Hughes Eval 2

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S
Julianna Hughes 20582339

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________
Master of Education in Elementary Education

PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ELM-590 1/28/2021 5/12/2021

COURSE: _____________________________________________________ START DATE: ____________________________ END DATE: _____________________
Almira School K-8

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Washington
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________
Mason Giese
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Shauna Schmerer
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 0 100 0 0 0 0 0
100
0 0 0 0 0 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. )
The performance of the TC meets this standard and expectation through observation and reflection document.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

Shauna L Schmerer
Shauna L Schmerer (Apr 12, 2021 11:34 PDT) Apr 12, 2021
Clinical Practice Evaluation 2
Teacher Candidate Self-Evaluation
Clinical Practice Evaluation 2 focuses on the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) standards.
Please complete each standard with “Candidate’s Evidence” by considering what evidence can be provided to demonstrate
progression of each standard.
***This form is to be used for Teacher Candidate’s reflection only. It is not to be accepted by faculty as the official
Clinical Practice Evaluation***
InTASC Standards
Standard 1: Student Development
1.1 Teacher candidates create developmentally appropriate instruction that takes into account individual students’
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 student
growth and development.
Candidate’s Evidence:
To strengthen learning, improve learning and retrieval, and enhance student motivation, the lesson included movement-
based learning and tactile experiences. Students were able to pick their own tool for the main learning activity. Students
who struggle with penmanship or do not like to write could pick magnetic letters. This removes any barriers that cause
frustration. Parents receive weekly emails to inform them of what concepts the class is learning and they receive
occasional emails or notes home to highlight student progress and are given a few resources to use at home.
Standard 2: Learning Differences
2.1 Teacher candidates design, adapt, and deliver instruction to address each student’s diverse learning strengths 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 development of English
proficiency.
2.3 Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular learning
differences or needs.
Students were able to pick their own tool for the main learning activity. Students who struggle with penmanship or do
not like to write could pick magnetic letters. This removes any barriers that cause frustration. I have some students who
struggles with penmanship or do not like to write and that is usually what slows them down during lessons and he gets
frustrated when there is a lot of writing. He now chooses the magnetic letter board and is able to participate with less
frustration. While I want him to practice his penmanship, I also know that the point of the lesson is to segment and spell
words and he was able to do that in a different way.
Standard 3: Learning Environments

3.1 Teacher candidates manage the learning environment to actively and equitably engage students by organizing,
allocating, and coordinating the resources of time, space, and students’ attention.
3.2 Teacher candidates communicate verbally and nonverbally in ways that demonstrate respect for and responsiveness
to the cultural backgrounds and differing perspectives students bring to the learning environment.
When creating lessons, I know I shouldn’t keep my kids in their seats for longer than 15 minutes and I know I should
not be talking or instructing for any longer than 10 minutes. Within my lessons, I try to create opportunities to involve
individual students or the whole class as part of my instruction. If I exceed these times, I include movement or tactile
experiences. For example, the sight word activity was longer, but it was a movement-based learning activity where
© June 2020 Grand Canyon University. All rights reserved.

students were able to be involved the whole time. This lesson included catchy songs, chants, and cheers to help
reinforce concepts and keep student’s attention.
Standard 4: Content Knowledge
4.1 Teacher candidates stimulate student reflection on prior content knowledge, link new concepts to familiar concepts,
and make connections to students’ experiences.
4.2 Teacher candidates use supplementary resources and technologies effectively to ensure accessibility and relevance
for all students.
4.3 Teacher candidates create opportunities for students to learn, practice, and master academic language in their
content area.
Throughout the CVCe units, at the start of each lesson, students have been reviewing how magic e changes or affects a
word. Students are questioned on the different vowel sounds and their previous CVC knowledge. They are asked how
magic e affects words and how it will affect the current vowel they are working on. Students are afforded many
opportunities to practice and master the language from the lesson. Students were able to practice CVCe words during
the learning activity and as part of their independent work time. They receive CVCe practice during reading rounds
throughout the weekm Moby Max online lessons, and during independent reading time. Students are also able to link
CVCe concepts to CCVCe and CCCVCe words (long vowel digraphs, trigraphs, and blends words) while working in
reading rounds.
Standard 5: Application of Content
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).
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.
The following day, students applied their new knowledge of i_e words to a spelling and reading task. Students built an
i_e word, read the i_e word, wrote it in a sentence, and then read the sentence. After students were given a mini reader
and with their new knowledge of i_e words, they were asked to circle all CVCE words, read the book to themselves
twice, and then to a partner. Students apply their new CVCe knowledge to decode and read new words independently in
everyday books. This new knowledge is also transferred to writing to help students expand on their spelling, sentence
writing, and story telling.
Standard 6: Assessment
6.1 Teacher candidates design assessments that match learning objectives with assessment methods and minimize
sources of bias that can distort assessment results.
6.2 Teacher candidates work independently and collaboratively to examine test and other performance data to
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 language learning needs
The learning objective for this lesson was for students to be able to write CVCe words. Students completed an exit
ticket where they were given a CVCe picture and then asked to spell the CVCe word. I also observe and analyze
student performance during instruction. After examining results and performances, it was determined that all students
could spell CVCe words. The only time students struggle or need assistance is when the CVCe word has a c or g as the
last consonant because magic e also changes the the sound of g and c.
Standard 7: Planning for Instruction

