1. Professional Standards 2009 Suzanne Scott, Ph.D., IDEC, ASID, scscott@wisc.edu Megan Scanlan, Director of Accreditation, megan@accredit-id.org

2. Communicating Quality Standards Relevant Valid Reliable Accreditation Process Expertise – volunteers & staff Clear communication Value to stakeholders Access & ease of use

3. CIDA Standards Development Timeline Major revisions made every 8-10 years Last major revision project began in 2006 leading to new Standards effective July 1, 2009 Minor revisions issued periodically

4. Standards Development Best Practices Engage the community Seek broad and inclusive input Balance perspectives Validate through consensus Communicate results Provide adequate notice

5. Standards Development Who is in charge of the process? Standards Committee stewards the process Accreditation Commission consulted Board of Directors adopts

6. Implementation CIDA Board of Directors adopted Professional Standards 2009 in June 2008, effective July 1, 2009 Accreditation Commission planned and implemented site visitor training Standards Committee monitoring the reliability and validity of Standards

7. 2006-2009 Standards Development Project Drivers behind Professional Standards 2009: Audit of CIDA’s Professional Standards 2009 Future Vision Session Trends in higher education and accreditation

8. Professional Standards 2009: Four Sections, Three Content Areas Program Characteristics Section I – Mission, Goals, Curriculum Section IV – Program Administration Broad Overarching Concepts, Knowledge, Abilities Section II – Interior Design: Critical Thinking, Professional Values, and Processes Specific Design Knowledge and Content Areas Section III – Interior Design: Core Design and Technical Knowledge

9. Program Characteristics Section I. Mission, Goals, Curriculum Standard 1. Mission, Goals, and Curriculum Section IV. Program Administration Standard 15. Assessment and Accountability Standard 16. Support and Resources

10. Broad Overarching Concepts, Knowledge, and Abilities Section II. Interior Design: Critical Thinking, Professional Values Standard 2. Global Context for Design Standard 3. Human Behavior Standard 4. Design Process Standard 5. Collaboration Standard 6. Communication Standard 7. Professionalism & Business Practice

11. Specific Interior Design Knowledge & Content Areas Section III. Interior Design: Core Design & Technical Knowledge Standard 8. History Standard 9. Space and Form Standard 10. Color & Light Standard 11. FF&E and Finish Materials Standard 12. Environmental Systems and Controls Standard 13. Interior Construction & Building Systems Standard 14. Regulations

12. Form and Expression Within each section: Broad Standard – sets forth general expectation Student learning and program expectations – assist in determining whether Standard is in compliance Guidance (provided for some Standards) – examples to assist in understanding expectations

13. Form and Expression Student learning and program expectations: Provide additional clarification on the meaning of Standards and guidance on preparing for an accreditation review Important contributors in demonstrating compliance with a Standard, but not the only factors that contribute to or hinder achievement of Standards

14. Student Learning Expectations See CIDA’s Professional Standards 2009, pages 8-9 Evaluated by examining student work and conducting interviews with students Include an expected learning level: awareness, understanding, application/ability

15. Student Learning Expectations Examples: Students have awareness of… Student work demonstrates understanding of… Students select and apply appropriate

16. Program Expectations See CIDA’s Professional Standards 2009, page 9 Focus on opportunities, experiences, or information programs present to students No learning levels

17. Program Expectations Examples: The interior design program provides exposure to… The interior design program provides opportunities for… Faculty members and other instructional personnel have… Instructional facilities and work spaces are…

18. Professional Standards 2009 Focus on evaluating the program as a whole rather than on accounting for each of the parts – broad and holistic Provide sufficient guidance to evaluate program achievement, but are not narrowly focused “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts”