Clinical Practice Evaluation 3 Bailey

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3
Catherine Bailey 20405704

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________
Master of Education in Elementary Education

PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ELM-590 8/16/2018 11/28/2018

COURSE: _____________________________________________________ START DATE: ____________________________ END DATE: _____________________
Bruner Elementary School

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Nevada
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________
Le Carter
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Celeste Hunter
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:
148.8 points
EVALUATION 3 TOTAL
POINTS 99.20 %
25.00 2,500.00 2,480.00 150
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0 150 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 100
learning.
1.2
Teacher candidates collaborate with families, communities, colleagues, and other professionals to promote 1.00
98
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. )
Ms. Bailey developed a reading lesson for various groups of students to advance and accelerate their learning. First, she reviewed sight words with her students and then
allowed students to read from appropriate books based on their reading level. She allowed students to read aloud and then by themselves. Students had to identify site
words as well as new vocabulary words for the week.
Ms. Bailey has a great connection with students and parents on a daily basis. She meets with parents after school as well as attending parent teacher conference. She also
attended weekly grade level meetings and staff meetings to prepare for students' growth and development.


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
100
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 98
their development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular 100 1.00
learning differences or needs.
Evidence
Students were divided into reading level groups to address student's their strengths and needs. Students answered questions and used their fingers to point to each passage
as they read aloud. Ms. Bailey instructional plan included: (1) visuals, (2) sight words, (3) silent and aloud reading, (4) discussion, (5) and drawings.
She plans her plans to meet the students' needs using data folders to target skills students struggle with. She incorporated their needs daily. She used sight word cards as
well various levels books to support development of English proficiency.


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
98
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 100
environment.
Evidence
Ms. Bailey has the classroom running smoothly, always prepared for the next day assignment. All students were engaged by reading together. Students were asked
questions for comprehension and recorded in their notebooks characteristics of what they read in a circle map.
Ms. Bailedy communicated verbally and nonverbally. She used hand gestures such as thumps up and clapping together for attention.
Catherine Bailey
TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ 20405704
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 100 1.00
relevance for all students.
4.3
Teacher candidates create opportunities for students to learn, practice, and master academic language in 100 1.00
their content area.
Evidence
Ms. Bailey asked questions related to the reading passages to stimulate prior content knowledge. Students related to their experiences at home. Ms. Bailey understand
the Standards and targeted her plans with the cooperating teacher. Several students attended RTI groups for reinforcement. She picked books to guide students for
instruction. Students learned and practiced reading with several activities. Students recorded what they read in their notebook. They created a circle map and added
things they learned.


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 100
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
Ms. Bailed applied life lessons/background knowledge to her lessons as integrated into real-word problems as part of literacy. Students were given opportunities to
share and given their opinions. Ms. Bailey discussed current local and global issues as part of the classroom discussion.


evaluations)
Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

6.1
Teacher candidates design assessments that match learning objectives with assessment methods and 100 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 100 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
98 1
language learning needs.
Evidence
Ms. Bailey kept up with all students' assessment weekly by using performance data folders. Students were also assessed on vocabulary words and she reviewed different
words daily. She used the performance daily folders to plan for instruction after meeting with her cooperating teacher.


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 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
Ms. Bailey planned with her cooperating teacher on a daily basis to prepare for the next day lesson. Ms. Bailey provided a lesson for observation that was based on several
sight words that students reviewed prior to reading the passage. She used a sequence of activities for focus on mastery of learning to read. Activities included: reading
together, reading aloud, writing in notebooks, discussion of passage together, and questioning techniques. All students were motivated and enjoyed reading. Students also
used computers to enhance their reading.


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) 100 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, 100 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, 100 1.00
and helping students to question).
Evidence
Ms. Bailey is still learning a lot of Kagan strategies to get students engaged as she learned from weekly grade level meetings. Ms. Bailey varied her role as an instructor when
teaching new words and concepts; as a facilitator when helping students read; and as a coach to help students pronounce and repeat vocabulary word. She used Kagan
strategies to engage students. Technology tools were incorporated in teaching the lesson such as the computer to have videos show various topics. Students were interested
in the various stories by asking questions.


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
100
learning and to adapt planning and practice.
9.2
1.00
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside 98
the school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
Evidence
Ms. Bailey is very professional with the staff, parents, and students. She is very respectful and voices concerns and celebrates success. She prepared data daily for each
student and discussed performances of her students with parents.
Ms. Bailey attended staff meetings and grade level meetings to support problem solving with students and learn behaviorial techniques. She is learning Kagan strategies. She
tutored various groups in the morning prior to the regular school day.


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 100
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 100 1.00
enact system change.
Evidence
Ms. Bailey continued to work with staff and grade level teachers to meet the needs of all students and strengthen the learning environment by incorporating new ideas and
listening to various experiences. She used data to drive her daily lessons. Each student has a performance data folders. She used the data to group students. She
performed an excellent job in keeping up assessments and tracking growth.

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

99.20 %
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.Celeste Hunter
Dr.Celeste Hunter (Oct 26, 2018) Oct 26, 2018

Clinical Practice Evaluation 3 Bailey

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

Clinical Practice Evaluation 3 Bailey

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Catherine Bailey 20405704

Master of Education in Elementary Education

ELM-590 8/16/2018 11/28/2018

Bruner Elementary School

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

Catherine Bailey 20405704

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

Catherine Bailey 20405704

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

Catherine Bailey 20405704

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score No Evidence

Catherine Bailey 20405704

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

Catherine Bailey 20405704

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

Catherine Bailey 20405704

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score No Evidence

Catherine Bailey 20405704

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

Catherine Bailey 20405704

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score No Evidence

Catherine Bailey 20405704

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

Catherine Bailey 20405704

Total Scored Percentage:

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

You might also like