Where whats in common mediatesdisciplinary diversity in design students:A shared pathdevelopment

Candy Carmel-Gillen an

College of Design, Cons

Gainesville, FL 32611, U

The purpose of this study

Perry scheme (1968). Th

sophomore, junior, and se

empirically assessed on gl

the Measure of Intellectu

Supporting previous resea

and multiplicity with glob

design thinking. Regardle

process, production, and

data.

2011 Elsevier Ltd. All

Keywords: design educati

rsities, students dier in

ledge in a discipline; in-

nses to instructors and

any levels, enter amajor

nary knowledge but de-

Further, students should

elationships. For exam-

erstanding of the neces-

r, this responsibility in

. Likewise, interior de-

ibility for the design of

h design discipline con-

d design educators focus

ve disciplines. However,

related and increasingly

237

2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.tion of the building shell or enclosure, but respons

these elements normally belongs to the architect. Eac

tributes unique expertise to the built environment, an

on unique bodies of knowledge within their respecti

do any shared pathways in student thinking connect

specialized knowledge?

Corresponding author:CandyCarmel-Gillen.

carmelcn@u.edu

www.elsevier.com/locate/destud

0142-694X $ - see front matter Design Studies 33 (2012) 237e261

doi:10.1016/j.destud.2011.08.004signers need to be knowledgeable about building components and construc-Perry scheme

No two students are alike. In colleges and unive

terms of their personalities; background know

trinsic motivation and attitude; and respo

learning environments. These students, diverse on som

with the charge not only to explicitly master discipli

velop the necessary skills to think and problem-solve.

be able to acknowledge epistemological context and r

ple, architectural students need to acquire a solid und

sary structural components of a building; howeve

practice is typically delegated to a project engineerway of intellectual

dMargaret Portillo, Department of Interior Design,

truction and Planning, University of Florida,

SA

was to explore intellectual development using the

e authors present ndings from a study involving 139

nior architecture and interior design students who were

obal and discipline-specic thought development using

al Development and the Measure of Designing.

rch, students were found in the positions of dualism

al thought development proving more advanced than

ss of disciplinary focus, students approached design

assessment similarly as evidenced in the qualitative

rights reserved.

on, design process, epistemology, interdisciplinarity,

Design leaders express concern that too little attention gets paid to design think-

ing, the nature of knowledge, and how it is acquired (Martin & Guerin, 2010).

Thomas Fisher (2010), Dean of theUniversity ofMinnesota College of Design,

238asserts Design thinking remains one of the least understood andmost valuable

modes of thought (p. 61). Emphasis needs to be placed on identifying the

thought processes required to recognize and comprehend design problems

when creating solutions. From his perspective, Too many [design] schools re-

main so focused on students work that too little attention gets paid to the

thinking behind it. (p. 62). A perennial challenge for design educators is to

teach discipline-specic content required by the professions while advancing

the development of thinking and problem solving skills.

Although some studies have examined curriculum, content, and sequencing

within design education, few go beneath the surface to explore design thinking.

The current study investigates the maturation of thought development across

two design disciplines guided by the Perry Scheme of Intellectual and Ethical

Development. This framework oers a lens to identify the ways students ap-

proach their learning and their subject matter. This pedagogical framework

has substantial implications for teaching design; yet, few empirical studies

have applied the Perry scheme to design pedagogy. The authors study the ef-

cacy of this framework in architecture and interior design education. The ra-

tionale for doing so was that these disciplines, contain some common content

knowledge and may, in fact, share a trajectory of thought development. When

U.S. universities house architecture and interior design programs together in

design colleges, students from both disciplines typically are required to com-

plete a shared design core of beginning studio work. Studying design episte-

mology within this pedagogical context, the purpose of this paper is to explore

developmental patterns of thinking in architecture and interior design students

using the Perry scheme.

1 Perry Scheme of Intellectual DevelopmentPerry proposed a framework for understanding the epistemological growth of

college students. Perrys original research charted trajectories of intellectual

development over several decades at Harvard University using unstructured

student interviews. Perry and his associates detected what appeared to repre-

sent a coherent pattern of development in the manner in which students func-

tioned intellectually, this resulted in a sequence of cognitive structures that

reect how students make meaning in their world (Brooks, 1998: p. 4).

Based on the emerging trends over time, Perry developed a theoretical frame-

work characterized by nine positions or forms of thought which he grouped

into four primary developmental phases namely, dualism, multiplicity, contex-

tual relativism, and commitment in relativism (Perry, 1968). Each position rep-

resents a qualitatively dierent mode of thinking, or structure for perceiving

the nature of knowledge (Brooks, 1998, p. 4).

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 3 May 2012

Positions 1 and 2 of the Perry continuum represent dualism, which is charac-

terized by concrete thinking and absolutism. Dualistic thinkers use absolute

categories of right or wrong to understand people, knowledge, and values

Where whats in commo(Brooks, 1998). They rely heavily on the instructor to provide them with the

necessary information in order to solve a problem. Further, they believe

that the way to gauge aptitude and accomplishment is measured by external

assessments, like tests and remarks from authority gures. Dualistic students

often fail to see the connection between project work and themselves,

students are essentially unaware that the exercises they have been given to

nd an answer or to work out problems has provided them new freedom to

think about the issues (Brooks, 1998, p. 6). Related research in interior design

shows that dualistic students appear to have limited control over idea genera-

tion, prefer well-structured problems, and see the instructor as an authority

gure (Carmel-Gillen & Portillo, 2010a).

In positions 3 and 4, multiplicity, student thinking appears more nuanced. Al-

though most knowledge is still considered absolute, this type of thinker recog-

nizes multiple perspectives on an issue. However, he or she often has diculty

evaluating diverging interpretations or theories, therefore all answers are seen

as valid, students still believe that authorities may know the answers in some

areas; but where ambiguity exists, any option must be considered acceptable

(Brooks, 1998, p. 6). These students try to understand what the instructor

wants and seek approval. Exploratory research with multiplicity interior de-

sign students found that they appear to be marked by a greater ability to un-

derstand the design process, prefer loosely structured problems, and begin to

associate project evaluation with context (Carmel-Gillen & Portillo, 2010a).

Next, in positions 5 and 6, contextual relativism, advanced thinkers recognize

the contextual and relative quality of knowledge and problem-solving. These

students understand all opinions (their own, their peers, their instructors)

may have validity but also acknowledge that some approaches are more ap-

propriate based on the context surrounding the problem. In this stage, stu-

dents recognize that the instructor has expertise in the eld of study, but

begin to shift responsibility for learning to themselves. They begin to ask ques-

tions and make decisions based on an examination of the sources, evidence,

and logical reasoning used to support judgments (Brooks, 1998, p. 5).

Finally, in positions 7, 8, and 9, commitment in relativism, students establish

their own ideas, values, and behaviors within a knowledge base. Individuals

commit themselves to opinions, ideologies, interests, and values with which

they will identify (Brooks, 1998, p. 5). This advanced thinking also encom-

passes ethical dimensions inherent with dening a personal worldview.

The Perry scheme proposes most students enter college as dualistic thinkers

and typically move to higher positions, multiplicity and contextual relativism,

n mediates disciplinary diversity in design students 239

prior to graduation. Few students achieve post-contextual relativistic thinking

during their college years and most subsequent research; in a range of disci-

plines validate the posited early-to-mid-range positions of development

240(Baxter-Magolda, 1995; Kitchener, 1982; Mines, 1985; Moore, 2003).

The original criteria, judgment, and processes proposed by Perry have been fur-

ther developed and validated by other researchers (Mentkowski, Moser, &

Strait, 1983; Moore, 1994). A number of constructs have been created to mea-

sure and operationalize the Perry scheme, including interview techniques

(Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Perry, 1968), written instru-

ments such as the Measure of Intellectual Development (MID) (Widick &

Knefelkamp, 1974), and the Measure of Epistemological Reection (MER)

(Baxter-Magolda, 1987a), and objective measures including the Scale of Intel-

lectual Development (SID) (Erwin, 1983), and the Learning Environment Pref-

erences (LEP) (Moore, 1989). Other researchers have adapted theoretical

models to special populations based on the Perry scheme. First, Belenky et al.

(1986) created Womens Ways of Knowing to better understand cognitive de-

velopment of women. Similarly, Baxter-Magolda (1992) adapted the Perry

scheme into a model of epistemological development called Ways of Knowing

and Reasoning which uses the MER to identify gender-related patterns of

thinking. Finally, King and Kitchener (1994) developed the Reective Judg-

ment (RJ) model which attempted to detach the development of knowledge

fromethics and identity. TheRJmodel describes a developmental progression,

based on the study of bothmen and women, that occurs in the ways that people

understand the process of knowing and theways they justify their options about

problems (Brooks, 1998, p. 10). Given all of these modications, Perrys sem-

inal work continues to be the principal emphasis of epistemological research.

Since Perrys original research was completed the model has also been repli-

cated and expanded in a variety of college and university settings (Baxter-

Magolda, 1992; King & Kitchener, 1994; Moore, 1994). Further, research

has measured the inuence of outside variables on intellectual development in-

cluding class standing (Hood & Deopere, 2002; Kitchener & King, 1989;

Palmer, Marra, Wise, & Litzinger, 2000; Perry, 1968), work experience

(Brown, 2002; Knouse, Tanner, & Harris, 1999; Ryan & Cassidy, 1996), and

gender (Baxter-Magolda, 1992; Belenky et al., 1986; Buczynski, 1993). Finally,

discipline-specic studies using the Perry framework have been completed in

professional elds including medicine (Thomas, 1990), education (Reid,

1986), and engineering (Wise, Lee, Litzinger, Marra, & Palmer, 2001; 2004).

The Perry scheme has inspired over one thousand documented research studies

across disciplines, yet little has been applied to the context of design (www.Per-

rynetwork.org). One notable exception was a study by Portillo and Dohr

(1989) that examined students early stages of thought development in a begin-

ning design course. Results identied students in the phases of dualism and

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 3 May 2012

multiplicity and two types of dualists were identied: spontaneous and linear

thinkers. Both types were characterized as having limited control over design

outcomes, whereas multiplistic thinkers displayed a greater ability to navigate

This study consisted of 52 architecture and 87 interior design students from

Where whats in commopublic universities in the Midwest and southeast regions of the United States.

The sample represented leading U.S. architecture and interior design pro-

grams as recognized by the DesignIntelligence rankings (http://www.di.net/

archschools/schools.html). The three participating architecture programs

were accredited by the National Architectural Accreditation Board

(NAAB); likewise, the three paired interior design programs were accredited

by the Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA). Further, each pro-

gram was housed within a college of design which contained both disciplines

that shared an interdisciplinary core design curriculum. Building on previous

research precedent (Carmel-Gillen & Portillo, 2010a), the current study

assessed sophomore (n 62), junior (n 36), and senior students (n 41),representing both disciplines. Previous research on college undergraduates

n mediates disciplinary diversity in design students 241design problems.

Building upon this early research, a more recent study explored the Perry

scheme in a broader sample of not only beginning but intermediate interior de-

sign students (Carmel-Gillen & Portillo, 2010a). The study found evidence

for the positions of dualism, multiplicity, and a transitional stage between

thought positions. The ndings also showed that global thinking was more ad-

vanced than thought development in design. Further, both types of thinking

signicantly related to studio performance and class standing. This suggests

that those with more advanced thinking generally had higher grades and

more advanced class standing. The research, reported this paper, extends on

this study by exploring design thinking in architecture and interior design.

2 MethodThe purpose of this study is to investigate developmental patterns of architec-

ture and interior design students, using the Perry scheme of intellectual and

ethical development. The Perry scheme oers insights into the maturation of

thinking skills and intellectual development that occur during the college

years. To explore thought development in architecture and interior design,

this study poses the following questions:

What positions of intellectual development characterize architecture and

interior design students and how do these developmental trajectories com-

pare between disciplines?

Do architecture and interior design students exhibit dierent levels of mat-

uration in their thinking about design process, production and evaluation?

2.1 Participants

(and even rst year graduates students) has found little to no evidence for the

most advanced levels of thought development (e.g., contextual relativism or

commitment in relativism) (Kitchener, 1982). Based on these ndings and

242normative data provided by the Center for the Study of Intellectual Develop-

ment, Perry research across elds typically uncovers dualistic and multiplistic

positions of thinking.

The sample included 106 females and 32 males from 19 to 39 years of age with

an average age of 21.89 (SD 2.88). Students were recruited based on enroll-ment in specic studio courses selected and agreed upon by the authors, pro-

grams, and faculty teaching these courses. Target groups included sophomore,

junior, and senior architecture and interior design studios from each partici-

pating university. Participation in the study occurred on a voluntary basis

and adhered to university institutional review board approvals. There was

no compensation provided to participants.

2.2 Instrument and procedureData for this study were gathered in the spring of 2008 on site during 11 data

gathering sessions in the participating interior design and architecture pro-

grams. Data was gathered in single untimed sessions of approximately 1.5 h

in selected studio courses where students were tested as a group. Students

were asked to provide detailed descriptions of previous educational experi-

ences in both general and studio coursework so that researchers could better

understand their thought process and development. Participants were also

asked to sign informed consent and complete the three required protocols.

The data in this study are part of a larger research program on design peda-

gogy; however, the ndings reported here will center on student development.

This instrumentation used taps into both general intellectual capacities (MID)

as well as more specialized design thinking (MOD). Global thinking includes

a broad assessment of general experiences and transformations as part of the

college experience. Whereas, design thinking encompasses the discipline-

specic knowledge and skills required of a particular eld. For this study three

facets of thinking in design will be measured, process, production, and evalu-

ation. It is important to recognize that both global and design-specic knowl-

edge inform the design process. Further, both accreditation bodies (NAAB &

CIDA) require distinct evidence of global and design-specic knowledge.

Finally, previous research has found global thinking dierent from design

thinking (Portillo & Dohr, 1989; Carmel-Gillen & Portillo, 2010a).

The Measure of Intellectual Development (MID) developed by Widick and

Knefelkamp (1974) assesses a students global epistemology based on the de-

ned positions of the Perry scheme. This instrument measures intellectual as-

pects of the Perry model, specically positions 1e5 and is designed to assess

how individuals view knowledge and responsibilities in decision making,

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 3 May 2012

careers, and classroom learning (Brooks, 1998). The original instrument con-

sisted of two essays and sentence completion stems, but work at the University

of Maryland, Alverno College, and the Center for the Study of Intellectual De-

Where whats in commovelopment has rened and standardized the instrument, which consists of sep-

arate essay probes (perrynetwork.org). The protocol used for this study, essay

Q (Moore, 2003), contains one major essay probe that encourages reection on

previous learning experiences including content subject matter, types of

teachers, classroom atmosphere, role as a student, and evaluation procedures.

Look back on your experiences in this course or program and reect on your

learning as well as discoveries about yourself as a learner. Please be specic

and concrete; provide as much detail about what stood out for you as you

think is necessary to oer a clear idea of your learning experience. For

example, you might want to discuss any or all of the following topics: the

content/subject matter, the kinds of teachers and teaching you experienced,

the classroom atmosphere, your role as a student, the evaluation procedures

that were used. What elements have made a dierence in your learning, and

why?

On average, the students wrote approximately one handwritten page essays in

response to this prompt. Trained raters coded the Perry essays guided by a rat-

ing manual that includes examples for each position (Moore, 1988). These

measures reect Perrys developmental positions; however, they have been ex-

panded and systematized over time (Baxter-Magolda, 1987b). MID rating

sheets include three ratings, the two individual ratings, and the nal, recon-

ciled rating reached in consensus. All ratings are represented by a three digit

number which reects the dominant and if necessary sub-dominant positions

on the Perry scheme (Moore, 2004). For example, a rating of 223 represents

a dominant position 2 or dualism, with opening to position 3 or beginning to

see glimpses of multiplicity (Moore, 2004). For reporting purposes nal rat-

ings are then converted to continuous data using the manual for the instru-

ment (Moore, 2004).

The MID can be scored reliably with acceptable levels of agreement by expert

raters (Mines, 1982). In addition, Baxter-Magolda (1988) found that standard-

ized methods such as the MID are comparable to semi-structured interview

methods. The MID measures both stable positions as well as transitional

movement in the student essays. The trained raters from the Center for the

Study of Intellectual Development essays achieved over 90% inter-rater agree-

ment, giving condence in the scoring process.

The MID aims at understanding the global college experience, including the

dierent types of courses, teachers, and classroom environment. This informa-

tion can include courses related to design work, but does not specically target

this data. Often, information given is general in nature and does not speci-

cally address design. Example excerpts are included below:

n mediates disciplinary diversity in design students 243

Overall, the element that made the biggest impact on my learning was rel-

evance. Learning material that was, or was made to seem important, has had

the greatest impression on me. If a teacher was not enthusiastic or engaging it

made it dicult to learn. If a class was well-structured, outlined expectations

and requirements and was also challenging it made for better learning. The

more frequently you have to study or do work for a class, the more you

retain.

Having a class that is small in size or that breaks into smaller groups really

helps me to learn better. I nd I can understand the concepts better, and listen

to how others are interpreting the information. It feels like an informal meet-

ing rather than a class.

Table 1 Sample Measure of D

Domain 1: Design ProcesseThink about your work on

Domain 2: Design ProductWhat kind of directions do

Domain 3: Design EvaluatiHow should your instructo

244Although this material is critical in understanding the general views and pref-

erences of design students, focused data in design thinking was also collected.

The Measure of Designing (MOD) developed by Portillo (1987) contains nine

essay questions that prompt college students to focus on their design learning

experiences. The questions on thought development probe the design process

including process and assumptions, design production and project perception,

and design evaluation. The three cognitive domains (process, production, and

evaluation) each included three questions, refer to Table 1 for example

questions.

Responses to the design essays were approximately three pages in length.

Raters used Perry position-specic design criteria in the form of cues and ex-

amples for each Perry position. The responses were rst evaluated separately

by each domain (process, production, and evaluation) to determine the specic

criteria that described the student response. An example of the criteria used for

domain three, design evaluation, is shown in Table 2. If a student described

preference for design evaluation that is very detailed and gives logical reasons,

a coder would select criterion 3.2.5 needs tangible, concrete reasons for eval-

uation procedure. Information in regard to the specic criteria for all do-

mains as well as their relation to the Perry scheme is detailed in the raters

manual (Portillo, 1987). For the 139 student essays in this study, raters inde-

pendently evaluated a total of 720 statements. Protocols were also assigned

an overall developmental position by each rater using a three digit number

that reects the dominant and sub-dominant Perry position. Raters then

esigning Questions

s and Assumptionsthe recent design studio problem. Now describe what process you went through.

ion and Project Perceptionyou prefer when being given a design problem?

onr, peers, and yourself become involved in the evaluation process?

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 3 May 2012

Table 2 Sample Measure of Designing Criteria

Design Evaluation: Domain Three

Dualism: In this Perry position central concerns include: prefers clear, straightforward approach-teacher shouldtest what has been taught/authority:3.2.1 authority omnipotent-3.2.2 cannot articulate whystatements3.2.3 discounts opinion of p3.2.4 during critique focuse3.2.5 needs tangible, concre3.2.6 feels evaluation shoul

Multiplicity: In this Perry pauthority for method to n(hard work good grades)3.3.1 authority does not kn3.3.2 expresses that many d3.3.3 believes peer input leg3.3.4 in critique focuses on3.3.5 relates personal soluti3.3.6 wants quantitative jus3.3.7 adapts anything goes

Contextual Relativism: In thlegitimate in evaluation/cexpertise to critique and ev3.4.1 values quality feedbac3.4.2 believes that certain d3.4.3 in critique focuses on3.4.4 connects caring with c3.4.5. understands importan

Where whats in commoexpects/demands a high level of external control/expects/demands structure for the

follow what the teacher says/deserve a good gradea design is either successful or not/limited to I like it or I dont like it types of

eers in critique since instructor is authoritys on if the rules were followed/not subjectivete reasons for evaluation procedured be based on doing personal best/showing improvement

osition central concerns include: see more roles for the authority/still looks tod answer/believes quantity of time and eort should be directly related to successow all the answersesign solutions are legitimateitimate even though authority has the nal saya variety of solutionson to other out-of class-learning experiencetication for evaluation procedure attitude to problem solutions

is Perry position central concerns include: begins to accept qualitative criteria asmet to reach consensus and determine the nal reconciled rating for each par-

ticipant. Finally, similar to theMID, scores were then converted to continuous

data for statistical analyses.

The design protocols in this study were scored by two trained raters who

achieved an inter-rater reliability of 89.93 percent. When reviewing the con-

tent, the raters paid attention to descriptions of the design process and ap-

proach rather than specic project factors. For example, some architectural

students discussed an iterative process that involved carefully studying the

site and topography. The coding process focused only on the way the student

approached design (the iterative process), not what this design included (site

and topography).

3 FindingsThe ndings reveal developmental patterns in both global and design-specic

thinking. To test for any pre-existing dierences between the participating

omfortable with qualitative criticism/teacher has appropriate authority andaluatek from teacher/juror as well as peersesign solutions can be judged as better than others based on the problem givensability to meet problem givens creatively through innovationonstructive critiquingce of critique across design phases

n mediates disciplinary diversity in design students 245

schools, a one-factor ANOVA was calculated with results indicating no mean

dierences for theMID (p .184) orMOD (p .128). This provides a measureof assurance that data collected from any one of the six programs did not skew

the ndings.

The study found distinct stages of development represented by dualism and

multiplicity. According to the Measure of Intellectual Development, the sam-

Table 3 Perry Distribution by Major

Architecture Interior Design

Global Thinking(MID) (n 52)

Design Thinking(MOD) (n 53)

Global Thinking(MID) (n 84)

Design Thinking(MOD) (n 87)

Dualistic 9.62% (5) 34.85% (19) 14.29% (12) 31.03% (27)Multiplistic 90.38% (47) 64.15% (34) 85.71% (72) 68.97% (60)

Table 4 Perry Distribution by

Class Standing

Global Thinking (MID)SophomoreJuniorSenior

Design Thinking (MOD)SophomoreJuniorSenior

246ple contained 12 percent dualistic thinkers (n 17), and 88 percent multiplisticthinkers (n 119). The Measure of Designing placed 33 percent of the univer-sity students into dualism (n 46), and 67 percent of the sample into multiplic-ity (n 92). This nding conrms other research in interior design by showingstudents typically have more advanced global reasoning than discipline-

specic thinking (Carmel-Gillen & Portillo, 2010a).

