)VIESI_J RETURNING MATERIALS: PIace in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from —3——. your record. FINES wiI’l be charged if book is returned after the date stamped beIow. "no 058718 1“ u— d' AN INVESTIGATION OF PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF UNDER- GRADUATE THEATER ARTS EDUCATION: GOALS, STANDARDS, PLAY SELECTION AND CONTENT by Holly Holdman A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1983 © Copyright by Holly Holdman 1983 ABSTRACT This study sought to delineate the guiding principles of under- graduate theater arts curricula. Applying concepts identified in the field of curriculum to theater arts, goals, standards, play selection and course content were selected as research areas. Due to the study's exploratory nature, an inductive approach was used. This included an analysis of educational theater and curricu- lum literature, analysis of a sample of undergraduate theater arts catalog and promotional materials, ten in-depth pilot interviews with theater faculty and students, the development of a survey which was administered to Michigan State University's Theater Department faculty and students Spring term 1982, and an analysis of the data by research question, respondent academic level (faculty, graduate, theater, tele- communications, communications and other undergraduate students), age and gender. Further, issues to be considered in raising the guiding principles of undergraduate theater arts from an implicit to an explicit status were identified. Patterns rather than clearly delineated guiding principles emerged from the data. These patterns were: 1. The production of plays appears more important than a department's philosophical orientation. 2. Department orientations seem to fall on a continuum between liberal arts and preprofessional training. 10. Some curricular problems which appeared in the pilot inter- views, like the relationship of play production to the pub- lished curriculum, were not addressed in the professional literature. Some goals and standards which appeared in the interviews and on the survey as very important were not addressed in the literature. Examples include artistic collaboration and the application of academic to production work. Standards are not well defined in the field. Guiding principles are not easy to identify in theater arts. The relationship between play production and the published curriculum may prove pivotal in the understanding of guiding principles. Since play production is crucial to theater arts curricula, the impact of nonacademic factors like finances and facilities affects a department's ability to deliver an educational pro- cess and product. It is unclear how undergraduate theater arts programs differ from nonexperiential liberal arts and vocational theater arts programs. Since previously undelineated, evidence of dramatic talent, dramatic creativity and potential for success are difficult to evaluate and teach. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS During the course of this dissertation, it has been my privilege to work with a variety of richly skilled and supportive people. First, my thanks to my esteemed committee: Lou Anna Kimsey Simon, my disser- tation chair, who was willing to accompany and guide me during the process of this work; Richard Featherstone, my guidance committee advisor, who was helpful in identifying resources; Dora Marcus, whose support, energy and unfailing integrity was a source of great inspira- tion; Keith Anderson, whose perception and artistic sensitivity provided a helpful perspective; and John Baldwin, whose wealth of experience and expertise in theater provided an anchor for the study. Second, my gratitude to those whose particular expertise guided portions of my work: Kahlil Elaian, who provided research consulting; Carey Draeger, who provided friendship and typing; and Katherine Mc- Cracken, who provided eleventh hour editing services. Additionally, I owe a debt to the College of Arts and Letters for its support and opportunities provided to me during the course of this research and to the individuals in the Department of Theater who readily shared their time and expertise. And last, with gratitude and much love, the other members of my support system: Ray Turner, Jackie Campbell, Sandy Skibo, Tom Wils- chutz, Lyn Farquhar, and my family. My thanks. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY Purposes of the Study . . . . . . . . . . Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background of the Problem . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . Contextual Background . . . . . . . . . . Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dissertation Organization . . . . . . . . Definitions of Frequently Used Terms . . II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preprofessional Training . . . . . . . Liberal Arts . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . History of Standards in Theater Arts . The Nature of the Discipline . . . . . Diversity of Approaches . . . . . . . . Faculty Judgement . . . . . . . . . . . Categories of Standards . . . . . . . . Preprofessional Standards in Theater Arts Liberal Arts Standards in Theater Arts . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Play Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preprofessional Training . . . . . . . Liberal Arts Training . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selection of Content . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Undergraduate Theater Arts Program . . . Goals of College and University Theater Departments . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . L . . . Standards of College and University Theater Departments . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii n—oo—A ' Hoooooucxwo-‘H g—n U 14 15 16 21 22 22 22 23 25 27 28 29 30 32 36 37 38 39 4O 41 44 44 46 51 51 57 Play Selection of College and University Theater Departments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Areas of Content in College and University Theater Departments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY 77 P0pulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Survey DeveIOpment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Pilot Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Instrument DeveIOpment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Opinions of Content Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Pilot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Data Collection . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Data Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 IV. SUMMARY AND SYNTHESIS OF THE DATA Characteristics of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . 91 Faculty Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Previous Experience in Theater . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Career Goals and Ambitions in Theater . . . . . . . . 95 sumary O I I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 97 Summary and Synthesis of Research Questions by Survey Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Goals of Undergraduate Theater . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 How Theater Departments Should Prepare Undergraduate Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Knowledge and Qualities of Graduating MSU Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Goals of Undergraduate Theater Programs . . . . . . 109 Goals of MSU's Theater Department. . . . . . . . . . 113 Standards of Undergraduate Theater . . . . . . . . . . 119 Undergraduate Theater Program Standards. . . . . . . 119 MSU Theater Department Standards . . . . . . . . . . 122 Play Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Purposes of Play Production . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Purposes of Play Production at MSU . . . . . . . . . 130 Areas of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Summary and Synthesis of Research Question by Age . . . 138 Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 40-60 year olds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 24-39 year olds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 18-23 year olds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 40-60 year olds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 24-39 year olds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 18-23 year olds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 iv Summary . . . . . . Play Production 40—60 year olds . . 24-39 year olds . . 18-23 year olds Summary Content . . . . . . . 40-60 year olds 24-39 year olds 18—23 year olds . Summary . . . . Summary . . . . . . Summary and Synthesis of Goals . . . . . . . . Males . Females . . Summary . . . . . Standards . . . . . . Males . . . Females . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . Play Selection . Males . . . . Females . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . Content . . . . . . Males . . . . . . . Females . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . Summary . Summary . . . . . . . . SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND FOR FURTHER STUDY Summary . . . . . Demographic Data . Gender . . . . . . Academic Level, Age and Level of Respondent . . . 175 Research Area by Gender . . . . 149 IMPLICATIONS, Faculty Responsibilities . . . Previous Experience in Theater . 144 . . . . 145 . . . . . 145 . . . . . 145 . . . . . . . . 146 . . . . . . . . 146 . . 147 . 147 . 147 O O O O O 0 O O 147 O O O O O O O O 147 147 . . . . . . . . 152 . . . . . . . . 152 . . . . . . . . . 153 . . . . . . . . . 154 . . . . . . . . . 154 . . . . 154 . . . . . . . . 156 . . . . . . . . 156 . . . . . . . 158 . . . . . . . . . 158 . . . . . . . . . 158 . . . . . . . . 159 . . . . . . . . . 159 . . . . . . . . . 159 159 159 162 164 AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . 170 175 175 . . . . . . . . 176 . . . . . . 176 Career Goals and Ambitions for the Future . . . . 177 Conclusims and Implications. . . Goals . . . . . . . Standards Play Selection . Areas of Content . Other . . . . Recommendations for Further Study BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . 177 . . . . . . . . 177 184 . . . 187 . . . 190 192 193 200 APPENDIX A, CRITIERIA FOR RANKING COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ACCORDING TO BARRON AND HAWES APPENDIX B, COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY RATINGS ACCORDING TO BARRON AND HAWES APPENDIX C, INFORMATION ABOUT COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY THEATER ARTS PROGRAMS (CATALOG REVIEW) APPENDIX D, PILOT INTERVIEWS APPENDIX E, SURVEY APPENDIX F, ANSWERS TO SURVEY QUESTIONS BY RESPONDENT GROUP vi 212 214 215 228 254 266 2.1 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 LIST OF TABLES Comparison of Colleges and Universities by Goals, Standards, Play Selection, and Percentage of Coursework . . . . . . . . 67 Population Breakdown by Gender and Academic Area and Level . 79 Sample Response by Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Sample Response by Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Previous Experience in Theater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Career Goals and Ambitions for the Future . . . . . . . . . -93 Mbst Frequently Selected Career Goals and Ambitions for the Future I O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 99 How Theater Departments Should Prepare Undergraduate Students (ReSponses to Survey Question #1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Knowledge or Qualities of Graduating MSU Students (Responses to Survey Question #2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Goals for Undergraduate Theater Programs (ReSponses to Survey Question #7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Goals of MSU'S Department of Theater (ReSPonses to Survey Question #8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Standards of Undergraduate Theater Programs (ReSponses to Survey Question #9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Standards of MSU's Department of Theater (Responses to Survey Question #10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Purposes for Play Production in an Educational Setting (Responses to Survey Question #3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Purposes for Play Production at MSU (Responses to Survey Question #4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Areas of Content (Responses to Survey Question #9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Responses by Age . . . . , , , , , , , , , . . . . . . . . 150 vii 4.16 Demographic Data by Gender . . . . . . . . 4.17 Goals by Gender (ReSponses to Survey Questions #7, #8, #1 and #2) 4.18 Standards (Re8ponses to Survey Questions #5 and #6) . 4.19 Play Production by Gender (ReSponses to Survey Questions #3 and #4) . 4.20 Areas of Content by Gender (Responses to Survey Question #9) viii 151 155 157 160 161 CHAPTER I. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY Purposes of the Study This study seeks to delineate the guiding principles guiding the curricula in undergraduate theater arts programs. Using concepts identified in the fields of curriculum and curriculum analysis, the examination of such principles focuses on four basic questions, the answers upon which theater arts professionals have not so far agreed. These questions are: 1. What are the goals of undergraduate theater arts education? 2. By what standards should undergraduate theater be evaluated? 3. What are the purposes of play production in an undergrad- uate educational setting? 4. What content areas are appropriate for study in undergraduate theater? Rationale Most colleges and universities in this country offer bachelor's programs in the arts and humanities, including the performing arts. Theater .arts is one such program. The importance of degree programs in the arts and tunnanities in our culture is well documented, as is the importance of degree 1xrograms in theater arts. Some of the purposes theater arts in the university (It college serves are the training of professional artists and teachers, the preparing of graduate students, liberal arts learning, and avocational performing and productions. Theater curricula offer students the oppor— tunity to learn dramatic content, skills, and methods of approaching and problem—solving. In the curricula of theater arts, there appears to be no easily diScernible structure. Historically, there has been little, if any, analvsis of educational theater curricula that might have helped to clarify its structure. This lack of curricular review may indicate that theater curricula are not based on an explicitly stated rationale or body of guiding principles. The purpose of this study is to examine the structure and rationale of a sample of theater arts curricula in higher education in the United States and to make the guiding principles of theater arts education explicit. Such an understanding may contribute to a greater understanding of theater curricula in higher education, offering criteria by which theater arts may be held accountable and providing the basis for an eval- uation of the current state of theater arts curricula: their goals and standards, the purposes for producing plays, and the content of the disci- pline. To begin an investigation of theater arts curricula, ideas basic to curriculum in general are helpful. When examining a curriculum, identifi- cation of goals provides the foundation for further study. Lee J. Cronbach and Patrick Suppes (1969, pp. 259-60), leaders in curriculum research, write: Examination is needed in a variety of areas. . . like areas concerning educational aims and how they are determined and formulated . . . and how the foundations of the subject should be related to problems of curriculum organization and selection. . . Thus, the aims or goals of a curriculum provide a basis for understanding the rest of the curriculum. A noted curriculum theorist, Hilda Taba (1961, p. 11), said that a "curriculum is essentially a plan for learning" that affects the selection and arrangement of content, choice of learning experience, and the plan for optimal conditions of learning. Curricula in the arts and humanities have an unusual feature. These disciplines frequently contain curricular com- ponents that may be arranged in a variety of ways, and the components may be easily interchanged. For example, a general education humanities course may be arranged by concepts, by the lives of leaders, or in chronological order. Each of these is a way of conveying an understanding of the arts and humanities. That this approach is somewhat different from what prevails in other disciplines can be seen by comparing the arts and humanities with disciplines whose curricular structures are generally more uniform--the natural sciences, mathematics, engineering. In those disciplines, steps or units are sequential and must be mastered before a student can proceed to the next. Given the interchangeableness of the curricular components in theater arts, the problem of curricular analysis becomes more challenging, but hardly less crucial to the understanding of the one field. Thus, curriculum theory identifies for the arts and humanities a kind of general format which may be followed when considering curricular structure. Background of the Problem About curricular research in the arts, Robert F. Miller (1981, p. 22) wrote: There is an old adage that we cannot know where to go next unless we know where we are now. More than just the collection of information, descriptive research includes surveys and status studies aimed at solving specific research problems directed at the present state-of-affairs. Further, Troy Organ (1958, p. 26) in work with the National Society for the 13tudy of Education described identifying guiding principles as "an attempt to make the implicit explicit." So, to understand theater arts curricula, a clear statement of the current state of the discipline and its implicit assumptions are required. There are implicit assumptions of the discipline that contribute to the complexity of theater arts curricula, and thus to the difficulty of defining its structure. The first of these is the widely held belief that in order to perform the intellectual task of theater, a student must have production experience. [A] general core of theaterical knowledge that integrates the work of theater or drama departments . . . and . . . is [the] subject that must form the basis of all instruction. Essentially, this amounts to imparting the skills required to read a dramatic text in such a way that the performance can be fully and graphically imagined in all its aspects. This entails training in the analysis of texts, which by their very nature require careful decoding to determine the rela- tionships of the characters, the style of performance required, and the theatrical effects envisioned by the author. To achieve mastery of this skill, all members of the theatrical team, the humblest as well as the most creative, must at one time or another have been involved in all aspects of the production process. The actors should have worked as stagehands or box office managers and the stagehands as actors. (Friedlander and Esslin, 1981: 351) The production of plays and other production-related experiences provide both the content base and opportunity for the practical application of theory and demand many analytical, creative, and techical skills. Thus, theater is a practitioner's or "hands-on" field. This contributes to the complexity of curricular review because classroom work alone cannot be sufficient. The skills required to read and to conceptualize a dramatic text require participation in many areas of theater, the ordering of the learning from that, and the integrating of those production experiences. An additional problem encountered in theater arts curriculum analysis concerns the fact that the selection and arrangement of content most appropriate for such a curriculum may not be easy to determine since what is optimal may depend on the demands of a particular play or on other, non- academic factors (the type of performing space and equipment available, or the skill level of faculty and students, for example). Theater [study is] . . . an activity that involves intricately structured teamwork and the cooperation of people versed in a multitude of skills, from scene painting and electrical engineering to the highest forms of scholarly analysis and creative talent [and] naturally straddle(s) a large range of disciplines . . ..[T]his hybrid and somewhat amorphorous nature of the subject has created a not inconsiderable number of problems and confusion in the definition of the purpose and methodology of drama and theater departments . . . (Friedlander and Esslin, 1981: 354) As a result, the production of plays is likely to be the most important curricular element. But the production of plays is usually "hidden"- The scheduling of play production is generally not listed with required major courses, nor is the number of anticipated hours involved in the production. Whether or not participation in productions is required, encouraged, or ignored is not mentioned in course materials as a rule, either. The production of plays provides content, an opportunity for the application of theory, and a forum for skills learning. The wide range of potential content and skill-learning demands on a theater arts curriculum or for a given production make the formal curricular rationale for such activity difficulty and frequently only implicit. A final problem that presents itself is that the field of curriculum theory, recognized since the mid-19508 as a discipline, is not a cohesive body of knowledge. Rather, it is represented by many diverse theories and is frequently based on practical instead of theoretical considerations. WOod and Davis (1978) argue that since the field of curriculum, curriculum development, and curriculum evaluation lack principles and a solid theoretical framework, one way to approach analyzing a curriculum is to describe an ideal curriculum, its students at entry, in progress, and at graduation—- and ID identifiy the main punposcé 06 the cummicuEum (emphasis added). the identification of the guiding principles of undergraduate theater arts is the first step in understanding the curriculum. Statement of the Problem The discipline of theater arts includes both academic content and process. That the process portion, the production of plays, is not visible in the published curriculum contributes to the curricular structure of the whole discipline's being not easily discernible. This situation is further complicated by the fact that curriculum theory offers only general guide- lines. Therefore, in order to provide a basis that can be used to make the foundations of theater arts curricula explicit, a more formal structure must be imposed. Such a structure, or curricular rationale, called guiding principles in this study, includes goals (intended outcomes of undergrad- uate theater studies), standards, activities and their purposes (i.e., the production of plays) and the selection of content. To delineate the guiding principles of theater arts programs, I shall use an inductive approach and shall include the following steps: 1. an analysis of educational theater literature, including accreditation standards; 2. an analysis of catalog statements from a representative sample of undergraduate theater programs about goals, standards, play production, and content; 3. in-depth pilot interviews with a sample of ten theater faculty and students about the guiding principles of theater education; 4. the development and administration of a survey of students and faculty in the Department of Theater of Michigan State University (Spring term 1982)--a survey of what they perceive to be the guiding principles of undergraduate theater; 5. a synthesis of the results of the literature review, the catalog review, and the research survey into a cohesive statement; 6. the generation of further questions that must be asked and answered if the principles implicitly guiding undergraduate theater are to be made explicit. Conceptual Background To understand the problem, the unique features of theater department activities should be kept in mind. Theater departments, in general, operate differently from many other academic units. Much of the focus of student activity is on the production of plays. The mounting of a play is a public demonstration of the skill, growth, and competence of the faculty and student body. The demands of a production on a department, on a teacher, or on a student can be massive. And there are often a large number of productions during an academic term or semester. In any given term at Michigan State University, for instance, there may be four faculty-directed adult productions, one faculty- directed children's show, two touring creative dramatic shows, three productions by candidates for the Master's of Fine Arts or the Ph.D., twenty scenes directed by undergraduates, and twenty to thirty scenes acted by undergraduates. A twelve credit student apprentice course may be offered, besides, in which about thirty students devote their energies to technical theater production activities. Thus, such activities, frequently co-curricular, consume a large portion of student and faculty time and, though usually lacking a formal course number, credits or evaluation, are considered an integral part of an undergraduate's education. Assumptions Two assumptions underlie this study. First, undergraduate theater arts programs in universities and colleges operate, of necessity, with guiding principles even though such principles may be implicit. In theater, the "doing" frequently takes precedence over stating the purpose of what is to be done. The fact of the "doing" indicates, however, that there are purposes, although potentially many and different for each participant. Purposes often evolve from the activity itself. Second, guiding principles may be inferred from an examination of the curricular activity. For example, a theater program may emphasize acting and not history. Reasonable assumptions, therefore, can be made about the goals, standards, play selection, and course content that drive the program. A program with an affiliation with a professional performing company probably has guiding principles different from those of a program with a home in the liberal arts and generating few productions. Limitations 1. This study is a descriptive study. It is intended to be hypothe- sis-generating rather than hypothesis-testing. 2. There has been little written about the guiding principles on which educational theater is based and upon which a curricular review might proceed. This paucity is evidence of the difficulty inherent in an analysis of dramatic arts curricula. Therefore, this study proceeds with limited supporting literature. Because theater arts faculty are involved in play production, a demanding co-curricular activity, each play may be considered the equiva- lent of a professional paper. Faculty contributions in this field are plays, rarely papers. This contributes to the scarcity of published material on the guiding principles of undergraduate theater arts programs. 3. This study is not an evaluation of the purpose, structure, or projected outcomes of the Department of Theater of Michigan State University. Nor is it an analysis of the curriculum of this Department of Theater. The survey within the Department is intended to serve as a foundation for raising to an explicit level a number of issues in theater education—-issues that should have a general applicability to undergraduate theater arts programs in the United States. 4. Catalogs have limitations. While catalogs have legal status as contracts, there are often differences between what is listed in a catalog, how faculty interpret and teach the courses listed, how courses evolve over time, and the length of time it may take for a catalog change to appear. Therefore, the material presented in and culled from the catalogs may be somewhat different from the coursework students actually do. Further, catalog formats differ from institution to institution. They differ in specificity and consistency, and many catalogs don't give sufficient information from which to delineate guiding principles. Program differences may evolve because of the particular skills of the faculty, and, as a result, interpretations about guiding principles may reflect faculty interests instead of or in addition to department goals. 10 WSW This dissertation is organized in the following way. Chapter 1. provides an overview of the study, including purposes of the study, rationale, background of the problem, statement of the background, con- textual background, assumptions, limitations of the study, and definitions of commonly used terms. Chapter II. contains the review of the literature. This review is organized by research areas-—goals, standards, play selection and content. Under each of these areas, curriculum and educational theater literature are reviewed and synthesized. Additionally, a review of the catalog and promotional materials of fourteen college and university theater arts programs is included. The methodology of the study is described in Chapter III. This includes a description of the population, survey development (pilot interviews, instrument development and opinions of content experts), pilot tests, data-collection and data-analysis procedures. The results of the study (survey) are summarized in Chapter IV. The results are organized by characteristics of respondents (gender, age, faculty responsibility, previous experience in theater, and goals and am- bitions of the future), research area (goals, standards, play selection and course content), by survey question, respondent age and gender. The findings, conclusions, implications, and recommendations for further research are documented in Chapter V. DEFINITION OF FREQUENTLY USED TERMS academic or classroom activity: formal coursework areas of content or content: material deemed apprOpriate for study and divided into a logical system for study co-curricular: activity important to student learning but not assigned a title or credits or given formal evaluation curriculum: a structured educational process that leads to a selected aim or goal, usually a degree curriculum or curricular analysis: a process that compares a curriculum and its outcomes to its stated goals and objectives; may be under- taken for informational and decisionamaking or evaluative purposes curricular rationale: goals and philosophy that drive the educational process educational theater: theater arts within an educational structure--in this study, a college or a university goals: aims, purposes, intents guiding principles: curricular rationale liberal arts: broad-based, developmental, student-centered learning in which theater arts becomes the means by which content acquisition and personal growth can take place play selection: rationale by which plays for a given season (usually the academic year) at a given instution are picked preprofessional: vocationally-oriented, skill-based theater arts process-based: activities or learning that can occur only when placed in a given structure--in this case, the production of plays production: the mounting of a play standards: levels that determine the achievement of success theater arts: that combination of content areas that, when combined, provide the basis for mounting a production: script analysis, di- recting, acting, costuming, lighting, scene design, properties design, and related technical areas 11 12 References Cronbach, Lee J. and Patrick Suppes. 1969. Research for Tomorrow's Schools Disciplined Inquiry for Education. Toronto: The MacMillan Co: National Academy of Education. Friedlander, Larry and Martin Esslin. 1981. "Theater Arts." In Arthur W. Chickering and Associates. The Modern American College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Miller, Robert F. 1981. "Report of the First New Harmony Conference of The American Research Institute for the Arts." Issues in the Arts in PostSecondary Education. 1. No. 1. (Feb). St Louis: CEMREL. The American Research Institute for the Arts. Organ, Troy. 1958. "The Philosophical Bases for Integration." In National Society for the Study of Education. The Integration of Educational Experience. 57th Yearbook, Part III. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Taba, Hilda. 1962. Curriculum Development Theory and Practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace and WOrld. CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The review of the literature that follows is organized according to the broad areas under consideration: goals, standards, play selection, course content and college and university catalog and promotional materials. Curriculum theorists define curriculum as a structured educational process that leads to a selected aim or goal, usually a degree. A degree holder, in theory, possesses a certain body of knowledge and skills. To understand a specific program and its components, an understanding of curriculum in general is important. According to Calvin B.T. Lee (1966), each discipline defines and structures knowledge and thus its curriculum in its own way. Lynn Lyons Morris and Carol Taylor Fitz-Gibbon (1978, p. 7) state that "educational programs are intended to achieve goals . . . Education seeks to accomplish its goals by means of programs . . . ." George Posner, Jr. (1974, p. 401) made the same observation. "A curriculum . . consists of a series of intended learning outcomes . . .organized into some structural arrangement." The National Society for the Study of Education (1958, p. 5) stated that "an educational experience is one which is selected and planned with one or more definite purposes or ob- jectives in view." S.V. Martorana and Eileen Kuhn (1978, p. 2) defined curriculum as "goal-oriented sets of educational experiences, usually credit hours, leading to a degree in a designated field." Thus, one :method through which to achieve understanding of an educational discipline is by examining its curricular structure and goals. Further, an examination 13 14 of program goals helps provide information through which to understand a discipline's ideas about itself. 22:11: An examination of goals provides an appropriate basis for curricular review. For the purposes of this study, and as defined in the survey instrument, goals are the reason a theater arts program exists, the purpose(s) of its educational program. Based on a general philosophy rationale, goals provide direction for a program. Dressel (1980) suggests that a clear goal statement (guiding principles or curricular rationale) should precede program requirements because program understanding and integration are dependent upon clearly stated goals. Standards, play, and content selection are some of the important operational manifestations of goals for theater arts education. In undergraduate theater arts, program goals can include a wide variety of purposes and frequently reflect great diversity. Burnet M. Hobgood (1964, p. 147) said that "diversity is the rule in college theater programs. The potential range of this diversity is reviewed by Fried- lander and Esslin (1981, p. 342): In some cases, theater studies are pursued as a vocational type of training and aim at producing professional directors, actors, designers and theater technicians. In others, the object— ive is to produce theater scholars and can also be part of train- ing elementary and high school teachers [and] part of a wide general humanistic education for undergraduates, who . . . will be better able to enjoy drama as theater goers . . . . Theater departments also fulfill the function of supplying theater to their communities and therefore provide a vital cultural service to the colleges and universities of which they are a part. It is easy to see that undergraduate theater arts programs can fill a 'variety of needs for a variety of groups. Different from a premedical curriculum, for instance, which prepares undergraduates for admission to 15 to competitive American medical schools, theater arts programs can provide preprofessional, liberal arts and teacher training and/or recreational opportunities. The University College Theater Association (1977, p. 546) defined the goal of undergraduate theater arts programs very broadly. The goal, according to the U.C.T.A., is simply to provide students the opportunity to participate in the production of plays. The focus of these studies may be avocational experience, liberal arts or preprofessional skills training. "An underlying assumption of all these forms of theater studies is that . . . [they] must involve the opportunity for students and faculty to participate in theater production in a variety of ways, as performers, designers, technicians, directors, audience members, and critics. The producing theater is the laboratory for theater studies and is central to all forms of study in the discipline." Thus, it seems the critical element in an undergraduate theater arts program is the production of plays. Classroom or didactic material is secondary. The goal is production activity and involvement in all facets of that activity. Thus, in theater arts, outcomes are very diverse and represent pre- professional, liberal arts, teacher training, general education, and a- vocational pursuits. The single constant is the production of plays. The further discussion of goals in theater arts is divided into preprofessional training, liberal arts and other. Preprofessional training. A preprofessional theater arts program Ihas attributes related to and is organized according to the needs to the ‘professional commercial theater world. Richard Courtney (1980, p. 105) defined preprofessional theater arts training. 16 Within the operation of a [pre]professional programme . . .plans should be made in terms of experience and competencies. Students emerging from such a programme will be expected to master spe- cific practical skills for their livelihood and these the college should provide. The aim of such programs is thus to train future professional theater artists and technicians. Such theater arts program prepares a student to have marketable skills, rather than self-development, knowledge of theater literature, or other dramatic content in general. The Rockefeller Brothers' Panel on the Future of Theater, Dance, Music in America (1965, p. 360) saw educational theater as a source of future theater professionals. ‘ The panel believes that the universities will play an increa- singly important role in the training of professional per- forming artists. This Panel recommended that a vocational model of undergraduate education best serves the students and the profession. Thus, the relationship of the university to the professional world is one in which the university trains its students to achieve the competencies required by the profession. Preprofessional goals provide the basis for a program designed to meet the needs of the profession its students will eventually enter. Students are offered commercially professional opportunities to participate in play production so that their later skills will be competitive in pro- fessional theater. The measure of success of preprofessional training is in the numbers of students who can meet the demands of the professional world . Liberal arts. There are larger, broader goals in higher education ‘which affect and direct individual theater arts programs when such programs are placed in a liberal arts setting. To help provide a context for theater arts goals in liberal arts settings, a definition for liberal arts 17 education follows. The National Association of Schools of Theater NAST Handbook 1980-81 (1980, p. 24) defines liberal arts competencies. These competencies include a. The ability to think, speak, . . . write clearly and effectively . . . [and] to communicate with precision, cogency, and force. b. An informed acquaintance with the mathematical and exper— imental methods of the physical and biological sciences; with the main forms of analysis and the historical and quantitative techniques needed for investigating the work- ings and development of modern society. c. An awareness of other cultures and times. d. Some understanding of, and experience in thinking about, moral and ethical problems. e. The development of value judgments and the ability to per- cieve and expose fallacious reasoning. f. The capacity to explain and defend one's views effectively and rationally. g. Some understanding of and experience in art forms other than theater. Additionally, A.V. Kelly (1977) suggests that such a curriculum considers student needs and goals. Thus, a liberally educated theater arts student has competent communication skills, a sense of self in the world, sound judgment and broadly based artistic appreciation. The focus of a liberal arts education is student development, not narrowly defined vocational skills. Liberal arts education provides a foundation upon which the student may mature as a critical thinker. The assumption of the liberal arts theoretician is that specific vocational skills may be easily added at any time. The function of the arts in a liberal arts setting is particularly important. "The arts . . . are concerned with man's efforts at expression, with meaning and appreciation." (The National Society for the Study of 18 Education, 1958: 110) Thus, an educational program, even one based on a single art form, would be concerned in large measure with goals and learning activities related to expression. Liberal theater arts programs are concerned with using dramatic activities and skills to provide op- portunities for the development of student self—expression as a function of critical thinking, meaning, beauty and self in the world. "One of the basic sources for the development of . . . feelings and attitudes (commitment to human values, respect for rights of others and for human dignity) is (the) experience of the . . . arts as embodiments of man's longing for beauty, harmony and creativity . . . . The . . . arts and democracy are linked by an essential humanism that is Shared by both" (Dennis, 1968, p. 51). To this J.S. Ackerman (1973, p. 225) adds that the "arts provide a disciplined path to knowledge and understanding . . . [and] can also provide recreation." In such a liberal arts philosophy, using an expressive art form through which to educate undergraduate students is an attempt to raise humankind to its noblest aspirations, improve the citizenship of those involved, and provide a means through which learning and insight may be achieved. Thus, in a liberal theater arts program, dramatic activities become the means through which these ennobling endeavors may be approached (Ker- nodle 1949; Downer 1967). Friedlander and Esslin (1981, p. 346) suggest that Drama involves us with mankind, helps us escape from ego-cen- tricity, develops our capacity for intimacy . . . . The wide range of disciplines represented in theatrical activity makes drama an ideal subject for imparting a general education, en- hancing artistic sensibility, and fostering the capacity to work as a member of a team. Specifically, dramatic activities increase interpersonal connections, in- troduce content, provide a basis for general education, improve artistic 19 awareness and sensitivity and provide an opportunity to learn to work with others. Thomas Gressler (1982, p. 12) eloquently describes what theater arts can provide in a liberal arts education. The enlarging of the scope of everyday life, the Opportunity to participate in moments of beauty and universal truth and the recreation of a kind of real world different from the students' own contributions to the ennobling nature of theater arts. There are several obvious reasons for theater's centrality [to a liberal arts program]. First, the re-creation of a significant piece of theatrical literature inherently includes elements of arts and humanities: visual arts, dance, music, literature, psychology, history, philosophy, architecture, etc. Second, theater re-creates in time and space another cultural environment, the understanding of which, through the action of the play, leads to the acquisition of broader perspectives, a more liberal attitude. Third, the environment and the action that takes place in it recreates human activity on the intel- lectual gpd_on the emotional levels. There is no other liberal arts discipline that can claim this kind of whole-human approach. More important than these reasons, however, is the fact that the essence of drama is conflict, the head-on confrontation of differing priorities, value systems, choices. The re-enactment of the events leading to these confrontations reveals value systems and thus, to understand the human complex better, and enables us to "live" several lives at one time . . . This layering of cognitive and affective knowledge toward under- standing, the goals near the peak of education aspirations, makes excellent theater the most potent, all-encompassing, liberal art in the intellectual sphere . . . it represents the essence of the liberal art credo: to educate the whole person toward integration of self and the place of self in the world. Liberal theater arts provides the resources and the opportunities for un- limited learning, growth, and enlightenment. Students are placed in situations in which they continually confront their own lack of knowledge, tfuflr imperfect understanding, and their own systems of values. The con- trtflled conflicts, opportunities for self-expression and skill with body .arud voice provided by involvement in the production of a play challenge 20 the students in a lively, intellectual, social, spiritual and psychological way. The aim of this challenge is that students become more integrated, more tolerant of others and certain of their place in the world. Vocational skills training is specifically not the focus of liberal theater arts. Liberal theater arts is intended to offer students exper— iential learning and developing opportunities without the limitations of preprofessional or "real world" demands. The principle purpose of arts training is not to produce artists but to provide the conditions under which this encounter can become enlightening . . . to introduce inter- ested students to a range of disciplines that offer, apart from professional skills, ways of perceiving the physical and human environment and ways of expressing their percep— tions that are quite different from those which may be gained by reading books, doing experiments, solving problems or writing essays. (Ackerman, 1973: 223) The learning of skills in theater arts becomes a way of achieving growth and insight, rather than an end in and of itself as in the case of pre- professional artistic or vocational training. Theater arts programs in—liberal arts settings provide the means through which students may evolve, to become more sensitive, creative, idealistic, thoughtful and responsible adults. Theater arts programs provide opportunities for the strengthening of the self-concept and the building of self-confidence. Friedlander and Esslin (1981, p. 346) com- mented on how acting as a learning activity provides specific opportunities for personal and interpersonal development. Acting, and participation in theater, can foster the development ment of the whole personality, strengthening self—confidence and independent action in a setting that encourages communal relationships and sensitivity to others. Thus, liberal theater arts programs maintain goals of intellectual, social, spiritual and psychological development for students. Theater arts provides a means for self-expression and an opportunity for 21 participation in ennobling and challenging recreation by involvement with great works of dramatic art. Theater arts in liberal arts settings pro- vide opportunity for directed student maturation as well as a foundation for any further professional or avocational work a student may choose. 95EEE° Other orientations that are perhaps more often components of theater arts programs will be covered briefly. While the following program 'goals are in evidence in the field with some frequency, none have yet achieved the philosophical stance and status of preprofessional and liberal arts training goals. Gould (1953), Richard Courtney (1980), and Friedlander and Esslin (1981) identify a range of psychological and developmental goals theater arts can meet. Gould defined these goals as personality and character development. Friedlander and Esslin identified personality development, spontaneity training, and social skill development. These are positive mental health models, i.e., theater arts are seen as a means through which a student may achieve emotional growth, an increased capacity for empathy, and an ability to relate successfully with others. Courtney adds therapy; suggesting theater arts as a means by which to help students (or clients) resolve problems and move toward better mental health. Gould further adds that theater arts provide a sociological tool for influencing others. In his study of dramatic activity in the United States, he also saw evidence of the function of theater arts as self-perpetuation, the necessity of the discipline to insure its own survival. Courtney added theater arts as a means for teacher education. Friedlander and Esslin added the professionalization of student work habits, lifelong education, and recreation. 22 Summary. Goals in theater arts curricula and programs cover a broad range. These possibilities include preprofessional, liberal arts training, positive mental health activities, therapy, a means of influencing others, teacher training, lifelong education, and recreation. The two most pre- valent are preprofessional training, where students are trained according to marketable standards, and liberal arts training, where students are provided opportunities in which they may become enlightened, more ar- ticulate , more creative, more whole, and better citizens. Theater arts offers a set of learning activities that appear applicable to all of these goals. Standards The discussion of standards is divided into two major sections: background and categories of standards. Background includes the history the nature of the discipline, the diversity of approaches, and faculty judgement. Categories of standards include preprofessional training and liberal arts training. Background. Standards, as defined in the survey instrument for this study, are the levels of achievement that determine success. Standards provide the basis for operational definitions of goals and an objective means by which an individual, course, or program can be evaluated. Standards clarify acceptable performance levels, and increase accountability by making (student) performance criteria public. Emil J. Posavac and Raymond G. Carey (1980) saw standards as useful tools for achieving accountability and documenting goal attainment. Robert Stake (1975, p. 27) argued that educational programs are strengthened by clarifying the purposes of a curriculum "in terms of student behavior" and by specifying 23 what level of activity constitutes "the accomplishments of those programs." Thus, standards are the published level of acceptable performance, in- creasing accountability and helping to document goal attainment. The objective measure standards provide is important in estab- lishing uniformity and fairness, and in eliminating to the extent poss- ible evaluator bias. "Judgements . . .should . . .always [be] made in terms of specific, widely accepted standards--but never in terms of per- sonal judgements independent of such standards." (Specialized Program Evaluator Manual, 1977, p. 11) Standards provide the means of clarifying and objectifying the process of evaluation. History of standards in theater arts. Only recently have theater arts been recognized as a legitimate discipline. Some colonial nonsec— tarian colleges produced a few plays, but sentiment in the denominational colleges was that dramatic activity was frivolous and unhealthy, and so it was frequently banned. In—the late eighteenth century, there was a rise of some dramatic activity and playwriting at a graduate level (notably the 47 WorkshOp taught by George Pierce Baker at Harvard). In tbe early twentieth century, strong leaders in educational theater began to emerge (Frederick Koch at the University of North Dakota and the University of North Carolina, G.P. Baker of Harvard and Yale, Branden Matthews at Columbia, AoM. Greenwood at Cornell, Thomas Wood Stevens at Carnegie Tech, Thomas Dickison at the University of Wis- consin, and E.C. Mabie at the University of Iowa). In the late 19208 and 308, drama activities, as part of speech departments or English departments, began to increase. Public Speaking skills were seen as legitimate vocational skills. 24 In 1933, the Educational Theater Association was formed. Its mission was to promote theater at all educational levels. At this time, there was another surge of quality playwrights (Eugene O'Neill, Elmer Rice, Philip Barry, Maxwell Anderson, Paul Green). Dramatic criticism became a scholarly enterprise. In the late 19508 and the '6OS, colleges and universities (especially liberal arts programs) were growing, as was the legitimacy and frequency of dramatic activity in academia. At this time, dramatic activities moved from English and speech, and drama and/or theater de- partments were established. Thus, theater arts as a respected independent discipline is fairly young, and the quest for standards correspondingly young. The history of that process has been reviewed by Fred Geltner (1980, p. xi, 371) in his extensive treatment of history of standards and accreditation in theater arts. Geltner wrote that "there has been considerable misunderstanding and confusion about standards for theater arts education . . . " and "the educational theater community does not have a clearly articulated attitude toward [established standards]." Courtney (1980, pp. 99-100) suggests that this confusion exists in part because there is a lack of understanding about the discipline. Two basic assumptions have led college and universities down the same moribund path: (a) drama is seen as literature; and (b) theatre is viewed as a combination of various arts. It is my contention that this is unfortunate, that it is based on in— adequate theory and that, in reality, drama exists as a separate discipline, independent of others but directly related to them . . . . Given this theoretical background to the problem, it is little wonder that drama has had such a checquered career in col- leges and universities. Drama as a study has really only existed in this century . . . . Many universities still treat drama as literature only. The few that do not, treat it as a hybrid form and, therefore, study drama through a variety of other intellect— ual constraints: as history, as design or as social criticism. Practical programmes in colleges and universities, on the other hand, deal with drama in separate compartments: there are courses in speech, acting of scenes, lighting, and so on, and the teachers rely on the student to integrate what he has learned. \ .....-- «V..- i - .....- v D.- It I... ‘~~-. 25 Thus, the newness of the discipline, the incorrect idea that drama is either literature or a combination of arts, and the lack of mechanisms for the evaluation of student learning are some of the problems with the es- tablishment of widely accepted standards. In attempting to address this issue of clarifying standards, Oscar Brockett, at the time of his acceptance of the presidency of the American Theater Association, stated: The foremost problem facing the Association was the development of standards and systems of accountability. The necessity for a set of standards for degree programs grows out of three major needs or concerns: 1. there is a lack of common understanding of the definition and functions of some of our most commonly awarded degrees such as the Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Fine Arts, the Master of Arts and the Master of Fine Arts [goals]; 2. many in our profession are convinced that there is likewise a need for clearer and more honest representation of existing programs (for example, the Bachelor of Fine Arts is treated here as a professional training program; it is probable that some departments are offering Bachelor of Fine Arts programs that would be more appropriately labeled as Bachelor of Arts programs) [clear goals which result in accountability]; and 3. if college and university theater programs are to be held accountable for their students, their colleagues, their administrations, and their various publics to articulate what their programs are intended to do and to evaluate their achievements, then standards are needed in order to accomplish that evaluation [standards]. (University College Theater Association, 1977: 545-6) Clearly, Brockett recognizes the need of the profession to address the issue of standards. Historically, theater arts has only been considered a legitimate discipline of study since the early twentieth century. The youth of the discipline, the absense of commonly accepted definitions about theater arts and of theater arts programs have made it difficult to establish standards. The nature of the discipline. The nature of theater arts contributes to the difficulties in establishing clear and widely accepted standards. 26 In theater, the study of plays, script analysis, or theater history is not enough. Students must participate in the production of plays in all capacities (actor, lighting technician, box office manager, audience, critic, etc.). Theodore Shank (1969, p. 9) explains why, for theater arts education to be valid, plays must be produced. Much can be gained by such a study of dramatic scripts, but an understanding of drama as an art has suffered from the assump- tion that, in the absence of the other more ephemeral aspects of the dramatic work, the script is complete in itself . . . This conclusion results mainly from the fact that the script is the only part of the work which endures, but there is the further implication that, if the script is indeed throught of as a complete work of art, the staging of it can only be re- dundant . . . . The fact that dramatic works cannot be pre- served leads to other reasons for the scholar's tendency to focus on scripts rather than on complete works of art. First, a work of dramatic art cannot be frozen at a particular moment for intensive study as one can stop a particular passage in a script and concentrate on it for as long as necessary for a complete understanding. Second, there can be no history of dramatic works in the same sense as there can be history of paintings or of dramatic scripts. Like a musical score, Shank sees a script as a basis for beginning the art- tistic collaboration, but the dramatic artists must add more to the dramatic effort than musicians do to a score. Since a script is only the beginning of a process in which collaborative processes occur, plays must be produced in order for skill and content learning in theater arts to occur. The activities involved in such productions are not easily held to standards. Courtney (1980, p. 78) discusses the difficulties of evaluation in theater arts due to the nature of the discipline. Most drama learnings do not lend themselves to quantitative ev- aluation-that which can be measured. There are three reasons for this. First, multiple learnings occur in dramatic action and it's difficult, if not impossible, to separate out one measureable item without distorting the total picture. Second, drama is essentially temporal. We can normally quantify what is spatial while measuring what exists in time [although such measurement] . . . is of little help. Third, the dramatic pro- cess consists of both inner imagination and outer action, but quantitative evaluation can be concerned only with outer 27 behavior and it can hardly grasp the totality. Further, the plays are communal experiences and produce communal products (Harold Clurman, 1960; Shank 1969; Honor Moore 1977; Friedlander and Esslin 1981). The actors, director, costume, scenic and lighting designers and technicians as well as the audience must come together for a theatrical activity (play) to occur and to be successful. Even an acting scene performed in a classroom has actors, a director (perhaps an actor), a lighting technician, a house manager, and an audience (the teacher and other students). Determining who is responsible for a partic- ular dramatic moment-which may include director, actors, designers, and, technicians-and deciding who should receive what feedback and what grade should be given is challenging. And besides each individual contribution, the combination of all the elements should create something magical and larger than the sum of its parts. Such involvement in production work, its unique layering of "learnings," its brief existence in time and space, its inner and outer processes, and its communal nature makes standard setting a complex problem. Diversity of approaches. In theater arts, perhaps more than in other professions and academic disciplines, academic and creative freedom are held in high regard. In the past, the profession has supported the in- dividuality, creativity, and flexibility of persons and programs by en- couraging diversity and providing theater arts practitioners as wide a latitude in their work as possible. The University College Theater Association (1977, p. 546) in "Minimum Standards for the Accreditation of Theater Degree Programs in Colleges and Universities" states: 28 A major premise of the proposed . . . standards is the concept that education and training in theater takes many legitimate forms . . . . Programs must be provided with the latitude to pursue their goals in varied fashions. Thus, individual and program diversity or latitude are held as a pro- fessionally recognized part of the national theater arts ethics. While diversity serves academic and creative freedom, there are limitations. Gould (1953, p. 4) suggested that the limitations of di- versity or multiple uses for dramatic activity "seemed to pave the way for drama departments to operate without clearly defined objectives in view and without methods consciously employed to achieve them." Thus, diversity manifests itself in the number and kind of educational options offered to students, faculty interest and teaching styles, and program goals and styles. Diversity has served theater arts by providing latitude to programs and individuals. It has served to protect the creative and academic freedoms. Diversity has also contributed to a general lack of focus across programs and confusion about program goals and standards. Faculty judgment. As suggested by the Specialized Program Evaluator Manual quoted earlier, educational or evaluative judgments should always be made in the context of widely accepted standards. Kelly (1977) suggested wide standard acceptance as a means of combating subjectivity in evaluation. In this case, the lack of uniform standards, the naute of theater arts, the value placed on academic freedom and creativity, and the diversity of ap- proaches to theater arts contribute to the difficulties of establishing widely accepted standards. As a result, program and student evaluation have been done on individual faculty bases for the most part. Individual faculty and student diversity in evaluation has been accepted, even if 29 these individuals have been limited in their artistic vision or ability to communicate effectively. Catggories of Standards In general, the University College Theater Association recommended the establishment of minimum competencies when setting standards for theater arts program. These competencies should be based on the professional needs common to artists, scholars, and teachers, and on the shared professional roles of performer, audience member, historian, theorist, and teacher. The format, content, depth, breadth and standards of these competencies are left to the judgment of the individual institution. Students are expected, however, to achieve a basic competence in the areas of 1) theater history, literature, theory, and criticism; and 2) performance, design, and tech- nical theater. Geltner (1980) in his study of theater arts expands on the question of standards by identifying seVeral continua on which these issues may be focused. Each end of the continuum falls into the general category of liberal arts or preprofessional training. They include the training of well-rounded, creative individuals, or the training of performers with excellent technical skills; the training of theater professionals (future producers of theater) or the training of future audiences and consumers of theater; theatrical, vocational training, or academic training. Continua on which specific standards are considered range from well-established standards (frequently considered lock step) to no standards (frequently considered the pinnacle of creativity); regional or national standards; academic or production standards; theater as a means or theater as an end; open or closed admission criteria. Continua involving faculty in- clude practitioners (working professionals) or teaching faculty 30 (professional teachers); individual faculty interests, or a general cur- riculum goal; student needs or faculty specialties. Thus, the question of standards has implications at all levels of curriculum, including admission criteria, faculty selection, curriculum direction, academic program, production efforts, and student needs. Because these continua identify the conflicts most representative of the field and fall into the general categories of preprofessional and liberal arts training, the following discussion will be divided in that way. Preprofessional standards in theater arts. Definitions of prepro- fessional standards in theater arts follows. Courney (1980, p.24) states Colleges preparing students for employment in the professional theater have a simple evaluation question to answer: do the students find employment on completion of the course? . . . This question determines the kind of competencies required. Thus, the demands of the profession, or the activities constituting the professional work are one way of defining preprofessional theater arts standards. The National Association of Schools of Theater provides a set of program standards. Upon completion of any specific program: 1. Students should have achieved a measurable degree of tech- nical mastery in at least one of the traditional or inno- vative techniques which are appropriate to their crafts; 2. They should have developed an effective work process and a coherent set of ideas and goals which are embodied in their work; 3. They should have developed a significant body of skills suf- ficient for evaluation and in level of craft acceptable for public exhibition by the school. NAST defines preprofessional standards in relation to technical skill and 31 demonstrable product. The standards do not include a mention of imagi- nation, enlightenments, problem-solving or critical thinking skills. Both of these facets-marketability and technical skill-can be seen in the following citations. John Houseman (1968, p. 93) in his comments on the opening of the Drama Division of the Juilliard School Actor Training Program said: "We hope that this association [with other Juilliard programs] and the constant example of the techical discipline required of the professional musician and dancer will encourage the students of the Drama Division to accpet the necessity for a degree of vocational ' Vocational skill seldom achieved by theater trainers in this country.’ ‘preparation is a cornerstone of preprofessional standards. William Phillips (1963) argued that theater studies and theater students should be treated with the same respect and support given to football players or that theater arts should be an exclusively liberal arts discipline. Preprofessional standards include marketability and quality of product(ion)s. Jack Morrison (1968) argued that theater programs Should be at- tractive to working professionals in the same way that science programs attract top scientists. Theater must progress and be innovative in order to be vital and attract top students. Phillips and Morrison identified the need to market theater programs and to attract top professional faculty. The Rockefeller Brothers' Panel Report on the Future of Theater, Dance, Music in America (1965, p. 360), saw educational theater as a source of future theater professionals, and urged that academe consider ‘the needs of the profession in designing curriculum and establishing ev- aluation criteria. 32 Those universities that decide to assume a responsibility for professional training must be prepared to adjust their admis- sions policies and curricular requirements as necessary to meet the special needs of students of the performing arts, and they must attract the most highly qualified performing artists as teachers to their faculties. The Rockefeller Brothers' Panel suggests that vocational preparation will best serve the students and profession. Preprofessional standards are straightforward. They include technical competence, demonstration of skill level, marketability; and they are related to the needs of professional theater. Additionally, these standards imply priorities about professional faculty and student recruitment activities. Liberal arts standards in theater arts. A concise definition of liberal arts standards is supplied by Courtney (1980, p. 108). Liberal arts programs aim to produce people who are educated to a specific level in the disciplines they study. Students who take drama or theater as a "major" in such programs are expected to secure a broad basis in the humanities as a whole and drama/theater in particular. They are not expected to secure subsequent employment in the professional theater al- though, of course, some do. Thus, a liberal arts academic program provides a basis for student learning rather than specifically marketable skills. Albert Christ-Janer and Ralph L. Wickiser (1973, p. 56) suggest that liberal arts standards should include the abstract as well as a practical activity and "clear understanding of the nature of art, the creative process and creative imagination." Henry S. Dyer (1973) adds the ideas, form, flavor, and mechanisms of the art form. Robert C. Burkhart (1962, p. 7, 176) suggests the "clarity and precision of [the student's] judgement," which is nurtured through the direction, strength, limitations, and continuity of faculty feedback and interaction with 33 students. He also states that "in art judgements a diverse and relative point of view, as opposed to one that's factual and absolute, is required." Ackerman (1973) adds that students must first gain control of their instrument (body and voice) or medium, then acquire insight into the work done by others in the field. This control and insight provides the basis of artistic criticism and further growth. He points out that such rigorous work may be too demanding for nonmajors. Thus, the broad categories of imagination, creativity, judgment, skill with the instrument or medium and insight are considered appropriate bases for liberal arts standards. There are limitations with liberal arts standards in theater arts. Ackerman (1973, p. 262) identifies some of the prejudices that interfere with the establishment of high artistic standards in the liberal arts. He identifies the following commonly held "unconscious attitudes." -Confusion of creative work with undisciplined self-expression and, by extension, with recreation (the attitude of many aca- demics) or with escape from the pressures of the system (the attitudes of many students) -The loss of confidence in our ability to determine a craftman- ship valid for our time . . . . -The academic tradition that the arts are somehow produced by, and appeal to, physical and emotional functions of the per- sonality quite distinct from intellectual-cognitive functions and therefore that the practice of the arts does not help the student to understand them better and does not significantly contribute to a liberal education. Some negative attitudes about theater arts include its being considered equivalent to play or wild flights of fancy. Since levels of craftsman- ship are difficult to establish, it is sometimes falsely believed that intellectual activity is not considered necessary in theater arts. Such prejudices erode the legitimacy of theater arts. These beliefs are throw- backs to nineteenth-century and earlier thought about theater arts as an academic discipline. Theater arts as a serious, respectable discipline is 34 compromised by such beliefs. In addition to these commonly held prejudices, in liberal theater arts there are other limitations that affect the standards to which the discipline is held. In programs that hold preprofessional standards, admission standards require a demonstrable level of previous skill. Faculty are usually professionally credentialled. These criteria are different for the liberal arts. In liberal theater arts programs, a student must meet only general college or university entrance requirements to be accepted as a theater major. Ackerman (1973) points out that while liberal arts programs might prefer to accept Students with prerequisite knowledge and skills, few high schools in the United States provide an opportunity for such ex- perience. Edward L. Mattil (1968, p. 87) finds "the whole system of secondary . . . education . . . a closed system from which the arts are, for all intents and purposes, excluded." Theater arts in high schools are handled in a haphazard manner, at best. Charlotte Kay Motter (1970, p. 19) finds "the individual [drama] teacher still labor[ing] under the handicap of teaching a subject which many believe requires no training." Thus, the availability and commitment of resources to theater arts acti- vities for high school students is limited and, thus, produces college freshmen who have little or nor dramatic experience or knowledge. Further, students who are skilled or even gifted in performance or production activites but less skilled academically may be penalized by general admission requirements. Dennis and Renate (1968) comment that standardized entrance examinations ignore dimensions of creativity and general cultural appreciation, both of which are important in the liberal arts theory about theater arts. Lewis B. Mayhew (1968, pp. 109, 110) 35 finds that "the normal predictors of academic success and the devices used to screen students in or out of college bear little or no relationship to either performance or creativity in the arts . . . . Achievement in college in such things as artistic, musical, speech and dramatic activities has little relationship to either measured academic potential or to academic ' He also believes that the fine and performing arts attract stu- success.‘ dents who are different from others and who may benefit from other than standard measures of achievement. Thus, standard college admission pro- cedures, while not working against students without prior experience or proven ability, may not provide theater programs any useful information about the skills or aptitudes of incoming students. Standard college admission procedures are believed to handicap students with creative, performance, or production capabilities if the applicants do not have matching academic capabilities. Liberal arts programs haye faculties different from those in pre- professional programs. Since theater arts professionals must be available to work on short notice, they are frequently unable to teach in institutions that cannot accommodate short-term or flexible commitments or in institu- tions located in cites where professional (commercial) theater is unavailable. Students, therefore, must be trained by academicians, who, by the very nature of their commitment to the academic process, are teaching future academic professionals, not commercial theater professionals. The matter is further complicated in that many departments, college, or university priorities are not focuses on faculty at all, but on a par- ticular facility, company of actors, or box-office receipts instead of on artistic or educational needs. Considering liberal arts criticisms of the limitations of undergraduate 36 theater arts preprofesssional training may be useful. Ackerman (1973) considers the limitations of preprofessional training (in undergraduate education) to be the assumption that students should be trained to make their living as artists even though the likelihood that many of those students will actually do so is small. Preprofessional training serves audiences, not students, since a student is trained to be marketable, not necessarily artistic. Preprofessional standards are easier to identify since they involve technical skills and therefore are used in the ab- sence of other more abstract standards. From the perspective of preprofessional programs, the insight prob- lem referred to earlier, the limitations of liberal theater arts standards include the entrance standards, the background of faculty, and the pri- orities of individual programs. Complicating the already difficult matter of standard setting in theater arts are some widely held prejudices about theater. These prejudices include the lack of a clear relationship be- tween creativity and self-discipline, the difficulty of determining craftsmanship standards, and the idea that the arts deal only with the physical and emotional function, not the intellect. Another liability of theater as a liberal art was identified by Ernest R. House (1974) who indicated that liberal arts programs have a problem with evaluation since that evaluation is frequently linked to the survival of the organization. Thus, evaluation is difficult when the results have an impact on the future of the organization. Summary. In general, standards in theater arts are in a relatively young phase since theater arts has been recognized as legitimate discipline only since the early twentieth century. The complexity of the discipline, the diversity of various program orientations, and the dependence on 37 individual faculty judgment contribute to there being a lack of commonly held standards. Preprofessional and liberal arts standards are two basic foundations on which evaluation efforts have been undertaken thus far. Preprofessional standards focus on marketable, technical skills. Liberal arts standards focus on student personal and intellectual deveIOpment, and on enhancing the creative skills of the individual. Play selection The issue of play selection is a critical one to theater arts since the American Theater Association has identified the production of plays as the only element necessary in all theater arts programs. However, limited literature is available on the tepic of play selection. The following discussion reflects the available documentation. The production of plays provides an opportunity through which students may understand the "overall picture" of theater arts curricula, the importance of different curricular components and how those components interrelate, as well as experience firsthand the concpets, skills, and values of the discipline. Taba (1962, p. 421) suggested that the rationale behind this impor- tant curricular event can provide an understanding of the whole curriculum. She suggests that such information would "identif[y] the elements of the curriculum [and] what their relationships are to each other . . . ." The plan behind large curricular pieces is vital to the functioning of the whole curriculum. Tyler (1958), in conjunction with the National Society for the Study of Education, suggested that such curricular organization should provide the learner with an integrated, purposeful, logical program of study. Potential elements of organization include subject matter breadth, depth of difficulty, availability of learning opportunities and experiences in which the "overall picture" is presented or the concepts, skills, and 38 values of the discipline itself. Thus, the production of plays according to curriculum theorists Taba and Tyler provides the learner a basis for learning, understanding and integrating knowledge, as well as experiencing the skills and values of the discipline. J. Cecil Parker and Louis J. Rubin (1966, p. 44) state that "the requirements posed by a process-based curriculum deal primarily with the identification of worthwhile processes to which students should be exposed, the design of instructional strategies that make effective use of the processes, and the realignment of subject matter so that it complements the instructional strategies.‘ Play production is the curricular focal point and activity around which learning occurs. Preprofessional training A preprofessional method for selecting and producing plays would theoretically involve providing students the opportunity to perform in, design, or professionally direct competent productions so that they may "showcase" their talents. At New York University, there are continuous studio productions which are considered the core of the conservatory (or preprofessional) method of study. Each year, the production focus is on different kinds of plays, which feature actors and give an opportunity for in-depth actor training. These plays are selected from original, period, and classical work. Independent study opportunities are available inthe junior and senior years of work in regional and off-Broadway theaters and studios. Another example of the conservatory method can be found in the curr- iculum of the now defunct Meadow Brook Academy at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. In the first year, students worked in courses designed to prepare them for short scenes or tests in character study, performed 39 for fellow students and other faculty. The second year, classes were con- ducted as rehearsals for shows to be produced for the public. The clear focus of all the work at the Academy and the conservatory method is the training of professional theater artists, usually actors. Liberal arts training Liberal arts play selection should theoretically include opportunities for experiential learning, for student growth, and for cast, crew and audience enlightenment and exposure to beauty. Friedlander and Esslin (1981, p. 349) suggest selecting plays that provide students the opportunity to deve10p empathy, for an understanding of people and times different from their own. Academia, they say tends to suffer from an imperialism of the intellect, a one-sided evaluation of the nature and quality of thought-in-the-world. Theater can do much to humanize and refine our understanding of the place and power of ideas. Courtney (1980) adds that dramatic activity should provide students the opportunity to engage in activities appropriate for their current level and potential for growth. He also suggested that such activity offer students the opportunity to attempt and master established competencies, i.e., to learn theater history and criticism by participation in plays and "theatrical events" and receiving structured feedback and supervision from faculty. In some programs, play selection is based upon an integrating theme or genre. Examples of themes may be dramatic history (as at the University of Calgary), or plays may be done in cycles. Queens College of the City University of New York selects plays in six-year cycles and bases its entire yearlong program on the selection. The format includes a compre- hensive study of a playwright, period or country, intensive planning, 40 directing or various learning units toward a single, integrated goal, interdisciplinary approaches to learning, and specific study and classroom work with related workshops. The six-year cycle covers 1) twentieth- century England, Ireland, and America; 2) France; 3) Scandanavia; 4) Ger- many and Central Europe; 5) Italy, Spain, and Southern Europe; and 6) Russia and East EurOpe. Some colleges, like San Francisco State, base play selection and production on the interdisciplinary opportunities such selection might provide to the cooperative efforts of the departments of music, television, radio, and English. Gould (1953, p. 361) summarized the liberal arts rationale for play selection. "While using the student as his material, [the drama teacher] must organize and train [the students] so that the student may (I) carry out his own purpose in creating a work of theater art, (2) develop his own artistic capabilities according to 'good art' standards, and (3) satisfy the educational objectives of a liberal arts major study." Gould believed that good art was good education and that students need to receive training so that they can develop as whole, creative people. The rationale by which a season of plays is selected is a continuation of the guiding principles, goals, and standards of a program. All_play- producing agencies must consider staff, physical capabilities (theater space, set, light, prop, sound, costume, etc.), financial and talent re- sources, immediate past seasons, director skill and preference, and aud- ience attendance records. These are not the philosophical foundations on which plays are selected, but the assets or limitations that affect se- lection regardless of the philosophical bases of a given program. Rationale for play selection covers a wide range of possibilities. Plays may provide students opportunities of experiencing other times and 41 personalities, of developing themselves, and of enhancing their inter- personal skills. Plays may provide students the opportunity to showcase talent. Plays may provide students with the basis for a sequence of learning activities and opportunities of integrating other learning. Plays may also be selected for reasons that have little to do with the students, or simply haphazardly. Clearly, the value of the plays to the curriculum and student learning is so important as to suggest that care- ful attention should be given to selecting them. 'Selection of content The selection of content for any major is based on general college and university requirements, as well as departmental requirements. In- cluded are general education requirements. The requirements, taken together, define the structure of the major, minor, cognates, and electives. This section addresses the major requirements only and will, therefore, not cover the prerequisite base on which major requirements rest. The selection of content in a curriculum represents the purpose of the curriculum and its goals. Kelly (1977) and Parker and Rubin (1966) suggested that a logical system for selecting content for a major is influenced by what the discipline considers the fundamental purpose of education and how knowledge in the field is structured. At worse, content represents a patchwork of courses that faculty offer as a means of teaching their specialized and perhaps esoteric interests, but which are unrelated to an overall plan. Thus, content represents decisions made about the nautre of knowledge, what students need to learn from the discipline's perspective, and the goals of the program. Friedlander and Esslin (1981, p. 351) identify the critical element of understanding the unique nature of theater arts education. 42 There is . . . a central core of purely theoretical, dramatic knowledge that everyone who works in theater must possess . . This amounts to . . . the skills required to read a dramatic text in such a way that the performance can be fully and graph- ically imagined in all its aspects . . . . To achieve mastery of this skill, pll_members of the theatrical team . . . must at one time or another have been involved in all aspects of the production process. Basic to every theater program, then, is script analysis and practical experience that might have an effect on or enrich any facet of that ana- lysis. A primary set of skills important to theater arts are acting skills (David Robert Kanter 1976; University College Theater Association, 1977; Bill Waack 1979; Friedlander and Esslin 1981). Friedlander and Esslin (1981; p. 348) explain the importance of acting skills. Acting is in fact the paradigmatic theatrical activity, for theater primarily exists in the performance of texts, and from the performance spring those qualities that are unique to theater . . . The act of acting is central to theater studies. Acting requires a unique combination of intellectual, emotional, and physical aptitudes. The actor uses his own body as his expressive in- strument, and hence the training of the body . . . . These physical factors are at the service of a creative imagination and an analytical mind . . . . The actor, as an interpretative artist called upon to infuse life into the text provided by an author, must understand the structural principles upon which the play as a whole is built. He must graSp its rhythm, its in- herent poetic pattern and style. There is also, of course, im- provisational acting, in which the actor is, as it were, his own poet. Training for acting is the means through which most learning in theater arts happens. Acting is a technically demanding, creatively challenging, learning-centered activity. Shank (1969) and Friedlander and Esslin (1981) suggest appropriate content for theater arts courses include teaching the skills to create art from nonaesthetic materials and gaining control of that medium. Such art could include the areas of acting, costuming, lighting, scenic or properties 43 design, or any of the related dramatic areas. These areas generally re- quire the execution of skills, like painting, voice, or electrical skills and thus contribute to the gaining control of a given medium. Some authors (Dennis and Renate 1968; Christ-Janer and Wickiser 1968; Shank 1969; University College Theater Association 1977; Courtney 1980) suggest that self-kn0wledge, experience, and opportunities of de- veloping in an environment that promotes creativity are necessary for the foundation upon which to develop a theater arts program. Many consider theater history, literature, theory and criticism important areas of Study (Shank 1969; University College Theater Association 1977; Friedlander and Esslin 1981). Courtney (1980) and Friedlander and Esslin (1981) added dramatic aesthetics. Friedlander and Esslin and the University College Theater Association added directing and leadership skills. Design skills were considered important by Friedlander and Esslin and the University College Theater Association. Technical skills were identified by Friedlander and Esslin and the University College Theater Association. Friedlander and Esslin suggested stage managing, theater administration, and creative writing. The University College Theater Association added access to plays as an audience member. The selection of course content is a manifestation of a discipline's primary purpose of education. In theater arts, most authors agree that acting is a primary skill. Academic work should include dramatic history, literature, theory, and criticism. A preprofessional curriculum includes technical skills and marketable knowledge. In liberal theater arts, an experientially-based curriculum is important to most. For the most part, additional content areas identified are skills or knowledge required in 44 the production of plays. Summary. In programs consistent with preprofessional and liberal arts training, the following examples would be appropriate. A prepro- fessional program whould have content aligned with skills and content required of a working professional (e.g., acting or design skills, de- velopment of a portfolio, etc.). Liberal arts programs might provide opportunities for self-knowledge based on experiential learning (e.g., conceptualization, development of individualized projects, problem solving, etc.). thus, selection of content is logical and consistent when compared with stated goals and standards. Undergraduate Theater Arts Programs This review consists of a small sample of undergraduate colleges and universities that offer theater arts baccalaureate degrees. It in- cludes standard academic catalog and promotional materials which are sent to prospective students. This review is not a comprehensive review of all or even a statistically selected sample of undergraduate theater arts program.in the United States. Rather, these programs represent a range of undergraduate institutions that are similar or dissimilar to Michigan State University. Because of the differences in catalog formats from institution to institution, how courses are listed, described, and taught, and the varying amounts of information included in these materials, this discussion will, of necessity, be based on limited information. While catalog and promotional materials from colleges and universities give varying amounts of useful information, they do provide one method of ascertaining program contents. This is what the National Association of Schools of Theater, in its attempts to standardize and professionalize 45 theater arts curricula, has recommended in its Handbook (1980, p. 21). The descriptive literature of an institution shall clearly state and accurately reflect the purpose and goals of the school as related to curricula, faculty, facilities, and accomplishments. This information must be clearly evident in all catalogues and promotional materials. For specific programs offered, the institution shall publish clear statements concerning the entrance requirements, objectives, level, and completion re- quirements. Thus, catalogs should provide an adequate basis for understanding pro- grams. Because the NAST recommendations suggest an ideal standard and one most colleges and universities under review do not completely achieve, material which addresses relevant issues will be quoted or interpreted when possible. Missing information will be so indicated. Three standard references identifying information about colleges and universities were used in selecting college and university office undergraduate theater programs. These references were: The College Blue Book; Degrees Offered by College and Subject, Barron's Profiles of American Colleges Vol. 1 Descriptions of Colleges; and Gene R. Hawes's Comprehensive Guide to College. The College Blue Book provided a list of degrees and majors offered by each college. From these I selected Bachelor of Arts programs in Drama, Theater, Theater Arts and combinations of those. Barron and Hawes each provided a different set of criteria by which I then ranked colleges. Using both sets of criteria, I developed a balanced, cross-referenced list of colleges and universities. Since the site of the current study is Michigan State University, I selected an equivalent number of colleges and universities which Barron and Hawes rated higher, equal to or lower than Michigan State University in all categories. Appendix A describes criteria for ranking colleges and unversities according to Barron and Hawes. Appen- B Shows the ratings according to Barron and Hawes. 46 The colleges and universities I selected were Boston University, College of Santa Fe, Indiana University, Mars Hill College, Marywood College, Miami University of Ohio, New York University, Seton Hill College, University of Oklahoma, University of Southern California, University of Wisconsin at Madison and Washington University in St. Louis. I added Carnegie-Mellon University because it was the first college in the United States to have an undergraduate theater arts program. This catalog review will cover goals, standards, play selection and content. In addition, I identify academic location of department, quali- fications of faculty (academic, professional), type(s) of degrees and majors. The findings are summarized by categories previously described. To review, preprofessional programs are designed to prepare students to be marketable in the professional commercial theater world. Liberal arts programs pro- vide experiential learning opportunities through which students can learn content and mature into more creative, responsible adults. Goals of College and University Theater Departments One set of goals is represented by preprofessional training. Such training aspires to produce commercially marketable theater artists and technicians. Boston University, Carnegie-Mellon University, New York University, and the University of Southern California have such goals. At Boston University in Boston, Massachusetts, the Department main- tains close ties with the professional-commercial theater community through the selection of artists-in-residence, affiliation with the Hartman Theater Company of Stanford, Connecticut, and the League of Professional Theater Training Programs. In addition to skill training, students are offered opportunities to develop working relationships with commercially successful theater artists. 47 Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, aims to educate and develop professional artists for the theater in all phases of theatrical training and expression, to take an institutional leader- ship role in developing special artistic projects, and to contribute significantly to the culture of Pittsburgh and the nation. The institu- tion defines its mission as national, state, and city artistic leadership as well as the formation of individual artistic leaders. New York University, in New York City, states that its goals are distinctively preprofessional and this is demonstrated by its very com- petitive entrance standards. The University provides a broad knowledge base. In junior and senior years, acting training is completed in studio setting in New York City. The University takes full advantage of pre- paring students for the carefully cultivated commercial opportunities in New York, the city with the largest number of professional theaters and theater groups in the nation. The University of Southern California in Los Angeles, is prepro- fessional. The school's professional degree programs aim for the highest level of artistic competence, combined with an understanding of the status and function of the performing arts in today's society . . . . With the remarkable growth of Los Angeles as an international center for the arts, the school has acquired an enviable reputation for attracting artist-faculty and scholars of great distinction, and students who aspire to the highest academic and artistic standards. (University of Southern California, 1981: 9) The school trains professionally-minded aspirants. And the school is located in the film and television production capital. Thus, preprofessional goals offer students the opportunity to learn commercially marketable skills, to train with commercially successful artist-faculty in a location that provides access to a strong professional 48 theater community. Another set of goals are those related to liberal arts training. Liberal arts goals offer theater arts students the opportunity of personal growth through structured learning experiences and an experiential method through which to approach learning. Schools with liberal arts goals in- clude Indiana University, Marywood College, Michigan State University, Seton Hill College, the University of Wisconsin in Madison, and Washington University. At Indiana University, "the aim of the program in Theater and Drama is to prepare graduates who have a knowledge of representative plays from all periods, of theater history, and of the theoretical foundations of drama and the theater arts, and who are capable of applying this knowledge in production." Indiana University maintains the classroom and stage as equally important educational tools. Using the study of dramatic litera- ture as the foundation for a curriculum is one of the methods of the liberal arts. Marywood College in Scranton, Pennsylvania, focuses on the communi- cation process as its goal-understanding, appreciating, developing, and improving personal and teaching skills. The all-woman, Roman Catholic college utilizes a multi-media approach to teaching communication. The education of the "whole person" receives careful attention at Marywood. The Department of Theater at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan, states that its goals are: "educating the whole person, developing not only a theater artist and craftsman but a well-rounded human being who can enjoy all aspects of being in our culture." (Michigan State University, 1981: 1) An aesthetically skilled, well- educated practitioner and consumer of theater appears to be the goal at 49 Michigan State University. The education of a "well-rounded human being" is a cornerstone of a liberal arts approach to theater arts. Seton Hill College in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, provides experiential learning as a way of acquiring knowledge of history, literature, and com- munication. Theater arts is used as a way toward the understanding and integrating of other disciplines. Thus, the experiential basis of theater arts training is used to provide the means through which an undergraduate can learn content from other disciplines. The University of Wisconsin in Madison has as its focus dramatic literature and the realization of that dramatic literature on stage. The emphasizing of understanding dramatic literature rather than the empha- sizing of skills required to mount such production means that this program is based on the liberal arts. Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, maintains that a strong liberal arts foundation is the best preparation for any career, including professional work in the theater. This suggests a developmental academic structure through which students may learn content, mature into knowledgeable and responsible adults, and prepare for further study, either graduate school or specific career training. Evidence of liberal arts goals in colleges and universities include an academic basis of the study of dramatic literature, the education of the whole person, a broadly—based theater arts training intended to provide the foundation for further study, to educate informed consumers of theater and usually include an experiential approach to learning. The College of Santa Fe, Mars Hill College, Miami University, and the University of Oklahoma have a blend of preprofessional and liberal arts goals. 50 The College of Santa Fe, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, holds as its goal professional performance in theater, preparation for graduate school, and development of an appreciation of the performing arts. The College offers: "an integrated liberal and professional education based on Christian values." Except for the performance goal, the stated goals and philosophy of this college are liberal arts based. Mars Hill College in Mars Hill, North Carolina, identifies four goals. They are to prepare students for professional careers in theater; to provide avocational, liberal arts performing opportunities for nonmajors; to offer cultural opportunities to the campus and community; and to com- plement and to supplement the other departments in the college. While Mars Hill states that it offers training for professional careers, the open relationship it maintains with nonmajors and other departments suggests the program is more likely to be liberal arts. Truly prepro- fessional programs focus their attentions exclusively on the training of majors and cultivating the commercial opportunities. Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, focuses on the importance of productions, letting students determine whether their emphasis will be scholarly or preprofessional. Such a philosophy statement begs the question of goals. It appears that while Miami University's orientation is more strongly academic, it wishes to appeal to both the preprofessional and academic interests of students. This philosophy may also follow the liberal arts standard of encouraging student self-determination without dictating student direction. The University of Oklahoma in Norman, Oklahoma, holds "professional studio training in the arts," but tries to avoid an overly narrow special- ization. The description cOntains elements of both liberal arts and 51 preprofessional training. It is hard to say whether this school is pre- dominantly preprofessional or liberal arts in nature. Summary. Undergraduate theater arts programs with preprofessional goals included Boston University, Carnegie-Mellon University, New York University, and the University of Southern California. These programs intend to produce commercially marketable theater artists and technicians and are located in commercial theater centers. Progams with liberal art goals include Indiana University, Marywood College, Michigan State Uni- versity, Seton Hill College, the University of Wisconsin, and Washington University. These programs aim to educate the whole person, provide a strong academic base on which students may later add further training in graduate school, and teach cultural awareness. The College of Santa Fe, Mars Hill College, Miami University, and the University of Oklahoma have a combination of preprofessional and liberal arts goals. They include both strong academic work and preprofessional production opportunities. Standards of College and University Theater Departments To review, standards, as defined in the survey instrument, represent the level of achievement that determines success. Preprofessional stan- dards include artistic and technical skills and are generally measured by the needs of the profession. Liberal arts standards include student personal and academic maturation and graduate-school preparation. Boston University, Carnegie—Mellon University, the University of Oklahoma, New York University, and the University of Southern California have preprofessional standards. Boston University's are stated in its School of Theater Art brochure. "Every aspect of the program is measured by professional standards." The faculty are professional theater artists who have credentials in the 52 content areas in which they teach. The professional placement record of its graduates is excellent. Carnegie-Mellon University states preprofessional standards: "We seek to attract students who are talented, dedicated, and capable of the rigorous self-discipline required of the true theater professional. En- trance to the department is highly competitive, and students are expected to be able to live up to the department's [professional] standards." The high level of preprofessional behavior and performance required of a student in such a program is clearly stated. Students must enter the program with prerequisite skills, a definitive vocational direction, and a strong commitment. At the University of Oklahoma, the programs of the School of Drama are "preprofessional" and "conservatory-like." Although the program is labelled preprofessional, when compared with the definition of preprofes- sional, the University of Oklahoma's standards include more liberal arts and strongly academic components than preprofessional. Here is the statement of Theater Program Standards at New York University: We are a professional training program, which means that in every department there is a demanding full-time curriculum, the requirement and standard of which all students must meet while demonstrating continuing progress toward professional status . . . . This is not a place to discover if you have talent, or to select what work interests you at the moment. Like Carnegie-Mellon, a serious attitude, prerequisite knowledge and career commitment, are required by preprofessional students who are en- gaging in NYU's rigorous program. In the University of Southern California's Bulletin. We are told that "those who meet the demanding standards of the school, by striving both to master their craft and to expand their intellectual awareness, 53 will embark upon their subsequent careers knowing not only 393 the arts function in society, but also 32y," Further, "a distinguished faculty including a rich reservoir of professionals working the field, guide students in all phases of dramatic art . . . . [Students are also pro- vided] constant exposure to a variety of high-quality professional activ- ities to complement their academic studies." Thus, the University of Southern California demands of its preprofessional students an intellectual attitude and an artistic vision of leadership. Universities with preprofessional standards statements are those with preprofessional goals statements, with the addition of the University of Oklahoma. Liberal arts standards are reflected by the same colleges (Indiana University, Marywood College, Michigan State University, Seton Hill College, the University of Wisconsin, and Washington University) that identified liberal arts goals, with the addition of Miami University-- which had preprofessional and liberal arts goals and liberal arts stan- dards. Indiana University maintains liberal arts standards. Its program has a strong production emphasis. "The study of theater and drama as a humanistic discipline and the practice theater and drama as a performing art insures I.U. graduates that they are prepared for work in theater wherever this work may be undertaken." This curriculum, defined as humanistic, uses drama as the basis for enabling encounters with beauty, truth, and the values of these and other times and places. The performing aspect provides the means for this experimental learning. At Marywood College, individualism of education is encouraged. Pro- fessional internships are arranged. A thesis and comprehensive examination are required. Students are held to published, rigorous academic standards 54 and carefully prepared for the possibility of graduate school. These are clearly liberal arts standards. Miami University states that "the degree program develops a compre- hensive background in dramatic art while allowing students to emphasize aspects of theater production or scholarship as they desire." Because it advertises a "quality educational theater" and does not identify itself as preprofessional or liberal arts, the University appears to maintain liberal arts standards while appealing to students' professional interest. Michigan State University holds liberal arts standards while main- taining an extensive production schedule. The Department has a graduate production company, the Performing Arts Company, but undergraduates may audition for productions. A liberal arts program with an extensive pro- duction schedule can appear to be preprofessional in focus or can, by the nature of all the production activity, shift the focus from student per- sonal and academic to department production goals. Seton Hill College is a liberal arts women's college that offers a program for the professional aspirant and boasts of professionally skilled academic and artist faculty. "The Theater Department encourages the highest standard of academic and theatrical achievement. This is evidenced by the fact that a high percentage of alumni have been ad- mitted to graduate programs in advanced training careers." Graduate school may be taken as a liberal arts goal and thus these departmental standards, while suggested as somewhat preprofessional, are probably liberal arts. The University of Wisconsin advertises the range of theater training from professional to teaching to community theater to personal confidence building. It is the only cOllege in which more than twice the credits 55 Outside theater must be taken by majors to avoid overspecialization. The wide range of goals and the program requirements give evidence of academic liberal arts program standards. At Washington University, "the Performing Arts Area believes that one of the primary resources of a theater artist is a disciplined and resourceful mind and that is best developed within the liberal arts pro- gram of a first-rate university." Students are encouraged to undertake special projects relating to their own interests and skills. Thus, Washington University maintains liberal arts standards by offering a curriculum designed to challenge students' intellectual, problem-solving and critical-thinking skills, and by encouraging students to be self- determining in pursuing independent projects related to their own in- terests and skills. The mixture of liberal arts and preprofessional standards is maintained by the College of Santa Fe, and Mars Hill College. At the College of Santa Fe, students in Theatre have a choice of two degree programs. The more intensive Bachelor of Fine Arts (BFA) Degree is earned by following a clearly defined professional program in Theatre. Admission to the professionally-oriented degree program is limited to those students who demonstrate excellence or the potential for excellence . . . There is a periodic review of the student's development for retention in the program. Graduates . . . usually are successful . . . in professional regional theaters or in university graduate programs in theater . . . . In the Bachelor of Art (BA) Degree program, students pursue a concentrated course of study in Theater as part of a general program in the humanities. This BA program is directed toward students who want to acquire a traditional liberal arts education before specializing in Theatre, or who have an avocational interest in Theatre. Providing opportunities for academic or skill-based learning, admission and retention auditions, graduates in graduate schools and regional thea- ters, and both BA and BFA degrees is evidence of standards that are both 56 preprofessional and liberal arts. Mars Hill College maintains its standards through a set of ten competencies in the areas of dramatic literature, criticism and theater history, in technical theater and design, and performance. Students are expected to be knowledgeable in all areas of theater, achieve four competencies each-in literature, in techical and design, and two in performance. Here, for example, is Competence V. in "Theater Arts and Speech": "A student knows the aesthetic element of design and the dif- ferent theories of scene design; he is able to render scene design in a variety of forms and styles, and he knows the various ways to implement ' Possessing some minimum amount of knowledge and skill in scene design.‘ a given area provides the basis of liberal arts standards. By comparison, preprofessional standards for this design competence might include ad- mission standards, the development of a portfolio or study with a com- mercially successful individual who would offer the student the opportunity to develop a marketable level of skill. While competencies are liberal- arts based, the College cosponsors preprofessional opportunities through the Southern Appalachian Repertory Theater (SART) where students may ap- prentice and intern. Many colleges have clearly preprofessional or liberal arts programs. Some college and university theater arts programs have a combination of preprofessional and liberal arts standards. Varying amounts of classroom work, production experience, individually-determined projects, and pro— fessional opportunities provide the components for challenging academic and production work for students. Because theater arts curricula must have an experientially-based component (production), the issue of standards must be addressed at several levels. Depending on the standards, a single 57 activity may be preprofessional, liberal arts, or a combination. Summary. Standards in the undergraduate theater arts program under investigation fall into three categories: preprofessional, liberal arts, or mixed. Having preprofessional standards are Boston University, Carnegie-Mellon University, the University of Oklahoma, New York Univer- sity, and the University of Southern California. These schools featured commercially successful faculty, competitive entrance requirements, prerequisite knowledge, preprofessional opportunities, and the expectation of leadership from graduates. Having liberal arts standards are Indiana University, Marywood College, Seton Hill College, the University of Wisconsin at Madison, and Washington University. These schools featured theater arts as a experiential means through which to learn drama, self- confidence, self direction, critical thinking and problem solving. Some require theses, comprehensive examinations, and other academic rigors that prepare students for graduate school. Having a combination of pre- professional and liberal arts standards are the College of Santa Fe, and Mars Hill College. These programs offer a combination of preprofessional and liberal arts opportunities. Play Selection of College and University Theater Departments The selection of plays for performance tells something about the rationale (or guiding principles) of the curriculum. Obviously, many factors, in addition to curricular rationale, contribute to a selection of a season of plays: director preference and skills, number, size and availability of stage(s), actors, designers, and technicians who make up the talent pool, previous seasons and potential commercial success are examples. 58 How plays are selected cannot always be reliably determined from catalogs and promotional material. Some identify a play-selection ra- tionale, some list past seasons, and some do not mention this issue at all. The opportunities provided for the training of preprofessional students is one basis for play selection and treatment. This is some- times called a conservatory or showcase approach. The schools clearly promoting such a philosophy are Boston University, Carnegie-Mellon University, New York University, and the University of Southern California. Boston University allows only students of the Theater School to audition for Main Stage and studio productions. Plays include classics and contemporary works. Boston University hosts the Boston University Theater, whose productions are directed, designed, and sometimes per- formed in by professional theater artists. Many graduates are major industry award winners. Carnegie-Mellon University maintains a rigorous production schedule in addition to classroom and studio work. Four to six classic, modern, and musical productions are mounted in the Kresge Theater each year. Eight senior-directed, five MFA candidate full-length productions, and thirty one-acts are produced in the Studio Theater. In addition, there is a new Playwright Festival, the contestants of which are judged by a nationally recognized panel of experts. New York University maintains a continual and rigorous production schedule, the purpose being to showcase student talent. In the first year of study, students train in and perform classical works; in the second year, modern. At the University of Southern California, students are in constant 59 production, either in the studio, classes, or performance projects. In the large theater, the Bing Theater, there are four productions every year. The goal is that the public performances should be of sufficient quality to be competitive with the professional theater in the area. Thus, a preprofessional play selection rationale includes showcase op- portunities for student talent. This production work is the focus of student learning activities. Using theater arts as a means of achieving knowledge and under- standing through dramatic activity productions and artistic (performance) training is a liberal arts approach to learning. Schools with clearly stated liberal arts play selection criteria are Mars Hill College, Mary- wood College, Seton Hill College, the University of Oklahoma, and Washington University. At Mars Hill College, the Department of Theater Arts and Speech offers a "balanced program of plays representing various periods and genres, as well as styles or productions." One production a year is an opera produced in collaboration with the Department of Music. At Marywood College plays produced include "major drama productions representing plays from classical and contemporary theater literature, including musicals." At Marywood, the primary focus of production activity are plays representing quality dramatic literature. Seton Hill College offers productions as a complement to its academic program. This complement includes "three or four full-length, fully mounted productions, ranging in styles from classical tragedy to musical comedy . . . five to ten one act and four to eight full-length experimental productions." frhmt productions complement the curriculum is a liberal arts feature. 60 At the University of Oklahoma, productions are "drawn from the world's best dramatic literature and musical comedy, including original scripts and comtemporary material, [and] are seen by more than 30,000 people each year." Again, the focus on excellent drama literature sug- gests a liberal arts rationale. Washington University's Edison Theater has a rotating system where faculty and students may direct, choreograph, and perform frequently. Experiential learning that features Opportunities to take artistic and personal risks in an environment protected from commercial realities are Offered to students who have enthusiasm and energy, but may lack artistic training. Interdisciplinary productions are encouraged, as are short- term professional employment Opportunities for students when touring road shows perform there. Liberal arts rationale for play selection features quality dramatic literature as its foundation. Student learning and developing rather than commercial concerns are the basis for such production work. Ex- periential learning through production activity provides the means Of achieving knowledge and growth. The remaining colleges and universities have either a combination of artistic training and liberal arts purposes, maintain a balance be- tween plays appropriate for students and their commercial success, or do not Offer an easily discernible rationale. The College of Santa Fe has a professional artist or "patron saint," Greer Garson, after whom the performing arts center was named, and main- tains an artist-in-residence program. The College gives students Op- portunities to perform with professionals. The main stage features classical and contemporary plays. Additionally, there are professional 61 internships at the Santa Fe Opera and other summer stock companies and a touring summer MObile Theater Company that performs bilingual drama and musical theater. Schools without clear statements Of how plays are selected include the College Of Santa Fe, Indiana University, Miami University, Michigan State University, and the University of Wisconsin. Indiana University has three theaters—-a main stage and a studio and the affiliated Brown County Playhouse, which has winter and summer seasons. According to the promotional brochure, the choice of plays is governed in part by a sensitivity to the diverse tastes of potential audiences and also reflects "a commitment to educate student artists through art which is evocative and demanding." This suggests a balance between commercial and artistic values. Michigan State University selected seasons representing a cross- section Of classical work, modern, musical, Asian, and commercial se- lections. An arena and small studio theater are maintained for experi- mental and student productions. There was nO statement Of play-selection rationale for Miami University or the University of Wisconsin. Summary. The rationale of play selection is more difficult to i- dentify than goals and standards. Programs with a showcase, conservatory in preprofessional rationale include Boston University, Carnegie-Mellon University, New York University, and the University of Southern California. Programs that feature the experiential-based learning Opportunities provided by production activities (liberal arts) are Mars Hill College, Marywood College, Seton Hill College, the University of Oklahoma, and washington University. Programs with a combination or integrated play selection 62 rationale include the College Of Santa Fe, Indiana University, Miami University, Michigan State University, and the University Of Wisconsin. Since production activities provide the spine around which all theater arts activity is organized, the identification Of the rational Of play selection is an important step in determining guiding principles of an undergraduate theater arts program. Areas of Content in College and Universiterheater Departments Major content area emphases give a clue to curricular priorities. Content selection for the pursuit of a major is based on general uni- versity and college requirements, which include general education, major, 'minor, cognate, and elective courses. This discussion covers only major requirements. Following is an evaluation Of the major course listings Of the colleges and universities under consideration. Courses are divided into the categories Of performance training; technical and design training; children's theater and creative dramatics; theater history, literature, dramatic theory, and criticism; adminiStrative and management; and other. These figures represent all available courses, not necessarily required sequence Of courses for given majors or minors. In a few cases, production work is listed under a course title, but most did not list production work as a course. (The material that follows is summarized in Table 2.1 and Appendix C.) At Boston University, 58% Of the courses were in technical and design areas. Performance training constituted 32%. Theater history and literature constituted 9%, and 1% was administrative and management. At Carnegie-Mellon University, technical and design courses were 41%; performance training skills courses represented 40%; theater history, 63 literature, and criticism 16% of the total coursework. Three percent were administrative. At the College of Santa Fe, courses in technical and design areas were 40%, performance training amounted to 34% and 19% were in theater history and literature. Seven percent were oriented to administration and management. At Indiana University, 33% were in technical and design; 31% in performance training; 31% in literature, history, and criticism; and 5% were in children's theater or creative dramatics. There were no administrative or theater management courses. Additionally, there is a black theater program and some emphasis on playwriting. Mars Hill College, with competencies and retention auditions, has 80% performance training courses and 10% each in technical and design and history, literature and criticism. Marywood College has 55% performance training coursework; 23% history, literature, theory, and criticism; 15% administrative and management; and 7% technical and design. At Miami University, 42% of the courses are in performance training; 28% in technical and design; 26% in theater literature, history, theory, and criticism; and 2% each in children's and administrative and management courses. 'Michigan State University's courses included 35% performance training; 33% technical and design courses; 16% theater history, literature, theory, and criticism; 13% children's and creative dramatics; and 3% management and administration. Of the courses New York University Offers on campus, 50% are in theater history, literature, theory and criticism; 25% in performance 64 training; 12% in playwriting and writing; 7% in technical and design; and 6% in administration and management. The preprofessional training classes are held on location at other sites and studios not represented in these figures. At Seton Hill College, 45% of the classes are performance training; 33% technical and design; 21% theater history, literature, theory, and criticism; and an occasional other class, including children's theater. At the University of Oklahoma, 45% of the available coursework is in technical and design; 25% in performance training; 10% in theater history, literature, theory, and criticism; 6% in children's and creative dramatics; 3% in administration and management; and 11% in other (special projects, playwriting, etc.). There is a preprofessional semester Opportunity. At the University Of Southern California, 48% Of the coursework is offered in performance training; 27% in history, literature, theory, and criticism; 22% in technical and design; 1.5% in children's and creative dramatics; and 1.5% in administration and management. At the University of Wisconsin at Madison, 60% of the classes are in theater history, literature, theory, and criticism; 28% in technical and design; 8% in performance training; and 4% in children's theater and creative dramatics. At Washington University, 54% of the coursework is Offered in theater history, literature- theory and criticism; 32% in performance training; 10% in technical and design; and 4% in administration and management. When a cross-section of programmatic evidence of theater arts curricula is reviewed, the match between goals, standards, play 65 selection and content may be considered for prOgram consistency. At Boston University, Carnegie-Mellon University, New York University, and the University of Southern California, all indicate that program goals, standards, and rationale for play selection are preprofessional. (It would be reasonable to assume that across schools, patterns of course- work might reflect such trends.) Figures for coursework frequency do not support such the assumption that trends emerge from examining coursework. For instance, in these institutions, performance training ranges from 25 to 48% of the total coursework available. Technical and design courses range from 22 to 58%. Theater history, literature, theory, and criticism range from 8 to 50%. Administrative management courses account for 1.5% to 8%. Additionally, New York University Offers 12% of its course work in playwriting. The University of Southern California is the only preprofessional school with coursework in children's and creative dramatics (1.5%). Exclusively liberal arts programs include Marywood College, Seton Hill College, and Washington University. The amount of performance training coursework ranges from 32 to 55% in the several institutions. Technical and design courses range from 7 to 33%. Theater history, literature, theory, and criticism courses range from 21 to 50%. Ad- ministrative and management courses range from 0 to 16%. The College of Santa Fe, Indiana University, Mars Hill College, Miami University, Michigan State University, the University of Oklahoma and the University of Wisconsin have some mixture of preprofessional and liberal arts goals, standards, and rationale for play selection. The range across areas of available coursework includes 8 to 80% performance training, 10 to 45% tectnital and design, 10 to 60% history, literature, 66 theory and criticism, 0 to 6% administrative and management, 0 to 6% children's theater or creative dramatics, and O to 15% other. Summary. There is a striking range of available coursework across institutions in all content areas. The figures identifying content area emphasis reflect great diversity across programs and thus in the understanding of preprofessional and liberal arts guidelines for schools that use such labels. The review of the theoretical and empirical literature about the guiding principles of undergraduate theater arts education provides strong evidence that the theater arts curriculum is in disarray. Goal and standard statements, philosophies of play selection rationale, and selection of content are varied and frequently problemmatic. The two definitions, preprofessional and liberal arts training, provide some basis around which to build discussion, but these ideas have been se- lected for their frequency not for their statistical validation. Thus, using as much as possible from the literature, this study proceeds from a review of published materials to pilot interviews with faculty and students in theater arts in attempting to delineate the guiding principles of theater arts education. 67 ueoemwmcma .OOfiumuumwcprm Nu ouaumHOuHH Nmfi wcwcemuu OoamEuOmuoa Nam ouauxfis ousuxfie ouauxfis Om mucmm cwfimov a Sumo Nos mo owOHHOU uroEmecmE .:Ofiumuumfi:fismm Nm ouaumuwuwa No“ wcwcwmuu mommEuOmwoe Nos Hmcowmmomoumoua HmGOflmmowouaoum Hmcowmmomouaoua hufimum>wca cwwmow w sumo was :OHHozIOwwocumo mausommcma .coaumuumfisfisum Nd ousumuoufia Na wswcfimpu oesoEHOHHOQ Nun HmOOfimmomoumoue cwwmou a Java Nam huoum>umucou Hmccfimmowoueoua Hmcowmmomoueoua hufimuo>fiaa OOOmom xuosomusou cowuuoaom mmumccmum mHmow SE 835 Epsom xuoaomusou mo owmusoouom can .:Ofiuooaom hmam .mmumvcmum .OHOOU "OOHuwuuo>wc= mom mowoaaoo mo somaumeaoo ~.N OHAOH 68 usoamwmama .sowumuumwsfisum NN m.:ouoawno NN ousumuoufia New cwfimom w :Oou Nam weeswmuu mucosuomume qu manmaam>m no: muum ammonwa ousuxfie >uwmuo>aca «Emfiz assume S sumo NA ucoemmmcma .OOfiumHumwcfiapm Nmfi unaumHOuHH Nmm wcwofimuu oosmsuomuom Nnm muum Hmuoawa muum Hmuonea muss Hmumnfifi owoaaoo wooshumz ouaumuouwa No~ ewamme a some Nos waacfimuu oucmauowume Now muum Hmuonwa unauXHa ousuxHE owOHHOU Haw: mum: m.:ouuawnu Nm ouaumuoufia Nam mcwcwmuu ousmsuomuoe Nam swamov w :OOu Nmm assumes noun amassed nuns amassed huamuo>ass msmfivaH xuoaouusoo macauooaom mpuowamum mason moam moumum wououm 69 Honuo mausowmcme .:O«umnumfi:eamm m.aouuafino unaumHOOwH wowswmuu mocmauomuoe cwfimou a coma Nfifi NM No NoH Nmm wa muum Hmuonaa muse apposed mono ammonfia owoaaoo HHH: coumm mausowmsme .OOHumuumHOHsmo cwfimou a coma wswufipshmae wowcwmuu moonshomuoe ouaumwoufia N0 N5 NNH NN ommosoam Hmcowmmomoueoue HOSOfimmomoueoue HO¢Ofimmomoueoue huampm>wc= xuow zoz usosowmame .OOHumuum«:HEmm m.=ouuaa:O ousumuouufi cwwmom a coma wawcwmuu oucmauomuoe Nm Nmfi Nod Nmm Mam unauxwa muum Hmuonfia muum Hmuopfia huwmum>fia= mumum smwfinowz xuosomuaoo OOHuOOHOm mmam ovumusmum moumum mHmou museum 70 m.:muwafino wcfiswmuu oocmEuomuoa cwfimmp a zoom ouaumumufia Na Nw Nmm Noe OHQOHHm>m uo: muum Hmuoafia mums Hmuonfifl camsoomfiz mo hufimno>wca ucoaowmcma .cOHumuuchasmm m.couuafino cwfimom w noou upsumHOOHH megawmuu mocmEpOmuoa Mm.“ Nm.~ NNN NNN qu Hmsowmmomouaoue Hmcowmmowounoue HmsowmmOmoueoue cannon IHHmu caucusom mo hufimpm>wcn wonuo ucoeowmama .oowumuumwcfiacm m.coumafino ousumuouwa wcficwmuu oocmsuomuom cwamou w suou N- Nm No Neg Nnm Nme muum Hmuonaa HmGOfimmowoumoum ouauxfia macsmflxo mo huwmuo>wca xuoaomusoo :Ofiuooaom .mmfim hummusmum moumum mamas emumum 71 o>fiumuumfi:«8vm Na :wwmom a mono Nod woesamuu mocmsuomuom Nmm ousumuouaa New muum Hmuonwa muum Hmuoafia muum Houonfia xuwmuo>eca :oumsfismmz xuosomusou coauuoaom swam muumucmum emumum mason magnum 72 References Ackerman, J.S. 1973. "The Arts in Higher Education." In C. Kaysen (ed.). Content and Context Essays on College Education. New York: McGraw-Hill. American Medical Association Department of Allied Health. 1979. Spec- ialized Program Evaluator Manual The Manual. ED 160 627. Burkhart, Robert C. 1961. Spontaneous and Deliberate Ways of Learning, Scranton, Pennsylvania: International Textbook Co. Christ-Janer, Albert and Ralph L. Wickiser. 1968. "Higher Education and the Arts." In Lawrence E. Dennis and Jacob M. Renate (ed.) The Arts in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey—Brass Publishers. The College Blue Book, 17th ed. 1979. Degrees Offered by College and Subject. New York: MacMillan Publishing CO. College Division of Barron's Educational Series. 1980. BarroniegPro- filee of American Colleges Vol. 1 Description of Collegee, New YOrk: Barron's Educational Series. Courtney, Richard. 1980. The Dramatic Curriculum. New York: Drama Book Specialists (Publishers). Dennis, Lawrence and Jacob M. Renate. 1968. The Arts in Higher Educa- tion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Dressel, Paul L. 1980. Improving Degree Programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Dyer, Henry S. 1968. "College Testing and the Arts". In Lawrence E. Dennis and Jacob M. Renate (ed.) The Arts in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Friedlander, Larry and Martin Esslin. 1981. "Theater Arts". In Arthur W. Chickering and Associates. The Modern American College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Geltner, Frank Joseph, Jr. 1980. Standards and Accreditation for Theater Arts Programs in American Higher Education: A History and Analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon. Gould, Harold Vernon. 1953. Functions of Dramatic Activity in American SchoolSLgColleges and Universities in the Twentieth Century. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University. Gressler, Thomas. 1983. "Theater-Liberal Arts/Liberal Arts vs. Theater". Theater News 14, NO. 3 (March): 12. 73 Hawes, Gene R. 1978. “Comprehensive Guide to College. New York: New American Library Times Mirror. Hobgood, Burnet M. 1964. "Theater in U.S. Higher Education Emerging Patters and Problems". Educational Theater Journal 16: 142-159. House, Ernest R. 1974. "The Politics.of Evaluation in Higher Education". Journal of Higher Education 55, NO. 8 (Nov.): 618-627. Houseman, John. .1968. "In Search of an Acting Tradition." Educational Theater Journal 20: 92-96. Kanter, David Robert.- 1976. The Academy Approach to the Teaching of Acting in a Liberal Arts University Setting: An Examination of the History, Philosophy and Practical Results for Students of the MeadOW’BrOOk Academyiat OaklanQ_UBiEeE3iL¥_§£Qm_lts_lnc£piian_tn. Date. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota. Kelly, A.V. 1977. The Curriculum: Theory and Practice. New York: Harper and Row. Lee, Calvin B.T. 1966. "Knowledge Structure and Curriculum Development." Educational Record 47, NO. 3 (Summer): 347-360. Martorana, S.V. and Eileen Kuhn. 1978. "Academic Programming". AAHE- ERIC/Higher Education and Research Currents. September. Mattil, Edward L. 1968. "Teaching the Arts". In Dennis E. Lawrence and Jacob M. Renate. The Arts in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1978. Mayhew, Lewis B. 1968. "The Arts and Access to Higher Education." In Lawrence E. Dennissand Jacob M. Renate. The Arts in Higher Educa- tion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Morris, Lynn Lyons and Carol Taylor Fitz-Gibbon. 1978. How to Deal With Goalsfend Objectives. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Morrison, Jack. 1968. "American Educational Theater of the Future." Educational Theater Journal 20: 88-91. Motter, Charlotte Kay. 1970. Teaching in High Schools: Plannipg, Teaching, Directing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. National Association of Schools of Theater. 1980. NAST Handbook 1980-81. Reston, VA: National Association of Schools of Theater. National Society for the Study of Education. 1958. The Integgation of Edueetionel Experience. 57th Yearbook, Part III. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Parker, J. Cecil and Louis J. Rubin. 1966. Process as Content: Cur- HWWMM- Chicago: Rand Mc- Nally and Co. 74 Phillips, William. 1963. "University Drama Education: A Modest Pro- posal". Educational Theater Journal 15: 219-223. *”~*“”“' '“‘" Posavac, Emil J., and Raymond G. Carey. 1980. Program Evaluetion. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersy: Prentice-Hall. Posner, George, Jr. 1974. "The Extensiveness Of Curricular Structure a Conceptual Scheme". Review of Educational Repearch 44, 76.4: 401-7. Rockefeller Brothers' Panel on the Future of Theater, Dance, Music in America. 1965. "The Performing Arts Problems and Perspectives". Arts in Society 3, No. 3: 341-6, 351-5, 359-61. Shank, Theodore. 1969. The_Art_Qf_Dramatic_Art, Belmont, California: Dickenson Publishing Co. Stake, Robert. 1975. Evaluating the Arts in Education a Responsive Approach. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co. Taba, Hilda. 1962. Curriculum Development Theory and Practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. University College Theater Association Standards Committee: James D. Kriley, Calvin Pritner, Vera MOwry Roberts. 1977. "Minimum Standards for the Accreditation of Theater Degree Programs in Colleges and Universities: Accepted and Endorsed by the American Theater Association, and the Standards Commission of the American Theater Association". American Theater Association: 545-555. Waack, Bill. 1979. "Performance in Theater Education." Draft Of a Position Paper. August. Unpublished material. 75 Citations Boston University. "School of the Arts Bulletin." 1981: 85-102. "Boston University School of Theater Arts." 1981: 1-28. "Boston University School of Theater Arts." 1981: 1-13. Boston University Viewbook. Vol. LXX, NO. 10. 1981: 1-71. "Undergraduate Program Bulletin." 1981: 203-205. Handout material. 1981. Carnegie-Mellon University. The Professional Choice. Vol. 8, NO. 3 (September). 1981: 51-5. "Status Forum." 1981. College of Santa Fe. 1981-83 Bulletin. 1981: 104-119. "Requirements for Admission to the Performing Arts Department as a Theater Major." 1981: 1-3. "Theater Arts and Speech." 1981. "Theater . . .at the College of Santa Fe." 1981. "The College of Santa Fe." 1981. Indiana University. "Department of Theater and Drama". 1981: 1-11. "Department Counseling Guide". 1981: 1-3. "Department of Theater and Drama Department Counseling Guide 1979-80". 1979: 1-5. "Typical Program Leading to A.B. Theater and Drama". 1976: 1-3. Mars Hill College "Theater Arts and Speech". "Musical Theater Performance". Marywood College Undergraduate Catalog. 1980: 42-49. "Communication Arts at Marywood". 1981 "Guidelines to Programs of Study in Communication Arts 1981-82". 1981: 1-20. Miami University "Department of Communication and Theater Bachelors Degree in Theater" 1981. 76 Michigan State University "Department of Theater Performing Arts Company". 1981: 1-7. 1981-82 Academic Proggams. Vol. 75, No. 3 (May), 1981: 158. "Department of Theater Undergraduate Curriculum Requirements/ Worksheet". 1979: New York University Bulletin 1980-2 School of the Arts. Vol. LXXX, No. 15 (June 9, 1980). 1980: 44-65. "An Open Letter about Theater Program Admission". 1980: 1-6. Seton Hill College "Theater A Major in the Theater/Communications Department". 1981. "Department of Theater/Communications Theater Division Curricula." 1981. University of Oklahoma General Catalog 1981-82. 1978: 296-8. "University of Oklahoma School of Drama". 1978. College of Fine Arts School of Drama Promotional Material. 1978. University of Southern California Bulletin of the University of Southern California School of Performing_Arts 1981-83. Vol. 76, No. 18 (June 30), 1981: 9-11, 57-62. "The University of Southern California Division of Drama". 1981. "The University of Southern California School of Performing Arts". 1981. University of Wisconsin "Theater and Drama for the Undergraduate". 1981: 1-7. Washington University "Performing Arts Area". 1982: 1-12. "Prerequisites Of a Drama Major". 1982. "Performing Arts Major". 1981. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY The purpose of the dissertation, the delineation of the guiding principles of undergraduate theater arts education, was presented in Chapter I. In Chapter II, literature about curriculum and educational theater, and a sample Of undergraduate theater arts catalog statements were reviewed. On the basis of this review, research questions addressing the guiding principles of undergraduate theater were drafted. Although these questions were not hypotheses to be tested, they provided a focus for the examination of the guiding principles of undergraduate theater. These research questions were: 1. What are the goals of undergraduate theater? 2. By what standards should an undergraduate theater program be evaluated? 3. What are the purposes of play production in an educational setting? 4. What areas of study are appropriate for undergrad- uate theater? Chapters I and II provided the basis on which to proceed with the develop- ment Of the survey and its administration in Michigan State University's Department of Theater. How the survey was developed and implemented are covered in this chapter. MOre specifically, the chapter covers population definition, survey development-i.e., pilot interviews, instrument 77 78 development, opinions of content experts--pilot test, data collection, and analytic procedures. The following discussion of the process of pilot interviwing, sur- vey instrument building, and administering reflects the exploratory nature of the study. Because there has been little previous work on the guiding principles of undergraduate theater, this study is hypothesis-generating rather than hypothesis-testing. The strategies used in this research were selected for their open-ended and divergent qualities, with the hope that the results could provide a broad-based foundation on which further ex- amination of undergraduate theater arts might be done. Thus, the method- ology of the study provides the opportunity to explore a range of percep- tions relevant to the research questions. Population The population Of the study was defined as all faculty and students involved in theater coursework at Michigan State University Spring term 1982. Information about this group was gathered from class lists published after the term began, reflecting most administrative drops and adds of classes. There was a total of 515 in the population, 226 of which were male, 289 female. Respondent groups included theater faculty, theater graduate and undergraduate students, undergraduate telecommunications, communications, and other majors. Other majors, in order of frequency, in- cluded agriculture, no preference, elementary and special education, psychology, human ecology, health and physical education, accounting and financial administration, criminal justice, English, arts and letters general, music, interdisciplinary humanities, history, and religious studies. Table 3.1, Population Breakdown by Gender and Academic Area and Level, presents the number of individuals in each category (faculty, graduate student, undergraduate theater, telecommunications, communications and other majors) and the percentage of the population that each category represents. Academic Area and Level of Respondent Theater Faculty Theater Graduate Students undergraduate Theater Majors Undergraduate Telecommunications Majors Undergraduate Communications Majors Undergraduate Other Majors Total n- 18.6% Gender 96 n = 226 43.9% 00:3 O N" N b U1 00:: \III N n = 25 4.8% n = 162 31.4% n = 289 56.1% Total wt! H5 0 0 {>11 U‘I II 0° 3Q I-i U133 c all N 21.5% n = 258 50.0% n = 515 100.0% Table 3.1 Population Breakdown by Gender and Academic Area and Level In Spring term 1982, there were thirty-four undergraduate courses offered. They included theater appreciation, two sections of introduction to costuming, sophomore theater practicum (apprentice course), acting for majors, four sections of technical theater, seven sections of introduction to acting for non-majors, rehearsal, production, two levels Of directing and design practicum, basic production design, two sections of intermediate acting for non-majors, oral interpretation, acting studies, text study for I’mi nub: es. ‘Vwa ...‘ Ch- 5... u ... .‘H h“ or! I 2‘ EA. a: fix a: #1 ~\H . ax 80 actors, two levels of creative dramatics, advanced theater make-up, stage costume design, theater history, directing of plays for children, tour, special problems, design tutorial, directing tutorial, and youth theater practicum. These were the classes in which the survey was introduced. Survey Develqpment The process of developing the survey instrument included the review Of the literature, pilot interviews, drafts of the instrument, expert con- tent analysis, and pilot testing. In the review of the literature, pro- fessional theories, concerns, and controversies were represented which were common to educational theater and curriculum literature. Commonly, the issues under examination, when reviewed for thematic underpinning, confirmed the four broader research areas. Thus, issues and curricular features unique to theater arts education were placed in the context of curricular features unique to theater arts education were placed in the context of curriculum theory. Goals, standards, critical learning activities (play production) and content were selected as the most important components of a theater arts curriculum and served as the basis for the development of the pilot interviews. Pilot Interviews The following is a summary of the more extensive _ discussions about the pilot interviews which is found in Appendix D. A series of questions about undergraduate theater arts curricula were drafted. These questions were about material that represented the trends in the literature, attempted to clarify controversial issues and to distinguish themes of greatest importance, and included an appropriate amount of material to be covered by the survey (survey length). .... . u .-5 hi ...-u, ‘\n {N- 4 ." a] ‘ S I h 81 A stratified sample of ten theater faculty and students were se- lected for interviewing. They included one female freshman, one male sophomore, one female junior, one male senior, one male non-graduate assistant master's candidate, one male graduate assistant master of fine arts candidate, one female graduate assistant Ph.D. candidate and two faculty (one male, one female, with differing backgrounds). Two were minority students. The interviews were conducted in an open-ended fashion with the same number Of questions asked each interviewee. Questions were related to the general areas of goals, standards, the purposes of play production, and were formulated in three ways. One was about the issue in the ab- stract or ideal. The second was about the same issue in the respondent's experience at Michigan State University. The third invited a comparison between the respondent's ideal of and perception of MSU. The resulting material is thought to provide an individualized description of an ideal program and an impressionistic description of Michigan State University's Department of Theater program. Interviewees were encouraged to speak freely about their opinions and to deviate from the questions if their ideas or experiences were different from what the questions were about. The interviews each lasted from 40 to 90 minutes. Following the interviews, categories were developed as a means of collapsing the data into a more manageable form. Responses were divided into faculty, graduate, and undergraduate categories for each question. While answers and interviewees were very diverse, for the purpose of the pilot study, one answer was counted as an affirmative for any question. '82 For example, while the two faculty were divided on many issues, the tabulations represent the composite responses of both faculty interviewees. Interviewees were first asked about their bachgtoundé in theater. Faculty backgrounds included professional theater, teaching, and being a guest artist. Graduate student backgrounds included a wider range of activity, from teaching to artistic and technical work to arts management. Undergraduate backgrounds included technical work, unpaid and high school theater activities. Faculty, graduate and undergraduate students agreed that the goafib 05 ufldfldfifléigéiflmihgfiflei should be to prepare students to be theater generalists, trained in production skills, prepared for advanced training, and vocationally marketable. The gods 05 Michigan State University’s Department 04 Theatre/r were varied. But all groups perceived an absence of unified department goals. The companiaon of ideal goals and goals at MSU resulted in no con- sensus of answers. Faculty and graduate students believed MSU lacked a liberal arts orientation, that commercial and production activities were more highly valued than academic activities, and that there were no clearly stated goals. Graduate and undergraduate students declared that the Department offered too much material for undergraduates to master thoroughly. Faculty, graduate, and undergraduate students indicated that they though.a theatcn paognam Anouid prepane.an undergraduate student to develop performance or specialized skills, provide an environment in which students may learn theater skills and develop as sensitive people, know themselves, prepare for advanced training or study and make a living in theater. Faculty and graduate students indicated that they thought undergraduate ‘0. ~\u u... ~s1 PK pl...\ A «K 83 students should be encouraged to be self-reliant and to gain a solid academic theater background. Graduate and undergraduate students added that the Department should provide students with Opportunities to de- velop a good overview and basic skills in theater, creative and artistic skills, and a realistic understanding Of their skills. Faculty and undergraduates indicated that an undergraduate theater program should prepare students to handle the demands of the professional world. Faculty and graduate students said that_MSU_Thcd¢ga students at ghaduaiion_were prepared to apply what they'd learned to the real world, that they had matured and retained their sensitivity, although the pro- cess Of maturing was difficult. Faculty and undergraduate students in- dicated that they thought graduating students were capable of teaching theater. Graduate and undergraduate students indicated that they thought graduating students were prepared to go to graduate school, work as theater technicians in professional theater or in regional theaters as actors, directors, and designers. Faculty, graduate and undergraduate students indicated the best qualifiicaixona 601 undengnaduate {heated majona included receptivity and skills or the willingness to learn skills in all areas of theater. Faculty and undergraduate students identified discipline, talent, commitment, and artistic courage. Graduate and undergraduate students identified the ability to balance academic and production responsibilities, in-depth skills in an area of specialty without being too narrowly focused. The only qualification the faculty and graduate students thought a azudcnz needed in order to be_Aucce666u£ in the MSU theatet ptognam was passivity. Faculty and undergraduates added maturity. Graduate and undergraduate students identified a good overview of theater, with production 5- b." u: I I .‘I NI .F. .u. 1 af' '1. ‘II 84 rather than academic emphasis. Faculty, graduate, and undergraduate students agreed that the academic standards of paper-writing and test-taking, a thorough understanding of theater, development of professional skills, initiative, follow-through, production work, a willingness to be responsible and to go the "extra mile" were appropriate standards by which to euaeuate theatct majona. Graduate and undergraduate students added class attendance. Standanda_used at MSU to evaluate students were thought by faculty and undergraduate students to include class attendance, perseverance and evidence of growth. Graduate and undergraduate students believed students were evaluated informally by faculty according to their eagerness to work and their commitment. Faculty and undergraduates indicated that they thought theatca ptognama should be evaeuazed according to the quality and competence of the faculty and the attitude of the faculty toward the program and the University. Graduate and undergraduate students believed program standards included the well-roundedness of its majors, the marketability of its graduates, and the financial well-being Of the program. Of those faculty and graduate students who indicated standards ex- isted, production quality and finances were identifed as standanda by which MSU'A Thearen phogdam is evaluated. Graduate and undergraduate students added skill in specialty area and College of Arts and Letters standards. Faculty, graduate, and undergraduate students identified the purposes of pdoducing pfiaya in educational settins as introducing students and audiences to the history of theater, to production styles, and to dramatic literature, and as sometimes challenging audiences. Graduate and undergrad- uate students added giving talented students the opportunity to demonstrate 85 and to develop their skills, giving all students the Opportunity to learn production skills through practical experience, and entertaining audiences. The purposes of phoducing pfaya at MSU according to faculty, graduate, and undergraduate students included financial considerations, making money and producing a play within a budget, anticipated popularity of plays, and the Opportunity for students to practice their craft. Faculty and graduate students added the satisfying of director interest. Graduate and under- graduate students added the featuring Of a gifted or particularly skilled student. Faculty, graduate, and undergraduate students stated that pflayb AhOuZd be battered for undergraduate theater according to the Opportunities those plays provide for variety and diversity of student experience, the balance and diversity of the season, and community service (educating, stimulating and entertaining). Faculty and undergraduate students added that such plays should provide performance Opportunities for women and minority students. Faculty, graduate, and undergraduate students indicated that they thought piayb at MSU are selected for anticipated commercial appeal and budget considerations. Faculty and graduate students added that commer- cial appeal was stronger than academic value. Graduate and undergraduate students added the featuring of a particular student. When asked about othct relevant issues not covered in the previous questions, faculty, graduate, and undergraduate students suggested the need for more and more clearly structured feedback from faculty to students about their work and progress and identified particular areas of content for study. Graduate and undergraduate students added the need for more 86 thorough and consistent academic advising. While in general respondents' answers to the interview questions were very diverse, several themes emerged. Themes involving goals and standards included preprofessional training and liberal arts education. Themes in- volving play selection included the problems of the day-to-day business of a theater arts department over the longer-range objectives (e.g., making a given season of plays pay for itself or introducing students and audiences to classical or controversial but Often less marketable plays). Other themes included appropriate areas of study (content) for theater arts curricula, the role of the department in the personal and professional de- velopment of its students, and the importance and format of faculty feed- back and academic advising. It became clear that the amount of material to be covered in the survey was very large and had to be greatly reduced. The material was more taxing the younger the respondent. The freshman, sophomore, and to a lesser extent, the junior student frequently indicated they didn't know an answer or repeated a previous answer. The problem may be a matter of the student's maturation, and the younger students may not have had the life experiences that would enable them to consider the question adequately. Respondents were, however, better able to answer questions when they were asked for and about their personal experience, and asked about the Theater Department at Michigan State University or on broader theoretical issues. Because of the differences in the backgrounds of interviewees, demo- graphic data were incorporated into the instrument, both for descriptive purposes and to determine whether particular data were related to the se- lection of responses. 87 Instrument develppment. On the basis of literature, which included college and university theater arts catalogs, promotional materials, national accreditation standards (American Theater Association and National Associ- ation of Schools of Theater), and pilot interviews, the survey instrument was drafted. The instrument contained two major sections, one asking for demographic data, the second asking questions relating to the research areas (goals, standards, play selection, and course contents). The nine questions relating to the research areas were asked in two ways: the respondent was presented with a question asking about goals, standards, play selection or content, and then was asked a second question which more specifically related the first question to his or her experience at Michigan State University's Department of Theater. Respondents could read the questions, review all the possible foils arranged in a five-point scale, and respond to each foil individually. Thus, answers could be all number Is or all number 53, or 1-5 in any combination. The general thematic constructs of preprofessional and liberal arts training emerged as pivotal issues in most of the previous investigation. Thus, these constructs pro- vided the primary basis for a further examination of the guiding principles of undergraduate theater arts programs for the survey. The survey may be found in Appendix E. Opinions of content experts. The survey instrument was validated in the following manner. Format, direction, and general content were re- viewed by two committee members, a research consultant, and three content experts. The content experts were asked to evaluate the survey for clarity Of directions and appropriateness of content (content validity). 88 The content experts were identified as such because they were fami- liar with theater in genral, were working or had worked in educational theater at some level, had taught theater arts, acted, directed and had some administrative experience in educational theater programs. Further, none was currently involved with the program at Michigan State University. The content experts were: James Cleveland, Director of the Lansing Community Box Office. His academic background includes a Bachelor of Science in Political Science from Wittenberg University, graduate work in theater at Ball State University, teaching undergraduate theater arts at Wittenburg University. He has also been a professional actor. F. Ray Turner Staff Assistant at Lansing Community College's Performing and Creative Arts Department. He has a Bachelor of Arts from Michigan State University and is actively involved in regional, community college and community theater as a director and actor. Robert Burpee, Director of Lansing Community College's Theater Program. He earned a Bachelor of Arts in Theater from Central Michigan University, and completed graduate work in Theater at the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama in Glasgow. The content experts approved the scOpe of the material in the survey in general, recommending direction clarification and two areas of study. One raised a question about the potential generalizability of the results since the study was of a single site. Their recommendations when possible, were incorporated into the revision of the instrument. Pilot test A revised survey was administered to a stratified sample of five theater students. They included a freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, and master of arts candidate. Their comments, questions, reactions, ease and diffi- 89 difficulties with the instrument were incorporated into the revision. Data Collection I personally introduced and distributed it to all (N=34) theater classes during the eighth week of a ten-week term. Surveys were returned to faculty, at a table in the lobby of the theater or in a box in the Theater Office. The discrepancies between class lists and actual enrollments were identified. These discrepancies included students who were enrolled but did not attend classes and were unreachable by telephone. The population figure was revised from 515 to 448. After the first week (five days), 65% of the surveys were returned. Follow up calls were made to increase that number. The final return rate was 81.5% representing 365 out of 448 surveys. Data Analysis Procedures Data from questions asking for demographic information were compiled by frequency and percentage by respondent category (theater faculty, theater graduate and undergraduate students, undergraduate telecommunication majors, communications, and other majors). The remaining data were analyzed by research questions, survey questions, age and gender. Then data were com- pared by group means. In each question, the answers with the highest four means and lowest means in each respondent group were discussed. Summary Due to the exploratory nature of the survey research, methods appro- priate for Obtaining exploratory material were used. The population was defined as all faculty and students at Michigan State University's Department 90 of Theater in Spring term 1982. Using the review of the literature, a pilot oral interview was designed and conducted with a stratified sample of ten members of the MSU Theater Department. A survey instrument was constructed from these procedures and given to three content experts who further validated its content. The revised survey instrument was pilot tested with a stratified sample of five theater students. Further revised, the survey was administered to the thirty-four classes Offered in the 4 Department Spring term 1982. The return rate was 81.5%. CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND SYNTHESIS OF THE DATA Chapter IV contains the summary and synthesis of the survey data. Research methods appropriate for eliciting divergent information which helped to focus the exploratory nature of the study were used for the de- velOpment of the survey. Using the review of the literature, a pilot oral interview was conducted with a stratified sample of ten members of the Michigan State University Theater Department. The survey instrument was drafted from these results and validated by three outside content experts. The revised survey was piloted with a stratified sample of five theater students. Further revised, the survey was administered to thirty-four Theater classes in the Spring term of 1982. The return rate was 81.5% or 365 out of 448. The following discussion is based on these data. Characteristics of Respondents A description of respondents by demographic category follows. These categories include gender, age, faculty responsibility, response rate by gender and academic level, previous experience in theater and career goals and ambitions for the future. Respondent categories include faculty, graduate students, undergrad- uate theater, telecommunications, communications, and other majors. Other majors in order of frequency include agriculture, no preference, elementary and special education, accounting and financial administration, criminal 91 92 justice, English, arts and letters general, music, interdisciplinary hu- manities, art, prelaw humanities, history, and religious studies. Gender The response pattern of the sample follows the pattern of the population for both sexes generally. Table 4.1 includes data about the sample response by gender. In the sample, 45% of the respondents were male, compared with 43.9% of the population. In the sample, 55% were female, compared with 56.1% of the pOpulation. There were three exceptions to this general pattern. Undergraduate telecommunications males responded in a 1.3% larger grOup (14.1% to 12.8%) in the sample. In communications, the sexes responded in different percentages (males 1.9% in the sample, 3.1% in the population; females 5.5% in the sample, 4.8% in the population). Females in undergraduate other majors responded in smaller numbers (31.4% in the population, 26.9% in the sample). These figures follow the same general pattern as the pOpulation. Ass. Because of the large number of undergraduate students in this sample (N=338), the group is predictably dominated by the 18-23-year-Old range. Graduate students (N-16) dominate the 24-34 year-Old range and faculty (N87), the 41-60-year-old range. Table 4.2 contains a breakdown of the sample response by age. Faculty Responsibilities All of the seven faculty respondents teach in the Department of Theater. Two indicated administrative responsibilities, one indicated other rea anLleel Theater Faculty Theater Graduate Students Theater Under- graduate Majors Telecommunications Undergraduate Majors Communications Undergraduate Majors Other Undergraduate Majors Total 93 Gender Male n = 163 45.0% Table 4.1 Female Sample Response by Gender Total = 7 .9z H23 n = 17 4.3% n = 64 17.7% n - 81 22.4% n = 165 4517% n = 361 100.0% 94 omm flea mm om so NH .wmmmm a oonam omlfio ow< an uncommom OHeEmm o mnlom N.q manna mm cum m fine g cm m mm m mm m N o c mwvsu mNImH sence macaw: oumammuwuomss yoguc macho: Oumommuwuoco: macaumowcaasco macho: oumammuwuoues meoeumuaG=EEOOoHoa muofimz mumsmmuwpomca smumone mucomsum oumavmuo Houmose huaaomm neurone ucooccmmmm mo mou< cam Hm>mn uwfiocmu< 95 reSponsibilities. Previous Experience in Theater ReSpondents were asked to identify the ways in which they had been previously active in theater. Categories included voluntary, community theater, high school, college or university, paid, professional company, graduate assistantship, and other. ReSpondents could mark yes or no for each item individually. As might be expected, theater faculty, graduate, and undergraduate students all have a higher involvement in all aspects of theater than do nontheater students. The only exception is previous theater experience in high school, which is high for all groups Of respondents. High school drama activities seem to provide a strong incentive for participants to pursue other theater Opportunities or may suggest an earlier interest produces later interest in theater. As might be expected, faculty and graduate students had the most professional experience. Undergraduates had not had as much time to pursue theater activities. Undergraduates with theater experience have worked in voluntary, community, high school and college and university activities. Table 4.3 contains information about respondents previous experience in theater. Career Goals and Ambitions for the Future Categories for goals and ambitions for the future were determined after the surveys were returned. ReSpondents wrote on a blank line and categories were selected for their frequency of appearance. Faculty reSponses were the least clearly linked to Obvious theater answers, with theater representing only 42.9%, acting, directing, 96 um mm swoop or tease summons aw Oucofiumaxm mzofi>oum m.q oHan m_ m Cm Om~ mm cc~ ¢q~ c _ m _r on «N me e s m m mm m c m m e mm mm cs me ~ c mm as on om mo w m o m_ s_ w_ N~ e c m c c m m ucmumwmm< senescu twee zuwmup>wc3 Hoozom summons :umuc:#o> oumammuo HOCOHmmOMOEA Iouoasoo cm“: zuwcaeeco oocowuoexm swoop moo-m: Oumammmwummcz mozuo pro-.ss pumammuwuumss mcofiumOHc:EEoo moo-oz muesnnumuOtc: mcowumoHc:EEOuo~mH mucocaum oumatmuo looms: commons mucouaum mumsmmuo hammock zuazomm summons ucmuconmom so Ho>om ecu .Mmc< Oweocmo< 97 producing representing 14.3%, and writing and teaching representing 28.6% each. Making money and travel were 0%. Faculty goals and ambitions, per- haps because 51.7% of the faculty queried were in the 51-60-year-old range, relate to other, mostly nontheater or theater school activities. Graduate students have the clearest career commitment to theater (94.1%) and to teaching (64.7%) and to the activities of theater of acting, directing, producing (52.9%). They also indicate some preference for travel or specific geographies (29.4%). Undergraduate theater students selected theater (73.4%) and acting, directing, producing (64.1%) most frequently. They indicated a move away from teaching (14.1%) and graduate school (19.0%). Undergraduate telecommunications, communications, and other majors selected items relating to their majors. The other category received from 54.3% to 88.4%. These responses were frequently highly individual. Themes across undergraduate majors indicated a lack of interest in teaching (0-14.1%) and some interest in graduate school (6.3-24.2%). Ex- cept for theater majors, most undergraduates had limited interest in theater as a career goal. Telecommunications majors indicated media-related goals. "Other" as a future goal was the highest category across respondent groups (54.3-88.9%). Table 4.4 presents career goals and ambitions for the future. Table 4.5 presents the data from the frequency of selection of career goals and ambitions for the future. Summapy In general, when demographic data of the sample are considered, the following patterns emerge. Following the population breakdown, more women than men reSponded to the instrument. Faculty ages were most frequently 98 m_.c© mflflc Nq.mm Gm“: mCOHumOoH Hm>mcu xocos mxme sm.qm x~.c~ x~.c~ Oflflc Cm": mflc xm.w~ Nm.m Nq.n mflr— ~flC NUS Nm.o NC No.w Wu": CNS ““5 Nc.o~ N~.¢~ Nm.o NAUC GI: QIC ac x~.qc Nc.m~ CIC -UC mac kc Kc.wm Kc.wm CUF— NIC NIC goonom newcomoO magmas: Oumatmuu mcofiuwne< mam mfimcc q.q canoe N~.¢c ~q u : N®.Nm Our— Nm.c_ d n : acmuaoOua .aCHuoouwu .ucwuom Ouauam one HOm mcoaufioe< mam mamoo pooumu memos \Efimu Nm.C~ Nfiuc macho: Oumaumuwuoucz pocuo no.3: mumzumpwuomc: :OwumOfi:=EEou roam: Oumapmpmuoucz meoHumO«::EEOOmHoH some: Oumammumoouc: summons ucmmaum mumammuo summons >oaaomw hammock unaccommom mo ~O>OA mum mmu< OfiEmmmo< 99 Nm.mm maeme\eaau Nm.Nm wcwoapoue .wcwuoou Iwu .wcauom No.mm wagsumou muaoeo nee Nc.am wowoapoua .wcauoou new .mcfiuom Nm.qo measummu No.mm wswuwns mowcso mum mmowcsu NN.¢N Hoosom mumsumuw Nm.mm seeme\eaac Nm.¢m Honuo N~.¢c mcwoauOMA .wofiuuou Hm .wcwuum Nq.Nw Hosuo Nm.~¢ anymore mosses new museum Ono you chwuHos< Nq.mm posse Nm.¢m Hosuc No.em mesme\eHeu Nq.mn “mucosa NH.