Survey of Teaching

Nancy C. Canestaro, D.Arch.

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee

Edith H. Carter, Ph.D.

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univer- sity, Blacksburg, Virginia

Topyright, 1992, Interior Design Educators Council, Journal of Interior Design Educa- tion and Research 17 ( 2 ) : 25-34.

Innovations in Interior Design Classes

Abstract

This study was designed to estab- lish an operationaldefinition of inno- vation as it relates to interior design instruction. The research also ad- dressed the teaching techniques that seem to be prevalent in the most inno- vative classes. The sample popula- tion was selected from members of IDEC who are currently teaching in- terior design. Faculty were asked to select which of their classes they con- sidered to be most and least innova- tive and to respond to a series of identical questions related to these classes. Classes in contractlcom- mercial and basic design were cited as being most innovative and history of interiors and drafring the least innovative. Lecture was used most frequently in the least innovative classes, and less time was spent in class discussion and team projects. A greater variety of techniques and more current editions of texts were used in the most innovative classes. Survey results indicate that program mandates concerning course content may impede the application of inno- vative techniques. The potential for creativity may be enhanced iffaculty have the latitude to structure their courses within program objectives.

A constant challenge for those engaged in educating designers is how to motivate student learning. Faculty who can identify what motivates their students and can adapt accordingly have the best chance for success in their classrooms (Roe in Greive, 1989, p. 83).

The literature reviewed for this study was used as a basis for inter- preting findings from a survey of in- terior design faculty on what makes a class innovative. This study also

establishes a foundation for creating an operational definition of innova- tive teaching in interior design.

Several distinguished teachers who were brought together by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education discussed the methods they used to motivate students (Eble, 1986). The following comments dem- onstrate a commitment to motivating student learning using a variety of techniques.

My job as a teacher is to em- power my students . . . to demystify a subject for them and so give up my power over them. If I am doing my job, by the end of the semes- ter, my students are inde- pendent of me. (Eble, 1986,

One of the most effective ways to learn is by doing. As a teacher of astronomy . . . I try to involve my students in my work. I demand that my students visit the observa- tory at least six times during the term if they want to pass my astronomy courses. They must look through the telescopes, draw sketches, take notes, keep a journal. Why? Because I believe that my students can learn about the sky only by confronting it directly, by watching the stars and planets move, by recording their positions. (Anthony F. Aveni in Eble, 1986, p. 54)

I think most human learning is experiential and I learn most of what I use in teaching through active experience. I respect what careful study has revealed about how people learn, but I am as

P. 44)

25

much attracted by the mys- teries of learning. Why do I. and my students, remember what we do remember? Why, for example, should I have learned so many popu- lar songs, and why should one come into my head, quite without bidding and letter- perfect, forty years after I last heard it? (Eble, 1986, p. 57)

Palmer (1990) wrote that good teaching requires the courage to ex- pose one’s ignorance as well as insight, to invite contradiction as well as consent, to yield some control so as to empower the group, and to evoke other people’s lives as well as reveal one’s own. If empowering, involving, and allowing students to experience what faculty want them to learn are ways to motivate, then what methods or class activities facilitate this objective?

Udolf in 1976 noted four ways to facilitate learning which have sig- nificant implications for this study: (1) arousing the student’s interest in the material, (2) organizing the mate- rial in such a way as to make it easy for students to master principles and rela- tionships as well as isolated facts, (3) tying material together and indicating relationships and leading students to discover these relationships for them- selves, and (4) interacting with stu- dents. Rogers and Shoemaker (1 97 1) report that there is a considerable time lag in the widespread adoption of new or innovative educational ideas, which may be a result of the lack of change agents to promote new educational ideas and the lack of economic incen- tives to adopt them.

Wilbert McKeachie in his book Teaching Tips (1986) said that a ma- jor task in teaching is to nurture stu- dents’ curiosity and use it as a motive for learning. In the book, McKeachie pursued various teaching methods and activities used in the classroom. He stated that too many teachers believe that reading from lecture notes is the only way to teach their subject matter. He encouraged teachers to increase their repertoire of methods by learn- ing about techniques other teachers use, talking about teaching, observing other teachers, reading journals on innovations in the classroom, or en-

hancing straight lecture formats with other teaching techniques that may trigger student learning. Using an ex- panded repertoire of teaching meth- ods can help establish a basis for in- novation in the classroom. Figure 1 displays a range of techniques that McKeachie encouraged teachers to try.

