Role Play in Urban Planning Education

This article was downloaded by: [Vienna University Library]On: 29 June 2015, At: 11:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Planning Practice & ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cppr20

Role-playing simulations in urbanplanning education: a survey of studentlearning expectations and outcomesJohn F. Meligrana & John S. AndrewPublished online: 03 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: John F. Meligrana & John S. Andrew (2003) Role-playing simulations in urbanplanning education: a survey of student learning expectations and outcomes, Planning Practice &Research, 18:1, 95-107, DOI: 10.1080/0269745032000132673

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0269745032000132673

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Planning Practice & Research, Vol. 18, No. 1,pp. 95107, February, 2003

PLANNING EDUCATION

Role-Playing Simulations in UrbanPlanning Education: A Survey ofStudent Learning Expectations andOutcomesJOHN F. MELIGRANA & JOHN S. ANDREW

IntroductionIt is important to test whether teaching methodsand practices provide the required skills neededby future urban and regional planners. Thispaper evaluates student learning expectationsand outcomes regarding the use of simulationsin planning education. In doing so, it examinesthe degree to which role-playing simulationscan help teach planning students the skillsidentified in an extensive literature on the rela-tionship between planning practice, theory andeducation (see e.g. Coleman, 1989; Krausse &Amaral, 1989; Baum, 1997; Shepherd & Cos-griff, 1998; Ozawa & Seltzer, 1999; Alexander,2001). Our research question investigateswhich specific planning skills may be effec-tively taught through the use of role-playingsimulations. From this arise more specific ques-tions, such as whether role-playing simulationsemphasise procedural knowledge over substan-tive knowledge of planning concepts.

Data were obtained using an in-depth surveyof graduate planning students who participatedin a simulated hearing of a quasi-judicial boardthat hears planning disputes. Surveys, adminis-tered both before and after the simulation game,identified the types of planning skills studentsboth expected and acquired through their par-ticipation in the role-playing exercise. Surveyresponses were compared to the skills that theliterature identified as necessary for pro-

fessional planners. The data collected enabledthe authors to identify the types of planningskills amenable to learning through role-playingsimulations, and to evaluate the merits andlimitations of employing this teaching toolwithin a graduate planning course.

Use of Simulations in Teaching Planning: AnOverview of the Literature

The use of role-playing simulations as a teach-ing device is not new. Educators routinely usethis method in a number of disciplines. TheTragedy of the Commons games and greenrevolution games are used in geography andenvironmental studies courses, moot courts areorganised in law classes, mock marketingprojects are used in business courses, and pol-itical studies programmes run model UnitedNations and various election games (King,1981; Walford, 1981; Whiteley & Faria, 1989;Kirts et al., 1991; Williams, 1991; Mercado,2000; Ryan, 2000).

Planning educators have similarly employedrole-playing games as a teaching tool (Wynn,1985a; Krausse & Amaral, 1994; Innes &Booher, 1999). Innes & Booher (1999) arguethat role-playing simulations can be useful totrain planners to act in a more cooperative,

John F. Meligrana & John S. Andrew, School of Urban and Regional Planning, Queens University,Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada. Email: [email protected]

0269-7459 Print/1360-0583 On-line/03/010095-13 2003 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/0269745032000132673

95

Dow

nloa

ded

by [V

ienna

Univ

ersity

Libr

ary] a

t 11:5

8 29 J

une 2

015

Urban Planning Education

consensus-based manner. However, simulationsare unlikely to be effective unless carefullyintegrated into a programme of study whichincludes other, more didactic modes of learning(Innes & Booher, 1999).

The use of simulations has considerable po-tential to address concerns that planning pro-grammes may not be adequately preparingstudents for careers as professional planners(see Sawicki, 1988; Friedmann & Kuester,1994; Baum, 1997). Most programmes couldimprove on the methods used to teach com-munication and other skills needed to for effec-tive group interaction. Learning these skillsrequires hands-on training that could be en-hanced with greater and better use of simula-tions as a teaching tool. As Baum writes: It isimpossible to learn to practice planning withoutpracticing: trying out ways of acting, analyzingthe results, designing new actions at least aslikely to produce desirable results, and so forth(1997, p. 182).

Moreover, Shepherd & Cosgriff (1998) as-sert that planning students lack well-developedproblem-solving skills. They endorse problem-based learning (which often includes role-play-ing simulation) to correct this deficiency. Useof simulations in teaching is also consistentwith Schons (1983, 1987) discussion of thereflective practitioner. In particular, Schonrefers to knowledge gained through the processof problem solving as knowing-in-action. Theideas of Schon (1983, 1987) and Shepherd &Cosgriff (1998) closely correspond with thewell-documented reasons for using role-playingsimulations: to prepare students for professionalpractice; to encourage, stimulate and motivatestudents; to engage students in critical thinking;to develop problem-solving skills; to enablestudents to understand issues from multipleperspectives; to provide an experiential ap-proach to learning; and to foster creativity,imagination and better retention of theoreticalideas and concepts (King, 1981; Walford, 1981;Shubik, 1989; Camino & Calcagno, 1995;Shepherd & Cosgriff, 1998; Livingston, 1999;Mercado, 2000; Ryan, 2000).

