<%BANNER%>

Record for a UF thesis. Title & abstract won't display until thesis is accessible after 2014-05-31.

DARK ITEM
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044057/00001

Material Information

Title: Record for a UF thesis. Title & abstract won't display until thesis is accessible after 2014-05-31.
Physical Description: Book
Language: english
Creator: Goldsmith, Jessica M
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Design, Construction and Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Design, Construction, and Planning Doctorate thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Statement of Responsibility: by Jessica M Goldsmith.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Hasell, Mary J.
Electronic Access: INACCESSIBLE UNTIL 2014-05-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044057:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044057/00001

Material Information

Title: Record for a UF thesis. Title & abstract won't display until thesis is accessible after 2014-05-31.
Physical Description: Book
Language: english
Creator: Goldsmith, Jessica M
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Design, Construction and Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Design, Construction, and Planning Doctorate thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Statement of Responsibility: by Jessica M Goldsmith.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Hasell, Mary J.
Electronic Access: INACCESSIBLE UNTIL 2014-05-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044057:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 REFLECTING THE BEST OF THE PAST AND THE PRESENT: EXPLORING STUDENT LEARNING IN A DESIGN STUDIO FOCUSED ON DEVELOPING INTERIOR DESIGN COMPATIBILITY ON A HISTORIC CAMPUS By JESSICA MARIE GOLDSMITH A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Jessica Goldsmith

PAGE 3

3 To David and Grandma

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my committee chair, Dr. Jo Hasell, for sticking with me throughout this process. I have learned a great deal from her and she has been unfailingly generous with her time, expertise and patience. Committee member Dr. Margaret Portillo has been a source of knowledge and inspiration throughout this process, and her support was central to my success. I would also like to thank my committee members for their efforts: Professor Roy Graham of Historic Preservation Programs, and Dr. Jane Town send from the College of Education This dissertation would not exist without them. Finally, thanks to my husband for supporting me throughout this process.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 15 Compatibility ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 17 Studio Learning ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 18 Sense of Connectedness ................................ ................................ ........................ 18 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ....................... 19 Assumptions Underlying the Study ................................ ................................ ......... 22 The Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 22 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 23 Delimitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 27 Definitions and Operational Terms ................................ ................................ ......... 28 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 31 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 33 Compatibility ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 33 Defining Compatibility through Preserva tion Literature ................................ ..... 34 Assessing Compatibility ................................ ................................ .................... 40 Assessing Compatibility in this Study ................................ ............................... 42 Compatibility and Creativity ................................ ................................ .............. 46 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 50 Studio Learning ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 52 Significance of the Studio Setting and Context Based Real World Projects ..... 52 Interior Design Studio Processes: Learning through Practice .......................... 61 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 72 Sense of Connectedness ................................ ................................ ........................ 73 Measuring a Sense of Connectedness ................................ ............................. 74 Significance of a Sense of Connectedness ................................ ...................... 77 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 82 Study Framework: Unifying the Literature ................................ ............................... 83 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ............... 91 Study Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 91

PAGE 6

6 Research Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 93 Research Participants ................................ ................................ ............................. 94 Students ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 94 Ins tructors ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 94 Expert Evaluators ................................ ................................ ............................. 95 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 95 Research Instruments ................................ ................................ ............................. 97 Pre Test of Student Interest ................................ ................................ ............. 97 Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS) ................................ ............................ 98 Connectedness to Historic Buildings Scale (CHBS) ................................ ......... 98 Refle ctions on the Pre Design Concept Survey ................................ ............... 99 Student Opinion of Design Decision Influences Survey ................................ .. 100 Student Essay ................................ ................................ ................................ 100 Post Tests of Student Interest ................................ ................................ ........ 100 re ................................ ................................ .............. 101 ................................ .............................. 102 Study Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 102 Analytic Techniques ................................ ................................ .............................. 104 Validity and Reliability ................................ ................................ ........................... 105 Limitations of the Study ................................ ................................ ......................... 106 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 107 4 FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 119 Study Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 119 Pre Design Phase Interest in Historic Preservation ................................ ........ 119 Pre Design Interest in the Assigned Studio Project ................................ ........ 120 Subject Matter ................................ ................................ ............................. 120 Connectedness to Nature Scale ................................ ................................ ..... 120 Pre design Connectednes s to Historic Buildings Scale (CHNS) .................... 121 Post design CHBS ................................ ................................ ......................... 121 Open Ended Pre design Activity that Most Influenced Concept ..................... 122 Influence of Pre design Phase Studio Activities ................................ ............. 123 Pre d design concepts ................................ ................................ .................... 123 Pre design phase activity: Character defining f eatures research ............. 123 Pre design phase activity: Building user perceptions and behavior research ................................ ................................ ................................ 124 Pre design phase activity: Code compliance and ADA research ............. 124 Pre design phase activity: LEED research ................................ ............... 124 Pre design ph ase activity: Morphological analysis ................................ ... 124 Pre design phase activity: Concept and branding development .............. 124 Pre design phase activity: Midpoint presentation ................................ ..... 125 Total Influence of Pre design Phase Studio Activities ................................ .... 125 Pre design Activity that Most Influenced Design Decisions ............................ 125

PAGE 7

7 Open Ended Pre design Phase Activity that Most Influenced Design De cisions ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 126 Student Self reported Assessments ................................ ............................... 127 .................. 135 ......... 136 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 139 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ .... 145 Example Student Projects ................................ ................................ ..................... 146 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 149 Compatibility and Historic Preservation ................................ ................................ 150 Application to Historic Preservation Teaching and Practice ........................... 151 Compatibility and Creativity ................................ ................................ ............ 153 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 155 Studio Learning ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 157 Applications for Studio Instructors ................................ ................................ .. 157 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 159 Sense of Connectedness ................................ ................................ ...................... 160 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 162 APPENDIX A PRE TEST OF STUDENT INTEREST ................................ ................................ .. 167 B CONNECTEDNESS TO NATURE SCALE ................................ ........................... 168 C STUDENT MODIFIED CNS FOR THE HISTORIC BUILT ENVIRONMENT: CONNECTEDNESS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS SCALE ................................ .... 170 D REFLECTIONS ON YOUR PRE DES IGN CONCEPT ................................ ......... 172 E STUDENT OPINION OF DESIGN DECISION INFLUENCES .............................. 173 F STUDENT ESSAY INSTRUCTIONS ................................ ................................ .... 175 G POST TEST OF STUDENT INTEREST ................................ ............................... 176 H ................................ ................................ ...... 178 I ................................ ...................... 181 J RESULTS OF TWO TESTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 182 K INFORMED CONSENT FOR STUDENTS ................................ ........................... 233 L INFORMED CONSENT FOR EVALUATORS ................................ ....................... 234

PAGE 8

8 M INFORMED CONSENT FOR INSTRUCTORS ................................ ..................... 235 N IMAGES AND SELECTED PROJECTS ................................ ............................... 236 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 257 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 264

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Pre test of Student Interest variables.. ................................ ............................. 110 3 2 Connectedness to Nature (CNS) scale variables. ................................ ............ 110 3 3 Connectedness to Historic Buildings (CHBS) scale variables.. ........................ 111 3 4 Reflections on your Pre design C oncept (RPCS) survey variables. ................. 111 3 5 Connectedness to Historic Buildings (CHBS) scale variables. ......................... 112 3 6 Student Essay variables. Three types of variables were derived from the Student Essay. ................................ ................................ ................................ 113 3 7 Post test of Student Interest variables. Seven variables were derived from the Post test of Student Interest.. ................................ ................................ ..... 114 3 8 ................................ ................................ 115 3 9 Variables operationalize d from Student Essay.. ................................ ............... 117 4 1 Pre design activities that students found most helpful while developing their concept boards. ................................ ................................ ................................ 140 4 2 Rankings the eight pre score of degree of design decision influence. ................................ ................... 141 4 3 Pre design activities that students found most influential on their final design solutions. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 142 4 4 many students discussed each theme. ................................ ............................. 143 4 5 project outcomes. ................................ ................................ ............................. 143 4 6 outcomes. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 144 J 1 design phase interest in historic preservation, RQ1 ................................ ................................ ............................ 182 J 2 design interest in the assigned studio project, RQ2 ................................ ................................ ........................... 185

PAGE 10

10 J 3 ......................... 187 J 4 ................................ 190 J 5 design CHBS score, RQ5 ............. 193 J 6 design CHBS score, RQ6 ........... 196 J 7 design phas e studio activities ....... 198 J 8 for influence of pre design phase studio activities character defining features research, RQ8 ................................ ....... 201 J 9 design phase studio activities building user perceptions and behavior research, RQ8 .................... 205 J 10 P design phase studio activities code compliance and ADA research, RQ8 ................................ ....... 208 J 11 design phase studio activities LEED research, RQ8 ................................ ................................ ........ 211 J 12 Pea design phase studio activities morphological analysis, RQ8 ................................ ............................ 214 J 13 design phase studio activities concept and branding development, RQ8 ................................ ........ 216 J 14 design phase studio activities midpoint presentation, RQ8 ................................ .............................. 219 J 15 design phase studio activities, RQ9 ................................ ................................ ........................ 222 J 16 studio project, RQ12 ................................ ................................ ......................... 225 J 17 ................ 227 J 18 RQ14 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 230 N 1 ................................ ................................ ............... 239

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Conceptual framework illustrating how student designers may create relatively more compatible design outcomes. ................................ ..................... 86 2 2 Illustration of different process experiences for teachers and students in studio versus lecture classes. ................................ ................................ ............. 87 2 3 theory combine to support relatively more compatible design outcomes. ........... 88 2 4 connectedness theory combine to support relatively strong compatible design outcomes ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 89 2 5 theory and sen se of connectedness combine to support relatively more compatible design outcomes ................................ ................................ .............. 90 3 1 Timeline of instrument administration and studio processes. Student and progress on their studio projects. ................................ ................................ ...... 109 3 2 Structure and relationship of study variables. ................................ ................... 118 5 1 Framework based upon Figure 2 1 illustrating how s tudent designers may create relatively more compatible design outcomes. ................................ ........ 164 5 2 Framework based upon Figure 2 1 illustrating traits that correlated to lower their knowledge, working processes and feelings ................................ ............. 164 5 3 Framework based on Figure 2 compatibility and learning theory combined to support relatively more compatible design outcomes ................................ ................................ ............ 165 5 4 Framework based on Figure 2 compatibility and learning theory combined to negatively correlate with relatively more compatible de sign outcomes ................................ .................... 166 N 1 Hallway in Anderson Hall ................................ ................................ .................. 236 N 2 Entrance in Anderson Hall. ................................ ................................ ............... 236 N 3 Original pink marble staircase in the HUB. ................................ ....................... 237

PAGE 12

12 N 4 New doorway with brushed metal framing in the HUB ................................ ...... 237 N 5 Student computer service area in the HUB, Univer sity of Florida campus. ....... 238 N 6 Student service area in the HUB, University of Florida campus. ...................... 238 N 7 First example of a relatively more successful student project. .......................... 240 N 8 Details from Figure N 7. ................................ ................................ ................... 241 N 9 Second example of a relatively more successful stude nt project. ..................... 242 N 10 Details from Figure N 9. ................................ ................................ ................... 243 N 11 Third example of a relatively more successful student project. ......................... 244 N 12 Details from Figure N 11 ................................ ................................ .................. 245 N 13 First example of a moderately successful student pr oject. ............................... 246 N 14 Details from Figure N 13. ................................ ................................ .................. 247 N 15 Second example of a moderately successful student project ........................... 248 N 16 Details from Figure N 15 ................................ ................................ .................. 249 N 17 Third example of a moderately successful student project ............................... 250 N 18 Details from Figure N 18 ................................ ................................ .................. 251 N 19 First example of a weak student project ................................ ........................... 252 N 20 Second example of a weak student project ................................ ...................... 253 N 21 Details from Figure N 20 ................................ ................................ .................. 254 N 22 Third example of a weak student project ................................ .......................... 255 N 23 Details from Figure N 22 ................................ ................................ .................. 256

PAGE 13

13 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy REFLECTING THE BEST OF THE PAST AND THE PRESENT: EXPLORING STUDENT LEARNING IN A DESIGN STUDIO FOCUSED ON DEVELOPING INTERIOR DESIGN COMPATIBILITY ON A HISTORIC C AMPUS By Jessica Marie Goldsmith May 2012 Chair: M. Joyce Hasell Major: Design, Construction and Planning Interior design is a specialty field of professional practice and inquiry that addresses the design and condition of the interior environment of b uildings. Interior designers create environments that balance the needs of the people who will occupy those environments with the conditions of a building and its site. This study examines when designing interiors within a historic building. Interior design education, the foundation of practice, centers on studio learn ing. In studio, students demonstrate their growing knowledge and expertise about the practice of interior design. One of the significant challenges in interior design practice is creating compatible new interiors for existing and historic buildings. Compatible new interiors combine the best of past and the present to create an aesthetically pleasing and functional new interior c ombined with selected character defining features This research e xplores a number of factors that may enhance the outcomes of interior design students as they create compatible new interiors for existing buildings. Then, this study examines which studio l earning opportunities as well as the experienc es and personal preference factors that may positively influence the

PAGE 14

14 learning processes, and uncovers potentially new and better ways to help students create compatible interior design solutions for histor ic buildings. Twenty four students participated in this study over the course of a twelve week studio project conducted in their capstone senior studio class in a CIDA accredited interior design program in the southeast. Students completed eight instrument s, including standardized surveys and open ended questions. and intentions and being pleased with the final design solution is related to the relative compatibility of students ons Working compatibility and creatively with historic structures were significant issues for students. Evaluators focused on complete, three completed design solutions. Findin gs suggest issues that designers and design educators can address to promote the creation of compatible interior design for historic structures.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Interior design is a specialty field of professional practice and inquiry that addresses the design and condition of the interior environment of buildings. Interior designers create environments that balance the needs of the people who will occupy those environments with the preexisting conditions of a building and its site. Interior designers are professionals who must be educated and licensed in order to ensure their ability to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public (National Council for Interior Design Qualification [NCIDQ], 2009). The education of interior designers is develop solutions to real design problems. The skills, methods and abilities an interior designer learned and developed in school form the base as he/she create the interi or spaces that the public will live and work in. Interior design usually takes place within the walls of a preexisting building, either in new construction or an older building that has perhaps gone through various owners and renovations. Designing new i nteriors for older, historic buildings is challenging; designers must address the historic architectural and aesthetic style(s), construction and finish materials, and signs of layers of use. Then, they must design for new uses and users. Although interior designers rarely have control over the preexisting conditions of an older building, they must recognize what c haracter defining features o save, continue, or eliminate in their in terventions and rehabilitation. Currently, there are few resources for stud io faculty to consult when focusing on interior design within a historic building. The most available texts for studio instructors, each with sample interior design studio projects, are written by Scalise (2003) and

PAGE 16

16 Temple (1992). Together, Scalise (2003) seven sample interior design studio projects, but only three oc cur within a historic building and they are not specifically designed for upper division students. This study expands the literature by transition from s ample student assignments to explore how senior students work on an interior design historic preservation project. This study explores issues surrounding developing and assessing compatible designs, studio learning processes, and the effect of sense of con nectedness, an emotional construct from environmental psychology. Literature from these areas was used to establish a set of factors that were then tested for associations of compatibility in a senior interior design studio class. A rehabilitation is "the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the p roperty that are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values (U.S. Department of the Interior, NPS, no date) The additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the o ld and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to Interior, NPS, no date). The purpose of this study is to understand which st udio learning, experience and personal preference factors may positively influence the

PAGE 17

17 learning processes, and potentially uncover new and better ways to help students c reate compatible interior design solutions for historic buildings. Compatibility Historic preservation is the preservation and maintenance of historic structures and sites, particularly those over fifty years old (U.S. Department of the Interior, NPS, no date). Historic preservation can occur in many ways that range from the meticulous safeguarding and restoration of a historic home as a house museum to the regular rehabilitation of a downtown storefront for new renters. Maintaining buildings as museums ensures the future of significant historic buildings, such as Mount Vernon and Monti cello. However most historic buildings will remain in use and be repeatedly reused as a vital part of rural and urban communities. This research focused on a class of senior design students as they rehabilitated two Frank Lloyd Wright buildings that are st ill in use on the Florida Southern Campus in Lakeland but currently in need of rehabilitated interiors. Functioning historic buildings need to be maintained as a result of both human and environmental events that can degrade them over the years. When a h istoric building is renovated or rehabilitated, its function may ch ange: for example, when a historic warehouse is converted into loft apartments. These changes from the original function can keep a historic building in use by rehabilitating it, even thoug h such functional changes can present challenges to designers who must plan how to integrate the new building functions with existing conditions. Many buildings undergo repeated major rehabilitations, forcing designers to deal with multiple layers of resto ration, redesign and removal of building elements. In the best designs with compatible elements, new functions integrate smoothly with the existing older building; these new

PAGE 18

18 designs are not historical replicas, but a recognizable part of the reused buildin g. Significant features are preserved, and new designs are informed by the past while also retaining the character of their own time and place. This study addresses the challenges related to developing a compatible design solution as well as the pedagogy o f preparing student designers to meet this goal Compatibility and student learning processes are discussed in Chapter 2. Studio Learning Student learning and studio classroom experiences are a complex congruence of factors. This study examines the nature of studio versus lecture classroom experiences and learning engagement oppo rtunities. Active, student learning is part of interior design studio class practice; studio classes are defined at the end of Chapter 1 This type of learning supports student eng agement and the development of intrinsic motivation by letting students work on complex problems with the potential for multiple good solutions. Student engagement, including self directed pursuit of solutions, enjoyment and involvement in the learning pro cess are central factors to active learning. This study used theoretical understanding of active studio learning processes to frame questions factors and individual desi gn solutions. The learning theory literature used in this study is explained in Chapter 2. Sense of Connectedness Psychologists explain sense of connectedness as an emotional connection (Mayer et al. 2004). When people share an emotional connection, they are more likely to be empathetic and helpful. To research and explain pro environmental behaviors, environmental psychologist s expanded sense of connectedness from a person person

PAGE 19

19 emotion to a person environment emotion (Mayer et al. 2004). This study fu rther developed the concept of sense of connectedness to explore potential person historic connectedness to historic buildings and their cultural context to understand how a sense of connectedness to the historic built environment may relate to the compatibility of stude t hese constructs are further discussed in Chapter 2 Statement of the Problem (2009) define the minimum knowledge that interior design students need to achieve entry level competency to practice interior design. Fifteen CIDA standards cover requirements fo r student knowledge in major areas of the profession, including history and spatial features. CIDA Standards also define required, minimum levels of student learning in core areas. ghth standard requires that entry level interior designers apply knowledge of interiors, architecture, art, and the decorative arts within a historical and level skills 10). Th e explanation of the eighth standard continues, explaining that students need to 17). This study expands upon s 2000

PAGE 20

20 forum estimated that over 80 percent of future design work in the United States will then practice design within a historical and cultural context is importa nt throughout their into the studio to practice designing a rehabilitation project for a historic building. A practice based approach aims to help students identify the soc ial and physical historical context they need to generate compatible designs for historic buildings. While CIDA Standards require the application of historical knowledge gained in lecture classes, this study assesses the studio processes that students practiced in a 12 week studio rehabilitation project to design a compatible interior within a historic building. Lecture and studio classes are defined a t the end of Chapter 1 and further discussed in Chapter 2. Interior design programs typically teach students the history of interior design through slide and lecture based courses (Beecher, 1998,1999; d Ha (2001 & 2008) textbooks all provide a historical overview from pre history to the present but do not consistently instruct hundred and fifty page text devot historic interiors. These textbooks cover the history of interior design and its major historical movements, but they do no t discuss how students can apply this knowledge to their design solutions. Application, including contemporary historic preservation practices, is beyond the prevue of history courses, which expand student awareness

PAGE 21

21 into the rich content of global design h istory. Prior studies looked for processes that integrate creative design practices into history courses, but found that they were limited by the lecture format and short class time available in the curriculum of most programs (Beecher, 1998). Interior de sign students primarily struggle with design problems and develop solutions in studio, not lecture 17), they will do so in project based studio classes. Guides for studio instructors to lead interior design students in developing holistic, historically informed designs are limited. There are two major collections of sample interior design studio projects in print, Sc alise (2003) and Temple (1992). Scalise (1992) collection of thirty seven projects for first and second year students includes one historic project site. This research er did not find any texts providing historic sites for studio projects appropriate for upper division students. Specialty texts discuss technical aspects of historically informed design; for example, lighting (Moss, 1988), textiles (Nielson, 2007; Nylander & Nylander, 2005), and structures (Fischett i, 2009). Historic preservation literature usually either provides an overview of the history and philosophy of the movement (Murtagh, 2006; Stipe, 2008; Ligibel, Tyler & Tyler, 2009) or technical knowledge of historic structures preservation (Young, 2008) This case study aims to bridge the gap between interior design studios, history classes and historic preservation by doing and developing sense of emotional connection to historic sites can transform

PAGE 22

22 on a preservation project. Assumptions Underlying the Study Several assumptions underlie this study. First, the researcher assumes tha t the sample class of participating students is representative of senior interior design students in a CIDA accredited program at a large public university. Second, that the rehabilitation project selected reflects reasonable senior level work at an instit ution of this kind, and it is significant enough to inspire students. T hird, that faculty members teaching studio aim to help students create new design solutions in accordance with currently recommended preservation practice, which includes compatibility as a design criterio n Fourth, that students and evaluators will provide accurate answers truthfully reflective of their feelings and opinions. Fifth, that evaluators are making expert judgments on the those qualities related to compatibility Finally, tha t although this study was a single case study in an educational setting, the findings will inform future studio rehabilitation project s etting s including professional design practice. The Study This study explored twenty activities, opinions, processes, and outcomes during their work in an upper division studio on a historic preservation rehabilitation project. The study setting is a CIDA accredited professi onal program that resides in a College of Design, Construction and Planning in a l arge public university in the Southeast. The primary objective of this study was to ascertain how relative compatibility of design outcomes for a rehabilit ation studio project relate to design, learning and emotional preferences Throughout their

PAGE 23

23 rehabilitation project, students completed evaluations on their level of interest in their projects, self reported insights from studio learning activities and desc ribed their sense of emotional connectedness to the historic built environment. At the end of the project, completed design outcomes for multiple types of key compatibility features based on compatibility reports, this study aimed to provide new information about proces ses that can positively aid faculty in developing historic rehabilitation projects that encourage students to learn to create compatible interiors for historic buildings. In addition, new insights into student designers working processes were explored. T his study examined the following three questions: How do issues surrounding student interest in a rehabilitation project relate to the ompatibility of their design outcomes and their learning experience? project relate to the compatibility of their design outcomes and their learning experience? Each of the se questions is further discussed in Chapter 2 and subdivided into multiple questions in Chapter 3. Significance of the Study Designers and design educators recognize the need to prepare future designers to work on projects in historic structures. In thei r review of the state of architectural education, Boyer and Mitgang (1996) cited being able to work with existing structures as

PAGE 24

24 an important educational goal. Historic and older existing buildings are a significant percentage of U.S. building stock. The Am erican Institute of Architects (AIA) estimates that eighty percent of future design work will take place within the context of a historic building (Vision2000, 2004). Currently, any significant building constructed before 1960 is considered a historic buil ding (U.S. Department of the Interior, NPS, no date); less significant buildings are often referred to as older or existing buildings. For the purposes of this study, a historic building is one over fifty years of age, regardless of its currently recognize d level of significance and whether or not it has been placed on the National Register of Historic Places or is located within a historic district. Historic and older existing buildings do not usually receive special protections unless they are on the Regi ster or in a protected district. Despite their lack of legal protection, a large percentage of professional design work is expected to come from historic buildings. Preparing interior design students to work compatibility with these structures will be impo rtant to their success in professional practice. Hopefully, the processes students learn in studio can be applied in their professional practice and help them design for existing, older, and historic structures throughout their careers. Despite the challenges, the continual preservation of historic buildings is important residents t o connect in the larger community by maintaining a diverse physical environment that illustrates the past visions of many residents (National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2009). Living and working in historic structures allows people to enjoy places th at matter to them and that may have mattered to the community for

PAGE 25

25 generations (National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2009). Preservation success stories across the country often begin when a community comes together to protect the continued existence o f a shared built environment (National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2009). For example, community support led to the preservation of fundraisers and public events in support century schools. Public action encouraged the school system to stop closing and d emolishing its historic schools and le d to the reopening of so me school buildings. From a sustainability standpoint, reusing hist oric structures is better for both the natural and built environment. The maintenance and reuse of historic buildings encourages urban areas to remain within their existing footprint and not to continue sprawling into undeveloped land. This allows communit ies to slowly develop an integrated residential and commercial infrastructure, rather than becoming a victim of another boomtown. New building materials, such as wood, metal, cement and gypsum, are energy and resource intensive to develop. New building con struction is wasteful; about four pounds of building material enters a landfill for every square foot of new construction (National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2009). By continuing to use existing buildings and only updating the interiors when needed, millions of pounds of construction materials will not be created or enter landfills. New buildings can be more energy efficient to maintain, but because so much energy is needed to build them, it may be many years before genuine energy savings begin. Keep ing existing buildings in use through preservation, maintenance and rehabilitation provides space for human

PAGE 26

26 activities, maintains the vitality of urban neighborhoods and curbs unchecked growth in undeveloped areas. Designing new interiors for historic bu ildings requires interior designers to work with an existing building, just as they do with almost all projects. But with historic buildings there are additional considerations; historic buildings can present unique challenges since they are already part o f a community with some longstanding residents who remember past owners and uses. Historic buildings have shared in the social and physical life of a community. These buildings were built with aesthetic principals that may be unfamiliar to contemporary des igners and design students. For example, designers of Colonial Revival buildings were deliberately working to create buildings created buildings for a new future, opposed to historical associations. Undercurrents of architectural theory and ideology inform past and present design decisions. Inexperienced designers may be unknowingly designing in buildings with one or more design bases different from their contemporary experien ce. Decades of use, aging, changing owners and renovations may leave many historic building interiors in need of a new compatible rehabilitation. The challenges of preserving historic buildings and the pressures of popular contemporary architectural design often encourage designers to gut interiors. Designers need help, not just with the technical aspects of historic materials, but also with how to design within a historic structure and through continuity or transformation use significant design elements of the historic structure in their new designs. This study will complement the available preservation literature by creating a new framework to assess the processes that

PAGE 27

27 interior design faculty and students can learn to renovate historic structures. For grea ter relative compatibility Delimitations A senior interior design studio class in a CIDA accredited interior design program in a large public university in the southeast was chosen to participate in this study. The participating class had many advantages : the primary instructor had prior experience teaching and working on historic preservation projects and with the site Both the instructors and individuals at the rehabilitation project site, the Florida Southern College, had spent almost a year preparing for this project and were excited to offer students the opportunity to develop rehabilitations for two Wright buildings. The combination of an experienced historic preservation studio instructor and a high profile project site make this an optimal researc h setting. However, this study findings may also aid faculty less experienced in historic preservation rehabilitation projects to transfer the findings to more mundane building sites. Students had twelve weeks to work on their studio rehabilitation proje ct. During these twelve weeks, students completed their design outcomes and a series of pre design phase activities designed and monitored by the studio instructors. All twenty eight students were asked to participate in this research, but only the twenty four who completed the majority of their survey instruments and received at least five final project evaluations were included. Instruments measuring assessments are original to this explo ratory research and this is their first application. Assessments were designed based on the literature review in Chapter 2

PAGE 28

28 Definitions and Operational Terms Character defining spatial features : the physical features of a building or site that are signifi cant to its architectural significance. Example features include roof type, fenestration, ornamentation, materials, or spatial layout. Features can be physical, such as roofing material, or spatial, such as the size and proportions of an auditorium. ilitation standards focus attention on the preservation of those materials, features, finishes, spaces, and spatial relationships that, together, give a property its Connectedness : an emotional we ness, or connection with other. This term is most often used to explain interpersonal feelings; however, Chapter 2 discusses how it can be expanded to environments. Compatibility : a significant crit erion for new construction and rehabilitation in historic buildings and districts. compatibility ; most local guidelines do not either The researcher uncovered only two guidelines that directly addres s the word compatibility. The City of Boliva r historic district guidelines City of Boliver historic district standards and guidelines no date; 2). Un iversity of Florida guidelines explain that compatibility individual preferences but on accepted principles of design. These include scale, proportion, massing, materials, color and value, texture, geometric form, and context. Further, und (Tate & Dixon, 2007a). Compatibility will be further discussed in Chapter 2

PAGE 29

29 Compatibility is not recreating or mimicking a historic or faux historic interior. Compatibility is the combination of a contemporary interior with the best elements of the historic building. Both historic and contemporary elements are distinct halves of one design. Contemporary interior elements exist in their own right while showcasing the best, most s ignificant, elements of the historic building. The three CIDA student learning levels : Awareness familiarity with specified data and information that is demonstrated either in student work or in student interviews. Understand/Understanding a thorough comprehension of concepts and their interrelationships, shown through student work and/or interviews. Apply/Ability/Able competent entry level skills that must be demonstrated in completed student work. (CIDA, 2009, II 9) Historic building: The U.S. Se year mark as a guideline to help define significant historic buildings. For the purposes of this study, a historic building refers to any existing building fifty years old or older, regardless of its currently recognized significance. For students enrolled in interior design programs today, buildings built in the 1960s will qualify as historic structures. As this cohort progress es through their caree rs, buildings from the 1970s, 1980s and so on will become historic structures. Hopefully, students will be able to use the techniques learned while participating in this research to work compatibility with all existing buildings, regardless of age. Lectur e course: Lecture courses, also called content courses, refer to courses in design curricula that are primarily based on a lecture format of instruction. These courses support interior design studio practice by exposing students to new, specific

PAGE 30

30 content ar eas. Students come to a designated classroom only during class times, and instruction is primarily given students take notes as the instructor lectures rather tha n discovered, as in studio courses. Lecture courses supplement studio courses by presenting a large quantity of content materials, such as history of design, building systems, and business practices. Building versus the definition used in this study: This study does not address is sues regarding the broader, cultural significance of historic buildings. This study begins when the designer begins work on a project and assumes that any building that is being study, a historic building is not limited to buildings deemed significant and listed on the National Register of Historic Places or similar lists, but includes all buildings over fifty years old (National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2009). When the te rm significance is used throughout this study, it is referring to the relative significance of aspects or elements of architecture. Studio: Studio is both a plac e and a type of course with a distinct pedagogy based on the assumption that students learn to be designers by doing design projects. As a location, studio is usually a large classroom where students have a personal work area stocked with personal belongin gs, can work on any type of project or just hang out, and have constant access (often 24 7) throughout the semester. As a type of course and classroom instruction, studio begins with the instructor(s) introducing a complex design project, similar to the ty pe of project encountered in practice Next, students may

PAGE 31

31 complete a series of preliminary exercises designed to increase their understanding of the depth of the specific problem and some issues that the solution must address. Finally, students begin devel oping a solution, called the design phase. Pre design phase instruction may include short presentations by instructor s and classmates, as well as pre scribed learning activities. During the design phase, students primarily receive instruction through indivi dual discussions with their instructors and observations architecture instructor and students; these types of exchanges are representative of this typ e of instruction. For e xample, faculty may demonstrate hands on designing while drawing a student into a design process dialogue, or ask a student questions to explore and develop a logical design plan. Studio learning is active and discovery based; students explore the design p roblem and slowly develop a unique solution. Studio projects have no single answer, but experts can gauge the strength of a design. S tudents discover answers through pre design research and then defend their final solutions. Design solutions are shared thr ough presentation drawings, such as floor plans, elevations, and perspectives, models, short written explanations, and verbal presentations. Summary Interior design within historic structures challenges designers to combine the best ith a new design. Compatibility is this successful combination; historic and new features are each products of their own time, but together they create an aesthetically pleasing and appropriately functional interior environment. This study examined an uppe r division interior design studio completing rehabilitations in two historic buildings. What inputs affected the relative compatibility of student rehabilitation

PAGE 32

32 project outcomes? What potential factors identified by literature on compatibility, studio lea rning processes and environmental psychology contributed to the degree of evaluations throughout the studio process provided insights into their interest, most useful studio learn ing activities and sense of connection with their projects. As discussed in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 these factors were tested to see how they interacted with the compatibility of student design outcomes. Evaluations of completed student projects by expert opinions on degrees of compatibility they saw in student designs. Together, this case study provide s insights into what students and experts believe is happening as students learn to create new interiors within historic structures.

PAGE 33

33 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Compatibility Interior designers create architectural spaces within existing buildings, including new buildings as well as ones undergoing their first or fiftieth renovation or rehabilitation. Interior design professionals are distinguished by their ability to work with existing structures and as part of a larger design team that may include architects, engineers and tradespersons. Working with historic structures can be a daunting and sometimes confusing task with different building systems, the aesthetic preferences of multiple owners and users and layers of outdated interior materials and finishes. What should be kept for the next iteration of the building? Should everything be removed, allowing a fresh start? Should spaces be meticulously preserved as they are, with e qual treatment given to every design feature and material? How should the building be changed and rehabilitated to serve its new purpose? If the building should be changed, then how does one proceed? Preservationists, including interior designers who work primarily in historic preservation, struggle with these and other questions ( Murtagh, 2006; Stipe, 2008 ). In the early decades of preservation efforts, emphasis was placed on meticulous preservation, even recreation, of historic materials and features ( Murtagh, 2006; Stipe, 2008 ). While prominent public buildings and sites, such as Mount Vernon and Colonial Williamsburg, benefitted from being fixed in time and place, there are thousands of buildings that need to remain in use to serve their owners and co mmunities. These buildings need regular maintenance and appropriate alterations to remain functional and relevant for contemporary uses and standards. For buildings that are both historic and

PAGE 34

34 actively used structures, preservationists depend on a guiding d esign goal of compatibility Compatibility seeks to combine and recognize the importance of the old and new physical architectural features of a building. Compatibilit y allows alterations and additions to be made to a building, while guiding designers and owners to preserve the most significant, noteworthy, elements of the historic features. For example, after the restoration of historic Anderson Hall on the University of Florida campus, classrooms were stocked with new furniture and lighting, against a backdrop of original wood paneling. New lighting was comparable with historic lighting in size, scale and material finishes, but it was distinctly new in appearance and f unctionality, as shown in Figure N 1 New furniture was typical of other campus classrooms, allowing the uniqueness of the historic paneling to stand out. Significant spaces, such as the entrance shown in Figure N 2 were preserved and fully integrated int o the new design and function. This combination of old and new into a contemporary, functional design is the focus of this study. This study addresses the challenges designers encounter when designing rehabilitations for existing historic structures and ex plores how both faculty and students can use compatibility as a design goal that will lead to the creation of new interiors that reflect the best of the past and the present. Defining Compatibility t hrough Preservation Literature Communities across the cou ntry have developed preservation literature, primarily in the form of historic district design guidelines, to aid owners and designers who are modifying existing structures or building new ones in or near historic buildings. When a designer is working in a recognized historic area, historic district design guidelines are

PAGE 35

35 the primary tool available to develop new designs. Most guidelines are based on a set Choosing an appropr federal standards and local district guidelines, compatibility is the overarching design goal. Compatibility is primarily presented as a designed, architectural response to the physical par am defining features. Character defining features are the physical and/or architectural features that distinguish a building, or give building, paneling and fireplace or a particular sequence of interior spatial layouts with traditional proportions could all be character defining features on one building, but less sig nificant Preservation Briefs Series provide general guidelines to owners and designers for identifying the character defining from no date; Jandl, no date; Nelson, no date). These sources provi de general knowledge, but since each historic building and project site is unique, applying general information may be daunting. Once owners and designers have a specific project site, identifying the specific context and design elements can help them deve lop locally compatible designs. Local guidelines may be important tools for designers working in historic districts. If a project building or new construction infill site is located in a historic district, there should be a local set of guidelines for the historic district. A historic district is an

PAGE 36

36 composition from a fairly un ified college campus to a sprawling rural community. Some historic districts have buildings constructed over several decades or centuries; others contain only buildings constructed within a short time span. In most historic districts, the exterior of exist ing and new construction is protected and changes must be approved usually by a local Historic District Commission or Board. The lack of current legal protection for historic interiors does not negate their significance; it is a reflection of the extent o f American private ownership rights. Historic districts on university campuses are currently leading the way toward protection of interiors and including interiors in their histor ic district guidelines ( University of Florida [Tate & Dixon, 2007a], Miami Un iversity [Darbee, Rechie, Rickey, Williams & Loversidge, Jr, 2009] and John Muir College [2008] for examples.) The researcher examined the content of over thirty historic district guidelines to inform this study. Previously, the researcher helped write gu idelines through a Getty Campus Heritage Grant for the historic University of Florida campus (Tate & Dixon, 2007a) and as part of a class fieldwork experience in the City of Gary, led by Professor Roy Graham (2005). As part of those projects and this study the researcher examined the content of historic district guidelines to assess how that content may relate to the creation of compatible interiors, guide the creation of compatible interiors and be used to assess the compatibility of design solutions. Fig ure 2 1 brings together some ways in which knowing the content of historic district guidelines may help interior designers and students create relatively more compatible interiors.

PAGE 37

37 Like interiors in most historic buildings, historic structures that are not recognized individually or as part of a historic district currently receive no formal protection. However, both information and methods developed to design compatibility for protected buildings could be used to design for unprotected ones as well. This re search is expanding the boundaries of current preservation practice by emphasizing compatible new designs inside historic buildings, regardless of their protected status. Interiors are a es in the built environment (Malnar & Vodvarka, 1992). By expanding the standards of compatible design to include interiors, people can gain a holistic and pleasurable experience as they move throughout the refurbished building. Local historic district gu idelines can be particularly helpful when designing because local guidelines provide specific detail about recognized features and techniques for working compatibility in a district. Many historic district guidelines for rehabilitation, alterations and new construction share a similar content structure that major architectural styles and also to analyze the most significant architectural elements in the district. The history section should include information about noteworthy examples, see City of Annapolis [Hole et al. 2004], City of Bolivar [City of Bolivar historic district st andards and guidelines, no date], & Hyde Park [ Tampa Architectural Review Commission, 2002] ). For example, the Ybor City Florida historic district Tampa, 2010). In the early twentieth century, major immigrant groups, including Italians,

PAGE 38

38 Sicilians and Greeks, each ran a social club; membership included invitations to social events, free access to a staff doctor, life insurance and mortuary services. Clubs vied with ea ch other to create grand, ornate buildings. The historic district guidelines help readers appreciate the grandiose architecture of club buildings as a combination of influences from popular American and home country styles, and a significant statement of s ocial cohesion and group success in the New World. The stories and histories told in historic district guidelines do more than provide information, these stories also help owners and designers connect with the district and their project site. Historical na rratives help explain the significance of the district why the place matters (Allison & Allison, 2008; Dohr & Portillo, 2011; National Trust, 2011). Caring about historic buildings and working to preserve places that matter have been significant element s in many successful preservation stories. For example, the ongoing Place Matter s (2007) program in New York City allowed locals to nominate the historic places that they care about. This process has led to a broader understanding of the significance of New York structures. By learning local h istory, interior designers and students may better connect with their project site and see it as a real place with significance before an d after they complete their project. This insight may lead designers to greater engagement with their work and feelings of empathy, caring and helpfulness for the historic project building (Mayer et al. 2005). Figure 2 1 lists some ways in which engagemen t with a project and feelings of empathy, caring and helpfulness may help interior designers and design students create relatively more compatible interiors.

PAGE 39

39 Section two in many historic district guidelines discusses the architectural styles and may even include labeled drawings of a typical building in each major style. Labeled drawing or photographs call out significant features of each style, as expressed in the historic district, and demonstrate how to discuss the style (for examples, see City of Annap olis [Hole et al. 2004] and Skidmore and Old Town Historic Districts [City of Portland Bureau of Planning, 2008]). The concept of architectural styles has come under criticism within the preservation community in recent years because identifying buildings by style may oversimplify the complex and varied history of architectural aesthetics (Longstreth, 1999). However, style sections and their terminology can be helpful to teach design students as well as practitioners the importance of a major architectural style and its evolution in the context of the historic district (Blumenson, 1990; Blakemore, 2005). In their text on those qualities and experiences that most impact the design process and interior environment, Dohr and Portillo (2011) noted that place i dentity, including the qualities that give a building a sense of place, were significant for imparting meaning and engaging users and designers. Significant local architectural features contribute to sense of place and provide cues to identify the local pl ace. For example, decorative iron balcony railings immediately conjure up images of New gun house s with carpenter Gothic architectural features changes place identity, history and a host of connected meanings. Interior designers working in a historic context need to kn ow and understand the character defining features of the local district. Then, designers can create new interiors

PAGE 40

40 that respond to significant existing features to maintain and develop an ongoing place identity. Section three in most historic district des ign guidelines includes sketch drawings demonstrating specific design elements and showing both compatible and incompatible new design features. The exact features illustrated vary by historic district, but typical examples include: scale, massing, fenestr ation, roofs, entrances, a nd materials ( the access to multiple examples). Although the design elements and principles in section three are primarily applied to a buildin (Ching, 2007). Among other things, this research assessed to what extent students were able to identify the significant architectural elements typically discussed in histori c district guidelines and then apply them to design new interiors for a historic building. The Appendix H) brings together in one place the design elements necessary for examination of the concept of relative interior design comp atibility. The next study sections explain how compatibility is currently assessed in practice as well as how current practice informs how compatibility was assessed in this study. Assessing C ompatibility Despite the relative uniformity of information in historic preservation guidelines throughout the US and decades of local experience practicing and implementing guidelines, there is no compatibility meter to be used by inexperienced designers. Owners and designers trying to work compatibly in historic di stricts are given written guidelines, sketch drawings showing simple outlines of acceptable and unacceptable

PAGE 41

41 design elements, and sometimes even a series of questions to ask themselves as they work. For example, the guidelines for the City of Bolivar have owners/designers ask similar (City of Bolivar historic district standards and guidelines, no date). The absence of a shared definition for compatibility may be problematic. It leaves the criteria for designing and winning approval amorphous; however, it also leaves local ordinances with leeway to interpret and create solutions within historic districts. When faced wi th new construction or major changes to existing structures, historic districts around the country rely on local Historic Preservation Commissions or Historic District Boards. These local bodies usually contain a mix of local residents, architects, designe rs, historians and interested volunteers. Individuals planning construction in a historic district must have their new designs approved by their local board, which can pass, veto, or suggest a revision and resubmission of a new design. Boards arrive at the ir decisions after an often lengthy public discussion and hearing, during which time construction, its degree of compatibility and possible impact on the district. While public forums can be slow and imprecise, they allow local stakeholders to retain some control over their shared architectural heritage. Forums provide owners and their neighbors the opportunity to discuss possible new construction and alterations, includi needs and budget. Forums also allow for a shared, ongoing discussion on how a historic district should evolve and adapt. Through these forums, discussions about compatibility are ongoing and held with public input. They evolve as the members and

PAGE 42

42 represent the latest knowledge and understanding of goals for a compatible district and how to share those goals to guide owners and designers working on new constru ction or alterations in historic districts. Assessing Compatibility in t his Study This study drew on historic district design guidelines and historic district board assessment processes to develop an original questionnaire to assess the compatibility of i Appendix H) covers site history and accepted principles of design. It is applicable to many adapt study required the eight evaluators to examine the relative compatibility of the checklist checklist, stud uestionnaire simulates the structure of historic district guidelines: social history, architectural history and design elements recogni zing the relative nature of compatibility e ach question that is scaled and answers from multiple evaluators can be averaged by project. Compatibility is not absolute, but rather exists only in degrees, both for specific features and a design as a whole. assessment practice by directing each evaluator to assess the same criteria on each project criteria cannot be forgotten during an open debate and must be consistently examined an d assessed. Additionally, evaluators can provide scaled assessments on elements of compatibility and holistic compatibility. The scale allows evaluators to

PAGE 43

43 provide subtle answers about discreet elements of design outcomes. Each of the four subsections, soc ial context compatibility, architectural history context compatibility, and questions. social c design tell the story of past building users or important human events that took place in the building. For example, Foster Auditorium on th e University of Alabama's campus was an important site of civil rights action, when local officers blocked the door and tried to stop African American students from entering. As Foster Auditorium is renovated and maintained in the coming decades, this impo rtant story should be prominent if the design is scored high on social context compatibility. style was the student aware of the larger architectural aesthetic trends that may have influenced the project buildings? For example, on the Florida Southern College campus, specifically for the campus. However, some features notably the extended eaves and cast architectural ornamentation -may reflect the influence of the geometries of modernisms and aesthetics of the Prairie style, developed by a group of Midwestern architects as a new American style. Wright was a leading member of the movement decades before beginning the campus. However, his campus designs reflect an ongoing use of Prairie style aesthetics, the geometries of modernisms and contemporary field wide developments in materi

PAGE 44

44 compatible design solutions could use these features as inspiration for their new designs. For example, modernism or Prairie geometries could inform a new floor pattern plan. Questions three through ten in the q uestion naire ask the evaluator to examine are: M ASSES AND VOLUMES Including: the relativ e size of different rooms and circulation spaces to each other and the building or/and the relative mass of built ins and furniture to a spatial volume S URFACE FORMS SUCH AS ROOFS AND WA LLS Including: sizes, shapes, colors and textures of interior surfac es, including floors, walls, ceilings, furnishings and built ins W INDOWS AND VIEWS Including: window sizes, placement and framing; relationship of windows to internal openings; views between spaces within the building; window materials and colors E NT RANCE S AND INTERIOR CIRCU LATION Including: exterior and interior doorways; interior movement within and between spaces; relationships within circulation and between circulation and adjacent spaces; colors, materials and textures of these spaces P ROPORTION AND SCALE Including: relative proportion and scale of furnishings to interior spaces; interior spaces to other interior spaces and the whole building; fenestration and interior openings to walls and spaces A RCHITECTURAL ORNAMEN TATION Including: interior and exterior detailing, decoration, colors and trim M ATERIA LS Including: Finishes, furnishings and materials throughout After assessing the compatibility of seven measures of architectural context, and give an average score ity. The holistic measure allowed them to summarize, and perhaps go beyond their assessments of discreet measures.

PAGE 45

45 Because evaluators are experienced in design and preservatio n, their holistic assessment may be particul arly insightful including similar content for all participants. It improves upon current practice by guiding evaluators through a consistent measure for every project and it ensures that the content of guidelines is also the criteria for assessment. Furthermore, by making the assessment process. In future applications, design students could use the questions as a self assessment measure throughout the design process and faculty could use the Questionnaire, evaluators used the tool to guide their assessment process. The erage views from multiple evaluators and operationalize the compatibility for each measure of each student project as a mean score. Questionnaire. Each evaluator used cessful student design outcomes and explain why the projects were selected. Evaluators used these open ended questions to add their criteria, viewpoints and values to the scaled ese data are important because they allowed the assessing experts to contribute their knowledge to this study and future iterations of the assessment instruments.

PAGE 46

46 Compatibility a nd Cr eativity As an interior design educator, this researcher frequently hears students express their concern that historic preservation projects limit their original input and creative at they must to respect the historic building. Copying historic features and retaini ng the original principles seem like the safest solution s These feelings, that creativity and compatibility are at odds with one another, may even be found among experienc ed designers and design instructors as well. A dichotomy between compatibility and creativity shows a lack of understanding of compatibility and creativity. A creative design solution is one that is novel and appropriate (Hennessey & Amabile, 1988). Preser ving elements of a historic building is appropriate, but how historic elements are transformed in a new design allows opportunity for novelty in addition to the creativity needed to create a contemporary interior. Successful compatible designs require a d and skills to see and develop the potential of what is already in place and imagine new ways to use that potential. Figure 2 1 is a framework that illustrates some elements necessary for being engaged and working creatively on a h istoric building project. This study tested the degree to which these elements helped interior design students create relatively more compatible interiors. Compatible designing has the potential to push interior designers and students to their creative bou ndaries. In a monograph on creativity for teachers, Hennessey and Amabile (1987) explain that in addition to interest and motivation, creativity needs domain knowledge and the recognition of constraints and opportunities to develop and grow. The challenges of learning the technical knowledge needed to design compatibility for historic buildings can provide students with the extra momentum they

PAGE 47

47 need to strengthen their creative design skills. Too few criteria or constraints for a project can result in limite d challenges and students need challenges to push their creativity further. eliminated. Indeed, significant spaces and features should be enhanced as students explore molding and harmoni zing their design in partnership with the historic building. These types of explorations push design students to fresh, creative constructions (Hennessey & Amabile, 1987; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009; Carmel Gilfilen & Portillo, 2010). In their resea rch on flow, an enjoyable psychological state of harmonious creative working, Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi (2009) state that to enter flow a person must be challenged to stretch their existing skills. Additionally, they must be provided with clear goals a nd given feedback about their progress. An interior design studio class that is assigned a historic rehabilitation project can supply all of these ingredients. Compatibility and creative design solutions go together. The struggle to design compatibility fo him/her forward to find creative solutions (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009). Creativity is significant to this study because working creatively and experiencing flow are enjoyable process es As the following section discusses, active learning theory suggests that enjoying the learning or design process contributes to engagement in the studio project. Engaged students may be less likely to settle for their first solution. They will return to t heir project and continue developing their solution; ultimately, this may lead to a more compatible design outcome.

PAGE 48

48 Creative design solutions, ones that are both novel and appropriate (Hennesey & Amabile, 1988), reflect compatible design solutions or ones that use the best of the past by creating a succinct transition to the present. Where and how past and present interact in a space could provide multiple creative design opportunities for novelty and appropriateness. How designers preserve historic archit ecture and how they connect their new designs to historic architecture provide many opportunities to develop creative design solutions. Examples from the work of architect I.M. Pei illustrate how new buildings can reflect and respond to local historic arch itecture while being creative Washington D.C. is an example of how a creative solution, novel and appropriate, and a ing continues the relative scale, massing, materiality, and circulation pattern established by the 1930s West Wing; however, the two buildings are clearly unique architectural products of their own times. cts reflects Japanese architectural traditions and its contemporary origin. For example, interior ceiling treatments are Japanese bamboo ceilings, which continue to be used in traditional rural teahouses. In metal diverges from the vernacular solution to create a subtle transition to the new interior. The ceiling is a creative des ign solution. The use of metal is novel, and how it is used is appropriate as well as compatible with local historic architectural traditions. By mirroring ancient construction techniques, Pei has created an interior that is a

PAGE 49

49 compatible reflection of the museum space. expresses a global, corporate style and ignored their local architectural traditions (Mattern, 2003). Through public forums and newspaper letters to the editor, residents discussed their frustration with the downtown library. Many felt it was a replication of traditions. In other words, despite its creative design, many Seattle residents were upset Compatibility a nd creativity can be achieved in a single project, and creativity alone is not always enough to develop successful architecture and interior design. A designer working creatively and compat ibly can use the best of the past to create a powerful transition t o contemporary design ideas and appropriate architectural elements. The successfully create a compatible design encompassing multiple creative minds. Another example can be drawn from the University of Florida campus. The recent rehabilitation of the Hub on the University of Florida campus illustrates how significant historic features can be preserved and used to inspire new features that integrate old and new into a single d esign. The Hub has served many functions since it was built in 1950 including a post office, ballroom, bookstore, and administrative offices. During its most recent rehabilitation, the post office was converted into a food court, and the bookstore and offi ces were converted into new student help centers, shown in Figures

PAGE 50

50 N 5 and N 6 A significant character defining feature, the pink marble staircase shown in Figure N 3 was preserved in the center of the building. Throughout the new office and student cent ers, the brushed tubular railings of the stair inspire framing and architectural features, as shown in Figures N 4 N 5 and N 6 The curving post office floor pattern plan was preserved and used to guide the new food service counters. Inspired by the origi nal post office, curves were used throughout the student services area to guide students to help desks, as shown in Figure N 6 .The HUB design is a creative solution. It is novel, with new furnishings, materials and fixtures, and appropriate for preserving the best of the historic building and using its design language to enhance the appropriate contemporary furnishings and fixtures. This study aimed to contribute to the development of creative interiors that compatibly combine the best of the past and the p resent by revealing new processes that may help design students achieve compatibility design solutions for a historic rehabilitation project. Summary Compatibility is a design goal for designing new construction in a historic building or within a historic district. Compatibility combines the best of the past and the present by preserving significant features and integrating them with a new design. New designs and the historic elements within them are each clearly products of their own time. Compatibility is defined as a design goal in the preservation literature produced at both date) le vels. Guidelines for designing compatibility with historic structures are typically

PAGE 51

51 architectural history, and an analysis of significant local character defining feature s repeatedly found in the district Compatibility is not an absolute quality; designs can be compatible along some criteria and not others, and compatible to different degrees. In most protected historic districts, a board of local residents and experts must approve designs for alterations and new construction. This study drew on how compatibility was presented and assessed by using multiple area experts to gauge the relative compatibility of student project outcomes. The assessment instrument developed for this study used the content of hi storic district guidelines to guide evaluators through a uniform assessment process and to calculate a mean score from multiple assessments. This new process is important because it standardizes the assessment criteria and process as well as ensures that t he content of guidelines is also the criteria of assessment. Compatibility is a unique design goal that requires the designer to consider and combine historic features with a new design. Designers may design more compatible outcomes if they care about the ir project and want to learn about significant local features. As an interior designer studies a historic building project site and develops a new design, there are many opportunities for engaged practice and creative expression. Compatibility is not a rec reation of historic or faux historic features; rather both new and old should be clearly differentiated by transitions. The new design, as well as how a designer connects and relates the new and historic features can provide opportunities for designs that are novel and appropriate, i.e. creative. Creative, compatible designs can preserve the best of the past, provide a harmonious experience for users and showcase the best in contemporary design.

PAGE 52

52 Studio Learning As discussed in proceeding section s and shown in Figure 2 1 this study proposed that relatively more compatible design outcomes are produced by designers and design students who care about their project, are engaged with their work and understand local conditions. But how do interior design students develop the traits to support a relatively more compatible design outcome? Are current teaching practices already promoting this goal, or is something else needed? The following section examines the studio learning experience to explain 1) why current hist ory teaching practices fail to prepare students to practice in a historic building and 2) how to engage interior design students in a historic preservation project that facilitates active learning about the local historic and architectural conditions of th eir project. The reviewed research that follows suggests that students learn through 1) active and project based assignments that are 2) context and content specific, such as a historic building rehabilitation project, 3) based on complex, content rich rea l problems that students can immerse themselves in and 4) that students are practicing with feedback from instructors and peers. Examining studio practice and learning is necessary to explain both why current practices may be failing to prepare students to create compatible interiors as well as how to prepare students to design well conceived historic preser vation projects. Later, Chapter 2 examines the significance of emotional connections between designers and their project buildings. Significance of the Studio Setting a nd Context Based Real World Projects Interior design classes usually operate as two parallel systems of studio and lecture courses. In theory, lecture based courses should inform and broaden students understanding of specific content areas and reinforce their studio practice. The Council of Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA) organizes student learning requirements along

PAGE 53

53 three continuous learning levels: awareness, understanding and application. Tests from lecture courses can demonstrate a wareness; papers and projects can demonstrate understanding. Studio projects demonstrate understanding and application. CIDA sets minimum standards of student learning for accredited institutions (CIDA, 2009). CIDA Professional Standards (2009) require bot h studio skills, such as drawing and space planning, and evidence of awareness or understanding of theoretical knowledge from content areas that support designing; such as color, light, history, codes and building systems. CIDA standards suggest that studi o and content courses should work together, united in student understanding, with evidence of student understanding and learning displayed in student design projects, especially studio project outcomes (CIDA, 2009). Research in interior design education su ggests a more complicated and disparate relationship between content and studio courses. In studies from multiple interior design to integrate content knowledge into studio projects and their own attempts to develop methods to help students to combine content knowledge and studio practice. Instructors in accessibility and universal design found that students struggle to combine content knowledge, such as codes from the ADAAG and preferences of special needs populations, with studio practice (Kriebel, 1983; Stiffler, 1990; Brent et al. 1993). Kriebel (1983) designed a course in accessibility for interior design students after finding that students lacked experience work ing with accessibility guidelines, as evidenced in their studio work. The course combined lecture, class work, site visits, guest lecturers, and design projects. Kriebel (1983) had mixed success improving student

PAGE 54

54 understanding and project outcomes, and con cluded with proposals to modify the designing for special needs populations included in class lectures, site visits to healthcare facilities and residences, and a studio de sign project. Through pre and post tests, Stiffler (1990) found student improvement in several areas, particularly awareness knowledge and application of technical design kn owledge. Students now wanted to make their designs accessible but still struggled to put best practice knowledge into their studio projects. Brent, Eubank, Danley, and Graham (1993) designed a three day workshop for students and professionals to learn abou t ADA codes and apply them in a small project. Their workshop used a variety of teaching methods, but pre and post testing showed only a 25 percent improvem ent in ADA understanding. Brent results illustrate the difficulties instructors face when trying to increase student knowledge of a content area and to require them to apply that knowledge in studio practice. These three studies each found that lecture and studio teaching are not being an attempt to use multiple teaching methods to bridge the gap between content knowledge and studio practice. Color and light is another content area where students struggle to fully integrate technical knowledge into their studio designs. As with issues o f accessibility, CIDA 2009 Standards require knowledge of color and light, and interior design faculty experiment with methods to teach the theory and practice of using color and light in designs (Poldma, 2009). While framing learning issues students face regarding color and light,

PAGE 55

55 introduced [in studio projects] after planning may already be c 20). Poldma calls for integration between studio practice and color and light learning and application; separate learning in content courses leads to separate application i n studio courses (p. 21). Poldma presents course methodology and exercises focusing on applying color and light theory to experience in studio projects and real interior spaces. Teaching practices are explained for their ability to help students apply their learning in studio practice and discussion calls for an ea rly integration between studio practice and theoretical learning (Poldma, 2009). archite cture students to integrate lighting theory and concepts into their studio learning relearn. Figure 2 2 illustrates the dynamic learning situation of the studio. S (1987) work on architectural education and thinking was based primarily on observations of what architectural faculty and students were already doing, but it has shaped and influenced understanding of what happens in design studios, and appreciation of studio as the core of design education. Like the courses discussed above, history of interiors courses are lecture based, and content specific. CIDA standards require awareness of interior design history.

PAGE 56

56 Application or history or preservation knowledg e is not required. If students encounter a historic preservation project in studio, they often struggle to integrate history into their studio learning (Lichtman, 2009; Margolin; 1995; Morgenthaler, 1995). As a lecture course, history classes are separated from studio classes. As shown in Figure 2 2 class structure, course assignments, and student demonstrations of learning studio projects versus history tests are different in history and studio courses (Lichtman, 2009). part study surveyed and interviewed design history instructors throughout the United States and conducted a case study analyzing student feelings, 2000 survey class. Lichtman (2009) found that most in structors believed a lecture based course was necessary to introduce students to the material and provide them with an overview of the discipline. However, this lecture It can leave students struggling to find any relevancy to their studio practice (Lichtman, 2009; 342). This study concluded that approach. Faculty members discuss masterpiec es of design and master designers, with canon organized chronologically and into historical styles, such as Got hic, Romanesque, or Beaux Arts. The masterpiece instruction method can provide a clear organizational structure for students and faculty to unif y the content of history survey courses. Both Lichtman (2009) and Margolin (1995), in his overview of the history and purpose of design history courses, discuss the pros and cons of the masterpiece method. It was developed when history of design courses we re first established in the 1970s and is based on a

PAGE 57

57 traditional art history model Design history faculty often come from history or art history, not design practice, backgrounds (Lichtman, 2009; Margolin, 1995). In art history, lecture based survey course analyzing the superior qualities of each piece, and sorting art works into discreet styles. Instructors try to give students a historical overview, not inform their design work (Margolin, 1995). Margolin (1995) states that this distinction giving students a historical overview versus informing their design work is an important, if unacknowledged classroom objective. It may help explain why design students find little relevance in their history classes (Lic htman, 2009; Margolin, 1995). Unlike accessibility, color, and light content courses, history courses are deliberately separated from studio learning and practice. Margolin (1995) traces this development to Bauhaus teaching pedagogy, which emphasized desi gning from principles, such as form and mass, rather than historical inspiration. Dunbar (1989) provided further credence for this theory by examining the writings and teachings of Bauhaus director and Harvard Graduate School of Design instructor Walter Gr opius. design education. He remain important influences in interior design education in the twentieth century. Design history faculty concerned about a disconnection between history and studio learning experimented with different teaching methods to help design students connect their history and studio learning. Morganthaler (1995) examined architectural design his tory courses and used a case study to develop a non chronological, thematic approach based on studi o concepts with a goal ential of

PAGE 58

58 architectural history (p.218). Be echer (1998) critically examined the history of interior desig n teaching, available textbooks, and the limits of the masterpiece chronological teaching structure. Like Mor ganthaler (1995), Beecher wanted students to be inspired p romoted by interior design texts potentially limits students' abilities to understand the connection between the creative processes used in design activity and those used to Beecher (1999) continued her research in histo ry of interiors teaching practice through a case study with two sequential history courses. The courses still focused on masterpieces, but instead of a chronological presentation, sites were grouped into four themes that included examples from different ti m e periods and cultures. Beecher expected that these groupings should help students see connections between different works and between studio processes and the processes used by historic designers. Lucas (2009) shared a similar case study course at the In terior Design Educators Council South Regional Conference. He also grouped sites into four themes, with each theme meant to relate to the design process and outcome, such as geometric and organic, instead of a chronological or historical style. Lucas also asked students to create building analysis posters, calling out the design elements from multiple buildings within each group. Lichtman (2009) found that while most design history instructors used a masterpiece chronological method to organize their histor y course content, several still used a masterpiece canon, but separated the course content into thematic groupings, like Beecher (1999) and Lucas (2009). While this study was informed by these developing classroom practices to improve history learning, thi s study is different

PAGE 59

59 from pre vious research. This study enters the studio classroom to examine learning outcomes in a real world, active learning studio setting. By expanding upon previous attempts to improve history courses by focusing not on the content prepared by instructors, but on the outcomes generated by students this study examines an active learning situation. The subdivision of interior design curricula into studio and content courses presupposes that students need lectures rather than studio co ur ses to learn technical material and that they will later be able to integrate content learned in lecture courses into studio projects. Both assumptions have been shown to be faulty in attempts to improve ADAAG, lighting and color etc. First, while the pa ssive learning that students experience in lecture courses may seem to transfer large quantities of information to students, once each course is complete, students may not actually remember very much (Scanzoni, 2005). Secondly, while CIDA (2009) expects st udents to unify knowledge from these two types of classes in their projects, faculty from multiple content areas share a concern that students are not integrating knowledge learned in different settings into the studio, which is the primary location of stu dent learning and where students apply their learning through practice. In comparison to other interior design content areas, history faculty members face an even greater challenge than instructors of lighting, building systems, or technical design standar ds. Interior design history knowledge is not presented in an application ready format and students are not generally expected to apply their history knowledge to studio projects. History faculty members continue to experiment with teaching methods and in c lass assignments that

PAGE 60

60 (1995), Beecher (1999) and Lucas (2009) each reported being limited by the class time and structure of the history course. Their experiments did not bridge the lecture studio gap, and they did not test their new teaching practices on outcomes. Meanwhile, history faculty members agree that they need available course time just to present an introduction to their material (Lichtm an, 2009). History content and format of history courses change to allow time for exploratory projects and practice, students will need to practice working with historic b uildings in their studio courses. Because studio is where students are active and energized learners practicing of historical trends and influences. This study assumes that higher order thinking is needed when designing in a historic preservation context Compatibility is a real world design goal. If students are to achieve compatible designs in their professional practice, they most likely need to practice with context base d real world projects in studio. Studio learning allows students in the act of designing to learn through complex, content rich problems. This is a significant feature of studio learning. Engagement in studio with real, complex problems should actively absorb students in their learning and promote long term student learnin g and recall (Norman & Schmidt 1992). Real world context based projects are the foundation of studio projects, as shown in Figure 2 3 Real world context based projects are complex, rich with content and detail for students to actively explore and discover Because of the richness of these problems, students can pose multiple question s and solutions; questions and answers are not closed and fixed, as they sometimes are in lecture based history classes. Learners may find active,

PAGE 61

61 discovery based learning find ing questions and solutions more engaging (Lindfors, 1999; Scanzoni, 2005). Working on real world projects can promote a genuine interest 1987, 1999). Compatible desig ns are developed in the real world, in response to local situations and design guidelines. Designing compatibility requires an engaged designer actively learning the local history and design features relevant to the project site. Context based studio rehab ilitation projects, unlike lecture material, encourage students to seek out new information and respond to the specific context of their problem. Students engage in practice, rather than memorization. Figure 2 3 provides a conceptual framework illustrating the transition from real world historic building design problems to studio projects and studio project outcomes. Interior Design Studio Processes: Learning t hrough Practice Interior design professionals work on a series of real problems, each with both k nown and unknown design parameters. Practicing designers learn about their project 1984). Interior design students learn how to practice design through active inquiry by pr acticing on their studio projects (Schn, 1987). As Figure 2 3 shows, students begin a studio projec t based on a real world problem: then they engage in multiple studio activities and processes. St studio learning process is active learning, charact erized by student self directed inquiry. When active learning is occurring, students are inquiring and exploring, rather than being given knowledge by an instructor. Since instructors do not completely control the inquiry process, students given problems b ased in whole systems will focus selectively on those aspects of the

PAGE 62

62 system that interests them (Lindfors, 1987; 226). However, working on a context rich problem, with interconnected questions and solutions, imparts meaning and aids learning (Lindfors, 198 7; 226). Learning stems from the discovery process where students are guided, not instructed, by their teachers (Scanzoni, 2005; 136). Higher order learning, as John complete a studio project and not merely repeat information (Scanzoni, 2005). Just as student learning should end with students being able to do something, it begins with their attempt to do something. Students learn to solve realistic, complex problems by tacklin g similar problems in guided classroom settings (Scanzoni, 2005). This real, learning by doing approach is the cornerstone of an active learning situation. By placing students in greater control of their classroom learning, they can be immersed in complex problems and follow their own interests toward the solution (Scanzoni, 2005; 149). Creating a compatible design solution is a challenge. Practicing on a historic building in studio allows students to explore problems so that they will be prepared to tackl e the making of a compatible interior in their professional practice. In their review of literature addressing the psychological basis for problem based or active learning, Norman and Schmidt (1992) found that problem solving skills are content specific. Problem solving skills learned for one type of material will probably not be applied to other different content (Norman & Schmidt 1992, 558 60). Applied to interior design, this suggests that not only is it important for students to practice solving interi or design problems, it may also be important for them to practice on a wide variety of problems and techniques used in developing design solutions. In other words,

PAGE 63

63 designing contemporary buildings may not prepare one to design in a historic structure. With out classroom studio practice on historic structures, students may not learn how to practic e. History content learning and contemporary design practice are probably not requirement may not translate into ability to design compatibility in a historic building. In support of context based learnin g, Norman and Schmidt (1992 ) found that g enhances subsequent retrieval (p.559). classroom problems, immersing them in complete problems aids their learning (Lindfors, 1989; Norman & Schmidt, 1992). Learners remember more when they solve complex, real problems and they recall more of what they learned (Norman & Schmidt, 1992; 559). Learners also improve when they receive feedback on their solutions, making an active, participatory studio environment important for student success. may increase by letting students talk together about both their problems and the proposed solutions (Norman & Schmidt, 1992). Lindfors (1987, 1999) urges teachers to allow students to have open discussions about their projects to help create stimulating learn ing environments. The studio learning environment, unlike a history lecture course, provides a place for instructor feedback, as well as individual explorations and group discussions (Schn, 1987). I n both early language and design learning, neophytes are immersed in a rich, complex environment whether of words or buildings. Without institutional or formal

PAGE 64

64 instruction, almost all individuals will acquire language and the ability to use it in a wide variety of situations. Similarly, before beginning formal studies, design students already have an innate, functioning knowledge of buildings. Most beginners can navigate through large airports and behave appropriately as guests in new homes. Students already understand the spatial concepts common to their cultur e and communities, such as hallway circulation and the difference between public and private spaces. Yet despite their functional competence in the built environment, many students struggle to design when they begin formal design coursework. Design educati exposure to the built environment and develops their ability to develop creative new solutions to design problems. The struggle to design, rather than use, may begin again when students transition from contemporary to historic project building sites. In lecture based classes, students are rarely instructed through immersion in the same ways that they acquired knowledge outside of the classroom. Instead, lecture based classes subdivide a whole environment, whether language or design, in to smaller, discreet units. Design history instructors subdivide historic buildings into discreet, abstract styles and require the students to memorize the significant features of each fixed style. Buildings are often not looked at in their setting, where different types of buildings surround them, and pure examples are preferred, not buildings that are a conglomeration of additions and styles. In practice, students will find that styles are less discreet and uniform and more context specific. Completing a real design project in studio may help prepare students to work in the context specific real world. Lindfors (1987), an early childhood educator and language arts and acquisition researcher, discussed how difficult it can be for students to transition fro m learning

PAGE 65

65 through immersion in the whole system to classroom practices with abstract and discreet elements. In school, language learners must take language, which kindergarteners have already begun to acquire through immersion and exploration, and then di ssect and label their intuitive language knowledge. Similarly, despite living in the built environment their entire lives, students usually find themselves unprepared for studio instruction methods and media. In studio, design students are asked to first l earn the spatial elements of architecture, such as compression/expansion of walls and ceilings as well as intentional views and circulation routes. Architectural textbooks, such as Ching (2007), note the grammar or lexicon of architecture, with different c hapters providing brief explanations and myriad sketches illustrating each element. Historic district guidelines assume a working knowledge of many elements of designs. Guidelines refer to design terms such as massing, volume, proportion and rhythm. While developing their design vocabulary and grammar, students need to learn to apply these abstractions to buildings, use them to analyze and breakdown existing designs into discreet components, and build new appropriate designs from parts. Students build abstr act models and draw sketches using such new communication tools to demonstrate how architectural concepts can be realized through their designs. Comparatively, school children use language arts exercises, such as worksheets that direct them to find all the articles, to demonstrate their competency with language. Both design studio and language arts classrooms can be daunting for many students. Students with a functioning knowledge of buildings and language may find themselves struggling to discuss and manip ulate the abstract elements of these systems (Lindfors 1987, 222 23). Knowing how to use a complex system and being able

PAGE 66

66 6) discussion of how children learn language suggests that providing students with context based learning problems may allow students to apply and expand the implicit, functioning knowledge they bring to the classroom. Historic buildings are unique systems, different from contemporary buildings. His toric buildings are based on different aesthetic and technical systems. Working in historic buildings requires new, often site specific, knowledge. Lindfors (1987) research suggests that to design compatibly, students need to use, practice and experience manipulating the complex elements specific to a historic building project. Likewise, studio projects set in older buildings and developed in a real world context should begin with what students already know and allow them to improve by practicing purposef ul communication through design media. As students explore the older building, they can expand their general design knowledge into system abstractions specific to the historic building. For example, previously acquired knowledge about creating rhythm in de sign could be used to understand and learn from the rhythm of surviving neo classical interior plasterwork on a project building. If students begin with context based projects before trying to manipulate isolated abstractions, language acquisition research es suggests that a foundation of context rich work should make this transition easier and increase learning (Lindfors 1987, 81 6). In lecture based history courses, the instructor plays an active role seeking out relevant projects to show, asking and the n immediately answering questions about the significance or architectural features of a building, and finally, generating test questions

PAGE 67

67 Figure 2 2 are active and engaged while students are passive memorizers of supplied content. In studio course s, these roles are reversed ( Figure 2 2 ). In studio, the instructor introduces a design question based on a real world problem. Then the instructor provides introductory guiding e xercises to help students begin researching and engaging with the project site. Throughout the project, students move toward greater engagement and self guidance. Instructors provide critiques, but they do not lead e. This may cause some instructors to believe that they are not teaching, but design professors teach by modeling the skills and thinking processes they want their students to acquire. This is a fundamental difference between lecture based and studio based courses. In lectures, instructors provide content; they model knowing. By doing so, instructors can raise and develop students awareness of design issues. In depth lecture based courses and related projects can help student transition from awareness to un derstanding. For example, interior design programs often offer an introduction to interior design course. This course covers a wide range of content, from color theory to building systems. In introductory courses, the interior design. Throughout their program of study, students will later take specific content courses ; developing their knowledge level from awareness to understanding. In studio courses, students demonstrate their ability to apply knowledge. I n studio, students discover content; instructors model discovery processes. This is why students need to complete historic building projects in studio. Students need to learn and practice successful processes for working with historic buildings, which are different from contemporary buildings. Later, students can use their process knowledge to design

PAGE 68

68 compatible solutions for different historic buildings. For example, students need to learn how to locate and use historic di strict design guidelines; they do not need to memorize a set of guidelines. When designing, students need to practice responding to existing features, not memorizing a set of features. Educating the Reflective Practitioner (1987), he observed st udents try and explain themselves to their professors, who would then sketch while talking about what the students were doing and planning to do next. Observed faculty used their monologue to demystify their thinking process and their sketches to show students how those thoughts appear in a drawing. To instruct, professors combined speech and sketching to model how an architect thinks. The monologues that Schn observed professors using to explain their in progress sketching were a vocalization of their internal dialogue. By vocalizing a normally internal thinking process, professors demonstrated the design discovery process for their students and provided them with a sc and content of architectural design. like those by the observed design professors, are inner speech or thoughts framed in words. Inner speech emerges and evolves throughout development both during a allows conciseness and the development of thought; it is a tool learners can use to explore and expand their own learning. By modeling design inner speech while drawing, professors demonstrate to students how to approach a design problem, use design

PAGE 69

69 elements and work through multiple solutions. Schn (1987) found that vocally modeling their design thinking process was one of the major ways instructors used classroom time and when successful, it built a scaffold to lead students toward their own conscious design thinking. If instructors include elements of compatibility as part of their demonstrations, students should learn how to design compatibility while they are developing their designs. Compatibility should be recognized as a goal by design faculty leading a studio. T hey will then model compatible designing, thus te aching their students to learn how compatible designers think and how to create compatible design outcomes. Bakhtin (1986) analyzed the problem of speech genres, or spheres in which language is used (Bakhtin 1986, 60). Speech genres exist in many forms, su ch as the difference between written and spoken language or between popular and academic presses. Language acquisition can be envisioned as the process of acquiring and appropriately using a collection of speech genres: ones for school, parents, friends, e tc. As students mature in school, they acquire speech genres for multiple school and social speech genre they have acquired. Like mathematics or biology, design has a sp eech genre that users learn to communicate within unique ways distinct from general language use. New design students must learn to use certain terms and thought processes in order to become part of the design language community and develop into mature des igners. In studio, students practice working within their new design speech genre. They use new words and make new mental connections that allow them to practice and expand their knowledge while completing studio work. By practicing their

PAGE 70

70 new design speech genre, students can actually expand their knowledge. Once students have mastered their speech genre, they can freely use and manipulate it (Bakhtin 1986, 80). Language is a powerful tool for design students, and they practice using it to expand their know ledge, leading to more sophisticated practice. Because of this, students should practice using the particular speech and media of historic preservation projects, such as, historic district guidelines explaining history and character defining features, and Preservation Briefs discussing compatible design and construction techniques. History lecture based classes and awareness of historical movements, as required by CIDA, do not allow students to practice the language or use the media of contemporary historic preservation practice. Students need the engaging practice of a studio environment to find and develop new skills in historic preservation. Design students need to actively engage with the ideas they are learning. It seems that learning occurs best as stu dents begin to express themselves, either through speech, writing, or drawing, and then begin to intentionally modify, shape and form these early expressions (Lindfors, 1999). Interaction and discussion with classmates s own self reflection can all help the learner interact with new thoughts and design ideas. As students practice giving their thoughts form, their ability increases because they can consider their developing project and develop ideas through oral, written and graphic media. The active interaction with learning found in language, where students learn by revising their writing or discussing their ideas with others, can also be found in studio, where students edit their designs, discuss them with their instruc tor and classmates, and refer back to the design project site for new ideas.

PAGE 71

71 Suwa and Tversky (1997) examined what architects and architecture students see in their own drawings and sketches. They filmed architects and students designing a space by creatin g a series of sketches, a standard working method. Participants then watched their video and explained to the researchers what they were thinking in each part of the design process. This study found that professional architects, when compared to students, saw more in their sketches and were able to make more connections between their sketches and an imagined built design. By verbalizing what they saw in their sketches, the practicing architects demonstrated the strong connections they made between the proce ss of drawing and their internal visualizations. Due to their greater experience with sketching as a communication and planning tool, these experienced practitioners used their sketches to imagine a more detailed design than the students did. Students need practice to use their design skills to see potential in a historic building and design a compatible solution. Suwa and Tversky (1997) found that both architects and student architects used their sketches to clarify their thinking; sketch development was a dialogue with oneself. That architects saw and remembered more detail in their sketches than the students enhances thinking. This mirrors a language acquisition process. As students interact with and shape new ideas, they are able to conceive of increasingly complex ideas (Lindfors, 1999). Early language and design learners developing ability to elaborate internally and externally is one of the primary goals of education. Their growing imaginative and elaborative ability allows students, and junior professionals, to create new and increasingly complex thoughts and designs. Whether or not participating

PAGE 72

72 students are able to create compatible designs in this research study, t heir efforts and practice presumably will leave them better able to create compatible designs in the future. Summary CIDA standards organize Interior design student learning into three levels: awareness, understanding and application. Standard 8 requires students to be aware of design history Students develop awareness and understanding through history lecture courses exposing them to the vast history of interior design. Application, the ability to apply knowledge, is not required in current CIDA standard s. This study examines how students can go beyond knowledge of interior design history to historic preservation practice. This leap, from lecture to studio, understanding to application, presents challenges to students, but it also furthers their professio nal education and prepares them for practice with existing and/or historic buildings. Creating a compatible design solution requires a student designer who is engaged with the project and understands local conditions, including the history and significant design elements. Designing compatible solutions can be a challenge, by requiring design students to work with historic and contemporary elements to transform the space into a new interior. Students may be motivated to engage with the design process and lea rn about their project site if they have a context rich studio project based on a real world problem and discover design solutions in an active learning studio. In an active learning studio, students immerse themselves in the complexities of their design p roblem, explore questions and answers as they discover solutions, and receive feedback through discussions with their instructors and peers. Active learning,

PAGE 73

73 exploratory studios may allow students to discover how they can use their historic project buildin g to create a new interior design. Sense of Connectedness Working with the historic built environment requires engagement in the design project and knowledge of the history and architectural features of the site, but knowledge alone might not be enough to engage designers in the process of creating improved by a feeling of connection to the historic built environment. An emotional sense of connection may inspire local sta keholders to want to preserve their historic structures (Place Matters, 2007; Dohr & Portillo, 2011). If designers share in a sense of connection, the designer may be able to combine design skills and site knowledge with the empathic sensitivity to create a compatible design. Through research into a historic project site, designers may learn that they can work with a historic building to create a compatible design that reflects the best of today and the past. By learning about and analyzing their project b uilding before beginning visualize opportunities to integrate both new and existing features into a compatible whole. If designers can imagine ways they can work with the e xisting building, connect their new designs to it through appropriate transitions, and emphasize the best features of the old and new, they will have succeeded in creating a compatible design. While much of the design will be informed by their knowledge an d ability, the potential importance of creating an emotional connection between the historic building and designer is underscored in recent research in environmental psychology. Frantz, Mayer, Norton and Rock (2005) researched feeling s of connectedness to nature and pro

PAGE 74

74 environmental impulses. For example, participants with higher CNS recycled, donated to environme ntal charities and voted for pro environmental measures. work begins with an extensive review of psychological literature findings in wh ich one caring, and helpfulness. Simply stated, we help those we feel a connection to. Frantz (2005) asked if this impulse, to help where we feel connected, could be extende d from a person to person connection to one of person to environment. Through multiple studies, both reviewed in the literature and conducted in their studies they found that people environment al impulses. Those who do not feel a connection to nature exhibited significantly lower pro environmental impulses; those with the lowest feeling of connection were anti environment. From the field of environmental psychology Frantz (2005) begs the questi ons: should designers feel emotionally connected to the built environment? What happens when designers are connected ? Through their work, d esigners have the potential to help or damage historic buildings. If designers can make historic buildings part of th designers. Figure 2 4 illustrates how sense of connection may contribute to compatible design outcomes. Measuring a Sense o f Connectedness Mayer and Frantz (2004) introduced their Connectedness to Nature scale (CNS) this introductory study, they tested their fourteen question instrument on large classes of students and members of the community The test has since been used in several other studies. Frantz (2005) used the scale to examine the connection between nature

PAGE 75

75 larger connection to nature can also feel a g reater connection to the larger community and are less individualistic. This is significant because individuals who feel a connection are more capable of making decisions during difficult environmental dilemmas and ne ss will profit from own group biases toward positive evaluations and greater moral consideration and right s (Taijfel &Turner, 1986; Devine Wright & Clayton 2010). If these findings can be applied to the historic built environment, designers who feel a grea ter connection to the historic built environment should be better able to make design decisions and consider the historic building more in their decision making process. This kind of connection could help designers make more sensitive and compatible design decisions in the historic built environment. Nisbet, Zelenski and Murphy (2009) provide further support, from the field of environmental They found that individuals wit h a greater sense of connectedness were more likely to engage in pro environmental behaviors such as recycling, donating, and voting for environmental measures. In Mayer, Frantz, Bruehlamn Senecal and Dolliver (2009), the CNS was administered as part of a larger study to examine the positive relationship between finding time in nature beneficial and a high CNS score. Milfont and Duckitt (2010) review several measures of environmental attitudes, beliefs, and/or feelings. Almost every instrument they reviewe d is not applicable to other studies because each instrument tests for multiple factors, usually both general and topical concerns, knowledge and beliefs. Unlike other environmental attitudes scales, e for this study because of its

PAGE 76

76 single factor (connectedness) analysis, wide past use, and ability to be transformed to test sense of conne ctedness to something else ( Gosling & Williams 2010). Perrin and Benassi (2009) published a critical review of the me asure based on their five part study. Perrin and Benassi agree with Mayer and Frantz (2004) that the CNS measures one factor, but Perrin and Benassi argue that the factor is less an emotional and more of an intellectual connection to nature. Their analysis is based on how the word feel is used in the scale and cross examined with similar scales. They liefs about may tap a more cognitive, rather than emotional, interest in nature. Even if the CNS measures a more cognitive connection, its results can still prove useful b interest in nature motivates a desire to explain and understand phenomena in the The relationship between intellectual and emotional connections is still being understood in this context. Returning t o the historic could be an excellent first step for a designer trying to develop a compatible design for a historic building. The Connectedness to Historic Buildings Sca le used in this research was adapted (2010) adaptation of the CNS to test connectedness among farmers to their farms was used as a demonstration of how to modify the contex t of the CNS instrument while maintaining it as a reliable measure of connectedness. Gosling and Williams (2010)

PAGE 77

77 results slightly indicated that farmers who felt a greater sense of connectedness with their farms managed native vegetation differently than t hose who did not. This finding and Gosling and Williams literature review further suggests that connectedness and CNS instruments may be correlated to behavior as well as feelings. The Connectedness before and after completing their designs for a historic building. Significance of a Sense o f Connectedness Current history teaching practice may not foster a feeling of connection to the historic built environment. Beecher (1998) found that history textbooks and class lectures fea found that the masterpiece canon focused on exceptional pieces, and textbooks either then or now. A criticism of the masterpiece canon is that it focuses on the products of Caucasian, Euro American culture; however, most attempts to remedy this situation only add examples of the unique and elaborate from other cultures or female designers (Brandt, 1998). Lichtman (2009) reviewed several textbooks that discussed their inclusion of pieces by female designers and non Western cultures in their introduction. Nonetheless, these books contained only a few new examples and continued to emphasis the exceptional na masterpiece canon of Caucasian, male, Euro American designers and artifacts is increasingly irrelevant to diverse classes of min ority and female students. In the described case study, Brandt (1998) introduces designs from a more diverse source of cultures and designers, and begins presenting each site within a set of themes, rather

PAGE 78

78 than a chronological approach. In a review of Lich tman (2009), Dilnot (2009) explains why developing a more diverse collection of masterpieces will not solve the essential problems with this teaching methodology. Underlying the masterpiece collection is the arateness that keeps students from finding relevancy in masterpieces, regardless of the culture or creator (Dilnot, 2009). Beginning with two 1984 essays, Dilnot has called for faculty to explore teaching methods and content that encourage students to see themselves in history and see historical designs as a source of inspiration, not memorization (Dilnot, 1984a &1984b). This philosophy is particularly relevant for historic preservation practice: a designer who feels a connection to historic buildings and h istory may design for historic structures with empathy. Feeling empathy may be significant to the design process (Dohr & Portillo, 2011). erience of interiors are remembered well where empathy is learn from it (Dohr & Portillo, 20 1 1). An emotional connection, including feeling empathy is the extra puzzle piece that helps a project come alive for a designer and affect s their design processes over time. While feelings of empathy, caring and helpfulness are typically stu died in personal relationships, this study uses literature from environmental psychology to expand research into the feelings designers have in a person site relationship. By working in studio on a real project, instead of in lecture based history courses, students may be able to integrate their knowledge of building design and history to

PAGE 79

79 bridge the gap between studio and content learning. Students may begin to increase their connectedness to historic buildings by completing a real project set within a hist oric building. In a review of environmental research on increasing connectedness to nature, educat ional activities that will promote a sense of connectedness (Schultz et al., 2004, 41). By having a design encounter with historic buildings in studio, design students may be positively transformed, increase their sense of connectedness to the historic bui lt environment and create compatible design outcomes. By having a design encounter with a real world historic building and the users that can be visited and interviewed, students may also be transformed by the experience. Through this project and future re search, teaching and learning strategies could be developed that build on Frantz conclude their discussion with a call to researchers to develop strategies to help people increase their feeling of connectedness to the environment. Current research suggests that as people learn more about the environment and become more comfortable with it, they may increase their feel ing of connectedness; however, further research is needed to confirm these suggestions and develop strategies to increase that feeling (Frantz 2005). Developing a positive attitude is important for pro environmental behavior. Hinds and Sparks (2008) foun nature to be a strong predictor of environmental engagement, such as spending time outside and supporting environmentalist causes. If this can be applied to the historic

PAGE 80

80 built environment, designe rs with a positive emotional connection with historic buildings may spend more time discovering the positive aspects of their historic project building and developing designs to showcase its potential. In contrast, Costarelli and Colloca (2004) found attit udinal ambivalence to be one of the strongest predictors of behavioral intentions. In other words, unless individuals care, they will not assert themselves in a positive manner. Both the natural and built environments need active, positive individuals to m anage their preservation and future. Having practitioners who care and are passionate about working on historic buildings could result in more compatible designs and better satisfied users and clients. nd global warming, Whitmarsh (2009) found that people who were genuinely concerned with the environment made seemingly pro environmental life changes. However, ignorance of how their actions contribute to global warming le d study participants to make life changes with no real beneficial impact on the environment. This finding underscores the need to increase caring and knowledge; whether working with the natural or built environment, if individuals and designers lack the technical knowledge to truly help, i t is Danley and Graham (1993) found that the empathy and desire to help persons with disabilities great ly increased among the interior design students and professio nals who increased by 25 percent after completing the program. Follow up examinations were not Wi thout more technical knowledge, practicing designers may care about universal design;

PAGE 81

81 however, their design decisions will lack the best practice information that would have allowed them to use their professional capacity to make a positive difference for others. For this reason, this research project examined both students caring and learning about historic buildings. History and studio courses could be developed to help students find history relevant to design practice and to help them feel a connection to the his toric built s (2005) psychological literature review of studies that increased empathy and connectedness between people suggests several sources for inspiration: changing perspectives, stories of personal distress, group ident ification, finding similarities, and a sense of interdependence ( p. 428). Multiple studies support the effectiveness of each factor to increase connections between people. Story and Forsyth (2008) also used person to person psychology in an environmental a pplication. They framed environmental engagement with a local watershed as helping behavior. Psychological factors that increase helping, caring, and empathy could inspire class or studio assignments in interior design history courses. Many could probably be integrated within a masterpieces and/or chronological history survey course. For example, within a history course, students could change their perspective and write the ed, or the point of view of its original designers, who saw it when it was new. Through this exercise, students could discover that what they have first viewed as a dilapidated old dump is instead a building that has a rich history and was loved and create d by real people. Many masterpiece as well as vernacular structures have stories of distress. Some survived bombing in the World Wars (European cathedrals), being used to store

PAGE 82

82 explosives and then bombed (the Parthenon), vandalism after rgime or religious changes (English cathedrals, Afghan Buddhist shrines, Versailles, Incan cities), as well as damage from natural disasters. If history instructors share vivid stories, or students hey may become sympathetic and gain personal knowledge of history. In studio projects, students can learn these stories about their project building, giving them a chance to learn local history while they practice creating a compatible new interior design. Human and environmental psychological research has identified factors that may increase feelings of empathy, connectedness, and helpfulness. Using this research, interior design faculty could design assignments and present course material to help student s develop a sense of connectedness. With a sense of connectedness, students may find relevancy in their learning and practice connecting their content learning to their studio practice. In turn, students who feel a connection to the historic built environm ent should be mor e inclined to work compatibly with it in studio and professional practice. Summary Historic preservation practice relies on individuals who care about the historic places in their community (Place Matters, 2007; Allison & Allison, 2008; Dohr & Portillo, 2011; National Trust, 2011). For decades, preservation, including adaptive reuse of historic structures, has occurred because individuals cared. They wanted to save their historic buildings and help them stay active parts of the built comm unity. If an interior designer possesses the same feelings that motivate locals to preserve, their design solutions may show caring and empathy to the historic building and therefore be relatively compatible to the historic building.