In addition to encouraging teach- ers to try new methods in the class- room, McKeachie suggested that teachers reflect on barriers to trying new techniques. These barriers in- clude the effort required to try some- thing new, fear of loss of status if the new method fails, fear of failure, in particular imagining consequences far more catastrophic than any that are likely to happen, and fear of unfavor- able reactions from colleagues for straying from the “tried and true” (McKeachie, 1986). One example of the last barrier that is also shown in the findings from the current survey is the tendency to use a textbook past its prime.

To overcome these barriers McKeachie suggested consulting the written goals and objectives for the class and making certain there is a valid reason for using the new tech- nique. He also suggested trying the new method for the first time with the best class, which may be more under- standing of small problems that may arise. Another tactic would be to gain support from colleagues for new ideas. The point is not to allow barriers to get in the way of trying innovative meth- ods of getting information across to students in the classroom.

The current study, undertaken by the Instructional Improvement Com- mittee of the Interior Design Educa- tors Council (IDEC), focused on McKeachie’s listing of teaching tech- niques. An effort was made to deter- mine how different subject matter was being presented to interior design students, what classes interior design faculty considered most and least in- novative, and ways to make less in- novative classes more effective.

Methodology

Early in 1990 the Instructional Im- provement Committee of IDEC de- veloped a survey of innovative teach-

26

ing techniques to be sent to 486 IDEC members whose names were on the master membership list. Of this num- ber, 64 were eliminated because they were retired, not currently teaching, or no longer paid members of IDEC. The first survey mailing thus went to 422 members. Six weeks after the original mailing, a follow-up was mailed to all IDEC members who had not returned their surveys.

From both mailings a total of 193 surveys were returned, for a 46 per- cent return rate. Ten were incom- plete, leaving a total of 183 usable , surveys. The data were analyzed using NCSS (Number Cruncher Sta- tistical System) Version 5.03. Sum- maries, frequency distributions, and chi-square tables were constructed from this analysis.

All innovative and noninnovative classes listed by respondents were grouped by the researchers into one of fourteen general course classifica- tions compiled from the list of courses interior design faculty in the survey taught. Many classifications were obvious, such as history, lighting, computer-aided design, and other technical subjects. Studios tended to have a residential or contract/com- mercial focus. The more question- able categories (for example, pre- sentation technology, materialdfin- ishes, and theory/environmental be- havior) were separate courses in pro- grams or parts of courses elsewhere. No courses were listed that could not be placed in one of the fourteen cat- egories. The researchers classified the focus of a course by examining its

title, topics presented, and activities camed out in class to define charac- teristics of the more and less innova- tive classes. Responses were diverse and could not be grouped in the same categories. Fourteen categories were defined for the most innovative classes. The less innovative classes yielded comments on a wider range of subjects and were therefore grouped in eighteen categories. Only one category, nature of course content, was common to both types of classes.

Results and Discussion

Demographic Information Almost 90 percent (87) of those

responding to the survey were em- ployed full time by their institutions.

27

A chi-square analysis relating faculty status to self-reported ratings of cre- ativity showed that 7 percent of the people who rated themselves low in creativity were part-time and 12 per- cent who rated themselves high in creativity had part-time faculty ap- pointments (p = .001 level of signifi- cance).

Slightly overone-third (36percent) of the respondents were male. The chi-square analysis comparing sex with self-reported ratings of creativ- ity was significant at the .05 level. Of those rating themselves highly cre- ative 40 percent were male, but only 25 percent of those rating themselves lower in creativity were male.

Two-thirds of the respondents in- dicated surprisingly heavy teaching loads; the largest number of respon- dents (68) had three classes per term and the next highest number (5 1) four or more classes (see Table 1). The average number of classes taught per term nationwide in all disciplines is three (Virginia Commonwealth Uni- versity, 1991), but this is mainly for lecture format classes, not the labor- intensive laboratory/studio classes taught by many interior design faculty.

Over half (58 percent) of the re- spondents hold the rank of assistant or associate professor (see Table 2). In addition, over half (58 percent) hold a master’s degree and almost one-fourth (22 percent) hold a doctorate (see Table 3). By contrast 64 percent of faculty in all disciplines at universities across the country hold doctorates (College Board Survey of Colleges, 1988).

The number of years respondents had taught interior design ranged from one to thirty-two, with the largest number having taught from four to six years (19 percent) or thirteen to fif- teen years (16 percent). Fewer num- bers in the categories could indicate the natural culling that occurs as a result of the tenure review process. Almost the same number had taught more than twenty-four years as three years or less (8 percent versus 9 per-. cent). Sixty percent of the respondents had taught interior design between four and fifteen years (see Table 4). The low number of entry-level faculty could indicate one or a combination

Table 1 Number of Interior Design Classes Taught per Term

Number of classes 1 2 3 4 or more Total Number of respondents 21 40 68 51 180

Percent 12 22 38 28 100

Table 2 Academic Rank of Respondents

Rank Number Percent

Instructor 32 18 Assistant professor 49 28 Associate professor 53 30 Professor 25 14 Department head 8 5 Other 9 5

Total 176 100

Table 3 Most Advanced Degree

Degree Number Percent

Doctorate (Ph.D., E.Ed.) 38 22 Master’s 103 58 Bachelor’s 28 16 Certificate in I.D. 2 1 Other 5 3

Total 176 100

Table 4 Years Teaching Interior Design

Years Number Percent

1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18 19-2 1 22-24 over 24

Total

17 34 22 24 28 16 18 7

14

180

9 19 12 13 16 9

10 4 8

100

28

Table 5 Creativity Index

Scale Not Creative Very Creative Total

1 2 3 4 5

Frequency 1 6 37 100 35 179 Percent 1 3 20 56 20 100 Mean 3.9

of factors. The demand for entry- level instructors in interior design may not be expanding. Beginning faculty may not feel comfortable discussing their teaching innovations or they may not be IDEC members yet. IDEC would like to reach this group with the results of the survey and the follow-up manual of innova- tive teaching ideas.

Respondents were asked to rate their degree of creativity in the class- room on a scale of one to five, with five being very creative (see Table 5) . The responses clustered above the midpoint with a mean of 3.9. This finding was not as expected. Because interior design is a creative field, one would expect more respondents to rate themselves a four or five (more creative than average). Their rela- tively low ratings could indicate that the majority of faculty see opportu- nities for greater creativity in their teaching. Only 20 percent of faculty felt that they were at the upper limit of their creative potential, and another 20 percent rated themselves average. This response indicates that there is an audience among interior design faculty for creative and innovative suggestions concerning teaching ac- tivities.

Most Innovative Classes Faculty were asked to respond to

four questions concerning the class they considered their most innovative. After giving the title of the class, they told its topic and why they considered it innovative. The survey did not provide a definition of innovation but rather, the definition was developed from the responses. This approach avoided creating a bias in the re- spondents' answers to questions on innovative teaching. The remaining

two questions called for the major focus in the class and the time spent in the class on specific activities. The classes were grouped into fourteen categories, each representing a spe- cific area of design education. The number of classes in each of these areas is shown in Table 6. Classes in contract/commercial and basic design were most often considered innova- tive; while building construction and furniture design were mentioned least often, perhaps because few of the respondents teach these courses, not because they are less innovative.

Another question in the survey ad- dressed the title, or what was taught, in the most innovative class. A ma- jority of faculty perceived the major focus of their innovative classes to be nonresidential design and basic or creative art topics (see Table 7). In addition, the chi-square analysis comparing the topic of the class with self-reported ratings of creativity showed that 56 percent of the people who rated themselves as highly cre- ative in the survey taught classes that fit into the categories of basic design, residential design, nonresidential de- sign, history, and theory. Only 33 percent of the faculty members who rated themselves lower in creativity taught these classes.

