Clinical Practice Evaluation 3 Part 1 - Signed-Merged

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3
Tara Handy 20014809

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________
Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education

PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ELM-490 8/26/2019 12/8/2019

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

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Wyoming
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________
Heidi Berg
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Virginia Jorden
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:
139.02 points
EVALUATION 3 TOTAL
POINTS 92.68 %
25.00 2,500.00 2,317.00 150
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
150 0 0 0 0 0 0
150
Tara Handy 20014809

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 93
learning.
1.2
Teacher candidates collaborate with families, communities, colleagues, and other professionals to promote 1.00
93
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. )
I observed Tara teaching a reading lesson focusing on “questioning” as one of the reading strategies studied at this grade level; more specifically the “I Wonder . . .” strategy.
She appealed to different learning needs by incorporating direct instruction and “turn and talk” with a partner. She selected a very engaging story, Charlie Anderson, that
held the attention of all students. During the read aloud, she stopped and asked appropriate questions to connect students to prior knowledge, “What does this story remind
you of?” Throughout the story she assessed and adjusted learning by asking: “What do you think is going on?”; “What does it mean that the girls are going to the other
house on the weekend?”; “I wonder why the author told us the girls had to go to their Dad’s house?” Students had an opportunity to respond. To the extent that students did
not grasp the meaning, Tara gently guided them by asking clarifying questions. (continued on attachment)
Tara Handy 20014809


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
93
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 93
their development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular 93 1.00
learning differences or needs.
Evidence
Many of the descriptors under Standard 1 also apply to this standard. See above.
I reviewed Tara’s lesson plan book. It showed that she is highly organized and thoughtful about her weekly planning.
The observed reading lesson contained a mini-lesson on using “I Wonder” questioning strategy. Students then moved to multiple learning centers which gave students a
chance to learn according to their learning styles. One center was a listening center where students listened to a story while one student turned the pages. Another center
involved a worksheet guided by an aide, another center was independent reading. During this time, several groups circulated, meeting Tara at the elbow table. Here Tara
differentiated her instruction with each group and within each group according to their progress on sight word reading. Groups read from different sight word readers.
(continued on attachment)
Tara Handy 20014809


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
93
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 93
environment.
Evidence
Tara has a kind and soft-spoken manner which appeals to many students. Tara continues to make connections with students contributing to a positive classroom learning
environment. In fact, the principal was so impressed by her connection to one of her sped students that he offered her a position to serve as that student’s full time
support person after her placement is complete. I have observed that Tara meets students at the classroom door in the morning with a welcoming comment for each child.
She also engages students in the morning meeting encouraging students to talk about their evening, etc. In addition, as mentioned in Standard 2, students took personal
responsibility when moving from center to center and doing what was expected. That level of respect and responsibility must be the result of the connections Tara made
with students since the beginning of school.
Tara Handy
TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ 20014809
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 93 1.00
concepts, and make connections to students’ experiences.
4.2
Teacher candidates use supplementary resources and technologies effectively to ensure accessibility and 93 1.00
relevance for all students.
4.3
Teacher candidates create opportunities for students to learn, practice, and master academic language in 93 1.00
their content area.
Evidence
Tara’s lesson plan included opportunities for individual brainstorming related to previous learning and partner brainstorming. She began the lesson by posing the
question, “What is an ‘I Wonder’ question and asking students to use their schema. Several students responded when she called their names from her name stick jar.
Later, she showed students the cover of the book, asked them to think of an “I Wonder” question, then turn and talk with a partner about their questions. The cooperating
teacher commented that Tara has used K-W-L charts on their study of bats and her geography unit. She used story maps with The Old Lady Who Swallowed a Bat and
Stellaluna. I observed the Stellaluna anchor chart in the classroom showing the elements of a story: characters, setting, problem, and solution. (continued on attachment)
Tara Handy 20014809


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
Tara continued to address social topics during the Olweus (anti-bullying) lessons. She used picture books like Tops and Bottoms and Monkey and Turtle to extend
the themes into students’ real world. Students also learned about real world problems and solutions concerning fire prevention and safety from firefighters who
visited the classroom. Tara’s social studies unit connected students to Switzerland after examination of students’ community, city, state and United States. One of
her lessons called upon students to compare and contrast Switzerland to their community and state.
Tara Handy 20014809


evaluations)
Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

6.1
Teacher candidates design assessments that match learning objectives with assessment methods and 93 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 93 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
93 1
language learning needs.
Evidence
Tara’s social studies unit on mapping included the following topics: where we live; using pictures, maps, and map keys, our country, our world, a look at geography in
Switzerland. She created and scored the pre-assessment, the learning activities and the final assessment. Throughout the unit, she formatively assessed through whole-
group discussions, think-pair-share activities, student completion of graphic organizers, a world map game, various worksheets, and a post-assessment where students
independently created a detailed map of the school playground with map key. I was able to review some of those assessments and saw a variety of ways that students could
show their learning. Summative assessments are embedded in much of the curriculum and Tara has administered and graded them. Tara also had the opportunity to learn
the teachers’ electronic gradebook system. (continued on attachment)
Tara Handy 20014809


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 93 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 93 1.00
demonstrate knowledge and skill.
7.3
Teacher candidates plan for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior student 93 1.00
knowledge, and student interest.
Evidence
It is clear from Tara’s lesson plan on questioning and from her unit lesson plan that she understands the value of preparation, taking into consideration students’ needs and
strengths. I was able to observe Tara work with individual reading groups. She planned the reading lessons based on each group’s reading level. I observed her engage
each group in a picture walk, listened to individual student reading, listened to recitation of sight word lists and blends. She gave each student her attention as shown by her
words and body language. The activities were appropriately sequenced and she moved smoothly from one activity to the next. (continued on attachment)
Tara Handy 20014809


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) 92 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, 92 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, 92 1.00
and helping students to question).
Evidence
In the observed lesson, Tara guided students with her questioning at the beginning of the lesson and throughout the lesson. She wanted students to implement the “I Wonder”
strategy used by good readers. However, I would suggest more explicit instruction initially on why it is important for good readers to use this strategy. While it is true that
readers use their schema to fashion “I Wonder” questions, it was not so clear from a first grader viewpoint why he/she should wonder about the story based on the cover
and/or title. I would suggest an anchor chart listing the strategies, like prediction, visualizing, making connections, etc. so that students could see all the reading strategies
good readers use and understand where “I Wonder” questioning falls within that list. Most first graders just jump into the book without questioning of any kind. (continued on
attachment)
Tara Handy 20014809


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
92
learning and to adapt planning and practice.
9.2
1.00
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside 92
the school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
Evidence
Tara’s cooperating teacher commented that Tara reflects and asks questions about her lessons. Tara reaches out to her cooperating teacher as to how she can best teach a
lesson or better help a student. Tara continues to collaborate on instruction, assessments, grouping, etc. with her cooperating teacher and other support staff. She continues
to attend PLC meetings, staff meetings, and professional development training. Tara consulted additional online sources for lesson planning and to spark student engagement.
Her five day unit on mapping contains multiple examples of formative and summative assessments. She explained that the use of google maps and student engagement
caused her to use more visual aids. She also altered her instruction from independent worksheets to whole group worksheets when she realized the struggles her students
faced doing independent work. She also uses student conferring sheets in reading and writing. (continued on attachment)
Tara Handy 20014809


