Continuing Education: A Collaborative Effort

Dorothy L. Fowles Iowa State University

Permission to republish this article has been granted by the International Federation of Interior Designers (IFI) and the author under their copyright conditions and that any further copying or republishing must be done in accordance with the IF1 copyrighf.

Abstract Continuing education in interior design has

had a relatively short history. Professional or- ganizations are still in the formative stages of developing their continuing education or pro- fessional development programs. Since AIA has had a longer involvement with continuing education for architects their successful pro- gram provides useful insights for interior de- sign.

When developing individual programs one concern is with identifying appropriate topics. Programs are currently being de- signed and developed by several sources. Program quality controls include following CCEU guidelines. providing financial com- pensation and initiating a review process. Successful program implementation needs to address problems of participation, promotion and economic considerations as well as alter- nate modes of program delivery.

Collaborative continuing education efforts among interior design organizations is seen as an efficient and effective means to estab- lish a clearinghouse of resources; to provide a basis for experimental programs; to initiate team efforts in developing, reviewing and sponsoring programs in the future; and to de- velop a tradition for life-long-learning.

Introduction The current state of affairs for continuing

education in interior design in the United States and Canada is best described as frag- mented and spotty but with increasing in- terest and considerable potential. This was the conclusion drawn from the recent “Forum on Interior Design Continuing Edu- cation” at which representatives of six pro- fessional design organizations exchanged information on developments in continuing education for design professionals.’

The framentation noted at the Forum is due in part to the relatively short time of active in- volvement in and substantial support for con- tinuing education by the various professional

design organizations. Until recently there has been only limited coordination or interaction on continuing education issues between pro- fessional organizations, or for that matter, within individual organizations. The more serious interest by organizations in the pro- fessional development of designers undoubt- edly is caused by a complex interaction between a maturing sense of professionalism, changing technology, increasing legal re- quirements and compelling economic fac- tors.

“Continuing education” is the term that has been most universally applied to formal, organized education and training activities for which academic credit is not received. Frequently continuing education is asso- ciated with a specific type of organized learn- ing situation of several hours or days duration. Because of the formal and limited learning situations implied by continuing education, two organizations (ASID and AIA) are currently referring to their educa- tional activities as “professional develop- ment.” In the broad sense, professional development is more inclusive than continu- ing education: Independent study, research, travel with educational value, and service to the public as well as to professional societies may be considered as professional develop- ment. In special circumstances it may even include on-the-job experience.

The value for continuing education can be seen in a study with engineers to determine the relationship between measureable per- formance and participation in continuing education. The unexpected results of this study indicate that continuing education par-

ticipation “is a dominant predictor of per- formance, while inherent ability and DRIVE seem less important.” (Morris. 1978:i) There appears to be a professional return on invest- ment for participation in continuing educa- tion that may apply to interior designers as well as engineers.

Historically, non-credit continuing educa- tion has become a significant segment of edu- cation in the last 40 years in the United States. Adults, especially those in professions, find it increasingly necessary to update and upgrade their knowledge throughout their working years. According to the Council on the Con- tinuing Education Unit (1979:~) “increas- ingly, more and more education for specific careers and job functions has to be obtained after graduation and the need continues throughout an individual’s productive life.”

It is within this context that the Continuing Education Unit (CEU) was defined in 1970 and the Council on the Continuing Education Unit (CCEU) was incorporated in 1977. CCEU is a non-profit federation of education and training organizations dedicated to strengthening the quality and effectiveness of continuing education. This organization has defined “One Continuing Education Unit” as :

Ten contact hours of participation, in an organized continuing education expe- rience, under responsible sponsorship, capable direction, and qualified instruc- tion.

These CEUs are attached to a program with no implication of the professional level of achievement of an individual. Testing is not a part of obtaining CEU, only program atten- dance. Having CEUs attached to a program only provides assurance that a program has been reviewed and was designed to meet a minimum criteria set by the sponsors within CCEU guidelines.

In addition to the widely used CEU, more recently a validated credit is also available to

12 YCopyright, 1984, Interior Design Educators Council Journal of Interior Design Educators and Research l O ( 1 ) : 12-16

programs sponsors. To be eligible to issue this version of continuing education credit a sponsor must be accredited by the Council for Noncollegiate Continuing Education (CNCE). The accredited sponsor is then per- mitted to issue a “Validated CN-CEU”. which is based on an assessment of individual learning and a testing of competences.

