethics, aesthetics, rhetoric and the formation of the subject in England, Australia and the United States (pp. 233–300). London and New York: Routledge.

*Reid, I. (2004). Wordsworth and the formation of English studies. England: Ashgate.

*Reid, I. (2003). The persistent pedagogy of ‘growth’. In B. Doecke, D. Homer, & H. Nixon (Eds.). English teachers at work: Narratives, counter-narratives and arguments (pp. 97-108). South Australia: Wakefield Press/Australian Association for the Teaching of English.

*Reid, I. (2002) Wordsworth institutionalised: the shaping of an educational ideology, History of Education, Journal of the History of Education Society, 31(1), pp. 15-37.

*Sawyer, W. (2010). Structuring the New English in Australia: James Moffett and English teaching in New South Wales. Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education, 17(3), pp. 285-296.

*Sawyer, W. (2009a). Language, literature and lost opportunities: ‘Growth’ as a defining episode in the history of English. In J. Manuel, P. Brock, D. Carter, & W. Sawyer (Eds.), Imagination, Innovation, Creativity: Re-Visioning English in Education (pp. 71-86). Putney: Phoenix Education.

*Sawyer, W. (2009b). The Growth Model of English. In S. Gannon, M. Howie, & W. Sawyer (Eds.), Charged with Meaning: Reviewing English, 3rd Edition (pp. 19-30). Putney: Phoenix Education.

*Selleck, R. J. W. (1968). The new education: the English background 1870-1914. Melbourne: Pitman.

*Wyndham, H. S. (1967). Report of the Committee Appointed to Survey Secondary Education in New South Wales. Sydney: Government Printer.

About the Author

Prof. Jacqueline Manuel is Professor of English Education at the University of Sydney, Aust. She co-ordinates and teaches secondary English curriculum in the Master of Teaching (Secondary) program. Her most recent publications include: International Perspectives on English Teacher Development: From Initial Teacher Education to Highly Accomplished Professional. (Routledge, 2022), co-edited with Goodwyn, Roberts, Scherff, Sawyer, Durrant, and Zancanella.; and Reimagining Shakespeare Education: Teaching and Learning through Collaboration (Cambridge University Press, 2023) co-edited with Liam Semler and Claire Hansen.


[1] For a more detailed understanding of the subject’s lineage, I encourage you to explore the additional material highlighted in the references.

[2] Reforms have certainly occurred since 1971, but for the purposes of this discussion these have not been included.


Continuity-and-Change-Manuel-1Download

The assessment journey continues: Teacher centric assessment and the role of the image

Following on from the JPL article on assessment  that he wrote in 2020,  Professor Jim Tognolini gives teachers a comprehensive insight into why teacher professional judgement is at the heart of assessment...

Introduction

Assessment is an integral part of the teaching and learning process. Tognolini and Stanley (2007) suggested that assessment involves professional judgment about student progress along a developmental continuum.

Central to such judgment are the images formed by the observed performance of students and knowledge of the standards that differentiate performance within the curriculum. Teachers are closest to their students and have many opportunities to observe and test their performance. They are also the primary agents in assessment and assess informally every day. However, the interest in assessment goes beyond the classroom. There are many other players who have a stake in assessment and in understanding what it means.

Many of the misapplications of assessment come from divorcing it from its natural role in the teaching and learning process and from misunderstandings about its nature and function in that process. This article shows how conceptualising learning as progress along a developmental continuum brings together curriculum, teaching and learning, and assessment as parts of one continuous process centralised on the teacher.

Assessment is used to track growth

Assessment is about evidence of progress in the growth of knowledge, understanding and skills. This developmental emphasis shifts the focus of attention in assessment towards monitoring student progress in learning. The key idea is that the students’ progress or growth, in what is required to be learned, is monitored along a developmental continuum.

Development is a fundamental concept in education. Teachers’ interactions with students facilitates their progressive development of knowledge, skills and understanding. Classroom activities are designed in a context of curriculum and syllabus specification about the content, level of knowledge and skills to be developed.

The developmental continuum

The monitoring of student growth along a continuum requires the continuum to be defined and levels of performance to be articulated using pre-determined standards of performance. Effective curriculum frameworks and syllabus documents set out a developmental sequence, commonly in the form of statements of learning or outcomes. Outcomes describe what students are expected to know and be able to do at different stages along the continuum. They provide the basis for the development of the teaching and learning (including assessment) sequence and activity within a subject or course.

Curriculum requirements differ across systems in the degree of explicitness about content to be taught and mastered. This can be seen in a developmental sequence of outcomes from a primary syllabus which is shown in Figure 1. It shows a sequence of outcomes for understanding whole numbers.


Figure 1: Developmental sequence for understanding whole numbers

Classroom activities are designed to enable students to progress through the developmental sequence and evidence of progress needs to be obtained for each student through appropriate assessment opportunities provided by the teacher. The developmental process is often represented in terms of a series of stages.

Progression from one stage to the next commonly involves a transition process. During transition performance may go backwards before it improves. This may be due to the next stage of learning requiring an ability to re-organise previous understanding into a new perspective. Consequently, there may be some uncertainty and inconsistency in performance until the new perspective is dominant.

Development implies improvement in performance. If there is no evidence of students improving, then there is no evidence of learning occurring. Whether formal or informal, assessment provides the evidence as to where a student is located on the developmental continuum which underpins the curriculum. To this extent curriculum, assessment, teaching and learning need to be closely integrated. A good question to ask when preparing lessons and associated assessments is:  How are we helping our students move along each developmental sequence of knowledge?

Teaching and assessing for developmental progression

When designing an assessment program, the purpose is to provide information, which helps teachers understand student progress along the developmental continuum, which underpins the curriculum. To progress along the continuum, students must become more proficient in the subject. Outcomes that are further along the continuum are intended to be more cognitively demanding for the students. They require more of the ‘attribute’, ‘trait’ or ‘construct’ that enables the students to demonstrate proficiency. Progressing along the continuum means that students are becoming more proficient in the subject.

Progress is generally represented by a series of stages that are cumulative in nature. Skills, understanding and knowledge that students demonstrate, at different stages along the developmental continuum for a subject or learning, are typically captured by generic descriptors with broad descriptions of standards. Teachers in schools can locate students along these developmental continua by comparing their ‘images’ of students, informed by the assessments, to these broad standards and using their professional judgement say, on balance, that the student is located at a ‘stage 3’ (or ‘level 3’ or ‘band 3’) at this point in their learning because the description of the standard best aligns with the image of the student.

The image

The concept of image is a central aspect of teachers’ professional judgement about student growth.

Teachers build images of what students know and can do based upon all the information that is collected from various assessment techniques, not just formal or standardised assessments. The image of a given student is built up from such information and, if new evidence comes in, then the image of that student will need to take account of the latest evidence. The image is critical to the teaching and learning process. It is not based on subjective opinion because it needs to be consistent with evidence. 

Generally, the information that emerges from students completing classroom tasks, answering questions, from students talking to each other, and taking classroom tests, standardised tests or examinations is expected to be consistent with the images.

Sometimes it is not, and the teacher then asks the question, “Why not?” There are many students who perform well in classroom activities and yet perform poorly on a standardised test or examinations; this atypical performance is of interest to teachers. It could be that a student has some difficulties which have been identified by the performance on the test and there is a need to collect further evidence to see if there is a need to adjust the image of that student. Alternatively, it could be that the result may have been caused through other reasons that would not warrant a substantive change in the image e.g., the student was sick on the day of the assessment or did not try to do well on the assessment.

In summary, therefore, teachers use assessments to form an image of what students know and can do. As more information becomes available from a variety of assessment sources, it is incorporated into the image. The various sources of assessment are targeting the same material from different, but interrelated perspectives. Consequently the “fairest image” emerges when teachers use a range of assessment techniques and assimilate the information from the multiple sources using their professional judgment. Teachers are constantly assessing students or their actions, taking the latest information back to the image and making informed decisions as to what to do next. In this way assessment is fully integrated into teaching.

