ArticlePDF Available

Teachers’ fundamental beliefs, commitment to reform, and the quality of pedagogy

January 2006

January 2006

Authors:

Tom G. Griffiths

Oslo Metropolitan University

Jennifer M. Gore

The University of Newcastle, Australia

James G. Ladwig

The University of Newcastle, Australia

This paper draws on data from approximately 350 interviews and 1800 surveys from teachers across NSW to explore their understandings of and commitment to quality teaching (in both the generic sense and in terms of the NSW Quality Teaching model). Our analysis of the data focuses on links between measures of the quality of teachers' pedagogy and their commitment to and understanding of QT, some school characteristics, and teachers' fundamental beliefs about themselves, their work and their students. Looking first at teachers' commitment to the QT initiative we find while this is important, as is the case with any reform initiative, there is no clear correlation between their expressed support for QT and measures of their performance. Second, no consistent patterns are found between performance and a school's SES, its proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, or its teachers' years of experience. Rather we find that the goals of changed practice in line with QT, leading to improved student outcomes, are linked to teachers' deep understanding of QT, teachers' fundamental commitment to their students' learning and belief that their teaching makes a difference, as a basis for their efforts to teach well.

Perceived Importance of Quality Teaching

…

Observation scores by teacher

…

. Years of teaching for comparison groups

…

. Group Statistics for Teacher Belief Scales

…

Figures - uploaded by James G. Ladwig

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by James G. Ladwig

Content may be subject to copyright.

GRI06386

Acknowledgements: The SIPA Research Team would like to thank sincerely all the teachers and principals who assisted in

the conduct of this project. Their willingness to participate in this study is greatly appreciated. The study is jointly funded by

the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the NSW Department of Education and Training (2004-2007) as part of the

ARC Linkage Program. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors.

Teachers’ fundamental beliefs, commitment to reform, and the quality of pedagogy

Tom Griffiths, Jennifer Gore and James Ladwig

The University of Newcastle

Paper prepared for presentation at

Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference

Adelaide, November 26-30, 2006

This paper draws on data from approximately 350 interviews and 1800 surveys from teachers

across NSW to explore their understandings of and commitment to quality teaching (in both

the generic sense and in terms of the NSW Quality Teaching model). Our analysis of the data

focuses on links between measures of the quality of teachers’ pedagogy and their commitment

to and understanding of QT, some school characteristics, and teachers’ fundamental beliefs

about themselves, their work and their students.

Looking first at teachers’ commitment to the QT initiative we find while this is important, as

is the case with any reform initiative, there is no clear correlation between their expressed

support for QT and measures of their performance. Second, no consistent patterns are found

between performance and a school’s SES, its proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander students, or its teachers’ years of experience. Rather we find that the goals of changed

practice in line with QT, leading to improved student outcomes, are linked to teachers’ deep

understanding of QT, teachers’ fundamental commitment to their students’ learning and belief

that their teaching makes a difference, as a basis for their efforts to teach well.

There is a considerable body of research literature that demonstrates a strong correlation between

teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes and their classroom practices (Aguirre & Speer, 2000;

Calderhead, 1996; Cohen, 1990; Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz, 1991; Richardson, 1996; Sato &

Kleinsasser, 2004). At the same time, there is substantial debate and uncertainty about precisely how

beliefs and practice are related and how they interact. Anderson and Helms (2001), for instance, argue

that “while it is clear that changes in teacher values and beliefs are central to reform, the nature of

these changes and the circumstances under which teachers personally can best reassess these values

and beliefs are not fully understood” (p.13). This uncertainty about beliefs and practice is clear from

the following research conclusions: Dwyer et al. (1991) found that “instructional change can only

proceed with a corresponding change in beliefs about instruction and learning” (p. 52); Richardson,

Anders, Tidwell and Lloyd (1991) found that a change in beliefs preceded change in practices, and;

Guskey (1986) found that change in beliefs will occur only after evidence is provided about changes in

student learning outcomes. Richardson (1996) attempted to summarise what is known about beliefs

and practice, stating that “beliefs are thought to drive actions; however, experiences and reflection on

action may lead to changes in and/or additions to beliefs” (p.104).

The study reported in this paper is based in a system-wide attempt to reform pedagogical practice

through what is known as the NSW Quality Teaching framework. In this paper, we explore the

relationship of teachers’ beliefs about Quality Teaching, and about pedagogy more broadly, with the

quality of their pedagogy. These analyses are designed to tease out the specific potential of Quality

Teaching in improving the pedagogical practices of teachers, as well as to draw more general

inferences that can be used in pedagogical reform attempts elsewhere. In this way, the analyses

contribute to the thorny task of deepening understanding about the complex relationships of teacher

beliefs and practice.

The reform

In an attempt to lift the quality of pedagogy in NSW public schools, the NSW Department of

Education and Training worked with James Ladwig and Jennifer Gore, to develop a three-dimensional

model of pedagogy, known as Quality Teaching (QT). With a focus on the dimensions of Intellectual

Quality (IQ), Quality Learning Environment (QLE), and Significance (SIG), the NSW Quality

Teaching model draws on the significant work of Newmann and Associates (1996) on Authentic

Pedagogy, as well as other elements of classroom and assessment practice that have been linked

through empirical research to improved learning outcomes for students across the spectrum of social

backgrounds. (See www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/qualityteach for an overview of the

Quality Teaching model and its research background, especially Ladwig and King, (2003). Quality

Teaching is not a set of teaching skills or practices. Rather, it draws attention to how teaching is

organised and conducted in order to: ensure deep understanding of important concepts and

relationships; produce classroom environments that support learning, and; help make learning

meaningful to students.

One aspect of the QT initiative is professional development based around materials designed to

support teachers in developing their understanding of Quality Teaching through dialogue about

classroom and assessment practices. These materials centre on coding activities for each of the three

dimensions and 18 elements of the Quality Teaching framework (see Appendix 1 for an overview of

the framework), whereby teachers code and discuss videotaped extracts of lessons and sample

assessment tasks (see Appendix 2 for samples of the coding materials). Subsequently teachers are

encouraged to apply these processes to their own lessons and assessment tasks, with a view to

improving practice. While it is clear that beliefs might impact on teachers’ willingness to even engage

with QT, either as a framework against which to assess their own practice or as a set of processes

designed to promote reflection and deepen understanding about practice, the professional development

materials certainly create the opportunity for teachers to have the kinds of experiences and reflection

on action that Richardson (1996) argued might precipitate changes in beliefs.

