5. Summative Self Appraisal

Institutional frameworks on the day to day running of Arch+ID are provided in the following TUT policies which guide decision-making and motivation when deviation is necessary: claims - loss or damage; accepted invoices; access control of enterprise resource planning system; acquisition of information resources; access to external libraries; administration fees for refer to drawer; allocation of parking spaces; annual adjustment of student fees; appointment of invigilators for examinations and other assessments; audio-visual equipment; budgeting; cashier deficits and surpluses; circulation of information resources; cleaning services; collection development and management; computer equipment purchases and replacement; computer related technology intervention; contracting of operational leases, rental of office equipment; credit cards-advances and buying card; creditors-account payable and account payable COD payments; data backup and server management; disciplinary code and procedure; employee training and development; grievance; institutional repository; and many other related policies (see appx. B2) for some of the policy documents.

3.1.Strategies

It has been a tradition of the Arch+ID to strengthen social ties and promote team building by having staff lunches every Monday, hosted by permanent staff. A collective approach to decision-making, problem solving, and the running of the department is made possible by this existing social capital. Microsoft Teams, SharePoint, and OneDrive, which are linked to Microsoft Outlook are used to facilitate communication of information, collaboration on given administrative tasks, and the organisation of data. Assigned Year Coordinators play a key role in handling administrative and relational matters affecting teaching, learning, and assessment. They also pick up on some of the administrative work required from part-time lecturers. Various staff members represent the department in University and Faculty committees to ensure the flow of communication and resolving of matters. For example, administrative and academic matters related to post-graduate studies and research are handled by the Departmental Research Committee, with its members serving in faculty research committees. Student representatives are invited to biweekly staff meetings, so they have a platform to raise issues affecting their learning, assessment, and wellbeing.

3.2.Administration

There are two administrative staff members who are assisted by students appointed on a yearly basis. They handle a range of administrative and financial matters from reception desk enquiries, telephonic and email enquiries, applications, registrations, announcements, appointments, reports, appointment of part-time lecturers, examiners, and various related tasks. Their work lightens the additional administrative burden on academic staff, who only handle all administration work closely tied to their day to day teaching, assessment, research, community work, and respective portfolios.

External funding for the department in the period, 2017-2021, was mainly for research activities and was mainly sourced from the National Research Fund (NRF), the Newton Fund (University of Bath), and the Embassy of Italy in South Africa. In the period, 2019-2021, the Etex Group South Africa funded community projects which form part of teaching and learning. Other stakeholders provided funding in the form of bursaries for students, award prizes, and various forms of sponsorships. Department: Approved Research Funding

Laubscher, J., Natarajan, S., Snyman, J., Gibberd, J., Kershaw, T., Heath, A., Coley, D., Maskell, D. 2017. Newton Fund: Preparing the South African Built Environment for Climate Change Resilience (SABER). • ZAR 1,021,667.39

Nkambule, M.E.N., Barba, S., Laubscher, J., 2018. Italian South Africa Research Programme: Joint Research and Mobility Projects 2018 -2021. A social and spatial investigation at the Moxomatsi village, Mpumalanga (SSIMM). • ZAR 300,270. 00

Osman, AO. NRF KIC funding: Travel costs to LA for Open Building conference –December 2018. • ZAR 20, 000.00

Osman, AO. NRF Community Engagement Project (2019-2021). Bertrams Community Project: HUE @ FADA/UJ, CARINBE @ UJ, Architetcure @ TUT, Town and Regional Planning @ UJ, and partners. • ZAR 1, 530, 350.00

Osman, AO. SARChI: DST/NRF/SACN Research Chair in Spatial Transformation: Positive Change in the Built Environment (2020-2025) • ZAR 5, 000, 000.00

Faculty Funding

Historically, the department ran an in-house architectural practice providing professional services to the public. It served to provide students with experience, an office simulation, similar to the current integrated learning (WIL) programme, was therefore included within the Department. Studio 7 was introduced in 2018 as way of reviving this service by the department. In the reporting period, 2017-2021, Studio 7 was able to provide architectural services to other departments of TUT.

Studio 7: Approved Funding

Mukhola, S., Selepe, C., Zingitwa, N., Laubscher, J., Sadie, A., Nkambule, M., Mahlalela, S., Kruger, L., Gaum, T., Krynauw, E., van Schoor, M., van Wyk, B. J. 2019 DEPARTMENT of HIGHER EDUCATION and TRAINING: Infrastructure and Efficiency Grant, Funding Cycle 5 (2018/19 -2020/21) • ZAR 372,870,913.00

Studio 7: Submitted Funding

Mukhola, M.S., Coetzee, I.E.M., Tlale, N., Papu-Zamxaka, V.B., Madurai, T.L., Naidoo, D., Laubscher, J., Banoobhai, M. 2021. DEPARTMENT of HIGHER EDUCATION and TRAINING: Infrastructure and Efficiency Grant, Funding Cycle 6 (2021/22-2023/24). • ZAR 526,936,866.61

5. Summative Self Appraisal

5.1. Response to the 2017 Validation repotrt (See appx. A1.2)

Quality Improvement Plan (QIP): SACAP Validation

Date of SACAP Validation Board (VB) Visit 14 - 16 August 2017 Date of Report by SACAP VB 30 October 2017 Date Report by SACAP VB was received 02 November 2017 (Pdf) 07 November 2017 (MS Word)

Date of reply to SACAP 13 November 2017 (Revised version by Prof Kotze with additions on Theory, History, Landscape & Urban Design)

Author

Prof Jacques Laubscher & ALL permanent staff of the TUT Arch. Dept.

p. Content/ Heading Statements made in the report by the SACAP VB Factual corrections requested to the statements that were made Proposed quality improvement action(s)

Proposed date of implementation

1 Title page No comment, the information is accepted as it is presented. --- ---

2 1. List of Acronyms No comment, the information is accepted as it is presented. --- ---

