AN EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH TO TEACHING INTERIOR SPACE CONCEPTS*

Dorothy L. Fowles Department of Home Economics

University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa

and Mabel C. Skjelver

University of Nebraska Lincoln, Nebraska

The increased recognition of the importance of man-environment relationships and human needs in interior design has brought a parallel increase in emphasis on behavioral factors in interior design education. A survey several years ago indicated that while aesthetics was the primary emphasis in current interior design education, there should be an equally strong emphasis on behavioral implications and psycho- logical response to the built environment. 1 (Veitch, p. 8). This raises a question concerning how these behavioral factors and espe- cially spatial needs, can be most effectively taught in the design curriculum.

1. Background to the Problem

Instructional material on spatial information (physical, aesthetic, or psycho-social) is generally conveyed to interior design students through two-dimensional visual aids used with lectures and reading assignments. Beginning interior design students have typi- cally used orthographic projections (i.e., plan views and elevations) to visually explain solutions to interior design problems. Reduced scale models with varying degrees of detail and realism are less frequently used for this purpose.

A hierarchy of simulation techniques, from full-size mock-ups to reduced scale models to photographs and perspective drawings to plans and elevations has been proposed. 2 (Canter, p. 3 2 ) . 3 (Lau, p . 4 3 ) . This hierarchy would seem to suggest that the closer the simulation is to the actual environment the less mental visualization ability is needed by students, while their reaction to the instruc- tional material would be more internalized. Would an actual inter- action of students with their environment have a greater impact on the learning process as a result of more meanginful information and in- creased motivation and involvement?

Few research studies are available on presentation techniques, but one relevant study by Canter incorporated the presentation mode as

* Research supported by funds from the University of Iowa Council on Teaching Award for Improvement of Instruction.

46

one variable in an elaborate 4 x 3 ~ 2 ~ 2 factorial experimental design. The major experimental interest was how the room focal point, direction of, and spacing of seating contributed to appropriateness for different activities in the living room. His results indicated that "eye level photographs distinguished between activities better than plans." 4 (p. 3 6 ) . A similarity in results for spacing of seating and presentation was interpreted to indicate that plan views increase apparent distance. The interaction between presentation mode and focal point could indicate that a piece of furniture which seems small in plan became large in photograph. These results seem to indicate the great variation in personal construing of the interior environment that is possible as a result of relatively abstract two- dimensional simulations. The more abstract the simulation is, the more personal are the interpretations and variations involved.

The following experiment developed from observations of begin- ning design students with limited backgrounds struggling to imagine in their mind's eye and to interpret functionally the three-dimensional spatial information presented with two-dimensional techniques. Inex- perienced students have no clear image of how a space and its furnish- ings will look or what it will be like to occupy and move about in that space. In addition, these students have only a rather vague notion of the actual space needs of individuals. The resulting initial projects have a disproportionately high percentage of design solutions with an overabundance of furniture, as well as ill-conceived spatial organization and aesthetic development. What seems to be insensitivity to the physical and psychological needs of the people who are to occupy the space, as seen in many student projects, may be a result of the individual differences in spatial aptitude in handling two-dimensional presentation techniques.

Spatial aptitude, which functionally seems to subdivide into visualization and manipulation subfactors, is one of the factors of intelligence. The ability to call up and manipulate shapes and forms in the mind's eye seems only too obviously to be an important ability in interior design. Research in this area is also very scant, but Stringer has done a series of studies aimed at descriptive information concerning the intellectual abilities involved in design. 5 (p. 21). In one set of studies the performance in course-work of first year architectural students was correlated with seven spatial tests, in- cluding the Spatial Relations (SR) subtest of the Differential Aptitude Test (DAT). He noted that it is very difficult to identify the dif- ferent abilities that may be involved in different parts of a single design project. Furthermore, he found that the test scores most com- pletely predicted course performance for those students with little related prior design experience. It may be that experience overcomes the apparent lack of initial spatial ability.

2. The Problem

It was the premise for the study reported here that the varied internalization of spatial information could be measured in the various

47

objectively and subjectively graded assignments which related to the use of spatial information within the normal interior design course frame- work. The following propositions formed the problem to be tested:

(1) The Spatial Relations subtest of the DAT, used as a pretest, will be a significant predictor of design project and course grades for beginning students.

(2) The use of a three-dimensional, full-scale space lab will facilitate greater sensitivity to and understanding of space requirements than using lectures with two-dimensional visual aids. performance as measured by:

(a) (b)

(c)

(d) functional and aesthetic space use.