¢¢ peacocu NH.nm Hosuo mesceo ems mom mamoo pooumo mauooaom zflucosuoum umoz m. e «Heme muofimz Oumammumuomcb nonuo uofimz mumammuwuomsa maoaumOHGOEEOo macaw: mumsmmuwuomcs mcoaumOficsesouoaoa acousum oumaumum lumps: noumoce ucomaum oumammuu someone zuaaomm umumose acomccmmwm mo HO>OA mam mou< oesoomu< 100 41-60, graduate students 24-34, and undergraduates 18-23. All faculty teach, 2 have administrative responsibilities, one has "other." The re- Sponse rate by level increased with the age and academic level of the respondent. Freshmen and sophomores responded the least frequently. Across all categories, high school was high (46.1-87.5%) for previous experience in theater. In career goals and ambitions, faculty most fre- quently checked "other" and theater, perhaps because of the age in which many are approaching retirement. Graduate students checked theater, "other" and acting, directing, and producing. Undergraduate theater majors checked theater, acting, directing and producing, and "other." Telecommunications majors checked film and media and "other." Communica- tions majors checked "other" and film and media. Other majors identified "other" and graduate school. Thus, this sample is a group with much di- versity. Summary and Synthesis of Research Questions by Survenguestion The four research questions are what the goals of undergraduate theater? By what standards should undergraduate theater programs be evalu- ated? What the purposes of producing plays in an educational setting? What areas of study are appropriate for undergraduate theater? Each research area had two to four survey questions asked about it, two ideal and two descriptive of Michigan State University's program. Group respondents (faculty, graduate student, undergraduate theater, tele- communications, communications and other majors) are reported by group ‘means (E). The scale ranges from 1 to 5. The three or four most fre- quently selected reSponses to the survey questions are presented in the following discussion. The items selected least frequently will also be presented. Respondents were given the opportunity to add responses following 101 the list of foils. This Option generated few responses. Goals of Undergraduate Theater Four survey questions addressed the goals of undergraduate theater arts education. They included 1) what should a theater program prepare an undergraduate student to do? 2) What do you think Michigan State University Theater students are prepared to do when or have gained by the time they graduate? 7) What do you think the goals Of an undergraduate theater program should be? and 8) What do you think the goals Of Michigan State University Department of Theater are? How Theater Departments Should Prepare Undergraduate Students. The first question was: "What should a theater program prepare an undergraduate student to do?" a. to make a living in theater b. to have a good overview in theater and knowledge of basic skills, whether or not that leads to a job in theater c. to develop creative and artistic skills d. to gain full use and control of body and voice e. to make use of criticism f. to have a realistic understanding of skills g. to have a thorough background in dramatic literature, theory, and theater history h. to prepare students for further training, either graduate school or other advanced training i. to know himself or herself j. to work effectively with other members of the production ‘ team k. to teach theater 102 The following data are summarized on Table 4.6. Faculty responded that students should have a realistic understanding of their skills (i = 4.857) as a result of work in undergraduate theater programs. Second, they should gain a good overview in theater and knowledge of basic skills, whether or not that leads to a job in theater (§ = 4.714). Ranking equally as third were developing creative and artistic skills and preparing for graduate school or other advanced training (i - 4.571). 4 Faculty selected teaching theater (E - 3.571) least frequently. Thus, faculty indicated that, among the selections available, students should come to an understanding of their own skill level, basic knowledge and skills in what theater is about, improve their artistic and creative skills and prepare for additional training. Graduate students indicated two possibilities were equally important' as the first choice: developing student artistic and creative skills and working effectively with other members of the production team (i = 4.647). Third, they indicated the preparation of students for graduate school or other advanced training (i = 4.588) and, fourth, that students should have a realistic understanding of their skills (i a 4.529). Least frequently selected was teaching theater (E = 3.529). Graduate students indicated, then, that they thought the focus of undergraduate theater arts education should be to provide Opportunities for students to develop production-re- lated skills, individually and with Others. The Opportunities might in- clude advanced training or study and certainly an understanding of their own skill level. Undergraduate theater majors indicated working effectively with other members of the production team (E = 4.717) was of prime importance. Second was developing creative and artistic skills (E = 4.683). Third was gaining 103 a good overview in theater and knowledge Of basic skills, whether or not those skills were vocationally oriented (E = 4.603). Fourth was gaining full use and control of the body and voice (R = 4.590). Least frequently selected was teaching theater (§ = 3.661). Undergraduates, involved in the process, selected items more clearly related to their developmental tasks-~working with others, develOping skills, gaining an overview of theater and mastering their instrument (body and voice). Undergraduate telecommunications majors rated working effectively with others (i = 4.615) first, developing creative and artistic skills (E - 4.595) second, gaining a good overview (i = 4.500) third, and gaining control of body and voice (i = 4.380) last. Least frequently selected was teaching theater (i - 3.250). Their perspective is similar to that of theater students, with thk exception that learning to use feedback took precedence over gaining full use and control of the instrument (body and voice). Undergraduate communications majors selected gaining full use and control of the body and voice (i = 4.519) as having primary importance. Second was develOping artistic and creative skills (2 = 4.481). Ranked equally for third were making use of criticism and working effectively with other members of the production team (E = 4.370). Least frequently selected was teaching theater (E = 3.185). This cluster of answers sug- gests that communications majors see the tasks of the theater student as individual processes related to professional training. They may perceive the role of a theater student to be more glamourous than those involved in the process do. Other undergraduate majors ranked develop artistic and creative skills (i = 4.453) as most important, working effectively with other members 104 of the production team (i = 4.389) second, a general overview of theater (Q a 4.385) third, and gaining full use and control of the body and voice (i I 4.344) fourth. Least frequently selected was teaching theater (E = 3.296). Again, individual and preprofessional training take primary focus. All of these responses indicate very high agreement, with the highest mean being 4.857 of a possible 5.0 and the lowest being 4.262. The most frequently selected items across groups for the question of what a theater department should prepare its students to do include: 1) working effectively with the other members of the production team and/ Or developing creative and artistic skills, 2) developing creative and artistic skills, 3) having a good overview of theater and basic skills, whether or not that leads to a job in theater, and 4) gaining control of body and voice. While mean figures were high in some categories (3.185- 3.661), all groups indicated that teaching theater was the least important goal goal for a theater department in the preparing of an undergraduate student. Responses to the question of what a theater department should pre- pare an undergraduate student to do are presented in Table 4.6. Knowledge and Qualities of Graduating MSU Students Second, the survey asked "What do you think Michigan State University theater students are prepared to do when or have gained by the time they graduate?" a. to make a living in theater b. a good overview in theater and knowledge of basic skills, although they are not necessarily marketable c. creative and artistic skills d. full use and control of the body and voice 105 m a m N _ Hawmm: Hummus mmoHom: no: Hummus Hawoma "macaw >uo> sameness Mason: nonuwoz Ooc aaomnoum uoz >o>h=m meowOumo co«uooaom cu Snow comono saucoavouu umoes seq.m I m mwm.q n m om~.m u x «ooao> mam cumumozu mmm.< n x mmq.q a x muofime homomozu somom mma.m u m amoumocu comma emN.m u x «smumocu Locos Hoc.m n x «summons Somme omm.m n x «smuconu comma «Hem.m I m umummcu comma OOHO£O umma zoom mo «Ooucoo emm.s u m OOflo> coo smog mo H0uucco omm.e u m mowo> mam moon mo Houucou mmm.¢ u x masses um weamcmuwpomc: meagre are mo 3O“>um>o ohm.c n m >Ho>muquwo xuo3 .Emfiuuufiuo mo mm: ome COm.¢ I m «summonu mo 3Ow>uo>o moe.s u m «moumocu mo 3ofi>uo>o mmm.q u m wcficamuu moocu> new new someone amm.q u m wcwcfimuu poocm> lum COL summons umfififixm no~o>ou ouwozo mum mcoHuoommw Oumaomuwuomcs ponuo >Ho>fiuuowwm xpom maawxm mo~m>om mam.s n m «OOHO> mam anon mo Houucoo m»o«me muosmmuw lemme: mcofiumoac35500 ame.s u m «maaexm ao~m>me muOnme mumsmmuwuomca mGOMumowcsEEoomHoe mmm.¢ u m mfio.c u m «mflawxm oo~o>ou «zam>«uoommo xuoz muofime mumsomuw scope: emumoze mmo.¢ u m NHN.¢ u m «mdaaxm oodo>ou «>Ho>wuoomwo xuoz .mco.c n m «>Ho>uuoowuo xuoz umfifiaxm oo~o>oo menopaum Oumaumuw smumoce q-.e u m mmw.¢ n m commons madfixm mo mo 3oH>po>o wowucmumuouca awesome sausage oofioco um“ ~o>oq mom moud OHEoomo< Ouaono mam mucouaum Oumaomuwuouss opossum maaozm muco5uumaoa noumoza so: e.e magma 106 e. to make use of criticism f. a realistic understanding of their skills g. a thorough background in dramatic literature, theory and theater history h. to go on for further training, either graduate school or other advanced training i. they know themselves j. to work effectively with other members Of the production team k. to teach theater The following data are summarized in Table 4.7 Faculty reSponded with three equally important first choices, that students have gained a good overview of theater and the basic skills whether or not that leads to employment in theater, are prepared for advanced training or graduate school, and work effectively with other members of the production team (E = 3.500). Following the three second choices: making a living in theater, having a realistic understanding of their skills, and knowing themselves (; = 3.000). Selected as least important items were full use and control of body and voice (E = 2.500), thorough background in dramatic literature, theory, and theater history, and teaching theater (§ = 2.667). The first block related to student professional development, the second to personal develOpment. Graduate students indicated that they thought MSU's Department of Theater prepared students for advanced training or graduate school (i = 3.647). Second, they ranked good overview in theater and knowledge of basic skills , employable or not (E = 3.529). Third was working effec- tively with other members of the production team (i a 3.471). Fourth was a thorough background in dramatic literature, theory, and theater history (§ = 3.250). Least frequently selected were full use and control 107 of body and voice (i = 2.412), making a living in theater (i 2.882), making use of criticism (E = 2.882), and teaching theater (i = 2.824). Graduate student responses related to academic study and the activities of producing theater. Undergraduate theater majors ranked a good overview of theater and the basic skills and working effectively with other members of the pro- duction team (E a 3.651) as first. Third was creative and artistic skills (i - 3.508) and fourth was further training, graduate school, or other advanced training (§ = 3.460). Least frequently selected were full use and control of body and voice (x = 2.412), teaching theater (§ I 2.824), making a living in theater and making full use of criticism (i . 2.882). Undergraduate theater majors ranked a good overview of theater and the basic skills and working effectively with other members of the pro- duction team (E = 3.651) as first. Third was creative and artistic skills (§ = 3.508) and fourth was further training, graduate school, or other advanced training (i = 3.460). Least frequently selected were full use and control of body and voice (i = 2.412), teaching theater (§ * 2.824), making a living in theater and making full use of criticism (i - 2.882). These students believe the Department provides them with an overall understanding of theater and the basic skills associated with theater as well as the skills to work effectively in artistic collaboration. Undergraduate telecommunications majors ranked working effectively with other members of the production team (E = 3.925) first; a good over- view in theater and knowledge of basic skills, marketable or not (i = 3.889), second; and creative and artistic skills (E = 3.852), third. 108 Fourth was a realistic understanding Of their skills (i = 3.650). Like theater majors, telecommunications majors focused on overall production and artistic skills. Undergraduate communications majors ranked a good overview in theater and knowledge of basic skills, marketable or not (E = 3.885) first. Second was work effectively with other members of the production team (E = 3.852). Third was knowing themselves (i = 3.815). Fourth was creative and artistic skills (E = 3.778). Least frequently selected was teaching theater (i I 2.889). This is the first time that self-awareness appears as a high item for students. It may suggest that the academic and pro- duction facets of educational theater provide an Opportunity for the de- velopment of self-knowledge for those not using a theater degree as the first step of a career path. Theater may provide the same Opportunity to theater students, although whether self-knowledge is considered important or whether stating that it is so may not appear desirable to theater stu- dents. Undergraduate others ranked a good overview of theater and knowledge of basic skills, marketable or not (E = 3.869) first, working effectively with other members Of the production team (§ = 3.863) second, creative and artistic skills (E = 3.758) third, and a realistic understanding of skills (§ = 3.727) last. Least frequently selected were making a living in theater (i = 2.802) and teaching theater (i =2.954). Undergraduate others appear to perceive the Department as producing thoroughly educated, artistically skilled graduates. For all groups, having a good overview of theater was the most frequently ranked selection for knowledge and qualities of graduating MSU students first and second. Also second was that these students could work 109 effectively with other members of the production team. Third, that they have a realistic understanding of their skills. Thus, the Department of Theater was believed to offer a good overview of theater, production skills and to provide its students with opportunities in which they could realistically assess their skills. Additionally, all groups felt that MSU did not prepare teachers of theater. Theater faculty, graduate, and undergraduate students indicated that MSU did not provide students training for gaining the full use and control of their bodies and voices. These data are summarized in Table 4.7. Goals of Undeggraduate Theater Programs The next goal-related question was: "What do you think the gpel§_ of an undergraduate theater program should be?" a. to train theater generalists b. to train theater specialists c. to provide students with an environment in which to develop as sensitive people d. to help students learn to articulate Opinions and ideas e. to help students develop a variety of perspectives through which to approach creative and noncreative problems f. to prepare students for graduate school or other advanced training Faculty ranked first both helping students learn to articulate Opinions and ideas, and helping students deve10p a variety of perspectives through which to approach creative and noncreative problems (i 8 4.714). Third was providing students with an environment in which to develop as sensitive people (i = 4.286). Fourth was training theater generalists (E = 4.143). These goals are liberal arts goals, not preprofessional goals. Training theater Specialists ranked lowest (E = 2.857), which 110 www.~ menu o>mz mucoosum ~H< c m U.COo meow .mazu o>oc mucooSum meow were o>os mucomsum Duo: (‘4 menu o>mn mucoozum 3mm US menu mm: "mamom >o>s=m oesoo oz «omm.m I m smumocu zomou Nom.~ u x weo>ea a meme «omm.~ I x umumocu comma Omw.m I m wcH>HH m ome mmw.~ I x «noumozu comou I m Emfiowuauo mo a: name we: a m wet/3 more «qmm.~ I m noummzu comma m~q.m I m OOfio> pew Amos «qmw.m u x nouomzu comma www.m I x Emfiuamwuo no a: ome Nmm.~ I x wca>aa a meme -q.~ u x:oo«o> can zoom «Aeo.~ . m Ouumonu gummy noo.~ I m pcaoumxomn zuaouozu oom.N I x ouao> paw zoom oofiozo ummH mmm.m I m wmm.m I m «mamfixm we a mfiawxm owumwuum mo wcaocmumuouc: use O>Humouo new.m I m «>~o>fiuquwo xuos maa.m n m massxm oeumeorm m_m.m a m mmw.m u m can o>wumouu mo>~om 3cm: 4>~o>wuomuuo xuo3 emo.m . m Amm.m u m mmm.m a m «manure «manage elements sponsors mo mewmcmumuooca mam o>aumouo mo 3ofi>uo>o oes.m . m megawmuu nooco> now now osmooua mom.m a m Immense essences new o>Humouo OmN.m I m Assume; ocm omm.m I m xuomzu .ouaumno -q.m I x «summonu used cw mesouwxomn >~O>Huoommo xuo3 mo zofi>uo>o coo.m u m mo>_om 30c: “mafiwxm we weemcaumuoocz wou>wfl m ome mewozo zoo memoso mum Ame COMUnoao xo>uam Om noncommmmv OOHOLO mcm zuowoumu : oem.m u m «summons mo Boa>uo>o new.m u m “hwumvfiu mo 3ou>uo>o mmm.m I x >HO>HOOOWHO xhoz ~mo.m I m someozu mo sma>oo>o ch.m u m mascamuu moocm> too you summons 00m.m n m >~o>wuu0wuo xpoz umc«:«muu unocc> new use some loss numumocu we 3ow>uo>o mouCSO umfi mucomaum :mz wouumammuo mo moHuwdmso mo Owcoazocx n.< oHan « Emu“ comozo xsucoacouw umOE« mthmE mumaumuwppoc: Cosmo mac-ea ouqsumuw looms: macaumoecassoo muofime muoaumuwuomcz mcofiumo«::EEOOOHOH moo-e2 Oumammuwpomc: hammock musocaum Oumaomuw mundane xufiaomm smummzh acoucomwom mo ~o>yq mam mon< ofisommo< 111 further substantiates that the faculty is biased in a liberal arts di- rection. Least frequently selected was training theater specialists GE - 2.857). Graduate students put developing perspectives through which to approach creative and noncreative problems (i = 4.353) first. Second was helping students learn to articulate Opinions and ideas (E = 4.235). Third was preparing students for graduate school or other advanced training (§ = 4.176). Fourth was training theater generalists (§ 8 4.059). Least frequently selected was training theater specialists (§ = 3.412). This ranking of goals, again, represents a liberal arts orientation with an increased focus on the academic goals of further training. Undergraduate theater majors ranked training theater specialists (i 8 4.444) first. Second were training theater generalists and pre- paring students for graduate school or other advanced training (i = 4.381). Fourth was helping students develop a variety of perspectiVes through which to approach creative and noncreative problems (§ 3 4.274). Least frequently selected was training theater specialists (; = 3.412). It seems clear that for undergraduate theater majors, the business of getting a theater degree is the business of becoming well trained as artists or craftspeople in theater, in general, and to preparing for further training. Theater undergraduates were the only group to select training theater specialists as the most important item. Telecommunications undergraduates ranked training theater generalists first (I = 4.177). Second was helping students deve10p a variety of perspectives through which to approach creative and noncreative problems (i a 4.089). Third was helping train students to learn to articulate Opinions and ideas (i = 4.013). Fourth was training theater specialists 112 (R = 3.975). There was no low selection. This cluster is primarily a liberal arts cluster. Communications majors ranked preparing students for graduate school or other advanced training (R I 4.074). Second was training theater gen— eralists (§ I 4.000). Third was training theater specialists (R I 3.889). Fourth was helping students deve10p a variety of perspectives through which to approach creative and noncreative problems (I I 3.852). There was no last selection. These are primarily liberal arts goals. Undergraduate others ranked training theater generalists and helping students learn to articulate Opinions and ideas (§ I 4.044) first. Third was helping students deve10p a variety of perspectives through which to approach creative and noncreative problems (i I 3.852). Fourth was pro- viding students with an environment in which to develop as sensitive peo- ple (E I 3.824). Least frequently selected was training theater specI ialists (E I 3.597). These items represent liberal arts goals. Across categories, training theater generalists, articulating Opin- ions and ideas and developing problem solving skills shared first place. Second was training theater generalists. There was no third place item. Selected most frequently fourth were training theater generalists and de- velOping problem solving skills. This cluster of goals is clearly related to the use Of theater arts as a means of achieving the broad goals of liberal arts education, rather than specific performance training. Only undergraduate theater majors selected training theater specialists as first, which most likely reflects their own personal goals. Telecommunications and communications majors selected that item, but it was ranked fourth and third respectively, following broad liberal arts goals. Of those groups with least frequently selected items, theater faculty, graduate and 113 undergraduate students indentified training theater specialists as their last choice. This consensus of Opinion is a liberal arts series. The last choice item, training theater Specialists, is a preprofessional goal and the others are liberal arts goals. This material is summarized in Table 4.8. Goals of MSU's Theater Department The final question was: "What do you think the goals of Michigan State University's Department of Theater are?" a, to train theater generalists b. to train theater specialists c. to provide students with an environment in which to develOp as sensitive people d. to help students learn to articulate Opinions and ideas e. to help students deve10p a variety of perspectives through which to approach creative and noncreative problems f. to prepare students for graduate school or other advanced training Faculty ranked preparing students for graduate school or other advanced training (i I 4.500) first. Second was training theater specialists (E = 4.167). Third was helping students deve10p a variety of perspectives through which to approach creative and noncreative problems (I I 3.833). Fourth were training theater generalists and articulating Opinions and ideas (i = 3.667). Selected least frequently was providing students an environment in which to deve10p as sensitive people (I I 3.000). Faculty see Departmental goals as liberal arts. Additionally, faculty perceive the Department as using liberal arts strategies to prepare students for specialization and further training. 114 Nam.m u m «mumwdmwooam umummzu cameo Nae.« u m amumfidcqomam someway sewn» mmm.m u m «mumfifimaooam snowman cameo OOHOLO ummH m omuw< mam:2msm smw.n n m ao~o>ou Om Loan: as ucoEcoufi>co ~mm.m n m «mfiawxm wcfi>flom Emanous msm.m I m mumwfimwooom summons Cameo c-.s I m «maafixm wcH>Hom Ewanous mmo.o I m «mumpsmpocmu commozu Cameo mq~.c n x «mumwsmuocmw common“ cause oowoco nus upom< ~mo.q I x maflexm wcfi>aom Eofinous mmm.m I m mumwdmfioosm mommonu Gamma mac.¢ I m momma new mcoacwso OumH3Ofiuum on_.q I m messamuu moocm> lem pow monsoon owm.q I m ao~o>ou Ou sowc3 cw ucoeeouw>co musozo mum co~uoodom m mouwmmfiu no: omuwm nonuaoz ooo.e I m «mumfiamuocow smumozu cameo mmo.q I m mHHme mcH>HOm Seasons ~mm.q I m wowcumuu poocm> new no“ mangoes «umumwdmuocow amumosu camps mm~.¢ I m momma new mcoficaeo Oumfiaofiuom oowosu new Ase :Owumoao >o>oam Om momcoemmzv mEmeOum summons oumzwmuwuoocz COL mfimoo w.q mamas oeuwmmfim moswmmma aamcouum “mamom zo>usm zucmoumo :H comers xsusoscoue um25I «so.< I m «momma ocm mCOHCHQO Oumasowuuw «mmumaamuocow summon» cameo «so.o n m wchHmpu mooom> 1mm u0w commons nm~.q I x «mamasmuocow commons swoon «sq.q I m mumufimwooam moomocu Cameo mmm.e u m amaafixw wcfl>~om Emanous ¢~N.¢ I m «maaexm wea>aom awesome "momma ucm m:o«c«ao Oumfisowuum amends Oumsomuwuovc: porno muOHNE monsootmnomcz mcofiumoficzssoo moOnmE muqsumnwuouca mcoHumO«c:EEoomdoH who-ms Oumavmuwuomc: emumoze mucoosom oumaomum summons zuaaomw summons oeuozo DIH ucomcommom mo Au>oq mam emp< OwEoumo< 115 Graduate students ranked preparing students for graduate school or other advanced training (§ I 3.941) first. Second was training theater specialists (E I 3.765). Third was training theater generalists (E I 3.647), and fourth was helping students develop a variety of perspectives through which to approach creative and noncreative problems (§ I 3.353). Least frequently selected was providing an environment (§ I 2.882). 'These are liberal arts goals, as are faculty rankings. Again, liberal arts strategies seem to them to provide the best basis for preparing or training students to be theater specialists. SO, graduate students see a well-trained theater specialist as one who bases advanced skills on a lib— eral arts foundation. Undergraduate theater majors ranked training theater generalists (i I 4.098) first. Second was training theater specialists (§ I 3.836). Third was preparing students for graduate school or other advanced training (§ I 3.803). FOurth was helping students develop a variety of perspectives through which to approach creative and noncreative problems (§ I 3.492). Least frequently selected was providing an environment (§ I 2.882). This cluster of answers suggests that students perceive the need to specialize (either acquiring pre-vocational skills or preparation for advanced training) after achieving thorough grounding in general theater knowledge and skills. Problem solving may be a liberal arts or prepro- fessional goal. Undergraduate telecommunications majors ranked training theater generalists (i I 4.145) first. Second was helping students develOp a variety of perspectives through which to approach creative and noncreative problems (R I 3.987). Third was training theater specialists (i I 3.842). Fourth was helping students learn to articulate Opinions and ideas (i I 116 3.789). Least frequently selected was providing an environment (R I 3.632). These are basically liberal arts goals, with the exception of training theater Specialists. Undergraduate communications majors ranked training theater gen- eralists (i I 3.963) first. Second was training theater specialists (R I 3.778). Third was providing students with an environment in which to develop as sensitive people (§ I 3.741). Fourth were both helping students learn to articulate opinions and ideas and helping students develop a variety of perspectives through which to approach creative and noncreative problems (i I 3.704). This group is the only one that ranked environment as one of the tOp four. This may suggest that for some non- major undergraduates, the theater department provides an environment in which they feel nutured, protected, and inspired. This may reflect a comparison of the environment and sensitivity of the communications de- partment for them, what happens when the pressures of a major are removed from theater studies, or how theater coursework based on the liberal arts benefits nonmajors. Undergraduate other majors ranked training theater generalists (I I 4.045) first. Second was helping students learn to articulate opinions and ideas (i I 3.839). Third was helping students develop a variety of perspectives through which to approach creative and noncreative problems (E I 3.781). Fourth was preparing students for graduate school or other advanced training (i I 3.723). Least frequently selected was providing an environment (E I 3.667). Again, these are liberal arts goals. Two items ranked as first overall. All undergraduate majors selected theater generalists. Faculty and graduate students ranked preparing for graduate school or other advanced training first. Second across groups 117 was training theater specialists. Third was problem solving. Fourth were problem solving and articulating OpiniOns and ideas. These are primarily liberal arts items. The second place ranking of theater spec- ialist, however, suggests that respondents believe that some of the function of theater arts training is to provide artistic skill training. While some of the means are high (2.882-3.677), there is almost complete con- sensus that the least frequently identified goal of MSU's Department of Theater is to provide students with an environment in which to develop as sensitive people. Table 4.9 summarizes the data about the goals of MSU's Theater Department. The question about goals of undergraduate theater elicited the following responses. Undergraduate programs were thought to train students to work effectively witb other members of the production team, to deve10p creative and artistic skills, to have a good overview of theater whether or not that led to a job in theater, and to teach students to gain control Of their bodies and voices, but not to teach theater. Graduating Michigan State University students were thought to have gained a good overview of theater, skills to work effectively with other members of the production team, creative and artisticiskills and a realistic understanding of their skills, but were not trained to teach theater. Appropriate goals for an undergraduate theater program were identified as the training of theater generalists, the skills to articulate Opinions, ideas and solve problems, but not the training of theater specialists. Goals of Michigan State University's Department of Theater were identified as being to train theater generalists, to prepare students for graduate school or other ad- vanced training, to train theater specialists, and to equip students to do 118 mmc.m I m «ac~o>oo to soar: cw newscoofl>co mmo.m I m «mo~o>om Cu cows: c“ u:oEcouH>co Nwm.m I m IsoHo>OU Om Loans :H ucoECOu«>:o Nwm.~ I m «so~o>um Cu Laws: cw u5pE:Ou«>:o ooo.m I m «ao~o>ou On some: as nauseoua>co ouwoso ummH m c m m momma oeuwmmsv no: "mamom >ch0uum mouw< mocwm upsufioz mouwmmwo >o>u=m >uow0umo cw Emu“ comosu zaucoacoom umOEI m-.m I m smm.m I m mmw.m I m mqo.< I x wcwcflmuu moocm> «maafixm more“ use moo“: «mumaflmnwcow moo-ms new new museums ooh.m I x «maawxm wow>aom Eom locum "momma mam Iago oumfiaowuum awa.m a m momma use moo“: Iago OumH2Ofiuum Noe.m u m «maafixm wcH>Hom EoynOua mmm.m I m «mafiwxm wcH>~Om Eofinoua eco.m I m Immune new mcoficwao Oumflauwucm “mumwfimuocow noumm£u tempo ooeoro are wow>~om Eofinoua ~q~.m I m ao~o>oo Ou Lou£3 cw ucoecouw>co Nem.m n m mumwamwoomm commune cameo mom.m I x wcfiCHmuu moucm> new new summons mq©.m I x mumwmmnmcow umompcu cfimuu wee>fiom Swansea mowoso mum l1|1||l|ll1|l :o_uop_om Iago Oumaaouuum mun.m I m «mumaamuooam noomozu cameo 5mm.m I x madman wcw>HOm Seances emm.m u m «mumfiamwooem someone Cameo mom.m I m «mummamwooom poumonu same» ~o_.q I m «mumwfimwoonm omummnu cameo ooaoco pom Amn ccfiumozo ao>u:m On noncommomv smumoch mo scoEuumdoo m.:m: mo mfimcu a .q OHoma woumosu cameo moo.m I x «mumudmuocow soumozu :Hmnu med.¢ I m «mum«HMpocmw someone :«muu moo.¢ I x Imumeamuocow uOummcu :Hmuu ~¢m.m I m mewcfimou moocm> new mom woodman oom.q I m wcficwmuu voocm> now now ouwaoua OOHonu ums Oumammuwoouc: nosuo who-me Ouozomuwuooc: mCOwumoac:EEOU muonme oumammuwmopcz meoHumOH::EEOOOHoH moo-me Oumsmmuwuomcs summons mucouSum monopouw Commons >uasomw noumocH ucomcommom mo Ho>og mew awh< oaewmmo< 119 problem solving, but not to provide an environment in which students can develop as sensitive people. Standards of Undergraduate Theater The research question was: "By what standards should an undergrad- uate theater program be evaluated?" Survey question 5) "By what standards do you think an undergraduate theater program should be evalu- ated?" and 6) "By what standards do you think Michigan State University's theater program is evaluated?" addressed this question. Undergraduate theater program standards. The survey asked "By what standards do you think an undergraduate theater program should be evaluated?" a. the marketability of its students b. the academic skills of its faculty c. the teaching skills of its faculty d. the production skills of its faculty e. the artistic quality of its productions f. the commercial success of its productions g. the well-rounded education of its students Faculty rated three items first, the teaching skills of its faculty, the artistic quality of its productions, and the well-rounded education of its students (i I 4.571). Fourtb were the marketability of its students and the production skills of its faculty (I I 4.427). Least frequently selected was the commercial success of its productions (E I 3.143). The primary goals were a mix of liberal arts and preprofessional standards. The others are related to the production work of the depart- ment, but primarily focus on faculty skills. 120 Graduate students ranked the teaching skills of its faculty (E I 4.353) first. Second was the well-rounded education of its students (E I 4.235). Third was the artistic quality of its productions (N I 4.176). Least frequently selected was the commercial success of its productions (R I 2.824). These standards are primarily related to the competencies of the faculty. Undergraduate theater majors ranked the teaching skills of the faculty (E I 4.629) first. Second were both the production skills of its faculty and the artistic quality of its productions (§ I 4.548). Fourth was the well-rounded education of its students (§ I 4.516). Least fre- quently selected was the commercial success of its productions (; I 2.824). Perhaps because these students have the most intimate relationship with the formal curricular Offerings, they rank the teaching skills of faculty first. Second and third relate to production skills and last is a liberal arts goal. Thus standards are primarily related to faculty skill and com- petence. Undergraduate telecommunications majors ranked the well-rounded education of its students (i I 4.141) first. Second was the teaching skills of its faculty (E I 4.130). Third was the artistic quality of its productions (§ I 4.051). Fourth was the production skills of its faculty (E I 4.031). Least frequently selected was the commercial success of its productions (I I 3.090). Although two are academic, two are production related. The strongest focus for the telecommunications majors is the skill of the faculty. Undergraduate communications majors ranked the well-rounded education of its students (§ I 4.192) first. Second was the teaching skills of its faculty (R I 4.077).' Third was the artistic quality of its productions 121 (I I 4.038). Last was the production skills of its faculty (R I 4.000). Least frequently selected was the commercial success of its productions (i I 3.440). This is the same pattern as telecommunications majors, with an equal split between academics (higher rated) and production skills. Undergraduate other majors ranked the well-rounded education of its students (§ I 4.227) first. Second was the artistic quality of its pro- ductions (I I 4.218). Third was the teaching skills of its faculty (E I 4.169). Least frequently selected was the commercial success of its pro- ductions (i I 3.218). Almost unanimously, the well-rounded education of its students ranked as the most important standard for undergraduate theater programs. Second was the artistic quality of its productions and the teaching skills of its faculty. Artistic quality of productions ranked third. Production skills of its faculty ranked last. Responses to this question begin to Show some of the stresses on standard setting in undergraduate theater arts. All of the selected items related to quality, competence, and skill of faculty. Like college sports, the focus of the game or the play as seen as the ultimate indication of the quality of its productions as criteria for departmental quality may divert faculty energies from classroom teaching and has a strong influence on se- lection criteria for faculty. In order to stage productions of the finest quality, the department must focus on preprofessional training and, as a result, can be held accountable for the marketability of its~students. These factors do, however, often Oppose liberal arts standards, by which students must be good citizens, articulate, and well-rounded but not necessarily marketable in theater for the department from which they grad- uate to be considered a success. While production quality is seen as 122 important, no group is believed the commercial success of such productions was an appropriate standard for undergraduate theater arts. A summary of material on standards of undergraduate theater may be found in Table 4.10. MSU Theater Department Standards. The survey asked "By what standards do you think Michigan State University's theater program is evaluated?" a. the marketability of its students b. the academic skills of its faculty c. the teaching skills of its faculty d. the production skills of its faculty e. the artistic quality of its productions f. the commercial success Of its productions g. the well-rounded education of its students Data from this question are summarized in Table 4.11. Faculty ranked two items first, the marketability of its students and the commercial success of its productions (I I 4.429). Third was the production skills of its faculty (E I 4.286), and fourth was the artistic quality of its productions (§ I 4.143). Least frequently se- lected was the academic skills of its faculty (E I 3.286). These standards involve production work and preprofessional train- ing. They primarily reflect the skills of the faculty. Graduate students ranked production skills of its faculty (§ 4.000) as first. Second was the commercial success of its productions (E 3.941). Tied for third were the marketability of its students and the academic skills of ins faculty (§ I 3.529). Least frequently selected was the msm.m I m «mmoooam HmwoumEEOO qu.m I x «mmoooam HmwouoEEoO ooo.m I x «mmoooam HmwouoEEoo om®.m I x ammoooam HmHOmOEEOO swm.e u m «mumuosm Hmwouoceco mes.m I x «mmoooam HmfiOLOEEoO moacso ummw "memom >o>uam mmofloe Ouosummwuomc: pozuo who-me mumsumumuomca macaumoficsseoo moo-me mumsmmuwmmmc: maceumoac:EEoOw~oh who-ms Oumzpmowuomc: moumozs mucmmSum oueaumuw Connors m o m N mouwm . oouwmmap no: AHwCOpum omuw< oouwm nocuwoz mouwmmmn zuowwumo c“ Emu“ ewmozo sauconvosw OmOEI omo.q I m mo~.q I m m_~.q I x mm~.q I m «maflwxm mHHme «mowumfimzm «coaumusuo :oHuoacOCQ wcfinomoO ofiumfiuum momcaounfiaoz oco.q I m wmo.c I x mno.q I m Nm~.o I m «masses «sesamzm «Inseam «coaumoseo :OwuoaoOoo owumfiuum mewzomOu numeroulfiaoz mdo.q I m smo.c I x Om~.c I m ~c~.< I m «maaaxm axuuamsm «mafiwxm «COAOQOJoO cosmoamOua ofiumwuum wcfisomuu mooCOOHIAHm3 mom.< I x «xufiamzm o_m.q I m ofiumauum :oHumospo "mafiwxu omc.c I x oomcsoulaaoz :OHOOauoue «maafixm mewsooom ooo.q I m om_.q I x mmm.c I m Imfiflwxm «zufifimam coHumozmo mmm.q I m couuoau0ua oaumfiuum umpc:ouu-o3 «mfiywxm mafiLOmOO dun.¢ I m o~¢.m I m acowumos «mfiflwxw new mout:o»n-o3 cofiuosooua ”zuaswnouuxuoe messed cue OOMOLO cum :3“ “steam mesons mcm Ame ccfioryso >o>uam cu noncommomv mEOCwOLm essence Oumzumuxuouc: mo mmumocmum o_.q manna “someone owummuum «seesaw wearomoo Ooaoco umfi season“ Commons ucomcommmm mo Ao>oq new moe< oesopsum 124 teaching skills of its faculty (I = 3.235). Three of these four relate to production activity, and all consider the skills of the faculty. Undergraduate theater majors ranked first the commercial Success of its productions (E I 4.032). Second was the production skills of its faculty (§ I 3.934). Tied for the third and fourth were the teaching skills of its faculty and the well-rounded education of its students (§ I 3.226). These Standards are evenly divided between successful production standards and academic standards, but relate primarily to faculty skills. Undergraduate telecommunications majors ranked the artistic quality of its productions (§ I 3.867) first. Second was the production skills of its faculty (E I 3.800), and third was the teaching skills of its faculty (i I 3.693). Last was the well-rounded education Of its students (i I 3.640). Again, the division between production and academic standards is equal, with the primary emphasis on faculty skills. The high ranking of artistic quality raises the question about who is to judge artistic quality. The Theater Department would probably hold the most professional artistic standards among the groups surveyed. Artistic quality as judged by Others, less rigorously or not trained in dramatic artistry, might be measured more readily by the commercial appeal of a production. That undergraduate telecommunications majors, less trained, ranked artistic quality first suggests that their assessment of artistry may reflect only that productions are the most visible, not necessarily the artistically exceptional, product of the department. Least frequently selected was the marketability of its students (§ I 3.467). Undergraduate communications majors rankkd the artistic quality of its productions (E I 3.885) first. Second was the well-rounded education of its students (E I 3.667). Tied for third were the academic skills of 125 its faculty and the commercial success of its productions (E I 3.593). Least frequently selected was the marketability of its students (E I 3.259). These were equally divided between production and academic items. Again, the assessment of artistic quality ranked highly. These items relate to what is visible to nonmajors. Undergraduate other majors ranked the production skills of its faculty (§ I 4.014) first. Second was the artistic quality of its pro- ductions (E I 4.013). Third was the teaching skills of its faculty (; I 3.899), and fourth was the well-rounded education of its students (§ I 3.852). Least frequently selected was the marketability of its students (i I 3.443). Again, these items were drawn equally from academic and from production items. Also, the artistic quality of production and faculty skills were rated high. The visible commercial success a production brings to a department, which nontrained audience members may see as artistry, may be a good method for attracting nonmajor student credit hours. Most frequently selected items across categories were, first, the production skills of faculty, the artistic quality of productions, and the commerCial success of productions. Second was production skills. Third was teaching skills of the faculty. Fourth was the well-rounded education of its students. Elements of both production and academic standards were selected by faculty, graduate and undergraduate students as being in evi- dence at the Theater Department at MSU but MSU standards according to these groups rests primarily on faculty skills. All undergraduate students indicated that the marketability of theater students was the least fre- quently considered standard in the Department of Theater at MSU. The answers to standards at MSU's Department of Theater are sum- marized in Table 4.11. mqq.m n m >uanwnmuwxuee momma n m «saa_aesaaxsae Ncq.m u m 6 kxuwfianmuwxome omm.m u m «>uadwnmumxume mm~.m u m mfififixm wcwzomwu saw.” u m “Aafixm ouaofimom wofiozo ummH m a m N mmuwm wmuwmmqv no: mmuwmmfic "mgmom >o>uam xawcouum oouw< mmuwm Locufiwz oopwmmwa zfiwcouum xuowoumo :w Emu“ comoco aducmzvouw umoes Nmm.m n m mom.m u m m~o.q u x «do.< a m «cofiumosno «m-fixm xuaamzm «mHafixm meshes noccsoulfifioz mcwzomwu ufiumfiuum cofiuoavoLa oumacmuwuovcs cacao mam.m n m noo.m u m www.m n x mmooosm HowoLmEEoo cofiumoznv «muwfimsm mpofime mumsamuwcowcz umfififixm UHEovwom vencsounmdoz ouumfiuum m:o«umoqczeaou Oqo.m u m moo.m u m oom.m u m mow.m n x acowumuscm smafluxm «m-wxm «zuufimsm mnemms monomuwpmocs coccsounHHmB wcfisomou :oHuoscoua owumfiupm mcoHumowcsssoomHvH wmm.m u m «ceaumosom cmm.m u m Nmo.q u m chCDOLIHHw3 «mdflwxm «mmmuusm muoflms «umafiuxm wcfizomou coHuusooLa HmaoaoEEoo mumscmuwpoocz Doggone mmm.m u m #qm.m n m coo.¢ u m mddwxm ufiaowmoo mmmouom «wAHme mucounom zuamfinmumxume Hmwuuoeeou coHuosocuq mumsomtw umummnh omq.c u m mdc.q u x 0mm.q u x «mmooozm >uw~msm mmduxm HmuopoEEou owumwuum sawoozoOpa “zufi~finmumxume zodsomw umommsh ooficzo zuq oofiozo bum oofioxo new oofiono umfl “concommom we Am>og Cimuuudum Ac: :ofiumazc >v>hsm cu newcommoxv poumozh mo usiaupoaoo m.:m: mo mcumccmom -.q wanmb vcm mou< ufisocmo< 127 The question about standards elicited the following opinions. Standards by which an undergraduate theater program should be evaluated include the well-rounded education of its students, the artistic quality of its productions, the teaching skills of its faculty, the artistic quality of its productions, and the production skills of its faculty. Standards to which the Michigan State University Department of Theater are believed held include the production skills of its faculty, the artistic qualities of its productions, the commercial success of its productions, the teaching skills of its faculty, and the well-rounded education of its students. Plangroduction The survey asked: "What are the purposes of producing plays in an educational setting?" Issues like how productions are handled, the cre- dentials of directors, the length and timing of rehearsals, and the in- vestment of departmental resources are critical to understanding a given curriculum and department. This question was addressed by survey questions 3) "What do you think are the purposes of doing plays in an educational setting?" and 4) "What do you think are the purposes of producing plays at Michigan State University?" Purposes of play production. In answer to "What do you think the purposes of doing plays in an educational setting are?" a. to give the student the Opportunity to learn and to demon- strate production skills b. to introduce students to the history of theater, various production styles, and dramatic literature c. to give talented students the Opportunity to demonstrate and further deve10p their skills 128 d. to introduce audiences to a wide range of history of theater, various production styles and plays e. to entertain audiences f. to challenge audiences g. to respond to community and student interest and to gen- erate public participation h. to serve as an integrating function to other depart- ments, like Humanities Faculty ranked giving students Opportunities to learn and demon- strate production skills (; I 4.000) first. Second was to introduce students to the history of theater, various production styles, and dramatic literature (§ I 3.857). Tied for third were giving talented students the Opportunity to demonstrate and further to deve10p their skills, to intro- duce audiences to a wide range of history Of theater, various production styles, and plays and to challenge audiences (§ I 3.714). These items focus on production skills and productions as an integrating feature of a formal curriculum as well as the relationship Of the department to an audience. Selected least frequently was serving as an integrating function to other departments, like Humanities (§ I 2.857). Graduate students ranked both giving the student the Opportunity to learn and to demonstrate production skills, and giving talented students the Opportunity to demonstrate and further to develop their skills (§ I 4.412) first. Third was to introduce students to history of theater, various production styles and plays (§ I 4.343). Fourth was to introduce audiences to a wide range of history of theater, various production styles, and plays (§ I 4.294). These items focus on how productions have an im— pact On an undergraduate's education by providing content, Opportunity for experience, and integration as a participant and audience member. 129 Undergraduate theater majors rated giving talented students the Op- portunity to demonstrate and further to develop their skills (E I 4.452) first. Second was giving the student the opportunity to learn and demon- strate production skills (; I 4.381). Third was introducing audiences to a wide range of history Of theater, various production styles and dramatic literature (i I 4.148), and fourth were both to entertain audiences and to introduce students to history of theater, various production styles, and dramatic literature (E I 4.111). Theater majors clearly experience the competitiveness of casting as well as recognize the Opportunities production work provides them. They also recognize the importance of the audience. Least frequently selected was serving as an integrating function to other departments, like humanities (i I 3.824). Undergraduate telecommunications production skills (i I 4.000) first. Second was to give talented students the Opportunity to demonstrate and further to develOp their skills (E I 3.949). Third was to entertain audI iences (§ I 3.797), and fourth was to respond to community and student interest and to generate public participation (i I 3.628). This cluster represents a more ideal approach to production importance than the more realistic commercial approach. Least frequently selected was serving as an integrating function to other departments (§ I 2.987). Undergraduate communications majors rated giving the student the Opportunity to learn and to demonstrate production skills (i I 4.111) first. Second was giving talented students the opportunity to demonstrate and further to deve10p skills (E I 4.037). Third was entertaining audiences (i I 4.000). Fourth was introducing students to history of theater, various production styles, and dramatic literature (i I 3.741). Again, undergraduate nonmajors recognized the importance of productions without being aware of 130 the competition or real-world limitations a department usually faces. Undergraduate other majors rated giving talented students the op- portunity to demonstrate and further to develop their skills (E I 4.142) first. Second was to give the student the Opportunity to learn and to demonstrate production skills (2 I 4.086). Third was entertaining audiences (i I 3.747), and fourth was introducing audiences to a wide range of history of theater, various production, styles and plays c; I 3.744). Least frequently selected was challenging audiences (E I 3.370). The most frequently selected item across groups was first to give students the opportunity to demonstrate production skills. Second were both production skills and giving talented students the opportunity to demonstrate and further develop their skills. Third was entertaining audiences. Fourth were introducing both students and audiences to a wide range of history of theater, various production styles, and plays. The last choice of faculty, undergraduate theater and telecommunications majors was plays serving as an integrating function to other departments. This material is summarized in Table 4.12. Purposes of Play Production at MSU. The survey asked "What do you think are the purposes of doing plays at Michigan State University?" a. to give students the Opportunity to learn and to demon- strate production skills b. to introduce students to the history of theater, various production styles, and dramatic literature c. to give talented students the Opportunity to demonstrate and further to develop their skills d. to introduce audiences to a wide range of history of theater, various production styles and plays e. to entertain audiences f. to challenge audiences 131 23.. u m moocmfivzm owcoafimzo 5mm.m n m *COHUUCSM wcwumprOCw qmm.m n m «COHOOCSm wcfiumeOOCH an: n m scoHuocow wcaumthOCH uowozo “Wad "wamom >o>osm QOWoco xuc nachos mumoomuwumsc: umzuo m»o~os Oomnpmowoocc: macauoOwc=EEoo muofims muosomowomuc: mcofiuaOcheeoomfioe muonme mumzomuwuouca poommze muchSuw mumsvmtw paumocy m c m N owuw< mmuwmmwn no: afiwcooum moow< omzwm oonufioz owowmmfia muowoomo CH EOOH :wmozo >~ucoscoum umoak can.m u m owo.c a m mq_.c n m «moocmfiosm mam.m u x «maaqu mucmnsom mosvouucfi «chquucm :oHuoscODQ vaucofimu _qm.m u m mm0.q u m -~.e n m «mucoosum coo.q n m «maceraun «maflfixw moooouucfi «:«oquOCO vmucwfimu cowuoono»n mqo.m n m ooo.¢ u m wmo.m u m mom.m n m «mucopzum «mafimxm vcoamo» «:Hmuuoucm amucofimu cofiuoonoLa ~_~.c u m samuumucm wo~.q u m “mm.q n m ~mq.q u m namucocoum mmocmqnzm «maawxm mucoozom mosoouucH ooscouucH coHoozpoua vmucofimu N~¢.¢ u m qmm.q n m mmm.q u m mucovoum oOucOMMO «wmocmfivsm mucovsom mamfiflfixm oozoouucfi convouu:« cowuostpa <-.m I m moocmwvom mwcmaamco nmw.n u x ooo.c u x “moocofivam poscouuca mucuozom «mafifixm "mucowoum vmuco~mu moooouucw coHuoscoum oofiono omm caauguaudmflw Ame cofiumozv mo>o3m ou mofioco new momcoamomv moMoso um~ wcwouom Hmcofiumoopw cm cw :ofiuosoOLm mm~m new mvmoahsm -.¢ manna %uasomw umummLP ucowcoamom wo Hm>uA fizm mvn< o_vamu< 132 g. to respond to community and student interest and to generate public participation h. to serve as an integrating function to other depart- ments, like Humanities Summarized data are presented in Table 4.13. Faculty rated entertaining audiences (§ I 4.571) first. Second was giving talented students the Opportunity to demonstrate and further to develop their skills (E I 4.429). Third was giving students the Opportunity to learn and to demonstrate production skills (i I 4.000). .Last was re- sponding to community and student interest and generating public parti- cipation (E I 3.857). Least frequently selected was an integrating function to other departments (E I 2.714). These items relate predominantly to the commerCial success of productions. Graduate students ranked giving students the Opportunity to learn and to demonstrate production skills (i I 4.235) first. Second was to give talented students the Opportunity to demonstrate and further to de- velop their skills (i I 3.938). Third were both entertaining audiences and introducing students to history of theater, various production styles,_and dramatic literature (§ I 3.765). Least frequently selected were integrating function (§ I 3.000) and challenging audiences (i I 3.059). Most of these items focus on the relationship of student learning to the production of plays. Undergraduate theater majors rated giving talented students the Op- portunity to demonstrate and further to deve10p their skills (§ I 4.016) first. Second was giving students the Opportunity to learn and to demon- strate production skills (i I 3.984). Third was entertaining audiences (E I 3.953). Fourth was introducing students to history of theater, various production styles, and dramatic literature (§ I 3.500). Pilot interviews 133 suggested that the item about talented students may have a hidden bias in it. These respondents may have been reflecting about the talent of students cast in Department productions or they may have been complaining about what may have seemed to them Department favoritism. Criteria for determining student "talent" level are difficult. Students who may not be particularly skilled in performance but have a strong desire or high motivation express the belief that they should be given opportunities to develop and not be penalized because another student arrived at the Department with superior skills. This generally leads to questions about whether or not talent can be developed and whether admission cri- teria should reflect Departmental philosophy on this issue. Least fre- quently selected were the integrating function (i I 2.953), and responding to community and student interest, and generating public participation (i . 3.194). Undergraduate telecommunications majors ranked entertaining audiences (E I 3.857) first. Second was learning and demonstrating pro- duction skills (i I 3.823). Third was giving talented students the op- portunity to demonstrate and further to develop their skills (§ I 3.789). Fourth was introducing students to history of theater, various production styles, and dramatic literature (E I 3.380). Least frequently selected was the integrating function (i I 2.883). For telecommunications majors, then, the theater is entertainment and a means by which to learn. Undergraduate communications majors rated giving talented students an opportunity to demonstrate and further to develOp their skills (E I 4.120) first. Second were learning and demonstrating production skills and entertaining audiences (i I 3.885). Fourth was responding to community and student interest and generating public participation (E I 3.840). 134 Least frequently selected was the integrating function (I I 3.192). Most frequntly selected items relate to student learning and responding to audiences. Undergraduate other majors rated giving talented students the opportunity to demonstrate and further to deve10p their skills c; I 4.128) first. Second was learning and demonstrating production skills (E I 4.112). Third was entertaining audiences (I I 3.911), and fourth was introducing students to history of theater, various production styles, and dramatic literature (i I 3.739). Least frequently selected were challenging audI iences (E I 3.394) and the integrating function (i I 3.438). The combi- nation Of these items relate to academic and production-based rationale for play production. Items ranked across groups were rated as follows. First was pro- viding talented students the opportunity to demonstrate and further to develop their skills. Second was production skills. Third was entertaining audiences. Fourth was introducing students to the history of theater, various production styles, and dramatic literature. This cluster contains the re- cognition that commercial reasons seem as important as academic reasons in the Department in the producing of plays. All groups selected the inte- grating function least frequently. Graduate students, undergraduate theater, and other majors added challenging audiences as least frequent selection. This material is summarized in Table 4.13. The question about the purpose of play production elicited the following answers. The purposes of play production in undergraduate theater were giving students the opportunity to demonstrate production skills, giving talented students the opportunity to demonstrate and mmq.m u m coauoosw wcwumquucfi cmm.m I m moonwaoom owcoaamso Nmfi.m u m «comuocsu wcfiumuwoOCM mmm.N u m *CCflUUCDW wowumhvvocfi qaa.m u m mummuocou poo ocoamou mm¢.m n m "$50“ u 053w wswuouwoucw mmo.m n m moocmfissm owcoHHmzo ooo.m I m «couuocsw mcHumuwmucfi q~N.N u m «comuoczm wCMOmuuwucH oowoso umofi _ N n q momma mouwmmwp no: mauwmmwo "mamom >o>hsm xflwCOLOm umpw< owuwm pocuuoz mouwmmwa xfiwcopum anowOumo a“ Emu“ comono aducmsvoow umOE« mmm.m u m dam.m u m N—#.