Table 3 illustrates the Perry classications for architecture and interior design

students. Both groups overall thinking about knowledge appeared more devel-

oped than their design-based thinking. However, architecture students scored

higher on global thought development than the interior design students as evi-

denced by t-test results (p .050). No signicant dierences between the groupswere found in terms of design thinking (p .516). Thought development in de-sign appeared similar between architectural and interior design students.

Table 4 summarizes the group means and standard deviations by class stand-

ing. Global thought development showed a consistent increase, correlating

Class Standing

Number Mean SD Minimum Maximum

61 3.09 .28 4.00 2.5036 3.17 .30 3.67 2.67

39 3.22 .39 4.33 2.67

62 2.95 .40 4.00 2.0036 3.10 .45 4.00 2.0041 3.00 .51 4.00 2.00

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 3 May 2012

Table 5 Perry Distribution by Class Standing and Major

Class Standing Major n Mean SD Min Max

Global Thinking (MID)Sophomore Ar

InJunior Ar

InSenior Ar

In

Design Thinking (MOD)Sophomore Ar

InJunior Ar

InSenior Ar

In

Where whats in commowith class standing (sophomores 3.09, juniors 3.17, seniors 3.22). Inter-estingly discipline-specic thinking assumed a somewhat dierent trajectory

that showed an expected increase in sophomore to junior standing

(2.95e3.10) and then a decrease during the senior year (3.10e3.00). As seen

in Table 5, when controlling for major, global and design thinking of architec-

ture students continues to grow with time spent in the respective program,

whereas the interior design mean scores increases from sophomore to junior

year; however, the pattern shows a decrease from junior to senior years. Ad-

ditional tests indicated that design thinking did not nd signicant dierences

between the sophomore and junior cohorts (sophomores, p .250, juniors,p .890). However, among seniors, a signicant dierence was found forglobal thought development (p .051) where the mean for the architecturalsenior students (3.36) is signicantly higher than that in interior design (3.12).

The study also investigated the inuence of gender, since the discipline of in-

chitecture 21 3.16 .37 2.67 4.00terior Design 39 3.06 .26 2.50 3.67chitecture 13 3.14 .23 3.00 3.67terior Design 23 3.17 .34 2.67 3.67chitecture 17 3.36 .37 2.50 4.33terior Design 22 3.12 .37 2.50 4.33

chitecture 22 2.89 .42 2.00 3.50terior Design 39 2.98 .39 2.50 4.00chitecture 13 3.14 .60 2.50 4.00terior Design 23 3.05 .39 2.00 3.50chitecture 17 3.15 .43 2.50 4.00terior Design 23 2.91 .55 2.00 4.00terior design contains signicantly more females enrolled in its programs

than does architecture which is more gender balanced. An interesting line of

research extended Perrys original study to female and male trajectories

(Baxter-Magolda, 1992; Belenky et al., 1986; King & Kitchener, 1994). Like-

wise the sample distribution in the present study oered the opportunity to ex-

plore gender dierences. The sample representing architecture consisted of 24

females and 29 males while interior design contained 82 females and 3 males.

To explore the relationship between thought maturation and gender, a two-

sample t-test compared the development levels between males and females. Re-

sults indicate a signicant dierence (p .033) with the MID mean for males(3.139) appearing slightly higher than that for females (3.055). The MOD

mean for males (2.956) was also higher than that of females (2.885), however

no signicant dierence was found (p .082). These ndings support earlier

n mediates disciplinary diversity in design students 247

research that suggested that global epistemological development of males and

females typically shows learning occurring at dierent rates (Baxter-Magolda,

1992; Belenky et al., 1986; Buczynski, 1993). Further, a longitudinal study by

The ndings from the measure of design thinking demonstrate that the major-

248ity of dualistic student citations fall into the positions of dualism and also tran-

sitions into early multiplicity (97.68%). Likewise, multiplistic citations

represent multiplicity and late multiplicity (87.29%). Table 6 presents both pri-

mary developmental positions in the words of the students, organized by the

design process, production, and evaluation. This qualitative data enriches

the statistical ndings with insights by students, in their own words, who rep-

resent dierent developmental levels. Additionally, Table 7 presents the most

frequently cited design criteria representing dualistic and multiplistic posi-

tions. Findings indicate that dualistic thinkers, across architecture and interior

design, showed a linear design approach, assumed little responsibility for pro-

ject outcomes, and preferred concrete evaluation procedures. Multiplistic

students use a wider variety of preparation techniques with less direct reliance

on the instructor and recognize the place of peer input in design evaluation.

These thinkers reported assuming more responsibility for their design deci-

sions than did the dualistic students. The ndings support previous research

on beginning and intermediate interior design students (Carmel-Gillen &

Portillo, 2010a; Portillo, 1987; Portillo & Dohr, 1989). Further, the design

essays from architecture and interior design revealed similarities in perceptions

of process, production and evaluation.

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 3 May 2012Wise et al. (2004) reported dierent rates of intellectual development between

male and female engineering students. At the end of the rst year, the 16 males

in the sample showed higher levels of development (3.50) when compared to

the 16 females (3.16). At the end of the third year, ratings were 3.50 (men)

and 3.00 (women), and at the end of the fourth year 4.00 (men) and 4.50

(women). The ndings from the present study did not fully replicate these nd-

ings. A less expected nding from a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)

showed that the MID (p .165) did not predict class standing in the samplestudied. Further, a statistically signicant relationship between discipline-

specic thinking and class standing was not found (p .368). A comparisonbetween seniors and sophomores in the sample did, however, reect a trend to-

ward signicance in global thought development (p .059). In addition, themean scores increased from sophomores to juniors to seniors. A cohort eect

might be at play where a class of intellectually weaker upper division students

inuences the results. The results reported does, however, support two distinct

thought positions in the disciplines under study. Examples of dualistic and

multiplicity thinking appear in both architecture and interior design students.

Additional research conducted with a robust sample over time would be better

positioned to examine thought development within and between students.

3.1 Discipline-specic learning proles

Table 6 MOD Qualitative Excerpts by Perry Position

Domain 1: Design Process and Assumptions

Dualistic:I dont know how I am supposed to build models, do drawings, and solve all the problems within the requiredtime. I feel as if they expect us to know things we havent been taught and it is really frustrating.Criterion: Appears overwhelmed by the process/isolated

Multiplistic:I like to go back and forth between sketching, model-building, and using the computer in order to get my ideasout and make design decisions.Criterion: Uses a wide variety of preparation

Domain 2: Design Production and Object Perception

Dualistic:I like to know what is expected for the nal project from the teacher. Knowing what is expected helps me domy own checklist for time management. I do my best but if I am not able to meet with the teacher enough myproject suers.Criterion: Does not feel responsible for project outcome

Multiplistic:It is important to understand what impacts the design solution through design research and careful considerationof the client needs. I make every eort to be aware of these issues and integrate them into my design.Criterion: Takes more responsibility for project outcome

Domain 3: Design Evaluation

Dualistic:I rely on critiques with the teacher to move my design forward. I wish I had the opportunity to meet more often,since sometimes I am stuck and cant move forward.Criterion: Needs tangible, concrete reasons for evaluation procedure

Multiplistic:I like getting design critiques from my peers but sometimes I do not integrate their ideas into my design. I alwaystry to change my design to take into account what my professor says.Criterion: Believes peer input legitimate, authority has nal say

Table 7 Most Cited MOD Criteria by Perry Position

Dualistic Thinkers (n [ 46)Does not feel responsible for project outcome 27Linear approach to design 19Needs tangible reasons for evaluation 17Likes tightly structured problems 16Doesnt understand the connection between prep and nal work 11Appears overwhelmed by the process/isolated 8During critique focuses on if the rules were followed 7

Multiplistic Thinkers (n [ 92)Uses a wide variety of preparation 40Believes peer input legitimate, authority has nal say 37Takes more responsibility for project outcome 34Values quality feedback from teacher as well as peers 25Uses sketching for skill improvement/get ideas out quickly 20Likes loosely structured problems 18

Where whats in common mediates disciplinary diversity in design students 249

3.2 LimitationsBased on our ndings, the Perry scheme appears quite useful for demarcating

beginning phases of thought development in architecture and interior design.

