Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
To cite this article: John F. Meligrana & John S. Andrew (2003) Role-playing simulations in urban
planning education: a survey of student learning expectations and outcomes, Planning Practice &
Research, 18:1, 95-107, DOI: 10.1080/0269745032000132673
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0269745032000132673
PLANNING EDUCATION
Introduction
It is important to test whether teaching methods
and practices provide the required skills needed
by future urban and regional planners. This
paper evaluates student learning expectations
and outcomes regarding the use of simulations
in planning education. In doing so, it examines
the degree to which role-playing simulations
can help teach planning students the skills
identified in an extensive literature on the relationship between planning practice, theory and
education (see e.g. Coleman, 1989; Krausse &
Amaral, 1989; Baum, 1997; Shepherd & Cosgriff, 1998; Ozawa & Seltzer, 1999; Alexander,
2001). Our research question investigates
which specific planning skills may be effectively taught through the use of role-playing
simulations. From this arise more specific questions, such as whether role-playing simulations
emphasise procedural knowledge over substantive knowledge of planning concepts.
Data were obtained using an in-depth survey
of graduate planning students who participated
in a simulated hearing of a quasi-judicial board
that hears planning disputes. Surveys, administered both before and after the simulation game,
identified the types of planning skills students
both expected and acquired through their participation in the role-playing exercise. Survey
responses were compared to the skills that the
literature identified as necessary for pro-
John F. Meligrana & John S. Andrew, School of Urban and Regional Planning, Queens University,
Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada. Email: jmeligra@post.queensu.ca
0269-7459 Print/1360-0583 On-line/03/010095-13 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/0269745032000132673
95
96
97
98
authors home university, who are actively using role-playing simulation games as a teaching
device. This served as a pilot test of the survey
instrument.
Background
The students surveyed were participating in a
simulated hearing of the Ontario Municipal
Board (OMB), a quasi-judicial tribunal that
adjudicates planning disputes in Ontario. The
OMB gave the authors special permission to
make use of the entire case file of a recent
hearing. This file included: the board members
written decision; all exhibits and evidence submitted by the participating parties, including
reports, maps and photographs; and any
recorded communication (e.g. memos, letters,
etc.) sent by the parties prior to the hearing.
The students were given full access to the case
file and were divided into the following roles:
board members, developers, residents, lawyers
and expert witnesses. The OMB plays a pivotal
role in urban and regional planning in Ontario
through its long-standing authority, since 1932,
to review a wide range of land-use decisions
that municipal governments and other local
agencies make, in most cases pursuant to the
Government of Ontarios Planning Act.
Through its application and interpretation of
provincial law, the OMB operates as a quasi-judicial tribunal to the facts of a case and thus
differs from a court of law (Chipman, 1999). Its
decisions are not bound by legal precedent.
Instead, the board judges the prevailing merits
of each individual application by measuring
and comparing it to the broader public good,
based on stated provincial policies. If no provincial policy exists, the boards decisions are in
favour of preserving the greatest common
good. Thus, it may formulate provincial policy
where none previously exists. Given the
boards scope and power over land-use decisions, most practising professional planners in
Ontario will come in contact with the OMB,
usually as expert witnesses. Although the scope
and power of the OMB might be unique to
Ontario, the idea of planning disputes being
resolved by tribunals, boards and other quasijudicial bodies as well as the courts is familiar
to planners working in many other jurisdictions.
99
100
rankings. The pre- and post-hearing differences consensus about role playing shows a hierarchical pattern (Table 1). The highest mean values
in mean and rank are also shown.
These results demonstrate that students were recorded by the pre-simulation survey were for
in either mild or strong agreement with all of skills at interpreting planning laws (a mean of
IGURE4.35,
2. rank 1), learning how to think and rethe learning skills presented in each of Fthe
survey questions, i.e. all of the learning skills spond on your feet (a mean of 4.23, rank 2),
received a mean score of greater than 3. More- examining planning issues from multiple perover, all but one survey question showed an spectives (a mean of 4.19, rank 3), and develincrease in its mean score in the post-simu- oping the ability to conceptualise plans in three
lation survey. This indicates two things. First, dimensions (a mean of 4.15, rank 4). The
the role-playing simulation, at least from the post-simulation survey also gave these skills
students perspective, provided a diverse learn- the three highest mean scores, but in the reverse
ing experience. The students agreed that the rank order.
The method skill, i.e. the opportunity to see
role-playing simulation helped to teach methods and judgment skills, and both procedural multiple perspectives on the same issue, ranked
and substantive knowledge. Second, participat- first with the highest mean of 4.62. This was
ing in the simulated hearing reinforced and followed by judgment skill, i.e. learning how to
relied upon all four skill sets as identified think and respond on your feet, and substantive knowledge skill, i.e. the ability to interpret
above.
