STUDENT LEARNING ASSESSMENT PLAN - Marymount University

Academic Year : 2008/2009 Program: Interior Design Undergraduate
STUDENT LEARNING ASSESSMENT PLAN
RE-SUBMITTED BY: ROBIN WAGNER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 2010
BRIEFLY DESCRIBE WHERE AND HOW ARE DATA AND DOCUMENTS USED TO GENERATE THIS REPORT BEING STORED:
DIGITALLY WITH CHAIR AND ASSISTANT CHAIR OF DEPARTMENT AND FILED IN BACKUP DISC W/ RJ WAGNER
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
List all of the program’s learning outcomes: (regardless of whether or not they are being assessed this year)
Learning Outcome
Year of Last
Assessment
Year of Next Planned
Assessment
Learning Outcomes are based on criteria set forth by NCIDQ (National Council for
Interior Design Qualification) and CIDA (Council for Interior Design Accreditation).
1. Students will capably use quantitative and qualitative skills to evaluate and 2008/2009 2011/2012
assess project goals and objectives
2. Students will effectively formulate qualitative schematic design skills to develop 2008/2009 2011/2012
solutions incorporating human factors, ADA and universal requirements, and
environmental elements and responses.
3. Students will effectively formulate quantitative design development skills to 2008/2009 2011/2012
develop solutions incorporating building and life safety codes; furniture, fixtures and
equipment (FF&E) requirements; and the built environment.
4. Students will exhibit the ability to read, interpret, and create contract documents. Never 2011/2012
5. Students will demonstrate an understanding of contract administration and the
legal and ethical business practices of interior design.
2007/2008
partial
2011/2012
Describe how the program’s outcomes support Marymount’s Mission, Strategic Plan, and relevant school plan:
The Bachelor of Arts program in interior design is accredited by CIDA (Council for Interior Design Accreditation; formerly FIDER),
reaccredited in 2004. The interior design program has maintained continuous accreditation since 1985. The programs main mission
is to prepare students to be entry level interior designers in the field of interior design. Our learning outcomes both support and are in
line with CIDA’s accreditation criteria’s and with NCIDQ’s (National Council for Interior Design Qualifications) projected areas of
1

Academic Year : 2008/2009 Program: Interior Design Undergraduate
knowledge qualification for candidacy to sit for the professional exam certifying interior designers. Many of ours student take the
exam after school – we prepare them for eligibility upon graduation and with two to three years of work experience in the field.
Additionally, we uphold the universities mission toward providing an education that fosters inquiry and self discovery in the
programmatic, schematic and design development stages of our learning outcomes. We also support and further ethical behavior
and responsibility on the students part in our teachings in studio and lecture classes and have defined these in our learning
outcomes.
Provide a brief description of the assessment process used including strengths, challenges and planned improvements:
Leaning Outcomes 1, 2 and 3 are assessed in ID 406: Capstone Course. Final interior design studio (ID 406 Interior Design
Studio VI) by the instructor and outside jurors who are professional practitioners in either interior design or architecture. Students
projects are self selected and project developed on their own with faculty supervision. Projects content include healthcare design,
daycare designs, hospitality design, and retail design.
Instructors for the academic year 2009/2010 –Spring ID 406A taught by Robin Wagner and Fall and Spring ID 406B taught by
Margaret Konkel. Summer ID 406 A-3 taught by Douglas Seidler. Professional critics throughout the Washington DC area are used
to evaluate the students work; the following list is some of those evaluators:
Karen Trimbach, IIDA, NCIDQ certified, LEED AP
Terry Perry, IIDA, NCIDQ certified, LEED AP
Susan Herganrother, Allied member ASID, Adjunct Professor
Susan Tully, IIDA, NCIDQ certified, LEED AP
Robert Kelly, IIDA, NCIDQ certified
Robert McGuire, NCIDQ certified
Richard Fannelli, AIA, Leed AP
Randall Mars, AIA
The course blueprint is comparative to the design process stages of interior design. Students have professional critiques at each end
of these stages (or phases): Phase I: Programming assessment stage, Phase II: Schematic, concept development, Phase III: Design
development, Phase IV: Design specification and implementation. Three times during the semester, (Phase I, II and III) professional
jurors critique students’ work, providing additional support and direction. Jurors also attend and evaluate the final presentations.
At these professional juried critiques, rubrics, outlining expected student outcomes, are provided to jurors to assess student
performance (See attachments, ID 404 Phase I critique, Phase II critique and Phase III critique).
2

Academic Year : 2008/2009 Program: Interior Design Undergraduate
Learning outcome 4: There are currently no set up for assessment for this outcome in place. The academic year 2009/2010
evaluation tools are being put into to place to assess this outcome.
Learning outcome 5: Internship Employer Evaluations. Interior design students complete internships for a total of 6 credit hours.
Employer evaluations meet the needs of interior standards for interior design minimum proficiency as defined by both NCIDQ
(National Council for Interior Design Qualification) and CIDA (Council for Interior Design Accreditation) practice analysis assessment
and have been created as an assessment tool for student’s application of knowledge and skills in workplace environment. MU interior
design student’s internships are conducted at commercial firms, architectural firms, residential firms, retail firms and showrooms.
(See Attachment : ID 400 Employer Evaluation)
The employer evaluations only give a small “snap shot” of what the students are learning in the area of contract administration and
business practice. A more thorough assessment of this learning outcome would to be to concentrate on the course ID 436: Business
Practice and define some assessment tools to evaluate further these learning outcomes. Fall 2010, the mid-term and final exam will
also be used as assessment tool for this learning outcome and additional learning outcomes identified in program review for CIDA
accreditation..
Learning Outcome 1: Students will capably use quantitative and qualitative skills to evaluate and assess project goals and
objectives.
Programmatic inquiry is the heart of design problem – thus, the programs main “inquiry outcome”. Programming is two pronged –
discovery of information both qualitative and quantitative that is tested in the following stages: qualitative in the schematic stage and
quantitative in the design development stage.
This “inquiry outcome” in the future assessment 2011/2012 will be assessed in the following courses:
ID 201: Studio I. Students are first introduced to the foundations of the design phases to evaluating design environments,
human factors, end user needs and beginning ADA, universal and building, life safety codes.
ID 303: Studio 4. Students deal with a larger, more complex project in this studio classroom. Incorporated are more variables
of end users within the space and components of human factors where ADA , universal, and building, life safety codes.
3

Academic Year : 2008/2009 Program: Interior Design Undergraduate
ID 406: Studio 6. Student’s capstone course in interior design. Incorporates all the stages of design and students must show
how they are incorporating human factors, ADA, universal, and building, life, safety codes into the final design solution.
Describe how the program implemented its planned improvements from last year:
No implementation changes. Senior Comprehensive Exam not administered during this assessment period.
Provide a response to last year’s University Assessment Committee review of the program’s learning assessment report:
(List each recommendation and provide a specific response to each).
From Report provided January 2009
From Report provided January 2010
Define outcomes in a simplistic form.
Outcomes have been changed – are in simplified format for catalogue and continue to meet the fundamental definition both NCIDQ and CIDA
term Interior Designers: problem solvers.
In the design process for problem solving, this has been identified into the following stages by NCIDQ and CIDA:
Programmatic, Schematic Design, Design Development, Contract Documentation, Contract Administration, and Professional Practice
Our outcomes for our students have been defined by these stages and in addition we will design assessing mechanisms to assess all areas for
the 2011/2012 academic year after looking at the program that is in review for the spring 2011 CIDA accreditation visit.
4

Academic Year : 2008/2009 Program: Interior Design Undergraduate
Outcome and Past Assessment
Learning Outcome 1 Students will capably use quantitative and qualitative skills to evaluate and assess project goals and
objectives
Is this outcome being reexamined? Yes No
If yes, give a brief summary of previous results (including trends) and any changes made to the program.
Assessment Activity
Outcome Measures
Explain how student learning
will be measured and indicate
whether it is direct or indirect.
The outcome measures are
developed by assessing
outside professionals critics
evaluation of student
performances – using
rubrics to assess the
students in the skill areas
of: programming skills,
Research, Concept Design
development, Verbal and
Graphic Presentation Skills.
These are used as direct
measures for the
department’s assessment
of program outcomes.
Performance Standard
Define and explain acceptable
level of student performance.
Rubric Evaluation,
75% of the students
will receive a rating
of 4 or better in
performance
standards.
Data Collection
Discuss the data collected and
student population
ID 406: Capstone Course.
These include evaluations of
student work from the final
interior design studio (ID 406
Interior Design Studio VI) by
the instructor and outside
jurors who are professional
practitioners in either interior
design or architecture.
Students projects are self
selected and project developed
on their own with faculty
supervision. Projects content
include healthcare design,
daycare designs, hospitality
design, and retail design
Analysis
1) Describe the analysis process.
2) Present the findings of the analysis including the
numbers participating and deemed acceptable.
27 of 35 Senior ID students included
in analysis
11 raters
77% above
23% below
5

Academic Year : 2008/2009 Program: Interior Design Undergraduate
Interpretation of Results
INCLUDE ONLY INFORMATION FOR THIS PARTICULAR LEARNING OUTCOME
Extent this Learning Outcome has been achieved by students (Use both direct and indirect measure results):
On average, over 94% of students obtained a rating of three (3) or better from professional jurors. Breakdown of the outcome:
Research and code research, student ratings 4 or better cross the threshold at 82%; concept development student ratings 4 or better
cross below the threshold at 75%; Goals and objectives student ratings 4 or better cross below the threshold at 72%;and, Program
Development student ratings 4 or better cross the threshold at 78%.
The Students in this period of the assessment have met this learning outcome.
Program strengths and opportunities for improvement relative to assessment of outcome:
Outcome Program Strengths continue to be in the area of research, and program development. And improvement skill in the area of
Goals and Objectives; however this measure remains slightly below the 75
% threshold.
Program weaknesses: juror grading and comments in the area of concept development show students still slightly weak however are
adopting concept better into project developments and understanding and remains at a steady 75% threshold rating. . Weakest area
is in defining project goals and objectives. Although this area of assessment is below the 75% threshold, there has been a
improvements (up 4% in goals and objectives from 2008/2009 assessment). Additionally, students are identified for effectiveness in
code research; however, need for separate identification of students efficiency in application of information into planned designs.
Discuss planned curricular or program improvements for this year based on assessment of outcome:
It has been decided by the ID faculty to assess additional studio courses (earlier) to help identify program strengths and weaknesses.
The hope is to identify whether these are programmatic issues or anomalies in students going through the program at the time. The
courses identified for assessment are sophomore studio course ID 201 and junior studio course ID 304. Means of assessing these
earlier skills will be set in motion for the next assessment period -- along with looking at outcomes for the program review being
implemented for CIDA Accreditation in spring 2011.
6

Academic Year : 2008/2009 Program: Interior Design Undergraduate
Learning Outcome 2. Students will effectively formulate qualitative schematic design skills to develop solutions incorporating
human factors, ADA and universal requirements, and environmental elements and responses.
Is this outcome being reexamined? Yes No
If yes, give a brief summary of previous results (including trends) and any changes made to the program.
Assessment Activity
Outcome Measures
Explain how student learning
will be measured and indicate
whether it is direct or indirect.
The outcome measures are
developed by assessing
outside professionals critics
evaluation of student
performances – using
rubrics to assess the
students in the skill areas
of: programming skills,
Research, Concept Design,
Space Planning,
Visual/Graphic
Communication,
Verbal/Graphic
Presentation Skills. These
are used as direct
measures for the
department’s assessment
of program outcomes.
Performance Standard
Define and explain acceptable
level of student performance.
Rubric Evaluation,
75% of the students
will receive a rating
of 4 or better in
performance
standards.
Data Collection
Discuss the data collected and
student population
ID 406: Capstone
Course. These include
evaluations of student
work from the final
interior design studio (ID
406 Interior Design
Studio VI) by the
instructor and outside
jurors who are
professional practitioners
in either interior design or
architecture. Students
projects are self selected
and project developed on
their own with faculty
supervision. Projects
content include
healthcare design,
daycare designs,
hospitality design, and
retail design
Analysis
1) Describe the analysis process.
2) Present the findings of the analysis including the
numbers participating and deemed acceptable.
27 of 35 Senior ID students included in
analysis
11 raters
75% above
25% below
7

