Evaluation report 2012-2013

7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013

1/43

0

Changing the Lens:A UBC Forum Theatre project

2012/2013 evaluation reportCultural Identity and Assumptions

Prepared by:

Gua Khee Chong

2012/2013 Project Director, Joker

University of British Columbia, Canada

Changing the Lens project

E:[email protected]

Changingthelens.wix.com/forum-theatre

June 31, 2013
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/c/cf/By_plain300.pngmailto:[email protected]


2/43

Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 1

We recognize that there may be some limits to our report, so please do not hesitate to

contact us [email protected] more information or with further

suggestions regarding either the report or the project.

Copyright (c) 2013 by Changing the Lens: A UBC Forum Theatre project. This work is madeavailable under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

To view a copy of this license, visithttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.

For questions about permissions, please [email protected].

Acknowledgements

The project team would like to thank the following people and organizations for their support

and advice, without which the project would not have been possible:

CJ Rowe

Deb Pickman

Dr Kirsty Johnston

Graham Lea

Ryan Caron

Victor Guerin

UBC CTLT, especially Amy Perreault, Judy Chan, and Hanae Tsukada

UBC Longhouse, especially Rick Ouellet

UBC Mix, especially Natalie BaloyUTown@UBC, especially Gabriella Scali and Katy Short

Menchies @ Wesbrook Village

Starbucks @ West 10th Avenue

All audience members and workshop participants

Additionally, it should be noted that the work and influence of both Augusto Boal (founder of

Theatre of the Oppressed and Forum Theatre) and David Diamond (founder of Theatre for

Living)1

has been fundamental as inspiration for this project. In particular, our Joker this year has

undergone training workshops from Diamond, and is very much indebted to him for allowing herto consult with him on questions about the process.

2

1 David Diamond is the Artistic Director of local Vancouver company Theatre for Living (formerly known as

Headlines Theatre). His style of theatre, Theatre for Living, developed from Diamonds work with Boal and his

experience with Theatre of the Oppressed, but is also strongly informed by systems theory.2 David and Theatre for Living (formerly Headlines Theatre) run annual August trainings (Level I and Level II) to

spread the techniques of TfL, of which Forum Theatre is a key component (follow this linkhere).
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.headlinestheatre.com/trainings.htmhttp://www.headlinestheatre.com/trainings.htmhttp://www.headlinestheatre.com/trainings.htmhttp://www.headlinestheatre.com/trainings.htmmailto:[email protected]://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/mailto:[email protected]


3/43


Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 1Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Background and Description of the CTL project ........................................................................ 4Project Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 5

Evaluation Planbrief summary .................................................................................................... 8Data Collection ........................................................................................................................... 9

Process Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 10Project Timeline ........................................................................................................................ 10Project Team ............................................................................................................................. 13

Project Participants ................................................................................................................... 14

Data Analysis And Results ........................................................................................................... 15Reflections / Recommendations: .................................................................................................. 19Final Notes / Lessons Learnt: ....................................................................................................... 20Plans for 2013/2014 .................................................................................................................. 20References ..................................................................................................................................... 21Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 22

Appendix A Workshop Participant Feedback Survey ............................................................. 22Appendix B Audience Member Feedback Surveyhardcopy version ................................... 23Appendix C Audience Member Feedback Surveyonline version ........................................ 24Appendix D Project Member Feedback Survey ...................................................................... 26Appendix E List of Games and Activities in the Changing the Lens workshop ..................... 27Appendix F Programme Booklet ............................................................................................. 28Appendix G Pictures from Workshop and Performance ......................................................... 33


4/43


INTRODUCTION

The benefits of having a large campus such as the University of British Columbias (UBC)Vancouver campus are clearUBC Vancouver brings together a wide variety of people, and

there are multiple resources available for easy access. At the same time, a large campus tends tofacilitate the formation ofcliques and silos of people within faculties, disciplines, and otherrelevant affiliations. This is problematic, as it restricts the flow of information and knowledge in

the campus, perhaps rather counter-intuitive in a space meant to promote learning.3

In response to this silo-ing on the UBC Vancouvercampus, Changing the Lens project was

initiated by 4th

year UBC student, Gua Khee Chong, to engage University of British Columbia(UBC) campus community so as topromote opportunities for interdisciplinary and inter-

affiliation (i.e., amongst faculty, staff, students, and residents) dialogue on topical issues of

relevance to the community.

The project draws heavily on Forum Theatre techniques, because Forum Theatre has been

demonstrated to be particularly effective as an avenue for communities to explore issues of

oppression, such as gender violence (Mitchell & Freitag, 2011), or issues of personal

development, such as self-esteem in conflict (Gjrum & Ramsdal, 2009). As an audience-interactive theatrical form, this style of theatre has the immense potential to facilitate a safe space

for community dialogue, engaging actors and audience alike in a dialogue of action and not just

a dialogue of words.4

Final Evaluation Goal

This report essentially aims to archive the work done by Changing the Lens project, as well as toevaluate the effectiveness of the project in promoting cross-disciplinary and cross-affiliation

dialogue in the UBC community. This report will examine aspects of the project that have beeneffective and that should be replicated in future, but also seek to understand aspects of the projectthat can be improved on for the future.

Evaluation TeamOur team consists of project team members and Psychology students with experience in data

collection and analysis.

Table 1. Roles and Responsibilities of the Evaluation Team Members

Individual Title or Role Responsibilities

Gua Khee Chong

(Director/Joker) Lead Evaluator Coordinate team meetings and oversee

evaluation tasks to ensure evaluation isconducted as planned

Consolidate final report3 Indeed, the Mental Health Network (MHN) was recently formed to connect and cross-promote mental health

initiatives on campus. Network members include: Alma Mater Society (AMS), AMS Speakeasy, The Kaleidoscope,

Healthy Minds, Kinesiology Undergraduate Society, Mental Health Awareness Club, Nursing Undergraduate

Society, UBC Wellness Centre, UBC Yoga Club, UBC Graduate Student Society, UBC International Student

Association, UBC Neurology Club, and UBC Yesplus Club.4 This is paraphrased from personal communications with David Diamond.
http://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#amshttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#speakeasyhttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#kaleidoscopehttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#healthy_mindshttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#kinesiologyhttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#mhachttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#nursinghttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#nursinghttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#wellness_centrehttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#yogahttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#graduatehttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#internationalhttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#internationalhttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#neurologyhttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#neurologyhttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#internationalhttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#internationalhttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#graduatehttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#yogahttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#wellness_centrehttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#nursinghttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#nursinghttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#mhachttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#kinesiologyhttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#healthy_mindshttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#kaleidoscopehttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#speakeasyhttp://www.ubcmhn.com/about-us/network-members/#ams


5/43


Helen You

(Assistant Stage Manager) Data Analysis Analyze quantitative and qualitative data,compile results

Compile initial draft of reportMorgan McKusick

(Evaluation Team) Data collection Review of the literature and creation of

data collection tools

Review drafts of the reportAudrea Chen

(Publicity and Fundraising Team /

Director of 2013/2014 project)

Reviewer Review drafts of the report

BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE CTL PROJECT

Need

As the UBC campus expands and grows in diversity over the years (Planning and Institutional

Research (PAIR), 2013), there is arguably a tendency for people to stay in their small cliques of

friends, neither understanding nor seeking to understand others outside of their immediate circle.As such, an initiative such as Changing the Lens project is crucial as a platform for members of

the campus community to dialogue about important issuesrecognizing their differentapproaches and opinions of the issue, but also their commonalities. Furthermore, by addressing a

different theme each year, the project will also help to encourage dialogue on topical and

relevant issues.

ContextForum Theatre

Forum Theatre was first developed by Brazilian theatre practitioner Augusto Boal (1931-2009)

as part of his canon of techniques for Theatre of the Oppressed (Boal, 1985).5

In this genre,

pieces are typically developed and performed by community members who have experience with

the specific issue under investigation, and always end abruptly at a moment of crisis.

In performance, the piece is run once through from start to finish, allowing audience members to

have a sense of the situation presented in the play as well as the problems between and amongstcharacters. Subsequently, the piece is re-enacted, but this time the audience is invited to interrupt

the action (by yelling stop!) at any point they recognize an oppressive moment.

In other words, audience members have the opportunity to come onstage in a Forum Theatre

piece, replace the struggling character, and try out an idea to improve the situation. There are noright or wrong ideas in this workrather, interventions are simply ways of exploring the

situation and gaining insights into the issues presented.6

This non-directive approach clearly promotes critical thinking, but also facilitates the creation ofa safe space. Within the theatre, then, the project hopes to foster a respectful but challenging

atmosphere for community members to try out ideas and discuss them.

5 The key idea behind TO is to empower people to reassume their protagonistic function in the theatre, (Boal,

1985) which in turn would theoretically empower people to take the initiative to transform the society around them.

Other techniques developed by Boal include: Rainbow of Desire, Cops in the Head.6 Boal himself noted that the role of theatre is not to show the correct path, but only to offer the means by which all

possible paths may be examined (Boal, 1985).


6/43


Target populationThe target population for Changing the Lens project is the entire campus community, which has

been broken down into the following categories to facilitate targeted efforts:1. UBC student population2. Faculty and staff3.

UBC community residents4. UBC campus groups and organizations

PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The goal of Changing the Lens is to promote healthy, constructive dialogue on key issuesamongst community members from a variety of disciplines and affiliations, so as to build up a

sense of community as well as encourage critical thinking on the issue under investigation.

For 2012/2013, the issue chosen is Cultural Identity and Assumptions.

In order to accomplish the overarching goal of the project, the following desired outcomes were

identified for 2012/2013:

1. To engage with 150 community members from a variety of different backgrounds by theend of May 2013. Community members include students, faculty and staff, community residents, as

well as campus groups and organizations.

Given theprojects focus on Cultural Identity and Assumptions, the project aimsto achieve diversity in academic discipline, ethnicity, and race.

Engagement can be in the capacity of project team members, Forum Theatreworkshop participants, consultants, sponsors, or audience members.

2. To facilitate critical thinking on the key issue from community members.3. To create good theatre.*

The project will facilitate an intensive Forum Theatre workshop for communitymembers, during which original Forum Theatre pieces will be created;

After a rehearsal period to tighten and polish the pieces, the Forum Theatre pieceswill be showcased to the public, so as to extend the dialogue generated in theworkshop sessions to the wider community.

*Although not directly related to the community engagement aspect of the project, this outcomeis a crucial part of Changing the Lens projectas the central means by which the smaller

workshop discussions and activities are communicated to the wider community, it is vital that the

pieces are interesting and well-presented, so that they can effectively engage the audiences

attention and imagination.

In addition, there tends to be the assumption that community-oriented theatre is not aestheticallypleasing. As such, by creating good theatre, the project hopes to challenge this assumption. There

also tends to be a distinction made between artists and other people in modern society,

without the recognition that artistry itself can be present within any profession. By creating goodtheatre with individuals who may not have a lot of theatrical background, the project aims to

demonstrate to the individuals and to the public that artistry can be present in anyone, and to

indirectly encourage people to strive towards artistry within their own professions and own lives.


7/43


Stage of DevelopmentThe project is relatively new, having only been begun in October 2012.

Resources/InputsProject team members, support from campus groups, faculty and staff, as well as funding from

campus organizations are key inputs of the Changing the Lens project.

