Clinical Evaluation 2 Stubbert

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2D
Ericka Stubbert 20466516

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________
Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education and Special Education

PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ELM-490A 9/8/2020 11/1/2020

COURSE: _____________________________________________________ START DATE: ____________________________ END DATE: _____________________
Rooster Springs
COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Texas
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________
Carrie Gee
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Deborah Decker
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

EVALUATION 2D
TOTAL POINTS 265.56 points 88.52 %
25 2,500.00 2213
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
300
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 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)
0 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

1.1
Teacher candidates create developmentally appropriate instruction that takes into account individual students’ strengths, interests, and 90
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 student growth and 85
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. )
1.1 After watching the video of TTC's lesson, I am impressed with the type of instruction that she provided for her students. She accommodates the strengths and challenges of
all of her students and with her method of instruction, her students can do nothing but succeed. 1.2 Collaboration with families, and communities is not readily seen in an
instructional observation, but in the feedback form, the CT indicates that she asks questions and works with her contemporaries to gain deeper understanding of the craft of
teaching. She is invested in the success of her students which is evident by the creative ways in which she orchestrates the lessons.


Candidate to determine
how the Teacher Candidate
will meet this standard in
future evaluations)
0 1 to 49 50 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 92 93 to 100
teaching. teaching.
Standard 2: Learning Differences Score

2.1
Teacher candidates design, adapt, and deliver instruction to address each student’s diverse learning strengths and needs and create 95
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 90
accessible to English language students and for evaluating and supporting their development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular learning differences or needs. 92
Evidence
2.1 Diversity is evident in every aspect of TTC instruction. She indicates in her self-evaluation that she prepares her lessons for the students who are 504,, GT, and in the
normal range of skill development.. She has a very challenging role this year as she is teaching face to face and simultaneously in a virtual environment while she is also
recording a lesson to be observed by me. She did not skip a beat throughout all of that activity.. She maintained control of the LE, the students, the virtual learners, and the
independent workers so that they all could accomplish their goals. 2.2 Language development was a vital part of the instruction because students were freely able to express
their answers and ask questions and explain their problem solutions to the class. She relinquishes control of the learning to the students.


Candidate to determine how
the Teacher Candidate will
meet this standard in future
evaluations)
0 1 to 49 50 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 92 93 to 100
teaching. teaching.
Standard 3: Learning Environments Score

3.1
Teacher candidates manage the learning environment to actively and equitably engage students by organizing, allocating, and coordinating 90
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 90
backgrounds and differing perspectives students bring to the learning environment.
Evidence
TTC provided an exceptionally engaging learning environment for the students to demonstrate their understanding of the content. She maintained their attention very well by
providing activities that kept them motivated and interested. The LE was unique because TTC had strategically placed task cards all over the room for the students to find
and work on as independent practice. 3.2 TTC utilized non-verbal cues to identify the students' level of understanding of the content she was presenting on number strip
diagrams. As for diversity, TTC demonstrated respectful responsive answers to all of the students' questions and she praised them for the awesome job they were doing in
very supportive terms. Her CT indicated on the feedback form that she provides students with positive responses for correct or incorrect answers at all times. Instead of
calling their answers wrong, she allows them to utilize the discovery learning method to arrive at the correct response.


evaluations)
0 1 to 49 50 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 92 93 to 100
teaching. teaching.
Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score

4.1
Teacher candidates stimulate student reflection on prior content knowledge, link new concepts to familiar concepts, and make connections 88
to students’ experiences.
4.2
Teacher candidates use supplementary resources and technologies effectively to ensure accessibility and relevance for all students.
92
4.3
Teacher candidates create opportunities for students to learn, practice, and master academic language in their content area. 85
Evidence
4.1 Prior to the actual start of the instruction, TTC accessed students' prior knowledge of the content being presented. She was making connections but introducing word
problems that were relevant to scenarios that they could relate to , 4.2 Technology was a strong point in this lesson because TTC was projecting the task cards through
the doc/cam, and they were big and bold enough for the entire room to see. She was teaching virtually as well, and she presented the task cards through the ZOOM
session with her remote learners. 4.3 Throughout the lesson, TTC was modeling and using academic language and students were utilizing that vocabulary in their
presentations of their own problems. There was a little unclarity of instruction when TTC was modeling the subtraction problem. She might have reviewed the fact that the
total was always at the top of the diagram so that the students could understand the rationale for the difference in placement.


