FORMAT FOR APR COMMITTEE REPORTS TO THE FACULTY SENATE
1. The Academic Program Review (APR) Committee makes recommendations
about each program that it reviews in written reports to the Faculty Senate.
The APR Committee Report to the Faculty Senate should provide
constructive feedback that encourages program improvement. APR should
provide a report to Faculty Senate using the reporting grid attached to this
document. In addition, APR may choose to request a mid-review period
follow-up (3 years) to concerns raised regarding the program.
2. All materials referenced by the APR Committee should be in electronic format
and are received from the Deans’ Office. The following materials comprise
the report to APR:
 The APR Self-Study Report provided by the departmental self-study
committee (including the annual reports and other important
departmental documents contained therein);
 the unit data sheet provided by the Office of Institutional Research to
the department under review
 the report of the external consultant(s) or accreditation agency;
 the departmental response to the aforementioned reports; and
 the dean’s summary report, which is prepared by the dean after
reviewing the APR Self-Study Report, the external consultant’s or
accreditation agency’s report, and the departmental response to this
report.
Approved by Faculty Senate 9/28/06
Academic Program Review SUMMARY*
Department under review_______Theatre Arts Department________________________
Date self-study received in Dean’s office June 2012
Date of external consultant’s review December 2012
Date APR received report January 2013
APR’S summary of self-study (first two boxes must be completed)
APR’s summary of how the academic program attempts to reach its goals and objectives
and the extent to which those goals and objectives have been achieved.
The UW-La Crosse Theatre Arts Department is designed to prepare students for
employment in a diversity of theatre based jobs, entrance to theatre based graduate
schools, and certain non-theatre occupations. The students can choose from six
emphases within the major. A component of student education involves the department’s
production of 7 theatrical performances an academic year whereby the students are
involved in a diversity of tasks related to the production. The faculty and staff are
committed to the latter agenda, and do a superb job of producing quality graduates. That
being said, the faculty and staff appear to be over-extended, and the number of majors
and the graduation rate reflected in the data available to the APR committee from
institutional research is a concern. Upon further conversation with the department chair, it
was determined that the data supplied by institutional research is not current. According
to data pulled from WINGS, there are currently 71 majors and 51 minors in the
Department of Theatre Arts.
APR’s comments including:
Notable Strengths
1. The significant strength of the department is its faculty and staff. The faculty has a
varied mix of sub-specialties in Theatre Arts that complement each other’s expertise. This
in turn produces well regarded, highly capable, high achieving Theatre Arts majors.
2. The department’s emphasis on Student Collaborative Learning is commendable. The
department does this by including the students in the deliberations at all levels related to
departmental productions and season selections.
3. Many undergraduate Theatre Programs emphasize only performance or design/tech
within the major. The UW-L Theatre Arts Department, however, emphasizes six areas,
namely, performance, design/tech, music theatre, general theatre, arts’ administration,
and general theatre and stage management. This tremendously benefits students in their
future endeavors.
4. The department has mastered the art of successfully producing ‘risky’, diverse and
cutting edge plays.
Notable Weaknesses
1. The small number of faculty compared to the curriculum it is required to deliver and the
performances it is expected to showcase, makes it difficult for the faculty to take
advantage of Professional Development, Sabbatical, International Experiences, and
Travel opportunities.
2. The department acknowledges a lack of ethnic and racial diversity amongst the faculty
and student body.
3. The facilities are in poor condition. The Center for the Arts was built in 1974 and has
not undergone any major maintenance/up keep since.
4. The lack of modern playback technology, sound system and communication
systems/equipment are having a negative impact on training students to learn, maintain,
and operate state of the art systems.
5. The lack of proper storage space for theatre props, lighting, costumes, etc., causes
inefficient use, in that items have to be thrown out, rather than re-used.
