Student Achievement Assessment Committee

Learning Outcomes:
Theatre Majors
Analyze diverse performance texts from various historical periods and cultural backgrounds in order to make effective aesthetic decisions as a theatre scholar/artist
* Use performance as the site and process for critical, cultural and historical understandings
* Research and communicate ideas and feelings in written, visual and/or oral forms in order to articulate a conceptual and critical approach to theatrical production
* Work collaboratively to solve specific production requirements as actor, director, designer and/or technician and Present skills and knowledge as a theatre scholar/artist in a professional format.

Film Majors
Comprehend, analyze and critically evaluate film as an aesthetic form and cultural text;
* Recognize the social, economic, and technological factors that shape films from different historical periods, gender and ethnic perspectives, domestic and international cultural contexts
* Apply critical thinking and aesthetic judgment in the analysis of fiction and nonfiction film, experimental and mainstream cinema, feature and short form narratives
* Work collaboratively to solve specific film/video production problems as a writer, producer, director, cinematographer, gaffer, editor, sound recordist, or other member of the production/post-production team
* Demonstrate a sense of professionalism through creative and intellectual independence.

Annual Report

1. Learning (or Service) Outcomes assessed this year:

During 2004-2005 the faculty will place our film assessment venues in place.

This year, besides the on-going Undergraduate outcomes assessed through our Major Event, the faculty focused on an overall assessment of writing and communication skills for our undergraduate theatre majors.

Graduate level writing assessment took the form of our in-house portfolio review.

2. Assessment Methods and Procedures:

Major Event: Students prepared audition pieces and/or a portfolio of creative work. This work was presented and assessed by a guest adjudicator/professional through a mock audition process or interview session. Direct feedback was given to the student by the guest adjudicator. A more formal written assessment of all student work was provided as summary in written form and sent to the faculty (see attached).

Sophomore Portfolio Assessment: All 2nd year students were required to compile a portfolio of classroom work (including formal writing and research essays), vita, and personal statement of educational and professional goals. The writing sample was evaluated using standard criteria designed to assess writing proficiency (see attached). The rest of the portfolio was evaluated in terms of student engagement in departmental activities and progress towards degree. The assessment committee shared the review findings with each student (as a form of advising). In addition, the faculty committee (Professors Regan and Barnette) prepared a formal report of these important findings to the faculty for discussion.

Graduate Portfolio Review: All 2nd year doctoral student compile a portfolio of original work (book and performance reviews, pedagogy essay, research essay, annotated bibliography. The portfolio is evaluated by members of the graduate faculty, the results of which are shared with the student as part of a formal committee meeting.

3. Inferences from Assessments:

Major Event continues to be an effective means of program and student assessment.
Responses this year point to the need to integrate more classical drama in our performance classes (acting and directing) and a slight format modification for those interview sessions conducted as part of Major Event.

The Sophomore Portfolio Assessment revealed that most students are engaged in the life of the department, particularly our production program. However, many students need to be encouraged to participate in more than one area (acting as well as technical theatre) in order to benefit from all aspects of our program. In addition, the writing assessment clearly revealed the need for on-going instruction in writing skills, particularly fluency of argumentation and style.

It is clear that our newly required research and publication class is addressing the needs of our graduate students, in terms of creating a culture of “writing as revision” and professional scholarly expectations. In addition, graduate faculty shape course requirements to meet portfolio expectations, consequently students are moving quickly to address and meet degree expectations and requirements.

4. Actions Taken/Program Improvements:
Acting teachers have been asked to review ways to incorporate period literature within class activities. Faculty have been asked to explore ways to modify the interview format in Major Event to allow for more interaction and student/peer response.
All faculty have been given the criteria used to evaluate student writing and have been urged to focus on “writing across the curriculum” as an important part of theatre pedagogy. Faculty have been urged to adopt these criteria as part of the evaluative process in their teaching and grading as a means to underscore for our students the links between General Education courses and our major.
The year’s graduate portfolio review process exposed the need for the faculty to discuss course sequencing within the graduate curriculum, specifically the placement of the pedagogy course and the overall pedagogy requirement within the portfolio (a research essay or a teaching statement, or both).