Origin of the Standards/Propositions
These standards and propositions grew out of:
- concerns about the level of classroom teaching and learning resources to support the Australian and other national curriculum:
- concerns about the limited attention given to access and use of classroom teaching and learning materials in teaching standards; and
- concerns about capturing best practice in how teachers access and use classroom teaching and learning materials to match student learning needs and, as a result, enhance student learning outcomes
These standards draw their inspiration from an approach which regards individual and collective teacher qualities and characteristics, as shaping, but also responding to and reflecting, the school context. Teaching practices and teaching quality emerge from the complex interactions between resources, teachers and schools.
In this view, teaching quality reflects not just the qualities of individual teachers and teaching teams, but also the parameters of teachers’ work in their schools. These parameters include
- planning time and planning opportunities;
- the classroom teaching and learning resources available at schools;
- teachers’ workloads and activities; and
- the nature of students in teachers’ classes.
As a result, the standards also draw inspiration from the view that it is the way that teachers use classroom teaching and learning materials that is critical in affording or constraining student learning. However, teachers use and mediation of classroom teaching and learning materials is also dependent on access to classroom resources.
Process of the Standards/Propositions’ Development
The process of developing the draft standards propositions reflects the steps undertaken in previous standards development work. These steps include:
- teacher discussions to explicate key domains and potential standards;
- teacher consultations and feedback to refine the domains and initial draft standards;
- teacher explorations and feedback to consider the draft domains and standards;
- stakeholder consultation and feedback on the shape and structure of the domains and standards; and
- validation of the standards.
| Currently the standard development process is at step 1 with step 2 to commenceAt the same time, Step 5 has been developed, and Likert and Rasch items for analysis for validation research, have also been developed in draft at the end of the document. Please feel free to use any item in the entire document for interviews, focus groups and other research analysis. |
Purposes of the Standards/Propositions
The purposes of the standards are to
- promote best practice in accessing and using classroom teaching and learning materials;
- make teaching quality in accessing and using classroom teaching and learning materials more explicit;
- promote curriculum leadership to support the curriculum; and
- raise the profile and importance of the role of classroom teaching and learning materials in quality teaching.
Standards Continuum
Discussions with teachers and analysis of research revealed three levels of capability in relation to the draft/standards developed.
At the lower level of capability, it was proposed that novice teachers
- were more resource driven in their planning and less curriculum or student need driven;
- had fewer skills in matching resources to their learners;
- were more likely to favour digital over print resources;
- were more likely to use teachers’ guides and similar support materials in their planning;
- were less likely to demand and/or agitate for classroom resources;
- spent as much time as experienced teachers in locating and selecting and preparing resources;
- demonstrated less understanding of the learning affordances and constraints in classroom teaching and learning materials; and
- were less skilled in scaffolding the use of classroom resources by their students.
At the experienced/expert level of capability, there was widespread agreement that expert experienced teachers
- are planning, rather than resource, driven as they focus on accessing and selecting resources to the level and interest of their students through their knowledge of content, their pedagogical content knowledge and their knowledge of students.
At the highest level of capability, there was widespread agreement that classroom teaching and learning materials leadership was displayed by a range of teachers who developed resources for other teachers. These creators of new resources included
- textbook authors and publishers;
- creators of school based classroom teaching and learning resources for groups of teachers; and
- curriculum writers and unit writers from education systems and curriculum authorities, who created new classroom resources to support curriculum development.
The standards/propositions developed are not presented in a continuum to reflect these three levels of capability.
Development of Draft Domains
Teachers reported that:
- access to
- evaluation and selection of
- planning to use (and production of)
- understanding of features of
- use of
- customisation of
- development of
classroom teaching and learning were core aspects of classroom teaching and learning. These core aspects of classroom teaching and learning reflected the teacher, their school context, and the schools resources and traditions.
The domains reflect:
- the crucial role of teaching and learning materials in teaching;
- the relationship between teacher planning and access to and planning for use of teaching materials;
- the role of teachers in adapting, customising and mediating classroom teaching and learning materials for their classes;
- the effective use of classroom teaching and learning materials; and
- the characteristics of classroom teaching and learning resources that present learning affordance and constraint.
The Domains
- Accessing classroom teaching and learning materials.
- Planning to evaluate, select, use and develop classroom teaching and learning materials and preparing (producing them).
- Understanding the characteristics of teaching and learning materials that may afford or constrain learning.
- Customising and adapting teaching and learning materials for the students in the class.
- Supporting curriculum.
- Using classroom teaching and learning materials in teaching and learning.
- Creating and developing new classroom teaching and learning materials.
The Standards
1. Access
Teachers:
- ensure that all students have access to individual copies of appropriate teaching and learning resources both print and digital for use both at home and school;
- should seek budgeting models, that promote individual teacher autonomy and, at the same time, support strategic investment;
- ensure that multiple print and digital classroom teaching and learning resources should be available for every topic they teach;
- agitate for a minimum level of classroom teaching and learning resources per student, class and school;
- create their own teaching and learning resources for their students, where appropriate;
- supplement school resources when they are lacking through their own classroom resource purchase and/or development
- balance the print and digital resource needs of their classrooms;
- exercise autonomy by selecting the appropriate teaching and learning resources for their students, both individually and in collegial groups;
- exercise autonomy by making all the decisions about accessing and purchasing teaching and learning materials for their students; and
- demonstrate responsibility in caring for existing class and school resources, and adding to them.
2. Planning
Teachers:
- seek access to a wide corpus of teaching and learning materials in the planning process;
- evaluate all the available teaching and learning materials for a unit of work/topic in the planning process;
- access professional development on the corpus of existing classroom resources;
- access appropriate planning time;
- access appropriate planning resources;
- focus planning on selecting teaching and learning resources based on matching resources to the students in their classes;
- ensure planning processes are curriculum, unit, concept and topic driven, rather than resource driven;
- focus planning on using and adapting published teaching and learning resources, rather than initially creating and producing them;
- focus planning on students and their contexts; this child, this classroom, this school, this community;
- align resource selection processes to how the resource will meet the aims of the unit and the curriculum within the student context;
- consider environmental consequences in the production of class teaching and learning resources; and
- reflect the regulatory framework in the production of class teaching and learning resources: and
- balance planning time between accessing, seeking, evaluation, planning for use and preparing and producing class teaching and learning resources
3. Characteristics of Classroom Teaching and Learning Materials
Teachers:
- understand the linguistic and literacy features of classroom teaching and learning materials;
- assess the conceptual and reading demands of print and digital classroom resources on their student readers;
- understand the multimodal demands current classroom teaching and learning resources make on student learners;
- understand how classroom teaching and learning resources represent disciplines and subjects and position textual and disciplinary communities;
- assess the learning affordances and constraints in the structure and design of the materials and their preparation;
- understand how the teaching and learning materials reflect community and social values; and
- understand the pedagogical underpinnings of classroom teaching and learning resources;
- understand the way one classroom teaching and learning resource links and complements other teaching and learning resources; and
- understands how classroom teaching and learning resources match individual students in their classroom at different levels of capability
4. Customisation and Adaptation
Teachers:
- make adaptations to make published print and digital resources more comprehensible and more interesting to learners;
- enhance existing classroom materials with current, up to date materials;
- adapt teaching classroom teaching and learning materials for their own pedagogical and teaching philosophies and dispositions;
- make adaptations so teaching and learning materials are responsive to cultural diversity and multiple identities;
- explicate the metaphors found in teaching and learning materials;
- differentiate print and digital teaching and learning materials for individual students;
- position teaching and learning materials to promote active citizenship and pluralism; and
- make adaptations to teaching and learning materials to meet the needs of students with different type of learning disabilities.