The most often mentioned teach- ing techniques that faculty consid- ered 'innovative included handouts prepared by the instructor, classes mainly taught by the instructor, au- diovisual aids prepared by the in- structor, and the use of a published text. The techniques were chosen from a listing in the survey that also included packaged audiovisual aids, team teaching, use of guest speakers, and student presentations. A chi- square analysis was run comparing

29

1

I

Most Innovative Class Least Innovative Class

Type of Class Rank Frequency Type of Class Rank Frequency

Table 7 Major Topics of Classes

Most Innovative Class Least Innovative Class

Topics Frequency Precent Topics Frequency Percent

Nonresidential design Basic/creative arts History Residential design Theory Professional practice Communication/presentation Technical/structure/systems Drafting Research Detailing/millwork

28 26

19 18 14 11 8 7 6 1

20

Total 158

18 16 13 12 11 9 7 5 4 4 1

History Drafting Technical/structure/systems Professional practice Nonresidential design Theory Residential design Basic/creative arts Research Detailinglmillwork Codeslstandards Communication/presentation Total

26 15 13 10 10 9 9 5 2 1 1 1

100

24 15 13 10 10 9 9 5 2 1 1 1

activities used in the most innovative classes to self-reported ratings of cre- ativity. Of faculty who rated them- selves highly creative the following characteristics proved significant:

60 percent did not have the class do team projects (p = .0005);

71 percent did not have students develop projects (p = .oooO);

48 percent used guest speakers in class at least once (p = .0285);

89 percent never used computers in class (p = .oooO);

60 percent used audiovisual aids

for presentations at least once (.0327).

The use of class time was also surveyed, with fairly predictable re- sults. For all courses surveyed, lec- turing and/or independent projects accounted for 50 percent of class time, while 14 percent was spent in discus- sion. Less than 5 percent of class time was spent on student-developed ac- tivities, guest speakers, games or role playing, or computer or machine-aided instruction. According to the teach- ing improvement experts mentioned

in the introductory section, these sel- dom-used options are tools for moti- vating students to learn.

A majority of the most innovative classes (40 percent) ranged in size from eleven to twenty students. Ten percent of the classes had more than fifty enrolled, while 9 percent had enrollments of ten or less. Large en- rollments in a class did not necessarily impede innovation; however, a chi- square analysis comparing size of class with self-reported ratings of creativity showed a difference between the high

30

and low creative groups (p = .05 level of significance). Of the people rating themselves as highly creative, 69 percent taught classes with fewer than thirty students.

Over half of the faculty surveyed (60 percent) had taught these courses six times or less. Almost a fourth (23 percent) had taught the class more than twelve times. Faculty seemed to feel that the courses they taught fewer times offered more opportunity for innovation. There was no difference between faculty who rated themselves highly creative and those who rated themselves lower in creativity.

Least Innovative Classes Responses for least innovative

classes were analyzed in the same manner as innovative ones. The least innovative classes were grouped into the same fourteen categories as the most innovative (see Table 6 for the number of classes in each of these areas).

Thirty-nine percent of the faculty said history of art or design (24 per- cent) and drafting (1 5 percent) were their least innovative classes (see Table 7). History of art or design and nonresidential design were in the top five of both the innovative and least innovative lists, however. Some fac- ulty apparently are taking on the challenge of introducing innovative methods into courses that are consid- ered by some to have little innovative potential.

Teaching techniques frequently used in classes noted as least innova- tive included handouts prepared by the instructor, class mainly taught by the instructor, use of a published text, and audiovisual aids prepared by the instructor. Although not in the same rank order, these are the same meth- ods listed in the most innovative section. About half the classes (43 percent) ranged in size from eleven to twenty students. Ten percent of the classes had enrollments of over fifty and 8 percent had ten or fewer stu- dents. These percentages were ap- proximately the same as for the most innovative category.

A chi-square analysis was run comparing activities used in the least innovative classes to self-reported

Table 8 Time Given to Class Activities

Activity Percentages

Most Innovative Least Innovative

Lecturing Independent projects Class discussion Audiovisual presentation Experiential leamindfield trips Guest speakers Team project Student-developed activities Computer-aided instruction Gaming/role playing Other

24.2 26.0 13.8 7.2 6.1 3.8 6.0 4.9 2.3 1.5 4.2

40.7 22.5

8.9 8.3 4.3 4.2 1.8 2.4 2.4 .9

3.6

Total 100.0 100.0

ratings of creativity. Of faculty who rated themselves as lower in creativ- ity,

66 percent used class discussion more than 5 percent of the time (p = .0329);

75 percent used lectures more than 20 percent of the time (p = .OOoo);

61 percent never used guest speakers (p = .OOOl); and

64 percent used audiovisual aids fewer than five times in class (p = .oooo).

