Clinical Evaluation 2 1

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S
Rena Riemann 20426563

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________
Master of Education in Elementary Education

PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ELM-590 1/10/2019 4/24/2019

COURSE: _____________________________________________________ START DATE: ____________________________ END DATE: _____________________
Bain Elementary
COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Wyoming
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________
Michelle Brutsman
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Virginia Jorden
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

EVALUATION 2S TOTAL
POINTS 99.2 points 99.2 %
25 2,500.00 2480 100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 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. )
Rena used multiple modalities to teach the content of her lesson on themes. Students were engaged in watching and listening to the story read to them, Each Kindness, on the
Smartboard. I am familiar with various You Tube readings of the story. Rena explained to me in detail her reasons for selecting among the versions so as best to fit her diverse
students. She used a teacher-made anchor chart discussing the definition of theme. Students were up and moving about after the story while participating in Quiz-Quiz-Trade.
This kinesthetic activity caused students to move about using the Kagan structures to study the different themes for 5-7 minutes. Rena made the cards based on her theme
lessons. Students were able to use their tactile sense to glue a graphic resource on themes into their thinking notebooks for future reference. Her lesson plan for closure also
required students to make a recommendation card listing a book of their choice and its theme. (continued on attached FS's notes


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 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
As stated under Standard 1, Rena’s lesson provided opportunities for students to learn in multiple ways through the use of multisensory activities. In addition, while asking
questions at the beginning of the lesson to stimulate background knowledge, she supported students by reminding them to look at the anchor chart as a resource. She
incorporated various formative assessments for students to display learning and growth. Students could directly answer her questions. They could respond verbally to a partner
during the Kagan exercise with the Quiz-Quiz-Trade Cards. During this activity, Rena circulated among the students to overhear their discussions and/or make comments to keep
students focused. Students completed their hearts indicating one theme of Each Kindness with supporting evidence. During the lesson debriefing, we looked at some of their
responses which Rena planned to use to inform her instruction. (continued on attached FS's notes)


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
Rena’s lesson plan was thorough and detailed and she followed the plan expertly, especially given a surprise “shelter in place” drill in the middle of the lesson. She managed
the learning environment like a true professional. Students quietly and respectfully walked to the gym where they took their places on the floor while all students in the
school did the same. I was totally impressed with the degree of cooperation, quiet, and respect shown by Rena’s students as well as the entire student population.
Upon returning to the classroom, students resumed their places on the carpet area. Rena shared post-observation that she knew her students needed to comment on the
drill and she needed to impress upon them the important reasons for having such a drill. She decided to leave the lesson momentarily to provide opportunities for students to
share their view of the drill. (continued on attached FS's notes)


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
Students had been learning about theme for the three weeks prior to this lesson. This lesson was an opportunity for them to use that prior content knowledge and connect
it to the read aloud story by identifying the theme of the story. Rena linked that prior knowledge by asking students for the definition of theme reminding them of the anchor
chart clearly visible to anyone sitting on the carpet. Her question led to student discussion. Students were next connected to their prior knowledge when Rena asked each
to write an example of a theme on a post it note and stick it to the board. Rena’s lesson plan included a theme identification sheet to be glued into their thinking notebooks
which mimicked the anchor chart. This also would serve to activate their prior knowledge and serve as a resource for completing their heart theme assignment.
(continued on attached FS's notes)


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
The story Each Kindness involved a young girl as a central character who was mistreated and/or ignored by her peers at school. Some of her classmates could be viewed as
bullying her or making fun of her. One girl feels sorry for her, but joins her classmates nonetheless. In the end, the girl moves away before this one girl can say anything kind
to her. The girl feels a sense of remorse, knowing that she can’t make it up to her now that she has moved away. After Rena assesses students’ heart theme responses, I’m
sure she will follow guiding students to make a connection between the central theme of the story and how that theme impacts students’ real world problems. Getting along at
school and being kind (or not) to classmates is a real world problem for second graders. I look forward to talking with Rena again to see how that aspect of the next lesson
turned out. (continued on attached FS's notes)


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 100
sources of bias that can distort assessment results.
6.2
Teacher candidates work independently and collaboratively to examine test and other performance data to 100 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 100 1
language learning needs.
Evidence
As seen in Rena’s lesson plan, her form of assessment directly aligned with the learning objectives. After viewing the story video, students would write the theme of the story on
the red heart handout and provide evidence for their answers. The surprise shelter in place drill took some time away from the lesson where students were to share their written
responses. I believe Rena made an excellent decision to eliminate that sharing part of the lesson plan until the next day, while also giving her a chance to view the heart
assessments prior to the next lesson. She gives students a variety of ways to exhibit their learning, both verbally and in writing. (continued on attached FS's notes)


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
According to the cooperating teacher’s notes on this standard, Rena consistently plans her lessons and chooses appropriate strategies, resources, and materials to meet the
needs of all students. The lesson I observed built on previous skills learned. Rena sequenced the activities within the lesson in a way that seamlessly moved the class from
activation of prior knowledge, to listening and analyzing a recorded read-aloud in order to identify the theme, to writing the theme as a mini-assessment, to discussing the
possible themes in the next lesson. Students could identify themes in multiple ways such as filling out the heart graphic organizer, and playing a type of Kagan game, Quiz-
Quiz-Trade, where they verbally shared with a partner and then moved on to another partner. (continued on attached FS's notes)


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
I was able to observe that Rena is equally comfortable with direct instruction as she is with being a facilitator. During this lesson, students engaged in the Kagan activity were
able to move from student to student to discuss the prompts on their card which Rena self-made. Rena was thus able to circulate among the groups to facilitate discussion as
needed and offer feedback. She was able to observe students collaborating with each other, but also be available as needed.
Rena described that in the near future, students will be working on a research assignment about an animal using books, magazines, Scholastic News, and the internet. At that
time, students will be able to use technology such as their laptop to research and apply information about their learning. Presently, the classroom is instituting different AVID
skills to promote engagement and learning such as organization, critical reading strategies, planning and time management. (continued on attached FS's notes)


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 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
Many of the items listed in Standard 9.1 have been discussed above. The cooperating teacher noted that Rena participates in PLCs, daily grade level planning, progress
checks, and engages in assessments in order to plan, reteach, intervene and enrich student lessons. She used several methods as described above using formative and
summative assessments to drive her instruction. In addition, she uses her observations to evaluate student responses and plan for future instruction.
Rena explained that she consulted with the school librarian in order to obtain books for their future animal research project. She has sought colleague support and the
possibility of having a mock interview with the principal.


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 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 95 1.00
enact system change.
Evidence
This standard focused on building local and global learning communities has its limitations at the second grade placement level. However, the cooperating teacher spoke with
me about Rena's role in the upcoming Career Day activities. She will be instrumental in reaching out to families and the community to make classroom presentations about
their careers. Rena's statement on Impact on Student Learning also gives examples of how she advocates to meet the needs of students through various accommodations.
Continued in attached FS's observation and evaluation notes.


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
See Rena's statement on the attached FS's observation and evaluation notes