Figure 2 shows the usefulness to teachers of various assessment activities ordered from more-useful to less-useful in producing the image.

The key point is that assessment is teacher centric. All data, whether it has been collected from classroom interactions or formal tests should be interpreted by the teacher using professional judgement. One of the questions that is often asked by teachers around the world is “How do we bring together formative and summative assessments?”. The response is that it is done through the process of professional judgement described above. Summative tests and formal assessments provide just one more piece of evidence that is used to inform the image which is used to monitor student growth.

Figure 2: Usefulness to teachers of various assessment methods in developing the image

Using the image to monitor student performance against standards using teacher professional judgement

There are numerous advantages for students and teachers in using a system whereby student images are referenced, using teacher professional judgement, to pre-specified standards of performance. One advantage is that reporting of student performance is focused on individual progress on the developmental continuum rather than on performance relative to other students or on so called “mastery” of content. That is, there is a desire to see growth in the individual student and that is outcome is provided by the developmental continuum. A second is that continua, with descriptions of performance, provide a picture of what it means to improve in learning in different areas. A third is that teachers can help students (and others) know what is required and what it is that they must do to progress along the developmental continuum.

For students to demonstrate where they are along a developmental continuum, they must be given the opportunity to show what they know and can do in relation to the outcomes of the subject. Tasks, activities and test items provide them with this opportunity. This is important in differentiating learning. If very able students are not given the opportunity to show that they have developed in their learning, by giving them opportunities to demonstrate greater levels of cognitive depth, then it is not possible to locate them on the developmental continuum with a degree of consistency or accuracy. This is not fair for the students.  

Vygotsky (1978) used the concept of the zone of proximal development as the region on the developmental continuum to describe where students can learn best. Located between that which is too easy and that which is too hard, it is where the guidance of a person more competent in a task (generally the teacher, but could be a student’s peers, parents, etc.) can help a student to reach his or her potential. The most effective way in meeting the learning needs of individual students is to locate the student on the developmental continuum and then work within the region where they are located.

Differences in the pace of student learning can be due to some having a slower path of development, reaching a plateau at a lower level of performance to others or needing to develop other capacities first. While such differences are quite common, especially in non-streamed school classes, many believe that growth paths should ‘close the gap’ between the lowest and the highest performers. However, in practice this may lead to holding back students who reach the need for the next step earlier. The important task is to help all students to progress along the developmental continuum as quickly as they can. As Masters (2013) has argued current school organisation and grading practices do not deal adequately with individual differences in growth. 

Teacher judgement of student progress affects how they structure teaching and learning activities to enable students to progress through the developmental sequence in achievable steps. Evidence of student growth can take many forms but should be considered in terms of how well it satisfies the needs for practicality, fairness, validity and whether it provides feedback to assist the next step in the developmental pathway for an individual. Timely feedback is essential to assist learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).

Different sources of evidence about student growth should converge. For example, if in a particular case there are different signals coming from external tests than classroom observation, rather than discarding one source there will be value in adopting a forensic approach to understanding why such discrepancy has occurred. The product of such analysis should lead to a more effective understanding of and eventually improvement in student learning.

Challenges in implementing and monitoring a consistent approach to growth

The consequences of such a model of assessment requires re-negotiating the processes of curriculum, teaching and assessment towards a holistic emphasis on how growth occurs and on what evidence should be gathered to show that it is occurring. If curriculum requirements are not organised with respect to developmental outcomes, which clarify expected learning pathways and progress maps, then teaching programs are unlikely to yield evidence of depth of learning.

It takes time and resources to develop research-based learning developmental continua and, so far, most attention to such development has been in areas such as literacy, numeracy and science (e.g. see Black et al., 2011; McNamara & Hill, 2011). These areas have been given special attention because of their core nature and apparent tractability to a developmental pathway.

Digital technologies have much potential to assist in the process of learning. They can present varied assessment tasks with useful feedback customised to individual developmental levels. One senses many opportunities for improved assessment from educational use of such technologies.

The image of a student formed by professional judgement

From the discussion to this point, it should be clear that the image of the student formed by professional judgment is central to modern assessment in education.

The image of a student is defined in terms of the observation and experienced-based impression of their current level of performance. When this point of view is expressed to teachers and students, one of the first responses is that the image appears to be a very subjective concept.

This leads to some potentially awkward questions:  Is not good assessment supposed to be objective and unbiased? Why is such a subjective term like image considered central?

Clearly, there is a need for assessment to be fair and unbiased, and it is important to examine how this can be achieved in practice. Recognising the centrality of professional judgment in assessment does not mean that assessment is primarily a subjective activity, where ‘subjective’ implies arbitrariness or inconsistency.

Observation in science involves professional judgment using agreed protocols for collecting evidence. This evidence is then tested against other evidence. The outcome of such observation is accepted as part of the scientific endeavour and is not considered subjective. Similarly in assessment it is possible to have confidence in the outcomes, provided careful attention is paid to the processes of observation and how the conclusions about student performance are determined. It does require a level of assessment literacy of teachers that may or may not be evident at this point. However, building the capacity of teachers in assessing and making consistent judgments of student performance against standards would seem to be a worthy goal given the importance of assessment and data literacy to teaching and student learning.

There is a need to consider how acceptable information can be generated to test and refine the image developed of a student. It is important to look carefully at the different sources of information and their respective contribution to the overall image.

All evidence collected needs to be considered carefully. This includes so-called ‘objective’ test data. Just because a multiple-choice test can be marked objectively does not mean that it is free from professional judgment in its construction, or that it always gives more valid information. The person writing objective test  items has an image in mind of what knowledge and skills can be demonstrated by students responding to the test. This image is used to make decisions regarding choice of test format and item content.

For some purposes, a multiple-choice item may be the most efficient way of testing particular knowledge. In other cases, by providing a frame for student responses, the construction of a multiple-choice item may be seen to limit the opportunities for students to show creative use of the knowledge and skill they possess.

Depending on the purpose of the assessment, a better solution may be achieved by substituting an open ended short-answer question for the multiple-choice item. Every time a formal test is devised there is a series of judgments that need to be made to ensure that the information gained helps our understanding of student achievement.

The key to good assessment is to understand both the centrality of professional judgment in the collection of information that leads to the formation of the image of the student being assessed and ways of ensuring that the professional judgement is well grounded in evidence.

The initial image may well be formed by partial information and hearsay. It is important to move beyond this to classroom observation, more formal and informal data informing the image that is used to drive teaching and learning. 

Why is this so important? The literature on teacher expectation suggests that untested impressions are likely to be unfair and lead to unsound and unproductive further teacher-student interactions.

Most teachers have heard of the Pygmalion Effect studied by Rosenthal & Jacobson (1968) in which it was claimed that impressions of students’ ability formed by teachers influenced their actual student achievement. Ever since then concerns about teacher expectation effects and self-fulfilling prophecies have led to worry about judgments by teachers leading to unfair and biased outcomes for students.

Being worried about it is a good sign. Knowing the potential effects of unfounded and untested assumptions about the students is essential if teachers are to avoid making mistakes about them.

Subsequent debate about the relationship between expectancy and performance suggests that it could be just as easily claimed that teacher expectation effects were due to student effects on teachers rather than the other way around (Brophy & Good, 1970). Like most controversy, there is some evidence in favour of both directions of expectancy effects. Interactions with students provide a strong basis for our understanding of what they can do.

While there may be contexts in which the expectations of performance are not well formed by evidence, this is not ground for asserting that all images of the performance capability of students are necessarily subjective and untrustworthy.

The image a teacher may have of a student is initially formed by expectation and professional judgement and needs to be continually challenged and revised by evidence collected during everyday classroom experience as well as test data. As mentioned previously, assimilating information about performance of students from several sources and over several occasions leads to more reliable and valid images.

