11 / 52
NTNU – THE FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE AND FINE ART
11
The Faculty of Architecture and Fine Art, in cooperation
with the Faculty’s board decided to carry out a thorough
evaluation process for the 5-year Master’s program in
Architecture and the 2-year program in Sustainable Archi-
tecture. It was the intention of the Faculty to assemble a
group with broad knowledge and experience in t the field
with the capability to develop the programs.
The objective of the evaluation was to establish and devel-
op the two programs’ capacity to educate open-minded,
creative, competent and responsible graduates who are
well prepared to meet today’s and tomorrow’s social,
cultural and environmental challenges. Through the
evaluation the Faculty wished to develop insights into
fundamental aspects of their provision. They hoped to
derive benefit from new input into their understanding
of their core values, identity and tradition, to ascertain
whether the Faculty meets these ambitions. In coopera-
tion with the evaluation group the Faculty wished to use
the evaluation as a tool to develop, rethink and adjust the
two programs so that their profile, core values, structure
and connections are working as a coherent whole.
Key issues for the evaluation group to investigate were
identified as: professional discourse, the social mission,
learning quality and distinctiveness and context.
The evaluation group was asked to evaluate:
• the structure of studies – levels, sequence and types
of courses
• the portfolio of courses and fields of competence
• the pedagogical profile
• the physical environment
• student admissions – recruitment, requirements and
regulations
• the evaluation system
• organisational aspects
Based on this, and in cooperation with the faculty, the
group was asked to identify recommendations for im-
provement and change within selected areas.
The Faculty wished to establish an inclusive process in
which everyone could participate. This would ensure that
the will to change would be preserved and inspired at all
levels – from the management of the faculty to the teach-
ers and the students. Motivation for change would be
built through dialogue and the evaluation process would
establish this as a point of departure.
The evaluation would consist of three visits during which
the committee would meet and have discussions on
several occasions with the faculty management, course
managers, teachers, students and external stakeholders.
At the end the committee would present their concluding
thoughts and proposals for consideration.
2. Assignment for the committee