This article was downloaded by: [Vienna University Library]

On: 29 June 2015, At: 11:58

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Planning Practice & Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cppr20

Role-playing simulations in urban

planning education: a survey of student
learning expectations and outcomes
John F. Meligrana & John S. Andrew
Published online: 03 Jun 2010.

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

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Planning Practice & Research, Vol. 18, No. 1,

pp. 95107, February, 2003

PLANNING EDUCATION

Downloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 11:58 29 June 2015

Role-Playing Simulations in Urban

Planning Education: A Survey of
Student Learning Expectations and
Outcomes
JOHN F. MELIGRANA & JOHN S. ANDREW

Introduction
It is important to test whether teaching methods
and practices provide the required skills needed
by future urban and regional planners. This
paper evaluates student learning expectations
and outcomes regarding the use of simulations
in planning education. In doing so, it examines
the degree to which role-playing simulations
can help teach planning students the skills
identified in an extensive literature on the relationship between planning practice, theory and
education (see e.g. Coleman, 1989; Krausse &
Amaral, 1989; Baum, 1997; Shepherd & Cosgriff, 1998; Ozawa & Seltzer, 1999; Alexander,
2001). Our research question investigates
which specific planning skills may be effectively taught through the use of role-playing
simulations. From this arise more specific questions, such as whether role-playing simulations
emphasise procedural knowledge over substantive knowledge of planning concepts.
Data were obtained using an in-depth survey
of graduate planning students who participated
in a simulated hearing of a quasi-judicial board
that hears planning disputes. Surveys, administered both before and after the simulation game,
identified the types of planning skills students
both expected and acquired through their participation in the role-playing exercise. Survey
responses were compared to the skills that the
literature identified as necessary for pro-

fessional planners. The data collected enabled

the authors to identify the types of planning
skills amenable to learning through role-playing
simulations, and to evaluate the merits and
limitations of employing this teaching tool
within a graduate planning course.

Use of Simulations in Teaching Planning: An

Overview of the Literature
The use of role-playing simulations as a teaching device is not new. Educators routinely use
this method in a number of disciplines. The
Tragedy of the Commons games and green
revolution games are used in geography and
environmental studies courses, moot courts are
organised in law classes, mock marketing
projects are used in business courses, and political studies programmes run model United
Nations and various election games (King,
1981; Walford, 1981; Whiteley & Faria, 1989;
Kirts et al., 1991; Williams, 1991; Mercado,
2000; Ryan, 2000).
Planning educators have similarly employed
role-playing games as a teaching tool (Wynn,
1985a; Krausse & Amaral, 1994; Innes &
Booher, 1999). Innes & Booher (1999) argue
that role-playing simulations can be useful to
train planners to act in a more cooperative,

John F. Meligrana & John S. Andrew, School of Urban and Regional Planning, Queens University,
Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada. Email: jmeligra@post.queensu.ca
0269-7459 Print/1360-0583 On-line/03/010095-13 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/0269745032000132673

95

Downloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 11:58 29 June 2015

Urban Planning Education

consensus-based manner. However, simulations
are unlikely to be effective unless carefully
integrated into a programme of study which
includes other, more didactic modes of learning
(Innes & Booher, 1999).
The use of simulations has considerable potential to address concerns that planning programmes may not be adequately preparing
students for careers as professional planners
(see Sawicki, 1988; Friedmann & Kuester,
1994; Baum, 1997). Most programmes could
improve on the methods used to teach communication and other skills needed to for effective group interaction. Learning these skills
requires hands-on training that could be enhanced with greater and better use of simulations as a teaching tool. As Baum writes: It is
impossible to learn to practice planning without
practicing: trying out ways of acting, analyzing
the results, designing new actions at least as
likely to produce desirable results, and so forth
(1997, p. 182).
Moreover, Shepherd & Cosgriff (1998) assert that planning students lack well-developed
problem-solving skills. They endorse problembased learning (which often includes role-playing simulation) to correct this deficiency. Use
of simulations in teaching is also consistent
with Schons (1983, 1987) discussion of the
reflective practitioner. In particular, Schon
refers to knowledge gained through the process
of problem solving as knowing-in-action. The
ideas of Schon (1983, 1987) and Shepherd &
Cosgriff (1998) closely correspond with the
well-documented reasons for using role-playing
simulations: to prepare students for professional
practice; to encourage, stimulate and motivate
students; to engage students in critical thinking;
to develop problem-solving skills; to enable
students to understand issues from multiple
perspectives; to provide an experiential approach to learning; and to foster creativity,
imagination and better retention of theoretical
ideas and concepts (King, 1981; Walford, 1981;
Shubik, 1989; Camino & Calcagno, 1995;
Shepherd & Cosgriff, 1998; Livingston, 1999;
Mercado, 2000; Ryan, 2000).
Furthermore, simulations have been utilised
to assist disputants in actual planning disputes
(Dolin & Susskind, 1992). Parties that are reluctant to come to the bargaining table may be