1312DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

2. Acknowledgements The Board appreciated the preparations for the visit (the introduction documents, exhibitions, presentations and appointments), the well-equipped venue allocated to the Board, as well as the arrangements for accommodation and refreshments. In addition, the Board experienced openness, transparency and friendliness, which unquestionably contributed towards making the visit an effective and memorable experience. The Board wishes to thank the leadership of the Tshwane University of Technology and staff from the Department of Architecture in the Faculty of Engineering & Built Environment for their hospitality, for their efforts in preparing for the visit, and for the engaging discussions that ensued during the validation process. In particular, the Validation Board would like to thank the following people:

• Professor Ben van Wyk (Dean of Faculty of Engineering & Built Environment) • Mr Siegfriedt Schmidt (Head of Department of Architecture) • Professor Gerald Steyn (Research Professor at the Department of Architecture) • Staff, Students, Alumni and External Examiners

• Technical and Administrative Staff

3. Executive Summary The South African Council for the Architectural Profession (SACAP) was invited by the Head of Department (HoD) of Architecture to assess the quality and relevance of the architectural qualifications leading to candidacy and eventual professional registration and practice. This followed from the HoD’s involvement with associated Heads of Schools Meetings in South Africa. This report was prepared by a Visiting Board (VB) representing the SACAP. The process involved inspection of the facilities, evaluation of subject contents and assignments, and interviews with staff, students and external examiners, as well as a review of the Architectural Learning Site (ALS)’s contribution to architectural education. Noted ---

1312DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

3.1 Recommendations 3.1.1 Studio Contact Time

The Department should consider increasing staff/student contact time for design subjects.

3.1.2 Student Feedback Mechanisms

The Department should explore alternative channels to communicate and receive feedback from students other than ESB.

3.1.3 Access and Transformation

Mechanisms should be put in place to improve ‘through-put’ especially by students from disadvantaged backgrounds and to access the Masters Programme. In an effort to support students from disadvantaged backgrounds the department does the following: lecturers contact students if absent for a longer time without any formal reason; struggling students are referred to TUT’s Student Development and Support (SDS); some lecturers, in their personal capacity, sponsor students with printing and model making materials costs (this can be formalised to support financially struggling students) ; and TUT Postgraduate scholarships are made available, prioritising South Africans 2018 onwards

Additional design studio sessions were introduced for all years from 1 Sept. 2017. Design is now presented for 3 days per week for 3 hours per day.

Following the Validation Visit, a newly identified line function, AIRC weekly meetings, Mass Meetings were introduced. Class representatives or AIRC members are also invited to staff meetings and given an opportunity to give feedback and record complaints. 1 Sept. 2017 onwards

2018 onwards

3.1.4 Identity of the Department

A clearly articulated identity of the ALS was not apparent to the visiting Board. The ALS should give due consideration to expression of the unique traits and characteristics that define the identity of the ALS during the period prior to the next Validation visit.

3.1.5 External Examiners

The Department should seek to diversify the pool of external examiners in terms of geographical location, race and gender. Although still work in progress, the examination panel has become more diverse in response to this comment in the last 5 years. The number of examiners from far away provinces and other countries is restricted by the budget TUT makes available to the department. Jan 2018 onwards

Reflection on ALS identity: Our department prides itself on its practice-focus (design, develop, model and make) and in a University of Technology this is something to be supported and a heritage to be celebrated. The will to embrace research is another matter. Changing the culture of the department is a multi-year endeavour. This initiative is titled “THE PHILOSOPHY OF TECHNOLOGY” as a means to combine both the heritage aspects (technology/practice) as well as the future vision (research/ writing/reflective practice). 2018 onwards

1514DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

5

3.2 Requirements

The 2012 SACAP report on the TUT validation visit stated as follows:

The Board is concerned that there are matters raised in the previous report that still have not been adequately addressed,

for example a clear vision statement, This was made a priority and led to revisiting the curriculum, teaching and research approach to reflect the core values of the ALS.

Vision statement

The department’s vision is nurturing socially responsible designers to be leaders in sustainable design technology, which is in line with the following TUT vision:

A People’s University that makes knowledge work

Sept. 2017 onwards

Mission statement

Our mission at Department of Architecture and Industrial Design is to instill human-centred sustainable design technology thinking and making with creativity, innovation and ingenuity through integrated teaching, researching, and community engagement. This mission is encompassed in the following Tshwane University of Technology’s mission: We advance social and economic transformation through relevant curricula, impactful research and engagement, quality learning experiences, dedicated staff, and an enabling environment.

2018 onwards

1514DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

Image 6 BArch1 - MArch1 Community project Image 7 AIRC 2022

1716DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

Image 6 BArch1 - MArch1 Community project Image 7 AIRC 2022

1716DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

a clear research strategy,

attention to the history and theory components of the curriculum and

a clearly stated academic identity of TUT architectural graduates. The TUT Architecture Departmental Research and Innovation Committee (A_ DRIC) constitution was established and is responsible for providing leadership in relation to strategic decision-making and management of research, innovation and research training at the Department of Architecture, Tshwane University of Technology. The A_DRIC manages all post-graduate degrees produced at the department, and therefore also functions as a Departmental Post-Graduate Studies Committee.

Through establishing TUT|Tharabololo the department aims to encourage more staff members to publish as individuals or in partnership. 2 Nov. 2017 onwards

See PART A, Section 5 for more details on the following:

• Make Arch+ID a leader in sustainable design technology

• Make community projects an integral part of teaching and research

• Cultivate transformational research

The Theory and History of Architecture modules’ content was comprehensively revised and the revisions are included in the prospectus from 2020 onwards. Characteristics of TUT architectural graduates: Creative

Agile Entrepreneurial 2018 onwards

2018 onwards

1918DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

We noticed, from the ‘Self Appraisal’ of the 2017 TUT Report, that this was only seen as a recommendation and remained unaddressed. Addressing these issues is now a requirement.

3.3 Next Visit

The next visit by a full Visiting Board is to be in the year 2021.

The department addressed the requirements and recommendations made by the Visiting Boards of both 2012 and 2016 with the urgency it deserves. Sept. 2017

Noted ---

6 4. Preamble The Department risks receiving Conditional Validation if the requirements of the Board are not attended to urgently. The department has addressed the requirements and recommendations made by the Visiting Boards of both 2012 and 2016 with the urgency it deserves. Sept. 2017

No comment, the information is accepted as it is presented. --- ---

5. Validation Process, Aim and Objectives No comment, the information is accepted as it is presented. --- ---

7 6. Evaluation Criteria No comment, the information is accepted as it is presented. --- --7. Members of the

Visiting Board No comment, the information is accepted as it is presented. --- ---

8. Recognition Status 8.2.1 Recommendation to SACAP and CHE

The Visiting Board recommends to SACAP and CHE continued unconditional validation of: • BTech Architecture (Professional) for purposes of registration of graduates as Candidate Senior

Architectural Technologists (SACAP)

• MTech Architecture (Professional) for purposes of registration of graduates as Candidate Professional Architect (SACAP) 8.2.1 Recommendation to SACAP and CHE

The Visiting Board recommends to SACAP and CHE continued unconditional validation of: • B Tech Architecture (Professional) and B Architecture, • B Tech Architecture (Professional) with extended curriculum and B

Architecture with extended curriculum, • B Tech Architecture (Technology), for purposes of registration of graduates as Candidate Senior Architectural Technologists (SACAP) M Tech Architecture (Professional) and M Architecture, for purposes of registration of graduates as Candidate Professional Architects (SACAP) Addressed on 11 Sept. 2017

See the e-mail sent by Prof Laubscher to Prof Paul Kotzé: Chairperson of the TUT ALS Validation Board on 11 Sept. 2017.

Addressed on 11 Sept. 2017

8.2.2 Criteria for Validation

The Visiting Board is satisfied these courses and associated qualifications meet the standards set by SACAP for recognition and fulfil the CAA General Statement of Educational Objectives and Content. Noted ---

1918DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

8.2.3 Standard Condition of Approval Any significant course changes must be notified to the Validation Committees of SACAP and CAA as interested and affected parties. 8.2.4 Standards

The work of these courses from previous year (2016) that was inspected during the visit was adjudged to meet required standards and the following comments apply: 9. Comments 9.1 Documentation, Digital Presentation and Exhibition of Works Documentation The work of the Validation Board was disrupted and delayed somewhat due to the incompleteness of the validation document delivered prior to the visit and the subsequent issue of additional documentation and revisions to the Board only on the first day of the visit. To prepare for the next validation, the Board advises the ALS to prepare the necessary documentation timeously and to thoroughly check the documentation before it is couriered to the Board.

10. Observations The Head of Department Mr Siegfriedt Schmidt made a comment that they don’t attract the best students as the university has a bad image of frequent strikes. The number of modules were reduced, as recommended by the VB in 2017.

The Department humbly apologises to the Validation Board for any disruptions and/or delays that the incomplete validation document may have caused. The Department undertakes to ensure that the validation document is complete and factually accurate before distributing it for the next validation visit.

The Department undertakes to deliver the required documentation timeously for the next validation visit.

The Visiting Board is of the view that the department lacks a strong identity and that it could benefit from having this more clearly defined. The Board similarly felt that the Department should articulate a vision statement that clearly commits the institution to a direction that every staff member is aware of and which could help promote TUT as a university of preference for students who want to study architecture. The Visiting Board is concerned that the last staff ‘bosberaad’ was in 2012 and that the many changes in staffing since then may have resulted in some loss of vision. The Visiting Board is therefore of the opinion that another staff ‘bosberaad’ might assist the staff to bring them closer and work in unison as the TUT Department clearly services a niche market. See PART B, PART A

A series of workshops were held in the period, 2017-2021, to address changes of the curriculum, the vision and strategies of the department, and SLEs. Jan. 2018 onwards

1 Dec. 2017

They could also afford to market themselves more aggressively, given the huge role they can play in the education of technically proficient architectural professionals. The website of the department was updated Jan 2018 onwards

9 11. Facilities

The Visiting Board was accommodated in a spacious and comfortable exhibition and meeting hall during their visit. The refreshments served were generous and well appreciated by the Board members. 12. Exhibition The Visiting Board commends the Department of Architecture at TUT for the diligent manner in which the students’ work was displayed in the exhibition from the borderline students to the highest mark. The students’ portfolios were well arranged chronologically, were accessible and well exhibited. The exhibited portfolios gave the Visiting Board a clearer understanding of the standard of work at TUT Department of Architecture. The quantum of work per subject and per year met the recommended SACAP requirements. Noted.

Noted.

2120DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

13. Digital Presentation The introductory digital presentation was informative and comprehensive.

Noted. ---

However, the Vising Board would have liked to know how the Department of Architecture at TUT define their identity and what their mission statement is.

The Visiting Board also noticed that there is not a clear integration between theory and design at the junior degree level. See PART B, Jan 2018 onwards

See PART B, ---

14. Self-Appraisal and Response to Previous Visiting Board Report Self Appraisal The Visiting Board was not entirely satisfied with the response by the Department of Architecture at TUT to the 2012 visit. The Department appears to have viewed the recommendations of the Visiting Board as mere comments and not requirements and consequently did not fully implement all of them. These requirements remain areas of concern to this Board and require follow-on review by the next Validation Board. The Department undertook to address these matters with the utmost urgency. Implementation of some of the requirements have already begun since 1 Sept. 2017. 1 Sept. 2017

15. Commentary 15.1 Interview with Management. The Validation Board met with TUT Dean of Faculty Engineering and Built Environment, Prof Barend van Wyk. He said the university regards architecture as a flagship program and they offer continued support to the department. Noted.

15.2 Comments on Interviews with External Examiners

The external examiners who were present said the standard of education in the department is satisfactory. They said the work of the students ranges from acceptable to exceptional and were impressed with the following: • The Foundation Year. It’s a good bridge programme for students from previously disadvantaged backgrounds. • The computer skills of the students. • The study visits to Maputo as they expose students to a different context. • The strong technical foundation. Noted.

10 The following areas of concern were raised by the external examiners: • The lack of integration between theory and design.

• The lack of a representative demographic especially in the MTech program. See PART B. 2018 onwards

See PART B. ---

• The limited number of TUT lecturers who publish research papers. A new programme of publishing in partnerships (TUT|Tharabololo) headed by the newly appointed Prof Amira Osman was introduced in the department where more experienced researchers are providing assistance to all staff members in this regard. Oct. 2017 onwards

2120DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

Image 8 Studio and pin-up spaces(Building 11) Image 9 BArch 4(Tech) Itireleng built project.

2322DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

Image 8 Studio and pin-up spaces(Building 11) Image 9 BArch 4(Tech) Itireleng built project.

2322DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

• The lack of academic rigour amongst students. Assignments: when researching for writing and preparing assignments, for all modules, students are required to reference using the TUT Referencing Guidelines; this is enforced by including referencing as part of the marking rubric. Theory and History of Architecture modules: the frame of reference for students is expanded through these modules; students are encouraged to cultivate a culture of reading by including using books in the ReadingLab when preparing for assignments; what is still under development is increasing the academic rigour through correctly referenced essays, improving writing skills (more written essays with feedback), and referring students with poor writing skills to TUT Student Development and Support (SDS). 2018 onwards

The Validation Board is concerned that the external examiners are being selected from an insufficiently diverse resource pool and recommends to the TUT Department of Architecture to broaden this in terms of geographical location, race and gender. This concern was similarly raised by the visiting Board in 2012 but has gone unaddressed.

15.3 Comments on Meeting with Students The meeting with students was well attended by current and past students in the new architecture building. The students admitted that they enjoy being in the new building and the atmosphere is very good but are concerned that the studio culture has deteriorated since they moved into the new building.

They are happy that the Department offers financial assistance to students from previously disadvantaged backgrounds.

Security at night is a major concern and some students admitted having had items stolen in the studio. From 2018 onwards the list of examiners is reviewed at the beginning of the year by HOD, to ensure diversity of external examiners for each module. The A_DRIC reviews the list of examiners for the MArch 2 and MArch Tech 2 programmes. 2018 onwards

Noted.

Additional design studio sessions were introduced for all years from 1 Sept. 2017.

Design is now presented for 3 days per week for 3 hours per day.

Noted

The department now has positioned a security official at the reception of Building 11 from 06:00 and he closes doors at 17:30 to make sure no student is in the building at night. 1 Sept. 2017

2018 onwards

2524DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

Some students, especially those who stay far away, commented that distance is an issue for them and makes it difficult to work in studio.

Some students complained that the use of Afrikaans by some lecturers excludes those who do not understand it and would prefer all communication be done in English so that all students can benefit.

Many students who completed the Foundation Year spoke well of the program as they felt it prepared them to study architecture

Students also complained about the workload of 5th year, claiming that many of them don’t cope with the workload and that it even affected the health of some of them.

Some of the positive feedback from students included there has been an increase of black students in the Department. The Visiting Board commends the department for enrolling more black students.

would like to see a larger proportion of black students enrolled into the master’s program. The department acknowledges this challenge, and in response design studio times were increased to make sure students have enough time to access the the studio, CADLab, MakerSpace, Library, ReadingLab, and other resources during the day. 2018 onwards

English is the official language of instruction according to TUT policy. This was discussed during the Staff Meeting of 24 Oct 2017 24 Oct 2017 onwards

Noted ---

There are plans to relook the curriculum of the MArch programme, to make sure this issue and the relevance or alignment of the programme to current developments and the research identity of the department. The other major taken is the introduction of a blended teaching approach, online and face-to-face, since 2020.

Noted ---

See PART B. 2018 onwards

Some students commented that the student body ESB is not fairly representing the views of the students. They feel that the leadership of ESB is favoured by the staff of the Department as they earn a salary and that there is favouritism in the department.

The students also complained that there is less contact time with the lecturers and would like to see lecturers spending more time in the studio.

The Visiting Board recommends to the Department of Architecture to re-examine the whole process of electing the leadership of ESB and to implement student feedback mechanisms so that all students feel included. Measures have been taken to ensure the election of the student body, now called the AIRC, is democratic. Class representatives, through a line function, are able to raise students’ concerns as they arise directly to module lecturers or Year Coordinators and at staff meetings. Additional design studio sessions were introduced for all years from 1 Sept. 2017.

Design is now presented for 3 days per week for 3 hours per day. 2018 onwards

1 Sept. 2017 onwards

This was addressed (see PART B) 2018 onwards

2524DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

11

15.4 Comments on Interviews with Staff

The members of staff appeared enthusiastic and motivated, with a high proportion of younger energetic staff members teaching within the Department.

One staff member said they had a staff retreat 9 years ago, which was successful.

Staff admitted that the university looks after them and generously funds the research work of each staff member. The Department has a good relationship with the dean and he is readily available. Noted.

One staff member raised a concern about transformation in the department noting that she would like to see more diversity in the department in terms of race and gender.

The Validation Board commends the department for the appointment of Dr. Emmanuel Nkambule and 2 junior black lecturers. Mr GP Motswai was replaced by Mr T Ramatlo and Prof G Steyn was replaced by Prof Amira Osman.

The Board also commends Prof. Jacques Laubsher & Ms Sushma Patel for transforming the Master’s Program, which is especially evident in the diversity of design projects run during the year. The Board also commends Prof. Jacques Laubscher & Ms Sushma Patel for transforming the Master’s Program, which is especially evident in the diversity of design projects run during the year. Noted, with thanks.

15.5 Meeting with Head of Department Mr Siegfried Schmidt admitted that the Department of Architecture receives support from the Dean of Engineering of the Built Environment, Prof. Ben van Wyk and the University management. He commented that the staff and students enjoy the new building and appreciate the renovation of the old building.

Mr. Siegfried Schmidt admitted that the Department of Architecture receives support from the Dean of Engineering of the Built Environment, Prof. Ben van Wyk and the University management. He commented that the staff and students enjoy the new building and appreciate the renovation of the old building. Mr. Schmidt mentioned the following as some of the challenges facing the department: • Bad publicity of the University. The University is associated with frequent strikes. • The Department of Architecture does not attract top students. They had the opinion that students with potential opt to apply at universities such as the

University of Pretoria and the University of the Witwatersrand that are perceived to be better.

The Department of Architecture at TUT attracts ‘low-end’ students. In response, the Department has created the Foundation Year program to bridge the gap between secondary school and university. Noted. ---

1 Dec. 2017

See PART B. 2018 onwards

2726DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

12 16. Review of courses

offered by the ALS

15.6 Comments on Resources and Facilities

The Visiting Board was given a tour of the renovated old and new buildings and was impressed with the renovation The new building is well equipped with a spacious lecture hall, studios and other facilities and it has generated enthusiasm among both students and staff. The studios provided in both Buildings are generous, well-equipped and pleasant spaces, with lockable desks, lockers, power and networking. The main auditorium in the new building is big enough to accommodate a large number of students. Both the reference library and the main library in the Goldfields Techno Hub are well equipped with a variety of both technical and design books and journals. The computer laboratory is well equipped with up-to-date software and it is easily accessed by the students. A Model Workshop equipped with a laser cutter and 38-station CAD Laboratory are located in Building 2

The comments made by the visiting Board are noted.

16.1 BTech Architecture (Professional) 16.1 • B Tech Architecture (Professional) and B Architecture, • B Tech Architecture (Professional) with extended curriculum and B Architecture with extended curriculum, • B Tech Architecture (Technology), Addressed on 11 Sept. 2017

2726DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

16.1.1. BArch1

Design 1 The Architectural Design I course is well structured and managed. The course Outline has been well prepared. The students’ response to the course is positive. The lowest fail that was showed to the Board should have failed. Noted 2018 onwards

The Board recommends that the requirements should be more demanding.

The Visiting Board is of the opinion that several of the portfolios that were exhibited appeared shallow and that some of the projects are not challenging the students.

The Visiting Board recommends first year students to be given design projects that are going to be more challenging.

It was obvious to the Board that the students would be capable to understand more and that they would be able to produce more.

Much more can be expected of them.

Despite the observation that the course is well structured there is a certain level of complacency in how the course is actually run.

Maybe more basic understanding of the principles of architectural form making can be introduced. A new syllabus was introduced from 2020 and MR T Ramatlo has introduced some changes (see PART C for portfolio of evidence).

In the same manner students could be made more aware of the influences of context. 2018 onwards

The course can benefit from a restructuring that would allow sharper focus and more evidence of the current principles of design teaching. More experimentation can also be encouraged. 2018 onwards

Presentation Techniques 1 This is a very well-structured course with appropriate drawing and presentation techniques for first years. The focus is clear and it is well integrated with design. It is great to see that there is an emphasis on the qualities and advantages of hand drawn techniques in the age of computers to understand how different techniques are used to present one’s work to your client or even internally to your office staff. Noted ---

2928DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

Communication I

The aim of this subject is to improve the comprehension of the students and to increase their skills to communicate in English both orally and in writing. It is the opinion of the Board that some of the high achievers in this subject were scored too high as their writing skills were not up to standard. 2018 onwards

2018 onwards

They used bad grammar, referencing system and academic guidelines were not adhered to. 2018 onwards

Writing skills are now included in this module. The marking and teaching of this subject is too lenient. 2018 onwards

The standard is too low and it is recommended that the standard be lifted. 2018 onwards

This is a very important subject because it impacts on all the other subjects. This is where the students can be taught how to better articulate their designs.

Computer Applications 1 Installation of new CAD-lab equipment since the last validation visit is noted and appreciated. External Examiners advised that content of Computer Skills stream is appropriate and up to date with current trends. Course objectives are clearly defined and are appropriate. The course provides working knowledge of Windows XP, MS Word, MS Excel, an Internet Browser, Corel Draw and Sketch Up, as well as basic Computer Hardware. The course aims to provide a foundation for Computer Aided Design (CAD). Assessment is via a series of tests and practical assignments.

The comments made by the visiting Board are noted.

2018 onwards

2928DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

Image 10 BArch4(Tech) Online Studio session.

3130DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

Image 11 Students during CAD Tutorials

3130DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

CAD 1 From the course program, the focus appears to be upon introductory level for ArchiCAD. The course is relevant to students who have never used CAD software before. External Examiners advised that content of the course is appropriate and up-to-date with current trends. Mark sheets indicate marks allocated for a Class Exercise and for a Contract Documentation assignment. Congratulations to Estelle who presneted the courses in 2016 and Devaksha who presneted the course in 2017.

LP: The content of the syllabus was revised and the module is now called Computer Applications in Architecture I. This subject falls into the Basic skill level of Building Information Modelling (BIM) and other applications assisting Design and Contract documentation subjects. Five practical projects are submitted referring to the Basic topics workshopped in the block courses for awarding of the year mark. A final exam submission is of the best contract documentation project and design poster referring to topics workshopped during the year to grant an exam mark. Year mark at 60% and Exam Mark at 40%, totalling the Final mark of 100%.

1st year - Basic

2nd year - Intermediate

3rd year - Advanced 4th year - Specialised

History of Architecture 1 The first observation that needs to be made is that the course is only focussed on Western and Southern African Architecture. The question remains why?

However this course content is not followed up in the course content as evidenced in the test questions.

This course can benefit from a greater sense of structure and much more depth in terms of course content.

It would seem that evaluation is only done by means of multiple choice questions. This might be due to the time it takes to evaluate the work.

However it then remains knowledge on a very superficial level. A new curriculum was introduced in 2020 where History of Architecture and Theory of Architecture Design modules were consolidated into one module, Theory and History of Architecture. The new content of the module addresses these concerns.

See PART B.

The recommendation is again to expect more from students.

3332DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

They will rise to the occasion and might just not fulfil the pre-conceptions that exists about them.

Theory of Architectural Design 1 It is extremely difficult to understand the course structure and purpose.

The idea of ‘theory’ needs to be defined more closely.

It is even more difficult to understand how this course content relates to Architectural History and Design in the same year.

It would seem that there is no influence of this course in the Architectural Design or History courses.

It is recommended that the Department completely re-thinks this course. See comments above ( History of Architecture 1) and PART B.

13

16.1.2 BArch2

Design 2 The design work and assignments are well formed and well presented

One of the shortcomings of this course is that the student’s visual diaries do not properly show analysis of buildings with a tendency towards redrawing pictures of buildings, which should not be the aim of the exercise.

Theory of Architectural Design II It is difficult to form a clear understanding of the underpinning intention and structure of the course.