¢ u m mN~.¢ u m «mucousum «mwocufiozm mfidwxm «mucoosum muOHmE mospOpucfi cwmupmocm coduozooua oeucmeu wumsnmpwoovc: uwcoo qu.m n x cmm.m n m oN~.q u m mumpmcow mmocmflpsm :wmuuoOco «mucwvoum muonmE Ouozcmuwuooss pom ncoommo mamfififixm :o«oo:vouo omucmfimu mucuumoficoseoo owm.m n m om~.m I m mmw.m u m “mm.m u m «mocoosum mucwpoum «mfififixm moocoaoom mpofims monopotwpopc: yozchucw ouucofimu :Owuosnooa :flmocuazo mcomumu_::eeoov.yh oon.m n M mmo.m u m qwo.m u m ofio.c n m «nuconaam «muocuwoso «maqfixn amasoosnm stamps oozvopucw cwmuomuco :owuospoaa pouco_:u moospacwnwozz massage mon.m u m «moocomozo samuhmuco mma.m n m mmm.¢ u m ”mucmpsum mucoczum mHHaxm mucupsum wosoouucfi amucoymu cofiuozpouo Oumswmuw amumoza nmw.m n m coo.c u m mN¢.q n m amm.¢ u m oumomcoa m_wam nucopzum mwocv‘ozm 1cm accomo» cofiuozvoua pouco~mu samuumucv zufisoou paunoze mofioco cam oouoco ppm oofiozo ch OOHon omd ucomcomwvx we Ho>oq E: a ...nuum m_.¢ mHnoH Ace coHumozc >O>L3m o» momcoonuxv am: up :ofiuozpoum zmfim you momoeo:m was muam uqeowou< 136 further to develop their skills, entertaining audiences, introducing students to history of theater, various production styles, and dramatic literature, and audiences to a wide range of history of theater, various production styles, and plays. And the purpose of producing plays at Michigan State University were providing talented students the Opportunity to demonstrate and further to develOp their skills, giving students the opportunity to demonstrate production skills, entertaining audiences, and introducing students to the history of theater, various production styles, and dramatic literature. Areas of Study, The final question was 9) "What areas of study are appropriate for undergraduate theater?" a. acting b. art history c. children's or youth theater d. dance e. directing f. dramatic theory and criticism g. experimental theater h. general education-American Thought & Language or writing 1. general education-Natural Science j. general education-Humanities k. general education-Social Science 1. light design m. literature n. music 0. playwriting 137 p. poetry q. professional work habits and ethics r. psychology 3. scenic design t. technical theater u. theater of other cultures v. theater history w. theater management x. visual arts (painting, film, etc.) Faculty ranked acting (i I 4.286) first. Second was directing (E I 4.143). Third was professional work habits and ethics (E I 4.000). Fourth were both art history and technical theater (E I 3.857). Least frequently selected were dramatic theory and criticism, light design, and poetry (i = 3.000). Graduate students ranked dance (i I 4.858) first. Second was acting (E I 4.529). Third was theater history (i I 4.438). Fourth was directing (§ I 4.412). Least frequently selected was general education natural science (E = 3.800). Undergraduate theater majors rated acting (i I4.778 ) first. Second was directing (E I 4.719). Third was technical theater (i I 4.484), and fourth was literature (i I 4.469). Least frequently selected was natural science (E I 3.800)- Undergraduate telecommunications majors ranked acting (§ I 4,759) first. Second was directing (i = 4.557). Third was playwriting (§ I 4.278). Fourth was dramatic theory and criticism (i I 4.203). Least frequently selected was natural science (; = 2.519). 138 Undergraduate communications majors ranked acting (E I 4.852) first. Second was directing (i I 4.667). Third was dramatic theory and criticism (§ I 4.593). Fourth was playwriting and professional work habits and ethics (§ I 4.333). Least frequently selected was natural science (§ I 2.519). Undergraduate other majors ranked acting (i I 4.620) first. Second was dance (§ I 4.232). Third was directing (§ I 4.280). Fourth was music (i I 4.244). Least frequently selected was natural science (i I 2.911). Across categories by grOup, acting was ranked first. Directing was ranked second. There was no consensus on third or fourth place. The agreement within and across groups indicates that acting, directing, and production work are believed to be the backbone of a theater curriculum. All groups but faculty selected natural science least frequently. Table 4.14 presents the above material. Summary and Synthesis of Research Qgestions by Age When considering goals, standards, play selection and content, another method of synthesizing the data is to organize it by the age of the reSpondent. In this section, respondents are divided into three categories: 40-60 year olds, 24-39 year olds, and 18-23 year olds. Since these groupings are closely related to faculty, graduate and undergraduate categories, demographic data may be found in Table 4.4. To help simplify the results, this discussion will utilize the constructs of preprofessional and liberal arts training are utilized as appropriate. As defined earlier, preprofessional training includes preparation for competitive employment in commercial theater and addresses the needs of the profession. Liberal arts training in theater arts involves student-centered, experiential 139 -m.N n m «mo:Ofiom Hmuoumc IcoHumosvo Hmtocom mam.N u m «uocwwom Ampaomc lacuumosco Hmuwcow Nmm.N n m «oucowom Hanson: Icowumoanm Hmpocow oow.m u m «mocofiom amurumc ICONOmozpo ~muocow oom.m n m «mocofiom Hmuzomc IcoHumosom flmuocom ooo.m n m mouoom “cwfimop uzwwa “Emfiouufino new zoomsu oqumsmpo oOfioso umma Hawom: mpu> q stom: zanmnoum mmonm: poo aawom: uocufiwz aswom: uo: zanmgoum Ham on Howom: uoz "ommom >o>oom as; m ofimoe mmm.q u m madam; HNCOgmmmm Imoua nowmoe 8N; u m Emwowuwuo new xuoocu owumsmuc moq.q n m ousumuoUwa N~q.c u m wcwuoouwp nmm.m u m umumonu Hmowcnomu “Income: ohm mowozo nus cams n m wzfiuomufip mom.q u m Emwowuwpo pom xuoozu owumEmup mmN.q n x wcfioauzzmfim at: n m amazon“ Hmowcno0u mmq.q u m mucumwn omumocu cco.q u m mufinmz Hmcowmmomoua mwmozo cum ~23 a m mocmp noo.q n m «wavuooufiv mmm.c n m «wowuomufiv m_n.c u m kwcwuomowc on.¢ n m wcfiuom mq~.q u m «wcwuowuwp moaono CCN Ame :owummso >o>u3m Ou womooamomv accucou mo mmmu< c~.¢ macaw xuowoumo :a EOOH ammono xaucosvouw omoak oNe.¢ n x wa.q u m «wowuom mmm.¢ u m «wcfiuom «wcauom 2a..» u m wwwm.q o «wowuom x ocmn ch.q u x mofiozo umfi «wswuom moohme mumnpmpwpmpcs uozuo mHOHmE mumopmumuyocz mcofiumO«::EEoo muomms Oumspmumpovca mcofiumofic:EEoom~oH muONmE Oomspmpmuooc: oeumose mucOpSOm Oomzcmtw amuooce qunomm uwumosb acoucommom uo Hu>od new mou< anmcmo< 140 learning, which introduces dramatic content, critical thinking, and problem- solving skills. Liberal arts trained students are not expected to work in commeréial theater, although some do. Goals Survey questions about goals were about ideal goals, how a depart- ment should prepare an undergraduate student, goals at MSU, and knowledge and qualities of graduating MSU students. 40-60 year olds. In general, the 40-60 year olds demonstrated high consensus in identifying ideal goals. Those goals followed a liberal arts orientation. Responses to survey questions about goals were, for example, that theater departments should help students develop a realistic under- standing of their skills (E I 4.857), gain an overview of theater (i I 4.714), develop artistic and creative skills, and prepare for advanced training (I I 4.571). Ideal undergraduate theater department goals were identified as those developing the skills of students to articulate opinions and ideas and to solve problems (i I 4.714), providing an en- vironment in which students could develop as sensitive peOple (E I 4.826), and the training of theater generalists (i I 4.143). The 40-60 year olds described Michigan State University for graduating students as having an overview of theater, being prepared for advanced training (E I 3.500), working effectively with other students, being able to make a living in theater, having an understanding of their own skills, and knowing them- selves (§ I 3.000). The goals of MSU's Department of Theater were seen by this group as being the preparation for advanced training (i I 4.500), the preparation of theater specialists (E I 4.167), the development of problem solving skills (i I 3.833), the preparation of theater generalists, 141 the skills to articulate opinions and ideas (E I 3.667). Selected last was providing an environment in which students could develop as sensitive people. Graduating students were seen as having some attributes related to maturity and liberal arts goals, while the Department's goals were seen as being primarily preprofessional (preparing for advanced training, E I 4.500, and train theater specialists, E I 4.167). Thus, while members of this group identified liberal arts goals, they Operate within a department they perceive as having preprofessional goals. 24-39 year olds. The 24-39 year olds identified primarily liberal arts goals with an emphasis on advanced training or graduate school. Ways in which they indicated that theater departments should prepare undergraduate students included items with high consensus like developing artistic and creative skills and working effectively with others (i I 4.647), Preparing for advanced training (I I 4.588), and gaining a realis- tic understanding of their skills (E I 4.529). Ideal theater department goals were identified as the developing of problem solving skills (i I 4.353), developing skills to articulate Opinions and ideas (E I 4.235), preparing for advanced training (i I 4.176), and training theater gen- eralists (E I 4.059). Like the 40-60 year old grOup, 24-39 year olds identified knowledge or qualities of graduating MSU students as more liberal arts. Students are perceived as being prepared for advanced training (I I 3.647), having an understanding of an overview of theater (I I 3.529), being able to work effectively with others (i I 3.471), and having a thorough background in theater literature, theory and history (i I 3.250). MSU's Theater Department goals were perceived to be a com- bination of preprofessional and liberal arts goals. They included training theater generalists (§ I 4.098),‘training theater Specialists (E I 3.836), 142 preparing for advanced training (i I 3.803), and developing problem solving skills (i I 3.492). Thus, the 24-39 year olds identified liberal arts goals as apprOpriate for undergraduate theater arts, although MSU appears to them to have liberal arts and preprofessional goals. 18-23 year olds. The 18-23 year olds indicated t at theater de- partments should prepare undergraduate students to work effectively with others (§ I 4.573), deve10p creative and artistic skills 2; I 4.553), have a thorough overview of theater (§.I 4.496), and gain full use and control of body and voice (i I 4.458). These skills are primarily re- lated to production activities and may be liberal arts or preprofessional. Goals of undergraduate theater departments they indicated should include a combination of preprofessional and liberal arts qualities. The pre- professional items included prepare for advanced training (i I 4.228) and training theater specialists (E I 4.103). Liberal arts items included train theater generalists (i I 4.150), developing problem solving skills (§ I 4.061) and skills to articulate opinions and ideas (I I 4.029). Thus, the perspective of the 18-23 year olds, appears to be focused on produc-‘ tion activity rather than the broader preprofessional or liberal arts philosophies. For those actually involved in the process, the activity rather than its theoretical underpinnings seems to take precedence. This group perceives graduating MSU students as having liberal arts qualities and skills. These qualities and skills include having an overview of theater (E I 3.824), being able to work effectively with Others (E I 3.823), and having creative and artistic skills (E I 3.724). The 18-23 year olds perceived MSU's deparmental goals as being primarily liberal arts. Liberal arts selections included training theater generalists (I I 4.063), developing skills to articulate Opinions and ideas (§ I 3.758), 143 and developing problem solving skills (§ I 3.741). The single prepro- fessional item was the train theater specialists (§ I 3.819). This group percieved that goals should be and are at MSU more liberal arts than preprofessional, but regardless of orientation, activities should be focuses on production activities. Summary. Thus, in general, all groups identified liberal arts goals and production skills as relevant for undergraduate theater students and departments. All groups indicated that they thought graduating students possess liberal arts knowledge and skillsa The 24-39 and 40-60 year olds indicated that men thought MSU's Theater Department goals were both pre- professional and liberal arts. Standards 40-60 year olds. The 40-60 year olds selected items that the stan- dards of undergraduate theater prOgrams should include the teaching skills if its faculty, the artistic quality of its productions, the well-rounded education of its graduates (i I 4.571), the marketability of its students and the production skills of its faculty (i I 4.429). These standards are heavily faculty-oriented. These items indicated that standards selected to measure student and department success are liberal arts and preprofessional. Standards at MSU identified by this group were production-oriented and preprofessional. These items include the marketability of graduates, the commercial success of productions (E I 4.429), the production skills of faculty (i I 4.286), and the artistic quality of productions (i I 4.143). Thus, the 40-60 year olds identified ideal standards as liberal arts and MSU's standards as production and preprofessional. 144 24-39 year olds. The 24-39 year old group selected the teaching skills of its faculty (i I 4.353), the well-rounded educa:ion of graduates (E I 4.235), the artistic quality of its productions (i I 4.176), and the production skills of its faculty (E I 4.000) as standards appropriate for undergraduate theater departments. These standards as more closely aligned with liberal arts than preprofessional standards. Standards identified as MSU standards included the production skills of faculty (E I 4.000), the commercial success of its productions (E I 3.941), the marketability of its students, and the academic skills of its faculty (i I 3.529). These standards are primarily preprofessional standards. Again, there is a discrepancy between ideal and perceived standards. 18-23 year olds. The 18-23 year olds identified the following as standards for undergraduate theater. The items are predominantly liberal arts and include the well-rounded education of students (§ I 4.269), the artistic quality of productions (i I 4.213), the production skills of faculty (i I 4.163), and the teaching skills of faculty (i I 4.113). Standards at MSU were both liberal arts and preprofessional. Liberal arts standards include the artistic quality Of productions (E I 3.922), the teaching skills of faculty (I I 3.783), and the well-rounded education of its graduates (i I 3.729). The single preprofessional item includes the commercial success of productions (i I 3.813). There was a discrepancy between ideal liberal arts and the combination of liberal arts and prepro— fessional standards perceived at MSU. Summary. Thus, standards for undergraduate theater arts were iden- tified by respondents of all ages as being liberal arts, with a heavy 145 production emphasis. Further reflecting a liberal arts preference, all ages felt that the commercial success of productions was a last choice for undergraduate theater. iMSU's Department was identified as having heavily production-oriented standards, which reflected both a preprofes- sional and a liberal arts orientation. Play production 40-60 year olds. The 40-60 year olds selected items that suggested the purposes for play production in educational settings is to give stu- dents the opportunity to learn and develop production skills (E I 4.000), to introduce students to the history of theater, various production styles and dramatic literature (i I 3.857), to give talented students the Opportunity to demonstrate and further to develop their skills, introduce audiences to a wide range of history of theater, various production styles and plays, and to challenge audiences (I I 3.714). These items are pri- marily student learning (liberal arts) oriented. The 40-60 year olds identified the purposes of play production at MSU were to entertain audiences (i I 4.571), giving talented students op- portunities (i I 4.429), giving students the Opportunity to learn and de- monstrate production skills, responding to community and student interest, and generating public participation (i I 3.857). These items are more tied to the commercial success of a season than to student learning. Like goals and standards, the 40-60 year olds identified a liberal arts orien- tation, but perceive MSU's program to be more commercially oriented. 24-39_year olds. The 24-39 year olds selected production skills and giving talented students Opportunities (E I 4.120), introducing students to history of theater, various production styles and dramatic literature 146 (i I 4.353), and introducing audiences to a wide range of history of theater, various production styles and plays (E I 4.294) as reasons to produce plays in educational settings. These items are liberal arts oriented but the context of a play produCing unit. At Michigan State, this group indicated that they believed the pur- poses for play production included production skills (E I 4.235), giving Opportunities to talented students (E I 3.938), introducing students to content, and entertaining audiences (x I 3.765). This group of items is based on student learning. There is however an awareness that the demands involved in mounting successful productions influences play selection for reasons unrelated to student learning. 18-23 year olds. The 18-23 year olds identified the purposes of play production in an educational setting as giving talented students op- portunities (I I 4.145), giving student opportunities to learn production skills (I I 4.144), and entertaining audiences (E I 3.914). At MSU, reasons for producing plays included giving talents students opportunities (E I 4.013), giving students opportunities to learn production skills (I I 3.951), entertaining audiences (E I 3.901), and introducing students to dramatic content (i I 3.540). Play productions ideally and at MSU are much the same, with the addition of using plays to introduce dramatic con- tent at MSU. Thus, it may be suggested that for the 18-23 year olds, their idea of a rationale for play production may be influenced by their experI iences. Summa y. The production of plays is seen by all ages as a way of providing opportunities for student learning of production skills and expo- sure to dramatic content.’ Providing talented students the opportunities to 147 perform and entertain audiences were also identified. Thus, a tension be- tween the demands for student learning and the need for commercially appealing productions may be in evidence. Content 40-60 year olds. The 40-60 year olds selecting acting (i I 4.286), directing (E - 4.143), professional work habits and ethics (i = 4.000), and art history and technical theater (E I 3.857) as the most important areas of study. 29-34 year olds. The 24-39 year olds selected dance (i I 4.588), acting (I I 4.529), theater history (§ I 4.438), and directing (i I 4.412). 18-23 year olds. The 18-23 year olds selected acting (E I 4.752), directing (E I 4.556), and dramatic theory and criticism (E I 4.398) as the most important areas of study. Summagy. All ages selected areas of content pertinent to production skills. Thus, whether a curriculum is preprofessional or liberal arts in nature, the most important component of a theater arts curriculum is the production of plays. Summagy In general, all ages indicated a preference for liberal arts goals, standards, and rationale for play selection. MSU's program was seen as having a mixture of liberal arts and preprofessional elements. While age groups generally agreed on fundamental issues, agreement within groups was less constant. For example, the 40—60 year olds indicated ideally that goals should be liberal arts, standards faculty-oriented, and play 148 selection liberal arts. At MSU, they indicated that goals were a combi- nation of preprofessional and production-oriented, and play selection was based on commercial considerations. In both the ideal and at MSU, program elements reflect conflict. A program with liberal arts goals should be structured around student learning. To hold a theater arts program to standards based on the faculty activity does not address student learning, nor does it provide a means by which plays selected by liberal arts criteria may appropriately be evaluated. At MSU, if plays are selected for commercial reasons, preprofessional standards may not be appropriate since a student who stars in a play that fills the house in East Lansing, Michigan, may need very different skills to be cast in a lead role for a play that fills the house on Broadway. The 24-39 year olds identified ideal goals, standards and rationale for play selection as liberal arts. However, at MSU, goals were identi- fied as liberal arts, standards preprofessional, and play selection rationale as liberal arts within a commercial context. Again, a liberal arts program measured by preprofessional standards with liberal arts play selection rationale within potentially commercially successful productions may not provide the student or the teacher with consistent criteria throughout the program. What is learned in one area may be likely to be evaluated by a different standard and treated by year a different cri- terion during the production of plays where learning should be integrated. Only the 18-23 year olds selected a mixture of preprofessional and liberal arts reSponses. This group seemed to indicate that the kind of program was secondary to them as long as their activities focused on pro- ductions. 149 Both the 40-60 and 24-39 year olds identified primarily liberal arts goals, standards, and rationale for play selection. The youngest--the 18-23 year olds-—selected items related primarily to production activity. All groups selected areas of course content related to production acti- vity. In each area, there were discrepancies among theoretical under- pinnings. Thus, there is some evidence of conflicting elements in ideal and perceived theater programs. Table 4.15, Reaponses by Age, summarizes the previous data. Summary and Synthesis of Research Area_by Gender Before considering the data according to gender, it may be useful to review the demographics of this group. In the sample, there were 162 identifiable males and 200 identifiable females. Of these individ— uals, 137 males were between 18-23 years of age. Most were undergraduate juniors and seniors who were classified other, and telecommunications majors. The category of previous theater experience most frequently checked was high school experience. Selections of goals and ambitions for the future included film, media, and videotape; and acting, di- recting and producing. 0f the 200 women, 178 of them were between 18- 23 years of age. Most were juniors and seniors whose undergraduate majors were "other"; and theater. The most frequent preVious experience were high school; and voluntary. "Other," and acting, directing and producing were the most frequently selected goals and ambitions for the future. More detailed information may be found on Table 4.16, Demo- graphic Data by Gender. Research Area Goals Goals at MSU Standards Standards at MSU Play Production Play Production at MSU Content 150 Table 4.15 Responses by Age ReSpondent Age 40-60 liberal arts preprofessional and liberal arts faculty-oriented preprofessional production— oriented liberal arts (student- learning centered) commercial considerations acting directing professional habits art history technical theater 24-39 liberal arts emphasis on ad- vanced training or graduate school liberal arts liberal arts preprofessional liberal arts within the con- text of play pro- duction liberal arts (student-learning based) within context of com- mercial consider- ations dance acting theater history directing 18-23 production- oriented liberal arts liberal arts liberal arts and preprofessional production skills and en- tertaining audiences production skills and en- tertaining audiences acting directing dramatic theory and criti- cism 151 Table 4.16 Demographic Data by Gender Demographic Information Gender Male Female Frequency 162 200 Age 18-23 137 178 24-29 15 10 30-34 1 4 35-40 2 4 41-50 1 1 51-60 3 1 Faculty Responsibilities teaching 3 3 administration 1 1 Graduate students Masters 0 3 Master of Fine Arts 4 4 Ph.D. 2 3 Assistantship 4 6 Undergraduate students Freshman 20 26 Sophomore 25 26 Junior 54 64 Senior 50 66 Other 1 2 Undergraduate majors Theater 26 38 Telecommunicatons 51 30 Communications 7 26 Other 68 97 Previous Experience Voluntary 39.1% 43.5% Community Theater 25.0 30.8 High School 52.8 68.5 College or university 37.1 38.0 Paid 14.3 13.5 Professional company 7.5 6.1 Graduate assistantship 5.0 4.0 Other 8.8 12.6 Goals and Ambitions for the Future Theater 24.7% 28.0% Film, media, video 35.8 25.0 Acting, directing, producing 35.2 36.0 Writing 8.1 5.6 Teaching 7.4 13.1 Graduate school 14.4 19.2 Make money 5.6 3.0 Travel, location 11.7 10.7 Other 69.1 80.9 152 Survey questions that addressed goals were about ideal goals, under- graduate student preparation, goals at MSU and qualities and knowledge of graduating MSU students. M5133, When specifying appropriate goals for undergraduate theater arts, males identified liberal arts items. These items included training theater generalists (I I 4.038), teaching problem-solving skills (i I 3.994), the skills to articulate Opinions and ideas (I I 3.930), and pre- paring for advanced training (E I 3.861). Asked about how theater programs should prepare undergraduate students, males checked items that could be appropriate for liberal arts or preprofessional programs: working ef- fectively with others (i I 4.487), possessing creative and artistic skills (i I 4.465), having a good overview of theater (E I 4.384), having full use and control of body and voice (E I 4.310), and last, teaching theater (I I 3.346). Males selected liberal arts program goals as well as goals reflecting individual student preparation which are appropriate for either liberal arts or preprofessional programs. Males indicated that at MSU, program goals were primarily but not exclusively liberal arts. Liberal arts items include training theater generalists (E I 4.019), developing problem-solving skills (I I 3.740), and preparing for advanced training (E I 3.695). Advanced training may also be a preprofessional goal. Training theater specialists (§ I 3.682) is a preprofessional goal. Males indicated that graduating MSU students pOSsess a good overview of theater (E I 3.766), can work effectively with others (§ I 3.722), have creative and artistic skills (i I 3.658) and a realistic understanding of their Skills (E I 3.468). Selected last were teaching theater (I I 2.906) and making a living in theater (E I 2.867). 153 This cluster of items may be liberal arts or preprofessional but is likely to be more liberal arts Since the clearest preprofessional item, training theater specialists, was a last choice. Females. As goals of undergraduate theater programs, females selected essentially the same items as males. These liberal arts items included training theater generalists (E I 4.211), teaching problem-solving skills (i I 4.186), the Skills to articulate Opinions and ideas (E I 4.174), and preparing students for advanced training (E I 3.923). Undergraduate stu- dents should have creative and artistic Skills (Q I 4.601), be trained to work effectively with others (§ I 4.518), have full use and control of body and voice (i I 4.464), and a realistic understanding of their skills (i I 4.407). Last was to teach theater (i I 3.365). Both for goals of theater and how undergraduates should be prepared, women selected most of the same items as men and in the same or similar order. The goals of MSU's Department of Theater were identified by women as training theater generalists (i I 4.074), training theater specialists (§ I 3.798), preparing for advanced training (I I 3.778), and gaining problem- solving Skills (i I 3.751). Advanced training and problem-solving skills can be either liberal arts or preprofessional training items. Training theater generalists is considered liberal arts; training theater specialists is considered preprofessional. Thus, women see MSU theater goals as both liberal arts and preprofessional. When MSU theater students graduate, wo- men believe, they can work effectively with others (i I 3.894), have a good overview of theater (E I 3.720), and are able to make use of criticism (i I 3.566). Selected last were teaching theater (i I 2.931) and making a living in theater (E I 2.926). The items with the highest means may be 154 either liberal arts or preprofessional, but suggest a liberal arts bias since making a living in theater, a preprofessional item, was a last choice. Summary. On goals, men and women have selected many of the same items in the same or similar order. Ideal goals are exclusively liberal arts. Theater departments should prepare students in ways that would serve either liberal arts or preprofessional aims, but probably are meant to serve liberal arts in this case. ‘Males see the MSU Theater program as being more oriented to liberal arts, and graduating students as having attributes appropriate to either but more likely to liberal arts. WOmen see the MSU theater program as being split between liberal arts and pre- professional, with graduating students having attained attributes appro- priate to either. Table 4.17, Goals by Gender, presents the four areas (goals, student preparation, goals at MSU and graduating students at MSU), the highest and lowest (when available) choices to survey questions of male and female respondents. Standards Survey questions addressing standards included ideal standards and standards at MSU. Mglgg. Ideal standards selected by males were teaching Skills of faculty (i I 4.226), artistic quality of productions (E I 4.205), the well-rounded education of students (i I 4.154), and the production skills of faculty (i I 4.141). The last choice was the commercial success of productions (§ I 3.110). These standards are heavily faculty—oriented but more liberal arts than preprofessional since artistic quality but not 155 cNm.N n m wow>aa m wowxme Hm¢.N n m poumosu wofisomou oom.m u m Emaoauwuo mo om: wowxme ONm.m u N mHHfixm owumfiuum pom O>Humouo omm.m u x 3oa>uo>o poow wuoono xuos mom.m n m umumOSO mafiaomou moq.q u m wcfipomumuouo: Ofiumaamou aoq.q n x moao> can soon Hoo.q u x mHHme Ofiumwuum cam O>Hummuo m~m.q u m >HO>Huomuwm xHOB Hmm.m m wcfi>HOmIEOHnoua m~n.m u x meanwmuu poocm>om mumwamwooam noumonu mumfifimuocmw noumosu mNm.m m wcficfimuu pooco>pm .55 u m mmoow pom mcowcfiao mumH=O«uum ow~.q n m wcfi>HOmIEOHnoua fiHN.q n x mumwamuocow noumonu OHmEom nom.N u x wcfi>wa m wofixme o0¢.N n Mluoumocu wowsomou wc¢.m n m woavcmuwuopos oaumfiamou wmc.m n m mHHflxm oaumfiuum pom O>Humouo NNm.m u x Iao>wuoommo xu03 www.mlu m Boa>uo>o poow amumonu wownomou cam.¢ m OOHO> can >won amm.q u m 3oa>um>o poow mo¢.q u m maafixm OHumHuum pom o>wumouo qu.q u m >Ho>fiuoommm sacs ocm.m ll IIN .m n m mumfiflmfiooam amumosu mo.m u m wofiofimuu poocm>pm oq5.m u x wcw>HomIEoHnoua .q u m mumwamuooow noumosu om.m n x wswowmuu poocm>cm omm.m u m mmopfi pom mcoacwoo mamasowuum omo.m u x wcw>aomlsoanouo wmo.¢.u m mumwamuocom woumosu mam: umncwo ANe pom .H§ .me .me mcoaumoao >o>u=m ou monsoomomv nooooo In mHmOU ma.q manmh mucopoum :mz wcfiumapmuo coaumpmaoum uoopsum :mZ um mHmoo mamou cofiumooo zo>usm 156 commercial success was considered important. Standards at MSU were seen by men as being production Skills of faculty (i I 3.933), the artistic quality of productions (E I 3.826), the well-rounded education of students, and the teaching skills of faculty (§ I 3.700). These standards are faculty and liberal arts oriented. Females. Standards considered ideal by women were essentially the same as those considered ideal by men, but were ordered slightly differently. These items included the well-rounded education of students (E I 4.360), teaching skills of faculty (I I 4.275), the artistic quality of productions (§ I 4.257), and the production skills of faculty (E I 3.289). These are faculty-oriented and liberal arts. MSU program standards were identified by women as the production skills of faculty (i I 3.946), the artistic quality of productions (E I 3.888), the teaching skills of faculty (i I 3.791), and the well-rounded education of students (i . 3.761). As with the standards checked by men, these standards are liberal arts and faculty-oriented. Summary. Men and women have similar responses to questions about idea1 standards and standards at MSU. In both cases, standards are iden- tified as liberal arts and faculty-oriented. Table 4.18, Standards by Gender, presents male and female selections for ideal and MSU standards. 157 Hon.m u m sowumoswo pmwosoulflaos Hmm.m u m mHHme wcfizomoO mwm.m u m huwamzu Ofiumauum osm.m u x maaaxm coaooscoua mmN.m u x mmooosm HmfioquEoo om~.a u m mHHaxm coauoovouo nmN.q u m zufiamsc owumfiuum mmN.q u m mHHfixm mafiaommu oom.q u m coaumOSpo cwvcsoulaam3 onEom och.m n m mHwam wcfisomwu mmm.m u m coaumoswo vmccsoulaao3 www.m u m soaaoso oaumaotn mmm.m u m maafixm coHuOopoum o-.m u m mmmooom HmfiouoEEoo ~q~.a u m maafixm oowuoopouo om~.q u m oowumoooo popcoouuaaos moN.q u m mafiamou coauosuouo oNN.q n m mHHme mofinomou mam: umpcoo Ace was we msowummso >o>hsm On momooamomv Hoodoo ma mpumwomum mH.¢ maan pm: as mpumpcmum moumpcmum HmOpH coaumond >o>usm 158 Play Selection Survey questions were about ideal play selection and play Selection at MSU. Mglgg. Males indicated that the purposes of play selection in ed- ucational settings included giving talented Students the Opportunity to demonstrate and further to develop their talents (§ 4.188), giving all students Opportunities to demonstrate and to develop production skills (E I 4.169), entertaining audiences (i I 3.866) and introducing students to a wide range of dramatic content (i I 3.700). Males' last choice was to serve an integrating function to other departments (§ I 3.245). These items may be construed as liberal arts or preprofessional. About play selection at MSU, males indicated providing Opportunities for all students to develop production Skills (E I 4.019), providing Opportunities for tal- ented students (i I 3.934), entertaining audiences (§ I 3.903), and in- troducing students to dramatic content (i I 3.519). Their last choice was serving an integrating function to other departments (§ I 3.108). These items may be liberal arts or preprofessional. Females. WOmen selected giving talented Students Opportunities (i I 4.124), giving all students production Opportunities (E I 4.107), intro- ducing studenns to dramatic content (i I 3.852), and entertaining audiences (i I 3.820). WOmen's last choice was serving an integrating function to other departments (I I 3.347). These were the same items selected by men. At MSU, women indicated the purposes of play selection were giving talented students opportunities (i I 4.109), giving all students production Opportunities (i I 4.005). The last choice was serving an integrating 159 function (E I 3.226). These were the same items men selected. Summary. Men and women agreed on items which were important in the play production. The same items were selected for both ideal and MSU play production. These items may be liberal arts or preprofessional, but suggest a slight bias toward production success and away from student learning since entertaining audiences usually received a higher mean score than introducing students to dramatic content, and serving an integrating function was always a last choice. Table 4.19, Play Production, presents male and female selections for ideal and MSU play production. Areas of Content The Survey question addressing areas of content asked which con- tent areas were most apprOpriate for coursework. Males. Men selected acting (i I 4.669), directing (i I 4.391), technical theater (I I 4.199), and playwriting (§ I 4.179). Their last choice was general education-natural science (I I 2.891). Females. WOmen selected acting (I I 4.697), directing (i I 4.505), dance (§ I 4.359) and technical theater (x I 4.284). Their last choice was general education-natural science (E I 2.732). Summary. Men and women demonstrated high agreement on areas of content. Both indicated that acting, directing, and technical theater were important. Additionally, men selected playwriting and women se- lected dance. Both put natural science last. This information can be found in Table 4.20, Areas of Content by Gender. Survey Question Question Ideal Play Selection Play Selection at MSU 160 Table 4.19 Play Production by Gender (Responses to Survey Questions #3 and #4) Gender Male >41 ll talented students production skills § entertain audiences x I 3.866 introduce Students x I 3.700 4.188 4.169 Female talented students I I 4.124 production skills I I 4.107 inEroduce students x I 3.852 enEertain audiences x I 3.820 integrating function x I 3.245 production Skills i talented students § entertain audiences x I 3.903 introduce students x I 3.519 4.019 4.934 integrating function x I 3.347 talented students x I 4.109 production Skills E I 4.005 entertain audiences x I 3.913 ingroduce students x I 3.660 inEegrating function x I 3.108 integrating function x I 3.226 161 Table 4.20 Areas of Content by Gender (Responses to Survey Question #9) Gender Selections Male Female lst choice acting I I 4.669 acting § I 4.697 2nd choice directing § I 4.391 directing i I 4.505 3rd choice technical theater E I 4.199 dance I I 4.359 4th choice playwriting § I 4.179 technical theater § I 4.284 Last choice natural science I I 2.891 natural science E I 2.732 162 Summary In general, males and females demonstrated very close agreement on most research areas. Ideal goals were strongly liberal arts based for both groups and included training theater generalists, teaching problem solving skills, developing the skills to articulate opinions and ideas, and pre- paring for advanced training. ‘MSU goals, for both groups, included training theater generalists, teaching problem-solving skills, preparing Students for advanced training, and training theater Specialists. WOmen rated training theater specialists higher than did men, suggesting their perception of a potential diffusion of department efforts (both liberal arts and preprofessional). Both groups indicated that theater departments should prepare students to work effectively with others, to have creative and artistic skills, and to have full use and control of body and voice. Men selected having a good overview and women having a realistic under- standing, additionally. Both put teaching theater as last. Graduating MSU students, both groups indicated, were trained as theater generalists, could solve problems, articulate Opinions and ideas, and were prepared for advanced training. These items are exclusively liberal arts items. For standards, men and women--although in a slightly different order-- indicated that ideal standards were faculty teaching skills, the artistic quality of productions, and the teaching and production skills of faculty. Last was the commercial success of productions. Standards at MSU, both groups agreed, included production and teaching skills of faculty, the artistic quality of productions and the well-rounded education of students. Thus, men and women indicated that they though standards ideally and at MSU were faculty and liberal arts oriented. 163 Men and women agreed that purposes for play production in educational settings included giving talented Students Opportunities, giving all stu- dents production Opportunities, introducing students to dramatic content, and entertaining audiences. The last choice for both was serving as an integrating function to other departments. Play selection at MSU included giving opportunities to all students to develop production skills, giving talented students opportunities, entertaining audiences, and introducing students to dramatic content. Last was serving an integrating function to other departments. Thus, both men and women agreed that student production activities, learning, and audience entertainment were important, while serving other departments was least important. Women indicated a pre— ference for introducing students to be more important than entertaining audiences, ideally, but saw MSU as putting entertaining audiences before introducing students to dramatic content. Men suggested that entertaining audiences was, both ideally and at MSU, more important than introducing students to dramatic content. Men and women identified three common areas of course content. These included acting, directing, and technical theater. Men added playwriting and women added dance. In general, there was great Similarity of response in men and women. In most cases, the ranking of items selected were identical. Frequently, the ranking of first choice to fourth and last choice were identical. Oc- casionally, when the ranking was somewhat different, the mean scores of matching items without the same ranking were close. Differences in mean scores of the same items ranged from .013 to .244 and commonly fell in the .150 range. Clearly, there was close agreement between the two groups. Thus, men and women indicated that men thought that theater arts programs 164 ideally and at MSU with liberal arts skills, that standards Should be and are oriented to faculty and liberal arts, that play selection Should give students production Opportunities than may focus on liberal arts or preprofessional elements, and that areas of content are most appropriately production-skill oriented. Summary In Chapter IV, responses to the survey were summarized and synthe— sized. First, characteristics of respondents suggested that, like the population, most respondents were female. Undergraduate students domi— nated the 18-23 year age range, graduate students the 24-34 year range, and faculty the 41-60 year range. For previous experience in theater, high school theater experience was the highest category across groups. In career goals and ambitions for the future, faculty were the least clearly linked to theater, graduate students' the most clearly linked to teaching and producing theater, undergraduate students' to theater and producing, and undergraduate telecommunications majors' to media-related activities. Undergraduate communications and other majors have other career goals. Respondents indicated that they thought that theater departments should prepare students to work effectively with other members of the pro- duction team, develop creative and artistic skills, have a good overview of theater and gain basic skills, whether or not that leads to a job in theater, and gain control of the body and voice (the performer's instru- ment). Respondents indicated that they thought that when MSU Theater students graduated they had a good overview of theater, could work effec- tively with other members of the production team, had creative and artistic skills, and possessed a realistic understanding of their skills. Goals 165 of an undergraduate theater department were identified as being to train theater generalists, to give the student the ability to articulate opinions and ideas, and to develop problem-solving skills. Goals of MSU's Department of Theater included training theater generalists, preparing students for graduate school and other advanced training, training theater specialists, and developing problem solving skills. Undergraduate theater programs, respondents indicated, Should be evaluated by the well-rounded education of their students, the artistic quality of productions, the teaching skills of faculty, and the production skills of faculty. Michigan State University's Department of Theater's standards of evaluation were identified as the production Skills of its faculty, the artistic quality of its productions, the commercial success of tis productions, the teaching skills of its faculty, and the well- rounded education of its students. Respondents indicated that they thought that the purposes of pro- ducing plays are to give students the opportunity to demonstrate production skills, to give talented students the opportunity to demonstrate and further to develop their Skills, to entertain audiences, and to introduce students and audiences to a wide range of history of theater, various production styles and plays. The purposes of producing plays at MSU were identified as providing talented students the opportunity to demonstrate and further to develop their skills, giving students the Opportunity to learn and to demonstrate production skills, entertaining audiences and introducing stu- dents to history of theater, various production styles and dramatic litera- ture. Most important areas of Study, respondents felt, were acting and di- recting. 166 In general, all age grOups (40-60, 24-39, and 18-23) indicated a preference for liberal arts goals, standards, and rationale for play selection. MSU's program was seen as having a mixture of liberal arts and preprofessional elements. While groups generally agreed on fundamental issues, agreement within groups was less constant. For example, the 40-60 year old group indicated ideally that goals Should be liberal arts, standards faculty-oriented, and play selection liberal arts. At MSU, they indicated that goals were a combination of preprofessional and pro- duction-oriented, and that play selection was based on commercial con- siderations. In both the ideal and at MSU, program elements reflect con- flict. A program with liberal arts goals should be structured around Student learning. To hold such a program to standards involving the faculty does not address the issue of student learning, nor does it pro- vide a means by which plays selected by liberal arts criteria may be evaluated. For example, if plays are selected for commerCial reasons, preprofessional standards may not be appropriate. The 24-39 year olds identified ideal goals, standards, and rationale for play selection as liberal arts. However, at MSU, goals were identified as liberal arts, standards as preprofessional, and play selection rat- ionale as liberal arts within a commercial context. Again, a liberal arts program measured by preprofessional standards with liberal arts play selection rationale within potentially commercially successful pro- ductions does not provide the student or the teacher with consistent criteria throughout the program. What is learned in one area is likely to be evaluated by a different standard and treated by yet a different criterion during the production of plays, where learning should be inte- grated. 167 Only the 18-23 year olds selected a mixture of preprofessional and liberal arts responses. This group seemed to indicate that the kind of program was secondary to them as long as their activities focused on productions. Both the 40-60 and 24-39 year olds identified primarily liberal arts goals, standards, and rationale for play selection. The youngest group selected items related primarily to production activity. All groups selected production activity-related areas of course content. In each area, there was discrepancies among theoretical underpinnings. Thus, there is some evidence of conflicting elements in real and perceived theater programs when considering data by respondent age. Males and females demonstrated very close agreement on most re- .search areas. Ideally goals were strongly liberal arts based for both groups and included training theater generalists, teaching problem solving skills, the skills to articulate Opinions and ideas and preparing for ad- vanced training. MSU goals, for both groups, included training theater generalists, teaching problem solving skills, preparing students for ad- vanced training and training theater specialists. Women rated training theater specialists higher than men suggesting their perception of a po- tential diffusion of Department efforts (both liberal arts and preprofes- sional). Both groups indicated that theater departments should prepare students to work effectively with others, to have creative and artistic skills and to have full use and control of body and voice. Men selected to have a good overview and women to have a realistic understanding ad- ditionally. Both selected to teach theater as a last choice. Graduating MSU students, both groups indicated, were trained as theater generalists, could problem-solve, articulate Opinions and ideas and were prepared for 168 advanced training. These items are exclusively liberal arts items. For standards, and although in a slightly different order, both men and women indicated ideal standards were faculty teaching Skills, the artistic quality of productions and the teaching and production skills of faculty. Last was the commercial success of productions. Standards at MSU, both groups agreed, included production and teaching skills of faculty, the artistic quality of productions and the well-rounded edu- cation of students. Thus, men and women indicated standards ideally and at MSU were faculty and liberal arts oriented. Men and women agreed that purposes for play production in educational settings included giving talented students opportunities, giving all Stu- dents production Opportunities, introducing students to dramatic content and entertaining audiences. The last choice for both was serving as an integrating function to other departments. Play selection at MSU in- cluded giving opportunities to all students to develop production skills, giving talented students opportunities, entertaining audiences and intro- ducing students to dramatic content. Last was serving as an integrating function to other departments. Thus, both men and women agreed that student production activities, learning and audience entertainment were important, while serving other departments was least important. WOmen indicated a preference for introducing students to be more important than entertaining audiences, ideally, but saw MSU was entertaining audiences before introducing students to dramatic content. Men suggested enter- taining audiences ideally and at MSU both more important than introducing students to dramatic content. Men and women identified three common areas of course content. These included acting, directing, and technical theater. Men added playwriting 169 and women dance. In general, there was great similarity of response in men and women. In most cases, items selected were identical. Frequently, the ranking of first choice to fourth and last choice were identical. Occasionally, when the ranking was somewhat different, the mean scores of matching items with- out the same ranking were close. Differences in mean Scores of the same items ranged from .013 to .244 and commonly fell in the .150 range. Clearly, there was close agreement between the two groups. Thus, men and women indicated theater arts programs ideally and at MSU were liberal arts oriented, students should be and are prepared at MSU with liberal arts skills, standards should be and are faculty and liberal arts oriented, play selection should give students production opportunities which may fo- cus on liberal arts or preprofessional elements and areas of content are most appropriate production-Skill oriented. Further discussion of these findings will follow in Chapter V. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY Email This exploratory study was designed to delineate a set of guiding principles of undergraduate theater arts education. By surveying in- dividuals in the Michigan State University's Department of Theater, this study sought to answer the following questions: What are the goals of undergraduate theater education? By what standards should undergraduate theater arts education be evaluated? What are the pur- poses of play production in an educational setting? What content areas are appropriate for study in undergraduate theater? Specifically, this study sought to answer these questions by following these sequential steps: 1. analyzing educational theater literature; 2. analyzing catalog statements from a representative sample of undergraduate theater programs about goals, standards, play production and content; 3. conducting in-depth pilot interviews with a sample of ten theater faculty and students about the guiding principles of theater education; 4. conducting a survey with faculty and students at Michigan State University's Department of Theater; 170 171 and 5. synthesizing the results of the literature, catalog re- views and survey into a coherent statement. In surveying the current curriculum and educational theater litera- ture, basic curricular concepts were identified and prominent educational theater theories about those concepts in undergraduate theater arts were reviewed. For the purposes of this study, kep concepts were identified as curriculum, goals, standards, play selection, and content. Defi- nitions of these concepts follow. Curriculum was defined as a structured educational process that leads to a selected aim or goal, usually a degree. Further, all disci- plines define and structure knowledge and thus curriculum in their own way. A means to understanding an educational discipline is the examina- tion of its curricular structure. Goals were defined as the purpose(s) of an educational program. Goals are important because they provide the basis for program under- standing and integrating. Goals in undergraduate theater arts programs include a wide and diffuse spectrum of possibilities, such as prepro- fessional (vocational) training, liberal arts training, teacher training, general humanities education, and the supplying of drama to communities in which schools operate. Standards were defined as the 1eve1(s) of achievement which deter- mine success. Standards are important because they clarify acceptable performance levels, increased program accountability and help eliminate subjective evaluator bias. Theater arts has been recognized as a leg- itimate academic discipline only in this century. Therefore, standards in theater arts are in an early Stage. Contributing to the difficulty of establishing standards is the participatory nature of the discipline. 172 Essential to understanding dramatic content and building of skills are the communal nature of the educational process (the production of plays), the diversity of program approaches, and the reliance on individual faculty judgement for evaluation. General standard categories include preprofessional (vocational, profession-based) and liberal arts (exper- iential, student-centered). All theater arts programs, it is widely believed, must have the production of plays as their curricular centers. Play production provides an Opportunity for students to see the "overall" picture of theater arts curricula and how each of the pieces (curricular components) fit together to make up this overall picture. Preprofessional programs select plays that will give students the Opportunity to "showcase" their talents in productions of commercial theater quality. Liberal arts programs select plays that give students the Opportunity experientially to learn dramatic content and skills, to challenge their values, and to work toward crea- tive and reSponsible adulthood. Any selection of course content is influenced by what the disci- pline considers the fundamental purpose of education (its curricular philosophy and goals). In theater arts, script analysis and practical experience in all areas of theater that might enrich that analysis are considered basic. Generally, content areas fall into two categories: 1) theater literature, history, dramatic theory and criticism, and 2) production skills. The reviews of college and university catalogs reflected much of the diversity of the literature. Across programs, goals were different from each other in specificity and focus. As a result, the goal state— ments were put into the broader categories of preprofessional and liberal 173 arts training. Standards were frequently not clearly defined, but did, for the most part, fall into the categories of preprofessional and liberal arts training. Rationale for play selection was the hardest to define. Some of the cited programs have unevenly matched goals, standards, and play selection, e.g., some programs with liberal arts goals had preprofessional standards and both for play selection. Analysis of content areas reflected no discernible correspondence be- tween Statements of program goals, standards, play selection and amount of coursework in any content area. For example, preprofessional and liberal arts programs had varying amounts of coursework in production training; dramatic literature, history, theory and criticism; technical and design training; children's and youth theater; and administration and management. Thus, evidence in the literature and in the field (according to the selected college and university materials) indicated that the guiding principles of undergraduate theater arts education are not easily discernible or clearly delineated. Ten pilot interviews, which covered the four research areas (goals, standards, play selection and content), were conducted with a stratified sample of ten faculty and students at Michigan State University's De- partment of Theater. The interviews were conducted in an open-ended fashion using the same basic set of questions with each interviewee. Interviewees were encouraged to Speak freely about their Opinions and to deviate from the questions if their ideas or experiences were dif- ferent from the questions asked. While respondents' answers to the interview questions were very diverse, several themes emerged. Themes involving goals and standards 174 included issues about both preprofessional training and liberal arts ed- ucation. Themes involving play selection included the problems of the day-to-day business of a theater arts department over against the long- range objectives (e.g., financially Supporting a given season of plays over against introducing students and audiences to classical or contro- versial but often less marketable plays). Other themes included ap- propriate areas of study (content) for theater arts curricula, the role of the department in the personal and professional development of its Students, including the importance and format of faculty feedback and academic advising. It became clear that the amount of material suggested by the scope of the survey was very large and had to be condensed. The material was more taxing the younger the respondent. The freshman, the sophomore, and--to a lesser extent-~the junior indicated frequently they didn't "know" an answer to a question, or they repeated a previous answer. Some of this may be linked to maturation level, and the younger Students may not have had the life experiences to enable them to consider the question adequately. Respondents were, however, better able to answer questions when they were first asked about their personal experience, and then about the Theater Department at Michigan State University or broader theoretical issues. Because of the differences in the background of interviewees, demographic data were incorporated into the instrument, both for des- criptive purposes and to determine whether particular data were related to particular responses. The results of these interviews were synthe- sized into a survey instrument that was analyzed for va idity of content and pilot tested. The survey consisted of questions about five 175 demographic areas and nine questions about the research areas. Questions about goals, standards, play selection, and content (research areas) were arranged in a five-point Likert scale. The survey was administered to 448 faculty and students in Michigan State University's Department of Theater in the Spring term of 1982; and 81.5% responded. Demographic data were recorded and analyzed by raw data, frequencies, and percentages. Responses to questions about research areas were analyzed and compared across respondent groups (faculty, graduate students, under- graduate theater, telecommunications, communications, and other majors) by means, age and gender. The following Statements are a summary of the most significant - findings of this study. Demographic Data Gender. Following the patterns of the population, a larger percen- tage of women (55%) responded to the survey than men (45%). This was true across respondent categories except where men represented larger pro- portions of the population (theater faculty) and in undergraduate males in telecommunications and communications majors. Academic LevellgAge and Level of Regpondent. Undergraduate students made up the largest group of respondents with "other" majors the largest (n I 161). Other majors included agriculture, no preference, elementary and special education, psychology, human ecology, health and physical edu— cation, accounting and financial administration, criminal justice, English, arts and letters general, music, interdisciplinary humanities, art, prelaw humanities, history and religious Studies. Telecommunications majors were second in number (n I 80), theater majors third (n I 64), and communications 176 majors last (n I 27). Graduate students totalled 17, faculty 7, and undergraduate students 332. Undergraduate students dominated the 18- 23 year-old age range, graduate Students the 24-34-year-old age range, and faculty the 51-60 year age range. Students in this undergraduate theater arts program, Spring 1982, were not largely majoring in theater. Telecommunications, communications, and other majors made up 80.7 percent of the undergraduates, and theater majors 19.3 percent. Faculty responsibilities All respondents teach at Michigan State University, two have administrative, one had other responsibilities. Previous Experience in Theater. Theater faculty, graduate and undergraduate theater and telecommunications students had a higher invol- vement in all aspects of theater than other respondents. Predictably, faculty and graduate students had the most professional and graduate as- sistantship experience. Undergraduates, who have not had as much time to pursue theater activities, have worked in voluntary, community, high school, college or university, and other theater activities. The category which was high across all respondent groups was previous high school theater activity. Thus, involvement in high school drama activities seems to promote interest in undergraduate theater activities regardless of under- graduate major. Since previous experience with high school theater activities of all kinds appear to result in undergraduates' majoring in theater and in nonmajors getting involved in theater classes and activities, such high school activity should be supported as a means of recruiting future theater majors and lovers of theater. Increased contact with high schools, and 177 on-campus visitations may be useful tools for recruitment. Career Goals and Ambitions for the Future Faculty career goals and ambitions for the future included "other" (like "retire" and "other than theater"); and theater. Graduate student responses included theater; "other" (like "arts administration"); and teaching. Undergrad- uate theater majors identified theater; acting, directing, producing; and "other" (like "be famous"). Undergraduate communications and undergraduate "other" majors indicated other career goals (like "be a lawyer"). Conclusions and Implications Egglg. Consistent with the literature and pilot interviews, goals for undergraduate theater fell into two diverse but basic categories. Preprofessional (theater Specialized) goals were seen as providing students the opportunity to develop marketable Skills, to prepare for advanced training, and to gain control of their bodies and voices so that they could gain employment in the commercial theater world. Liberal arts (theater generalist) goals were seen as Skills relating to having a good overview of theater, basic production, creative and artistic projects, working with other members of the production team, articulating ideas and opinions, problem-solving, developing as a sensitive person, and preparing for graduate School. At all academic levels (faculty, graduate students, undergraduate theater, telecommunications, communications, and other majors), the following were selected as goals: to work effectively with other members of the production team, to develop artistic and creative Skills, to gain a good overview of theater and knowledge of basic skills and control of body and voice. These are production—based goals and are 178 equally appropriate for liberal arts or preprofessional programs. Faculty, graduate and undergraduate student respondents indicated that they thought Michigan State University theater Students had a good overview of theater and basic skills, could work effectively with other members of the production team, had creative and artistic skills and had a realistic understanding of their own Skills. These broad and develOp- mental items are more like liberal arts, but may be appropriate for pre- professional training. Three items were selected as the most important ideal goals of undergraduate theater. These were to train theater generalists, to help students learn to articulate Opinions and ideas, and to develop a variety of perspectives through which to approach creative and non- creative problems. However, undergraduate theater majors rated prepro- fessional training goals highly, even though faculty, graduate and non- theater majors selected liberal arts items. Thus, undergraduate theater majors indicated that they thought that undergraduate theater arts programs should be preprofessional in nature and prepare students for the demands of commercial theater. Faculty, graduate and undergraduate students' ideas about Michigan State University's Theater Department goals included training theater generalists, training theater Specialists, helping students deve10p a variety of perspectives through which to approach creative and noncreative problems, and helping students learn to articulate opinions and ideas. Training theater generalists, problem-solving and skills for articulating are liberal arts goals. Training theater specialists is a preprofessional goal. 179 The 40-60 and 24-39 year olds indicated that ideal theater depart- ment goals were liberal arts in nature. The 21-39 year olds added pre- paration for advanced training or graduate school. The 18-23 year olds selected items relevant to production work that could be appropriate for liberal arts or preprofessional training. Department goals at MSU were seen as both preprofessional and liberal arts by 40-60 year olds and as liberal arts oy the 24-39 and 18-23 year olds. Undergraduate students should be prepared in such a way, the 40-60 and 24-39 year olds indicated, that students Should have a realistic understanding of their skills, an overview of theater, creative and ar- tistic Skills, and be prepared for advanced training. These items may serve either liberal arts or preprofessional programs, but are likely to be more liberal arts in nature sinCe an overview is a broader (liberal arts) goal than is the develOping of theater specialists, which was put last. The 18-23 year olds' responses were similar but there was a Stronger production emphasis. Graduating MSU Students, the 40-60 year olds indicated, possessed primarily liberal arts qualities although these students had been trained in a preprofessional manner. The 24-39 and 18—23 year olds selected items that suggest that graduating MSU Students possess liberal arts skills and attributes. Males and females closely agreed about goals. Ideal goals were strongly liberal arts based and included training theater generalists, teaching problem-solving skills and the skills to articulate opinions and ideas, and preparing for advanced training. MSU goals, as both males and females see them, included training theater generalists, 180 teaching problem-solving skills, preparing for advanced training, and training theater Specialists. WOmen identified both training theater generalists and specialists as high items, suggesting perhaps their perception that the Department attempts to do both. Both groups indi- cated that theater departments should prepare students to work ef- fectively with others, have creative and artistic Skills and full use and control of body and voice. Graduating MSU students, both groups indicated, were trained as theater generalists, could solve problems, articulate Opinions and ideas, and were prepared for advanced training. These items identified by males and females are primarily liberal arts goals. Generally, faculty, graduate, and undergraduate students, the 40-60 and 24-39 year olds, men and women, indicated that undergraduate theater arts goals were ideally related to the preparing of theater generalists and liberal arts training. Undergraduates, theater majors and 18-23 year olds indicated that undergraduate theater arts programs should provide students with production-oriented, preprofessional, theater specialist skills. Thus, consumers of theater arts programs indicate that goals Should be preprofessional while curriculum developers and deliverers indicate a preference for liberal arts goals. Michigan State University's Department of Theater was rated as generally having both liberal arts and preprofessional goals by all academic levels, the 40-60-year-old group, and women. The 24-39- and the 18-23-year-old groups and men identified exclusively liberal arts goals. Goals frequently selected for MSU's Department of Theater were providing students with a good overview of theater and basic production Skills, training theater generalists, training theater Specialists, 181 giving students the opportunity to develop the ability to work with other members of the production team, a realistic understanding of their skills, creative and artistic skills, and problem-solving skills. Additionally, there was a strong emphasis on preparing students for further training, 2252 graduate school and preprofessional advanced training. While providing a good overview, training theater generalists, develOping team skills and problem-solving skills are clearly liberal arts goals, these items may also be appropriate in a preprofessional context. Clearly, then, goals in theater arts are represented in the literature, pilot interviews, and the survey by a wide range of possibilities. This suggests that theater arts can provide the means of accomplishing a wide range of aims and, in fact, probably does pro- vide them. Each subgroup of reSpondentS appears to have a slightly or strongly differing interpretation of what should be and what is. Thus, definitive guiding principles for goals of undergraduate theater arts education did not emerge from this investigation, but a different group of goals did. Because of the large number and different nature of possible goals and the difficulty in the field of clearly communicating specific goals, there is a particular need in undergraduate theater arts programs for published curricular materials to be clearly stated and well-defined. On the basis of the analysis and synthesis of these diffuse data on goals, some recommendations emerge. These recommendations are practical in nature. Recommendations for further Study may be found at the end of the chapter. 182 Some goals that recieved high consensus among survey respondents appear to be left to out-of—class or unsupervised Study. For example, since the skills to work effectively with other members of the production team were identified as the most important way undergraduate theater arts departments Should prepare Students, a structured means of teaching or providing students Opportunities to learn and to receive supervision on such skills is important. Thus, Students Should be provided Opportunities for extensive Opportunities to work in artistic collaboration on dramatic projects throughout their undergraduate careers with careful faculty Su- pervision. This supervision should include feedback about group collabora- tion skills as well as artistic and production skills. The literature and pilot interviewees addressed the relationship between student health and production activities. The desire on the part of undergraduates and 18-23 year olds for production experience and the fatigue evidenced by pilot interviewees who were involved in such activity suggests that undergraduate students should not be encouraged to work with- out respect for their physical and emotional limits. A clear understanding of what is expected from students who participate in undergraduate theater arts curricula will help them understand better what activities they shOuld focus on. It will help prevent production "burn—out" on an individual level and the potential Of over-involvement in production activities on a department level that may exploit Students. This problem seems to occur when the stated or implied goal of a theater arts program or individual student is the quantity of production work and/or production work super- seding academic work. Confronting the difference in what undergraduate and 18-23 year old students appear to want and what they are getting may be useful for theater 183 arts department. Undergraduate theater majors indicated they wanted pre- professional, vocational training even though they were enrolled in a program with a liberal arts focus. A liberal arts curriculum may not provide an undergraduate with an obvious and logical reason why he or She Should undertake or complete a baccalaureate program if his or her goals are preprofessional. This is particularly true, since, unlike fields like engineering or chemistry, having a bachelor's degree in theater arts does not directly correlate with getting a job in commercial theater. Therefore, some attempt at explaining the broader benefits of a baccalaureate degree and placing vocational training in a liberal arts context should be available for undergraduate Students. That way, they can better understand such purposes and make a more fully informed decision about remaining in school and/or as theater majors. Student in- tegration of learning activity Should be improved. Student retention may also be improved. Making undergraduate activity relevant to other career goals, or lack of them, may be helpful. For example, only 19% of undergraduate theater majors and 6.3% to 24.2% of all other undergraduate students de- clared an interest in graduate school. Universities oriented to the liberal arts, as iS Michigan State University, and preparing some students for graduate school may need to find other ways of addressing student needs and interests who are not graduate school bound. A possible method of dealing with this difference in student aspirations is to relate student assignements to production rather than to apparent academic activities. An example would be to assign a paper or project on the historical origins of a particular theater in which the Student works or would like to work instead of a paper or project asking students to trace the historical 184 develOpment of the proscenium stage. While the material covered is likely to be similar, the context in which it is placed is more likely to be perceived as production-based instead of academic and thus more relevant to students with production but no graduate school ambitions. Standards. By academic level groupings (faculty, graduate, and undergraduate students), standards of undergraduate theater were iden- tified as based on teaching skills of faculty, well-rOunded education of students, marketability of students at graduation, production Skills of faculty, and artistic quality of productions. Across these academic categories, Michigan State University's Theater Department standards were identified as the production Skills of its faculty, the artistic quality of its productions, and the com- mercial success of its productions. Also important were the teaching skills of its faculty and the well-rounded education of its students. Standards in theater arts emphasize faculty teaching and pro- duction skills (including the artistic quality of productions), and student well-rounded education and marketability. Standards at Michigan State University emphasize production quality and commercial success, faculty production skills, and student marketability. Neither of these sets of Standards is liberal arts, but mostly preprofessional. The 40-60 year olds identified ideal Standards as facultyébased. Standards at MSU, they indicated, were preprofessional and production- based. The 24—39 year olds identified liberal arts as ideal standards, but indicated that they thought standards at MSU were preprofessional. The 18-23 year olds identified liberal arts standards as ideal and in- dicated that MSU standards are both liberal arts and preprofessional. 185 Men and women identified that ideal standards should be and are at MSU liberal arts and faculty-based. Like goals, Standards identified for ideal programs and at MSU are multiple in nature. In some cases, standards reflect liberal arts or preprofessional training orientation. In other cases, standards are production-based or faculty-based. Thus, while most reSpondent sub- groups identified liberal arts goals, they've identified standards in- appropriate to the evaluation of Such goals. Complicating standards further is the evidence that Standards in theater arts are primarily faculty-based. Therefore, most of the burden of providing quality programming is placed on the faculty individually and collectively. Clarifying standards will help hold Students accountable for their learning efforts, give them feedback on those efforts, give faculty feedback about the success of their teaching skills, and provide departments with useful information about students, faculty, and cur— riculum. From the analysis and synthesis of these data in Standards, some recommendations emerge. These recommendations are practical in nature. Recommendations for further,study may be found at the end of the chapter. Since goals are frequently diffuse and standards may not help measure attainment of such goals, further clarification of indi- vidual programs and teacher standards will be helpful to student learning, faculty assessment, and program integrity. Identified standards at Michigan State University are faculty- dependent and production-dependent and include student marketability in commercial theater. Using these elements, evaluating the achievement of the liberal arts goals (which received a high consensus by all 186 groups) is difficult if not impossible. Perceived criteria at MSU do not easily measure student growth, problem-solving, critical thinking or other liberal arts skills, although its goals are perceived as liberal arts. Colleges and universities that maintain liberal arts goals, but heavily production-oriented or product-oriented Standards make evaluating the liberal arts outcomes difficult if not impossible. Such programs may wish to develop methods of evaluation that include liberal arts components as well as production skills. As demonstrated in the pilot interviews and survey, students feel a need for more integrity between goals and standards and want additional evaluation from faculty. Criteria for student achievement in all areas of production and classroom work as well as the relation- ship between them should be clearly established and maintained. A practical example follows. Auditions for department productions should help students prepare for and reinforce the content presented in the audition class. Further, major students should receive structured feedback from directors for all auditions about why they were or were not cast in a production. Thus, the components, the relationship between components, student goals, and student progress through the educational process are made evident to students and faculty. Students who have a clear sense of tbeir progress have more informationa on which to base their short- and long-term goals and to figure their likelihood of success in a given area. Since evaluation is so challenging in theater arts curricula, it may be useful for theater arts faculty to learn more formal evaluation skills. Such skills will help them address the evaluation of student learning, course content, and accountability issues facing theater arts. 187 Standards in theater arts are difficult to establish and to main- tain. In some ways, the develOpment and evaluation of such unique and multifaceted things as dramatic creativity, character creation, and growth of artistic perception make the issue of Standards in theater arts critical to the survival and growth of the field. Establishing Standards internally and by those who truly understand the field is a powerful way of retaining artistic and academic freedom. Play Selection. For groups analyzed by academic level (faculty, graduate and undergraduate students), respondents believed the purposes of play production in educational settings included giving the Student the opportunity to learn and demonstrate production Skills, giving the talented students the opportunity to demonstrate and further to deve10p their talent, entertaining audiences, and introducing students and audiences to a wide range of history of theater, and various production styles and plays. These items reflect a liberal arts bias. Respondents also believed the purposes of producing plays at Michigan State University were to give talented students the opportunity to demonstrate and further to develop their skills, to give students the Opportunity to learn and to demonstrate their production skills, to entertain audiences, and to introduce students to the history of theater, various production styles, and dramatic literature. While liberal arts in nature, the perceived need of the Department to achieve commercial success is in evidence. Purposes for play production at Michigan State University were identified as related to the anticipated commercial success of the pro- duction, which included featuring talented Students. Nontheater students thought that these purposes were more artisically and educationally 188 motivated than theater students and faculty did. Thus, perceived financial constraints on MSU'S Department of Theater appear to have affected the integrity of the Department in implementing its goals. 40-60 year olds identified purposes for play selection as liberal arts and based on student learning. This group say purposes for play selection at MSU as being preprofessional and production-oriented. The 24-39 year olds identified liberal arts purposes for play selection within the context of quality play production. This group indicated that the purposes of producing plays at MSU were liberal arts, but in the context of commercial considerations (the financial well- being of the production). The 18-23 year olds indicated that their ideal reasons for play selection were the same as those at MSU. These reasons were to develop and to demonstrate production skills and to entertain audiences. These are simply production-oriented, not necesarily preprofessional. Men and women identified the same items for both idea1 play pro- duction and play production at MSU. The items were those focused primarily on production activities, like those identified by the 18- 23 year olds. There does, however, seem to be a bias toward production success instead of student learning. This would suggest a more pre- professional than liberal arts bias. Thus, academic level groupings, all age groups, and men and women selected items which reflected the need for production quality to be high while meeting liberal arts criteria. These groups, addi- tionally, indicated a high consensus in their ideas about MSU's Department of Theater. These ideas may be reflected in other educational theaters, since the demands on a department to produce commercially 189 successful plays may strongly affect the ideal purposes of play pro- duction. Thus, the financial well-being of and support a department receives may influence its ability to select plays for academic reasons. From the analysis and synthesis of the data on play selection, some recommendations emerge. These recommendations are practical in nature. Recommendations for future study may be found at the end of the chapter. When selecting plays, identifying who the audience is is critical. Audiences in educational theater settings include theater majors as well as other students, faculty and non-academics. Since play selection in such an educational setting was identified as the most relevant for students when based on academic rather than commercial criteria, plays in undergraduate theater arts programs Should strive to provide a balanced season that offers a variety of historical, dramatic, Stylish, thematic, and production content. Even a season with a combination of some solid academic and some commercial selections focused on showcase material when the rationale for selection is made evident and thus, is placed in context, such a season becomes more educationally meaningful than an unexplained season of commercial or unknown ventures. Thus, the rationale for play selection should be made public, and seasons in educational settings should be balanced. In a university like Michigan State that appears to its faculty and Students to base its production selection more on commercial than on educational considerations, the theater season is not likely to pro- vide appropriate educational opportunities for students engaged in liberal arts theater studies. Such seasons do appear, however, to offer apprOpriate nonmajor educational and audience recreational 190 Opportunities. Thus, theater arts programs that are tied to the necessity of productions supporting themselves may not be able to meet Student learning needs adequately. That play production is usually a parallel activity to the pub- lished curriculum of a theater arts department should be reevaluated and restructured. Production work should be an extension of classroom work, either in content (develOping a historical period, for example), expansion of content (producing of a play studied as literature or ana- lyzed dramatically), design and technical area expertise (costume de- signing or stage managing) or level of difficulty. If production work is to be an integral part of student activity, a specified amount of production work Should be required, supervised, evaluated, and awarded credit. If production work is to be an extracurricular activity, faculty should be relieved from some production activity so that they may concentrate more of their efforts on classroom work. Additionally, student production as well as academic efforts should be rewarded. Thus, the relationship of selection and production of plays should be freed as much as possible from financial burdens. The rationale for the selection of plays should be well known and the relationship between play production and coursework clarified. Areas of Content. For faculty, graduate and undergraduate students, all age groups, and men and women, acting and directing were identified as the most important areas of course content in undergraduate theater arts programs. 40-60 year olds and men and women added technical theater. These are production-based content areas. From the analysis and synthesis of the data in content, some recommendations emerge. These recommendations are practical in nature. 191 Recommendations for further study may be found in the next section. Since the general agreement is that acting and directing are the most important content areas, the majority of learning activities could focus on skills required for acting, directing, and the academic basis supporting those two areas. Different methods of teaching and evaluation for programs with different goals and standards may be used even though the type of content is the same. (A preprofessional acting class is likely to have different goals and standards from a liberal arts acting class.) Even when goals and standards are unclear or diffuse, that theater programs Should produce plays and teach content appropriate to production Skills is basic to theater arts. Thus, when goals and Standards are clarified, purposes for play selection and appropriate course content supporting those areas will be easier to delineate. Since nonmajors make up a disproportionately large percentage of the enrollment in theater classes, attention must be paid to the frequency and types and resources provided for courses available to nonmajors as well as majors. Classes designed for majors may be too demanding for most nonmajors. Restricting some classes to majors may increase the breadth and depth of the academic work for majors. Non- major sequences with Special emphasis (like interpreting dramatic lit- erature, design, acting, etc.) may help nonmajors sturcture their time in theater arts, encourage them to stay enrolled longer, and help them to integrate the other course work they undertake while involved in theater arts classes. Classes for nonmajors may be designed with creativity. For instance, a performance-attending class might be offered in which students tour available theaters, read and discuss plays, authors, historical periods, etc., see productions related to 192 their study, then write a paper and/or discuss their reactions and ideas. Additionally, content particularly relevant to telecommunications majors may be useful to include in theater courses, since, in this survey, telecommunications majors were found to be greater consumers of theater courses than theater majors. Thus, acting, directing and technical theater are considered by these respondents as central to the study of theater arts at an undergraduate level. Adjustments should be made to accomodate different program goals and consumers. Qghgg. Two other areas emerged during pilot interviews from which practical recommendations may address. Students requested more feedback from faculty about the production activities and coursework. Available production Opportunities might be utilized to give feedback to students about their skills. This could include focusing on broader goals in addition to the goals of mounting particular productions. Examples of such feedback might include Skills working in artistic collaboration with others, professional work habits and ethics (e.g., promptness, readiness to work) and recommendations to refer to certain support and text materials to provide resources for production problems. A set designer might suggest that a student review working drawings and go to a lecture on flat construction in addition to adding more nails to the cornerpiece. A director might suggest that an actor re- search a historical period to gain an understanding of a context of a character's life in addition to suggesting that a student may be using an approach too modern for the play. Thus, Opportunities to guide student learning available are explored. 193 Undergraduates indicated a need for career counseling. As evidenced in the Survey, faculty and graduate students at MSU indi- cated they have a liberal arts approach to theater arts education. Undergraduate theater majors indicated a desire for preprofessional training. Undergraduates learn about theater, their own strengths, limitations and goals, their interest in the theater major may change. Such a change could include change of emphasis within the major, of the major itself, of the school; it could also mean a move to a city with a stronger commercial theater base. Help in determining appro- priate alternatives would be useful for undergraduates faced with such dilemmas. Career counseling about apprOpriate Options for partic- ular skills, job seeking skills particular to theater arts, realistic career goals and alternatives for this difficult profession would be helpful if readily available to undergraduates. Recommendations for Further Study On the basis of the findings and conclusions of this study, the following recommendations for further study are prepared. 1. Additional pilot data from nontheater majors eSpecially telecommunications majors, should be gathered and, if necessary, integrated into the survey. 2. Research areas (goals, Standards, play selection, and content areas) may need to be considered separately with more in-depth questions. 3. The study should be replicated at other four-year institu- tions. Additional studies might be considered in community colleges. 10. 194 This Study Should be done with former undergraduate theater majors who a) changed and graduated in a different major, b) drOpped out of school, c) graduated as theater majors but are not working currently in theater, and d) graduated as theater majors and are currently working in theater. Pilot interviews and/or surveys should be done in other university departments (like humanities, English, telecom- munications) and with upper-level university administrators, community leaders, community art organizations, and other appropriate groups. The constructs of preprofessional and liberal arts training should be further investigated and validated. Research should be conducted with high school students on their perceptions and the needs that theater activities meet. Research on develOpmental stages of high school Students and how dramatic activities can affect those Stages and further dramatic involvement may also be appropriate. Further research should be done toward a broader understanding of the needs of nonmajors in theater arts courses. Some of that research should focus on telecommunications majors. Research should be done on minority educational needs in theater art. Further study should be conducted with undergraduate majors for a better understanding of how they progress develOpmentally during their undergraduate careers. Such information could provide the basis for the selection and sequencing of learning activities apprOpriate to student readiness. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 195 Former theater majors should be surveyed for what they found helpful and not helpful in their academic work in their current professional work. How theater arts curricula in colleges and universities are different from such curricula in non-experiential liberal arts or vocational programs needs to be established. A national Study should be done to determine where and how many jobs in professional (commercial), educational com- munity and other theaters are likely to be available. Such projections should be made available to undergraduate theater majors. This survey, or one like it, should be conducted at a national level with undergraduate theater arts faculty to determine whether there is a consensus among them about the guiding principles of undergraduate theater education. Such an activity could lead to the establishment of widely ac- cepted standards, accountability, and more commonalities across programs. The field of curriculum theory Should address the need for conceptual models for disciplines in the arts and humanities. Complex dramatic activities like acting, directing, designing should be studied and broken into smaller components; and methods and sequences for learning and evaluating Should be established. Standards appropriate for the performing arts need to be developed. Curricular models based on both projected professional (preprofessional) and student develOpmental needs (liberal 17. 196 arts) could be created, tested further, and offered to students with clear goals and standards statements. For in-coming students, a battery of paper-and-pencil, performance, and production-diagnostic tests based on a con- sensus of the guiding principles of undergraduate theater arts education should be developed. Such a battery of tests would include all the salient features of an under- graduate theater arts education and ask students to attempt the intellectual, psychomotor, creative, interpersonal (col- laborative) and production skills needed for Such an educa- tion. The results could provide faculty with information about student academic and production-related Skills and help channel students into appropriately paced learning activities. Entering "talented students" who receive Special attention from the department may be more clearly identified and may understand more about why they were se- lected. Students entering without prerequisite Skills may gain an understanding of what Skills and at what level of competence they need to develop. Waivers from sections of coursework may be determined by such diagnosis. Additionally, and in some ways most importantly, such a diag- nosis activity would provide students an overview of all the elements likely to be involved in their education in theater arts. The diagnostic battery may be designed in such a way that pieces of it become the basis for evaluation exercises during later coursework. Students may complete the exercise 197 again as they proceed through the four years and/or at graduation so that they may gain an understanding and per— spective about what they've learned and how they've develOped. The opportunity to participate in and to receive feedback from a diagnostic batter of tests based on academic skill and creativity could help students focus on the salient features of a theater arts curriculum. Such an experience could provide an overview or understanding of the curricular rationale or guiding principles of undergraduate theater arts education. Thus, the delineation of the guiding principles of undergraduate theater arts is in a formative but critical stage. Examination of goals, standards, play selection, and course content provide the basis on which to proceed with Such an undertaking. Such activity is overdue, and the field of theater arts will benefit from further study in these areas. While a great deal of data from the pilot interviews and Survey has been collected, synthesized and analyzed, more questions were raised than answered in the course of this research. The original purpose of this study was the delineation of the guiding principles of undergraduate theater arts. This was done with the recognition that the identification of guiding principles was confounded by some unresolved issues in the profession itself that were beyond the scOpe of this study. Instead, the study more fully explored the groundwork on which such principles might be based. The patterns follow: 1. The production of plays appears more important in the delivery of the curriculum than a department's philosophical 198 or theoretical orientation (e.g. liberal arts or a prepro- fessional training). Department orientations seem to fall on a continuum between liberal arts and preprofessional training. However, these constructs do not adequately model all theoretical differences and they sometimes overlap. Some practical curricular problems in evidence in the pilot interviews were not addressed in the professional literature (i.e., the relationship of play production to the published curriculum and the real-world constraints affecting play selection). Some goals and standards appear to be covert. That is, some goals and standards were not stated in the literature as goals or were not addressed as Standards, but were selected by Survey reSpondents as very important. Examples include working in artistic collaboration with others, the applying of classroom work to production opportunities, and developing and evaluating problem-solving Skills in artistic challenges. Standards in theater arts are in a state of disarray. The profession is still at a primitive level in addressing them. Guiding principles are not clear in the field. These princi- ples in theater arts may be so problematic that an apprOpriate method of uncovering them has not yet emerged. That the relationship between co-curricular play production and formal coursework is unclear lends confusion to theater arts curriculum. This relationship may provide a pivotal part of the understanding of guiding principles. 199 8. Nonacademic factors like money and facilities profoundly affect a theater department's ability to deliver an educa- tional product or process. Because the main curricular element is the production of plays is so firmly tied to the financial well-being of a theater program, this situation may present a more striking problem to theater arts programs than to other more traditional academic units. 9. There has been little work done to help determine how theater arts programs in colleges and universities are different from non-experiential liberal arts or strictly vocational theater arts programs. 10. What dramatic creativity, evidence of dramatic talent, and potential for success in theater and theater arts are have never been determined. Thus, the teaching and evaluating of these qualities or skills is difficult, if not impossible. It is the recommendation of this study that the tentative findings in evidence here receive further attention, in order more fully to explore the guiding principles of undergraduate theater arts education. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY References Abramson, D.A. "Curriculum Research & Evaluation." Review of Educational Research, Vol 36: No. 3, 1966: 388-395. Ackerman, J.S. "The Arts in Higher Education." In Content and Context: Essays on Collgge Education. Edited by C. Kaysen. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973. American Association for Higher Education. Assessment. Current Issues in Higher Education. No. 5. 1979. Washington, D.C.: ED 194 001. American Medical Association. Specialized Program Evaluator Manual. The Manual. Department of Allied Health. ED 160 627. American Theater Association. National Directory of Performing Arts Edu- cation. 1975. ; Speech Communication Association. Competency Models and Program Guidelines Recommended by the Speech Communication Association. Pamphlet material, 1978. . Preparation of Elementary and Secondary Teachers in Speech Communication and Theater. Pamphlet material, 1978. Anderson, Scarvia B.; Ball, Samuel. The Profession and Practice of Pro- gram Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1978. Backstrom, Charles H.; Hursh, Gerald D. Survey Research. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1963. Baker, Robert. "Curriculum Evaluation." Review of Educational Research. 39: NO. 3. 1969. Barron's Educational Series, College Division of. Barron's Profiles of American Colleges, Vol. 1 Description of Colleges. New York: Barron's Educational Series, Inc., 1980. Beauchamp, George A. "A Hard Look at Curriculum." Educational Leadership 35 (February 1978): 404-409. Berlin, I.N. "Aspects of Creativity and the Learning Process." American Leadership 17 (1960): 83-89. 200 201 Cronbach, Lee J.; Suppes, Patrick. Research for Tomorrow's Schools Disciplined Inquiry for Education. Toronto: The MacMillan Company, 1965. Dennis, Lawrence E.; Renate, Jacob M. The Arts in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1968. Dewey, John. Art as Experience. New York: Capricorn Book, 1958. Dietrich, John E. Play Direction. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1953. Dolman, John, Jr. The Art of Play Production. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1946. Downer, Alan S. (ed). "The Teaching of Theater: A Challenge to Educa- tion." Educational Theater Journal 19 (June, 1967): 249-253. Drake, E. Maylon. "The Educational Program Audit." Educational Digest. (November, 1973): 14. Dressel, Paul L. College and University Curriculum. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1968. & Associates. Evaluation in Higher Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961. . Handbook of Academic Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1976. Improving Degree Programs: A Guide to Curriculum Development Administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1980. Drews, Elizabeth M. "the DevelOpment of Talent." Teachers College Record 65 (1963): 210-219. DuBoiS, Philip H.; Mayo, G. Douglas. Research Strategies for Evaluating Training. American Educational Research Associates MOnograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1970. Dukore, Bernard, ed. "Professional Companies, Professionalism, and the University Theater Department: A Symposium." Educational Theater Journal 18 (1966): 99-109. Edwards, Timothy 1.; Roberson, Clarence E., Jr. "A Study to Determine the Basic Science and Mathematics Topics Most Needed by Engineering Technology Graduates of Wake Technical Institute in Performing Job Duties." ED 178 137. Ervin, Chris. "Stage Father-~Successful Theater is Child's Play for John Baldwin," MSU Today (February 1982): 6. 202 Fisher, W. Paul; Klein, M. Frances. "Challenging Simplistic Beliefs About Curriculum." Educational Leadership_Vol. 35: No. 5 (February, 1978): 390-393. Fitz-Gibbon, Carol Tyler; Morris, Lynn Lyons. How to Design a Program Evaluation. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1978. Forehand, G.A. "The Role of the Evaluator in Curriculum Research." Journal of Educational Measurement. 3:3 (Fall, 1966): 199-204. Friedlander, Larry; Esslin, Martin. "Theater Arts." In The MOdern American College. Edited by Arthur W. Chickering & Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1981; 346-354. Geltner, Frank Joseph, Jr. Standards and Accreditation for Theater Arts Programs in American Higher Education: A History and Analysis. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Oregon, 1980. Goldberg, Maywell H. "Vocational Training, Career Orientation and Liberal Education." Liberal Education 61:3 (1975): 309-318. Goode, William J.; Hatt, Paul K. Methods in Social Research. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1952. Gould, Harold Vernon. Functions of Dramatic Activigy in American Schools, Colleges and Universities in the Twentieth Century. Ph.D. disser- tation, Cornell University, 1953. Gressler, Thomas. "Theater-Liberal Arts/Liberal Arts vs. Theater." Theater News 14:3 (March, 1982): 12. Grobman, Hulda. Evaluation Activities of Curriculum Projects: A Starting Point. American Educational Research Association MOnograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1968. Grotowski, Jerry. Towards a Poor Theater. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968. Guilford, J.P. "Can Creativity Be DevelOped?" Art Education 11:6 (June, 1958): 3-7, 14-18. Guttentag. M. "Subjectivity & Its Uses in Evaluation Research". Evalua— tion 1:2 (1973): 60-65. Hansen, DuWayne H. The Development of a Conceptual MOdel for Validatigg. & Designing Integrative Studies in Sculpture, Painting and Music. Ph.D. thesis. Indiana University, 1975. Harcleroad, Fred F. "Educational Auditing & Accountability." ED 131 765. 203 Harris, Zelema; Eros, Dawn. "Identification, Description, & Evaluation of Vocational Education Programs at the Metropolitan Community Colleges in Kansas City, Missouri." Final Report Vol. 1 ED 164 854. Harvey, Thomas R. "A Process Evaluation Design for Big er Education." Journal of Higher Education 44:4 (April, 1973): 309-321. Hastings, J.T. "Curriculum Evaluation the Whys of tbe Outcomes." Journal of Educational Measurement 3:1 (September, 1966): 27-32. Hawes, Gene R. Comprehensive Guide to College. New York: American Library Times Mirror, 1978. Hearns, Thomas K., Jr. "A PhilOSOphy for the Arts." Theater News (February, 1982): 19-21. Heist, Paul, ed. The Creative College Student--An Unmet Challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, 1968. Henerson, Marlene E.; MOrris, Lynn Lyons; Fitz-Gibbon, Carol Taylor. How to Measure Attitudes. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1978. Herzog, Elizabeth. Some Guidelines for Evaluating Research. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare: Children's Bureau, 1959. Hobgood, Burnet M. "Theater in U.S. Higher Education: Emerging Patterns and Problems." Educational Theaner Journal 16 (1964): 142-159. Holdman, Holly. "Semester Curriculum Project: A Look at the Move From Terms to Semesters at Michigan State University Department of Theater." Term Project, Michigan State University, 1980. House, Ernest R. "The Politics of Evaluation in Higher Education." Journal of Higher Education 55:8 (November, 1974): 618-627. Houseman, John. "In Search of an Acting Tradition." Educational Theater Journal 20 (1968): 92-96. Jakubowski, Ted; Kaplan, H. Roy. "Seniors View the Core Curriculum 3 Survey Report." Massachusetts University at Amherst: Office of Institutional Studies, 1969. ED 029 616. Johnson, Mauritz, Jr. "Definition and MOdelS in Curriculum Theory." Educational Theory. 17:2 (April, 1967): 127-140. Kanter, David Robert. "The Academy Approach to the Teaching of Acting in A Liberal Arts University Setting: An Examination of the History, PhilOSOphy and Practical Results for Students of the Meadow Brook Academy at Oakland University From Its Inception to Date." Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota, 1976. 204 Katz, Albert M. "Open Letter to Colleagues, Chronology and Ramifications: Wisconsin University and College Theater Assoication Recommended Changes." Unpublished document, 1977. Kay, Patricia M.; Schoener, John E. "Program Evaluation For Competency Based Teacher Education: A Brief Review of Literature and an Annotated Bibliography." New York: City University of New York: Center for the Advanced Study in Education, ED 164 615. Kelly, A.V. The Curriculum Theory and Practice. New York: Harper & Row, 1977. Kernodle, George R. "Theater Practice and Theater Theory in the Liberal Arts Curriculum." Educational Theater Journal 1 (1949): 82-85. Kohr, Richard L.; Suydam, Marilyn N. "An Instrument for Evaluating Survey Research." The Journal of Educational Research 64:2 (October, 1970): 78-85. Lawrence, Judith K.; Green, Kenneth C. "A Question of Quality in the Higher Education Ratings Game." AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Research Re- port No. 5. 1980. ED 192 667. ' Lee, Calvin B.T. "Knowledge Structure and Curriculum DevelOpment." Educational Record 47:3 (Summer, 1966): 347-360. Leeper, Robert R., ed. "Assessing and Using Curricular Content." Washing- ton, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curricular Development, 1965. Leton, Donald. "Criterion Problems: Curriculum Evaluation." Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: Office of Education, 1966. ED 016 790. Listman, Robert John. A Comparison of the Opinions of Marketing Dgpartment Chairmen, Businessmen, and Academicians Concerning the Desirability of Stressing Selected Courses, Issues and Objectives in Undergraduate Marketing Curriculum. Ph.D. thesis, Northern Illinois University, 1976. Lowry, W. McNeil. "The University and the Creative Arts." Art Journal XXI:4 (Summer, 1962): 233-239. . "The University and the Creative Arts." Educational Theater Journal 14 (March-December, 1962): 99-112. Lyda, W.J. "A Suggested Conceptual System for Decision-Making in Curriculum Development." Educational Record 41:1 (1960): 74-83. Madson, Lynda P.; Myers, Russell M. "Re-Evaluation and the Core Curriculum: How Will Speech Communication Fare?" ED 150 655. 205 Martorana, S.V.; Kuhn, Eileen. "Academic Programming." AAHE-ERIC/ Higher Education Research Currents, September, 1978. ED 165 510. Mayhew, Lewis B. "The Arts and Access to Higher Education." In The Arts in Higher Education. Edited by Lawrence E. Dennis and Jacob M. Renate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1968. Meserve, Walter J. An Outline of History of American Drama. Totowa, New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams and Co., 1965. pp. 12-13, 35, 216, 241 314-5. ° Miller, Robert F. "Report of the First New Harmony Conference of the American Research Institute for the Arts." Issues in the Azts in PostSecondary Education 1:1. Proceedings from the American Research Institute for the Arts, St. Louis, Missouri, February, 1981. MOore, Honor, ed. The Woman's Theateg. New York: Vintage Books, a division of Random House, 1977: xi-xxxii. MOrriS, Lynn Lyons; Fitz-Gibbon, Carol Taylor. Evaluator's Handbook. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1978. . How to Deal with Goals and Objectives. Beverly Hills, Califor— nia: Sage Publications, 1978. . How to Measure Program Implementation. Beverly Hills, Califor- nia: Sage Publications, 1978. Morrison, Jack. "American Educational Theater of the Future." Educational Theater Journal 20 (1968): 88-91. . "Educational Theater, A Working Myth: Or, Salt for the Tail of the Magic Bird." Educational Theater Journal 9 (1957): 273-279. MOtter, Charlotte Kay. Theater in High School Planning, Teaching, Directing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970: 14-18. MacGowan, Kenneth. "The Educational Theater for Tomorrow." Educational Theater Journal 9 (1957): 85-96. McNemar, Quinn. "Opinion-Attitude MethodOIOgy." Psychological Bulletin 43:4 (1946): 289-374. McQueen, Walter Glynn,Jr. An Evaluation of the Undergraduate Program in Secondary Mathematics at Auburn University Based on the Opinions of the 1969-1974 Graduates of the Teacher Evaluation PrOgram. Ph.D. thesis, Auburn University, 1975. National Association of Schools of Art. Handbook. Reston, Virginia: National Association of Schools of Art, 1981. National Association of Schools of Music. Bulletin November 1980. Reston, Virginia: National Association of Schools of Music, 1980. 206 . Handbook 1981. Reston, Virginia: National Association of Schools of Music, 1981. National Association of Schools of Theater. Membership Directory 1982. Reston, Virginia: National Association of Schools of Theater, Inc. 1982. . NAST Handbook 1980-81. Reston, Virginia: National Association of Schools of Theater, Inc. 1980. National Society for the Study of Education. The Integration of Educational Experience in 57th Yearbook, Pt. III. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958. Newfield, John W. "What are the Information Demands of Curriculum Super- visors?"’ Educational Leadership 74:6 (March, 1977): 453-457. North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. "Guide for the Evaluation of Institutions of Higher Education." 1961 Booklet. Oppenheim, A.N. Questionnaire Design: Attitude Measurements. New York: Books, Inc., Publishers, 1966. Parker, J. Cecil; Rubin, Louis J. Process as Content Curriculum Desigp and the Application of Knowledge. Chicago: Rand-McNally & Co., 1966. Patterson, K.D. "The Administration of University Curriculum." Journal of Higher Education 38 (1967): 438-443. Pearson, Judy C.; Sorenson, Ritch L. "The Basic Speech Communication Course: A Review of Past Practices and Current Preferences." ED 196 088. Peterson, Dorothy G. "Accrediting Standards and Guidelines: A Profile." Educational Record 59 (1978): 305-313. Phillips, William. "University Drama Education: A MOdest Proposal". Educational Theater Journal 15 (1963): 219-223. Polsky, Milton E. Let's Improvise. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1980. POpham, W. James. Educational Evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975. , ed. Evaluation in Education: Current Applications. Berkeley, California: McCutchan, 1974. Posavac, Emil J.; Carey, Raymond C. Program Evaluation: Methods and Cagg Studies. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1980. Z“? Posner, George, Jr. "The Extensiveness of Curriculum Structure: A Con- ceptual Scheme." Review of Educational Research 44:4 (1974): 401-407. Pratt, David. "System Theory, Systems Technology, and Curriculum Design." Journal of Educational Thopght 12:2 (August, 1978): 131-152. Pusey, Nathan M. American Higher Education 1945-1970, A Personal Report. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1978. Raessler, Kenneth Ray. A Comparative Study of Music Course Requirements and Professional Programs in Music Education in Selected Colleges and Universities in Pennsylvania, Maryland and New Jersey. Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University, 1967. Rath, James. "Encouraging Trends: Curriculum Evaluation." Educational Leadership 35:4 (January, 1978): 243-246. Report of the M.T.A. "Blue Ribbon" Panel Concerned with Minimum Standards for Colleges and University Theater Programs. (mimeographed). Rockefeller Brothers' Panel Report on the Future of Theater, Dance, Music In America. "The Performing Arts: Problems and Perspectives." Arts in Society. 3:3 (1965): 341-346, 351-355, 357-361. Scheffler, Israel. "Justifying Curriculum Decisions." School Review 66 (1958): 461-472. Schwab, Joseph J. "The Practical: A Language for Curriculum." School Review 78:1 (1969): 1-23. Seegmiller, David Warren. College Music: Programs and Their Administration (Vol I-III). Ed.D. thesis, Columbia University, 1966. Selden, William K.; Porter, Henry V. "Accreditation: Its Purpose and Uses-An Occasional Paper." Washington, D.C.: Council on Post Secondary Accreditation, 1977. ED 142 115. Shank, Theodore. The Art of Dramatic Art. Belmont, California: Dick- enson Publishing Company, Inc., 1969. Sharpham, John; Sudano, Gary R. "Back to Basics: Justifying the Arts in General Education." Theater News 14:1 (January, 1982): 15-16. Shear, Twyla M. An Evaluation of Core Curriculum in the College of Home Economics. Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University, 1964. Spolin, Viola. Improvisation for the Theater. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1970. Stake, Robert E. "The Countenance of Educational Evaluation." Teachers College Record 68 (1967): 523-540. 208 . Evaluating the Arts in Education: A Responsive Approach. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1975. . "To Evaluate an Arts Program." Journal of Aesthethic Education 10:3-4 (July-October, 1976): 115-134. Stake, Robert E.; Denny, Terry. "Needed Concepts and Techniques for Utilizing More Fully the Potential of Evaluation." In Educational . Evaluation: Theory and Practice. By Worthen, Blain R. and Sanders, James R. Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company, 1973. . Stephen, Frederick P.; McCarthy, Philip J. Sampling Opinions: An Analysis of Surveprrocedure. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965. Summerfield, J.D.; Thatcher, L., ed. The Creative Mind and Method: Exploring the Nature of Creativeness in American Arts, Sciences) and Professions. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 1960. Taba, Hilda. Curriculum DevelOpment Theory and Practice. New York: Har- court, Brace and World, Inc., 1972. Taylor, Peter A.; Cowley, Doris M., ed. Readings in Curriculum Evaluation. lowa: William C. Brown Co., 1972. Thistlethwaite, Donald L. "College Environments and the DevelOpment of Talent." Science 130:336-7 (July 10, 1959): 71-76. Tyler, Ralph. "Two New Emphases in Curriculum DevelOpment." Educational Leadershi . 34:1 (October, 1976): 61-71. University College Theater Association Standards Committee: James D. Kriley, Calvin Pritner, Vera Mowry Roberts, "Minimum Standards for The Accreditation of Theater Degree Programs in Colleges and Uni- versities: Accepted and Endorsed by the American Theater Association, the University and College Theater Association, and the Standards Commission of the American Theater Association", American Theater Association, 1977: 545-555. VanderMeer, A.W.; Lyons, M.D. "Professional Fields and the Liberal Arts and 1958-1978." Educational Record 60:2 (Spring, 1979): 197-201. Waack, Bill. "Performance in Theater Education." Draft of a Position Paper, August, 1979. Webb, Eugene J.; Campbell, Donald T.; Schwartz, Richard D.; and Sechrest, Lee. Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in Social Studies. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. Williams, Henry M. A Study of Core Curriculum Requirements in College and University Programs for the Preparation of School Administrators. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. 209 Wood, Lyon Davis; Gross, Barbara. "Designing and Evaluating Higher Edu- cation Curricula." AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Research Report No. 8. ED 165 669. Worthen, Blaine R.; Sanders, James R. Educational Evaluation: Theory and Practice. Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company, 1973. Young, James 8.; Marchman, David. "Criteria For DevelOpment of Baccalau- reate Level Construction Curricula: A Resource and Planning Guide." Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, ED 196 338. Young, John Wray. "Opinion ATA: Present at Its Conception." Theater News XIII: 9 (December, 1981). Yowell, Robert. "Questions on Constructing a Theater Curriculum." Theater News 15:2: 15. 210 Citations Boston University. Boston School of Theater Arts. Booklet. Boston: Boston University, 1981. . Boston School of Theater Arts. Handout material. Boston: Boston University, 1981. . Boston University Viewbook. Vol. LXX: No. 10. Boston: Boston University, 1981. . Undergraduate PrOgram Bulletin. Boston: Boston University, 1981. Carnegie-Mellon University. The Professional Choice. Vol. 8: No. 3. Pittsburgh: Carnegie-Mellon University, 1981. Status Form material. Pittsburgh: Carnegie-Mellon University, 1981. College of Santa Fe. 1981-83 Bulletin. Santa Fe, New Mexico: College of Santa Fe, 1981. "Theater at the College of Santa Fe." Promotional material. Santa Fe, New Mexico: College of Santa Fe, 1981. Indiana University. "Undergraduate Studies in Theater and Drama and Course Listings." Handout material. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University, 1979. Office of Research and Graduate Development. "Research and Creative Activity". Vol. II: No. 4. Bloomington, Indiana: Indi- ana University Foundation. Mars Hill College. "Department of Theater Arts & Speech." Handout. Mars Hill, North Carolina: Mars Hill College, 1981. Marywood College. "Communication Arts at Marywood." Brochure. Scranton, Pennsylvania: Marywood College, 1980. . "Guidelines to Programs of Study in Communication Arts 1981- 82." Brochure. Scranton, Pennsylvania: Marywood College, 1981. Miami University. "Department of Communication and Theater, Bachelor's Degree in Theater." Promotional material. Oxford, Ohio: Miami University, Michigan State University. "Department of Theater." Promotional material. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University. . "Undergraduate Curricula Worksheet/Requirements." MSU Academic Program Catalog. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1981. 211 . "University Publication." Vol. 45:3. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Publications Office, 1981. New York University. "New York University Bulletin 1981-82." Vol. LXXX: No. 15. New York: New York University, 1980. Seton Hill College. "Theater as a Major in the Theater/Communications Department." Pamphlet. Greensburg, Pennsylvania: Seton Hill College. . Theater Division Curricula. Promotional material. Greensburg, Pennsylvania: Seton Hill College, University of Oklahoma. "College of Fine Arts, School of Drama." Promotional material. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma, 1981. . General Catalog 1981-1982. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma, 1981. University of Southern California. ‘Bulletin‘o ”the University of'Sothern California School of Performing Arts 1981-1983. V01. 76: No. 18: Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1981. . "School of Performing Arts Division of Drama." Handout ma- terial. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1981. University of Wisconsin. "Theater and Drama for the Undergraduate." Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, 1981. University College Theater Association. "Drama in Education Report." Unpublished pamphlet, 1978. Washington University. "Performing Arts Area." Promotional material. St. Louis: Washington University, 1982. . "Prerequisites of a Drama Major." Handout material. St. Louis: Washington University, 1982. APPENDIX A Criteria for Ranking Colleges and Universities According to Barron and Hawes 212 Appendix A Criteria for Ranking Colleges and Universities According to Barron and Hawes Criteria Used by Barron MOSt competitive: These colleges usually accept high school students who rank in the tOp 10-20% of their classes with A to B+ averages, SAT scores of 625-800 and ACT scores above 27. Highly competitive: These colleges usually accept high school students who rank in the tOp 20-35% of their classes with SAT scores of 595-625 and ACT schores of 26-27. Very competitive: These colleges usually accept high school students who rank in the tOp 35-50% of their classes with SAT scores of 525-575 and ACT scores between 23-25. Competitive: These colleges usually accept high school students who rank in the top 50-65% of their classes and have mostly B- averages, although some schools accept 0+ or C averages. SAT scores usually range from 450-525 and ACT scores 19-22. These schools usually accept between 75-85% of their applicants. Colleges ranking com- petitive + have median freshmen scores of 515 or better or median freshmen ACT scores of 23. These schools admit fewer than half their applicants. Less competitive: These schools usually accept high school students who rank in the top 65% of their graduating classes with SAT scores below 450 and ACT scores below 19. They usually admit 85% or more of their applicants. Noncompetitive: These schools generally require evidence of graduation from an accredited high School. Special: These schools have Specialized programs of studies whose re- quirements are not based primarily on academic criteria, but evidence of talent or special interest in the field of Study. Criteria Used by Hawes Social prestige: This rating reflects the extent to which the children of America's upper class go to college. This category is based on the number of college graduates in the current edition of the Social Register. Colleges are ranked tOp, very high, high, moderately high, moderate and some. Social achievement: This rating reflects the achievement and high status of graduates.. Social achievement ratings are based on the number of college graduates listed in the most current edition of Who's Who in America. This rating gives an indication how likely a 213 college is to help students achieve high status later in life through their own efforts and skills. Ratings include tOp, very high, high, moderately high, and moderate. APPENDIX B COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY RATINGS ACCORDING TO BARRON AND HAWES 214 Appendix B College and University Ratings according to Barron and Hawes Barron Hawes Boston University Boston, Massachusetts Carnegie-Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania College of Santa Fe Santa Fe, New Mexico Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana Mars Hill College Mars Hill, North Carolina Marywood College Scranton, Pennsylvania Miami University Oxford, Ohio Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan New York University New York, New York Seton College Greensburg, Pennsylvania University of Oklahoma , Norman, Oklahoma University of South. Calif. Los Angeles, California University of Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin Washington University St. Louis, Missouri very competitive highly competitive+ less competitive competitive less competitive less competitive competitive+ competitive+ very competitive competitive+ competitive competitive competitive most competitive very high social prestige high social achieve- ment moderately high social prestige high social achievement not listed moderately high social prestige tOp social achievement not listed not listed very high social achievement very high social achievement top social achievement not listed moderately high social achievement very high social achievement not listed top social prestige top social achievement Appendix C Information about College and University Theater Arts Programs (Catalog Review) 215 CatalogiReview College name: Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Barron rating: Competitive Hawes rating: Very high social achievement 1982-83 season: Midsummer Night's Dream-Shakespeare Look Homeward, Angel-Thomas Wolfe The Seagull-Anton Chekov No Place to be Somebody-Charles Gordone ScapinoIMoliere Oliverl-Lionel Bart Department location: College of Arts and Letters Department of Theater Department orientation: Liberal Arts Number of undergraduates: 130 Number of faculty: 10 Facultytstudent ratio: 1:13 Degree(s) awarded: BA Artist-in-residence: Yes Admission: Admission to the University Other: Performing Arts Company, resident graduate company 216 Catalog Review College name: Boston University Boston, Massachusetts Barron rating: Very competitive Hawes rating: Very high social prestige High social achievement 1982-83 Season: Night and Day-Tom StOppard The Dining Room-A.R. Gurney, Jr. Translations-Brian Friel Time and the Conways-J.B. Priestly Taming of the Shrew-William Shakespeare Department location: School for the Arts Department orientation: Preprofessional Number of undergraduates: 213-240 Number of faculty: 23 Facultyzstudent ratio: 1:10 Degree(s) awarded: BFA Artist-in—residence: Yes Admission: Audition, portfolio, interview Other: Relationship with Hartman Theater Company of Stanford, Connec- ticut; member of the Leage of Professional Theater Training Programs 217 Catalog Review College name: CarnegieIMellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Barron rating: Not listed Hawes rating: Not listed 1982-83 Season: The Front Page-Ben Hecht and Charles McArthur Ghost Sonata-August Strindberg R.V.R.-Karel Capel Mikado-Gilbert and Sullivan Department location: College of Fine Arts Department of Performing ArtS(Drama and Music) Department orientation: Preprofessional Number of undergraduates: 200 Number of faculty: 24 Faculty:student ratio: 1:8 Degree(s) awarded: BFA Artist-in-residence: No Admission: Audition, portfolio, interview Other: Affiliated with the League of Professional Theater Training Programs 218 Catalog Review College name: College of Santa Fe Santa Fe, New Mexico Barron rating: Less competitive Hawes rating: Not listed 1982-83 Season: Working-Studs Terkel Two Noble Kinsman-William Shakespeare and John Fletcher Rich and Famous-John Guare The Hostage-Brendan Behan Department location: Department of Performing Arts Theater Division Department orientation: Mixture Number of undergraduates: 73 Number of faculty: 6 Faculty:student ratio: 1:12 Degree(s) awarded: BA and BFA Artist-in-residence: Yes Admission: Audition, portfolio, interview Other: Based on Christian values 219 Catalog Review College name: Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana Barron rating: Competitive Hawes rating: Moderate high; Social prestige TOp social achievement 1982-83 Season: TartuffeIMoliere The Mad Woman of Chaillot-Jean Giraudoux The Father-August Strindberg Travesties-Tom StOppard Cabaret-Fred Ebb, lyrics John Kandor, music Department location: Department of Theater and Drama Department orientation: Liberal Arts Number of undergraduates: 250 Number of faculty: 19 Faculty:student ratio: 1:13 Degree(s) awarded: BA Artist-in-residence: No Admission: Admission to the University Other: Black Theater Program 220 CataloggReview College name: Miami University Oxford, Ohio Barron rating: Competitive+ Hawes rating: Very high social prestige 1982-83 Season: The Rivals—R.B. Sheridan Taken in Marriage-Thomas Babe Gidem-Paddy Chayefsky Chicago-Fred Ebb and Bob Fosse The Cherry Orchard-Anton Chekov Department location: Department of Communication and Theater Department orientation: Mixture Number of undergraduates: 120 Number of faculty: 10 Faculty:student ratio: 1:12 Degree(s) awarded: BA Artist-in-residence: No Admission: Open Other: Associated with the Actor's Theater of Louisville, and the Cincinnati Playhouse 221 Catalog Review College name: Mars Hill College Mars Hill, North Carolina Barron rating: Less competitive Hawes rating: Not listed 1982-83 Season: By Jupiter-Moss Hart and Richard Rogers Guys and Dolls-Joe Swerling and Abe Burrows, book Frank Loessa, music & lyrics Othello-William Shakespeare Department location: Department of Theater Arts and Speech Department orientation: Mixture Number of undergraduates: 15-20 Number of faculty: 3 Faculty:student ratio: 1:6 Degree(s) awarded: BA ArtistIin-residence: No Admission: Audition, portfolio, interview Other: Associated with the Southern Appalachian Repertory Theater 222 Catalog Review College name: Marywood College Scranton, Pennsylvania Barron rating: Competitive Hawes rating: Not listed 1982-83 Season: Antigone-Jean Anouilh You Can't Take It With You-MOSS Hart and George S. Kaufman Jack and the Beanstalk (Children's) Department location: Department of Communication Arts Department orientation: Liberal Arts Number of undergraduates: 30 Number of faculty: 5 Faculty:student ratio: 1 6 Degree(s) awarded: BA Artist-in-residence: No Admission: Admission to the College (Retention audition) Other: Female, Catholic; Department includes television, radio, and other multi-media courses 223 Catalog Review College name: Seton Hill College Greensburg, Pennsylvania Barron rating: Competitive + Hawes rating: Not listed 1982-83 Season: Dark of the Moon-Howard Richard & William Barney Round and Round the Garden-Alan Ayckbourn Two by Two-Martin Charmin, lyrics Richard Rogers, music Peter Store, book Department location: Department of Theater and Communication Department orientation: Liberal Arts Number of undergraduates: 32 Number of faculty: 6 Faculty:student ratio: 1 5 Degree(s) awarded: BA Artist-in-residence: No Admission: Admission to the College Other: Female, aSSOciated with men's college, St. Vincent College, adheres to American Theater Association standards and the Theater Association of Pennsylvania 3 American Theater Association 224 Catalog Review College name: University of Oklahoma Norman, Oklahoma Barron rating: Competitive Hawes rating: Moderately high social prestige 1982-83 Season: Grease-Jim Jacobs and Warren Casey Elephant Man-Bernard Pomerance Snow Maiden (Ballet) Terra Nova-Ted Tally Dance Horizons (Modern dance) Raisin in the Sun-Lorraine Hansberry No Sex, Please, We're British-Anthony Marriott and Allistair Foot Department location: College of Fine Arts School of Drama Department orientation: Mixture Number of undergraduates: 175 Number of faculty: 20 Faculty:student ratio: 1:9 Degree(s) awarded: BFA Artist-in-residence: No Admission: Audition, portfolio, interview Other: None 225 Catalog Review College name: University of Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin Barron rating: Competitive Hawes rating: Not listed 1982-83 Season: Merry Widow—Franz LeHar Blythe Spirit-Noel Coward Mary Stuart-Frederick Schiller The Curse of the Starving Class-Sam Shepard Betrayal-Harold Pinter Dialogues of the Carmelites-Francis Poulenc Deserted Island-Franz Joseph Haydn TrOuble in Tahiti-Leonard Bernstein Department location: College of Letters and Sciences Department of Theater and Drama Department orientation: Liberal Arts Number of undergraduates: 60 Number of faculty: 12 Faculty:student ratio: 1:5 Degree(s) awarded: BA and BS Artist-in-residence: Yes Admission: Audition, portfolio, interview Other: Retention audition at the end of the first year, for acting majors 226 Catalog Review College name: WaShington University St. Louis, Missouri Barron rating: Most competitive Hawes rating: Very high social achievement 1982-83 Season: Long Day's Journey Into Night-Eugene O'Neill Much Ado About Nothing-William Shakespeare Department location: College of Arts and Sciences Performing Arts Area Drama Division Department orientation: Liberal Arts Number of undergraduates: 30 Number of faculty: 12 Faculty:student ratio: 1:3 Degree(s) awarded: BA Artist-in-residence: Yes (2-3) Admission: Open Other: Drama faculty shared with English Department and Black Studies 227 Catalog Review College name: University of Southern California Los Angeles, California Barron rating: Competitive Hawes rating: Very high social achievement 1982-83 Season: Biography-S.N. Behrman Candide-Leonard Bernstein, music Hugh Wheeler, book, adapted from Voltaire Richard William, lyrics Stephen Sondheim and John Latouche, additional lyrics The MisanthrOpe-MOliere Tony Harrison, translation Department location: School of Performing Arts Division of Drama Department orientation: Preprofessional Number of undergraduates: 350 Number of faculty: 10 full-time 25 part-time Faculty:Student ratio: 1:15 Degree(s) awarded: BA and BFA Artist-in-residence: Yes Admission: Audition, portfolio, interview Other: None APPENDIX D Pilot Interviews APPENDIX D PILOT INTERVIEWS In the Spring of 1982, ten pilot interviews were conducted with individual Theater Department faculty and students, so that information could be gathered and clarified for the survey instrument building. These interviews helped delineate research questions from the broader areas under cosideration and provided the foundation on which the survey was to be built. These research areas included 1) goals, 2) standards, and 3) the selection and production of plays in undergraduate theater. Three questions about each area were asked. They were: 1) What is the ideal? 2) What is your experience with that issue at Michigan State University? 3) How does your experience at Michigan State University com- pare with your ideal? These questions were asked to enable the interviewee fully to explore the issue under consideration, rather than to generate evaluative statements about the Theater Department. The questions were de- signed to elicit ideas, personal bias, and opinions since it is the sum total of the subjective and diverse experiences of individuals that begins to give a thorough description of a program. Thus, the Opinions of a group of individuals provide insight into the larger program while providing infor- mation about the individual and his/her biases, but does not necessarily constitute a program evaluation. ‘ FOr most individuals, interview questions were seen not only as questions about guiding principles, but as Opportunities to express passionate feelings about previous experiences, disappointments, 228 229 expectations, and wishes. Questions were sometimes interpreted aS criti- cisms or support of University, College, or Department policies and pro- cedures and elicited strong reactions. These issues were not frequently distinguished from personal experiences. The younger the interviewee, the clearer this was. The "world vision" of the freshman was limited to that freshman's experience, while the junior could imagine that the experience in the Department might translate to another Situation or have a different meaning in a different context. Graduate students had various professional and edu- cational experiences and brought those ideas to the interview, but often lacked a clear sense of their success or identity as professionals. Faculty views about theater education related directly to their personal and professional experience. Criteria for selection of interviewees included interviewee repre- sentativeness, academic level, availability, and interest. Ten individuals were selected--one for every academic level (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, master's candidate graduate assistant, master's candidate nonassis- tant, master of fine arts graduate assistant, doctor of philosophy candidate graduate assistant, and two faculty--one academically trained, one pro- fessionally trained). Five were women, two were minority students. There was a cross-section of background interests in performance, design, theater management, and teaching. This balance was representative of the population. Interviewees signed release forms in which they gave permission for data to be used anonymously. The audiotaped interviews lasted from 20 to 95 minutes, the average being 60 minutes. Questions were about the inter- viewee's background, goals, standards, experience in play production. Each was given an Opportunity to discuss areas not covered previously. 230 Answer frequencies follow, with notes. Some questions may appear to be Similar to others. This duplication was intentional and was intended to determine whether all possible responses to an issue had been elicted. There may be some discrepancy in actual frequencies as each interview took a Slightly different format, depending on the experience, disposition, and style of the interviewee. The interview was designed to be Open-ended and to allow the interviewee as much flexibility as possible. The result is rich in content, but somewhat difficult to quantify. Demographic Information First, the purpose of the interview, and interviewee anonymity and general areas to be covered were discussed with the interviewee. Informa- tion was then solicited about respondent's backgrounds and extent of pre- vious experience in theater. 1) What is your background in theater? FAC GS UG Professional theater X University X X Teaching theater X X Guest artist X X Child drama X Costume X Music (performance) X Family tradition X Scene design X X Arts management X X Community theater X X 231 FAC GS UG Light design X X High school X X Previous experience of faculty related most closely to current faculty responsibilities. Graduate students had the widest variety of experience, both educationally and artistically. Undergraduates had the least ex- perience. One undergraduate had only been in one production and had deter- mined to become a theater major as a result. we A series of questions about undergraduate theater goals was asked. They were: 1) What do you think the goals or purposes of an undergraduate theater program Should be? 2) What do you think are the goals of Michigan State University's Department of Theater? 3) How do your ideals compare with Michigan State University's Department of Theater goals, as you see them? 4) What should a theater program prepare an undergraduate to do? 5) What do you think Michigan State University's Department of Theater undergraduates are prepared to do when they graduate? 1) What do you think the goals or purposes of an undergraduate theater education should be? FAC GS UG to prepare Students to be marketable in theater X X X to train students in production skills X X X 1 to train theater generalists X X X to prepare students for advanced training X X X to provide Opportunities to personal growth X X to develop problem-solving skills X to train teachers of theater X 232 FAC GS UG to train Students in aesthetic and commercial X aspects of theater to provide art in the community X to deve10p communication skills X to accommodate student interests X Undergraduate students answers reflect an expectation that under- graduate theater should be preprofessional in nature--that is, Should pre- pare them for the professional world of the theater. Graduate Student answers suggest a belief that a more liberal arts approach is appropriate. Faculty answers include both perspectives. 2) What do you think are the goals of Michigan State University's Department of Theater? FAC GS UG "I don't know", "there aren't any" X X X to train students to be marketable in and X X handle the realities of the professional world to train theater generalists X X to produce as many quality productions as X possible to prepare students for advanced training X and/or graduate school There seems to be a consensus that the Department has no clearly defined goals. Faculty see department activity and thus, goals, to be production-related. Graduate students indicate that both preprofessional and liberal arts activities are in evidence at MSU. Undergraduates indi- cate that they think departmental goals are preprofessional and production- related. 233 3) How do your ideal goals compare with Michigan State University's Department of Theater goals, as you see them? FAC GS UG the Department lacks a liberal arts orien- X X tation production of commercial aspects take X X precedence over student learning absence of unified goals at MSU X X too much to learn to master material tho- X X roughly absence of integration and the understanding X of the "whys" and how curricular pieces fit together absense of theater business classes X too few performance training classes X limited performance Opportunities criteria X for casting unclear, lack of performance opportunities for minorities These responses indicate that the curriculum is not built on a well- understood philosophy or goals statement. Additionally, many individual interests are not addressed. The inquiry about goals of undergraduate theater education resulted in three responses agreed upon by all groups of respondents. They were that students Should be marketable in theater, trained as theater generalists and in production skills. Each of these items is an expansion of the first--a student who is competent in production and other skills is a theater generalist who, if well-trained, is marketable in theater. Faculty and graduate Students, additionally, hold advanced training and personal growth as goals. Responses to the question about Michigan State University's goals elicited a variety of responses. Faculty and graduate Students saw a lack 234 of liberal arts orientation, production and commercial priorities taking precedence over student learning, and limited evidence of well-organized goals. Graduates and undergraduates saw a large number of activities in which to be involved, skills to learn, and limited Opportunities in certain interest areas. Again, this cluster of Opinions indicates lack of understanding of the whole picture and how curricular pieces fit together. 4) What Should a theater program prepare an undergraduate Student to do? FAC GS UG make a living in theater X X X deve10p performance or specialized Skill X X X prepare for advanced training or study X X X "know thyself" X X X provide an environment to develop as sensitive X X X peOple be self-reliant and to take reSponsibility X X for himself or herself gain a solid academic background in theater X X literature, history, etc. deve10p a good overview of and basic skills X X in all areas of theater practice and develop creative and artistic X X skills have a realistic understanding of his or her X X skills, interests, and employment opportun- ities be able to cOpe with professional set-back and X X disappointment, to be prepared for the profes- sional world love and reSpect theater X deve10p audition skills X 235 FAC GS UG broaden his or her understanding of the nature X of theater and how it fits into the community gain full use and control of the instrument X (body and voice) go to graduate school X know commercial and academic standards for X success know all aspects of media and advertising X learn to accept and make use of criticism X teach X appreciate the contribution, responsibilities X and work effectively with other members of the production team (director, actors, set, light, costume designers, and technical per- sonnel) All groups believed undergraduate theater education should pre- pare students to get a job in their line of work, to have and to use Specialized skills, and to be able to study further. Further, faculty suggested more specialized real-world and personal development oppor— tunities. Graduate students added personal development, self-awareness, practical theater generalists, and liberal arts Skills. Undergraduate students focused on theater skills. Graduate and undergraduate students indicated a need for active faculty involvement in student professional development and awareness. 5) What do you think Michigan State University's undergraduate theater students are prepared to do when they graduate? FAC GS UG apply what they've learned from the secure X X academic environment to the real world go to graduate school X X 236 FAC GS UG work toward professional employment as X X theater technicians and/or work in regional theaters as actors, designers, and directors, know what they'll have to do to get work in professional theater teach X X apprentice in any major area of theater X at a university or professional theater company if they're lucky, get work in professional X theater be prepared for advanced training (at least X some few among them) demonstrate that they've gone through the X X maturing process, retained and enlarged their sensitivies even though the process itself was tough defend ideas clearly, undefensively X demonstrate awareness of communal nature of X theater have charisma, energy, enthusiasm X have an honest self-concept (knows strengths, X limitations, target areas for growth), know limits be open to others, especially other profes- X sionals, artists know what they're good at and what they want X have a pleasant attitude, extroverted person- X ality style have in-depth knowledge of literature X take an idea, research it (read, talk with X others, view other works of art, etc.), and bring it to a clear artistic statement (performance, set design, etc.) Faculty and graduate students indicated that at graduation, students should have personal and professional maturity. Undergraduates indicated 237 personality characteristics and types of knowledge and Skill. All groups of respondents believed a theater program Should prepare a student in performance or specialized skills, to make a living in theater and prepare for advanced training. Faculty and graduate Students believed such prepareation should include student self-knowledge in an environment in which students could develop sensitivity and self-reliance and take reSponsibility for their own actions. Graduate and undergrad- uate students added basic Skills in all areas of theater, a good overview of theater (theater generalist), develOping artistic and creative skills, solid academic background in literature, history, and theory and a real- istic understanding of the student's own Skill level and potential. Faculty and graduate students perceived an undergraduate career in a develOpmental way, i.e., undergraduate studies provide learning oppor- tunities through which a student may be guided while maturing. Graduate and undergraduate students see the task of the undergraduate theater arts students as related to acquiring skills and preparing for the world of work, although not necessarily as vocational training. The question about Michigan State University's Department of Theater student preparation elicited a variety of responses. Faculty and graduate students believed the program prepared Students to apply to the real world what they'd learned in a protected academic environment. Graduate and undergraduate students believed MSU's program prepared students to go to graduate school and for work as theater technicians in regional theaters. Faculty and undergraduate students believed MSU prepared students to teach. While not achieving total agreement from all groups, generally, the Department is seen as helping students move from a pro- tected academic environment to a more professional Situation--graduate 238 school, the "real" world, professional theater or teaching. In this program, and perhaps all theater arts programs, goals seem diffuse, hard to determine, although there is a clear sense of students moving through the maturation process toward some aim. These six questions reflect ideas about and experiences with goals in undergraduate theater. The range of responses suggests a global, highly implicit, undifferientiated understanding of goals. Theater arts programs can apparently mean anything to anyone at any time. The student, faculty member or outside observer may apply any criteria to a theater arts program and interpret the results in any number of ways. While there is some clustering of responses about specific goals (student marketability, self-knowledge, communal skills), there is no identifiable trend in the response patterns. The absence of an obvious trend is in itself the repeating pattern. 7) What are the best qualifications for an undergraduate theater major? FAC GS UG receptivity to input X X X skills or the willingness to learn Skills X X X in all areas of theater, willingness, eagerness to learn discipline X X talent X X putting all energies into theater, having X X the attitude "I love theater and the work," etc. The courage to reveal on stage (within the x x context of a play or character) what are ordinarily private things balancing academic and prOduction respon- X X sibilities 239 FAC GS UG being well-read and experienced in an area or specialty not having a narrow speciality ability to go through maturation process retaining and enriching sentivities even though the process itself is tough awareness of communal nature of theater, openness to others, especially other professionals, artists ability to speak about one's ideas clearly, not defensively; being open to criticism honnest self-concept, seeing strengths and weaknesses, targeting areas for growth, knowing limits, having confidence not going to extremes in moods or behavior expressing or learning to express sensi- tivity charisma, energy, enthusiasm being a fighter, being aggressive or a go-getter, in competition Strong knowledge of literature ability to research an idea (read, talk with others, view other works of art, etc.) and bring it to a clear artistic statement (performance, set design, etc.) theater experience before becoming a major pleasant attitude extroverted personality Standards The second series of questions addressed the issue of standards in undergraduate theater art programs. 240 Interview questions were 8) What are the best qualifications for an undergraduate theater major?, 9) What do you think are the qualifications of the most successful undergraduate theater students at Michigan State University?, 10) By what standards do you think an undergraduate theater major Should be evaluated?, 11) By what standards do you think individ- uals at Michigan State University should be evaluated?, and 12) To what standards do you think Michigan State University's Department is held? 8) What do you think are the qualifications of the most successful undergraduate theater students at Michigan State University? FAC GS UG passivity X X having an overview of how theater works X X focusing on performance rather than academics X X willingness to work in productions X X maturity X X averageness X insecurity about going out into the pro- X fession versatility X ability to work with others X enthusiasm x receptivity X artistic courage l X Faculty, graduate, and undergraduate students suggested the most important qualifications of undergraduate theater arts majors at MSU were receptivity to input and the skills or the willingness and eagerness to learn skills in all areas of theater. Graduate and undergraduate students believed students Should be able to balance academic and 241 production responsibilities, be well-read and experienced in their area of specialty, but not limited to that Speciality. Faculty and under— graduate students added discipline, talent, devotion to theater and artistic courage in acting. About what qualities successful Michigan State University theater majors have responses were diverSe. Faculty and graduate students in- dicated passivity. Graduate and undergraduate students believed success— ful students had an overview of how theater works, focused on production rather than academics. Faculty and undergraduates added maturity. Ideally, faculty, graduate and undergraduate students agreed that undergraduate majors should possess talent, focus, discipline, balance and enthusiasm for theater and their area of specialty. Actual successful Student behavior attributes which was identified as popularity by some included dedication to production activities, general theater knowledge, and a passivity or general agreableness to Department and faculty style and policy. This may represent a dicotomy in how ideal student leaders are imagined and those with whom interviewees prefer to work. 9) By what standards do you think an undergraduate theater major Should be evaluated? FAC GS UG academic standards of paper-writing and X X X test-taking grasp of overall content of theater X X X growth of professional skills X X X initiative, follow-through, and com- x x x pletion of projects and artistic as- signments production-related work X X X 242 FAC GS UG willingness to accept responsibility for self and one's own effort in artistic work, including the willingness to go the "extra mile" ability to get along with others in the artistic community the ability skillfully to participate in a group art appropriate interpersonal skills and pro- fessional behavior attendance creativity willingness and skills to learn, adapt, improvise, to be flexible in unexpected situations and conditions willingness to push own limits the ability to articulate what he or she knows or his or her opinions if those things are different from others' (espec- ially professors') ability the ability thoughtfully to critique another's work attitude growth of academic skills preparation clarity of artistic intent in and skill in realizing ideas in area of Specialization Ideal standards for evaluating undergraduate theater majors re- ceived consensus from faculty, graduate and undergraduate students on several items. All three groups agreed that such Standards should in— clude paper-writing, teStItaking, a group of the overall content of theater growth of professional skills, production-related work, the 243 willingness to accept responsibility for one's self personally and in artistic endeavor, and the willingness to go the "extra mile." This group of Standards, in general, includes general academic skills, theater arts skills and a kind of maturity or dedication to theater work and the edu- cational process. Faculty added getting along with others in the artistic community, and in collaboration artistically, and interpersonal skills. This cluster refers to professional behavior. Graduate Students added attendance, creativity, willingness to learn, and to push one's own limits. This cluster relates to quality student behavior, and identifies thk attributes perceived by graduate students as indicative of the kind of qualities by which artistic students should be evaluated. Undergraduate theater majors added attendance, courage, ability, skills in criticism, attitude, growth of academic skills, preparation, clarity of artistic intent and realization in areas of student Specialization. This cluster identified by undergraduates is related to a maturing individual with growing artistic skills. Thus, ideal Standards, in general, focuses on personal, artiwtic and academic skills, growth and maturity. 10) By what standards do you think individuals at Michigan State University are evaluated? FAC GS UG attendance in class X X growth of skills, talent, and perseverance X X eagerness to volunteer, work X X informal faculty feedback X X commitment X X political Skills X don't know X 244 FAC GS UG academic Skill X not much X State News theater critic X flexibility X creativity X agreement with professors X discipline X auditions X attitude X progress X Faculty and undergraduates believed actual standards most theater majors are evaluated on were attendance in class and growth of skills and talent and perseverence toward those ends. A large proportion of graduate students' answers reflected a sense of not knowing, unclearly stated or ambiguous criteria for the evaluation of students. Graduate and under- graduate students believed that standards included eagerness to work and willingness to volunteer, informal faculty feedback, and commitment. Such Standards primarily reward student effort but do not penalize lack of entry-level Skill or raw talent. They also suggest the lack of formal systems of feedback to students. 11) On what standards do you think theater programs Should be eval- uated? FAC GS UG quality and competence of faculty X X attitude of faculty toward program and X X university well-roundedness of theater majors X X 245 FAC GS UG the marketability of undergraduates (work X X in professional theater, advanced training or graduate school placement) program financial well-being X X the facility of the program to help students X mature quality of productions X attitude of students toward productions X and program student academic learning compared with X production Skills audience reception of productions X performance or production skills of students X Theater programs should be evaluated by faculty and competence of faculty and attitude of faculty toward the theater program and university according to faculty and undergraduates. Graduate and undergraduate students added well-roundedness of theater majors, the marketability of its students and the financial well—being of the program. Faculty added how well the program helps students mature, production quality, and attitude of students. Graduate students added clearly stated program goals, student academic and production Skills, and audience re- ception to productions. Undergraduates added production skills of under- graduates. The two general themes that emerged were faculty skills and outcome of undergraduate education, also faculty-related. Clearly, the production and teaching skills of the faculty are seen to be critical elements in undergraduate theater art programs. 12) What standards do you think Michigan State University's Depart— ment of Theater is held to? 246 FAC GS UG none or not many X X financial X X production quality X X skill of students in areas of their X X Specialization (performance, production or academic work) the College of Arts and Letters Standards X X faculty attitude and individual faculty goals X "I don't know" X Faculty and graduate students believed that while Michigan State University was held to few standards, the standardsiin eVidence were financial and production quality. Graduate and undergraduate students added the skills of students in their areas of specialty and College of Arts and Letters standards. The question of Michigan State University's Theater Department standards was difficult for interviewees to answer. Participants did not see program standards as being in clear evidence. Neither faculty com- petence in overall skills or marketability of the undergraduates were mentioned as they had been in the questions about ideal standards. The clearest standards were related to the financial soundness of productions, and College of Arts and Letters (owing, undoubtedly, to the review of the chair in progress at the time). Thus, if the Department of Theater at Michigan State University was held to a set of standards, what those stnadards were was not evident to members of the Department. Standards in general, reflect student maturation, academic and prod- uction skills, and growth, and faculty skills. Students were believed to need a mature approach to academic and production responsibilities, some 247 talent, perseverance and artistic courage. Students were believed to need to deomonstrate responsibilities toward, and growth in both academic and production areas. Faculty teaching and production Skills were seen as important. Again, in general, Michigan State's Department of Theater was seen to lack clear standards. Purposes of Play Selection Interview questions "What do you think iS/are the purpose(s) of doing plays in an educational setting?", "What do you think the purpose(s) of doing plays at Michigan State University is/are?", "On what basis should plays be selected for undergraduate theater?", "On what basis are plays Selected at Michigan State University?" address issues of producing plays in an educational setting. 13) What do you think is/are the purpose(s) of producing plays in an educational setting? FAC GS UG to introduce the audience to a wide range of X X X history of theater, various production styles, plays and drama, and sometimes to challenge them to introduce students to the history of the X X X theater, various production styles, plays and dramatic literature to give talented students the opportunity X X to demonstrate their skills and grow in production to give students the opportunity to X X learn production work through practical experience to entertain audiences X X "it's our product-~what we do" X to respond to university, community and X student sentiment and interest and to gen- erate public participation 248 p} FAC 1 GS 1 UG to teach students the business of running X productions and making theater successful financially The purpose of producing plays in an educational setting, faculty, graduates and undergraduates felt were to introduce audiences and students to the history of theater, various production styles, plays and dramatic literature, and sometimes to challenge audiences. Graduate and under- graduate Students added giving talented students the Opportunity to demonstrate their Skills and growth in production, giving students the Opportunity to learn production work through practical experience, and entertaining audiences. The production of plays was seen primarily as a means of providing ideas and information in dramatic form to audiences and students. Such dramatic content includes history, production style, and dramatic lit- erature, as well as ideas about and interpretations of universal truth, beauty, and life. Actual production-related expertise was seen as more important by students than faculty. 14) What do you think the purpose of doing plays at Michigan State University is/are? FAC GS UG making money and staying within a productiom X X X budget potential popularity of plays X X X giving students opportunity to practice X X X their craft satisfying direction interest X X featuring a gifted or particularly skilled X X student department's responsibility to the community X 249 j FAC 1 GS | UG it's the reason the departmenn exists 1 1 1 X Faculty, graduate and undergraduate students felt financial con- siderations, potential popularity of plays, and the opportunity for students to practice their craft were the purposes of producing plays at Michigan State University. Faculty and undergraduate Students added satisfying director interest. Graduate and undergraduate students added the featuring of a gifted or particularly skilled student. Purposes of producing plays at Michigan State University are seen as being primarily production-oriented. There appears to be no clear understanding of production as an extension of classroom learning. Thus, the production work of Michigan State University's Department of Theater appears to be a curricular activity separate from classroom work. Addi- tionally, the pressures of the anticipated commercial success of a pro- duction are seen as of critical importance. 15) On what basis Should plays be selected for undergraduate theater? FAC GS DC to provide variety and diversity for student X X X experience to provide a balanced and diverse season X X X community service (to educate, stimulate, X X X entertain) Opportunities for women and minorities to X X perform to focus study for nontheater students X (example, humanities) awareness of what resources exist (money, X facilities, talent, directors, technical support) 250 FAC GS UG fun X commercial appeal to audiences X number of production Spaces available X outlet for theater students X service to minority students X educational program goals X The consensus of Opinions on what basis plays are selected for under- graduate theaters, by faculty, graduate, and undergraduate students in- cluded to provide a variety and diversity for Student experiences, a balanced season and community service (educate, Stimulate, and entertain). Faculty and undergraduates added Opportunities for women and minorities to perform. Aside from the considerations of the practical assets and liabilities that affect the selection of plays, the variety and diversity of plays and production experiences for students and audiences were seen as the most important factors in play selection. 16) On what basis are plays selected at Michigan State University? FAC GS UG anticipated commercial appeal and budgetary X X X soundness commercial appeal more than artistic value X X featuring a particular Student X X student talent is not considered, but di- X rectoral interest in a Show taking some risks on student skill levels, x content and style of plays plays considered "safe" X 251 FAC GS UG number of productions X Show which can be produced with quality X The basis of play selection at Michigan State University was seen by faculty, graduates and undergraduates as anticipated budgetary soundness and commercial appeal. Faculty and graduate students believed it was more commercial than artistic value. Graduates and undergraduates added a featured or particular student. Thus, compared to idea1 standards, Michigan State University appears to select plays according to potential commercial Success, which supersedes academic, artistic, and student need reasons. Again this perception sug- gests evidence that the production of plays is separate from classroom work. In general, the producion of plays in an educational setting was seen as the means by which students and audiences could be introduced to dramatic content and style. These productions were thought to be most successful whkn offering a balance of types of plays and production styles. Respondents felt that plays at Michigan State University were selected primarily for their potential commercial appeal and success and appeared unrelated to academic work in scheduled classes. Other Areas 17) Are there other areas you think are important that I haven't asked about? FAC GS UG need for feedback from faculty to students X X X need for improved academic advising X X 252 areas of content appropriate for study Thus, Michigan State University's Department of Theater participants see a need for more interaction between faculty and Students. Students identify the need, additionally, for more content information about the process of the undergraduate degrees programs. And each respondent had an idea about content appropriate to the study of undergraduate theater arts. Considered broadly, these interview questions reflect the trends among reSpondents that undergraduates are passionately tied to performance- skill training and the belief that an undergraduate degree in theater will open the door for successful work in professional theater. Graduate students have the most versatile background and may be more thoroughly educated than some faculty. They have clearer ideas about the educational missions of a theater department and what educational theater offers that is special and different from professional theater. Graduate students also have the largest number and widest range of responses. Faculty are tied more to individual goals. The faculty who were interviewed represented Opposite points of view in all areas. Summary The ten pilot interviews conducted in the Spring of 1982 to gather data on which to build a survey instrument were considered in the context of the financial situation of the State of Michigan and Michigan State University. Questions eliciting interviewees' background, and opinions about goals, standards and purposes of play selection in undergraduate theater in general and at Michigan State University were asked. 253 In general, widespread, diffuse themes reflecting academic (liberal arts)‘and production (preprofessional) training emerged when goals were asked about. Standards suggested student maturing, academic and production skill and growth, and faculty teaching and producing skills. Play selection was seen as the means of offering a balanced season of plays with dif- fering dramatic content and production style. In all cases, Michigan State University's Department of Theater was seen as having unclear statements about these issues. Goals were widespread, standards reflected student personality traits and faculty skills. Play selection was seen as more commercially than academically-related. Thus, the interviews identified respondents' ideals about undergraduate theater arts and the real world state of one theater department. APPENDIX E Survey 254 UNDERGRADUATE THEATER SURVEY This is a survey which asks your ideas and opinions about undergraduate theater education. Its purpose is to inquire about undergraduate theater and what theater departments are like. This is the first study of its kind being done anyyhere and YOUR contribution is invaluable. Your participation in this study is very important because as a partici- pant in undergraduate theater programs, you are uniquely qualified to comment about it. You may not have thought much about some of these questions before. Completing the survey will give you a chance to clarify some of your own ideas and to express your opinions and ideas in a new context. A few notes about the research. Permission has been obtained from Dr. Farley Richmond, the Chair of the Theater Department, to conduct this study. The study is part of a Ph.D. dissertation study. You are free to respond or not to respond and neither choice will have any effect on your grades or standing in the Department. Additionally, and importantly, you anonymity is protected. There is no way to identify any individual from the informa- tion asked for in the survey. The results of the survey will be reported in such a way that group and not individual results will be presented. It is very important that you complete and return the survey. Please, take time to complete it today, now, if possible. A box has been placed in the Theater Department Office in which completed surveys may be returned. Thank you in advance for your very valuable contribution to this study. i I I I ( I ‘ _jl' ‘ / .l . HI, I] . " \- ‘ +~_M’ -. It; \ ("V /. -- h_, (b {L’ui ' I 0 ‘I (L \_ __,0 Holly Holdman Ph.D. Candidate College of Education Michigan State University 255 DIRECTIONS: First, you will be asked to fill out some general information about yourself (like age, sex, etc.). Second, you will encounter eight questions about under- graduate theater. Third, you will encounter a list of areas of study a theater student might take. The questions and the areas of study ask for your opinions (agreement or disagreement) about the question. The Scale might look like this: Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly agree agree disagree nor disagree 1 2 3 4 5 You are to respond by circling the number that most closely relates to your feelings about what's been asked. At the end of each question, there is a place for you to write your ideas if they are different from what the survey says, or if you'd like to comment. There are four definitions in the survey. They are there to help you understand what the questions are asking for. They are: - ..