Environment Tshwane
2021 MArch
Departmentmini-dissertationofArchitecture+Industrial Faculty of Engineering and the Built University of Technology Year Coordinator: Prof Jacques Laubscher
Master of Architecture
Design
i Table of Contents PART 1: STUDY GUIDE 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 2. LECTURER AND CONTACT INFORMATION 2 3. MODULE INFORMATION ................................................................................... 2 2.1. EVALUATION 2 2.2. MODULE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................. 3 2.3. MODULE AIMS................................................................................................. 3 2.4. MODULE THEMES AND GOALS..................................................................... 4 2.4.1. Design Laboratory 4 2.4.2. Urban Laboratory 4 2.4.3. Design Thinking ...................................................................................... 4 4. CORE SYLLABUS 4 5. TRANSITIONING FROM 5TH YEAR TO 6TH YEAR ............................................ 6 6. YEAR PROGRAMME 10 7. MILESTONES ................................................................................................... 13 PART 2: YEAR COORDINATOR 22 8. ROLE OF THE YEAR COORDINATOR 22 2.5. FEEDBACK: MILESTONE 3 23 2.6. FEEDBACK: MILESTONE 4 25 2.7. FEEDBACK: MILESTONE 5 25 2.8. FEEDBACK: MILESTONE 7 27 2.9. PREPARATION: MILESTONE 8 .................................................................... 30 PART 3: ASSESSMENT 32 9. EXAMINERS ..................................................................................................... 32 9.1. SELECTION 32 9.2. COVER LETTER TO THE EXTERNAL EXAMINERS .................................... 34 9.2.1. Assessment 34
ii 9.2.2. Electronic books.................................................................................... 34 9.2.3. Allocation of marks 34 9.3. ASSESSMENT RUBRIC 37 9.4. EXAMINATION PROCESS 43 9.5. EXAMINERS REPORTS: OVERALL REVIEW ............................................... 46 9.5.1. Ms M de Klerk 46 9.5.2. Prof. R Ferraris ..................................................................................... 48 9.5.3. Prof. R Ferraris 50 9.5.4. Mr J Mugisa 52 9.5.5. Mr HA Tayob ......................................................................................... 55 9.5.6. Mr David van der Merwe 57 9.5.7. Mr Daniel van der Merwe ...................................................................... 59 9.5.8. Ms F Zondi 61 9.6. EXAMINERS REPORTS: INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS 63 9.6.1. Prof. R Ferraris 63 9.6.2. Prof. O Joubert...................................................................................... 67 9.6.3. Ms F Zondi 72 9.6.4. Mr David van der Merwe 74 10. STUDENT EVALUATION............................................................................... 76 12.1 REFLECTIVE ESSAY BY CLASS ............................................................ 76 12.2. PERSONALISED GIFT 77 PART 4: PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE 78 11. FINAL GRADES ............................................................................................. 78 12. LOW PASS: STUDENT 1 (56%) .................................................................... 79 13. LOW PASS: STUDENT 2 (57%) 82 14. MEDIUM PASS: STUDENT 1 (60%) .............................................................. 86 15. MEDIUM PASS: STUDENT 2 (67%) 89 16. HIGH PASS: STUDENT 1 (83%) ................................................................... 93 17. HIGH PASS: STUDENT 2 (89%) 99 18. LIST OF FIGURES 102 19. LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................... 103
1 PART 1: STUDY GUIDE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE & INDUSTRIAL DESIGN FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT “thesis” MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE (Structured) Qualification code: MPAR18 Research Report (ARP209M / ARP209R) COURSE GUIDE by Prof. Jacques Laubscher, PrArch BArch MURP (Free State) PhD ( Pretoria) Teaching Cert (Harvard) MBA (Haaga Helia, Finland) 2021-04-04 © Copyright: Tshwane University of Technology Published by TUT, Private Bag X680, Pretoria 0001
2 1. Introduction This document summarises the requirements of the Research Report (TUT course code ARP 209M / ARP 209R) for the MArch qualification It also provides an overview of the 6th year of architectural studies This second year of the 2 year MArch degree (or so called 6th year) requires the independent production of a design proposal in the form of a mini dissertation (colloquially referred to as the “thesis”) demonstrating higher order thinking and the innovative application of acquired competencies in the discipline of architecture. 2. Lecturer and contact information COURSE Research Report CODE ARP 209 M / ARP 209 R YEAR COORDINATOR Prof Jacques Buildinglaubscherj@tut.ac.zaLaubscher11,Room11G74, Pretoria West campus, TUT 012 382 4689 SUPERVISORS AND CO-SUPERVISORS Assigned according to specialist research and practice area EXTERNAL EXAMINERS Two external readers per student + Exam panel CREDITS 90 credits COURSE LOAD 900 Contacthourssessions 28 weeks x 2 hours/week = 56 hours Assignments 843 hours Final exam 0,5 hours FORMAT Independent study SESSIONS Official studio sessions • Monday 10:00 – 13:00 • Wednesday 10:00 – 13:00 • Friday 10:00 – 13:00 Individual sessions with assigned supervisors and co supervisors 3. Module Information The South African Council accredits this degree for the Architectural Profession (SACAP) for registration in the SACAP category of Candidate Architect. 2.1. Evaluation The vocational training of future architects oscillates between being precise and comprehensive. To ensure students reach the minimum professional standard, they are evaluated by a panel of their future peers. The selected members' examination panel consists of academics (to ensure compliance with relevant academic standards) and practitioners (to evaluate the educational content and resultant products) to align with future practice requirements.
2.3. Module aims
Final mark of MArch mini-dissertation = 30% (1st Reader) + 30% (2nd Reader) + 40% (Remaining examination panel members) = 100%
2.2. Module description At the TUT School of Architecture and Industrial Design, design thinking is central to students teaching and learning. MArch students should prepare a grounded design proposal, develop a design, model the design product to determine its future impact on the earth's limited resources and ultimately make the design.
• The module is student centred and engenders independent, critical thinking and synthesis
3
TUT(arch +id student) = d² + m² d² = design + develop m² = model + make Figure 2: Pedagogic underpinning of TUT Department of Architecture and Industrial Design (Laubscher, 2019).
The official policy of the Tshwane University of Technology on the examination of Master's degrees requires that the final grade of the Research Report be evaluated only by external examiners. Two external examiners will read each document and each “reader” awards 30% of the final result As illustrated in Figure 1, the remaining 40% is allocated by the other members of the external examination panel
The identity of the School of Architecture and Industrial Design and its educational approach are summarised in the following equation, as illustrated inFigure 2
Figure 1: Calculation of final mark for MArch mini dissertation
It is paramount that MArch students find their' own voices' during the design process while developing an inherent ability to perform optimally in challenging environments.
• The module aims to equip students with the skills and knowledge needed to complete an architectural design project and present it in a written document, an exhibition and a mini dissertation. The production of the mini dissertation is a studio based procedure, led by supervisors, co-supervisors and design supervisors, where activities are planned to address discipline-specific and industry specific requirements.
4. Core syllabus
• Working in the design studio (under the supervision of the programme coordinator and assigned design supervisor) is compulsory
2.4.2. Urban Laboratory
The professional Master of Architecture programme presented by the Department of Architecture and Industrial Design at TUT runs over a minimum of two (2) years and a maximum of four (4) years Table 1 indicates the position of the MArch qualification's final year in the school's overall academic offering.
• Skills will be developed in research problem definition, design concept development and building design resolution leading to producing a refined final architectural design, technical resolution and detail
2.4. Module themes and goals
It is essential to demystify the complexities of the design process. In the final year of the MArch studio, design is taught as an iterative exercise, using various milestones to guide the student along the route of discovery.
Education in the disciplines of architecture and industrial design is a delicate ecology. The department functions as a laboratory representing reality. It is a safe place, allowing both exploration and failure. Design teaching enables the possibility of investigating real world problems in real time while developing the student's professional competence
2.4.3. Design Thinking
4
• The thematic programme and associated responses address real world challenges, ranging from large to small scale. Collectively, the work could be described as a spatial exploration of social and environmental challenges in contested contexts.
The TUT School of Architecture and Industrial Design is situated in Pretoria West on the city's edge at the intersection of a major highway and train track, a decaying industrial area, graveyards and suburban houses. The immediate context is the urban laboratory to test design ideas and conceptual thinking.
2.4.1. Design Laboratory
5 Table 1: Position of MArch 2nd year in the overall academic offering (Adapted from Laubscher, 2019). Department of Architecture + Industrial Design SA Council for the ArchitecturalRegistration(SACAP)ProfessionCategory Undergraduate degrees in Architecture BArch [3605(ExtendedBachelor(Extended)ofArchitecturecurriculum)years(min)fulltimecredits] Level:NQF 7 OR BachelorBArch of Architecture 4 years (min) full time [360 credits] Level:NQF 7 Professional Senior [PrSArchT]TechnologistArchitectural Design stream Technology stream Postgraduate degrees in Architecture MasterMArch of Architecture (Structured coursework and mini dissertation) min 2 years, max 4 years (full time) [180 credits] Year 1 (5th Year) Year 2 (6th Year) Level:NQF 9 (StructuredTechnologyMasterMArchTechofArchitecturalcoursework and mini dissertation) min 2 years, max 4 years (full time) [180 credits] Year 1 (5th Year) Year 2 (6th Year) Level:NQF 9 • MArch Professional Architect [PrArch] • [PrArch]ProfessionalMArchTechArchitect DoctorDArch of Architecture Duration: min 2 years, max 5 years [360 credits] Level:NQF 10 Not applicable The MArch qualification has 13 modules Nine (9) modules are presented in the first year of the MArch qualification. The second year of the MArch qualification consists of the following four modules: 1) Research Report (Code: ARP209M / Credits: 90) 2) Contract Documentation V (Code: CDO209M /Credits: 10) 3) Research Methodology (Code: RMD209M / Credits: 4) 4) Specification V (Code: SFN209M / Credits: 4) As indicated in Table 2, the four subjects are presented in an integrated manner. The Research Report is the principal subject carrying 50% of the credit weight (90 credits) of the degree’s total 180 credits. It carries 90 credits of the 180 credits total for the qualification.
Equipping students with the skills and knowledge needed towards the completion of an architectural project and presenting it in an exhibition and mini-dissertation. The production of the mini-dissertation is a studio-based procedure, led by supervisors, co-supervisors and design-supervisors, where activities are planned to address discipline- and industry-specific requirements. The module is studentcentred and engenders independent, critical thinking and synthesis. Skills will be developed in research problem definition, design concept development and building design resolution leading up to the production of a refined final architectural design, technical resolution and, detailing. Working in the design studio (under supervision of the programme coordinator and assigned design supervisor) is compulsory.
Contract
During the final quarter of the 5th year, the 6th year coordinator meets with the prospective students to discuss their last year As part of this process, all students complete the exercise in Figure 3 at the end of the 5th year of MArch
Table 2: Module description of the four (4) subjects presented in the MArch 2nd- year (Adapted from TUT Prospectus, 2021).
Research Report
An introduction to the National Building Specifications (NBS) software package (or other approved specification software). Preparation of on-screen specifications for the building industry. Integrated with technical resolution of the design proposal.
V
The 6th year students explored a possible dissertation theme as part of their final project in the first year of the MArch studies (also referred to as the 5th year by staff and students in the Department).
Examiner(s) 2 x External readers + Exam panel Year coordinator Prof J Laubscher Study leader(s) According to specialist area RESEARCH PROPOSAL Course Code RMD209M Credits 4 Notional hours 40 Minimum contact sessions 5 x 3 = 15 hrs. Assignment(s) 25 hrs. Exam n/a Examiner(s) 1 External reader Lecturer(s) Prof AOS Osman DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 1 Course Code CDO209M Credits 10 Notional hours 100 Minimum contact sessions 7 x 3 = 21 hrs. Assignment(s) 78 hrs. Exam 1 hr. Examiner(s) 2 External examiners Lecturer(s) Ms M Bolt Tutor(s) Part-time appointments DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 2 Course Code SFN209M Credits 4 Notional hours 40 Minimum contact sessions 4 x 3 = 12 hrs. Assignment(s) 27 hrs. Exam 1 hr. Lecturer(s)Examiner(s) Ms F van Tonder
5. Transitioning from 5th year to 6th year
This module/subject is based on the design prepared as part of the research report. A selected portion of the design is developed in detail and technically resolved. It is presented as a set of design development drawings and a detail model. Documentation
This is the first step in preparing the students for what will arguably be the most taxing year of their architectural studies
V
6
Specification Research Methodology
MINI-DISSERTATION Course Code ARP209M Credits 90 Notional hours 900 Minimum contact sessions 28 x 2 = 56 hrs. Assignment(s) 843 hrs. Exam 0.5 hr.
Equipping students with the skills and knowledge of architectural research. Students will develop a research proposal, dissertation and a research paper/article. Students will learn about the administrative processes in the research process, how to identify research topics, how to define a research problem and its setting, how to plan a research project, including considering the funding implications of a project. Consider the design process and design thinking as a tool for managing the research process and tackle an architectural design problem through solving conflicting problems and investigating precedent studies. Technical aspects of developing a dissertation such as format, layout, numbering, bibliography and referencing systems.
• The greater Tshwane area is the designated study area (or laboratory).
A proposal indicates whether the student has completed sufficient preparation for the envisioned study. Additionally, the proposal forms the basis for the working relationship between the student and study leader. It is a document to inform the study leader what you intend to design and how you plan to accomplish it. The study proposal is simultaneously a reflection of previous experience and future expectations. It documents the student’s thinking thus far and anticipates the study and design process to follow. The proposal is a scholarly, scientific document and should adhere to the style and format required by the University, Faculty and Department of Architecture + Industrial Design.
3) What image or idiom will make it clearer?
Figure 3: The transition from 5th to 6th year (Laubscher: 2017)
Study area
It is wise to start with what you know, i.e.
• For example, if the TPA Building was used in 2020, this site would be unavailable until the end of 2022. This ensures further exploration of the study area and urban laboratory.
Prospectus
• The submission should be made via e mail to the Head of Department, Prof Laubscher (laubscherj@tut.ac.za), the year coordinator (tbc) and all the members of the departmental research committee (tbc).
Please consult the prospectus of the Tshwane University of Technology, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, Department of Architecture + Industrial Design for the relevant course information, subjects, and duration.
• The deadline for submission is before or on December 10 of the preceding year
• A form that you are interested in
4) Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language", 1946
• All MArch themes need to be approved by the Head of Department (or Departmental Research Committee).
7 en route during the course of a journey; on the way
• However, it will be considered if you make a good case to work outside the identified study area
• Use the attached questionnaire to provide a concise and brief outline of the anticipated study.
• Sites available for selection should have been dormant for at least two (2) years.
Theme approval
Selection of sites
Approach to the MArch year Different approaches could be followed when selecting them for the Master’s degree.
• A site • A context • A theory • A programme/ function • A problem that you would like to address
• Technology that you would like to research Proposal A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus:
Changing of themes
• Only in exceptional circumstances will students be allowed to change the theme/ topic after approval.
1) What am I trying to say?
2) What words will express it?
The study proposal is a document that outlines how you propose to undertake the research and design studies. The study proposal should embody the logic of the project: The proposal should outline; 1. your thinking about the research problem; 2. what you wish to investigate and design (i.e. how you do research on and through design), 3. how it should be done, 4. your approach to the study, and 5. what resources are needed should be considered.
2.
8 Table 3: The detailed questionnaire used to refine the research theme, topic and design proposal (Laubscher, 2015).
c. What are your own limitations as a designer (i.e. existing knowledge, technical proficiency etc.)?
MArch: Exploring the 6th year research theme, topic and design candidate: Possible theme and title of the study: Possible study leader: What is the background and context of the proposal? What is the real-world problem that the project needs to address? Formulate a problem statement specific to the dissertation. a short description of the design problem Why will this project be of importance? What primary objective would you like to achieve with the project's design? are the other aims of the design and/or study and/or problem? critical issues you would need to look at in terms of design philosophy and technical development of the design. What is the relevance of the study/project within the current state of South African architecture? What information is needed to develop the components of the study towards a design solution satisfying the objective? What research methodology will be employed? a. Study of precedents b. Descriptive Survey Method c. Historical Method d. Grounded Theory method. e. Analytical Survey Method f. Experimental Method. State relevant limitations to the project. What areas must be researched when considering the definition and objectives of the design problem?
a.
7. What
9.
8. Indicate
Design problem 4. Give
5.
b. What will the study include, and what will it specifically exclude?
NameDate: of
3.
Method 10.
6.
11.
12.
Background 1.