250idence for the highest positions of thought development (i.e., contextual rela-

tivism and commitment in relativism) were not found in the current study.

Research, across majors, has shown that college students seldom reach the

highest levels of the Perry scheme (Baxter-Magolda, 1995; Kitchener, 1982;

Mines, 1985; Moore, 2003; Pavelich & Moore, 1996; Wise et al., 2004). To ex-

plore more advanced epistemological and ethical positions, research could be

undertaken to target architecture and interior design graduates in their rst

few years of entry-level design practice. Developing an ethical professional

identity may require rsthand experiences in the eld with clients, stake-

holders, colleagues and others in the design community. Thirdly, given the

complexity and multi-dimensionality of thought development, other internal

and external factors, not accounted for in the current study, such as intrinsic

motivation about learning or internship experiences certainly should be ex-

plored as possible factors contributing to thought development. Fourthly,

the ndings of the present study need to be interpreted in context. All partici-

pating schools had both architecture and interior design programs located

within a design college or department within a public university. These pro-

grams shared a similar curricular sequence involving multidisciplinary founda-

tion level design studios. Therefore the ndings of this study should be

carefully generalized to students in similar academic contexts. Additional re-

search should study design students experiencing dierent curricular sequenc-

ing structures to look carefully at the impact of the curriculum organization on

thought development. Finally, the current study investigated design thinking

through written descriptions. Given the nature of design, future research

should explore the combination of written instruments with other assessment

methods such as interviews and/or process-tracing instruments such as the ver-

bal protocol to more fully capture thought development.

4 DiscussionThe Perry Scheme of Intellectual Development provides a valid framework for

studying design thinking by charting clear positions of beginning and more

mature thought in architecture and interior design. Across these disciplines,

students were found to exhibit higher levels of global development when com-

pared to discipline-specic thinking. Moreover, architecture students scored

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 3 May 2012We see clear benets for educators who may use this model to facilitate their

understanding of student development. Yet widespread generalizations of the

data should be approached cautiously. The limitations of the present study

should be acknowledged when interpreting the results. First and most impor-

tantly, the study uncovered distinct positions of thought development in archi-

tecture and interior design; however, these ndings should be studied over time

across multiple cohorts to form more conclusive interpretations. Secondly, ev-

higher on overall thought development than those majoring in interior design.

This may reect a pre-existing dierence in maturation between the groups or

may reect a cohort eect. Interestingly, no developmental dierences appear-

Where whats in commoed in regard to design thinking.

Further, global thinking showed a consistent increase with progression in the

program,while discipline-specic thinking showedan increase followedbyade-

crease in the senior year. One interpretation of the data suggests that this factor

may be inuenced by the interior design sample. Another interpretation is that

upper level architecture students have more advanced global thinking skills

than their interior design counterparts. An alternative explanation relates to

the point of graduation which diers between the elds; the expected length

of study for interior design is four years in the United States whereas architec-

ture requires six years of coursework to obtain the professional degree. This

supports explanations posited on developmental regression. Mentkowski and

Doherty (1984) argue that development proceeds in a gradual upward move-

ment until individuals face a more signicant life change, such as a transition

from school to the work force, upon which students frequently regress or cycle

back to less sophisticated forms of thinking. The data from the present study

lends some support to this argument. Further investigation, studying develop-

ment beyond graduation into early careers, would help determine whether or

not this phenomenon of regression holds true for most designers. Therefore,

most seniors facing graduation and entering the job market may regress to

a less nuanced characterization of their discipline as compared to the students

who were moving into the nal phase of their architectural education.

The content analysis also revealed dierences in regard to discipline-specic

content and orientation. For example, architecture students often reected

on the urban context using vocabulary relating to site, topography, and build-

ing enclosure whereas interior design students typically emphasize the human

condition by referencing the client, owner, and human behavior. Clear distinc-

tions between architecture and interior design have been documented in regard

to the curriculum structure, accreditation standards, and professional regula-

tions (Gurel & Pottho, 2006; Harwood, 1991; Martin & Kroelinger, 2010).

For example, Martin and Kroelinger (2010) compared the 2009 accreditation

requirements between architecture and interior design and documented dis-

tinct and specialized disciplinary knowledge, with architects focusing on site

design including topography, vegetation and watershed issues and interior

designers concentrating on human behavior, color and light. The study also

found shared content knowledge between the disciplines with dierent

expectations for knowledge acquisition (i.e., awareness, understanding or

application). Findings from the current study indicate that regardless of disci-

plinary focus, students across disciplines approached design process, produc-

tion, and assessment similarly and their essays surfaced both dualistic and

multiplistic thinking as shown in the following discussion.

n mediates disciplinary diversity in design students 251

4.1 Design process and assumptionsThe process of design encourages college students to think dierently than they

might in a more typical, lecture-based liberal arts course. Design problem solv-

between.

252At times dualistic students, in both architecture and interior design, alsodescribed

feelingoverwhelmedand isolatedduring thedesignprocess. They reported feeling

uncomfortable and tentative in moving their ideas forward. Frequently this lack

of condencemanifests itself in an overreliance on the instructor for approval for

each design decision. One such architectural student voiced this frustration:

Each step I take I have been left blind. I seem to get it at the very end, but

throughout the project I move with fear and confusion. I wish I knew what

my teacher wanted.

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 3 May 2012ing engages open-ended, criteria-based learning without single correct answers.

In addition, the process of design does not involve a prescriptive linear process

rather valid solutions surface through a series of adaptable steps that require

several iterations. Students must determine how to approach solving the prob-

lem at hand. In the early phases of design, failure to understand the right way

to design leads to frustration and often reinforces compartmentalized learn-

ing. Further, these assumptions and expectations about the eld contradict

the reality of the profession (Carmel-Gillen, 2006). Recognizing that students

mature at dierent rates is instructive when working with students.

Dualistic thinkers often approach the process of design dierently. Supporting

previous research (Carmel-Gillen & Portillo, 2010a; Portillo, 1987; Portillo &

Dohr, 1989), these students describe and often adhere to a checklist ap-

proach, moving from one task to the next with little understanding of the in-

terconnections between ideation, testing and presenting or to the larger

context of the problem. One dualistic architectural student noted:

My process involves sketching and building then doing presentation draw-

ings. Sometimes this changes and I am forced to go back to drawing based

on what my professor wants.

A dualistic thinker places little value on designing iteratively. Similarly, this

interior design student described her linear design process:

I follow the requirements due each day given by my professor. I try my best

not to go back and redo anything so I can stay on schedule.

Dualistic students failed to recognize the inherent cyclical thinking that design

requires. Instead they described designing as a process involving very little ex-

ploration, review or modication. This approach involves a more limited way

of thinking as illustrated by another dualistic interior design student:

I often try to make a lot of decisions before putting anything down on paper.

