STANDARD 3.6
Evaluate and improve teaching programs: Demonstrate broad knowledge of strategies that can be used to evaluate teaching programs to improve student learning.
ARTEFACT 1:
EXCERPTS FROM STUDENTS & TEACHERS COLLABORATION MEETINGS
Artefact 1 are some excerpts from meetings to evaluate and improve teaching programs. During my placement, I participated in weekly student–teacher meetings that brought together pre-service teachers, staff, students, and principals. What struck me most was how these meetings dismantled traditional hierarchies: every participant had a voice and equal agency in shaping the discussion.
As part of this process, I collaborated with students, staff, and leadership to co-design a feedback survey, giving students the opportunity to share their perspectives directly with teachers while also creating space for open dialogue. This cooperative approach, resonant with Freire’s emphasis on dialogue and shared responsibility, shifted evaluation from a top-down exercise to a genuinely collective process.
Through this experience, I came to see that meaningful reflection and improvement in teaching programs emerge not from ticking off strategies, but from collaboration, mutual respect, and responsiveness. By valuing student voice and embedding reflective practices, the school modelled an inclusive culture where feedback was not only welcomed but actively used to shape more adaptive and responsive learning environments. For me, this reinforced the importance of participatory approaches to teaching—where evaluation becomes an act of listening, co-creating, and continuously adapting to meet the needs of all learners.Suggestions on key topics for possible questions included: teacher feedback, teaching style, preconceived notions about the teacher and subject, student engagement, class disruptions. This was an opportunity for me to see the cooperative learning and teaching approach in action, where both staff and students were working towards mutual goals through the process of participation.
Churchhill et. al (2022) endorses this method as one that benefits all participants and facilitates higher-order thinking through the five essential components of:
1) positive interdependence
2) face-to-face interaction
3) individual accountability
4) interpersonal and small group skills
5) group processing.
Seeing these aspects modelled first-hand has motivated me to consider how I can implement cooperative learning in my future learning environment to foster student agency through making decisions about their own educational journey.
My approach to evaluating and refining teaching programs spans pre-placement, placement, and post-placement stages.
Before placement, I reviewed curriculum frameworks such as the Victorian Curriculum F–10, VCE Study Designs, and the Australian Curriculum, while analysing sample unit and lesson plans from sources like VCAA and AERO. This helped me align strategies with High Impact Teaching Strategies (HITS) and set goals for improving differentiation and student engagement.
During placement, I evaluated lesson effectiveness through formative and summative assessment data, student observations, and mentor feedback. Teaching programs were adapted in real time to address emerging learning needs using informal check-ins and reflective discussions. I documented these processes using templates aligned with the Teaching and Learning Cycle and Plan-Teach-Assess-Evaluate model to ensure a systematic approach to improvement.
Post-placement, I reflected on successes and areas for growth, analysing my Digital Teaching and Program Artifacts (DTPA) and using AITSL’s Self-Assessment Tool to guide future practice.