Theatre Arts Department 2010-2011 Annual Assessment Update
I.
Mission Statement, Program Goals, Student Learning Outcomes,
Curriculum Map, and Multi-Year Assessment Plan
A. http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/departments/theatre_arts/missionstatement.html
B. (Please see same URL as above for department Student Learning Outcomes.)
The Theatre Arts Department adopted new Student Learning Outcomes at the end of
the 2010-2011 school year, and implemented them in the fall of 2011. Please find the
discussion of this in C and I.5 below (Assessment), which discusses the various
assessment related activities the department undertook in 2010-2011. The
department’s previous mission and outcomes are attached as Appendix 1.
C. The department’s Curriculum Map has changed substantively from our 20102011 reports, since the department’s Student Learning Outcomes underwent a
significant transformation in 2010-2011. The department’s efforts in this area
accomplished the following things: 1) streamlined the department’s efforts in
assessment; 2) created clear outcomes that can be more readily assessed; 3)
mapped Student Learning Outcomes more clearly to Institutional Learning
Outcomes, especially related to those related to effective written communication.
Please find the Curriculum Map attached as Appendix 2.
D. Please find the department’s Multi-year Assessment Plan attached as Appendix 3.
II.
Follow up on Action Items identified in previous reports.
1. Replenish Globe Series funds: have significant conversation with Provost and
President by Spring 2011 on future of Globe Series. Oversight by whole
department with lead by John Blondell.
Beginning in the early 2000’s, and through a generous donation by a local benefactor, the
department instituted its “Globe Series” of international and inter-cultural short-term
disciplinary residencies. The purpose of the series is to create opportunities for
Westmont Theatre Arts students to engage with international figures of significant artistic
and/or scholarly reputation, on the Westmont campus. Though the department remains
committed to this goal, especially since the global plank of the college has been recently
re-energized, issues around the Globe Series remain ambiguous. The department had
planned to begin serious conversations with a new provost, set to begin in the fall of
2011. Though plans for further discussion regarding this item remain important to the
department, it is now apparent that this item fits more clearly into program review issues
for the department, as the item does not relate to directly to the teaching effectiveness of
the department, and the success and achievement of our students. Hence, we have
2
removed this action item from the department’s assessment plans, and have relocated it in
the department’s programmatic goals and projects.
2. Diversify: aim to add additional faculty person of color by 2014 and continue
practice of highly considering minority candidates for all adjunct positions.
Oversight by Chair.
This item remains of vital interest to the department. In his response to the 2010-2011
Theatre Arts report, Professor Alister Chapman asked the following questions. What
percentage of your adjuncts is female, and what percentage of your courses do they
teach? This would be useful information for your six-year program review report. It is
advisable to have this data gathered into the appropriate tables and graphs in the
Records folder in your archive so you can have meaningful conversations about the
issues and develop effective strategies to address them prior to writing the six year
program review report. What strategies have you identified for hiring a female faculty or
a faculty person of colour?
At this writing, the department faculty demographic is as follows: three Caucasian males
in full-time appointments; one Caucasian male in an adjunct appointment; two Caucasian
females in adjunct appointments (both in dance); and one woman of color in an adjunct
appointment (also in dance). Many issues and questions emerge from this demographic.
First of all, women teach a proportionally low percentage of the department’s courses
(15%). At the present time, however, the department’s full-time and adjunct positions are
maxed out – the department has no open positions, and there are no plans to expand the
faculty in the near future. In addition, with the coming retirement of Erlyne Whiteman,
there is a significant question about the future of dance in the department. This becomes
increasingly problematic, considering the department’s high number of female students
and a full-time faculty that is largely white and male.
Though this will be a significant issue as the department moves forward, this item – as in
number 1 above – relates more to program review than assessment, and will be moved
out of the purview of this report in future years.
Professor Chapman touched on further Diversity issues when he made this comment in
his response to our 2010-11 report: “How much have you considered reducing some of
the Western focus of courses such as Theatre History and Great Literature of the Stage in
order to increase diversity? Are there examples from other theatre departments that are
instructive here?” Prompted by his questions, and in consultation with Tatiana
Nazarenko, the department considered the adoption of two different courses to its
curriculum – a world theater course, with Asia, Africa, and Latin America as a focus; or a
dramatic literature course, with gender and ethnicity as a focus. Following lengthy
conversation, the department opted to create a new dramatic literature course entitled
“Gender and Ethnicity on the American Stage,” to be taught by Professor John Blondell.
This course will an important elective course for Theatre Arts majors, satisfy General
Education requirements, and perhaps become part of the college’s Gender Studies minor.
3
3. Re-hiring of Arts Coordinator by 2011-2012. Oversight by Chair.
As in numbers 1 and 2 above, this item remains critical to the department. The Art,
Music, and Theatre Departments suffered a major blow when the college terminated the
Arts Coordinator position. This has led to increased workload for department faculty,
especially the directors, and has resulted in a general lack of cohesion, efficiency, and
communication between the departments. In addition, it has deleteriously impacted the
systematic marketing and public relations side of our departmental performance program.
Again, though it is important to regain this position, this action item is related more to the
programmatic work of the department, and will not be considered in future annual
assessment reports.
4. Revise curriculum: with the new faculty member, revise both major curriculum
and particular courses in design and production by 2011-2012 academic year.
Oversight by entire department, with significant input from Robert Hamel, and
coordinated by Chair.
I am happy to report that the department has enjoyed success in this area. In the fall of
2010, Mitchell Thomas and Robert Hamel fine-tuned the department’s offerings in
Stagecraft: courses were re-named so students now obtain a clear sense of each
semester’s focus, and a three semester rotation was implemented so students can plan
their schedules more effectively. In the short term, this has resulted in higher enrollment
for the last two stagecraft courses. In the long term, stricter sequencing and greater
oversight will result in high student achievement and satisfaction. In addition, the
department is deep in discussions regarding changes in the Design for Theatre courses
that Professor Hamel teaches. At this time, the department plans to create a lower
division Stage Design course (eliminating one of the present upper division design
courses), which will satisfy both major and PIA General Education requirements. The
course will bring more students into the department’s design offerings at an earlier stage,
diversify lower division Theatre Arts offerings, increase PIA opportunities, and crosspollinate Art and Theatre Arts students.
5. Assessment: Continue assessment activities of outcome 2. Oversight by John
Blondell, with significant input from Elizabeth Hess, and coordinated by Chair.
The department engaged in a tremendous amount of assessment activity during 20102011. This is especially significant, since John Blondell was gone for much of the fall,
and Chair Mitchell Thomas was on sabbatical in the spring. Nevertheless, the department
enjoyed considerable success in this area, and is happy with the newfound focus and
clarity related to assessment and student achievement in the Theatre Arts Department.
The department is extremely grateful to Elizabeth Hess for the amount and quality of
assessment work that she under took during her time with us in 2010-2011.
Following an important and useful conversation with Tatiana Nazarenko in the fall of
2010, John Blondell undertook the job of providing oversight for transforming the
departmental Mission Statement and Student Learning Outcomes. Previous Outcomes
4
were too numerous, in some cases too vague, and in most cases too difficult to assess.
Consequently, the department narrowed its focus in three specific outcomes, which
involve Creative and Effective work on the stage (to be assessed in the department’s
Senior Projects Capstone Course), Disciplinary Literacy (assessed in upper division
Theatre History courses), and Effective Written Communication (assessed in upper
division Theatre History and Dramatic Theory courses.) The department is pleased that
its assessment efforts are streamlined, clear, and concise. We look forward to collecting
data over the next several years, in order to track student success and achievement in our
program more clearly.
Please see the data and narrative related to this outcome in number III below. In addition,
the department accomplished the following tasks: 1) discussed, created, and approved a
new departmental mission statement; 2) discussed, created, and approved new Student
Learning Outcomes (heretofore SLO’s); 3) discussed, created, and approved new Student
Learning Goals; 4) discussed, created, and approved a rubric for the department’s Student
Learning Outcome related to effective written communication, which it will assess in
2011-2012. Please see Appendix 1 for the previous mission statement and SLO’s, and
Appendix 4 for narrative information regarding the development of the writing rubric and
different iterations of the rubric that will be used for student research papers.
The work of the previous year has clarified departmental assessment focus, streamlined
its efforts, and revealed the department’s next steps in terms of departmental success and
student achievement.
III.
Focus
Outcome: Demonstrate core knowledge in major literature, history, and theory of
western theatre practice.
During the 2009-2010 school year, the Theatre Arts Department commenced work on its
second outcome, related to core knowledge and disciplinary literacy in theatre and drama.
During 2010-2011, the department continued work on this area, and accomplished the
following tasks: 1) rewrote the outcome, reflected in the words above; 2) finished the
instruments to assess this area; and 3) implemented the instruments, and collected data
from them, to assess student success and pedagogical effectiveness. In addition, the
department streamlined its efforts in obtaining this data. Previously, the department
intended to assess Core Knowledge in three courses – TA 1, Great Literature of the
Stage, TA 120, The Greeks to the Renaissance, and Theatre History II, The Rise of the
Professional Theatre to the Modern Stage. Following input from Tatiana Nazarenko, and
in consultation with members of the department, it was decided to eliminate TA 1 from
the courses that would pursue this data, since TA 1 is an introductory level course, used
to introduce and develop student achievement in this area, not necessarily develop
mastery of it. Consequently, TA 120 and 121 are now the courses used to assess
disciplinary literacy in Theatre Arts and Drama at Westmont.
5
The Core Knowledge outcome includes 100 terms, theatrical figures, and aesthetic
movements integral to a deep and broad understanding of the western theatre tradition.
Please see Appendix 5 for the curriculum that constitutes “Core Knowledge” for
Westmont Theatre Arts majors, and Appendix 6 for the instrument used to assess core
knowledge in Theatre Arts 120, taught by Elizabeth Hess during the spring of 2011.
The department established the following benchmark for disciplinary literacy and
knowledge:
85% of Theatre Arts majors will score 90% or higher on the core knowledge component
of Theatre Arts coursework.
During the spring of 2011, Core Knowledge was assessed in midterm and final
examinations in TA 120 Theatre History I. 2 out of 11 majors scored at least 48.5 out of
51 (95% or above). No majors scored between 90% and 95%. 7 out of 11 majors scored
at least 43.5 out of 51 (85% or above), and 8 out of 11 majors scored at least 41 out of 51
(80%). Only 18% of majors scored 90% or higher in core knowledge, down significantly
from 2009-2010, when 66% of majors scored 90% or higher (sample size of 6). There
are several possible reasons for this. In 2010-2011 an adjunct professor (Elizabeth Hess)
taught the course and in her words, “graded the terms really, really hard, and took off
half-points for fairly minor errors, even when the substance of the answer may well have
been pretty much right.” Be that as it may, the department has accomplished some good
work with this outcome. We have defined what we mean by “Core Knowledge” for our
students, created assessment instruments for the outcome, and discussed student
achievement in relation to the outcome. Some important questions remain, including the
following: Does the 100-term curriculum adopted by the department convey (and assess)
the breadth and depth of knowledge acceptable for undergraduate disciplinary literacy in
the field? Is the department’s assessment instrument appropriate to gather and assess this
outcome? Is the departmental benchmark appropriate for this outcome?
For the 2011-2012 assessment cycle, the department will gather one more round of data
in order to arrive at a clearer picture of student achievement in the Core Knowledge
outcome of our program, and attempt to answer these important questions. For this cycle,
the department will lower its benchmark to read:
80% of Theatre Arts majors will score 80% or higher on the core knowledge component
of Theatre Arts coursework.
IV.
Next Steps
The Theatre Arts Department will engage in the following assessment tasks for 20112012:

