Professionalism, curriculum, pedagogy and assessment all play significant roles in the daily work of

teachers. All four of these areas are governed by different sets of standards to which teachers are
held accountable.

Professionalism in teaching is highly important, as it determines a teacher’s level of accreditation.

The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (APST) tell us to what level a teacher must
understand, demonstrate and implement different pedagogies and research to ensure best practice.
According to (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2014) there are seven
standards to which teachers are held, which revolve around understanding the complex differences
between individual students, implementing best practice based on research and developing whole-
school approaches to learning. (Clinton, et al., 2015) shows that although most teachers, especially
younger teachers, have embraced the idea of the APST, there is still some opposition; mainly from
teachers with over 25 years of experience. There are also problems with implementation, as
(Clinton, et al., 2015) also shows that school leaders place more value in the APST than teachers
themselves. If it is widely accepted that standards geared toward whole-school and student centred
learning are best practice; why is there still a level of opposition to the APST? This could be due to
difference in perceived level of support for APST implementation between school leaders and
teachers. (Clinton, et al., 2015) shows that on average, level of perceived support is 10 to 40 percent
higher for leaders than for teachers. This indicates that teachers and leaders are receiving training
and support on the APST, but leaders may not be following up with their teachers. One commonality
is that both school leaders and teachers do not believe there are enough support resources to help
them implement the APST.

If professionalism governs how teachers apply their knowledge in the classroom to ensure best
practice, pedagogy tells them how to teach to the standards of best practice. Pedagogy, broadly
defined, is the way in which teachers teach. (Gore, 2007) states that teaching standards alone are
often not detailed enough to be able to improve pedagogical practice. So, if teaching standards
alone cannot improve pedagogy, what can? In response to this, the NSW Quality Teaching Model
(QT model) was introduced to give teachers a way to ‘mark their own work’ to a specific set of
pedagogical standards. (Gore, 2007) also argues that the QT model standards are detailed enough
that teachers can pinpoint which aspects of their lessons need to be improved and which are well
developed. This can assist teachers in better achieving the APST and in helping improve student
outcomes. However, the QT model is not without drawbacks. It is difficult to achieve all the QT
model criteria for some lessons, as not all content taught requires ‘deep knowledge’ or ‘high levels
of student engagement’. For example, it would be difficult to score highly on the ‘deep knowledge’
criteria of the QT model for a lesson on memorising the periodic table. (Dixon & Formosa, 2005)
points out that the QT model does not consider the differences encountered when teaching
students with a disability, and that the QT model has “little congruence to the realities of teaching
students with disabilities”. Therefore, more modifications to the QT model need to occur to make it
more relevant to diverse cohorts of students.

The QT model and the APST tell teachers how to apply their skills and how to teach, but they do not
tell teachers what to teach. This is the vital role of curriculum. (Egan, 1978) argues that in the last
two centuries the meaning of the word curriculum has shifted from ‘the content of a course’ to ‘how
students are taught’. (Egan, 1978) also mentions that this can be seen in modern education setting
where teachers are now “seen as facilitators and the focus is on teaching students how to learn for
themselves”. This is paramount in student engagement with their learning. Recently, the Australia
National Curriculum has been introduced in an attempt to make moving interstate easier for
students and to federalise education so that there is more transparency and accountability in the
education sector, as discussed in (Lingard, 2010). (The Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia,
2014) mentions that the curriculum and the My Schools website went ahead despite significant
union resistance from teachers. This resistance has been due to “validity of the data and fit for
purpose”. Teachers unions argued that there would likely be negative effects on curricula and
pedagogy, as newspapers were to rank and report on school performance in the NAPLAN, while
failing to recognise a relationship between socio-economic status (SES) and student performance. As
this is exactly what has occurred since the inception of the Australian Curriculum and the My Schools
website, teachers’ concerns can be considered validated.