9 Table 3 illustrates the detailed questionnaire used to refine the 6th year student’s research theme, topic and design proposal. The exploration precedes the professional Master of Architecture programme presented by the Department of Architecture and Industrial Design at TUT and runs over a minimum of two (2) years and a maximum of four (4) years. Client & User 13. Identify a possible client and user 14. Describe the client and user’s requirements (only a broad outline at this stage) Context 15. Determine the contextual information that will be needed. 16. How would you obtain this information? 17. How would you process this information? 18. Identify relevant legislation (i.e. The National Heritage Resources Act) that could have an influence on the design intervention. Literature study (Theory + Precedent) The literature review should provide evidence of your existing reading and understanding of the topic.19. Provide a brief overview of available literature. 20. Respond to the available literature. 21. What relevant theories will be investigated (to support the design)? 22. Select appropriate precedents for the study. 23. Discuss the aspects of the precedent that have to be analysed. Programme 24. Formulate a programme of work for the study and research, bearing in mind: a. concept, b. sketch design, c. design development, d. technical enquiry, and e. presentation for the final examination. References: Use the Harvard method, as prescribed by the Department of Architecture + Industrial Design
Techné + Detail 7) Technical Design Resolution 8) Resolved design + Final presentation
The milestones, as listed below, are aligned with the unusual 2021 academic calendar (stretching from April 2021 February), charting each student’s route to completion.1) + Parti +
1 It should be noted the milestone approach was an expansion of the model I developed and implemented for the first time in 2009 at the University of Pretoria (UP). At that stage, I was the year coordinator and studio master for the Master’s degrees Architecture, Interior Architecture and Landscape Architecture at UP At UP, it was refined in subsequent years by Prof Arthur Barker and others.
The 2021 MArch year integrates specific design thinking stages with possible technological advances to solve complex problems. The design process is approached as an iterative exercise, using different milestones 1 to guide the student along the route of discovery
3) Proposal 4) Developed Design 5) Design + Technical 6) Design
10 6. Year programme At the start of the Covid pandemic in 2020, TUT’s transition to emergency remote teaching and learning resulted in the 2020 academic year only finishing in 2021. Therefore, the 2021 academic year only commenced in April 2021 and will conclude in February 2022
Preparation 2) Concept
11 Table 4: 2021 MArch year programme indicating the different milestones. INTRO SPEACH SPEACH MONDAY 1 TUESDAY 1 2 WEDNESDAY 2 Res Meth 10:00 13:00 1 3 1 THURSDAY 1 3 1 2 4 2 FRIDAY 2 4 2 3 1 5 3 Print sheets 1, 2 & 3 SATURDAY 3 1 5 3 4 2 6 4 1 2022 New Year's Day SUNDAY 4 2 6 4 1 5 3 7 5 2 MONDAY 5 3 7 5 2 6 CLASSES start 4 8 6 3 TUT Academic staff return TUESDAY 6 4 8 6 3 7 5 9 7 Model & Object & Product 4 Print 16 & 17 WEDNESDAY 7 5 Res Meth 10:00 13:00 9 Res Meth 10:00 13:00 7 4 8 6 10 8 Model & Object & Product 5 THURSDAY 8 6 10 8 5 9 7 11 9 Model & Object & Product 6 Print 18 & 19 FRIDAY 9 7 11 9 6 10 8 12 10 Model & Object & Product 7 SATURDAY 10 8 12 10 7 11 9 13 11 8 Print 20 & 21 SUNDAY 11 9 13 11 8 12 10 14 12 9 MONDAY 12 CLASSES start 10 Mini Conference 14 12 9 13 11 15 13 10 Pin-up before 15:00 TUESDAY 13 Theme submission 11 15 13 10 14 12 16 14 Print 1,2 & 3 11 Print 22 & 23 WEDNESDAY 14 12 Res Meth 10:00 13:00 16 Youth Day 14 11 Contract brief 15 13 17 15 12 THURSDAY 15 13 17 15 12 16 14 18 16 Day of Reconciliation 13 Print 24 & 25 FRIDAY 16 14 18 16 13 17 15 19 17 Print 4 & 5 14 Dress rehearsal SATURDAY 17 15 19 17 14 18 16 20 18 15 SUNDAY 18 16 20 18 15 19 17 21 19 16 MONDAY 19 17 Late registration (sem.1) 21 19 A_DRIC meeting 16 20 18 22 20 Print 6 & 7 17 Pin-up before 15:00 TUESDAY 20 18 Late registration (sem.1) 22 20 17 21 19 23 21 18 08:00-16:00 WEDNESDAY 21 19 Res Meth 10:00 13:00 23 21 18 22 20 24 22 Print 8 & 9 TUT Recess 19 08:00-16:00 THURSDAY 22 20 24 22 19 23 21 25 23 TUT Recess 20 FRIDAY 23 21 25 23 20 24 Heritage Day 22 26 24 TUT Recess 21 SATURDAY 24 22 26 24 21 25 23 27 25 Christmas Day 22 SUNDAY 25 23 27 25 22 26 24 28 26 Day Of Goodwill 23 MONDAY 26 TUT Holiday 24 28 26 23 TUT Recess 27 25 29 27 Print 10 & 11 TUT Recess 24 TUESDAY 27 Freedom Day 25 29 27 24 TUT Recess 28 26 30 28 TUT Recess 25 WEDNESDAY 28 26 Res Meth 10:00 13:00 30 28 Specification brief 25 TUT Recess 29 27 29 Print 12 & 13 TUT Recess 26 THURSDAY 29 27 29 26 TUT Recess 30 28 30 TUT Recess 27 FRIDAY 30 28 30 27 TUT Recess 29 31 Print 14 & 15 TUT Recess 28 SATURDAY 29 31 28 30 29 This too shall did) pass [1200 BCE] SUNDAY 30 29 31 30 MONDAY 31 30 TUT Recess 31 TUESDAY 31 TUT Recess WEDNESDAY days = 9 days = 26 days = 26 days = 27 days = 26 days = 26 days = 26 days = 19 days = 26 days = 9 hours/day = 10 hours/day = 10 hours/day = 10 hours/day = 10 hours/day = 10 hours/day = 10 hours/day = 10 hours/day = 10 hours/day = 10 hours/day = 10 hrs./month = 90 hrs./month = 260 hrs./month = 260 hrs./month = 270 hrs./month = 260 hrs./month = 260 hrs./month = 260 hrs./month = 190 hrs./month = 260 hrs./month = 90 Total hours = 2200 hrs. in 2021 2096 hrs. in a typical year NOW or NEVER Submit FINAL BOOK Digital version + 5 hard copies JANUARY '22 Final DRWG.s + MODEL CONTRACT V Exams Internal & External BOOKS sent to External ExaminersCONSOLIDATE CONCEPT DEVELOP MAY 2021MArch ignDes SEPTEMBER DECEMBERAPRIL YES / NO REVIEW Finalise BOOKS Worker's Day JUNE JULY AUGUST CONCEPT Internal FINAL PROPOSAL External DEVELOPED DESIGN Internal CONTRACT V Object + Product BOOK: Final CORRECTIONS & PrintRESEARCH BOOK DEVELOPMENTFINALISEDESIGN & TECHNé OCTOBER NOVEMBER CONCEPT DESIGN DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL DESIGN RESOLUTION R 6 MILESTONE 1 MILESTONE 2 MILESTONE 3 MILESTONE 5 MILESTONE 6.2 MILESTONE 7 R 1 R 2 R 3 R 4 R 5 B 1.4 B 1.3 B 1.2 B B 5.1 B 4.1 B 3.1BB2.22.1 B 3.2 B B 5.2 B 10.1 B 6 B 7 B 8.1 B 8.2 B 9.1 B 11 MILESTONE 6.1 MILESTONE 6.1 MILESTONE 4 B 9.2 R 7 B 13 B 10.2 8MILESTONE 8 MILESTONE 8 COROBRIK B 12
An introduction to the National Building Specifications (NBS) software package (or other approved specification software). Preparation of on-screen specifications for the building industry. Integrated with technical resolution of the design proposal. Code Equipping students with the skills and knowledge needed towards the completion of an architectural project and presenting it in an exhibition and mini-dissertation. The production of the minidissertation is a studio-based procedure, led by supervisors, co-supervisors and design-supervisors, where activities are planned to address discipline- and industry-specific requirements. The module is student-centred and engenders independent, critical thinking and synthesis. Skills will be developed in research problem definition, design concept development and building design resolution leading up to the production of a refined final architectural design, technical resolution and, detailing. Working in the design studio (under supervision of the programme coordinator and assigned design supervisor) is compulsory.
Course
12 Table 5: Translation of the module requirements from the Prospectus descriptions into defined products or actions design & oBject & pRoduct BooK ReseARcH & pgs FoRMs milestone activity submission A1 drawing bank milestone requirement milestone activity Concept Final proposal communicated on posters PREPARATION Comparative analysis: (Year 1-5) + (Dissertations x3) Submit: PGS00 Clearance to register Crit with internal panel 1 Title page + drawings to explain theory, context, concept, concept development, site analysis 3 THEORIES + CASE STUDYDesign theories evaluated Final proposal All the above, and INITIATION Critical writing assignments Submit: PGS01 DRC Evaluation 2 drawings to explain developed + scaled concept 1 DRAFT PROPOSAL INCL. Final project proposal 3 scaled plans, sections 2 1.1 Submit draft proposal for Res. Meth. Submit: PGS01 Application for approval of project proposal Developed design All the above, and 1.2 Feedback from Res Meth. to Faculty Committee INCL. Final project proposal 4 revised scaled site plan, plans, sections 2 1.3 Submit revised proposal for Res. Meth. Submit: PGS02 Approval of final title, appointment of assessors 5 3-d's, structural and service concept and layout 1 1.4 Feedback from Res Meth. to Faculty Committee Design + Technical Prepare draft drawings listed under 11-13 2.1 Submit final proposal for Res. Meth. grade Submit: PGS03 Application for amendment of title, 6 Illustrate approach to design (post-rationalisation) 2.2 Res. Meth. grade study panel or examiner to Faculty Committee 7 The detail representing the whole. 3.1 Submit draft Ch. 1 (Introduction, Lit. survey, Concept) Submit: PGS04 Addendum A Results of assessment 8 The techné representing the design. 3.2 Feedback from study leader by assessors for Masters Degree to Faculty Committee Design + Techné + Detail Develop the structural layout, technological and material systems and sustainable strategies of the project n/a 4.1 Submit draft Ch. 2 (Concept development, Design) Submit: PGS04 Approval of Final Results Masters Systems thinking 9 complete a case study (by getting your hand dirty) 1 4.2 Feedback from study leader to Faculty Committee 10 complete a specifications document object 5.1 Submit draft Ch. 3 (Techné) & draft Ch. 4 (Modelling & Making) product 5.2 Feedback from study leader Techn. Design Resolution Clearly indicate the structural layout, technology, materials, systems and sustainable strategies on Apply for SCRI /Other funding to print and edit document 11 completed site plan and plans (Dependent on availability of SCRI funding / Date of funding call) 12 completed sections Complete Ch. 5 ( (Findings + Concl.s + Recomm.s) 13 completed 3-d's Complete References & Appendices Develop min 9x A1 detailed drawings + Object + Product 9 8.1 Submit complete document to proof reader / editor Resolved design 14 Detailed sections on min 1:50 (preferably 1:20) 3 8.2 Feedback from proof reader / editor Near final drawings for exhibit 15 Axonometric exploration of details 3 9.1 Submit final document to study leader Crit with external panel YES/NO REVIEW : Entrance RECOMMENDATION to the final exam 9.2 Feedback from study leader Final crit Final drawings to demonstrate development from initial ideas to completed product Document distributed to external examiners Final "manufactured object + product" recommended no. of drawings = 25 Final model and document object = 1 1 page: Abstract + Parti + Photo Internals + externals Completed scheme properly presented to panel of future peers product = 1 Feedback from external examiners Hand-in 5x hard copies + a digital copy of the revised doc. with ALL comments addressed Plagiarism Report Research Report Contract Doc. V Research Meth. Specification V Research Report MINI-DISSERTATION ARP209M ARP209R CDO209M CDO209R RMD209M RMD209R SFN209M SFN209R Credits 90 10 4 4 Notional hours 900 100 40 40 28 x 2 = 56 hrs. 7 x 3 = 21 hrs. 5 x 3 = 15 hrs. 4 x 3 = 12 hrs. 843 hrs. 78 hrs. 25 hrs. 27 hrs. 1 hr. 1 hr. n/a 1 hr. Examiner(s) 2x External readers + Panel 2x External examiners 1x External reader 2x External examiners Contract Document. V PROJECT ASSESSMENT Year coordinator Prof J Laubscher Ms M Bolt Prof AOS Osman Tbc Study leader(s) Tbc Desifn / Co-study leader(s) Tbc Research Methodology PROJECT ASSESSMENT Version:Date: J14Laubscher Specification V PROJECT ASSESSMENT
This module/subject is based on the design prepared as part of the research report. A selected portion of the design is developed in detail and technically resolved. It is presented as a set of design development drawings and a detail model.
Minimum contactAssignment(s)sessionsExam
Author: technical maker's
resolution in the
B 9 8 B 10 B 11 B 12 B 13 5 B 4 R 7 B 5 6 B 66.1 CONTRACT Internal EXAM 6.2 CONTRACT External EXAM B 7 B 8 7 R 4 4 B 2 R 5Integrate design and
2021-11-11
space B 3 R 6 1 R 1 2 R 2Advanced sketch plan B 1 R 3 3 Communicate all design decisions on paper
Equipping students with the skills and knowledge of architectural research. Students will develop a research proposal, dissertation and a research paper/article. Students will learn about the administrative processes in the research process, how to identify research topics, how to define a research problem and its setting, how to plan a research project, including considering the funding implications of a project. Consider the design process and design thinking as a tool for managing the research process and tackle an architectural design problem through solving conflicting problems and investigating precedent studies. Technical aspects of developing a dissertation such as format, layout, numbering, bibliography and referencing systems.
Page 13 of 107 7. Milestones department of architecture + industrial design MILESTONE 0: PREPARATION It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen The first sentence of 1984 by George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair 1903 1950), Indian born British novelist, essayist, journalist and critic. intention CRITICAL EVALUATION ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES PRECEDENT STUDIES OBSERVATION QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT SOURCING INFORMATION
PART ONE Study recent March(Prof) final year dissertations. Work in groups of three in the Library. Each group member must critically evaluate three documents. Ensure that the documents selected hold a similar interest/theme as yours. Focus on the design's strengths and possible recommendations for improvement. Keep all the documents in the Library for the duration of this exercise. After that, you are welcome to take it out as per arrangement.
PART TWO Compare this investigation with a similar document from another South African or international School of Architecture. Present the findings in table format (Groups) See the following list of international Schools of Architecture: Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany Royal Danish Academy of Fine Art, Copenhagen, GlasgowDenmark School of Art Glasgow, UK TU Graz, UniversityViennaofArtand Design, Helsinki, Finland University of Innsbruck, Austria University of Westminster, London, UK Accademia, Mendrisio, Switzerland Polytecnico, Milan, Italy Ecole, Paris, France TU, Vienna, Austria UNITEC, Ackland, New Zealand Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China Muroran, UniversityJapanofTokyo, Japan Arizona State University, Pheonix, USA University of Florida, Gainesville, USA SCIArch Los Angeles, USA Campus Guadalajara Guadalajara, Mexico Tecnológico Guadalajara, Mexico Campus Ciudad de México Mexico City, Mexico Tecnológico Mexico City, Mexico Campus Estado de Mexico Mexico City, Mexico Tecnológico Mexico City, Mexico Campus Monterrey Monterrey, Mexico Tecnológico Monterrey, Mexico Universidad le Peubla, Mexico and other institutions RMIT, AA, MIT, Cooper Union, TU Delft etc. and student competitions, i.e. RIBA presidents, medals and Archiprix etc.
PART THREE Re define the theme of your proposal. Identify possible problems surrounding the proposed thesis. Structure the first three chapters Introduction, Review and reasoning, and Theoretical framework. None Self study
submission
| ArchDaily requirements
Valentino Gareri Proposes New Model of Educational Building for the Post Covid Era
Edward T. White (Author of Site Analysis: Diagramming Information for Architectural Design)
An initial concept … expresses the idea underlying a design and functions as a signpost to guide the ensuing design journey. … a concept … can take on many forms. It can appear as an embryonic sketch, an object, an image, a word, or a text. A concept can emerge in the mind's eye at any time and in any place, such as in bed or the bath. When not forthcoming, concepts have to be artificially teased out and then massaged via brainstorming.
When realised, a good concept or network of concepts give direction and guidance to the designer at every level, from the global to the detail; it provides a framework for innovation. Not to be confused with its cousin - the developmental conceptual drawing - the parti of a design represents a reductive abstraction in two or three dimensions that reflects the subjectivity of the design solution. Derived from the French expression prendre parti, meaning to make a choice, parti was adopted in the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris in the nineteenth century as a critical element of its architectural programme The term refers to the central and salient motif of a project; the primary massing of a proposal in sketch design form, defined at its inception, remains a referential talisman throughout the design sequence. The parti encapsulates in a simple drawing or a model the quintessential and formal expression of the core idea; it is the spirit of a design that reduces the main shape of a scheme's overall form to a simple diagram. The economy involved in making such a diagram is referred to in Louis Kahn's famous statement that any architectural intention worth its salt should be capable of being described using a minimum of just 10 lines and be so robust that nothing will destroy the concept or 'seed'. The parti can appear in many forms: perspective sketches, projection drawings, or as simplified schematics that depict the essential spatial formal working parts of the architectural mechanism. (Porter, T. 2004. ARCHISPEAK: An illustrated guide to architectural terms. SPON PRESS: London and New York)
Page 14 of 107
The strength of a concept has to do with the clarity of its mandate to manage the scheme's design in a particular direction, how long the concept can continue to sustain this potency throughout the design process and how many kinds of design choices the concept can influence.
