Unit: Theatre & Dance
Program: Theatre (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Tue Oct 09, 2012 - 3:13:50 pm

1) Below are your program's 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) Select one option:

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2012:

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 assessment activities between June 1, 2011 and September 30, 2012? (e.g., establishing/revising outcomes, aligning the curriculum to outcomes, collecting evidence, interpreting evidence, using results, revising the assessment plan, creating surveys or tests, etc.)

No (skip to question 14)

6) For the period June 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012: State the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goals. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.

Targeted SLOs

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

Written proposals and oral defenses of these proposals were reviewed by faculty advisory committees to assess how well students demonstrated #2. Through the proposals, combined with students' comprehensive exams (and defenses thereof), faculty assessed how well they demonstrated the achievement of the targeted SLO #3.

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

NOTE:  the process below describes the ongoing assessment of PhD candidates; no doctoral student graduated in 2011-2012.

1. The 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. No students took Comprehensive Exams during this period.

As there were no graduating doctoral students, no exit surveys were available.

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

One PhD student defended a dissertation proposal during this period.

No PhD students took comprehensive exams during this period.

No doctoral dissertations were completed and defended during this period.

9) 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)

10) 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)

11) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #6:
Summarize the actual results.

The students in question were assessed to be progressing well toward their dissertation goals.

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

Regarding SLO #2 (Student demonstrates in-depth comprehensive knowledge of chosen area of specialization of Theatre scholarship), faculty are in the planning stages for an annual research symposium requiring PhD students to present their research in a conference-style setting.

13) 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 now require Graduate Student Annual Progress Forms (provided by the Grad Division) to be completed for every graduate student enrolled in the program in the spring semester of the academic year. For those students making unsatisfactory progress, we will send a copy of the form to the Graduate Records Office.
Detailed instructions for the PhD Comprehensive Exam in for students in Asian Theatre were developed in response to the needs of a particular student.  These instructions should prove helpful to other students as well.
As we are currently planning to create a graduate level course on world indigenous theatre, we plan to revise the PhD “menu” of comprehensive questions to reflect this topic.

14) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.
Or, if the program did engage in assessment activities, please add any other important information here.