It is worth noting that New South Wales is most populous state in Australia, with all 2200 public

schools (providing for 760,000 students) governed by a single state authority, the NSW Department of

Education and Training. As such, the NSW Quality Teaching (QT) initiative is perhaps one of the

world’s largest systemic attempts to improve the nature and quality of pedagogical practice.

Understanding the critical relationship between teachers’ beliefs and pedagogy in this context thus has

significant ramifications for both scholarship in this field and educational policy development in

Australia and elsewhere.

The study

The data for this paper are drawn from a large, multi-method, longitudinal study (2004-2007) that is

exploring the relationships between teacher professional learning, the quality of pedagogy, and the

quality of learning outcomes for students. The study, titled “Systemic Implications of Pedagogy and

Achievement in New South Wales Public Schools” (SIPA), represents a major collaboration between

the NSW Department of Education and Training (NSWDET) and university researchers, underpinned

by the Quality Teaching initiative. If the impact of QT is to be properly understood, then we thought

it critical to examine how the framework is being interpreted and recontextualised (Bernstein, 1990)

by teachers.

Each of the 33 schools involved in SIPA expressed an interest in being a part of the study. Selection

criteria for schools were employed to ensure that the sample included primary and secondary schools,

schools with a range of prior involvement with the QT framework, and variation across the

demographic variables of geographic location, socio-economic status, and the proportion of enrolled

students of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) descent and from Non English Speaking

Backgrounds (NESB). Around half of the schools in the sample reported that they had already

involved their teachers in professional development on Quality Teaching. For this reason, we

expected the sample to be, if anything, slightly more advanced in its engagement with QT and slightly

more committed to QT than would be the case for the entire sample of schools across the state.

The specific data used for this paper come from the base-line data points of the four-year longitudinal

study. As such, this paper represents an initial, cross-sectional analysis of the relationship between

teachers’ beliefs and the quality of pedagogy. For measures of the quality of pedagogy, we employ

the coded observations of 330 lessons and 199 assessment tasks using the same QT instruments used

for professional development (Appendix 2). To document beliefs, we have drawn on interviews with

178 teachers and questionnaires completed by 975 teachers in which we gathered information about

teachers’ goals for, and views on, teaching as well as their perceptions and understandings of QT and

their role as teachers. Pajares (1992) reminds us that “beliefs cannot be directly observed or measured

but must be inferred from what people say, intend, and do” (p.314). For this analysis of teacher

beliefs, we have relied primarily on what our participants said.

Of particular note for this analysis are seven scales incorporated into the SIPA questionnaire (SIPAQ).

These scales are: 1) a measure of the teachers’ estimate of the importance of QT; 2) a measure of

teachers’ estimate of the effect of QT; 3) a measure of the extent to which teachers’ report that they

have felt support for engaging in the QT initiative; 4) a measure of the degree of teacher responsibility

for student learning; 5) a measure of the degree to which teachers believe in student capacity to learn;

6) a measure of the degree to which teachers believe in outside factors affecting them, their capacity to

teach; and 7) a measure of the degree to which teachers believe in self efficacy, believe that they can

make a difference (see Appendix 3).

Three of these scales were included in the questionnaire to gain insights into teachers’ beliefs and

understandings of Quality Teaching. As a system-wide pedagogical initiative (intended for use K-12

and across all subject areas), the questions of whether or not teachers believed QT to be important,

whether or not they felt QT had a positive effect, and whether or not they felt supported in their own

efforts to understand and learn about QT, were all of interest in relation to the potential of QT in

bringing about the intended pedagogical reform. As Lawrence (2005) states, “studies on professional

development change efforts reveal that major changes are seldom effective unless all parties involved

in teaching and learning – teachers, students, parents and school administrators – support the proposed

changes” (p.351, our emphasis). These three scales enable us to gauge the level of support among the

teachers.

The scales for teacher responsibility, and belief in students, belief in the impact of outside factors, and

belief in teachers’ own capacity to make a difference, have their origins in the work of Louis, Kruse

and Marks who began a substantial line of research documenting, in the US school restructuring

context, a significant link between the degree to which teachers individually and collectively adopt a

sense of responsibility for student learning and subsequent pedagogy and student achievement (see,

e.g., Louis, Kruse & Marks, 1996; Louis & Marks 1998; Lee & Smith, 1996). Here, we have

incorporated a replication of the original teacher responsibility scale developed by the Centre on the

Organisation and Restructuring of Schools (CORS) and reported by Louis, Kruse and Marks (1996)

and Louis and Marks (1998), and have developed subsets of the scale to address the specific issues of

belief in students, outside factors, and self efficacy. These four scales enable us to explore some

fundamental beliefs teachers hold in relation to teaching and their own role as teachers.

We should emphasise that the questionnaire from which these data were drawn was administered mid

2004, approximately one year after the first Quality Teaching support materials were sent to schools.

Interviews were conducted between mid 2004 and early 2005. As such, the data reported here

represent base line indicators of teachers’ beliefs and pedagogy. Given the nascence of the QT

initiative, we were unsure of the levels of understanding and commitment to QT that might be

expected at this point in time. In subsequent years, we will be able to examine the important question

of changes over time, thus contributing to literature on such issues as the intransigence of beliefs, the

conditions that facilitate change in beliefs, and how change in beliefs and/or practice is related to

teacher characteristics, such as years of experience, or the impact of school contexts.

The specific research questions guiding this paper were: what are teachers’ understandings and beliefs

about QT; what are teachers’ understandings and beliefs about pedagogy; how do these sets of beliefs

interact; and how do the beliefs interact with the quality of pedagogy? We examined these issues for

the whole sample as well as for samples comprised of the teachers with the highest and lowest

pedagogy scores.

Is recognition of importance enough?

In addressing the potential impact of the QT initiative on teachers’ pedagogy, a primary question to

explore is whether the teachers in the study saw the QT initiative as something important, working

from the premise that, at minimum, a general commitment to the reform initiative is required for an

impact on teachers’ practice (Lawrence, 2005; Shue-Tak Yu, 2000). Our data demonstrate that

participants in the study acknowledge the importance of the QT initiative. A scale measuring

teachers’ perceptions of the Importance of QT (See Appendix 3) found high ratings across the sample

of 975 teachers (see Figure 1). (Note that no imputations have been done for missing data in these

analyses).

Figure 1: Perceived Importance of Quality Teaching

(from a scale with range of 4 - 24 and a midpoint value of 14)

10001000001510 13 33

182

120148

194

100

150

200

250

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Importance of Quality Teaching

Frequency

In terms of the specific questions within this scale, there was very strong agreement from teachers

with the three questionnaire statements which most directly correspond to the three dimensions of the

Quality Teaching framework (Intellectual Quality, Quality Learning Environment, and Significance).

That is, on a 1-6 Likert scale (where 1 was strongly disagree and 6 was strongly agree), teachers

responded that:

• It is important for teaching to promote high levels of intellectual quality for all students

(mean 5.26, SD 0.78, n=937)

• A strong, positive and supportive learning environment affects the quality of students’ work

(mean 5.59, SD 0.56, n=946)

• If students are to value what they learn, they need to be able to link their school work to their

lives beyond the classroom (mean 5.5, SD 0.69, n=941)

As a measure of teachers’ self-reported perceptions of the QT reform initiative, these results suggest a

high level of agreement, among participating teachers, with the principles that underpin the QT

initiative.

Other individual questionnaire items aligned with this general agreement about the perceived

importance and value of QT amongst participating teachers. For example, teachers agreed that that the

QT model is an important focus for the NSWDET (mean 4.89, SD 0.89, n=874), and disagreed with

the statement that no-one around here cares about the QT framework (mean 2.15, SD 1.15, n=860).1

Hence the positive valuing of QT appears to be linked to recognition of its importance to the system

and among colleagues. In line with these perceptions, many teachers reported that QT had an impact

on their practice, evident in their agreement with the following statements:

1 Note that negatively worded items were located within larger scales including positively worded statements

(see Appendix 3).

Mean = 21.27

SD = 2.03

• The QT model has influenced the way that I plan my teaching (mean 4.01, SD 1.13, n=909);

and

• The QT model has influenced the way that I develop learning tasks for my classes (mean

4.06, SD 1.11, n=907);

and their disagreement with these statements:

• The QT model has had no impact on my students’ learning (mean 2.61, SD 1.11, n=817);

and

• The QT model has made no difference to the way that I teach my students (mean 2.63, SD

1.17, n=887).

These results suggest a high level of teacher commitment to QT in general, with teachers

acknowledging its importance and expressing a belief in its capacity to impact on pedagogical

practice. In light of the research identifying a link between beliefs and practices, the question remains

as to whether there was a correlation between this general commitment to QT and measures of

teachers’ pedagogical performance. This question is considered below via whole sample measures of

the quality of both classroom practice and assessment tasks in relation to teacher beliefs. In

subsequent sections of the paper, we conduct the same analyses for groups of teachers at the extremes

of measured performance, in order to more deeply examine the relationship between beliefs and

practice.

Beliefs and pedagogy

Although there was general agreement with QT principles amongst teachers, and perceptions that it

has impacted on their practice, the quality of pedagogy as measured by our instruments (See Appendix

2 for examples)2 indicated only modest levels of performance. Using the same QT materials available

to the teachers in our sample, mean scores for the whole sample for classroom observations and tasks

are reported in Table 1. Note that for classroom observations, a five-point scale was used to code the

six elements within each of the three QT dimensions (IQ, QLE, SIG), for a range of 6-30 within each

dimension, and 18-90 overall. For task scores, a similar five point scale was used to code the six

elements of the IQ dimension; three elements in the QLE dimension; and five elements of the SIG

dimension, for a range of 14-70 overall).

Table 1. Pedagogy scores, whole sample

Observations (n=169) Tasks (n=136)

QT by

dimension

and total Mean SD

Possible

range Mean SD

Possible

range

2 Some elements cannot be applied in the coding of tasks, resulting in different ranges of scores as noted in

Table 1.

IQ 15.74

3.96 6-30 15.18 4.37 6-30

QLE 16.50

3.65 6-30 6.10 1.95 3-15

SIG 14.17

3.43 6-30 9.42 2.56 5-25

Total QT score 46.41 9.66 18-90 30.70 6.96 14-70

While mean scores at the top of the range are not expected across a broad sample such as this, , the

mean scores for observations and tasks reported above are relatively low, in view of the possible range

of scores, highlighting the potential for improvement. They were, however, recorded in the early

stages of the implementation of the Quality Teaching framework in NSW public schools.

Additionally, these mean scores compare favourably with similar measures of pedagogy and

assessment practice in the State of Queensland, as part of the Queensland School Reform Longitudinal

Study (see Education Queensland, 2001) which targeted designated high performing schools, and thus

a less representative sample, within the Queensland system.

More significantly for our current analysis, very few correlations were found between teachers’ beliefs

about QT and the quality of their pedagogy, measured against both classroom observation and

assessment task scores (see Table 2). There was a positive correlation between the Effect of QT scale

and the level of Significance observed in classrooms and an interesting negative correlation between

the Effect of QT scale and scores for Quality Learning Environment in relation to tasks. Critically,

there are no consistent patterns between teachers’ beliefs about QT and their pedagogy. That is,

whether or not teachers thought QT was important, thought it had an effect on their practice, or

thought it had been supported, bore no direct correlation with the quality of their classroom or

assessment practice as measured against the QT dimensions.

