Clinical Evaluation 2

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S
Brooke Warner 20560602

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________
Master of Education in Elementary Education

PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ELM-590 1/9/2020 4/22/2020

COURSE: _____________________________________________________ START DATE: ____________________________ END DATE: _____________________
Sonshine Christian Elementary

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Washington
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________
Amber Lee
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Susan Bejarano
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

EVALUATION 2S TOTAL
POINTS 93.28 points 93.28 %
25 2,500.00 2332 100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 100 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 92
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. Brooke Warner creates age appropriate lessons and instruction. She is collaborative and understands the importance of families and the school community. Candidate
meets twice a week with grade team members to discuss student progress, assessments and upcoming instruction/events.


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 93 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 92 1.00
development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular learning 92 1.00
differences or needs.
Evidence
Ms. Warner is supportive of goal setting in the classroom and provides targeted instruction. Academic and content language is promoted within lessons to support student
learning/comprehension.


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
Candidate is equitable in providing targeted instruction to meet learning goals and promote student learning. She is respectful to students and all school stakeholders.


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 92 1.00
relevance for all students.
4.3
Teacher candidates create opportunities for students to learn, practice, and master academic language in their 93 1.00
content area.
Evidence
Candidate engages students in content vocabulary and academic language to increase comprehension and mastery. She bridges prior knowledge and lessons to new
learning goals/engagement with scaffolded lessons


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 92 1.00
their understanding of local and global issues and create novel approaches to solving problems.
Evidence
Students are supported with cultural events and perspectives which are integrated into academic learning goals. She provides real world/global references to support
comprehension. Literacy is utilized to promote comprehension to real world events.


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
Ms. Warner collaborates with her mentor and colleagues in support of data driven assessments and instruction. She aligns assessments to measure targeted learning goals.


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 94 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 93 1.00
knowledge, and student interest.
Evidence
Ms. Warner sequences lessons to guide students through learning experiences that target the learning goal. She engages students in reading, speaking, writing and creative
experiences. She assesses in “real time” to gauge her own instruction. Formative and summative assessments are aligned to learning goals to measure student
progress/mastery.


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, 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,
95
1.00
and helping students to question).
Evidence
Candidate utilizes guided questioning to direct student responses and learning towards targeted goals. She varies her role as facilitator of learning to direct instruction while
eliciting student responses/engagement.Strengths:
•Positive and supportive reinforcement: I love that hand. Do you want to get help from a friend? Good job, X. Good team-work. (Student safe/centered learning environment
by picking a friend to help with an answer) I love the way, X is sitting, criss cross apple sauce. Give yourselves a pat on the back. You guys are doing awesome. You guys
are doing an amazing job. I love your hand. Good job. Good job, buddy..kiss your brain. That was an amazing job and a long time to sit. I’m so happy you got that
answer..but..
•Classroom management: Eyes on me. Classity class (?) Do you want to take a break? Why don’t you go take a break? Class, class. Would you like to come back? Class,
class..eyes on me. Class, class. I’m going to wait till it’s quiet.


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 93 1.00
school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
Evidence
Ms. Warner understands the importance of collaboration with colleagues in support student learning and assessment. She utilizes Remind to communicate and actively
researches in the community library.


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
Candidate comprehends the importance of utilizing effective strategies and lessons to increase learning, therefore, impacting the whole community. She communicates with
parents and the community through Remind which provides increased knowledge and collaboration with stakeholders.

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. 92 1.00
Evidence
Ms. Warner has integrated the STEP protocols in the creation of a five day unit of instruction which upholds strategic formative and summative assessments to advance
learner progress/outcomes. Lesson Observation Comments:
Strengths:
•Anticipatory set of asking about “retelling” why it’s important.
•Partner discourse increases language and cognition. For younger learners, a minute might be too long. Try timing 15 -20 seconds for student A and another 15-20 seconds
for Student B.
•Reviewing book parts: illustrations, title
•Higher level questions: What do we use wool for? What does admire mean? What does it mean by “the thumb?” Do you think the story was fictional or not?
•Introducing content vocabulary words promotes comprehension: mittens, wool, burrow, admire, drowsy
•Reading with animation/expression brings text to life, models expressive reading and increases student interest
•Integrating literacy to promote learning goals is high interest, builds connections and

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

93.28 %
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
Susan Bejarano (Feb 25, 2020) Feb 25, 2020

