Courtneykuiken Clinicalpractice3 2

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3
Courtney Kuiken 20365860

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________
Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education

PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ELM-490 1/7/2019 4/21/2019

COURSE: _____________________________________________________ START DATE: ____________________________ END DATE: _____________________
Rum River Elementary School

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Minnesota
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________
Angel Landry
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Laurie Ollhoff
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:
140.82 points
EVALUATION 3 TOTAL
POINTS 93.88 %
25.00 2,500.00 2,347.00 150
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
150 0 0 0 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 88
learning.
1.2
Teacher candidates collaborate with families, communities, colleagues, and other professionals to promote 1.00
93
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. )
Courtney made decisions, prior to instruction, that would help students connect with the lesson. It was clear to me that Courtney knows the student's developmental needs.
Courtney's cooperating teacher and I discussed her discussions with Courtney. These discussions included using data for planning, learning styles and development that
needed to be addressed in instruction.


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
92
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 95
their development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular 93 1.00
learning differences or needs.
Evidence
2.1 Courtney's preparation included designing the instruction to address students needs. During instruction I observed Courtney adapt instruction based on her observations.
As she modeled how to create drawings that were to scale she observed some confusion. Then she physically got up and showed students the squares of floor tiles and then
the graph paper squares. She explained that one-floor tile would be equal to one square on the graph paper.
2.2 Courtney introduces mathematical language, like the estimate, measure, perimeter, area, length, width, then connected the length x width with actual numbers for items in
the room, (ie 3 1/2 by 2).
2.3 Courtney used the physical elements of the classroom to assist students in understanding "scale" of actual classroom to their drawings of the classroom.


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
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 96
environment.
Evidence
3.1 Courtney is attentive to all the students. She makes sure they are following and understanding. Courtney asks appropriate questions to ensure students are attentive
and understanding the content.
3.2 Courtney physically moves around the room, models concepts.

Courtney Kuiken
TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ 20365860
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 95 1.00
concepts, and make connections to students’ experiences.
4.2
Teacher candidates use supplementary resources and technologies effectively to ensure accessibility and 96 1.00
relevance for all students.
4.3
Teacher candidates create opportunities for students to learn, practice, and master academic language in 96 1.00
their content area.
Evidence
4.1 Inquisitive questions, what do you think, what else, anyone else have ideas. A student responds "how big things are—like the door." Courtney replaces big with “scale.”
Then extends that content to the supplies, size of the whole building
Checking for previous knowledge of area and perimeter.

Courtney keeps coming back the objective, "How to determine the scale and establish scale."
Model
Drawing window sill, right swinging door,
Students really debate their understanding of a door opening to left or to the right. Courtney models the arm motion without saying the words. This allows the students to
copy her movement then think about who they move the door (to left or to right)


evaluations)
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 96
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
Students discuss the length of daylight in a winter day versus a summer day. And share experiences for noticing the length of days from their own experiences.
One boy shared that it was easier to fall asleep in the winter because it was dark out.
Throughout the measuring of items in the classroom, Courtney took the time to check for student’s understanding of the concept of scale, measuring, furniture.
Students gained an application when they started to make designs that could be used to help rearrange the room. Kids really got excited about this idea.
Courtney is attentive to students perceptions. I noticed that Courtney would think about the way the student’s described. At times I didn't understand the students'
questions, but Courtney knew the students well enough to reflect on student's comments based on prior knowledge of the students.


evaluations)
Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

6.1
Teacher candidates design assessments that match learning objectives with assessment methods and 94 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 93 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
96 1
language learning needs.
Evidence
Courtney and her used Math Boxes: part of the curriculum that has number sense, geometry, algebra, and data analysis overview problems.
Exit Slips
Pre/post tests.
6.3 Courtney uses explicit language throughout the lesson. She also connects "student" language to mathmatical language used in state assessments.


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 93 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 96 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
7.1-7.3
Courtney demonstrated preplanning that included the above standards. Most of which the evidence is stated above.


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) 93 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, 92 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, 95 1.00
and helping students to question).
Evidence
8.1-8.3 Courtney fluidly moves between strategies based on the student's ability to interact with the content. When students struggled with a concept she altered her teaching
until students were able to understand the concepts.


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
96
learning and to adapt planning and practice.
9.2
1.00
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside 95
the school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
Evidence
Courtney displays professionalism, professional growth and ethical practice daily.


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 90
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 90 1.00
enact system change.
Evidence
Courtney is attentive to the need for collaboration with students and their families. She also understands the importance of gaining support for learning from appropriate
sources.

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

93.88 %
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

Laurie Ollhoff
Laurie Ollhoff (Apr 1, 2019) Apr 1, 2019

Courtneykuiken Clinicalpractice3 2

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Courtneykuiken Clinicalpractice3 2

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Courtney Kuiken 20365860

Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education

ELM-490 1/7/2019 4/21/2019

Rum River Elementary School

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

Courtney Kuiken 20365860

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

Courtney Kuiken 20365860

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

Courtney Kuiken 20365860

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence

3.2 Courtney physically moves around the room, models concepts.

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score No Evidence

Checking for previous knowledge of area and perimeter.

Courtney Kuiken 20365860

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

Courtney Kuiken 20365860

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

Courtney Kuiken 20365860

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score No Evidence

Courtney Kuiken 20365860

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

Courtney Kuiken 20365860

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score No Evidence

Courtney Kuiken 20365860

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

Courtney Kuiken 20365860

Total Scored Percentage:

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi