Unit: Theatre & Dance
Program: Theatre (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Thu Sep 30, 2010 - 3:20:29 pm

1) Below are the program student learning outcomes submitted last year. Please add/delete/modify as needed.

1. Student is capable of researching and writing a major book-length original contribution to Western, Asian or Comparative Theatre scholarship

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

3. Student displays broad expertise in Theatre history, theory, and performance practices

4. Student demonstrates teaching competence at the university level.

5. Student demonstrates reading knowledge of, and some spoken fluency in, the foreign language(s) relevant to the area of the dissertation.

2) As of last year, your program's SLOs were published as follows. Please update as needed.

Department Website URL: http://www.hawaii.edu/theatre/departmental/assessment/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:
Other:
Other:

3) Below is the link to your program's curriculum map (if submitted in 2009). If it has changed or if we do not have your program's curriculum map, please upload it as a PDF.

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2010:

4) The percentage of courses in 2009 that had course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a website, or other publicly available document is indicated below. Please update as needed.

0%
1-50%
51-80%
81-99%
100%

5) State the assessment question(s) and/or goals of the assessment activity. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.

Targeted SLO: 1. Student is capable of researching and writing a major book-length original contribution to Western, Asian or Comparative Theatre scholarship.
Through the student’s dissertation and defense, faculty assessed how well dissertation work demonstrated the achievement of the targeted SLO.

6) State the type(s) of evidence gathered.

NOTE:  the process describes the assessment of the candidate who graduated in Spring 2010, although the process is ongoing for other students midway through the program.
1. Student presented a Dissertation Proposal, 10-15 double spaced pages with substantial Bibliography at a Proposal Defense Meeting with 5-member dissertation committee (minimum one outside member).  At this meeting, the committee members assessed the student’s proposed methodology, access to sources, organization plan for both writing and research, and proposed scope of the project.

2. After the period of Field Research (with enrollment in Diss. 800), the candidate spent from several years researching and writing the dissertation.  The various drafts of the dissertation were supervised and critiqued by the committee chair; usually the committee sees only the submission draft.  Defense is publicly announced.  The candidate publicly defended the research and writing.  Committee members give corrections and suggestions before the corrected final version is submitted to the Graduate Division.

7) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected?

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)
Dean/Director
Other:

8) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence?

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)
Other:

9) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated.
If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

PhD: 1 graduating student in 09-10.  Five persons on the dissertation committee.

10) Summarize the actual results.

The results (the theoretical basis of the dissertation, the validity of the research methodology, the appropriateness of the writing style, the rigor of the source citation method, and the candidate’s original contribution to scholarship) were discussed at the public defense, as well as in a private meeting of the committee, and these results were communicated to the student.  The student did groundbreaking research work on experimental theatre in China, with great originality, exemplary field work, and enormous potential for publication.

11) How did your program use the results? --or-- Explain planned use of results.
Please be specific.

The PhD program seems to be achieving SLO #1 exceedingly well. The graduate faculty continues to discuss that, given the high quality and significance of our recent Theatre dissertations, we need to actively encourage the students to pursue book publication, and to investigate, with the help of faculty, venues for such publication, as well as its implications for illustrations, permissions, style or scope, etc.

12) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries? This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, program aspects and so on.

We have developed a new exit survey for PhD students, created this Fall.  The survey asks the student to reflect on the SLOs.  It has been sent to the most recent two doctoral graduates; as they are both busy with university jobs, there has been no response yet.

13) Other important information:

In order to create a format in which data may be calculated and retained more easily, the Department of Theatre and Dance has chosen to convert several assessment aspects to Survey Monkey Pro.  This is not a free service, and is something that could perhaps be subsidized for financially struggling departments?