Comparison of Most Innovative and Least Innovative Classes

A more interesting question, per- haps, addresses the differences be- tween the most and least innovative classes. The seven categories of classes that received the largest num- ber of responses for being most and least innovative are shown in Table 6.

A comparison of the topics cov- ered in the most and least innovative classes is shown in Table 7. It is interesting that nonresidential and history of art or design topics are high on both lists. As expected, the more technical classes appear high on the list of least innovative classes.

Another interesting comparison is the amount of time given to certain class activities. Almost twice as much time was spent lecturing in least in- novative classes (40.7 percent) than in the most innovative classes (24.2

percent) (see Table 8). In contrast, almost half as much time (8.9 per- cent) was spent in class discussions in the least innovative as in the most innovative classes (1 3.8 percent). Al- though the percentages were small, team projects accounted for four times as much class time in the most inno- vative classes (6 percent) as in the least innovative ones (1.8 percent) (see Table 8). Activities used less than 5 percent of the time in least innovative classes included experi- ential learning/field trips, guest speakers, computer or machine-aided instruction, student developed activi- ties, team projects, and gaming or role playing. All of these activities, with the exception of experiential learning and field trips and team projects, were also used less than 5 percent of the time in the most inno- vative classes. It appears that faculty tried a greater variety of techniques in the most innovative classes than in the least innovative ones, where lec- turing dominated the classroom for- mat (40.7 percent).

Comments Concerning Most Innovative and Least Innovative Classes

Two open-ended questions in the survey asked respondents to explain their categorization of the two classes-ne most innovative and the other least innovative. A content analysis of the responses was con-

31

ducted for this portion of the study (Weber, 1985). The comments were grouped by type of class and response category. Separate response catego- ries were developed because very dif- ferent reasons were given for consid- ering a class most or least innovative. The five categories receiving the larg- est number of responses for the four- teen different types of innovative classes included a variety of teaching materials, nature of the course con- tent, methods based on experience, creativity/diversity, and studio/project approach. Examples of comments for each category are shown below.

The subject of classes was also a factor in the number of responses. Contract/commercial, residential de- sign, history of interiorslfurnishings, theory/environmental behavior, and basic/creative design received the largest number of responses (fifteen or more). The classes receiving the smallest number of responses (five or less) were computer-aided design, building construction/systems, furni- ture design/millwork, materialdfin- ishes/textiles, and drafting. These categories in rank order along with examples of comments are given be- low.

1. A Variety of Teaching Methods Involves a wide variety of teach-

ing and learning activities which keeps an otherwise “dry” topic interesting.

Use methods . . . to remember chairs/designers/dates. Flashcards . . . Spelling Bee . . . Encourage people to share memory techniques.

Use a combination of lecture, group projects, a/v, student presenta- tions, guest speakers and hands-on experiences to get the point across.

2. Nature of the Course Content Because the theory stays very

much the same, the examples and ways to make it relevant are the challenges.

Challenge to present the con- tent in a way that is a learning experi- ence for a widely diverse student popu- lation.

The changing needs of the pro- fession is the challenge; how to get it all in during a ten-week quarter.

3. Methods Based on Experience The subject matter allows for

term assignments that develop inde- pendent thinking when one teaches history for its application to today.

32

It combines theory and practice, requiring students to think critically about design horizontally (time line) and vertically (slice across the world at given dates) in context with archi- tecture and culture.

Instead of using slides, all expo- sure to the subject was through stu- dent research, i.e., students reported on particular periods on alternate weeks in a “History Minute.” Stu- dents were encouraged to integrate design, art, literature, music, current events, etc. 4. Creativity/Diversity

I experiment more freely with types of assignments given. Empha- sis in class is on creativity.

