PART 1
PART 2
PART 3
PART 4
PART 5
Previous validation report
Programme Report SACAP • CAA Validation Visit
04 | 05 | 06 | 07 April 2017
Introduction Achievements of the Department
4
Part 1 Self-Appraisal
12
1.1
Response to specific issues raised in the 2012 report
14
1.2
Changes introduced to improve the courses since the last visit and the effects of those changes on resource provisions
17
1.3
Branding and intellectual identity
22
1.4
Structure of programme vis-รก-vis the new Higher Education Qualifications Framework
23
1.5
Strategic objectives of qualifications
23
1.6
Strengths and weaknesses of the ALS
25
1.7
Staff / Student Ratio | Student Numbers
27
1.8
Provisions for staff development
28
1.9
Transformation initiatives
28
1.10
Relationships with parent institution and other departments
28
1.11
Links with other tertiary institutions and research agencies
28
1.12
The future: Details of courses and facilities planned
31
Part 2 Response to questionnaire
34
2.1
Learner recruitment, selection and admission
36
2.2
Course structures and curriculum contents
43
2.3
Teaching and assessment
46
2.4
Staff provisions in 2016 and 2017
57
2.5
Research and higher degrees
64
2.6
Finance
67
2.7
Management structure
68
2.8
Meetings with management
70
2.9
Resources and facilities
72
2.10
Practice, training and professional development
81
Part 3 Appendices
82
A
Programme structure and the HEQSF
84
B
Report by student body
96
C
Core syllabi
102
D
Design Module Guides & Programmes
128
E
External examiners
216
F
Research Outputs
243
G
Rubrics and Declaration of Receit Form
248
H
Selection Forms
258
I
RPL Portfolio Applications
297
J
Practise Based PhD DArch HEQSF
353
Part 4 Previous validation report
364
Part 5 Miscellaneous
384
5.1
Sophia Gray
386
5.2
UIA 2014
392
5.3
The Earth Unit
394
5.4
Environmental Built Innovations (EBI) programmes
397
5.5
BloemBuild Expo
408
5.6
UFS Staff Performance Management
410
5.7
Winter School Programme
444
5.8
ALS Brochure
450
5.9
Special Lectures
458
5.10
Financials
459
Batho Community Centre, Werner van Zyl, 2nd Year, 2013
364
UFS, Department of Architecture | SACAP • CAA Validation Visit 2017 | Previous Validation Report
PART 4 Previous Validation Report
UFS, Department of Architecture | SACAP • CAA Validation Visit 2017 | Previous Validation Report
Raptured, Wynand Viljoen, 5th Year, 2013
365
366
UFS, Department of Architecture | SACAP • CAA Validation Visit 2017 | Previous Validation Report
CAA
Commonwealth Association of Architects
CONFIDENTIAL Commonwealth Association of Architects (CAA) South African Council for the Architectural Profession (SACAP)
VISITING BOARD REPORT FOR THE: Baccalaureus Architecturae Studiorum Baccalaureus Architecturae Studiorum (Honores) Magister Architecturae (Professional) AT: Department of Architecture, University of the Free State
REPORT 27 October 2012
Draft VB report for the BAS, BAS (Honours) and MArch (Prof) at University Free State October 2012
1
CAA
UFS, Department of Architecture | SACAP • CAA Validation Visit 2017 | Previous Validation Report
Commonwealth Association of Architects
CONTENTS
Page
1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Introduction General Terminology Visiting board members In attendance Conflicts of interest
2. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7.1 2.7.2 2.7.3 2.7.4 2.7.5 2.8
Recognition Status Recommendation to CAA Recommendations to other bodies Criteria for validation Characteristics Competencies Standards Advice Standard condition of approval Comments Transformation and equality Branding and intellectual identity Language Value of traditions, distinct projects and endeavours Challenges faced Signed
3. 3.1 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.4
Commentary Self-appraisal and response to previous Visiting Board Report Detailed review of courses Baccalaureus Architecturae Studiorum Baccalaureus Architecturae (Hons) Magister Architecturae (Professional) Construction and Technology Supporting Subjects Resources Staff Students External examiners Facilities and equipment Conclusion
10 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 12 13 14 14 15
4. 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5
Attachments Documentation provided prior to visit Additional information supplied during the visit Exhibition of student work Record of meetings Course structure diagrams
15 15 15 16 17
Draft VB report for the BAS, BAS (Honours) and MArch (Prof) at University Free State October 2012
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9
2
367
368
UFS, Department of Architecture | SACAP • CAA Validation Visit 2017 | Previous Validation Report
1
Introduction
1.1
General This report is for the purpose of assessment for validation CAA Parts 1 and 2 of the Baccalaureus Architecturae Studiorum (BAS), Baccalaureus Architecturae Studiorum (Honores) BAS(Hons) and Magister Architecturae (Professional) (M.Arch(Prof.)) at the Department of Architecture University of the Free State . It was prepared by a Visiting Board representing the Commonwealth Association of Architects (CAA) and the South African Council for the Architectural Profession (SACAP) with the agreement of the South African Institute of Architects. The previous visit in 2008 was undertaken by a SACAP visiting board and the outcome accepted by CAA under the CAA SACAP Validation Agreement of May 2005 which ended in May 2010. Mr Narendra Dengle was the invited CAA representative on that visit. The visit to the school took place from 9-11 October 2012 and the report was presented to the staff and students of the Department on 27 October 2012. The Board sincerely thanks Prof. Jonathan Jansen, Vice-Chancellor and Rector; Prof. Neil Heideman, Dean, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences and Ms Martie Bitzer, Departmental Chair for their assistance provided during the visit. The Board wishes to also extend thanks to the staff, students, graduates and external examiners for making time and sharing information, plus the administrative staff for their help and support, and arrangements for refreshments, transport and accommodation.