However, from the range of mean values and and relate laws to a planning issue or case, with
their corresponding ranks, the students strong mean scores of 4.58 and 4.46, respectively. The
101
Method
(synthesis) skill
4.19
4.62
0.42
4.23
4.58
0.35
4.35
4.46
0.12 2
3.62
4.19
0.58
3.5
4.19
0.69
3.69
4.08
0.38 1
4.15
3.85
0.31 3
3.38
3.62
0.23
3.08
3.58
0.5
Judgement skill
Difference
Substantive
knowledge
Substantive
knowledge
Procedural
knowledge
Procedural
knowledge
Method skill
(graphic
communication
and design)
Judgement skill
Judgement skill
and procedural
knowledge
Opportunity to see
multiple perspectives on
the same issue
Learn how to think and
respond on your feet
Interpret and relate laws
to a planning issue or case
Awareness of urban
development issues
Think about the
interaction of planning,
implementation and
markets
Greater understanding of
the rationale for
planning
Ability to conceptualise
plans in three dimensions
Good opportunity to
express your opinions
and ideas
Learn how procedures
influence ability to
express your ideas
Rank
102
Substantive
knowledge
Method skill
(communication)
Substantive
knowledge
Method skill
(management)
Procedural
knowledge
Knowledge of
laws and
regulations as
they relate to
planning
Communication
skills
Knowledge of
planning theories
and ideas
Ability to work
well with other
group members
Knowledge of
how planning
tribunals operate
Post-hearing
survey
Difference
Mean
Rank
2.04
1.8
0.24
2.19
2.15
0.04
3.8
3.24
0.56
3.72
3.72
3.32
4.04
0.72
103
Substantive
knowledge
Substantive
knowledge
Method skill
(communication)
Procedural
knowledge
Method skill
(management)
Survey questions
Knowledge of laws
and regulations
governing planning
and development
Knowledge of
planning ideas and
theories
Improving
communication skills
How planning
tribunals operate
Experience of
working
cooperatively on a
planning project
Post-hearing
survey
Difference
Mean
Rank
Mean
Rank
Mean
Rank
2.08
2.12
3.6
3.04
0.56
3.04
3.04
2.36
3.28
0.92
3.92
3.52
0.4
2
0
versed itself. Substantive knowledge of planning theories ranked third (with a mean of
3.24). Procedural knowledge of planning tribunals ranked last with a mean of 4.04, representing an increase of 0.72 from the previous
survey. The method (management) skill of being able to work well in a group ranked consistently fourth in both the pre- and post-hearing
surveys.
Table 3 presents the students rank ordering
of the most important skills acquired through
participation in the role-playing simulation. The
skills listed are similar to those found in Table
2. The pre- and post-simulation surveys consistently ranked the acquisition of substantive
knowledge of planning laws/regulations as the
most important skill (with means of 2.08 and
2.12, respectively), while developing the
method (management) skill of being able to
work cooperatively ranked as the least important skill (with means of 3.92 and 3.52, respectively). Before the simulation, the students
projected that procedural knowledge of how
planning tribunals operate would be the second
most important skill (a mean of 2.36), while
104
Debriefing
As part of the debriefing to this role-playing
simulation, the authors arranged for a panel of
educational experts on role-playing games to
observe and assess student behaviour and performance during the simulated hearing. This
105
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Hok-Lin Leung,
Andrejs Skaburskis, Jo-Anne Rudachuk, graduate students of the School of Urban and Regional Planning, and Mark Weisberg for their
generous assistance. The authors are also grateful for the support received from Denise Stockley
and
Susan
Wilcox,
Instructional
Development Centre at Queens University.
106
This research was funded by a Research Initiation Grant provided by Queens University.
References
Alexander, E. R. (1986) Approaches to Planning:
Introducing Current Planning Theories, Concepts, and Issues (New York, Gordon & Breach
Science).
Alexander, E. R. (2001) What do planners need to
know?, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20, pp. 376380.
Association of American Collegiate Schools of Planning (2002) http://www.acsp.org
Bailey, N. & Walker, H. (2001) Managing the transition to work: the role of the planning network
in British town planning education, Planning
Practice and Research, 16(1), pp. 7178.
Baum, H. S. (1997) Social science, social work, and
surgery, APA Journal, 63(2), pp. 179188.
Camino, E. & Calcagno, C. (1995) An interactive
methodology for empowering students to deal
with controversial environmental problems, Environmental Education and Research, 1(1),
pp. 5974.
Canadian Institute of Planners (2002) http://www.cipicu.ca
Chipman, J. (1999) Policy-making by administrative
tribunals: a study of the manner in which the
Ontario Municipal Board has applied provincial
land use planning policies and has developed
and applied its own planning policies, Doctor of
Juridical Science Thesis (Toronto, Faculty of
Law, University of Toronto).
Coleman, J. S. (1989) Simulation games and the
development of social theory, Simulation &
Games, 20(2), pp. 144164.
Dolin, E. J. & Susskind, L. E. (1992) A role for
simulations in public policy disputes: the case
for national energy policy, Simulation & Gaming, 23(1), pp. 2044.
Forester, J. (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner:
Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes
(Cambridge, MA, MIT Press).
Friedmann, J. (1995) Teaching planning theory, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3),
pp. 156162.
Friedmann, J. (1996) The core curriculum in planning
revisited, Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 15(2), pp. 89104.
Friedmann, J. & Kuester, C. (1994) Planning education for the late 20th century: an initial inquiry, Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 14(1), pp. 5564.
107