With the exception of providers of initial teacher education (ITE), it is a widely held view that the quality of ITE in Australia is mostly unsatisfactory, especially for preparing teachers to teach reading. It is not necessary to describe the numerous reports and inquiries undertaken over several decades; they are well known. The lack of adequate improvement despite many reform efforts is spelled out in the latest review, ‘Next steps: Report of the Quality Initial Teacher Education Review’. The recommendations in that report seem to provide a feasible way forward but more could be done. It is disappointing that universities have to be forced through regulation to improve the scholarship and rigor of their course content, but they have persistently failed to do so voluntarily and indeed many Deans of Education and academics deny the need to do so.
Further evidence that there are gaps in teacher knowledge about effective, evidence-based reading instruction can be seen in the large numbers (many thousands) of teachers who spend their own time and often their own money to attend professional learning outside of school hours. The providers of this professional learning include the La Trobe University Science of Language and Reading (SOLAR) short courses, Edith Cowan University short courses, the Five from Five seminars and webinars, Think Forward Educators, AUSPELD, the state SPELD organisations, and Learning Difficulties Australia. In schools, organisations such as Fogarty EDvance, Teach Well, COGLearn and the Knowledge Society provide professional learning and coaching in high impact teaching strategies and the evidence that underpins them. All of these organisations are experiencing high demand as more and more teachers become aware of the gaps in their knowledge.
While ongoing professional learning and expertise development is a hallmark of a profession, much of this is essential knowledge that could and should have been taught to teachers in their degrees. Relying on teachers themselves and their schools to back-fill fundamental teaching skills post-graduation is enormously unproductive. As noted in the Interim Report, effective teachers by definition have better outcomes for students. Effective teachers use effective methods. When teachers do not obtain these skills either pre- or post-graduation, it is likely to be contributing to their workload, stress and potentially decisions to leave the profession.
Note: Quality Teaching Rounds is not a proven effective, evidence-based approach
The Interim Report puts forward Quality Teaching Rounds (QTR) as a potential approach to generating more effective teaching and therefore better student outcomes. QTR was also mentioned favourably in the ‘Next steps’ report. However, there is no research evidence that QTR has a positive impact on student outcomes when used by classroom teachers in schools, which is the measure by which the effectiveness of the approach should be judged.
The Quality Teaching Model/Rounds have been used in schools for about twenty years but until recently there had never been any experimental research that evaluated its impact on students’ academic outcomes. All of the research was on whether teachers got better at using the model, not whether students benefited as a consequence. Recently, however, a randomised control trial with student achievement as the outcome measure was conducted. The results for student achievement were weak at best when QTR was implemented by classroom teachers rather than the researchers themselves. This raises obvious questions about its value at scale in real school settings. Greg Ashman has also written about the research previously and has raised these concerns in his submission to the Productivity Commission. Given that the Quality Teaching Model does not currently have an empirical or scientific evidence base, and has not been updated in almost 20 years (the Framework/Classroom Practice Guide cited in the 2021 study was published in 2003 and contains no citations or references to support the model as being effective for learning), these weak research findings on QTR are not surprising. The Quality Teaching Model’s approach is at odds with pedagogies with good experimental evidence and is not informed by cognitive science. QTR should be investigated much more deeply before recommending its use more widely.
I would welcome the opportunity to speak with the Commissioners about this submission.
The views in this submission do not necessarily represent the views of my employer or any of the other institutions with which I am affiliated.