---.-——c--——- -fi‘- --. “...—o v.7“...«o- ——-.-.-¢—'—. GOALS are the reasons a theater department exists, the purposes of its educational program. A THEATER GENERALIST is some one who has a thorough and well rounded edu- cation in theater (theater history, dramatic literature, costuming, design, technical theater, acting, directing, children's theater and theater management). A THEATER SPECIALIST is some one who has only a basic understanding of many areas of theater, but has completed intensive training in one area, like acting, directing or design. STANDARDS mean the level of achievement which determine success. The definitions will be repeated in the body of the survey Remember, the first section is general information about yourself. 256 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA Please complete the following information. Most questions will require you to circle the correct answer. A few will ask you to fill in the blank. Sex: (1) bhle (2) Female Age: (3) 18—23 (4) 24-29 (5) 30-34 (6) 35-40 (7) 41-50 (8) 51-60 (9) older If you are a faculty member, are you (10) teaching (11) administration (12) other If you are a graduate student, are you a (13) masters candidate (14) master of fine arts candidate (15) ph.d. candidate (16) other If you are an undergraduate student, are you a (20) freshman (21) sophomore (22) junior (23) senior (24) other ____ *What is your major? (25) *What are your cognate(s) or minor(s)? (26) (27) Indicate your previous experience in theater. (Circle all that apply.) (28) voluntary (32) paid (29) community theater (33) professional company (30) high school (34) graduate assistantship (31) college or university (35) other What are your career goals and ambitions for the future? (36) c—....._- - F’r-r-- —.——— Remember, circle the number that most closely matches your feelings about the answer to the question asked. Not useful Probably not useful Neither Probably Very useful useful useful nor useless 3 4 5 1. What Should a theater program prepare an undergraduate student to do? 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 to make a living in theater to have a good overview in theater and knowledge of basic skills, whether or not that leads to a job in theater to develop creative and artistic Skills to gain full use and control of the body and voice to make use of criticism to have a realistic understanding of skills to have a thorough background in dramatic literature, theory and theater history to prepare students for further training, either graduate school or other advanced training to know themselves to work effectively with other members of the pro- duction team to teach theater IS there anything you'd like to add? 258 No students have this Few students have this Some Most All students students students have, some have this have this don't 3 4 5 1 What do you think Michigan State University Theater students are prepared to do when or have gained by the time they graduate? 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 a. b. k. to make a living in theater a good overview in theater and knowledge of basic skills, although they are not necessarily marketable creative and artistic Skills full use and control of the body and voice to make use of criticism a realistic understanding of their Skills a thorough background in dramatic literature, theory and theater history to go on for further training, either graduate School or other advanced training they know themselves to work effectively with other members of the production team to teach theater Is there anything else you'd like to add? Strongly agree Agree 259 Neither Disagree Strongly agree nor disagree disagree 3 4 5 3. What do you think are the purposes of doing plays in an educational setting? 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 a. b. Are there other purposes to give the Student the opportunity to learn and demonstrate production skills to introduce Students to history of theater, various production styles and dramatic literature CO give talented students the opportunity to demonstrate and further develop their skills to of to t0 t0 t0 to introduce audiences to a wide range of history. theater, various production styles and plays entertain audiences challenge audiences respond to community and Student interest and generate public participation serve as an integrating function to other departments, like Humanities for doing plays in an educational setting? 260 Strongly Agree agree 1 2 Neither Disagree Strongly agree nor disagree disagree 3 4 5 4. What do you think the purposes of doing plays at Michigan State University are? 1 2 3 4 5 a. 1 2 3 4 5 b 1 2 3 4 5 c. 1 2 3 4 5 d. 1 2 3 4 5 e. 1 2 3 4 5 f 1 2 3 4 5 g. 1 2 3 4 5 h. Are there other purposes to give Students the opportunity to learn and demon- strate production skills to introduce students to history of theater, various production styles and dramatic literature to give talented students the opportunity to demon- strate and further develop their skills to introduce audiences to a wide range of history of theater, various production styles and plays to entertain audiences to challenge audiences to respond to community and Student interest and to generate public participation to serve as an integrating function to other de- partments, like Humanities for doing plays at Michigan State? 261 Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly disagree agree nor agree disagree 5 4 3 2 1 5. By what standards do you think an undergraduate theater program Should be evaluated? STANDARDS mean the levels of achievement which determine success. 5 4 3 2 1 a. the marketability of its students 5 4 3 2 1 b. the academic skills of its faculty 5 4 3 2 1 c. the teaching Skills of its faculty 5 4 3 2 1 d. the production skills of its faculty 5 4 3 2 1 e. the artistic quality of its productions 5 4 3 2 1 f. the commercial success of its productions 5 4 3 2 1 g. the well rounded education of its Students Are there other standards you'd like to suggest? 262 Strongly Disagree disagree 5 4 Neither Agree Strongly agree nor agree disagree 3 2 1 6. By what standards do you think Michigan State University's theater program is evaluated? STANDARDS means the levels of achievement which determine success. 5 4 3 2 1 a. the 5 4 3 2 1 b. the 5 4 3 2 1 c. the 5 4 3 2 1 d. the 5 4 3 2 1 e. the 5 4 3 2 1 f. the 5 4 3 2 1 g. the Are there other standards you' marketability of its Students academic skills of its faculty teaching skills of its faculty production skills of its faculty artistic quality of its productions commercial success of its productions well rounded education of its students d like to suggest? 263 Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly disagree agree nor agree disagree 5 4 3 2 1 7. What do you think the goals of an undergraduate theater program Should be? w GOALS are the reasons a theater department exists, the purposes of its educational program. A THEATER GENERALIST is some one who has a thorough and well rounded ed- ucation in all areas of theater (theater history, dramatic literature, costuming, design, technical theater, acting, directing, children's ”theater and theater management). A THEATER SPECIALIST is some one who has only a basic understanding of many areas of theater, but has completed intensive training in one area, like acting, directing or design. 5 4 3 2 1 a. to train theater generalists (see above) 5 4 3 2 1 b. to train theater specialists (see above) 5 4 3 2 1 c. to provide students with an environment in which to develop as sensitive people 5 4 3 2 1 d. to help students learn to articulate opinions and. ideas 5 4 3 2 1 e. to help students develop a variety of perspectives through which to approach creative and non-creative problems 5 4 3 2 1 f. to prepare students for graduate school or other advanced training Other ideas? 264 Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly disagree agree nor agree disagree 5 4 3 2 1 8. What do you think the goals of Michigan State Universipy's Department of Theater are? GOALS are the reasons a theater department exists, the purposes of its educational program A THEATER GENERALIST is some one who has a thorough and well rounded education in all areas of theater (theater history, dramatic literature, costuming, design, technical theater, acting, direction, children's theater and theater management). A THEATER SPECIALIST is some one who has had only a basic understanding of many areas of theater, but has completed intensive training in one area, like acting, directing or design. 5 4 3 2 1 a. to train theater generalists (see above) 5 4 3 2 l b. to train theater Specialists (see above) 5 4 3 2 1 c. to provide students with an environment in which to develop as sensitive people 5 4 3 2 1 d. to help students learn to articulate opinions and ideas 5 4 3 2 1 e. to help Students develop a variety of perspectives through which to approach creative and non-creative problems 5 4 3 2 1 f. to prepare students for graduate school or other advanced training Other ideas? Not Probably useful not useful at all 1 2 Neither Probably Very useful nor useful useful useless 3 4 5 9. What areas Of study do 1 2 3 4 5 a. 1 2 3 4 5 b. 1 2 3 4 5 c. l 2 3 4 5 d. 1 2 3 4 5 e. 1 2 3 4 5 f. 1 2 3 4 5 g. 1 2 3 4 5 h. 1 2 3 4 5 i. l 2 3 4 5 j. l 2 3 4 5 k. l 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 3 4 5 m. 1 2 3 4 S n. l 2 3 4 5 O. 1 2 3 4 5 p. l 2 3 4 5 q. 1 2 3 4 5 r. 1 2 3 4 5 s. 1 2 3 4 5 t. 1 2 3 4 5 u. 1 2 3 4 5 v 1 2 3 4 5 w. 1 2 3 4 5 x. Other ideas? you think are useful for undergraduate theater? acting art history children's or youth theater dance directing dramatic theory and criticism experimental theater general education-American Thought & Language or writing general education-Natural Science general education-Humanities general education-Social Science light design literature music playwriting poetry professional work habits and ethics psychology scenic design technical theater theater of other cultures theater history theater management visual arts (painting, film, etc.) APPENDIX F ANSWERS TO SURVEY QUESTIONS BY RESPONDENT GROUP (Faculty, Graduate Students, Undergraduate Theater, Telecommunications, Communications, and Other Majors) FaCultz 266 ooo.¢ Hum.c ¢Nq.q 5mm.q omm.q ooo.q ~mm.¢ c-.q mmm.m IX o.w~ H.5m H.5m n.mw m.mq m.q~ ~.mm Hammm: hum> H.5m $.Nq o.w~ m.q~ ¢.Nq «.an ¢.Nq e.wm “.00 Hawmm: saampoum o m.q~ o o o o m.q~ o o o o o m.q~ o o m.q~ c o o o o o o o o n.0g o wwwawm: no: flammm: Hanan: uo: Hummus uoauwoz >Hnmnoum uoz mo>ammsmsu Socx cu wcwcwmuu vmuam>cm umnuo no Hoonum mumscmuw nonufiw .mcaawmuu umnuusw pow mucmwnum mundane cu known“: woummsu vcm whoosu .musumumuHH ofiumamuu ca wasoumxomp swsowonu m m>m£ ou mHHme mo wcfiwcmumuovcs Ufiumwammu m m>m£ on amaofiuwuu mo mm: mxme cu muao> van upon 0:» mo Houucoo can mm: Haam swam cu maaaxm ofiumwuum cam m>fiumouu no~m>ww Ou umummnu ca no“ m Cu momma umnu uo: no umnumc3 .maafixm ofimmn mo mwcmaaocx woo umummnu a“ 3mw>um>o boom m o>mn cu umummsu ca wnw>fia m mxma cu wow cu ucmnaum mumsvmumumccs om mumaoua Emuwoum umummnu m vaoosm umfiz .m 267 finm.m cw~.q IX m.~q Human: >um> ~.mm o.mq Hanan: hanmaoum a.~q m.<~ mmmHoma you Hammm: nonuwwz Hammms HOG sanmnoum Hammm: uoz umumocu summu cu Emma coauuavoua mnu mo mumaaos umnuo nu“: ham>auomumm xuos ou .x .n 268 coo.m oom.m noo.~ ooo.m mmw.N oom.~ mmw.~ cam.m ooo.m IX 0 menu m>m£ mucovsum HH< ~.o~ 0.0m o.om n.e~ manu m>m£ mucmvSuw umoz m.mw o.om n.00 o.oo~ m.mm o.om m.mw o.om 5.00 u.cou mEom .m>mn mucounum maom 5.0” m.mm n.o~ o.om n.0a O n.o~ was» m>mn mucowaum 3mm was» o>m£ muaovsum oz mm>meEmsu 30:3 hmnu wcficwmuu vmucm>vm umnuo no Hoonom mumswmuw umnufiw .wcacfimuu umnuusm now no ow cu >u0umw: umummnu can mucosa .ouaumumuHH uwumEmuc cw ucaouwxumn smsouonu m mHHme agony mo wafivamumuwncs uaumwammu m Emaofiufiuo mo om: mxms ou moao> can hoop msu mo Houuaoo cow was Hana mHHme uaumfiuum cam m>fiummuo mflnmumxume hfiaummmmomc yo: man hmnu nwsonu lam .mHHaxm uammn mo mmwmasocx wan nmumwSu cw 3mu>um>o woow m umummsu ca wcfi>fia m mxme cu «mumsvmuw kmnu mafia msu hp wmcwmw w>m£ uo cmna 0U ou vmumamua mum mucmwaum umumwse wuamum>wcb oumum cmwfinowz xsfinu 20% cc umnz .Q .N 269 noo.~ o oom.m o mfisu m>ws mucmwsum m HH< 0.0m mwnu m>m£ mucmvsum umoz p.00 o.om u.cov meow .w>m£ mucmvaum mEom m.mm o mfinu m>m£ mucmvaum 36m mwnu o>ms mucmvsum oz umummnu comma cu Emma coauoauowa onu mo muonsme uwnuo nufi3 mHm>Huuowwo xuoz cu .x .n 270 hmw.m Hum.m q-.m ~5m.m c~m.m q~w.m 5mm.m ooo.q m.c~ o.~c o.w~ ©.mm m.q~ o.w~ m.~q mouwm hfiwcouum mmwuwamesm mxHH .mucmauummov Macao ou defiu o.wm m.~q m.q~ m.q~ Iocsm wcaumuwouca am no m>hmm ou coaumafiowuumn uwansa mumumcmw ou cam ammuousfi ucmv ~.nm m.c~ o m.q~ Isum vow unwassaou Cu vcoammu Cu m.¢~ o o m.¢H mmocmwwsm owcmaamnu ou o.m~ o.w~ o m.q~ mmucoavsm camuuwuam cu mhmfla pom mmaxum m:0fiuo:couq m:o«um> .umummnu mo kHOumHS mo mwcmu m.~q o o m.q~ onfis a Cu wmocmawam mosvouuaw cu mHwam Hausa aoam>mw umnuusm van mumuumcoamv cu huwcauuoaao q.~n o o m.qH may mucmcSum wmucwfimu m>wm ou musumumuaa UfiumEmuw can mmahum :owuusvoua msowum> .uoummnu mo kHOumfin ~.mm o o m.q~ ou mucowsum woavouucu ou mHHfixm coauuavoua mumuumcoamu can enema ou muficauuoa m.~q o o m.q~ loo an» ucmvSum may m>aw cu mmuwmmwv no: momma mmuwmmww mwuw< nonuwmz mouwwmwn hfimaouum wwcwuuwm Hm:0fiumo:vm :m :« mamaa wcfiov mo mmmoauaa ecu mum Joana 90% ow umnz .0 .m 271 c~n.~ smw.m fism.m Hum.q mmq.m omq.c Hum.m ooo.q o.wm m.¢~ ~.nm m.q~ ¢.~q m.q~ m.~q wmuwm hawaouum m.q~ m.mq m.~q m.~q m.~q ~.mm ¢.Nq m.~q mmuw< m.~q m.«~ c.m~ m.¢~ o.w~ o wouwmmfic no: omumm Hagaamz m.~¢ m.q~ m.<~ o.m~ m.q~ mouwomfia m.q~ mmuwmmfiv zamcouum mmwuficmasm mxfia .muaoauumaov guano ou coauucsu wcfiumuwmuaa am no m>umm ou couummwuwuumn oaapsa ouwuwamw cu was ummumucfi unavaum can xuacsanu on vcoammu ou moucmwvsw mwcmaamno ou mmocmuwam camuumucm ou mhmHa can moa>um coauusvoua msow Ium> .umummnu mo huoumfin mo mwcmu ocw3 m cu moocmfivsw moswouuca ou mHaHXm uamnu aoam>mv umnuusm use mumuumcoaww ou muassuuomao ana mucmcaum vmucoamu o>aw cu unaumumuwa ofiumsmuc can mmamuw coauosvoum macaum> .umummnu mo mucumus cu muaowaum moscouucw ou maafixm coauosuoum mumuumcoEmv cam unwed cu zuwazu nuoaao wnu mucowsum m>ww cu woum wufimum>fica oumum cmwwnuaz um mhmaa wcfioc mo mmwoausa on» xafinu so» on umcz .0 272 ~nm.¢ qu.m gum.q m~q.q gum.q mqfi.q mmw.m ~.nm H.5m o.mq ~.hm o.w~ ¢.~¢ mmuwm hawaouum o.~q H.5m m.~< ~.nm m.~q H.5m o.m~ mouw< m.q~ m.q~ m.q~ mmuwmmfic uoa mmuwm nonuamz m.q~ mouwmmfin mucwvnum mug 0 mo coaumuaco ravenoulaaos mnu wcowuoououa m.q~ mag 00 mmmooam Hmwoumaaou ana msoauuswoun c was no xufiamac uaumwuum mnu uuasomm o muH mo mHHfixm cowuuavoua onu >uaaomw o maa mo maaaxm waaaummu was huasumw o mag 00 maafixm ofismvmom wsu m.q~ mucmcsum mug mo muwafiamuoxuma mag omuwmmfiv zawaouum scoumSHm>m on wfisocm Emuwoua umummnu mumsvmuwuoccs cm waSu :0» ow mcumvcmum umna %m .w .0 .0 273 finm.m mmq.q qu.q owm.q wmm.m omm.m omq.q m.q~ m.~q o.wm m.~q m.q~ ~.~m omumm zawcouum m.~q H.5m ~.nm m.~q ~.nm o.~q o.m~ wmuw< o.w~ m.q~ m.q~ o.w~ m.~q m.q~ omummwwv no: wmuwm umsuamz m.<~ m.<~ mmwwmmaa mmpwmmfiv mawcouum muamvsum muw no cowumosvm novcnoulaama may maowuoscoun mua mo mmwuosm Hmauumeaou may mcowuoswoua mu“ mo huaamav uwumauum osu zuHaumw mug mo maafixm coauuavoua wnu huasomm mufi mo maafixm wcficommu msu huasomw mu“ «0 mHHme UfiEmvmom mfiu mucocsum was no suaaanmumxums may wwmumsam>m ma Emwwoua umumoSu m.%uwmuo>w:: muwum cmwfinowz xcfinu 30% cu mcumvcmum owns %m .0 274 ooo.q can.q c~n.q ow~.< nmm.~ mq~.q o.w~ c.~n «.am m.~q o m.~q wwuwm >chouum ~.mm o.w~ o.w~ m.~q o.m~ ¢.~q omww< o m.¢~ o o o o m.q~ o ¢.~q m.q~ o m.e~ mopwmmwv no: mmuwm umsuwmz mmuwmmfia «on vasosm Emuwoua umumocu m.q~ wwwwwmfiv mawcouum wcficwmuu vmucm>cm umsuo no Hoocom oumnvmww you mucmvsum mummmun cu mEmHnoun m>fiummu01coc cam m>wummuo numoumam cu nuan3 swaounu mm>wuuwmmumn mo >umfium> m goam>ou muamcaum mam: cu womb“ vcm mcowcaao mumaaofiuum Cu cumma mucmvsum mam: cu manoma m>auwmcmm mm aoHo> Imp cu nofisa a“ ucwacouw>aw cm :uw3 mucmvsum mwfi>oua ou mumwamaumnm umummnu :amuu cu mumfiamuocmw “mummnu :Hmuu cu wumanmuwumccs am we mHmow msu xcfinu so» on umsz .0 275 oom.q c.0m 0.0m mmm.m n.o~ o.on moo.m n.0H 0.0m ooo.m n.o~ m.o~ no~.c m.mm o.om moo.m m.mm m.mm mmuwm x >chouum mmuw< m.mm 5.0“ n.0H 5.0“ o mmuwmmfic Ho: mouwm Hosaamz wcucqmuu cmocm>vm umsuo no Hoonom o o mumscmww mom mucousum mumamum Cu mamanoum m>wummuutcoc can m>aummuu numoumam ou nuana cwaounu mw>wuommmuwa mo mumaum> o o w aoam>mu mucwwaum ado: cu mmmww ram mcowawmo mumaaofiuum m.o~ 0 cu Gamma mucovaum mam: ou manomn m>wuwmcmm mm aon> new on gowns a“ unmecoufi>cm o.om o no :ufiz mucwvsum mua>oua ca 0 o mumaamaomam umumosu :wmuu cu m.mm o mumwamumcmw umummnu cfimuu cu owummmwv mouwmmwn hawcouum woum umummne mo uamsuummma m.Nwamum>w:D mumum cmeSUHz mo mamow may xawau so» on umnz .0 276 ouc.m «Hm.m coo.m ¢~<.m aN¢.m Hum.m <~n.m ~mm.m ooo.m mq~.¢ «Hm.m Hum.m nmm.m owm.q m.q~ m.q~ m.q~ m.c~ o.w~ m.q~ «.an m.wm m.«~ q.~m Hawmm: >nm> «.an «.as o.om ~.~m ~.nm H.5m m.~q «.Hm o.m~ o m.mm w.mm q.~h m.q~ Hammma annmnonm m.q~ ~.c~ m.qH m.q~ H.nm m.q~ o mmmaom: non Hawmm: nmsnnmz n.c~ m.qn m.q~ o.w~ m.q~ c.w~ Human: nos snnmnonm m.¢~ m.q~ u.o~ m.¢~ m.q~ m.q~ m.q~ m.e~ m.q~ m.c~ o m.q~ nnm a. Hammm: “oz ofimzs onsnmnmnaa :wnmmu “swan mucouom HmwoomIGOfiumuavm Hmnmamw mmfiunamasmlcoanmozwm Hmnmcom mocwfiom HmnSumZIcoaumusvm Hmnmamw wcwnnnB no owmswamg tam nnwzonh :monnme no m.:onuan:u hnonmnn unm wnnnom wnmummnu mumSwonwnmwcs now Homom: mnm xcfisn 50> ow krona mo momnm umfiz .C .E .0 277 ~nm.m mmc.m c-.m owm.m 5mm.m mmq.m Hum.m ooo.q ooo.m mq~.m m.q~ m.q~ o.wm m.¢~ m.~q o.wm m.¢~ ¢.~q Hammw: kno> ~.~m q.Hn o.~q m.~q c.w~ o.m~ H.5m m.~q ~.nm ~.mm Hummus zfinmnonm m.q~ m.¢~ m.qn m.q~ m.qfi m.q~ m.q~ o o m.q~ mmmaow: no: Hawmm: nmanwmz m.¢~ m.q~ o o.wm m.q~ Hammma no: nnnmaonm m.q~ m.q~ m.q~ m.q~ m.q~ m.q~ m.q~ m.q~ m.q~ m.q~ Ham um Hammms noz A.onm .EHnm .mcnncfimav munm Hmnmn> ucmEowmcma nonmmnu knOumnn nmummsn monanasu nonno mo nmummnn nmummnn Hmowcsown cmnmoc oncmom h»0a0£omma monnuw can manna; xnoa Hmconmmmwonm anamoa manunnzhmaa .K .3 Graduate Students 278 qm~.q wwm.q mmm.q m~m.q mmw.q mmm.q nqo.q qu.q Nwm.m m.~m v.05 m.~m ¢.Nm H.nq m.~m m.on 0.0m n.5q Hommmo mnm> «.mm o.n~ m.mm n.5q «.mw q.m~ 0.5H o.- 0.5“ Hummus >Hnmnonm m.- w.- m.m m.mm o.n~ m.m o.- mmmamm: no: Hummus nocnwoz m.m o o o a.m o o o o o o o o.m o o m.m m.nn m.m Hommmo noo Hommmo zaawnonm uoz mo>Homamzu socx on wanoawnu wooam>vm nonno no Hoonom onmoomnw nonnnw .wcnonmnn nonnnom now mucmoonm onmmonm on knonmwn nonmosn woo hnomsn .mnonmnmnna onnmamnv on wcoonwxumn nwoononn m m>mn on maanxm mo wonoamnmnmvo: onumfiammn m m>m£ on Emnonnnno mo mm: oxma 0n mono> van noon osn mo Honnooo woo mm: Haom snow on maanxm oanmnnnm can o>nnmmnu aoam>oo on nonmoSu on com m on momma nmnu non no nonnmns .mHanm onmmn mo omomaaoox com nonmonn on 3mfi>no>o ooow m o>m£ on nonmmsn on mafi>na m oxma on Now On ucwcoum onmoomnwnmoos cm onwamno Emnwona nonomnu m oaoonm nosz .0 .H 279 mmm.m nqo.q IX w.- n.co Hommm: >nm> n.m¢ m.mm Homwm: nnnmnonm «.mm o mmoamm: no: Hummus nocnnwz m.m Howomo no: hanmnonm m.m Hammms noz H0u00£u £0009 Cu Boon conuoooona mSu mo mnonfima nonuo nuns hao>nnommwm xnoB 0n .x .h 280 Hem. moo. omN. oNH. Nww. Nfiq. QNH. mNm. Nww. IX N ¢.m m o.n~ m o m w.- N o N o m m.m m o N o.m mn:n o>mn wnoowsum HH< omcnmw o>mz no coca oo on conmomnn one muoovsnm naumosa mnwmnm>noa onmnm cmwnzunz xon£n ooh ow nmsz w.- N.Hq ©.N~ w.mm ¢.m mwnu o>m£ mucovoum nmoz m.Nm «.an w.w~ m.Nm N.~¢ H.5q N.qo m.mm m.wm u.cow wEow .o>m£ muamoonm osom «.mN w.- w.w~ w.- m.mm H.Nq w.- m.m «.mN mwsn o>ms mnoowoum 3mm ¢.m was“ m>ms mucooonm oz mm>aom505n Boos Nona mononmnn omoom>om nonuo no Hoonom onmoomnw nonnnm .wcnanmnn nonnnom now no ow on >nonmnn nmumonu use mnoonu .mnoumnouna oHnmEmnv an vooonwxomn :woononu m maanxm nnmnn mo wcnwcmumnmuo: onnmnammn m Ewnofiuwno no mo: oxme on mono> com zoos ecu mo Honnooo won on: HHow mHanm onnmnnnm com m>nnmmnu manonmxnms hflnnmmmoum: non mnm menu swooauam .mHanm canon 00 mwoma I3oox can nonmoSn on 3mn>nm>o ooow m noumoSn an mcn>na m oxms on Noumovmnw honn mann man ma .N 281 «Nw.N o fimq.m m.- mafia o>ms mucmoonm m HH< o.n~ N.fi¢ mncn m>m£ mncmwoum nmoz m.Nm «.mN n.:oo oaom .m>m£ mnowoonm meow m.MN o.- mHSn m>mn mncmoonm 30m a.m mnzn o>os mnemoonm oz H0u00£u £000”. OH Boon oownuooona msn mo mnm£an nonno suns zao>nnommmw xnoa on .n .n 282 «Nw.m mMN.q qu.m ooN.m omN.< NH¢.< mmm.c NHq.q o.- m.mm m.mm c.5H H.Nq ~.N¢ H.N< m.Nm omnwm hfiw:onnm a.Nm m.Nm m.MN H.5q m.mm ~.N< N.~q N.~q mmnm< m.mN 0.5H m.m m.- o wonwmmnc no: mmnwm nmnunmz m.m a.m ownwmmnn o m.m mmnwmmnv %Hw:onum wmwun:mE:m oxnfl .mu:mEnnmamo nmsno on :owno::m w:nnmnwmu:a :m an m>nom on :onnmmnonnnm: cannon onmno:ow 0n v:m ummnmu:n n:mo:um v:m hnn:oaaou on v:oommn on moo:onv:m mw:mHHm:u on moo:mnoom :nmnnon:m on mzmaa o:o moahnm :onuoooon: msownm> .nmnmmsn mo >n0umnn wo mw:mn oon3 m on moo:ono:m moooonu:fi on mHanm nnmnn moao>ov nonnnom v:o mnmnum:oEmw on hnw::nno::o man mu:mo:nm omn:mHMn o>nw ou mnouonmnwa unnmEmnv v:o moahum :onuoovon: moownm> .nonmmnn mo knoumwn on mn:owoum moooonn:n on maafixm :onnuooon: mumnum:osmo c:m :nmmH on znn::unoomo ocn n:oo:um man m>ww on wwonunom Hm:onumoocm :m :n whoa: mcnov mo momoonoo man onm x:nnn 30% on nos: .0 .0 283 ooc.m wmm.m mmo.m mcm.m wwm.m wmm.m mcn.m mMN.q ¢.m q.oN a.m m.mN m.MN m.w~ m.mm oonwm haw:onnm «.aN «.aN m.mN m.mm «.mN m.Nc “.mq m.Nm oonm< m.mm o.n~ ~.Nq m.mm «.mN m.N~ m.- m.- monwmmno no: oonmm nasanmz o.- o.n~ o.s~ c.w~ m.c o.n~ monwmmwa monun:mE:m oxna .mn:mannoomo nonno on m.- :onuu::m w:numnwon:n :o no o>nmm 0n :onnmnnonnno: unanom mumno:mw on v:m umonou:n m.m n:mv:nm o:m znfi::EEou on o:oamon on m.m moo:wno:o mw:maam:u 0n 0 moo:mnc:m :«mnnou:m on whoa: o:m mmaznm :onuoooon: moonnm> .nmnmmnu mo hnonmnn mo mm:on o wows m on moo:owo:m ooooonn:n on mHanm nnoau moam>oo nonunom o:m oumnnm:oemo cu nun::unoa o Imo man mn:mo:um won:mfimu m>nw on onsnonmuaa unnmamnc v:m mmahnm :onuoooona moonnm> .noumm:n 0 mo >noumns cu mn:ow:um moowonn:n on mHanm :onnoovon: oumnum:osmo v:m :nmmH on o >nw::nno::o man mn:ovoum o>nm on monwmmna haw:onnm Nmnm Munmnm>«:s onmum :mwa:unz um m>maa w:noc mo momoanoa ofin x:n£n :o> oo um:3 .0 .0 284 mMN.q «Nw.N o-.c ooo.¢ mmm.¢ ooo.¢ mwm.m N.qo ~.Nq m.mm w.mm m.mm «.mN omnwm zaw:onum w.- w.- m.m m.mm «.mN o.n~ N.Hq o m.m ~.Nq m.m m.m «.mN m.m o N.Hq m.- m.fiH «.mN o.n~ o.n~ oonwmmno no: mmnwm monw< nuanwmz mmnwmmnn m.m o.- a.m m.m omnwmwno haw:onum mn:ovonm mun mo :ownmooom omoooon Hams on» :onnoovona mun mo mmmouom Hmnonmsaou wan :onnuovona mun mo hnnamoo onnmwnno man hnasomw mun mo mHHme :onnoovona mnn mnaoomw mun mo mflanxm w:nsomon man muaoomw mun mo mHanm onaovmom man mn:wo:nm mun mo mnnannmnoxnme man Nomnmoam>o on vaoosm Emnmon: nonmmnn onmawonwnow:: :m x:H£n ooh ow mwnmo:onm umaa km .0 285 mmm.m ~qo.m Naq.m ooo.q mmN.m mNm.m aNm.m m.mN N.Hq m.- m.~m m.- c.w~ m.mN oonwm haw:onnm m.mN «.mN N.Hq m.om m.mm N.~q <.¢N omnm< 0.5H w.- m.mm o «.mN m.MN «.mN omnwmmno no: mmnwm nmnunmz m.o w.- w.- w.- omnwmmnn m.- m.o w.- m.m m.m mmnwmmao haw:onum mu:mw:um mun mo :onnmoovo woo::onIHHo3 man m:owno:vona mun mo mmmooom HononmEEoo onn w:onno:o Iona mun mo nnnfimoo onnmwnnm man huasomm mun mo maanxm :o«no:oonm man Nnfioomm mun mo mHanm m:n£umon man muaoomw mun mo mHanm onaovmom man mu:oo:um mun mo zunafinmnmxnma man Nomnoofim>o on Emnwon: nmuomnn m.>nnwnw>n:s mumnm :mwwzonz x:n:u so» on monmo:mnm nmna km .0 286 cm~.¢ m.mN mmm.q N.~q mMN.q N.~q qu.m «.mN qu.m c.NH mmo.q m.mm mmnmo x haw:onnm m:fi:nonn omu:m>vm nogno no Hoonum 0.0N m.m o o onooomnw now on:mu:nm mnmmon: cu maoanon: o>nnmonUI:o: o:m m>nnmmnu :uoonnam on :ofina swoonsn mm>nnoommnma mo ¢.Nm a.m o o hnmnnm> m ao~m>wo mn:oo:nm new: on mmmon v:m m:on:n:o ~.N¢ a.m m.m o mnmaoonnnm on :nmoa mn:mo:um one: on canoe: m>nnnm:mw mm ao~m>mo on songs :n n:ws:onn>:m m.mN “.mq o o :m anna mn:ow:um mon>ona on «.mN «.mm w.- a.m mumnHmnooam nonomnn :nmnu on ~.N¢ m.m w.~n o mnmnamnm:mw nonmonn :nmnu on oonwmmnv no: monwo mmnwmmnw monw< nonnnoz oonmomnn >Hw:onnm Non vasosm Emnmona nmummnu onmovmnwnoo:: :m 00 aflmmw.o£n x:H:n son on nmnz 287 wqm.m «.mN mmm.m o.nw qu.m o.n~ wa.N m.m mo~.m m.mN moo.m w.ww omnwm x haw:onnm H.Nq «.mN «.mN «.mN H.N¢ w.mm omnw< o.Nw q.¢N «.mN m.MN m.ww m.~w omnwmmno no: oonwm nmnunmz o ¢.m o.n~ a.m w.~w w.ww «.mN w.Hw c.nw o o.n~ o mwnwmmnc monwmmno haw:onnm w:n:nmnu woo:m>vm nonno no Hoonom mumowmnw now mn:wo:um onmmona cu mamanon: m>wnmonut:o: o:m m>wnmmno nomonaam on nows3 smoonnn mm>wnomamnon wo humnnm> m moam>mo mu:ovoum mam: on mmmow o:m m:on:nao onoaoonunm 0n :nme mn:oo:um mam: on manowa m>wnnm:om mo aowm>mo on nuw£3 :n u:mE:onH>:m :o suns mn:mo:um own>onq ou mnmwamnuomm nonmmnn :nmnn on mnmwamno:mw noummnn :nmnn on Nono nmummne wo n:mEnnmmun m.Nwwmno>w:D mumnm :mmwnuwz wo mwmom onu x:w£n 50% o: nmfiz .0 .0 288 000.0 050.0 000.0 00N.0 00N.q 000.0 ww~.q 0N~.q 00N.0 NH¢.q 000.0 000.0 000.0 0N0.q 0.00 0.N0 0.0N 0.50 0.50 0.0N 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.05 m.~m 0.0N 0.05 Howmw: >no> 0.00 0.0N 5.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 m.wm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0N 0.00 0.N0 0.0N Howmm: manmnonm 0.0 0.NH 0.N~ 5.0N 0.0N 0.NH m.H~ 0.Nw w.w~ 0 wmoaom: no: Howom: nonnwoz 0.0 m.m~ 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.Nw 0.0 Howmm: no: nnnmnonm 0.0 0.0 nnm um Howmm: uoz Nnmnmmnn onmovmnwnmv:o now Howmm: owns: mnoumnonwa :wnmmc dawn: mo:mnum Hmnooml:onnmoowm Hmnw:mw mowuH:mE:ml:ownmo:0m Hmnm:ww mo:onom Hononmzu:onnu:0m Hmnmoow w:nn«n3 no mwmow:mq 0 unwoone :monnme Howmm: hanmnonm 0.N~ 0.0H 0.N~ 0.0 0.00 0.0N 0.00 0.0 mmmaom: no: Howmm: nonnwmz 0.0 0.NH 5.0 0.0 Howmm: no: nnnmnonm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 nnm um Howmm: uoz A.uum .anw .0:«n:wmav mnnm Hmoww> u:mEm0m:mE nonmmnn 0nonmfis nonmmnu monouaoo nonno wo nmumozn nonmwnu Hmow:£oon :0nmo0 ow:oom hwoaonohmm magnum 0:m manna: xnoa Hm:onmmmwona 0nuoom 0:nuwn35maa .00 .3 .> Undergraduate Theater Majors 290 00N.0 000.0 000.0 0N0.0 00N.0 000.0 500.0 050.0 N00.0 IX 0.N0 0.05 0.N0 0.N0 0.50 0.N0 0.05 0.05 0.50 0:0om: 0no> 0.0N 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.0N 0.0N 0.50 0.50 0.50 szmm: nnnmaopm 0.00 0.00 0.0N 0.50 0.0 0.50 mmo0mw: no: Howmm: nmnunmz 000 on n:m0:um mumowmnmnmvco :o mnmamnm Emnwona nmumonn m 00:0:m umcz 0.0 o o o 0.0 o o o o o o o 0.0 o o 0.0 0.0: 0.0 030mm: no: 030mm: nnnmnonm “oz mm>0mmEo£n 3o:x 0n 0:0:0mnn 0mu:m>0m nonno no 0oo£um mnmovmnm no£n0m .0:0:0onn nonunow now mn:m0:nm onmamna on Anoum0: nonmwnu 0:m mnoocn .ononmnon00 u0nmEmn0 :0 0::onwxom0 swoononu m o>wn on m000xm wo 0:00:mnmno0:: o0nm00mmn m m>mn ou Em0o0u0nu wo mm: mme on mo0o> 0:m 0000 on» 00 0onu:oo 0:0 mm: 003w :0m0 0n m000xm o0nm0unm 0:m m>0nmono 000m>o0 on nonmonn :0 000 m on mvmoH umnn no: no nonnmn3 .m000xm o0mm0 wo m00m030:x 0:0 nonmwnn :0 300>nm>o 0000 m m>m: 0n nmumonu :0 0:0>00 m mxme 0n .0 291 0N0.0 500.0 IX 0owmm: >nm> 0.50 0.00 Howom: 00nmnonm 0.0N 0 mmeom: no: 0zwom: no£n0mz 0.0 Howom: uOfi nnnwnonm 0.0 0owom: uoz nonmwsn comma on Emma :00uuocona onn wo mnmnaoa nonno £n03 00m>0uomwwo xnoz on .x .0 292 000.N 0.0 0.00 500.0 0.50 N.00 00N.0 0 0.00 050.0 0.00 0.50 N00.N 0 0.0N N00.N 0 0 050.0 0.0 0.50 0N0.0 0 0.00 N00.N 0.0 0.0 0000 0>0£ 00nn 0>0£ 0n:00:n0 00:00:00 00¢ umoz IX 0.N0 0.0N 0.00 0.N0 N.00 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.:00 0500 .0>0£ 00:000n0 0800 0.0N 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.0 0.0N 000n 0>0£ 00:000n0 300 0.0 00:0 0>00 0n:00:n0 oz 00>00050£n 30:0 00£n 0:0:00nn 000:0>00 nmsuo no 000000 000:00n0 nmnn00 .0:0:00nn nmsnnsw now :0 00 on 0n0n00: nmn00£n 0:0 knownn .0n0u0nwn00 00u0a0n0 :0 0::0n00000 nwsonosu 0 000000 n0msn wo 0:00:000n00:0 00000000n 0 a0000u0n0 wo 00: 0005 on 0000> 0:0 0000 van wo 0onn:oo 0:0 00: 000w 000000 00000un0 0:0 0>0u00n0 0000nmxn0a 000n000000: no: mn0 0050 000000 I00 .000000 00000 00 0000030:x 0:0 nmn00£n :0 300>n0>o 0000 0 nmnmmnn :0 0:0>00 0 0005 00 0000:00n0 >05u 080» 0:0 00 00:000 0>0£ no 00 00 00n000n0 0n0 mmmm0mum nmn00£H >000n0>0:= 0u0nm :0000002 0:0:n :00 00 n003 .N 293 0N0.N 0 0.50 050.0 0.00 N.00 00:0 0>0n 0000 0>0£ 0n:00sn0 0n:00:n0 00< umoz IN 0.N0 0.0N n.:o0 0800 .0>0£ 0n:00:n0 0800 0.0N 0.50 00:0 0>0£ 00:000n0 300 0.0 00:“ «>0: 00:000u0 oz n0n00£n 00000 on E00u :00n0000n0 00u wo 0n00E0E n0£no £003 000>0n000w0 xnoa on .x .0 000.0 000.0 13.0 80.0 30.0 A. 0 0;: .0 000.0 N00.0 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.N0 00n00 000:0nnm 0.N0 0.00 0.50 N.00 N.00 00n0< 00:00000 00:00000000 :0 :0 00000 0:000 wo 00000n00 0:0 0n0 0:000 00% 00 00:3 0.0N 0.00 N.00 0.0N 0.50 0.0 0.00 0 00n00000 no: 00n00 n00000z 0.0 0.0 00n0000n 0.0 00000:0E:m 0000 .0n:0En0000 n0sno 00 00000::w 0:0u0n00n:0 :0 00 0>n00 on :00000000un00 000000 000n0:00 on 0:0 000n0n:0 0:00:00 0:0 000:05500 on 0:0000n 00 000:00000 00:000000 00 000:00000 :00nn00:0 on 00000 0:0 000000 :000000 Iona 0000n0> .n0u0000 wo 0n00000 wo 00:0n 0003 0 on 000:00000 00:00nn:0 on 000000 n00nn 0000>00 n000n0w 0:0 000n00:oE00 on 000::nn00 I00 000 00:00:00 000:0000 0>00 on 0n:n0n0n00 0000E0n0 0:0 000000 :0000000n0 0:00n0> .n000000 00 0n0000: on 00:00:00 00:00n0:0 on 000000 :000000on0 0n0n00:os00 0:0 :n000 ou 000::nn0000 000 0:00:00 000 0>00 00 00n00000 000:0nnm .0 .0 295 000.0 00m.m 000.0 m00.m 000.0 000.0 m00.m 00N.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0N 0.00 m.m~ m.mm 00000 000:0000 «.mm 0.0N m.mm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.Nm 00000 0.00 0.00 0.00 m.mm 0.00 0.N0 0.00 0.00 00000000 00: 00000 0050002 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 00000000 00000:0E:m 0000 .00:0E000000 00000 00 0.00 :0000:=0 0:0000000:0 :0 00 0>000 00 :000000000000 000000 00000:00 00 0:0 000000:0 m.m 0:00:00 0:0 000::5500 00 0:00000 00 0.0 000:000s0 00:000000 00 o 000:00000 :000000:0 00 00000 0:0 000000 :000000000 000000> .0000000 00 0000000 00 00:00 o 0003 0 00 000:00000 00:0000:0 00 000000 00000 0000>00 0000000 0:0 000000:0E00 00 000::000000 o 000 00:00:00 000:0000 0>00 00 0000000000 00005000 0:0 000000 :000000000 000000> .0000000 0 00 000000: 00 00:00:00 000000000 00 000000 :000000000 000000:0E00 0:0 :0000 00 0 00000000000 000 00:00:00 0>00 00 00000000 00000000 0000 Hufimuuwfidmzwum0m :0000002 00 00000 0:000 00 00000000 000 0:000 :00 00 0003 .w 296 mmm.q 0N0.~ 000.0 ooo.0 000.0 0°C.: 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000 000:0000 0.00 0.0N N.00 0.00 0.00 N.00 0.00 0000< 0.00 0.0 o 0.00 o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000 00: 00000 0000002 00000000 0.0 0.00 m.m 0.0 m.m o m.m 00000000 00000000 00:00:00 000 00 :00000000 000:000 0003 000 0:000000000 000 00 0000000 0000005500 000 :000000000 000 00 0000000 00000000 000 0000000 000 00 000000 :000000000 000 0000000 000 00 000000 0:000000 000 0000000 000 00 000000 00500000 000 00:00:00 000 00 0000000000005 000 w0000000>0 00 000000 5000000 0000000 0000000000000 :0 0:000 :00 00 00000:000 0003 00 .0 .m 297 mmm.m 000.0 N00.0 000.0 mmm.m mNm.m mmm.m m.m~ m.m~ N.00 0.0N 0.00 N.00 m.0m 0.0m 0.00 m.mm 0.00 N.00 m.m~ 0.00 00000 000:0000 0000< 0.00 0.00 m.mm 0 «.mm m.m~ «.mm 00000000 00: 00000 0000002 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000000a 0.00 0.0 0.00 m.m m.m 00000000 00000000 00:00000 000 00 :00000000 000:00010003 000 00000000000 000 00 0000000 0000005500 000 00000000000 000 00 0000000 00000000 000 0000000 000 00 000000 :000000000 000 0000000 000 00 000000 0:000000 000 0000000 000 00 000000 00500000 000 00:00000 000 00 0000000000005 000 w0000000>0 00 500000m 0000000 0.000000>0:D 00000 00000002 0:000 000 00 000000000 0003 00 .0 .m 298 on~.q mmm.q mmm.q cmm.m Nfiq.m mmo.q m.m~ mwumm hawcouum c.ow m.~m H.m¢ m.m~ «.mm H.n¢ mmuw< m.m m.m ~.mq m.mm ¢.m mmuwmmfiv no: mmuww “msufimz ¢.m mmuwmmfio m.m mmuwmmwv >chouum wagswmuu vmucm>cm umnuo no Hoonum mumswmuw How mucmvsum mumamua cu mamanoua m>fiummuulsoa cam m>fiumwuo nomouaam cu Soaps nwsounu mm>fiuomamuma mo xumwum> m moam>mc muamvSum mam; Ou mmmwfi vcm macacfiao mamasofiuum cu cummfi mucmvsum mam: Cu manoma m>wufimcmw mm moam>mu ou £o«£3 aw ucmscouw>cm cm :ufi3 mucmvsum muw>oua cu mumfiamfiummm umumwnu :«muu cu mumHHmHmr—mw HUUNMSU Gfimhu Cu «ma wasonm Emuwoum umummsu mumsvmuwuwucs am we mHmom may xsanu 30% ow umnz 299 ~q¢.m q.ow ~.~q mmm.m o.mH «.mm ¢m~.m o.m~ q.m~ www.~ m.m «.mm mcn.m m.m~ ~.nq mqo.m w.- w.wm mmuwm x hawcouum mmuw< 0.NH «.mm q.o~ m.m~ m.- m.- mmuwmmfiv no: mmuwm umnufimz o.w~ m.- c.o~ 0.5“ o.n~ mmuwmmfia m.m m.m w.HH w.- mmuwmmfiw mawcouum mcucfimuu wmuam>vm “usuo no Hoosom mumscmuw how mucmvsum mumamua cu mamflnoua m>aummuolcoc cam m>uummuo :umoumam cu nu«£3 swsounu mw>fiuomamuma mo >umwum> m aon>mc mucwcsum mam: cu mmmcfi cam maowcfiao mamasuwuum Cu cumma muamvsum mam: cu moam>mv cu Scans a“ namecouw>cm cm SUH3 mucmwsum mwfi>oun ou mumaHmHomam “mummzu :fimuu cu mumaamumamw umummnu samuu cu wmum umummne mo ucmauummma w.Huwwum>ficD mumum cmufi£UHz mo mfimow m£u xcfizu Dom ow umzz .m 300 mnm.q m~m.¢ mmm.m OmN.¢ om~.q oom.m ww~.q mm~.¢ mmm.q NHq.q wwm.q xmm.m mmo.¢ ¢Nm.q IX o.om m.~© c.0N m.nm m.mm o.o~ w.m¢ m.mm ~.mq w.wm o.o~ m.Hm «.mm o.oM Howmmo hnw> w.mq o.m~ “.mo o.om 0.0m n.0q w.mq o.~m m.m~ Hawmm: nnnmponm m.o m.- m.- n.c~ o.mm m.- w.- m.- m.- o mmoamm: no: Hommmo nonunmz m.c m.m~ m.o m.m o.m m.- m.m Hommm: uo: unpmnonm wnmummnu mumoomnwnmoco m.m nnm um Howmm: uoz now Hzmmm: unmoa mnoumnouna awnmmc usmnn moomnom Hmnuomlconumoovm Monmomw monunoossmlaonuoooom Hmnmcow moomnom HonoumZIoonnmooom Honocow wonunna no ammowcoq a u;woone amonnoanm> o.m~ ~.~q m.m¢ m.- w.m~ m.- m.o m.m~ o.m~ o.- m.o woodman Hommm: no: Hommm: hanmnonm nonunmz m.o m.- 5.0 m.o Hammm: uoa nnnmaoum m.o m.o m.o o nnm um Howmm: “oz A.uum .eHnm .msnuonmov mono Hmomn> ucmEmwmomE nmummnu znoumns nonmosu monouaoo nonuo mo nmummSu nmummnu Hmononown ownmmo onooom mwoaosommm monnuo woo munnms xnos Hoconmmmmono hnumoa wcnunn3hmam .X .3 .> .m C“, .0 Undergraduate Telecommunication I‘iajors 302 oou.q mHo.¢ wmq.m qqm.q mom.q mum.q oom.¢ qqm.m 0.0m w.cm n.m~ o.~q n.wm q.qm m.m© m.cm m.o~ Howmm: hnm> w.w~ ~.©¢ o.oq m.qc 0.0m «.0m q.om m.wm «.mm Hammwa nnnmnonm m.mH n.o~ N.0N w.- o.oH ~.m m.m~ mmmfimmo no: Hawmms nosunmz woo on nomooum mumswmnwnmwoo cm mnmaona Emnwono nmummsn m Undo: nosz m~.o N.H m.~ m.~ N.~ m.o~ Hammm: uca— nnnmnonm N.~ n.m m.~ m.~ Homow: uoz mm>Hmem£u aoox on wonononu omoow>om nonuo no Hoonom mumoomnw nonunm .wowanmnu nonunom now muomosum mnoomnm ou hnoumn; nmummnu woo hnomsu .mnSuonouHH onumamno on wooonwxomn swoononu o o>m£ on mHHme mo monocmuwnmwos onumnaomn m m>mn on amnonunno «0 mm: mme on mono> com Avon «no mo Honucoo cam mm: Hana snow on maanxw onumnunm cam o>numonu ooHo>mv on nmumonu on non o On momma umnu no: no nonuo£3 .maanxm unmon mo owomasocx woo nmumwnu on Bon>nm>o ooow m m>mn ou nmummsu an wsn>na m mxoa on .w .H 303 om~.m m~o.q [K N.- m.~o Hammm: hnm> N.0m m.wm Hommm: hflnmponm w.w~ o mmoaom: no: Momma: noSunmz ~.m~ Hammms HOG nnpmnoum o.o~ Howwm: uoz noumonu comma on Emma conuoooona may mo mnonEmE nonuo nuns >Ho>nuommum xnos on .x .n 304 nmm.m nmm.m mw~.m omo.m wom.m ¢¢¢.m wa.m mww.m omo.m IX m.m~ ~.- m.q m.- w.m~ o.m m.n~ m.w~ o.m mncu o>m£ muomooum HH< m.~m o.mm N.~N w.m¢ o.qm m.wm 0.0m ¢.~m m.- mnnu m>m£ muooosum umoz 0.0m o.om o.om o.o« m.eq m.cq ”.mm c.¢~ c.mm u.coo 080m .o>m£ mucooSum maom o.m n~.m o.o~ ~.m o.q «.0 o m.- mnsu o>m£ muomvoum 3mm N.~ mafia m>m£ mucovoum oz mo>HomEo£u aoax >mnu wanonmnu omocm>om nonuo no Hoonom muooomnw nonunm .wononmnu nosnnow now no om on hnoumnn nmumm;u woo hnomnu .wnsumnouna onumsono an oczonwxomn :woononu m mHanm nnmnu mo monoaoumnwocs onumnammn m Emnonunnu mo mm: ome ou mono> cam hoop mzu mo Honuooo woo om: Hana maanxm onumnunm woo o>nummno ofinmnmxnma hannmmmmoo: no: ono zmnu smaonu lam .mHanm onmmn mo mwooa3oox coo nonwonu on 3on>nm>o voow m nmummau an wow>na m mxma ou wmumzomnw thu manu wan ha voonmw m>mn no :oL3 oo 0» omnmamnn mnm mucmooum nummmne wunmnm>nc= muMum cmwnnonz xanzn 30% ow umaz .m .N 305 ¢ww.m m.m mmo.m ~.c~ oncn m>m£ mnemooum HH< IN o.o~ 0.00 mnsu m>mn wucmooum umoz ~.wq w.mm u.GOU oaom .m>m: muamosum oaom o.m~ 0 mafia m>mn mucmoonm 3mm m.~ many m>mn mucovonm oz nmuomsu comma on Soon conuoavonm msu mo mnmnema nonuo nuna %Hm>nuomwmm xnos on .x .n 306 nw¢.~ wmo.m ¢Nq.m non.m qu.m oqm.m mmm.m ooo.q o.a «.mfi o.mH 0.0N N.H~ m.mm m.~H w.wm oonwm haw:onum w.m~ m.qq o.m~ o.mq c.Hq N.0q w.mq o.mm wmnw< ~.m~ m.m~ o.~q o.m~ w.mm m.oH m.~m o.n monmomnw no: monwm “usuamz m.m~ n.h n.- m.o ~.m o.~ m.n m.~ oonwmmnn n.m o.~ ©.N ~.m m.m n.n ~.m fi.m wwnwmmno zflwconum monun:maom mxna .mu:oEuno:mo nonuo on :onuo::w w:numnwmu:n :w mm o>nmm on :onumanonnnm: unanoa mumnm:mw on o:m ummnmn:n u:mo:um o:m mun:oasoo on ©:o:mmn on moo:mno:m mw:mHHo£o ou mmo:mfio:m :nmunmu:m on mzmao o:m mmamnm :owuoooon: ozonnm> .nmumosu mo mnoumn: mo mw:mn wows m on moo:mnoom ooaconu:n on mHanm nnmnu moam>oo nmSunom w:m oumnum:oamo on hun::uno::o on: mu:mo:um omu:mamu o>nw on onsumnouna unuosmno o:m mmamnm :onuoaoon: maonnm> .nmnmmnu mo knoumn: on mu:mc:um moaoonu:n on mHanm :onuosvon: wumnum:oamo o:m :nmmH on hun:=uno::o on: u:mo:um man m>nw ou ww:nuumm Hm:onuoo=om :m :n whoa: w:noo mo mmmoanoa on: mnm x:n:u so» ow umaa .w .m 307 mmm.~ qwm.m squ.m mmw.m oom.m mmm.m owm.m mmw.m m.o m.- o.m~ o.w~ w.~ m.w~ m.m w.mm mmnwm >Hw:onum _.N~ c.om m.mN «.mq N.¢¢ ~.¢q o.mq ~.mq monw< m.mm c.mm o.¢m ¢.CH N.~m N.m ~.mm m.m monwmmno no: mmnwm umnufimz o.w~ o.m~ o.mH ©.N c.o~ n.0H N.m~ o.m mmnwwmnn wwnm Nunmnw>n:= oumum ~.o N.m w.“ ~.m m.o 0.0 m.m m.c omnwomno xfim:onum mmnun:msom mxna .mu:maunm:mo noSuo on :onuu::w w:nuonwmu:n :m mm m>nmm ou :onumnnonuno: onaaoa onmnm:mm ou v:m ummnmu:n u:mo:um o:m >un::eaoo on o:o:mmn on moo:mno:m mwcwHHmso ou moo:mnoom :nmunmu:m on mama: v:m «mamum :onuoooon: moonnm> .nmumm:u mo :noumn: mo ww:mn wows m on moo:mno=m moooonn:n on mHanm nnozu ooam>mo nonun3m o:o mumnum:osmv on zun:ouno::o onu mu:mv:um omu:oamu o>nw ou unaumnouna onumEmno woo mma%um :onuonoon: moonnm> .nmumm;u mo Anoumnn on mn:mo=nm moooonn:n ou mfianxm :onu Iosoon: oumnuw:oEmo v:m :nmoH on hun::uno::o can mu:oo:um o>nm ou :mwnconz no whoa: w:noo mo momoanoa may x:n£u so» ow umLB om 308 ~<~.¢ omo.m fimo.q mfio.q om~.¢ qmo.m 00m.m 5.mm m.qq 5.5 m.om 5.am m.mm o.qm N.0q o.~q ~.q¢ ~.on o.m¢ «.mn m.mm mmnwm haw:onum omnw< o.m m.wm 5.0: m.- N.m c.q~ omnmmmno no: mmnwm nmnufimz o.~ m.oN ~.m m.~ m.m ~.¢H 5.0a ownwwmna w.m v.0 o.~ q.o N.m m.~ m.m ownmmmno zaw:onum wu:mv:um mun mo :onuoooom vmv::onIHHm3 man :owuoovon: mun mo mmmooam Hononmaaoo m5: :onuosoon: mun mo munamoo onumnunm on: hua:omw mun mo maanxw :onuuzoon: ms: huasomm mun mo maanxm w:n£ommu onu huaaomm mun mo mHanm unamomum man mu:wo=um mun mo >unanamumxnme man womumsam>o on oaoosm Eonwon: nmumm:u mumovmnwnmo:: :m x:n:u :05 oo monmo:mum awn: 5m .w 309 oq©.m coo.m 5cm.m cow.m moo.m owm.m 50¢.m 5.NN 5.0m 5.0m 5.NN 5.w~ o.- 5.qH mmnwm haw:onum m.5m o.<~ m.m~ 5.0m o.qq o.o~ 5.0m 0.0H m.oq 5.wH o.qq 5.om 5.qm 5.qm mmnwomnv no: mmnwo mmnm< nonunoz m.m~ 0.NH o.m m.m m.m 5.0g 5.q~ mmnwmmna 5.N m.m m.~ o.q 5.~ m.~ monwmwno >Hw:onum mu:mo=um mun mo :onnmuooo omw::onIHHm3 man m:oHuo:oon: mun mo mmoooom Hononoaaoo may :onuosvon: mun mo hunamoo onumnunm man huaaomw mun mo maanxm :onuoooon: on: huaoomm mun mo mHanm w:n:ommu as: hunSomm mun mo maanxm onfimomom msu muooooum mun mo munannmumxnma on» «nonooam>o on Emnwonm nonmwsu m.mufimnm>n:a mumum :mmwnonz x:«:: :0% oc monmo:mum umn3 hm .w 310 omo.m o.mn ¢w0.¢ 5.0m mHo.q m.mm mo5.m ~.mn m5m.m 5.cm 55H.q m.qq mmnwm x zaw:onum N.mm ~.mm o.~q o.Hq m.o< 5.0m own»: 0.0N m.~m w.- w.om q.H~ 5.NH wonwmmno no: mmnwm nonunmz N.mn o m.~ m.~ m.~ m.~ o.o o m.c ~.m H.m m.n mmnwmmwo omnwomnn haw:onum w:n:nmnu omo:o>om nmsno no Hoonom oumoomnw now mu:mo:um mnmmmn: on mEoHnon: m>numwnol:o: o:m m>numonu nomonmam on son53 smoonSu mm>nuumawnmo mo humnnm> m :on>mv mu:mo:nm mam: on women o:m m:on:nao mama Iaonunm cu :nmma mu:mo:nm mam: on mamow: m>nunm:mm mm moam>mo on guns: :n u:mE:onn>:m :m nunS mu:mo:um mon>ono on mumnaonomam nonomnu :nmnu on mumnaonw:mw nmummsn :nmnu 0: won vasosm u:msnnm:mo nmummnu wumaomnwnmo:: :m mo mawow on: x:nnu 90% oo nozz 311 wmo.m 5mm.m aw5.m Nm©.m New.m mq~.¢ ¢.w~ m.wm ¢.~N q.w~ c.5m ~.Nq mmnwm >~w:onum q.mq m.o~ N.¢ 5.wq w.m~ m.m 5.qq o.mm m.m m.mm m.om m.o~ m.oq «.mm 0.0 N.wm «.mH m.m mmnwmmno no: mmnwm mmnw< nmzunmz mmnwmmnm w:n:nmnu omo:m>om nmnuo no Hoosom o.m mumoomnw now mu:mw:um mnmmmn: on mEmHaon: m>numanI:o: o:m m>nummno ammonoom on gonna swoonnu mm>nuomnmnmm mo >umnnm> m.~ m moam>mw mu:mo:um :am: on mmmon o:m m:on:n:o mumfioonunm o.~ on :nmmH mu:mo:um :am: on manom: m>nnnm:mm mm moam>mo on conss :n u:mE:onn>:m m.~ :m :uH3 mu:mu:nm mwn>ona on o.~ mumnamnommm nmummnu :nmnu ou m.H mumnnmnm:mw nmummnu :nmnu ou mmnwmwno 5am:onum «mnm nmummne mo u:mEunm:m: m.Nunmnm>n:D mumnm :mwnnunz mo «Hmow m£u x:n:u 50% oo umcz 312 mm~.¢ c5o.q 5e~.¢ cem.m m~q.m Nwm.m mmm.m mo~.¢ mom.¢ 5mm.q mwo.c Nom.m omo.m mm5.q IX w.5~ ©.~m N.5m ~.o~ a.w m.N N.m~ «.mm o.mm m.mm o.w~ H.q~ m.o~ o.~w Hammm: >nm> N.mm o.m: «.mq «.m: o.mq ¢.n: q.om o.mq w.oq :.¢N $.m: o.mq q.om n.0m w.oq n.~: m.m¢ n.~: ~.qm m.m ~.mm n.n: ~.mm a.m: :.mq m.o~ m.o: m.: mmeme Hawmm: no: Hammm: nnpmnonm awnunmz m.oN 0.5 m.~ m.~ m.~ m.c q.- Howmm: no: nnnmnoum m.~ m.c o.5 n.0m o.oH m.~ m.~ w.m m.~ n:« on Hammm: uoz onmsfi mnoumnmuna :mnmmc ugmfin mo:mnom Hmnoomlconumooom Hmnm:mw mmnun:mE:ml:onumo=om Hmnm:mw mo:mnom HmnaumZI:o«umo:om Hmnm:mm w:nunn3 no mwmow:m4 w unmoone :monnmanom£u onumEmnw w:nuomnnv mo:mo nmummnn Snack no m.:mnwan£o hnoumn: unm w:«uum 5nmumm£u mumaomnwnmo:: now Hawmm: mnm x:nsu so» ow mwoum mo mmmnm umfiz 313 mo~.q o.wm m.oq ¢.mn c m.n A.uum .annm .wcnuonmav munm Hmsmn> .x 55o.c ~.~m 5.wq q.m~ o.~ m.~ u:mEmwm:mE nmummsu .3 mww.m «.mm m.~m N.mH o.~ m.m anoumn; nmummsu .> new.m m.m~ ©.mq m.- n.m m.~ mmnouaoo nmsuo mo nmummnu .5 Nam.q n.mq w.nq 0.5 o m.: nmummnu Hmoncnomu .u Nm~.¢ N.qm N.mm 0.5 m.m m.~ :wnmmo on:mom .m mmo.m m.o~ m.q¢ c.0m w.m ~.m >woaono5m: .n mQHSnm mnm.m m.n~ m.oq m.o~ :.m o cam manna; goo: :mconmmmmoua .c 5q5.m m.oN oumq H.om m.o m.~ >numo: .o wn~.q o.mq m.qq :.o: m.~ o manufinsnmna .o mmmamm: Ham um Hommmo Hommmn no: Hommm: Hommm: no: Hommm: x mnm> manmnonm nmnunmz haamnonm uoz Undergraduate Communications Majgrs 314 mmm.q wa.m omm.m m¢H.q 05m.q o~m.q ~mq.q om~.q qu.m IX H.w¢ w.<~ ~.H~ m.mm ~.w¢ m.om m.~m q.qq w.q~ Hammm: hnm> 5.oc 5.00 m.mm H.wq 5.0q m.mm q.qq «.mq m.qq Howmm: nnnmnonm «.5 5.m «.5 ~.- m.mm m.m~ m.w~ o H.- o «.5 o 5.m o «.5 5.m m.m~ m.wn mmmamm: no: Hommms Howmm: no: nmnunmz >Hnmnonm 5.m 5.m Hommm: uoz mQ>H0mEOSU 3OC¥ Cu w:n:nmnu omo:m>om nmnuo no Hoonom mumoomnw nmnunm .m:n:nmnu nmaunow now mu:mo:um mnmqmn: on mnoumns nmummnu o:m 5nomnu .mnsumnmuna unumamnv :n v::onwxomn swoonosu m m>m£ ou maanxm mo w:no:mumnmo:s onumnammn m m>m£ on Smnonunno mo mm: mme on mono> o:m hoop man mo Honu:oo vcm mm: Adam :«mm on maanxm onnmnunm o:m m>nummno noam>mo on nmummnu :n non m on momma umSu no: no nmzumns .mHanm onmmn mo mwoma3o:x o:m nmummsu :n 3mn>nm>o ooom m m>m£ ou nmummnu :n w:H>HH m mme on Now on u:mo:um mumowmnwnmo:: :m mnmamn: Emnwon: nmummSu m wasosm umsz .H 315 mw~.m 05m.« IX w.«~ «.«« Hommm: >nm> ~.NN ~.m« szmm: nnnmnonm 0.5m «.5 mmmHmm: no: Howmm: nmsunmz m.m~ Hammms uOfi annmnoum Hawmm: uoz nmummnn nommu ou Emma :oHuoooon: man mo mnmnams nmzuo nuna >Hm>nuommmm xno3 ou 316 mfiw.m m.mn No«.m 5.5 amm.m 5.5 «o5.m «.5 «H5.m «.5 mnm.m ~.~H m55.m m.m~ mmw.m m.- wa.m o mnsu m>m£ mu:mo:um m HH< «.«« N.o« o.«m o.mo 5.00 5.0« ~.m« «.mo m.w~ mncu m>m£ mu:mo=um nmoz o.5m o.«m o.«m ~.NN m.w~ 5.o« m.m~ ~.mm m.~m u.:ow mEom .m>m£ mu:mo:um mEom 5.5 N.¢H «.5 «.5 o o.m~ was: m>m£ mu:mo:um 3mm 0 w.m w.m o o 5.m o o 5.m mnnu m>mn mu:mooum mm>HmmEmsu 30:3 hmcu w:n:nmnu omo:m>om nmzuo no HooSom mumoomnw nmnunm .m:n:nmnu nmnunsm now :0 ow cu znoumnn nmummsu v:m hnomsu .mnaumnmuna onumfimno :n w::onwxomn smaononu m mHanm nnmau mo m:no:mumnmo:: onnmnammn m Emnonunnm mo mm: mxma on mono> o:m hoon man no Honu:oo o:m mm: Hasm maanxm onumnunm o:m m>nummno manmumxnme >Hnnmmmmom: uo: mnm mmsu swoosu lam .maanxm onmmn mo mmomHSo:x o:m nmummnu :n 3mn>nm>o ooow m nmumm5u :n w:n>na m mxme on 5mum=omnw hmsu many mnu 5n om:nmw m>m£ no :mLB oo cu omnmomn: mnm mu:mc:um nmumm£s hunmnm>n:= mumum :mwnnofiz x:n£u :o% ow umnz ow .N 317 cmo.~ o wa.m w.«n mnnu m>m£ mu:mo:um m HH< c.m~ 0.5m m.mm N.NN u.coc was: m>m£ mEom .m>m: mu:mv:nm mu:mo:um umoz meow o.om 5.m mnsu m>m£ mu:mv:um 3m: 5.m mnnu m>mn mu:mo:um oz HQHNOSU 50mm“ Ou Emma :onuoooon: may mo mnmnsms nmnuo can: 5Hm>nuomwmm xno3 on .x .n 318 mmm.m «O5.m Nmo.m ooo.« wmm.m 5mo.« H«5.m HH~.« N.NN ~.m~ m.N« ~.m~ m.mm H.- o.5m mmnwm zfiw:onum 5.o« ~.m« m.wm o.«m o.«m 5.o« o.mc «.«« mmnw< ¢.~m m.m~ m.om m.- w.om N.NN m.m~ w.«~ mmnwmmnv no: mmnwm “maunmz m.m m.- 5.m 5.m mmnmmmna mmnun:meom mxnfl .mu:maunm:mo nmnuo on :onu o Io::m w:numnwmu:n :m mm m>nmm on :onumanonunm: unanoa mumnm:mw on o:m ummnmu:n u:mw=um ~.HH o:m aun::afioo ou o:o:mmn on 5.5 mmo:mnv:m mw:maamno on 5.5 mmo:mno=m :nmunmuom ou m5mH: c:m mmahum :oHuuaoon: moonnm> .nmummnu mo anoumn: mo mw:mn w.m mun: m on mmo:mnoom moaoonu:n on maanxm nnmsu :on>mv nmnunou o:m mumnum:o8mo on mun::unoo:o o mnu mu:mo:um vmu:mamu m>nw on mnsumnmuna owumsmno o:m mmH%um :onuosoon: moonnm> .nmummzu mo 5.m 5noumn: on mu:mo:um mozoonu:n ou madnxm :onuoooon: mumnum:oEmo v:m :nmmH on hun:=uno::o 5.m ms: u:mv:nm man m>nm on mmnwmmnv aam:onum 5w:nuumm Hm:onumo:om :m :n mzmH: w:noo mo mmmoansa mcu mnm x:n£n :05 on umcz 319 NmH.m o«w.m wow.m mmw.m oom.m o-.« OOm.m mmw.m 5.5 o.«~ w.om m.mm o.w~ o.o« ~.m~ m.om mmnwm >Hw:onum w.om 0.Nm m.wm w.om o.~m o.«« ~.m~ ~.c« mmnw: m.m~ o.- N.m~ «.mn o.o~ o.w m.wm m.- mmnwmmno no: mmnwm Hanunmz ~.m~ o.w w.m m.- o.©~ o.« m.- w.m mmnwmmna mmnnn:msom mxna .mu:m8unmamv nmsuo ou m.m :onuo::m w:numnwmu:n :m mm m>nmm on :onummnonunm: unanan mumnm:mw ou o:m ummnmu:n u:mo=um o.« o:m mun::ssou on o:o:mmn 0: 5.5 mmo:mno:m mw:mHHm:o cu w.m mmo:mno:m :«munmu:m on mka: c:m mmahum :onuosoon: moonnm> .nmummnu mo hnoumna mo mm:mn o.w mona m on mmo:mnoom moaoonn:n cu maanxm nnmnu aoam>mv nmnunom o:m mumnum:oemo on huncounomao o.« man mu:mo:um omu:mHmu m>nw on mnoumnmunn onumsmno o:m mmazum :onuosoonm wsonnm> .nmumm:u mo m.m 5noumn: on mu:mo:um mosoonu:n cu mHHme :onuo: noon: mumnum:oamw o:m :nmmH ca 5.5 mun::unoaoo man mn:mo:um m>nw ou mmnwmmno 5Hw:onum 5mnm anmnm>n:s mnmum :mwnnonz um whoa: w:noo mo mmmoonoo msu x:n:u :05 oo umsz 320 NmH.« o««.m mmo.« ooo.« 55o.« 55m.m N©«.m N.o« m.mm 5.5 0.0: o.o« o.om m.wm m.N« w.m w.om N.o« «.mn m.wm m.~« 5.5 m.- o.om ~.m~ m.o~ «.mn m.~« mmnwmmnc mmnwm no: mmnwm 5Hw:onum mmnw< nmnuwmz m.m 0.0N «.mn 5.5 m.- «.mH 5.5 mmnwmmnn w.m o.« 5.5 mmnwmmww 5am:onum mn:mo:um mun mo :onumosvm wmo:=onIHHm3 man m:onuo:oon: mun mo mmmooom Hmfionmasoo mnn m:onuu:von: man no nunnmoc unumnunm may xuasumm mun mo mnanxm :onuoooon: mnu xufioumm mun mo maflnxm w:n£ommu man muaaomm mun mo mnanxm unamomom mzu muomooum mun mo hunannmumxnme mcu 5omumaam>m ma vaoosm Emnwon: nmummsu mumoomnwnmo:s :m x:n£n :05 oo MfiHdddduu.um53 5m .0 om 321 5oo.m mmm.m mmw.m me.m mwm.m mom.m mmm.m ~.~H N.NN N.m~ o.¢~ m.- «.5 «.5 mmnwm waw:onum m.~m m.mm 5.o« m.w~ m.~o m.- m.mm m.mm o.«m o.«m c.mm o.m~ o.5m c.5m mmnwmmno no: mmnwm mmnw< nmSnnmz ~.H~ w.m ~.H~ N.¢~ 5.m ~.H~ mmnwmmna 5.m «.5 w.m mmnwmmno haw:onum mn:mo:um mun mo :onumosom omo:=onIHHm3 man m:onno:oon: mun mo mmmooom HmnonmEEoo mnu m:onuooo Ion: mun mo munamoo onumnunm may 5uHsomm mun mo mHanm :onuoowon: mnu huazomm mun mo mHanm w:n:ommu mnu hnfisomw mun mo mHanm unamcmom mnu mu:mo=um mun mo munannmumxnma may 5omum=Hm>m mn Emnwonmxnmummau n.5unmnm>n:a mumum :mwnnunz x:n:u so» ow mwnmo:mum umaz %m .m .0 .w 322 «5o.« umw.m w55.m “«5.m aww.m ooo.« m.m~ m.mm «.«« N.NN 0.5m o.5m mmnwm m~w:onum m.mm «.«« w.«~ 5.o« m.mm 5.o« mmnw< ~.- m.m~ m.w~ ¢.m~ ~.H~ «.5 mmnmmmnv no: mmnwm “maunmz 5.m o H.HH o m.m~ 5.m ~.HH o m.m~ o w.«~ o mmnwmmnw mmnwmmno haw:onum w:n:nmnu omoom>om nmnuo no Hoosom mumoomnw now mu:mosum mnmomn: ou mamanon: m>nummnol:o: o:m m>nummno ammonmam on nonnz swoonnu mm>nuommmnmo mo mumnnm> m moam>mv mu:m1:um :am: on mmmon v:m moon:n:o mumaoununm ou :nmmH mu:mo:um :Hm: on manom: m>nunm:mm mm moam>mo ou guns: :n u:ma:onn> I:m :m nun3 mu:mvoum mon>ono ou mumnamnummm nmummnu :nmnu ou mumnamnm:mw nmummnu :nmnu on 5m: canonm Emnwon: nmummSu mumoomnwnmo:: :m mo mHmow may x:n:u :05 oo umnz .0 323 omo.m «o5.m «O5.m H«5.m w55.m mom.m m.m~ N.NN m.m~ w.«~ o.om m.mm mmnwo kaw:onum c.m~ m.m~ 5.o« ~.NN 0.5m N.N~ m.~m m.m~ m.mm ~.~N 0.5m ~.- mmnwomno no: mmnwo mmnw< nmnunmz w:n:nonn omooo>oo nmnuo no Hoonom m.m~ o muoooonw now mu:mo:um mnoomn: ou oEmHnon: m>nuomnml:o: o:o m>nuomno nooonomo on Lanna nmsonnu mm>nuomoonmo mo m.«~ o >umnno> o moam>mo ou:mo:uo :Hm: on momma o:o o:on:noo ~.HH 5.m muoaoonuno ou :nomH on:mo:um :am: on manom: m>nunm:mm mo :on>mo ou nons3 :fi n:ma:onn> «.5 o I:m :o sun: on:mooum mon>ono ou m.«H o muonaonomoo nmuomnu :nonu ou «.5 o mumnaonm:mm nmuomnu :Honu ou mmnwoono mmnwomno haw:onum 5mno nmuomce mo u:mEuno:m: m.wunmnm>n:: muoum :omwnunz mo mHoom msu x:n£u :05 oo nos: 324 ¢m~.« NNN.« H«5.m mmm.m cmm.m m~m.~ omm.m cmN.« mom.« 5oo.« mom.« .ooo.« w«~.m Nmm.« 5.o« ~.m« o.m~ ~.m~ ¢.~N w.- m.mm ~.w« «.05 5.00 o.om m.mm «.5 «.mm nammo: >nm> ~.w« m.mm 5.o« o.o« «.~« H.w o.5m m.w~ m.mm m.m« «.«« o.o« m.«~ Hommmo manononm H.~H N.NN m.om m.- m.wn a.- H.H~ ~.HH 5.mm c oomHmm: no: Hammo: nmnunmz 5.m o «.5 o «.5 5.m «.q m.:: «.q :.m «.m: m.o~ m.«: «.5 5.« o o o o o w.m w.m :.:: o o.m~ . o o o nnm um Hammo: :0: szmm: nnnmnoum uoz anon: mnouonmuna :mnmmo unwna mo:mnom Honooml:onuoo=om Honmomw mmnun:oaaml:onuoo=om Honm:mm mu:mnom HonaquI:onuou:om Honm:mw m:nunn3 no mwoow:oq o:o unwaonh :oonnmE «.«« o.mc 5.o« $.mN 0.5m 5.o« 5.o« o.m~ o.mm c.m~ w.«~ «.5 ~.- o.mm m.m~ m.«~ ~.- w.«~ w.«~ m.w~ momHmm: Hammo: no: Hammo: 5Hnononm nonunmz 5.m 5.m «.5 H.- 5.m «.5 Howmm: no: nan—moon: o A.oum .Eanw .w:nu:nomv mnno Hosmn> o u:mEmwo:oE nmnomnu o 5nonmn: nmnomnu o mmnonaso nmnno mo nmnomnu o nmuomsn Hoon:5omn o :wnmmo on:mom 5.m hwoaosono: magnum o o:o muwno: xno3 Ho:ofimmmmona o mnumo: o w:nunn3>oao HHo no Howmmo uoz .N .3 Undergraduate Other Majors .Agriculture, No Preference Elementary and Special Education, Psychology, Human Ecology, Health and Physical Education, Accounting and Financial Administration, Criminal Justice, English, Arts and Letters General, Music, In- terdisciplinary Humanities, Art, Prelaw Hu- manities, History and Religious Studies 326 mom.« «.a« c.mm w.w «.« m.~ mm>HmoEmnu 3o:x on .n w:n:nmnu omo:o>oo nmSuo no Hoonom mnoooonw nmsnnm .m:n:nmnu a:m.m m.nm n.mm w.m~ o.m a.: “mason: “on magmas». .umamna on .: hnonmnn nmnmmnu o:o anomnu .mnouonmuna onuoEmno ~m«.m H.m~ o.o« m.5~ 5.m~ o.m on o:oonwxomn smoononu o m>on on .w mHanm mo «om.« w.o« N.m« ¢.m w.m m.~ wonoomumnmo:: onumnnmmn m m>mn on .m «om.« o.~« 5.o« m.NH ~.m ~.~ Emnonnnno no mo: mxoe on .m mono> o:o zoos sqm.q 5.mm m.~m «.a n.« N.n mo nonucoo as. am: nnsm gnaw on .u maanxm mm«.« N.00 «.om o.m H.m N.H onumnunm o:o m>nummno ooam>mo on .o nmummnn on non m on momma nos» no: no nmnnmn3 .mHanm mnmmn mo mwomH3o:x o:o nmummcu mwm.« «.mm ~.mm o.m m.m N.“ :n 3mn>nm>o ooow o m>on on .n ~qm.m m.mn «.mm o.m~ o.mn ~.o nmummnu an m=n>nn m mnms on .m mmmnmmo no: stmm: Howmm: Howmm: Howmmo no: Hommm: x mnm> manononm nmcnnmz nnnmnonm uoz 50o on u:mo=nm muoaomnwnmo:= :m mnmomn: Eonmon: nmummsu o oasosm nonz .H 327 omn.m mm«.m 0mm.m 5N5.m omo.m mom.m wm5.m mom.m Nom.~ IX om:nmw m>mc no :mna oo on omnoomna mnm mucmooum nmnomne munmnm>ncb m.m~ w.5 m.m c.m~ «.oH m.«~ m.w~ o.m~ o.« mnsu m>o£ mn:mo:nm HH< m.5m 5.5m o.o« 5.w« ~.x« c.5m ~.m« m.~m o.5H mnnn m>mn mu:mo:um umoz m.o« m.«« o.N« ~.mm 0.5m o.am o.«m ~.o~ m.om u.coc msom.m>mn mu:mo:uo mEOm m.m 5.m 5.N~ a.~ o.m m.m o.~ 5.0m .nnu m>m£ mn:mo:um 3mm o.« mm>HmmEm£u 30:3 moan w:n:nonu omo:o>om nmnuo no Hoonum mnooomnw nmsunm o .m:n:nmnu nmnnnam now :0 ow on 5n0nmn: nmnmmsu o:o >nom£n .mnouonmuna o onumsmno :n o:oonwxoon smoonozn o mnnnxm unmcu e. no w:no:mumnmo:: onumnammn m o. amnonnnno mo mm: mme on mono> o:o noon 0 mnu mo Honucoo o:o mm: Haow o mHanm onumnuno o:o m>nummno mHnmumxnos hannommmom: no: mno zmnn swoonnam .maanxm unmon mo mwomazo:x 5. o:o nmuomnu :n 3mn>nm>o ooom o o nmuomSu :n w:n>nH o mxos on mncn m>o£ muomooum oz 5mnooomnm 5mzu msnu man 5: mnoum counson: x:n:n 30% oo nonz .N 328, 00N.m mwm.« Ix m.0fi 0.Hm Hommmo hnm> o.«m 0.0m Hawmm: nnnmaonm o.«m 0.5 mmmamm: no: Hommm: nonunmz m.«H m.~ Hommm: HOS nnamnoum 0.m Howmm: uoz nmnomnu soomn ou Eomn :onnozoon: man mo mnmnEmB nmnuo annB 5Hm>nnommmm xno3 on .x .n 329 «ma.m m.m 0.0n 5.5« n.m~ m.~ nmnoman zoom: on .x mom.m 5.m~ 0.00 N.«N 5. 5. Soon :onuoooon: man no mnmnEmE nmsno suns 5Hm>nnomwmm xnos ou .h n.:oo mnnu ongn m>mn own» m>on mEom .m>m£ m>mn mnnu m>m: mucmooum mn:mo:um mu:mo:um mnomooum mu:mo:um IX HH< umoz meow 3mm oz 330 mmaua:mE:= mxaa .mn:mauno:mo nmzno on :oauo::m mmm.m o.m m.mm 5.5m 5.:n n.m manumuwmuan a. a. m>umm on :oanoaauauno: oaaaoo mnmnm:mw on o:o ummnmn:a m50.m m.5a 5.m« «.wN m.« 5.m n:mo=um o:o nna::aaoo on o:o:mmn on enm.m o.mn o.«m 5.Nm o.«: m.m amoumnasm mmsmnnmnu on 5«5.m 0.0N 5.m« «.0a «.0 w.m mmo:mao=m :aounmu:m on mhoa: o:o mmahnm :oauoooon: mooanm> .nmnomsu mo mnOuma: mo mw:mn ««5.m a.wa 0.0m m.a~ a.m m.a moas m on mmoomaoso moooonuoa on maaaxm nam5u ooam>mo nonunow o:o muonnm:osmo on >na::uno::o ««a.« 0.N« 5.0« m.m 0.m m.~ mnn mu:moonm omu:maou m>am on mnoumnmuaa oanoamno o:o mmannm :oauuooon: mooano> .nmuomnu mo mM5.m m.ma m.mm 0.0a 0.0 a.m mnonma: ou mu:mo:nm moooonu:a on maaaxm :oauoooon: muonum:osmo o:o :noma on mmo.q n.Nm m.~m m.o: m.: n.m nonasunoaao may “amass. may m>nw on mmnwomao mmnwo no: mmnwo mmnwmmao x 5aw:onnm mmnw< nmnuamz mmnwomaa 5am:onum wmcannmm ao:oauoo=om :o :a mama: wcaoo mo mmmoonoo man mno xoanu :05 oo uo£3 331 wm«.m Na0.m «mm.m aa0.m 000.m wma.« om5.m Naa.« 0.aa m.5a a.ma 0.m~ m.0N n.0m «.5a ~.«m mmnwm 5am:onum N.0m 0.0« m.am «.m« 0.a« a.w« «.mm 0.am mmnw< a.mm 0.0m o.o« 5.5a n.5N «.5a a.w mmnwmmao no: mmnwo “anunmz N.aa m.m m.0 mmnwoman m.~ mmaua:oE:= mxaa .mn:msnnm:mo nmnuo on :oano::m w:auonwmu:a :o mo m>nmm on :oanoaaoanno: oaaaoo mnmnm:mw on o:o ummnmn:a m.~ u:mo:nm o:o hua::EEoo on o:ommmn cu a.m mmo:maoom mm:maao:o on ~.m mmo:mao:o :amnnmuom on mmoa: o:o mmamnm :oauoaoon: mooanm> .nmnmmnn mo Anonma: mo mw:on a.m moas o co mmo:mao:o moooonn:a on maaaxm namnu :oam>mo nonunow o:o muonum:oemo on hua::uno::o N.m man mu:mo:nm omu:maon m>aw on mnononmuaa manoaono o:o mmamum :oanosoon: mooano> .nmummnn m.~ mo mnonma: on mnomooum mo:oonu:a ou maaaxm :oanosoon: mumnum:oEmo o:o :nmma cu m.~ Ana::uno::o man mu:mo:um m>aw on mmnwomao 5am:onum 5mno 5namnm>a:= mumum :owa3uaz um mzoao wcaoo mo mmmoonoo may x:a£n son oo umsz .0 .m 332 5NN.« mam.m 0am.« 000.« 00a.« aa0.m Nwm.m N.N« «.0 0.5m m.m~ 0.0m 0.5a «.Ma mmnwo zaw:onum o.o« a.mm «.o« w.a0 «.5« ~.m« N.0m mmnw< o.«a 5.a« n.0a 0.0 0.5 a.ma «.5N mmnwomao no: mmnwo “msunmz m.a 5.0a 0.0a m.ma mmnwmmaa 0.N 0.a 5.0 mmnwmmao 5aw:onum mn:mo:nm mua mo :oanmooom omo::onlaam3 msu o:oanoooon: mua mo mmmoo:m aoaonmano mnu m:oauo:oon: mua mo zuaaosv oanmauno mnu huaaoom mna mo maaaxm :oauosoon: man nnaoomw mna mo maaaxm w:a:ommu man mnaoomm mua 0o maaaxm anmomoo mnu mu:mooum mua mo nnaaanoumxnoe man 5omuooao>m m0 oaoosm Eonwonm nmuomSu muooomnwnmoco :o x:a£u so» oo mdMMfidmum.um£3 50 .m .m 333 wa.m 0mm.m na0.« «a0.« mmw.m 005.m m««.m 0.0N w.«a N.0m a.0N m.«~ 0.0a a.0a mmnwo haw:onnm N.0N N.0m 0.m« 0.m« m.0m 5.0« 0.m« mmnw< 0.0N 0.5m 0.0N 0.5a 0.0a 5.«N 0.mm mmnwmmao no: mmnwm nonunmz a.« 0.0 5.0 a.m mmnwmmaa m.a m.a mmnwmmao naw:onum mn:mo=um mua mo :oauoooom omo::onlaam3 mnn m:oauo:oon: mua mo mmmoo:m amaonmEEoo mzn m:oano:oon: mua mo nuaamoo oanmauno man nuasomm mna mo maaaxm :oauosoon: mzu zuaoomm mun mo maaaxm w:anoomu may zuaooow mua mo maaaxm anmomoo man mu:mo:um mna mo muaaanonmxnoe mnu womnmoao>m ma Emnwonm nmummnn m.>uamnm>a:0 mumnm :mmanoaz x:a:u so» oo monooqwnm moss am 334 N55.m am0.« ««0.« «Nw.m 5mm.m ««0.« N.NN N.0m a.~m 0.5N 0.NN w.«m mmnwo 5am:onum 0.00 5.0« 0.0m 0.0m m.«« mmnw< «.om N.Ma 0.aa N.0N 0.5a 5.Na mmnwmmao no: mmnwm umnunoz w:a:aonn omo:o>om nmfiuo no aoozum «.« 0.a muooomnw now mn:mo:nm mnmomn: on mEmanon: m>aummno I:o: o:o m>aummno sooonaom on suas3 swoonSn mm>auomomnmo mo numano> a.m m.N o moam>mo mu:mo:um 0am: on momoa o:o m:oa:a:o a.m a.m mnoaouanno cu :nmma mn:mo:nm 0am: on manom: m>auam:mm mo ooam>mo on soan3 :a nomsoona>:m 0.0 a.m :o nuaz mn:moonm moa>ono on 0.5a w.m mumaamaomom nmnmmnn :amnu on 0.5 m.a mumaamnmomw nmuomnn :amnn on mmnwmmao mmnwmmaa 5aw:onum 5mg oaoocm Eonwon: nmummnu muoooonwnmo:: :o 00 mammm.m£u x:a£n :05 oo nozz 335 m~5.m aw5.m 0mm.m 550.m m«0.m m«0.« 0.0a m.aN 0.am «.5a 0.0N m.mm mmnwo 5am:onnm m.om m.0« 5.5« m.«« 0.0« N.m« mmnw< 0.m~ «.mm ¢.mm 0.0N «.mm a.ma mmnwomao no: mmnwo nmsunmz 0.0 a.5 «.0 m.0 5.aa m.« mmnwomaa 0.a m.a mmnwmmao zaw:onnm m:a:aonu omo:o>oo nmnuo no aoonom muoooonw now mn:mo:um mnoomn: on mEmanon: m>auomnol:o: o:o m>auomno somonomm on noac3 smoonnn mm>anomamnmo wo humano> m ooam>mo mu:mo:um :am: On momoa o:o m:oa:aoo mnmaooauno on :nmma mn:mo=nm 0am: on manom: m>auam:mm mm moam> Imo on :oanz :a u:mE:ona>:m :o :na3 mn:mo:nm moa>ono on mumaaoaomam nmnomsu :aonn ou mnmaaonm:mw nmummSu :aonn ou 5mno nmuomze wo u:mEuno0m0 m.Nwwmnm>a:: mumum :mwanoaz wo maoow mzu x:a£u 30% oo umnz 336 «««.« 000.« 0m0.m mmm.m 5m0.m aam.« «w0.m 00a.« w«a.« 00«.« «m«.« m5a.m ma0.m 0«0.« 5.0m m.mm 0.0« o.«a 0.0a 0.5 0.a« «.a« 5.0m m.m« 0.«« 0.0« m.«a «.55 aowmm: >nm> w.0« a.5« 0.m« a.0« «.m« m.ma 0.0m «.a« «.0« m.0« 0.a« 0.5« «.m« 0.0a aswmm: no: aowmm: nnnmmoum 0.0a m.a m.ma 0.« m.«« m.« a.mm 0.0a 0.0« m.w «.m« «.«« a.mm 0.5 m.aa w.m a.«a m.« a.m m.« «.«a 0.« a.ma w.m 0.0m «.m 0.a 0.a mmmamm: aowmm: no: nmsuamz nanononm m.a m.a m.a 0.a m.« 0.5 0.a 0.a m.a «.m aam um aowmm: uoz mamas mnsuonmuaa :mammo uamaa mo:maom amaoom :oanmooom amnm:mw mmana:mE=ml:oanmooom aonmomw mocmaom amnoquI:oauoo:om aonm:mw w:anan3 no mmo:w:oa o:o nswooze :ooanmE «.0« a.w« m.«m m.«m 0.a« 5.5« 0.«« 0.0« 5.5« 0.0« aswmm: nnnmaonm 5.«« 0.0« m.0a mmmamm: no: aowmm: nonnamz «.m 0.« «.m 0.m «.m w.« aowmm: no: nnnmnonm 0.a 0.« m.a m.a 0.« m.a 0.a nnm um aowmm: uoz A.onm .Eaaw .w:au:ao:v mono am:ma> n:mEmwo:mE nmnomsu 5nouma£ nmummnu mmnouaso nmcuo wo nmnmmnu nmuomnu aoua:£omu :wammo oa:mom >woaoco>ma moasum o:o muanm: xnoz am:oammmwono nnumo: moauanshoa: .X .3 .>