ITQ RTWS

Our team is pleased to announce our new Institutional Coordinator, Dr. Lucian Yates, III. Dr. Yates has joined us as our new, permanent Chair of Education and Human services, and he has a rich background in all aspects of education. He has served as an award winning social studies teacher, principal and superintendent. He is a native Kentuckian and is pleased to be a part of the great faculty and staff of KSU. Dr. Yates is committed to the work of the Renaissance Group and the TWS Project. He looks forward to working with KSU’s TWS team and all universities involved with the Project. Please feel free to contact Dr. Yates at lyates@gwmail.kysu.edu.

In the fall of 2000, the initial Teacher Work Samples were piloted by three public school teachers at Hearn Elementary School, Frankfort, Kentucky. Each was given a stipend for writing and teaching a TWS unit of instruction and an additional stipend for serving as a mentor for two student teachers each, one each 8 week placement of the spring 2001 semester. One other Hearn Elementary teacher was trained in the TWS model and was assigned as a mentor for a KSU student teacher for the spring 2001 semester. This teacher was also awarded a stipend for mentoring a student teacher. Since the elementary student teachers were acting as the pilot group and the secondary education majors were not required to participate, the elementary student teachers were also paid a stipend for successfully completing a TWS. The TWS was not used as a part of the evaluation for the participating elementary group.

To prepare the seven elementary student teachers of the spring 2001semester for the TWS project, an intensive five hour workshop was conducted by Dr. Al Hickey, TWS Coordinator, and assisted by Dr. Jo Anne Rainey, Assessment Coordinator. The role of the university supervisor of the mentoring team was also assigned to Al Hickey, who supervised all seven of the student teachers, four during the first 8 week placement and three during the second 8 week placement. Each of the seven student teachers successfully completed the TWS, which were taken to the June 2001 Renaissance meeting in St. Louis for scoring.

After this successful launching of the implementation of the TWS, other training workshops were conducted:

August 7, 2001, six fall elementary student teachers and their Cooperating Teachers.

November 29, 2001, eight faculty and cooperating teachers, and twenty student teachers for the spring, 2002 semester

Fall 2001 semester: Six Cooperating Teachers and one KSU faculty member were given individual workshops to accommodate their schedules.

The spring 2002 semester was the first requiring all education majors to implement and write a TWS. There were twenty student teachers. All university supervisors and the Cooperating Teachers had received training in the TWS strategy and served as the mentors for each of the student teachers under their supervision. In addition, Dr. Hickey and Dr. Rainey served as part of the mentoring teams through the weekly seminar for the twenty student teachers. Of the twenty student teachers required to do a TWS for the spring 2002 semester, eighteen successfully completed it. Ten of these were selected for scoring at the June 2002 Renaissance meeting in St. Louis, MO.

On August 7, 2002, eleven student teachers attended a TWS workshop conducted by the TWS Coordinator, Dr. Hickey. The eleven are made up of 4 elementary education majors, 3 music education majors, 1 art education major, 1 physical education major, 1 biology education major, and 1 English education major. Two of the Cooperating Teachers, art and music, have also completed TWS training, giving each of the twelve student teachers a TWS trained Cooperating Teacher. All of their university supervisors have also received the TWS training, giving each of the student teachers a fully trained mentoring team for the first time since the start of the KSU TWS project.

For the Fall 2002 semester 11 student teachers completed the TWS in their respective majors (See above). These 11 are in the scoring process by the Renaissance coordinators.

Fifteen student teachers received the 4-hour TWS workshop training in preparation for the completion of the TWS for the Spring 2003 semester. TWS training and mentoring has been extended into the weekly student teacher seminars, made possible by the TWS Coordinator now serving as the seminar instructor. Each weekly seminar is dedicated to a different TWS topic, including questions confronting the students in the TWS process, and through discussions on the prompts and their significance to the different majors.

For information about TWS training and implementation at KSU, contact Al Hickey, TWS Coordinator, at ahickey@gwmail.kysu.edu.

We are continuing to make the TWS mentoring process at Kentucky State University more effective and responsive to students’ needs. Steps have been taken to ensure that the mentoring process provide student teachers broader and more systematic support as they work to develop and complete the Teacher Work Sample. Each student teacher is assigned a TWS Mentoring Team. The team consists of the Cooperating Teacher, the University Supervisor, and the Mentoring Coordinator, Dr. Reginald Nnazor. The goal of the Mentoring Teams is to guide student teachers to successfully complete quality Teacher Work Samples. The TWS Project Team ensures that students understand the individual and collective roles of the TWS Mentoring Team.

