PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCY AS A COMPONENT OF ARCHITECTURE-STUDENTS TRAINING
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article reveals the meaning of “competency”. The author proves that purpose of higher education is to acquire a high level of academic and creative artistic, professional and general competencies required for activities in a specific occupation or a field of knowledge. In Ukrainian education the term “competency” is used within the meaning suggested by European countries. DeSeCo programme (Definition and Selection of Competencies: Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations) launched in 1997 within the Federal Statistics Department (Switzerland) and the National Centre for Education Statistics (USA and Canada) defines “competency” as an ability to successfully meet one’s individual and social needs, to act and to perform tasks. Competency is based on knowledge and skills, but is not limited to those. It always includes one’s personal attitude to the above, and one’s experience enabling to “entwine” such knowledge with what the person already knows, and ability to guess a real-life situation, in which he/she will be able to apply such knowledge. In other words, each competency is built on a combination of cognitive attitudes and practical skills, knowledge and abilities, values, emotions, behavioural components, i.e. everything one can summon up for an active action. The author elucidates the essence and content of the competency-based approach to development of professional competencies in architecture students and analyzes professional competency as a component of training of architects-to-be. Acquisition of professional competencies by architecture students must rely on existing key competencies of school leavers. They must be fluent in the national language and have foreign language communication skills, must have information and communication competency and mathematical competency, teamwork skills, self-learning skills throughout their lives, etc. However, a student’s personal qualities also play a key role here, such as creative talent, developed spatial thinking, responsibility, organizational skills, teamwork skills, originality, ingenuity, creativity, realistic approach, sense of harmony, taste and style, observation skills, good memory, sociability and punctuality. Architectural training in Ukraine lasts for 6 years. One can divide training of architects-to-be into the following stages: I. Initial: introducing students to their future occupation. Realization of their potential in architecture will depend on their perceptions developed at this stage. This stage may help a person to understand his/her place in occupation or to become disillusioned with the chosen field. Time-wise this stage covers the first and second years of study. II. Evolvement: development of the feeling of professionalism. This is facilitated by studying occupation-oriented coursesand understanding the content of the future professional activity. Time-wise this stage covers the third and fourth years of study. III. Final: architecture students begin to realize specific features of their future occupation. They do not only have acertain scope of knowledge, but are able to acquire their own subjective experience in architectural activity. Time-wise this stage covers the fifth and sixth years of study and includes preparation of a graduation thesis. The article reveals that at all stages of training Architectural Design is a key major course, where students learn methods for comprehensive solution of an architectural problem in view of contemporary stylistic trends and design standards, study features of design of buildings with varying three-dimensional spatial structure, learn typological features of residential and public buildings. The article offers a partial analysis of international and domestic experience in architectural training using the process of architectural practical training as an example. When performing practice-oriented design projects, students develop skills for professional solution of architectural and artistic, functional planning, design and technology problems and gradually create their own creative methodof architectural design. During their initial years of study students hone skills in variable methods of sketching, techniques for three-dimensional, structural, image-bearing, colouristic modelling of architectural composition, which greatly enriches their creative experience in design. Organization of learning activity implies that students find their own ways to solve the problem based on familiarization with known methods of occupational activity. In senior years of study problematic nature of Architectural Design contributes to professional growth of students, creative design encourages use of parti diagrams, creative techniques and innovative methods of search for solutions. It stimulates creative activity of students and develops their self-reliance,which is greatly contributed by creation of learning situations close to real-life architectural activity. The article offers a partial analysis of international and domestic experience in architectural training using the process of architectural practical training as an example. The author gives examples of students’ architectural practical training in Ukraine, Germany, Poland, USA, Sweden and France.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it