Clinical Practice Evaluation 3

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3
Lauren Farney 20304484

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: _____________________
Northwest Christian School

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Arizona
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________
Debby Noland
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Shawna Martino
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:
133.74 points 89.16 %

EVALUATION 3 TOTAL
POINTS
25.00 2,500.00 2,229.00 150

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
150
0
0
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 90
learning.
1.2
Teacher candidates collaborate with families, communities, colleagues, and other professionals to promote 1.00
95
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. )
The candidate is improving her instructional skills, but still working on challenging students to think on their own especially at the higher DOK levels 3/4.
She is doing a fantastic job of reaching out, tutoring, calling and door to door drop offs of school materials during the pandemic. She is online for each days time of instruction
and spends 2-3 hours tutoring online.


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
87
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 95 1.00
learning differences or needs.
Evidence
The candidate is designing her own lesson independently and able to deliver solid instructions, meeting various needs for repetition with material, partner work, needed
movement. However, the lesson plan itself is still missing specific differentiation. The lessons are still mostly whole group all at the same level, with minor modification. She is
working with the ELL student one on one to aid English skills and vocabulary, but the lesson plan does not reflect any alterations or aids for this student. She is supporting of
the students needs online at this type with a questions and answer time geared to those who need additional support.


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
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 95
environment.
Evidence
The teacher candidate demonstrated the management tools and strategies she would be applying throughout the mock video lesson. She used quiet signal, pulling of
name sticks and allowing discussion time with partners. Her voice is solid, good tone and very encouraging to all involved. She has also had positive communication in
various ways with students through distance learning, like one on one tutoring.
Lauren Farney
TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ 20304484
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 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 candidate had a well thought-out and executed anticipatory set for the mock lesson. She had been consistently making connections with prior knowledge during her
online lessons with students as well. She is accessing a variety of materials from websites to plan lessons, but could have suggested using the document camera (in the
lesson plan) for the mock lesson to make the story more accessible for all students. She is tutoring 2-3 hours daily and available online for questions/answer sessions. Her
mock lesson also created multiple opportunities to learn and practice - with worksheet, partner game and out loud discussion.


evaluations)
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 1.00
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 88 1.00
their understanding of local and global issues and create novel approaches to solving problems.
Evidence
The candidate has used her distance teaching as a real opportunity to relate hope and trust to the students even with in lesson like science and social studies,
promoting learning "from the safety" of their home. She ahs used the school shut down to point out how we can still communicate and grow online.


evaluations)
Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

6.1
Teacher candidates design assessments that match learning objectives with assessment methods and 85 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 80 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
80 1
language learning needs.
Evidence
The teacher candidate had good examples of informal assessment, multiple ways, paired activity and independent worksheet, in her mock lesson. However she needs to
continue working on lesson objective and assessment alignment as she tends to prepare lessons geared for the lower 1/3 of the class. She does work well collaboratively to
gather data provided to plan her units, but her work with the information is limited at this point. She is improving but still needs to work on adding rigor to lesson.


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 82 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 85 1.00
demonstrate knowledge and skill.
7.3
Teacher candidates plan for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior student 88 1.00
knowledge, and student interest.
Evidence
The candidate had a mock lesson that had only basic differentiation, not much specific to demonstrate her skills and understanding in this area, both for those who struggle
and those who need more rigor. She is doing what is possible for having online lessons that provide multiple ways of demonstrating knowledge, like an at home, hands on
plant unit. The mock lesson provided did have a good variety of skills and student to student, student to teacher interaction. The candidate knows each students abilities and
is creating lessons that peak their interests.


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) 93 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, 85 1.00
and helping students to question).
Evidence
The candidate has been serving in all roles during the online instructions, and also demonstrated several roles during the mock lesson as well. She implements multiple
methods of technology but is currently limited on feedback to use to evaluate the level of student understanding. Her mock lesson did call for the use of a range of learning
skills- reading, writing, auditory and verbal skills. She continues to work on incorporating higher rigor with DOK levels of 3/4 for questions, her mock lesson demonstrated some
higher rigor by asking kids to give their own examples of homophones.


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
90
learning and to adapt planning and practice.
9.2
1.00
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside 95
the school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
Evidence
The candidate is still in the learning stage with using a variety of data, and there is some limited collaboration with the mentor for this information currently, but assessment and
feedback on understanding is difficult to quantify at this time. She is very active in serving her community, using the resources provided and reaching out to families in multiple
ways.


evaluations)
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 1.00
93
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 93 1.00
enact system change.
Evidence
The candidate is great at communication her ideas and plans with her mentor and her class families to build them and keep them strong during this time of distancing, even
reaching out with materials door to door. She does consistently take the needs of each student into account, loves them all and works to help each on.

INSTRUCTIONS
Please review the "Total Scored Percentage" for accuracy and add any attachments before completing the "Agreement and Signature" section.
89.16 %
Total Scored Percentage:
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

Shawna L Martino
Shawna L Martino (Apr 15, 2020) Apr 15, 2020

Clinical Practice Evaluation 3

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 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Lauren Farney 20304484

Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education

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

Northwest Christian School

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

133.74 points 89.16 %

25.00 2,500.00 2,229.00 150

Lauren Farney 20304484

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

Lauren Farney 20304484

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

Lauren Farney 20304484

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

Lauren Farney 20304484

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

Lauren Farney 20304484

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

Lauren Farney 20304484

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score No Evidence

Lauren Farney 20304484

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

Lauren Farney 20304484

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score No Evidence

Lauren Farney 20304484

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

Lauren Farney 20304484

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

You might also like