This project explores the concept of experiential learning and its role in meeting new professional skills, and identifies the need to broaden the definition of experiential learning from its current focus, which is mainly on work experience. The project team has worked together from 2012 to mid-2014 to undertake a baseline survey of
current EL practice, to prepare exemplar case-studies and to develop an online toolkit of ‘good practice’ resources. Wider dissemination presentations, workshops and seminars were conducted by project partners during 2014 (Table 3.1, Appendix E).
The university partners involved in the project communicated through four face-to- face workshops, several conference calls, and numerous individual calls and emails. An online project management tool, Basecamp, was managed by USC, and provided the means to share resources and communicate provisional findings amongst partners.
Table 3.1: Project phases
Phase Purpose Method Time Frame
1 Baseline survey of
experiential learning in ANZ planning schools Emailed survey of planning schools Face-to-face workshop Teleconference Feb 2012 – April 2012 30–31 March 2012 28 October 2011 2 Developing and testing of
case studies against principles Student surveys – EL tasks Face-to-face workshop Feb 2012 – June 2013 31 Jan – 1 Feb 2013
3 Development of toolbox Case studies
Face-to-face workshop
June – Sept 2013 11–12 July 2013 4 Recommendations for
programs and PIA accreditation Analysis of outcomes of first 2 stages Face-to-face workshop July – Sept 2013 26 Sept 2013 5 Wider dissemination of project
outcomes Workshops Seminars Presentations See dissemination schedule Appendix E
Phase 1 – Baseline survey of experiential learning in ANZ planning schools
Following completion of the human ethics approval process (USC Ethics Approval No: A11348) Phase 1 involved a survey of all PIA-accredited planning programs across Australian universities and equivalent New Zealand planning schools to determine the current extent of experiential learning activities used in their planning programs. In addition to providing baseline documentation of EL, it was expected that the survey might identify innovative practices and, hence, provide material for
The survey instrument was disseminated via email in two stages. The first stage involved a desktop search of all the university websites to identify heads of programs and all core courses1 and coordinators. An email invitation was sent to all these potential participants. To ensure further coverage of potential participants, a second email was sent later to the heads of these planning programs asking them to forward the survey to course coordinators who use experiential learning approaches. Further, each project team partner was allocated heads of programs to contact, requesting assistance; reminder phone calls were made, if a particular planning program did not respond. An explanation of the study was also posted on RePlan (Australian and New Zealand planning schools email network) with contact details for those who may not have been contacted and who wanted to complete a survey. (See Appendix B for a copy of a sample survey instrument.)
Planning educators from 18 of the 23 Australian programs and three of four New Zealand programs responded. Of their 100 course-level survey responses, 52 were received about courses offered solely as part of undergraduate degrees; 26 related to both undergraduate and postgraduate degrees; and 22 were postgraduate degrees. (See Chapter 4 for detailed survey results.)
Potential respondents were asked to describe their experiential learning activities and the nature of the assessment used in the course using the continuum of
experiential learning experiences ranging from a variety of university-based through to workplace-based encounters. (See Chapter 2.)
The ten categories of learning activities used in the survey were:
1. guest speakers from the profession talking about practice
2. field trips to council, court, tribunal or development or heritage or conservation site
3. regional or international field studies and project
4. development or impact assessment e.g. track development application through council; undertake an assessment
5. studio-project-based work usually with a client and/or community 6. simulated development of project at a real site
7. strategic planning, usually for a client or at a real site e.g. master planned community or community strategy
8. role play e.g. negotiation, conflict resolution
9. informal work experience under supervision of planning professional
combined with classroom discussion with peers and university staff e.g. one day/week or holiday work
10. formal work placement as course work under direction of a planning profession and university staff e.g. sandwich year, semesters or number of days.
The analysis of the survey and the results of the baseline survey are at Chapter 4.
Phase 2 – Developing and testing of case studies against principles
Following a second ethics approval process (USC Ethics Approval No: A12385), Phase 2 of the project required partner institutions to evaluate and refine a framework for experiential learning. In the 2009 pilot study at the University of the Sunshine Coast, brief questionnaire surveys were administered to planning students. Survey
questions were designed around an initial statement of the principles to be applied across the continuum of experiential learning (referred to in Chapter 2) and also took into account instruments developed by Trigwell and Reid (1998) and the Work Experience Questionnaire (WEQ) intended to measure student satisfaction with workplace experience (Freestone et al. 2007). Each of the partner institutions
represents expertise in a diversity of experiential learning activities and learning tasks including international field trips, role plays, and planning projects. Each partner refined curriculum materials (activities and assessment techniques). To evaluate the effectiveness of the course or task in meeting the principles, each partner surveyed students at the end of each course or experiential activity. An agreed generic qualitative survey was thus tailored by each of the research partners to fit the particular course and activity being assessed by the partner. . (See Appendix C for a survey example.) Each partner analysed the completed surveys using content analysis and provided quotations from student respondents as evidence of the extent to which the course met experiential learning principles and satisfaction with the activity. Information obtained from the various survey instruments designed by partner universities formed the basis of the assessment of each case study written up in Phase 3.
Phase 3 – Development of toolbox
In Phase 3, project partners wrote one or more EL case studies based on the
outcomes of Phase 2. The case studies document the learning task; what assessment was used; how the learning activity met the principles of EL; what feedback was obtained from students; and what unit coordinators would do differently next time. Where possible, case studies were supplemented with photos and videos. The case studies are discussed in Chapter 5 and Appendix D and also feature in the online toolkit at <experientiallearninginplanning.com.au>. All Australian and New Zealand planning schools have been invited to use the material and provide further feedback.
Phase 4 – Recommendations for programs and PIA accreditation
At the July 2013 workshop, project partners assessed each phase of the project to identify the key learning outcomes from each case study and to make a series of recommendations for PIA accreditation (Chapter 6). These recommendations were further discussed by the academics from tertiary planning schools who attended the ANZAPS conference in September 2013.
Phase 5 – Wider dissemination of project outcomes
In 2014, project team members engaged in presentations, workshops and seminars across Australia and New Zealand to present the project outcomes to planning educators, practitioners, university partners and other EL proponents.
Chapter 3 provides the methodology for undertaking the survey and subsequent case studies in Phases 1 and 2 of the study. Both phases contributed then to the
recommendations about accreditation of planning programs. The final phase was the wider dissemination of project outcomes. The first main undertaking – the baseline survey – is presented in Chapter 4.