Architecture - Critical Account Part 2 RIBA Courses€¦ · Web view2019. 4. 9. · The Architecture Programme is constantly exploring the edge. The edge of the arts, the edge of

UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON

CURRICULUM DESIGN REVIEW:

School of Architecture and Design, Academic Programme in Architecture

Critical Account Part 2

1. Introduction

This is the Periodic Review element of the University’s Curriculum Design Review (CDR) carried out across the whole institution to implement a new Curriculum Design Framework (CDF) for Undergraduate (UG) courses. The CDF has five principles: practical wisdom; a curriculum structured for learning; enquiry and research-led teaching; staff and students working in partnership and inclusivity (See Critical Review Part 1 for details). Despite the fact that there was no requirement for the new CDF to apply to Postgraduate Taught (PGT) courses, the School took the decision that the improved principles of the CDF should be applied to the PGT provision where possible. This review has been carried out for all courses in the School of Architecture and Design.

The courses covered by this document are the three architecture courses currently due for periodic review:

BA(Hons)Architecture, RIBA Part 1 Masters of Architecture (MArch), RIBA Part 2 Management, Practice & Law in Architecture, PGDip, RIBA Part 3

Together they make up a complete route to achieving the title of Architect, registered within the UK. Architectural education consists of a three-year honours undergraduate degree, followed by a year in architectural practice (logged but uncredited) and a two-year, level 7, Masters of Architecture (MArch) course. This is followed by a minimum of twelve months employment in practice so as to gain a minimum of twenty four months (logged and credited) before taking the final post-graduate diploma course undertaken while fully employed within architectural practice. The latter is taught through block teaching and evening lectures. They all carry accreditation from both the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) and Architects Registration Board (ARB).

All three courses received re-validation from RIBA in November 2016. The Post Diploma course received re-prescription from ARB in May 2015. The BA(Hons) Architecture and Masters of Architecture course received re-prescription from ARB in May 2016. All three courses went through their last Periodic Review in March 2013.

Architecture Programme Academic Position Statement - See Appendix 1

Page 1 of 33UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON CURRICULUM DESIGN REVIEW: School of Architecture and Design, Academic Programme in Architecture – Critical Account Part 2 (February 2018)

This text is a requirement of the RIBA validation process, (latest in Nov.2016). It is the ethos that underpins all three courses in the Architecture Programme and will give you a flavour of the programme that the curriculum has been designed to support.

1.1. Scope of this document

The purpose of this document is to review the quality standards, resourcing and delivery of the courses within the five-year period since the previous Periodic Review. Note that this review is intended to be ‘backwards facing’ and to predate the Curriculum Review process and outcomes reported in Part 1 for the subject area. ‘Opportunities for enhancement’ and several other aspects of this review overlap with the scope of Part 1 of the Critical Account. To avoid duplication of content, where appropriate, the reader is referred to Part 1.

1.2. Type B courses covered by this document

BA(Hons)Architecture, RIBA Part 1 Masters of Architecture (MArch), RIBA Part 2 Management, Practice & Law in Architecture, PGDip, RIBA Part 3

BA(Hons) Architecture (RIBA Part 1)

This course went through a radical change at the last periodic review, bringing in vertical design studios (where 2nd and 3rd years are taught together – see Critical Account Part 1 for description) and framing the course under four subject areas – design, technology, architectural humanities and professional practices. This course structure has received excellent feedback from students and staff, external examiners and support from the recent RIBA / ARB revalidation. Therefore, we have used the CDR process to further revise and refresh this structure rather than radically reform the course.

The most significant changes have been through the further integration of teaching and learning across the subject areas of design, technology, architectural humanities and professional practices. This is particularly evident in the rewrite of our first-year modules.

The previous technology modules, although rich in content and individually popular among students and external examiners, did not follow an effective three-year rolling curriculum. Consequently, many students struggled to address technical issues thoroughly in their final design project in the third year.

Professional Practice, highly praised by external examiners and the RIBA validation board, has also been revised to be more formalised to students in the first two years of study. Currently, learning is embedded in year 1 & 2 through technology group work and post occupancy building studies. More formal delivery of content will help ensure student learning about professional practices is explicit through new module titles (see AD471 and AD474).

The course team also considered the current first-year of study to be too self-contained and not entirely suitable for progression from year 1 to year 2. The CDR process has been


utilised to revise the aims and ambitions of modules in year 1 and 2 to support more incremental development. This change is intended to increase progression rates in year 2.

The newly written modules now explicitly link design, technology, humanities and practice learning in year 1. This integrated approach helps students to develop a holistic approach to architectural design thinking. Year two modules build on this method and combine technology with practices in the development of their design projects.

The integration of Computer-Aided Design (CAD) has been a weakness of the programme and has therefore been designed to be more explicit within each of the new modules. To further support CAD within the school, staff and students have worked together to set-up a Computer Club. Computer club provides extra-curricular training on specialist software currently used in industry. Masters students and school alumni run these sessions. This initiative aims to promote the use of CAD alongside hand drawing as a method of architectural enquiry.

Level 5 Options Studies, always highly commended by external examiners, will continue to be shared with the School of Art and School of Media. The experience of interdisciplinary practices is highly valued and helps students to learn from practices in other specialisms and recognise the value of their expertise.

Masters of Architecture (RIBA Part 2)

The MArch course has been subject to more radical changes. Revisions to the course aim to support students to develop self-determined lines of architectural enquiry that build on initial concepts explored during their design studio, and architectural humanities (AH) group. In the final year, students' are required to develop an Architectural Thesis that have clear research aims a robust methodological framework and a strategy for identifying and obtaining necessary specialist input.

Central to the development of the course is the relationship between the four subject areas of design, architectural humanities, technology and professional practice. This has been addressed at both years of the course with Year 1 looking to increase core knowledge in each of these disciplines (especially for students who have come from other institutions) and then in Year 2 supporting students to take ownership of their future career path. The diversity of support available means that students can choose to direct their career development towards a chosen specialism, such as (but not exclusive to) project management, business start-ups, policy change, technical specialisation, community engagement, spatial design or further academic study in the form of a PhD. External examiners considered the previous course curriculum to be overloaded in year 2 and to compromise the students' ability to develop projects with sufficient architectural resolution; and so the credit weighting and the number of modules in the final year has been rebalanced. The last year will now work as a single major architectural thesis taught across three modules; this will enable students to co-create their curriculum through the development of their research project. This approach supports the development of projects that have personal significance to the student, fostering intrinsic motivation and deep


learning, as well as encouraging ambition and the development of projects that seek to push out towards the edges of the discipline.

In the final year a new 20 credit module [Research and Practice Specialisation] has been introduced to drive in-depth, research-led architectural enquiry. This module requires students to focus their investigation, within specific contexts and methodological frameworks, to support the development of technical, theoretical and professional skills that will underpin progress towards future career ambitions.The course is currently offered as both a full time and part course, with two, three and four year routes. The part time students are taught alongside full time students on the same modules but taking less of the modules each year, spreading the course over a longer period of time. This framework for part time learning and teaching will be continued with the new course structure.

Post-graduate Diploma in Management Practice and Law in Architecture (RIBA Part 3)

This course represents the last part of the formal education of an architect in the UK, drawing on the knowledge and experience that students have gathered throughout their time in the design and construction industries. Making sure that what the student learns is relevant, up to date and what employers are looking for is the course priority, so content is reviewed and enhanced annually, and sometimes during the academic year, should legislation or regulations change within this period. Applicants are told of any new content developments through the applicant portal. Due to this annual review of course content and relevance, the structure remains unchanged through this review, having been recently commended by external examiners and PSRB bodies.

Course Structure:The course comprises three two-day sessions, and one one-day session spread out across a 12-month academic year. They include lectures, seminars, role-play sessions and simulations on the various topics that make up the RIBA Part 3 criteria. These sessions are designed to support and develop each student's 'live' professional experience. They provide a creative and professional framework for further intellectual and professional development, as well as engagement in the design and construction industries beyond the completion of the course.

The three components are:

Recording and Planning Professional Experience and Development (20 credits). This module comprises the collation of the student’s professional experience with the submission of PEDRs (or certificates of professional experience) and career evaluation.

Case Study (40 credits). The case study is an 8,000-10,000 word piece in which the student reflects on the design and production of a project they have worked on whilst in employment, from conception to completion.

Principles of Professional Management, Practice and Law (60 credits). This module comprises a five-week open-book examination and viva-voce examination where


professional assessors will rigorously test the student’s knowledge and understanding of legislation, regulation, practice and management.

2. Critical account

2.1. How have academic standards, the quality of learning opportunities and the quality of the student experience been supported during delivery since validation/periodic review?

2.1.1. Recommendations and actions undertaken from previous Periodic Review

The 2013 Periodic Review was managed by the, now dissolved, Faculty of Arts. This event ran in conjunction with courses from the SoAD's Design Programme. Several recommendations at Faculty and College Level are no longer pertinent and have been reconsidered in the context of the new school structure.

Recommendations made to be taken forward into the following academic year, 2013/14 were:

Explore the use and development of the teaching and academic spaces. Develop a new undergraduate course to offer alternative pathways between all UG

courses.

Full details with comments and actions are listed below, Table 1:ADVICE ACTIONEnsure consistent and adequate time / support is offered to International students to secure Visas for field trips, and consider field trips within the UK.

Field trips timetabled so all international students are able to attend.

Seek guidance from Registry on UKBA issues on gaining employment after study / staying to attend graduation.

All international students retain a visa to attend graduation.

Take forward for a ‘shared vision’ of a reconfigured studio /staff office and resources space on the 3rd floor. * Weigh-up benefits / practicalities of longer studio hours. Liaise with students, staff, estates, Human resources / Occupational Health.

Ongoing – works have been carried out in 2015 and 2017, further works are planned for 2018.

Submit a joint plan & proposal to present with the Architecture programme to the Dean & Head of School for the shared vision and re-configured use of space on the 3rd Floor by 1st November 2013.

Ongoing – works have been carried out in 2015 and 2017, further works are planned for 2018.

Discuss across programmes (Arch, IAUS, Humanities) the viability and different links / option routes of the ‘Extended Practice’ proposal for an appropriate model.

N/A – other course developments superseded this proposal.

Ensure staff are aware of the need for REF submission and look into staff gaining teaching qualifications as advised in the UoB Strategic Plan (2012-15).

A three-year plan is in place to support staff in gaining teaching qualifications.Architecture staff were submitted in REF 2014.

Ensure that staff are aware of the Staff Development Review (SDR) process and that it is undertaken annually.

Ongoing and reviewed at University Level, with a new PDR process to be implemented in 2018.


1.1.2. Summary of the outcomes of academic health processes and external examiner reports.

The School of Architecture and Design is in the first year of its Academic Health process (revised by the central University in 2017). The new process comprises a series of Course Level Academic Health Reports which draw on information from External Examiners, Module Evaluation, Student Consultation Meetings, NSS (and the local BSS), PTES (Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey) data analysis (e.g. admissions, population and achievement, DHLE etc.). The course level report is used to produce a course level Action Plan. Each course level report and action plan is then distilled into a School Academic Health Report and associated School Action Plan. (Course level Academic Health reports are available to view on the workspace).

The External Examiners reports are reviewed at course and programme level meetings, written into the Academic Health process, sent annually to the ARB (PSRB body) alongside course responses, and examined through the RIBA validation process. During the RIBA re-validation, the panel meets with the external examiners, independently of the programme team, for an open discussion about their views on each of the courses. As such, the external examiners provide valuable critical insights to the courses, and their opinions are used to guide discussions at the Examiners Forum (PEF). Information gathered through this process is then taken forward to inform annual course and module reviews. (External Examiner reports are available to view on the workspace).

All Academic Health Reports have explored the potential for the introduction of significant structural changes to the course in response to the external examiners and RIBA feedback. Additionally, there is uncertainty regarding the future direction of Architectural education at PSRB level. Proposed RIBA changes would require a restructuring of both undergraduate and postgraduate courses. In light of this, changes to modules have been applied mindfully to maximise the efficiency of future large-scale change.

Outcomes from annual External Examiners reports.

The PG Dip. RIBA Part 3 has one External Examiner who oversees the Viva Voce examination of the students assessed by 6-8 External Assessors (depending on cohort number). Comments from External Assessors are collated through the External Examiner. There is one yearly Exam Board, held in October, after the annual examination.

The BA (Hons) Architecture and MArch courses share six external examiners, with two explicitly assigned to review the Architectural Humanities subject area (the primary written component in each course).

Over the course of the year, the BA (Hons) Architecture and MArch Programme hold two visits from the external examiners: an Interim Visit in February and a Final Assessment Visit


in June. Only the chief examiner attends the July exam board and September Referral Exam Board, feeding through others’ comments.

The Interim Visit is an integral part of the Programme calendar. It is used to introduce all external examiners to the current year briefs, the staff team, Programme / School changes and the ambitions for the year. The interim visit is an essential part of our feedback to external examiners and a starting point for future discussions. It allows for the summer exam board to focus on the work produced over the course of the year.

The Architecture Programme has chosen to retain the June Programme Examiners Forum (PEF) which follows the external examination process. The process enables the Chief Examiner to collate all views before the next exam board. The programme sees the PEF as invaluable to the external examiners' role and a valuable opportunity for all external examiners to discuss each course with all staff in an open discursive environment. The process further facilitates targeted discussion and strategic course development.

External examiners comments are addressed through two mechanisms: one, a written response to the external examiner's report sent in October detailing changes made over the summer and two, through discussions with external examiners at the February Interim Visit.

All marking and moderation practices are completed in line with University Regulations and ratified by the external examiners. External examiners all agreed that marking was rigorous, fair and consistent. One chief external examiner noted that "It is clear staff are conscientious and give a lot of time to fairness and equitable marking and assessment between studio/unit projects."

The external examiners commented favourably on the module delivery throughout both courses. In particular, Architectural Humanities dissertations and Professional Studies reports were highly commended. The design studios were seen to offer excellent studio leadership and set fascinating themes with well-framed methods of enquiry. Presentation and representation standards in design were observed to improve over the period significantly. However, the final design proposals were considered to be lacking in their degree of resolution. The cause of this was questioned by the external examiners, with particular reference to MArch level.

The following is a summary of the potential areas for development and improvement raised from the Externals over the period since the last Periodic review and the annual actions made in response. The majority of these fall under three headlines (refer to Appendix 2):

Space and Facilities have been raised as a grave concern for the student experience and ability to achieve success, by all external examiners, every year. We are continuing discussion with Estates and Occupation Health on making improvement to the quality of the teaching spaces and the facilities generally.

The two-year Masters of Architecture Programme suffers due to an overloading of curriculum in the final year. This has become more clear to external examiners over the years and their views have formed the basis of the changes to the course.


Integration of more computer modelling has been raised in recent years and has been considered through the Periodic Review process.

See Appendix 2 for a more detailed summary of External Examiners suggestions for development and improvement plans.

Recent commendations, actions and advice from 2016 RIBA re-validation process, Table 2

PSRB 2016 RIBA Validation commentsCommendations

The Board commends the sense of community between students and all levels of the staff team within the School. Furthermore, the appointment of the Student Support and Guidance Tutor (SSGT) which provides pastoral support to students and engages with their personal development is considered to be best practice.

The Board commends the innovative, exciting and engaging approach to Professional Studies throughout the School including the structure of the Part 3 examination paper format and the robust assessment processes.

The Board commends the attitude of the School towards the broader components of architectural education including Humanities, Technology, Professional Studies, and the opportunities presented by the Options Projects.

Action pointsThe School's attitude to the "taught subjects" sharing an equal status is commendable. However, on occasions, students are not applying the information received from lectures and seminars into their design proposals, particularly at M.Arch level where more freedom is afforded to students. The Board advises that minimum/core requirements are consistently put in place in project briefs to ensure that students do not avoid critical areas of criteria such as cost, sustainability, and production information. In addition to this, despite the research-led teaching agenda, an appropriate balance should be found between the research aspects of a project and the design resolution.

All Learning Outcomes have been reassessed through the Periodic Review

The Board was impressed with the level of ambition, trajectory, energy, and variety of the BA programme, and the cohesiveness of the teaching and support team. To aid further development, the School is advised to address the ability of students to evidence the integration of criteria within their design proposals and in particular the following: GC1 ability to create architectural designs that satisfy both aesthetic and technical requirements.

The revisions made to the technology curriculum in this Periodic Review is expected to improve this aspect of the student design project.

The Board recognises that the M.Arch is in a state of evolution but strongly advises the School to develop a clear identity for the programme and its studios, and enhancing the development between M.Arch 1 and M.Arch2. To aid this, the School is advised to address the ability of students to evidence the integration of criteria within their design proposals, and in particular the following:GC1 ability to create architectural designs that satisfy both aesthetic and technical requirementsGC5.2 the impact of buildings on the environment, and the precepts of sustainable designGC8.3 the physical properties and characteristics of building materials, components and systems, and the environmental impact of specification choicesGC10.1 critically examine the financial factors implied in varying building types, constructional systems, and specification choices, and the impact of

The M.Arch course has been radically rewritten through this Periodic Review.


these on architectural designWhile the students make use of various representational techniques as part of the iterative design process, there is a noticeable absence of final representations of the design proposals in their context and the internal spatial experience. The board encourages the School to extend the use of large-scale model making at both the building and site context scales, quality computer CGIs and other forms of media, throughout the process from conceptual development to the representation of the building in its entirety.

This is part of ongoing discussions at both Part 1 and Part 2 courses with design studio tutors and students.

AdviceWhile the Board was encouraged by the ambitions of the new Vice-Chancellor and the opportunity for the new Head of School to grow the School (particularly at Part 2), they were also concerned that the current studio space allocation and support facilities such as workshops are already stretched (including limited opening hours). They highlighted that growth in student numbers would compromise the student experience and School operation. There is already a sense of "having to make do" and with a "culture of making", this agenda is potentially being compromised by the limited physical resources.

Ongoing discussions with the Estates Department.

The School's studio system is well established, and the undergraduate vertical studio system brings many pedagogical benefits such as the peer review system. The Board advises that this is extended to the MArch programme to foster a stronger connection between the BA and MArch courses.

Cross reviews have between courses have been introduced alongside Peer Assisted Student Supervisors (PASS) and student led computer club.

While the day-to-day operations of the studios are diverse, the Board suggests that the School debate the merits (or not) of more explicit visual identities for the range of studios at both BA and MArch level.

Visually identity of studios is derived from studio agendas and research specialism. As such the studio identity evolves from the work rather than a preconceived idea.

Brighton enjoys a unique physical, social and political position in the UK regarding its 'edge' condition and its political green agenda and credentials. The sense of the city could be more evident in work, and while the School has world-class research in sustainable design, there are student projects that do not engage more comprehensively with this. Attention to 13.1 above will help to address this missed opportunity and in particular GC5.2.