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 92
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 93 1.00
enact system change.
Evidence
Tara advocated on behalf of a particular student, albeit in her quiet way. As previously stated, Tara has a kind and caring demeanor and a soft-spoken manner. These
qualities appealed to a particularly difficult child who responded to her where he hadn’t responded to other support staff. The principal observed this change in the student and
offered Tara a position after completion of her GCU requirements to serve as full-time support for this first grade student.
Tara continues to communicate each day with families during student pick-up at the end of the day, by preparing the weekly newsletter, by working with parents in the
classroom on parent-involvement days and by attending parent/teacher conferences. She continues to attend PLC meetings and professional development sessions. The
cooperating teacher commented that Tara adjusts her instruction for higher and lower level students. (continued on attachment)
Tara Handy 20014809

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

92.68 %
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

Virginia Jorden
Virginia Jorden (Nov 1, 2019) Nov 1, 2019
Teacher Candidate: Tara Handy
GCU Faculty Supervisor: Virginia Jorden
Observation #3 Lesson: Reading-1st grade-Questioning Strategy
Date of Observation: October 28, 2019
Standard #1: Student Development
I observed Tara teaching a reading lesson focusing on “questioning” as one of the reading
strategies studied at this grade level; more specifically the “I Wonder . . .” strategy. She
appealed to different learning needs by incorporating direct instruction and “turn and talk”
with a partner. She selected a very engaging story, Charlie Anderson, that held the attention of
all students. During the read aloud, she stopped and asked appropriate questions to connect
students to prior knowledge, “What does this story remind you of?” Throughout the story she
assessed and adjusted learning by asking: “What do you think is going on?”; “What does it
mean that the girls are going to the other house on the weekend?”; “I wonder why the author
told us the girls had to go to their Dad’s house?” Students had an opportunity to respond. To
the extent that students did not grasp the meaning, Tara gently guided them by asking
clarifying questions. Tara began the lesson by showing the cover of the book and asking
students to think about their own I Wonder questions, turn and talk with a partner, then share
with the whole class. At closure, Tara asked whether any of their I Wonder questions were
answered. I would suggest that students would have had an easier time remembering their I
Wonder questions if Tara had written them on chart paper at the beginning of the lesson.
Students could then have a visual to remind themselves of all the I Wonder questions and
would be in a better position to know if their questions had been answered.
Tara’s Step Standard 4-Five Day Unit Plan meets all the descriptors in Standard 1.1.
Tara’s cooperating teacher commented that Tara’s use of the Fundations curriculum includes
auditory chants, choral reading, kinesthetic finger tapping and drawing letters in the air, and
use of magnet tiles and writing letters and words. During math lessons, Tara uses videos,
manipulatives and dry erase boards. Tara is very observant in that she recognizes student
needs and will reteach certain lessons to ensure student understanding. She has taken extra
time to consult the teacher manual videos to try different teaching techniques to ensure
student understanding.
Tara continues to communicate with families by writing daily in the students’ planners about
the student’s day and to answer parents’ questions in the planners. She prepared the weekly
newsletter. She communicates with families as they pick up their children at the end of the day.
Tara participated in the Halloween Boo Bash in the evening where each classroom provided a
carnival-type game for the costumed participants. Tara will participate in parent/teacher
conferences at the end of October. Tara is also involved in planning for the parent involvement
day in the classroom at the end of November where families will be disguising paper turkeys so
they can’t be found for Thanksgiving dinner.
Tara continues to attend PLC meetings and all professional development and staff meetings.
Standard 2: Learning Differences
Many of the descriptors under Standard 1 also apply to this standard. See above.
I reviewed Tara’s lesson plan book. It showed that she is highly organized and thoughtful about
her weekly planning.
The observed reading lesson contained a mini-lesson on using “I Wonder” questioning strategy.
Students then moved to multiple learning centers which gave students a chance to learn
according to their learning styles. One center was a listening center where students listened to
a story while one student turned the pages. Another center involved a worksheet guided by an
aide, another center was independent reading. During this time, several groups circulated,
meeting Tara at the elbow table. Here Tara differentiated her instruction with each group and
within each group according to their progress on sight word reading. Groups read from
different sight word readers. In addition, some groups visited outside the classroom with
Title 1 reading teachers according to their leveled abilities. School has only been in session for
approximately two months and I was genuinely impressed with the smooth student transitions
from one center to another and the level of personal responsibility shown by students to do
their personal best. Group work is also differentiated by student instructional levels in math.
Tara has consulted with the ELL teacher in order to make vocabulary words more
understandable for the ELL students in the classroom. I observed how Tara pointed out some
words or sayings while reading Charlie Anderson. She asked about the meaning of “foot of the
bed” and “the cat purrs.” She has consulted with the Title 1 reading teachers about placement
