College of Liberal Arts

Art

The Department of Art prepared an in-depth self-study in 1998 for accreditation by the National Association of Schools of Art and Design (N.A.S.A.D.). The Department was accredited by N.A.S.A.D. in 1999.

Between 1992 and the beginning of the 1995-96 academic year, all levels of University planning were directed by a single comprehensive plan that was prepared in the 1992-93 academic year. The plan was prepared under the direction of the University Future Committee (UFC), composed of 12 members of the faculty appointed by the President. Working with their deans, department chairs were asked "to narrow the focus of activities of each unit while keeping intact the strongest and most essential programs and directing enhancements at programs most likely to show distinction." Departmental Action Plans were presented to the UFC at open hearings. The UFC then prepared the University Strategic Plan and Budget, which it presented to the administration for their approval and action. Between 1993 and 1995 each department prepared a short annual update.

In the Fall of 1995 the University returned to the model it had used prior to 1992. Under this system annual strategic plans will be produced by each department and forwarded to the Dean, who will then use them to prepare a single strategic plan for the College. The College plans will be forwarded to the Provost for approval and action.

The current guidelines for strategic planning are similar to those used in 1992-93. That is, units are asked to eliminate marginal or redundant programs and to emphasize areas of excellence without compromising the integrity of the broader obligations to our majors, graduate students, and those who take our courses as electives or to meet University requirements.

The first of the new departmental strategic plans was initiated in December 1995. The process began in the Spring of 1995 with a series of three departmental retreats conducted by an outside evaluator. During these sessions the faculty openly and frankly discussed areas of individual, divisional, and departmental concern. These retreats were considered an appropriate starting point because of the imminent retirement of Dr. John O'Neil (who had served as Chair for over twenty years) and because of the scheduled incorporation of the Media Arts Division into the Department. The next step in the process was a series of interviews conducted during the summer by the Interim Chair, Dr. Bradford Collins, with individual members of the Department to discuss the question of divisional and departmental goals. Also, in the Summer of 1995, the Department sent out a two-page questionnaire to a sampling of alumni and current students. Completed questionnaires were analyzed by the Interim Chair, separated according to programs, and turned over to the divisions. In the Fall of 1995, committees were established within each of the four divisions to assess divisional programs, establish needs, and set goals for the upcoming year. Division plans were first presented to the faculty of that division for discussion and approval. The four divisional plans were then presented and discussed at a general faculty meeting, and then the plans were then considered by the Advisory Committee. The strategic plan was drafted and submitted to the Dean in December, 1995.

A strategic plan update was completed in December of the following year, 1996. Planning began with a discussion between the Interim Chair and the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts in the Spring of 1996 on the subject of the strategic plan just submitted. A report on that meeting was presented to the Advisory Committee and the division chairs were asked to begin discussions within their divisions on the progress of the strategic plan and on areas that might need attention in the future. Division Chairs were told to prepare a report on these matters for the Interim Chair early in the Fall semester. On the basis of these reports, discussed at the Advisory Committee meeting, a preliminary strategic plan update was prepared and sent to the entire faculty for comments and/or approval. After final review, a strategic plan update was prepared in December of 1996 and submitted on January 17, 1997 to the Dean.

In August 1997 the Dean left the University and the Interim Dean directed all department chairs to update their strategic plans. The incoming Chair, Professor Robert Lyon, prepared the new strategic plan which may be found at http://www.cla.sc.edu/ART/pages/mission.html.

As a result of the 1990 self-study, the Art Studio Division instituted a review of the annual student art exhibition by an outside evaluator (see Appendix E for the text of these evaluations). These reviews have been generally positive. They vary considerably in usefulness, however, depending on how conscientiously the evaluator undertook the task. Cumulatively these evaluations have helped to provide an overview of its programs.

In the early 1990's the Department experimented with formal exit interviews with mixed results. The information gained was anecdotal at best and difficult to correlate. The process has been discontinued.

Students in the MFA program in Studio Art are also evaluated on an annual basis through a review process whereby each of them discusses his or her current work with the Art Studio faculty. This review process is to determine not only the quality of current work but the ability of the student to articulate the concerns and influences that guide it. Student performance is viewed as an index not only of their progress but of the effectiveness of their programmatic instruction.

Each Media Arts undergraduate is required to serve an internship. Written evaluations by the student's supervising media professional are required. All graduate students participate in a practicum in the media industry, and an exit interview and a written evaluation by the student's supervisor are required. These evaluations provide an important assessment of not only the individual students but also of the program. In addition, graduate students discuss their current work and are formally evaluated by the Media Arts faculty on an annual basis.

The Art Education faculty conduct formal interviews of all students following the completion of their student teaching.

Each year since 1989 the Department, through its separate divisions, has identified specific and manageable goals for the coming year, which we have generally accomplished.

The primary incentive to planning, beyond the obvious fact that it has become an institutional priority (i.e., mandated), is the opportunity it provides us to stay abreast of changes within the University and within our separate fields. The primary hindrance to effective departmental evaluations and planning is the internal plurality of the Department--the fact that it consists of four separate and distinct divisions. Members of each division are naturally, and quite properly, somewhat territorial. Each division has concerns unique to itself and a commitment to defending the scope and viability of its programs against deterioration and erosion. The process of planning has been further hindered by the uncertainties of funding that face all areas of higher education in the state.

In September, 1995 the Department of Art was directed by the University administration to prepare a self-study of the divisions of Art Studio and Art History for submission to the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education (CHE). Anticipating that the Department would soon be applying for NASAD accreditation, that self-study was prepared following NASAD guidelines.

A committee of 10 faculty and 3 students developed the CHE self-study in October through December 1995. The departmental administration was represented by the Interim Chair, the Associate Chair, the Chairs of Art History and Art Studio, The Directors of Graduate and Undergraduate Studies.

Individual faculty and students undertook specific tasks, gathering information (sometimes with the help of faculty and staff outside of the committee), and writing specific portions of the self-study. The Chair of the self-study committee wrote the overall draft and the committee reviewed and edited the draft to produce the final result. The faculty of the Divisions of Art History and Art Studio reviewed a draft version of the self-study and offered input. The self-study was approved by both divisions.

Student and alumni input was incorporated in the self-study indirectly from various surveys, formal and informal.

In October, 1997 the chair of the self-study committee analyzed the CHE self-study, noting text and data that had to be updated. Language describing the Divisions of Art Education and Media Arts was added because they were not included in the original CHE self-study document. Many faculty were given specific research and writing tasks. The chair of the self-study committee prepared a first draft in December, 1997. The faculty reviewed and edited the document in January, 1998. Following final revisions, the self-study was combined with the various appendices and submitted to NASAD and the visitation team in February, 1998.

The chief area for improvement revealed by the self-study involves evaluation. Although we conduct exit interviews, the results have not been systematically kept, assessed, or used to help in future planning--as they will be in the future. Also, we have no structures in place for coordinating our various assessment procedures in order to produce a composite picture of our various programs. Such a structure should be included in next year's strategic plan.