Evaluation 2 Final

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S
Ketia Francois 20585487

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________
Master of Education in Secondary Education

PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SEC-590 1/30/2020 5/13/2020

COURSE: _____________________________________________________ START DATE: ____________________________ END DATE: _____________________
Mandan Senior High

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
North Dakota
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________
Jill Charlebois
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Barbara Appold
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

EVALUATION 2S TOTAL
POINTS 88 points 88 %
25 2,500.00 2200 100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 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’ 88 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 90
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. )
1.1- Ketia uses PPT. , auditory (chorale response) and games to engage her students.
1.2- PTC conferences went well according to the host teacher , and she has a good rapport with her 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 88 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 89 1.00
development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular learning 88 1.00
differences or needs.
Evidence
2.1-2.3- Sometimes Ketia is challenged by making things 'fun' for the students. She needs to realize that collaborating, and sharing materials, is not cheating. Vocabulary is
reinforced through quizlet and flashcards. Puzzles and other 'games' are used to reinforce learning goals.


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, 84 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
88
1.00
environment.
Evidence
3.1-3.2- Ketia needs to work on verbal and non-verbal cues to establish routines and expectations for behavior. She needs to not talk over the students in order to create a
learning environment conducive for all students to learn. She does provide opportunities for students to examine different cultural practices.


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 88 1.00
concepts, and make connections to students’ experiences.
4.2
Teacher candidates use supplementary resources and technologies effectively to ensure accessibility and 89 1.00
relevance for all students.
4.3
Teacher candidates create opportunities for students to learn, practice, and master academic language in their 90 1.00
content area.
Evidence
4.1-4.3- Ketia uses PPT to prepare lessons, and attempts to access prior knowledge to assimilate new content. Each student has an IPad and this technology is utilized
during lessons and assessments. Ketia speaks in the target language and prompts students to do so as well.


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 89 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 89 1.00
their understanding of local and global issues and create novel approaches to solving problems.
Evidence
5.1- 5.2-Ketia examinees the Haitian educational system as it compares to the US educational system, and thus, students are exposed to a more global concept of education.


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 90
sources of bias that can distort assessment results.
6.2
Teacher candidates work independently and collaboratively to examine test and other performance data to 87 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 87 1
language learning needs.
Evidence
6.1- Formative and summative assessments are given that directly reflect learning objectives.
6.2- Needs to prioritize between lesson planning and gathering and assessing performance data. Needs to become familiar with the concepts of Understanding by Design, and be
aware of the different levels of FR 1,2,and 3..
6.3- Helps students prepare for assessment at the different levels, but needs to be more cognizant of the expectations at each level.


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 88 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 90 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
7.1- Planning needs to be aware of the different levels and the scope and sequence of those levels, and use a variety of ways to achieve learning goals.
7.2- Uses multi-level questioning to assess all levels of understanding in lesson preparation
7.3- Needs to use informal and formal assessments to plan for instruction and remediation if necessary.


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 88 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, 88 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,
89
1.00
and helping students to question).
Evidence
8,1- Ketia has students present assignments to the class as she becomes the audience.
8.2- Clear and concise essential questions that transition into learning activities are examined using technology tools such as IPads.
8.3- Multi - level questioning is utilized to assess all levels of student understanding


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 85
to adapt planning and practice.
9.2
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside the 80 1.00
school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
Evidence
9.1- Ketia's cooperating teacher noted she needs to be more reflective of her practice. It is best to assess and reflect everyday to determine the good, the bad, and what needs
to go or what needs to change in a lesson.
9.2- Although her cooperating teacher indicated she believes Ketia has a good rapport with her colleagues, Ketia's unexpected and concerning explosive and accusatory
episode with her cooperating teacher is cause for considerable pause. The cooperating teacher is there for support, feedback and guidance, and the remarks made by Ketia
may certainly undermine that type of relationship.


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 90 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 90 1.00
enact system change.
Evidence
10.1- Canvas is employed to communicate with parents and students.
10.2- At this juncture with schools going remote because of state wide lock downs, the use of Canvas has been able to provide the students with a level of a ''stable" learning
environment.

