CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Miranda Missel 20199382

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________

Bachelor of Science in Mathematics for Secondary Education

PROGRAM: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SEC-490 1/8/2018 4/29/2018

COURSE: ________________________________________START DATE: END DATE:________________________

Gilbert Christian High School

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________

Arizona
SCHOOL STATE:

Derek Chisum
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME:______________________________________________________________________________________

Susan Bejarano
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: _____________________________________________________________________________________________

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

EVALUATION 3
TOTAL POINTS 146.7 points 97.80 %
25.00 2,500.00 2,445.00 150
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0 0

0
0 0 0 0 0 150 0
150
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Miranda Missel 20199382

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________

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
99
learning.
1.2
Teacher candidates collaborate with families, communities, colleagues, and other professionals to promote 99 1.00
student growth and development.
Comments
Ms. Missel implements lessons that are supportive of students’ performance levels with an emphasis on continual learning and mastery. She is collaborative with her mentor
teacher and staff.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Miranda Missel 20199382

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________

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 2: Learning Differences Score N/A

2.1
Teacher candidates design, adapt, and deliver instruction to address each student’s diverse learning strengths 96 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
95
development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular 99 1.00
learning differences or needs.
Comments
Ms. Missel is aware of the multiple learning styles and diversity. She engages students within a scaffolded approach to build on prior knowledge, existing skills and advance to
new learning. Her review of vocabulary words and academic language is supportive of diverse and all learners.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Miranda Missel 20199382

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________

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
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 99 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
99 1.00
environment.
Comments
Ms. Missel has supportive a student centered learning environment and is respectful to students, staff and community through actions and verbal exchanges.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Miranda Missel 20199382

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________

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
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 99 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 99 1.00
their content area.
Comments
Ms. Missel reviews previously learned concepts to build and scaffold new understanding and knowledge. She engaged students in guided practice as well as,
independent learning.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Miranda Missel 20199382

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________

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
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 5: Application of Content Score N/A

5.1
Teacher candidates engage students in applying content knowledge to real-world problems through the lens 99 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 95 1.00
their understanding of local and global issues and create novel approaches to solving problems.
Comments
Ms. Missel supports existing and new concepts with real world references to support comprehension. She is respectful and engages students is discussion of schoolwide
and community references.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Miranda Missel 20199382

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________

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
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 6: Assessment Score N/A

6.1
Teacher candidates design assessments that match learning objectives with assessment methods and 99 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 98 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 1
appropriate modifications in assessments or testing conditions especially for students with disabilities and
96
language learning needs.
Comments
Ms. Missel targets learning goals to align with informal assessments. She assesses “real time” to provide support and direction to students.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Miranda Missel 20199382

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________

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
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 7: Planning for Instruction Score N/A

7.1
Teacher candidates plan how to achieve each student’s learning goals, choosing appropriate strategies and 99 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 97 1.00
demonstrate knowledge and skill.
7.3
Teacher candidates plan for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior student 95 1.00
knowledge, and student interest.
Comments
Ms. Missel has demonstrated a willingness to implement suggested strategies to support student learning. She implements formative and informal assessments to direct
instruction.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Miranda Missel 20199382

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________

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 8: Instructional Strategies Score N/A

8.1
Teacher candidates vary their role in the instructional process (e.g., instructor, facilitator, coach, audience) in 97 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, 99 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,
96 1.00
and helping students to question).
Comments
Ms. Missel segments lessons to allow for direct instruction, facilitation and guidance through questioning and engagement, as well as coaching students to target areas of
need.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Miranda Missel 20199382

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________

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 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
94 1.00
and to adapt planning and practice.
9.2
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside 99 1.00
the school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
Comments
Ms. Missel is a reflective practitioner and utilizes this knowledge to change or modify subsequent lessons. She utilizes student assessment data to direct and redirect
instructional support.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Miranda Missel 20199382

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________

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
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 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score N/A

10.1
Teacher candidates use technological tools and a variety of communication strategies to build local and 99 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 99 1.00
enact system change.
Comments
Ms. Missel is proficient at implementing technology within lessons and communications. She implements suggested strategies to meet the needs of students.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Miranda Missel 20199382

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________

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:
97.80 %
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

Susan Bejarano Date
Apr 18, 2018
E-Signature Susan Bejarano (Apr 18, 2018)
 Grand Canyon University

SEC490 Lesson Observation 3 April 10, 2018

Teacher Candidate: Miranda Missel-21592897

School: Gilbert Christian High School,3632 E Jasper Dr, Gilbert, AZ 85296
Mentor Teacher: Derek Chisum
Faculty Supervisor: Susan Bejarano
Lesson time: 1:00 pm
Grade level: Secondary-Multiage
Content Area: Mathematics

Learning Objectives:
 Students will be able to factor a system given one of the roots at an 80% mastery level.

Grouping: Whole Group, partner work

Assessment: Students demonstrated problem solving in partner work and verbal engagement

Observation:

1:00 pm: Ms. Miranda Missel began by stamping student agendas. Music played in background.

1:07 pm: Lights were turned on to bring student focus. Previous learning goal and vocabulary words were
addressed. Students were asked to provide thumbs up signal to represent level of comprehension. Ms. Missel
presented problems on board and verbally explained problem solving. She asked for student responses on the next
action to solve problems.

1:18 pm: She asked students to engage in dialogue for problem solving. She wrote problems on the board and
utilized guided questioning.

