Clinical Practice Evaluation 3

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3
Emerson Ferguson 20388138

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________
Master of Education in Elementary Education

PROGRAM: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ELM-590 1/11/2018 4/25/2018

COURSE: ________________________________________START DATE: END DATE:________________________
Warden Elementary School

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
Washington
SCHOOL STATE:
Denise McCaffery
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME:______________________________________________________________________________________
Mary McConnell
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: _____________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

EVALUATION 3
TOTAL POINTS 125.34 points 83.56 %
16.00 1,600.00 1,337.00 150
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0 150 0 0 0 0 0
150

InTASC Scoring Guide

Not Applicable Unacceptable Acceptable Target
N/A 2 to 79 80 to 86 87 to 100
The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher
candidate did not involve the candidate is contrary to the standard candidate is frequently observed candidate is constantly
standard. and does not meet the expectations and meets expectations for a observed and consistently
for a student teacher. student teacher. exceeds expectations for a
student teacher.
Standard 1: Student Development Score N/A

1.1
Teacher candidates create developmentally appropriate instruction that takes into account individual 1.00
students’ strengths, interests, and needs and enables each student to advance and accelerate his or her
80
learning.
✔
1.2
Teacher candidates collaborate with families, communities, colleagues, and other professionals to promote 0.00
student growth and development.
Comments
•In the lesson observed the content of the lesson was appropriate for the students in Emerson’s class. However, by keeping the whole class working on one problem for 11
minutes and a second problem for 5 minutes (not including class discussion about how students solved these two problems.) For many students, this was far too much time.
Emerson is encouraged to move through the material more efficiently in order to keep students focused and ensure they are working at a rate most appropriate for each.


N/A 2 to 79 80 to 86 87 to 100
student teacher.
Standard 2: Learning Differences Score N/A

2.1
Teacher candidates design, adapt, and deliver instruction to address each student’s diverse learning strengths 80 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 1.00
for making content accessible to English language students and for evaluating and supporting their
80
development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular 75 1.00
learning differences or needs.
Comments
•Emerson does a great deal of whole group instruction so all students move at the same pace. Emerson is encouraged to develop lessons that encourage more student talk and
that focus on the varying needs of students.
•Emerson reminded students of some academic vocabulary as he moved through the lesson. However, the references to the vocabulary was not emphasized and actual
vocabulary instruction was not evident in the lesson.
•In the lesson observed, students used white boards to solve problems. However, there was little other evidence of providing resources, supports, specialized assistance and
services to meet particular learning differences or needs. Emerson is encouraged to develop lessons that allow students to engage in learning experiences that meet their unique
needs and that encourage more opportunities for student discourse.


N/A 2 to 79 80 to 86 87 to 100
The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher The performance of the
candidate did not involve the candidate is contrary to the candidate is frequently observed teacher candidate is constantly
standard. standard and does not meet the and meets expectations for a observed and consistently
expectations for a student teacher. student teacher. exceeds expectations for a
student teacher.
Standard 3: Learning Environments Score N/A

3.1
Teacher candidates manage the learning environment to actively and equitably engage students by 80 1.00
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
responsiveness to the cultural backgrounds and differing perspectives students bring to the learning
86 1.00
environment.
Comments
•Students were generally on task throughout the lesson observed, but they spent the whole class working on just two problems. Many students solved the problems very
quickly and had to wait for Emerson to go over each of the problems.
•Emerson was generally respectful, but there was little evidence that he was responsive to cultural backgrounds and differing perspectives. For instance, in the lesson
observed Emerson shared specific strategies for solving the two problems the students worked on. Different strategies were not encouraged.


N/A 2 to 79 80 to 86 87 to 100
candidate did not involve the candidate is contrary to the candidate is frequently observed teacher candidate is
standard. standard and does not meet the and meets expectations for a constantly observed and
expectations for a student teacher. student teacher. consistently exceeds
expectations for a student
teacher.
Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score N/A

4.1
Teacher candidates stimulate student reflection on prior content knowledge, link new concepts to familiar 100 1.00
concepts, and make connections to students’ experiences.
✔
4.2
Teacher candidates use supplementary resources and technologies effectively to ensure accessibility and 0.00
relevance for all students.
4.3
Teacher candidates create opportunities for students to learn, practice, and master academic language in
their content area. ✔ 0.00
Comments
•Emerson connected the day’s learning activities to previous learning and to the NCAA basketball tournament which seemed to be of interest to his students.


