Unit: Theatre & Dance
Program: Theatre (BA)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Fri Nov 20, 2020 - 12:33:56 pm

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

1. Students can recognize and distinguish between various styles and forms of World Theatre (i.e., Asian, Western, Pacific, Hawaiian, Theatre for Young Audiences).

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)

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

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report, 3d. Civic participation)

3. Students can effectively communicate creative ideas and critical judgments through appropriate means (oral, written, practical).

(1a. General education, 1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report)

4. Students can demonstrate ethical and self-disciplined behaviors appropriate to the field of theatre.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment)

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

Department Website URL: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/liveonstage/theatre/undergraduate-students/
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: Shared department Google file with all course syllabi and course Laulima sites

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

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2020:

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) Does the program have learning achievement results for its program SLOs? (Example of achievement results: "80% of students met expectations on SLO 1.")(check one):

Yes, on some(1-50%) of the program SLOs
Yes, on most(51-99%) of the program SLOs
Yes, on all(100%) of the program SLOs

6) Did your program engage in any program learning assessment activities between November 1, 2018 and October 31, 2020?

No (skip to question 17)

7) What best describes the program-level learning assessment activities that took place for the period November 1, 2018 and October 31, 2020? (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 other pressing issue related to student learning achievement for the program (explain in question 8)

8) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place since November 2018.

The Department has worked to assign Faculty Mentors to each undergraduate student as soon as a student declares their major (Theatre).  This relieves the load on just one “Undergraduate Advisor” and better connects students to other faculty in the Department.  The department continued the practice of exit interviews for all graduating BAs in each semester.  This provides a venue for portfolio submission and review, student self-reported feedback for each program learning outcome (PLOs), and feedback from the students about the pros/cons of the department and their suggested changes for improvement.  These interviews are attended by approximately 75% of the faculty.  Information is compiled and shared with all faculty for discussion as a whole and within relevant committees (i.e. Curriculum Committee, Season Selection Committee, etc.).

9) What types of evidence did the program use as part of the assessment activities checked in question 7? (Check all that apply.)

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

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

SPRING 2019:  6 Exit Interviews

FALL 2019:  3 Exit Interviews

SPRING 2020:  9 Exit Interviews


18 students completing the B.A. in Theatre submitted portfolios of their work in the department over their tenure at UHM.  These portfolios highlighted the students’ most significant experiences within the department and provided a reflective writing opportunity to determine their mastery of the four (4) B.A. Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs).  Each student was also asked to provide supporting material to demonstrate achievement of the programmatic SLOs.

11) 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)

12) 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)

13) Summarize the results from the evaluation, analysis, interpretation of evidence (checked in question 12). For example, report the percentage of students who achieved each SLO.

Of the eighteen (18) students who were assessed via their Exit Interview, Portfolio, and reflective writing assignment, all were judged to have demonstrated the program SLOs with either a “GOOD” or “ADEQUATE” ranking.  No student was judged to have “INSUFFICIENT” demonstration of the program SLOs or to have “NOT MET” these.  Faculty used the following scale and scored each student exiting the program:
4 = GOOD
Again, all but a few received “GOOD” score for each of our SLOs while some received an “ADEQUATE” score.

14) 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)

15) Please briefly describe how the program used its findings/results.

Of the last three semesters (S19, F19, S20), no significant departmental changes were made to the B.A. degree based on these findings/results.  As stateed previously, all students received a "GOOD" ranking or "ADEQUATE" ranking on their final portfolio and reflective writing assignment.  During the Exit Interviews with B.A. students, almost all had positive experiences in the program and commented on their satisfaction with the curriculum (especially in relation to SLO #1: "Students can recognize and distinguish between various styles and forms of World Theatre."). 

The Department has been working to institute a new focus after the events of 2020, specifically the BLM (Black Lives Matter) calls for systemic changes to structures in our society.  The Department is working to write new classes and include more student voices in our season selections as we seek to "center" our program on Hawaii, the Pacific, and Asia.

16) 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.

(stated in Question #15)

17) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please justify.

n/a (The program DID engage in assessment activities.)