Academic Year : 2008/2009 Program: Interior Design Undergraduate
Interpretation of Results
Extent this Learning Outcome has been achieved by students (Use both direct and indirect measure results):
On average, 90% of the student have a rating of three(3) or better.
Breaking down the outcome: Floor plan development students ratings 4 or better crossed just below the threshold at 75%; Schematic
planning student ratings 4 or better crossed the threshold at 78%, down from 2008/2009 assessment; 3D Development Sketches
students ratings 4 or better crossed threshold at 77%, up from the 2008/2009 assessment; Concept development students rating 4 or
better crossed at the threshold 75%; and elevations and details students ratings 4 or better crossed the threshold at 75%, also up
from the 2008/2009 assessment.
The students in this period of the assessment have met the learning outcome.
Program strengths and opportunities for improvement relative to assessment of outcome:
Program Strengths are in the area of schematic planning. In the area of 3D development sketches and detail and elevations, each of
the skills have increased from the 2008/2009 assessment. . In this area professional jurors comment that students either excel in
their sketches or are too dependent on their computer and do not use sketching or computer 3D modeling as a necessary tool for
understanding the built environmentin 2008/2009…new comments are in the area of combining technological skills with hand
sketching to better understand the built-environment..
Program weaknesses: Although the area of concept development just meets the 75% threshold, this area due to juror comments still
remains an area of weakness.
Discuss planned curricular or program improvements for this year based on assessment of outcome:
It has been decided by the ID faculty to assess additional studio courses (earlier) to help identify program strengths and weaknesses.
The hope is to identify whether these are programmatic issues or anomalies in students going through the program at the time. The
courses identified for assessment are sophomore studio course ID 201 and junior studio course ID 304. Means of assessing these
earlier skills will be set in motion for the next assessment period -- along with looking at outcomes for the program review being
implemented for CIDA Accreditation in spring 2011.
8

Academic Year : 2008/2009 Program: Interior Design Undergraduate
Learning Outcome 3. Students will effectively formulate quantitative design development skills to develop solutions incorporating
building and life safety codes; furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) requirements; and the built environment.
Is this outcome being reexamined? Yes No
If yes, give a brief summary of previous results (including trends) and any changes made to the program.
Assessment Activity
Outcome Measures
Explain how student learning
will be measured and indicate
whether it is direct or indirect.
The outcome measures are
developed by assessing
outside professionals critics
evaluation of student
performances – using
rubrics to assess the
students in the skill areas
of: programming skills,
Research, Concept Design,
Space Planning,
Visual/Graphic
Communication,
Ceiling/Lighting
Components,
Finish/Furnish Application,
Verbal/Graphic
Presentation Skills. These
are used as direct
measures for the
department’s assessment
of program outcomes.
Performance Standard
Define and explain acceptable
level of student performance.
Rubric Evaluation,
75% of the students
will receive a rating
of 4 or above
performance
standards.
Data Collection
Discuss the data collected and
student population
ID 406: Capstone
Course. These include
evaluations of student
work from the final
interior design studio (ID
406 Interior Design
Studio VI) by the
instructor and outside
jurors who are
professional practitioners
in either interior design or
architecture. Students
projects are self selected
and project developed on
their own with faculty
supervision. Projects
content include
healthcare design,
daycare designs,
hospitality design, and
retail design
Analysis
1) Describe the analysis process.
2) Present the findings of the analysis including the
numbers participating and deemed acceptable.
27 of 35 Senior ID students included in
analysis
11 raters
77.0% above
23.0% below
9