5. Curriculum Support
Teachers:
- access predominantly national curriculum resources for the Australian curriculum;
- contribute to the trialling and development of new classroom teaching and learning resources; and
- share use and evaluation of new classroom teaching and learning resources created for the national curriculum with other teachers;
- understand that successful curriculum implementation will depend in part on digital and print resources constructed at the class, school and local level as well as the national one
6. Use of Teaching and Learning Resources
Teachers:
- create learning environments through the way they use print and digital classroom teaching and learning materials;
- articulate the learning environments they have created;
- understand that the quality of the learning environment depends on their use of print and digital classroom teaching and learning materials;
- use a wide range of print and digital resources as the basis of lessons;
- create effective learning environments by using teaching and learning resources for direct instruction, and for collaborative and creative learning; and
- use different classroom teaching and learning resources in ways that provide opportunities to afford student learning.
7. Creation
Incomplete
SOME LIKERT/RASCH ANALYSIS POTENTIAL ITEMS
1. Access
- National teacher have access to fewer classroom teaching and learning resources than teachers in other OECD countries.
- Classroom teaching and learning resources are not funded properly.
- Teachers often need to purchase teaching and learning materials for their classes.
- Students often do not have the appropriate quantity and quality of print and digital classroom teaching and learning resources.
- Multiple print and digital teaching and learning resources should be available for each topic and subject to provide teacher choice.
- Each child’s class requires a minimum of spending on teaching and learning resources.
- Digital resources are cheaper that print resources
2. Planning
- Planning is often dependent on teaching and learning material availability.
- Planning often involves seeking, finding and evaluating new teaching and learning resources to support the teaching program.
- Textbooks and other teaching and learning resources are written and used in different subjects.
- Planning time for teaching is shrinking as a result of new teaching responsibility.
- Teachers don’t use guidebooks and teacher editions of materials as much as they did before.
- Textbooks and teaching and learning materials are written and used in different ways in different subjects.
- Teachers and schools should select teaching and learning resources for the students in their classes.
- Teachers spent most of their planning time photocopying.
- Textbooks should be written by teachers.
- Teachers have little understanding or interest in copyright rules.
- Expert teachers select resources instantly.
- Teachers rarely differentiate their teaching materials for individual students.
3. Characteristics
- Teachers don’t always know the language features of the print and digital resources they use.
- Classroom teaching and learning materials need to be up to date and current.
- Classroom teaching and learning materials lack cultural diversity.
- Teachers adapt classroom teaching and learning materials to meet the needs of students with learning disabilities.
4. Customisation and Adaptation
- Teachers often deviate from the materials their institutions provide for them.
- Teachers’ Manuals explained the content to be taught and students’ responses and misconceptions of the content .
- Teachers make their own judgements about which content is important
- when curriculum materials are not aligned
- when they demand more content than teachers can teach
- when texts contain trivia
- We don’t know why or how (well) teachers make their adaptations.
- Funding has a critical impact on the use of materials in schools.
- Different teachers use textbooks and teaching resources in different ways.
5. Curriculum Support
- Curriculum should be supported by national curriculum resources.
- New resources will be important to the implementation of the new curriculum.
- Current resources in the school will be insufficient to support teaching the curriculum.
- Students with their own textbook, e-book, pdf at home have an advantage over those who don’t
- Effective implementation of the Curriculum will be possible without new direct funding of teaching and learning materials.
IARTEM 
Commentary
International standard for the utilization of textbooks
By Christiaan Visser,
University of Johannesburg, South Africa
dutoitvisser@hotmail.com
I reported to a local (South African) educator constituency on the work done by IARTEM to develop an international standard for the utilization of textbooks as follows:
The need to provide structure and clarity on the use of textbooks is reflected in an international project to formulate a standard to guide this process. The International Association for Research on Textbook and Education Media (IARTEM, 2013, Horsley, 2013) is in the process of formulating a Standard for Classroom Teaching and Learning Materials. In the pre-amble to the draft standard it was stated that the origin of the standard grew out of:
• “concerns about the level (quality) of classroom teaching and learning resources to support the . . . curriculum;
• concerns about the limited attention given to access (availability) and use of classroom teaching and learning materials in teaching standards; and
• concerns about capturing best practice in how teachers access and use classroom teaching and learning materials to match student learning needs and enhance student learning outcomes”
The standard recognises that “. . . teaching practices and teaching quality emerge from the complex interactions between resources, teachers and schools . . . teaching quality reflects not just the qualities of individual teachers and teaching teams, but also the parameters of teachers’ work in their schools.” The standard therefore recognises that teacher competence (performance, effectiveness) is not only determined by the inherent quality of the teacher (or characteristics of the teacher) but also by the conditions (parameters) within which the teacher functions within the school’s context. These parameters include;
• the classroom teaching and learning resources available at schools;
• teachers’ workloads and activities; and
• the nature of students in teachers’ classes.
