Elm490 Evaluation 3

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3
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:
145.5 points
EVALUATION 3 TOTAL
POINTS 97.00 %
25.00 2,500.00 2,425.00 150
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 97
learning.
1.2
Teacher candidates collaborate with families, communities, colleagues, and other professionals to promote 1.00
97
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 ZOOM lesson that the student teacher created contained numerous opportunities for individual students to experience success. She took in to account that some
students would need a reminder of the topic being discussed and helped others in ending each one's discussion before inviting the next one to engage with class. During the
second portion of the lesson, when having students listen and follow her directions, she was using all modes of instruction. She modeled the drawing of each step so
students could see her results. She demonstrated her awareness of media resources via the varied materials and technology incorporated in to the lesson in supporting the
student.She continues to collaborate with the cooperating teacher in planning lesson during the school closure period.


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
97
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 97
their development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular 97 1.00
learning differences or needs.
Evidence
The teacher candidate adapted her instruction per the needs of individual students during the ZOOM lesson of both the verbally sharing time and the session in following
directions while drawing a bunny. Some of the students she taught during the observed lesson have learning delays. As she did during the observed evaluated lessons, she
checked for comprehension per what she observed and students responses. With great patience, she reviewed the steps in completing the step by step drawing and
explanation of homework. She skillfully uses expression and visuals to help the student stay on track.


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
98
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 98
environment.
Evidence
During the Zoom share time with the 25 students, the teacher candidate demonstrated skill in managing the learning environment by how she had the students engaged
in the lesson. Each student was called on to share of his/her activity while at home. She asked questions to each one to get more detail and affirmed their conversation.
She responded to each of their questions and, when creating 'off track' discussion immediately reacted to her redirections. Her verbal and non-verbal language created a
positive setting and one where the student was comfortable in interacting with her.
Olivia Brunt
TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ 20326663
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 97 1.00
concepts, and make connections to students’ experiences.
4.2
Teacher candidates use supplementary resources and technologies effectively to ensure accessibility and 97 1.00
relevance for all students.
4.3
Teacher candidates create opportunities for students to learn, practice, and master academic language in 97 1.00
their content area.
Evidence
The student reminded her student about need for their listening skills to be active while she gave step by step instructions as they had worked on during a previous
lessons doing similar activities . She demonstrated her awareness of reading development per use of varied strategies in having them link their previous knowledge with
the lesson on Easter/bunnies, etc. They all had the opportunity to learn, practice and master the language being used in the lesson as demonstrated through students'
results.


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 96
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 96 1.00
their understanding of local and global issues and create novel approaches to solving problems.
Evidence
The teacher candidate was observed via the ZOOM lesson as she engaged the 25 first grade students in individual conversations and following directions to
produce a drawing.worked with a student who demonstrated kindergarten level skills. She talked about whether students would want the Easter bunny to stay She
was able to ask comprehension questions and create discussion that was clearly enjoyable to the student. They had to develop the ability to listen while one
student talks online so all others could hear.


evaluations)
Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

6.1
Teacher candidates design assessments that match learning objectives with assessment methods and 97 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 97 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
96 1
language learning needs.
Evidence
The teacher candidate designed a lesson that had various opportunities for student to show their understanding of lesson for her to make formative checks. As was observed
in her previous evaluated lessons and per the cooperating teacher, Ms. Brunt values collecting data on the progress her students make daily during their instructional
sessions. She always has a formative assessment following each lesson and provided summative measures before going on to next material. During the observed lesson,
Ms. Brunt was able to observe each student per the visualization of having each one on the screen at the same time. She could observe which ones were paying attention
verses those needing some prompting.


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 97 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 97 1.00
demonstrate knowledge and skill.
7.3
Teacher candidates plan for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior student 97 1.00
knowledge, and student interest.
Evidence
The teacher candidate provided the supervising teachers with information on the ZOOM lesson per a plan that demonstrates developed skills in planning for quality and
differentiated instruction. She noted the objectives at the start of the lesson and followed her plans through the formative assessing that took place the end. She used various
resources and materials.


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) 97 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, 96 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, 98 1.00
and helping students to question).
Evidence
used the instructional role of being an instructor, facilitator and coach. She is aware of how she can take the role of being the audience. With students being new to online
instruction, and no doc camera, whiteboard, etc available, having them be the audience was a little challenging. She did have them take turns in share time.She used various
strategies in sync with materials very effectively such as visuals of her drawing each step in creating the finished product of a bunny.. She used effective land varied discussion
strategies. She stopped after each step was completed by students to see how they were doing before going on to the next part of drawing.


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
98
learning and to adapt planning and practice.
9.2
1.00
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside 97
the school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
Evidence
Previous to the school closure due to the coronavirus, the teacher candidate, Ms. Brunt, met daily over lunch with the other first grade teacher, including her cooperating
teacher. She has proven that she works very well with colleagues in discussing best practices for students and other pertinent topics. She continues to reflect on her
instruction, results, use of materials, data collected, etc. She is learning how to maintaining compliance with confidential information, scheduling meetings with parent, etc. She
is also learning how to vary her questioning to varied depths of knowledge depending on topic and students. She also collaborates with parents during this time of school
closure. The homework for the observed ZOOM lesson was emailed to the parents with the option of communicating back with her as needed.


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 97
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 97 1.00
enact system change.
Evidence
The teacher candidate has done an outstanding job in learning how to continue the educational process for her 1st graders during the school shut down. Per the three
completed observations and interviews completed by this supervising teacher and the cooperating teacher Ms. Brunt is observed to be an educator with passion and
tremendous skills as demonstrated in the months at the school site. She shows all the signs of being an engaged and most capable educator.

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

97.00 %
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

Dr. Margaret Jacobs
Dr. Margaret Jacobs (Apr 12, 2020) Apr 12, 2020

Elm490 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

Elm490 Evaluation 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

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

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

Total Scored Percentage:

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

You might also like