Preferred Content and Format for Portfolios and Review Criteria

Judith Matthews Ohio University Athens, Ohio J a n Gritzmacher Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

Introduction One concern facing interior design students

who are ready to graduate is how they should develop their portfolio. Bartholomew (1981) stated that the portfolio is a visual demonstra- tion of skills. He recommended that the port- folio show only the best work and a variety of projects. Bartholomew suggested that a com- bination of formats can be used, such as slides or loose boards in a case, but the total effect should be unified. If the portfolio is too lim- ited a person cannot make an assessment of the work while too many projects can make the portfolio cumbersome.

At the Institute of Business Designers Stu- dent Rally in North Carolina in 1982, a panel of five design professionals was asked about the format and content of a portfolio. Each panel member had a different response and no overall agreement was reached. Lack of agreement among the professionals about the content and format for portfolios stimulated an investigation of design practitioners pref- erence for content and format of portfolios for recently graduated interior designers.

Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to determine

the interior design practitioner’s preferences for the content and format of portfolios for re- cently graduated interior designers. Specific objectives were:

1. To determine the preferred content for the portfolio and to compare responses between two groups of practitioners.

2. To determine the preferred format for portfolios and to compare responses be- tween two groups of practitioners.

3. To identify how many projects should be included in a portfolio.

4. To identify how much time the practi-

5 .

tioner is willing to spend reviewing a portfolio. To identify the most important criteria considered by the practitioner when reviewing the portfolio.

Description of the Sample The sample for this study came from two

groups of interior design practitioners. These practitioners were randomly selected from the professional membership of the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) and the Institute of Business Designers (IBD). These two groups represented practitioners in all geographic regions of the United States. Of the sample of practitioners who responded (n = 393,260 were from ASID and 135 from IBD. The percentage of return was 27% for ASID and 45 % for IBD.

Over 50% of the practitioners in both groups were in the age range of 22 to 39 years. The largest percentage of the respon- dents had practiced interior design from 1 to 9 years with 38% from ASID and 53% from IBD. The majority of the practitioners in both groups had experience reviewing portfolios. Slightly over 81 % of the practitioners in the ASID group and 86.7% in the IBD group in- dicated experience reviewing portfolios. The mean number of years the people in these groups had reviewed portfolios was 7.6 years for ASID and 5.7 years for IBD respondents.

The ASID sample represented all places of employment. The largest area of employment was firms that did both residential and com- hercial design work, which composed 36.2% of the ASID group. Commercial de- sign firms employed 12.7% of the group. Of- fice furniture dealerships and architectural firms had 8.1 % and 8.8% respectively. Only 7.7% were employed at residential design firms and 5% at furniture or department

stores. Other types of employment were listed by 11.2% of the ASID sample. The in- cluded real estate development firms, office furniture manufacturers and free lance de- signers. The larger portions of the IBD sam- ple were employed in office furniture dealerships, 27.4%; architectural firms, 20%; and commercial design firms, 25.2%. Institutions and corporations were given as places of employment for 7.4 % of the IBD re- spondents. Less than 10% of the IBD group was employed in each of the following cate- gories: residential and commercial firms and institutions or corporations. None of the de- signers in this sample was employed in a resi- dential design firm or in furniture or department stores. Approximately 11 % of the respondents reported other types of em- ployment which included government, furni- ture manufacturers, and free lance design.

Design of the Study and Instrumentation

Descriptive and comparative survey re- search was used in this study. Data were col- lected through mailed questionnaires which were designed to determine preferences for portfolio content, format and criteria em- ployed when reviewing a portfolio. The re- spondents were requested to indicate their preference on a scale of 1 to 5 , with 1 being the content or format least preferred and 5 be- ing the content or format most preferred. Re- spondents were then asked to list the 4 most important things they considered when re- viewing a recent interior design graduate’s portfolio. Respondents were also requested to give demographic information such as the type of interior design work they did, place of employment and years experience as a practi- tioner.

28 @Copyright. 1984, Interior Design Educators Council Journal of Interior Design Educators and Research lO(2): 28-31

Analysis of Data Procedures used for the analysis of data

were multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's posttest. Mean scores for each group were calculated to determine preferred content and format for portfolios. A mean score of 3.75 or higher was used to indicate the most preferred type of content and format by the design groups.

MANOVA and ANOVA were used to com- pare the responses between ASID and IBD groups. In cases where Fwas significant, Tu- key's posttest was used to determine where differences occurred. A .05 level was used to determine statistical significance.

Mean values were calculated to identify the number of projects to be included in a portfo- lio and time spent reviewing portfolios. Fre- quency counts and percentages were used to identify the criteria considered most impor- tant when reviewing portfolios.

Discussion of Findings Portfolio Conrent. Complete projects that

include the floor plan, reflected ceiling plan, sample boards, working drawings and picto- rial representations were the most preferred portfolio content. The mean scores for this content were 4.39 for ASID and 4.56 for IBD (TABLE 1). Both groups also had a high pref- erence for including parts of a variety of pro- jects which would represent the student's range of learning experience with mean scores of 3.85 for ASID and 4.02 for IBD for inclusion of a variety of projects.

None of the other variables under portfolio content had a mean score of 3.75 or higher. These variables included pencil drawings on vellum that represents drafting skills; prints from pencil drawings that illustrate the repro- ductive quality of drawings; inked drawings; art projects; models; and rendered perspec- tives. There were no significant group dif- ferences on portfolio content.

Portfolio Format. A set of mean scores over 3.75 for both groups was not established for any one type of portfolio format. The for- mat which included the best projects pre- sented in 8" x 10" photographs, with some work included for review had a high mean score for IBD which was 3.86 (TABLE 2). The mean score for this format by ASID re- spondents approached a high degree of pref- erence with a mean score of 3.50. Thus the portfolio format that was preferred by both groups suggests that graduates photograph their best projects but also include some ac-

TABLE 1

MEAN SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERIOR DESIGNERS AND THE INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS DESIGNERS FOR

PREFERRED PORTFOLIO CONTENT

Variable Mean Scores Portfolio Content' Portfolio Content ASIDb IBIF

X SD X SD

Complete projects (e.g. floor plan with furniture layout, reflected ceiling plan, sample boards, working drawings, pictorial representations) 4.39 1.25 4.56 .83 Parts of a variety of projects that represent the student's range of learning experiences 3.85 1.45 4.02 1.23 Pencil drawings on vellum that represent drafting skills (e.g. line quality, use of line weights, let- tering ) 3.56 1.53 3.53 1.52 Prints from pencil drawings that illustrate the reproductive quality of drawings 3.27 1.61 3.60 1.47 Inked drawings 2.65 1.43 2.83 1.48 Art projects Models

1.99 1.24 2.09 1.25 1.79 1.11 2.07 1.22

Rendered perspectives 3.45 1.38 3.64 1.35

'Scale of 1-5: bn = 260

<n = 135

1 least preferred to 5 most preferred

TABLE 2

MEAN SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERIOR DESIGNERS AND THE INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS DESIGNERS FOR

PREFERRED PORTFOLIO FORMAT

Variable Mean Scores Portfolio Format'

Portfolio Format ASIDb IBIF X SD X SD

All Actual projects; no reproductions 3.09 1.64 3.07 1.46 All projects reproduced into 8" x 10" photo- graphs 2.55 1.53 2.79 1.44 All projects reproduced into slides 1.90 1.28 1.94 1.22 The best projects presented in 8" x 10" photo- graphs; with some actual work included for review 3.50 1.69 3.86 1.48 The best projects presented in slides; with some actual work included for review 2.13 1.61 2.40 1.64

'Scale of 1-5: 1 lease preferred to 5 most preferred bn = 260 cn = 135

29

tual work for review. The category, all actual projects with no re-

productions, did not generate any mean scores over 3.75 (TABLE 2). But the mean scores for both groups were higher for this format than for the following types of for- mats: all projects photographed; all projects reproduced into slides; and the best projects presented in slides with some actual work in-

cluded for review. Many of the design practi- tioners wrote comments regarding the use of slides. These practitioners did not like slides because in many cases there was no practical way to view them. In general the mean scores for preferred portfolio format seem to indi- cate a preference for including some actual work for review. There were no significant differences between ASID and IBD groups

TABLE 3

MEAN SCORES OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERIOR DESIGNERS AND THE INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS DESIGNERS FOR THE NUMBER OF PROJECTS

To BE INCLUDED IN A PORTFOLIO AND TIME SPENT REVIEWING A PORTFOLIO

ASID Total

(n = 260) Group IBD

(n = 135) Variable X X

Number of Projects for Portfolio 4.3 4 Minutes Spent Reviewing A Portfolio 29.9 28.7

Over 52% of the respondents listed a criterion that was related to project presentation as one of the most important items considered for portfolio review (TABLE 4). Items listed by practi- tioners under this category include the following: neatness of work; style; flair; impact; uniform format; size not cumbersome, organized and clear; easily understood; simple to complex, board layout; and no misspelled words.

Quality of design solution was the category with the second highest frequency. Approximately 46% of the practitioners chose a criterion that was under this category as an important consider- ation when reviewing portfolios (TABLE 4). Items included under the category of quality of solution were as follows: goals of the project achieved; intelligent, comprehensive approach to problem solving; understanding of three dimensional space; functional; correct traffic patterns; ability todefine client’s needs; knowledge of human requirements; realistic concept of space and accurate. This category is consistent with the competency, space planning, from Myers’ (1982) study which was identified by ASID as one of the 20 top competencies.

