CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Delany Bird 20583843

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education

PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ELM-490 8/31/2020 12/13/2020

COURSE: _____________________________________________________ START DATE: ____________________________ END DATE: _____________________

Challenger K-8 School

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Florida
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________

Amy Ellis
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________

Lisa Horne
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

141.66 points
EVALUATION 3 TOTAL
POINTS 94.44 %
25.00 2,500.00 2,361.00 150
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0 0

0 0
150

0
0

0
0

0
0 0 0 0
150
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Delany Bird 20583843

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the
performance of the Teacher Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate meets Teacher Candidate
Candidate met this standard insufficient in meeting this underdeveloped in meeting developing in meeting this this standard and consistently exceeds this
or expectations for a Teacher standard and expectations for this standard and expectations standard and expectations for a expectations for a Teacher standard and all expectations
Candidate during student a Teacher Candidate during for a Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate during Candidate during student for a Teacher Candidate
teaching. student teaching. during student teaching. student teaching. teaching. during student teaching.

Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

1.1 1.00
Teacher candidates create developmentally appropriate instruction that takes into account individual
students’ strengths, interests, and needs and enables each student to advance and accelerate his or her 94
learning.
1.2
Teacher candidates collaborate with families, communities, colleagues, and other professionals to promote 1.00
95
student growth and 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. )
During the science lesson observed, Ms. Bird engaged multiple modalities: visual, auditory (pictures of animals on cards and "docucam"), auditory (passage read and turn
and share), and tactile (manipulating picture cards). Adding kinesthetic movement will engage active learners, especially at the end of the school day. Her anticipatory set,
pretending to be an alien classifying Earth's creatures, immediately engaged the students. Since the last observation, where she had just taken over a third grade class, Ms.
Bird has increased collaboration with parents, family groups and colleagues. She collaborates with grade level peer teachers, meets with a PLC on alternate Tuesdays and a
data group every other week on behalf of her students. She has communicated with parents via 504 meetings, phone calls, Class Dojo, and conferences. Agendas are
signed nightly by parents.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Delany Bird 20583843

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the
performance of the Teacher Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate meets Teacher Candidate
Candidate met this standard insufficient in meeting this underdeveloped in meeting developing in meeting this this standard and consistently exceeds this
or expectations for a Teacher standard and expectations for this standard and expectations standard and expectations for a expectations for a Teacher standard and all expectations
Candidate during student a Teacher Candidate during for a Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate during Candidate during student for a Teacher Candidate
teaching. student teaching. during student teaching. student teaching. teaching. during student teaching.

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

2.1
Teacher candidates design, adapt, and deliver instruction to address each student’s diverse learning 1.00
95
strengths 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 1.00
strategies for making content accessible to English language students and for evaluating and supporting 94
their development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular 94 1.00
learning differences or needs.
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. )
Ms. Bird designs and delivers instruction, addressing the diverse learners in her classroom. She adapts instruction, as she notes engagement and understanding of concepts
taught. Her lessons are engaging and designed to pique the interests of her 3rd graders. During the lesson, directions were repeated for clarity and an additional "real-world"
example was given to illustrate a concept. Visuals and vocabulary development assist ELL students. She modified and accommodated for two 504 students. Increasing level
of questioning to include more 5 Ws (why, when, where, who, what kind?) may engage learners who need more inquiry, although the lesson plan included many how, what
and why questions. Also, adding academic vocabulary is a great ELL integration. Resources such as an Animal Classification Presentation and Student Notebook pages
supported student needs.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Delany Bird 20583843

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the
performance of the Teacher Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate meets Teacher Candidate
Candidate met this standard insufficient in meeting this underdeveloped in meeting developing in meeting this this standard and consistently exceeds this
or expectations for a Teacher standard and expectations for this standard and expectations standard and expectations for a expectations for a Teacher standard and all expectations
Candidate during student a Teacher Candidate during for a Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate during Candidate during student for a Teacher Candidate
teaching. student teaching. during student teaching. student teaching. teaching. during student teaching.

Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence

3.1
Teacher candidates manage the learning environment to actively and equitably engage students by 1.00
95
organizing, 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 1.00
responsiveness to the cultural backgrounds and differing perspectives students bring to the learning 95
environment.
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. )
The lesson was appropriately sequenced and resourced with time and learning activities. Hands on materials and partner activities were evidenced. Time was provided
for students to share their viewpoints and ideas, both with the full group and with partners. Ms. Bird speaks to students in a kind, calm, non-threatening, but firm tone,
even when addressing off-task behavior. It is clear that there exists a feeling of mutual regard and respect in the classroom.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Delany Bird
TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ 20583843
STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the
performance of the Teacher Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate meets Teacher Candidate
Candidate met this standard insufficient in meeting this underdeveloped in meeting developing in meeting this this standard and consistently exceeds this
or expectations for a Teacher standard and expectations for this standard and expectations standard and expectations for a expectations for a Teacher standard and all expectations
Candidate during student a Teacher Candidate during for a Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate during Candidate during student for a Teacher Candidate
teaching. student teaching. during student teaching. student teaching. teaching. during student teaching.

Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score No Evidence

4.1
Teacher candidates stimulate student reflection on prior content knowledge, link new concepts to familiar 94 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 93 1.00
their content area.
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. )
Before the lesson on classifying vertebrates and invertebrates began, Ms. Bird reviewed previous content and defined classifying. She began the lesson with a scenario
involving aliens, providing an opportunity to assess students' prior knowledge. She linked prior concepts to new ones, while asking a series of essential questions.
Students were given an opportunity to brainstorm together as elbow partners. The connection was strengthened by the reading of a related passage and a presentation
on the interactive white board. She introduced content vocabulary and modeled its appropriate use.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Delany Bird 20583843

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the
performance of the Teacher Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate meets Teacher Candidate
Candidate met this standard insufficient in meeting this underdeveloped in meeting developing in meeting this this standard and consistently exceeds this
or expectations for a Teacher standard and expectations for this standard and expectations standard and expectations for a expectations for a Teacher standard and all expectations
Candidate during student a Teacher Candidate during for a Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate during Candidate during student for a Teacher Candidate
teaching. student teaching. during student teaching. student teaching. teaching. during student teaching.

Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

5.1
1.00
Teacher candidates engage students in applying content knowledge to real-world problems through the lens 94
of 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
(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. )
The scenario of being alien tasked with classifying Earth's animals provided students a task involving a simulated real world problem. She discussed why it would
be helpful for scientists to be able to classify animals by common characteristics and how that information might be useful to them and to scientists. Questioning
offered an opportunity to expand understanding for the students. Students were given an opportunity to explain their thinking, giving them an opportunity to share
from their own cultural perspective with elbow partners and with the whole class. We discussed the advantages of curriculum integration in creating a cohesive
understanding of content across the curriculum.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Delany Bird 20583843

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the
performance of the Teacher Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate meets Teacher Candidate
Candidate met this standard insufficient in meeting this underdeveloped in meeting developing in meeting this this standard and consistently exceeds this
or expectations for a Teacher standard and expectations for this standard and expectations standard and expectations for a expectations for a Teacher standard and all expectations
Candidate during student a Teacher Candidate during for a Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate during Candidate during student for a Teacher Candidate
teaching. student teaching. during student teaching. student teaching. teaching. during student teaching.

Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

6.1
Teacher candidates design assessments that match learning objectives with assessment methods and 95 1.00
minimize 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
94 1
language learning needs.
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. )
Alignment existed between written standards, taught and assessed curriculum. An informal pre-assessment and formative assessments guided teacher understanding of
content understanding of the students. Ms. Ellis noted that she grades assessments fairly and without bias. Students were able to indicate mastery by a number of formative
measures. She analyzes her results and uses them to inform instruction. She meets with a PLC and Assessment Team to analyze summative and benchmark assessments
every other week. Modifications and accommodations are provided 504 students for instruction and assessment. Rubrics were suggested to guide student and instructional
choices and outcomes. It might also be helpful for students to monitor their own assessment results by graphing them.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Delany Bird 20583843

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the
performance of the Teacher Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate meets Teacher Candidate
Candidate met this standard insufficient in meeting this underdeveloped in meeting developing in meeting this this standard and consistently exceeds this
or expectations for a Teacher standard and expectations for this standard and expectations standard and expectations for a expectations for a Teacher standard and all expectations
Candidate during student a Teacher Candidate during for a Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate during Candidate during student for a Teacher Candidate
teaching. student teaching. during student teaching. student teaching. teaching. during student 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 95 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 95 1.00
demonstrate knowledge and skill.
7.3
Teacher candidates plan for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior student 94 1.00
knowledge, and student interest.
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. )
Instructional choices are based on Florida state teaching standards and objectives, district curriculum maps and guides, student interest, ability levels and prior assessment.
Accommodations are considered and implemented to help students meet with success. Instructional choices were well sequenced and appropriate to the lesson. Multiple
opportunities were planned to allow students to demonstrate their success in mastering the concepts chosen and taught. Students were given the opportunity to collaborate
by "turning and talking" to an elbow partner. The lesson was planned to engage and encourage student interest.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Delany Bird 20583843

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the
performance of the Teacher Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate meets Teacher Candidate
Candidate met this standard insufficient in meeting this underdeveloped in meeting developing in meeting this this standard and consistently exceeds this
or expectations for a Teacher standard and expectations for this standard and expectations standard and expectations for a expectations for a Teacher standard and all expectations
Candidate during student a Teacher Candidate during for a Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate during Candidate during student for a Teacher Candidate
teaching. student teaching. during student teaching. student teaching. teaching. during student 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) 94 1.00
in 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, 95 1.00
interpret, 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, 94 1.00
and helping students to question).
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. )
Ms. Bird instructed the skills and expectations as noted in the Florida standards stated in the lesson plans. During the lesson, she facilitated and guided the students in
meeting these standards and objectives. She varied her role relative to the task and the needs of the students throughout the observation. She carefully monitored, facilitating
and guiding student responses during independent practice. She guided through specified feedback, such as "Good, I see people referring back to their text! We all need to
look back at our resources." She stimulated inquiry by seeking answers to essential questions, encouraging students to think deeply.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Delany Bird 20583843

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the
performance of the Teacher Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate meets Teacher Candidate
Candidate met this standard insufficient in meeting this underdeveloped in meeting developing in meeting this this standard and consistently exceeds this
or expectations for a Teacher standard and expectations for this standard and expectations standard and expectations for a expectations for a Teacher standard and all expectations
Candidate during student a Teacher Candidate during for a Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate during Candidate during student for a Teacher Candidate
teaching. student teaching. during student teaching. student teaching. teaching. during student 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., 1.00
systematic observation, information about students, and research) to evaluate the outcomes of teaching and
94
learning and to adapt planning and practice.
9.2
1.00
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside 94
the school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
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. )
Ms. Bird used formative and summative assessment to guide her instructional choices. She discussed assessment results with her cooperating teacher and assessment team
and actually chooses to reteach at a lower threshold than required. She uses information from 504 plans and prior assessments to inform instructional and assessment needs.
Ms. Bird reaches out to her PLC and cooperating teacher for support, feedback and guidance. She has collaborated with the school counselor in implementing 504 plans and
seeking parent buy-in. A suggestion for future growth would be to include students in a process of setting learning goals and tracking progress though use of personal data
graphs and classroom data walls.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Delany Bird 20583843

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the
performance of the Teacher Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate meets Teacher Candidate
Candidate met this standard insufficient in meeting this underdeveloped in meeting developing in meeting this this standard and consistently exceeds this
or expectations for a Teacher standard and expectations for this standard and expectations standard and expectations for a expectations for a Teacher standard and all expectations
Candidate during student a Teacher Candidate during for a Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate during Candidate during student for a Teacher Candidate
teaching. student teaching. during student teaching. student teaching. teaching. during student teaching.

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

10.1
1.00
Teacher candidates use technological tools and a variety of communication strategies to build local and 95
global 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 94 1.00
enact system change.
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. )
Since the last observation, Ms. Bird has made good gains in using communication tools to meet student needs during the Covid-19 pandemic. She is utilizing phone calls,
virtual conferences, Class Dojo (individual and mass) and the school counselor to facilitate communication with parents and family members. She is meeting with her PLC
and Data Team to assist in planning and assessment. She is learning, in her solo role as classroom teacher, to manage her classroom. Her school principal made a good
choice in trusting that she was capable of managing the third grade classroom, without a cooperating teacher in the classroom or on the grade level. Observing Ms. Bird
during these three observations has highlighted an effective teacher who is a clear advocate for her students.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Delany Bird 20583843

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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

Total Scored Percentage:

94.44 %
ATTACHMENTS
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. Lisa Conrad Horne
Dr. Lisa Conrad Horne (Nov 13, 2020 09:39 EST) Nov 13, 2020
 Modified for Wright Middle School

Teacher: Bird__ Subject: _Science_ Grade _3_Day: _1__ Week Of: ____Nov. 9, 2020___

Student Objective/Goal: Standard(s): (SPI in words )

I understand that scientists classify animals into two SC.L.15.1 Classify animals into groups (mammals, birds,
major categories: vertebrate and invertebrates. reptiles, amphibeans, fish arthropods, vertebrates, and
invertebrates, those having live births and those which lay
I understand that vertebrate animals have backbones
eggs according to their hysical characeristics and
and invertebrates do not.
behaviors, and other categories (live births/egg laying;
I can distinguish between mammals and non-mammals. feathers/scales/fur/skin/outside skeleton).

Agenda: The teacher will use the concept acquisition model to

1) Opening Question help students imagine how scientists might analyze the
physical structures of animals to classify them using
2) Read first text—“How do Scientists Classify critical thinking skills.
Animals?”
The teacher will use a grade-level texts to introduce
3) complete vertebrates/invertebrates note sheet and students formally to the academic concepts. Students
sort will follow up their reading with two different types of
4) “What are Mammals?” article notes, and two different animal sorts. One that uses
5) Complete the vertebrate animal characteristics manipulatives of cartoon animals, and one that
chart for mammals, and examines real-life images and uses physical activity to
differentiate for a subcategory of animals.
6) the Mammal or Not a mammal physical activity
7) Mammal Quick-Check
Opener: Vocabulary: classify, vertebrates,
Pretend that you are an alien from another planet. invertebrates, mammals, warm-blooded,
You’ve landed on Earth and you are studying different habitat.
creatures that you find. You want to report back to
your home-planet about what types of animals are on
Earth. (show slide with various vertebrates and
invertebrates) Discuss with your partner, 2-3 animals
you would group together and why.
Physical Activity: Materials/Technology Use:
Projector
Mammal or Not Mammal: Students will look at pictures on
Animal Classification Presentation
the projector of different animals and make a movement if
Student Notebook Pages
they think it is a mammal or if they think it is not based on
their prior reading in the text.
Essential Questions: Questions (Higher Level):
How do scientists classify animals? How can you tell if your pet is an invertebrate or a
What are some examples of vertebrate and invertebrate vertebrate?
animals?
What do animals classified as mammals have in common? Why do you think scientists classify animals?
Opener: Collaborative discussion
Closure: Students will take a
Mammal Quick-Check formative Text: student copy, teacher read-aloud, partner reading, highlighting.
assessment, and grade and
discuss as a class once all other Concept development: Guided notes, tactile sort, real-life images, physical
activities are complete. activity.
Differentiation:
Visual - pictures of real animals for them to reference on the PPT, not just verbal instructions like “think of
3 animals you would group together.” I would add written directions to the slide if I could do it over
again. I made sure they had a model (my notebook with the same pages) on the docucam so that I could
help them navigate through the pages and have a reference rather than just verbally describing it.

Kinesthetic - physically sorting the cartoon pictures of animals into vertebrates and invertebrates. Drawing
their own picture of an animal as an example. (My kids LOVE to draw and color!)

Auditory - I read the passage out loud and had student’s talk and share out loud to one another and the
class. Hearing one another’s thoughts and ideas and expressing their own is helpful to the auditory
learner.

No ELL students

2 504’s in the front left near my teacher table: I check in with them more frequently. I ask them to repeat
and summarize directions back to me and used questioning to help them develop their ideas more fully.

All students: I checked their work individually before they glued so that I could verify that they understood
and so that they wouldn’t glue down wrong information for studying later. This also served as an exit ticket
of sorts because the lesson was abbreviated. I also made sure to point students to an animal sorted
incorrectly and ask them to look at it again, rather than just telling them.

Early-finishers: my early-finishers all love to color and draw, so I thought that them coloring the animal
pictures they were about to sort would not only enhance the appearance of their work for when they review
it later, but hopefully give them some time to pre-sort mentally and think about the animal’s characteristics.