The Art of Collaboration in the Classroom: Team Teaching Performance

Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Commonwealth University

VCU Scholars Compass VCU Scholars Compass

Theses and Dissertations Graduate School

2007

The Art of Collaboration in the Classroom: Team Teaching The Art of Collaboration in the Classroom: Team Teaching

Performance Performance

Jenna M. Neilsen

Virginia Commonwealth University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd

Part of the Theatre and Performance Studies Commons

Downloaded from Downloaded from

https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd/912

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at VCU Scholars Compass. It has

been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of VCU Scholars Compass.

For more information, please contact [email protected].

THE ART OF COLLABORATION IN THE CLASSROOM:

TEAM TEACHING PERFORMANCE

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of

Fine Arts at Virginia Commonwealth University.

JENNA M. NEILSEN

B.A. Theatre, Ohio Northern University, 2001

B.A. Psychology, Ohio Northern University, 2001

and

JULIE K. PHILLIPS

B.A. Christian Studies: Drama and Youth Ministry,

North Central University, 2000

Director: Dr. Noreen C. Barnes

DIRECTOR OF GRADUATE STUDIES, THEATRE

Virginia Commonwealth University

Richmond, Virginia

May, 2007

Acknowledgements

Just as this project reflects, we both fully acknowledge that this work could not have been

completed alone. Deserving thanks are our thesis committee, Dr. Noreen Barnes, Dr.

Tawnya Pettiford-Wates, and Professor Barry Bell.

We would also like to thank our students, who went on this journey with us, who shared

their lives with us and entrusted their education into our keeping.

Additionally:

Jenna would like to thank her husband, Reid, who reminds her on a daily basis of her

worth and purpose. And a thank you to her family, her friends and all those who have

shaped her personal and professional views of theatre.

Julie would like to thank her husband Michael, whose ability to put up with the bizarre

hours and stressed wife truly helped make this possible. She also would like to thank her

parents, Stephanie Dean, the staff in the Office of Graduate Admissions, the Guild of

Graduate Students, and everyone else who helped along the way.

So many people have contributed to the shaping of our views of theatre and collaboration

they are too numerous to mention, but we are deeply grateful.

Jenna would like to thank Julie for working with her, even when disagreements and

apparent impasses arose, and Julie would like to tell Jenna what a privilege it has been to

work side by side for so long. Thank you for making this journey together with me.

iii

Table of Contents

Page

Acknowledgements............................................................................................................. ii

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... v

Chapter

1 Definitions and Models..................................................................................... 1

Definition of Terms ...................................................................................... 1

Collaborative Models and Structures ........................................................... 6

2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Co-Teaching............................................. 22

Advantages ................................................................................................. 23

Disadvantages............................................................................................. 34

3 Collaborative Teaching Here and Now........................................................... 43

University Level ......................................................................................... 43

In the Arts ................................................................................................... 46

Why Acting?............................................................................................... 48

For Today ................................................................................................... 51

4 Collaboration in Action................................................................................... 55

Beginning Collaboration............................................................................. 56

Complications............................................................................................. 57

Class Sessions............................................................................................. 61

Results ........................................................................................................ 63

The Adaptation ........................................................................................... 64

5 Team Teaching: A Guide............................................................................... 69

Putting Together the Right Team ............................................................... 69

Initial Planning ........................................................................................... 73

Top Ten Things to Remember.................................................................... 81

6 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 83

Literature Cited ................................................................................................................. 84

Appendices........................................................................................................................ 87

A Introduction to Stage Performance Syllabus................................................... 87

B Acting I Syllabi ............................................................................................... 92

C Email Correspondence .................................................................................. 107

D Sample Grading Rubrics ............................................................................... 111

Abstract

THE ART OF COLLABORATION IN THE CLASSROOM:

TEAM TEACHING PERFORMANCE

By Jenna Neilsen, MFA and Julie Phillips, MFA

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of

Fine Arts at Virginia Commonwealth University.

Virginia Commonwealth University, 2007

Major Director: Dr. Noreen Barnes

Head of Graduate Studies, Department of Theatre

The Art of Collaboration in the Classroom: Team Teaching Performance is a co-

written master’s thesis which records our research in the field of team teaching as it relates

to theatre education at the university level. It is our intent that this text be used as a tool

for helping universities and teachers decide if a collaborative teaching model is right for

their courses.

A portion of the text is research-based, examining the scholarly writings which

have preceded our work. In Chapter 1, we compiled a set of definitions, in the hopes of

codifying the language used within this document as well as that used within the field. We

establish a hierarchy of terms associated with teaching in collaborative forms. We then

describe the various models associated with collaborative teaching, specifically the model

which we have employed: team teaching.

Chapter 2 explores the reasons for and against implementing collaborative teaching

structures in higher education. Chapter 3 discusses team teaching specifically, and

explores reasons for implementing it at the university level, and in artistic disciplines,

specifically acting. We also discuss the practical appropriateness for this model in today’s

classrooms.

The second section of the text is practical in nature. Chapter 4 includes a

description of our actual experiences working together in the classroom, including

discoveries, failures and successes. Finally, Chapter 5 is a guide for implementing team

teaching which covers the basic essentials of starting a team teaching program. This

section of the document can be used as a training tool for future co-teachers in the VCU

theatre graduate program.

This document was created in Microsoft Word 1997.

Definition of Terms

In order to discuss a topic with clarity and ease, a common set of definitions must

first be established. After examining the literature currently written on team teaching, it

can be concluded that no consistent set of definitions has been decided upon by the

education community as a whole. The term “team teaching” is not even consistently

defined among the works we have consulted. As a result, we have created a compilation of

the terms and definitions we have embraced and listed them in the section below which

give a context for the rest of the thesis.

Authority-Directed Team- A team structure in which all decisions are made by one lead

instructor and then carried out by the remaining team members. (Buckley 42)

Block teaching – Two or more instructors working together to teach multiple subjects back

to back to the same students, usually in an attempt to link the subject matter of

multiple disciplines.

Co-teaching – All teaching that involves two or more teachers serving as instructors for a

specific course or class session and sharing responsibility for that class. (Fishbaugh

103)

Coaching Model- One teacher instructs the class while the other observes, later offering

constructive criticism on pedagogical practices. This behavior is often

reciprocated, but each instructor is primarily responsible for their own class.

(Fishbaugh 5)

Complementary Teaching- A second teacher works to enhance the instruction provided by

the teacher with the primary responsibility for instruction, often in a different

methodology. Both teachers are responsible for the instruction of the class session.

(Villa 40)

Consulting Model- A novice instructor utilizes an experienced instructor for guidance and

instruction. The experienced instructor may or may not be present during the class

sessions, but does not participate in the delivery of information to students.

(Fishbaugh 64)

Coordinated Teams- A team structure which is a combination of both Authority-Directed

teams, and Self-Directed Teams, wherein members of the team are appointed by the

administration but teams appoint their own leaders and often rotate leadership

responsibilities. (Buckley 43)

Cross-Disciplinary- An attempt at examining one area of discipline from the viewpoint of

another discipline. For example: “the physics of music” (Davis 4)

Interdisciplinary- An attempt at bringing together the expertise of two or more disciplines

to create a new perspective. (Davis 4-5)

Multidisciplinary - An examination of a variety of perspectives with no necessity to create

a new perspective that fuses them together. (Davis 4)

Parallel Teaching - Teachers instruct different groups of students within one classroom

simultaneously. (Villa 28)

Self-Directed Teams- A team structure spontaneously formed by interested instructors

wherein all team members are given equal decision making power. (Buckley 42)

Supportive Teaching - One teacher is primarily responsible for the delivery of the lesson,

but another member of the team complements or enhances that lesson. For

example, a primary teacher might have a special education teacher who supports

their efforts as needed in the classroom. In a theatre setting, this could involve a

specialized unit on vocal safety taught by a guest lecturer which would enhance the

acting course taught by the primary instructor. (Villa 20).

Team – A number of persons associated together in work or activity (Merriam-Webster’s

1282).

Team Teaching – An arrangement which involves two or more instructors delivering the

same instruction to the same students at the same time. (Fishbaugh 103) (Villa 49)

Transdisciplinary - Ideas that transcend multiple disciplines (Davis 4).

Hierarchy of Terms

For our purposes, we will be following the hierarchy of definitions as follows. It is

a combination of the ideas of multiple authors but lends itself to being easily applied.

These are drawn from Martin Fishbaugh’s Models of Collaboration

and Richard Villa’s A

Guide to Co-Teaching: Practical Tips for Facilitating Student Learning.

All three of these

categories of teaching fit under the term collaborative teaching. All of these terms are

explained in detail in the next section, Collaborative Models.

1. Consulting

2. Coaching

3. Co-Teaching

A. Supportive Teaching

B. Parallel Teaching

C. Team Observing

D. Complementary Teaching

E. Block Teaching

F. Team Teaching

Collaborative Models and Structures

Since collaborative teaching encompasses a wide variety of methods and styles, the

most common types are broken up here into two different categories: Instruction Models

and Planning Structures. The instruction models address the teaming combinations often

used in carrying out instruction to students for courses taught collaboratively. Planning

structures address how the team is created and who has the planning and supervisory

power for the team.

Instruction Models

Teamed instruction is not as uncommon as it may seem. Most institutions of higher

education are already employing at least one of these instruction models in the college

classroom, either for teacher training purposes or to cope with large class sizes. The

purpose of this section is to expand the awareness of other models that may be able to meet

the needs of the University in a different way.

The three basic teaming models are consulting, coaching, and co-teaching. This

structure is based on the models of classroom collaboration described by Mary Fishbaugh,

in her book Models of Collaboration

, and Richard Villa’s A Guide to Co-Teaching:

Practical Tips for Facilitating Student Learning.

Consulting

Figure 1: Consulting

Master

Teacher

Classroom

Novice

Teacher

Students

Consulting teams (see Figure 1) create a union of an experienced teacher educating

a novice teacher. This type of teaming can happen either in the classroom or, more often at

the college level, the master teacher is not directly involved with the students, but acts as

trainer and guide to the novice teacher. The master teacher’s influence diminishes as the

novice gains experience. Master teachers also benefit from the team since they are forced

to re-examine their own pedagogical practices as they share them with others.

This model is an excellent way to ease professors directly from their degree

programs into the world of college teaching. Primary and Secondary education employs

this model in the student teaching scenario, using the opportunity to work with an

experienced teacher to train prospective educators. It is also frequently used with graduate

student teaching assistants and informally in departments with new faculty members.

To some extent, this model is already common in theatre instruction. An acting

teacher may consult with a professor who has a specialty in vocal instruction in order to

help her students focus in on a particular skill. The voice teacher serves as master teacher

in the consulting model, imparting wisdom to the acting teacher.

Coaching

The coaching model is one where professors of equal level alternate coaching and

being coached as they assist each other. This type of collaboration allows teachers with

different strengths to coach each other in their classes. It is extremely useful for improving

pedagogical approaches to the material. Typically, each professor is responsible for the

instruction of one course, and then acts as observer during another course. Professors are

observed by the coach and then they discuss the problems and benefits of the teaching

methods being employed. This model does not directly affect the students since

instruction to students is still only carried out by one instructor, though it should improve

the education received by future students as a result of the instructor’s improved

pedagogical practice. Acting professors may be hesitant to employ this model in their

courses, as the entrance of an observer may change the performances of the students. It

would be most beneficial if the observing could take place over several class periods in

order for the observing instructor to have a firm grasp on the class dynamic and the

observed instructor’s style.

This model is sometimes paired with co-teaching to create a kind of “tag team”

alternative to the coaching model. This is the type of collaboration that might happen if an

Asian studies professor and a theatre history professor partnered to offer a course on Asian

theatre. One’s strength would lie in the cultures of Asia addressed in the course, the other

might have an expertise in historical world theatre. By both alternating teaching the same

course, students would be offered a well-rounded view of both the theatre and culture of

Asia. In this hybrid model, both professors are responsible for separate sections of the

same course, and take turns teaching in their areas of expertise. When one is not teaching,

she is observing the other and providing consultation on teaching practice and shared

content. [See Figure 2.1, 2.2].

Figure 2.1: The Coaching Model Option 1

Professor

Instructs

Professor

Coaches

Students

Learn

Figure 2.2: The Coaching Model Option 2

Professor

Observes

Professor

Instructs

Students

Learn

Co-Teaching

In this model, both teachers work collaboratively to instruct the students. This can

take on various forms, but always involves the sharing, equal or unequal, between

members of instruction responsibilities. Supportive Teaching, Parallel Teaching, Team

Observing, Complementary Teaching, Block Teaching, and Team Teaching are all types of

this model of collaboration in classroom instruction.

Supportive Teaching

In supportive teaming, “one teacher is assigned primary responsibility for designing

and delivering a lesson, and the other member(s) of the team does something that

complements, supplements, or enhances the lesson” (Villa 20). This is the type of model

that often employs a TA as the supportive teacher, who assists the primary professor, but is

not responsible for creating the main lesson plan or presenting the bulk of the information.

Parallel Teaching

Parallel Teaching is when teamed teachers “instruct different groups of students at

the same time in the classroom” (Villa 28). [See figure 3.1 Parallel Teaching].

Figure 3.1 Parallel Teaching

Professor A Professor B

½ of the

Stud-

ents

½ of

Stud-

ents

This method is valuable if the goal is to lower the teacher-student ratio, and

involves slightly less group planning. Both teachers would provide the same instruction,

but to a smaller section of the whole class. This means that the lesson plans must be

agreed upon by both instructors prior to the class, but that each teacher can have individual

discretion as to the delivery of the information.

Station teaching is a specific type of parallel teaching, where students rotate to a

variety of physical locations in order to receive a different type of instruction in each area.

This is useful if the members of the team have expertise in different areas. Each member

of the teaching team could provide instruction on their area of expertise, repeating that

instruction until the entire class had received that information. It is also beneficial if the

content to be covered is best learned in a small group setting.

Team Observing

Team observing is the methodology by which one teacher is responsible for

instruction and the other for observing both the teacher and the students during instruction.

This is very similar to the coaching model, [see Figure 2.1, 2.2] but presupposes that both

instructors are equally responsible for the content of a single course. This method requires

little group planning for day to day instruction, as each teacher is responsible for his or her

own lesson plan.

Complementary Teaching

Complementary Teaching is when a second instructor “does something to enhance

the instruction provided by the other co-teacher(s)… one teacher often takes primary

responsibility for designing the lesson. Both teachers share in the delivery of the

information, sometimes with a varied delivery method” (Villa 40). In this model, both

instructors are present and participating in the delivery of information, but the primary

instructor carries overall responsibility. This method is most effective if the secondary

teacher attempts to use varied instruction styles to meet the needs of more learners. For

example, if the primary instructor is responsible for a lecture, which meets the needs of

auditory learners, the secondary instructor could attempt to convey that information

through visual or kinesthetic means, reinforcing the ideas set forth by the primary

instructor.

Block Teaching

In Block Teaching, two or more instructors work toward creating a connection

between multiple subjects. The classes are offered back to back in one block of time, and

instructors contribute the whole time, though they are primarily responsible for only one

section of the class. Usually this is implemented in an attempt to link the subject matter of

multiple disciplines. For example, an American Literature course would be paired with an

American History course and would follow the two subjects in a parallel manner, so that

when a subject such as the Civil War is being taught in history a book dealing with that

subject or written during that time is also being taught.

Team Teaching

Team Teaching is the most collaborative model, requiring the largest amount of group

planning. In this model, all instructors teach the same material to all the students,

simultaneously. Ann Austin refers to this model as ‘the interactive team’. “Team

members collaborate in all aspects of planning the course, preparing exams, and grading,

and they meet regularly to discuss the course, the students, and their teaching. Some

interactive teams, especially when just two faculty members make up the team, literally co-

teach by jointly discussing with each other and the students the day’s topic.” (Austin 37).

[See Figure 3.2].

3.2 Team Teaching

Professor A

Professor

Students

While the team teaching method requires the most group planning, in our pre-

planning stage we found this method to be the most satisfying. With this methodology, we

would both have a maximum amount of teaching time. This met our personal goals of

honing our individual pedagogical skills. With this method, we would also be forced to

work together in identifying our goals and praxis. The pre-planning allowed us to try out

new methods and discuss questions we had about each other’s ideas. By being physically

present during each class session, we were both able to interact with the students on a

regular basis. We were also able to use each other as examples, especially when

discussing scene work. As professors, we found this method to be most satisfying, despite

the longer planning it required.

It is also important to note that teams can easily shift from one model to the next in

order to fit their unique needs. For example, team teaching does not preclude the use of

complementary teachers. Nor does it exclude also employing parallel teaching or coaching

models at certain points in the course. Rather, the models are listed to help identify a basic

approach to teaching collaboratively that can be altered and expanded to suit the needs of

the particular course.

Planning Structures

Planning Structures allow the university to identify the hierarchical system that will

suit the needs of the department and professors involved. The structures are typically more

useful at the administrative or departmental level to coordinate teams effectively. Basic

coordination of teaching teams will come from the perceived experience level of the

instructors involved. There are three basic planning structures: Authority-Directed Teams,

Self-Directed Teams, and Coordinated Teams.

Authority-Directed Structure

The Authority-Directed Team is a team structure in which all decisions are made

by one lead instructor and then carried out by the remaining team members. “The

hierarchical structure [authority directed structure] has several advantages. Decisions can

be made fairly rapidly, without endless debate. Direction can be provided, duties clearly

specified, responsibilities assumed. But some members may resent not having decision-

making power” (Buckley 42). This type of structure can be especially useful if there is a

large gap in the experience level of the instructors, or the department wants to have the

final word in the decisions made by the teaching team.

Employed in conjunction with a Consulting model, the master teacher would be

responsible for making decisions that will aid the novice in learning to take on professorial

duties. In this instance, the duties of the novice would grow until a teaming model was no

longer necessary.

Self-Directed Teams

More hands-off programs will appreciate the Self-Directed Team structure. “Self-

directed, autonomous, or synergetic teams are spontaneously formed by faculty and/or

students. All the teachers are considered equal. Decisions are usually made by consensus

or by majority vote. Control is not a major issue. But endless discussions can be

frustrating” (Buckley 42). As Buckley illustrates, the self directed team can be a problem

for those who are not able, willing, or interested in engaging in long discussions. In our

classroom, we have employed the self-directed team approach. We were allowed to be

autonomous in choosing the model that worked best for us. This particular structure

worked because we are at an equal level of experience and both have a large interest in

exploring this type of work.

Coordinated Teams

Coordinated teams combine elements of the two preceding types {Authority-

Directed and Self-Directed}. Members are appointed by administrators after

consultation with the faculty on their interests and preferences. Team members

typically are drawn from several departments that share a core curriculum. Teams

may select and often rotate their own coordinators or leaders. Such decisions are

best based on the coordinator’s experience, leadership qualities, and enthusiasm for

team teaching.” (Buckley 43)

The coordinated team structure allows the administration to be involved in supervising the

work of the team, while still permitting the team to work autonomously.

Our Experiences in Classroom Collaboration

Jenna and Julie have both worked in collaborative classrooms under a variety of

models. Most of those have been extremely positive, and a few were not. Below are

highlights from our most memorable collaborative efforts in the theatre classroom.

Jenna

THEA307: Theatre History

Theatre History is generally taught by one instructor, with four graduate student

teaching assistants. The instructor does most lecturing, with each of the TAs doing one

lecture a semester and leading group break-out discussions and is therefore generally

structured in the supportive teaching model. However, the semester in which Jenna

assisted in this class was taught by two graduate students, with two additional graduate

Teaching Assistants. This course created an Observing Team Model. While both were

responsible for the same course, they would take turns lecturing. Both instructors were in

the classroom, and they would discuss after lectures what worked or did not work and why.

One taught the sections Greek Theatre and Renaissance Drama, the other on Roman

Theatre and Medieval Drama. Observing this style, it was apparent that the students

enjoyed the lectures of one of the two instructors more than the other. This set up a

negative environment in the room on certain days. It is possible that had they chosen a

more interactive method of delivery (rather than relying predominantly on lecture) and if

they had integrated their teaching with one another, perhaps the atmosphere of the

classroom would have been more conducive to learning.

South Eastern Theatre Conference 2006- “Yes-And” Improvisation Workshop

In this two-part workshop series (one aimed at educators and the other at students), one

presenter acted as lead and the rest of the team (five of us in all) demonstrated and added in

comments when needed. This sort of team teaching could be called supportive teaching.

This worked well because the lead teacher took charge from the beginning but was

receptive to the other instructors’ comments, suggestions and feedback.

Julie

Fox Theatrix

Julie was granted the opportunity to work collaboratively with other teachers and

create a team teaching model for an elementary school age after school program. She and

one other teacher were responsible for over 80 children in second through fifth grades,

although a third teacher was added to the team early in the process. For this team, due to

schedule restraints, they chose to utilize a combination of team teaching models. After

large group instructions and warm ups which most closely follow the team teaching model,

most class sessions consisted of parallel teaching, where the students were broken up into

small groups and taught the same topic simultaneously. With a group that large and

students so young, it was necessary to lower the teacher to student ratio in order to

communicate effectively. This class has continued to meet during the research period of

this project. It continues to function under a Self-Directed Structure.

Richmond Shakespeare Theatre: School Shakespeare Workshops

These workshops travel to various high school and junior high English classrooms,

educating the students about Shakespeare. The workshop is team taught by at least 2

instructors, and follows a Complementary Teaching model. One teacher is responsible for

the bulk of the material and the other complements with performances of Shakespearean

monologues, demonstrations of ideas, and humor to keep the students engaged and

focused.

Both Jenna and Julie:

THEA 212 Introduction to Drama

Though we never taught at the same time, both Julie and Jenna have experience

teaching this class. The course involves a large team of graduate students and one full time

professor. Each graduate student is assigned twenty to twenty-five undergraduate students.

In this model, the master teacher creates the syllabus, exams, quizzes, and paper topics. He

introduces the students to the small discussion group structure and schedules periodic guest

artist appearances. The bulk of the class is discussion based. This model, most closely

aligned with the Consulting Team model, was beneficial in many ways, but frustrating in

others. It was an excellent immersion into teaching small discussion groups.

Both Jenna and Julie found the experience extremely frustrating as someone who

had already taught her own class. The Authority-Directed structure left the instructors very

little power over where the discussion group went with the students' ideas, what paper

topics to choose, when items were due. Because the structure was not team generated, but

passed down from a master teacher, it was frustrating to be so removed from the master

teacher’s mindset.

This model was certainly not all bad. The small group discussion leaders met

occasionally to converse about grading criteria and attempt to make a guide to grading that

would be fair for all the students involved. Elements like that are extremely useful for

beginning teachers. Therefore there is some support and communal experience in terms of

teaching this class.

If not all of our teaching experience in teams was fulfilling, why would we

continue on to research this method? We believe that some models will work better for us

than others, and the key to successful teaming is to find the right model and structure to fit

the instructors involved. It is our goal that universities will examine the use of teaming so

they can utilize the benefits collaborative teaching has to offer. Looking at the advantages

and disadvantages of teaching in teams should help clarify which of these pedagogical

approaches are worth embracing.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Co-Teaching

Teaching in collaborative models can be both beneficial and detrimental to all

involved, and a thorough investigation of the pros and cons is necessary in order to

determine whether the advantages might outweigh the disadvantages. In the following

section we have examined the advantages of implementing a team teaching model, and

how it effects the students, teachers, department, and the university. While we have not

limited our discussion to just the co-teaching model, most of our arguments directly affect

that mode of teaching. The pros are followed by the potential disadvantages of team

teaching, which are also discussed in terms of the above mentioned categories. While we

have very strong personal feelings about ways to augment the advantages and reduce the

disadvantages, we will not be addressing those within this section. For more specific

details on ways to deal with pros and cons listed below, see the last chapter of the thesis,

Team Teaching: A Guide.

Advantages

The benefits of team-teaching are numerous for all involved. Each participant can

benefit from this structure of teaching. We will focus on the benefits for the teachers,

students and administration.

THE TEACHER

The old adage, "two minds are better than one," certainly applies when teaching.

According to Ann Austin and Roger G. Baldwin in the introduction to their book Faculty

Collaboration: Enhancing the Quality of Scholarship and Teaching,

It is a universally accepted principle in business and industry that the more

minds working on a problem, the greater the chance of finding a solution.

Researchers of high achievers from Napoleon Hill to Stephen Covey

identify the characteristic of working in teams as a major trait of people

who repeatedly effect [sic] successful outcomes. The success of the space

program in the 1960s would never have occurred without the collaborative

efforts of many different intellectual areas. (Austin xv)

Since teaming has proved so valuable in other fields, it behooves us to explore how

we can use teams more effectively in higher education. Although learning should be

centered on what is most advantageous for the students, professors certainly benefit from a

team teaching approach. Team-teaching allows professors an opportunity to share ideas

and gain new perspective on their subject matter. When teaching with someone of the

same discipline, the educator is exposed to different ways of teaching the same material

and challenged to question her own teaching style. Frequently, successful team-teaching

pairs new faculty with seasoned faculty members. This allows the seasoned faculty the

ability to observe fresh ways of teaching, and newer faculty members benefit from the

experience of the seasoned educator. Lecture was the most common modality in the sixties

and seventies when most of today’s seasoned faculty members were obtaining their post-

graduate degrees. Over the last thirty years, experiential learning has been increasingly

stressed in education. Often younger faculty members place more of an emphasis on this

type of learning. Pairing seasoned faculty with newer faculty allows the seasoned faculty

to be exposed to more types of teaching, in a non-threatening way.

As today’s senior faculty are joined, or prepare to be joined over the next

decade, by a substantial new cohort of junior colleagues, the prospect of

finding the colleagueship they have long sought in intergenerational

relationships with a new academic generation remains a tantalizing

possibility. While a number of junior-senior ‘mentoring’ initiatives are

indeed already underway, first impressions suggest that to date senior

faculty have not seen in their junior colleagues such an opportunity (nor

have their junior colleagues seen it in them). (Finkelstein 15)

The seasoned faculty is by no means the only part of the pairing who is enriched, as

that teacher can mentor the newer member, and will have found ways to deal with

problems that have not even been encountered by the new faculty member. There is a

great deal that a new faculty member can learn by being paired with a more experienced

professor, both in regard to the subject matter which is being taught and the inner workings

of the academic environment.

When teaching with someone from a different discipline, team-teaching exposes

how others view one's specialty:

As faculty members team teach or observe in courses outside their specialty, they

may gain an enhanced appreciation of the contributions that other disciplines and

perspectives can make to the students and to their own work. This appreciation

among colleagues is useful if the institution intends to undertake any curricular

innovation or reform. (Austin 44)

The way a film professor views acting can enlighten how a theatre professor approaches

the subject. An architect will see set design in a different way than a designer. Being

aware of how others perceive our discipline can make it easier for us as professionals and

professors to discuss our discipline outside the confines of our department. It will also

meet our pedagogical needs if students’ ability to work interdisciplinarily is enhanced.

“Another way in which team teaching can affect the curriculum is by opening an avenue

for the establishment of new courses that have no obvious departmental or disciplinary

home. Courses in ethnic studies and women’s studies have been initiated and ultimately

established firmly at some institutions through this route.” (Austin 44).

When teaching with someone of the same level and discipline, a great deal can be

learned. All the team-teaching models require that each teaching participant examine their

pedagogical practices, in order to articulate better the reasons behind them to the partner.

It is not humanly possible to avoid questioning the pedagogical practices of the partner

teacher when they differ from your own. By necessity, the two teachers must combine

their varied techniques to form a new pedagogical practice, which will most likely

influence their future solo teaching experiences. Thus, the team teaching model has the

potential to benefit future individual courses from the improved pedagogical practice of

both instructors. As Francis J. Buckley states in the book Team Teaching: What, Why and

How? when discussing single disciplinary teams,

Team teaching within a department is a relatively simple way to get experience

with the dynamics of a team, for many department members already know and trust

one another and may be curious about how others approach the material. There is

less fear of public humiliation when the limits of their knowledge are revealed. In

fact, they can rely on one another to keep the pace of class lively and to supplement

data with stories. Just the variety of voices and personalities stimulates interest.

(46)

It is clear, therefore, that teaching with someone of the same discipline, even the same area

of expertise, can prove beneficial to professors.

Another benefit of team-teaching for the professors involved is that of mutual

support. Teachers in team-teaching situations report a greater sense of belonging and less

isolation than teachers who teach alone. There is a sense of camaraderie and mutual

respect which can be lost in the traditional structure of solo teaching. According to A

Guide to Co-Teaching, “In co-teaching, teachers experience a sense of belonging and

freedom from isolation by having others with whom to share the responsibility for

accomplishing the challenging tasks of teaching in classrooms of diverse students” (xiv).

Two additional benefits of team-teaching for the professor are intertwined, that of

culpability and logistical support. Procrastination is a common problem for all people, and

those in the profession of teaching are no different. However, when one professor is

accountable to another the urgency of completing each task on schedule is stronger. As

long as there is mutual respect between those teaching together, there is incentive to

uphold one's portion of the workload. Those who are often guilty of procrastination can

find being accountable to another helpful in productively accomplishing tasks on time.

One faculty member was quoted in Handbook of College Teaching: Theory and

Applications as saying, “Teaching in front of other instructors helped me look at myself

the way the students look at me. It made me think much more clearly about what I wanted

to accomplish in terms of learning outcomes” (Prichard 128).

Logistical support is the flip side of culpability. As professors are also people,

events happen which take them away from the classroom and/or duties relating to teaching.

If illness or work takes one team member out of the classroom, there is someone to fill that

gap. Again, as long as there is mutual respect, these sorts of interruptions can be worked

with and the quality of classroom instruction can remain strong. This can be especially

beneficial in a research university that expects the professors to be continuing their

professional work alongside their teaching responsibilities. In a team teaching model,

especially that of co-teaching, instructors would feel free to pursue endeavors that may

take them out of the classroom temporarily, knowing they will not hinder the learning of

their students by canceling much needed class time.

THE STUDENT

Teaching should be focused on that which will allow the students to best

understand and apply knowledge. Team-teaching helps us in this pursuit in a number of

ways. They can be classified into two categories, those which are specific to the subject

and class, and those which are larger life lessons.

In terms of specificity to the subject matter at hand, having multiple instructors in

the classroom at the same time allows for smaller faculty-to-student ratios which allows for

more one-on-one time with faculty members. Groups can be divided to allow more

individual response time. The students are also hearing multiple perspectives each time

they, or their classmates, receive feedback. This allows them to have a broader range of

areas of improvement than if they were exposed to only one professor’s feedback or

opinion. Especially in the acting classroom, two sets of eyes on a performance can

illuminate two different ways to solve a single problem. For example, if a student is

having trouble establishing an environment for their character, both professors may

identify a way to help establish the environment, and the student can begin to see that there

is a myriad of choices they can make to achieve their goals. Students are empowered to

find their own solutions instead of relying on the single professorial perspective.

With multiple instructors, the likelihood of personality conflict from student to

professor, also diminishes. Some students and some instructors simply do not get along.

However, with two instructors there is a greater chance that the students will connect with

at least one of them. In fact, they may feel a greater connection to one instructor over the

other, and thus have an easier time expressing themselves to that individual.

Perhaps one of the best parts of team-teaching lies in its broader application in the

context of life lessons for students. In a classroom with multiple teachers, the students are

exposed to multiple viewpoints. For many college students, they have spent their

formative educational years with a single teacher who has given them one perspective.

William Perry was among the first to study the intellectual development of college

students, and he identified nine positions on the developmental sequence. Students in the

position of dualism, which describes many first year college students, “view knowledge as

truth – as factual information, correct theories, right answers. They view the professor as

an authority who know these truths and believe that teaching constitutes explaining them to

students” (Erickson 22). An exposure to multiple truths allows the students to see that

there are multiple answers to most questions, not just one. This encourages them to take

an active part in their own education, to examine multiple sides of an equation and to come

to their own conclusions as to the answer. While students at this level of intellectual

development will have the hardest time in a team taught classroom, they might benefit the

most from the interaction.