Studio tutors are encouraged to develop studio briefs that engage with the county of Sussex, including the City of Brighton & Hove. Sustainability is taught across all modules with some studios fore-fronting different elements of sustainability.

Regarding 11.1 above, the School are encouraged to utilise the stable base of its community and the student society to challenge students to be more pro-active, push the boundaries of critical thinking, embrace the edges of contemporary architectural discourse and design, and take more risks.

BIAAS receives ongoing support within the school and is encouraged to be pro-active and challenge accepted norms, but the student body struggles to fulfil their ambitions for it alongside curriculum commitments. The programme is discussing making the running of BIAAS a Level 5 Option so that credits are attached to it and a dedicated tutor supports it.

The School's approach to External Examiners, i.e. looking at both the undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, is interesting and brings many benefits. However, the Board advises the School and University to reconsider the format of the External Examiner reports so that the BA and M.Arch courses are more specifically referred to within these reports and to aid future response by the course teams. Furthermore, while the University of Brighton only requires a 10% sample to be seen, the Board encourages the School to increase the sample to allow the Examiners to see a greater representation of the work across all of the design studios.

Under discussion, but currently unchanged.

Outcomes of academic health processesThe previous Programme level reports for the Academic Programme in Architecture are available on the workspace. Individual Course level reports for the 2016/17 Academic Health process are also available.


The headlines that have emerged in the last five years review period are as follows:

Recruitment: Historically strong for the BA (Hons) Architecture course (between 100 - 130 new students each year) but, despite excellent NSS results, conversion numbers have dropped in the last two years. Although targets have been met through summer clearing, it is considered that this drop is likely linked to poor facilities in comparison to competitors and the cost of accommodation in Brighton. We do not have explicit evidence to support or refute this, but anecdotal evidence suggests this is likely the case.

MArch numbers have been dropping since the last periodic review (40 highest, 20 lowest for new intake) with a drop in EU student numbers. Brighton undergraduate students have gained places on alternative courses - usually in London, post year out, and more in the EU following the increase of English speaking courses and the low cost of and EU education (i.e. not fee). Part time student numbers are around 3 each year. Numbers on the Part 3 course has increased annually and now has around 25 students completing registration each year.

Retention: Particularly strong across Architecture programmes with only 5-10 students withdrawing each year.

Progression: Although retention is healthy, many weak and failing students choose to continue their studies - with poor attendance and poor grades. This retention leads to poor progression rates. However, the upside of this is that more students complete courses with higher final grades - having benefited from an extra year of study to complete the course. Therefore, lower progression rates do not equate to degree failure or poor final achievement.

Achievement in all three courses has increased with a greater number of higher degree awards, and distinctions and merits at PG level. Although the number of students graduating with 2:1 or 1st dropped slightly in 2016/17 on previous two years (61%), the overall average is an improvement on 5+ years ago. At MArch there was a significant rise in Merits awarded from 2014-15, with 44% receiving merit. In 2015-16 12.5% were awarded distinctions; this is also an overall rise from 2014-15.

Student satisfaction: The UG course had excellent NSS. Scores for both 2014/15 (95%) and 2015/16 (95%). Out of the seven NSS areas for questions, four were over 90% including overall satisfaction at 95%, with the other three being over 85%. However, in 2016/17 it dropped to 75% overall satisfaction. This was linked to a drop to 60% satisfaction with learning resources. However, in seven out of nine areas the school remains above UOB average, and six out of nine remain above the sector average.

Graduate destinations: We have a good employability record on the course with the latest employment figures on the Unistats website showing that we have 85% of the graduating cohort finding work within six months of leaving, with 75% of that group going into professional or managerial jobs. Of the number surveyed 70% of leavers from MArch were in full-time work, all listed as 'professional/managerial' within architecture, 4.3% were working alongside further study and 4.3% were due to start work. The sample size for the PI


is low for each course. This year the course team is working more closely with the careers service in helping form a larger sample size to ensure the data reflects a more accurate picture of employment.

Diversity: Architecture courses are usually around 60% female and 40% male, and with female students tending to achieve higher awards. Statistically, students with disabilities do as well as other students; this is partly due to the level of support they receive from academics and student services, the variety of teaching methodologies of design, our integrated SSGT, and the use of extensions of time designed into the timetable. The data for BME students fluctuate annually from having similar progression rates to white students but obtaining less high achievements in amongst some groups. There is no explicit identifiable trend to BME due to BME covering so many diverse groups. This is being looked into in detail during the current year.

2.1.3. Summary of changes to programme/module specifications that will enhance academic standards, learning opportunities and quality of the student experience.

The new curriculum comprising 20 credit modules.SoAD have used a 20-credit module currency since 2013.

More emphasis on formative assessment.All courses and modules in the School have included a formative assessment task where students will receive formal feedback and feedforward information telling them what they need to do to complete the module. Module Specifications and Module Handbooks will describe the range of feedback and

feedforward opportunities (verbal, written, online, tutorial, review crit, draft submission) and how they can be used to inform project work.

Design modules have linked a Formative Assessment Tasks and Summative Assessment Tasks to define the size and scope of the Summative portfolio submission. This will be done through written feedback and through discussions with each student.

Written assessments (e.g. Dissertations and technical reports) will receive formal written feedback based on a final draft submission.

Variation of assessment.Although the variation of assessment is available in most modules, summative submissions for design modules are agreed through discussions between student and tutor. This process places the student at the heart of the decision-making process (linked to formative feedback - See section 3, Critical Review pt1). Additionally, students are offered a range of teaching experiences, Vertical Design Studio, (See section 2.2.1, Critical Review pt1) and can agree to alternative assessment tasks in at least 50% of their modules at each level.

The assessment structure for design modules includes an innovative approach to the variation of assessment. Rather than offering a choice between a limited number of distinct options, we have allowed a more flexible scope for assessment are agreed by the student in consultation with tutors.


Students have a significant degree of agency in how they learn and how they are assessed because each studio emphasises different methods of working (CAD, hand drawing, models…) and different pedagogical approaches and formats.

New Research Practices module for PGT courses.Since September 2011 the MA courses in the school (excluding MArch) have shared a Research Methods module in collaboration with the PhD Student Division, with MRes and other MA students from across the former College of Arts and Humanities. The sharing of this module has helped to broaden discussions, establish the particular position of each student in their discipline while acknowledging and taking into account different approaches.

The breadth and diversity of disciplines that have shared the module have been problematic and has led to complaints from students, who have not achieved good results, and consistent calls from External Examiners for a new SoAD-based module that may respond more directly to the concerns of Architecture and Design.

As from September 2018, the new Research Practices module will be shared between Level 7 MA courses and the MArch course and led by staff from the Architecture Programme. The fundamental aim of the module is to develop an advanced understanding of the integration of research into design practice, expanding knowledge of the values and range of approaches to design-based research with adjacent disciplines. The position piece outcome of the module will be a negotiated balance of text and non-text-based materials such as images, audiovisual material, physical and digital models, maps etc.

2.1.4. Reflect on the continued relevance of aims and learning outcomes of the courses and on any proposed changes.

At Exam boards, Programme Examiners Forum, and in the External Examiners annual reports, our Externals have repeatedly confirmed that our courses are high quality and are comparable with national standards at other UK institutions.

Our course teams include staff who are experienced External Examiners, staff who have participated in validation events at other institutions, have delivered external workshops, both nationally and internationally and play critical roles in national organisations such as RIBA. We are therefore confident that the courses reviewed here are relevant and continue to deliver suitable aims and outcomes.

For synopsis of proposed course changes return to 1.2 “Courses covered on this course” at commencement of this document and critical account Part 1.

2.2. How is student feedback used and how are responses to student feedback managed?

2.2.1. Summary of the processes for collection of student feedback.

As described in the Critical Review pt1 document (Section 1.4: Student Consultation), the School of Architecture and Design meets students regularly. Staff have an open-door policy, so that short-term issues that affect the student experience can be dealt with promptly


through informal interaction. More formalised mechanisms for collecting student feedback provide us with clear information about the issues that concern students:

Student Representatives from all cohorts at least once a term in Student Rep. Meetings Open student Voice Meetings that often use the BSS/NSS questions as a basis for

discussions. End of module evaluation questionnaires. Feedback from Brighton Students Survey (for Level 4 and 5), National Students Survey

(for Level 6) and Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PGT courses). Student Consultation for PSRB validation.

Student Representative Meetings

Student representative meetings are arranged during the later stages of each term. This allows students to make more informed decisions about issues to be discussed and priorities for the meeting. All student consultation meetings are attended by the Course Leader, year and module leaders when appropriate, the workshop manager and the Student Support and Guidance Tutor (SSGT). Separate meetings are held for undergraduate and postgraduate courses. Typically, a wide range of programme and module-related issues are discussed, as can be seen in the minutes of these meetings available on the CDR workspace and summarised in AH reports. Where possible, problems are dealt with immediately following the meetings. Students are informed of actions via their course representatives, or directly via minutes of the student consultation meetings made available on studentcentral and emails to specific cohorts as appropriate.

PSRB Student Meetings & Appraisal For the RIBA validation in November 2016, a group of students for each of the three course are asked to put together an independent course appraisal for the board to read prior to their visit. The five areas they are asked to comment on are Course Structure & Delivery, Representation, Facilities, Contact Time and Links with profession. The areas the students raised as future considerations for BA(Hons) Architecture were; the technology modules, architectural student voice within the University, and poor facilities. At MArch the questions was raised as to whether Professional Practice modules could be run in MArch 1 leaving more time for design and technology in MArch 2, and an increase in model making facilities, and model storage. These appraisals can be found on the workspace. The RIBA Validation panel also run an open student meeting during their visit to discuss all issues raised within their appraisal.