It feels too nal. I make decisions and do production of nal drawings- no in

Without a balance of support from the instructor as well as initiative on the

part of the student, this approach may hold students back from thinking in-

dependently and even completing project work. Too little pedagogic support

Where whats in commoleaves dualistic students discouraged; too much support hinders independent

thinking and growth. When students remain entrenched in a more primitive

form of thinking, they risk becoming paralyzed intellectually. Previous re-

search has discussed the idea of scaolding, or providing an appropriate level

of support to facilitate student development while promoting self-discovery of

independent learning (Hogan & Pressley, 1997).

Future studies could examine whether attrition rates from design contain a dis-

proportionate number of dualistic thinkers.

In contrast to the dualists, multiplistic thinkers recognize the importance of ex-

ploring dierent solutions. They commonly described design as a cyclical pro-

cess, where ideas are explored regularly. One such architectural student

reected on the value of a cyclical design process:

The more process work and iterations you have, the better your nal prod-

uct will be. I work best through many trace overlays, drawings and sketch

models. You cant just design in your head or with a pencil.

An excerpt from this multiplistic interior design student reinforced this per-

ception of the process

The key to designing is production and ideating, and control as well. It is

important to display multiple ideas to allow the mind to process and to get

your ideas across to others.

In line with a more expansive and mature way of thinking about design, mul-

tiplistic students express a propensity to using a wider variety of techniques.

Both two-dimensional and three-dimensional explorations capitalize on

a variety of media but all facilitate exploration. This interior design student

reected on her process:

I like to go back and forth between sketching, model-building, and using the

computer in order to get my ideas out and make design decisions.

Results indicate that multiplistic students not only understand the importance

of casting the net wide during the early phases of the design process but

also begin to understand the key connection between thinking and making.

Yet even these more advanced thinkers describe their diculty in deciding

which solution to move forward, as noted by this architectural student:

I love the beginning of the design process. I come up with many ways to

approach the problem.But, I amunsurewhich one is the best. Theyall seemvalid.

In this case, multiplistic students understand that dierent solutions may be

appropriate, but have diculty determining which ones to invest in based

n mediates disciplinary diversity in design students 253

on their experience. With more advanced thinking skills (contextual relativ-

ism) students recognize that these dierent solutions can be assessed based

on if and how they meet the context surrounding the problem.

254In order to support design thinking at any developmental level, we suggest

a few strategies. When instructors encourage a habit of mind to be cultivated

and carefully craft design criteria to allow for structure and freedom, students

are positioned to develop and explore design alternatives as well as learn inde-

pendently. Placing more emphasis on midpoint project reviews also promotes

a more uid, exploratory process where proposed solutions can be revisited

and hidden opportunities elaborated. During midpoint review, change is not

only possible but is actively encouraged. Carefully selecting jurors, who are

able to give constructive criticism, especially in the early design studios, can

be particularly impactful to less developed students. Further, studio instruc-

tors as well as lecturers in history and theory courses should seek out oppor-

tunities to reinforce the connection between process and design solutions. This

study replicates earlier work showing dualistic students frequently do not see

the value of process work yet stressing the importance of the design process as

part of the nal project communicates to the student and others growth and

evolution of ideas (Carmel-Gillen & Portillo, 2010b). Further, practitioners

who serve on design juries or interact with students can underscore the impor-

tance of making the design process visible. When interviewing students for in-

ternships or entry-level position, practitioners often want to understand how

the graduates approach design and process work oers a tangible window

into the mind. Additionally, design accreditation for architecture (NAAB)

and interior design (CIDA) evaluates process work to gauge design problem

solving. For example, CIDA standard 4 focuses specically on the design pro-

cess of interior design students and requests evidence of multiple concepts and

design responses to the programmatic requirements and problem context

(CIDA, 2008). This underscores the importance of not only understanding

but illustrating the design process as part of the solution.

4.2 Design production and project perceptionAs discussed design invites open-ended problem solving or problem nding;

yet studio projects vary greatly depending on the way instructors frame assign-

ment parameters and criteria. For example, design projects often include

engagement in theoretical and abstract exercises as well as practical applica-

tions. Depending upon the scope of work, design problems frequently address

the site and urban context, building orientation and view, building code regu-

lations, and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing requirements. Previous

research has documented the way beginning and intermediate interior de-

signers approach project criteria (Carmel-Gillen & Portillo, 2010b). Findings

indicate that students in the early stages of design development preferred prob-

lems with detailed criteria; while more advanced thinkers favor exibility. The

current study supports these ndings. Dualistic students often want tightly

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 3 May 2012

structured studio problems that focus on constraints. One such beginning

thinker studying interior design noted:

I need a clear set of directions and expectations. I also prefer to be given all

Where whats in commoof the building requirements, rather than having to search them out on my

own or make them up.

The structuring of a project, when the instructors allow for a certain measure

freedom in interpreting given parameters and criteria, can promote mature

thinking. In contrast, excessive criteria, in some cases, may dampen intellec-

tual growth and diminish creativity, especially at lower levels of intellectual

development. These students may develop the habit of merely meeting the re-

quirements in more of a check o mentality rather than taking the oppor-

tunity to take a risk or experiment. Further, in some situations prescriptive

directions given by the instructor do not allow the students to learn indepen-

dently; therefore the students take less responsibility for the design.

Multiplistic students approached projects a bit dierently than their dualistic

counterparts. The majority of these students showed preference for more

loosely structured problems where they are able to exercise more control

over the process and outcomes. One multiplistic architectural student

commented:

I prefer vague directions. They allow me the degree of liberty to play with

my ideas and represent myself in my work as I see t.

Here we see evidence that multiplistic students incorporated independent think-

ingwhen given exible problems.Building on this, thesemore advanced thinkers

also described problems as being contextual, mentioning the impact of the site

and surrounding area, the exterior and interior components of the building,

and client initiatives. This supports previous research by Carmel-Gillen and

Portillo (2010b) who foundmultiplistic thinkers employed a wide range of crite-

ria that included practical, symbolic, behavioral, and formal characteristics in

their process descriptions of design. One multiplistic interior design student

reected on the importance of understanding client needs and responding to

these objectives:

I like simple directions that I can interpret and expand upon. I also like to

know the context such as client information and desires. After all this is

a priority within my design.

In order to facilitate learning for all students, projects should vary in regard

to denition and structure. Assignments also may relate to the students back-

grounds, interests, and career goals. Over the course of a studio or from year

to year in the design program, projects can build upon one another, reiterat-

ing concepts previously learned. Projects at the early stages should be struc-

tured to provide guidance in how to solve the problem. Later on, projects can

be more open-ended requiring independent thinking. Most importantly, the

n mediates disciplinary diversity in design students 255

design studio should be perceived as a haven where students feel safe explor-

ing options and taking risks; a place where experimentation, uncertainty and

even failure are acceptable.

ically found peer feedback useful but placed more emphasis on instructor

256 Design Studies Vol 33 No. 3 May 2012with some dualists showing a tendency toward multiplicity, while some multi-

plistic thinkers displayed beginning stages of contextual relativism. For exam-

ple, a select few dualistic students began to acknowledge multiple perspectives

in the area of evaluation. One such interior design student reected:

Instructors and students should be seen as equals when evaluating design

projects. Both oer dierent approaches to design and should be recognized.

Another dualistic architecture student also showed a bridging in multiplicity

in his thinking about evaluation

It is hard to tell if a design is successful. Everyone has an option; it could be

right-it may not be.

