30 / 52
EVALUATION REPORT 2015
30
Equally important is the question of whether current assess-
ment and feedback practices are constructively aligned with
the espoused TRANSark ’vision’ of transformational learn-
ing. If so how are threshold concepts assessed? How is the
necessary range of architectural core
knowledge, skills
and
values
assessed across the program? How might profes-
sional impact be measured and evaluated? How are grad-
uate attributes assessed, and how are How are formative
feedback and ’feedforward’ provided? These elements are
not currently sufficiently visible in the course documentation
and an overall coherent pattern or mosaic of assesment
approaches needs to be indicated in order to match the
inevitable variabiity in student approach found in all courses,
as well as theinherent variabillity across the differing de-
mands and cultures of the many contributing subject areas
and disciplines in these interdisicplinary degree programs.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Assessment can and should also be used to indicate the
level of any specific part of the program. It should draw
attention to what is important to be attained within a course,
be that a process or a product dimension, groupwork or
individual endeavour, graduate attributes, an interdicplinary
perspective, an architecrural disposition, the attainment or
crossing of a critical learning threshold, evidence of tech-
nical skill of aesthetic sensibility. The assessment design
should not allow students to evade challenging areas of
either their own perceived weakness or dislike.
Furthermore creative risk-taking, as discussed earlier in
Section 7.d. above, requires assessment to focus not only on
the end product but on the process of risk-taking.
Challenges for the leadership
There needs to be a review of who is currently undertaking
assessment to determine their values, background and
purposes.
The censors need to consider attainment over the whole
program and not only within the student projects.