637147436546575927

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3
Claudia Ramos 20546267

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________
Master of Education in Early Childhood Education

PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ECH-685 11/7/2019 1/15/2020

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

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
California
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________
Silvia Miranda
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Tamara Andersen
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:
189.2 points
EVALUATION 3 TOTAL
POINTS 94.60 %
25.00 2,500.00 2,365.00 200
0
0
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
200

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 95
learning.
1.2
Teacher candidates collaborate with families, communities, colleagues, and other professionals to promote 1.00
95
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. )
Claudia continues to develop in this standard. As a pre-school teacher, Claudia has an understanding of student development. Once she has an understanding of the
academic content being taught, she is able to scaffold the content to help the students build on prior knowledge and help gain a better perspective on the new content/topic
being taught. Claudia continues to identify effective instructional strategies to communicate with her mono-lingual parents and member within the community.


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
90
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 95
their development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular 98 1.00
learning differences or needs.
Evidence
Claudia continues to develop in this standard. Claudia continues to identify instruction that supports academic, social and emotional needs of bi-lingual learners. She provides
multiple opportunities for students to learn in both languages and opportunities to build on language instruction. Claudia is very resourceful and can find instructional supports
to ensure students are successful.


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
96
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 98
environment.
Evidence
Claudia continues to develop in this standard. She had developed a positive working relationship with her students and identified instructional strategies that build on
student's strengths and ares of improvements. Even though she has an understanding of "on and off task behavior", we have discussed "what" instructional chants,
strategies and activities can be incorporated to help maintain a positive work environment. Claudia continues to demonstrate respect when addressing both positive and
corrective behaviors.
Claudia Ramos
TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ 20546267
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 95 1.00
concepts, and make connections to students’ experiences.
4.2
Teacher candidates use supplementary resources and technologies effectively to ensure accessibility and 98 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
Claudia continues to develop in this standard. She currently teaching in a dual learning environment, which mainly supports Spanish speaking learners; however, we
have discussed the importance of making sure she addresses the "English" component, since not all learners are Spanish speakers. Claudia is very resourceful and
identifies instructional strategies to help motivate and engaged learners, in addition to help master academic language as well.


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 92
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 92 1.00
their understanding of local and global issues and create novel approaches to solving problems.
Evidence
Claudia continues to develop in this standard. Even though the academic content is relevant and supportive to student learners in a dual language environment, we
have discussed the importance of "relevance".... and how relevance can help students build on their prior knowledge and link concepts to obtain stronger
understanding of what is being taught. We also discussed the importance of bringing in different perspectives as well.


evaluations)
Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

6.1
Teacher candidates design assessments that match learning objectives with assessment methods and 90 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 90 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
90 1
language learning needs.
Evidence
Claudia continues to develop in this standard. Claudia understands the importance of assessments and how assessments help drive instruction. In her current placement,
Claudia used district and curriculum generated assessments. She meets with team and faculty members to discuss assessment and further instruction to support growth
across the different grade levels. We discussed how Claudia can incorporate assessments (informal) pre/post test to identify if the student learned the objective being taught
and also use supportive evidence from the assessment to justify and support instructional choices.


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 94 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 90 1.00
knowledge, and student interest.
Evidence
Claudia continues to develop in this standard. She understands academic standards, learning goals and objectives and always incorporates lessons with engaging and
motivating activities. Even thought Claudia had done a better job sequencing instruction, we would like to see her incorporate more (informal assessments).


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) 90 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, 90 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, 95 1.00
and helping students to question).
Evidence
Claudia continues to develop in this standard. She is able to teach in a large and small group settings, in addition to support one to one instruction for struggling learners. We
discussed how she can vary her roll as an instructor, but implementing different strategies to support the topic, allowing students to learn and present content in different ways.
We would also like to see Claudia incorporate technology to enhance and challenge learners. She continues to ask higher level questions to get students to connect and
obtain a better understanding of the concept being taught.


