Second Evaluation

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S
Katrina Staring 20113357

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________
Master of Education in Special Education

PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SPD-590 9/5/2019 12/18/2019

COURSE: _____________________________________________________ START DATE: ____________________________ END DATE: _____________________
McAllister Elementary School

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
New York
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________
Cindy Cashman
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Jeanette Barone
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

EVALUATION 2S TOTAL
POINTS 78.3 points 78.3 %
23 2,300.00 1801 100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 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’ 86 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 82
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. )
During the observation of her lesson, Katrina used multiple modalities to teach content such as visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile.
As per her CT, Mrs. Staring develops appropriate lesson plans. She is working on having all the material ready prior to each group. Mrs. Staring participated in parent/teacher
conferences. Mrs. Starting is still working on developing communication among staff members.


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 86 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
0.00
development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular learning 79 1.00
differences or needs.
Evidence
During the observation of her lesson, Katrina provides visuals throughout lesson to help make connections.
As per her CT, Mrs. Staring has read through all the students IEP’s. She is learning how to manage small groups and addressing each of the students learning styles. She is
continuing to learn how to address all learning styles.


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, 79 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
79
1.00
environment.
Evidence
During the observation of her lesson, Katrina had 3 students. Even though she implemented her lesson well, there was a lack of classroom management. Katrina is aware
of this and is working on improving this skill. She did guide the students throughout the lesson by informing them of what they will be doing next. Katrina will be provided with
resources and additional supervision.
As per her CT, This is one area that continues to be an area of growth for Mrs. Staring, even after discussing after each group. She is having a hard time with managing
small groups. We have discussed ways to improve classroom management but it still continues to be an area of growth. Also, engaging the students is difficult for her. I have
discussed with Mrs. Staring to let the students know the purpose of the lessons or why they are doing an activity. Students will respond better if they know why, they are
doing something.


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 79 1.00
concepts, and make connections to students’ experiences.
4.2
Teacher candidates use supplementary resources and technologies effectively to ensure accessibility and 79 1.00
relevance for all students.
4.3
Teacher candidates create opportunities for students to learn, practice, and master academic language in their 79 1.00
content area.
Evidence
During the observation of her lesson, Katrina did follow her lesson plan thoroughly except for the journey book reading, which I noted as an additional resource if more
time was needed. She did use the Smart Board but not the chrome books. She presented her lesson using a variety of styles, verbally reviewing letter sounds, skywriting
new sight words, demonstrating syllables of words using fingers, use of manipulative to spell words, and write words.
As per her CT, Mrs. Staring often seems like she isn’t sure of the content. I have suggested that she does the lesson or activity ahead of time so she is knows what it is
about. Mrs. Staring also has the manual of several reading programs available to take home to read to learn. This will help her with the sounds of the letters or the stories
behind the vowels or phonics. Mrs. Staring needs to start use technology into her lessons. All students have chrome books, in the classroom there are Surface pro, the
Smart Board, and an Elmo.


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 79 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
their understanding of local and global issues and create novel approaches to solving problems.
Evidence
✔ 0.00
During the observation of her lesson, Katrina was working with first grade students. Her application of content was developmentally appropriate.
As per her CT, Mrs. Staring has followed the 5th grade Storyworks program and has applied these skills.


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 76
sources of bias that can distort assessment results.
6.2
Teacher candidates work independently and collaboratively to examine test and other performance data to 76 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 76 1
language learning needs.
Evidence
During the observation of her lesson, Katrina observed and had the students orally respond to content being taught.
As per her CT, Mrs. Staring has helped provide testing accommodations for the students. During the past week, the DIBELS and Fountas and Pinnell administered, she didn’t
observed. She stated that hopefully, she will observed the next time these test are given.


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 78 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 78 1.00
demonstrate knowledge and skill.
7.3
Teacher candidates plan for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior student 78 1.00
knowledge, and student interest.
Evidence
During the observation of her lesson, Katrina implemented a lesson that built upon and practiced previous learning.
As per her CT, Mrs. Staring has had her lessons planned out for the week. She follows the calendars for each teacher to know what they are teaching. She needs to work on
how she is formative and summative assessing the students. Mrs. Staring has been shown several ways but hasn’t applied them. One easy way is to ask the students at the
end of the period to give her two things they learned about the given topic she taught. Mrs. Staring is working on finding multiple ways to demonstrate her knowledge on the
particular skill.


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 76 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, 76 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,
76
1.00
and helping students to question).
Evidence
During the observation of her lesson, Katrina instructed the skills and expectations within the lesson.
As per her CT, Mrs. Starting seems to understand what instructional content is needed for each grade level. She follows what format I was doing when she took over. I would
like to see her use technology into her teaching more and finding some creative ideas to teach the students. There is a variety of technology in the classroom and she does not
use it. She is working on asking students questions prior to lesson, during a lesson, and after lesson. She has been given ideas how to incorporate questions in the lesson, to
check for understanding.


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 76
to adapt planning and practice.
9.2
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside the 76 1.00
school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
Evidence
During Katrina's post-conference, we discussed asking her CT questions for support and guidance.
As per her CT, Mrs. Staring is starting to ask teachers about what they are planning for the following week. She participated in their K-12 Superintendent Conference Day.


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 76 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 76 1.00
enact system change.
Evidence
Katrina is understanding the needs of each student and will act as an advocate when needed to make sure needs are met (using technology to help a student understand
latitude and longitude).
As per her CT, this is one area Mrs. Staring needs to continue to work on. Mrs. Staring needs to work on the use of using technology. She needs to use it in her teaching and
to communicate.

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. 79 1.00
Evidence
Katrina does understand the impact student learning has as it relates to STEP and other formative and summative assessments.

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

78.3 %
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

Jeanette Barone
Jeanette Barone (Oct 29, 2019) Oct 29, 2019

Second Evaluation

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

Second Evaluation

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Katrina Staring 20113357

Master of Education in Special Education

SPD-590 9/5/2019 12/18/2019

McAllister Elementary School

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

Katrina Staring 20113357

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

Katrina Staring 20113357

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

Katrina Staring 20113357

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence

Katrina Staring 20113357

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score No Evidence

Katrina Staring 20113357

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

Katrina Staring 20113357

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

Katrina Staring 20113357

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score No Evidence

Katrina Staring 20113357

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

Katrina Staring 20113357

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score No Evidence

Katrina Staring 20113357

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

Katrina Staring 20113357

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning Score No Evidence

Katrina Staring 20113357

Total Scored Percentage:

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

Potrebbero piacerti anche