However, many of the dualists focused squarely on evaluation in concrete

terms, showing no glimmer of developed thinking. A dualistic approach to

evaluation focused on one correct answer to solve the design problem. Fur-

ther, these students referenced quantity over quality of work in determining

the success of a project. One such architectural student described this stance:

Evaluation should be based on completion! Attendance as well as the time

required to complete the project.

This student considers evaluation based on the quantitative aspects of time,

eort and attendance but fails to account for the overall quality of the project.

Similar to a dualistic position, multiplistic students in the study recognized

varied perspectives in the evaluation process. The more advanced thinkers typ-4.3 Design evaluationDesign evaluation typically involves critiques of student projects by faculty

members, outside jurors, and peers. These critiques occur at established points

of the design process in both a formal and informalmanner. In addition, studio-

based learning incorporates desk critiques where faculty meet daily with indi-

vidual students or small groups to give feedback on specic project decisions.

Within this study, both dualistic and multiplistic students often showed more

advanced thinking in regard to design evaluation. We conjecture that it may

be easier for students to be somewhat more objective when evaluating the

work of peers or precedent in the eld than address the more subjective aspects

of process or production. Design evaluation allows students to begin acknowl-

edging dierent perspectives and thus develop more complex thinking.

Within this study, some student responses exhibited a developmental readiness

guidance as illustrated by the following excerptions from architecture and

interior design students respectively:

Constructive criticism is a great learning tool. Critiques should combine in-

Design thinking, in architecture as well as interior design, demonstrates similar

Where whats in commopatterns of thought development. In spite of disciplinary content, students rep-

resented positions of dualism and multiplicity but did not exhibit the highest

levels of mature thinking. This supports previous research that established

very few students were able to reach the stages of contextual relativism and

commitment in relativism prior to graduation (Baxter-Magolda, 1995;

Kitchener, 1982; Mines, 1985; Moore, 2003; Pavelich & Moore, 1996; Wise

et al., 2004). Similarities were found in the way architecture and interior design

students approached design process, production, and evaluation. While the fo-

cus and scope of the disciplinary knowledge and skill sets dier, a reality of

design lies in a similar development of thinking that embraces complexity.

Not only must we learn how to design, but also we must learn how to create

designs that work in the contexts of the realities within design nds itself

(Poldma, 2010: p. 406). Acknowledging a shared pathway of thought develop-

ment oers common ground to engage with one another and move forward

while recognizing disciplinary uniqueness. In addition, the disciplinary-

specic knowledge that each profession acquires allows each to contribute

their expertise to the project. Within design education lies the opportunity

to celebrate commonality and distinctions, educate one another, and work to-

ward achieving better collaboration.

n mediates disciplinary diversity in design students 257put from instructors as well as classmates. It also helps to have observers

from outside disciplines or the eld to give varying opinions. The instructor

should set the pace and use the same set of criteria for each student project.

An ideal class critique would have criticism from the teacher and class-

mates. The teacher could lead the conversation and move into the next steps.

However, some thinkers expressed that evaluation should be linked to the

context surrounding the problem. The following interior design student ex-

pressed this orientation:

Each project has some aspects that are being explored and problems being

solved. The design should be evaluated within this context as well as consider

creativity.

Design evaluation can be an external process, guided by instructors, peers,

and outside jurors but also engages an internal process of self-evaluation. In-

structors should point out that multiple solutions are valid, but describe how

certain solutions or opinions are more appropriate based on the context sur-

rounding the problem or the expertise. Evaluation can also be closely linked

to project criteria, process, and quality of the solution.

5 Conclusion: Advancing levels of Development

Informed by the Perry scheme, we see evidence for developmental changes in

design thinking; the challenge remains: how to eectively promote intellectual

development? In How designers think: The process demystied, Lawson dis-

258cusses how design students obtain skills that assist them in meeting their crea-

tive potential, Design education, then, is a delicate balance indeed between

directing the student to acquire this knowledge and experience, and yet not

mechanizing his or her thought processes to the point of preventing the emer-

gence of original ideas (Lawson, 2006: p. 157). Felder andBrent (2004) suggest

broad strategies for teaching and learning which are hypothesized to advance

student development:

The principal catalyst for students intellectual growth is challenges to the

beliefs that characterize their current developmental levels.The task for in-

structors is thus to provide enough challenge to students ways of knowing to

stimulate them tomove to higher levels, but not somuch as to paralyze them

in temporizing state or drive them into retreat or escape. A parallel task is to

provide an appropriate level of support for their eorts to confront the chal-

lenge, conrming their ways of knowing to an extent that empowers them to

relinquish their exclusion reliance on authority, but not to an extent that en-

ables them to adapt all new ideas to their current level (p. 275).

The challenge in design educators should not only be centered on facilitating

the acquisition of tangible design skills but should recognize that epistemolog-

ical development in design follows a logical progression and, in many cases, is

teachable. Thought development unfolds as students gain a fuller and more

nuanced understanding of the design process, production, and evaluation.

Design evaluation may oer a particular good entree to promote intellectual

growth, given the wider context of projects and evaluators that underscore the

many acceptable approaches to creation and assessment. In spite of the myr-

iad distinctions separating architecture and interior design, in terms of the

developmental positions of dualism and multiplicity, architecture and interior

design appear more similar than dierent in this unfolding of thought. Rec-

ognizing developmental patterns across design disciplines encourages new

pedagogic insights and strategies, moving intellectual development forward,

and allowing designers across elds to better realize their full potential.

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank William Moore, Ph.D. for his help with the

Measure of Intellectual Development. Correspondence concerning the Mea-

sure of Intellectual Development should be addressed to: William Moore,

Center for the Study of Intellectual Development, 1505 Farwell Ct. NW,

Olympia, WA 98502, USA, wsmoore51@comcast.net.

Correspondence concerning the Measure of Designing should be addressed

to: Margaret Portillo, University of Florida, 336 Architecture Building,

Gainesville, FL 32611, USA, mportill@u.edu.

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 3 May 2012

The authors gratefully acknowledge the following individuals for their contri-

butions to the development of this article: Meghan Brennan for statistical

analysis and theDesign Studies reviewers of this manuscript for their insightful

D. A. Guerin (Eds.), The state of the interior design profession (pp. 61e65).

Where whats in commoNew York: Fairchild Books.

n mediates disciplinary diversity in design students 259comments and suggestions.

ReferencesBaxter-Magolda, M. B. (1987a). Comparing open-ended interviews and standard-

ized measures of intellectual development. Journal of College Student Personnel,28, 443e448.

Baxter-Magolda, M. B. (1987b). A rater training program for assessing intellec-

tual development on the Perry scheme. Journal of College Student Personnel,28, 356e364.

Baxter-Magolda, M. B. (1988). Measuring gender dierences in intellectual devel-opment: A comparison of assessment methods. Journal of College Student

Development, 29, 528e537.Baxter-Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender related

patterns in students intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baxter-Magolda, M. B. (1995). The integration of relational and impersonalknowing in young adults epistemological development. Journal of CollegeStudent Development, 36, 205e216.

Belenky,M.F., Clinchy, B.M.,Goldberger,N.R., &Tarule, J.M. (1986).Womensways of knowing: the development of self, voice and mind. New York, NY: BasicBooks.

Brooks, G. P. (1998). Perry: fact, ction, and outcomes assessment. In Paper pre-sented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Associ-ation, Chicago, IL.

