Points 92: Clinical Practice Evaluation 2S

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S
Camela Kalman 20475075

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________
Master of Education in Secondary Education

PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SEC-590 9/6/2018 12/19/2018

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

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Arizona
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________
Kelly Bragg
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Elizabeth Lemster
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

EVALUATION 2S TOTAL
POINTS 92 points 92 %
25 2,500.00 2300 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’ 92 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 92
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. )
Ms. Calman takes the students level into account when developing lessons in order to deliver appropriate lessons. She is aware of the varying needs of students and explains
concepts in different ways to different students. The students were able to keep up with the lesson while being challenged at the same time, it was a very appropriate lesson for
their level. The cooperating teacher states that Ms. Kalman speaks and participates in school and district PLC's to discuss and promote student growth. She states that Ms.
Kalman always develops student appropriate lessons in both content and level. I would suggest to continue collaborating with peers and the mentor teacher.


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 92 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 92 1.00
development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular learning 92 1.00
differences or needs.
Evidence
Ms. Calman varies her instruction with different learners including honors students. The students are able to use computers to look up unfamiliar words. The use of computers
was a great way to have this lesson meet various needs and allows the students to work at their own pace. Although Ms. Kalman showed the students one way to create an MLA
citation, she gave them a handout with another way to create the citation. This gives students a choice to select what is comfortable to them and to learn how to manually create
MLA citations. The cooperating teacher states that Ms. Kalman teaches exchange students from other countries as well as honors students. She is able to easily alter lessons to
account for varying levels.


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, 92 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
It is very evident that the students feel comfortable and safe in the classroom. Ms. Kalman greets students as the enter the classroom and walks to the door to say goodbye.
The students used laptops during the lesson and the process to get up and get the laptops was very quick. This shows that the students are aware of the expectations and
are familiar with classroom routines and procedures. Ms. Kalman is very respectful with students of varying background and cultures. The cooperating teacher states that
Ms. Kalman manages the classroom with ease even when there are class debates. She states the the environment Ms. Kalman creates is inviting and resourceful.


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 92 1.00
concepts, and make connections to students’ experiences.
4.2
Teacher candidates use supplementary resources and technologies effectively to ensure accessibility and 92 1.00
relevance for all students.
4.3
Teacher candidates create opportunities for students to learn, practice, and master academic language in their 92 1.00
content area.
Evidence
Ms. Kalman asks questions to review what students should already know, "Why is works cited important?" The students were able to answer the question showing that
this is something they have previously learned or are familiar with. Students had the opportunity to work individually (or in a group if Word was not on their computer) and
this provided students the opportunity to use Word to create a works cited page. This lesson gave students time to practice works cited at their own pace.The cooperating
teacher states that Ms. Kalman utilizes technology to allow the students to learn in varying ways while fulfilling the expectations of her assignment.


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 92 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 92 1.00
their understanding of local and global issues and create novel approaches to solving problems.
Evidence
Ms. Kalman explained the importance of works cited as a college student and how that can impact them. She also discussed implications of plagiarism in the real world
whether it be an essay or piece of art, etc. The students were clearly able to connect with this as they use social media. It was very evident that they really understood the
point Ms. Kalman was making about plagiarism and the impacts of plagiarism.


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
Learning objective is: Continue MLA format with works cited, create citation, summary/paragraph, create works cited.
Student deliverable is a two paragraph summary with a works cited page.The students were advised to email their paper to Dr. Bragg which is another great use of
technology.The formative assessment chosen was appropriate and a great way to assess if the students learned the material. There is collaboration of assessment scores
between the Ms. Kalman and Dr. Bragg according to Ms. Kalman. The cooperating teacher states that Ms. Kalman's assessments match the content of the lessons. She
reflects on what works well and doesn't work well when planning assessments.


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 92 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 92 1.00
demonstrate knowledge and skill.
7.3
Teacher candidates plan for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior student 92 1.00
knowledge, and student interest.
Evidence
Ms. Kalman had a developed lesson prior to instruction which allowed for a smooth lesson. She chose appropriate resources for students (PowerPoint Presentation, individual
laptops, short article). Ms. Kalman was able to create a short formative assessment for students at the end of the lesson which will inform her on whether or not the students
are able to properly cite an article. My suggestion would be to continue to collaborate with the cooperating teacher, reviewing lessons with her before they are taught so they
are on the same page, etc. The cooperating teacher states that Ms. Kalman delivers instruction in an orderly manner and students can easily follow the lessons. The
assessments meet all expectations.


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 92 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, 92 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,
92
1.00
and helping students to question).
Evidence
Ms. Kalman utilizes PowerPoints which is a helpful visual for the students.The students are also able to use Word on individual laptops which helps students remain engaged
as they are able to complete steps as Ms. Kalman directs them. The students were able to access the short article from class either with the article she printed or online. She
asked them introductory questions to gauge their understanding of plagiarism before beginning the lesson. The students were advised to turn in their assignment to Dr. Bragg
via email which is another great way to engage and implement technology.


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 92
to adapt planning and practice.
9.2
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside the 92 1.00
school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
Evidence
Ms. Kalman and Ms. Bragg talk about assessment scores together. Example: Seniors were at a 50% fail rate and now who are at 20%. She has also been collaborating with
peers at other schools. The campus tech has helped with technology, utilizing school website and Google. The cooperating teacher states that Ms. Kalman participates during
the PLC and collaborates with other interns in the department. My suggestion would be to continue or increase collaboration with the cooperating teacher.


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 92 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 92 1.00
enact system change.
Evidence
An assignment Ms. Kalman is working on with the juniors prompts community involvement. The students are finding community resources, writing letters to parents, writing to
individuals in the community. The assessments have been taking longer than expected and so Dr. Bragg and Ms. Kalman have been discussing ways to modify that process.

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. 92 1.00
Evidence
It is evident through the interactions Ms. Kalman has with the students that she understands her impact on student learning and that she has the student's best academic and
personal interests in mind. Her cooperating teacher agreed with this.

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

92 %
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

Elizabeth lemster
Elizabeth lemster (Oct 31, 2018) Oct 31, 2018

Points 92: Clinical Practice Evaluation 2S

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

Points 92: Clinical Practice Evaluation 2S

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Camela Kalman 20475075

Master of Education in Secondary Education

SEC-590 9/6/2018 12/19/2018

Central High School

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

Camela Kalman 20475075

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

Camela Kalman 20475075

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

Camela Kalman 20475075

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence

Camela Kalman 20475075

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score No Evidence

Camela Kalman 20475075

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

Camela Kalman 20475075

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

Camela Kalman 20475075

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score No Evidence

Camela Kalman 20475075

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

Camela Kalman 20475075

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score No Evidence

Camela Kalman 20475075

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

Camela Kalman 20475075

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning Score No Evidence

Camela Kalman 20475075

Total Scored Percentage:

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

You might also like