CURRICULUM MODELS AS USED IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN SCHOOLS OF ARCHITECTURE

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

INTRODUCTION

The thesis addresses the issues of change in the South African society that have a profound and irreversible impact on the architectural education and subsequently on the architectural profession. These fairly recent changes are important for the reshaping of the architectural profession as it seeks to interpret new meanings, views and aspirations of the new South African society in the built environment. A starting point in the transformation of the profession is the development of a curriculum model in schools of architecture that will ensure continuous adaptation to the changes in society. Through the educating of its young, a society hopes to reproduce itself, and through architecture a society reveals in a visual manner its values, aspirations, beliefs and its cultural composition. It is this linkage between society, education and architecture that makes it important to address changes in the way architects are educated when there has been a shift in the values and beliefs of society. The first democratic elections in 1994 signaled the end of the apartheid era for South Africa, and the beginning of the definition of a new era that would represent the aspirations of all people. Education in general was one of the first sectors of society in which drastic changes were instituted by the government.
This included the sanctioning of Outcomes Based Education as a basis of transforming education and subsequently society. OBE stipulations have characterized most of the curriculum changes that schools of architecture have experienced. There were and still are other challenges that have been affecting schools of architecture as will many other institutions. Access to universities for all meant that the schools were for the first time teaching a multicultural body of learners. This would naturally have put pressure on the faculties as how to teach a heterogeneous body of learners, each with diverse origins and interests. To continue to teach in the way they had always done in the past would lead to learner dissatisfaction at some point in the future. Additionally the response of education to context so as, to achieve relevance has received more emphasis. How are tutors to know what to teach, how to teach and perhaps even more difficult to evaluate learners in a fair and just manner? Global relevance and the desire for quality assurance have led universities to subject all architecture programmes to visits by accreditation bodies.
These bodies place additional demands on schools of architecture to change their educational practice in numerous ways. Apart from government enforced changes in institutions of higher learning, internal demands for research output from lecturers and tutors, has created extra demands on the learner-to-lecturer contact time such that the design studio time has had to be redesigned to accommodate these new demands. Further, use of computers has resulted in learners spending less time in the studio, thereby threatening the basis of learning that distinguishes architecture education from most disciplines. The design studio as the main site of learning is being questioned as practice and the need to rethink how it should evolve is more urgent than ever. Other changes have come from the architecture profession.
Contemporary practice is not the same as in the past. It has to serve a wide society in which issues of poverty and equity are paramount. Further there is increasing competition from other professionals who offer similar or even better articulated services to the clients. The influence of the architect in the built environment has suffered significantly. While others see the need to regain that influence as more important, it may also be time to look at other services in which architects can provide a better service to society than anyone else. New computer technology is also creating new possibilities, available for architects on a global scale. Preparation of architects in schools of architecture has to be rigorous for such a changing terrain of operation. There are naturally, fears that these changes raise in faculties of architecture and resistance to change may result. That should be reason why these changes need to be addressed, if meaningful and desired change in the learners is to be achieved. This thesis seeks initially, to develop an in-depth understanding of the factors necessary for the development of an architecture curriculum that will be accommodating of the dynamic, social, economic, cultural and technological changes in the South African society and ultimately to suggest a curriculum model that can be used to achieve the desired transformation of the built environment and the South African society as a whole.

THE STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM.

All architectural professionals obtain their initial education from universities. It is the function of the universities to produce graduates that have a firm grip and understanding of not only the architectural issues but also the various social issues affecting their work in society. This is of importance for them so that they can make meaningful contributions to society. It therefore means that the university curricula must be developed so as to adequately prepare the graduates in order for them to able to tackle effectively and efficiently the problems in society. There are two main factors that have shaped the schools’ curricula in South Africa. Firstly, South African architectural schools, like most African architectural schools adopted their educational systems from either their European or North American counterparts. Universities here, have their origins in a western type of education, particularly British whose manner of learning is specific to their kind of society. Secondly, the recent changes in the South African social-political set-up have initiated irreversible changes in society, which have evolved a new social structure. Architecture has to keep pace with these changes if it is not to be alienated from society. This can only be ensured if architecture curricula of South African Schools of architecture address the social and political meanings of built environment, which have largely been ignored.

TABLE OF CONTENTS :

• Summary
• Acknowledgements
• Table of Contents
• List of Tables
• List of Figures
• CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING
  • 1.1. INTRODUCTION
  • 1.2. THE STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
  • 1.2.1 The main problem:
  • 1.3. THE SUB-PROBLEMS
  • 1.3.1 Sub- Problem
  • 1.3.2 Sub- Problem
  • 1.3.3 Sub- Problem
  • 1.3.4 Sub- Problem
  • 1.4. DELIMITATIONS:
  • 1.5. DEFINITIONS
  • 1.6. ASSUMPTIONS
  • 1.7. ABBREVIATIONS
  • 1.8. THE IMPORTANCE OF STUDY
  • 1.9. HOW DOES THIS STUDY DIFFERS FROM OTHER STUDIES ON ARCHITECTURAL CURRICULA
  • 1.10. THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
• CHAPTER 2 -CURRICULUM MODELS AS USED IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN SCHOOLS OF ARCHITECTURE
  • 2.1. SUB- PROBLEM
  • 2.2. OVERVIEW OF CHAPTER
  • 2.3. CURRICULUM THEORY
  • 2.3.1 Producing a Curriculum
  • 2.4. PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF CURRICULUM
  • 2.4.1 Perennialism
  • 2.4.2 Essentialism
  • 2.4.3 Progressivism
  • 2.4.4 The relevant curriculum
  • 2.4.5 The Humanist curriculum
  • 2.4.6 Reconstructionism
  • 2.4.7. Modernism
  • 2.4.8. Post-Modernism
  • 2.5. INTEGRATED AND COLLECTION TYPE- CURRICULA
  • 2.5.1. Collection type curricula
  • 2.5.2 Integrated type curricula
  • 2.6. A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO CURRICULUM CHANGE
  • 2.6.1 Academic Discipline As an Organising Principle
  • 2.6.2 Student Development
  • 2.6.3 Great Books and Ideas
  • 2.6.4 Social Problems
  • 2.6.5 Selected Competences
  • 2.7. ECLECTIC APPROACH TO CURRICULUM REVIEW
  • 2.8. UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN
  • 2.8.1 Bachelor of Science /Architectural Studies –3/2 Degree Structure
  • 2.8.2 Outcomes
  • 2.8.3 Curriculum Organising Principle
  • 2.8.4 Establishing Curricular Emphases
  • 2.8.5 Accreditation Boards: Comments on the Curriculum
  • 2.8.6 Summary
  • 2.9. UNIVERSITY OF FREE STATE
  • 2.9.1 Bachelor of Science /Architectural Studies –3/2 Degree Structure
  • 2.9.1 Outcomes
  • 2.9.3 Curriculum Organising Principle
  • 2.9.4 Establishing Curricular Emphases
  • 2.9.5 Accreditation Boards: Comments on the Curriculum
  • 2.9.6 Summary
  • 2.10. UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA
  • 2.10.1 Bachelor of Science /Architectural Studies –3/2 Degree Structure
  • 2.10.2 Outcomes
  • 2.10.3 Curriculum Organising Principle
  • 2.10.4 Establishing Curricular Emphases
  • 2.10.5 Accreditation Board: Comments on the Curriculum
  • 2.10.6 Summary
  • 2.11. UNIVERSITY OF PORT ELIZABETH
  • 2.11.1 Bachelor of Science /Architectural Studies –3/2 Degree Structure
  • 2.11.2 Outcomes
  • 2.11.3 Curriculum Organising Principle
  • 2.11.4 Establishing Curricular Emphases
  • 2.11.5 Accreditation Boards: Comments on the Curriculum
  • 2.11.6 Summary
  • 2.12. UNIVERSITY OF WITWATERSRAND
  • 2.12.1 Bachelor of Science /Architectural Studies –3/2 Degree Structure
  • 2.12.2 OUTCOMES
  • 2.12.3 Curriculum Organising Principle(s)
  • 2.12.4 Establishing Curricular Emphases
  • 2.12.5 Accreditation Boards: Comments on the Curriculum
  • 2.12.6 Summary
  • 2.13. ANALYSIS OF OUTCOMES FOR PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMMES
  • 2.14. CATEGORISATION OF CURRENT CURRICULA OF VARIOUS SOUTH AFRICAN SCHOOLS OF ARCHITECTURE
  • 2.15. CONCLUSIONS
• CHAPTER 3: CULTURAL CONTEXT, EDUCATION AND PRACTICE ISSUES
  • 3.1. SUB- PROBLEM
  • 3.2. OVERVIEW OF CHAPTER
  • 3.3. CHANGE IN SOCIAL ISSUES
  • 3.4. CHANGES IN CULTURAL ISSUES
  • 3.5. ARCHITECTURE IN AFRICA
  • 3.6. ARCHITECTURE IN LATIN AMERICA
  • 3.7. CHANGES IN THE ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION
  • 3.8. CURRICULUM IN CONTEXT
  • 3.9. DESIGN OF DEGREE STRUCTURE
  • 3.10. FINDINGS
  • 3.11. PERCEPTIONS OF PRACTICING ARCHITECTS: EDUCATION AND PRACTICE OVERVIEW OF SECTION
  • 3.12. SAMPLE OF ARCHITECTS
  • 3.13. RESPONSE DATA FOR ARCHITECTS
  • 3.14. ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONTENT OF ARCHITECTURE SCHOOLS
• • 3.15. THE EXPERIENCE OF ARCHITECTS AS LEARNERS, IN TERMS OF IMPLICIT LEARNING AND ESTABLISHING CULTURE
  • 3.16. SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS
  • 3.17. MAINSTREAM ARCHITECTURE KNOWLEDGE
  • 3.18. BUSINESS KNOWLEDGE
  • 3.19. CLIENT RELATIONS
  • 3.20. ACCOUNTING
  • 3.21. COMPETING PROFESSIONS
  • 3.22. RESPONSE OF SCHOOLS TO DEMOCRATIC CHANGES
  • 3.23. POLITICAL CONTEXT
  • 3.24. MOTIVATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE TEACHING
  • 3.24.1 Establishing Inclusion in Architecture schools
  • 3.24.2 Developing Attitude
  • 3.24.3 Enhancing Meaning
  • 3.24.4 Engendering Competence
  • 3.25. RACIAL AND GENDER ISSUES IN ARCHITECTURE SCHOOLS
  • 3.25.1 Gender Issues
  • 3.25.2 Racial Diversity
  • 3.26. COURSES THAT INSTILL SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (PERCENT (NUMBER.)
  • 3.27. GLOBAL ISSUES
  • 3.28. LOCAL RELEVANCE
  • 3.29. TEAMWORK IN ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE AND EDUCATION
  • 3.30. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
  • 3.31. OTHER CHANGES IN THE ARCHITECTURE PROFESSION
  • 3.32. ARCHITECTS’ PERCEPTION OF SOUTH AFRICAN PROBLEMS
  • 3.33. DESIGN STUDIO: ASSESSMENT, TIME AND RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER COURSES
  • 3.34. DESIGN PROJECTS
  • 3.35. THE CRIT
  • 3.36. STUDIO MASTER’S DOMINANCE
  • 3.37. THE TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES IN HAPPENING IN SOUTH AFRICA AND IN THE GLOBAL SOCIETY ARE CHANGING CURRICULA AND THE WAY ARCHITECTURE IS BEING TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS
  • 3.38. FINDINGS
  • 3.39. CONCLUSION
• CHAPTER 4:LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
  • 4.1. SUB- PROBLEM
  • 4.2. OVERVIEW OF CHAPTER
  • 4.3. REVIEW OF LITERATURE: LEGISLATION RELATING TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION
  • 4.3.1 The Council for the Built Environment Act
  • 4.3.2 Architectural Profession Act (SACAP)
  • 4.3.3 South African Qualifications Authority Act
  • 4.4. CHANGE IN SOUTH AFRICA EDUCATION: AN EVOLVING PARADIGM
  • 4.4.1 Counteracting the former system
  • 4.4.2 Bridging the gap between education and training
  • 4.4.3 Preparing South Africans for the st Century:
  • 4.5. GRADUATENESS AND GENERIC SKILLS
  • 4.6. RECOGNITION OF PRIOR LEARNING (RPL)
  • 4.7. CITIZENSHIP
  • 4.8. ACADEMIC FREEDOM VERSUS PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
  • 4.9. DISTANCE EDUCATION
  • 4.10. PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT
  • 4.11. COHERENCE
  • 4.12. GLOBAL CHALLENGE
  • 4.13. PROBLEM-BASED -CURRICULUM
  • 4.14. NATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK
  • 4.15. ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT: AD OR BRIDGING PROGRAMMES