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
Ketia completed the STEP requirement.

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

88 %
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

Dr.BARBARA E. APPOLD
Dr.BARBARA E. APPOLD (Mar 26, 2020) Mar 26, 2020
Authentisign ID: 55084653-5E8F-413F-96DA-63B3A7E3626C
KETIA- LESSON: THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IN HAITI/FRENCH III
KETIA PREPARED AN INFORMATIVE PPT TO INTRODUCE AND EXPLAIN THE

EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IN HAITI. HER HOST TEACHER NOTED SHE RELIES HEAVILY
ON PPT- HOWEVER, NOW THAT STUDENTS ARE AT HOME, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THIS
IS CURRENTLY AN EFFECTIVE MEANS OF ENGAGEMENT.
LESSON PLANS INDICATE KETIA ENCOURAGES STUDENTS TO SPEAK IN THE TARGET

LANGUAGE, AND INTRODUCES NEW VOCABULARY AND PROMOTES SPEAKING AND
WRITING IN THE TARGET LANGUAGE.
STUDENTS ARE PROVIDED A VOCABULARY SHEET WITH PICTURES THAT DEPICT THE
VOCABULARY WORD.
STUDENTS WILL USE I PADS FOR FORMATIVE AND SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENTS.

STUDENTS WILL PRESENT THEIR PARAGRAPHS TO THE CLASS.
STUDENTS HAVE A ACTIVITY PACKET - THE FRENCH III CLASS IS A HOMOGENEOUS

CLASS WHERE SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS ARE NOT WARRANTED.
KETIA WILL ADMINISTER INFORMAL FORMATIVE ASSESSMENTS AS SHE MONITORS

STUDENTS’ PROGRESS ON ASSIGNMENT. THE PRESENTATION THE STUDENT WILL
MAKE WILL CONSIDERED THE SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT.
KETIA REQUIRES STUDENTS TO USE QUIZLET TO REINFORCE VOCABULARY AND

CULTURAL LEARNING GOALS.
OF GREAT CONCERN IS AN EMAIL AND A LENGTHY PHONE CALL I HAD WITH KETIA’S
HOST TEACHER. HERE ARE EXCERPTS OF THOSE COMMUNICATIONS.

“I am Ketia François’ cooperating teacher, and there was an incident that I need to inform you of this
evening in which Ketia yelled at me and accused me of acting like a “white queen” and treating her
like a “black slave”.
To give you some background information, Ketia was supposed to have taken over my French III class
last week thereby completely taking over my schedule. Due to COVID-19, we have switched to online
teaching. She should have taken over my classes earlier, but I could tell she was overwhelmed since I
teach so many, so I extended it a bit longer after visiting with her.
We had a school wide meeting Tuesday last week, which Ketia attended, to discuss what to do going
forward and it was decided to work from home and send out emails to start to finalize our 3rd quarter
grades. Since Ketia had been teaching my classes, I had her go through the grades and contact those
students via Canvas, except for French III. I also told her to start thinking about an online lesson we
could put on Canvas for each level in case we would be out of school this coming week as well. Luckily
we have an online component, Canvas, that allows us to seamlessly put everything online and she has
been using it throughout the semester.
We had a virtual conference by department with administration on Friday to discuss this coming week
since it is now also canceled. Ketia was not able to attend by no fault of her own, it was via invite
through Canvas and since she uses my credentials only one of us could attend. I contacted her after
the meeting and let her know that it was expected that we have just one assignment a week for the
students since they have a lot going on. The point is to make things available to them, but not
penalize them if they can’t get it done. I stressed that the assignments should be something fun. We
set up a time to meet virtually on Sunday morning, today, and I again said I wanted to know what
plans she had by then. We discussed a few ideas together and I thought she had a good start on what
to do.
This morning we had a virtual conversation and I was happy I figured out a way for her to join my
department the next time we had our virtual conference so she could participate. We used that
platform to communicate so we could see and hear each other. She only had the plans for French III
done, but not French I or II. I told her I would do the middle school plans since it was a new group
coming in. By 4 this afternoon I texted her asking how the plans for French I and II were coming and
she said she was still working on French III.
This evening around 8 she had the plans and I texted her that I was disappointed that they weren’t
done this morning and it seems that she is scrambling to get things done even though I had told her
about this earlier in the week. She countered with all of the grading she had to do on Canvas and
PowerSchool, and then typed “if you don’t want me to do online, I can contact the school to let them
know.” I assured her that that was not what I meant, I was just trying to level with her and she
needed to learn to prioritize since the grades aren’t due until next Friday.
It started to escalate, she said I was driving her crazy that I was pushing her too much and she was
tired of it. First I said that was unprofessional, then I said that I thought she needed to be pushed and
that she could do it, that I felt I was spoon feeding her too much. (Side note, I think she has only given
me a week’s worth of lesson plans once. Otherwise it has been day by day.)
I could tell texting wasn’t going to go anywhere, so I video called her on WhatsApp to hopefully talk
calmly and work out any miscommunications. She started to actually yell at me. I couldn’t believe it!
What came next was a total slap in the face, she said that I was acting like a “white queen” and she
was my “black slave.” I have never been so insulted or dumbfounded in my life! She went on to yell
at me how nothing is ever good enough for me and how I have yelled at her, I have never raised my
voice to her for the record. I am at a loss as to what to do. There have been a few times I have had to
talk to Ketia about being prepared. Once she said she was stressed about her other classes and I said,
I’m sorry but that is not my concern, you need to prioritize. “There are 100 students depending on
you here, this needs to be your top priority.” I was stern, but never yelled. There have been lessons
that I have tweeked or corrected, but nothing too serious. She also yelled at me that she has visited
with you about how horrible I am. Perhaps you could shed some light? She has always told me how
much she loves me and how lucky she feels to be placed with me. Tonight’s phone conversation came
as a complete shock and I don’t know where to go from here. I still want to help her, but does she
want my help? Does she really think I think of myself as the “white queen”? I don’t have her do any
more than any other student teacher, and in fact I probably have her do less…”
I apologize for the late hour, but I thought you should be aware of the situation. I have never been so
insulted, and to be accused of such a horrid thing as racism and slavery!
The phone call I had with Ketia’s mentor teacher after the above email she mentioned some areas
where improvement is needed:
Classroom management- most often chaos
Needs to work on wait time, and to slow down and be aware of her surroundings
Make sure everyone has a partner when doing group work
Needs to be more reflective of her practice- what works, what doesn’t work, what needs to be
tweaked.
Needs to make lessons more fun
Needs to be professional- Never OK to yell

Evaluation 2 Final

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

Evaluation 2 Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Ketia Francois 20585487

Master of Education in Secondary Education

SEC-590 1/30/2020 5/13/2020

Mandan Senior High

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

Ketia Francois 20585487

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

Ketia Francois 20585487

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

Ketia Francois 20585487

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence

Ketia Francois 20585487

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score No Evidence

Ketia Francois 20585487

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

Ketia Francois 20585487

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

Ketia Francois 20585487

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score No Evidence

Ketia Francois 20585487

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

Ketia Francois 20585487

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score No Evidence

Ketia Francois 20585487

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

Ketia Francois 20585487

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning Score No Evidence

Ketia Francois 20585487

Total Scored Percentage:

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

KETIA PREPARED AN INFORMATIVE PPT TO INTRODUCE AND EXPLAIN THE

LESSON PLANS INDICATE KETIA ENCOURAGES STUDENTS TO SPEAK IN THE TARGET

STUDENTS WILL USE I PADS FOR FORMATIVE AND SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENTS.

STUDENTS HAVE A ACTIVITY PACKET - THE FRENCH III CLASS IS A HOMOGENEOUS

KETIA WILL ADMINISTER INFORMAL FORMATIVE ASSESSMENTS AS SHE MONITORS

KETIA REQUIRES STUDENTS TO USE QUIZLET TO REINFORCE VOCABULARY AND

You might also like