• searchbtn
  • Theatre Arts Assessment

     

    Welcome to the Department of Theatre Arts Assessment page.  Please click on the desired program below to view learning objectives, assessment plans, and outcomes data for that program, including assessment rubrics and other important program information.

     

    View the Department of Theatre Arts Mission Statement

     

    Department of Theatre Arts Programs:

     

    Student progress on the competencies above is assessed formatively through ongoing mentoring, advising, and feedback throughout the year from faculty in the Department of Theatre Arts and the School of Teacher Education & Leadership, as well as through feedback from guest artists and educators.

     

    Formal, summative assessment takes place regularly through two independent means:

    • (A) Completion of courses related directly to the competencies with minimum grades of B in all theatre education related courses and B- in other theatre courses.
    • (B) Compilation of extensive portfolios documenting students' achievement in each of the five competencies, which are reviewed by a minimum of three individuals, at least two of whom are theatre education experts external to the university.

     

    Assessment Part I: Course Completion with Satisfactory Grades

    Students complete a comprehensive training program that includes a core of 32.5 credits of theatre core courses designed to ensure a rigorous background in acting, technical theatre, directing, stage management, and theatre history and literature.  Students must pass all of these courses with a minimum grade of B-.

     

    Students take an additional 34 credits of coursework directly related to the teaching of theatre, including 9 credits of teaching methods courses, 12 credits of field experience, and 13 credits of seminars and supplemental courses directly related to the intersection of theatre and young people.  They must earn a minimum grade of B in each of these courses.

     

    Students furthermore take 14 credits of pedagogically-based courses offered by USU's college of Education, and must earn a minimum grade of B in each of these courses.

     

    Assessment Part II: Annual Portfolio Review

    At least once each year, students prepare portfolios comprised of artifacts that demonstrate their evolving skills in each competency area, compose letters of self-assessment. Students' portfolios are reviewed by both USU faculty and at least two theatre education experts external to USU to assess students' progress.  

    Portfolios are comprised of the following documents, in this order:

    1. Reflective self-assessment letter.
    2. Annual review letters from all previous years.
    3. Current professional resume or curriculum vitae.
    4. Supporting documentation, divided into the sections Examples of artifacts that might be included are provided for each area. Students should include a wide variety of artifacts throughout the portfolio, and should be especially careful not to rely exclusively on peer assessment. As appropriate, students are welcome to include additional documentation not listed.

    a. Pedagogy

    i. Evaluations of these can range from formal documents such as the Clinical Experience Cooperating Teacher Evaluation or Student Evaluations of Teaching to letters from supervisors that comment on teaching quality or written feedback on in-class demo session facilitation.

    ii. Complete session designs which demonstrate the ability to articulate clear, relevant learning objectives; appropriate, effective assessment methods; and comprehensive, engaging learning Session designs with faculty feedback are particularly appropriate. 

    iii. Video, photo, or other multimedia documentation that clearly demonstrates the quality of session facilitation and other teaching activities.

    iv. Letters of support from students taught, parents of students, and/or peers as appropriate.

    b. Artistry

    i. Reviews of productions or other artistic projects by faculty, media and/or peer, as appropriate.

    ii. Video, photo, or other multimedia documentation that clearly demonstrates the quality of a particular aspect of a creative project.

    iii. Other documentation appropriate to the specific artist performed (e.g. a prompt book for stage managers, program notes for a dramaturge, script analysis for actors/directors).

    c. Academics / Scholarship

    i. A current academic transcript (required; unofficial transcripts are acceptable).

    1. Documentation of extenuating circumstances that may have resulted in poor performance in a particular course, if applicable.

    ii. Research products including journal articles, conferences paper / poster sessions, and public talks.

    iii. Evidence of research-in-process, including project proposals, letters of approval from USU's IRB and/or external stakeholders, samples of data collected and analysis in process.

    iv. Scholarly writing samples or academic coursework.

    v. Other written or multimedia documentation of research activity.

    d. Leadership & Service

    i. While documentation of leadership and service may be included in the preceding sections, students may opt to include an additional section to document accomplishments not addressed elsewhere.

    e. Professionalism

    Because professionalism is expected in all contexts, it should be documented in each of the previous areas, as opposed to a separate section.

     

    Portfolios are then assessed by USU faculty and external reviewers using the rubrics on the following pages.

      

    RUBRIC FOR B.F.A. THEATRE EDUCATION (K-12 CERTIFICATION) PROGRAM

     

    RUBRIC FOR B.F.A. THEATRE EDUCATION (K-12 CERTIFICATION) PROGRAM

     

    Based on their assessment of each students' portfolio using the rubric above, students' progress toward meeting each competency is assessed holistically and rated as exemplary, strong, acceptable, marginal, or poor. Students are required to meet the following benchmarks each year:

     

    FIRST YEAR REVIEW: Acceptable or above in each of the 5 areas.

    SECOND YEAR REVIEW: Acceptable or above in all areas; Strong or above in at least 3 areas.

    THIRD YEAR REVIEW (AND BEYOND): Strong or above in all areas; Exemplary in at least 1 area.

     

    Based on this portfolio review, the faculty will then determine if students should:

     

    • Continue in the program. To continue, students must have met the appropriate benchmarks described below, and must not be on academic, departmental, or any other form of probation.
    • Be placed on programmatic probation. If a student fails to meet all benchmarks, but in the opinion of the faculty has the potential to recover and meet the benchmarks within one semester’s time, the student may be placed on programmatic probation.
    • Be discontinued from the program. If a student currently on probation fails to meet benchmarks within the time specified when s/he was placed on probation, or if his or her conduct is such that the faculty do not have confidence that s/he will be able to meet the benchmarks even during a probationary period, the student may be discontinued from the program. Students discontinued from the program may apply for re-admission only with permission of the faculty after demonstrating significant improvement from the time of their dismissal.

    Two types of outcomes data are included herein: students' overall annual ratings based on internal and external reviews of their portfolios as well as employment data for graduates.

     

    Employment

    Nearly 100% of graduates from the program are employed directly in the field or enrolled in graduate school within a year of graduation.  Students work as teachers at the elementary and secondary levels and also work for cultural institutions such as museums and theatre as well as government agencies.

     

    Annual Review System

    The review system currently in place was significantly revised last year (AY 2013-14); as such longitudinal data related to student achievement is not yet available.  The charts below represent the percentage of students receiving each rating in each area for AY 2013-14.   Data from AY 2014-15 will be reported by the end of the current academic year.

     

    Graphs and Charts

     

    As indicated in the charts above, student performance in each of the competency areas is largely on-target.  While many students were ranked in the "acceptable" (as opposed to "strong" or "exemplary") in some competencies, this is not problematic given the high number of students who were in their first and second years of the program and not yet expected to advance past the "acceptable" benchmark.

     

    To ensure individual student confidentiality, further data based on individual students' progress toward the particular benchmarks they ought to achieve is not provided, as the relatively small number of students in each academic year of the program could render individual students identifiable.  However, in nearly all cases students met the appropriate benchmarks.

     

    In additional to receiving holistic, summative evaluations in each category, all students also received substantive written comments from both faculty and external reviewers for each competency assessed indicating their strengths and specific opportunities to improve. 

     

    Data for the above rubrics is not yet available as the first cohort being so evaluated will graduate this year. 

     

    The revised acting curriculum will be graduating its first class this year, so data is not yet available.  However, data from three cohorts graduating under a modified version of the curriculum demonstrate a strong level of professional employment and/or placement in a graduate training program.  The past three cohorts have achieved 80% employment or placement in graduate programs.  This is significant for a discipline that routinely employs 13-14% of dues-paying union members. 

     

    Data Based Decisions

     

    As indicated in the outcomes data section, rankings of student achievement using the rubrics described in the assessment plan is not yet available.  In subsequent years, data will be evaluated to determine if programmatic changes are necessary.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Student progress on the competencies above is assessed formatively through ongoing mentoring, advising, and feedback throughout the year from faculty in the Department of Theatre Arts, as well as through feedback from guest artists and educators.

     

    Formal, summative assessment takes place regularly through two independent means:

    • Completion of courses related directly to the competencies with minimum grades of B- in all theatre related courses.
    • Compilation of extensive portfolios documenting students' achievement in each of the six competencies, which are reviewed by a minimum of three design faculty annually during the portfolio review and continuance evaluations.

     

    Assessment Part I: Course Completion with Satisfactory Grades

    Students complete a comprehensive training program that includes a core of 27 credits of theatre core courses designed to ensure a rigorous background in acting, technical theatre, directing, and theatre history and literature.  Students must pass all of these courses with a minimum grade of B-.

     

    Students take an additional 38 credits of coursework directly related to the area of emphasis, including a realized capstone project.

     

    Assessment Part II: Annual Portfolio Review

    Each year, students prepare portfolios comprised of artifacts that demonstrate their evolving skills in each emphasis area, compose letters of intent, and provide a current resume. USU design faculty review students’ portfolios based on the BFA Continence Evaluation rubric based on the learning objectives, calculate a score then diagnose the student’s progress.

     

    Portfolios are comprised of the following documents, in this order:

    1. Letter of intent, according to their prospective emphasis, explaining there career objective.
    2. Current professional resume or curriculum
    3. Supporting documentation, divided into the sections
    4. Examples of artifacts that might be included are provided for each area. Students should include a wide variety of artifacts throughout the portfolio, and should be especially careful not to rely exclusively on peer assessment. As appropriate, students are welcome to include additional documentation not listed.

    a. Literature and History Analysis

    Complete historical dossier on historical costumes and architectural periods and styles.

    Complete design research dossiers in regards to design projects, paper or realized. (e.g. a costume bible, French scenes, character evaluation’s, script analysis for actors/directors).

    b. Artistry

    Reviews of productions or other artistic projects by faculty, media and/or peer, as

    Renderings, drafting’s, video, photo, or other multimedia documentation that clearly demonstrates the quality of a particular aspect of a creative

    Other documentation appropriate to the specific artist performed (e.g. a prompt book for stage managers, Light Plots, Sound Plots, Scene break downs, costume plots).

    c. Academics / Scholarship

    A current academic transcript (required; unofficial transcripts are acceptable).

    Documentation of extenuating circumstances that may have resulted in poor performance in a particular course, if

    This area is measured by the departmental standard of a overall 2.75 GPA and nothing lower than a B- in a program course.

    Scholarly writing samples or academic

    Other written or multimedia documentation of research

     d. Leadership & Service

    While documentation of leadership and service may be included in the preceding sections, students may opt to include an additional section to document accomplishments not addressed elsewhere.

    e. Portfolio

                         Prepare and present at the annual portfolio review in the spring semester.

    f. Professionalism

    Because professionalism is expected in all contexts, it should be documented in each of the previous areas, as opposed to a separate section.

     

    Criteria for BFA Assessment

     

    BFA Student Portfolios are assessed annually by USU Design faculty using the criteria of the rubric on the Criteria for BFA Assessment page and evaluated using the Student Continuance Evaluation form.

     

    Based on faculty assessment of each students' portfolio using the rubric above, students' progress toward meeting each competency. Their progress is assessed holistically and rated as exemplary, strong, acceptable, marginal, or poor. Students are required to meet the following benchmarks each year:

     

    FRESHMAN YEAR REVIEW: Acceptable or above in each of the 6 areas.

    SOPHMORE YEAR REVIEW: Acceptable or above in all areas; Strong or above in at least 3 areas.

    JUNIOR YEAR REVIEW (AND BEYOND): Strong or above in all areas; Exemplary in at least 1 area.

     

    Based on this portfolio review, the faculty will then determine if students should:

     

    • Continue in the program

    To continue, students must have met the appropriate benchmarks described below, and must not be on academic, departmental, or any other form of probation.

     

    • Be placed on programmatic probation

    If a student fails to meet all benchmarks, but in the opinion of the faculty has the potential to recover and meet the benchmarks within one semester’s time, the student may be placed on programmatic probation.

     

    • Be discontinued from the program

    If a student currently on probation fails to meet benchmarks within the time specified when he/she was placed on probation, or if his or her conduct is such that the faculty do not have confidence that he/she will be able to meet the benchmarks even during a probationary period, the student may be discontinued from the program. Students discontinued from the program may apply for re-admission only with permission of the faculty after demonstrating significant improvement from the time of their dismissal.

     

    Currently there is no data to provide a graphic outcome. However the policy outlined above is used consistently to provide assessment and feedback to the current students. As indicated above, student performance in each of the competency areas is largely on target. As this evaluation documentation is put in to action, data will be available within the next two years. Currently there is data on numbers of students graduating, and the list below documents their successes.

     

    UTAH STATE THEATRE DEPARTMENT

    DESIGN ALUMNI "SUCCESSES"

     

    Key:

    • BFA Students
    • •Graduate Students

    Lighting Designers

    • •Steven Piechocki , 6th Street Playhouse, Santa Rosa CA TD/ Lighting Designer
    • Kenny Driggs, Disneyland Hotels Designer/ Master Electrician
    • Kyle Hansen, Disneyland Hotels Designer/ Master Electrician
    • Josh Wilson, Faculty/Baylor University
    • Kyle Hansen , Disneyland Hotels, Master Electrician
    • Braden Howard, Faculty BYU Idaho, Owner of Live Entertainment Design
    • Paul Yeates, Faculty Morehead State University, MFA University of Connecticut
    • •Athony Johnson, Lighting Designer/ Technical Director, Faculty Montana University
    • •Melinda Weeks, Faculty Snow College
    • James Larsen, Staff Lighting designer University of Utah
    • Randy Mugleston, Department Head, Montclair State University.
    • •Amy Critchfield Lighting Designer/Technical Director Department Head Western Wyoming State College
    • •Craig Steenerson faculty Lighting Designer/Technical Director University North Carolina at Wilmington 480-965-9553
    • Brandon Moss won the Western Region ACTF competition in Eureka, CA, in February 1999 with his lighting designs for Holiday Memories, graduated MFA Lighting Design San Diego State University.
    • •Mitch Dana Broadway Lighting Designer and Adjunct Professor Rutgers University
    • Cole Adams Resident Lighting Designer Dance Department University of Utah
    • Preston Horman , Disney Imaginer MFA California State University at Irvine.
    • Greg Brenchley, Architecture Lighting Designer SLC
    • •Kay Townsen Lecture at Mesa Community College KCACTF regional winner Lighting Design Urine Town, Sound Design Anna in the Tropics
    • Tim North Technical Director, Production Services, Utah State University
    • Eddie Wong Technical Officer at Polytech University, Hong Kong

    Stage Managers

    • Jessie Drollette, Stage Manager, Georgetown Palace Theatre, Austin Texas
    • Julienne Bailey, Stage Manager PCPA
    • Kim Iverson USU student relations
    • Liz Black Disneyland California Stage Manager
    • Brandon Stoffer Stage Manager/ Cirque du Soleil
    • •Kris Bushman Equity Stage Manager/ previous Production Manager, USU
    • Becky Dawson ACTF Stage Management Regional winner 2004, MFA, Rutgers University, Equity Stage Manager NYC.
    • Amber LaBau, Krannert Center Illinois
    • Ashna Horman Production Stage Manager, Disneyland California
    • Scott Bean Human Relations officer
    • Jamie Sanduck Production Stage Manager, Hale Center Theatre, SLC

    Technical Directors

    • Truxton Molton, TD Tuacahn
    • •Nathan Kluthe, TD Utah Opera
    • •Mark Ross Sales Manager BMI
    • •Lew Haslem Facilities Manager Northern Nevada University
    • •Troy Cadwalladar Director of Park Enhancement/Disneyland California
    • Matt Stowe Faculty, Utah State University
    • •Brent Innes Faculty Designer/TD USU Eastern
    • Cory Castillo, Staff TD, Ellen Eccles Theatre
    • Bryce Allen Faculty TD / Set Designer, Weber State University

    Sound Designers

    • Jason Romney Sound Design Faculty, North Carolina School for the Arts
    • Brian Richards MFA North Carolina School for the Arts, 2003 KCACTF Regional Design Winner 2003, Sound Engineer Disney California
    • Alec Labau Sound Engineer Kranert Center

    Scenic Designers

    • Trent Bean, Faculty, Snow College; MFA The Ohio State University
    • Ann Benson, Faculty, Broadview University
    • Jon Savage MFA, North Carolina School of the Arts; Department Head, Boston University; USA designer
    • Patrick Larsen placed second in the nation at the Kennedy Center ACTF competition in the spring of 1999 for his design for Holiday Memories,; MFA Scene Design, University of California-San Diego.
    • •Craig Brashears Faculty Scenic Designer/Technical Director at Del Mar College in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the summer of 1999; he was a finalist at the Kennedy Center in 1996 in the ACTF competition with his designs for the new play by Jack Gilhooley, The Machine, and the following year won the ACTF regional competition for his lighting design for Into the Woods.
    • •Jen Taylor, Staff designer, Hale Center Theatre
    • •Anne Benson, Scenic Charge, Utah Festival Opera
    • Kacey Uda, Resident Scenic designer, Hale Center Theatre
    • •James Lydan, Freelance designer
    • •Caress Bergato KCACTF Regional winner, Scene Design, Sleepy Hollow 2006
    • •Darrin Brooks Faculty, USU Interior Design, KCACTF Regional winner Scenery Design, Hayfever 2005

    Costume Designers

    • Molly Hills Costume Technician, Tuacahn
    • •Carrie Hansen, Department Head, Old Miss University
    • Adrea Varga, Broadway costume designer, NYC
    • •Amanda Profazier, Faculty, University Wisconsin; KCACTF Regional winner 2004
    • •Macy Perone, KCACTF Regional winner 2005; Freelance designer, Alley Theatre Texas
    • •Linda Pisano Costume Design Faculty, Indiana University; Utah Shakespeare Festival
    • •Cameron Roberts was invited to the Kennedy Center two consecutive years (‘96, ‘97) after winning regional awards for her costume designs compete regionally in Cedar City in 1997.  Cameron's designs were one of 14 costume exhibits from the USA featured in the USITT-sponsored (The World of Design) in Prague during the summer of 1999; she is now a graduate of Yale University and Designing in New York City.
    • • Nina-Nikolic McMillan was a finalist at the ACTF competition at the Kennedy Center in 1999 with her costume designs for The Royal Family.
    • •Philp Lowe ACTF Nationals 2003,Costume Designer for the Egyptian Theatre in Ogden, Utah
    • Rosa Lazaro Costume Design Faculty, Texas A&M Corpus- Christi

     

    KCACTF WINNERS

    1996-97

    • Cameron Roberts was invited to the Kennedy Center two consecutive years (‘96, ‘97) after winning regional awards for her costume designs compete regionally in Cedar City in 1997.  Cameron's designs were one of 14 costume exhibits from the USA featured in the USITT-sponsored (The World of Design) in Prague during the summer of 1999; she is now a graduate of Yale University and Designing in New York City.
    • •Craig Brashears Faculty Scenic Designer/Technical Director at Del Mar College in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the summer of 1999; he was a finalist at the Kennedy Center in 1996 in the ACTF competition with his designs for the new play by Jack Gilhooley, The Machine.

    1998

    • •Craig Brashears ACTF regional winner, lighting design for Into the Woods 1998

    1999

    • • Nina-Nikolic McMillan was a finalist at the ACTF competition at the Kennedy Center in 1999 with her costume designs for The Royal Family.
    • Patrick Larsen placed second in the nation at the Kennedy Center ACTF competition in the spring of 1999 for his design for Holiday Memories, MFA, Scene Design, and University of California-San Diego.
    • Brandon Moss won the Western Region ACTF competition in Eureka, CA, in February 1999 with his lighting designs for Holiday Memories, graduated MFA Lighting Design, San Diego State University

    2000

    • Greg Brenchley, won the Barbizon Award in lighting for KCACTF Region VIII and attended workshops at the Kennedy Center in Washington DC. MFA at Indiana University in Lighting Design, Architecture Lighting Designer, SLC

    2002

    • Jon Savage Regional winner Scene Design Lion in Winter 2002

    2003

    • •Philp Lowe ACTF Nationals Costume Design 2003,
    • Preston Horman won the Barbizon award, Kennedy Center American College Theater Festival (KCACTF) competition in Logan, Utah, in February 2003 with his lighting design for To Kill A Mocking Bird. MFA from California State University at Irvine.
    • Brian Richards received a fellowship to study sound design at the North Carolina School for the Arts, 2003 KCACTF Regional Design Winner, To Kill A Mocking Bird 2003
    • Rachael Wendal KCACTF Regional costume Design The Boy Who Drew Cats

    2004

    • •Amanda Profaizer, KCACTF Regional winner, The Beaux Stratagem, 2004

    2005

    • •Macy Perone, KCACTF Regional winner Costume Design, The Hollow 2005, Freelance designer in Texas
    • •Darrin Brooks Faculty, USU Interior Design, KCACTF Regional winner Scenery Design, Hayfever 2005

    2006

    • •Kay Townsen, KCACTF Regional Make-up Design winner, MacBeth, 2006
    • •Caress Bergato, KCACTF Regional winner Scene Design, Sleepy Hollow, 2006
    • •Macy Perone, KCACTF Regional winner Costume Design, Comedy of Errors, 2006, Freelance designer in Texas
    • •Amanda Profaizer, KCACTF Regional winner, Sleep Hollow, 2006

    2007

    • •Kay Townsen, KCACTF Regional Sound Design winner, Anna in the Tropics, 2007

    2008

    • •Kay Townsen, KCACTF Regional Lighting Design winner, Urinetown, 2008

    2010

    • •Anthony Johnson, Faculty University Montana, KCACTF Regional Lighting Design winner, Issun Bossi, 2010

    2011

    • •Melinda Week,s KCACTF Regional Lighting Design winner, Suesscial, 2010
    • •Brandi Jenks, KCACTF Regional winner Set Design, Golf Balls, 2010, 2013

    2014

    • •Steven Piechocki, Barbizon award, Kennedy Center American College Theater Festival (KCACTF), Utah, in February 2013 with his lighting design for A Catered Affair, National award for the same production in April 2013, including and internship at the Eugene O’Neill Theatre
    • •Chelsea Richardson, KCACTF Honorable Mention, Set Design, Still Life with Iris
    • •Katy Parks, KCACTF Honorable Mention Costume Design, Still Life with Iris
    • •Hongji Zue, KCACTF 1st Place Costume Design Paper Project, A Winter's Tale

    2015

    • •Katy Parks, KCACTF National Winner for Theatrical Design excellence in Costume Designm Bus Stop
    • •Hongji Zue, KCACTF Honorable Mention Costume Designm A Game of Love and Chance
    • •Jenny Cawley, KCACTF 1st Placem Costume Design Paper Project Gappers of Frip

    Based on the data presently available, the theatre design faculty believes that student progress in the program meets or exceeds expectations and that the best course of action at present is to continue with current practices and methods of evaluations. In future years, data will be reassessed to determine if there are particular areas that warrant further investigation or possible programmatic changes.

     

    Design Student Graduation Data from 2005 to 2012:

    2005  7 Completions

    2006  4 Completions

    2007  6 Completions

    2008  5 Completions

    2009  4 Completions

    2010  1 Completions

    2011  3 Completions

    2012  7 Completions

     

     

    Student progress on the competencies above is assessed formatively through ongoing mentoring, advising, and feedback throughout the year from the MFA faculty in the Department of Theatre Arts, as well as through feedback from guest artists and educators.

     

    Formal, summative assessment takes place regularly through three means.

    1. Completion of courses related directly to the competencies with minimum grades of B- for all MFA students.
    2. Compilation of extensive portfolios documenting students' achievement in each of the twelve competencies, which are reviewed by a minimum of three-design faculty during the annual Portfolio Review
    • Biannual Continuance Evaluations conducted by MFA faculty.

     

    Assessment Part I: Course Completion with Satisfactory Grades

    Students complete a comprehensive training program that includes 60 credits of advanced professional training in the appropriate areas of emphasis.  Students must pass all of these courses with a minimum grade of B-. Courses are generally categorized as follows:

    • Introductory courses (5 credits)
    • Advanced Literature courses (5-6 credits)
    • Advanced Design courses (16-17 credits)
    • Cognate Skill courses (6 credits)
    • Design Studies course (studio lab, 12 credits)
    • Graduate Projects (9-10 credits)
    • Theatre Internship (6 credits)
    • Culminating courses (4 credits)

     

    Assessment Part II: Annual Portfolio Review

    At the end of each academic year, students prepare portfolios comprised of artifacts that demonstrate their evolving skills in each emphasis area, compose letters of intent, and provide a current resume. USU MFA faculty review students’ portfolios, conduct public interviews at which students explain and defend their work, and provide detailed feedback regarding progress and achievements.

     

    The Portfolio Review process is comprised of the following presentation items and activities:

     

    • Current professional resume or curriculum vitae
    • Samples of work from all years of participation at USU. These vary by area of emphasis but may include:
      • Visual research and supporting documentation
      • Drawing, sketches, renderings, paint elevations, swatches
      • Models, mock-ups, miniature examples
      • Management literature, schedules, costume bibles, lighting paperwork, props plots etc.
      • Drafting, painting samples, and other technical drawings
      • Fully executed samples of props, costumes, wigs, and scenic items.
    • Verbal presentation of all work including:
      • Concept statements
      • Project justifications
      • Chronological descriptions of various design projects
      • Descriptions of challenges, solutions, and outcomes for various projects
      • Specific and general self-assessments
      • Requests for future foci within the program

     

    Assessment Part III: Continuance Evaluations

    At the end of each semester, the MFA faculty assesses the performance of each MFA student. The assessment criteria is described in detail via the Continuance Evaluation Form shown below. Once these assessments are made, the MFA faculty meets with each individual student to present and justify the assessment numerical scores while also providing detailed feedback regarding past performance and future goals and recommendations. The students also have the opportunity to express needs and concerns regarding their studies at USU.  

     

    Student Continuance Evaluation

     

    Based on this portfolio review and coursework, the MFA faculty will assign a “status” to each student as follows:

     

    First Status – They have met the expectations of an MFA student on an exemplary level. Their work is above that which is expected of a student at their current semester of training (semesters 1-6). They are invited to continue in the program and are encouraged to maintain their current level of effort.

     

    Second Status – They have met the expectations of an MFA student. They have demonstrated consistent success but may have areas that require increased focus and effort. They are invited to continue in the program.

     

    Third Status - They have met some of the expectations of a graduate student.  In some areas they are not performing on the level or pace expected to achieve a terminal degree.  They are expected to focus on specific areas of need as outlined on the evaluation form. They are placed on probation and are required to achieve a Second Status by the end of the upcoming semester if they wish to continue as an MFA candidate. If they are entering the third (or final) year of the program, they are released from the program.

     

    The USU MFA Program in Theatre Design and Technology is one based on personal one-on-one attention and support, both during the academic process and in the years to follow. We keep close ties with our graduates, provide career counseling, aid in career development, and keep records of the successes of each former-student. Our assessment plan is largely based upon professional preparation and therefore is best measured through professional placement records. As indicated above, student performance in each of the competency areas is very much on-target.  Data reflecting the outcomes of our MFA graduates are as follows:

     

    MFA Theatre Outcomes Statistics

    Based on the data presently available, the theatre design faculty believes that student progress in the program meets or exceeds expectations, and that the best course of action at present is to continue with current practices and methods of evaluations. In future years, data will be re-assessed to determine if there are particular areas that warrant further investigation or possible programmatic changes.

     

    OUTCOMES DATA – THEATRE MFA GRADUATE PLACEMENTS

     

    Since 2005 our 24 MFA students have won 24 major National or Regional Design Awards. More importantly, the program has a 100% placement rate for graduates who entered the field during that time. Whether they are employed as resident designers at professional companies, professors, or freelance artists, USU graduates have excelled throughout the country. With outstanding portfolios and paid assistantships, USU designers and technicians enter the professional world with consistent success.

     

    Year Graduate Placement and Awards

     

     

     

    Summative assessment of student progress is based on final grades in the courses indicated below. Students must earn a grade of B- or higher in each of these courses. Each course involves a number of formative and summative assessments appropriate to nature of the course and briefly summarized below.

     

    Courses Assessing Competence in Theatre History & Literature

    THEA 3710 (Theatre History I), THEA 3720 (Theatre History II), ENGL 2300 (Intro to Shakespeare), ENGL 4300 (Shakespeare), HIST 3160 (Classical Drama & Society), THEA 4710 (Contemporary Theatre), THEA 4720: Musical Theatre History & Literature I, THEA 4730: Musical Theatre History & Literature II

     

    Examples of Summative Assessments in Theatre History & Literature

    Analytic essays, research papers, presentations on historical periods, written examinations.

     

    Courses Assessing Competence in Script Analysis & Performance

    THEA 1033 (Beginning Acting), THEA 1713 (Playscript Analysis), THEA 2000 (Scene Study), THEA 3610 (Directing), THEA 4760 (Playwriting), THEA 5610 (Directing II)

     

    Examples of Summative Assessments in Script Analysis & Performance

    Group and solo performances of scripted texts and improvised scenes, script scoring, examinations.

     

    Courses Assessing Competence in Technical Theatre & Design

    THEA 1513 (Stagecraft), THEA 2203 (Costume Construction), THEA 2555 (Production Practicum), THEA 3510 (Scene Design I), THEA 3520 (Costume Design I), THEA 3540 (Lighting Design I), THEA 3550 (Stage Management), THEA 3560 (Period Styles/Historic Interiors), THEA 3570 (Historic Clothing), THEA 1223 (Stage Makeup)

     

    Examples of Summative Assessments in Technical Theatre & Design

    Construction projects (scenic and costume), design renderings, examinations

     

    Outcomes Data

    The chart below represents the percentage of students earning the requisite grades in courses taken to date each year from 2013-14 to the present. 

     

    outcomes_data

     

    Data-Based Decisions

    Based on the data presently available, the theatre studies faculty believe that student progress in the program does not meet expectations. We will be evaluating individual courses, methods of evaluation and the program of study as a whole with a view to making programmatic changes.