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

99.2 %
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

Virginia Jorden
Virginia Jorden (Mar 6, 2019) Mar 6, 2019
Observation and Evaluation #2
Student Teacher Candidate: Rena Riemann, Bain Elementary School
Faculty Supervisor: Ginny Jorden
Date of Observation: February 27, 2019
Standard 1: Student Development
Rena used multiple modalities to teach the content of her lesson on themes. Students were
engaged in watching and listening to the story read to them, Each Kindness, on the Smartboard.
I am familiar with various You Tube readings of the story. Rena explained to me in detail her
reasons for selecting among the versions so as best to fit her diverse students. She used a
teacher-made anchor chart discussing the definition of theme. Students were up and moving
about after the story while participating in Quiz-Quiz-Trade. This kinesthetic activity caused
students to move about using the Kagan structures to study the different themes for 5-7
minutes. Rena made the cards based on her theme lessons. Students were able to use their
tactile sense to glue a graphic resource on themes into their thinking notebooks for future
reference. Her lesson plan for closure also required students to make a recommendation card
listing a book of their choice and its theme. Rena also helped her students make a connection
to the theme being the “heart” of the story by completing a type of graphic organizer shaped
like a heart on red paper whereby they would identify the theme of Each Kindness and provide
evidence from the story to support their answer. Students had been studying theme for the
prior three weeks and therefore were given an opportunity to apply that knowledge to a new
story read aloud and a story of their choice on the recommendation card.
Rena’s cooperating teacher commented that Rena has collaborated with families and
colleagues through emails, phone calls, and newsletters. She is also working on the school’s
Career Day in order to have community members present their careers to the class.
Standard 2: Learning Differences
As stated under Standard 1, Rena’s lesson provided opportunities for students to learn in
multiple ways through the use of multisensory activities. In addition, while asking questions at
the beginning of the lesson to stimulate background knowledge, she supported students by
reminding them to look at the anchor chart as a resource. She incorporated various formative
assessments for students to display learning and growth. Students could directly answer her
questions. They could respond verbally to a partner during the Kagan exercise with the Quiz-
Quiz-Trade Cards. During this activity, Rena circulated among the students to overhear their
discussions and/or make comments to keep students focused. Students completed their hearts
indicating one theme of Each Kindness with supporting evidence. During the lesson debriefing,
we looked at some of their responses which Rena planned to use to inform her instruction.
Rena reminded students working on the heart graphic that they could look to the handout
glued into their thinking notebooks or the anchor chart as a resource in responding.
The cooperating teacher noted that Rena uses the Fundations program as a language
development tool. Fundations provide all students in K-3 classrooms with a systematic
program in the foundational skills for reading and spelling, emphasizing phonemic awareness,
phonics-word study, high frequency word study, fluency, vocabulary, handwriting, and spelling.
The cooperating teacher noted that Rena has partnered with the librarian to provide books and
materials to extend her lessons and assist students at multiple levels of ability. She uses
individual student computers and partners with the team to develop lessons.
Standard 3: Learning Environments
Rena’s lesson plan was thorough and detailed and she followed the plan expertly, especially
given a surprise “shelter in place” drill in the middle of the lesson. She managed the learning
environment like a true professional. Students quietly and respectfully walked to the gym
where they took their places on the floor while all students in the school did the same. I was
totally impressed with the degree of cooperation, quiet, and respect shown by Rena’s students
as well as the entire student population.
Upon returning to the classroom, students resumed their places on the carpet area. Rena
shared post-observation that she knew her students needed to comment on the drill and she
needed to impress upon them the important reasons for having such a drill. She decided to
leave the lesson momentarily to provide opportunities for students to share their view of the
drill. Rena opened a discussion by explaining that such drills need to be practiced for the safety
of all. She did so in a way as to not alarm students and to reinforce that all teachers, staff, and
the principal are concerned with students’ safety. She gave them time to ask questions, even
allowing for a little humor concerning what to do if a student is in the bathroom.
Rena then returned seamlessly to the lesson. As noted above, under standard #1, her lesson
designated the right amount of time to each item in her lesson plan, she allowed for movement
opportunities during the Kagen exercise, students shared their thinking with a partner activity,
and they used hands-on materials with the Quiz-Quiz-Trade cards and the handouts and gluing
activity.
Rena’s cooperating teacher noted some of the characters discussed in class relating to
multicultural literature: Ruby Bridges, Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Susan B.
Anthony.
Standard 4: Content Knowledge
Students had been learning about theme for the three weeks prior to this lesson. This lesson
was an opportunity for them to use that prior content knowledge and connect it to the read
aloud story by identifying the theme of the story. Rena linked that prior knowledge by asking
students for the definition of theme reminding them of the anchor chart clearly visible to
anyone sitting on the carpet. Her question led to student discussion. Students were next
connected to their prior knowledge when Rena asked each to write an example of a theme on a
post it note and stick it to the board. Rena’s lesson plan included a theme identification sheet
to be glued into their thinking notebooks which mimicked the anchor chart. This also would
serve to activate their prior knowledge and serve as a resource for completing their heart