of students into their appropriate reading groups. She has collaborated with the social worker
and behavior intervention specialist about students needing additional behavior plans and has
implemented those plans.
The cooperating teacher commented that Tara has focused on academic terms in math,
reading, writing, science, and social studies, as well as during read-alouds.
The cooperating teacher commented that Tara continues to use technology in the Fundations
lessons, in math lessons, makes use of the Doc Cam for many lessons and google maps.
Standard 3: Learning Environment
Tara has a kind and soft-spoken manner which appeals to many students. Tara continues to
make connections with students contributing to a positive classroom learning environment. In
fact, the principal was so impressed by her connection to one of her sped students that he
offered her a position to serve as that student’s full time support person after her placement is
complete. I have observed that Tara meets students at the classroom door in the morning with
a welcoming comment for each child. She also engages students in the morning meeting
encouraging students to talk about their evening, etc. In addition, as mentioned in Standard 2,
students took personal responsibility when moving from center to center and doing what was
expected. That level of respect and responsibility must be the result of the connections Tara
made with students since the beginning of school. During the observed lesson, Tara needed
only to say the child’s name in her soft voice in order to redirect him/her back to the lesson.
Tara followed her lesson plan and designated the appropriate amount of time. Students had
opportunities for movement after the mini-lesson by moving from center to center. Some
centers allowed students to sit on the floor, and others had them at a table (either sitting or
standing). She allocated the right amount of time at each center. Some centers were small
group, some were partner activities where students could discuss such as at the word work
center, and some were independent, such as where each student read alone with books in their
personal book box.
Standard 4: Content Knowledge
Tara’s lesson plan included opportunities for individual brainstorming related to previous
learning and partner brainstorming. She began the lesson by posing the question, “What is an ‘I
Wonder’ question and asking students to use their schema. Several students responded when
she called their names from her name stick jar. Later, she showed students the cover of the
book, asked them to think of an “I Wonder” question, then turn and talk with a partner about
their questions. The cooperating teacher commented that Tara has used K-W-L charts on their
study of bats and her geography unit. She used story maps with The Old Lady Who Swallowed a
Bat and Stellaluna. I observed the Stellaluna anchor chart in the classroom showing the
elements of a story: characters, setting, problem, and solution. She also commented that Tara
continues to use the doc cam, smartboard, computers are used twice a week, math lessons on
Think Central, listening center in reading, white boards, manipulatives, 10 frames and continues
to incorporate math games and centers. Tara consulted with the librarian to obtain various
books on bats.
Standard 5: Application of Content
Tara continued to address social topics during the Olweus (anti-bullying) lessons. She used
picture books like Tops and Bottoms and Monkey and Turtle to extend the themes into
students’ real world. Students also learned about real world problems and solutions
concerning fire prevention and safety from firefighters who visited the classroom. Tara’s social
studies unit connected students to Switzerland after examination of students’ community, city,
state and United States. One of her lessons called upon students to compare and contrast
Switzerland to their community and state.
Standard 6: Assessment
Tara’s social studies unit on mapping included the following topics: where we live; using
pictures, maps, and map keys, our country, our world, a look at geography in Switzerland. She
created and scored the pre-assessment, the learning activities and the final assessment.
Throughout the unit, she formatively assessed through whole-group discussions, think-pair-
share activities, student completion of graphic organizers, a world map game, various
worksheets, and a post-assessment where students independently created a detailed map of
the school playground with map key. I was able to review some of those assessments and saw a
variety of ways that students could show their learning. Summative assessments are embedded
in much of the curriculum and Tara has administered and graded them. Tara also had the
opportunity to learn the teachers’ electronic gradebook system.
The cooperating teacher commented that she and Tara have discussed class data and
standardized testing results in PLC meetings. They have examined and discussed data with Title
1 teachers and evaluated student groupings on a continuing basis.
Tara and the cooperating teacher have made testing accommodations for students on an as
needed basis. Some students test in another room. The cooperating teacher commented that
Tara is alert to struggling students who may need help with work and assessments.
Standard 7: Planning for Instruction
It is clear from Tara’s lesson plan on questioning and from her unit lesson plan that she
understands the value of preparation, taking into consideration students’ needs and strengths. I
was able to observe Tara work with individual reading groups. She planned the reading lessons
based on each group’s reading level. I observed her engage each group in a picture walk,
listened to individual student reading, listened to recitation of sight word lists and blends. She
gave each student her attention as shown by her words and body language. The activities were
appropriately sequenced and she moved smoothly from one activity to the next.
I would suggest that Tara find a strategy so students know not to disturb her while she is
