CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2

Sydney Ormiston 20284512

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________

Master of Education in Early Childhood Education

PROGRAM: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ECH-680 1/25/2018 3/21/2018

COURSE: ________________________________________START DATE: END DATE:________________________

Riviera Christian School

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________

Oregon
SCHOOL STATE:

Cori Wingett
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME:______________________________________________________________________________________

Candace Pelt
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: _____________________________________________________________________________________________

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

EVALUATION 2
TOTAL POINTS 275.04 points 91.68 %
19.00 1,900.00 1,742.00 300
0

0
300

0
0

0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
300
0 0 0 0 0
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2

Sydney Ormiston 20284512

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________

InTASC Scoring Guide

Not Applicable Unacceptable Acceptable Target
N/A 2 to 79 80 to 86 87 to 100
The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher
candidate did not involve the candidate is contrary to the standard candidate is frequently observed candidate is constantly
standard. and does not meet the expectations and meets expectations for a observed and consistently
for a student teacher. student teacher. exceeds expectations for a
student teacher.

Standard 1: Student Development Score N/A

1.1
Teacher candidates create developmentally appropriate instruction that takes into account individual 1.00
students’ strengths, interests, and needs and enables each student to advance and accelerate his or her 85
learning.
1.2
Teacher candidates collaborate with families, communities, colleagues, and other professionals to promote 90 1.00
student growth and development.
Comments
In self-reflection, Sydney would score herself 3.5/5. She shared the difficulty of fully attending to this standard when teaching in another's classroom. She had good ideas for
next steps- how to plan the letter tasks for each learner.
I observed a proficiency at this standard. In her lesson development and reflection, Sydney was able to adjust for the unique learners in her space and had thoughtful plans for
each student.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2

Sydney Ormiston 20284512

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________

InTASC Scoring Guide

Not Applicable Unacceptable Acceptable Target
N/A 2 to 79 80 to 86 87 to 100
The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher
candidate did not involve the candidate is contrary to the standard candidate is frequently observed candidate is constantly
standard. and does not meet the expectations and meets expectations for a observed and consistently
for a student teacher. student teacher. exceeds expectations for a
student teacher.

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score N/A

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
90 1.00
development of English proficiency.

✔
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular 0.00
learning differences or needs.
Comments
In the development of language, Sydney used rhyming sounds, patterns, and repetition to provide language development to all students. Her lesson was developed fro whole
group and also incorporated the unique differences of her learners including behavior and academic supports necessary for success.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2

Sydney Ormiston 20284512

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________

InTASC Scoring Guide

Not Applicable Unacceptable Acceptable Target
N/A 2 to 79 80 to 86 87 to 100
The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher The performance of the
candidate did not involve the candidate is contrary to the candidate is frequently observed teacher candidate is constantly
standard. standard and does not meet the and meets expectations for a observed and consistently
expectations for a student teacher. student teacher. exceeds expectations for a
student teacher.

Standard 3: Learning Environments Score N/A

3.1
Teacher candidates manage the learning environment to actively and equitably engage students by 95 1.00
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
95 1.00
environment.
Comments
In one of her strongest areas, Sydney adapted to the established learning space and noted where she would adjust with her own classroom. I was impressed with her use of
multiple learning spaces for preschool including carpet, centers, free-time, and play time.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2

Sydney Ormiston 20284512

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________

InTASC Scoring Guide

Not Applicable Unacceptable Acceptable Target
N/A 2 to 79 80 to 86 87 to 100
The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher The performance of the
candidate did not involve the candidate is contrary to the candidate is frequently observed teacher candidate is
standard. standard and does not meet the and meets expectations for a constantly observed and
expectations for a student teacher. student teacher. consistently exceeds
expectations for a student
teacher.

Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score N/A

4.1
Teacher candidates stimulate student reflection on prior content knowledge, link new concepts to familiar 90 1.00
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
✔ 0.00

Teacher candidates create opportunities for students to learn, practice, and master academic language in 85 1.00
their content area.
Comments
Sydney has a deep understanding of oral language development needs for young learners. In reflection, she would add talking and engagement strategies like turn-and
talk into future lessons.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2

Sydney Ormiston 20284512

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________

InTASC Scoring Guide

Not Applicable Unacceptable Acceptable Target
N/A 2 to 79 80 to 86 87 to 100
The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher The performance of the
candidate did not involve the candidate is contrary to the candidate is frequently observed teacher candidate is constantly
standard. standard and does not meet the and meets expectations for a observed and consistently
expectations for a student teacher. student teacher. exceeds expectations for a
student teacher.

Standard 5: Application of Content Score N/A

5.1
Teacher candidates engage students in applying content knowledge to real-world problems through the lens 97 1.00
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 100 1.00
their understanding of local and global issues and create novel approaches to solving problems.
Comments
In meeting, Sydney shared her plan and delivery of real-world applications of lessons. "Most kids don’t care if they don’t have a connection to their life. They learn more
when its concepts they talk about and its real to them. “teeth connection”. Teachable moments." This was a powerful understanding of the impact of language, connections
to life, and the relevance required to support instruction.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2

Sydney Ormiston 20284512

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________

InTASC Scoring Guide

Not Applicable Unacceptable Acceptable Target
N/A 2 to 79 80 to 86 87 to 100
The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher The performance of the
candidate did not involve the candidate is contrary to the candidate is frequently observed teacher candidate is constantly
standard. standard and does not meet the and meets expectations for a observed and consistently
expectations for a student teacher. student teacher. exceeds expectations for a
student teacher.

Standard 6: Assessment Score N/A

6.1
Teacher candidates design assessments that match learning objectives with assessment methods and 95 1.00
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
✔ 0.00

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.
Comments
✔ 0

Sydney uses both formal and informal observation strategies. Informal observation and 1:1 , large group watching and noting – providing opportunities for reading inventory
training -
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2

Sydney Ormiston 20284512

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________

InTASC Scoring Guide

Not Applicable Unacceptable Acceptable Target
N/A 2 to 79 80 to 86 87 to 100
The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher The performance of the
candidate did not involve the candidate is contrary to the candidate is frequently observed teacher candidate is constantly
standard. standard and does not meet the and meets expectations for a observed and consistently
expectations for a student teacher. student teacher. exceeds expectations for a
student teacher.

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score N/A

7.1
Teacher candidates plan how to achieve each student’s learning goals, choosing appropriate strategies and 95 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 90 1.00
demonstrate knowledge and skill.
7.3
Teacher candidates plan for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior student 90 1.00
knowledge, and student interest.
Comments
Sydney demonstrated understanding with ideas for goals, and then activities for students and leaning. The details of her plans are beyond those presented in this student
teaching experience as evidenced in reflection discussion.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2

Sydney Ormiston 20284512

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________

InTASC Scoring Guide

Not Applicable Unacceptable Acceptable Target
N/A 2 to 79 80 to 86 87 to 100
The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher
candidate did not involve the candidate is contrary to the standard candidate is frequently observed candidate is constantly
standard. and does not meet the expectations and meets expectations for a observed and consistently
for a student teacher. student teacher. exceeds expectations for a
student teacher.

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score N/A

8.1
Teacher candidates vary their role in the instructional process (e.g., instructor, facilitator, coach, audience) in 85 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, evaluate, and apply information.
8.3
✔ 0.00

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,
90 1.00
and helping students to question).
Comments
As a preschool teacher Sydney utilized questioning as an engagement strategy as well as a an assessment measure. She varied her questions, type,a nd style We did talk
about the options available for her to increase production of all learners with her questioning techniques.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2

Sydney Ormiston 20284512

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________

InTASC Scoring Guide

Not Applicable Unacceptable Acceptable Target
N/A 2 to 79 80 to 86 87 to 100
The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher
candidate did not involve the candidate is contrary to the standard candidate is frequently observed candidate is constantly
standard. and does not meet the expectations and meets expectations for a observed and consistently
for a student teacher. student teacher. exceeds expectations for a
student teacher.

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score N/A

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
100
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. ✔ 0.00

Comments
Each interaction and discussion with Sydney and her cooperating teacher indicates that she is professional in nature and takes the role of educator seriously.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2

Sydney Ormiston 20284512

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________

InTASC Scoring Guide

Not Applicable Unacceptable Acceptable Target
N/A 2 to 79 80 to 86 87 to 100
The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher The performance of the teacher The performance of the
candidate did not involve the candidate is contrary to the candidate is frequently observed teacher candidate is constantly
standard. standard and does not meet the and meets expectations for a observed and consistently
expectations for a student teacher. student teacher. exceeds expectations for a
student teacher.

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score N/A

10.1
Teacher candidates use technological tools and a variety of communication strategies to build local and 85 1.00
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 90 1.00
enact system change.
Comments
Sydney shared a strong desire for parent connections and interactions. She had several ideas for how to engage parents and the community with her classroom and learners.
Team interaction and input.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2

Sydney Ormiston 20284512

STUDENT NAME___________________________________ STUDENT NUMBER ____________________________

INSTRUCTIONS
Please review the "Total Scored Percentage" for accuracy and add any attachments before completing the "Agreement and Signature" section.
Once this evaluation is completed and submitted, the score is final and cannot be changed or altered by the GCU Faculty Supervisor or by GCU
staff.

Total Scored Percentage:

91.68 %
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
Candace Pelt
Candace Pelt (Mar 23, 2018)
Date
Mar 23, 2018
Sydney Observation

Preschool classroom:

Upon entering the room, Syndney was observed sitting with a few students
comforting them from the morning activities. One girl was sad and shared she
missed her mother. Sydney reassured her and spent time-sharing some of the day’s
plans with her. At transition time, the lights were turned off and on, and T
instructed students to clean up from playtime to begin the lessons for the day.
T asked student to come to their number at the carpet in a circle. “Levi- go find your
number. Where are you? “ in a cheerful tone.
How are we today friends?
Today we are learning a new letter, do you guys remember what letter this is. T
worked with circle on words that start with “p”. Students shared other words they
knew. T said we are learning about an animal that starts with the letter P. S guessed
Pig. T shared story of the Three Little Pigs – the original version.
T- reminded students that during listening of a story out loud she wanted good
listeners. S will listen to share if the story sounds the same or different.
T – read out loud the story of the Three Little Pigs from the Wolf’s version.
As T read out loud she showed the pictures and stopped after a few pages to review
the pages and ask clarifying questions of the students.
During the circle reading, all students were listening and would interject thoughts
on the story. “What do you think about the story? How was it different than the
other story?” Do you like this story r the other better? S random answered.
“If you could build your house of anything, what would you build it out of? “ S-
around the circle shared materials and T wrote responses on the chart paper.
S- some gave serious and some gave silly answers. S laughed as silly answer was
shared. T- moved to the next student. “That was a good one”.
Note- possible redirection, when they started to get extra silly maybe redirect/share
on group response when one friend shared. It ramped up a bit as they moved form
student to student. Overall, well done with not being frustrated with their
responses and just moving along. Also, try “turn and talk” with peers for increased
oral production.

Rhyming lists in circle time- T shared rhyming words and then began to give a list of
words and called on S to give words that rhyme with selected word. S- gave a wrong
answer and T responded with “those don’t have the same ending they do at the
beginning – what word has the same ending?” Choral style questions to the group-
“What is this called? What would rhyme with: tire, cart, van, etc. “ Raise your hand if
you know something that would rhyme.
Note- varying call and response opportunities, perhaps in a circle use turn and share
with your neighbor giving all students an opportunity to talk. Oral production
would be the goal Single student responses during the closing portion of rhyming.

Activity- T- shared she had a special letter for each student. Students received
envelopes with their names on it. T- asked, “Whose is this? Reading names on
envelopes. S- responded, saying names out loud. T asked S to take out letters for
spelling out their name. Students used letters to lay out the spelling of their name
with the card as an example. T- held up a letter and asked students to hold up
corresponding letters for the one shown. T said the letter and students identified if
the letter was in their name. Note- this was a great identification task for name and
letter recognition. Wondering: What would you do next? How will you
differentiate for students who know this and are ready to move to the next step?
How will you review for those who don’t have this yet?
S- moved envelopes to their backpack then move to stations.