Annual Assessment Report to the College 2009-2010
College: Mike Curb College of Arts, Media, and Communication
Department: Theatre
Program: BA Program
Note: Please submit report to your department chair or program coordinator and to the assessment director ([email protected]) by
September 30, 2010. You may submit a separate report for each program which conducted assessment activities.
Liaison: John H. Binkley
1. Overview of Annual Assessment Project(s)
1a. Assessment Process Overview: Provide a brief overview of the intended plan to assess the program this year. Is assessment under the
oversight of one person or a committee?
The recent curriculum revision in history/literature prompted the 2009-10 assessment to evaluate the new courses: TH 222: Mapping World
Drama and TH 321B:World Theatre and Drama II, the lower and upper level history survey courses. These courses were selected for longitudinal
study for student progress within the BA program.
The instructors of record for the chosen courses collaborated with the Department Assessment Liaison to collect student samples. These
samples were to be assessed by at least three members on the assessment/curriculum committee (committee includes all members of the
Department of Theatre). In order to evaluate the student samples, members of the assessment/curriculum committee originally planned to
create performance criteria in a rubric form.
The student work samples were play analyses from TH 222 and research papers from TH 321B.
1b. Implementation and Modifications: Did the actual assessment process deviate from what was intended? If so, please describe any
modification to your assessment process and why it occurred.
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
The Department of Theatre determined that rubrics were not the appropriate method of analysis for our assessment. Most of our classes are so
small we cannot use a large enough sample to adjust for deviation. There are also many variables that it becomes difficult to determine what
affects the quantitative results. The department assessment committee decided not to adopt rubrics, which would provide only vague insight
into students’ longitudinal progress. Rather, an all department faculty assessment committee held a one-hour assessment meeting where the
evaluators’ observations were shared and debated to focus the discussion on the qualitative issues.
2. Student Learning Outcome Assessment Project: Answer questions according to the individual SLO assessed this year. If you assessed an
additional SLO, report in the next chart below.
2a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
SLO 3 - Apply historical, cultural, aesthetic and literary understandings to the discipline of theater.
2b. What assessment instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
Question prompts related to the following areas of understanding were presented: Historical, Cultural, Aesthetic, and Literary understanding
related to the discipline of theatre.
2c. Describe the participants sampled to assess this SLO: discuss sample/participant and population size for this SLO. For example, what type of
students, which courses, how decisions were made to include certain participants.
Writing samples from TH 222 (Mapping World Drama) and research papers from TH 321B (World Theatre and Drama II) were collected by the
instructors of record. Six papers for each course were randomly selected by the department assessment liaison. The sample was split between
six faculty members where two individuals read each paper.
2d. Describe the assessment design methodology: For example, was this SLO assessed longitudinally (same students at different points) or was
a cross-sectional comparison used (comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
This was a cross-sectional comparison where sophomores (TH 222) were compared with juniors (TH 321B).
2e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the data were analyzed and highlight important findings from the
data collected.
As mentioned above, an informal discussion based on readers’ evaluations were held by all full-time department faculty as well as one part-time
instructor. The discussion focused on what the department considers as proficiency at each level. It was concluded that the student work
samples showed appropriate level of proficiency expected at each level. However, the department needs to continue discussion focusing on
how to quantify proficiency in all levels of the theatre curriculum.
2f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Think about all the different ways the results were or will be used. For example, to recommend
changes to course content/topics covered, course sequence, addition/deletion of courses in program, student support services, revisions to
program SLO’s, assessment instruments, academic programmatic changes, assessment plan changes, etc. Please provide a clear and detailed
description of how the assessment results were or will be used.
The results will help quantify future assessment. Our current methods of assessment result in a yes/no result. In our future assessment we will
strive to establish levels of success.
Some programs assess multiple SLOs each year. If your program assessed an additional SLO, report the process for that individual SLO below. If
you need additional SLO charts, please cut & paste the empty chart as many times as needed. If you did NOT assess another SLO, skip this
section.
2a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
2b. What assessment instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
2c. Describe the participants sampled to assess this SLO: discuss sample/participant and population size for this SLO. For example, what type of
students, which courses, how decisions were made to include certain participants.
2d. Describe the assessment design methodology: Was this SLO assessed longitudinally (same students at different points) or was a crosssectional comparison used (comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
2e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the data were analyzed and highlight important findings from the
data collected.
2f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Think about all the different ways the results were (or could be) used. For example, to recommend
changes to course content/topics covered, course sequence, addition/deletion of courses in program, student support services, revisions to
program SLO’s, assessment instruments, academic programmatic changes, assessment plan changes, etc. Please provide a clear and detailed
description of each.
3. How do your assessment activities connect with your program’s strategic plan?
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
In Fall 2009, the revision of the lower division curriculum was implemented. This assessment activity will be part of the review process of these
changes.
4. Overall, if this year’s program assessment evidence indicates that new resources are needed in order to improve and support student
learning, please discuss here.
By Spring 2011, the department of theatre will be down to 8 full-time faculty members, from a total of 14 full-time faculty ten years ago. Given
the required committee participation at the University, College and Department level, there is not the necessary time for the department to
effectively implement the discoveries found in the assessment process. More full-time faculty are required.
In addition to more time, we would be more effective if we could arrange some training that is specific to our discipline. Because we all come
from various levels of experience/non-experience with assessment and with the assessment agenda as well as the goals of the university, the
model of having one person as the liaison is not the most effective manner of engaging a department in assessment.
One possible source for such training would be the Theatre Communications Group, a national organization whose mission is to strengthen,
nurture and promote the professional not-for-profit American theatre. In 2008, this organization began the following program: Building A
National TEAM: Theatre Education Assessment Models (http://www.tcg.org/tools/education/teams/TEAMindex.cfm).
5. Other information, assessment or reflective activities not captured above.
N/A
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
6. Has someone in your program completed, submitted or published a manuscript which uses or describes assessment activities in your
program? Please provide citation or discuss.
N/A
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller