Urbanism. Faculty of Architecture and The Built Environment, Delft University of Technology

Urbanism Faculty of Architecture and The Built Environment, Delft University of Technology

Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities (QANU) Catharijnesingel 56 PO Box 8035 3503 RA Utrecht The Netherlands Phone: +31 (0) 30 230 3100 Telefax: +31 (0) 30 230 3129 E-mail: info@qanu.nl Internet: www.qanu.nl Project number: Q0464 2014 QANU Text and numerical material from this publication may be reproduced in print, by photocopying or by any other means with the permission of QANU if the source is mentioned. 2 QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology

CONTENTS Report on the postgraduate master s programme in Urbanism of Delft University of Technology...5 Administrative data regarding the programme...5 Administrative data regarding the institution...5 Quantitative data regarding the programme...5 Composition of the assessment committee...5 Working method of the assessment committee...6 Summary judgement...9 Description of the standards from the Assessment framework for limited programme assessments...11 Appendices... 21 Appendix 1: Curricula Vitae of the members of the assessment committee...23 Appendix 2: Domain-specific framework of reference...25 Appendix 3: Intended learning outcomes...27 Appendix 4: Overview of the curriculum...31 Appendix 5: Quantitative data regarding the programme...33 Appendix 6: Programme of the site visit...35 Appendix 7: Theses and documents studied by the committee...37 Appendix 8: Declarations of independence...39 This report was finalized on 31 January 2014 QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology 3

4 QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology

Report on the postgraduate master s programme in Urbanism of Delft University of Technology This report takes the NVAO s Assessment Framework for Limited Programme Assessments as a starting point. Administrative data regarding the programme Master s programme European postgraduate master s programme in Urbanism Name of the programme: European Postgraduate Master s programme in Urbanism CROHO number: 75060 Level of the programme: master's Orientation of the programme: academic Number of credits: 120 EC Specializations or tracks: Location(s): Delft Mode(s) of study: full time Expiration of accreditation: 22-02-2015 The visit of the assessment committee of the European Postgraduate Master s programme in Urbanism to the Faculty of Architecture and The Built Environment of Delft University of Technology took place on 22 and 23 October 2013. Administrative data regarding the institution Name of the institution: Status of the institution: Result institutional quality assurance assessment: Delft University of Technology publicly funded institution positive Quantitative data regarding the programme The required quantitative data regarding the programme are included in Appendix 5. Composition of the assessment committee The committee that assessed the postgraduate master s programme postgraduate master s programme in Urbanism consisted of: Professor L. De Klerk (em.), professor in Urban and Regional Planning, University of Amsterdam; Professor P. Van Wesemael, professor in Urban Design and Urban Architecture, Eindhoven University of Technology; QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology 5

Dr. S. Marshall PhD, Reader in urban Morphology and Planning, Bartlett School of Planning, University College London (UK); Ir. T.C. Ruimschotel, Chairman BNSP (Beroepsvereniging van Nederlandse Stedebouwkundigen en Planologen - Dutch professional organisation of Urban Designers and Planners); senior Urban Designer at the Town-Planning Department, City of Groningen; The Netherlands; Mrs. G. Juwet BSc, master student Urbanism and Strategic Planning, KU Leuven (BEL). The committee was supported by José van Zwieten, who acted as secretary. Appendix 1 contains the curricula vitae of the members of the committee. Working method of the assessment committee Preparation To begin with, the educational degree programme provided a critical reflection. Subsequently, the project manager checked the quality and completeness of the information. Only after approval, the critical reflection was forwarded to the members of the committee. The committee members read the critical reflection and formulated questions based on its content. In addition, each committee member had to review three theses and three corresponding assessment forms prior to the site visit. The theses were carefully selected by the project manager, in consultation with the chair of the committee (see Appendix 7 for a list of theses and documents studied by the committee). The project manager designed a visiting programme, which was then discussed with the coordinator of the educational programme and the chair of the committee. Preparations for the site visit continued only after an agreement on the visiting programme was reached. Site visit During the preparatory meeting, which was held in the early start of the site visit, the committee was instructed. Throughout the preparatory meeting, the committee discussed the working method, its findings based on the critical reflection and theses, and its perception on the domain-specific framework of reference. In addition, the committee studied additional information on the content of several courses, such as reference books and other learning material, and read reports on consultations in relevant committees/bodies. Moreover, the committee analysed relevant management information and considered documentation regarding teacher and student satisfaction. The committee members did not find it necessary to request any additional theses. Immediately after the preparatory meeting, interviews were held with representatives of the management, students, teachers, alumni, the Programme Committee, Examination Committee and study advisor/coordinator. Nobody made use of the open office hour, where people involved in the educational programme had the opportunity to freely speak to the committee. The site visit was concluded with an oral presentation of the preliminary findings by the committee, consisting of a general assessment and several specific observations and impressions of the educational programme. 6 QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology

Report After the site visit, the secretary wrote a draft report based on the committee s findings. This draft was first read and commented upon by a colleague, before it was forwarded to a native speaker for a general check of the proficiency of the English language. Thereafter, the report was sent to the committee members. Only after processing the comments of the committee members, the report was delivered to the faculty to check for factual irregularities. Any comments of the faculty were discussed with the chair of the committee and a general notice was given to the other committee members. After that, the report was finalised. Decision rules In accordance with the NVAO s Assessment Framework for Limited Programme Assessments (as of 22 November 2011), the committee used the following definitions for the assessment of both the standards and the programme as a whole. Generic quality The quality that can reasonably be expected in an international perspective from a higher education bachelor s or master s programme. Unsatisfactory The programme does not meet the current generic quality standards and shows serious shortcomings in several areas. Satisfactory The programme meets the current generic quality standards and shows an acceptable level across its entire spectrum. Good The programme systematically surpasses the current generic quality standards across its entire spectrum. Excellent The programme systematically well surpasses the current generic quality standards across its entire spectrum and is regarded as an (inter)national example. QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology 7

8 QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology

Summary judgement The European postgraduate Masters in Urbanism (EMU) aims at producing highly qualified university trained urbanists at a Master of Science level. The committee concludes that the academic and professional level of the intended learning outcomes of the programme are according to national and international standards. The level and orientation of the intended learning outcomes represent an academic master s level with a clear orientation on urbanism. The committee appreciates the international character of the programme. The committee advises the programme to reformulate their intended learning outcomes in a way that they will clearly describe the high ambitions on the academic and professional aspects of the programme. The committee observed that the programme management has a clear vision on its position in the field of urbanism and on the level that they wish to establish in their programme. Reformulating the intended learning outcomes can help to be more explicit about this vision. The EMU programme is structured in four semesters of 30 EC each. The first two semesters take place in Delft and make up for the cursory education. Each semester has a central theme and follows the same structure: a R&D Studio (15 EC), a theory course (5 EC), methodology course (5EC) and a technology course (5 EC). The third semester is an exchange semester: students can choose one of the three EMU-partner universities where they spend their third semester. In the final semester students work individually on their graduation thesis or design project. The committee has studied the curriculum of the EMU programme and concluded that it is designed as a coherent programme that covers the intended learning outcomes of the programme. The design of the curriculum is clear, attractive and structured in coherent semesters. The content of the courses is multidisciplinary and state of the art. The cursory semesters offer a balanced mix of theoretical courses and practice in the design studios. Students learn to work on design assignments in a structured way where they need to reflect on their design choices in an academic manner. There is a close link between research and education in the research by design teaching format. To further enhance the research skills of the students, the committee advises to introduce a module in research skills where students learn more fundamental research principles. The exchange semester enhances the international dimension of the programme, offering students another perspective on urbanism and an international network. The summer workshop with all EMU partner universities contributes to these elements as well. The study yield of the programme is excellent. Although the programme is experienced as challenging, all students succeed to graduate within two years. The inflow of students is small and has declined to two students in the last year. The committee advises to formulate and communicate clearly on the profile and the unique qualities of the programme. The committee is very pleased with the teaching personnel, in both quantitative and qualitative terms. Students and staff are equipped with excellent facilities. The committee is of the opinion that the programme is well organized and that students are well prepared for obtaining their final qualifications. They concluded that the programme is continuously focussing on quality improvement. According to the committee, the quality of the programme is good. The suggestions of the committee for further improvement are meant as opportunities to develop towards an excellent learning environment. QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology 9

The committee confirmed that the faculty has an adequate assessment system. The implementation of this system within the EMU programme is not finalized in all areas. The committee strongly recommends giving priority to the implementation of the assessment system in the programme. Especially the implementation of objective assessment criteria and assessment forms for graduation projects, including application of these forms by academics working at foreign universities, who assess theses and design projects, is urgent. The committee appreciates that all graduation projects are assessed by three staff members, one of them being an external examiner. The programme uses different assessment forms. The committee established that these forms are adequate and match the learning goals and learning environment of the programme. The committee concluded that the final level of the projects matched with what could be expected of a graduate of a master s programme. In some cases, scientific standards were not performed adequately and the level of reflection could be more advanced. The committee is impressed with the performance of alumni of the programme in both academic and professional careers. The committee assesses the standards from the Assessment framework for limited programme assessments in the following way: Standard 1: Intended learning outcomes Standard 2: Teaching-learning environment Standard 3: Assessment and achieved learning outcomes General conclusion satisfactory good satisfactory satisfactory The chair and the secretary of the committee hereby declare that all members of the committee have studied this report and that they agree with the judgements laid down in the report. They confirm that the assessment has been conducted in accordance with the demands relating to independence. Date: 31 january 2014 Professor L. de Klerk Drs. J. van Zwieten 10 QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology

Description of the standards from the Assessment framework for limited programme assessments Standard 1: Intended learning outcomes The intended learning outcomes of the programme have been concretised with regard to content, level and orientation; they meet international requirements. Explanation: As for level and orientation (bachelor s or master s; professional or academic), the intended learning outcomes fit into the Dutch qualifications framework. In addition, they tie in with the international perspective of the requirements currently set by the professional field and the discipline with regard to the contents of the programme. Findings According to the critical reflection the European postgraduate Masters in Urbanism aims at producing highly qualified university trained urbanists at a Master of Science level. The programme is designed to broaden and deepen the knowledge and insights developed in the previously obtained Master of Science degree. According to the programme, this takes place by focussing on integration, complexity, originality and research skills at an academic level. A major finding of the committee is that, due to its origin as so-called post-initial programme, which was strongly oriented on training of practical design skills, on one hand the present programme realizes the formal goals and exit qualifications which are equal to the qualification of the regular MSc in Urbanism, but that in discussions with management, staff and students the committee took notice of (much) higher ambitions in terms of academic research and methodology than the regular MSc. More specific a higher level of skills in research by design. The European orientation of the program is clearly supported by the international orientation of the program. For many students EMU is a way of getting to know the strong Dutch tradition and practice of urban design and planning, as well being able to compare this with other countries notably Italy, Spain and Flanders but also their native country. The EMU is part of a consortium with three other universities: KU Leuven, UPC Barcelona and Universitá IUAV di Venezia. Each of the universities offers an EMU programme, part of it being an exchange semester with one of the other universities. Thereby, the programme has an international character, concludes the committee. The programme in Delft focusses on a combination of urban design, spatial planning and landscape architecture. This integral character of the programme is seen as the Delft approach of urbanism. The Domain-specific reference framework is formed by the generic 3TU exit qualifications for postgraduate MSc courses in Architecture. Two other reference points are taken into account when formulating the intended learning outcomes of the EMU programme: the requirements of the Stedenbouwregister (registry of urbanists) and the entry requirements of a PhD programme. The Domain-specific reference framework is included in Appendix 2. The EMU has formulated general exit qualifications, being the generic 3TU exit qualifications, and domain specific exit qualifications. As the 3TU exit qualifications are derived from the Dublin descriptors for scientific master s programmes, the academic orientation of the programme is established according to the committee. Additionally, the QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology 11

requirements for the Stedenbouwregister have been incorporated integrally as exit qualifications for the EMU programme. Thereby the content of the learning outcomes is closely linked to the demands of the professional field. The domain specific exit qualifications describe nine areas of knowledge and skills. As these qualifications correspond the regular master s programme in Urbanism, the master s level is established in the qualifications, according to the committee. However, from the critical reflection and from the discussions with the programme management, the committee got the impression that the ambitions for the EMU reach further than realizing a regular master s level. For the academic research skills and for the professional skills, the programme aims at realizing a higher level. According to the major finding, as mentioned before, in this respect, the committee advises the programme management to reformulate their intended learning outcomes conform their ambitions on the academic and the professional aspects of the programme. The intended profile and level on both aspects of the programme could be more explicitly described and with a clear distinction as compared to the regular MSc exit qualifications. Considerations The committee concludes that the academic and professional level of the intended learning outcomes of the master s programme are according to national and international standards. The level and orientation of the intended learning outcomes represent an academic master s level with a clear orientation on urbanism. The committee appreciates the international character of the programme. The committee advises the programme to reformulate their intended learning outcomes in a way that they will clearly describe the high ambitions on the academic and professional aspects of the programme. The committee observed that the programme management has a clear vision on its position in the field of urbanism and on the level that they wish to establish in their programme. Reformulating the intended learning outcomes can help to be more explicit about this vision. Conclusion Master s programme postgraduate master s programme in Urbanism: the committee assesses Standard 1 as satisfactory. 12 QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology

Standard 2: Teaching-learning environment The curriculum, staff and programme-specific services and facilities enable the incoming students to achieve the intended learning outcomes. Explanation: The contents and structure of the curriculum enable the students admitted to achieve the intended learning outcomes. The quality of the staff and of the programme-specific services and facilities is essential to that end. Curriculum, staff, services and facilities constitute a coherent teaching-learning environment for the students. Findings In this Standard the design and the coherence of the curriculum is examined (2.1). Subsequent paragraphs discuss the scientific orientation (2.2), inflow, study load, guidance and rates (2.3) and the composition of the academic staff (2.4). Finally, the programmeoriented internal quality assurance (2.5) is dealt with. 2.1 Programme and coherence of the curriculum The EMU programme is structured in four semesters of 30 EC each. The first two semesters take place in Delft and make up for the cursory education. Each semester has a central theme and follows the same structure: R&D Studio (15 EC) Theory course (5 EC) Methodology course (5EC) Technology course (5 EC) In the first semester, students work in groups on a regional development perspective supported by strategic interventions for a sub-region of a metropolitan region. The focus is on networks and mobility. In the second semester students individually make a detailed design for a site plan in the urban landscape. Aspects of urban design and landscape architecture are complimented with water management aspects and technologies. Skills training and knowledge are integrated in the semesters. Students work on their design assignment in the studio and apply the theoretical concepts that are offered in the courses. In the studio a staff member, who is an experienced designer and researcher, gives guidance to the students. The committee recognizes this learning by doing didactical concept as an adequate way for training students in design and in research by design (see: paragraph 2.2). The supporting courses on theory, methodology and technology are related to the design assignment. For example, in the first semester, where urban region networks are central, the technology course introduces transport networks and modelling from a transport engineer s perspective. In the second semester the methodology course offers students methods in landscape architecture, to apply in their assignment of an urban landscape site. Teaching concepts that are used for the courses are lectures, work groups, practical s and debates. Each course is concluded with a presentation, work folder, report or product. Students have explained to the committee that they are very satisfied with the theories and skills that are presented in the programme. They mention that it offers them a broad perspective on urbanism and related issues such as spatial planning and governance. The courses offer a Dutch approach of urbanism, but students are challenged as well to reflect on QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology 13

urbanism in other countries. They appreciate the methodical way of working that they learn and the importance of reflecting on and communicating their design. During the site visit, the committee studied course descriptions and course materials to obtain an impression of the content of the courses. They concluded that each semester forms a coherent package. The courses provide a good introduction in the required knowledge for the design assignment. The level of the courses and of the course materials are high. The third semester is an exchange semester: students can choose one of the three EMUpartner universities where they spend their third semester. They make their own choice in the first year of the programme. Each university offers a different approach of urbanism. At the beginning of the third semester, a summer workshop of a fortnight is organized by the EMU consortium. Students, PhD s and staff members present their work to each other and discuss different perspectives on urbanism. The committee observed that students are very enthusiastic on this workshop. It allows them to build an international network. Also it helps them to prepare their final project as they get introduced to different graduation projects of students of the EMU programme. The committee is very positive on this element of the programme. The committee would recommend making these international workshops formally a part of the curriculum, and perhaps even strengthening its agenda. In the final semester students work individually on their graduation thesis or design project. They are free to choose a subject within the context of contemporary urban design and planning. Students are supervised by two mentors. The project consists of a design and a research assignment. They start with writing a thesis plan that they present to their mentors. When this plan is approved, they start their project. Along the way, students present their preliminary results twice to their mentors and an external examiner (see: paragraph 3.1) in order to receive feedback and to establish if a student is progressing enough. The presentation of their final work is during the summer workshop mentioned earlier at one of the four EMU universities. The critical reflection and the programme management emphasize the interdisciplinary character of the EMU programme. The core disciplines are urban design, spatial planning and landscape architecture. Each of the cursory semesters addresses two of these disciplines. Additionally, governance, social, cultural and economic issues, water management and civil engineering are addressed as well. Students seem to value this interdisciplinary approach. The programme management presented some plans for the future to intensify this integration of other disciplines in the programme. The committee thinks that this is a good way to strengthen the unique profile of the programme. The committee concludes that the EMU programme is well-structured. It offers students a good training in urban design. According to the committee it might be good to consider switching the order of the second and third semester. That way, students can profit more on their international experience. It will also allow them to reflect earlier on their graduation project. Moreover, the reflection skills that students obtain in the methodology courses could be valorized better and integrated more profoundly in the thesis work. An overview of the curriculum is provided in Appendix 4. 2.2 Scientific level and orientation The critical reflection describes that the EMU programme is closely related to the research programmes of the faculty. This means that students are introduced to current research 14 QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology

projects and results within the courses. 63% of the staff members of the programme have a PhD. In the courses students learn different research methods which they apply in their studio work and graduation project. In the studios, student learn to perform design-driven research: research by design. Most of the courses are part of the graduate school of the faculty. Students follow them together with PhD candidates. In their graduation projects, they work together with a PhD student as well. Students mentioned during the site visit that they feel that they are closely related to the PhD candidates of the faculty and that they are functioning in a research environment. After graduating, 40% of the alumni continues with doing research in an academic career. The committee is impressed by this high percentage. The committee concludes that the programme has a clear scientific orientation. Research by design is a well-known concept to teach students a scientific approach in their design work. The committee recommends complementing this approach with design by research. Teaching students more general research skills, for example methodologies from social sciences, can strengthen further their research skills and the scientific quality of their designs. The existing cooperation with OTB (a research department oriented on the professional field of the build environment) staff offers a good opportunity to install such a research skills training. 2.3 Study load, rates and intake The committee discussed the feasibility and the study load of the programme during the site visit in Delft with students and alumni. They all mentioned that the EMU programme makes up for more than a full time work week. The programme is intense, but students do not perceive it as too challenging. Quantitative data of the programme show that dropouts are scarce and that the average study duration is 2.05 years. Based on this information the committee concludes that the master s programme is challenging from time to time, but no specific barrier courses have been identified by the committee. The study rates are excellent and students seem to be highly motivated. The wellstructured programme allows them to finish their study within the nominal two years. One point that deserves attention is the intake of the programme. In September 2013, only two students entered the programme. In the previous years the programme attracted on average nine students per year. The programme management explained that the low intake this year is partly caused by the higher tuition fees that they have been forced to ask. The management has formulated a Public Relations Strategy in order to increase the intake to at least 15 students in 2015. The committee took note of this strategy and discussed the issue with the different panels during the site visit. It is clear that the management is aware of the need for a better recruitment strategy. The committee recommends making the position and the unique selling points of the programme more explicit. Students and alumni have clear visions on the added value of the programme. It is advisable to involve them in drafting a new flyer (or other PR instrument) that clearly describes the strong points of the programme. Additionally, students and alumni mentioned that the intake procedure can be very severe and bureaucratic, especially for non-eu applicants. The committee recommends investigating if it is possible to make this procedure more accessible. If this is not the case, a clear leaflet QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology 15

explaining the procedure and the availability of assistance in the application procedure may help applicants. 2.4 Staff During the site visit the committee has recognized that the teaching staff of the EMU programme is both qualified and committed. The teaching staff consists of 19 employees. They all contribute part time to the programme, in total 1.55 FTE is available for teaching. The committee ascertained that there is currently a good staff:student ratio of 1:1.3. With the ambition of 15 enrolled students per year, this ratio will still be acceptable: 1:19. To ensure the quality of the staff, the faculty has executed an improvement project. One of the measures was to actively steer on the amount of staff members with a PhD degree. The percentage of staff member with a PhD degree has increased from 50% to 63%. The faculty does not only hire staff based on research qualities. To ensure a close link with the professional field for the programme, there are also staff members with a background and/or part time function in the field of urbanism. Finally, the faculty promotes teaching quality as well. All staff members are stimulated to obtain the Basic University Teaching Qualification (BKO). In 2017, all tenured staff members should have this BKO. The BKO training consist of four modules and a concluding reflection. One of the modules is an in depth course on teaching students design skills. Both students and alumni appreciate the commitment and accessibility of the lecturers. During the site visit, the committee ascertained that the EMU programme is staffed with enthusiastic and qualified people, who enjoy working within this programme. 2.5 Accommodation and programme oriented quality assurance The committee observed that the EMU programme has excellent facilities. The programme is located in the faculty building BK City. In this building, all necessary facilities are available: the library, a restaurant, book store and IT services. During the design studios, students have their own working space. The building has a scale model and form-study hall where professional machines are available as well as a computer-aided modelling lab. The committee established that these facilities offer a stimulating environment for students and staff. The faculty has one Programme committee (OC) for both bachelor and master programmes as well as for the postgraduate programmes, including the EMU programme. Currently, there is no student member from the EMU programme represented in the OC. The committee discussed with this OC on their role and actions related to the EMU programme. It appeared that in the past, they had no active involvement with the programme. The OC received the course evaluations from the programme, but did not actively react on the results. They explained that from this academic year on, they have planned meetings with students of the postgraduate programmes twice a year, in order to be able to monitor the quality of the programmes more actively. In the critical reflection, the programme management has described the improvement measures that they took after the previous accreditation. One of these measures is that the programme has expanded the multidisciplinarity of the programme by incorporating aspects of governance, water management and civil engineering in the curriculum. Another measure is the installation of an Urbanism Advisory Board to ensure a closer link with the professional field. Course evaluations also ensure quality control of the programme. The committee 16 QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology

concludes that the programme management is actively monitoring and stimulating the quality of the EMU programme. Considerations The committee has studied the curriculum of the EMU programme and concluded that it is designed as a coherent programme that covers the intended learning outcomes of the programme. The design of the curriculum is clear, attractive and structured in coherent semesters. The content of the courses is multidisciplinary and state of the art. The cursory semesters offer a balanced mix of theoretical courses and practice in the design studios. Students learn to work on design assignments in a structured way where they need to reflect on their design choices in an academic manner. There is a close link between research and education in the research by design teaching format. To further enhance the research skills of the students, the committee advises to introduce a module in research skills where students learn more fundamental research principles. The exchange semester enhances the international dimension of the programme, offering students another perspective on urbanism and an international network. The summer workshop with all EMU partner universities contributes to these elements as well. The study yield of the programme is excellent. Although the programme is experienced as challenging, all students succeed to graduate within two years. The inflow of students is small and has declined to two students in the last year. The committee advises to formulate and communicate clearly on the profile and the unique qualities of the programme. The committee is very pleased with the teaching personnel, in both quantitative and qualitative terms. Students and staff are equipped with excellent facilities. The committee is of the opinion that the programme is well organized and that students are well prepared for obtaining their final qualifications. They concluded that the programme is continuously focussing on quality improvement. According to the committee, the quality of the programme is good. The suggestions of the committee for further improvement are meant as opportunities to develop towards an excellent learning environment. Conclusion Master s programme postgraduate master s programme in Urbanism: the committee assesses Standard 2 as good. QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology 17

Standard 3: Assessment and achieved learning outcomes The programme has an adequate assessment system in place and demonstrates that the intended learning outcomes are achieved. Explanation: The level achieved is demonstrated by interim and final tests, final projects and the performance of graduates in actual practice or in post-graduate programmes. The tests and assessments are valid, reliable and transparent to the students. Findings During the site visit the committee examined the assessment policy, the procedures regarding testing and examination and the assessment methods of the master s programme. To this end various assessment materials have been evaluated, such as students essays, portfolios, and presentations. The assessments and assessment system were also discussed with students, the staff, the Board of Examiners and the programme management. To establish the achieved academic level of graduates, the committee assessed a sample of fifteen theses. 3.1 Assessment organization and Board of Examiners All assessment procedures and rules are laid down in the Education and Exam Regulation (OER) of the programme, which is established yearly by the Board of Studies. The faculty has one Board of Examiners (BoE) for all programmes. They have taken several measures to enhance the quality of the assessment system within the faculty. The BoE has formulated golden rules for assessments, such as a four eyes principle that ensures that all assessments are monitored by at least two staff members. The EMU programme uses several assessment forms: presentations, design portfolios, assignments and essays. Teachers decide on the most suitable assessment form for their course and learning objectives. Graduation projects are assessed by the two supervisors of the project and by an external examiner. This examiner is a staff member from a different department within the faculty and ensures an objectification of the assessment of the thesis. All external examiners have been trained by the BoE. The committee is positive on this inter-subjective way of assessing final projects. The committee observed that there are no standard evaluation forms and criteria for theses. The BoE has developed a thesis book that describes all the graduation phases and the criteria to pass a phase. The committee strongly recommends that the EMU programme implements this instrument to ensure objective and transparent assessment of graduation projects. For the design studios, papers and exercises that students deliver during the curriculum the same remarks could be made as for the assessment of the final theses: there are no standard assessment forms or clear criteria. It is not clear whether these assessment criteria are clear for students. Nevertheless, the committee observed that the level of these works is high. In general, the committee concludes that the BoE has developed suitable measures and instruments for the quality assurance of assessments. However, not all instruments have been implemented yet within the EMU programme. According to the committee, the BoE and programme management should give priority to this implementation. 18 QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology

3.2 Achieved level The committee studied fifteen theses in order to establish the achieved level of the programme. In general, the committee agreed with the evaluations of the theses. All theses met the intended master s level. However, in some cases the committee assigned a lower grade to a thesis than the supervisors. Although the design quality of the project could be good, often the basic scientific standards were not adequately carried out: referencing, critical reflection and an extensive bibliography were not always present. Also the critical academic and self reflections at the end of the theses work were not always present or at the advanced level that the programme strives for, according to the committee. Referring to paragraph 2.2 of this report, the committee recommends addressing these scientific standards in the curriculum. Alumni data of the programme show that 40% embarks upon a PhD programme. 40% (re)start working in architecture or urbanism offices. 10% starts their own office, 5 % works for a government and 5% for a NGO. All alumni achieve to find a job. The committee discussed with some of the programmes alumni and was impressed with their visions on the field of urbanism and on their functioning in this field. Considering the thesis quality and the performance of alumni on the job market, the committee concludes that graduates of the programme have realised the academic master s level. Considerations The committee confirmed that the faculty has an adequate assessment system. The implementation of this system within the EMU programme is not finalized in all areas. The committee strongly recommends giving priority to the implementation of the assessment system in the programme. Especially the implementation of objective assessment criteria and assessment forms for graduation projects, including application of these forms by academics working at foreign universities, who assess theses and design projects, is urgent. The committee appreciates that all graduation projects are assessed by three staff members, one of them being an external examiner. The programme uses different assessment forms. The committee established that these forms are adequate and match the learning goals and learning environment of the programme. The committee concluded that the final level of the projects matched with what could be expected of a graduate of a master s programme. In some cases, scientific standards were not performed adequately and the level of reflection could be more advanced. The committee is impressed with the performance of alumni of the programme in both academic and professional careers. Conclusion Master s programme postgraduate master s programme in Urbanism: the committee assesses Standard 3 as satisfactory. QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology 19

General conclusion Conclusion The committee assesses the master s programme postgraduate master s programme in Urbanism as satisfactory. 20 QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology

Appendices QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology 21

22 QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology

Appendix 1: Curricula Vitae of the members of the assessment committee Professor Len de Klerk is professor emeritus of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Amsterdam. On behalf of this university he is member of the board of the Amsterdam School of Real Estate and board member ar the Han Lammerschair. De Klerk is furhtermore member of the NWO research programme Urbanization & Urban Culture. He held numerous important manegerial positions at the University of Amsterdam, among which chair of the department Geography, Planning and International Development Studies and he was interim Dean at the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences. Professor Pieter van Wesemael is profesor in Urbanism and Urban Architecture at Eindhoven University of Technology. In this position he is responsible for the design education and research on sustainable growth of the existing city and its architecture. In addition van Wesemael is adviser, both in accordance with policy and by means of projects, in the areas of spatial policy, strategic area development and town planning. He is member of several advisory councils, like the one for BNA research, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, Nederland wordt Anders, and the Bureau International d Expositions. Dr. Stephen Marshall is Reader in Urban Morphology and Planning at the Bartlett School of Planning, University College London. Dr. Marshall has over twenty years experience in the built environment fields, initially in consultancy and subsequently in academia. His principal research interests are in urban morphology and street layout, and their relationships with urban formative processes, including urban design, coding and planning. He has written or edited several books, including Streets and Patterns (2005), Land Use and Transport (with David Banister), Cities, Design and Evolution (2009) and Urban Coding and Planning (2011). He was Chair of the Editorial Board of Urban Design and Planning (Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers journal series) from its launch to 2012; and is now co-editor of Built Environment journal. Drs. Tjerk Ruimschotel is senior town planner at the city of Groningen and is lecturer at the Academy of Architecture and Building Engineering at the Hanzehogeschool. Ruimschotel has been working as town planner at other cities, like Haarlemmermeer and The Hague, was working for private companies (B+B, Kuiper Copagnons) and independent in Indonisia and Almere. He is chair of the Beroepsvereniging van Nederlandse Stedebouwkundigen en Planologen (BNSP) and board member of the Foundation internatinoal Landscapetriannal. Ms. Griet Juwet MSc is student of the master s programme Urbanism and Strategic Planning at KU Leuven. Before she graduated from the Ghent master s programme in Architecture. In 2011 she did an internship at an architectural company in Romania. Juwet expects to graduate in 2014. QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology 23

