Unit: Theatre & Dance
Program: Theatre (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Thu Oct 13, 2011 - 10:35:18 am

1) Below are your program student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update 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) 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) Below is the link(s) to your program's curriculum map(s). If we do not have your curriculum map, please upload it as a PDF.

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2011:

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) For the period June 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011: State the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goals. 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 two students’ dissertation and defense, faculty assessed how well dissertation work demonstrated the achievement of the targeted SLO.

6) State the type(s) of evidence gathered to answer the assessment question and/or meet the assessment goals that were given in Question #5.

NOTE:  the process describes the assessment of the two candidates who graduated in 2011, although the process is ongoing for other students midway through the program.

1. Student presented  Dissertation Proposals, 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 candidates spent 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 dates were publicly announced.  The candidate publicly defended the research and writing.  Committee members gave corrections and suggestions before the corrected final version were submitted to the Graduate Division.

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

Two PhD students graduating in 2010-2011

8) 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)

9) 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)

10) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #5:
Summarize the actual results.

The qualitative 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 students.  Student surveys have not yet been returned, so have not yet been evaluated.

11) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.

We are looking into ways of stricter supervision and feedback for 1st and 2nd year students and their progress.

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.


13) Other important information.
Please note: If the program did not engage in assessment, please explain. If the program created an assessment plan for next year, please give an overview.