An Informal Assessment of Twenty-First-Century Skills Developed Through Hidden Curriculum in Theatre Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arguably more than any previous generation, students graduating from university programs in the twenty-first century need a comprehensive repertoire of essential skills for their rapidly evolving world. Undergraduate theatre training offers a wide range of those skills. In response to Glen Nichols’s prompt for the CATR panel discussions, I conducted an informal assessment of skills that are generated in Canadian theatre programs (2017) based on an available 1994 rubric for “Arts Education Standards and Twenty-First Century Skills.” 1 Analytical reasoning, information literacy, invention, self-direction, collaboration, and technological integration are examples of the competencies developed through effective undergraduate theatre studies programs; however, they are often the “hidden curriculum” (Jackson) little recognized by theatre educators and university administrators. There are limiting factors in the successful mining of the hidden curriculum for the benefit of our students including a lack of adequate teacher training for existing and incoming faculty (Pagen 223). Notwithstanding these factors, undergraduate theatre programs can provide a forum for the development of necessary skills for the twenty-first-century student.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".