The literature on graduate-level studio and capstone courses, and the steady decline in student enrollment in recent years demand creative pedagogies to lure undergraduate students into planning. This paper explores the role of self-discovery at the undergraduate level as a conduit toward increasing student recruitment. Forty-seven University of Texas at Arlington (UTA) non-planning major students examined five episodes of urban discovery in the Dallas–Fort Worth (DFW) Metro area in two consecutive semesters. Post-course evaluations show how both student cohorts reflected upon their learning outcomes, and at least 27 percent of the twenty-six respondents expressed eagerness to pursue planning graduate degrees.
ArefiMahyarAl-DouriFiras. 2016. “Exploring Pedagogical Opportunities between Architecture and Planning: The Case of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.” Planning Theory & Practice17 (1): 72–79.
2.
ArefiMahyarEdelmanDavid J.2013. “Morrow Tomorrow: Exploring the Pedagogical Experience of a Planning Studio Involving Students with Mixed Skills.” Current Urban Studies1 (3): 59–73.
3.
Association for Experiential Education. 1991. “AEE Definition of Experiential Education.” https://www.aee.org/what-is-ee.
4.
BosselmannPeter. 2008. Urban Transformation: Understanding City Design & Form. Washington, DC: Island Press.
5.
BridgeGary. 2004. “Everyday Rationality and the Emancipatory City.” In The Emancipatory City? Paradoxes and Possibilities, edited by LeesL., 123–38. New York: Routledge.
6.
BrooksMichaelWuWeiping. 2012. “Commentary: Writing Papers on Pedagogy.” Journal of Planning Education and Research34 (2): 491–92.
7.
ClarkMicheleNguyenHoang ThanhBrayChrisLevineRuth. 2008. “Team-based Learning in an Undergraduate Nursing Course.” Journal of Nursing Education47 (3): 111–17.
8.
ClayGrady. 1973. Close-up: How to Read the American City. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
9.
DaftRichard L.1983. “Learning the Craft of Organizational Research.” Academy of Management Review8 (4): 539–46.
10.
DavisJamesArendBridget. 2013. Facilitating Seven Ways of Learning: A Resource for More Purposeful, Effective and Enjoyable College Teaching. Sterling: Stylus Publishing.
11.
de CerteauMichel. 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. (Chapter VII. Walking in the City). Berkeley: University of California Press.
FlowerdewLynne. 2005. “Integrating traditional and critical approaches to syllabus design: The ‘what,’ the ‘how’ and the ‘why?’” Journal of English for Academic Purposes4:135–47.
15.
FordGeorge. 1913. “The City Scientific.” Engineering Record67:551–52.
16.
GehlJan. 2011. Life between Buildings: Using Public Space. Washington, DC. Island Press.
17.
Grant LongJudith. 2012. “State of the Studio: Revisiting the Potential of Studio Pedagogy in U.S.-Based Planning Programs.” Journal of Planning Education and Research32 (4): 431–48.
18.
HeathcottJoseph. 2005. “‘The Whole City Is Our Laboratory”: Harland Bartholomew and the Production of Urban Knowledge.” Journal of Planning History4 (4): 322–55.
19.
HigginsMarilynAitken-RoseElizabethDixonJennifer. 2009. “The Pedagogy of the Planning Studio: A View from down under.” Journal for Education in the Built Environment4 (1): 8–30.
20.
Ives-DeweyDorothy. 2009. “Teaching Experiential Learning in Geography: Lessons from Planning.” Journal of Geography107 (4–5): 167–74.
21.
JacobsAllan B.1985. Looking at Cities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
22.
KingAlison. 2013. “From Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side.” College Teaching41 (1): 30–35.
23.
KitchenTed. 2006. Skills for Planning Practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
24.
KolbDavid. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning & Development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
25.
KotvalZenia. 2003. “Teaching Experiential Learning in the Urban Planning Curriculum.” Journal of Geography in Higher Education27 (3): 297–308.
26.
LawhonLarry Lloyd. 2003. “Do Distance Learning Efforts in Urban Planning Education Cut Short the Educational Experience?” Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23 (2): 202–205.
27.
LynchKevin. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
28.
NémethJeremyLongJudith Grant. 2012. “Assessing Learning Outcomes in U.S. Planning Studio Courses.” Journal of Planning Education and Research32 (4): 476–90.
ParmeleeDean X.MichaelsenLarry K.2010. “Twelve Tips for Doing Effective Team-based Learning (TBL).” Medical Teacher32:118–22.
31.
PileggiRobertaO’NeilPaula. 2008. “Team-based Learning Using an Audience Response System: An Innovative Method of Teaching Diagnosis to Undergraduate Dental Students.” Journal of Dental Education72 (10): 1182–88.
32.
PolanyiMichael. 1967. The Tacit Dimension. New York: Anchor.
33.
RabanJonathan. 1974. Soft City. New York: E. P. Dutton.
34.
SandercockLeonie. 1999. “Expanding the Language of Planning: A Meditation on Planning Education for the Twenty First Century.” European Planning Studies7 (5): 533–44.
35.
SandercockLeonie. 2003. “Out of the Closet: The Importance of Stories and Storytelling in Planning Practice.” Planning Theory & Practice4 (1): 11–28.
36.
SenbelMaged. 2012. “Experiential Learning and the Co-creation of Design Artifacts: A Hybrid Urban Design Studio for Planners.” Journal of Planning Education and Research. 32 (4): 449–64.
37.
StevensQuentin. 2007. The Ludic City: Exploring the Potential of Public Spaces. London: Routledge.
38.
StollerFredrick. 2004. “Content-Based Instruction: Perspectives on Curriculum Planning.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics24:261–83.
39.
StoltzRonaldBrownRobert. 1994. “The Application of a Pedagogical Framework to the Design of University Courses.” Landscape and Urban Planning30:159–68.
40.
ThrogmortonJames. 2003. “Planning as Persuasive Storytelling in a Global-Scale Web of Relationships.” Planning Theory2 (2): 125–51.
41.
TysonTrevorLowNicholas. 1987. “Experiential Learning in Planning Education.” Journal of Planning Education and Research7 (1): 15–27.
WatsonGeorgia Butina. 2016. “An International Perspective on Urban Design Education.” Journal of Urban Design21 (5): 545–47.
44.
WhyteWilliam H.1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. New York: Project for Public Spaces.
45.
WillsonRichard. 2000. “Comparing In-class and Computer-Mediated Discussion Using a Communicative Action Framework.” Journal of Planning Education & Research19:409–18.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
