design interior design interior-architecture concentration ... · 1 template program: interior...

1

Template

Program: Interior Design: Interior Architecture Concentration

Department: Design

Number of students enrolled in the program in Fall, 2011:

Interior Architecture Concentration: 93

Pre‐Majors: 71

Faculty member completing template: Carolyn Gibbs (Date: 1‐9‐2012)

Period of reference in the template: 2006‐07 to present

1. Please describe your program’s learning‐outcomes trajectory since 2006‐07: Has there been a

transformation of organizational culture regarding the establishment of learning outcomes and

the capacity to assess progress toward their achievement? If so, during which academic year

would you say the transformation became noticeable? What lies ahead; what is the next likely

step in developing a learning‐outcomes organizational culture within the program?

[Please limit your response to 200 words or less]

In 2002 the Interior Design Program elected to be a part of a single departmental assessment

plan that included common program goals and learning outcomes. These common outcomes

were used and assessed up to the fall of 2010.

The fall of 2006 through the fall of 2007, saw changes that included a revised curriculum

structure, program impaction, and the creation of two areas of concentration. These major

changes laid groundwork for establishing two formal assessment tools for the assessment of

learning outcomes identified in the Department Assessment Plan. Through spring 2010 faculty

used portfolio reviews at entry and graduation levels to assess the knowledge and skills

developed by students in the program. Specific outcomes were assessed focusing on graphic

ability, design sophistication, knowledge of environmental issues as they pertain to interior

design practice, knowledge of fire and safety issues and accessibility for disabled persons. For

the past two years the program has only formally assessed the graduate level portfolios,

however, faculty continue to assess entry level student work through panel reviews of projects.

The program began its self‐study process in the 2010‐2011 academic year. This self‐study

process resulted in a refinement of the program’s goals and learning outcomes distinct from the

department. The process also resulted in a commitment by the faculty to reinstitute formal

assessment practices using the “portfolio instrument” of entry level students.

2

2. Please list in prioritized order (or indicate no prioritization regarding) up to four desired learning

outcomes (“takeaways” concerning such elements of curriculum as perspectives, specific

content knowledge, skill sets, confidence levels) for students completing the program. For each

stated outcome, please provide the reason that it was designated as desired by the faculty

associated with the program. [Please limit your response per outcome to 300 words or less]

a) Students will create work that successfully responds to functional requirements and project

constraints while also achieving a deliberate aesthetic statement.

Learning to successfully respond to a project’s requirements and constraints while engaging in

aesthetic inquiry is one of the fundamental marks of professionalism for the discipline of interior

design. The faculty, therefore, placed this outcome as the top priority. This learning outcome

directly ties to two of our program goals that focus on developing “creative designers who will

be able to formulate, propose and carry out design solutions relevant to the needs of people,

the needs of the client and the proximate environment and will solve design problems to the

highest professional and ethical standards of the profession” and “designers who will fully

address the pragmatic considerations of the profession and the functional aspects of the interior

environment and the health, safety and welfare of those who use that environment.” This

learning outcome is also given a high priority by the interior design education accrediting body

(CIDA Standard 4: Design Process).

b) The student’s designs and research papers demonstrate an understanding that social and

cultural norms may vary from their own and are relevant to making appropriate design

decisions.

Congruent with the goals identified by the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education

(LEAP) and adopted as Sacramento State’s Baccalaureate Learning Goals, this learning outcome

is assigned a high priority for its focus on intercultural knowledge and competence. The nature

of the client‐designer relationship requires that students be able to design projects that are

relevant to the needs of their clients and the public. Evidence of the learning outcome’s

importance can be found in our curriculum where students become increasingly aware of what

it means to have a global perspective. In the program's design studios, students engage with a

large variety of project types within a diversity of ecological, socio‐economic, and cultural

contexts. Our upper division history and theory sequence enhances student understanding of

the complex interrelationships of the same contexts.

This learning outcome directly ties to one of our program goals which focuses on developing

“individuals who will have a philosophic understanding of the field of interior design and its

value to society and who can draw upon the historic and cultural background of a complex

contemporary world to think and express themselves creatively” and is also a high priority for

our national accrediting body (CIDA Standard 2: Global Context for Design).

3

c) Students will graphically communicate their design work, using a wide range of professional

tools, including traditional and digital technologies.

This learning outcome identifies one the more valued skills sets within the program. Though

students are challenged to solve problems creatively, the solutions must be communicated

through professional two‐dimensional and three‐dimensional presentation techniques. Learning

a variety of graphic communication techniques, therefore, is important to becoming versatile in

the ways design work is communicated to various groups. This learning outcome directly ties to

one of our program goals which focuses on students’ abilities to “carry out design solutions” and

to “embrace technological currency”. This outcome is also a high priority for our national

accrediting body (CIDA Standard 6: Communication).

d) Students will demonstrate awareness of the ethical standards and responsibilities of the

profession including awareness of professional practices and procedures.

This learning outcome identifies one the more valued content knowledge areas within the

program and directly ties to our new Interior Design Program goal focused on “students solving

design problems to the highest professional and ethical standards of the profession.” Interior

design faculty believe that students should have a level of knowledge and competence regarding

ethical standards and professional practices and procedures prior to beginning their careers as

practicing designers. This belief is not only echoed by our national accrediting body (CIDA

Standard 7: Professionalism and Business Practice), it also directly aligns with the University’s

Baccalaureate Learning Goals (Personal and Social Responsibility, Including…ethical reasoning

and action).

e) Students will demonstrate an understanding of how architecture and design history reflect

major political, social, and technological developments.

This learning outcome is assigned importance because the Interior Design Program's goals and

curriculum reflect the faculty’s belief that students must be familiar with and understand the

history of their discipline. Such an appreciation will provide them with a rich repertoire of ideas

and images to draw upon. Faculty also believe it is important for students to understand that

design is not created in a vacuum, but that it reflects the values of the culture and has a

significant impact on the quality of life of the people for whom it is created. This learning

outcome is a high priority for our national accrediting body (CIDA Standard 8: History) and

directly aligns with the University’s Baccalaureate Learning Goals (Knowledge of Human

Cultures…).

4

3. For undergraduate programs only, in what ways are the set of desired learning outcomes

described above aligned with the University’s Baccalaureate Learning Goals? Please be as

specific as possible.


Competence in the Disciplines

Learning outcomes ‘a’ and ‘d’ align with the first BLG. The Interior Design Program consistently

draws on the knowledge and skills of disciplines outside of the major to inform design research

and design solutions. In the Program's design studios, students engage with a large variety of

project types within a diversity of ecological, socio‐economic, and cultural contexts.

Knowledge of Human Cultures

Learning outcomes ‘b’ and ‘e’ align with the Knowledge of Human Cultures BLG. The nature of

the client‐designer relationship requires that students be able to design projects that are

relevant to the needs of their clients and the public. Throughout our program students become

increasingly aware of what it means to have a global perspective. Our upper division history and

theory sequence also enhances student understanding of the complex interrelationships of the

ecological, socio‐economic and cultural contexts.

Intellectual and Practical Skills

Learning outcomes ‘a’, ‘b’, and ‘c’ align with the Intellectual and Practical Skills BLG. They all

focus on the set of skills identified under this goal including inquiry and analysis, critical,

creative, information literacy, and problem solving.

Personal and Social Responsibility

Learning outcome ‘b’ and ‘d’ align with the Personal and Social Responsibility BLG. The

outcomes focus on intercultural knowledge and competence and ethical reasoning and action

respectively.

Integrative Learning

All of the learning outcomes, when looked at holistically, illustrate a common goal that links the

liberal arts with professional education. These outcomes also emphasize the importance of the

synthesis of the pragmatic, creative, and philosophic areas of interior design practice which the

faculty believe are central components of integrative learning.

5

4. For each desired outcome indicated in item 2 above, please:

a) Describe the method(s) by which its ongoing pursuit is monitored and measured.

b) Include a description of the sample of students (e.g., random sample of transfer students

declaring the major; graduating seniors) from whom data were/will be collected and the

frequency and schedule with which the data in question were/will be collected.

c) Describe and append a sample (or samples) of the “instrument” (e.g., survey or test),

“artifact” (e.g., writing sample and evaluative protocol, performance review sheet), or other

device used to assess the status of the learning outcomes desired by the program.

d) Explain how the program faculty analyzed and evaluated (will analyze and evaluate) the data

to reach conclusions about each desired student learning outcome.