The title of the course refers to ‘Theory’, yet the course content seems to only deal with the stylistic characteristics of some seemingly randomly selected styles/time periods.

There is no real theory component in the course – or maybe not in the accepted meaning of the term.

This course can be, with great results, totally restructured with an emphasis on architectural theory with more intellectual depth and width. Noted

See PART C for changes made.

A new curriculum was introduced in 2020 where History of Architecture and Theory of Architecture Design modules were consolidated into one module, Theory and History of Architecture. The new content of the module addresses these concerns.

See PART B and PART E.

3332DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

Architectural Practice 2 Course objectives are clearly defined and are appropriate. The positioning of the 6-month practical component within the second year of study is a positive initiative, the benefits of which are immediately apparent in the student’s work after returning. Potentially tricky integration and continuity with other subjects is well managed by splitting the class into two and the monitoring and assessment of this component of the course is well structured. Students are required to acquire experience under the following headings during a 6-month work-integrated learning placement: • Internal Office Procedures

• Interdisciplinary Procedures

• Draughtsmanship • Contact with Local and/or Other Authorities

• Work on Site

This range of experience is deemed both appropriate and valuable. The course builds upon skills and knowledge acquired during First Year. The course is assessed via a portfolio submission (work completed during period of placement in an office) and a written test, which is deemed appropriate.

CAD 2 The course builds upon the CAD I introductory course. The focus is upon equipping the students to undertake computer modelling and technical documentation skills using ArchiCAD. The course is taught via three full day lecture sessions at the beginning of 2nd Year in a wellequipped 38-station CAD laboratory located in Building 2.

The comments made by the visiting Board are noted. ---

Evaluation is via a combination of assessment during the three day sessions and assessment of ArchiCAD skills apparent in Design portfolios. This appears a little loose and undefined in terms of the expectations placed on students and the assessment criteria.

16.1.3 BArch3 Year

Congratulations to Moses and the team (Devaksha, Sieg and Phillip) who has taken over from Moses.

The content of the syllabus was revised and the module is now called Computer Applications in Architecture II. This subject falls into the Intermediate skill level of Building Information Modelling (BIM) applications assisting Design and Contract documentation subjects. Three practical projects are submitted referring to the Intermediate BIM topics workshopped in the block course for awarding of the year mark. A final exam submission is of the best contract documentation project and design poster to award an exam mark. Year mark at 60% and Exam Mark at 40%, totalling the Final mark of 100%.

BArch1 - Basic BArch2 - Intermediate BArch3 - Advanced BArch4 - Specialised 2018 onwards

Architectural Design III The third year design portfolio was well presented and shows ambition from the students. Third Year portfolio work indicate that students are starting to show they are well informed and eager to be creative. The marks assigned to the borderline students and top students are fair and well allocated. Noted ---

3534DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

Architectural Design Theory III There is seems to be a general lack of definition of what is ‘Theory’ and what is ‘History’.

This needs to be defined and the appropriate changes need to be made to the course content.

There is no reading list that is of value and consequence.

No evidence of student work was found.

It was difficult to ascertain how the student work was assessed and what the assessment criteria were.

This course needs a thorough re-look and restructuring.

Landscape Design III It is difficult to understand how this course is being taught and what role it plays in the Third Year Curriculum.

The Department should re-think and reconsider this entire course. The department apologises for missing information.

A new curriculum was introduced in 2020 where History of Architecture and Theory of Architecture Design modules were consolidated into one module, Theory and History of Architecture. The new content of the module addresses these concerns.

See PART B, Section 7.3 and PART E, Appendix

14 Building Services III The course has clear objectives. It is a very hands-on course. It links building services knowledge to the applicable building regulations. The group assignment analysed a complex multi-storey building with complex services. This module no longer exist but some of its content is now in the Building Physics and Systems Design I and II as well as Construction II and III.

The Board felt that students should take a more critical position in such assignments and not just analyse to understand. This is again to give more academic rigour to the subject.

The services are also well integrated with and applied in contract documentation.

Specification and Quantities III

The insight that this course provides to students into the practical aspects of real-life construction documentation and defining a clear pathway to the detailed actualisation of an architectural idea by others is invaluable. The coursework appears well conceived, clearly communicated and equips students with a skillset that is unique among most architecture graduates and makes a positive contribution to the industry. Assessment methods are appropriate to this content and the tasks are easily and well integrated into design. This module was removed but it’s content are now in the modules Professional Practice IV and Advanced Professional Practice IV. 2018 onwards

3534DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

CAD III

The course builds upon the content of CAD II and prepares students for exit level in Year 4. Adobe Photoshop and Revit are taught, providing a good bridge to exit level the following year. Two workshops are run, the first on Adobe Photoshop and the second on Revit. Assessment is conducted via practical assignment. It is noted that 13/54 students were implicated in copying or sharing work during the Revit assignment, which is a high proportion of the class. Perhaps clearer guidance should be considered for students on acceptable conduct for these assignments (over and above standard university policy).

The comments made by the visiting Board are noted. ---

The module is now called Computer Applications in Architecture III. This subject falls into the Advanced skill level of Building Information Modelling (BIM), and other applications assisting Design and Contract documentation subjects. Seven practical projects are submitted referring to the Advanced topics workshopped in the block courses for awarding of the year mark. A final exam submission is of the best contract documentation project and design poster referring to topics workshopped during the year to grant an exam mark. Year mark at 60% and Exam Mark at 40%, totalling the Final mark of 100%.

All the submissions are marked on the Learning Management system (LMS) Desire to Learn (D2L), enabling the lecturer to give instant feedback to the student and have a digital copy of the original model file submitted with each submission. Some projects are collaborative group projects that require students to submit their work on the LMS and would thus be noticed if plagiarising a fellow student’s work by the Lecturer, Students or External Examiners. Therefore, a clear record is kept, and students are briefed on plagiarism and the LMS at the beginning of each year. BArch1 - Basic

BArch2 - Intermediate

BArch3 - Advanced BArch4 - Specialised 2018 onwards

3736DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

CAD III

The course builds upon the content of CAD II and prepares students for exit level in Year 4. Adobe Photoshop and Revit are taught, providing a good bridge to exit level the following year. Two workshops are run, the first on Adobe Photoshop and the second on Revit. Assessment is conducted via practical assignment. It is noted that 13/54 students were implicated in copying or sharing work during the Revit assignment, which is a high proportion of the class. Perhaps clearer guidance should be considered for students on acceptable conduct for these assignments (over and above standard university policy).