Table 2: Pearson Bivariate Correlations, Commitment to QT v. Pedagogy Measures, r and n (pairwise

deletion, teacher level aggregates)

Observations Tasks

Scale IQ QLE SIG Total IQ QLE SIG Total

r .08 .06 .06 .08 -.06 .01 -.11 -.07

Importance of QT n 106 106 106 106 93 93 93 93

r .11 .17 .20* .19 -.03 -.25* .19 -.03

Effect of QT

n 97 97 97 97 83 83 83 83

r .07 .08 .17 .12 .05 -.07 .16 .07

Support for QT

n 96 96 96 96 81 81 81 81

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

At this early stage in both the systemic QT reform initiative, and the longitudinal SIPA study, there is

no clear correlation between teachers’ level of commitment to QT and the quality of their pedagogy.

Whether or not correlations are found as teachers engage more deeply with QT remains to be seen.

For now, while research cites the need for teacher “support [for] proposed changes” (Lawrence, 2005,

p. 351) as a pre-requisite for effective change, our data imply that garnering in-principle support for a

pedagogical reform framework like QT may be necessary, but is not sufficient to produce high quality

pedagogy as defined by QT.

Do fundamental beliefs about pedagogy matter?

In contrast to the findings relating to teachers’ commitment to QT, consistent patterns were found

between teachers’ more general beliefs about pedagogy and the quality of their classroom practice (see

Table 3). Significant positive correlations were recorded for the Teacher responsibility and Teachers’

belief in self efficacy scales and each dimension of classroom practice, while the Teachers’ belief in

student capacity and Teachers’ belief in outside factors affecting them scales recorded correlations

with the Quality Learning Environment, Significance, and Total observation scores. There were no

significant correlations between these belief scales and the quality of tasks.

Table 3: Pearson Bivariate Correlations, Teacher Fundamental Beliefs about Pedagogy v. Pedagogy

Measures, r and n (pairwise deletion, teacher level aggregates)

Observations Tasks

IQ QLE SIG Total IQ QLE SIG Total

r .21* .35** .30** .33** -.07 -.08 -.05 -.08

Teacher

Responsibility n 96 96 96 96 83 83 83 83

r .13 .26** .29** .26* -.05 -.07 .00 -.05

Teachers’ belief in

student capacity n 108 108 108 108 95 95 95 95

r -.16 -.28** -.28** -.27** .14 .06 .11 .14

Teachers’ belief in

outside factors

affecting them n 98 98 98 98 86 86 86 86

r .23* .33* .22* .31* .04 -.10 .07 .02

Teachers’ belief in

self-efficacy n 106 106 106 106 92 92 92 92

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

These findings relate to teachers’ more fundamental beliefs about pedagogy, their students and

themselves, rather than their particular understandings of or support for QT. Interestingly, in

demonstrating a link between such conceptions of themselves and their work with students, and the

quality of their classroom practice, the results point to the potential status of such fundamental or

underlying beliefs, rather than those about a particular reform, as a pre-condition for high quality

practice. Datnow and Castellano (2000), in relation to the “success for all” reform in California, found

that those teachers who embraced the program most strongly were “those for whom there was an

ideological fit about what constitutes good teaching” (p.794). In our study, there were statistically

significant inter-correlations between the teachers’ views about QT (as measured by the scales for

importance, effect and support) and their more fundamental beliefs (as measured by the scales for

teacher responsibility, belief in students, belief in outside factors, and belief in self efficacy) but at a

low level (r < .2). As the longitudinal study progresses and as engagement with QT deepens, these

patterns will be monitored.

Depth of understanding

One possible explanation for the lack of correlation between pedagogy and the valuing of QT relates

to the depth of teachers’ understanding of the Quality Teaching framework. Anderson and Helms

(2001) argue that much of what is advocated as reform may only understood at an abstract level by

practitioners, leaving them to construct understanding themselves. If teachers hold partial or

misunderstandings of the framework, translating its intent into practice is less likely to occur, hence

the moderate pedagogy scores. The high level of commitment to QT apparent in the questionnaire

data was not matched by the depth of understanding revealed in interviews. Indeed, our analysis of

the interview data, reported below, revealed a wide range of views about QT, its purposes and

potential.

Some teacher understandings were highly consistent with the QT framework. For instance, the

following comments taken from interviews highlight QT as promoting accountability, reflection on

practice, and engaging students with challenging and relevant knowledge and activities:

“I think it [QT] is good. I think that anything that’s going to encourage teachers and students

to become more involved and interested is great, because I think it’s easy to slip into routines

and just fly by the seat of your pants and not keep the purpose . . . in your head. So I think it

makes teachers more accountable to themselves and to the school.”

“Evaluating what you’re doing and reflecting is important … it’s about making people, staff,

more accountable for their lesson preparation and what they’re teaching and to be more aware

of what they’re doing and their strategies.”

“the real essence [of QT] is to increase student engagement, to get them thinking in a broader

capacity … really pushing them to use their brains in a way that gives them more engagement,

more enjoyment for what they’re doing. Linking it to the real world, I think that’s really

important … trying to link it through and make it relevant.”

These understandings accord with the framing of the QT model as it was delivered to schools and

highlight the potential for QT to impact on teachers’ pedagogy. The initial Discussion Paper

distributed to NSW public schools presented the QT model as “a framework for teachers’ professional

self-reflection and for school improvement practices”, adding, “with the aim of improving pedagogy

and hence student learning, the model is available for use by schools and teachers to focus their

discussion on teaching and assessment practices that take place in classrooms” (NSW DET, 2003,

p.4). Some teachers have embraced these views, as indicated in their comments on the reflection and

accountability for teaching that has been prompted by the QT model.

On the other hand, many comments from teachers indicated partial or misunderstandings of QT. For

instance, encouraging students to talk with their peers to solve substantive problems is something that

QT encourages. However, the first two quotes below illustrate the tendency among some teachers to

reduce these ideas to rather non-specific notions of ‘group work’. This is one example of how QT is

often (mis)understood as a set of teaching strategies or, as in the third quote below, a series of skills.

“I have done a 180 degree turn as far as student conversation goes. I used to demand quiet

independent work. Now I encourage them to talk to their peers about their work and problem

solve together.”

“I think it’s fantastic. I can’t imagine any other way. I don’t really know about the previous

model because I graduated in 2000 so working in groups is brilliant.”

“Having now worked with it for quite some time now I can see the value of it, in as far as it is

dissecting teaching, quality teaching, into more what I call a skills basis. Then you look at

each skill and look at [the] monitoring of [those] skills…”

Quality Teaching is not a series of teaching skills which, if practised enough, will yield good outcomes

for students. Rather, QT focuses teachers’ attention on the depth evident in what students are learning,

the extent to which classrooms are truly positive environments which support student learning, and the

extent to which learning experiences provided for students have any meaning beyond doing school

work for the sake of getting through school. Teachers who conceive of QT as a series of skills, or set

of classroom strategies such as group work, miss the critical point of QT’s focus on how knowledge

and experiences are structured to improve student learning.

The lack of correlation between teachers’ beliefs about QT and the quality of their pedagogy across

the whole sample, coupled with the diversity in teachers’ understanding of QT, warranted further

investigation. In order to better understand the interaction of beliefs about QT, general beliefs about

pedagogy, and the quality of pedagogy, we conducted more focused analyses as documented in the

next section.

Comparing high and low scoring teachers

To more deeply investigate the relationship between beliefs and pedagogy, we examined the interview

and questionnaire responses of teachers whose classroom and/or assessment practice fell at the

extremes of measured performance. That is, from the groups of teachers whose scores were more than

one standard deviation above or below the mean, we selected the 15 teachers with the highest and the

15 with the lowest classroom observation scores and the 15 with the highest and 15 with the lowest

assessment task scores, yielding four groups aligning with the tails of recorded performance (see

Figures 2 and 3 below). Hence, for these analyses, we focused on 60 teachers from the total sample of

169 teachers from whom we had classroom observation scores (n=330 observations), and the 136

teachers from whom we had coded assessment tasks (n=199 tasks). Note that for individual teachers

we had on average two coded observations and more than one task.

Figure 2. Observation scores by teacher

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 127 133 139 145 151 157 163 169

Teacher

Figure 3. Task scores by teacher

Mean = 46.34

SD = 9.67

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 131 136

Teacher

Within this sample of 60, only two teachers appeared in more than one category. One teacher was in

the top 15 for classroom observations but the bottom 15 for assessment tasks. Another teacher

appeared in the bottom 15 for both assessment tasks and observations. The interview and

questionnaire responses (where available) of the 58 different teachers who appeared in these four

groupings were examined to look for any patterns in teachers’ beliefs in relation to the quality of their

pedagogy. Demographic data for the schools in which all of these teachers were located were

available (see Table 4). However, not all of the teachers in the study who were observed, and / or who

submitted an assessment task, were interviewed or completed the voluntary questionnaire, such that

the available sample within each of the four groups of teachers, for whom we had all of this data,

ranged from seven to thirteen.3

Potential confounding factors

Before exploring patterns in understanding shown by the different groups of teachers, it is instructive

to examine whether school type and/or years of teaching experience were explanatory factors in the

composition of these top and bottom scoring groups of teachers. Lee and Burkam’s (2002) study of

disadvantage in US schools led them to conclude that, “Whether “quality” is defined in terms of

school sector, class size, school outreach to parents, teacher qualifications, teacher attitudes, or school

environmental conditions, disadvantaged and minority children begin their educational careers in

schools of consistently lower quality” (p. 84). There is also substantial evidence of difficulties

retaining teachers in these “hard to staff” schools, leading to them having disproportionately large

3 As a consequence, data on teachers’ years of experience could only be reported for 38 of these 58 teachers (see

Table 5).

Mean = 30.70

SD = 6.97

numbers of early career teachers (Cochran-Smith, 2004; Martinez, 2005). Examining characteristics

of schools, and average years of teaching experience, for the schools in which teachers in the top and

bottom groups are located offers insight into the extent to which these factors might impact on the

capacity to produce high quality pedagogy.

School type

A number of different aspects of school type were considered. First, in light of attention given to

differences in pedagogy within school sectors, particularly associated with the concept of middle

schooling (Chadbourne, 2001), we identified each of the teachers by school sector. Next, given a

perception that teaching is harder in poorer schools (Swanson Gehrke, 2005), and/or that the average

lower outcomes for students from poorer schools is in part a result of the quality of teaching they

receive (Lee & Burkam, 2002), we considered the socio-economic status (SES) of the schools in

which these teachers were located. Australian Bureau of Statistics measures of the economic

resources of districts surrounding schools were divided into quartiles, where SES Band 1 is the

poorest, and Band 4 the wealthiest, of the schools. Another issue commonly believed to impact on

teaching in Australian schools is the proportion of Indigenous students (those of Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander (ATSI) descent) (NSWAECG & NSWDET, 2004). Table 4 reports these

characteristics of the schools in which the top and bottom groups of teachers were located.

Table 4. School characteristics for top and bottom teacher groups

School characteristics

Group

Primary Secondary Number of

SES Band 1

Schools

Avg. %

(% range)

ATSI

Top 15 7 8 2 3.56%

(0-9%)

Observations

Bottom 15 2 13 8 14.35%

(0-33%)

Top 15 5 10 7 4.85%

(0-25%)

Tasks

Bottom 15 14 1 8 29.5%

(0-61%)

Looking first at primary / secondary sectors and classroom observation scores, teachers with the top

performances are quite evenly distributed, while secondary teachers are over-represented among the

bottom performances (13 of 15). When we turn to the task scores, the top performances were more

commonly found among secondary teachers (10 of 15) while primary teachers were overwhelmingly

represented among the bottom task performances (14 of 15). These patterns are consistent with the

whole sample statistics, and might, at least in part, be explained by the structure of schooling in each

sector. In primary schools there is a clear focus on processes and activities to support student learning

which might contribute to the higher levels of classroom practice observed. On the other hand, the

more acute focus in secondary schools on high-stakes assessment might help to explain the relatively

high proportion of secondary teachers (two-thirds) among the top task group. In QT terms, and

particularly in terms of Intellectual Quality, what these data illustrate is that primary teachers may

require more of their students in class while demanding less of them in the tasks they set, while the

reverse is true for secondary teachers, where the demands they place on students through assessment

tasks may be greater than what they offer in class.