ActivitiesRecruiting project team members, outreach/publicity activities, Forum Theatre workshop

sessions, rehearsals, and performances made up the major activity categories this year.

Outputs

As a result of the Changing the Lens project, a community was created amongst workshop

participants and project team members, Forum Theatre pieces were created, and dialogue aboutthe issue of Cultural Identity and Assumptions was facilitated in the larger campus community.

OutcomesA list of short-term outcomes include: contributed to dialogue in the community, greater

awareness of the project, a sense of community amongst the workshop participants and project

team, sense of empowerment from creating theatre pieces, actors and audience members

understanding of the key issue increased.Potential long-term outcomes include*: more critical thinking about key issues, a more open-

minded community, a greater sense of community fostered in the UBC campus community.

*Note: Given that Changing the Lens project is only in its first year, it is currently too early to

assess the long-term impact of the project.

See next page for logic model.


8/43

7

Table 1. Project Description of Changing the Lens project

Resources Activities Outputs Outcomes

Initial Subsequent Short-term Mid-term Long-term

Project teammembers

Support from

campusgroups,

faculty and

staff

Funding from

campus

organizations

Recruiting

project teammembers

Outreach/

Publicityactivities

Presentation was

made at theIntercultural U

conference

Contributed to the dialogue in

the community about the issue;greater awareness in the

community about the project

Access to more connections

and resources for the project,enabling the project to take on

more widescale activities (i.e.,ability to affect the

community on a larger scale)

More critical thinkingabout key issues

A more open-minded

community

A greater sense of

community is fostered in

the UBC campus

community

Forum

Theatre

workshop

Forum Theatre pieces

were created

A sense of community amongst

the workshop participants and

project team; sense of

empowerment from creating the

pieces from scratch

Creation of a community

amongst workshop

participants and project team

members

Rehearsals 2 nights of public

performances of the

Forum Theatre pieces

Actors and audience members

understanding of the key issue

increased; community members

were engaged in dialogue about

the issue


9/43

8

EVALUATION PLAN brief summary

Evaluation QuestionsThere are many aspects to the project that could be examined, but for this year, the team

prioritized the following as the most important aspects that could realistically be examined:

To determine if the project has been implemented as planned (Process):

Has there been sufficient outreach? Has there been adequate attendance at workshop sessions? Has sufficient time been devoted to rehearsals?

To determine if the project is meeting its objectives (Outcome/Impact): Are community members involved in the project from diverse backgrounds? Has the project encouraged critical thinking about the issue of Cultural Identity and

Assumptions?

Are the pieces judged to be artistically competent?Evaluation Design

Knowing that this is the first year of the project, and that the project would be taking place on asmaller scale, the evaluation team decided to collect data from different groups. This would help

to increase the sample size, as well as enable the team to collect more data to improve the project

for next year. There was no control or comparison group, as none seemed appropriate and wealso had limited resources. The team reviewed records of Forum Theatre projects elsewhere, but

realized that most were neither well documented nor collected data in a standardized manner,

and so the decision was made to assess the data against benchmarks set by the project team. The

data collected for this evaluation will serve as a future baseline for later evaluations.

Resource Consideration

Resource available for evaluation was limited. Manpower mostly consisted of the Director and 2other project team members, and they could only devote a few hours a week to the project

evaluation, due to other commitments. Time was largely spent on clarifying the structure of the

evaluation and the design of questionnaires, in hopes of establishing a clear framework for the

project next year.

Evaluation StandardsObtaining consent

It was explained to workshop participants, audience members, and project team members that

completing their respective survey was purely voluntary, and that completing and submitting thesurvey meant that they consented to having their data used. In order to maintain confidentiality

given the small sample size, no identifiers were used in questionnaires, questions relating to

demographics and questions relating to the project were created as two separate questionnaires,and data cleaning and analysis was conducted by an evaluation team member who did not have

personal contact with workshop participants or audience members. It was noted that there may

have been some issues regarding record keeping orparticipants willingness to answer honestly,but the reliability of this strategy was judged to be acceptable.


10/43

9

DATA COLLECTION

The evaluation largely draws on questionnaires, and to some extent, reviews of meeting minutes

and the project account book.

Table 2. Data Collection Plan

Indicators Data source Data Collection Method

Number of outreach activities Number of flyers distributed

Records by project team Review records of minutes

Number of workshopparticipants at the end of

workshops (max 20)

Attendance rate of workshopparticipants

Workshop records byDirector/Joker

Review records of workshop sessions andattendance

Number of rehearsals Length of rehearsals

Rehearsal reports Records by the Stage Manager

Diversity of workshopparticipants

Diversity of communitymembers (aggregated)

Demographic questions Survey workshop participants(online questionnaire)

Survey audience members(hardcopy/online questionnaire)

Reflections from workshopssessions and performances

Open-ended questions Survey workshop participants(online questionnaire)

Survey audience members(hardcopy/online questionnaire)

Expectations of the audiencemembers

Ratings of the aestheticquality of the performances

Rating questions Survey audience members(hardcopy/online questionnaire)

Note: The questionnaires, intended to assess the impact of the project on workshop participants,audience members, and project team members, were developed by the team. This decision was

undertaken given the lack of standardized measures in the field of Forum Theatre and indeed the

arts in general, as well as the lack of detail in pertinent literature, most of which only reported

answers from their participants and omitted the measures and questionnaires used.

Fortunately, a dissertation by Rae (2011) does outline potential interview questions for

participants, actors and facilitators, and thus the team drew on the paper as a foundation for

developing our own questionnaires. The 3 sets of questionnaires each contained:

i) Demographics questions (these were administered separately to ensure confidentiality,given the small sample size)

ii) Impact of project/involvement (e.g. What is one key thing you learned/experienced fromparticipating in the project?)

iii) Feedbackand suggestions for improvement (e.g. What are 3 things you enjoyed aboutthe workshops?)

SeeAppendices A-Dfor the feedback surveys.


11/43


PROCESS EVALUATION

PROJECT TIMELINE

There were 3 main phases to the project, and details of each phase as well as the timeline are

outlined below.

Phase 1 -publicizing the project to the wider UBC community, recruiting project team members,and conducting outreach in preparation to recruit workshop participants (maximum 20, for

reasons of manageability).

Phase 2a - the creation and rehearsal of the pieces during the workshop process (the workshop is

adapted from Theatre for Livings August trainings with David Diamond; seeAppendix Efor the

list of games and activities that were played during each session), and the lengthier rehearsalperiod with performers after the end of the workshops.

Table 3. Illustrative Timeline for Project Activities

Phase 1 Timing of Activities for Oct 2012Jan 2013Oct Nov Dec Jan

Recruitment of project team members + +

Brainstorming about design of project + +

Preparation of publicity and outreach material

(e.g., logo, posters)

+ +

Publicity + Mid-Nov + +

Grant applications, fundraising planning + + +

Open to workshop participant applications + Dec 20

deadline

Review of workshop participant applications

(1st round; max. 40 applicants invited for interview)

Dec 27

deadline

Interviews with applicants Jan 4-6

Final decision about workshop participants

(max. 20), accepted applicants are notified

Jan 8


Phase 2a Timing of Activities forJan 2013March 2013

Jan Feb March

Workshop sessions (6 consecutive Sundays, from 12-6pm)

January 13 = Teambuilding, introduction to image work January 20 = More trust games, introduction to improvisation January 27 = Improvisation and storytelling games February 3 = Creation of pieces February 10 = Rehearsal of pieces February 17 = Invited Forum

+ +

Rehearsals + +


12/43


Phase 2b - logistical and fundraising matters for the performance, e.g., negotiations for a

performance venue, fundraising events, publicity material preparation (this phase was concurrent

with Phase 2a, the workshops).

Phase 3 - performance of the plays to the wider UBC community, collection of feedback from

audience members, workshop participants, and also project team members for final evaluationreport, cleaning of data, and the dissemination of data.

Refer toAppendix Ffor the programme booklet that was distributed at the performances.Appendix Gcontains pictures from the workshop and performance.

Summary and Assessment:

Phase 1 - the selection and interview process

Feedback from workshop participants included providing a better sense of what theworkshops would entail in publicity material, and, once invited for the interview, to be

told in more detail about the purpose and activities involved in the interview process

As a result of the practical constraints with the project teams schedules, the initialoutreach for potential workshop participants was scheduled too late, and hence the teamwas still receiving interested inquiries about the workshop in the first week of January.

The team decided to screen these applicants even though it was past the deadline, inacknowledgement of the rushed process of outreach on the part of the project.

However, this ultimately created a lot of inconvenience for the project team members aswell as some of the applicants (e.g., problems with booking a room for the interview due


Phase 2b Timing of Activities for

Jan 2013March 2013Jan Feb March

Fundraising events + + +

Approaching sponsors + +

Performance logistics + +

Publicity for final performance + +


Phase 3 Timing of Activities for

Jan 2013July 2013Jan Feb March April May June

Evaluation planning + +

Data collection from workshops sessions +

Final performances + End Mar

Data collection from performances + End Mar

Data cleaning +

Conference presentation +

Data collection from project team + +Analysis/interpretation + +

Report/dissemination

- Sponsors reports completed end April- Internal report (current document) completed end June

+ + +


13/43


to the late notice). In future, outreach and publicity activities for the workshop should

simply begin earlier, and the deadline for applications should be kept firm.

In general, the response from students was highly positive. However, recruitment wasmore difficult amongst faculty and staff members, despite an initial encouraging response.

o A possible reason for the dropout and/or lack of follow-up could be that the timecommitment required of workshop participants and project team members was tooexcessive in light of their full-time job and family responsibilities.

o More effort should be devoted to finding means of including their voices in future,perhaps through focus groups or actively partnering a workshop participant with a

faculty/staff member in dialogue sessions.

Phase 2a - the workshops and rehearsal process

In general, workshop participants reported being very satisfied with the workshops.Participants indicated that they enjoyed the workshop process, as it allowed them to

make friends, learn about culture and meet diverse people.

o Although some participants thought that the workshops were too long, they alsoindicated that the length did provide the necessary amount of time to createconnections that were crucial to the work later.

All workshop participants wanted to be performers as well, which is a positive indicatorof the strength of the projects engagement. However, this also meant that the Director

was pressed for time to rehearse with all 3 groups in the space of a few weeks.

A secondary problem due to this warm response was the issue of scheduling rehearsalsthat would work for everyone within a specific group. For logistical ease, rehearsal datesand times should be decided upon prior to beginning workshops, so that workshop

participants who might be interested in performing have advance notice to reserve those

timings for rehearsals.

Secondly, it took more time than anticipated to rehearse and tighten the pieceseachgroup had approximately 3 sessions of rehearsals instead of 2, and more time could stillhave conceivably been spent on rehearsing the pieces. In future, the timeline should plan

for more rehearsals, and each rehearsal should also be scheduled for longer periods of time.

Phase 2b - logistical arrangements

As the project is a new initiative, it took longer than anticipated to settle on a suitablevenue and dates/times for the performances, which made it difficult to recruit designersor to carry out the necessary technical rehearsals prior to the actual performance.

The performances were successfully executed in the end, but a lot of anxiety and stresscould have been avoided if the venue and dates for the performance had been set earlier

in advance. Apart from beginning negotiations with venues earlier in future, designers

should also be recruited in the early stages of the project, which would enable venuesponsors and designers to preview the Forum Theatre pieces during the Invited Forum

that takes place in the last workshop session.

