professional development at ucla

This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois Chicago]On: 27 November 2014, At: 12:18Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of the American Institute of PlannersPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa19

Professional Development at UCLAAllan David HeskinPublished online: 27 Nov 2007.

To cite this article: Allan David Heskin (1978) Professional Development at UCLA, Journal of the American Institute ofPlanners, 44:4, 436-451, DOI: 10.1080/01944367808976922

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944367808976922

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa19

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01944367808976922

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944367808976922

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

From Theory to Practice: Professional Development at UCLA Allan David Heskin

Reformers have argued that field work should be central to the planning curriculum, but only a few schools have responded to this call. This article reports on an experiment under way at UCLA which applies and teaches the learning systems theory in a nine-month sequence of courses. The courses planning program. usually taken in a student’s first year include the

introductory planning course and two quarters of field work combined with a seminar. The article includes both theoretical constructs and practical applications. It concludes with student responses and an analysis of the impact of the effort on the

In July, 1970, an issue of this journal was devoted to the subject of reshaping planning education. Many reforms were suggested. Among these reforms was a strong and repeated call for field work or clinical experience as a central part of planning education. Chester Hartman, guest editor of the issue, stated, “Field work must become an established and substantial part of the program in order to give students a flavor of the changing real world and how it affects their roles and tools” (p. 219). Donald Schon, in a comment, agreed, stating, “Teaching must be as clinical as possible” (p. 220). Schon contended that clinical experience was necessary to help students prepare themselves for new and changing roles in planning. He saw clinical experience as part of the movement toward the formation of “learning systems” and a “learning society.” In the same issue, William Doebele argued that field work was essential if planning educa-

Allan Heskin is an assistant professor of planning at UCLA where he is coordinator of the field work program. Previously he was employed at the field studies program at the University of Cali- fornia, Berkeley, where many of the techniques described in the article were developed.

tion was to become relevant. He pointed out that field work was an essential part of the curriculum of other professional schools. Recognizing that student advocacy planning work was taking place (see, for example, Hartman 1970), he called for more. He suggested that students should be working for agencies and clients across the broad spectrum of planning rather than just in advocacy positions. He felt that a strong clinical program could help monitor the relevance of the planning curriculum, give a sense of urgency and motiva- tion, generate interdisciplinary experiences, bridge cultural gaps, introduce a new rhythm in students’ lives, and suggest research priorities (Doebele 1970).

The idea that field work should be included in the planning school curriculum was, of course, not new in 1970.’ In many schools, field work was already required for entering students without extensive planning experience (Harder 1969). The reformers, however, wanted more than what was taking place at the time. They wanted field work integrated into the school’s curriculum; they wanted it to be central and substantial. At most schools, students did their field work in the summer between the first and second years away from any university supervision. At some schools

436 AIP JOURNAL

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

2:18

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14

students had to report on the nature of their activities, but only after they had left their jobs. Those who did work during the school year at schools granting credit were supervised by individual faculty members, but the quality of the educational dialogue between students and faculty was uneven at best. Almost the entire burden of integrating theory and practice had to be carried by the students. While some excelled at learning from experience and relating experience to theory, others found their field work meaningless or unrelated to what was being taught in the classroom.

In 1975, this pattern of organizing field work was broken at UCLA. As part of a search for a way to systematically integrate theory and practice, an experiment was begun, one which was much more consistent with the suggestions of the reformers of 1970.2 The experiment involves an attempt to teach to learning systems approach to planning, as suggested by Schon, as part of the school’s core curriculum. The primary elements of this effort, known as the professional development series, are the modification of the introductory course in planning to include instruction in the learning systems method as suggested by Schon, followed by two quarters of internship at placements in the array suggested by Doebele combined with a practice and theory ~ e m i n a r . ~ This article describes and reports on the progress of this experiment.

The introduction of the learning systems approach into planning made it possible to develop an academi- cally viable field work p r ~ g r a m . ~ Prior to the elabora- tion of the theory it was never clear what might be done in the university on a regular basis to aid students trying to learn from experience. The learning systems approach is an attempt to articulate theoretically the essence of effective professional practice. As the name suggests, this theory has learning as its central metaphor. The good professional is one who can learn not only in the passive classroom sense, but also in the active sense, in practice. This in no way rejects the importance of theory, but rather recognizes the need of the professional to formulate minitheories or developmental hypotheses which link both practice and theory in the day-to-day function of planning. These minitheories may or may not have long lives. Their purpose is to allow for their conscious testing toward more sophisticated practice. As situations change, these theories in practice must change.

In order to learn from practice, a great deal of clarity about oneself and the world must be achieved. One must develop the ability to see the world and understand one’s own and others’ views of reality. At the same time, one must come to understand how individuals and systems learn. This requirement places a great deal of emphasis on understanding social processes in addition to substantive issues. The attempt is to study planning in motion, rather than from a static perspective, and to learn how to direct that

motion-to be active and reflective at the same time. The planner must develop a broad ability to question while being able to marshal the forces necessary for action. Because of the difficulty of gaining such clarity, mutual dialogue with others engaged in the same search is essential. It is in the sharing and comparing of views in an educational environment that clarity can be attained.

Planners soon learn that they, as well as the system they form with others, are as much the subject of study as are those with whom they interact. In this sense, the exercise becomes as much goal seeking as goal achiev- ing (McCashey 1977). The questions of what ought to be done and how to do it soon come to the fore. While authority in practice or academe might cut off these lines of inquiry, the better academic practice seems to be to ask increasingly basic questions so students might have practice making choices in a supportive atmosphere.

What the method leads to is a substantial merger of the political and the scientific. Planners gain a better understanding of social systems and social processes, and in learning to marshal forces to test hypotheses in action they are better prepared to act. Planning with its constantly changing face and planners with their many changing roles and careers seem particularly suited to this method.

T o this point the description of the learning sytem method has been somewhat abstract. In the following sections the particulars of the UCLA course sequence will be described, and case examples will illuminate the theory. Keep in mind that the course has intellectual content in addition to serving as a methods course.

The introductory course While the introductory course at UCLA has its

particular characteristics, on the surface it does not appear to be much different from the introductory courses of most major planning schools. In the first half of the course, an overview is given of the historical, ideological, and theoretical forces that have shaped the practice of planning, and the various professional roles of the planner are explored. In addition, planning education is reviewed as a response to changing needs, and concerns of professional planning ethics are introduced. The second half of the course is devoted to a review of each of the specialized areas of policy concentration (APCs) which are central to the school’s c u r r i ~ u l u m . ~ A substantial portion of the school’s faculty lectures in the course, and recent graduates of the school are brought into the classroom to discuss their experiences as students in relation to their professional practice. Readings are assigned from professional planning literature as well as from more specialized sources. ._

OCTOBER 1978 437

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

2:18

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14

What makes this introductory course different from other courses is both the style of teaching and the requirement that students become increasingly conscious of themselves and the process in which they are engaged. The course is taught in learning systems fashion. The assumed educational value of each part of the course is explained and the validity of each assumed value is examined as the course progresses. Where appropriate, modifications are consciously made. Some students indicate in their evaluations they feel they are part of an experiment.

Skills diagnosis The learning systems thinking process is begun with

the pragmatic diagnosis of each student’s skill level. Skills diagnosis is conducted through simulations in

the areas of graphics, synthesis, oral presentation, writing, and group process. In some instances the diagnosis is done by the individual and in other situations by a group of students or a faculty member. In every case the students are asked what they learned by doing the simulations. For many students, this is a startling question. They had never been asked to be so immediately aware of their learning process.

In the first portion of the course, after an initial lecture-discussion on the importance of ideology in planning, students working in groups of six are asked to make a graphic presentation of their collective ideologies. These presentations are examined by the students and faculty in an attempt to derive primary elements of graphic communication. The process employed by each group in deriving the graphics also is discussed.

Birds in this healthy and dying tree represent student relation- ships to activist-humanist and bureaucratic planning approaches.

438

.-

AIP JOURNAL

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

2:18

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14

A wheel of planning fortunes shows students as cars on various ideological roads.

After discussion of the importance of planning history in understanding the planning profession, students now working in groups of eight meet to decide what issues in planning history should be the focus of their sessions. Each student then studies a ten-year period of planning history, outlines the key events, attempts a synthesis of this information, and makes a fifteen-minute presentation on how the issues of focus were developed during that period. A discussion follows on what made the presentation effective. Students are encouraged to learn from each other’s efforts and experiment with these lessons as their group moves from one period to the next.

Introducing the learning systems approach

In the second half of the course, the learning systems approach, already introduced and demonstrated in the graphics and presentation skill exercises, is presented in full. Following that lecture the class is again broken into groups of five people who remain together throughout the second half of the course. As faculty and professionals from each APC

lecture in the course, these groups assume the role of planning firms and complete assignments represent- ing each of the APCs. The projects are designed and evaluated by the appropriate faculty. A copy of the problem solution is read by a faculty member teaching the professional development series to diagnose the writing skill level of the students. If problems are dis- covered, the students are encouraged to participate in the campuswide writing skills clinic.

While the students are doing their projects, they are taught project management and group process skills. Although books are available and preliminary instruction is given, students primarily learn these skills in doing their assignments. They are asked to become conscious of process and to discuss not only how they will approach each assignment before beginning it, but also the lessons they have learned about process after it is completed. Each week, one student per group is responsible for the preparation of a paper which analyzes the group’s process.

The process papers represent the students’ first systematic attempt at testing their perceptions of reality and forming developmental hypotheses. The students first describe a portion of whatmok place

OCTOBER 1978 439

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

2:18

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14

within the group, then develop a theory which explains the behavior. Teaching students to describe what actually took place can be as difficult as encouraging the development of theories. The descriptions and minitheories relate to issues such as factors controlling levels of performance, the nature of effective leadership, or the impact of the type of problem on the process needed to quickly and efficiently resolve the problem.

The quality of a student’s description and theories may be tested in two ways. First, the process paper may be used as the basis of a discussion of the group members’ perspectives. Because of continued close involvement of the students, such discussions can be difficult; they do, however, seem useful. Second, the groups may choose to record their sessions. This allows the process paper writers to check their memory of what took place. In a number of cases, students have indicated shock at the differences between their recollections and the recordings and consequently turned more attention to developing the ability to perceive what is happening about them.

Each student concludes the course by synthesizing the readings, lectures, exercises, and simulations into a plan for his or her education at UCLA. Along with the participation level of the student in the course, these papers become the major factor in final grading.

job fair is similar to the typical AIP-ASP0 job fair at a conference. A booklet similar to Tub is prepared from job descriptions submitted by area planning agencies. Agency representatives come to interview students; they then list students in whom they are interested; and students list the agencies in which they are interested. The faculty of the professional development series matches the two lists. In most instances, agencies and students each receive their first or second choice.

Selecting the placements Selection of the agencies and jobs is one of the im-

portant and difficult parts of this style of education. The agencies must match students’ interests, the jobs must be of sufficient quality to provide a strong educational experience, and all jobs must have enough in common that classroom interchange will be beneficial.

To determine interest, all eligible students are polled-whether they wish to have an internship and what type of placement they would prefer.’ The faculty teaching the sequence then researches available jobs. When agencies hear of the structured nature of the program, most seem eager to participate. The primary exception has been consultants; although they have been open to students, the erratic nature of their business means that jobs are often unavailable within the time frame of the sequence.

Quality internships A quality internship is one with substantial potential

for learning about the planning process both by parti-

Job fair Just before beginning the second quarter, a “job

fair” is held for all students continuing with or joining the second and third portions of the sequence.6 The

Matching of students and agencies occurs at the job fair.

440 AIP JOURNAL

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

2:18

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14

cipation and by observation. The major factors in determining the quality of an agency are the importance of its work, the capabilities of the agency staff, the teaching ability of the student’s supervisor, the level of responsibility given the student, and the extent to which an agency will treat the student as an employee. The jobs must be equivalent to line positions and not consultancies. It must be understood that the student can be fired or can quit if the arrangement does not work out.

All the positions need not be of “top” quality. For teaching purposes, given an adequate minimum, vary- ing degrees of quality can provide important lessons in what makes for (more or less) effective planning. Furthermore, students are at different levels of development and may or may not be ready for first quality positions with a great deal of responsibility. For some students, learning to identify issues of effectiveness may be a valuable lesson. In addition, it is not unusual in the present state of planning that planners may have to learn to improve the quality of the jobs available to them. If a job is less than might be hoped for, students are encouraged to attempt to gain control of the situation and make it what they had anticipated. For students in this situation the learning systems approach has often proved useful.

Student applications of the learning systems approach

Two examples might prove instructive. In the first case, a student, who gave up a paying job to take a volunteer job exactly in line with his interests with a top quality professional, found himself running er- rands instead of planning. The student initially interpreted his assignments as a questioning of his ability and as an indication of mistrust. About to quit, he was asked to take a closer look at the situation. The closer examination yielded a hypothesis that, although the supervisor was an outstanding professional, she had not yet developed an ability to supervise other people. Starting from this point of view, the student developed a plan to teach the professional how to supervise him. The supervisor was a person who, partly out of necessity and partly out of tem- perament, had a charrette pattern of working. The student liked to work at a more steady pace. Seeing the problem in this way, he set about to anticipate and prepare for the next crisis. When it hit, he was ready. He proved himself invaluable, was accepted by the professional, and became a full partner in her work.