APR comments on any/all of the six specific components of the self-study (if applicable)
Self Study: Purposes
The UW-L Theatre Department has a clear mission statement which underscores the
development of students through classroom training and realized production work, with
“an emphasis on the collaborative and creative process.” All of this involves a
combination of theatrical training with a strong liberal arts curriculum. Their goals are to
prepare theatre students for further specialization at the graduate school level,
employment within the professional field of theatre, and to provide students with the skills
necessary to pursue a variety of other fields. The program lists an impressive set of ways
in which it is designed to prepare students. The pursuit of theatre develops
communication, analytical skills, problem solving, organizational skills, group dynamics,
and intellectual curiosity.
Self Study: Curriculum
The department offers a major which allows the student to choose from concentrations in
six areas of study: general theatre, design/technical, performance, music theatre, arts
administration and stage management. A student may also major in one emphasis, while
minoring in another. Students receive a tremendous amount of hands-on experience
through classroom projects and realized production performances. The UW-La Crosse
Department of Theatre Arts produces a minimum of 7 theatrical performances each
academic year allowing students to demonstrate, refine and expand the skills they’ve
learned in the classroom. Students also have access to workshops, travel opportunities,
and guest artist activities. Students have attended London Study Tours and both faculty
and students have participated together in the Prague Quadrennial. The latter is the
premier international design conference in the world with hands-on workshops,
performances, scenic installations, and avant-garde street performances occurring
throughout the city of Prague. The department continues to “both entertain and educate
the community” through its productions. UW-L Theatre Department also offers high
school matinée performances as introductions to theatre, and talk-back sessions so as to
further educate the public about the theatre arts. Last, the department’s general direction
and offerings can be shown to reflect current emphases and trends within theatre arts: a
curricular style that supports skills in business, the presence of a variety of
design/technical courses, the cultivation of small-cast plays, and the further development
of music theatre and arts administration programs. Regarding the first: “One trend in
theatre education is the growing need to provide students with practical industry
preparation as well as essential skills in communication and cooperation. American
industry and business benefits from theatre arts education as employers are increasingly
seeking individuals who are creative, flexible, and collaborative.”
Self Study: Assessment of Student Learning & Degree of Program Success
The Theater Arts Department has a comprehensive assessment process for both student
learning and programmatic outcomes. In addition, outside critique is actively sought for all
works that are annually created.
I.
Student Assessment.
In addition to assessment of student learning through coursework, students
are assessed annually through a portfolio/audition that represents their progress
through the program. Students are given feedback from faculty who are experts in
the students’ chosen emphases. These portfolios/auditions are expected to grow in
quality, with higher expectations placed on students who are farther along in their
academic program.
In addition to the annual review, freshman and juniors are required to
complete a faculty-reviewed assessment that is designed to prepare them for the
Theater Arts major (freshman), or to assist them in meeting their professional goals
(junior) through their academic work. Part of this assessment tracks students’
levels of knowledge between the freshman and junior years through the use of a
student created concept map of the elements of theater. Ideally, an increase in the
depth and breadth of the concept map is observed during the junior year
assessment.
Seniors are required to complete a comprehensive capstone project in their
chosen area of emphasis. A capstone project requires a proposal, faculty
approval, and weekly mentoring with their chosen faculty. Final projects are
assessed through a portfolio in which the student has recorded all aspects of the
project including, but not limited to, research, sketches, character analyses, photos,
props, budgets, etc. All faculty review the documentation to ascertain whether or
not learning goals have been accomplished, and then meet with the student to
provide feedback.
The Theatre Department’s extensive use of the portfolio as a learning and
professional development tool provides goo results for students. Faculty report that
“…students who present at the highly competitive University/Resident Theatre
Association (URTA) tend to get 10-15 graduate school interview offers based solely
on their portfolio and design materials.” This feedback from students supports the
Theater Department’s extensive use of the portfolio as a learning and professional
development tool.
All students are required to engage in student practica. While engaging in
practicums in their chosen theater emphasis (e.g., performance, design, etc.) is
necessary, students are also required to engage in practicum experiences outside
of their chosen emphasis. In 2006-2008, when rumors of disrespect among
students from different emphases reached faculty, a concentrated effort was made
by faculty to explain the purposes of the practicums, and address respect and
collaboration between students. The year-end report indicated that more work
could be done in this area. Presently student performance in practicum
experiences is assessed by faculty through the use of a student feedback form,
which appraises students on a multitude of work-related behaviors, including
collaboration, problem solving, punctuality, level of preparation through research,
etc. Students are rated on a 4-point scale ranging from poor to outstanding. In
2012, faculty launched a Qualtric survey that indicated that most students were
receiving hands-on quality experiences outside of their emphases, and were
gaining an appreciation for work involved outside their own chosen emphases.