PAGE 83

83 sense of connectedness to the historic built environment, this study will be able to test a newly adapted CNS type instrument. With this new instrument, the study can examine the potential relationships between sense of connectedness to the historic built environment and the creation of relatively compatible interiors. If there is a relationship between a greater sense of connectedness to the historic built environment and relatively more compatible designs, this research will be able to provide further su pport to interior design faculty members developing curriculum Study Framework: Unifying the L iterature Chapter 2 discussed the literature to create a framework for how a compatible interior design solution may be created. In Figure 2 5 design solution, is created by a student designer with 1) feelings of empathy, caring, and helpfulness and 2) knowledge of the local history and architectural conditions. In addition to acquiring knowledge and feeling an emotional connection, the designer also needs to be engaged in the design process, with a willingness to keep trying new ideas and to work creatively. These thre e qualities -feelings, knowledge and design process engagement -were originally developed from preservation literature. First, the researcher examined preservation literature, including texts on how to preserve through architecture and community engageme nt. Preservation guidelines provide designers with the content to make informed design choices. Stories of successful preservation based on community engagement suggest that preservation outcomes are improved if designers and the public feel an emotional c onnection to the historic place. An emotional sense of connection empowers the public to preserve their built heritage. For designers, an emotional connection may help them stay engaged and connected to a

PAGE 84

84 project site. An emotionally engaged designer may b e willing to work through the challenges of designing compatibility to develop a design solution that serves new building users by reflecting what they loved in their historic structure and what they need today. C ompatibility was established as a design go al for working with historic structures and the three qualities of feelings, knowledge and design process engagement were proposed as necessary qualities for an interior design student to possess and develop while designing a compatible interior for a hist oric structure. But how are these qualities encouraged? Can they be developed? Later in Chapter 2, the researcher examined how these three t raits may be formed and developed. Learning theory literature expand ed on 1) how a student designer with knowledge i s created and 2) how to keep a student designer engaged and creative throughout the design process. The literature suggested that active learning in a studio setting was critical to both of these qualities. By practicing with, not just memorizing, new cont ent on a historic building project through a real world problem, students can become engaged design practitioners who learn to do a project, not an exam, with their knowledge. Figure 2 5 illustrates how studio nding how to create a compatible design outcome. Next, the researcher examined the third quality proposed to help a student designer create a compatible design outcome: feelings. Feelings of empathy, caring and etween each other. Feeling empathetic process (Dohr & Portillo, 2011). Together, empathy, caring and helpfulness are markers

PAGE 85

85 of a sense of connection. Psychological lit erature has examined person person sense of connection in depth; environmental psychological literature is beginning to develop instruments and an examination process to study sense of connection between people and their environment. This study drew from r ecent research in environmental psychology that could be extended to create a sense of connectedness to the historic built environment, shown in Figure 2 5 These qualities: a feeling of community, desire to understand and explain, positive encounters and a positive attitude toward historic buildings, may take longer than one studio class project development of these qualities may not be apparent over the timeframe of this study. However, the studio class examined in this study may for burgeoning sense of connectedness. Figure 2 5 summarizes review of the literature and frames the study questions proposed in Chapter 3 The study questions listed in Chapter 3 are varied, but they work together t o increase our understanding of what specific emotional, knowledge and studio processes may contribute to the creation of a compatible design outcome.

PAGE 86

86 Figure 2 1 Conceptual framework illustrating how student designers may create relatively more compatible design outcomes Student designer with knowledge of: Local history Local architectural history Local design conditions and relevant character defining features Student designer with: Engagement in project, willing to keep trying Creativity, can imagine the possibilities Compatible design outcome Student designer with feelings of: Empathy Caring Helpfulness

PAGE 87

87 Lecture Products Lecture Process Person Studio Process Studio Products content finds Teacher frames content learning exercises questions asks Teacher frames questions solutions provides fixed Teacher critiques evolving solutions content is given Student discovers through content learning exercises questions is told Student discovers new questions solutions memorizes fixed Student practices finding open solutions Key to Figure 2 2 Person Active Process Passive Process Figure 2 2 Illustration of different process experiences for teachers and students in studio versus lecture classes.

PAGE 88

88 Figure 2 3 Conceptual learning theory combine to support relatively more compatible design outcomes Compatible design outcome Student designer with knowledge of: Local history Local architectural history Local design conditions, relevant character defining features Student designer with: Engagement in project, willing to keep trying Creativity, can imagine the possibilities Studio Processes Learning through practice: Studio Project Real world problem

PAGE 89

89 Figure 2 4 of connectedness theory combine to support relatively st rong compatible design outcomes Compatible design outcome Sense of connectedness to the historic built environment Student designer feeling: Empathy Caring Helpful Ongoing: Feeling of we ness or community with historic buildings (Frantz et al. 2005) Desire to explain and understand historic buildings (Perrin & Benassi, 2009; 439) Previous or ongoing positive encounters with historic buildings (Schultz et al. 2004, 41) Positive attitude toward historic buildings

PAGE 90

90 Figure 2 5 theory and sense of connectedness combine to support relatively more compatible design outcomes Student designer with: Engagement in project, willing to keep trying Creativity, can imagine the possibilities Compatible design outcome Student designer with knowledge of: Local history Local architectural history Local design conditions, relevant character defining features Student designer feeling: Empathy Caring Helpful Sense of connectedness to the historic built environment Studio Project Real world problem Ongoing: Feeling of we ness or community with historic buildings Desire to explain and understand historic buildings Previous or ongoing positive encounters with historic bu ildings Positive attitude toward historic buildings Studio Processes Learning through practice:

PAGE 91

91 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Compatibility between past and present forms and styles is a design goal for new construction and alterations in historic buildings and districts. Historic district design guidelines are produc ed across the nation to support owners and designers who develop compatible new construction in and around historic buildings. This research addresses some of the complex issues in the teaching of compatibility in the interior of older buildings The primary objective of this study is to ascertain to what degree interior design students are a ble to create compatible design proposals for a historic building. This study explores the relationships among different types of compatibility features and learning interests, practices and design outcomes. Chapter 3 outlines the research study design, discusses the setting and participants, and explains the instruments used in the study. The procedure for collection data and analyzing results, and the limitations thereof are also discussed. Study Design This study was conducted as a single case study in a regularly scheduled and taught senior le vel studio in interior design The Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved this study and each participant completed informed consent forms. Informed conse nts and IRB approval are in Appendix K M The studio assignment was to complete the interior rehabi litations for two historic planned building function changes. This study primarily measured student opinions and evaluated their outcomes during the different phases of the project assignments. While engaging in their nor mal studio activities, students completed eight self reflective assessments. Project outcomes for this study were evaluated outside of regular

PAGE 92

92 not used in or influenced by this study. The researcher did not interact with st udents and minimally altered their studio experience. The study used a mixed methods approach to evaluate the potential relationships among student self reported learning, their interest in historic pr eservation and sense of connectedness to the project. Student generated variables were then compared to find the degree of relative compatibility scores given by a team of outside evaluators who assessed each completed project. With the exception of one in strument, discussed below, assessment measures were locally designed. Quantitative analyses were used to assess each survey question. Quantitative analysis provided information about whether or not learning, interest, or connectedness impacted compatibilit y in student design outcomes. Analyses of multiple factors, measured through eight student for comparisons within and between student participants in the studio. Analyses t ested to what degree there are associations between learning style, interest in historic preservation or connectedness to both nature and history and degree of compatibility in the student outcomes. Upon completion of the project, students wrote a short e ssay explaining what guided their design decisions. These written responses on essay and on several open ended questions included with the survey instruments were read using a content analysis The content analyses explored student reflections on their des ign decisions and explanations of what they bel ieve influenced their decisions, as well as whether or

PAGE 93

93 not they saw any associations among learning, interest, or connectedness, or a high degree of compatibility in student outcomes. Research Setting The foun dation of the interior design education is the design studio. In studio classes, interior design students practice developing solutions to design problems as well as expressing those solutions through architectural drawings, such as floor plans, sections, and perspectives. Content lecture classes on related topics, such as history, materials, and construction methods, support the interior design studio and presumably explore and demonstr ate their combined design skills. As discussed in Chapter 2 studios typically use a project based or discovery based learning process. This study was conducted in the capstone senior 2011 design studio class at a public university in the southeast. The i nterior design program is CIDA accredited and is highly ranked by DesignIntelligence (College News, 2010). The studio class met three times a week for three hours each session throughout the spring semester for a total of 108 contact hours throughout the s tudy plus additional time for site visits. Students were expected to use studio facilities frequently. Studio facilities have key coded entry and were open to students 24/7. The class worked in two studio rooms, one on the third and one on the fourth floo r of the Architecture Building. Studios are connected by an exterior stairway. Each studio is equipped with a printer, plotter and computer stations with digital sketch tablets that allows instructors to show students new ideas by sketching directly on wor k in progress. Each student has dedicated work space with a desk and office chair. Students brought their laptops, drafting equipment and other

PAGE 94

94 personal belongings to studio. Additional tables were available in each studio to allow smaller groups of studen ts and/or instructors to work together. Research Participants Three types of participants contributed their time and resources to this study. All participants were aware of the nature of the study and signed an informed consent. Students All twenty eigh t students in the senior spring 2011 interior design studio class agreed to participate in the study. T wenty four students completed all assessments and are included in this research. In 2007, the year most participating students entered the university, the middle fifty percent of the entering freshman class had a High School GPA of 4.0 4.4, an SAT score range of 1210 1400, and an ACT score range of 26 31 (Office of Admissions, no date). Students were not compensated in any way for participating in this study. Instructors Two faculty members co taught the participating studio class. The senior instructor is an Assistant Professor experienced both professionally and educational ly in historic preservation projects. The instructor was a lecturer and a licensed interior assistant working 10 hours a week helped with the class. The instructors were recruited for this research after discussing it with fellow faculty members and the researcher. The studio project, project timeline, and compensation or incentives for particip ating in this study

PAGE 95

95 Expert Evaluators Eight evaluators examined the completed projects over the course of two days in April 2011. The researcher individually recruited evaluators and contacted each one either by phone or email. Evaluators were selected for their knowledge and experience in design, preservation, and/or teaching. Evaluators were not compensated for participating in this study. Evaluators reviewed student projects individually over a two day period. Each evaluator spent two three hours rev iewing student projects. Evaluators came from a range of backgrounds, including professional and academic, interior design and architecture. The evaluation team of eight was composed of: A practicing university architect with experience working on the Uni versity of The assistant Vice president of Facilities Planning and Construction at the University of Florida; A practicing architect with extensive preservation experience from Sarasota Florida; Two local, licensed interior de signers; An emeritus University of Florida interior design professor of history, studio and historic preservation courses, who is also a licensed architect and building contractor; A University of Florida interior design faculty member with experience te aching preservation projects in studios; A University of Florida research historian with experience serving on the University of Florida Historic Campus District Preservation Board. Data Collection Participating students were administered their surveys d uring regularly scheduled class time. This research covered the twelve week studio project. Either the two studio instructors or the graduate teaching assistant administered all instruments The student

PAGE 96

96 essay was passed out during class and students retur ned it several days later. The researcher did not administer any assessments to the students. The researcher interviewed the principal instructor approximately every two weeks during the course of this study. Most interviews were conducted over the phone. Interviews were primarily informal discussions about how the class was progressing in interviews; the researcher sought to allow the studio instructor to guide the conservation and focus the discussion on matters the instructor thought were most relevant. Follow up questions and discussions were shared between the researcher and instructor via email. g evaluator. After students completed their design project outcomes, they posted their projects as large digital printouts on the walls of their studio. Over the course of two tered the questionnaires. The researcher stayed in the studio while the evaluators were working to answer questions. Figure 3 1 illustrates when each instrument was administered in the four phases of the studio process : project introduction, pre design ph ase activities, design phase, and project completion. Three instruments were administered to students during the introductory phase; one instrument was administered to students after the pre design activities had been completed, but before the design phase began. Four self evaluation assessments were administered to students after the proj ect was complete. The

PAGE 97

97 evaluator s completed both project assessments while reviewing completed student work. Research Instruments Pre Test of Student Interest Before compl eting their rehabilitation designs, students completed a test to measure their interest in the overall project and historic preservation. The Pre test of Student Interest ( Appendix A) begins with an open ended question to assess views about historic build beginning interest in completing their studio projects and compares their incoming interest with th eir later degree of compatibility and post completion interest in the project at the end. Higher scores indicate greater interest in the project and historic preservation; lower scores indicate relatively lesser interest. Table 3 1 outlines the variables d erived from this instrument and how each variable was operationalized from independent and quantitative variables. Figures 3 2 through 3 10 are included to help the reader un derstand the nature of each study variable. The first column in Figures 3 2 through 3 10 lists each variable name, allowing for easy references to the study questions following in Chapter 3 evaluator responses, and qualitative, derived from comments and open ended responses, or quantitative, derived from g column l

PAGE 98

98 points. For quantitative variables, how each question was scaled and the ends of the measure are included in the furthest right columns. Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS) Bef ore beginning their design work, participating students responded to the Connectedness to Nature (CNS) scale, shown in Appendix B. The CNS was designed by Mayer and Frantz (2004) to test feelings of connectedness, or oneness, with the natural world. It has been used in multiple studies since its development (Frantz at al, 2005; Mayer & Frantz, 2009), and found to be a valid and reliable indicator of connectedness (Perrin & Benassi, 2009). Higher CNS scores may indicate a greater desire and degree of action on behalf of the natural world. The CNS was administered to test the feelings of connectedness to the natural world among interior design students. No studies to date were found by the researcher to specifically examine ess to nature. Connectedness of the natural environment may be significant because the ability to connect to the natural environment may be part of a general ability to connect to the natural and built environment, in addition to connecting with people. Se e Chapter 2 for additional information on this instrument and its previous applications. Table 3 2 outlines the variable that was derived from the CNS. Connectedness to Historic Buildings Scale (CHBS) The Connectedness to Historic Buildings Scale was devel oped from the CNS (Mayer & Frantz, 2004) and a version of the CNS modified to examine the relationships between farmers, their farms and their stewardship practices (Gosling & Williams, 2010). The Connectedness to Historic Buildings Scale was administered at the beginning and end of the design phase of the studio project. The pre design phase

PAGE 99

99 environment. The post of projec t sense of connectedness with the historic built environment. Comparisons between above average CHBS scores from the pre and post design phase administration test whether or not and to what extent sustained sense of connectedness to the historic built env Table 3 3 outlines the two variables that were derived from the CHBS. See Appendix C for a copy of the instrument. Reflections on the Pre Design Concept Survey The Reflect ions on your Pre design Concept (RPCS) survey asked students to consider their pre design concept. The RPCS was a combination of scaled and open ended questions. It was administered after students completed their pre design research and analysis activities and before the design phase, when they began developing interior design solutions for their project buildings. At this stage in the design process, students developed a concept board, which outlined their learning thus far about the project site and buil ding, as well as their overarching ideas to guide the design phase. The RPCS questions asked students to reflect on their ideas and learning process. The RPCS answers indicated the degree to which students reported participating in the studio learning proc esses and the degree to which they believed they were gaining from the experience. See Appendix D for a copy of the instrument. Three variables were derived wholly or in part from the RPCS. How each variable was operationalized is explained in Table 3 4

PAGE 100

100 Student Opinion of Design Decision Influences Survey The Student Opinion of Design Decision Influences (SODDIS) was administered after students completed their design project solutions. The SODDIS combines both scaled and open ended questions. Students reflected upon their entire studio process and explained which studio learning activities most helped them in their design work and influenced their ultimate design decisions. This self report test indicated the studio learning activities with the greatest effect on students, and when compared with their compat ibility scores, how compatibility and studio activities interacted. See Appendix E for a copy of the instrument. Table 3 5 outlines the variables derived from this instrument and how they were operationalized. Student Essay After completing the design proj ect outcomes, students wrote an essay reflecting on their design process and design decisions. Students were encouraged to report in detail their motivations, decision making processes, successes, failures as well as ways to become more successful in the f uture. This open ended examination asked students to express themselves, their ideas, likes and dislikes and motivations. See Appendix F for a copy of the instrument. Table 3 6 lists the variables derived from the student essay and how each was operational ized. Post Tests of Student Interest After completing their designs, students took a Post Test of Student Interest, ( Appendix G). The post test gauged to what degree as well as how student interests changed over time, and allowed for comparisons with stu dent compatibility scores. Like the Pre test, the Post test uses a combination of scaled and open ended questions. High scores indicated greater interest in the project and historic preservation; low

PAGE 101

101 scores indicated relatively less interest. Table 3 7 out lines the seven variables derived questions. Questionnaire ( App endix H for a copy of the instrument). This q uestionnaire was used to gauge the compatibility of student projects. Evaluators completed their questionnaires individually; however, some were working at the same time. Each area of possible compatibility refl ects either a character defining feature or a social or architectural historical aspect of the historic buildings. The instrument is based on information in historic district guidelines (Hole, 2004; Tampa Architectural Review Commission, 2002; Tate & Dixon 2007a). Using a 9 point Li kert type scaling had evaluator s rank their judgment of each appropriate because it allowed multiple aspects of compatibility to be subdivided int o discreet components and then be analyzed separately or in total (Kumar, 1996). responses for each type of compatibility. Table 3 8 outlines the twelve types of compatib ility scores that were correlated with student responses and explains how each This process and assessment tool reflect s real world design evaluations. Like historic preservation board members, t he evaluators are experts in the field and each possesses an individual understanding of compatibility. Evaluators were asked to use their own judgment throughout the assessment process. Since this is what happens in

PAGE 102

102 practice, this study uses practice meth ods to be a reliable corollary to real world design and evaluation processes participating evaluator. After completing their reviews of student projects and ended instrument. The summary questionnaire asked evaluators to list the strongest and weakest design solutions, and explain their choices. This instrument allowed evaluators to express th emselves and explain their choices in greater detail. See Appendix I for a copy of the instrument. Table 3 9 Summary Questionnaire. Study Questions This study examines several interconnected variables to explore associations among aspects of learning, interest, connectedness and compatible designing. Chapter 2 provided in depth discussion of these issues and how they may be interconnected. This section uses the variables outlined above to gen erate study questions. Please refer to the section above to explain how each variable was derived and operationalized and refer to Chapter 2 to explain the significance of variables. Study questions are organized by their primary independent variable. RQ1 P RE DESIGN PHASE INTERES T IN HISTORIC PRESER VATION D pre design phase interest in historic preservation correlate to the relative compatib ility of design outcomes? RQ2 P RE DESIGN INTEREST IN T HE ASSIGNED STUDIO P ROJECT How do pre design phase interest in the assigned studio project correlate to the relative compatib ility of design outcomes?

PAGE 103

103 RQ3 S TUDENT S BELIEF OF POSSESSI NG INCOMING KNOWLEDG E OF THE STUDIO PROJECT S RELATED SUBJECT MA TTER How about posse ssing correlate to the relative compatib ility of design outcomes? RQ4 CNS SCORE CNS score correlate to the relative compatib ility of design outcomes? RQ5 P RE DESIGN CHBS SCORE pre design phase CHBS score correlate to the relative compatib ility of design outcomes? RQ6 P OST DESIGN CHBS SCORE post design CHBS score correlate to the relative compatib ility of design outcomes? RQ7 O PEN ENDED P RE DESIGN ACTIVITY THAT MOST INFLUENCED CONC EPT In their open ended responses, which pre design phase activities did students say most influenced their concept? RQ8 I NFLUENCE OF PRE DESIGN PHASE STUDIO ACTIVITIES ranking of pre de sign phase activities, scored from most to least influential, impact the relative compatib ility of design outcomes? RQ9 T OTAL INFLUENCE OF PR E DESIGN PHASE STUDIO ACTIVITIES How does crediting the eight pre design phase activities with influencing design decisions impact the relative compatib ility of design outcomes? RQ10 P RE DESIGN ACTIVITY THAT MOST INFLUENCED DESI GN DECISIONS Which pre design activities did students believe most influenced their design decisions? RQ11 O PEN ENDED PRE DESIGN PHASE ACTIVITY THAT MOST I NFLUENCED DESIGN DECISIONS In open ended responses, which pre design activities did students believe most influenced their design decisions? RQ12 F INAL STUDENT INTERES T IN THE ASSIGNED ST UDIO PROJECT How does final student interest in the assigned studio project correlate to the relative compatib ility of design outcomes? RQ13 S TUDENT ENJOYMENT OF PROJECT How does student enjoyment of the project correlate to the relative compatib ility of design outcomes? RQ14 B EING PLEASED WITH DE SIGN SOLUTION How does being pleased with the design solution impact correlate to compatib ility of design outcomes? RQ15 S TUDENT UNDERSTANDING OF COMPATIBILITY In what ways do stud ents discuss compatib ility in their open ended responses?

PAGE 104

104 RQ16 S TUDENT GENERAT ED THEMES What issues did students generate and discuss in their open ended responses? RQ17 E VALUATOR S GENERATED THEMES : QUALITIES OF SUCCESS FUL PROJECTS What more successful? RQ18 E VALUATOR S GENERATED THEMES : QUALITIES OF UNSUCCE SSFUL PROJECTS ject relatively less successful? Most study questions are correlated with the relative degree of compatibility of student outcomes, measured along the twelve dependent compatibility variables, shown in Table 3 8 Figure 3 2 illustrates which study question s and variables are correlated to each measure of relative degree of compatibility. Eleven of eighteen study questions examine the relationship between an independent variable and the relative compatib ility of design outcomes. The seven study questions not included in Figure 3 2 are not correlated with relative degree of compatibility of student outcomes. These questions assess different data and relationships. All questions are further discussed in Chapter 4 Analytic Techniques Scaled numerical data from student and evaluator instruments was entered in Excel spreadsheets an d checked for accuracy. Data were transferred to OpenOffice Calc 3.3 for calculations of means, rankings, standard deviations and correlations. Correlations were calculated comparing st scores. A two significant correlations between independent and dependent variables. Correlation tests are appropriate for this study because the y indicate whether or not there is an association between two variables, and the level of significance. An was used to show significance. Results are discussed in Chapter 4.

PAGE 105

105 Qualitative data from student essays and open ended short answer r esponses from five of the survey tools w ere assessed by the researcher. The researcher read through student responses twice, and then developed a list of repeating themes in how many students referenced each theme and noted individuals who discussed the themes particularly well. During this reading, the researcher also confirmed that all major themes were being considered. This assessment method is recommended for small quanti ties of open ended responses in educational research because it allows the researcher to build an in depth understanding of collected data and then use flexible and data deriv ed categories to interpret data (Yin, 2008). Data w ere used to enrich ere assessed through multiple readings and are used in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 to discuss study ou on the Validity and Reliability This study examined a single interior design senior studio class. As a single case study, the findings and implicat ions should not be generalized. However, findings may point the way for related future studies. The relative validity of this study is important for maintaining integrity and promoting findings as a source for future research. This study is valid to the de gree that it measures the research concepts: student interest, learning, connectedness, and compatibility. Student interest was measured through multiple instruments, each containing both scaled and open validity improves b y triangulating the data since the students have multiple times and

PAGE 106

106 methods to express themselves. Student learning was also measured through multiple assessments of 1) instructor interviews, 2) class assignments, 3) student essays, and 4) two Likert type surveys. Each of these measures improves the validity of the measured concept by expanding its data source. Connectedness was measured using a modified version of a previously used scale. The CNS was used in multiple studies over the past seven years (Fran tz et al. 2005; Mayer & Frantz, 2004; 2009). Evaluators measured compatibility with a single instrument adapted by the researcher and based on an extensive survey of historic district design guidelines (National Alliance of Preservation Commissions, no da te). By examining each variable through multiple instruments and at different times throughout the studio process, the study maintains its relative validity. Inter rater reliability was calculated at 94.8 percent using an extremel y high frequency of inter rater reliability, testifying to the cohesion among Limitations of the Study There were several limitations inherent in this study. The study design limits the number of variables that were assessed. An interior design student can design a compatible project because of classroom instruction, past experiences, or a socially conductive working environment. Having multiple students create either successful or u nsuccessful design solutions may be the result of instruction as well as many uncontrollable and unknown factors such as cohort effects The students participating in this research may produce more or less successful projects because of the processes bein g tested, or their project outcomes may be the result of other factors. This could weaken the conclusions being draw about associations between learning, interest, connectedness, and student project outcomes.

PAGE 107

107 The study had twelve weeks in which students st udied their project site and generated interior design project solutions. It is possible that students may have created more compatible designs with a smaller project or additional time to work; however, this study was constrained by the time frame of the class studio project. The principal instructor determined the project time frame and controlled how students progressed through pre design research and the design phases of their projects. The Likert ly measure relative compatibility, so responses indicate a general degree of relative compatibility for the evaluators and ability to capture a range of opin attitudes. Finally, as an in depth examination of a single studio classroom, the results of this study should not be generalized. However, results provide new insights into the creat ion of relatively compatible designs among interior design senior students and some of the associations existing within the complex system surrounding design studio practice Summary This case study is an in depth analysis of how students in a senior inte rior design studio class created relatively compatible interiors for rehabilitation in two historic buildings. Levels of student interest, learning, and sense of connectedness were tested multiple times throughout the studio project process. Participating students used both Likert type survey and open ended questions to express their views. Student views are balanced by data from a team of outside evaluators from the allied design fields. Together, students, instructors, and evaluators provide a rich source of data to explore

PAGE 108

108 the complex relationships among student interest, learning, connectedness, and design project outcomes.