[Please limit your response to 200 words or less per learning outcome]

Method, Instrument and Student Sample Descriptions:

o Method #1: The evaluation of the final project from each design studio. Design studio

classes routinely use design professionals and other professors for midterm and final

critiques (juried reviews) as a way to informally assess student learning. This method

uses the expertise of outside professionals in conjunction with faculty in its judgment

regarding the quality of student work and the evidence of student learning. Learning

outcomes assessed by this method are measured and monitored informally through

discussions with guest reviewers.

o Method #2: The evaluation of the final projects from each design studio. This method

uses the expertise of individual design faculty to monitor student learning. Learning

outcomes assessed by this method are measured using rubrics. Although each design

studio uses a different design problem, the Interior Design Faculty considers the "studio

design problem" an assessment "template assignment", that is, it uses the same format

with similar evaluation criteria across multiple courses. All students are monitored using

this method.

o Method #3: Evaluation of portfolios. In the spring of 2008 and 2009 (as part of the

program’s annual assessment), Interior Design faculty assessed ten randomly selected

portfolios produced by graduating seniors using a rubric (see attached instrument). Each

student portfolio is a collection of drawings, renderings, and models that demonstrates

a students’ skills, creativity and knowledge of their field. It typically consists of nine‐to‐

twelve projects that range in size, scope and complexity. The faculty, as a group, plan on

making this an annual assessment practice.

o Method #4: The evaluation of process work including research binders. In the spring of

2010 and 2011, as part of our yearly assessment requirement, a random sampling of ten

project binders were selected from the junior‐level design studio sequence (INTD 153,

6

INTD 163) and a random sampling of ten research binders were selected from the senior

thesis studios. A rubric was used to compare the project binders from the junior‐level

design studio sequence with the research binders from the senior thesis studios. The

rubric used criteria to determine if students were progressing toward demonstrating

specific expectations (see attached instrument).

o Method #5: Internship sponsor evaluations received every semester. This indirect

assessment method uses the expertise of professionals in their evaluation of students

who intern with them (see attached instrument). The Interior Design Program regularly

uses the quantitative and qualitative evidence from these evaluations to provide a

holistic picture. The evidence was formally analyzed during our 2011 self‐study and

reaccreditation process. Interior design faculty used the complete dataset (all 30

students interning during the 2010‐2011 academic year).

o Method #6: Alumni surveys administered every 6 years. In the summer of 2011, OIR

conducted an online alumni survey. A total of 17 items were used to assess alumni

opinions about various aspects of the program (see attached instrument). The survey of

alumni included all graduates from both concentrations from the years 2006 to 2010.

Twenty‐seven alumni responded from both interior architecture and interior design

marketing concentrations.

Learning Outcome ‘a’:

o See description for Method #1.



o See description for Method #6. The 2011 Alumni Survey (questions 5 and 6) targeted

this learning outcome.

Explanation of the Evaluation Protocol: Quantitative analysis of this learning outcome occurred

in 2008 and 2009 using Method #3 and 2011 using Method #6. In 2008 and 2009, faculty used

criteria that rated the portfolios on the level of consistency demonstrated. Ongoing informal

discussions of this learning outcome occurred throughout the targeted dates (2006‐2011) using

the results from Methods #1 and #2. In 2011, faculty evaluated the responses from the alumni

survey questions (Method #6) by determining the proportion of respondents who indicated

above and below neutral to questions that pertained to this learning outcome.

7

Learning Outcome ‘b’:

o See description for Method#2. As a result of the program’s self‐study process in the

2010‐2011 academic year, the faculty have made a commitment to create a systematic

formalized assessment practice using this method. The faculty are also looking at

consistently adding a globally‐themed project into the program design studio sequence.

o See description for Method#3. As a result of the program’s self‐study process in the

2010‐2011 academic year, the faculty have made a commitment to reinstitute formal

assessment practices using the “portfolio instrument” of entry level students.

o For research papers, there are existing course topics and assignments within our history

sequence that are currently evaluated by individual faculty members. There are future

plans to create writing portfolios where this outcome can be systematically assessed.

