The main questions that we will utilize to assess our curriculum are:

How is the integrated curriculum model working? Are there any challenges or opportunities for improvements?
Are we meeting the identified learning objectives for our undergraduate and graduate programs in all courses?
How are students performing in our courses, where performance indicators include grade distribution, quality of design work, technical aptitude?
How do students’ performance indicators relate to demographic data (i.e. are we meeting our overarching commitment to instituting justice, equity, diversity and inclusion in our teaching)?
How are students satisfied with the course contents and teaching methods for every class?

We will use qualitative and quantitative methods to collect data and to answer these questions. Qualitative methods will include interviews and focus groups with students, as well as collecting and analyzing course evaluations for all courses. Quantitative methods will include collection of students’ performance indicators, demographic data, and analysis of data. We recognize the need to conduct both individual and team assessments of the curriculum on a regular basis. We also recognize the need to comparatively examine outcomes of studio-based learning over time.

We have designed multiple types of self-assessment to help us monitor the ongoing challenges and successes of the curriculum in meaningful and timely ways. Our Curriculum Committee Provides leadership and oversite for curricular assessment. Our current curricular self-assessment tools include:

Independent evaluation – Faculty Teaching Reports (FTR)
Small group assessments – SWOT analysis and Course Objective review
Special assessments – Rotating review of work in disciplinary areas

1. Independent evaluation – Faculty Teaching Reports (FTR)
Every faculty member is responsible for collecting and analyzing data for their courses, and submitting the following information to the Curriculum Committee, Administrative Officer/Graduate Advisor and the Chair:

Course syllabi for every class/every semester (at the beginning of the semester)
Course evaluations for every class/every semester (at the end of every semester)
Faculty Teaching Reports (FTRs) summarizing teaching methods, learning objectives, students’ performance indicators (grades, grade distribution, quality of work/reflection, technical aptitude) as stand-alone metrics, as well as in relation to anonymous demographic data for every class/every semester.

The FTRs will be submitted at the end of each semester by faculty. FTR forms include the following information: teaching methods, learning objectives, student performance indicators, and analysis of performance indicators in relation to Demographic data (to the degree possible), suggestions for changes to improve the course based on the data.

The Curriculum Committee will conduct a comprehensive review of FTRs at the end of each semester and will provide summary reports to the Chair, faculty and staff (two reports per year). The findings of the Curriculum Committee’s analysis will be discussed at the beginning of each semester, where the assessment for previous semester will be used to determine necessary changes and improvements to the curriculum that must occur during that academic year. This will ensure continuous data collection, analysis, and implementation for curricular assessment and development.

2. Small group assessments – SWOT analysis and Course Objective review
On a rotating basis we perform small group SWOT analysis of our curriculum, including individual courses and integrated courses. This method will be used to access all design courses offered in the undergraduate curriculum including the capstone integrated experience. These assessments are scheduled by the Director of Undergraduate Studies. They will pare faculty teaching the course being evaluated along with other faculty whose expertise is appropriate for the course being evaluated. The syllabus, assignments and student work are evaluated first by SWOT analysis and then with the following questions:

What outcomes do we hope to see for this course?
Describe how we intend to produce those outcomes, including pedagogy, required materials, and assignments.
How closely have we gotten to achieving the outcomes? Wherein the assignments and student work as we seeing evidence of these outcomes?
Can we imagine changes to the curriculum, pedagogy, assignments, that would be more effective in meeting these outcomes
After we make these changes who do we check for progress?

3. Disciplinary assessments – SWOT analysis and Course Objective review in disciplinary areas
On a rotating basis we perform small group analysis of each disciplinary area in our curriculum, including architectural design, communications, history, theory, + criticism (HTC), professional practice, and building technology. This method will be used to access all courses offered in the undergraduate curriculum. These assessments are scheduled by the Director of Undergraduate Studies. They will include all faculty teaching in a particular area coming together to look at the entire sequence in context. For example, the entire sequence of undergraduate HTC will be evaluated in relation to the program goals in that area. This allows an assessment of the objectives, assignments, outcomes, and student accomplishments across each area of study within each degree program. The syllabus, assignments and student work are evaluated first by SWOT analysis and then with the following questions (note questions are unique to each disciplinary area.)

What Content and methods of design history, theory and criticism do we most fully cover?
How diverse is our design history in representation of cultures, gender, stakeholder role?
What bodies of theory are most central to our attention? Do we attend to theory as a method as well as in content?
Where do we teach this array of knowledge and methods in the curriculum?
How do we support a rich understanding of history and theory beyond the curriculum?
Which elements of “social, cultural, economic, and political forces do we attend to? Which do we need to reinforce or introduce into our curriculum?
What evidence of student understanding can we show? Are there pedagogies or projects that might introduce to help us evaluate student understanding.

Although only the Master’s Degree in Architecture is an accredited, we have modeled this assessment plan on the accreditation process. The primary reference for the plan is Herb Childress’ book, “Program Assessment in Design Education: Methods and Strategies for continual Improvement on Your Own Terms” Published by the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture in 2021 to assist programs in building assessment plans in preparation for accreditation.

Rotating Schedule for Assessment: Our assessment cycle is 8 years to correspond with our accreditation cycle.

Year 1

Fall 25
Program goes live;
- First Classes are offered in Communications, History, and Design areas as well as the cohort seminar
- Individual FTR reports on new courses and curriculum committee review

Spring 26
Continuing Course development:
- develop courses for year 2: theory, technology, research methods
- Individual FTR reports on new courses offered and Curriculum committee review

Year 2

Fall 26
Second year of program courses offered
- Individual FTR reports on all courses and Curriculum committee review

Spring 27
Develop capstone experiences and approve through curriculum committee
- Individual FTR reports on all courses and Curriculum committee review

Year 3

Fall 27
- First Disciplinary assessments
- Individual FTR reports on all courses and Curriculum committee review

Spring 28
First assessment report for BAAS, to include curriculum committee summary reports as well as results of Disciplinary assessments.
- Make changes and adjustments to curriculum based on assessments.

Year 4

Continue collecting FTR reports and providing curriculum committee review and summary
Perform first small group assessment of capstone experience
Individual FTR reports on all courses and Curriculum committee review
Make adjustments to capstone experience and approve experiences for next cohort.

Year 5

Second Disciplinary assessments + FTR
Second Assessment Report with adjustments as needed

Year 6

Second small group assessment + FTR

Year 7

Program and Curriculum Assessment Synthesis, external review, and strategic goal setting
Adjustments to program and assessment cycle as needed

Cycle repeats

Architectural Studies

Download as PDF

Program Information

Program Requirements

Sample Degree Plans

Program Learning Outcomes