Teachers must always believe in the possibility that their students will continue to develop. The image that each student presents in terms of performance and achievements should help guide the teacher in the next step to develop the student. However, for the next step to be achievable, there is a need to have a well-grounded view of the student’s current level of knowledge and skill. To achieve this does not mean that that there is a need to collect a large amount of evidence. Sometimes uneasiness about how much evidence is needed to have an appropriate image of their students leads teachers to become overzealous in collecting a large portfolio of student work.

To have a well-grounded basis for the image of students, teachers must have confidence in the observations they make about student performance. The quality of the evidence is more important than the amount of evidence. Classroom engagement with students through discussion and observation adds to any assignment or test data in forming the image.

Reliability of classroom assessment

Observing and making professional judgements about students every day, as they engage in classroom activities and conversations, is an integrated part of the work of teachers and of good teaching. As the interactions are many, and occur over several occasions, assessment based on these interactions is more reliable than assessments made based on a one-off test. In principle the reliability of assessment increases with the number of observations made.

Nevertheless, there are concerns about how to ensure the reliability and validity of teacher assessment, especially where there is performance management based on student outcomes. External standardised tests often claim to be more reliable and independent even if they can be perceived to be limiting the scope of what is taken as evidence of student achievement.

Much of the educational research literature on the reliability or validity of teacher assessment is embedded in contexts, that may not fit well into modern system-wide reporting and accountability frameworks

In considering classroom assessment practice it is essential to distinguish between judgments based on formal written work, such as essays and assignments of varying structure and content, and those based on dynamic interactions in the classroom.

Different classroom teaching and learning situations vary in opportunities to observe and record information to inform judgments about student achievement. Teacher assessment practices differ in the extent of data collection and recording (ranging from detailed protocols to ‘on-balance’ judgments of achievement of assessment criteria). As with external tests and examinations, it would be expected that different requirements would show different degrees of reliability.

Reliability of a measure may be improved in two ways – by making the assessment(s) underpinning the measure longer and by improving the properties of the assessment tasks.

Tasks may be critiqued to remove ambiguities, or the difficulty of the tasks may be adjusted to make them more consistent with the average ability of the student group being tested. Some parts of the task may be substituted with items that are inherently more reliable (e.g. short answer or multiple-choice) or the marking scale may be refined to obtain greater clarity of the relationship between the quality of an answer and the marks/grade awarded.

Importantly the key point in this article is that as teachers base their images on data collected every day and in multiple ways throughout the school year, the image is based on many, many more observations than a standardised assessment and, because of this, outcomes from the assessments are likely to be more reliable.

Workload issues

In classroom assessment there are inevitable tensions, that arise from the interaction of the following aspects:

• The range and quantity of work on which teachers’ judgments are made

• The manageability of making such judgments during teaching

• The recording and storage of evidence

To ensure the validity and authenticity of assessment, it is desirable that teachers’ judgments are based on observations of a student performance on a wide range of activities. This is to ensure that a student is given every opportunity to show their level of functioning in relation to the curriculum standards. However, tension arises as to the manageability of recording such observations for all students in the context of a busy classroom.

Concerns about the reliability and validity of school and classroom-based assessment sometimes creates a tension between quality of measurement and good teaching practices. The former places an emphasis on standardisation so that students are being compared fairly on the same or similar tasks. On the other hand, the latter often requires differentiation, where teachers may give more structure and more help to lower ability students and greater autonomy to high ability students.

Some classroom assessment systems like the English Assessing Pupil’s Progress (APP) suggested that the teacher take notes on every observation that might contribute to an assessment. While this has the virtue of giving a complete picture of the student over the full range of educational activities, teachers tend to become overwhelmed by the sheer amount of data collected. Moreover, students may feel that they are always under observation. Such effects may interfere with the normal teaching process (Stanley et al., 2009).

Another approach lets the cumulative effect of informal observations create a judgment of what a student knows and can do. This more informal approach is not dissimilar to how teachers usually form an image of their students’ capabilities. Memorable observations that indicate atypical performance are recorded to check the confidence of the teacher that the student has reached the presumed level of performance.

Summary

The central concept in the teaching and learning process is the idea of developmental continua underlying the domains of knowledge and skills being taught. Assessment enables the progress of students to be monitored along these continua and provides essential feedback to assist in designing the next step in student learning. There needs to be close alignment between the curriculum, teaching and learning and assessment.

The central concept of this article is that teachers are assessing their students continuously and building an image of what they know, can do and understand.  Using this image, and a defined underlying developmental continuum based on agreed upon standards, student progress can be defined, observed and communicated in tangible ways and the teaching and learning process can be modified to take individual student needs into account without overwhelming the teacher with formal assessment processes or data.  Furthermore, it is likely the corpus of information, collected in such a manner, will be as, if not more valid and reliable than one-off assessments conducted at a single point in time, typically encountered in standardised test. While such assessments provide good quality data, they are just one more piece of evidence the teacher should use to adjust their image of their students relative to the developmental continuum.

The view of assessment advanced in this article puts the teacher at the centre of assessment relative to the teaching and learning process.  Finally, this process will only work if there is close alignment between the curriculum, what is taught and what is measured by the assessments.

References

Black, P., Wilson, M. & Yao, S.  (2011). Road maps for learning: A guide to the navigation of learning progressions. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 9,2-3, 71-123.

Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77 (1), 81-112.

Krajcik, J. (2011), Learning progressions provide road maps for the development of assessments and curriculum materials. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 9, 2-3, 155-158.

Masters, G.N. (2013). Reforming educational assessment: Imperatives, principles and challenges. Australian Education Review Number 57.

McNamara, T. & Hill, K.  (2012). A response from languages. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 10(3), 176-183.

Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupil intellectual development. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Stanley, G., MacCann, R., Gardner, J., Reynolds, L. & Wild, I. (2009). Review of teacher assessment: Evidence of what works best and issues for development. Report on QCA Contract 2686. http://www.qcda.gov.uk/27194.aspx.

Tognolini, J. & Stanley, G. (2007). Standards-based assessment: A tool and means to the development of human capital and capacity building in education. Australian Journal of Education, 51(2), 129-145.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

About the author

Professor Jim Tognolini is Director of The Centre for Educational Measurement and Assessment (CEMA) which is situated within the University of Sydney School of Education and Social Work. The work of the Centre is focused on the broad areas of teaching, research, consulting and professional learning for teachers.

The Centre is currently providing consultancy support to a number of schools. These projects include developing a methodology for measuring creativity; measuring 21st Century Skills; developing school-wide practice in formative assessment. We have a number of experts in the field: most notably, Professor Jim Tognolini, who in addition to conducting research offers practical and school-focused support.

The-Assessment-Journey-continues-TognoliniDownload

Women and Leadership: Examining Leadership Skills, Capacity and Context

Women and Leadership: Examining Leadership Skills, Capacity and Context

Overview

In this inspiring new CPL course participants will hear about the professional journey (highs and tribulations) of a number of current and former female leaders and colleagues in our profession.  Participants will have the opportunity to explore a lens for their own career paths (through networking, collaborations, shared experiences and questions).

Host presenter Lila Mularczyk will take you through the issues, circumstances, contexts and initiatives that have framed the path of  many female education leaders in our system.

Case studies will be delivered by the leaders as they live(d) their work life. This will include system and school contexts that influence career passage.  

Primary, Secondary and TAFE teachers and leaders are encouraged to apply to attend this course.

Participants will have the opportunity to listen, interact with leading female colleagues, network and consider further professional career options now and into the future.

Wednesday 29 April 2026, Surry Hills

All CPL courses run from 9am to 3pm.

$220

Please note, payment for courses is taken after the course takes place.

Lila Mularczyk

Lila Mularczyk’s commitment to education was recognised by being honoured with the Order of Australia Medal (OAM). Lila has been contributing to public education for 40 years. She currently is undertaking a portfolio of work including leading or participating on multiple National and State Education Boards and Reference Groups and projects (including, PEF, ACE, UTS, UNSW, NSWTF and CPL.) tertiary professional experience officer, coach and mentor, UNSW Gonski Institute, State and Vice Chair ACE, supporting HALT’s, tertiary lecturer, work in and for schools, research, contract work, critical friend, innovation projects etc.

Prior, Lila was the Director, Secondary Education, at the Department of Education. Immediately prior to this, Lila was President of the NSW Secondary Principals’ Council (SPC) from 2012 to 2016. As President and as a school Principal, Lila represented Public Education around Australia, and frequently globally, at conferences over many years. Lila was Principal at Merrylands High School for 15 years until 2016.

What Are We Going To Do About Writing?The “neglected R”.

Lorraine Beveridge makes the case for high quality writing experiences in every classroom…

A concerning, declining trend in writing national data over time (NSW Department of Education, 2017) suggests that the teaching of writing could possibly be “a neglected R” (Graham, Hebert and Harris, 2015; Korth, et al., 2017 and Sessions, Kang and Womack, 2016). Writing is a literacy skill, relevant to all key learning areas in school and a necessary communication skill in life. Early literacy includes the interdependent skills of reading, writing and oral language, and it has been suggested that the prioritised focus on reading has led to limited attention to teaching writing as well as inadequate research on early writing instruction (Korth et al., 2017). Declining writing results “casts a light on our teaching practice”, (Fisher, Frey and Hattie, 2017 p167), how we teach writing, including the component writing skills and writing processes, our understanding of how students learn to write and suggest a need to investigate writing strategies independent of other literacy skills. Writing is a crucial skill linked to reading and academic success, and engagement in society more broadly (Cutler and Graham, 2008; Gerde, Bingham and Wasik, 2012; Mackenzie and Petriwskyj, 2017). This paper is a result of my research and reflection on practice.


I begin with a focus on an historical overview of learning to write. Then, I outline strategies identified in the literature that work in improving student writing skills and outline examples from my research and the wider literature of best practice in the teaching of writing. The paper concludes with how we, as a teaching profession, can move “onwards and upwards” in ensuring that students are effective written communicators who are also passionate writers and, as a result, their love of writing and chances of success at school and beyond are maximised.


Historical overview of learning to write


Teachers need a shared understanding of how children learn to write as a starting point in improving student writing. (Calkins and Ehrenworth, 2016). Learning to write is often described as a progression from scribbles on a page to conventional text (Genishi and Dyson, 2009), but it is so much more, linked to emotions and communication, and the progression is not always a linear one (Mackenzie and Petriwskyi, 2017). Beginning writing behaviour usually includes exposure to quality texts, models of good writing, classroom talk, drawing and captioning pictures, and tracing over words. In addition to copying captions, students replicate words from around the room and environmental print. Copying print leads to students remembering word forms and writing them independently. At the same time, students are inventing spellings of words that they wish to use in their independent writing, eager to share the stories that are important to them, based on their growing oral language, phonemic awareness, alphabetic knowledge and sight word vocabulary, in doing so, learning about the writing process through writing (Clay, 1979; Fountas and Pinnell, 1996). In the beginning stages, it is common to see pretend writing, scribble, and copying text. By encouraging early writing experimentation, which includes miscellaneous marks as students master letter formations, a range of print conventions and the use of invented spelling, students are encouraged to create meaning from print and share the messages that are important to them, fostering a love of writing and utilising students’ growing graphological and phonological knowledge.

Through partaking in early writing, students are making connections between graphemes (letters) and phonemes (sounds). They are learning about the skills that constitute writing, and that writing is a process that conveys meaning to the reader. Students have a meaningful context to practise and apply their growing awareness of how language works. It can certainly be challenging to decipher students’ early independent writing attempts. However, it is important that we as teachers work hard to determine the message that students are attempting to convey. By seeking to understand students’ intended written message, we are valuing their work, and encouraging them to expand their writing repertoire and take pleasure in it. We are modelling the purpose of writing, which is to convey a message to the reader, “through responding to and composing texts…, and learn(ing) about the power, value and art of the English language for communication, knowledge and enjoyment” (Board of Studies, 2012 p10).


Figure 1: Supporting students’ early independent writing attempts


Student writing can be viewed through a formative assessment lens (Wiliam, 2011, 2016, 2018), as a measure of writing growth, an indicator of the impact of teacher practice and to signpost where to next in writing instruction for individual students. Student writing samples provide rich evidence of learning, reducing the over-reliance on narrow test scores to monitor progress (Mackenzie and Petriwskyi, 2017; Fisher, Frey and Hattie, 2017). By keeping regular chronological logs of student writing, teachers and students have evidence of writing growth, as a basis for where students are at, and where they need to go to next in their learning, “monitoring student success criteria” (Hattie, 2012 p19). Syllabus scope and sequences, as in the NSW English syllabus (NSW Board of Studies, 2012) and the National Literacy Learning Progressions (NLLP) (ACARA, 2018) are useful tools for teachers to identify achievement and plan for individual student instruction across the various elements of literacy. Additionally, the

NLLP are potentially useful for students to determine their own learning intentions and success criteria (Wiliam, 2018), providing a framework for them to self-monitor their progress.


The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) released the Literacy Learning Progressions (NLLP) in 2018, to assist Australian teachers in identifying, understanding and addressing students’ literacy learning needs. In NSW, the NLLP, although not mandatory, are an additional tool to support teachers in implementing the English syllabus (NESA, 2012), which drives teaching and learning in classrooms. Teachers use evidence of student writing to appraise practice, drawing on the English syllabus and NLLP to inform decision making on where to next for individual students, in doing so personalising writing instruction. Similarly, by familiarising students with the indicators of the progressions, they have access to tools to monitor their own learning (Fisher, Frey and Hattie, 2017). By students identifying what they can do using their own writing, and using the progressions as a guide, they are formulating future writing learning goals, and taking ownership of their learning. Student self-assessment is identified as a powerful formative assessment technique (William & Leahy, 2015).


In a recent classroom study, Korth et al., (2017) found that it is rare to observe teachers modelling or scaffolding writing for their students, opportunities for students to write in the classroom are decreasing, possibly due to a myriad of pressures on teachers and a crowded curriculum, and most important of all, teachers explicitly modelling writing processes to students makes a difference to student writing progress. Teacher modelling is a form of direct instruction, specifically targeting identified student needs. Through participating in writing in the classroom, teachers are demonstrating the importance of writing and their enjoyment of writing to their students, including drafting, editing and proof-reading. Modelling writing powerfully demonstrates the writing process, providing opportunities for mentoring and instructional sharing of skills in-context (Calkins, 1986). Through teacher modelling, students see the importance of writing through teachers demonstrating their love of writing and, at the same time, explicitly addressing identified student writing needs.


When they write, young children learn to use sounds and corresponding symbols. During composing, beginning writers say words slowly, and stretch words out to identify, then write, the individual sounds that they hear. Early writing attempts often contain grammar errors. These lessen as students’ grammatical competence increases through direct teaching and immersion in quality texts, increasing their oral language, phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary and comprehension (McCarrier, Pinnell and Fountas, 1999; CIS, 2018), similar skills that students draw on in learning to be readers. Through writing, children manipulate sounds using symbols and learn how written language works.


Figure 2: Example of early writing attempt


Reading and writing are complementary processes. Just as it is important to model early reading skills explicitly for students, it is equally important to model early writing skills. For example, directionality can be taught using quality texts as models, as can the place of spaces between words.


A small number of letters can make many words, drawing on students’ graphological and phonological skills, establishing mental models and increasing their control over written language (Beck and Beck, 2013). Through building on what is already known, students rapidly extend their written vocabulary. Sentence starters are commonly used to teach basic grammatical knowledge and to scaffold students’ early writing attempts. For example, the sentence stem, “Here is…” is an example of the recurring principle (Clay, 1979) that students can build on in their own writing. Many children’s picture books are based on this principle.

Figure 2: Innovation on text using the recurring principle


Holland (2016) encourages teachers to find quality texts containing features that they wish to explore with their students, matching texts to lesson objectives and identified student learning needs, while at the same time providing authentic models for students to draw on whilst writing, propelling them forward in their writing learning journey. ACARA released a text complexity appendix to the NLLP, which explicitly states that “throughout their school years, students will be exposed to texts with a range of complexity” (ACARA, 2018b p2). The text complexity appendix identifies four broad levels of texts, which are simple, predictable, moderately complex and sophisticated texts. These text levels are referenced throughout the NLLP. Simple texts are the simplest form of continuous texts, with common usage vocabulary, language, structure and content. Predictable texts include a more diverse vocabulary than simple texts, there are a range of sentence types and the text structure is usually predictable. Moderately complex texts increase in difficulty in terms of the subject specific language used, use of figurative language and more complex language structures. Finally, the fourth level of texts complexity refers to sophisticated texts, which may draw on academic and extensive technical language. Sophisticated texts contain a wide range of sentence types, complex structures, content and print layout features. The purpose of the text complexity appendix is to encourage teachers to consider the features of texts that they use in their class English programs to ensure that the texts match student identified learning needs and the specific purpose that teachers are targeting in their teaching.


Strategies that improve the teaching and learning of writing


The teaching of writing does need to be a priority. We as a profession need to ensure that those conditions that accelerate student growth in writing are being practised in classrooms and are available to all students. Although it is unrealistic to expect that all strategies would be successful for all students, the literature identifies clear instructional strategies that are more likely to achieve student writing success than others.


Logic dictates that increased, dedicated time to write in schools will improve student writing (Korth et al., 2017; Mo et al., 2014; Bromley, 2007). Mo et al. (2014) calls for a “writing revolution” in which the time spent writing at school is doubled. This strategy not only includes providing regular writing opportunities for students to write frequently and fluently using a growing repertoire of skills, but also teachers providing intentional, regular instruction that addresses students’ specific writing needs, often referred to as point-of-need “mini lessons” (Korth et al., 2017). It is important for students to have time to write daily in an unstructured way, including free personal choice writing that will not be critiqued, writing in which they can engage their emotions and tell the stories that they dearly wish to write about. This may take the form of journal writing or some other developmentally appropriate task for emergent writers, possibly symbolic representations, including “think- draw- write”. By putting school-wide structures and systems in place to ensure that all students write every day, schools are growing a culture that values writing and the messages that students’ writing contain. When students are also provided with explicit and regular feedback on their writing, research suggests that students’ writing skills increase dramatically (Hattie, 2012; Simmerman et al., 2012; Cutler and Graham, 2008).

Undeniably, writing is a complex task. Cutler and Graham (2008) also identify the need to spend more time teaching writing. They find that many teachers take an eclectic approach to teaching writing and call for a more balanced instructional line of attack between time spent independently writing and learning writing skills and processes. There are two clear components to effective writing teaching, the explicit teaching of writing skills, which sits alongside the second, possibly more important component, which is teaching the writing process. Writing instruction focusing on a skills-based approach is not enough. It does not evoke a passion for writing. Writers go through a process, a series of steps to compose a piece of writing that needs to be modelled and taught explicitly. The writing process includes collecting and organising information, writing a draft, revising, editing and rewriting. To learn about the writing process, students require protected time to write, choice over the topic they wish to write about and targeted feedback from teachers (Calkins and Ehrenworth, 2016; Cutler and Graham, 2008; Korth et al., 2017).


Education systems need to do a better job of providing targeted teacher professional learning in writing that addresses school and students’ identified writing needs. (Mo et al., 2014; Cutler and Graham, 2008). A focus of a recent professional learning course for middle school teachers delivered over a term, and spanning 12 schools, was teachers, collaboratively reflecting on the cognitive dimension of teaching writing, as Oz (2011) describes writing as, “the operation of putting information, structured in the brain, into print” (p251) . Teachers were thinking about and sharing how writing is taught in their local context, and brainstorming how they could possibly do it better, an example of the power of collaborative professional learning, in which teachers learn with and from each other (Beveridge, 2015).


Figure 4: Middle Years Writing Course reflection (2017)


In the middle years writing course (Brassil, Bridge and Sindrey, 2012), teachers identified what they regard as going well in the teaching of writing, what still needs be a focus and ideas for improvement. Table 1 below lists participating teachers’ responses as to how they were addressing the teaching of writing in their schools and where they needed to go to next in the teaching of writing in their local contexts to address the learning needs of their particular students.

What’s going well in the teaching of writing?What still needs to improve?What are ideas for improvement?
ALARM[1] (cognitive scaffold, framework for writing).Clarify the learning intention at the lesson outset (and encourage all staff to use this language).Identifying audience and purpose of writing. Unpacking rubrics together so students are clear about what the task involves. Co-writing rubrics with students drawing on syllabus/ progression indicators to increase student ownership of learning.
SEAL, TXXXC[2] (secondary paragraph writing strategies).Students to reflect on their writing (self /peer-assess).Activities and strategies that improve sentence structure. Teacher professional learning on grammar with a shared focus and understanding of how language works.
Using writing tools; a range of writing appsDiscussing ideas together before we begin writing (dialogic teaching).Identifying the writing demands of the key learning areas and map the commonalities across KLAs.
  Sharing of ideas/  writing strategies with staff facilitates professional discussion.  Coherence and consistency of teaching writing across the grades.  Building subject specific vocabulary to draw on when writing. Subject-specific teachers to agree on a consistent approach for teaching writing school-wide.
Making writing a school focus and linking effective teaching of writing to other school foci.Assessment of writing from a school-wide perspective that all staff share ownership of.Improving grammar knowledge in context, through explicit teaching and using quality texts as writing models.
Students believe that they can write, irrespective of skill level.Providing students with quality writing models / texts and explicit quality criteria for writing.Generating ideas to write about together at the outset of a lesson (in creative ways, to put the magic back in the teaching of writing).
Table 1: Writing in the Middle Years course reflection (2017)


Increasing classroom discourse, where the teacher and students together discuss and clarify complex tasks, has an effect size of .82, double the effect size of .4, which is generally regarded as one year’s teaching for one year’s growth (Fisher, Frey and Hattie, 2017 p3). In the writing classroom, this may look like the students and teacher participating in joint writing construction, and modelling metacognitive processes, which could involve asking self-questions (for metacognition and self-reflection) whilst writing. Self-questions relate to the learning intentions of the lesson, and whether students have explicitly addressed these in their writing.


Figure 5: Tools to support students asking self-questions.


For example, in Figure 5 above, the pedagogical framework strategies “WILF and WALT” provide visual prompts to students of the learning intention: What are we learning today? (WALT), and success criteria: What am I looking for? (WILF). Such lessons support students in self-monitoring and evaluating their writing. Self-questions students may ask from the WILT and WALT framework include:

  • Have I used adjectives in my writing? Where are they? How do they make my writing more interesting?
  • Where are my spaces between words, full stops and capital letters? Have I used them correctly? How do they help my writing make sense to the reader?
  • What language choices have I made to make my writing more interesting? How successful was I in achieving this?


Calkins and Ehrenworth (2016) outline three guiding principles for teachers to keep in mind when teaching writing:

  1. Students are actively involved in the writing process
  2. They share what they write
  3. They perceive themselves as writers.


