Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

French

Chinese

The paper evaluates different teaching aids used in an introductory in-class course that focuses on planning theories. We examine the perceptions of students regarding specific teaching tools and how helpful they were in making the course more approachable and providing a better learning experience. The analysis covers 133 student responses over a period of four consecutive years. Findings show that certain instructional tools are regarded as more helpful in making the course material more intelligible. This suggests educators in planning theory courses should review and continuously monitor the didactic tools they use in class.

Keywords

millennials teaching techniques in-class teaching planning pedagogy planning theories

Introduction

Planning theories help define planning as an academic discipline. They explain what planning is and how it is administered, why it is needed, and whether it is feasible or can be improved (Brooks 2002; De Beer 2017). The broad range of theories that exist present two difficult tasks for planning educators to confront (Olesen 2018; Schön 1983): namely, the need to educate planners in the practice of planning (“knowing-in-action”) as well as about the sensitivities of planning (“reflection in action”). These endeavors allow future planners to reflect on how they plan, address problems, and exploit opportunities (Beauregard 2020). But theorists and educators are in a tough spot; it is hard to address (let alone teach) the relevance of theories to practice (Friedmann 2008), and to demonstrate their ability to explain the world, to future practitioners (Harrison 2014). Accordingly, theorists debate whether the relevance of planning theories is something that can be demonstrated in class (Whittemore 2015). They tend to ask what should be taught to prepare students to become professional planners (Bolan 1981; Denoon-Stevens et al. 2020; Taşan-Kok and Oranje 2017). This includes the required skillset and how planning pedagogy can help students acquire said skills (Brooks 2002; Cushing, Bates, and van Vliet 2013) as well as political awareness (Campbell 2014). Overall, these difficulties, combined with student disinterest and faculty frustration with student disinterest (Alterman 2017), raise serious concerns about the pedagogical tools used to teach planning theories.

Therefore, it becomes evident that planning educators are tasked with many challenges when teaching an introduction to planning and planning theories course. What do students find most helpful and engaging in a planning theories class? What methods foster an understanding of the material and concepts discussed in an introductory planning theory course? When the mode of delivery is frontal and theoretical classroom lectures, what teaching aids and techniques can enhance student learning? These are the key questions addressed in this paper. Its goal is to spur others to study the pedagogical methods used to teach planning theory, and to also improve future studies by these researchers into new and existing tools that assist students in contending with the material.

In an attempt to answer these questions, this paper used a questionnaire to examine the perceptions of students regarding specific teaching tools and how helpful they were in making the course more approachable and providing a better learning experience. The analysis is comprised of 133 student responses over a period of four consecutive academic years, from 2014 to 2017. The analysis findings demonstrate that certain instructional tools are regarded by students as being more helpful in making the course material more accessible and intelligible. As such, this paper recommends that educators in planning theory courses should review and continuously monitor the didactic tools they use in class.

The body of literature relevant to our study is comprised of teaching methods, planning pedagogy, and urban planning education. In particular, we focus on the effectiveness of different methods used in class to disseminate ideas and knowledge to students in their first year of graduate studies toward a master’s degree in urban and regional planning. Before we begin, some words of clarification are in order. First, this analysis deals with the perceptions of students. We do not intend to evaluate the causal relationship between various teaching methods and students’ success in a given course, nor determine the best universal “objective” method to use as educators. Surely, teaching and learning is context-specific. Having said that, students’ subjective perspectives can nevertheless help identify certain teaching aids that hold their attention and promote overall learning effectively. It is based on these perspectives that we feel confident in making recommendations about methods for teaching general introductory planning courses.

Second, the data we gathered from our respondents apply to courses taught before the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the information is based on in-class, face-to-face lectures. We did not use videoconferencing or distance learning. Having said that, the lessons of our study are even more relevant post-COVID-19. The pandemic will surely affect the way we teach and learn about planning. In the age of videoconferencing, traditional learning methods that were often frowned upon as being outdated have become more important and relevant than ever. When students can neither travel nor conduct site visits, conventional, old-school, and even passive learning may be called upon to replace what is missing. With a gradual shift to distance learning through Zoom and other ICT tools, it becomes evident that the ability to capture students’ attention, in light of videoconferencing fatigue, becomes extremely important. Thus, the examination of delivery mechanisms and various teaching components in a planning theories class can help educators prepare for the future by adapting online lectures, adjusting instructional tools, and optimizing their delivery mechanisms.

Literature Review

The Challenges of Teaching an Introductory Course in Planning Theories

The challenges of teaching an introductory planning theories course are rooted in planning as an academic field and as a profession. There are several characteristics of planning as a field that help explain why it is hard to acquaint students with its many ideologies and viewpoints. First, planning is by its very nature interdisciplinary, drawing on theories and practices from the fields of economics, sociology, law, political sciences, architecture, and geography, to name a few. Planning, as a discipline, involves both processes and outcomes (Christensen 2015) and relies on modern ideas as well as postmodern variants (Rydin 2007). Its underlying theories have gradually disengaged from the materiality of cities, spaces, and real-life policies and problems (Yiftachel 2006). As a result, they have become generally harder to grasp (Harrison 2014). As such, the intellectual underpinning of planning has remained ill-defined, and there is much ambiguity about its mandate, relevance, knowledge-base (Davoudi and Pendlebury 2010), and the ideas on which it is predicated (Beauregard 2020, 6). Likewise, the gap between theory and practice, and the lack of “a good fit between planning theory and contextualized planning practice” (Allmedinger 2017, 29) make it harder to communicate planning theories to first-year students and difficult for them to follow the ongoing intellectual debates conducted by theorists (Klosterman 2011, 326). Planning theory courses can thus be diverse and varied in content, each with its own emphasis on ethical, professional, or philosophical debates with which students must contend (Bolan 1981; N. Frank 2002).

There are also a broad range of theories, including variations within them. They explain what planning is, how it is administered, why there is a need for planning, and whether it is feasible, important, or can be improved (Brooks 2002; De Beer 2017). These issues correspond with two complex tasks of planning educators (Olesen 2018; Schön 1983): the need to educate planners in the practice of planning (knowing-in-action) and the sensitivities of planning (“reflection in action”; Beauregard 2020). As a result, planning educators debate whether the relevance of planning theories can be demonstrated in class. They also tend to ask how planning schools should teach planning (Denoon-Stevens et al. 2020; Taşan-Kok and Oranje 2017).

The complexity and variety of planning theories raises questions about the most useful teaching methods for classroom instructors (Boyer 2020). Alas, it also remains somewhat ambiguous as to how planning theories should be taught, let alone in the traditional setting of in-class lectures. The techniques and tools for teaching remain under-studied, compared with substantive issues concerning what should be taught in introductory theoretical courses.

The Challenges of Teaching Generation Y

It is possible to add yet another challenge to the aforementioned difficulties that planning educators face: today’s graduate students are mostly Millennials, born in between the years 1980 and 2001 (Alsop 2008). This cohort is sometimes referred to as “Generation Y,” “Y-Gens,” “Nexters,” “Echo Boomers,” or “the Nintendo Generation” (Delorey 2010). While it is risky to generalize or attribute a set of behaviors to this generation as a whole, the literature identifies key attributes of Y-Gens that could affect their receptiveness to a variety of teaching techniques. In this regard, the literature points out several characteristics that can affect the way in-class teaching is conducted (Eckelberry-Hunt and Tucciarone 2011). Specifically, Y-Gens are considered to be “civic-minded, team-oriented . . . technologically savvy, multi-taskers, and impatient” (Delorey 2010, 477). They tend to value participatory, hands-on, experiential learning (Portman and Teff-Seker 2017). At times, they are considered to be “stimulus junkies” (Pendergast 2015, 17): a generation that multi-tasks, becomes easily bored, seeks constant stimulation even in the classroom, and does not “highly value reading and listening to lectures” (Eckleberry-Hunt and Tucciarone 2011, 458). Likewise, Y-Gens are equipped with a high degree of visual literacy and are more receptive to targeted graphical messages and pictographic language in place of written language (Dobson and Dobson 2016; Mazor 2018). They often tend to value creative and interactive learning as well as mentoring by parent-like figures of authority (Lipkin and Perrymore 2009). Although this broad characterization of Millennials might be regarded as somewhat negative and stereotypical, it does underscore the idea that the majority of the students in today’s higher education classes value stimulation and mentoring and are accustomed to clear messages and visual cues (McHaney 2011). Given these attributes, what teaching methods would be most applicable to this generation of students?

Delivery Methods and Teaching Strategies: Existing Studies in the Field of Planning and Beyond

Another challenge in conveying planning theories relates to delivery methods. Y-Gens are more inclined toward team-based courses and experiential learning (Senbel 2012) that shifts pedagogy away from traditional delivery methods such as static, face-to-face formal lectures. Thus, in line with constructivist learning theories in the sciences (Eckleberry-Hunt and Tucciarone 2011) and social sciences (Senbel 2012), educators are increasingly using teamwork, peer-based learning, free expression, active learning, and reflection (Cushing, Bates, and van Vliet 2013). They are also seeking to invent and integrate creative, flexible methods that abandon lectures (Auster and Wylie 2006) in favor of empowering students to be more responsible for their own learning process and success (Humer 2020) by enabling them to understand contextual matters and solve problems on their own (Teff-Seker, Portman, and Kaplan-Mintz 2019).

As a result, planning educators need to reconsider their toolkit of delivery methods. Indeed, on one hand, existing studies in the field of planning attempt to evaluate a variety of delivery methods. These include studios (Alizadeh, Tomerini, and Colbran 2017; Long 2012), study-abroad programs (Macedo 2017), field courses in planning (Abramson 2005), distance learning (Lawhon 2003; Shapira and Youtie 2001), service-learning and community engagement courses (Cushing, Bates, and van Vliet 2013), project-based learning (Portman and Teff-Seker 2017), flipped teaching (Buckman et al. 2019), case-based learning (Hoey, Rumbach, and Shake 2017), as well as courses that generally encourage hands-on learning (Hoey, Rumbach, and Shake 2017) and engagement with supporting technologies (e.g., GIS) in planning curricula (Minner, Evans-Cowley, and Afzalan 2019).

On the other hand, beyond these, studies that evaluate the response of students to particular techniques and delivery methods in in-class lectures are largely missing. This lacuna is detrimental to the teaching of planning theories whereby questions about delivery become acute in light of the large cadre of ideas and polemical and philosophical texts (Allmedinger 2017, 50), as well as the interdisciplinary nature of the theories themselves (Ferreira et al. 2015).

Conventional In-Class Courses: Their Importance and Existing Knowledge Gaps

However, we must still engage Y-Gens in conventional, face-to-face, lecture-based courses, especially theoretical ones that introduce a range of ideas, concepts, and planning paradigms. Critics have maintained that such approaches are outdated and overly dependent on “readings and lectures about theory” (Hoey, Rumbach, and Shake 2017, 225) that suit academia but are “less than optimal for learning to become a professional planner” (Friedmann 1996, 101). Such allegations are not new. Rodriguez-Bachiller (1988, 31) noted that while lectures may boost the acquisition and understanding of knowledge, they do not promote the application of that knowledge effectively.

On a practical level, lecture-based courses are often regarded as inferior by those who agree that “[t]here is no clear substitute for the learning-by-doing, problem-solving experience . . . ” (Lang 1982, 76). More specifically, such methods are criticized because, by design, they make students passive participants who simply memorize material in preparation for an exam (Bateson 1972), rather than engaging with the course content to apply it later on as practitioners.

Given that in-class lectures remain unpopular among students, there are few studies that examine them, let alone analyze the teaching aids and instructional tools they use. One possible reason for this gap in knowledge is that these “outdated” methods are not suitable for the twenty-first century (and Y-Gen) learning, and therefore do not draw the academia’s attention.

Having said that, face-to-face seminars and lectures still have definite benefits. They are certainly still a key feature in many urban planning programs of academic study (Forester 2020; Symes 1982). Specifically, there is evidence that traditional delivery methods such as lectures are not obsolete, because “there are some aspects in the planning curriculum where it is hard to see why studio-based projects can be the (only) teaching method adopted” (Sturzaker 2014, 469).

In this regard, Worthen (2015) noted that traditional, less-active modes of learning are still important because good lectures stimulate debate, and teach students to analyze information, make logical connections, and concentrate. When comparing in-class discussions with computer-mediated discussions, Willson (2000) found that in-class deliberations ranked higher for legitimacy, sincerity, and comprehensibility. Likewise, Shapira and Youtie (2001) established that in-class courses can provide access to planning professionals and to speakers and presentation materials. Although the COVID-19 pandemic and other processes have made online learning increasingly dominant, face-to-face teaching—even through video conferencing—remains relevant and important, although it requires adaptation to a digital format.

Teaching Aids in Face-to-Face, In-Class Courses

In-class lectures therefore remain a relevant feature in planning curricula. Nevertheless, they present several additional challenges to educators. The diversity among any group of learners (Corley 2005)—be it socio-economic, ethnic, or educational—makes it harder to tailor a range of subjects and teaching techniques to suit all students equally. It therefore becomes important to identify the teaching techniques that a majority of students regard as more suitable to their settings and circumstances.

Several studies have assessed different teaching techniques in face-to-face classes (not specific to planning). For example, Apperson et al. (2004) studied the impact of presentation graphics on students’ classroom experience and found that PowerPoint presentations enhanced the organization and clarity of the material, held the students’ interest, and provided added value as entertainment. Likewise, Szabo and Hastings (2000) reported that the majority of students agreed that presentation graphics held their attention better than lectures without presentations. Atkins-Sayre et al. (1998) also noted that students believed they were better able to understand the material when presentations were used in class.

