Study of Interior Design Continuing Education: Attitudes of the Profession

Study of Interior Design Continuing Education: Attitudes of the Profession

Dorothy L. Fowles

Iowa State University Ames, Iowa

Author note: This project has been funded by financial suppon from the American Society of Interior Designers, the lnstirute OfBusinessDesigners, theChicagoChapteroftheNa- tional Home Fashions League, the Iowa State Univer- sity Design Research Institute, and the Department of Art and Design at Iowa State University. The questionnaire was greatly improved by the detailed review and valuable comments provided by Angela Frey, IBD; Margo Jones, IBD; Odette Lueck, ASID Manin Zelnik, IDEC; Michael J . Valiga, A.C.T. Evaluation/ Survey Service; and Robin Kom, Brouillard Commu- nications.

'Copyright, 1987, Interior Design Educators Council. Journal of Interior Design Education and Research 13(2):3-18.

Abstract

Attitudes about different aspects of continuing education in interior design were explored in a survey of 10% of the professional and associate members of the American Society of Interior Designers and the Institute of Business Designers. Over 50% of those receiving questionnaires returned them. The profile of the most frequent respondent was a designer who had been practicing for over 10 years (41 %). was self-employed (43%), was class$ed as a senior de- signerlproject designer (26%), worked in firms with less than 5 persons (51 %) and with less than 5 designers (77%), and did mainly contract projects (47%). Furthermore, this profile indicates a designer with a Bachelor's degree in design (69%) who has not takenlpassed the NCIDQ examination (66%), is 30-40 years old (35%), and is female (76%). Almost 65% of the respondents work in metropolitan areas of 250,000 or larger population. The majority indicated that they had not taken a continuing education course in the past 2 years--because of time and money re- straints. Only 20% indicated that they were unlikely to earn CEU credit in the next year. The subject matter would he the single most important factor influencing a decision to take a course, but the presenter and the requirement to maintain licensing or certification were other important decision factors. A full-day or 4-hour evening time periods were the preferred course durations. Design practitioners, followed in order by technical trade personnel and design educators, were the preferred instructors. There was a strong preference for courses to be offered in the designer's

community, at a classroom or conference facility, in conjunction with a chapter program, and preferably in MarchlApril. A list of 49 course topics, divided into business, design, and technology categories were rated for interest: Seven of the top 12 topics were in the technology area, with lighting and color psychology at the top of the list. The results indicate that, in most cases, the professionals are interested in courses beyond the basic or core level.

The need for this study devel- oped out of a series of meetings, called the Forum on Continuing Edy- cation in Interior Design, sponsored by the Interior Design Educators Council (IDEC). The initial meeting of the Forum was held in January 1983 with representatives from the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the American Society of Inte- rior Designers (ASID), the Institute of Business Designers (IBD), the In- terior Designers of Canada (IDC), the National Home Fashions League (NHFL), as well as the Interior De- sign Educators Council (Fowles, 1984). The Forum has met eight times in the past 5 years. During this time the information about and interest in continuing education for interior design professionals has ex- panded rapidly as evidenced by the range and number of courses offered by ASID and IBD, as well as by atten- dance at these courses. The leadership of the professional organizations has been developing the means to sponsor continuing education programs and register continuing education units of credit as well as encour- aging members to participate in continuing education activity. But at the same time, from discussion at each

3

Forum it has not been clear that the directions and assumptions held by the professional organization leaders matched the ideas and needs of the members. Thus, this study was devel- oped to more adequately identify the attitudes of professional interior designers toward continuing education. Questions that the survey hoped to answer included:

* What is the designer’s current interest in and aware- ness of continuing education in interior design?

* What would encourage or discourage a designer from participating in an interior design continuing education course?

* Where, when, and how long should continuing education courses be delivered?

* What topics and what level of instruction for these topics would fit the needs of practicing professional interior designers?

Study Procedure

Eighteen hundred professional interior designers randomly selected from the “professional” and “associate” categories of the membership lists of ASID and IBD were mailed a 4-page (8 112” X 15” format) questionnaire, cover letter and postage- paid return envelope in January 1985. This group represented a 10 percent sample of the membership of each organization and included members in the United States, Mexico, Canada, and Puerto Rico. Names were checked to avoid duplication between the two lists. A similar follow-up mailing was sent to 1200 non-responders in mid-February.

A total of 910 designers returned questionnaires. Seventeen were eliminated from analysis because the respondents were retired, ill, or not active in interior design at the time. Four additional questionnaires were eliminated because less that 20% of the questions had been completed. Another 11 were returned after the data analysis had been completed and therefore not included in the analysis.

Final data analysis was run on 878 completed questionnaires. The data was analyzed on an NAS AS16 computer using WYLBUR, a text- editing program, and SAS, a data analysis program. A one-way fre- quency table was produced for each question. Additional two-way fre- quency or cross-tabulation tables were produced for elected questions. Unless otherwise noted, missing data was not included in the calculation of percentages. In other words, the percentages are based on the number of responses to each individual question. (A sample of the questionnaire with a detailed summary of the data is presented in Figure 1.)

Results

Background Information on Re- spondents

Years as a practicing designer. Almost 4 1 % of the respondents have been in practice over 10 years, while 2 1 % indicated 6- 10 years of practice, and 20% indicated 3-5 years of practice. Only 18% indicated 2 years or less of practice. (Question 1, Figure 1)

Employment classification. Almost half of the respondents (43%) are self-employed, while 18% are employed by an interior design firm, and 17% are employed by a retail firm or dealership. The three remain- ing categories had less than 10% in each: employed by an architectural fm, employed by a corporation and other employment that included gov- ernment, university, teaching, con- tractor, manufacturer/wholesaler, art gallery, or a combination of categories. (Question 2, Figure 1)

Job titles of respondents. Twenty-six percent of the respondents identified their job title as senior designer/project designer, while 21 % indicated their job title as salesperson and designer. Principal/owner or non-design manager represented the job title for about 10% of the respondents; an additional 16% checked the “other” category and indicated that they have a dual job title of principal/owner as well as designer

4

and/or project manager. While 5% indicated their job title as project manager, an additional 2% checked “other” and indicated that their job title was design director or manager. Ten percent described their job title as junior designer/assistant designer, and 2% indicated their job title as facility planner/facility manager. The re- maining 9% checked “other” and listed 29 different job titles. (Ques- tion 3, Figure 1)

Type of design work handled by respondent’s firm. Thirty nine percent indicated that they do mainly residential projects (32% indicated at least 75% residential and 7% noted their work as 100% residential), while 47% indicated that they do mainly contract projects (30% noted their work as 100% contract and 17% indicated at least 75% contract). The final 14% identified their work as split with 50% being residential and 50% contract. (Question 4, Figure 1)

Educational background in design. Sixty-nine percent indicated that they hold a 4- or 5-year Bachelor’s degree in design, but only 0.5% checked having an MA, MFA, or PhD. Eleven percent have a college degree but not in design, 10% have a 2-year diploma or degree in design and 8% have a 3-year diploma or degree in design. Only 8% indicated that they have no degree in design, while 7% checked “other” and indicated a wide range of education. Respondents were to check “all the degrees” held in design; thus, due to multiple responses percentages total more than 100%. (Question 5, Figure 1)

In comparing this educational background with the type of work handled by the respondent’s firm (Question 4), over two-thirds of the professionals with 4 or more years of design education are employed by firms that do 50% or more contract projects. In contrast, almost 55% of those respondents that indicated no design degree are employed by firms handling 75% or more residential projects. (Table 1)

Age and sex of respondents. Thirty-five percent are in the 30-40 age category, 30% are “under 30’, 18% are 4 1-50, and 16% are over 50 years old. Seventy-six percent of the respondents are female and 24% are male. (Question 6, Figure 1)

Membership in professional design organizations. Eighty-nine percent of the respondents are members of ASID, and 22% belong to IBD. A small percentage listed AIA- Interiors Committee, NHFL, IDC, and IDEC. (Question 7, Figure I )

Qualification examination history. Almost 66% of the respondents have not taken and passed both sec- tions (written and design) of the Na- tional Council for Interior Design Qualification (NCIDQ) examination. (Question 8, Figure 1)

Number of employees in firm. Almost 30% of the respondents work in a firm that employs 2-5 persons, while almost 24% work in 6-25 person firms. Almost 22% work by themselves with no other employees. In contrast, 18% work in firms that employ over 50 persons, and another 8% are in 26-50 person firms. (Ques- tion 2 1, Figure 1)

Table 1 Educational Background of Designers Compared with Type of Design Work Handled by Design Firm

Educational Background No design degree 2 year design degree 3 year design degree 4 or 5 year Bachelor degree MA, MFA, or PhD College degree, not design Other

Type of Design Work Total 75% or More 50% Residential 75% or More

N Residential & 50% Contract Contract 77 9 1 7 4

608 48

102 6 1

54.5% 41.3 47.3 33.6 35.4 41.1 45.9

16.8% 17.6 16.2 13.1 12.5 16.7 13.1

28.5% 35.2 36.5 53.3 52. I 36.3 40.9

5

Number of designers in firm. Over 42% of the respondents indicated that their firm employs 2-5 designers, while over 35% employ only 1 designer. Eleven percent of the firms had 6-10 designers, another 4% had 11-15 designers, and 7% had more than 15 designers on their staff. (Question 22, Figure 1)

Population of location of designer’s firm. Thirty-nine percent of the designers work in a cityltownl metropolitan area with a population of over 1,000,OOO, while 25% work in an area with a 250,000 - 999,999 population. Twenty-three percent work in an area with a 50,000 - 249,999 population, and 12% work in areas with less than 50,000 people. (Question 23, Figure 1)

Past Continuing Education History

Recent job-related continuing education courses. Over 4 1 % indicated that they have taken a job-related continuing education course in the past 2 years; conversely, 59% indicated no participation in continuing education in this time period. From occasional comments on the questionnaires, it appears that some respondents included formal academic course work and other professional improvement activity in their positive response to these continuing education course questions. (Question 9, Figure 1)

When this participation in job- related courses is compared with the educational background of the respondents, it appears that individuals with a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree

in design are less likely to have taken a continuing education course (61% and 60% respectively). In contrast, the greatest percentage of participation has been by professionals with no degree in design: “no degree,” 59%; “degree but not in design,” 57%. (Table 2)

Of those who noted that they had participated in continuing education within the past 2 years (41% of the respondents), 41% indicated that they have taken one course, while another 24% have taken two courses and 12% have taken three courses. Seven percent have taken more than three courses in the past 2 years. (15% did not answer this question.) Forty percent indicated that they earned no CEU credit for their participation, and 12% earned less than one CEU in the past two years. Another 19% indicated they earned 1 .O- 1.9 CEU during this time frame, 10% earned 2.0- 2.9 CEU, and 11% earned 3.0 or more CEUs. (6% did not indicate the CEUs earned.) Of the continuing education participants, 47% took a course offered by a university or college, while a professional design organization was the sponsor of courses attended by 44% of the participants. Thirteen percent attended courses offered by professional for-profit seminar groups and 12% attended courses offered by a private corporate sponsor. Only 4% attended courses offered by non-design groups and another 3% attended courses offered by a range of sponsors. (Multiple responses were possible for this question.) (Question 9 YES, Figure 1)