The department’s assessment focus for 2011-2012 will be: apply disciplinespecific research methodologies in crafting effective writing about theatrical
practice. This department SLO maps onto the college’s PLO for written
effectiveness for the 2011-12 school year.
6

Differentiate program goals from assessment ones more clearly, and create at least
two specific programmatic objectives, to be completed by spring of 2013.
Oversight by Mitchell Thomas, with input from John Blondell and Bob Hamel.
Complete by Spring 2012.

Continue to gather data for the Core Knowledge Outcome, and evaluate the
success of the new benchmark. Oversight by John Blondell. Complete by Fall
2012.

Discuss, and adopt as appropriate, new rubric for Senior Projects that will be used
consistently by full-time and adjunct faculty. Since the department’s first SLO is
assessed primarily in this course, more conversation and work are needed to
create more effective assessment tools in this area. Oversight by Mitchell
Thomas and John Blondell. Complete by Spring 2012.

Fine-tune, if needed, the rubric used for writing research papers, which will be
used for the first time to gather data for the departmental and college-wide writing
outcome for the 2011-2012 school year. Oversight by John Blondell. Complete
by Spring 2012.

Continue to revise, re-shape, and develop Design and Technology portion of the
curriculum. Oversight by Chair, in consultation with Robert Hamel. Complete
by Spring 2014.
Appendices
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Previous Mission Statement and Student Learning Outcomes
Curriculum Map
Multi-Year Assessment Plan
Last Year’s Annual Assessment Report Update
Narrative and iterations of Writing Rubric
Core Knowledge Curriculum – 100 terms
Assessment Instruments from TA 120, midterm and final
7
APPENDICES
2010-2011 THEATRE ARTS ASSESSMENT UPDATE
Appendix 1
Previous Mission Statement and Student Learning Outcomes
Theatre Arts Department
Used until end of 2010 and 2011 School year
Mission
 The mission of the Westmont College Theatre Arts department is to provide a
broad and rich education to undergraduate students, training and encouraging
engaged, creative, and well-rounded Christian theatre artists committed to the
development of an enlightened mind, deep empathy, a curious spirit, and an
appreciation for the moral imagination.
Student Learning Outcomes
 Westmont College Theatre Arts students will cultivate their own individual
creative spirits, and display the necessary imagination, technical expertise, and
courageous self-discipline necessary for effective, dynamic work on the stage.

Westmont College Theatre Arts students will display a deep and broad
understanding of the history, literature, and theory of the European theatre
tradition, and contemporary American theatre practice that has derived from it.

Westmont College Theatre Arts students will cultivate tools for effective written
communication, and will display abilities to describe, evaluate, differentiate,
synthesize, analyze, and interpret, toward a deep understanding of the received
historical, theoretical, and practical development of theatre and drama.

Westmont College Theatre Arts students cultivate tools for effective oral
communication, and display flexibility, nuance, power, clarity, and the thoughtful
understanding necessary to communicate fictional characters through language.

Westmont College Theatre Arts students understand their place in a diverse
world, and through the department’s Globe Series and Theatre in London and
Europe Mayterms, students display cross-cultural communication skills,
flexibility, empathy, and awareness of people from other cultures.

Westmont College Theatre Arts students will display a deep and integrated
understanding of the Christian faith and their artistic work, becoming thoroughly
responsible artists and individuals in the world, celebrating the moral imagination.
8
Appendix 2
Curriculum Map
Curriculum Map – Theatre Arts Department
Goals
Learning
Outcomes
Where are the
learning
Outcomes
met?
I Introduced
D Developed
M Mastered
How are they
assessed?
Benchmark
Link to the
Institutional
Learning
Outcomes
Skill/Theatrical Core
Performance
Knowledge
TA 010, 011,
15-17, 31 (I)
TA 111, 125,
131, 136, 150
(D)
TA 193 (M)
TA 001
(I/D)
TA 120,
121, 124
(M)
Senior Project
Capstone
Course
Rubric
Tests
Creative
Expression
Critical
Thinking
Discipline
Specific
Writing and
Research
TA 001 (I/D)
TA 120, 121,
124 (M)
Essays
80% of
Rubric
Theatre Arts
majors will
score 80%
or higher in
Core
Knowledge
Competence in
Written
Communication
9
Appendix 3
Theatre Arts Multi-Year Assessment Plan
Outcomes
201
1201
2
201
2201
3
1. Skill in
Development of
Theatrical
Performances
2. Core Knowledge
201
4210
15
201
5201
6
X
X
3. Discipline-specific
research and
writing
201
3201
4
X
Means of
Assessment,
Benchmark
Who is
How the loop will
in
be closed /has been
charge?
closed?
Senior
Project/Rubric
Thomas
and
Blondell
Developed new
outcome, refine rubric
that is five years old
Test/80% of Theatre
majors will score
80% or higher in
Core Knowledge
Blondell
Developed new
outcome. Gather data
for one more round in
order to answer
questions regarding this
outcome, the
assessment instrument,
and the benchmark
Research
Papers/Rubric
Blondell
Developed new
outcome. Assess
student research papers
with new rubric in
spring 2012.
X
X
X
201
6201
7
X
4.
5.
GE Projects
6.
7.
8.
Note: The department will assess two outcomes in 2011-20122, in order to help close the loop in
Core Knowledge, and commence work in discipline-specific research and writing.
10
Appendix 4
2009-2010 Theatre Arts Assessment Report Update
Theatre Arts Department 2010 Annual Assessment Update
I. Mission Statement, Student Learning Goals and Student Learning Outcomes
1. Mission
The mission of the Westmont College Theatre Arts department is to provide a broad and
rich education to undergraduate students, training and encouraging engaged, creative, and
well-rounded Christian theatre artists committed to the development of an enlightened
mind, deep empathy, a curious spirit, and an appreciation for the moral imagination.
2. There were no changes made to our current outcomes, listed below.
Student Learning Outcomes
 Westmont College Theatre Arts students will cultivate their own individual
creative spirits, and display the necessary imagination, technical expertise, and
courageous self-discipline necessary for effective, dynamic work on the stage.

Westmont College Theatre Arts students will display a deep and broad
understanding of the history, literature, and theory of the European theatre
tradition, and contemporary American theatre practice that has derived from it.

Westmont College Theatre Arts students will cultivate tools for effective written
communication, and will display abilities to describe, evaluate, differentiate,
synthesize, analyze, and interpret, toward a deep understanding of the received
historical, theoretical, and practical development of theatre and drama.

Westmont College Theatre Arts students cultivate tools for effective oral
communication, and display flexibility, nuance, power, clarity, and the thoughtful
understanding necessary to communicate fictional characters through language.

Westmont College Theatre Arts students understand their place in a diverse
world, and through the department’s Globe Series and Theatre in London and
Europe Mayterms, students display cross-cultural communication skills,
flexibility, empathy, and awareness of people from other cultures.

Westmont College Theatre Arts students will display a deep and integrated
understanding of the Christian faith and their artistic work, becoming thoroughly
responsible artists and individuals in the world, celebrating the moral imagination.
3. Outcome Alignment table (Appendix 1)
II. Follow up on Previous Action Items
11
Below is a brief update on each of the action items identified in last year’s PRC response
(Appendix 2).

Your decision to replace the portfolio assessment with a final exam sounds wise,
and you have made good progress on the instrument. Will this exam be
incorporated into an existing course? If so, is there a way of making it part of the
graded work for the course, rather than extra work added on?
This is a very good suggestion currently being considered by the department. One
possible way to accomplish this would be to add a seminar component to the senior
capstone project, which could include a number of culminating components including
this exam. However, this has faculty load implications and also raises questions of
whether the total number of major units would need to change as well. So, at the moment
the exam exists as “added on work” for the graduating seniors.

Well done for being on schedule for the six-year report! Your work to date will
make that a much less arduous task when the time comes. To what extent is your
whole department clear on the work that lies ahead before your next six-year
report?
Unfortunately, the template for the six-year report development changed this year, and it
seems that while much of the preparation work done in years 1-3 was helpful to the
department, it won’t be overly helpful for the final six-year report. As explained in
Senate, one significant change is that much more of the work (75%) will be done in the
year that the 6-year report is due, rather than the old template of “adding and bringing
together” the final report. This change has been personally disheartening, as I feel that I
am being asked to abandon the process that I have already put many, many hours into.
The department is aware of our upcoming focus for assessment and review, and are
included in the process. It helps that one department member (Blondell) is on the PRC
committee!

You also clarified your department’s contribution to the general education
curriculum—a helpful response to last year’s PRC report. Is there a way of
quantifying the “overall student satisfaction” that you report for these courses?
And did the department discuss Marianne Ruel Robins’s question about whether
you might focus on fewer GE areas (see her response to your 2007-8 report)?
With the advent of the new IDEA course evaluations, it is assumed that it will be much
easier to compile and quantify course satisfaction levels. Admittedly, the “overall student
satisfaction” report is largely anecdotal based on the Chair’s reading through the course
evaluations prior to discussing them with faculty members. The IDEA scores will be
able to tell us both how we compare to our colleagues at Westmont as well as how we
compare with similar courses at other colleges and universities, giving us good feedback
about where we stand.
At the moment, the department shows no inclination to reduce our offerings to varying
GE areas. It should be noted, however, that as college-wide assessment oversight and
workload increase for faculty teaching a GE course, there IS an impulse to pull back
12
offerings to avoid a time-consuming constant assessment mandate. This is clearly driven
by time issues for the individual faculty, as the desire of the department remains to teach
broadly in a broad and multi-faceted discipline.

The committee welcomes your desire to create an endowed chair for Professor
John Blondell. It seems that the dinner series is one way of exploring funding for
this. What other avenues do you plan to pursue?
The Theatre Arts department is very enthusiastic about President Gayle Beebe’s goal to
create a learning center for each of the five learning planks of Westmont College. Dr.
Blondell’s work in international theatre and existing connections to multi-cultural and
transnational bodies working in the arts would be a wonderful collaboration with a
Westmont supported Global learning center. Dr. Blondell is in initial conversations with
both the acting Provost and the President about these possibilities. Clearly, a substantial
donor gift to the learning center directed toward the arts could make this goal a
possibility. Realistically, the theatre department does not currently have access to donors
that could fund this, so a connection to goals of the college would serve well.

We applaud your work on diversity in your productions, and appreciate your
desire to “offer a curriculum that includes history, theory, and literature courses
in Non-Western theatre and theatre by women.” How do you see this happening?
To what extent are these areas included in, or could they be included in, existing
course offerings? If new courses are required, could professional development
funds allow a full-time professor to do the work necessary to teach them? The
work you have done on this score with your productions has been excellent, and
could well have been trumpeted more in your report.
It has been documented in other reports how committed the department is to diversity
from a production standpoint, and is actively working on increasing diversity in various
course offerings, and ultimately, faculty members. One of the challenges of including
“diverse voices” in existing courses is that asks the question of what is cut out of the
course to make room? In courses like Theatre History and Great Literature of the Stage,
which cover huge sweeps of time and material, this is a challenging question to discern.
The department is planning on initiating a conversation with the Provost next year about
possible courses in International Theatre and Race and Ethnicity on the American Stage.
Courses like this can only be developed through either interdisciplinary teaching OR
buying out an existing course for a current faculty member as we are currently in a strict
rotation of course offerings, being a small department with major and GE obligations.
Ultimately, an endowed Chair for John Blondell may allow room for a new faculty
person with expertise in these areas of focus.

Your plan for addressing difficulties in your dance program is sound, and we look
forward to seeing the results.
The department had a series of meetings in Spring 2010 to discuss the dance program,
resulting in numerous changes in terms of curriculum, goals, and personnel. One of the
first efforts made was to disentangle the courses that had been cross-listed in TA and
PEA for different units. This was leftover from a previous era of PEA only dance
courses, and also reflected some of the curricular changes that were made to
13
accommodate a faculty person that is split between the departments. However, as we get
clearer about the mission and goals of the program, it is a priority of the department to
offer more options for intermediate and advanced dance students in ballet, jazz, and
modern. All beginning ballet and jazz courses have been turned over to PEA, and the
intermediate/advanced course that had been offered by TA has been split into two levels.
In addition to making more curricular sense, these shifts have helped streamline both the
scheduling of dance faculty and the scheduling of the dance studio with the PEA
department. Other significant changes include the creation of a “Director of Dance”
administrative position (2 units) to oversee the dance program activities, students,
recruitment, and vision. Work has already been done to clarify the dance program
mission and outcomes. Lastly, Assoc. Professor of Dance Erlyne Whiteman will be
reducing her total teaching units to 5/6 time beginning in 2011-2012 to allow for more
intermediate and advanced adjunct instructors in dance technique.

Your need for new space is palpable, and we hope that the reshuffling after the
new buildings opens will allow for this. Is there a way of making your case
stronger by getting data on the space for theatre arts at comparable colleges?
You use Pomona and Calvin effectively to assess your major; they may also be
able to help you strengthen your case for additional resources.
See notes below.
Excerpt from 2008-2009 Assessment and Program Review report with updates below
each bullet point:
Most Important Steps for Theatre Arts Program
 Hire and retain top-level tenure track professor of design
The department has a successful hire after a five-year (!) search process. In the fall we
will be joined by Robert Hamel, who will be resident designer and technical director for
the department. Professor Hamel will be teaching design and technology, and will serve
as production manager for our theatre and dance season with responsibilities in scenic
design, lighting design, and technical direction. It is difficult to overstate how important
this hire is for the theatre arts department and will be transformative in many ways:
curriculum, design, student mentoring, plant oversight, and development.
 Create a second performance space for student rehearsals, projects, and studio
classes.
The college has decided not to tear down half of Porter Hall in order to save on
construction costs after a significant financial gift to the college building fund was
rescinded. As a result, a renovation is planned for Spring 2011 that will convert the
current two classrooms and music offices to a movement classroom with black box
theatre technology, a theatre arts seminar classroom, and additional storage for the
department. As has been well documented in previous reports, the need for additional
space is immense, and the renovations will transform Porter Hall into a theatre center that
is adequate in comparison with other top liberal arts facilities and peer institutions.
 Create a design classroom with design materials, including drafting tables, a
computer lab, and sufficient work and storage space for projects.
Though the new space will not create a design classroom, it will create additional storage
for the department as well as a seminar room that will be very helpful for design and tech
14
classes (among others). Additionally, the completion of the Adams Art Center will allow
for cooperative use of a new design computer lab, as well as classrooms with drafting
tables and supplies. As Adams center is directly adjacent to Porter Theatre, it is hoped
and expected that the Theatre and Art departments will enjoy a new level of connection
in terms of space, students, and collaboration.
 Seek CIP funding to bring technical side of the program to “this level” standards
After being submitted for the third time, the department was awarded $40,500 of CIP
funds in order to purchase supplies, equipment, and tools. The timing of these funds is
excellent with both the upcoming renovation as well as the addition of the new faculty
person, who will oversee the purchases in consultation with the Chair. We are very
grateful for this support from the college, especially in light of the challenging financial
climate and limited CIP funds at the college.
 Work with administration to replenish Globe Series funds to allow for
continuation of student interaction with international scholars and artists
This has not been specifically addressed, but Dr. Blondell has applied for a very large
grant that specifically pairs a professional theatre company with an educational institution
for exchange with a European pairing. Though the odds are low to receive such a huge
grant, it does show the continued commitment of the faculty and department to continue
to develop the international focus of our work both by requesting Globe Funds from
within the college and looking to external grants for coverage.
 Diversify full time and adjunct faculty and staff
Though the department was thrilled to make a hire in design and production, we were not
able to hire a candidate that contributed to the gender or ethnic diversity of the existing
full time faculty. Efforts are being made to diversify as much as possible in adjunct and
part-time positions (3 adjuncts this year were women). This is a legitimate area of
growth for the department in the future.
 Re-hiring of frozen arts coordinator staff position
No movement has been made on this front. In fact, with the re-arranging of the music
department administrative assistant position to full time + 10 hours per week, we may be
even further from this goal than ever.
III. 2010 Focus
Outcome:
Westmont College Theatre Arts students will display a deep and broad understanding of
the history, literature, and theory of the European theatre tradition, and contemporary
American theatre practice that has derived from it.
During the 2009-2010 school year, the Theatre Arts Department commenced work on its
second outcome, described above. Following departmental discussion, and with input
from Program Review Committee liaisons, the department began working on strategies
and instruments intended to assess students’ core knowledge in the field of Theatre Arts
and Drama. The core knowledge component of the program is developed and assessed in
three core courses in the major – TA 1 Great Literature of the Stage, TA 120 Theatre
History I The Greeks to the Renaissance, and Theatre History II The Rise of the
Professional Theatre to the Modern Stage. During 2009 and 2010, Theatre Arts faculty
15
developed the core knowledge component for TA 121. During the 2010-2011 school
year, core knowledge components will be developed for TA 1 and TA 120.
When complete, the core knowledge component of the program will include 100
foundational terms, theatrical figures, and aesthetic movements integral to a deep and
broad understanding of the western theatre tradition. Please find the attached document
that indicates the core knowledge component for TA 121, the instrument used to assess
this knowledge on midterm and final examinations, and the raw data accumulated for
Theatre Arts 121 for spring, 2010. (Appendix 3) The department established the
following benchmark for disciplinary literacy and knowledge:
85% of Theatre Arts majors will score 90% or higher on the core knowledge component
of Theatre Arts coursework.
During the spring of 2010, Core Knowledge was assessed in midterm and final
examinations in TA 121 Theatre History II. 4 of 6 majors scored 38 out of 40 (95%), one
major scored 33 out of 40 (83%), and one major scored 29 out of 40 (73%). 66% of
majors scored 90% or higher in core knowledge, which means that the benchmark was
not achieved.
From this data, the Theatre Arts Department will consider the following questions:




Considering the relatively small sample size (number of Theatre Arts majors), is
the benchmark appropriate for the size and purposes of the Theatre Arts
Department?
Should the Core Knowledge component of the program be communicated and
disseminated to Theatre Arts majors prior to assessment periods?
Should Core Knowledge be developed for the practical components of the
program, namely Acting, Design, and Stagecraft?
Is the Core Knowledge component of the program too small and narrow? In other
words, are 100 terms, figures, and so forth enough to assess a “broad and deep
understanding?”
During 2010-2011, the department will consider the above questions, and make
corresponding adjustments, in an effort to catalyze student success in foundational
knowledge in Theatre Arts and Drama.
Raw and analyzed forms of this data are stored on the theatre arts shared drive.
V. Next Steps
6. Please see the Multi-Year Assessment Plan (Appendix 5)
7. Action Items:
a. Replenish Globe Series funds
i. Have significant conversation with Provost and President by
Spring 2011 on future of Globe Series.
16
b.
c.
d.
e.
ii. Oversight by whole department with lead by John Blondell.
Diversify
i. Aim to add additional faculty person of color by 2014 and continue
practice of highly considering minority candidates for all adjunct
positions.
ii. Oversight by Chair
Re-hiring of Arts Coordinator
i. Aim for re-hire by 2011-2012 academic year.
ii. Oversight by Chair
Revise curriculum
i. With the new faculty member, revise both major curriculum and
particular courses in design and production by 2011-2012
academic year.
ii. Oversight by entire department, with significant input from Robert
Hamel, and coordinated by Chair.
Assessment
i. Continue assessment activities of outcome 2.
ii. Oversight by John Blondell, with significant input from Elizabeth
Hess, and coordinated by Chair.
VI. Appendices
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Alignment Chart of Dept. Outcomes
2009-10 response from the PRC
Prompts used to collect data (john)
Rubrics used to evaluate data (john)
Updated Multi-Year Plan
Christian, Liberal Arts, Global,
Residential and Undergraduate
Christian
Understanding
deep and integrated
understanding of Christian faith
and artistic work
I
I
Ie
E
survey
I
I
D
I
D
celebrate the moral imagination
Christian Practices
and Affections
Broad
Interdisciplinary
and Critical
Competence
become responsible artists and
citizens in the world
display deep, broad
understanding of European and
American theatre tradition.
IE
E test
I
TA 71/171
TA 23
Departmental Outcomes
TA 010
Institutional
Learning
Principles/Goals
TA 009
Distinctives from
the Philosophy
of Education
TA 001
Appendix 1
17
Competence in
Written and Oral
Communication
cultivate tools for effective written
communication
display understanding necessary
to communicate fictional
characters through language
IE
D
video
D
IE
D
video
Ie
IE
I
Ie
IE
I
Ie
Research and
Technological
Skills
Physical and
Emotional Health
Cultivate individual creative spirit
Creative
Expression
Display imagination, technical
expertise, and self-discipline
D
Display cross-cultural
communication skills
Diversity and
Global Awareness
Develop awareness and empathy
toward other cultures through
theatre
I
Active Societal
and Intellectual
Engagement
Other
I - Introduced
D - Developed
D
M - Mastered
E - Evaluated
Appendix 2
To: Mitchell Thomas
Cc.: John Blondell and Erlyne Whiteman
From: Alister Chapman, for the Program Review Committee
Re: 2008-9 Assessment and Program Review Report
Date: January 25, 2010
The Program Review Committee is grateful for all your hard work in assessment and
program review. Your most recent report shows strong, ongoing progress towards your
department’s goals and towards your next six-year report. Your hard work on program
review over the last several years is bearing fruit in a clearly defined set of outcomes and
an ever-clearer sense of how to pursue them. You also seem to be making assessment
work for you, with your approach making important contributions to your day-to-day
work and looking sustainable.
18
The question of funding for new space is the obvious area where the program
review process fallen short of your hopes. You have clearly documented your need for
extra space, and are understandably frustrated not to have received what you need. The
desire of the Program Review Committee is that the process would lead to appropriate
allocation of college resources in response to proven need, and we affirm your request for
CIP funds.
Annual Assessment Report
 Your outcomes continue to provide an excellent foundation for your work of
assessment and program review. The way they map on to the college’s learning
standards is striking and very helpful. We noted the change you made in outcome
six in response to last year’s memo from the PRC. We also appreciate your desire
to use off-campus programs as a means to achieving the diversity outcome
(number five).

Your decision to replace the portfolio assessment with a final exam sounds wise,
and you have made good progress on the instrument. Will this exam be
incorporated into an existing course? If so, is there a way of making it part of the
graded work for the course, rather than extra work added on?

Your first dinner conversation seems to have been an excellent start to the series.
We hope that dinners held in Fall 2009 were equally helpful, and have given you
a refined sense of direction for the development of the department’s work.

Well done for being on schedule for the six-year report! Your work to date will
make that a much less arduous task when the time comes. To what extent is your
whole department clear on the work that lies ahead before your next six-year
report?
Program Review
 This section of your report is also very strong. Be aware, though, that the college
does not require annual updates on Program Review, and so this may not be the
best use of energy.

You do a fine job of outlining how your department contributes to the college’s
mission.

You also clarified your department’s contribution to the general education
curriculum—a helpful response to last year’s PRC report. Is there a way of
quantifying the “overall student satisfaction” that you report for these courses?
And did the department discuss Marianne Ruel Robins’s question about whether
you might focus on fewer GE areas (see her response to your 2007-8 report)?

The committee welcomes your desire to create an endowed chair for Professor
John Blondell. It seems that the dinner series is one way of exploring funding for
this. What other avenues do you plan to pursue?
19

We applaud your work on diversity in your productions, and appreciate your
desire to “offer a curriculum that includes history, theory, and literature courses in
Non-Western theatre and theatre by women.” How do you see this happening? To
what extent are these areas included in, or could they be included in, existing
course offerings? If new courses are required, could professional development
funds allow a full-time professor to do the work necessary to teach them? The
work you have done on this score with your productions has been excellent, and
could well have been trumpeted more in your report.

Your plan for addressing difficulties in your dance program is sound, and we look
forward to seeing the results.