theme assignment. Students also had a chance to brainstorm using the Quiz-Quiz-Trade cards
before completing their individual heart assignment.
Rena’s cooperating teacher noted that Rena uses opportunities to share prior knowledge such
as: asking questions, talk with shoulder partner, brainstorming mats, and think-pair-share.
In order to enhance learning, the cooperating teacher noted that Rena uses all available
resources, such as computers, whiteboards, literature, magazines, smartboards and other
manipulatives.
Standard 5: Application of Content
The story Each Kindness involved a young girl as a central character who was mistreated and/or
ignored by her peers at school. Some of her classmates could be viewed as bullying her or
making fun of her. One girl feels sorry for her, but joins her classmates nonetheless. In the
end, the girl moves away before this one girl can say anything kind to her. The girl feels a sense
of remorse, knowing that she can’t make it up to her now that she has moved away. After Rena
assesses students’ heart theme responses, I’m sure she will follow guiding students to make a
connection between the central theme of the story and how that theme impacts students’ real
world problems. Getting along at school and being kind (or not) to classmates is a real world
problem for second graders. I look forward to talking with Rena again to see how that aspect of
the next lesson turned out.
Rena’s cooperating teacher noted that Rena guides students to making a connection to self and
the world. She noted that she does use real world applications in math through story
problems. Rena introduced and used literature for issues surrounding history and equality,
such as books about: Martin Luther King, Jr., Ruby Bridges, Abraham Lincoln, and Susan B.
Anthony. She also used articles discussing the use of plastic straws and their effect on landfills
and the effect of global warming on polar bears.
Standard 6: Assessment
As seen in Rena’s lesson plan, her form of assessment directly aligned with the learning
objectives. After viewing the story video, students would write the theme of the story on the
red heart handout and provide evidence for their answers. The surprise shelter in place drill
took some time away from the lesson where students were to share their written responses. I
believe Rena made an excellent decision to eliminate that sharing part of the lesson plan until
the next day, while also giving her a chance to view the heart assessments prior to the next
lesson. She gives students a variety of ways to exhibit their learning, both verbally and in
writing.
Rena’s cooperating teacher noted that Rena uses common formative assessments developed
for the grade level to evaluate progression toward proficiency. She also uses assessments such
as conferencing, whiteboard student responses, thinking journals, and partner conversations.
She commented that Rena analyzes performance on assessments and checks that performance
with proficiency scales. Rena also has students graph their own progress toward proficiency.
Rena advised me of the following in response to standard 6.3. Rena advised me that math
assessments are primarily word problems requiring multiple steps. Accommodations are made
for students with IEPs including giving one-on-one support, having students take the test in
small groups, reading the assessment aloud, breaking it into chunks, specifying how many steps
the problem requires, and allowing for the use of manipulatives. Standards based reading
assessments require students to read a passage and answer questions at various proficiency
scales. Students with modifications do not receive the level 4 unless they demonstrate success
at level 3. They are read the questions prior to the passage and the questions are often
reworded. Some students are also accommodated by being allowed to use resources with
guidance and support to find the answers.
Standard 7: Planning for Instruction
According to the cooperating teacher’s notes on this standard, Rena consistently plans her
lessons and chooses appropriate strategies, resources, and materials to meet the needs of all
students. The lesson I observed built on previous skills learned. Rena sequenced the activities
within the lesson in a way that seamlessly moved the class from activation of prior knowledge,
to listening and analyzing a recorded read-aloud in order to identify the theme, to writing the
theme as a mini-assessment, to discussing the possible themes in the next lesson. Students
could identify themes in multiple ways such as filling out the heart graphic organizer, and
playing a type of Kagan game, Quiz-Quiz-Trade, where they verbally shared with a partner and
then moved on to another partner.
Rena’s cooperating teacher noted that she plans with grade level members in PLC meetings.
Rena uses quarterly curriculum maps to determine the skills to be taught, develops lessons
using proficiency scales, assesses student progress using paper tests, STAR, thinking journals,
conferencing, projects, and questioning strategies.
Her cooperating teacher commented that Rena participated in grade level planning on a
Saturday because the district removed teacher’s in-school planning session time clearly
showing her dedication to the placement.
Standard #8: Instructional Strategies
I was able to observe that Rena is equally comfortable with direct instruction as she is with
being a facilitator. During this lesson, students engaged in the Kagan activity were able to move
from student to student to discuss the prompts on their card which Rena self-made. Rena was
thus able to circulate among the groups to facilitate discussion as needed and offer feedback.
She was able to observe students collaborating with each other, but also be available as
needed.
Rena described that in the near future, students will be working on a research assignment
about an animal using books, magazines, Scholastic News, and the internet. At that time,
students will be able to use technology such as their laptop to research and apply information
about their learning. Presently, the classroom is instituting different AVID skills to promote
engagement and learning such as organization, critical reading strategies, planning and time
management. Rena has been of part of this initiative. I was able to observe students using
their daily planner at the end of the school day.
9. Professional Learning and Ethical Practice
Many of the items listed in Standard 9.1 have been discussed above. The cooperating teacher
noted that Rena participates in PLCs, daily grade level planning, progress checks, and engages in
assessments in order to plan, reteach, intervene and enrich student lessons. She used several
methods as described above using formative and summative assessments to drive her
instruction. In addition, she uses her observations to evaluate student responses and plan for
future instruction.
Rena explained that she consulted with the school librarian in order to obtain books for their
future animal research project. She has sought colleague support and the possibility of having a
mock interview with the principal.
10. Leadership and Collaboration
The cooperating teacher discussed with me that Rena is involved in the school’s Career Day in
order to bring families and/or community members into the classroom to present their careers.
Rena uses emails, phone calls and newsletters to communicate with families. She meets
regularly with grade level teams to collaborate on instruction and participates in professional
development as it arises in the school.
Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning
Statement by Rena Riemann
Within the 2nd grade classroom at Bain Elementary School there are a multitude of methods used
to determine student understanding and learning. These include observations, dialogue, and
formal and informal assessments. These methods provide opportunities for analyzes of students
performance, data to guide instruction, and the opportunity to provide differentiated instruction
based on performance.
Through the use of pre- and post-assessments I am able to monitor student performance and
growth. Prior to instruction in specific content areas students are given brief pre-assessments that
monitor their current understanding of specific content standards. Through the use of the STEP
process students are given a pre-assessment and instruction is designed based on this
performance. Throughout instruction students are provided opportunities for both formal and
informal assessments to determine understanding. These include questioning and observations of
student completion of assignments including warm up problems on white boards, their
discussion within their Kagan groups, and their completion of worksheets or work books.
Following instruction students are given a post-assessment which determines whether instruction
was successful, if re-teaching is necessary, and whether specific students need accommodations
or further instruction for success.
Examples of this process can be provided from the recently implemented math unit plan outlined
in STEP Standard 4. Students were given a pre-assessment measuring their understanding of
three digit subtraction with and without regrouping. Based on the assessment students were at
various levels of understanding with some being ready to receive enrichment activities beyond
that of initial instruction and some lacking the foundational skills needed to be successful.
Within the unit there were many opportunities provided for assessment including the warm up
activities monitored by myself, dialogue with individual students, and completion of the student
workbook pages following instruction. During instruction there were students who performed
above initial performance through the use of strategies to support their understanding. Some
needed small group instruction during independent work time that required re-teaching of the
specific strategies needed for three digit subtraction. Those students who exhibited mastery
during instruction were given opportunities for enrichment and higher level thinking by being
asked to explain and teach to other students how to solve the problems. They were given
alternative problems that required multiple steps and higher level thinking. After the unit plan
was finished the students were given a summative assessment in the same format as the pre-
assessment. Following this there were three students who had still not met the proficiency scales
were put into differentiated instructional groups to address the skills necessary to be successful.
These assessments, observations, and dialogue provide opportunities for reflection on student
learning. Student performance is charted and their growth is measured in their AVID notebooks
which note only provides a tool for monitoring for instructors but for the students as well. We are
able to determine whether instruction is effective or if further modification is needed.
Assessment data is recorded and utilized throughout instruction as shown in the STEP standard 4
description above.

Clinical Evaluation 2 1

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 Evaluation 2 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Rena Riemann 20426563

Master of Education in Elementary Education

ELM-590 1/10/2019 4/24/2019

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

Rena Riemann 20426563

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

Rena Riemann 20426563

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

Rena Riemann 20426563

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence

Rena Riemann 20426563

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score No Evidence

Rena Riemann 20426563

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

Rena Riemann 20426563

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

Rena Riemann 20426563

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score No Evidence

Rena Riemann 20426563

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

Rena Riemann 20426563

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score No Evidence

Rena Riemann 20426563

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

Continued in attached FS's observation and evaluation notes.

Rena Riemann 20426563

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning Score No Evidence

Rena Riemann 20426563

Total Scored Percentage:

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

Student Teacher Candidate: Rena Riemann, Bain Elementary School

Faculty Supervisor: Ginny Jorden

Date of Observation: February 27, 2019

Standard 1: Student Development

Standard 3: Learning Environments

Standard 4: Content Knowledge

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction

Standard #8: Instructional Strategies

9. Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

10. Leadership and Collaboration

Statement by Rena Riemann

You might also like