with tutorials; email/ phone if issues arise one visit per annum ... analysed using content analysis techniques and software (Nvivo). Whilst each student interview ...
Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, Issue 4-2, 2010
Making a Case for Complementarity of Student Learning from Year-long Work-based Placements in Town Planning Andrea Frank Cardiff University, UK
Abstract Traditionally, higher education courses with a professional orientation such as town planning not only teach subject-related knowledge and theories but also seek to prepare students for practice. Pedagogies that simulate various aspects of the working environment, and thereby foster applied skills development and collaborative working, are thus frequently found in planning curricula, including project- and problembased learning, or ‘live’ studios. Somewhat surprisingly though, creditbearing assessed work experience or work-based learning (WBL) in the form of placements, for example, are comparatively rare, and in the few instances where placements are part of the curriculum, the associated WBL typically carries minimal weighting – if any – towards the final degree classification. In view of newly established requirements for the assessment of professional competence (APC) by the UK’s professional body for town planning, the government’s drive towards greater flexibility and inclusiveness in higher education, and a push to expand university-employer partnerships, it is timely to re-evaluate existing educational practices in the field. This paper presents results from a study into the kinds of learning outcomes currently contributed by long-term placements to initial planning education. Findings suggest that student learning and personal development at the workplace and learning from campus-based modules provide complementary skills and knowledge. Opportunities, barriers and implications of integrated and assessed WBL within town planning education are examined.
Educating for professional practice in town planning The difficulty of educating and preparing planning students for practice within the context of a higher education degree has fuelled 21
Frank
considerable debate amongst planning educators (e.g. Rosier 1999; Castells, 1998; Baum, 1997). In many cases, practical skills development is delivered via alternative pedagogies ranging from workshops, service-learning projects and ‘live’ studios to more work-based learning opportunities, such as pre- and post-course internships, placements and sandwich years (Freestone et al., 2006; Brooks et al., 2002). While Friedmann (1996) suggests that the practice of planning can be taught more effectively through academic supervision than by throwing students into the happenstance of the world of work, Brooks et al. (2002) disagree with this assertion. Simulated work settings in academia provide safe environments for students to experiment but are problematic insofar as they lack many important characteristics of real world practice (Schön, 1987, p.170). Moreover, delivering experiential learning to high quality professional standards within the constraints of higher education institutions is resource-intensive (see Brown et al., 2003, p.337) and increasingly difficult to provide owing to growing class sizes and financial cutbacks. Hence, Rosier (1999) proposes that it may be more cost effective to deliver practice-related learning and skills for initial planning education in partnership with employers through extensive periods (up to one year) of work-based learning. Work-based learning overall – at least in UK higher education – has been gaining interest and momentum amidst efforts to widen access, upskill the workforce and address economic pressures (Nixon et al., 2006; Boud & Solomon, 2001). And while there are multiple interpretations of work-based learning (WBL), this paper will focus on WBL as a means of preparing planning students for practice (i.e. learning for work and through work – through placements linked to higher education programmes – as defined by Gray, 2001). Considering the importance attributed to professional competence and fitness for practice in the education and training of planners (RTPI, 2003), it is surprising that learning for practice in the form of extensive placements plays such a minor part in present-day planning education. Only one of 19 Australian (Freestone et al., 2006), and three of 25 professionally-accredited UK planning schools (CEBE, 2006) either require or encourage a year-long placement as part of their undergraduate degrees, although a number of universities offer shorter practice-based modules in their curricula involving up to 4-6 weeks of work experience (Askew 2004; Higgins & Simpson 1997). Likewise, in the USA, only a handful of programmes have mandatory work-based learning requirements (Freestone et al., 2006), and only one out of ten undergraduate programmes in Germany includes a sixmonth mandatory placement (Kurth, 2009).
22
Making a Case for Complementarity of Student Learning
The demise of a pedagogy once popular in professional education is blamed on the associated extended degree length, a lack of financial viability for institutions and students, and the difficulty of measuring learning and improvements in employability (Freestone et al., 2006; Reeders, 2000). In the UK context, these explanations are by and large unconvincing, however, as long-term planning placements are salaried and, contrary to Kitson (1993), there is evidence that placements do enhance students’ employability (Freestone et al., 2006; Higgins & Simpson, 1997). Moreover, the disadvantage of a longer degree course is offset by a rule that allows students who are enrolled on a Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI)-accredited planning degree course to include up to one year (towards a minimum of two years) of work experience from a required placement in their statement for Assessment of Professional Competence (APC) (RTPI 2005), which is necessary for becoming a fully chartered planner and member of the Institute. When further examining the apparent disinterest in integrated planning placements, it emerges that some students’ experiences have suffered from poor administration and monitoring of placement progression (Higgins & Simpson, 1997). More specifically, Harris (2004, p.3) points out that, in UK planning education especially, sandwich years were administered ‘with little reflection on their strengths and weaknesses and … how to harness their potential’. In fact, one can see that between recurring student complaints about lack of relevance and value in respect to tuition fees together with little or no institutional incentives for academics to engage in placement supervision, abandoning the cumbersome pedagogy was an easy and logical choice for course directors.