Within the field of planning, few studies analyze—let alone compare—in-class teaching techniques. In a 2001 essay, Shapira and Youtie examined for the first time how in-class courses could be delivered via the Internet in a video conference setting. This innovative article was one of the first papers to assess online learning in planning, and its relevance post-COVID-19 should not be understated. The authors determined that students considered guest lectures by expert planners as very useful in the teaching of a face-to-face planning course (Shapira and Youtie 2001). The students most often mentioned the course content, interactive discussions, and question-and-answer sessions as the most beneficial teaching components.

These findings were echoed by Tunström (2018, 52) who considered in-class discussions on planning issues as quite helpful, especially when accompanied by site visits. Buckman et al. (2019) assessed whether presentations by practitioners and conversations with them could provide students with important insights into environmental planning; they found that students were indeed very satisfied with these sessions. Watson (2002), Sandercock (2003), and Forester (2020) pointed to the benefits of integrating stories from the world of planning practice in class. Specifically, through hearing stories related by practitioners (Forester 2012; Watson 2002) and students (Sykes 2017), the class participants could explore difficult issues of identity and difference, as well as an array of planning challenges.

The literature also mentions other in-class teaching methods suitable for planning courses. Wolf-Powers (2013) observed that in-class simulations can help students think about the political dynamics of development, introduce them to the practitioner’s experience, and develop a variety of skills. Olesen’s (2018) study linked in-class discussions and role-play to successful teaching experiences; he also noted the importance of providing real-life examples to anchor theory in practice.

Yet these accounts, however important, do not compare a range of delivery methods in in-class courses. They are also confined to a limited number of specific techniques. To address this gap, we examine the preferences of students with respect to a range of teaching aids in an introductory planning theories course.

The Context of Our Study

This paper focuses on an introductory planning theories course, developed in the Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning at the Technion—Israel Institute of Technology. The course is required for the graduate program in urban and regional planning. It is part of a two-year program intended for students of diverse academic backgrounds such as law, politics, statistics, geography, architecture, and public administration. The course is taught in the first semester of the program and is designed to acquaint students with basic ideas, ideologies, theories, and well-trodden debates with respect to planning as a discipline and a profession. It adopts a chronological approach to introducing and discussing planning theories and begins with a historical account of the roots of modern planning, its proposed utopian ideals, modern antecedents, and postmodern variants. Planning thought is examined as it gradually shifted from being utopian to rational comprehensive and then to progressive; as well, radical viewpoints are explored. Another goal of this classroom-style course is to equip students with knowledge about different planning styles, models, dilemmas, and critiques of these approaches. The attributes of this course, together with the interdisciplinary background of the students, add to the challenges of in-class teaching. Aside from the general challenges associated with Y-Gens and planning pedagogy, the variety of their academic backgrounds means that first-year graduate students might not share the same learning habits or ways of knowing, nor be similarly familiar with textual content.

Consistent with many introductory courses in planning, the examined course uses conventional in-class modules that are structured around different evolutionary stages, schools, and paradigms in planning theory (see Olesen 2018). The course also deals with select challenges in planning practice. Foregrounding these modules are two introductory lectures on the history of planning, its underlying rationales, and the meaning of theories in and of planning. A variety of topics are covered in the course curriculum, as depicted in Table 1:

Table 1.

Course Modules.

Subject/module	Key issues discussed in class
1. Introduction: History of Planning	What is planning; what are planning theories; the historical roots of planning and modern planning; an overview of different paradigms
2. Introduction: Justifications for planning	Physical, socio-economic, and political justifications; private and public goods; government failure; market failure; tragedy of the commons
3. Top-down and bottom-up approaches	Interventionist vs. laissez faire approaches; top-down control and centralization; bottom-up approaches and decentralization; community planning; case examples of interventionist and indifferent approaches
4. Utopia and early critiques	The concept of Utopia in planning; usefulness of the idea; historical roots in general and in planning scholarship including Ebenezer Howard, Patrick Geddes, Le Corbusier, Clarence Perry, Joseph Stubben, Frank Lloyd Right, and early 20th-century critiques by Jane Jacobs and others
5. Rational-comprehensive planning	Rational decision-making, rational choice theory, systems approach, comprehensive planning, other procedural approaches such as incrementalism; human barriers and irrationality
6. Strategic planning	Different models of strategic planning; Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis; strategy vs. tactics; pros and cons of strategic thinking. Key examples from practice; evaluation of success and policy analysis
7. Citizen participation	Historical precedents, underlying rationales, the public and private interest, a ladder of citizen participation, challenges, best-practice examples of participation, a variety of techniques; the loopholes in crafting participatory processes
8. The rise of progressive approaches	Postmodernism and progressive approaches; the socio-political context of progressive thinking, communicative, collaborative, advocacy planning, planning as learning, community activism and bottom-up approaches, consensus building, and the challenges of progressive approaches
9. Multicultural planning and storytelling	Planning and multiculturalism; globalization and immigration; role of cultural diversity; examples and best practices; different approaches to inclusive planning; diversity in planning; stories as a means of connecting people and accommodating diversity
10. Radical/critical approaches	The concept of power; different theories of justice; Neoliberalism, neo-Marxism, dark side of planning, radicals from the right and the left; Right to the City; Anarchism; the Occupy Movement and social protests
11. Planning and property	Meaning of “property” and property rights; classic liberals vs. libertarians; progressive property; social function of property; challenges of property in the city
12. Governance and urban politics	Governance and government; public goods and infrastructure; institutional capacity building; leadership; policy implementation; management challenges; local and national politics and planning
13. Planning in times of crisis	Definitions of crisis; the challenges and opportunities embedded in crises situations; phases of crisis; planning ahead for crisis; resilience
14. Planning ethics and planning as a profession	The ethical planner; codes of ethics; values and value judgments; planning as a profession; practitioners and their education; the politically savvy planner; the field of planning and competing social fields

Overall, the delivery mode of the course is face-to-face lectures. Class time consists of a weekly lecture of three hours (including a thirty-minute break). This model of teaching is quite challenging and requires professors to prepare a presentation and discussion materials. The length of each weekly lecture also intensifies the importance of examining and assessing a range of teaching aids used during these interactions. Before each class, students were assigned, on average, approximately fifty pages of background material to read. In each module, we applied similar teaching aids.

We used a range of teaching aids in class to convey messages, spur discussion, and acquaint students with the course topics and materials. Table 2 lists nine major teaching aids (techniques) used in class and explains them briefly. The study refers to these teaching aids and inquires as to which ones the students considered helpful.

Table 2.

Instructional Techniques Used in the Course.

