Elm 490 Clinical Evaluation 2

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S
Suzanne Brinton 20446715

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________
Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education

PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ELM-490 8/12/2019 11/24/2019

COURSE: _____________________________________________________ START DATE: ____________________________ END DATE: _____________________
Desert Willow Elementary School - Casa Grande

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Arizona
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________
Rachel Adams
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Patricia Messer
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

EVALUATION 2S TOTAL
POINTS 95.45 points 95.45 %
22 2,200.00 2100 100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
100
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’ 95 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 95
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. )
Suzanne planned and implemented a reading lesson that was aligned to the standards and developmentally appropriate. Her anticipatory set was a review of letters and
creating nonsense words using the magnetic foam letters. Suzanne moved onto the direct instruction using a bog book, then guided practice loaded with higher-level questions.
The lesson ended with independent practice making a web for the story.


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 95 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 95 1.00
development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular learning 95 1.00
differences or needs.
Evidence
Suzanne delivered the lesson using academic vocabulary and make adjustments based on student needs. She restated what students said, offered assistance as needed and
provided very specific feedback to student responses.


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, 95 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
95
1.00
environment.
Evidence
Suzanne created a warm learning environment where students felt safe and took risks with learning new material. Students were very engaged in the book and offered their
predictions without fear of criticism.


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 95 1.00
concepts, and make connections to students’ experiences.
4.2
Teacher candidates use supplementary resources and technologies effectively to ensure accessibility and 95 1.00
relevance for all students.
4.3
Teacher candidates create opportunities for students to learn, practice, and master academic language in their 95 1.00
content area.
Evidence
Suzanne activated prior knowledge relating today's lesson to the one she did the previous day. She piqued their curiosity with the cover of the book telling them they would
be reading about pets. She had 100% engagement as this lesson was high-interest. I was most impressed with Suzanne's ability to question exceptionally 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 95 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 95 1.00
their understanding of local and global issues and create novel approaches to solving problems.
Evidence
Suzanne's confidence visibly increased from the first observation. She was more relaxed due to her knowing the content in more depth and having had time to develop and
implement a full Essential Elements of Instruction lesson.


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 95
sources of bias that can distort assessment results.
6.2
Teacher candidates work independently and collaboratively to examine test and other performance data to 95 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 95 1
language learning needs.
Evidence
Suzanne's lesson from direct instruction to independent instruction was seamless. Each part followed the prior one and built on student independence.


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 100 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 100 1.00
demonstrate knowledge and skill.
7.3
Teacher candidates plan for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior student 100 1.00
knowledge, and student interest.
Evidence
Suzanne has a great working relationship with her mentor and it's evident that they plan together. Her lesson was a full EEI lesson that was delivered very naturally and
effectively. The students knew her expectations and when they began their independent work they had few questions.


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 95 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,
evaluate, and apply information. ✔ 0.00
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,
100
1.00
and helping students to question).
Evidence
I was 100% impressed with Suzanne's questioning level and the number of questions she asked. She didn't use any technology, although Suzanne served as facilitator and
coach throughout the lesson. She coached as students answered the many questions she asked and as they completed their independent practice.


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 90
to adapt planning and practice.
9.2
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside the
school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving. ✔ 0.00
Evidence
It's clear that Suzanne and her mentor plan everything and use the data to drive lesson planning. Based on Suzanne's ability to scaffold the lesson and questioning for different
student's it's evident that she knows their abilities.


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
learning communities that engage students, families, and colleagues.
10.2
✔ 0.00
Teacher candidates advocate to meet the needs of students, to strengthen the learning environment, and to 90 1.00
enact system change.
Evidence
Suzanne didn't use any technological tools, but it's clear she advocates for students. She has one that was currently suspended. She referenced the many strategies they
team put into place to serve him better.

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. 100 1.00
Evidence
Suzanne did an exceptional job for her 2nd observation.

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

95.45 %
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

Patty Messer
Patty Messer (Sep 24, 2019) Sep 24, 2019

Elm 490 Clinical Evaluation 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Elm 490 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 490 Clinical Evaluation 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Suzanne Brinton 20446715

Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education

ELM-490 8/12/2019 11/24/2019

Desert Willow Elementary School - Casa Grande

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

Suzanne Brinton 20446715

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

Suzanne Brinton 20446715

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

Suzanne Brinton 20446715

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence

Suzanne Brinton 20446715

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score No Evidence

Suzanne Brinton 20446715

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

Suzanne Brinton 20446715

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

Suzanne Brinton 20446715

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score No Evidence

Suzanne Brinton 20446715

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

Suzanne Brinton 20446715

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score No Evidence

Suzanne Brinton 20446715

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

Suzanne Brinton 20446715

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning Score No Evidence

Suzanne Brinton 20446715

Total Scored Percentage:

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

You might also like