To teach students to go beyond the norm and dream, but yet be realis- tic and practical, has always been chal- lenging.

Freedom of exploration/stimu- lating imagination/experimental tech- niques.

5. StudioProject Approach Projects allow unlimited input

on the student’s part. Class “stretches” rather than “stresses.”

One major project during the semester covers many areas of design experience.

Guide students from project in- ception through all planning stages to solution.

Team teaching, problem solving, question and answer, and student-se- lected assignments were the methods generating the least number of com- ments. Apparently faculty do not en- gage in these activities to any great extent in their classes, or in the case of problem solving and question and an- swer, these may be so much a part of interior design studios that faculty did not think to list them.

The response categories reflected a variety of concerns for the least inno- vative classes, although fewer respon- dents made comments related to the classes they designated least innova- tive. History/furnishings, drafting, professional practice, and materials/ finishes/textiles courses received the largest number of comments (ten or more).

Just as certain factors seem to make classes more innovative, others seem to make them less innovative. Among all classes in the least innovative cat-

egory those requiring lecture or slides received more than twice as many comments as any other category. These categories in rank order along with examples of comments are given below.

1. Lecture/Slides Any predominantly lecture class

seems less interesting to design stu- dents. It could also be that there are not many interesting visuals relating to the class.

Slide/lecture/video presentation. I usually have to give a lot of material in a short amount of time.

2. Basic Survey Foundation course teaching ba-

sic design concepts. Students have few technical skills when they enroll in this class.

We discuss basic introductory material such as elements and prin- ciples of design. Also information that is basic such as kitchen design, measurements, floorplans, zoning, etc.

More factual information rather than design.

3. Excessive Amount of Material It’s hard to be innovative when

so much material must be presented in nine weeks to 130 students.

There is so much information to cover in a limited time that it becomes impossible to be innovative. 4. Technical Information/Detail

Because unfortunately our pro- fession and curriculum still insist on requiring students to learn technical rules of drawing, i.e., perspective, or- thographic, oblique and axonometric, and not allowing a conceptual base for communication. Drawing is taught from a text outline-a static method, or on the blackboard, which really doesn’t allow for a discussion of ideas and concepts.

Technical information. Most students understand the importance of lighting only after they graduate and have experience.

5. Others Define Content I’m restricted because theentire

faculty give input on how the class should be taught, since it is the first design course.

I am not able to have any input of my own, be innovative or include new material that I feel is more up to date than the prescribed class materi- als I am given to follow.

Because the assignments are predetermined by committee, there is little or no opportunity to be innova- tive.

Factors relating to the personal concerns of the professor, such as limited knowledge of the subject, additional time needed to learn the material or software, and bias against the material generated fewer than three responses. It appears from the comments that faculty do not want the method or techniques by which course content is taught to be pre- defined. Innovative teaching must allow the professor flexibility in de- termining the best way to design and administer the class, as long as pro- gram-defined objectives are met.

Summary

This study sought answers to con- cerns expressed by faculty regarding ways to be more innovative in their classes. What activities or methods of teaching in interior design classes are considered innovative? Is there an operational definitionof innovation that enhances students’ learning po- tential? What innovative techniques can be used to motivate student learning, and are certain classes by nature more or less adaptable to inno- vative techniques than others? These questions are of particular signifi- cance to those engaged in teaching in a creative field such as design.

The survey identified a number of relevant factors that may lead to im- proved patterns of classroom instruc- tion. Classes in contract/commer- cial, history of interiors, residential design, and introduction to interior design appeared at the top of both the most and least innovative lists. It appears that some faculty are respond- ing to the challenge of introducing innovative methods into courses that are frequently considered to be less innovative. Examination of the dif- ferences between activities used in these classes indicated that faculty used more methods of getting mate- rial across to students in the most innovative classes. This style of teach- ing is also reinforced by the literature on motivating students. Teaching

techniques, though not in the exact rank order, were the same for most and least innovative classes. This suggests that though a faculty mem- ber tends to perform certain basic classroom routines (i.e., using a pub- lished text, preparing handouts and audiovisual aids), other elements combine to distinguish between most and least innovative classes.

