Quality assurance and reliability of the RPL evaluation model
The RPL evaluation model is a simplified structure based on a complex synthesis, if different variables. It is flexible and adaptable depending on
Table 8.4 Competency clusters related to the six stages of architectural practice
Stages of architectural practice
Competency clusters
SACAP existing competencies
Research and Design Phase
- 1 Inception
- 2 Concept and Viability
- 3 Design
Development
- 4 Documentation and Procurement
- 5 Construction Contr act Administration
- 6 Close Out
- • History and Theory of Architecture
- • History and Theory of Architecture
- • Architectural Design. Context and Urban Relationships
- • Architectural Design, Context and Urban Relationships
- • Structure and Construction Technology
- • Building Sendees and Related Technologies
- • Contract Documentation and Administration
- • Office Practice, Legal Aspects and Ethics
- • Office Practice. Legal Aspects and Ethics Architectural History, Theory and Precedent History and Theory of Archit ecture Contextual and Urban Relationships Environmental Relationships
Architectur al Design
Contextual and Urban Relationships Environmental Relationships
Architectural Design
Tire Structure of Buildings
Construction Technology
Building Services and Related Technologies C omputer Applications
Table 8.5a Illustrative example of weighting the constr uctively aligned assessment at the respective levels of professional designation related to the History and Theory of Architecture competency cluster
|
Cluster of competencies: History and Theory of Architecture Taxonomy: Knowledge/Understanding + Application + Analysis |
||
|
Constructively A ligned Assessm ent Criteria |
Req ’5 fin Score |
Max. Score |
|
NQF 9 Able to critically analyse historical precedent in architecture/urbanism. Pr of. • Able to justify relevance of precedent. (2) Ar chitect • Able to critique precedent with reference to the context of the research/ (PrArch) design problem. (2) |
9 |
/4 |
|
Able to analyse primary and secondary sources of information through advanced research methodology.
|
9 |
/6 |
|
Able to synthesise research findings to formulate a clear design intent. |
9 |
/6 |
Able to evaluate buildings with reference to their- respective historical contexts. |
9 |
.4 |
|
Design Thesis/Research-Informed Design Report • Able to produce a theoretical and conceptual framework for design as per the |
9 |
/10 |
|
norms at NQF Level 9 aligned with the requisite minimum standards defined in the SACAPValidation Guidelines. |
/30 |
|
(Continued')
All RPL evaluation model 79
|
Table 8.5a (Continued) |
||
|
Cluster of competencies: History and Theory of Architecture Taxonomy: Knowledge/Understanding + Application + Analysis |
||
|
Constructively Aligned Assessment Criteria |
Req 'Min Score |
Max. Score |
|
NQF 7 Able to analyse theory and historical precedent related to the design Prof. Senior problem/project. Architectural • Able to justify relevance of precedent. (2) Technologist • Able to critique precedent with reference to the context of the resear ch/ (PrSAT) design problem. (2) |
9 |
/4 |
|
Able to analyse primary and secondary sources of information.
|
9 |
/6 |
|
Design Report/Treatise • Able to produce a theoretical and conceptual framework for design as per the nonns at NQF Level 7 aligned with the requisite minimum standards defined in the SACAP'Validation Guidelines. |
9 |
/10 |
80 An RPL evaluation model
|
NQF6 Prof. Architectural Technologist (PrAT) |
Able to identify appropriate precedent and theory related to the design problem/project.
|
? |
/20 /4 |
|
Able to apply theoretical principles in design.
|
? |
/4 |
|
|
Report on Design Process: • Able to produce a report design illustr ating the theoretical'conceptual design process as per the nonns at NQF Level 6 aligned with the requisite minimum standards defined in the SACAP Validation Guide lines. |
? |
/8 /16 |
All RPL evaluation model
00
Table 8.5b Illustrative example of weighting the constructively aligned assessment at the respective levels of professional designation related to the Architectural Design. Context and Urban Relationships competency cluster
|
Cluster of competencies: Architectural Design, Context and Urban Relationships Taxonomy: Analysis + Synthesis/Creation |
|||
|
Constructively Aligned Assessment Criteria |
Req 'Min Score |
/Max. Score |
|
|
NQF9 |
Able to integrate different theories and precedent in order to propose a theoretical intent |
9 |
/10 |
|
(PrArch) |
in the design of the project. Able to situate the theoretical design principles within a broader social/cultural and |
9 |
/10 |
|
economic context. |
|||
|
Able to formulate ecologically responsive design solutions. |
9 |
/10 |
|
|
Able to propose various design alternatives. |
9 |
/10 |
|
|
Design Thesis: Able to produce referenced design reports to illustrate the methodology. |
9 |
/60 |
|
|
theoretical principles, contextual nuances and technologies that support the proposed design. |
|||
|
NQF7 |
Able to distinguish between different theories/piinciples and precedents to propose |
9 |
/10 |
|
(PrSAT) |
alternative spatial, aesthetic and technological solutions in the design of the project. Able to develop contextually responsive design proposals in response to • Tire physical environment |
9 |
/10 |
|
• The ecological environment |
9 |
/10 |
|
|
• Tire social context |
9 |
/10 |
|
|
Able to present a design primer outlining theoretical principles and contextual factors to |
9 |
/20 |
|
|
which the design proposal responds. |
|||
|
NQF 6 |
Able to apply theoretical and technological principles to justify’ and demonstrate the most |
9 |
/10 |
|
(P1AT) |
appropriate spatial and technical solutions in the project design. Able to develop contextually responsive design proposals in response to |
9 |
|
|
• Tire physical environment |
9 |
/10 |
|
|
• Tire ecological environment |
9 |
/10 |
|
|
Able to coherently illustrate the design process. |
9 |
/10 |
|
|
9 |
/40 |
||
82 All RPL evaluation model
Table 8.5c Illustrative example of weighting the constructively aligned assessment at the respective levels of professional designation related to the Structure and Construction Technology competency cluster
|
Cluster of competencies: Structure and Construction Technology’ Taxonomy: Application + Analysis + Synthesis |
|||
|
Constructively Aligned Assessment Criteria |
Req 'Min Score |
/Max. Score |
|
|
NQF9 |
Able to integrate the theoretical and conceptual design intent in order to develop effective |
? |
/10 |
|
(PrArch) |
structural and technological solutions. |
||
|
Able to differentiate between different structural systems in order to select the most |
9 |
/10 |
|
|
appropriate to the design intent. |
|||
|
Able to express the design concept in the development of construction details. |
9 |
/20 |
|
|
Able to formulate alternate technological/structural solutions. |
9 |
/10 |
|
|
Able to compile a comprehensive technical report. |
9 |
/30 |
|
|
9 |
/80 |
||
|
NQF7 |
Able to justify and illustrate the structural system of the design proposal. |
9 |
/10 |
|
(PrSAT) |
Able to recognise the most appropriate technologies for the construction of the project. |
? |
/10 |
|
Able to develop construction details to express design intent. |
9 |
/20 |
|
|
Able to compile a comprehensive technical report. |
9 |
/30 |
|
|
9 |
/70 |
||
|
NQF6 |
Able to illustrate the selected structural system and technologies implemented in the design. |
? |
/10 |
|
(P1AT) |
Able to produce detailed working drawings. |
9 |
/30 |
|
Able to produce design-responsive construction details. |
9 |
/20 |
|
|
9 |
/60 |
||
An RPL evaluation model 83
Table 8.5d Illustrative example of weighting the constructively aligned assessment at the respective levels of professional designation related to the Building Services and Related Technologies competency cluster
|
Cluster of competencies: Building Services and Related Technologies Taxonomy: Application + Analysis + Synthesis |
||
|
Constructively Aligned Assessment Criteria |
Req‘ Min Score |
/Max. Score |
|
NQF 9 Able to integrate senice provisions in the design of multistorey/complex (PrArch) buildings. |
9 |
/30 |
|
Able to differentiate between different sen ice systems in order to justify the most appropriate to the design intent. |
9 |
/20 |
|
Able to develop alternate services and related technologies that support the project design. |
9 |
/20 |
|
Able to compile comprehensive services coordination layouts for complex bttilding types. |
9 |
/30 |
|
Able to evaluate energy performance of the building. |
|
/20 /80 |
|
NQF 7 Able to justify and illustrate the services and related technologies implemented in (PrSAT) design. |
9 |
/30 |
|
Able to produce the following detailed senice layouts on medium complexity, multi-storey buildings:
|
9 |
/50 |
84 All RPL evaluation model
|
Able to evaluate energy performance of the building. ? /20 ? /60 |
|
|
NQF6 (PrAT) |
Able to justify’ by illustrating the services and related technologies implemented ? /20 in the design. Able to produce the following documents on multi-storey buildings: ? /50
|
All RPL evaluation model 85
the specifics related to the assessment criteria and maximum scores for each cluster of competencies for each category of professional designation at the corresponding NQF level. The scores on the model are to be carefully considered to ensure that the quality standards are met for each professional designation category/NQF level. This had been achieved in this example as follows.
The Histoiy and Theory of Architecture competency cluster falls under the taxonomical levels Knowledge/Understanding + Application + Analysis. These are on the first three levels of the taxonomy and therefore awarded maximum scores of 30, 20 and 16 for architects, senior technologists and technologists, respectively.
The Architectural Design, Context and Urban Relationships cluster, on the other hand, requires a higher level of intellectual complexity as evident in the taxonomical levels, Analysis + Synthesis/Creation; it is therefore awarded higher maximum scores of 100, 60 and 40 for architects, senior technologists and technologists, respectively.
The Structure and Construction Technology cluster also requires a relatively high level of complexity, however, not as much as the preceding cluster due to the generally lesser degree of creativity required. Accordingly, maximum scores of 80, 70 and 60 are awarded for architects, senior technologists and technologists, respectively. Note that the scores are much closer for the three categories of professional designation. The reason is that senior technologists and technologists by the nature of then training and experience would be deemed to have a high level of intellectual complexity related to this competency cluster.
The Building Services and Related Technologies cluster also requires a relatively high level of complexity, however, not as much as the preceding cluster due to the lesser degree of creativity required. Accordingly, maximum scores of 80, 60 and 50 are awarded for architects, senior technologists and technologists, respectively.