31 DAYS - SB
Grand Canyon University
ELM590 Lesson Observation 2 Feb. 25, 2020
Teacher Candidate: Brooke Warner – ELM590

School: Sonshine Christian Elementary School, 11208 NE Hazel Dell Ave, Vancouver, WA
Mentor Teacher: Amber Lee
Faculty Supervisor: Susan Bejarano
Lesson time: 8:45 am PST
Grade level: Kinder
Content Area: ELA (Sequence, Retell)
Lesson Plan: Yes
Learning Objectives:
 Students will identify beginning, middle and end of a story.
 I can re-tell a story
Grouping: Whole group
Assessment: Students will be assessed through informal assessments through their
kinesthetic (thumbs up) and written (graphic organizer) responses.
Observation:
9:45 am: Ms. Brooke Warner began with asking how students are feeling. Students were the learning goals of
“retelling” a story. She asked why it’s important to retell a story. Students answered. She asked multiple students.
9:52 am: Students engaged in partner dialogue.
9:54 am: T showed illustrations. Students answered, “Sock.” The T said it was a mitten.
9:58 am: Vocabulary words were covered.
10:00 am: T read the book and students answered questions.
10:04 am: The T continued reading and asked individual students what the next animal was (owl). This was the
fourth animal.
10:08 am: T asked the students if the story was fictional. Students answered. The T asked what the next animal to
go into the mouth.
10:12 am: T asked what could help to retell the story.
10:14 am: Students would draw/write what happened in the beginning, middle and end of the story
Conclusion
Strengths:
 Positive and supportive reinforcement: I love that hand. Do you want to get help from a friend? Good job,
X. Good team-work. (Student safe/centered learning environment by picking a friend to help with an
answer) I love the way, X is sitting, criss cross apple sauce. Give yourselves a pat on the back. You guys
are doing awesome. You guys are doing an amazing job. I love your hand. Good job. Good job,
buddy..kiss your brain. That was an amazing job and a long time to sit. I’m so happy you got that
answer..but..
 Classroom management: Eyes on me. Classity class (?) Do you want to take a break? Why don’t you go
take a break? Class, class. Would you like to come back? Class, class..eyes on me. Class, class. I’m
going to wait till it’s quiet. Countdown to get attention. Oh, class class. Keep bubble in your mouth. I’m so
happy you got that answer..but what do we need to do? Eyes on me. Shh..
 Anticipatory set of asking about “retelling” why it’s important.
 Partner discourse increases language and cognition. For younger learners, a minute might be too long. Try
timing 15 -20 seconds for student A and another 15-20 seconds for Student B.
 Reviewing book parts: illustrations, title
 Higher level questions: What do we use wool for? What does admire mean? What does it mean by “the
thumb?” Do you think the story was fictional or not?
 Introducing content vocabulary words promotes comprehension: mittens, wool, burrow, admire, drowsy
 Reading with animation/expression brings text to life, models expressive reading and increases student
interest
 Integrating literacy to promote learning goals is high interest, builds connections and meaning
 Use of illustrations and visuals to support comprehension and meaning.
 Student input, Raise your hand if you would ever argue with a bear.” This allows higher cognition and
brings text to life, makes a connection
 Supporting retell by using key words: first, second… and asking student to define “retell.”
 Modeling drawing for students provides a supportive visual of expected performance
 Concluding assessment,” Who can teach someone? Do you know what it means to retell a story?” provided
an informal assessment on student self-assessment. Kinesthetic engagement thumbs up/down and
sideways is a great way to measure student understanding and “feelings” about performance.
Opportunities for Growth/Ideas to Implement:
 Obs. 2: Partner or pair/share takes practice and should be modeled with shorter “sharing” times for young
learners. When reading about the animals going into the mitten…this would be a good time for partner
share within 15 seconds to tell what animal may come in next. Practice one word responses within
pair/share to allow practice and mastery. These answers and timelines can then, be extended.
Modeling expected student performance. Would it be possible to model pair/share with an assistant or a
student for others to see? This could be done within the lesson or times throughout the day with other
content areas or tasks. Practicing pair/share could be done with any area, such as, clean up time.
Partners could tell each other what they will do to clean their area and then, proceed. After the task, ask
them to share if they did what they said they would do to clean and if their area is clean.
At one point, students were asked to write their names on their papers. This would be a good time to
practice a type of partner communication by asking neighbors/partners to look at their neighbor’s paper and
thumbs up if there is a name on it. This would be practice and scaffolding to pair/share activities.
One aspect that could ensure increased desired behaviors is to allow Think Time. Students need
dedicated time (10 seconds) to gather their thoughts before engaging. This will increase the time to come
up with appropriate ideas and decreases anxiety about speaking at the spur of the moment for some
learners. Think-Pair-Share promotes student to student discourse. This strategy enables students who
may need time to process or think about the question and formulate an answer, the opportunity to do so and
not be hurried along, or have another student call out the answer. This strategy provides students the