7.1 Teacher candidates plan how to achieve each student’s learning goals, choosing appropriate strategies and
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
demonstrate knowledge and skill.
7.3 Teacher candidates plan for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior student
knowledge, and student interest.
© 2020. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
When planning instruction, it was already known that students could not read or write CVCe words based on past
comments or writing samples, however, an assessment was still given that focused on writing CVCe words, matching
CVCe words to pictures, and reading CVCe words. For all lessons in the CVCe units, formative assessments take place
in the form of exit tickets (verbal or paper) and observations. At the end of each CVCe unit, the same pre-assessment is
administered again. This first part of this unit focused on review of long vowels and short vowels to prepare students
for the actual CVCe unit. For these CVCe units, I chose to start with spelling or writing words first because students are
able to practice segmenting by separating individual sounds in each word. This is a key skill in spelling and writing
words. This helps lead into the actual blending and reading of words where the goal is for students to quickly and
smoothly blend sounds together, which take place the last two days of the i_e unit. Words with final silent “e” are
typically tricky words, which is why it is important to take this CVCe long vowel unit slowly and to include an
abundance of visual support and hands on writing and reading activities.
Keeping lessons interactive, hands-on, and movement-based is important to me. When you look at the center of a
phonics lesson, it really is not exciting, and it can be an overwhelming subject for beginner readers. Introducing CVCe
words with an interactive anchor chart provides direct instruction with easy-to-follow visuals. This is important for
students to understand the CVCe pattern and sets the tone for the rest of the week. An important aspect of spelling
words is being able to segment words by their individual sounds and connecting them with a letter. These students
already have experience with segmenting CVC words, and short vowel blend/digraph words. It was important to still
guide students through segmenting to help them understand the middle vowel will now have the long vowel sound and
the silent e is what makes the vowel long. Having students’ segment and write the words on their white boards provides
independent learning time. The word builder activity presents segmenting and spelling words with a different tool.
Using the magnetic letters provides a tactile learning experience, which is beneficial for all young learners.
Standard 8: Instructional Strategies
8.1 Teacher candidates vary their role in the instructional process (e.g., instructor, facilitator, coach, audience) in
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,
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, and helping students
to question).
As this was the second week of the CVCe units, my role was more of a facilitator for learning activities as students
already had a firm grasp of how magic e affects word. Students were asked questions such as; What strategies help us
sound out words? When we sound out words, what are some things we can do to see if the way we pronounced a word
is correct? Students who a variety of tools to practice and apply their learning. Students engage with the content
through the use of whiteboards, magnetic letters, and worksheets. Students their knowledge further in reading round
activities and online Moby Max lessons
Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice
9.1 Independently and in collaboration with colleagues, teacher candidates use a variety of data (e.g., systematic
observation, information about students, and research) to evaluate the outcomes of teaching and learning and to adapt
planning and practice.
9.2 Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside the
school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
I use a variety of formative/summative assessments such as performance tasks, observations, exit tickets to collect data
on student learning. For this lesson I observed an analyzed student performance during instruction and an exit ticket
was used at the end of the lesson. I use responses from my students to reflect upon my instruction to identify areas for
improvement. Within this lesson, I had a student mention how they were tired of having to use the magnetic boards.
This let me know I need to vary the spelling activities for the rest of the CVCe units. I will also solicit more formal
feedback from students in the form of a survey or a simple thumbs up/down about my teaching and our classroom
environment. I
Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration

10.1 Teacher candidates use technological tools and a variety of communication strategies to build local and global
learning communities that engage students, families, and colleagues.
10.2 Teacher candidates advocate to meet the needs of students, to strengthen the learning environment, and to enact
system change.
I send weekly emails to parents with announcements and what we will be working on in each major subject. I am
currently in the process of creating a website where parents can easily access more detailed information about our
current learning and resources that are available to support students at home.

Hughes Eval 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hughes Eval 2

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

Hughes Eval 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Julianna Hughes 20582339

Master of Education in Elementary Education

ELM-590 1/28/2021 5/12/2021

Almira School K-8

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

Julianna Hughes 20582339

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

Julianna Hughes 20582339

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

Julianna Hughes 20582339

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence

Julianna Hughes 20582339

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score No Evidence

Julianna Hughes 20582339

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

Julianna Hughes 20582339

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

Julianna Hughes 20582339

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score No Evidence

Julianna Hughes 20582339

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

Julianna Hughes 20582339

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score No Evidence

Julianna Hughes 20582339

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

Julianna Hughes 20582339

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning Score No Evidence

Julianna Hughes 20582339

Total Scored Percentage:

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

Standard 3: Learning Environments

© June 2020 Grand Canyon University. All rights reserved.

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration

© 2020. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

You might also like