Feasibility study - Establishing a national centre for pedagogy

Feasibility StudyEstablishing a nationalcentre for pedagogyA report for Teaching Australia prepared byJohn Loughran, Amanda Berry, Allie Clemans,Greg Lancaster and Michael Long.

Table of contents010203Introduction 01THE CASE FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGy 12MODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGy 26Develop & Improve 30Question & Enquire 40Articulate & Value 49Contextualise & Connect 59Engage & Contribute 7004050607A1A2A3A4ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGy 77FEASIBILITY OF A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGy 87CONClusion 96REFERENCes 99Appendix 1 111Summary of educational research centres and educational clearinghousesAppendix 2 121Participants involved in consultations for the projectAppendix 3 123An example of a possible organisational structure for a national centre for pedagogyAppendix 4 124Estimates of benefits and rates of return

01ChapterINTRODUCTIONoverviewThis chapter introduces the concept of a National Centre for Pedagogy,and situates it within the context of ongoing calls to increase thecoherence and alignment of education in Australia.The chapter:• Acknowledges the long and ever growing calls for action as a resultof recommendations from state and national reviews of teachingand teacher education over (at least) the past twenty years.• Proposes the integration of some key aspects of an EducationalResearch Clearinghouse with a National Centre for Pedagogy tocreate one strong centre with a clear focus on pedagogy.• Describes pedagogy as embedded in the relationship between teaching and learning andemphasises that an understanding of pedagogy is important for how quality in teaching andlearning might be better understood and enacted.• Suggests that the foundations for better understandings of pedagogy begin in teacher educationand that teacher educators should be experts in teaching who lay the foundations for theirstudents’ ongoing professional learning.• Recognises that teachers and leaders work across educational settings from early childhoodthrough to post-compulsory education. A National Centre for Pedagogy therefore needs to becognisant of, and responsive to, the various needs, expectations and demands of teachers asinfluenced by their particular contexts.• Considers the educational community as comprising a range of stakeholders (e.g. students,teachers, leaders, parents, policy makers, bureaucrats) all of whom have different needsand expectations in relation to their work.• Describes the structure of the report and briefly introduces the foundation principles of theNational Centre for Pedagogy model.Centre for INTRODUCTION pedagogy 01

BackgroundThere have been numerous reports (both state and national) into teaching and teacher educationin Australia stretching back decades. In recent times, one report stands out for the way in which itrecognised and responded to the complexity of teaching and teacher education. The report of theHouse of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training’s inquiry intoteacher education, Top of the Class (2007), drew attention to the sense of frustration in the educationalcommunity arising from issues that appeared repeatedly across many inquiries “suggesting thatrecommendations [had] not been taken up or [had] not been implemented … [and so Top of the Class]was determined to set concise and clear directions” (p. 2) that might lead to real change.As part of its submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education andVocational Training, Teaching Australia advanced the idea to “explore options for the establishmentof a National Centre for Pedagogy and a National Clearinghouse for Educational Research”(Teaching Australia appearance at House of Representatives Committee, September 2006).This idea was subsequently taken up in the report’s recommendations.In particular, recommendations two and nine from Top of the Class related to funding initiativesdesigned to better develop and inform teaching, teacher education and educational research(production and dissemination with a particular focus on pedagogy). Recommendation twoincluded establishing a National Centre for Pedagogy that “could fulfil a comparable role to theARC Centres of Excellence and also perform something of a lighthouse function for the profession”(p. 18). Recommendation nine focused on a feasibility study into the establishment of a NationalClearinghouse for Education Research” (p. 101).Teaching Australia accepted responsibility for organising and funding a feasibility study for aNational Centre for Pedagogy and for a National Clearinghouse for Education Research. This report(conducted by members of the Pedagogy and Professional Learning Research Group from MonashUniversity’s Faculty of Education), responds to both of these recommendations on behalfof Teaching Australia.The report offers a model for a National Centre for Pedagogy incorporating essential elements (andcreative new extensions) of a Clearinghouse for Educational Research based on a number of keyissues that influence understandings of pedagogy, leadership, research and practice. (For the rest ofthis report, National Centre for Pedagogy is used to refer to the amalgam of the Centre for Pedagogyand Educational Research Clearinghouse that comprises the model developed.)02 Centre introduction for pedagogy

Shaping factors for a National Centre for PedagogyThe notion of a National Centre for Pedagogy hinges on recognising the importance of pedagogicalpractice and research. As recent work around a proposed national curriculum has noted:School education lays important foundations for futures that are distant and seen onlydimly. The first young Australians who commence primary school in 2011 may leave theirinitial formal education in 2021 though the national goal is that almost all of them shouldstay at least for a full 12 years and not leave until 2023. Many will go on to post-secondaryeducation and not complete their initial education until the mid-2020s and later (NationalCurriculum Board, 2008, p. 2).The National Curriculum Board paper highlights the importance of goals that have long time framesand illustrates well why a National Centre for Pedagogy that overtly values and explicitly aims tostrengthen the links between research and practice is so important. Through the conceptualisationof the National Centre for Pedagogy proposed in this report, the generation of knowledge ofresearch and practice across educational contexts will be more meaningful, applicable andvaluable in relation to effective teaching. In so doing, the National Centre for Pedagogy will respondappropriately to the aims and expectations underpinning the Top of the Class report and the two keyrecommendations that initiated this study.An important starting point crucial to how the National Centre for Pedagogy is conceptualised iscaptured in the language underpinning the intentions inherent in pedagogy itself. There is a needto be cognisant of, and to therefore value, the nature of pedagogy. In so doing, the possibilities forbetter realising the potential of a National Centre for Pedagogy might be more effectively captured.In better aligning research and practice through a serious focus on pedagogy, quality teachingand learning outcomes will be optimised which will better inform policy, practice and leadershipin teaching and learning in Australia.PedagogyAs is explained in detail in the explication of the National Centre for Pedagogy model (Chapter 3),pedagogy is a term that has been interpreted in a range of ways and this has influenced how itis understood and subsequently used in the world of education. For example, in many countries(e.g. the USA, Australia, the UK, Canada and New Zealand), pedagogy is used as a synonym forteaching. Importantly though, van Manen (1999) reminds us that pedagogy is based on Europeantraditions (e.g. The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Scandinavia) and is really about the art andscience of educating children. As a consequence, by focusing on the relationship between learningand teaching, deeper understandings of pedagogy emerge. Through focusing on pedagogy in thisway, an important conceptual transformation occurs in which notions of teaching as actions alone(“doing teaching”) broaden to invite examination of the complexity of the professional knowledge,skills and abilities essential to fostering quality in teaching and learning.Centre for INTRODUCTION pedagogy 03

Seriously considering such expectations requires a focus on all levels of education so that deeperunderstandings of pedagogy might be articulated and better understood. Hence teacher education, earlychildhood – 12 schooling and post-compulsory education are important teaching contexts through which:… research into effective teaching practices, complemented by a mechanism to make those researchfindings available to teachers and school leaders, will support teachers in their commitment to achievingthe best possible learning outcomes for all students. … [Therefore] a Centre for Pedagogy woulddraw together expertise from across the various fields of educational inquiry [and] link research andprofessional practice to increase the body of knowledge about effective teaching … in different contextsand with different groups of students. … [in that way an] accessible source of carefully analysed andwell synthesised research findings [would be available and] invaluable to classroom teachers and otherswith a strong interest in schooling … (Teaching Australia, 2007, p. 17 - 18)There is a need to ensure that considerations of pedagogy are based on a recognition of thesecrucial relationships so that the expected benefits would flow from the National Centre for Pedagogyand foster the building of richer understandings of teaching that would encompass all aspects of theprofession, from teacher education through to ongoing in-service professional learning.Knowledge of practice: teacher education mattersOne difficulty with conceptualising teaching as being problematic is that, for novices, themessiness, the apparent lack of a clear path, and the reliance on individuals to acceptresponsibility for directing their own learning about teaching can be an impediment and createa yearning for a much simpler solution (Loughran, 2006, p. 31).Recognising and building on that which is problematic in practice is difficult because, with so many differentthings able to be “noticed” (Mason, 2002) in teaching, it can be very difficult to narrow one’s focus to justone or two things that might be more easily seen and appreciated, especially for students of teaching.Therefore, as a beginning point in building deeper understandings of the complex nature of teaching andlearning, teacher educators need to illustrate a strong knowledge of practice. To do so demands that througha pedagogy of teacher education, teacher educators are able to demonstrate that they embrace creativity,experimentation and risk-taking in their own practice in ways that shape their learning about pedagogy inorder to encourage the same in their students of teaching. Teaching about teaching therefore hinges onsupporting students of teaching as they learn to be comfortable with managing the dilemmas, issues andconcerns in pedagogic situations and see their teacher educators as doing the same. Students of teachingneed to see that there is not necessarily one “right way” of doing teaching and that dealing with uncertaintyand making professional choices are part of what it means to understand teaching as being problematic.Through a pedagogy of teacher education, teacher educators need to be able to articulate not onlywhat they are doing, but why they are doing it. They also need to be able to articulate how theyenvisage that which is being communicated through their practice, as underpinned by a knowledgeof teaching and learning that is useful and meaningful in action.04 Centre introduction for pedagogy

Researching practiceResearching educational practice is important for the teaching profession (i.e. all those educationalistsinvolved in teaching across different contexts and sectors) as it can help to inform and enhanceunderstandings and practices of teaching and learning. One starting point for researching educationalpractice in ways that could support changing conceptualisations of teaching and learning is teachereducation – recognisable in, and demonstrated through, a pedagogy of teacher education.A pedagogy of teacher education is built on the need to help students of teaching search for, and respondto, their own problems of practice. For this to occur, they need to consistently see that their teachereducators are doing the same. Therefore, enacting a pedagogy of teacher education (Russell & Loughran,2007) is closely linked to pursuing understandings of teaching and learning about teaching that areintertwined with an approach to inquiry into practice based on self-study (Berry, 2007; Cochran-Smith &Lytle, 2004; Hamilton et al., 1998; Loughran, Hamilton, LaBoskey, & Russell, 2004; Russell, 2004).Self-study enhances teaching and learning about teaching because it illustrates a fundamentalexpectation that researching practice is crucial to being better informed about one’s practice – and thesubsequent student learning. Self-study is one way of learning to develop new insights into practicethat matter because they are deeply entrenched in one’s own experiences of teaching and learning.If self-study is to be meaningful in shaping a pedagogy of teacher education, then teacher educatorsmust explicitly illustrate how they learn about their own practice. In so doing, they will encourage theirstudents to see that learning about teaching must be embedded in learning from their own experiencesof doing teaching, and that is a key to enacting a pedagogy of teacher education. However, self-studyshould not be seen as an end unto itself. There is a need to extend personal knowledge constructionof teaching and learning about teaching in ways that add to the developing knowledge of teachereducation practices. It is therefore important that teacher educators as a group accept responsibilityfor highlighting the importance and value of their work and do so in ways that demonstrate rigour,scholarship and impact in the learning about teaching of their students.The essence of being a teacher educator is encapsulated in the skills and ability of making teachingabout teaching meaningful and valuable for students of teaching. Teacher educators need to help createa learning environment in which understanding teaching and developing skills as a teacher are seen asways of becoming more informed about practice – not simply developing routines and scripts “that work”.In accepting that challenge, teacher educators can demonstrate a scholarship that is critical toshaping knowledge of teacher education practices and create a real agenda for the teachingprofession to envision itself as a knowledge building community. Thus, an overt focus on researchingquality in teaching and learning in ways that will be responsive to, and meaningful for teaching iscentral to enhancing student learning outcomes and professional practice overall.Centre for INTRODUCTION pedagogy 05

Moving from teacher education to other teaching contextsWhen considering pedagogy in the ways outlined above, there is also a need to acknowledge thecontextual dimensions of work around pedagogy. That is, pedagogy should not be viewed as insome way divorced from the realities of school as a contemporary workplace as schools are alsocontemporary communities that exist in both a local and global context. Hence, a National Centrefor Pedagogy needs to be forward thinking in ways that will provide a space in which educationprofessionals and stakeholders can consider these contexts - in so far as they enable, transform,challenge and inhibit high quality teaching and learning and knowledge building. For example,teachers must be positioned as life long learning professionals who are situated within the trendswe know exist in contemporary workplaces. But more than this, there are dimensions of contemporaryworkplaces/communities that shape participants’ teaching and learning in ways that also inform thekinds of outcomes necessary when working to realise powerful practice with their students. A NationalCentre for Pedagogy then has an important formative role for the profession in looking outside itself inorder to offer critical leadership in the enactment of high quality teaching and learning.Teachers, as lifelong learning professionals, as well as those who teach in places beyond schools,can productively engage in such dialogue. Capitalising on partnership initiatives that connectthese places, through such activities as Victorian Certificate of Applied Learning (VCAL) andVocational Education and Training (VET), offers real possibilities for ongoing professional learning.The construction of schools as educational workplaces can bring teachers into dialogue throughtheir common concerns for teaching and learning. Seeing “beyond the school fence” connectsschool and community in partnership and therefore also connects community to pedagogy, thusstrengthening the profession - a most important outcome for a National Centre for Pedagogy.06 Centre introduction for pedagogy

Conceptual underpinnings for a National Centre for PedagogyIn drawing on the learning about the development of Centres of Pedagogy 1 from an internationalperspective, it is clear that the establishment and operation of a successful National Centre for Pedagogyfor Australia depend on conceptually strong foundations. Such foundations must reflect that which iscurrently acknowledged as critically important to the development of effective and thoughtful pedagogyand hence, by implication, support the work of an effective National Centre for Pedagogy.A starting point for strong foundations for a National Centre for Pedagogy is the articulation ofprinciples (briefly outlined below and explained in detail in chapter 3) that capture the essence ofpedagogy (research and practice) 2 . Such principles need to provide direction for the developmentof a conceptual model of a National Centre for Pedagogy while remaining sufficiently flexible toencourage and support responsiveness to ongoing educational change and development. Theprinciples outlined below are not intended to be viewed as organisational aims or objectives or as astraitjacket that might constrain or limit a centre; they are guiding principles that can offer directionand underpin the operation and practices of a vibrant National Centre for Pedagogy.A natural consequence of a broad formulation of underpinning principles is the inevitable overlap (whichis actually important for addressing issues of organisational and structural fragmentation and isolation).The underpinning principles are obviously interrelated. The interdependencies between principles affordinsights into connections which might otherwise not be so readily recognised, and might therefore limitthe ability of a National Centre for Pedagogy to be responsive to changing needs and expectations overtime. The five principles serve as the basis for the model (see chapter 3) and allow an individual focus inrelation to appropriate directions and associated activities. They also encourage an integrative philosophyto drive the way in which a National Centre for Pedagogy might continually be informed and responsive tochanging contexts (as opposed to being structurally and organisationally constrained).The conceptual foundations for the proposed National Centre for Pedagogy model are outlinedbelow. They are not meant to be viewed as a list in rank order or a hierarchy; rather they exist as adynamic set of guiding principles that are responsive and future oriented so that the National Centrefor Pedagogy as an organisation maintains pedagogy as its central focus.1 A list of Centres of Pedagogy and Educational Clearinghouses that helped to inform the researchin this project is included in Appendix 1.2 Notably, the National Curriculum Board has also adopted such a ‘building up from principles’approach for its conceptual development.Centre for introduction pedagogy 07

DEVELOP & IMPROVEThe principle that underpins this foundational aspect of the National Centre for Pedagogy is thatpedagogical development informs and improves teaching and learning. This principle is basedon the view that pedagogical development involves improving and advancing understandings of theteaching and learning relationship through ongoing professional learning. This principle is importantbecause pedagogical development informs practice and therefore leads to enhanced student learning.QUESTION & ENQUIREThe principle that underpins this foundational aspect of the National Centre for Pedagogy is thatpedagogy is informed and enhanced by research. This principle is based on the view that enquiryinvolves the systematic collection of evidence about, and analysis of, teaching and learning. Thisprinciple is important because researching practice generates new knowledge about, and informs,teaching and learning.ARTICULATE & VALUEThe principle that underpins this foundational aspect of the National Centre for Pedagogyis that articulating practice strengthens teaching. This principle is based on the view thatcodifying practice involves the development of a meaningful shared language for communicatingunderstandings of teaching and learning. This principle is important because articulating practicehelps in building, clarifying and valuing professional knowledge.CONTEXTUALISE & CONNECTThe principle that underpins this foundational aspect of the National Centre for Pedagogy is thatrecognising, appreciating and integrating context underpins responsive pedagogy. This principleis based on the view that contextual aspects such as content, level and environment form adynamic relationship with teaching and learning. This principle is important because understandingand responding to context improves pedagogical decision making.ENGAGE & CONTRIBUTEThe principle that underpins this foundational aspect of the National Centre for Pedagogy is thatlearning communities build professional engagement. This principle is based on the view thatprofessional engagement involves creating and sustaining learning communities that in turn help tobuild teaching as a public, collaborative endeavour. This principle is important because professionalengagement aids in the development of deeper understandings of teaching and learning andconnects and strengthens learning communities.08 Centre introduction for pedagogy

In chapter 3, a detailed review of the relevant literature for each of these principles is provided.It establishes the centrality of these foundation principles for the proposed National Centre forPedagogy model. In so doing, the conceptualisation of a dynamic institution driven by a concernfor developing deeper understandings of pedagogy becomes immediately apparent. Throughthis approach, the conceptual roots of these foundation principles support the development andgrowth of the National Centre for Pedagogy through the proposed activities and practices. Theseapproaches to dissemination, communication, research and engagement will create a centre thatfully embraces the expectations and hopes so clearly articulated in Top of the Class (2007).Structure of this reportThis report is structured around four key areas:1. The case for a National Centre for Pedagogy2. A conceptual model for a National Centre for Pedagogy3. Establishing a National Centre for Pedagogy4. The feasibility of a National Centre for Pedagogy.The case for a National Centre for PedagogyChapter 2 of this report illustrates that enhanced approaches to education through a National Centre forPedagogy will lead to an increase in national productivity. This is possible because educational achievementis positively influenced by the quality of teaching and school leadership. Quality in teaching and leadershipis developed and enhanced through teacher education and ongoing professional learning.Through a National Centre for Pedagogy, research and analysis of teaching and leadership will aidin the explication and articulation of professional knowledge of practice. Built around expertise,knowledge and skill in the research and practice of pedagogy and brought together and disseminatedthrough clearinghouse and other communication and dissemination functions, a National Centre forPedagogy will make a discernible contribution to the quality of teaching in Australia.Centre for introduction pedagogy 09

A conceptual model for a National Centre for PedagogyChapter 3 of this report proposes a model for a National Centre for Pedagogy based on fivefoundation principles. Each principle has distinctive attributes and associated research, professionallearning, sharing and communication functions which, when combined, form a structural modelthat directs the activities of the centre.The model comprises developing, and extending into the educational community, knowledgeof pedagogy through research and practice revolving around the need to:• Develop & Improve• Question & Enquire• Articulate & Value• Contextualise & Connect• Engage & Contribute.Central to the proposed model is the close and careful integration of the functions of a Centrefor Pedagogy and an Educational Research Clearinghouse. In this model, however, traditionalclearinghouse functions alone are not regarded as sufficient to meet the requirements of all of theactivities of the Centre and so a number of innovative and creative functions have been developedwhich are described through the Sharing and Communicating functions of the Centre.Establishing a National Centre for PedagogyChapter 4 of this report outlines the need for a National Centre for Pedagogy to be responsive tomore than just the educational issues of the day and not constrained by bureaucratic and physicalstructures. The proposed model is based on a Centre that will be able to genuinely gather in andbuild up expertise regardless of geography.Innovations through Sharing and Communicating functions are crucial to assisting in this process.As a consequence, the Centre will have a future oriented focus so that issues and actions assumea national perspective through independent, creative and innovative approaches to research andpractice of pedagogy. Infrastructure, capital and personnel costs could be minimised throughpartnering with an organisation with experience and expertise (e.g. a university). However, withappropriate resourcing a new independent agency could also be possible.10 Centre introduction for pedagogy

Feasibility of a National Centre for PedagogyAs the international research literature shows, substantial benefits flow as a consequence of a seriousand sustained focus on teaching and learning that is possible when purposefully brought together in aCentre for Pedagogy. A National Centre with responsibility for independently developing, commissioningand disseminating knowledge of research and practice of pedagogy will be of great value to leaders,teachers, education systems, researchers and education policy makers. Beyond this, a nationallysustained and connected model will also create new possibilities for the development and improvementof education for the most important end users: leaders, teachers and, above all, students.Chapter summaryThis chapter introduces the concept of a National Centre for Pedagogy.Essential to the conceptualisation of the concept is the integration of some key aspects of anEducational Research Clearinghouse with a National Centre for Pedagogy to create one strongCentre with a clear focus on pedagogy.Foundational to a National Centre for Pedagogy is an understanding of pedagogy as embeddedin the relationship between teaching and learning; they exist together in a dynamic interplay.As a consequence, such an understanding of pedagogy shapes the nature of research andpractice so that quality in teaching and learning might be better understood and enacted.Setting the foundations for better understanding pedagogy begins in teacher education, and thesefoundations are further developed through the professional learning of teachers and leaders.The educational community comprises a range of stakeholders (e.g. students, teachers, leaders, parents,policy makers and school systems), all of whom have different needs and expectations in relation tothe work of a National Centre for Pedagogy. The proposed model (chapter 3) is based on foundationprinciples that have been built up and developed in response to these varied needs and expectations.This report has been organised around four key areas:1. The case for a National Centre for Pedagogy2. A conceptual model for a National Centre for Pedagogy3. Establishing a National Centre for Pedagogy4. The feasibility of a National Centre for Pedagogy.Each of these areas is addressed through the following chapters. Chapter 2 follows with a detailedanalysis of the case for a National Centre for Pedagogy.Centre for introduction pedagogy 11

02 CENTRETHE CASE FOR A NATIONALFOR PEDAGOGYChapter overviewThis chapter outlines a case for the establishment of a National Centrefor Pedagogy by considering research literature that: • Examines the absolute and relative size of the influence ofteachers and teaching on student outcomes, particularly the roleof teachers’ knowledge of pedagogy and how to teach • Investigates the effect of educational outcomes on productivityand economic growth.The results of the extensive reviews of the literature that comprise this chapter illustrate that:• Teacher quality is the single most important school variable influencing student achievement• Teacher quality is variable and this variability can correspond to the equivalent of a yearor so of academic progress• Knowledge of pedagogy and teaching practice is an important aspect of teacher qualitythat contributes to improved student performance• Increased student achievement is associated with improved educational attainment -Year 12 completion and transition to post school education - as well as with better initiallabour force outcomes• Accepted estimates for Australia suggest that GDP increases by between about 6% and 8%for an additional average year’s schooling• Effects based on these estimates can be quite substantial when converted into returnson increased expenditure.Teacher quality is an important influence on students’ learning outcomesThe 2005 OECD report, Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachersstates that:Teaching is a complex task that involves interactions with a great variety of learners in a widerange of different circumstances. It is clear there is not a single set of teacher attributes andbehaviours that is universally effective for all types of students and learning environments,especially when schooling varies in many important regards across different countries (p. 89).12 Centre THE CASE for FOR pedagogy A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

The same report notes that the learning performance of students of a similar age varies widelywithin and between countries (OECD, 2005b). In some countries the difference between 15-yearoldstudents in the top and bottom bands of performance in the PISA (Programme for InternationalStudent Assessment) reading test is equivalent to the effect of several years of additional schooling.The OECD report and the literature on student achievement more generally (see for instance Hill& Rowe (1996) and the literature within the school effectiveness movement that they describe)distinguish between two broad sets of influences that contribute to this variation in the academicperformance of school students:1. Student differences in family background and individual characteristics that frequently havea strong influence on school outcomes but are often difficult to influence through educationalpolicy changes2. The education process itself, including school organisation and resources , curriculum contentand structure and teacher skills, knowledge, attitudes and practices, which are in-principlemore responsive to policy interventions.Researching the influences on student learning in general and, the influences of teachers and teachingin particular, is as challenging as in many other areas of social and economic research. The researchis frequently opportunistic, taking advantage of measures collected for other purposes with sometimeslimited capacity to control for behaviours related to self-selection (effective teachers may be more likelyto remain as teachers, for instance); allocation of students to teachers on the basis of criteria relatedto the measures of effectiveness (teachers recognised as effective by principals or peers being givenmore difficult students to teach, for instance); the absence of measures of other possibly relevantcharacteristics; the observed variability of teacher characteristics, such as educational qualifications,may be quite limited; and results may not always be generalisable to other schools, systems orcountries because of other differences in educational practices.Despite these caveats, the message that comes through repeatedly in the research literature isthat teacher quality is the single most important school variable (that is, policy-sensitive variable)influencing student achievement (Hill & Rowe, 1996; OECD, 2005a citing reviews by Santiago,2002; Schacter & Thum, 2004; and Eide et al., 2004). Gustafsson (2003) reviews the literatureon the efficacy of educational resources and concludes that “teacher competence is the singlemost powerful factor in influencing student achievement” and that “given the strength of effectsassociated with teacher competence, it would seem that investments in teacher competence wouldhave a higher likelihood of paying off in terms of student achievement than would other investments”(p. 103). These remarks are consistent with the findings of Ferguson (1991), who considered abroad array of characteristics including school size and student-teacher ratios; Angrist and Lavy(1998) who considered factors such as changing class size and increasing the hours of instruction;and Hanushek (2004) who concluded that improving the quality of teachers is probably the mosteconomically efficient approach to improvement in student performance.THE CASE FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 13

The effect teachers can have on school achievement is substantial. Rivkin et al. (2001), forexample, indicate that moving from being taught by an average teacher to one at the 85th percentileof teacher quality leads to students improving by more than four percentile rankings in a given year,equivalent to the effect on learning of reducing class size by about 10 students. After reviewinga number of studies, Hanushek (2003) suggests that the achievement of students taught by thebest teachers improves by the equivalent to 1.5 grade levels for a single academic year whilestudents of the worst teachers improve by only about 0.5 grade levels. Leigh (2007) in a studybased on Queensland growth in state testing results reports that a teacher at the 90th percentile ofperformance can achieve in half a year what a teacher at the 10th percentile can achieve in a fullyear. Teacher effects are not only large but cumulative over time (Sanders & Rivers, 1996).Knowing how to teach is an important element of teacher qualityWhile there is agreement in the research literature that teachers are an important influence on studentachievement, there is less agreement about the characteristics of teachers that contribute to studentachievement. Meta-analyses suggest variables that describe the quality of teachers - teacher education,teacher ability and teacher experience - show strong relations with achievement (Greenwald, Hedges &Laine, 1996a & b; Hedges & Greenwald, 1996; Hedges, Laine & Greenwald, 1994), although debate aboutmethodology and the role of funding-related variables continues (Hanushek, 1997).Knowing how to teach has positive effects on students’ academic progress. The research links teachers’different backgrounds in their pedagogical education to the differences in growth of performance onstandard tests (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Gustafsson, 2003; OECD, 2005a; Wayne & Youngs, 2003;Wenglinsky, 2002). Evaluating the impact of courses in pedagogy or with pedagogical content is difficultbecause of the variation in courses that fall under this heading. Pedagogical coursework may bestcontribute to teacher effectiveness when combined with content knowledge (Rice, 2003) or whencombined with subject-specific courses and courses designed to develop core skills such as classroommanagement, student assessment and curriculum development (Education Commission of the States,2003, 2004). Taking pedagogy seriously can contribute to teacher quality in less direct ways by helping tocreate an environment in which teachers and teaching are respected and hence improving recruitment andretention of the teaching workforce (Barber & Mourshed, 2007).Several studies support the importance of subject matter knowledge for successful teaching, particularlyin higher grades (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Ferguson & Womack, 1993; Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000;Monk, 1994; Wö mann, 2003), although with diminishing returns for teacher postgraduate qualifications(Hanushek, Kain & Rivkin, 1998; Monk, 1994; Wilson et al., 2001) while Rivkin et al. (2001) and Leigh(2007) find little evidence that having a Master’s degree improves teacher skills.14 Centre THE CASE for FOR pedagogy A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

Several studies find that teacher experience - the number of years of teaching practice - is alsorelated to student achievement (Murnane & Philips, 1981; Klitgaard & Hall, 1974; Hanushek,Kain & Rivkin, 1988). The relationship, however, is characterised by quickly diminishing returns.According to Darling-Hammond (2000), there is little contribution from experience beyondfive years, while Hanushek, Kain and Rivkin (1998) report that after two years, there was littleimprovement. Gore et al. (2007) report no relationship between the quality of pedagogy and yearsof teacher experience, which suggests little improvement in this aspect of teacher quality over time.Measures of different aspects of teacher ability also correlate with student achievement. Ehrenberg& Brewer (1995), Gustafsson (2003) and Rice (2003) report that teachers’ verbal abilities correlatewith student achievement while Strauss & Sawyer (1986) report that a broad measure of teachers’knowledge and skills correlates with both student achievement and retention.Other studies point to a broader range of personal and social skills that make a difference to the quality andeffectiveness of teaching, many of which are related to pedagogical knowledge. Lingard et al. (2002) andAyres et al. (2000) identify communication skills, ability to relate to individual students, self managementskills, organisational skills, classroom management skills, problem solving skills, repertoire of teachingmethods, teamwork skills and research skills. Hattie (2003) identifies elements of teaching style andpractices that are associated with good outcomes. Teachers matter (OECD, 2005a) concludes:Many, if not most, of the key attributes of successful teachers will only become evident oncethey are in the job. Many skills will be best developed once people are working as teachersrather than through pre-service education (p. 101).On-going professional development is importantWhile initial education in pedagogy contributes to teacher effectiveness, on-going professionaldevelopment can be just as important. Teachers matter reviews research on teacher professionaldevelopment and cites several studies that find an association between targeted professionaldevelopment and student outcomes (Angrist & Lavy, 2001; Wiley & Yoon, 1995). The results reinforcefindings about the importance of knowledge about how to teach in improving students’ academicperformance. Cohen and Hill (1998), for instance, report that higher levels of student achievement areassociated with mathematics teachers’ opportunities to participate in on-going professional learningfocused on content-specific pedagogy linked to the curriculum. Wenglinsky (2002) found that studentswhose teachers participated in professional development in higher-order thinking skills or in workingwith special populations (such as culturally diverse students, students with poor English language skillsand students with special needs) had higher national mathematics test scores than students whoseteachers did not. In science, students whose teachers received on-the-job education in laboratoryskills also outperformed their peers. Teachers matter (OECD, 2005a) concludes that “The benefitsof professional development depend not only on the resources involved, but also on the quality andcontext of the programme” (p. 129), particularly where programs involve the collective participation ofteachers working together in the same school around similar issues (Desimone et al., 2002).THE CASE FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 15

School-level programs such as coaching, mentoring and discussion groups encourage teachersto study and evaluate their teaching strategies and school programs and to share their findingswith their colleagues. Programs to encourage collaboration among teachers and schools can bean effective approach to improving the quality of teaching (OECD, 2005b).Better teaching can contribute to equityImprovements in teachers’ pedagogy can contribute to improvements in the equity of studentoutcomes. The OECD report, No more failures: Ten steps to equity in education (Field et al., 2007)reviews research on the equity of school outcomes providing a statement of the policy implications.Many of the steps have implications for pedagogy. The report notes that while effective teaching isparticularly helpful for students with low achievement, these students are often less likely to receiveit (OECD, 2005b; Darling-Hammond, 2000) - a finding supported by Gore et al. (2007) for Australia.Differences among schools in the socioeconomic background of their students create a risk thatbetter teachers may shift to middle class schools (Haycock & Peske, 2006). Field et al. (2007)propose incentives for experienced teachers to work in disadvantaged schools, although Hanusheket al. (2001) suggest that the size of incentives might need to be quite large.Apart from emphasising the equitable distribution of skilled teachers, the report also points toseveral aspects of teacher professional learning and activity that can contribute to more equitableoutcomes - minimising grade repetition through the availability of intensive programs for studentswhose performance might otherwise not sustain their academic progress; formative assessmenttechniques; literacy interventions in the early years of schooling; professional development toeducate teachers about the needs of learners of English as a second language, dealing with amulti-cultural curriculum and fostering cultural tolerance in culturally diverse classrooms.Having a succession of effective teachers can substantially narrow the average achievement gapbetween students from low-income and high-income families. Low-performing students benefitmore from more effective teachers (Sanders & Rivers, 1996).Better achievement at school leads to improvement in other educational outcomesTeachers matter observes that students with poor literacy skills are likely to struggle in their schooling,and to face considerable difficulties in making the transition to employment or further study.In Australia, 12% of 15-year-olds fell into this category of poor literacy skills (OECD, 2004) - fewerthan the average of OECD countries (23%), but still offering substantial scope for improvement.A series of reports based on the LSAY (Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth) program hasdocumented the connection between school achievement (measured by standardised readingand mathematics tests administered when participants were in Year 9) and initial post-schooleducational and labour force outcomes such as completion of Year 12, participation in VET(Vocational Education and Training) and higher education and full-time employment.16 Centre THE CASE for FOR pedagogy A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

Fullarton et al. (2003) show that participation in Year 12 for students in the highest achievementquartile is substantially higher than that of students in the lowest achievement quartile - 93% and62% respectively for the cohort in Year 12 in 2001.This difference leads the authors to suggest that“student achievement in school is probably the strongest correlate of Year 12 participation” (p. 19)even though the relationship has declined over time as Year 12 participation has increased and Year12 students have become more diverse. The multivariate analyses confirm these observations.McMillan & Marks (2003), analysing an earlier LSAY panel, observed that “Low achievers were not onlymore likely to leave school early, but they were among the first to do so”. The same study investigatedthose who did not enter higher education, the relationship between school achievement and early postschooloutcomes such as unemployment, occupational status and earnings. It concluded not only thatstudents with higher levels of school achievement experienced greater occupational opportunities, butthat school achievement was the strongest or among the strongest correlates.Marks et al. (2001) also note that “student achievement is strongly related to participation in highereducation. Very few students in the lowest achievement quartile participate in higher education (lessthan 10 per cent). In contrast, since the late 1980s half or more of the students in the top achievementquartile have participated in higher education” (p. 16). The relationship between school achievement andparticipation in various forms of VET is more complex (Ainley & Corrigan, 2005; McMillan et al., 2005).The conclusion seems inescapable that if the academic performance of children in school can beimproved, then other educational and labour force outcomes will also improve. This inference is notsubject to the criticisms sometimes made of policy suggestions that Year 12 completion rates should beincreased—that increasing school completion among students with lower levels of school achievementmight be counter-productive or of little value (Dockery, 2005; Ryan, 2003). Dockery, in particular,suggests that additional years of schooling and completion of Year 12 may not be advantageous for youngpeople with low levels of school achievement while Ryan finds only slight net benefits of additional yearsof schooling for those with low achievement. Both, however, support alternative educational policies -alternative VET programs (Dockery) or early childhood intervention to improve achievement levels (Ryan).In a sense the discussion here is more consistent with Ryan’s conclusions - intervention to improvestudents’ school achievement through improved training of teachers in pedagogy. Improvements ineducational attainment flow from these improvements rather than being an end in themselves.THE CASE FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 17

Educational attainment and economic growthAn extensive research literature discusses and documents the link between educational attainment,increased labour productivity and sustained higher levels of economic growth. Most of this literatureis structured around a human capital model - described by Quiggin (1999) as:… an elaboration of the commonsense notion that the function of schools is to teach students,that is, to provide them with information and skills that will be valuable in later life. As withother investments, a sacrifice of current income (the goods and services that teachers andstudents could produce if they were not engaged in education) is accepted in order togenerate monetary and non-monetary returns in the future (p. 130).This model has been elaborated and explored extensively, both theoretically and empirically.The connections with economic growth fall into three broad categories:1. To the extent that educational attainment improves, GDP might be expected to increaseas a result of higher labour productivity (subject to those skills being able to be employedproductively) as well as effects beyond direct employment. Any changes to educationalarrangements that increase the mean years of education of the population will have a gradualeffect as successive cohorts of lesser educated older workers retire and are replaced by bettereducated younger workers. It might take about four decades for the full effect of a change ineducational arrangements on educational attainment to be realised. If an additional year ofeducation increases earnings by say 8% (Mankiw et al., 1992) then GDP might increase by0.2% per year before stabilising after 40 years - an effect that produces GDP growth duringthe transition to a higher, but eventually constant, level of GDP per person.2. Education has characteristics that have led some commentators (Romer (1986) andsubsequent papers outlining the ‘new growth theory’) to suggest that increased levels ofeducational attainment has further effects that can lead to on-going, sustainable economicgrowth. Once produced, knowledge, ideas and techniques can be used by many people at thesame time for different purposes, and ideas can be combined to produce new ideas. To theextent that knowledge, ideas and techniques build on each other they provide the basis forself-sustaining and on-going improvements in productivity and economic growth - and to theextent that education contributes to the production and adoption of new knowledge, ideas andtechniques, increased levels of education contribute to an increased rate of economic growth.3. Higher levels of educational attainment have economic effects beyond those that are directconsequences of higher individual labour productivity through higher skill levels or economicgrowth through the encouragement of innovation. Among other effects, higher overall levelsof education in a population:18 Centre THE CASE for FOR pedagogy A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

• reduce dependency on social welfare by improving labour force participation and thereforeallow lower levels of taxation or government expenditure on other activities that can buildphysical or human capital (Burke et al., 2003)• are associated with better health outcomes, which have economic implications throughtheir effect on labour productivity and possibly lower levels of government expenditure onhealth (OECD, 2001; Wolfe & Haveman, 2001)• are associated with higher levels of general and institutional trust, civic co-operation andlower levels of crime and incarceration (Green & Preston, 2001)• contribute to greater efficiency in personal consumer and investment behaviour(Consumer and Financial Literacy Taskforce, 2004)• are associated with greater control by women over the number and timing of pregnanciesand, through reduced fertility overall, greater investment in the human capital of eachchild and higher levels of participation in the paid labour force• encourage business innovation that depends on the knowledge and literacy of customersand institutional trust (Fukuyama, 1992).Possibly at the outer boundaries of the consequences of a better educated population, it is oftenclaimed that a well educated population is a strong support for democracy and may lead to betterpublic policy (Dee, 2004).Dowrick (2003) notes that whether the link between the levels of education and GDP is a once-offevent or incorporates self-sustaining effects may make little difference for public policy if the onceoffeffect takes several decades for its consequences to be fully realised and for a new equilibriumto be established. From the perspective of the time horizon of most public policy, the consequencesare similar. He concludes that debate about the nature of the link has only reinforced the point that‘the driving force of economic growth is investment in human capital – skills and ideas – rather thaninvestment in machines and buildings and that policies that affect investment in human capital “canhave a sustained impact on economic growth” (p. 26).Education contributes to economic growthTwo main sources of evidence are used to examine the nexus between human capital and economicoutcomes. Possibly the more familiar is the simple observation that people with higher levels of educationgenerally are paid more and have higher incomes. Other research is based on comparing the educationlevels of countries and their GDP or GDP growth per person over time or between countries.THE CASE FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 19

Research typically uses “educational attainment” as a proxy for human capital - a person’s productivecapacities and their ability to develop and deploy these capacities (OECD, 2001). Educationalattainment can be measured in different ways - years of (generic) schooling, educational qualificationsand achievement on educational tests. Years of schooling (including post-school education) is aconvenient metric for measuring educational attainment because it simplifies the complexity ofdifferent types of education (in school, VET or higher education, for instance), allows internationalcomparisons and conforms to the requirements of some convenient mathematical models. On theother hand, the loss of detail about the possibly differing effects of different types or stages of educationor qualifications and quality can also render the research less useful for policy. Importantly for thepurposes of this paper, improvements in educational quality measured by the attainment of studentscan be interpreted as equivalent to an increased number of years of education.Person differencesA considerable number of studies have examined the effect of educational attainment on earningsor income in Australia. These are usually undertaken in the context of identifying the benefitscomponent of the costs and benefits required to produce estimates of rates of return to theinvestment in the different forms of education. The studies include:• Miller et al. (2006) who report that the effect of each additional year of schooling in a sampleof young (mean age 30) Australian twins in the late 1990s was to increase earnings bybetween 5% and 7% percent after controlling for any genetic and family differences.• Ryan (2002a & b) who analyse Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) survey data foremployees in full-time employment report positive wage effects for many VET qualifications(rather than years of education), although some comparisons of middle and lower-level VETcourses with school completion showed little wage effect and results varied for males andfemales. Results controlling for a range of labour market and personal background variablessuggested qualification effects on earnings of between 7% and 26%.• Borland et al. (2000) who analyse ABS survey data for employees and report earnings effects(compared with completing Year 12) of 218% for obtaining a higher education degree, 68%for a Certificate or Diploma, minus 17% for a trade qualification and about minus 72% forpersons without a post-school qualification who did not complete Year 12.• Leigh & Ryan (2005) analyse data from the Household Income and Labour Dynamics inAustralia (HILDA) survey with a variety of statistical techniques and conclude that oneadditional year of schooling increases income and earnings by about 10%.20 Centre THE CASE for FOR pedagogy A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

Wages are typically interpreted as a reflection of the productivity of the worker. Hence the higherearnings of persons with higher levels of education are viewed as the result of higher productivitythrough the increased skills obtained through education.Obtaining an estimate of the unique effect of education on wages independent of say an individual’snatural abilities, health and personal characteristics (healthy, diligent, clever people stay at schoollonger and obtain post-school qualifications and presumably also earn more because of thesecharacteristics) is a major challenge. Recent statistical estimates suggest that only about 10% of anydifference is due to these and similar extraneous effects (Psacharopoulos & Patrinos, 2002). Thewage effects typically correspond to quite reasonable rates of return to private and public investmentin schooling and post-school education.At the national levelGrowth accounting has provided the framework for many studies within and between countriesof the determinants of real economic growth per person. Using models with various specificationsof relationships between possible causes, the approach seeks to decompose economic growth byattributing components of growth to those causes. Among the elements included in the modelsare the levels of physical capital, human capital (variously proxied by measures of educationalparticipation or educational attainment) and technological change.Earlier studies for single countries demonstrated that increases in education levels contributedstrongly to economic growth. Denison (1985), for instance, found that in the US increases ineducation provided 16% of output growth in non-residential business between 1929 and 1982.Mankiw et al. (1992) found that GDP in a sample of OECD countries increased by between 6%and 15% in response to an average increase of one year’s education, which translated into an eightpercent increase for a country like Australia with average schooling of ten years (Dowrick, 2003).Between-country comparisons, however, have sometimes yielded more mixed results (see Coulombeet al., 2004). Barro (1997), for instance, examined economic growth in a panel of 100 countriesbetween 1960 and 1990. Although finding that an additional year of secondary or post schooleducation in the male workforce raised GDP growth by 1.2% (but that any effect on economicgrowth of the education levels of females was mediated through reduced fertility), he neverthelessconcluded that for OECD countries, there was little evidence that increased educational spendingwould increase growth rates further.These and similar findings and conclusions motivated considerable discussion about measurementand methodology. De la Fuente & Doménech (2000, 2002) addressed aspects of both whenrevisiting Barro’s analysis and conclusions for OECD countries and concluded that an additional yearof schooling in the workforce increased GDP growth by at least 0.5 percentage points.THE CASE FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 21

Bassanini and Scarpetta (2001), using the same data for 1977 to 1998 but with a slightly differenttype of analysis found that adding one more year of education has the effect of raising output percapita by about 6 percent. Coulombe et al. (2004) address issues of education quality (rather thanparticipation or qualification) by using a time series of human capital indicators based on literacyscores from the OECD’s International Adult Literacy Survey for 14 OECD countries over the 1960-1995 period. They found that direct measures of human capital based on literacy scores outperformmeasures based on years of schooling and have a positive and significant effect on long run levelsof GDP per person and labour productivity and the effect is stronger for females than males.Australian estimatesDowrick (2003) draws on the studies by Bassanini and Scarpetta (2001) and Mankiw et al. (1992)that found the effect of an additional year’s education for the adult population in OECD countrieswas 6% and between 6% and 15% respectively. For Australia, with an average of about 10 yearsof education, the estimate from Mankiw et al. is 8%. Additionally he presents results from threestudies that provide estimates of the effect of an increase of one year of schooling in the adultpopulation on long-run economic growth in Australia:• Benhabib & Spiegel (1994) - 0.3 percentage points• Frantzen (2000) - 0.8 percentage points• Dowrick & Rogers (2002) - 0.5 percentage points (OECD comparisons only).Given that GDP growth per person in Australia has averaged 2.0% year-on-year for 1974-75 to1999-00 (ABS, (2007) 5204.0: Table 29.1 chain volume measures), these values are relativelylarge. Matsushita et al. (2006) report that between 1969 and 2003 increases in the level ofeducation contributed 31% of the per person growth in real GDP in Australia, but that this has beenlargely due to post-school education.Dowrick (2003) summarises his review of Australian estimates by suggesting that one additionalyear’s education for the workforce would:• increase the level of GDP per person by 6%, which, if implemented over 40 years, wouldresult in an increase of 0.15% each year and• increase the rate of growth of GDP per person by 0.3% per year, which, when combined,is an increase of 0.45% per year in GDP growth per person - an estimate he characterisesas conservative.22 Centre THE CASE for FOR pedagogy A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

The role of education in productivity differences among countries is considered in several AustralianTreasury Working Papers:• Davis & Ewing (2005) explore some of the potential explanations for the different levels oflabour productivity in Australia and New Zealand and draw on the estimates of Bassaniniand Scarpetta (2001) to suggest that their estimate of a 6% effect of an additional year ofeducation on GDP combined with an average difference of half a year’s schooling mightexplain about 3% of the income gap between New Zealand and Australia.• Davis & Rahman (2006) explore the prospects for productivity growth in Australia comparedwith the US. Citing Dowrick (2003), they suggest that an additional year of schooling for theAustralian adult workforce would increase GDP by 8%, but translate the half year educationgap between Australia and the US into an effect of only 2% to 3%. They observe that theproductivity gap between Australia and the US should narrow as the relative educationalattainment in Australia improves and that, among other measures, Australia could furtherimprove its relative productivity by further improvements in human capital, as better educatedworkers assume a larger role in the workforce.Small increases in Government expenditure on education produce substantialincreases in GDPInvestment in the education and training of young people provides substantial economic leverage- small changes in educational inputs can produce educational outcomes that provide substantialeconomic benefits. For instance, Access Economics (2005) explores the implications for publicexpenditures of increasing Year 12 completion and participation in apprenticeships in Australia to 90%- equivalent to raising Year 12 completion and apprenticeship participation by an additional 50,000persons. By 2040 the average years of schooling of the total workforce would increase by 0.15 yearsand through increased productivity (0.62%) and higher labour force participation (0.48%), GDP wouldbe 1.1% higher than it would otherwise have been (implying that one additional year of schoolingincreases GDP by 7.33%). Australian Government revenue increases proportionately by 23% of thisincrease, or 0.27% of GDP, as a consequence of increasing educational expenditure of only 0.05%of GDP. The multiplier of revenues to expenditure is a little over five - and this is what is meant by thehigh leverage of educational expenditure. Had the Access Economics report calculated the full (privateand public) costs and benefits, the multiplier would have been even larger.THE CASE FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 23

Chapter summaryThis chapter presents a series of findings linking improvements in the pedagogical knowledgeof teachers with improved skill levels as reflected in the educational profile of the workforce:• Improving the quality of teaching leads to improved student achievement.• The effect of teacher quality on learning is large:a. The achievement of students taught by the best teachers improves by the equivalentof about one academic year more than the achievement of students taught by theworst teachers (Hanushek, 2003)b. Moving from being taught by an average teacher to one at the 85th percentile of teacherquality would improve student performance by more than 4 percentile rankings in a given year,equivalent to the effect on learning of reducing class size by 10 students (Rivkin et al., 2001)c. Teacher effects are cumulative from one year to the next (Sanders & Rivers, 1996).• Knowledge of pedagogy and teaching practice is an important aspect of teacher quality thatcontributes to improved student performance.• Increased student achievement is associated with improved educational attainment - Year 12completion and transition to post school education - as well as directly to better initial labourforce outcomes.Research suggests that pedagogical knowledge delivered through both initial teacher educationand continuing professional education contributes to improved student outcomes.The chapter also outlines the major links between education and the economy and estimates of thesize of the effect of increased education measured by average years of schooling of the workforceon growth in GDP. Accepted estimates for Australia range between about 6% and 8%. Effects of thissize can be quite substantial when converted into returns to increased expenditure.Chapter 3 follows with a detailed description of the model of the proposed National Centre forPedagogy based on the foundation principles that direct its research and practice activities.24 Centre THE CASE for FOR pedagogy A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

THE CASE FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 25

03 CENTREMODEL FOR A NATIONALFOR PEDAGOGYChapter overviewThis chapter outlines in detail the proposed model for a National Centrefor Pedagogy.The chapter describes:• Some of the important factors that influence what a NationalCentre for Pedagogy might look like and be expected to do• The conceptual model (an integrated model of a National Centre for Pedagogy withClearinghouse and other communication and dissemination functions)• How the integrated model for the Centre works so that teachers, leaders and other membersof the education community will be able to access and contribute to the Centre• The foundation principles on which the model is based• How the principles have been informed by the research literature• How the principles will be enacted through illustrative activities• Exemplars of some of the Sharing and Communicating features of the Centre.IntroductionThe proposed National Centre for Pedagogy model is based on the need for strong and independentresearch into pedagogy combined with ongoing support for, and development of, the teachingprofession. The model establishes ways in which a National Centre for Pedagogy can work towardlinking with, and across, stakeholder groups and education sectors so that deeper knowledge of,and practices in, teaching and learning will be made available in ways that will better inform publicpolicy, theory and practice debates pertaining to the nature of pedagogy.The National Centre for Pedagogy model is based on an understanding of pedagogy as being aboutthe relationship between teaching and learning, how that relationship is played out in practice and themanner in which such understandings influence quality in teaching and learning. Teacher educationshould lay the foundations for pedagogical skills and expertise in students of teaching in order tofoster ongoing development and growth throughout their professional careers. Teachers work acrossa range of educational settings (e.g. early childhood through to post-compulsory education) and theeducational community comprises a range of stakeholders (e.g. students, teachers, parents, policymakers, educational bureaucrats). Therefore, a National Centre for Pedagogy is equally important toall aspects of the profession (pre-service education through to in-service professional learning) acrosseducation sectors and stakeholders. Extensive consultation and “testing” of the model has occurrednationally and internationally (see Appendix 2 for full list of participants).26 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

The National Centre for Pedagogy is conceptualised around a set of five Principles designedto appropriately guide and direct the Centre’s purposes and practices in order to maintainresponsiveness to, and effectiveness for, stakeholders. Table 3.1 summarises the model andillustrates the importance of the principles, how the principles lead to meaningful activitiesand how the Sharing and Communicating functions of the Centre support access to anddissemination of all of the research and practice embedded in that work.Figure 3.1 illustrates how the National Centre for Pedagogy is conceptualised. The schematic isdesigned to demonstrate how the foundation principles interact to influence the nature of pedagogy– and therefore shape the way the Centre is organised to perform its core functions. The foundationprinciples are translated into professional expectations (e.g. DEVELOP & IMPROVE, QUESTION &ENQUIRE) in such a way as to create strong directions for the types of involvement in research andpractice activities that will direct specific outcomes from the National Centre for Pedagogy.The proposed model for a National Centre for Pedagogy incorporates elements of an EducationalResearch Clearinghouse in conjunction with other creative and flexible communication anddissemination features (refer to SHARE & COMMUNICATE in Table 3.1) that extend across allPrinciples and Activities of the centre.Following Table 3.1, the remainder of the chapter offers a full explanation of the research thatunderpins each principle and explanations of exemplar activities, communication and disseminationapproaches, and likely products of a National Centre for Pedagogy.The proposed National Centre for Pedagogy model allows for services, programs and activitiesto develop over time. Therefore it can operate from a physical centre whilst still supporting andmaintaining important elements and functions across the nation where the need and requirementsarise, matched to the particular aspects of the Centre’s work at particular times.The model also allows for flexibility at establishment by either a “one-off” outlay of capitalor staged development (i.e. the foundation principles do not necessarily all require equal fundingat the outset). However, when fully functional the Centre would comprise all aspects of the activitiesassociated with each of the principles operating together in a dynamic and responsive manner.MODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 27

The model for a National Centre for Pedagogy is conceptualised (Figure 3.1) as working from thefoundation principles in such a way as to gather in, build up and extend out into the educationalcommunity through the range of activities that bring the principles to life in practice. The Centre’sprinciples should neither be viewed as a rank order nor a hierarchy. They are a dynamic setof guiding principles that ensure a National Centre for Pedagogy maintains a central focus onpedagogy. The research and practice activities that are derived from the foundation principles worktoward informing and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning.Figure 3.1: The concept of a National Centre for PedagogyDEVELOP &IMPROVEENGAGE &CONTRIBUTEPEDAGOGYQUESTION& ENQUIRECONTEXTUALISE& CONNECTARTICULATE& VALUEThe foundation principles inform the research and practice activities initiated through the Centre and aredisseminated through the Sharing and Communicating functions. Sharing and Communicating functionsinclude traditional Educational Research Clearinghouse roles but also go beyond these in facilitating newand innovative ways of making the work of the Centre accessible and usable.28 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

Table 3.2: The integrated model of the National Centre for Pedagogy.DEVELOP& IMPROVEQUESTION& ENQUIREARTICULATE& VALUECONTEXTUALISE& CONNECTENGAGE &CONTRIBUTEPrinciplePrinciplePrinciplePrinciplePrinciplePedagogicaldevelopmentinforms andimprovesteaching andlearningPedagogy isinformed andenhanced byresearchArticulatingpracticestrengthensteachingRecognising,appreciatingand integratingcontext underpinsresponsivepedagogyLearningcommunitiesbuild professionalengagementWhat is this about?Pedagogicaldevelopment involvesimproving and advancingunderstandings of theteaching and learningrelationship throughongoing professionallearning.What is this about?Enquiry involves thesystematic collectionof evidence about, andanalysis of, teachingand learning.What is this about?Codifying practiceinvolves the developmentof a meaningfulshared languagefor communicatingunderstandings ofteaching and learning.What is this about?Contextual aspectssuch as content, leveland environment forma dynamic relationshipwith teaching andlearning.What is this about?Professional engagementinvolves creating andsustaining learningcommunities that buildteaching as a public,collaborative endeavour.Why is this important?Why is this important?Why is this important?Why is this important?Why is this important?Pedagogicaldevelopment informspractice which leadsto enhanced studentlearning.Researching practicegenerates newknowledge about, andinforms teaching andlearning.Articulating practicebuilds, clarifies andvalues professionalknowledge.Understanding andresponding to contextimproves pedagogicaldecision making.Professionalengagement developsdeeper understandingsof teaching and learningand connects andstrengthens learningcommunities.ActivitiesActivitiesActivitiesActivitiesActivitiesExemplars could Exemplars could Exemplars could Exemplars could Exemplars couldinclude such things as: include such things as: include such things as: include such things as: include such things as:Establishing nationalconsortia ofpractitioners aroundcritical issues e.g.,Literacy, learningin Indigenouscommunities, etc.Providing professionallearning support todevelop and build aprofessional learningculture in schools.Encouraging greatersharing and productivecollaboration betweenuniversities andschools to better useavailable resources.Determining whatcounts as evidence/outcomes.Maintaining On-lineresources providingeasy-to-readsummaries ofresearch.Providing adviceon approachesto conductingpedagogical enquiries.Commissioningresearch and fundingfor research.Identifying “gaps”in current researchand knowledge;encouraging studiesinto “hot issues” forenquiry.Developing andsharing models ofauthentic practicefor least engagedstudents.Capturing stories ofwhat teachers havelearned from “good”practice.Looking at ways ofcollecting teachers’learning from researchand providing waysfor others to access,critique and build onthat in meaningfulways.Connecting teacherswith professional/subject associations.Engaging teachersin dialogue aroundcontextually basedpedagogies acrosseducational sectorse.g. early childhoodand primary, VET inschools and TAFE.Encouraging successfulpartnerships betweenteachers, communities,parents and families.Developing and extendingopportunities for familiesand communities toconnect with teachersand schools to developmore informed sharedunderstandings ofteaching and learning.Encouraging the useof mentoring, fosteringand development ofcritical friends.Establishing teacheremail lists for nationalaccess to and/ordelivery of articles andsummaries of teacherlearning/currentresearch/teaching &learning insights, etc.Providing reports/critiques to teachersand schools onthe implications ofprospective changesin Government policy.SHARing AND COMMUNICATINGIt is important to develop multiple ways of disseminating knowledge, ideas and practices of teaching and learning and for access tobe available in a variety of ways. In some instances, approaches to sharing and communicating activities, processes and productsmay be similar for a number of Principles and Activities while in other instances they might relate to a particular Principle or Activity.Sharing and communicating should not be limited to any one form of media. There is a need for an appropriate range ofon-line, web-based, face to face, printed text, and other sharing communication devices and approaches.MODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 29

DEVELOPAND IMPROVEPrincipleWhat isthis about?Pedagogical development informs and improves teaching and learningPedagogical development involves improving and advancingunderstandings of the teaching and learning relationship throughongoing professional learning.Why is thisimportant?Pedagogical development informs practice which leads to enhancedstudent learning.Researchsuggests?IntroductionDevelopment and improvement lie at the heart of practice in a rangeof professions. However, it is widely recognised that traditionalapproaches to teacher professional development have not necessarilyexplicitly sought to capture and extend knowledge of the complexnature of teaching and learning. Rather, professional development hasoften been constructed around mandated exercises designed todo professional development to teachers as opposed to working with teachers, or even more,encouraging and supporting teachers as initiators of professional development. As a consequence,professional development has often been seen as creating contradictory messages for participantssuch that there have been limited opportunities for teachers to have a voice in a process thatactually requires them to change their thinking and their practice. For (at least) these reasons,traditional professional development tends to be seen as having little impact on teachers’ practice orworse, exacerbating the problems of the often bemoaned theory-practice gap (Korthagen, 2001b).From a research perspective, the complex and messy world of teaching is often seen as somethingthat is not able to be adequately theorised by teachers because they are too busy working in thatworld. Yet, from a teacher’s perspective, theory is not necessarily all that helpful in respondingto their need for ideas and activities that will “work in class tomorrow” (Appleton, 2002) and totherefore inform their practice. Traditional professional development is often conceived of aslooking to theory for solutions to “educational problems” while such problems and solutions are notnecessarily congruent with the needs and concerns of practitioners (McGoey & Ross, 1999).30 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

One obvious response to this situation (and something central to the work of a National Centrefor Pedagogy) is to reconceptualise the nature of professional development to one of professionallearning. At the heart of the matter is a need to pay serious attention to teachers’ professionalknowledge and how that may be developed and refined over time through a professional learningapproach (Berry, Clemans, & Kostogriz, 2007). Reframing, stimulating and supporting teachersas inquirers of practice has proved to be a most effective way of facilitating this shift because thequestions, issues, concerns and expectations of teachers naturally drive their knowledge about theteaching agenda (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990, 2004; Loughran, Mitchell, & Mitchell, 2002).A shift to a professional learning approach from development therefore involves explicitly workingwith teachers in ways that are responsive not just to policy directions, but more importantly toteachers’ professional needs and concerns. In this way, a balance between the perspectives oftheory and practice might be found so that the development of teachers’ knowledge of practice isunderstood as a valued driver for educational change. A professional learning approach to teacherdevelopment is also important because of the ways in which it can generate insights into teachers’practice and highlight shifts in thinking, the development of practice and the changes in, andoutcomes of, learning for students.Research illustrates that teachers respond positively to possibilities and opportunities through aprofessional learning approach (Berry et al., 2007; Corrigan & Loughran, 2007). A professionallearning perspective to teacher improvement and development is enmeshed in developing deeperunderstandings of the relationship between teaching and learning. Teachers have an ongoing concernto better understand students’ learning in their classrooms, so how they become informed aboutpedagogy is central to how they approach implementing change in their own classroom practice.The tacit nature of knowledge of practice has long been recognised (Polyani, 1966) but little hasmaterialised in response to address the situation. Through a professional learning approach,pedagogy itself takes on new significance as knowledge of practice is recognised, understood andsought out by teachers because it is informative for, and valuable to, their individual practice. Byfocusing on the relationship between teaching and learning, opportunities for personal changesin practice become increasingly likely and foster new approaches to improvement, innovation andexcellence in pedagogy. In this way, professional learning can rightly be seen as making pedagogythe central plank in addressing what Sarason (1990) described as the disquiet about the predictablefailure of educational change. Therefore understanding how best to develop professional knowledgeabout the nature of pedagogy and how it might be built up and extended in practice is important indeveloping and improving teachers’ professional knowledge of, and practice in, teaching.MODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 31

Developing PedagogyPedagogy is a term that is frequently used in the educational literature but unfortunately the termis used in a variety of ways, often with different meanings in mind. For example, in some countries(e.g. United States, Australia, United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand), pedagogy is used asa synonym for teaching. In such cases, pedagogy is meant to refer to things such as teachingprocedures, teaching practice or technical instruction. Van Manen (1999) examined this trend insome detail when he revisited Simon’s (1981) lament: “Why no pedagogy in England?” (p. 14).As van Manen explained, to better understand the nature of pedagogy requires an exploration ofthe term in relation to its European traditions (e.g. The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany) wherepedagogy encompasses much more than just teaching.Pedagogy, as van Manen makes clear, is the art and science of educating children. From thisperspective then, the relationship between learning and teaching is central to understanding pedagogybecause a meaningful relationship can not exist if the partners (teaching and learning) are seen asseparate disconnected entities. Pedagogy means that teaching and learning are inextricably boundtogether in a two way process through which each influences the other (whether intended or not).At the heart of pedagogy, when considered from this European tradition, teaching and learning mustbe understood as being purposefully linked such that the intention implicit in the use of the term is thatteaching influences learning and vice versa. Therefore, pedagogy is not merely the action of teaching,which can too easily be misrepresented as the simple transmission of information. It must be about thesynergistic relationship between teaching and learning and how, from a teacher’s perspective, learningthrough that relationship leads to a growth in knowledge and understanding of practice.Korthagen (2001b) takes understandings of pedagogy even further as he notes the ways in whichself-understanding and connectedness emerge as catalysts for change through studying pedagogy.In this way he places a new emphasis on teachers’ self identity and its development because itinevitably impacts pedagogy. In so doing, he draws attention to “Kohnstamm (1929), who statedthat many durable learning experiences are rooted in the I-you relationship between teacher andstudent, in genuine personal encounters in which both are, within the here-and-now, in contact withtheir inner selves” (p. 264). As a consequence, it is hard to ignore the fact that personal pedagogicrelationships between teachers and students are crucial to personal growth and reflect the natureof, and skills associated with what Berliner (1987) described as the expert pedagogue.Clearly then, development and improvement in pedagogy requires a focus not only on teachersand teaching but also on students’ learning.32 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

Teachers matterIn their extensive five year VITAE study (Variations in Teachers’ Work, Lives and their Effects onPupils), Day et al. (2007) illustrated that not only do teachers matter, but the manner in whichteachers are encouraged to learn about and develop their understandings of pedagogy are centralto quality in teaching and learning. Two important messages they stressed in relation to teachereffectiveness and pupil attainment were that: 1) ‘Effectiveness’ does not necessarily grow in relationto time in teaching (experience); and 2) Effectiveness can fluctuate from one year to another butteachers tend not to move from effective to ineffective over the shorter term or vice versa (p. 178).An important implication of this work is the need to recognise and respond to possibilities forteacher development and improvement in ways that are appropriately geared to their context, theirneeds and their expectations of teaching and learning in relation to their students’ learning. Hence,professional learning opportunities need to be capable of helping teachers ‘break the mould’ indeveloping effectiveness and promoting students’ academic progress.Day et al. (2007) offered a number of strong case studies to illustrate what it might mean to ‘breakthe mould’ and how such practice can impact student learning. Through their analysis of differentaspects of teachers’ careers and how those phases relate to teachers’ resilience, commitment andeffectiveness in terms of student achievement, a key finding stands out:Learning and development programmes should differentiate between the needs of: i) teachersin primary and secondary schools, ii) teachers in schools of different socio-economic status,iii) less and more experienced teachers, iv) teachers’ different professional life phases and v)teachers who are experiencing different ‘scenarios’ (p. 235).It therefore becomes immediately clear why traditional professional development approaches generallyhave had little influence on teachers’ practice as a ‘one size fits all’ model flies in the face of researchoutcomes such as that of the VITAE project. Hence, conceptualising and constructing developmentand improvement possibilities must be shaped by a professional learning approach that is responsiveto the real needs, expectations and situations of teachers. This matters for the ways in which a NationalCentre for Pedagogy might be organised and structured in supporting teacher change.Embracing the need to shift from working on teachers to working with teachers offers excitingpossibilities for realising a professional learning agenda for change.MODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 33

Creating conditions to support teacher as learnerTeaching is a complex task, the development of which requires much more than ‘additives’ (Day,1999) designed to ‘top up’ or ‘add to’ an existing repertoire by simply accumulating the most upto date knowledge of teaching procedures, ideas or information. However, in some quarters, sucha view persists because an underlying assumption is that such knowledge, ideas and informationcan be transferred to others unchanged and ready to be immediately and successfully applied.Unfortunately, this view of teaching and learning ignores the fact that the teaching environment isnot static or that teachers are professionals who need to continually innovate and change practicein response to the dynamic nature of the pedagogic interactions they create and experience.Teaching, and by extension learning about teaching, is not a linear process; to consider it as suchis to adopt a mechanistic world view in which teachers simply implement the work of others. Rather,teachers are “reflective practitioners who are able to understand, challenge and transform theirpractice” (Sachs & Logan, 1990, p. 479). Therefore, confronting a transmissive model of teaching(Barnes, 1976) is crucial to understanding what development and improvement can really meanfor, and in, the work of teachers.… teaching is more than the delivery of prescribed knowledge using a repertoire of strategies… what a teacher does in a classroom is influenced by a combination of elements, includingthe curriculum, the context and how students respond to instruction at any particular time.… [teaching] is characterised by ‘holistic judgment’ (Day, 1999) about what, when and howto teach in relation to a particular context. … [it] means developing a repertoire of strategiesas well as understanding that their application depends on making judgements about uniquecontexts and unpredictable classroom moments, as ‘the teacher must draw upon not only abody of professional knowledge and skill, but also a set of personal resources that are uniquelydefined and expressed by the personality of the teacher, and his or her individual and collectiveinteractions with students (Hoban, 2002, p. 26).Putnam and Borko (1997) drew on multiple perspectives of learning to propose conditions for teacherlearning. Hoban (2002), in his thoughtful argument about Teacher learning for educational change,extended the notion of these conditions into a theoretical framework for a professional learning systemin which conditions for teacher learning could be viewed as offering complementary support foreducational change. As a complex system then, he described change and development in terms of:• A conception of teaching as an art or profession, indicating a dynamic relationship amongstudents, other teachers, the school, classroom, curriculum and context. Because of theseinteractions, there is always uncertainty and ambiguity in changing teaching practice.• Reflection is important, as teachers need to become aware of why they teach the waythey do and to focus on understanding the patterns of change resulting from the dynamicrelationships in which they are involved.34 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

• Teachers need a purpose for learning to foster a desire for change and so content should be negotiated.• The time frame is long-term, as changing teaching means adjusting the balance among manyaspects of the existing classroom system.• A sense of community is necessary so that teachers trust one another to share experiences such thattopics for inquiry and debate may extend over several months or longer. As a result of this progressivediscourse, teachers theorise and discussions are generative so that new ideas are always evolving.• Teachers need to experiment with their ideas in action to test what works or does not work intheir classrooms.• A variety of knowledge sources is needed as conceptual inputs to extend the experiences ofthe participants.• Student feedback is needed in response to the ideas being tried out in the classroom(Hoban, 2002, pp. 68 - 69).Hoban’s notion of student feedback begins to draw attention to the importance of student learningas a catalyst for the development of teachers’ professional knowledge of, and practice in, teaching.Student learning: a catalyst for developmentResearch outcomes through projects such as PEEL (Project for the Enhancement of EffectiveLearning, Baird & Mitchell, 1986; Baird & Northfield, 1992) and PAVOT (Perspective and Voice ofthe Teacher, Loughran et al., 2002), indicate that including a focus on student learning is importantif development agendas are to be sustained, refined and advanced over a number of years. In suchsituations, supporting teachers in documenting and communicating their developing professionalknowledge of quality teaching and learning is crucial to ongoing improvement in pedagogy andenhanced professional satisfaction.By focusing on student learning, teachers are able to look differently into the pedagogic experiencesin their classrooms. Better understanding the student perspective then becomes a catalyst for actionwhich initiates new possibilities for professional learning. Seeking to view pedagogy from a student’sperspective enhances what Schön (1983) described as reframing – seeing alternative possibilitiesfor, and perspectives of, classroom episodes and events. For example, many teachers look intotheir classrooms differently when they view their students as passive learners, largely because theirteaching quest is based on helping their students to be active, responsible and engaged learners.The disquiet created through recognition of these opposing positions (passive learners vs. activelearners) is achieved through reframing, so that a teacher begins to see the learning rather than justthe teaching. As a consequence, a desire to better align teaching intentions with anticipated studentlearning outcomes and behaviours becomes a driver for development and improvement.MODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 35

In terms of professional learning, in situations such as that outlined above, teachers are more likelyto recognise the specialist knowledge and skills that they possess, and choose to examine andfurther develop them in appropriate ways for their pedagogic context. In so doing, they see newways of thinking about and doing teaching because it leads to enhanced student learning. There arenumerous studies that demonstrate this point in detail. For example Reiss (2000) conducted a fiveyear study of students throughout their secondary schooling. His research illustrated how listeningto students can lead to significant teacher learning. His studies into learning from a student’sperspective illustrated that schools (and teachers) need to take seriously the diversity of students’views and understandings of learning. He noted that this is particularly important because studentsshow little interest in lessons that only offer one way communication or offer a single world view of agiven situation or event (Reiss, Boulter, & Tunnicliffe, 2007). Such views are becoming increasinglyprevalent in the research literature as pedagogy (as distinct from teaching only) becomes the majordriving force for considering development and improvement in teaching and learning.Our view is that it would seem odd to make no attempt to find out, or even be aware of, whatthe students you teach think of their … education or what they expect from it. Outcomesfrom a recent large UK government funded project maintain that student involvement isfundamental to school improvement. But this research warns that there are both ‘comfortableand uncomfortable learnings for teachers’ (McIntyre, Pedder, & Rudduck, 2005). Whatemerged is that students can offer a surprisingly perceptive and constructive focus onlearning. For students, the process of consultation is significant as it makes them feel that theyare being treated as adults and that they should, therefore, take more responsibility for theirown learning. … the evidence suggests that the student voice offers exciting possibilities forinnovative and creative … teaching and enhanced student engagement. From our research,and from research in the public domain … listening to students is an essential part of any …teacher’s professional learning (Bishop & Denley, 2007, pp. 167 - 168).Teacher leadership in professional learningAs noted earlier, the shift from a professional development to a professional learning perspective isimportant for encouraging meaningful educational change. Part of this shift is based on recognisingthe need to move from doing professional development to teachers to working with teachers, whichrequires valuing and responding to teachers’ pedagogical needs, concerns and expectations.However, this alone is not sufficient. Building on this shift also involves a concomitant need to fosterimprovement and development through supporting teachers as leaders of professional learning.36 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

Leaders establish direction by developing a vision of the future, aligning people and inspiringthem (Kotter, 1996). Common amongst leadership theories are a number of characteristics suchas vision, empathy, good communication, awareness of self, social skills, lifelong learning and soon (Goleman, 2000; Senge, 1992). In many instances, considerations of teaching and leadershiptend to be viewed as almost being mutually exclusive such that each (teaching and leadership)are somehow separate and distinct – but it does not need to be the case. Teacher participants inprofessional learning activities should be viewed as potential leaders within their field as they learn tobecome more adept at developing new knowledge of teaching and learning, as well as creating waysof documenting and sharing their knowledge of practice and, in so doing, become more expert atproviding an evidence base to support and encourage change in ways appropriate to other teachersconfronted by similar situations.Teacher leadership is more likely to be realised when conceptualised as situated within a professionthat operates as a community based on “four assumptions: (1) that teachers’ learning is lifelong;(2) that teachers’ learning is practice-based; (3) that teachers’ learning is social; and, (4) thatteachers’ learning is collaborative” (Zellermayer & Munthe, 2007, p. 1). In understanding teacherleadership then as being both situated and distributed (Wallace, 2003) it becomes more likely that aThird Wave of leadership (Silva, Gimbert, & Nolan, 2000) – teachers learning and leading others inlearning about the challenges of practice – might become embedded in the profession itself.SummaryIn Tomorrow’s Schools (Holmes Group, 1990), the authors drew attention to the fact that it is not difficultto find schools and classrooms in which highly capable and competent teachers work to create “smallislands of the ideal” (p. 5). They called for the creation of communities of inquiry and practice that mightextend beyond these small islands so that such practice and knowledge might be much more enduring.They saw a need to try to “institutionalise the development of new knowledge and practice so thateducators’ best ideas [might not simply be] limited to isolated islands of exemplary practice” (p. 6).To do this, they suggested that teachers be given time to look into their own practice (or school situation/setting) and administrators work together to support the profession through involvement in and concernfor pre-service teacher education and accept a dissemination responsibility so that that which is learntis shared as widely as possible within and across the profession.A professional learning approach based on the aspirations and practices inherent in deeperunderstandings of pedagogy as described above are at the heart of notions of development andimprovement. Together, development and improvement form a major strand in considering the role,functions and purposes of a National Centre for Pedagogy.MODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 37

ACTIVITIES OF A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGYTHAT WILL SUPPORT THIS PRINCIPLEBrief examples of how development and improvement might be achieved are outlined below.The list and explanations are not intended to be exhaustive. They are designed to inviteconsideration of possibilities and ways of productively building on the ideas and issues discussedabove so that there might be positive outcomes as a result of engaging with these ideas.Providing ongoing professional learning programsAs a central strategy in supporting improvement and development, programs of professionallearning would be organised, structured and developed as a result of teachers’ needs and concerns.Research and experience suggest that such programs need to be ongoing rather than ‘one-off’ and,while respecting the variety of contexts in which teachers work, situated in classroom practice.An expectation would be established that, through participation, teachers will have the responsibilityto become leaders of professional learning not only in their schools but also through othersponsored activities of the National Centre for Pedagogy.Teacher leadership will also be encouraged and supported by seeking out the islands of excellence thatexist in schools and classrooms and ways created of sharing that knowledge and expertise with others.This could be developed around topic-based communities of interest such as literacy, extending highachievers, the education of Indigenous students, science teaching and learning and passive learners, etc.Such programs could also incorporate the use of student reaction and response as a powerful wayof offering teachers alternative perspectives on their practice.Providing and organising teacher-in-residence scholarshipsCollaboration between educational contexts (e.g. schools, universities, TAFE, early childhood settings)is important in creating forums for sharing knowledge of teaching and learning that extend beyondindividual sites and specific practice settings. One way of supporting such collaboration and sharingis through creating real possibilities for expertise to be captured, developed and shared in ways thatare not so common in the normal work-life of teachers. Establishing scholarships for both short andextended ‘in-residence’ opportunities for teachers means that pedagogical expertise and advice canmore readily be accessed and help to build strong links across educational settings and systems.Teacher-in-residence scholarships would also have major benefits in creating, supporting andmaintaining relevant professional learning opportunities that could be directed toward not onlythe needs and interests of teachers, but also to students and parents.Teachers-in-residence could work on projects across curriculum areas, create curriculum productsand packages, develop professional learning programs and initiatives and inquire into practice inways appropriate to their teaching and learning aspirations.38 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

SHARING AND COMMUNICATINGCreating a ‘Learning Space’Creative and engaging ways of sharing and communicating improvement and developmentpossibilities need to be encouraged. Through different publication, communication anddissemination approaches, a National Centre for Pedagogy should seek to create a Learning Spacethrough which traditional publishing, clearinghouse methodologies and on-line processes areavailable to be developed and used to best cater for users’ needs. A Learning Space should not belimited by one way communication methods but continually be searching for ways of engaging theprofession and fostering dialogue as the basis for building knowledge through collaborative methods.The Learning Space should be the vehicle for many of the sharing and communicating activitiesreferred to in the sections devoted to the other four principles.Flexible modes of access to professional learningDeveloping professional learning possibilities need not be limited to being only face-to-faceencounters. A National Centre for Pedagogy must be able to be responsive to issues of teaching andlearning in ways that enable those that are remotely situated in relation to a given ‘place of practice’,to still be able to access and share in appropriate professional learning opportunities.Developing flexible and engaging modes of access to professional learning is key to qualitycommunication and dissemination for a National Centre for Pedagogy.On-line based student issues and concerns for teaching and learningThe on-line world has created many new and engaging possibilities for sharing ideas, issues andconcerns in relation to teaching and learning. There is much that could be developed in virtualenvironments based on popular social networking sites commonly accessed by students. Invitingstudents to collaborate in conceptualising and constructing ways of portraying and disseminatingissues in teaching and learning through on-line environments holds new promise for sharingalternative perspectives on pedagogical practices and engaging students in teaching and learning.Public and on-line presentationsThere is still a place for public presentations to live audiences and a National Centre for Pedagogyshould sponsor such presentations on a regular basis. However, one helpful aspect of the everdeveloping on-line environment is the ability to capture live events, including events sponsoredby the National Centre for Pedagogy such as public presentations, demonstrations of practice,workshops and other interactive experiences, and make them available to a wider audience.Further to this, there is also the ability to edit and work with digitally captured events in orderto reconfigure and shape that work into a ‘value added’ interactive form.Through the dissemination and sharing medium of the National Centre for Pedagogy’s envisagedLearning Space, “YouTube” type presentations create a number of exciting possibilities.MODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 39

QUESTIONAND ENQUIREPrinciplePedagogy is informed and enhanced by researchWhat isthis about?Enquiry involves the systematic collection of evidence aboutand analysis of teaching and learning.Why is thisimportant?Researching practice generates new knowledge aboutand informs teaching and learning.Researchsuggests?IntroductionResearch and inquiry are thus essential, not accidental elements in theteaching-learning process. Not to ground one’s teaching in researchof some sort is to subscribe to, and present a false view of knowledge(Skilbeck, 1983, pp. 12-13).Stenhouse (1981) described research as systematic, critical inquiry made public. According to Stenhouse,research as a form of inquiry “is founded in curiosity and a desire to understand … [that is] sustained bya strategy” (p. 103). Following this idea, educational research is the systematic investigation of concernsand questions about education, with the intention to better understand and contribute to the educationalenterprise. Educational research should provide insights and understandings about teaching and learningthat help to engage learners more effectively in their learning and enhance learning outcomes. Unfortunately,however, despite the large amount of published research in education, it has not had a commensurate impacton teachers’ classroom practice (Mitchell, 1999). This is not to say that the research produced is not relevantto teachers or worthy of influencing practice; rather this problem emerges because typically, the worlds ofthose who study education from ‘the outside’ and those who are immersed in its everyday practice on ‘theinside’ do not pay sufficient attention to one another’s needs, concerns and perspectives.Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1990) identified “a complicated set of assumptions and relationships that actas barriers to enhancing our knowledge … about teaching … [because] [r]esearchers in the academyequate knowledge ‘about teaching’ with the high status information attained through the traditionalmodes of inquiry. They fault teachers for not reading or not implementing the findings of such research,even though teachers find it irrelevant and counterintuitive” (p. 4). This distinction between the ‘highground’ of the academic researchers and the swampy lowlands of the practitioner (Schön, 1983) haslong been a problem in relation to research and its usefulness and/or applicability to practice.40 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

While Cochran-Smith & Lytle present a less than positive view of what traditional forms of educationalresearch might offer teachers, advances in understandings of pedagogy developed through researchcan be useful and usable for teachers when those engaged in classroom practice and those engaged inresearching it are able to better identify what different approaches to researching teaching might offer, towhom, and what sorts of questions these different approaches are best suited to serve. Finding a balancebetween both perspectives (and needs) is important if the construction of knowledge and the value oftheory in practice are to be more responsive to the needs of the educational community; and lead tomeaningful change in pedagogy. As Loughran (1999) identifies “… in regard to researching teaching …the questions are those which are important in the teaching and learning environment … Researchingteaching, then, is something which may be conducted in a variety of ways and the diversity of approachesneeds to be recognised, acknowledged and understood; particularly by teachers as they are (hopefully)the end users – if not always the producers – of the knowledge” (p. 3).Formal research and practical inquiryRichardson (1994) (extending on the work of Fenstermacher (1986, 1994)) distinguished betweentwo forms of research in education: formal research and practical inquiry. Practical inquiry isconducted by practitioners in response to the immediate demands for particular kinds of knowledgethat teachers confront in their everyday practice and to provide insights into professional practice.Formal research on the other hand, is carried out by researchers or practitioners and is “designedto contribute to an established and general knowledge base” (p. 5). Richardson points out thatpractical inquiry is more likely to lead to “immediate classroom change” compared with formalresearch. In this way, practical inquiry can be viewed as foundational to formal research by providingnew questions and concerns that can then be pursued through formal research.It is an interesting observation that, commonly, teachers do not participate in the codification ofknowledge about teaching, identifying research agendas or creating new knowledge about teachingeven though they have “daily access, extensive expertise, and a clear stake in improving classroompractice” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990, p. 2). Reasons for teachers’ limited participation in formalresearch are various and include: structural constraints - there is little time, opportunity or incentive(in terms of professional advancement) for teachers to participate in or initiate research; personalbeliefs – teachers often lack confidence in themselves as producers of sophisticated knowledgeabout pedagogy; and knowledge constraints, in that teachers’ knowledge of practice is largely tacit(Korthagen, 2001a; Polanyi, 1962, 1966), and hence difficult to articulate and share.Tacit knowledge of teachingThrough their experiences of teaching, teachers develop a knowledge of practice that is embodiedmore than it is articulated. Hence teachers’ tacit knowledge, generated through experience, is rarelymade explicit or disseminated beyond individuals, even though such knowledge can provide importantinsights into better understanding the complex nature of teaching and learning and may significantlyimpact other teachers’ practice as well as influencing understandings of those interested in teachingMODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 41

and learning (Loughran & Northfield, 1996). Loughran and Northfield (1996) propose that teacherknowledge generation depends on teachers finding ways of ‘making the tacit explicit’ through sharingcritical experiences and valuing their knowledge of practice that may then lead to the emergence ofnew frames for understanding teaching and learning and deeper understandings of pedagogy.Teacher research: Bridging the theory-practice gapOne way in which the gap between research knowledge and teaching practice might be bridgedis through the work of teacher researchers (Roth, 2007). Teacher researchers can be seen aspractitioners who purposefully engage in systematic ways of exploring their knowledge of practicein their teaching (McGoey & Ross, 1999; Pekarek, Krockover, & Shepardson, 1996). By researchingthe relationship between teaching and learning in their world of work, teacher researchers thereforemake accessible their expertise and provide both academic research communities and schoolcommunities with unique perspectives on teaching and learning that might be valuable andinformative in assisting in educational change. Hence teacher research can play an importantrole in contributing to the knowledge base in education and in making links between the worlds ofpractice and research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Roth, 2007).The nature of teacher researchTeacher research shares with other forms of research in education a common goal of betterunderstanding educational practice. However, teacher research is distinct from other forms ofresearch in education in its emphasis on “changing practice as a result of study and changingpractice to better understand it” (Zeichner & Noffke, 2001, p. 306). Teacher research, throughits insider perspective, provides a view of teaching and learning that is often not apparent to outsideobservers. “Teachers offer special insights into the knowledge production process that thosestudying someone else’s teaching are unable to provide” (Zeichner & Noffke, 2001, p. 299).Teachers’ reasons for researching their practice typically include a desire to know more abouthow students learn, to better understand a particular aspect of teaching practice, to improve aparticular aspect of their teaching, to try out a new teaching approach, to become a more reflectivepractitioner, or to document successful teaching approaches (Roth, 2007). While academicscommonly search for generalisable findings that will communicate to a wide audience, teacherresearchers are more interested, at least initially, in finding what might appear to be context-specificsolutions to problems in their own classrooms. Nevertheless, it is clear that much of the wisdom thatteacher researchers generate can be generalised across many contexts.Two examples of highly successful, long-term Australian teacher research projects are PEEL (Baird& Mitchell, 1986; Baird & Northfield, 1992) and PAVOT (Loughran et al., 2002).42 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

The PEEL & PAVOT projectsThe Project for Enhancing Effective Learning (PEEL) (see http://peelweb.org) is a unique exampleof teacher directed and sustained collaborative practitioner research. Over the past twenty years (PEELbegan in 1985 at Laverton Secondary College, in Melbourne), PEEL teachers have been involved inexamining their teaching and its impact on student learning as they have worked to better understandhow they might help their students become more intellectually active, independent learners.PEEL is a remarkable story of ongoing research into the development of understanding of classroomlearning and teaching. Through the work of PEEL teachers across many schools both in Australiaand internationally, the importance of researching teaching for teachers has been highlighted, witha direct link between the research and teachers’ practice. Hence what may be regarded by someas a simple initiating question (‘How can I help learners in my classes to become more intellectuallyactive?’) has led to “the development of a knowledge base and teaching procedures and strategieswhich both resonate with, and are accessible to, teachers as they strive to enhance their students’metacognition” (Loughran, 1999, p. 3).PAVOT (Perspectives and Voice of the Teacher) grew out of PEEL. It provided teachers with anopportunity to more closely collaborate with academics to develop and conduct systematic researchinto their practice and their students’ learning. Funding from two large Australian Research Councilgrants enabled short-term classroom release for PAVOT teachers for writing and attending PAVOTmeetings as well as funding to support presentations of their findings at educational conferences.PAVOT teachers published a book that includes the studies of 15 teacher researchers (seeLoughran, Mitchell & Mitchell, 2002). The effects of doing research on these teachers’ practice wasevident through their:• willingness to take risks in trying new approaches to pedagogy• ability to articulate their practice and generalise about practice• perceptions of their role as professionals who can contribute interesting and important insightsto the broader educational community• sustained change to practice in ways that were important and permanent.A long-time academic supporter of teacher research (and co-founder of the PEEL project with JohnBaird) Ian Mitchell, noted, “As teachers spend more years engaged in teacher research, they tackle moresophisticated challenges and share these in more sophisticated ways” (Mitchell, 1992, p. 255).MODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 43

Teacher Research examples from PAVOTLyn Boyle: Learning about learningLyn Boyle, a middle school SOSE (Studies of Society and the Environment) teacher, recognisedthat for some time she had not really differentiated between teaching and learning in her classroombecause her prevailing view was that if her students were busy completing the set tasks and theywere enjoying those tasks, then they were no doubt learning. Challenging this view became a majorresearch project, which led to important learning about her teaching, her students’ learning and thenature of educational change.Through her research project, Boyle trialled an array of teaching procedures and learning activitiesdesigned to support students’ awareness of themselves as learners and to improve their learning.Her progress was not straightforward.Despite her expectation that she would lead students through a steady path of improvement Boylecame to understand the complex variety of factors that interacted in the learning process. She alsocame to see that she needed to understand more about these processes in order to work toward thekind of change she desired in her teaching and her students’ learning (Boyle, 2002).Berry & Milroy: Learning about research informed curriculumBerry and Milroy, two high school science teachers also involved in the PAVOT project, investigatedtheir teaching of a Year 10 unit on atomic theory. These two teachers sought to put into practicepublished theories about teaching and learning science in order to improve their science teachingand the science learning of their students. However, implementing change to their practice was farmore complex than they had initially anticipated. Sadly, they soon recognised that the particularkind of research knowledge that they needed to support their efforts did not exist.We asked students to expose their thinking and did not know how to help them … whenwe turned to the research literature to find a context for teaching about atomic structure,or practical classroom assistance for dealing with the particular conceptions we haduncovered and wanted to challenge, we found little … We needed a user friendly guide(where the users were teachers like us) for dealing with the variety of individual conceptions– how to challenge; what to do with those students who already had a coherent view of thephenomenon (Berry & Milroy, 2002, pp. 200 - 201).Through researching their teaching in collaboration with academic supporters, Berry and Milroywere able to generate the knowledge they required – and to share that knowledge throughpublication of their research efforts.The experiences of practitioner researchers such as Boyle and Berry and Milroy highlight importantways in which teachers’ investigations can contribute to the knowledge base in education and makevital links between the worlds of research and practice.44 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

A continuing research journey: Osler & FlackOsler and Flack, two primary school teachers with a longstanding association with PEEL and PAVOT(Osler & Flack, 2002) began researching their practice because they wanted to make changes inhow they taught and how their students learnt. Their “teacher research journey”, which began in1996 and still continues (Osler & Flack, 2008), has had extraordinary consequences in terms oftheir own learning about their practice, their students’ learning about learning, and the learning ofother adults who have read their publications or worked with them in professional learning contexts.An important impact of their many years of collaborative research with a strong focus on theirpractice is “a greatly enhanced ability to recognise, generalise and articulate the important featuresof their practice” (Mitchell, 1992, p. 253).Summary… researching teaching [and learning] in ways that are both accessible to teachers anduseful in their work … is difficult if research is something that is done to teachers ratherthan with them – or by them. In essence, if teachers’ knowledge is to be better understood,to be helpful, informative and valuable to the profession and the educational community atlarge, then researching teaching needs to be similarly understandable, useful and valuableto teachers. However, this is difficult to achieve if research is not an important part of teachers’work (Loughran, 1999, p. 3).Researching teaching and learning is crucial to developing deeper understandings of pedagogy.However, to do so requires research methodologies that are not constrained solely by traditionalor more formal approaches to enquiry. Moving beyond studies of classrooms and into the realm ofstudies in classrooms with and by teachers offers meaningful ways of involving teachers in enquirysuch that the outcomes might better ‘speak’ to them; a point that is paramount for practice asteachers are the ultimate end-users of the knowledge produced.Practitioner inquiry, teacher research and action research are equally valuable methodologies inexploring the complex nature of teaching and learning as other research traditions. The approach toresearch employed in a given situation must be influenced by the type(s) of questions being askedof the situation so that there is a careful alignment of research approach, data sources and analyticframes. Considered, developed and applied sensitively, the results of research add to the academicand practical wisdom of pedagogy so important to data-based reasoning that matters in shapingeducational change and development.The quality of pedagogy is enhanced when informed by research and, by the same token, researchis informed by being responsive to the nature of pedagogy and the questions, issues and concernsgermane to the settings in which it occurs.MODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 45