96

willing to participate in a simulation of the

conflict in which they are embroiled. There are
examples of this application of simulation, in
which it was successful in convincing the disputants that negotiation had the potential to
resolve their dispute by allowing the parties to
each satisfy their principal interests. Dolin &
Susskind (1992) examine one such case, in
which simulation catalysed disputants in a contentious national energy policy issue to engage
in a large-scale consensus-building exercise,
which ultimately resolved the conflict. Several
of the more popular commercially distributed
simulations in the planning field were originally
created to educate parties in actual disputes.
Moreover, planning scholars employing role
playing as a teaching tool have done so mainly
within the context of public participation, negotiation and consensus building (Krausse &
Amaral, 1994; Camino & Calcagno, 1995; Innes & Booher, 1999). Yet, the effectiveness of
employing this format of teaching in different
decision-making contexts needs to be understood.
This paper studies the simulation of an adversarial decision-making process carried out
by a quasi-judicial board that serves as the final
adjudicator of planning disputes in its jurisdiction. This is a very different setting to that of
processes based on negotiation and consensus
building. The latter may be proactive rather
than reactive, and therefore is not necessarily
initiated in response to a formal dispute. The
two settings are also distinctly different with
respect to several characteristics which are captured well by simulations, including (inter alia)
participant behaviours, the handling of information in support of arguments, and the relationships between the parties. Therefore,
role-playing simulations within a quasi-judicial
environment should allow students to develop
different skills and achieve different learning
outcomes to those of role-playing exercises
involving more collaborative processes.
Despite the growing use of role-playing simulations in planning courses, the planning
literature provides limited information on the
pedagogical value of such games. Overall,
planning educators have shown how different
innovative teaching methods can be used within
planning courses. Examples include problem-

Downloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 11:58 29 June 2015

John F. Meligrana & John S. Andrew

based learning (Shepherd & Cosgriff 1998),
community service learning (Roakes & NorrisTirrell, 2000) and workshop/studio instruction.
Yet there appears to be a dearth of similar
instruction by planning educators with respect
to role-playing simulations (Krausse & Amaral,
1994; Camino & Calcagno, 1995; Livingstone,
1999). More specifically, the planning literature
does not properly address the relationship between simulations and the type of planning
education needed to properly prepare students
for careers as professional planners. This research deficit contrasts with the greater attention that educators from other disciplines give
to critical assessment of the teaching effectiveness of simulation games (King, 1981; Nightingale, 1981; Shubik, 1989; Whiteley & Faria,
1989; Petranek et al., 1992; Randel et al., 1992;
Mercado, 2000; Ryan, 2000). This article attempts to fill this gap by evaluating the ability
of role-playing simulations to meet the unique
pedagogic goals of the planning discipline, and
examining the challenges educators face when
employing this tool.
The only example the authors found of the
evaluation of the use of role-playing simulations to teach planning was Krausse & Amaral
(1994). They ran and evaluated a harbour management simulation to teach about public participation methods in planning. However,
Krausse and Amaral only looked at student
perceptions of the simulation (measured by a
few variables only), their level of participation
and their exam performance. Their student survey examined the operation of a simulation
exercise, yet contained limited analysis of
specific learning objectives or outcomes, compared to contemporary discussions on planning
theory and education.
Method
The research method consisted primarily of a
survey of 27 graduate planning students. A
similar set of open- and closed-ended questions
was administered prior to the role-playing
simulation and immediately after. In the presimulation survey, students speculated about
the types of skills they would acquire, while in
the post-simulation survey students reflected on
their recent experience. This provided the abil-

ity to compare the skills students expected to

learn prior to the role-playing simulation with
those they believed they actually acquired
through their participation in the exercise.
This methodology improves on previously
published student surveys that assess only postsimulation experiences. Such post-gaming surveys might only capture student reactions to the
actual simulation and could miss skills developed prior to the exercise. This approach is also
inconsistent with an extensive body of literature
that identifies various stages, either explicitly or
implicitly, involved in the planning and execution of role-playing simulations (Wynn,
1985b;
van
Ments,
1989;
YardleyMatwiejczuk, 1997; Ryan, 2000). This reasoning suggests that each stage in a simulation
might present specific opportunities for students
to rely on and develop a unique set of skills.
This outcome can only be determined by a
survey instrument administered at various times
throughout the gaming exercise.
The survey questions were derived from a
variety of sources: (1) a review of introductory
textbooks on urban planning as well as broader
articles on planning theory and education (e.g.
Alexander, 1986; Leung, 1989; Friedman,
1995, 1996; Kaufman & Simons, 1995; Forester, 1999); (2) a survey of Web documents
posted to the Web sites of professional planning organisations in Canada and the United
States (Association of Collegiate Schools of
Planning, 2002; Canadian Institute of Planners,
2002); and (3) published surveys of planning
professionals regarding the specific skills
needed by entry-level planners (Ozawa &
Seltzer, 1999; Alexander, 2001; Bailey &
Walker, 2001).
From a review and analysis of the above
sources, the authors identified four major skill
sets required by professional planners:
(1) Substantive knowledge
ability to interpret and relate laws to a planning issue or case
awareness and understanding of urban development issues
knowledge of planning theories and ideas
knowledge of laws and regulations as they
relate to planning

97

Urban Planning Education

(2) Procedural knowledge
ability to think about the interaction of planning, implementation and markets
understanding of the rationale for planning
knowledge of how planning tribunals operate

Downloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 11:58 29 June 2015

(3) Method skills

synthesis skills, e.g. ability to see multiple
perspectives on the same issue
communication skills, e.g. command over
graphic communication and design through
an ability to conceptualise plans in three
dimensions
management skills, e.g. the ability to work
well with other group members
(4) Judgement skills
ability to think and respond on ones feet
ability to express ones own opinions and
ideas.
Survey questions were developed around each
of these four skill sets. This was done in order
to make the interpretation of survey results
more relevant to the effectiveness of simulation
role-playing games as a teaching tool. In other
words, the above sources informed the development of appropriate survey questions to assess
the skills students learned through the use of
role-playing simulation games. However, the
authors do not purport that the above list of
skills is either exhaustive or mutually exclusive.
The survey included three types of questions:
open-ended, closed-ended with scaled responses, and closed-ended with rank-ordered
responses. These types of questions are consistent with standard survey designs (Salant &
Dillman, 1994). It was administered to 27
graduate planning students enrolled in a core
course entitled Legal and Governmental Processes in the School of Urban and Regional
Planning, Queens University at Kingston, Ontario. An anonymous identification number was
assigned to each questionnaire which allowed
the authors to match responses to the pre-hearing survey with the same respondent who completed the post-hearing survey. The questionnaire design was further refined through keyinformant interviews with university professors
from the faculties of law and education at the

98

authors home university, who are actively using role-playing simulation games as a teaching
device. This served as a pilot test of the survey
instrument.
Background
The students surveyed were participating in a
simulated hearing of the Ontario Municipal
Board (OMB), a quasi-judicial tribunal that
adjudicates planning disputes in Ontario. The
OMB gave the authors special permission to
make use of the entire case file of a recent
hearing. This file included: the board members
written decision; all exhibits and evidence submitted by the participating parties, including
reports, maps and photographs; and any
recorded communication (e.g. memos, letters,
etc.) sent by the parties prior to the hearing.
The students were given full access to the case
file and were divided into the following roles:
board members, developers, residents, lawyers
and expert witnesses. The OMB plays a pivotal
role in urban and regional planning in Ontario
through its long-standing authority, since 1932,
to review a wide range of land-use decisions
that municipal governments and other local
agencies make, in most cases pursuant to the
Government of Ontarios Planning Act.
Through its application and interpretation of
provincial law, the OMB operates as a quasi-judicial tribunal to the facts of a case and thus
differs from a court of law (Chipman, 1999). Its
decisions are not bound by legal precedent.
Instead, the board judges the prevailing merits
of each individual application by measuring
and comparing it to the broader public good,
based on stated provincial policies. If no provincial policy exists, the boards decisions are in
favour of preserving the greatest common
good. Thus, it may formulate provincial policy
where none previously exists. Given the
boards scope and power over land-use decisions, most practising professional planners in
Ontario will come in contact with the OMB,
usually as expert witnesses. Although the scope
and power of the OMB might be unique to
Ontario, the idea of planning disputes being
resolved by tribunals, boards and other quasijudicial bodies as well as the courts is familiar
to planners working in many other jurisdictions.

Downloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 11:58 29 June 2015

John F. Meligrana & John S. Andrew

Thus, this paper provides insights into how
role-playing simulations can help educate students regarding the legislative and political
context of the planning process. It also provides
a tangible example to explore topical issues in
planning theory, such as the role of power and
institutions in planning (Healey, 1997; Forester,
1999).
The case before the OMB involved a proposal to construct a 19-unit luxury residential
development by adding a three-storey addition
to an existing dwelling within the City of Ottawa. In order to approve the proposed development, the city granted a number of variances
from the existing land-use regulations. Opposing neighbours appealed these variances to the
OMB. They argued that the variances granted
by the city were not in compliance with policies in its Official Plan (OMB, 2001).
Overall, this case represents a typical physical planning issue encountered by many professional planners. Yet, the case also goes
beyond merely land-use planning because it
concerns the social issue of affordable housing.
Moreover, this case has sufficient depth to
enable the authors to test a range of skills that
students used or acquired during their preparation for, and participation in, this simulation.

Survey Results and Analysis

Preparation for the Role-Playing Simulation
The students preparation for the simulated
hearing included observing an actual OMB
hearing. The before questionnaire gauged student understanding of the learning objectives of
attending the actual hearing by requiring them
to rank order a pre-set list of five learning
objectives. Mean scores closer to one (out of
five) indicate learning objectives the students
believed were more important, while scores
closer to five denote those they felt were the
least important.
According to the respondents, the most important learning objectives for attending the
actual hearing were learning how to communicate planning ideas/arguments before the OMB,
followed by learning about the formal and informal rules governing OMB hearings (Figure
1), with means of 1.93 and 1.98 out of 5,

respectively. The least important objectives

were learning about urban issues/problems (a
mean of 4.19) and planning ideas (a mean of
4.31). A mean of 2.58 was recorded for the
statement that attending the actual hearing
would help the students learn how professional
planners interact with lawyers and other professionals.
Students were also asked to rank order a
series of learning objectives acquired during
their preparations for the simulated hearing
(Figure 2). The results indicate that acquiring
procedural knowledge, i.e. the legal environment in which planning takes place (a mean of
1.7), and understanding the planning process (a
mean of 3.0) were the most important learning
objectives, but acquiring substantive knowledge, i.e. planning ideas and alternatives (a
mean of 3.4), and managerial knowledge, i.e.
coordination and group work (a mean of 3.7),
ranked as the lowest learning objectives. Students were, however, fairly neutral about
whether preparations for the simulated hearing
helped them to acquire methods/skills, i.e. ability to access and synthesise secondary data (a
mean of 3.1).
The survey also questioned students about
sources of information and research undertaken
in preparation for the mock hearing (Table 1).
The possible scaled responses to a list of questions ranged from 1 strongly disagree to
3 neutral to 5 strongly agree. The results indicate that students placed a premium on
using information from an actual case file (a
mean of 4.6 out of 5), the ability to synthesise
the various types of information contained in
the case file (mean of 4.0), and obtaining
sufficient knowledge of their role-playing
character (a mean of 3.4). However, background research to gain information and ideas
from published academic articles/books ranked
significantly lower (mean of 3.0).
This suggests that simulation games based on
real, as opposed to hypothetical, situations help
to enhance students learning experience and
participation. However, the results caution the
instructor to provide a mechanism, perhaps outside the role-playing exercise, that assists the
students to compare their simulation experiences with a more theoretical understanding
gained from relevant planning literature. It is
likely that the tightly scripted roles in this

99

Downloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 11:58 29 June 2015

Urban Planning Education

A Learn how to communicate planning ideas/arguments before the OMB

B Learn about the formal/informal rules governing OMB hearings
C Learn how planning professionals interact with lawyers and other professionals
D Learn about contemporary urban issues and problems
E Learn about a variety of planning ideas
FIGURE 1. Rank-Order of the Most Important Learning Objectives for Attending an Actual OMB
Hearing. Note: 1 most important5 least important.
adversarial role-playing exercise precluded students from exploring the connections between
planning theory and practice. In other words,
sticking to the rules of the game within a
quasi-judicial setting may have overwhelmed
the students attention.
Overall, the survey responses to questions
concerning pre-hearing preparations indicate
that prior to the simulation exercise, students
concentrated on acquiring three specific sets of
skills: (i) communication skills, (ii) procedural
knowledge (i.e. how tribunals operate) and (iii)
substantive knowledge of planning laws and
regulations. Thus, learning the procedures and
how to communicate within the limitations presented by such procedures dominated the students learning agenda. Students did not assign
a high rank to acquiring substantive knowledge
of planning ideas and developing teamwork
skills.

100

Comparison of Pre- and Post-Simulation Survey Results

Student responses to similar survey questions
asked before and after the simulation game
provide additional insights into the skills they
acquired from this role-playing exercise. The
mean pre- and post-simulation values are
recorded on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 representing strong disagreement and 5 representing
strong agreement), and a series of learning
objectives are communicated by nine survey
questions (Table 1). The authors ranked the
survey responses according to their mean values; the higher the mean score, the greater the
importance of the question. The post-survey
responses are ranked in descending order. For
ease of comparison, the corresponding responses from the pre-simulation survey are arranged according to the post-simulation

Downloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 11:58 29 June 2015

John F. Meligrana & John S. Andrew

A The legal environment in which planning takes place

B Ability to access and synthesize secondary data
C General understanding of the planning process
D An understanding of planning ideas and alternatives
E Coordination and group work
Figure 2. Rank-Order of Learning Objectives Acquired during Mock Hearing Preparations. Note:
1 most important5 least important.