Any organization issuing CEUs for spon- sored programs is required to keep records of credit earned for all participants and to issue transcripts when requested. Additionally. an organization may need to keep records for their members on CEUs earned from all sources to fulfill licensing or certification re- quirements. The format for these registers or credit banks is currently being established by interior design professional organizations.

Organizing Education Activities For organizations to put continuing educa-

tion and professional development programs in place requires consideration of two sides: service and resources. Service concerns are process-oriented. such as a procedures man- ual on how to develop and implement an indi- vidual program. screening and approval procedures of proposed programs or courses and a clearinghouse of available programs. Resource concerns relate to the actual devel- opment and delivery of programs.

Within the design community each organi- zation has approached service and resource concerns with different priorities. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) htarted continuing education eleven years ago with developing programs for architects. Now programs or courses and process go hand-in-hand but there is an emphasis on the service side of AIA continuing education ac- t i v i t y (i .e. revicwing program proposals, providing a manual and catalogue of avail- able program. etc.). Nevertheless AIA con- tinues to develop programs or courses when a void is seen to exist. One recent example of this is the Intern Architect Program (IDP) which developed out of a need to provide guidance to young professionals.

The Institute of Business Designers (IBD) decided to focus its initial thrust o n the serv- ice or process aspects of continuing education prior to developing the program side. Thus, they established the mechanism for awarding and recording Continuing Education Units (CEUs) prior to overseeing or initiating pro- gram development. Since 1980, IBD has recommended and encouraged all members to seek ten CEUs in a five year period. Pro- gram development has been at the local level

up to this point in time, although there is a mechanism for national review. This review is mandatory for programs granting CEUs to participants.

The American Society of Interior De- signers (ASID) has had a dilemna between developing the process or the programs first. The resolution of this has been to work on both aspects, more or less in parallel for the past five years. A manual and five initial courses were put together as the first step in 1981. A continuing education course was part of the ASID national convention for the first time in 1982. The addition of courses, a more definitive review process, and award- ing CEUs have all received recent attention.

In Canada, two provinces have licensing of interior designers. The professional organi- zations in each of these provinces are re- quired to have continuing education programs. The Interior Designers of Canada (IDC), representing organizations from all provinces, has not initiated a nationally coor- dinated program yet.

Developing Programs The design and development of an individ-

ual program involves identifying viable topics, planning the educational format and content, and maintaining quality control. There is a limited history of interior design program development; thus, the successful AIA program development process provides a useful model.

Topic Identification Viable topics for architecture programs are

ascertained by either of two procedures: membership surveys to determine topics of current interest and Board of Directors’ man- dates to address specific leading edge issues. Currently there is no comparable procedure being used to identify appropriate program topics for interior design, although it is obvi- ous that it is needed. Topics appear to be in- formally identified by a designated national committee or the Board of Directors in each interior design organization.

Program Sources Programs relevant to interior design are

being currently produced and sponsored by several sources. A major source of programs are those generated within the professional organizations, mainly at the local chapter level. While the local involvement provides for diversity, this fragmentation has some in- herent problems associated with it. Informa- tion on these local programs or courses is not

consistently shared at the national level in the organization. A recent questionnaire to ASID chapter presidents confirmed that both the sharing of information and the approval of local programs was not a regular part of each chapter’s procedures.

There is concern that locally developed programs do not consistently reach the highest quality level due to lack of funds and/ or manpower. To provide greater quality con- trol a national system for approval of a program has been established by each organi- zation. Two years ago IBD also established regional education chair persons to try to bet- ter document programs produced and pre- sented at the local chapter level.

A second source of interior design pro- grams is through educational institutions, es- pecially using their continuing education centers. These continuing education centers in each university individually establish their own education course standards, criteria for granting CEUs. and review procedures, gen- erally within CCEU guidelines. These insti- tutions may use local faculty to design and deliver a program, but more frequently they draw on regional or national experts to parti- cipate in the instruction.

There are several universities and colleges that regularly sponsor interior design related continuing education courses that attract re- gional participation. Some of these sources are co-sponsored or endorsed by local chap- ters of professional organizations. The Uni- versity of Wisconsin-Madison is one of several institutions that has an established re- cord for producing programs that draw a na- tional audience. In Canada, Ryerson Institute of Technology is the only educational institu- tion known to be developing continuing edu- cation courses in the interior design area at this time.