In addition to these internal assessments, student work is also critiqued by
outside experts through a national competition in the Kennedy Center/American
College Theater Festival competition. The faculty chooses to enter all of the
program’s theater productions into this competition, thereby ensuring outside
critical assessment of student work, and faculty work as well.
II.
Programmatic Assessment.
The program itself is evaluated through several mechanisms. The first is
through a Senior Exit survey. Seniors are asked to complete a survey that reflects
their perception of how well the program met its programmatic objectives.
Programmatic objectives range from the development of aesthetic and technical
skills necessary to analyze and engage in activities of a theater arts profession, to
the development of an understanding of the human condition across cultures. Over
95% of the responses rate all programmatic objectives as being met, except one,
namely, that the program encourages the skills (“discipline, cooperation and
accountability”) necessary for life after graduation (i.e., job market and/or graduate
school), which had 87% agreement.
As mentioned above, all productions created through the program are
entered in the Kennedy Center/American College Theater Festival competition.
Students and faculty actors/designers/directors all receive formal written and verbal
feedback on aspects of the production. At that time, nominations are made for an
outstanding actor/designer/director to compete at the festival. Awards are given at
the regional and national levels. The UW-L Theater Department has received over
70 acting nominations and certificates of merit in the past five years, with faculty
receiving three of these highly competitive awards. In 2011, a UW-L student won
the regional design award, and went on to compete nationally. In 2012, a
production was chosen to compete at a regional competition in Lansing, Michigan.
The third form of programmatic assessment is through an Alumni Survey,
which was completed in 2012. In addition to demographic information, questions
inquired about the quality of instruction during their years in the theater arts
program, graduate schools that were entered, and the types of work (theater
related or not) in which alumni were engaging. In relation to program quality, the
results showed that 95% were satisfied/very satisfied with the overall quality of the
program, 92% were satisfied/very satisfied with the quality of education in their
particular emphasis, and 85% were satisfied/very satisfied with the quality of UW-L
studies outside of the theater department. In relation to placement in graduate
schools, alumni survey results showed that alumni had attended or were attending
some of the nation’s most distinguished schools (Temple University, California
Institute of the Arts, Purdue University, Kent State University, and others). In
relation to theatre jobs, the survey reported that graduates had found employment
in “some of the nation’s most distinguished theatres, including the Chanhassen
Dinner Theatre…The Second City – Hollywood…Actors Studio Theatre in New
York…” and others, as well as working in smaller, more local venues such as The
American Folklore Theatre in Door County, WI. Examples of alumni comments are
“The program is small enough to allow a high level of opportunity to participate, but
the staff is first rate at its ability to train for practical situations” and that students
“receive honest and direct feedback and advice” from a faculty by whom they feel
supported within a “family-like” atmosphere. More detailed information can be
obtained directly through the Alumni Study in the Self-Study materials.
A fourth form of assessment is through examination of GPA and student
retention. In the fall of 2010 Theater Majors averaged a 3.2 GPA, as compared to
the average UW-L student GPA of 3.18. In the last five years, the program has
retained all except 3 students who transferred to other universities. Their
reputation is increasing, as there is anecdotal evidence that there being a greater
percentage of theater majors stating that they came to the UW-L program based on
III.
IV.
the excellent reputation of the program.
Ticket Sales and Audience Feedback are two other aspects of program
quality assessment. Ticket sales have increased from approximately 8,000 in 1999
to approximately 12,000-15,000 per season. Season ticket subscriptions have
grown from 67 in the 2000-2001 season, to over 600 presently. In 2007, the
department worked with an outside agency to design an audience feedback form,
with the results indicating that the audience liked the productions, and felt that they
were getting a good value for their money. Most feedback was positive, with most
negative feedback addressing physical aspects of the theater, rather than the
production itself.
