In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Multiplicity and Freedom in Theatre History Pedagogy: A Reassessment of the Undergraduate Survey Course Jerry Dickey and Judy Lee Oliva The task of today's historian, then, would seem to be to recognize the new multiplicity of the discipline created by the challenge of modern theory and to utilize this freedom for the positive expansion of the discipline. —Marvin Carlson The much-acclaimed documentary filmmaker Ken Burns recently described the reasons for his ongoing fervor with events and individuals from the past. "History," Burns said, is always about the present. Only superficially is it past in terms of the events examined happening before our time. But what we choose to remember is always related to who we are today ... How can you possibly know where you want to go if you don't know where you've been? (Interview) In an age when the relevancy of the study of history receives popular challenges, those of us who teach history to others might do well to keep Ken Burns' attitude in mind.1 According to Burns, the study of history forms part of a rigorous process of self-examination and discovery. Far from adhering to Henry Ford's belief that "History is more or less bunk" (qtd. in Macmillan 252), Burns believes that a study of history aids in the shaping of one's identity and sense of purpose. None of us who teach theatre history questions the validity and usefulness of its study for any individual wishing a career or further education in the performing arts. Surprisingly, however, undergraduate theatre students typically approach their required courses in the history of their art with apprehension at best—and downright dread at worst. And with practically every theatre program in colleges and universities around the country requiring an undergraduate survey course or courses in theatre history, one marvels at the relative paucity of published material pertaining to the pedagogy of this subject. Now, with exciting new methodologies in theatre history being introduced into the field, an opportune moment arises to inspect the place of the survey course in the theatre curriculum and to review the particular demands placed upon the 45 46 Dickey ¡Oliva teacher of theatre history.2 Specifically, we need to examine what we are doing in the classroom to determine if the activities and projects we employ are the most appropriate forms for exploring historical material. Perhaps most importantly , we need to question whether or not we are resisting the adoption of new pedagogical approaches. We begin by recognizing that an implicit model exists for undergraduate theatre history surveys, although this model contains numerous variables. As part of a syllabus exchange project and pedagogy panel for Theatre History Focus Group constituents of the Association for Theatre in Higher Education, we appraised thirty-seven undergraduate survey sequences including sixty-six separate courses.3 The most frequent design of these survey courses contains a chronological discussion of major theatrical developments through a combined study of production innovations and dramatic literature, frequently augmented by a required research paper and two or three exams. The focus typically rests largely on Western Europe and America, sometimes with an all too brief look at theatre of the Orient. The overall length of the survey provides one variable within this dominant model, with courses ranging from one quarter to four semesters. Additionally, some surveys exist within a liberal arts curriculum, while others form part of a professional training program. Some serve majors only; others combine the theatre student and the non-major within the same setting. Finally, a few surveys connect to their institution's general education program, either as part of a history of Western civilization sequence, as an option for an arts or humanities requirement, or occasionally as an interdisciplinary unit of the curriculum. For the teacher of any of these various history surveys, at least one general characteristic typically holds true: students enrolled in such a course have had little to no exposure to the field of theatre history in their previous education. Faculty consider themselves lucky if their students possess a working knowledge of the history of America and Western culture. In many cases, students' conditioning leads them to believe that the...

pdf

Share