working with a small group as part of the readers’ workshop. Some teachers at the first grade
level wear a tiara which means that they cannot be disturbed except for an emergency. Some
teachers use some visual object on the table which would mean the same thing. This is also
useful when teachers are performing a timed assessment with a student.
The cooperating teacher commented that Tara discusses her plans and plans lessons for the
next week based on student needs and objectives. She recognizes when a lesson needs to be
repeated or altered to ensure student learning. Her cooperating teacher commented that her
lesson plans are always thorough. Although Tara won’t be present during the second quarter,
she will be working with the cooperating teacher to align the second quarter curriculum.
Tara has a talent for appealing to student interests. Her five lesson unit included google maps
whereby students could zoom out from the school, the community, the town, the state, the
United States and finally to the planet. She searched online resources to add interest and fun
to their study of bats. I observed students proudly wearing their self-made bat hats through
the school halls that day. Students were totally engaged in celery experiments and making
observations as part of the scientific method.
Standard 8: Instructional Strategies
In the observed lesson, Tara guided students with her questioning at the beginning of the
lesson and throughout the lesson. She wanted students to implement the “I Wonder” strategy
used by good readers. However, I would suggest more explicit instruction initially on why it is
important for good readers to use this strategy. While it is true that readers use their schema
to fashion “I Wonder” questions, it was not so clear from a first grader viewpoint why he/she
should wonder about the story based on the cover and/or title. I would suggest an anchor
chart listing the strategies, like prediction, visualizing, making connections, etc. so that students
could see all the reading strategies good readers use and understand where “I Wonder”
questioning falls within that list. Most first graders just jump into the book without questioning
of any kind. A clear and concise essential question presented initially would be “How do ‘I
Wonder’ questions help me better understand the story”, followed by “I Can Create an ‘I
Wonder’ Question.”
During the lesson debriefing, we discussed that the students did not seem to get the notion
that in divorce, children often live part of the time with one parent and part with another.
Although the lesson objective was creating an “I Wonder” question, I would suggest that Tara
should consider giving a brief introduction (characters, setting, maybe the problem) after
students volunteered their I Wonder question and before the read-aloud. Tara could also
introduce the idea of divorce as it relates to the story and thereby get a feel for student schema
on the topic of divorce.
During her small groups after the mini-lesson, Tara coached students as they practiced their
sight word skills offering appropriate praise and support where needed. I would suggest that
Tara could have used one of the centers as practice for the I Wonder questioning skill. The
center with the cooperating teacher or Tara’s center could have been used as practice. The
teacher would read a short passage and students would write an I Wonder question on a
whiteboard followed by guided discussion. In that way students could practice the new
learning skill while it was fresh and in a more intimate setting. Tara closed the mini-lesson by
encouraging students to create “I Wonder” questions as they read books in the book bins.
However, some practice with the teacher in a small group could facilitate their ability to do it on
their own during independent reading.
Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice
Tara’s cooperating teacher commented that Tara reflects and asks questions about her lessons.
Tara reaches out to her cooperating teacher as to how she can best teach a lesson or better
help a student. Tara continues to collaborate on instruction, assessments, grouping, etc. with
her cooperating teacher and other support staff. She continues to attend PLC meetings, staff
meetings, and professional development training. Tara consulted additional online sources for
lesson planning and to spark student engagement. Her five day unit on mapping contains
multiple examples of formative and summative assessments. She explained that the use of
google maps and student engagement caused her to use more visual aids. She also altered her
instruction from independent worksheets to whole group worksheets when she realized the
struggles her students faced doing independent work. She also uses student conferring sheets
in reading and writing. A 50-in-a-minute data chart is present in the classroom.
Tara also appeared more relaxed during this observation and more confident. Likewise,
students were more attentive and engaged during this observation as compared to observation
#2. Tara met any off task behavior with simply stating the child’s name and making eye
contact. This brought the child back on track.
Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration
Tara advocated on behalf of a particular student, albeit in her quiet way. As previously stated,
Tara has a kind and caring demeanor and a soft-spoken manner. These qualities appealed to a
particularly difficult child who responded to her where he hadn’t responded to other support
staff. The principal observed this change in the student and offered Tara a position after
completion of her GCU requirements to serve as full-time support for this first grade student.
Tara continues to communicate each day with families during student pick-up at the end of the
day, by preparing the weekly newsletter, by working with parents in the classroom on parent-
involvement days and by attending parent/teacher conferences. She continues to attend PLC
meetings and professional development sessions. The cooperating teacher commented that