Academic Year : 2008/2009 Program: Interior Design Undergraduate
Interpretation of Results
Extent this Learning Outcome has been achieved by students (Use both direct and indirect measure results):
On average, 90% of the student have a rating of three(3) or better. Breaking down the outcome: Floor plan development students
ratings were up from 2008/2009 assessment with ratings meeting the 75 threshold; elevations and details student ratings 4 or better
crossed below the threshold at 75%, also up from 2008/2009; Finish/Furnish Selections students ratings 4 or better crossed
threshold at 82%; RCP development students rating 4 or better crossed below the threshold at 72%; Presentations students ratings 4
or better crossed threshold at 75%;and, Overall project student ratings 4 or better crossed the threshold at 82%.
The students in this period of the assessment have met the learning outcome.
Program strengths and opportunities for improvement relative to assessment of outcome:
Program Strengths are in the area of Verbal and graphic presentation skills in overall presentation of final project and in appropriate
selections in furniture and finish selections.
Program weaknesses: juror grading and comments in the area ceiling and lighting component application are the areas of weakness.
However this assessment skill is up by 4% from the 2008/2009 assessment. This still remains to be skill student tend to leave as the
last component to tackle and fail to fully develop – therefore, whether this is a weakness in the program learning outcomes or failure
to in student organization skills in 406 is something that needs to be identified.
Discuss planned curricular or program improvements for this year based on assessment of outcome:
It has been decided by the ID faculty to assess additional studio courses (earlier) to help identify program strengths and weaknesses.
The hope is to identify whether these are programmatic issues or anomalies in students going through the program at the time. The
courses identified for assessment are sophomore studio course ID 201 and junior studio course ID 304. ID 304 will assess
construction documents and RCP’s will be a component of this to identify their understanding of ceiling and lighting components.
Means of assessing these earlier skills will be set in motion for the next assessment period -- along with looking at outcomes for the
program review being implemented for CIDA Accreditation in spring 2011.
10

Academic Year : 2008/2009 Program: Interior Design Undergraduate
Learning Outcome 4. Students will exhibit the ability to read, interpret, and create contract documents
Is this outcome being reexamined? Yes No
If yes, give a brief summary of previous results (including trends) and any changes made to the program.
Assessment Activity
Outcome Measures
Explain how student learning
will be measured and indicate
whether it is direct or indirect.
NOT ASSESSED
AT THIS TIME
Performance Standard
Define and explain acceptable
level of student performance.
Data Collection
Discuss the data collected and
student population
Analysis
1) Describe the analysis process.
2) Present the findings of the analysis including the
numbers participating and deemed acceptable.
Outcome and Past Assessment
11

Academic Year : 2008/2009 Program: Interior Design Undergraduate
Learning Outcome 5: Students will demonstrate an understanding of contract administration and the legal and ethical business
practices of interior design.
Is this outcome being reexamined? Yes No
If yes, give a brief summary of previous results (including trends) and any changes made to the program.
Assessment Activity
Outcome Measures
Explain how student learning
will be measured and indicate
whether it is direct or indirect.
Students in the
undergraduate programs
take 6 credit hours of ID
400: Internship. The course
requires an evaluation from
the employer on work skills.
We use these evaluations
as indirect measures of
student’s skills in interior
design.
Performance Standard
Define and explain acceptable
level of student performance.
Employer Evaluations,
75% of the students
will receive a rating of
Good or above in
performance standard
ratings.
Data Collection
Discuss the data collected and
student population
Analysis
1) Describe the analysis process.
2) Present the findings of the analysis including the
numbers participating and deemed acceptable.
40 ID students included in analysis
37 raters
98.0% above
2.0% below
Interpretation of Results
12

Academic Year : 2008/2009 Program: Interior Design Undergraduate
Extent this Learning Outcome has been achieved by students (Use both direct and indirect measure results):
All students successfully complete their internship and have very good evaluations from their employers.
Program strengths and opportunities for improvement relative to assessment of outcome:
The undergraduate students successfully complete their internships and employer evaluation ratings, overall, are rated by their
supervisors in the excellent to good range. In this assessment, 2009/2010 period, 40 students were assessed. Major strengths of the
students are in the area of communication skills and professional good judgment – additional comments show in increase in the area
of student’s technological skills and many employers have identified this success. However, some negative comments are in the area
of lacking REVIT knowledge of understanding construction documents for red-lining.
In the area of Contract Administration, the internship evaluation does not successfully evaluate this outcome. It only provides a partial
outcome to learning outcome 5 in that it provides some assessment to business practices. In the area of business practices, the
students ratings are good to excellent.
Discuss planned curricular or program improvements for this year based on assessment of outcome:
• Elective course designed in advances technology information in Revit and 3-D imaging software skills.
• Further strengthening of the ID 313: CAD and intro Revit that students are performing this programming efficiency in
construction document and knowledge development in ID 304: Studio IV.
• Assessment of contract documents and additional business practices to be done by creating an assessment tool for ID
436: Business Procedure Class. Will be assessed in 2011/2012.
Means of assessing these construction document skills will be set in motion for the next assessment period -- along with
looking at outcomes for the program review being implemented for CIDA Accreditation in spring 2011.
13