1:24 pm: Ms. Missel demonstrated use of a graph to figure out problems. She corrected a misconception of a
polynomial. Students asked questions about the graph example on screen.

1:28 pm: Students were provided a worksheet for partner work. She asked students to walk through the steps
initially taken to problem solve. Students began their partner work.

1:32 pm: Students worked on problems. Some students engaged in problem solving dialogue with partners some
did not.

1:36 pm: A student asked a question and Ms. Missel went to front of the room and explained the answer. She went
back to the student to explain and ensure comprehension. Students continued to problem solve and discuss.

1:43 pm: Conclusion of lesson.

Strengths:

 Positive and supportive reinforcement: It’s ok..today’s a …..I hope so. Yep, thank you. Let me correct a
misunderstanding of polynomial allows for the correction without singling out any one student.
 Informally real time assessing: Raising hands. Thumbs up. Question/answer. Walking to listen/view
student work.
 Classroom management: Lights call attention. Raising hands to signal decreases students calling out. Ok
guys..eyes up front.
 Warmup activity to transition and prepare students for mathematical learning goals
 Focus on real time informal assessments during lesson provides direction to teaching strategies
 Scaffolding concepts to support comprehension and build understanding from prior knowledge
 Vocabulary focus: reviewing vocabulary words that may have been a learning issue in the previous class
time: roots, polynomial, axis
 Reviewing concepts students may have had issue with supports comprehension and students who may not
ask for clarification.
 Use of technology to project to screen supports visual learners and an opportunity for modeling problem
solving
 Informal assessment of student comprehension (thumbs up) provides an idea of overall need for review,
continuation of concept or remain with same concept a longer period of time.
 Student verbal and cognitive engagement increased for this lesson.
 Partner discussion is an opportunity to increase student engagement and allow strugglers to be supported
by peer and cement understanding for student who comprehends concept by articulating it. If a student can
teach/explain a concept…that student understands the concept and “cements” knowledge. Having partner
work to complete a worksheet builds collaborative skills and increases individual student engagement.
 Use of humor, “That skips my ten minutes of instructions” provides a comfortable learning environment and
builds relationships.
 Modeling problems on board with guided verbal directions increases student comprehension and decreases
the need for students to specifically ask for support in front of peers.
 Proximity (walking around room) builds focus and allows students to ask for additional support without
“audience” . This is a time to informally assess whole group or individual students.

Lesson Reflections:

 Obs. 3: Informal assessment was done while walking amongst students, asking for thumbs up and during
question/answer time. Was there something “new” learned from student responses/performance? Would
you be able to name students who are struggling, have mastered and are ready to move on or need
additional practice? How will support be differentiated and equitable or can it be? Would it benefit learning
to engage partners in problem solving together with one “teaching” and one listening…then present to whole
group? Is there a value increasing student dialogue and partner work? What about self-assessments? Is
there a manner to self-assess?
 Obs. 2: Timed work allows for students to engage in problem solving and completing a task with a known
time period. Students had the opportunities to work with each other and when students began completing
the task, the whole group reconvened to receive the correct answers/procedures for problem solving.
Having students know the time frame will increase focus on completion, accountability and build
collaborative skills.
 Obs. 2: Partner work was assigned. Some partners did and others did not collaborate or “talk through”
problem solving. What was the expectation for engagement? How can student to student discourse and
 collaborative work increase discussion/sharing to reach the expected engagement and learning goal?
Would modeling or walking through what collaborative engagement “looks like” help increase student to
student discourse? Would presenting back to class help increase partner discourse and support learning for
both students?
 Informal real time assessments are done throughout the class period. Informal real time assessments
measure student understanding during the class period. High school students will not volunteer lack of
knowledge or request help in front of peers. How can you individually assess student comprehension and
mastery during class time? Would an informal, quick “fist to five” engagement support understanding of
struggling students and those who have achieved concepts without highlighting individuals? Is it feasible to
have targeted students come to you and explain their work/knowledge while the rest problem solve? Would
this be of any value?
 Obs. 1: Student engagement can be achieved through student dialogue, actions, cognitive engagement,
listening, etc. Having students participate as listeners to cognitively and verbally engaging increases
thought cognitive processes and actions. Would it serve a purpose to have students share their answers
with each other first before providing answers? This lesson was a review and having students verbally
explain or articulate with partners increases student to student discourse. Typically, teacher to student
discourse and responses through student to teacher discourse can be observed. Student to student
discourse increases cognitive, verbal and auditory engagement. Articulating the concepts cements and
reinforces learning. Is there a time or opportunity to allow students to increase student to student
engagement when learning or reviewing concepts? Can student to student discourse be used as an
informal assessment opportunity?
 Obs. 1: Authentic application and realia are means of supporting comprehension and providing a “real
world” connection which in turn promotes comprehension and problem solving application. Would it benefit
learners and differentiate engagement if those who finish “early” can apply the concepts to “real life”
problem solving? How are these mathematical concepts used in careers or professions? Would it support
successful “formal assessments” by applying authentic career or life problem solving to applying/learning
objectives and problem solving?

Thank you for allowing me to observe the third lesson, as well as, implementing real time informal assessments and
increasing student engagement.

Susan Bejarano
Susan Bejarano
Faculty Supervisor
College of Education
Grand Canyon University
602.403.7171
susan.bejarano@my.gcu.edu