PAGE 109

109 Instruments administrated to: Students Evaluators Figure 3 1. Timeline of instrument administration and studio processes. Student and progress on their studio projects. The red arrow shows the phases of the studio project, from beginning to completion. Each connecting box illustrates which instruments were completed at each phase of the studio project. Students completed instruments in black boxes; evaluators completed instruments in the blue box. Studio project progress Introduction Pre design activities Design Project completion Pre test of Student Interest Student Connectedness to Nature Scale Connectedne ss to Historic Buildings Scale Questionnaire Summary Questionnaire Reflections on your Pre Design Concept Survey Student Opinion of Design Decision Influences Survey Post test of Student Interest Connectedness to Historic Buildings Scale Student Essay

PAGE 110

110 Table 3 1 Pre test of Student Interest variables Four variables were derived from survey questions on the Pre test of Student Interest Variable Type Operationalized from Scale Measure Pre design interest in historic preservation Student Quantitative Mean of 1 and 3 on the Pre test of Student Interest. 1 9 Not interested to Very interested Pre design interest in the assigned studio project Student Quantitative 2 on the Pre test of Student Interest 1 9 Not interested to Very excited of possessing incoming knowledge of the studio subject matter Student Quantitative Mean of 4, 5 and 6 on the Pre test of Student Interest 1 9 Not experienced to Very experienced; No knowledge to Very knowledgeable Table 3 2 Connectedness to Nature (CNS) scale variables One variable was derived from the CNS. This figure outlines the variable and how it was operationalized Variable Type Operationalized from Scale Measure CNS score Student Quantitative Mean of 1 14 on the CNS 1 5 Strongly disagree to Strongly agree

PAGE 111

111 Table 3 3 Connectedness to Historic Buildings (CHBS) scale variables Two variables were derived from the CHBS. This figure outlines the variables and how they were operationalized. Variable Type Operationalized from Scale Measure Pre Design CHBS score Student Quantitative Mean of 1 14 on the pre design phase administration of the CHBS 1 5 Strongly disagree to Strongly agree Post Design CHBS score Student Quantitative Mean of 1 14 on the post design phase administration of the CHBS Strongly disagree to Strongly agree Table 3 4 Reflections on your Pre design Concept (RPCS) survey variables Three variables were derived from the RPCS. This table outlines the variables and how they were operationalized. Variable Type Operationalized from Open ended pre design activity that most influenced concept Student Qualitative Studio activities listed on the RPCS in response to question two Student generated themes Student Qualitative Written responses to open ended questions one and two on the RPCS Student understanding of compatibility Student Qualitative Written responses to open ended questions on RPCS and other instruments

PAGE 112

112 Table 3 5 Connectedness to Historic Buildings (CHBS) scale variables Four variables were derived from the CHBS. This figure outlines the variables and how they were operationalized. Variable Type Operationalized from Scale Measure Influence of Pre Design phase studio activities Student Quantitative Individual scores for questions 1 8 on the SODDIS 1 9 No influence to Very influential Total influence of Pre Design phase studio activities Student Quantitative Mean of 1 8 on the SODDIS 1 9 No influence to Very influential Pre design activity that most influenced design decisions Student Quantitative Comparative rankings of individual scores for questions 1 8 on the SODDIS 1 9 No influence to Very influential Open ended pre design phase activity that most influenced design decisions Student Qualitative Written responses on Student Essay, Post tests of Student Interest and SODDIS N/A Word count

PAGE 113

113 Table 3 6 Student Essay variables Three types of variables were derived from the Student Essay. This table outlines the variables and how they were operationalized. Variable Type Operationalized from Open ended pre design phase activity that most influenced design decisions Student Qualitative Written responses on Student Essay Student generated themes Student Qualitative Written responses on Student Essay Student understanding of compatibility Student Qualitative Written responses to open ended questions

PAGE 114

114 Table 3 7 Post test of Student Interest variables Seven variables were derived from the Post test of Student Interest. This figure outlines which survey questions were used to operationalize each variable. Variable Type Operationalized from Scale Measure Post design interest in historic preservation Student Quantitative Mean of 3 and 4 on the Post test of Student Interest 1 9 Not interested to Very interested; No to Yes Final student interest in the assigned studio project Student Quantitative 2 on the Post test of Student Interest 1 9 Not interested to Very interested Sustained student interest in the assigned project Student Quantitative A score between 7 9 on 2 of the Pre design interest in the assigned studio project and 2 of the Post design interest in the assigned studio project. 1 9 Not interested to Very interested Student enjoyment of project Student Quantitative 1 on the Post test of Student Interest 1 9 No enjoyment to Enjoyed Being pleased with design solution Student Quantitative 5 on the Post test of Student Interest 1 9 No to Yes, very much Open ended pre design phase activity that most influenced design decisions Student Qualitative Written responses to open ended questions N/A Student understanding of compatibility Student Qualitative Written responses to open ended questions N/A

PAGE 115

115 Table 3 8 variables Twelve dependent, quantitative Questionnaire. Variable Code Type Operationalized from Scale Measure Social context compatibility CS Expert Quantitative 1 on the Questionnaire 1 9 No references to Many references Architectural historical context compatibility CAH Expert Quantitative 2 on the Questionnaire 1 9 Not compatible to Very compatible Masses and volumes of architectural context compatibility CA1 Expert Quantitative 3 on the Questionnaire 1 9 Not compatible to Very compatible Surface forms, such as roofs and walls, of architectural context compatibility CA2 Expert Quantitative 4 on the Questionnaire 1 9 Not compatible to Very compatible Windows and views of architectural context compatibility CA3 Expert Quantitative 5 on the Questionnaire 1 9 Not compatible to Very compatible Entrances and interior circulation of architectural context compatibility CA4 Expert Quantitative 6 on the Questionnaire 1 9 Not compatible to Very compatible

PAGE 116

116 Table 3 8. Continued Proportion and scale of architectural context compatibility CA5 Expert Quantitative 7 on the Questionnaire 1 9 Not compatible to Very compatible Architectural ornamentation of architectural context compatibility CA6 Expert Quantitative 8 on the Questionnaire 1 9 Not compatible to Very compatible Materials of architectural context compatibility CA7 Expert Quantitative 9 on the Questionnaire 1 9 Not compatible to Very compatible Mean compatibility of architectural context CAM Expert Quantitative Mean of questions 3 9 on Questionnaire 1 9 Not compatible to Very compatible Holistic compatibility CH Expert Quantitative 10 on the Questionnaire 1 9 Not compatible to Very compatible Mean compatibility CM Expert Quantitative Mean of questions 1 10 on the Questionnaire 1 9 Not compatible to Very compatible

PAGE 117

117 Table 3 9 Variables operationalized from Student Essay. Two types of variables were derived from the Student Essay. This table outlines the variables and how they were operationalized. Variable Type Operationalized from themes: qualities of successful projects Expert Qualitative written responses to questions one and two on Questionnaire themes: qualities of unsuccessful projects Expert Qualitative written r esponses to questions three and four Questionnaire

PAGE 118

118 Relative degree of compatibility Expert generated variables Figure 3 2 Structure and relationship of study variables. Number of study question s and associated student derived quantitative variable s are set against r elative degree of compatibility variables derived from responses. Some expert generated variables are generated through averages; included variables are indicated with dashed line RQ1 Pre design phase interest in historic preservation RQ2 Pre design interest in the assigned studio project RQ3 possessing incoming knowledge of the studio RQ4 CNS score RQ5 Pre Design CHBS score RQ6 Post Design CHBS score RQ8 Influence of p re d esign phase studio activities RQ9 Total influence of p re d esign phase studio activities RQ12 Final student interest in the assigned studio project RQ13 Student enjoyment of project RQ14 Self evaluation of design solution Social context compatibility (SC) Architectural historical context compatibility (CAH) Mean architectural context compatibility (CAM) Masses & volumes (CA1) Surface forms, roofs & walls (CA2) Materials & colors (CA7) Windows and views (CA3) Entrances & Interior circulation (CA4) Proportion & scale (CA5) Ornamentation (CA6) A rchitectural context compatibility Number of study question s & associated student generated variables Holistic compatibility (CH) Mean compatibility (CM)

PAGE 119

119 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS This study used eight original and one existing instrument to assess the relative compatibility of student design outcomes, gather data on multiple factors potentially correlated to relative compatibility and explore new themes of interest to students and evaluators. Chapter 4 presents the findings from the eighteen study questions outlined in Chapter 3 Quantitative analysis outcomes are discussed below; tables of findings are in Appendix J. Qualitative data are organized into recurrent themes and discusse d below. Findings suggest which personal qualities, feelings and studio activities relate to interior design compatibility of proposed renovations to a historic structure Overall, the findings indicate that compatibility is a design challenge important to many students and evaluators, warranting studio support and further study. Study Questions Pre Design Phase Interest i n Historic Preservation RQ1 How does a pre design phase interest in historic preservation correlate with the relative compatibi lity of design outcomes? This study found no significant correlations between pre design phase interest in historic preservation and higher or lower relative compatibility of design outcomes. This finding was unexpected, the literature discussed in Chapter 2 suggested that those with a greater interest in something, in this case preservation, should be more sensitive to prevalent issues, such as creating relatively more compatible designs. This finding may create designs that experts find compatible. With practice and experience, these

PAGE 120

120 interested students may develop the ability to create relatively more compa tible designs. S ee Table J 1 in Appendix J for calculations. Pre Design Interest in t he Assigned Studio Project RQ2 How does a pre design phase interest in the assigned studio project correlate with the relative compatibility of design outcomes? This study found no significant correlations between pre design phase interest in the assigned studio project and higher or lower relative compatibility of design outcomes. Interest in the studio project may support students in other ways; further explora tory studies are needed. See Table J 2 in Appendix J for calculations. Belief o f Having Prior Knowledge of t Subject Matter RQ3 d subject matter correlate with the relative compatibility of design outcomes? relativ e compatibility of design outcomes. This finding was surprising. Previous literature suggests that students with knowledge of a subject area should be able to do more advanced work. Like the findings for RQ1, this finding may be the result of a difference assessments and their ability to apply knowledge through designs judged by experts. See Table J 3 in Appendix J for calculations. C onnectedness to Nature Sc ale RQ4 with the relative compatibil ity of design outcomes?

PAGE 121

121 This study found no significant correlations between mean CNS score and higher or lower relative compatibility of design outcomes Mean CNS scores were consistent with Frantz ity students. See Table J 4 in Appendix J for calculations. Pre design C onnectedness to Historic Buildings S cale (CHNS) RQ5 design CHBS score correlate with the relative compatibility of design outcomes? This study found no signifi cant correlations between pre design CHBS score and higher or lower relative compatibility of design outcomes. See Table J 5 in Appendix J for calculations. Post d esign CHBS RQ6 design CHBS score correlate with the relative compatibility of design outcomes? This study found no significant correlations between p ost design CHBS score and higher or lower relative compatibility of design outcomes. See Table J 6 in Appendix J for calculations. This result was not supported by the literature discussed in Chapter 2, which suggested that sense of connectedness would be positively correlated with an increase a flaw in the testing instrument. Th is was the first administration of the CHBS to a small sample size ; redevelopment and multiple retesting may generate different results in future studies. The lack of significant positive correlation with the CHBS may reflect the fi ndings of Whitmarsh (20 09). In his study of the climate change mitigating actions taken by

PAGE 122

122 those who wanted to help the environment, Whitmarsh found that ignorance of recommended behaviors to limit waste and emissions led participants to make lifestyle choices that were increasi ng their negative impact on the environment. Similarly, the students participating in this research may have wanted to create relatively more compatible designs, but their lack of understanding of the impact of their design decisions and how to design comp atibility may have led to the asymmetry of their in Whitmarsh (2009), students with higher CHBS scores may create relatively more compatible designs once they have more experience and accurate knowledge about how to design compatibly in a rehabilitation project. Open Ended Pre design Activity t hat Most Influenced Concept RQ7 In their open ended responses, which pre design phase activities did students say most influe nced their concept? On their Reflections on Your Pre design Concept Survey completed after students submitted a set of three concept boards to their instructors and before students began work on their final design solutions, students listed the pre desig n activities that most influenced their concept. At this point in their studio processes, fourteen students found the site visit and tour influential in their concept development, nine students found the morphological analysis influential, seven students f ound their independent research influential, and five students found the benchmarking research, in which students examined previous Frank Lloyd Wright buildings, influential. Results are shown in Table 4 1. 92 percent of respondents listed multiple signifi cant influences. Students listed their site visit and tour, morphological analysis and research. All listed influences were counted equally.

PAGE 123

123 Influence of Pre d esign Phase Studio Activities RQ8 How does the choice of pre design phase activities that students ranked as most influential correlate with the relative compatibility of design outcomes? Pre d esign phase activity: A nalysis o f Frank Lloyd W concepts Finding the concepts for the Florida Southern college campus influential was positively correlated with two measures of compatibility. Architectural ornamentation of architectural context compatibility 7 in Appendix J for calculations. In their open ended responses, discussed later in Chapter 4, students shared how they used Frank Lloyd inform their own design ideas. It is significant that students connected on an abstract, theoretical level to the through abstract learning about design concepts and theories. Pre d esign phase activity: C haracter defining features research This study found no significant correlations with finding the character defining features research pre design phase activity influential in the des ign decision making process. This finding was particularly surprising. Historic preservation guidelines rely on sharing information about character defining features. This exploratory finding suggests that understanding the design concepts, rather than the physical parameters of a design, supports students more as they create compatible design outcomes. See Table J 8 in Appendix J for calculations.

PAGE 124

124 Pre design phase activity: Building user perceptions and behavior research This study found no correlations wi th finding the building user perceptions and behavior research pre design phase activity influential in the design decision making process. See Table J 9 in Appendix J for calculations. Pre design phase activity: Code compliance and ADA research This study found no significant correlations between finding code compliance and ADA research an influential pre design phase activity and higher or lower relative compatibility of design outcomes. See Table J 10 in Appendix J for calculations. Pre design phase acti vity: LEED research This study found no significant correlation between finding LEED research an influential pre design phase activity and higher or lower relative compatibility of design outcomes. LEED research involved learning current LEED standards and exploring how they could be applied to the building. See Table J 11 in Appendix J for calculations. Pre design phase activity: Morphological analysis This study found no significant correlation between finding the morphological analysis pre design phase a ctivity influential in the design decision making process and higher or lower relative compatibility of design outcomes. See Table J 12 in Appendix J for calculations. Pre design phase activity: Concept and branding development This study found no signific ant correlation between finding the concept and branding development pre design phase activity influential in the design decision making process and higher or lower relative compatibility of design outcomes. See Table J 13 in Appendix J for calculations.

PAGE 125

125 P re design phase activity: Midpoint presentation This study found no significant correlations between finding the midpoint presentation an influential pre design phase activity and higher or lower relative compatibility of design outcomes. See Table J 14 in Appendix J for calculations. The course instructors participating in this research designed and implemented the pre design phase studio activities. Helping students develop greater relatively and pre design phase activities covered a range of to pics. A concepts had a significant positive correlation with greater compatibility. Students found their pre design phase activities influential, as shown in Table 4 2. Instructors seeking to research activities on analyzing the original design intention. Further studio studies should be conducted to develop new activiti es that could guide students toward a relatively greater compatible design solution. Total Influence of Pre d esign Phase Studio Activities RQ9 How does crediting pre design phase activities choice with influencing design decisions correlate with the relative compatibility of design outcomes? This study found no significant correlations between crediting pre design phase activities with influencing design decisions and higher or lower relative compatibility of design outcomes. See Table J 15 i n Appendix J for calculations. Pre design Activity t hat Most Influenced Design Decisions RQ10 Which pre design activities did students believe most influenced their design decisions?

PAGE 126

126 design pha se activities to rate on a scale of one to nine how influential each pre design phase activity was in their design development process. Table 4 2 ranks the eight pre design activities out of a most influential. Next, code compliance and ADA research (mean = 7.18) and morp hological analysis (mean = 7.09) were ranked as highly influential. Character defining features research (mean = 6.91), building user perceptions and behavior research (mean = 7.09), and LEED research (mean = 6.5) were influential. The midpoint presentatio n at Florida Southern College (mean = 4.05) was ranked as less influential in the design decision making process. Open Ended Pre design Phase Activity t hat Most Influenced Design Decisions RQ11 In their open ended responses, which pre design activities did students believe most influenced their design decisions? The Student Essay, Post test of Student Interest, and SODDIS were administered after students completed their design project solutions. Each of these instruments included open ended questions and students discussed the pre design activities that most influenced their final design solutions in these three instruments. Table 4 3 outlines the pre design phase activities that students found most influential; many students discussed multiple activities and all were counted equally. Findings from ended responses vary slightly with scaled answers from the SODDIS. he highest rating:

PAGE 127

127 influential. Fourteen students found the morphological analysis influential. Nine students listed the character defining features analysis as influenti al. Eight found their design concept influential in their design decision making process. Between six and four students found the ADA and other code requirements, building program and new sits influential in their design decision making. Students scored answers on the SODDIS varied from the activities they discussed in their open ended questions. Students acknowledge that many studio activities were influential in the design decision makin g processes. As they developed their design concepts, students found their site visits and the building morphological analysis most influential. After completing their design project outcomes, students generally considered the Frank Lloyd Wright design con cept analysis, morphological analysis, concept development and ADA and code compliance issues most influential in their design decision making. Student Self reported Assessments Final student interest in the assigned studio project : RQ12 How does final st udent interest in the assigned studio project correlate with the relative compatibility of design outcomes? This study found no significant correlations between final student interest in the assigned studio project and higher or lower relative compatibilit y of design outcomes. See Table J 16 in Appendix J for calculations. Student enjoyment of project : RQ13 How does student enjoyment of project correlate with the relative compatibility of design outcomes?

PAGE 128

128 This study found no significant correlations between student enjoyment of project and higher or lower relative compatibility See Table J 17 in Appendix J for calculations. Student enjoyment of project is a complex variable. Student comments to the open ended follow up to question one on the Post test of Student Interest suggested that 1) project selection and program parameters, 2) classroom experience, and 3) feeling of success with the final design outcome and presentation all contributed to enjoyment of project. Student s completed the Post test of Student Interest before receiving their grades. Being pleased with design solution : RQ14 How does being pleased with their design solution correlate with the relative compatibility of design outcomes? This study fou nd that being pleased with design solution positively correlated with the relative compatibility of design outcomes along one compatibility measure Surface 18 in Appendi x J for calculations. Being pleased or feeling successful with their design solution was important to students. It correlated positively with an increase in the relative compatibility of design outcomes. Some students provided explanations for why they fel t pleased. These included feeling successful with the total design outcome, implementation of media and graphics on final presentations, use of their concept, and ability to make a difference for historic buildings and building users through their new desi gn and its code compliance. In their written comments, students who were relatively more pleased with their design solution seemed engaged with the process and happy with their product. Helping students to engage in studio processes, and to develop design solutions that they are

PAGE 129

1 29 pleased with may also help them create more compatible design outcomes. Students completed the Post test of Student Interest before receiving their grades, so their feelings reflect their assessment of their project and are not infl uenced by their Student understanding of compatibility : RQ15 In what ways do students discuss compatibility in their open ended responses? In their answers on the Reflections on Your Pre design Concept, Student Essay, Post test of Student Interest and SODDIS, students discussed their design decision making processes, their goals for their projects, and how they tried to implement those goals. Fifteen students addressed the concept of compatibility, although they did not use the word Through their explanations, students reveal their understanding of the concept of compatibility and their personal struggles to design compatibility. The following quotes from student responses are discussed below to illustrate how participating students understood compatibility. (To ensure reader clarity, regardless of gender, all students are referred to with feminine pronouns where necessary in the following discussion.) gral compatibility and wants to achieve it in her final design outcome. Another student descr ibed her thought process as she attempted to design compatibility anything to an original Frank Lloyd Wright design? Then also too, if I can change it, do I attempt to blend with the original, or stand apart from it? I decided to attempt t o walk the

PAGE 130

130 student wanted to create a compatible design, but was unsure of how to do so and m ight have been unaware of how to best use precedents and guidelines to aid th e design process. Her lack of clear awareness of how to design compatibility and what guidelines to use suggests a place for improvement: if students can develop a clearer understanding of what a compatible design is and how they are developed, design ing c ompatibility can be facilitated designing while trying to maintain/reestablish original design intent of a historically co mpatibility ; she wanted to contribute something to the space while appreciating that the historic buildings should be part of her new design. Four student excerpts discuss maintaining Frank Lloyd that the main thing she ping students develop their rehabilitations, but without rigorous application to architectural features, evaluators may not see compatibility in the final design outcome. comp goal

PAGE 131

131 Some students seem ed to understand compatible designing as modernization or updating. Th e historic building contributes its history, design or structure; their design brings it into the modern era. Students focused on different aspects of the historic brought a focusing on the design ideas and concepts of the original architect and pairing that with wh ile updating their features awareness of architectural building features as a medium for modernization. Other design phase studio activities addressed design process. Sixty three percent of students discussed their struggles and successes with learning to design compatibility. No one used the exact word, but explanations demonstrate some understanding of the concept. Based on student comments, the relative compatibility of future student pro jects may be increased by focusing pre design phase studio activities on developing a clear understanding of the concept of compatibility and how to apply it throughout the design process and to the final design outcome. Examples of compatible design solut ions and discussions of compatible

PAGE 132

132 they attempt to work with historic buildings and create new designs. Student generated themes : RQ16 What issues did students find signif icant and discuss in their open ended responses? Through their open ended responses, students shared their concerns, opinions, and ideas about historic buildings, their projects, their design efforts, and their studio environment. These qualitative data pr ended responses: a discussion of individual attempts to design compatibly concern s about the level of creativity they could express in an adaptive reuse project and conce rn s about the amount of technical knowledge needed to rehabilitate historic buildings. Table 4 4 summarizes themes students compatibly with their rehabilitation project buildin g was discussed above, under Question 15. From the data collected for this research, one significant trend emerged in design Concept, Student Essay, Post test of Student Interest and Student Opin ion of Design Decision Influences Survey (SODDIS): creativity. No survey instrument asked students directly about creativity, yet 58 percent discussed creativity concerns. This independent, repeated discussion of creativity suggests that creative design pr ocesses and solutions were significant to students. In the Reflections on Your Pre design Concept, four students, when asked to explain how pleased they were with their concept, justified their answers by explaining why their concept was creative. When com pleting the Post test of Student Interest, only one student felt her design solution was creative.

PAGE 133

133 In their written responses, students repeated that creativity in design concept, process and solution was important to them. Fourteen students discussed thei r struggles to be creative with their studio project. One student explained the weakness of Instructors should help students create projects they are pleased with. This study found that being pleased with the design solution correlate d to greater relative compatibility. may be important in order to increase the relative compatibility of student outcomes. Working creatively can be enjoyable (Nakam ura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009) when students feel they can engage their projects and their creativity, in a compatible solution. Three students struggled to go beyond the framework established by iconic architect Frank Students also felt limited by the project becaus e it was a rehabilitation of a historic come up with something original bec ause we are so concerned with existing features. test of Student Interest, a student explains

PAGE 134

134 e drawn too updating and integrating a modern intervention engagement with t rehabilitation work should involve updating and integrating. If future students understood that they should be doing contemporary, even creative, designs, they may not lose interest in historic preservation work. Studio instructors set the project program. Two students belie ved that the program hard to be motivated because at times I felt like all I could do is place furniture and the program was already pre greater flexibility might have helped them express their design ideas and engage their projects more fully With greater engagement, they might be more creativ e, enjoy the design process, and ultimately develop relatively compatible designs. Only one student stated that her design outcome was creative. In her Student to orig was important to many of the students participating in this research. Creativity in future preservation studios may be increased by using the studio classroom to increase student understanding of compatibility and show students creative and contemporary

PAGE 135

135 design solutions in historic rehabilitation design work. A dynamic studio environment and a flexible program may facilitate student engagement and ability to develop creati ve solutions. By working creatively, students may feel more engaged and pleased with their design processes and solutions (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009). Working creatively helps students enjoy the design process, potentially leading them to develop r elatively more compatible design outcomes and to be willing to design for historic buildings again. Working on historic buildings with less significant designers may also help students feel more comfortable and able to engage the historic building and deve lop compatible design s Generated Themes: Q ualities o f Successful Projects RQ17 ite as contributing to making a student project relatively more successful? Through their open Summary Questionnaire, Questionnaire asked each evaluator to note the strongest and weakest design project solutions and explain why those pr ojects were selected. Evaluato r s who came from architecture and interior design, and professional and academic backgrounds, were remarkably consistent in their selection of projects and explanations. Inter rater reliability was 94.8%. Three projects evaluators found successful are sho wn in Appendix N, along with three moderately successful projects, and three unsuccessful projects. Chapter 5 discusses the nine projects shown in Appendix N. Three evaluators did not list specific projects, but all noted project qualities. Having students address the context of the orig inal architecture was evaluator s most significant criterion for a successf ul project. Secondly, evaluator s responded positively to projects they assessed

PAGE 136

136 as well presented, with detailed drawings showing specific materials, finishes and furnishings arranged within a clear presentation layout. Three evaluators, all architects, also cited a fuller development of three dimensional space as their reason for finding some projects more successful. Figures 4 5 and 4 6 organize the common themes Generated Themes: Qualities of Less Successful Projects RQ18 ite as contributing to making a student project relatively less successful? In their open less successful. As suggested by Table 4 5, the context of the original architecture remained a s ignificant issue in evaluator discussions. Five evaluators noted that less successful projects ignored the context of the existing architecture. Following their thoughts on successful projects, another five evaluators also wrote that less successful proj ects looked incomplete and needed both design and presentation development. They could not distinguish finish type, texture and color. Three evaluators critiqued projects for unclear finishes they could not tell what the intended finish was and inappropr iate furnishings. While they were completing their evaluations, four evaluators told the researcher that less successful computer rendered perspective drawings were too monotonous, slick and smooth. In these types of drawings, they could not judge the appr opriateness of materials. Preceding their written comments, three evaluators told the researcher less successful projects had inappropriate furnishing choices. Specifically, evaluators said that students selected residential grade products for a commercial space.

PAGE 137

137 consistent in their explanations of why student projects were successful or unsuccessful; see Figures 4 5 and 4 6. Addressing the context of the architecture was the pri mary reason a project was successful; ignoring the architectural context was the primary reason a project was listed as unsuccessful. Since evaluators had just finished Questionnai res, this theme may be the result of both what evaluators wanted to see and what they had been asked to examine on each student project. Since most evaluators had historic preservation interest and experience, this theme also reflects their professional pr actice and interests. The second most common reason evaluators gave f or finding a project successful or unsuccessful was its presentation quality and apparent level of detail and completion. Evaluators judged projects with more detailed interiors and well laid out presentation boards more favorability. Less successful projects were cited for lack of development. In their written comments, students discussed this issue Four students complained that the project was too large for one person; two others wante d to go into greater detail in their designs, but said they ran out of time. During a telephone interview, the primary instructor suggested that the project was too large for the students and giving each student one building, instead of two, would have all owed them to create more detailed design solutions in the allotted time. Appropriate project scope can be corrected in future studio situations by giving students smaller projects and/or increasing the allotted time for design work.

PAGE 138

138 Three evaluators, all a rchitects, found some projects successful because of a fuller development of three dimensional space, as shown in perspective drawings. The importance and difficulty of developing three written comments: on their Po st test of Student Interest, three students explained that the project was challenging or limiting because the buildings had low ceilings. Studio activities that encourage students to fully engage their project spaces should be developed to address this is sue. More time to develop a design, work on the project, and modeling, may help more students successfully use three dimensional space in their final design outcomes. Selecting appropriate finishes and furnishings is an important part of an interior design or unclear finishes and furnishings as why a project was relatively less successful. Another evaluator mentioned this issue to the researcher, but did not write it down. Base result of poor rendering and a lack of sample materials on project presentations. Inappropriate furnishings could be addressed in future studio projects by allowing greater tim e for students to select furnishings and discuss proposed selections with their studio instructors. Evaluators said they critiqued projects primarily for architectural compatibility. Evaluators used other criteria as well. They specifically mentioned: clea r and successful use of media, full engagement of three dimensional space, detailed design solutions, and selection and labeling of appropriate finishes and furnishings. The first issue, compatibility, is the primary concern of this study and suggestions f or increasing the

PAGE 139

139 relative compatibility of student design outcomes are discussed in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5. The other issues will continue to challenge interior design students and studio instructors. With practice and time for development, students shou ld continue to improve and create clearer, more appropriate project solutions. Summary Compatibility is a design goal for working with historic structures. Compatibility design so that building users may experience the best of the past and the present. Assessing the relative compatibility of student project outcomes and correlating relative compatibility with multiple student generated measures was the primary focus of thi s study. Quantitative results indicated that being pleased with the design solution and decision making process positively correlated with increased relative compatibi lity of student project outcomes. Qualitative analysis of both students and evaluators written responses provided information on their opinions, thought processes and what they find significant in desi gn processes and products. Chapter 4 discussed significant results and themes, provided explanations for results, and suggested how results could be student design outcomes in future historic preservation and rehabi litation projects

PAGE 140

140 Table 4 1. Pre design activities that students found most helpful while developing their Your Pre design Concept Survey, which was completed shortly after studen ts submitted a set of three concept boards and before they began design work. design activities that most influenced concept Frequency n=24 Site visit and tour 58 percent n=14 Morphological analysis 38 percent n=9 Own research (examples given: reading about Frank Lloyd Wright, looking at images online) 29 percent n=7 Benchmark research 20 percent n=5

PAGE 141

141 Table 4 2. Rankings the eight pre score of degree of design decision influ ence. Ranking Pre design activity Mean 1 Concept and branding development 8 2 concepts 7.98 3 Code compliance and ADA research 7.18 4 Morphological analysis 7.09 5 Character defining features research 6.91 6 Building user perceptions and behavior research 6.68 7 LEED research 6.5 8 Midpoint presentation 4.05

PAGE 142

142 Table 4 3. Pre design activities that students found most influential on their final design solutions. Pre design activities that most influenced design solution Frequency n=24 67 percent n= 16 Morphological analysis 58 percent n= 14 Character defining features analysis 37 percent n= 9 Own design concept 33 percent n= 8 ADA and other code requirements 25 percent n= 6 Building program and new function 20 percent n= 5 17 percent n=4 LEED criteria 17 percent n= 4 Site visits 17 percent n= 4 These tests of Student Interest, and Student Opinion of Design Decision Influences Surveys. These three instruments were completed after students finished developing t heir interior design solutions.