Your need for new space is palpable, and we hope that the reshuffling after the
new buildings opens will allow for this. Is there a way of making your case
stronger by getting data on the space for theatre arts at comparable colleges? You
use Pomona and Calvin effectively to assess your major; they may also be able to
help you strengthen your case for additional resources.
Concluding Comments
Your department provides a model for how assessment and program review should be
done. Your work is carefully focused and sustainable. And you effectively make changes
in response to your assessment exercises and comments from the PRC.
One thing to work on is benchmarks. At this point, you do not have benchmarks
for any of your outcomes. Adding these as you move through your assessment cycle
should make the process even more fruitful for your department.
APPENDIX 3 (Prompt for TA 121)
CORE KNOWLEDGE – THEATRE ARTS DEPARTMENT
RISE OF THE PROFESSIONAL THEATRE
For the following terms, please indicate the period and country to which they are
most associated. Then, in 2-3 cogent sentences, provide characteristics, significance,
or definitions for each term.
Neoclassicism
Comedy of Manners
Sentimental Comedy
Heroic Tragedy
Adaptations of Shakespeare
Drame
Moliere
Edwin Forrest
Denis Diderot
20
Lewis and William Hallam
Edmund Kean
Romanticism
Comedie Francaise
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Melodrama
Gotthold Lessing
Scenic Stage
Preface to Cromwell
Stage Licensing Act of 1737
Le Cid Controversy
THE MODERN STAGE
People, Theatres, Ideas of the Modern Theatre. Please write a short
description/definition of the following people, theatres, or concepts. Please include
the following information: the theatrical movement to which the term is most
clearly associated, and a statement that suggests how the individual, theatre, etc.
had a formative influence on the modern theatre.
Constantin Stanislavsky
Bertolt Brecht
Emile Zola
Edward Gordon Craig
Georg, Duke of Saxe Meinengen
Robert Wilson
Provincetown Players
Deterministic Triad
Group Theatre
Federal Theatre Project
Antonin Artaud
Gesamkunstwerk
Verfremdungseffekt
Richard Wagner
Vsevelod Meyerhold
Theatrical Device
Adolphe Appia
Andre Antoine
Moscow Art Theatre
Gestus
RAW DATA
Midterm TA 121
Student 1 – 18/20
21
Student 2 – 19/20
Student 3 – 15/20
Student 4 – 19/20
Student 5 – 18/20
Student 6 – 14/20
Final TA 121
Student 1 – 20/20
Student 2 – 19/20
Student 3 – 14/20
Student 4 – 19/20
Student 5 – 20/20
Student 6 – 19/20
Appendix 4
Rubric for evaluation of data
Appendix 5
Theatre Arts Multi-Year Plan
Outcomes
2007-08
2008-09
x
X
2009-10
2010-11
x
X
2011-12
2012-13
1. Dynamic
Work on the
Stage
2.
Understanding
of History,
Literature, and
Theory
3. Effective
Written
Communication
X
X
4. Effective
Oral
X
X
22
5. Diversity
6. Spiritual
and Artistic
Integration
23
Appendix 5
Narrative and Iterations TA Writing Rubric
Narrative of development:
During the spring of 2011, a rubric was developed as a means of assessing performance
on the third of our three Student Learning Outcomes: Apply discipline-specific research
methodologies in crafting effective writing about theatrical practice.
The initial process of rubric creation involved adjunct instructor Elizabeth Hess
examining a good many rubrics from a variety of sources that others have used in
assessing writing. From this examination an extensive three-page rubric of possible
categories and assessment language was assembled, which was presented as a gross draft
to Alister Chapman at a mid-semester assessment meeting. The rubric was deemed a
good starting point, and some discussion ensued about how to combine some categories
to begin the process of refining the gross rubric into a more focused assessment tool. All
agreed that this draft was only that: a draft, and that a workable tool would need to be
shorter, more focused, and deal with fewer categories. That gross rubric is offered here
as Appendix One to show the starting point of designing the rubric.
The second step in the process was the refinement of the rubric, which took place
subsequent to the meeting with Alister, and involved John Blondell and Elizabeth Hess
speaking about how some categories of assessment might be most productively
combined, and which pieces of assessment language might be most helpful to retain. Out
of this conversation Elizabeth then produced a second, one-page rubric with a focus
aimed at assessing any major written work in a theatre history, literature, or theory
course. Some pieces of this rubric were given some further shaping by John Blondell,
and then this second rubric was given a trial run at the end of the spring semester, being
employed as a grading tool for the final essay produced by the TA 120: Theatre History 1
class, taught by Elizabeth Hess. Much of the rubric was found to be sound, helpful, and
appropriate as a response to the work being done by students. This rubric is included
here as Appendix Two to show the next stage of refinement.
Some pieces of the second rubric, however, were found to be extraneous or unhelpful,
and other areas of the rubric were found to be lacking in sufficient specificity to deal with
the complexity of the writing being assessed. So Elizabeth Hess modified this second
rubric, producing in consultation with John Blondell a third rubric that more nearly
corresponded to the needs of the grading process, and that rubric is included here as
Appendix Three to show where the assessment tool stands now in its present iteration.
The primary differences between the second and third rubrics lie in the areas of
Argument and Analysis and Bibliographic Format and Sources. More specific language
about addressing the particular demands of the assignment prompt, as well as more
specific language about the development of argument and ideas were included in this
third draft. In addition, some more particulars regarding the precise requirements of
bibliographic formatting were included, and some language about source types was
removed, to make the rubric more useful as a grading and assessment tool for a potential
range of assignments. Elizabeth and John both feel hopeful that the rubric in its current
24
iteration will offer a strong tool for assessing the writing of upper-division majors, though
it may need further refinement as it comes into more hands and as other professors
discover what pieces they may need to include as part of their own grading process.
Again, this third-draft rubric has not received a trial run, but was developed in response
to Elizabeth’s trial run of the second draft.
One of the results of the trial run with the second-draft rubric was the discovery that in
addition to the rubric a secondary document might well be needed. John Blondell and
Elizabeth Hess felt that for each individual assignment wherein this rubric is going to be
used, the students would need to have ‘Key to the Rubric,” showing the specific
requirements and objectives of each writing project. The “Key to the Rubric” which
Elizabeth Hess developed in conjunction with her particular assignment is included here
as Appendix Four, to show how an assignment sheet for any given writing project might
be related to the categories and expectations of the rubric. This ‘Key to the Rubric’
includes a more extensive statement of the theatre department’s standards for mastery, so
that students may get a fuller sense of what constitutes exceptional work. The first
categories of the ‘Key to the Rubric’ would be consistent for all written work, but the
final two categories, named “Sources” and “Other requirements” (and highlighted in
yellow) would vary from assignment to assignment and from professor to professor. It is
expected that each professor would need to produce a “Key to the Rubric” for students
for every writing assignment, and that standards for mastery in these last two categories
might differ in areas such as: number of sources required; type of sources required; length
of paper required; overall topic of paper, etc.
What remains to be done is to determine what elements of the third-draft rubric would
then be pulled out for specific assessment. The rubric is extensive, so that it may be used
both as a grading tool and as an assessment tool, and all areas of the rubric would be
used in the process of assigning a letter grade to a particular essay, but there is no
expectation that all areas on the rubric would be used for assessment. Decisions about
which elements of the rubric would be pulled out for assessment have yet to be made, and
benchmarks for achievement using the rubric have yet to be established.
25
Appendix One: Grading Rubric gross draft 1,
used to compile, discuss, and refine possible language and categories
Superior/Mastery Solid/Proficiency Borderline/Competence Poor/Unsatisfactory
Introduction Succinctly
Contextualizes issue
and engages reader.
Introduces reader to
topic, but without much
in the way of clarity or
style.
Introduction is either
absent, or fails to
show an understanding
of the topic’s
significance.
Thesis
statement
Interesting and
promising, with a
clear argumentative
claim; may be
lacking in insight
or originality.
Present, but overly
general, uninteresting,
or unoriginal, or lacking
a specific, argumentative
claim.
Absent, unclear, or
difficult to identify;
may be a bland
restatement of an
obvious point.
Essay has a clear
purpose, but may
occasionally digress
from it. The ideas
are arranged
logically to support
the central purpose,
with competent use
of transitional
devices to usually
link ideas together.
For the most part,
the reader can
follow the line of
reasoning.
Essay provides
necessary evidence
the convince reader
of most aspects of
the main argument.
Examples are used to
support most points.
Essay’s central purpose
is not consistently
clear. For the most part
ideas are arranged
logically, although at
times ideas fail to make
sense together, and the
use of transitional
devices is lacking. The
reader is fairly clear
about what the writer
intends.
Essay’s central
purpose is generally
unclear. The writing
is not logically
organized and the
essay lacks coherence.
Ideas frequently fail
to make sense
together. The reader
cannot follow the line
of reasoning and loses
interest.
Some evidence is provided
to support the author’s
argument, but evidence
may be incomplete or
oversimplified. Examples
used to support points
may be employed
Evidence is lacking.
Factual mistakes are
made, evidence is
omitted, or is
routinely
misrepresented or
oversimplified.
Structure &
organization
Use of
evidence
contextualizes
issue and
establishes its
significance in
lively, engaging
prose.
Precise, carefully
considered, and
original, making a
clear, specific,
sophisticated, and
plausible
argumentative
claim.
Purpose of essay is
readily apparent to
the reader. Essay
is focused,
unified, and
logical throughout,
with elegant use of
transitional
devices to
articulate
relationships
between ideas. The
reader can follow
the line of
reasoning.
Essay provides
compelling and
accurate evidence
that convinces the
reader to accept
the main argument.
Examples are used
26
Analysis &
argument
to support all
points. The
importance and
relevance of all
pieces of evidence
is clearly stated.
Alternate or
conflicting
interpretations of
evidence are
thoughtfully
considered and
responded to.
Essay offers fresh
readings of
critical sources,
clearly and
accurately
summarizing their
contributions and
limitations, and
linking them
together in a
convincing
framework.
Essay contains a
compelling and
original argument
that is clearly
laid out for the
reader. There are
no gaps in
reasoning; the
reader does not
need to assume
anything or do
additional research
to accept the main
argument. “So
What?” question is
answered
consistently.
The importance or
relevance of some
evidence presented
may not be totally
clear. Alternate or
conflicting
interpretations of
evidence are
acknowledged, but
author does not
effectively respond
to them. Generally
offers a clear
account of the
contributions of
critical sources,
grasping their
strengths and
limitations and
making some attempt
to link them
together.
ineffectively. A few of
the most obvious
alternate readings of
evidence are
acknowledged, but essay
is not comprehensive and
little or no attempt is
made to respond. Essay
sometimes recognizes the
contributions of critical
sources, but may not be
able to address their
limitations or link them
together successfully.
Examples are often
missing, points are
not supported. No
acknowledgement is
made of alternate or
conflicting
interpretations of
evidence. Essay fails
to recognize the
central contributions
of each critical
source. Mistakenly
offers an incidental
point as though it
were the main thrust
of a critic’s
argument.
Essay contains an
argument that is,
for the most part,
clearly laid out for
the reader. Reader
must make a few
mental leaps or do
some additional
research to accept
all aspects of the
main argument. “So
What?” question is
considered.
An argument is present,
but the reader must
reconstruct it from the
text. Points are left
undeveloped, or are
merely reiterated.
Reader must supply much
of the analysis needed to
accept the argument. “So
What?” question gets
short shrift.
No attempt is made to
articulate an
argument. Little or
no substantive
analysis is offered to
illuminate points
made. Reader is
expected to do all the
work. “So What?”
question is
unconsidered.
27
The writing is
compelling. It
hooks the reader
and sustains
interest
throughout.
Sentences are
skillfully
constructed and
distinctive, varied
in length and
structure, and flow
smoothly from one
to another.
Masterful use of
language. Diction
is vivid, vigorous,
fresh, and precise.
The writing is
generally engaging,
but has some dry
spots. In general,
it is focused and
keeps the reader’s
attention.
Sentences are
generally fluent and
concise, offer some
variety in length
and structure, and
flow is typically
smooth.
Word choice is good.
Diction is concrete,
fitting, and solid.
Quotation &
paraphrase
Text is properly
quoted and
paraphrased, and is
skillfully and
gracefully
integrated into the
argument. Each
quotation is
explicitly analyzed
to show how the
passage serves as
evidence for the
argument.
Text is properly
quoted and
paraphrased, and
quotations are
attached to the
writer’s own prose
grammatically, if
not particularly
gracefully. Context
is provided to show
how the passage
serves as evidence
for the argument.
Conclusion
Goes beyond summary
to show serious
reflection; shows
implications of
argument for
reader.
Shows some thought
and reflection; does
more than merely
summarize essay.
Style
Diction
The writing is sometimes
dull and unengaging.
Sentences may lack
variety and show some
awkwardness in
construction that
distracts the reader.
The writing has little
personality. The
reader quickly loses
interest. Awkwardness
in sentence structure
is frequent enough to
be a major distraction
to the reader. Train
of thought is
obscured.
Word choice is adequate.
Diction is generally
clear and idiomatic with
occasional vague,
clichéd, or incorrect
wording.
Essay quotes and
paraphrases text, but
with some awkwardness, or
introduces quotations
with rudimentary phrases.
Writer sometimes fails to
explain how the passage
serves as evidence for
the argument, assuming
the reader will
automatically see
whatever the writer sees.
Word choice is
baffling Diction is
vague, repetitive,
clichéd, incorrect, or
unidiomatic; confounds
comprehension.
Essay fails to quote
or paraphrase text
properly. Quotations
do not fit
grammatically together
with the writer’s own
prose. Some
quotations are
included without any
attempt to connect
them to the writer’s
own prose. Quotations
are absent, excessive,
or presented without
analysis.
Absent, or fails to
pull together threads
of essay in any
meaningful way.
Merely summarizes or
reiterates main points of
essay; does not reflect
on implications.
28
Grammar &
mechanics
Consistent use of
standard grammar,
spelling, and
punctuation.
Errors in standard
grammar, spelling,
and punctuation are
rare, and do not
detract from the
essay.
Occasional comma
splices, fragments,
misspellings, or
other errors
sometimes distract
from the essay.
Bibliographic
format
Proper MLA citation
style throughout.
All quotations and
paraphrases include
parenthetic
citation. All
entries in List of
Works Cited
accurate, complete,
and referenced in
text.
Very few errors in
MLA citation style.
Some few entries
mispunctuated or
some few pieces of
information
misordered.
Errors in MLA
citation style, both
in in-text citation
and in list of works
cited. Entries
mispunctuated or
misordered, but
information is
complete.
Parenthetic
documentation may be
incomplete.
Sources
Minimum source
requirements
exceeded: more than
1 primary source, or
more than 4
secondary sources
used. All secondary
sources published
since 1985, most
sources from
scholarly books or
peer-reviewed
journals. Mixed use
of both book and
journal sources.
All minimum source
requirements met: 1
primary source, 4
secondary sources
used. Most
secondary sources
published since
1985, most sources
from scholarly books
or peer-reviewed
journals. Mixed use
of both book and
journal sources.
Most source
requirements met: 5
secondary sources
used, no primary
sources. Some
secondary sources
published since
1985, some sources
older than 25 years.
Use of only book
sources or only
journal sources,
rather than both.
Repeated comma
splices, fragments,
misspellings, or
other serious errors
distract
substantially from
the essay.
Major errors in MLA
citation style;
entries are not
alphabetized;
authors cited in the
text do not appear
in List of Works
Cited, or vice
versa. Writer has
committed
plagiarism,
presenting others’
ideas as his or her
own.
Source requirements
not met. Fewer than
5 sources used.
Many sources
outdated or nonscholarly. Use of
Wikipedia as a major
source of
information.
Plagiarism.
Appendix Two: Grading Rubric, draft 2,
used in a trial run in grading of TA 120 essay
A
B
BIBLIOGRAPHIC FORMAT
& SOURCES
STRUCTURE & ORGANIZATION
ARGUMENT & ANALYSIS
USE OF EVIDENCE
STYLE & MECHANICS
Essay has a compelling
purpose. Introduction
contextualizes issue
and engages reader;
thesis is precise,
original, and
sophisticated;
transitions clarify
relationships of
ideas; paragraphs
cohere and build
substantively on one
another; conclusion
demonstrates
substantive
reflection.
Essay has a clear
purpose, but may
occasionally digress
from it. Introduction
is informative; thesis
is interesting and
makes an argumentative
claim; transitions are
generally smooth;
paragraphs cohere and
sequence is logical;
conclusion goes beyond
summary.
Response to topic
is insightful and
original. Essay
offers a compelling
argument, clearly
laid out. No gaps
in logic are
present. Analysis
is excellent.
Answers “so what?”
question.
Essay provides compelling
and accurate evidence that
convinces the reader to
accept the main argument.
Significant and persuasive
examples illustrate all
points. Quotation and
paraphrase are relevant,
incorporated skillfully,
and analyzed explicitly.
Impeccable MLA
citation style
throughout.
Minimum source
requirements
exceeded. Mixed
use of both book
and journal
sources, from
reliable,
discipline-specific
references.
The writing is
polished and
distinctive, and
rivets the attention
of the audience.
Diction is vivid and
precise. Consistent
use of standard
grammar, punctuation,
and spelling.
Response to topic
is thoughtful and
purposeful. Essay
offers an argument
that unfolds
logically, though
some mental leaps
may be required.
Analysis is steady.
Considers “so
what?”
Essay provides necessary
evidence to convince the
reader of most points of
