Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-9xpg2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-05T16:14:25.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 6 - Planning for teaching

from Part III - Professional practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  aN Invalid Date NaN

By
Linley Cornish ,
Jennifer Charteris ,
Michelle Bannister-Tyrrell ,
Kathy Jenkins  and
Marguerite Jones
Edited by
Jeanne Allen  and
Simone White
Jeanne Allen
Affiliation:
Griffith University, Queensland
Simone White
Affiliation:
RMIT University
Get access

Summary

Planning for learning is essential for creating environments conducive to deep learning and to developing student understandings. Standard 3 of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (APST) specifies the need for all graduate teachers to be able to ‘plan for and implement effective teaching and learning’. Quality planning involves the systematic use of feedback data to design activities that encourage the assimilation and synthesis of information, leading to the creation of new understandings. Student learning should always be the goal.

Keywords

planningcurriculumlearningeducationteachingAustraliastudentsunderstanding

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Learning to Teach in a New Era , pp. 192 - 228
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Further reading/resources

Brand, B. R. & Triplett, C. F. (2012). Interdisciplinary curriculum: An abandoned concept? Teachers and Teaching, 18(3), 381–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2012.629847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drake, D. M. (1998). Creating integrated curriculum: Proven ways to increase student learning. Corwin Press.Google Scholar
Earp, J. (2016, 6 October). Topic planning in a cross-curricular framework. Teacher. www.teachermagazine.com/au_en/articles/topic-planning-in-a-cross-curricular-frameworkGoogle Scholar
Eberly, J. L. & Joshi, A. (2018). Kindergartners ‘worming’ their way through integrated curriculum. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 54(4), 148–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2018.1515540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edutopia (2016). Differentiated instruction: Resource roundup. www.edutopia.org/article/differentiated-instruction-resourcesGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, J., O’Grady, E. & O’Reilly, J. (2018). Promoting student agentic engagement through curriculum: Exploring the Negotiated Integrated Curriculum initiative. Irish Educational Studies, 37(4), 453–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2018.1512882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, K. A., Vermette, P. J. & Jones, J. L. (2009). An integration of ‘backwards planning’ unit design with the ‘two-step’ lesson planning framework. Education, 130(2), 357–60. http://ereserve.library.utah.edu/Annual/SPED/5150/Matthews/backward.pdfGoogle Scholar
Klenowski, V. (2016). Fairer assessment for Indigenous students: An Australian perspective. In Scott, S., Scott, D. & Webber, C. (Eds), Leadership of assessment, inclusion, and learning (pp. 273–85). Springer.Google Scholar
Latifoglu, A. (2016). Staying or leaving? An analysis of career trajectories of beginning teachers. International Studies in Education Administration, 44(1), 55–70.Google Scholar
McCormack, A. & Thomas, K. (2005). The reality of uncertainty: The plight of casual beginning teachers. Change: Transformations in Education, 8(1), 17–31.Google Scholar
Moreton-Robinson, A. Singh, D., Kolopenuk, J. & Robinson, A. (2012). Learning the lessons? Preservice teacher preparation for teaching Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. www.aitsl.edu.au/tools-resources/resource/learning-the-lessons-pre-service-teacher-preparation-for-teaching-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-studentsGoogle Scholar
Shareefa, M. & Moosa, V. (2020). The most-cited educational research publications on differentiated instruction: A bibliometric analysis. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(1), 331–49. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.1.331Google Scholar
Swaffield, S. (2011). Getting to the heart of authentic assessment for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 433–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2011.582838Google Scholar
van Geel, M., Keuning, T., Frèrejean, J., Dolmans, D., van Merriënboer, J. & Visscher, A. J. (2018). Capturing the complexity of differentiated instruction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 30(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2018.1539013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, J., Adie, L. & Klenowski, V. (2013). Conceptualising teachers’ assessment literacies in an era of curriculum and assessment reform. Australian Educational Researcher, 40(2), 241–56. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13384-013-0089-9.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wormeli, R. (2023). Differentiation: From planning to practice, Grades 6–12. Routledge.10.4324/9781032681009CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Ackerman, D. (1989). Intellectual and practical criteria for successful curriculum integration. In Jacobs, H. (Ed.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation (pp. 25–38). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).Google Scholar
Almulla, M. A. (2020). The effectiveness of the project-based learning (PBL) approach as a way to engage students in learning. Sage Open, 10(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020938702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2024a). Australian Curriculum, Version 9.0. https://v9.australiancurriculum.edu.auGoogle Scholar
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2024b). Cross-curriculum priorities. https://v9.australiancurriculum.edu.au/teacher-resources/understand-this-cross-curriculum-priority/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-histories-and-culturesGoogle Scholar
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2024c). General Capabilities. https://v9.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/f-10-curriculum-overview/general-capabilitiesGoogle Scholar
Australian Government Department of Education. (2014). Review of the Australian Curriculum – final report. https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/review-australian-curriculum-final-reportGoogle Scholar
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2022). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/national-policy-framework/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers.pdfGoogle Scholar
Benade, L. (2015). Bits, bytes and dinosaurs: Using Levinas and Freire to address the concept of ‘twenty-first century learning’. Educational Philosophy and Theory: Incorporating ACCESS, 47(9), 935–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2015.1035159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boozer, A. & Carlson, D. (2015). Planning backward to go forward: Examining preservice teachers’ use of backward design to plan and deliver instruction. Teacher Education and Practice, 28(4), 522–47. https://blogsomemoore.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/retrieve.pdfGoogle Scholar
Charteris, J. (2022). Post-panoptic accountability: Making data visible through ‘data walls’ for schooling improvement. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 43(3), 333–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2021.2018651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charteris, J., Jenkins, K., Jones, M. & Bannister-Tyrrell, M. (2015). Discourse appropriation and category boundary work: Casual teachers in the market. Discourse Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38(4), 511–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1113158Google Scholar
Chew, S. L., & Cerbin, W. J. (2021). The cognitive challenges of effective teaching. The Journal of Economic Education, 52(1), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2020.1845266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornish, L. & Garner., J. (2009). Promoting student learning (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Curriculum Corporation. (1994). English: A curriculum profile for Australian schools. Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
D’Andrea, V. (2003). Organising teaching and learning: Outcomes-based planning. In Fry, H., Ketteridge, S. & Marshall, S. (Eds.), The handbook for teaching and learning in higher education (2nd ed.). Kogan Page.Google Scholar
Duggleby, P. & Badali, S. (2007). Expectation and experiences of substitute teachers. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53(1), 22–33. https://doi.org/10.11575/ajer.v53i1.55196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Education NSW. (2020). Casual and temporary teaching. https://education.nsw.gov.au/about-us/careers-at-education/roles-and-locations/roles-at-education/teaching/casual-and-temporary-teachingGoogle Scholar
Fogarty, R. (1991). Ten ways to integrate curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 61–5. https://files.ascd.org/staticfiles/ascd/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_199110_fogarty.pdfGoogle Scholar
Gagné, F. (2008). Building gifts into talents: Overview of the DMGT. Keynote address, 10th Asia-Pacific Conference for Giftedness, Asia-Pacific Federation of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, Singapore, 14–17 July.Google Scholar
Graff, N. (2011). ‘An effective and agonizing way to learn’: Backwards design and new teachers’ preparation for planning curriculum. Teacher Education Quarterly, Summer, 151–68. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ940642.pdfGoogle Scholar
Grassini, S. (2023). Shaping the future of education: exploring the potential and consequences of AI and ChatGPT in educational settings. Education Sciences, 13(7), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hlebowitsh, P. (2010). Scope and sequence, in curriculum development. In Kridel, C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies (Vol. 2, pp. 770–2). Sage.Google Scholar
Hobbs, L. & Porsch, R. (2022). Out-of-field teaching across teaching disciplines and contexts. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, K., Smith, H. & Maxwell, T. (2009). Challenging experiences faced by beginning casual teachers: Here one day and gone the next! Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660802616443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemmis, S., Heikkinen, H. L., Fransson, G., Aspfors, J. & Edwards-Groves, C. (2014). Mentoring of new teachers as a contested practice: Supervision, support and collaborative self-development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 154–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keogh, J., Garvis, S., Pendergast, D. & Diamond, P. (2012). Self-determination: Using agency, efficacy and resilience (AER) to counter novice teachers’ experiences of intensification. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 37(8), 46–65. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1774&context=ajteGoogle Scholar
Killen, R. (2016). Effective teaching strategies: Lessons from research and practice (7th ed.). Cengage.Google Scholar
Krepf, M. & König, J. (2023). Structuring the lesson: an empirical investigation of pre-service teacher decision-making during the planning of a demonstration lesson. Journal of Education for Teaching, 49(5), 911–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2022.2151877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaMotte, M. (2018). The integrated approach versus the traditional approach: Analyzing the benefits of a dance and transportation integrated curriculum. Journal of Dance Education, 18(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/15290824.2017.1336667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lave, J. (2019). Learning and everyday life. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108616416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511815355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, C., Enciso, P. & Moje, P. (2007). Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lonning, R., DeFranco, T. & Weinland, P. (1998). Development of theme-based, interdisciplinary, integrated curriculum: A theoretical model. School Sciences and Mathematics, 98(6), 312–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1998.tb17426.xGoogle Scholar
Maker, C. J. & Nielson, A. B. (1995). The role of teaching-learning models in curriculum development of the gifted. In Maker, C. J. & Nielson, A. B. (Eds), Teaching models in education of the gifted (pp. 1–10). Pro-ed.Google Scholar
Masters, G. (2016, 30 August). Mapping progress – using data for teaching and learning. Teacher. www.teachermagazine.com.au/geoff-masters/article/mapping-progress-using-data-for-teaching-and-learningGoogle Scholar
Mazur, R. (2018). Backward design. In Frey, B. B. (Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation: A–C (pp. 164–8). Sage.Google Scholar
McTighe, J. & Thomas, R. (2003). Backward design for forward action: Using data to improve student achievement. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 52–5. www.ascd.org/el/articles/backward-design-for-forward-actionGoogle Scholar
McTighe, J. & Wiggins, G. (2012). Understanding by design guide to advanced concepts in creating and reviewing units. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Montenegro-Rueda, M., Fernández-Cerero, J., Fernández-Batanero, J. M. & López-Meneses, E. (2023). Impact of the implementation of ChatGPT in education: A systematic review. Computers, 12(8), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers12080153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdoch, K. & Hornsby, D. (1997). Planning curriculum connections: Whole-school planning for integrated curriculum. Eleanor Curtin.Google Scholar
National Assessment Program (NAP). (2013). NAPLAN National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy: Infographic. www.nap.edu.au/_resources/Acara_NAPLAN_Infographic(V4-2).pdfGoogle Scholar
National Assessment Program (NAP). (2016). NAPLAN National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy. www.nap.edu.au/aboutGoogle Scholar
NSW Department of Education and Training (DET). (n.d.). Consistent teacher judgement: Teaching and learning cycle. www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/consistentteacher/tlcycle.htmGoogle Scholar
NSW Education Standards Authority (2021). Collaborative curriculum planning. https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/homeGoogle Scholar
Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. Reading Teacher, 39(6), 564–70. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2019915610.1598/RT.39.6.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renzulli, J. S. & Reis, S. M. (2014). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for talent development (3rd ed.). Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, K. B. (2005). A content analysis of gifted education research and literature. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association for Gifted Children, Louisville, KY, November.Google Scholar
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, G. (2013). NAPLAN, MySchool and accountability: Teacher perceptions of the effects of testing. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 12(2), 62–84. https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/IEJ/article/view/7456Google Scholar
Thompson, G. & Mockler, N. (2016). Principals of audit: Testing, data and ‘implicated advocacy’. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 4(81), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2015.1040376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Trinter, C. P. & Hughes, H. E. (2021). Teachers as curriculum designers: Inviting teachers into the productive struggle. RMLE Online, 44(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2021.1878417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Victorian Auditor General’s Office. (2012). Casual relief teacher arrangements. Victorian Government Printer. www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/20120418-CRTs/20120418-CRTs.htmlGoogle Scholar
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA). (2013). Assessment and the Teaching and Learning Cycle. www.insight.vic.edu.au/assessment-in-principle/assessment-and-the-teaching-and-learning-cycleGoogle Scholar
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA). (2016). Design and Technologies: Scope and sequence. https://victoriancurriculum.vcaa.vic.edu.au/technologies/design-and-technologies/introduction/scope-and-sequenceGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S. & Souberman, E., Eds.). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, L. (1994). Guidance for writing learning outcomes. Oxford Brookes University.Google Scholar
Watkins, C., Carnell, E. & Lodge, C. (2007). Effective learning in classrooms. Paul Chapman.10.4135/9781446211472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weldon, P. (2016). Out-of-field teaching in Australian secondary schools. Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenger-Trayner, E. & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2015). Introduction to communities of practice: A brief overview of the concept and its uses. www.wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practiceGoogle Scholar
Willis, J., Arnold, J. & DeLuca, C. (2023, May). Accessibility in assessment for learning: Sharing criteria for success. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1170454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2000). Understanding by design. Merrill.Google Scholar
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). What is backward design? Understanding by design (Exp. 2nd ed.). Pearson Education and Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Wormeli, R. (2023). Differentiation: From planning to practice Grades 6–12. Stenhouse.10.4324/9781032681009CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×