PAGE 143

143 Table 4 4. M and how many students discussed each theme Self reported views from open ended responses Frequency n=24 Discussed their efforts to work compatibly* with the building 63 percent n= 15 Concerned that the project did not allow them to be creative 58 percent n= 14 Concerned that the amount of technical, systems, and codes knowledge specially required when working with historic buildings was too great 29 percent n= 7 Believed they had a creative concept 17 percent n= 4 Believed they had a creative solution 4 percent n= 1 *No student used the word compatibility or compatible; however, in their explanations of their design eff orts, they defined the concept. Table 4 5. themes explaining the qualities of more successful student project outcomes. Evaluator s Frequency n=8 Addressing the context of the original architecture 100 percent n= 8 Detailed presentation, with clear graphics, finishes, and furnishings 63 percent n= 5 Fuller development of three dimensional space 38 percent n= 3

PAGE 144

144 Table 4 6. outcomes. s themes: What makes a student project relatively less successful Frequency n=8 Ignoring the context of the original architecture 63 percent n= 5 Incomplete design with lack of development 63 percent n= 5 Unclear finishes and poor choice of furnishings 38 percent n= 3

PAGE 145

145 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS This case study research followed the course of a single adaptive reuse senior studio project. This was an exploratory study, with a small sample size. This study used qualitative and quantitative methods to discover, explore and raise further questions regarding the nature of student learning and design. The qualitative findings f rom this study are particularly rich, allowing students to speak out in their own words These data provide significant new insights into these students and raise new questions on how to support student designers. Students prepared design rehabilitations for two historic b uilding on the Florida Southern College campus, Buckner (1942 1946) and Ordway (1 950 1952). Originally the Roux L i brary (Buckner) and Industrial A rts building (Ordway), students design task was to develop these campus buildings into new classroom spaces a nd a conference center, complete with hotel rooms in Ordway. As part of the largest single collection of Frank Lloyd Wright buildings, the Florida Southern campus rehabilitation project was both a unique opportunity and a worthy challenge for participating interior design students. The campus is on the National Register of Historic Places and is famous for its original Wright designs. project work began with a series of visits to the campus and pre design phase research exercise s Student s worked in groups on these exercises and shared their findings with the class. As students worked individually toward concept development and design, engaging both the ideas and architectural expression of Buckner and Ordway became increasingly important. Addition ally, the instructor

PAGE 146

146 stressed the importance of updating the buildings and making them compliant with current ADAAG access and safety code guidelines. Frank Lloyd Wright envisioned the Florida Southern campus unfolding under the sun. Geometric ray, wave an d circular forms help the campus structures move and spread across the landscape. With its strong geometric design and concept, it is not own creativity, as discussed in Chapter 4. Nine example student projects, reproduced in Appendix N, are discussed below. Reproduced projects were selected from among Evaluators found the first three successful, and the second three moderately successf ul. Evaluators found the final three projects very weak. Table N 1 shows the compatibility standard deviation and range. With a class mean of 6.12 out of a possible nine, class projects were generally more compatible than not. Individual compatibility means are listed with each student project presentation board in Appendix N. Example Student Projects The student projects shown in Figures N 7 through N 12 were all listed as successful projects by at least t hree evaluators. The student project shown in Figures N 7 and N 8 was applauded for the detailed and thoroughness of the design and compatibility toward the existing architecture. This project engages the three dimensional spaces with elaborate ceiling geo metric forms and cutaways forming skylights. These features help give the space a similar architectural presence to explain her design thinking processes. Explanatory proces s media may have helped the

PAGE 147

147 evaluators understand her design and appreciate its level of development. Three evaluators called this the best project. Figures N 9 and N 10 illustrate a second successful student project. This presentation includes text and a few clear diagrams to explain the design intent. The six supporting perspective rendering illustrate the interior spaces. The grey flooring material is a little monotonous, but the perspectives show that the habitable space is rich in architectural details design has a clear architectural order and sense of control within interior spaces. This project had the highest mean compatibility in the class. Figures N 11 and N 12 reproduce a third s uccessful student project. This design walls and ceilings, and the floor pattern plan delineate different spatial experiences and create moving and still interior environ ments. The perspectives are well rendered; carpet textures, floor changes and lighting conditions are clear. The presentation supports the st successfully articulate her vision to the evaluators. Figures N 13 through N 18 ill ustrate three projects the eval uators called out as moderately successful. The project in Figure N 13 has a clear architectural concept, a sun. Wave and ripple forms in the walls and ceilings create the three dimensional space. The design is clearly articulated and presented, combined with explanations, this probably helped the evaluators appreciate this design.

PAGE 148

148 Figures N 15 and N 16 illustrate a project that scored sli ghtly below the class Compared to previous projects, the three dimensional qualities of the spaces seem less developed note the flat ceiling in a perspective draw ing in Figure N 15. However, the use of red and a diamond motif may help create a unified design. The project in Figures N 17 and N 18 scored almost exactly at the class mean. This project exemplifies the typical, moderately successful solution. Some inter iors have developed three dimensional spaces with active ceiling and wall surfaces, while others are flat boxes. The floor plans are complete; however, some elements seem random and the design, especially the site plan, lacks the cohesion of more successfu l projects. Figures N 19 through N 23 show three projects evaluators listed as especially weak design solutions. The project in Figure N 19 was the lowest scoring project in the ans are not rendered, no materials are shown, and only one perspective of a minor space is find merit in this project. Evaluator comments were particularly negative and focused on the incompleteness of the design and poor quality of the presentation. The project shown in Figures N 20 and N 21 was judged a poorly thought out design, with poor choices of finishes and colors. Like other less successful projects, this one lacks a cohesive design concept clear articulation of the design goals, and interior architectural features and lighting to engage and activate interior spatial experiences. Too many surfaces are smooth and bare; the low saturation color palette does not offer enough contrast

PAGE 149

149 Figures N 22 and N 23 was scored slightly above the class average on compatibility; however, three evaluators listed it as a weak project. The poor color choices, specifically the flat yellow and teal, dominate the design and obscure other design elements. As a moderate to less successful project, this one has some interior articulation the suspended or recessed ceiling panels; however, these elements can not solely create a three architectural c oncepts. The nine student projects discussed above and shown in Appendix N were including the highest and lowest ranking projects. With a class mean of 6.12, projects were ge nerally judged somewhat compatible. Included examples capture the diversity of design solutions. Conclusions Historic preservation is the care, maintenance and preservation of the built environment, particularly buildings over fifty years old. Historic pre servation usually prese rves tangible cultural heritage; by doing so it provides a living record of the actions and choices of people through time. With the exception of a few national cultural landmarks, preserved historic buildings are not frozen in time. Historic buildings are part of the built environment and they continue to evolve with their communities. Historic buildings today are often a narrative of changing aesthetic preferences, building technologies and uses. Today, the Secretary of the Interio Rehabilitations recommend that designers working on the next transformation of a historic structure use compatibility as the overarching design goal.

PAGE 150

150 Compatibility is designing to combine the best of the past and the present. In a compatible design, noteworthy historic features are preserved and historic elements are distinct from the new design. Together both the historic and new design elements are synthesized to create one appropriate and pleasurable interior experience. Desi gning a compatible interior can be challenging. Designers must discover the significant historic elements, transform the building into a fully functional space for new clients and develop a creative, successful contemporary interior design solution that su pports the historic student designers develop compatible project solutions within a studio setting facilitating active discovery based learning. Experts in preser vation, arc hitecture and design evaluated students design solutions, expressing their applied knowledge. Associations report concerning the stages in the design process were identified in Chapter 4 Findings out lined there are discussed below The first section discusses findings related to compatibility and designing for historic structures. The following subsections discuss findings regarding studio learning and sense of connectedness (CNS). Compatibility and Historic P reservation Students discussed their understanding of compatibility in their written responses. No student used the word compatibility, but 63 percent of students discussed issues related to compatibility, including sensitivity and their persona l techniques to design within the historic context. M any wanted to cr eate compatible interiors, but struggled with details of implementation. Meneely (2010, 26) found that relatively fewer interior design students prefer to use critical, analytical or logi cal thought processes more than intuitive thought processes. Turning an emotional sense of connection to the historic

PAGE 151

151 built environment and a nascent understanding of compatibility into a compatible design may have requi red more analytical thinking tha n st udents were comfortable with. Alternative studies with different types of structures or project guidelines should be Further studies, including both student and practicing designers, should be c onducted to assess interior designers level of knowledge about historic preservation practice including understanding of the concept of compatibility and how increasing understanding may clarify practice processes and affect design outcomes. For example interior design students could shadow professionals as they work on a historic preservation project, including meetings with client s and the local historic preservation district review board. Pre and post shadowing tests and interviews could examine exa ctly what students learned through a targeted practice experience and how or where they learned it. Application t o Historic Preservation Teaching a nd Practice Creating a compatible design solution in studio may be an ideal class projects for instructors wh o want their students to practice both creative and analytical de s ign thinking. Historic preserv ation projects are challenging because students must address design and preservation issues within a compromised structure. Interior design instructors may improve their teaching practice through guided pre design phase studio activities. Participating students in this study completed many pre design phase research activities as part of their studio work. Early in the design process, students found their site visits the most influential activity. After they finished their design morphological analysis and concept and branding development studio activities as the most inf luential. Indeed, most activities were ranked as influential to some degree.

PAGE 152

152 also had higher relative compatibility scores from evaluators The other seven pre design p hase research activities did not correlate to higher or lower relative compatibility scores. These findings suggest a potential area for design instructors to intervene. By emphasizing how compatibility plays a role in every aspect of design as well as the compatibility into thei r research and design processes that current CIDA standards, which re quire awareness of history and historical aesthetics, may be inadequate to prepare students for studio application and professional practice. Current students are preparing for a lifetime of practice with historic structures ( Futurevisions 2004). The stud ents participating in this study lacked awareness of fundamental historic preservation practice concepts. This was reflected in their vague understanding of compatibility, confusion about how to work compatibly during a rehabilitation project with a histor ic structure and frequent frustration with the design process. To prepare students for professional practice in historic buildings, CIDA needs to enc ourage 1) awareness of the tene ts of historic preservation, including the different types of preservation, and 2) understanding, demonstrated through practice, of how to work with a historic structure. Each student participating in this study had previously completed a year of history lecture courses. This experience did not fully prepare students for working w ith historic buildings. As discussed in Chapter 2, students need active studio learning to prepare them for design practice. Students participating in this study demonstrated their knowledge of design for historic preservation by practicing

PAGE 153

153 on a real world ended responses documented their struggles and suggest that they felt unprepared to practice compatible designing within a historic building. those writing and interpreting historic preservation literatures While conducting the literature review for this study, th is researcher did not find a definition of compatibility in any historic district guidelines. Guidelines either omitted examples of compatible construction or used simple drawings illustrating a single design detail. When working with designers (and the lay public), rather than fellow preservationists, historic preservation literature could provide clearer definitions of key terms and more complete examples of compa tible designs. With companion explanations and suggestions, such literature may demonstrate how designers can work compatibly on a historic rehabilitation. The evaluators who participated in this study reflected the knowledge and expertise found in histor ic preservation boards, which approve design work within historic districts. Historic preservation boards are charged with assessing the relative compatibility of proposed new designs. Feedback from the evaluators participating in this study demonstrated t hat compatibility was the most important quality evaluators architectural design and graphic merit. Designers and students trying to have projects approved should maint ain their design communication skills; creative production in presentation is necessary to gain approval Compatibility and C reativity Expressing their own creativity was a significant theme for students. 58 percent of students discussed the challenge of developing a creative solution. Most felt hampered

PAGE 154

154 by the qualities of the historic building or the new program for the building. Before beginning to develop their designs, four students believed they had a creative conc ept, yet only one student believed that her completed project solution was creative. for further examination. What do students think creativity is? Student comments suggest an understating of creativity that is more focused on novelty than appropriateness. Portillo (1996) found that interior design students were surprised to learn that creativity includes dramatic bursts of insight and a disciplined revision process. Because this studio project involved many technical issues such as making the new building design, students may not have realized how they could work creatively while addressing creativity, including exposure to the creative process (not just product), may help students understand how they can be creative in a historic rehabilitation proj ect (Portillo, 1996). Increasing awareness of historic preservation concepts and guidelines may also that they believed historic rehabilitation projects were restricti ve and focused on restoration. allow for great flexibility in design rehabilitation work (U.S. Department of the Interior, NPS, no date). If participating students had possessed g reater awareness of historic preservation concepts, they may have restrained themselves less and been confident that they had room for creative expression.

PAGE 155

155 More study is needed to understand how creativity and historic preservation projects align in proce ss and outcome, and how to help students design creatively within a historic structure. Understanding compatibility and seeing examples of successful compatible designs may help students imagine where their ideas and creativity can be integrated into a his toric building project. Future study, class content and literature should be developed to demonstrate where and how historic preservation designs and designers c an be creative. Future research should also examine how developing student understanding of bot h compatibility and creative practice may support an increase in the relative compatibility of student design outcomes. Students may be more satisfied that they have expressed their own creativity if they understand that 1) compatible rehabilitation design ing is not restoration (U.S. Department of the Interior, NPS, no date), 2) the creative process includes analytical thinking, redesign and hard work (Portillo, 1996), and 3) creative design solutions are novel and appropriate (Hennessey & Amabile, 1988). D eveloping educational materials showing compatible design products and discussing the creative process of creating a compatible design solution may help students understand both what they are trying to achieve and how they will achieve it. Summary This st udy is significant because it adds to the body of knowledge on design processes and compatibility outcomes in interior design education This study expands our understanding of what personal, process and outcome factors correlate to relatively more or less compatible project outcome evaluations Preservationists at the local, state and national level develop and update guidelines and review processes to help designers develop compatible design outcomes for historic buildings. This study can aid

PAGE 156

156 preservation ists and interior design educators by providing preliminary data on what qualities and experiences correlate with relatively more compatible design solutions. In Chapter 2, the researcher used preservation literature to develop a preliminary framework sugg esting which qualities, attributes and knowledge may be needed by a student interior designer for the production of relatively more compatible design outcome. Figure 2 1 illustrates how the literature review informed these concepts. Figure 5 1 is based upo n the broader Figure 2 1 ; however, it lists specific findings from criteria, listed in the box on the far right, were discussed above. The content of the other leading boxes will be discussed below. Figure 5 2 supplements Figure 5 1. Figure 5 2 illustrates which qualities were correlated with relatively less compatible design outcomes. These qualities are significant. Students who struggled with their design process, appeared to ignore the architectural context and presented their design solution poorly were ass ess ed as having relatively knowledge and design abilities, they may create better and more compatible design solutions. Recommendations : Awareness have students gain familiarity with the project site and historic Understand/Understanding increase student understanding o f creativity, compatibility and recommended historic preservation practice Apply/Ability/Able let students apply their developing skills by working with a somewhat flexible program and less significant architect.

PAGE 157

157 Studio Learning This study was conduct ed within an active, studio learning environment. Students completed a complex, real world problem requiring a multifaceted solution. project development. Students completed s urveys and open ended questionnaires throughout the pre design process. Figure 5 3 illustrates the specific studio activities and student feelings that positively correlated with a relatively higher compatible design evaluation The pre design phase resear ch activity of design concepts correlated with relatively higher compatible design evaluations Additionally, students who were pleased with their solutions created projects that were scored higher for compatibility Stud ents completed their self assessments before receiving their grades. It is significant to note that students and evaluators concurred in their assessments of student projects; pleased students had design solutions that evaluators found compatible. These findings, and those illust rated in Figure 5 4, which show the pre design phase studio assignments and feelings that correlated with relatively less compatible design outcomes, are significant for interior design educators trying to develop a studio that su pports students as they create compatible design solutions. Applications f or Studio Instructors This study found that prior knowledge and interest do not correlate to relatively higher compatibility of design outcome, but that being pleased with the design solution i.e. finding your own solution successful, w as correlated with higher relative compatibility scores. This finding should be encouraging for instructors and practitioners. Senior students, soon to be entry level design employees, evaluate their

PAGE 158

158 w not be fully developed, but in this study, their judgment reflects that of advanced practitioners. These findings are also significant because they underscore that what studen ts brought to the studio was less important than the product they created there As shown in Figure 5 3 and 5 4 and discussed in Chapter 4 students found the instructor generated pre design phase research activities influential. Which specific activities students found most influential were correlated with higher or lower scores on was correlated with greater compatibility. Why some activities were correlated with greater compatibi lity, while others had no positive or negative correlations is difficult to explain. In particular, character defining features research is a standard preservation practice; its lack of association with relatively higher compatible outcomes is extremely su rprising. character defining features, this finding should be further investigated. It may be an anomaly of this study, but more inquiry is needed. Further studies sh ould first examine whether this finding is related to experience; for example, do experienced practitioners use character defining features in their design work, and if so, how compatible are their outcomes? Practice, both professional and practice based, may help students create projects judged relatively more compatible in the future. The students participating in this study were learning to de sign a historic rehabilitation; this was their first try. After this and future experiences, they should be bette r able to tackle the challenges of such a project including issues of compatibility. Student comments from their open ended responses indicate that this was a challenging design project. Their compatibility

PAGE 159

159 discussions, found in Chapter 4 illustrate thei r struggles. No students mentioned their lecture based history classes on any data collection instruments. When students used research and analysis, it was their recent, targeted research done within the studio context. That students did not knowingly conn ect their history and studio learning suggests, with the literature discussed in Chapter 2 that students do need an applied, active learning studio practice experience to help prepare them for working with historic buildings. Further studies could examine and compare the outcomes of students completing multiple historic preservation projects versus those completing just one. Additional studies could compare the work of more or less experienced designers. Such studies could ascertain whether or not and to wh at extent practice on historic preservation projects improves design outcomes, and how design work processes change overtime. Summary This study was conducted in one classroom with twenty four participating students. Future studies should work with severa l programs more students and a wider variety of project buildings and sites. This study presented some promising results. First, it found that what students bring to the classroom, such as prior knowledge and incoming interest and sense of connectedness t o the historic built environment, was less related to the compatibility of their final design solutions than the experiences they had in studio while working on their projects. Interior design educators can use this finding to justify focusing on studio ex periences and processes, over which educators have some control. The strong correlations between several of the studio experiences and compatibility scores suggests that educators should continue working to develop projects and a studio

PAGE 160

160 environment that su pports key learning experiences as students create compatible interior design solutions. Future research should be conducted to examine which studio practices, policies and project programs facilitate the consistent development of compatible interior desig n solutions. Studio activities assessed in this study that were correlated with a decrease in the relative compatibility of student outcomes are listed in Figure 5 4. These activities should be redeveloped to help the students who found these activities i nfluential create relatively more compatible design solutions. Students should learn to use their research to positively integrate compatibility into all aspects of their designs For example, integrating new ADA accessibility guidelines could be presented as an aesthetic, compatibility challenge, not just a code challenge. Recommendations : Awareness help students use their awareness of the quality of their own work to gauge and push themselves. Understand/Understanding increase student understanding of and level of comfort with technical issues before they begin a rehabilitation project. Apply/Ability/Able have students apply their developing skills through repeated practice. Sense of Connectedness This study found no correlations between any type of sense of connectedness and Pre or post design phase sense of emotional connection to the historic built environment did not correlate with more compatible design outcomes, suggesting t hat students may be struggling to use their feelings to make analytical design decisions or they may not understand how and why they should design compatibly Further study and testing is needed to understand this situation. For

PAGE 161

161 example, interviews and des k critiques throughout the design process, in addition to sense of connection to the historic built environment and how that emotion may or may not be applied. Interviews with practicing designers specializing in historic preservation projects could be conducted to establish a benchmark of whether a sense of connectedness to the historic built environment exists and how it is used in practice. The literature discussed in Ch apter 2 to provide a basis for the possibility of sense of connectedness to the historic built environment was primarily based on research with historic building owners, users and neighbors. Like these groups, designers have a stake in their projects, but their different relationship may be affecting what emotions they develop toward a project site and how those emotions are utilized in design practice. The lack of correlation between greater sense of connectedness to the historic built environment and grea ter relative compatibility of student design outcomes was surprising. This finding may be a factor of the small sample size, twenty four students. This suggests that the CHBS may need to be redeveloped and retested and/or students who feel connected to the historic built environment m ay not know how to compatibly design for the historic built environment. Additional practice with historic buildings and greater understanding of compatibility and historic preservation may increase both ection to the historic built environment and their ability to design compatibly in that environment. Further study is needed to explore how interior design students with an emotional sense of connectedness to the historic built environment use, or do not u se, their emotions to make design decisions.

PAGE 162

162 Conclusions In conclusion, creating compatible interior design solutions within existing historically significant structures is a relative goal that interior design students, educators, and practitioners can co ntinue to improve upon. As reaffirmed by the expert evaluators participating in this study, responding to the context of the existing architecture is an important design goal for any interior design project. Compatibility is how interior designers respond to context within a historic building. Like sustainability or universal design, compatibility may need to become an overarching goal that is integrated into the design process and integral to every design decision. This may help student designers learn to see how compatibility can serve people by creating a holistic interior design solution that combines the best of the past and the present. were correlated to the relative compatib ility of their design outcomes. It also concluded that students are interested in creating compatible design solutions, but they need help understanding the compatible design process and product. This study expanded the body of literature by exploring thos e factors that were related to developing a compatible design outcome. Previous preservation practice has focused on providing knowledge and information to support the development of compatible design solutions. This study contributed by examining how inte rest, emotions and design process experiences relate to the relative compatibility of interior design solutions. This study found that creating a relatively more compatible interior design solution as scored by experts, was related to a variety of process factors, many of which could be enhanced by design educators to help create a studio environment that supports the design of compatible interiors. This research and future studies can be used to target education

PAGE 163

163 and preservation efforts to assist designer s as they create compatible designs for historic buildings

PAGE 164

164 Figure 5 1. Framework based upon Figure 2 1 illustrating how student designers may create relatively more compatible design outcomes Figure 5 2. Framework based upon Figure 2 1 illustrating traits that correlated to lower their knowledge, working processes and feelings Student designer: Addressing the context of the original architecture Presenting detailed and clear graphics, finishes, and furnishings Designing w ith a fuller development of three dimensional space Student designer: Using the original concepts and design intentions Being pleased with own design solution Compatible design outcome Student designer: Ignoring the context of the original architecture Presenting an incomplete design lack ing development Selecting unclear /inappropriate finishes and furnishings Student designer failing to : Fully address compatibility in a functional solution Express own creativity Relativity less compatible design outcome

PAGE 165

165 Figure 5 3. Framework based on Figure 2 3 compatibility and learning theory combined to support relatively more compatible design outcomes Compatible design outcome Studio Projects Learning through research and practice by: concepts Studio Project Real world problem Student designer: Addressing the context of the original architecture Presenti ng detailed and clear graphics, finishes, and furnishings Designing w ith a fuller development of three dimensional space Student designer: Using the original concepts and design intentions Being pleased with own design solution

PAGE 166

166 Figure 5 4. Framework based on Figure 2 3 compatibility and learning theory combined to negatively correlate with relatively more compatible design outcomes Relatively less compatible design outcome Student designer: Ignoring the context of the original architectur e Presenting an incomplete design lack ing development Selecting unclear /inappropriate finishes and furnishings defining features Studio Projects Not l earning through research and practice by: Failing to apply knowledge derived from r esearch and analysis exercises to creating a compatible design solution Studio Project Real world problem Student designer failing to : Fully address compatibility in a functional solution Express own creativity

PAGE 167

167 APPENDIX A PRE TEST OF STUDENT INTEREST Student Code Number: Please rank your views or experience level for the following questions. You will not be graded on this assignment. Your Views_________________________________________________ How excited are you to be doing an interior design project set within a historic building? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not interested Very excited What is your overall level of interest in this specific project? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not interested Very excited What is your overall level o f interest in historic buildings? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not interested Very interested Do you have any experience with historic buildings? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not experienced Lots of experience Do you have any prior knowledge of this project site? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No knowledge Lots of knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No knowledge Lots of knowledge

PAGE 168

168 APPENDIX B CONNECTEDNESS TO NAT URE SCALE Student Code Number: Please answer each question based on the way you generally feel. You will not be graded on this assignment. 1. I often feel a sense of oneness with the natural world around me. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree 2. I think of th e natural world as a community to which I belong. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree 3. I recognize and appreciate the intelligence of other living organisms. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree 4. I often feel disconnected from nature. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree 5. When I think of my life, I imagine myself to be part of a larger cyclical process of living. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree 6. I often feel a kinship w ith plants and animals. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree 7. I feel as though I belong to the earth as equally as it belongs to me. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree 8. I have a deep understanding of how my actions af fect the natural world. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree 9. I often feel part of the web of life. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree f 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree 11. Like a tree can be part of a forest, I feel embedded within the broader natural world. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree 12. When I think of my place on Earth, I consider myself to be a top member of a hierarchy that exists in nature. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree

PAGE 169

169 13. I often feel like I am only a small part of the natural world around me, and that I am no more important than the grass on the ground or he birds in the trees. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree 14. My personal welfare is independent of the welfare of the natural world. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree

PAGE 170

170 APPENDIX C STUDENT MODIFIED CNS FOR THE HISTORIC BUI LT ENVIRONMENT: CONNECTEDNESS TO HIS TORIC BUILDINGS SCAL E Student Code Number: Please answer each question bas ed on the way you generally feel. You will not be graded on this assignment. Think of older or historic buildings, especially one that might have been built before 1960, in your environment. Please describe this building. Please answer each quest ion below based on the way you generally feel. 1. I often feel a sense of oneness with the older and historic buildings around me. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree 2. I think of the historic built environment as a community to which I belong. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree 3. I recognize and appreciate the design features of older and historic buildings. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree St rongly agree 4. I often feel disconnected from older and historic buildings. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree 5. When I think of my interior designs, I imagine myself to be part of a larger cyclical process of designing and redesigning. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree 6. I often feel a kinship with older and historic buildings. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree 7. I feel as though new buildings belong equally with older and historic buildings. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree 8. I have a deep understanding of how my interior designs may affect older and historic buildings. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree

PAGE 171

171 9. I often feel part of multiple generations of old er and historic buildings. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree 10. I feel that all buildings, older, historic, and new, together create a richer built environment. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree 11. Like a chair can be part of a dining room set, I feel that my designs can be embedded within the broader built environment, including older and historic buildings. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree 12. When I think of my future inte rior designs, place on Earth, I consider my designs to be naturally more important than older designs. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree 13. I often feel like my interior designs will be only a small part of the built environment around past or future. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree 14. Even if I am designing an interior for an older or historic building, my future interior designs will be independent of the older or historic buildings. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree

PAGE 172

172 APPENDIX D REFLECTIONS ON YOUR PRE DESIGN CONCEPT Student Code Number: Please rank your views for the following questions and explain your answers. Y ou will not be graded on this assignment. Feel free to use both sides of this page! Thanks How pleased are you with your design concept? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all pleased Somewhat Very pleased Explain Why? Reflecting on the 3 boards you submitted, what most influenced your concept? Consider: Benchmark research Site visit and tour Physical documentation (code analysis, LEED evaluation, character defining features identification, etc.) Building user observa tions and comments Morphological analysis Your own research (elaborate)

PAGE 173

173 APPENDIX E STUDENT OPINION OF D ESIGN DECISION INFLU ENCES Student Code Number: Please rank your views on how much each activity influenced your design decisions. You will not be grad ed on this assignment. Feel free to leave comments on the back! Thanks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No influence Somewhat Very influential Defining Features 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No influence Somewhat Very influential 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No influence Somewhat Very influential research on code compliance and ADA assessment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No influence Somewhat Very influential 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No influence Somewhat Very influential Your morphological analysis of the buildings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No influence Somewhat Very influential Developing your design concept and branding approach 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No influence Somewhat Very influential The midpoint presentation at Florida Southern College 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

PAGE 174

174 No influence Somewhat Very influential Review your answers to the questions above and select the three most influential activities 1 2 3 Briefly explain why these influenced yo ur design most:

PAGE 175

175 APPENDIX F STUDENT ESSAY INSTRU CTIONS Review your design decisions and processes throughout this project. What issues, ideas, or factors guided your design decision making and influenced your final design? What ideas guided you and helped you make design decisions or generate new ideas? What questions do you have now? Write a 750 word essay explaining what factors or issues influenced or guided your design processes and decisions.

PAGE 176

176 APPENDIX G POST TEST OF STUDENT INTE REST Student Code Num ber: Please rank your views for the following questions. You will not be graded on this assignment. Your Views_________________________________________________ How much did you enjoy this studio project? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No enjoyment Enjoyed Why? What is your overall level of interest in this specific project? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not interested Very interested Why? What is your overall level of interest in historic buildings? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not interested Very interested Why?

PAGE 177

177 Would you like to work with a historic building again? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No, never Yes, very much so Why? Were you pleased with your design solution? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No Yes, very much so Why? 6) What were the strengths of your project? 7) What were the weaknesses of your project? What would you have liked to revisit? 8) What will you take away from this project? What is the main thing you have learned?