the main argument.
Effective examples
illustrate most points.
Quotation and paraphrase
are generally relevant,
incorporated
grammatically, and at
least partially
contextualized.
Very few errors in
MLA citation style.
All minimum source
requirements met.
Mixed use of both
book and journal
sources from
reliable and
discipline-specific
references
The writing is
concise and fluent,
and typically holds
the attention of the
audience. Diction is
concrete, fitting,
and solid. Few
deviations from
standard grammar,
punctuation, and
spelling.
C
D
F
Essay’s central
purpose is not
consistently clear;
reasoning wanders.
Introduction is
pedestrian; thesis is
present but vague,
self-evident, or
unoriginal;
transitions are
lacking; paragraphs
have lapses in
coherence and/or do
not build upon one
another in logical
progression;
conclusion is merely a
summary, or lacks
reflection on
implications.
Essay’s central
purpose is generally
unclear; little
thought is evident in
either topic selection
or execution.
Introduction is absent
or fails to
demonstrate topic’
significance; thesis
is missing, difficult
to identify, or
aimless; organization
is haphazard, ideas
fail to make sense
together; some
paragraphs are
repetitive or
irrelevant; conclusion
is missing, or fails
to offer any
meaningful comment.
Essay has no central
purpose or is of an
unacceptable length.
Paragraphs thoroughly
fail to comprehend
subject. Internal
structure generates no
momentum.
Response to topic
is appropriate but
needs more
sustained thinking.
Reader must
construct an
argument from the
text and supply
needed analysis.
Analysis is often
superficial. “So
what?” gets short
shrift.
Essay provides some
evidence to support an
argument, but evidence is
incomplete or
oversimplified.
Ineffective examples are
employed in illustrating
points. Quotation and
paraphrase are present,
but lack relevance, are
awkwardly or
ungrammatically
incorporated, and/or lack
analysis to connect them
with the author’s claims.
Errors in MLA
citation style.
Most source
requirements met.
Use of only book or
journal sources,
rather than both.
Some sources taken
from questionable
or general, rather
than disciplinespecific,
references.
The writing is bland
or stilted, only
sometimes engaging
the attention of the
audience. Diction is
generally clear and
fitting with
occasional vague,
clichéd, or incorrect
wording. Occasional
comma splices,
fragments,
misspellings, or
other errors.
Response to topic
is inadequate.
Little or no
attempt is made to
articulate an
argument. Reader
must generate all
substantive
analysis. Subject
is not
comprehended;
analysis breaks
down. “So what?” is
unconsidered.
Essay provides little
evidence or misrepresents
ideas. Examples are often
missing, or are overly
generalized, ramble, or
lack supporting details.
Quotation and paraphrase
are insufficient,
excessive, or inaccurate,
or presented without
contextualization.
Serious or
pervasive errors in
MLA style. Source
requirements not
met. Disciplinespecific references
not consulted. Use
of Wikipedia or
other highly
inappropriate
sources.
The writing is
awkward and generally
unable to hold the
attention of the
audience. Diction is
frequently clichéd,
repetitive, vague, or
incorrect. Repeated
comma splices,
fragments, or other
serious deviations.
Response to topic
is wholly
deficient. Intent
is aimless. Little
thought is evident.
Essay makes factual
errors. Examples are
absent or irrelevant.
Quotation and paraphrase
are inappropriate,
inaccurate or absent.
MLA citations
omitted.
Plagiarism.
The writing is clumsy
and fails to engage
the audience.
Diction confounds
comprehension.
Pervasive grammatical
errors.
Appendix Three: Grading Rubric, draft 3: current, revised rubric draft
A
B
C
BIBLIOGRAPHIC FORMAT &
SOURCES
STRUCTURE & ORGANIZATION
ARGUMENT & ANALYSIS
USE OF EVIDENCE
STYLE & MECHANICS
Essay has a compelling
purpose. Introduction
contextualizes issue
and engages reader;
thesis is precise,
original, and
sophisticated;
transitions clarify
relationships of ideas;
paragraphs cohere and
build substantively on
one another; conclusion
demonstrates
substantive reflection.
Essay has a clear
purpose; digressions
from purpose are rare.
Introduction is
informative; thesis is
interesting and makes
an argumentative claim;
transitions are
generally smooth;
paragraphs cohere and
sequence is logical;
conclusion goes beyond
summary.
Essay’s central purpose
is not consistently
clear; reasoning
wanders. Introduction
is pedestrian; thesis
is present but vague,
self-evident, or
unoriginal; transitions
are lacking; paragraphs
have lapses in
coherence and/or do not
build upon one another
in logical progression;
conclusion is merely a
summary, or lacks
reflection on
implications.
Response to topic is
insightful and original,
and fully addresses the
prompt. Essay offers a
compelling and fully
developed argument,
clearly laid out. No
gaps in logic are
present. Analysis is
excellent. Answers “so
what?” question.
Essay provides compelling
and accurate evidence that
convinces the reader to
accept the main argument.
Significant and persuasive
examples illustrate all
points. Quotation and
paraphrase are relevant,
incorporated skillfully,
and analyzed explicitly.
Impeccable MLA citation
style throughout.
Correct parenthetic
citation of all
sources; sources used
appear correctly in
list of works cited.
Minimum source
requirements exceeded.
All sources are
reliable and
discipline-specific.
The writing is
polished and
distinctive, and
rivets the attention
of the audience.
Diction is vivid and
precise. Consistent
use of standard
grammar, punctuation,
and spelling.
Response to topic is
thoughtful and
purposeful, and
addresses the prompt.
Ideas are developed.
Essay offers an argument
that unfolds logically;
few, if any mental leaps
are required. Analysis
is steady. Considers
“so what?”
Essay provides necessary
evidence to convince the
reader of most points of
the main argument.
Effective examples
illustrate most points.
Quotation and paraphrase
are generally relevant,
incorporated grammatically,
and at least partially
contextualized.
Very few errors in MLA
citation style.
Largely correct
parenthetic citation of
sources; all sources
appear in list of works
cited, with some style
errors. All minimum
source requirements
met. Most sources are
reliable and
discipline-specific.
The writing is
concise and fluent,
and typically holds
the attention of the
audience. Diction is
concrete, fitting,
and solid. Few
deviations from
standard grammar,
punctuation, and
spelling.
Response to topic is
appropriate but needs
more sustained thinking;
the scope of the prompt
is only partially
addressed. Points are
left undeveloped.
Reader must construct an
argument from the text
and/or supply needed
analysis. Analysis is
often superficial. “So
what?” gets short
shrift.
Essay provides some
evidence to support an
argument, but evidence is
incomplete or
oversimplified.
Ineffective examples are
employed in illustrating
points. Quotation and
paraphrase are present, but
lack relevance, are
awkwardly or
ungrammatically
incorporated, and/or lack
analysis to connect them
with the author’s claims.
Errors in MLA citation
style. Some missing
parenthetic citations;
all sources appear in
list of works cited,
but with partial or
incorrect
documentation. Most
source requirements
met. Some sources
taken from questionable
or general, rather than
discipline-specific,
references.
The writing is bland
or stilted, only
sometimes engaging
the attention of the
audience. Diction is
generally clear and
fitting with
occasional vague,
clichéd, or incorrect
wording. Occasional
comma splices,
fragments,
misspellings, or
other errors.
D
F
Essay’s central purpose
is generally unclear;
little thought is
evident in either topic
selection or execution.
Introduction is absent
or fails to demonstrate
topic’ significance;
thesis is missing,
difficult to identify,
or aimless;
organization is
haphazard, ideas fail
to make sense together;
some paragraphs are
repetitive or
irrelevant; conclusion
is missing, or fails to
offer any meaningful
comment.
Essay has no central
purpose or is of an
unacceptable length.
Paragraphs thoroughly
fail to comprehend
subject. Internal
structure generates no
momentum.
Response to topic is
inadequate. The
prompt’s aims are
addressed
insufficiently. Little
or no attempt is made to
articulate an argument.
Reader must generate all
substantive analysis.
Subject is not
comprehended; analysis
breaks down. “So what?”
is unconsidered.
Essay provides little
evidence or misrepresents
ideas. Examples are often
missing, or are overly
generalized, ramble, or
lack supporting details.
Quotation and paraphrase
are insufficient,
excessive, or inaccurate,
or presented without
contextualization.
Serious or pervasive
errors in MLA style.
Complete parenthetic
citation often missing;
some sources do not
appear in list of works
cited. Failure to
alphabetize works cited
list. Source
requirements not met.
Discipline-specific
references not
consulted. Use of
Wikipedia or other
highly inappropriate
sources.
The writing is
awkward and generally
unable to hold the
attention of the
audience. Diction is
frequently clichéd,
repetitive, vague, or
incorrect. Repeated
comma splices,
fragments, or other
serious deviations.
Response to topic is
wholly deficient. The
prompt is disregarded.
Intent is aimless.
Little thought is
evident.
Essay makes factual errors.
Examples are absent or
irrelevant. Quotation and
paraphrase are
inappropriate, inaccurate
or absent.
MLA citations omitted.
No parenthetic
documentation. List of
works cited absent.
Plagiarism.
The writing is clumsy
and fails to engage
the audience.
Diction confounds
comprehension.
Pervasive grammatical
errors.
Appendix Four
Key to Rubric for Theatre History 1 Research Essays
Elizabeth Hess, Historical Research Paper, Spring 2011
Standards for Mastery
Structure &
