UNC Charlotte Theatre Education - Undergraduate

UNC Charlotte Program Proposal for

THEATRE EDUCATION - UNDERGRADUATE

*NOTE: this document was originally submitted in 2009 and references decisions made during the initial state-mandated revisioning process which occurred in 2009-10. Readers may need to refer to the original November 2009 NC DPI blueprint submission as needed. Updated areas of this document are noted.

Description and Rationale (original NCDPI blueprint, November 2009)

The Theatre Education program at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte is planning substantive and exciting changes to its curriculum and structure based on the revisioning mandated by the SBOE. This revisioning has provided an opportunity to examine the effectiveness of the program for candidates completing the degree. In addition, it has allowed the faculty to investigate 21st century challenges faced by teachers in the field, and to specifically address those challenges through a more proactive curriculum.

The first major change to the Theatre Education program is the creation of a Pre-Theatre Education designation to the degree. Candidate would enter the program as a Pre-Theatre Education major and would need to successfully complete a series of freshman and sophomore level courses in Theatre Education, (as well as EDUC 2100: Introduction to Education) and pass the Praxis I test before they would be admitted to the Theatre Education program, and subsequently, the College of Education. This allows closer monitoring of first and second year Theatre Education candidates, and creates a gate-keeping opportunity that ensures that candidates are progressing through their coursework successfully. This change aligns the Theatre Education program with other education programs in the university.

The next significant change to the program addresses the reality candidates face when they leave the university and begin to produce theatre in their own schools as a Theatre teacher. Our investigation into the technology and support available in the schools showed a disconnect between how and what our candidates were being taught, and what they would actually encounter in a typical public school setting. Candidates were being taught technology and equipment that they would not likely encounter in their schools as teachers. As a result, candidates were graduating from the program unprepared to effectively operate a public school theatre program at its full potential. To address this shortcoming, the Department of Theatre will begin to offer a new course for Theatre Education majors titled: Theatre Technologies in Educational Settings. This course will specifically target technology found in a typical North Carolina public school, and train candidates how to utilize those technologies to their fullest extent. This will provide candidates with an advantage as they will be more familiar with the 21st century skills needed to operate and maintain these technologies.

A simple, but far reaching change to the Theatre Education curriculum is proposed at the suggestion of the College of Education. Up to this point, Theatre Education majors have been required to take Special Education (SPED) 2100 Instruction to Students with Special Needs. This class taught classroom diversity from the narrow perspective of special needs students only. Theatre Education candidates will now be required to take EDUC 4290 Modifying Instruction for Diverse Learners. This course looks at diversity across the spectrum of exceptional children and second language learners, and will provide a much wider view of diversity in the classroom, as well as specific strategies for modifying instruction based on those expanded views.

The last major revision to the Theatre Education program concentrates on complying with Electronic Evidence #2 – Depth of Content Knowledge. In assessing the current curriculum, we found that the best evidence of candidates mastering the foundations of theatre is demonstrated by the successful production of a play for a public audience. When a candidate produces a play for public consumption they demonstrate knowledge of history, analysis, theory, design, technical theatre, acting and directing. From choosing a play, through conceptual analysis, auditions, rehearsals, designing and building technical aspects of the play, box office and house management and finally post-production assessment, candidates demonstrate a working knowledge of theatre in the context of presenting it to a paying public audience. The audience provides an instant and critical assessment of the work in a way that candidates outside of the performing arts will never fully understand. Because of this, Theatre Education candidates will be required to produce a play for a public audience and keep what is referred to as a Director’s Book for Theatre Production (DBTP). Currently Theatre Education candidates are required to take two courses that fulfill the requirements of the DBTP and much of this work was redundant, but under the new curriculum the courses will be combined and streamlined into a single course. THEA 3222 Directing II will be removed from the Theatre Education degree requirements and THEA 4460 Practicum in Secondary School Play Production 9-12 will expand to include the work formerly required in THEA 3222.

In addition a number of minor changes will be implemented into the Theatre Education general curriculum. These changes include:

·  Identifying recognized Voice and Movement techniques into the Acting I course

·  Adding more non-western materials (where appropriate) into history and analysis courses, being sure to include cultural contexts

·  Including more specific assessment strategies into existing Theatre Education coursework, especially clinical coursework and practica

·  Provide specific information regarding Theatre Education networks and organizations as a part of the Senior Seminar course

·  Theatre Education candidates will be required to purchase an external USB drive where they will store and organize materials they will later submit as part of their electronic evidences

Rationale for Changes

The revisioned Theatre Education curriculum better addresses the real life issues and 21st century challenges facing Theatre teachers today. Because of the knowledge gained in the site visits to various high school theatre spaces, we were able to gather firsthand data on the technologies available to Theatre teachers in the state. Specifically targeting the appropriate technologies that Theatre teachers will interface within their schools, and training teachers in those technologies, will reap huge benefits in the classroom as teachers will be able to provide their students with a deeper understanding and utilization of those technologies. This is a substantial improvement over the current program since it did not accurately prepare candidates for the technologies they would employ in the schools.

The creation and implementation of the DBTP will encompass vast portions of the new NC Standards for Theatre Teachers. From concept through execution, candidates will demonstrate a working knowledge of the skills and dispositions listed in the standards. Previously Theatre Education candidates would accumulate knowledge piecemeal and would not always see the implementation of skills learned in a practical forum. However, under the new system, candidates will use the DBTP as a structured repository of theoretical information used in a tangible, applied format. By increasing the scope of materials studied in history and analysis courses to include a more global perspective, candidates will expand their world view and have a better understanding of the cultural contexts facing them in the 21st century.

Involvement of School Partners (original NCDPI blueprint, November 2009)

The first step in revisioning the Theatre Education program was to interview current candidates in the program and ask where they feel there are gaps in the curriculum. From there we went out to the schools and talked to teachers who had acted as cooperating teachers in the past and asked what shortcomings candidates displayed during their student teaching semester. From there we triangulated the information and identified portions of the curriculum that needed to be addressed in the revisioning. Here is how we determined what changes needed to take place:

·  During the course of the fall interviews with current candidates, concerns were raised about what kind of technologies were being taught, and how much training in Theatre technologies candidates had access to in their four year career. Candidates expressed concern that what they were learning in class did not reflect the kind of interaction they could expect in the schools. Interviews with school partners confirmed this, and this lead to the series of Theatre field trips undertaken by faculty in the spring. During these on-site investigations, teachers walked the investigators through the various stage, sound booth and storage spaces available in a typical North Carolina high school. The Theatre Education, Scenic Design and Technical Director faculty of the Department of Theatre were the investigators on these outings. What we found was that we could improve instruction and better prepare candidates for the 21st century skills and dispositions they would need by creating a class that focused on the kinds of technologies available in the schools. As the revisioning process continues, the faculty will continue to visit schools and gather information with the intention of designing a course that will have the maximum impact on student learning and ICT literacy. School partners who have seen the preliminary description of the new course expressed overwhelming support of the idea, and in some cases asked if workshops based on the course could be taught to teachers already in the field.

·  Similarly, Theatre Education candidates expressed a concern about the scope and sequence of the Directing courses required as a part of the Theatre Education curriculum. This concern was echoed by the school partners involved in the revisioning meetings. School partners who had been cooperating teachers for candidates in their student teaching semester pointed out that some candidates coming out of the program seemed ill prepared to produce and direct a show in a school setting. Some candidates were strong in one portion of production, while others excelled in different aspects. It became obvious that the candidates would need a specific course that would incorporate the different and varied facets of producing and directing a show and teach them a uniform process they could use in a variety of venues and circumstances.

In addition to this input from candidates and cooperating teachers, information was gathered by the College of Education throughout the year:

September 12, 2008 / Southwest Education Alliance
Elementary Curriculum Directors / Presentation and Consultation: Presented basic information about program revisioning to the Elementary Curriculum Directors from 15 area school systems, followed by feedback from them. Also attending: Faculty members
September 16, 2008 / Southwest Education Alliance
Middle and High School Curriculum Directors / Presentation and Consultation: Presented basic information about program revisioning to the Middle and High School Curriculum Directors from 15 area school systems, followed by feedback from them. Also attending: Faculty member
October 16, 2008 / Southwest Education Alliance
Exceptional Children Directors / Presentation and Consultation: Presented basic information about program revisioning to the EC Directors from 15 area school systems. Lee Sherry distributed a questionnaire from the SPED team, followed by feedback from the directors. Also attending: Faculty members
October 16, 2008 / Meeting with Barbara Mager and Dana Alderman – Theatre teachers Butler HS Matthews, NC / Met with school partners (and cooperating teachers) about the revisioning project. Discussed scope of revisioning and solicited information about strengths and weaknesses of current program.
October 23, 2008 / Professional Development School and University Liaisons
Melba Spooner, Director
Drew Polly, Co-Director / Presentation to representatives from all the PD Schools. Received feedback regarding the strengths of our candidates as well as areas of increased emphasis: dual licensure, differentiation, collaborative planning, integrating curriculum,
October 28, 2008 / Theatre Education Student Meeting / Mandatory meeting for all Theatre Education majors. A forum discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of the Theatre Education program and an opportunity for candidates to suggest ways to improve curriculum/program.
November 7, 2008 / CMS and COED Leadership Collaborative / Quarterly Meeting to discuss matters of mutual concern. Discussion included school leadership program for prospective high school principals, need for middle/secondary teachers to have background in reading, student teaching placement processes. In terms of Program Revisioning, enthusiasm for TESL minor, more experience/knowledge with different cultures and understanding poverty, co-teaching of SPED in general classrooms. Attending from COED were
November 8, 2007 / Beginning Teacher Brunch / Brunch for May graduates and their professors to discuss first year successes and surprises, valuable and deficient parts of their preparation programs, and on-going support.
November 13, 2008 / SWEA Personnel Directors / Presentation and Consultation: Presented basic information about program revisioning to the Personnel Directors from 15 area school systems. Received feedback from the directors.
Also attending: Faculty member Pam Shue from CHFD
February 11 2009 / Meeting with Annie Boger
Theatre teacher JM Robinson HS / Met with recent Alumni of the Theatre Education program who is currently acting as a cooperating teacher with a student teacher placement. Discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the program from the perspective of someone who has gone from student to teacher to cooperating teacher.
March 19, 2009 / Professional Development Schools / Focus Groups with three groups of teachers representing eight elementary, middle and high schools. Received feedback on program strengths and weaknesses as well as proposed changes.
April-May 2009 / Department of Theatre Faculty
Various high school Theatre teachers around the greater Charlotte/Mecklenburg region / A series of “field trips” to area high schools in order to determine typical technologies and practices in a public school setting. Teachers provided inventories of various technological instruments or supplies they have access to, and the university faculty toured the spaces to assess the accessibility condition and support of technology in the schools.

School partners will be involved in the delivery and evaluation of the project on a variety of levels. During the student teaching semester candidates will incorporate the skills and dispositions identified in the revisioning into their lesson plans as well as school productions. This will create a link between the partner school and the university and the impact on student learning can be assessed and adjusted as needed. Cooperating teachers will provide formal feedback via on-line surveys after the student teaching semester. The new courses in the curriculum will be subject to peer evaluation and student evaluation, and will be assessed based on continuing interaction with school partners. In addition, school partners including principals, mentors and alumni complete an annual DPI survey for the IHE report, and alumni are surveyed every other year.