PAGE 178

178 APPENDIX H QUESTIONNAIRE Student Code Number: 9 based on the compatibility between example, if a student kept a h istorical feature and/or continued it in their new design, they would receive a 10 in compatibility for that area. If a student completely removes a feature and makes no reference to in their designs, they would receive a 1 for compatibility. If a feature is not present in the historic building, please select Not Applicable or N/A. Social Context_________________________________________________ Social context refers to the activities and people that have surrounded the building throughout its existence. S tudents can reference the social context of a building in many ways, including displaying historic photographs or newspaper clippings, the content of e social context of the building? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A No references Many references Historical Context______________________________________________ Historical context refers to the architectural history of the building, such as the historical style (Gothic revival, Greek revival, International Modern) it was originally designed and built in. Students can work with the historical context of the buildin g by keeping historic elements, including ornaments and colors, and referencing the historic aspects of the building in their new design. building? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A Not compatible Very compatible Continued on next page

PAGE 179

179 Architectural Context____________________________________________ Architectural context refers to the physical building, such as the roof, windows, entrance, or materials. Students can work compatibly with the architectural context of a building by continuing or referring to existing architectural features, or they can ignore, obscure or remove existing architectural features to create designs that are not compatible. Please answer the follow ing questions on compatibility by comparing 3 How compatible are the masses and volumes of the existing building with those in the new design? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A Not compatible Very compatible 4 How compatible are the surface forms, such as roofs and walls, of the existing building with those in the new design? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A Not compatible Very compatible 5 How compatible are the windows and views of the existing building with those in the new design? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A Not compatible Very compatible 6 How compatible are the entrances and interior circulation of the existing building with those in the new design? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A Not co mpatible Very compatible 7 How compatible is the proportion and scale of the existing building with the new design? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A Not compatible Very compatible 8 How compatible is the architectural ornamentation of the existing buil ding with those in the new design? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A Not compatible Very compatible

PAGE 180

180 9 How compatible are the materials of the existing building with those in the new design? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A Not compatible Very compatible Holisti c Compatibility___________________________________________ of compatibility between the existing building and the new design? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A Not compatible Very compatible

PAGE 181

181 APPENDIX I QUESTIONAIRE 1. Which design solutions were the strongest? 2. Why? 3. Which design solutions were the weakest? 4. Why?

PAGE 182

182 APPENDIX J RESULTS OF TWO CORRELATION COEFFICI ENT TESTS Table J 1. design phase interest in historic preservation, RQ1 Mean Standard deviation Measure of compatibility r df Level of significance for 2 tailed test 5.89 1.58 CS 0.04 22 0 CAH 0.08 22 0 CA1 0 22 0 CA2 0.22 22 0 CA3 0.21 22 0 CA4 0.12 22 0 CA5 0 22 0 CA6 0.14 22 0 CA7 0.17 22 0 CAM 0.14 22 0 CH 0.11 22 0 CM 0.14 22 0 Explanation of Table J 1: CS (Social context compatibility) correlation between CS and pre design phase interest in historic preservation. A tailed test was used. CAH (Architectural historical context compatibility) correlation between CAH and pre design phase interest in historic preservation. A tailed test was used. CA1 (Masses and volumes of architectural context compatibility)

PAGE 183

183 correlation between CA1 and pre design phase interest in historic preservation. A e for two tailed test was used. CA2 (Surface forms, such as roofs and walls, of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA2 and pre design phase interest in historic preservation. A tailed test was used. CA3 (Windows and views of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA 3 and pre design phase interest in historic preservation. A tailed test was used. CA4 (Entrances and interior circulation of architectural context compatibility) i.e. there is no significant correlation between CA4 and pre design phase interest in historic preservation. A tailed test was used. CA5 (Proportion and scale of architectural context compatibility) For CA5, r val correlation between CA5 and pre design phase interest in historic preservation. A tailed test was used. CA6 (Architectural ornamentation of archit ectural context compatibility) correlation between CA6 and pre design phase interest in historic preservation. A tailed test was use d.

PAGE 184

184 CA7 (Materials of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA7 and pre design phase interest in historic preservation. A for two tailed test was used. CAM (Mean compatibility of architectural context) correlation between CAM and pre design phase interest in historic preservation. A level of significance for two tailed test was used. CH (Holistic compatibility) correlation between CH and pre design phase interest in historic preservation. A vel of significance for two tailed test was used. CM (Mean compatibility) correlation between CM and pre design phase interest in historic preservation. A significance for two tailed test was used.

PAGE 185

185 Table J 2. design interest in the assigned studio project, RQ 2 Mean Standard deviation Measure of compatibility r df Level of significance for 2 tailed test 5.57 1.83 CS 0.08 22 0 CAH 0.06 22 0 CA1 0.02 22 0 CA2 0.17 22 0 CA3 0.22 22 0 CA4 0.17 22 0 CA5 0.05 22 0 CA6 0.19 22 0 CA7 0.24 22 0 CAM 0.16 22 0 CH 0.15 22 0 CM 0.16 22 0 Explanation of Table J 2: CS (Social context compatibility) correlation between CS and pre design interest in the assigned studio project. A tailed test was used. CAH (Architect ural historical context compatibility) correlation between CAH and pre design interest in the assigned studio project. A tailed test was used. CA1 (Masses and volumes of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA1 and pre design interest in the assigned studio project. A of significance for two tailed test was used. CA2 (Surface forms, such as roofs and walls, of architectural context compatibility)

PAGE 186

186 correlation between CA2 and pre design int erest in the assigned studio project. A tailed test was used. CA3 (Windows and views of architectural context compatibility) correla tion between CA3 and pre design interest in the assigned studio project. A tailed test was used. CA4 (Entrances and interior circulation of architectural context compatibility) e we accept Ho; i.e. there is no significant correlation between CA4 and pre design interest in the assigned studio project. A tailed test was used. CA5 (Proportion and scale of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA5 and pre design interest in the assigned studio project. A tailed test was used. CA6 (Architectural ornament ation of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA6 and pre design interest in the assigned studio project A taile d test was used. CA7 (Materials of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA7 and pre design interest in the assigned studio project. A significance for two tailed test was used.

PAGE 187

187 CAM (Mean compatibility of architectural context) correlation between CAM and pre design interest in the assigned studio project. A tailed test was used. CH (Holistic compatibility) correlation between CH and pre design interest in the assigned studio project. A tailed test was used. CM (Mean compatibility) correlation between CM and pre design interest in the assigned studio project. A Pearso tailed test was used. Table J 3. RQ 3 Mean Standard deviation Measure of compatibility r df Level of significance for 2 tailed test 4.01 1.17 CS 0.01 22 0 CAH 0.14 22 0 CA1 0.29 22 0 CA2 0.13 22 0 CA3 0.11 22 0 CA4 0.22 22 0 CA5 0.14 22 0 CA6 0.02 22 0 CA7 0.06 22 0 CAM 0.12 22 0 CH 0.16 22 0 CM 0.12 22 0 Explanation of Table J 3: CS (Social context compatibility)

PAGE 188

188 For CS, r value > correlation between CS and belief of possessing incoming knowledge of the studio tailed test was used. CAH (Archi tectural historical context compatibility) correlation between CAH and belief of possessing incoming knowledge of the studio evel of significance for two tailed test was used. CA1 (Masses and volumes of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA1 and belief of possessing incoming k nowledge of the studio tailed test was used. CA2 (Surface forms, such as roofs and walls, of architectural context compatibility) Ho; i.e. there is no significant correlation between CA2 and belief of possessing incoming knowledge of the studio tailed test was used. CA3 (Windows and views of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA3 and belief of possessing incoming knowledge of the studio

PAGE 189

189 for two tailed test was used. CA4 (Entrances and interior circulation of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA4 and belief of possessing incoming knowl edge of the studio tailed test was used. CA5 (Proportion and scale of architectural context compatibility) ignificant correlation between CA5 and belief of possessing incoming knowledge of the studio tailed test was used. CA6 (Architectural ornamentation of architectural context compa tibility) correlation between CA6 and belief of possessing incoming knowledge of the studio tail ed test was used. CA7 (Materials of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA7 and belief of possessing incoming knowledge of the studio tailed test was used. CAM (Mean compatibility of architectural context)

PAGE 190

190 correlation between CAM and belief of posse ssing incoming knowledge of the studio tailed test was used. CH (Holistic compatibility) correlat ion between CH and belief of possessing incoming knowledge of the studio tailed test was used. CM (Mean compatibility) ere is no significant correlation between CM and belief of possessing incoming knowledge of the studio tailed test was used. Table J 4. CNS score, RQ 4 Mean Standard deviation Measure of compatibility r df Level of significance for 2 tailed test 3.6 0.60 CS 0 22 0 CAH 0.13 22 0 CA1 0.28 22 0 CA2 0.23 22 0 CA3 0.26 22 0 CA4 0.21 22 0 CA5 0.26 22 0 CA6 0.25 22 0 CA7 0.33 22 0 CAM 0.28 22 0 CH 0.19 22 0 CM 0.21 22 0

PAGE 191

191 Explanation of Table J 4: CS (Social context compatibility) For CS, r value > tailed test was used. CAH (Architectural historical context compatibility) fore we accept Ho; i.e. there is no significant tailed test was used. CA1 (Masses and volumes of architectural context compatibility) we reject Ho; i.e. there is a significant two tailed test was used. CA2 (Surface forms, such as roofs and walls, of architectural context compatibility) For CA2, r valu tailed test was used. CA3 (Windows and views of architectural context compatibility) = 0.20, therefore we accept Ho; i.e. there is no significant tailed test was used. CA4 (Entrances and interior circulation of architectural context compatibility)

PAGE 192

192 For CA4, r tailed test was used. CA5 (Proportion and scale of architectural context compatibility) For CA5, r va tailed test was used. CA6 (Architectural ornamentation of architectural context compatibility) For CA6, tailed test was used. CA7 (Materials of architectural context compatibility) 0.20, therefore we reject Ho; i.e. there is a significant two tailed test was used. CAM (Mean compatibility of architectural context) fore we reject Ho; i.e. there is a significant two tailed test was used. CH (Holistic compatibility) o significant tailed test was used.

PAGE 193

193 CM (Mean compatibility) correlation between CM and CNS sc tailed test was used. Table J 5. design CHBS score, RQ 5 Mean Standard deviation Measure of compatibility r df Level of significance for 2 tailed test 3.59 0.43 CS 0.07 22 0 CAH 0.09 22 0 CA1 0.24 22 0 CA2 0.08 22 0 CA3 0.1 22 0 CA4 0.12 22 0 CA5 0.25 22 0 CA6 0.19 22 0 CA7 0.18 22 0 CAM 0.18 22 0 CH 0.17 22 0 CM 0.16 22 0 Explanation of Table J 5: CS (Social context compatibility) correlation between CS and pre for two tailed test was used. CAH (Architectural historical context comp atibility) correlation between CAH and pre significance for two tailed test was used. CA1 (Masses and volumes of architectural context compatibility)

PAGE 194

194 correlation between CA1 and pre significance for two tailed test was used. CA2 (Surface forms, such as roofs and walls, of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA2 and pre significance for two tailed test was used. CA3 (W indows and views of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA3 and pre significance for two tailed test was used. CA4 (Entrances and interior circulation of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA4 and pre significance for two tailed test was used. CA5 (Proportion and scale of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA5 and pre significanc e for two tailed test was used. CA6 (Architectural ornamentation of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA6 and pre l of significance for two tailed test was used.

PAGE 195

195 CA7 (Materials of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA7 and pre of significance for two tailed test was used. CAM (Mean compatibility of architectural context) correlation between CAM and pre sign ificance for two tailed test was used. CH (Holistic compatibility) correlation between CH and pre for two tailed test wa s used. CM (Mean compatibility) correlation between CM and pre for two tailed test was used.

PAGE 196

196 Table J 6. design CHBS score, RQ 6 Mean Standard deviation Measure of compatibility r df Level of significance for 2 tailed test 3.69 0.43 CS 0.27 22 0 CAH 0.21 22 0 CA1 0.06 22 0 CA2 0.08 22 0 CA3 0.05 22 0 CA4 0.15 22 0 CA5 0.14 22 0 CA6 0.22 22 0 CA7 0.15 22 0 CAM 0.13 22 0 CH 0.17 22 0 CM 0.16 22 0 Explanation of Table J 6: CS (Social context compatibility) For CS, r value < 0.20, therefore we reject Ho; i.e. there is a significant negative correlation between CS and post significance for two tailed test was used. CAH (Architectural historical context compatibility) For CAH, r correlation between CAH and post significance for two tailed test was used. CA1 (Masses and volumes of architectural context compatibility) For correlation between CA1 and post significance for two tailed test was used. CA2 (Surface forms, such as roofs and walls, of architectur al context compatibility)

PAGE 197

197 correlation between CA2 and post significance for two tailed test was used. CA3 (Windows and views of arch itectural context compatibility) correlation between CA3 and post significance for two tailed test was used. CA4 (Entrances and inte rior circulation of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA4 and post significance for two tailed test was used. CA5 (Proportion and scale of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA5 and post significance for two tailed test was used. CA6 (Architectural ornamentation of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA6 and post significance for two tailed test was used. CA7 (Materials of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA7 and post significance for two tailed test was used.

PAGE 198

198 CAM (Mean compatibility of architectural context) correlation between CAM and post significance for two ta iled test was used. CH (Holistic compatibility) correlation between CH and post significance for two tailed test was used. CM (Mean c ompatibility) correlation between CM and post significance for two tailed test was used. Table J 7. design phase studio activities RQ 8 Mean Standard deviation Measure of compatibility r df Level of significance for 2 tailed test 7.95 1.13 CS 0.22 22 0 CAH 0.21 22 0 CA1 0.24 22 0 CA2 0.27 22 0 CA3 0.13 22 0 CA4 0.06 22 0 CA5 0.14 22 0 CA6 0.45 22 0.05 CA7 0.47 22 0.02 CAM 0.28 22 0 CH 0.27 22 0 CM 0.29 22 0 Explanation of Table J 7: CS (Social context compatibility)

PAGE 199

199 For CS, r value > correlation between CS and influence of pre design phase studio activities analysis of two tailed test w as used. CAH (Architectural historical context compatibility) correlation between CAH and influence of pre design phase studio activities analysis of two tailed test was used. CA1 (Masses and volumes of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA1 and influence of pre design phase studio activities analysis of two tailed test was used. CA2 (Surface forms, such as roofs and walls, of architectural context compatibility) positive correlation between CA2 and influence of pre design phase studio activities evel of significance for two tailed test was used. CA3 (Windows and views of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA3 and influence of pre design phase st udio activities analysis of

PAGE 200

200 two tailed test was used. CA4 (Entrances and interior circulation of architectural context compatibility) fore we accept Ho; i.e. there is no significant correlation between CA4 and influence of pre design phase studio activities analysis of two tailed test was used. CA5 (P roportion and scale of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA5 and influence of pre design phase studio activities analysis of two tailed test was used. CA6 (Architectural ornamentation of architectural context compatibility) positive corre lation between CA6 and influence of pre design phase studio activities significance for two tailed test was used. CA7 (Materials of architectural context compatibility) For positive correlation between CA7 and influence of pre design phase studio activities significanc e for two tailed test was used. CAM (Mean compatibility of architectural context)

PAGE 201

201 positive correlation between CAM and influence of pre design phase studio activities analysi significance for two tailed test was used. CH (Holistic compatibility) positive correlation between C H and influence of pre design phase studio activities significance for two tailed test was used. CM (Mean compatibility) i.e. there is a significant positive correlation between CM and influence of pre design phase studio activities significance for two tailed test was used. Table J 8. Pearso design phase studio activities character defining features research, RQ 8 Mean Standard deviation Measure of compatibility r df Level of significance for 2 tailed test 6.91 1.8 CS 0.38 22 0 CAH 0.23 22 0 CA1 0.21 22 0 CA2 0.2 22 0 CA3 0.08 22 0 CA4 0.17 22 0 CA5 0.21 22 0 CA6 0.23 22 0 CA7 0.25 22 0 CAM 0.21 22 0 CH 0.28 22 0 CM 0.27 22 0

PAGE 202

202 Explanation of Table J 8: CS (Social context compatibility) 0.10, therefore we reject Ho; i.e. there is a significant negative correlation between CS and influence of pre design phase studio activities tailed t est was used. CAH (Architectural historical context compatibility) correlation between CAH and influence of pre design phase studio activities character defining features r tailed test was used. CA1 (Masses and volumes of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA1 and influence of pre design phase studio activities character tailed test was used. CA2 (Surface forms, such as roofs and walls, of architectural context compatibility) For CA2, r value > correlation between CA2 and influence of pre design phase studio activities character tailed test was used. CA3 (Window s and views of architectural context compatibility)

PAGE 203

203 correlation between CA3 and influence of pre design phase studio activities character defining features research. A Pears tailed test was used. CA4 (Entrances and interior circulation of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA4 and influen ce of pre design phase studio activities character tailed test was used. CA5 (Proportion and scale of architectural context compatibility) cept Ho; i.e. there is no significant correlation between CA5 and influence of pre design phase studio activities character tailed test was used. CA6 (Architectural ornamentation of a rchitectural context compatibility) correlation between CA6 and influence of pre design phase studio activities character significance for two tailed test was used. CA7 (Materials of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA7 and influence of pre design phase studio activities character

PAGE 204

204 tailed test was used. CAM (Mean compatibility of architectural context) correlation between CAM and influence of pre design phase studio activities character tailed test was used. CH (Holistic compatibility) 0.20, therefore we reject Ho; i.e. there is a significant negative correlation between CH and influence of pre design phase studio activities tailed test was used. CM (Mean compatibility) 0.20, therefore we reject Ho; i.e. there is a significant negative correlation between CM and influence of pre design phase studio activities tailed test was used.

PAGE 205

205 Table J 9. design phase studio activities building user perceptions and behavior research, RQ 8 Mean Standard deviation Measure of compatibility r df Level of significance for 2 tailed test 6.68 2.03 CS 0.39 22 0 CAH 0.3 22 0 CA1 0.28 22 0 CA2 0.27 22 0 CA3 0.19 22 0 CA4 0.33 22 0 CA5 0.25 22 0 CA6 0.15 22 0 CA7 0.06 22 0 CAM 0.23 22 0 CH 0.29 22 0 CM 0.29 22 0 Explanation of Table J 9: CS (Social context compatibility) 0.10, therefore we reject Ho; i.e. there is a significant negative correlation between CS and influence of pre design phase studio activities nificance for two tailed test was used. CAH (Architectural historical context compatibility) correlation between CAH and influence of pre design phase studio activities building tailed test was used. CA1 (Masses and volumes of architectural context compatibility) 0.20, therefore we reject Ho; i.e. there is a signifi cant negative correlation between CA1 and influence of pre design phase studio activities

PAGE 206

206 two tailed test was used. CA2 (Surface forms, such as roofs and walls, of ar chitectural context compatibility) 0.20, therefore we reject Ho; i.e. there is a significant negative correlation between CA2 and influence of pre design phase studio activities building user perceptions and behavior research. A Pe two tailed test was used. CA3 (Windows and views of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA3 and influence of pre desi gn phase studio activities building tailed test was used. CA4 (Entrances and interior circulation of architectural context compatibility) 0.20, the refore we reject Ho; i.e. there is a significant negative correlation between CA4 and influence of pre design phase studio activities two tailed test was used. CA5 (P roportion and scale of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA5 and influence of pre design phase studio activities building user perceptions and behavio tailed test was used. CA6 (Architectural ornamentation of architectural context compatibility)

PAGE 207

207 correlation between CA6 and influence of pre design phase studio activities building tailed test was used. CA7 (Materials of architectural context compatibility) refore we accept Ho; i.e. there is no significant correlation between CA7 and influence of pre design phase studio activities building tailed test was used. CAM (Mean comp atibility of architectural context) correlation between CAM and influence of pre design phase studio activities building r level of significance for two tailed test was used. CH (Holistic compatibility) 0.20, therefore we reject Ho; i.e. there is a significant negative correlation between CH and influence of pre design phase studio activities building two tailed test was used. CM (Mean compatibility) 0.20, therefore we reject Ho; i.e. there is a significant negative correlation between CM and influenc e of pre design phase studio activities

PAGE 208

208 two tailed test was used. Table J 10. design phase studio activiti es code compliance and ADA research, RQ 8 Mean Standard deviation Measure of compatibility r df Level of significance for 2 tailed test 7.18 1.62 CS 0.12 22 0 CAH 0.06 22 0 CA1 0.15 22 0 CA2 0.07 22 0 CA3 0.06 22 0 CA4 0.04 22 0 CA5 0.04 22 0 CA6 0.1 22 0 CA7 0.05 22 0 CAM 0.07 22 0 CH 0.01 22 0 CM 0.01 22 0 Explanation of Table J 10: CS (Social context compatibility) For CS, r value > correlation between CS and influence of pre design phase studio activities code tailed test was used. CAH (Architectu ral historical context compatibility) correlation between CAH and influence of pre design phase studio activities code gnificance for two tailed test was used. CA1 (Masses and volumes of architectural context compatibility)

PAGE 209

209 correlation between CA1 and influence of pre design phase studio acti vities code tailed test was used. CA2 (Surface forms, such as roofs and walls, of architectural context compatibility) is no significant correlation between CA2 and influence of pre design phase studio activities code tailed test was used. CA3 (Windows and views of architectural context compatibilit y) correlation between CA3 and influence of pre design phase studio activities code tailed test was used. CA4 (Entrances and interior circulation of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA4 and influence of pre design phase studio activities code compli tailed test was used. CA5 (Proportion and scale of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA5 and influence of pre design phase studio activities code

PAGE 210

210 tailed test was used. CA6 (Architectural ornamentation of architectural context compatibility) 20, therefore we accept Ho; i.e. there is no significant correlation between CA6 and influence of pre design phase studio activities code tailed test was used. CA7 (Materials of arch itectural context compatibility) correlation between CA7 and influence of pre design phase studio activities code cance for two tailed test was used. CAM (Mean compatibility of architectural context) correlation between CAM and influence of pre design phase studio activities code compli tailed test was used. CH (Holistic compatibility) correlation between CH and influence of pre design phase s tudio activities code tailed test was used. CM (Mean compatibility)

PAGE 211

211 correlation between CM and influe nce of pre design phase studio activities code tailed test was used. Table J 11. design phase studio activities LEED rese arch, RQ 8 Mean Standard deviation Measure of compatibility r df Level of significance for 2 tailed test 6.5 2.1 CS 0.01 22 0 CAH 0 22 0 CA1 0.16 22 0 CA2 0.1 22 0 CA3 0.13 22 0 CA4 0.06 22 0 CA5 0.17 22 0 CA6 0.27 22 0 CA7 0.2 22 0 CAM 0.17 22 0 CH 0.11 22 0 CM 0.12 22 0 Explanation of Table J 11: CS (Social context compatibility) For CS, r value > correlation between CS and influence of pre design phase studio activities LEED tailed test was used. CAH (Architectural historical cont ext compatibility) correlation between CAH and influence of pre design phase studio activities LEED tailed test was use d. CA1 (Masses and volumes of architectural context compatibility)

PAGE 212

212 correlation between CA1 and influence of pre design phase studio activities LEED evel of significance for two tailed test was used. CA2 (Surface forms, such as roofs and walls, of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA2 and influence of pre design phase studio activities LEED tailed test was used. CA3 (Windows and views of architectural context compatibility) nificant correlation between CA3 and influence of pre design phase studio activities LEED tailed test was used. CA4 (Entrances and interior circulation of architectural context compatibility) For CA4, correlation between CA4 and influence of pre design phase studio activities LEED tailed test was used. CA5 (Proportion and scale of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA5 and influence of pre design phase studio activities LEED wo tailed test was used. CA6 (Architectural ornamentation of architectural context compatibility) positive correlation between CA6 and influence of pre design phase studio act ivities tailed test was used.

PAGE 213

213 CA7 (Materials of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA7 and i nfluence of pre design phase studio activities LEED tailed test was used. CAM (Mean compatibility of architectural context) cant correlation between CAM and influence of pre design phase studio activities LEED tailed test was used. CH (Holistic compatibility) no significant correlation between CH and influence of pre design phase studio activities LEED tailed test was used. CM (Mean compatibility) ere is no significant correlation between CM and influence of pre design phase studio activities LEED tailed test was used.

PAGE 214

21 4 Table J 12. desi gn phase studio activities morphological analysis, RQ 8 Mean Standard deviation Measure of compatibility r df Level of significance for 2 tailed test 7.09 1.63 CS 0.08 22 0 CAH 0 22 0 CA1 0.12 22 0 CA2 0.38 22 0 CA3 0.29 22 0 CA4 0.16 22 0 CA5 0.08 22 0 CA6 0.2 22 0 CA7 0.23 22 0 CAM 0.23 22 0 CH 0.27 22 0 CM 0.23 22 0 Explanation of Table J 12: CS (Social context compatibility) For CS, r value > correlation between CS and influence of pre design phase studio activities tailed test was used. CAH (Architectural histor ical context compatibility) correlation between CAH and influence of pre design phase studio activities t ailed test was used. CA1 (Masses and volumes of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA1 and influence of pre design phase studio activities morphologica tailed test was used. CA2 (Surface forms, such as roofs and walls, of architectural context compatibility)

PAGE 215

215 positive cor relation between CA2 and influence of pre design phase studio activities tailed test was used. CA3 (Windows and views of architectural context compatibility) therefore we reject Ho; i.e. there is a significant positive correlation between CA3 and influence of pre design phase studio activities tailed test was used. CA4 (Entrances and interior circulation of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA4 and influence of pre design phase studio activities f significance for two tailed test was used. CA5 (Proportion and scale of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA5 and influence of pre design phase studi o activities tailed test was used. CA6 (Architectural ornamentation of architectural context compatibility) nt correlation between CA6 and influence of pre design phase studio activities tailed test was used. CA7 (Materials of architectural context compatibility) erefore we accept Ho; i.e. there is no significant correlation between CA7 and influence of pre design phase studio activities tailed test was used.

PAGE 216

216 CAM (Mean compatibility of architectur al context) correlation between CAM and influence of pre design phase studio activities tailed test was u sed. CH (Holistic compatibility) positive correlation between CH and influence of pre design phase studio activities e for two tailed test was used. CM (Mean compatibility) correlation between CM and influence of pre design phase studio activities of significance for two tailed test was used. Table J 13. design phase studio activities concept and branding development, RQ 8 Mean Standard deviation Measure of compatibility r df Level of significance for 2 tailed test 8 1.27 CS 0.26 22 0 CAH 0.29 22 0 CA1 0 22 0 CA2 0.01 22 0 CA3 0.04 22 0 CA4 0.14 22 0 CA5 0.08 22 0 CA6 0.04 22 0 CA7 0.15 22 0 CAM 0.07 22 0 CH 0.14 22 0 CM 0.12 22 0 Explanation of Table J 13: CS (Social context compatibility)

PAGE 217

217 correlation between CS and influence of pre design phase studio activities concept and branding development. A Pe tailed test was used. CAH (Architectural historical context compatibility) 0.20, therefore we reject Ho; i.e. there is a significant negative correlation between CAH and influence of pre design phase studio activities tailed test was used. CA1 (Masses and volumes of architectural context compatibility) there is no significant correlation between CA1 and influence of pre design phase studio activities concept tailed test was used. CA2 (Surface forms, such as roofs and walls, of archi tectural context compatibility) correlation between CA2 and influence of pre design phase studio activities concept ance for two tailed test was used. CA3 (Windows and views of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA3 and influence of pre design phase studio activities concept tailed test was used.

PAGE 218

218 CA4 (Entrances and interior circulation of architectural context compatibility) ficant correlation between CA4 and influence of pre design phase studio activities concept tailed test was used. CA5 (Proportion and scale of architectural context compatibility) For CA correlation between CA5 and influence of pre design phase studio activities concept tailed test was used. CA6 (Architectural ornamentation of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA6 and influence of pre design phase studio activities concept and branding develo tailed test was used. CA7 (Materials of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA7 and influence of pre d esign phase studio activities concept tailed test was used. CAM (Mean compatibility of architectural context) ficant correlation between CAM and influence of pre design phase studio activities concept

PAGE 219

219 tailed test was used. CH (Holistic compatibility) ept Ho; i.e. there is no significant correlation between CH and influence of pre design phase studio activities concept and tailed test was used. CM (Mean compatibility) = 0.20, therefore we accept Ho; i.e. there is no significant correlation between CM and influence of pre design phase studio activities concept tailed test was used. Table J 14. Pears design phase studio activities midpoint presentation, RQ 8 Mean Standard deviation Measure of compatibility r df Level of significance for 2 tailed test 4.05 2.8 CS 0.05 22 0 CAH 0.08 22 0 CA1 0.12 22 0 CA2 0.06 22 0 CA3 0.12 22 0 CA4 0.06 22 0 CA5 0.12 22 0 CA6 0.06 22 0 CA7 0.07 22 0 CAM 0.04 22 0 CH 0.03 22 0 CM 0.05 22 0 Explanation of Table J 14: CS (Social context compatibility)

PAGE 220

220 For CS, r value > correlation between CS and influence of pre design phase studio activities midpoint tailed test was used. CAH (Architectural histori cal context compatibility) correlation between CAH and influence of pre design phase studio activities code for two tailed test was used. CA1 (Masses and volumes of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA1 and influence of pre design phase studio activities mid point tailed test was used. CA2 (Surface forms, such as roofs and walls, of architectural context compatibility) cor relation between CA2 and influence of pre design phase studio activities midpoint tailed test was used. CA3 (Windows and views of architectural context compatibility) herefore we accept Ho; i.e. there is no significant correlation between CA3 and influence of pre design phase studio activities midpoint tailed test was used. CA4 (Entrances and interior circulatio n of architectural context compatibility)

PAGE 221

221 correlation between CA4 and influence of pre design phase studio activities midpoint nce for two tailed test was used. CA5 (Proportion and scale of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA5 and influence of pre design phase studio activitie s midpoint tailed test was used. CA6 (Architectural ornamentation of architectural context compatibility) correlati on between CA6 and influence of pre design phase studio activities midpoint tailed test was used. CA7 (Materials of architectural context compatibility) cept Ho; i.e. there is no significant correlation between CA7 and influence of pre design phase studio activities midpoint tailed test was used. CAM (Mean compatibility of architectural context) Fo correlation between CAM and influence of pre design phase studio activities midpoint tailed test was used. CH (Holist ic compatibility) correlation between CH and influence of pre design phase studio activities midpoint tailed test wa s used.

PAGE 222

222 CM (Mean compatibility) correlation between CM and influence of pre design phase studio activities midpoint tailed test was used. Table J 15 design phase studio activities, RQ 9 Mean Standard deviation Measure of compatibility r df Level of significance for 2 tailed test 6.80 1.03 CS 0.17 22 0 CAH 0.12 22 0 CA1 0.03 22 0 CA2 0.06 22 0 CA3 0.09 22 0 CA4 0.07 22 0 CA5 0 22 0 CA6 0.07 22 0 CA7 0.09 22 0 CAM 0.04 22 0 CH 0.05 22 0 CM 0.01 22 0 Explanation of Table J 15: CS (Social context compatibility) correlation between CS and total influence of pre design phase studio activities. A tailed test was used. CAH (Architectural histori cal context compatibility) correlation between CAH and total influence of pre design phase studio activities. A tailed test was used.

PAGE 223

223 CA1 (Masses and volumes of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA1 and total influence of pre design phase studio activities. A f significance for two tailed test was used. CA2 (Surface forms, such as roofs and walls, of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA2 and total influence of pre design phase studio activities. A tailed test was used. CA3 (Windows and views of architectural context compatibility) correl ation between CA3 and total influence of pre design phase studio activities. A tailed test was used. CA4 (Entrances and interior circulation of architectural context compatibility) efore we accept Ho; i.e. there is no significant correlation between CA4 and total influence of pre design phase studio activities. A tailed test was used. CA5 (Proportion and scale of architectural context compati bility) correlation between CA5 and total influence of pre design phase studio activities. A tailed test was used. CA6 (Architectura l ornamentation of architectural context compatibility)

PAGE 224

224 correlation between CA6 and total influence of pre design phase studio activities. A for two tailed test was used. CA7 (Materials of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA7 and total influence of pre design phase studio activities. A Pea tailed test was used. CAM (Mean compatibility of architectural context) correlation between CAM and total influence of pre design phase studio activities. A tailed test was used. CH (Holistic compatibility) correlation between CH and total influence of pre design phas e studio activities. A tailed test was used. CM (Mean compatibility) correlation between CM and total influence of pre design phase s tudio activities. A tailed test was used.

PAGE 225

225 Table J 16. studio project, RQ 12 Mean Standard deviation Measure of compatibility r df Level of significance for 2 tailed test 5.70 1.61 CS 0.05 22 0 CAH 0.08 22 0 CA1 0.04 22 0 CA2 0.07 22 0 CA3 0.14 22 0 CA4 0.1 22 0 CA5 0.1 22 0 CA6 0.21 22 0 CA7 0 22 0 CAM 0.02 22 0 CH 0 22 0 CM 0.04 22 0 Explanation of Table J 16: CS (Social context compatibility) correlation between CS and final student interest in the assigned studio project. A tailed test was used. CAH (Architectural historical context compatibility) correlation between CAH and final student interest in the assigned studio project. A level of significance for two tailed test was used. CA1 (Masses and volumes of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA1 and final student interest in the assigned studio project. A tailed test was used. CA2 (Surface forms, such as roofs and walls, of architectural context compatibility)

PAGE 226

226 t correlation between CA2 and final student interest in the assigned studio project. A tailed test was used. CA3 (Windows and views of architectural context compatibility) accept Ho; i.e. there is no significant correlation between CA3 and final student interest in the assigned studio project. A tailed test was used. CA4 (Entrances and interior circulation of architectural context co mpatibility) correlation between CA4 and final student interest in the assigned studio project. A tailed test was used. CA5 (Proport ion and scale of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA5 and final student interest in the assigned studio project. A or two tailed test was used. CA6 (Architectural ornamentation of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA6 and final student interest in the assigned studi o project. A tailed test was used. CA7 (Materials of architectural context compatibility) correlation between CA7 and final student interest in the assigned studio project. A tailed test was used.

PAGE 227

227 CAM (Mean compatibility of architectural context) correlation betwe en CAM and final student interest in the assigned studio project. A tailed test was used. CH (Holistic compatibility) correlation bet ween CH and final student interest in the assigned studio project. A tailed test was used. CM (Mean compatibility) correlation betwee n CM and final student interest in the assigned studio project. A tailed test was used. Table J 17. RQ 13 Mean Standard deviation Measure of compatibility r df Level of significance for 2 tailed test 5.78 1.48 CS 0.27 22 0 CAH 0.19 22 0 CA1 0.16 22 0 CA2 0.36 22 0 CA3 0.34 22 0 CA4 0.36 22 0 CA5 0.2 22 0 CA6 0.02 22 0 CA7 0.14 22 0 CAM 0.24 22 0 CH 0.3 22 0 CM 0.28 22 0 Explanation of Table J 17: CS (Social context compatibility)

PAGE 228

228 For CS, r value < two tailed test was used. CAH (Architectural historical context compatibility) For CAH, r valu for two tailed test was used. CA1 (Masses and volumes of architectural context compatibility) For CA1, for two tailed test was used. CA2 (Surface forms, such as roofs and walls, of architectural conte xt compatibility) significance for two tailed test was used. CA3 (Windows and views of archit ectural context compatibility) significance for two tailed test was used. CA4 (Entrances and interior circulation of architectural context compatibility) significance for two tailed test was used.

PAGE 229

229 CA5 (Proportion and scale of architectural context compatibility) for two tai led test was used. CA6 (Architectural ornamentation of architectural context compatibility) nce for two tailed test was used. CA7 (Materials of architectural context compatibility) for two tailed test was used. CAM (Mean compatibility of architectural context) for two tailed test was used. CH (Holistic compatibility) two tailed test was used. CM (Mean compatibility)

PAGE 230

230 significance for two tailed test was used. Table J 18. RQ 14 Mean Standard deviation Measure of compatibility r df Level of significance for 2 tailed test 6.57 1.78 CS 0.05 22 0 CAH 0.01 22 0 CA1 0.23 22 0 CA2 0.43 22 0.05 CA3 0.39 22 0 CA4 0.31 22 0 CA5 0.27 22 0 CA6 0.13 22 0 CA7 0.17 22 0 CAM 0.29 22 0 CH 0.23 22 0 CM 0.25 22 0 Explanation of Table J 18: CS (Social context compatibility) For CS, r value > significance for two tailed test was used. CAH (Architectural historical context compatibility) For CAH, significance for two tailed test was used. CA1 (Masses and volumes of architectural context comp atibility)

PAGE 231

231 significance for two tailed test was used. CA2 (Surface forms, such as roofs and walls, of architectural context compatibility) level of significance for two tailed test was used. CA3 (Windows and views of architectural context compatibility) level of significance for two tailed test was used. CA4 (Entrances and interior circulation of architectural context compatibility) positive correlation between CA4 and being pleased w level of significance for two tailed test was used. CA5 (Proportion and scale of architectural context compatibility) positive correlation b level of significance for two tailed test was used. CA6 (Architectural ornamentation of architectural context compatibility) no significant significance for two tailed test was used.

PAGE 232

232 CA7 (Materials of architectural context compatibility) e. there is no significant significance for two tailed test was used. CAM (Mean compatibility of architectural context) Ho; i.e. there is a significant level of significance for two tailed test was used. CH (Holistic compatibility) there is no significant significance for two tailed test was used. CM (Mean compatibility) t significance for two tailed test was used.

PAGE 233

233 APPENDIX K INFORMED CONSENT FOR STUDENTS Protocol Title: REFLECTING THE BEST OF THE PAST AND THE PRESENT: EXPLORING STUDENT LEARNING IN A DESIGN STUDIO FOCUSED ON DEVELOPING INTERIOR DESIGN COMPATIBILITY ON A HISTORIC CAMPUS Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is t o evaluate the effectiveness of interior design classroom practices. What you will be asked to do in the study: You will complete a studio project for a historic building. Before beginning design work, you will complete three questionnaires (see attachment s). After you have completed your project, you will write a short essay explaining your learning processes throughout the studio project and answer two questionnaires about which aspects of the project helped you learn and which did not. Your instructor wi ll check that you completed your essay and questionnaire, but will not use the information to determine your grade. Other faculty members in your department and allied design professionals a group and evaluate them. Your instructor will not use their evaluations to determine your grade. If you chose not to participate, you will still complete the same work as your classmates; however, it will not be submitted to the researcher. You will com plete your work when your classmates do, and they will not know that you are not participating in this research. Participating or nor participating will not affect your grade or classroom experience. You do not have to answer any question you do not want to answer. Time required: About 3 hours to write your essay and 2 hours to complete the questionnaires. Risks and Benefits: You may help determine the effectiveness of interior design teaching practices. We do not anticipate that you will benefit directly by participating in this experiment. Compensation: None Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your information will be assigned a code number by your instructor. Only your instructor will know your number. No list linking your name and number will be maintained. Your name will not be used in any report. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the stud y: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone (352)392 0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description.

PAGE 234

234 APPENDIX L INFORMED CONSENT FOR EVALUATORS Protocol Title: REFLECTING THE BEST OF THE PAST AND THE PRESENT: EXPLORING STUDENT LEARNING IN A DESIGN STUDIO FOCUSED ON DEVELOPING I NTERIOR DESIGN COMPATIBILITY ON A HISTORIC CAMPUS Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of interior design clas sroom practices. What you will be asked to do in the study: design projects and complete questionnaires about your opinion of the projects. Use your impression of the average quality of the work to complete your assessment. You do not have to answer any question you do not want to answer. Time required: 15 minutes per project evaluated. If you evaluate all projects, it will take up to 7.5 hours to complete your questionnaires, which can be spread out over multiple sessions at your convenience. Risks and Benefits: You may help determine the effectiveness of interior design teaching practices. We do not anticipate that you will benefit directly by participating in this experimen t. Compensation: None Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your name will not be used in any report. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Redacted Whom to contact about your rights as a research participa nt in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone 392 0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this descr iption.

PAGE 235

235 APPENDIX M INFORMED CONSENT FOR INSTRUCTORS Protocol Title: REFLECTING THE BEST OF THE PAST AND THE PRESENT: EXPLORING STUDENT LEARNING IN A DESIGN STUDIO FOCUSED ON DEVELOPING INTERIOR DESIGN COMPATIBILITY ON A HISTORIC CAMPUS Please read this co nsent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of interior design classroom practices. What you will be asked to do in the study: Your students will complete a studio project for a historic building. At the end of the term, you will arrange for at least five reviewers, composed of other faculty members and questionnaires, or feedback from allied designers or other faculty to determine your stude end of the spring 2011 Term. Bimonthly, the researcher will telephone you to discuss your opinion of how your class is progressing. You do not have to answer any question yo u do not want to answer. Time required: Approximately one class session at the beginning of your class project to administer surveys (2 hours maximum) and one class session at the end of the urs maximum). Bimonthly telephone calls, 2 hours a month. The duration of the class project will be determined by you. Risks and Benefits: You may help determine the effectiveness of interior design teaching practices. We do not anticipate that you will be nefit directly by participating in this experiment. Compensation: None Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your name will not be used in any report. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this st udy is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Redacted Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone 392 0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have recei ved a copy of this description.

PAGE 236

236 APPENDIX N IMAGES AND SELECTED PROJECT S Figure N 1. Hallway in Anderson Hall, University of Florida. Hallway shows how a significant interior space and the original wood framing were preserved and integrated into a design with new light fixtures. (Photo by graduate student Jessica Goldsmith, 2011) Figure N 2. Entrance in Anderson Hall. Historic elements are preserved, updated with new safety and accessibility features, and integrated into the current design. (Photo by graduate student Jessica Goldsmith, 2011)

PAGE 237

237 Figure N 3. Original pink marble staircase in the HUB, University of Florida campus. (Photo by graduate student Jessica Goldsmith, 2011) Figure N 4. New doorway with brushed metal framing in the HUB, University of Florida campus. Railings inspire framing for doors and windows surrounding the original pink marble staircase, shown in Figure N 3 (Photo by graduate student Jessica Goldsmith, 2011)

PAGE 238

238 Figure N 5. St udent computer service area in the HUB, University of Florida campus. A half circle applied ceiling pattern and brushed metal tubing refer to historic architectural features, while being products of their own time. (Photo by graduate student Jessica Goldsm ith, 2011) Figure N 6. Student service area in the HUB, University of Florida campus. A half circle cutout ceiling pattern, radiating carpet pattern and brushed metal tubing reference historic architectural features, yet are products of their own time. (Photo by graduate student Jessica Goldsmith, 2011)

PAGE 239

239 Table N Mean compatibility Scale Standard deviation Range 6.12 1 9 0.87 4.58 8

PAGE 240

240 Fig ure N 7 First example of a relatively more successful student project. Mean compatibility= 7.6. ( Student work shown with permission of student and department head, 2011)

PAGE 241

241 Figure N 8. Details from Figure N 7. ( Student work shown with permission of student and department head, 2011)

PAGE 242

242 Figure N 9. Second example of a relatively more successful student project. Mean compatibility= 8.0. ( Student work shown with permission of student and department head, 2011)

PAGE 243

243 Figure N 10. Details from Figure N 9. ( Student work shown with permission of student and department head, 2011)

PAGE 244

244 Figure N 11. Third example of a relatively more successful student project. Mean compatibility= 6.62. ( Student work shown with permission of student and department head, 2011)

PAGE 245

245 Figure N 12. Details from Figure N 11. ( Student work shown with permission of student and department head, 2011)

PAGE 246

246 Figure N 13. First example of a moderately successful student project. Mean compatibility= 7.05. ( Student work shown with permission of s tudent and department head, 2011)

PAGE 247

247 Figure N 14. Details from Figure N 13. ( Student work shown with permission of student and department head, 2011)

PAGE 248

248 Figure N 15. Second example of a moderately successful student project. Mean compatibility= 5.94. ( Student work shown with permission of student and department head, 2011)

PAGE 249

249 Figure N 16. Details from Figure N 15. ( Student work shown with permission of student and department head, 2011)

PAGE 250

250 Figure N 17. Third example of a moderately successful student project. Mean compatibility= 6.13. ( Student work shown with permission of student and department head, 2011)

PAGE 251

251 Figure N 18. Details from Figure N 18. ( Student work shown with permission of student and department head, 2011)

PAGE 252

252 Figure N 19. First example of a weak student project. Mean compatibility= 4.58. ( Student work shown with permission of student and department head, 2011)

PAGE 253

253 Figure N 20 Second example of a weak student project. Mean compatibility= 5.75. ( Student work shown with permission of student and department head, 2011)

PAGE 254

254 Figure N 21. Details from Figure N 20. ( Student work shown with permission of student and department head, 2011)

PAGE 255

255 Figure N 22. Third example of a weak student project. Mean compatibility= 6.23. ( Student work shown with permission of student and department head, 2011)

PAGE 256

256 Figure N 23. Details from Figure N 22. ( Student work shown with permission of student and department head, 2011)

PAGE 257

257 LIST OF REFERENCES Allison, E. W., & Allison, M. A. (2008). Preserving tangible cultural assets: A framework for a new dialog in preservation. Preservation Education and Research, 1, 29 40. Bakhtin, M.M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. Speech genres and other essays Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 60 102. Beecher, M. A. (1998). Toward a critical approach to the history of interiors. Journal of Interior Design 24(2), 4 11. Beecher, M. A. (1999). Alternative models of the past: History/theory/criticism courses. Journal of Interior Design, 25(1), 37 44. Binggeli, C. (2007). Interior design: A survey Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Blakemore, R. (2005). History of interior design and furniture: From ancient Egypt to Nineteenth Century Europe (2 nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Blumenson, J. (1990). Identifying American architecture: A pictorial guide to styles and t erms, 1600 1945 (Rev. Ed.). New York: W.W. Norton. Boyer, E., & M itgang, L. (1996). Building community: A new future for architecture education and practice. Princeton: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Brandt, B. K. (1998). A thematic approach to teaching design history in a multicultural setting Journal of Interior Design, 24(2), 17 24. Brent, R., Eubank,W., Danley, M., & Graham, C. (1993). Hands on approach to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Journal of Interior Design, 19 (1), 47 50. Brown, G. & Gifford, R. (2001). Architects predict lay e valuations of large contemporary buildings: Whose conceptual properties? Journal of Environmental Psychology 21 (1), 93 99. Ching, F. (2007). Architecture: Form, space, order. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. City of Bolivar historic district standards and guide lines. (no date). Retrieved from http://www.cityofbolivar.info/Historic%20District%20Standards%20and%20Guideli nes. City of Portland Bureau of Planning. (2008). Skidmore/Old Town historic district design guidelines Retrieved from http://www.portlandonline. com/bps/ index.cfm?a=213931&c=48640.

PAGE 258

258 City of Tampa. (2010). Ybor City Historic District design guidelines and district map Retrieved from http://www.tampagov.net/dept_Historic_Preservation/information_resources/Desig n_Guidelines/ybor_city.asp. College New s, University of Florida College of Design, Construction and Planning. (2010). IND ranked nationally by Design Intelligence Retrieved July 17, 2011 from http://www.dcp.ufl.edu/news/dintelligence 2011. Costarelli, S., & Colloca, P. (2004). The effects of attitudinal ambivalence on pro environmental behavioral intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 279 288. Council for Interior Design Accreditation. (Approved June 2008). Professional standards 2009 (Effectiv e July 1, 2009). Grand Rapids, MI: Author. Retrieved March 11, 2010 from http://www.accredit id.org/Prof_Standards2009.pdf. Darbee, J., Rechie, N., Rickey, B., Williams, J., & Loversidge, Jr, R. (2009). Miami University campus heritage plan. Retrieved July 11, 2011 from https://oneness.scup.org/asset/53664/Miami_U_Campus_Heritage_Plan.pdf. Devine Wright, P., & Clayton, S. (2010). Introduction to the special issue: Place, identity and environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 267 27 0. Dilnot, C. (1984). The state of design history, Part 1: Mapping the field. Design Issues, 1(1), 4 23. Dilnot, C. (1984b). The state of design history, Part II: Problems and possibilities. Design Issues, 1(2), 3 20. Dilnot, C. (2009). Some futures for design history? Journal of Design History, 22(4), 377 394. Dohr, J., & Portillo, M. (2011). Design thinking for interiors: Inquiry, experience, impact Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. Dunbar, B. (1989). The significance of t he educational philosophies of Walter Gropius for interior design curricula. Journal of Interior Design, 15(1), 5 12. Fischetti, D. (2009). Structural Investigation of Historic Buildings: A Case Study Guide to Preservation Technology for Buildings, Bridges Towers and Mills Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Flischel, R. (ed). (2001). An expression of the community: Cincinnati public schools legacy of art and architecture Cincinnati, OH: The Art League Press. Fontein, L. (1997). Teaching lighting to architecture students : Technology as design inspiration. Right Light, 4, 159 163.

PAGE 259

259 influence of self awareness on connectedness to nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 427 436. Futurevisions. (2004). 2000 Symposium: Historic preservation and architecture Education: A dialogue. The American Institute of Architects: Washington, D.C. Retrieved March 11, 2010, from http://info.aia.org/nwsltr_hrc.cfm?pagename=hrc_a_20050214_edconf. Gifford, R., Hine, D., Muller Clemons, W., Reynolds JR, D., & Shaw, K. (2000). Decoding modern architecture: A lens model approach for understanding the aesthetic differences of architects and laypersons. Environment and Behavior 32 (2), 163 187. Gifford, R., Hine, D., Muller Clemons, W., &Shaw, K. (2002). Why architects and laypersons judge buildings differently: Cognitive properties and physical bases. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 19 (2), 131 148. Gosling, E., & Williams, J.H. (2010). Co nnectedness to nature, place attachment and conservation behavior: Testing connectedness theory among farmers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 298 304. Harwood, B., May, B., & C. Sherman. (2001). Architecture and Interior Design Through the 18th C entury: An Integrated History Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Harwood, B., May, B., and C. Sherman. (2008). Architecture and Interior Design from the 19th Century (Volume II). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hennessey, B. & Amabile, T. (1987). Creativity and learning: What research says to the teacher Washington, D.C.: NEA Professional Library. Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1988). Story telling: A method for assessing Journal of Creative Behavio r, 22, 235 246. Hinds, J., & Sparks, P. (2008). Engaging with the natural environment: the role of affective connection and identity. The Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 109 120. Hole, D. et al. (2004). Annapolis historic district design manual ( 2 nd ed.). Annapolis Historic Preservation Commission: Annapolis. Retrieved March 11, 2010 from http://www.ci.annapolis.md.us/upload/images/government/boards/hist_pres/design .pdf. Jandl, H. W. (no date). Preservation Briefs 18: Rehabilitating interiors in h istoric buildings, Identifying and preserving character defining elements Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

PAGE 260

260 John Muir College. (2008) Historic resources inventory and preservation plan Retrieved July 11, 2011 from http://muir.ucsd.edu/ab outmuir/documents/MCPP_Preservation.pdf. Kriebel, M. (1983). An accessibility course for interior design students. Journal of Interior Design, 9 (2), 20 25. Kumar, R. (1996). Research methodology: A step by step guide for beginners Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Lichtman, S. (2009). Reconsidering the history of design survey. Journal of Design History, 22(4), 341 350. Ligibel, T., Tyler, I., & N. Tyler. (2009). Historic preservation: An introduction to its history, principles, and practice (2 nd ed.). New York: W .W. Norton and Co. Lindfors, J. W. (1987). (2 nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hal, Inc. Lindfors, J. W. (1999). Longstr eth, R. (1999). Architectural history and the practice of preservation in the United States. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 58 (3), 326 333. design cos presentation. Malnar, J. M., & Vodvarka, F. (1992). The interior dimension: A theoretical approach to enclosed space New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Margolin, V. (1995). Design history or design studies: Subject matter and methods. Design Issues, 11(1), 4 15. Mattern, S. (2003). Just how public is the Seattle Public Library?: Publicity, posturing, and politics in public design. Journal of Architectural Education, 57 (1), 5 18. Mayer, F.S., & Frantz, C. M. P. (2004) .The connectedness to nature scale: A measure Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 503 515. Mayer, F.S., & Frantz, C. M. P. (2009) .Why is nature beneficial?: The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 607 643. Meneely, J. (2010). Educat ing adaptable minds: How diversified are the thinking preferences of interior design s tudents? Journal of Interior Design, 35, 21 32.

PAGE 261

261 Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2010). The environmental attitudes inventory: A valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30 80 94. Morgenthaler, H. (1995). Chronology ver ses system: Unleashing the creative potential of architectural history. Journal of Architectural Education, 48(4), 218 226. Moss, R. (1988). Lighting: For historic buildings In Historic interiors series Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Murtagh, W. (2006). Keeping Tim e: The History and theory of preservation in America (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Flow theory and research. Oxford handbook of positive psychology C. R. Snyder, Shane J. Lopez (ed.), New York, NY: Oxford Univ ersity Press pg 195 206. National Alliance of Preservation Commissions. (no date). Online design guidelines Retrieved July 11, 2011 from http://www.uga.edu/napc/programs/napc/guidelines.htm. National Council for Interior Design Qualification. (2009). NCID Q exam eligibility requirements Retrieved March 11, 2010 from http://www.ncidq.org/Exam/EligibilityRequirements.aspxer. National Park Service. (no date). Introduction: Choosing an appropriate treatment for a historic building Retrieved October 4, 2010 fr om http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/standguide/overview/choose_treat.htm. National Park Service. (no date). treatment of historic properties Retrieved October 4, 2010 from http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/ tps/standguide/. National Trust for Historic Preservation. (2009). Issues Retrived October 20, 2009 from http://www.preservationnation.org/. National Trust for Historic Preservation (National Trust). (2011). This place matters. Retrieved from http://www.p reservationnation.org/take action/this place matters/. Nelson, L. H. (no date). Preservation Briefs 17: Architectural character: Identifying the visual aspects of historic buildings as an aid to preserving their character Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Nielson, K. (2007). Interior textiles: Fabrics, application, and historic style Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

PAGE 262

262 Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski,J. M., & Murphy, S.A. (2009). The Nature Relatedness Scale: nmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41, 715 740. Norman, G. & Schmidt, H. (1992). The psychological basis of problem based learning: A review of the evidence Academic Medecine 67(9), 557 565. Nylander, J., & Nylander, R. (2005). Fabri cs and wallpapers for historic buildings. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Office of Admissions, University of Florida. (no date). 2007 Freshmen Profile. Retrieved July 12, 2011 from http://www.admissions.ufl.edu/ugrad/frprofile08.html. Perrin, J.L., & Benassi, V.A. (2009). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of emotional connection to nature? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 434 440. Pile, J. (2003). Interior design (3 rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pile, J. (2009). A h istory of interior design (3 rd ed). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Place Matters. (2007). Place matters Retrieved from http://www.placematters.net/. Poldma, T. (2009). Learning the dynamic processes of color and light in interior design. Journal of Interior Design, 34(2), 19 33. P ortillo. M. (1996). Uncovering implicit theories of creativity in beginning design s tudents. Journal of Interior Design (22), 15 24. Scanzoni, J. (2005). Discovery based learning: The coach cultivating human players capitol. Universities as if students mattered: Social science on the creative edge. Lanham, MD: Rowman &Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Scalise, C. ((2004). Interior planning and design: Project, programs, plans and charettes. Clifton Park, NJ: Delmar Learning. Schn, D. (1984). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action New York: Basic Books. Schn, D. (1987) Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco : Jossey Bass. Schultz, P. W., Schri ver, C., Tabanico, J. J., & Khazian, A. M. (2004). Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 31 42. Stiffler, E. (1990). Teaching a course in environments for special needs. Journal of Interior Design, 16 (1), 23 28.

PAGE 263

263 Stipe, R. (2008). A richer heritage: Historic preservation in the Twenty First century. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. Story, P. A., & Forsyth, D. R. (2008). Watershed conservation and preservation: Environmental engagement as helping b ehavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 305 317. Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis, Design Studies, 18, 385 403. Tampa Architectural Review Commission. (Revised 2002). Hyde Park design guidelines:A guide to rehabilitation and new construction in the Hyde Park Historic District Tampa Architectural Review Commission: Tampa. Retrieved March 11, 2010 from http://www.tampagov.net/dept_Historic_Preservation/information _resources/archit ectural_review_commission/hyde_park_design_guidelines.asp. Tampa Architectural Review Commission. (Revised 2002). Hyde Park design guidelines: A guide to rehabilitation and new construction in the Hyde Park Historic District Tate, S., & Dixon, L., et al. (2007a). The University of Florida campus preservation plan with guidelines for rehabilitation and new construction in the historic impact area. University of Florida: Gainesville. Retrieved March 11, 2010 from http://www.ppd.ufl.edu/Hi storicCampusWebsite/pdf/UFPreservationPlan.pdf. Tate, S., & Dixon, L., et al. (2007b). The University of Florida campus preservation plan with guidelines for rehabilitation and new construction. University of Florida: Gainesville. Retrieved March 11, 2010 from http://www.ppd.ufl.edu/HistoricCampusWebsite/UFCampusHistoricPreservationGu idelines.html. Temple, N. (1992). Interior design workbook: Problems and projects for 1st and 2nd year students Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Vischer, J., & Cooper Marcus, C. (1982). D esign aw ards: Who cares? Knowledge for design: Proceedings of the thirteenth E nvironment al Design Research Association c onference. P. Bart, A. Chen & G. Francescato (eds.). Maryland: EDRA, 210 223. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and word. Thought and languag e MIT Press Journals, 210 256. Whitmarsh, L. (2009). Behavioral responses to climate change: Asymmetry of intentions and impacts. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 13 23. Yin, R. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods Thousand Oaks, CA: S age. Young, R. (2008). Historic preservation technology: A primer. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

PAGE 264

264 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jessica Goldsmith entered the University of Florida in 2001. During her undergraduate interior design studies, she began the four plus one program to continue her studies. Jessica graduated with high honors, receiving a Bachelor of Design, Interiors in 200 6. While completing on function and symbolism of Collegiate Gothic ornamentation she conducted original historical archives research and participated in recovery efforts in Bay St. Louis after Hurricane Katrina. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Florida in the spring of 2012. She is currently pursuing an academic career in interior design.