EXTERNAL MODERATOR’S REPORT

Compiled by Denver Hendricks

APRL3010 PORTFOLIO EXAM
15 November 2010

The following are the terms of reference discussed and agreed upon with the course master Mr. Solam Mkhabela before commencement of the moderation process.

 To act as an independed and impartial advisor in the review, evaluation and moderation of all students’ work as presented.
 To allocate a mark to each student’s work based on my judgment and to compare these to those previously awarded by the course master at the end of the moderation session with a view to arriving at a fair mark.
 To review and evaluate the assessment process and moderate assessed work on a sampling basis.
 To review and evaluate fairness and consistency in the assessment process.
 To provide a written report on the standards of student attainment and the validity, reliability and integrity of the assessment process.
 To engage the students where necessary and provide them with positive advice for their future improvement.


1. Introduction

A total number of eleven students presented their via Microsift Powerpoint.

My assessments was recorded with comments and notes that highlighted the strengths and the weaknesses of their particular projects.

I have had seen the same projects 2 months prior at an interim critique and therefore had knowledge of there initial schemes.

After the presentations, the course master and I adjudicated on the marks and compiled a revised record of the final marks.

2. General Comment

Given the fact that the students are primarly Planning students and this is an urban design subject, I must commend them for the outstanding work they executed. From getting into the design to the actual drawings, the projects are well done.


3. Content
The amount of content generated for the most was excellent. There was a good balance of recording the site, analysis, interevention and conclusion.

Most of them understood their site, and this showed in their analysis and took critical views. A smaller group were not as critical and this showed in the interventions being bland and unimaginative.

The drawings for the most were relavant, but there is a culture found that drawings are developed without understanding the intention of what the drawings is meant to fulfill as well as choosing the correct style of drawing which could be more impactfull.

Some of the concepts are very exciting and one can pick up that the students are excited about their projects. A smaller group tends to play it safe and not push ideas and end up with random principles of Urban Design of increasing bulk for the sake of it and not understanding why, range, who are the end-users, the market, how this feeds into a greater system, etc.

4. Presentation Style
The powerpoint style for which all students had to present in this fashion was lively, entertaining and interesting.

All students started off well and left one understanding the context and sub-context in which their project resides.

A few students need to work on their verbal presentation to keep it short, succinct yet colourful as one tends to lose interest.

Also they should present such that the idea of analysis feeds into the intervention and show how the anlaysis informed the intervention at a vivid level to render the project with integrity, body and meaning.


5. Conclusions & Recommendations
1. In my opinion the course very exciting and is run very effectively. The students are dealing with the correct aspects of Urban Design in a complex and interesting site & context (Louis Botha Avenue).
2. Given the fact that students are planners it’s evident some students relate easier to the design aspect and are therefore stronger. The weaker ones need more direction and focus.
3. Drawings need more guidance as to the intention, relevance and graphic.
4. Presentation skills are generally weak and they should do a mock presentation for each other and hone it based on their class-mates critiques.



Compiled by Denver Hendricks
EXTERNAL MODERATOR ARPL3012