Clinical Practice Evaluation 2 - Single Placement Encrypted 1 1

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S
Jasmine Moon 20563906

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________
Master of Education in Secondary Education

PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SEC-590 9/5/2019 12/18/2019

COURSE: _____________________________________________________ START DATE: ____________________________ END DATE: _____________________
Calvin Rodwell Elementary/ Middle School

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Maryland
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________
Tracey Harrison Jones

COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Naomi Hill
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

EVALUATION 2S TOTAL
POINTS 93.96 points 93.96 %
25 2,500.00 2349 100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0
100
0 0 0 0 0

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 performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the
the performance of the Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate meets Teacher Candidate
Teacher Candidate met this insufficient in meeting this underdeveloped in meeting developing in meeting this this standard and consistently exceeds this
standard or expectations standard and expectations this standard and standard and expectations for expectations for a Teacher standard and all
for a Teacher Candidate for a Teacher Candidate expectations for a Teacher a Teacher Candidate during Candidate during student expectations for a Teacher
during student teaching. during student teaching. Candidate during student student teaching. teaching. Candidate during student
teaching. teaching.
Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

1.1
Teacher candidates create developmentally appropriate instruction that takes into account individual students’ 95 1.00
strengths, interests, and needs and enables each student to advance and accelerate his or her learning.
1.2
Teacher candidates collaborate with families, communities, colleagues, and other professionals to promote 95
student growth and development. 1.00
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. )
Ms. Moon's lesson demonstrated the integration of utilizing students in her classroom individual strengths and interests. The students use individual laptops to complete the
variety of activities planned for the lesson that focused on students exploring different types of biographies to help determine their areas of interest and to choose one notable
person or movement from Baltimore City that you will research for your project. The students were engaged throughout the lesson asking questions and responding to
questions that Ms. Moon asked about the content material as it related to the objectives.
Documented evidence revealed Ms. Moon's ongoing and continuous involvement via communication with her students' families, fellow colleagues, and stakeholders in the
learning community. Some of the activities that Ms. Moon collaborates with the stakeholders in the learning community are (Family /Community Engagement, American
Education Week, After-School programs, and Field Trips) .


Candidate to determine
how the Teacher Candidate
will meet this standard in
future evaluations)
teaching. teaching.
Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

2.1
Teacher candidates design, adapt, and deliver instruction to address each student’s diverse learning strengths 94 1.00
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 strategies
for making content accessible to English language students and for evaluating and supporting their 93 1.00
development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular learning 94 1.00
differences or needs.
Evidence
2.1 Ms. Moon used technology by providing individual (laptops) for each student to teach a social studies lesson about applying research skills to write a biography about a
noteable person or movement. Other visual aids such as a graphic organizer was displayed to guide students to create the biography.
2.2 Ms. Moon fluent use of the English language throughout the lesson was extended and supported by students using the tools on their laptops to increase their use of the
English language as it pertained to using research skills.
2.3 Ms. Moon's lesson plan included accommodations for students requiring and/or choosing to use their laptop to type their answers to a quiz instead of pencil/pen to write their
answers on paper.


Candidate to determine how
the Teacher Candidate will
meet this standard in future
evaluations)
teaching. teaching.
Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence

3.1
Teacher candidates manage the learning environment to actively and equitably engage students by organizing, 93 1.00
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
responsiveness to the cultural backgrounds and differing perspectives students bring to the learning
94
1.00
environment.
Evidence
3.1 Ms. Moon created the learning enviornment conducive for student learning to occur in an organized manner.
3.2 Ms. Moon regulated the use of verbal and nonverbal cues and prompts to communicate with the students in a respectable way.


evaluations)
teaching. teaching.
Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score No Evidence

4.1
Teacher candidates stimulate student reflection on prior content knowledge, link new concepts to familiar 93 1.00
concepts, and make connections to students’ experiences.
4.2
Teacher candidates use supplementary resources and technologies effectively to ensure accessibility and 94 1.00
relevance for all students.
4.3
Teacher candidates create opportunities for students to learn, practice, and master academic language in their 94 1.00
content area.
Evidence
4.1 Ms. Moon engaged students with conversation about the late Elijah Cummings' legancy in Baltimore and in the government that illicited a few students connecting
and linking new concepts to familar concepts.
4.2 Ms. Moon provided relevant supplementary resources and technologies effectively for all students. The students had accesibility to the resources and technologies
throughout the lesson,
4.3 Ms. Moon guided the student how to utilize the tools on their laptops such as the search engine tab which helped them to learn,practice, and master the academic
language in the content area of Social Studies.


evaluations)
teaching. teaching.
Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

5.1
Teacher candidates engage students in applying content knowledge to real-world problems through the lens of 93 1.00
interdisciplinary themes (e.g., financial literacy, environmental literacy).
5.2
Teacher candidates facilitate students’ ability to develop diverse social and cultural perspectives that expand 93 1.00
their understanding of local and global issues and create novel approaches to solving problems.
Evidence
5.1 Ms. Moon differeniate the application of content knowledge to real-world problems through themes related to the social studies lesson.
5.2 Ms. Moon facilitate students to develop diverse social and cultural perspectives that expand their understanding of local and global issues and create novel approaches to
solving problems.


