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

한국건축학교육인증원 인증기준의 학생수행평가기준 항목들에 대한 실사위원들의 인식조사 연구

  • Lee, Jun-Suk
  • 이준석
  • Received : 2015.03.03
  • Accepted : 2015.06.05
  • Published : 2015.06.30


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.


Architectural Education;Professional Architectural Degree Program;Accreditation;Student Performance Criteria


  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,
  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.

Cited by

  1. Quality Assurance in Architectural Education in Asia – On the Perspective of ‘Design’ Based Architectural Education and its Holistic Assessment vol.41, pp.2261-2424, 2018,