1/09/08
Central Washington University
Assessment of Student Learning
Department and Program Report
Please enter the appropriate information concerning your student learning assessment activities for this year.
Academic Year of Report: 2009-10
Department
Theatre Arts
College:
Program:
CAH
BFA Performance Specialization
1. What student learning outcomes were assessed this year, and why?
In answering this question, please identify the specific student learning outcomes you assessed this year, reasons for assessing these outcomes,
with the outcomes written in clear, measurable terms, and note how the outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and
goals.
Disposition and Collaborative skills
Students will thoroughly understand and consistently exhibit high standards of professional conduct in stage and film
work: respect for collaborators, teachers and supervisors; meticulous preparation of materials for audition, rehearsals
and performances; responsible and professional behavior in all facets of auditioning, rehearsing, networking or
performing as well as demonstrating the ability to function effectively as members of a collaborative team in the
preparation and realization (implementation) of a public performance.
Other program
2. How were they assessed?
In answering these questions, please concisely describe the specific methods used in assessing student learning. Please also specify the
population assessed, when the assessment took place, and the standard of mastery (criterion) against which you will compare your assessment
results. If appropriate, please list survey or questionnaire response rate from total population.
Students were assessed in production activities by directors on a quarterly basis, with a final analysis of all assessment
results at the end of each year.
1/09/08
A) What methods were used?
We used the following rubric to assess a sampling of the students in production activities:
Student Name____________________Show/Role________________
Score for this page_________
5
Physical work/body is
responsive to impulses, moves
with variety, nuance, strength,
flexibility, grace, with excellent
posture, interesting to watch,
with full commitment to
physical impulses
5
Preparation of Material
Well prepared for all
production tasks and all
assignments are done
excellently and on time, with
attention to detail.
4
Physical work/Body is
responsive most of the time
but lacks as much variety,
nuance, grace and posture as
one would need for fully
realized physical work
3
Physical work/ Body is occasionally
responsive to impulses but within a limited
gestural and postural framework. There is a
lack of strong connection between
emotional and physical impulses.
2
Physical work/Body is
often unresponsive to any
sort of acting impulse.
Energy seems blocked.
1
Physical work/Body is
unresponsive most of the time to
any sort of acting impulse.
4
Preparation is basic, with no
obvious flaws or mistakes but
lacking a polish, creativity
and depth of preparation.
3
Preparation is very basic, the assignments
are done, but in a manner that is rushed or
hurried—many mistakes in performed
works, or memorization flawed.
2
It is obvious that
preparation has been
minimal and that the
student has no
understanding of what is
expected.
1
The preparation was so poorly
done that there is no reason to
believe this student should continue
with BFA training.
5
Listening and Responding is
in the moment, works well off
of partner, either silent partner
or in live partner in scenes and ,
responses to partners are
committed and from genuine
impulses.
5
Focus and concentration is
outstanding, completely
submerged in each moment in
is present and attentive to
others’ in rehearsal and
performance
5
Honest and believable acting
with a strong sense of
objective, subtext, genuine
recognition and committed
response to impulses, listening
and working off of partner,
imagination fully engaged and
committed to given
circumstances.
4
Listening and Responding
demonstrates the actor knows
to do this, but it is not as
organic, connected and real as
needed.
3
There is little evidence of listening and
responding which flattens out the overall
acting and approach to the scenes or
monologues.
2
At least 75% of the time
There is no attempt to
listen and respond.
1
This actor, does not grasp or execute
any form of listening or responding..
4
Focus and concentration is
good, with occasional breaks.
3
Focus and concentration is lacking at least
50% of the time, in rehearsals and/or
performance
2
Focus and concentration
is poor up to 75% of the
time but with work could
be learned and the problem
overcome
1
This actor, seems unable to focus
or concentrate over 75% of the time
at even a basic level .
4
Mostly honest and
believable acting with some
action playing and use of
subtext but occasional
pushing or indicating up to
25% of the time.
3
Occasionally moments of honesty and
believability in acting and the promise of
being able to do more with training. But up
to 50% of the time is not as honest, using
subtext or is pushing.