Furthermore, simulations have been utilisedto assist disputants in actual planning disputes(Dolin & Susskind, 1992). Parties that are re-luctant to come to the bargaining table may be

willing to participate in a simulation of theconflict in which they are embroiled. There areexamples of this application of simulation, inwhich it was successful in convincing the dis-putants that negotiation had the potential toresolve their dispute by allowing the parties toeach satisfy their principal interests. Dolin &Susskind (1992) examine one such case, inwhich simulation catalysed disputants in a con-tentious national energy policy issue to engagein a large-scale consensus-building exercise,which ultimately resolved the conflict. Severalof the more popular commercially distributedsimulations in the planning field were originallycreated to educate parties in actual disputes.Moreover, planning scholars employing roleplaying as a teaching tool have done so mainlywithin the context of public participation, nego-tiation and consensus building (Krausse &Amaral, 1994; Camino & Calcagno, 1995; In-nes & Booher, 1999). Yet, the effectiveness ofemploying this format of teaching in differentdecision-making contexts needs to be under-stood.

This paper studies the simulation of an ad-versarial decision-making process carried outby a quasi-judicial board that serves as the finaladjudicator of planning disputes in its jurisdic-tion. This is a very different setting to that ofprocesses based on negotiation and consensusbuilding. The latter may be proactive ratherthan reactive, and therefore is not necessarilyinitiated in response to a formal dispute. Thetwo settings are also distinctly different withrespect to several characteristics which are cap-tured well by simulations, including (inter alia)participant behaviours, the handling of infor-mation in support of arguments, and the rela-tionships between the parties. Therefore,role-playing simulations within a quasi-judicialenvironment should allow students to developdifferent skills and achieve different learningoutcomes to those of role-playing exercisesinvolving more collaborative processes.

Despite the growing use of role-playing sim-ulations in planning courses, the planningliterature provides limited information on thepedagogical value of such games. Overall,planning educators have shown how differentinnovative teaching methods can be used withinplanning courses. Examples include problem-

96

Dow

nloa

ded

by [V

ienna

Univ

ersity

Libr

ary] a

t 11:5

8 29 J

une 2

015

John F. Meligrana & John S. Andrew

based learning (Shepherd & Cosgriff 1998),community service learning (Roakes & Norris-Tirrell, 2000) and workshop/studio instruction.Yet there appears to be a dearth of similarinstruction by planning educators with respectto role-playing simulations (Krausse & Amaral,1994; Camino & Calcagno, 1995; Livingstone,1999). More specifically, the planning literaturedoes not properly address the relationship be-tween simulations and the type of planningeducation needed to properly prepare studentsfor careers as professional planners. This re-search deficit contrasts with the greater atten-tion that educators from other disciplines giveto critical assessment of the teaching effective-ness of simulation games (King, 1981; Nightin-gale, 1981; Shubik, 1989; Whiteley & Faria,1989; Petranek et al., 1992; Randel et al., 1992;Mercado, 2000; Ryan, 2000). This article at-tempts to fill this gap by evaluating the abilityof role-playing simulations to meet the uniquepedagogic goals of the planning discipline, andexamining the challenges educators face whenemploying this tool.

The only example the authors found of theevaluation of the use of role-playing simula-tions to teach planning was Krausse & Amaral(1994). They ran and evaluated a harbour man-agement simulation to teach about public par-ticipation methods in planning. However,Krausse and Amaral only looked at studentperceptions of the simulation (measured by afew variables only), their level of participationand their exam performance. Their student sur-vey examined the operation of a simulationexercise, yet contained limited analysis ofspecific learning objectives or outcomes, com-pared to contemporary discussions on planningtheory and education.

Method

The research method consisted primarily of asurvey of 27 graduate planning students. Asimilar set of open- and closed-ended questionswas administered prior to the role-playingsimulation and immediately after. In the pre-simulation survey, students speculated aboutthe types of skills they would acquire, while inthe post-simulation survey students reflected ontheir recent experience. This provided the abil-

ity to compare the skills students expected tolearn prior to the role-playing simulation withthose they believed they actually acquiredthrough their participation in the exercise.

This methodology improves on previouslypublished student surveys that assess only post-simulation experiences. Such post-gaming sur-veys might only capture student reactions to theactual simulation and could miss skills devel-oped prior to the exercise. This approach is alsoinconsistent with an extensive body of literaturethat identifies various stages, either explicitly orimplicitly, involved in the planning and ex-ecution of role-playing simulations (Wynn,1985b; van Ments, 1989; Yardley-Matwiejczuk, 1997; Ryan, 2000). This reason-ing suggests that each stage in a simulationmight present specific opportunities for studentsto rely on and develop a unique set of skills.This outcome can only be determined by asurvey instrument administered at various timesthroughout the gaming exercise.

The survey questions were derived from avariety of sources: (1) a review of introductorytextbooks on urban planning as well as broaderarticles on planning theory and education (e.g.Alexander, 1986; Leung, 1989; Friedman,1995, 1996; Kaufman & Simons, 1995; For-ester, 1999); (2) a survey of Web documentsposted to the Web sites of professional plan-ning organisations in Canada and the UnitedStates (Association of Collegiate Schools ofPlanning, 2002; Canadian Institute of Planners,2002); and (3) published surveys of planningprofessionals regarding the specific skillsneeded by entry-level planners (Ozawa &Seltzer, 1999; Alexander, 2001; Bailey &Walker, 2001).

