• Architectural research
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.13-21
• /
• 2011

Since 2002, Architecture Schools in Korea was changing long traditional architectural education system from 4 years generalized architectural engineering curriculum to 5 years professional architecture program. Until 2010, 76 architecture schools have changed their program to 5 years course which was focused to design studio education. It was a very rapid change and there was not much time develop their own system which could represent institutional identity, character of students and local environment. Korea joined as a regular member of Canberra Accord in 2010 and it is meaningful to compare Korean architecture program contents to another country education contents. US architecture programs were selected for this comparison study. The goals of this study are to create a comparable understanding the form of contents of Architectural Education in US and Korea and to verify the substantial equivalence of these systems. To achieve above goals, three public institutes of each country were selected and analyzed with general information, history, resources, curriculum and the matrix of Student Performance Criteria for quantitative comparison. For qualitative comparison education context of programs were analyzed with program missions, the way of advising, professional connection and distribution of faculty loads.

• Journal of Engineering Education Research
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.47-58
• /
• 2020

Kunsan National University obtained accreditation for its Architecture & Building Engineering Program from the Accreditation Board for Engineering Education in Korea (ABEEK) in 2004 and has offered an ABEEK-accredited degree pathway ever since. Then, in 2018, the university introduced the course-embedded outcomes assessment system as per ABEEK's KEC2015 accreditation criteria. One year into its implementation, the new system allows the measurement and assessment of 10 program outcomes covering 19 curricular modules and 1 non-curricular licensing examination. The system incorporates the four areas of specialization within architectural engineering as well as the three course categories of the math, science, and computer; liberal arts; and engineering core modules under the accreditation scheme. It also takes the students' academic years into account, especially for the mandatory modules offered to all students. Its rubric clarifies the performance criteria, performance level, assessment tools, objectives, and modules. The 2018 course-embedded outcomes assessment system is an ever-evolving structure with regular CQI: Continuous Quality Improvements along the circular process of system establishment → implementation → evaluation as per the virtuous cycle model required for an accredited engineering program.

• Journal of Engineering Education Research
• /
• v.14 no.4
• /
• pp.69-77
• /
• 2011

In an accredited engineering program, there are two important means for achieving program outcomes. Students participating in a program are expected to achieve program outcomes through the program curriculum, because during the course of the program, they spend most of their time following the curriculum. However, it is very difficult to achieve the program outcomes only through the curriculum. Therefore, it is necessary to provide and manage non-curriculum courses in a program to make students achieve those program outcomes that the curriculum itself cannot provide exclusively. In this study, we conducted a case study on non-curriculum management systems as a means for supplementing a curriculum in order to enhance achievement of program outcomes, specifically, so-called, soft skills. We studied about 40 accredited engineering programs in Korea and proposed 30 non-curriculum courses with their evaluation units as well as the weighing criterior given to each non-curriculum course.