Effective learning from work One assumption underlying work-based learning is that students gain valuable experience and insight into professional processes and practice while developing an awareness of professional standards, values and office culture. Furthermore, students’ understanding of the subject and particular professional issues will be deepened by linking theoretical knowledge and research skills introduced at university to practice (Higgins & Simpson 1997, p.12). Most of the learning during a placement is learning-by-doing (i.e. it is a by-product of working in the office alongside others). Although this sounds straightforward, Stephenson (1998), amongst others, cautions that learning from experience is by no means automatic and 23
Frank
requires significant self-reflection skills and time. Different methods to aid learning from reflection have been developed, including the production of autobiographical diaries, debriefing, writing, listening, cooperative inquiry and conversations (Boud et al., 1985). Knight’s (1985) metaphor with physical reality is poignant, as she highlights that reflection cannot (easily) occur without a reflector or somebody who listens. By having to articulate the experience to tell the story, however, the narrator is forced to start the reflection process. Indeed, research conducted in disciplines such as architecture or the health professions suggests effective learning at the workplace is not a given and depends to a large extent on appropriate support structures for learning and reflection, enhanced, for example, by dialogue and feedback from supervisors and peers. In addition, findings by Eraut et al. (2004) indicate that it is not only the work environment (including collegial support, supervision, etc.) but also the nature of tasks (importance, value and challenge) given to young professionals that contribute to the (perceived) level of learning and sense of progress. The recognition that ‘learning from experience’ is not a given has also led to changes in how professional bodies treat access to membership. Following other professional bodies, the RTPI, subsequent to its review of planning education (RTPI, 2003), has moved from a mere ‘time in practice’ requirement as basis for membership to an Assessment of Professional Competence that requires candidates to reflect on and evidence their learning from experience (RTPI, 2005). The new policy represents both a challenge and an opportunity in terms of student placements. On the one hand, schools now have a responsibility to identify learning outcomes from work experience and support students in articulating their reflection in action (Schön, 1987) so that learning can be evidenced. Such structured assessment of WBL requires a rethinking of conventional higher education approaches to account for the unpredictability of workplace settings and variability of learning outcomes (Gray, 2001; Stephenson, 1998). On the other hand, if schools succeed in such endeavours, the value of a placement would become more tangible and would align more closely with 21st century expectations of WBL than the gratuitous ‘sandwich’ workplace experiences of former years.
Study objectives and methodology There is some ambiguity as to the dichotomy between the low value attributed to WBL and placements in planning education compared to a growing interest and enthusiasm for WBL more generally as
24
Making a Case for Complementarity of Student Learning
an alternative means for education and skills delivery. Greater understanding in this matter will perhaps help to discern whether and why the field fails to capitalise on a potentially valuable opportunity. And, in light of the revised policy of the professional body for assessing professional competence, there is a need for planning educators and placement tutors to better understand a) how and what students learn during their time in practice, and b) how planning schools (and employers) can better support students’ learning, as learning from work can carry significant value in the form of the APC contribution and professional accreditation. The study commenced in two stages. Firstly, clarification was sought on existing practices in respect of planning placements, with a focus on critically reviewing issues around placement administration, assessment of learning and student support systems deemed essential to students’ learning success. Considering that the value of the placement must ultimately derive from recognition of progress and learning, this approach seeks to assess the quality of support structures available for reflective student learning. For this, a set of questions was sent to individuals involved in running year-long accredited placements in the UK and responses were discussed at a joint meeting scheduled a couple of weeks later. Secondly, the study sought to gain an insight into what and how students learn. Building on an approach to studying workplace learning developed by Eraut et al., (2004), 14 semi-structured interviews were conducted with students in placement, exploring learning and achievements as well as support mechanisms used. These interviews were also used to identify specific WBL-related learning outcomes.
Placement practices in UK planning education From 25 UK institutions offering accredited planning degrees, only two offer year-long placements as an integral part of an undergraduate degree: the School of City and Regional Planning (Cardiff University) and the School of the Built Environment (Heriot-Watt University). In addition, the School of Architecture Planning and Landscape (University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne) offers a placement year as a freestanding unit leading to the award of a Certificate in Practice linked to a Diploma degree. Only at Cardiff is the placement mandatory, while students at Heriot-Watt and Newcastle can choose educational routes that do not require completion of pre-graduation work experience.
25
Frank
University involvement in terms of supervision and assessment during the placement year is low, which is reflected in reduced student fees. The interaction between university tutors and placement students amounts to an average of 2-3 days of contact over the year. All placement students from Heriot-Watt and Cardiff receive a formal workplace visit from a university tutor and Cardiff also organises a one-day workshop on campus halfway through the placement to review achievements and progress. The University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne customarily does not conduct workplace visits with few exceptions (in case of problems or with employers new to the scheme), but organises a two-day workshop at the end of the placement. Whilst regular contact is encouraged between university tutors and the students, practice in reality is variable and the onus of student supervision and mentoring lies mostly with employers. In all instances, the placement year carries minimal requirements, and assessment tends to be pass or fail and has no impact on the degree classification. Nevertheless, failing the placement year in Cardiff would lead to a loss of professional accreditation of the degree. As the placement year experience can count toward a student’s APC when applying for chartered membership, all providers require students to maintain a record of their work (e.g. a work log or diary) and one school has deliberately adopted the template provided by the RTPI (2005) outlining dates, nature of tasks, skills and knowledge gained together with a verification by the supervisor. Any additional coursework is aimed at improving students’ understanding of practice, to facilitate reflection or to instil professional behaviour and ethics. For example, Cardiff’s students also need to complete an analysis of the organisation and processes at their place of employment, and write a professional development plan (PDP). A problem identified by all placement tutors was the lack of reflective record-keeping by students, potentially jeopardising the validity of the experience in respect to the RTPI Assessment of Professional Competence. Better practice in this respect may require more efficient briefings to students prior to placement and a greater engagement with employers to highlight their role in mentoring and supervising the students. Key variables regarding placement-year administration and assessment are summarised in Table 1.
26
Making a Case for Complementarity of Student Learning
Table 1: Placement year arrangements at UK institutions (2005/6) (CEBE, 2006) Cardiff University (Wales)
Heriot-Watt University (Scotland)
University of Newcastleupon-Tyne (England)
Placement year part of
BSc City and Regional Planning
BSc Planning with placement
BA Town Planning + Diploma
When does it take place/ duration
2 + placement + 1 12 months
3 + placement + 1 12 months
3 + placement certificate + 1 12 months
Required/ optional
Required
Optional
Optional
Alternatives
A non-placement year mode can be offered but has implications for RTPI accreditation
Students can choose a BSc with or without placement; they choose increasingly the one without
Placement is part of the Diploma; but can be replaced by a fourweek voluntary experience
Fees
50% fees
50% of endowment
25% fees, often paid by employer
Process and preparation
Career Service sessions: Year 1 (learning styles & skills review); Year 2: CV & interviewing workshops; oneto-one discussions with placement and personal tutors; students are encouraged to seek work experience in vacations
One-to-one discussion with course director/ tutor and careers advisors; crib sheet; module ‘Preparation for planning practice’
Year 3 has a credit-bearing module on planning practice; students have assignments on time management, etc.
No. students per annum
45-55 students
4-7 students
25-35 students
Work required from students
1. Work log (for APC);
Work log (for APC)
Work log (for APC)
2. organisation project; 3. PDP + CPD record
27
Frank
Cardiff University (Wales)
Heriot-Watt University (Scotland)
University of Newcastleupon-Tyne (England)
Assessment
Not heavily assessed (i.e. not contributing to final degree mark), but student needs to pass 120 credits associated with the year
Not assessed, not credit-bearing
Not assessed, but experience can contribute to Diploma ‘Professional Practice’ coursework as a reflection piece on work experience
Evaluation & monitoring of progress
Work log (reflection with personal tutor on visit and day back); checking of logs by supervisors
Work log
Work log (Discussion/ reflection during 2 day workshop at end of placement
School support (e.g. office visits, days back at school; online support?)
one visit in autumn by a tutor; about 15 staff visit 2-4 students each; 1 day at university with tutorials; email/ phone if issues arise
one visit per annum, no day back (students complained it was too costly) but in contact with students by email/phone
Only employers new to scheme or problem placements are visited; two days back in university
Work required by employers
Employer report at end of placement/ supervisor verifies work log monthly
Debriefing report of variable quality
Employer produces a report
Workload by course coordinator/ placement tutor
Not monitored
Workload allocation of ½ module
Placement part of workload allocation of Diploma year, which is a total of 100 hours per annum
Workload of other staff (e.g. administrator/ personal tutor)
Not monitored
No administrative support
Organisation all done by Administrator (undergraduate secretary)
28
Making a Case for Complementarity of Student Learning
Cardiff University (Wales)
Heriot-Watt University (Scotland)
University of Newcastleupon-Tyne (England)
Value (e.g. RTPI accreditation, APC)
Placement could count for up to 12 months toward the minimum required time in practice of two years for RTPI. Placement year is useful recruiting device for school
More employable but no insurance for recruitment success
RTPI accreditation, professional experience, advantage when seeking future employment. Placement year is useful recruiting device
Types of placements
Mix of government, local authorities and consultancies
Various
Split about 50/50 between private consultancies and local authorities
Issues
More demanding criteria for work log recording introduced by RTPI and students’ inability to reflect adequately on experiences. Narrowness of work experience could be detrimental in respect to APC requirement
More demanding criteria for work log recording introduced by RTPI and students’ inability to reflect adequately on experiences. VLE sounds like a good idea (discussion boards)
More demanding criteria for work log recording introduced by RTPI and students’ inability to reflect adequately on experiences
Identifying learning outcomes from placements Planning students on placements work either in the public sector (local councils, city planning departments, government planning divisions), semi-public sector (transport authorities, heritage trusts) or, increasingly, in the private sector (planning consultancies). The second part of this research looked at what and how students learn while at work. Five university placement tutors based at the three universities offering year-long placements conducted semi-structured interviews with a total of 14 students as part of their workplace visit. At the time of the interview all students had been at the workplace for at least four months, with some being close to completion.
29
Frank
Participation was voluntary and participants were selected to include different employment sectors. Interviews focused on identifying significant accomplishments and deconstructing them to reveal skills developed and knowledge acquired as well as learning approaches and support structures that students had drawn on to complete the task (e.g. asking supervisors or relying on past experiences). Students were asked to reflect on their most challenging task based on two assumptions: 1) personal learning and growth is proportionate to the size of the challenge, and 2) challenging tasks require students to use support structures to complete them. Consequently, it was hoped that the query would also identify learning approaches applied and support structures used (or missed) by the student. In addition, students were also prompted to reflect on how they had progressed (see Appendix A for interview proforma and prompts). Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using content analysis techniques and software (Nvivo). Whilst each student interview revealed a very personal story of discovery and learning, the analysis sought to distil common themes. Three broad topics in terms of learning and skills development emerged around 1) interaction with members of the public/strangers, 2) working on complex, large projects and writing reports, and 3) maintaining interest and motivation. Four of 14 students identified direct interaction with members of the public as the most challenging task, either on the phone or face-toface, leading to considerable anxiety and nervousness: I am quite shy and having to speak to all these different people was difficult. I get quite nervous especially when I can’t see them and I find it really hard and get stressed and tongue-tied. I was nervous whether I was going to do it without error because if I messed it up, they (people on the phone) would have to file another enquiry. (Student 1) The challenge of answering queries from members of the public clearly arose from the student’s perception that callers expected to get a definitive answer and solution on the spot. Yet students initially felt they had insufficient knowledge of planning applications and planning procedures to respond without deferring answers to a future date, giving them the necessary time to gather the information from colleagues. One student found it stressful to convey bad news; for example, that there was nothing the department could do about certain developments, as periods for any objections had passed. 30
Making a Case for Complementarity of Student Learning
This student observed that, by and large, it was easier to converse with other built environment professionals such as surveyors or architects than the general public, as there was a shared language, understanding and terminology derived from university studies. Two responses related to face-to-face interaction during public participation exercises. The students felt nervous about their role of having to initiate and maintain a dialogue with members of the public. The students astutely realised that what they asked and how they framed their questions would influence responses, and thus the outcome of the consultation. One student involved in a participation project with schoolchildren found the exercise particularly daunting as consulting with very young children was a completely new endeavour for the place she worked in: I could think of other challenging aspects but I also had other people to talk to about it … but this was more on your own and that kind of thing. Another set of challenging tasks that a large group of students identified was associated with the production of a larger piece of written work (report to the council, planning statement, or community newsletter) that required a significant level of independent work, for which the student had to make a series of judgements and decisions on his/her own. Tasks generally required sifting out relevant information from a variety of documents, or collecting and analysing a diverse set of data or policies and distilling information into a new kind of document. Large projects were thought to be challenging owing to the necessity to deal with a multiplicity of different elements that had to be incorporated, or ‘pulled together’: I had to look at the background and research around and make an analysis for the projection of the housing figures and then look at technical reports and summarise them and draw up a conclusion and a good planning policy. Basically so many tasks in one report and some subtasks were really hard. In some cases, students were given novel, not well understood projects without any precedents, so it was difficult to get help or find colleagues to consult with: Most difficult was that nobody had any info about the process (for developing supplementary planning guidance) they go through. … I did seek help from another colleague who was really interested in the agenda, so she was working on changes across the board while I was looking at this detail … It was really my project … 31
Frank
Two of the individuals interviewed stated that none of the tasks they were given posed an intellectual challenge and their biggest challenge was a motivational one. In one case, the student was asked to repeatedly perform routine tasks such as retail surveys or checking the progress of local authorities in updating plans, which were found boring. Another issue was that the students were asked to do small elements of work which contributed to larger projects in the office, without receiving explanations on the context or being invited to see the bigger picture, which they perceived as demotivating.
Student learning approaches and support Students applied a variety of approaches to accomplish their tasks. For example, a student anxious about phoning strangers to collect data developed a list of questions as a means to keep focused and to avoid forgetting to ask for vital information. Another student, who had to facilitate a public consultation, rehearsed questions and dialogue with relatives and via dry runs ‘in a room by myself’, while a third student thought that prior work experience in retail in a small town corner store where everyone knows everyone else taught valuable lessons about the importance of being friendly and amiable when dealing with the public, and that such an attitude was also helpful in the successful management of public consultations. In many cases, students spoke to colleagues to collect necessary information to address queries. These were not always their superiors or line managers, but individuals working on a similar or related topic. Students working in development control learned much about how to respond to certain types of applications by listening to discussions in team meetings. For written work, students tended to look at existing examples as models for formatting and style to gauge what was expected of them. Some of the hardest tasks, however, were those for which something more original was needed without pre-existing examples to study. In such cases, students fell back on prior learning at university in the form of research skills training and essay writing, together with a trialand-error approach to adjust the work according to feedback from superiors. Two students reported they benefited from information technology training at university, particularly, their introduction to Geographic Information Systems. Modules on the planning system and planning law were also found helpful insofar as they familiarised students with professional jargon. Still, many students conceded that at university they never really comprehended the planning system 32
Making a Case for Complementarity of Student Learning
fully and only through the experience at the workplace did things start to make sense. A student also related that, at work, one was required to use concepts in more detail than at university: I have learnt to go into more detail … like for example transport planning, one has to look at exact measurements, instead of learning just the idea of things. In that sense, what I learnt in Uni really came together. Some placement students received in-house training for particular software that the organisation used, and some students were encouraged to attend seminars and training away from the office. The latter was more common in public sector employment: one student, for example, went on an effective writing course which helped in subsequent preparation of reports, and another participated in a day-long seminar on urban design evaluation. In contrast, training and continued professional education in private sector employment appeared to be more ad hoc and task-oriented. Mentoring and supervisor feedback varied vastly across all interviews. Some supervisors were very conscientious and aware of the link between feedback and learning, others less so. There were noticeable differences in attitudes toward students on placement at the organisational level. At one end of the scale, employing organisations are clearly committed to provide a supportive learning environment, with a supervisor devising a structured work programme whereby the student gathers experiences in different divisions to maximise exposure to a diversity of planning tasks while also taking into account a student’s interests. At the other end of the scale, organisations treat students as junior staff members who will hopefully develop quickly a level of productivity and expertise to ‘earn their keep’. This is not to say that such employers do not provide student support, in fact, quite the contrary. The student may get a lot of support initially to develop a fairly high level of expertise and proficiency in one aspect of planning, but may not get much opportunity to learn about other aspects of planning during the year. Student progression and growth Students generally thought their task performance – particularly but not exclusively – for routine tasks improved over time: I have got faster at some things, because when you first start you don’t know where things are. For example when I filled in the database, the first time I had ten applications it took the entire 33
Frank
day, now I can do it in half an hour and I think, why did it take me all that time in the beginning? The majority of students noted an improvement in general office skills and particularly phone skills as well as more awareness of the quality of their own contributions: … in looking at my work I am scanning it for mistakes instead of thinking that it is alright, also looking at the correction from other colleagues realising that not every first draft is perfect, so I do now always read over my own work … Developing (working) relationships with colleagues was also a skill that students frequently mentioned as something they felt more adept at after a few months in the office. Although most students went into the workplace feeling that they knew literally nothing, several discovered that they did possess valued skills. One student who deemed his information technology skills only average found that they were nevertheless superior to those of his senior office colleagues. Being able to assist others with formatting documents and importing images made him feel good and boosted his confidence. All students reported a higher level of confidence in their own abilities based on their performance and achievements. Students’ understanding of the planning system and the roles of different stakeholders (developer, public, council, etc.) was improved, and one student reported an improved trust in the viability of the planning system.
Discussion A key characteristic of WBL programmes is their reliance on a partnership between an education provider and an external employer, whereby the learner typically is an employee in that external organisation. Learning is linked to work and is negotiated between the employer, the educational provider and the learner (Boud et al., 2001, pp.4-5). Researchers have suggested that there is a historical progression to the development of modern WBL programmes and that traditional, practice-based course elements such as placements, sandwich years or cooperative education years could be, and are, increasingly used to deliver specific learning outcomes rather than being gratuitous workplace experiences (Boud et al., 2001, p.7). The placement year in town planning, as it is currently operated at UK institutions, appears for the most part to follow old traditions 34
Making a Case for Complementarity of Student Learning
rather than modern WBL approaches, by merely contributing to the preparation of students for practice in quite general terms. Learning is implicitly hoped for rather than explicit and assessed, with the exception perhaps of Cardiff University’s placements, where students produce assessed assignments in parallel with working. Knowledge of ‘political, institutional and organisational context of planning practice’ (Cardiff University, 2008, p.7), for example, is examined through an assignment for which students analyse the organisational structure, processes and staff roles at their workplaces. Apart from this, the bulk of learning outcomes during the placement, be it the development of planning and transferable skills or an improved ‘understanding of the planning system in managing change in the built and natural environment’ (Cardiff University, 2008, p.7) – an objective that addresses RTPI indicative learning outcomes nos 5, 10 and 12 (RTPI 2003, section 6.8) – is documented by students in a work experience log with little university involvement (superficial or no assessment) and variable employer engagement. In addition, with only a pass/fail marking of this work log, students see the value of the work experience documentation as, at most, only contributing to fulfilling the requirements for RTPI membership (MRTPI). This is problematic. A mere formality in the past, the move from a ‘timein-practice’ criterion to an assessment of competencies for MRTPI (in 2005) has significant implications for the validity of the placement year documentation. Tutors from all institutions expressed concern about students’ inability to reflect and record their learning in a style that addresses the new RTPI requirements. Logs need to go beyond a descriptive account of technical skills and tasks, and need to include critical reflection in action, with tasks being related to the learning outcomes delineated for the planning profession (RTPI, 2004). And whilst universities have changed the format of the log book template and guidance, there is no training offered for students in reflective writing despite Moon’s assertion that reflective writing requires practice (Moon, 2004). In fact, the current placement year philosophy of the institutions examined provides mixed and contradictory messages for students. The relaxed approach to assessment, and the lack of contribution of credits and marks earned during the placement to the final degree classification stands in stark contrast to the importance of reflective learning from work and its documentation for future APC when individuals apply for RTPI membership one or two years after postgraduate degree completion. The minimal involvement of university tutors with students at the workplace and variable supervision practices by employers are likely to provide insufficient support for students. It was illuminating how the research interviews
35
Frank
conducted for this study prompted the participants for the first time to truly contemplate their working practices and achievements. Owing to its implicit and informal nature, workplace learning is notoriously difficult to articulate, assess and evaluate (Reeders, 2000). Nevertheless, research conducted in this study and elsewhere shows that there are learning outcomes that can be identified. In particular, placement students identified learning around tasks such as a) effective interaction with the public, including phone skills and facilitating meetings and consultations, and b) working through large, complex projects independently. For most students, the work experience also reinforced theoretical knowledge acquired during their first years at university and deepened their understanding of the planning system. Whilst some of the skills and knowledge could also be provided through campus-based education (e.g. dealing with complex projects), others involving stakeholder interaction would be difficult or impossible to deliver. Hence, learning from work experience appears largely complementary to that provided through academic channels. This author believes there is a real opportunity for planning education programmes to further explore whether learning experiences from the placement year can be assessed, not only to contribute to professional APC but also to degree requirements and classification. While it may not be possible to reduce the degree length of programmes with placement years in the short term, curricula could become less crowded. Moreover, resourcestrapped institutions could focus on less costly teaching methods and approaches (Rosier, 1999) whilst maintaining or even increasing the practice-readiness and employability of future graduates. A year-long placement programme in planning with truly integrated WBL and assessment that carries equal weighting when compared to academic programme components would be a real innovation in terms of planning education provision in the UK. It would require both structural as well as cultural change and development, especially in respect of creating a more equal, balanced and enlightened partnership between education provider and employer(s). For many students the placement represents the first time in continuous fulltime work and not a few struggle to cope with workplace pressures. Without employers actively endorsing the importance of academic work, students experiencing conflicting demands on their time generally decide to prioritise work duties over academic assignments as ‘employers pay the salary’, whereas coursework by contrast bears little immediate reward. And whilst it is not necessary for APC purposes to cover the entirety of RTPI learning outcomes in a tickbox like fashion, students should gain as wide a range of planning experiences as possible instead of limiting their tasks to those most 36
Making a Case for Complementarity of Student Learning
profitable for the employer. As the issue of breadth of experience was less pertinent prior to 2005, planning schools and the RTPI will need to stress that this aspect of APC applies to placement students as well as graduates going through APC, regardless of whether schools decide to progress with a modernisation of their placement years or not. In summary, levels of commitment by both employers and universities alike would have to be increased for such a scenario to be successful. In the case of planning, a single organisation is rarely in the position to take on more than one or two students per annum. This means students do not only experience very different workplaces and are involved in different planning tasks but it is difficult to guarantee a similar quality of supervision and support at the workplace. On the employer side, commitment is needed to invest in supervisor training as well as a will to organise work programmes in collaboration with the student and university. On the university side, more involvement in supporting students is needed; for example, by developing selfreflection skills prior to the placement year so learning can be recorded and documented in a meaningful and assessable manner. University tutors likewise need to be trained in workplace learning and assessment methods. Students may need to have more interaction time with academics during the year, but there is little research on how much interaction is useful or necessary, and when such interaction or the lack thereof becomes an impediment in WBL. Modern technology – such as virtual learning environments, online discussion forums and email – may provide helpful tools to increase the level of interaction of dispersed student cohorts without extensive cost. Students generally stay in touch with selected groups of friends through email for social matters but ways would have to be found to stimulate structured exchanges of experiences and further reflection on learning through peer dialogue. There is not yet a tradition in planning where employers are unilaterally willing to embrace an enhanced role and responsibility in initial and continued education of planners (although the RTPI is encouraging this). The structure of the sector with many small- to medium-sized employers is not likely to be ideal for WBL programmes and it is unclear whether such programmes could be sustained through economic downturns. The commitment over consecutive years necessary for setting up such a programme may limit the number of employers willing and able to participate. No doubt incentives for employers will have to be built into such schemes (e.g. in form of agreements by students to return to work for a particular employer after graduation).