It should be noted that, in questionnaires distributed to audience members, commonsuggestions for future improvements included having more advertisement for theperformances, as well as an earlier performance time.


14/43


Phase 3evaluation and presentations

Creating the internal report took longer than expected due to work commitments on thepart of the evaluation team, and the need to create a framework from scratch. However,

this is not likely to happen again next year, given that a framework is now in place.

PROJECT TEAMThe main recruitment drive of the project took place in October 2012 (see Phase 1), but as aresult of conflicts in schedule and new needs on the part of the project, the project wound up

having smaller recruitment drives throughout the year. By the end of the 2012/2013 academic

year, the project had a total of 10 team members, and 6 ad-hoc volunteers.

Table 7 summarizes the main responsibilities and time commitment of each role, but it should be

noted that some team members were helping out in more than one capacity.

Summary and Assessment:Although the time commitment involved was more extensive than initially imagined, that is

likely to be true for any project or initiative in its infancy. Indeed, it is remarkable how much was

achieved, given the status of Changing the Lens project as a new initiative.

Positive aspects of the project team structure include:

The flexibility of rolesthis allowed members to collaborate and support each other asneeded, and the fact that multiple people rose up to the challenge of specific situations

points to their commitment to the team and to the project

Table 7. Summary of Responsibilities, Hours and Project Activities

Role Responsibilities Time Commitment

Director/Joker

Overseeing project and coordinating all other roles Facilitating workshops, rehearsals, and performances Liaising between project and external parties

9-16 hours/week(Meetings: 2-4 hours,

workshop/rehearsals/

production work: 7-12 hours)

Stage Managers Minute-taking during meetings Coordinating meetings and rehearsal schedules Handling logistics of performances

6-10 hours/week

(Meetings: 2-4 hours

production work: 4-6 hours)

Publicity and

Fundraising Team Contacting possible sponsors Organizing fundraising/outreach activities Manning booth during fundraising/outreach activities Promotion of workshops and performances

5-7 hours/week

(Meetings: 2 hours

Publicity and fundraising

activities: 3-5 hours)

Photographer/Videographer

On-call during events (e.g., rehearsals) Working with Publicity team and Director to create

promotion material (e.g., video trailers)

Performance photography for archival purposes10-15 hours in total/person(Photography, editing)

Graphic Designer Working with Publicity team and Director to createpromotion material (e.g., poster for performances)

20 hours in total/person

Evaluation Team Designing plan of evaluation Creating measures to assess impact of project Creating this final report as well as the final reports

for sponsors

20 -60hours in total/person

(Survey development, data

analysis, report writing)


15/43


However, some aspects to be improved on include:

The organization of the Publicity and Fundraising teamspecifically, a list of publicityand outreach avenues should be planned out prior to the start of next years project, so as

to facilitate execution and coordination of project publicity

Heavy workload of key membersin future, the role of the Director and Joker could betaken on by different people, while more ofthe Stage Managers responsibilities could bedelegated perhaps to the Assistant Stage Manager

PROJECT PARTICIPANTS

Apart from helping out in the project team, there were other means by which communitymembers could get involved with the project:

Summary and Assessment:The willingness ofthis years workshop participants/cast members to commit time and energy to

the project is particularly gratifying, but the project could certainly do more to encouragecommunity members to be involved in the project. For instance, the project could engage more

with other campus organizations, such as hosting events together in collaboration.

The project could also direct more effort towards drawing on the strengths of community

members, such as recruiting photographers and videographers from the Film Department,working with Psychology or Sociology students to formulate more accurate measures to evaluate

the project.

Table 8. Summary of Responsibilities, Hours and Project Activities

Capacity Activities Time CommitmentWorkshop

participant Participating in 6 workshop sessions that

involved: team building games, improvisational

exercises, creating Forum Theatre pieces

36 hours in total/person

(6 hours on Sundays, for 6 weeks)

Cast member Attending rehearsals for pieces Acting in public performances 25-28 hours in total/person(Rehearsals: 9-12 hours,

dress rehearsal: 6 hours,

2 performances: 10 hours)

Backstage/Front-

of-House

crew/Kitchen crew

Setting up the performance venue Operating lights during performances Welcoming audience members and handing out

programme booklets and surveys

Preparing food for performance intermissions

6-15 hours in total/person

Consultant/

Sponsor/

Supporting staff

Providing support to the project in various forms(e.g. financial, publicity, logistical)

5-10 hours in total/person

Audience member Participating in audience-interactive sections ofthe public performances

Contributing thoughts and insights to discussionsduring performances

Each performance was 3 hours

long, and 9-11 interventions werereceived per performance night.


16/43

15

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

AnalysisThe data collected comprises of both quantitative and qualitative information. As such, the corresponding methods were used toanalyze the data. Simple counts of frequency were used for quantitative data analysis, while qualitative methods such as thematic

content analysis were used to review answers to open-ended questions.

Table 9. Indicators and Summary of Results for Evaluation QuestionsIndicators Program results

Has there been sufficient outreach? (Evaluation Question)

Number of outreach activities

Number of flyers distributed

Three fundraising/outreach activities were held: 2 bake sales, and 1 collaboration with a store for ashare of a days taking for the store

There was also a presentation about the project at the inaugural Intercultural U conference More than 200 flyers were distributed to community members at these activities

Has there been adequate attendance at workshop sessions?

Number of workshop participants at theend of workshops (max 20)

Attendance rate of workshop participants

3 workshop participants dropped out due to conflicts with their school/work schedule, leaving 13workshop participants in total by the end of the workshop sessions

A few participants had to come late or leave early for one or two sessions, but the attendance rateper se for all the sessions was 100%

Has sufficient time been devoted to rehearsals?