organization
Introduction
Thesis
statement
Conclusion
Use of
evidence
Quotation &
paraphrase
Analysis &
argument
Style
Diction
Grammar &
mechanics
Purpose of essay is readily apparent to the reader.
Essay is focused, unified, and logical throughout,
with elegant use of transitional devices to
articulate relationships between ideas. Paragraphs
are unified and cohesive, and build substantively
upon one another in ways that effectively serve the
progress of the argument. The reader can follow the
line of reasoning.
Succinctly contextualizes issue and establishes its
significance in lively, engaging prose.
Precise, carefully considered, and original, making
a clear, specific, sophisticated, and plausible
argumentative claim.
Goes beyond summary to show serious reflection;
demonstrates the implications of argument for
reader. Resolves the importance of the argument for
the reader.
Essay provides compelling and accurate evidence that
convinces the reader to accept the main argument.
Examples are used to support all points. The
importance and relevance of all pieces of evidence
is clearly stated. Essay offers fresh readings of
critical sources, clearly and accurately summarizing
their contributions and limitations, and linking
them together in a convincing framework. Alternate
or conflicting interpretations of evidence are
thoughtfully considered and responded to in ways
that ultimately buttress the author’s main argument.
Text is properly quoted and paraphrased, and is
skillfully, gracefully, and grammatically integrated
into the argument. Each quotation is explicitly
analyzed to show how the passage serves as evidence
for the argument.
Essay contains a compelling and original argument
that is clearly laid out for the reader. Analysis
is insightful, offering a fresh and illuminating
take on the evidence. There are no gaps in
reasoning; the reader does not need to assume
anything or do additional research to accept the
main argument. “So What?” question is answered
consistently.
The writing is compelling, polished, and
distinctive. It hooks the reader and sustains
interest throughout. Sentences are skillfully
constructed and distinctive, varied in length and
structure, and flow smoothly from one to another.
Masterful use of language. Diction is vivid,
vigorous, fresh, and precise. No words are misused.
Consistent use of standard grammar, spelling, and
punctuation. Fragments, comma splices, and run-on
Bibliographic
format
Sources
Other
requirements
sentences are scrupulously avoided, dependent clause
markers are used appropriately, words are spelled
properly, and punctuation marks are used correctly.
Proper MLA citation style throughout. All
quotations and paraphrases include complete and
accurate parenthetic citation in the text. All
entries in the List of Works Cited are accurate,
complete, alphabetized, and referenced in the text,
and include all the necessary information in the
correct order, properly punctuated. No authors are
misidentified and no entries feature misspellings.
Minimum source requirements: At least 7 sources, of
which at least 2 must be primary sources from the
time period being researched. All secondary sources
must be scholarly, and at least half must have been
published since 1980. A mixed use of both book and
journal sources is required.
Research some aspect of theatre practice in its
historical context, using both primary and secondary
sources to develop your essay. Choose to explore
what we know, and (significantly) how we know what
we know about one specific aspect of theatre history
during the period from the Greeks to the
Renaissance. Minimum length: 10-12 pages, typed,
double-spaced, 12 pt. font.
Appendix 6
Core Knowledge Curriculum
Theatre Arts Department
GREEK AND ROMAN THEATRE
City Dionysia
Dithyramb
Tetralogy
“goat song”
Anagnorisis
Peripetia
Stichomythia
Parados
Skene
Thymele
Agon
Theatron
Orchestra
Thyromata
Proskenion
Episkenion
Hesiod
Ludi
Cavea
Pulpitum
Vomitoria
Scaenae Frons
Old Comedy
New Comedy
Komos
Plautus
MEDIEVAL, ELIZABETHAN, AND SPANISH GOLDEN AGE
Morality Play
Corpus Christi Plays
Mansion-and-Platea Staging
Medieval Theory of Vertical Time
Quem Quaeritis trope
Pageant Wagon
Great Chain of Being
“Humours” Theory of Personality
Yard
Inner Above
The Heavens
Tiring House
London City Limits
Sharer
Blackfriars
City Comedy
Masque
Inigo Jones
Auto Sacramentales
Carros
Comedia
Capa y Espada
Mosqueteros
Corrales
Cazuela
RISE OF THE PROFESSIONAL THEATRE
Neoclassicism
Comedy of Manners
Sentimental Comedy
Heroic Tragedy
Adaptations of Shakespeare
Drame
Moliere
Edwin Forrest
Denis Diderot
Lewis and William Hallam
Edmund Kean
Romanticism
Comedie Francaise
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Melodrama
Gotthold Lessing
Scenic Stage
Preface to Cromwell
Stage Licensing Act of 1737
Le Cid Controversy
THE MODERN STAGE
Constantin Stanislavsky
Bertolt Brecht
Emile Zola
Edward Gordon Craig
Georg, Duke of Saxe Meinengen
Robert Wilson
Provincetown Players
Deterministic Triad
Group Theatre
Federal Theatre Project
Antonin Artaud
Gesamkunstwerk
Verfremdungseffekt
Richard Wagner
Vsevelod Meyerhold
Theatrical Device
Adolphe Appia
Andre Antoine
Moscow Art Theatre
Gestus
Appendix 7
Instruments 1 and 2 for Core Knowledge Curriculum
Midterm and Final Exams, TA 120
Spring 2011
Theatre History I: Midterm Exam
Spring 2011
Elizabeth Hess
Greek and Roman drama, ancient theatre history and practice, the physical theatre of the
ancients
I. TERMS: Define each of the following terms. Indicate what time period in theatre
history the term refers to, and detail some of the term’s significance. Be as complete in
your answer as you are able. Some terms will require more discussion than others.
Feel free to explicate your definition with an apt example, as appropriate.
1. City Dionysia
2. dithyramb
3. tetralogy
4. “goat song”
5. anagnorisis
6. peripetia
7. stichomythia
8. parados
9. skene
10. thymele
11. ekkyklema
12. agon
13. theatron
14. orchestra
15. proskenion
16. episkenion
17. ludi
18. cavea
19. pulpitum
20. vomitoria
21. scaenae frons
22. komos
23. Old Comedy
24. New Comedy
25. Hesiod
26. Plautus
II. ESSAY: Making explicit reference to particular texts we have studied for the course,
discuss what you see to be the main points of comparison and contrast between the
drama of Aeschylus and the drama of Euripides. Consider both social and religious
aspects of the plays as well as the dramaturgical in your answer. The best answers will
be structured in substantive paragraphs, and will organize themselves around a clear
and focused thesis, which ought to be the first sentence of the essay. Best answers will
also go beyond a mere recitation of facts from the plays and move into an investigation
of the whys and wherefores behind the similarities and differences you note.
Theatre History I: Final Exam
Spring 2011
Elizabeth Hess
Comprehensive: emphasis on medieval and Renaissance theatre and drama
III. TERMS: Define each of the following terms. Indicate what time period in theatre
history the term refers to, and detail some of the term’s significance. Be as complete in
your answer as you are able. Some terms will require more discussion than others.
Feel free to explicate your definition with an apt example, as appropriate.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
morality play
Corpus Christi plays
mansion-and-platea staging
medieval theory of vertical
time
Quem Quaeritis trope
pageant wagon
Great Chain of Being
“humours” theory of
personality
yard
inner above
The Heavens
tiring house
London city limits
sharer
Blackfriars
city comedy
masque
Inigo Jones
auto sacramentales
carros
comedia
capa y espada
mosqueteros
corrales
25. cazuela
IV. ESSAY 1: Making explicit reference to particular texts we have studied for the course,
and drawing on your knowledge of material from lectures, discuss what you see to be
the main points of comparison and contrast between Greek tragedy and Elizabethan
tragedy. Consider both structural/dramaturgical principles and thematic/ideological
principles in your answer, and bear in mind that Elizabethan tragedy is not limited to
Shakespeare. The best answers will be structured in substantive paragraphs, and will
organize themselves around a clear and focused thesis, which ought to be the first
sentence of the essay. Best answers will also go beyond a mere recitation of facts from
the plays and move into an investigation of the whys and wherefores behind the
similarities and differences you note.
V. ESSAY 2: Choose one of the following essay prompts
a. Trace the development of English dramatic comedy, beginning with its origins in
medieval drama, moving through the Renaissance, and concluding with its later
expressions in the Jacobean period. How does comedy evolve? What major
types of comedic drama do we see? What characterizes each of these types of
comedy? How is comedy used to both reflect and critique society in each age?
b. Compare the views of monarchy laid out in Richard II and King Lear, with
respect to Renaissance notions of divine right and the Great Chain of Being, and
consideration of how each play may be reflective of its own cultural/historical
context. Which play expresses a vision nearer to a Renaissance, rather than a
medieval, worldview? How are each play’s understandings of power and identity
both rooted in their own time and relevant in our time?
c. Making explicit reference to both Fuente Ovejuna and Life is a Dream, as well as
the general traditions of the Spanish comedia and the auto sacramentales, discuss
how Spanish Golden Age drama simultaneously expresses both medieval and
Renaissance worldviews. What elements of each period’s mindset and theatrical
vision are operative? Does Spanish Golden Age theatre ultimately fit one of these
models more nearly than the other? Does Spanish Golden Age theatre include
elements that presage modern drama?