You are on page 1of 12

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Veronica Van Erem 20357907


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education


PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ELM-490 9/10/2018 12/23/2018


COURSE: _____________________________________________________ START DATE: ____________________________ END DATE: _____________________

Peshastin-Dryden Elementary School


COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Washington
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________

Vicki Harrod
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________

Kathy Stgermaine
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

135 points
EVALUATION 3 TOTAL
POINTS 90.00 %
25.00 2,500.00 2,250.00 150
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0 0

0
150 0 0 0 0 0 0
150
CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Veronica Van Erem 20357907


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide


No Evidence Ineffective Foundational Emerging Proficient Distinguished
(The GCU Faculty (Teacher Candidates within (Teacher Candidates within (Teacher Candidates within (Target level for Teacher (Usually reserved for master
Supervisor should create a this range require a this range require a this range may benefit from a Candidates) Teacher Candidates)
plan with the Teacher Professional Growth Plan) Professional Growth Plan) Professional Growth Plan)
Candidate to determine how
the Teacher Candidate will
meet this standard in future
evaluations)
No Evidence 1 to 49 50 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 92 93 to 100
There is no evidence that the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the
performance of the Teacher Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate meets Teacher Candidate
Candidate met this standard insufficient in meeting this underdeveloped in meeting developing in meeting this this standard and consistently exceeds this
or expectations for a Teacher standard and expectations for this standard and expectations standard and expectations for a expectations for a Teacher standard and all expectations
Candidate during student a Teacher Candidate during for a Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate during Candidate during student for a Teacher Candidate
teaching. student teaching. during student teaching. student teaching. teaching. during student teaching.

Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence


1.1 1.00
Teacher candidates create developmentally appropriate instruction that takes into account individual
students’ strengths, interests, and needs and enables each student to advance and accelerate his or her 90
learning.
1.2
Teacher candidates collaborate with families, communities, colleagues, and other professionals to promote 1.00
90
student growth and development.
Evidence
(The GCU Faculty Supervisor should detail the evidence or lack of evidence from the Teacher Candidate in meeting this standard. For lack of evidence, please provide suggestions for
improvement and the actionable steps for growth. )
This was an ongoing science lesson about the water cycle.. The class was divided into learning centers. One of the tables used legos to make a water cycle. Very exciting for
the young learners. It was group work that she used to create interest and developmentally appropriate instruction. It appears that she is using some successful teaching
strategies that her colleagues and other professionals have used to promote growth, development and interest.
CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Veronica Van Erem 20357907


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide


No Evidence Ineffective Foundational Emerging Proficient Distinguished
(The GCU Faculty (Teacher Candidates within (Teacher Candidates within (Teacher Candidates within (Target level for Teacher (Usually reserved for master
Supervisor should create a this range require a this range require a this range may benefit from a Candidates) Teacher Candidates)
plan with the Teacher Professional Growth Plan) Professional Growth Plan) Professional Growth Plan)
Candidate to determine how
the Teacher Candidate will
meet this standard in future
evaluations)
No Evidence 1 to 49 50 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 92 93 to 100
There is no evidence that the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the
performance of the Teacher Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate meets Teacher Candidate
Candidate met this standard insufficient in meeting this underdeveloped in meeting developing in meeting this this standard and consistently exceeds this
or expectations for a Teacher standard and expectations for this standard and expectations standard and expectations for a expectations for a Teacher standard and all expectations
Candidate during student a Teacher Candidate during for a Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate during Candidate during student for a Teacher Candidate
teaching. student teaching. during student teaching. student teaching. teaching. during student teaching.

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence


2.1
Teacher candidates design, adapt, and deliver instruction to address each student’s diverse learning 1.00
90
strengths and needs and create opportunities for students to demonstrate their learning in different ways.
2.2
Teacher candidates incorporate language development tools into planning and instruction, including 1.00
strategies for making content accessible to English language students and for evaluating and supporting 90
their development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular 90 1.00
learning differences or needs.
Evidence
(The GCU Faculty Supervisor should detail the evidence or lack of evidence from the Teacher Candidate in meeting this standard. For lack of evidence, please provide suggestions for
improvement and the actionable steps for growth. )
the science lesson was very creative and supportive of different learning styles. This was a lesson they had been practicing for the last couple weeks. While she was talking
about the lesson she was drawing the water cycle and pulled the kids in with questions and past learning techniques. She held everyones attention no matter what their
learning style was.She created opportunities for students to demonstrate their own learning style by the different stations. It was a very fun lesson
CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Veronica Van Erem 20357907