Open Student Voice MeetingsThese are new this year, 2017/18, taking place over lunch to allow for informal debate around particular School, course and module matters that feed into the BSS/NSS survey. They have been used to discuss the current structure alongside future changes, and as a method of listening to more voices.


End-of Module Evaluation End-of Module Evaluation by student cohorts has been undertaken for many years within the Programme. From 2017, all End-of Module Evaluation is to be held in an online repository, along with

all other material that is collected through the School to inform the Academic Health process.

Formats for End-of Module Evaluation have been discussed by Deputy Heads for Learning and Teaching across the University and will be formalised across the University in 2018. SoAD courses will adopt this new metric-based approach, but will retain module specific qualitative analysis as part of the students’ learning.

Module Evaluation Reports will be produced with action plans. These will feed into course level Academic Health.

End-of Module Evaluation documentation is available in the CDR workspace.

Brighton Student Survey (BSS)This was instigated University-wide in 2015-16 and aims to gather the views of students during the first and second year of their course so that issues can be dealt with quickly while students are still undertaking their course. By using a format of questions that are similar to that of the NSS, it is hoped that students will be familiar with this format by the time they are asked to complete the NSS. The online survey is anonymous, as with the NSS, and involves scoring levels of agreement with statements as well as ‘free text’ responses.

National Student Survey (NSS)The SoAD response rate from the NSS is high, and similar to the University and National average. The Academic Health reports for the subject area, available in the CDR workspace, provide detailed analysis of the NSS results for the courses under review.

Postgraduate Taught Experience SurveyUptake of the PTES survey has been poor and we have not been in a position to use this valuable opportunity to evaluate and inform the development of courses. From 2018 all PGT Course Leaders in the School will make a concerted effort to encourage their students to carry out the PTES survey and take the opportunity to let us gain feedback.

2.2.2. Examples of how student feedback has led to enhancements or improvements.

Examples of how student feedback has led to changes and improvements, as well as enhancements and extensions of activities they identified as valuable, are found through the Academic Health reports. Some of the notable highlights are as follows:

After the last Periodic Review, the MArch level students raised concerns over the studio spaces, reporting there was insufficient space to work and the studios disparate locations limited interaction and building of a course identity. In response to this feedback the current MArch studio space was agreed and developed in 2015. A single


large space was divided into four new studio spaces. Each studio space was designed to have a large central shared table, individual workspaces with pin up space around the edges, a large pin up wall for in-studio reviews and a store cupboard. The student cohort is very positive about their studio space, but have requested more storage space for models.

Module feedback for AIM706, the integrated technology module running alongside the major design project (AIM705) in MArch2, raised queries over the relationship of the submission of the two modules. This feedback was used to inform an alteration to the timetabling of the submissions, and also led to evolutions in the running of the module to enable the final weeks to engage purely with the integration of technology into the portfolio.

Students’ feedback that earlier timetabling of lectures within the MArch 2 Architectural Humanities module would assist the development of their work. It was also noted that a concentration on tutorials as the module progressed would be beneficial. These changes to the timetable were implemented in the following year.

On-going student feedback on limited opening hours and no weekend access led to the introduction of extended hours and Saturday opening. Further feedback on requests for access to computer and some printing facilities during these hours led to a further extension of these provisions where feasible.

Student Consultation Meetings have alerted us to issues relating to printing queues and costs, access to scanner rooms and access to workshops. In response we have recently procured a new printer that will output documents up to 4 times faster at a little under half the previous price, the scanner room is now permanently open and the workshops are no longer closed for maintenance on Wednesday afternoons.

Feedback from students in all courses has let us know about their dissatisfaction with the Schools premises and facilities. This has allowed us to lobby the University for support in establishing a programme for improvements. (Refer to Critical Account Part 1 for clarification of the importance of a studio to architecture students.)

For the RIBA student appraisal, the BA(Hons) Architecture students highlighted the strength of the existing course level timetabling approach, which prioritises student workload planning so that they have adequate time to respond to each formative or summative assessment.

At BA(Hons) Architecture, comments from some students about the difficulty of integrating their design and technology work, timetabling of third year technology has been developed to include more explicit coordination with design projects, with staff and students participating in cross subject reviews and tutorials at key points. This has enabled staff to improve their coordination with each other (being mostly part time, they do not have a chance to meet otherwise) while still retaining the challenge of the structure, which imitates that of practice where architects must manage multiple design conversations with different consultants and stakeholders.

BA(Hons) Architecture students requested that the course leader’s ‘explaining assessment’ presentation in 2015-16, be moved earlier in the year in 2016-17. This was counterproductive however, as it resulted in our lowest NSS results for assessment and feedback, presumably because the important message within the presentation was lost amongst all of the other information at the time, or perhaps because students needed to have received some summative assessments for the presentation to be valuable. In


2017-18, the presentation has been expanded (responding to NSS comments) and has happened twice, enabling increased depth of discussion in the second version.

2.2.3. How responses to feedback are communicated to students.

Students are informed of actions following Student Consultation meetings via their course representatives, or directly via minutes of the SCC meetings made available on studentcentral and emails to specific cohorts as appropriate. The student body are informed of immediate actions via email (e.g. extend opening hours of the workshop and new printing facilities). Urgent matters are communicated via year and studio Facebook groups and the mobile text-messaging tool so we can communicate directly to individuals, groups of students, year groups, or the whole School.

Significant changes, or those that are a result of the longer-term surveys such as the NSS, are discussed with all courses at the start of each academic year, at the year cohort introductory talk.

The University has set up course blogs for ‘Your Voice Matters’, informing students of pivotal changes in response to requests. From 2018:

Staff will be encouraged to use this means of communicating to celebrate changes. Module Evaluation Reports for the previous year will be uploaded to this area with the

text: “You may be interested in the action plan that is shown at the end of the report. This explains what the module tutors are doing to improve the delivery of the module.”

2.3. Resources in place to deliver the course and their efficient use.

2.3.1. Number of Students registered on courses.

BA(Hons) Architecture numbers have stayed relatively stable over the last 5 years.

MArch is seeing a considerable drop. With the success of our UG courses, students are increasingly confident to explore and expand their horizons by successfully applying to Postgraduate courses in other cities, notably London, where there are now seven MArch courses. Students are also looking to study in Europe and Scandinavia as more Universities offer English speaking courses with no attached tuition fees. Our MArch course has also seen a drop in Greek and Cypriot applicants due to the economic climate in these countries. The School has identified this course as an area for growth and are discussing the future marketing of this course.

The Part 3 PG Diploma continues to grow as, since the recovery of the economy from 2008, more architectural assistants have gained access to project management in practice, allowing them the experience to apply for Part 3 courses. Students find that the course structure works well with their employment commitments.


Course 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018**Numbers taken from term 1 registration and include repeating studentsBA(Hons) Architecture (Part 1) 302 314 313 315 307M.Arch (Part 2) 103 97 66 60 56PG Diploma (Part 3) 18 18 33 34 TBC

2.3.2. Summary information on staffing and learning resources available for use on the programme.

Staff and recruitmentIt is a key feature of our programme that there is a mixture of staff active in both architectural practice and academic research. To ensure the staff develop as a team, it has been a programme objective that the numbers of staff balance with the needs of course teaching and teaching related administration workload, and become increasingly sustainable to avoid overloading of a few staff. In 2011 the nos. of permanent contracts were equivalent to 15.65 FTE. In 2016 this had been increased to equivalent of 20.95 FTE, reducing to 19.8 FTE in 2018. The ambition has been to enhance existing fractional staff posts to full time and then increase the numbers of new fractional staff. This ensures that the hard work of existing staff is acknowledged whilst bringing in fresh ideas, specific to subject areas. This thinking has been applied across all modules and all courses so as to consolidate staff teams and subject areas.

The Administrative staffing remains with the equivalent of 2.7 full time staff within our programme comprising one senior administrator and 1.7 administrators. Admissions has now been centralised within the University. The technical staffing has increased slightly with five full time members of staff including a workshop manager, an ICT manager, and five specialist technical demonstrators.

The following is a comparison of staff levels between 2013/14 and the current level. The academic staff numbers cover those that teach directly on the course. HPL/VL staff numbers range from 4 to 25 days of teaching. No one-off lecturers are included in the numbers. Admin and technical staff numbers cover the full School.

Nos of contracted academic staff

FTE equivalent HPL/VL staff numbers

Admin FTE equivalent staff

Technical FTE equivalent staff

2013/14 28 19.75 30 4.6 4.42017/18 31 19.8 20 5.2 5.6

ResourcesResources for the School of Architecture and Design have been, and remain a significant issue. The suite of teaching spaces on the third floor of Mithras House have had a significant refurbishment since 1976. Minor work was carried out in 2015 and 2017, further works are planned for 2018, however these are not significant enough for us to provide appropriate learning environments and or to compete with the teaching spaces of our competitors.

Key Factors that need addressing:Page 17 of 33

UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON CURRICULUM DESIGN REVIEW: School of Architecture and Design, Academic Programme in Architecture – Critical Account Part 2 (February 2018)

The School of Architecture and Design is not included in the University’s estate development plans.

The School’s main workshop on the fourth floor of Mithras House is about to be closed to due Health and Safety considerations. This has to be moved into the BAIA studio space on the third floor. At this point there are no arrangements in place for the course to take over any additional space to replace that lost.

Teaching spaces for seminars and lectures need refurbishing; new furniture and outdated PC’s, projectors and TV monitors need replacing.

The two computer suites (each with 20 workstations) need refurbishing and will need new computers in the next 12 months.

Sound proofing is an issue across the third floor with very few walls offering sound proof barriers.

Studios are overcrowded and difficult to maintain safely as evidenced in NSS, BSS and PTES surveys. Current School proposal includes moving staff offices to the second floor to extend the studio and teaching spaces on the third floor.

There is inadequate storage, especially in term time when students are required to store models and artefacts for examination and exhibition. Current proposal includes converting the fourth floor into an archive to alleviate this.

Since the School was established in 2016 we have been working towards improving the workshop facilities which are small and dispersed throughout the 150m long building over two floors. We have taken the closure of the fourth-floor workshop as a positive and have proposed the following:

Consolidate the technical facilities in one space to reduce movement and extend opening times.

Create a clear technical offer in the form of established taught workshop activities that will support studio learning.

Establish taught sessions for all new students where they can learn skills and processes and gain experience to use the workshop efficiently.

Provide local technical facilities in close proximity to the design studios to support efficient student experiences and workflows.

Create the spaces and opportunities that support discussions between academics, students and the technical team.

Establish a platform for the exchange of making based design knowledge and project briefs so they can be fully supported by the technical team, avoiding surprises and inappropriate / unrealistic ambitions.

Library provision for the courses has continued to expand, despite a drop in NSS satisfaction in 2017. Electronic resources are supplementing paper-based materials. Examples are e-books of popular textbooks and online access to an extensive range of journals. The ‘Reading List’ tab for each module on Studentcentral links to an Aspire reading list with clickable links to the resources, including University of Brighton library holdings if available. The Aspire page can be organised into sections corresponding to particular themes or assessments in each module, as desired by the module leader.


2.4. Consider the course in terms of national developments in the subject area and other external reference points, including PSRB requirements as required

As noted previously, all three courses were successfully revalidated in November 2016 by the RIBA and in May 2016 by the ARB. Through this process the courses have been through two forms of close scrutiny to ensure they reflect current practice and content within their subject area. Five members of staff external examine on other Architectural courses, six fractional members teach architectural design in other universities and ten fractional members of staff work in practice alongside teaching. All HPLs are practitioners. Two members of staff sit on RIBA validation boards for visits to other Schools of Architecture and the Deputy Head of School for Learning and Teaching / Academic Programme Leader sits on The Standard Conference of Heads of Schools of Architecture, SCHOSA. This ensures the teaching in all modules is annually updated to reflect current practice and subject considerations.

The RIBA validation panel set out four points for action and five point of advice (see Table 2 under 1.1.2). Of the four points for action, two relate to clarity in the delivering on five of the 33 PSRB required learning outcomes, one at BA level and four at MArch level. These have been actioned through revisions in the delivery of technology at BA, and the re-configuration of the course at MArch level. The other two action points related to increasing the students’ awareness of applying core knowledge learnt in lectures and seminars to their design proposal, and ensuring all final design projects be clearly resolved through final models and renderings. These issues are being addressed through looking at the delivery of lectures always being followed by a workshop or seminar, writing clear criteria of expected outcomes for every design project and considered timetabling and brief design to ensure the time for students to resolve their projects, following formative assessment.

Of the five points of advice, three have already been acted on, or further enhanced to ensure more course crossovers for students through reviews, more briefs that respond to the local context and clarity of visual differences (or similarities) between all the design studios. Two are advice at University level, (facilities and external examiner templates) that are being discussed with the appropriate departments.

It should be noted that through the ARB re-prescription, further clarification was required by the University on the School’s longer-term plans to address issues with the physical resources available for the delivery of the BA (Hons) Architecture and MArch, in response to the ongoing External Examiners concerns on this matter and the understanding that there was no comparison of the standard of facilities with the offer from other Schools of Architecture.

The RIBA continues to lead on future changes to the delivery of architectural education within the UK. The changes could potentially lead to a radically different route to registration. The School is part of these discussions and there are programme diagrams being discussed about how to respond to these changes should they be brought in for this subject area. The programme is not intending to set up an apprenticeship course in the near


future, but is looking at it closely for the MArch Part 2 course with an increase of interest in its part time route. 2.5. Identification of good practice and opportunities for enhancement

Examples of good practice within courses (N.B. much good practice is noted in the Critical Account Part 1 and in the RIBA validation documentation and the Academic Position Statement):

Research led teaching: for example research undertaken by the design tutors informs their design studios.

Research based teaching and enquiry led learning: students are asked to learn through discovery.

Co-creation of the curriculum: students develop their own design briefs and determine their research focus for architectural humanities dissertations and technology reports, enabling the work to become personally meaningful, engaging intrinsic motivation and deep learning.

Peer learning: Peer learning initiatives offer engagement for the students, across years and with returning graduates. Portfolio workshops led by graduates enable current students to discuss their own evolving portfolio with a recent graduate. This has offered the opportunity for the passing on of wider course experience, and has been of particular benefit to final year students. MArch students gain experience as critics in undergraduate reviews and Third Year students as critics in First year reviews, offering peer engagement across course and level boundaries. The vertical design studios within the course enable students across years, to work alongside each other, offering strong peer support and mentoring opportunities. PASS (peer assisted student support) has been embedded into the course with about 20 third year students receiving training to work alongside a 1st year tutor to offer drop-in sessions for 1st year students to help improve their skills and confidence.

Group Work: this can be found across most modules in both the undergraduate and postgraduate courses. For example Design studios ask for group master planning, site models, peer-to-peer reviews. The technology module set up 1:1 group builds and shared report writing whilst the humanities modules require collective books of essays. At Part 3 the students engage with each other in role-play to understand the nuances of relationships and responsibilities in professional practice. Group work mimics the profession where collective work is more common than individual projects.

Student Module Evaluations have been adopted across all modules. This has been introduced as both quantitative but also qualitative, reflecting the same questions asked of students during module feedback, so reinforcing the learning experience.

Student self-assessment sheets have been implemented offering the opportunity for students to reflect on their own progress and request further feedback in specific areas. These sheets are used at all design reviews and used to inform feedback from staff.

Links to the profession: external visiting critics from practice and engagement are invited to reviews throughout the year.


External engagement: MArch 1 group technology projects on structural and material prototyping, develop new pavilions for Bexhill's De La Warr Pavilion, culminating with an annual public exhibition and pecha kucha.

External engagement: Many of the design studio briefs have embedded community engagement and live project work, embedding professional practice and outward facing considerations into the projects. For example, undergraduate Studio 55, ran a successful and widely published Live Project around themes of the Market and the Carnivalesque. Working with the community group Carnival del Pueblo in South London, the students developed ideas of pop-up market stalls with two being built for the summer carnival at Elephant & Castle.

A curriculum of choice: at both UG and PG level, the offer of a wide choice of studio briefs in the design modules allows the students to develop their own career pathway.

Proposed changes that build on existing good practice or provide specific opportunities for enhancement:

A curriculum of choice: this is one of the tenants of our programme and continues to be supported and enhanced within the CDR by retaining choice of design studios and developing specialisation at MArch level.

At BA(Hons) Architecture, the successful structure for progressive learning in design and humanities, where each level builds on previous ones, with assessment tasks and criteria coordinated using similar language at all levels with markers for different levels of achievement, will be extended to technology and professional practices modules. In professional practices, elements will now be introduced throughout the curriculum (rather than just in L6), and second year work involves some direct preparation for third year following the current paradigm from humanities. In technology, modules have been redesigned at first and second year to prepare students for the third year structure.

RIBA recognised the third year (Level 6) Professional Practices education as exemplary. Through the CDR, the subject has been extended throughout first and second years so students benefit from this knowledge earlier on (in response to student module evaluation comment - "I wish we'd done this earlier!"). The scope of professional practice education has been extended to cover computer software skills more explicitly.

A visual assessment rubric, developed in undergraduate design modules, has been extended to other modules following positive response from staff and students.

The MArch course’s strong student centred approach will be furthered through the new course structure. MArch 1 will determine and open up individual territories, with MArch 2 offering the opportunity to be supported in the independent evolution of these personal fields of practice. Opportunities for co-creation of the curriculum will therefore be extended further in this final year. The introduction of the Design Thesis module in parallel to the Research Practices module and Research and Practice Specialism module, enables final year students to tailor the course to their own area of interest and career ambitions. This will offer the opportunity for students to embark on their future practice, and the potential to emerge from the course as fully fledged professionals.


The adoption of a shared structure with other masters courses within MArch1 offers the potential for crossovers within the School, offering students the opportunity to work alongside peers from other disciplines, promoting cross-disciplinary thinking. The new Research Practices module in MArch 2, for example, is shared across four post-graduate courses within the School, with students working across disciplines on shared areas of interest. The structure allows for such multivalency of modules to further expand in combination with the potential evolution of new masters courses, such as a new unvalidated route, or a practice based route in MArch 1, or new specialist masters courses growing from studios. The structure therefore also brings with it the opportunity for a double award. As set out in the accompanying diagram, an MA could be integrated into MArch 1, with the masterwork completed following the award of the MArch at the end of MArch 2. This would provide an enticing offer presently only available in a handful of validated courses in the country.

The rationalised course structure will offer students greater ability to focus on the evolution of the final design project, responding to external examiner and PSRB feedback. The number of credits associated with design has been increased from 60 to 80 in the final year in line with recommendations. The associated final year (MArch 2) modules are integrated into the design within what can be seen as a single body of research. At MArch 1 design and technology modules will now also be more closely integrated. This move from two previously discrete and unconnected modules further evolves the ambition for a learning by doing approach, which mimics the professional environment.

