Program: Theatre (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Fri Oct 04, 2013 - 2:45:32 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: Other: Other: 3) Select one option:
- File (03/16/2020)
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.
0% 1-50% 51-80% 81-99%
100%5) Did your program engage in any program assessment activities between June 1, 2012 and September 30, 2013? (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.)
Yes No (skip to question 14)6) For the period June 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013: 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; one doctoral student graduated in 2012-2013.
1. Students 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. Students took Comprehensive Exams, a total of nine questions with different subject-area choices possible for Asian and Western area candidates. Sitting for the Comprehensive Exams takes place over a maximum period of three weeks. The full committee of the candidate only, not the entire doctoral faculty, reads the written answers. Oral Examination on the Written Comprehensives Answers involves the entire committee (including the outside member) and lasts for two hours. The Committee may recommend that the exams be re-taken in whole or in part by borderline candidates.
As there was only one graduating doctoral student, no exit surveys were available.
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
1 PhD student who graduated in Spring 2013 (there are 11 other currently enrolled PhD students)
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) Dean/Director Other: 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) Other: 11) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #6:
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.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
An important recent change to the PhD is that all MA (A) and PhD students are now required to present a paper each spring, at the Theatre and Dance Graduate Research Symposium; papers may come from previous class work, but are prepared for presentation through work with each student’s graduate advisor. The Symposium is run like a professional conference.
To help raise their level of scholarly professionalism, we plan to begin requiring that each doctoral student submit at least one paper per year to an appropriate conference, and that they work with their advisor to develop each paper for submission, and if accepted, to prepare the paper presentation.
We have also just started to plan a new PhD program for Performance Studies under the umbrella of Theatre and Dance. Ignoring the disciplinary boundaries and going beyond the traditional genres of the Performing Arts, Performance Studies engages with a broad spectrum of performances not only in the arts but also in politics, economics, religion, society and media culture. Different from our existing PhD programs, which are mostly taught by Theatre and Dance faculty, a large number of required Performance Studies courses will be offered by affiliate faculty from other UHM departments (Political Science, Art, History, Music, Communicology, etc.)
We are working on a general communication issue: grad students need to be reminded more regularly about deadlines (such as TW scholarships, applying for graduation, GA-ships, external scholarships). Since regular email and postings in the department do not work sufficiently we will investigate having a regular time-table on our website that allows students to check for upcoming deadlines.
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.
n/a
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.
n/a