Elm490 Eval 2

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S
Olivia Brunt 20326663

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________
Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education

PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ELM-490 1/6/2020 4/26/2020

COURSE: _____________________________________________________ START DATE: ____________________________ END DATE: _____________________
West Wing Elementary School

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Arizona
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________
Kelly Bills
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Margaret Jacobs
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

EVALUATION 2S TOTAL
POINTS 93 points 93 %
25 2,500.00 2325 100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
100
0 0 0 0 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’ 94 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 93
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. )
The teacher candidate was observed teaching a group of around twenty-five, 1st grade students in the areas of English Language Art. She had a lesson plan ready for me for
the observation. She had developed a lesson that is part of the daily routine in reinforcing already reviewed concepts. At the start of the lesson, students remained at their
desks which formed tables of 4 students to read as many sounds, then words per minute. Students listened to each other for a fluency read. Results were noted on papers.
She has attended many meetings to further understand the grade level processes, the process of meeting students' individual needs, etc. in collaboration with families of
students and other colleagues.


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 95 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 95 1.00
development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular learning 95 1.00
differences or needs.
Evidence
The teacher candidate had multiple instructional strategies using visual, auditory and tactile supports. Students read sounds and sight/blended words aloud to themselves with
the visual in front of them. They also read their fluency passages aloud but to a peer. Peers helped one another with words read incorrectly. She had students standing in two
rows as they applied a physical 'punch' when said certain parts of words. She used a doc camera to have students read words, reading letter sounds and blending the sounds
into words. Without saying anything, she slowed the group down at one point so all could keep together. She used additional strategies such as having them put thumbs up
verses down when understanding. She is working on making sure all students are getting opportunities to participate verses the more vocal ones consistently sharing. She
provided feedback to each student per their responses. It was noted that all students remained engaged in this ELA routine of each day.


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, 91 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
95
1.00
environment.
Evidence
The teacher candidate always shows respect to each student and expresses appreciation for each one's uniqueness. During her lesson, she explained the expectations and
gave directions with examples. She allowed students to question and demonstrated patience for those needing support. She asked students to demonstrate when they were
ready to move on to another section of the lesson. She is learning to be checking that all students are engaged throughout the lesson. There were two diwsengaged
students during the whole group lessons but the rest were fully attentive and participating.


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 94 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
The teacher candidate had students reviewing sounds/words/blending as she went in to her ELA lesson. She had reinforced the expectations and routine as made clear
from students' responses. Her lesson plans included for students to learn and practice the new sounds while mastering the related academic language. She again made
sure students are getting opportunities to participate verses the more vocal ones consistently sharing. She provided feedback to each student per their responses. She
effectively used visuals as she instructed. It is apparent that the teacher candidate is familiar on the 1st grade level expectations and standards.


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 92 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 92 1.00
their understanding of local and global issues and create novel approaches to solving problems.
Evidence
The teacher candidate asked students questions which required them to reflect on how the ability of reading letters, giving the related sounds and being able to blend sounds
related to their lives as developing readers.


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 92 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 92 1
language learning needs.
Evidence
The teacher candidate is participating in progress monitoring students and taking the data to determine mastery levels of each students' mastery levels per 1st grade
standards/curriculum. She has observed how the cooperating teacher updates the progress reports and enters grades for report periods. She discusses ways for individual
students to make greater progress when such is not demonstrated. She is preparing to assist the cooperating teacher in the administration of state testing. The students provided
daily data per their own charting on their papers.


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 91 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 93 1.00
demonstrate knowledge and skill.
7.3
Teacher candidates plan for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior student 92 1.00
knowledge, and student interest.
Evidence
The teacher candidate takes needed time in familiarizing herself with each of the students in the room. She is learning about the process in identifying special education
needs and in the unique needs of the students in the class with IEPs/accommodations. She is regularly discussing the results of her instruction and how to make any needed
changes so that all students are progressing at their individual levels.


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 90 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, 93 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,
92
1.00
and helping students to question).
Evidence
The teacher candidate demonstrated her role as being an instructor throughout the lesson, as a facilitator as she monitored their reading and responses, as a coach as they
worked on independent work. She is starting to take the role of the audience when a student explains a portion of the lesson to the other students. She used the doc camera
and other visuals to enhance her ability to vary instruction and stimulate discussions. She wants to be using technology in her teaching. When students gave incorrect
answers, she probed them in getting them to respond correctly.


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 95
to adapt planning and practice.
9.2
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside the 92 1.00
school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
Evidence
The teacher candidate participates in the professional development when staff is provided training under various topics. She is learning about required testing which will take
place for certain grades and subject areas. The cooperating teacher is familarizing her with presenting information at conferences and other opportunities used to
communicate with parents. The student teacher is a hard worker and seeks learning as much as she can in becoming a great teacher. She and the other grade level teachers
have lunch together daily where they discuss breaking down the standards in to lessons, things that are working verses those that could be improved, etc.


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 91 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
The teacher candidate shares about concerns for individual students when meeting with the cooperating teacher. She meets with other staff members as part of the
Professional Learning Communities and is learning about tools and strategies to build relationships with families. She is becoming very aware of which students need
additional supports in providing them the greatest possibilities in being success. She participates in a weekly prayer time with parents and students in the community at a local
church before school.

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
The teacher candidate demonstrates a clear understanding of her impact on her students' learning as evidenced in the STEP and other assessments. She is a positive
representation of a well prepared teacher candidate and demonstrates needed skills to become a successful educator.

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

93 %
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

Margaret M Jacobs
Margaret M Jacobs (Feb 25, 2020) Feb 25, 2020

Elm490 Eval 2

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

Elm490 Eval 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Olivia Brunt 20326663

Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education

ELM-490 1/6/2020 4/26/2020

West Wing Elementary School

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

Olivia Brunt 20326663

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

Olivia Brunt 20326663

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

Olivia Brunt 20326663

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence

Olivia Brunt 20326663

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score No Evidence

Olivia Brunt 20326663

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

Olivia Brunt 20326663

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

Olivia Brunt 20326663

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score No Evidence

Olivia Brunt 20326663

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

Olivia Brunt 20326663

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score No Evidence

Olivia Brunt 20326663

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

Olivia Brunt 20326663

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning Score No Evidence

Olivia Brunt 20326663

Total Scored Percentage:

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

You might also like