Tara adjusts her instruction for higher and lower level students. She also is motivated to watch
and learn from teaching videos of Fundations and Heggerty to enhance her lessons and learn
different ways to teach the topic.
EEI Lesson Plan Template
Client Organization: Grand Canyon University
Email Address: tara_handy09@yahoo.com Date: October 28, 2019
VITAL INFORMATION
Author Tara Handy
*Subject(s) Reading
Topic or Unit of
Questioning
Study
*Grade/Level 1st grade
The first portion of the reading lesson will focus on questioning and modeling, as the story
Charlie Anderson is read. Students will be asked “I wonder” questions before, during, and
*Summary after the story. Once the story has been read and questioning is addressed, students will
move into their reading small groups, where they will go to listening center, word work,
conferring with the teacher, and independent reading.
STANDARDS AND DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION:
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.1.2
Ask and answer questions about key details in a text read aloud or information presented
orally or through other media.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.1.3
*Standards Ask and answer questions about what a speaker says in order to gather additional
information or clarify something that is not understood.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.1.1
Ask and answer questions about key details in a text.
Within the class, there are five different reading groups, with varying reading abilities.
There are six students who leave the classroom to work with three resources teachers during
reading instruction. Students will stay within their reading groups and rotate between four
reading centers: listening, word work, teacher conferring, and independent reading. When
Differentiated
students confer with the teacher, specific reading books are utilized to meet the needs of
Instruction
each group. Students will also read high frequency words and blends when they confer with
the teacher. During listening center, each group listens to the same story on tape. During
word work, students will have a worksheet or game to play with the teacher. During
independent reading, students will sit on a carpet spot and read quietly.
EEI (ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF INSTRUCTION) - LESSON PLAN ELEMENTS REQUIRED:
Objective The students will be able to ask and answer questions about the text, Charlie Anderson.
“What is an ‘I wonder’ question?” I will pull a name Popsicle stick and call on two different
students to explain what an ‘I wonder’ question is. Before showing students the story, I will
Anticipatory Set
ask students to use their schema when thinking of an ‘I wonder’ question. I will show the
students the Charlie Anderson book and have them quietly think of an ‘I wonder’ question
about the cover picture and the title of the book.
After asking students what an ‘I wonder’ question is, as well as having students use their
schema, I will introduce the Charlie Anderson book. I will begin by asking the students to
quietly think of ‘I wonder’ questions; I will give students time to think of their question. I
will ask students to turn to their neighbor and discuss their ‘I wonder’ questions and how
their schema influenced their question. I will use Popsicle name sticks to call on 4 students
to say their ‘I wonder’ questions aloud, followed by how their schema was used in
generating the question. I will read the story, stopping periodically throughout to ask
Teach Lesson /
students to think of additional ‘I wonder’ questions. After reading the story, I will ask
Model
students if their questions were answered and if they were not, why do they think it wasn’t
answered. The class will have a group discussion on how schema affected our questions. I
will ask the students how they felt during the story and if their feelings affected their
questions. I will finish our mini-lesson discussion by asking students how useful our schema
can be when we read new stories and if there are words we don’t know. Students will then
work with their small reading groups at the centers.
Students will listen to the Charlie Anderson story and think of ‘I wonder’ questions during
Guided Practice the story. The students will turn to their peers to discuss one of their ‘I wonder’ questions.
The class will have a discussion about their ‘I wonder questions’ and the importance of
asking questions as they read to comprehend the story.
After the mini-lesson, students will be asked to get into their small reading groups and go to
Independent Practice their assigned center. A small group will go to listening center,
with another going to the teacher’s table, followed by a group going to the word work table.
The mini-lesson on Charlie Anderson will close by asking students if their ‘I wonder’
questions were answered. If students’ questions were not answered, I will ask students if
their schema influenced their questions or if the pictures made it difficult to predict what
would happen in the story. Students will then be reminded that asking ‘I wonder’ questions
Closure when they are reading a new book can help readers comprehend the story and determine
what the story is about.
I will close the reading centers once each student has been to the listening center and word
work table. Students will be asked to quietly put their book bins away and sit down at their
table.
Students will be given formative assessments throughout the lesson. I will ask the students
Evaluation ‘I wonder’ questions to determine their comprehension of the story. As a class, we will
*Assessment/Rubrics discuss the questions, what the story meant, and whether any of the students’ questions were
not answered.
MATERIALS AND RESOURCES
Instructional Charlie Anderson book, student book bins, leveled reading texts, blend worksheets, high
Materials (handouts, frequency words, CD player, headphones, Halloween listening textbook, Halloween word
etc.) work worksheet, pencils, markers, Popsicle name sticks
Resources Charlie Anderson book