The second case was more complicated. A student who considered herself a social planner decided to take a position with a rather traditional, small city planning department. She wanted to understand what role she could play in such an agency before turning away from city planning departments toward social agencies. Upon taking thejob, the student learned that

OCTOBER 1978

the agency consciously avoided what it called social programs. Confronted with this situation, the student attempted to convince her supervisors to violate their rule in at least one instance. The office was heavily involved in neighborhood preservation programs, and the student tried to get them to mix preservation with programs to help low-income young people. At first she met a stone wall.

Toward the end of the internship she again ques- tioned the director about what his agency could and could not do. He responded that his department could most probably get anything it wanted accepted by the city council if he pushed hard enough. The student saw this as her opening. She began discussing her idea with staff members and was told she ought to bring it up at a staff meeting because it would be a good learning experience.

By this time, the student knew the staff and the director and also knew what their objections would be. She anticipated that many of the objections would relate to how the bureaucracy would accept the idea. Before the meeting, using her student status, she ran the idea through the bureaucracy and found complete acceptance. When the meeting occurred, she was ready with the arguments she knew would appeal to the staff and director. When she stated her arguments, she was met with typical bureaucratic responses. She told of her successful run through the system and then was met with some hostility from the director. She told him that she had used her student status and not represented the department. Still the director was hesitant about getting it through the council. When the student confronted the director with his own words, about being able to get anything past the council, the program was accepted.

The student’s skill is demonstrated in her report of a discussion between her and a member of the staff who always negated social planning. “You idealistic students think you can bring about social planning. Well, since your internship ends in June, if this program falls through, it doesn’t affect you at all. You won’t be here. We get shafted.” The student responded, “Believe me, I would feel terrible if you did, but if you put the program into effect, it’s because you decided to put it into effect. I don’t have any power around here; I only suggested the plan. So, as I said, if you implement it, it’s your decision, not mine. And, if you get shafted, don’t think you can blame it on me, because I’m not making you do anything.” The staff member apologized and said, “I know it’s our decision. It’s just that your arguments were so convincing that we have to do the program. You convinced us. You turned this department upside down today.”

As might be expected, not all such student efforts end in success. A less successful confrontation is discussed in the section on class sessions later in this article. However, only in one case has an office not invited students back the following year. IiTthe main,

44 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

2:18

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Student contact with agency staff is important aspect of work experience at the Community Design Center.

supervisors have been enthusiastic about the aggres- siveness and high interest demonstrated by students. The primary response has been that the supervisors wish there had been a course like this one when they were studying.

Grouping the placements Finding a set of proper internships that can be com-

bined to make up a class has been a particular problem at UCLA.8 In the first year of the program, a broad array of placements was obtained without regard to grouping, and classroom work suffered as a result. In the second year, grouping was made around a combination of issues, specializations, and geographic

location of the work done by the agencies. One section of the class focused on the city of Los Angeles, placing students in strategic positions in city government and private agencies so the students were likely to see the same issues from several points of view. In the other section, students were placed in regional and suburban locations. In both instances the classroom work seemed to have a great deal more coherence. In the third year (1977-78), the city class centered on community development and included state agencies with this focus. The regional class included federal agencies with a similar focus. Coordination in this way helps to address the issue of what do different types of planners have to say to each other?

The placements used in the professional development sequence thus far have included various city and county planning departments, councilmen’s offices, redevelopment agencies, advocacy and community development groups, specialized agencies on the city, county, and regional level, the regional planning agency, social agencies, consultants, and a developer. In the third year, state legislators as well as state and federal departmental offices were added. Students have worked in many sectors of planning, including land use, environment, housing, transportation, health, aging, parks and recreation, manpower training, and social planning. Assignments have varied greatly, from involvement with the grant process to preparing community plans to doing analysis of health needs on skid

Practice and theory seminar One essential for a successful internship in the

learning systems method is an accompanying educational structure in the university department. Without the contributions of the faculty, other students, and correlative readings, learning from experience can be haphazard. Although some students are gifted with the ability to work and think in practice and theory, most tend to “habituate” much of what they see and do (Ornstein 1972). Many phenomena are, in effect, in- visible, and biases often go unchallenged or are uncon- sciously reinforced.

It is clear that the learning systems approach is a method. As with quantitative methods, some students take to it, and others do not. Whether or not students should be required to expose themselves to such a course (just as they often are required to take courses in quantitative methods) becomes a policy question for the planning school. At UCLA, the professional development series is highly recommended, but it is not required. Students with substantial experience or those who are self-directed or who find group work uncomfortable and do not wish to change usually do not participate. About one-third of the students entering UCLA have substantial experience. Only a few of

442 AIP JOURNAL

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

2:18

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14

these students take the course. Among the others, from 80 to 85 percent have taken part.

The educational structure which has been generated at UCLA includes a weekly evening seminar, readings, a journal analyzing the field work during the second quarter of the series, and a paper written in the final quarter making a practice-and-theory analysis of some aspect of the work experience. Design of a seminar to accompany the internships is difficult; it must be of immediate relevance to the students, or it will not succeed. Simple exchanges of experience do not necessarily build students’ analytical abilities and can become boring. Substantive material, whether techni- cal or theoretical, which might be highly appreciated in another context may be rejected. Each week, the discussions, readings, and presentations must match students’ interests. To do this, the faculty must learn to match what has come to be known as the collective “rhythm of discovery” (Heskin 1977).

Rhythm of discovery The rhythm of discovery is a combination of (1) pat-

terns of student adjustments to their internships and (2) the sequence of questions that develop in their work. The usual adjustment pattern appears to be several weeks of haze, followed by several weeks of shock or fascination, followed by a sustained period of serious concern or curiosity, and ending with a focus on the self-reflection that has permeated the entire process.

Planning positions often develop slowly. Students’ roles are not clear for several weeks and the volume of undifferentiated information the students receive is substantial. This portion of the seminar is spent clarify- ing students’ learning goals, developing background material on the systems in which they are working, and meeting in small groups to aid their adjusting to the field and in sorting out the information they receive.

As the students become more accustomed to their work situation, questions about the nature of the work and the process of planning come into focus. These questions or reactions may take several forms. They may be directed toward the internship or toward the school or both. A student who considers planning a form of applied science in the public interest may be shocked by its political nature; a student believing in planning with people may be disturbed by the internal workings of a large bureaucracy; a student working in a planning department which appears to be inactive may be upset by the apparent inactivity; a student in an aggressive, effective agency may become fascinated with the source of that effectiveness. Any or all of these students may feel that there is a dis- junction between the planning school curriculum and what they are doing. Although student reactions at this point are apt to lack sophistication, it is important to

respond to them. The reactions are the energy which sustains the class, and they must be captured and directed.

To a certain extent, the questions identified by the students have been programed into the class by selecting the placements and the issues covered in the introductory course. With experience, this programing can become increasingly comprehensive. However, because of the breadth of the planning field, the many possible interests of the students, and the necessary change in the placements selected from year to year, each year’s class has some variations. For this reason, the faculty must always be sensitive to the particular situation. The journal helps the faculty by monitoring the development of student questions.

The journal The journal is an extension of the process papers

which were prepared in the introductory course. Students are asked to select major highlights from each week’s work and write a think piece, analyzing both the substance and process of their selection. Every other week, the series faculty reads these journals and comments on them, directing further analysis or sug- gesting readings which might illuminate the issues raised.1° Students are encouraged to ask questions and formulate hypotheses in their journal entries. The faculty member may ask additional questions or suggest alternative hypotheses. In this way, individual student questions are addressed and common themes emerging from various journals can be discussed in the classroom.

An examination of several exerpts from student- faculty exchanges should help illustrate the educational process. The exchanges are arranged in the order in which they occurred, from the beginning of the quarter to the end of that quarter.

1. A student reported on attending a staff meeting of his agency where the executive director chastised a planner for making a recommendation that the director considered politically infeasible.

The faculty member replied: “Your description of the staff meeting and executive director was excellent. I think you should use the experience to lead off our class discussion on the extent to which planning is science or politics and how the two interact. As far as the entry goes, however, you should have gone further than to describe what happened. This is only the first step to formulating issues. I would have liked to have heard more about what you thought about what you observed. What did you think of the director’s style of leadership? From what you say, it drove the staff to action. Will it kick back later in the process? Do the staff and director share a common purpose? How would you characterize the organization? Is it bureaucratic or some other form_? What did

OCTOBER 1978 443

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

2:18

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14

you think of the director’s stand? What would you have done if you were either the director or the planner?” 2. Shortly after the primary project manager had left, a student reported on adjustments taking place in the organization where she was working. She used such terms as information p o w , professional awareness, pawn, and wishy-washy organization in her entry.

The faculty member replied: “Your journal entry raised many interesting questions, but these questions were not as developed as they might have been. Many of the terms you used (referring to those above) were worth several pages of explanation and analysis. Each of them is in effect an hypothesis to be tested. All of these statements are laden with value and theoretical implications which you should be exploring.” 3. While describing the styles and ideologies of the two successive supervisors she had, noting that one was more pragmatic and the other tended toward radical, a student wondered how the two related.

The faculty member replied: “I got a kick out of your note in the margin regarding ideology and pragmatism. Are they necessarily contradictory? If you looked at Mao’s writings wouldn’t you find a pragmatic radical? Besides, isn’t pragmatism an ideology? Isn’t that why a la Lindblom’s disjointed incremental- ism, decisions are made on such an immediate basis? How does a radical move in the direction he or she chooses?” 4. Two students working on a project together became conscious of their different working styles. One

was careful and always thought in the long run, but was slow to act. The other responded quickly to immediate challenges with less concern for long-term implications. One student characterized the problem as one of irreconcilable life styles.

The faculty member replied to the student who thought of himself as overly cautious: “The style of this course is first to identify the problem in practice which is interfering with effectiveness and approach it in an experimental manner. You’ve said you’re becoming increasingly aware of your learning process. What you want to do now is tap that process to learn another skill. The skill which you have identified is the ability to deal with immediate unforeseen problems. If you look at it as a skill and not a style of life, perhaps you could master it without feeling it will disrupt the normal flow of your life. The question would be, of course, what would be the criteria you could use to determine when you use this skill. That you normally think in the long run is not a problem. Can’t it strengthen your ability to work on immediate problems? Why don’t you try an experiment and see what happens? If you want the help of the class, I’d encourage you to seek it.” 5. A student characterized her experiences in an advocacy agency as being the target of many forces.

The faculty member replied: “Your description of planners as people ‘in between’ was extraordinary. It goes together with the idea that emerged in the class that planning is what makes the sum of the parts greater than the whole. I really liked that metaphor.

Fa mi de

cts and figures comprise Jch of the work at the re- welopment agency.

444 AIP JOURNAL

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

2:18

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14

As I mentioned in class, your notion of two kinds of planners, professional and non-professional and how they work together, is straight out of John Friedmann’s Retracking America and you might want to read the chapter on “The Transactive Style of Planning.” Your placing a planner in a community as an advocate planner and a bridge was discussed by Donald Michaels in his Learning to Plan and Planning to Learn. However, Lisa Peattie in “Reflections on Advocacy Planning,” March, 1978,JAIP would differ with you on the solid- ness of the advocate’s community base.” 6. A student wrote about her strong social services background and the difficulty she experienced dealing with other theory sets and points of view. She com- mented on a lecture given by the faculty member on the nature of cognitive screens.

The faculty member replied to her entry: “Thanks for your entries. When I discussed cognitive screens, I wasn’t referring exclusively to values, but to values and theories. In fact, in many ways, the course is more about theories than values. The theory base that you find yourself in is very important in understanding planning. All planners come from such a box, and they tend to see the world and deal with it from that perspective. It presents real problems when planners attempt to communicate with each other or other professionals or individuals who come from another theory set. It makes interdisciplinary work very difficult. I t seems to me as a planner you should attempt to broaden your base of theory sets. That

doesn’t mean losing the strength that you already have.” 7. Another student described an interaction in which a professional, because he was locked into his own solution to a problem, seemed unable to hear a citizen participant.

The faculty member replied: “Your second entry is an extraordinary observation. Ego is very central to professionalism. Many professionals have a hard time understanding this. It seems to me that it is really a central problem for all of us to deal with. What if citizens don’t agree with us? Can we remove ourselves enough from our work to hear what they have to say and then try to work creatively with what we have heard.?” 8. In one of his last entries a student wondered whether he should remain in planning school asking questions about the importance of method and theory classes.

The faculty member replied: “ I t does seem to me that people become more competent while they are at UCLA and that this happens whether or not they take method classes. There is some debate on the definition of methods. Some see theory classes as methods classes. The question in my mind is what will help you to become more effective. Quantitative methods may help, but so may other classes. It seems to me any class that helps you understand and helps you to act is a good class. Could you learn to understand and act without school? Sure. Can you go through school and

Housing needs are surveyed in the community for the Santa Ana Planning Department. -

OCTOBER 1978 445

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

2:18

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14

not understand and not learn to act? Yes, again. It comes back to you and how you use opportunities and what you want to do. I have the same sort of problems, and I struggle with them also.”