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide


No Evidence Ineffective Foundational Emerging Proficient Distinguished
(The GCU Faculty (Teacher Candidates within (Teacher Candidates within (Teacher Candidates within (Target level for Teacher (Usually reserved for master
Supervisor should create a this range require a this range require a this range may benefit from a Candidates) Teacher Candidates)
plan with the Teacher Professional Growth Plan) Professional Growth Plan) Professional Growth Plan)
Candidate to determine how
the Teacher Candidate will
meet this standard in future
evaluations)
No Evidence 1 to 49 50 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 92 93 to 100
There is no evidence that the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the
performance of the Teacher Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate meets Teacher Candidate
Candidate met this standard insufficient in meeting this underdeveloped in meeting developing in meeting this this standard and consistently exceeds this
or expectations for a Teacher standard and expectations for this standard and expectations standard and expectations for a expectations for a Teacher standard and all expectations
Candidate during student a Teacher Candidate during for a Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate during Candidate during student for a Teacher Candidate
teaching. student teaching. during student teaching. student teaching. teaching. during student teaching.

Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence


3.1
Teacher candidates manage the learning environment to actively and equitably engage students by 1.00
90
organizing, allocating, and coordinating the resources of time, space, and students’ attention.
3.2
Teacher candidates communicate verbally and nonverbally in ways that demonstrate respect for and 1.00
responsiveness to the cultural backgrounds and differing perspectives students bring to the learning 90
environment.
Evidence
(The GCU Faculty Supervisor should detail the evidence or lack of evidence from the Teacher Candidate in meeting this standard. For lack of evidence, please provide suggestions for
improvement and the actionable steps for growth. )
This was a well organized learning lesson. She had different centers and used a timer and easy to follow instruction. There were kids using legos to build the water cycle,
student on the ipad and several other stations. The kids were excited they worked well together and were totally engaged in the learning process. It was an active,
organized and well coordinated lesson.
CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Veronica Van Erem


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ 20357907
STUDENT NUMBER____________________

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide


No Evidence Ineffective Foundational Emerging Proficient Distinguished
(The GCU Faculty (Teacher Candidates within (Teacher Candidates within (Teacher Candidates within (Target level for Teacher (Usually reserved for master
Supervisor should create a this range require a this range require a this range may benefit from a Candidates) Teacher Candidates)
plan with the Teacher Professional Growth Plan) Professional Growth Plan) Professional Growth Plan)
Candidate to determine how
the Teacher Candidate will
meet this standard in future
evaluations)
No Evidence 1 to 49 50 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 92 93 to 100
There is no evidence that the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the
performance of the Teacher Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate meets Teacher Candidate
Candidate met this standard insufficient in meeting this underdeveloped in meeting developing in meeting this this standard and consistently exceeds this
or expectations for a Teacher standard and expectations for this standard and expectations standard and expectations for a expectations for a Teacher standard and all expectations
Candidate during student a Teacher Candidate during for a Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate during Candidate during student for a Teacher Candidate
teaching. student teaching. during student teaching. student teaching. teaching. during student teaching.

Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score No Evidence


4.1
Teacher candidates stimulate student reflection on prior content knowledge, link new concepts to familiar 90 1.00
concepts, and make connections to students’ experiences.
4.2
Teacher candidates use supplementary resources and technologies effectively to ensure accessibility and 90 1.00
relevance for all students.
4.3
Teacher candidates create opportunities for students to learn, practice, and master academic language in 90 1.00
their content area.
Evidence
(The GCU Faculty Supervisor should detail the evidence or lack of evidence from the Teacher Candidate in meeting this standard. For lack of evidence, please provide suggestions for
improvement and the actionable steps for growth. )
the science lesson was a state adopted curriculum that was developed to meet common core standards. It was a scripted lesson that she was using to build on knowledge
over a couple week. The stations incorporated supplementary resources and technology to effectively ensure accessibility and relevance for all students. Instead of
following the direct instruction formate the student teacher divided the class into individual learning areas that she rotated through the lesson. It was a successful lesson
with this active group of young learners.
CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Veronica Van Erem 20357907


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide


No Evidence Ineffective Foundational Emerging Proficient Distinguished
(The GCU Faculty (Teacher Candidates within (Teacher Candidates within (Teacher Candidates within (Target level for Teacher (Usually reserved for master
Supervisor should create a this range require a this range require a this range may benefit from a Candidates) Teacher Candidates)
plan with the Teacher Professional Growth Plan) Professional Growth Plan) Professional Growth Plan)
Candidate to determine how
the Teacher Candidate will
meet this standard in future
evaluations)
No Evidence 1 to 49 50 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 92 93 to 100
There is no evidence that the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the
performance of the Teacher Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate meets Teacher Candidate
Candidate met this standard insufficient in meeting this underdeveloped in meeting developing in meeting this this standard and consistently exceeds this
or expectations for a Teacher standard and expectations for this standard and expectations standard and expectations for a expectations for a Teacher standard and all expectations
Candidate during student a Teacher Candidate during for a Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate during Candidate during student for a Teacher Candidate
teaching. student teaching. during student teaching. student teaching. teaching. during student teaching.

Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence


5.1
1.00
Teacher candidates engage students in applying content knowledge to real-world problems through the lens 90
of interdisciplinary themes (e.g., financial literacy, environmental literacy).
5.2
Teacher candidates facilitate students’ ability to develop diverse social and cultural perspectives that expand 90 1.00
their understanding of local and global issues and create novel approaches to solving problems.
Evidence
(The GCU Faculty Supervisor should detail the evidence or lack of evidence from the Teacher Candidate in meeting this standard. For lack of evidence, please provide suggestions for
improvement and the actionable steps for growth. )
the student teacher has adapted the content of the learning subject to include everyone. It was a science lesson concerning the water cycle which is a very
important social activity. Understanding your world and how it works is a great way for these young students to expand and understand local and global issues.
Their novel approach to solving world problems still revolves around how to follow through successfully in circle rotation. The learning groups helped each other
and supported each other during the activity.I did not recognize any students being left out of the acttivity.
CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Veronica Van Erem 20357907


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide


No Evidence Ineffective Foundational Emerging Proficient Distinguished
(The GCU Faculty (Teacher Candidates within (Teacher Candidates within (Teacher Candidates within (Target level for Teacher (Usually reserved for master
Supervisor should create a this range require a this range require a this range may benefit from a Candidates) Teacher Candidates)
plan with the Teacher Professional Growth Plan) Professional Growth Plan) Professional Growth Plan)
Candidate to determine how
the Teacher Candidate will
meet this standard in future
evaluations)
No Evidence 1 to 49 50 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 92 93 to 100
There is no evidence that the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the
performance of the Teacher Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate meets Teacher Candidate
Candidate met this standard insufficient in meeting this underdeveloped in meeting developing in meeting this this standard and consistently exceeds this
or expectations for a Teacher standard and expectations for this standard and expectations standard and expectations for a expectations for a Teacher standard and all expectations
Candidate during student a Teacher Candidate during for a Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate during Candidate during student for a Teacher Candidate
teaching. student teaching. during student teaching. student teaching. teaching. during student teaching.

Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence


6.1
Teacher candidates design assessments that match learning objectives with assessment methods and 90 1.00
minimize sources of bias that can distort assessment results.
6.2
Teacher candidates work independently and collaboratively to examine test and other performance data to 90 1.00
understand each student’s progress and to guide planning.
6.3
Teacher candidates prepare all students for the demands of particular assessment formats and make
appropriate modifications in assessments or testing conditions especially for students with disabilities and
90 1
language learning needs.
Evidence
(The GCU Faculty Supervisor should detail the evidence or lack of evidence from the Teacher Candidate in meeting this standard. For lack of evidence, please provide suggestions for
improvement and the actionable steps for growth. )
This is a state adopted science curriculum that comes with build in assessment. The student teacher was preparing all students for the demand of the particular learning
lesson by presenting the objectives in an interesting way.
CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Veronica Van Erem 20357907


