Clinical Practice Evaluation 2 - Single Placement Part 1 - Signed

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S
Megan Nicponski 20481415

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________
Master of Education in Secondary Education

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

COURSE: _____________________________________________________ START DATE: ____________________________ END DATE: _____________________
Santiago High School

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

EVALUATION 2S TOTAL
POINTS 98.64 points 98.64 %
25 2,500.00 2466 100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0
100
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’ 100 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 100
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. )
Megan is using the scripted curriculum guide for ERWC. Except for module 1, which must be done first, she is allowed to pick and choose which modules she would like to do
based on her students' interests. Megan chooses the activities with the module that she feels will pique her students' interests (search/scavenger hunt). She participates in the
PLCs and emails parents via CANVAS regarding grades and issues within the class that she feels need addressing.


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 100 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 100 1.00
development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular learning 100 1.00
differences or needs.
Evidence
In this particular class, the only differential items are that a couple of students require extra testing time, and a couple have preferential seating arrangements. Megan does
spend extra one-on-one time with students who may be struggling with the material or activity. On the other hand, she has a different class that contains 26 ELL (14 different
languages) that she provides lots of additional assistance and strategies to. During this lesson, students were allowed leisure reading time. Megan offered those who didn't want
to read the opportunity to write instead. She also allowed the students to choose between a quad group or a partner for annotating the article. Megan has emailed counselors
and SpEd case managers of her ELL students to provide updates and gather strategies.


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, 100 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
100
1.00
environment.
Evidence
Megan excels at providing bell-to-bell instruction. Her classes are 2-hour blocks and she mixes up the activities throughout the block in order to keep the students engaged.
She has teacher instruction, guided instruction, then partner/quad activity, as well as leisure read/write time, then back to more guided instruction and a video to emphasize
the material. Megan allows the students to argue for/with both sides of the argument (article). In her ELL class, she asks the students to share some in their primary
language.


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 100 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 their 100 1.00
content area.
Evidence
Megan linked her lesson today to last week's lesson and video. She researched and selected videos for her intro to animal vs human rights. Megan is having the
students choose vocabulary from the reading to use in their writing about the article. She incorporated terms like "Op Ed" and "rhetoric," and anecdotal evidence during
the lesson. Megan linked animals who are slaughtered to pets at home. Her quad group/partner annotations activity asked questions like "What do you find interesting?"
and "What do you agree with?", as well as "Does Rifken (the author) make any good points?"


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 100 1.00
interdisciplinary themes (e.g., financial literacy, environmental literacy).
5.2
Teacher candidates facilitate students’ ability to develop diverse social and cultural perspectives that expand 100 1.00
their understanding of local and global issues and create novel approaches to solving problems.
Evidence
This article on animal rights deals with real-world issues. She tied it into an FFA Chapter at a neighboring high school and how they raise animals for contests and then sell
them for slaughter. Megan queried the students with "What do you think about animal rights?" and "How do you feel about the rights of animals in general?" During
collaboration it was suggested that she might also be able to tie it into an item on this year's ballot regarding animal rights (Prop 12).


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 92
sources of bias that can distort assessment results.
6.2
Teacher candidates work independently and collaboratively to examine test and other performance data to 92 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 92 1
language learning needs.
Evidence
Megan assessed her students for understanding by posing questions and opening up for discussion so she could get a pulse on her students' comprehension of the article
and their arguments for/against. During the annotation activity, she circulated and spot checked students' annotations to ensure they were making them correctly. The final
assessment for this module will be a written piece. She worked collaboratively with her CT on the last module assessment, but will be independent on this upcoming
assessment. She and her CT collaboratively look at the data to determine if strategies need to be addressed more in-depth.


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 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
Megan is doing the complete planning of her lessons now, as she is in full takeover. Her school seems to have erratic scheduling, but she manages to create lessons that
will work with 2-hour blocks, as well as 45 minute classes, depending on what the administration determines for the week ahead. Since most of the "plan" comes straight form
the ERWC curriculum modules, the sequencing of the module is already done. However, Megan knows her students' strengths/weaknesses in writing due to formal/informal
writings so far and selects activities for the module based on this information.


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 100 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, 100 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,
100
1.00
and helping students to question).
Evidence
Megan performed in the role of instructor during popcorn reading, the facilitator during the discussion period, the coach during small group work, and the audience when
listening to responses and when students introduced themselves to the rest of the class. She allows the responsible use of cell phones within her class. Megan
communicates with students and parents via CANVAS, an online program similar to Google classroom. During the discussion and for guidance during the annotation
assignment, she posed higher level thinking questions to the students to pique their curiosity and interests.


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 95
to adapt planning and practice.
9.2
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside the 95 1.00
school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
Evidence
Megan participates in the PLC meetings, as well as staff development. She communicates with the SpEd case managers and counselors on needs for differentiation.
Additionally, Megan does her own self-analysis and research on best practices.


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 100 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 100 1.00
enact system change.
Evidence
Megan sends "Power to the Parents" emails out to all parents routinely. She is also active on the class blog. Megan and her CT have daily conversations on how to advocate
for the students and to strengthen the learning environment for all of their students.

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
Megan presented me with her STEP Standards 2-5. Her pre-assessment was inline with the objectives. She does not have post-assessment results yet as she just began
the module.

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

98.64 %
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
Pherby Higgins (Oct 16, 2018) Oct 16, 2018

Clinical Practice Evaluation 2 - Single Placement Part 1 - Signed

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 2 - Single Placement Part 1 - Signed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Megan Nicponski 20481415

Master of Education in Secondary Education

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

Santiago High School

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

Megan Nicponski 20481415

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

Megan Nicponski 20481415

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

Megan Nicponski 20481415

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence

Megan Nicponski 20481415

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score No Evidence

Megan Nicponski 20481415

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

Megan Nicponski 20481415

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

Megan Nicponski 20481415

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score No Evidence

Megan Nicponski 20481415

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

Megan Nicponski 20481415

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score No Evidence

Megan Nicponski 20481415

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

Megan Nicponski 20481415

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning Score No Evidence

Megan Nicponski 20481415

Total Scored Percentage:

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

You might also like