Elm 590 Clinical Practice Evaluation 2 - Single Placement

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S
Lauren Graham 20743323

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________
Master of Education in Elementary Education

PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ELM-590 9/9/2021 12/22/2021

COURSE: _____________________________________________________ START DATE: ____________________________ END DATE: _____________________
Winston Churchill Elementary School

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Illinois
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________
Greg Brown
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Lianne Harvey
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

EVALUATION 2S TOTAL
POINTS 92 points 92 %
25 2,500.00 2300 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’ 92 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 92
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. )
Teacher candidate created a developmentally appropriate 3rd grade Math class. The subject/unit used was Bridges Math and it taught skills in multiplication, arrays and
repeated addition. The in-person observation highlighted Teacher candidates professionalism towards her Cooperative teacher and the students. She used multiple modalities
to teach content that met the needs of every student. She collaborated with her Cooperative teacher on shared idea activities and resources. They both walked around the
classroom assisting students and checking for understanding.


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 92 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 92 1.00
development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular learning 92 1.00
differences or needs.
Evidence
Teacher candidate created a developmentally appropriate 3rd grade Math class. This is a general education class and a few of the students are ELL learners with multicultural
backgrounds. Some of the students are 504 and some have IEP's. The subject/unit used was Bridges Math and it taught skills in multiplication, arrays and repeated addition.
The in-person observation highlighted Teacher candidates professionalism towards her Cooperative teacher and the students. She used multiple modalities to teach content that
met the needs of every student. She collaborated with her Cooperative teacher on shared idea activities and resources. They both walked around the classroom assisting
students and checking for understanding. They both observed and monitored all students learning patterns to determine what types of instructional strategies were most effective.


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, 92 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
92
1.00
environment.
Evidence
repeated addition. The in-person observation highlighted Teacher candidates professionalism towards her Cooperative teacher and the students. She used multiple
modalities to teach content that met the needs of every student. She and her Cooperative designated appropriate amounts of time and resources for learning activities and
allowed movement during some parts of the lesson for small group and partner activities. Teacher candidate provided student opportunities to share their opinions, views
and ideas from their own cultural perspective.


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 92 1.00
concepts, and make connections to students’ experiences.
4.2
Teacher candidates use supplementary resources and technologies effectively to ensure accessibility and 92 1.00
relevance for all students.
4.3
Teacher candidates create opportunities for students to learn, practice, and master academic language in their 92 1.00
content area.
Evidence
modalities; technology, graphic organizers, games and hands on activities to teach content that met the needs of every student


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 92 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 92 1.00
their understanding of local and global issues and create novel approaches to solving problems.
Evidence
modalities to teach content that met the needs of every student and allowed students to generate ways the local issues learned could be solve, using Wally the Window
Washer. It was a fun and innovative lesson that the student enjoyed and eagerly participated.


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 92
sources of bias that can distort assessment results.
6.2
Teacher candidates work independently and collaboratively to examine test and other performance data to 92 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 92 1
language learning needs.
Evidence
repeated addition. The in-person observation highlighted Teacher candidates professionalism towards her Cooperative teacher and the students. This is a general education
class and assessments are aligned fairly with State and District Standards using rubrics and accommodations and modifications for diverse learners.


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 92 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 92 1.00
demonstrate knowledge and skill.
7.3
Teacher candidates plan for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior student 92 1.00
knowledge, and student interest.
Evidence
Cooperative and Candidate teacher design and plans lessons that build upon and practice previous learning, leading students to master skills and concepts. They sequenced
activities appropriately within the lesson and provide multiple ways for students to demonstrate learning with journals, charts, game playing and other hands on activities. The
analyze formative and summative assessment data in planning to identify what skills students have mastered and what skills need to be retaught filling any learning gaps. The
lesson was based on student interest and prior knowledge.


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 92 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, 92 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,
92
1.00
and helping students to question).
Evidence
Cooperative and Candidate are an outstanding team. They walked around the room instructing students on the skills and expectations within the lesson. Teacher candidate
facilitated and guided students to meet the lesson objectives and both coached students as they practiced new skills by offering feedback and support


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 92
to adapt planning and practice.
9.2
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside the 92 1.00
school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
Evidence
Teacher candidate asks her Cooperative teacher and Field Supervisor questions for support, feedback and guidance to improver her teaching skills. She has reached out for
support from other instructional coaches and educational specialist as needed. She has attended professional development and school SSI meetings..


