Art and Design (1919–2012)

Gallini (1989) argues that, “the ability to combine a collection of problems into a meaningful representation, or schema facilitates learning” (p. 244). In a previous study, it was found that introducing a schema-based learning system in the design studio assisted novice designers in a structured, purposeful process, where they began to see patterns of information and use these patterns to develop and refine their design solutions. Their design solutions proved to be significantly better than the other students who did not utilize the instructional interventions. But, does this instructional intervention have any lasting effects with this same group of students? Do these skills transfer to new or novel tasks after a period of time ? The aim of this study is to measure the lasting effects of this learning tool by following this group of students through a new set of transfer tasks approximately one year after the original instructional intervention. Like the previous year study, the effectiveness characteristics were examined from four main areas of a design project: 1) organization of information, 2) categorization of information, 3) application of theory, and 4) overall design. The following research questions were addressed: 1. What are the lasting effects of the schema-based learning tools after one year from the initial implementation of the instructional intervention? Or, what are the problem solving transfer effects of the instructional intervention? 2. Do students, who use these schema-based learning tools, develop projects that are more organized, categorized, more theoretically-based, and have better overall designs, than students who do not use such learning tools?

Gallini (1989) argues that, “the ability to combine a collection of problems into a meaningful representation, or schema facilitates learning” (p. 244). More specifically, Chan (1990) reports, “that the ability of organizing and applying schemata determines a designer’s ability” (p. 78). The purpose of this study was to measure the impact and effectiveness of a conceptual advanced organizer, a database/analysis card model, in the interior design studio. The effectiveness characteristics were examined from four main areas of a design project: 1) organization of information, 2) categorization of information, 3) application of theory, and 4) overall design. The following research questions were addressed: 1. Do students, who use conceptual advanced organizers, develop design projects that are more organized than students who do not use such organizers? 2. Do students, who use conceptual advanced organizers, develop design projects that categorize information more effectively than students who do not use such organizers? 3. Do students, who use conceptual advanced organizers, develop design projects that are more theoretically-based than students who do not use such organizers? 4. Does the skill of organizing and applying schemata determine a designer’s ability? This study utilized and analyzed the strength and capabilities of the database structure, coupled with the spontaneity and idea generation of William Pena’s analysis card technique (1977) in providing an expert-like structure for novice designers in their problem solving in the design studio.

The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore interior design students’ understanding of their design thinking, and to investigate how they view digital technology’s role in these activities. The research questions are: 1. How do interior design students conceptualize interior design as a discipline? 2. How do these students conceptualize their design process? 3. What value do students place on the “process book”1 as a representation of their design breadth and depth in a given project? 4. How do students view computer technology’s role in their design thinking and their design products? Participants viewed interior design as more sensitive to the human condition than architecture. AutoCAD was one software package that was used both in the process and the end product, but other more common software programs (word processors, spreadsheets) were only minimally utilized. Hypermedia and databases were not mentioned by any participants as tools in their design processes.

The purpose of this paper is to present initial findings of a quasi-experimental study that analyzes what selection criteria provide the best measures of predicting future “success” in an undergraduate interior design program. Success in this study utilizes a performance assessment of a capstone interior design project.

The purpose of this study is to introduce a new learning tool to the interior design studio, namely, a “digital process book.” Paper-based process books are not new to the studio. A process book includes representations of the activities that occur and artifacts that are constructed as a student completes a design project. It allows the instructor, jurors, and others, to see the processes a student goes through to complete a project. It is also intended to assist students as a tool in the learning and design process. Schenk (2007) similarly describes this process work in the graphic design context as “job bags,” where this material, for the most part, provides the “drawn record” of the design process. However, paperbased process books are mostly a linear compilation of the design process that provides little of the scaffolding that a novice designer neeeds. The goal of this project is to take the existing strengths and capabilities of the computer and other digital technology, and merge them with the positive qualities of the paper-based process work, while also incorporating an underlying structure that is grounded in educational psychology theory.

“So you have a design degree, why are you interested in the area of curriculum and instructional technology?” For me I see so many connections and important contributions to both design and education, in addition to the valuable lessons learned by taking an interdisciplinary approach to projects. This case study provides one example of how design and education, together, can produce exciting processes and results that help inform both design and education scholars.

Determining a student’s potential is a serious endeavor in higher education. In this high stakes decision-making, most programs utilize a combination of assessment measures to obtain a full picture of the candidate student. In programs where only a limited number of slots are available, this selection process becomes particularly important. This process is based on the underlying assumption that academic units want to select the students who will be the most “successful” or who will succeed, given their conceptions success. Historically, admissions criteria have encompassed a narrow definition and set of tools, even when program or department mission statements included a broad range of student learning goals (Camara, 2005).

In the past 20 years, there has been a large body of research that demonstrates the validity of personality measures in predicting job performance criteria (Judge, Higgins, Thorensen, & Barrick, 1999). Researchers have also shown that personality measures predict academic criteria such as GPA and absenteeism (Paunonen & Nicol, 2001). Empirical support has been shown for the Big Five model as a theoretical framework for the study of personality in different settings and populations (Costa & McCrae, 1994; Digman, 1997). The five personality factors are: 1) Neuroticism—level of stability versus instability, 2) Extraversion—tendency to be assertive, sociable, and energetic 3) Openness—disposition to be curious, open to new situations, and imaginative, 4) Agreeableness—disposition to be cooperative, and supportive, and 5) Conscientiousness—disposition toward purposeful, determined, and goal-directed behavior.

The focus of this study is to analyze a set of personality measures in predicting college success in an undergraduate interior design program at a large Midwestern university in the United States. The criterion measure used to define success in college is the student’s cumulative grade point average. This study is important for several reasons. First, there is limited current research on admissions criteria assessment for interior design programs. Second, because of the nature of design and the design student, these programs must not fall back on criteria and research that is not domain specific and does not holistically look at the candidate student. Lastly, admissions decisions are high-stakes decisions that should have a transparent and rigorous process, where the admission criteria are consistent with the program’s mission and vision. This is a responsibility to the students, their parents, and to society as a whole.

Design students may be obtaining a broad range of knowledge in their university experience, but there needs to be a more explicit integration of their growing knowledge base with a systematic method of thinking, understanding, exploring and applying in the interior design studio. Thus, the design studio provides a venue and an instructional technology tool provides the means of integrating these activities. The purpose of this presentation is threefold. First, to lay the foundation for this hypothesis and provide guidance for developing an instructional tool, a brief overview of interior design trends, systems thinking and design process paradigms are outlined. From this investigation a list of objectives for a proposed computer tool is presented. Second, examples of instructional technology and business information systems pertinent to the design studio tool are discussed. The third purpose is to discuss how these computer tools could be translated to the interior design education setting. The issues to explore are 1) is there a need for a new computer, learning program for the interior design environment, and 2) what might be the hurdles to overcome or the points to address in development?