Team-teaching, especially across disciplines, can foster a greater sense of

community within the academics and curriculum of the students. It is difficult to relate

theater and history to one another if they are taught in different buildings, at different times

and by different professors who do not communicate. However, if one is exposed to both

of them in the same class, it is easy to see how closely they follow one another. Once a

person is exposed to this duplicity of thinking and the idea of interconnectivity between

disciplines is established, students will continue to make these sorts of connections

throughout their lives.

Our world is becoming more and more interconnected and dependent on

collaboration and teamwork. Team-teaching allows such collaboration to be modeled for

students, thereby encouraging it. Also, team-teaching lends itself to the ability to teach

with more interactive learning, which generally encourages team-building. Since teaching

methods such as lecturing and note taking require less time to prepare, more active

learning approaches are often heralded and seldom used. With two professors

brainstorming more active approaches to learning, the teaming model is more likely to

produce active learning experiences for students. While lecturing and note taking is

quantifiably as effective in terms of testing, studies have now proven that experiential

models of learning have long term learning benefits that far surpass those of traditional

educational models.

Lecture is about as effective as other teaching methods when recall of

information is tested. The lecture, however, turns out to be less effective

than other methods when instructional goals include retention of

information beyond the end of the course, application of information,

development of thinking skills, modification of attitude, or motivation for

further learning. In short, there is more to effective teaching than lecturing.

(Erickson 87).

Learning that lasts beyond the final exam is more likely to be achieved in classrooms that

use interactive approaches. Team teaching is a model that promotes interactive methods of

teaching and learning.

And lastly, dependent on the make-up of the teams, team-teaching can model

healthy diversity. If a man and woman are paired together, and are mutually respectful of

one another's place in the classroom, their mutual respect will be noticed by students. If

teachers from different religious, ethnic or racial backgrounds are paired and respectful of

one another's differences, this will also be noticed by the student.

THE ADMINISTRATION

The logistical aspects of team-teaching, particularly in regards to the administrative

strain, are often why such projects fail. However, there are certain benefits for a program

that implements team-teaching models.

The first benefit has been mentioned above in the teaching section of benefits:

improved job satisfaction for employees. When employees are satisfied with their job,

productivity and morale improve. Everyone wants to enjoy being at work. As teachers

who teach together are happier overall, it can be concluded that the workplace is more

conducive to a productive work environment.

Finkelstein reports “in the normal course of business as usual, they [senior faculty]

typically find little opportunity – formally or informally – to focus on teaching. Teaching

is isolated, and poorer for that isolation. Without periodic opportunities to revitalize their

professional lives generally and their teaching lives in particular, faculty members report

that their ‘teaching vitality’ tends to slip.” (25). These are not the words an administration

wants to hear about their most experienced faculty members. The data examined was the

result of an eleven campus study on senior faculty. Team teaching will allow faculty

members to examine their pedagogical skills and prevent teacher burn out from lowering

the quality of education for the students.

The second and third benefits, less disruption and larger class-size, are more

administrative and quantifiable. If there are two or more teachers responsible for a single

class, there is a smaller chance that the class will be canceled or suffer negative effects

from teacher illness or inability to travel. This results in more in class instruction and

therefore a better education for students. The ability to travel or take time off class for

research and creative projects without undermining the quality of students’ education, will

be attractive for new and current employees. It will also allow those employees to move

into higher ranks which seem to be linked to higher job satisfaction and employee

retention. As of 1989, according to the Carnegie Foundation, “77 percent of faculty at 4

year colleges agreed that it is difficult for a professor to achieve tenure if they do not

publish. (Tack 11) Additionally, at least 33 percent of full time faculty viewed

opportunities for research and creative projects as “quite a problem” or a “major problem”.

(Tack 11). By providing team teaching experiences, faculty in theatre departments could

experience a renewed freedom to participate in creative projects that call them out of town

during the course of a semester, thus allowing faculty to continue to be relevant theatre

practitioners as well as educators.

The second is that classes which are team taught can accommodate more students

than a class that has an individual instructor. This is a huge benefit if space is a problem,

since more students can be put into the spaces currently in existence, rather than having to

create more buildings to house them.

There is also the potential positive effect of student retention. According Prichard

in The Handbook of College Teaching

, “an argument can be made that “frontloading” the

curriculum with smaller classes in the freshman year would be more cost effective as far as

student retention is concerned since so many students are lost in the first year of college”

(132). Indeed, according to the VCU theatre website,

Our retention rate is much like other programs. About 35% of entering students

will graduate. Only the most dedicated, talented and serious individuals will

complete this program and have a successful career. However, the rewards are

worth the extra effort. Theatre is not a career for those who are not willing to

continually step up to the plate and prove themselves. (Twenty-Eight FAQ’s)

The first year of college is a decisive year for many students. According to the VCU 2020

Plan, retention is of top concern (Strategic Plan). In essence, putting two teachers into the

classroom for first-year students might be worth the added expense if it means more

students are retained for future years.

Another major benefit of team teaching for the department is the fusing of

pedagogical approaches into one practice. Professors who have created common

pedagogical practice in a team teaching model will now be able to create a cohesive vision

for the department. Instead of courses being compartmentalized into each teacher’s area of

expertise, the professors would begin to work as a unit in creating a 4 year curriculum that

is cohesive and dependent on the skills of all the faculty members. The theatre program

will become a unique training institution that offers a system of training different than any

other program. This could lead to increased student interest in the program, which again

leads to more funding and higher quality students.

Disadvantages

Of course, all pedagogical structures have their faults and team-teaching is no

exception. In the next section we will highlight some of the potential pitfalls to team-

teaching, as well as some ways to minimize these drawbacks. Again, we will examine this

area from the perspectives of teachers, students and administration.

THE TEACHERS

For teachers, the greatest drawback is the increase in work that is necessary to

effectively team-teach. Team-teaching often requires complete revision of lesson plans

and curriculum for a given class. It requires increased work in terms of team planning.

Decisions must be made in tandem, which means that regular meeting times must be

scheduled and attended. This is extra work, especially the first time the class is taught with

a teaming model. Evaluation of class content and student performance must also be done

in consultation. Teachers, who generally are already over-scheduled and taxed for time,

may experience an increase in stress with this added work. The most effective way for this

problem to be overcome is for the administration to acknowledge the extra work and

compensate for it by reducing workload in other areas. Of course, that is not always a

feasible solution. Team teaching has an adjustment period, which requires careful

planning so the experience will be positive rather than negative.

Personality conflict can also be a problem in team-teaching. Not everyone should,

or can, team-teach and certainly personality should be taken into consideration when

forming teams. Professors with very strong opinions about how their subject should be

taught might actually produce negative results if required to teach in certain teaming

models. The selection of participants for team teaching should be done very carefully, and

participants should be honest and informed about which types of models they would be

comfortable participating in.

In order to avoid this pitfall, professors and administrators should keep a few of the

following ideas in mind. First, all individuals participating in team-teaching should be

doing so voluntarily. A lot of friction can be avoided if the faculty is on the ground floor

of designing such classes. As affirmed in Team Teaching; What, Why and How

, “Poll the

faculty to determine their interest and willingness to try it. If forced, most will resist. If

invited, many will want to try it out” (20). If team-teaching is to be implemented across a

program, it should be done slowly and those hiring in should agree to work in such a

program. Teams should generally choose themselves and carefully discuss how they will

approach the work of the team prior to entering into the classroom.

Another potential problem with team-teaching, for faculty, is the need for

commonality. When working as a team it may be necessary, at times, to agree to disagree.

It may also be necessary to come to a consensus with the other individuals teaching so as

to present a united front in terms of teaching a particular subject. This means that those

teaching must willingly agree upon what should be covered in order to present the most

cohesive and organized lesson plan possible. At times this will mean letting go of personal

interests and compromising on content. This does not, however, mean that the teachers

should not, at times, give differing opinions or viewpoints as this is one of the strengths of

team-teaching. “Disagreements among their teachers about a topic illustrate for the

students that interpretations vary, and faculty members’ willingness to reveal the limits of

their knowledge may show students how intellectual growth occurs.” (Austin 43).

Each opinion must be conveyed in a way which respects the other and which does not

confuse the students. Teachers will need to be especially sensitive to those students still in

a dualism level of intellectual development, who will struggle with absorbing opposing

truths.

Though no one likes to admit, apathy and laziness can also be a problem in any

communal group. Apathy generally sets in for professors after teaching a course many

times in succession. Their interest of the subject or structure wanes. Though this can

happen with individual instructors, it is especially disruptive and difficult when only one of

a team feels this way. The only real solution to the problem is for that professor to take a

leave from the course (Davis 89). Laziness in group settings can also be a problem. As

concluded in Interdisciplinary Courses and Team-Teaching, “Research has shown that

individuals, in general, tend not to work as hard in groups as they do as individuals” (90).

There is no way to deal with this situation besides acknowledging it head-on and using one

another to motivate more work, rather than less.

Finally, teachers may have difficulty dealing with professional jealousy. Professors

may feel their methods are what make them valuable as an employee. To share those

methods with someone else is to potentially risk their own job security. There is also great

risk of accidental or intentional professional theft. If a teacher has developed a system that

is implemented in a team teaching scenario, the teaming teacher may begin to use this in

their work and receive credit if that work is published. This may be a reason newer

teachers are interested in this model and more experienced teachers would be wary of

teaming with someone who will not bring the same level of scholarship to the table.

This issue will have to be addressed sensitively and all parties involved need to be

aware of the risks involved in this sort of work.

THE STUDENTS

The biggest potential downfall for students is the confusion mentioned above. If

the professors do not organize a cohesive and well-structured lesson plan in which

differences of opinion are not the main focus, students can receive mixed messages. When

differences of opinions are presented well, it gives students a wider range of possibilities

and allows them to discover what their opinions are. If it is done poorly, it leaves the

students confused about the necessary content of the course and undermines their opinions

of the professors themselves.

Team-teaching does not fit the model in which most students have been educated.

It can be disconcerting for students to have to switch their understanding of how one is

taught. With team-teaching, which stresses experiential learning, it is more difficult for

students to memorize and regurgitate. Some students do not respond positively to the

added responsibility of active engagement. This is especially a concern when teaching first

year students. (see the section on teacher pros about levels of intellectual development).

The team-teaching classroom might be viewed as a threat for students still in a dualism

level of intellectual development. When we asked the students in our freshman Acting I

course, most indicated that they would prefer a course with two instructors over a course

with only one, but not all of the students felt that way. A small minority said they would

prefer to have only one instructor. It may be assumed this is because the team teaching

model violates their model of teacher-student interaction. This can be adequately

addressed through the way team-teaching is introduced to the class and showing respect for

students.

THE ADMINISTRATION

The administrative responsibilities for any university program are vast, and team

teaching can place additional strains on the administration. It is the opinion of the writers,

and several others, that ultimately the pros outweigh these cons. However, for each

program they will have to be considered.

The first is the financial factor. “What is all too frequently overlooked, however, is

the crucial corollary: senior faculty members’ success as teachers depends on the support

of their institutions” (LaCelle-Peterson 21). Faculty need the full, financial and practical

support of the administration. Because of the additional work placed on the teachers, they

should be compensated or their other workloads should be reduced. This would mean

either paying them more or hiring other individuals to take on the additional work. The

Handbook of College Teaching suggests the following in terms of the financial feasibility

of team-teaching:

A four-credit class with twenty students will never support two faculty

members at most colleges; as a result, each teacher is often given only a

half-course credit for team teaching such a course. This solution does not

respect the fact that two instructors are, in fact, teaching the class. Team

teaching is thereby penalized and the long-run viability of the enterprise

depends on faculty voluntarism. If, on the other hand, a team-taught class is

offered for eight credits with forty students, it will more adequately support

two faculty members. Many colleges are finding that large numbers of

team-taught, linked courses can be offered through this approach. (Prichard

132)

The second factor is the logistics of space and time. Because there are generally

more students in a team-taught class, the space that they will need is larger. Also, because

Coaching and Teaming models of team teaching require all of the instructors present for all

of the meetings, they can not have other classes scheduled at the same time. This is not

insurmountable, nor is it necessarily more inconvenient than scheduling classes for

individual classes, but should be considered.

The third factor is the allocation of administrative time. Many departmental

administrators are not currently spending much time working toward creating a learning

environment for faculty. A re-allocation of funds and time will have to be made in order to

change the prioritized goals for the department. “Senior faculty especially, need

multifaceted organizational structures that will encourage them to broaden their horizons,

approach their work in different and imaginative ways, and find new opportunities to grow

and change” (Finkelstein 17). The administration will need to decide that this is a priority

and allocate the amount of planning and time necessary to implement a team teaching

program.

The last is the decision of who to pair with whom. This decision often falls to the

head of the department. He or she must decide if it would be better to put professors of the

same status together to avoid potential clashes in seniority, or if the benefit of potential

learning from a professor of a different status would be more appropriate. He or she must

also decide if people of the same gender, race, etc. should be paired together because it will

create more homogeneity in the teaching or if the diversity of views often gained by

pairing people of different backgrounds is important in the team-teaching scenario. In the

final chapter of this thesis, we will address ways to help in the formulating of teams.

Attempts to encourage women and minorities to apply for open teaching positions

are customary, but university administration needs to do more to meet the needs of these

employees in order to retain them. “A common problem many women and minority faculty

report is the feeling of isolation and separation upon affiliation with an institution,

particularly, for minority individuals, a predominantly white one. Consequently,

institutional officials must work diligently to create opportunities, both on and off campus,

where women and minority faculty can interact with their peers both formally and

informally “ (Tack 84). Isolation, separateness, and pressure to continue professional

performance and research without funding or time to do so, all contribute to job

dissatisfaction for professors, especially for women and minorities, according to Tack.

Team teaching stands as a model for conquering all three of those battles. Working in

teams allows professors to invest in each other and strengthen the faculty as a whole.

Teaming can help the department achieve a cohesive curriculum that flows from one

instructor to the next. It can also provide that necessary time for faculty to continue their

own research and professional development, key to achieving tenure status. According to

their interpretation of a compilation of studies, Tack and Patitu, argue that women faculty

express much higher job dissatisfaction than men, but that this level of dissatisfaction

begins to even between the sexes as tenure, salary, and rank increase. They also indicate

that women faculty members are expected to have a much more active role in their

personal home lives than their male partners, despite the fact that “Women typically teach

more hours than men… and women faculty ‘bear a disproportionate share of undergraduate

instruction, have less contact with graduate students, and are less likely to be given

teaching assistants’ than their male colleagues.” (tack 36).

“In 1980-81, 49.7 percent of the full-time women faculty were tenured, compared

to 70 percent of the men faculty members. Today while the percentage of male faculty

members is the same, the percentage for women has dropped to 45.9 percent [according to

a study by the American Association of University in 1992].” (Tack 39). The expectation

that a rise in women junior faculty in the 1970’s would lead to a rise in female senior

faculty in the 1990’s has not proven to be the case. This could be addressed through

administrative programs that help to eliminate isolation and disproportionate workloads,

both of which would be examined or eliminated through the establishment of a team

teaching structure.

Collaborative Teaching Here and Now

University Level

Is there a place for collaborative teaching at the university level? Several

works are devoted to the study of teaming in the K-12 arena, but teaming models are not as

frequently utilized in higher education. In most universities, the first year student is

usually enrolled in the largest courses they will encounter in their academic career. In

order to support the smaller class sizes of upper level courses, introductory courses are

often large, and lecture based. This can be extremely daunting for students who have just

left the high school structure, with a maximum class size of between thirty and thirty five

students, and ample opportunity for one-on-one attention from the instructor.

Symbolically, the university, represented by huge lecture halls and a daunting campus,

creates a large and impersonal view of the university. According to Teaching First Year

College Students, when first year college students were interviewed about their past

relationships with high school teachers, “more than 40 percent report talking with teachers

outside of class [in high school] between one and five hours a week, and a quarter of them

indicated they spent time in a teacher’s home” (9). The successful high school student

enters college accustomed to high school teachers who remind them of due dates for

assignments and allow them to turn in late assignments for partial credit. For first year

students, the larger impersonal class sizes can hinder both learning and satisfaction with

college life. A team taught course can help a larger university seem more friendly and

personal to incoming students.