To complement the support and guidance the students get from their Mentoring Teams, the Mentoring Coordinator, with the cooperation of the Director of Supervised Teaching, the TWS Coordinator, and the Assessment Coordinator holds, what we call, TWS Reflection Sessions with students during the weekly student teaching seminar. The reflection sessions are an opportunity for the students to share their experiences and ideas with one another in an open forum as they work on the Teacher Work Sample. The sessions also provide opportunities for the Mentoring Coordinator and the TWS Coordinator to identify and address difficulties students may have as they conceptualize, develop and complete the Teacher Work Sample.

Fifteen student teachers participated in a workshop session on the mentoring goal, structure and process during the Spring 2003 TWS training workshop. We are continuing to explore ways to further strengthen the process of guiding our students through the TWS development process.

For information about TWS mentoring at KSU, contact Reginald Nnazor, Mentoring Coordinator, at rnnazor@gwmail.kysu.edu.

Assessment, Accountability, Research, Collaboration, and the New Education Curriculum

Two priorities of the Division of Education and Human Services at KSU are to build collaborative bridges between academic programs and to hold ourselves accountable for our effectiveness in preparing teacher candidates to become caring and competent professionals. Active participation with the Renaissance TWS Project provides an effective medium, as we address those priorities. The TWS Project team is gratified by the spirit of cooperation consistently shown by our colleagues within Teacher Education as well as across our diverse campus.

In fall 1999, the Education and Human Services program at KSU underwent a major overhaul, with an almost entirely new faculty coming on board. A contingent of three attended the Iowa conference and, by spring 2000, our newly assigned Assessment Coordinator was actively collaborating with the Assessment Coordinators from other participating universities. She joined Dr. Nancy Keese, from Middle Tennessee State University, and Dr. Ed Smith, from Longwood University, to form a research group focused on the effectiveness of the TWS Project. An outcome of that collaboration was a pre-assessment tool to be implemented with students before their initial TWS experience. For the next several semesters, the Assessment Coordinator revised the pre-assessment instrument, based on KSU student responses from the previous semester, and then administered it to entering student teachers. In spring 2003, this practice was stoppedand, in fall 2003, we began to implement an quantitative pre-assessment tool, rather than the qualitative tool used previously. This tool will allow us to examine correlations between TWS performance and multiple factors, including GPA, standardized test scores (e.g., ACT, PRAXIS II), to continue to match our teacher education programs with our students needs.

In spring 2002, the Assessment Coordinator designed a survey to tap the perceptions of Cooperating Teachers pertaining to the TWS model. For the first time, all our student teachers were assigned to complete a TWS, and we sought the input of the teachers who had worked with them daily. The 35-question survey utilizes a 4-point, Likert-type scale format, with 1 representing “totally ineffective” and 4 representing “extremely effective”. Feedback allowed us, as a team, to answer the following questions: (1) How effective were student teachers in demonstrating the teaching processes of the TWS? (2) How effective was KSU in preparing student teachers to demonstrate the teaching processes prior to student teaching? (3) How effective was KSU in guiding student teachers along the teaching processes during the student teaching experience? (4) How effective was KSU in training Cooperating Teachers in relation to the teaching processes? (5) How effective were Cooperating Teachers, themselves, in guiding student teachers along the teaching processes? The survey results indicated that we were making progress with this Project; our overall rating was 3.28, which rests on the continuum between “somewhat effective” and “extremely effective”. Ratings regarding preparation and support of our students in completing the TWS ranged from 3.24 to 3.32, indicating consistent performance in these endeavors.

In fall 2002, Mrs. Gwendolyn Ayuninjam was welcomed as the newest member and Data Management Coordinator of the KSU TWS team. The five-member team now is working to develop an ACCESS database to store TWS data and to track trends and correlations between various indicators of student performances. As we gather data, we will make curricular and instructional adaptations, as necessary.

In fall 2000, the Assessment Coordinator revamped our educational assessment course to better prepare our students to gain the knowledge and skills needed to succeed with the TWS and, thus, with teaching. A text in authentic assessment was chosen, and the course was redirected toward practical applications, with less emphasis on learning theories. We will continue to adapt the course, as needed. Moreover, the assessment course will be required of all education majors when our new curriculum is approved and implemented.

As we progressed in our implementation of the TWS Project at KSU, it became evident that we needed to revise education curricula significantly, across certification areas, so that teacher candidates could gain competence in all the teaching elements identified by the Project before they began student teaching and were required to complete a TWS. Our revision efforts began with two programs, Elementary Education and Health, Physical Education, and Recreation. After a year of meetings and discussions, the education faculty realized that revising a course here or there was not going to meet the needs of our students. Therefore, we agreed to begin at the beginning.

In summer 2000, we began the arduous process of deciding how our new elementary curriculum should align not only with the elements of the TWS but also with all the various standards and benchmarks required of most education programs: state standards and themes (in Kentucky, the nine New Teacher Standards and eight required themes), NCATE, and PRAXIS II. For the next two years, we grappled to reach consensus that would respect our ethnic and philosophical diversity, as well as various areas of expertise. All nine areas of teacher certification were involved in this cross-campus collaborative effort. The academic units involved follow, with certification information in parentheses: Behavioral and Social Sciences (Social Studies Education, 8-12); Education and Human Services (Elementary Education, P-5, and Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education, birth-P); Fine Arts (Art Education and Music Education, both P-12); Health, Physical Education, and Recreation (Physical Education, P-12); Literature, Languages, and Philosophy (English Education, 8-12); and Mathematics and Sciences (Mathematics Education and Biology Education, both 8-12). By the end of fall 2002, we had reached formal agreements about which courses should be designed and offered to students to prepare them to become competent and professional elementary and secondary school teachers. Our proposed curricula were submitted to Kentucky’s Educational Professional Standards Board in spring 2003. They were approved, and we turned our attention to the specifics of the courses. Now that we agree as to which standards/benchmarks/themes should be offered in which courses, we are revising the courses. Rather than viewing courses as "owned" by the faculty who teach them, we view all courses as communally designed to best benefit our students. We are learning to collaborate on course goals and objectives, as well as on methods to assess those objectives.

For information about TWS assessment and/or teacher education curricula at KSU, contact

Jo Anne Rainey, Assessment Coordinator and Teacher Education Curriculum Task Force Chair, at jrainey@gwmail.kysu.edu. For information about KSU's teacher education database, contact Gwendolyn Ayuninjam, Data Management Coordinator, at gayuninjam@gwmail.kysu.edu.

Teacher Work Sample Training and Implementation

In the fall of 2000 the initial Teacher Work Samples were piloted by three public school teachers at Hearn Elementary School, Frankfort, Ky. Each was given a stipend for writing and teaching a TWS unit of instruction and an additional stipend for serving as a mentor for two student teachers each, one each 8 week placement of the spring 2001 semester. One other Hearn Elementary teacher was trained in the TWS model and was assigned as a mentor for a KSU student teacher for the spring 2001 semester. This teacher was also awarded a stipend for mentoring a student teacher. Since the elementary student teachers were acting as the pilot group and the secondary education majors were not required to participate, the elementary student teachers were also paid a stipend for successfully completing a TWS. The TWS was not used as a part of the evaluation for the participating elementary group.

To prepare the seven elementary student teachers of the spring 2001 semester for the TWS project, an intensive five hour workshop was conducted by Dr. Al Hickey, TWS Coordinator, and assisted by Dr. Jo Anne Rainey, Assessment Coordinator. The role of the university supervisor of the mentoring team was also assigned to Al Hickey, who supervised all seven of the student teachers, four during the first 8 week placement and three during the second 8 week placement. Each of the seven student teachers successfully completed the TWS, which were taken to the June 2001 Renaissance meeting in St. Louis for scoring.

After this successful launching of the implementation of the TWS, other training workshops were conducted:

April 30, 2001, seven KSU faculty, five Education and two Arts and Sciences.
August 7, 2001, six fall elementary student teachers and their Cooperating Teachers.
November 29, 2001, eight faculty and cooperating teachers, and twenty student teachers for the spring, 2002 semester
December 3, 2001, thirteen faculty and Cooperating Teachers.
December 4, 2001, eighteen faculty and Cooperating Teachers.
Fall 2001 semester: Six Cooperating Teachers and one KSU faculty member were given individual workshops to accommodate their schedules.

On August 7, 2002, twelve student teachers attended a TWS workshop conducted by the TWS Coordinator, Dr. Hickey. The twelve are made up of 4 elementary education majors, 3 music education majors, 1 art education major, 1 physical education major, 1 biology education major, and 1 English education major. Two of the Cooperating Teachers, art and music, have also completed TWS training, giving each of the twelve student teachers a TWS trained Cooperating Teacher. All of their university supervisors have also received the TWS training, giving each of the student teachers a fully trained mentoring team for the first time since the start of the KSU TWS project.

For information about TWS training and implementation at KSU, contact Al Hickey, TWS Coordinator, at ahickey@gwmail.kysu.edu.

Teacher Work Sample Mentoring

We are continuing to make the TWS mentoring process at Kentucky State University more effective and responsive to students’ needs. Steps have been taken to ensure that the mentoring process provides student teachers broader and more systematic support as they work to develop and complete the Teacher Work Sample. Each student teacher is assigned a TWS Mentoring Team. The team consists of the Cooperating Teacher, the University Supervisor, and the Mentoring Coordinator, Dr. Reginald Nnazor. The goal of the Mentoring Teams is to guide student teachers to successfully complete quality Teacher Work Samples. The TWS Project Team ensures that students understand the individual and collective roles of the TWS Mentoring Team.

The mentoring process will be further refined by Spring 2003 when the TWS Team, with the collaboration of the Director of Supervised Teaching, integrates the evaluation of students’ progress on the TWS into the University’s student teaching evaluations. In addition, ways for improving communication between the Mentoring Coordinator and the other members of the Mentoring Team are being studied.

For information about TWS mentoring at KSU, contact Reginald Nnazor, Mentoring Coordinator, at rnnazor@gwmail.kysu.edu.

Assessment, Accountability, and Research

At KSU, we utilize multiple methods to assess the effectiveness of the Renaissance Project in enhancing the performances of our teacher candidates.

In 1999, procedures for organizing, storing, and accessing students' records were established. However, all records are hard copies and filed in cabinets. In spring and summer 2002, a computerized data management system was set up by two Education faculty members. The Teacher Education Program (TEP) data management system links with our university data management system. Unfortunately, since data from the Renaissance Project have been gathered through a separate system, one which is not linked with the TEP or the larger university system, analyses of correlations between TWS data and program data could not be easily explored. Keeping the two systems separate created much duplicated effort and limited results. Now, the two faculty members have joined the Renaissance Project. With Dr. David Herbert coming on board as Institutional Coordinator and Mrs. Gwendolyn Ayuninjam as Data Management Coordinator, TWS data will be entered into the TEP data management system, and soon, we will be able to track trends and correlations between various indicators of student performances. Then we can make curricular and instructional adaptations, as necessary. We have worked toward this goal for many months, and we are gratified as we approach its fruition.
In spring 2000, our Assessment Coordinator joined Dr. Nancy Keese, Assessment Coordinator for Middle Tennessee State University, and Dr. Ed Smith, Assessment Coordinator from Longwood University, to form a research group focused on the effectiveness of the Renaissance Project. An outcome of that collaboration was a pre-assessment tool to be implemented with students before their TWS experience. Since then, each semester, the KSU Assessment Coordinator revises the pre-assessment instrument, based on KSU student responses from the previous semester, and then administers it to entering student teachers. This takes place at the beginning of the biannual TWS workshop. Qualitative information from this instrument informs the Project team as to entering student teachers' knowledge in the elements of teaching targeted by the TWS. At the end of the semester, TWS total and sectional scores serve as a post-assessment of teacher candidates’ skills along the same teaching elements.
In spring 2002, the Assessment Coordinator designed a survey to tap the perceptions of Cooperating Teachers pertaining to the TWS model. Since that was the first semester all our student teachers completed a TWS, we sought the input of the teachers who had worked with them daily. The 35-question survey utilizes a 4-point, Likert-type scale format, with 1 representing “totally ineffective” and 4 representing “extremely effective”. Feedback allowed us, as a Project team, to answer five main questions. Mean subtotals are shown following each question.

How effective were student teachers in demonstrating the teaching processes of the TWS? (M = 3.35)
How effective was KSU in preparing student teachers to demonstrate the teaching processes prior to student teaching? (M = 3.32)
How effective was KSU in guiding student teachers along the teaching processes during the student teaching experience? (M = 3.25)
How effective was KSU in training Cooperating Teachers in relation to the teaching processes? (M = 3.24)
How effective were Cooperating Teachers, themselves, in guiding student teachers along the teaching processes? (M = 3.25)

Data also were analyzed to give us feedback regarding the TWS, by sections or teaching processes. Those data follow: Contextual Factors (M = 3.3), Learning Goals (M = 3.42), Assessment Plan (M = 3.12), Design for Instruction (M = 3.38), Instructional Decision-making (M = 3.28), Analysis of Student Learning (M = 3.26), and Reflection and Self-evaluation (M = 3.2).

Survey results indicate that we are making progress with this Project; our overall rating was 3.28, which rests on the continuum between “somewhat effective” and “extremely effective”. Ratings regarding preparation and support of our students in completing the TWS range from 3.24 to 3.32, indicating consistent performance in these endeavors. Continued training workshops, our new mentoring program, and our proposed education curricula should provide significantly improved preparation and support for our students, as well as our Cooperating Teachers and University Supervisors. Analyzing the data from the standpoint of the seven specific sections of the TWS reveal similar results, with ratings from 3.12 (Assessment Plan) to 3.42 (Learning Goals). The range is not large, but it documents what we already intuited, that instructors might feel more comfortable with, and, therefore, more likely to teach students how to write learning goals and objectives than to deal with assessment. We revamped our assessment course in fall 2000, choosing a text in authentic assessment and lessening the emphasis on learning theories. We will continue to adapt that course, which will be mandated as required for all education majors in our new curricula. We also will seek and/or provide training opportunities for faculty to update their own knowledge about authentic assessment. These strategies should help our students gain the knowledge and skills they need to plan and implement assessment techniques competently with their pupils.

A second survey has been designed, this one for student teachers. Its format is like that of the survey for Cooperating Teachers, and it will provide information along the same variables, with data from our graduating students. We plan to administer the survey for the first time at the end of fall 2002. The survey will provide data on student perceptions regarding their performances on the TWS, as well as on their preparation and support, while implementing the TWS. Historically, our student teachers have expressed a lack of enjoyment of the TWS experience. We want our students to feel challenged by the experience but not overwhelmed. This survey will inform us as to whether this dissatisfaction might be related to student perceptions of preparation or support. We also will be able to see if those perceptions are related to perceived performance and/or scored performance on the TWS.
The next survey to be designed will be the a survey for University Supervisors, also to be administered for the first time at the end of fall 2002. The format and variables will match the first two surveys. The purpose of this instrument will be to provide the Renaissance team with feedback from KSU faculty who supervise our student teachers, as they complete their TWSs. If the data we receive from the survey appear informative, we will distribute the surveys at the end of each semester.
A fourth survey, also to be designed in fall 2002, will differ from the other three. Its purpose will be to assess the perceived relevance of the TWS experience to our alumni, once they are employed as teachers. Our challenge will not be the design of the survey but its distribution. Approximately 33% of our students at KSU do not come from Kentucky, nor do they plan to remain here post-graduation. We encourage them to remain; to fulfill the requirements of the Kentucky Internship Program (KTIP), with which they are familiar; and to gain certification. However, some, including some Kentucky residents, choose to go elsewhere, and, when they do, we often cannot keep track of their whereabouts, despite our best efforts. Therefore, locating our alumni, even our recent graduates, presents us with a dilemma to be solved. We are seeking administrative support on this issue.

For information about assessment, accountability, or research at KSU, contact Jo Anne Rainey, Assessment Coordinator, at jrainey@gwmail.kysu.edu., or Gwendolyn Ayuninjam, Data Coordinator, at gayuninjam@gwmail.kysu.edu.

New Education Curricula

As we began to implement the Project at KSU in spring 2000, it became evident that we needed to revise the Education curricula so that teacher candidates could gain competence in the teaching elements identified by the Project before they began Supervised Teaching and were required to complete a TWS. Our revision efforts began with two programs, Elementary Education and Health, Physical Education, and Recreation. After a year of meetings and discussions, the Education faculty realized that revising a course here or there was not going to meet the needs of our students. Therefore, we agreed to begin at the beginning. In summer 2001, we drafted 11 KSU Standards for Teacher Candidates, which incorporate and go beyond our nine state-mandated Standards and which align with the seven teaching elements of the TWS. Then, we began the long process of creating an Elementary Education matrix with the KSU Standards and levels of performance recognized in Kentucky (i.e., novice, apprentice, proficient, distinguished), so that we could determine courses that should be offered to students to prepare them to become competent, professional, elementary school teachers.

Soon, the matrix will guide content and instruction in all courses required of Elementary Education majors. Our objectives for fall 2002 include

finalizing KSU Standards X and XI, addressing dispositions and diversity;
agreeing on core objectives for all Education courses, based upon our alignment matrix;
designing pre-assessments for all Education courses to inform instruction;
determining authentic formative and post-assessment techniques for all Education courses that will ensure student performance at the agreed-upon levels;
sharing common core objectives and major assessment techniques across Education course sections; and
utilizing assessment results as accountability measures for Education course effectiveness and as information for fine-tuning the curriculum and matrix.

In spring 2002, our vision of curricular reformation expanded to include all KSU teacher preparation programs. The willingness of our colleagues to cooperate and collaborate with us is most gratifying. Administrators and faculty members of the other programs designed to lead to teacher certification are working to align their courses with the KSU Standards, and thus with the TWS elements of teaching. The academic units follow, with certification information in parentheses: Behavioral and Social Sciences (Social Studies Education, 8-12); Education and Human Services (Elementary Education, P-5, and Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education, birth-P); Fine Arts (Art Education and Music Education, both P-12); Health, Physical Education, and Recreation (Physical Education, P-12); Literature, Languages, and Philosophy (English Education, 8-12); and Mathematics and Sciences (Mathematics Education and Science Education, both 8-12). The process through which this collaboration has been accomplished is described under the next heading. So, what began in spring 2000 as a modest effort to align and update KSU's Elementary Education curriculum has evolved into our current plan to propose new teacher education programs to our state Education Professional Standards Board in February 2003 for implementation, hopefully, in fall 2003.

For information about KSU's new education curricula, contact Jo Anne Rainey, chair of the Education Curriculum Committee, at jrainey@gwmail.kysu.edu.

Collaboration Between Education, Arts and Sciences, and University Administration

A growing priority at KSU is to enhance communication and relationships between academic programs. Participation with the Renaissance Project is providing an effective medium in those efforts. All professors who teach education courses have attended at least one workshop on the TWS. In addition, collaboration between programs is enhanced through monthly meetings of the Teacher Education Committee (TEC), which is composed of all Education faculty, two student representatives, two community school representatives, and representatives from Arts and Sciences, Registration, Blazer Library, Communication Skills Center (remedial literacy instruction), and Testing Center.

The necessity for collaboration became more overt as the process of revising the Elementary Education curriculum progressed. During academic year 2001-2002, the Chair of Education and Human Services (EHS) and the Assessment Coordinator utilized telephone, e-mail, and impromptu conversations to increase involvement between EHS and other academic units. However, none of these techniques were consistently fruitful. Then, beginning spring 2002, individual conferences and small group meetings were scheduled to familiarize all deans, chairs, and faculty of our Arts and Sciences programs with the goals and expectations of EHS. Meetings were held between the Assessment Coordinator, the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, the Dean of the College of Professional Studies, and the Chairs of Behavioral and Social Sciences; Education and Human Services; Fine Arts; Health, Physical Education, and Recreation; Literature, Languages, and Philosophy; and Mathematics and Sciences. Those meetings have turned the tide. Consistent with research on distance learning, a combination of personal contact and follow-up technology-related contact has proven most effective, efficient, and satisfying to participants. Through those initial meetings, procedures are being set up to provide more opportunities for TEC representatives to serve as liaisons between EHS, Arts and Sciences, and student academic services.

Through recent administrative transitions, Dr. Paul Bibbins, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, is serving as Interim President, and Dr. Terry Magel, Director of the Office of Continuing and Distance Education, as Interim Vice President for Academic Affairs. In addition, our friend and colleague, Dr. Paul B. Woods, Chair of the Division of Education and Human Services (EHS) and past Institutional Coordinator of the Project at KSU, died suddenly of a heart attack in July 2002. Dr. David Herbert, Coordinator of Supervised Teaching and of the Kentucky Teacher Internship Program (KTIP) at KSU, is serving capably as Interim Chair of EHS and as Institutional Coordinator.

For information about collaboration at KSU, contact Jo Anne Rainey, Assessment Coordinator, at jrainey@gwmail.kysu.edu.

Fall, 2001

Summer/Fall 2001

The Education Department held several meetings this summer in our on-going efforts to align the curriculum at Kentucky State University (KSU) to the INTASC, NCATE, state standards, and Teacher Work Sample Methodology (TWSM) so that our students can gain the knowledge and skills they need in their classes that impact on student learning in the schools. All Early Elementary Education majors are now required to be involved in the TWSM. The secondary education majors are being gradually phased into doing the work sample.