rankings. The pre- and post-hearing differences consensus about role playing shows a hierarchical pattern (Table 1). The highest mean values
in mean and rank are also shown.
These results demonstrate that students were recorded by the pre-simulation survey were for
in either mild or strong agreement with all of skills at interpreting planning laws (a mean of
IGURE4.35,
2. rank 1), learning how to think and rethe learning skills presented in each of Fthe
survey questions, i.e. all of the learning skills spond on your feet (a mean of 4.23, rank 2),
received a mean score of greater than 3. More- examining planning issues from multiple perover, all but one survey question showed an spectives (a mean of 4.19, rank 3), and develincrease in its mean score in the post-simu- oping the ability to conceptualise plans in three
lation survey. This indicates two things. First, dimensions (a mean of 4.15, rank 4). The
the role-playing simulation, at least from the post-simulation survey also gave these skills
students perspective, provided a diverse learn- the three highest mean scores, but in the reverse
ing experience. The students agreed that the rank order.
The method skill, i.e. the opportunity to see
role-playing simulation helped to teach methods and judgment skills, and both procedural multiple perspectives on the same issue, ranked
and substantive knowledge. Second, participat- first with the highest mean of 4.62. This was
ing in the simulated hearing reinforced and followed by judgment skill, i.e. learning how to
relied upon all four skill sets as identified think and respond on your feet, and substantive knowledge skill, i.e. the ability to interpret
above.
However, from the range of mean values and and relate laws to a planning issue or case, with
their corresponding ranks, the students strong mean scores of 4.58 and 4.46, respectively. The

101

Urban Planning Education

TABLE 1. Comparisons of mean value responses to both pre- and post-simulation survey questions
Pre-hearing Post-hearing
survey
survey
Type of learning skill Survey questions

Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean

Method
(synthesis) skill

4.19

4.62

0.42

4.23

4.58

0.35

4.35

4.46

0.12 2

3.62

4.19

0.58

3.5

4.19

0.69

3.69

4.08

0.38 1

4.15

3.85

0.31 3

3.38

3.62

0.23

3.08

3.58

0.5

Judgement skill

Downloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 11:58 29 June 2015

Difference

Substantive
knowledge
Substantive
knowledge
Procedural
knowledge

Procedural
knowledge
Method skill
(graphic
communication
and design)
Judgement skill
Judgement skill
and procedural
knowledge

Opportunity to see
multiple perspectives on
the same issue
Learn how to think and
respond on your feet
Interpret and relate laws
to a planning issue or case
Awareness of urban
development issues
Think about the
interaction of planning,
implementation and
markets
Greater understanding of
the rationale for
planning
Ability to conceptualise
plans in three dimensions

Good opportunity to
express your opinions
and ideas
Learn how procedures
influence ability to
express your ideas

Rank

Note: 1 strongly disagree, 3 neutral, 5 strongly agree. N 27.

above results indicate that participating in the

simulation raised student awareness and knowledge about the multiple perspectives found in
many planning issues and disputes. However,
acquiring substantive knowledge of how to relate laws to a planning issue is most important
during the preparation phase of the simulation
game.
The above illustrates that the urban and planning contexts relevant to this dispute garnered
greater attention during the simulation than
during preparation for it. In other words, participating in the simulation brought to the fore the
urban and planning issues at stake in this dis-

102

pute, while the preparations raised student

awareness of specific method skills and substantive knowledge of legal issues. This indicates that prior to the simulation students did
not appreciate the broader urban or planning
context in which the facts of this dispute are
connected. This represents an opportunity for
the instructor to guide students in areas that are
deficient in their preparation for a role-playing
simulation.
Between the pre- and post-simulation surveys the method (communication) skill of being
able to conceptualise plans in three dimensions
recorded the largest decrease in mean score and

John F. Meligrana & John S. Andrew

TABLE 2. Rank order of the components needed to achieve success in an OMB hearing
Pre-hearing
survey
Type of learning skill Survey questions

Downloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 11:58 29 June 2015

Substantive
knowledge
Method skill
(communication)
Substantive
knowledge
Method skill
(management)
Procedural
knowledge

Knowledge of
laws and
regulations as
they relate to
planning
Communication
skills
Knowledge of
planning theories
and ideas
Ability to work
well with other
group members
Knowledge of
how planning
tribunals operate

Post-hearing
survey
Difference

Mean Rank Mean Rank

Mean

Rank

2.04

1.8

0.24

2.19

2.15

0.04

3.8

3.24

0.56

3.72

3.72

3.32

4.04

0.72

Note: 1 most important 5 least important. N 27.

rank. Prior to the mock hearing, students agreed

strongly that this skill would be developed, as
indicated by its mean score of 4.15, the fourth
highest of all survey responses. After the hearing, the mean score decreased by 0.31 to 3.85,
and its rank fell three positions to seventh
place. This is curious, given the significance of
heritage design and the extensive architectural
drawings included in the case file. Despite this
shift in survey responses, the authors believe
that role playing is useful at exposing the challenges professional planners face in communicating spatial images and graphic information
in a public forum. The survey results only
reinforce this opinion.
Both the pre- and post-simulation survey
responses indicate that certain types of judgment skills consistently achieved the lowest
mean scores recorded. Students were neutral
(with a mean of 3.08) in their response to the
survey question about whether the procedures
and rules of the mock hearing hindered their
ability to express their opinions. Moreover, a
low mean score (3.38) was also recorded in

response to the question of whether the mock

hearing provided a good opportunity to express
opinions and ideas. These results indicate that
role-playing simulations may not assist participants in developing critical and reflective judgment skills.

Student Rank Ordering of Learning Skills

The survey also asked students to rank order
the five most important skills for achieving
success at an OMB hearing (Table 2). Both
the pre-simulation and post-simulation surveys
ranked acquisition of substantive knowledge of
planning laws/regulations and developing the
method skill of communication as the top two
skills needed to succeed at an OMB hearing.
Before the hearing, students ranked substantive
knowledge of theories/ideas last (rank 5, mean
3.80), while procedural knowledge of how
planning tribunals operated ranked higher (rank
3, mean 3.32).
After the hearing, this aggregate trend re-

103

Urban Planning Education

TABLE 3. Rank order of the most important learning outcomes
Pre-hearing
survey
Learning skill/
outcome

Downloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 11:58 29 June 2015

Substantive
knowledge

Substantive
knowledge
Method skill
(communication)
Procedural
knowledge
Method skill
(management)

Survey questions
Knowledge of laws
and regulations
governing planning
and development
Knowledge of
planning ideas and
theories
Improving
communication skills
How planning
tribunals operate
Experience of
working
cooperatively on a
planning project

Post-hearing
survey

Difference

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

2.08

2.12

3.6

3.04

0.56

3.04

3.04

2.36

3.28

0.92

3.92

3.52

0.4

2
0

Note: 1 most important 5 least important. N 27.

versed itself. Substantive knowledge of planning theories ranked third (with a mean of
3.24). Procedural knowledge of planning tribunals ranked last with a mean of 4.04, representing an increase of 0.72 from the previous
survey. The method (management) skill of being able to work well in a group ranked consistently fourth in both the pre- and post-hearing
surveys.
Table 3 presents the students rank ordering
of the most important skills acquired through
participation in the role-playing simulation. The
skills listed are similar to those found in Table
2. The pre- and post-simulation surveys consistently ranked the acquisition of substantive
knowledge of planning laws/regulations as the
most important skill (with means of 2.08 and
2.12, respectively), while developing the
method (management) skill of being able to
work cooperatively ranked as the least important skill (with means of 3.92 and 3.52, respectively). Before the simulation, the students
projected that procedural knowledge of how
planning tribunals operate would be the second
most important skill (a mean of 2.36), while

104

substantial knowledge of planning ideas/theories ranked fourth (a mean of 3.60). These

rankings are the exact opposite of those
recorded from the post-simulation survey.
After the simulation, substantive knowledge
of planning theories was ranked as the second
most important skill, with a mean of 3.10,
representing an increase of 0.50 from the presimulation survey. Procedural knowledge of
planning tribunals was ranked fourth, with a
mean of 3.28, representing a difference of 0.92
from the previous survey. The method skill of
communication ranked consistently as the third
most important learning outcome in both the
pre- and post-simulation surveys (with a mean
of 3.04).

Debriefing
As part of the debriefing to this role-playing
simulation, the authors arranged for a panel of
educational experts on role-playing games to
observe and assess student behaviour and performance during the simulated hearing. This

Downloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 11:58 29 June 2015

John F. Meligrana & John S. Andrew

panel consisted of two members of the Instructional Development Centre of the authors
home university. This centre provides services
and programmes to support and encourage excellent teaching. The two panellists were professors who specialise in developing innovative
forms of teaching at the post-secondary level.
The panellists provided the authors with a written report and a two-hour debriefing session.
These elements contributed independent and
expert feedback, allowing an enriched assessment of the role-playing exercise based on
general educational theories and practices.
The expert panellists noted that during the
mock hearing students either struggled with
using visual aids during their testimony or completely ignored them. Planning educators
should use simulation games to provide better
training on the use of visual aids to explain
planning ideas, concepts and proposals. More
importantly, the expert panellist noted the
strong devotion to role playing exhibited by
most of the students. Students took great care to
develop their roles and to remain in character
throughout the role-playing exercise. The panellist was impressed by the high degree of
professionalism brought by the students to the
simulation game.
A comparison between the expert panel observations and the students open-ended survey
responses, as noted below, reveals a shortcoming of role-playing exercises. The strong commitment to role-playing may come at the cost
of fostering creativity and critical thinking
skills that go beyond the gaming exercise.
Role-playing simulations may not, by themselves, address more fundamental questions of
power, values, institutions and procedures involved in urban planning and development.
However, this can easily be corrected by the
planning educators, who can combine roleplaying with other, perhaps more traditional,
forms of learning.
Conclusion
This paper has demonstrated that role-playing
simulation games can provide a multifaceted
learning experience. However, the differences
in the mean scores and rankings of various
learning outcomes and skills between the pre-

and post-hearing survey results point to the

strengths and weaknesses, and thus, the overall
effectiveness, of role-playing simulations as a
teaching device.
The skills that students recorded as the most
important learning outcomes from participating
in the simulation game were ones most closely
related to their role-playing character and most
germane to the simulation forum. Such skills
included learning about multiple perspectives in
planning, how to think on ones feet, and how
to relate laws to a particular planning issue.
Less developed or emphasised were learning
outcomes regarding substantive knowledge of
urban issues, procedural knowledge of the
rationale for planning, and critical/reflective
judgment skills. This finding suggests that,
through role-playing, students find it difficult to
acquire skills that require more abstract
thought. However, the ability of a role-playing
simulation to encourage or stimulate student
thinking at an abstract level could also be
conditioned by the type of planning case being
simulated.
Role-playing simulation games offer a twostep learning process. The first step is represented by the preparation phase where student
learning is targeted at improving communication skills and acquiring procedural knowledge. The second step involves students
identifying substantive knowledge as an important learning outcome gained from their participation in the mock hearing.
This change in the type of learning skills
understood to be acquired by students raises
two important points. First, longitudinal student
surveys should be favoured over snap-shot
surveys usually administered after completion
of the role-playing simulation. Second, it reinforces the role of the teacher as a cognitive
coach or guide (Shepherd & Cosgriff, 1998). It
is incumbent upon the instructor to identify the
skills that are least emphasised by the students
before, during and after the role-playing exercise.
Overall, their ability to allow students to get
into a character and experience a sense of
realism is one of the greatest and obvious
strengths of role-playing simulations. However,
this also presents the real danger that students
do not look beyond their characters to reflect on

105

Downloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 11:58 29 June 2015

Urban Planning Education

the experience at a more theoretical and abstract level.
In general, we can broadly interpret the results of this study as supporting the conclusion
that students acquire the specific skills that they
need to get them through the simulation exercise. To be sure, these skills are important, with
a diverse set of skills relied on at different
moments. This is a positive comment on the
teaching effectiveness of role-playing simulations. And if the goal of the educator is to train
planning practitioners, then this comment is
sufficient. But if the educator is concerned
about educating students about a planning
discipline, then role-playing simulations may
fail to satisfy this objective.
The above conclusion points to the necessity
of situating and coordinating role-playing with
other methods of teaching. These other methods should allow students to get out of their
role-playing characters. This will allow the instructors to use role-playing simulations as a
back drop to inform and stimulate student
thinking on several contemporary planning
ideas, including post-modernism in planning,
multiple perspectives and voices in planning,
communicative action in planning and ethics in
planning, informed by a wide-ranging planning
literature (Friedmann, 1987; Hendler, 1995;
Healey, 1997; Innes, 1995; Forester, 1999).
Planning educators should experiment with
new and innovative teaching devices to provide
a stimulating learning environment for the professional planners of the future. However, new
teaching devices should not be employed based
merely on anecdotal evidence of their success.
Teaching tools must be the subject of ongoing
empirical research and analysis. Hopefully this
paper contributes to this endeavour.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Hok-Lin Leung,
Andrejs Skaburskis, Jo-Anne Rudachuk, graduate students of the School of Urban and Regional Planning, and Mark Weisberg for their
generous assistance. The authors are also grateful for the support received from Denise Stockley
and
Susan
Wilcox,
Instructional
Development Centre at Queens University.

106

This research was funded by a Research Initiation Grant provided by Queens University.

References
Alexander, E. R. (1986) Approaches to Planning:
Introducing Current Planning Theories, Concepts, and Issues (New York, Gordon & Breach
Science).
Alexander, E. R. (2001) What do planners need to
know?, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20, pp. 376380.
Association of American Collegiate Schools of Planning (2002) http://www.acsp.org
Bailey, N. & Walker, H. (2001) Managing the transition to work: the role of the planning network
in British town planning education, Planning
Practice and Research, 16(1), pp. 7178.
Baum, H. S. (1997) Social science, social work, and
surgery, APA Journal, 63(2), pp. 179188.
Camino, E. & Calcagno, C. (1995) An interactive
methodology for empowering students to deal
with controversial environmental problems, Environmental Education and Research, 1(1),
pp. 5974.
Canadian Institute of Planners (2002) http://www.cipicu.ca
Chipman, J. (1999) Policy-making by administrative
tribunals: a study of the manner in which the
Ontario Municipal Board has applied provincial
land use planning policies and has developed
and applied its own planning policies, Doctor of
Juridical Science Thesis (Toronto, Faculty of
Law, University of Toronto).
Coleman, J. S. (1989) Simulation games and the
development of social theory, Simulation &
Games, 20(2), pp. 144164.
Dolin, E. J. & Susskind, L. E. (1992) A role for
simulations in public policy disputes: the case
for national energy policy, Simulation & Gaming, 23(1), pp. 2044.
Forester, J. (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner:
Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes
(Cambridge, MA, MIT Press).
Friedmann, J. (1995) Teaching planning theory, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3),
pp. 156162.
Friedmann, J. (1996) The core curriculum in planning
revisited, Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 15(2), pp. 89104.
Friedmann, J. & Kuester, C. (1994) Planning education for the late 20th century: an initial inquiry, Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 14(1), pp. 5564.

Downloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 11:58 29 June 2015

John F. Meligrana & John S. Andrew

Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping
Places in Fragmented Societies (London,
MacMillan).
Hendler, S. (Ed.) (1995) Planning Ethics: A Reader
in Planning Theory, Practice and Education
(New Brunswick, NJ, Center for Urban Policy
Research).
Innes, J. E. (1995) Planning theorys emerging
paradigm: communicative action and interactive
practice, Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 14(3), pp. 183190.
Innes, J. E. & Booher, D. E. (1999) Consensus
building and complex adaptive systems: a
framework for evaluating collaborative planning, Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), pp. 412423.
Kaufman, S. & Simons, R. (1995) Quantitative and
research methods in planning: are schools teaching what practitioners practice?, Journal of
Planning Education and Research, 15, pp. 17
33.
King, R. (1981) To play or not to play: an introduction to games and simulations in geography
teaching, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 5(2), pp. 111112.
Kirts, C. A., Tumeo, M. A. & Sinz, J. M. (1991) The
COMMONS GAME: its instructional value
when used in a natural resources management
context, Simulation & Gaming, 22(1), pp. 518.
Krausse, G. H. & Amaral, M. (1994) Simulating
harbor management: a tool for public participation, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14, pp. 4354.
Leung, H. L. (1989) Land Use Planning Made Plain
(Kingston, Ronald P. Frye).
Livingstone, I. (1999) Role-playing planning public
inquiries, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 23(1), pp. 6376.
Mercado, S. A. (2000) Pre-managerial business education: a role for role-plays, Journal of Further
and Higher Education, 24(1), pp. 117126.
Nightingale, N. (1981) Games and simulations: a
teaching technique, South African Geographer,
9(1), pp. 5965.
Ontario Municipal Board (2001) File number
V0101118 (Ontario, Ontario Municipal Board).
Ozawa, C. & Seltzer, E. (1999) Taking our bearings:
mapping a relationship among planning practice,
theory, and education, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18, pp. 257266.
Petranek, C. F., Corey, S. & Black, R. (1992) Three
levels of learning in simulations: participating,
debriefing, & journal writing, Simulation &
Gaming, 23(2), pp. 174185.
Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D. &
Whitehill, B. V. (1992) The effectiveness of

games for educational purposes: a review of

recent research, Simulation & Gaming, 23(3),
pp. 261276.
Roakes, S. L. & Norris-Tirrell, D. (2000) Community
service learning in planning education: a framework for course development, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20, pp. 100110.
Ryan, T. (2000) The role of simulation gaming in
policy-making, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17, pp. 359364.
Salant, P. & Dillman, D. A. (1994) How to Conduct
Your Own Survey (New York, John Wiley).
Sawicki, D. S. (1988) Planning education and practice: can we plan for the next decade, Journal of
Planning Education and Research, 7(2),
pp. 115120.
Schon (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action (New York, Basic
Books).
Schon, D. A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).
Shepherd, A. & Cosgriff, B. (1998) Problem-based
learning: a bridge between planning education
and practice, Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 17, pp. 148357.
Shubik, M. (1989) Gaming: theory and practice, past
and future, Simulation & Games, 20(2), pp. 184
189.
van Ments, M. (1989) The Effective Use of RolePlay: Handbook for Teachers and Trainers, 2nd
rev edn (London, Nichols).
Walford, R. (1981) Geography games and simulations: learning through experience, Journal of
Geography in Higher Education, 5(2), pp. 113
120.
Whiteley, T. R. & Faria, A. J. (1989) A study of the
relationship between student final exam performance and simulation game participation,
Simulation & Games, 20(1), pp. 4464.
Williams, K. (1991) Advertising and political expenditures in a spatial election game: an experimental investigation, Simulation & Gaming, 22(4),
pp. 421442.
Wynn, M. (1985a) Conclusion: researching, designing and running case study simulations, in:
Wynn, M. (Ed.) Planning Games: Case Study
Simulations in Land Management and Development (London, E&FN Spon).
Wynn, M. (1985b) Introduction, in: Wynn, M. (Ed.)
Planning Games: Case Study Simulations in
Land Management and Development (London,
E&FN Spon).
Yardley-Matwiejczuk, K. (1997) Role Play: Theory
and Practice (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).

107

Downloaded by [Vienna University Library] at 11:58 29 June 2015