TABLE 4 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR CRlTERIA CATEGORIES OF THE MOST

IMPORTANT THINGS CONSIDERED WHEN REVIEWING PORTFOLIOS BY THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERIOR DESIGNERS AND THE INSTITUTE OF

BUSINESS DESIGNERS n = 395

Criteria Category ASID and IBD Groups n Percentaee

Project Presentation Quality of Design Solution Graphic Skills Design Elements and Principles Personal Presentation Skills

208 52.7 180 45.5 128 32.4 120 28.4 107 27.1

on format preferences. Size of Porrfolio and Time Spent Re-

viewing. Both ASID and IBD group members responded almost identically on the number of projects that should be included in a portfo- lio and the time they would be willing to spend reviewing portfolios. The ASID group had a mean score of 4.3 for the number of projects to be included in a portfolio and the IBD group’s mean score for number of pro- jects was 4 (TABLE 3). Both ASID and IBD practitioners were willing to spend about 30 minutes reviewing portfolios with mean scores of 29.9 minutes and 28.7 minutes re- spectively. Practitioners did state they would be willing to spend a longer time if the person appeared to possess the qualities for which they were searching.

Criteria Considered When Practitioners Review Portfolios. Practitioners were re- quested to list the four most important things considered when reviewing a portfolio. These listed responses were taken from the questionnaires and copied onto index cards. The researcher requested that a group of four interior designers place the responses that were similar into sets by sorting the cards. Then the designers were asked to name the category that would best represent the set of responses. When agreement was reached on the categories, each category was assigned a value to be used for coding purposes. The items listed on each questionnaire were then coded with the value assigned to the category under which the response belonged. Fre- quencies for the responses were then calcu- lated. Only those categories representing a response of 25 % or more by the design prac- titioners are reported. Frequencies are illus- trated in Table 4.

About 32% of the respondents included considerations under the category of graphic skills (TABLE 4). Responses under graphic skills were drafting; line quality lettering; knowledge of working and detail drawings; work with pencil; use of media; variety of skills and quality of drawings. Again, this category is consistent with the drafting com- petency identified through Myers’ (1982) re- search.

Slightly over 28% of the practitioners listed criteria that formed a category labeled design elements and principles. Color was a very important element under this category. Responses included sensitivity to colors, aes- thetic sense of color for use, lack of color trends and correct color applications. Other related responses in this category were use of textures, scale of furniture to the size of

30

room, balance of scale and good taste. This finding is consistent with two of the 13 com- petencies identified by ASID in Myers’ (1982) research. These two competencies are color and principles and elements.

Just over 27% of the practitioners listed criteria that related to personal presentation skills (TABLE 4), These items related to stu- dents’ ability to present the portfolio to the in- terviewers. Criteria under personal presentation skills include the following: ver- bal skills; degrees of thought put into making the presentation; clear description of pro- jects; ability to answer questions; ability to sell ideas; professional vocabulary; aggres- siveness in presentation; maintenance of eye contact and briefness.

Summary and Assessment of Study

This study provides information that can be used by educators and interior design stu- dents to develop portfolios. When advising students about developing their portfolios the following could be suggested:

Portfolios should contain complete pro- jects, such as floor plans, reflected ceiling plans, working drawings, sample boards and pictorial representations. Practitioners prefer to see a variety of pro- jects in portfolios.

The portfolio should contain about four projects. The portfolio should be prepared realizing that the time spent by the inter- viewer reviewing portfolios will be about 30 minutes. The format of the portfolio should include some actual work if possible, and if repro- ductions are used, 8”xlO” photographs are preferred over slides. The portfolio should be neat, organized and have visual impact. The projects should be high quality work which is functional, accurate and relates the designer’s understanding of three di- mensional space. The work included in the portfolio should represent the student’s drafting skills, in- cluding working and detail drawings, line quality and lettering. The projects should represent a sensitive use of color, texture, scale and balance.

The investigation also revealed that verbal presentation skills are important. Thus when advising students about making a portfolio presentation, the following suggestions could be helpful:

The presenter should have good verbal skills and a professional vocabulary. One should be prepared for the portfolio presentation, and give a clear description of the projects.

The presenter should be able to sell ideas, answer questions and demonstrate asser- tiveness during the presentation.

This investigation identified criteria used by design professionals to review portfolios. There needs to be further study of these crite- ria to determine the degree of importance of each criterion. The findings relative to the criteria considered by practitioners when re- viewing a student’s portfolio suggest that there are some personal characteristics which are important for an individual, who is going to become an interior designer, to possess. Further research could focus on these per- sonal characteristics in relation to the type of design practice the individual might enter.

References Bartholomew. D. (Ed.). Nofes in inferior design. Los Al-

tos,CA.: WilliamKaufmann. Inc.. 1981. Myers, C. Entry level competencies needed by interiorde-

signers. Journal of Inferior Design Education and Re- search, 1982.8(1) 19-24.

31