However, one-on-one attention for incoming students is not the only benefit for

team taught courses at the university level. A university can also benefit from team

teaching through interdisciplinary courses. Interdisciplinary learning offers a great number

of positives for the students who are taught in this fashion. According to James R. Davis’

Interdisciplinary Courses and Team Teaching

, there are five compelling reasons why

interdisciplinary learning is more important now than ever before. They are:

1. Education should now be focused on teaching students how to “locate,

retrieve, understand, and use information”, not simply to transmit

information from professors to student (38).

2. The world we live in is increasingly complex. Students today are going to

be asked to solve problems that are going to require the use of multiple

disciplines and a wide view of issues (39).

3. “Today students increasingly need exposure to cultural diversity, both in

its historical roots and in its contemporary expressions” (40).

4. There is an increasing need to prepare students for the practical work

world, including offering courses which “develop training settings that

more nearly correspond to the context of professional practice” (41).

5. “Interdisciplinary courses better serve the students themselves in their

quest for personal growth and the development of a clearer identity” (41).

As undergraduates, we both found ourselves torn between departments. Julie

worked with her school to create an interdisciplinary program combining adolescent

studies with theatre, and Jenna chose to double major in psychology and theatre. Both

attended smaller schools as undergraduates that encouraged interdisciplinary work and

more teacher/student interaction. Students who might normally be drawn to smaller

universities for such flexibility may find a larger university with cross-over classes

appealing.

The reverse would be true in a smaller college or university setting as well. A

school which does not have a specialist in “psychology and the theatre” (as few do), could

offer a team taught course on the psychology of acting, utilizing a professor of psychology

and a professor of acting. By using both professors, psychology students could have a

practical outlet for exploring the subconscious and acting students could have a theoretical

basis for exploring characters. By cross listing the course, a smaller university can offer a

course to students in both majors, which could be an elective for both, and offer a course

they could not have otherwise.

Team teaching in today’s university provides benefits for more than the students.

According to Katzenbach and Smith, in The Wisdom of Teams

Teams will play an increasingly essential part in first creating and then sustaining

high performance organizations. In fact, most models of the “organization of the

future” that we have heard about- “networked,” “clustered,” “nonhierarchical,”

“horizontal,” and so forth- are premised on teams surpassing individuals as the

primary performance unit in the company. (qtd. in Davis 77)

The faculties of universities need to work collectively, in order to produce the most

cohesive education possible, resulting in the best trained students. Team teaching helps

individuals hone their communication and conflict resolution skills, as well as improve

their team work and interpersonal abilities.

Based upon data collected by the New Jersey institute for Collegiate Teaching and

Learning in an action research project involving eleven campuses, LaCelle-Peterson and

Martin Finkelstein discovered that “senior faculty members care a great deal about

teaching and experience it as fulfilling.”(Finkelstein 25). Conversely, faculty members

found teaching isolating and felt they were given little opportunity to work on their

teaching. As a result of these findings they identified two ways for universities to support

faculty development: “creating structural alterations in the teaching situation to eliminate

the isolation of teaching, and brokering individual opportunities to revitalize individual

professors. “ (Finkelstein 25). Team teaching, when used for pedagogical enhancement, is

a methodology that meets both of those qualifications.

In the Arts

If team teaching is so desirable at universities, what makes it particularly

compelling in artistic fields? Traditionally, arts education was taught through an

apprentice/master teacher relationship. Students studied individually with a master of the

craft in the studio or workplace and were taught to copy the teacher. Now students in the

arts are taught at universities in classes full of other students. Art education has moved

away from emulation of the teacher and toward encouraging individual expression.

Students are asked to create something new and unique to them. It logically follows that

having a team taught course in an artistic field requires that they receive at least two artistic

perspectives, making sure that the outcome of their art is not merely an attempt to replicate

what that professor likes or knows. Students at the college level, especially first year

students, are prone to producing what they think their professor wants, instead of

producing art that is aesthetically pleasing to them. Along the same lines, most professors

in the arts have a specialty, an area of intense study and concentration. Either consciously

or not, professors teach to their areas of interest. Their students’ art often reflects this, as

we create based on what we are taught. The double instructor scenario can help to

eliminate the possibility of gearing work toward pleasing the professor or recreating the

one genre or method taught, and move students toward working for their own personal

feeling of achievement. This should eventually raise the level of achievement of students

as they become responsible for their own aesthetic. For an artistic field, it is necessary that

the pedagogical methods work toward this end in order to create a generation of artists who

are able to think “outside of the box.”

The arts, on many college campuses including Virginia Commonwealth University,

are insular. Because of the vast amount of information the programs wish to impart to

their students, coupled with egos and interdisciplinary feuds, there is little to no

collaboration or integration of artistic studies. Courses such as Exploring the Arts, taught

at Niagara County Community College in Sanborn, NY, help students to bridge the gaps

between the different fields of art. According to the course’s general description, it is

taught by two faculty members from the arts and the “team approach with shared elements

enhances the ability to relate one form to another” (Davis 174). By offering a course

which exposes students to the performing, and visual arts together, we can begin to

encourage students to pursue ventures which cross artistic lines and which will ultimately

generate new forms of artistic expression.

Why Acting?

For acting, the benefits are many. It could be argued that theatre is the most

interdisciplinary of the arts. Theatre is the art form that requires all other art forms in order

to be made. We use sculpture, metal working, painting, and crafts in set making and

costume construction. Music and dance are often a part of the production. The ideas of

composition, lighting, design are all at work in theatre classrooms just as they are in

architecture, photography, and other artistic disciplines. More than any other discipline,

theatre benefits the most from having the input of a community of artists with different

talents.

Acting lends itself to a well-rounded education, encompassing many disciplines. A

trained actor should have a basic understanding of historical time periods, psychology,

health, and physical fitness. She should be well read and be familiar with analyzing and

interpreting text. These fundamentals of the actor’s trade come from history, psychology,

physical education, and English. Who is better suited to teach an actor textual analysis, an

acting teacher or an English teacher? What if they had the opportunity to learn from both

simultaneously? What if the history class covered the same time period that the movement

class was working in? Wouldn’t the students have a firmer grasp on the subject matter if

the history teacher could teach the history while the movement teacher concentrated on

period movement, instead of both trying to lightly touch upon both? And this

interdisciplinary learning does not only benefit acting students. Exposure to the

performative side of one’s discipline (be it history, or English or any other discipline) can

change the way a student of that field views both their own work and that of actors.

Aside from interdisciplinary approaches, is there any benefit to having two

professors with the same areas of expertise co-teaching a class? Or is this methodology

best if the teachers provide different areas of expertise? This question is particularly

important to our project, as we are both acting teachers. Should we be allowed to teach an

acting course collectively, even though our areas of expertise appear to be the same?

While this is a legitimate question, it seems to rely on the presumption that two educators

who specialize in acting will still have the same approach to creating a role. But this is an

incorrect assumption. In our acting education to-date, Jenna and Julie have been taught

from or taught out of the following text books; Acting: Onstage and Off

by Robert Barton,

Acting is Believing: A Basic Method

by Charles McGaw and Larry Clark, Respect for

Acting and Challenge for the Actor by Uta Hagen, Impro! by Keith Johnstone, Sanford

Meisner on Acting by Meisner and Dennis Longwell, and Sydney Pollack, An Actor

Prepares by Constantin Stanislavski, Improvisation for the Theater by Viola Spolin, The

Actor Speaks: Voice and the Performer by Patsy Rodenburg, and The Practical Handbook

For The Actor

by Melissa Bruder, On the Technique of Acting by Michael Chekhov and

No Acting Please

by Eric Morris and Joan Hotchkis. There are many ways to teach acting.

No two people are the same, nor do we approach learning or acting in the same way. In

our case, while we both specialize in acting, we have very distinct approaches to creating a

role. Julie works from an outside-in approach, pulling on the tenants of Chekhov and other

more physical teachers. Jenna’s method is grounded more in Stanislavski’s ideas of

empathy and magic if, mixed with improvisation and impulse work. Our students benefit

from all of our experiences, failures, and techniques. An actor’s greatest challenge is to

create a truthful performance. We believe that the acting student must experience a variety

of methods to achieve that truth, until they find a set of tools they may call upon when they

are creating a role. With both of us contributing views of our students’ work, the students

in our classes have the potential of finding tools that work for them more quickly than if

they have the traditional one instructor model. Because we have time to watch and assess

their level of learning, we also have the opportunity to quickly recognize when a method is

not working for them, and thus we can adapt more quickly to suit their individual needs.

An example of this dual teaching happened recently, when we were both coaching a

student on her monologue for freshman assessments outside of class. With two of us we

were able to use one person as the “other” while keeping a critical eye outside of the

monologue to give feedback and side-coaching. We each had a different opinion of what

was working and what was not in the playing of the monologue and were able to augment

one another’s comments with helpful suggestions for improvement.

Students come to college with various levels of intellectual development. Those at

the dualism level tend to seek a master who will give them the right answers. (Erickson

22). What we as professors want them to begin to accept is the idea that there may not be

only one answer to the problem they are trying to solve. Having a multiplicity of

perspectives can guide them into this idea and teach them to seek new answers for

themselves, rather than rely on one right answer.

For Today (and at VCU)

But is this idea truly relevant for today? Much of our initial research came from

the 1970s, when team teaching was being bandied about as an alternative pedagogical

approach. It was a time when people were attempting to change the way education “had

always been done”. Why would we choose to revisit this idea in the twenty-first century?

The initial response to this question is that what the educational system is doing is not

meeting the needs of either students or educators. Only 47% of American high school

graduates pursued a college education in 2005 (United States, Census). According to

ACT, a national not-for-profit testing agency, approximately 31.3% of all freshmen do not

make it to their sophomore year. And the national average completion rate at four-year

colleges is 52.3% (ACT). That means that of the 47% who pursue their education, less

than half will complete their college degrees. That equals approximately one out of every

four American students. We are looking for a teaching method that hooks students on

learning, which creates a safe and effective learning environment. We seek to create better

artists and better instructors. Team teaching can do that.

According to Ann Austin and Roger Baldwin, “the growth of collaboration could

be part of a major redefinition of academic roles and the way they are carried out” (1).

Collaborative scholarship is part of a societal trend towards group learning and discovery.

In order to keep pace with the rapidly changing needs of society, institutions of higher

education must adapt. This means incorporating teaching methods that encourage

collaborative learning rather than regurgitation, especially as the millennial generation

moves out of high schools and into colleges and universities. Team teaching has the dual

opportunity of encouraging collaborative work and thinking as well as modeling the

collaborative approach.

An expanded vision of scholarship is necessary if this country’s higher

education institutions are to remain vital and to keep pace with society’s

rapidly changing needs. Including teaching and efforts to integrate and

apply knowledge as well as the discovery of knowledge into this revised

definition of scholarship calls into question the conventional model of

faculty practice. Any reassessment of scholarship and academic life

generally must devote attention to the phenomenon of collaboration among

faculty.” (Austin 3).

Virginia Commonwealth University’s M.F.A. program in Theatre Pedagogy is one

of the only programs in the country to offer a Masters of Fine Arts in the art of teaching

theatre. This means the graduate program at Virginia Commonwealth University has a

unique opportunity to provide learning experiences that are not found at other universities.

By offering graduate students the opportunity to propose team taught courses as a practical

outlet for their studies in pedagogy, the graduate students will benefit from the practical

discussion and application of pedagogical practice. This method will help VCU stand out

at the graduate level as an academy interested in training quality educators in the field of

theatre.

Additionally, graduate student team teaching helps meet a departmental need.

More students are receiving theatre education in K-12 programs. This means that those

auditioning for the VCU undergraduate major in performance are better trained than their

predecessors. As a result, more students are making the cut to be performance majors.

The outcome is that more performance students every year are accepted, without additional

faculty positions created to teach them. Having graduate students work in teaching teams

to fill in the extra classes helps meet the needs of the pedagogy graduate students as well as

the needs of the growing theatre department.

It is important to note that this method of using qualified graduate students to teach

courses does not preclude having full time professors also take advantage of this type of

opportunity. VCU could also use this program to attract visiting professors, pairing them

with current faculty in a team teaching capacity, for example. In this way the university

might be able to attract more prestigious teachers interested in approaching education in a

unique way, as well as professionals who may not have as much pedagogical training. The

full time faculty members of the VCU theatre program are already utilizing team teaching

in some graduate course work as well, namely in the movement track. While the continued

use of this methodology speaks towards the effectiveness of it, the approach is not taken

for pedagogical purposes.

Team teaching would also be ideal for creating more block courses, just beginning

to be explored at VCU. For example, currently the junior level voice classes are beginning

to work on Shakespearean text in their second semester. This is also the same semester the

junior level acting class begins to work on classical and Shakespearean acting. The

professors for each course work together to help the students use what they are learning in

one course when they are working on the other. This type of relationship is only one step

away from a block course, where students stay in class for the same time period, but both

teachers are present for each other’s instruction and can contribute during the whole

session. Team teaching in this situation would enable the professors to give the acting

students a more holistic approach to their art, reinforcing the need to focus on both voice

and body when approaching the text.

Collaboration in Action

Team teaching originated for us as the means for both of us to gain additional

teaching experiences knowing there were a limited number of classes available. Jenna and

Julie submitted a proposal to team teach the acting for non-majors course at VCU,

Introduction to Stage Performance. The proposal was approved by the members of the

performance faculty, and we taught this course once a week during the spring semester of

2006. This course worked out so well, that we were given the opportunity to switch to

teaching the first year acting course for performance majors, Acting I. This began in

August 2006, and is a year long course which will not be completed by the time of this

writing. This team teaching format will be used in subsequent courses at VCU as a

pedagogical method for training actors, pairing graduate students to teach introduction to

acting courses.

Both courses taught are introductory, although the second course is taught at a

more advanced level, and delves deeper into acting theory based on the Stanislavski

system. The first course needed to stand alone, as perhaps the only acting course these

non-majors would take. The second course is the first of four years, and needs to fit into

the given curriculum of performance training.

Beginning Collaboration

Preparing to teach the Introduction to Stage Performance course brought all kinds

of new learning experiences. We were initially a bit overwhelmed by the amount of work

team teaching presented. We chose very early on to work in a co-teaching format, which

would allow us to be present at each class session and take turns presenting and assisting in

the presentation of material. There was a tendency for both of us to put off working on the

course, perhaps from a fear of failure or concern over being judged. We waited until we

did not have much time before the course began and were rushed during the planning

period for the first course. Also, because we were approved for the class late in the fall,

most of our planning took place over the winter break. This meant that much of our

planning was done over the phone and through e-mail communication.

During several e-mail conversations (see the entire text in Appendix C), we

discussed the content of the course, the reading materials that would be used and what we

wanted the students to learn. We agreed that the course needed to cover the basics of play

organization and an introduction to an acting system. We chose to have all of the students

read the same play and their first in-class scenes were from this play, so as to be able to

discuss structure, and character development as a group. In terms of the arrangement of

the course, we discussed whether it would be best to start them off with monologues or

scenes. By starting with monologues they did not have to work with someone else, but the

fear of being alone on stage would be greater than if they worked with a partner. We

settled on them doing two scenes with a monologue unit in between. We also discussed

what other assignments we wanted them to complete, such as a journal of their impressions

of class and outside observations of theatre. By e-mailing and exchanging ideas we were

able to come up with a cohesive initial plan which we both agreed on in terms of the class

assignments and daily activities.

Complications

Due to our time constraints, we chose a text for the course that was recommended

by previous professors of the course and that at first glance seemed to serve our purposes.

Unfortunately, as the class went on we realized that this particular text did not suit our

needs as professors and we regretted its hasty selection. If we had been prepared for the

amount of compromise and planning that would be involved in this portion of our work

together, we might have been able to find a text more suited to both our teaching and

acting styles.

We also did not anticipate the amount of time the planning portion of the course

would take the first time around. Beginning course planning, construction of syllabus,

assignments, and calendar all took more than twice as long as they would have if we were

on our own. The first few weeks we met for long periods of time trying to create a system

in which we could both work.

Each of us worked on planning for the class for several hours on our own in

addition to these lengthy planning sessions. We spent approximately10-12 hours per week

together for the first few weeks of class to find a system which would satisfy us both.

What we came up with was a lot of compromise, trying to incorporate what each of us felt

was essential for learning the beginning skills of acting.

It is important to note here that this was also the first acting course either one of us

had been invited to teach at the college level. If we had been more experienced and come

to the table with a firm pedagogical stance, we might have been able to cut down on the

amount of planning we required. We also would have had more of a cache of prior syllabi

and lesson plans, which could have been merged rather than creating both from scratch.

It was in these very early stages of teaching together that our differences and

strengths began to emerge. We discovered very quickly that Jenna is very gifted at class

discussion. Even after teaching an entire discussion based course, Julie still felt very

awkward leading a class discussion. As a learner she has always enjoyed class

discussions, but left them feeling as if it had been a waste of time from a learning

standpoint. But as a professor, allowing the opportunity for discussion and guiding this

discussion to key issues which needed reiteration or further explanation seemed necessary

for the retention of learning. Jenna easily filled that role of discussion leader as she was

able to use her skills in improvisation to flow the conversation in a direction that would

benefit the students.

We also learned in that early period that Julie has great ability in inventing

exercises that teach the concepts we decided were important. She has a creative, out of the

box thinking which Jenna sometimes falls short in and which allows her to not only adapt

acting exercises she had been taught but to create new ones. We fell into a pattern in the

beginning of having Julie lead an exercise and then having Jenna lead the discussion. This

method worked very well, and we felt successful at our attempts, however it was not a

long-term solution due to our pedagogical interests. Each of us wanted to become

proficient at new skills as well as hone existing ones. Had we kept that model, Julie would

not have been able to practice the skill of leading class discussion, and Jenna would not

have been challenged to create and teach classroom exercises. What we needed was a

more interactive method of teaching that would allow us to share all the responsibilities, in

order to improve our training as educators. We also wanted our students to have the most

dynamic and interactive experience possible. We felt that this organizational pattern,

exercise by Julie and discussion by Jenna, was not as dynamic and fluid as it could be. It

would, however, take many class sessions and planning sessions in between for us to

discover how to truly team teach.

For our Introduction to Stage Performance class, we were very careful to delegate

which tasks were to be accomplished and create an outline that distinguished our divided

roles (see example below). We feared that the students would not know who to listen to if

more than one of us spoke at a time. The second professor would act as coach and

observer, noting the student response to the activities or discussion and we would converse

about our observations afterwards.

Here is an example of the division of activities. It is no wonder after looking at this

detailed plan why it took us so long to formulate class lesson plans. We thought that we

were being very detailed and precise, when in fact we were not allowing ourselves enough

freedom to make the lesson meaningful for the students. This was from January 17, 2006,

the first day of class.

Julie-Attendance

Jenna, Julie- Introduction of Instructors

Jenna- Syllabus

Julie- Questions

Julie- Have them introduce themselves and tell why they are in this class and/or what their

experience is with theatre

Jenna- Name games: I’m going to a picnic and…

Julie- Partner exposure: divide them into two groups. Have them face each other and pair

off with a partner. Coach: “you look at us. We’ll look at you.” Those on stage will soon

become uncomfortable. Some will giggle and shift from foot to foot; others will freeze in

position or try to appear nonchalant. If the audience starts to laugh, stop them. Just keep

coaching: “you look at them, they’ll look at you.”

When each person on stage has shown some degree of discomfort, give the group

that is standing a task to accomplish. Counting is a useful activity, since it requires focus:

tell them to count the floorboards or the seats in the auditorium. They are to keep

counting until you tell them to stop, even if they have to count the same things over. Keep

them counting until their discomfort is gone and they show bodily relaxation. Then their

bodies have a natural look, although at first they continue to show signs of years of held

muscles. Reverse the groups. Only give the direction to count after they too have become

uncomfortable. [this exercise was borrowed from Viola Spolin’s Improvisation For the

Theater]

Jenna- Circle Time. Discuss each part separately (don’t tell them how they felt, get them to

talk) “How did you feel when you were first standing on stage?” there will be few answers

at first. Some might say, “I felt self conscious” or “I wondered why you had us standing

there.” Such answers are generalities which indicate the student’s resistance to the

exposure just experienced. Try to break down the resistance. For instance, ask the

audience: “How did the actors look when they first stood on the stage? You will get more

answers, although they may still be vague and general. Ask for specifics. Encourage the

actors to describe their physical responses to being on stage. “How did your stomach

feel?” if a student says “I felt self-conscious” say “I don’t know what you mean, how did

your shoulders feel?”

Then switch to “How did you feel when you were counting the boards?” don’t say

“when you had something to do.” Let the actors discover that activity helped them on

their own. Then ask what happened to their fluttery stomach, watery eyes, sweaty palms,

or whatever else they said. Hopefully they will say “it went a way” and the why will be

“because I had something to do.” This something to do (focused energy) is the actor’s

focus. Explain that this counting will be replaced by a different acting problem each time

they do an exercise, and this “something to do” will be called their focus (Spolin 51-55).

Red-rover if there is time

Assign journal assignment to become aware of themselves and what happens to them

physically in different situations.

Recommend they begin to read the book.

Class Sessions

Per Jenna’s resolve, we focused the beginning class sessions of our performance

class on trust exercises and activities designed to help the class get to know each other.

Julie had traditionally not spent much time in her courses on this type of activity because

she felt students would think it was a waste of their time. Other instructors and some

students have been surprised at the amount of time we used to establish a safe

environment. After watching the way the students in the class began to work more as a

unit, and the ease with which we learned their names and got to know them, now we both

feel these beginning exercises are key to a successful performance classroom (see appendix

B for syllabus with complete class by class breakdown of exercises and assignments).

Students were asked to keep a journal and write specifically about class exercises,

their impressions and learning experiences. Several students wrote in their journals about

the benefits of trust exercises and a closeness or energy that was present which they

enjoyed.

In order to further the group dynamic, we chose to begin the coursework with

scenes, rather than monologue work. We felt the students would feel more accountable to

each other in scene practice and that it might ease them into performing onstage if they

were with someone else.

This was very successful. We took a few extra weeks with the first scene in order

to ensure students had adequate time to prepare and a good understanding of the basic

elements we were looking for in a performance. All of the students did very well and

many exceeded our expectations of them during this first scene. They were supportive of

one another, even though we had a wide variety of cultures and viewpoints represented.

We feel this was partially due to the fact that the first scenes were all chosen from

the same play. The students were all required to read the play and then we used class time

to delve deeper into each one of the characters. This meant that the audience members also

had a vested interest in the performances, as they were all developing their own opinions

and character choices for the same characters.

After the initial scene work, we moved on to monologues. We allowed the students

to find and choose their own monologues to perform and attempted to guide them. The

monologues were not at all on par with the initial scenes. We were disappointed with the

student’s lack of discipline in rehearsing their monologues and the low energy while they

performed them. After reading their journal entries and speaking with the students, we

realized that we had not been able to anticipate the high anxiety level non-performers felt

over having to perform all alone in front of each other. Even though we had provided a

basis of success and trust, they were still not able to conquer their fears successfully

enough to adequately practice and prepare for a solo performance.

Because each student was performing a piece from a different play, and some of the

monologues were better written than others, they were on an uneven playing field and we,

as instructors, had no commonality to do in class work on these pieces. As there were

twenty-one students in the class and we met only once a week, it was not possible to give

each student much one-on-one instruction. We were disappointed with the process of

monologue work and the final presentation, and were determined for the next students we

taught to find a more effective way of approaching this unit.

The final scenes were better than the monologues, but still not as well performed as

the initial scene work had been. We can only conclude that the class members were not as

invested in helping one another when they did not know the play being performed or have

any way of relating to each other’s characters. It is also possible that as the semester wore

on their requirements in other classes preceded their investment in this class, which was an

elective for all of them.

If we were given the opportunity to teach this class for non-majors again, we would

need to seriously consider assigning them scene work from a common play and working to

make individual performance less anxious. It might be that we would not assign them

monologue work at all, and do all of our work out of common plays.

Results

Despite some of our pitfalls, we felt our teaching experience was a success. Some

of the students went on to audition for the theatre department as performance majors. One

student sent us an email to thank us both personally for helping him feel more comfortable

in front of other people, a skill which he will need in his chosen future profession.

Though not all of our students have always liked us, not one student complained

about the team teaching structure, or suggested that they disliked having to deal with two

instructors. Many gave us honest and useful feedback, some of which can be seen in the

appendix: student comments.

The Adaptation

We were afforded the opportunity to teach a year long freshman acting class, which

gave us a second chance to adapt our teaching strategy, goals and lesson plans for acting.

As we are still teaching the course, our strategies are continually being honed and

expanded. This section will explore the areas that we feel have been changed and

improved upon since our initial class together.

 Used the required text – still not necessarily our first choice

Our first semester teaching together we were extremely dissatisfied with the text we

had chosen. We determined to do a much better job selecting the text for our second

course, but this was not in our hands. The Acting I course is taught by three different sets

of professors and all sections use the same book, Acting Onstage and Off: 4

Edition by

Robert Barton. So while we could not improve selection of text, we did improve in

reading the text more fully ahead of time in order to be better equipped to answer the

questions our students might have. We were lucky in that this text does more closely align

with our views of theatre, and, in our opinion, is easier for students to understand and

apply. We also took the opportunity to educate ourselves on some alternative texts we

might wish to suggest to the department for future years, such as The Actor’s Checklist

Rosary O’Neill, An Actor Performs

by Mel Shapiro, or Free to Act by Mira Felner.

 Less planning required

Huzzah! Now that we had a semester of teaching together under our belts, we were

able to more quickly and easily put together our ideas for the second course. We did not

need to take as much time getting to know each other’s pedagogical style because we had

previously discussed and observed that. Beginning lectures and activities were very easy

to plan because we had an arsenal of activities and exercises we knew would be useful for

reaching our desired goals. As the course has progressed into territory that was not

covered in our initial class, our planning sessions have gotten a little longer. However,

because we now have a common vocabulary and an appreciation of one another in the

classroom, most of our conversation is on a deeper level than simply planning. We discuss

not only what we are going to do, but the pedagogical benefits and pitfalls of presenting

ideas in various ways. Because we are more comfortable in the classroom we do not have

to spend our planning time assigning the specifics of who is going to do what.

 Less nervous in front of each other

Without even realizing it was happening, we had turned into confident teachers who

were no longer nervous to be in front of a classroom of students or one another. It is

interesting in retrospect to remember how having another teacher in the room made both of

us nervous. When the other teacher confirms an exercise was unsuccessful, the sense of

defeat had been so much larger than it was in courses we had taught individually (though

of course the praise when something did work was nice). By the time we began our

second course, we had gotten so used to teaching with each other we no longer even

thought about what the other one might be thinking of us.

 No longer required delegating responsibilities to specific people during the lesson

We stopped delegating specific instruction responsibilities in our course planning. We

had reached a place where it was easy to flow from one topic to the next without choosing

ahead of time who would lead what portion of the class session. This was occasionally

frustrating if one instructor moved on from the topic at hand before the second instructor

felt they were ready. It also occasionally led to professional jealousy, as a student might

exclaim in delight over an exercise invented by one instructor but implemented by the

other. Letting that other instructor take credit for a team effort was frustrating. We would

then have to remind ourselves that the reason for teaching is not for our edification, but for

the learning of our students. Therefore, it is not important who implements the “aha”

moment for the students, simply that they have them. Despite these minor setbacks, this

system was more successful than the first system rigidly defining who was in charge of

leading each section. The flow felt more organic and each instructor expressed a higher

level of satisfaction in taking part of all the activities.

 Set team office hours for planning and meeting with students

One of the best changes we made for our teaming structure was to schedule team office

hours. We set aside one hour after each class session strictly for planning and reviewing

course materials. Because we are considered adjunct faculty, the department does not

require that we keep office hours to meet with students. As a result, we did not schedule

set planning times for our first class, but just met as much as we could during the week.

For the second course we wanted to be more available for students as well as have a set

planning period, and we scheduled joint office hours twice a week. This has proven

incredibly helpful. It meant we were not taking our free time to plan for the class and

students could feel free to meet with us privately for help or support.

 Split up the grading

In adapting what we had done for our second class, we found that a slightly

different approach would be more successful. Rather than both of us grading all of the

written work, we began randomly dividing the work in half and each grading separately.

This cut our grading time in half, since we no longer needed to read every journal and

paper individually and then combine our scores. We worked to create a rubric for each

assignment, and then consulted each other when an assignment seemed to be on the border

of a grade. In this way we could review student work more quickly and return it to them in

a timely manner. The disadvantage to this approach is when a student asks for feedback,

only one of us is equipped to answer regarding that particular assignment.

Team Teaching: A Guide

Putting together the right team

Who picks?

Putting together the right team is the key to successful team teaching. How the

team is formed will play a crucial part in team dynamics. It is our recommendation that

teams be chosen in a two fold manner.

First, both the administration and the potential instructors have to be interested in

the project. Instructors wishing to be part of a team should apply for the opportunity. If

individuals are forced or coerced into being a part of the project, then the ensuing work

will be frustrating and thwart any benefits the administration is trying to achieve. It is our

contention that given the choice, and compensation that matches the investment, most

instructors would be interested in trying a team approach. The key is to find a balance

between professors who are interested in working collaboratively, and those who would be

good candidates for this type of work.

Once teams have applied to the administration for the opportunity of working in a

team teaching paradigm, then it is up to the administration to appoint as many teams as

they are prepared to support. In this way, team-taught courses will not grow too fast for

the department to be able to effectively support them. The administration would be able to

review the proposals and determine which courses might be best taught in a teaming

format. It is also possible that the administration can foresee potential problems amongst

pairings. These could either be dealt with beforehand, or at least prepared for should they

arise.

Specifically at VCU:

At the moment, all teams are being chosen by the head of the Graduate Theatre

program. As Julie and Jenna were the first to suggest team teaching as a model for

graduate students to gain more experience and support one another collaboratively in the

classroom, the entire system is new. It is our suggestion that the teams choose one another

and then approach the head. This allows the instructors the chance to compare pedagogical

beliefs and teaching interests prior to asking to be placed in a specific class setting.

Ultimately, of course, the decision should be left up to the head of the graduate program, as

well as any faculty committee that must accept class instructors and proposed classes.

Which classes to choose

So what classes are appropriate for team teaching? Some courses will be naturally

more conducive to a cooperative learning environment than others. For instance, a math

course that utilizes visual learning may not benefit much from the kinesthetic approach of

having two teachers. This does not mean that the math class wouldn’t benefit from a

teaming approach, but it may not be the first choice for an administration. Courses that

attempt to cross disciplines, fuse multiple approaches, employ hands-on learning or

approach the subject from an intercultural perspective will probably benefit the most from

a team of teachers who could provide insight into the variety of perspectives being

presented. This is why the acting classroom is so conducive to this format. By layering on

multiple approaches, the students will be able to approach a role in a very unique way.

Specifically at VCU:

The benefits to the team-teaching instructors, when applied to graduate pedagogy

students, are fantastic. You get to explore your own pedagogical style as well as someone

else’s. You are allowed the opportunity to teach an area that alone you might not have

been allowed. You have a support structure built-in and someone who is there in every

class for guidance and encouragement. That is why it is our opinion that any course which

had previously been taught by a single graduate student would benefit from the team

model. The two courses we have taught work very well in this structure. We believe that

voice, movement and advanced specialization courses would also benefit.

Do you have to already know each other?

We happened to be friends and had worked together on small projects before

applying to team teach. This was very important in our choosing the co-teaching paradigm

since we already knew we would enjoy working very closely with each other and we felt

comfortable enough with our ability to work as a team. While we think this was

advantageous, it is not necessary for team members to know each other ahead of time. In

some instances, a School or Program may be interested in creating an interdisciplinary

team. These instructors may wish to start working together in a less time consuming

capacity until they have built up a strong rapport. Perhaps a coaching model would be an

excellent place to start. Even though we had worked closely together, we still felt nervous

about teaching in front of one another. We can only imagine that this sensation would be

increased in an environment where the two professors have no knowledge of one another

in or out of the classroom. This fear should not limit using strangers in teams, but

administration and professors should be aware of the challenge this imposes, and work to

combat that fear.

Friendship, though advantageous to us, is not necessary for a successful team.

Indeed, there have been friendships ruined when mixed with work responsibilities. The

most important aspect of the selection is that you compare pedagogical ideology and

practices and can agree on a cohesive model for your classroom.

Who gets to be the Boss?

Is teaming better for those who are of equal status? The answer depends on the

desired results of the teaching. For our pedagogical interests, we needed to be paired with

instructors of equal status, in order to take full advantage of co-teaching for our own

learning. Had one of us been a graduate student instructor and the other a professor the

dynamic between us would be different. We needed to be of perceived equal status to

ourselves and our students in order to team teach in our particular style.

However, this does not mean all teams must be equal. Indeed two of the three

structures outlined in the hierarchy of collaborative teaching (see definition of terms

section) rely on members not being equal in status. The consulting team paradigm is

designed for one instructor to be of higher status than the other. The coaching team

structure, if used in an interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary course, generally

acknowledges the expertise of each team member in their individual discipline.

Specifically at VCU:

This is an area that should be paid close attention to when pairing fellow graduate

students in co-teaching situations. We feel that in the context of mutual learning and

shared teaching responsibility that it is important that the graduate students who are paired

feel that they are equals in terms of status and responsibility. Each needs to feel as though

their voice, opinions and objections are as valid as the other team member(s). This means

that the team members must respect one another, and value the opinion of the team

members with whom they have chosen to work.

Initial Planning

What to Include

Initial planning should include several key elements. First, just as in any course

planning, is to determine what is essential to cover in the course. Often the department has

very specific learning goals for the course and it is important to start with these. For

example, the performance program at Virginia Commonwealth University is a four year

program in which each year builds on the previous one. As we were given the opportunity

to teach the first year it was necessary for us to understand this year in the context of the

others. VCU’s program starts students with basic understanding of themselves and an

introduction to Stanislavski training, which is continued in the next year. As there are

multiple sections of this course taught by multiple instructors, and as the students will most

likely be in a different grouping next year, it is imperative that they leave our class with a

certain level of knowledge which is consistent with the desires of the program and the

other sections of the same class. If we did not adhere to the learning goals of the class, our

students would be significantly behind by the start of the next school year.

Beyond the basics set forth by the administration, you will need to determine what

each of you wants the class to know. This is when it is important to voice personal

strengths and weaknesses as well as interests on the subject. If the course is team taught in

order to diversify student learning, it is important that the curriculum match those goals.

Each instructor is going to have slightly differing views about what the most essential

components of the course are. The planning phase is the correct time to discuss these and

come to a consensus regarding the curriculum.

Next, take a good look at the logistics. How many students will be in the course

and what type of space will you need to request (or will be assigned to you )? Being aware

of the logistical components of the class in advance will help the instructors determine

which model/structure will be most appropriate. Another consideration is the number of

class sections being taught. Having the opportunity to teach the same course to more than

one group of students at a time may encourage teachers to try different models of teaching.

Or, in order to keep the learning equitable, it might cause the teachers to decide on a well-

defined model and utilize it in each section.

Course Materials

Next, consider what texts you will use or require. Teams may be surprised to

discover they cannot find a textbook which covers both of their methods. In that situation,

creating a course packet that touches on both methodologies may help unify the course for

the students. In our Introduction to Stage Performance Class we had difficulty agreeing

on a book to use and ultimately did not satisfy our pedagogical goals.

At other times, as in our second course, the book will be chosen by the program or

by consensus if the course is one in a series. It is then your responsibility to read,

comprehend and incorporate this book into your plan for the class. For the specifics of an

acting class, we have also found that it is valuable to have all of the students read the same

script(s) in order to have a common vernacular when defining and explaining acting

techniques. We have used both full length scripts and one acts and we have both required

the students to by the scripts and provided copies for them. The importance is not in the

specific script and/or way that the students obtain the script, but the use of a common

language which saves time and builds camaraderie.

How are you going to share the class?

Now you have enough information to consider what teaching model will work for

your situation. If the teachers feel overloaded and want to have the least amount of

planning time possible, a team observing model may be most appropriate. This allows

each teacher to be “in charge” for a specific amount of time and cast the other teacher as an

observer who gives feedback and support after the class. This model can be manifested in

several different varieties, including tag teaching or section teaching. In tag teaching, you

would agree that instructor A would teach a section of the class (perhaps the warm-ups),

then instructor B would teach a section (perhaps on objectives) and then instructor A

would teach again, until the end of the class period. In section teaching, teacher A could

be allotted a day or a series of days in which he/she is in charge of all learning taking place

in the class. Then teacher B would be allotted a section and be in charge of all of the

learning. For example, teacher A might spend two weeks on vocal awareness and then

teacher B would spend two weeks on physical awareness. Both teachers would be present

for the others lessons but would not be responsible for the lesson planning, teaching, or

grading.

If the teachers are both interested in having the most instruction time possible, then

a parallel teaching course may be a good option. This is where the lesson plan is decided

on by both instructors. The class is then divided in half and each instructor teaches one

half of the class the lesson simultaneously. This allows each instructor to teach each

course and lowers the teacher-student ratio. However, it does not allow for feedback from

the other teacher in terms of pedagogy (what worked or what didn’t) and does not allow for

interjection from both teachers, which can help with student comprehension.

If both teachers are interested in working a completely collaborative fashion, then

the team teaching model should be chosen. As we have discussed throughout this thesis,

team teaching is the most time consuming of the teaching models and takes the most

willingness to be flexible and accommodating of the other teacher’s style and interest.

However, the rewards of this sort of teaching, we feel, are worth the extra work.

Creating the syllabus

Once you have established the content of the course, and examined the constraints

of the space and time you have been allotted, the creation of the syllabus should not be

greatly time-consuming. There are, however, a few areas where a co-taught syllabus

differs from a single instructor course.

First, put both instructors’ contact information and instruction for contacting both

instructors if a request is made or an absence is necessary. This helps to ensure that both

instructors receive information from the students, and cuts down on the excuses given by

students that they told the other instructor.

Second, build in time for the schedule to change. Especially if teaming is new to

you, scheduled the course in such a way that instructors will be free to switch models if the

one they have chosen does not seem to be working or if something takes a longer or shorter

period of time because of the delivery method.

Approaching the Class: Initial Contact

It is important prior to the first class to discuss your personal pedagogical styles

and the tone with which you like to approach the class. There are instructors who like to

explain everything that is going to happen to a class at the beginning so that everyone is on

the same page. There are instructors who like to keep students guessing until the end, at

which time the pieces come together and the students find for themselves why the class

was structured the way it was. It is necessary for class cohesion that co-teachers agree on

which way they approach the class.

The initial tone that is set is also very important. If you are in agreement, then

there is less chance of student confusion or favoritism (see below in Things to Consider).

Some teachers like to start with a formal serious tone. Others want to set a casual friendly

atmosphere.

There is nothing to say that your pedagogical styles must be identical. In fact it is

best if they are not. However, they need to be compatible and most importantly respected

by one another. If you appear to respect one another, your similarities and differences,

your students are more likely to accept the co-teaching structure and focus on learning, our

ultimate goal.

Planning:

Depending on the structure you choose, the amount of planning time you need will

vary greatly. When we first started together, we would spend as many as ten hours a week

together planning, and more time apart. Who can keep up that schedule? As we grew

more accustomed to one another and confident in our in-classroom skills, our planning

time decreased. We also made some important discoveries in not just how long we

planned, but in how we planned.

First, set up a regular time for planning and discussing. It could be regular office

hours, or an evening a week. We chose to meet directly after each class period for two

hours. That allows us the time to reflect on the class period that has just been, and plan for

the following class. Choose a place that is devoted solely to academic work and planning

if possible. You will work more effectively if you cut down on your distractions.

Next, brainstorm and then edit. We will discuss what concept we want our students

to get from the class period or the unit on which we are working. Then we allow the ideas

to tumble out with as little censoring as possible. We jot them down as we come up with

them and then afterwards go back through and decide what has the most merit.

And finally, ask others for guidance and inspiration. If co-teaching teaches us as

educators anything, it is that if one brain is good, two brains are better. Bounce ideas off

one another and when that is not enough, ask others in your department and field for their

input. There is no failure in asking for other’s opinions and advice.

Grading:

Grading is the bane of most teachers’ existence, especially in the arts. Because art

is so subjective, it is crucial that you discuss how you are going to grade assignments early.

There are multiple ways of dividing up assessment, each with their pros and cons.

Option 1: All by All

This option involves the most work but might be the most rewarding for

pedagogical purposes. We started out with this method at the beginning of our team

teaching, when we wanted to get to know each other’s grading style. In this model, both

teachers would grade all the assignments, and then get together to decide on one final

grade to give the assignment. This is most beneficial for the teachers if they want to get to

know each other’s grading styles, or if they are unsure of how to assign grades for this

assignment. Students benefit from having both instructors review their work and decide on

a fair judgment of the work. This prevents teachers from biased grading, as both

instructors must agree on the grade assigned. The problem with this approach is the time

factor. It is time consuming to review all the assignments, since often

a class with two

teachers is bigger than a class with one, and even more time consuming to evaluate each

other’s scores in order to reach a compromise.

Option 2: Taking turns

With this approach, teachers take turns grading assignments. This might mean

Jenna is responsible for grading their first writing assignment, and Julie will grade their

second writing assignment, etc. The grading load will switch from instructor to instructor.

This is an equitable distribution of work and beneficial if the instructors are busier at

opposite times of the semester. However, it does result in one of the two instructor’s voice

not being heard for that assignment and one instructor not knowing what the students

accomplished in terms of the objectives.

Option 3: Half and Half

This is the approach we have settled on for grading written work at this point, since

we now have a good grasp of the other’s grading style. We randomly select half the

papers/assignments and grade them separately, then compare the grades with each other. If

one appears to be grading more harshly than the other, we compare those assignments with

the rubric and alter grades if necessary. The only downfall is that students can only get

feedback from one instructor, since the other has not read/evaluated their assignment.

However grading is decided, it must be discussed. Each professor has a different

view on grading and what grades mean. Make sure that you take time to share your views

and to come to a consensus for this class. It may mean that each of you has to deviate

some from your normal way of grading.

One way to help make these deviations as painless as possible is to implement

grading rubrics prior to the assignment being due. Do not wait until the students have

turned in their assignments to begin thinking about what you really want to have been

included. This allows less debate in terms of what is or is not a passing grade; though

coming up with the rubrics can take additional planning time.

Top Ten Things to Remember When Co Teaching:

1. Each team member must enter into the team of their own accord, and

must work towards the betterment of student learning in the classroom,

and not toward their own edification alone.

2. Students will naturally gravitate towards one teacher or the other. If a

certain student appears to like the other teacher more than you, it does

not mean that you are an unsuccessful teacher. Chances are good there

are students who gravitate towards you as well.

3. Remember to present a unified front (the same principle applies in

parenting). If the students believe that you are not communicating, it

undermines their view of your authority and their respect for the class.

This does not mean that you have to agree on every issue, merely that

you respect one another and when a decision has been made it is upheld

by all parties.

4. Respect the opinion of your co-teacher, even when you disagree. Often

times we learn more from those who differ from us than from those who

are the same.

5. Schedule enough time to plan. Now that you are teaching in a team, you

will need more time to plan out your pedagogical approach.

6. Work out grading plans ahead of time, so you will all be on the same

page.

7. Share the responsibility as equally as possible. Working together

requires each instructor being aware of their commitment level, and

making sure no one is stuck with all the work.

8. Get the administration involved and on-board. For some administrations

it may take a little while to win them over to your approach, but keep

working with them, having their support will make your work easier in

the long run.

9. Know yourself and your own philosophy of teaching so you can begin to

articulate that to the other members of your team.

10. Don’t forget to have fun! If you are enjoying yourselves, your students

will enjoy learning as well.

Conclusion

Teaching that encourages professors to learn from one another and to adopt

interactive modes of instruction promotes greater intellectual community

and hence vitality among faculty. Although collaborative teaching presents

professors with some difficult challenges, it offers a flexible mechanism for

enriching academic careers and for responding to the complex instructional

tasks professors confront as the new century approaches. (Austin 45)

The decision to teach together came from our shared philosophies about teaching

and theatre as a collaborative art. For more than a year, we have worked together creating

team taught courses in Introduction to Stage Performance and Acting. Through our

experiences in those classes, and our research into the art of team teaching, we feel that this

thesis can be beneficial in helping other teachers and programs develop similar practices at

their institutions.

Higher education is about more than conveying a set body of knowledge to the

unknowing population. Beyond the content of a particular course, undergraduate

education exists to encourage critical thinking, and ultimately what we teach students, as

well as how we teach them, will change higher education in the future.

Literature Cited

ACT. 2006 Retention/Completion Summary Tables

. 2006. 18 Jan. 2007.

http://www.act.org/path/policy/pdf/retain_trends.pdf

Austin, Ann E., and Roger G. Baldwin. Faculty Collaboration: Enhancing the Quality of

Scholarship and Teaching. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7.

Washington D. C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and

Human Development, 1991.

Buckley, Francis J. Team Teaching: What, Why, and How?

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications Inc., 2000.

Davis, James R. Interdisciplinary Courses and Team Teaching: New Arrangements for

Learning. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education Oryx Press, 1995.

Erickson, Bette Lasere. Teaching First-Year College Students

. Jossey-Bass. San

Francisco. 2006. P.1-264.

Finkelstein, Martin J. and Mark W. LaCelle-Peterson (eds) Developing Senior Faculty as

Teachers. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 55.

Jossey-Bass Inc. San

Francisco. 1993.

Fishbaugh, Mary S. Models of Collaboration

. Allyn and Bacon. Boston. 1997.

Prichard, Keith W. and R. McLaran Sawyer. Handbook of College Teaching: Theory and

Applications. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994.

Strategic Plan for the Future of Virginia Commonwealth University: Phase II. Progress

Report, July 2003.

http://www.vcu.edu/vcu2020/pdfs/strategicplan_progreport.pdf

Tack, Martha Wingard, and Carol Logan Patitu. Faculty Job Satisfaction: Women and

Minorities in Peril. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington,

DC. 1992.

“Team.” Def. 4. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

. 11

ed. 2003.

Twenty-Eight FAQs

. Virginia Commonwealth University Theatre. 21 July 2006. 18 Jan

2007.

http://www.pubinfo.vcu.edu/artweb/theatre/faq.asp

United States. Census Bureau. Education and Social Stratification Branch. Current

Population Survey. October 2005: Table A-5a. http://www.census.gov/cps/

Villa, Richard A, Jacqueline S. Thousand and Ann I. Nevin. A Guide to Co-Teaching:

Practical Tips for Facilitating Student Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press, 2004.

APPENDIX A

INTRODUCTION TO STAGE PERFORMANCE

Tuesday 7:00-9:40PM

THEA 108 section 902

COURSE SYLLABUS

Spring 2006

Instructors: Jenna Neilsen Office Hours: By appointment

Julie Phillips Phone: 804 828 1514

CONTACTING THE INSTRUCTORS:

You may sign up for access to this course through

www.nicenet.org

Enter the class key and you can send messages to the instructors, your scene partners, or

the whole class.

Code#: Class Key: EZ528Z4X88

REQUIRED TEXTS

A Practical Handbook For The Actor

by Melissa Bruder

The Shape of Things

by Neil Labute

REQUIRED SUPPLIES

• Αppropriate clothing for rehearsal and performance.

• Notebook which can be devoted fully to journal entries for this class.

• A writing utensil.

COURSE DESCRIPTION

This is an introductory course for non-theatre majors that will provide a survey and

application of basic elements of stage performance: acting; voice and movement; scene

study; and character analysis.

COURSE OBJECTIVES

• To feel comfortable performing in front of an audience

• To develop an understanding of non-verbal communication

• To acquire a working vocabulary and approach to the process of acting

• To acquire script analysis skills

• To learn the skills used to bring to life believable characters

• To work toward personal goals

• To support one another

ATTENDANCE/PARTICIPATION/PREPARATION:

Because this class requires active participation from everyone on a daily basis, and because

others in the class depend on your presence, your timely attendance is vital. It’s very

important that you be present for every class as you will learn not only from the discussions,

activities, and in-class presentations, but you learn a lot from listening to and watching others

and giving feedback. You cannot learn the art of acting without actually doing it.

• Come to class prepared and in clothing you are comfortable moving in.

• You are allowed one unexcused absence, after that you will lose one letter grade per

absence. We highly recommend that you attend EVERY class.

• An instructor must approve excused absences prior to the day of class.

• Two tardies are equivalent to an absence and will be penalized as such.

• Cell phones must be turned off during class. Not on vibrate.

OFF.

• Create a safe environment. No one is here to laugh at, insult or offend another person.

We do not tolerate offensive comments from anyone to or about anyone. We are here

to collaborate together. If your speech or behavior is making the environment unsafe

for the other members of the class, you will be asked to leave the course and receive a

failing grade.

• You will get the most out of this class when you to set goals for yourselves, work to

achieve those goals, continually challenge yourselves, and dare to make mistakes!

• Have fun!

ASSIGNMENTS:

• Self Analysis 20

• Journal 60

• Scene 1 50 (includes abbreviated character bio/analysis)

• Monologue 50 (includes scoring)

• Scene 2 90 (includes character analysis, scored scene)

• Participation 150

• Three sisters paper 40

• Choose your own adventure Paper 40

Total 500 pts.

ASSIGNMENT DESCRIPTIONS:

Self Analysis: Using the information given in class, examine your own past, likes/dislikes,

personality, and physical appearance and describe the character you would be if someone

wrote a play about you.

Journal: Throughout the course of the semester keep a journal of your discoveries. To get

the most out of your journal, it is best to use something sturdy but lightweight that you can

keep with you. Write down anything you learn from acting class, what you notice or

experience watching other actors, and discoveries you make while onstage or in your

rehearsals. The journal is intended to help you capture what you live and act. If you are

serious about acting in the future you will find being able to look back on your discoveries

rewarding in the future. You will need to bring your journal to every class and write in it

at least once a week. The journal will be handed in on random weeks to confirm you are

writing regularly, so do not get behind!

Scene 1: The instructors will assign you a scene partner and a scene to work on. You are

required to read the entire play the scene is from, rehearse with your partner outside of

class, memorize your lines, and put forth your very best efforts toward creating a

believable character.

Scene 2: You will be required to meet with your new scene partner outside of class times,

prepare for your role, learn your lines, and perform for the class. Part of your grade on this

assignment depends on your ability to take notes the class has for you and to improve your

scene upon its second performance.

Monologue: You will be responsible for choosing a 1-minute monologue from a published

play and preparing it for presentation for the class. It must be memorized. You must read

the entire play the monologue comes from in order to form your character more fully.

Please choose something that is appropriate for your age, does not require an accent, and

matches with your gender. Keep in mind that you cannot change any of the words in the

monologue, although you may edit the monologue down to fit the time limit. If you do not

have any plays, feel free to visit the VCU theatre library in the Shafer Street Playhouse.

Open hours are listed on the library door. Remember this is only a reading library so no

books may be checked out. Reserve enough time in your schedule to read the play in the

library.

Participation: This is self explanatory. You should complete this class able to say “I

participated in every exercise!” Students who volunteer to go first will naturally earn more

participation points than those who wait until the end of class on days we run out of time.

You are responsible for your own learning. You cannot learn to act merely by reading

books, you must actually do it!

Three Sisters Paper: VCU Theatre department will be performing a production of The

Three Sisters by Anton Chekhov. You are required to attend a performance and write a 3-

4 page paper on the experience, focusing specifically on one actor’s performance of their

role. We hope to have the opportunity to meet with members of the cast and ask them

about their experiences. If you have difficulty paying for the ticket, you may sign up to

usher for the show. Be advised that many students take advantage of this opportunity and

space is limited, so you will want to check the callboard regularly to have a first chance at

signing up.

Choose your Own Adventure Paper: For this 3-4 page paper you may choose one of the

following options:

1. Attend a performance outside of VCU and critique the performance, focusing

specifically on the work of one actor.

2. Attend two Shafer Street Playhouse productions here at VCU and critique the

performances, comparing and contrasting methods you saw used in order to make the

characters believable.

3. Watch two movies starring the same actor and compare/contrast what the actor does to

make each character believable, critiquing the performance as well as their ability to

convince you they were a completely different person.

4. A creative idea of your choice with the joint approval of both instructors.

LATE POLICY:

Late written assignments may still be turned in by Thursday at noon in either instructor’s

mailbox in the Performing Arts Center. There will be an automatic deduction of one letter

grade. No assignments will be accepted after noon on the Thursday following the due

date.

Missed performances may not be made up. Missing a performance will harm all your

scene partners and is incredibly selfish and rude. If you miss a performance you will be

unable to pass the course. Naturally, we reserve the right to deal with each situation on a

case by case basis. If you have any special needs that may result in a missed class (for

example, your wife is nine months pregnant) you must meet with us at the end of this class

session.

DISABILITIES: All documented disabilities need to be submitted to the instructor on the

first day of class. All information of a personal nature will be kept confidential by the

instructor and will not be discussed with other students or faculty members without a

student’s knowledge.

PLEASE NOTE:

All written assignments must be typed in Times New Roman 12 pt font and be stapled. No

exceptions. We will not accept handwritten assignments, or loose pages.

This course should be very fun, but also challenging. If you will not have time for the

outside of class memorization, reading, rehearsal, and writing then please drop this course.

Due to the nature of acting, it will be necessary at certain points for appropriate physical

contact between students and peers and students and instructors. If you are uncomfortable

at any point or feel you are being violated, please let us know immediately. Our goal is to

create and maintain a safe environment for us to use our creativity.

DISCLAIMER:

All great teachers have the best interest of their students at heart. With this in mind, this

syllabus may be altered to better meet the needs of the class.

APPENDIX B

COURSE SYLLABUS

Fall 2006

Acting I

Tues./Thurs. 8:00-9:50AM

THEA 113 section 002

Shafer Street Playhouse 201

Instructors: Jenna Neilsen- [email protected] Office Hours:T,Th 11-12

Julie Phillips- [email protected] Office: SSP 203

CONTACTING THE INSTRUCTORS:

You are personally invited to stop by our office, if you have a question, need help

understanding an assignment, or would just like someone to talk to. Plan to come into the

office at least once this semester. With so many students in the course, having a chance to

specifically talk about just your work in class will be very beneficial for you, and we

would enjoy getting to know you. If you cannot drop by during our office hours, let us

know and we can schedule an alternate time.

We may also be reached by email:

[email protected] and [email protected]. Please

send any requests to both addresses.

REQUIRED TEXTS

Acting Onstage and Off: 4

Edition by Robert Barton ISBN 0-534-63708-6

REQUIRED SUPPLIES

• Appropriate clothing for rehearsals and presentations.

• A Notebook, which can be devoted fully to journal entries for this class.

• A writing utensil.

COURSE DESCRIPTION

Your first semester of acting at VCU is aimed at developing your unique personal

resources. We will use a variety of exercises and assignments to help you understand who

you are as both a person and an actor, and enable you to share who you are with us. While

we may do some improvisational scene work, this semester will not be devoted to scene

study. Don’t panic. You will have ample opportunity to be in scenes and plays at VCU.

We will cover acting as it relates to personal, physical, and vocal awareness.

COURSE OBJECTIVES

• To be able to speak effectively in front of a group

• To discover your physical and vocal capabilities as an actor

• To learn to achieve a state of relaxed readiness and focus

• To be able to express who you are as an individual onstage and off

• To approach the artform as a cohesive ensemble

• To learn self discipline in rehearsal and performance

ATTENDANCE/PARTICIPATION/PREPARATION:

Class begins at 8AM. We will close the door to the classroom signaling the beginning of

class. If you arrive after the door is shut we ask that you wait to enter until the current

activity has finished, in order not to disrupt the learning of your classmates.

Because this class requires active participation from everyone on a daily basis, and

because others in the class depend on your presence, your timely attendance is vital. It’s very

important that you be present for every class as you will learn not only from the discussions,

activities, and in-class presentations, but you learn a lot from listening to and watching others

and giving feedback. You cannot learn the art of acting without actually doing it.

• Come to class prepared and in clothing that meets the theatre department regulations for

performance majors. A copy of these requirements will be posted in our office if you

forget what they are.

• You are required to attend EVERY class. We understand that on rare occasions a

situation will arise which warrants an excused absence. In order for an absence to be

excused, you must contact and gain approval from both instructors, PRIOR to the class

period in question. If you are more than twenty minutes late to class, you will be counted

absent, but may still be allowed to participate in the class period according to instructor

discretion.

• If you earn more than two absences, your final course grade may be lowered one letter

grade for each additional absence.

• Two tardies (being 1-20 minutes late) are equivalent to an absence and will be penalized

as such.

• Cell phones must be turned off during class. Not on vibrate.

OFF.

• Create a safe environment. No one is here to laugh at, insult or offend another person.

We do not tolerate offensive comments from anyone to or about anyone. We are here

to collaborate together as a community of artists. If your speech or behavior is

making the environment unsafe for the other members of the class, you will be asked

to leave the class.

• You will get the most out of this class when you to set goals for yourselves, work to

achieve those goals, continually challenge yourselves, and dare to make mistakes!

• Have fun!

LATE POLICY:

An assignment will be considered late if it is not ready to turn in when it is collected (if a

paper assignment) or ready to perform when requested (if it is a performance). Late

written assignments lose an automatic letter grade every twenty four hours after the due

date. No assignments will be graded that are more than four days late. Our mailboxes are

located on the second floor of the Performing Arts Center, across from the elevators.

Missed performances may not be made up. Missing a performance will harm all your

scene partners and is incredibly selfish and rude. If you miss a performance you may be

unable to pass the course. Naturally, we reserve the right to deal with each situation on a

case by case basis. If you have any special needs that may result in a missed class (for

example, your wife is nine months pregnant) you must meet with us at the end of this class

session.

DISABILITIES: All documented disabilities need to be submitted to the instructors on

the first day of class. All information of a personal nature will be kept confidential by the

instructors and will not be discussed with other students or faculty members without a

student’s knowledge.

PLEASE NOTE:

All written assignments must be typed in Times New Roman 12 pt font and be stapled.

No exceptions. We will not accept handwritten assignments, or loose pages, unless

specifically requested.

Due to the nature of acting, it will be necessary at certain points for appropriate physical

contact between students and peers and students and instructors. If you are uncomfortable

at any point or feel you are being violated, please let us know immediately. Our goal is to

create and maintain a safe environment for us to use our creativity.

DISCLAIMER:

All changes to the syllabus will be given to you in writing, to insure accurate

communication to all students. It is very important that you check your VCU email

account daily. Audition notifications, changes in assignments and class location may be

communicated via email and it will be important for you to have all of the information you

need in a timely manner.

Schedule of Assignments:

Getting to Know One Another

August

8/24: Syllabus

8/29: Bring journal to class

8/31: Read all of Chapter 1, be prepared to share your monologue if time allows

September

(9/1 departmental cattle call auditions)

9/5:

9/7: brush up on basic vocab, final class period to notify us if you intend to observe

religious holidays

9/12: Read chapter 2

9/14:

The Body

9/19: group1 warms up the class, Be yourself Assignment, Begin spying on two

people

9/21: group 1, Be yourself Assignment

9/26: group 2, Read pages 73-91, continue spying on two people

9/28: group 2, meet with spying partner and observe together, attend opening

performance of “Nerd”

October

10/3: group 3, Nerd reenactments

10/5: group 3

10/10: group 4, perform your spy findings for the class

10/12: group 4, perform your spy findings for the class

(October 16 is the Discovery project performance!!)

10/17: group 5

The Voice

10/19: No class. University Reading Days

10/24: group 6, Read pages 91-101

10/26: group 6

10/31: Halloween! group 7, bring costume pieces and props to class

November

11/2: group 7

11/7: group 8, solo vocal imitation

11/9: group 8, solo vocal imitation, attend opening performance of Medea

11/14: Medea Reviews due, group 9

Personal Awareness

11/16: group 9, Read pages 101-109

11/21: group 10, monologues chosen and brought to class

11/23: Happy Thanksgiving: No Class

11/28: Mock audition. Class is in the evening. No morning class, Read “Red

Ryder”

11/30: group 11

December

12/5: group 12

12/7: group 12

_________________________________________________________________________

Acting I

Tues/Thurs. 8:00-10 AM

THEA 114 section 001, Call #16258

Shafer Street Playhouse 201

COURSE SYLLABUS

Spring 2007

Instructors: Jenna Neilsen- [email protected] Office Hours:T,Th 11-12

Julie Phillips- [email protected] Office: SSP 203

CONTACTING THE INSTRUCTORS:

You are personally invited to stop by our office, if you have a question, need help

understanding an assignment, or would just like someone to talk to. Plan to come into the

office at least once this semester. With so many students in the course, having a chance to

specifically talk about just your work in class will be very beneficial for you, and we

would enjoy getting to know you. If you cannot drop by during our office hours, let us

know and we can schedule an alternate time.

We may also be reached by email:

[email protected] and [email protected]. Please

send any requests to both addresses.

REQUIRED TEXTS

Acting Onstage and Off: 4

Edition by Robert Barton ISBN 0-534-63708-6

Various scripts for scene and monologue work

REQUIRED SUPPLIES

• Appropriate clothing for rehearsals and presentations.

• A Three Ring Binder, which can be devoted fully to work for this class.

• A writing utensil and paper to write on for every class.

COURSE DESCRIPTION

This course is designed to equip you with the tools necessary to begin exploring the

technical and emotional demands of approaching a script. Through a variety of acting

exercises, including monologues and scene work, we will explore acting technique as it

relates to the Stanislavski system outlined in our text.

COURSE OBJECTIVES

• To apply the Stanislavski acting techniques as outlined in the text.

• To more effectively use your physical and vocal capabilities as an actor

• To achieve a state of relaxed readiness and focus

• To be able to express who you are as an individual onstage and off

• To approach the art form as a cohesive ensemble

• To learn self discipline in rehearsal and performance

ATTENDANCE/PARTICIPATION/PREPARATION:

Students are expected to arrive at least 15 minutes early for class and begin warming

themselves up. You are responsible for your own physical readiness and need to be relaxed,

ready, and AWAKE when class begins. Class begins at 8AM. We will close the door to the

classroom signaling the beginning of class. If you arrive after the door is shut we ask that you

wait to enter until the current activity has finished, in order not to disrupt the learning of your

classmates.

Because this class requires active participation from everyone on a daily basis, and

because others in the class depend on your presence, your timely attendance is vital. It’s very

important that you be present for every class as you will learn not only from the discussions,

activities, and in-class presentations, but you learn a lot from listening to and watching others

and giving feedback. You cannot learn the art of acting without actually doing it.

• Come to class prepared and in clothing that meets the theatre department regulations for

performance majors. A copy of these requirements is still posted in our office if you have

forgotten what they are. If we notice during class that you do not meet the dress code

requirements, you will be asked to leave.

• You are required to attend EVERY class. We understand that on rare occasions a

situation will arise which warrants an excused absence. In order for an absence to be

excused, you must contact and gain approval from both instructors, PRIOR to the class

period in question. If you are more than twenty minutes late to class, you will be counted

absent, but may still be allowed to participate in the class period according to instructor

discretion.

• If you earn more than two absences, your final course grade will be lowered one letter

grade for each additional absence.

• Two tardies (being 1-20 minutes late) are equivalent to an absence and will be penalized

as such.

• Cell phones must be turned off during class. Not on vibrate.

OFF.

• Create a safe environment. No one is here to laugh at, insult or offend another person.

We do not tolerate offensive comments from anyone to or about anyone. We are here

to collaborate together as a community of artists. If your speech or behavior is

making the environment unsafe for the other members of the class, you will be asked

to leave the class. If you are not equipped to work professionally with a wide variety

of people, you will not succeed as an actor.

• You will get the most out of this class when you to set goals for yourselves, work to

achieve those goals, continually challenge yourselves, and dare to make mistakes!

• Have fun!

LATE POLICY:

An assignment will be considered late if it is not ready to turn in when it is collected (if a

paper assignment) or ready to perform when requested (if it is a performance). Late

written assignments lose an additional automatic letter grade every twenty four hours after

the due date. No assignments will be graded that are more than four days late. Late

assigments are to be placed in either one of our mailboxes. Our mailboxes are located on

the second floor of the PAC, across from the elevators. They are not to be put under the

door of our office.