Independent groups or individuals generat- ing noncredit courses-for-profit relevant to interior design are a third source of continu- ing education programs. Design trade maga- zines have recently been sponsoring this type of program on topics such as computers, lighting, marketing, and management.

Product councils or associations may be an additional source of viable programs, as long as there are safeguards to assure a generic ap- proach is taken to the subject matter. Many of these industries have both the expertise and the resources to present responsible, worth- while programs relevant to interior design. While large trade shows such as NEOCON in Chicago, West Week in Los Angeles and Canexus in Toronoto incorporate workshops

13

and seminars in their schedule of events, these are generally of relatively short time duration and do not grant CEUs.

Quality Control Maintaining a high quality standard for

programs is a reasonable concern as interior design continuing education activities de- velop. This is an immediate problem while internal guidelines and criteria for program planning and instructor approval are cur- rently under development within each organi- zation. In the interim, the use of CCEU administrative and program criteria are pro- viding general guidance and are quite neces- sary if CEUs are associated with the program. According to CCEU, sponsors of a program must meet criteria related to organi- zation responsiblity and control; facilities, equipment and support materials; as well as maintenance and availability of records. CCEU program criteria address the follow- ing aspects: definition, planning, objectives, instruction, performance, registration, re- cords and program evaluation (CCEU, 1979).

The program review process as well as CEU approval process may influence the quality level of a given program. Since CEUs are handled nationally by a sponsor, program review needs to occur at this level. This re- view process by AIA, ASID and IBD in- volves a national committee in conjunction with staff members.

As an aid to producing a quality program the AIA has developed a manual that details the necessary guidelines, procedures, and re- view process for local chapters or individuals involved in producing a program. When de- veloping live programs on architectural topics, the AIA has resource and education experts develop the program concept to- gether. The education expert helps with the program format while the resource expert, whether a AIA member or outside person, fills in the subject matter; staff develops the related promotional information. These three aspects are reviewed and the program is given a trial run prior to being released na- tionally. As a result, AIA is developing a rep- utation for sponsoring quality programs.

Once a program is in place, participant evaluation provides another form of useful review. This is standard practice for design programs in all the professional organiza- tions and provides an opportunity for pro- gram modification, if needed.

In addition to following CCEU criteria and having an extensive review process, paying

experts to develop programs appears to gen- erate a higher level of professional commit- ment. If the architecture precedent applies in this situation. one could anticipate the quality of programs to skyrocket when honoraria are part of the agreements for program design and development.

Local chapters and individuals do not cur- rently receive any remuneration for develop- ing programs i n interior design. This may account for the small number of interior de- sign educators who have developed continu- ing education programs up to this point in time. When individuals, whether members or outsiders, are paid to prepare courses or pro- grams their compensation is not only for time spent developing a program: Rather, the compensation is also for the level of informa- tion or professional expertise brought to the task. Unfortunately, members of professional organizations are slow to recognize that con- tinuing education program development is different from committee participation in this respect.

Program development procedures for iden- tifying viable topics, producing programs, and controlling quality are all in the early stages of formation for interior design con- tinuing education. Guidance from more ex- perienced professions and organizations is providing important assistance at this point of experience. A simliar situation exists with concerns related to the implementation or de- livery of programs.

Implementing Programs With continuing eduction programs pro-

duced and available, the next question re- peatedly raised within the profession is how to insure the success for a program and how to get designers to participate. Some of the elements that may interact to determine the level of participation and program success in- clude the suject matter, credit, program loca- tion, scheduled time, cost, and promotion or publicity.

Participation Past experience indicates that subject mat-

ter which is relevant and timely generates at- tendance. Designers respond to the personal need for professional development in order to keep their “competitive edge.” Thus, courses related to business practices and new techno- logy consistently generate substantial interest and participation.

The level of participation by design profes- sionals in continuing education courses is generally low across organizations but in-

creasing. Awarding CEUs is seen as a way of providing recognition for participation: It is sensed that designers want credit and want the credit for participation recorded with their organization. In any case the basic fact exists that the concept of life-long-learning is not an integral part of most design profes- sionals value system at this time. Because of this many designers have not seen continuing education as a necessary part of their sched- ule and local chapters have had trouble sepa- rating continuing education activities from their long standing social and fund raising events.

The time of year and location of continuing education activities may influence participa- tion. AIA has found that their attendance cycles favor Spring and Fall. University class rooms have proven less acceptable to archi- tects than hotel facilities or designated uni- versity conference facilities. While museums and design centers can provide acceptable ac- commodations for interior designers, archi- tects tend to avoid these locations.

Economic Considerations Continuing education programs are not

generally approached as money-making ven- tures, even though incidentally a successful course can show a profit for the sponsor. Rather, the organization’s motivation for en- couraging continuing education activities is for members’ development. Education insti- tutions may view continuing education as a means of utilizing existing resources more fully and thus becoming economically advan- tageous. But there is, in any case, a financial commitment assumed when putting together any continuing education program. Thus, a program that addresses a leading edge issue or more esoteric topic requires heavy promo- tion to be financially self-sustaining.

The potential expenses associated with ob- taining an expert speaker (especially travel costs) may prohibit use of a program by some local chapters. Other financially feasible models to be considered for reducing ex- penses include:

I . Averaging airfare between several loca- tions and changing the same fee regard- less of actual expenses in order to equalize cost to local sponsors.

2. Training several instructors to deliver the program at a regional level and thus reduce travel expenses.

3. Use modes of delivery of programs other than the “live road show,” to eliminate travel expenses.

14

The cost to participants is of general con- cern in assessing interest for any continuing education activity. The following are three levels of programs with their approximate cost per session:

1. local programs: $20-100 2. nationally sponsored programs: $150-

3. private-for-profit programs: over $250

The commercially developed programs in the third category tend to be very expensive: A business development program of this type may cost $300-400 per day.

250

Program Promotion In promotion of a continuing education

program the details must accurately reflect the program. Several problems remain unre- solved related to the promotion of interior de- sign programs, including how to have:

1. informative and descriptive documenta-

2. clear expectations and objectives for a

3. consistency in descriptions, and 4. information on the appropriate target

audience and instruction level.

There are currently no clear categories used to describe programs or to classify the instruction level. Program descriptions may include a statement of expectations, topics to be covered, time schedule to indicate topic depth, and a brief background on the instruc- tors. Most designation of audience level is done by the program instructor.

tion,

program,

Modes of Program Delivery Currently, the exclusive modes of continu-

ing education program delivery for interior design involves some version of the “live” or face-to-face instruction format which in- volves the direct interaction of the group with the instructors in a specific setting. Variations within this format include lectures, seminars, workshops, conferences, institutes, short courses and training laboratory. Unfortu- nately, numerous areas of the United States and Canada are too remote or sparsely popu- lated to generate a sufficient number of parti- cipants to support this type of program format.

A long term concern in interior design should be to develop alternate delivery sys- tems to increase the scope and availability of continuing education resources. Some de- livery options include:

1. video presentation with a local discus-

2. programmed learning through corre-

3. cassette/slide programs, and 4. coordinated scheduling and sponsorship

Again, AIA experience in this area should be noted. They have found that the cassette market is casual, and learning associated with this mode is limited. Correspondence courses are taken more seriously by participants. Thus, the development and review for corre- spondence courses is handled with the same rigor as live deliveries, although these pro- grams are produced for AIA by an outside or- ganization. The video/leader option appears to be untried.

Program delivery procedures related to generating participation, promoting pro- grams and controlling costs are a serious con- cern in interior design continuing education. Up to now many more problems seem to have been identified than have been solved. Colla- borative efforts among professional organi- zations can be seen as a beneficial approach to achieving efficient and effective means of program delivery, as well as program devel- opment and coordination.

sion leader,

spondence/resource programs,

between organizations within a region.

Future Potential of Collaborative Efforts

Several issues in interior design continuing education will need to be addressed as a broader scope of continuing education activ- ity is developed in the future. These issues will require attention within each individual organization, but collective efforts among or- ganizations are seen as providing important support and facilitating resolution of many of the problems.

The potential of collaborative efforts be- tween professional organizations and educa- tors and among professional organizations exits in specific aspects of both the service and resource sides of continuing education. It is in these collaborative efforts that the Inte- rior design Educators Council (IDEC) may best play a vital role. IDEC is seen by the pro- fessional community as having a “profes- sional obligation” to assist in developing continuing education for interior design.

Clearinghouse of Resources On the service side, there is an immediate

need for a clearinghouse of continuing educa- tion resources in order to identify existing programs, to share ideas on programs under

development, and to schedule presentations. In the latter case, coordination in the schedul- ing of programs at the regional or local level can avoid unnecessary or financially disrup- tive duplication by different program spon- sors.

Establishing a standardized approach to program descriptions through a clearing- house would address several unresolved problems presented earlier in this paper (see “Program Promotion”). Additionally, a comprehensive listing of programs with standardized descriptions would provide an informal means of quality control by permit- ting a comparision between programs from various sponsors. Greater objectivity in han- dling these clearinghouse processes may be possible through IDEC rather than the other professional Organizations.

While the professional design organiza- tions can have an immediate exchange of . their own approved programs, searching for relevant programs by other sponsors is more involved and would be an unnecessary dupli- cation of effort if handled individually. The clearinghouse would minimize the otherwise piecemeal information from getting lost or retained after it is outdated.

Objectives and Experimental Approaches

Another important collaborative effort is needed to identify a direction and to establish a set of objectives for continuing education in interior design. This would provide a basis for further joint efforts on the resource side: In experimentation with alternate program delivery modes such as those presented ear- lier in this paper and in program design and production. In the latter case, the profes- sional organizations can best identify practi- tioner program interests and needs while IDEC may be better able to identify program voids and potential program producers. IDEC may be able to also coordinate teams for developing programs efficiently and ef- fectively.

If educators were to take on an active leadership role in producing programs (i.e. handling content and format aspects), it seems natural for the professional organiza- tions to take responsibility for sponsoring the programs (i.e. organize the promotion and presentation aspects). Implicit in sponsorship of programs is the review and approval pro- ess. When this approval process is handled independently by each organization, spon- sorship would be the same as the review

15

group. These approved programs may be ref- erenced in another organizations catalog. The next step i n the collaborative effort would be to mutually approve and co-list pro- grams. It has been suggested that IDEC should organize a multi-organization review committee which potentially would be enriched by a greater diversity of opinion and perspective.

Change of Attitudes The lack of a tradition of life-long-learning

for design professionals is another unre- solved issue effecting continuing education. While participants in the Forum on Continu- ing Education in Interior Design endorsed continuing education in interior design as valid and important, this concept needs to be- come a functional part of interior design prac- tice. A major thrust for changing an interior designer’s attitude toward continuing educa- tion should occur at the student and young professional stages of a career. In these for- mative stages academic education should be viewed as broader than just job training and young professional programs should not be geared exclusively to passing a qualifying

exam. In addition, established professionals need motivation to become involved in con- tinuing education by being made more aware of the competitive advantages achieved through participation. It will take a concerted effort by educators and responsible profes- sionals to orchestrate these changes in atti- tudes toward continuing education.

Continuing education for interior design has made incredible strides in the past few years through the efforts of the individual professional organizations. Collaborative efforts between these organizations, such as those mentioned above, is needed to have fu- ture advances continue at the same rate. Po- tential areas for collective activity cover every aspect of program development and de- livery. Since there is a mutual concern for de- veloping and maintaining the competence of the interior design professional, continued development of a collaborative effort has substantial potential in the future.

Note 1 : This article draws heavily on information

that evolved from the “Forum on Continuing Education in Interior Design” sponsored by the Interior Design Educators Council

(IDEC) and moderated by the author, January 1983, in Chicago, Illinois. Other organiza- tions in addition to IDEC represented at the forum were the American Institute of Archi- tects (James E. Ellison), American Society of Interior Designers (Odette Lueck), Institute of Business Desingers (James A. Ferguson, HI), Interior Designers of Canada (Ron Strandberg), and National Home Fashion League (Margaret J . Wood).

References American Institute of Architects.

AIA professional developmenr program manual. Washington. D.C. : The American Institute of Archi- tects. 1981.

Criteria and guidelinesjir use ofrhe conrinuing educu- tion unit (rev. ed.) . Silver Spring. MD: The Council on the Continuing Education Unit, April. 1979.

The rrrurn on iiwesrmenr in corirmung edircarlon of engi- neer.(. (no city): American Society id Engineering Edu- cation. Continuing Professional Development Division. June. 1978.

Council on the Continuing Education Unit.

Morris. A.J. (principal investigator)

16