Increasing classroom discourse may look like students discussing their current performance and the criteria that they will use to measure their writing success. It has been stated that “the more clearly they [students] can see the goals, the more motivated they will be [to achieve them]” (Fisher, Frey and Hattie p43). Overall but not exclusively, the aim of classroom discourse in writing lessons is for teachers to gradually release writing responsibilities to students (Kaya and Ates, 2016, Pearson and Gallagher, 1983). To become expert teachers of writing, teachers must become skilled at supporting students in achieving their (self-) identified success criteria (Hattie, 2012). The NLLP are a useful guide for students to identify what they can do, and where they need to go to next in their writing learning journey.


Writing at school has infinite possibilities to integrate learning across the key learning areas which include various genres inclusive of imaginative, persuasive and information texts (Board of Studies, 2012). An emphasis on writing across different content areas reinforces the integrative nature of writing and its high gravitas in all key learning areas at school, and in life. For example, writing class books about a specific topic or activity, describing the attributes of characters or animals and writing expositional texts in science, are all evidence that writing is much more than narrative. Students need to write arguments and information texts; in fact, a wide range of texts across all subjects. In turn, teachers need to clearly state how writing skills learned in one classroom or key learning area can support developing writing skills and processes in another, making explicit and strengthening the writing links across the key learning areas for students.


School leaders have a responsibility to facilitate the organisation of opportunities for teachers and students to develop and share what good writing looks like. This can be achieved through ensuring teachers have time to collaboratively plan for and review student writing. This could involve using the samples provided in the Assessment Resource Centre as authoritative sources, analysing student exemplars locally and collectively studying published writing and quality texts. By developing shared teacher understandings of what good writing looks like across the school, writing expectations for students are aligned and cohere, clarifying and democratising writing instruction from one classroom to another (Wiggins, 2000).


Through exposure to and deconstruction of a range of quality texts, students learn writing strategies through engaging with real authors and identifying how they engage readers in their texts. At the Australian Literacy Educators (ALEA) National Conference in Adelaide in 2016, I attended a writing session presented by an Australian Capital Territory (ACT) community of schools. The schools reported that the most significant factor that contributed to their collective, improved and sustained writing results, and increased student engagement in writing, was a shared “Visiting Children’s Author Program” in which students learned to “write like a writer”. Exposure to quality texts improves student writing through providing inspiration that they talk about, share and build on in their own writing. A rich diet of a wide variety of texts provides opportunities for critical and creative thinking, and sustained conversations about authors, real texts and aspects of texts that engage readers (Haland, 2016).


At a recent middle school writers’ workshop at a local high school, it was reported to me that the first activity of the day involved students voting with their feet. They moved to a specific corner of the room if they enjoyed writing at school and considered themselves good writers. Similarly, students who considered themselves poor writers and didn’t enjoy writing at school moved to the opposite corner. Students placed themselves along the human continuum based on their feelings about writing in the school context. Overwhelmingly, the vast majority of the group of around 90 students from the local high school and its primary feeder schools, regarded themselves as poor writers who did not enjoy writing at school.

Whether this informal poll is generalisable data is admittedly dubious. However, when I arrived at the school at the end of the day for teacher professional learning, I found a group of highly engaged, happy and proud students, eager to share their writing with me. The lucky students had spent the day being motivated to write by a high profile children’s author who shared his authentic secret business in relation to “writing like a writer” with the students. He provided them with insights and writing models from (his) quality texts, narrative, humour and multimodality that totally engaged and engrossed students in the writing process. Students’ shared excitement and pride in their writing efforts and their successes were tangible and infectious. The students had been mentored in writing by a “real” writer, providing a genuine context for their writing. The author worked hard in encouraging students to weave their emotions into their writing, delving into the affective domain, which involved a coming together of their hearts and minds in the act of writing.


It is suggested that the creativity and originality that promotes imagination, expressiveness and risk taking in the writing process is what is missing in the way that writing is taught in schools today, possibly as a result of the way writing is currently measured (Ewing, 2018, Frawley and McLean-Davis, 2015). Increasingly, the decline in writing results Australia-wide is attributed to the movement away from students engaging with processes linked to the creative arts, including imagination, creativity, flexibility and problem solving, processes that have transformative potential (Rieber and Carton, 1987). It has been suggested that the creative magic of writing is possibly what is missing in the teaching of writing in schools today. “What if we brought the magic back into the teaching of writing? It’s in teachers’ hands” (Adoniou, 2018).


Figure 6: Middle Years Writing workshop (2017)



Teaching writing in the digital age

Our students are products of a digital world, and they seem to not respond well to the writing teaching practices of the past (Johnson, 2016; Kaya and Ates, 2016; Vue et al., 2016, Engestrom, 2001). Table 2 below shows how our digitally mediated culture has impacted the way we teach writing, classified by Engestrom (2001) as the old and new way to teach writing. Teaching writing with new technologies requires a shift in how teachers conceptualise writing teaching in their classrooms.

This is nowThat was then
Process approach sits alongside writing skills focus.Product based approach.
Draws on methods and motivators used by published authors. Learning to “write like a writer”.Teaching writing usually the domain of the classroom teacher.
Both writing skills and processes taught together.Skills-based focus.
Writing tasks have real-world purpose. Focus on communicative action/ meaning.Compliance discourse, for example, praise for product.
New understandings and models of authoring and publishing texts. Focus on how language works. Functional view of grammar.Grammar focus.
Use of an increasing range of digital writing tools and web based apps and programs.Pencil/pen and paper writing tools.
Writing and sharing to a wider [often electronic] audience.Traditional publishing of stories and books.
Authentic writing tasks across all key learning areas.Writing was the domain of subject English.
Need to combine digital and non-digital media in teaching writing. Writing was taught using non-digital media.
Table 2: Writing in a digitally mediated culture (adapted from Engestrom, 2001)


Students (and adults) are forever writing, in the forms of text messages, blogs, emails, snapchats, Facebook posts, Tweets, Instagram posts and so on, suggesting high and increased engagement in, and importance of, writing as a result of our digitally mediated culture. The use of digital tools has changed the composing and publishing process. Yet there seems to be a divide between school writing, typified by low engagement and writing in the real world, typically a high engagement task. We need to build a bridge between school and home writing, so teachers and students alike see the high gravitas of both as forms of written communication and making meaning. Digital tools are increasingly part of our world. Well-considered professional development and support is required, to address teacher dispositions in relation to using digital tools in the writing process while, at the same time, building teacher and student skills and expertise that will be sustained and built upon in practice.

As we discover more about neuroscience and human cognition, we are increasingly learning about how multiple formats of texts (multimedia) have a positive effect on learning through reducing the cognitive load on working memory, resulting in improved information processing and understanding (Johnson, 2016; Vue et al., 2016; Wilson and Czik, 2016). Computers do need to be a more integral part of the writing classroom. However, we need to authentically integrate them into learning tasks to improve pedagogy (Cutler and Graham, 2008). Most students have access to digital technology and use it to stay connected. It is their preferred mode of text-based communication. The challenge as we learn more through research seems to be how we can increasingly integrate digital tools to promote quality writing through real-world, authentic and semiotic (meaning-making) writing tasks; and at the same time “hook into” the high student engagement associated with digitally mediated communication (Johnson, 2016; Jones, 2015).


I witnessed one school’s attempt to span the home-school writing divide, similar to the “bridgeable knowledge gap” (Hattie and Yates, 2013). Stage 3 students wrote stories, illustrated them, captured them digitally, they then displayed them as QR codes in their classrooms accessed via their mobile phones. In this way, the old and new ways of teaching writing come together in an engaging format, easily shared both locally and with a wider electronic audience.
However, focusing on digital tools in the writing process is not enough, as these can fail on application, and students need to be independently competent written communicators, to succeed at school and in life. The goal is for students to achieve capability writing in authentic ways, to the real world. Authentic writing involves students understanding the relevance and importance of what they are writing, often publishing to a wider, electronic audience.


Turning around school writing results: a case study


In 2013, I surveyed 160 schools and from these data, selected 4 case-study schools to determine the impact and sustainability of collaborative professional learning (Beveridge, 2015). One of these schools had an ongoing focus on the teaching of writing which resulted in a significant and sustained “turn around” in their writing results. They achieved this enviable outcome through a range of whole school strategies that other schools could possibly learn from, and are worthy of sharing to a wider education audience.
The school is classified as a metropolitan government primary school, with an enrolment of 166 students (ACARA, 2012). There are seven full-time teaching staff, a non-teaching principal and one class per grade. It is a small country school, situated on the outskirts of a large regional centre. Contrary to the extant literature (Little, 2006; Louis, Marks and Kruse, 1996; Stoll et al., 2006), I did not find that school size is a clear determinant of whether professional learning is sustained, as this school, as well as a large high school case study, both sustained their learning over a number of years, whilst my other two case study schools did not. It seemed to have more to do with a school culture of collaboration and sharing that facilitated the changes that resulted in professional learning being sustained (Beveridge, 2016).

Specific strategies the school had firmly in place that supported a sustained improvement in writing, are loosely coupled to the framework of factors that sustain collaborative professional learning (Beveridge, 2016), and include:


Leadership strategies

  • The Principal was engaged in professional learning as an equal partner, and participated in team teaching sessions alongside teachers.
  • The school leadership team monitored teacher workloads to prevent teachers from taking on too much change at any one time.
  • Teachers were allocated 30 minutes additional release, to discuss and focus on the writing progress of three targeted students per week with the Principal.
  • The Principal and the class teacher jointly monitored student writing data.
  • The Principal was aware of and actively interested in students’ writing progress.

School-level strategies

  • Writing time was a priority in all classrooms, at a set time, every day.
  • There was whole school buy-in of a spelling program that staff co-designed, daily, at an assigned time. There was ongoing reflection on and adjustment of the spelling program based on formative assessment data and identified student learning needs.
  • Teacher professional learning was regarded as a high priority. Regular collaborative professional learning meetings where teachers discussed latest research, how to implement relevant writing strategies in their classrooms and what they looked like in practice, was facilitated by an external literacy coach. The literacy coach worked towards making herself redundant by building school capacity that would remain in the school when she moved on.
  • Teachers had between session tasks to complete in their classroom, concretely linking theory with their daily practice of teaching writing.
  • Collaborative reflection on what worked in the local context, based on evidence, was a feature of professional learning meetings.
  • Professional learning cohered with the school plan and focused on one target at a time, with leadership support.


Teacher-level strategies

  • A literacy coach worked in-class, shoulder to shoulder alongside teachers. She also had timetabled one-to-one regular release time with teachers to reflect, and provide feedback on their individual goals, teaching practice and student learning.
  • The class teacher targeted three students per week to discuss writing goals with the Principal and literacy coach, who supported them in-class in achieving their goals. In this way, over a term, each student received specific, intensive individualised writing instruction in addition to their regular class support.
  • Teachers organised and implemented their own peer evaluation and feedback sessions with whomever they felt most comfortable among their colleagues. Peer observation and feedback sessions were timetabled regularly.
  • The literacy coach observed teachers’ lessons, and provided targeted feedback to assist them in achieving their jointly planned professional learning goals. Class teachers put a lot of effort into showing the literacy coach that they were using her advice in practice. Professional trust was tangible.
  • A range of multimodal writing tools were used by teachers and students to create texts, share their texts with a wider audience and stay connected both inside and outside the classroom.


I have viewed a number of conference presentations and teach-meets at which teachers from the school presented their writing program, and shared their exemplary practice with wider educational audience. The staff and students shared a love of writing. The strategies that the staff learned were firmly embedded in their daily practice, have been expanded and built upon, and are now regarded as “the way we do things around here” (Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Fullan and Hargreaves, 1991; Schuck, et al, 2012). Additionally, other schools visit the school to view first-hand teaching practice that resulted in them not only “turning around” their writing results but also sustaining their improved results over time. In opening up their writing classrooms to others, teachers were sharing the good news about what works in the teaching of writing across the broader education landscape.


…we collect data for writing and it’s really specific data for each student. Every student in my class gets feedback at least once a week on a piece of writing and that’s all part of what we’re doing. It’s hard. You see the improvement in student outcomes and it’s so worth every bit. (Natalie, team leader)


There was a clear, coherent developmental path to improving writing. It had both an individual and collective focus. There was ongoing teacher support from colleagues, a literacy coach, who was a “knowledgeable outsider” (Beveridge, Mockler and Gore, 2017) and acted as a critical friend to the school, as well as supportive school leadership. Strategies such as timetabled teacher meetings and team teaching sessions with the literacy coach, as well as data tracking meetings with the Principal, ensured that teachers were supported and learning was targeted to address both teacher and student needs. Professional learning which focused on improving student writing was like a continuum, a complex
interplay of affect, cognition, and metacognition, where teachers acted and collaboratively reflected on learning processes and ways to improve them in an ongoing cycle of improvement and reflexivity.


The “neglected R”: onwards and upwards


Reading and writing are complementary processes. Like reading, writing needs to be a priority across all grades and key learning areas, every day… both electronic and traditional writing, to get our message across and make ourselves understood. Too often in the literature it is termed “the neglected R” (Mo et al., 2014; Sessions, Kang and Womack, 2016; Graham, Hebert and Harris, 2015). A stronger systems focus on teaching writing is required to move and improve student writing results.
Teachers are in a privileged position to be able to ignite students’ passions in writing, and “put the magic back” (Adoniou, 2018) into the teaching of writing. One means of fostering a love of writing is by engaging students in writing through drawing on quality texts. In this way, students know and experience what great writing looks like, and jointly (and individually) experience the emotions that quality writing evoke. Through dialogic instruction, teachers are able to explicitly teach those skills that students demonstrate that they need in their independent writing, at the same time ensuring that there is designated, frequent class time for students to write and share their own written messages. Students require regular, authentic opportunities to write and share their work with others because writing is a communicative tool, the goal of which is to convey meaning to the reader and engage readers in meaning making
Do you think our identities as teachers of English and literacy more closely align with reading than writing? Have we unconsciously devalued writing?
(Frawley and McLean-Davis, 2015)


[1] ALARM is a learning and responding matrix to support student learning.

[2] SEAL and TXXXC are student writing scaffolds.

Adoniou, M. (19 October, 2018). Writing: Where has the Magic Gone? Keynote presentation at Writing the Future, Writing Intensive, Primary English Teachers Association of Australia (PETAA), University of Canberra, ACT.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2018a). Literacy Progressions. Retrieved 20 March 2018 from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/national-literacy-and-numeracy-learning-progressions/
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2018b). Appendix 6 Text Complexity. Literacy Progressions. Retrieved 20 April 2018 from
https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/3629/literacy-appendix-6.pdf
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2012). My School. Retrieved 16 Jan 2018 from http://www.myschool.edu.au/
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA).(2018). National Literacy and Numeracy Progressions. Retrieved 8 March 2018 from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/national-literacy-and-numeracy-learning-progressions/
Beck, I. and Beck, M. (2013). Making Sense of Phonics (2nd ed). NY. Guilford Press.
Beveridge, L. (2015). Collaborative professional learning: investigating impact and sustainability. (PhD (Education)), University of Newcastle. Retrieved 30 April, 2016 from http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1058694
Beveridge, L., Mockler, N. and Gore, J. (2017). An Australian View of the Academic Partner Role in Schools. Retrieved 15 October 2018 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2017.1290538
Board of Studies. (2012). NSW Syllabus for the Australian Curriculum: English K-10 Syllabus. Sydney. NSW Board of Studies.
Brassil, L., Bridge, C. and Sindrey, P. (2012). Writing in the Middle Years: Teaching Beyond the Standard. Registered professional learning course. Sydney. NSW Department of Education.
Bromley, K. (2007). Best Practices in Teaching Writing. In L.B. Gambrell, L.M. Morrow and M. Pressley (Eds.). Best Practices in Literacy Instruction. 3rd ed. 243-263. NY. Guilford Press.
Calkins, L. (1986). The Art of Teaching Writing. Portsmouth, N.H. Heinemann.
Calkins, L. and Ehrenworth, M. (2016). Growing Extraordinary Writers: Leadership Decisions to Raise the Level of Writing Across a School and a District. The Reading Teacher, 70(1), 7- 18.
Clay, M. (1979). What did I write? Beginning Writing Behaviour. Auckland, N.Z., Heinemann Books.
Cutler, L. and Graham, S. (2008). Primary Grade Writing Instruction: a national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907-919.
Centre for Independent Studies CIS. Five from Five website. Downloaded 18 March 2018 from http://www.fivefromfive.org.au/five-keys-to-reading/
Deal, T. and Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an Activity Theoretical Reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
Ewing, R. (2018). (20 October). Creative Writing as an Art Form: “Woodworking” Keynote presentation at Writing the Future, Writing Intensive, Primary English Teachers Association of Australia (PETAA), University of Canberra, ACT.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., and Hattie, J. (2017). Teaching Literacy in the Visible Learning classroom: K-5 Classroom Companion to Visible Learning for Literacy. Thousand Oaks, CAL. Corwin.
Fountas, I. and Pinnell, G. (1996). Guided reading: good first teaching for all children. Heinemann. Portsmouth, NH.
Frawley, E., McLean Davies, L. (2015). Assessing the field: Students and teachers of writing in high-stakes literacy testing in Australia, English Teaching: Practice & Critique 14(2),83-99, https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-01-2015-0001
Genishi, C. and Dyson A. (2009). Children, Language and Literacy: Diverse Learning in Diverse Times. NY. Teachers College Press.
Gerde, H., Bingham, H. and Wasik, B. (2012). Writing in Early Childhood Classrooms: Guidance for Best Practice. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40(6), 351-359.
Graham, S., Hebert, M. and Harris, K. (2015). Formative Assessment and Writing. The Elementary School Journal, 15(4), 523-547.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: maximizing impact on learning. London. Routledge.
Hattie, J. and Yates, G. (2013). Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn. Thousand Oaks, CAL. Corwin.
Holland, R. (2016). Deeper Writing: Quick Writes and Mentor Texts to Illuminate New Possibilities. Thousand Oaks, CAL. Corwin Press.
Johnson, L. (2016). Writing 2.0: How English Teachers Conceptualise Writing with Digital Technologies. English Education, 49(1), 28-62.
Jones, S. (2015). Authenticity and Children’s Engagement with Writing. Language and Literacy, 17(1), 63-81.
Kaya, B. and Ates, S. (2016). The Effect of Process-Based Writing Focused on Metacognitive Skills Oriented to Fourth Grade Students’ Narrative Writing Skill. Education and Science Tedmem, 41 (187),137-164.
Korth, B., Wimmer, J., Wilcox, B., Morrison, T., Hayward, S., Peterson, N., Simmerman, S. and Pierce, L. (2017). Practices and Challenges of Writing Instruction in K-2 Classrooms: A Case Study of Five Primary Grade Teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(2) 237-249.
Little, J. (2006). Professional Community and Professional Development in the Learning-Centred School (Working Paper). Retrieved from the National Education Association website: http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/mf_pdreport.pdf
Louis, K., Marks, H. and Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ Professional Community in Restructuring Schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757-798.
Mackenzie, N. and Petriwskyj, A. (2017). Understanding and Supporting Young Writers: Opening the School Gate. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 42(2), 78-87.
McCarrier, A., Pinnell, G. and Fountas, I. (1999). Interactive Writing. How language and literacy come together K-2. Portsmouth, NH. Heinemann.
McCutchen, D., Teske, P., & Bankston, C. (2008). Writing and cognition: Implications of the cognitive architecture for learning to write and writing to learn. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text, 451-470. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mo, Y., Kopke, R., Hawkins, L., Troia, G. and Olinghouse, N. (2014). The Neglected “R” in a Time of Common Core. The Reading Teacher, 67(6), 445- 453.
NSW Department of Education (2017). School Measurement, Assessment and Reporting Toolkit (SMART). Retrieved 11 November 2017, from https://goo.gl/jRsQv9
Pearson, P., and Gallagher, G. (1983). The Gradual Release of Responsibility Model of Instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 112-123.
Rieber, R. and Carton, A. (1987). The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky. New York. Plenum Press.
Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., Buchanan, J. and Russell, T. (2012). The Way We Do Things Around Here: School Culture and Socialisation. In S. Schuck, P. Aubusson, J. Buchanan and T. Russell (Eds.), Beginning Teaching: Stories From the Classroom (pp. 39–54). London: Springer.
Sessions, L., Kang, M. and Womack, S. (2016).The Neglected “R”: Improving Writing Instruction Through IPad Apps. Techtrends, 60(3), 218-225.
Simmerman, S., Harward, S., Pierce, L., Peterson, N., Morrison, T., Korth, B., Billen, M. and Shumway, J. (2012). Elementary Teachers’ Perceptions of Process Writing. Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(4), 292-307.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M. and Thomas, S. (2006). Professional Learning Communities: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.
Vue, G, Hall, T., Robinson, K., Ganley, P., Elizalde, E. and Graham, S. (2016). Informing Understanding of Young Students’ Writing Challenges and Opportunities: Insights from the Development of a Digital Writing Tool that Supports Students with Learning Disability. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 39(2), 83-94.
Whiting, S., White, A. (2018). Beware the Deep Dark Forest. Sydney, NSW. Walker Books.
Wiggins, G. (2009). Real-World Writing: Making Purpose and Audience Matter. English Journal, 98 (5), 9-37.
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded Formative Assessment. Bloomington, IN. Solution Tree Press.
Wiliam, D. (2018). Embedded Formative Assessment. (2nd ed). Bloomington, IN. Solution Tree Press.
Wiliam, D. and Leahy, S. (2015). Embedding Formative Assessment: Practical Techniques for the K-12 Classroom. West Palm Beach, FL. Learning Sciences International.
Wilson, J. and Czik, A. (2016). Automated Essay Evaluation Software in English Language Arts Classrooms: Effects on Teacher Feedback, Student Motivation and Writing Quality. Computers & Education, 100, 94-109.

Dr Lorraine Beveridge has been a NSWTF member for all of her 35 years teaching in the NSW Department of Education. She has held a range of executive roles, both in schools and supporting schools, building teacher capacity across the state. She currently works in curriculum. Her passion is building a love of literacy in students and teachers, and Quality Teaching. Lorraine’s PhD research is in the area of collaborative teacher professional learning.

Lorraine-Beveridge-For-Your-Future-What-Are-We-Going-To-Do-About-Writing_The-neglect-of-RDownload
Attachment-1-References-Beveridge-151218Download

Posts navigation

Older posts
Newer posts

Recent Posts

    Recent Comments

    No comments to show.

    Archives

    No archives to show.

    Categories

    • No categories

    QUICK LINKS

    QUICK LINKS

    Join The Union

    Courses

    Journal

    Podcast

    Contact Us

    Share this page

    About

    Who we are

    What we do

    Presenters

    FAQ

    Professional Learning

    Courses

    Journal

    Podcast

    Policy and Guidelines

    Privacy Policy

    Social Media Guidelines

    Our Ethics

    Useful Links

    About

    Head Office Details

    Member Portal

    Media Releases

    Become a member today

    NSW Teachers Federation

    Connect with us

    © 2025 New South Wales Teachers Federation. All Rights Reserved. Authorised by Maxine Sharkey, General Secretary, NSW Teachers Federation, 23-33 Mary St. Surry Hills NSW 2010.