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 92 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 92 1.00
enact system change.
Evidence
Under the guidance of her Cooperative teacher, Teacher candidate is building learning communities with her students, parents/guardian and collogues of the school. She is a
friendly, pleasant person who understand the needs of each student and will act as an advocate when needed to make sure these needs are met. She ensures students has
the resources and opportunities to support learning.

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
repeated addition. The in-person observation highlighted Teacher candidates professionalism towards her Cooperative teacher and the students. This is a general education
class and assessments are aligned fairly with State and District Standards using rubrics. Under the guidance of her Cooperative she is learning how to use pre and post
assessment data to guide instructions for all students.

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

92 %
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

Lianne Harvey
Lianne Harvey (Oct 29, 2021 17:11 CDT) Oct 29, 2021
Clinical Practice Time Log
l5 Week Course
70 minirnum da¡rs requiled
STUDENT NAME (Lust, Fir st. Middle) STUDENT ID PROGRAM OF STUDY:

[àtr"h¿.vr.,. ^ A' tlr€z\ ì\ at>2433 a1 He-N Flernr¿¡n\arrl àtæ"H.¡r\
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME SCHOOL GRADE:
ôreq Îå"o,^rrL Lhura.hi tr\ Êl¿r"v¡ru\¿rr./ Scln o,rl bd Èrr¿¿.
PLACEMENT STAR'] I DArE: COURSE START DATE: GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME:
t/rl /ao^, 1 lq /eaa¡ ÞY'. L' Ânvrê . }\an'*, /
COOPERATING TEACHER CONTRACTED HOURS (i.e. 8:00 am - 3:00 pm)!
t:15n to 3'.157 I
1 Full Contracted Day: -7 hours
Week Week Week Week \l'eek Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week
KEY WEEKS
I ) 3 4 5 6 7 I 9 10 11 t2 13 l4 15 16 t7
X = Full Day
.,\ttendance in the
Dates rlv tht tlp ryt
I- lln ,llzo oUn- t"{,i to[u to/tt ,oha
placenrent fbllowing
Cooperating Teâcher
Slzo çtín qîg lln 1i-,t liza wit Þ7* tPls Þ/zz þfe.q
contr¿ìctecl hours Mondav
listed ¡hove-
x X brt \ X X X bH \
X
PD : Partial Da)'* Tuesdav

Include number ol'
hours completed lor
the day. (i.e. PD 3).
Wedrresclav
x X X X X X K X X :i
x
IW: Inclement
\4'eathert' x X X X X X X X d ¡.
X
Thulsday
DH = District Pù
Holiday"
IL = Illness* Friday
X x I X bri X V X X K K
O= Other"
x X ìJ¿ X X X fl
Y X X X
*llisscd tirnekla¡,s
nrust he nrade up
Days
completed
Cooperating
4 5
lnrt,
3 4 1 5 5 5 I 5
I eacher
Initials
qr, qb M lfb ífi t'tn .
f{þ-
ry,,
Total Numtrer of Days Completed
Sign once time requirement has been met. I hereby certify that the GCU Teacher Candidate has completed 70 days in the student teaching placement.
Cooperating Teacher Name: Signature Date:
Teachcr Candidate Name: Signature Date:
GCU Faculty Supervisor Name: Signature Date:
'l'he GCI"j Facult¡'' Supervisor rvill not submit Clinical Practice Evaluation #4 until the time requirement has been met.
@2021. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved

Elm 590 Clinical Practice Evaluation 2 - Single Placement

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 Practice Evaluation 2 - Single Placement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Lauren Graham 20743323

Master of Education in Elementary Education

ELM-590 9/9/2021 12/22/2021

Winston Churchill Elementary School

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

Lauren Graham 20743323

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

Lauren Graham 20743323

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

Lauren Graham 20743323

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence

Lauren Graham 20743323

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score No Evidence

Lauren Graham 20743323

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

Lauren Graham 20743323

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

Lauren Graham 20743323

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score No Evidence

Lauren Graham 20743323

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

Lauren Graham 20743323

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score No Evidence

Lauren Graham 20743323

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

Lauren Graham 20743323

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning Score No Evidence

Lauren Graham 20743323

Total Scored Percentage:

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

STUDENT NAME (Lust, Fir st. Middle) STUDENT ID PROGRAM OF STUDY:

PD : Partial Da)'* Tuesdav

@2021. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved

You might also like