evaluations)
0 1 to 49 50 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 92 93 to 100
teaching. teaching.
Standard 5: Application of Content Score

5.1
Teacher candidates engage students in applying content knowledge to real-world problems through the lens of interdisciplinary themes 88
(e.g., financial literacy, environmental literacy).
5.2
Teacher candidates facilitate students’ ability to develop diverse social and cultural perspectives that expand their understanding of local 85
and global issues and create novel approaches to solving problems.
Evidence
5.1 The problems that were being presented were not only academic in nature but also scenarios that would fit within students real world schema. TTC made cross
curricular connections between math and literacy as the students recorded their results in their math journals, they utilized oral language to explain the problems, and they
demonstrated their higher order thinking skills when providing their rationale for solving the problems. She began the lesson with a video on growing watermelons which was
a real world context for the use of math skills. 5.2 As for social and cultural perspectives, selling watermelons addressed the entrepreneurial spirit that we hope that some
students might gravitate toward in preparation for college and career readiness. In solving the problems on the strip graph, TTC utilized a process of circling the numbers and
underlining the problem to provide students with organizational skills to prepare them for arriving at a solution.


evaluations)
0 1 to 49 50 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 92 93 to 100
teaching. teaching.
Standard 6: Assessment Score

6.1
Teacher candidates design assessments that match learning objectives with assessment methods and minimize sources of bias that can 90
distort assessment results.
6.2
Teacher candidates work independently and collaboratively to examine test and other performance data to understand each student’s 85
progress and to guide planning.
6.3
Teacher candidates prepare all students for the demands of particular assessment formats and make appropriate modifications in 80
assessments or testing conditions especially for students with disabilities and language learning needs.
Evidence
6.1 The lesson was aligned to the TEKS and Success Criteria was discussed. In meeting those standards, the content and objectives of the lesson were a direct connection
to the formative assessments intended for the lesson. TTC demonstrates no bias in how she measures any of her students because the assessments are straight forward
and relate to the content specifically. CT indicates that TTC constructs assessments taking into consideration the challenges and exceptionalities of her students and she
makes allowances for those issues. 6.2 All of the instructional decision making is based on the pre-assessments, formative, and summative assessment data. 6.3 TTC
reminded students of the past lessons on the content for today, to prepare them for what' was to come. She asked them probing questions to identify her starting point.


evaluations)
0 1 to 49 50 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 92 93 to 100
teaching. teaching.
Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score

7.1
Teacher candidates plan how to achieve each student’s learning goals, choosing appropriate strategies and accommodations, resources, 90
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 demonstrate knowledge and 90
skill.
7.3
Teacher candidates plan for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior student knowledge, and student 87
interest.
Evidence
7.1 The lesson presented was very goal oriented as it began with the success criteria helping all students to understand what they would learn today. The strategies were
engaging to maintain interest, the classroom management was impeccable as all students were attending to their own tasks without interruption or getting off task. It was not
evident if there were different groups of students but TTC indicated that there were different expectations for those who were advanced and those who were challenged. On
her lesson plan, TTC identified ways for all students to arrive at mastery utilizing different routes. 7.3 TTC indicates that her "they do's" are parts of the formative assessment
process, to identify what they have mastered and what requires reteach.


evaluations)
0 1 to 49 50 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 92 93 to 100
teaching. teaching.
Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score

8.1
Teacher candidates vary their role in the instructional process (e.g., instructor, facilitator, coach, audience) in relation to the content, 88
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, evaluate, and apply 93
information.
8.3
Teacher candidates ask questions to stimulate discussion that serve different purposes (e.g., probing for student understanding, helping 90
students articulate their ideas and thinking processes, stimulating curiosity, and helping students to question).
Evidence
8.1 At one point in the lesson, TTC relinquished her role in the process and allowed the students to teach their task cards and to explain how they solved the problems. 8.2
the use of technology was obvious with the initial video, the use of the smartboard and doc/cam to project the content, and to instruct distance learning students. 8.3
Questioning was a very strong part of the lesson because TTC utilized open ended questions, and higher order thinking to encourage responses. 8.3'There was a lot of
student talk rather than teacher talk in the classroom so that the students could figure out the solutions to problems through an interactive process. The curiosity was also
very high throughout the lesson where students were asking questions and demonstrating their engagement.


evaluations)
0 1 to 49 50 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 92 93 to 100
teaching. teaching.
Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score

9.1
Independently and in collaboration with colleagues, teacher candidates use a variety of data (e.g., systematic observation, information 90
about students, and research) to evaluate the outcomes of teaching and learning and to adapt planning and practice.
9.2
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside the school, as supports for 90
analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
Evidence
9.1 TTC indicates that she seeks out the data necessary to prepare for the lessons and that she actively plans with her colleagues. She asks for their advice and assistance
with any of the materials for the lessons, and if they have anything that would benefit her students. Reaching out to experienced teachers is a good way to gain alternative
strategies to use. 9.2 TTC indicates that she does a lot of research to make the lessons as engaging and as motivating as is necessary for the students. TTC recognizes that
this produces better student outcomes.


evaluations)
0 1 to 49 50 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 92 93 to 100
teaching. teaching.
Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score

10.1
Teacher candidates use technological tools and a variety of communication strategies to build local and global learning communities that 85
engage students, families, and colleagues.
10.2
Teacher candidates advocate to meet the needs of students, to strengthen the learning environment, and to enact system change. 85
Evidence
10.1 Without a doubt, TTC is building great rapport with her new colleagues and she values those associations for the knowledge she is gaining. As far as building global
learning communities, that comes with time not just in one or two lessons. However, I do not doubt that once employed we will see TTC reach out to the global community to
fully prepare her students for their upcoming trek into a global society. 10.2 As TTC advocates for her students now, I foresee that she will be in the students' defense in the
future to ensure that their needs are being met. In doing so, she will need to become a change agent for some of her students. She demonstrates that kind of commitment to
them now, and this is not likely to change in any way other than that her commitment to social change will intensify.

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning

evaluations)
No Evidence 1 to 49 50 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 92 93 to 100
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. 88
Evidence
TTC clearly understands her role in the scheme of the students' assessment processes, in pre-assessment to identify the needs, formative to identify the instruction, and
summative to identify any need for re-teach with the ultimate goal of mastery of tasks for all students.

INSTRUCTIONS
Please review the "Total Scored Percentage" for accuracy and add any attachments before completing the "Agreement and Signature" section.
88.52 %
Total Scored Percentage:
ATTACHMENTS
Clinical Practice Time Log:
(Required)
(The GCU Faculty Supervisors should not submit the final evaluation until
the Teacher Candidate has completed the number of days required by
their program)
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

Deborah Decker
Deborah Decker (Oct 30, 2020 16:35 CDT) Oct 30, 2020

Clinical Evaluation 2 Stubbert

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 Stubbert

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2D

Ericka Stubbert 20466516

Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education and Special Education

ELM-490A 9/8/2020 11/1/2020

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

Ericka Stubbert 20466516

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 1: Student Development Score

Ericka Stubbert 20466516

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score

Ericka Stubbert 20466516

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 3: Learning Environments Score

Ericka Stubbert 20466516

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score

Ericka Stubbert 20466516

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 5: Application of Content Score

Ericka Stubbert 20466516

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 6: Assessment Score

Ericka Stubbert 20466516

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score

Ericka Stubbert 20466516

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score

Ericka Stubbert 20466516

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score

Ericka Stubbert 20466516

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score

Ericka Stubbert 20466516

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning Score No Evidence

Ericka Stubbert 20466516

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

You might also like