24 QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology

Appendix 2: Domain-specific framework of reference Domain-specific reference framework for European Postgraduate Master s in Urbanism Task profiles Postgraduate MSc courses in Architecture must have one or more of the following task profiles: Architectural design Urban design Structural design Process and management Design of technical systems and fittings Exit qualifications for a postgraduate Master s course A postgraduate Master s programme builds on the knowledge and skills developed during a Master of Science course in architecture or a related discipline. Depending on the nature of the main study objective and the chosen perspective, there is room for choices and accents in particular courses. Students who have completed a postgraduate Master s programme must possess the following knowledge and skills: 1. Knowledge Graduates of the Master s programme have thorough, specialized knowledge and understanding of a specialized field. Depending on the field, they have a thorough knowledge and understanding of the most important theories, principles, research methods and techniques. The actual practice of architectural disciplines is characterized by the necessity of integration. Based on their specialization, architectural engineers participate constructively in the integration process. A graduate should have gained an understanding of the integration process and the various disciplines that play a role in this. 2. Skills Once they have graduated, postgraduate Master s must possess the following skills within the field of architecture: Ability to apply and command the current commonly used design and research methods as well as the underlying principles and techniques of one ormore architectural disciplines or sub-disciplines. Familiarity with the development process in the respective field and be able to relate this to theories, movements, tendencies and precedents, as well as to the cultural and social context. Ability to reflect on the professional work of the postgraduate and awareness of the position of the own role in the contemporary social conditions. Depending on the task profile: o Ability to draw up and make a design or redesign for an area or a building on the basis of a programme of requirements and the specific site, including a study of the relevant precedents and the physical and intellectual context, within predefined periods and phases, and implement or partially implement the design. o Ability to solve an architectural problem in a conceptual manner. QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology 25

o Ability to use architectural measures to create spaces that meet human needs and environmental requirements, taking into account the relationship between humans and their environment and the social and legal standards for form and structure, costs and sustainability. o Mastery of the processes and procedures that play a role in the development of a built environment. Ability to make creative use of knowledge and information from other related disciplines in the creation of spatial concepts and structures. This mainly concerns information and communications technology, mathematics and physics, some areas of civil engineering and geosciences, some fields of human sciences (sociology, psychology, economy, etc.). Ability to use various media in the presentation of the design and the results of studies, including presenting, reasoning and justifying the design in graphical, verbal and written form, as well as the ability to report and present findings in an academically sound manner in a way suited to the particular forum. Additionally: Possession of advanced research skills (fundamental, innovational or applied), development, advice. Ability to contribute creatively to the quality of the built-up environment. Ability to apply knowledge and insight into new and unfamiliar circumstances within a broader multidisciplinary context. Ability to formulate professional judgments based on incomplete or limited information. Ability to enter into dialogue with other disciplines involved with the particular object of interest. 3. Academic attitude and skills After graduating, a postgraduate Master possesses a sound attitude towards research. He or she is able to formulate and test research problems and hypotheses and reflect critically on his or her own actions. A postgraduate Master has learned how to learn and keep on learning throughout his or her life. If the postgraduate Master goes on to do a PhD, he or she can skip some of the material. 4. The programme also has to comply with the entry qualifications of various registers. 5. The programme must comply with the 3TU criteria for academic skills at a postgraduate level. 26 QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology

Appendix 3: Intended learning outcomes Exit qualifications European Postgraduate Master s in Urbanism 1. Design and design methods: Ability to produce spatial concepts and urban designs at various levels of scale; ability to apply different design-methods, including research by design as a method of research concerning capacities and possibilities of a place for urban and landscape development. 2. Urban and landscape analysis: Ability to analyse and interpret the territorial, morphological, typological, network, social and historic characteristics of an urban site or landscape; ability to draw conclusions from the analysis towards defining existing and potential spatial qualities of the site; ability to elaborate these qualities in a design concept. 3. Theory: Appropriate knowledge of contemporary theories on urban design, urban planning and landscape architecture; ability to reflect on these theories in a critical way and to take a position; ability to link theoretical concepts and notions with design concepts. 4. Technology: Appropriate knowledge of and ability to apply advanced techniques in drawing, mapping, communication and presentation. 5. Sustainability: Knowledge of and ability to apply concepts of sustainable design, in a technical sense as well as in economic, cultural and social senses (people, planet, profit); ability to develop innovative concepts concerning sustainable design. 6. International context: Knowledge of traditions and contemporary developments in European urbanism and processes of urbanization in European cities, landscapes and regions; ability to relate present-day design tasks with this tradition and comment on this tradition; knowledge of different approaches and practices in different countries and regions throughout the world ( best practices ); ability to analyse and define the difference and influence of the international context (globalization) on the possibilities for development on the specific local conditions and characteristics of a site. 7. Strategy and governance: Knowledge of and critical attitude towards the changing position of design in spatial policies; ability to define the role of different actors in the spatial development and to define strategies and governance models for long-term and largescale spatial developments and transformations; ability to define the role of design interventions in these developments and transformations. 8. Cooperation and communication: Ability to work in a team; knowledge and understanding of the limits of the discipline of urbanism and of the possibilities and tasks of linking disciplines; ability to communicate designs and planning strategies to external people. QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology 27

9. Profession: Insight into the profession of urban designers and urban planners, and the role of these professionals in society; knowledge of and insight into the opportunities that professionals have to implement their concepts in real projects. Exit qualifications Stedenbouwregister A student graduating with a European Postgraduate Master s in Urbanism is able to produce, on various scales, spatial and urban designs that satisfy aesthetic, technical and functional requirements, and can effectively utilize the knowledge, learning and skills referred to below for urban design purposes: 1. Science: Appropriate knowledge of the theory and knowledge system of urbanism (principles, design research, design tools, strategies and methods), and ability to reflect on these. 2. History: Appropriate knowledge of the history of cities and urbanism (in both the Dutch and the international context), and insight into the processes resulting in human settlements and occupation patterns from a cultural and natural historical perspective. Insight into prototypes, typologies and transformations. Critical thinking and reflection. 3. Media: Oral, written and illustration skills and methods, so that others are able to understand a plan and design. Capacity to utilize media for design research and theory development. 4. Research: Skills relating to urban design research, insight into planning and design methods, and the capacity to analyse urban design phenomena and solutions and to perform functional, temporal and compositional analyses. 5. Planning: Appropriate knowledge of the spatial plans, organization, resources and tools relating to spatial planning and planning levels in the Netherlands. 6. Architecture (including landscape architecture): Appropriate knowledge of and skills in other disciplines related to spatial design, namely architecture and landscape architecture. Reflection on the relationship between architecture (including landscape architecture) and urbanism. 7. Society: Appropriate knowledge of the social sciences, social and historical geography, and ecology. 8. Physics/economics/law: Appropriate knowledge of urban building physics and economics, and of spatial planning and urban design law. 28 QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology

9. Technology: Knowledge of design technology, in particular as it relates to water management, civil engineering, land development, site preparation, public utilities and public works. Insight into technical constraints, limits and models. 10. Management: Insight into and expertise in the methods of urban design management processes. 11. Profession: Insight into the urban design and planning profession and the urban designer s/ planner s role in society. 12. Function: The capacity to take into account the relationship between people and spaces, and to tailor this to people s needs and norms, in developing the physical design of urban areas. 13. Realization: The capacity to review urban designs against standards and rules concerning form, function, technical construction, land development and ecological conditions. 14. Procedures: Appropriate knowledge of and insight into decision-making procedures and processes regarding urban design interventions. QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology 29

30 QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology

Appendix 4: Overview of the curriculum QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology 31

32 QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology

Appendix 5: Quantitative data regarding the programme *) Figure for the entire faculty QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology 33

34 QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology

Appendix 6: Programme of the site visit DAY 1 16.30 19.00 Kick off meeting 19.15 Diner DAG 2 08.30 09.00 Arrival 09.00 09.45 Management Prof.dr.ir. Han Meyer, Program director EMU Ir. Theo van Drunen, head of Education and student affairs Prof. Vincent Nadin, Reseach leader department Urbanism (via Skype) 09.45 10.30 Students Katherine Sundermann, student 2012 Antonio Sanna, student 2012 Anastasia Chranioti, student 2012 Andrea Verni, student 2013 Montserrat Alejandra Pantoja Navarro, student 2013 10.30 10.45 Break 10.45 11.30 Teachers Ir. Daan Zandbelt, coordinator fall semester Dipl. Ing. Birgit Hausleitner, thesis mentor Dipl. Ing. Alexander Wandl, Technology-course Dr. Dominic Stead, Methodology-course Dr. Stephen Read, Theory-course Ing. Steffen Nijhuis, Methodology-course 11.30 12.00 Alumni Claudiu Forgaci, MSc Alumnus Hamed Khosravi, MSc Alumnus Azadeh Mashayekhi, MSc, Alumna Michalis Hadjistyllis, MSc Alumnus Matei Bogoescu, MSc Alumna 12.00 13.00 Lunch 13.00 13.30 Education Committee Prof.dr. Peter Boelhouwer, Chairman, Professor Housing Systems Bob Witjes, Student Ir.drs. MaartenJan Hoekstra, Assistant Professor Urban Compositions Benjo Zwarteveen, Student 13.30 14.15 Board of Examiners Ir. Leo van den Burg, Vice-Chairman Mr. Fred Hobma, Associate Professor Of Planning Law Ing. Erik Ootes, secretary committee Ir. Y. Cuperus, Assistant Professor Architectural Engineering & Technology 14.15 15.00 Preparation of final meeting / consultation hour 15.00 15.45 Final meeting with management 15.45 17.30 Final discussion of the committee: draft findings 17.30 17.45 Oral presenation of the preliminary judgements QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology 35

36 QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology

Appendix 7: Theses and documents studied by the committee Prior to the site visit, the committee studied the theses of the students with the following student numbers: 4051181 4073444 4051629 4053974 4053958 4053931 4060059 4113411 4073452 4122976 4121090 4130030 1347187 4180682 4181069 During the site visit, the committee studied, among other things, the following documents (partly as hard copies, partly via the institute s electronic learning environment): Course manuals Standard / basic books Tests, assessment criteria, assessment forms and examples of student work Minutes of the Board of Examiners Minutes of het Educational committee Course evaluations Marketing strategy EMU programme QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology 37

38 QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology

Appendix 8: Declarations of independence QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology 39

40 QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology

QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology 41

42 QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology

QANU / Urbanism, Delft University of Technology 43