JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
A Study on Survey Result by the Site Visit Team Members for the Student Performance Criteria of the Conditions and Procedures of the Korea Architectural Accrediting Board
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
A Study on Survey Result by the Site Visit Team Members for the Student Performance Criteria of the Conditions and Procedures of the Korea Architectural Accrediting Board
Lee, Jun-Suk;
 
 Abstract
The Student Performance Criteria (SPC) influences directly to the content of school's curriculum for professional architectural programs, and also serves as evaluating tool of student works. The SPC must maintain a careful balance between the role as a criteria for concrete evaluation of various student performances and also it must allow qualitative and liberal evaluation for school's creative effort. According to the SPC survey result by the site visit team members of the KAAB, the current SPC seemed ambiguous as a criteria for evaluation and as a guideline for curricular contents. The study found that the ambiguity in SPC stems from being simply too abstract, inclusion of too much contents, and written in confusion with variety of knowledge fields. The study also identified areas of needed improvements and new approaches for amendment. Also the survey revealed that current educational needs and actual circumstances at schools ought to be considered for revising SPC. The study concludes that the SPC must set its fundamental goal much clearer at promoting performance-based comprehensive knowledge with problem solving skills, rather than identifying and listing of knowledge components, and it is crucial for all of us to agree on its goal.
 Keywords
Architectural Education;Professional Architectural Degree Program;Accreditation;Student Performance Criteria;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB) (2008). Comparative Analysis, 2nd & 3rd International Accreditation/Validation Roundtable Conference.

2.
Canberra Accord (2014). Canberra Accord Rules and Procedures.

3.
Ernst L. Boyer & Lee D. Mitgang (1996). Building Community: A New Future for Architecture Education and Practice, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 65.

4.
Lee, S. & Lee, J. (2005). A Study of Inter-relationship between Architectural Educational Needs and the Educational Contents in the United States. Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea, 21(5), 17-26.

5.
KAAB (2013). The KAAB Conditions and Procedures

6.
NAAB (1989, 1995, 1998, 2004, 2009, 2014). The NAAB Conditions & Procedures, National Architectural Accrediting Board, Inc., Washington D.C.

7.
NAAB (1977). The NAAB Criteria & Procedures, National Architectural Accrediting Board, Inc., Washington D.C.

8.
NAAB (2013). 2013 SPC Survey, http://www.naab.org

9.
Ryu, J. & Lee, J. (2009). A Research on the Assessment Process of Academic Curriculum and its Management System in Accreditation Procedures of Architectural Programs in Korea. Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea, 29(10), 176.