Abstract
In 2014, we implemented a new theatre history curriculum at Michigan State University by replacing the two-course survey sequence with two topics-based, non-sequential courses: Studies in Contemporary Theatre and Studies in Theatre History. Initially, this decision proved controversial with some of our colleagues; a number of faculty (mainly though not exclusively from acting) expressed discontent with a perceived diminishment of students’ familiarity with historical knowledge and vocabulary vital to students’ “pre-professional” training. Meanwhile, one of us was scolded by a senior scholar at another university for creating “functional illiterates.” The resistance we encountered appears to be based in the notion that essential material was not being taught. In these instances and others, we were made to respond to two questions: How did we determine what is essential? and What was our criteria? We have answered these questions largely by committing to teaching historiography, and reiterating to students that nothing is vital so much as one (or two) courses can only offer a partial view and as such it is only one of multiple histories.
Bibliographic data
Smith, Daniel, and Ann Folino White. “What Is Essential in Teaching Theatre History? A Revised Theatre Studies Curriculum.” Theatre Topics 31.2 (2021): 113-120.
External source
DOI: 10.1353/tt.2021.0026