Explanation of the Evaluation Protocol: This learning outcome (in its specific wording) is a new

one. The faculty have future plans on using Methods 2 and 3 to measure and monitor this

learning outcome.

Learning Outcome ‘c’:



o See description for Method #5. Midterm and final evaluations request that internship

supervisors evaluate the graphic communication skills (1=lowest to 10=highest) of the

student intern.

o See description for Method #6. The 2011 Alumni survey (questions 9 and 11) targeted

this learning outcome.


in 2011 using Methods #5 and #6. Ongoing informal discussions of this learning outcome

occurred throughout the targeted dates (2006‐2011) using the results from Methods #1 and #2.

In 2011, faculty evaluated the responses from the midterm and final evaluations of internship

supervisors (Method #5) by averaging the scores for criteria related to this learning outcome. In

2011, faculty also evaluated the alumni survey questions (Method #6) by determining the

proportion of respondents who indicated above and below neutral to questions that pertained

to this learning outcome. Student work revealed that graphic communication specifically

presentation drawings are a strength of our program. Results from the alumni survey and our

accreditation body support these conclusions.

8

Learning Outcome ‘d’:

o See description for Method #5. Midterm and final evaluations request that internship

supervisors evaluate the student intern’s awareness of professional protocols,

communication standards, and design process (1=lowest to 10=highest).

o See description for Method #6. The 2011 Alumni survey (questions 3 and 7) asks alumni

to indicate their level of agreement with the following statement: “The Interior Design

program helped me gain a foundation in the business and professional practice of the

discipline.”

Explanation of the Evaluation Protocol: This learning outcome is a new one. Quantitative

analysis of this learning outcome occurred in 2011 using Methods #5 and #6. In 2011, faculty

evaluated the responses from the midterm and final evaluations of internship supervisors

(Method #5) by averaging the scores for criteria related to this learning outcome. In 2011,

faculty also evaluated the alumni survey questions (Method #6) by determining the proportion

of respondents who indicated above and below neutral to questions that pertained to the

learning outcome. The Interior Design Faculty have future plans to use the internship evaluation

instrument and future additional questions to the alumni survey to target this learning outcome

more specifically. The Interior Design Faculty also have future plans to use a survey that targets

area employers who hire our graduates.

Learning Outcome ‘e’:


o See description for Method #6. The 2011 Alumni survey (question 8) targeted this

learning outcome.

o For research papers, there are existing course topics and assignments within our history

sequence that are currently evaluated by individual faculty members. Faculty have also

discussed future plans to create writing portfolios where this outcome can be

systematically assessed.


in 2008 and 2009 using Method #3 and 2011 using Method #6. In 2009, faculty used criteria that

rated the senior portfolios on the level of consistency demonstrated. In 2011, faculty evaluated

the responses from the alumni survey questions (Method #6) by determining the proportion of

respondents who indicated above and below neutral to questions that pertained to the learning

outcome.

9

5. Regarding each outcome and method discussed in items 2 and 4 above, please provide

examples of how findings from the learning outcomes process have been utilized to address

decisions to revise or maintain elements of the curriculum (including decisions to alter the

program’s desired outcomes). If such decision‐making has not yet occurred, please describe the

plan by which it will occur.

[Please limit your response to 200 words or less per item]

Learning Outcome ‘a’:

In 2006, the Interior Design Faculty made major program changes in response to its last

accreditation visit by CIDA (Council for Interior Design Accreditation) which addressed several

weaknesses in the design and graphic studio structure and outcomes. Results from all of our

findings (2008 through 2011) related to this outcome consistently showed that the program

changes have improved the overall consistency in student learning and quality of student work.

Learning Outcome ‘b’:

This learning outcome (in its specific wording) is a new one. The faculty have future plans on

using Methods 2 and 3 to measure and monitor this learning outcome.

Learning Outcome ‘c’:

In 2006, the Interior Design Faculty made major program changes in response to the last

accreditation visit by CIDA (Council for Interior Design Accreditation) which addressed several

weaknesses in our design and graphic studio structure and outcomes. Results from all of our

findings (2008 through 2011) related to this outcome consistently showed that the program

changes have improved the overall consistency in student learning and quality of student work.

