Elm 590 - Clinical Evaluation 2

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S
Gloretta Johnson 20626306

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________
Master of Education in Elementary Education

PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ELM-590 2/11/2021 5/26/2021

COURSE: _____________________________________________________ START DATE: ____________________________ END DATE: _____________________
Missouri Ridge School

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
North Dakota
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________
Zuri Rye
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Louise Lorge
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

EVALUATION 2S TOTAL
POINTS 97.56 points 97.56 %
25 2,500.00 2439 100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0
100
0 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’ 96 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 97
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. )
In the last lesson I observed the candidate provided each student with a card with a multiplication answer on it along with another multiplication fact problem. She then called
out the first multiplication fact problem and whoever had that answer on their card called out their answer and then asked the next fact question. This was an excellent example
of a developmentally appropriate lesson which allowed each student to begin the class with a success experience and participate in a good foundational knowledge review. The
lessons are created in order to offer students needing more instruction to receive the help they need and to allow other students to be challenged with higher level questions.
The candidate is in continual contact with her colleagues, administration and other professionals in her district and community as well as her families and other stake holders in
her area. This allows her to keep current with community and school events and to serve her children in more ways.


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 97 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 98 1.00
development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular learning 97 1.00
differences or needs.
Evidence
I observed the candidate allowing each learner to have opportunities to demonstrate their learning through traditional paper and pencil means, oral responses, class discussion,
and project based opportunities. She is conscientious in her appropriate use of specialized assistance in her school and attends all meetings and workshops that keep her current
on the supports offered. She has one ELL student in her class who is very proficient in English. She has tested out of the ELL program but the candidate still allows extra time to
formulate responses orally and on tests. The student completes an exit ticket after each class and feels comfortable to ask for extra explanation if necessary.


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, 97 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
98
1.00
environment.
Evidence
The candidate has a masterful ability to manage the learning environment thanks to her past years as a classroom teacher. I have observed her to be very organized and
appropriately manages the time, space and students in her classroom. She has the ability to keep her learners focused and on task while making sure each learner receives
her time and attention. She uses verbal and non verbal communication methods to communicate to all students no matter their cultural and economic backgrounds. She
allows for each student to express opinions and welcomes different perspectives during discussions.


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 97 1.00
concepts, and make connections to students’ experiences.
4.2
Teacher candidates use supplementary resources and technologies effectively to ensure accessibility and 98 1.00
relevance for all students.
4.3
Teacher candidates create opportunities for students to learn, practice, and master academic language in their 98 1.00
content area.
Evidence
The candidate uses the first part of each class to refresh and review the previous lessons and to build the current lesson on that prior knowledge base. She is consistent in
referring to real-life and local experiences the students are aware of to enable the learners to make personal connections within the lesson. She makes good and
consistent use of technologies and outside resources to enrich the lessons and allows the class to bring personal experiences into the discussions as well. She is careful
to use the appropriate academic language during the lesson and reviews and by her example the class intuitively knows to use the appropriate language 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 97 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 98 1.00
their understanding of local and global issues and create novel approaches to solving problems.
Evidence
The candidate asks higher level leading questions that pique the student's curiosity and leads them to make connections to other cross curricular concepts. she is consistent
in asking her students to explain how they arrived at their answers and applauds their creative or novel ideas that include references to local and global issues even if they
are incorrect. She will lead them to reconsider and recalibrate their math answers until they show proof of comprehension and accuracy,


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 98
sources of bias that can distort assessment results.
6.2
Teacher candidates work independently and collaboratively to examine test and other performance data to 100 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 98 1
language learning needs.
Evidence
The candidate is careful to create appropriate assessments that coincide with the class learning objectives which are discussed at the beginning of each lesson. The class knows
the goal of each lesson and therefore has an understanding of what concepts they will be assessed. The candidate works closely with her colleagues and specialists in her district
to examine the pertinent data for each learner. She is also very aware of any special neds and makes sure any accommodations or modifications are made.


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 98 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 98 1.00
demonstrate knowledge and skill.
7.3
Teacher candidates plan for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior student 99 1.00
knowledge, and student interest.
Evidence
The candidate creates detailed lesson plans in accordance with her district requirements that cover lesson goals, requirements and benchmarks. she includes strategies to
ensure any accommodations and special resources are met for qualified students. She allows multiple ways for her students to demonstrate their understanding and
knowledge of the subject. I have observed the students engaged in oral responses, thumbs up, thumbs down, white board work, and seat work which allows for multiple ways
to demonstrate their grasp of topic.


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 96 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, 98 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,
98
1.00
and helping students to question).
Evidence
The candidate moves easily between roles being the instructor=presenting the lesson, allowing students to work in groups=facilitator, giving support and positive
reinforcement=coach, and listening to presentations=audience. She is well versed in technology and incorporates the available technologies in order to enrich, evaluate,
access and interpret her student's learning experiences. I have observed her questioning her learners as to the process they used to arrive at their answers. She leads the
discussions with probing, higher level questions that lead the students to question and think more broadly.


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 98
to adapt planning and practice.
9.2
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside the 97 1.00
school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
Evidence
The candidate is very involved in all workshops and staffings that review the data available in order to plan and improve the teaching and learning in her school. She works
closely with the available experts in her district and community to support her self reflection and improvement.


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 96 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 97 1.00
enact system change.
Evidence
The Candidate keeps in close contact with with parents, colleagues, administration and learning communities through technology as simple as a phone calls, texts, letters, and
Class Dojo. she is a strong and active advocate for her students and school, working with various special services to make sure each child is getting the appropriate help and
services.

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. 98 1.00
Evidence
The candidate is sincere in her desire to positively impact the lives and education of her learners. Her professionalism and kindness is evident in her voice and gestures as
she works with her students. Her room is warm and welcoming and the atmosphere is one of acceptance.

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

97.56 %
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

L.Marie Lorge
L.Marie Lorge (Apr 8, 2021 09:34 MDT) Apr 8, 2021

Elm 590 - Clinical Evaluation 2

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

Elm 590 - Clinical Evaluation 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Gloretta Johnson 20626306

Master of Education in Elementary Education

ELM-590 2/11/2021 5/26/2021

Missouri Ridge School

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

Gloretta Johnson 20626306

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

Gloretta Johnson 20626306

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

Gloretta Johnson 20626306

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence

Gloretta Johnson 20626306

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score No Evidence

Gloretta Johnson 20626306

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

Gloretta Johnson 20626306

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

Gloretta Johnson 20626306

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score No Evidence

Gloretta Johnson 20626306

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

Gloretta Johnson 20626306

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score No Evidence

Gloretta Johnson 20626306

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

Gloretta Johnson 20626306

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning Score No Evidence

Gloretta Johnson 20626306

Total Scored Percentage:

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

You might also like