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide


No Evidence Ineffective Foundational Emerging Proficient Distinguished
(The GCU Faculty (Teacher Candidates within (Teacher Candidates within (Teacher Candidates within (Target level for Teacher (Usually reserved for master
Supervisor should create a this range require a this range require a this range may benefit from a Candidates) Teacher Candidates)
plan with the Teacher Professional Growth Plan) Professional Growth Plan) Professional Growth Plan)
Candidate to determine how
the Teacher Candidate will
meet this standard in future
evaluations)
No Evidence 1 to 49 50 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 92 93 to 100
There is no evidence that the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the
performance of the Teacher Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate meets Teacher Candidate
Candidate met this standard insufficient in meeting this underdeveloped in meeting developing in meeting this this standard and consistently exceeds this
or expectations for a Teacher standard and expectations for this standard and expectations standard and expectations for a expectations for a Teacher standard and all expectations
Candidate during student a Teacher Candidate during for a Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate during Candidate during student for a Teacher Candidate
teaching. student teaching. during student teaching. student teaching. teaching. during student teaching.

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score No Evidence


7.1
Teacher candidates plan how to achieve each student’s learning goals, choosing appropriate strategies and 90 1.00
accommodations, resources, and materials to differentiate instruction for individuals and groups of students.
7.2
Teacher candidates develop appropriate sequencing of learning experiences and provide multiple ways to 90 1.00
demonstrate knowledge and skill.
7.3
Teacher candidates plan for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior student 90 1.00
knowledge, and student interest.
Evidence
(The GCU Faculty Supervisor should detail the evidence or lack of evidence from the Teacher Candidate in meeting this standard. For lack of evidence, please provide suggestions for
improvement and the actionable steps for growth. )
The lesson was well planned out to cover different ways to learn the material that was presents. These young learners like to talk and share their opinion and this format of
learning centers gave them this opportunity. The student teacher rotated around the centers and worked with them and complimented them on their increasing knowledge of
the subject. Each activity supported the lesson.
CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Veronica Van Erem 20357907


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide


No Evidence Ineffective Foundational Emerging Proficient Distinguished
(The GCU Faculty (Teacher Candidates within (Teacher Candidates within (Teacher Candidates within (Target level for Teacher (Usually reserved for master
Supervisor should create a this range require a this range require a this range may benefit from a Candidates) Teacher Candidates)
plan with the Teacher Professional Growth Plan) Professional Growth Plan) Professional Growth Plan)
Candidate to determine how
the Teacher Candidate will
meet this standard in future
evaluations)
No Evidence 1 to 49 50 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 92 93 to 100
There is no evidence that the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the
performance of the Teacher Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate meets Teacher Candidate
Candidate met this standard insufficient in meeting this underdeveloped in meeting developing in meeting this this standard and consistently exceeds this
or expectations for a Teacher standard and expectations for this standard and expectations standard and expectations for a expectations for a Teacher standard and all expectations
Candidate during student a Teacher Candidate during for a Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate during Candidate during student for a Teacher Candidate
teaching. student teaching. during student teaching. student teaching. teaching. during student teaching.

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence


8.1
Teacher candidates vary their role in the instructional process (e.g., instructor, facilitator, coach, audience) 90 1.00
in relation to the content, purpose of instruction, and student needs
8.2
Teacher candidates engage students in using a range of learning skills and technology tools to access, 90 1.00
interpret, evaluate, and apply information.
8.3
Teacher candidates ask questions to stimulate discussion that serve different purposes (e.g., probing for
student understanding, helping students articulate their ideas and thinking processes, stimulating curiosity, 90 1.00
and helping students to question).
Evidence
(The GCU Faculty Supervisor should detail the evidence or lack of evidence from the Teacher Candidate in meeting this standard. For lack of evidence, please provide suggestions for
improvement and the actionable steps for growth. )
Teh student teacher divided the room into different ways of learning. She engaged the students in a range of styles. The instructions for the three activities was easy for
everyone to follow. The activity encouraged discussions and the ability to process, stimulate curiosity and master the science lesson.
CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Veronica Van Erem 20357907


