Clinical Evaluation 3

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3
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:
141.36 points
EVALUATION 3 TOTAL
POINTS 94.24 %
25.00 2,500.00 2,356.00 150
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
150
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
150

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 95
learning.
1.2
Teacher candidates collaborate with families, communities, colleagues, and other professionals to promote 1.00
94
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. )
Ms. Brooke Warner is highly collaborative with her mentor, colleagues and parents. She supports team collaboration to review data in support of meeting student needs.
She engages in ongoing collaboration with colleagues, parents and school stakeholders.


evaluations)
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
94
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 93
their development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular 93 1.00
learning differences or needs.
Evidence
Ms. Warner supports each child’s needs with strategic and differentiated support and opportunities of learning. She accesses school resources to meet the needs of her
students.


evaluations)
Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence

3.1
Teacher candidates manage the learning environment to actively and equitably engage students by 1.00
94
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 95
environment.
Evidence
Ms. Warner has created an equitable learning classroom environment which provides each child with the time and attention needed. She is respectful of all school
stakeholders.
Brooke Warner
TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ 20560602
STUDENT NUMBER____________________

evaluations)
Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score No Evidence

4.1
Teacher candidates stimulate student reflection on prior content knowledge, link new concepts to familiar 95 1.00
concepts, and make connections to students’ experiences.
4.2
Teacher candidates use supplementary resources and technologies effectively to ensure accessibility and 93 1.00
relevance for all students.
4.3
Teacher candidates create opportunities for students to learn, practice, and master academic language in 94 1.00
their content area.
Evidence
Ms. Warner is a reflective practitioner and seeks multiple ways to promote student learning. She introduces both content vocabulary and academic language for all
language learners.


evaluations)
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 94
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 93 1.00
their understanding of local and global issues and create novel approaches to solving problems.
Evidence
Candidate references real world and global connections to increase student comprehension. She provides opportunities for students to experience multiple cultural
aspects.


evaluations)
Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

6.1
Teacher candidates design assessments that match learning objectives with assessment methods and 95 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 94 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
94 1
language learning needs.
Evidence
Ms. Warner is knowledgeable in the creation of lessons that align the learning goals with engagement and ultimate assessments. She works with her team weekly to
collaborate and review data.


evaluations)
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 95 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 creates effective lessons with targeted learning goals and integrates appropriate sequencing, accommodations, resources and aligned assessments.


evaluations)
Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

8.1
Teacher candidates vary their role in the instructional process (e.g., instructor, facilitator, coach, audience) 95 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, 94 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, 96 1.00
and helping students to question).
Evidence
Strengths:
•Positive and supportive actions and verbal reinforcement: Good job.
•Classroom management actions and verbal reinforcement: If you can hear me touch your head…eyes on me. Class, class. 3, 2, 1. Would you go sit by X? You guys are
talking. You’re going to be right here. Oh, no Ms. W’s class. Stopping lesson to regroup students. I’m glad you’re not talking to your friends right now. Can you tell me about
that during recess?
•Supportive and encouraging tone of voice. I need you to go sit over there.
•Stating the learning goal at the onset of the lesson prepares learners for content/learning goals
•Eliciting prior knowledge about dinosaurs prepares students for learning and builds a connection to learning goals.
•Use of big books with enlarged print/pictures captures student attention, is high interest and increases comprehension
•Coaching cognition by “visualizing” pictures in their heads. “That’s what good readers do.” Close your eyes and think about wha


evaluations)
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
95
learning and to adapt planning and practice.
9.2
1.00
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside 94
the school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
Evidence
Ms. Warner is part of the IEP team and uses data to plan for individual student learning. She seeks in school and community resources to support her instruction.


evaluations)
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 95
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 95 1.00
enact system change.
Evidence
Ms. Warner utilizes email and technological resources to build transparent and supportive communication with parents and all school stakeholders. She works hard to
strengthen the learning environment for each child.Strengths:
•Positive and supportive actions and verbal reinforcement: Good job.
•Classroom management actions and verbal reinforcement: If you can hear me touch your head…eyes on me. Class, class. 3, 2, 1. Would you go sit by X? You guys are
talking. You’re going to be right here. Oh, no Ms. W’s class. Stopping lesson to regroup students. I’m glad you’re not talking to your friends right now. Can you tell me about
that during recess?
•Supportive and encouraging tone of voice. I need you to go sit over there.
•Stating the learning goal at the onset of the lesson prepares learners for content/learning goals
•Eliciting prior knowledge about dinosaurs prepares students for learning and builds a connection to learning goals.
•Use of big books with enlarged

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

94.24 %
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
Susan Bejarano (Mar 20, 2020) Mar 20, 2020

Grand Canyon University
ELM590 Lesson Observation 3 Mar. 18, 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: 9:30 am PST
Grade level: Kinder
Content Area: ELA
Lesson Plan: Yes
Learning Objectives:
 Students will identify sequence of events
 I can put a story in order
Grouping: Whole group
Assessment: Cut and paste visual activity to arrange the order of events from the story. Informal visual
and kinesthetic engagement
Observation:
9:17 am: Ms. Brooke Warner began with gaining student attention. She said they would be learning about dinosaurs
and asked students what they knew.
9:21 am: Students engaged in partner sharing.
9:22 am: T engaged student in discussion using a big book.
9:24 am: T said to listen and make pictures in their heads (visualization). She would ask students questions.
9:25 am: T asked the title of the book and what the book was about.
9:29 am: The T kept reading.
9:33 am: T read from the book and asked questions.
9:36 am: The story ended, and the T asked what happened at the beginning of the story. She asked who could tell
someone else about the story.
9:38 am: T asked if students could retell the story.
Lesson conclusion.
Strengths:
 Positive and supportive actions and verbal reinforcement: Good job.
 Classroom management actions and verbal reinforcement: If you can hear me touch your head…eyes on
me. Class, class. 3, 2, 1. Would you go sit by X? You guys are talking. You’re going to be right here. Oh,
no Ms. W’s class. Stopping lesson to regroup students. I’m glad you’re not talking to your friends right now.
Can you tell me about that during recess?
 Supportive and encouraging tone of voice. I need you to go sit over there.
 Stating the learning goal at the onset of the lesson prepares learners for content/learning goals
 Eliciting prior knowledge about dinosaurs prepares students for learning and builds a connection to learning
goals.
 Use of big books with enlarged print/pictures captures student attention, is high interest and increases
comprehension
 Coaching cognition by “visualizing” pictures in their heads. “That’s what good readers do.” Close your eyes
and think about what it would be like..what it would sound like..imagine in your head what that would look
like.”
 Integrating literacy to support the learning goal promotes retention and comprehension.
 Use of timer to communicate amount of time, is respectful to learner and builds urgency.
 Partner share increases cognition, language and builds social skills and changes the type of student
engagement within a lesson.
 Making predictions about the content of the book increases higher level cognition and engages students in
the content of the book
 Telling students what to focus on increases comprehension and focus: at the beginning, middle, end of
story.
 Using academic language and key vocabulary: fiction, non-fiction, visualization, curious
 Telling students actions/skills to engage in because “that’s what good readers do.”
 Demonstrating empathy for student that did not get to respond and allowing him to answer (a strategy might
be to tell him what he has to say is important and save it for the end of the lesson).
 Guided questioning during the reading of the big books guides student thinking and targets specific content.
Making predictions about the rockslide.
Opportunities for Growth/Ideas to Implement:
 Obs. 3: Visuals and/or graphic organizers provide organization and clear diagram of content. A visual
showing beginning, middle and end would support and guide students toward learning goal mastery. The
graphic organizer would be the framework for their answers which could be illustrated, presented verbally or
written with support. Having a graphic organizer to model first, then engage student input and ultimately
have them fill in their own would cement the sequence. This could be modeled in the I do, We do format
before allowing students to engage in You do.
Graphic organizers ( http://www.inspiration.com/visual-learning/graphic-organizers) are highly effective tools and can
be implemented in any lesson. They visually present organized information to promote meaning and
comprehension. Graphic organizers present material through the visual and spatial modalities and help
students internalize what they are learning. Creating a strong visual picture, graphic organizers support
students by enabling them to literally see connections and relationships between facts, information, and
terms. Our minds create structures to store newly acquired information and connect it to previous
knowledge. The graphic organizers are visualizations of these mental storage systems and serve to support
students in remembering and connecting information. When students remember and assimilate information,
they can delve into more critical thinking. How could these diagrams be integrated into the lesson?
 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
The lesson included many effective strategies. Thank you for allowing me to visit during this difficult period.
Respectfully,
Susan Bejarano
Susan Bejarano
Faculty Supervisor
College of Education
Grand Canyon University
602.403.7171
susan.bejarano@my.gcu.edu

Clinical Evaluation 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

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

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

Total Scored Percentage:

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

Susan Bejarano (Mar 20, 2020) Mar 20, 2020

ELM590 Lesson Observation 3 Mar. 18, 2020

Teacher Candidate: Brooke Warner – ELM590

9:21 am: Students engaged in partner sharing.

9:22 am: T engaged student in discussion using a big book.

9:29 am: The T kept reading.

9:33 am: T read from the book and asked questions.

9:38 am: T asked if students could retell the story.

Opportunities for Growth/Ideas to Implement:

You might also like