Number of rehearsals Length of rehearsals

Each group had 2-3 rehearsals Each rehearsal was approximately 3-4 hoursminimum length of rehearsals met, but more time

could still be allocated next year

Level of preparation was adequate (lines were memorized, blocking was finalized by the finalrehearsal)


17/43


Are community members involved in the project from diverse backgrounds?

Diversity of workshop participants

Diversity of community members(i.e., workshop participants, project team

members, etc.)

The group of 13 workshop participants came from 6 different faculties, ranged from 1 st year toMasters level, included Canadian, International, and Exchange students, and lived in various

places around Vancouver and UBC. The detailed breakdown is not included in this report, to

minimize issues with data confidentiality given the small sample.

See Table 10 for an aggregated summary of the backgrounds of community members involved inthe project. This is approximated, as data was only collected from workshop participants, audience

members, and project team members, and the response rate was high but not 100%.

Has the project encouraged critical thinking about the issue of Cultural Identity and Assumptions?

Reflections from workshops sessions andperformances

Both workshop participants and audience members gave comments suggestive of deeperunderstanding of the issue of Cultural Identity and Assumptions.

For instance, workshop participants noted that the project helped them gain perspective onCultural Identity:

o Culture is different for everyoneo Culture is more personal than I thought; it is really about what one does with ito The issue of different identities seem to create distance between people but i learn that

there is no need to judge a person by their background (sic)

o I learned how much culture and assumptions are rooted in our personalities and ourfamily life. Therefore this is where we need to work on, more than the bigger scale of

society. And this is something we can all do

The same seems to have been true for audience members as well. Takeaway messages included:o Perspective taking - everyone's coming from a different placeo Being aware that solving/understanding cultural/gender differences isn't a one day thing!o Different ways to understand the background of different people - not just race etc that is

overt but emotionality and past experienceso Assumptions are common, knowing how to deal with them is key to carry ono Complications and nuances of conversations and conflicto Format definitely makes you think about "what if" you were in such a situation and

"what would I have done in a situation similar to that"

Other themes also emerged from asking participants about their takeaway messages from theproject, which could perhaps be investigated in next years evaluation:

o Social justice, e.g.,Each of has a voice which we can use to help others who are beingdiscriminated against(sic)

o Problem solving and communication, e.g.,Added perspectives aids in problem solving


18/43


Are the pieces judged to be artistically competent?

Expectations of the audience members Ratings of the aesthetic quality of the

performances

50% of the audience members reported that they did not know what to expect from theperformances, but the general consensus was that the performance exceeded their expectations.

65% rated the aesthetic quality of the performances as good or very good, although a few people(13%) reported that it was difficult to hear the actors at times.


19/43

18

Table 10. Summary of Participants Backgrounds and Demographics

Category Description

Faculty From the student body, a total of 9 faculties were represented amongst the participants.

The majority of students were from Arts and Science, corresponding to the actualdistribution of UBC students in the respective faculties.

Major 15 majors were represented from amongst the 9 faculties. Psychology was most

common, followed by Biology and Economics.

(Educational)

Status at UBC

Campus Mix

There were a number of undergraduate students, ranging from 1st years to 4th years.

There were also a number of graduate and postgraduate students, as well as some

alumni and residents.

The majority of the participants were Canadian, followed by International and then

Exchange status.

Age Age ranged from 13 to 49, with most audience members falling into the 18-22 range.

Residence status Half of the participants lived off-campus (e.g., East Vancouver, Burnaby, Dunbar

etc.), but a quarter lived on-campus in privately-owned residences, and a quarter lived

on-campus in UBC-owned residences (e.g., Fairview, Marine Drive, Place Vanier).

How they heard

about the project

Most project participants (i.e., project team members, workshop participants) found

out about the project via posters and newsletters.

However, most audience members found out about the performances via word of

mouth. Only a few were brought in by posters or the Facebook page, suggesting that

outreach for the performances were not as effective.


20/43


REFLECTIONS / RECOMMENDATIONSProject Objectives (i.e., Goals and Desired Outcomes 2012/2013)

These were not clearly outlined at the beginning of the project, which posed difficultieslater in the assessment of whether they were met

o For next year, the goals should be clearly outlined. These should be posted on ourwebsite in simple language for transparency, and the project team should have an

understanding of how these goals are operationalized

o With clearer goals, more meticulous questionnaires for workshop participants,audience members, and project team members can be devised

Values of the project were also not clearly outlined, which might have enabled the projectto better walk the talk

o The goals of the project as currently outlined lend themselves to a community-centred,strengths-based approach, which is to some extent present in this years project (e.g.,

the flexibility of the project structure). However, members of the community couldhave been more engaged, such as with the compilation of this final report

The team for the upcoming year is working on these issues, and a proposal for next yearsproject will be developed by the end of July 2013 and posted on the projects website.

Evaluation Plan

The questionnaires need to be reworked and refined to better assess the objectives andimpact of the project.

The administration of questionnaires should also be rethought to ensure:o A) maximal convenience for participantso This year, we had developed an extended online version of the feedback form in

expectation of audience members who might have to rush off after the end of

performances. However, the few audience members who had to leave the

performances early actually handed us completed hardcopy feedback forms, whichspeaks to their interest in the project. Future effort should perhaps be focused on

creating a detailed but compact hardcopy version of audience feedback forms.

o B) higher response rateso There was some difficulty asking workshop participants and project team members

to complete surveys at the end of the project, so some possible solutions for next

year include: administering the surveys at the end of workshops/meetings toworkshop participants/project team members; reminders; incentives (e.g., gift

certificates), or ownership innovations (e.g., engaging participants in the evaluation

process as stakeholders)

More attention should be focused on integrating the project team, faculty and staffmembers, as well as workshop participants into project evaluation activities. For instance,these people could perhaps be asked to record or reflect on their activities on an ongoing

basis, which could then be compiled and used in the final report next year.

