2018 Visiting Team Report by AU-Architecture and Interior Design

Andrews University School of Architecture & Interior Design

2018 Visiting Team Report M. Arch (Pre-Professional degree + 30 credit hours) M. Arch (Non-Preprofessional degree + 102 credits)

The National Architectural Accrediting Board April 14-18, 2018

Vision: The NAAB aspires to be the leader in establishing educational quality assurance standards to enhance the value, relevance, and effectiveness of the architectural profession. Mission: The NAAB develops and maintains a system of accreditation in professional architecture education that is responsive to the needs of society and allows institutions with varying resources and circumstances to evolve according to their individual needs.

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018

Contents Section

Page

Summary of Visit

II.

Progress Since the Previous Site Visit

III.

Compliance with the 2014 Conditions for Accreditation

IV.

Part One (I): Institutional Support and Commitment to Continuous Improvement

Part Two (II): Educational Outcomes and Curriculum

Part Three (III): Annual and Interim Reports

Appendices 1. Conditions Met with Distinction

2. Team SPC Matrix

3. The Visiting Team

Report Signatures

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018

Summary of Visit a.

Acknowledgments and Observations The team wishes to thank you for the exceptional support, service and kindness extended by Andrews Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s administration, faculty, staff, and students. We acknowledge the excellent contributions that your students are making to the profession of architecture, enhanced by your unique faith-based worldview. Your design approach is visible in the contextual and culturally sensitive projects that your students produce. Students are given the opportunity by their professors to engage in local and global communities across the world. Thanks is also extended to your servant based leaders, President Andrea Luxton, Provost Dr. Christon Arthur, Dean Carey Carscallen and Assistant Dean Paula Dronen. The team has observed a very strong community based environment that exists in the architecture program between administrators, faculty, and students. The students have stated that they feel that they are part of a family. This sense of community extends to a strong collegiality that exists among the faculty members who work collaboratively on many projects and initiatives. Students have stated that the faculty are very accommodating, with a focus on student success. The team appreciates the development and emphasis on the use of hand drawing to communicate design thinking throughout the curriculum of the program. This emphasis will enable students to represent ideas and concepts successfully now and well into their future professional careers. Another observation voiced by the team during discussions with students and faculty centered around the ability to successfully communicate with consultants, particularly with engineers in project design and professional development.

Conditions Not Achieved (list number and title) C.3

II.

Integrative Design

Progress Since the Previous Site Visit 2009 Criterion A.4, Technical Documentation: Ability to make technically clear drawings, write outline specifications, and prepare models illustrating and identifying the assembly of materials, systems, and components appropriate for a building design. Previous Team Report (2012): Although ability to make technically clear drawings and prepare models was demonstrated in ARCH 201 and ARCH442, evidence of studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to write outline specifications in any of the written or graphic examples was not found. 2018 Visiting Team Assessment: Evidence for A.4, Technical Documentation found in ARCH 442 Integrative Design Studio and ARCH 469 Integrative Design II demonstrates studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; knowledge of technical and outline specifications as found in the detailed specification for a curtain wall system.

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 2009 C.4, Project Management: Understanding of the methods for competing for commissions, selecting consultants and assembling teams, and recommending project delivery methods. Previous Team Report (2012): Although it appears that this material was covered in ARCH535 Professional Practice, evidence of understanding of this criterion was not found in ARCH535 Professional Practice documentation. 2018 Visiting Team Assessment: Evidence for C.4, Project Management now categorized as D.2 Project Management under NAAB Accreditation Guidelines 2018, was found in ARCH 536 and ARCH 537, Professional Practice 1 and 2 in examination, essay and lecture form. Additionally, evidence was found in ARCH 521 Urban Design Studio and ARCH 522 Topics Studio, in detailed project organization documents describing steering committee, consultant and client roles, as well as student roles and class project team organization, project schedules and weekly time utilization charts.

Previous Team Report (2012): Causes of Concern A. Physical Resources â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The existing facilities are currently adequate. A concern is the temporary building located south of the main facility that contains the 5th-year studio and storage space. With the addition of an Interior Design program and a Construction Management program on May 1, it is anticipated that in 2-3 years more space will be needed for studio and faculty offices. The architecture student body is also at a low and if an increase in numbers occurs in the future, more studio space will be needed. The Architecture School has a donor with a potential commitment to provide funding for a new 56,000 SF architecture building. A letter from the donor was received during the teamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s visit dated 3 April 2012 that indicates a financial commitment of $24,000,000 may be forthcoming in the second quarter this year 2012. If the donor funds do not materialize, the university has budgeted $500,000 for an addition to the Architecture School to be constructed south of the current facility in 2015. This amount is estimated to be less than what would be needed for an addition to meet the need as described above. If the new building is not constructed it is anticipated that there will be a need for more than the budget amount projected by the university in order to satisfy the space requirements. 2018 Visiting Team Assessment: During the summer of 2018, the school is undertaking the first phase of a $2,271,000 expansion to the architecture building. The initial phase (A) is an $800,000 addition that will replace the temporary trailer studio that was installed in 2001. The 2,600 square foot trailer is being replaced with a 6,000 square foot addition that will house the fifth-year studio and the combined design-build and model shops. Having the fifth-year design-build studio immediately adjacent to the shop will be an asset for students, making the design-build process more efficient. This addition is slated to be completed by fall 2018. The shop space in the Grounds Building will be used for materials storage and staging for the design-build projects, and the former woodshop space in the Art & Design Center will be used for third year studio until the next phases (B and C) of the architecture building expansion are completed. The team observed the progress by visually verifying the construction of Phase A and confirmed the schedule and scope of work with Dean Carscallen. B. Insular Faculty â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The university policy to extend tenure only to Seventh-day Adventists leads to a relatively small pool of qualified candidates from which to hire. The fact that much of the education of this pool could have been achieved in large part or even exclusively at Andrews University is a concern as it could result in a diminished breadth of education among the

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 faculty. The self-imposed restriction brings with it the responsibility to aggressively seek out potential faculty that can also provide the valuable breadth of education and experience that would be of greatest benefit to the students. 2018 Visiting Team Assessment: Andrews University qualifies as a religious institution and has the right to extend tenure only to Seventh-day Adventists; but cannot discriminate on the basis of any of the other protected categories (race, gender, age, national origins, etc.). The fact that much of the education of the students comes from a small pool of qualified Seventh-day Adventist candidates from which to hire, is no longer a concern. C. Electives – The team is concerned about the structure and at times, the rigor of the elective requirements within the 30 credit hours that make up the graduate portion of the Master of Architecture first professional degree. The architecture electives are swing level 400/500 level courses in which undergraduate or graduate students may enroll. According to university policy, the differences in outcomes for undergraduate or graduate students are an attendance policy and grade achievement. The university is currently developing guidelines for clarifying different academic expectations for undergraduate and graduate students who take swing courses. Architecture professors may have different expectations as per the syllabus, but none were identified in the various architecture elective syllabi available in the team room. 2018 Visiting Team Assessment: Elective courses are not required to satisfy Student Performance Criteria and therefore the electives did not identify any criteria that was being met. Additionally, all students did not take the same mix of electives. Electives are no longer a cause of concern. D. Pilot Practicum – Three years ago, as an alternative to the ARCH 522, Visiting Critic/Topic Studio, a pilot Practicum Program was instituted where students could apply to work in an office for a four-month period earning anywhere from 6-16 credit hours. Offices participating in the Pilot Practicum are located in Beaufort, SC, Pass Christian, MS, Santa Rosa Beach, FL and the on-site office of the Architecture Missions Group (AMG). Work demonstrated in the binder describing the experience in the out-of-state offices indicated that the experience is similar to that which a graduate may receive as an intern. Students are not compensated for their work and pay full tuition while working on the Practicum. There is no syllabus outlining the expectations and the outcomes of both the student and the firm for this graduate level requirement. Students are awarded a grade of “A” without a measurable outcome and it is unclear how the number of credit hours awarded a student is determined. This is especially significant considering the number of credits that can be earned and the potential impact on graduate student GPA. The team questions whether this experience, which is primarily training, is adequate for awarding graduate education credit in what could be a loosely structured endeavor. The team supports the marvelous work of the AMG studio in under-served communities such as Haiti. Further, the team recognizes that the concept of a Practicum or an Internship has value but questions its current structure within the graduate curriculum. The team is concerned that the practicum places students in the position of providing uncompensated labor to firms that may benefit from such a relationship by billing the students’ time to clients or freeing existing employees to produce more or bill more time. The offices are not held to any academic standard for student learning goals of understanding, learning, or achievement. The students are paying full tuition for the opportunity to work for free.

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 The team felt that the practicum has value as a learning experience and graduation requirement. However, either students should be compensated and not pay tuition or be uncompensated, pay tuition and earn academic credit. In the first instance offices could utilize them as suited their needs. In the second, students and offices would be held to a set of expectations and definable outcomes. 2018 Visiting Team Assessment: ARCH 522, the Pilot Practicum Project is now ARCH 594 Practicum. The course allows students to gain experience under the supervision of a professional practitioner that meets the requirement of the Andrews University School of Architecture and Interior Design. The experience may be from a for-profit or a not-forprofit organization. ARCH 594 students receive seven academic credits for the course. No SPCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s are specifically addressed in this elective course. The Practicum is no longer a cause of concern.

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 III.

Compliance with the 2014 Conditions for Accreditation

PART ONE (I): INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT AND COMMITMENT TO CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT This part addresses the commitment of the institution, its faculty, staff, and students to the development and evolution of the program over time. Part One (I): Section 1 – Identity and Self-Assessment I.1.1 History and Mission: The program must describe its history, mission, and culture and how that history, mission, and culture shape the program’s pedagogy and development. ●

Programs that exist within a larger educational institution must also describe the history and mission of the institution and how that shapes or influences the program. ● The program must describe its active role and relationship within its academic context and university community. The description must include the program’s benefits to the institutional setting and how the program as a unit and/or individual faculty members participate in universitywide initiatives and the university’s academic plan. The description must also include how the program as a unit develops multidisciplinary relationships and leverages opportunities that are uniquely defined within the university and its local context in the community. [X] Described

2018 Analysis/Review: Andrews University was established in 1874 by young Seventh-day Adventists in hopes to spread the gospel and service around the world, including higher education. Originally Battle Creek College, the school was later combined with Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary and a school of graduate studies to become Andrews University. The Department of Architecture, developed in 1983, was accredited in 1987 as a bachelor of architecture program, then became a fully accredited five year master of architecture program in 2000. The department of architecture became the School of Architecture in 2011, and is now known as the School of Architecture and Interior Design. Andrews University offers the only accredited architecture program within the Seventh-day Adventist college network. The intention of the college is to provide members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church interested in careers in architecture an opportunity to study in a Christian setting. As reflected by its mission statement, the goal of the school is to prepare students for lives of leadership, stewardship, and service, and is committed to providing high quality Christian education in the context of the Adventist faith. The program strives to provide this education in a coherent learning experience, with the design studios at the center of this experience. Students are asked to consider design as a craft that can shape the world around them, while simultaneously seeking the virtues of joy, beauty, and a lifelong pursuit of learning. Architectural theory, hand drawings, hands on experiences, technical understanding, and study tours all contribute to the promotion of the school’s mission. Although the program focuses broadly on this mission, the component most carried out in projects and discussed by faculty is their desire to get students excited about service. I.1.2 Learning Culture: The program must demonstrate that it provides a positive and respectful learning environment that encourages optimism, respect, sharing, engagement, and innovation between and among the members of its faculty, student body, administration, and staff in all learning environments, both traditional and nontraditional. ●

●

The program must have adopted a written studio culture policy and a plan for its implementation, including dissemination to all members of the learning community, regular evaluation, and continuous improvement or revision. In addition, the plan must address the values of time management, general health and well-being, work-school-life balance, and professional conduct. The program must describe the ways in which students and faculty are encouraged to learn both inside and outside the classroom through individual and collective learning opportunities that

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 include but are not limited to field trips, participation in professional societies and organizations, honor societies, and other program-specific or campus-wide and community-wide activities. [X] Demonstrated 2018 Analysis/Review: A positive and respectful learning environment is demonstrated with distinction throughout the school and its policies, as evidenced through administrator, faculty and student interviews and observations. The program’s studio space is an open area where first through fifth-year studio courses are taught. Students are assigned a personal drafting table within this space, co-located with their studio classmates. This open learning environment fosters respect, idea sharing, engagement and innovation among all participants in the learning process. There is evidence through interviews that the faculty and students are aware of the policies of Andrews University and the program. These policies promote principles of professional conduct, a healthy lifestyle and the practice of good time management. The building is closed from 1am to 5am daily and on the Sabbath to further encourage health and wellbeing, as well as enabling students to take these time constraints into account in project planning. These policies are updated annually and distributed to students and faculty at the beginning of each academic year. Learning is encouraged for both students and faculty members in numerous ways, both inside and outside the classroom environment. Site visits and precedent site tours are incorporated into studio courses. All students participate in a five-week study abroad program centered around analyzing tangible case studies in architecture history, design and faith decisions along with their implications. An optional, further opportunity to study abroad is offered through the Waldensian Tour. Multiple volunteer service opportunities are offered, both locally through community programs such as ‘Renaissance Kids’ and globally through ‘Beyond Walls’ in Jordan. The student cohort is active in many organizations, including AIAS, Freedom by Design and Tau Sigma Delta Honor Society. These organizations have active participation by approximately two-thirds of the student body and organize regularly-occurring events including tours, seminars and vespers. The AIAS facilitates learning through a self-established mentorship program in which fourth and fifth-year students are paired through mutual interests with first and second-year students, encouraging open and often continuing dialogue. Faculty members also participate and facilitate many of the service events for the students and the community. Additionally, faculty are encouraged to pursue continuing education through conference attendance, research opportunities and professional affiliations. I.1.3 Social Equity: The program must have a policy on diversity and inclusion that is communicated to current and prospective faculty, students, and staff and is reflected in the distribution of the program’s human, physical, and financial resources. ●

●

The program must describe its plan for maintaining or increasing the diversity of its faculty, staff, and students during the next two accreditation cycles as compared with the existing diversity of the faculty, staff, and students of the institution. The program must document that institutional-, college-, or program-level policies are in place to further Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action (EEO/AA), as well as any other diversity initiatives at the program, college, or institutional level.

[X] Demonstrated 2018 Analysis/Review: The program has a clear policy on diversity and inclusion that is communicated in the Strategic Plan, the university’s Statement of Intent, and the document, Social Equity in the Curriculum. These documents collectively reflect the distribution of the program’s human, physical and

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 financial resources. The current Strategic Plan calls upon the university to “ensure that Andrews University diversity is celebrated and enriches the community." The university actively prepares its faculty to “Engage Globally as an Andrews Community” by focusing on the issues of globalization and global responsibility for the faculty community on campus. It also strives to effectively support its international students. Diversity initiatives are overseen by a 17-member Institutional Diversity Council. Made up of student, faculty, staff, and administrative representatives, the Council tackles issues of inclusiveness and multiculturalism at all levels within the institution, including a wide range of social and current affair issues that are relevant to the student and campus community. It serves as a clearinghouse to better connect and coordinate events and activities centering on diversity and to assure that diversity remains a central focus of the institution. An Ad Hoc Committee on Race was formed in 2015 to review and recommend policies and practices that would help the university create a safe, supportive and nurturing culture where diverse groups, particularly African Americans, can thrive and have open dialogue about race relations. The Committee’s recommendations presented to the president at the end of 2015 included creating an Office of Diversity and a vice president level position to oversee its operation. The proposal stipulated that when this position is filled, the position would hold “faculty rank and have supervisory responsibilities for matters relating to diversity and inclusion, such as, the integration of other faiths and religious communities into campus life, student success, LGBTQ, Title IX, recruitment and hiring practices, the infusion of diversity and advocacy into the curriculum, etc.” A final recommendation of the ad hoc group included providing cultural competency workshops for the campus community and initial required training for graduate students and new faculty. A required training session titled “The Andrews Mirror: A Workshop on Diversity” was offered during the Faculty Institute in August 2016. However, the architecture program has not quantitatively described its plan for maintaining or increasing the diversity of its faculty, staff, and students during the next two accreditation cycles as compared with the existing diversity of the faculty, staff, and students of the institution.

I.1.4 Defining Perspectives: The program must describe how it is responsive to the following perspectives or forces that affect the education and development of professional architects. The response to each perspective must further identify how these perspectives will continue to be addressed as part of the program’s long-range planning activities. [X] Described 2018 Analysis/Review: Evidence of the faculty and students contributing to the institution across all categories of the I.1.4 - Defining Perspectives was found in the APR, in work on exhibit in the team room and in discussions with faculty and students. The discussion on each topic is provided below the category. A. Collaboration and Leadership. The program must describe its culture for successful individual and team dynamics, collaborative experiences, and opportunities for leadership roles. The program is designed to instill a culture of collaboration and open dialogue throughout the curriculum. This collaboration occurs internally through team projects as well as with external stakeholders, consultants and clients across many of the studio courses. Individual projects are often linked through shared neighborhood sites, background research projects and context studies. Students are encouraged to mentor one another through the AIAS initiated mentorship programs, building an engaged and collaborative student cohort. The studio space itself is an open environment where all five years of studio courses are held, fostering open and engaging dialogue across all levels of the program. A culture that emphasizes the importance of respectful leadership is also evident within the program. Relationship building and collaboration skills are developed in studios and

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 service projects, where engagement with real-world clients, other design programs, city officials, consultants, subject matter experts and community groups is critical to the success of the solutions proposed by the students. Collaboration and leadership are found outside the classroom in student organizations, including AIAS, Freedom by Design and Tau Sigma Delta Honor Society. In these organizations, students participate in leadership roles and organize several education and mission-based events. B. Design. The program must describe its approach for developing graduates with an understanding of design as a multidimensional process involving problem resolution and the discovery of new opportunities that will create value. Multidimensional design skills are developed throughout the program through a series of increasingly complex design problems, supplemented with integrated lecture curriculum. Skill development begins in the initial two years of the program with hand drawing and rendering techniques to interpret the real and imagined, developing hand drawing as a tool to communicate with clients and colleagues. Studio and lecture courses taught enable students to think about and represent the qualities of space and the environment, while developing an understanding of architectural conventions and vocabulary. Beginning in the third year, hand drawing and drafting begins to be supplemented with computer-aided three-dimensional modeling. The lecture curriculum covers structures, environmental systems and urban studies, integrating these key elements into studio design projects. Detailed model development illustrates this integration and educates students in another form of design representation. Students expand design thinking from the context of an individual building to the community, cultural and urban contexts in which the building is situated. The comprehensive fourth year introduces Building Integrated Modeling (BIM) in design for multiple uses and stakeholders. A systems design approach is taken, integrating studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; understanding of construction methods, materiality, structural and mechanical/electrical systems into the design process. Additionally, Environmental Technology curriculum is applied across all phases of design. The program culminates with real-life urban design and design-build projects. The students focus on developing a master plan vision for a region, collaborating with a client, community stakeholders, consultants and other students. The second semester focuses on design and construction of a project within the context of the master plan developed in the first semester. This provides a hands-on project where students are accountable to a client, provide value to the community, and design within budget and schedule constraints, while gaining valuable construction experience. Students learn communication, collaboration and leadership skills throughout the duration of the program. C. Professional Opportunity. The program must describe its approach for educating students on the breadth of professional opportunities and career paths, including the transition to internship and licensure. The program provides many avenues for students to understand and experience the breadth of professional opportunities and career paths available to them in the architecture industry. Students engage in design-build projects that expose them to a variety of project types, including traditional architect-client projects and non-traditional

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 design projects. The service projects students engage in provide them with an understanding of how they serve the profession in both traditional and non-traditional roles. The Professional Practice course series educates students on topics related to the responsibilities of architects, the organizations and industry resources available to professionals and the development of career tools, such as resumes, portfolios and interview skills. Emphasis in career planning is placed on the NCARB path to state licensure and resources, including an appointed Architect Licensing Advisor, and are provided to advise students on the process and requirements for licensure through seminars and mentoring. An informal poll of the student body indicated that the majority of students in all years of the program intend to pursue licensure following graduation. Students are also able to participate in an elective Practicum course offered to provide work experience. Practicum host offices work in close collaboration with the faculty to ensure that students receive a well-rounded experience. D. Stewardship of the Environment. The program must describe its approach to developing graduates who are prepared to both understand and take responsibility for stewardship of the environment and natural resources. The program makes a conscious effort to integrate environmental stewardship and responsibility into many aspects of the curriculum. As demonstrated in the work displayed in the team room, the Environmental Technology course series, taught directly in conjunction with studio courses, educates students extensively on site and building analysis, energy conscious design concepts and design impact implications for projects that they are actively working on, enabling both an understanding and an application of the knowledge gained from the series. This comprehensive understanding is then furthered and applied throughout the remaining studio courses. E. Community and Social Responsibility. The program must describe its approach to developing graduates who are prepared to be active, engaged citizens able to understand what it means to be professional members of society and to act ethically on that understanding. Community and Social Responsibility is an integral part of the mission of Andrews University and of the school. Through a variety of real-world and hands-on opportunities, students actively engage with local and global communities across multiple scales through studio and lecture courses, volunteer activities and educational programs. Recent design-build projects include a master plan vision for the Twin Cities Harbor, along with a display gallery for this vision, mobile medical clinics for underserved communities in Africa and housing prototypes. Immediately following Hurricane Maria, a studio that was working on a development plan for San Juan, Puerto Rico re-envisioned the project into one of recovery service, contributing time, supplies and assistance to the effort within days of the event. Additional volunteer efforts partner with organizations in Jordan and Bolivia to assist communities with projects in these regions, while building meaningful cross-cultural relationships. Each of these activities demonstrates the programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s commitment to community and social responsibility. Faculty also take part in this mission, working with the community in programs including â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Renaissance Kids,â&#x20AC;&#x2122; an annual architecture summer camp for K-12 students focused on a service design-build project, and giving back to Andrews University through the design of a new Health and Wellness Center and further Campus Master Plan development, among other things.

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 I.1.5 Long-Range Planning: The program must demonstrate that it has a planning process for continuous improvement that identifies multiyear objectives within the context of the institutional mission and culture. [X] Demonstrated 2018 Analysis/Review: The school produced a strategic plan addressing 2017-2022 to align with the Andrews University strategic plan, enabling departmental and institutional planning objectives to be integrated, implemented and monitored with respect to each other. The plan is centered around themes put forward by Andrews University, including: ‘Live Wholly, Explore Intentionally, Learn Deeply and Engage Globally.’ The assessment practice to review progress towards the strategic plan utilizes robust sources of data through the Office of Institutional Effectiveness. The long-range planning is further informed by the five perspectives and the role they play in shaping the program as was noted in the APR.

I.1.6 Assessment: I.1.6.A Program Self-Assessment Procedures: The program must demonstrate that it regularly assesses the following: ·

How well the program is progressing toward its mission and stated objectives.

Progress against its defined multiyear objectives.

Progress in addressing deficiencies and causes of concern identified at the time of the last visit.

Strengths, challenges, and opportunities faced by the program while continuously improving learning opportunities.

The program must also demonstrate that results of self-assessments are regularly used to advise and encourage changes and adjustments to promote student success. I.1.6.B Curricular Assessment and Development: The program must demonstrate a well-reasoned process for curricular assessment and adjustments, and must identify the roles and responsibilities of the personnel and committees involved in setting curricular agendas and initiatives, including the curriculum committee, program coordinators, and department chairs or directors. [X] Demonstrated 2018 Analysis/Review: Andrews University's Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE) is the body responsible for providing and supporting assessment practices. Workshops are offered as a part of the “Faculty Institute,” “Course Tune-up,” and during the first year of each new faculty. The assessment of institutional goals is managed by the OIE and results are reviewed by the Committee for Institutional Assessment, which includes assessment directors and faculty representatives from each school. Achievement of key institutional goals and pass rates on licensure exams are included in the key performance indicators report to the board each October. Program review, which is required every five to seven years, includes outcomes assessment. Through the use of surveys at the university scale, program scale, and course scale, university administration, program administrators, and faculty can respond according to the findings to make improvements at the varying scales. Focus groups and the program’s course evaluations are also ways that improvements are made. The program course evaluation process allows faculty to engage in dialogue about what each faculty person is covering, how course content can be connected, and how each course contributes to the overall goal and mission of the program. When it is determined that changes needs to be made, action occurs first at the faculty meetings and then is taken to the Architecture Academic Policies & Curriculum Committee. In addition to regular faculty meetings, the Architecture Academic Policies and Curriculum Committee meet one to two times each year. This committee is chaired by the assistant dean and includes the full faculty, three outside faculty members, a representative from Academic Records, and a student representative.

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 Curricular Assessment Process: Parties

Roles & Responsibilities

Chair, Assistant Dean

Curriculum Development, Organizes Agenda, Runs Meeting, Prepares Bulletin Copy

Faculty

Through program and course assessment, identifies changes to be made in curriculum and course

3 Outside Faculty Members

Provide perspectives outside of the discipline of architecture. One of the three outside faculty members comes from a professional program which also has an outside accreditation body (Physical Therapy)

Academic Records

The Assistant Registrar provides perspective from the implementation and records point of view

Student Representative

Provides student perspective on curriculum and courses

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 Part One (I): Section 2 – Resources I.2.1 Human Resources and Human Resource Development: The program must demonstrate that it has appropriate human resources to support student learning and achievement. Human resources include full- and part-time instructional faculty, administrative leadership, and technical, administrative, and other support staff. ●

The program must demonstrate that it balances the workloads of all faculty to support a tutorial exchange between the student and the teacher that promotes student achievement. ● The program must demonstrate that an Architecture Licensing Advisor (ALA) has been appointed, is trained in the issues of the Architect Experience Program (AXP), has regular communication with students, is fulfilling the requirements as outlined in the ALA position description, and regularly attends ALA training and development programs. ● The program must demonstrate that faculty and staff have opportunities to pursue professional development that contributes to program improvement. ● The program must describe the support services available to students in the program, including but not limited to academic and personal advising, career guidance, and internship or job placement. [X] Demonstrated 2018 Analysis/Review: The workload of all faculty is balanced to support a tutorial exchange between the students and faculty. This was evidenced and observed during design studios and lectures. Thomas Lowing is the appointed Architecture Licensing Advisor (ALA) and is trained in the issues of the Architect Experience Program (AXP) and regularly communicates with Andrews University students. He attends the ALA conferences and assists students in establishing Council Records. This information is listed in his resume, the APR and evidenced through individual and group faculty discussions. The program demonstrates that faculty and students have opportunities to pursue professional development through the Office of Research and Creative Scholarship (ORCS) and through dialogue in meetings with the faculty and students. The ORCS seeks to promote excellence in research and creativity and foster an attitude of scholarly inquiry within the community of faculty and students of Andrews University. The office supports the full spectrum of scholarly activity including the Scholarship of Discovery, the Scholarship of Integration, the Scholarship of Engagement, and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. This is done through conferences, symposia, and grant awards. Faculty Activity Report (FAR) Annual Faculty Research/Creative Awards have been established to recognize research and creative achievement of faculty members. Awards are given to each faculty member who submits an annual FAR with scored activities. Faculty Research Grants (FRG) The university, through the ORCS, competitively awards FRG on a yearly basis to qualified university faculty. Annual support of up to $5,000 for the research/creative scholarly activities of faculty is available. FRG support can cover expenses associated with the faculty member’s scholarly growth activities such as student labor, travel for research purposes, miscellaneous supplies and small equipment, and/or an allowance for hiring a contract teacher to cover one regularly scheduled class. Research Faculty Status The designation “Research Faculty” is awarded to faculty members who excel beyond the minimum university requirements for research and creative scholarship, in recognition of the time and effort required to maintain an active productive research program. Tenured and tenure-track faculty are eligible for “Research Faculty” status.

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018

External Grants The ORCS actively support faculty in identifying funding sources and preparing effective proposals for external support. General Conference Grant Faculty Research Grants are eligible for funding from the General Conference Grant. Undergraduate Research Scholar (URS) The ORCS awards Undergraduate Research Scholar awards of $1000 to undergraduates involved in an independent research project under the guidance of a faculty mentor, in the mentor’s area of expertise. The awards are available each semester of the academic year and during the summer. Graduate Assistantships Graduate Assistants may be employed to work with faculty members on an FRG-funded project. Academic Advising The program utilizes a centralized, developmental advising approach with the assistant dean serving in the role of academic advisor. The assistant dean has developed a communication plan that entails reaching out to students prior to matriculation. As part of the communication plan, which is assessed each year, once students matriculate, the assistant dean systematically meets with students both individually, at least one-two times per semester, and collectively, at key points during their program. These meetings help build personal relationships with each student by discussing their academic progress, career options, and motive for pursuing an architecture degree. There are three key group meetings. The first as a beginning cohort in the first year of the program where program expectations are discussed while also providing a time for the students to meet and get to know each other. The second meeting occurs in early spring term of the 2nd year in which the application procedures to the professional phase of the program is discussed. In the final year of the undergraduate phase of the program there is a meeting to discuss the process of beginning the graduate year. The assistant dean advises all students in the program with the exception of those admitted to Andrews University under the ‘Bridge to Success Program.’ In an effort to be proactive in issue spotting, the assistant dean conducts degree audits after each term and provides communication to the student if there are concerns, GPA caution, repeat needs, etc. Students who are put on academic probation are also advised by the Student Success office in conjunction with the assistant dean.

I.2.2 Physical Resources: The program must describe the physical resources available and how they support the pedagogical approach and student achievement. Physical resources include but are not limited to the following: ● ● ● ●

Space to support and encourage studio-based learning. Space to support and encourage didactic and interactive learning, including labs, shops, and equipment. Space to support and encourage the full range of faculty roles and responsibilities, including preparation for teaching, research, mentoring, and student advising. Information resources to support all learning formats and pedagogies in use by the program.

If the program’s pedagogy does not require some or all of the above physical resources, the program must describe the effect (if any) that online, on-site, or hybrid formats have on digital and physical resources.

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 [X] Described 2018 Analysis/Review: Since its construction in 1985 the building that houses most program functions has accommodated the majority of its needs. This building and its nearby ancillary architecture spaces – the design-build workshop in the adjacent Grounds Building, and the woodshop located in the Art & Design Center – are located on East Campus Circle Drive and are part of a larger group of structures that form a ring of academic and service buildings around the north-east portion of the campus. The total architecture facilities include five studios, two classrooms, the Architecture Resource Center (ARC), a seventy-seat amphitheater, a computer lab, administrative offices, 11 faculty offices, a model shop, a design-build shop, exhibition and jury space, and two storage rooms. In 1994 the main architecture building was extensively renovated to enlarge the ARC. In 2008, a 5,600 square foot addition was made to the building to replace the North Trailer Studio. A summary of existing school gross square footages are indicated below: Architecture Building (studios, libraries, offices, classrooms, exhibition)

20,600 sf

Art and Design Center (model shop)

2,500 sf

Grounds Building Design/Build shop

1,120 sf

TOTAL

23,820 sf

The program has two large studio spaces - the North Studio, and the South Studio, each of which are comprised of two design spaces. Combined, the large spaces accommodate five levels of students. The program furnishes each student with a drawing surface, parallel rule, stool, and lamp. Cutting boards and light tables are located throughout each studio for the students' convenience. The woodshop is located across the street from the main architecture building. The woodshop houses an adequate collection of power tools and other model making equipment. The shop is heavily used by students and is managed by a faculty member as woodshop coordinator, a part-time shop supervisor, and by student assistants. Expansion of the architecture facilities is planned to include a 6,000 square foot addition in phase one that will increase woodshop and studio space. This addition is slated to be completed by fall 2018. I.2.3 Financial Resources: The program must demonstrate that it has appropriate financial resources to support student learning and achievement. [X] Demonstrated 2018 Analysis/Review: The program demonstrates that it has appropriate financial resources to support student learning and achievement by being a cost center of the university. Income to the program is either from tuition or from church subsidies to the university, distributed to the schools on a per-student basis. Based on current enrollment, the program budget for fiscal year 2018 gives a contribution of about 13% back to the university. The program has control of the income from course fees and professional fees, which is about 13% of the total revenue for the program. This revenue is used for faculty professional development, licensure, conferences, and travel; student labor; class field trips; woodshop expenses and supervision; jury travel, honoraria, and lecture series; computer lab maintenance and software; general equipment; accreditation expenses and organizational memberships. In addition, 1% of the revenue, not associated with the fee income mentioned above, goes to general expenses. The university has a university-wide scholarship program called the ‘Andrews Partnership Scholarships’ which is available to all undergraduate students and is, on average, around 50% of their tuition costs.

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 There is also an Andrews Need scholarship that is awarded on a case-by-case basis to students who demonstrate a legitimate need due to their individual financial situation. For the School of Architecture & Interior Design this scholarship program is about 51% of tuition income. 1.2% of tuition income goes to graduate grants. In addition, the program has three named scholarships that each award in total about $1,500 to students annually. There have been no changes in funding models for faculty compensation and instruction since the last accreditation visit. This information was also confirmed through discussions with the university’s CFO and the school’s dean.

I.2.4 Information Resources: The program must demonstrate that all students, faculty, and staff have convenient, equitable access to literature and information, as well as appropriate visual and digital resources that support professional education in architecture. Further, the program must demonstrate that all students, faculty, and staff have access to architecture librarians and visual resource professionals who provide information services that teach and develop the research, evaluative, and critical-thinking skills necessary for professional practice and lifelong learning. [X] Demonstrated 2018 Analysis/Review: The team found students and faculty have convenient access to the Architectural Resource Center (ARC), as well as to the James White Library on the Andrews University Campus. The ARC is well supported with sufficient literature, information and visual resources and is supported in the continual acquisition of new material. The ARC houses the largest collection of Environmental Design Resource Association (EDRA) material in the country, which serves as a resource to both the school and visitors. An additional space was recently allocated outside the ARC to archive materials for the library. The ARC is supported by a full time library staff member as well as 10 rotating student assistants available during opening hours and is open at least 60 hours per week. The space also serves to host education programs and lectures, while providing a student amenity, dubbed the ‘Living Room.’ The ARC recently received a $20,000 donation to build a space for storing the sensitive volumes in the rare book collection. It was noted that the ARC is in the process of upgrading its ARE study materials to include ARE 5.0 resources. A central computer lab has been provided for students within the studio space. This is used for both computer based education programs and student use. Additionally, the fourth year integrated design studio students each have a dedicated computer with the necessary software to learn Building Integrated Modeling, graphic design software and to meet other project related needs. The program does not have a personal laptop requirement for students due to the facilities and equipment provided.

I.2.5 Administrative Structure and Governance: I.2.5.A Administrative Structure: The program must describe its administrative structure and identify key personnel within the context of the program and school, college, and institution. I.2.5.B Governance: The program must describe the role of faculty, staff, and students in both program and institutional governance structures. The program must describe the relationship of these structures to the governance structures of the academic unit and the institution. [X] Described 2018 Analysis/Review: A description of the administrative structure and governance is indicated below as documented in the APR and through dialogue with the provost, dean and faculty members. The dean represents the mission of the school to the university and to the public, and reports directly to the provost. The dean represents the school at meetings of the Board of Trustees and is a member of the Dean’s Council. In addition, the dean teaches one to two courses each year, prepares and monitors

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 the budget; has the right and responsibility of approval of matters concerning hiring, promotion and advancement, determines committee assignments; has input into and responsibility for policy making issues, and presides at faculty meetings. The assistant dean is a 50% administrative and 50% faculty position. The assistant dean is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the school, with input into and responsibility for both policy and administrative issues. The assistant dean structures the curriculum, determines faculty course loads and assignments, handles all academic advising, assesses transfer and admission policies, and oversees the area of recruitment. The assistant dean presides at Architecture Academic Policies and Curricula Committee meetings, and is a member of the Undergraduate and Graduate Councils, the Academic Policies Sub-Committee of Undergraduate Council, the Admissions and Academic Standards Committee of Graduate Council, the High School Experience Committee, and the Andrews Core Experience Committee. Governance The dean and assistant dean work in close association with the faculty in the administration of the program. Faculty meetings occur weekly and include a student representative. The Architecture Policies and Curricula Committee provides input from the whole architecture faculty, and a student representative, and to ensure broader input, one faculty representative from Physical Therapy, two faculty persons from the College of Arts & Sciences, and an assistant registrar from Academic Records.

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 CONDITIONS FOR ACCREDITATION PART TWO (II): EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES AND CURRICULUM Part Two (II): Section 1 – Student Performance – Educational Realms and Student Performance Criteria II.1.1 Student Performance Criteria: The SPC are organized into realms to more easily understand the relationships between each criterion. Realm A: Critical Thinking and Representation: Graduates from NAAB-accredited programs must be able to build abstract relationships and understand the impact of ideas based on the study and analysis of multiple theoretical, social, political, economic, cultural, and environmental contexts. Graduates must also be able to use a diverse range of skills to think about and convey architectural ideas, including writing, investigating, speaking, drawing, and modeling. Student learning aspirations for this realm include ·

Being broadly educated.

Valuing lifelong inquisitiveness.

Communicating graphically in a range of media.

Assessing evidence.

Comprehending people, place, and context.

Recognizing the disparate needs of client, community, and society.

A.1

Professional Communication Skills: Ability to write and speak effectively and use representational media appropriate for both within the profession and with the public. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence of writing and speaking skills was found in the team room in courses ARCH 315 History of Architecture, ARCH 370 Person-Environment Theory and ARCH 521 Urban Design Studio in the form of written essays, term papers and presentation recordings. Evidence of effective use of representational media was found in the work on display in the team room.

A.2

Design Thinking Skills: Ability to raise clear and precise questions, use abstract ideas to interpret information, consider diverse points of view, reach well-reasoned conclusions, and test alternative outcomes against relevant criteria and standards. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence was found in the team room in ARCH 215 Introduction to Design Studio, ARCH 247 Architecture as Craft Studio and ARCH 320 Placemaking Studio in the form of course assignments. Additional evidence exists in work on display in course ARCH 521 Urban Design Studio.

A.3

Investigative Skills: Ability to gather, assess, record, and comparatively evaluate relevant information and performance in order to support conclusions related to a specific project or assignment. [X] Met

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence was found in the course binder for Arch 201 Construction I in the form of lecture notes and team research project #1 and in Arch 336 Environmental Technology II in the form of lecture notes, exams and assignments. A.4

Architectural Design Skills: Ability to effectively use basic formal, organizational, and environmental principles and the capacity of each to inform two- and three-dimensional design. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence was found in ARCH 215 Introduction to Design Studio in the form of drawings of studio design projects: a Prayer Center, and an Environmental Interpretive Center and also in Arch 318 Background Building Studio, in the form of drawings of studio design projects: a Worship & Ministry Center and a Youth Center.

A.5

Ordering Systems: Ability to apply the fundamentals of both natural and formal ordering systems and the capacity of each to inform two- and three-dimensional design. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence was found in ARCH 247 Architecture as Craft Studio, ARCH 320 Placemaking Studio and ARCH 521 Urban Design Studio in the course binder in the form of studio assignments and in displayed student work. Additional evidence was found in ARCH 150 Introduction to Architecture as class readings primarily in the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Introduction to Architectureâ&#x20AC;? by Francis D.K. Ching textbook.

A.6

Use of Precedents: Ability to examine and comprehend the fundamental principles present in relevant precedents and to make informed choices about the incorporation of such principles into architecture and urban design projects. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence was found in ARCH 247 Architecture as Craft Studio in the form of drawings and written project descriptions and ARCH 521 Urban Design Studio through relevant case studies, regional building typology and construction technique studies and precedent project examples.

A.7

History and Culture: Understanding of the parallel and divergent histories of architecture and the cultural norms of a variety of indigenous, vernacular, local, and regional settings in terms of their political, economic, social, ecological, and technological factors. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence was found in ARCH 315 History of Architecture I and II notebooks in the form of lecture notes, exams and research papers.

A.8

Cultural Diversity and Social Equity: Understanding of the diverse needs, values, behavioral norms, physical abilities, and social and spatial patterns that characterize different cultures and individuals and the responsibility of the architect to ensure equity of access to sites, buildings, and structures. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence was found in ARCH 318 Background Building Studio in the form of drawings for a Worship & Ministry Center and a Youth Center and in the lecture notes, and term papers for ARCH 370 Person Environment Theory.