1.2
Terminology Course; CAA refers to programmes of study as ‘courses’; Subject; CAA refers to the courses that comprise an academic programme as ‘subjects; Architecture Learning Site; SACAP refers to a School or Department of Architecture as an Architectural Learning Site (ALS).
1.3
Visiting Board members: Title/Name
Qualification/Position/Contact e-mail
Membership/Organisation
Mr Jonathan Manning
BSc(Hons), Dip Arch (Bartlett) PrArch, PrCPM SAIA/GIFA/UDISA Practitioner, Johannesburg Email: jonathanm@o-l.co.za
Chair/SACAP
Prof. Alta Steenkamp
PhD (TUDelft), MArch (Pret) BArch (Pret) PrArch Head, University of Cape Town Email: alta.steenkamp@uct.ac.za
Member/SACAP
Mr Aziz Tayob
BArch (Wits) PrArch SAIA/PIA/GIFA Practitioner,Pretoria Email: architects@tayob.co.za
Member/SACAP
Mr JP de Marigny
3rd year BArch (UKZN) Email: jpdemarigny@gmail.com
Student Representative/SACAP
Draft VB report for the BAS, BAS (Honours) and MArch (Prof) at University Free State October 2012
3
UFS, Department of Architecture | SACAP • CAA Validation Visit 2017 | Previous Validation Report
Mr Narendra Dengle
GDArch, FIIA Registered Architect (India) Chair, Goa College of Architecture Practitioner, Pune Email: narendraden@gmail.com
CAA Representative (out of region)
Prof. Rodney Harber
BArch, MScURP (Ntl) PrArch SAIA Edu Com Retired Academic and Practitioner, Durham
Member/SACAP
Email: rodneyharber@mweb.co.za Mr Waweru Gathecha
BA(Hons), Dip Arch, PG Dip (Arch Prac) CAA Representative MAAK(A) (in region) Registered Architect (Kenya) Practitioner, Nairobi Email: wg@waweru.com
1.4
In Attendance Prof. Gerald Steyn
1.5
PhD (Pret), MArch, BArch (UFS) PrArch SAIA/PIA Tshwane University of Technology SACAP Councilor Email: steyngs@tut.ac.za
Secretary/SACAP
Conflicts of Interest None recorded.
2
Recognition Status
2.1
Recommendation to CAA: The Visiting Board recommends to CAA Council: Unconditional validation (continued) of:
• • •
Baccalaureus Architecturae Studiorum (BAS) for CAA Part 1 Baccalaureus Architecturae Studiorum (Honores) (BAS Hons) for CAA Part 1 Magister Architecturae (Professional) (MArch(Prof)) for CAA Part 2.
The next Visiting Board should be held in 2016. 2.2
Recommendations to other bodies: The recommendation in 2:1 above is also made to SACAP. CAA also recommends to the South African Institute of Architects its endorsement and adoption of the findings of this Visiting Board.
Draft VB report for the BAS, BAS (Honours) and MArch (Prof) at University Free State October 2012
4
369
370
UFS, Department of Architecture | SACAP • CAA Validation Visit 2017 | Previous Validation Report
2.3
Criteria for validation: The Visiting Board is satisfied that these courses and associated awards meet the standards requisite for recognition and fulfil the CAA’s General Statement of Educational Objectives and Content.
2.3.1 Characteristics The Board comments as follows on the specific characteristics required for Schools with validated courses; A.1.1 “Normally the School should be in or associated with an institution of high academic level …” The Board is satisfied that the characteristic is met A.1.2 “Organisation of the School should allow for the flexibility in the development of the course …” The Board is satisfied that the characteristic is met A.1.3 “The School should have the necessary facilities and financial support ….” The Board is satisfied that the characteristic is met A.1.4 “Evidence that the School is involved in understanding the environmental problems …” The Board is satisfied that the characteristic is met A.1.5 “Staff should be of a high level of attainment and teaching ability and provide necessary range of specialized skills and experience.” The Board is satisfied that the characteristic is met A.1.5 “The School should encourage continuing research …” The Board is satisfied that the characteristic is met A.1.6. “The School should have an entry level which should not be below university entry or its equivalent.” The Board is satisfied that the characteristic is met A.1.7. “The School should support gender and racial equity of opportunity for access to architectural education” The Board is satisfied that the characteristic is met A.1.8 “Students should have the opportunity to make positive contributions ...” The Board is satisfied that the characteristic is met A.1.9 “The School needs to have systems for self-evaluation and peer review conducted at regular intervals ....” The Board is satisfied that the characteristic is met A.1.10 “School should facilitate staff and student exchanges with other schools, study visits, exhibitions ....” The Board is satisfied that the characteristic is met 2.3.2
Competencies The Board comments as follows on the competencies validated Courses shall ensure the acquisition of:
A.2.1.1 “an ability to create designs that satisfy both aesthetic and technical requirements etc…” The Board is satisfied that this competency is acquired A.2.1.2 “adequate personal and professional skills etc…” The Board is satisfied that this competency is acquired A.2.1.3 “an adequate knowledge of the history and theories of architecture etc…” The Board is satisfied that this competency is acquired A.2.1.4 “a knowledge of fine arts as an influence on the quality of architectural design.” The Board is satisfied that this competency is acquired Draft VB report for the BAS, BAS (Honours) and MArch (Prof) at University Free State October 2012
5
UFS, Department of Architecture | SACAP • CAA Validation Visit 2017 | Previous Validation Report
A.2.1.5 “an adequate knowledge of urban design, planning etc” The Board is satisfied that this competency is acquired A.2.1.6 “an understanding of the relationship between people and buildings etc…” The Board is satisfied that this competency is acquired A.2.1.7 “an adequate knowledge of the means of environmentally sustainable design.” The Board is satisfied that this competency is acquired A.2.1.8 “an understanding of the profession of architecture etc… “ The Board is satisfied that this competency is acquired A.2.1.9 “an understanding of the methods of investigation and preparation of a brief for a design project.” The Board is satisfied that this competency is acquired A.2.1.10 “an understanding of structural design, constructional and engineering problems etc…” The Board is satisfied that this competency is acquired A.2.1.11 “an adequate knowledge of physical problems and technologies etc… protection against the climate.” The Board is satisfied that this competency is acquired A.2.1.12 “the necessary design skills to meet requirements of clients and building users within the constraints imposed by cost factors and building regulations.” The Board is satisfied that this competency is acquired A.2.1.13 “an adequate knowledge of the industries, organizations, regulations and procedures etc…” The Board is satisfied that this competency is acquired A.2.1.14 “an adequate knowledge of project financing and cost control.” The Board is satisfied that this competency is acquired A.2.1.15 “an adequate knowledge of procurement processes in the construction industry including building contracts and documentation” The Board is satisfied that this competency is acquired 2.4
Standards: The work from previous years of these courses inspected during the visit was judged to meet required standards and the following comments apply: Design, theory and history – general The design, theory, and history assignments were well compiled and displayed. They were conveniently categorised for lowest pass, average, and high pass. The lowest pass work was justifiably so categorised. However, it was generally found to represent workable, well drafted, and reasonably well-detailed design work. The lowest pass work has been so termed perhaps because the highest pass work is of a very good standard, raising the quality-bar significantly. This must be said for all the years from the first to the final year. The average pass adjudged so is also very much acceptable as such and represents effort, process, and research towards the final form making by students. The highest pass showed a standard that can meet with the best standard anywhere in the world and showed a lot of effort in understanding complex issues and making a good attempt at deriving contextual form. History assignments showed the effort by students to at least access reading material in the context and put information together. It is, however, necessary for students to engage more critically in writing the assignments and to thus not only reproduce available information from source material. The somewhat inadequate understanding or comprehension of the subjects of history and theory may be due to the fact that students are still not trained in the skills of interpreting texts and writing in English.
Draft VB report for the BAS, BAS (Honours) and MArch (Prof) at University Free State October 2012
6
371
372
UFS, Department of Architecture | SACAP • CAA Validation Visit 2017 | Previous Validation Report
2.5
Advice 1. Demographic inclusiveness remains a problem. Clearly there are no quick fix solutions. Some suggestions which may be worth exploring include the following: • • • • • • • • • •
Build partnerships and networks with selected rural and township schools (with principals who are supportive) located in predominantly black communities in the Free State, through talks to learners by staff and students, visits to the Department etc.; Analyse the language medium as a potential obstacle to both the recruitment of black staff members and admission of black students; Target Afrikaans-medium secondary schools in predominantly black communities for potential intake; Further explore the proposal to broaden the selection criteria for bursary candidates beyond financial need to include academic excellence; Market the course nationally beyond the borders of the Free State (e.g. Gauteng, KZN), in partnership with local Institutes; Advertise bursaries in national newspapers; Continue efforts to develop bridging courses with a view to enhancing access inclusivity; Continue with the drive to attract high quality black staff members, South African or international. A diversity of voices is as important as government defined equity targets; Consider inviting prominent black architects, South African or international, to speak at the annual Sophia Gray lecture and exhibition – this would be a valuable opportunity to market the ALS nationally to potential applicants. Consider organising exhibitions of student-teachers’ works for the citizens to understand the scope of the profession and the focus of the college. This would help in building confidence about the relevance of architectural education among the citizens and also thereby to widen its field.