One distinguishing factor noted by respondents was the amount of class time allotted to certain activi- ties. Lecture was used almost twice as often in the least innovative classes as in the most innovative classes. Less time was spent in class discus- sion and team projects in the least innovative classes. Individual projects received more attention in the most innovative classes. Guest speakers, machine-aided instruction, and student-developed activities were used less frequently in both catego- ries of classes.

Telling responses came from the description of why a course was con- sidered most or least innovative. The most often listed reasons for why a course was innovative were the use of a variety of teaching methods, the nature of the course content, the teacher’s greater experience with the subject matter, creativity or diver- sity, and project-based assignments. These comments reflect the discus- sion by teaching experts that more benefits are to be gained from using multiple teaching techniques in the classroom than simply lecturing from a textbook.

In contrast, the reasons given for classes being less innovative included use of the lecture/slide format, basic survey course, excessive amount of material to cover in one term, infor- mation that was highly technical or detailed, and course content defined by someone other than the instructor. Many of the factors that impede inno- vation can be overcome by faculty who are committed to improving the classes they offer their students. There is a certain element of risk involved when the teacher introduces these changes. The potential rewards, how- ever, far outweigh the short-term stress created by this change.

An operational definition of inno-

33

vation for the field of interior design education would appear to include less time spent on lecturing and more time on class discussions and team projects as well as using a greater variety of texts and current written materials to supplement classroom activities. Additional techniques sug- gested by McKeachie and others, such as field trips, role playing, and mock- ups, are yet to be explored by many faculty in interior design but offer the potential for improving the learning environment in their classes.

Further study should be done ex- ploring the use of some of these tech- niques that appear to be used less frequently in interior design classes. In addition, it would be interesting to explore further the connection be- tween innovative teaching and such factors as length of time teaching, rank, sex, type of degree earned, and other background variables. It would, for example, be interesting to explore why male faculty responding to the survey considered themselves more creative proportionately than did fe- male faculty. Interior design is con- sidered a woman’s field, and perhaps only the highly creative men become or survive as designers. Although interior design is a highly creative field, women may tend to rate them- selves on a comparative rather than an individual basis, whereas men may rate themselves individually.

Innovative teaching techniques, as defined in the literature and identified in the survey, are an excellent way to bring about a new dynamic climate in the classroom. These techniques can better motivate students, improve their appreciation for the topic, and prepare them for their future professional prac- tice. Faculty have almost nothing to lose by trying to vary their classes.

Note

Preparation of this article and dis- semination of the survey were sup- ported in part by the Interior Design Educators Council, Virginia Poly- technic Institute and State University, University of Tennessee, and Wil- liam H. Cato.

We gratefully acknowledge the as-

sistance of Louise Jones, Education Services Director of IDEC, for shepherding various proposals through the organization and editing initial versions of the text. Many thanks also are due Fletcher Carter and Tom Houser for their technical expertise in sorting out the computer programs we used. Invaluable guid- ance in the later stages by Paul Eshelman and anonymous reviewers focused our thinking on the true pur- pose of this exploration.

If you are interested in taking the next step to introducing innovation in your classroom, please consider ac- quiring Innovative Teaching Ideas. This manual of juried project ideas funded by IDEC and the University of Tennessee will be available in the summer of 1992.

References

Eble, K. E. (Ed.). (1986). Distinguished teachers on effective teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Greive. D. (Ed.). (1989). Teaching in cal- lege: A resource for college teachers. Cleveland, OH: INFO-TEC.

McKeachie, W. J. (1986). Teaching tips: A guidebook for the beginning college teacher (8th ed.). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

National Data Services for Higher Educa- tion (1988). College board survey of colleges (for Public Doctoral Research Institutions). Boulder, CO.: Author.

Palmer, P. J. (1990). Good teaching: A matter of living the mystery. Change, January-February, 11-16.

Rogers, E. M. & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach. (2nd ed.) New York: Macmillan.

Udolf, R. (1976). The college instructor’s guide to teaching and academia. Chi- cago: Nelson-Hall.

Virginia Commonwealth University. (1991). An overview of results. Rich- mond: Author.

Weber, R. P. (1985). Basic content anoly- sis. Beverly Hills: Sage.

34