2
At least 75% of the time
the acting seems
disconnected from
emotion or organic
connection. The actor is
going through the motions
without believability
1
Over 75% of the time, there is a big
disconnect between execution and
believability.
1/09/08
5
Overall effort in rehearsal
and performance is excellent:
student is enthusiastic,
committed, and tries hard to
succeed in every rehearsal,
supports others with equal
commitment and asks for extra
help from the director or
appropriate personnel when
they do not understand
something. It is clear this
student practices skills outside
of rehearsal.
5
Student is always willing to
risk and grow, trying new
exercises with enthusiasm and
interest; unafraid to make
mistakes, fully understanding
that mastery will involve much
failure
4
Overall effort in rehearsal
or performance is usually
good, student is committed
and enthusiastic most of the
time. Student is supportive of
others and asks questions of
the director, or appropriate
personnel..
3
Student’s effort and engagement are
average an undistinguished. They are
cooperative in most rehearsals and
performance but also complain and
occasionally give forth halfhearted attempts
and effort. If they do have a question or
problem, they usually do not address it
directly and can be a negative influence in
the ensemble or wait until the last minute to
address concerns, when it is too late to do
anything substantial to correct it.
2
Student is often neither
engaged or enthusiastic.
They are only marginally
cooperative, and either
complain, or isolate
themselves, or only give a
half hearted attempt to
complete the requirements
of their production
assignment. Assignments
are also done late and/or
poorly.
1
Student is often absent and/or
inattentive. Student’s attitude
affects others in class adversely
and it is highly unlikely that the
director or evaluator would cast
the student in another production
or project .
4
Student is willing, but
usually takes the “safe”
route in pursuit of
excellence and withholds or
does not fully commit
because they are worried they
will make a mistake.
3
Student seldom risks, preferring to work
only in ways that are familiar, or feel
controlled. They seem interested in
changing the way they do things, but their
attempts are sporadic or tentative.
2
Student usually works in
the ways they know how
to work. They seem only
mildly interested in
changing or improving
their way of working and
make little or no attempts
to do so.
1
Student’s need to control or some
other physical or psychological
block prevents then from risking
or trying anything new. It is hard
for others in the class to work with
them because they cannot commit to
new exercises, assignments or ways
of working.
5
4
2
1
Student is able to take
direction in a rehearsal and
creatively execute and
remember it in a way that is
true to the spirit of the direction
while adding their own unique
creative ideas
Student is able to employ,
execute or remember the
director’s ideas but mostly
delivers exactly what is asked
for and adds little of their
own creativity
Student is only able to employ ,
remember or execute the director’s ideas
50% of the time.
At least 75% of the time
the student is unable to
employ, execute or
remember basic direction
Student is unable to employ,
execute or remember directions to
the point that their work in
production seriously undermines the
quality of the performance for both
themselves and for the ensemble
5
Voice is resonant, clearly
articulated and properly
executed, pleasant to listen to,
truthful and
appropriate to the character,
action and style of the piece.
Close to or at the level needed
for professional work.
4
Voice is pleasant to listen to,
but some poor articulation
makes it difficult to
understand up to 25% of the
time, the vocal approach
draws attention to itself and
does not seem as grounded or
real as needed
3
Voice has some promise but is
Completely untrained, hard to understand
and/or unpleasant to listen to at least 50%
of the time and will need rigorous training
to be at a professional level
2
Voice is unpleasant to
listen to and hard to
understand or hear more
than 75% of the time. It
is possible with speech
therapy and/or special
coaching done outside the
university, this voice
might be helped.
3
1
This voice is unpleasant to listen,
and or hard to understand or hear
more than 75% of the time and
unlikely to be reconditioned to the
extent needed to handle the rigors of
BFA training.
TOTAL SCORE FOR ALL THREE PAGES ________________
Additional Comments- Please add additional thoughts or follow-up comments here:
1/09/08
B) Who was assessed?
BFA Performance students in Production Work
C) When was it assessed?
Assessment is held quarterly at the conclusion to the production and a yearly analysis of all assessment.
1/09/08
3. What was learned?
In answering this question, please report results in specific qualitative or quantitative terms, with the results linked to the outcomes you assessed,
and compared to the standard of mastery (criterion) you noted above. Please also include a concise interpretation or analysis of the results.
