Communicative action offers a promising framework for assessing discussion activities in planning education. This article reports on students' ratings of the quality of in-class and computer-mediated discussion in a planning theory class. The computer-mediated discussion was a useful augmentation to strident learning, but it was rated lower than in-class discussion for sincerity, legitimacy, and comprehensibility. The article concludes with suggestions for enhancing the quality of both forms of discussion.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bowers, C. A.1998. The paradox of technology: What's gained and lost?Thoug/i zantdAction14(1): 49-57
2.
Ewert, Gerry. 1991. Habermas and education: A comprehensive overview of the influence of Habermas in educational literature. Review of Educational Research61(3): 345-378.
3.
Forester, John. 1989. Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
4.
Forester, John. 1992. Critical ethnography: On fieldwork in a Habermasian way. In Critical Management Studies, eds. Mats Alvesson and High Willmont. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
5.
Habermas, Jurgen. 1979. Communications and the Evolution of Society. Translated by Thomas McCarthy. Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press.
6.
Habermas, Jurgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume 1. Reason and the Rationalization ofSociety. Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press.
7.
Healey, Patsy. 1993. Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory. In The Communicative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, eds. Frank Fischer and John Forester, 233-253. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
8.
Innes, Judith. 1998. Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation64(1): 52-63.
9.
Johnson, J., C. Jones, W. Farrell, and M. Oliver. 1992. The Los Angeles rebellion: A retrospective view. Economic Development Quarterly6(4): 289-308.
10.
Mantovani, Giuseppe. 1994. Is computer-mediated communication intrinsically apt to enhance democracy in organizations?Human Relations47(1) 45-62.
11.
Postman, Neil. 1995. The End of Education. New York: Random House.
12.
Urey, Gwen. 1997. Illuminating the shadows: A response to Willson. The Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies10: 43-50.
13.
Walther, Joseph B.1996. Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research23(1): 3-43.
14.
Willson, Richard. 1997. In the shadow of technology: Questions to ask when adopting computer applications in planning education. The Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies10: 35-42.
15.
Winograd, Terry, and Fernando Flores. 1987. Understanding Computers and Cognition. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
16.
Wittig, Michele Andrisin, and Joseph Schmitz. 1996. Electronic grass roots organizing. Journal of Social Issues52(1): 53-69.