The standard also recognises that “. . . the way that teachers use classroom teaching and learning materials is critical in affording or constraining student learning. However, teachers’ use and mediation of classroom teaching and learning materials is also dependent on access to classroom resources.”
The purposes of the standards includes . . .
• “promoting best practice in accessing (evaluating, selecting, resourcing) and using classroom teaching and learning materials;
• making teaching quality in accessing and using classroom teaching and learning materials more explicit;
• raising the profile (also the quality of) and importance of the role of classroom teaching and learning materials in quality teaching.”
The draft standard is structured in terms of seven ‘domains’:
1. Accessing classroom teaching and learning materials.
2. Planning to evaluate, select, use and develop classroom teaching and learning materials and preparing (producing) them.
3. Understanding the characteristics of teaching and learning materials that may afford or constrain learning.
4. Customising and adapting teaching and learning materials for the students in the class.
5. Supporting curriculum.
6. Using classroom teaching and learning materials in teaching and learning.
7. Creating and developing new classroom teaching and learning materials.
My comments on the draft standard are influenced by a PHd research study that I undertook with the University of Johannesburg (2015). The working title for this research study is: DEVELOPING THE TEXTBOOK COMPETENCE OF EDUCATORS AS AN ENABLING INPUT IN THE DELIVERY OF BASIC QUALITY EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS IN SOUTH AFRICA
The textbook competence of teachers can be interpreted as foundational competence (identified in the norms and standards for teacher performance) and refers to the ability of teachers to . . .
• evaluate (judge) the quality of learning material (textbooks) against clearly defined quality characteristics, and where weaknesses are indicated to be able to develop supplementary material
• effectively use textbooks as part of a teaching practice to deliver quality education
In this study I applied a generic* evaluation instrument using 21 quality characteristics as criteria to evaluate the quality of textbooks (*I use the term ‘generic’ to indicated that the instrument is not subject specific or grade/level specific). The study also identified seventeen different ‘methods’ (best practices) of using textbooks that could enhance the effectiveness in the way textbooks are used; the study also identified fourteen ‘methods’ in which learners can use textbooks as part of an ‘independent’ (out of the classroom) learning process.
The complexity of the two concepts quality of textbooks and the utilization of textbooks (the two constructs that were analysed/explored in the research study) and the inter-relatedness (inter-dependence) of the two concepts are clearly reflected in the draft standard. However, the selected domains and the content of the standard provided in the relevant domains do not clearly distinguish between contextual matters, and the competencies (skills) required by teachers to source and utilize teaching and learning materials. (Contextual matters refer to administrative and resource provisioning responsibilities vested in the school and various organisational functions associated with education system governance.)
Contextual matters is covered in much of domain 1 and 2 (budgeting for, ordering, delivering, receiving, storing, ensuring availability of, providing policy on, managing material resources, etc.)
Quality of material is covered (included) in domain 2, 3, 4 and 7. (The fact that no articulation was provided for domain 7 supports my conviction that this area [quality of material] is considered most complex and may require justification and further elaboration in the formulation of the standard. The identification of quality characteristics in terms of which the quality of a textbook can be described (defined) would be an important element of this standard. It might not be necessary to specify the relevant quality characteristics in the standard itself, but it would be necessary for the standard to indicate that quality characteristics have been specified and is being used in different contexts, e.g. in the training of textbook writers, in the evaluation and selection of textbooks, in the training of teachers, in the way textbooks are used, etc.
Utilization of material is mainly covered in domain 6.
Recommendations
I’m of the opinion that the purpose and aim of a Standard for Classroom Teaching and Learning Materials will be served better with a revised domain structure, for instance:
• Contextual factors impacting on the provisioning of teaching material Standard to reflect . . .
o alternative material resourcing schemes,
o budgeting processes considering alternative financial sourcing for material procurement
o evaluating, approving, selecting processes applied at various levels within the system
o provisioning (selection, determine requirements [titles and quantity], ordering, delivering, storing and managing resources at the school level)
o the need for clearly formulated SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) to guide (manage) provisioning of teaching material
• Considerations regarding the quality of teaching material
Standard to reflect . . .
o clearly defined quality criteria established as a prerequisite for the provisioning of material;
o quality criteria to serve as a conceptual frame of reference for the development of educational material, for textbook writers and teachers involved in material development;
o quality criteria to apply in the evaluation, selection, approval of teaching material for use by schools;
o quality criteria to be applied by teachers to select teaching material suitable for diverse learner populations;
o quality criteria to be applied by teachers to identify weaknesses in available resources and then be able to take appropriate actions (develop supplementary material) to compensate for weaknesses;
o appropriate training be provided to all functionaries (including teachers) involved in the development and provisioning (evaluation, selection) of material;
• Utilizing material in support of quality teaching and learning
Standard to reflect . . .
o skills required by teachers to effectively (fully) utilise available material resources;
o alternative strategies of using material resources be indicated (identify best practices in utilizing teaching material);
o competence to utilize alternative strategies to compensate (differentiate) for learners with learning disability (barriers to learning), and gifted learners (learners with higher levels of cognitive abilities).
While the initiative of IARTEM to develop a Standard for Classroom Teaching and Learning Materials is applauded the conceptual basis that is used in the draft formulation is somewhat confusing and does not clearly articulate the distinction between contextual factors, factors related to the quality of textbooks and factors related to the utilization of textbooks.
End note
Please advise whether any further elaboration is required on any of the views expressed in this commentary.
I wish to acknowledge the pioneering work done by Prof Horsley in developing this standard. The eventual outcome will be another legacy for his commitment and extensive contribution to improve the quality and use of learning material.
Resources
Department of Basic Education (2000) Norms and Standards for Educators. Pretoria: Department of Education. Available from: http://academic.sun.ac.za/mathed/174/NORMS%20AND%20STANDARDS%20FOR%20EDUCATORS.pdf
IARTEM – The international association for research on textbooks and educational media (Sweden, Stockholm) – http://www.iartem.org/
Thanks so much Christiaan for your incisive, insightful and evidenced based comments. I really appreciate them as a vehicle for further comments, feedback and ulitmate development of our IARTEM shared standards. Thanks so much. I try to respond to your comments below as a way of promoting further discussion at the round table in Berlin. I have been prevented from responding earlier by serious and life treatening illness.
1. Development of the standards
The draft standards were developed in Australia using the Australian way of developing standards. This focuses on teachers. Teachers were asked to discuss advanced practices in using teaching and learning resources in the classroom. Their voice was captured to eventually develop domains and dimensions presented. Then these were shared with other teachers who validated the domains and dimensions. They felt these were better standards than the more generic ones developed nationally for all teacher behaviour because use of teaching and learning materials in the classroom is the core of teaching. Lets extend this process to other countries.
The draft standards also built on the work of Zuzana Sikorova who has shown that teachers, modify, amend, change adapt all teaching materials for their student even if textbook dependent, Mike Horsley who has shown that teachers mediate all the materials they use in the classroom and that access to materials influences their use and W Norton Grubbwho has shown that effective teaching and learning resources are complex resources that depend on students, schools, teacher planning, teacher expertise etc. For this reason the standards emphases context in use, teacher interaction with resources, teacher planning and activist approaches of teachers to the resources in their own classroom lessons, It is the classroom use of the resources that the standards focus on. All worth further discussion.
2. Quality of materials
The quality of teaching materials is one the great ‘red herrings’ of textbook research. Arno Reints and Jim Mcalls professional development courses illustrates many attempts to ‘define or describe’ ‘quality teaching materials’. From adoption standards, to selection criteria to TQM measures – all these approaches evaluate the static textbook/website. The problem is that such approaches are the equivalent of learning about driving behaviour by studying cars only. It is teachers who give meaning to teaching and learning materials for their students by mediating their use in class. Often this process is most complicated. Sure teaching and learning materials have features that can afford and constrain learning but it is teacher mediation that activates these affordance and constraints. For example a teacher uses a very sexist old style maths book to illustrates the sexism of the past and ask students to modify it to overcome this sexism as a learning exercise. It is for this reason that the draft standards are about use – rather than static ‘quality’ and does not section context and quality but conflates them – an approach to emphasise teacher mediation, use and interaction. But lets have more discussion of this.
3. Teacher education
One of the targets of the draft standards is teacher educaton. Currently teacher education neglects work devoted to utilising teaching and learning materials – unlike the way that other professional education considers the resources in the professional environment – i.e. like machiens and manuals in nursing – teacher education focuses on student teachers producing their own teaching and learning materials from usually narrow bases and in learning about online learning. Wider education on the selection, adoption, accessing, modification and planning in relation to creation of teaching and learning strategies is required. In practice Mary Kennedy has shown that many teachers’ plannng is dependent on the teaching and learning materials available in the school. Teachers need to be aware that access and use are linked – and teacher education has to provoke a dynamic of the activist professional in securing and then using to afford learning the learning material accessed. This aspect does requires IARTEM to develop standards to guide, shape and develop this process
4 Moving forward
Christiaan asks us to “articulate the distinction between contextual factors, factors related to the quality articulate the distinction between contextual factors, factors related to the quality of textbooks and factors related to the utilization of textbooks” This issue underpinned the develpment of the standards and requires more thought feedback and discussion. Hopefully the IARTEM round table on standards at the Berlin (that I can not attend due to my illness will consider this issue further. In part the last dimension on the quality of teaching and learning materials (whether published or teacher developed was left blank becasue of this issue.) It was hoped that professional educational publishers could contribute here due to their expertise in this area. IARTEM needs to more fully discuss the standards in the light of comments and feedback. We thank Christaan for his contribution to this process.
Hello, Mike.
It’s a pleasure to respond to you.
I attended the IARTEM conference in Berlin (my first time), including the round table. Your presence was keenly felt at the conference, and I would like to send my best wishes to you. The question of standards for the use of textbooks was very briefly discussed at the roundtable. For my part, I confess that I was not prepared for what the roundtable was trying to do. I am also not sure how the roundtable discussion left the issue, or what next steps might be taken.
I have a few observations, which I hope are of help. I make these observations as a former educational materials publisher.
1. While these draft standards for the use of classroom materials are quite academically articulated, this may be the most appropriate form for their context, which is probably that of teacher education departments. (Is that correct?) I make this point because in my own work (which is in lower income countries, and often in the context of ministry of education policy-making), such standards would probably need to be set out in less academic language.
2. I see why you might characterise textbook quality criteria as a red herring, but I would disagree. While it may be more difficult to define criteria for good pedagogic approaches within textbooks, as compared to (using the example that you gave) criteria for sexism, it is just as important to do so. In my own work on textbook policies, I have always tried to engage ministries of education in defining broad principles of quality, which may in turn lead to more detailed criteria for use in textbook development or evaluation.
3. From my own experience I would agree with the statement that ‘At the lower level of capability … novice teachers were more resource driven in their planning’. But can you comment on the statement made in this 2014 UK study on textbooks in schools (http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/images/181744-why-textbooks-count-tim-oates.pdf), which states that ‘One startling finding of Reynolds’ and Farrell’s large transnational study in 1996, and replicated in our recent comparisons, was that it is the highest-performing teachers who are most supportive of the use of well-designed textbooks, citing as key reasons ‘coherence’ with curriculum aims, value of well-designed formative assessment items, and freeing-up of time to focus on learner progress rather than designing learning materials.’
4. I have a general concern about the term ‘standards’ being used in this discussion. (In fact, this was one of the points made during the round table in Berlin.) Standards often implies some sort of accountability system, which has become a dominant and diversionary trend in so many anglophone education systems. The term ‘guidelines’ may be better, even though on the face of it it seems to imply less authority.
Andy Smart
Education and publishing consultant