Learning Outcome ‘d’: Students will demonstrate awareness of the ethical standards and

responsibilities of the profession including awareness of professional practices and

procedures.

This learning outcome (in its specific wording) is a new one. Initial results from our findings in

2011 related to this outcome consistently showed that our program does well in this area. Most

of the student learning for this outcome occurs in our professional series lecture courses which

have increased in class size over the last few years due to budgetary constraints. Our faculty,

therefore, continue to discuss ways to retain the quality of our student learning experience in

these difficult economic times. Changes to the curriculum as a result of budget challenges will

make the continued evaluation of our monitoring practices regarding this learning outcome

important.

10

Learning Outcome ‘e’:

In 2006, the Interior Design Faculty made major program changes in response to its last

accreditation visit by CIDA (Council for Interior Design Accreditation) which addressed many

weaknesses identified in our self‐study. Results from our 2008 and 2009 findings for this specific

outcome showed that the program needed to address additional weaknesses. As a result, the

Interior Design Faculty incorporated minor changes to the design studio assignment

requirements but decided that all major program changes would need to wait until after our

next reaccreditation visit.

6. Has the program systematically sought data from alumni to measure the longer‐term effects of

accomplishment of the program’s learning outcomes? If so, please describe the approach to this

information‐gathering and the ways in which the information will be applied to the program’s

curriculum. If such activity has not yet occurred, please describe the plan by which it will occur.


The Program uses an alumni survey administered by OIR (every 6 years for our self‐study

process) as an additional measure/method to qualify evidence from other sources. The last

survey was conducted in the summer of 2011. A total of 17 items were used to assess alumni

opinions about various aspects of the program (see attached instrument). The current survey of

alumni included all graduates from both concentrations from the years 2006 to 2010.

7. Does the program pursue learning outcomes identified by an accrediting or other professional

discipline‐related organization as important? Does the set of outcomes pursued by your

program exceed those identified as important by your accrediting or other professional

discipline‐related organization? [Please limit your response to 300 words or less]

The program incorporates all learning outcomes identified by one of our accreditation bodies‐

the Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA). The CIDA Professional Standards and

learning outcomes within them are identified as standards that “prepare students for entry‐level

interior design practice and position them for future professional growth”. These Professional

Standards do not attempt to set or standardize a program’s educational philosophy or goals. The

interior design faculty have chosen to exceed the Professional Standards in many areas without

unnecessary unit additions to maintain the rigorous educational experience that area employers

highly value.

8. Finally, what additional information would you like to share with the Senate Committee on

Instructional Program Priorities regarding the program’s desired learning outcomes and

assessment of their accomplishment? [Please limit your response to 200 words or less]

We hope the above covers it.

Interior Design Program (Interior Architecture Concentration) Senior Portfolio Assessment Rubric Academic Year __________________________ Faculty Assessors 1. __________________ 2. __________________ 3. __________________

Learning Outcomes

Assessed Frequency at which Students Achieved Outcomes

Regularly (90%)

Generally (75%)

Frequently (50%)

Inconsistently(33%)

Not achieved (<33%)

A. Student work demonstrates functional and aesthetic quality

B. Student work responds creatively to project requirements

C. The graphic communication of design work is sophisticated and professional using a variety of professional tools

D. Student work shows an ability to apply critical techniques from art and design history to their own work

E. Student work demonstrates an understanding of the major trends, and gives recognition to important historic design work

INTD153/INTD163

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Evidence of the full range of research is demonstrated

Relevance of the research to the program or student’s design goals is demonstrated.

Quality and credibility of the body of research is apparent.

Progression in synthesizing the range of research for the design problem is demonstrated.

(i.e. program/building use research, historic and contemporary precedent research, code/regulatory research, site/environmental research, and

image/material/furnishing research).

Absent (X) Needs Work (‐) Acceptable () Exemplary (+)

INTD183

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Evidence of the full range of research is demonstrated

Relevance of the research to the program or student’s design goals is demonstrated.

Quality and credibility of the body of research is apparent.

Progression in synthesizing the range of research for the design problem is demonstrated.

