Globally, teachers have increasingly been recognised as the most important in-school influence on student outcomes (Hattie & Yates, 2014; Rockoff, 2004). Correspondingly, governments worldwide have made concerted efforts to ensure the quality of teachers, with a particular focus on initial teacher education (ITE) (Mayer, 2021). Mirroring changes to ITE in UK, reforms in Australia focus primarily on regulation and standardisation rather than pursuing innovations or interventions to enhance the quality of ITE programs. These efforts have included greater prescription of course content, new teacher accreditation schemes, new minimum literacy and numeracy standards, and new ‘classroom readiness’ assessments for graduating teachers (Rowe & Skourdoumbis, 2019).

ITE curricula are now more crowded and fragmented than ever before, making it hard for students to integrate theory with practice (Dyment et al., 2015). Indeed, some of the greatest challenges in ITE include program coherence, student confidence to enter the workforce, and feeling prepared to enter the classroom (Willis et al., 2022). Within this context, there is an opportunity to improve ITE through interventions that support and empower students as they transition into early career teaching. One such intervention is the Quality Teaching (QT) model (NSW Department of Education, 2003). This model of pedagogy has been used in Australia for the past 20 years, however has not been systematically applied in ITE. Derived from the work of Authentic Pedagogy (Newmann et al., 1996) and Productive Pedagogies (Lingard et al., 2003), the model has the potential to support, empower and build the confidence of ITE students as they transition into the teaching workforce. The QT Model provides a shared language and set of concepts that teacher educators can use to underpin and articulate what constitutes quality teaching for their students. Linking theory to practice, the QT Model provides a means to connect theoretical content and the rigorous practical needs of teaching. It is applicable across multiple disciplines and has the adaptability to accommodate diverse teaching situations. The model highlights three dimensions of pedagogy:

1. Intellectual Quality - pedagogy focused on deep understanding of important ideas.
2. Quality Learning Environment - pedagogy that creates productive classrooms focused on learning.
3. Significance - pedagogy that helps students see value in what they are learning.

Teaching that aligns with this model has consistently been linked to improved outcomes for teachers and students (Gore et al., 2017, 2021). Used in Quality Teaching Rounds (QTR) professional development (Bowe & Gore, 2017), the model has demonstrably empowered and built the confidence and efficacy of beginning teachers (Gore & Bowe, 2015). We hypothesised that it could help build the confidence of ITE students in ways that positively impact completion rates and the quality of graduates.

In this paper, we explore a potential missed opportunity amid the plethora of ITE reforms – an intervention that has the ability to enhance the quality and coherence of ITE programs while providing students with the confidence to transition into early career teaching. To explore the impact of such an approach, we conducted a pilot study designed to increase final year ITE students’ understanding of quality teaching and address its impact on their classroom practice.

The purpose of the pilot study was to investigate impact of a QT workshop for ITE students on their experience of entering the teaching profession. The intervention consisted of a two-day tailored workshop for ITE students focused on the QT Model as it relates to both classroom and assessment practice and on the processes of QTR. Workshops were held online and face to face, involving a combination of facilitator-led sessions, independent work, and collaborative work in groups or breakout rooms. ITE students from one Australian university were recruited to participate in 2022 (n=33) and 2023 (n=23), with insights gleaned through a mixed-methods research design consisting of surveys and interviews. Surveys were completed at four time points (immediately before the two-day QT workshop, immediately after the workshop, immediately after the students’ 10-week internship, and 12 months after completion of their internship). Survey items focused on teacher efficacy, confidence, stress and intentions to continue in the profession. Interviews were conducted after the two-day workshop, after the 10-week internship, and again at the completion of the first year of teaching. Interview discussions focused on teacher preparedness, perceptions of QT and ITE, reflections on internship and the first year of teaching. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data, including open-ended survey responses, were analysed using standard protocols for inductive and deductive coding (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006) to identify key themes derived from the perspectives of participants.

More than 3,000 classroom teachers have participated in QTR professional development to date; however, the approach has not yet been applied systematically in the ITE environment. The data from this pilot study sheds light on how participation in the QT workshop impacted students in their first year of teaching. We found that: 1) participants felt overwhelmingly positive about participating in the QT workshop; 2) the QT Model helped them understand important links between theory and practice that were previously missing; and 3) participation in the workshop produced a measurable increase in their confidence for undertaking their internship and during their first year of teaching. We argue that the QT Model provides a shared language and set of concepts that helps ITE students to understand, articulate and practise quality teaching. Linking theory with practice, the QT Model provides a bridge between the vast theoretical material and demanding practical requirements of teacher education programs while building program quality and coherence. Although a relatively small-scale study, the results presented in this paper establish the workshop as impactful for the ITE student experience. This innovative approach applies a highly evidenced, efficient, and targeted intervention to ITE programs, offering an alternative to current approaches which focus on regulation and standardisation. Our pilot study provides a solid foundation for undertaking larger-scale studies and for more fully integrating QT into ITE to improve beginning teacher practice, confidence and retention.

Bowe, J., & Gore, J. M. (2017). Reassembling teacher professional development: the case for Quality Teaching Rounds. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 23(3), 352–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1206522 Dyment, J. E., Hill, A., & Dyment, J. E. (2015). You mean I have to teach sustainability too? Initial teacher education students’ perspectives on the sustainability cross-curriculum priority Recommended Citation. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 40. https://doi.org/10.3316/INFORMIT.072057830271190 Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92. Gore, J. M., & Bowe, J. M. (2015). Interrupting attrition? Re-shaping the transition from preservice to in-service 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. M., Lloyd, A., Smith, M., Bowe, J., Ellis, H., & Lubans, D. (2017). Effects of 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. M., Miller, A., Fray, L., Harris, J., & Prieto, E. (2021). Improving student achievement through professional development: Results from a randomised controlled trial of Quality Teaching Rounds. Teaching and Teacher Education, 101, 103297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103297 Hattie, J., & Yates, G. C. R. (2014). Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn (1st ed.). Routledge. Lingard, B., Hayes, D., & Mills, M. (2003). Teachers and productive pedagogies: Contextualising, conceptualising, utilising. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 11(3), 399–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681360300200181 Mayer, D. (2021). Teacher Education Policy and Research. Global Perspectives (D. Mayer, Ed.). Springer Link. Newmann, F. M., Marks, H. M., & Gamoran, A. (1996). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. American Journal of Education, 104(4), 280–312. https://doi.org/10.1086/444136 NSW Department of Education. (2003). Quality Teaching Model. https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/professional-learning/quality-teaching-rounds Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The Impact of Individual Teachers on Student Achievement: Evidence from Panel Data. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 247–252. http://econwpa.wustl.edu:8089/ Rowe, E. E., & Skourdoumbis, A. (2019). Calling for ‘urgent national action to improve the quality of initial teacher education’: the reification of evidence and accountability in reform agendas. Journal of Education Policy, 34(1), 44–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1410577 Willis, L. D., Shaukat, S., & Low-Choy, S. (2022). Preservice teacher perceptions of preparedness for teaching: Insights from survey research exploring the links between teacher professional standards and agency. British Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 228–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/BERJ.3761