ACTIVITIES OF A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGYTHAT WILL SUPPORT THIS PRINCIPLEBrief examples of how questioning and enquiring might be achieved are outlined below.The list and explanations are not intended to be exhaustive. They are designed to inviteconsideration of possibilities and ways of productively building on the ideas and issues discussedabove so that there might be positive outcomes as a result of engaging with these ideas.Facilitating practitioner researchThere is little doubt that the research that has the most immediate impact on classroom practiceis that which is conceptualised and conducted by teachers/practitioners in their own classrooms.Being informed by evidence drawn from their own experiences of enquiry is a powerful tool for change.Cases have proved to be a most effective form of capturing and communicating teachers’knowledge of practice in ways that ‘speak’ to teachers. Cases are valuable not only for theirintrinsic interest to teachers as readers but also as a catalyst for research as they offer a concreteand feasible approach to doing research within the constraints of the day to day demands andresponsibilities of teaching. Beyond traditional case writing and publication, there are also manyopportunities for extending this approach through on-line and video case production.Supporting ways in which teachers can develop their research questions in their classrooms is importantin supporting them as professionals and trusting in their judgments as ways of informing and shapingdeeper personal understandings of pedagogy. In so doing, as teacher researchers such as Osler andFlack (2002, 2008) have so eloquently demonstrated, through sharing their research results in thebroader educational community, the professional learning of others is also positively impacted.Brokering research opportunities and expertiseA National Centre for Pedagogy should aim to be well situated to help ‘broker’ funding opportunitiesand partnerships for various educational stakeholders in order to help identify ways in whichdifferent types of research might be developed, implemented and used in fostering data bases andanalytic frameworks for informing pedagogy as a consequence of research outcomes.Conducting independent researchA National Centre for Pedagogy should be in a position to respond to various educationalstakeholders’ needs (e.g. systems, institutions, parents, schools, teachers) in order to conductindependent research into particular issues, concerns and challenges from small scale single sitestudies to complex multi-site studies and analyses.46 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

Attracting research studentsA central role in generating knowledge of practice is that of the research student. A National Centrefor Pedagogy should be a ‘magnet’ for higher degree by research students, including teacher –practitioner researchers, who are able to examine pedagogy across various contexts and througha diversity of research methodologies. A vibrant and engaging research culture that should be at thecore of a National Centre for Pedagogy will be enhanced through a critical mass of research studentsworking across a range of teaching and learning projects.SHARING AND COMMUNICATINGCreative and engaging ways of sharing and communicating need to be encouraged. Throughdifferent publication, communication and dissemination approaches, a National Centre for Pedagogyshould seek to create a Learning Space through which traditional publishing, clearinghousemethodologies and on-line processes are available to be developed and used to best cater for users’needs. The following communication possibilities are not meant to be viewed as an exhaustive list,rather to illustrate the range of ways in which communication and sharing might be possible througha National Centre for Pedagogy.Creating a searchable on-line databaseIt can be difficult to access the work of teacher researchers (and other research that is of interestand concern to teachers). Providing access to an up-to-date and easy to search database that isorganised in ways that enable multi-search options (e.g. year level, subject area, areas of concern)is one way of creating access to research findings. In developing and maintaining such a database,it would be helpful to identify the most frequently accessed findings which may help to inform largerresearch agendas, as well as contributing to the generation of knowledge through accumulatingstudies conducted around particular aspects.Developing syntheses of researchSyntheses of research could be conducted and made available. Importantly, working with a criticalmass of research students (who are typically at the forefront of literature in their field), suchsyntheses would carry a critical edge as well as being up to date and relevant.Providing summaries of latest researchSummaries of recent relevant research publications and findings (‘hot issues’) could be prepared in formsthat would be accessible to different stakeholder groups (e.g. teachers, principals, parents, administrators).MODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 47

Establishing a National Teacher Research CommunityCollaborations between individual teacher-researchers, groups of teacher-researchers in differentsettings and between teacher-researchers and academic collaborators could be established (faceto face and through on-line options). Through development of an on-line site, opportunities fordiscussion of different aspects of research (e.g. developing research questions, data collection,analysis, ethical considerations and approaches to writing) could be critiqued and discussed.Conferences (at local, national and international levels) could be advertised as well as possibilitiesfor funding support to attend such conferences when reporting research.In sharing the work of the National Centre for Pedagogy in these ways, it is also important to rememberthat the aim is not to valorise teacher research over other kinds of research; rather that research must beresponsive to, and resonate with, the nature of pedagogy and pedagogical practice.48 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

ARTICULATEAND VALUEPrincipleArticulating practice strengthens teachingWhat isthis about?Codifying practice involves the development of a meaningful sharedlanguage for communicating understandings of teaching and learning.Why is thisimportant?Articulating practice builds, clarifies and values professional knowledge.Researchsuggests?IntroductionAt the heart of all practice lies noticing: noticing an opportunity to actappropriately. To notice an opportunity to act requires three things:being present and sensitive to the moment, having reason to act, andhaving a different act come to mind. Consequently, one importantaspect of being professional is noticing possible acts to try out in thefuture … A second important aspect is working on becoming morearticulate and more precise about reasons for acting. The mark of an expert is that they are sensitisedto notice things which novices overlook. They have finer discernment. They make things look easy,because they have a refined sensitivity to professional situations and a rich collection of responses onwhich to draw. Among other things, experts are aware of their actions (Mason, 2002, p.1).Expert teachers may make teaching ‘look easy’. However, as so much of the literature demonstrates,when teaching is carefully unpacked the reality is very different from the rhetoric; teaching actually isa complex and messy business that is difficult to ‘map’ and describe.Teachers’ professional knowledge is embedded in their professional practice, often tacitly. If andwhen that knowledge is articulated it becomes more accessible and usable, and as a consequence,better valued, both within and beyond the profession.MODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 49

Making the tacit explicitMuch of the literature on teachers’ knowledge is characterised by an underpinning tension about whatcounts as professional knowledge and the different ways of conceptualising knowledge. For example,Fenstermacher (1994) differentiated between the knowledge created by educational researchers(formal knowledge) and the knowledge created by teachers through their experiences of classroomteaching (practical knowledge). Sadly, this differentiation has often resulted in formal knowledge beingperceived as more important than practical knowledge. Hence, in many instances, teachers havebeen socialised into undervaluing the what, why and how of their expertise in practice.Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) offered a different perspective on this situation through theconceptualisation of knowledge for practice, knowledge in practice and knowledge of practice.They argued that teaching was based on an inquiry oriented stance which: “offer[s] a closerunderstanding of the knowledge generated … how inquiry relates to practice and what teacherslearn from inquiry. … it involves making problematic the current arrangements of schooling; theways knowledge is constructed, evaluated and used; and teachers’ individual and collective roles inbringing about change” (pp. 288 – 289).That which comprises teachers’ professional knowledge is embedded in their professional practice. Therelationship between each requires serious examination if teachers are to better appreciate not only whatthey know, need to know and be able to do, but to also be able to actively develop, assess, adjust andarticulate such knowledge in relation to their own teaching. Thus making this knowledge explicit is crucial.How that might be done is vital to the ongoing development of teachers’ professional knowledge. Byarticulating teachers’ professional knowledge it is able to be made more accessible and usable, and as aconsequence, better valued; both within and beyond the profession (Loughran, 2006).Articulating a knowledge of practiceFor a considerable period of time there have been calls for concerted effort to articulate knowledgeof practice so that it might be accessed in ways that might be helpful to teachers. Calderhead(1988) specifically noted the need to develop a common language amongst teachers, students ofteaching and teacher educators for discussing the professional knowledge of teaching as well ashow it might be used and presented.Through the lens of practitioner inquiry, a language of teaching and learning about teaching hasbegun to emerge. For example, drawing on the work of Wheatley (1992), Senese (2002, 2004)described how, through choosing to look more deeply into his practice, he was able to discern“patterns”; he was able to tentatively generalise from his experiences to articulate his learningabout teaching. In developing ways of framing and naming, Senese found that his knowledge ofpractice was enhanced. He found that by framing and naming he learnt about how to communicateimportant perspectives on practice – he looked beyond the individual teaching and learningepisodes to the big picture of practice.50 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

Senese recognised that he could develop his professional knowledge by distilling his “learnings”of practice from the extensive array of observations he made of his teaching and his students’learning in his classes. Importantly though, the resultant knowledge was not regarded as a blueprintor a recipe for teaching, “but a guide which, through appropriate reflection, suggests various options,each of which might be interpreted adjusted and adapted to suit the perceived needs of the situationat that time through the expertise of the teacher” (Loughran, 2006, p. 73). Senese, as one exampleamongst many, therefore made clear how by making the tacit aspects of his practice explicit, he wasable to articulate his knowledge of teaching in ways that enhanced his ongoing professional learning.Northfield embarked on a similar process to that of Senese through a sustained examination of hisknowledge of practice when he was the home room teacher for his Science and Mathematics class(see Loughran & Northfield, 1996). As a result of his intense, systematic and thoughtful analysisof the data collected throughout a year of classroom teaching, he articulated a sophisticated setof “learnings about teaching”. His “learnings” were based on a range of pedagogic situationsthat, when considered together, led him to draw informed conclusions about his teaching and hisstudents’ learning. Through constructing and articulating these generalisations he was able to extendhis knowledge beyond his individual classroom experiences and create an understanding of a biggerpicture of teaching that was meaningful not only for himself, but importantly, for others.Northfield’s research results carry special meaning because, in part, the experiences on which theyare based are readily identifiable by other teachers. However, it is in seeing beyond the experiencesalone that leads to the ability to abstract across each to draw out valuable insights into teaching andlearning more generally. Thus, both the particular and the general combine to create meaningfulknowledge of practice. His outcomes illustrate how different elements interact to create a bigpicture view of teaching such that attention to issues that impact teaching and learning are broughtinto focus in different ways and at different times in order to shape the outcomes of teaching andlearning (e.g. creating appropriate conditions for learning; considering alternative perspectives;understanding reactions to pedagogic situations from a teacher’s and student’s perspective; etc.).As Northfield’s study illustrates, learners pick and choose what to pay attention to in pedagogicsituations. Therefore, regardless of how well something might be “taught”, the learner is always inthe position to decide how to interpret that teaching. Northfield came to see that “quality teachingmay be constructed, but quality learning requires learner consent”. When understood with thismaxim in mind, teaching becomes a very different act as it must be an invitation to learning.In constructing teaching and learning experiences, there is a need for teachers to constantly remindthemselves of the importance of teaching as an invitation to learning; and as experienced teachersare more than aware, that is not easily created. Invitations to learning require skills and expertise thatreside deep in the heart of knowledge of teaching. Hence, articulating that knowledge is crucial asa guide for informing practice while at the same time encapsulating similar and related experiencesthrough which action might be appropriately shaped, shared and valued amongst the profession.MODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 51

Articulating principles of practiceOne way of beginning to explore what it really means to articulate knowledge of practice is in theways that such knowledge is able to be captured, described and shared so that understandingsof teaching and learning aid in making professional judgments and learning about pedagogy.Articulating knowledge of practice is an important aspect of professionalism through which codifyingwhat is done, how and why is central to a professional knowledge base that can be monitored,developed and enhanced by educators themselves. Codifying knowledge of practice througharticulation encourages teachers to demonstrate mastery of their skills, knowledge and abilitybeyond generic teaching and learning processes. One example of articulation in this way is throughthe growing literature on principles of practice.Myers (2002) drew attention to the need to challenge the (mis)belief that telling, showing andguiding practice somehow constitutes adequate teaching – regardless of the setting. Clearly,confronting teaching as telling is important if pedagogy is to be seen in the way described byvan Manen (1991) as the tact of teaching – it must not only be real, it must be seen to be real.Therefore, personally codifying knowledge of practice through an articulation of principles ofpractice is one way of demonstrating that which underpins one’s understanding of teaching. Sucharticulation must be clear and explicit if teachers’ beliefs and actions are to be more closely aligned.Bullough (1997) outlined a number of principles that he considered central to shaping his practice.Three of these in particular are:• There is no one best teaching style or approach to teaching but quality judgments must still bemade in developing practice• A language of learning and applying it with others is part of being a professional• Teaching requires exploring new methods and techniques and purposefully engaging inongoing data-driven self-evaluation.Bullough suggested that, in articulating principles, they should not be interpreted as a check list butas a way of understanding fundamental working assumptions that influence approaches to teaching.In developing principles of practice, teachers are able to create a window into their own pedagogicalthoughts and actions. They encourage a genuine personal critique of the degree of alignment ofteaching intents and teaching behaviours and offer a valuable way of developing approaches tolearning about teaching. Articulation is central to constructing and examining principles of practiceand, through so doing, valuable insights into knowledge of practice come to the fore.Some examples of principles of practice evident in the literature are briefly described below and ineach case have been generated through an overt push for articulation and valuing of practice.52 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

Teaching is about relationshipsThe heart and soul of teaching begins with relationships. Teaching is a relationship. Withoutbuilding relationships the purpose of teaching is diminished. Other principles of pedagogy areenhanced through relationships (Loughran, 1997, p. 58 - 59).If teaching and learning are to be closely aligned, if a genuine pedagogical relationship is to existbetween teacher and students, then an understanding of the needs and concerns of each isimportant. Developing relationships in a teaching and learning environment requires not only anunderstanding of the individual, but also of the group, for each directly influences the other. Knowingstudents as individuals is fundamental to understanding “what works” and what “does not work” increating motivation, interest and a need to know in the learner – or as Northfield’s research suggests,an invitation to learning. The tactful pedagogue (Van Manen, 1991) recognises and responds tothe ever changing nature of the interplay between individuals within the group and works to buildpositive and meaningful approaches that will be responsive to, and benefit, the changing nature ofteaching and learning situations for the group as a whole.Relationships are developed through an awareness of the needs of others and are enhanced whenthere is a genuine concern to respond appropriately to such needs.Purpose mattersIf teaching is only viewed as the accumulation of an array of procedures and skills, then theunderlying technical-rational approach (Schön, 1983) will distort the purpose inherent in qualityteaching and learning which is the essence of pedagogy. Purposeful teaching is the use ofappropriate methods designed to encourage learning for understanding. For this to be the case,teaching procedures need to be carefully selected because they support and encourage learningof the content/concepts under consideration in a meaningful way.Purpose helps to define the skills and knowledge of practice because expertise comprises so muchmore than competency in the technical aspects of practice. Being able to articulate pedagogicalpurpose helps to highlight expertise as involving an understanding of teaching as complex,problematic and ever evolving. Teaching is not simply an event. Developing a strategic approachto teaching and learning, and making that explicit, offers one way of thinking about how to questionand learn about the relationships between teaching and learning, thus highlighting the valueof purpose as a driver of decision making in, and knowledge of, practice.Metacognition needs to be enhancedBaird (1992) has argued that teachers need to be metacognitive and become more aware of theirpractice in classrooms to inform their pedagogical decisions … [all teachers] should be encouragedto be metacognitive and become more aware of how they learn … with the intention of informing theirdecision-making as they construct their personal pedagogies (Hoban, 1997, p. 135).MODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 53

Enhancing the metacognitive skills of teachers so that they might do the same with their studentsshould be central to the educative process. Consciously questioning one’s own learning, building,extending and developing ideas by pursuing the doubts and perplexities inherent in practice is onevaluable way of engaging learners in their own learning and of making teaching and learning clear.Teaching that supports the development of active responsible learners requires a serious focuson metacognition. Students need to learn how to learn. In so doing, they are able to accept moreresponsibility for, and control of, their own learning.Reflection shapes practiceAlthough there are many interpretations of the concept of reflection, two aspects common to mostare related to the ideas of “problem” and “framing and reframing.”Problem recognition should not be viewed as something that carries negative connotations because“reflective thinking, in distinction from other operations to which we apply the name of thought,involves (1) a state of doubt, hesitation, perplexity, mental difficulty, in which thinking originates,and (2) an act of searching, hunting, inquiring, to find material that will resolve the doubt, settleand dispose of the perplexity” (Dewey, 1933, p. 12). Therefore, recognising that which is a problemin practice is an important starting point for drawing attention to reflective processes.Framing and reframing (Schön, 1983) are central to reflection because they explain the importanceof viewing pedagogic situations from different perspectives. Barnes (1992) described framesas the default settings teachers carry with them that set up the expectations they have of asituation. Therefore, reframing is about seeing the situation in ways that extend beyond the normalexpectations that might challenge the default settings. By learning to see into a situation fromalternative perspectives, problems (curious, interesting, puzzling and enticing moments) of practicecan be understood in deeper ways and responses may be more informed and thoughtful.… teachers need to discover that their existing frame for understanding what happensin their classes is only one of several possible ones, and this, according to Schön, is likelyto be achieved only when the teachers themselves reflect critically upon what they do(Barnes, 1992, p. 17).54 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

Principles influence practiceWhether it is intended or not, teachers’ principles of practice shape their actions. Recognising andresponding to the challenge of articulating one’s principles of practice is important in explicating theunderlying perspectives on the nature of the pedagogical situations created by teachers for their learners.Teaching is a skilful and complex act that requires a thoughtful and informed approach if theteaching-learning relationship which is pedagogy is to develop and grow in positive ways.SummaryBoyer (1990) focused serious attention on the notion of scholarship. He noted the need foran integrated and holistic understanding of teaching, research of teaching, its synthesis andapplication. Shulman (1999) extended this by introducing the notion of scholarship of teachingand suggested that such scholarship depended on at least three key attributes: becoming public;becoming an object of critical review and evaluation by members of that community; and membersof that community beginning to use, build upon, and develop those acts of mind and creation.Scholarship in teaching may be encouraged through a serious application of these key attributes.Articulation (as outlined above) is a cornerstone to making professional knowledge of practice publicand available for critical review. However, using and building upon professional knowledge requiressuch knowledge to be valued. Realising this aim is dependent on an overt need for teachers to beencouraged and supported to articulate their personal knowledge of practice and as a professionalcommunity, to work to form the foundations from which such knowledge might be accessible, usableand meaningful to others. If that were the case, views of teaching as the transmission of informationor as a singular, isolated activity, would begin to be seen much more as superficial and simplisticand quality practice would become much more highly valued.MODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 55

ACTIVITIES OF A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGYTHAT WILL SUPPORT THIS PRINCIPLEBrief examples of how articulating and valuing might be achieved are outlined below. The listand explanations are not intended to be exhaustive. They are designed to invite consideration ofpossibilities and ways of productively building on the ideas and issues discussed above so thatthere might be positive outcomes as a result of engaging with these ideas.Capturing, scrutinising and sharing knowledge of practice through casesMany of the important elements of practice are rarely described or discussed. Through theuse of case writing and analysis such aspects can be captured, portrayed, analysed and morecomprehensively understood and valued.Cases are designed to capture critical incidents/events and processes so that they can be conveyedto others in a meaningful way. They create opportunities to reflect on events in order to extract newlearning and reconsider situations in new ways. Cases capture specific pedagogical events andencourage teachers to talk about the underpinning principles of teaching and learning.Central to creating possibilities for case writing is the need for conditions that encourage learning aboutone’s own teaching in new and different ways through episodes and experiences that foster criticalreflection. Case writing opportunities must therefore be designed in ways that encourage questioningthe taken-for-granted of teaching so that what is being done in pedagogic situations, how and why,attract serious attention. Therefore, creating a supportive and collaborative environment wherebytrust in and respect for teachers’ experience and knowledge matters so that participants might learnthrough case writing to articulate and communicate their knowledge of practice.Case writing, reading and analysis leads to valuable professional learning through the insightsinto practice that are explicated, thus shedding new light on teaching and learning based on theexperience and wisdom derived from quality practice.Sharing effective practice via activity/knowledge banksOne of the most constant demands of teaching is associated with the need for teachers to be able to engagetheir students in learning in a myriad of ways. Teachers need to have at their disposal an array of teachingprocedures and strategies that allows them to make informed decisions about how to teach particular contentin their particular teaching and learning context. Therefore, there is a constant need for teachers to haveaccess to innovative practice that is based on successful trialling and implementation in classrooms.Workable models for sharing practice that are easy for teachers to access and to learn from areessential. In many instances, although examples of how to teach particular content might beavailable, there are few examples of organised and manipulable databases that teachers can easilyaccess for either enhancing their existing practice or sharing their breakthroughs with others.56 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

There is little doubt that good teachers adapt and adjust ideas they gather from others so thatthey bring to bear their professional expertise in grasping good teaching approaches and makingthem work in their own classrooms. However, much of this work occurs by happenstance as aconsequence of long and protracted “searching out” because of the peculiarities of the waysin which such information is constructed and portrayed. Innovations such as activity banks orknowledge banks are a helpful starting point as a place for collecting teaching activities andcurriculum support, but more sophisticated and manipulable databases are needed such as PEEL’s1300 ideas for quality teaching (Mitchell et al., 2006).Facilitate and encourage teacher discussionThe literature consistently demonstrates that teachers value most highly discussions with colleagues.In so doing, they are able to question, probe and inquire into the practice of others. Discussionencourages professional sharing and collaborative learning and creates a need for a shared languageor vocabulary of learning central to articulation of knowledge of practice.Creating and sharing teacher narratives is important in building a knowledge of practice. Suchdocumenting and sharing through narratives not only shapes understandings of teachers’ identitybut also raises awareness of how identity is influenced by teachers’ underlying principles and beliefs,all of which inevitably impacts practice.Making these aspects of knowledge of teaching and learning explicit for oneself and others is thecornerstone of professional learning which is essential for teacher change and potentially, broadereducational change.SHARING AND COMMUNICATINGCreative and engaging ways of sharing and communicating knowledge of practice needs to beencouraged. Through different publication, communication and dissemination approaches,a National Centre for Pedagogy should seek to create a Learning Space through which traditionalpublishing, clearinghouse methodologies and on-line processes are available to be developed andused to best cater for users’ needs.The following communication possibilities are not meant to be viewed as an exhaustive list,rather to illustrate the range of ways in which communication and sharing might be possiblethrough a National Centre for Pedagogy.Developing and organising case writing workshopsProducts of this process can be disseminated on-line in a National Centre for Pedagogy’s LearningSpace or via video cases, journals, magazines, and contributions to books.MODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 57

Sharing practiceCapturing and sharing teaching activities and exemplary practice might include such things as:• On-line searchable knowledge bank databases• On-line journals and/or blogs of teaching practice and procedures• Print/on-line teaching approaches to common content/themes/units• Regular e-mail/newsletters of ‘teaching activities that work’• Stories of practice and student learning• Frequently Asked Questions.Organising dialogueEncouraging teacher discussion might include such procedures as:• Developing ways of collecting research on “hot issues” in teaching and learningas a catalyst for discussion forums• On-line forums and discussion boards• Face to face meetings• Video conferencing• Insights into classroom practice: questions, issues and concerns• “Frequently encountered dilemmas” (FEDs) - themed sessions on student learning e.g. “Howdo you engage disinterested learners?”; “When are your principles for practice compromisedby the ways schooling is organised?”; “What does it mean to teach students with learningdisabilities?”; “How do you extend capable students?”.58 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

CONTEXTUALISEAND CONNECTPrincipleRecognising, appreciating and integrating contextunderpins responsive pedagogyWhat isthis about?Contextual aspects such as content, level and environmentform a dynamic relationship with teaching and learning.Why is thisimportant?Understanding and responding to context improvespedagogical decision making.Researchsuggests?IntroductionAlthough the curriculum may be dictated by the school system,teachers teach it. Where the curriculum falls short in addressingthe needs of all students, teachers must provide a bridge; wherethe system reflects cultural and linguistic insensitivity, teachersmust demonstrate understanding and support. In short, teachersmust be culturally responsive, utilising materials and examples,engaging in practices and demonstrating values that include rather than exclude studentsfrom different backgrounds. By so doing, teachers fulfil their responsibility to all their students(Richards, Peay, Brown & Forde, 2006, p.11).In teaching and learning, context matters. Not only is most of what students know developed in and by theirhome and cultural contexts, these contexts also significantly shape how learning might occur.Through their daily interactions with learners teachers are continually reminded that what and how theyteach in one context does not always work in the same way in another. The nature of the context shapesthe ways in which students learn, which in turn influences how meaning is developed (or not) for theconcepts, skills knowledge and ideas under consideration. Responding to context involves understandinghow different elements of the teaching and learning environment can be utilised effectively to facilitate andenhance learning so that students do more than just absorb information. The way a teacher works within aparticular context has a dramatic influence on the nature of student learning, including the ways in whichthat learning might be applied and further developed in other settings. Recognising and responding to thechallenges inherent in quality teaching and learning across a range of contexts is complex and teachers areconfronted by such challenges on a daily basis.MODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 59

Teachers work to situate learning in many ways but contextualising learning is complex becausecontext varies in so many ways. For example, there are social and cultural contexts, educationalsystem contexts, physical, geographical and personal learning contexts and political, economicand workplace contexts, to name just a few. The impact of context on learning clearly stands outwhen considering differences between learning about a topic in a traditional classroom settingcompared with how that same topic might be understood through researching it on the web, orexperiencing ‘real life’ situations relevant to the content. Another example of the influence of contextcould be in considering how the narratives of history are understood by those who construct them;for example, how does the story of “discovery of a new land” change when told from an Indigenousrather than colonising perspective? Therefore, how does context shape the resultant story?Thoughtfully contextualised pedagogy focuses on teaching that is responsive to the particular needsof individual students or groups of students with common characteristics and can therefore makea difference to the academic and social outcomes of schooling. The ‘Productive Pedagogies’ modelof classroom practice proposed by Lingard et al. (2003) is an example of an attempt to reinforceeffective pedagogical practice with an understanding of the contexts in which students are operatingand thus to produce better academic and social outcomes. This approach to contextualising andconnecting teaching and learning was driven by the intention that “knowledge and talk aboutpedagogy need to be at the core of the professional culture of schools” (ibid., p. 399). Productivepedagogies involve inter alia, the valuing of cultural knowledges (‘beliefs, practices and ways ofknowing’) of both dominant and other cultures and exemplifies the importance of this issue.Contextualised pedagogyDaniels (1996) discusses the importance of “responsive pedagogy” and the ways in which it mattersfor shaping teaching and learning in the context of special needs education. He draws attention tothe problems created when teaching is constructed as the simple delivery of information which heargues is at odds with ideas about quality learning:If we accept transmission-based pedagogies which mediate rigid (or more recently,commodified) curriculum systems, we are in danger of compounding the learners’ difficulties inlearning. Parmar and Cawley (1991) suggest that these may be the very systems that facilitatethe development of passivity in learning and that they may also lead to alienation (p. 156).Daniels goes on to outline two forms of responsiveness that need to be taken into account in relation topedagogy. They are the teaching and learning relationship – teachers responding to individuals within theclassroom and systems of organisation and management which should inform and be informed by eventsin the classroom and systems of organisation and management which should inform and be informedby, events in the classroom. It is not difficult to see then how responsive pedagogy links to the notion ofproductive pedagogies and how context emerges as a central issue in shaping approaches to teaching and,whether intended or not, has a major impact on student learning.60 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

There is a range of terms used in the literature that support the view that teaching and learning needto be understood as being contextualised. There are references to learner centred (Hartley, 1987)and context centred pedagogy as well as culturally centred (Sheets, 1995), culturally sensitive andculturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995). These terms highlight an important point: anessential component of pedagogy is that it addresses cultural needs. Cultural contexts can exert asignificant influence on the way in which different teaching situations are perceived, as well as howthey support (or not) learner development.As the literature makes clear time and time again, there are many factors that affect achievementand participation in education of different cultural groups (including Indigenous Australians, recentlyarrived immigrants such as Sudanese and Afghani students). Research continually highlights thatone positive response to issues of participation and achievement is through the development ofmore inclusive and culturally sensitive pedagogy. A starting point for this development is embeddedin the view that from the teaching dimension of pedagogy, culturally appropriate teaching includesthe belief that all students can succeed; there are respectful relationships between teachers andstudents; the learning environment is constructed as a collaborative learning community; teacherscritique and reflect on their own practice and pedagogical materials; and students’ learning isscaffolded for success (Ladson-Billings, 1995). These teacher attitudes and beliefs then becomefundamental to learners’ success.Understanding context in relation to pedagogy (as suggested above) has ramifications for practice interms of professional learning because “staff development as a transferable package of knowledge tobe distributed to teachers in bite-sized pieces needs radical rethinking” (Lieberman, 1995, p. 591).In essence, developing understandings and approaches to pedagogy that are sensitive to context isan intellectually demanding task for teachers; it is a task that should not be underestimated for it isnot something that is developed or incorporated into practice quickly or easily. By extension then,professional learning is not simply acquiring information about teaching procedures. This point isillustrated further when the nature of context is understood more fully.Other contextsContext also extends beyond those briefly outlined above. For instance, there are importantcontextual features that influence pedagogy that are derived from the level of schooling(e.g. early childhood, primary, secondary, VET, TAFE); the nature of content/subject matter(e.g. English, History, Science, Human Development, Hospitality Studies, Marketing Studies);gender (e.g. co-educational, single sex schooling); as well as aspects such as religion, remotenessand rural/ metropolitan context. However, these are not always as separate, distinct or clearlydelineated as may be imagined. This means that developing teaching and learning environmentsthat are appropriately responsive to context requires skill, expertise and experience. For example,although it is well acknowledged that content/subject matter knowledge is important for teaching ina particular field, content knowledge alone does not equate to quality pedagogy, yet lack of contentknowledge has serious ramifications for teaching and learning in that context. Such ramificationsMODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 61

may not always be obvious. Consider the difficulties confronted by a Physics teacher attemptingto teach Biology, or a History teacher confronted by teaching Geography. Although there may begeneral pedagogical skills and “generic” approaches to teaching that might help, the importantrelationship between content and pedagogy shapes the quality of both teaching and learning.It is for this reason that Shulman’s notion of pedagogical content knowledge has had so muchinfluence on understandings of expertise in teaching (1986, 1987) and has had implications forunderstanding pedagogy that extend beyond content knowledge alone because it goes to the heartof the notion of connections - more so, of meaningful connections.Amongst the plethora of research pertaining to skills, ability, knowledge and expertise in teaching,Shulman’s work often stands out because of the way it captures ‘big picture’ understandings ofteaching that speak not only to the importance of context, but also to connecting across contexts.His extensive work at the Carnegie Foundation on the Scholarship of Teaching has helped todraw serious attention to connecting across contexts in ways that lead not only to changes inunderstanding the nature of practice, but also in realising new learning from other practice settings(Hutchings & Shulman, 1999).ConnectingIt has been some time since Lortie (1975) first drew attention to the isolation of teaching andthe consequences it has in terms of the profession and the production and sharing of knowledgeand expertise about teaching. In the preface to the reprint of his classic study Schoolteacher (2002)he again reminds the educational community about the problems created through the issue of teacherisolation and how isolation makes connecting to colleagues and communities difficult: “… the cellularorganisation in schools creates boundaries that prevent colleagues from sharing [their] expertise …mutual isolation during the day is the rule at many schools. … More ways should be found to reducethe mutual isolation of teachers and the resulting loss of valuable knowledge” (p. xi).Just as teachers need to be connected, so too connecting students to school and learning alsomatters; the two go hand in hand and highlight the crucial links between teachers and teachingand learners and learning which, combined, go to the heart of pedagogy. Drawing in part onShulman’s model of pedagogical content knowledge and illustrating how connections matter, somehave suggested (Barnett & Hodson, 2001; Frykholm & Glasson, 2005) that teachers also need tobe supported in building their pedagogical context knowledge. In that regard, partnerships offerways of bringing to light new ways of establishing learning communities that can encourage greaterconnections across, as well as within, contexts. Such ideas respond to Lortie’s concerns aboutisolation and bring to the fore teachers’ learning about, and through, different contexts.62 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

It stands to reason that there are clear benefits for educational communities if they connectprinciples and beliefs to practice both within and outside the teaching and learning environment.School communities do not exist in a vacuum; they are nested in a broader community of society.However, connections between schools, communities and education sectors have not always beenunderstood in terms of how relationships (or lack thereof) impact the development of pedagogybeyond individual teachers and classrooms (regardless of setting). A set of “old assumptions”about school-community relationships tend to persist, “that have defined and supported teachingand learning in policy and practice. Specifically, education’s century old institutional frame caststhe school as a social institution that is complementary to but separate from other institutionsand agents of community” (Honig, Kahne, & McLaughlin, 2001, p. 998).Connections between students and schools require careful attention in order to move beyond aschool-centric view of teaching and learning. One Australian example of this is in the learning aboutconnecting with Indigenous Australians.Connecting to Indigenous educationThe What Works project and materials (funded by the Australian Government Department ofEducation, Employment and Workplace Relations as a flagship strategic initiative for Indigenouseducation 2005-2008; see http://www.whatworks.edu.au/ 2_3.htm) illustrates how understandingcontext and seeking to genuinely connect students with learning through pedagogy that is responsiveto cultural and contextual locations makes a difference to learning outcomes. What Works offersideas about possible approaches to teaching and learning. In order:To develop more effective learning … the emphasis then is not on how individual childrenlearn, but on why and how people learn through their culture and how participation in cultureshapes identity. To this end, some schools and community groups have sought to developa greater sense of partnership and collaboration between the school and its community.These schools have generally recognised and valued the language and culture of communities,involved the local community in educational decision-making and sought to acknowledge andrespond to their richness and diversity by modifying school curricula and classroom practices.One way to develop more effective curricula is to ensure that students have opportunities toconsider the methods and content of the school curriculum from the perspective of their owncultural identity. Rather than aim for a curriculum that avoids discussions of cultural identity,the goal should be to facilitate the process by which students are permitted to discover andexplore their cultural connections. This further work needs to be undertaken by exploring moreinclusive teaching styles and the impact of Indigenous cultures on classroom interactions andprocesses (DEEWR, 2007, Taking Action, p. 2).MODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 63

By paying careful attention to context and making a serious effort to build connections acrosscontexts, opportunities for enhancing teaching and learning quickly emerge. As What Works makesclear, if there is an ongoing effort to purposefully identify and connect the formal and informalcurriculum through informed approaches to pedagogy, students’ “in-school” and “out-of-school”learning is able to be reinforced. By being conscious of students’ backgrounds, aspirations andneeds, partnerships in learning are able to be created.What Works encourages inquiry into, and learning about, Indigenous education in situ byadvocating open-mindedness rather than stereotyping when considering that which might (or mightnot) be appropriate in the development of pedagogical approaches: “Issues are where you findthem in your own context. They might be sourced in passing from an individual student, a group ofstudents, small or large, or more formal reviews of practice and outcomes … [but] don’t leave themthere, take them on … the first step is to build awareness” (DEEWR, 2007. Taking Action, p. 3).Connecting is vital for framing practice and building relationships and the same applies whenconsidering connecting with partners in other contexts.Connecting across sectors… when schools and work are connected in ways that enhance opportunities to learn andteach, teachers, employers and other adults have expanded opportunities to develop asprofessionals, and accordingly, teach … Professional learning communities come together[and] … provide effective ways for teachers to re-think their practices, assumptions they makeabout youth … and [create] enhanced opportunities to teach (Honig et al., 2001, p. 1014).Pedagogy that connects sectors empowers learners to be active and self-directed in their learning.With the provision of emotional support from adults and peers, new roles and responsibilities forlearners are able to be envisioned and created and lead to high standards and, importantly, ongoingaccess to supportive social networks.An example of one approach to connecting sectors is that of the Australian National SchoolsNetwork (ANSN). The Australian National Schools Network has a long history of concern for,and involvement in, school reform and improvement. The network operates in bringing togetherteachers, schools, universities, teacher unions and government and non-government employers,as a unique, nationwide learning community in an attempt to support and promote innovativeteaching and learning practices across Australia. It builds on the expertise of its members withthe intention of learning more about successful practice.The Australian National Schools Network (2008) illustrates possibilities for ways of considering howto extend and cross boundaries. Its members are concerned to promote re-thinking of teaching andlearning, encouraging the exploration of innovative ways to improve educational outcomes and sharingexperience of what works best in the classroom. Connecting with and linking to existing networks suchas the Australian National Schools Network is another way that a National Centre for Pedagogy could64 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

not only build and extend on the foundation principle of contextualising and connecting but also bringexpertise to bear in relation to researching, and disseminating such research, in appropriate ways fordifferent stakeholders. One such important stakeholder group is the parents of school students.Connecting with parentsForming partnerships with students, their families and communities is enhanced when parentsare understood as key members of the educational community. Unfortunately, in times past, ithas been too common that “Many so-called parent-involvement efforts [have] engage[d] parentsnot as partners with schools and teachers, but as adjuncts to the school’s work (e.g. helping withhomework, supporting extracurricular activities)” (Honig et al., 2001, p. 1001).Schools that seek to develop ongoing and high levels of parental and community partnership areoften better placed to achieve improvements in student learning and yet even a cursory glance ofthe literature demonstrates that there is a range of issues associated with parental involvement ineducation. For example “parent engagement models are both limited and validated in the research.Parents want to engage, engagement declines over the school years, and there is a positivecorrelation between parent involvement and school achievement; and teachers and principal[s]need help to build successful partnerships with parents” (tech4learning, 2008, p. 1). Therefore,connecting with parents is an important issue that requires ongoing effort and simultaneousresearch in order to draw informed conclusions about implications for practice.One good example of how parents can make a difference is illustrated through the work of theAustralian Council for State School Organisations (ACSSO, 2008a). With a clear and strong focuson parents, ACSSO offers interesting and helpful ways of connecting parents with ideas aboutstudent learning in ways that are easy to grasp and initiate. Literacy: Parents make the world ofdifference (ACSSO, 2008b) offers advice on what parents can do, ideas about how to work withstudents and ways of encouraging involvement at even the simplest (but often most effective) level:“Sometimes it seems as though the way your child is taught at school is very different from your ownschool days. You may feel as though you can’t help – but you can! What children need most to helpthem learn is encouragement from their family – from parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles andfriends” (p. 2).Focusing on early childhood educationChanging views about formalised education have led to a position whereby a new and developingfocus on early childhood education is attracting considerable attention. Globally, organisations suchas UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation) have been raisingthe profile of early childhood education with the expressed aim of “draw[ing] global attention to thecritical role of early childhood education in helping children reach their full potential” (UNESCO,2007, p. 1). In addition, centres such as the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER,2008), have a specific focus on researching early childhood education and, in so doing, carry anadditional responsibility for attempting to shape policy developments.MODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 65

Not surprisingly, it has been well recognised that preschool education can shape learning anddevelopment. Research has demonstrated that preschool can impact cognitive abilities andtherefore influence children’s lives as demonstrated through such measures as cognitive test scoresand children’s chances of academic success (W. S. Barnett, Young, & Scwheinhart, 1998). Furtherto this, Schulman, a policy analyst for NIEER, in a review of the literature draws the conclusion that:… linking preschool education to a broad array of positive life changes is entirely consistent withand supported by this larger research literature. The pathways through which preschool educationdirectly or indirectly produces these outcomes is an important topic for future research that canhelp inform the development of even more effective preschool programs. (Schulman, 2005, p. 9)Schulman (2005) also links the diverse benefits of quality early education to the work of ParentChild Development Centres in which children (2 months to 3 years) and their mothers gain supportresulting in enhanced parenting skills. She asserts that these centres “have had a positive impactnot only on children’s cognitive ability but also on the interactions between mothers and theirchildren and on children’s behaviour and social skills” (p. 7). Therefore, what early childhoodeducation should look like, how it is structured and the manner in which pedagogy is developed tobest cater for the needs of children is crucial to ways of contextualising and connecting, not only inrelation to future prospects of schooling, but with life more broadly.SummaryThe literature reviewed for this foundational principle of the National Centre for Pedagogy illustratesthe promise for enhanced student learning outcomes through pedagogy that is contextually relevantand purposefully connected. A variety of opportunities for contextualising pedagogy have beenconsidered and the literature continually indicates that the work of teachers is both demanding andcomplex. Yet despite these challenges, if teaching and learning are to be truly responsive to thediverse needs of learners, research and practice must “speak” to one another in more inclusive/responsive ways so that the influence of context can be better understood and more fully realisedthrough teachers’ practical responses. Although there are numerous studies into the nature ofcontext, linking pedagogy that is contextually sensitive and responsive to the micro and macrolevels across and between contexts is crucial in developing and supporting a holistic and integratededucational system.A National Centre for Pedagogy needs to be firmly based on foundations that, through research, canenhance learning outcomes through an explicit valuing of knowledge of context through practicesthat connect.66 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

ACTIVITIES OF A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGYTHAT WILL SUPPORT THIS PRINCIPLEBrief examples of how contextualising and connecting might be achieved are outlined below.The list and explanations are not intended to be exhaustive. They are designed to inviteconsideration of possibilities and ways of productively building on the ideas and issues discussedabove which might lead to quality outcomes for a range of stakeholder groups.Enabling connections and creating partnershipsA National Centre for Pedagogy should vigorously support the continued development of connections between:• education, community and employer groups• teachers and their professional/subject associations and especially• the various sectors of education.Where appropriate, the expertise and knowledge of universities and professional associations couldbe harnessed in the planning and/or implementation of particular teaching and learning activities,research projects and professional connections in order to build on and strengthen relationshipswith, and across, these groups.Partnerships could also be forged across sectors through establishing specific professional learningfocused cross-sectoral committees/working parties designed to widen opportunities for, and accessto, professional development activities that are not generally available to teachers in their “normal”education systems or professional associations. This means that ‘teachers’ are not defined asonly school-based teachers, but teachers in a range of settings, so as to create cross-sectoralopportunities that can work for stakeholders from all sectors.Such cross-sectoral partnerships would also be designed in ways that provide opportunities forteachers to lead their own learning, and that of their colleagues, in a range of contexts, withactivities extending from awareness raising, community building, celebrating and sharing activities,to research and reflection on teaching practices and developing deeper understandings aboutpedagogy and content knowledge. Innovative activities would enable teachers to engage in researchprojects in areas that are suited to participants’ different needs.Activities across sectors would be designed to exemplify best practice in professional developmentas well as create new avenues for professional learning in order to meet the needs of teachers in thespecific priority areas.MODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 67

Embracing communitiesAn important aspect of contextualising and connecting is developing and extending opportunitiesfor families and communities to connect with teachers and educational institutions in ways that willencourage and support the sharing of information, understandings and developments in teachingand learning, research and practice.Developing partnerships based on reciprocity is important in ensuring that community buildingworks for all involved in ways that might be responsive to varying needs, concerns and expectations.Parent, Indigenous education, and early childhood education partnerships are examples ofpossibilities that offer scope for powerful community building based on well-developed researchapproaches in order to include stakeholders and better inform practice.SHARING AND COMMUNICATINGCreative and engaging ways of sharing and communicating possibilities for contextualisingand connecting need to be encouraged. Through different publication, communication anddissemination approaches, a National Centre for Pedagogy should seek to create a learning spacethrough which traditional publishing, clearinghouse methodologies and on-line processes maybe developed and used to best cater for users’ needs.The following communication possibilities are not meant to be viewed as an exhaustive list, ratherto illustrate the range of ways in which communication and sharing might be possible througha National Centre for Pedagogy.On-line education communitiesThe on-line environment can be used as a medium for creating education communities that canwork within and across contexts. By supporting pedagogical approaches that integrate informationand communication technologies, interaction with local and global communities can be encouraged.Through developing an on-line education community, a web format could be built that involvesparticipants and facilitates the development and sharing of research in order to better respond tothe needs of stakeholders through the National Centre for Pedagogy.Possible outcomes from such community building would include accessing the international linksthat would be developed through the National Centre for Pedagogy (both formally and informally)and using such links to bridge distances and contexts on-line, as well as leading involvement in,for example, such things as fellowships, teacher-in-residence and collaborative research projects.68 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

Beyond the classroomTeachers and students could access and develop National Centre for Pedagogy sites designedto build partnerships that would purposefully go beyond the classroom. Carefully conceived andthoughtfully devised, such sites would provide new and exciting opportunities for students to interactwith relevant groups and individuals that they usually find very difficult to access through formalschool and education settings.Using the on-line environment in this way would increase ways of constructing teaching and learningand the range of people who could be involved. Teachers could obviously connect with universityresearchers; industry representatives and students could connect with other learners and expertslocally and globally to explore learning possibilities in other contexts.Supporting and disseminating research: Context also shapes accessAs would be common across all aspects of the National Centre for Pedagogy, there is obvious valuein preparing strong and reliable research summaries and creating ways of understanding andcommunicating different perspectives on topics and activities in education. This is equally importantwhen related to issues of context and how it shapes not only access to findings, but also the natureof the findings themselves.The National Centre for Pedagogy must be founded on a research base that supports integrityand independence as key attributes governing the advice and information available through thesite. Clearly, syntheses of research, differing perspectives on “hot issues” and/or National Centrefor Pedagogy sponsored research projects must be of the highest calibre whether developedand published on-line, through books or in more traditional academic journals. Hence, ensuringthat context does not limit access to the work of the National Centre for Pedagogy is an issue instructuring reporting and dissemination processes and practices.MODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 69

ENGAGE ANDCONTRIBUTEPrincipleLearning communities build professional engagementWhat isthis about?Professional engagement involves creating and sustaining learningcommunities that build teaching as a public, collaborative endeavour.Why is thisimportant?Professional engagement develops deeper understandings of teachingand learning and connects and strengthens learning communities.Researchsuggests?IntroductionBuilding learning communities as a means to engage teachers intheir profession flows from the assumption that the core purpose ofeducation involves a focus not just on teaching but on learning (DuFour,2004). That is, learning communities facilitate structures andapproaches for building a culture in which education professionalsdeepen their sense of the relationship between teaching and learning.In this way, professional engagement that is fostered through community is linked to pedagogy andnecessarily, to its impact on student outcomes.By building learning communities, educators may work together to achieve their collective purposeof learning. Through a spirit and culture of collaboration, teachers work together to reflect on,analyse and improve classroom practice. Rosenholtz (1989) maintained that through collaboration,teachers felt supported in their ongoing learning and this flowed into a greater sense of commitmentto their classroom practice. Indeed, as McLaughlin and Talbert (1993) noted, when educators havea greater sense of their own agency they are more likely to adopt new pedagogical practices and stayin the profession. It has also been suggested that opportunities for collaboration, joint inquiry andthe subsequent related professional learning leads to the development and sharing of professionalwisdom based on professional experience (Hord, 1997).As the literature demonstrates, establishing and extending learning through communities holdsmuch potential for making a substantial contribution to both individuals and the profession itself.70 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

The genesis of learning communitiesSince the beginning of time, groups have formed communities to accumulate learning intosocial practice. Tribes and guilds grouped together to acquire knowledge, where knowledge wasconstructed not as a speciality or object but as a living part of practice. Knowing, then, was an actof participation rather than acquisition (Lave & Wenger, 1991).These ideas about knowledge (in particular professional knowledge) and about learning incommunity have similarly permeated the education profession. The concept of professional learningcommunities has been used extensively as a means of “encouraging teachers and administrators toseek out, share and act on their learning” (Hord, 1997, p. 1).Professional learning has also been well used in the corporate sector, not least as a result of theworkplace learning ideas proposed by Senge (1990). Senge’s notion of the learning organisation wasdesigned to nourish the professional practice of individuals and support the collective engagementof staff through shared vision, learning and problem resolution. The idea of the learning organisationfound its way into schools as a means of transforming organisational culture into professionallearning communities, whereby supportive leadership and collaborative learning was called on asa way of positively impacting learning outcomes for students.The notion of learning communities also draws on the more recent concept of communities ofpractice growing from Lave and Wenger’s (1991) ideas about how occupational communities learnthe practices of their work colleagues. Communities of practice comprise groups of people whoshare a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledgeand expertise in that area by interacting on an ongoing basis (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).Wenger et al. note that within every organisation there are informal clusters and networks that worktogether – sharing knowledge, solving common problems and exchanging insights, stories andfrustrations. It is these informal networks that have become formalised into learning communities(DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005). The idea and desirability of professional learning communities hasbeen powerful and now echoes strongly in the teacher professional development literature (Armour& Yelling, 2007).Professional learning communities, as they have come to operate in schools, hold much potential fora National Centre for Pedagogy. Professional learning communities create real ways of engaging theteaching profession across schools, sectors and professional associations, around the relationshipof teaching and learning, i.e. pedagogy. As a consequence members of a professional learningcommunity have opportunities for sharing their knowledge and expertise thus assisting in thedevelopment and dissemination of knowledge of practice within the profession.MODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 71

Features of professional learning communitiesA professional learning community is an inclusive group of people, motivated by a sharedlearning vision, who support and work with each other, finding ways, inside and outsidetheir immediate community, to enquire into their practice and together learn new and betterapproaches that will enhance all [participants’] learning (Stoll et al., 2005, p. 1).There are three big ideas that are encompassed in a professional learning community. First, they aredesigned to assure student learning through a focus on professional learning for educators. Second,they create a culture of collaboration among professionals and build responsive structures to achievethis. Third, they focus on evidence as a benchmark to judge their effectiveness (DuFour, 2004).The key characteristics of effective learning communities embody:• a commitment to learning for all• collaborative relationships among participants• shared values and vision• a focus on reflective inquiry• participation in partnerships and networks• a commitment to sustainability and capacity building.Elmore notes that professional learning in this way becomes “… a collective good rather thana private or individual good” (Elmore, 2002, p. 14). Professional learning thus becomes a socialprocess, with a strong reliance on collaboration. A National Centre for Pedagogy would carry a majorresponsibility for building and sustaining such a collaborative environment.Establishing collaborative relationshipsImplicit in the notion of community is a sense of relationship amongst members. Notwithstandingthe value of community to share ideas and provide support among professionals, collaboration inthe context of professional learning communities is aimed at critically examining ideas, practicesand assumptions of student learning. This occurs through a process of collaborative inquiry and theco-construction of shared knowledge and wisdom about effective learning and teaching.Collaboration in learning communities can, however, pose a challenge to education professionals.While rhetorically valued as highly desirable, prevailing conditions in schools and the educationsystem overall are not often supportive of professional sharing opportunities (Leonard, 2002).72 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

It is well recognised that the day to day ‘busyness’ of schooling (Loughran & Northfield, 1996)makes it very difficult for teachers to work in collaborative ways that might extend beyond syllabusstructure and/or curriculum organisation. Hence, teachers’ work continues to be characterised byindividualism, isolation and competition. In most typical educational environments, the nature oftrust and care conducive to collaborative professional practice is not easily established. Logisticalissues such as lack of time and resourcing for collaborative work seriously undercuts activecollaboration, often reducing it more to rhetoric than reality (Armour & Yelling, 2007). Despite this,Leonard’s (2002) research illustrates that teachers in primary contexts and in smaller school settingstend to collaborate more through team planning, peer observation and mentoring in comparisonto their counterparts in high schools or larger schools. Therefore, responding to the individualisticnature of teaching is vital if professional learning designed to improve collaborative practices andskills is to have a genuine impact on practice (an important goal for a National Centre for Pedagogy).While collaboration relies on mutual trust and respect and offers mutual support through relationshipbuilding, it cannot be said that collaboration is always a comfortable process or one without struggle.In fact, reflective and inquiry-led processes that are implicit in a professional learning communityrely on explicit recognition and articulation of contradictions and assumptions that are part ofpractice and which emerge through rigorous exploration of pedagogy (Robinson & Lai, 2006).SummaryA commitment to examining and improving pedagogical practice is at the core of engaging in andcontributing to the teaching profession. The capacity to be engaged in professional learning aboutpedagogy and, at the same time, to be able to make a contribution and move beyond individualclassrooms/learning environments is based on a recognition of the need to develop and valueteachers as knowledgeable professionals.Research evidence demonstrates that professional learning communities can act as powerful vehiclesof professional learning and engagement. Professional learning communities offer ways in which the actof professional “giving and taking” (engaging and contributing), can be supported through principles ofcollaboration and professional purpose. In this way, professional engagement can sustain deep learningand spark professional renewal, both for the individual and the profession itself.Learning communities then bolster the sustainability of the profession, building capacity andnurturing pedagogical development and improvement, permitting professionals to “adapt to, prosperand learn from each other in their increasingly complex environment” (Hargreaves & Fink, 2004,p.5). Collaborative learning communities then entrench and expand the purposes and practices ofa National Centre for Pedagogy, positioning teaching and learning as an endeavour that is privateand public as well as professional and personal. Engaging teachers in making contributions to thedevelopment of the profession is central to a National Centre for Pedagogy.MODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 73

ACTIVITIES OF A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGYTHAT WILL SUPPORT THIS PRINCIPLEBrief examples of how engaging and contributing might be achieved are outlined below.The list and explanations are not intended to be exhaustive. They are designed to inviteconsideration of possibilities and ways of productively building on the ideas and issuesdiscussed above so that there might be positive outcomes.Fostering collaboration in the intellectual work of teachingEstablishing and supporting professional collaborative learning communities that have as a major focusthe examination of practice, is a major task for a National Centre for Pedagogy. Such communities mightbe organised around issues important to teaching and learning, ranging from supervision of student teachersthrough to mentoring and supporting specific classroom research initiatives. Efforts should be made tobuild well structured communities, based on sound and distributed leadership patterns and draw on skilledfacilitators who are able to foster professional learning through thoughtful and considered pedagogicalleadership. A National Centre for Pedagogy should support networks of such key leadership personnel.Accessing and sharing ‘cutting edge’ teaching and learning approachesIt is crucial that teachers have access to, and ways of contributing to, the development of knowledgeabout teaching particular content in ways that demonstrate how to respond appropriately tolearners’ needs in relation to that content. A National Centre for Pedagogy should be at the centrefor creating collaborative approaches to capturing and sharing understandings of approaches toteaching particular concepts and content and be at the forefront of supporting ways of applyingthem in classroom settings (e.g. content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, workplaceexperience, leadership). Hand in hand with this support and development would be ongoingresearch of such practice so that the knowledge gained might be available for disseminationthroughout the education community.Leadership of pedagogical expertiseA National Centre for Pedagogy should foster leadership in the ways in which it supports andencourages teachers to act as mentors and resources for others around specialised roles andresponsibilities in education. A National Centre for Pedagogy would then seed professional learningcommunities in order to engage teaching professionals as knowledgeable professionals, who bothlearn and contribute through their membership of such communities. Seeding alone, however,is not sufficient to ensure that collaboration through community results in strong professionallearning outcomes for teachers and impacts on practice.74 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

SHARING AND COMMUNICATINGCreative ways of sharing and communicating what it means to engage in and contribute to theprofession need to be actively encouraged. Through different publication, communication anddissemination approaches, a National Centre for Pedagogy should seek to create a Learning Spacethrough which traditional publishing, clearinghouse methodologies and on-line processes areavailable to be developed and used to best cater for users’ needs.The following communication possibilities are not meant to be viewed as an exhaustive list,rather to illustrate the range of ways in which communication and sharing might be possible througha National Centre for Pedagogy.Engaging and contributing to pedagogical and professional learningthrough learning communitiesCreative ways of stimulating pedagogical development need to be encouraged in order to engagethe profession in building knowledge through collaborative methods of professional learning.Approaches to fostering this process include:• developing virtual learning communities that are responsive to pedagogical issues and permitnon-geographically located community membership• supporting professional conversations that address challenges, resolve difficulties, examinebeliefs and assumptions, explore cases of teaching and learning (written and video based),develop new cases around particular aspects of pedagogy• making provision for mentoring and accessing critical friends through professional learningcommunities.Conducting and disseminating the results of conferences and forumsAn enduring and important feature crucial to any sense of engaging with, and making a contributionto a profession is participation in conferences and forums. In many instances, the presentations,workshops and learning outcomes of conferences and forums are available only to those who attend orthrough the production of traditional texts (conference papers, journal articles, etc.). A National Centrefor Pedagogy should not only have a major role in developing and supporting appropriate conferencesand forums but also be in a position to use its communication and dissemination resources to makeon-line attendance a meaningful experience. Further, a National Centre for Pedagogy should also be anactive developer of conference (and more specifically, resultant content/issues/educational problems)archiving, not only through the requisite papers and other publications (in multiple forms) but alsothrough web-enhanced capture in downloadable forms for use in other settings.MODEL FOR A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 75

Accessing and supporting real time, real world practiceA National Centre for Pedagogy should be organised in such a way as to create access for educatorsto innovative activities. Teachers across all sectors are continually adapting, adjusting and innovatingtheir practice in response to the needs of their students and the ever changing demands on theeducation system. Educators engaged in developing new ways of responding to policy changes,curriculum development, teaching and learning issues, or initiating/implementing/responding toresearch need to know that they can then contribute their learning back to the profession in realtime (and move beyond the isolation of teaching) through organised and systematic approachessupported by the National Centre for Pedagogy. A range of communication and disseminationpossibilities would be created and supported through the National Centre for Pedagogy to ensurethat such engagement and contribution was an ongoing and strong feature of the organisation.CHAPTER summaryThis chapter has examined the factors important in shaping how a model for a National Centrefor Pedagogy might be conceptualised.The model is conceptualised (Figure 3.1) as working through five foundation principles describedin this chapter in such a way as to gather in, build up and extend into the educational communitythrough the range of activities that bring the principles to life in practice.The range of research and practice activities is directed toward informing and enhancing the qualityof teaching and learning. Sharing and Communicating functions include traditional EducationalResearch Clearinghouse roles but also go beyond these in facilitating new and innovative ways ofmaking the work of the Centre accessible and usable.76 Centre MODEL FOR for A pedagogy NATIONAL CENTRE 76 FOR PEDAGOGY

04 CENTREESTABLISHING A NATIONALFOR PEDAGOGYChapter overviewThis chapter provides a basis from which estimates can be made aboutthe establishment, costs and structure of a National Centre for Pedagogy.In outlining the basis for such estimates it is important to note that:• In establishing a Centre, partnering with an existing institutionoffers advantages in relation to lower infrastructure and runningcosts compared to a stand-alone new agency• Staged establishment allows for the distribution of costs over time as staff could be hiredprogressively, keeping staffing costs initially less than for a full operational year• In costing a Centre, estimates in this chapter are based on Monash University salary structuresand costing formulae• Capital costs such as furniture, minor capital works, computer and other equipment wouldbe higher in the first year and lower in subsequent years (unless equipment is leased)• The cost base at Monash University is likely to be similar to the cost base in other Australianuniversities, but possibly lower than in other organisations• The cost estimates in this chapter are provided in 2009 dollar values.Centre establishment optionsCreating a National Centre for Pedagogy could follow one of two paths partnering with an existinginstitution (e.g. university or similar institution) or as a stand-alone new agency (e.g. similar to theAustralian Council for Educational Research model).In either of these pathways, the conceptualisation outlined in chapter 3 is based on creatinga critical mass of expertise in one location with an ability to reach out and draw on expertise,skills, knowledge and facilities from appropriate sites across Australia. In this way, the Centre wouldbe able to create and manage pedagogical research and practice through a core physical locationwhile not exacerbating more common problems of centralisation and/or geographic isolation.The proposed model therefore would allow the Centre to be responsive to the demands of the variousresearch and/or practice activities and the diversity of these across the five foundation principles.An important aspect of a National Centre for Pedagogy is the need for a strong and concentratedfocus on pedagogy. Therefore, there is an expectation that the Centre is, in many ways, independentin form and function.ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 77

In terms of the first path, the work of the Centre could be diluted and diminished if integrated toodeeply into an existing institution. Possible flow-on effects of institutional needs, expectations andfunctions could influence the nature of work in ways that could distract from the necessary focuson pedagogical research and practice.Nevertheless, it is well recognised that some universities are very experienced at managing thedemands of such partner relationships through the range of Centres they support and/or partner.Economic advantages to partnering with an existing institution include possibilities for minimisingcapital and establishment costs as well as efficiencies related to on-going running and personnelcosts. Further to this, appropriate partnering with an experienced institution offers benefits inrelation to infrastructure and availability of expertise as well as established links to leaders, teachers,and the education community more generally.In terms of the second path, a genuine stand-alone new agency could be autonomous andindependent. However, capital and infrastructure costs might be higher because of lower economiesof scale. Further, full establishment could also be delayed leading to a slower build-up to a fullyfunctional centre.Centre structureThe proposed National Centre for Pedagogy model is informed by a study of roles andresponsibilities identified in a number of similar sized and funded centres (listed in the completedbackgrounding study - see Appendix 1). Provision has been made for the Centre to comprisea physical space with some elements/aspects of the activities, expertise and resources to begeographically dispersed. This structure places an emphasis on the need for remote communicationtechnologies, (e.g. video conferencing, mobile communication support and the integration of othertraditional forms of electronic communication) all of which add to the Sharing and Communicatingfunctions within the integrated Centre model.The large majority of costs are associated with staffing (for a sample schematic organisationalchart in accord with the costs outlined in Table 4.2, see Appendix 3). A Centre Director wouldbe responsible for the day-to-day management of the Centre, including attainment of its goals,priorities, policies and strategies. The Director would have responsibility for managing the Centre’shuman resources and overseeing the management of the Centre’s physical resources.A Deputy Director would support the Centre Director particularly with respect to the planning andadministration of the Centre’s programs and services. Together they would coordinate and supportthe work of five key Executive Officers in evaluating, reporting and coordinating provision of theCentre’s programs and services across the five foundation principles.78 Centre ESTABLISHING for pedagogy A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

Each of the five Executive Officers would be responsible for the coordinated planning, delivery and supportof programs consistent with the Centre’s objectives and priorities. The work of the Executive Officers wouldprimarily focus on the provision and support of services aligned with one particular aspect of the Centre’swork as identified through the foundation principles on which the Centre is conceptualised (i.e. DEVELOP& IMPROVE, QUESTION & ENQUIRE). Ongoing collaboration between the Executive Officers is essentialin the provision of highly coordinated programs and effective differentiation of roles so that each of the fivefoundations is functionally dynamic, responsive, collaboratively managed and inter-linked.In addition, support staff would be required to carry out traditional organisational, governanceand accountability functions as well as technical and support services for the Sharing andCommunicating aspects of the Centre’s work.As chapter 3 makes clear (both in Table 3.1 and through the explication of each of the foundationprinciples), the Centre places a premium on links with the profession (leaders, teachers andother education professionals). The proposed structure makes provision for invited educationalpractitioners identified for their expert knowledge in and contribution to key fields of educationalpractice and/or research. Such involvement is envisaged as being both ad hoc and formalised sothat through these connections feedback and advice might be available on such things as:• research planning and identifying priority areas for research funding• current and potential government educational programs and initiatives• matters related to pedagogical practice and research in relevant education sectors and• cross-sector initiatives, priorities and needs.Costings: Partnering modelAll costings in this section are based on path one; a partnering model (costs have been generated throughMonash University’s standard institutional project costing software). Table 4.1 shows costs for a ‘standardyear’ of the proposed National Centre for Pedagogy - that is, a year in which the full staffing profile of theCentre is employed and all activities are undertaken. Any capital items have been averaged across theirexpected years of usefulness. The Centre staffing profile in this model corresponds to the organisationalmake up based on the five foundation principles and Sharing and Communicating functions. Estimates arebased on an ‘at-cost’ basis and include no institutional mark-up on the activity.Table 4.1 shows that salaries and related costs (including accommodation and support services) comprisealmost 85% of the total costs, which are $4.9 million (per standard year) before GST and $5.4 million afterGST. The latter estimate is similar to the costs assumed for the calculation of rates of return for investment inthe National Centre for Pedagogy provided in chapter two of this report. More detailed breakdowns of salaryand non-salary costs in Table 4.1 are provided in Tables 4.2 and 4.3 respectively.ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 79

Table 4.1: Total expenditure for a standard year of the National Centre of PedagogyExpenditure$’000sSalaries 4,150Non-salary 792Total (excluding GST) 4,943GST 494Total (including GST) 5,4371. A ‘standard year’ is a year in which the full staffing profile of the Centre is employed and all Centre activities areundertaken. Any capital items have been averaged across their expected years of usefulness.2. Numbers may not sum to totals because of rounding.3. Values are in 2009 dollars.4. Breakdown of costs provided in Tables 4.2 (Salaries) and 4.3 (Non-salaries).Table 4.2 shows the direct and indirect staff-related costs before GST. The Position columncorresponds to those employed in a traditional university setting, the Level column shows thecorresponding university titles and Classification contains the terms used in Monash University’ssalary schedule. The direct salary costs include standard on-costs of 35.1% for most positions,while overheads that incorporate support services and other institutional costs are 46.9% of directsalaries. Accommodation, which is costed at the middle range of the quality spectrum and allowsfor office space and shared meeting rooms, is 3.2% of direct salary costs.Table 4.3 shows the non-staff costs which are about 15% of total costs. The non-staff costs includecapital and recurrent items. The capital items are costed on an average of their expected useful lifeor leasing costs - three years for computers, five years for furniture, leasing for photocopiers, faxesand special phone services. Although travel is costed in a nominal manner as shown in the table,actual expenses will vary with destinations and the needs of the Centre. Governance costs allows formeeting and reporting costs. Separate lines are included for research grants to other institutions orindividuals and the conduct of programs for teachers.Table 4.4 provides a breakdown of the three main activities of the Centre - research, administrationand communication. The estimates are highly dependent on a series of assumptions about theactivities of staff but suggest that nearly half (47%) of the expenditure will be on research, less thana quarter (23%) on administration and 30% on communication of research about teaching.80 Centre ESTABLISHING for pedagogy A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

Table 4.2: Staff-related expenditure for a standard year of the National Centre for PedagogyPosition Level Classification Cost ($’000s)Total 4,150.3Chief Executive Director Professor Level E, Step 1 186.7Research Fellow (11.0 FTE) 1,462.7Deputy Executive Director Professor Level E, Step 1Executive Officer 1 Assoc. Professor Level D, Step 3Executive Officer 2 Assoc. Professor Level D, Step 3Executive Officer 3 Assoc. Professor Level D, Step 3Executive Officer 4 Assoc. Professor Level D, Step 3Executive Officer 5 Assoc. Professor Level D, Step 3Exec. Officer Support 1 Snr Research Fellow Level C, Step 6Exec. Officer Support 2 Snr Research Fellow Level C, Step 6Co-opted Staff 1 Research Fellow Level B, Step 5Co-opted Staff 2 Research Fellow Level B, Step 5Co-opted Staff 3 Research Fellow Level B, Step 5Chief Financial Officer Business Manager HEW 7, Step 1 93.2Admin Officer (4.00 FTE) 309.3Chief Executive Assistant Admin Officer HEW 6, Step 3Accountant & Grant Funding Admin Officer HEW 5, Step 1Manager Centre Communications Admin Officer HEW 7, Step 1Administration Support Admin Officer HEW 3, Step 1Technician (3.00 FTE) 235.5Web Developer Technician HEW 6, Step 1Assistant Web Support 1 Technician HEW 5, Step 1Assistant Web Support 2 Technician HEW 5, Step 1Centre Reception & Support Admin Assistant HEW 4, Step 1 65.3Fellowships (2.40 FTE) 312.3National Fellowship (3 * 0.4 FTE)International Fellowship (3 * 0.4 FTE)PhD students 100.0Total direct salary costs 2,765.1Staff related overheads and upport 1,296.3Accommodation 89.0Total indirect staff costs 1,385.31. A ‘standard year’ is a year in which the full staffing profile of the Centre is employed and all Centre activities areundertaken. Any capital items have been averaged across their expected years of usefulness.2. Numbers may not sum to totals because of rounding.3. Values are in 2009 dollars--assuming inflation at 4% 2008-09.4. Direct salary costs include on-costs: superannuation (14%); workcover, payroll tax, recreation leave loading (11.44%);and outside studies program (5%). Three Research Fellows Level B costed at minimum Superannuation (6.2%).$100,000 allowed for employment of 10 PhD students on scholarships, no on-costs allowed.ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 81

5. Accommodation follows Monash University guidelines and is costed at ‘C - medium’ standard, the sixth standard ofaccommodation on a 12 point scale. Accommodation includes cleaning and security. Accommodation allows for office space,meeting rooms and shared training facilities.6. Staff-related overheads and support includes legal; insurance; audit, acquittal and other financial; and recruiting support.Table 4.3: Non-staff expenditure for a standard year of the National Centre for PedagogyItem/activityCost ($’000s)Equipment 20.3Computers, monitors, software. Printers 12.0Photocopier, faxes, phones 5.4Furniture 2.9Travel 97.2National 12 staff x 3 trips @ $1,200 43.2International 6 staff x 3 trips @ $3,000 54.0Consumables 20.0Governance costs 25.0Research grants 350.010 @ $15,000 150.05 @ $40,000 200.0Programs 280.0Programs (10 @ $20,000 each) 200.0Programs (2 @ $40,000 each) 80.0Total 792.51. A ‘standard year’ is a year in which the full staffing profile of the Centre is employed and all Centre activities are undertaken.Any capital items have been averaged across their expected years of usefulness.2. Numbers may not sum to totals because of rounding.3. Values are in 2009 dollars assuming 4% inflation 2008-09.4. Consumables include advertising, research data, phone calls, post, printing, stationery, taxis, etc.5. Computing equipment and software are costed at $2000 per FTE staff (assumed 18 FTE staff) and assumed to depreciatelinearly to zero over three years. The average per year is $12,000. The estimate allows for the varying computer needs ofdifferent staff. Equipment could be leased or purchased—the only effect on these assumptions would be on the timingof the expenditure.6. Photocopiers, faxes, any specialised phone equipment are costed at $27,000 in total depreciated linearly over 5 years.82 Centre ESTABLISHING for pedagogy A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

Table 4.4: Expenditure by broad areas of activity for a standard yearMain activity Cost ($’000s) %Research 2,561 47Administration 1,228 23Communication/program delivery 1,648 30Total 5,437 1001. A ‘standard year’ is a year in which the full staffing profile of the Centre is employed and all Centre activities are undertaken.Any capital items have been averaged across their expected years of usefulness.2. Numbers may not sum to totals because of rounding.3. Values are in 2009 dollars assuming inflation at 4% 2008-09 and include GST.4. The division of costs assumes that staffing is allocated across activities in the following proportions: Chief & Deputy ExecutiveDirector - 30% research, 50% administration, 20% communication; Research Fellows - 60% research, 15% administration,25% communication; PhD students - 70% research, 10% administration, 20% communication; Web technical staffis - 30% research, 20% administration, 50% communication; administration; CFO, administration offices, administrationassistant - 20% research, 60% administration, 20% communication; Fellowships - 50% research, 5% administration, 45%communication.5. Accommodation, indirect staff-related costs, equipment, travel and consumables are allocated pro-rata with direct salaries.6. Other non-staff costs are allocated in the following proportions: Governance - 10% research, 80% administration, 10%communication; Research grants - 70% research, 10% administration, 20% communication; Programs - 10% research, 10%administration, 80% communication.ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 83

Table 4.5 provides indicative estimates of the costs of the National Centre for Pedagogy over its firstfew years of operation. Typically it takes several years for a centre to appoint its full complement ofstaff. The values in Table 4.5 assume that the equivalent of about half the full-time equivalent staffingprofile are appointed during the first year. This assumption implies that more than half the staff areappointed during the first year because many will be appointed only part-way through the year.Much of the program activity (e.g. calling for, assessing and distributing research grants, designing,advertising and conducting teacher programs, and implementation of fellowships) is assumed to beginonly in the second year. Expenditure has almost reached the expected on-going level by the third year.Table 4.5: Total costs over the first four years of the National Centre for PedagogyYear 1 2 3 4Cost ($‘000s) 2,109 3,766 5,402 5,4371. Values are in 2009 dollars assuming 4% inflation 2008-09.2. Year 1 is the bootstrap year. Estimate assumes that the full-time equivalent of half the main staffing profile is appointedduring the year. Expenditure on visiting fellowships and PhD students is minimal. Non-staffing expenditure is pro-rata withstaff except that program and research grant expenditure is minimal. Equipment expenditure is above the annual average.3. Estimates for Year 2 assume that 15 of the 18 full-time equivalent positions in the main staffing profile are filled acrossthe year. Expenditure on visiting fellowships and PhD students is half of expected annual program expenditure. Nonstaffingexpenditure is pro-rata with staff except that equipment expenditure is higher than average.4. Estimates for Year 3 assume that the full main staffing profile is filled across the year. Equipment expenditure is lowerthan average.5. By Year 4 expenditure has stabilised around the expected standard-year expenditure based on the assumption thatequipment is either leased or depreciation is evenly distributed across years.84 Centre ESTABLISHING for pedagogy A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

Costings: Stand-alone modelThe National Competition Policy provides a framework within which to consider costings of a‘partnering model’ with the costs of a ‘stand-alone model’ for a National Centre for Pedagogy.Universities and any of their controlled entities are bound by the principles of competitive neutrality.For instance, where universities or other government agencies may be competing against privatefor-profit organisations, they have to fully cost any proposal.States interpret these requirements differently. Victoria, for instance, endorses two approachesto costing by government departments and agencies and by local government. 3 The fully distributedcost approach includes a component of ‘overheads’ or ‘institutional costs’ if the activity wereto increase these costs while the avoidable cost approach costs an activity at the marginal cost,but should only be used where there are no ‘overhead’ or ‘additional costs’.The ‘partnering model’ costings provided in this chapter are based on the fully distributed costapproach and include an allowance for ‘overheads’ or ‘institutional costs’. The costings arefrequently comparable with commercial rates. The schedule of accommodation charges, forinstance, covers both university-owned and commercially rented properties.Universities, however, as not-for-profit organisations, are exempt from certain forms of taxation,most notably income tax and land tax. During the 1990s in Victoria, these tax exemptions as wellas exemptions from certain legislative requirements to which private enterprises were subject, wereestimated to provide a cost advantage of between 8% and 12% for the purposes of creating a ‘levelplaying field’ in government tendering processes.If a stand-alone Centre were operated on a for-profit basis, its operating costs would increase by10% (for example), which for a ‘standard year’ would result in a total operating cost of $6.0m plusany profit margin — say a further 10% which would result in a total cost of $6.6m per annum.Of course a stand-alone National Centre for Pedagogy is unlikely to be operated by a private for-profitorganisation. Properly established, it is more likely to be operated by a not-for-profit organisation that willhave the same tax-exemption advantages as a university or similar non-university research organisation.3 Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission (VCEC, 2007). Cost allocation methodology: Guidance note,Melbourne, August.ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 85

Cost benefits of a partner modelA National Centre for Pedagogy partnered with a university has four main potential financialadvantages over a new independent national centre:The cost of borrowing is likely to be lower than for a (relatively) small and new centre. Universities haveexisting relationships with financial institutions, a credit history and a diversified and large income stream.Risks such as litigation costs or staff illnesses can be spread across a broad range of activities.A small independent centre would need to allow a greater margin for risk in its costings.Universities have a pre-existing organisational capital of policies, procedures and relationships.A new small independent agency would need to invest in creating its own new organisationalinfrastructure.Some university costs are fixed and a new Centre provides the basis to distribute those costs acrossa greater revenue base. These economies of scale, however, are difficult to quantify.The relative size of these benefits depends to some extent on any underlying financial guaranteesprovided by the Australian Government-. If strong financial guarantees are provided, then borrowingcosts may be lower for an independent agency and it need not budget for a surplus to cover its fullrisk profile—the Australian Government takes on that risk.Universities are not the only bodies with which a National Centre for Pedagogy could be partnered.Any partnering of the Centre with other education agencies could achieve similar cost advantages tothose that could be achieved through partnering with a university. The only cost advantages of partneringwith a university would result if a university were willing to cross-subsidise the Centre from its otheractivities. National competition policies would not be a barrier to this approach. Apart from that possibility,the advantages of partnering the Centre with a university are more organisational than financial.Chapter summaryThis chapter has illustrated cost estimates for a National Centre for Pedagogy model based onMonash University salary structures and costing formulae. These costs have been generatedthrough Monash University’s standard institutional project costing software. The cost base atMonash University is likely to be similar to the cost base in other Australian universities and similarto those of other not-for-profit organisations. The estimates do not allow a margin for surplus.A National Centre for Pedagogy could be developed through either an initial full capital outlay,or through staged development. Full and immediate establishment and program implementationwould cost $5.4 million (approx) per year. Alternatively, staged development would grow fromapproximately $2.1 million in year 1 through to full establishment of $5.4 million by year 3.86 Centre ESTABLISHING for pedagogy A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

05 CENTREFEASIBILITY OF A NATIONALFOR PEDAGOGYChapter overviewThis chapter considers the feasibility of a National Centre for Pedagogyby reviewing:• Research literature pertaining to Centres of Pedagogy• Issues associated with sustainability• Factors associated with overall feasibility• Economic and further benefits.IntroductionIn the United States, Centres of Pedagogy 4 are based on a tripartite model of collaboration betweenuniversity science/arts faculties, education faculties/teachers’ colleges and the local school district.The origin of the Centre of Pedagogy model is derived from the early work of John Goodlad and hisCentre for Educational Renewal (founded in 1985 by John Goodlad, Kenneth Sirotnik and Roger Soder).The catalyst for establishing Centres of Pedagogy came about at a time of great controversy andturmoil as the US education system was confronted by widespread educational reforms. The modelevolved as university cognate faculties, education faculties/colleges of teacher training and publicschools began to form partnerships with the purpose of pursuing a common sense of renewal. Oneof the objectives of the Centre for Educational Renewal was to advance the simultaneous renewal ofP-12 schools and the education of teachers and teacher educators within the larger context of theprovision of education for all within a democracy.In many ways, Centres of Pedagogy grew out of the difficulties associated with the apparentfragmentation of teacher preparation in the US whereby the distinction between theory and practice inteaching and learning about teaching raised concerns for scholars like John Goodlad. Although the threemain participants in teacher preparation (universities, teachers’ colleges and schools) each had differentperspectives on their role, they also had a common goal in relation to strengthening the professionand improving public education. As a consequence of the realisation that “complex problems andweaknesses require comprehensive change [and that] collaboration between schools and universitiesis essential for reform to be comprehensive and effective” (Patterson, Michelli, & Pacheco, 1999, p. 2),the value of the mission and vision of a Centre of Pedagogy stood out on the educational landscape.4 In the United States, Centres for Pedagogy are based on the descriptor “Centre of Pedagogy”. In this section of thechapter, the nomenclature of Centre of Pedagogy is used to refer to these centres.FEASIBILITY OF A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 87

Goodlad first introduced the idea of a Centre of Pedagogy, in his book Teachers for Our Nation’sSchools (1990). Like many before him, Goodlad was concerned that so little had been done asa consequence of the ever-increasing body of knowledge in relation to change and developmentin teaching and teacher education (see for example, Fullan, 1993; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991).Educational reform and renewal were concepts that were not necessarily well grasped at the policylevel as they tended to be construed through mandated change as a series of “quick fixes”. Thesequick fixes were not necessarily implemented in accord with understanding the complexity of theproblems and issues associated with teaching and teacher education. Goodlad’s conceptualisationof a Centre of Pedagogy offered a new and refreshing way of approaching the situation.Central to the idea of a Centre of Pedagogy is the notion of partnership as it is well acknowledgedthat the “weak relationships” between stakeholders in teaching and teacher education need tobe strengthened. However, although collaboration and partnership may appear to be obvious inrelation to strengthening the ties that are needed to better bind the intentions and practices ofteaching and teacher education, as Bullough pointed out, “the difficulty of bridging school, district,and university cultures is underappreciated [because it is hard for each] … to back off from theirown agendas, their own commitment, for a greater good” (Bullough, Burbank, Gess-Newsome,Kauchak, & Kennedy, 1998, p. 23). Hence, the Centre of Pedagogy was seen as a positive way ofbridging the divide in ways that could be responsive to the needs, expectations and hopes of eachof the stakeholders; thus a centre of pedagogy could aim to pursue a common mission (“the greatergood”) without being caught up in the day to day business of each of the individual stakeholders.The work of Patterson et al. (1999) and Hurley et al. (2002) deals specifically with the rationale,success and difficulties of establishing three main Centres of Pedagogy in the United States(Centre for the Improvement of Teacher Education and Schooling, Brigham Young University;Centre of Pedagogy, Montclair State University and a smaller, less evolved Centre of Pedagogy atthe University of Texas at El Paso). Through their work into the development of Centres of Pedagogy,Hurley et al.’s efforts and findings have been catalysts for a number of subsequent educationalcollaborations that have been important in creating a stronger agenda for educational change andrenewal in ways not possible in the existing structures that limit the nature of work on pedagogyto individual contexts, settings, expectations and work requirements.The development of Centres of Pedagogy from a US perspective is different from that of Europewhere the history of such centres is longer and, as a consequence, more formally developedand seriously resourced. For example, a significant Centre of Pedagogy is the Institut Nationalde Recherche Pédagogique (National Institute of Research into Pedagogy, INRP) in France.88 Centre FEASIBILITY for pedagogy OF A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

The National Institute of Research into Pedagogy’s long history illustrates how it has evolved througha number of amalgamations and undergone fundamental change in its objectives and organisationalstructure. The centre was founded in 1879 with the establishment of the Museum of Teaching (laMusée Pédagogique) and was reinvented with a name change to the National Teaching Institute(l’Institut Pédagogique National) in 1956. In 1970 it was separated into two different bodies andfinally amalgamated into the National Institute of Research into Pedagogy again (in 1979) with thedual objectives of fostering educational research and the collection and distribution of educationalresearch publications. More recently, changes in its contractual arrangements with the FrenchMinistry of Education have seen a broadening of its activities and objectives.The institute currently operates as a contracted public agency with the purpose of encouraging andenhancing research in the fields of education and training. It offers its expertise to all researchers,trainers and decision-makers in the education sector and provides a comprehensive clearinghouseof educational research information in multiple languages in both print and electronic forms. Withfunding in excess of AU$32 million (in 2007), and a long standing history of successful researchcollaborations, the institute provides insights into the potential benefits of operating and maintaininga well resourced and independent Centre of Pedagogy.Establishing and maintaining research development centresA number of studies have focused on determining the economic and/or community benefit ofestablishing and maintaining smaller research and development centres. However, analysis ofthese studies suggests that many are based in the health sector and offer only limited insights intochanges in the nature of knowledge production among professionals (an important purpose inthe development of a National Centre for Pedagogy). Many of the studies actually have a primaryfocus on the difficult role of balancing the complex demands of multiple stakeholders with fiscalmanagement (Godin & Gingras, 2000; Hanney, Packwood, & Buxton, 2000; Levy, Roux, & Wolff,2007; Slatyer, 1994).A small collection of research exists which focuses on the managerial implications of establishingand sustaining research centres within university settings and the inevitable conflicts that can arisefor faculty employees and centre directors in an environment of increasingly competitive funding(Zajkowski, 2003). Findings suggest that “role strain” is often increased by a lack of role clarity andthe demanding work loads within these environments. The increased work loads are often attributedto the pressures created by a mix of limited funding and high self imposed expectations to ensurethe centres meet their organisational objectives. Much of this work (see for example, Boardman& Bozeman, 2007; Boardman & Ponomariov, 2007) emphasises the demands created on centredirectors and faculty members originating from confusion between their university and researchcentre roles and the complications created by the varied organisational structures used to establishand resource these centres.FEASIBILITY OF A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 89

Despite these challenging findings there are a number of well documented examples of successfuluniversity collaborations (Ahmed, Beck, Maurana, & Newton, 2004; Amabile, Patterson, & Wojcik,2001; Kellet & Goldstein, 1999). In a study of seven successful university-community partnershipsin Australia, Buys and Bursnall (2007) discussed and evaluated partnerships that were establishedusing a framework of academic collaboration developed by Sargent and Waters (2004). Theyconcluded that the Sargent and Waters’ framework was a helpful model and provided firm directionfor how to build and maintain academic collaborative relationships. They also identified a numberof far reaching benefits resulting from such collaborations; from improved research and teachingfor the University, to a wide range of benefits to the community partners.There are of course, other forms of research and development centres established usingpartnerships between, for example, universities and industry. The vast majority of these centreshave highly specific contexts and complex management structures and intellectual propertyagreements. Many of these scientific research and development centres have been established tooperate independently for the sole purpose of investigating specific technological processes anddeveloping them for large scale commercial production.Economic benefits of a National Centre for PedagogyIt is difficult to be certain about the size of some of the key parameters that determine the economicbenefits from the proposed National Centre for Pedagogy. The next section uses a range of parametervalues consistent with the research literature to provide estimates of the benefits. As with some otherestimates of the benefits of investment in aspects of education, the results suggest that there may belarge effects on the quality of teaching even if the impact of the Centre is relatively modest. From aslightly different perspective, the estimates in this section also provide a sense of the impact a NationalCentre for Pedagogy needs to have on the quality of teaching in order to justify its funding.Influences on the size of the economic benefitsThe key parameters in estimating the economic benefits from a National Centre for Pedagogy are:1. The economic effect of an additional year of schooling on economic growth in Australia.The calculations assume a response of GDP per capita to an additional year of schoolingof between 5% and 8%. The literature suggests estimates of 6% or more, so this is a fairlyconservative estimate and is based on an increase in the level of GDP per capita, rather thanon a sustained increase in the rate of growth of GDP per capita. Following Dowrick (2003),the calculations assume that the economic effects of an increase in the years of educationof the Australian adult population have an impact over 40 years.2. An estimate of GDP per person in Australia is needed to convert percentages of GDP to dollaramounts. The estimates assume that GDP per person in Australia was $47,954, which is thevalue for June 2007 (ABS 5204.0, Table 1).90 Centre FEASIBILITY for pedagogy OF A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

3. The discount rate used to equate future benefits to benefits today. A hundred dollars this yearis worth more than a $100 next year because the $100 today could be invested at say 5% pa andwould be worth $105 next year. Costs and benefits are often converted to net present value so thatthey can be compared as if they all occurred in the present year rather than being spread out overmany years. Typically some discount (or interest) rate is assumed that treats the costs and benefitsas if they were being charged interest. Estimates of benefits are typically sensitive to the choice ofdiscount rate - the higher the discount rate, the less any future benefits are worth in present value.The discount rate is meant to reflect the cost of capital, but this varies widely in the economy overtime and with the risk of investments. There is no agreed discount rate for this task and so theestimates are made with discount rates - 3.5%, 5% and 6.5%. Discount rates are usually real(that is, inflation-free) values, so these correspond to nominal interest rates of 6.5%, 8% and 9.5%respectively (assuming that inflation is 3%).4. The economic impact of the National Centre for Pedagogy is realised through improvementson the quality of teaching, which has three broad elements:a) the number of teachers whose teaching will be improved by the work of the Centreb) the extent to which the quality of teaching will be improved on average for each teacher andc) the years for which a teacher will continue teaching after the quality of their teachingis improved through resources supplied by a National Centre for Pedagogy.It is difficult to know in advance the size of the impact of a National Centre for Pedagogy on thequality of teaching. A range of possible effects is explored within the bounds informed by researchon teacher quality:a) The more teachers whose teaching is influenced by the National Centre for Pedagogy,the greater the economic impact of the Centre. If the teaching of one in one thousandAustralian teachers (0.1%) is affected by the Centre in any one year, in 2006 this would havecorresponded to only 240 teachers (ABS (2006), 4221.0). Assuming the effects on studentsare proportional, 3331 students distributed more or less proportionately across 13 grade levelsreceive better quality teaching.b) Research suggests that variation in teacher quality produces differences in student performanceof the order of a year’s education. Leigh (2007), for instance, found that state-wide standardisedliteracy and numeracy tests for Queensland primary teachers showed that the difference betweenteachers at the 25th and 75th percentiles of performance was equivalent to three-quarters of ayear - results that are broadly consistent with overseas research. Knowledge of pedagogy is animportant influence on teacher quality, contributing perhaps a third of the effect, which suggeststhat differences in the knowledge of pedagogy between the 25th and 75th percentiles contributesthe equivalent of about 0.25 of a year’s academic performance. At the 25th percentile, an increaseFEASIBILITY OF A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 91

in teacher quality equivalent to 0.01 years of student’s performance is a shift of about onepercentile on the teacher quality distribution. The estimates explore quite small improvementsin teacher quality attributable to the National Centre for Pedagogy and, consistent with theliterature, assume that these improvements persist for both teacher and student.c) Any improvement in teacher quality attributable to the National Centre for Pedagogy willhave an effect on that teacher and his or her teaching over their subsequent teaching career.No reliable estimates are available for the average length of a teacher’s career. The averageteaching experience of Australian teachers in 2006-07 was about 17 years (McKenzie, et al.,2008), although point in time estimates of experience are not good estimates of career duration.The estimates explore the consequences of assuming that the average teaching experience ofteachers when they leave the teaching profession is 20 years, 15 years and 10 years with thefurther assumption that the effect occurs on average midway through their career.Estimates of the economic benefitsTable 5.1 outlines the economic benefits of the proposed National Centre for Pedagogy for sixscenarios, each corresponding to a specific combination of assumptions about the impact of theproposed National Centre for Pedagogy on the quality of teaching and its relationship to economicgrowth. The more conservative scenarios are to the left - scenarios (1) and (2) - while those to theright assume slightly stronger effects.Table 5.1: Economic benefits of a National Centre for Pedagogy under various assumptionsScenarios . . . (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)Assumptions1. GDP/person increase 5.0% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 8.0% 8.0%2. Discount rate 6.5% 5.0% 5.0% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5%3. Teachers influenced 0.15% 0.10% 0.15% 0.20% 0.10% 0.15%4. Years equivalent effect 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.045. Percentile increase in quality 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.06. Years of teaching affected 5.0 7.5 7.5 7.5 10.0 10.0Benefits7. Benefits ($m) 15.4 27.4 41.1 76.7 62.9 125.98. Rate of return 12.5% 14.3% 17.3% 22.1% 18.0% 24.0%1. GDP per person is assumed to be $47,954 as at June 2007. Therefore all dollar valuesare in 2007 dollars.2. GDP per person increase is within the 5.0% to 8.0% range reported in the literature.3. Equivalency between years of education is derived from Leigh (2007) and is calculatedat the 25th percentile.4. Years of teaching affected is assumed to be half the average duration of teaching careers.5. Rates of return are internal rates of return assuming costs of the National Centre for Pedagogy of $5.5 million pa.6. See Appendix 4 for details of the calculations.92 Centre FEASIBILITY for pedagogy OF A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

Table 5.1 shows that the broad economic benefits of the proposed National Centre for Pedagogyare both substantial and sensitive to the underlying assumptions. For scenario (1) for instance, theeconomic benefits for any one year of the operation of the National Centre for Pedagogy are $15.4million while under scenario (6) they are $125.9 million. Benefits are considerably larger for allscenarios than the likely Centre costs (see chapter four).The benefits do not accrue in any year - they are summed across the subsequent average labourforce experience of teachers’ students where those benefits have been appropriately discountedover time at a rate shown for each scenario in Table 5.1. Discounting has a strong effect in thesecalculations because many years can elapse before a student enters the labour force and whilethey are in the labour force. Students typically enter the labour force full-time after leaving schoolsomewhere between Year 9 and Year 12 or after some years of post-school education. To simplifythe calculations, the scenarios all assume that all students enter the workforce two years after theircohort would normally have completed Year 12 - an assumption that averages the experience ofearly school leavers, those who complete school and immediately enter the labour force and thosewho undertake post school studies. The discount calculations use the 2006 grade distribution ofAustralian school students, assume that teaching effects are distributed proportionately acrossgrades and calculate the benefits for each grade cohort separately before summing them.The economic effects associated with the improvement in teaching are assumed constant over time. This isimplicit in the country-level economic growth analyses and in the kinds of analyses of over-time growth-leveleffects provided by Dowrick (2003). It is not necessarily consistent with person-level age-earnings profiles,which show stronger effects of educational attainment on wages over time. It may not be inconsistent,however, with social returns that include the cost of early career unemployment.The assumptions of the impact of the proposed National Centre for Pedagogy on the qualityof teaching in Australian schools are modest under all scenarios. Scenario (1) for instance,assumes that the proposed Centre improves the quality of teaching of only about 360 teachers(0.15% of the teaching workforce) in any one year and that the quality of their teaching is improvedby the equivalent of only one and a half percentiles (that is, the quality of their teaching shifts fromthat prevailing among teachers at the 25th percentile of quality to that prevailing between the 26thand 27th percentile). Scenario (6) increases the size of most of these assumptions - the proposedCentre still improves the quality of teaching of about 360 teachers, but by two percentiles.In the context of the size of the effects of knowledge of pedagogy and teaching techniqueson student achievement, these are modest assumptions.FEASIBILITY OF A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 93

Rates of return to an investment in a National Centre for PedagogyThe costs of the proposed National Centre for Pedagogy were discussed in chapter four and clearlydepend on choices about its structure and function. In order to calculate rates of return to aninvestment in the proposed Centre, the costings are anticipated here and for simplicity are assumedto be $5.5 million per annum - a level that is similar to the earlier estimates. The dollars in Table 5.1are for 2007. The later discussion uses 2009 dollars.Table 5.1 shows estimates of rates of return to an investment in the proposed National Centre forPedagogy. The rates of return are the discount rate that equates the benefits to the costs ($5.5m).As the discount rate increases, the benefits decline. Rates of return can be interpreted as interestrates. The values in Table 5.1 are real or inflation-free - 3% or so could be added to permitcomparisons with advertised interest rates. The lowest value (for Scenario (1)) is therefore about 15%.Rates of return can be compared with interest rates in the rest of the economy. The prevailinginterest rates are an indication of the returns to investment in other productive activities. The ratesof return in Table 5.1 suggest that investment in a National Centre for Pedagogy with funding of$5.5m per annum compares favourably with other market-defined investments.Further benefitsThe scenarios in Table 5.1 are based on conservative assumptions. Even so, they omit severalconsiderations that could further increase the benefits:1. The effect of years of education on economic growth and the associated calculations assumethat education has a once-off effect on productivity rather than shifting the rate of growthof productivity. If the implications of endogenous growth theory were incorporated in thecalculations, the benefits shown in Table 5.1 would be larger.2. The models that provide estimates of the response of economic growth to increased levels ofeducation are neutral on the issue of skills shortages. In the presence of skill shortages directlyimpeding economic growth, the response to increased levels of education would be higher.3. The calculations assume that the proposed National Centre for Pedagogy improves thequality of teaching of current school teachers only. The activities of the Centre could havebenefits for teachers in other education sectors as well as for persons studying to be teachers.Influences on the pedagogical knowledge of student teachers can have no direct economiceffect because student teachers have no students. Instead any effect is through an increasein the years of teaching affected (the improvement in quality of teaching occurs at the startof the career rather than halfway through) and the average quality of teaching of the teachingworkforce when they enter the teaching profession.94 Centre FEASIBILITY for pedagogy OF A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

4. An improvement in academic performance is interpreted as the equivalent of a certain numberof years of education. It can also lead to an increase in the actual number of years of educationstudents complete which can in turn lead to further economic benefits similar to those obtainedthrough the initial increase in school performance.5. A National Centre for Pedagogy might directly inform and improve public policy, which could inturn have positive economic consequences.Chapter summaryThis chapter offered an overview of Centres for Pedagogy from an international perspective.It demonstrated the initial driving forces associated with their conceptualisation and shaping factorsin their structure, function and resource base. The chapter also offered a brief review of some ofthe issues associated with establishing research centres and demands experienced by staff.On the available evidence, the creation of a National Centre for Pedagogy appears to be an economicallyrational decision, with absolute and comparative returns ranging from very good to excellent.A National Centre for Pedagogy need not have a huge effect on the quality of teaching to justify itsexistence financially. Improving the quality of teaching of a small fraction of teachers by only a smallamount may have only a very small effect in itself, but this small effect is multiplied across the manystudents for a given year and across the years of a teacher’s career and, for each of the students,the small effect is multiplied over the many years of their working life.The results presented in this chapter are underpinned by a set of assumptions. These assumptionsaccord with the research literature and are generally very conservative.FEASIBILITY OF A NATIONAL CENTRE Centre FOR for PEDAGOGY pedagogy 95

06 CONCLUSIONThis report into the feasibility of establishing a National Centrefor Pedagogy and a National Clearinghouse for Educational Researchwas commissioned by Teaching Australia. The impetus for the studywas based on the House of Representatives Standing Committee onEducation and Vocational Training Report Top of the Class (2007)which recommended initiatives designed to better develop andinform teaching, teacher education and educational research (see chapter 1).As a consequence of the recommendation to examine the feasibilityof a National Centre for Pedagogy and a National Clearinghouse forEducation Research, Teaching Australia contracted members of theMonash Pedagogy and Professional Learning Research Group (Professor John Loughran,Dr. Amanda Berry, Dr. Allie Clemans, Mr. Greg Lancaster and Mr. Michael Long) to conduct thestudy. The research team consulted widely with representatives of stakeholder groups nationallyand with leaders of such centres internationally in completing this project.As a result of the scoping and feasibility study, the project team developed a model for a NationalCentre for Pedagogy that incorporated elements of an Educational Research Clearinghouse inconjunction with other creative and flexible communication and dissemination features.A major focus of the National Centre for Pedagogy model developed was the need for strong andindependent research into pedagogy combined with ongoing support for, and development of,the teaching profession. Importantly, the model also establishes ways in which the National Centrefor Pedagogy can work toward linking with, and across, stakeholder groups and education sectorsso that deeper knowledge of teaching and learning will be made available in ways that better informpublic policy, theory and practice.The proposed National Centre for Pedagogy model draws on the fact that pedagogy is more than“just” teaching. Pedagogy is about the relationship between teaching and learning, how that isrealised in practice and the manner in which it therefore shapes understandings of quality inteaching and learning. Teacher education should lay the foundations for pedagogical skills andexpertise in students of teaching so that it might continue to grow throughout their careers.Teachers work across a range of educational settings (e.g. early childhood through to post-compulsoryeducation) and the educational community comprises a range of stakeholders (e.g. students,teachers, parents, policy makers, educational bureaucrats) all of whom have different needsand expectations in relation to the work of a National Centre for Pedagogy. The National Centrefor Pedagogy model developed through this study has therefore been informed and shaped bynational and international research.96 Centre CONCLUSION for pedagogy

Economic feasibilityTwo research bases stand out as important in an examination of feasibility. The first pertains to theabsolute and relative size of the influence of teachers and teaching on student outcomes, particularlythe role of teachers’ knowledge of pedagogy and how to teach. The second pertains to research thatinvestigates the effect of educational outcomes on productivity and economic growth.In the first case, analysis of research findings illustrates that:• The effect of teacher quality on learning is large; teacher quality is variable; and this variabilitycan correspond to the equivalent of a year or so of academic progress• Knowledge of pedagogy and teaching practice is an important aspect of teacher quality thatcontributes to improved student performance• Increased student achievement is associated with improved educational attainment - Year 12completion and transition to post school education - as well as directly to better initial labourforce outcomes.In the case of the second area of research, the findings demonstrate that:• Accepted estimates for Australia suggest that GDP increases by between about 6% and 8%for an additional average year’s schooling• Effects of this size can be quite substantial when converted into returns to increasedexpenditure.As outlined in detail in chapter 3, on the available evidence it is clear that:1. The creation of a National Centre for Pedagogy is a good investment of public funds2. A National Centre for Pedagogy need not have a huge initial effect on the quality of teaching tojustify its existence financially.Foundation principles were established to guide a strong conceptualisation of the proposed NationalCentre for Pedagogy to appropriately direct its purposes and practices so that it would be responsiveto, and effective for, stakeholders. The conceptual foundations for the National Centre for Pedagogymodel (see chapter 3) are not a rank order list or hierarchy. The principles exist as a dynamic set ofguiding principles that are responsive and future oriented so that the National Centre for Pedagogywill maintain a central focus on pedagogy.Centre for CONCLUSION pedagogy 97

The nature of the National Centre for Pedagogy model allows for services, programs and activitiesto develop over time and not to be unnecessarily constrained by more traditional physical structuraland/or organisational limitations. That means the National Centre for Pedagogy can operate from acentre whilst maintaining important functions across the nation where the need and requirementsarise. The The National Centre for Pedagogy model is conceptualised so that the establishmentcould occur as a “one-off” or through staged development as activities are built up over time.The National Centre for Pedagogy model has been well “tested” nationally and internationally andhas been very well received. It is clear that when established, the National Centre for Pedagogy willindeed “perform something of a lighthouse function for the profession” (Top of the Class, p. 18).98 Centre ESTABLISHING CONCLUSION for pedagogy A NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGY

07 REFERENCESABS (2006). Schools Australia 2006 4221.0, Australian Bureau ofStatistics, Canberra.ABS (2007). Australian system of national accounts 2006-075204.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.Access Economics. (2005). The economic benefit of increasedparticipation in education and training. Dusseldorp Skills Forumand the Business Council of Australia.ACSSO. (2008a). Australian Council for State School Organisations.Retrieved June, 2008, from http://www.acsso.org.auACSSO. (2008b). Literacy: Parents make the world of difference.Retrieved June, 2008, from http://www.acsso.org.au/wod.pdfAhmed, S., Beck, B., Maurana, A., & Newton, G. (2004). Overcoming barriersto effective community-based participatory research in US medical schools.Education for Health, 17(2), 151-151.Ainley, J., & Corrigan, M. (2005).Participation in and progress through New Apprenticeships. LSAYResearch Report No. 44. Melbourne: Australian Council for educational Research.Amabile, T., Patterson, J., & Wojcik, P. (2001). Academic – practitioner collaboration in managementresearch: A case of cross professional collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 418-432.Angrist, J.D., & Lavy, V. (1998). Does teacher training affect pupil learning? Evidence frommatched comparisons in Jerusalem public schools, NBER Working Paper 6781, WashingtonDC: National Bureau of Economic Research.Angrist, J., & Lavy V. (2001). Does teacher training affect pupil learning? Evidence from matchedcomparisons in Jerusalem public schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 19, 343-369.ANSN. (2008). Austalian National Schools Network Retrieved June, 2008, from http://www.ansn.edu.au/Appleton, K. (2002). Science activities that work: Perceptions of primary school teachers. Researchin Science Education, 32(3), 393 - 410.Armour, K., & Yelling, M. (2007). Effective professional development for physical education teachers:The role of informal, collaborative learning. Journal of teaching in physical education, 26, 177 - 200.Aubusson, P., & Schuck, S. (Eds.). (2006). Teacher Education: The mirror maze. Dordrecht: Springer.Austin, T., & Senese, J. (2004). Self-study in school teaching: Teachers’ perspectives. In J. J.Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of selfstudyof teaching and teacher education practices (Vol. 2, pp. 1231 - 1258.). Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers.Ayres, P., Dinham, S. & Sawyer, W. (2000). Successful senior secondary teaching. Canberra:Australian College of Education.Baird, J. R. (1992). Collaborative reflection, systematic enquiry, better teaching. In T. Russell & H. Munby(Eds.), Teachers and teaching: From classroom to reflection (pp. 33 - 48). London: Falmer Press.Baird, J. R., & Mitchell, I. J. (Eds.). (1986). Improving the quality of teaching and learning: AnAustralian case study - The PEEL project. Melbourne: Monash University Printing Service.Baird, J. R., & Northfield, J. R. (Eds.). (1992). Learning from the PEEL experience. Melbourne:Monash University Printing Service.Centre for REFERENCES pedagogy99

Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best performing school systems come out ontop. McKinsey & Company.Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Barnes, D. (1992). The significance of teachers’ frames for teaching. In T. Russell & H. Munby(Eds.), Teachers and Teaching: From classroom to reflection (pp. 9 - 32). London: Falmer Press.Barnett, J., & Hodson, D. (2001). Pedagogical context knowledge: Toward a fuller understanding ofwhat good science teachers know. Science Education, 85(4), 426 - 453.Barnett, W. S., Young, J., & Scwheinhart, L. J. (1998). How preschool education influences longtermcognitive development and school success: A causal model. In W. S. Barnett & S. S.Boocock (Eds.), Early care and education for children in poverty: Promises, programs, andlong-term results (pp. 167 - 184). Albany: SUNY Press.Barro, R. J. (1997). Determinants of economic growth: A cross-country empirical study.Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press,Bassanini, A., & Scarpetta, S. (2001). Does human capital matter for growth in OECD countries?:Evidence from pooled mean-group estimates, Paris: OECD Economics Department WorkingPapers, No. 282, OECD.Benhabib, J., & Spiegel, M. (1994). The role of human capital in economic development: Evidencefrom aggregate cross-country data. Journal-of- Monetary-Economics, 34, 143-173.Berliner, D. C. (1987). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5-13.Berry, A. (2007). Tensions in teaching about teaching: Understanding practice as a teachereducator. Dordrecht: Springer.Berry, A., & Loughran, J. J. (2005). Teaching about teaching: The role of self-study. In S. Weber, C.Mitchell & K. O’Reilly-Scanlon (Eds.), Just who do we think we are?: Methodologies for selfstudyin teacher education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Berry, A., & Milroy, P. (2002). Changes that matter. In J. Loughran, I. Mitchell & J. Mitchell (Eds.),Learning from teacher research (pp. 196 - 221). New York: Teachers College Press.Berry, A., Blaise, M., Clemans, A., Loughran, J. J., Mitchell, J., Parr, G., Riley, P. & Robb, D. (2007).Leading professional learning: Cases of professional dilemmas. Melbourne: Department ofEducation and Early Childhood Development (CEECD).Berry, A., Clemans, A., & Kostogriz, A. (Eds.). (2007). Dimensions of professional learning:Identities, professionalism and practice. Dordrecht: Sense Publishers.Bishop, K., & Denley, P. (2007). Learning science teaching: Developng a professional knowledgebase. Berkshire, U.K.: Open University Press.Boardman, C., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Role Strain in University Research Centers. Journal ofHigher Education, 78(4), 460-483.Boardman, C., & Ponomariov, B. (2007). Reward systems and NSF University Research Centers:The impact of tenure on university scientists’ valuation of applied and commercially relevantresearch. Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 51-70.Borland, J., Dawkins, P., Johnson, D., & Williams, R. (2000). Returns to investment in highereducation. Melbourne Institute Report No. 1, University of Melbourne.Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, N.J.:Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.100 Centre REFERENCES for pedagogy

Boyle, L. (2002). Disasters and metacognition in the SOSE classroom. In J. J. Loughran, I. Mitchell & J.Mitchell (Eds.), Learning from teacher research (pp. 74 - 88). New York: Teachers College Press.Brandenburg, R. (2004). Roundtable reflections: (Re)defining the role of the teacher educator andthe preservice teacher as ‘co-learners’. Australian Journal of Education, 48(2), 166 - 181.Brandenburg, R. (2008). Powerful pedagogy: Self-study of a teacher educator’s practice.Dordrrecht: Springer.Bulfin, S. (2003). Learning to learn against the grain: Beginning English teaching and the processesof professional learning. Unpublished Honours thesis in Education, Monash University, Melbourne.Bullough, R. V. (Jr). (1997). Practicing theory and theorising practice in teacher education. In J.Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion and pedagogy inteacher education (pp. 13 - 31). London: Falmer Press.Bullough, R. V. (Jr)., Burbank, M., Gess-Newsome, J., Kauchak, D., & Kennedy, C. (1998). Whatmatters most: teaching America’s future? A faculty response to the report of the Nationalcommission on teaching and America’s future. Journal of Education for Teaching, 24(1), 7 - 32.Burke, G., Ferrier, F., Keating, J., & Long, M. 2003. Human and Social Capital, the contributionof education and training to the formation and accumulation of human and social capital andimplications for Victoria, Report to Department of Education and Training.Buys, N., & Bursnall, S. (2007). Establish university – community partnerships: Processes andbenefits. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(1), 73-86.Calderhead, J. (1988). The development of knowledge structures in learning to teach. In J.Calderhead (Ed.), Teachers’ professional learning (pp. 51 - 64). London: Falmer Press.Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues thatdivide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2 -11.Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learningcommunities. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education (Vol.24, pp. 249 - 305). Washington D.C.: American Educational Research Association.Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2004). Practitioner inquiry, knowledge, and university culture. In J. J.Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of selfstudyof teaching and teacher education practices (Vol. 1, pp. 601 - 649). Dordrecht: KluwerAcademic Press.Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (1998). State policy and classroom performance: Mathematics reform inCalifornia. CPRE Policy Briefs. RB-23, 1–10.Consumer and Financial Literacy Taskforce (2004) Australian Consumers and Money. A DiscussionPaper. Available at www.cfltaskforce.treasury.gov.au.Corrigan, D. J., & Loughran, J. J. (2007). Snaphots of mentoring: Vignettes of practice. Melbourne:Monash Print Services.Coulombe, S., Tremblay, J-F., & Marchand, S. (2004). Literacy scores, human capital and growthacross fourteen OECD countries. Ottawa: Statistics CanadaDaniels, H. (1996). Back to basics: Three R’s for special needs education. British Journal ofSpecial Education, 23(4), 155 - 161.Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 166-173.Centre for REFERENCES pedagogy101

Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperativefor professional development in education: Albert Shanker Institute. Available athttp://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/Bridging_Gap.pdf.Fenstermacher, G. D. (1986). Philosophy of research on teaching: Three aspects. In Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 37 - 49). N.Y.: MacMillan.Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research onteaching. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 20, pp. 3 - 56).Washington D.C.: American Educational Research Association.Ferguson, P., & Womack, S.T. (1993). The impact of subject matter and education coursework onteaching performance, Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 55-63.Ferguson, R.F. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters.Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, 465-498.Field, S., Kuzcera, M., & Pont, B. (2007). No more failures: Ten steps to equity in education. Paris:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Frantzen, D. (2000). R&D, human capital and international technology spillovers: A cross-countryanalysis. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 102, 57-75.Frykholm, J., & Glasson, G. (2005). Connecting science and mathematics instruction: Pedagogicalcontext knowledge for teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 105, 127 - 141.Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. New York:Free Press.Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer Press.Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1991). What’s worth fighting for in your school? Buckingham, U.K.:Open University Press.Fullarton, S., Walker, M., Ainley, J., & Hillman, K. (2003). Patterns of participation in Year 12 LSAYResearch Report No 33, Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Godin, B., & Gingras, Y. (2000). The place of universities in the system of knowledge production.Research Policy, 29(2), 273.Goldhaber, D., & Brewer D. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher certificationstatus and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 129-145.Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78 - 90.Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco: Josse- Bass.Gore, J., Ladwig, J., Griffiths, T., & Amosa, W. (2007). Data-driven guidelines for high quality teachereducation, Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education conference,Fremantle, 25 – 29 November, 2007. Available at www.aare.edu.au/07pap/gor07285.pdfGreen, A., & Preston, J. (2001). ‘Education and Social Cohesion: Recentering the Debate’, PeabodyJournal of Education, 76 (3), 247 —284Greenwald, R., Hedges, L.V., & Laine, R.D. (1996a). The effect of school resources on studentachievement. Review of Educational Research, 66, 361-396.Greenwald, R., Hedges, L.V., & Laine, R.D. (1996b). Interpreting research on school resources andstudent achievement, Review of Educational Research, 66, 411-416.Gustafsson, J-E. (2003). What do we know about effects of school resources on educational results?Swedish Economic Policy Review, 10, 77-110.Centre for REFERENCES pedagogy103

Hamilton, M. L., with, Pinnegar, S., Russell, T., Loughran, J., & LaBoskey, V. (Eds.). (1998).Reconceptualising teaching practice: Self-study in teacher education. London: Falmer Press.Hanushek, E. (2004). Some Simple Analytics of School Quality. Working Paper No. 10229,National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: Anupdate. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 141-164.Hanushek, E.A. (2003). The failure of input-based schooling policies. Economic Journal 113, F64-F98.Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F., & Rivkin, S.G. (1998). Teachers, schools and academic achievement,NBER Working Paper 6691, National Bureau of Economic Research.Hanushek, E., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S. (2001). “Why Public Schools Lose Teachers”, Working Paper8599, Cambridge, MA.: National Bureau of Economic Research.Hanney, S., Packwood, T., & Buxton, M. (2000). Evaluating the benefits from health research anddevelopment centres: A categorisation, a model, and examples of application. Evaluation,6(2), 137 - 160.Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2004). Seven principles of sustainable leadership. EducationalLeadership, 61(7), 8 - 13.Hartley, D. (1987). The convergence of learner-centred pedagogy in Primary Education in Scotland:1965 - 1985. British Journal of Educational Studies, 35(2), 115 - 128.Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers Make a Difference: What is the Research Evidence? Keynote addresspresented to the conference Building Teacher Quality: What Does the Research Tell Us?,October 19-21, Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne.www.acer.edu.au/documents/RC2003_Hattie_TeachersMakeADifference.pdf viewed 8 July 2008Haycock, K., & Peske, H. (2006). “Teaching Inequality: How Poor and Minority Students AreShortchanged on Teacher Quality”. A Report and Recommendations by the Education Trust.Hedges, L.V., & Greenwald, R. (1996). Have times changed? The relation between school resourcesand student performance, in Burtless G. (ed.), Does money matter? The effect of schoolresources on student achievement and adult success, Washington, DC: Brookings.Hedges, L.V., Laine, R.D., & Greenwald, R. (1994). Does money matter? A meta-analysis of studiesof the effects of differential school inputs on student outcomes. Educational Researcher, 23, 5-14.Hill, P.W. & Rowe, K.J. (1996). Multilevel modeling in school effectiveness research. SchoolEffectiveness and School Improvement, 7, 1-34.Hoban, G. F. (1997). Learning about learning in the context of a science methods course. In J.Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion and pedagogy inteacher education (pp. 133 - 149). London: Falmer Press.Hoban, G. F. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change: A systems thinking approach.Buckingham: Open University Press.Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow’s schools: Principles for the design of professional developmentschools. East Lansing, Michigan: Homes Group.Honig, M. I., Kahne, J., & McLaughlin, M. W. (2001). School-community connections. In V.Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 998 - 1030). Washington,D.C.: American Educational Research Association.104 Centre REFERENCES for pedagogy

Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous enquiry andimprovement. Texas, USA: Southwest educational development laboratory. Available at www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/welcome.html.House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training (2007). Top ofthe Class: Report on the inquiry into teacher education. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Hurley, S., Pacheco, A., Pitts, S., Daudistel, H., & Tinajero, J. (2002). Case study: The evolutionof a Center of Pedagogy. Paper presented at the American Association of Colleges for TeacherEducation, New York.Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. S. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, newdevelopments. Change, 31(5), 10 - 15.Kellet, C., & Goldstein, A. (1999). Transformations in the university and the community: The benefitsand barriers of collaboration. Journal of Family and Consumer Science, 91(2), 31-35.Klitgaard, R.E., & Hall, G.R. (1974). Are there unusually effective schools? Journal of HumanResources, 10, 90-106.Kohnstamm, P. A. (1929). De psychiater als opvoeder [The psychiatrist as pedagogue]. Mededeelingenvan het Nutsseminarium voor Paedagogiek aan de Universiteir van Amsterdam, 6 [Booklet].Korthagen, F. A. J. (2001a). Building a realistic teacher education program. In F. A. J. Korthagen, with,J. Kessels, B. Koster, B. Langerwarf & T. Wubbels (Eds.), Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy ofrealistic teacher education (pp. 69 - 87). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Korthagen, F. A. J. (2001b). The realistic approach: Its tenets, philosophical background, and future.In F. Korthagen, with, J. Kessels, B. Koster, B. Langerwarf & T. Wubbels (Eds.), Linking theoryand practice: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. (pp. 254 - 274). Mahwah, NewJersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Harvard: Harvard Business School Press.Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy.Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159 - 165.Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:University of Cambridge Press.Leigh, A. (2007). Estimating teacher effectiveness from two-year changes in students’ test scores.Working Paper. Available at http://rsss.anu.edu.au/documents/TQPanel.pdfLeigh, A., & Ryan, C. (2005). Estimating returns to education: Three natural experimenttechniques compared. Discussion Paper No. 493, Centre for Economic Policy Research,Canberra: The Australian National University.Leonard, L. (2002). Schools as professional communities: Addressing the collaborative challenge.International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 67(7), 1 - 12.Levy, R., Roux, P., & Wolff, S. (2007). An analysis of science–industry collaborative patterns in alarge European University. The Journal of Technology Transfer.Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming conceptions ofprofessional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 591 - 596.Lingard, B., Hayes, D., & Mills, M. (2003). Teachers and productive pedagogies: Contextualising,conceptualising, utilising. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 11(3), 399 - 424.Centre for REFERENCES pedagogy105

Lingard, B., Martino, W., Mills, M., & Bahr, N. (2002). Addressing the educational needs of boys:Strategies for schools and teachers. Canberra: Australian Government Department ofEducation, Science and Training.Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Lortie, D. C. (2002). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Loughran, J. J. (1997). Teaching about teaching: Principles and practice. In J. Loughran & T.Russell (Eds.), Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion and pedagogy in teacher education(pp. 57 - 69). London: Falmer Press.Loughran, J. J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching andlearning about teaching. London: Routledge.Loughran, J. J. (Ed.). (1999). Researching teaching: Methodologies and practices inunderstanding pedagogy. London: Falmer press.Loughran, J. J., Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey, V. K., & Russell, T. (Eds.). (2004). International handbookof self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Loughran, J. J., Mitchell, I., & Mitchell, J. (Eds.). (2002). Learning from teacher research. NewYork: Teachers College Press.Loughran, J. J., & Northfield, J. R. (1996). Opening the classroom door: Teacher, researcher,learner. London: Falmer Press.McKenzie, P., Kos, J., Walker, M., & Hong, J. (2008). Staff in Australia’s schools. AustralianGovernment Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Canberra.Mankiw, N. G., Romer, D., & Weil, D. (1992). A contribution to the empirics of economic growth.Quarterly Journal of Economics. 107, 407-437.Marks, G., Fleming, N., Long, M., & McMillan, J. (2001). Patterns of participation in Year 12 and highereducation in Australia: Trends and issues. LSAY Research Report No. 17. Melbourne: AustralianCouncil for Educational Research.Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing. London: Routledge Falmer.Matsushita, S., Siddique, A., & Giles, M. (2006). Education and economic growth: A case study ofAustralia. Economic Discussion Papers 06-15, University of WesternAustralia. http://www.biz.uwa.edu.au/home/research/discussionworking_papers/economics/2006McGoey, J., & Ross, J. (1999). Research, practice, and teacher internship. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 36(2), 121 – 139.McIntyre, D., Pedder, D., & Rudduck, J. (2005). Pupil voice: Comfortable and uncomfortablelearnings for teachers. Research Papers in Education, 20(2), 149 -168.McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning. Stanford,CA: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching, Stanford University.McMillan, J., & Marks G. (2003). School leavers in Australia: Profiles and pathways. LSAYResearch Report No. 31. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.McMillan, J., Rothman, J., & Wernert, N. (2005). Non-apprenticeship VET Courses: Participation,persistence and subsequent pathways. LSAY Research Report No. 47. Melbourne: AustralianCouncil for Educational Research.Miller, P., Mulvey, C., & Martin, N. (2006). The return to schooling: Estimates from a sample ofyoung Australian twins. Labour Economics, 13, 571–587.106 Centre REFERENCES for pedagogy

Mitchell, I. J. (1992). The class level. In J. Baird & J. Northfield (Eds.), Learning from the PEELexperience (pp. 61 - 104). Melbourne: Monash University Printing Service.Mitchell, I. J. (1999). Bridging the gulf between research and practice. In J. J. Loughran (Ed.),Researching teaching: Methodologies and practices in understanding pedagogy (pp. 44 - 64).London: Falmer Press.Mitchell, I. J., et al. (Eds.). (2006). PEEL in practice: 1300 ideas for quality teaching (7th ed.).Melbourne: Monash University Print Services.Monk, D.H. (1994). Subject matter preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers andstudent achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13, 125-145.Murnane, R.J., & Phillips, B.R. (1981). Learning by doing, vintage and selection: Three pieces of the puzzlerelating teacher experience and teaching performance. Economics of Education Review 1, 453-465.Myers, C. B. (2002). Can self-study challenge the belief that telling, showing and guided practiceconstitute adequate teacher education? In J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Improving teachereducation practices through self-study (pp. 130 - 142). London: RoutledgeFalmer.National Curriculum Board. (2008, June). National curriculum development paper. A background readingpaper for participants in the Into the Future — National Curriculum Board Forum. Melbourne.NIEER. (2008). National Insitute for Early Education Research. Retrieved June, 2008, from http://nieer.orgOECD (2001). The well-being of nations, The role of human and social capital. Paris: Organisationfor Economic Co-operation and Development.OECD (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from the PISA 2003. Paris:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.OECD, (2005a). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers, Paris:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.OECD (2005b). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. Paris:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Osler, J., & Flack, J. (2002). Tales from the Poppy patch. In Learning from teacher research (pp.222 - 245). New York: Teachers College Press.Osler, J., & Flack, J. (2008). Whose learning is it?: Developing children as active and responsiblelearners. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Parmar, R. S., & Cawley, J. F. (1991). Challenging the routines and passivity that characterise arithmeticinstruction for children with mild handicaps. Remedial and Special Education, 12(5), 23 - 32.Patterson, R., Michelli, N., & Pacheco, A. (1999). Centers of Pedagogy: New structures foreducational renewal. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass.Pekarek, R., Krockover, G. H., & Shepardson, D. P. (1996). The research-practice gap in scienceeducation. Journal of research in Science Teaching, 33( 2), 111 - 113.Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul.Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City N.Y.: Doubleday.Psacharopoulos, G., & Patrinos, H. (2002). Returns to investment in education: A further update. WorldBank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2881. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=367780Centre for REFERENCES pedagogy107

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (1997). What do new views of knoweldge and thinking have to say aboutresearch on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4 - 15.Quiggin, J. (1999). Human capital theory and education policy in Australia. Australian EconomicReview. 32, 130-44.Reiss, M. (2000). Understanding Science Lessons: Five Years of Science Teaching. Buckingham:Open University Press.Reiss, M., Boulter, C., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2007). Seeing the natural world: a tension betweenpupils’ diverse conceptions as revealed by their visual representations and monolithic sciencelessons. Visual Communication, 6(1), 99-114.Rice, J. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes.Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.Richards, H. V., Peay, A., Brown, A. F., & Forde, T. B. (2006). Addressing diversity in schools:Culturally responsive pedagogy. Arizona: NCCREST.Richardson, V. (1994). Conducting research on practice. Educational Researcher, 23(5), 5 -10.Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., & Kain, J. (2001). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement.Working Paper 6691 (revised), Cambridge, M.A.: National Bureau of Economic Research.Robinson, V., & Lai, M. K. (2006). Practitioner research for educators: A guide to improvingclassrooms in schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political-Economy. 94 1002-1037.Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teacher’s workplace: The social organisation of schools. New York: Longman.Roth, K. J. (2007). Science Teachers as Researchers. In S. K. Abell & Lederman, N.G. (Eds.), /Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 1205-1259). Mahwah, New Jersey: LawrenceErlbaum & Associates.Russell, T. (2004). Tracing the development of self-study in teacher education research andpractice. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey & T. Russell (Eds.), Internationalhandbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (Vol. 2, pp. 1191 - 1210).Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Russell, T., & Loughran, J. J. (2007). Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education: Values,relationships and practices. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Ryan, C.A. (2002a). Individual returns to vocational education and training qualifications: theirimplications for lifelong learning, Adelaide: NCVER.Ryan, C.A. (2002b). What are the longer term outcomes for individuals of completing vocationaleducation and training qualifications?, Adelaide: NCVERRyan, C. (2003). A ‘causal’ estimate of the effect of schooling on full-time employment among youngAustralians. LSAY Research Report No. 35. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Sachs, J., & Logan, L. (1990). Control or development? A study of inservice education. Journal ofCurriculum Studies, 22(5), 473 - 481.Sanders, W., & Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future studentacademic achievement”, Research Progress Report, University of Tennessee Value-AddedResearch and Assessment Center, Knoxville, Tennessee. [cited in OECD, (2005)].Santiago, P. (2002). Teacher demand and supply: Improving teaching quality and addressingteacher shortages, OECD Education Working Paper, No.1. OECD, Paris. Available from www.oecd.org/edu/workingpapers108 Centre REFERENCES for pedagogy

Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change coursebefore it is too late? San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Sargent, L., & Waters, L. (2004). Careers and academic research collaborations: An inductive processframework for understanding successful collaborations. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 64, 308-319.Schacter, J., & Thum, Y. (2004). Paying for high and low-quality teaching. Economics of EducationReview, 23, 411-430.Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:Basic Books.Schulman, K. (2005). Overlooked benefits of prekindergarten. New Jersey: NIEER.Senese, J. (2002). Opposites attract: What I learned about being a classroom teacher by beinga teacher educator. In J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Improving teacher education practicesthrough self-study (pp. 43 - 55). London: RoutledgeFalmer.Senese, J. (2004). The accidental curriculum. In D. Tidwell, L. Fitzgerald & M. Heston (Eds.), Thefifth international conference of self-study of teacher education practices. HerstmonceuxCastle, East Sussex, U.K (Vol. 2, pp. 221 - 224). Cedar Falls, Iowa: University of Northern Iowa.Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation. London:Century Business.Senge, P. (1992). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation. Milson’sPoint, N.S.W.: Random House.Sheets, R. H. (1995). From remedial to gifted: Effects of culturally centred pedagogy. Theory intoPractice, 34(3), 186 - 193.Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. EducationalResearcher, 15(2), 4 - 14.Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. HarvardEducational Review, 57(1), 1 - 22.Shulman, L. S. (1999). Taking learning seriously. Change, 31(4), 10 - 17.Silva, D. V., Gimbert, B., & Nolan, J. (2000). Sliding the doors: Locking and unlocking possibilties forteacher leadership. Teachers College Record, 102(4), 779 - 804.Simon, B. (1981). Why no pedagogy in England? In B. Simon & W. Taylor (Eds.), Education in theeighties. London: Batsford Academic and Educational Ltd.Skilbeck, M. (1983). Lawrence Stenhouse: Research Methodology. British Educational ResearchJournal, 9 (1), 11-20.Slatyer, R. (1994). Cooperative research centres: The concept and its implementation. HigherEducation, 28(1), 147-158.Stenhouse, L. (1981). What Counts as Research? British Journal of Educational Studies, 29(2), 103 - 114.Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Thomas, S., Wallace, M., Greenwood, A., et al. (2005). What isthe professional learning community?: A summary. In Professional learning communities:Source materials school leaders and other leaders of professional learning. United Kingdom:National College School Leadership.Strauss, R.P., & Sawyer, E. (1986). Some evidence on teacher and student competencies.Economics of Education Review 5, 41-48.Centre for REFERENCES pedagogy109

Teaching Australia (2007). Request for Proposal: Supply of feasibility studies into the establishment of anational centre for pedagogy and a national clearinghouse for educational research to Teaching Australia –Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. Canberra: Teaching Australia. Unpublished.tech4learning. (2008). Schools engaging with parents: What the research says. Retrieved June,2008, from http://tech4learning.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/schools-engaging-with-parents-researchsays/#comment-140UNESCO. (2007). Raising the profile of early childhood education. Retrieved June, 2008, from http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=53419&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.htmlVan Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. Albany,New York: State University of New York Press.Van Manen, M. (1999). The language of pedagogy and primacy of student experience. In J.Loughran (Ed.), Researching teaching: Methodologies and practices for understandingpedagogy (pp. 13 - 27). London: Falmer Press.Wallace, J. (2003). Learning about teacher learning: Reflections of a science educator. In J. Wallace& J. Loughran (Eds.), Leadership and professional development in science education (pp. 1 -16). London: RoutledgFalmer.Wayne, A. J., & P. Youngs (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review.Review of Educational Research, 73, 89-122.Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide tomanaging knowledge. Boston: Harvard business School Press.Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher practices and studentacademic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12).Available at: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12Wheatley, M. J. (1992). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Whitehead, J. (1993). The growth of educational knowledge: Creating your own living educationaltheories. Bournemouth: Hyde publications.Wiley, D., & Yoon B. (1995). Teacher reports of opportunity to learn: Analyses of the 1993 CaliforniaLearning Assessment System. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17, 355-370.Wilson, S.M., Floden, R.E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Currentknowledge, gaps and recommendations. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.Wise, A. E., Darling-Hammond, L., McLaughlin, M. W., & Bernstein, H. T. (1984). Teacherevaluation: A study of effective practice. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.Wolfe, B., & Haveman, R. (2001). Accounting for the social and non-market benefits ofeducation, Madison: University of Wisconsin, Madison.Wong, E. D. (1995). Challenges confronting the researcher/teacher. Educational Researcher, 24(3), 22 - 28.Wö mann, L. (2003). Schooling resources, educational institutions and student performance: Theinternational evidence. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 65, 117-170.Zajkowski, M. (2003). Institutional structure and the Australian research director: A qualitativestudy. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 25(2), 203-212.Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of researchon teaching (4th ed., pp. 298 - 330). Washington D.C.: American Educational Research Association.Zellermayer, M., & Munthe, E. (2007). Teachers learning in communities. In Michal Zellernayer,Elaine Munthe, with Malka Gorodetsky, Frances O’Connell Rust & L. Orland-Barak (Eds.), Teacherslearning in communities: International perspectives (pp. 1 - 6). Rotterdam: SensePublishers.110 Centre REFERENCES for pedagogy

A1 APPENDIX1:SUMMARY OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRES ANDEDUCATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSESAustralian Educational Research OrganisationsAustralian Council for Educational Research (ACER)http://www.acer.edu.au/ACER is a national organisation, which monitors emerging priorities and issues and undertakescommissioned research to inform educational policy and practiceAustralian Learning and Teaching Councilhttp://www.altc.edu.au/carrick/goThe Australian Learning and Teaching Council provides a national focus for the enhancementof learning and teaching in Australian higher education institutions.The Australian Research Council (ARC)http://www.arc.gov.au/default.htmThe Australian Research Council (ARC) is an independent statutory authority within the AustralianGovernment’s Innovation, Industry, Science and Research portfolio. The ARC advises theGovernment on research matters and manages the National Competitive Grants Program,a significant component of Australia’s investment in research and developmentCooperative Research CentresDepartment Innovation Industry, Science and Researchhttps://www.crc.gov.au/Information/default.aspxThe Cooperative Research Centres bring together researchers from universities, CSIRO and othergovernment laboratories, and private industry or public sector agencies, in long-term collaborativearrangements which support research and development and education activities that achieveoutcomes of national economic and social significance for the nation.The National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER)http://www.ncver.edu.au/The National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) is a not-for-profit company ownedby the federal, state and territory ministers responsible for training.Centre for APPENDIX pedagogy 1111

Adult Literacy and Numeracy Australian Research Consortium (ALNARC)http://www.staff.vu.edu.au/alnarc/The Adult Literacy and Numeracy Australian Research Consortium represents a nationalcollaboration between five university-based research centres, based on a collaborative researchmanagement model designed to respond to state-based needs.Assessment Research Centre (ARC), University of Melbournehttp://www.edfac.unimelb.edu.au/arc/The Assessment Research Centre (ARC) promotes change and improvement in the fields ofassessment, reporting and applied measurement. The centre undertakes research, consultanciesand development projects, and participates in higher and vocational training in both award andnon-award programsCentre for Labour Market Research (CLMR)http://www.cbs.curtin.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=AD4518BB-D7F6-AE3A-4BB2FC5050C13C21The Centre for Labour Market Research was founded in 1984 and is a consortium of The University ofWestern Australia, Curtin University of Technology, Murdoch University and the University of CanberraCentre for Post-compulsory Education and Lifelong Learning (CPELL)http://www.edfac.unimelb.edu.au/cpell/The Centre for Post-compulsory Education and Lifelong Learning was established in 1998 (as theEducational Outcomes Research Unit). It was created to undertake research into unequal patternsof student achievement and the process underlying these patternsCentre for Research in Education, Equity and Work (CREEW)http://www.unisa.edu.au/creew/This Centre is within the Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences at the University ofSouth Australia. It aims to exercise a national leadership role in carrying out quality researchand development projects at the interfaces between education, work and community,with a strong underpinning focus on social justice and equity.Centre for the Economics of Education and Training (CEET)http://www.education.monash.edu.au/centres/ceet/The Centre was established in 1992 by Monash University with the co-operation of the AustralianCouncil for Educational Research (ACER). The Centre undertakes research, research training,consultancies and dissemination of research.112 Centre APPENDIX for 1 pedagogy

Centre for Work and Learning Studies (CWALS)http://www.education.monash.edu.au/centres/worklearnstudies/The Centre for Work and Learning Studies (CWALS), based in the Faculty of Education at MonashUniversity, is concerned with learning and working. The Centre is involved in teaching, researchand consultancy focused research.Centre for Workplace Communication & Culture (CWCC)http://edoz.com.au/cwcc/The mission of the CWCC is to research, interpret and create practical approaches to communicationand culture which relate schools, vocational education and workplace training in the contextof increasing local diversity and global connectednessCentre Undertaking Research in Vocational Education (CURVE)http://www.cit.act.edu.au/curve/Established at the Canberra Institute of Technology (CIT) in 1999, the CURVE’s research teamconsists of practitioners who have direct experience of issues involved in the delivery of vocationaleducation and training.Dusseldorp Skills Forumhttp://www.dsf.org.au/The Dusseldorp Skills Forum (DSF) is an independent, not for profit body with a mission to achieve changesneeded to enable all Australians to reach their potential. In particular, the Forum works co-operatively withcommunities, industry, government and non-government organisations to generate ideas, research, toolsand information which will improve the learning and work transitions of young Australians.National Institute of Labour Studies (NILS)http://www.ssn.flinders.edu.au/nils/This is the site of NILS, a labour studies research centre based at Flinders University in SouthAustralia. NILS produces research and consulting in the following key areas: analysis of labour marketdevelopments at national, industry, occupational and regional levels; industrial relations and organisation;employment, unemployment and labour mobility; labour productivity and workplace performance;employee attitudes surveys; education and training; immigration and earnings and wage trends.Research in Learning & Change, University of Technology, Sydneyhttp://www.education.uts.edu.au/research2/The focus of RLC’s research section is the investigation of the ways in which learning influencesand is influenced by changes in educational institutions, workplaces, organisations andcommunities, professional formation and development, building learning communities, discourseand cultural practices, and learning in the digital age. This website provides access to archivematerial and information from earlier research centres such as OVAL Research.Centre for APPENDIX pedagogy 1113

Research in Vocational Education and Training (RIVET)http://www.csu.edu.au/faculty/educat/edu/vetfolder/research/index.htmlRIVET has evolved from a collective of research groups at Charles Sturt University and undertakesresearch into the VET educational sector.RMIT University Post-Compulsory Education and Training (PCET) Research Centrehttp://www.rmit.edu.au/pcetThe PCET Research Centre is located within RMIT University’s Faculty of Education, Languageand Community Services and is part of the Department of Industry, Professional and AdultEducation. The Centre undertakes a broad range of activities and provides services with a focuson post compulsory education and training.TAFE NSW International Centre for VET Teaching and Learning (ICVET)http://www.icvet.edu.au/The Centre’s main focus is enriching professional practice in VET teaching and learning to supportthe learning needs of the future workforce. It does this by researching and supporting teaching,learning and assessment; leading state-wide and national professional development initiatives;and providing strategic information in teaching and learning in VET.Teaching and Learning Centre, Murdoch Universityhttp://www.tlc.murdoch.edu.au/The Teaching and Learning Centre works collaboratively with the University’s Schools of Study toenhance the quality of teaching and learning. A major focus is the promotion of flexible learningand delivery methods including, where appropriate, the application of new technologies.Workplace Research Centrehttp://www.wrc.org.auThe Workplace Research Centre, based at the University of Sydney, is a multi-disciplinary, researchand training organisation committed to making a difference to the Australian workplace throughresearch, training and by sharing its ideas and findings with others.Australian Non Educational Sector Research CentresRural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC)http://www.rirdc.gov.au/The corporation manages and funds priority research and translates the results into practicaloutcomes for industry development. The focus of this business is on new and emerging industriesas a means of diversification of rural enterprises in Australia.114 Centre APPENDIX for 1 pedagogy

International Educational Research Centres(UK)British Educational Research Associationhttp://www.bera.ac.uk/index.phpBERA membership is broad covering a range of disciplines with a strong contingent of educationistswith special interests in curriculum, pedagogy, assessment or management and taking eithera theoretical, evaluative or action-research perspective on education.(BE)Consortium of Institutions for Development and Research in Education in Europe (CIDEE)http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceriThe CIDREE was established in 1990 for development and research in education with a view toestablishing closer working relationships among European educational systems. It is a self-managingnetwork of educational bodies that play a recognised national role in the field of curriculumdevelopment and educational research.(UK)National Foundation for Educational Researchhttp://www.nfer.ac.uk/index.cfmSince 1946 the NFER have been working to equip decision makers, managers and practitionerswith the innovative thinking, practical research and responsive assessment programmes to underpinthe drive towards excellence in education and lifelong learning.(FR)Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI)http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceriCERI was set up in 1968 as an independently funded programme by member countries and otherorganisations with in the OECD organisation. CERI has established an international reputation forpioneering educational research, opening up new fields for exploration and combining rigorousanalysis with conceptual innovation(GER)Bundesinstitut fuer Berufsbildung (BIBB) - Federal Institute for Vocational Traininghttp://www.bibb.de/en/index.htmThe Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB) is recognised as a centreof excellence for vocational research and for the progressive development of vocationaleducation and training (VET) in Germany. BIBB works to identify future challenges in VET,stimulate innovation in national and international vocational systems, and develop new,practice oriented solutions for both initial and continuing vocational education and training.Centre for APPENDIX pedagogy 1115

(USA)The Centre for the Study of Teaching and Policy (CSTP)http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/index.htmlThe Centre for the Study of Teaching and Policy, a consortium of several major US universities,focuses on the system-wide improvement of learning and teaching and the development of a highlycapable, committed teaching force. Centre researchers study ways that leaders, policymakers,and others seek to renew the quality of teaching and the teacher force through strategies andinitiatives enacted at the local and state level, in school systems and teacher education institutions,and through the engagement of supportive groups in the community.(FR)Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches sur les Qualifications(Centre for Research on Education, Training and Employment)http://mimosa.cereq.fr/angl/Default.htmEstablished in 1971, the CÉREQ studies and develops statistical surveys on the training-employmentrelationship are intended to assist the public authorities (notably at the national and regional levels),the occupational branches and the social partners in developing and implementing their policies onvocational and educational training and human resources management.(UK)International Centre for Distance Learning (ICDL)http://icdl.open.ac.uk/The ICDL, an internationally-recognised centre for research, teaching, consultancy, information and publishingactivities based in the UK Open University. ICDL promotes international research and collaboration by providinginformation from its library and databases; other audiences are reached through publications.(USA)Centre of Pedagogy - Montclair State Universityhttp://cehs.montclair.edu/academic/cop/about.shtmlThe Centre of Pedagogy is charged with initiating and coordinating all aspects of teacher education.Most important, however, is that our work is informed by the belief that public education is criticalto creating and sustaining a political and social democracy. We believe that schools, universities,and communities must engage in simultaneous and collaborative renewal in order to make ourvision of education for social justice a reality.116 Centre appendix for 1 pedagogy

(UK)Scottish Council for Research in Education (SCRE)http://www.scre.ac.uk/The SCRE is an independent research organisation, founded in 1928 to support educationthrough research. SCRE operates as a company with limited liability and has charitable status.In broad terms, SCRE’s functions are to conduct educational research of the highest qualityand to communicate the findings of research from across Scotland(Is)MOFET Institute Centre for Teacher Educator Professional Development and Researchhttp://www.mofet.macam.ac.il/english/The MOFET Institute consists of a consortium of Israel’s 43 colleges of education and is dedicatedto serving each college and faculty member, as well as to advancing education in Israel and abroad.It was founded by Israel’s Ministry of Education in 1983 as the Institute for Curriculum Planningand Teacher Training (ICPTT) and renamed MOFET in 1988. It is now an independent, non-profitfoundation that provides a national forum for the exchange of information and ideas, research andadvanced study in teacher education.(USA)The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teachinghttp://www.carnegiefoundation.org/The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching is an independent policy and researchcentre whose charge is “to do and perform all things necessary to encourage, uphold, and dignifythe profession of the teacher and the cause of higher education.”(USA)Centre for the Improvement of Teacher Education and Schooling (CITES)http://education.byu.edu/cites/CITES is dedicated to the simultaneous improvement of teacher education and schooling.From educational initiatives to professional development, CITES provides opportunities for educatorsand schools to be involved in continuous improvement. CITES plays a critical role in organising thecollaborative efforts of the colleges at Brigham Young University and the five public school districtsof Alpine, Jordan, Nebo, Provo and Wasatch.Centre for appendix pedagogy 1117

(FR)National Institute of Research into Pedagogy (INRP)Institut National de Recherche Pédagogiquehttp://www.inrp.fr/internet_en/The INRP is a public agency whose purpose is to encourage and enhance research in the fieldsof education and training. It offers its expertise and teams to all researchers, trainers anddecision-makers in the sphere of education.(GER)United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisationhttp://www.unesco.org/education/index.shtmlUNESCO’s Education Sector comprises some 400 staff members worldwide. They are based at UNESCO’sheadquarters in Paris, in field offices and UNESCO’s institutes and centres specialised in education.Australian Educational Research ClearinghousesThe Government Education Portalhttp://www.education.gov.au/goved/goThe Government Education Portal is the on-line entry point to a comprehensive array of governmentinformation and services concerning all aspects and levels of education in Australia. In particular,it focuses on Australian government policies, programs, events, publications and resources. It alsoprovides links to key education and training sites at the national, state and territory level and enablesthe Australian public to find and share news and events relevant to education and training issuesThe National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER)http://www.ncver.edu.au/The National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) is a not-for-profit companyowned by the federal, state and territory ministers responsible for training. It is unique in Australia’seducation system and responsible for collecting, managing, analysing, evaluatingand communicating research and statistics about vocational education and training (VET).Education Network Australia (edna)http://www.educationau.edu.au/Supports and promotes the benefits of technology for education and training in Australia. EDNA isa joint initiative of the state and territory governments and the Australian Government, through theireducation departments, to provide free news, resources, networks and on-line tools for educators.The Learning Place – Education Queenslandhttp://education.qld.gov.au/learningplace/On-line Educational resource centre organised and supported by Education Queensland designedto support primary and secondary school sectors118 Centre appendix for 1 pedagogy

International Educational Research Clearinghouses(GER)WIFO Gateway to Research on Education in Europehttp://www.b.shuttle.de/wifo/about.htmThis gateway has emerged in the context of European research projects carried out by the ResearchForum WIFO. It is an information service, free of charge, provided by researchers for researchers.From its beginning in 1997, the WIFO site has collected resources in the field of European education,with a focus on vocational education, more recently also including human resource development.(UK)Current Educational Research in the UK (CERUK)http://www.ceruk.ac.uk/ceruk_home.htmlThe CERUK database is sponsored by NFER (National Foundation for Educational Research),DCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families) and covers on-going research and researchcompleted since 2000 in education and related disciplines. It covers a wide range of studies includingcommissioned research and PhD theses, across all phases of education from early years to adults.(UK)Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre(EPPI-Centre) - University of Londonhttp://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=53The EPPI-Centre conducts systematic reviews of research evidence across a range of topics andworks with a large number of funding bodies. Some of these include education, health promotion,employment, social care and crime and justice.(UK)Institute of Reflective Practice – UKhttp://www.reflectivepractices.co.uk/cms/index.phpIRP-UK is an international, not-for-profit, values driven social enterprise working to supportindividuals, groups and organisations. IRP-UK works in partnership to enhance learning that leadsto service improvement and workplace transformation. The centre provides on-line educationalresources on the value of reflective practice.(USA)Educational Resource Information Centre (ERIC)http://www.eric.ed.gov/The Education Resources Information Centre is an on-line digital library of education research and information.ERIC is sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education.Centre for appendix pedagogy 1119

(USA)IES - What Works Educational Clearinghouse – Institute of Educational Sciencehttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/The WWC was established in 2002 by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of EducationSciences to provide educators, policymakers, researchers, and the public with a central and trustedsource of scientific evidence of what works in education.(Fr)UNESDOC – Virtual Clearinghouse UNESCOhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/ulis/index.shtmlUNESDOC is a multilingual database (supports 6 Languages) of over 20,000 educationaldocuments and publications.(Fr)National Institute of Research into PedagogyInstitut National de Recherche Pédagogique (INRP)www.inrp.fr/internet_en/http://www.inrp.fr/internet_en/publications/INRP provides a resources portal and access to educational resources and publications.(BR)The information network on education in Europe (Eurydice)http://www.eurydice.org/portal/page/portal/Eurydice/The information network on education in Europe, Eurydice has since 1980 been one of the strategicmechanisms established by the European Commission and Member States to boost cooperation,by improving understanding of systems and policies.120 Centre appendix for 1 pedagogy

A2 APPENDIX2:pARTICIPANTS INVOLVED IN CONSULTATIONSFOR THE PROJECTPeter AubussonFaculty of Education, University of Technology Sydney, Lindfield, NSW.Terry AulichExecutive Officer, Australian Council of State School Organisations, Curtin, ACT.Delia BradshawEducational Consultant, Victoria.Robert Bullough JrFaculty of Education, Brigham Young University, Utah,USA.Gerald BurkeDirector, Centre for the Economics of Education & Training, Faculty of Education, Monash University, Victoria.Christine CawseyPrincipal, Rooty Hill High School, Rooty Hill, NSW.Mark ChappellTeacher, Woodleigh School, Baxter, Victoria.Brian CrokeExecutive Director, Catholic Education Commission of NSW, Sydney South, NSW.David CreesTeacher, Frankston High School, Frankston, Victoria.Brenda CherednichenkoExecutive Dean, Education and Arts, Edith Cowan University, WA.Fred DeshonSenior Curriculum Officer, Science Education, DETWA, Perth, WA.Marilyn FleerDirector for the Centre for Research into Childhood Studies, Faculty of Education,Monash University, Victoria.Robert FlodenTeacher Education, College of Education, Michigan State University, USA.Steve FraserDirector of ICT, Woodleigh School, Baxter, Victoria.Michael HendersonFaculty of Education, Monash University, Victoria.Centre for appendix pedagogy 2121

Geert KelchthermansUniversity of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.Clare KosnikOntario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Canada.Aine MaherDirector Teaching and Learning, Association of Independent Schools of Victoria, South Yarra, Victoria.Sue NorthResearch Fellow, Centre for the Economics of Education & Training, Faculty of Education,Monash University, Victoria.Gila OlsherScience Teacher Education, Beit Berl College and Mofet Institute, Israel.Joanne OslerTeacher Researcher, Drouin Primary School, Drouin, Victoria.Dianne PeckManager, Learning Policies Branch, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Victoria.Leonie RennieDean, Graduate Studies, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, WA.Tom RussellFaculty of Education, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada.Peter RussoChief Executive Officer, Australian Science Teachers Association, Deakin, ACT.Sandy SchuckFaculty of Education, University of Technology Sydney, Lindfield, NSW.John SmythResearch Professor of Education, School of Education, University of Ballarat, Victoria.Kenneth TobinUrban Education Program, Graduate Centre, City University New York, USA.Grady VenvilleGraduate School of Education, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA.Jim WoolnoughSchool of Teacher Education, Canberra University, Canberra, ACT.122 Centre appendix for 5 pedagogy

A3 APPENDIX3:AN EXAMPLE OF A POSSIBLE ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTUREFOR THE NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PEDAGOGYCentre DirectorManager CentreCommunicationsManager Finances &Financial ReportsDirector’s AssistantManager Clearinghouse& Web DevelopmentAccounts &Financial SupportDeputy DirectorExecutive Officer1Executive Officer2Executive Officer3Executive Officer4Executive Officer5Develop& ImproveQuestion& EnquireArticulate& ValueContextualise& ConnectEngage &ContributeOfficer Support 1Officer Support 2Centre Reception& SupportCo-opted Staff as requiredCo-opted Staff as requiredAdministrationSupportCo-opted Staffas requirede.g., researcher,Ph.D. student, etcCo-opted Staffas requirede.g., Academic, Ph.D.student teacher, etc.Clearinghouse &Web Support 1Clearinghouse &Web Support 2Centre for appendix pedagogy 3123

A4 APPENDIX4:ESTIMATES OF BENEFITS AND RATES OF RETURNTable 5.1 in Chapter 5 showed the economic benefits of the proposed National Centre for Pedagogyfor six scenarios, each corresponding to a specific combination of assumptions about the impact of theproposed National Centre for Pedagogy on the quality of teaching and its relationship to economic growth.This appendix provides details of the calculations of the estimates for scenarios (1) and (6) in Table 5.1.Table A.1: The calculation of the economic benefits of a National Centre for Pedagogy under theassumptions of Scenario (1) in Table 5.1YearlevelEnrolments 0.15%stu.Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 52Onestudent $Total$,000’s5years0 217,015 326 125 40,7921 267,487 401 $0 138 55,5022 264,792 397 na 153 60,6503 264,226 396 na 169 66,8074 255,573 383 $37 na 186 71,3315 269,199 404 $39 $37 na 205 82,9396 273,827 411 $42 $39 $37 na 227 93,1287 273,577 410 $45 $42 $39 $37 na 250 102,7088 274,829 412 $48 $45 $42 $39 $37 na 276 113,8969 271,756 408 $51 $48 $45 $42 $39 $37 na 305 124,32110 267,782 402 $55 $51 $48 $45 $42 $39 $37 na 337 135,22811 234,770 352 $59 $55 $51 $48 $45 $42 $39 $37 na 372 130,87212 196,431 295 $63 $59 $55 $51 $48 $45 $42 $39 $37 na 410 120,874Total 3,153 $1.2m 6.0m1. Enrolments by Year level are from ABS Schools Australia 2006, 4221.0.2. Assumes that 0.15% of teachers (and therefore 0.15% of students) are influenced by the proposed Centre in any given year.3. GDP per person is assumed to be $47,854 as at June 2007, ABS, Australian system of national accounts 2006-07,5204.0, Table 1, Key national accounts aggregates.4. Assumes that the effect of one year’s additional schooling is 5.0% of GDP per capita, that is $2,398 and that theproposed Centre improves the quality of teaching by the equivalent of 0.03 years, that is $72. Equivalency betweenyears of education is derived from Leigh (2007) and is calculated at the 25th percentile.5. Assumes a discount rate of 6.5% and that all students enter the workforce in the second year after completing Year12, which averages across students entering the workforce after completing Year 9 onwards. The estimate of GDP perperson takes into account the fact that some students may never enter the workforce.6. Benefits are discounted across each cohort. For instance, in Year 1, $63 is $72 discounted across two years by (1-0.065) . For ease of presentation, years between 9 and 52 are not shown but can be readily inferred from those thatare. The values for ‘one student’ sum across the years 1 to 52. The total then multiplies these values by the number ofstudents whose equivalent years of education is assumed to have been affected by improved teacher quality.7. Improvements in teacher quality are assumed to last five years (losses occur due to teachers leaving the profession andfive years implies an average duration in teaching of 10 years).124 Centre appendix for 4 pedagogy

Table A.2: The calculation of the economic benefits of a National Centre for Pedagogy under theassumptions of Scenario (6) in Table 5.1YearlevelEnrolments 0.15%stu.Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 52Onestudent$Total$,000’s5 years0 217,015 326 2,022 658.21 267,487 401 $0 2,095 840.72 264,792 397 na 2,171 826.43 264,226 396 na 2,250 891.84 255,573 383 $107 na 2,332 893.95 269,199 404 $111 $107 na 2,416 975.76 273,827 411 $115 $111 $107 na 2,504 1,028.57 273,577 410 $120 $115 $111 $107 na 2,595 1,064.88 274,829 412 $124 $120 $115 $111 $107 na 2,689 1,108.59 271,756 408 $128 $124 $120 $115 $111 $107 na 2,786 1,135.810 267,782 402 $133 $128 $124 $120 $115 $111 $107 na 2,887 1,159.811 234,770 352 $138 $133 $128 $124 $120 $115 $111 $107 na 2,992 1,053.712 196,431 295 $143 $138 $133 $128 $124 $120 $115 $111 $107 na 3,101 913.6Total 32,841 $12.6m $125.9m1. Enrolments by Year level are from ABS Schools Australia 2006, 4221.0.2. Assumes that 0.15% of teachers (and therefore 0.15% of students) are influenced by the proposed Centre in any given year.3. GDP per person is assumed to be $47,854 as at June 2007, ABS, Australian system of national accounts 2006-07,5204.0, Table 1, Key national accounts aggregates.4. Assumes that the effect of one year’s additional schooling is 8.0% of GDP per capita, that is $3,836 and that theproposed Centre improves the quality of teaching by the equivalent of 0.04 years, that is $153. Equivalency betweenyears of education is derived from Leigh (2007) and is calculated at the 25th percentile.5. Assumes a discount rate of 3.5% and that all students enter the workforce in the second year after completing Year12, which averages across students entering the workforce after completing Year 9 onwards. The estimate of GDP perperson takes into account the fact that some students may never enter the workforce.6. Benefits are discounted across each cohort. For instance, in Year 1, $143 is $153 discounted across two years by (1-0.035) . For ease of presentation, years between 9 and 52 are not shown but can be readily inferred from those thatare. The values for ‘one student’ sum across the years 1 to 52. The total then multiplies these values by the number ofstudents whose equivalent years of education is assumed to have been affected by improved teacher quality.7. Improvements in teacher quality are assumed to last ten years (losses occur due to teachers leaving the profession andten years implies an average duration in teaching of 20 years).Centre for appendix pedagogy 4125

Report commissioned by Teaching Australia. Produced by Pedagogy and Professional Learning Research Group, Faculty of Education,Monash University (Loughran, Berry, Clemans, Lancaster, & Long, 2008). Canberra: Teaching Australia.