Clinical Practice Evaluation 3

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3
Toni Marie Brown 20542060

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________
Master of Education in Secondary Education

PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SEC-590 1/9/2020 4/22/2020

COURSE: _____________________________________________________ START DATE: ____________________________ END DATE: _____________________
Cannon Junior High

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nevada
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________
Amanda Ford
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Mike Foster
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:
127.71 points
EVALUATION 3 TOTAL
POINTS 85.14 %
21.00 2,100.00 1,788.00 150
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
150 0 0 0
150

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 85
learning.
1.2
Teacher candidates collaborate with families, communities, colleagues, and other professionals to promote 1.00
85
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. )
Toni was able to use an online platform in YouTube and Google classroom to display the content to her middle school students-her assessments will be addressed to the
students in their next session-parents also have access to this information and can provide support and reinforcement for their child-does engage with weekly online PCL
meetings with the ELA department


evaluations)
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
85
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 0.00
strategies for making content 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 86 1.00
learning differences or needs.
Evidence
Toni is able to monitor performance with daily check-ins-responds to all questions-differentiates tases lessons with a lot of visuals, assisting those who are struggling threw
online feedback-this lesson there were no ELA students-all of the technology was displayed in digital format


evaluations)
Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence

3.1
Teacher candidates manage the learning environment to actively and equitably engage students by 1.00
84
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 0.00
responsiveness to the cultural backgrounds and differing perspectives students bring to the learning
environment.
Evidence
Toni was able to use online from and Google Docs to replay to students-students were given sufficient time to complete work and have her assess it-
Toni Marie Brown

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ 20542060
STUDENT NUMBER____________________

evaluations)
Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score No Evidence

4.1
Teacher candidates stimulate student reflection on prior content knowledge, link new concepts to familiar 86 1.00
concepts, and make connections to students’ experiences.
4.2
Teacher candidates use supplementary resources and technologies effectively to ensure accessibility and 85 1.00
relevance for all students.
4.3
Teacher candidates create opportunities for students to learn, practice, and master academic language in 86 1.00
their content area.
Evidence
Toni provided a slide show, with examples to assist students with their learning-students were given sufficient time to look at each slide and use the information to
complete work -many visual were utilized-powerpoint with YouTube video was posted in Google Classroom-used the posted vocabulary for students to refer too when
completing work-tone took time to explain each slide presented and provided the appropriate examples with each one-students could refer back to each slide, on their own
time, to complete work


evaluations)
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 0.00
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 0.00
their understanding of local and global issues and create novel approaches to solving problems.
Evidence


evaluations)
Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

6.1
Teacher candidates design assessments that match learning objectives with assessment methods and 85 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 86 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
85 1
language learning needs.
Evidence
Toni was able to utilize rubrics when gradin student work-it was hard to assess each step but would look at their work and provide feedback to each one-she stated the times
that she would be available-she could take students input and re-teach certain concepts if it warranted it-Toni is in contact with her CT to review data and adjust instruction
based on students works stated above-Toni made sure to give the students the expectations and clearly stated what will be assessed


evaluations)
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 85 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 86 1.00
demonstrate knowledge and skill.
7.3
Teacher candidates plan for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior student 85 1.00
knowledge, and student interest.
Evidence
Toni was able to use available resources to differentiate her instruction depending upon student needs(visuals, audio, kinesthetic activities-with her slide show she was able
to walk the students through the process with detailed examples to assist with their writing-all information gathered will be used for future planning


evaluations)
Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

8.1
Teacher candidates vary their role in the instructional process (e.g., instructor, facilitator, coach, audience) 85 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, 86 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, 85 1.00
and helping students to question).
Evidence
Toni outlined her expectation for this lesson-walked them through each slide and then to practice what they had learned(it was to bad that she had no idea if the students
understood instruction or not) it believe she took extra time to slow down and be very specific on what she was saying-she will find out later, whether or not they understood
her lesson-might have to go back and re-teach lessons in this online experience-any questions that they students have will be answered by her


evaluations)
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
84
learning and to adapt planning and practice.
9.2
1.00
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside 84
the school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
Evidence
Ask questions at the beginning of the lesson for students to think about-provided them with examples on what they will be learning-stated what each slide represented with
examples for them to think about-she did scaffold her instructions with each step of the process-online PLC meetings to discuss and review grade level benchmarks-she was
able to utilize many resources when presenting online


evaluations)
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 85
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 85 1.00
enact system change.
Evidence
Keeps parents informed about their child's progress-attend Professional Development meetings when available-sends updates through Infinite Campus-knows each students
level of understanding and plans lesson accordingly to their level-dedicated and conscientious about student learning

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

85.14 %
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

Mike A. Foster
Mike A. Foster (Apr 2, 2020) Apr 2, 2020

Clinical Practice Evaluation 3 - Signed

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Clinical Practice Evaluation 3 - Signed

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Toni Marie Brown 20542060

Master of Education in Secondary Education

SEC-590 1/9/2020 4/22/2020

Cannon Junior High

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

Toni Marie Brown 20542060

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

Toni Marie Brown 20542060

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

Toni Marie Brown 20542060

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence

Toni Marie Brown

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score No Evidence

Toni Marie Brown 20542060

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

Toni Marie Brown 20542060

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

Toni Marie Brown 20542060

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score No Evidence

Toni Marie Brown 20542060

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

Toni Marie Brown 20542060

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score No Evidence

Toni Marie Brown 20542060

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

Toni Marie Brown 20542060

Total Scored Percentage:

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

S-ar putea să vă placă și