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
Claudia continues to develop in this standard. Claudia is very respectful and professional inside and outside of the learning environment. She has developed positive working
relationships with students, staff, faculty, parents and key stakeholders within the community. Claudia continues to see the benefits of data to drive instruction, in addition to
the importance of seeking resources and professional development in and out of the school setting. Claudia is eager to continue her learning experience and continue to
improve upon her strengths and areas of improvements.


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
Claudia continues to develop in this standard. She is very knowledgeable of the academic content she teachings and the learning environment. Claudia is a strong
communicator and has worked collaboratively with her cooperating instructor to help expand learning beyond the classroom setting. She continues to seek learning
opportunities for her students to now only excel in their native language, but also in English. Claudia also participates in activities outside of the learning environment to help
families as well.

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

94.60 %
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

Dr. TJ. Andersen
Dr. TJ. Andersen (Dec 21, 2019) Dec 21, 2019
Room 6 Bilingual 1st grade Mrs. Ramos-Mrs. Miranda
Lesson plan December 6, 2019
Unit Topic: Non-Fiction Writing
Unit Title: Smart and Informative Writing
California Common Core State Standards

Writing Standards: Text Types and Purposes: 2. Write informative/explanatory texts in which
they name a topic, supply some facts about the topic, and provide some sense of closure.
Learning Goal
At the end of this unit, students will be able to write an informative, non-fiction booklet on a
subject. Including, table of contents, informative pages and conclusion.
Measurable Objectives
Objective 1: Students will be able to pick a non-fiction topic
Objective 2: Students will be able to develop a booklet with 3 or more pages about a subject.
Objective 3: Students will be able to write a table of contents based on their information.
Objective 4: Students will be able to write a conclusion.
Setting:
Students will be seated as a group, while teacher introduces an example of an informative
booklet. Teacher will explain the key parts of the booklet (table of contents, facts on topic,
sentence structure, conclusion and cover). Students will be shown how to extend their
information by making comparisons or adding a second sentence about the facts. Students will
be show how to had labels to their drawings about the facts.
Activity
Students will pick a finished booklet to add more detail, longer sentences, make comparisons and
add labels to their drawings to have a more complete non-fiction booklet.
Unit Topic: Non-Fiction reading
Unit Title: Smart reading
California Common Core State Standards

Reading Standards for Informational Text K–5
Ask and answer questions about key details in a text.
Identify the main topic and retell key details of a text.
Measurable Objectives
Objective 1: Students will be able to pick a non-fiction book
Objective 2: Students will be able to read the non-fiction book and predict what the book is about
Objective 3: Students will be able to write key words on the topic
Room 6 Bilingual 1st grade Mrs. Ramos-Mrs. Miranda
Setting
Students will be seated as a group, while teacher goes over “Smart reading” chart. Teacher will
go over a non-fiction book with them and do a “smart” reading, then they will be introduced to
the concept of finding key words on a topic to be a smart reader and understand concepts better.
Activity
Students will be send to read on their own with books according to their reading level, find and
write the key words on their book. After reading time is over, students will be picked randomly
to share their book with the class and share the key words that they found.

637147436546575927

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

637147436546575927

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Claudia Ramos 20546267

Master of Education in Early Childhood Education

ECH-685 11/7/2019 1/15/2020

Nicoloff Elementary School

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

Claudia Ramos 20546267

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

Claudia Ramos 20546267

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

Claudia Ramos 20546267

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

Claudia Ramos 20546267

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

Claudia Ramos 20546267

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

Claudia Ramos 20546267

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score No Evidence

Claudia Ramos 20546267

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

Claudia Ramos 20546267

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score No Evidence

Claudia Ramos 20546267

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

Claudia Ramos 20546267

Total Scored Percentage:

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

Lesson plan December 6, 2019

Unit Topic: Non-Fiction Writing

Unit Title: Smart and Informative Writing

California Common Core State Standards

Unit Topic: Non-Fiction reading

Unit Title: Smart reading

California Common Core State Standards

Вам также может понравиться