Of those who noted that they had not taken any job-related continuing education courses in the past 2 years, only 5% indicated that it was due to no interest in CEU. In contrast, the major reasons for not taking courses were time and money: 45% indicated that they had been too busy, 21% indicated that too much travel was required to reach the location offering the course, 20% noted that courses were offered at the wrong time, and 17% indicated that the available courses were too expensive. Another reason for not taking courses was the topics that were offered: 17% found no design-related courses and 10% found no courses of personal interest. Of the 14% who checked “other”, the most frequent responses included: just graduated and needed time off, about to retire, and unaware of CEU andlor courses being offered. (Multiple responses were possible for this last question.) (Question 9 NO, Figure 1)

Recent educational activity. Almost 32% of all respondents indicated that they had attended a seminar or workshop at a professioqal organization’s conference in the gast 2 years. A seminar or workshop sponsored by a university or college was attended by almost 21% of the respondents and 18% attended a seminar at NEOCON. Concerning CEU courses, 13% indicated they had attended a course offered by the local chapter of a professional organization and almost 6% attended a course offered at a national conference. (Mul- tiple responses were possible for this question.) (Question 10, Figure 1)

Table 2 Comparison of Educational Background with Participation in Continuing Education Courses in Past 2 Years

Educational Background

Participation in Continuing Education Total

N Yes No No design degree 2 year design degree 3 year design degree 4 or 5 year Bachelor degree MA, MFA, or PhD College degree, not design Other

78 9 3 73

610 48

102 62

59.0% 48.4 48.0 38.7 39.6 56.9 50.0

41.0% 51.6 52.0 61.3 60.4 43.1 50.0

6

Future Continuing Education Preferences

CEU credits anticipated. Re- spondents were relatively evenly split on how many CEU credits they are likely to earn in the next year (assuming courses were readily available at a reasonable cost): 20% indicated they are unlikely to earn any CEU, 25% anticipated one CEU, 29% anticipated two CEUs, and another 25% anticipated earning three or more CEUs in the next year. (Question 11, Figure 1)

Factors influencing future course decisions. The single most important factor influencing a decision to take a course would be the subject matter: 96% indicated that this was “very important” or “important”. The speaker or presenter of the course would be an important factor for 74% of those who responded to this question. Almost 84% felt a requirement to maintain state licensing would be an important decision factor: A somewhat surprising percentage considering the small number of states that currently license interior designers. Similarly, 75% felt a certification requirement by a professional organization would be an important decision factor. Other relatively important factors include: proximity to the office (66%), cost (67%), and requirement by employer (58%).

An honors award program sponsored by a professional organization would be either only “somewhat important” or “not important at all” to almost 75% of the respondents. Over half of the respondents (55%) similarly discount the availability of CEU credit for the course in their decision process. Opinions were quite evenly split concerning the importance of the organization sponsoring the course: 35% indicated that it is an “important” decision factor, but 34% indicated that it is only “somewhat important”. Three of the lower rated factors were left blank by more than 15% of the 878 questionnaire respondents: required by employer, organization sponsoring course, and CEU credit. (Question 12, Figure 1)

When years of design experience are compared with factors influencing future course decisions there is one clear pattern: Cost is the most important to designers that have the least amount of professional experience. As the number of years of experience increases, cost becomes less important to respondents in their decision process. In addition, honors award program, certification, CEU credit, employer requirement and speaker are all less important for designers with more than 10 years experience than these same factors are for the other respondents.

When employment classijkations are compared with factors influencing future course decisions, not surpris- ingly, “required by employer” is not important for almost two-thirds of the self-employed. Two factors, subject matter and cost, are more important to respondents employed in an interior design firm than for other respondents.

When job titles of respondents are compared with factors influencing future course decisions, several dif- ferences are noted. PrincipaVowaer, non-design manager respondents indicated that an honors awards program is less important than it is for the other respondents. But proximity to the office is a little more important for this group, as well as for the facility plannedmanager group, than for the other respondents. Employment requirement is a more important factor for the facility plannedmanager respondents than for others. Cost is a more important factor for junior designers than for the other respondent groups.

When type of design work groups are compared with factors influencing future course decisions, some differ- ences are also noted. For respondents whose firms handle 50% or more contract projects, the speaker is con- siderably more important than for the other two groups of respondents. Employer requirement is more important for the respondents whose firms handle 75% and 100% contract projects than for other respondents, but the sponsoring organization is less important for these two groups than

7

for the other groups. For respondents whose firms handle 50% residential and 50% contract projects, the availability of an honors award program is slightly less important than it is for the other groups.

When age of respondent is compared with factors influencing future course decisions, cost is more important for respondents under 30 and less important for respondents over 50 than for the average of all respondents. As age increases several factors become less important (or conversely as age decreases, these factors increase in importance) in influencing future course decisions: honors award program, requirement to maintain licensing, speaker, and required by employer. This latter factor showed considerable diversity of opinion (e.g., rated important to 68% of under 30 age group and only 40% of over 50 age group). CEU credit is most important to the 41-50 age group, but definitely not important to the “over 50” age group.

Learning situation (duration and media) preferences. Two learning situations are clearly preferred for a course h the next year: (1) A full- day seminar with an expert instructor (80% combined “definitely prefer” and “probably prefer” ratings) and (2) a 4-hour evening seminar with an expert instructor (78% “definitely prefer” and “probably prefer”).