Traditionally, during or following the act of digesting and interpreting the programme of requirements, or brief, the designers next undertaking leads to formulating a concept. … A concept is a general notion, an abstract idea, a mental picture that forms in the soup of all the related aspects.
i ntention GRAPHIC CLARITY AND VERBAL CONCISENESS PRESENTATION OF DESIGN INFORMANTS DEVELOPMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT PRESENTATION OF CONCEPT AS A DIAGRAM (model, statement, sketch etc.) FRAMEWORK OR REFERENCE FOR FURTHER DESIGN WORK Chiu chi nine edges composite roof: China Illustrated Dictionary of Architecture Helps Visualize Design Concepts | ArchDaily PARTrequirementsONE Prepare an A1 poster to reflect your thesis intentions using text and images to explain design intentions: Introduction to the thesis proposal The architectural issue to be investigated Site location and justification Programme and client description and justification Research methods Theoretical approaches PROJECT INTENTION (objective) PART TWO Prepare a 5 minute verbal presentation that relates directly to the visual Highlightpresentationthe following aspects of your thesis: The architectural issue under investigation Site location and justification Programme (including the client) and justification DESIGN INTENTION submission1 Title page + drawings to explain theory, context, concept, concept development, site analysis
MILESTONE 1: CONCEPT + PARTI
Page 15 of 107 MILESTONE 2: FINAL PROPOSAL 29. Being process-orientated, not product driven, is the most important and difficult skill for a designer to develop. 31. Improved design process, not a perfectly realised building, is the most valuable thing you gain from one design studio and take with you to the next. 67. A good graphic presentation meets the Ten Foot Test. 77. No design system is or should be perfect. 99. Just do something. Frederick, M. 2007. 101 Things I learned in Architecture School. MIT Press: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/101 things i learned architecture school intention GRAPHIC CLARITY AND VERBAL CONCISENESS VISUAL AND VERBAL PRESENTATION OF THESIS PROPOSAL and CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK and DESIGN IDEAS SYNTHESISE THE PROJECT INTENTIONS https://www.archdaily.com/955177/future urbanism in china how can we build a livable city?ad_source=search&ad_medium=search_result_all requirements PART ONE Communicate the design intentions that originated from the concept and were expressed in the parti diagram by pr oviding the following: Plans at all levels At least 3 sections Diagrams of structure, services, sustainability issues etc. Massing models of the entire building in the context PART TWO Prepare a 5 minute verbal presentation that relates directly to the visual presentation submission1 Title page + drawings to explain theory, context, concept, concept development, site analysis 2 Drawings to explain developed + scaled concept 3 Scaled plans, sections
Page 16 of 107 department of architecture + industrial design MILESTONE 3: DEVELOPED DESIGN How can I know what I think till I see what I say? E M. Forster, British novelist, essayist, and social and literary critic (1879 1970) intention GRAPHIC CLARITY VERBAL CONCISENESS of the TRANSLATED CONCEPT CRITICAL ANALYSIS CREATIVE MAPPING PRESENT the INTERVENTION in its CONTEXT Indicate the REFERENCE FRAMEWORK for FUTURE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 30X40 Design https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8gTCuvQxBcWorkshop requirements PART ONE Translate your architectural concept into a functional, contextual, programmatic and formal solution that responds to the stated intentions and aims of the desertion. This development should be done through drawings and models (to appropriate scales) that communicate the following as pects: How does the design respond to all contextual issues historical, cultural, social, environmental etc.? Explain this in terms of the design, location, space and function. Provide the following information plans (at all levels) sections (at least 3 sections, start to show the tectonic resolution) elevations (of important edges) Models of the building in context – showing internal and external space making Develop an appropriate architectural and formal language. PART TWO Prepare a 5 minute verbal presentation that relates directly to the visual presentation. submission1 Title page + drawings to explain theory, context, concept, concept development, site analysis 2 Drawings to explain developed + scaled concept 3 Scaled plans, sections 4 Revised scaled site plan, plans, sections 5 3 d's, structural and service concepts and layout
MILESTONE 4: DESIGN + TECHNICAL Techtonics
Pierre von Meiss argues convincingly for a balanced approach to the competing demands of technology, the natural environment, and human physical and social needs. He cites Wright, Kahn, Scarpa and Botta as examples of architects who have sought to balance their work. In the US, the parts of architecture practice most closely related to construction have been co opted in many cases by developers and construction managers, par it, as a result of liability concerns on the part of architects and partly because of their lack of interest in the art of construction. However, there is still a strong tradition for architects to be involved with construction in Britain and Europe throughout the world. There is increasing concern that the pervasiveness of human technology is overwhelming the natural environment to the ultimate detriment of both human and non human life. (Porter, T. 2004. ARCHISPEAK: An guide to architectural terms. SPON PRESS: London and New York)
Page 17 of 107
illustrated
intention GRAPHIC CLARITY AND VERBAL CONCISENESS USE THE CONCEPT TO GUIDE TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESOLUTION REFERENCE FRAMEWORK for FURTHER DESIGN DEVELOPMENT and TECHNICAL RESOLUTION https://www.firstinarchitecture.co.uk/details post passivhaus cavity wall details/ requirements PART ONE The following requirements relate directly to the concept Model of the entire building in context showing internal and external space making 1:20 technology/spatial section with at least 3 details of the FLOOR: WALL: ROOF junctions Strip model at least to 1:50 to describe structural and technological principles PART TWO Prepare a 5 minute verbal presentation that relates directly to the visual presentation. PART THREE External review. submission3 Scaled plans, sections 4 Revised scaled site plan, plans, sections 5 3 d's, structural and service concept and layout Develop the structural layout, technological and material systems and sustainable strategies of the project 6 Complete a case study (by getting your hand dirty) 7 Complete a specifications document
Tectonics has been associated with the artistic expression of construction since the time of Homer. In keeping with its earliest association with carpentry, Gottfried Semper, in Die vier Elemente der Baukunst (The Four Elements of Architecture, 1851), uses tectonics to refer to the lightweight spatial fume of a building reaching into the sky, contrasting it to the stereotomics of the massive form of load bearing masonry rooted in the earth. Today tectonics, and its derivative, technology, apply to all forms of architectural construction and to human production in general. Since the end of the nineteenth century, the primacy of tectonics in establishing the poetic basis or architecture has been challenged by an increased emphasis on architecture as space, and on art and literature as sources of inspiration. Consequently, there is now a diversity of attitudes toward the making and critique of architecture in relation to poetic expression generally, and tectonic expression in particular. Approaches range from the suppression of tectonic form and the logic of assembly in favour of scenographic and iconographic imagery (post modernism, for example) to an overriding emphasis on tectonic expression (Santiago Calatrava, for example).
The term tectonics refers to the art and science of construction It comes from the Greek word tekton, meaning builder or carpenter, from which architekton, or master builder evolved. Kenneth Frampton considers tectonics one of the three sources of legitimacy for architecture. The other two are topos (site) and typos (type).
intention GRAPHIC CLARITY AND VERBAL CONCISENESS DEVELOP the ARCHITECTURAL TECTONIC PRESENT the TECHNOLOGICAL RESPONSES and SERVICE SOLUTIONS Prahran Hotel , Melborne, Australia Techné Architecture + Interior https://techne.com.au/Design requirements PART ONE Consolidate the milestones by packaging everything together and adding layers of techné and detail. Focus on the flowing aspects or components: Concept intentions and diagrams of structure, services, sustainability issues etc. Plans at all levels At least 3 sections A 1:20 section that addresses technology and spatial resolution simultaneously At least 3 details ground/floor connection, eaves and intermediate floor and wall junction Strip model at least to 1:50 to describe structural and technological principles PART TWO Prepare a 5 minute verbal presentation that relates directly to the visual presentation. submission3 Scaled plans, sections 4 Revised scaled site plan, plans, sections 5 3 d's, structural and service concepts and layout Develop the structural layout, technological and material systems and sustainable strategies of the project 6 Completed case study (by getting your hand dirty) 7 Completed specifications document Illustrate the approach to design (post rationalisation) with the following: 8 The detail representing the whole. 9 The techné representing the design.
5:
Page 18 of 107
MILESTONE DESIGN + TECHNé + DETAIL Layering When one has much to put into them, a day has a hundred pockets.
Friedrich Nietzsche, German philosopher (1844 1900) … the idea of a building as the conscious expression of a series of layers of space or materials seems to have begun with the early Modernists development of the free plan. In buildings such as the Barcelona Pavilion designed by Mies van der Rohe or Le Corbusier's Villa Savoye, rooms were only partially separated from each other or from exterior space, allowing one to experience the building as a series of overlapping layers of space and opaque planes whose relationship changed as the viewer moved.
The rise of post modernism and the energy crises of the 1970s helped to free architects … to look for ways to visually enrich and technically improve the performance of a building s exterior envelope. Even though contemporary enclosure systems are highly differentiated, namely the layering of different materials and services , each with its distinct image and role, underlying layers are usually completely hidden. Architects have tried various strategies to suggest or reveal those underlying layers. One is the use of transparent cladding to protect, but not hide, selected underlying layers, including structure. Another is to remove or displace portions of the exterior cladding. High tech buildings often reverse conventional layering orders by placing structure and services outside the building envelope. Architects have added space, sometimes even habitable space, between these layers. (Porter, T. 2004. ARCHISPEAK: An illustrated guide to architectural terms. SPON PRESS: London and New York)
SERVICES: Indicate the services, systems and spatial layouts diagrammatically to communicate their interaction.
Page 19 of 107 MILESTONE 6: TECHNICAL DESIGN RESOLUTION Tectonic and Stereotomic
The plan is a horisontal section. The section is as a vertical projection ofplan.the A decision on the plan has an impact on the section and vice versa. Every plan requires a section. Jacques Laubscher Kenneth Frampton described all buildings as mediating between tectonic (frame) and stereotomic (load bearing) or between light and heavy or earth and sky. Responses in most cases lie between these two extremes as issues of siting, spatial definition, construction and environmental response are dealt with.(Porter, T. 2004. ARCHISPEAK: An illustrated guide to architectural terms. SPON PRESS: London and New York) GRAPHIC CLARITY AND VERBAL CONCISENESS DEVELOPMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL TECTONICS FRAMEWORK FOR FURTHER TECTONIC DEVELOPMENT
PART TWO Develop a technical resolution that responds to the intentions and aims of the thesis investigation.
SUSTAINABILITY: The design should be resource efficient and address issues of sustainability. Consider the following: Passive environmental design how does the building respond to the climate, and how are indoor comfort levels achieved with the most negligible ecological impact? Material use low embodied energy. Alleviating the pressure on active environmental systems by introducing alternative passive systems to be resource Howefficient.does the building deal with environmental (climatic) and functional (practical) concerns?
submission Develop min 9x A1 detailed drawings + Object + Product. Clearly indicate the structural layout, technology, materials, systems and sustainable strategies on 10 completed site plan and plans 11 completed sections, including a 1:20 perspective section that demonstrates the conceptual intention developed junctions at a 1:5 scale of 1:5 12 completed 3-d's
RANGE WIDTH: Although the range of every scheme and design solution is different, the implementation of this phase remains 3 dimensional. PART THREE Prepare a 10 minute verbal presentation that relates directly to the visual presentation.
MATERIALITY: Limit the palette of materials. What materials were selected? Why? Communicate the palette and the material characteristics using photographs, descriptions and sample boards of materials.
MATERIALITY: How are the materials connected? Do the connections align with the concept?
intention
PRESENTATION OF TECHNOLOGICAL AND SERVICE SOLUTIONS
PARTrequirementsONE
Realise the design scheme as far as possible by translating the design according to the original goals The technical development of the design could be defined as translating the project into reality. It is essential to use an appropriate scale for the various drawings The existing design is the basis for adding layers (use colour coding). A grid pattern + spacing Centre lines (walls) Superimpose the basement layout Superimpose the structural model Analyse pertinent circulation and service routes internal and external horisontal and vertical grouping of service spaces
Page 20 of 107 MILESTONE 7: RESOLVED DESIGN Yes / No Review If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them. Henry David Thoreau, US Transcendentalist author (1817 1862) intention Focus on completing the relevant tasks in this phase. Do not waste unnecessary time; be critical of your daily progress. Print continuously (during and after completion of every component). Save your work hourly (also on external devices). Discuss every drawing with your supervisor(s) in detail. Decide whether additional resources will be necessary to enhance the design. If so, adjust the programme to your circumstances, but WORK ACCORDING TO A PROGRAMME submission + requirements PART ONE required drawings drawingsMinimum Productivedays Accumulatednoofdays: Target date SITE PLAN 1 1 1 SITE + ROOF PLAN 1 2 3 PLANS 5 5 8 SECTIONS 4 4 12 ELEVATIONS 4 2 14 OUTSIDE PERSPECTIVE 1 3 17 INSIDE PERSPECTIVE 1 3 20 SERVICES 3 3 23 CIRCULATION ROUTES 3 1 24 DETAILS 10 4 27 RESOURCE EFFICIENCY / SUSTAINABILITY 2 5 32 COLOUR STUDIES + MATERIAL SAMPLES 1 1 33 PART TWO Prepare a 10 minute verbal presentation that relates directly to the visual presentation. external review See final crit list
Page 21 of 107
While two of these factors are directly under the presenter's control, the critic or the review panellist can provide the unknown. Therefore, crit presentations can often represent an anxious moment in the life of a design proposal.
Crit To forget one's purpose is the commonest form of stupidity. Friedrich Nietzsche, German philosopher (1844 1900) [The]… 'design review' … [or] the crit (short for 'critique') is feared by some and relished by others.
Crits represent that moment when a project is made public and is open to debate. When they happen, three main forces are at work: • the reviewer or critic • the ideas of the designer presenter, and • the setting in which this critical exchange of information takes place.
MILESTONE 8: FINAL PRESENTATION
The only way of approaching them is to be well prepared. While some architecture schools operate reasonably democratic systems of criticism, the crit is seen by some reviewers as open season on students, i.e. when students become vulnerable to the whim an d prejudice of panellists. One way of preventing this is to establish early in a presentation the c entral aims or objectives of the project. If generally accepted, then the ensuing crit should function to measure the level of success or failure in achieving those goals the resulting measurement, hopefully, guiding the ultimate assessment. (Porter, T. 2004. ARCHISPEAK: An illustrated guide to architectural terms. SPON PRESS: London and New York)
intention A COMPLETED SCHEME PRESENTED WITH CONFIDENCE TO A PANEL OF YOUR FUTURE PEERS PARTrequirementsONE Final drawings to demonstrate development from initial ideas to completed product Final manufactured object + product Final model and document PART TWO Prepare a 15 minute verbal presentation that relates directly to the visual presentation. external review See final crit list
Page 22 of 107 PART 2: YEAR COORDINATOR 8. Role of the year coordinator
The following sub-headings refer to specific Milestones, providing examples of • feedback using a visual diary approach • feedback using an assessment rubric • reflective notes and • preparatory advice
The traditional role of the MArch year coordinator is primarily administrative because each Master’s degree student has at least one supervisor who takes care of the student’s academic (and personal) development
The 2021 final year MArch students commenced their studies in 2020. Two weeks into the start of their studies, South Africa experienced its first lock down. The height of the Covid 19 pandemic followed. The transition from a Bauhaus teaching approach happened overnight with the introduction of the phrase “emergency remote teaching” As a result, the 2020 academic cohort was not on campus for five months of the eight-month academic year. This disruption led to the untimely demise of the studio culture at TUT, which was until then the backbone of architectural pedagogy. For 2021, the function of the MArch year coordinator was revisited to assist the students in completing their final year while ensuring the academic quality and standard remained The year programme, with its well defined milestones, was implemented to allow students to gauge their journey. The milestones were not cast in stone, and through collective decision making, changes were made when it was necessary The milestone presentations were scheduled with either internal or external Sreviewers.tudentswere reluctant to return to campus, providing valid reasons for their hesitance The forms of engagement varied: mask-to-mask discussions, online meetings, D2L (blackboard) submissions and hard-copy submissions It was necessary to capture the essence of the Milestone discussions for collective engagement. The individual feedback of each student was collated and shared with the class as a whole. This created further learning opportunities for the students.
Page 23 of 107 2.5. Feedback: Milestone 3
5:
Figure Individual feedback notes to students Zulu, Kgopa, Mahlangu and du Plessis (Laubscher: 2021)
Figure Individual feedback notes to students Swart, Lucas, Pienaar and Eckard (Laubscher: 2021)
4:
Page 24 of 107
Figure Individual feedback notes to students Grobler, Posthumus, Steinberg and Struthers (Laubscher: 2021)
Figure Individual feedback notes to students Kinnear, Duarte, Noi and Seoke (Laubscher: 2021)
7:
6:
• I thought you might find it interesting; https://podcasts.apple.com/za/podcast/about buildings cities/id1147205326?i=1000378664864
jlRegards Figure 8: the cover letter accompanying the feedback notes of Milestone 4 (Laubscher: 2021)
Currently, I am listening to the podcast About Buildings + Cities presented by Luke Jones and George Gingell. In episode 10 (6 Dec 2016), they discuss Aldo Rossi's book The Architecture of the City
• Luke and George describe the city in tragic terms using almost nostalgic images of untidy bombed and disembowelled 2nd WW European cities.
• In contrast, Rossi highlights the importance of the urban artefact (action, memory, and awareness) and buildings' agency.
• Rossi's comments on the functional city (i.e. SimCity™ planning principles and the blank slate or tabula rasa where history is stripped away.
2.7. Feedback: Milestone 5 Figure 9: Individual feedback notes to students Ilunga, Mahlangu, Noi, Thomas, Mistry and Posthumus (Laubscher: 2021)
Page 25 of 107 2.6. Feedback: Milestone 4 Dear 6th Attachedyearsarethe notes I took during Milestone 4. You are welcome to discuss it with me if you have any questions.
• The hosts argue destruction, demolitions, expropriation, and rapid change in uses are the most recognisable signs of urban dynamics.
• They say, "anyone can strangely recognise fragments of their own aged childhood house amid the rubble".
Figure 10: Individual feedback notes to students Duarte, Grobler, Seoke, van den Berg, Struthers and Burger (Laubscher: 2021)
Page 26 of 107
Figure 11: Individual feedback notes to students Stoop, Masela, Steinberg, Pienaar, Modipi and Zulu (Laubscher: 2021)
Page 27 of 107 2.8. Feedback: Milestone 7 Table 6: Milestone 7 assessment of students Masela and Kgopa (Laubscher: 2021
Page 28 of 107 Table 7: Milestone 7 assessment of students Mistry and Smuts and Kgopa (Laubscher: 2021)
Page 29 of 107
8
Tries to look for keys in supervisor’s statements. Begins using rules-of-thumb to help make choices. Proposes personal goals (or additional personally relevant requirements) for each new project. Works in linear steps OR haphazardly works on whatever happens to emerge. Acknowledges multiple viewpoints & considers how to determine which is ‘‘best.’’ Reflects idea fluency & uses problem-solving strategies in any order, as needed. Learns through imitation, by acquiring information & competence from supervisors. Still sees knowledge as coming from external authority–from asking what others expect & how to do it. Uses words, drawings, & models to explore ideas & show how parts connect & inter-relate.
Student: 2021-10-19 MILESTONE 7 Exploring the Challenge Little exploration. Seeks to map a process for achieving results. Plunges into exploration. Makes brief reading, overlooks research, & makes decisions prematurely. Conducts some research. Embraces process as a means for generating new ideas. Looks for answers in external authorities. Sees instructor as providing context for exploration of knowledge. Holds off on making decisions until challenge has been explored from many angles.
Reflects a utilitarian approach to knowledge. Views knowledge as mostly uncertain. Uses diagnostic vision, addressing problems & troubleshooting ideas. Works to receive and/or master knowledge (absolute) & gradually begins to accept that some knowledge is uncertain. Constructs an individual point of view but does not consistently seek to provide supporting evidence for it. Still recognizes multiple views but seeks congruence & simplicity. Seeks to receive & reproduce knowledge but lacks confidence in ability to create new truths (received) OR insists something is true without deeply questioning it (subjective). Emphasizes procedure & impersonally applies a procedure for establishing truth (separate) OR draws from personal experience (connected). Seeks new experiences (perhaps re-constructing past conceptions on the basis of new experiences, developing new paradigms, or creating new dialectics).
Table : Assessment rubric used for Milestone 7 (Laubscher: 2021)
Sees legitimacy of knowledge claims as determined Constructscontextually.individual point of view with supporting Integratesevidence. objective & subjective thought (i.e., thinking and feeling). Is an intimate part of what he/she knows. Is articulate, self-aware, caring, & concerned (uses both separate & connected thinking). Realizes power to generate, produce, author, or originate (knowledge, future, self, creations, truths, or realities)., Testing and Evaluating Solutions, Reflecting on Practice Avoids rigorous testing. Tests multiple options but does not rigorously question the established processes for testing. Shows clear awareness & enjoyment of own thought process. Shows very little awareness of their thought process. Reflects emerging awareness of own thought process. Reflects a balanced system of weighing benefits & trade offs in making decisions. Values grades over learning. Begins to probe trade-offs & benefits. Approaches design as a managed, iterative process. Pays too much attention to simple pros & cons. Values supervisors who promote independent thinking & facilitate exchange of opinions. Uses feedback to improve ideas. Has an unfocused way of testing & troubleshooting. Emphasizes procedure with evidence of critical thinking. Practices reflective thinking, keeping tabs on design work in a metacognitive way. Shows little self-reflection or monitoring of action. Listens to reason with implicit adversarial or impersonal tone (separate) AND/OR displays trust & patience in process (connected). At this stage, the student may flip back & forth between separate and connected thinking. Seeks competence in work & social roles. Seeks clear means to concrete ends. Uses knowledge to achieve internalized standards of excellence & to serve society. Tests only against stated requirements (received) OR assumes validity subjectively without rigorous testing (subjective). Asks key questions & poses key dilemmas. Fosters personal experience & personally generated Mayinsights.confront & seek to reconcile paradoxes & conceptual conflicts. Sees role of supervisor as creating learning environment by: endorsing contextual application of knowledge, helping students evaluate various perspectives, providing opportunities for mutual critiques between students & instructors. Is inherently reflective. Struggles to find balance. Reflects ‘‘passionate’’ knowing. Practices metacognition by reflecting on & critiquing their design process & outcomes.
Reflects awe in authority figures (received) OR reflects belief that their own knowledge is superior to others (subjective) Emphasizes procedure with evidence of doubt (separate) OR evidence of belief, empathy, and care (connected) Integrates existing info & research. Sees truth & knowledge as: external, not open to questioning, universal and context-free, constant, and the same everywhere. Expresses an increased sense of uncertainty, ambiguity, & complexity. Conducts quick studies/tests to explore a range of ideas. Often adopts the view that all views are equally valid and that opinions are sources of truth. Reflects personal integration of info based on rational inquiry (includes setting goals, asking what is needed as well as how things work & why). Integrates personal experience & reflection (perhaps generating new paradigms, insights, and judgments). Shows evidence of listening to others without losing ability to ‘hear’ own voice. Generating, Building, and Communicating Ideas
Submission for plagiarism review
Please take care, be careful and look after yourselves.
Please submit your latest document in MSWord or Pdf for plagiarism review. The document cannot be locked or password protected in any way.
Page 30 of 107 2.9. Preparation: Milestone 8 2021 12 04 Dear MArch students I hope you are all keeping well.
The Department of Architecture & Industrial Design emphasises integrity and ethical Althoughbehaviour.the lecturer/ study leader/ supervisor/ mentor will provide you with information regarding reference techniques and ways to avoid plagiarism, you also have a responsibility to fulfil in this regard. Should you feel unsure about the requirements, you must consult the lecturer/ study leader/ supervisor/ mentor concerned before submitting an assignment.
The submission deadline is Tuesday, 06 December 2021, at 23:59. Covid 19 Yesterday, an article n the MailOnline stated Gauteng is now in the fourth Covid 19 wave. We are all Covid exhausted. For your safety, please ensure you follow all Covid 19 protocols.
Under Regulation 4.1.11.1(j) of Chapter 4 (Examination Rules and Regulations) and Regulations 15.1.16 and 15.1.17 of Chapter 15 (Student Discipline) of Part 1 of the 2021 Prospectus, plagiarism is considered a severe violation of the University’s regulations. It may lead to your suspension from the University.
Warm regards jl Figure 12: The note accompanying the final online submissions for plagiarism review (Laubscher, WhenDear2021).6thyearsyoustarted your 6th year, the end seemed so far away... It came faster than you thought. You submitted your book, and it was a lot of work. You have not rested, and now you are getting ready to start printing, building models, and putting everything. Also, you are pleading with friends and family to help you (although you don't trust them to get it done the way you want it). Do not forget to prepare for your presentation by writing a speech, rehearsing it and discussing it with your supervisors. Here are a few other tips on how to prepare. (The source is https://paperpile.com/g/thesis defense/ an d others as listed).
In what areas would they most likely be focused ? As a 6 th year student, you can anticipate questions. Use this skill to your advantage before your f inal crit.
1. Anticipate questions and prepare for them You can prepare for most of the questions you will be asked Read through your book, and create a list of possible questions while reading it. You know your readers and who is on the rest of the panel. You came across some of them during the interim Milestone crits.
4. Have a backup plan Technology is unpredictable. Life is too. There are no guarantees that your PowerPoint presentation will work at al,l or look how it is supposed to. Similarly, your drawings might not print the way you wanted them, or even worse, your computer might crash We've all been there. Make sure to have a plan B for these situations. Printed handouts can help when technology fails, or an additional fresh shirt for spilt coffee can save the day.
2. Dress for success Your exam is a formal event. It signals a critical rite of passage. You should dress as if you are going for a job intervi ew or delivering a paper at a conference.
3. Delegate It might help you deal with your stress if you get someone you trust to help you with mundane tasks, like transporting your models to the Department well ahead of schedule. This trusted person could be responsible for preparing the crit space, pinning up , setting up equipment for the presentation etc.
Two common symptoms of being nervous are talking fast and nervous laughs. Try to slow yourself down and take a deep breath. Process the question, respon d to it, and stop talking once you have answered. We all make m istakes. You are not expected to be perfect, and experienced examiners will guide you. Remember, the exam panel wants you to pass. If you are still nervous, read this blog post by Dora Farkas at finishyourthesis.com. She addresses five common myths about final year exams. Warm regards jl Figure 13: An advisory note in preparation for the final exam (Laubscher, 2021)
5. What to do when you don't know the answer One of the scariest aspects of your final crit is the possibility of being asked a question you can't answer. There will always be gaps in your knowledge. But your crit is not about being perfect and knowing everything. It's about how you deal with challenging Jamessituations.Hayton writes on his blog that examiners will sometimes even ask questions they don't know the answer to , out of curiosity or because they want to see how you Whilethink. it is ok sometimes to say "I don't know", Hayton advises trying something like "I don't know, but I would think [...] because of x and y, but you would need to do [...] to find out". It shows that you are thinki ng like an architect about how to solve a challenge.
Page 31 of 107
6. Dealing with your nerves You will be nervous . It is normal. Being well prepared can help minimise your stress. Remember, your examiners were once where you are now. They are willing to help by repeat ing questions, for example, if needed.
The following ten examiners served on the 2021 MArch examination panel.
1) Ms M de Klerk 2) Mr A Eksteen 3) Prof. R Ferraris 4) Mr C Gouws 5) Prof. O Joubert 6) Mr J Mugisa 7) Mr HA Tayob 8) Mr D van der Merwe 9) Mr DJS van der Merwe 10) Ms F Zondi The 2021 MArch examination panel is listed in Table 10
Table 9: Approval stages followed in appointing 2021 MArch examiners New 2021 MArch examiners = A+ID_DRIC ► FCPS ► SCPS ► Senate Given the scheduled meeting dates, the minimum turnaround time for approval is three (3) months. Although the process might seem tedious, it ensures quality and transparency. Inevitably, possible examiners might not be approved or unavailable for the final exam dates.
Page 32 of 107 PART 3: ASSESSMENT 9. Examiners
9.1. Selection At TUT, only the appointed external examiners award marks for the MArch minidissertation. No supervisor, co supervisor or internal staff member gives a mark This approach differs from most other Schools of Architecture. It is a clear indication of the premium TUT places on objectivity.
The examination process in architecture and other design disciplines represents a delicate ecology with various factors contributing to its outcome. Great care should go into the composition of an examination panel because the selection of examiners is one of the critical factors making the exams a valuable learning experience for both staff and students. In 2021, the selected themes and identified projects were the primary indicators for inviting examiners to serve on the panel
The Faculty Committee for Post Graduate Studies manages the TUT Examination Policy (FCPS), a committee chaired by the Assistant Dean for Research and PostGraduate Studies After the Departmental Research and Innovation Committee (A+ID_DRIC) approves the examiners, it serves at FCPS Examiners may only be appointed for a maximum of three years. All new examiners must be approved by the Senate Committee for Post Graduate Studies (SCPS) before it serves in Senate for final approval. In 2021, the FCPS informed the Department the database of examiners required updating because several examiners had been serving beyond the allocated three years. Therefore, the official MArch database was cleared, and all the 2021 MArch examiners had to be re appointed. The process is summarised in Table 9 below.
Page 33 of 107 Table 10: List of appointed 2021 MArch examiners AcademicPractitioner Academic Practitioner& Female Male Black IndianColouredWhite 30%50%20% 30%70%20%10%10%60% 1 Ms M de Klerk MScArch (MIT) & MCityPlanning (MIT) – Professional Architect and Urban Designer Marianne de Klerk Architects and Urban Designers, Menlyn, Pretoria GautengPretoria, 2020 1 1 1 2 Mr A Eksteen BArch (UP) (NQF Level 9) – Professional Architect Earthworld Architects, Brooklyn Square, Pretoria GautengPretoria, 2021 1 1 1 3 Prof. R Ferraris BArch (Córdoba) (NQF Level 9) – Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Design at the National University in Cordoba, Córdoba, Argentina ArgentinaCórdoba, 2021 1 1 1 4 Mr C Gouws MArch(Prof) (UP) – Professional Architect Boogertman + Partners Architects, Brooklyn, Pretoria GautengPretoria, 2018, 2019 1 1 1 5 Prof. O Joubert PhD(Arch) (UKZN) – Professional Architect 'Ora Joubert Architects, Clydesdale, Pretoria and Affiliated Professor, University of the Free State GautengPretoria, 2021 1 1 1 6 Mr J Mugisa BArch(Hons) (UFS) (NQF Level 9) – Professional Architect Tom Hattingh Architects, The Village, Nelspruit, Mbombela MpumalamgaMbombela, 2021 1 1 1 7 Mr HA Tayob BArch (Wits) (NQF Level 9) – Professional Architect Aziz Tayob Architects, Laudium, Pretoria GautengPretoria, 2021 1 1 1 8 Mr D van der Merwe BArch (UP) (NQF Level 9) – Professional Architect Leaf Architects, Saxonwold, Johannesburg GautengJohannesburg, 2021 1 1 1 9 Mr DJS van der Merwe MArch (UFS) – University of the Free State, Department of Architecture, Bloemfontein FreeBloemfontein,State 2021 1 1 1 10 Ms F Zondi MArch(Prof) (UP) – Limpopo Department of Education, Limpopo Limpopo 2021 1 1 1 Existing Examiner (Already on the approved Senate Database) New Examiner (Requiredapproval)Senate2021 MArch Examiner
2)
5)
13)
9.2.1. Assessment
The review structure (or assessment rubric) provided a reference base for examiners Table 11 provides the entire rubric. Marks were deliberately not allocated to specific items in the rubric to allow examiners to form their own opinions At the same time, the examiners were asked to keep the following three central questions in mind:
For the first time in the School’s history, the 2021 MArch books were circulated electronically to all the examiners Examiners received the work in two digital formats, both as an embedded Pdf copy and a link to an e-reader (https://issuu.com). All examiners were contacted to ensure they had access and were comfortable with the digital documents. For examiners who still preferred hard copies, these were couriered to them.
9.2.2. Electronic books
2) Did the student develop an appropriate response for their selected design project?
4)
7)
9.2.3. Allocation of marks
9)
As stated elsewhere, the official policy of the Tshwane University of Technology on the examination of Master's degrees requires that the final grade be determined entirely by external examiners. Two external examiners were assigned to read each document. As summarised in Figure 14, each “reader” gives 30% of the final result, and the external examination panel allocates the remaining 40% Final mark of MArch mini-dissertation = 30% (1st Reader) + 30% (2nd Reader) + 40% (Remaining examination panel members) = 100% Figure 14: Calculation of final mark for MArch mini dissertation
3)
Figure 14 is a sample of the cover letter sent to all ten examiners. The letter concisely addresses the following essential Degree structure Research Report Requirements of the Research Report Role of examiner Central questions Format of the documents (books) Dates of the exams Composition of the panel of external examiners Allocation of marks Discrepancy in marks Language Editing Review structure (or assessment rubric) Official appointment and documentation Assigned students
aspects: 1)
1) Does the student display their mastery of the research process?
10)
Page 34 of 107
11)
3) Is the candidate ready to join the profession?
6)
14)
9.2. Cover letter to the external examiners
8)
12)
Attention: Mr. André andree@ewarch.co.zaEksteen
The first year curriculum aims to prepare the students for the design research mini dissertation of the second year.
2) The second year curriculum consists of three subjects (structured ) and a research report mini dissertation. Apart from the Research Report, all the subjects have been completed and assessed.
for your willingness to assist with examining our final year students.
RE: EXTERNAL EXAMINATION of the RESEARCH REPORT as part of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE (Structured) (Code MPAR18) Dear ThankAndréyouagain
Page 35 of 107 Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment Department of Architecture and Industrial Design 21 December 2021
To assist you with the task at hand, I would like to clarify the following aspects: Degree structure: The professional Master of Architecture programme at TUT's Department of Architecture and Industrial design runs over a minimum of two years (and a maximum of four).
The Master's degree student should perform research on a specific subject. The report demonstrates the knowledge acquired by the candidate after actively participating and mastering the research process. The completed product should show a certain level of critical and analytical thinking.
1) Does the student display their mastery of the research process?
Requirements of the Research Report: According to the official TUT Prospectus, a "dissertation" or "mini dissertation" means a written, scientific report on research, which is one of the requirements for obtaining a structured Magister [degree]
1) The first year consists of structured coursework comprising nine subjects.
2) Did the student develop an appropriate response for their selected design project?