2. Promotion of Staff. It is regrettable that excellent teachers – highly respected amongst their peers in academia after decades of contributions in teaching – are still at lecturer level and that staff with good experience as good teachers are at junior lecturer level; It is also regrettable that a new applicant with equivalent qualifications and experience is appointed at a substantially higher level. 3. Building Relationships. Relationships can be improved: with related disciplines, with local and regional government, as well as with the broader community. In short, there is a need to build stronger bonds with diverse communities and disciplines. 4. Theory and History Subjects. It might help to provide individual attention in the form of tutorials and holding collective discussions among students to find theories relevant to the works they are analysing or designing. The lowest pass cases in design may also be treated similarly by holding individual crits, even if these have to be held more often, because the students do not lack a sense of design but perhaps rather the confidence to take it up to its final logical form with a certain amount of consistency. 5. Inter-disciplinary Reach. It would be desirable if there was greater cooperation and crossfertilisation between the adjacent departments of architecture and planning. There does not appear to be much cross-learning. 6. Facilities. The CAD lab is obviously inadequate, while the lack of a workshop remains a serious shortcoming. It would be good if the internet was more readily available to all students – via WiFi – in the whole building and especially in their studios. Additional printing and plotting capacity would certainly be appreciated. 2.6
Standard condition of approval: Any significant course changes must be notified to the CAA Validation Panel.
Draft VB report for the BAS, BAS (Honours) and MArch (Prof) at University Free State October 2012
7
UFS, Department of Architecture | SACAP • CAA Validation Visit 2017 | Previous Validation Report
2.7
2.7.1
Comments •
The organisation, hospitality and especially the presentation of materials have been exemplary.
•
The Department is justifiably proud of what it considers its unique characteristics: (1) Its refurbished building, (2) The Unit of Earth Construction, (3) The Winter School for Architecture, (4) its study tours, and (5) The Sophia Gray Memorial Lecture and Exhibition.
•
Members of the Visiting Board who participated in the previous validation visit noticed an improvement in standards. The programmes are well integrated and understood by students – there is a logical progression in the curriculum, and the layering between years is evident.
•
The building and its spaces are very special, and quite appropriate as an architectural teaching and learning environment.
•
Finally, and most importantly, the overall, well-coordinated programme and the evident teamwork received strong support from staff and students alike.
Transformation and equality Lack of demographic inclusivity was noted as a problem in the 2004 and 2008 Validation Reports. Statistics provided by the ALS for the years 2009-11 reflect an encouraging gender balance but little progress in raising the percentage of black students admitted into first year. Pass rates for black students are also worryingly below those of their white counterparts. The ALS is not unique in the challenges that it faces with regard to equity and transformation issues. Similar challenges are faced by other ALSs across the country as well as the profession and the construction industry as a whole. UFS perhaps finds itself in the eye of a "perfect storm" where locality, language and cultural context intersect to complicate and frustrate the efforts of the ALS to increase its intake of black students and throughput of black graduates. Efforts to change the status quo by the ALS are noted, including the twenty scholarships made available by the university to needy black students, reservation of places for black learners at the annual Winter School, as well as active attempts to recruit black staff members to the Department. However, perhaps a more direct and targeted strategy is needed to overcome this situation.
2.7.2
Identity The ethos and theoretical approach of the Department is underpinned by an inquiry into the making of place. The curriculum follows a well-defined and well-established framework for engaging with place and contextual influences (physical and more broadly social, cultural and economic). As they progress through the course, students engage with gradual increases of scales and complexities in the problems they are presented with. The Department has a distinct identity and pedagogy and is wellknown in the country for this. Whereas this approach and structure is one of the Department’s strengths, one could also argue that it could make for a somewhat predictable learning experience. It might be to the benefit of staff and students if this structure, and by implication then also content, are challenged at some strategic points. The presentation of the academic vision and teaching pedagogy by the faculties was well designed and presented. Considerable effort was made to interconnect the content of the course horizontally in the three steams of design-theory, history and technologies. This was also evident in the manner in which student evaluation feedback forms were prepared and received. The vertical tie-up was also well designed and further strengthened by conducting vertical studios. This was well presented and seemed to have met with considerable success as evident from the feedback received by the board in its meeting with students.
2.7.3
Language During the visit it was noted that students and lecturers only expressed themselves in English to the visiting board, whereas, historically, the University was an Afrikaans medium institution. It is noteworthy, and commendable, that University policy provides for dual medium instruction – English and Afrikaans. One Visiting Board member suggested that students should be allowed to express
Draft VB report for the BAS, BAS (Honours) and MArch (Prof) at University Free State October 2012
8
373
374
UFS, Department of Architecture | SACAP • CAA Validation Visit 2017 | Previous Validation Report
themselves in a language they understand; since the language of architecture is expressed in line and form, verbalisation is supplementary. In as far as the English language is concerned; there are challenges in grammar and sentence construction which should not be the case at University level. It is important to achieve a high degree of competency – in the language of choice. 2.7.4
Value of traditions, distinct projects and endeavours The ALS is known nationally for a range of activities and projects that enhance its reputation and contribute towards shaping its identity. The Board wishes to acknowledge the importance of these endeavours and at the same time encourage the ALS to expand on these and increase the benefit gained. The Unit for Earth Construction (UEC) is an internationally known and networked research unit that brings significant exposure to the ALS. The Environmental Built Solutions (EBS) design projects, presented in each of the academic years, are a notable contribution the research unit makes towards student learning. These projects could contribute significantly towards students’ understanding of principles guiding the design and use of sustainable systems.
2.7.5
Challenges faced The Department has experienced substantial change since 2008: the building housing the ALS has been very effectively remodelled, a new Rector and a new Dean have been appointed, and the new postgraduate academic programmes have become established. Due to both an internal academic review of course content and the impact of broader processes (such as administration) that have substantially changed, a feeling was expressed that the Department is entering a phase of consolidation and maturity. This sentiment is supported by the Board. A more diverse staff cohort has strengthened the Department, with the appointment of a good group of new academics, including two women. A challenge remains to attract ‘outsiders’ to the city and university. However, mindful of this the Department is ‘growing its own timber’, and good graduates have recently joined the staff cohort. The Department desires to establish a Green Lab, namely a workshop with a brick-yard that would offer the opportunity for hands-on experimentation with materials and building techniques. The Green Lab will include a unit for Earth Construction, as the knowledge that resides in this area of research needs to be captured better. The Department will soon commence with a sponsorship drive as a first step towards establishing such a lab. Sustainability, technology, and the processes of form making represent complex contemporary sensibilities that attempt to decode often diverse issues of aesthetics of architecture and socioenvironmental concerns. It would be useful to create room in the academics for a continuous debate and discussion on these issues as well as for their relevant expression in design. Finally, the Department acknowledges the need to understand the impact of new legislation and regulations on curriculum and academic programmes.
2.8
Signed: Chair of the Visiting Board (On behalf of the Visiting Board) __________________________________________________ CAA Representative Out of region ___________________________________________________________ CAA Representative In region ___________________________________________________________ Head of School: ___________________________________________________________ (Acceptance of the report and confirmation of matters of fact)
Draft VB report for the BAS, BAS (Honours) and MArch (Prof) at University Free State October 2012
9
UFS, Department of Architecture | SACAP • CAA Validation Visit 2017 | Previous Validation Report
3
Commentary
3.1
Self-appraisal and response to previous Visiting Board Report Although the outcomes of the previous Validation Visit (2008) were extremely positive, members of the Board who participated in the previous Validation Visit noticed an improvement in standards. The programmes are well integrated and understood by students – there is a logical progression in the curriculum, and the layering between years is evident.
3.2
Detailed review of courses:
3.2.1 Baccalaureus Architecturae Studiorum BAS 1 The range of courses and projects in the first year offers a good balance between free creative exploration, the building of foundational knowledge, and the development of basic skills. Students are challenged to interpret freely and are given good opportunities to experiment and explore. Design offers a range of good spatial projects of a manageable scale. The hut project remains a special project unique to the Department and it will be worthwhile for the work produced to be published and shared within the public domain. There is good integration across the different courses. Contrary to what one might expect, students appear to take the courses in Physics and Calculus very seriously and these courses seem to provide a good mathematical foundation. Students clearly appreciate and enjoy the History of the Environment course, generally stating their excitement when learning about different historical architectures. The focus on hand-drawing is commendable. BAS 2 The second year courses are well integrated and one gets the sense that students experience them as such. However, some of the design problems are still of a small scale and do not engage rigorously with issues of urbanity and the city. Architectural Design needs to be embedded in complex urban settings that address the issues of heritage, history-memory, and social-environmental factors that together make the process much more akin to real life situations, in addition to engaging with the articulation of built form. Projects of a larger scale and greater complexity, both in relation to programme and context, might be more challenging for students at this stage of their studies. There seems to be a very direct relationship between History and Design. This appears to be effective in challenging students to test design approaches and principles (i.e. proportioning and systems) in their own work. However, it might be beneficial, at the same time, to make stronger connections to contemporary architecture and theory. Students should at the same time ideally find their own precedents and should be encouraged and guided to analyse these more critically. With students moving onto the computer in second year, the drawings they produce lose definition. This is not unique to this ALS. Students struggle to convey qualitative aspects of design in computer generated drawings and at the same time drawing conventions become neglected. The Department might want to address this. BAS 3 From students’ comments for the year under review it is evident that a high level of integration is achieved between the different courses, more specifically so between theory and design. The projects put forward are appropriate and challenging, although there might be too many. Three projects make up the mini-thesis. It might be more beneficial for students preparing for higher level studies for this to be reduced to one comprehensive project, as this will offer them the opportunity to engage with it on a deeper level. It is commendable that students are allowed to critically respond to the proposed brief and programme. Draft VB report for the BAS, BAS (Honours) and MArch (Prof) at University Free State October 2012
10
375
376
UFS, Department of Architecture | SACAP • CAA Validation Visit 2017 | Previous Validation Report
It is also commendable that students are studying South African architecture in the History course. However, the high failure rate (6 out of 41 students) and low level of performance (1 distinction out of 41 students) may indicate that there is a structural problem that needs to be addressed. From lecturers’ comments on essays it is clear that more needs to be done regarding writing skills and academic finishing (basic understanding of referencing etc.). Issues around the students’ research and academic writing abilities clearly impact here. This will be commented on later. The work produced is more than sufficient to satisfy exit level outcomes and challenging enough in relation to knowledge required for further study. 3.2.2 Baccalaureus Architecturae (Hons) The four themes around which projects are developed are highly appropriate and seem to establish good values and to work towards strengthening the students’ social awareness and consciousness. The work that students have done in design and theory also illustrates that there is potential for overlap between the themes. Building science is very well integrated with the themes. 3.2.3 Magister Architecturae (Professional) Students are given the opportunity to choose their own topic. They commence with design immediately while at the same time developing a theoretical position. The degree is well constructed and well managed. Design and Construction are examined separately and within the individual projects they are relatively well integrated. The good students excel in this year. The work of the average to below average students could be improved by more critical analysis and contemplation of the theories and precedents adopted. The documents of these students tend to follow a more predictable arrangement of content. This should be challenged. In common with many other ALSs nationally, many thesis documents reflect an awkward transition between written analytical research and design. Perhaps this could be mitigated through the acceptance and encouragement of drawing and design as a mode of analytical research to be integrated with written work. 3.2.4 Construction and Technology This stream includes Building Sciences (BOW 106, 206, 306, 608, 708), Trigonometrical Drawing (GRT112) and Computer Draughting (GRT204). The construction subjects have now been integrated with the design courses. Both manual and CAD drawing assignments have been implemented. CAD drawing is only introduced in the second year to allow freehand sketching and drawing board techniques to be practiced. The staff members themselves are involved in intensive coaching in the studios. A general attempt has been made by the school to achieve competency and to give students an allround exposure to all subjects. The syllabus is adequately covered. The quality of achievements is quite evident. Realistic assessments on projects have been applied fairly and consistently. Whereas it is noteworthy that the course is conscientiously set out to focus of on the paradigm of sustainability, the concept is not adequately manifested in drawn Construction and Technology projects. Detailing that would suggest energy conservation, passive cooling, resource reuse and so on is quite sparse. One would hope this becomes more evident right from the first year. It appears that only one member of staff – Gerhard Bosman – is undertaking specific research in matters of sustainability. Perhaps the Department needs to bolster its staff contingent engaged in research in areas proximate to the sustainable development agenda.
Draft VB report for the BAS, BAS (Honours) and MArch (Prof) at University Free State October 2012
11
UFS, Department of Architecture | SACAP • CAA Validation Visit 2017 | Previous Validation Report
Whereas the external examiners interviewed were present and very cooperative, it is felt that their reports could be more evenly structured and in this way provide more comprehensive commentary on the various courses they examine. GRT204 Computer draughting: The name of this course is, on its own, inadequate. Computers are more useful than merely for draughting. Whereas this is taught from second year (which is commendable), much of the work seen right through to the BAS (Hons) appears very two-dimensional. There does not seem to be an appreciation of the role of line weights, scale of drawing versus annotation, drawing conventions, and so on. A key component of any CAD system is organisation/naming/sequencing. Any of the standard drawing/file numbering methods, for example Uniclass, should be introduced at an early stage – say in third year. It would be preferable if there were no multiple choice assessments at University level to get the students used to expressing themselves and considering alternatives. 3.2.5 Supporting subjects All the support subjects are relevant and logically related to the unfolding Design theme. None are evidently forming uncalled for blockages and they are all very clearly presented with rubrics and course outlines. Marks allocated accord with the portfolios and the ‘lowest passes’ are acceptable. The lecturers from other departments appear to enjoy teaching their Architecture students! Where problems have emerged these are being creatively tackled: as by for example NMA622 Research Methods in Architecture. [RH] This course was previously presented by the Planning Department. The person who presented this course mentioned the creative and proactive spirit that students of Architecture displayed towards the subject, but acknowledged that a course better geared towards their disciplinary knowledge will be more helpful. The ALS is in the process of developing a writing course specifically geared for students in architecture. This course will focus on aspects such as how to approach academic writing, the use of a mind-map to order thinking, how to find sources, how to state a thesis, and how to develop an argument. The Board strongly suggests that this course might be extended to include undergraduate students. 3.3
Resources
3.3.1 Staff The staff reflected on the importance of teamwork and it was clear to the Board that there was a healthy and high level of collegiality amongst them. Staff members are clearly very dedicated and appear encouragingly to adopt a proactive approach to overcoming challenges faced by the Department. They did raise issues related to pressures on them to come in line with the promotion policy. They explained that they were finding it very difficult to teach as well as do research. Architecture programmes are notoriously high on contact hours for staff, and this issue is not unique to this ALS. It was clear to the Board that staff take studio time very seriously and students commented that staff members often stay longer than required in studio and would often be available outside of studio time. The ALS is clearly proactive in addressing these challenges: the weekly research sessions are being taken seriously and are well attended. Staff members are truly battling to find time to get everything done. The Board noted that processes are underway to get professional work recognised as a creative endeavour. Staff explained that the promotion policy focuses on research, teaching and community contribution. They raised the concern that to be a good teacher is not regarded as of the same importance as research contributions. A high level of frustration exists over the fact that good teaching is not really appreciated. Staff expressed strong appreciation towards the interest and support provided by the Dean and the Rector. They felt that both these offices contribute well to the visibility of the Department.