Considering the SES of the schools within these groups, a disproportionate number of teachers who

recorded the bottom performances in both observations and assessment tasks were located in SES

Band 1 schools. Eight of the 15 teachers whose classroom practices scored lowest were in Band 1

schools, and the same was true for assessment tasks. Similarly, among the bottom performances there

were a disproportionate number of schools with higher percentages of Indigenous students (noting that

the State average is 4.7%) (see Amosa & Cooper, 2006 for a fuller account of the impact of these

contextual factors on the quality of pedagogy). One anomaly among these data was the high

proportion of teachers in SES Band 1 schools among the top task performances (7 of 15). In

Haberman’s (2002) analysis of successful and unsuccessful teachers in poor schools in the US, he

found that even in difficult circumstances some teachers succeed because they hold high expectations

and demand high quality work from their students. In the NSW context, the historical legacy of extra

support given to low SES schools through the Disadvantaged Schools Program, and more recently, the

Priority Schools Funding Program and Priority Action Schools Program, all of which have focused on

moving beyond a deficit approach to disadvantage and raising teachers’ expectations of students

(Ruge, 1999), may help to explain the convergence on tasks.

The analysis of school type in relation to the quality of pedagogy among the top and bottom teaching

performances thus outline some broad patterns along fairly predictable lines. The best observed

classroom practice appears less likely to be found in low (Band 1) SES schools, or those with higher

than average percentage enrolments of ATSI students, while the quality of assessment tasks appears

unrelated to SES. A significant conclusion to be drawn from this analysis, however, is that these

demographic characteristics of schools did not preclude high quality teaching performances.

Years of teaching

In terms of years of teaching experience across these four groups, there are no definitive patterns (see

Table 5). For instance, looking at teachers who are relatively new to teaching finds them among both

the top and bottom observation and task performances. Interestingly, whereas tasks appeared to be

least affected by school type, all but one of the teachers found in the bottom task group have less than

9 years experience, the exception having been teaching for more than 24 years, while teachers in the

top task group were more broadly distributed across the range of teaching experience. Looking at

observations, patterns are no more evident. For example, while six of the eleven teachers in the bottom

observation group have three years or less teaching experience, teachers in this group are spread across

the full range of teaching experience. The spread is more even for top observations. Here too then,

these results clearly show that years of experience do not preclude high or low teaching performances.

Common developmental understandings of teachers’ careers suggest that teachers take some years to

develop competence and stability and that some teachers end their careers rather cynically (Guskey &

Huberman, 1995), but these data show no clear relation between point in teaching career and the

quality of pedagogy (see Gore, Williams and Ladwig, 2006 for a specific examination of some of

these issues in relation to early career teachers). All teachers, it seems, are capable of producing high

levels of Quality Teaching and no group of teachers, by years of experience, appears to be more or less

capable than any other.

Table 5. Years of teaching for comparison groups

Top

observations Bottom

observations Top

tasks Bottom

tasks TOTAL

< 1 year 1 2 3 1 7

1-3 yrs 1 4 2 3 10

4-6 yrs

7-9 yrs 1 1 1 2 5

10-12 yrs 1 1 2

13-15 yrs 1 1

16-18 yrs 1 2 3

19-21 yrs 1 1

22-24 yrs

2 2

> 24 yrs 2 2 1 5

Average yrs teaching 9 7 10 5

Total 7 11 13 7 38

Beliefs about Quality Teaching

Given that the four groups in these analyses were largely comprised of different teachers (with the two

exceptions noted above), and in light of the lack of a clear correlation in the whole sample’ differences

in whole sample correlations between teachers’ fundamental beliefs and observations, and these

beliefs and tasks, we analysed the survey and interview responses of the top and bottom observation

groups separately from the top and bottom task groups. The only statistically significant differences

between the top and bottom observation groups were that the higher scoring group believed more

strongly that they had found the QT model to be a useful resource for their teaching (t(15) =2.25,

p<0.05), and were less likely to see the QT model as having had no impact on their students (t(14) =-

2.91, p<0.05). The first of these findings suggests that the top scoring teachers’ beliefs about teaching

may have been more consistent with the QT framework, while the second finding is an indicator that

they value its impact on their work. These findings are confirmed in their interview responses, with

the top observation teachers stating:

“Evaluating what you’re doing and reflecting is important. … The quality of my lessons has

improved. It’s more work to begin with, but once you become more familiar with the three

dimensions then I think it becomes an integrated part of the way you operate.”

“I actually think it’s [QT’s] fantastic . . . This is the first time since I started teaching that I am

actually teaching, rather than just giving students work to do . . . it’s a bit scary really.”

“It makes me more aware of connecting what’s going on in the classroom to what’s going on

outside in society and in students’ lives. I’m really aware of the significance part. I’m very

aware of making it overtly significant. It’s raised my awareness of the importance of

significance.”

These responses from top performing teachers reveal an understanding of the QT initiative that moves

beyond particular skills or teaching strategies to fundamental principles of teaching and learning upon

which all such skills and strategies might be based. In contrast, , interview responses from teachers

with the lowest observation scores demonstrate less of a commitment to, or understanding of, QT.

“For me personally, I haven’t changed, but I feel justified with some of the things that I do

that I didn’t feel justified . . . I thought I was doing the right thing but I didn’t have the

justification and now I have it all confirmed.”

Indeed, in light of the measures of pedagogy recorded, this statement suggests a false sense of security

in the quality of the teacher’s practice.

The same analyses were conducted for the top and bottom task groups with similar patterns identified.

Teachers whose tasks scored highest were more likely to report that they had been supported by their

school executive to engage with QT(t(15) =2.01 p<0.05), and were more likely to agree that their own

enthusiasm for QT had been dampened by others who do not care about it (t(13) =3.60 p<0.05). The

first of these findings confirms the value of school leader support for such reform within a school,

while the second highlights the negative potential of a lack of support from colleagues within the

school. Interestingly, teachers whose tasks scored in the top group were also less likely to report that

their QT professional learning had focused on the use of the model in relation to assessment tasks

(t(15) =-3.27 p<0.05). This finding was recorded prior to the NSWDET’s distribution of QT support

materials on assessment practice, thus raising questions about the extent to which any QT professional

learning focused on assessment, received by teachers in the bottom group, may have contributed to

their understanding or (mis)understanding of the model.

Interview responses from teachers with the highest task scores focussed on its impact and on its value

as a tool for enhancing their practice:

“The model [is] about depth in teaching, not just skimming the surface.”

“The model has made me stop and think . . . is what I’m doing appropriate, is it suitable for

them, is it challenging for them? . . . I just choose lessons of quality rather than quantity.”

“Some people might just think they’re in Year 2, you can’t expect too much. Well, I’ve sort

of gone the other way . . . They all know what to do and what’s expected and just their level of

writing is really amazing. . . . I really like ‘explicit quality criteria’. If you know what that is

and the kids know what that is, well then it just makes their learning so much easier and their

grasping. They know what’s expected and they’re able to work independently.”

“I’m really quite excited about the whole thing [QT] . . . Seems to make me want to come to

school . . . It gives me something to focus on . . . No-one is forcing me to look at this in great,

terrible detail . . But I’m very interested in it, and I can see that it’s useful.”

“It’s a really good reflective tool; a framework that gives teachers a way to reflect on their

classroom, assessment and programming practice. That’s where it’s value lies.”

“We’ve got people who have no idea what the QT model is and I can’t understand their

opposition. I want to know what their alternative is. What’s the alternative to Quality

Teaching? Crap? . . . What it does is it makes you question your practice and that is very

threatening to teachers.”

Like the responses of those with the highest observations, teachers here show some grasp of the

underlying principles of QT, in terms of fundamentally re-thinking their practice. Interview responses

from teachers with lowest task scores, on the other hand, demonstrate either a more limited knowledge

of QT, or an interpretation of the model that confirms their existing practice:

“I am not well versed in the [QT] model at this stage.”

“The only work I’ve done on QT is what we have done in the staffroom. And after you have

heard that you go away and forget about it . . . and focus on managing the kids.”

“Teachers are doing a lot of what is in the model.”

“I think everyone’s probably doing it without realizing the degree to which they’re doing it.”

These analyses indicate some differences in how the top and bottom groups understand QT and how it

might be useful in their own practice. Teachers in the top groups appear to hold deeper understandings

of the substance of the model and how it can be used to critically reflect on, and challenge, their own

practice, while those in the bottom groups reveal less developed understandings that are unlikely to

impact on their practice.

Fundamental beliefs about teaching

We also examined differences in how the top and bottom groups of teachers view teaching more

broadly. It was in this area of analysis that some stark differences were found between high and low

scoring teachers, based on their QT observation (classroom practice) scores (Table 6). Statistically

significant differences (p< 0.05) between these groups were found in three of the four teacher belief

scales used in our survey: Teachers’ beliefs in student capacity, Teachers’ belief in self efficacy, and

Teacher responsibility. Given the very small sample sizes, these differences are highly significant in

statistical terms. The fourth scale, Teachers’ belief in outside factors, while not statistically

significant, represents a substantive difference of more than one standard deviation. (See Appendix 3

for details of scales used in analysis of SIPAQ survey results).

Table 6. Group Statistics for Teacher Belief Scales

Scale Group N Mean SD

Std

Error

Mean t df

Sig (2

tailed)

Top obs 7 9.86 2.04 .77

Teachers’ belief in

student capacity Bottom obs 10 6.8 2.66 .84 2.55 15 .022*

Top obs 6 8.83 3.31 1.35

Teachers’ belief in

outside factors Bottom obs 9 13.33 4.42 1.47 -2.12 13 .054

Top obs 7 16.00 1.91 .72

Teachers’ belief in self

efficacy Bottom obs 9 13.11 3.22 1.07 2.23 14 .043*

Top obs 6 35.00 4.20 1.71

Teacher responsibility

Bottom obs 9 27.78 6.36 2.12 2.44 13 .030*

*p<.05

These results reveal that the teachers in the top observation group have significantly different

fundamental understandings, compared with their peers in the bottom observation group, of their

responsibility for their students’ learning, their own capacity to make a difference, the capacities of

their students to learn, and the impact of external factors beyond their control. That is, the teachers

whose lessons scored in the top 15 of the 169 teachers for whom we have observation data, expressed

a stronger belief in the capacity of their students to learn, a stronger belief in their own capacity to

make a difference, and a stronger belief in their own responsibility for their students’ learning. These

teachers also expressed a weaker belief in the negative impact of external factors on their work with

students. These findings are consistent with the Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study

(QSRLS) (Education Queensland, 2001) which found that teachers with the highest pedagogy scores

demonstrated a much stronger sense of responsibility for student learning than did teachers with the

lowest scores.

In contrast to these beliefs, a teacher in the bottom observation group stated:

“not everyone is going to excel, but you need to give them the basics … it’s sometimes hard

teaching stuff you know they are not going to get and are not that interested in. I had this idea

that I’d have this class and everyone would be interested in learning and I’d be able to get

them thinking and creating and problem solving, but it’s just not like that in reality. Now it’s

just ‘try and get them through the basics.”

Similarly, some teachers in the bottom task identified perceived limitations of some students as

negatively impacting on their capacity to learn:

“Life throws curve balls and interruptions … It’s impossible to have a 100 percent strike rate

with students … Some students can’t produce work in the time frame and fall short of the

benchmarks.”; and

“Academic excellence in subject matter is not achievable for every student.”

The QT framework is grounded in the idea that all groups of students can and should be engaged in

high quality, intellectually demanding work. The results here clearly point to the importance of

teachers’ fundamental beliefs about teaching that connect with this feature of the QT framework with

respect to the quality of their teaching practice. Whereas commitment to QT is insufficient to impact

on practice, teachers’ beliefs about QT, and their fundamental beliefs about their work, appear to be

more directly linked to their practice, and hence to prospects of achieving systemic change in teachers’

pedagogy.