Results of production assessment for 2009-2010 BFA Performance Majors in Production
student
show
physical
5
prep
5
L&R
5
F&C
5
H&B
5
effort
5
risk
5
creativity
5
voice
5
overall
45
Seniors
Anna
tyson
Andrew
Emily
kathryn
Andrew
Emily
Anna
SK
SK
SK
SK
SK
SG
SG
SG
5
4
4
3
3
5
5
5
4
5
5
4
5
4
5
5
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
5
4
5
4
5
5
4
5
5
4
4
3
4
4
4
5
5
4
5
4
4
5
NA
NA
NA
4
5
3
5
5
NA
NA
NA
4
4
5
5
5
NA
NA
NA
5
4
5
4
4
4
5
5
38
40
37
42
41
Juniors
Mandy
Ashlen
patrick
patrick
lauren
lauren
SK
CW
CW
CC
CC
SG
4
3
4
3
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
3
4
4
4
5
5
3
4
4
4
5
3
3
4
4
4
5
4
5
4
5
5
NA
3
4
5
5
5
NA
4
4
5
4
5
NA
4
5
4
3
4
5
36
35
41
37
40
Soph.
Erin
Jillian
erin
SK
CW
CW
3
4
3
4
5
4
3
4
4
5
4
4
3
4
4
3
5
4
3
5
4
4
5
4
3
4
5
31
42
39
Total
scores
67
80
70
75
67
-
-
-
73
499
57
56
58
-
-
-
4.3
29.4
4.4
4.3
4.5
AVERAGE / BY
17
AVERAGE BY 13
3.9
4.7
4.1
4.4
3.9
possilbe
average/45
1/09/08
Conclusions: Seventeen performances were evaluated by five professors, four of whom served as directors on the productions that were assessed and were
able to access all areas of performance and one professor only able to evaluate the areas he observed since he did not serve as a director.
Physical Work: The average of this area of evaluation, 3.9 was above average but certainly not at the level we would hope for upon graduation.
Preparation of Material: The highest level of achievement came with 4.7 in this category of - clearly the students understand what is expected of them
and are preparing at a level that is high.
Listening and Responding: The average of this area of evaluation 4.1 was above average which seems to indicate that the work done in Basic and
Intermediate Acting has improved.
Focus and concentrations: The average for this evaluation, 4.4 was very high
Honesty and Believability: This average of 3.9 indicates an area that needs improvement
Thirteen of the students were assessed in every area and their average overall score was 38.38 out of 45 possible points.
4. What will the department or program do as a result of that information?
In answering this question, please note specific changes to your program as they affect student learning, and as they are related to results from
the assessment process. If no changes are planned, please describe why no changes are needed. In addition, how will the department report the
results and changes to internal and external constituents (e.g., advisory groups, newsletters, forums, etc.).
We are planning to increase the use of what is called “talking and listening” and “personalization” exercises in the
Intermediate One Class. These consist of exercises based in the methods of the renown teachings of Sanford Meisner and Lee
Strasburg. With the use of the exercises of these two master teachers we hope to increase the scores our students have received
in the category of “Honesty and Believability” and “Listening and Responding.” In addition, we are investigating the
possibility of team teaching Intermediate One, as we did during the Winter Quarter of 2010.
In the area of “Physical Work” we are going to wait and see how one more year of the new Viewpoints and Rasa box
training impacts our beginning actors and thus prepares them for more advanced training. We have discusses putting more of
this training into the Intermediate sequence, but at this point we are in a “wait and see” mode.
1/09/08
5. What did the department or program do in response to last year’s assessment information?
In answering this question, please describe any changes that have been made to improve student learning based on previous assessment results.
Please also discuss any changes you have made to your assessment plan or assessment methods.
Our current program reflects our recent assessment of the acting sequence in which we completely revamped the basic
sequence. We are in the process of watching how these changes will impact the quality of our training. Discussion has begun
regarding integration of some of the basic techniques, like Rasa boxes, in the Acting Styles sequence.
6. Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Student Learning at Central Washington University: