Nicponski Clinical Practice Evaluation 3

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3
Megan Nicponski 20481415

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________
Master of Education in Secondary Education

PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SEC-590 8/16/2018 11/28/2018

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

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
California
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________
Kathryn Momaney
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Pherby Higgins
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:
150 points
EVALUATION 3 TOTAL
POINTS 100.00 %
25.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 150
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0 0 150 0 0 0
150

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 The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the
performance of the Teacher Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate meets Teacher Candidate
Candidate met this standard insufficient in meeting this underdeveloped in meeting developing in meeting this this standard and consistently exceeds this
or expectations for a Teacher standard and expectations for this standard and expectations standard and expectations for a expectations for a Teacher standard and all expectations
Candidate during student a Teacher Candidate during for a Teacher Candidate Teacher Candidate during Candidate during student for a Teacher Candidate
teaching. student teaching. during student teaching. student teaching. teaching. during student teaching.
Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

1.1 1.00
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 100
learning.
1.2
Teacher candidates collaborate with families, communities, colleagues, and other professionals to promote 1.00
100
student growth and development.
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. )
Megan's lesson was a summative writing assignment regarding animal rights, which is high interest topic for students, and there is a Proposition on the CA ballot this year.
Students were very engaged and were vocal about their for/against thoughts. She pushes the high end students to go above the norm and pushes the lower level students
to meet the standard. Megan collaborates with her CT, PLC group, other colleagues, and parents.


evaluations)
Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

2.1
Teacher candidates design, adapt, and deliver instruction to address each student’s diverse learning 1.00
100
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 1.00
strategies for making content accessible to English language students and for evaluating and supporting 100
their development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular 100 1.00
learning differences or needs.
Evidence
Megan doesn't have the opportunity to allow the students to "demonstrate their learning" in different ways with this curriculum other than through allowing them choices on
what they want to write about and giving them opportunities for discussion. She provides videos, PowerPoints, and written documents that afford language development in
multiple formats. Megan knows her ELL and SpEd support team, and has access to them, if needed.


evaluations)
Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence

3.1
Teacher candidates manage the learning environment to actively and equitably engage students by 1.00
100
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 1.00
responsiveness to the cultural backgrounds and differing perspectives students bring to the learning 100
environment.
Evidence
Megan does an outstanding job of ensuring bell-to-bell instruction that is engaging. She varies the type of instruction (instructor-led, guided discussion, think/pair/share,
independent practice) so as not to lose anyone during the two-hour block. This is NOT an easy task! Megan is respectful of the students, their backgrounds, and
perspectives. She always allows the students to write based on their perspectives, backgrounds, and feelings. Megan has a wonderful rapport with her students.
Megan Nicponski
TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ 20481415
STUDENT NUMBER____________________

evaluations)
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 100 1.00
their content area.
Evidence
Megan inserted content vocabulary throughout the discussion (foreshadowing, hook, thesis, etc..). She was also quick to define a term in one of the videos that was
probably not common to the students (cormorants). The videos dealt with the topic previously discussed; animal rights. She reviewed the parts of a good argumentative
summary to ensure the students were familiar with how the writing should be formatted and provided the students with a rubric for an "A" paper. Megan stated that
anything less that the rubric would not be an "A" paper.


evaluations)
Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

5.1
1.00
Teacher candidates engage students in applying content knowledge to real-world problems through the lens 100
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.
Evidence
The ERWC curriculum that Megan is using has some flexibility in that she can choose which lessons she wants to teach, based on current events and student
interests. The topic chosen is very relevant to real-world problems and affords the students an opportunity to share their approach to solving this controversy
regarding animal rights. She is getting them "college ready."


evaluations)
Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

6.1
Teacher candidates design assessments that match learning objectives with assessment methods and 100 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 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
Megan provided the students with a rubric at the end of the class, but it was still prior to them writing and submitting their final products, as they have the weekend to
complete the assignment and make it "A" worthy. She and her CT share the grading of the papers at this point, but she provides comments on the papers and reflects on the
student work to determine reteaching, if necessary. Megan noted "extra testing time, if requested" as a modification on her lesson plan, but no other modifications are
needed for this module. She and her CT also have office hours where students needing additional assistance can come to the classroom during normal school hours.


evaluations)
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
Megan is very familiar with her students and their writing abilities. She has no problems in making modifications throughout her lessons, period by period, to ensure that all of
the material is accessible to all students, especially to her ELL students in 2nd period. Her scaffolding is spot on. She always starts with a review, instructor-led instruction
including academic, guided instruction, partner/small group work, review, and independent practice culminating in a final paper.


evaluations)
Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

8.1
Teacher candidates vary their role in the instructional process (e.g., instructor, facilitator, coach, audience) 100 1.00
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, 100 1.00
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, 100 1.00
and helping students to question).
Evidence
Megan has such a good rapport with her students, that varying her role in the classroom is a natural thing for her and the students. She includes seamless role variation in her
lesson planning. Megan incorporates PowerPoints throughout her lessons, imbeds videos and outside sources, allows for whole class/partner/small group discussions, and
independent practice with handouts and rubrics. This allows accessibility to all students. She probes the students for higher level thinking with the "W" questions (what why,
how). Although not seen in this class, if a student in her ELL class is struggling, she helps them to articulate their responses.


evaluations)
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., 1.00
systematic observation, information about students, and research) to evaluate the outcomes of teaching and
100
learning and to adapt planning and practice.
9.2
1.00
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside 100
the school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
Evidence
Megan evaluates her students' progress. She collaborates with her CT daily and actively participates in the PLC meetings. Megan seeks resources with the PLC group, other
colleagues, and through research for her lessons.


evaluations)
Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

10.1
1.00
Teacher candidates use technological tools and a variety of communication strategies to build local and 100
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 100 1.00
enact system change.
Evidence
Megan has a blog for her class and sends emails to the parents and students. She helps her CT ensure that all stakeholders are involved in the students' progress (students,
parents, counselors, administration, etc...).

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

100.00 %
ATTACHMENTS
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

Pherby Higgins
Pherby Higgins (Oct 27, 2018) Oct 27, 2018

Nicponski Clinical Practice Evaluation 3

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Nicponski Clinical Practice Evaluation 3

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Megan Nicponski 20481415

Master of Education in Secondary Education

SEC-590 8/16/2018 11/28/2018

Santiago High School

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

Megan Nicponski 20481415

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

Megan Nicponski 20481415

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

Megan Nicponski 20481415

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score No Evidence

Megan Nicponski 20481415

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

Megan Nicponski 20481415

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

Megan Nicponski 20481415

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score No Evidence

Megan Nicponski 20481415

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

Megan Nicponski 20481415

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score No Evidence

Megan Nicponski 20481415

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

Megan Nicponski 20481415

Total Scored Percentage:

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

Potrebbero piacerti anche