Draft VB report for the BAS, BAS (Honours) and MArch (Prof) at University Free State October 2012
12
377
378
UFS, Department of Architecture | SACAP • CAA Validation Visit 2017 | Previous Validation Report
The administrative staff are very well appreciated and from their side expressed satisfaction with how they are dealt with. They explained that life in the Department improved as one got to know the quirks and characters among the academic staff. Postgraduate studies and research An activated research environment has been created by the introduction of a weekly research seminar that staff are expected to attend. It is also attended by all others registered for research degrees. This has been highly effective in bringing research forward as a focus area in that time is being set aside for it. A good number of staff members are registered for higher degrees. The Department will be challenged to create time for staff to focus on research, and ways of achieving this outside of ‘long leave’ need to be explored, such as teaching relief or a light load for those completing studies. Good institutional support is on offer for research. Meetings with the leadership of the University At the meetings with Prof Jonathan Jansen (Vice-Chancellor and Rector) and Prof Neil Heideman (Dean, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences) it became abundantly clear that the institutional leaders have a high regard for the Department of Architecture, and recognise the peculiarities associated with teaching and learning architecture. They seem quite aware of the challenges facing the Department, but also of the opportunities. 3.3.2 Students 40 students, three being recent graduates, participated in the discussion. The ‘A5 Student Council’ was well-represented and vocal. A diverse group of other students was present. The spirit among the students was exceedingly positive and supportive of the ALS and staff. Students showed a high level of enthusiasm and respect for the content of the course and their learning experience. Students raised a range of issues and some of these are referred to directly below. A student commented that it might be good for the ALS to have a compulsory year-out between undergraduate and postgraduate studies. The general feeling amongst students was that it is the choice of the students and that a large number of students take up vacation work or a voluntary yearout. Students appeared confident in their abilities to contribute to both small and large scale practices. Generally students had good experiences working in practice. Students opined that it would be beneficial to have a structured manner in which they were able to take a year-out between the 3rd and 4th years. Indeed, the idea of a year out is supported wholeheartedly. Numerous inadequacies in CAD and technology at fourth and fifth year level would easily have been overcome by the presence of an organised intercalary year. The students explained that they had an earlier informal mentoring system with first-year students being “auctioned off” to senior students. They acknowledged that this system was problematic in terms of how it could be perceived from the outside and also explained that this was no longer allowed in light of the institution’s strong stance against hazing. However, all agreed that it was a successful system in bringing new students in contact with experienced students. The ALS might consider introducing a more structured mentoring system as the students clearly benefitted and enjoyed the opportunity. Students clearly appreciate the range of student traditions that have become established in the Department. They referred to the first-year hat project and the introduction of first-year students to the rest of the Department. Reference was also made to the tours and site visits and specifically to the Vertical Studio introduced in 2012. Students are well supported to attend the annual Student Congress. The students also referred to the tradition of students helping out Master’s students with the final finishing of their thesis projects. There is a very good spirit amongst students; they regard themselves as responsible and profess to be taking responsibility for their own studies. They specifically commented on the accessibility of lecturers and stated that they were challenged to work hard. Students are encouraged to think independently. Draft VB report for the BAS, BAS (Honours) and MArch (Prof) at University Free State October 2012
13
UFS, Department of Architecture | SACAP • CAA Validation Visit 2017 | Previous Validation Report
Students regard improvements in graphics and representation as a challenge in the school. They raised concerns about some of the facilities, specifically the lack of network points in the studios (except final-year studio) and the lack of sufficient printing facilities in the Department (there being only one plotter). Students in residences find it very difficult to get to outside printing facilities. Students spoke highly of the studio culture, especially the vertical studio arrangement. Lecturer feedback on course work appears adequate. Students expressed confidence in the course structure and curriculum contents. 3.3.3 External examiners One invited member, who also happens to be a previous Head of the Department, explained that it was interesting to return as external examiner, as this offered the opportunity to view the work from ‘outside’. He felt comfortable that a high standard was being maintained. A local practitioner who examined the final year thesis stated that he was impressed with how degree content had shifted with the conversion to a structured Master’s programme. He felt that the design work and documents were at a good level but felt it might be good for students to more often refer to original sources. From the practice side he cautioned against thesis students being ‘over-pampered’ as they struggle with working independently when they get to an office scenario. This opinion was not shared by all present but still the Board would advise the ALS to guard against over-teaching, and to make sure that they foster genuine independence; the final year students – M.Arch.(Prof.) – should be given less direct instruction and instead be allowed to work more independently. Examiners commented on the good balance between design and technical resolution of design throughout the different programmes. There was agreement that this was evident in a strong wellbalanced programme. They commented that examination panel discussions tended to be open and frank, and rigorous but fair. They agreed that students conduct themselves very well in exams. One examiner advised that there might be a focus on a broader range of technologies. Whereas there was a strong focus on local technologies, it was felt that more attention could be given to new technologies and ways of building. Another examiner commented that students search for textbook solutions to technology, for details that they can copy. It was suggested that the ALS needs to find a way to make technology knowledge more accessible. It was also commented that drawing conventions are not up to standard and that drawings often lack information. It was felt that workshop facilities are needed. Language sometimes becomes an issue. One examiner of a postgraduate course had difficulty examining students as the person could not speak Afrikaans, but students have the option to present work in either Afrikaans or English. This is an issue faced by other dual medium ALSs and it is up to the ALS to consider possible ways of resolving this matter. The external examiners interviewed, the majority of who are practicing architects, agreed that students and graduates from this ALS were proficient all-rounders and that the UFS architecture graduate – at BAS, BAS(Hons) and M.Arch(Prof.) level – is adequately prepared for the workplace. 3.3.4 Facilities and equipment The campus of the University of the Free State achieves an urban setting that manages to separate pedestrian and vehicular movements, with priority given to pedestrians. Other memorable features include seats and benches that provide shaded pedestrian pavements and greenery, practical sculptures form pleasant places at almost every building, and different architectural expressions are offered within a harmonious environment. The Architectural building was recently refurbished and upgraded. It is an honest building with friendly environments, allowing a general interaction and integration of students and staff sharing generous exhibition space on two levels. It provides a wonderful teaching and learning environment. Shortcomings that it is recommended be addressed include the current CAD lab, the capacity and size of which is deemed inadequate for the number of students it serves, and the lack of a workshop where carpentry, metalwork and welding skills can be acquired.
Draft VB report for the BAS, BAS (Honours) and MArch (Prof) at University Free State October 2012
14
379
380
UFS, Department of Architecture | SACAP • CAA Validation Visit 2017 | Previous Validation Report
3.4
Conclusion A CAA representative commented that it was heartening to see a very well organised Validation Visit and the progress made by the ALS since his last visit there in 2008. The extension designed to the existing building makes additional space available and creates a very good atmosphere within the premises. The building and its spaces are very special, and provides an appropriate architectural academic environment. There is good teamwork among the staff and correspondingly a healthy academic environment all round and between the students and the lecturers. The staff respect the students and vice versa. The Free State ALS has obviously achieved higher levels than before and situated itself on a new plateau. However, it is encouraged to take heed of the above observations and thus realise true excellence.
4
Attachments
4.1
Documentation provided prior to visit: • •
•
th
th
SACAP Validation Report of 9 /10 and 11th October 2012; Part 1 – Self Appraisal Part 2 – Response to Questionnaire Part 3 – Appendices Part 4 – Previous Validation Report th Last SACAP Visiting Board Report of 8 November 2010. (Visit date : 28-30 July 2008)
4.2
Additional information supplied during the visit None recorded
4.3
Exhibition of student work: The presentation of materials was exemplary. The documentation provided to board members was clear and concise, and the verbal and visual presentations were well-prepared and communicated. Portfolios presented were orderly and labelled for ease of inspection.
Draft VB report for the BAS, BAS (Honours) and MArch (Prof) at University Free State October 2012
15
UFS, Department of Architecture | SACAP • CAA Validation Visit 2017 | Previous Validation Report
4.4
Record of meetings:
Day 1
Day 2
Introduction by Board Chairperson Meeting with staff that present of Board Members and by Head of support subjects ALS of Staff Members Meeting with Full Time and Part Presentation by staff of the outline Time Staff without the Head of the of the programme and of core ALS subjects that directly inform Meeting with Students and Alumni architectural design Private meeting with head of ALS Meeting with External Examiners (including an orientation tour of the Presentation of what the ALS premises) regards as its unique characteristics Lunch with Head and Staff Members of the Visiting Board divide their time between inspections of portfolios and other exhibited work
Private meeting of Visiting Board to agree on general findings and report content. Draft statement.
Day 3 Board collected at accommodation Work on report. Prepare for meeting with the VC. Finalise, print and sign off statement. Meeting with VC and Dean to convey essential findings and hand over statement. Meeting with staff and interested students to hand over statement. Lunch. Visiting Board departs to airport.
Visits to workshop, library, studios, computer facilities, etc., including informal discussion with staff and students SACAP Presentation to all students Exhibition of best work
Draft VB report for the BAS, BAS (Honours) and MArch (Prof) at University Free State October 2012
16
381
382
UFS, Department of Architecture | SACAP • CAA Validation Visit 2017 | Previous Validation Report
4.5 Course structure diagrams: As provided by the school prior to the visit. B.Arch.Stud.
Credits
First Year
Second Year
Third Year
B.Arch.(Hons)
M.Arch.(Prof.)
ONW 100 BOW 106 OGT 104 OGT106 GRT 103 GRT104 GRT 121 GRT122 GRT 112 FSK 112 WTW 142
Design Building Science
48 24
History of the Environment
24
Presentation Techniques
16
ONW 200 BOW 206 OGT 204 OGT206 TAR 206 TAR224 GRT 203 GRT204 KWE 204
Design Building Science
48 24
History of the Environment
24
Theory of Architecture
16
Computer Draughting Construction Science
16 16
ONW 300 BOW 306 OGT 304 TAR 306 TAR304 BKR 306 KWE 304
Design Building Science History of the Environment
48 24 16
Theory of Architecture Building Contracts Law Construction Science
16 24 16
ONW 600 BOW 608 OGT 604 OGT606 TAR 604 BMK 612 OMA612 BNA 622 NMA622 EOK 404
Design Building Science
48 32 16 24 16
SKR 791 BOW 704 BOW708 TAR 714 BPK 514 PAK 724 PAK714
Extended Research Essay
Photography Trigonometrical Drawing Physics Introductory Calculus & Statistics
8 8 8 8
History of the Environment Theory of Architecture Planning Methodology Design Methods in Architecture Planning Research Research Methods in Architecture Property Economics
8 8 16
100
Building Science Theory of Architecture Professional Practice
32 16 16
Professional Architect’s Practice
16
Draft VB report for the BAS, BAS (Honours) and MArch (Prof) at University Free State October 2012
17
UFS, Department of Architecture | SACAP • CAA Validation Visit 2017 | Previous Validation Report
383
Department of Architecture 205 Nelson Mandela Dr. Park West, Bloemfontein 9301 P.O. Box 339 Bloemfontein 9300 South Africa T: 051 401 2332 F: 051 401 7139 E: pretoriusy@ufs.ac.za www.ufs.ac.za/architecture