Tanggam v4

The Workbase Informatic has been prepared by the Department to address the issues regarding the handling of the Workbases throughout the semester. As it is, this booklet serves as a rule book where the Department, the tutors and the students are bound to. With that said, the content of the booklet should always be interpreted within context and using fully informed judgments.

2.0. Workbase Definition

The Workbase is a design group where the tutors offer unique architectural approach in design projects according to specific philosophies. Students interested in a particular approach or method could enroll into a particular Workbase. This effectively bounds the Workbase tutor(s) and the students in a contractual relationship throughout the semester.

In tackling the design issues / problems, each member of the Workbase has its own responsibilities and rights. The success of the Workbase depends on the good rapport and cooperation between the tutors and students.

3.0. Workbase Philosophy

The Workbase system conforms to the modules set in the Rubric Chart. The design projects offered in each Workbase are based on these modules. The Workbase is offered at every level, with the exception of the Fifth year, where the Thesis Supervisory Panel system takes place. There is also another exception for students taking practical training semester.

3.1. Workbase module philosophy

A Module is defined as a level of design education that has to be achieved by a student. Each module contains specific parameters which are based on the syllabus and curriculum set by the Department at each level. These form the guidelines where tutors and students are free to interpret and use. Also included in the Module parameters is varying user size which forms as part of the design challenge.

Each Workbase has its own philosophy, approach and/or method. The variation can be based on the tutor’s specializations, special interests, current outstanding issues, available context/site and so on. For example, tutors specializing in structure can run a Workbase emphasizing on structural designs. Regardless of the varied philosophies followed, the Design Projects should adhere to the Department’s requirements and limitations. There is also a significant difference between the module levels to indicate a degree of advancements.

Refer to the Rubric Chart.

3.2. Module syllabus

The module syllabus is based on the Rubric Chart. The Rubric Chart governs the syllabus, user size limitations, module philosophy and levels, issues/problems that have to be tackled and so on.

3.3. Design project

Each Workbase offers its own philosophy and a unique issue that have to be tackled in each semester. Typically, a Workbase offers 3 Design Projects to address the issue at hand: a short project (2 weeks), a medium project (4 weeks) and a major project (8 weeks).

It is highly recommended that the issue (mentioned earlier) is used to create continuity between the three projects. This is to create a sense of unity and structure the understanding and knowledge gained. Each Design Project could tackle a small section or approach it from a different angle.

The smaller project could form as a teaser for the major project, as well as to prepare the students for the philosophy that the students might not have been exposed to. The core project where the students would gain and have to exhibit the utmost understanding is the major project. The major project can be conducted anytime during the semester, not necessarily the last. This can create more learning flexibility for the students.

3.4. Workbose Programme Structure

The Workbase Programme Structure is a document that details the outline of the programme for the semester (based on the subject). The list below is the guide of what a Workbase Programme Structure contains:

i. Introduction
ii. Synopsis
iii. Objective(s)
iv. Learning Outcomes
v. Generic Skills
vi. Teaching Methodologies
vii. List of Projects
viii. Workbases and Tutors
ix. Students Learning Time
x. Assessments and Duration
xi. Submission

3.5 Project brief

Every project offered in a Workbase must have its own Brief. The list below is the guideline of what a Brief contains:

i. Introduction
ii. Project Objectives
iii. Learning Outcome(s)
iv. Content/Summary
v. Methodology
vi. Assessment Criteria/Procedure
vii. Presentation Requirements
viii. Timeframe/Schedule
ix. Other Matters
x. References

4.0. Design assessment procedure DAP

4.1. Assessment is often seen as only the grading or evaluation of a completed task performed by the students, i.e. it is the product which is being assessed thus missing the process. Lately within the school, issues about the method of assessment, fairness in the award of grades/marks were raised by lecturers and students alike. In some cases students who were already assessed were not made known of their marks except at the very end of the semester, thus depriving them of the benefit of self-improvement.

This DAP stipulates the procedure to be followed by all lecturers teaching studio design that will validate the grades/marks given to the students.

4.2. Definition of terms

Assessment is defined as the measuring of performance and the development of the students (through their design submission) over a period of time. The design submission is deemed to be both the process and product Process is defined as the steps taken by the students to arrive at the final solution which are argued, rationalized and justified. It must be appropriately recorded. Product is defined as a set of drawing submission (may include model, reports etc) that is also appropriately illustrated and organized.

4.3 Purpose of assessment

The main purpose of assessment is to grade and give marks to the design that had been submitted by the students. The grading shall take into consideration both the process and the product. The other purpose shall be to demarcate the benchmark for the school. Fairness in the grading shall the spirit advocated by the assessors. It is the measuring of performance and development of the students over the time, the mastering of skills and knowledge as well as motivation that is achieved from this developmental process.

4.4. Types of assessment

Generally assessing studio design works can be done in three basic ways, namely by:

i. Carrying out continuous assessment of students; normal day to day work.
ii. By requiring them to compile a portfolio of the process and products that they produce, this being evaluated at the end of the semester.
iii. Organizing some sort of formal studio examination.

The third type of assessment is seldom conducted nowadays. Hence the school shall practice both the first and second type of assessment. However, which type of assessment to be used shall depend on the situation. For example, a quick two days sketch scheme should use the second type where else a seven week project should use the first one.

The continuous type of assessment can be further divided into:

i. Formative i.e is directly related to the design process, development and investigation of alternatives. It gives the students a chance to improve the same task and that feedback will be provided enabling development.
ii. Sectorial i.e. is directly related to componential subdivisions such as structure, services etc. that makes a whole product.

The portfolio type of assessment can be further divided into:

i. Summative i.e. is directly related to a students’ performance at a formal presentation. Here, they display the final outcome of their work, give short oral presentation on what they have done and answer questions. It is to determine whether the student should be allowed to progress to a later stage or contribute to the overall mark/grade that they are awarded. A standard proforma shall be used to provide the students with detailed feedback on how they have done, with the marking/grading being based on a standard, easily understood scheme.
ii. Holistic i.e. is directly related to a students’ performance at both the formal presentation and day to day progress of work.

A Workbase master may choose to adopt any of these types or a combination of types but he must declare his choice to both the department and his students. The Department has agreed that the following assessment method be used as a guide.

4.5. Assessment grade

In awarding grades/marks the following grading scale shall be followed. This implies the C- grade ruling as the minimum standard set by the department for a passable scheme. Any grade below C is deemed failed.

Marks Grade Point Description Criteria 90-100 A+ 4.00 Excellent Exploration (proven) 80-89 A 4.00 Excellent Exceptionally outstanding
75-79 70-74	A- B+	3.67 3.33	Good Good	Fulfilled basic requirements + exploration (attempt)
65-69 60-64	B B-	3.00 2.67	Average Average	Better attempt at basic requirements
55-59 50-54	C+ C	2.33 2.00	Pass Pass	Fulfilled basic requirements
45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 0 -29	C- D+ 0 D- F	1.67 1.33 1.00 0.67 0.00	Fail	Insufficient basic requirements

4.6. Assessment procedure

The following procedures shall be adhered by both the Workbase master and students.

4.6.1. All major projects (50% and above) must be pinned up and presented formally. A panel of two lecturers (comprising the Workbase master and another lecturer) shall assess the students’ works.
4.6.2. All medium projects (+1- 30%) shall be pinned up to be assessed by the Workbase master only. A formal presentation by the student may or may not be made.
4.6.3. All minor projects (< 20%) can be a table assessment only with or without the students’ presence.
4.6.4. For any assessment, the Workbase master reserves the right to assess the students’ work with or without the presence of the student.
4.6.5. The grade awarded shall be made known to the students immediately.
4.6.6. The Assessments Sheets shall be given to the students together with the grades. Students must file the Assessment Sheets together with the Crit Sheets.
4.6.7. For all formal presentations, ethical codes must be observed i.e. proper dressing, punctuality, attendance etc. The drawings to be pinned up must conform to the minimum submission standard/requirement set earlier for non-compliance; a student shall be graded fail. Upon appeal, if accepted, the student shall be graded a maximum of C grade only.
4.6.8. Upon obtaining the grade, the student has the right to appeal. However, only appeals based on breach of procedure by the Workbase master shall be entertained. Any appeal based on questioning the Workbase master’s integrity or good judgment shall not be entertained.
4.6.9. The process of normalization of grades should be exercised where appropriate situations are called for.

4.7. Descriptive evaluation

In the course of designing, all students shall go through a series of crit sessions. A crit session is also regarded as a form of evaluation. However it shall be regarded as a Descriptive Evaluation and not a grade/mark form of evaluation. This means the Workbase master must inform the students their performance position i.e. tell the students whether what they have is excellent, good, average etc.

The descriptive evaluation shall be both a verbal as well as a written form. The verbal is the crit itself; whereas the written form is the Crit Sheet which is given to the student after every crit session. Descriptive evaluation thus provides the students their performance graph telling them whether they are in the right direction and the course of action to be taken.

4.8 Crit sheet

The Department shall provide the students with a formatted Grit Sheet to be used for the Descriptive Evaluation / crit session. Students must keep the Crit Sheets in a proper file and this file shall be carried through to the next level of their design studies until graduation. A copy of the Grit Sheet shall be kept by the particular Workbase master to be filed and archived.

A Workbase master however is allowed to design and use his own crit sheet tailor suited to each specific project. However the criteria (descriptor) and performance indicator must be made dear. All Grit Sheets must be signed and dated by the Workbase master.

4.9. Crit session

In the course of writing the design programme, the Workbase master shall indicate the number of formal crits to be conducted for all projects. Students must attend all these crit sessions. A Workbase master shall fail any student who has not attended the crit session without approval or with accepted reasons.

A minimum of 80% crit session attendance shall be tolerated. Since the crit session is also regarded as a Descriptive Evaluation, the following shall be observed for the crit session to be effective.

i. The student must be made known of their design strength and weaknesses.
ii. They must be made known of their current performance through their performance indicator (excellent, good, average, weak and fail).
iii. They must be indicated as the course of action that can be taken or the options available.

As giving an effective crit can be a difficult task since it needs skill and experience, the Workbase master must continue to upgrade him or herself.

4.10 Contract

Students are automatically bonded in a contract with the Workbase tutors as soon as they register themselves into the respective Workbases. This means the students agree with what it offers; to work within the time frame and fulfill all its requirements. However, they could propose a different project than the one suggested by the tutor if they wish, as long as it complies with the philosophy of the Workbase. Discussion and understanding between the tutor and student is crucial.

5.0. Portfolio review

5.1 Purpose

To determine whether the studio programme has been conducted to achieve the philosophy of the Workbase and the level of module through observation of students’ works and feedback from the students.

A session to allow the moderation of grades when:
i. student voiced dissatisfaction;
ii. tutor thinks the moderated marks do not reflect the students’ true performance; or
iii. panel thinks there is discrepancy in the grades or assessment standard or method.

5.2. Format

5.2.1. Panels will be in a group assigned to review the specific Workbase.
5.2.2. The portfolio session will be conducted in the spirit of peer review.
5.2.3. The portfolio group can either be groups of tutors that will be taking the students in the following semester or a mix between Workbases.
5.2.4. Format of documentation is to be as set by the department to ensure standardized documentation of the portfolio report.

5.3. The task of the Portfolio Process

5.3.1. The Head of Course shall be responsible to form the 4 groups of panel members which will be responsible to review the programme.
5.3.2. Tutor to submit the studio programme, students’ final marks, lecture notes and teaching method prior to the portfolio day to be reviewed by the appointed panels.
5.3.3. Groups are tasked to look for weaknesses and strength of the programme.
5.3.4. Presentation of brief to panel with the presence of students.
5.3.5. All students to pin up the works for inspection.
5.3.6. Q&A will follow to avoid negative comments or ill phrased comments.
5.3.7. Portfolio panel meets students without Studio Master’s presence.
5.3.8. A report shall be done and presented in a department meeting.

5.4. Portfolio exposition

Go out / awarding students I promotes school / a grand architecture day

i. An annual event (second semester)
ii. To SELL the school and STUDENTS’ WORKS
iii. Works selected during the portfolio will be taken for documentation and published in a yearly journal sold during the exposition day
iv. A one day event where it becomes a grand finale for the year; a day to be looked forward by the students
v. Done after the exam weeks
vi. Preferably outside UTM
vii. Organized by students association (ArchiTECH)

6.0. Workbase Code of Conduct

This section addresses the code of conduct in running and participating in Workbases, crits, presentations and assessments as accepted by the Department.

6.1. Crits

Workbases are required to conduct three crits including one final crit during the running of each semester. Crits should be seen as a constructive and positive exercise. Participants are advised to allow designers to share their ideas and not as a platform of abuse. Active participations is required during crits.

6.2. Presentation drawings

Drawings must be clear legible, tidy and follows the acceptable conventions. It must be easily read as a design drawing. The quality of drawings must be optimal, both visual communications and the standard conventions. However, drawings should not be overly intricate. Drawings should be on A sized papers no smaller than A2. As a guide, the scale used should allow the primary drawings to be easily read from 1.5 meters away.

There are no limitations to the type of paper accepted. However, the tutor has the right determine specific paper to be used in a project. Students should not be too excited on using expensive papers as those do not guarantee better grades.

Primary drawings include:
i. Concept Sheet
ii. Location Plan
iii. Site Plan
iv. Floor Plans
v. Elevations
vi. Sections
vii. Major/Main/Typical/Detail Sections
viii. Axonometric/1sometric/Perspectives (Internal or External)

6.3. Reports

Certain Design Projects may require reports produced to accompany the submitted design. It could carry its own mark that would contribute to the overall grade of the Design Project. Reports may contain data collection and analysis, site analysis, brief formulation, design approach or concept, design process, design rationale and criteria, precedence studies, analogies, contextual studies, visual styles, clients, issues and so on. Reports may also contain design diary/log or scrap book.

6.4. Work schedule

The schedule determines the important dates for the interim crits, final crits, portfolio day and so on. Both the tutors and students are required to follow the programme schedule that has been set. This section discusses the rights of the tutors and students and their responsibilities.

7.0. Rights & responsibilities

7.1. Tutor’s Rights

7.1.1. Tutors have the right to award low grades (C- and lower) to students with
outstanding record of absence. Exceptions given to those with reasonable excuse or permission.
7.1.2. Tutors have the right to award low grades (C- and lower) to students who failed to submit on time except with reasonable excuse or permission.
7.1.3. Tutors have the right to prevent a student from attending the studio, refuse to take their attendance or refuse to entertain the student entirely if he/she is late beyond 15 minutes.
7.1.4. Tutors have the right to fail the students on the grounds of plagiarism (copying or stealing ideas of others. However, this depends on irrefutable evidence and has been proven beyond reasonable doubt with agreement from the members of the panel.
7.1.5. Tutors have the right to refuse to entertain students appeal within reason.
7.1.6. Tutors have the right to conceal student’s grade if they did not achieve the minimum standard (C- or lower). This is to allow them time to repair and upgrade their works to achieve the minimum passing grade (C).
7.1.7. Tutors are free to conduct their Workbases in their own unique way or approach as long as it does not contradict the Department’s requirements.
7.1.8. Tutors have the right to recommend students to withdraw from the studio if they failed to achieve minimum standard or frequently absent from the studio without reason. However, this can only be done before the mid-semester break. The implication would be the student would have to repeat the semester.
7.1.9. Tutors have the right to refuse to entertain students outside specified studio hours.
7.1.10. Tutors have the right to work in a conducive environment without fear of discrimination, harassment or abuse of any kind.
7.1.11. Tutors have the right to obtain information needed to help or solve a particular problem regarding a student.

7.2. Students’ rights

7.2.1. Students have the right to choose the Workbase of their preference. This depends on available spaces in the Workbase. However, special rules apply: refer Special Policy 2010/2011 below.
7.2.2. Students have the right to join the same Workbase under the same tutor twice. However, students are not recommended to remain in the same Unit more than twice despite changing tutors. Special rules apply.
7.2.2a. Special Policy 201 0/2011
Due to major changes in the curriculum and syllabus, the option to choose their own Workbases are suspended until further notice. However, Thesis and Pre-Thesis students can still choose their preferred Thesis Panels.
7.2.4. Students have the right to reject a project that is bigger or smaller than what have been determined by the Rubric Chart.
7.2.5. Students have the right to study in a conducive environment without fear of discrimination, harassment or abuse of any kind.
7.2.6. Students have the right to meet the tutor during studio hours. Students also have the right to demand replacement studio should the circumstances prevent a studio to be run on schedule.

7.3. Issues resolution

7.3.1. For problems regarding the running of the studio, students can consult the Workbase tutors. The tutor will then bring the matter to the Department’s attention if necessary.
7.3.2. For private matters, students can consult the tutor, academic advisor or the student advisor at the Office of Students Affairs (Pejabat Hal Ehwal Pelajar).
7.3.3. For other problems or outstanding issues, students are advised to consult the Head of Course.
7.3.4. It is a good practice to have an open dialogue between the tutors and the students to address certain issues.

7.4. Students’ Responsibilities

7.4.1. Students are required to dress accordingly to reflect the character of a mature and responsible architect.
7.4.2. Students are advised to seek the tutor as soon as a problem emerges; induding personal problems or something affecting their studies. It is the students’ prerogative to do so as any risks originating from unresolved issues will be their own responsibility.
7.4.3. It is the students’ responsibility to advanced themselves in their studies and not wait to be spoon-fed by the tutors!

*This document is based on “Pengendalian Unit Workbase” document (in Bahasa Malaysia) endorsed by the Department in the Department of Architectures Special Meeting on the 9th May 2002. At the time of publication, the changes in this document are pending approval of the Department.

 

Share on Facebook