Unit: Theatre & Dance
Program: Theatre (MA, MFA)
Degree: Master's
Date: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 10:53:41 am

1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.

MA Theatre Plan A (thesis)

1. Student demonstrates in-depth knowledge in Western or Asian Theory/History.

2.  Student demonstrates comprehensive knowledge of chosen area of specialization of Theatre scholarship.  

3.  Student demonstrates original research and thought by conducting an independent research project resulting in a written thesis.

MA Theatre Plan B 

1. Student demonstrates good working knowledge in each of the five major areas of Drama and Theatre: Western Theory/History; Asian Theatre; Technical Theatre/Design; Acting/Directing; and Youth Theatre, with one of these areas forming an elective focus 

2. Students can create and demonstrate informed and personal artistic choices in coursework and productions (i.e, design, directing, acting, etc.).

MFA Theatre

1.  Student demonstrates the professional competence to function successfully in the artistic concentration of the degree track

2. Students can create and demonstrate informed and personal artistic choices in coursework and productions in the artistic concentration of the degree track

3.  Student can demonstrate broad knowledge of the context and functioning of related theatrical artistic areas to that of the chosen artistic concentration.

4.   Students demonstrate, through portfolio review, preparedness to enter and compete within the chosen degree track area, professionally and/or academically.    


1) Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs) and Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)

2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.

Department Website URL: http://hawaii.edu/theatre/graduate/GradTheatreSLOs2009.pdf
Student Handbook. URL, if available online:
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:

3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2015:

4) For your program, the percentage of courses that have course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a website, or other publicly available document is as follows. Please update as needed.


5) Did your program engage in any program learning assessment activities between June 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015?

No (skip to question 16)

6) What best describes the program-level learning assessment activities that took place for the period June 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015? (Check all that apply.)

Create/modify/discuss program learning assessment procedures (e.g., SLOs, curriculum map, mechanism to collect student work, rubric, survey)
Collect/evaluate student work/performance to determine SLO achievement
Collect/analyze student self-reports of SLO achievement via surveys, interviews, or focus groups
Use assessment results to make programmatic decisions (e.g., change course content or pedagogy, design new course, hiring)
Investigate curriculum coherence. This includes investigating how well courses address the SLOs, course sequencing and adequacy, the effect of pre-requisites on learning achievement.
Investigate other pressing issue related to student learning achievement for the program (explain in question 7)

7) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place in the last 18 months.

Because our MA and MFA programs differ significantly, we don't have a specific assessment "capstone" project for these particular programs.  Of course, the individual specialties, overseen by a committee of at least three faculty members, regularly meets with each MA/MFA candidate to discuss their progress towards completing a qualifying project and a thesis project.  These projects are then used as our department's "capstone" assessment project, showing faculty student learning outcome.

In addition, a final exit survey is sent to all MA/MFA graduates for them to assess their learning outcomes.  These results are then brought before the full faculty for continued discussion of our program and SLOs.

8) What types of evidence did the program use as part of the assessment activities checked in question 6? (Check all that apply.)

Direct evidence of student learning (student work products)

Artistic exhibition/performance
Assignment/exam/paper completed as part of regular coursework and used for program-level assessment
Capstone work product (e.g., written project or non-thesis paper)
Exam created by an external organization (e.g., professional association for licensure)
Exit exam created by the program
IRB approval of research
Oral performance (oral defense, oral presentation, conference presentation)
Portfolio of student work
Publication or grant proposal
Qualifying exam or comprehensive exam for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation (graduate level only)
Supervisor or employer evaluation of student performance outside the classroom (internship, clinical, practicum)
Thesis or dissertation used for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation
Other 1:
Other 2:

Indirect evidence of student learning

Alumni survey that contains self-reports of SLO achievement
Employer meetings/discussions/survey/interview of student SLO achievement
Interviews or focus groups that contain self-reports of SLO achievement
Student reflective writing assignment (essay, journal entry, self-assessment) on their SLO achievement.
Student surveys that contain self-reports of SLO achievement
Other 1:
Other 2:

Program evidence related to learning and assessment
(more applicable when the program focused on the use of results or assessment procedure/tools in this reporting period instead of data collection)

Assessment-related such as assessment plan, SLOs, curriculum map, etc.
Program or course materials (syllabi, assignments, requirements, etc.)
Other 1:
Other 2:

9) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

FALL 2014: 2 MFA graduates

SPRING 2015: 3 MA graduates; 4 MFA graduates

10) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)

Course instructor(s)
Faculty committee
Ad hoc faculty group
Department chairperson
Persons or organization outside the university
Faculty advisor
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)

11) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)

Used a rubric or scoring guide
Scored exams/tests/quizzes
Used professional judgment (no rubric or scoring guide used)
Compiled survey results
Used qualitative methods on interview, focus group, open-ended response data
External organization/person analyzed data (e.g., external organization administered and scored the nursing licensing exam)

12) Summarize the results of the assessment activities checked in question 6. For example, report the percent of students who achieved each SLO.

MFA: After MFA committee meetings in Fall and Spring, area faculty (grouped by MFA concentration) consulted and recommended changes for the future, many of which have already been implemented, or are being worked on by the departmental curriculum committee.


13) What best describes how the program used the results? (Check all that apply.)

Assessment procedure changes (SLOs, curriculum map, rubrics, evidence collected, sampling, communications with faculty, etc.)
Course changes (course content, pedagogy, courses offered, new course, pre-requisites, requirements)
Personnel or resource allocation changes
Program policy changes (e.g., admissions requirements, student probation policies, common course evaluation form)
Students' out-of-course experience changes (advising, co-curricular experiences, program website, program handbook, brown-bag lunches, workshops)
Celebration of student success!
Results indicated no action needed because students met expectations
Use is pending (typical reasons: insufficient number of students in population, evidence not evaluated or interpreted yet, faculty discussions continue)

14) Please briefly describe how the program used the results.

For MFA, the Department is clarifying procedures for student qualifiers and final thesis projects in several concentrations.  In addition, we are standardizing what we're asking for from Directors in terms of their thesis writeup and prompt book.


15) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries? This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, and great achievements regarding program assessment in this reporting period.

None noted.

16) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.