N/A 2 to 79 80 to 86 87 to 100
student teacher.
Standard 5: Application of Content Score N/A

5.1
Teacher candidates engage students in applying content knowledge to real-world problems through the lens 90 1.00
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.
Comments
•Emerson gave students one problem to work on that focused on the NCAA basketball tournament. This connection with something that is currently happening was of interest
to the students.


N/A 2 to 79 80 to 86 87 to 100
student teacher.
Standard 6: Assessment Score N/A
✔
6.1
Teacher candidates design assessments that match learning objectives with assessment methods and 0.00
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 80 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 0
appropriate modifications in assessments or testing conditions especially for students with disabilities and
language learning needs.
Comments
•Emerson is provided with assessment data for his students by the instructional coach. However, as every student in the class was working on the same tasks during the
lesson observed, there was no evidence that a review of data results in guiding planning.


N/A 2 to 79 80 to 86 87 to 100
student teacher.
Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score N/A

7.1
Teacher candidates plan how to achieve each student’s learning goals, choosing appropriate strategies and 80 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 80 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.
Comments
•In the lesson observed, there was little evidence of differentiation. He did have students respond to two questions using whiteboards. This strategy is very appropriate for
some students to demonstrate learning.
•The lesson observed was sequence appropriately and followed the adopted math curriculum. However, there was no encouragement for students to attack the problems in
multiple ways.
•Emerson plans his instruction to be of high interest to his students.


N/A 2 to 79 80 to 86 87 to 100
student teacher.
Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score N/A

8.1
Teacher candidates vary their role in the instructional process (e.g., instructor, facilitator, coach, audience) in 90 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, 80 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,
80 1.00
and helping students to question).
Comments
•As students worked, Emerson moved around the room checking in on individual students. He also delivered instruction to the class.
•In the lesson observed, students solved only two problems. In these two problems, students used preferred skills/methods to solve the problems.
•When Emerson engages students in questioning, questions typically require very short answers and aren’t focused on higher order thinking. Emerson is encouraged to pre-
plan questions in order to use a range of questioning levels.


N/A 2 to 79 80 to 86 87 to 100
student teacher.
Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score N/A
✔
9.1
Independently and in collaboration with colleagues, teacher candidates use a variety of data (e.g., systematic
observation, information about students, and research) to evaluate the outcomes of teaching and learning
0.00
and to adapt planning and practice.
✔
9.2
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside 0.00
the school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
Comments


N/A 2 to 79 80 to 86 87 to 100
student teacher.
Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score N/A

10.1
Teacher candidates use technological tools and a variety of communication strategies to build local and 86 1.00
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 0.00
enact system change.
Comments
•Emerson met with parents at Parent Teacher Conferences and made sure they had access to the Engage New York website so they could follow the lesson Emerson was
engaging students in during class.

INSTRUCTIONS
Please review the "Total Scored Percentage" for accuracy and add any attachments before completing the "Agreement and Signature"
section. Once this evaluation is completed and submitted, the score is final and cannot be changed or altered by the GCU Faculty
Supervisor or by GCU staff.
Total Scored Percentage:
83.56 %
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

Mary McConnell Date
Apr 3, 2018
E-Signature Mary McConnell (Apr 3, 2018)

Clinical Practice Evaluation 3

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Emerson Ferguson 20388138

Master of Education in Elementary Education

ELM-590 1/11/2018 4/25/2018

Warden Elementary School

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

Emerson Ferguson 20388138

InTASC Scoring Guide

Standard 1: Student Development Score N/A

Emerson Ferguson 20388138

InTASC Scoring Guide

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score N/A

Emerson Ferguson 20388138

InTASC Scoring Guide

Standard 3: Learning Environments Score N/A

Emerson Ferguson 20388138

InTASC Scoring Guide

Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score N/A

Emerson Ferguson 20388138

InTASC Scoring Guide

Standard 5: Application of Content Score N/A

Emerson Ferguson 20388138

InTASC Scoring Guide

Standard 6: Assessment Score N/A

Emerson Ferguson 20388138

InTASC Scoring Guide

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score N/A

Emerson Ferguson 20388138

InTASC Scoring Guide

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score N/A

Emerson Ferguson 20388138

InTASC Scoring Guide

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score N/A

Emerson Ferguson 20388138

InTASC Scoring Guide

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score N/A

Emerson Ferguson 20388138

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor

You might also like