The journal serves a secondary function of giving the faculty a look at what is happening in the students’ placements on a regular basis. If problems are occur- ring, the faculty learn of them quickly and can help the students deal with them. When contacting supervisors, the faculty are more informed on the students’ perspectives and can, if appropriate, make suggestions to further the students’ progress. As a general rule, however, faculty members allow the students to work out their own problems with their supervisor.

Once the issues faced by the students have been sufficiently defined, the course faculty must begin to structure the classroom time to explore those issues. Particular topics are scheduled for succeeding seminar sessions, and readings are assigned. Normally, the students most interested in a topic meet with the faculty to prepare the class. At a minimum they make presentations explaining how the issue manifests itself in their experience and formulate questions to begin the discussion. Sometimes a role-playing exercise might be designed or a debate might be conducted, with all nondebaters assigned to prepare questions from a particular perspective.

A seminar session A description of one of the more extraordinary

classes should provide some understanding of the potential of this style of teaching. Three students had been hired jointly by an advocacy agency and renewal agency to do a citizens’ needs study. As part of its effort at citizen participation, the renewal agency had hired the advocacy agency to do the study. Early in the study the students came to see it as a cooptative effort on the part of the renewal agency which they believed was not serious about citizen participation. One student in particular felt it was unethical for the advocacy agency to have accepted the contract. She felt the advocates should be fighting the project, not aiding it. The students requested that a class session be devoted to the issue. They invited the head of the advocacy agency and the renewal agency staff member responsible for citizen participation on this project.

After explaining the project to the class, the most concerned student stated her belief that it was unethical. She felt she could not continue to work on it unless this was cleared up. The other two students also stated their positions. One of the students also felt the project was questionable, but said she had seen this sort of thing before and felt there was little to do but to go along. The third student also saw some conflict in the arrangement between the two agencies, but she felt the study as it was designed would give her a chance to

organize the community against the project. She stated that this was what she was doing. The interchanges which followed among the agency representatives and the students were rather extraordinary. They might be called intense, revealing, and educational to say the least. The aftermath of the session was also interesting: the student who made the accusation regarding ethics was fired a few weeks later; the student who was using the opportunity to organize the citizens was hired by the advocacy agency after the internship ended.

Constraints on planning The results of such sessions and others less dramatic

usually lead to the clear identification of many constraints on the practice of planning. The students who commonly define planning as including implementation find that planners rarely handle a problem from inception to implementation. Individually, each par- ticipates in part of the planning process; together, they begin to understand the whole. It is not unusual for them to find that the personnel with responsibility for some part of the process are unprepared for that responsibility. Or they find that organizations are not structured to perform the tasks at hand and that serious problems inhibit these organizations’ learning processes. Moreover, the difficult political problems in much of planning are revealed. Aside from these problems, students often come to question the wisdom of many of the policies their agencies are instructed to carry out and, with some, the ideology which underlies the planning system.

Moving beyond the collective experience During this part of the course, the objective is not

only to identify these constraints, but also to probe methods of pressing beyond them. Soon, however, the students and faculty exhaust each other’s knowledge. At this point, students and faculty need additonal information from people more experienced than they. The natural source for it is the individuals who have been the focus of the classroom discussions. They may be the students’ supervisors, heads of agencies, community leaders or politicians, and they are invited to the classroom to answer questions the students have been developing. The students have seen the speakers in action and ask some very pointed questions. The sessions are often intense. Speakers are asked how they deal with the constraints identified. Among the most educative of these sessions have been those with political figures. It is common that a strong antiplanner feeling is expressed by the speaker. It is important for the students to hear and confront this position. These encounter sessions result in learning on both sides.

As the seminar explores the students’ experiences in depth, questions arise about p.ertions of the plan-

446 AIP JOURNAL

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

2:18

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ning profession not included in that experience. T o answer these questions and broaden the perspective of the students, other speakers are invited to the classroom. These speakers might include a planner in private industry, a lobbyist, or a planner who is using his or her skills to establish alternative institutions.

Finally, the seminar draws to a close. All along, the students have been interacting with what they have been doing, reading, and hearing. They have been testing themselves to build effectiveness and trying to find their places in the profession. While the outside stimulation slows, the personal questions remain. In the final sessions, the students again meet with each other. They have shared a nine-month experience and attempt to sum it up. They share their conclusions about planning and how they see their places in the field.

The paper Over the course of the seminar, the students have

been helped by the faculty, other students, readings, and speakers to improve their ability to perceive the world and to communicate their ideas. The final test of whether or not they have learned to see what is about them and to communicate its meaning for professional practice is the paper they prepare in the final quarter of the series. In it they explore the most important issue arising out of their experience, describe the issue in practice, investigate the theory relevant to the issue, and return to a conclusion and a reformulation of the issue. The paper, in effect, begins with a question, reaches a conclusion on which to base actions, and returns to a better reformulation of the question, demonstrating the continuous practice and theory aspect of the learning systems approach. Topics covered in the papers vary widely from evaluations of agency performance to analyses of the political system to substantive issues of policy.

Teaching style The communication process of this style of educa-

tion, when successful, approaches the model of psycho- social development describd by Hampden-Turner, who sees “man existing freely through the quality of his perception and the strength of his identity.” In the synthesis of perception and identity, man obtains “competence.” In turn, the developing man invests this competence with “intensity and authenticity in his human environment.” “By periodically suspending his cognitive structure and risking himself, in trying to bridge the distance to others, mutual learning becomes possible.” In mutual learning, the individuals “integrate” the lessons they have learned into their evolving “psycho-social complexity,” and the process begins anew (Hampden-Turner 1971, pp. 27-60).

While some might characterize this process as thera- peutic, it seems better to call it intellectual maturation.

Throughout the course technique and moral awareness are mixed; each is stressed at different times, but both come into play. If the teachers are not clear on their own positions, they can be drawn deeply into the students’ life problems. This is not needed nor con- structive unless the faculty member has special training and wishes to take on this responsibility. While the process inevitably can become very personal, it is clear that this is a class situation. Students may withdraw if it becomes necessary, and so may the faculty. Experi- ence teaches the faculty when to apply pressure to encourage learning and when to lessen pressure to allow the students to maintain what they feel is per- sonally essential.

Grading As with any other university class, this portion of the

series must be graded. (Credit is granted for both the seminar and internship.) Three factors play a part in the grading. Forty percent of the grade is derived from an evaluation of the students’ work on the job. This evaluation is provided by the field supervisor. Both formal and informal methods of evaluation have been employed. Informal methods seem adequate. The faculty teaching the series must interpret the supervisors’ comments into grade form. Some complexity is added here by the action-experimenter nature of the process. The faculty must decide how to grade experiments that failed and created some dis- pleasure on the field supervisor’s part. The other 60 percent of the grade is for the level of thought and communication exhibited by the student. This includes an evaluation of the student’s participation in the journal, class discussions, private exchanges between the students and faculty, and the final paper.

Students’ reaction to the series In the first two years of the series, a great deal had

been learned about teaching the learning systems approach. The idea is very new to most students and not always easily grasped. Any ambiguity on the part of the faculty is likely to be magnified by the students. With experience, the faculty have become increasingly specific in the instructions and the problem has been declining. The faculty operating in the learning systems mode must learn from their own actions and through dialogue with the students.

In the first year, for example, the faculty learned the importance of proper group placement. In addition, they learned that the maximum class size for the seminar is about fifteen. The first seminar had twenty- two students and discussion was inhibited. Now two sections of the course are offered to insure that the opportunity for mutual learning is available. In the second year, twenty-seven students took the seminar, and in the third year thirty-one enrolled. addition,

OCTOBER 1978 447

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

2:18

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Table 1. Educational purposes of professional development series

Average rank

1976 1977

2d 3d 2d 3d quarter quarter quarter quarter Average

1. It helped me to think more deeply about my own education. 2. It helped to sharpen my perspectives on social and political realities. 3. It helped me to feel more respect for my own way of seeing and communicating my experiences. 4. It helped me look at my abilities more realistically. 5. It helped me to see my field work within a broader context. 6. It provided me with ideas which clarified my personal experience. 7. It gave me information about a kind of work that I have been thinking of entering as a vocation. 8. It taught me that students can learn a lot from each other if they cooperate. 9. It helped me to understand myself better.

10. It helped me to get a better understanding of my own learning process. 11, It helped me identify things I needed to learn from SAUP courses. 12. It helped me to ask better questions of the material I am studying in other courses. 13. It helped me learn how to define a problem I wanted to work on for myself. 14. It helped me see more value in group discussions. 15. It helped me feel that learning can be exciting and enjoyable. 16. It encouraged me to try creating new theories of my own. 17. It helped me feel that I can put my SAUP education to some specific use. 18. It gave me a chance to use ideas or facts learned in other courses. 19. It helped me to be more interested in some of my other courses. 20. It helped me understand what it is like to accept responsibility and carry it through. 21. It helped me see specific examples of ideas I had learned in the abstract from other courses. 22. It helped me to see things wrong with existing theories of human behavior. 23. It helped me to feel more useful. 24. It helped me understand ideas I had vaguely understood from other courses.

4.21 3.95 3.85 3.84 3.38 3.71 3.50 3.43 3.75 3.50 3.38 3.16 3.20 3.37 3.40 3.24 3.25 3.40 3.11 3.11 2.95 2.85 3.11 2.89

4.23 4.08 4.00 3.69 4.15 3.92 3.62 3.85 3.46 3.54 3.38 3.46 3.00 3.23 3.85 3.38 3.77 3.46 3.08 3.69 3.23 2.69 3.00 2.38

4 08 4 31 4 08 4 33 3 92 3 92 3 38 3 54 3 75 3 31 3 77 3 58 3 45 3 62 3 38 3 46 3 31 3 69 3 62 2 92 3 38 3 75 3 00 2 77

4.18 4.18 4.27 4.15 4.18 4.03 3.82 3.92 4.00 3.86 3.82 3.84 4.27 3.69 3.82 3.66 3.55 3.63 3.91 3.57 3.55 3.52 3.73 3.48 4.18 3.46 3.55 3.44 3.00 3.41 3.55 3.41 3.18 3.38 2.64 3.30 3.18 3.25 3.27 3.25 3.36 3.23 3.00 3.07 3.00 3.03 3.00 2.76

N = 2 1 N = 1 3 N = 1 3 N = l l (of 22) (of 15) (Of 14)' (of 11)'

*An equal number of students were in the other section of the course.

a serious disjuncture with the rhythm of discovery occurred in the first quarter of the seminar in the first year, resulting in the need to reformulate the structure of the course in midquarter. Greater sensi- tivity to the rhythm has been accomplished since then, and this problem has not recurred.

Student responses have generally been positive toward the professional development series, although more so in the second than in the first year of the offering. In both years, the students indicated that field work-seminar portions of the series were just as educational and intellectually stimulating or more so than the other courses in the planning school." At the end of the second and third quarters of the series, students are given a list of twenty-four statements said to be descriptive of field related education (Heskin 1977). They are asked to rank the applicability of each of these statements on a one-to-five scale, with one being not descriptive, three being somewhat descriptive and five being descriptive (see Table 1).

The statements are representative of the learning systems approach. They test the students' sense of increased consciousness of the world and knowledge of self. They explore the extent to which students feel they have become skilled at identifying problems and formulating hypotheses. They test the extent to which students believe they have come to understand their learning process and have engaged in mutual learning. They explore the amount of responsibility the

students have been given or have taken and each student's sense of competence. Finally, they look at the relation between students' field work, planning education, and the vocational choices they are making. Generally, the responses have been positive. A non- weighted average of responses over th? first two years of the series has been 3.52 per question. The average increased from 3.45 in the first year to 3.59 in the second year.

The highest scores were received by statements relating to an increased consciousness of the world and knowledge of self. However, scores related to self- analysis usually drop in the third quarter because of the absence of the journal and the change in the structure of the seminar. Students indicated that the series helped them to sharpen their perspectives of social and political realities (4.13), to see their experience in a broader context (3.86), and to clarify what they had experienced (3.84). They also indicated it helped them see their own abilities more realistically (3.92) and understand themselves better (3.63). In the process, they had developed an increased sense of competence in their ability to see and communicate their experience (4.03).

It was clear that the dialogue between the students which had been established in the seminar played a major role in these results. They responded postively to the statement that students can learn a lot from one another if they cooperate (3.66) and that group discus-

448 AIP JOURNAL

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

2:18

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14

sion can be of more value than they had previously thought (3.44). Further, the students indicated a number of the basic elements of the learning systems method had been established. They said they had a better understanding of their own learning process (3.59), learned to define a problem they wanted to work on themselves (3.48), and had been encouraged to try creating their own theories (3.41).

Clearly an inhibiting factor in the series is the amount of responsibility the students are given in their internships. Their responses were lower to statements such as “I learned to accept responsibility and carry it through” (3.23) and “I’ve been helped to feel useful” (3.03). The students did indicate they had a greater sense of responsibility in the second quarter of field work than in the first.

The responses also indicate that a bridge was built between the theory taught in the school and practice, although it is clear this bridge is not yet complete. The highest response to any question was to the statement that the series caused the students “to think more deeply about their own education” (4.18). This mani- fested itself more in directing the students’ education than in finding applications for what they were learning in school. The students indicated that the series had helped them identify things they needed to learn (3.57) and to ask better questions in their other courses (3.48). To a lesser extent, the series helped them feel they could put their education to use (3.38), see how they could use ideas or facts learned in other courses (3.30), see specific examples of ideas they learned in the abstract in other courses (3.23), or be more interested in their other classes (3.25). The lowest score was in response to a statement that the series helped students understand ideas they vaguely understood in other courses (2.76). This, however, appears to be a statement about the lack of abstract material in their other courses and the quality with which the other courses were taught than a statement about the series. Other classes most of the students were taking included introductory courses in quantitative methods and the APC they had selected.

Finally, the students indicated that the series helped them choose among the many career options available to planners. Particularly in the final quarter, they stated that they had received information about the kind of work that they had been thinking about entering as a vocation (3.69).

Conclusions These data are certainly partial, and the experiment

in teaching the learning systems method is continuing. At this point, the series shows signs of fulfilling the expectations of the reformers of 1970. It is exposing the students to the complexity of the real world and helping them understand the many changing roles they might play and the tools they might need. It is

OCTOBER 1978

also having an impact on the school itself, bringing more relevance into substantive course work. The impact is not, however, entirely as anticipated.

Rather than resulting in loud calls for reform, the series seems to be directing some students toward the advanced methods and others toward the theory that the school has been providing. The split seems to result from the perspective students have gained at their work. Those drawn toward methods found methods valuable either in meeting job requirements or in giving them an advantage in a competitive job market. Those drawn to theory often state that they already have sufficient skill levels to compete in their areas of interest, but want to gain greater understanding of the problems they will face. The series itself is providing instruction in practical and substantive material not available in the school and reducing pressure for reform in that direction. The students have gained a perspective on the role of education in their professional development and look to the school for what they want and can not get in practice.

The sequence has also affected the rhythm of the school. The school has had to reorganize around the field work. Popular first year classes have been grouped to free days for work, creating noticeably different activity levels on class and work days. The students have also had to organize their lives around work and study and have had to become skilled at making the transition between the two. The sequence, with its action orientation, has brought the spirit of action to the school and built a community among the students in the series. On days the students are at school, conversations in the halls and lounge often revolve around sharing what has been happening at work.

Whatever the impact of the series on the school, the true test of its worth will he its effect on the professional careers of the students. If the students become more aware and professionally effective, the series is a success. Thus far, it appears to be a positive reform in planning education. It should be kept in mind, however, that it is not an easy style of education. It requires care and patience to make it work. It confronts head- on the ambiguity and frustration encountered in the planning field. It can be hard on the students and faculty.

In a time when pressure seems to be increasing on students and professionals to remain quiet, a course which requires aggressive questioning and action can seem anomalous. Easy answers are not available; avenues for reform are not clear. That planning methods are not highly developed and that planning is an instrument of the state, often constrained, become all too clear. Rather than lessening any ration- ale for such a class, the tenor of the times and the weaknesses of planning seem to make it all the more imperative that planners as educators and professionals press ahead in the search for eEctiveness.

449

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

2:18

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Author’s note I appreciate the helpful comments offered by John Friedmann, Leo Estrada, and Larry Susskind on earlier drafts of this article.

Notes 1 . For a general discussion of field work in professional training

and the varieties of forms field work might take, see Susskind, Emerson, and Hildelrand, 1977, pp. 1-7.

2. As with many calls for reform, the worlds of the reformers of 1970 did not lead to immediate action. Much of the student advocacy work of the period faded with the lost romance of advocacy planning. A major reform in planning education did not occur. A review of the Guide to Graduate Education in Urban and Regzonal Planning (Brooks 1976), indicates that only 33 percent of the schools required field work, that 49 percent offered field work as an option, and the remainder did not offer field work at all. Most schools encouraged field work in the summer months between the first and second year of planning school. Only a few had other variations. Very few had classes along with the field work. In most cases, individual faculty members provided supervision if any supervision was indicated. It is clear that experimentation is taking place at other schools (Schon and Nutt 1974) and that the problem addressed in 1970 still exists (Kaufman 1974).

3. The professional development series may be taken in whole or in part by any student enrolled in the planning program, regardless of the student’s area of study concentration, although it is normally taken by students in their first year of planning school. It is strongly recommended for those without previous extensive planning experience and may be taken to meet part of the program’s core requirements and/or satisfy the field work requirement. Taking the sequence does not lessen the course requirements of any area of policy concentration.

4. The learning systems approach was introduced into planning in the early 1970s (Dunn 1971, Schon 1971, Friedmann 1973, Argyris and Schon 1974). The theory is reminiscent of John Dewey’s “pragmatism” (Dewey 1963). The question of academic viability must be solved before field work can be central to an academic program. In many schools, the failure to solve this problem results in a stance against granting academic credit for field work. In order to grant such credit, the practice and theory gap must be bridged and the university must have quality control and a way to evaluate performance of the students. The structure of the program and the definition of the learning systems method makes this possible.

5. Urban and regional development, urban design, public service systems, social development, environmental policy and management.

6. With the job fair, the students begin the move from the “safe world” of the simulation to the “real world.” For a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of these two forms of experiential education, see Argyris and Schon 1974, pp. 186- 96. Prefacing the real world experience with simulations is helpful in planning. Planning work is more subtle than some other fields, and training students to observe often heightens the process of learning during the field work.

7. Many students say they need to be paid for their internships. Paying jobs are sought, but this is not always possible. About half the internships available at the job fair have been paid positions, but another quarter of the students who took nonpay- ing positions were able to convince employers to pay them after they began working. Although the program was not designed with student support in mind, it has become a major source of income. By having paid and unpaid internships, some tension is created, but students generally agree they would rather have as many paid jobs as possible than opt for an entirely unpaid program.

8. The planning program at UCLA aims its students at what have

come to be known as nontraditional planning jobs. Only about 10 percent of the graduates work in local government planning departments. The remainder are spread among regional planning, social, environmental, transportation, housing or other specialized agencies, private consulting firms, politicians’ aides, or private industry. The issue is, What do all these different types of planners have to say to one another?

9. The fact that the students work during the first year does not mean they do not work also over the summer months as is the practice in other planningschools. Many of the first-year internships turn into summer jobs or lead to summer jobs in other agencies. Some students continue working during the second year. All in all, they build up a considerable network of contacts in the work world.

10. Most of the readings suggested by the faculty have been com- piled in what is called The Source Book. These are a series of readings organized under four headings: the interpersonal. organizational, and political culture of planning; planning theory; citizen participation; strategies for change. The readings are changed each year as the faculty learns more about what speaks tostudents’questions. Articles from the book might also be assigned in advance for a class. The articles selected to date seem to help the students give words to much they see and feel.

1 1 . First year: more educational value, 28 percent (8); average educational value, 41 percent (12); less educational value, 31 percent (9); more intellectual stimulation, 48 percent (14); average intellectual stimulation, 38 percent (1 1) ; less intellectual stimulation, 14 percent (4). Second year: more educational value, 63 percent (15); average educational value, 29 percent (7); less educational value, 8 percent (2); more intellectual stimulation, 46 percent ( 1 1 ) ; average intellectual stimulation, 46 percent ( 1 I); less intellectual stimulation, 8 percent (2). The percentages were obtained by adding the responses in the second and third quarters of the course. In the second year only the city focused class was evaluated in this fashion. The scores have generally increased each quarter. In the third quarter of the second year, 73 percent (8) said the course was of more educational value than most courses, and 55 percent (6) said it was more intellectually stimulating.

References Argyris, Chris, and Schon, Donald. 1974. Theory inpractice: increasing

professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brooks, Michael, ed. 1976. Guide to graduate education in urban and

regwnal planning. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials. Dewey, John. 1963 edition. Experience and education. New York:

Macmillan. Doebele, William. 1970. Making planning education relevant: a

proposal. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 36, 4: 269- 78.

Dunn, Edgar S., Jr. 1971. Economic and social development: a process of social learning. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Friedmann, John. 1973. Retracking America: a theory of transactive planning. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

Hampden-Turner, Charles. 1971. Radical man. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

Harder, Jacquelyn. 1969. Student internships. Planning Advisory Service Report no. 246. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials.

Hartman, Chester. 1970. Reshaping planning education. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 36, 4: 218-20.

. 1970. The urban field service. Architectural Forum 135, 2: 50-53.

Heskin, Allan. 1977. The field studies program: the Berkeley experience. Alternative Higher Education 2, 2: 119-33.

Kaufman, Jerome. 1974. Contemporary-planning practice: the

450 AIP JOURNAL

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

2:18

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14

state of the art. In Planning in America, ed. David Godschalk. Washington, D.C.: American Institute of Planners.

McCashey, Michael B. 1977. Goals and directions in personal planning. Academy of Management Review 2, 3: 454-62.

Ornstein, Robert. 1972. Thepsychology of consciousness. San Francisco: Freeman.

Schon, Donald. 1970. Notes toward a planning curriculum.Journa1 of the American Institute of Planners 36, 4: 220-21.

-. 197 1 . Beyond the stable state. New York: Random House. Schon, Donald, and Nutt, Thomas. 1974. Endemic turbulence: the

future of planning education. In Planning in America, ed. David Godschalk. Washington, D.C.: American Institute of Planners.

Susskind, Lawrence; Emerson, Kirk; and Hildelrand, Kathryn. 1977. Using community settings for professional planning education. Cambridge, Mass.: Department of Urban Studies and Planning and the Division for Study and Research in Education, MIT.

Guide for the Preparation of Manuscripts 1 .

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Any manuscript that represents a significant contribution to knowledge about planning or urbanism is welcome. Ordinarily, submission is unsolicited. In no instance does an author re-

notes) may be used. They should be consecutively numbered and typed, double-spaced, beginning on a separate sheet at the end of the manuscript, preceeding references. For

ceive payment. Papers should not normally exceed twenty double-spaced pages, typed. Papers grossly exceeding this guideline may be returned to their authors unreviewed, pending a submission of more reasonable length. Short papers of ten to fifteen pages are very much encouraged. Submit three copies of the manuscript, keeping a copy for your own files. All copies must be clearly legible. Each manuscript must be accompanied by a 100 word Abstract, to appear at the beginning of the article, and a briefBiographica1 Sketch of about 50 words. Place title, author’s name, and biographical sketch on a cover page. The title of the article (but not the author’s name) should appear again on the first text page as a means of identification. Submitted manuscripts are circulated for review without the author’s name or institutional identification. All copy must be double-spaced, including quoted matter, references, notes, captions, and tables. Leave generous margins on all four sides of the 8% X 1 1 page. Submit a self-addressed envelope, in appropriate size and with adequate postage, if you wish your manuscript returned after review and processing. Enclose a self-addressed postal card, containing manuscript title, to receive acknowledgement of manuscript receipt. References should be cited in the text by giving the author’s name and the year of publication. For example:

The suggestion has frequently been made that vegetation, particularly trees, may be capable of reducing community noise (Noyes 1969). Harris simply defines noise as “unwanted sound” (1957, p. 18).

References should be alphabetized by author’s last names and typed, double-spaced, beginning on a separate sheet at the end of the manuscript. The following examples indicate style for book and article citations.

further guidance, see A Manual of Style by the University of Chicago Press, pp. 337-370.

10. Tables and illustrations should be titled and numbered with Arabic numbers, and each should be placed on a separate sheet. Indicate appropriate locations in margins of the text, e.g., “Table 1 about here.”

1 1. Authors are encouraged to illustrate their manuscripts with charts, tables, maps, drawings, and photographs. Retain original illustrations until requested but submit page-size copies, which may be in draft form, for circulation to editorial readers.

Illustrations submitted to the Journal from previously published works are welcome, but it is the author’s responsibility to obtain written permission from the original publisher.

When the artwork is being developed especially for the Journal, it should be designed for possible reduction. Line drawings should be prepared so that detail and lettering will remain legible when reduced. Art type or press-on lettering in a bold, simple style and India ink are suggested. Photographs (halftones) should be submitted as glossy prints, with a caption attached.

12. The Journal is guided by A Manual of Style (University of Chicago Press) and follows Webster’s Dictionary for spelling.

13. Contributors can usually be notified within twelve weeks about acceptance for publication. If it is necessary to return manuscripts for changes, authors are furnished with specific recommendations by the reviewers and the editor. Respon- sibility for final decisions on editorial revisions remains with the editor.

14. Submission of a manuscript implies commitment to publish in this journal. The rigors of the selection process require a great deal of voluntary time and effort on the part of editorial readers. For these reasons, this journal regards the simul- taneous submission of a manuscript to other professional journals as an unacceptable practice.

Trewartha, G. T. 1954. A n introduction to climate. New York: McGraw-Hill. For more information write:

Downs, A. 1970. Alternative forms of future urban growth in the United States. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 36, January: 3-11.

Kenneth pearlman, Editor ~~~i~~~~~ Journal of the American Institute of Planners Department of City and Regional Planning

For further guidelines, see A Manual ofstyle by the University 248 Brown 190 W. 17th Ave. Ohio State University

of Chicago Press, pp. 372-75 and 384-88.

When necessary for clarification, explanatory notes (not foot- Columbus, Ohio 43210

Revised October 1978

OCTOBER 1978 45 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

2:18

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14

professional development at ucla

Documents