evaluation report 2012-2013
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
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] -
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
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] -
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
3/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 2
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
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
4/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 3
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 -
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
5/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 4
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).
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
6/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 5
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.
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
7/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 6
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.
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
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
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
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.
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
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.
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
11/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 10
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
Table 4. Illustrative Timeline for Project Activities
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 + +
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
12/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 11
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
Table 5. Illustrative Timeline for Project Activities
Phase 2b Timing of Activities for
Jan 2013March 2013Jan Feb March
Fundraising events + + +
Approaching sponsors + +
Performance logistics + +
Publicity for final performance + +
Table 6. Illustrative Timeline for Project Activities
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
+ + +
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
13/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 12
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.
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
14/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 13
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)
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
15/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 14
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.
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
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)
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
17/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 16
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
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
18/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 17
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.
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
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.
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
20/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 19
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.
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
21/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 20
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] -
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
22/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 21
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/
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
23/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 22
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?
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
24/43
23
Appendix B Audience Member Feedback Survey hardcopy version
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
25/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 24
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
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
26/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 25
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?
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
27/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 26
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.)
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
28/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 27
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 -
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
29/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 28
Appendix F Programme Booklet
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
30/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 29
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
31/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 30
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
32/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 31
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
33/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 32
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
34/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 33
Appendix G Pictures from Workshop and Performance
1st workshop
Creating images of cultural identity and assumptions
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
35/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 34
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
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
36/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 35
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
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
37/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 36
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
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
38/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 37
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
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
39/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 38
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
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
40/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 39
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
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
41/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 40
Mo finally arrives
Paige is exasperated with Mo
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
42/43
Changing the Lens project (2012/2013) 41
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
-
7/28/2019 Evaluation report 2012-2013
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