National Assessment Plan- Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), standardised testing, and other forms
of assessment are routinely discussed in the media as there are many arguments against
assessments as they stand. NAPLAN in particular is widely debated. It is a national, standardised test
that allows teachers to diagnose areas in which their students need help, i.e. It is a diagnostic tool.
However, it is not used in this way. As shown in (Lingard, 2010) NAPLAN results are posted on the
My Schools website and used to rank schools and used by parents to choose an appropriate school
for their children. (Lingard, 2010) then argues that this is not what the test was designed for and
therefore should not be used in this way. Lastly, (The Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia,
2014) also suggests that the net gain in scores of a cohort between years 7 and 9 or 3 and 5 is a
better way to gauge schools’ performance. The question should not be ‘are students achieving high
scores on this test?’ but ‘are students’ scores improving over time?’

In this section of the assessment, the focus will be on gifted and talented students, their needs, and
ways in which all four areas of teaching discussed above can be modified to enhance outcomes for
gifted and talented students. (Gagné, 2005) suggests that the development of gifted and talented
students relies on four factors; Learning and practicing, Intrapersonal (social), Environmental, and
Chance. In other words, their development relies on what they learn/are taught, the behaviour of
those they are exposed to throughout the learning process, the social and physical environment in
which they live and learn, and chance. All of these factors must be met in order for the development
of talent to occur.

This indicates that teachers must give gifted and talented students access to stimulating and
challenging content, ensure that their learning is encouraged by those around them, that they are
exposed to a suitable learning environment, and that these students are given the chance to excel. If
these needs are not met, gifted and talented students begin to underachieve as they are bored,
frustrated, and can feel rejected by their peers; all of which can manifest in different ways. (ACT
Department of Educatin and Training, 2010) gives an excellent table explaining some common
manifestations of ‘gifted underachievement’. (Van Tassel-Baska, 1992; Whitmore, 1986; Rimm,
1986; Baum, Owen & Dixon, 1991), as cited in (Smutney, 2004) list some common traits associated
with gifted underachievers: low self-esteem, negative views on school, disruptiveness in the
classroom, reluctance to take risks, and social isolation along with others. If it is now clear that when
gifted and talented students’ needs are not met, underachievement ensues; then what is the role of
the teacher in the development of gifted and talented students? This links back to the APST
(Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2014) which requires teachers at proficient
level to “Develop teaching activities that incorporate differentiated strategies to meet the specific
learning needs of students across the full range of abilities.” This means that teachers are expected
to be able to meet the needs of gifted and talented students to achieve their accreditation.
Therefore, it is the role of the teacher to make provision for these students. How are teachers to
ensure the needs of their gifted and talented students are met when their class consists of 30
students of varying ability? teachers may vary the curriculum, adjust their pedagogy, or give the
students more challenging assessments.

In adjusting the curriculum (ACARA, 2016) suggests that gifted students be more involved and given
choice in the tasks that they are given. It is also suggested that extra resources be made available so
that gifted students are able to take control of their own learning. (Bauer, Benkstein, Pittel, & Koury,
2013) also points out that assigning extra work to gifted students is not preferable, and that it is best
to modify tasks to be more challenging rather than giving extra work. For example, if a class is
learning about classification of plants, animals, and bacteria, a teacher could differentiate the lesson
for gifted learners by having them classify organisms into one of the above three groups, but also
into their specific phylum e.g. a tiger would belong not just to the kingdom Animalia but to the
phylum Carnivora. This would require higher order thinking which would better engage and
challenge gifted learners. However, (Munro, Effective strategies for implementing differentiated
instruction, 2013) argues that there is plenty of evidence that differentiated instruction for gifted
learners is not happening to the level it needs to be. states that “In a study by (Reis et al. (2004)) it
was found that the talented readers in 75 per cent of the classrooms received no differentiated
reading instruction.”

(Munro, Teaching gifted and talented students : a learning approach to differentiation., 2006 or
later) argues that it is not enough to simply differentiate the curriculum for gifted and talented
students, but that teachers must modify their pedagogy as well. (Munro, Teaching gifted and
talented students : a learning approach to differentiation., 2006 or later) goes on to list some
effective strategies for the differentiation of pedagogy, including “Present the topic to be learnt as a
challenge or problem to be solved”, “allow students to voice their opinions and predictions” and
“ask students what they know, understand or have learnt by the end of the topic/lesson”. In short,
pedagogy should be modified to guide gifted and talented students towards the higher order
thinking that they need to excel. It is preferable to ask gifted and students questions to allow them
to guide their own learning, rather than simply transmit high level information to them.

In some situations, it may be easiest for a teacher to modify or add assessment tasks or tests to
meet the needs of gifted and talented students. (Cox, 2004) is a short list of recommended
accommodations for gifted and talented students in Georgia, USA. It suggests that these students
take an assessment task or test at the beginning of a unit to determine their level of prior knowledge
so that the curriculum can be changed to best suit their knowledge level. Another suggestion is that
gifted students do less group work and more individual tasks. While this approach may work for a
student in a mixed ability class, who may get frustrated at the ‘slower’ pace of others, and it is
accepted that gifted and talented students need more control over their own learning; it is
questionable whether these students should avoid groupwork. Learning to work with others is an
important social skill which gifted and talented students need to develop. (NSW Education Standards
Authority, 2012) points out that assessment should also be strategically used to challenge their
knowledge and encourage them to extend their abilities.

When looking at the role of teachers in developing the skills of gifted and talented students,
professionalism, curriculum, pedagogy and assessment must all be modified by the teacher in a
suitable way to challenge and extend gifted and talented students. If these students’ needs are not
adequately met, they can disengage from learning and begin to underachieve. Only when teachers
recognise and nurture their gifts, will they be able to excel.
References
ACARA. (2016, March 22). Student Diversity. Retrieved from Australian Curriculum:
http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/

ACT Department of Educatin and Training. (2010). Gifted Underachievers. Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2014). Australian Professional Standards for
Teachers. AITSL. Canberra: Education Australia. Retrieved March 21, 2016, from
http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers/standards/list

Bauer, S., Benkstein, P., Pittel, A., & Koury, G. (2013). GIFTED STUDENTS: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
TEACHERS. Newark: University of Delaware.

Clinton, J., Dinham, S., Lingard, R., Gullickson, A., Savage, G., Calnin, G., . . . Dabrowski, A. (2015).
Evaluation of the Implementation of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers-
Interim Report 2. Melbourne: AITSL.

Cox, C. (2004). General Accommodations for Gifted Students in the Regular Classroom. Atlanta:
Georgia Department of Education.

Dixon, R. M., & Formosa, L. (2005). The Quality Teaching Model: Does it apply to special education
contexts in NSW public schools. In F. Bryer, Making Meaning: Creating Connections the
Value Diversity (pp. 1-7). Brisbane.

Egan, K. (1978). What is Curriculum? Curriculum Inquiry, 65-72.

Gagné, F. (2005). From gifts to talents: The DMGT as a developmental model. In R. Sternberg, & J.
Davidson, Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 98-119). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gore, J. (2007). Improving Pedagogy- The challenges of moving teachers to>vard higher levels
ofquality teaching. In L. M. J. Butcher, Making a Difference: Challenges/or Teachers.
Teaching, and Teacher Education (pp. 15-32). Sense Publishers.

Lingard, B. (2010). Policy borrowing, policy learning: testing times in Australian schooling. Critical
Studies in Education, 129-147.

Munro, J. (2006 or later). Teaching gifted and talented students : a learning approach to
differentiation. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.

Munro, J. (2013). Effective strategies for implementing differentiated instruction. Melbourne:

Melbourne University.

NSW Education Standards Authority. (2012). Differentiated Assessment. Retrieved from NESA:
http://syllabus.nesa.nsw.edu.au/support-materials/differentiated-assessment/

Smutney, J. (2004, December). Meeting the needs of gifted underachievers – individually. Davidson
Institute Newsletter, pp. 1-3.

The Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia. (2014). Effectiveness of the National Assessment
Program- Literacy and Numeracy. Canberra: Federal Government of the Commnwealth of
Australia.