This difference will be seen when comparing student

exam scores using multiple choice questions, scale drawing accuracy in 2-D interior design projects, furniture plans in the design project as they relate to hypothetical occupant's needs and activity groupings, and

3. Methodology

a. Subjects

The subjects were students regularly enrolled in the introduc- tory interior design course in two consecutive semesters. This course, as a preprofessional survey service course, has no prerequisite experi- ence and students were not told of the experiment until the end of the semester. The course format included twice-weekly lectures and a weekly discussion/activity session. smaller groups by another design instructor and a graduate assistant as well as the course lecturer. The discussion sections were desig- nated to use experimental (E) or conventional (C) teaching methods, balancing number of students, instructors, and meeting time. Only those students who completed all aspects of the course were retained as sub- jects (24E and 23C first semester, 24E and 29C second semester) in the data analysis. The next year, an abbreviated study used 104 subjects to replicate the first proposition. These students all received instruction with a combination of both the space lab and lecture tech- niques for the unit on space requirements.

This latter session was led in

b. Equipment

The space laboratory utilized a variety of spaces and equipment as props for this experiment. One end of the food laboratory was arranged to simulate a residential kitchen and part of the adjacent dining room was organized to simulate a family dining-serving space.

48

Demountable office landscape partitions in a neutral color were used in the design studio to define a living room conversation area. This area was furnished with neutral-colored, custom-designed, knock- down lounge chairs and loveseats as well as cube forms. The fourth area, a study/office grouping was also set up in the design studio. demountable walls were later used for a mock-up to simulate the space assigned for the interior design problem.

The

Four task sheets containing plan and elevation drawings and an outline of measurements needed were multilithed for use with E group.

c. Procedure

The Space Relations subtest of the Differential Aptitude Test (DAT-SR) was administered as a pretest during the first week of the semester. This test "represents a combination of two approaches to the measurement of spatial ability. One of these is the ability to visualize an object constructed from a given pattern or net. is the ability to imagine how the object would appear, if rotated in various ways." 6 (Smith, p. 149). This DAT subtest was used to check that E and C groups were matched groups, at least in regard to spatial ability.

The other

In the seventh and eighth weeks of the semester, various as- pects of the interior space relationships and furniture arrangements were presented in the regular lectures. The weekly discussion section meetings covered interior space requirements for human activity. These discussion sections focused on space needs in a living room/conversation grouping, study/office facility, kitchen layout, and dining room arrange- ment. The C sections had this information presented by the different instructors through a standardized lecture script, slides and trans- parent projections. The experimental sections had four different task worksheets to complete in the space lab during class time. Actual spatial measuring in the four mock-ups was completed in 20 minutes by 3-5 person groups of E students, using yardsticks and tape measures. These mock-ups had intentional spatial problems built into their arrange- ments. The following week, recommended measurements were to be located from selected authoritative references by E group only.

An interior design project was then assigned to include floor plans and elevations for a one-room apartment with a sleeping alcove and bath areas evaluated first with individual written critiques and a tentative grade. Following this feed-back, the remainder of the apart- ment (living-dining-entrance room and kitchen) was assigned. The de- mountable wall units were set up in a close approximation to the actual space of the assigned area for E group to walk around and "experience" the space. The C group was not given this opportunity to see the mock- UP -

49

d. Evaluation Techniques

The objective evaluation used to compare comprehension of the spatial ideas was a selected group of 15 multiple-choice questions on a regularly scheduled midterm examination. To evaluate the ability to apply the spatial concepts, the interior design projects were assigned numerical ratings by the two investigators, as well as by the student's discussion section instructor (unless this was also one of the two investigators). These blind quality ratings related to

(1) (2) the accuracy of scale drawing; ( 3 ) the basic furniture plan: how well it related to specified

occupants and how effectively it was arranged in useful activity grouping; and

( 4 ) space use as seen in location of groupings appropriately in the space, clearance allowance, and traffic pathways.

the project as a whole;

The E and C groups were statistically compared on eight vari- ables: the midterm scores, project grade given by discussion instruc- tor, course grade, and the averaged scores of the two evaluators for the overall project quality, space use, basic activity grouping and scaling of plan and furniture. The eighth comparison was DAT-SR scores.

3 . Results

The inter-evaluator reliability was checked by comparing the ratings of the two evaluators for the four mutual graded aspects of the projects. ranged from .56 to .92 with a median of .71, indicating a relatively high grading consistency between these two design educators. correlations were all significant at the .001 level or better. Inter- subject reliability was checked by repeating the experiment a second semester, even though one of the evaluators was not formally involved in the course that semester.

The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients

The

Converting the eight evaluation and test ratings to standard- ized scores, the group means and standard deviations revealed no major differences between the E and C groups except for the exam scores. A - t-test indicates the difference in midterm scores between the two groups to be significant at the .001 level for the first semester group only, but this difference is in the direction opposite the pre- dictions (i.e., C group did better than E group).

When looking at only those students who had one of the two investigators for their regular discussion meetings, E group showed better space use and activity grouping than C group, although the dif- ference was not statistically significant. This predicted relationship was not found in any other score comparisons nor did it hold up when

50

the entire first semester sample group was pooled. The differences between E and C do not come close to reaching statistical significance. With only one minor exception the second semester, differences between C groups were smaller (although not a statistically significant dif- ference) than they had been during the first semester.