Instructional technique	Brief description and key examples
A. Documentary films	- A documentary film about planning in Bogota in the mid-1990s (Cities on Speed: Bogota, directed by Nanna Frank Møller, Mikala Krogh, Camilla Nielsson, Frederik Jacobi, and Andreas Dalsgaard). Depicting the work of maverick mayors and their ability to inspire change in the provision of urban infrastructure. - A documentary film about community gardening and the politics of land use planning (The Garden by Scott Hamilton Kennedy). The documentary portrays a local feud between a developer and a local Latino and African American community. - Excerpts from The Pruitt-Igoe Myth by Chad Freidrichs, a 2011 documentary film concerning the failure of modernistic planning and public housing in the United States. The film flags a variety of issues such as racial inequality, suburbanization, white flight, and housing policies.
B. Popular culture: Songs	In each module, we played a song and asked how it relates to the reading material. For example, - While discussing critical/radical approaches to planning, we played Alan Moore’s “The Decline of English Murder”—one of many theme songs written following the rise of the Occupy Movement. In this song, Moore depicts how government uses statutes and policies to exclude and alienate. We used Moore’s text to discuss the messages of radical thinkers. - While discussing the ethics and morality of planners, we played Margaret Atwood’s poem “The City Planners,” which depicts the failure of planners and planning. We used Atwood’s text as a benchmark to discuss planning ethics and the centrality of planners in the planning process. - While discussing progressive thinking and multicultural planning, we played “An Open Letter to NYC” by the “Beastie Boys,” which touches on urban resilience and diversity in the city of New York. Students were encouraged to think about ways of creating a resilient city by adopting a multicultural and inclusive approach in planning.
C. PowerPoint presentations	Each lecture was accompanied by a PowerPoint presentation. For each module, presentations included thirty to eighty slides. The presentations were the anchor of in-class discussions and included a variety of elements (see infra). Presentations included a summary of the literature, ideas, and other teaching material. They were accompanied by visual elements and were designed to ensure a fast-paced discussion that did not linger too much on a single slide.
D. Animated elements in the course presentation	We used animated icons, text, and images to capture the attention of students and to clarify key terms, processes, and ideas. For example, - An animated diagram that depicts the history of planning thought - An animated diagram that depicts the inter-relatedness of communicative, collaborative, and advocacy planning - Animated “bubbles” depicting the challenges of public participation
E. Flowcharts and other illustrations in the PowerPoint presentation	We used elaborate flowcharts to highlight certain ideas and processes, and to clarify relationships between paradigms and concepts. For example, - A flowchart depicting the process of urban decline - A flowchart depicting strategic planning - A flowchart describing consensus-building approaches - Infographic summarizing progressive approaches to planning (see Figure 6)
F. Comparison table of key concepts and ideas	For example, - Comparison of different approaches taken by “decentrists”—Le Corbusier vs. Ebenezer Howard (see Table 3). - A comparison of modern and postmodern approaches to planning - A comparison of collaborative planning and formal (adversarial) planning
G. Other short video-clips	For example, - A short clip from the TV show Seinfeld (Episode 148) that mocks architects was used to foreground a discussion about the planning profession vs. architecture as separate disciplines. - Short clip from Peter Weir’s The Truman Show (1998) depicting neo-urbanistic principles in planning. The clip was used to illustrate the impact of hands-on and top-down approaches in planning. - A clip from the television show Yes, Prime Minister (Series No. 2, Episode 5) depicting top-down planning vs. efforts to decentralize planning.
H. Class discussions	Students were asked to debate a variety of issues and to present conflicting views on certain topics, including - The ability of planners to foresee the future and plan ahead. - Is planning a profession? - Should the central government intervene in planning? To what degree?
I. Meeting with an urban planner	During one of the lectures, students had a chance to talk to a planner about practice, everyday challenges, and the planning profession. We invited planners into the classroom to recount and discuss a variety of practice stories. Professionals included, for example - The head of a planning department in a major metropolitan city - An urban planner and architect who specializes in design

Methodology

There are various ways of assessing students’ responses to different teaching techniques (Garner 2005). Examples include classroom observations, recall interviews, and video documentation of classrooms. In this research, we used a different approach: we collected data through anonymous and structured questionnaires over the course of four consecutive academic years.¹ Pedagogical evaluation using students’ surveys is a common tool for assessing teaching in a range of academic disciplines (Deaconu, Olah, and Haj 2020; Gaebel et al. 2018). Although it is not the only way to assess the quality of teaching, it is nevertheless key in evaluating students’ satisfaction with the course, and thus, to help improve the self-awareness of the instructor and the delivery of lectures. In fact, students’ surveys provide more accurate information about teaching and learning (Harvey 1995).

The questionnaire featured open-ended questions as well as a request that students grade and rank the nine classroom techniques in Table 2. We asked the students which components of the in-class lectures helped them understand and digest the material. This question was designed to help determine how the material could be made more accessible to the students.

We asked the students to rank the techniques from one to nine, where one indicated techniques that were unhelpful and did not make the material understandable, and nine indicated measures that were extremely helpful and made the material more intelligible. As a result, each measure received a unique ranking, which indicated its value as a learning tool relative to the others. Questionnaires were anonymous, and students were left unsupervised by the instructor while filling them out. In addition, students were asked to answer an open-ended question regarding the course’s instructional tools and their experience during class hours. Doing so allowed the students to write their own evaluation of the course and its teaching aids, although it did not relate to any activity outside of class hours, such as independent reading or homework.

Of the 200 students enrolled in the classes of 2014–2017, 133 (66.5%) took the survey (responses are therefore significant at the 95% level). The students taking the course were mostly in their mid-to-late twenties or early thirties, that is, Y-Gens. Each class was relatively large in size (consisting of fifty students per year on average) and therefore much bigger than more intimate seminars. Class attendance was mandatory throughout the semester.

Findings and Discussion

We began the survey by requiring students to answer general questions about their perceptions of the course. Overall, in all cohorts surveyed, most (at least eight out of ten) students agreed that planning theories are hard to learn (Figure 1). To better contextualize the students’ impressions, we asked whether they found planning theory boring. A majority (60%) said no (see Figure 2). This result implies that, although students may have struggled with the course content, it nonetheless interested them.

Figure 1.

Planning theories are hard to learn (N = 133).

Figure 2.

Planning theory is boring (N = 133).

When asked directly about the modules taught throughout the semester, an average of 93 percent of students opined that the majority of them were interesting (see Figure 3). Given that 40 percent of students thought planning theory was generally boring, the fact that 93 percent thought the modules were interesting suggests that the way in which these modules were taught improved the students’ satisfaction with them.

Figure 3.

The majority of the course modules were interesting (N = 133).

With this information in mind, we addressed the core research question concerning the different teaching aids used in class. Which of them captivated the students’ attention and held it? What techniques made the course modules interesting to the students who, in general, found planning theory boring?

Figure 4 presents the students’ perceptions about each measure, sorted by year. In general, columns dominated by dark gray (C, E, F, G, H, I) indicated a consistent pattern with certain measures being considered more helpful across all cohorts. The tools that fell into this category were the course presentation, flowcharts, movie clips, comparative tables, in-class discussions, and a meeting with an urban planner. In addition, looking at the color schemes in Figure 4, it becomes quite evident that some tools were ranked lower in all years, implying that students did not regard them as being particularly valuable to their learning. The tools that fell into this category were the use of songs and animated elements in the course’s slideshow presentation. In addition, the documentary movies used during class were not considered to be as helpful as other tools.

Figure 4.

How helpful were the various teaching methods? sorted by year and instructional tool.

With respect to the instructional tools considered helpful, we found some variation in the students’ responses. For example, whereas the 2014 class did not consider meeting with a planner helpful, the 2015–2017 classes did regard such a meeting as quite helpful. With the exception of the class of 2015, most students ranked short movie clips as helpful. In addition, a breakdown of answers shows that all classes ranked comparison tables of the material rather high; most students thought this tool was helpful in digesting the material and making it intelligible. This perception was consistent throughout the period we examined.

Taken together, the data therefore imply that students prefer tools that convey information through mentor-like figures (practicing urban planners) or in a focused manner that makes data more accessible. The high rankings they gave to short clips, comparative tables, and flowcharts that convey information imply that more focused messages can achieve better effects than longer, more complex messages. In addition, the students’ preference for class discussions implies that Y-Gens indeed value experiential and group learning.

All of these results are not surprising. They mirror certain generalized attributes of Y-Gens already described in the literature. In particular, the preferences of the students are in line with the characteristics of Y-Gens as a generation which responds positively to participatory learning and mentoring, as well as to pictographic and visual cues. These results could help improve the in-class teaching of a theoretical course, as they demonstrate how we can address the preferred teaching styles of Y-Gens to better convey information and make theories of planning more meaningful and engaging.

In reviewing the average grade given to the various instructional tools, the picture becomes clearer. Figure 5 shows the average grades and ranks them accordingly (the top four measures are presented in black). The findings indicate that, while the top four preferred tools vary across cohorts, there are nonetheless consistent preferences. On one hand, this finding suggests that in-class dynamics, the students’ backgrounds, and other factors that vary among cohorts may affect the reception and perception of these teaching aids. On the other hand, the data point out certain tools that do constantly dominate in the ranking. On average, tools such as comparison tables, meeting with an urban planner, and course presentation and discussions in class were ranked high, and quite consistently so, in four out of five cases (Figure 5). In addition, short movies were ranked high in three out of five cases.

Figure 5.

Average scores of various instructional tools, sorted by class and tool.

It is important to note that the average grade given to each tool may not indicate its contribution entirely. Indeed, Figure 4, with its breakdown of responses, suggests that although certain measures do not rank high on average, they are in fact quite helpful to students. One of them is flowcharts, a format that students indicated was moderately-to-very effective.

The results also confirm the value of in-class discussions, which ranked high in almost every cohort. This finding supports those of previous studies that emphasize the instrumentality of face-to-face discussions in the classroom (Willson 2000).

The course presentation is yet another tool that students preferred and frequently ranked highly. This is no surprise, given the findings in previous studies that visual elements can make the material presented more understandable. The presentation acts as an anchor or a focal point during class. If used effectively, it can help students visualize ideas and spur discussion. Nevertheless, presentations have potential drawbacks as well. Students might be distracted because their focus is drawn to the presentation’s text and content instead of the discussions taking place in class. This distraction might explain why, on average, in-class presentations, albeit important, did not rank as high as other measures.

In a manner similar to that of course presentations, discussions in class, and short movies, the findings show that students appreciate meeting with urban planners in class (four of five ranked cases). Although the contribution of this tool to learning depends on the invited guest and his or her preparation by the instructor, the data suggest that students regard these events as educational and useful. This finding is consistent with the existing literature (Forester 2012; Watson 2002), which accentuates the importance of learning from the stories of those working in practice. Invited guests can bridge the gap between theory and practice and can ground academic knowledge in real-life situations.

The students’ answers to the open-ended questions of the questionnaire shed additional light on how the various teaching aids engaged them and helped them absorb the material. Their responses also indicated that, while ranking and identifying specific classroom tools are helpful, the combination of these tools has its own importance of a higher order. One student observed, “We are lucky that the material is presented logically, clearly, and legibly. The combination of presentation, songs, and movies is extremely helpful.” Another stated, “The course was innovative and used a range of methods that piqued my interest,” emphasizing the combination of techniques. Regarding specific delivery methods, one student wrote, “The diversity of movies, stories and presentations makes the learning experience much more pleasant.” However, another student recommended “ . . . [adding] more discussion on case studies to allow us to better comprehend the material.”

The critiques of the course presentation focused on the length of the classes, the length of the presentations, the inability to engage students (especially those who did not read the material), as well as the course’s workload, which some students complained made participation in in-class discussions more difficult. Taken together, these critiques suggest that certain instructional tools can prove more or less helpful depending on background issues, such as the teaching ability of the instructor, the receptiveness of the students, and the conditions that evolve over the course of in-class meetings. They also validate, at least to a certain degree, the preferred learning styles of Y-Gens as outlined earlier.

The longitudinal analysis of the students’ perceptions across the years studied showed a clear preference for some instructional tools over others. Students found visual presentations, tools that used graphics to compare theories, flowcharts, and summary tables helpful in understanding the material. These techniques present opportunities for instructors to communicate abstract ideas in planning courses. They help students understand how things work and how they can be categorized, and assist in summarizing key ideas and serving as quick points of reference to the vast literature on the topic. Using these results, teachers can develop instructor-centered teaching that engages students in building a knowledge-base which they can eventually apply on their own in practice (Blumberg 2009, 86). Notably, the literature flags certain attributes of Y-Gens, including visual literacy, their impatience, reluctance to read, their multi-tasking abilities, and their inclination toward pictographic and focused messages in place of written language. These characteristics, in our view, are reflected clearly by the findings.

Moreover, the dependence of Y-Gens on mentoring reported in previous research sheds light on the high ranking they gave to meeting in class with a practicing urban planner. In fact, visiting practitioners appear to fill the role of professional mentors that graduate students strongly favor. Similarly, the preference of Y-Gens for participatory experiential learning helps explain the high rank they gave to in-class, content-rich discussions.

Note that these formats of instruction should not be viewed as an attempt to water down the teaching of planning theory. They are simply formats that conform with the preferred learning styles of our first-year graduate students. Their content can remain rich and comprehensive, and their use can make classes more approachable and intelligible. Indeed, the students gave lower scores to instructional tools with high entertainment value (songs, documentary movies) than to more content-rich, participatory tools such as in-class discussion and meeting professional planners (who act as mentors). Students also highly ranked tools that summarize data and make class material more easily digestible. These findings suggest that although Y-Gens are a very socially and technologically connected generation that values popular culture and entertainment, the use of these elements as an instructional tool does not necessarily achieve the desired effect of familiarizing students with the material. Furthermore, it does not evoke the same response as other measures. Therefore, these preferences suggest that instructors should use entertainment in class carefully and selectively rather than as a major method of delivery.

Our finding that planning students are most responsive to focused and visual messages, as well as tools that simplify information, is a lesson that all teachers should take to heart. Take, for example, an image presented to students in a module that focused on the rise of progressive thinking in planning (Module No. 8, in Table 1). The image was created by the instructors to depict the different branches of progressive scholarship in planning and their inter-relatedness (Figure 6). The infographic clearly delineates several theories within the framework of progressive planning. For instance, it shows that communicative emphases correspond with and assume collaboration between parties. Likewise, it shows that storytelling in planning, as a technique and as a theory of its own, presupposes collaboration and can also employ communicative approaches. This image may be somewhat simplistic, but it presents a variety of important terms in an easily digestible visual form and can thus help explain why students ranked presentations rather high.

Figure 6.

Example of infographics depicting progressive approaches to planning.

In three out of four consecutive years, students reported that comparative tables were very helpful in making the material comprehensible; in fact, comparative tables ranked first, on average, among all the tools. We developed several tables that illustrated the similarities and differences between important people, places, and concepts. In one module, used for a discussion of the origins of modern planning and early-nineteenth to twentieth-century examples, we presented the works of Ebenezer Howard, Patrick Geddes, Le Corbusier, and Frank Lloyd Wright, among others. To help students differentiate between the approaches of several planners, we presented them with Table 3 that compares the major ideas and approaches to planning, embodied by two thinkers, based on their texts. Although it does not capture all of the facets of Howard’s and Le Corbusier’s philosophies, it highlights major issues that were later discussed in class. The table served as an anchor and a point of reference in these ensuing discussions.

Table 3.

Comparing Key Aspects in Howard’s and Le Courbusier’s Work.

	Ebenezer Howard	Le Corbusier
Who plans?	The Autodidact. Self-educated.	The Architect.
The planner’s role	Amenity; quality of life; improving the soil/land for future generations.	Enable “spiritual progress”; embrace the joy of living; letting the sun in—radiating love and illuminating the spirit.
Public participation in plan making?	No	No
Vision	Garden cities. Nature integrates with human activity.	Roof gardens coupled with spacious parks between skyscrapers. Nature integrates with human activity. But: Abstracted. Rationalized. Controlled.
Vision [2]	Building anew. Starting fresh.	Building anew. A fresh start.
City’s population	Fixed: around 32,000	Fixed: around 3 million.
The Plan	Made to last. Should not be tampered with.	Made to last. Should not be tampered with.
Spatial organization	Orderly. Geometric. Concentric.	Orderly. Geometric.
Land ownership	Communal property.	Land as public property
Green Belt	In place.	In place.
Efficiency	Allocation of ground rent by the people; minimizing travel; shipping of goods; recycling waste; local market production.	Highways; reduction of commute time; walkability; saving land; energy efficiency.

Finally, it is not surprising that the students rated meetings with planners in class as helpful. These guests can most effectively link theory to practice and demonstrate how complex ethical and professional problems can be dealt with. They can also provide first-year planning students with some assurances about the profession out in the working world and its mandate. Similar to tables, flowcharts, short movies, and in-class discussions, such meetings with professionals can provide lucid information and concrete and candid answers to students’ queries. They also align with the preferences of Y-Gens for real-life examples and mentorship.

Conclusion

Planning educators often recommend that colleagues practice self-reflection, equip their students with different skillsets, and familiarize them with a range of ideologies and models of and about planning (Taşan-Kok and Oranje 2017). Planning educators are called on to encourage students to think and explore through teaching styles that are “sensitizing, humbling, intriguing, motivating, even inspiring” (Forester 2020, 452). Beyond these recommendations, we need to ask ourselves whether we are reconsidering modes of communication and styles of teaching. Specifically, in classroom-style lectures, are we aware of the impact of different delivery mechanisms and teaching tools? In classroom lectures, planning educators face the challenge of creating a thought-provoking environment; to do so, they require an attractive set of instructional tools that help students understand, internalize, and eventually apply course material in practice.

The findings of this paper suggest that planning educators should use a variety of teaching aids in class. It is possible to rethink teaching strategies by identifying better delivery methods that help students grasp a large amount of complex information. We found that instructor-focused learning can become more student-oriented, and apply a range of effective tools students consider more helpful than others in making the material comprehensible.

Teachers should be aware of the various tools that cater to the preferred learning styles of Y-Gens. However, one should be cautious in making sweeping generalizations about teaching techniques for Y-Gens, based on the preferences garnered from a single course. In addition, it is possible that the results point out known preferences of certain Y-Gens, and not of others. Thus, we encourage instructors who use similar pedagogical tools in other universities to conduct their own assessments so that a measure of comparison can be obtained.

Although contextual matters can render our findings less relevant in other contexts and countries, we believe that educators leading courses that focus on philosophies, theories, and modes of planning can glean important lessons from our findings. Future studies can replicate the method we used to identify the instructional tools that work best with students in other fields and other countries. They can also consider additional instructional tools not covered here. Moreover, in future research, it is possible to examine the differences between students of different generations (when that occurs) within cohorts as to ascertain possible generational differences.

In addition, as we used a snapshot analysis of one point in time (at the end of the semester), we advise future studies to also include surveying at the beginning of the course to measure improvement, if any, in perceptions about planning theory over time. This could show what the class methods achieved throughout a semester. On a related note, any subsequent studies should include pedagogical methods that are even more associated with advancement (and perhaps better suited to younger generations) such as the use of interactive tests like “Kahoots” (and similar), board or electronic games.

Another limitation of our study is that we did not consider issues such as the impact of race, class, gender, and inequality among students on their learning styles. Future studies should investigate the effect of these issues on Y-Gen students’ preferred learning styles.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank the editorial team for its support throughout the review process. In addition, we would like to express our gratitude to David Max and Yael Bar-Erez for their research assistance.

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, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Nir Mualam

Notes

Author Biographies

Nir Mualam is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, the Technion—Israel Institute of Technology. He is a planner, lawyer, and head of the Planning Policy Lab. His research focuses on cultural heritage and conflict, planning policy, housing, social movements, and planning institutions.

Ofer Lerner is an urban planner and a senior researcher in the Center for Urban and Regional Studies at the Technion—Israel Institute of Technology. He specializes in strategic, economic development, and participatory planning processes.

References

Abramson

Daniel Benjamin

. 2005. “The ‘Studio Abroad’ as a Mode of Trans-Cultural Engagement in Urban Planning Education: A Reflection of Ten Years of Sino-Canadian Collaboration.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 25 (1): 89–102.

Alizadeh

Tooran

Tomerini

Deanna

Colbran

Samantha

. 2017. “Teaching Planning Studios: An Online Assessment Task to Enhance the First Year Experience.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 37 (2): 234–45. doi:10.1177/0739456X16647162.

Allmedinger

Philip

. 2017. Planning Theory. 3rd ed. London: Red Globe Press.

Alsop

Ron

. 2008. The Trophy Kids Grow up: How the Millennial Generation Is Shaking up the Workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Alterman

Rachelle

. 2017. “Planners’ Beacon, Compass, and Scale: Linking Planning Theory, Implementation Analysis and Planning Law.” In Encounters in Planning Thought: 16 Autobiographical Essays from Key Thinkers in Spatial Planning, edited by Haselberger

Beatrix

, 260–79. New York: Routledge.

Apperson

Jennifer

Eric

Laws

Scepansky

James A.

2006. “The Impact of Presentation Graphics on Students’ Experience in the Classroom.” Computers and Education 47 (1): 116–26.

Atkins-Sayre

Wendy

Hopkins

Sonya

Mohundro

Sarah

Sayre

Ward

. 1998. “Rewards and Liabilities of Presentation Software as an Ancillary Tool: Prison or Paradise?” Paper presented at the 84th Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association, New York, November 21–24.

Auster

Ellen R.

Wylie

Krista K.

2006. “Creating Active Learning in the Classroom: A Systematic Approach.” Journal of Management Education 30 (2): 333–53.

Bateson

Gregory

. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc.

10.

Beauregard

Robert A.

2020. Advanced Introduction to Planning Theory. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

11.

Blumberg

Phyllis

. 2009. Developing Learner-Centered Teaching: A Practical Guide for Faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

12.

Bolan

Richard S.

1981. “Do Planning Theory Courses Teach Planning?” Journal of Planning Education and Research 1 (1): 12–16.

13.

Boyer

Robert H.W.

2020. “Team-Based Learning in the Urban Planning Classroom.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 40 (4): 460–71.

14.

Brooks

Michael P.

2002. Planning Theory for Practitioners. Chicago: Planners Press, American Planning Association. https://books.google.com/books?id=whlPAAAAMAAJ&pgis=1.

15.

Buckman

Stephen

Pijawka

David

Gomez

Matthew

Davis

Jonathan

Opejin

Adenike

Mahid

Yousuf

. 2019. “Benefits of ‘Flip’ Teaching Techniques in the Environmental Planning and Sustainability Classroom.” Journal of Sustainability Education 21 (December 2019): 1–19.

16.

Campbell

Tom

. 2014. “For the Sake of Our Cities, It’s Time to Make Town Planning Cool Again.” The Guardian, November 10. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/nov/10/-sp-cities-town-planning-cool-architects.

17.

Christensen

Karen S.

2015. “Both Process and Outcome Are Essential to Planning.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 35 (2): 188–98. doi:10.1177/0739456X14566277.

18.

Corley

Mary Ann

. 2005. “Differentiated Instruction: Adjusting to the Needs of All Learners.” Focus on Basics 7 (C): 13–16.

19.

Cushing

Debra Flanders

Bates

Ian

van Vliet

Willem

. 2013. “Pedagogy and Community Engagement in Environmental Design Courses.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 30 (2): 167–80.

20.

Davoudi

Simin

Pendlebury

John

. 2010. “Centenary Paper: The Evolution of Planning as an Academic Discipline.” Town Planning Review 81 (6): 613–46.

21.

Deaconu

Stefan Marius

Olah

Roland

Haj

Cezar Mihai

. 2020. “Assessing Students’ Perspective on Teaching and Learning. The Case of National Students’ Surveys.” In European Higher Education Area: Challenges for a New Decade, edited by Curaj

Adrian

Deca

Ligia

Pricopie

Remus

, 341–60. Cham: Springer.

22.

De Beer

Stephanus Francois

. 2017. “Mother Bird, Hovering over the City: Space, Spirituality & a Community-Based Urban Praxis.” University of Pretoria. https://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/66383.

23.

Delorey

Randy

. 2010. “Evidence Based Millennials.” In Being in Business: Conference Proceedings of 40th Annual Conference of the Atlantic Schools of Business, edited by Durepos

Gabrielle

Schwartz

Gerald

, 475–85. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Atlantic Schools of Business.

24.

Denoon-Stevens

Stuart

Andres

Lauren

Jones

Phil

Marques

Lorena Melgaço Silva

Massey

Nel

Verna

. 2020. “Theory versus Practice in Planning Education: The View from South Africa.” Planning Practice & Research. Published ahead of print, March 12. doi:10.1080/02697459.2020.1735158.

25.

Dobson

Terry

Dobson

Saeri Cho

. 2016. “Tip of the Icon: Examining Socially Symbolic Indexical Signage.” Dialectic 1 (1): 61–90. doi:10.3998/dialectic.14932326.0001.106.

26.

Eckleberry-Hunt

Jodie

Tucciarone

Jennifer

. 2011. “The Challenges and Opportunities of Teaching ‘Generation Y’.” Journal of Graduate Medical Education 3 (4): 458–61.

27.

Ferreira

António

Sykes

Olivier

Batey

Peter

. 2009. “Planning Theory or Planning Theories? The Hydra Model and Its Implications for Planning Education.” Journal for Education in the Built Environment 4 (2): 29–54.

28.

Forester

John

. 2012. “Learning to Improve Practice: Lessons from Practice Stories and Practitioners’ Own Discourse Analyses (or Why Only the Loons Show Up).” Planning Theory and Practice 13 (1): 11–26.

29.

Forester

John

. 2020. “Struggles and Joys of Teaching Planning: Insights from Charlie Hoch.” Planning Theory 19 (4): 451–62. doi:10.1177/1473095219881858a.

30.

Frank

Nancy

. 2002. “Rethinking Planning Theory for a Master’s-Level Curriculum.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 21 (3): 323–30.

31.

Friedmann

John

. 1996. “The Core Curriculum in Planning Revisited.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 15 (2): 89–104.

32.

Friedmann

John

. 2008. “The Uses of Planning Theory: A Bibliographic Essay.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 28 (2): 247–57.

33.

Gaebel

Michael

Zhang

Thérèse

Bunescu

Luisa

Stoeber

Henriette

. 2018. Learning and Teaching in the European Higher Education Area. Brussels: European University Association.

34.

Garner

Barbara

. 2005. “Research on Factors That Shape Engagement.” Focus on Basics 7 (C): 27–29.

35.

Harrison

Philip

. 2014. “Making Planning Theory Real.” Planning Theory 13 (1): 65–81. doi:10.1177/1473095213484144.

36.

Harvey

Lee

. 1995. “Beyond TQM.” Quality in Higher Education 1 (2): 123–46.

37.

Hoey

Lesli

Rumbach

Andrew

Shake

Joshua D.

2017. “Bringing Practice to the Classroom: Using a Deliberative Learning and Case Study Approach to Teach International Planning.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 37 (2): 223–33. doi:10.1177/0739456X16649030.

38.

Humer

Alois.