Clinical Practice Evaluation 3 Part 1 - Signed-Merged

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clinical Practice Evaluation 3 Part 1 - Signed-Merged

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Tara Handy 20014809

Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education

ELM-490 8/26/2019 12/8/2019

Cole Elementary School

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

Tara Handy 20014809

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

Tara Handy 20014809

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

Tara Handy 20014809

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

Tara Handy 20014809

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

Tara Handy 20014809

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

Tara Handy 20014809

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score No Evidence

Tara Handy 20014809

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

Tara Handy 20014809

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score No Evidence

Tara Handy 20014809

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

Tara Handy 20014809

Total Scored Percentage:

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

GCU Faculty Supervisor: Virginia Jorden

Observation #3 Lesson: Reading-1st grade-Questioning Strategy

Date of Observation: October 28, 2019

Standard #1: Student Development

Standard 2: Learning Differences

Standard 3: Learning Environment

Standard 4: Content Knowledge

Standard 5: Application of Content

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration

Client Organization: Grand Canyon University

Email Address: tara_handy09@yahoo.com Date: October 28, 2019

Author Tara Handy

STANDARDS AND DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION:

EEI (ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF INSTRUCTION) - LESSON PLAN ELEMENTS REQUIRED:

MATERIALS AND RESOURCES

Resources Charlie Anderson book

You might also like