One last area of programmatic assessment is through the results of an
external reviewer. Please see APR section “External Reviewer Recommendations”
for details.
General Education Course Assessment
The department offers five general education courses in the following areas:
theater appreciation, acting for non-majors, multicultural plays, dramatic literature
and world theatre. All courses address the general education goal of either
evaluating “artistic presentations as a commentary on society or the human
experience,” or engaging “in the creative process through studio practice,
performance, or writing.” All courses have a specific assignment with an objective
pursuant to the content in each course. Outcomes are assessed with criterion on
a rubric, with descriptive categories ranging through “unsatisfactory,”
“underdeveloped,” “competent/satisfactory,” “proficient,” and “exemplary.”
Student work in each course is examined in relation to the rubric for that
specific course. Faculty then examine student outcomes, and decide whether or
not the outcome measures seem appropriate and are actually measuring the
intended learning, or need to be changed to better measure intended outcomes. In
Theatre Appreciation (THA 110), the same outcome measure will be used, with
48% of the students in 7 sections of the course scoring in the top two categories on
the rubric. In Acting for Non-Majors (THA 120), even though 75% of the students
scored in the top two categories, a new measure will be created, as the instructor
would like to assess a different aspect of the course. In addition, the instructor for
Multicultural US Plays: Acting the Text (THA 130) is creating a new learning
outcome, as it was felt that the present outcome does not reflect the most poignant
learning in the course. The outcomes measured in the final two general education
courses, World Theatre (THA 351) and Dramatic Literature and Theatre Arts (THA
201), indicated that respectively, students needed more instruction in relation to
writing, and practice with concepts. These courses will be changed to address
these needs the next rotation they are offered.
Writing-in-the-Major (WITM)
The Theater Department’s WITM program takes place across the entire
curriculum. The outcomes for the WITM program include the ability to
communicate clearly and with good mechanics in written form, while using
analytical skills, and construction skills to relate abstract concepts to concrete
phenomena. Writing is assessed informally during in-class learning activities, and
formally using a 4-point rubric that addresses the areas of mechanics,
organization, reaction, observation, analysis, application, research, argument,
criticism, and synthesis. Writing is assessed in each course, with feedback being
given in classrooms, production contexts, and in the yearly individual meetings with
students. During the year, faculty consult with each other as overall student work is
assessed. It is known that WITM – while being assessed throughout the
department and curriculum – is not being addressed in a cohesive manner across
the department. This will be addressed in the next Academic Program Review
cycle.
At this point in time, it appears that the Theater Department does have a robust
assessment plan in place, which includes: 1) student GPA and retention rates; 2)
individual feedback with regard to writing in courses across the curriculum; 3) careful
consideration of student outcomes in the general education courses; and, 4) individual
student learning monitored annually through individual student meetings where student
portfolios are examined, and students are given feedback in relation to their performance;
5) specific questions on a freshman and junior survey that track learning outcomes in
relation to student understanding of theatre elements; 6) survey data on practicum
experiences that indicate learning outcomes related to collaborative partnerships and
working in areas outside of major emphases are being achieved; 7) a senior survey that
indicates that 94% and above of the graduating seniors perceive that all but one of the
programmatic learning outcomes were achieved (with the one being at 87%), with reports
of numerous graduate school interview invitations extended to those attending a
professional conference; and, 8) an alumni survey indicating that: a) 95% of the alumni
were satisfied with their general theater education; b) 92% were satisfied with their
education in their specific emphases; and, c) graduates were able to obtain employment
in theatre or in performance related fields.