2020. “Conceptual Freedom in Planning Education and Students’ Methodological Learning.” Planning Practice & Research. Published ahead of print, April 28. doi:10.1080/02697459.2020.1758429.

39.

Klosterman

Richard E.

2011. “Planning Theory Education: A Thirty-Year Review.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 31 (3): 319–31. doi:10.1177/0739456X11413601.

40.

Lang

Jon T.

1982. “For the Studio Method.” In Education for Urban Design: Proceedings of the Urban Design Educators’ Retreat, edited by Ferebee

Ann

, 71–84. New York: Institute for Urban Design.

41.

Lawhon

Larry Lloyd

. 2003. “Do Distance Learning Efforts in Urban Planning Education Cut Short the Educational Experience?” Journal of Planning Education and Research 23 (2): 202–5.

42.

Lipkin

Nicole A.

Perrymore

April J.

2009. Y in the Workplace: Managing the “Me First” Generation. Pompton Plains, NJ: Career Press.

43.

Long

Judith Grant

. 2012. “State of the Studio: Revisiting the Potential of Studio Pedagogy in U.S.-Based Planning Programs.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 32 (4): 431–48.

44.

Macedo

Joseli

. 2017. “Studios Abroad: A Challenge in Innovative Pedagogy.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 29 (2): 63–78.

45.

Mazor

Esther L.

2018. “Symbolism as the Language of Millennials.” Cedarville, OH: Cedarville University.

46.

McHaney

Roger

. 2011. The New Digital Shoreline: How Web 2.0 and Millennials Are Revolutionizing Higher Education. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

47.

Minner

Jennifer

Evans-Cowley

Jennifer

Afzalan

Nader

. 2019. “Planning Technology.” In The Routledge Handbook of International Planning Education, edited by Leigh

Nancy Green

French

Steven P.

Guhathakurta

Subhrajut

Stiftel

Bruce

, 78–89. Abingdon: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315661063-7.

48.

Olesen

Kristian

. 2018. “Teaching Planning Theory as Planner Roles in Urban Planning Education.” Higher Education Pedagogies 3 (1): 23–39. doi:10.1080/23752696.2018.1425098.

49.

Pendergast

Donna

. 2015. “Teaching Y Generation.” Journal of the HEIA 14 (3): 15–21.

50.

Portman

Michelle E.

Teff-Seker

Yael

. 2017. “Community-Level Environmental Projects as Learning Tools for Planners: A Case Study of Graduate Planning Students.” Environmental Education Research 23 (3): 415–35.

51.

Rodriguez-Bachiller

Agustin

. 1988. Town Planning Education. Aldershot: Avebury.

52.

Rydin

Yvonne

. 2007. “Re-examining the Role of Knowledge Within Planning Theory.” Planning Theory 6 (1): 52–68.

53.

Sandercock

Leonie

. 2003. “Out of the Closet: The Importance of Stories and Storytelling in Planning Practice.” Planning Theory and Practice 4 (1): 11–28.

54.

Schön

Donald

. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York, NY: Basic Books.

55.

Senbel

Maged

. 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. doi:10.1177/0739456X12455065.

56.

Shapira

Philip

Youtie

Jan

. 2001. “Teaching with Internet and Multimedia Technologies: Insights from an Online Seminar on Industrial Modernization.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 21 (1): 71–83. doi:10.1177/0739456X0102100107.

57.

Sturzaker

John

. 2014. “‘I Think that Sometimes Reading Is Overrated’: Tactical, Strategic, and Epistemological Reflections on Planning Education.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 34 (4): 465–71. doi:10.1177/0739456X14545996.

58.

Sykes

Olivier

. 2017. “‘Things can Only Get Better’? Transitioning from Planning Student to Planner in the England of the 1990s and 2000s.” In From Student to Urban Planner: Young Practitioners’ Reflections on Contemporary Ethical Challenges, edited by Tasan-Kok

Tuna

Oranje

Mark

, 137–50. New York: Routledge.

59.

Symes

Martin

. 1982. “Urban Design Education in Britain and America.” In Education for Urban Design: Proceedings of the Urban Design Educators’ Retreat, edited by Ferebee

Ann

, 60–70. New York: Institute for Urban Design.

60.

Szabo

Attila

Hastings

Nigel

. 2000. “Using IT in the Undergraduate Classroom: Should We Replace the Blackboard with PowerPoint?” Computers & Education 35 (3): 175–87.

61.

Taşan-Kok

Tuna

Oranje

Mark

. 2017. “Editors’ Reflections and Conclusions.” In From Student to Urban Planner: Young Practitioners’ Reflections on Contemporary Ethical Challenges, edited by Taşan-Kok

Tuna

Oranje

Mark

, 296–311. New York: Routledge.

62.

Teff-Seker

Yael

Portman

Michelle Eva

Kaplan-Mintz

Keren

. 2019. “Project-Based Learning in Education for Sustainable Development: A Case Study of Graduate Planning Students.” Case Studies in the Environment 3 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1525/cse.2018.001537.

63.

Tunström

Moa

. 2018. “A Spider in the Web or a Puppet on a String? Swedish Planning Students’ Reflections on Their Future Professional Role.” In From Student to Urban Planner: Young Practitioners’ Reflections on Contemporary Ethical Challenges, edited by Tasan-Kok

Tuna

Oranje

Mark

, 45–59. New York: Routledge.

64.

Watson

Vanessa

. 2002. “Do We Learn from Planning Practice? The Contribution of the Practice Movement to Planning Theory.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 22 (2): 178–87.

65.

Whittemore

Andrew H.

2015. “Practitioners Theorize, Too: Reaffirming Planning Theory in a Survey of Practitioners’ Theories.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 35 (1): 76–85. doi:10.1177/0739456X14563144.

66.

Willson

Richard

. 2000. “Comparing In-Class and Computer-Mediated Discussion Using a Communicative Action Framework.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 19 (4): 409–18. doi:10.1177/0739456X0001900410.

67.

Wolf-Powers

Laura

. 2013. “Teaching Planners to Deal: The Pedagogical Value of a (Simulated) Economic Development Negotiation.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 33 (3): 348–62.

68.

Worthen

Molly

. 2015. “Lecture Me. Really.” The New York Times, October 17. www.nyti.ms/1jLwbBk.

69.

Yiftachel

Oren

. 2006. “Re-engaging Planning Theory: Towards ‘South-Eastern’ Perspectives.” Planning Theory 5 (3): 211–20.

Teaching Generation Y: Which Instructional Tools Do Students Prefer in a Traditional Classroom Setting?

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

The Challenges of Teaching an Introductory Course in Planning Theories

The Challenges of Teaching Generation Y

Delivery Methods and Teaching Strategies: Existing Studies in the Field of Planning and Beyond

Conventional In-Class Courses: Their Importance and Existing Knowledge Gaps

Teaching Aids in Face-to-Face, In-Class Courses

The Context of Our Study

Methodology

Findings and Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

Author Biographies

References