Central questions: Examiners should keep the following central questions in mind:
Research Report: The Research Report is colloquially known as a thesis. It takes the form of a mini dissertation on a selected design research topic. The Research Report mainly focuses on the design. It is the main subject of the MArch degree.
Role of examiner: An external examiner should review the work critically. Examiners are kindly requested to read the complete documents beforehand. The examiner should reward good work and allocate lower marks for work that does not meet the expected standard.
3) Is the candidate ready to join the profession?
Review structure: I have compiled the attached review structure to assist with the evaluation. The format was adapted from the School of Architecture at the Academy of Art University in San Francisco, CA Although not an official TUT policy, it could guide you in assessing our structured Master's documents.
Composing a panel of external examiners: The Department values the opinion of an external examiner very highly. We try to balance academics and practitioners when compos ing the panel. The examiner's research interest and/or practical experience are considered in assigning a project to a specific examiner.
Document: Unless the examiner requests a physical copy, documents are shared with examiners in two digital formats (pdf and e reader). Please comment with digital notes on the pdf documents and return them for reference after the examination. The students can revise their work in response to the comments before resubmitting their final, leather-bound documents to the University in February 2022. During this stage, the examiners' remarks are addressed with the help of the student's supervisors.
Allocation of marks: The official policy of the Tshwane University of Technology on the examination of Master's degrees requires that the final grade be determined entirely by external examiners. In other words, the supervisors and other Departmental staff do not give a mark. Two external examiners are assigned to read each document. Each examiner contributes 30% of the final result. The remaining 40% is allocated by the other members of the external examination panel who attend the student's exam.
Official appointment and documentation: The Postgraduate Administrator of the Faculty, Ms Rene Janse van Vuuren, will send an official appointment letter, the official TUT Master's evaluation form and other documentation to you at the beginning of January 2022. Kindly respond to her communication by completing the required documents as soon as possible. Once Ms Janse van Vuuren contacts you, all subsequent correspondence should be directed through her office.
Final mark by external examiners = 30% (1st Reader) + 30% (2nd Reader) + 40% (Remaining examination panel members) = 100% Discrepancy in marks: Should the grades of the 1st and 2nd readers differ by 15% or more, the panel of examiners will discuss the specific case afterwards. Language editing: A professional editor has proofread all documents. If you believe there are too many spelling, grammatical and other errors, please note that the mini dissertation should be referred back for proofreading. It is not necessary to check and correct each mistake.
rubric_2021-12-30.pdfAssessment
Dates: The scheduled examination dates are 18 19 January 2021.
Page 36 of 107
Page 37 of 107 Reader: The following students are assigned to you: 1) Lucas, FrameworkDD of opportunity: The design of a community fabric to rejuvenate a human settlement in Pienaarspoort, Gauteng https://issuu.com/jacques_23/docs/lucas_dd_214716194_framework_of_opportunity _FrameworkLucas_DD_214716194ofoppor 2) Myburgh, Symbiosis:SAAn adaptive disaster response centre for the biodiversity of the Kruger National https://issuu.com/jacques_23/docs/myburgh_sa_214391880Park Myburgh_SA_214391880.pdf 3) Pienaar, M The design of a hydrophilic potable water treatment plant with a multi functional landscape in Stjwetla, Alexandra, City of https://issuu.com/jacques_23/docs/pienaar_m_216000510Johannesburg Pienaar_M_216000510.pdf 4) Tlou, K DE PARTITION AFRICA, MARKET PLACE PROPOSAL IN BEITBRIDGE: An investigation and analysis of marketplace spaces – a design development to enhance African markets in https://issuu.com/jacques_23/docs/tlou_k_219436025_Beitbridge book Tlou_k_219436025-book.pdf I trust you will find the above in order. If there are any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards Jacques Laubscher PrArch MSACAP BArch, MURP (UFS), PhD (UP), Teaching Cert (Harvard), MBA (Haaga Helia, Finland) Professor & Head of Department: Architecture and Industrial Design, TUT Figure 15: A sample of a cover letter sent to an external examiner 9.3. Assessment rubric The cover letter included an assessment rubric under the heading review structure adapted from the School of Architecture at the Academy of Art University in San Francisco, CA, USA. I often use it when examining other Schools of Architecture. Examiners understand the complexities of the projects they read. The ½ hour review of a project you have not read can be short. When one keeps this structure in mind, it assists in providing a baseline during the deliberations following the actual presentations.
• Diagrams are used to generate new ideas.
• The project design concept is not explicitly communicated or verbalised.
• The design project is an appropriate response to the identified problem.
• Precedents selected are relevant to the design project.
• The design proposal achieves a distinct and compelling identity.
• The written narrative does not describe the design proposal.
• The design proposal synthesises several design considerations.
Page 38 of 107 Table 11: 2021 MArch assessment rubric (Laubscher, 2021)
• Research is cited. Exceeds
• The design proposal is generic and lacks a synthesis of the design intent and site/program considerations.
• Design project contributes new ideas to the discipline.
• Diagrams overlay and integrate relevant design criteria in support of the design proposal.
• Written narrative accurately describes the design proposal.
• The design proposal is a unique response to the design criteria considered.
• The research supports the design decisions.
1. ConceptualDESIGN Thinking 1.1. Communicate the architectural concept verbally and in writing Doesn't Meet
• Research is thoroughly cited.
• Written text lacks logical organisation.
• The precedent analysis diagrams are incomplete or inaccurate.
• The written text exhibits a logical flow of thought and insights.
Design Process and Intent
• Diagrams convey irrelevant or inaccurate information. Meets • Diagrams clarify ideas.
• The design project stays within the limits of a conventional project. Exceeds
1.3. Produce diagrams indicating critical analyses of relevant precedents recognising the significance to the discipline of architecture Doesn't Meet
1.2. Articulate and extend the architectural concept through diagrams Doesn't Meet
• Diagrams do not clarify ideas.
• The design concept is communicated or verbalised coherently.
• The written narrative deepens the understanding of the design intent and the design proposal.
• Research is not cited. Meets
• The design application and relevance are not clear.
• The precedent analysis diagram distils key ideas.
• The written text conveys sound reasoning. Exceeds
1.4. Develop a design identity that synthesises critical thought, architectural intent, and urban design strategies by developing decision-making criteria substantiated by research Doesn't Meet
• Design decisions are based on a robust synthesis of research and architectural intent.
• The design project embraces knowledge and investigates unfamiliar approaches.
• The design project is an unsatisfactory response to the identified problem, or no problem is stated.
• Precedent analysis exhibits a critique of critical ideas.
• Diagrams accurately represent the project design concept, site context, program parameters, user group and research. Exceeds
• The precedent analysis diagram is accurate.
• The design concept is communicated or verbalised clearly with precise vocabulary.
• Design solution achieves some synthesis with architectural intent.
• Design decisions lack synthesis of research and architectural intent. Meets
• The design project is an effective response to a clearly stated design problem.
• Diagrams distil the project design concept, site context, program parameters, user group and research.
• 1.5. Develop an architectural proposal sensitive to the site context in scale and use Doesn't Meet Meets Exceeds
• The written text contains numerous typographical and grammatical errors. Meets
• Program and building organisation respond to the needs of the users.
• User needs are researched with fairness and ethics in mind.
Doesn't Meet
• The project promotes common ground between diff. groups.
• The design project attempts to accommodate users with different viewpoints. Exceeds
1.10. Lived experiences of users and communities
• Lived experiences of the users and communities are considered Exceeds
• Lived experiences of users and communities are incorporated into the design proposal.
1.8. Demonstrate a commitment to community building and social equity through programming and organisation of an architectural project
• Floor plans, sections, site plan, or models do not correspond to each other. Meets
• Sections lack a description of spatial qualities.
1.9. Demonstrate sensitivity to diverse viewpoints of user groups in the design of a building.
• The legibility of architectural drawings is exemplary.
• The legibility of architectural drawings is compromised.
• Building orientation ignores site context.
• No selection criteria are used to compare different options for architectural language. Meets
• Selection criteria are used to evaluate space making options and architectural language.
• Design project fails to accommodate users with viewpoints different from one's own. Meets
• Research of user groups results in awareness of diverse viewpoints.
• The architectural proposal is appropriate for the scale, density, context and site history.
• The architectural proposal ignores the site context's scale, density, and character.
• The design project demonstrates an architect's responsibility to maintain public interest and improve the quality of life for all.
• The architectural proposal is a well-calibrated response to the scale, density and site history, resulting in an enhanced human experience.
• Research of user groups lacks empathy.
• The legibility of architectural drawings is achieved.
• Evaluative criteria are updated and adapted during each design discovery stage.
Doesn't Meet
• Sections convey spatial experiences that are enhanced by the thoughtfully manipulating of structure, materiality, scale, proportion, natural light, vistas, inside outside relationships.
Doesn't Meet
• Research of user groups with different backgrounds and viewpoints is conducted with sensitivity and empathy.
• The building proposal benefits the context on different scales.
• Selection criteria are used to compare different space making options and architectural language. Exceeds
• The research of user needs lacks consideration for social equity. Meets
• Sections convey spatial qualities. Exceeds
• Program and building organisation reflect a commitment to address the unmet needs of the users.
Doesn't Meet
• A design project demonstrates the ability to design while considering different viewpoints.
1.6. Convey spatial qualities and design intent
Page 39 of 107
• Floor plans convey an unintended sequence of spaces and experiences.
• Floor plans convey a spatial sequence supporting the design intent.
• The design is an overlay of spatial intent, site, context and program.
• The research into user needs considers social equity. Exceeds
• Lived experiences of users and communities are not considered. Meets
Doesn't Meet
• The needs of the users are not addressed in the design project.
• Formal language and logic lack connection to mini dissertation.
1.7. Develop and evaluate the architectural order and formal language
• Formal language is developed by testing relevance to mini dissertation at each stage of the design iteration.
Leadership and Community
• Evaluative criteria result in compelling architectural expressions and considered spatial experiences.
• Floor plans convey a sequence of spaces and experiences.
• The contextual response is clearly documented.
• Egress stairs do not offer two means of exit from every occupied floor.
Doesn't Meet
• Egress diagrams clearly indicate the continuity of exit paths from all building areas to the ground level that includes at least two exit stairs that are separated by an adequate distance.
• The approach of collaborative problem-solving integrated architecture and related disciplines.
• Structural systems are accurately shown in drawings and models. Exceeds
Page 40 of 107
2.2. Accommodate universal accessibility and life safety requirements Doesn't Meet
• Universal accessibility is provided through elevators and/or ramps. Exceeds
• Feedback is critically evaluated according to clearly articulated design priorities.
• Physical and digital models fail to generate ideas for the design project. Meets
• Structural load path pattern contributes to a rich tectonic for the building.
2.4. Integrate structural systems into the building design Doesn't Meet
• Careful and purposeful analysis of site conditions serves as justification for architectural design.
• Physical and digital models are used to discover ideas and space making supporting the design project. Exceeds
• Engagement with professional expertise in relevant design or engineering disciplines is collaborative.
• Professional expertise in relevant design or engineering disciplines is solicited.
o Solar geometry o Prevailing winds o Shadow impact o Urban heat island effect o Ecosystems o Urban fabric, and o Other relevant conditions.
• Site conditions are documented and analysed to communicate visually:
• Structural elements are dominant space-defining elements.
• Feedback is incorporated into the design project. Exceeds
• Structural systems are inaccurately shown in drawings and models. Meets
• Visual communication of site conditions is deficient or erroneous. Meets
• Professional expertise in relevant design or engineering disciplines is not solicited or not incorporated into the design project. Meets
• Site conditions are documented and analysed. Exceeds
3. 3.1.MODEL
• Structural elements contribute to the architectural identity of the building.
• Egress stairs are shown on floor plans to offer two means of exit from every occupied floor.
Communicate analyses of the urban and environmental conditions with graphic clarity
• Elevators and/or ramps are not included in the building. Meets
Doesn't Meet
• Structural systems conflict with architectural spaces.
Develop a rigorous material logic for model-making to test ideas and space-making Doesn't Meet
• The structural load path pattern is consistent with the architectural section.
• Physical and digital models are used to discover, develop and refine design ideas and space making three dimensionally through an iterative design process.
2.3. Engage a collaborative process incorporating design, engineering, and other disciplines
• Structural spans are coordinated with architectural space needs.
2. 2.1.DEVELOP
• Universal accessibility diagrams clearly indicate equitable means of circulation regardless of differences in ability.
Exceeds
• Program organisation is supported by user group research and program analysis. Exceeds
• Energy conservation is prioritised in building orientation and massing, natural ventilation, and building material selection.
Doesn't Meet
• Building envelope controls solar heat gain by blocking unwanted solar heat on warm days and admitting solar heat on cool days.
4.
Doesn't Meet
• Sections and axonometric diagrams provide a clear and thorough visual description of energy conserving measures to improve building performance.
Meets
3.6. Conduct a user and programmatic analysis
• Doesn't Meet • Building energy performance is not visually described.
• Energy conservation is considered in building orientation and massing, natural ventilation, or building material selection.
• Program analysis is documented.
• Program research includes critiques of program precedents.
3.5. Integrate resource efficiency, sustainable and energy-conscious design strategies
• The digital representation of the building is generic. Meets
• An intention for materiality is indicated in selecting construction materials chosen for their intrinsic properties.
• Intrinsic properties of common construction materials are not incorporated into design decisions. Meets
• Insights revealed by research result in equitable ways to meet user needs 4.1.MAKE
Doesn't Meet
• Digital representation of building exhibits purposefully detailed building components. Exceeds
• Drawings and models exhibit excellent craftsmanship.
• Passive building systems are prioritised. Exceeds
• Sections and axonometric diagrams describe energyconserving measures to improve building performance.
Page 41 of 107
• Building envelope components control solar heat gain while admitting natural light to create a tectonic consistent with the design concept.
• Site disturbance is minimised for ecologically sensitive sites.
• The building design opposes strategies for optimising energy use.
3.4. Develop an energy-conscious strategy for the design and material selection
Doesn't Meet
• An intention for materiality is indicated in the assembly detail of construction materials.
• Program organisation is not supported by user group research and program analysis. Meets
• User group research is documented.
• Different options for the assembly of construction materials are compared, and the option most consistent with intended materiality is selected.
Construct drawings and models with a high level of craft and attention to detail
• Digital representation of the building is well calibrated in scale and materiality in describing intended spatial
• Passive building systems are integrated with the design.
• Program analysis is generic and not specific to the intended users of the design proposal.
3.2. Convey materiality, an understanding of construction material properties
• Inventive program relationships are discovered through user group research and program analysis.
3.3. Communicate analyses of building energy and environmental performance systems using graphic devices
• Drawings and models lack care.
• Building energy performance does not address the conservation of energy. Meets
• Building envelope allows natural light into the interior spaces without unwanted solar heat gain. Exceeds
Exceeds
• Physical models use materials and techniques that are scale-appropriate.
• User group research is in depth and involves multiple modes of analysis.
• Drawings and models exhibit craftsmanship.
Doesn't Meet
• Building envelope allows unwanted solar heat gain leading to increased energy used to cool the building. Meets
• Sophisticated materiality is expressed through careful composition and juxtaposition of construction materials chosen for their intrinsic properties.
• The verbal responses to questions defend the design proposal. Exceeds
• The verbal presentation highlights crucial design decisions.
• The verbal responses to questions are substantive and thoughtful.
• The verbal presentation explains a design logic.
• Drawings and digital models show the building systems and design integration on an advanced level.
• The selected product, detail, or system represents the essence of the final design and concept.
• The critique is received and responded to appropriately.
• Drawings and digital models do not indicate building systems. Meets
• The product, detail, or system was not explored sufficiently. Meets
• The hierarchy of visual information emphasises crucial design decisions.
• An appropriate product, detail, or system representing the design as a whole was selected.
• Meets
• The verbal presentation is incongruent with visual representation.
Meets
Exceeds
• The verbal presentation is supported by visual representation.
• Format, sequence, and hierarchy of visually communicated research and analysis indicate information curation to support the design proposal. Exceeds
• The sequence of visual information describes the design process in defence of the design project.
5.2. Presentation drawings, boards, slides and printed materials that exhibit logical sequencing and a hierarchy of information
• The visual presentation exhibits sequence and hierarchy.
• Research and analysis relevant to the design proposal are edited, curated, and visually communicated.
Page 42 of 107 experiences.
Exceeds
• The product, detail, or system representing the design is not appropriate.
5.1. Develop effective visual communication strategies to convey information that builds toward an argument Doesn't Meet
• Coordination of architecture and building systems are integrated with the design intent.
4.3. Integrated design product, detail, or system Doesn't Meet
• The product, detail, or system was explored sufficiently.
• Visually communicated research, analysis, and design investigation validate the design proposal.
• The visual presentation uses white space for emphasis and hierarchy.
5. Presentation Skills
• The verbal presentation does not explain the design logic.
• Drawings and digital models coordinate architecture and building systems. Exceeds
• Visual communication of research does not exhibit initial analysis. Meets
• Visual communication follows a consistent strategy.
Doesn't Meet
• The detail was thoroughly explored and contributed to the final design solution.
• The visual presentation lacks organisation and hierarchy.
5.3. Clearly explain and defend design projects in verbal presentation
Doesn't Meet
• The verbal l responses to questions do not adequately defend the design proposal.