Process Evaluation

Specific comments under each phase can be found in the brief assessment sectionsabove, but it is likely that having more time to plan for next years project would greatly

alleviate the stress and problems that cropped up during the process of this years project.


21/43


FINAL NOTES / LESSONS LEARNT

In general, the project was fairly successful for a first effort, and workshop participants, audience

members, and project team members alike deserve to be commended for their willingness to

simply go with the flow of the project. That being said, the subsequent achievements of the

project is highly dependent on having a clear structure and good planning, and thus the next fewyears are crucial to ensuring that the project is sustainable, as well as relevant to the community

DisseminationThe report will be disseminated via various channels. It will be uploaded onto the projects

website for easy access to the public, and notices about it will be posted onto the projects socialmedia channels. Copies will also be distributed to interested parties and sponsors of the project.

This report and its recommendations will also be considered when preparing the proposal for

next years project. Finally, the project will seek for opportunities to present these findings to the

general public as well.

UseThe project team will use the findings to refine strategies for the Changing the Lens project. Thefindings will help guide the project to focus on areas that are most crucial for meeting the stated

goals and objectives of the project. The findings will also contribute to seeking future funding

and advocacy efforts, as well as serve as a framework for future evaluations.

Plans for 2013/2014

In conjunction with the upcoming Truth and Reconciliation conference

that is taking place in Vancouver in September, Changing the Lens projectintends to address the issue of how dialogue and more opportunities forengagement can be generated between and amongst the Aboriginal and

non-Aboriginal community.

[email protected] get involved as a project teammember, to discuss collaboration possibilities, or simply to find out more!
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


22/43


REFERENCES

Boal, A. (1985). Theatre of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Theatre Communications Group, Inc.

Diamond, D. (2007). Theatre for Living: The Art and Science of Community-Based Dialogue.Victoria, BC: Trafford Publishing.

Gjrum, R., & Ramsdal, G. (2009). Forum Theatres Positive Impact on Self-esteem in Conflict.

Applied Theatre Researcher, 118.

Mitchell, K. S., & Freitag, J. L. (2011). Forum Theatre for Bystanders: a new model for gender

violence prevention. Violence against women, 17(8), 9901013.

doi:10.1177/1077801211417152

Planning and Institutional Research (PAIR). (2013). UBC Vancouver Campus - Fact Sheet.

Rae, J. E. (2011).A study of the use of organisational theatre: The case of Forum Theatre.

Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online:

http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3268/


23/43


APPENDICES

Appendix A Workshop Participant Feedback Survey

Note: Demographic questions were administered via a separate survey, to maintain

confidentiality.

Feedback - workshop participantsConfidentiality: Your identity will not be associated with any examples or themes shared in the project, orin any form of discussion.

What is one key thing you learned/experienced from participating in the project?

Do you think your experience with this project will influence the way you perceive, interact with

or react to other people/situations in the future? (Please explain)

Impact of workshop - Cultural identity and assumptions

Did this project change your perception of cultural identity and assumptions (at UBC or within

society as a whole)? How so?

Do you think this project has contributed to social vibrancy on the UBC campus?

Impact of workshop - Theatre

Have you had any previous experience in drama, theatre, or forum theatre?

Did you gain any theatre skills or learn anything about theatre through this project? (Please explain)

Future Directions

What are 3 things you enjoyed about the workshops?

What are 3 things you did not enjoy about the workshops?

Do you have any suggestions for improvement in the future?

This can relate to what you did not enjoy about the workshops.

What are some topics you would like Changing the Lens to focus on in the future?

(eg. gender identity etc.)

Do you have any additional comments or feedback you would like to share?


24/43

23

Appendix B Audience Member Feedback Survey hardcopy version


25/43


Appendix C Audience Member Feedback Survey online version

Audience Demographics and Feedback

DemographicsPlease help us and our grant sponsors understand the diverse population involved in this project

by answering a few demographic questions. If you have already completed the followingquestions in hard copy format at the performance, please skip to Feedback Section B.

What is your faculty? (If applicable)

What is your major? (If applicable)

What is your status at UBC?

Check all that apply

Undergraduate Student (Specify year):

Graduate Student (Masters/PhD etc.)

Diploma

Faculty

Staff

Alumni

Canadian

International

Exchange

Other/Not affiliated (Specify)

Where do you live?

Please specify (eg. Kits, Gage etc.)

Residence

Non-Residence Campus Housing

Off Campus Housing

How did you hear about Changing the Lens Project?

Poster (where?)Digital Signage (where?)

Facebook Page

Word of Mouth

Other


26/43


Project Feedback Section AIf you have already completed the following questions in hard copy format at the performance,

please skip to Feedback Section B.

What (if any) were your expectations of this event? Were your expectations met?

In your opinion, what was the overall quality of the performance?Please explain - you may refer to any of the 3 specific pieces.

Very Poor

Poor

Okay

Good

Very Good

What is one key thing you will take away from this event?

What are some topics you would like Changing the Lens to focus on in the future?

(Eg. Gender identity)

Project Feedback Section B

Do you think this project has contributed to the social vibrancy on the UBC campus? How?

Did this event change or challenge your perception of cultural identity at UBC or within society

as a whole? How so?

Do you think your experience with this event will influence the way you perceive, interact withor react to other people/situations in the future? (Please explain)

Is there any way you think this event could be followed up?

Is there any way this event (or project) could be improved on in the future?

Any further comments or feedback?


27/43


Appendix D Project Member Feedback Survey

Feedback - project members

Confidentiality: Your identity will not be associated with any examples or themes shared in the project, or

in any form of discussion.

Do you have any comments/feedback/suggestions regarding the production?

Project Impact

What is one key thing you learned/experienced from participating in the project?

Did this project change your perception of cultural identity and assumptions (at UBC or within

society as a whole)? How so?

Do you think this project has contributed to social vibrancy on the UBC campus?

How interdisciplinary did you find the team, and how do you think collaboration was affected by

the interdisciplinary profile of the group?

Project Involvement

What area(s) of the project did you work on?

publicityfundraising

production

What did you find worked well for the area of the project you were involved in?

What did you find did not work well for the area of the project you were involved in? What

could have been done differently?

In general, what did you think about the overall organization of the project this year? What could

have been improved?

Future Directions

Do you have any ideas about future possibilities/activities for the project? For example, we had

considered a dialogue session in conjunction to the project this year.

Do you have any additional comments or feedback you would like to share? (e.g. thoughts about

sustainability etc.)


28/43


Appendix E List of Games and Activities in the Changing the Lens workshop

The structure of the workshop this year was loosely based on Theatre for Livings annual Augusttraining workshops (for more information about these workshops, clickhere), but the games are

derived from both the workshops and David Diamonds bookTheatre for Living (2007).

However, the specific instructions for the games were modified to reflect the focus and emphasis

of the project, and the order of the games was also chosen specifically for the particular group of

workshop participants. Below is a list of the games and activities that were played. For more

information, please [email protected].

January 13

BalancingPushingBalancingPulling

Hypnosis

Lead the BlindBlind Magnets

Complete the Image

Sculpting Partners/Build an ImageGroups of 4

January 20

Fill the Empty SpaceLeader of the Orchestra

Blind Cars, Blind Busses

Glass BottleSpeed Gestures

Energy Clap

Magnetic ImagesFox in the Hole

January 27

Fear/protector

The Journey

Catch Me

KnotsRainbow of Desire

Bear and Tree Planters

February 3

Parisian Sword

Song of the Mermaid

(led into the devising of plays)

Massage and run

February 10

Choose the LeaderRehearsals

February 17

RehearsalsInvited Forum
http://www.headlinestheatre.com/trainings.htmhttp://www.headlinestheatre.com/trainings.htmhttp://www.headlinestheatre.com/trainings.htmmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.headlinestheatre.com/trainings.htm


29/43


Appendix F Programme Booklet


30/43



31/43



32/43



33/43



34/43


Appendix G Pictures from Workshop and Performance

1st workshop

Creating images of cultural identity and assumptions


35/43


5th workshop

Playing a gameChoose the leader

End of workshops

Group photo with most of the cast and some of the project team members

Top row (from left): Sathya Guibot, Eimon Yin

Middle row (from left): Christine Yeh, Ariel Chih, Audrea Chen

Bottom row (from left): Mohammad Askarian, Ann Wilby, Rebecca Liu, Claire Chen, Gua KheeChong, Jennie Kostiuk, Cherrie Chan, Wilfred Lau


36/43


Photocall from final performance

As part of Longhouse protocol, we would just like to acknowledge the artists of the posts and

carved door in the following pictures. The house post on stage that has a wolf design is carved

by Chief Walter Harris and Rodney Harris. The one that is a transformer pole on the other side

of the stage is carved by Stan Bevan and Ken McNeil. At the back of the hall the house post that

is carved on both sides with an eagle and beaver is by Lyle Wilson and the raven on top of the

spindle whorl on the other side is carved by Susan Point. If there are pictures of the carved door

it was done by Bradley Hunt.

First pieceDelicacies

Left: Eldest sister Gem (played by Christine Yeh) preparing dinner as usual

Right: Second sister Grace (played by Sathya Guibot) studying, as usual

Youngest sister Ruby (played by Velina Ivanova) and her French friend Alice (played

by Cherrie Chan), on their way to the sisters home


37/43


Grace, Alice, and Ruby staring in disgust at the escargots Gem made

Grace and Alice, awkward alone at table

Ruby confronting Gem in the kitchen


38/43


Second pieceAssumptions

Daughter Georgia (played by Ariel Chih) and Mother (played by Sandra Chamberlain) having a

fight over a Skype call

Georgia and Becca (played by Rebecca Liu) having dinner;

Georgia is in a bad mood from the night before, but she is not telling Becca whats wrong


39/43


Group project meeting, but Georgia is isolated, and Jenna (played by Jennie Kostiuk) is only

working with Becca

Second Skype call with Mother; Georgia accuses her of loving Becca more


40/43


Third pieceDeal with It

The two friends Paige (played by Ann Wilby) and Julia (played by Claire Chen) talking before

other group members arrive

Paige and Julia discuss with Will (played by Wilfred Lau) if they should wait for Mo (played by

Mohammad Askarian) before talking about the project


41/43


Mo finally arrives

Paige is exasperated with Mo


42/43


Mo argues with Paige

Paige is fed-up and leaves the meeting

Will tells Mo why he does not want Mos work in the project because hes ESL


43/43

Post-show cast and crew pictures

Top row (from left): Mohammad Askarian, Sathya Guibot, Christine Yeh, Velina Ivanova,

Jennie Kostiuk, Sandra Chamberlain

Middle row (from left): Cherrie Chan, Claire Chen, Wilfred Lau, Ann Wilby, Ariel Chih,

Rebecca Liu

Bottom row (from left): Gua Khee Chong, Hibiki Morishita

Top row (from left): Velina Ivanova, Christine Yeh, Audrea Chen, Sathya Guibot, Mohammad Askarian

Middle row (from left): Wilfred Lau, Claire Chen, Ariel Chih, Rebecca Liu, Cherrie Chan

Bottom row (from left): Eimon Yin, Hibiki Morishita, Gua Khee Chong, Jennie Kostiuk, Qiyi Tam

Evaluation report 2012-2013

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation report 2012-2013