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018

Realm A. General Team Commentary: The architecture program and curriculum requires students to develop a broad range of critical thinking skills, including analysis, investigation and evaluation techniques. The team observed a strong culture of making and a clear emphasis on process, evident in both the team room displays and studio observations. Centered in place, culture and context, increasingly complex design problems engage students in assessing and understanding people and place, developing solutions that meet the needs of clients and the societies which are most impacted by the design projects. Students demonstrate hand drawing and digital representation techniques that compliment verbal and written communication skills. The team found evidence of high achievement from all levels of the program in Realm A.

Realm B: Building Practices, Technical Skills, and Knowledge: Graduates from NAAB-accredited programs must be able to comprehend the technical aspects of design, systems, and materials, and be able to apply that comprehension to architectural solutions. In addition, the impact of such decisions on the environment must be well considered. Student learning aspirations for this realm include · Creating building designs with well-integrated systems. · Comprehending constructability. · Integrating the principles of environmental stewardship. · Conveying technical information accurately.

B.1

Pre-Design: Ability to prepare a comprehensive program for an architectural project that includes an assessment of client and user needs; an inventory of spaces and their requirements; an analysis of site conditions (including existing buildings); a review of the relevant building codes and standards, including relevant sustainability requirements, and an assessment of their implications for the project; and a definition of site selection and design assessment criteria. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence was found in the majority of studio courses, including, but not limited to the following: • • • • • •

ARCH 318 Background Building Studio ARCH 320 Placemaking Studio ARCH 336 Environmental Technology II ARCH 441 Comprehensive Building Studio ARCH 449 Integrative Design I ARCH 521 Urban Design Studio

Evidence was found in the form of demographic, economic, environmental and climatic studies, contextual site diagrams, narratives, premise statements, programs, site and floor plans, life safety drawings and environmental analysis.

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 B.2

Site Design: Ability to respond to site characteristics, including urban context and developmental patterning, historical fabric, soil, topography, ecology, climate, and building orientation, in the development of a project design. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence was found in ARCH 201 Construction I on lecture slides regarding soil, climate, and ecology in the course binder. Evidence was also found in ARCH 215 Intro to Design Studio, located in assignments in the course binder and drawings regarding soil, topography, ecology, climate, and building orientation, in the development of a project design. Evidence was also found in ARCH 521 Urban Design Studio, on drawings as well as in the course binder regarding urban context and developmental patterning, historical fabric, soil, topography, ecology, climate, and building orientation, in the development of a project design.

B.3

Codes and Regulations: Ability to design sites, facilities, and systems that are responsive to relevant codes and regulations, and include the principles of life-safety and accessibility standards. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence was found for facility and system design in ARCH 318 Background Building Studio, ARCH 449 Integrative Design I and in ARCH 469 Integrative Design II in the form of course exercises and written assignments.

B.4

Technical Documentation: Ability to make technically clear drawings, prepare outline specifications, and construct models illustrating and identifying the assembly of materials, systems, and components appropriate for a building design. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence was found in ARCH 247 Architecture as Craft Studio, ARCH 442 Integrative Design Studio and ARCH 469 Integrative Design II in the form of specifications, drawings of the assembly of materials and building components, and in physical models.

B.5

Structural Systems: Ability to demonstrate the basic principles of structural systems and their ability to withstand gravitational, seismic, and lateral forces, as well as the selection and application of the appropriate structural system. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence was found in ARCH 205 Structures I, ARCH 305 Structures II, in course binder assignments, addressing basic principles of structural systems and their ability to withstand gravitational and lateral forces. Evidence was also identified in ARCH 442 Integrative Design I in the course binder in assignments addressing selection and application of the appropriate structural systems within a design project.

B.6

Environmental Systems: Ability to demonstrate the principles of environmental systemsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; design, how design criteria can vary by geographic region, and the tools used for performance assessment. This demonstration must include active and passive heating and cooling, solar geometry, daylighting, natural ventilation, indoor air quality, solar systems, lighting systems, and acoustics. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence was found in ARCH 335 Environmental Technology I and ARCH 336 Environmental Technology II in the course binders, in lecture notes, class exercises,

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 quizzes, and midterm exams addressing active and passive heating and cooling, solar geometry, daylighting, natural ventilation, indoor air quality, solar systems, lighting systems, and acoustics.

B.7

Building Envelope Systems and Assemblies: Understanding of the basic principles involved in the appropriate selection and application of building envelope systems relative to fundamental performance, aesthetics, moisture transfer, durability, and energy and material resources. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence was found in ARCH 318 Background Building, ARCH 442 Integrative Design Studio, and ARCH 469 Integrative Design II in the form of drawings, specifications, course assignments and quizzes.

B.8

Building Materials and Assemblies: Understanding of the basic principles used in the appropriate selection of interior and exterior construction materials, finishes, products, components, and assemblies based on their inherent performance, including environmental impact and reuse. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence was found in ARCH 336 Environmental Technology II, ARCH 442 Integrative Design Studio I, and ARCH 469 Integrative Design Studio II in the form of drawings, lecture materials and course assignments.

B.9

Building Service Systems: Understanding of the basic principles and appropriate application and performance of building service systems, including lighting, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, communication, vertical transportation, security, and fire protection systems. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence was found in ARCH 335 Environmental Technology I and ARCH 336 Environmental Technology II in the course binder and on display, in lecture notes, course exercises, quizzes and midterm exams addressing lighting, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, vertical transportation, and fire protection systems.

B.10

Financial Considerations: Understanding of the fundamentals of building costs, which must include project financing methods and feasibility, construction cost estimating, construction scheduling, operational costs, and life-cycle costs. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence was found in ARCH 335 Environmental Technology I, regarding general operational cost found in course binder in writing assignments. Evidence was found in in ARCH 449 Integrative Design I and ARCH 522 Topic Studio related to financing methods and feasibility, construction cost estimating, and construction scheduling in studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; timesheets and documented research in the course binder. Evidence was also found in ARCH 202 Construction II in lecture material and final exam regarding life-cycle costing.

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 Realm B. General Team Commentary: Building Practices and Technical Skills have been improved from the last NAAB visitation in 2012 and demonstrated in a wide variety of courses. Technical Drawings are clear and concise with the use of Revit software. This enables the drawing to contain detailed technical information including structural, materials, assembly and building systems information. Charts for budgets and sketches for design “partis” and building elevations are prepared and displayed professionally. The team found evidence of improvement resulting in acceptable achievement from all levels of the program in Realm B.

Realm C: Integrated Architectural Solutions: Graduates from NAAB-accredited programs must be able to demonstrate that they have the ability to synthesize a wide range of variables into an integrated design solution. Student learning aspirations in this realm include: ·

Comprehending the importance of research pursuits to inform the design process.

Evaluating options and reconciling the implications of design decisions across systems and scales.

Synthesizing variables from diverse and complex systems into an integrated architectural solution.

Responding to environmental stewardship goals across multiple systems for an integrated solution.

C.1

Research: Understanding of the theoretical and applied research methodologies and practices used during the design process. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence demonstrating student understanding of research methodologies was found in ARCH 370 Person-Environment Theory and ARCH 469 Integrative Design II in the form of material analysis, post-occupancy evaluations, universal design studies and observation studies.

C.2

Integrated Evaluations and Decision-Making Design Process: Ability to demonstrate the skills associated with making integrated decisions across multiple systems and variables in the completion of a design project. This demonstration includes problem identification, setting evaluative criteria, analyzing solutions, and predicting the effectiveness of implementation. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence was found in the work displayed and the course binders in courses ARCH 441 Comprehensive Building Studio, ARCH 521 Urban Design Studio and ARCH 522 Topic Studio in the form of contextual analysis, premise statements, design criteria, massing studies and solution analysis.

C.3

Integrative Design: Ability to make design decisions within a complex architectural project while demonstrating broad integration and consideration of environmental stewardship, technical

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 documentation, accessibility, site conditions, life safety, environmental systems, structural systems, and building envelope systems and assemblies. [X] Not Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence was not found demonstrating ability in the integration of site conditions, accessibility and lighting into a complete design solution. Evidence was not found documenting the design decision making process, but was verified as a verbal process that takes place during studio reviews through discussions the team had with current students and faculty. NAAB Accreditation Procedures requires that evidence be found in the team room for SPCs. Evidence was found in ARCH 318 Background Building Studio and in ARCH 442 Integrative Design Studio that demonstrated broad integration of the life safety, environmental, structural and building envelope systems.

Realm C. General Team Commentary: Integrated building design is documented in a series of increasingly complex projects that are multi-story and multi-use facilities. The urban setting, stakeholder integration and systems thinking creates complexities in the problem for the students to solve. The understanding of research is demonstrated both in the design process and in specific studies conducted, centered around universal design and post-occupancy evaluation. The team found evidence of acceptable achievement from all levels of the program in Realm C, except C.3 Integrative Design.

Realm D: Professional Practice: Graduates from NAAB-accredited programs must understand business principles for the practice of architecture, including management, advocacy, and the need to act legally, ethically, and critically for the good of the client, society, and the public. Student learning aspirations for this realm include:

D.1

Comprehending the business of architecture and construction.

Discerning the valuable roles key players in related disciplines.

Understanding a professional code of ethics, as well as legal and professional responsibilities.

Stakeholder Roles in Architecture: Understanding of the relationships among key stakeholders in the design process—client, contractor, architect, user groups, local community—the architect’s role to reconcile stakeholders needs. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence of stakeholder engagement at multiple levels is clearly articulated in ARCH 247 Architecture as Craft Studio, ARCH 521 Urban Design Studio and ARCH 522 Topics Studio through the engagement with real-world clients, communities, city organizations, consultants and vendors across projects of multiple scales. This evidence was documented in course binders, publications and works on display.

D.2

Project Management: Understanding of the methods for selecting consultants and assembling teams; identifying work plans, project schedules, and time requirements; and recommending project delivery methods.

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence was found in ARCH 536 and ARCH 537, Professional Practice 1 and 2 in exam, essay and lecture form. Additional evidence was found on display in ARCH 521 Urban Design Studio and ARCH 522 Topics Studio, in detailed project organization documents describing steering committee, consultant and client roles, and in student roles and class project team organization, project schedules and weekly time utilization charts.

D.3

Business Practices: Understanding of the basic principles of a firm’s business practices, including financial management and business planning, marketing, organization, and entrepreneurship. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence was found in ARCH537 Professional Practice II in business practices including financial management, organization and entrepreneurship. Evidence was also found in ARCH 536 Professional Practice I for financial management, AIA Contracts and business management plan development.

D.4

Legal Responsibilities: Understanding of the architect’s responsibility to the public and the client as determined by regulations and legal considerations involving the practice of architecture and professional service contracts. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence was found in student work in ARCH 536 Professional Practice I for professional service contracts and legal considerations. Evidence was found in ARCH 537 Professional Practice II for the legal regulations involving the practice of architecture.

D.5

Professional Ethics: Understanding of the ethical issues involved in the exercise of professional judgment in architectural design and practice and understanding the role of the NCARB Rules of Conduct and the AIA Code of Ethics in defining professional conduct. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence was found in ARCH 536 Professional Practice I for the exercise of professional judgement in architectural design. Evidence was found in ARCH 537 Professional Practice II for the understanding of the role of NCARB and AIA in professional conduct.

Realm D. General Team Commentary: Through a series of exercises, the student is required to reflect on the role the architect plays as he/she engages the public and community at large. The student also considers the moral dimension of architectural practice. The rule of protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public is understood and well documented. NCARB and AIA codes of professional conduct are cited in the students’ work. The student is exposed to AIA contracts and follows the progression of business and financial issues that firm management encounters. The series of two courses, Professional Practice I and II, provide a comprehensive forum for students to meet the requirements of Professional Practice. Student work demonstrates an understanding and is intentional in the analysis of each topic. The team found evidence of acceptable achievement from all levels of the program in Realm D.

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018

Part Two (II): Section 2 – Curricular Framework II.2.1 Institutional Accreditation For a professional degree program in architecture to be accredited by the NAAB, the institution must meet one of the following criteria: 1. The institution offering the accredited degree program must be or be part of an institution accredited by one of the following U.S. regional institutional accrediting agencies for higher education: the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS); the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools (MSACS); the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC); the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCACS); the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU); or the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). 2. Institutions located outside the United States and not accredited by a U.S. regional accrediting agency may pursue candidacy and accreditation of a professional degree program in architecture under the following circumstances: a. The institution has explicit written permission from all applicable national education authorities in that program’s country or region. b. At least one of the agencies granting permission has a system of institutional quality assurance and review which the institution is subject to and which includes periodic evaluation. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: The university is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission as of March 2017 and is a member of the North Central Association Colleges and Schools. II.2.2 Professional Degrees and Curriculum: The NAAB accredits the following professional degree programs with the following titles: the Bachelor of Architecture (B. Arch.), the Master of Architecture (M. Arch.), and the Doctor of Architecture (D. Arch.). The curricular requirements for awarding these degrees must include professional studies, general studies, and optional studies. The B. Arch., M. Arch., and/or D. Arch. are titles used exclusively with NAAB-accredited professional degree programs. The B. Arch., M. Arch., and/or D. Arch. are recognized by the public as accredited degrees and therefore should not be used by nonaccredited programs. Therefore, any institution that uses the degree title B. Arch., M. Arch., or D. Arch. for a nonaccredited degree program must change the title. Programs must initiate the appropriate institutional processes for changing the titles of these nonaccredited programs by June 30, 2018. The number of credit hours for each degree is specified in the 2014 NAAB Conditions for Accreditation. All accredited program must conform to the minimum credit hour requirements: [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence found in the APR and on the program’s website details the two available tracks for the university’s degree offerings. The 5 ½ year Master of Architecture requires completion of 168 credits: • •

Bachelors of Science in Architecture: 138 Credits Master of Architecture: 30 Credits

The 3 ½ year Master of Architecture requires completion of 102 credits: •

Undergraduate Coursework: 88 Credits

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 •

Graduate Coursework: 30 Credits

Part Two (II): Section 3 – Evaluation of Preparatory Education The program must demonstrate that it has a thorough and equitable process for evaluating the preparatory or preprofessional education of individuals admitted to the NAAB-accredited degree program. · Programs must document their processes for evaluating a student’s prior academic course work related to satisfying NAAB student performance criteria when a student is admitted to the professional degree program. · In the event a program relies on the preparatory educational experience to ensure that admitted students have met certain SPC, the program must demonstrate it has established standards for ensuring these SPC are met and for determining whether any gaps exist. · The program must demonstrate that the evaluation of baccalaureate-degree or associatedegree content is clearly articulated in the admissions process, and that the evaluation process and its implications for the length of a professional degree program can be understood by a candidate before accepting the offer of admission. See also Condition II.4.6. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence for developing a thorough and equitable process for evaluating the preparatory or preprofessional education of students admitted to the NAAB-accredited degree program can be found in the notebook titled, “Policies Regarding Admission Requirements and Admission Decisions,” and in dialogue with the faculty advisor.

Part Two (II): Section 4 – Public Information The NAAB expects programs to be transparent and accountable in the information provided to students, faculty, and the public. As a result, the following seven conditions require all NAAB-accredited programs to make certain information publicly available online.

II.4.1 Statement on NAAB-Accredited Degrees: All institutions offering a NAAB-accredited degree program or any candidacy program must include the exact language found in the NAAB Conditions for Accreditation, Appendix 1, in catalogs and promotional media. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: The required information was readily accessible on the school’s website and in school catalogs. II.4.2 Access to NAAB Conditions and Procedures: The program must make the following documents electronically available to all students, faculty, and the public: The 2014 NAAB Conditions for Accreditation The Conditions for Accreditation in effect at the time of the last visit (2009 or 2004, depending on the date of the last visit) The NAAB Procedures for Accreditation (edition currently in effect)

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: The required documents, the 2014 NAAB Conditions for Accreditation and 2009 NAAB Conditions for Accreditation, are electronically available on the program’s website in addition to physical copies in the ARC and the administrative office.

II.4.3 Access to Career Development Information: The program must demonstrate that students and graduates have access to career development and placement services that assist them in developing, evaluating, and implementing career, education, and employment plans. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Required information pertaining to career development information was accessible on the university’s website. II.4.4 Public Access to APRs and VTRs: In order to promote transparency in the process of accreditation in architecture education, the program is required to make the following documents electronically available to the public: ·

All Interim Progress Reports (and narrative Annual Reports submitted 2009-2012).

All NAAB Responses to Interim Progress Reports (and NAAB Responses to narrative Annual Reports submitted 2009-2012).

The most recent decision letter from the NAAB.

The most recent APR.[1]

The final edition of the most recent Visiting Team Report, including attachments and addenda.

[X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: The 2017 Architecture Program Report and the 2012 Visiting Team Report, along with the 2012 NAAB Letter of Accreditation and NAAB Annual Reports (2013 - 2016) are on the program’s website. II.4.5 ARE Pass Rates: NCARB publishes pass rates for each section of the Architect Registration Examination by institution. This information is considered useful to prospective students as part of their planning for higher/postsecondary education in architecture. Therefore, programs are required to make this information available to current and prospective students and the public by linking their websites to the results. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: The Andrews University School of Architecture and Interior Design has created a direct link to the NCARB website to access the ARE 4.0 Pass Rates and ARE 5.0 Pass Rates. II.4.6 Admissions and Advising: The program must publicly document all policies and procedures that govern how applicants to the accredited program are evaluated for admission. These procedures must include first-time, first-year students as well as transfers within and outside the institution. This documentation must include the following: ●

Application forms and instructions.

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 ●

Admissions requirements, admissions decision procedures, including policies and processes for evaluation of transcripts and portfolios (where required), and decisions regarding remediation and advanced standing.

●

Forms and process for the evaluation of preprofessional degree content.

●

Requirements and forms for applying for financial aid and scholarships.

●

Student diversity initiatives.

[X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence for documenting policies and procedures that govern how applicants to the accredited program are evaluated for admission are included in the notebook titled, “Policies Regarding Admission Requirement and Admission Decisions.”

II.4.7 Student Financial Information: ●

The program must demonstrate that students have access to information and advice for making decisions regarding financial aid.

●

The program must demonstrate that students have access to an initial estimate for all tuition, fees, books, general supplies, and specialized materials that may be required during the full course of study for completing the NAAB-accredited degree program.

[X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: An initial estimate on the program’s website allows for prospective students to make decisions regarding financial aid, including a net cost calculator.

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 PART THREE (III): ANNUAL AND INTERIM REPORTS III.1 Annual Statistical Reports: The program is required to submit Annual Statistical Reports in the format required by the NAAB Procedures for Accreditation. The program must certify that all statistical data it submits to the NAAB has been verified by the institution and is consistent with institutional reports to national and regional agencies, including the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System of the National Center for Education Statistics. [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: Evidence in the APR leads to a link of the 2016 NAAB Annual Report where statistical data to support this requirement was clearly evident. III.2 Interim Progress Reports: The program must submit Interim Progress Reports to the NAAB (see Section 10, NAAB Procedures for Accreditation, 2015 Edition). [X] Met 2018 Team Assessment: The Interim Progress Report, titled ‘2014 Program Focused Evaluation Report’ is located on the program’s website. Due to having a six-year term of accreditation that is no longer in place under the NAAB, a second interim report is not required.

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 IV. Appendices: Appendix 1. Conditions Met with Distinction I.1.1 Human Resources and Human Resource Development The Student Academic Advising is a student support service that has been acknowledged unanimously by the architecture students as a strength of the program. The team wishes to commend the assistant dean on developing an excellent centralized communication plan that entails reaching out to students prior to and after matriculation. This approach has increased the retention of the architecture students. I.1.2 Learning Culture A positive and respectful learning environment is demonstrated with distinction throughout the program and across all levels. The dedicated faculty and the commitment to the mission of the program fosters respect, engagement and innovation among all participants in the learning process. Student to student mentoring, organized by the AIAS, in conjunction with a shared studio environment, promotes open idea sharing and dialogue enhancing the education in the program. Integrating service into the curriculum enhances studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ability to consider all project stakeholders and the lasting impact design projects have for individuals, communities and societies. II.1.1 B.1 Pre-Design The depth of analysis conducted for the projects in each of the courses listed above displayed studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; exceptional ability to conduct in-depth research on the culture and context of the site location, assessing key needs by the community and the many stakeholders impacted by the potential project (real or hypothetical). This analysis then informed the design premise and the assessment criteria to further substantiate key design strategies. Lecture course assignments are related directly back to studio projects, furthering the pre-design process, as well as applying knowledge gained in seminars to projects the students are currently working on.

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 Appendix 2. Team SPC Matrix The team is required to complete an SPC matrix that identifies the course(s) in which student work was found that demonstrated the programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s compliance with Part II, Section 1. The program is required to provide the team with a blank matrix that identifies courses by number and title on the y axis and the NAAB SPC on the x axis. This matrix is to be completed in Excel and converted to Adobe PDF and then added to the final VTR.

(see attached chart)

B.10.

C.1.

C.2.

C.3.

Professional Conduct

B.9.

Legal Responsibilities

B.8.

Business Practices

B.7.

Project Management

B.6.

Stakeholder Roles in Architecture

B.5.

Realm D: Professional Practice

B.4.

Integrative Design

B.3.

Integrated Evaluations and Decision-Making Design Process

Financial Considerations

B.2.

Research

Building Service Systems

B.1

Realm C: Leadership and Practice

Building Materials and Assemblies

A.8.

Building Envelope Systems and Assemblies

A.7.

Environmental Systems

Cultural Diversity and Social Equity

A.6.

Structural Systems

History and Global Culture

A.5.

Technical Documentation

Use of Precedents

A.4.

Codes and Regulations

Ordering Systems

A.3.

Site Design

Architectural Design Skills

A.2.

Pre-Design

Investigative Skills

A.1.

Realm B: Integrated Building Practices, Technical Skills, and Knowledge

Design Thinking Skills

Realm A: Critical Thinking and Representation Courses:

Professional Communication Skills

Student Performance Criteria - Professional Program

D.1.

D.2.

D.3.

D.4.

D.5.

ARCH126 Drawing & Graphics Studio ARCH150 Intro to Architecture & Design

ARCH201 Construction I

ARCH202 Construction II ARCH205 Structures I

ARCH215 Intro to Design Studio

ARCH247 Architecture as Craft Studio

X X

ARCH305 Structures II ARCH315 History of Architecture I

X X

ARCH316 History of Architecture II

ARCH318 Background Building Studio

ARCH320 Placemaking Studio

X X

ARCH330 Analytical Summer Abroad ARCH335 Environmental Technology I

ARCH336 Environmental Technology II ARCH370 Person-Environment Theory

ARCH434 Urban Studies ARCH435 Introduction to BIM ARCH441 Comprehensive Building Studio

ARCH442 Integrative Design Studio

ARCH449 Integrative Design I

X X

ARCH459 Design Theory ARCH469 Integrative Design II

SPC met in pre-professional program SPC met in NAAB-accredited program ARCH521 Urban Design Studio ARCH522 Topic Studio

X X

ARCH536 Professional Practice I

ARCH537 Professional Practice II

6/16/2018

Andrews University Visiting Team Report April 14-18, 2018 Appendix 3. The Visiting Team Team Chair, Representing the ACSA Curtis Sartor, Ph.D. Associate Vice President, Title IX Coordinator, Architecture Professor Judson University 1151 North State Street Elgin, IL 60123 847.628.1017 csartor@judsonu.edu Representing the AIA Kate Renner, AIA Associate, HKS 1250 I Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 202.682.6289 krenner@hksinc.com Representing the NCARB Gary E. Demele, FAIA, NCARB Vice President BUSCH Architects, Inc. Flour Exchange Building 310 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 1000 Minneapolis, MN 55415-1012 612.333.2279 gary.d@busch-architects.com Representing the AIAS Adiel Quiteno 553 55th St West New York, NJ 07103 201.492.3349 aq28@njit.edu Non-Voting Team Member Greg Huddy C3 Studio Knoxville, TN 37931 843-597-4331 Ghuddy@c3studiollc.com