Student workshops and neighborhood revitalization

Checkoway, Barry; Cahill, William D.

doi:10.1007/bf01079430

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with theories of learning as a form of interaction with the environment, studies show that participation can strengthen academic achievement in the classroom and increase problem-solving capacity in the community (Checkoway and Cahill 1981;Conrad and Hedin 1991;Crabbe 1989). Consistent with theories of learning as a form of interaction with the environment, studies show that participation can strengthen academic achievement in the classroom and increase problem-solving capacity in the community (Checkoway and Cahill 1981;Conrad and Hedin 1991;Crabbe 1989).…”

Section: Local Services Developmentmentioning

confidence: 84%

Youth Participation in Community Planning: What are the Benefits?

Checkoway¹,

Pothukuchi²,

Finn³

1995

Journal of Planning Education and Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Local Services Developmentmentioning

confidence: 84%

Youth Participation in Community Planning: What are the Benefits?

Checkoway¹,

Pothukuchi²,

Finn³

1995

Journal of Planning Education and Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Instead, discussions about planning education revolve around course content and structure, numbers of graduates being produced, the job market, and the relationship between educational institutions and the planning profession (Healey and Samuels 1981;McLoughlin 1982;Krueckeberg 1985). There have been some innovative attempts at experiential learning involving planning students in local community action (Checkoway and Cahill 1981;Checkoway 1985). Reade (1981) has provided a thoroughgoing critique of &dquo;project work&dquo; in planning education.…”

Section: Millmentioning

confidence: 97%

Experiential Learning in Planning Education

Tyson¹,

Low²

1987

Journal of Planning Education and Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the authors'views on the radical use of experiential learning in a planning course. The paper begins by comparing theories of education, explaining what is meant by the radical approach, and arguing for the adoption of such an approach in planning education. A well-known conceptual model of experiential learning is briefly outlined, that of D. A. Kolb, and an illustrative example is given of a particular experience: an intensive five-day workshop which formed the core of a planning course for thirdyear students at the University of Melbourne. Reflecting upon their own experience, the authors propose a modification to Kolb's model in line with the radical approach. Finally they discuss the implications of adopting such an approach in a conventional academic setting. B. Trevor Tyson and Nicholas P. Low are lecturers m the School of Environmental Planning at the University of Melbourne, Australia Tyson's focus m teaching and research is group and organisational dynamics, Low's is the politics of planning at the state, organisational and group levels. The authors have in the last seven years collaborated In developing courses which employ a radical experiential approach to teaching planning and decision-making. IntroductionExperiential learning arises from the first-hand experience of the learner. It involves the whole person in thinking, feeling, and acting. Its focus is the presenthere, now, I, you, we. It stems from the self and involves reflection on the self, and it can, therefore, bring about personal growth. Experiential learning is to be contrasted with learning acquired by listening to lectures, reading books, and analyzing statistics, all of which direct attention to &dquo;them&dquo; at another time and in another place. We do not argue against the latter kind of learning -we argue merely that experiential learning is necessary to bring about a shift from the entrenched traditional model of education to &dquo;adult learning&dquo; (Brundage and MacKeracher 1980;Brookfield 1986), &dquo;selfdirected&dquo; learning (Knowles 1975;Brookfield 1985), or &dquo;autonomous learning&dquo; (Boud 1981).In this paper, we open up for discussion a neglected field in the literature of planning education, that of the processes and methods of teaching and learning. We present our own perspective and describe our experience. In doing so we hope that the meaning of the paragraph above will become clearer.The paper falls into two parts. The first presents an introduction to education theory and its place in the current discussion of the education of urban planners. We show how experiential learning is associated with a

show abstract

“…First, the neighborhood is unorganized and fragmented, then pnmary institutions bring individuals together to share common concerns and accomplish limited objectives, then citizens organize to deal with housing and other issues, then the organization recruits members, builds support, and becomes a political entity of substance and power, and finally the organization represents the entire neighborhood, widens the range of issues, and delivers programs and services affecting all aspects of social and political life Organization serves to mobilize individuals, develop a program, and generate power. One Chicago organization was already well-known and respected outside the neighborhood when they decided to draft a plan The availability of an attractive, technically proficient product helped confirm its image among constituents and provide legitimacy among funding sources (Checkoway and Cahill 1981) But the process of preparing a neighborhood plan can also have disadvantages. But it may also involve efforts to sweep the streets, knock on doors, pack a public hearing, and confront the powerholders It is not a one-time process to produce a singular plan, but a continuous and multifaceted process to develop capacity It is not a form of mandated participation in which citizens provide input to plans developed elsewhere, or of advocacy planning in which advocates develop plans to serve local interests, but of community development in which people strengthen themselves as well as their communities Neighborhood planning organizations may produce written plans These plans generally are not comprehensive but sectoral, not long-range but immediate, not a series of colored designs describing an ideal future but a statement of practical problems and community-based stategy searching for resources.…”

Section: Neighborhood Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two Types of Planning in Neighborhoods

Checkoway

1984

Journal of Planning Education and Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper distinguishes between &dquo;subarea planning&dquo; in which central planning agencies deconcentrate facilities or functions to subareas, and &dquo;neighborhood planning&dquo; in which community residents and organizations develop plans and programs for themselves This distinction is overdue and not trivial, for little of the growing discussion of neighborhoods carefully discriminates among alternative meanings Yet each type of planning has different ends, and much of what passes today as neighborhood planning is actually subarea planning in disguise. This paper draws on a review of research and practice on planning in neighborhoods concerned with housing rehabilitation, economic development, physical improvement, and social services It analyzes each type of planning, its objectives and methods, major participants and obstacles, and impacts and factors influencing practice It concludes that these are distinct movements important to separate, each motivated by distinct ends and values, each implying distinct roles for planners, planning, and planning education and research

show abstract

Student workshops and neighborhood revitalization

Cited by 10 publications

References 14 publications

Youth Participation in Community Planning: What are the Benefits?

Youth Participation in Community Planning: What are the Benefits?

Experiential Learning in Planning Education

Two Types of Planning in Neighborhoods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About