CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Xietan Simmons 20733258

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________

Master of Education in Elementary Education

PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ELM-590 8/5/2021 11/17/2021

COURSE: _____________________________________________________ START DATE: ____________________________ END DATE: _____________________

Kamehameha Schools - Kula Ha‘aha‘a

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hawaii
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________

Corrina Kay
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________

Penny Yamashita
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

150 points
EVALUATION 3 TOTAL
POINTS 100.00 %
25.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 150
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0 0

0 0
0

0
150

0
0

0
0

0
0 0 0
150
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Xietan Simmons 20733258

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. )
Outstanding growth, indeed, shown by Ms. Simmons since her first evaluation! Ms. Simmons' classroom management and professional composure is crisp and confident.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Xietan Simmons 20733258

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. )
Ms. Simmons' students seem very interested in her mathematics lessons. Ms. Simmons pans her students consistently and asks if students are comprehending or the content
dispersed throughout her teaching.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Xietan Simmons 20733258

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. )
All students seemed to be valued and seemed to be comfortable and engaged in the established safe environment Ms. Simmons has created. Ms. Simmons shows a
great degree of understanding for the Native Hawaiian ethnicity and Christian vision of the school she is working on her student teaching. For instance, as seen in her
submissions, Ms. Simmons shows her ability to address her students with some words in their Hawaiian language.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Xietan Simmons
TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ 20733258
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. )
Students raise their hands and the class is engaged in Ms. Simmons' lesson. Students are observing examples written on the front board by Ms. Simmons. I thoroughly
enjoyed watching Ms. Simmons showcase her excellent understanding of math and her ability to break down difficult concepts, such as fractions, so that her students can
understand and learn this and other desired outcomes.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Xietan Simmons 20733258

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. )
see comments above
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Xietan Simmons 20733258

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. )
Through Ms. Simmons' submitted lesson plan, Ms. Simmons explains how the students with hit desired learning outcomes at the end of the week. There are other elements
included this week, especially peer-to-peer mentoring and small group work.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Xietan Simmons 20733258

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. )
As stated above, Ms. Simmons provides a variety educational tools and reinforcement of desired learning objectives through different learning activities (such creating posters
to show understanding, etc.). Ms. Simmons provides a variety of ways to assess her students' comprehension of fractions and other mathematics concepts.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Xietan Simmons 20733258

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. )
see comments above
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Xietan Simmons 20733258

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. )
As a teacher for Kamehameha Schools, Ms. Simmons continues to engage in her Native Hawaiian community with activities promoting well-being and pride for her culture.
Ms. Simmons continues to inquire with myself, her mentor, and other seasoned educators on how she can grow and improve her teaching.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Xietan Simmons 20733258

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. )
Way to go, Ms. Simmons! I am very excited to see Ms. Simmons' final evaluation - she is doing an amazing job in engaging her students in challenging contents as well as
continuing to exhibit quality professional and compassion as a teacher.
 CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 3

Xietan Simmons 20733258

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

Dr. Mahealani Yamashita (Oct 21, 2021 06:29 HST) Oct 21, 2021
 Evaluation #3 Lesson Plan

Unit Topic: Best Buys, Ratios, and Rates

Unit Title: The Emporium’s Gourmet Mix

National or State Academic Content Standards:

5.NF.1 - Add and subtract fractions with unlike denominators (including mixed numbers) by
replacing given fractions with equivalent fractions in such a way as to produce an equivalent sum
or difference of fractions with like denominators.
For example, 2/3 + 5/4 = 8/12 + 15/12 = 23/12. (In general, a/b + c/d = (ad + bc)/bd.)

5.NF.2 - Solve word problems involving addition and subtraction of fractions referring to the
same whole, including cases of unlike denominators, e.g., by using visual fraction models or
equations to represent the problem. Use benchmark fractions and number sense of fractions to
estimate mentally and assess the reasonableness of answers. For example, recognize an incorrect
result 2/5 + 1/2 = 3/7 by observing that 3/7 < 1/2.

5.NF.4 - Apply and extend previous understandings of multiplication to multiply a fraction or

whole number by a fraction.
a. Interpret the product (a/b) × q as a parts of a partition of q into b equal parts; equivalently, as
the result of a sequence of operations a × q ÷ b. For
example, use a visual fraction model to show (2/3) × 4 = 8/3, and create a story context for this
equation. Do the same with (2/3) × (4/5) = 8/15.
(In general, (a/b) × (c/d) = ac/bd.)
b. Find the area of a rectangle with fractional side lengths by tiling it with unit squares of the
appropriate unit fraction side lengths,
and show that the area is the same as would be found by multiplying the side lengths. Multiply
fractional side lengths to find areas
of rectangles, and represent fraction products as rectangular areas.

5.NF.6 - Solve real world problems involving multiplication of fractions and mixed numbers,
e.g., by using visual fraction models or equations to represent the problem.

Learning Goal:
Students will learn how to use the clock model to add fractions within the whole. Students will
also use prior knowledge of fractions to solve the puppy snack mix investigation.

Measurable Objectives:
By the end of the lesson, students will be able to:
 Interpret the information given to them to solve the problem
 Collaborate with their partner to solve the problem
 Appropriately label the snack containers with volume, price, and proportion
 Discuss findings with the class and challenge each other’s thinking

Lesson Process:

The puppy mix investigation ran a course of 3 days.

On day one, we introduced the lesson using the clock model to solve fractions. I began by
drawing a large clock on the board and labeled it appropriately from 1 though 12. Using the
common landmark fractions (1/2=30 mins, 1/4=15 mins, 1 hr=60 mins), they were able to
identify the less common fractions (1/12=5 mins, 7/12=35mins, etc.). Once the entire clock was
labeled with their equivalent fractions, they are given a string of problems to solve. The first we
did together so they learn how to read the clock, then they are given a handful to do on their own.
Once they have solved the problems, volunteers came to the board to solve, and they compared
their work.

Continuing day one, students were introduced to the puppy mix investigation. The investigation
begins with a set of information given for a 1 ½ cup container of food and the portions of three
main ingredients included in the mix (nuggets, chopped meat, and crunchies). Students are then
tasked with solving the investigation for 4 additional mix sizes including the appropriate portions
for the nuggets, chopped meat, and crunchies. Using only the information provided to them, they
are set out in their pairs and must solve the problem on their own. During this time, I walk
around the space and offer up feedback and answer questions but not give away the answers to
the investigation. They will continue solving on their own for the remainder of the class.

On day two, using the observations from the day prior, I will help them get moving on the
investigation. Since most of the class could not solve for any of the four additional cups they
were given to solve, I worked through solving for 6 cups with them on the board. During this
time, they are participating by working through the problem with me and answering questions. I
also provided them with cube blocks to help visualize the fractions. After working through the 6-
cup problem, they were left to find the values for the 12 cups, 1 cup, and ½ cup mixes. On their
individual investigation sheets, they were tasked with showing their work.

On day three (which is seen in the video clip), we began creating their posters. I began by
showing them the outline on what the posters should look like and how they can receive a meets
proficiency on their work. Since we already worked through the 6 cups in the day prior, I
focused on what they already had written and solved for as our example on the poster. In the
video, you will see how we worked through the problem. Once we finished with that, they
worked independently to complete their posters. After recess they returned, and we held our
math congress where select students can challenge their peers thinking and determine if they had
the same answer and process or if they found something different. For those chosen to present,
they had common errors that others had, which lend itself to some good investigative and
communicative discussions. At the end of this day, we had completed the investigation and are
ready to move on to the next lesson following the break.

Video link via YouTube: https://youtu.be/QQ38Clja54A