Brown, J. (2002). Know thyself: the impact of portfolio development on adult

learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 52(3), 228e245.Buczynski, P. L. (1993). The development of paper-and-pencil measure of Belenky,

Clinchy, Goldberger and Tarules (1986) conceptual model of womens ways-

of-knowing-instrument. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 197e200.Carmel-Gillen, C. (2006). Developmental challenges for the beginning designer:

Transitions and scaolding within design curricula. In Paper presented at the

meeting of theNational Conference on the BeginningDesign Student,Ames, Iowa.Carmel-Gillen, C., & Portillo, M. (2010a). Creating mature thinkers in interior de-

sign: pathwaysof intellectual development. Journal of InteriorDesign, 35(3), 1e20.Carmel-Gillen, C., & Portillo, M. (2010b). Developmental trajectories in design

thinking: an examination of criteria. Design Studies, 31(1), 74e91.Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA). (2008). Professional standards

2009. Retrieved June 1, 2010, from: http://accredit-id.org/June%202008%

20Standards_changes09.pdf.DesignIntelligence. (2011). Americas Best Architecture & Design Schools 2011. Re-

trieved December 15, 2010, from: http://www.di.net/archschools/schools.html.

Erwin, T. D. (1983). The Scale of Intellectual Development: measuring Perrysscheme. Journal of College Students Development, 24, 6e12.

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2004). The intellectual development of science and

engineering students Part 1. Models and challenges. Journal of EngineeringEducation, 93(4), 269e277.

Fisher, T. (2010). Future sense: Why design matters. In C. S. Martin, &

Gurel, M. O., & Pottho, J. K. (2006). Interior design in architectural education.Journal of Art and Design Education, 25(2), 217e230.

Harwood, B. (1991). Comparing the standards in interior design and architectureto assess similarities and dierences. Journal of Interior Design Education and

260Research, 17(1), 5e18.Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (1997). Scaolding student learning: Instruction

approaches and issues. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Hood, A. B., & Deopere, D. L. (2002). The relationship of cognitive developmentto age, when education and intelligence are controlled for. Journal of AdultDevelopment, 9(3), 229e234.

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reective judgment: Under-standing and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescentsand adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kitchener, K. S. (1982). Human development and the college campus: sequencesand tasks. In G. R. Hanson (Ed.), New directions for student services: No. 20.Measuring student development (pp. 17e45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kitchener,K. S., &King, P.M. (1989). The reective judgmentmodel: ten years of re-

search. InM.L.Commons,C.Armon,L.Kohlberg,F.A.Richards,T.A.Grotzer,& D. Sinnott (Eds.), Adult Development, Vol. 2 (pp. 63e78). New York: Praeger.

Knouse, S. B., Tanner, J. T., & Harris, E. W. (1999). The relation of college in-

ternships, college performance, and subsequent job opportunity. Journal ofEmployment Counseling, 36(1), 35e44.

Lawson, B. (Ed.). (2006). How designers think: the process demystied (4th ed.).

Oxford: Architectural Press.Martin, C. S., & Guerin, D. A. (Eds.). (2010). The state of the interior design

profession. New York: Fairchild Books.

Martin, C. S., & Kroelinger, M. D. (2010). 2009 Accreditation requirements:Comparison of CIDA and NAAB. Journal of Interior Design, 35(2), ixexxxii.

Mentkowski, M., & Doherty, A. (1984). Abilities that last a lifetime: Outcomes ofthe Alverno Experience. American Association for Higher Education. Wash-

ington, D.C.Mentkowski, M., Moser, M., & Strait, M. (1983). Using the Perry scheme of intel-

lectual and ethical development as a college outcomes measure: a process and

criteria for performance. Milwaukee, WI: Alverno College Productions.Mines, R. A. (1982). Student development assessment techniques. In

G. R. Hanson (Ed.), New directions for student services: No. 20. Measuring

student development (pp. 65e91). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Mines, R. A. (1985). Measurement issues in evaluating student development pro-

grams. Journal of College Student Personnel, 26, 101e106.Moore, W. S. (1988). The Measure of Intellectual Development: An Instrument

Manual. Available from the Center for the Study of Intellectual Development,1505 Farwell Ct. NW, Olympia, WA 98502.

Moore, W. S. (1989). The Learning Environment Preferences: exploring the con-

struct validity of an objective measure of the Perry scheme of intellectual de-velopment. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 504e514.

Moore, W. S. (1994). Student and faculty epistemology in the college classroom:

the Perry schema of intellectual and ethical development. In K. W. Prichard, &R. M. Sawyer (Eds.), Handbook of College Teaching (pp. 45e67). Westport:Greenwood Press.

Moore, W. S. (2003). Perry Network and the Center for the Study of IntellectualDevelopment. Retrieved June 1, 2010 from: www.perrynetwork.com.

Moore, W. S. (2004). Interpreting MID Ratings. Available from the Center for theStudy of Intellectual Development, 1505 Farwell Ct. NW, Olympia, WA 98502.

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 3 May 2012

National Architectural Accrediting Board. (2009). 2009 Conditions foraccreditation. Retrieved June 1, 2010 from: http://www.naab.org/documents/home_oritin.aspz?pathPublicDocuments/Accreditation.

Palmer, B., Marra, R. M., Wise, J. C., & Litzinger, T. A. (2000). A longitudinal

study of intellectual development of engineering students: what really mattersin our curriculum?. In Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education (FIE)Conference, Kansas City, MO.

Pavelich, M. J., &Moore, W. S. (1996). Measuring the eect of experiential educa-tion using the Perry model. Journal of Engineering Education, 85(4), 287e292.

Perry, W. G. (1968). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college

years: a scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Poldma, T. (2010). Sustaining education: furturing interior design directions? In

C. S. Martin, & D. A. Guerin (Eds.), The state of the interior design profession

(pp. 401e409) New York: Fairchild Books.Portillo, M. (1987). A developmental approach to design: Thought structuring re-

lated to creative experience. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Wiscon-sin, Madison.

Portillo, M., & Dohr, J. (1989). Design education: on the road towards thoughtdevelopment. Design Studies, 10(2), 97e100.

Reid, G. B. (1986). The use of the Perry scheme in the teaching of freshman

English (Doctoral Dissertation, Memphis State University, 1986). Dissertation

Where whats in commoAbstracts International, 47(12), 4302.Ryan, M., & Cassidy, J. R. (1996). Internships and excellence. Liberal Education,

3(16), 16e64.Thomas, P. A. (1990). Cognitive development in a traditional and nontraditional

nursing student population (Doctoral Dissertation, The University of

Connecticut, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(6), 2822.Widick, C., & Knefelkamp, L. L. (1974).Measure of intellectual development. Cen-

ter for Study of Intellectual Development. Olympia, WA.Wise, J. C., Lee, S. H., Litzinger, T. A., Marra, R. M., & Palmer, B. (2001).

Measuring cognitive change in engineering undergraduates: a longitudinalstudy. In Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering EducationConference, Albuquerque, NM.

Wise, J. C., Lee, S. H., Litzinger, T. A., Marra, R. M., & Palmer, B. (2004). Areport on a four-year longitudinal study of intellectual development of engi-neering undergraduates. Journal of Adult Development, 11(2), 103e110.

n mediates disciplinary diversity in design students 261

Where whats in common mediates disciplinary diversity in design students: A shared pathway of intellectual development1. Perry Scheme of Intellectual Development2. Method2.1. Participants2.2. Instrument and procedure

3. Findings3.1. Discipline-specific learning profiles3.2. Limitations

4. Discussion4.1. Design process and assumptions4.2. Design production and project perception4.3. Design evaluation

5. Conclusion: Advancing levels of DevelopmentAcknowledgementsReferences