Peer learning will be further enhanced through stronger integration across the postgraduate courses. The involvement of MArch students in the undergraduate course reviews will be enhanced.

The part time route through the MArch course will be retained. The part time route allows students to be taught alongside the full time students, with the enrolment on modules being spread over either 3 years or 4 years. This offers multiple pathways through the Part 2 course allowing students to study alongside working in practice.


Appendix 1Architecture Programme Academic Position Statement

The Architecture Programme is constantly exploring the edge. The edge of the arts, the edge of humanities, the edge of science and technology. As a School of Architecture and Design we join with Product Design, Sustainable Design, Interior Architecture and Urban Planning. Together we interweave these edges, through the discipline of design. Our ground condition is made up of three key ingredients common to all design thinking – people, materials and place.

People remain central to the success of the programme. Our staff pour energy and ideas into the courses and the students understand this, responding in kind. An exciting recognition of this is that we continue to win prizes at the RIBA President’s Medals & Awards. Academics Katrin Bohn and Andre Viljoen received the award for Outstanding University-located Research for their book ‘Second Nature Urban Agriculture: Designing Productive Cities’, outlining their leading research on Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes. For the students’ awards, over the years our MArch student, Irene Klokkari received a commendation for her dissertation titled ‘Memories of Famagusta: Recapturing the image of the city through the memories of refugees’, Oliver Riviere’s won the RIBA Serjeant Drawing Prize and Kirsty McMullan’s jointly won the RIBA Journal Eye Line Drawing Prize.

The architectural practitioners that teach at Brighton also continue to win awards for their buildings including from the Civic Trust, Architects Journal, Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust and RIBA Regional Awards. It is wonderful to see so many practices, founded by current and past tutors, listed in the New Architects 3 book that showcases innovative and talented young architectural practices. Our student society, BIAAS, thrives. They built on their hosting of the 2015 Architecture Student Network (ASN) summer conference by working with the ASN to put forward a manifesto to the Heads of Schools of Architecture (SCHOSA) on architectural education and health issues. This included a list of recommendations to challenge the culture of all-nighters and to promote architectural studies being balanced between life and play. Recognition of the energy within BIAAS came when they were awarded the ‘Excellence Award’ for Academic Society of the Year.

Adding to our ever growing studio culture, each year we have several lecture series. Over lunch you find students and staff taking their sandwiches into the gallery space to hear the tutors present their research and practice work. BIAAS run their own evening lecture series, focusing on varying issues. An example of this was the theme ‘Women in Architecture’ that included talks from architects such as Alison Brooks (founder of ABA) and Julia Dwyer (co-founder of Matrix). Our international lecture series invites architects and designers to talk to us about the ‘non-finito’ or work in progress and has the likes of Perry Kulper, Mark West, NaJa & deOstos and Magma Architecture come and talk to us. One of the highlights was the BIAAS presents lecture by Mark Kermode on ‘The Auteur: Film Director and Architect’.

Across both our Part 1 and Part 2 courses our focus is on research-led teaching in all of our subject areas including technology and professional practice. The vertical studio system has allowed this to evolve and by asking both practitioners and academics to use their own expertise and interests to instigate briefs we are able to offer a greater variety and diversity of content and methodology within the School. Pluralism makes for a lively debate in the School. We have found that friendly competition amongst staff and studios gives students the space to start developing their own positions within the world of architecture. This is true at all levels of learning, but the expectation is that at undergraduate a student will learn to synthesise their own thinking and learning, whilst at postgraduate the student will have the capability to understand how their thinking fits in the wider world.


‘Enquiry’ is a word that is common across design disciplines and runs alongside ‘curiosity’. Research forms not only the basis to teaching, but in how we ask students to process design, where feedback is a way of forming a loop of knowledge and where learning is fed back in and makes for ever richer ways of considering the world around us. The strength of the school lies in the implementation of brave and experimental design methodologies that use drawing and making to develop an investigation. Work ranges from careful hand drawings to hyper-real computer images and from large 1:20 spatial models to unusual material prototypes. We ask students to explore and test their ideas through this process, creating and sharing new possibilities rather than replicating existing ones.

Whilst encouraging students to take ownership of their work and ideas, we emphasise that architects always work as part of a diverse group of people. As such, the students need to grow their ideas through collective and interactive thinking. Within the programme you will see many signs of group work in design studios (master planning, site models, peer-to-peer reviews), but also in the technology (1:1 group builds, shared report writing) and humanities (collective books of essays). At Part 3 the students engage with each other in role-play to understand the nuances of relationships and responsibilities in professional practice. This ability to work together successfully as well as independently is important within the school and to the profession.

Socially engaged forms of education and practice can be found in many aspects of the learning and teaching. These are strengthened through our Projects Office that supports both research and learning and teaching ‘live projects’, whether it be live builds or live community participation and project development.

Our confidence in encouraging difference, allows us to form successful inter-disciplinary teaching so that architectural design can bind together varied approaches and knowledge. A key feature of all our courses, as noted by our external examiners, is our successful interplay between core subject areas - design, technology, architectural humanities and professional practice. Each contextualises and is contextualised by the other. Modules are directly related to design studio yet this is configured so they are not dominated by it and its needs. This allows them to consolidate and reflectively critique different forms of architectural learning and also to situate an understanding of the requirements of each subject within an architectural whole.

This designerly thinking lies at the core of our School. The conscience of an architect and the consequence of designing ‘stuff’ or ‘things’ is central to us. We ask our students to be inquisitive of their surroundings and the people that inhabit them. We want them to consider what exists, why it exists and where it exists. This is true for both the current context and any future context and can be seen in the design studio briefs that spend time working within politically contentious urban, suburban and rural developments in Brighton and its surrounding region, developing alternative proposals to what is currently being suggested.

Architectural proposition is nearly always transformative and the value of architectural education is that projects are usually set in real-world situations. We encourage briefs to be taught in-situ to have a direct relationship to the context of a project. By setting projects locally it enables students to repeatedly visit their sites and gain an ongoing and deeper understanding of place. Previous years have seen design studios working alongside architectural practices on complex regeneration projects that our debated throughout the year on site, with the local community. For example, a live project working alongside Studio Gill’s practice project with Carnival del Pueblo around Elephant and Castle included constructing 1:1 installations for the South London Latin American festival, one of Dezeen's top 10 picks for the London Festival of Architecture.


Field trips and short residencies compel the students to be implicated in their work. Studios often decamp their students to their project sites to test in-situ architectural pieces and develop thesis propositions. By having to take responsibility for the consequences of their design proposal our students are taught to take on a level of autonomy within the teaching framework, and allows the generation of many personal lines of enquiry. The student develops skills beyond the traditional role of an architect. They learn to act as protagonist and entrepreneur, environmentalist and community worker. We want our students to understand that they are part of a wider culture of place making and material development. It is their designs that will influence society and impact on our environment. It is they that will make the future.

Finally, we return to ‘place’. The city of Brighton & Hove is uniquely placed in the UK, with a proximity to London, France and the surrounding South Downs National Park. As a consequence, we are constantly developing responses not only to our urban surroundings, but our coastline and surrounding countryside. Having Sussex as our backdrop offers so much potential for students and staff to follow lines of research that engage with the relationship between historic, contemporary and future scenarios of city and town, country and coast.


Appendix 2

Summary of External Examiners suggestions for development and improvement plans

BA(Hons) Architecture 2013/14External Examiner Comments for Development & Improvement

Actions and developments

“There was good evidence on 'making' despite relatively limited workshop facilities and fabrication areas, staff and students are getting a lot from what is currently provided. If this areas of learning through making is to be sustained and hopefully grow, more provision to support this will be required. Alongside this more dedicated studio space for all years is required. This will allow more informal collaborations and peer learning to take place and will also support group work. “

Studio & workshop space remains unchanged for the Undergraduate programme, but in 2018, future plans are under discussion with Estates Department for future developments.

“I am concerned about the University's policies with respect to plagiarism. At the exam board, uncapped pass marks were presented where students were deemed to have plagiarised, though in a minor way. In discussion at the board it was clear that the university's regulations and processes had been followed properly, but I remain concerned that the university can make a distinction between major and minor plagiarism, and appear to impose no substantive penalty for the latter. I would suggest that the relevant university committee reconsider the plagiarism policy.”

Taken forward with Quality Standards and a clear distinction is now made between major and minor cases.

“Technology is being delivered through a lively and creative approach, but individual outcomes for group work in the earlier years will assist in the confirmation that all students have attained the appropriate level. This is difficult to evidence through group work. Individual submission would help support AT in the following years. “

The assessment task was changed in Technology at Level 5, to include an individual technical component as part of the summative submission.

For note, the Chief External Examiners final overview in this year was positive:“I have seen these courses develop in very positive ways during my tenure. All examiner comments have been taken on board and acted upon, and the course teams have clearly reviewed and developed their courses in considered and interesting ways. There is strong leadership in the course teams which should see them further develop in positive ways into the future.”BA(Hons) Architecture 2014/15External Examiner Comments for Development & Improvement


“Digital skills both in terms of enquiry and presentation are not only desirable but essential.”

Ongoing course level discussion as to where to increase computer skills across the three years.

“There appears to be a qualitative difference with the design work of students who work in the college studiospaces, and those who work at home. The School must have more studio and workshop space to foster thesense of collaborative working in the students and it will help those students who are slower and lessconfident.