Conclusion

The identification of links between teachers’ knowledge, beliefs and attitudes, and their teaching

practice, stands to provide insights into the conditions that support pedagogical reform. Early findings

from the longitudinal SIPA study in NSW begin to develop such insights by examining links between

how teachers view, interpret and seek to implement the Quality Teaching model of pedagogy, their

more fundamental beliefs about themselves, their work and their students, and measures of their

performance.

Our study shows a high level recognition of the value and importance of the QT initiative amongst

respondents which, given the importance of teacher support for, and a sense of ownership of, change

initiatives in schools for successful reform, holds some promise. However, with no clear correlation

between this expressed support and measures of teachers’ performance, the whole sample findings

seem to confirm that, on its own, this does not have a significant impact on practice.

We might expect to find strong correlations between aspects of school type and teacher performance,

given the well established links between demographic features like the socioeconomic status of the

school, and / or the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students within the school, and

student outcomes. Neither these features, nor years of teaching experience, produced consistent

patterns when examining performance amongst groups of top and bottom performing teachers within

the whole sample. Rather, data from these groups showed links between performance and aspects of

their expressed understandings of the QT model, and more fundamental understandings of their work

and their students. That is, in addition to high levels of support for QT, teachers in the top groups

showed a deeper understanding of the substance of the model and how it relates to their practice.

Similarly, teachers in the top group were more likely to express a sense of responsibility for their

students’ learning, and show more faith in both the capacity of their students to learn, and their own

capacity to make a difference, than their counterparts in the bottom groups.

These initial indications are positive, suggesting that regardless of the particular setting or years of

experience, there are reasonable grounds to argue that all teachers can implement QT in their practice.

In a sense, anyone can do it. The crucial questions appear to be finding ways to enhance teachers’

understanding of the model, and their broader understanding of their role in the profession, given the

relationship between such beliefs and the quality of their practice. Subsequent analyses of the

longitudinal data may provide insights into the extent to which changes in practice impact on teachers’

beliefs, and / or changes in their beliefs impact on practice. The critical finding here is clear evidence

of a positive relationship between beliefs and practice, and hence support for ongoing system and

school level attempts to promote both changes to practice in line with QT, and deeper understanding

of QT. As demonstrated in this paper, the pedagogical reform that is the goal of the QT initiative is

unlikely to occur without teachers’ support for QT, teachers’ deep understanding of QT, teachers’

deep commitment to their students’ learning and belief that their teaching makes a difference, and

associated efforts to teach well.

References

Aguirre, J., & Speer, N. M. (2000). Examining the relationship between beliefs and goals in teacher

practice. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(3), 327-256.

Amosa, W., & Cooper, S. (2006). Schools matter, teachers matter: Exploring the links between

teachers' work, school context and Quality Teaching, Paper presented at the American

Educational Research Association Annual Meeting. San Francisco.

Anderson, R. D., & Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: needed

research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 3-16.

Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse: Class, codes and control: Volume IV.

London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Chadbourne, R. (2001). Middle Schooling for the Middle Years; What might the jury be considering?

Southbank: Australian Education Union.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Stayers, Leavers, Lovers, and Dreamers: Insights About Teacher

Retention. Journal of Teacher Education 55(5), 387-392

Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. (2000). Teachers' responses to success for all: how beliefs, experiences,

and adaptation shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 775-779.

Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. H. (1991). Changes in teachers' beliefs and practices in

technology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership(May), 45-52.

Education Queensland. (2001). The Queensland school reform longitudinal study. Brisbane: School of

Education, The University of Queensland.

Frechtling, J. A., Sharp, L., Carey, N., & Vaden-Kiernan, N. (1995). Teacher enhancement programs:

A perspective on the last four decades. Retrieved 10 April 2002, from

http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/ehr/rec/pubs/eval/tep/tep.htm

Guskey, T. R., & Huberman, M. (Eds.). (1995). Professional development in education: New

paradigms and practices. New York: Teacher College Press.

Haberman, M. (2002). Can teacher education close the achievement gap? Paper presented at the Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research, New Orleans.

Ladwig, J. G., & King, M. B. (2003). Quality teaching in NSW public schools: An annotated

bibliography. Sydney, NSW: professional Support and Curriculum Directorate.

Lawrence, S. M. (2005). Contextual matters: Teachers' perceptions of the success of antiracist

classroom practices. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(6), 350.

Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the Starting Gate: Social Background Differences in

Achievement as Children Begin School. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

Martinez, K. (2004). Mentoring new teachers: Promise and problems in times of teacher shortage.

Australian Journal of Education, 48(1), 95-108.

Newmann, F. M., & Associates. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual

quality.

New South Wales Aboriginal Education Consultative Group Incorporated, & New South Wales

Department of Education and Training. (2004). The Report of the Review of Aboriginal

education: Yanigurra Muya: Ganggurrinyma Yaarri Guurulaw Yirringin.guray Freeing the

spirit: Dreaming an equal future. Darlinghurst: New South Wales Department of Education and

Training.

NSW Department of Education and Training. (2003). Quality teaching in NSW public schools:

Discussion paper. Sydney, NSW: Professional support and Curriculum Directorate.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct.

Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery &

E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102-119). New York: Simon

and Schuster Macmillan.

Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers'

beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educational Research

Journal, 28(3), 559-586.

Ruge, J. (1999). DSP Working Paper. Raising Expectations: Achieving quality education for all.

Sydney: NSW Department of Education and Training.

Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (2004). Beliefs, practices, and interactions of teachers in a Japanese

high school English department. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 797-816.

Shue-Tak Yu, R. (2000). Leadership and effective school reform. The Practising Administrator 22 (1),

28-31.

Swanson Gehrke, Rebecca. (2005). Poor schools poor students successful teachers. Kappa Delta Pi

Record 42 (1), 14.

Timperley, H. S., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2001). Achieving school improvement through challenging

and changing teachers' schema. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 281-300.

Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An

examination of research on contemporary professional development. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D.

Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education (pp. 173-209). Washington, D.C.: American

Education Research Association.

Overview of the NSW Quality Teaching model: Appendix One

Classroom Practice Guide