The comments made by the visiting Board are noted. ---

The module is now called Computer Applications in Architecture III. This subject falls into the Advanced skill level of Building Information Modelling (BIM), and other applications assisting Design and Contract documentation subjects. Seven practical projects are submitted referring to the Advanced topics workshopped in the block courses for awarding of the year mark. A final exam submission is of the best contract documentation project and design poster referring to topics workshopped during the year to grant an exam mark. Year mark at 60% and Exam Mark at 40%, totalling the Final mark of 100%.

All the submissions are marked on the Learning Management system (LMS) Desire to Learn (D2L), enabling the lecturer to give instant feedback to the student and have a digital copy of the original model file submitted with each submission. Some projects are collaborative group projects that require students to submit their work on the LMS and would thus be noticed if plagiarising a fellow student’s work by the Lecturer, Students or External Examiners. Therefore, a clear record is kept, and students are briefed on plagiarism and the LMS at the beginning of each year. 1st year - Basic 2nd year - Intermediate 3rd year - Advanced 4th year - Specialised 2018 onwards

3736DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

16.1.4 BArch4

Design IV Seven Design projects are run during the academic year, namely: • Cool Capital Biennale – Concrete Bench

• Hyperbuilding of polar opposites • Prinschurch Building – Short Film • Landform Building – Visitor Centre • Des Baker Competition

• Own House

• Adaptive Reuse – Student Accommodation

Clear objectives are articulated within the brief provided for each project. Assessment criteria for each project are provided within the brief issued to students for each project. Projects are assessed during critiques, pin-ups and portfolio submissions, and in the case of Project 2, also via an essay submitted as part of the Theory 4 course. Students who achieve a minimum 65% for design, theory and construction qualify to apply for admission to the postgraduate programme.

The comments made by the visiting Board are noted.

An incremental progression in complexity and scale is discernible between Architectural Design III and Architectural Design IV.

Of slight concern is the large increase in complexity, workload and theoretical depth between Fourth Year and Fifth Year (Masters). Noted

The Visiting Board noted comments regarding a lack of studio culture precipitated by the building refurbishment during interviews with staff and students, although during visits to studios the Visiting Board noted a reasonable number of students working in the studios.

Given the already restricted amount of contact time between staff and students (3 hours per week), a further reduction in staff time should be avoided at all costs. Additional design studio sessions were introduced for all years from 1 Sept. 2017. Design is now presented for 3 days per week for 3 hours per day.

Given the current financial constraints of TUT, a reduced part time budget was negotiated with the Dean and Associated Dean. Under this budget, the course credits determined the contact time and associated remuneration. All 2017 positions for part time staff will remain in place for 2018 onwards 2018 onwards

1 Sept. 2017

1 Sept. 2017

3938DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

Architectural Design Theory IV It was difficult to understand what was meant with ‘theory’ and why topics were included in the list of lectures.

The impression was created that the staff member just included what fascinated him with no real academic purpose and structure.

The Department is encouraged to re-think this course in its entirety. A new curriculum was introduced in 2020 where History of Architecture and Theory of Architecture Design modules were consolidated into one module, Theory and History of Architecture. The new content of the module addresses these concerns.

See PART Band PART E.This course requires serious restructuring to give it focus and intellectual rigour and depth.

Project Management The course is well structured and the objectives and aim of the course are adequately met. Noted

However, the low standard of writing skills apparent amongst students is worrying. See comments above (Section 15, on “The lack of academic rigour amongst students”). 2018 onwards

Structures

While the student’s design work through the years does seem to indicate a fairly good grasp of structural principles it is not immediately apparent from the Structures course outlines from where they are gaining this insight. Noted

The course content and the guide appear poorly conceived and incomplete with an integrated systems overview somewhat lacking.

Learning outcomes are poorly formulated and it appears as if the communication of course content to students may be a problem, judging from the some of the reviews.

The Board felt that the aim and objectives of this course need to be more clearly conceptualised and defined within the wider context of what the school wishes students to master in this field.

Opportunities for practical integration with Architectural Design and, particularly, Construction Materials could possibly be further developed in order to help students arrive at a broad understanding of structural systems and develop design confidence.

Structure as a mode of architectural expression should be further investigated and encouraged within the course. These comments were addressed by incrementally adding aspects of this module as part of the new Building Physics and Systems Design I, II, and III. There also integration between the structures component with Design and Construction. 2018 onwards

2018 onwards

2018 onwards

2018 onwards

2018 onwards

2018 onwards

3938DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

16.2 MTech Architecture (Professional) 16.2.1 Fifth Year

Architectural Design IV

16.2 MTech Architecture (Professional) 16.2.1 Fifth Year

Architectural Design V

This is an exceptionally good programme and a year that is very meticulously structured and thought out. It has a rigorous theoretical underpinning appropriate for the first year of masters. The projects are a good mix of group and individual projects. The programme is demanding and challenging and requires real commitment of students, which is appropriate at Masters’ level. Although some students complained about the amount of work demanded in fifth year, the Board felt that this is the intensity, rigour and academic level that is necessary in a school of architecture and would like to commend the staff who are involved in this programme, for their exceptional effort.

Principles of Urban Design Principles of Urban Design IV Noted

The course outline had a good reading list and a good list of lecture topics.

Thank you Sushma

However, no evidence was seen of the student work or the evaluation criteria.

It was also difficult to understand how this course fits into the rest of the year’s course or how it influenced the other coursework. This module has been integrated into Architectural Design IV since 2020.

Theory of Design V Well-structured and presented course. All requirements of the course were well-articulated while the course showed an impressive depth of inquiry and lecture content. There were evidence of thorough feedback to students as well as that the students received fair evaluations, Noted

Construction Methods (1-5)

This subject is presented in the first five years and is well spread. The content of the 5 years is spread well, starting in the first year with the building blocks for understanding of construction methods to be built upon in the next 4 years. There is a good vertical progression from simple to complex methods of construction. The subject is horizontally integrated in all years with construction materials and contract documentation. Noted

4140DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

It could be considered in future to combine these 3 subjects into one as they are closely related and marks are shared, for example the contract documentation has a direct link to the construction methods and themes tackled in contract methods are applied in contract documentation and assessed for contract documentation.

