CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Mae Hughes 20350898

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education

PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ELM-490 8/12/2019 11/24/2019

COURSE: _____________________________________________________ START DATE: ____________________________ END DATE: _____________________

Grace Community School

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ohio
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________

Melodee Mears
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________

Judith Kelly
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
150 0 0 0 0 0 0
150
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Mae Hughes 20350898

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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. )
Mae excels is all areas. She has worked hard to advance her pedagogical skills and to grow as an educator. As a result, the lessons she delivers are well-rounded and
encompass various media, interactive questioning strategies and overall higher order thinking skills. Mae consistently encourages students to participate and to explore the
topic. In the lesson that I observed, she was well-prepared, patient, and encouraging. The students were attentive to her and the lesson was paced well. Mae had excellent
classroom management strategies in place. Mae's CT provided extraordinary feedback in all domains. Please see the notes.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Mae Hughes 20350898

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 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
(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. )
This standard is satisfied. This is supported by observation and CT feedback.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Mae Hughes 20350898

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 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
(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. )
This standard is satisfied. This is supported by observation and CT feedback.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Mae Hughes
TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ 20350898
STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 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
(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. )
This standard is satisfied. This is supported by observation and CT feedback.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Mae Hughes 20350898

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 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 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. )
This standard is satisfied. This is supported by observation and CT feedback.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Mae Hughes 20350898

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 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
(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. )
This standard is satisfied. This is supported by observation and CT feedback.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Mae Hughes 20350898

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 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
(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. )
This standard is satisfied. This is supported by observation and CT feedback.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Mae Hughes 20350898

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 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
(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. )
This standard is satisfied. This is supported by observation and CT feedback.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Mae Hughes 20350898

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 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
(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. )
This standard is satisfied. This is supported by observation and CT feedback.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Mae Hughes 20350898

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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 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
(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. )
This standard is satisfied. This is supported by observation and CT feedback.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Mae Hughes 20350898

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

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

Judith Kelly
Judith Kelly (Nov 2, 2019) Nov 2, 2019
 Clinical Practice Evaluation 3 – FOR FEEDBACK PURPOSES ONLY*
Formative Feedback Worksheet
* This form is not to be accepted by faculty for official scoring. The GCU Faculty Supervisor will submit
each official Clinical Practice Evaluation to GCU.

Clinical Practice Evaluation 3 again focuses on the InTASC standards. Please consider how the teacher candidate has
performed in relation to the following 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.
Evidence:

Teacher, Mrs. Hughes, attended a teacher conference for two days. She gleaned many new
ideas to incorporate into her classroom. She was involved in discussions with other educators there and
in her own school.

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.
Evidence:

Mrs. Hughes uses specialized assistance with the tutorial teacher of her school, who in turns
works with children daily who have particular learning differences and needs. This co-ordinated effort is
providing good results with these children.

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.
Evidence:

The learning environment is organized and actively engages students’ attention in this
classroom. She demonstrates respect for each student as evidenced by their love for Mrs. Hughes and
their good response to her lesson, her instructions, and her ability to create a good flow

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.
Evidence:

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

The evidence of 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 is clearly demonstrated by assessment grades (report cards)
and the students’ love of learning in this classroom. Her use of resources and technology adds to the
implementation of concepts and lessons to be learned.
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.
Evidence:

Mrs. Hughes is beginning a unit called America Our Great Country. The children will be
exploring North and South America, the fifty states in overview, the beginning of our great nation
including Christopher Columbus and the Pilgrims and the Native Americans, and many important events
and people. This will of course be age appropriate.

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.
Evidence:

Our nine week report cards were sent home this week. Mrs. Hughes then scheduled parent
teacher conferences to share her assessment of each child with parents. These conferences were well
received.
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.
Evidence:

Mrs. Hughes is now appropriating ideas gleaned from ASCI teacher conferences recently
attended by our administrator and teachers. These new ideas will invigorate her teaching plans and
classroom experiences.
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).
Evidence:

The classroom atmosphere is always stable but stimulating because of new content being
discussed by teacher and children daily. The repetition of learned concepts stabilizes the environment,

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

and Mrs. Hughes daily teaches new content exceptionally.

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.
Evidence:

The teachers of our school will be sharing ideas learned from our ACSI conference last week.
Each teacher will share a summary of the conference and one way they have used a new idea at our
weekly meeting.

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.
Evidence:

Mrs. Hughes is actively using technological tools and a variety of strategies to engage with
families in her classroom and with families in our school. She works with grades 4-6 students after
school on the school dance team. Her children are a part of this team.

Additional Feedback Areas Below

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

 Overall Feedback

Strengths Opportunities for Growth Suggestions/Ideas to Implement

*teachability *teacher workshops within
*joy of learning and teaching the school faculty
*maturity
*ACSI Web Net activities and
*creative implementation
* workshops made available
of new ideas
through school membership

© 2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.