There has been a new synergy between the School of Arts and Sciences and Education. Many more secondary faculty have shown an interest in TWSM and are seeking training and involvement in the project.

Our Teacher Education Program has adopted the TWSM lesson plan format for all classes in the program. We now have a small cadre of trained personnel both at the University and in the public schools.

The department undertook to reformulate and redesign the assessment course using TWSM training.

Teacher Work Samples and Team Mentoring

Our first challenge this academic year was to obtain teacher work samples, completed by teachers in the field, that could serve as examples, not only for our KSU students, but for students at other universities involved in the TWS Project. Our loyal School Partner, who serves as Assistant Superintendent for Instruction for the local school district, selected five superior elementary school teachers who agreed to come to a meeting about the Project. In September 2000, our Institutional Coordinator, TWS Coordinator, Arts and Sciences Representative, and Assessment Coordinator met with the teachers. The teachers completed a pre-assessment instrument and heard about the Project. We then discussed the possibility of their completing teacher work samples, according to the August 2000 prompt, as exemplars for our students. Of the five teachers, three agreed, and they met with our TWS Coordinator weekly for the entire fall semester, as they completed their teacher work samples. Input from these three professionals was invaluable to our TWS Coordinator and Assessment Coordinator when they worked with national Renaissance colleagues to revise the TWS in St. Louis in November. This spring semester, the three teachers are serving as supervisors for six Supervised Teachers who are completing teacher work samples, according to the revised prompt. This is being accomplished by split, half-semester placements. In June, the TWS Coordinator and Assessment Coordinator will meet again with the national TWS team to develop rubrics that will be used to evaluate the products produced by the six individuals, who will be KSU graduates, at that point.

A current challenge is to familiarize our KSU colleagues in Education, as well as in Arts and Sciences, with the requirements of the TWS, so that prerequisite knowledge and skills can be included in all upper-level courses taken by education majors. Certainly, these colleagues are familiar with best teaching practices already, so we need only to Aget on the same page@ regarding the Renaissance TWS methodology. Particularly because KSU is so small, it is vital that we have 100% faculty familiarity with and support of TWS methodology. All of our TEP faculty likely will mentoring team members by fall 2001. Therefore, we will meet toward the end of this semester (April 30 and May 2) to discuss the Project and to determine, together, which skills (and at what levels) will be taught in our fall 2001 courses. Since plans for a major overhaul of our Teacher Education Program (TEP) have been in the making since last semester, revising courses, at this point, will be only a temporary measure. Hopefully, beginning in spring 2002, the TEP curricula will be revamped in a manner that promotes the learning of the knowledge and skills tapped by the TWS.

In fall 2001, seven Supervised Teachers, six of whom are in elementary education and one of whom is physical education, will complete teacher work samples. Those student candidates have been identified, and three will be supervised by the three teachers who already are experienced with TWS. Supervision for the other four will come from four newly trained teachers. Once again, our School Partner is assisting us with the selection of superior teachers for this important job. These teachers will receive training in TWS methodology the first week of fall 2001, but they will not be asked to complete teacher work samples, themselves.

Accountability

In the past 12 years, the TEP has established a record-keeping system through which the academic progress of our teacher candidates is tracked. Our new curricular efforts are progressing hand-in-hand with TWS efforts. In fact, the KSU Assessment Coordinator chairs the Curriculum Committee and the TWS Coordinator is an active member of that committee. Our new curriculum will be standards-driven, and methods of authentic assessment are being determined as instructional blocks are planned. One goal of our renovations is to accomplish approximately 75% complementarity across course sections and instructors. Another is to reduce redundance regarding fundamental educational theories (e.g., Piaget, Erikson, Skinner, Maslow, Kohlberg, Gardner), while increasing depth and real-life experience in content areas, teaching techniques, and management strategies. TWS methodology fits well with these goals.

A major accountability challenge at KSU is to keep track of our graduates. Our students come to Kentucky from all across the U.S., as well as from many other nations. We do not know where most of them go, once they graduate. This summer, the Assessment Coordinator will work toward an accountability system that extends our tracking system from our students' progress here at KSU into their professional teaching careers. Accountability strategies that aid us in these efforts will also serve to enhance our ability to verify the success of the Renaissance TWS Project in promoting student learning in grades K - 12.