100

Missed performances may not be made up. Missing a performance will harm all

your scene partners and is incredibly selfish and rude. If you miss a performance you may

be unable to pass the course. Naturally, we reserve the right to deal with each situation on

a case by case basis. If you have any special needs that may result in a missed class (for

example, your wife is nine months pregnant) you must meet with us at the end of this class

session to make suitable arrangements.

DISABILITIES: All documented disabilities need to be submitted to the instructors on

the first day of class. All information of a personal nature will be kept confidential by the

instructors and will not be discussed with other students or faculty members without a

student’s knowledge.

PLEASE NOTE:

Unless otherwise stated, ALL written assignments must be typed in Times New Roman 12

pt font and be stapled. No exceptions. We will not accept handwritten assignments, or

loose pages, unless specifically requested.

Due to the nature of acting, it will be necessary at certain points for appropriate physical

contact between students and peers and students and instructors. If you are uncomfortable

at any point or feel you are being violated, please let us know immediately. Our goal is to

create and maintain a safe environment for us to use our creativity.

DISCLAIMER:

All changes to the syllabus will be given to you in writing, to insure accurate

communication to all students. It is very important that you check your VCU email

account daily. Audition notifications, changes in assignments and class location may be

communicated via email and it will be important for you to have all of the information you

need in a timely manner.

Schedule of Assignments:

Monologues

Week 1

1/16:

Hand out Syllabus, 3 contrasting monologues due, monologue partners selected,

Review Stan’s First Ten

1/18: Chapter 4 Read

Week 2

1/23:

Stan’s 10 textual analyses for two monologues due

1/25: Stan’s 20 for same monologues due*

January 26 is the last day to notify instructors in writing of intent to observe

religious holidays

101

Week 3

1/30:

Monologues memorized

2/1:

Rehearsal and practice

Week 4

2/6:

Monologues Presented.

2/8:

Monologues Presented continued

Scene Work

Week 5

2/13:

A-B Scenes Assigned

2/15: A-B Scene Work. Plan to attend opening night of Red Ryder tonight

Week 6

2/20:

Stan’s 20 due for A-B Scenes *

2/22:

Red Ryder Assignment due

Week 7

2/27:

Present A-B Scenes. Next scene partners assigned.

3/1:

Rehearsal and Practice

Week 8 – Begin meetings with Jenna and Julie

3/6:

Present A-B Scenes. Scene Chosen with partner.

3/8:

Rehearsal and practice (SETC)

Spring Break March 11-18

Week 9 – Finish meetings with Jenna and Julie

3/20:

Stan’s 20 due for scenes*

3/22: Scene Memorized. Rehearsal/Practice.

March 23 is the last day to withdraw from a course and receive a W for a

grade

102

Week 10

3/27:

Initial 5 Guided Writing Assignments Due

3/29:

Week 11

4/3:

4/5:

Perform Scenes

Week 12

4/10:

Smokey Joe’s Assignment due. Perform Scenes

4/12: Perform Scenes

Week 13

4/17:

4/19:

Week 14

4/24:

Remaining Guided writing assignments due

4/26:

Week 15

5/1:

Exam Review

Thursday May 3, 8:00 am-10:50 am:

Final Exam on Stanislavski system scheduled

* Scoring and Creative mood are not required elements for the Stan’s 20 assignment.

Scoring is to be turned in the day of your performance. The creative mood is something

you will have to find for yourself.

103

GRADE BREAK-DOWN: THEA 114

GRADED ASSIGNMENTS:

Ten Guided Writing Assignments 200

Monologues Memorized 50

Monologue Written Work 100

Monologues Performance 100

Red Ryder Assignment 25

A-B Scene Written Work 100

A-B Scene Performance 100

Scene Memorized 50

Scene Written Work 125

Scene Performance 125

Smokey Joe’s Assignment 25

Written Stanislavski Exam 100

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL: 1100

REMEMBER ATTENDANCE WILL EFFECT YOUR GRADE!

104

Guided Writing Assignments

These writing assignments are to be typed and kept in the same three ring binder in

which you keep your scripts, and Stanislavski written work. These assignments are in lieu

of your journal this semester, though we are still encouraging you to write in journals.

Each of these assignments should be given thought and effort. They should be at least 2

pages, and some of them will be considerably more. Have fun with them but use them as a

time of serious work. Label each writing assignment at the top with the title of that

assignment, date completed, and your name, as you may be turning them in without your

notebook.

1. Empathy Assignment- List three people (or types of person) who you do not identify

with (see exercise 4.1 for examples). Now examine their lives/motivations until you

find something that you can identify with. How would you play this person? Tell us

what it will take to help you empathize with this character so you could play them.

2. Magic If Assignment- Look at the given circumstances of one person you really admire

and one you really dislike. How would you play each of these people? What do you

have to do to put yourself in these people’s shoes? How would these people look at the

same thing (a movie, a book, a piece of music)?

3. Super Objective Assignment- Identify your own life’s super objective. Why is that the

one you chose? Is it the objective that you clearly tell people or a secret objective only

you know? What are the other objectives that are strong but did not make the top

objective? (see exercise 4.5)

105

4. Through Line of Actions- Take any moment you choose and pay very close attention to

what you do (see the examples in exercise 4.7). Break your action down into the tiniest

bits and identify your victories and defeats. Next observe someone else doing a similar

activity (preferably when they do not know that you are observing them). Break their

actions down into the tiniest bits. How did their bits differ from yours?

5. Scoring- Using what you have learned about scoring from the book and class, score the

third monologue you brought the first day of class but are not performing this semester.

Make sure to include super objective, beats, inner motivations, bits, etc.

6. Endowment Assignment- Choose an object which is very important to you. Write as

much as you can about it. Why is it important? What does it feel like, smell like, look

like? How long have you had it? How does it make you feel when you see it or look at

it? Now, choose an object that does not have any significance to you. Then write about

it, endowing it with memories and qualities.

7. Recall Assignment- Choose four of the images in exercise 4.10 and write about the

feelings, and memories associated with them. If there are not four which speak to you,

come up with ones that do.

8. Image Assignment- Choose a significant moment from your past. Write the screenplay

to this moment for a silent film, with still shots, zooming, panning, etc. Describe the

soundtrack, the colors, etc. This movie should tell a story through images, instead of

dialogue.

9. External Adjustments- What tempo do you usually live in? Think back to the physical

spying exercises. What did people say about you physically? Vocally? Now choose a

character who you would really like to play who is decidedly different than you in one

or more of these ways. How would the character be perceived if you didn’t change your

106

physical/vocal traits? How would you physically/vocally change your mannerisms to

play this character? Why do you feel this character is different than you?

10. Creative Mood- Experiment over a few days. What gets you into a creative mood?

Experiment with different settings for yourself. Find where and when you work best

and write about it. Be as descriptive and perceptive as possible.

107

APPENDIX C

This is a sample of some of the e-mails sent during this planning phase. Julie’s e-

mail came first and is in regular type. Jenna’s comments are in bold italics and were then

sent back to Julie. By e-mailing and exchanging ideas we were able to come up with a

cohesive initial plan which we both agreed on in terms of the class assignments and daily

activities.

Sample Discussion of Pre-planning in the form of E-mails back and forth during the winter

break of 2005-2006

Maybe instead of the book, we could just put together a course packet with the type of

information we want them to have. Of course that is more work, but then we don't have to

order books, just take a set of copies to uptown copy, or make them ourselves.

I agree that this might work better, but what do we want them to know/have? If we were

to do this we could theoretically put it together the first week of school so that they would

have to buy it during week two, right?

I also really like the idea of at least one set of scenes or monologues all coming from the

same play so that like Lisa we can have a discussion about the play. We can talk about

play structure, beats, character arcs, etc. Also, they will be able to critique one another

when it comes time to perform. Any ideas of plays? There is a Tennessee Williams’ play

(I know, your favorite) called “The Two Character Play” but I think it might be a little

too non-realistic for their first piece. Any ideas?

108

I just sent you Lisa's syllabus from my other email, in case you don't have it. I think we

should require them to see some shows. We could do one VCU mainstage (like 3 sisters)

and one Shafer show, and an outside performance. Is three too many? If they complain

about money we could try to find shows they could usher for in exchange for a free show

in the area.

I think some will complain about money and some will complain about having no

transportation to get to a show. I think if we ask them to see something off campus it

should probably be as extra credit… I agree they should definitely see a Shafer and a

mainstage.

We may want to have a vocabulary quiz so they will know the terms we use all the time.

This is a good idea. We should brainstorm on this and make sure that it is either in their

reading packet or that we go over it well prior to the quiz.

We could have them keep an acting journal, or an observation journal.

I also like this idea. It gives us something tangible to grade (well, you got a B because

you never wrote in your journal). I think that they should be required to write in it at

least once a week. We can give them assignments in the beginning, and maybe some

suggestions as well so that they know what they are supposed to be writing.

There will probably be 15 classes:

1 intro to class, getting to know each other, being silly in public,

imagination

-homework - observe someone they know all week. Journal observations about how they

move, what they do when they are upset, etc.

109

(This could also be an assignment about themselves, if we want them to start looking at

themselves. Maybe comparing observations of someone else with themselves?)

2 knowing self/body

(what will we do on this day? Chekhov type work? Morris type work?)

-homework - look for a monologue from a published play they have never done before (do

you think they can do this? I guess we have to expect them to but I know first year

performance majors who can’t find a monologue. Also, would it be better to start them

off with a scene so that they are not on stage alone or is a monologue the best place to

start because they don’t have to rely on someone else?)

3 improv and imagination

-homework - select 2 monologues to bring to class and choose between (so, they have to

have the monologue for week 4 right?)

4 character analysis

-homework - do character analysis worksheet for monologue, memorize

monologue Are we going to spend any time on objective, motivation, action, etc prior to

the character analysis or is this the day that we covered all of that stuff?

5 monologue preliminary performance

-homework - work on notes from class to improve the monologue

6 secondary performance

-homework - meet with scene partner to do preliminary work on first scene

7 scene work

110

-homework - meet with scene partner to rehearse, run lines, block scene

8 scene work practice continued

-homework - polish scene

9 scene 1

-homework - meet with partner to improve based on class notes

10 scene 1 second chance

-homework - write observation paper on play observed

11 scene work

-homework - meet with partner to block scene, do character analysis

12 scene work

-homework - practice with partner

13 scene work

-homework - polish scene

Do you think that they will use three weeks of work on a scene? I am sure that some will

but I am also sure that like speech class most probably won’t. How do we “get them” to

work on these? Is this too long of a time period, since they get a do-over (so, basically 5

weeks on one scene)

14 last scene-homework - meet with partner to improve class notes

15 last scene

111

APPENDIX D

Grading Rubric Samples

Stanislavski’s Ten System Steps Grading Rubric

Monologue Work

1. Given Circumstances

2.5= Thorough description of events/what is happening up to this scene

2. Magic If

2.5= If they include how they will approach the character.

3. Super Objective

2.5= To, active verb, encompassing for this character’s life at this point in the play

(.5= To)

(1= active verb)

(1= encompassing for this character’s life at this point in the play)

4. Through Line of Action

2.5= Have attempted to answer

5. Endowment

2.5= Identify a specific object or person in the play and endow it with qualities

other than what it has. Need some specificity in definition to get full points.

6. Recall

2.5= picking something specific, with useful content

7. Images

2.5= Describe something specific, identify whether it applies to the whole

monologue or a particular moment and have it not be a rehash of what is in the

scene (what they say or see)

(1= whether whole monologue or a particular moment)

(1= describe something specific)

(.5= not having it be what is in the text)

8. External Adjustments-

2.5= Identify one specific thing about themselves they are going to change

1.5= Identify physical traits of the character that they want to embody

112

AB Scene Grading Rubric

45 points per scene

5pts Given Circumstances – clear atmosphere, situation, etc. Get full points if we can

figure out what was happening, based on what we saw

5pts Relationship – clear, well defined relationship between the two characters. If we

could tell just by watching

10pts Activity – chose a playable activity for each character, or series of activities that

grounded them in the here and now.

10pts Subtext (not small talk) – did not try to justify each line, but worked to create an

inner meaning beyond the lines.

5pts Presentation – Not fumbling for lines or blocking. Well rehearsed. Did not keep

back to the audience the whole time or some sort of problem like that. Took the

scene seriously

5pts Physicality – appropriate for situation

Specific choices

Got away from personal habits

5pts Vocal – volume

Pitch

Appropriate levels of dialogue

safety

10 points: Contrast

4pts Story Contrast – characters and story lines contrasted from each other

3pts Physical contrast between characters played by this actor in each scene

3pts Vocal contrast between both characters played by this actor

113

VITA

Jenna M. Neilsen, M.F.A. Virginia Commonwealth University (May 2007)-

Jenna Neilsen (née Doty) was born in Dayton, Ohio on April 17, 1979. She resided

for most of her childhood in the Midwest, with the exception of two years spent living in

Grenoble, France. She graduated from Carmel High School in Carmel, Indiana in the top

10% of her class. She earned her BA in communication arts: theatre and psychology from

Ohio Northern University (ONU) in Ada, OH in May 2001 with the top GPA of graduating

theatre majors and top GPA of graduating psychology majors. While at ONU, she spent a

semester studying at Queen Margaret University College, an acting conservatory in

Edinburgh, Scotland.

Upon graduation, she worked for three years in the Indianapolis area at various

professions including juvenile probation officer and human resources specialist. During

this time she also acted, and costume designed for theatres in the Indianapolis area.

In August 2004 she began coursework at Virginia Commonwealth University

(VCU) to earn her Master of Fine Arts in Theatre Pedagogy: Acting/Directing. During her

time at VCU, she had the opportunity to direct several productions, act in multiple pieces

both at VCU and in the Richmond community as well as teach. Amongst her teaching

experience at VCU were courses in Introduction to Performance (acting for non-majors),

Acting I (for freshman performance majors), Introduction to Drama, Theatre History

(assistant taught), Introduction to Public Speaking, and Public Speaking for Business

114

Professionals. While in graduate school, Jenna has received a VCU School of the Arts

Tuition Scholarship, VCU Graduate Teaching Assistantship, and VCU Graduate Thesis

Fellowship. She also presented nationally at the South Eastern Theatre Conference (2006

and 2007), and Mid America Theatre Conference (2007). Jenna was recently hired as an

assistant professor of theatre at Adams State College in Alamosa, CO where she will be

teaching acting and costume design, starting in the fall of 2007.

Julie K. Phillips, M.F.A Virginia Commonwealth University (May 2007)-

On November 14, 1978 Julie Kay Locke (now Phillips) was born in upstate New

York. She grew up in New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, where she earned her High

School Diploma from Quince Orchard High School. While there, she was awarded the

title of Honor Thespian, All-State Thespian, and received a variety of peer reviewed acting

awards. After graduating high school, Julie moved to Minneapolis, MN where she

attended North Central University. At North Central she was able to personalize an

interdisciplinary degree (generically titled Christian Studies) combining Youth Ministry

and theatre. She was listed in “Who’s Who in American Colleges and Universities” in

2000.

During these years Julie was seen onstage in several mainstage productions, and

was also hired by the Outerbanks Theatre Production Company, the Emmrich Theatre

Production Company, and the Morris Park Players. Her senior year she was selected to

travel for 6 months with Eternal Act, the university premiere touring theatre troupe. After

115

leaving Minneapolis, Julie and her husband travelled back to Binghamton, NY where she

worked as a photographer and studio assistant manager for Oakdale Images Portrait Studio.

Since coming to Virginia in August of 2004, Julie has worked as an educator, actor,

and director. She has been granted a Graduate Studies Assistantship, a Virginia

Commonwealth University Graduate Thesis Fellowship, and been nominated for the Irene

Ryan Acting award for outstanding performers at the college level. Her research has been

presented at several conferences, including the South-Eastern Theatre Conference 2006,

2007, and the Mid America Theatre Conference 2007. Julie has been an adjunct professor

for the past three years at VCU, teaching courses such as Acting I, Introduction to Stage

Performance, Introduction to Theatre, and Effective Speaking through the theatre

department.