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide


No Evidence Ineffective Foundational Emerging Proficient Distinguished
(The GCU Faculty (Teacher Candidates within (Teacher Candidates within (Teacher Candidates within (Target level for Teacher (Usually reserved for master
Supervisor should create a this range require a this range require a this range may benefit from a Candidates) Teacher Candidates)
plan with the Teacher Professional Growth Plan) Professional Growth Plan) Professional Growth Plan)
Candidate to determine how
the Teacher Candidate will
meet this standard in future
evaluations)
No Evidence 1 to 49 50 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 92 93 to 100
There is no evidence that the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the
performance of the Teacher Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate meets Teacher Candidate
Candidate met this standard insufficient in meeting this underdeveloped in meeting developing in meeting this this standard and consistently exceeds this
or expectations for a Teacher standard and expectations for this standard and expectations standard and expectations for a expectations for a Teacher standard and all expectations
Candidate during student a Teacher Candidate during for a Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate during Candidate during student for a Teacher Candidate
teaching. student teaching. during student teaching. student teaching. teaching. during student teaching.

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score No Evidence


9.1
Independently and in collaboration with colleagues, teacher candidates use a variety of data (e.g., 1.00
systematic observation, information about students, and research) to evaluate the outcomes of teaching and
90
learning and to adapt planning and practice.
9.2
1.00
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside 90
the school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
Evidence
(The GCU Faculty Supervisor should detail the evidence or lack of evidence from the Teacher Candidate in meeting this standard. For lack of evidence, please provide suggestions for
improvement and the actionable steps for growth. )
The student teacher has demonstrated a great increase in her ability to collaborate with her mentor teacher and other professionals. This was a very interesting lesson that
show that she is comfortable with instruction that includes movement ,creativity and technology., I am confident that this student teacher actively seeks professional,
community and technological resources within and outside the school as supports for analysis, reflection and problem solving. She has shown tremendous professional growth
from the last observation.
CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Veronica Van Erem 20357907


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide


No Evidence Ineffective Foundational Emerging Proficient Distinguished
(The GCU Faculty (Teacher Candidates within (Teacher Candidates within (Teacher Candidates within (Target level for Teacher (Usually reserved for master
Supervisor should create a this range require a this range require a this range may benefit from a Candidates) Teacher Candidates)
plan with the Teacher Professional Growth Plan) Professional Growth Plan) Professional Growth Plan)
Candidate to determine how
the Teacher Candidate will
meet this standard in future
evaluations)
No Evidence 1 to 49 50 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 92 93 to 100
There is no evidence that the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the
performance of the Teacher Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate meets Teacher Candidate
Candidate met this standard insufficient in meeting this underdeveloped in meeting developing in meeting this this standard and consistently exceeds this
or expectations for a Teacher standard and expectations for this standard and expectations standard and expectations for a expectations for a Teacher standard and all expectations
Candidate during student a Teacher Candidate during for a Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate during Candidate during student for a Teacher Candidate
teaching. student teaching. during student teaching. student teaching. teaching. during student teaching.

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence


10.1
1.00
Teacher candidates use technological tools and a variety of communication strategies to build local and 90
global learning communities that engage students, families, and colleagues.
10.2
Teacher candidates advocate to meet the needs of students, to strengthen the learning environment, and to 90 1.00
enact system change.
Evidence
(The GCU Faculty Supervisor should detail the evidence or lack of evidence from the Teacher Candidate in meeting this standard. For lack of evidence, please provide suggestions for
improvement and the actionable steps for growth. )
The student teacher has made the transition from just a regular direct instruction teacher to a professional educator that helps instill the joy of learning in her students.This is a
very personal journey and she has had great support from her mentor teacher and the staff at the school.. The kids enjoy and respect her. She uses her redirect strategies
very well and enjoys sharing with her students.
CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Veronica Van Erem 20357907


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

INSTRUCTIONS
Please review the "Total Scored Percentage" for accuracy and add any attachments before completing the "Agreement and Signature" section.

Total Scored Percentage:


90.00 %
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1:
(Optional)

Attachment 2:
(Optional)

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE


This evaluation reflects the results of a collaborative conference including feedback from the Cooperating / Mentor Teacher. The GCU Faculty
Supervisor and Cooperating /Mentor Teacher should collaboratively review the performance in each category prior to the evaluation meeting.

I attest this submission is accurate, true, and in compliance with GCU policy guidelines, to the best of my ability to do so.

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date


Kathy Stgermaine
Kathy Stgermaine (Nov 19, 2018) Nov 19, 2018