Clinical Practice Evaluation 2 - Single Placement Encrypted

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S
Stacy Logan 20244506

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________
Bachelor of Science in Secondary Education

PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SED-480NA 2/11/2019 4/7/2019

COURSE: _____________________________________________________ START DATE: ____________________________ END DATE: _____________________
Aliso Niguel High School

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
California
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________
Alison Jax
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Pherby Higgins
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

EVALUATION 2S TOTAL
POINTS 266.85 points 88.95 %
20 2,000.00 1779 300
0
0
0
0
0
0
300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
300
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’ 85 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 85
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. )
Travis is currently using the CT's lesson that she is modeling for him. The lessons are driven by the high school Geometry curriculum in an iPad Academy environment. He
periodically checks the students for understanding. A letter was sent to the parents via his CT's email when Travis began his placement.


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 85 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 85 1.00
development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular learning
differences or needs.
Evidence
✔ 0.00
Travis plans for students to listen, write, and speak throughout the lesson. He provides visuals throughout the lesson and continually uses the language of the discipline.


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, 88 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
Travis incorporates partner discussion into his lesson. We talked about the need to ensure everyone has a partner to ensure engagement. He circulates and provided one
on one assistance as needed. The entire course is done on the iPad, which is a very unique method for him to be exposed to. We discussed the need for him to look up
during his instruction to ensure all students are engaged and to demonstrate his confidence in his role as a teacher. We also talked about the need to change the tone of his
voice regularly so that his delivery is not monotone.


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 88 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 90 1.00
content area.
Evidence
Travis builds on prior knowledge and terms based on the curriculum. We talked about the need to make it "real" for the students by using real-life examples of shapes.
This course framework ifs completely on the iPad, so he demonstrates lots of use of technology and has no problems using it. Travis continually uses the language of the
discipline throughout his lessons, as do the students.


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
interdisciplinary themes (e.g., financial literacy, environmental literacy).
✔ 0.00
5.2
Teacher candidates facilitate students’ ability to develop diverse social and cultural perspectives that expand
their understanding of local and global issues and create novel approaches to solving problems.
Evidence
✔ 0.00
We discussed the need to find ways to demonstrate to the students "why they need to learn this" in order to make it relevant for them.


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 88
sources of bias that can distort assessment results.
6.2
Teacher candidates work independently and collaboratively to examine test and other performance data to 88 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 88 1
language learning needs.
Evidence
Travis uses the assessments presented by the curriculum, but he also assesses students in a variety of other ways. For this lesson, he used Kahoot at the end to determine who
understood the material and who would need remediation. He has looked at the IEPs and benchmark tests of the students, but will spend a little more time looking at them in
order to help him understand his students' needs and learning styles a little better.


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
accommodations, resources, and materials to differentiate instruction for individuals and groups of students.
✔ 0.00
7.2
Teacher candidates develop appropriate sequencing of learning experiences and provide multiple ways to 88 1.00
demonstrate knowledge and skill.
7.3
Teacher candidates plan for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior student 90 1.00
knowledge, and student interest.
Evidence
There was no evidence of differentiation in this lesson, not should there have been. These students are the cream of the crop and don't require it. The curriculum is
sequenced appropriately and Travis is following the sequence as planned out by the department. Travis' lesson ended with a game of knowledge using Kahoot. This
provides him with data to guide his planning.


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 88 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, 95 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,
88
1.00
and helping students to question).
Evidence
Travis used direct instruction and guided instruction for this lesson. He had his students "tell your neighbor what you found" throughout the lesson. He also asked a student to
"walk him through this" as a way to involve the student. We talked about the need for more student interaction and engagement in the learning process. The end assessment
was a game played using Kahoot. We also discussed him practicing his lessons in front of the mirror or with his wife several times before delivery in order to help him build his
confidence and lift his head from his notes.


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 88
to adapt planning and practice.
9.2
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside the 90 1.00
school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
Evidence
Travis uses formative assessments in his notes on the iPad. He also asks his CT for support, feedback, and guidance. He attends department meetings and absorbs as
much information regarding best practices as he can.


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 95 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
enact system change.
Evidence
✔ 0.00
Travis uses much technology in this placement for his teaching, as well as for communication with students and families.

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
I know I am making an impact on my student learning by reviewing the pre-assessment and post-assessment data. My students dramatically improved their understanding of
areas of regular polygons. More than 80% of my students were high proficient at the end of the unit comparedto 2% at the beginning of the unit.

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

88.95 %
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
Pherby Higgins (Apr 11, 2019) Apr 11, 2019

Clinical Practice Time Log
8 Week Course
@ 35-4o minimum day requirement per session, for total of 75 days over the full experience.
STUDENTNAME (tast,First,Middte): Log*< , sfutv 'Traris sruDENrID: 20L4tl5 oto

PROGRAMOFSTUDY: t<on4urv El.ua-*io * &qa+v,-\
pLACBMENrDrSrRrcr: k-pislrano Uni€ie d gChool D,bl'. srARrDArE: z /ttftt
SCHooL: fil iso N;qwl t*i.q h fchool COOPERATINGTEACHERNAME: AI,'1ON f,A*
GRADE: CI
,IO , I I ccusupERvISoRNAMf,: Pherby /f 79 ins
Key WEEKS
X= student contact or teachcr contract days Week Week Week lVeek Vteek Week Vt/eek lVeek Week VIeek
lW=inclernentweather DE=distiaholid.ay I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
IL=illness O=Other
Dates L( tl- /l tt- 7[t5' 3l:t- Tltt- ntta- 7t%- .llt- q tn-
2,lts c,lcz zlt ?lx z, lt< 4lzz z lzq 4l< 4 ltz
Monday
Tuesday
x DU x x Y x x DH x
x x x x x F x D* x
Wednesday
x x x x X x x T.i-t
,Jl
Thursday
x X x x X x X Dt.i
Friday
DH x x x x x x Dt+
Days to be made-up (inclement weather, distrtct
o o D o D o
*r
holidays, illnesses, or other) {
Cooperating Teacher's Initials ff K A{ t*{ K br *,

Total Number of Days Completed: ?5
Ihereby certify that the above me coifrflEted the required rveeks of Student Teaching fo-r
Cooperating Teacher Si gnature:
Teacher Candidate Signature:
GCU Site Supervisor Signature:
Evaluation #21 #4 until the attendance day requirement has been met.
02018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

Clinical Practice Evaluation 2 - Single Placement Encrypted

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

Clinical Practice Evaluation 2 - Single Placement Encrypted

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Stacy Logan 20244506

Bachelor of Science in Secondary Education

SED-480NA 2/11/2019 4/7/2019

Aliso Niguel High School

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

Stacy Logan 20244506

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

Stacy Logan 20244506

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

Stacy Logan 20244506

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence

Stacy Logan 20244506

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score No Evidence

Stacy Logan 20244506

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

Stacy Logan 20244506

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

Stacy Logan 20244506

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score No Evidence

Stacy Logan 20244506

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

Stacy Logan 20244506

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score No Evidence

Stacy Logan 20244506

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

Stacy Logan 20244506

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning Score No Evidence

Stacy Logan 20244506

Total Scored Percentage:

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

Pherby Higgins (Apr 11, 2019) Apr 11, 2019

STUDENTNAME (tast,First,Middte): Log*< , sfutv 'Traris sruDENrID: 20L4tl5 oto

Cooperating Teacher's Initials ff K A{ t*{ K br *,

02018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi

Cooperating Teacher's Initials ff K A{ t{ K br ,