37
Frank
Conclusion Town planning is a professional field that values practical experience in university graduates highly, and, indeed, practice helps to clarify and bring to life the complex realities of the work environment. Ideally, planners (like architects) continually refine their performance by reflecting on the results of their activities (Schön, 1987). It has never been in doubt that education providers should include practical skills development in one form or other in their courses and that ideally they should be inculcated into the tradition of reflection in action. How this is best achieved is contested. For some time, placement or sandwich years have fallen out of favour to facilitate learning for (reflective) practice. Instead, other forms of alternative teaching methods are employed to develop students’ practice skills. From this study, it appears that one factor contributing to the demise of placement years is that the learning associated with the work experience is not integrated into the course with equal weighting as academic elements. This lessens the perceived value of the experience and results in students focusing on pleasing employers and earning a salary rather than relishing the educational experience. Helping students to become more aware of their own learning via reflective seminars or workshops is very much appreciated, as experiences with internship workshops and seminars by Freestone et al. (2006) and Brooks et al. (2002) demonstrate. Moreover, the changes in the requirements for the RTPI Assessment of Professional Competence place added responsibility on UK schools and employers to help students learn from work so that any experiences gained on placement become eligible to count towards membership application. In the current higher education climate, with its focus on widening participation and employability, it seems there are currently (unused) opportunities to develop planning education curricula that fully integrate WBL and foster early on an attitude of reflective practice and learning from experience. The research here indicates that learning at work complements that of campus-based provision. This means that universities and employers could arrange for a partnership in learning where each could focus on providing education that best suits their particular contexts. Naturally, the weighting of WBL elements in comparison to academic learning would need to be equalised. This, together with greater involvement of the university in the placement and its assessment and a greater commitment of employers to provide a supportive learning environment for students, would make for a new model of planning education. Further research should explore if and what the differences are in learning that derive from 38
Making a Case for Complementarity of Student Learning
shorter work experiences or simulated work experiences, as opposed to longer, 12-month immersive ones, and how mutually rewarding partnerships between universities and private industry, the public sector and consultancies could be encouraged and structured to enhance student learning. Acknowledgement This research was funded by the Higher Education Academy and would not have been possible without the support from university placement tutors and their students.
References Askew, J. (2004) The agency project: a case study, Transactions, vol.1, no.1, pp.826, available at (accessed March 2010). Baum, H.S. (1997) Teaching practice, Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol.17, no.1, pp.21-29. Boud, D., Keogh, R. & Walker, D. (eds) (1985) Reflection: turning experience into learning, London: Kogan Page. Boud, D. & Solomon, N. (eds) (2001) Work-based Learning: a new higher education? Buckingham and Philadelphia: The Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press. Boud, D., Solomon N. & Symes, C. (2001) New practices for new times, in D. Boud & N. Solomon (eds) Work-based Learning: a new higher education? Buckingham and Philadelphia: The Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press. Brooks, K.R., Nock, B.C., Farris, J.T. & Cunningham, M.G. (2002) Teaching for practice: implementing a process to integrate work experience in an MCRP curriculum, Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol.22, pp.188-200. Brown, C., Claydon, J. & Nadin, V. (2003) The RTPI’s Education Commission: context and challenges, Town Planning Review, vol.74, no.3, pp.333-345. Cardiff University (2008) BSc City and Regional Planning Placement Year in Practice – information and guidance for students and employing organisations, Cardiff: School of City and Regional Planning. Castells, M. (1998) The education of city planners in the information age, Berkeley Planning Journal, vol.12, pp.25-31. CEBE (2006) Summary of initial findings on WBL in Town/City Planning, Project Report available from (accessed April 2009). Eraut, M., Maillardet, F.J., Miller, C., Steadman, S., Ali, S., Blackman, C. & Furner, J. (2004) Learning in the Workplace, relationships between learning factors and contextual factors, San Diego: AERA 2004 conference. Freestone, R., Thompson, S. & Gray, D. (2006) Student experiences of work-based learning in planning education, Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol.26, pp.237-249.
39
Frank
Friedmann, J. (1996) The core curriculum in planning revisited, Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol.15, no.2, pp.89-104. Gray, D. (2001) Higher Education Academy Guide on Assessment: a briefing on work-based learning, York: Higher Education Academy. Harris, N. (2004) Experiential learning in built environment education, Transactions, vol.1, no.1, pp.3-7, available from (accessed April 2010). Higgins, M. & Simpson, F. (1997) Work-based Learning Within Planning Education: a good practice guide, London: Discipline Network in Town Planning, University of Westminster Press. Kitson, A. (1993) The business studies sandwich degree: a flawed model and expensive failure? Journal of Further and Higher Education, vol.17, pp.52-61. Knight, S. (1985) Reflection and Learning: the importance of a listener, in D. Boud, R. Keogh & D. Walker (eds) Reflection: turning experience into learning, London: Kogan Page. Kurth, D. (2009) [Personal conversation.] Moon, J. (2004) A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning, London: Kogan Page. Nixon, I., Smith, K., Stafford, R. & Camm, S. (2006) Work-based Learning: illuminating the higher education landscape, Report to the DFES and HEA, available from (accessed February 2007). Reeders, E. (2000) Scholarly Practice in Work-based Learning: fitting the glass slipper, Higher Education Research & Development, vol.19, pp.205-220. Rosier, D.J. (1999) The three-year undergraduate planning program and … practice! practice! practice! Australian Planner, vol.36, no.3, pp.142-145. RTPI (2003) RTPI Education Commission Report, London: Royal Town Planning Institute. RTPI (2004) Policy Statement on Initial Planning Education, available from (accessed April 2009). RTPI (2005) Guide to the Assessment of Professional Competence, available from (accessed February 2007). Schön, D. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner, San Francisco: JosseyBass. Stephenson, J. (1998) Supporting student autonomy in learning, in J. Stephenson & M. Yorke (eds) Capability and Quality in Higher Education, London: Kogan Page.