• The visual presentation uses an underlying grid to organise information.
• Visual communication of research does not support the design proposal.
• The verbal presentation is choreographed with a visual representation for effective communication.
4.2. Produce technical documentation integrating building systems Doesn't Meet
Page 43 of 107 9.4. Examination process As per the programme listed in Table 11 and Table 12, the exams were conducted over two days. At the start of each session, Dr Emmanuel Nkambule, the 2021 A+ID_DRIC Chairperson, introduced the panel members to the student Dr Jako Nice (earmarked to coordinate the final MArch academic year from 2022 onwards) assisted by capturing and calculating the marks. Different opportunities for informal interactions between the examination panel and all the supervisors were also scheduled. The group sizes were limited due to Covid restrictions Each full time staff member was invited to attend at least one session. These included breakfasts, lunches, dinner etc. Prof Laubscher chaired the discussion of the final marks. All full-time staff members were invited to attend. Apart from Dr Nkambule and Dr Nice, Ms Marinda Bolt, Mr Pieter Greyvensteyn, Mr Victor Mokaba, and Mr Thebogo Ramatlo participated in the deliberations. All the examiners and internal staff members who attended the session signed the final marks
Figure 17: Dean Smuts presenting her project to the examination panel.
Figure 16: Kirti Mistry at the start of her final exam
Page 44 of 107 Table 12: MArch Examination list: Day 1
1: MArch
MsMarianne,Klerk,de Mr.André,Eksteen, Prof.Roberto,Ferraris, Mr.Clifford,Gouws, Prof.'Ora,Joubert, Mr.Joseph,Mugisa, Mr.Abdool-Aziz,HaneefTayob, Mr.(DJS)DANIEL,Merwe,dervan Mr.(D)DAVID,Merwe,dervan
Tuesday, 18
Ms.Fanele,Zondi, Venue # Start - End Student Known name Project Title Supervisor Co-supervisor 1 Building 11 Bldg 11:Staff Room --- 8:00 - 8:30 0:30 Introduction, Coffee & Tea Bldg 11:Ground: Crit 1 1 8:30 - 9:00 0:30 Modipi, LR Lucia Ms Dialectics of forgotten infrastructure: The redevelopment of the Ekandustria Industrial Park Dr MEN Nkambule PhD (Arch) Mr TE Ramatlo MTechArch (Prof) 1 1 Bldg 11:Ground: Crit 2 2 9:00 - 9:30 0:30 Kinnear, RPL Peter Mr The fence: An extension to the Pretoria Art Museum (PAM) contributing to public place- and space-making Prof J Laubscher PhD (Arch) Dr CA Duff PhD (Ind Des & Inn) Mr TE Ramatlo MTechArch (Prof) 1 1 Bldg 11:Ground: Crit 3 or Bldg 11 First: Crit 4 3 9:30 - 10:00 0:30 Mistry, KK Kirti Kanak Ms Reclaiming Indi-Afrikans’ culture: The design of an integrative spiritual precinct in Marabastad, Tshwane Prof AOS Osman PhD (Arch) Mr PA Greyvensteyn MArch 1 1 Bldg 11:Second: Crit 5 4 10:00 - 10:30 0:30 Thomas, KJL Luthando Keith Mr Cognitive reintegration: A narrated African social health exploration through design Dr MEN Nkambule PhD (Arch) Ms S Patel MUrbanDes 1 1 Bldg 11:Staff Room --- 10:30 - 11:00 0:30 Coffee & Tea Break Building 2 Bldg 2:Second: Crit 1 5 11:00 - 11:30 0:30 Grobler, S Soleil Ms Architecture for avians: A sustainable rehabilitation and conservation centre. Prof J Laubscher PhD (Arch) Mr K Brand MTech (Ind Des) 1 1 Bldg 2:Second: Crit 2 6 11:30 - 12:00 0:30 Eckard, AC Christiaan Mr Accommodating the silver tsunami: The design of an intergenerational retirement community in Mayville, Pretoria. Dr MJ Stander PhD (Arch) Ms M Bolt BArch 1 1 Bldg 2:Second: Crit 3 7 12:00 - 12:30 0:30 Struthers, M Michelle Ms Post-pandemic Architecture: Reshaping the TUT Kollegehof student residence in Pretoria Prof J Laubscher PhD (Arch) 1 1 Bldg 2:Second: Crit 4 8 12:30 - 13:00 0:30 Steinberg, L La-Rouchelle Ms The design of an ecological restoration, water hyacinth processing facility at Hartbeespoort Dam Dr MJ Stander PhD (Arch) Mr L Pienaar MTechArch (Prof) 1 1 Building 11 Bldg 11:Staff Room --- 13:00 - 14:00 1:00 Lunch Bldg 11:Ground: Crit 1 9 14:00 - 14:30 0:30 Burger, ZN Zehann Mr Preparation: A training facility for astronauts from the national and private sector space agencies located in Sutherland, South Africa Prof AOS Osman PhD (Arch) Mr JH Dubery MEd (Des Cognition) 1 1 Bldg 11:Ground: Crit 2 10 14:30 - 15:00 0:30 Botha, RP Riandrie Ms Resilient-fluidity in informal settlements: Prototypical social housing and urban model for mitigating flood vulnerability in Alexandra Dr MEN Nkambule PhD (Arch) Mr K Brand MTech (Ind Des) 1 1 Bldg 11:Ground: Crit 3 or Bldg 11 First: Crit 4 11 15:00 - 15:30 0:30 Mahlangu, KF Fortune Mr Bridging opportunities through, the design of a community cultural centre in Oukasie Township, North West, South Africa Dr MEN Nkambule PhD (Arch) Mr MJV Mokaba MTechArch (Prof) 1 1 Bldg 11:Second: Crit 5 12 15:30 - 16:00 0:30 Lucas, DD Dian Mr Framework of opportunity: The design of a community fabric to rejuvenate a human settlement in Pienaarspoort, Gauteng Prof AOS Osman PhD (Arch) 1 1 Bldg 11:Staff Room --- 16:00 - 16:30 0:30 Coffee & Tea Break Building 2 Bldg 2:Second: Crit 1 13 16:30 - 17:00 0:30 Myburgh, SA Stephanie Ms Symbiosis: An adaptive disaster response centre for the biodiversity of the Kruger National Park Dr MEN Nkambule PhD (Arch) Mr K Brand MTech (Ind Des) 1 1 Bldg 2:Second: Crit 2 14 17:00 - 17:30 0:30 Duarte, NF Nick Mr Hylozoic Dynamism as Contingency in Architecture: The design of an interactive art classroom in the Capitol Theatre Dr MJ Stander PhD (Arch) Mr L Pienaar MTechArch (Prof) 1 1 Building 11 Bldg 11:Staff Room --- 17:30 - 18:15 0:45 Wrap-up & Depart Examiners
DAY Exams January 2022
DAY Exams January 2022
Page 45 of 107 Table 13: MArch Examination list: Day 2
2: MArch
Venue # Start - End Student Known name Project Title Supervisor Co-supervisor 1 Building 11 Bldg 11:Staff Room --- 8:00 - 8:30 0:30 Arrival , Coffee & Tea Bldg 11:Ground: Crit 1 15 8:30 - 9:00 0:30 Swart, BJ Jaco Mr Transition to bio-energy facility at Kelvin Power Station, Johannesburg, South Africa Prof AOS Osman PhD (Arch) Mr L Pienaar MTechArch (Prof) 1 1 Bldg 11:Ground: Crit 2 16 9:00 - 9:30 0:30 Peinke, K Kyle Mr The design of a music museum using South African music as a basis for architectural identity in Newtown, Johannesburg Prof AOS Osman PhD (Arch) Ms M Bolt BArch 1 1 Bldg 11:Ground: Crit 3 or Bldg 11 First: Crit 4 17 9:30 - 10:00 0:30 du Plessis, JP JP Mr A regenerative agricultural core as an alternative to land reform in Limpopo, South Africa Dr MJ Stander PhD (Arch) Mr MJV Mokaba MTechArch (Prof) 1 1 Bldg 11:Second: Crit 5 19 10:00 - 10:30 0:30 Noi, DN Derek Mr Bridging of African Borders: The design of a transit hub at Beitbridge Prof AOS Osman PhD (Arch) 1 1 Bldg 11:Staff Room --- 10:30 - 11:00 0:30 Coffee & Tea Break Building 2 Bldg 2:Second: Crit 1 18 11:00 - 11:30 0:30 Stoop, AA Anneke Ms The Liminal Hub: An interactive centre for space science in Pretoria Prof AOS Osman PhD (Arch) Ms M Bolt BArch 1 1 Bldg 2:Second: Crit 2 20 11:30 - 12:00 0:30 van den Berg, R Roald Mr Edible Housing: Feeding the future of South Africa, a case study in Pretoria Dr MEN Nkambule PhD (Arch) Ms S Patel MUrbanDes 1 1 Bldg 2:Second: Crit 3 21 12:00 - 12:30 0:30 Kgopa, L Lesego Ms Forced Environments: Designing for positive community experiences in affordable housing in Tshwane, South Africa Prof AOS Osman PhD (Arch) 1 1 Bldg 2:Second: Crit 4 22 12:30 - 13:00 0:30 Posthumus, K Kyle Mr Echoing the identity: The design of a community crafts centre to regenerate a derelict urban space in the Pretoria CBD Dr MEN Nkambule PhD (Arch) Mr PA Greyvensteyn MArch 1 1 Building 11 Bldg 11:Staff Room --- 13:00 - 14:00 1:00 Lunch Bldg 11:Ground: Crit 1 23 14:00 - 14:30 0:30 Smuts, D Dean Ms Se(cure)ing Boys to Men: The Design of a contemporary rites of passage tailoring facility for at-risk boys in the Pretoria CBD Dr MJ Stander PhD (Arch) Mr MJV Mokaba MTechArch (Prof) 1 1 Bldg 11:Ground: Crit 2 24 14:30 - 15:00 0:30 Pienaar, M Morné Mr The design of a hydrophilic potable water treatment plant with a multi-functional landscape in Stjwetla, Alexandra, City of Johannesburg Prof J Laubscher PhD (Arch) Ms M Bolt BArch 1 1 Bldg 11:Ground: Crit 3 or Bldg 11 First: Crit 4 25 15:00 - 15:30 0:30 Ilunga, NK Nathan Mr The design of a democratised media centre in Pretoria Dr MJ Stander PhD (Arch) Mr PA Greyvensteyn MArch 1 1 Building 11 15:30 - 16:15 0:45 Discussion 16:15 - 16:45 0:30 Signing off & Claim forms Bldg 11: Courtyard 17:30 - 20:30 3:00 Corobrik Function (17:30 for 18:00) Examiners Bldg 11: Auditorium
MsMarianne,Klerk,de Mr.André,Eksteen, Prof.Roberto,Ferraris, Mr.Clifford,Gouws, Prof.'Ora,Joubert, Mr.Joseph,Mugisa, Mr.Abdool-Aziz,HaneefTayob, Mr.(DJS)DANIEL,Merwe,dervan Mr.(D)DAVID,Merwe,dervan
Ms.Fanele,Zondi,
Wednesday, 19
Home Institution / Employer of External Examiner: Professional Architect and Urban Designer Marianne de Klerk Architects and Urban Designers, Menlyn, Pretoria Programme and Modules Covered by this Report
2) Academic Standards (comparability with previous examination at TUT, other Architecture Schools, achievement of students, any other academic requirements)
1) Programme Structure (curriculum design, programme structure and level, methods of teaching and learning)
3) The Assessment Process (enabling achievement of aims and learning outcomes; scope of assessment; comparability of standards between modules of the same level)
Overall the assessment process is fair. Project are comprehensively assessed on design, theoretical and technical level. The assessment via an external panel is comparable to that of other schools and works well.
I examine on average twice a year at masters level at many of the South African schools of architecture. The standard at TUT is comparable to other schools in the country.
Name of External Examiner: Ms M de Klerk Qualification(s): MScArch (MIT) & MCityPlanning (MIT)
Page 46 of 107 9.5. EXAMINERS REPORTS: Overall Review 9.5.1. Ms M de Klerk Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment Department of Architecture and Industrial Design Report by External Examiner:
Qualification: Master of Architecture (Structured) Qualification code: MPAR 18 Module: Research Report: Architecture Professional V Module code: ARP 209M/R
Academic Year / Period Covered by this Report: Apr 2021 – Feb 2022 Date of Report: Aug 2022 Please comment on the headings listed below, extend spaces where necessary.
4) Examination of Master’s Dissertations (sample of dissertations received, appropriateness of marking schemes, standard of The curriculum is well structured and comprehensive. The course is at an appropriate level for a masters degree that is the culmination of a six year course to train professional architects. Teaching is via a studio method which involved interaction between lecturer and student on a one to one basis to give input into their works and a few critique session with external examiners during the year. Students are required to, consistent with graduate level studies, formulate their own project, conduct research and develop a building design to technical level.
I am of the onion that over the past few years that I have been involved at examining at TUT there has been a marked improvement in the programme.
Not applicable. I am a returning examiner. I am impressed with the technical ability of the students and the integration of the technical and design Theprocess.Maker Space and explorations with manufacture is of special note and should be strengthened further.Asnoted before. In recent years I have seen a marketed improvement in the standard of the school on a masters level. Keep it up. Build on your technical innovation that makes the school special. I do not have any additional recommendations.
Page 47 of 107 internal marking, classification of awards)
7) Reflective Overview (for External Examiners who previously examined at TUT) (significant changes in standards, programme/discipline developments, implementation of recommendations, further areas of work)
5) Year-on-Year Comments Preparation for the role of External Examiner (for new External Examiners only) (appropriateness of briefing provided by the programme team and supporting information, visits to School, ability to meet with students, arrangements for accessing work to review)
6) Noteworthy Practice and Enhancement (good and innovative practice in learning, teaching and assessment; opportunities for enhancement of learning opportunities)
8) Critical Issues for Response To assist us with implement the recommendation of your report, we would be grateful if you could briefly summaries any issues referred to above that you would like to be specifically addressed in our institutional response.
The dissertations I received ranged in quality from distinction level to a pass in the 50 percentile range. Overall the marking was fair with the exception of one external examiner who gave almost the whole class distinctions which I feel prejudiced some of the students. The internal staff did not grade the work or I was not aware of the grades. Awards were decided by in discussion by the examining panel and it was a fair process.
1) Programme Structure (curriculum design, programme structure and level, methods of teaching and learning)
Page 48 of 107 9.5.2. Prof. R Ferraris
Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment Department of Architecture and Industrial Design Report by External Examiner: Name of External Examiner: Prof. R Ferraris Qualification(s): BArch (Córdoba) (NQF Level 9) Home Institution / Employer of External Examiner: Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Design at the National University in Cordoba, Córdoba, Argentina Programme and Modules Covered by this Report
2) Academic Standards (comparability with previous examination at TUT, other Architecture Schools, achievement of students, any other academic requirements) In 2007 I was invited to be an external examiner at the University of Pretoria and at TUT. As I personally express to the TUT authorities, I have felt a notable improvement in the organization of the exams. This includes the invitation to examine, travel and accommodation arrangements, etc., and a short briefing of programme, objectives, and individual projects before commencement. In almost all the works examined, the achievements obtained by the students have been remarkable, some m than others, but excellent in general. From the moment the exams began, there was an accompaniment by the TUT staff that made the intense days of presentations very adequate.
3) The Assessment Process (enabling achievement of aims and learning outcomes; scope of assessment; comparability of standards between modules of the same level) The achievements reached by the students in their final projects were remarkably even in general. His Their o presentation respected the fixed times and had an adequate quality and clarity. Due to the number of presentations in a short time, some exhibition spaces were not the most suitable for examiners to have the necessary comfort to clearly hear the speeches of the students.
The entire structure of the curricular program denotes a high degree of preparation, both prior to and in its fi development, which is manifested in the quality of the results obtained. It becomes evident that the students ha received a clear orientation from their teachers, with an orderly and substantial teaching learning methodology.
Qualification: Master of Architecture (Structured) Qualification code: MPAR 18 Module: Research ArchitectureReport:Professional V Module code: ARP 209M/R Academic Year / Period Covered by this Report: Apr 2021 – Feb 2022 Date of Report: Aug 2022 Please comment on the headings listed below, extend spaces where necessary.
4) Examination of Master’s Dissertations (sample of dissertations received, appropriateness of marking schemes, standard of
The entire support organization for the examiners was of remarkable excellence, both in the prior information of work, the evaluation criteria, in the accompaniment before and during the exams, etc.
The strict adherence to a routine in time management as well as the material provided for the evaluation of ea exam facilitated the task of the examiners. Examiners had the opportunity to review the work on display before and after the student presentations. In same way, we were able to have contact with the students to extend the understanding of their objectives.
6) Noteworthy Practice and Enhancement (good and innovative practice in learning, teaching and assessment; opportunities for enhancement of learning opportunities)
Perhaps my only recommendation would be to extend the evaluation days a little more when it comes to so ma exams. It is important that the physical space used for presentations is not so densely packed as to allow grea comfort for better viewing and reading by examiners seeing them for the first time. In everything else, but especially with regard to the organization by TUT, I can only congratulate those responsi for it.
All the exams were exposed respecting the assigned times. Very correctly, the examiners had the opportunity present their own evaluation criteria, which in some cases allowed consensual adjustments to be made in evaluation of the work. The permanent guidance of the TUT authorities facilitated this substantial aspect of qualifications.
I was pleasantly surprised by the preparation of the exams by all the students. This is explained because they ha been correctly led by their teachers in an active interdisciplinary way. The variety of proposals presented in their final works demonstrates a great freedom in the students for the choice of topics. The interaction between the students themselves during the preparation of their final projects was also evide which undoubtedly enriched each one in their own proposals.
7) Reflective Overview (for External Examiners who previously examined at TUT) (significant changes in standards, programme/discipline developments, implementation of recommendations, further areas of work)
Page 49 of 107 internal marking, classification of awards)
5) Year-on-Year Comments
Preparation for the role of External Examiner (for new External Examiners only) (appropriateness of briefing provided by the programme team and supporting information, visits to School, ability to meet with students, arrangements for accessing work to review)
As I stated previously, I have noticed an important and positive change in the levels obtained by the studen compared to those of my previous visit to TUT as an external examiner. I can say the same about the organizat by those responsible for it. Despite the number and variety of final papers presented in just three days, the orde the program facilitated the development of the evaluations
8) Critical Issues for Response To assist us with implement the recommendation of your report, we would be grateful if you could briefly summaries any issues referred to above that you would like to be specifically addressed in our institutional response.
The dissertation received were previously examined in the final year masters programme. In this re examoination the student provided allot of calirty and addressed the examiners conceres ‘systematically
10) Academic Standards (comparability with previous examination at TUT, other Architecture Schools, achievement of students, any other academic requirements)
12) Examination of Master’s Dissertations (sample of dissertations received, appropriateness of marking schemes, standard of internal marking, classification of awards)
Qualification(s): MArch(Prof) (UP) Home Institution / Employer of External Examiner: Professional Architect: Boogertman + Partners Architects, Brooklyn, Pretoria Programme and Modules Covered by this Report
The programme is well structured and academic level ona very good standard. It is evident that the students received good guidance and internal lecturing
Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment Department of Architecture and Industrial Design Report by External Examiner:
Page 50 of 107 9.5.3. Prof. R Ferraris
11) The Assessment Process (enabling achievement of aims and learning outcomes; scope of assessment; comparability of standards between modules of the same level)
Name of External Examiner: Mr C Gouws
Qualification: Master of Architecture (Structured) Qualification code: MPAR 18 Module: Research ArchitectureReport:Professional V Module code: ARP 209M/R Academic Year / Period Covered by this Report: Apr 2021 – Feb 2022 Date of Report: Aug 2022 Please comment on the headings listed below, extend spaces where necessary.
The standard is above average, in comparison with other institutions that I have also examined at. Congratulations on very capable students.
The process was very organized and kept to pre-detetmined time slots. Students were also preperared for their premissbale timeframes and communicated their projects well in the time allocated. Assement reports wrere also consise and administration process well run.
9) Programme Structure (curriculum design, programme structure and level, methods of teaching and learning)
13) Year-on-Year Comments
15)provided.Reflective
14) Noteworthy Practice and Enhancement (good and innovative practice in learning, teaching and assessment; opportunities for enhancement of learning opportunities)
16) Critical Issues for Response To assist us with implement the recommendation of your report, we would be grateful if you could briefly summaries any issues referred to above that you would like to be specifically addressed in our institutional response. none
The programme was well adapted to the remote working strategies and dificultieas that the pandem
Preparation for the role of External Examiner (for new External Examiners only) (appropriateness of briefing provided by the programme team and supporting information, visits to School, ability to meet with students, arrangements for accessing work to review) Our brief as external panel were communicated clearly. Information was also timeously sent a supporting documentation very orgnaised. There was also a clear guidilne provided in terms examinators requirements and roles.
Overview (for External Examiners who previously examined at TUT) (significant changes in standards, programme/discipline developments, implementation of recommendations, further areas of work) Again it was a previliage to excmaine at the university, the standard was good as always and program well run. Congratulations
Page 51 of 107
Please comment on the headings listed below, extend spaces where necessary.
From a technical point of view, it was a bit difficult to assess the design presentations as not much technical drawings were pinned up at the final design examination. This seemed to disadvantage some students as most examiners who are practicing architects tend to Judge a student’s grasp of design via the technical documentation drawing. Some students seemed to struggle with implementing the theoretical / conceptual ideas into a design project, while others totally needed extra guidance with getting the designs to an acceptable level worthy of an MArch pass. Overall, the academic programme is of medium standard with a need for more external critic on more regular intervals especially for final year students. This would help the students refine there projects to a better finished quality come final Examination.
Qualification(s): B.Arch(Hons) (UFS) (NQF Level 9)
18) Academic Standards (comparability with previous examination at TUT, other Architecture Schools, achievement of students, any other academic requirements)
19) The Assessment Process (enabling achievement of aims and learning outcomes; scope of assessment; comparability of standards between modules of the same level)
The curriculum design is well structured and seems to touch on all aspects of architectural research & design. its commendable to note that the quality of research was of a high level especially when taken into consideration that most of the subject matter reflect out current social context with topics such as environmental sustainability, Energy generation and low cost housing.
Page 52 of 107 9.5.4. Mr J Mugisa Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment Department of Architecture and Industrial Design Report by External Examiner: Name of External Examiner: Mr. Joseph Mugisa
Qualification: Master of Architecture (Structured) Qualification code: MPAR 18 Module: Research ArchitectureReport:Professional V Module code: ARP 209M/R Academic Year / Period Covered by this Report: Apr 2021 – Feb 2022 Date of Report: Aug 2022
17) Programme Structure (curriculum design, programme structure and level, methods of teaching and learning)
The academic standards are fairly medium to high with a large number of students in the mid category when it comes to quality of research projects. The impression I got is that most students spent more time on the theoretical side of the thesis with minimal time allocated to the design aspect of the thesis. Thus, there is a disconnect between the theory & design project. The students that performed well seemed to have found a balance between theory & design.
Home Institution / Employer of External Examiner: Professional Architect: Tom Hattingh Architects, 3 Combrink Avenue, Nelspruit Programme and Modules Covered by this Report
Page 53 of 107
N/A 24) Critical Issues for Response To assist us with implement the recommendation of your report, we would be grateful if you could briefly summaries any issues referred to above that you would like to be specifically addressed in our institutional response.
The selection of dissertations received and reviewed was of a very high standard with the exception of just 1/5. The students understood their selected subject matter/ topic and proceed to research & resolve with final design projects that were worthy of the MArch qualification. The standard on internal marking was fair, thou some of the external examiners felt that some students would have benefited from an extension of time to refine their design & strengthen their theoretical reports. The classification of the awards was fair, and the receiving students / projects were of a high caliber.
21) Year-on-Year Comments
20) Examination of Master’s Dissertations (sample of dissertations received, appropriateness of marking schemes, standard of internal marking, classification of awards)
Its advisable that the department come up with ways to assist students that struggle during the mid year assessment critic. This would help improve the average pass mark but also improve the quality & standard of the MArch.
It can be viewed / noted that some of the students that could have qualified for an award where from what can be classified as PDI. They might not have had the tech/ software but still managed to deliver great architectural presentations worthy of commendation.
The assessment process had to take into consideration context as well as the fact that the research/ thesis period was during the covid pandemic. thus, the students weren't afforded much contact with external critic of projects prior to the final exam. Having said the above, the general quality of work presented and assessed was of above average with some students having a very high quality of refined design & detailing. It could be seen from the work presented which students were affected by the pandemic and those that endured the difficult circumstance to produce high quality projects.
Preparation for the role of External Examiner (for new External Examiners only (appropriateness of briefing provided by the programme team and supporting information, visits to School, ability to meet with students, arrangements for accessing work to review)
22) Noteworthy Practice and Enhancement (good and innovative practice in learning, teaching and assessment; opportunities for enhancement of learning opportunities) I think the studio environment has always been & always will be the be beneficial to architecture students as it allows for interaction / critic of each others projects without being too intimidating. there is more exchanging of ideas in a studio environment. I think its should be made mandatory for final year students to work at the faculty in the early stages of the thesis projects.
The information pack supplied to me was very helpful in assisting me to understand both the teaching approach at TUT as well as what's expected of me as an external examiner. The Programme team was very accommodating plus gave us the opportunity to interact with the students / teaching staff at the department. The access to student work was fairly straight forward, thou it would have been great to get access to the student technical drawing documents as well.
23) Reflective Overview (for External Examiners who previously examined at TUT) (significant changes in standards, programme/discipline developments, implementation of recommendations, further areas of work)
Overall, I was very impressed with the projects and subject matter of thesis projects presented. The teaching staff and faculty are to be commended for all the effort put in.
Page 54 of 107 To sum it all up, I would say the university is doing a great job in preparing the student for the outside working world. The key issues I feel need additional input from external critics and maybe some assistance from practicing architects. I and some of the examiners felt that some students lacked the ability to take a great concept/ idea to the next level and being able to turn it into building. sometimes it helps to have someone from outside the teaching environment to give feedback on student's project before final exams.
Also, I felt that students have the theoretical exposure but lacked the physical exposure when it came to their project subject matter. example is the large number of students that worked on low cost housin projects, that failed to analysis what makes the current built stock of low costing housing to be unlivable. I would recommend student working on such projects start by analyzing the 51/9 houses as a basis for any low cost housing scheme.
4) Examination of Master’s Dissertations (sample of dissertations received, appropriateness of marking schemes, standard of internal marking, classification of awards) Dissertation presentations seems to be of a high standard. Analysis and process followed makes it easy to provide a fair mark As an external practicing architect, I find them stimulating.
Page 55 of 107 9.5.5. Mr HA Tayob Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment Department of Architecture and Industrial Design Report by External Examiner: Name of External Examiner: Mr HA Tayob Qualification(s): BArch (Wits) (NQF Level 9) Home Institution / Employer of External Examiner: Professional Architect Aziz Tayob Architects, Laudium, Pretoria Programme and Modules Covered by this Report Qualification: Master of Architecture (Structured) Qualification code: MPAR 18 Module: Research ArchitectureReport:Professional V Module code: ARP 209M/R Academic Year / Period Covered by this Report: Apr 2021 – Feb 2022 Date of Report: Feb & Aug 2022
5) Year-on-Year Comments Preparation for the role of External Examiner (for new External Examiners only)
Based on the students topics and communication/presentation it seems very competent. Almost all the topics are socially relevant to our current situation.
Please comment on the headings listed below, extend spaces where necessary.
3) The Assessment Process (enabling achievement of aims and learning outcomes; scope of assessment; comparability of standards between modules of the same level)
1) Programme Structure (curriculum design, programme structure and level, methods of teaching and learning)
Documents shared on how the examiners need to assess the student seems comprehensive and to a high standard.
Based on my previous examinations at TUT, the standard seems comparable. The impact of Covid-19 does seem evident, but it seems to have been sensibly handled.
2) Academic Standards (comparability with previous examination at TUT, other Architecture Schools, achievement of students, any other academic requirements)
6) Noteworthy Practice and Enhancement (good and innovative practice in learning, teaching and assessment; opportunities for enhancement of learning opportunities) Generally happy with the handling. Documents are timously distributed, giving external examiners enough time to read through them.
7) Reflective Overview (for External Examiners who previously examined at TUT) (significant changes in standards, programme/discipline developments, implementation of recommendations, further areas of work)
8) Critical Issues for Response
Sense I get from the programme is that fairness in the process is stressed.
There might be good reasons why it is not shared, but personally I would like to have some input from internal lecturers on the students process in getting to the final dissertation. The input need not necessarily prejudice the students.
To assist us with implement the recommendation of your report, we would be grateful if you could briefly summaries any issues referred to above that you would like to be specifically addressed in our institutional response.
Page 56 of 107 (appropriateness of briefing provided by the programme team and supporting information, visits to School, ability to meet with students, arrangements for accessing work to review)
Not my first time as an external examiner.
The TUT school of architecture’s student work is of a good standard.
Page 57 of 107 9.5.6. Mr David van der
2) Academic Standards (comparability with previous examination at TUT, other Architecture Schools, achievement of students, any other academic requirements)
The standard of the books I received were well put together and even students who did not perform that well, showed that they had achieved a level competency in the way their research was structured. Students clearly understood how to grapple with projects using crititcal thinking in their approach to design and research themes. Students were bold in the choice of their design themes. It is clear that the students are taught to think critically and are being taught to take agency in the application of their ideas. The supervisors and lecturers seemed to be very engaged with their students that they are supervising. It is clear that students do receive proper academic support from them.
Name of External Examiner: Mr D van der Merwe
MerweFaculty of Engineering and the Built Environment Department of Architecture and Industrial Design Report by External Examiner:
and technically I believe the school is doing very well and is on par with other institutions of higher learning in architecture and may even be a leader in the way students are engaging with the lived reality of people they are designing for through the development of these community narratives and then translating these ideas into architecture.
The Rubrics provided were thorough and very detailed and they underline a architectural learning site that is comprehensive in its assessments. The practitioners invited were stringent and objective in their assessments. Most of the students framed their research problems very well.
I found that the project themes that the students are engaging with to be very socially relevant as students are were engaging with complex problems and challenges which has relevance for our South African Conceptuallycontext.
Qualification(s): MArch (UFS) Home Institution / Employer of External Examiner: University of the Free State, Department of Architecture, Bloemfontein Programme and Modules Covered by this Report Qualification: Master of Architecture (Structured) Qualification code: MPAR 18 Module: Research ArchitectureReport:Professional V Module code: ARP 209M/R Academic Year / Period Covered by this Report: Apr 2021 – Feb 2022 Date of Report: Aug 2022 Please comment on the headings listed below, extend spaces where necessary.
1) Programme Structure (curriculum design, programme structure and level, methods of teaching and learning)
3) The Assessment Process (enabling achievement of aims and learning outcomes; scope of assessment; comparability of standards between modules of the same level)
(sample of dissertations received, appropriateness of marking schemes, standard of internal marking, classification of awards)
To assist us with implement the recommendation of your report, we would be grateful if you could briefly summaries any issues referred to above that you would like to be specifically addressed in our institutional response.
8) Critical Issues for Response
The marking process was fair, the students who received awards were deserved winners of these awards, there work was exemplary and those who received addendums were given clear instructions as to what they needed to correct. The panel of examiners did not come to the decision lightly to ask for an addendum. There were lengthy deliberations and discussions held before any decisions was taken.
Preparation for the role of External Examiner (for new External Examiners only) (appropriateness of briefing provided by the programme team and supporting information, visits to School, ability to meet with students, arrangements for accessing work to review)
5) Year-on-Year Comments
It was a wonderful privilege to be invited to be an external examiner at TUT as this was my frst time serving as an external examiner at a institution of higher learning. I would like to thank Professor Jacques Laubscher and his team for making my experience a memorable one. Everything was done in excellence from the flight booking to the hotel reservations and the timeous distribution of the dissertations. I was given ample time to go through the documents and was briefed regularly on how the assessment process would be conducted. Because of this experience I believe I have grown as an academic through engaged scholarship.
6) Noteworthy Practice and Enhancement (good and innovative practice in learning, teaching and assessment; opportunities for enhancement of learning opportunities)
I really believe that the TUT school of architecture has its very own unique DNA and that the students work speaks of a department that is thoughtful and conscientious of projects and themes which are extremely important in the South African built environment.
As mentioned before the students projects really engaged with topics which are very relevant. I was impressed to see a number of students tackling social housing projects which is a challenging theme to undertake in your final year but these students showed resilience and determination in trying to resolve these designs. Also students seemed to have a keen sense of social justice and what role architects could play in enhancing this idea especially in marginalized communities.
4) Examination of Master’s Dissertations
The students framed their research problems and research methodologies very well and findings in their theoretical documents was explored to a satisfactory level. The sketch plan resolution could have been explored in more depth, but I do believe it was the unique circumstances that students faced as a result of COVID that could have impeded their progress
Page 58 of 107
7) Reflective Overview (for External Examiners who previously examined at TUT) (significant changes in standards, programme/discipline developments, implementation of recommendations, further areas of work)
2) Academic Standards (comparability with previous examination at TUT, other Architecture Schools, achievement of students, any other academic requirements)
Page 59 of 107 9.5.7. Mr Daniel van der
Please comment on the headings listed below, extend spaces where necessary.
1) Programme Structure (curriculum design, programme structure and level, methods of teaching and learning)
3) The Assessment Process (enabling achievement of aims and learning outcomes; scope of assessment; comparability of standards between modules of the same level)
The effects of Covid lockdown and working in isolation were evident. Despite the challenges- the overall standard of work examined matches and in some cases far exceeded the required academic outcomes. Weaker students were unable to perform optimally without the traditional instruction support structures. However, successful candidates displayed remarkable resilience and their overall competence were evident iin the outcomes as examined .
MerweFaculty of Engineering and the Built Environment Department of Architecture and Industrial Design Report by External Examiner:
Qualification: Master of Architecture (Structured) Qualification code: MPAR 18 Module: Research ArchitectureReport:Professional V Module code: ARP 209M/R Academic Year / Period Covered by this Report: Apr 2021 – Feb 2022 Date of Report: Aug 2022
Qualification(s): B.Arch, Pr.Arch (SACAP) Home Institution / Employer of External Examiner: Director, Leaf Architects Programme and Modules Covered by this Report
The flexibility of the programme is to be commended, allowing students to complete over two or a maximum of four years. This favours the maximum inclusion of students who otherwise might have been unable to enroll.
Being traditionally classroom and studio based, Covid introduced permanent changes to the way programmes are taught. The hybrid system introduced at TUT seemed to have been effective and standards were not too affected. The overall objectives of the programme structure, namely to emulate the reality of practice in challenging environments facing real life design and contextual issues must be commended.
Vertical integration between the coursework subjects, the research report and the resolved design were not always that evident or emphasised. However it remains a challenge at most academic institutions
Name of External Examiner: Mr D van der Merwe
6) Noteworthy Practice and Enhancement (good and innovative practice in learning, teaching and assessment; opportunities for enhancement of learning opportunities) The department is commended for their ‘laboratory’ experimental and flexible approach to the programme. The emphasis on relevancy, social and environmental challenges within contested contexts are commended. Self directed learning adds to independent thinking and competent resilient candidates who are well suited to enter industry.
Again, the effects of Covid lockdown were evident especially with weaker students. The disruption of more traditional systems of continuous studio based feedback, critique, the support of working within a studio environment in a group affected all institutions. Despite these challenges most candidates displayed resilience and self discipline working in isolation, And they did rise to the occasion satisfactory and on standard when compared to other institutions were I have examined similar.
All documentations were received in good time allowing for proper preparation. Expected outcomes, evaluation criteria and the structure of the examination programme were well communicated which assisted new external examiners.
Page 60 of 107
The changes introduced in terms of the re structuring of the Research Reports and design evolvement Set within a series of critical milestones are commendable. In some cases the contributions and involvement of external and internal supervisors were less evident, and this could be addressed.
4) Examination of Master’s Dissertations (sample of dissertations received, appropriateness of marking schemes, standard of internal marking, classification of awards) Research Reports were on standard. Some issues with text editing and proper referencing were experienced and feedback was given in such cases. In some cases the level of resolved design were not evident due to Reports being submitted much earlier than the actual examination. Introducing the system of staff members as main or co-supervisors are commended and the system of internal and external supervisiors must be continued and build upon.
8) Critical Issues for Response
To assist us with implement the recommendation of your report, we would be grateful if you could briefly summaries any issues referred to above that you would like to be specifically addressed in our institutional response.
Refinement, proper referencing and editing of the final Research Reports are critical.
5) Year-on-Year Comments Preparation for the role of External Examiner (for new External Examiners only) (appropriateness of briefing provided by the programme team and supporting information, visits to School, ability to meet with students, arrangements for accessing work to review)
7) Reflective Overview (for External Examiners who previously examined at TUT) (significant changes in standards, programme/discipline developments, implementation of recommendations, further areas of work)
4) Examination of Master’s Dissertations (sample of dissertations received, appropriateness of marking schemes, standard of internal marking, classification of awards)
Name of External Examiner: Ms F Zondi
- Clear expression & intepretation of learned principles in architectural language
- Fluidity of teaching methods allowable in the institution, create a wider interaction and contributes to rich research & solutions
Page 61 of 107 9.5.8. Ms F Zondi Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment Department of Architecture and Industrial Design Report by External Examiner:
3) The Assessment Process (enabling achievement of aims and learning outcomes; scope of assessment; comparability of standards between modules of the same level)
2) Academic Standards (comparability with previous examination at TUT, other Architecture Schools, achievement of students, any other academic requirements)
- Samples received are the following; Eckard,Lucas, Pienke, Struthers and Van den Berg - Samples received ranged from excellent, to poor, - General overall comment, the problems were posed clearly and well researched, execution of solution researched was on an excellent level overall
1) Programme Structure (curriculum design, programme structure and level, methods of teaching and learning)
- Theses are generally well structured and well written - Research is generally on a high level, it is quite thorough, and there is a good understanding & analyses of design & theory principles
Qualification(s): MArch(Prof) (UP) Home Institution / Employer of External Examiner: Professional Architect: Limpopo Department of Education, Limpopo Programme and Modules Covered by this Report Qualification: Master of Architecture (Structured) Qualification code: MPAR 18 Module: Research ArchitectureReport:Professional V Module code: ARP 209M/R Academic Year / Period Covered by this Report: Apr 2021 – Feb 2022 Date of Report: Aug 2022 Please comment on the headings listed below, extend spaces where necessary.
- Learning outcomes clearly defined in the design & technology aspects of the project, as well as the theoretical aspects of architectural design.
7) Reflective Overview (for External Examiners who previously examined at TUT) (significant changes in standards, programme/discipline developments, implementation of recommendations, further areas of work)
- Invitation & brief were sent well in advance, gives enough time to seek clarity where it might be needed
8) Critical Issues for Response To assist us with implement the recommendation of your report, we would be grateful if you could briefly summaries any issues referred to above that you would like to be specifically addressed in our institutional response.
Page 62 of 107
Digitized methods of submission of work in teams as well as individuals was quite impressive. It seems that, this instilled (to a greater degree) accountability in the students, thus forcing them to mature and deliver, even within unfavourable conditions
5) Year-on-Year Comments Preparation for the role of External Examiner (for new External Examiners only) (appropriateness of briefing provided by the programme team and supporting information, visits to School, ability to meet with students, arrangements for accessing work to review)
- The general sense I get is that, the students enjoy research and asking questions. They are grow into, not taking the first solution they come across.
- This critical thinking nature is so enjoyable when one sits and listens to their design processes, this has enabled them to also defend their proposals / work in a scientific and more educated manner
- Samples to be examined are given well within time, this allows time for research and refreshing one’s memory and understanding of theories and concepts being taught and expected outcomes from the students
This is not an issue, but rather a suggestion to look into the digitized aspect of “managing a course”. I believe that the faculty has made great strides in exploring the method of submissions via other technical platforms. I do not at all write off studio time, however I am thinking of this as a tool to engrain within the students, the principle of being able to deliver regardless of prevailng conditions, which one cannot change. I am applauding this, as it seems to have really matured the students in being able to remain professional in their delivery at all times.
6) Noteworthy Practice and Enhancement (good and innovative practice in learning, teaching and assessment; opportunities for enhancement of learning opportunities)
Page 63 of 107 9.6. EXAMINERS REPORTS: Individual students 9.6.1. Prof. R Ferraris
Page 64 of 107
Page 65 of 107
Page 66 of 107
Page 67 of 107 9.6.2. Prof. O Joubert
Page 68 of 107
Page 69 of 107
Page 70 of 107
Page 71 of 107
Page 72 of 107 9.6.3. Ms F Zondi
Page 73 of 107
Page 74 of 107 9.6.4. Mr David van der Merwe
Page 75 of 107
The consideration and empathy supplied to us by Prof J Laubscher deserves special thanks, we are truly grateful. We would not have achieved what we did, during our toughest year. Finishing this chapter gives us the foundation necessary to start the next phase and become successful architects proud to have studied at the great institution.
Studentsmilestones.needed
The year coordinator changed as we registered, with him came a new overriding schedule and “battle plan” and a clearly defined plan of action: Milestones consisting of smaller sections of work that become the final thesis document when combined - If we trusted this process, we would be able to complete our thesis in the allotted time. The first three subjects are designed as block courses and are presented to the students at relevant milestones to the overall course. However, these subjects could do with higher allocated hours, as our lecturers did not supply us with the hours and input. We did not receive the needed instruction, tuition and assistance required to obtain the necessary understanding relevant to individual projects.
When compiling their book each student needs to question every single written word and line drawn in order to convey their message clearly, their thesis needs to withstand criticism and analysis from the external Guidanceexaminers.from the supervisor is imperative to success. However, this assistance was not forthcoming. The expectations were not made clear to students. Insufficient feedback was given, often not in line with the
Page 76 of 107 10. Student evaluation 12.1 Reflective essay by class
After consultation with all the students in the 2021 MArch class, the elected class representative, Mr Peter Kinnear, compiled the following reflective essay. It is presented as it was received, without any edits or changes.
TUT Department of Architecture and Industrial Design, welcomed the largest group of MPAR18 candidates in early 2020. The group this author represents started the final leg to their Architectural qualifications as COVID 19 hit, putting a large amount of pressure on all stakeholders and changed the world as we knew it.
Dreams become reality through planning: A class representative’s view using 20/20 hindsight. By Peter Kinnear
Twenty five students took part in the exam in January 2022. Seven students extended their thesis year for exams to be held at the end 2022. Each student has a different reason for the extension. With a year as taxing on mental faculties as 6th year Architecture, the added implication of COVID 19 protocols did not help. This period in time has been unprecedented, and we have all had to overcome a great many obstacles.
The official 2021 academic year started in April 2020, when 32 6th year student’s registered for four Researchsubjects: methodology | Contract documentation V | Specification V | Research report: Architecture professional V
The Twenty five students that entered their final exams had a great panel of professionals tailored to their specific area of interest. These examiners asked tough and challenging questions with care and consideration and supplied valuable feedback.
to diligently track their own personal progress or address issues brought forward when given by the respective design or main supervisor, it became too easy to fall behind and then struggle to catch up. While each student carries the responsibility of their own success, the onus lies with the supervisor to make sure their student meets the relevant milestones. When these supervisors were missing in action, it was the student that suffered.
Figure 18: Artwork illustrating the parti diagram of each student (Compiled and edited by Smuts, 2021)
Page 77 of 107 12.2. Personalised gift During the Corobrik Awards ceremony, the students presented me with a personalised artwork that now hangs in my office. As illustrated in Figure 1Figure 18, it is a compilation of the parti diagrams of each student’s project.
5 Grobler, S Ms 216400070
13 Myburgh, SA Ms 214391880 Symbiosis: An adaptive disaster response centre for the biodiversity of the Kruger National Park 68%
The design of an ecological restoration water hyacinth processing facility at Hartbeespoort Dam 65%
18 Duarte, NF Mr 215261182 Hylozoic Dynamism as Contingency in Architecture: The design of an interactive art classroom in the Capitol Theatre 76% Distinction 1
The design of a music museum using South African music as a basis for architectural identity in Newtown, Johannesburg 64%
Page 78 of 107 PART 4: PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE 11. Final grades In final grades are listed from lowest to highest and selected portfolios presented to the Valiation Board are highlighted. Table List of final marks and identified portfolios.
20 Pienaar, M Mr 216000510 The design of a hydrophilic potable water treatment plant with a multi-functional landscape in Stjwetla, Alexandra, City of Johannesburg 78% Distinction 3
MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE (Qualification code: MPAR18)
11 Lucas, DD Mr 214716194 Framework of opportunity: The design of a community fabric to rejuvenate a human settlement in Pienaarspoort, Gauteng 68%
Bridging opportunities through, the design of a community cultural centre in Oukasie Township, North West, South Africa 56% Lowest Pass SACAP Portfolio
The Liminal Hub: An interactive centre for space science in Pretoria 65%
19 Botha, RP Ms 216239067 Resilient-fluidity in informal settlements: Prototypical social housing and urban model for mitigating flood vulnerability in Alexandra 77% Distinction 2
Architecture for avians: A sustainable rehabilitation and conservation centre 62% 6 Peinke, K Mr 215639983
2 Kgopa, L Ms 215544532 Forced Environments: Designing for positive community xperiences in affordable housing in Tshwane, South Africa 57% Second-lowest Pass SACAP Portfolio
7 Steinberg, L Ms 215800687
3 Modipi, LR Ms 214562235
15 Ilunga, NK Mr 214623676 The design of a democratised media centre in Pretoria 69%
9 Eckard, AC Mr 216210468 Accommodating the Silver Tsunami: The design of an intergenerational retirement community in Mayville, Pretoria 66%
23 Smuts, D Ms 216315669 Securing Boys to Men: The Design of a contemporary rites of passage tailoring facility for at-risk biys in the Pretoria CBD 89% Distinction 6 Highest Pass SACAP Portfolio Class AVERAGE 69% Comment
10 Mistry, KK Ms 214110482 Reclaiming Indi-Afrikans’ culture: The design of an integrative spiritual precinct in Marabastad 67% Mid Pass SACAP Portfolio
Dialectics of forgotten infrastructure: The redevelopment of the Ekandustria Industrial Park 59% 4 Burger, ZN Mr 214202425 Preparation: A training facility for astronauts from the national and private sector space agencies located in Sutherland, South Africa 60% Mid Pass SACAP Portfolio
ARP209M Research Report: Architecture: Architectural Design # Student St No Project Title Final Mark 1 Mahlangu, KF Mr 214282550
12 van den Berg, Mr 216162811 Edible Housing: Feeding the future of South Africa, a case study in Pretoria 68%
16 Kinnear, RPL Mr 96035233 The fence: An extension to the Pretoria Art Museum, contributing to public space and place-making 70%
21 Swart, BJ Mr 214619539 Transition to bio-energy facility at Kelvin Power Station, Johannesburg, South Africa 79% Distinction 4
14 Thomas, KJL Mr 214129264 Cognitive reintegration: A narrated African social mental health exploration through design 68%
8 Stoop, AA Ms 215639355
22 Posthumus, K Mr 214768747 Echoing the identity: The design of a community crafts centre to regenerate a derelict urban space in the Pretoria CBD 83% Distinction 5 Second-highest Pass SACAP Portfolio
17 Noi, DN Mr 206036044 Bridging of African Borders: The design of a transit hub at Beitbridge 72%
Page 79 of 107 12. Low PASS: Student 1 (56%)
Page 80 of 107
Page 81 of 107
Page 82 of 107 13. Low PASS: Student 2 (57%)
Page 83 of 107
Page 84 of 107
Page 85 of 107
Page 86 of 107 14. Medium PASS: Student 1 (60%)
Page 87 of 107
Page 88 of 107
Page 89 of 107 15. Medium PASS: Student 2 (67%)
Page 90 of 107
Page 91 of 107
Page 92 of 107
Page 93 of 107 16. High PASS: Student 1 (83%)
Page 94 of 107
Page 95 of 107
Page 96 of 107
Page 97 of 107
Page 98 of 107
Page 99 of 107 17. High PASS: Student 2 (89%)
Page 100 of 107
Page 101 of 107
Figure 10: Individual feedback notes to students Duarte, Grobler, Seoke, van den Berg, Struthers and Burger (Laubscher: 2021)
Figure 5: Individual feedback notes to students Zulu, Kgopa, Mahlangu and du Plessis (Laubscher: 2021)
3
Figure 15: A sample of a cover letter sent to an external examiner.
Figure 4: Individual feedback notes to students Swart, Lucas, Pienaar and Eckard (Laubscher: 2021)
37
23
Figure 9: Individual feedback notes to students Ilunga, Mahlangu, Noi, Thomas, Mistry and Posthumus (Laubscher: 2021)
Figure 7: Individual feedback notes to students Grobler, Posthumus, Steinberg and Struthers (Laubscher: 2021)
77
............................................................................................. 23
Figure 6: Individual feedback notes to students Kinnear, Duarte, Noi and Seoke (Laubscher: 2021)
Figure 8: the cover letter accompanying the feedback notes of Milestone 4 (Laubscher: 2021)
Figure 1: Calculation of final mark for MArch mini-dissertation
.......................................................................... 25
Figure 11: Individual feedback notes to students Stoop, Masela, Steinberg, Pienaar, Modipi and Zulu (Laubscher: 2021)
24
Figure 13: An advisory note in preparation for the final exam (Laubscher, 2021).
...................................................... 43
.................... 43
.................................................................. 26
Figure 16: Kirti Mistry at the start of her final exam
Figure 18: Artwork illustrating the parti diagram of each student (Compiled and edited by Smuts, 2021)
Figure 12: The note accompanying the final online submissions for plagiarism review (Laubscher, 2021).
Figure 14: Calculation of final mark for MArch mini dissertation
............................................................................. 24
Figure 2: Pedagogic underpinning of TUT Department of Architecture and Industrial Design (Laubscher, 2019).
18. List of Figures
Figure 3: The transition from 5th to 6th year (Laubscher: 2017)
25
34
26
30
Figure 17: Dean Smuts presenting her project to the examination panel.
31
7
.......................................... 3
19. List of Tables Table 1: Position of MArch 2nd-year in the overall academic offering (Adapted from Laubscher, 2019). 5 Table 2: Module description of the four (4) subjects presented in the MArch 2nd year (Adapted from TUT Prospectus, 2021). .............................................................. 6 Table 3: The detailed questionnaire used to refine the research theme, topic and design proposal (Laubscher, 2015). 8 Table 4: 2021 MArch year programme indicating the different milestones. 11 Table 5: Translation of the module requirements from the Prospectus descriptions into defined products or actions ............................................................................... 12 Table 6: Milestone 7 assessment of students Masela and Kgopa (Laubscher: 2021 ..... 27 Table 7: Milestone 7 assessment of students Mistry and Smuts and Kgopa (Laubscher: 2021) ................................................................................................................. 28 Table 8: Assessment rubric used for Milestone 7 (Laubscher: 2021) ............................. 29 Table 9: Approval stages followed in appointing 2021 MArch examiners. ...................... 32 Table 10: List of appointed 2021 MArch examiners .......................................................... 33 Table 11: 2021 MArch assessment rubric (Laubscher, 2021). 38 Table 12: MArch Examination list: Day 1. 44 Table 13: MArch Examination list: Day 2. 45 Table 14: List of final marks and identified portfolios. 78