From a review and analysis of the abovesources, the authors identified four major skillsets required by professional planners:

(1) Substantive knowledge

ability to interpret and relate laws to a plan-ning issue or case

awareness and understanding of urban devel-opment issues

knowledge of planning theories and ideas knowledge of laws and regulations as they

relate to planning

97

Dow

nloa

ded

by [V

ienna

Univ

ersity

Libr

ary] a

t 11:5

8 29 J

une 2

015


(2) Procedural knowledge ability to think about the interaction of plan-

ning, implementation and markets understanding of the rationale for planning knowledge of how planning tribunals operate

(3) Method skills synthesis skills, e.g. ability to see multiple

perspectives on the same issue communication skills, e.g. command over

graphic communication and design throughan ability to conceptualise plans in threedimensions

management skills, e.g. the ability to workwell with other group members

(4) Judgement skills ability to think and respond on ones feet ability to express ones own opinions and

ideas.

Survey questions were developed around eachof these four skill sets. This was done in orderto make the interpretation of survey resultsmore relevant to the effectiveness of simulationrole-playing games as a teaching tool. In otherwords, the above sources informed the develop-ment of appropriate survey questions to assessthe skills students learned through the use ofrole-playing simulation games. However, theauthors do not purport that the above list ofskills is either exhaustive or mutually exclus-ive.

The survey included three types of questions:open-ended, closed-ended with scaled re-sponses, and closed-ended with rank-orderedresponses. These types of questions are consist-ent with standard survey designs (Salant &Dillman, 1994). It was administered to 27graduate planning students enrolled in a corecourse entitled Legal and Governmental Pro-cesses in the School of Urban and RegionalPlanning, Queens University at Kingston, On-tario. An anonymous identification number wasassigned to each questionnaire which allowedthe authors to match responses to the pre-hear-ing survey with the same respondent who com-pleted the post-hearing survey. The question-naire design was further refined through key-informant interviews with university professorsfrom the faculties of law and education at the

authors home university, who are actively us-ing role-playing simulation games as a teachingdevice. This served as a pilot test of the surveyinstrument.

Background

The students surveyed were participating in asimulated hearing of the Ontario MunicipalBoard (OMB), a quasi-judicial tribunal thatadjudicates planning disputes in Ontario. TheOMB gave the authors special permission tomake use of the entire case file of a recenthearing. This file included: the board memberswritten decision; all exhibits and evidence sub-mitted by the participating parties, includingreports, maps and photographs; and anyrecorded communication (e.g. memos, letters,etc.) sent by the parties prior to the hearing.The students were given full access to the casefile and were divided into the following roles:board members, developers, residents, lawyersand expert witnesses. The OMB plays a pivotalrole in urban and regional planning in Ontariothrough its long-standing authority, since 1932,to review a wide range of land-use decisionsthat municipal governments and other localagencies make, in most cases pursuant to theGovernment of Ontarios Planning Act.

Through its application and interpretation ofprovincial law, the OMB operates as a quasi-ju-dicial tribunal to the facts of a case and thusdiffers from a court of law (Chipman, 1999). Itsdecisions are not bound by legal precedent.Instead, the board judges the prevailing meritsof each individual application by measuringand comparing it to the broader public good,based on stated provincial policies. If no prov-incial policy exists, the boards decisions are infavour of preserving the greatest commongood. Thus, it may formulate provincial policywhere none previously exists. Given theboards scope and power over land-use deci-sions, most practising professional planners inOntario will come in contact with the OMB,usually as expert witnesses. Although the scopeand power of the OMB might be unique toOntario, the idea of planning disputes beingresolved by tribunals, boards and other quasi-judicial bodies as well as the courts is familiarto planners working in many other jurisdictions.

98

Dow

nloa

ded

by [V

ienna

Univ

ersity

Libr

ary] a

t 11:5

8 29 J

une 2

015


Thus, this paper provides insights into howrole-playing simulations can help educate stu-dents regarding the legislative and politicalcontext of the planning process. It also providesa tangible example to explore topical issues inplanning theory, such as the role of power andinstitutions in planning (Healey, 1997; Forester,1999).

The case before the OMB involved a pro-posal to construct a 19-unit luxury residentialdevelopment by adding a three-storey additionto an existing dwelling within the City of Ott-awa. In order to approve the proposed develop-ment, the city granted a number of variancesfrom the existing land-use regulations. Oppos-ing neighbours appealed these variances to theOMB. They argued that the variances grantedby the city were not in compliance with poli-cies in its Official Plan (OMB, 2001).

Overall, this case represents a typical physi-cal planning issue encountered by many pro-fessional planners. Yet, the case also goesbeyond merely land-use planning because itconcerns the social issue of affordable housing.Moreover, this case has sufficient depth toenable the authors to test a range of skills thatstudents used or acquired during their prep-aration for, and participation in, this simulation.

Survey Results and Analysis

Preparation for the Role-Playing SimulationThe students preparation for the simulatedhearing included observing an actual OMBhearing. The before questionnaire gauged stu-dent understanding of the learning objectives ofattending the actual hearing by requiring themto rank order a pre-set list of five learningobjectives. Mean scores closer to one (out offive) indicate learning objectives the studentsbelieved were more important, while scorescloser to five denote those they felt were theleast important.

According to the respondents, the most im-portant learning objectives for attending theactual hearing were learning how to communi-cate planning ideas/arguments before the OMB,followed by learning about the formal and in-formal rules governing OMB hearings (Figure1), with means of 1.93 and 1.98 out of 5,

respectively. The least important objectiveswere learning about urban issues/problems (amean of 4.19) and planning ideas (a mean of4.31). A mean of 2.58 was recorded for thestatement that attending the actual hearingwould help the students learn how professionalplanners interact with lawyers and other profes-sionals.

Students were also asked to rank order aseries of learning objectives acquired duringtheir preparations for the simulated hearing(Figure 2). The results indicate that acquiringprocedural knowledge, i.e. the legal environ-ment in which planning takes place (a mean of1.7), and understanding the planning process (amean of 3.0) were the most important learningobjectives, but acquiring substantive knowl-edge, i.e. planning ideas and alternatives (amean of 3.4), and managerial knowledge, i.e.coordination and group work (a mean of 3.7),ranked as the lowest learning objectives. Stu-dents were, however, fairly neutral aboutwhether preparations for the simulated hearinghelped them to acquire methods/skills, i.e. abil-ity to access and synthesise secondary data (amean of 3.1).

The survey also questioned students aboutsources of information and research undertakenin preparation for the mock hearing (Table 1).The possible scaled responses to a list of ques-tions ranged from 1 strongly disagree to3 neutral to 5 strongly agree. The re-sults indicate that students placed a premium onusing information from an actual case file (amean of 4.6 out of 5), the ability to synthesisethe various types of information contained inthe case file (mean of 4.0), and obtainingsufficient knowledge of their role-playingcharacter (a mean of 3.4). However, back-ground research to gain information and ideasfrom published academic articles/books rankedsignificantly lower (mean of 3.0).

This suggests that simulation games based onreal, as opposed to hypothetical, situations helpto enhance students learning experience andparticipation. However, the results caution theinstructor to provide a mechanism, perhaps out-side the role-playing exercise, that assists thestudents to compare their simulation experi-ences with a more theoretical understandinggained from relevant planning literature. It islikely that the tightly scripted roles in this

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [V

ienna

Univ

ersity

Libr

ary] a

t 11:5

8 29 J

une 2

015


ALearn how to communicate planning ideas/arguments before the OMBBLearn about the formal/informal rules governing OMB hearingsCLearn how planning professionals interact with lawyers and other professionalsDLearn about contemporary urban issues and problemsELearn about a variety of planning ideas

FIGURE 1. Rank-Order of the Most Important Learning Objectives for Attending an Actual OMBHearing. Note: 1most important5 least important.

adversarial role-playing exercise precluded stu-dents from exploring the connections betweenplanning theory and practice. In other words,sticking to the rules of the game within aquasi-judicial setting may have overwhelmedthe students attention.

Overall, the survey responses to questionsconcerning pre-hearing preparations indicatethat prior to the simulation exercise, studentsconcentrated on acquiring three specific sets ofskills: (i) communication skills, (ii) proceduralknowledge (i.e. how tribunals operate) and (iii)substantive knowledge of planning laws andregulations. Thus, learning the procedures andhow to communicate within the limitations pre-sented by such procedures dominated the stu-dents learning agenda. Students did not assigna high rank to acquiring substantive knowledgeof planning ideas and developing teamworkskills.

Comparison of Pre- and Post-Simulation Sur-vey Results

Student responses to similar survey questionsasked before and after the simulation gameprovide additional insights into the skills theyacquired from this role-playing exercise. Themean pre- and post-simulation values arerecorded on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 represent-ing strong disagreement and 5 representingstrong agreement), and a series of learningobjectives are communicated by nine surveyquestions (Table 1). The authors ranked thesurvey responses according to their mean val-ues; the higher the mean score, the greater theimportance of the question. The post-surveyresponses are ranked in descending order. Forease of comparison, the corresponding re-sponses from the pre-simulation survey are ar-ranged according to the post-simulation

100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [V

ienna

Univ

ersity

Libr

ary] a

t 11:5

8 29 J

une 2

015


AThe legal environment in which planning takes placeBAbility to access and synthesize secondary dataCGeneral understanding of the planning processDAn understanding of planning ideas and alternativesECoordination and group work

Figure 2. Rank-Order of Learning Objectives Acquired during Mock Hearing Preparations. Note:1most important5 least important.

FIGURE 2.

rankings. The pre- and post-hearing differencesin mean and rank are also shown.

These results demonstrate that students werein either mild or strong agreement with all ofthe learning skills presented in each of thesurvey questions, i.e. all of the learning skillsreceived a mean score of greater than 3. More-over, all but one survey question showed anincrease in its mean score in the post-simu-lation survey. This indicates two things. First,the role-playing simulation, at least from thestudents perspective, provided a diverse learn-ing experience. The students agreed that therole-playing simulation helped to teach meth-ods and judgment skills, and both proceduraland substantive knowledge. Second, participat-ing in the simulated hearing reinforced andrelied upon all four skill sets as identifiedabove.

However, from the range of mean values andtheir corresponding ranks, the students strong

consensus about role playing shows a hierarchi-cal pattern (Table 1). The highest mean valuesrecorded by the pre-simulation survey were forskills at interpreting planning laws (a mean of4.35, rank 1), learning how to think and re-spond on your feet (a mean of 4.23, rank 2),examining planning issues from multiple per-spectives (a mean of 4.19, rank 3), and devel-oping the ability to conceptualise plans in threedimensions (a mean of 4.15, rank 4). Thepost-simulation survey also gave these skillsthe three highest mean scores, but in the reverserank order.

The method skill, i.e. the opportunity to seemultiple perspectives on the same issue, rankedfirst with the highest mean of 4.62. This wasfollowed by judgment skill, i.e. learning how tothink and respond on your feet, and substan-tive knowledge skill, i.e. the ability to interpretand relate laws to a planning issue or case, withmean scores of 4.58 and 4.46, respectively. The

101

Dow

nloa

ded

by [V

ienna

Univ

ersity

Libr

ary] a

t 11:5

8 29 J

une 2

015


TABLE 1. Comparisons of mean value responses to both pre- and post-simulation survey questions

Pre-hearing Post-hearingsurvey survey Difference

Type of learning skill Survey questions Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank

Method Opportunity to see(synthesis) skill multiple perspectives on 4.19 3 4.62 1 0.42 2

the same issueJudgement skill Learn how to think and

respond on your feet 4.23 2 4.58 2 0.35 0Substantive Interpret and relate lawsknowledge to a planning issue or case 4.35 1 4.46 3 0.12 2Substantive Awareness of urbanknowledge development issues 3.62 6 4.19 4 0.58 2Procedural Think about theknowledge interaction of planning,

implementation and 3.5 7 4.19 5 0.69 2markets

Procedural Greater understanding ofknowledge the rationale for 3.69 5 4.08 6 0.38 1

planningMethod skill Ability to conceptualise(graphic plans in three dimensions 4.15 4 3.85 7 0.31 3communicationand design)

Good opportunity toJudgement skill express your opinions 3.38 8 3.62 8 0.23 0

and ideasJudgement skill Learn how proceduresand procedural influence ability to 3.08 9 3.58 9 0.5 0knowledge express your ideas

Note: 1 strongly disagree, 3neutral, 5 strongly agree. N27.

above results indicate that participating in thesimulation raised student awareness and knowl-edge about the multiple perspectives found inmany planning issues and disputes. However,acquiring substantive knowledge of how to re-late laws to a planning issue is most importantduring the preparation phase of the simulationgame.

The above illustrates that the urban and plan-ning contexts relevant to this dispute garneredgreater attention during the simulation thanduring preparation for it. In other words, partic-ipating in the simulation brought to the fore theurban and planning issues at stake in this dis-

pute, while the preparations raised studentawareness of specific method skills and sub-stantive knowledge of legal issues. This indi-cates that prior to the simulation students didnot appreciate the broader urban or planningcontext in which the facts of this dispute areconnected. This represents an opportunity forthe instructor to guide students in areas that aredeficient in their preparation for a role-playingsimulation.

Between the pre- and post-simulation sur-veys the method (communication) skill of beingable to conceptualise plans in three dimensionsrecorded the largest decrease in mean score and

102

Dow

nloa

ded

by [V

ienna

Univ

ersity

Libr

ary] a

t 11:5

8 29 J

une 2

015


TABLE 2. Rank order of the components needed to achieve success in an OMB hearing


Type of learning skill Survey questions Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank

Knowledge oflaws and

Substantive regulations as 2.04 1 1.8 1 0.24 0knowledge they relate to

planningMethod skill Communication(communication) skills 2.19 2 2.15 2 0.04 0

Knowledge ofSubstantive planning theories 3.8 5 3.24 3 0.56 2knowledge and ideas

Ability to workMethod skill well with other 3.72 4 3.72 4 0 0(management) group members

Knowledge ofProcedural how planning 3.32 3 4.04 5 0.72 2knowledge tribunals operate

Note: 1most important 5 least important. N27.

rank. Prior to the mock hearing, students agreedstrongly that this skill would be developed, asindicated by its mean score of 4.15, the fourthhighest of all survey responses. After the hear-ing, the mean score decreased by 0.31 to 3.85,and its rank fell three positions to seventhplace. This is curious, given the significance ofheritage design and the extensive architecturaldrawings included in the case file. Despite thisshift in survey responses, the authors believethat role playing is useful at exposing the chal-lenges professional planners face in communi-cating spatial images and graphic informationin a public forum. The survey results onlyreinforce this opinion.

Both the pre- and post-simulation surveyresponses indicate that certain types of judg-ment skills consistently achieved the lowestmean scores recorded. Students were neutral(with a mean of 3.08) in their response to thesurvey question about whether the proceduresand rules of the mock hearing hindered theirability to express their opinions. Moreover, alow mean score (3.38) was also recorded in

response to the question of whether the mockhearing provided a good opportunity to expressopinions and ideas. These results indicate thatrole-playing simulations may not assist partici-pants in developing critical and reflective judg-ment skills.

Student Rank Ordering of Learning SkillsThe survey also asked students to rank orderthe five most important skills for achievingsuccess at an OMB hearing (Table 2). Boththe pre-simulation and post-simulation surveysranked acquisition of substantive knowledge ofplanning laws/regulations and developing themethod skill of communication as the top twoskills needed to succeed at an OMB hearing.Before the hearing, students ranked substantiveknowledge of theories/ideas last (rank 5, mean3.80), while procedural knowledge of howplanning tribunals operated ranked higher (rank3, mean 3.32).

After the hearing, this aggregate trend re-

103

Dow

nloa

ded

by [V

ienna

Univ

ersity

Libr

ary] a

t 11:5

8 29 J

une 2

015


TABLE 3. Rank order of the most important learning outcomes


Learning skill/outcome Survey questions Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank

Knowledge of lawsSubstantive and regulations 2.08 1 2.12 1 0 0knowledge governing planning

and developmentKnowledge of

Substantive planning ideas and 3.6 4 3.04 2 0.56 2knowledge theoriesMethod skill Improving(communication) communication skills 3.04 3 3.04 3 0 0Procedural How planningknowledge tribunals operate 2.36 2 3.28 4 0.92 2

Experience ofMethod skill working 3.92 5 3.52 5 0.4 0(management) cooperatively on a

planning project

Note: 1most important 5 least important. N27.

versed itself. Substantive knowledge of plan-ning theories ranked third (with a mean of3.24). Procedural knowledge of planning tri-bunals ranked last with a mean of 4.04, repre-senting an increase of 0.72 from the previoussurvey. The method (management) skill of be-ing able to work well in a group ranked consist-ently fourth in both the pre- and post-hearingsurveys.

Table 3 presents the students rank orderingof the most important skills acquired throughparticipation in the role-playing simulation. Theskills listed are similar to those found in Table2. The pre- and post-simulation surveys con-sistently ranked the acquisition of substantiveknowledge of planning laws/regulations as themost important skill (with means of 2.08 and2.12, respectively), while developing themethod (management) skill of being able towork cooperatively ranked as the least import-ant skill (with means of 3.92 and 3.52, respect-ively). Before the simulation, the studentsprojected that procedural knowledge of howplanning tribunals operate would be the secondmost important skill (a mean of 2.36), while

substantial knowledge of planning ideas/theo-ries ranked fourth (a mean of 3.60). Theserankings are the exact opposite of thoserecorded from the post-simulation survey.

After the simulation, substantive knowledgeof planning theories was ranked as the secondmost important skill, with a mean of 3.10,representing an increase of 0.50 from the pre-simulation survey. Procedural knowledge ofplanning tribunals was ranked fourth, with amean of 3.28, representing a difference of 0.92from the previous survey. The method skill ofcommunication ranked consistently as the thirdmost important learning outcome in both thepre- and post-simulation surveys (with a meanof 3.04).

Debriefing

As part of the debriefing to this role-playingsimulation, the authors arranged for a panel ofeducational experts on role-playing games toobserve and assess student behaviour and per-formance during the simulated hearing. This

104

Dow

nloa

ded

by [V

ienna

Univ

ersity

Libr

ary] a

t 11:5

8 29 J

une 2

015


panel consisted of two members of the Instruc-tional Development Centre of the authorshome university. This centre provides servicesand programmes to support and encourage ex-cellent teaching. The two panellists were pro-fessors who specialise in developing innovativeforms of teaching at the post-secondary level.The panellists provided the authors with a writ-ten report and a two-hour debriefing session.These elements contributed independent andexpert feedback, allowing an enriched assess-ment of the role-playing exercise based ongeneral educational theories and practices.

The expert panellists noted that during themock hearing students either struggled withusing visual aids during their testimony or com-pletely ignored them. Planning educatorsshould use simulation games to provide bettertraining on the use of visual aids to explainplanning ideas, concepts and proposals. Moreimportantly, the expert panellist noted thestrong devotion to role playing exhibited bymost of the students. Students took great care todevelop their roles and to remain in characterthroughout the role-playing exercise. The pan-ellist was impressed by the high degree ofprofessionalism brought by the students to thesimulation game.

A comparison between the expert panel ob-servations and the students open-ended surveyresponses, as noted below, reveals a shortcom-ing of role-playing exercises. The strong com-mitment to role-playing may come at the costof fostering creativity and critical thinkingskills that go beyond the gaming exercise.Role-playing simulations may not, by them-selves, address more fundamental questions ofpower, values, institutions and procedures in-volved in urban planning and development.However, this can easily be corrected by theplanning educators, who can combine role-playing with other, perhaps more traditional,forms of learning.

Conclusion

This paper has demonstrated that role-playingsimulation games can provide a multifacetedlearning experience. However, the differencesin the mean scores and rankings of variouslearning outcomes and skills between the pre-

and post-hearing survey results point to thestrengths and weaknesses, and thus, the overalleffectiveness, of role-playing simulations as ateaching device.

The skills that students recorded as the mostimportant learning outcomes from participatingin the simulation game were ones most closelyrelated to their role-playing character and mostgermane to the simulation forum. Such skillsincluded learning about multiple perspectives inplanning, how to think on ones feet, and howto relate laws to a particular planning issue.Less developed or emphasised were learningoutcomes regarding substantive knowledge ofurban issues, procedural knowledge of therationale for planning, and critical/reflectivejudgment skills. This finding suggests that,through role-playing, students find it difficult toacquire skills that require more abstractthought. However, the ability of a role-playingsimulation to encourage or stimulate studentthinking at an abstract level could also beconditioned by the type of planning case beingsimulated.

Role-playing simulation games offer a two-step learning process. The first step is repre-sented by the preparation phase where studentlearning is targeted at improving communi-cation skills and acquiring procedural knowl-edge. The second step involves studentsidentifying substantive knowledge as an im-portant learning outcome gained from their par-ticipation in the mock hearing.

This change in the type of learning skillsunderstood to be acquired by students raisestwo important points. First, longitudinal studentsurveys should be favoured over snap-shotsurveys usually administered after completionof the role-playing simulation. Second, it rein-forces the role of the teacher as a cognitivecoach or guide (Shepherd & Cosgriff, 1998). Itis incumbent upon the instructor to identify theskills that are least emphasised by the studentsbefore, during and after the role-playing exer-cise.

Overall, their ability to allow students to getinto a character and experience a sense ofrealism is one of the greatest and obviousstrengths of role-playing simulations. However,this also presents the real danger that studentsdo not look beyond their characters to reflect on

105

Dow

nloa

ded

by [V

ienna

Univ

ersity

Libr

ary] a

t 11:5

8 29 J

une 2

015


the experience at a more theoretical and ab-stract level.

In general, we can broadly interpret the re-sults of this study as supporting the conclusionthat students acquire the specific skills that theyneed to get them through the simulation exer-cise. To be sure, these skills are important, witha diverse set of skills relied on at differentmoments. This is a positive comment on theteaching effectiveness of role-playing simula-tions. And if the goal of the educator is to trainplanning practitioners, then this comment issufficient. But if the educator is concernedabout educating students about a planningdiscipline, then role-playing simulations mayfail to satisfy this objective.

The above conclusion points to the necessityof situating and coordinating role-playing withother methods of teaching. These other meth-ods should allow students to get out of theirrole-playing characters. This will allow the in-structors to use role-playing simulations as aback drop to inform and stimulate studentthinking on several contemporary planningideas, including post-modernism in planning,multiple perspectives and voices in planning,communicative action in planning and ethics inplanning, informed by a wide-ranging planningliterature (Friedmann, 1987; Hendler, 1995;Healey, 1997; Innes, 1995; Forester, 1999).

Planning educators should experiment withnew and innovative teaching devices to providea stimulating learning environment for the pro-fessional planners of the future. However, newteaching devices should not be employed basedmerely on anecdotal evidence of their success.Teaching tools must be the subject of ongoingempirical research and analysis. Hopefully thispaper contributes to this endeavour.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Hok-Lin Leung,Andrejs Skaburskis, Jo-Anne Rudachuk, gradu-ate students of the School of Urban and Re-gional Planning, and Mark Weisberg for theirgenerous assistance. The authors are also grate-ful for the support received from Denise Stock-ley and Susan Wilcox, InstructionalDevelopment Centre at Queens University.

This research was funded by a Research In-itiation Grant provided by Queens University.

References

Alexander, E. R. (1986) Approaches to Planning:Introducing Current Planning Theories, Con-cepts, and Issues (New York, Gordon & BreachScience).

Alexander, E. R. (2001) What do planners need toknow?, Journal of Planning Education and Re-search, 20, pp. 376380.

Association of American Collegiate Schools of Plan-ning (2002) http://www.acsp.org

Bailey, N. & Walker, H. (2001) Managing the tran-sition to work: the role of the planning networkin British town planning education, PlanningPractice and Research, 16(1), pp. 7178.

Baum, H. S. (1997) Social science, social work, andsurgery, APA Journal, 63(2), pp. 179188.

Camino, E. & Calcagno, C. (1995) An interactivemethodology for empowering students to dealwith controversial environmental problems, En-vironmental Education and Research, 1(1),pp. 5974.

Canadian Institute of Planners (2002) http://www.cip-icu.ca

Chipman, J. (1999) Policy-making by administrativetribunals: a study of the manner in which theOntario Municipal Board has applied provincialland use planning policies and has developedand applied its own planning policies, Doctor ofJuridical Science Thesis (Toronto, Faculty ofLaw, University of Toronto).

Coleman, J. S. (1989) Simulation games and thedevelopment of social theory, Simulation &Games, 20(2), pp. 144164.

Dolin, E. J. & Susskind, L. E. (1992) A role forsimulations in public policy disputes: the casefor national energy policy, Simulation & Gam-ing, 23(1), pp. 2044.

Forester, J. (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner:Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes(Cambridge, MA, MIT Press).

Friedmann, J. (1995) Teaching planning theory, Jour-nal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3),pp. 156162.

Friedmann, J. (1996) The core curriculum in planningrevisited, Journal of Planning Education andResearch, 15(2), pp. 89104.

Friedmann, J. & Kuester, C. (1994) Planning edu-cation for the late 20th century: an initial in-quiry, Journal of Planning Education andResearch, 14(1), pp. 5564.

106

Dow

nloa

ded

by [V

ienna

Univ

ersity

Libr

ary] a

t 11:5

8 29 J

une 2

015


Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: ShapingPlaces in Fragmented Societies (London,MacMillan).

Hendler, S. (Ed.) (1995) Planning Ethics: A Readerin Planning Theory, Practice and Education(New Brunswick, NJ, Center for Urban PolicyResearch).

Innes, J. E. (1995) Planning theorys emergingparadigm: communicative action and interactivepractice, Journal of Planning Education andResearch, 14(3), pp. 183190.

Innes, J. E. & Booher, D. E. (1999) Consensusbuilding and complex adaptive systems: aframework for evaluating collaborative plan-ning, Journal of the American Planning Associ-ation, 65(4), pp. 412423.

Kaufman, S. & Simons, R. (1995) Quantitative andresearch methods in planning: are schools teach-ing what practitioners practice?, Journal ofPlanning Education and Research, 15, pp. 1733.

King, R. (1981) To play or not to play: an introduc-tion to games and simulations in geographyteaching, Journal of Geography in Higher Edu-cation, 5(2), pp. 111112.

Kirts, C. A., Tumeo, M. A. & Sinz, J. M. (1991) TheCOMMONS GAME: its instructional valuewhen used in a natural resources managementcontext, Simulation & Gaming, 22(1), pp. 518.

Krausse, G. H. & Amaral, M. (1994) Simulatingharbor management: a tool for public partici-pation, Journal of Planning Education and Re-search, 14, pp. 4354.

Leung, H. L. (1989) Land Use Planning Made Plain(Kingston, Ronald P. Frye).

Livingstone, I. (1999) Role-playing planning publicinquiries, Journal of Geography in Higher Edu-cation, 23(1), pp. 6376.

Mercado, S. A. (2000) Pre-managerial business edu-cation: a role for role-plays, Journal of Furtherand Higher Education, 24(1), pp. 117126.

Nightingale, N. (1981) Games and simulations: ateaching technique, South African Geographer,9(1), pp. 5965.

Ontario Municipal Board (2001) File numberV0101118 (Ontario, Ontario Municipal Board).

Ozawa, C. & Seltzer, E. (1999) Taking our bearings:mapping a relationship among planning practice,theory, and education, Journal of Planning Edu-cation and Research, 18, pp. 257266.

Petranek, C. F., Corey, S. & Black, R. (1992) Threelevels of learning in simulations: participating,debriefing, & journal writing, Simulation &Gaming, 23(2), pp. 174185.

Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D. &Whitehill, B. V. (1992) The effectiveness of

games for educational purposes: a review ofrecent research, Simulation & Gaming, 23(3),pp. 261276.

Roakes, S. L. & Norris-Tirrell, D. (2000) Communityservice learning in planning education: a frame-work for course development, Journal of Plan-ning Education and Research, 20, pp. 100110.

Ryan, T. (2000) The role of simulation gaming inpolicy-making, Systems Research and Behav-ioral Science, 17, pp. 359364.

Salant, P. & Dillman, D. A. (1994) How to ConductYour Own Survey (New York, John Wiley).

Sawicki, D. S. (1988) Planning education and prac-tice: can we plan for the next decade, Journal ofPlanning Education and Research, 7(2),pp. 115120.

Schon (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. How Pro-fessionals Think in Action (New York, BasicBooks).

Schon, D. A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Prac-titioner (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).

Shepherd, A. & Cosgriff, B. (1998) Problem-basedlearning: a bridge between planning educationand practice, Journal of Planning Education andResearch, 17, pp. 148357.

Shubik, M. (1989) Gaming: theory and practice, pastand future, Simulation & Games, 20(2), pp. 184189.

van Ments, M. (1989) The Effective Use of Role-Play: Handbook for Teachers and Trainers, 2ndrev edn (London, Nichols).

Walford, R. (1981) Geography games and simula-tions: learning through experience, Journal ofGeography in Higher Education, 5(2), pp. 113120.

Whiteley, T. R. & Faria, A. J. (1989) A study of therelationship between student final exam per-formance and simulation game participation,Simulation & Games, 20(1), pp. 4464.

Williams, K. (1991) Advertising and political expen-ditures in a spatial election game: an experimen-tal investigation, Simulation & Gaming, 22(4),pp. 421442.

Wynn, M. (1985a) Conclusion: researching, design-ing and running case study simulations, in:Wynn, M. (Ed.) Planning Games: Case StudySimulations in Land Management and Develop-ment (London, E&FN Spon).

Wynn, M. (1985b) Introduction, in: Wynn, M. (Ed.)Planning Games: Case Study Simulations inLand Management and Development (London,E&FN Spon).

Yardley-Matwiejczuk, K. (1997) Role Play: Theoryand Practice (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).

107

Dow

nloa

ded

by [V

ienna

Univ

ersity

Libr

ary] a

t 11:5

8 29 J

une 2

015

Dow

nloa

ded

by [V

ienna

Univ

ersity

Libr

ary] a

t 11:5

8 29 J

une 2

015

Role Play in Urban Planning Education

Documents

Transcript of Role Play in Urban Planning Education