You are on page 1of 17

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Amy Gair 0638465


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education


PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ELM-490 9/10/2018 12/23/2018


COURSE: _____________________________________________________ START DATE: ____________________________ END DATE: _____________________

Sheckler Elementary
COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pennsylvania
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________

Deborah Elek
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________

Diane Steiner
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:


EVALUATION 2S TOTAL
POINTS 97.22 points 97.22 %
23 2,300.00 2236 100
0

0
0

0
0

0
0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
100
0 0 0 0 0
CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Amy Gair 0638465


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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’ 95 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 95
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. )
This was nicely done. Amy did an especially good job activated prior learning in this assignment. She uses many approaches to validate understanding of a topic, starting with
"Did everyone understand" and weeding out a lack of understanding with " Did anyone not understand?" It is clear that she developed a safe environment for questions, for
there were many students eager to ask questions when they didn't understand. She deals with these questions patiently and thoroughly.
CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Amy Gair 0638465


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence


2.1
Teacher candidates design, adapt, and deliver instruction to address each student’s diverse learning strengths 95 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 95 1.00
development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular learning 95 1.00
differences or needs.
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. )
Very nice use of multiple modalities in this lesson: Visual representation on the board, tablets to keep students focused during mini-lesson, paper, and working with partners in
mixed-abilities groupings. While she made the rounds between 5 tables, students were able to help each other.
She used varied techniques to demonstrate factoring (this time, she used circles to demonstrate how to divide a number into equal groups, as opposed to the pyramid
representation that will be introduced later in the week.)
CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Amy Gair 0638465


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 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
(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. )
The learning environment was well organized. Amy was adept at managing noise levels in the classroom and quickly regained students' attention after activities. She utilized
students to distribute and collect materials and wasted no time moving from one task to the next.
CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Amy Gair 0638465


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 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
(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. )
As stated previously, Amy excels at stimulating student reflection on prior content knowledge. She effectively focused on tying the vocabulary of the lesson to the activities
she used.I especially appreciated how she didn't take a response for understanding from the minority of students. When she saw that the majority of students didn't
understand the word factor, she had the majority develop an answer to what a factor was, and only then did she call on one of the original minority responders to give a
succinct response. She followed up their developed theories on factoring with a visual demonstration of factors.Outstanding!
CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Amy Gair 0638465


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 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
interdisciplinary themes (e.g., financial literacy, environmental literacy).
✔ 0.00

5.2
Teacher candidates facilitate students’ ability to develop diverse social and cultural perspectives that expand
their understanding of local and global issues and create novel approaches to solving problems.
Evidence
✔ 0.00

(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. )
Amy had not included a tie to real-world problems in her unit plan. When reviewing for today's lesson, she ended up rewriting the unit plan (as a daily lesson plan) to include a
practical application of factoring using a word problem. During our discussion, she admitted that this last-minute addition was forgotten in the flow of the lesson. This was a
great learning experience for her; she sees the benefit of a cohesive unit plan for weekly planning, but understands even better the need for a more specific daily plan to use
when introducing new material. I have no doubt that this will be included in her lessons from now on!
CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Amy Gair 0638465


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 6: Assessment Score No Evidence


6.1
1.00
Teacher candidates design assessments that match learning objectives with assessment methods and minimize 93
sources of bias that can distort assessment results.
6.2
Teacher candidates work independently and collaboratively to examine test and other performance data to 95 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 95 1
language learning needs.
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. )
Amy's idea of using a Nearpod tool to display all responses from the students in survey form was a great idea. Unfortunately, the tool didn't work as planned. Each question
she asked had multiple responses and the tool only allowed the students to answer one question. She openly admitted to the students that even teachers have problems.
Both she and the students took this in stride. Always double check your technology ahead of time!
Even with this glitch, she worked with the students to examine each response and understand why they chose what they chose.
CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Amy Gair 0638465


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 7: Planning for Instruction Score No Evidence


7.1
Teacher candidates plan how to achieve each student’s learning goals, choosing appropriate strategies and 90 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 93 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
(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. )
Amy could have been clearer making the association between rows and dots. "We have 3 rows of 2 dots. 3 and 2 are factors of 6. We have 1 row of 6 dots.1 and 6 are factors
of 6." Several iterations of this message with increasingly bigger numbers would have driven home the point. If you ever teach in a classroom with Smartboard technology,
this type of lesson can be adapted very well to moving around dots on the Smartboard screen.
This lesson was well sequenced. I think the group and individual work at the tables would have been more effective if students would have had chips to arrange in rows and
columns to further develop the concept of factors. Students balked at drawing the arrays on grids. If they need to do this, make sure you show them the answer at the end of
the task.
The ticket out was a great idea. In the future, to make sure students factor numbers you have discussed (no primes!), have them choose from 5 pre-prepared numbers to
factor .
CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Amy Gair 0638465


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 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
(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. )
Well done! As said earlier, I liked the safe environment Amy has established. She has really blossomed in utilizing wait time when listening to responses. She no longer takes
just one answer and then moves on. She entertains many responses (both correct and incorrect) before closing out a discussion. She builds effectively on incorrect responses.
This has resulted in a robust discussion environment.
CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Amy Gair 0638465


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 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 100
to adapt planning and practice.
9.2
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside the 100 1.00
school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
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. )
As relayed from her cooperating teacher: "Amy fits in very well with the staff and colleagues here at Scheckler. She adds to conversations, has good ideas, and is well liked by
the other fourth grade teachers." It is evident that Amy works effectively with her cooperating teacher in developing lessons and problem solving issues. Keep up the good
work!
CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Amy Gair 0638465


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 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 95 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
(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. )
I'm impressed with Amy's abilitiy to approach learning needs in multiple ways. She eagerly embraces technology and uses it effectivley to futher student learning. She learned
this week of the need to test new technologies before a lesson.
CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Amy Gair 0638465


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning


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.

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
(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. )
Amy's cooperating teacher gave the best review for this evaluation question, since she sees day to day Amy's effect on her students. I full concur with this, since I saw the
same thing in my hour in the classroom.

"Amy has made a tremondous impact on the class. The students respect her and go to her with questions and just to chat. They respect her and see her as an improtant
person in their education. She goes above and beyound to meet the needs of her students and make sure they reach success."
CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Amy Gair 0638465


TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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

Total Scored Percentage:


97.22 %
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

Nov 3, 2018
雪 響
し 畠 C 喜語 くわ さし 冨. 畠 皐 由 り 禽 仁ヽ 経 書〔 、一 .● 一) Q ・呑 享こ∴ 鏑 鐘 裏年 も くつ 」 ∴さし /ざ - 五 ・〇 ∴i仁子 雪 ト寒 ∴." 箋/ 雪 盲 1くJ’ ふ ,蟻 e) 睾ま

牽 琵 ∴:

︰(登呂08案盲OpきS)8害誓d一8嵩一〇Je髭8手p登写すo﹂a寺pO至d雪8S昏o}さも薫じし〇号80⊃UOp〇日e雪害百〇>eq粛○卓}室-曾盲8主〇〇〇国営
半 疑 事 音∴¥

︰$館q
隻 ○ 葦雪 事 翰

讐 ○ 貰ま lヽ 遼ミ 慧  ̄「、一、

薯 o 睾響 ∴ ミ Q 溢 塞

.讐 孝二∴ ( ぎミ

.p①ヒ①S①出S事品番まく.曾s裏①>苛つ町〇百館Upu空D.∞さN◎
。雪 琵 皇業

︰のき忘急流

︰①⋮寄島窃
︰①裏n需品巾S
一ミ¥

雪 害∞ 墨 ∴ ∴∴ ∴ 言 ′ 手工
厄 ..約 日レ 妄. ま 〇 日 軍 容 童 。雪 藍 娘 諭整
。讐 書下 皇しき ∴∴ ∵ 二つ/ ∴ 窃/ :∴ ㊦
.①嘗①詣d悪書を①軍法>e盲の毒筆⇒b浅春pe卜

。墓 室。 .無 法しぶ 羊∴ ∴ ∴ ∴ 一一一ヽ

由/ 昌 ,讐 8 ふ 、菜 ㊦
∽ ∽ ∽ 長了 も 黒 子ぎ きり 璽
頃e題①毒草8山も空d"8盲薯U

隻 掌の 霞重 〉 1 臆 l 蓮 Q
⋮pO}○○d百〇US急告-eさq冒∃N一軍○○

︰①書館之○○S巾とのd⇒S主nO産⊃○○
①Sき〇〇七〇の﹂声の一

雪 ぎ0 ぎ ヽ、_/・ 国 曇 蓑 田で 重. <・ 誰 日 夏 。讐 ○ 葦や 謀 ㊦
臼田国罷 ,讐 ○ 拳巾 貧 き Q
︰①昌博之J①も$"営焉具のd80

︰①昌の之①罵pも雪のじ遷七°鴫○○

讐 ○ 夢細 ま ∴エ ヽヽ ぐ、ヾ 諒 一一一一
【ウ 呂 蓑. 蕃 一室∴ 菩 β

さ争寓

邑∴ 龍 e 由 萱:∽ ぜ
蔓 す 蓋 ▼てプ
く寄 索 尋 喜∽① 喜
Iコ き ∑ てプ ∽ ① き 婁 ,」こ:
つ 〔一 ●“○∈一
○ 嘗 さ て⊃
.奮 [ユl 告葺合語意 最駕 警 醒