The course content in the 5 years is clear and small assignments are used as exercises to build up to the contract documentation.

Alternative methods (like pise or soil construction) are studied, although quite superficially.

An opportunity exists to compare conventional and low-tech methods so as to engender a better understanding of the decision making behind construction methods, as opposed to the simple pragmatics of the methods.

Assessment in general across all 5 years seems to be focused on small tests with multiple choice questions or sketches requiring annotation.

There was no evidence of rigorous testing of intellectual issues in construction or the comparison of different structural systems.

It is a very pragmatic approach, which might work, but it does not challenge students to question decisions regarding the reasons for deciding on different structural systems or methods.

A more intellectual and academically rigorous approach will add value to building construction as integral to architectural design decisions as well as economic considerations.

The content appears appropriate and sufficient to provide a knowledge base for architects to practice effectively.

By being more creative with assignments and the presentation of content, together with a more demanding assessment system, this subject (combined with materials and documentation) can be more much more challenging and also academically more rigorous.

Construction Materials & Contract Documentation (1-5)

The course is well aligned with SACAP competencies and produces graduates well prepared for industry at both the undergraduate and Masters level. The school also has a reputation in the Architectural Profession to this effect and graduates from TUT are usually in high demand by the Profession.

Self-appraisal in the document provided to the Board was not clearly formulated and gave little insight into what the school was working towards and the manner in which the programme was being structured 2019 onwards

2018 onwards

The combination of the modules was implemented from 2020 and changes are observable in PART C.

2018 onwards

The comments from the Board are noted with thanks.

Noted 2018 onwards

Noted ---

See PART A and PART B. 2018 onwards

4140DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

Assessment is too focused on multiple choice/ short form responses. No written work was visible and academic rigour consequently appears to be lacking.

Consolidation of subjects (for example by combining Construction Materials with Construction Methods) would make assessment less onerous and thereby help reduce the workload of students in years three and five.

Greater use of ‘My TUTor’ for testing and communication would be beneficial and students invariably commented that this resource is underutilised.

External examiners were generally not critical of the school and expressed very positive opinions of both the organisational and academic aspects in their assessments.

A concern was raised in the 2012 validation report that external examiners are sourced from a relatively small, local pool and that the school would benefit from expanding this resource to include examiners from further afield and of greater diversity. This has not been addressed in the interim.

The course content is adequate and appropriate. The curriculum was revised and modules were combined in response to these comments.

The comments from the Board are noted.

The 2018 onwards list of examiners are currently under review and a new policy is being developed for the subjects that will be assessed and the composition of external examination panels.

Noted. 2018 onwards

2018 onwards

2018 onwards

Jan 2018 onwards

the horizontal integration with subjects such as structures and history coursework remains poor ...

Qualitative, historical and phenomenological attributes of materials are poorly covered in the course material and structural attributes (eg. Comparative stress/ strain curves, connections & joints) could possibly benefit from closer attention, as it would assist students in developing a sound structural intuition.

Progression within the course is good although Theory and History subjects were restructured with published experimental methods for increased horizontal integration.

The focus and main aim of the structures module, as part of Building Physics and Systems Design modules, is to provide tools, in the form of rule of thumbs to be applied in the structural design of buildings. This has replaced a heavily mathematical approach which makes it difficult for students to relate what is taught to the design process in design modules. 2018 onwards

Noted. 2018 onwards

there appears to be some repetition in year one and two. The Board also felt that the volume of first year work could probably be increased.

Teaching and learning methods appear adequate although See revised curriculum in prospectus available in PART E. The revisions focused on vertical integration between the different years. 2018 onwards

Noted. ---

4342DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT

17. General Observations Students appear to be proud of the practical focus that the school embraces and are not critical of the education they receive. The strong pragmatic base of the course is commendable as it does produce employable graduates although

The comments made by the Validation Board are noted.

the Board felt that opportunities to further develop a scientifically rigorous approach to the technological aspects of the profession are being missed due to the emphasis on contract/ construction documentation as the primary deliverable.

This is addressed in the postgraduate technical programme to a greater extent, however, and The department introduced the Building Physics and Systems Design modules to link contract documentation (now in new Construction modules) with a sustainable design “PHILOSOPHY OF TECHNOLOGY.”

Noted with thanks. 2018 onwards

the Board felt that the Department should aggressively pursue professional accreditation of this programme as there is a definite need in the industry for professional architects with this skill set. This was followed up and the MArch Tech work is included in this report.

Communication appears problematic, the ‘My TUTor’ platform insufficiently utilised. Introductory course to myTUTor was presented to all staff members unfamiliar with the platform on 26 Oct 2017.

1. The foundation course is generally well accepted and a positive contribution to the school. Further training course will be scheduled.

Congratulations once again to Mel and his team.

First year student programme could possibly benefit from being restructured so that foundation subjects are included for all without it being a separate ‘precursor’ per se.

2. The 2nd year Work Integrated Learning attachment is well timed in the curriculum and of real benefit to the students. The Foundation course is still kept separate because it plays an important role in the preparation of, particularly previously disadvantaged students, for the BArch programme. The department is considering expanding the programme as an SLP to skill applicants who plan to apply for admission in other institutions 2018 onwards

Noted 2018 onwards

26 Oct 2017 - Ongoing

The technical skillset that students are required to master is overly limited to documentation in 4th year

and could benefit from a greater emphasis on developing quantitative competencies in building physics and systems design and integration.

An enormous opportunity exists for the school to develop a unique offering in this area and the validation requirements relating to educating technical graduates that can register professionally should be pursued with SACAP as a priority. The department has taken this recommendation into implementation, now offering Building Physics and Systems Design from BArch1 to BArch4. 2018 onwards

2018 onwards

2018 onwards

4342DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN - 2022 SACAP HYBRID VALIDATION VISIT