Proposal Information:

Topic: The issue of what constitutes quality teaching within disadvantaged schools remains contested. Considerable research supports the fact that effective teachers are a critical in raising educational outcomes within high poverty schools, with Cochran-Smith et al.’s (2012) large-scale review on teacher quality identifying several distinguishable genres or discourses that impact on learning including: teachers’ educational backgrounds, teachers’ entry pathways into teaching, teacher preparation programs and their graduates, teacher preparation and learning to teach in the early career years, teachers’ life experiences and beliefs/practices. Similarly, the High-Quality Teaching Study based in the US, identified five key domains indicative of quality teaching: the promotion of “deep principled learning of content; and encouraging the development of cognitive and metacognitive skills; motivate students to engage deeply in subject matter; address individual and developmental differences among students; and create inclusive, affirming, and successful learning environments” (Croninger, Valli, & Chambiss, 2012, p.4). Within Europe, van de Grift’s (2013) multinational analysis of measures of quality proposed a further set that included; a safe learning climate, efficient classroom management, quality of instruction, teaching learning strategies and adaptation of teaching to diverse student needs. Yet again within the Australian context, some measures of teacher quality emphasize literacy/numeracy outcomes (Comber & Kamler, 2004) while others emphasize pedagogy (Hayes, Mills, Christie, & Lingard, 2006). However, despite a prolonged international focus on the impact of quality teacherson student learning outcomes, there is little agreement about what “teacher quality actually means, how it matters or how it should be assessed” (Cochran-Smith et al., 2012, p. 3).

Research Question & Theoretical Approach:

The lack of quality teaching in low socio-economic schools is an issue of international concern with widespread acceptance of the need to get highly qualified teachers into classrooms serving statistically at-risk children (i.e. those in poverty, Indigenous, rural and some EAL students). This paper reports on the first stage of a 3-year Australian Research Council Linkage study into teacher quality within low SES schools that specifically examines how quality teaching is perceived and enacted by a particular cohort of early career teachers. The research draws on the National Exceptional Teachers for Disadvantaged Schools program (NETDS) for its sample of early career teachers.  NETDS was designed in 2009 to address the core issue of how a mainstream teacher education program might enhance teaching quality in contexts of disadvantage through the targeted preparation of pre-service teachers. NETDS identifies the highest-achieving pre-service teachers within a traditional mainstream Initial Teacher Education program, and offers them a modified curriculum and supported practicum/field experience in a network of partner low SES schools. By working closely with the government department of education and partner schools, the program channels these pre-service teachers into employment in schools where they potentially have the most impact. Importantly, 86 preservice teachers have now graduated from 4 separate NETDS cohorts. This research builds upon existing research conducted by the Department of Education, Training and Employment (DETE) and Queensland University of Technology (QUT), that provides the dual training and understanding of professional development identified in the literature as crucial for success (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Hattie, 2008; Ladson-Billings, 2006).

This research specifically addresses the following questions:

1. How is quality teaching within low SES schools understood by early career teachers, school principals, departmental staff and teacher educators?
2. What knowledges, skills and dispositions do these early career teachers bring to their teaching and with what possible effects?
3. How do NETDS graduates transition from university to work within low SES schools?
4. What are the implications in relation to capacity building within low SES schools for both teacher education and departments of education?

References Cochran-Smith, M., Cannady, M., MacEachern, K., Mitchell, K., Piazza, P., Power, C., & Ryan, A. (2012). Teachers’ Education and Outcomes: Mapping the Research Terrain. Teacher’s College Record, 114, 1-49. Comber, B., & Kamler, B. (2004). Turn-around pedagogies: Improving the education of at-risk students. Improving Schools, 8(2), 121-113. Croninger, R., Valli, L., & Chambiss, M. J. (2012). Researching Quality in Teaching: Enduring and Emerging Challenges. Teachers College Record, 114(4), 1-15. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity will Determine our Future. New York: Teachers College Press. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). Helping Novices Learn to Teach: Lessons from an Exemplary Support Teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(17), 17-30. Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method valuation. In J. C. Greene & V. J. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (pp. 5–17). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, New York: Routledge. Hayes, D., Mills, M., Christie, P., & Lingard, B. (2006). Teachers and schooling making a difference: Productive pedagogies, assessment and performance. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Ladson-Billings, G. (2008). A letter to our next president. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(3), 235-239. van de Grift, W. (2013). Measuring teaching quality in several European countries. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 25(3), 295-311.