(i.e. program/building use research, historic and contemporary precedent research, code/regulatory research, site/environmental research, and

image/material/furnishing research).

Absent (X) Needs Work (‐) Acceptable () Exemplary (+)

Interior Design Internship Handbook Page 18

STUDENT INTERN MIDTERM EVALUATION FORM IIA

Professional

Supervisor: ___________________ Student Intern: ___________________

(Please Print) (Please Print)

Firm/Agency: ________________________________

(Please Print)

This non-confidential form is designed to serve as an integral part of the student’s learning experience. It is

recommended that the completed evaluation be reviewed/discussed directly with the intern. The Professional

Supervisor should complete the Midterm Evaluation during the 7th

week of the semester and the Final Evaluations

form during the 14th

week. In addition to ratings, comments would be helpful. The student intern is responsible for

ensuring that the submission deadline is met; this will entail scheduling a specific meeting with the Professional

Supervisor to discuss the midterm evaluation.

PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCIES COMMENTS

Assessment Value: 10=Highest

1=Lowest

NA=Not Applicable

1. Communication Skills

a. Verbal ______

b. Written ______

c. Graphic ______

2. Responsibility

a. Promptness ______

b. Attendance ______

c. Follow-through ______

3. Ability to work with others (courtesy, judgment, cooperation)

a. Professional Supervisor ______

b. Staff ______

c. Client ______

d. Reps ______

e. Other/Specify ______

4. Professional awareness of:

a. Protocol ______

b. Communication channels ______

c. Design Process ______


STUDENT INTERN MIDTERM EVALUATION (Continued) FORM IIA

5. Self Reliance

a. Ability to adjust to change ______

b. Ability to acquire necessary ______

information

c. Ability to learn new methods, ______

skills, and ideas

d. Initiative ______

6. Materials produced

a. Quality of Work ______

b. Quantity of Work ______

c. Accuracy of Work ______

d. Creativity ______

7. Note Strengths:

8. Areas in need of improvement:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

9. Required Signatures

___________________________________ ___________________________________

Professional Supervisor Date Student name Date


STUDENT INTERN FINAL EVALUATION FORM IIIF

Professional

Supervisor: ___________________ Student Intern: ___________________

(Please Print) (Please Print)

Firm/Agency: ________________________________

(Please Print)

This non-confidential form is designed to serve as an integral part of the student’s learning experience. It is

recommended that the completed evaluation be reviewed/discussed directly with the intern. The Professional

Supervisor should complete the Final Evaluation during the 14th

week of the internship.. In addition to ratings,

comments would be helpful. The student intern is responsible for ensuring that the submission deadline is met; this

will entail scheduling a specific meeting with the Professional Supervisor to discuss the Final evaluation.

PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCIES COMMENTS

Assessment Value: 10=Highest

1=Lowest

NA=Not Applicable

1. Communication Skills

a. Verbal ______

b. Written ______

c. Graphic ______

2. Responsibility

a. Promptness ______

b. Attendance ______

c. Follow-through ______

3. Ability to work with others (courtesy, judgment, cooperation)

a. Professional Supervisor ______

b. Staff ______

c. Client ______

d. Reps ______

e. Other/Specify ______

4. Professional awareness of:

a. Protocol ______

b. Communication channels ______

c. Design Process ______


STUDENT INTERN FINAL EVALUATION (Continued) FORM IIIF

5. Self Reliance

a. Ability to adjust to change ______

b. Ability to acquire necessary ______

information

c. Ability to learn new methods, ______

skills, and ideas

d. Initiative ______

6. Materials produced

(quality, accuracy, creativity)

a. Sample Boards ______

b. Architectural drawings ______

c. Presentation drawings ______

d. Other (specify) ______

7. Note Strengths:

8. Areas in need of improvement:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

9. Required Signatures

___________________________________ ___________________________________

Professional Supervisor Date Student Date

Page - Interior Alumni Survey 2011

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements regarding your experience in the program of Interior Design at California State University, Sacramento using the scale below:

Q1 The Interior Design program helped me learn to use appropriate materials and products.

Strongly agree[Code = 5]

Agree[Code = 4]

Neutral[Code = 3]

Disagree[Code = 2]

Strongly disagree[Code = 1]

No opinion/Not applicable[Code = 0]

Required answers: 0 Allowed answers: 1

Q2 The Interior Design program helped me learn to apply the laws, regulations, codes, standards, and practices that protect the health, safety and welfare of the public.


Agree[Code = 4]

Neutral[Code = 3]

Disagree[Code = 2]




Q3 The Interior Design program helped me gain a foundation in the business and professional practice of the discipline.


Agree[Code = 4]

Neutral[Code = 3]

Disagree[Code = 2]




Q4 The facilities (studio, lab, and support spaces) in the Interior Design program provided an environment to successfully bring projects to completion.


Agree[Code = 4]

Neutral[Code = 3]

Disagree[Code = 2]




Q5 The Interior Design program helped me understand and address the pragmatic considerations of the profession.


Agree[Code = 4]

Neutral[Code = 3]

Disagree[Code = 2]




Q6 The Interior Design program helped me understand how to formulate, propose and carry out design solutions relevant to the needs of people, the needs of the client and the immediate environment.


Agree[Code = 4]

Neutral[Code = 3]

Disagree[Code = 2]




Q7 The Interior Design program helped me learn to solve design problems to the highest professional and ethical standards of the profession.


Agree[Code = 4]

Neutral[Code = 3]

Disagree[Code = 2]




Please indicate your level of agreement with the following: The Interior Design curriculum at California State University, Sacramento . . .

Q8 Offered me opportunities to develop a broad knowledge of the history and theory of art and design.


Agree[Code = 4]

Neutral[Code = 3]

Disagree[Code = 2]




Q9 Offered me opportunities to develop the necessary computer aided design and presentation skills.


Agree[Code = 4]

Neutral[Code = 3]

Disagree[Code = 2]




Q10 Offered me opportunities to develop my written communication skills.


Agree[Code = 4]

Neutral[Code = 3]

Disagree[Code = 2]




Q11 Offered me opportunities to develop my hand drawing and sketching skills.


Agree[Code = 4]

Neutral[Code = 3]

Disagree[Code = 2]




Q12 Offered me opportunities to develop my verbal communication skills.


Agree[Code = 4]

Neutral[Code = 3]

Disagree[Code = 2]




Q13 Offered me opportunities to understand the professional office environment, its protocols and team structures.


Agree[Code = 4]

Neutral[Code = 3]

Disagree[Code = 2]




Q14 Exposed me to contemporary design issues and real-world design challenges.


Agree[Code = 4]

Neutral[Code = 3]

Disagree[Code = 2]




Please indicate your level of satisfaction with the following statements regarding the following elements of the Interior Design program using the scale below:

Q15 Advising

Very satisfied[Code = 5]

Satisfied[Code = 4]

Neutral[Code = 3]

Dissatisfied[Code = 2]

Very dissatisfied[Code = 1]



Q16 Peer or faculty mentors


Satisfied[Code = 4]

Neutral[Code = 3]





Q17 Internships


Satisfied[Code = 4]

Neutral[Code = 3]





Q18 Have you taken or passed the NCDIQ/IDEX exam?

Yes, I have taken it and passed.[Code = 1]

Yes, I took it but did not pass.[Code = 2]

Yes, I took it and am waiting for the results.[Code = 3]

No, I have not taken it.[Code = 4]


Next Page: Sequential

Page - 2

Q19 Are you currently certified or in the process of applying for certification in Interior Design?

Yes, currently certified[Code = 1]

Yes, in process of applying[Code = 2]

Considering applying for certification in near future[Code = 3]

No, not certified[Code = 4]


Q20 With which professional organizations are you currently affiliated? (Check all that apply)

ASID[Code = 1]

IIDA[Code = 2]

Other (please specify)[Code = 3] [TextBox]

None[Code = 4]


Q21 Which of the following best describes your current primary activity?