  • 4.16. PROBLEMS WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF NQF
  • 4.17. CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
  • 4.18. CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT PROCESS USING OUTCOMES-BASED CURRICULUM APPROACH
  • 4.18.1 Life Roles
  • 4.18.2 Underlying Abilities
  • 4.18.3 Ways of Thinking
  • 4.18.6 Student socialization
  • 4.19. CURRICULUM AND ACADEMIC PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT IN HIGHER INSTITUTIONS OF LEARNING
  • 4.20. ARTICULATION
  • 4.21. PORTABILITY OF CREDITS AND CREDIT VALUES
  • 4.22. ACCESS, FLEXIBILITY AND LIFE LONG LEARNING
  • 4.23. QUALITY ASSURANCE
  • 4.24. DISHARMONIOUS PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN SAQA AND HIGHER EDUCATION
  • 4.25. RESISTANCE OF NQF FROM HIGHER EDUCATION
  • 4.26. INTEGRATED AND COLLECTION TYPE- CURRICULA
  • 4.27. CRITICAL ANAYSIS
  • 4.28. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
• CHAPTER 5 THE POST-MODERN ARCHITECTURE CURRICULUM
  • 5.1. SUB- PROBLEM
  • 5.2. OVERVIEW OF CHAPTER
  • 5.3. CRITICAL THINKING
  • 5.4. CRITICAL PEDAGOGY
  • 5.5. TYPES OF GRADUATES
  • 5.6. SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE PROGRAMMES
  • 5.6.1 Sustainable Curriculum Matters
  • 5.6.2 Sustainable Curriculum Lasts (Evolves)
  • 5.6.3 Sustainable Curriculum Spreads
  • 5.6.4 Sustainable Curriculum is socially just
  • 5.6.5 Sustainable Curriculum is Resourceful
  • 5.6.6 Sustainable Curriculum Promotes Diversity
  • 5.6.7 Sustainable Curriculum is Activist
  • 5.7. FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE OF CURRICULUM MODELS IN UNIVERSITIES:
  • 5.7.1 The Missions of Universities
  • 5.7.2 Lecturers and their Specific Expertise and Interests
  • 5.7.3 Location of School within a Faculty
  • 5.8. THE FACULTIES LOCATED WITHIN A PARTICULAR UNIVERSITY
  • 5.9. EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING
  • 5.10. SOCIAL PROBLEMS AS AN ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE FOR ARCHITECTURE CURRICULUM
  • 5.11. OBE
  • 5.12. OBE CURRICULUM MATRIX
  • 5.13. ENABLING OUTCOMES IN ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION
  • 5.14. OVERALL STRUCTURE
  • 5.15. MODULAR CYCLICAL APPROACH TO THE COURSE STRUCTURE
  • 5.16. COURSE LOAD
  • 5.17. CONTENT
  • 5.18. ENABLING OUTCOMES AND LEARNING EXPERIENCES
  • 5.19. RECOMMENED CURRICULUM
  • 5.19.1 First Year
  • 5.19.2 Second Year
  • 5.19.3 Third Year
  • 5.19.4 Fourth Year Specialized
  • 5.19.5 Fifth Year Specialized
  • 5.20. CONCLUSION
• CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
  • 6.1. OVERVIEW OF CHAPTER
  • 6.2. REVIEW OF PRECEDING CHAPTERS
  • 6.2.1 Chapter
  • 6.2.2 Chapter
  • 6.2.3 Chapter
  • 6.2.4 Chapter
  • 6.2.5 Chapter
  • 6.3. UNIQUE CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY AND EXPANSION OF THE BODY OF KNOWLEDGE
  • 6.4. OPPORTUNITIES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
  • 6.5. SHORTCOMINGS OF THE STUDY
  • BIBLIOGRAPHY
  • APPENDICES
  • APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE DOCUMENT
  • APPENDIX B: LETTER TO ARCHITECTS
  • APPENDIX C INTERVIEW WITH PROFESSOR LINDSAY BREMNER
  • APPENDIX D INTERVIEW WITH PROFESSOR ORA JOUBERT
  • APPENDIX E: LETTER TO SCHOOLS REQUESTING FOR CURRICULUM INFORMATION
  • APPENDIX F: CLASSIFICATIONS OF QUESTIONS IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT