634864

research-article2016
JPEXXX10.1177/0739456X16634864Journal of Planning Education and ResearchBaldwin and Rosier

Research-Based Article

Journal of Planning Education and Research

Growing Future Planners:

2017, Vol. 37(1) 43­–55
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
A Framework for Integrating sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X16634864

Experiential Learning into Tertiary journals.sagepub.com/home/jpe

Planning Programs

Claudia Baldwin1 and Johanna Rosier1

Abstract
The planning industry expects that tertiary planning education will prepare graduating planners with practical planning skills,
applicable in an increasingly complex world. However, planning schools are not required to systematically include practice or
experiential learning in curriculum. In this article, we explore the benefits of experiential learning, highlight gaps in application
of the concept, and present a framework for integrating experiential learning in planning education at a tertiary level.
The framework comprises core principles, applied to a range of experiential activities, scaffolded across an undergraduate
planning program to provide increasing engagement in practice.

Keywords
experiential learning, planning education, practice learning, professional accreditation, theoretical framework

Introduction—Expectations of the method by drawing on previous research on the pedagogy of

Planning Profession about Planning
Education
There is growing evidence that higher education graduates
benefit from the incorporation of experiential learning into
curricula and programs, particularly in applied fields such as
urban and regional planning, nursing, teaching, social work,
pharmacy, engineering, and management (Owen and Stupens
2009; Fowler 2008; Davis 2006; Elwood 2004; Trigwell and
Reid 1998). The complexity and uncertainty encountered in
practice situations cannot be duplicated in a traditional class-
room education (Roakes and Norris-Tirrell 2000). Additional
drivers are the need to foster lifelong learning behavior
through continuing professional development and to facilitate
adaptation to rapidly changing work environments (Guile and
Griffiths 2001). On one hand, given financial constraints,
employers expect new graduates to quickly attain a profes-
sional standard to provide an early return on investment. On
the other, with higher tuition fees and slow economic growth,
graduating students expect that their education will make
them employable and competitive in the marketplace (Pegg
et al. 2012). Referred to variously as service, practice, out-
reach, co-operative education, or workplace learning, it is
seen as a means to broaden students’ learning experiences by
placing them in a new context for learning in and from the
world outside of the university in their chosen professions.
This article explores existing evidence of experiential learn-
ing benefits and explains why it is an effective learning
experiential learning. We present a new framework that will
assist planning educators to identify good experiential learn-
ing (EL), integrate experiential learning activities across
courses and programs, and prepare learning activities. The
framework provides the foundation for our broader study,
reported separately, which tests its applicability and its contri-
bution to learning outcomes in tertiary-level planning educa-
tion programs (Baldwin et al. 2014).
In the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, and
Australia, which are based on similar philosophies about
planning education, reviews of tertiary education over the
past ten years by governments and professional associations
have consistently identified skills needed for employability.
Many of the attributes of planning graduates desired by pro-
spective employers such as communication, teamwork, time
and personal management, critical thinking skills, collabora-
tion, and managing networks are expressed as desired com-
petencies and are best developed in real situations (Seltzer
Initial submission, February 2014; revised submissions, February and July
2015; final acceptance, December 2015
1
University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore DC, Queensland,
Australia
Corresponding Author:
Claudia Baldwin, Regional and Urban Planning Program, University of the
Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore DC, Queensland, 4558, Australia.
Email: cbaldwin@usc.edu.au
44 Journal of Planning Education and Research 37(1)
and Ozawa 2002; Booher and Innes 2002; Stubbs and
Keeping 2002; Biggs and Tang 2007).
In the United Kingdom, for example, national policies
pay attention to professional association needs by supporting
the embedding of employability in the curriculum and pro-
viding work-based learning activities (Pegg et al. 2012).
The urban and regional planning profession demands the
training of practical planners who have some experience with
community development, citizen participation modules, and
conflict resolution skills. Community outreach in curricula
provides needed exposure to practical applications of textbook
lessons and exposure to group dynamics, community clients,
and complex problems. (Kotval 2003a, 297)
With similar challenges in the United States and Canada,
Fischler (2012) focuses on the knowledge, skills, and other
attributes needed to be a good spatial planner who delivers sus-
tainable communities, while Guzzetta and Bollens (2003) rein-
force the notion of a gap between planning education and
practice and emphasize the need for practitioners to be involved
in planning education. They identify a number of initiatives to
ensure students have a better understanding of the challenges in
a planning career, such as inviting alumni for lunchtime discus-
sions with students, engaging professionals as student mentors,
and inviting guest lecturers from public and private practice.
The fact that Dalton (2007) found that 30 percent of practicing
planners in the USA had no formal planning education (across
the board) and did not have significantly different careers than
planning graduates, highlights the importance of work experi-
ence and ongoing professional development in the broad,
diverse, and complex field of planning.
Likewise, in Australia, a National Inquiry into Planning
Education and Employment (PIA 2004) and follow-up dis-
cussion paper (Gurran, Norman, and Gleeson 2008) recom-
mended increasing planner professionalism through matching
skill gaps with training in areas such as project management
and negotiation. Budge (2009, 13) sums up the idea of “plan-
ning in reality” as “a way of thinking, acting and operating in
a political economy that produces spatial outcomes.”
It is clear that the planning profession is demanding grad-
uate learning outcomes that can best be delivered by experi-
ential mechanisms. A consistent framework could provide
guidance for integrating experiential learning in planning
courses, and eventually for assessing the effectiveness of
experiential learning in preparing planning graduates. Uptake
of experiential learning in planning education would be opti-
mized through the planning school accreditation process.
Embedding Experiential Learning in
Planning Program Accreditation
According to Pegg et al. (2012), established professional
bodies have a clear remit to include the necessary profes-
sional requirements within course materials as part of the
validation process. Fortunately, students enrolled in
industry-accredited planning programs also recognize the
essential role of industry in setting competency standards
that must be fulfilled before graduates go into practice (Race
2007).
In the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, and
Australia, independent professional bodies use policies, stan-
dards, and procedures to assess the quality of tertiary plan-
ning programs and their graduating students, in terms of how
well they meet professional and discipline competency
requirements (PAB 2013a, 2013b;CIP 2013; RTPI 2012; PIA
2011). Each of these bodies prescribe course content in terms
of knowledge and skills needed in the profession and include
an understanding of the planning profession as one of many
learning outcomes.
Many professional organizations are now trying to include
performance criteria in their program accreditation standards
as ways of assessing learning outcomes rather than learning
inputs. For example, Fischler (2012) notes that while accred-
itation bodies generally do not specify the pedagogy or pre-
scribe how planning programs deliver knowledge and
competencies, most urge planning programs to involve prac-
titioners in education of future planners. Of interest is that
none of the bodies make work placements or work-integrated
learning a mandatory requirement in planning programs.
In the USA, the Planning Accreditation Board (PAB)
standards detail that “guest speakers, adjuncts and lecturers
should be individuals with professional involvement and sta-
tus to effectively add perspectives from planning practice
and other related specialties” (2012, 5). Although PAB pol-
icy does not require work placements, planning programs are
encouraged to facilitate student engagement in the profes-
sion through American Planning Association activities,
“internships, community-based planning activities, or proj-
ect experiences that develop their skills as planners” (PAB
2013b, 11).
In Canada, one of the evaluation criteria used by the inde-
pendent Professional Standards Board (CIP 2013), requires
that course content “provide sufficient coverage of the func-
tional and enabling competencies to allow students to enter
the planning profession with a broad base of understanding
of what planners do” (CIP 2013, 7). As in the United States,
the accreditation process leaves decisions about methods of
delivery up to the individual planning programs. All accred-
ited undergraduate programs in Canada offer a practicum
type component, but not all are mandatory. The epitome of
experiential learning is the University of Waterloo’s Co-op
system in which planning school students alternate study in
school terms with work terms in paid planning positions
throughout their program, completing their undergraduate
degree in five years instead of four.
In the United Kingdom, the Royal Town Planning Institute
(RTPI) has the role of accrediting planning schools. One of
the learning outcomes is “to understand the characteristics of
a professional, including the importance of upholding the
highest standards of ethical behavior and a commitment to
Baldwin and Rosier 45
lifelong learning and critical reflection so as to maintain and
develop professional competence” (RTPI 2012, 11). The
RTPI (2012) accreditation policy requires planning programs
to establish relationships with professional planners and pro-
vide a variety of practical experience opportunities (practi-
cums) which may result in “professional placements”
(Brown, Claydon, and Nadin 2003).
The current Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) accredi-
tation policy reflects similar developments that are occurring
in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada. The
policy is concerned about measuring how well students
understand the needs of professional practice given their
experiences gained through work experience and other forms
of work integrated learning.
Where a program does not include a formal requirement for
professional work experience, the Visiting Board will
consider prepared, supervised, and reflective work-integrated
learning that forms part of the educational curriculum to
demonstrate how skills, knowledge and competencies
obtained through work experience are acquired. (PIA 2011, 8)
If planning programs can provide evidence of how theory
and practice are linked through learning and teaching activi-
ties, the professional accreditation measurement needs to be
more sophisticated (Hoch and Fischler 2012; Stiftel et al.
2008; Biggs and Tang 2007). Hock and Fischler (2012) and
Stiftel et al. (2008) challenge planning educators to develop
credible yardsticks of performance that reflect multiple
objectives of outreach. Hoch and Fischler (2012, 23) empha-
size three principles that should guide organization of the
pedagogical program: balance across knowledge, skills, and
other attributes; a developmental approach that applies con-
cepts in ever more complex situations (“scaffolding” in
Australian terms); and use of a variety of pedagogical
approaches, including opportunities for hands-on real life
learning (Hoch and Fischler 2012, 23).
We build on the considerable work that has already been
undertaken to refine types of experiential learning in plan-
ning education. These include research into the applicability
of practice in planning education in North America (Guzzetta
and Bollens 2003; Fischler 2012), the United Kingdom
(UKCES 2008; Pegg et al. 2012), and Australia (Jones et al.
2009b; Freestone et al. 2007; Freestone and Wood 2006;
Coiacetto 2004). This literature provides a solid foundation
for defining the types of experiential learning opportunities
in planning education and general principles that should
guide experiential learning practice.
This article draws on prior research into the pedagogy of
experiential learning to provide guidance for improving
experiential learning in planning education. Our main contri-
bution is a new framework that will assist planning educators
in better integrating experiential learning into a tertiary level
planning education program. The framework is composed of
core principles that may be used to design activities to
improve learning outcomes. The framework provides the
basis for developing criteria for (1) determining how well
experiential learning and associated knowledge and skills
have been integrated into an individual planning program
and (2) assessing the effectiveness of student learning in
such a program. Significantly, the framework proposes a
scaffolded curriculum that provides increasing student
engagement in practice over the duration of a planning pro-
gram. That is, it provides progressive exposure to complexity
as suggested by Hoch and Fischler (2012, 23). This article
focuses on the conceptual framework that was applied to a
two-year, multi-university project in Australia to assess and
improve tertiary teaching practice, and to influence planning
school accreditation criteria. The outcomes of that project
are reported on separately in other publications.
What Is Experiential Learning?
Constructivist (i.e., active or experiential) approaches to learn-
ing and teaching are well aligned with planning education and
developing employability because they encourage learners to
explore, form concepts tested in the real world, solve prob-
lems, and demonstrate what they have learned through feed-
back of various kinds (Pegg et al. 2012; Coffield et al. 2004;
Roakes and Norris-Tirrell 2000). Experiential learning is “a
purposeful process of engaged, active learning in which the
student constructs knowledge, skills, or values by means of
direct experiences in authentic, real world contexts” (Kassem
2007, 2). As a constructivist approach to learning, it puts the
learner into the center of his or her learning and involves self-
regulation of the learning experience (Kottilil 2009).
Scholars often credit Vygotsky (1978) with providing the
foundations for situated cognition (which since evolved into
the term experiential learning) when he argued that know-
ing, understanding, and thinking happen in sociocultural
contexts (Lave and Wenger 1991). Sociocultural theory
expands situated cognition by analyzing the teaching and
learning that takes place in nonschool settings such as the
field or workplace. The theory, however, is best articulated
by Kolb (1984), whose interest lay in exploring the processes
associated with making sense of concrete experiences—and
the different styles of learning that may be involved. While
he acknowledges previous educational theorists (e.g., Dewey,
Piaget), Kolb is credited for the model that has had a pro-
found impact on the design and development of lifelong
learning models. He argued that “learning is best conceived
as the process whereby knowledge is created through a trans-
formation of experience” (Kolb 1984, 38; Ya-hui 2011). This
definition emphasizs certain critical aspects. Learning is a
process, rather than an outcome, grounded in experience and
is linked to the personality of the user. It is transformative,
with knowledge being continuously created and re-created,
requiring resolution of opposed modes of perceiving and
holistic adaptation to the real world. It involves transactions
between the learner and his environment, interpreting experi-
ence in both objective and subjective forms.
46 Journal of Planning Education and Research 37(1)
Figure 1.  Kolb’s experiential learning circle.
Source: Adapted from Smith (2001) and Kolb (1984).
Experiential learning, and in particular, Kolb’s learning
model, challenges previous learning style theories and
introduced complexity (Manikutty, Anuradha, and Hansen
2007). It is illustrated by the experiential learning circle
(Figure 1), which Kolb and Fry (1975) argue could be
entered at any point or, according to Kotval (2003b), is
most effective when a student goes through all roles regard-
less of order. Tyson and Lowe’s (1987) application of
Kolb’s framework recognizes the need to oscillate between
reflection and conceptualization, and sometimes bypass
conceptualization on the route to active experimentation.
They suggest that a shift occurs in self-perception and
empowerment in the student.
Kolb’s learning circle is supported by Beard (2010), who
argues that Kolb has developed a cognitively based model
that is useful for trainers and teachers because learners are
offered time to reflect and process their individual concrete
experiences. Beard (2010, 3) notes that “experiential learn-
ing cannot be reduced to set strategies, formulas and recipes
and working with people, and the inherent complexity of
experiential learning is certainly not easy.” Race (2007) and
Biggs and Tang (2007) believe that the most important fac-
tors underpinning successful learning in higher education are
“learning by doing,” receiving “positive feedback,” and hav-
ing time to make sense of what they have learned. They
argue that “learning by doing” combined with appropriate
assessment of student activities can encourage a positive atti-
tude to lifelong learning. Cohen et al. (2000 in Fowler 2008,
428) support this, suggesting that experience is the founda-
tion of and stimulus for learning. Learners actively learn, in
a holistic way, which is socially and culturally constructed
and influenced by the socioemotional context in which it
occurs. Andresen, Boud, and Cohen (2000, 226–27) focus on
the practice of experience-based learning and suggest several
factors that influence outcomes, including
•• intentionality of design through structured activities
such as role plays or games;
•• the learner’s relevant experiences used as a basis for
integrating meaning more effectively into the learn-
er’s values and understanding;
•• the skill of the educator in facilitating the learner’s
control of their learning; and
•• assessment of learning outcomes involving reflection
through learning journals, negotiated learning con-
tracts, peer assessment, and self-assessment.
Kolb’s learning cycle thus contributes to “best practice”
principles to guide the development of experiential learning
activities as part of a tertiary education program. Building on
this, Freire’s (1995) interpretation of social learning–based
educational theory (a behavioural model of learning) also
contributes elements to our research. Here the emphasis is
placed on dialogue-based transformation in the learner. Thus,
the onus is on the educator to create EL activities that are
informed and values-based. It raises challenges for educators
to ensure that future education through web-based or e-learn-
ing provides sufficient dialogue to support student reflection
and social learning.
Identifying key principles for establishing and evaluating
experiential learning as part of a tertiary planning education
program should provide the basis for developing criteria for
assessing whether, or how, new knowledge is generalized,
and how it is applied in a new planning situation, as per
Kolb’s model. An overview of the numerous benefits
recorded in pedagogical literature should go some way
toward alleviating residual concerns about any limitations of
experiential learning.
Benefits of Experiential Learning
Universities worldwide are becoming conscious of the need
for graduates to possess a range of skills and abilities beyond
their distinctive disciplinary knowledge, and which directly
prepare them for the workplace (Barraket et al. 2009). The
educational benefits of experiential learning have been well
documented and include positive social, personal, and learn-
ing outcomes for students; enhanced relationships between
students, faculties, and community; and improved student
retention rates (Eyler et al. 2001; Coffield et al. 2004; Biggs
and Tang 2007). More specifically, students report they “bet-
ter understood the real-world applications of the concepts,
that their interest in the topic area had been stimulated, and
that they were more likely to retain what they learned . . .
than they would from classroom learning activities” (Cornell,
Johnson, and Schwartz 2013, 142). Other benefits for stu-
dents, attributed to experiential learning, are
•• acquiring and developing transferable skills, such as
the art of communication, presenting, independent
learning, problem solving, working with others
Baldwin and Rosier 47
(Kotval 2003a; Heumann and Wetmore 1984; Greene
1988; Thomas and Hollander 2010);
•• integrating and synthesizing knowledge and skills
(Schön 1984; Dutton 1987; Greene 1988; Thomas and
Hollander 2010);
•• raising social consciousness and responsibility (Eyler
et al. 2001; Fowler 2008; Beard 2010);
•• gaining self-confidence with respect to student’s own
knowledge and skill sets, self-esteem, and interper-
sonal skills (Cornell, Johnson, and Schwartz 2013;
Eyler et al. 2001; Beard 2010); and
•• reinforcing “professional socialization” where stu-
dents participate in the practices of a professional
community, are introduced to the role of the planner in
the plan-making process (Heumann and Wetmore
1984; Thomas and Hollander 2010), and the planning
“community of practice” and its social norms (Long
2012). On one level, students may simply gain insight
into potential careers. On another, they may network
with future colleagues, develop successful nurturing
professional relationships, and improve employability
(Cornell, Johnson, and Schwartz 2013; Long 2012;
Barraket et al. 2009).
Interaction with community or professional planners can have
direct and indirect positive benefits: it can contribute to com-
munity and disciplinary knowledge through specific projects
undertaken by students and facilitate reciprocal relationships
that generate further forms of knowledge building and action
(Roakes and Norris-Tirrell 2000; Barraket et al. 2009). A
review of cooperative education, a type of experiential learn-
ing, found that outcomes for employers included improved
cost-effective productivity, long-term recruitment, staff diver-
sity, access to sought-after skills, and the ability to provide
input to the relevance of the school’s curricula (UW 2005).
From a pedagogical perspective, experiential learning shifts
the explicit responsibility for learning from the instructor to the
student, with the aim to develop the necessary skills for lifelong
learning (Hawtrey 2007) that is so essential to being an effec-
tive planning practitioner. Fischler (2012) refers to this as
“active learning” in which students organize their own work
and share responsibility for choosing the right analytical tools
and project outcomes. An “epistemological shift” occurs as stu-
dents integrate classroom learning with real-life experience
through reflective practice and critically examine ideas, the
meaning they attach to space or concepts, and move to question
and contribute to solving issues (Groves et al. 2013). It involves
student development of higher order generic skills (Barraket
et al. 2009). Students still need the academic knowledge and
skills from classroom teaching, but to achieve change and
make a difference in their future career as a planner, they need
much more. Thus, experiential learning provides learning out-
comes that are in demand in the complex multidisciplinary and
collaborative planning systems described by planning accredi-
tation organizations.
Barriers to Experiential Learning
The most substantial barrier is that the experiential learning
model is not universally accepted. Several commentators
suggest the model ignores different learning styles, does not
adequately recognize diversity within a student cohort, and
carries with it personal and professional risks for both stu-
dents and teachers (Grauerholz and Copenhaver 1994). In
some cases, educators question the evidence basis for such
pedagogy. Curry (1990) rightly argues for more evaluation
of the learning models or theories for validity and reliability
using empirical research, before dismissing particular learn-
ing styles. In the face of criticism, planning programs and
educators may resist incorporating experiential learning in
their program for this and a number of other reasons (Groves
et al. 2013; Fowler 2008; Senbel 2012). Some are concerned
about devaluing of substantive university-based knowledge,
in favor of knowledge focused on particular workplaces. We
argue, though, that these two types of knowledge comple-
ment each other but require educators to be skilled in assist-
ing students to draw the link between theory and practice.
We suggest that our framework provides a basis for develop-
ing criteria for evaluating the model, which in turn should
give greater reassurance to educators.
While interaction with external partners has benefits,
from the educator’s perspective a greater time commitment
and wider range of expertise is required to plan and imple-
ment interactive activities within a crowded curriculum,
when educators are already juggling a range of other priori-
ties (such as research) (Pegg et al. 2012). Winkler (2013)
suggests that when interacting with external partners, plan-
ning educators need to consider trust, transparency, and
accountability; clearly defined outcomes; good communica-
tion between all project participants; and finally, clearly
defined roles and responsibilities over time. With experien-
tial learning, educators need to be flexible and able to respond
to unpredictable issues as they emerge. In addition, educators
need to manage demands on the communities or host organi-
zations they interact with over the longer term, ensuring
mutual benefit (Barraket et al. 2009). From the student’s per-
spective, students’ feelings of incompetence and inadequacy
in dealing with complex topics and seasoned professionals
may lead to hesitancy (Cornell, Johnson, and Schwartz
2013). Thus, student preparedness needs to be evaluated and
developed. In addition, such courses may be more demand-
ing of students in terms of workload, reporting requirements,
and final product or may challenge them to produce outputs
that are unfamiliar and different from the usual essays and
reports.
Another challenge for both students and educators is man-
aging group dynamics, as many experiential learning activi-
ties require team work and greater social interaction and
collaboration. In addition to teaching the planning curricu-
lum, educators often find they need to teach communications
and social skills, how to take individual responsibility, and
48 Journal of Planning Education and Research 37(1)
be accountable to one’s peers. Consideration needs to be
given to access and equity issues. For example, part-time stu-
dents, students studying at a distance, or those financially
constrained may need to be allocated appropriate assessment
tasks and institutional support through different workload
allocation, peer-learning, and bursaries (Barraket et al. 2009).
In addition, the educator needs to ensure external partners
understand their role and are coached in presentation or eval-
uation, depending on their role. Therefore, a new experien-
tial learning framework could provide guidance for achieving
the desired education outcomes while avoiding or overcom-
ing potential barriers.
A New Framework for Achieving
Effective Learning Outcomes from
Experiential Education
A number of educational researchers have proposed frame-
works for experiential learning, some regarding design of
planning studio, others on work placement or service learning
as capstone courses in a professional degree (see Table 1).
Almost all are based on Kolb’s model; some are tested empir-
ically (Tyson and Lowe 1987; Roakes and Norris-Tirrell
2000; Yocom et al. 2012; Groves et al. 2013), others primarily
conceptual (Fowler 2008; Jones et al. 2009b).
While the intent of this aspect of planning education is to
improve student transition to “real world” tasks, it is impor-
tant to build on the theoretical knowledge and skills learnt
throughout a planning program and foster critical learning as
students experience more socially and politically complex
situations as they move through their program.
We build on these previous approaches to present a more
comprehensive alternative that will benefit student learning
if applied across an entire planning program. The new frame-
work we propose is composed of three components: (1) a set
of principles for developing experiential learning curriculum
and ultimately assessing its effectiveness against theoretical
criteria; (2) recognition that experiential learning can take
place through a range of learning (practice) activities as a
continuum from primarily university-based to externally
based; and (3) an approach where the continuum of activities
are scaffolded across a program to provide increasing inter-
action with practice by the student over the time of the
degree.
Experiential Learning Principles
Describing principles for establishing an experiential learn-
ing situation can guide design of experiential activities and
clarify the type of assessment needed. From experiential
learning literature and case studies of such experiences, we
explain the following eight principles in Table 2 as a basis for
guiding course development and design of relevant activi-
ties. For each principle, actions can be incorporated in an
activity, course, and program level. Assessment criteria could
then be developed, based on the principles, to measure effec-
tiveness. Many of these principles are derived from and are
common to other reviews of experiential learning (e.g., CU
2009) and processes for assessing workplace learning expe-
riences of students (Freestone et al. 2007; Biggs and Tang
2007). We suggest that the first three principles, purposeful,
student-centered, and evaluation, are essential but not unique
to experiential learning, and are good practice for teaching
and learning in general. The remainder of the principles are
of particular relevance to experiential learning. While the
eight principles are variously applied to other types of learn-
ing, we argue that the package of these eight are essential
ingredients to consider when integrating experiential learn-
ing into a program.
Advocates of experiential learning aim to receive recogni-
tion of experiential learning as a legitimate pedagogy for
higher education that enhances student learning and critical
thinking. They recognize, though, the importance of adopt-
ing mechanisms to assess and validate the learning experi-
ence as well as to ensure reflection and evaluation between
the academics and workplace. The principles thus provide
the basis for developing criteria for evaluating effectiveness
of the program in supporting student learning.
An Experiential Learning Continuum
Much of the literature on experiential learning, in planning
particularly, focuses on work placements, studios, or com-
munity-based projects (i.e., outreach). The emphasis on work
placement is illustrated by a UK government recommenda-
tion that every student should be given the opportunity to
undertake a placement. Despite this, by 2007 only 29 percent
of UK students were undertaking a work placement, com-
pared with the European average of 55 percent, France at 72
percent and Germany at 80 percent (Little 2007 in Pegg et al.
2012). They note, “A third of graduate vacancies this year
will be filled by applicants who have already worked for
their new employer as an undergraduate” (Pegg et al. 2012,
35). All professional institutes recognize that work experi-
ence may not always be available. However, it is expected
that a good planning program should be able to offer some
kind of alternative experience if work placements are not
offered within the program. Placements in which students
are mentored by professional planners offer the potential for
individual students to critique philosophy of planning, eth-
ics, and power issues and the role of theory in guiding prac-
tice. In these terms, Biggs and Tang (2007) suggest that a
successful practicum has greater validity if it occurs as close
as possible to the student entering the profession.
However, pedagogical researchers also mention other
activities that foster experiential learning. Such activities
include, among others, field trips, games, model building,
role-plays, simulations and surveys, community engagement,
structured interview of professionals or community members,
 Table 1.  Types of Experiential Learning Frameworks.

Data Collection Methods Applied in

Authors Focus and Theoretical Base Context of the Application the Research
Tyson and An application applying the four stages of Kolb’s model Third-year planning course on social Student questionnaire
Lowe 1987 organization and group dynamics, 20 student participants
University of Melbourne
Roakes and The application defines four characteristics of service learning course Graduate planning–studio course, Explanation of curriculum against
Norris-Tirrell development composed of: University of Memphis learning stages
2000 Student feedback through
1. ways of understanding; assignments: weekly reports,
2. experience as a source of learning by doing; actively using journal, peer review
knowledge; and transferring concepts to new situations; No record of student participant
3. reflective thinking to transform experience into learning; and numbers
4. an ethical foundation that stresses citizenship to community,
profession, and a larger public interest.
Fowler 2008 Application of Kolb’s framework, with a focus on meaningful Nursing education where students Reflection by students analyzed
(432) reflection to enhance learning. The quality of the experience spend half of the course in practice against characteristics of Kolb’s
is dependent on the degree of involvement of the student, the conceptual model
relevance of the subject matter, and whether the subject is task or No record of student participant
patient based. The meaningfulness of the reflection is dependent on numbers
the tools used to aid reflection, the ad hoc or planned nature of the
activity, and the behavior of the learner in the reflective process.
Jones et al. Provide activities within a continuum—growing complexity through Work integrated learning Conceptual plus survey of educators
2009b the program. Establish principles to guide design of activities. Number of participants unclear
Yocom et al. Simultaneous development of three themes: Applied Built Environment studio, Student work, course evaluations,
2012 and post-course interviews
1. Establishing rigorous forms of experimentation, University of Washington 17 student participants in the study
2. Developing collective understanding, and
3. Promoting interdisciplinary collaboration.
Groves et al. Facilitated learning in each stage of Kolb’s cycle and support of Course on “Sport and Deviance,” Evaluated by focus group interviews,
2013 Wingate’s (2006) “epistemological shift” United Kingdom, to improve checking against each stage of
second-year study skills Kolb’s model
7 student participants

49
50 Journal of Planning Education and Research 37(1)

Table 2.  Principles to Guide the Design of Experiential Learning (EL) Activities.