Ongoing. In 2018, studio space at undergraduate level remains unchanged

“It is a big disappointment that Brighton University has not elevated the status of architectural education to a similar and appropriate level. Architecture should be represented by and taught as a School rather than as a programme in a School that doesn't even mention its name. I urge the University to establish a 'School of Architecture and Design' to solve this problem.”

Taken forward by the University in 2016




“Again the quality of studio space, lack of workshop space and general standard of the accommodation is hindering the student and staff experience at Mithras house.”

Ongoing

“The creation of project studies in the costal Sussex and Brighton area is successful and very relevant for the University as a whole. In all years, the School should not lose this source of creativity and learning, but should even do more of it.”

Studio Design briefs continue to be set within Sussex to address regional issues. Staff research agendas are responding to regional issues that can also be assessed and applied globally.

“Given that the architecture school is part of an Art and Media campus, we are surprised that there is notmore project work done with film, video, music, and virtual reality etc.”

Students are encouraged to pursue the use of animated medium to their work to explore sequential space. Access to the school of Art & Media facilities is currently limited with the demise of the College of Arts. Level 5 Options continues to be fully supported in the School to encourage inter disciplinary cross overs for students.

“Fieldtrips: To discuss whether a more consistent approach to offering fieldtrips should be followed by all studios, so that no exceptions are made by some tutors, and so that no students are left without the opportunity to go to a fieldtrip with their fellow students.”

Study trips are all optional as there is no University funding for them (students or staff). In First year there is a week long European study trip offered to all. 50% of the students elect to go each year. The remaining 50% are offered staff led day trips to London and Sussex instead. In 2nd & 3rd year a study trip is at the discretion of the studio tutor. The decision is mainly agreed between the students and staff in each studio. Without funding there little opportunity to change this. In modules where sites or buildings need to be visited, buses are provided by the University to cover day visits.

“There was evidence in the teaching of 3rd Year technology of a great focus on modelling and investigation of schemes, leading to the production of a final technical section. The spirit of the staff in this was excellent, and generated a discussion about how this might be further improved to support the very varied work of the units.”

Detailed notes from external examiners were shared with technology and design tutors. Through the Periodic Review, 1st and 2nd year technology have been restructured to allow for greater improvement by the 3rd year technology module.

Time based thinking (sequential work and change over time) is evidence in Technology modules, but also in much of the work of the units at all levels. This develops in the student a methodology for managing innovation in their work. These work practices could be developed into animations or films to more rapidly record and communicate the same material and render more public [on web and in exhibition] the processes and outputs of the work.

Ongoing course discussion of methods of representation and opportunities for students to learn more advanced animation & filmic skills.

Option studies were highlighted as an area to support SoAD continue to support this cross school module and see great benefits from it. It remains in the programme through the Periodic Review, but requires other Schools to continue to believe in it.



“I concur with the RIBA report here that the integration of more computer modelling and the resources needed to make this happen are important. Also the facilities andspace in the current building is definitely hampering the growth of the school.”“It is, of course, very good to see traditional drawing skills still being promoted. However, there seems to be a lack of digital drawing skills at both UG and PG level. Itis very evident in the portfolios, which, especially at the UG level, are not always digitally reconfigured.”

A computer club has been instigated this year. Computer work has been added to first year studies. Computer work has been written into new Level 5 Technology & Professional Practices module during Periodic Review.

“The facilities and space in the current building is definitely Ongoing.


hampering the growth of the school.”“In the BA Architecture, it was abundantly clear that there were space pressures. The school promotes a unit system. For a unit system to operate properly a unit ethosneeds to be established. The location of study seemed to set the modality of production: working from home produced digital outputs and studio produced hand-drawn/drawing board outputs. The singularity of production methods seemed to counter the aspirations of the units. Certainly, the absence of 50% of the students compromised the ethos of the unit, which was further exacerbated by the overcrowding of the studioon studio teaching or reviewing days.”“It was noted this year, as in 2016, that the students who mainly worked together in the School studios (rather than at home) did better work and were more engaged. We hope the amount of studio space continues to 'enlarge' as the School develop.”Include in the students' BA Dissertations submission a small piece of writing that frames and contextualises research methods and mode of practice.

Subject level have considered which year this takes place in and written into new documentation.

Strengthen the architectural design skills, including critical design judgement, resolution and completion skills in the final stages.

An ongoing discussion at course level to support all studios in ensuring students reach more convincing resolution by the end of the year. This includes assessing all studio briefs and timetables in detail, during the summer.

“There seemed to be a reduced commitment to exhibition work of studios and the school. Although the plan-chest system for the end of year show had some virtues, it,literally, flattened the work, thereby, reducing the visual and sensual stimulation that the ethos of differing units provide. The end of year show is such an importantcommunicative vehicle between different students at different levels of their academic experience. When Brighton needs to acquire more students into its M Arch Programme, it needs all the more to advertise its qualities to its own BA Architecture students as wellas the public.”

Ongoing discussion at University level as to the support in terms of space and funding for the End of Year Show.

Masters of Architecture 2013/14External Examiner Comments for Development & Improvement


“The University now has a well established School of Architecture with a growing reputation. And I would urge the University to invest in the Faculty and its facilities to enable the School to realise its potential. The Facilities are poor by comparison with competitor schools. When the physical opportunity exists to expand and improve space at Mithras House, this is frustrating.Architectural education looks to be changing significantly in the next few years. Now is the time to invest.” (note: all external examiners wrote extensive comments on the out of date facilities – both workshops and studio spaces). “

Ongoing

To establish itself academically as a research based school of architecture, the School needs to develop its MArch programmes and to retain or attract better students.

Studio Briefs written to clearly frame and refine their agenda and embedded research enquiry so as to develop as research laboratories.

In the MArch course there seems to be a gap between process and the architectural development of the project.

Timetables re-evaluated to allow students increased time to synthesis their final projects.

“RIBA Part 2 courses should be a development of RIBA Part 1 courses rather than an iteration, to allow a

The content of each subject area shows clear increase of learning and outcomes from the undergraduate level.


greater breadth of understanding through application. “For note, the Chief External Examiners final overview in this year was positive:“I have seen these courses develop in very positive ways during my tenure. All examiner comments have been taken on board and acted upon, and the course teams have clearly reviewed and developed their courses in considered and interesting ways. There is strong leadership in the course teams which should see them further develop in positive ways into the future.”Masters of Architecture 2014/15External Examiner Comments for Development & Improvement


“In terms of development there is not enough digital and computer work. A paramentric studio is a good addition, but rather stands alone in MArch as a specialist "paramentric" studio. The high level of graphic ability can hide the design quality on occasion.”

The Technology & Fabrications module is now used to teach M.Arch students advanced digital skills. Students are expected to apply this learning to their design studio work.

“There appears to be a qualitative difference with the design work of students who work in the college studiospaces, and those who work at home. The School must have more studio and workshop space to foster the sense of collaborative working in the students and it will help those students who are slower and lessconfident.” (note: all external examiners continue to write extensive comments on the out of date facilities – both workshops and studio spaces). “

In the Summer 2015 the M.Arch spaces were reconfigured, giving the course its own studio space, sub-divided into an area for each Studio Lab. This has been seen as advantageous in attracting /retaining better students and improving the number of students working in the studio, and so improved standard of work.

“Instigate a significant increase in production anditeration through drawing and making, so that the projects gain in refinement and resolution. This may partly involve changing the fragments of the MArch curriculum into a simpler structure that allows students to invest more time on each subject and work on it in depth.”

Ongoing course discussion, now taken forward through this Periodic Review

For note, the Chief External Examiners final overview:There is a need to attract better quality students onto the MArch course. There should also be a greatereffort to retain the best students from the undergraduate course. There is a need to provide more expansivefacilities for the school preferably within the town centre. With the resignation of Nat Chard at an earlystage in his appointment there is a need to appoint a new professor or professors to provide the school with clear direction, notwithstanding the exemplary job currently being done by current staff.

Masters of Architecture 2015/16

External Examiner Comments for Development & Improvement


“M Arch studio needs a different structuring of time to permit stronger and more resolved projects toemerge.”

Ongoing course discussion, now taken forward through this Periodic Review

“There often seems to be too little time in MArch2 to complete a final portfolio design project properly,because of too many conflicting other course obligations. Maybe some of these could be spread into the MArch1 year.”

For 2016/17, timetabled 50% of AIM708 – Professional Practice (legislation element) into back end of M.Arch 1 to test moving this module into M.Arch 1 in future Periodic Review.

“The creation of project studies in the costal Sussex and Brighton area is successful and very relevant for the University as a whole. In all years, the School should not lose this source of creativity and learning, but should even do more of it.”

Studio Design briefs continue to be set within Sussex to address regional issues. Staff research agendas are responding to regional issues that can also be assessed and applied globally.

“Given that the architecture school is part of an Art and Media campus, we are surprised that there is notmore project work done with film, video, music, and virtual reality etc.”

Students are encouraged to pursue the use of animated medium to their work to explore sequential space. Access to the school of Art & Media facilities is currently limited with the demise of the College of Arts.

“Technology / Professional Practice: To find ways for the technology module to directly inform the main project's design development. To examine why the 'Speculation' essay is currently unlinked to the students' main projects

These comments have formed the basis of the changes to the course in the current Periodic Review.


and how it can either be totally abolished or better integrated in the development of the students' individual main design projects."“Design: To discuss increasing the gravity of the design module from 60 to 80 credits or even more. Final year projects need to become more developed, convincing and resolved spatially, and be driven by the students' genuine architectural curiosity and individual voice.

These comments have formed the basis of the changes to the course in the current Periodic Review.

Masters of Architecture 2016/17

External Examiner Comments for Development & Improvement


I concur with the RIBA report here that the integration of more computer modelling and the resources needed to make this happen are important. Also the facilities andspace in the current building is definitely hampering the growth of the school.

A computer club has been instigated this year. The University provides free access to Lyda.com that is being promoted to the student body.

Strengthen the architectural design skills, including critical design judgement, resolution and completion skills in the final stages.

Future changes to the course are intended to resolve the concern over the final resolution of design projects, by timetabling more time for design.

Increase the School's connections with other Universitydepartments and its access to all available workshops.

Formalisation of this is dependent on University restructuring and budget controls. M.Arch students are often able to individually use other departments facilities.



PG Diploma Management, Practice and Law in Architecture2013/14 Response to External Examiners

Issue/Action Course Response Complete Respons-ibility

Assessment is appropriate for the level of study, and appears remarkably consistent across modules and examiner teams. Moderation is thoroughly and rigorously undertaken. On a related manner, it was noted that all examination questions currently carry the same mark weighting, whereas the case may be made for a more varied distribution of marks consistent with the complexity of the issue presented and the answer sought.

The course team have reviewed the assessment weighting and advice to examiners. Rather than provide specific weighting to exam questions (which vary from one year to the next) each question will now have the same word limit and thus a level of parity in terms ofthe quantum of assessed material. This approach providing examiners the ability to apply academic and professional judgement to how candidates perform across the diet of the written examinations and professional examination.

Y Course Leader

The general performance was good, congregating within a narrow grading band. As a result, it is difficult to identify anything particularly remarkable about the cohort either from the perspective of strengths or weaknesses. Where case studies offer opportunity for deeper critical discussion, this is generally seized. Theresult is a number of very rich case studies. The corollary is that other work tends to be morebland, in which the student places great reliance on theory (which is often quoted at length). Once again, this is to an extent determined by the nature of the student's individual experience, but it is evident that student performance is better where they are demonstrably able to contextualise theory, and apply principles to their practice.

In the 13-14 exam (where word limits were advisory rather than maximums) some candidates submitted an excessive quantity of material for some questions which was not necessary. In future years there will be a maximum word limit for each question and the questions will be phrased in such a way as to allow students to provide more personalised answers, and apply theory to the scenario questions.

Y Course Leader

Notwithstanding the above, it is clear from submissions that some clearer guidance relating to report presentation would be valuable, in particular with respect to assignment word limits, etc. A number of submissions were voluminous, although the quantity did not generally match the quality. Ability to write succinctly and economically is an importantprofessional skill, and the Course Team are advised to consider guidance relating to this, as well as referencing and citation.

In future years there will be a maximum word limit for each question.

Y Course Leader

2014/15 Response to External Examiners

Issue/Action Course Response Complete Respons-ibility

It was previously noted that in written submissions a number of students tend to regurgitate standard material without applying the level of editorial control and contextual application that one would wish to see. This session, some candidates had 'addressed' this bycreating voluminous appendices containing extraneous material. Tighter guidance on acceptable contents and word limits are advised, and I am aware that the Course team are already considering this.

In the 14-15 cohort, a number of students had dealt with the newly imposed word limits by adding appendices. The course team will update their guidance to students reinforcing the need for succinct answers and reiterating that appendices will not be marked.

Y Course Leader

As noted elsewhere in this report, the work would benefit from clearer guidance on submission parameters, in particular the acceptable word length of submissions. After all, the ability to record key content within a limited space is a key professional skill, and making this manifest through guidance and/or assessment criteria is worthy of consideration.

The course team will update their guidance to students reinforcing the need for succinct answers and reiterating that appendices will not be marked.

Y Course Leader

Notes from overview of External Examiners term of office:

“I have examined at many institutions, and it is rare to find a course that has such robust stewardship.”

“Such handovers (of course leadership) inevitably carry risk, particularly where the effectiveness of the award is so heavily contingent on strong communication with students in their workplace. The manner in which this transitionhas been negotiated is a credit to the School, and to the new course leader in particular.”

Recent commendations, actions and advice from 2016 RIBA re-validation process

PSRB 2016 RIBA Validation commentsCommendations

The Board commends the sense of community between students and all levels of the staff team within the School. Furthermore, the appointment of the Student Support and Guidance Tutor (SSGT) which provides pastoral support to students and engages with their personal development is considered to be best practice.

The Board commends the innovative, exciting and engaging approach to Professional Studies throughout the School including the structure of the Part 3 examination paper format and the robust assessment processes.

The Board commends the attitude of the School towards the broader components of architectural education including Humanities, Technology, Professional Studies, and the opportunities presented by the Options Projects.

Action pointsThe School’s attitude to the “taught subjects” sharing an equal status is commendable. However, on occasions students are not applying the information received from lectures and seminars into their design proposals, particularly at M.Arch level where more freedom is afforded to students. The Board advises that minimum / core requirements are consistently put in place in project briefs to ensure that students do not avoid key areas of criteria such as cost, sustainability, and production information. In addition to this, despite the research-led teaching agenda, an appropriate balance should be found between the research aspects of a project and the design resolution.

All Learning Outcomes have been reassessed through the Periodic Review

The Board was impressed with the level of ambition, trajectory, energy,and variety of the BA programme, and the cohesiveness of the teachingand support team. To aid further development the School is advised toaddress the ability of students to evidence the integration of criteria withintheir design proposals, and in particular the following:GC1 ability to create architectural designs that satisfy both aesthetic andtechnical requirements

The revisions made to the technology curriculum in this Periodic Review is expected to improve this aspect of the student design project.

The Board recognises that the M.Arch is in a state of evolution but stronglyadvises the School to develop a very clear identity for the programme andits studios, and enhancing the development between M.Arch 1 and M.Arch2. To aid this, the School is advised to address the ability of students toevidence the integration of criteria within their design proposals, and inparticular the following:GC1 ability to create architectural designs that satisfy both aesthetic andtechnical requirementsGC5.2 the impact of buildings on the environment, and the precepts ofsustainable designGC8.3 the physical properties and characteristics of building materials,components and systems, and the environmental impact of specificationchoicesGC10.1 critically examine the financial factors implied in varying buildingtypes, constructional systems, and specification choices, and the impact ofthese on architectural design

The M.Arch course has been radically rewritten through this Periodic Review.

Whilst the students make use of various representational techniques aspart of the iterative design process there is a noticeable absence of finalrepresentations of the design proposals in their context and of the internal

This is part of ongoing discussions at both Part 1 and Part 2 courses with design studio tutors and students.


spatial experience. The board encourages the School to extend the use oflarge scale model making at both the building and site context scales,quality computer CGIs and other forms of media, throughout the processfrom conceptual development to the representation of the building in itsentirety.

AdviceWhilst the Board was encouraged by the ambitions of the new Vice Chancellor and the opportunity for the new Head of School to grow the School (particularly at Part 2), the Board was concerned that the current studio space allocation and support facilities such as workshops are already stretched (including limited opening hours) and that growth in student numbers would compromise the student experience and School operation. There is already a sense of “having to make do” and with a “culture of making”, this agenda is potentially being compromised by the limited physical resources.

Ongoing discussions with the Estates Department.

The School’s studio system is well established and the undergraduate vertical studio system brings a number of pedagogical benefits such as the peer review system. The Board advises that this is extended to the MArch programme in order to foster a stronger connection between the BA and MArch courses.

Cross reviews have between courses have been introduced alongside Peer Assisted Student Supervisors (PASS) and student led computer club.

Whilst the day-to-day operations of the studios are diverse, the Board suggests that the School debate the merits (or not) of clearer visual identities for the range of studios at both BA and MArch level.

Visually identity of studios is derived from studio agendas and research specialism. As such the studio identity evolves from the work rather than a preconceived idea.

Brighton enjoys a unique physical, social and political position in the UK in terms of its edge condition and its political green agenda and credentials. The sense of the city could be more evident in the work, and whilst the School has world class research in sustainable design there are a number of student projects that do not engage with both the wider and specific issues of this. Attention to 13.1 above will help to address this missed opportunity, and in particular GC5.2.

Studio tutors are encouraged to develop studio briefs that engage with the county of Sussex, including the City of Brighton & Hove. Sustainability is taught across all modules with some studios fore-fronting different elements of sustainability.

With reference to 11.1 above, the School is encouraged to utilise the stable base of its community and the student society to challenge students to be more pro-active, push the boundaries of critical thinking, embrace the edges of contemporary architectural discourse and design, and generally take more risks.

BIAAS receives ongoing support within the school is encouraged to be pro-active and challenge accepted norms, but the student body struggles to fulfil their ambitions for it alongside curriculum commitments. The programme is discussing making the running of BIAAS a Level 5 Option so that credits are attached to it and a dedicated tutor supports it.

The School’s approach to External Examiners looking at both the undergraduate and postgraduate programmes is interesting and brings a number of benefits but the Board advises the School and University to reconsider the format of the External Examiner reports so that the BA and M.Arch courses are more specifically referred to within these reports to aid future response by the course teams. Furthermore, whilst the University of Brighton only requires a 10% sample to be seen, the Board encourages the School to increase the sample to allow the Examiners to see a greater representation of the work across all of the design studios.

Under discussion, but currently unchanged.


Documents

Architecture - Critical Account Part 2 RIBA Courses€¦ · Web view2019. 4. 9. · The Architecture Programme is constantly exploring the edge. The edge of the arts, the edge of