opportunity to think and develop answers to the question, articulate their thoughts, participate in discussion,
think at higher levels and become much more engaged in the learning process.
 Obs. 2: Sentence stems and cloze activities promote language, increase student engagement and
cognition and supports learner success. Young writers can be supported through sentence stems to
provide scaffolded support for writing. Are young writers able to begin writing with sentence frames that
include First, Next, At the end to support their writing? Sentence stems are intended to facilitate students'
participation in academic conversations, writing and support students to develop the language expected in
school. Sentence frames, starters and signal words can help students be more successful in learning
both content and academic language. Sentence frames provide an opportunity for students to use key
vocabulary while providing a structure that may be higher than what they could produce on their own.
Sentence stems are a learning scaffold that can help students respond (orally and through writing) using
complete sentences. These are a couple of examples gleaned from the internet. There are so many others
that could support young writers.
 Obs. 1: Teacher to student discourse occurred in the lesson. Teacher to student is when there is direct instruction and guided
questioning. When the teacher asks one student to answer, this is Teacher to Student discourse. Would it be possible to integrate
Student to Student discourse? Student to student discourse is when a student turns to a partner and shares an idea. This
increases student engagement, discourse, cognition and builds social skills. Instead of engaging students to individually respond to
the teacher, would it increase student engagement to have them turn to a neighbor and quickly share an idea, such as, “Turn to a
partner and tell them what you would do if a frog jumped on your lap. You have ten seconds.” When students share with each
other, they need specific guidelines, timelines and think time first. Give students ten seconds to think of an answer, have partner 1
tell his idea within ten seconds. Then, have student 2 tell student 1, her answer. Increasing student to student discourse, in lieu
of asking one student to answer would increase language and engagement in learning goal/vocabulary.
 Real time assessment is necessary to gauge student learning during the lesson. A real time assessment can be done through
student responses, visual cues, kinesthetic cues (thumbs up, sideways, down) to indicate thinking/answers. Students can be asked
to quickly turn to their partners and provide a one-two word response while the teacher listens. When these informal, real time
student assessments demonstrate mastery, the next segment or step toward learning goal mastery can be implemented and
evidenced. Real time assessing students will reflect whether to proceed, continue engagement or back track and review as
necessary. What did the real time assessments demonstrate for overall student learning in today’s lesson.? Which students
struggled, which maintained level of learning needed and which needed enrichment to advanced levels?
 Obs. 1: Vocabulary and academic language are similar but, very different. Which words were the academic language and which
were content vocabulary? Have students engage in both types of vocabulary. Students can articulate what she will be engaged
in/learning goals along with targeted academic language. An example is, “I will make predictions.” Engage students in discourse
using both academic and content vocabulary to increase retention and comprehension
It is a pleasure to observe the second lesson. Thank you for integrating effective strategies in support of increased
student learning.
Respectfully,
Susan Bejarano
Susan Bejarano
Faculty Supervisor
College of Education
Grand Canyon University
602.403.7171
susan.bejarano@my.gcu.edu

Clinical Evaluation 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

Clinical Evaluation 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Brooke Warner 20560602

Master of Education in Elementary Education

ELM-590 1/9/2020 4/22/2020

Sonshine Christian Elementary

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

Brooke Warner 20560602

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

Brooke Warner 20560602

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

Brooke Warner 20560602

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence

Brooke Warner 20560602

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score No Evidence

Brooke Warner 20560602

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

Brooke Warner 20560602

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

Brooke Warner 20560602

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score No Evidence

Brooke Warner 20560602

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

Brooke Warner 20560602

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score No Evidence

Brooke Warner 20560602

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

Brooke Warner 20560602

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning Score No Evidence

Brooke Warner 20560602

Total Scored Percentage:

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

Susan Bejarano (Feb 25, 2020) Feb 25, 2020

ELM590 Lesson Observation 2 Feb. 25, 2020

Teacher Candidate: Brooke Warner – ELM590

9:52 am: Students engaged in partner dialogue.

9:58 am: Vocabulary words were covered.

10:00 am: T read the book and students answered questions.

10:12 am: T asked what could help to retell the story.

Opportunities for Growth/Ideas to Implement:

You might also like