evaluations)
teaching. teaching.
Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

6.1
1.00
Teacher candidates design assessments that match learning objectives with assessment methods and minimize 94
sources of bias that can distort assessment results.
6.2
Teacher candidates work independently and collaboratively to examine test and other performance data to 93 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 93 1
language learning needs.
Evidence
6.1 Ms. Moon designed an electronic and handwritten BCR quiz to assess student understanding of the objectives based on limiting sources of bias.
6.2 It is evident that Ms. Moon reviewed and examined test and performance data to comprehend all student's performance to plan and guide planning for this lesson.
6.3 Based on documentation, it is evident that Ms. Moon made appropriate modifications in assessments for students with challenging learning needs.


evaluations)
teaching. 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 96 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 94 1.00
demonstrate knowledge and skill.
7.3
Teacher candidates plan for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior student 95 1.00
knowledge, and student interest.
Evidence
7.1 Ms. Moon provided learning strategies, accommodations, and implemented differentiated instruction in terms of content and process for all students in her class,
7.2 Ms. Moon provided multiple ways to demonstrate knowledge and skill by utilizing effective sequencing of learning experiences as it pertained to the lesson.
7.3 Ms. Moon use of formative and summative assessment data, prior student knowledge, and student interest to plan and execute an engaging and high-interest
activity lesson.


evaluations)
teaching. 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) in 94 1.00
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, interpret, 94 1.00
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,
95
1.00
and helping students to question).
Evidence
8.1 Ms. Moon demonstrated a variety of roles during the instructional process in a seamless manner. She altered her role as a coach, facilitator, and instructor based on the
student's needs.
8.2 Ms. Moon presented students with an array of learning skills (note-taking, research, communication, and organization) including using the tools on the computer to
access, interpret, evaluate, and apply information as it related to the objectives.
8.3 Ms. Moon prompt and posed high-level questions to the students elicit their ideas and thinking processes. The student's responses to questions as well as asked Ms.
Moon questions. .


evaluations)
teaching. 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., systematic 1.00
observation, information about students, and research) to evaluate the outcomes of teaching and learning and 94
to adapt planning and practice.
9.2
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside the 94 1.00
school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
Evidence
9.1 Documentation revealed that Ms. Moon collaborates with her fellow colleagues and independently utilize an array of data to evaluate the results of teaching and learning
as well as to adjust planning and practice.
9.2 The cooperating teacher (Ms. Jones) reported that Ms. Moons regularly sought professional, community, and technological resources within and outside the learning
environment as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem-solving.


evaluations)
teaching. teaching.
Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

10.1
Teacher candidates use technological tools and a variety of communication strategies to build local and global 94 1.00
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 94 1.00
enact system change.
Evidence
10.1 According to the collaborative teacher (Ms. Jones) expressed that Ms. Moon utilizes technological tools accompany with different communication strategies to build and
sustain local learning communities that engage students, families, and fellow colleagues.
10.2 Ms. Jones, the cooperative teacher, reported that Ms. Moon advocates for student's needs, enhance the learning community, and to amend system change.

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning

evaluations)
teaching. teaching.
Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning Score No Evidence

Teacher candidates demonstrate an understanding of their impact on student learning as evidenced in the
Student Teaching Evaluation of Performance (STEP) and other formative and summative assessments. 95 1.00
Evidence
Ms. Moon exhibits comprehension and the impact on student learning as evidence in the Student Teaching Evaluation of Performance (STEP) and other formative and
summative assessments.

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

93.96 %
ATTACHMENTS
Clinical Practice Time Log:
(Required)
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
Naomi Hill (Nov 7, 2019) Nov 7, 2019

Scanned with CamScanner

Clinical Practice Evaluation 2 - Single Placement Encrypted 1 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clinical Practice Evaluation 2 - Single Placement Encrypted 1 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Jasmine Moon 20563906

Master of Education in Secondary Education

SEC-590 9/5/2019 12/18/2019

Calvin Rodwell Elementary/ Middle School

Tracey Harrison Jones

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

Jasmine Moon 20563906

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

Jasmine Moon 20563906

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

Jasmine Moon 20563906

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence

Jasmine Moon 20563906

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score No Evidence

Jasmine Moon 20563906

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

Jasmine Moon 20563906

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

Jasmine Moon 20563906

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score No Evidence

Jasmine Moon 20563906

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

Jasmine Moon 20563906

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score No Evidence

Jasmine Moon 20563906

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

Jasmine Moon 20563906

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning Score No Evidence

Jasmine Moon 20563906

Total Scored Percentage:

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

Naomi Hill (Nov 7, 2019) Nov 7, 2019

You might also like