Self Study: Previous Academic Program Review and New Program Initiatives
The 2005 Academic Program Review presented 20 quite varied recommendations to the
UW-L Theatre Department. The department appears to have responded to, and is still
responding to, each of the recommendations to the best of its ability. In reference to the
recommendations, there have been moves made to ease faculty workload, the
stabilization of a management emphasis through the hiring of a specialist in theater
management, and the development of a thriving music theatre program. The department
continues to perpetuate greater diversity within the program, and is working to cultivate
greater financial gain through scholarship fundraising, corporate/individual sponsorship,
and grants. This last point is important given the diversity of funds which are required in
order for their program to function. Budget constraints also limit the quantity of part time
employees whom may ease some of the burden associated with running a program
involving both classroom learning and “realized production performances.” Finally, overall
workload and diversity of specialized duties limits the time necessary for faculty to engage
in professional development training or to take sabbatical.
Facilities continue to remain especially problematic and as such the response was not
ultimately positive. There have been positive alterations to Frederick and Toland
Theatre’s, as well as the implementation of a new state of the art lighting system.
Nonetheless, class room space for performance and design oriented courses remains
problematic. Although the department’s storage issue has been somewhat remedied, the
acquisition of additional storage space for “large scale scenery pieces” and other related
equipment would be prudent. The more the department can save such equipment, the
less it will have to purchase in the future. This results in a more environmentally
sustainable department.
Other program initiatives include the development of further recruitment techniques, and
altering the curriculum to better serve the needs of the students. And, while dance is
required in the music theatre emphasis, the Theatre Department is no longer pursuing to
bring the dance program into the department at this time.
Self Study: Personnel
The departmental faculty is expected to excel in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and
service. The report notes that the greatest emphasis is upon teaching, though it makes it
quite clear that scholarship and service are to be taken seriously. The report lists a
variety of possible forms of scholarship and notes that all faculty are in some way
engaged in the pursuit of the latter. The department sees the need for either a
scenic/sound design faculty or a lighting/sound faculty in the future so as to lighten the
work load of the current scenic/lighting design faculty and raise UW-L’s Theatre program
to the level of peer institutions and programs. Given the end of GQA, acquiring this latter
position may be difficult.
Self Study: Support for Achieving Academic Program Goals (Resources)
The department includes seven full-time faculty and two instructional academic staff.
Each member of the department is involved in classroom responsibilities and a number of
other departmental duties including: technical director, scenic and lighting director,
costume designer, recruitment liaison, etc. The report is clear in stating, for a second
time, that the unique work load associated with running a Theatre Arts department
infringes upon faculty research time, sabbatical, additional training, etc.
Mentioned earlier in the report, the department possesses major classroom issues.
Faculty require non shared classroom space where materials may be left. Also mentioned
earlier, the storage problem has been somewhat resolved, though further storage would
be beneficial for the department.
The Department of Theatre Arts is “both an academic program and a professional
business.” Because of this, there are many supplies which are required to sustain these
two aspects of the department. While the department is constantly seeking ways to find
additional revenue, it appears as if their budget is weak. Staff members find themselves
buying some of their own supplies though this has improved due to recent GQA funding.
External Reviewer Recommendations
APR’s Comments on External Reviewer (if applicable)
The external reviewer was very thorough with recommendations, directing them toward
four major categories. Categories and recommendations are listed below.

Facilities: construct a dance studio; find more storage space; better sound system in
Toland theatre; computer lab specifically for theatre students; revamp the lobby as better
showcase for public and place for students to gather; install a ventilator hood in the
basement; and, add dimmers to the Frederick Theatre.

Student Learning: schedule course assignment due dates in conjunction with performance
dates; post-production meeting for assessment; workshops for portfolio creation; and,
formalize freshman and junior assessments.

Curriculum: rework the word “concrete expression” in program goals; add a costume crafts
course; structure courses more clearly into their respective categories and emphases;
increase hours required of theatre major in the production practicums, and reduce the
number of unskilled students from appreciation courses; and, discuss moving Dance
courses to THA.

Faculty Activities/Workload: double the enrollment in general education theatre
appreciation courses, and reduce the number of sections for faculty to teach; discuss # of
productions required of faculty each year, and also number needed to meet student
learning goals; hire a lighting designer; pull skilled IAS production heads from teaching,
and open production shops full time; and make peer evaluation of performance more clear.
While some of the recommendations were untenable within the context of the
university and the current program, many were appropriate and have been highlighted
in our recommendations below.
Department’s response to the Reviewer Recommendations
APR’s Comments on the Department’s Response (if applicable)
Every concern that the external reviewer made was addressed by the department.
The Theatre Department agreed with many of the recommendations regarding facilities;
unfortunately, either funding (e.g., building renovations, additional staff, ventilator hood,
exclusive computer facilities for theatre students, lighting/dimmer switches) or politics
(e.g., moving dance classes into THA) prevent the recommendations from being
addressed. A personal communique from the Theater Department Chair on 5/6/2013
stated that they had received word from administration that the sound renovations for
Toland Theatre are moving forward, although work has not yet been officially approved at
this time.
In all responses of the department, rationale explanations as to the number of
productions, student work hours, practicum experiences, number of students in the THA
Appreciation courses, etc., were well-explained and done so using pedagogical rationale.
In other words, the faculty seems to take student learning seriously, doing their best to
ration their own time, with their departmental goals for student learning. Based on the
recommendations, the faculty will be considering portfolio workshops (which they have
gotten away from as this need was being met through individual student advising
sessions), formalizing freshman and junior year student assessments, and trying to better
incorporate a design course for costume craft without adding any more credits to an
already credit-heavy major.
Department explanations were thorough with regard to clarification of faculty
assignments for productions, and the division of labor for teaching and/or design shops,
clearly addressing the reviewer's recommendations. In addition, faculty continue to
review, revise, and update the wording of their program learning objectives, along with
monitoring formalized processes for faculty performance reviews through the use of
Digital Measures. They will also discuss the feasibility and value of post-production
meetings in relation to learning objectives and other forms of assessment presently in use.
It should be noted that some of the recommendation have already been met, i.e.,
remodeling of Frederick Theatre, portable audio system upgrade in Toland, and increased
storage space in a newly constructed shed and in Morris Hall.
Dean’s Letter
APR’s Comments on Dean’s Letter (if applicable)
The Dean’s letter comments on the department’s overall excellence. The letter also
highlights that there has been a sound system upgrade, improvements in regards to
storage, teaching, and office space, and an overall increase in S&E and travel budgets.
The Dean notes that the chances of hiring a light designer and/or sound production expert
are slim given the termination of GQA. For this reason the Dean recommends that the
department consider a reduction in the number of theatre productions.
APR’s Recommendations (must be completed)
Recommendations:
1) It is recommended that the Theatre Arts Department:
a) continue its broad array of assessment, sound mentoring and advising, and
maintain its overall sensitivity to student learning.
b) continue to produce ‘risky’, diverse and cutting edge plays.
c) continue the best practices set in place to involve students in departmental
production and season selection processes.
d) explore the use of student internships, perhaps through CEI 450, given that
students are often involved in community theater as well.
2) It is evident that the department is dedicated to providing a well-rounded education to
students, and is committed to being an integral aspect of the community. The number of
majors/minors supplied by Institutional Research is discrepant from current numbers
according to WINGS. This demonstrates a trend in growth over the past few years, with
limited resources to support that growth. Given these seemingly contradicting factors, i.e.,
maintaining existing dual roles of education for students, and service to the community,
along with the recent growth, and limited resources, it is recommended that the
department seek administrative support in developing a strategic plan, that will help to
capitalize on its many strengths, so as to leverage itself for growth in the midst of the
evident resource limitations. Some of the aspects the strategic plan might address:




Partnering with Admissions in developing recruitment strategies.
Balancing the growth and needs of the department with professional development
and sabbatical activities.
Continuing to interact with the administration and UWL Foundation as concerns the
private and public funding necessary to support the maintenance, building
upgrades, and technology needed for state of the art production – possibly through
student fees.
Reflecting upon the strengths and challenges of the current department array and
multiple emphases, along with the number of annual productions that are offered.
No serious areas to address – review in next regularly scheduled cycle
X Some areas to address – review in next regularly scheduled cycle
□ Some areas to address – department should submit short report on progress to Fac
Senate/Provost’s Office in 3 years
* APR’s report to faculty senate will consist of this completed form in electronic form.