29 / 52
NTNU – THE FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE AND FINE ART
29
Achieving a balanced and coherent range of pedagogies
across the Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes may
require fostering a greater degree of collaboration between
B-Level and M-Level teachers, and a reallocation of the
mix of teachers between B- and M-Level s. Only having one
professor teaching at B-Level does not send a positive signal
to students.
The School seems currently based primarily on local themes
and forces. Should it think more ambitiously about recruiting
into its ranks ‘iconic’ professors and architects of the calibre,
say, of Andew Freear, Todd Saunders or the Snøhetta Design
Agency?
Ideas for solutions/methods to develop
The School’s tentative forays into the use of Peer Assisted
Learning (PAL), peer mentoring and peer coaching, seems
to have led to positive learning experiences for students.
This good practice could be capitalized upon and spread
across the School. It might also be elaborated into ‘verti-
cal projects’ across the various years of the B and M-Level
programmes, with the projects having a continuing existence
with more advanced cohorts of students taking over leader-
ship roles in the project from year to year.
The School may wish to explore greater use of digital peda-
gogies, with an increased emphasis on 3D visual modelling,
and use of modern professional graphic tools.
Teacher advisors or Learning Advisors might be a valuable
means of assisting students to make informed decisions
about their course choices and study direction.
NTNU has an excellent existing facility to support future
professional development in the areas outlined. This is
the Educational Development Centre led by Professor Leif
Martin Hokstadt, which could provide an evidence-based
approach to assist team development in the areas of peda-
gogical understanding.
7.e. Assessment and feedback
(grading, criteria and feedback)
STRENGTHS
Students and teachers within the School at NTNU charac-
teristically have very open contact, harmonious relationships
and work usually in close proximity with each other. Teach-
ing staff and course leaders are easy to approach to arrange
either informal or formal consultations.
There is a common purpose and general agreement in
broad terms that the explicitly stated goals of the degree
programmes are to produce good architecture, socially
responsible practising architects of high quality, as well as
mature individuals (and future citizens) with critical minds.
This sense of a common purpose provides a sound and
healthy climate for ongoing discussions as to what consti-
tutes the ‘right’ kind of architect(s) and how to ensure the
development of such architects.
OBSERVATIONS and EVALUATION
A key consideration is the need to recognize that as-
sessment is at the heart learning, and in a well designed
curriculum acts as a compass to sound practice. It is a tool
for learning as well as a measure of learning. If the course
is well aligned (Biggs 1996)
1
assessment should drive and
direct student activity. The assessment requirements
within each course should align with the intended learning
purposes and seek to provide evidence of their achievement.
This should apply to theoretical courses as well as the
project courses at NTNU. At present the alignment seems
to be primarily with the Live Studio projects and insuffi-
ciently with the achievement of other areas of architectural
knowledge, skills
and
values
. In a program of professional
development learning will inevitably take a spiral form with
similar but uniquely different variations and encounters with
architectural problems and content at different stages of the
programs, in different contexts and with increasing com-
plexity and challenge. The assessment design should reflect
this, whilst at the same time seeking to prevent overlap of
assessment of similar knowledge, skills and values at the
same level in different courses.
A series of questions present themselves in the current
mode of operation of the program, and should be addressed
by the course team. What are the current criteria for the
Masters programs, and for the Masters thesis? Are there
minimum criteria, and, if so,what should the minimum cri-
teria include and what level of desired achievement should
they signal?
What is the current function of grades within the program?
What (beneficial) effect do they currently have? Are they
currently evaluating process or product?
1
Biggs, J.(1996) Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment
Higher Education
32: 347-364.