Almost 80% of the respondents probably or definitely do not prefer a 3 to 5 day seminar with an expert instructor. Other learning situations that are not preferred by well over 50% of the respondents included: pre-packaged audio visual seminar with a trained local leader (75%), correspondence course (77%), computer generated course (69%), audio cassette with workbook (68%), and video cassette course with workbook (64%). Many of these last learning situations would not be eligible for CEU credit, based on current guide- lines of the Council on the Continuing Education Unit. (It should be noted that as the percentages of the negative preferences increased, so did the number of non-responders. These non-responses are not reflected in the percentages given above.)

While independent learning situations are generally not preferred by most respondents, 27% of the total response pool would prefer a computer generated course. This is significant since only 34% of the respondents indicated that they own or have access to a personal computer. Similarly, 31% would prefer a video cassette with workbook, while 58% own or have ready access to a video cassette player. (Question 13, Figure 1)

Course instructor preference. Design practitioners, making presentations in their areas of expertise, would be the preferred instructors for 93% of the respondents, while 86% “definitely” or “probably” would prefer technical personnel from the trades as instructors. Design educators, making presentations in their areas of expertise, would be the preferred instructors for 78% of the respondents. (All three of these categories had a less than 15% non-response rate.) (Question 16, Figure 1)

Respondents indicated a moderate preference for taking a course from a researcher (74%), an author (70%), and a non-design educator (57%). These three categories received only 31%, 21%, and 14% “definitely prefer” ratings, respectively.

Locatiodevent preference. Three locations or events are clear preferences for taking a CEU course: in their local town or city (90%), a conference center or classroom of a college campus (82%), and in conjunction with a chapter program (81%). (Question 15, Figure 1)

Respondents were quite evenly divided in their preference both for a location within a 100 mile radius (52% prefer; 48% not prefer) and for taking a course in conjunction with a regional conference (54% prefer; 46% not prefer). Locations “in a 100-300 mile radius” and “in another section of the country” would clearly not be preferred for attending a course (84% and 86% “not preferred‘’, respectively).

Only 43% would prefer to take a course in conjunction with a national conference, while 57% would prefer not to do this. The functional signifi- cance of these figures is not clear

8

since the survey can not identify how many of either group actually would attend a national conference.

Calendar scheduling preference. The most preferred months for attending a CEU course are March/ April, having been selected by 70% as their first or second choice. Novem- berDecember are indicated by 58% as months when they would not attend a CEU course, followed by July/Au- gust (35%) and Januarypebruary (28%). September/October and May/ June were selected by 57% and -55% respectively as months “most preferred” and “next most preferred” for a course to be offered. Januarypeb- ruary received the second highest percentage of “most preferred ratings (36%) and was selected by 51% as their first or second time choice. (The number of “most preferred” votes adds up to more than 100% since numerous respondents selected more than one set of months as “most preferred” rather than rank ordering the acceptable month pairs.) (Question 17, Figure 1)

Electronic equipment availability. More than half of the respondents (58%) have ready access to a video cassette player. Over one-third of the respondents (35%) have ready access to a personal computer. Of those who indicate the type of computer that they have, well over half (52-55% or more, depending on one’s definition of “compatible”) have IBM or IBM compatible com- puters and 42% actually have access to an IBM computer. Another 27% have access to some version of an Apple computer. Over 30 different computer models were identified. (Questions 18 & 19, Figure 1)

Continuing Education Course Topic Preferences

Clear preferences for both course topics and course levels (but to a somewhat lesser extent) were indicated by the respondents. (Question 14, Figure 1)

Course topic preferences. The 49 course topics were divided into three categories on the questionnaire: business, design, and technology.

Sixty percent of those responding indicated that they would be “interested” or “very interested” in 12 topics. These topics of highest interest across categories (in descending order) are:

Lighting techniques New developments in lighting Color psychology New design trends Interior finish materials Professional fees and compensa-

Computer applications in design

Presentation techniques Custom millwork design and de-

Acoustics and sound control Building construction Computer-aided design and

tion

practice

tailing

drafting

This list shows a substantial interest in technical information that impacts on the design solution. What is noticeably missing from the list are those topics that closely represent the humanistic orientation of interior design and topics dealing with verbal communication skills. In fact, courses on such topics are generally rated to be of limited or no interest to the respondents.

The list in Table 3 presents the topics within each of the three categories in order of interest as indicated by the respondents, using only the “interested” and “very interested” ratings. It is assumed that a person selecting a “somewhat interested” rating would not be sufficiently interested in a topic to be a serious potential course participant. The percentages for course topics presented represent the percentage of all responses, including the blank or missing responses. Since approximately 10% of the respondents only indicated those topics for which they were “interested” or “very interested”, it is assumed that in most cases their non-response represented a lack of interest in the topic in question.

Course level preferences. The responses showed considerable dis- crimination in identifying the level of instruction preferred for the courses of interest. Three levels were pre-

9

sented without any definition or de- scription: Basic or Core, Intermedi- ate, and Advanced. Percentages as shown below are for those courses with interest expressed by 40% or more of the respondents and at least 33% of these responses indicated a preference for the designated level of course instruction. This minimum cut-off point represents a preference for a specific course at a specified level by only 13% of the respondents (40% x 33%) to the questionnaire.

The percentages for course levels presented in Table 4 are based on the number of actual responses (i.e. missing responses are excluded in the response count) by those respondents who had indicated that they are “interested” or “very interested” in that topic. (Numerous respondents who checked “somewhat interested” or “not interested at all” in a topic subse- quently indicated a course level preference. But since this data was quite incomplete and does not represent a preference by a potential participant, these responses are excluded from this part of the data analysis.) Thus, the number of responses represented by the percentage figure presented below varies from topic to topic (e.g., 670 respondents for “lighting techniques” and 312 respondents for “design for the elderly”).

Clearly, in most cases, interior design professionals interested in continuing education are interested in courses beyond the basic or core level. In the technology area there is substantial interest in advanced courses for 11 topics. In developing courses these preferences need to be addressed.

Course level interest compared with background information categories. Comparisons between course level interest and years as a practicing designer, employment classification, job titles of respondents, and type of design work handled by respondent’s firm produced almost 200 tables of frequencies and percentages but limited useful information. In general, as years of experience increased, there is a greater preference for more advanced courses on many topics with

one notable exception being both computer topics. In reviewing employment classifications, respondents employed by a retail firm/dealership and by a corporation tend to have greater than average interest in many of the design topics. On the other hand, those employed in interior design firms and by a retail finddealer- ship tend to have greater than average interest in the business topics. Of par- ticularly strong interest for the retail/ dealership group is a basic course in professional liability and legal issues, while the self-employed respondents show strong interest in an intermediate level course in accounting for a small firm. The interest in most of the technology topics is proportionately distributed across employment classifications.

In reviewing the comparison between type of design work handled by the respondent’s firm (5 categories) and interest/course level preferences, most course level preferences were proportionately distributed between the 5 categories. But when comparing the percentage of “very interested/ interested” preferences for each of the same 5 categories, numerous topics were selected by more respondents in contract related design work categories than expected. Table 5 indicates topics that have a greater than expected percentage of interest by each design work category.

Only seven topics were selected by more respondents whose firms handle 50% or more residential projects than expected. All three residential categories have a strong interest in kitchen planning and design as well as accounting for a small firm. Those respondents whose firms handle at least 75% residential work have a very strong interest in window covering. This same group has a stronger than average interest in historic preservation, personal creativity, new design trends, and an intermediate level course in furniture design. The 50% residential/50% contract group has a slightly stronger than average interest in the public relations and promotional activities topic.

10

Table 3 Course Topics in Order of Interest within Each of Three Categories

Topic % Very Interested

or Interested Business Professional fees and compensation Marketing strategies Design practice management Professional liability and legal issues Project management Financial management and planning Cost estimating Creative communications with clients Working with special design or technical consultants Time management Public relations and promotional activities Working with construction contractors Building construction supervision Office practice handbook Accounting for a small firm Design of promotional brochure Business writing

Design New design trends Computer applications in design practice Presentation techniques Computer-aided design and drafting Photographic techniques Personal creativity Design-related research techniques Specification writing Pre-design programming Post-occupancy evaluation Video presentation techniques

Technology Lighting techniques New developments in lighting Color psychology Interior finish materials Custom millwork design and detailing Acoustics and sound control Building construction Window covering Historic preservation Furniture design Construction detailing

65 58 58 58 5 7 52 54 54 50 50 49 49 45 40 39 36 29

69 63 63 60 56 47 44 42 39 35 33

88 79

72/69* 68 62 61 60 58 57 56 55

Conclusions

The results of this survey indicate that interest in continuing education for interior design professionals is considerable. Nevertheless, conscious efforts must be made to pack- age courses in a manner that will attract an even larger audience of designers, since almost half of the respondents indicated they are likely to earn one or less CEU in the next year. Clearly the topic is a critical factor in a decision to attend a course. But the instructor, proximity, registration/ certification requirements, and cost are all important factors as well.

Technology related topics are rated as having more interest than business related topics, but interest in these topics is at the intermediate or advanced level. Continuing education is seen as just that--education above the basic or core level that is covered in the formal undergraduate curriculum. There are some excep- tions, notably in newer areas of devel- opment or concern, such as computer topics, where all groups want basic or core instruction. Furthermore, there are some courses where a respondent's design experience appears to make no difference in the level of instruction preferred (e.g.,

Design New design trends Computer applications in design practice Presentation techniques Computer-aided design and drafting Photographic techniques Personal creativity Design-related research techniques Specification writing

Technology Lighting techniques New developments in lighting Color psychology Interior finish materials Custom millwork design and detailing Acoustics and sound control Building construction Window covering Historic preservation Furniture design Construction detailing Energy conscious design Rehabilitation and adaptive reuse Kitchen planning and design Fire safe design Barrier-free designg Ergonomics/human factors Specialized focus on a setting type Design for the elderly Furniture design Construction detailing Energy conscious design Rehabilitation and adaptive reuse Kitchen planning and design Fire safe design Barrier-free design Ergonomics/human factors Specialized focus on a setting type Design for the elderly Heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning Corporate art programs

39

31

Table 4 Course Level Preferences (with 33% or Higher Response) for High Interest Topics (at Least 40% Response)

Course Level (%) Core Intermediate Advanced Topic

Business

Marketing strategies 42 Design practice management 42

33

Professional fees and compensation 41 34

Professional liability and legal issues Project management 41 Financial management and planning 39

Working with special design or technical consultants

Working with construction contractors 35

Office practice handbook 43

Cost estimating 40 Creative communications with clients 46

31 Time management 40 Public relations and promotional activities 47

Building construction supervision 36

54

58 35

36

35

34 36 35 36

40 31

36 35 43 43 33 31 35 39 38 41 42 38 40 40

40 56 55 53 52 50 48 41 46 46 42 39 38

41

49

46

35 36

48/53 * 46 49

51

39 35

39

33 42

*topic included twice in questionnaire list

12

Table 5 Categories of "Type of Design Work Handled by Design Firm" that Indicated Higher than Average Interest in Continuing Education Topics

Course ToDics Business Marketing strategies Public relations and promotional activities Design of promotional brochure

TvDe of design work

* * *** *

* *** Business writing Creative communications with clients

Design practice management Office practice handbook Time management

Project management Building construction supervision Financial management and planning

* Professional liability and legal issues ** *

** ** *

**A ***A * *** *

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Accounting for a small firm Cost estimating Professional fees and compensation

Working with special design or technical consultants Working with construction contractors

* * *

Design New design trends Computer applications in design practice Computer-aided design and drafting

Design-related research techniques Pre-design programming Post-occupancy evaluation

Personal creativity * Presentation techniques

Video presentation techniques

* ** ** * * * *

* * *A *** * * ***A

* * Photographic techniques * *

Specification writing * **A *** * *

Technology Rehabilitation and adaptive reuse Historic preservation Design for the elderly

* * * *

* * * ~~

Barrier free design

Fire safe design

Energy conscious design Acoustics and sound control C Color psychology * Lighting techniques New developments in lighting * Building construction

Heating, ventilation and air-conditioning Interior finish materials Window covering

* Ergonomicshuman factors * * *

**A * *

* **

* ** **

*** * ** ** Corporate art programs

Kitchen planning and design Construction detailing

Furniture design * Color psychology

** *** ** * *

Custom millwork design and detailing ** **

Specialized focus on setting type * ** **

* = 5% increase in interest, at least ** = 10% increase in interest, at least *** = much greater than 10% increase in interest

C = Basic or core course I = Intermediate level course

A = Advanced level course

13

heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning).

Additional data analysis indicates that years of practice, employment classification, or job title have some influence on topic interest, level of instruction desired, or decision to attend a course. For most topics, it is not surprising to find that more expe- rienced designers desire more advanced levels of courses than do junior designers with 2 or less years of experience. If the main focus of continuing education is for the professional interior designer (i.e., those meeting minimum qualification for professional membership), then there is additional need to focus most courses at the intermediate or advanced level. Additionally, those designers with more than 10 years of experience need to be motivated to participate in continuing education courses, since they represent the larg- est group of professionals but are the group least interested in continuing education.

To satisfy the need for more advanced level courses, creative “pack- aging” may be necessary. If only about 1520% of the total interior design professionals are interested in a given topic, many locations andlor ASIDflBD chapters will find it diffi- cult to attract an audience at a given time and place that is large enough to be financially feasible. But to con- tinue to offer core or basic level course will alienate those professionals who are beyond that level and express an interest in a greater depth of knowledge. This is illustrated by the comments received from one respondent who wrote that “classes . . . are either too general to be of any help, or too information-packed to allow the student to absorb anything. . . .A very short seminar. . .is usually so general. . .[while] a lighting seminar given by an industry technical expert in 10 hours. . .ends up being too technical,” but still without teaching enough to be able to do a lighting job.

The problem of attracting a suffi- cient number of designers to any given course is more acute for the numerous ASID or IBD chapters that encompass larger geographic areas

with only moderate swells of designers in a few population pockets. Al- ternate program delivery modes may become a necessity if the profession as a whole is to have easy access to continuing education in a range of topic areas and at varied levels of instruction.

The concept of life-long learning is one that educators and the leadership of the interior design professional organizations need to emphasize to students and practitioners to ensure that the important interest in continuing education continues to grow.

Reference

Fowles, Dorothy. (1984). Continuing education: A collaborative effort. Journal of Inierior Design Education and Research. 10( I ) , 12-16.

14

Figure 1: Questionnaire with Responses: Study of Interior Design Continuing Education

I . How many years have you been a practicing professional designer? -- 74 Less than I year -- 87 1-2 years -- 176 3-5 years 179_ 6-10 years -- 357 (5 missing)

How would you classify your employment? -- 372 self-employed -- 159 -__ 70 -- I50 -~ 6 I -__ 60 other: (specify) ___ ____ (6 missing)

Of the following job titles, please check the one title that best describes your position: -- 85 JuniorDesigner/Assistant Designer -~ 228 Senior DesigneriProject Designer -- 44 Project Manager -__ 9 I Principal/Owner, Non-design Manager -- 182 Salesperson and Designer -__ 2 I -- 2 17 (10 missing)

What is the predominant type of design work handled by your firm? -- 57 100% residential -- 280 -~ I22 -- 147 -- 26 I 100% contract ( I0 missing)

Indicate your educational background by checking all the degrees you hold in design. -~ 7 I -__ 92 -- 73 -- 603 -__ 47 -- 96 -60 other: (specify) _______ ~~~ _________---

Please indicate your age and sex: -- 262 under 30 -~ I89 male -~ 310 30-40 -~ 609 female -- 160 41-50 (80 missing)

(4 missing)

more than 10 years

2.

employed by interior design firm employed by architectural firm employed by retail firm/dealership employed by corporation

3 ,

Facility PlannerFacility Manager Other: (specify) principal & oroiect manaeer/senior desiener 136 (15.7%)

4.

at least 75% residential 50% residential and 50% contract at least 75% contract

5 . post secondary education, but no degree two year diploma or degree three year diploma or degree four or five year Bachelor's degree MA, MFA, or PhD college degree but not in design

6 .

142 over 50 --

7. Please indicate from the following list the professional design-related organizations of which you are a member: -__ 33 AIA-IC -- I I IDEC -- 778 ASlD 0 IDSA

-- 193 IBD -~ 15 NHFL -- 10 IDC -- 58 Other: (specify)

Have you taken and passed either of these qualification exams?

NCIDQ -~ 297 -~ 569

1 IALD 5 IES

8 . Yes N o

NCARB -14 -851 9 . Have you taken any job-related continuing education courses in the past two years?

363 yes -- 513 no -~

1 148 2 8 6 3 4 4 -- 4-8 28 (16 missing)

If you answered YES: Indicate how many course(s)?

(Response rate in percent)

8.4% 10.0 20. I 20.3 40.9

42.6% 18.2 8.0

17.2 6.9 6.8

9.8% 26.2 5.0

10.5 21.0 2.4

25.0

6.6% 32.3 14.1 17.0 30.0

8.1% 10.4 8.3

69.0 4.0

10.9 6.8

30.0% 32.7% 35.4 76.3 18.3 16.2

34.3% 65.7% 1.6 98.4

41.4% 58.6% 40.8% 23.1 12.0 28.0

15

*One CEU credit equals 10 course instruction hours. Credit is granted to approved courses only.

10.

1 I .

12.

13.

If you answered NO:

How many Continuing Education Units (CEU)* credits did you earn through these course(s) during the past two years? -- 146 non-credit course(s) only -__ 4 5 less than I -~ 6 9 1.0 to 1.9 -- 3 6 2.0 to 2.9 -- 4 I 3.0 or more (26 missing)

Who offered the course(s)? (check all that apply) -- 160 professional design organization -~ 172 university or college -- 15 non-design group -- 4 2 private corporate sponsor -- 4 9 professional for-profit seminar group -~ 12 other: (specify)

Please indicate your reason(s): (check all that apply) -- 28 no interest in CEU -- 230 too busy to attend -~ 8 8 no design-related courses offered -- 5 2 no courses of personal interest -- 8 7 courses offered were too expensive -- 104 courses offered at wrong time -- 109 courses offered required too much travel -- 7 3 other: (specify)

Check all of the following that you have attended in the past two years: -- 50 CEU courses at AIA or ASID national conference -- I16 CEU course sponsored by local chapter of professional organization -- 162 seminar at NEOCON -- 277 seminar or workshop at professional organization's conference -- 181 seminar or workshop sponsored by university or college

If continuing education courses of interest to you were readily available at a reasonable cost, how many CEU credits would you be likely to earn in the next year? -- 171 none -- 213 I -- 246 2 -- 208 3 or more (40 missing or ?)

How important would each of the following factors be in your future decision to take a continuing education course? Not

important Important important at all Very Somewhat important

honors award program by professional organization certification requirement by professional organization requirement to maintain state licensing speaker/presenter of course required by employer organization sponsoring course subject matter CEU credit proximity to office

other: (specify) cost

7.2% 40.3 57.0 34:4 24.7 13.9 76.9 17.3 29.0 30.6 0

17.9% 34.6 26.5 39.7 32.7 34.9 19.3 29.1 36.8 36.2 0

33.2% 13.8 7.9

17.8 16.3 34.1

I .7 29.9 25.8 26.7 0

4 I .5% 11.2 8.5 8.1

26.2 17.0 2.0

23.6 8.3 6.5 0

If you were to take a course in the next year, please indicate your preference for each of the following learning situations:

(% of 363) 40.2% 12.5 19.1 10.0 11.4 6.8

(% of 363) 44.0% 47.4 4.1

11.6 13.5 3.3

(% of 513) 5.5%

44.8 17.2 10.3 17.0 20.3 21.2 14.2

5.7 13.0 18.0 31.5 20.6

20.4 25.4 29.4 I

24.8

(Number of missing

responses)

I18 84 94

105 I67 138 71

140 96 88

829

four-hour evening seminar with expert instructor full-day seminar with expert instructor two-day seminar with expert instructor three to five day seminar with expert instructor prepackaged audio visual seminar with trained local le correspondence course home study or video cassette with workbook audio cassette with work book computer generated course

:ader

45.7 30.6 14.1 42.3 38.2 13.6 18.2 31.1 34.9 7.9 12.6 37.7 7.3 27.6 37.3 9.2 13.8 29.1

13.0 22.5 26.0 9.4 22.3 28.8 8.4 22.3 31.9

9.6% 5 . 9

15.8 41.8 27.8 47.8 39.4 39.4 37.4

86 75

I I3 137 122 I23 I09 1 I9 1 I6

14. The following is a partial list of continuing education topics. Assuming that a course would be available at a reasonable cost, first indicate your level of interest in each topic by circling the appropriate number on the left.

Second, only for those topics that interest you, indicate on the right the level of course

Interest level Course level instruction you would prefer:

BUSINESS 31% 27% 22% 32% 9% Marketing strategies 27% 42% 27% 4% 21 28 25 15 11 Public relations and promotional activities27 41 2 3 3 17 19 25 28 12 Design of promotional brochure 27 39 31 4

10 19 27 30 14 Business writing 30 43 24 3 25 29 19 15 1 1 Creative communications with clients 2 3 46 29 2 27 31 24 9 9 Professional liabilitv and leeal issues 39 33 25 3

~ ~~~ ~~

27 31 16 14 1 1 Design practice management 29 42 28 2 15 25 24 23 13 Office practice handbook 28 43 28 2 24 25 20 20 10 Time management 26 40 32 2

28 29 14 6 12 Project management 26 41 31 I 20 26 21 22 13 Building construction supervision 31 36 29 3 24 28 21 16 12 Financial management and planning 3 7 39 21 4

21 19 23 28 10 Accounting for a small firm 42 38 18 3 28 28 15 15 I I Cost estimating 32 40 26 2 38 27 16 1 1 8 Professional fees and comwnsation 22 41 34 3

~ ~________ ~______

21 30 23 16 10 Working with special design or technical consultants 29 37 30 4

21 28 24 17 10 Working with construction contractors 30 35 32 3

41 29 14 7 9 New design trends 19 32 47 2

practice 54 28 16 2 34 26 18 13 10 Computer-aided design and drafting 58 24 16 3

DESIGN

34 29 17 10 10 Computer applications in design

17 28 23 20 12 Design-related research techniques 36 35 26 3 14 25 25 23 13 Pre-design programming 28 39 30 3 12 23 28 24 13 Post-occupancy evaluation 33 35 29 3

32 26 14 16 13 Personal creativity 16 36 46 3 35 28 16 12 9 Presentation techniques 14 35 49 2 32 24 18 16 10 Photographic techniques 35 34 30 2 16 17 26 17 14 Video presentation techniques 45 26 26 2 17 25 22 22 13 Specification writing 32 36 29 2

28 24 30 26 17 27

TECHNOLOGY 19 18 1 1 Rehabilitation and adaptive reuse 28 41 29 2 20 14 9 Historic preservation 32 37 28 3 26 21 I I Design for the elderly 28 40 29 3

20 27 18 28 21 28

25 28 27 32 47 25

58 26 5 5 24 29 29

24 17 12 Barrier free design 24 40 32 3 22 19 12 Ergonomics/human factors 25 40 33 2 22 17 12 Fire safe design 30 38 30 2

22 13 12 Energy conscious design 32 38 26 4 18 10 12 Acoustics and sound control 27 43 27 2 14 8 9 Color psychology 15 33 48 3

6 3 7 Lighting techniques 21 39 35 5 10 3 8 New developments in lighting 24 37 36 3 17 13 12 Building construction 23 43 31 3

14 24 30 32 30 27

17 21 22 28 30 25

36 26 30 26 47 21

27 19

28 21 12 Heating, ventilation and air-conditioning 3 8 40 19 3 17 1 1 1 1 Interior finish materials 15 36 46 3 18 14 1 1 Window covering 12 33 51 3

25 25 13 Corporate art programs 29 35 34 2 21 19 10 Kitchen planning and design 15 42 39 4 18 16 12 Construction detailing 23 39 35 3

16 12 1 1 Custom millwork design and detailing 24 35 38 3 19 13 12 Furniture design 24 35 39 3 12 10 11 Color psychology 14 31 53 3

12 15 27 Specialized focus on a setting type 16 32 42 10 such as office, hospital, etc:

17

15

16

17.

I 8 .

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

18

. ,

If you were to take a CEU course in the next year, please indicate your preference for attending a course at the following locations or events.

Local town or city Another location within 100 mile radius Location between 100-300 mile radius Another section of the country, if known College campus (conference center or classroom) In conjunction with national conference In conjunction with regional conference In conjunction with chapter program In conjunction with a major market, like NEOCON

92.9 5.4 . 7 .9%

3.3 12.5 35.0 49.1 12.1 39.8 25.6 22.4

3. I 10.8 26.4 59.7 39.6 42.1 10.4 7.8

43.4 38.4 10.1 8 . I 23.4 28.4 26.0 22.2

14.5 28.4 33.3 23.7 17.4 36.4 27.4 18.6

50 137 153 174 146 I 48 I 48 126 131

Researcher 30.5 43.4 23.4 5.7% 1'3 I Author 20.5 48.9 24.3 6 .3 142 Design educator 38.9 39.6 16.6 5 . 0 112 Other educator 13.9 42.7 32.5 10.8 159 DeTign practitioner 64.3 28.6 5.5 I .s 85 Trade technical personnel 48.0 37.6 10.8 3.6 112 Other: (specify) 822

Listed below are various months during which CEU courses could be offered. Please rank those months that you would prefer by entering " I " for most preferred. "2" for next most preferred, etc. (Enter "0" for those months that you could not attend.)

RANK: 0 1 _ _ _ _ _ JanuaryFebruary 27.9% 36.1% _ _ _ _ _ March/April _ _ _ _ _ May/June _ _ _ _ _ July/August _ _ _ _ _ September/October _ _ _ _ _ November/Decemher

I 1.8 40.0 19.5 27.5 34.6 21.0 15.5 28.6 57.7 8 . I

Do you own or have ready access to a video cassette player?

-- 502 yes _~ 366 n o (10 missing)

Do you own or have ready access to a pesonal computer? -- 302 yes _~ 563 n o (13 missing)

If YES, what type or make of computer do you have.

Does your firm pay for job-related continuing education courses'? -~ 290 Yes, full cost of course ~~ 27 Yes. up to a limit of $ -~ 9 6 Yes, partial cost of course on a shared basis -- 339 No

(35 missing)

How many people are employed by your firm? -- 1 8 5 I person ~~ 255 2-5 persons -- 202 6-25 persons -- 6 5 26-50 persons ~~ I52 more than 50 persons (19 missing)

How many designers are employed by your firm? -- 302 I designer -- 363 2-5 designers -~ 9 I 6-10 designers _~ 36 11-15 designers _~ 6 3 more than 15 designers (23 missing)

What is the population of the city/town/metropolitan area in which your firm is located? -~ 102 less than 50.000

-- 2 I9 250.000-999.999 -- 3 3 7 over I ,OOO,OO0 ( 1 8 missing)

263 resDonses

Y I Don't Know ~

-- 202 50,000-249.000

2 14.9% 29.7 27. I 20.3 27.5 11.3

58.8%

34.9%

(Number of missing

responses) 114 109 119 121 112 123

(Response rate in percent)

42.2%

65. I %

34.2% 3.2

11.3 40.1 I 0.8

2 I .5% 29.7 23.5 1.6

17.7

35.3% 42.5 10.6 4.2 7.4

1 I .9% 23.5 25.5 39.1

Documents

Study of Interior Design Continuing Education: Attitudes of the Profession