Employed full time [Code = 1]

Employed part time [Code = 2]

Graduate/professional school full time [Code = 3]

Graduate/professional school part time [Code = 4]

Military service [Code = 5]

Not employed, seeking employment, admission to graduate school, or other opportunity [Code = 6]

Not employed by choice (homemaker, volunteer, traveling, etc.) [Code = 7]


Q22 Which of the following best describes your career path since graduation? (Check all that apply)

Work in private sector [Code = 1]

Work in not-for-profit sector [Code = 2]

Work in public sector - local, state, or federal government [Code = 3]

Graduate school [Code = 4]

Career training or other instruction (non-graduate school) [Code = 5]

None of the above[Code = 6]


Q23 Are you currently working in the field of Design?

Yes[Code = 1]

No[Code = 2]



Page - 3

Q24 In which areas are you working? (Check all that apply)

Architectural office[Code = 1]

Interior Design office [Code = 2]

Own business[Code = 3]

Dealership[Code = 4]

Commercial Design[Code = 5]

Government Agency[Code = 6]

Private Corporation/Company[Code = 7]

Residential Design[Code = 8]

Sales[Code = 9]



Display if Q23='Yes'

Q25 How important to your current employer is your undergraduate degree from Sacramento State?

Very important[Code = 4]

Somewhat important[Code = 3]

Only slightly important[Code = 2]

Not important at all[Code = 1]

Not applicable[Code = 0]


Q26 Have you continued your education beyond your BA at Sacramento State University?

Yes (please indicate where and in what degree)[Code = 1] [TextBox]

No[Code = 2]


Q27 My current job . . . (Check all that apply)

Is related to my undergraduate major[Code = 1]

Uses important skills I gained during college[Code = 2]

Is related to my desired career path[Code = 3]

Is work I find meaningful[Code = 4]

Allows me to continue to grow and learn[Code = 5]

Pays enough to support my desired lifestyle[Code = 6]

Pays health insurance benefits[Code = 7]

Is likely to continue until I wish to leave[Code = 8]

Not applicable[Code = 9]


Q28 In which of the following campus events/activities for Interior Design would you be most interested? (Check all that apply)

Mentorship Program[Code = 1]

Professional Meetings on Campus[Code = 2]

Critiques/Juries [Code = 3]

Membership in Alumni Group for Interior Design[Code = 4]

Donating to the Interior Design Program for Program Improvements[Code = 5]



Q29 Which courses or experiences in your major, or disciplines that service your major, were most and least helpful?

[Code = 1] [TextBox]


Q30 What is your gender?

Male[Code = 1]

Female[Code = 2]

Prefer not to say[Code = 3]


Q31 What is your age?

20 - 24[Code = 1]

25 - 29[Code = 2]

30 - 34[Code = 3]

35 - 39[Code = 4]

40 - 44[Code = 5]

45 - 49[Code = 6]

50 or above[Code = 7]

Prefer not to say[Code = 8]


Q32 What is your racial/ethnic identity?

African American [Code = 1]

Native American [Code = 2]

Caucasian [Code = 3]

Mexican/other Hispanic [Code = 4]

Asian [Code = 5]

Pacific Islander [Code = 6]

Foreign [Code = 7]

Other/multiracial [Code = 8]

Prefer not to respond[Code = 9]


Q33 Please provide the following information: (optional)

Place of work:[Code = 1] [TextBox]

Title:[Code = 2] [TextBox]

E-mail:[Code = 3] [TextBox]


Q34 Which of the following best describes you in relation to the degree(s) you received from Sacramento State as an Interior Design major?

I received a Bachelor's degree only.[Code = 1]

I received a Master's degree only.[Code = 2]

I received both a Bachelor's and Master's degree.[Code = 3]

I do not have a degree in Interior Design from Sacramento State.[Code = 4]



Page - 4

Q35 In what year did you receive your Bachelor's degree?

2006[Code = 1]

2007[Code = 2]

2008[Code = 3]

2009[Code = 4]

2010[Code = 5]


Display if Q34='I received a Bachelor's degree only.' OR Q34='I received both a Bachelor's and Master's degree.'

Q36 In what year did you receive your Master's degree?

2006[Code = 1]

2007[Code = 2]

2008[Code = 3]

2009[Code = 4]

2010[Code = 5]


Display if Q34='I received a Master's degree only.' OR Q34='I received both a Bachelor's and Master's degree.'

design interior design interior-architecture concentration ... · 1 template program: interior...

Documents