Principle Theoretical Explanation and implementation

1. EL activities Whether it is a game, role-play, guest, simulated exercise, speaker, design or research project—the purpose of the
have a clear experiential activity needs to be explained, within the context of the overall course or program requirements (CU
and shared 2009; Elwood 2004; Jones et al. 2009a, 2009b). Clear goals and expectations are established.
purpose
2. EL activities Increased levels of complexity are built in to each year of the program’s curriculum to build student capacity for
should be self directed (or self-regulated) learning. It involves active learning whereby the student takes an active role in
student- formulating, negotiating, implementing, modifying, and evaluating his or her own plan and taking action to achieve
centered agreed goals (Beard 2010; CU 2009; Kassem 2007; Jones et al. 2009b; Guile and Griffiths 2001).
3. Evaluation is Evaluation should be based on what the students learn and how they demonstrate meeting their learning goals. Such
an essential “situated learning” needs to be complemented with “situated assessment” (Jones et al. 2009a). The learner can thus
part of EL situate his or her own intended growth as an outcome of a learning experience, and the instructor can assess learning
activities outcomes (cognitive levels) during and after the experience (Corso 2008). Methods of evaluation could include articles,
seminar presentations, site visits by faculty, self-reflective diaries and journals supported with evidence, as well as student
focus groups or peer assessment and feedback from site supervisors (Biggs and Tang 2007; CU 2009).
4. EL activities A key step in Kolb’s model is concrete experience. Students are increasingly exposed to real-world situations over
provide the four years of their degree. Settings become less controlled by educators, problems become more complex, and
exposure working with others is required much of the time (CU 2009; Kassem 2007). Transdisciplinary experiences featuring
to a “real collaboration and active learning are relevant to expand the ever-broadening skills and knowledge required by
world” planners (Corey and Motte 2002; Steiner and Posch 2006). Students understand the purpose of the knowledge
context they are learning, and apply prior knowledge to new real situations. Students believe this learning has immediate
relevance, can improve employment prospects, and clarify their career path (Trigwell and Reid 1998). Beard (2010)
refers to this as “belonging”—learning situated in place, real or simulated, indoor or outdoor.
5. An EL The experience should be facilitated with ongoing faculty involvement in all phases of the experiential learning
experience process (CU 2009; Kassem 2007). Freestone et al. (2007) identifies the importance of close collaboration on
includes learning needs and experience with both employers and students featuring close work supervision, mentoring,
guided and coaching. Leadership from the lecturer draws on ideas about real engagement with students and a reflexive
practice “scholarship of teaching” (Freestone and Wood 2006; Kenny 1998).
6. EL Reflection is integral to the “observation and reflection” step of Kolb’s model. To build professional competencies,
experiences opportunities for deliberate and conscious reflection are essential (Stubbs and Keeping 2002). It enables students
provide to move beyond current understanding, see different perspectives, and turn their experiences into learning. It is
opportunities necessary for students to think about their actions, why they do what they do, critically explore learning, what
for reflection might be improved or done differently, how they use intuition and knowledge when learnt rules of procedure do
not readily fit a situation, and how to apply the learning to a different situation (Jones et al. 2009b; Gunder 2002).
Schön (1987) refers to “reflection-in-action” as thinking about what you are doing while you are doing it, while
“reflection dialogue” increases the effectiveness of reflection-in-action by talking about experiences and making
connections, both conceptual and practical (Roakes and Norris-Tirrell 2000). The educator may need to assist
reflection to be meaningful and supporting students as they gradually develop professional competencies (Fowler
2008; Boud and Walker 1998; Nygaard, Hejt, and Hermansen 2008). Work reports need clear goals to effectively
and clearly link classroom and workplace learning and promote student reflection (Escott 2004). Beard (2010)
notes that each student will have a different story about each experience.
7. EL activities Forming, reviewing, and integrating concepts into learning is integral to Kolb’s model. The experience needs to build on
enable a and draw from the student’s existing understanding of planning concepts from regular coursework and offer sufficient
theory- breadth to allow generalization and application beyond the classroom experience. The dialectic between practice and
practice theory in generating knowledge pathways is part of experiential learning (Quinn and Strauss 1997). Human experience
dialectic becomes a source of learning, whereby the learner tests the theories in practice and experimentation (Roakes and
Norris-Tirrell 2000), completing Kolb’s model through evaluation of active experimentation.
8. A mutually A partnership between university and community organizations or industries should be mutually beneficial, facilitating
beneficial the experiential learning needs of students and enhancing academic learning over time. Students usually expand
community- workplace capacity, provide a needed resource, and contribute current knowledge with support of academics
university (Biggs and Tang 2007; Kotval 2003b). A strong community–university partnership can provide an ethical foundation
partnership that stresses citizenship to community, profession, and include education about a larger public interest (Roakes and
facilitates EL Norris-Tirrell 2000).

and study circles (Pegg et al. 2012; Bednarz et al. 2008; four main approaches in an Australian study of planning insti-
Cornell, Johnson, and Schwartz 2013; Moss 2008; Ruholl tutions: brief encounters with practice, project-based work,
and Boyajian 2007). Jones et al. (2009a, 2009b) categorize structured work placement, and work experience. They refer
Baldwin and Rosier 51

Table 3.  Continuum of Experiential Learning Experiences in Planning Programs in Australia.

Studio-Project-Based Work with a Structured Work Practicum or

Brief Encounters Applied Project Client and/or Community Formal Work Experience
Guest speakers Track development application of Development/design of project Work placement under supervision
Field trip to Council at a real site, working for a of planning professional for
tribunal or siteMoot or appeal simulation or role- client semester, month, or sandwich year
play in law or conflict resolution Studio based with real project outcome May be combined with classroom
“Shadow” a planning practitioner Practitioner lecture with associated learning (e.g., one day/week or
for a day in-class exercise intensive block course)
 Predominantly university based                             Predominantly workplace based
  Increasing complexity of reflection regarding theory–practice links

Source: Adapted from Jones et al. 2009a, 2009b; Freestone and Wood 2006.

to a continuum of experiences ranging from predominantly
university based to predominantly workplace based that
reflects the level of university “control” over the curriculum
and learning experience (Table 3). The Jones et al. (2009a,
2009b) study and its precursor by Freestone et al. (2007)
focused on work-based learning, providing little evidence
about the full range of practical education across the contin-
uum within formal university planning. As part of our larger
study, we surveyed planning schools in Australia and found a
wide range of experiential learning activities in use across
programs (Slade et al. 2015).
In fact, our framework addresses recommendations by
Jones et al. (2009a, 2009b) that adoption of a widely shared
common assessment framework by both the professional
accrediting body (PIA) and/or planning schools is crucial.
A Scaffolded Approach across the Planning
Program
To maximize the likelihood of success, according to Pegg
et al. (2012), academic programs should highlight the pro-
gressive development of learning outcomes at each stage
which builds on student learning and experience from the
preceding stage, to present a broad picture of the overall
graduate outcomes sought—this is referred to as cognitive
scaffolding. From the perspective of experiential learning
(Hoch and Fischler 2012, 23), this would ensure students are
grounded in the knowledge prerequisite for exposure to real-
world practice, the “preparedness” to make meaning from a
theory–practice dialectic, and gradually build social and
emotional competence. We follow with an example of how
the continuum combined with scaffolding might be applied
in the development of an urban design theme at each level
across a four-year undergraduate program typical of
Australian planning programs. First-year classes are larger,
students are not yet fully committed to completing a plan-
ning degree, and feedback shows that they find it difficult to
work in groups. So design exercises are brief, with local case
studies used to illustrate basic theoretical ideas and concepts
about spatial planning. Guest lecturers talk about their design
philosophy and design techniques and may assist with skill
development. In the second year, the course is an Urban
Design studio held within the university, where students
work in groups for about 20 percent of the time to carry out
an analysis of a “real” spatial issue and use theory to guide
their development of a solution to a specified problem. By
the third and fourth years, professional planners, other
experts, or community representatives might act as the client
and provide a real problem to be solved. Studios are carried
out within a university-controlled environment, supported by
fieldtrips to the location where community representatives,
planners, and others meet to discuss issues in situ. These
external partners provide input to studios and provide feed-
back to the students on the final presentation of their work.
The main difference between third and fourth year studio
projects would be the size and complexity of the project, the
“real” constraints on design, and the degree to which stu-
dents need to consult with the broader community. Thus,
complexity is built in over the four years. In a two-year mas-
ter’s planning program, more typical of American tertiary
programs, not only is theory and understanding of current
research more advanced from first semester but there would
be a greater level of interaction with external partners as
guest speakers, lecturers, or research project supervisors. As
many students undertake a master’s after some work experi-
ence, “practice” may not need to be programed into the
course to the same extent as in an undergraduate program.
The emphasis may be more on in-depth dialogue about the
theory–practice dialectic, using practice insights to improve
theory. A final-year research project would be expected to
address a “real world” problem.
The continuum suggests that student exposure to the
external world increases in intensity over the four-year pro-
gram. Moreover, it does not restrict predominantly univer-
sity-based activities to earlier years, or predominantly
work-based experiences to the later years. In fact, activities
such as “brief encounters” may have a role throughout. In
general, it is accepted that students benefit from exposure to
professional experience at any time in their program. Thus,
lower levels of interaction with the “real world” happen
52 Journal of Planning Education and Research 37(1)
during the first and second years (i.e., shadowing a planner in
an office). More intense interaction increases over the four-
year program, culminating in capstone courses such as (a)
“planning practice” where practitioners problem-solve with
students; (b) an individual planning research project where
students identify solutions to planning issues based on
research; and (c) finally, work placement. One aspect of
experiential learning typical of many planning programs is
the support of planning practitioners from private consultan-
cies, local NGOs, and state and local governments. They
mentor fourth-year students “off campus” as part of a four-
week practicum in planning offices. Students commonly
complete a reflective learning journal about the experience,
making links back to theoretical planning concepts and their
application in practice. It is during these later years that
higher level thinking linking theory and practice occurs and
the intensity of exposure to real-world issues increases.
Conclusion: Where to from Here?
In order to meet the demands of the planning profession for
planning graduates who are able to work in a complex world,
tertiary planning education needs to enthusiastically embrace
experiential learning by incorporating it in curriculum across
the program, not just within individual courses. Planning
program accreditation bodies can play an important role in
supporting planning educators, not only by specifying learn-
ing outcomes but requiring interaction with real-world prac-
tice. Development of the framework presented here benefited
from a solid foundation of Kolb’s cognitive learning model
and Freire’s dialectical approach. It was also underpinned by
consolidation of more recent experiential learning frame-
works, most of which were tested empirically against Kolb’s
model (Table 1).
Our conceptual framework aims to provide guidance for
educators as they improve experiential learning practice and
integrate experiential learning into planning programs. Its
contribution to research is through providing
1. principles that can be applied to guide development
of experiential learning activities and used to develop
criteria to assess effectiveness of integration of expe-
riential learning into a planning program;
2. a continuum of learning activities that enable student
engagement in practice from primarily within the
university to external practice, thus expanding
beyond the typical work placements and studios
commonly considered as experiential learning activi-
ties; and
3. a scaffolded approach to student preparedness by
increasing exposure to real-world practice over the
duration of a planning program.
We suggest that this framework can also be used by accredit-
ing bodies to assess planning programs’ efforts to achieve
desired professional learning outcomes, and to advocate to
university administration the need for the resources and sup-
port required for experiential learning.
Our review of the literature suggests there are still some
research gaps. An important next step is to apply and evalu-
ate application of the framework. For international compa-
rability, it would be helpful to understand to what extent
planning programs in various countries incorporate a full
range of experiential learning activities not just work place-
ment. We should investigate how the principles of experi-
ential learning could be implemented in learning and
assessment activities. How is student learning assessed in
order to evaluate the benefits of an experiential or practice-
based approach? Given the number of accredited planning
programs around the world, some relatively new, it is
important that each program offer substantive planning
knowledge and tools to prepare future graduates starting in
the profession. Improving the delivery of experiential
learning also enables individual programs to differentiate
themselves from each other. We encourage pedagogical
researchers to apply and test this framework in their tertiary
planning programs to contribute much needed evidence of
the value of experiential learning.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge funding by the University of
the Sunshine Coast ALTC Promoting Excellence Project Seed
Funding Scheme (2009) and the input of reviewers who have con-
tributed to improving the article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Andresen, L., D. Boud, and R. Cohen. 2000. “Experience-based
Learning.” In Understanding Adult Education and Training,
2nd ed., edited by G. Foley, 225–39. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Baldwin, C., J. Rosier, C. Slade, T. Perkins, E. Coiacetto, T. Budge,
and A. Harwood. 2014. “Experiential Learning in Planning.”
http://www.olt.gov.au/project-experiential-learning-planning-
education-resources-and-tools-good-practice-2011.
Barraket, J., R. Melville, S. Wright, M. Scott, S. Richardson, G.
Carey, S. Thornton, and P. Hodge. 2009. Engaging with
Learning: Understanding the Impact of Practice Based
Learning Exchange: Final Report to Australian Learning
and Teaching Council. Strawberry Hills, New South Wales,
Australia.
Beard, C. 2010. The Experiential Learning Toolkit: Blending
Practice with Concepts. London: Kogan Page.
Bednarz, S., B. Chalkley, S. Fletcher, I. Hay, E. Le Heron, A.
Mohan, and J. Trafford. 2008. “Community Engagement for
Baldwin and Rosier 53
Student Learning in Geography.” Journal of Geography in
Higher Education 32 (1): 87–100.
Biggs, J., and C. Tang. 2007. Teaching for Quality Learning at
University, 3rd ed. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
Booher, D., and J. Innes. 2002. “Network Power in Collaborative
Planning.” Journal of Planning Education and Research
21:221–36.
Boud, D., and D. Walker. 1998. “Promoting Reflection in
Professional Courses: The Challenge of Context.” Studies in
Higher Education 23 (2): 191–206.
Brown, C., J. Claydon, and V. Nadin. 2003. “The RTPI Education
Commission: Context and Challenges.” Town Planning Review
74 (3): 333–45.
Budge, T. 2009. “Educating Planners, Educating for Planning or
Planning Education: The Never-Ending Story.” Australian
Planner 46 (1): 8–13.
CIP (Canadian Institute of Planners National Membership
Standards Committee). 2013. Accreditation of Academic
Planning Programs for the Planning Profession in Canada.
Ottawa, ON, Canada: Canadian Institute of Planners.
Coffield, F., D. Moseley, E. Hall, and K. Ecclestone. 2004. Learning
Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A Systematic and
Critical Review. London: Learning and Skills Research Center.
Coiacetto, E. 2004. “The Value of a Structured Practicum: Insights
from Experience.” Australian Planner 41 (2): 74–82.
Corey, S., and M. Motte. 2002. “Teaching Urban Planning and
Public Policy: Developing a ‘City as Classroom’ Model at Two
New England Colleges.” Issues in Teaching and Learning 1
(1): 1–9.
Cornell, R., C. Johnson, and W. Schwartz. 2013. “Enhancing
Student Experiential Learning with Structured Interviews.”
Journal of Education for Business 88 (3): 136–46.
Corso, G. 2008. “Learning Outcomes in College Academic Service-
Learning Experiences: So Much May Factor into Assessing
Such Experiences.” http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/
ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/3d/b6/ba.pdf
(accessed September 2009).
CU (Cornell University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences).
2009. “Experiential Learning Report.” http://www.cals.cornell.
edu/cals/teaching/elr/report.cfm (accessed September 2, 2009).
Curry, L. 1990. “A Critique of the Research on Learning Styles.”
Educational Leadership 48 (2): 50–56.
Dalton, L. 2007. “Preparing Planners for the Breadth of Practice.”
Journal of the American Planning Association 73 (1): 35–48.
Davis, G. 2006. “The Role of Case Studies for the Integration of
Sustainable Development into the Education of Engineers.”
World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education
5 (1): 159–63.
Dutton, T. 1987. “Design and Studio Pedagogy.” Journal of
Architectural Education 41 (1): 16–25.
Elwood, S. 2004. “Experiential Learning, Spatial Practice and
Critical Urban Geographies.” The Journal of Geography 103
(2): 55–63.
Escott, M. 2004. The Role of the Work Report in Co-operative
Education at the University of Waterloo. Report prepared
for Dr J. Downey, Waterloo Centre for the Advancement of
Co-operative Education. http://watcace.uwaterloo.ca/publica-
tions/Work_Report_Analysis.htm (accessed September 2009).
Eyler, J., D. Giles, C. Stenson, and C. Gray. 2001. At a Glance:
What We Know about the Effects of Service Learning on
College Students, Faculty, Institutions and Communities, 1993-
2000: Third edition. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
http://ewucommunityengagement.pbworks.com/w/file/
fetch/62951195/aag.pdf (accessed July 29, 2013).
Fischler, R. 2012. “Teaching Spatial Planners: Knowledge, Skills,
Competencies and Attitudes—Accreditation Standards in the
US and Canada.” In Higher Education in Spatial Planning:
Positions and Reflections (HESP), edited by B. Scholl, 140–48.
Zurich: ETH Press.
Fowler, J. 2008. “Experiential Learning and Its Facilitation.” Nurse
Education Today 28:427–33.
Freestone, R., P. Williams, S. Thomson, and K. Trembath. 2007.
“A Quantitative Approach to Assessment of Work-Based
Learning Outcomes: An Urban Planning Application.”
Higher Education Research and Development 26 (4):
347–61.
Freestone, R., and D. Wood. 2006. “Exploring Strategies for
Linking Research and Teaching.” Journal for Education in the
Built Environment 1 (1): 94–111.
Freire, P. 1995. Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the
Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Guzzetta, J., and S. Bollens. 2003. “Urban Planners’ Skills and
Competencies: Are We Different from Other Professions?
Does Context Matter? Do We Evolve?” Journal of Planning
Education and Research 23 (2): 96–108.
Grauerholz, E., and S. Copenhaver. 1994. “When the Personal
Becomes Problematic: The Ethics of Using Experiential
Teaching Methods.” Teaching Sociology 22:319–27.
Greene, S. 1988. “Making the Studio Experience Work for Part-
Time Students.” Journal of Planning Education and Research
8 (1): 9–11.
Groves, M., K. Leflay, J. Smith, B. Bowd, and A. Barber. 2013.
“Encouraging the Development of Higher-Level Study Skills
Using an Experiential Learning Framework.” Teaching in
Higher Education 18 (5): 545–56.
Guile, D., and T. Griffiths. 2001. “Learning through Work
Experience.” Journal of Education and Work 4 (1): 113–31.
Gunder, M. 2002. “Bridging Theory and Practice in Planning
Education: A Story from Auckland.” Australian Planner 39
(4): 202–6.
Gurran, N., B. Norman, and B. Gleeson. 2008. Planning Education
Discussion Paper. January. Canberra: Planning Institute of
Australia.
Hawtrey K., 2007. Using experiential learning techniques. The
Journal of Economic Education, 38(2), 143-152.
Heumann, L., and L. Wetmore. 1984. “A Partial History of
Planning Workshops: The Experience of Ten Schools from
1955 to 1984.” Journal of Planning Education and Research
4 (2): 120–30.
Hoch, C., and R. Fischler. 2012. “Mission, Goals and Features of
Spatial Planning.” In Higher Education in Spatial Planning:
Positions and Reflections (HESP), edited by B. Scholl, 16–23.
Zurich: ETH Press.
Jones, M., E. Coiacetto, J. Jackson, M. Coote, W. Steele, T. Budge,
and S. Gall. 2009a. “Generating Academic Standards and
Assessment Practices in Work Integrated Learning: A Case-
Study from Urban and Regional Planning.” Asia-Pacific
Journal of Cooperative Education 10(3): 203–215.
Jones, M., J. Jackson, E. Coiacetto, T. Budge, M. Coote, W.
Steele, S. Gall, and M. Kennedy. 2009a. Generating Academic
54 Journal of Planning Education and Research 37(1)
Standards in Planning Practice Education: Final Report to the
Australian Learning and Teaching Council, March 2009.
Kassem, C. 2007. Task Force on Experiential Learning. Report
to Faculty Assembly Executive Council, Ramapo College of
New Jersey, March 28, 2007. http://ww2.ramapo.edu/libfiles/
Provost/Experiential_report_0607.pdf (accessed September
2009).
Kenny, R. 1998. Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A
Blueprint for America’s Research Universities. Report for
the Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the
Research University. Stony Brook, NY: State University of
New York.
Kolb, D. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source
of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Kolb, D., and R. Fry. 1975. “Towards a Theory of Experiential
Learning.” In Theories of Group Process, edited by C. Copper.
London: Wiley.
Kottilil, N. 2009. Meaning Making and Self Evaluation. Education
Resources Information Centre (ERIC), ED504124, http://
www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_
storage_01/0000019b/80/43/33/3c.pdf (accessed September
2009).
Kotval, Z. 2003a. “Teaching Experiential Learning in the Urban
Planning Curriculum.” Journal of Geography in Higher
Education 27 (3): 297–308.
Kotval, Z. 2003b. “University Extension and Urban Planning
Programs: An Efficient Partnership.” Journal of Extension
41 (1), online access, http://www.joe.org/joe/2003february/
a3.php.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning Legitimate
Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Long, J. 2012. “State of the Studio: Revisiting the Potential of
Studio Pedagogy in U.S.-Based Planning Programs.” Journal
of Planning Education and Research 32:431–48.
Manikutty, S., N. Anuradha, and K. Hansen. 2007. “Does Culture
Influence Learning Styles in Higher Education?” International
Journal of Learning and Change 2 (1): 70–87.
Moss, G. 2008. “Diversity Study Circles in Teacher Education
Practice: An Experiential Learning Project.” Teaching and
Teacher Education 24:216–24.
Nygaard, C., T. Hejt, and M. Hermansen. 2008. “Learning-Based
Curriculum Development.” Higher Education 55:33–50.
Owen, S., and I. Stupens. 2009. “Australian Pharmacy Programme
Experiential Placements: Comprehensive Planning for
Assessment and Evaluation.” Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education 34 (5): 579–94.
PAB (Planning Accreditation Board). 2012. PAB Accreditation
Standards and Criteria. Planning Accreditation Board
Approved April 14. Chicago, IL: PAB.
PAB. 2013a. The Accreditation Document: Standards and
Procedures of the Planning Accreditation Board. January.
Chicago, IL: PAB.
PAB. 2013b. PAB Policies Manual. Planning Accreditation Board,
January. Chicago, IL: PAB.
Pegg, A., J. Walkdock, S. Hendy-Isaac, and R. Lawton. 2012.
Pedagogy for Employability. York, UK: The Higher Education
Academy.
PIA (Planning Institute Australia). 2004. “Findings and
Recommendations of the National Inquiry into Planning
Education and Employment.” http://www.planning.org.au/
documents/item/67 (accessed November 2, 2012).
PIA (Planning Institute Australia). 2011. “Accreditation Policy for
the Recognition of Australian Planning Qualifications: Urban
and Regional Planning Chapter.” Adopted by PIA National
Council 18 November 2010 (amendments effective August
25, 2011). http://www.planning.org.au/documents/item/3406
(accessed July 28, 2013).
Quinn, C., and N. Strauss. 1997. A Cognitive Theory of Cultural
Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Race, P. 2007. The Lecturer’s Toolkit; A Practical Guide to
Assessment, Learning and Teaching, 3rd ed. London:
Routledge.
Roakes, S. L., and D. Norris-Tirrell. 2000. “Community Service
Learning in Planning Education: A Framework for Course
Development.” Journal of Planning Education and Research
20:100–10.
RTPI (The Royal Town Planning Institute). 2012. The Guide to
RTPI Accreditation. London: RTPI. http://www.rtpi.org.uk/
media/1403715/microsoft_word_-_guide_to_rtpi_accredita-
tion_2012.pdf (accessed November 2, 2012).
Ruholl, L., and R. Boyajian. 2007. “The Senior Wellness Project:
Focus on Experiential Learning.” Teaching and Learning in
Nursing 2:72–79.
Schön, D. 1984. “The Architectural Studio as an Exemplar of
Education for Reflection-in-Action.” Journal of Architectural
Education 31:2–9.
Schön, D. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Seltzer, E., and C. Ozawa. 2002. “Clear Signals: Moving on to
Planning’s Promise.” Journal of Planning Education and
Research 22 (1): 77–86.
Senbel, M. 2012. “Experiential Learning and the Co-creation
of Design Artifacts: A Hybrid Urban Design Studio for
Planners.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 32:
449–64.
Slade, C., A. Harwood, C. Baldwin, and J. Rosier. 2015. “Baseline
Survey of Current Experiential Learning (EL) Practice in
Australian and New Zealand Planning Schools.” Australian
Planner 52 (2): 103–13.
Smith, M. 2001. “David A. Kolb on Experiential Learning.” The
Encyclopaedia of Informal Education. http://www.infed.org/b-
explrn.htm (accessed September 2009).
Steiner, G., and A. Posch. 2006. “Higher Education for
Sustainability by Means of Trans-disciplinary Case-Studies:
An Innovative Approach for Solving Complex Real-World
Problems.” Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (6): 877–90.
Stiftel, B., A. Forsyth, L. Dalton, and F. Steiner. 2008. “Assessing
Planning School Performance.” Journal of Planning Education
and Research 20:1–13.
Stubbs, M., and M. Keeping. 2002. “Course Content and
Employability Skills in Vocational Degrees: Reflections
for Town Planning Course Content.” Planning Practice &
Research 17 (2): 205–22.
Thomas, D., and J. Hollander. 2010. “The City at Play: Second Life
and the Virtual Urban Planning Studio.” Learning, Media and
Technology 35 (2): 227–42.
Baldwin and Rosier 55
Trigwell, K., and A. Reid. 1998. “Introduction: Work-Based
Learning and the Student’s Perspective.” Higher Education
Research and Development 17 (2): 141–54.
Tyson, T., and N. Low. 1987. “Experiential Learning in Planning Edu-
cation.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 7 (1): 15–27.
UKCES (UK Commission for Employment and Skills). 2008.
–“Employability Skills Project. Review of Evidence on Best
Practice in Teaching and Assessing Employability Skills.”
http://www.ukces.org.uk/publications/employability-skills-
project (accessed February 13, 2012).
UW (University of Waterloo Review Committee for Co-operative
Education and Career Services). 2005. Learning from
Experience: Enhancing Co-operative Education and Career
Services at the University of Waterloo, 31 August 2005.
Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wingate, U. 2006. “Doing Away with ‘Study Skills.’” Teaching in
Higher Education 11 (4): 457–69.
Winkler, T. 2013. “At the Coalface: Community-University
Engagements and Planning Education.” Journal of Planning
Education and Research 33 (1): 215–27.
Ya-hui, S. 2011. “The Constituency of Agency in Developing
Lifelong Learning Ability: The ‘Being’ Mode.” Higher
Education 62:399–412.
Yocom, K., G. Proksch, B. Born, and S. Tyman. 2012. “The Built
Environments Laboratory: An Interdisciplinary Framework
for Studio Education in the Planning and Design Disciplines.”
Journal for Education in the Built Environment 7 (2):
8–25.
Author Biographies
Claudia Baldwin is an associate professor in Regional and Urban
Planning at the University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia. Her
research interests include engaging communities for change using
participatory and visual methods to research topics such as afford-
able housing, age-friendly communities, water allocation and
coastal planning, and climate change adaptation. She and coauthor
Rosier were coleaders of the multi-university Experiential Learning
inPlanningproject, http://www.olt.gov.au/project-experiential-learning-
planning-education-resources-and-tools-good-practice-2011.
Johanna Rosier is an associate professor and program leader of the
Regional and Urban Planning program at the University of the
Sunshine Coast. Her research aims to identify obstacles to effective
coastal governance in managing the effects of climate change, and
she is continuing an evaluation of the effectiveness of coastal plans
in both New Zealand and Queensland.