The authors report on web-based communications between professional planners and graduate students in Washington State, focusing on growth management issues. The website gmforum included: solicitations of advice from the planners; a moderated listserv; traditional course materials; statements on growth-management topics with links to other websites; and facilities for personal e-mail communications. A survey of the planners and the students showed a high degree of satisfaction with the outcomes.
AllenR, 1998, “The Web: interactive and multimedia education”Computer Networks and ISDN Systems301717–1727
3.
AusserhoferA, 1999, “Web-based teaching and learning: a panacea”IEEE Communications Magazine3792–96
4.
BurchellR WListokinDGalleyC C, 2000, “Smart Growth: more than a ghost of urban policy past, less than a bold new horizon”Housing Policy Debate11(4) 821–879
5.
CraigW JElwoodS A, 1998, “How and why community groups use maps and geographical information cartography and geographical information systems”Cartography and Geographical Information Systems25(2) 95–104
6.
DeGroveJ M, 1984Land Growth and Politics (The American Planning Association, Chicago, IL)
FillerT JJeroschJPeukerE T, 2000, “Live interdisciplinary teaching via the Internet”Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine61157–162
9.
GaleD E, 1992, “Eight state-sponsored growth management programs: a comparative analysis”Journal of the American Planning Association58(4) 425–439
10.
GMO, The Growth Management Act of 1990, Revised Code of Washington (RWC 36.70A.020), Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, Washington State
11.
GodschalkD R, 2000, “The potential of an ACSP developed ‘Introduction to Planning’ distance education course for freshman or HS level students”, in 2000 ACSP Technology Committee ReportAssociation of Collegiate Schools of Planning, www.acsp.org/Documents/Technology_Committee__Draft_Report_May2000.htm
12.
GodschalkD RLaceyL, 2001, “Learning at a distance: technology impacts on planning education”Journal of Planning Education and Research20476–489
13.
HallP, 1998Cities in Civilization (Pantheon Books, New York)
14.
HarrisTWeimerD, 1998, “Empowerance, marginalization and community-integrated GIS”Cartography and Geographical Information Systems25(2) 67–76
15.
HessB, 1999, “Graduate student cognition during information retrieval using the World Wide Web: a pilot study”Computers and Education331–13
16.
KaufmanSSimonsR, 1995, “Quantitative and research methods in planning: are schools teaching what practitioners practice?”Journal of Planning Education and Research1517–33
17.
KellyE D, 1993Managing Community Growth: Policies, Techniques, and Impacts (Praeger, Westport, CT)
18.
KlostermanR E, 2001, “The What If planning support system”, in Integrating Geographical Information Systems, Models and Visualization Tools Eds BrailR KKlostermanR E (ESRI Press, Redlands, CA) pp 263–284
19.
ObermeyerN J, 1998, “The evolution of public participation GIS”Cartography and Geographical Information Systems25(2) 65–66
20.
Oregon Program, Oregon Land Use Act (Senate Bill 100) 1973 from “Oregon's 19 Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines Background”, Oregon Department of Land Development and Conservation, http://www.lcd.state.or.us/goalhtml/goalsbkgrnd.html
21.
PerryT TWilkinsonR SPerryL A, 1998, “Teachover the Internet: the future”Journal of Computer Information Systems3889–92
22.
PickeringJ, 1997, “The Internet in universities: liberation or desensitization”Computers and Geosciences23513–519
23.
PorterD R, 1996Profiles in Growth Management (Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC)
ThomasP, 1997, “Teaching over the Internet: the future”Computing and Control Engineering Journal8136–142
27.
TylerN, 1998, “Creating an online textbook”, paper presented at the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning Annual Conference, Pasadena, CA, November; copy available from the author, Department of Geography and Geology, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI
28.
WebsterC JJohnsJ R, 2002, “Web-based collaborative planning education”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design forthcoming
29.
WillsonR, 2000, “Comparing in-class and computer-mediated discussion using a communicative action framework”Journal of Planning Education and Research19409–418