40
Making a Case for Complementarity of Student Learning
APPENDIX A: Interview proforma and prompt cards This pro-forma provides prompts for placement student interviews. Please supplement your transcripts with some general context about the student’s workplace e.g. size of practice, size/autonomy of team, type of work carried out, etc. Please ensure that all references to the student, their practice and projects within the practice are anonymous. Question
Comment / Supplementary questions
What do you regard as the most challenging task or activity that you had to do during your year out?
This task need not necessarily be something that the students did on their own, but may have been done as part of a group.
Notes
The task or activity should represent a reasonably substantial activity so that possibilities exist for detailed descriptions of the processes incurred. If the student did not have a challenge that could be probed in sufficient depth, they should be asked to identify a further area for discussion.
What did the task or activity involve?
The student should give a detailed description of what was involved, including the roles of other parties.
Why did you regard it as challenging?
What was new about the activity?
How did the challenge relate to other activities carried out in the year out?
In terms of degree of challenge.
What were their feelings about the challenge (frightening, exciting, daunting etc.)?
In terms of what had been previously learned in the workplace.
41
Frank
Question
Comment / Supplementary questions
In what ways did the mechanisms shown on the prompt card help you in completing the task?
Show students a copy of prompt card 1.
If you were asked to do a similar task again, in what ways do you think it would it be easier?
Interviewees should identify why they think it would be easier.
Interviewees should be encouraged to give specific examples of how they utilised the items on the prompt sheet and why.
What do they know now that they didn’t know before completing that task? Have they become more confident in their ability to complete the task? Why? What would they do differently next time?
What feedback did your receive from your colleagues as a result of carrying out the task?
In what ways was this feedback useful?
Overall, in what ways have you progressed in the areas shown on the prompt card?
Show students a copy of prompt card 2.
In what ways did your firm support you in carrying out the task?
Ask them to identify and explain the extent to which they have developed in each of the eight areas below. Which were a result of carrying out a particular challenge (why?). Which might have just generally improved whilst in the office (why?).
42
Notes
Making a Case for Complementarity of Student Learning
Prompt Card 1 Please give specific examples of how you utilised the items below when learning how to complete your task or activity. 1.
Your prior education in your school of planning and your prior experience in practice.
2.
Your general observations of practice/work processes.
3.
Written/electronic materials.
4.
Consultation, collaboration and support with/from your supervisor.
5.
Consultation, collaboration and support with/from your immediate colleagues/team.
6.
The challenge of the work itself.
7.
Consultation and collaboration with people outside your immediate colleagues.
8.
Consultation with your peers in other placements.
9.
Life outside work.
10. Trial and error (or learning from mistakes). 11. Special events/courses organised by your university or employer.
43
Frank
Prompt Card 2 Please identify which of these areas you have developed during your time in practice.
44
•
To what extent was this a result of the challenge you spoke of earlier? Please explain why and how.
•
To what extent was the development the result of generally being in the office? Explain why and how.
1.
Task Performance, which includes speed and fluency and the development of the appropriate skills and know-how. This might also include knowing where to find help and being able to communicate with those able to give help.
2.
Awareness and Understanding of your workplace contexts, your colleagues and other people you have to work with.
3.
Personal Development, which might include managing oneself, becoming self-critical, building relationships and handling emotions.
4.
Teamwork, including working with others, joint planning and problem solving, engaging in mutual learning.
5.
Role Performance, which is learning how to perform your particular role, and might include leadership, prioritisation, crisis management, and range of responsibility.
6.
Academic Knowledge and Skills, such as the use of evidence and argument, theoretical thinking and learning how to use theories in practical situations.
7.
Decision Making and Problem Solving, including knowing when to seek expert help, dealing with complexity, solving problems in groups, generating, formulating and evaluating options and making decisions under pressurised conditions.
8.
Judgement of priorities, quality of performance, levels of risk and value issues.
Making a Case for Complementarity of Student Learning
About the author Andrea Frank is Deputy Director (Planning, Housing, Transport) of the Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Education in the Built Environment and senior lecturer in City and Regional Planning at Cardiff University, where she was responsible for the management of the placement year in her subject area from 2007-2011. She has been involved in projects on creativity, skills education, employability and entrepreneurship education, and work-based learning. As Chair of the School’s Learning and Teaching Committee she is responsible for teaching quality and enhancing the student learning experience.
45