The pooled 100 subjects from the first year showed no significant difference. When comparing DAT-SR scores with the seven other evaluation criteria for all subjects in the E group, the Pearson's product-moment correlation shows a significant relationship (p <.01) with all criteria except for scale drawing ability, which just misses significance (p=.O12). This strong relationship does not hold for the C group, where all but one p value are<.10. (Figure 1).

Using the 104 students taking the course the next year under modified space-lab/lecture conditions, two of these significant cor- relations were replicated with even stronger results. (Figure 1). Additionally, the replication correlation between course grade and interior design project score was strong (.65) indicating a perfor- mance consistency in the course for individual students. (The design project was included as 25% of the course grade.)

Figure 1: Correlations Between DAT-SR and Other Variables for Both Semesters Combined

Variable

!lidterm Exam

Course Grade

Pro j ect Grade by Discussion Instructor

Invest i- gators' Ratings of Projects . overall . space use . activity group ing . scaling

Sxp er imen t a1 koup (N=48)

.39**

.53***

.47***

.46***

.33**

.4 1**

.38**

Both Groups

7 .26**

*p <.05 **p < .01

***p <.001

jECOND YEAR

.43***

.38***

4. Conclusion

The lack of positive results favoring the use of a mock-up for teaching spatial concepts has practical significance for design educa- tors. Three-dimensional teaching techniques are no more effective than conventional methods, at least in the areas evaluated in this study. This lack of difference between E and C groups could be the result of unmatched sample groups due to different prior experience, different intervening events, different personal involvement in the course (i.e., elective or required course) or other possible variables.

These experimental results do not address the issues of whether retention was better or the learning process more enjoyable or meaning- ful in the three-dimensional setting. This experiment was not set up to evaluate these features of the learning process. Using a spatial mock-up should involve less abstraction between a student's reality and the spatial concepts presented. In addition, the classroom learning environment is active rather than passive. On this basis alone, a reasonable argument could be made in favor of the space lab teaching technique.

Design educators can find solace in these results as well, since the conventional method has the advantages of being less costly in equipment and facilities and more familiar. But, it may be that the conventional lecture technique is simply better for conventional evalu- ation techniques (i.e., multiple choice exams), and what is needed are better ways to evaluate student competencies. This latter interpre- tation would seem to be worthwhile for further research.

The positive results in this study with the use of the DAT-SR as a pretest has interesting potential for design educators. This pre- test may be utilized to pinpoint students who may have problems in the course, especially with abstract spatial concepts. A word of warning is in order, though, concerning the test's prediction power: ' I . . .

spatial ability does not, per se, predict success on...courses." (Cronbeck in Smith, p. 151). Furthermore, this test's potential for tapping the manipulation subfactors as well as visualization ability should be questioned in light of the seven-test interrrelationship analysis conducted by Stringer. There may be another test available which is more appropriate for this pretest use.

Another subtlety of the DAT-SR correlational results was that those students in Group E had a considerably higher relationship be- tween DAT-SR and the various evaluations. While there is no clear explanation for this difference, as a result of this study, conjecture is possible: Group E students, due to the increased involvement in the space laboratory, more consistently were performing to their maximum spatial ability potential. Again, more extensive testing and comparing are necessary to confirm this.

52

From an educator's subjective standpoint, the space lab technique proved to be both more time-consuming, but more stimulating, when compared with conventional lecturing.

References

1.

2.

3 .

4.

5.

6 .

7.

Veitch, R. M. "Abstract, Behavioral Response and Interior Design Education," Interior Design Educators Council, 1972, Conference Addresses. (From unpublished master's thesis, University of Oregon, 1971.)

Canter, D. V., Gilchrist, J., Miller, J., and Roberts, N. "An Empirical Study of the Focal Point in the Living Room," and the Built Environment, Canter, D. J. and Lee, T., editors. New York: Halsted Press, 1974, pp. 48-55.

Psychology

Lau, J. J-H. "Differences Between Full-Size and Scale-Model Rooms in the Assessment of Lighting Quality," Architectural Psychology, Proceedings of the Conference held at Dalandhui, University of Strathclyde, 28 February-2 March, 1969, Canter, D. V., editor. London: RIBA Publishing, Ltd., 1970, pp. 43-48.

Canter, op. cit.

Stringer, P. "Spatial Ability in Relation to Design Problem Solving," Proceedings of the Architectural Psychology Conference at Kingston Polytechnic, September 1-4, 1970, Honikman, Basil, editor. Kingston Polytechnic and RIBA Publishing, Ltd., October, 1971, pp. 21-23.

Smith, I. M. Spatial Ability: Its Educational and Social Signifi- cance. San Diego: R. R. Knapp, 1967.

Ibid.

53