Home

Case Study of Teaching An Urban Design Course On Two Campuses Simultaneously

by Sloan-C

ABSTRACT
The state-of-the-art in communication technology has made it possible to bridge distances of many kinds. In this paper, we will describe and reflect on our attempt to use videoconferencing, the Internet, and hypermedia technology to simultaneously teach students located on two campuses 150 miles apart: Chicago and Urbana-Champaign. We embarked on this project in order to explore the possibility of complementing our individual and departmental strengths, and to provide our students with a richer learning experience. In Spring 1997, students enrolled in an urban design course offered on each campus separately but taught as a single course. Every week, both groups of students came together via a videoconference link to participate in a lecture-discussion conducted by one of the instructors. Following each joint session, small teams of students worked on an urban design project located in a third city, East St. Louis; students’ work was presented and monitored over the Internet. In this paper, we draw on our experience as instructors and the experience of our students and outside observers, to evaluate the extent to which this approach met our objectives. Several factors came into play: the type of student at each location; the reliability of the technology; the availability of adequate technical support. We do not describe the technologies in any great detail because this has been done elsewhere. We conclude by evaluating the costs and benefits, both tangible and intangible, encountered while teaching this course.

I. INTRODUCTION

In Spring 1997, urban planning faculty at The University of Illinois sought to bridge the 150-mile distance between their respective campuses at Chicago (UIC), Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), and Springfield (UIS) through the use of various technologies [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. An ambitious, joint urban design course was planned that would link students and faculty at both campuses to each other as well as to residents of a low-income neighborhood in East St. Louis (ESL), where the course study area was to be located. The course would be taught simultaneously on each campus through the use of videoconferencing during class sessions. Course materials would be delivered via the World Wide Web, and between meetings, students would interact with instructors, each other and residents living in the project site neighborhood through the use of FirstClass, group conferencing software. To bridge the distance between the students and the project site between site visits, students would utilize HyperSpace, a digital video and hypermedia technology that simulates and affords the experience of moving through the site.

The instructors hoped that the use of these technologies in a jointly taught course would enrich the overall learning experience by exposing students to the thoughts and ideas of two instructors and affording interaction between the two campuses and neighborhood residents in ESL. Instructors explained the experimental nature of the course at the beginning of the semester and warned students to expect some bumps along the road. From the onset of the course, instructors knew that they would need to gather feedback regularly from students and tweak—or possibly overhaul—aspects of the course as planned objectives gave way to reality.

We learned many critical lessons through this undertaking. We found that, as urban design is currently taught, technology—however sophisticated—cannot completely replace face-to-face (FTF) interaction with students; it must supplement rather than supplant traditional teaching methods. We made important first steps in this initial attempt to connect the two campuses. Most significantly, we learned that this type of collaborative course is feasible, opening up exciting future opportunities to enhance the quality of urban planning education on both campuses.

However, we learned that while technology can help bridge distances, it also sets up tremendous educational and psychological barriers that must be overcome. In this paper, we have chosen to focus on these lessons in order that others attempting similar experimental courses might learn from our overly ambitious experience. We first describe the planning and design of the course and the expected and unexpected outcomes. We also detail the logistical and organizational challenges such a course presents, as well as the problems associated with the technologies and possible solutions to overcoming them. Finally, we question how such experimental courses can be made meaningful for students, to ensure students have a quality educational experience while instructors explore the value and limitations of learning technologies.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Course Objectives
The impetus for this joint urban design course came from the Office of the Vice President of Academic Affairs of The University of Illinois. The university has three campuses: UIC, UIS, and UIUC, roughly 150 miles apart. The Office of the Vice President established an initiative intended to use different distance learning technologies to offer courses simultaneously on two or more of these campuses. A joint proposal by the College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs at UIC, the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at UIUC, and the Department of Public Policy (SUC) was funded under this initiative. As part of this proposal, UIC and UIUC jointly offered an urban design course in Spring 1997.

The joint course was offered primarily to provide a richer learning experience for students and instructors. Both campuses offer similar introductory and overview-type courses in urban design. We hoped that a joint course would provide a learning experience for students that would be richer in two ways. First, students on one campus would be able to interact with those on the other campus. Second, students would be exposed to the thoughts and ideas of two different instructors. While we expected that teaching this course using new technologies would increase the workload of the two instructors, we hoped that the instructors sharing the teaching load would offset some of this increase. We also expected that the instructors would learn new ideas from each other as a result of teaching the course together.

A longer-term objective was to explore the feasibility of offering courses on one campus that are not normally available to students on that campus, but that are offered on the other campus. If these learning technologies do provide a viable way of teaching on both campuses simultaneously, then an instructor on one campus and a teaching assistant on the other could teach a course to students on both campuses. Students on both campuses would have access to a greater variety of courses, and each department could draw on the strengths of the other.

B. Course Design
The design of the joint course was a modified version of an urban design course that has been offered at the UIUC since 1992. The semester is divided into two parts. In the first part, students learn about different factors that affect the quality of urban spaces: urban processes of change and growth; spatial definition; the visual quality of space-defining surfaces; the dynamic experience of space; cognitive, behavioral and symbolic qualities of space. In the second part, students learn about how urban designers attempt to preserve or enhance the quality of existing urban spaces—or ensure the quality of new urban spaces—using policies, regulations, and programs.

Many of the topics discussed in class can involve abstract and fuzzy concepts, so students are asked to apply these concepts to a two- or three-block local area. Students work on an urban design project that is conducted in parallel with classroom discussions; the site is real, but there is no real client. Students work in teams so that they learn from each other. In the analysis phase of the project, teams make repeated visits to the project site, discuss how the assigned readings and topics apply to the site, and present their findings in a number of short written reports and in-class presentations. Typically, therefore, there is less lecturing and more class discussion. Detailed instructions for carrying out these assignments are provided in the form of a manual available on the World Wide Web. (See http://www.urban.uiuc.edu/Courses/Varkki/up326/manual/manual.htm.)

In the design phase of the project, teams put together a package of policies, regulations, and programs intended to influence the decisions made by property owners and the local government. Teams are asked to prioritize the different factors that affect the quality of the urban place they are studying. Teams then identify those decision-makers whose decisions determine the future state of the most significant of these factors. Next, they think about how they might best influence these decisions. Teams are urged to be innovative in devising mechanisms for shaping future decisions; they use themes and idea-generating concepts to put together integrated, innovative urban design schemes. The results of the analysis and design phase are presented in a final report.

In lieu of a final examination, students end the semester by working on individual projects that test their understanding of the concepts covered in the course. They are asked to identify a local opportunity for urban design intervention: a place where there are signs that change is likely to happen, and where that change either threatens existing quality or where change can be managed to improve quality. Students use text, photographs, maps, and sketches to describe the urban design opportunity that obtains. (See http://www.urban.uiuc.edu/Courses/Varkki/up326/Spring97/IndProj/Default.htm)

III. COURSE IMPLEMENTATION

A. The Plan
The usual enrollment in the urban design course on each campus is highly variable. At UIUC, there have been as many as 30 students and as few as 15. At UIC, there are usually 10 students enrolled. Given the infrastructure available, and the experimental nature of the joint course, we decided to limit the number of students at UIUC to 20 and at UIC to 10.

Our first problem was a difference in the academic calendars on the two campuses. Classes at UIUC were scheduled to start a week later than those at UIC; Spring Break for each campus was also scheduled a week apart. As a result, out of fifteen weeks we could only schedule eleven weeks of joint classes. We addressed this problem by covering the same material in separate sessions on each campus during some weeks, and reducing the total number of weeks by one. Since the students at UIUC were more likely to be familiar with the learning technologies to be used—Internet-based learning technologies are used in other courses—we used the first week of class at UIC to introduce students to the learning technologies.

Each week, we scheduled an hour-long lecture and discussion session, followed by a two-hour lab or studio session. Most weeks we planned to discuss two topics in the lecture session, and then have students work on applying these ideas to the project site during the studio session. With this decision made, we then had to decide how we would provide real-time communication between the two campuses. The preferred method is videoconferencing; students and instructors at each site can see and hear people at the other site on one or more TV monitors. Because of cost, we had to limit videoconferencing to the lecture-discussion session. Videoconferencing cost each campus $50 an hour. This is lower than usual because the course was experimental, and because there is a dedicated T1 line between the two campuses. Still, this represented a major expense. At UIC, the joint session was held in a classroom that has videoconferencing facilities, but is used primarily for regular classes (see Figure 1); equipment has to be taken out of storage and assembled before each session. At UIUC, the joint session was held in a classroom dedicated to videoconferencing (see Figure 2). To extend discussions beyond the classroom, we used the group conferencing software, FirstClass (See http://www.softarc.com/product). This software combines asynchronous communication via formatted textual and graphic messages with file attachments and real-time communication via chats (each participant types messages into one window that are visible to all participants).

Figure 1: Layout of the Classroom at UIC.

Since we could not afford a video link between the two campuses for the studio sessions, we instead decided to use FirstClass messages and real-time chats. At UIC, the studio session was held in a public computing site, set up as a teaching laboratory. At UIUC, the studio session was held in a classroom with computers and worktables. Students were expected to work in teams on the assigned task and seek clarifications either through a public chat mail or through messages posted to a public conference. The public conference and chat was expected to perform the role of a public forum in which all participants would benefit from answers or clarifications posted by instructors.

Figure 2: Layout of the Classroom at UIUC

The learning process in the course involves students applying ideas to a project site in draft form, comments by instructors on draft work, and then students revising these drafts. Since we wanted instructors on one campus to also read and comment on the reports produced by teams on the other campus, homework assignments were to be submitted electronically as attachments to FirstClass messages. Students were asked to send these messages to a special conference where they could post messages but not view its contents. Since the assignments were submitted electronically, many that would have usually been turned in on paper were done in digital form. Hand-drawn sketches were to be scanned, manipulated using image-processing software, and then inserted into word-processed documents.

At the same time as this course was to be offered, there was an opportunity for students to participate in the activities of the ESL Action Research Project. For the course project site, therefore, we chose a site in ESL, in the Olivette Park neighborhood. One of the authors had worked with the local neighborhood organization on a general neighborhood revitalization plan, and there was considerable background material available for the area. A neighborhood resident who had been very involved in the planning for the neighborhood very interested in electronic communications and the Internet, and we hoped he would participate both as a client representative and a course instructor. We planned to include this community resident in project discussions using FirstClass.

Frequent visits to the project site are an important feature of this course, and we planned that we would make several trips to the site (about 180 miles from UIUC and about 300 miles from UIC). If each member of each team visited the site once, and these visits did not overlap, then the team would have a fairly extensive exposure to the site. In addition, we used a computer-based tool, called HyperSpace [2] that uses digital video and hypermedia technology to simulate movement along several paths through the site. HyperSpace would help students relive their experience of the site, would provide visual images of the site for different kinds of analysis, and also allows students to analyze the experience of moving through site using the annotation feature.

We hoped that, at the end of the project, neighborhood residents could provide a valuable reality check for the students even though the residents were not formally our clients. We felt that students would learn valuable lessons from feedback that they received from residents. The students’ design ideas, by the same token, would represent a source of ideas for the neighborhood organization. We did not have a clear idea of how we would implement this review. We considered two options: a videoconference linking the three locations (UIC, UIUC, and ESL) or a presentation in ESL.

Finally, we had to decide on implementing the individual project that ends the semester. Previously, students presented their work in the form of a display board that combined a textual narrative and illustrative graphic images. To share these between the two campuses, we planned instead to have students create documents on the World Wide Web. This required that students be trained in creating Web pages, and that a location for these pages be made available.

Figure 3 summarizes the virtual links we expected to set up among the three locations.

Figure 3: Proposed Virtual Links Among Three Locations.

B. The Reality: Lessons Learned
Despite the instructors extensive planning and preparation, there were many unexpected and unanticipated situations and outcomes that significantly altered the delivery of the course. Throughout the semester, many valuable – albeit frustrating – lessons were learned about planning and implementing the course. The purpose of this section is to reflect on the expected and unexpected outcomes of the course within the framework of lessons learned. We will try to provide some useful guidelines of what to do – and more often, what not to do – in order that others embarking on a collaborative teaching effort might enjoy greater success.

1. Prepare Students for a Non-traditional Academic Experience
We would recommend offering an orientation/information session the semester before the course to introduce prospective students to the experimental nature of the course and immediately scare off the faint of heart. This would help instructors get a better sense of enrollment projections before the course and plan accordingly. Our enrollment predictions were off the mark. By the time enrollments were stabilized, there were 10 students enrolled at UIUC (though we intended to have 20) and 14 students enrolled at UIC (though we intended to have 10). As is common, many students had registered for the course at UIUC with the intention of seeing what it was like on the first day and then making up their minds. The enrollment limit meant that several other students, who would have also liked to check the course out, were not able to register and made other plans. Twenty students attended the first day of class, but over the next few class sessions, ten of these students dropped the course. An orientation session (or several) would have prevented those students without the time or interest in the course from initially enrolling, keeping the course available to those truly interested. An orientation session also would have stressed the experimental nature of the course and the time constraints involved, perhaps alleviating some student frustration later in the semester.

2. Don’t Underestimate Differences Between Students and Campuses
As it turned out, we were bridging more than physical distances among the two campuses and the project site. There were differences between the campuses in terms of demographics and access to technology that had to be bridged. Students at UIUC are almost all full-time students; only one-third or one-fourth of UIC students are full-time. At UIC, most are commuter students with full-time professional jobs, with less flexibility in how they structure and use their time. As a result, they were more distressed when a particular aspect of the course, be it a software application or a particular assignment, did not work exactly as intended. The course was designed more for full-time students than those who had full-time jobs; we were not able to figure out how to satisfactorily bridge this distance without ignoring one or the other group. While we are unable to offer any definite solutions to this difference, we note it as an important consideration that deserves attention.

The other significant difference had to do with familiarity with and access to the technology. Students at UIUC, with the exception of one, all had prior experience in using the different software applications involved. They had all previously taken a course in which material was delivered via the Web, and in which FirstClass was used as a communication tool. They were more aware of what could go wrong, and they were better prepared to deal with these problems. There was also a difference in students’ physical access to technology. Students at UIUC had 24-hour access to two computer labs that are set up for supporting teamwork. Other computer labs on campus are also open 24 hours a day. On the other hand, students at UIC had limited access to computing facilities. Also, the lab used for the studio session was not set up more for individual rather than teamwork.

3. Don’t Attempt to Teach the Technology and the Course Simultaneously
Without prior exposure to the technologies involved, more often than not, the technologies used in the course became barriers to learning. This was less true of FirstClass, and more true of the software applications that students had to use to complete assignments in digital form (e.g., HyperSpace and Photoshop). This was also less true at UIUC where students had prior exposure to these software applications. Many students felt that the focus was shifted away from substantive issues and onto the technology itself. Students at UIC were heard to ask, "Is this an urban design course or Neat Computer Stuff 101?" They believed that the time lost to making the technology work smoothly diverted their valuable time and resources away from what they believed and expected they would receive from the course. Even though we attempted to address this problem early in the semester by not requiring homework in electronic form, the damage had already been done. Students were disheartened, and as a result may have put less of themselves into the course.

To alleviate these problems, we recommend that a prerequisite computer technology course be taught separately on each campus. This would highlight local technological and course-design problems, which could be addressed under less stressful conditions. This was the case at UIUC. It is vital that students who enroll already possess many of the computer skills required to successfully participate in the course. Several students suggested a prerequisite course where many of the technological skills can be acquired (one such course already exists at UIUC). Once the local situation is under control and relatively trouble-free, then we could more effectively collaborate across campuses.

4. Invest in Trial Runs
In retrospect, we also would have secured resources to implement several weeks worth of "trial runs" of the course. The time, effort and expense required to do so would have been well worth it. In reality, it took us quite a few attempts before we were able to get the joint lecture-discussion sessions to work even reasonably well. For instance, to begin with we did not have a good way of displaying visual images to go with the lectures. One camera at each location was pointed at a surface on which the instructor could write, and this image was transmitted to the other end. (The classroom layout at each location is illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.) This meant, however, that the instructor was not visible when the visuals were displayed. We then used an application called Vis-a-vis that displays images on the screens of two or more computers connected via modem or the Internet. This worked quite well, even though it required extra set-up time in the UIC classroom; this technology was already incorporated in the UIUC classroom. Working this out before the semester began would have been beneficial to all involved.

5. Don’t Neglect Logistics
Even simple logistics can affect the success of such a course and must be thought out in minute detail before the first day. For example, the joint lecture-discussion sessions were also affected by the need to set up the UIC classroom before each session. The videoconferencing equipment was stored in a closet in the classroom, and had to be taken out and assembled. As a result of room scheduling and other timing problems, this often delayed the start of the class. On some days we lost almost 15 minutes of the scheduled one-hour of meeting time. This resulted in several of the lectures or the discussion having to be shortened significantly. We attempted to remedy this by setting up a FirstClass sub-conference for extending discussion of topics outside the classroom. Unfortunately, there was very little conversation in this conference: the instructors were preoccupied with addressing course implementation issues and could not lead the conversation; students were preoccupied with completing the project homework assignments.

6. Re-evaluate and Adapt the Course on a Weekly Basis
From the onset, the instructors of the course knew that constant student feedback and evaluation was necessary to keep the course on track. We implemented two major changes in the course over the semester: the submission of homework from electronic to hard copy, and the homework submission schedule. The software applications and the computing facilities did not scale up to the requirements of the assignments. At the beginning of the semester, students were asked to submit completed assignments in digital form. This involved text combined with scanned images (sketches, maps, and photographs). Students produced many images and graphics by using the software Photoshop [1]. For example, they created figure-ground diagrams (which highlight building footprints) to trace building footprints from a digital orthophoto of the site. The resulting files were extremely large, some over 4 megabytes. Downloading each file over a modem connection can take over 20 minutes. As a result, we had to abandon our plan to exchange homework in digital form, and we reverted to printed versions of the assignments. We also had to drop our plan of having instructors on both campuses responding to homework assignments; instructors on one campus reviewed homework turned in by students on that campus. At UIC, with a more dispersed group of students and instructors, students faxed their homework assignment to the instructor.

We had to alter the students’ work cycle several times over the course of the semester. Initially, we had planned for a lecture on Tuesdays, studio work on Thursdays, and submission of work on Fridays. This proved totally unrealistic in that there just was not enough time for students to put any meaningful effort into their assignments. As a result, they were often disappointed and upset over this. We then gave students the weekend to work on the assignment. While this did alleviate some of the pressure on students, it was not still unsatisfactory. We should have provided more time between the lecture and the studio sessions; we could not make this change because of scheduling commitments of the lecture classroom.

7. Asynchronous Communication Doesn’t Just Happen
Studio sessions also did not work out as we planned. We intended to use FirstClass to link the two locations. We first tried using public real-time chats visible to all teams. Each team was to have the chat window open on a computer close to where they were working on their assignments. As they encountered problems or needed clarifications, they were to type their questions in the chat window; instructors would answer these questions likewise. This resulted in chaos, and was abandoned after one try. There were many different conversational threads going on concurrently, some of them not related to the course at all. We were not able to establish a protocol for this kind of a conversation. We then tried a conference in which students would post their questions in messages. Though there were distinct benefits to sharing in this fashion, it required too much extra effort and was rarely used by students. Instructors would post clarifications as they came up but their conversations too were mostly with individual teams. Studio sessions at UIC were also affected by the arrangement of the room. Students could not work around computers as teams since the room was set up for individual computer use.

We were also not able to make full use of FirstClass to effectively extend discussion of issues beyond the lecture-discussion sessions. When we realized that we were not generating enough discussion during the weekly joint session, we started a FirstClass conference for conducting these discussions. Yet, because we were distracted by problems that kept cropping up, we did not devote enough time to generating this discussion by leading or seeding the conversation. We found that merely providing a forum for discussion does not by itself result in meaningful discussion. Others using this type of asynchronous communication should plan in advance methods of stimulating discussion, perhaps assigning different students the responsibility for leading on-line discussions.

8. Do not Expect Technology to Substitute for FTF Communication
We found that the technology sometimes discouraged student responsibility and engagement in the course. Instructors must be careful to balance personal interaction with other forms of communication to ensure student involvement and participation in the course. The various technologies we used in teaching this course hindered learning even as they helped bridge distances. This included the video link and the software used for homework assignments. The need for setting up the lecture room led to late starts to many lecture sessions, and material had to be covered in a hurry. There was not enough time for in-class discussion. One instructor usually calls on teams to summarize assigned readings at the start of the lecture session. This was not possible given the time limitations, and as a result students were less engaged. Difference in room layouts may have had an effect: at UIUC the lecture room was laid out very formally; at UIC, the arrangement was much less formal. We also observed that students were less engaged because of the videoconference link. This was true not only in the classroom where the lecturer appeared on a TV monitor, but also where the lecturer was located. The difference was quite clear when the lecture was delivered only at one site because of the difference in academic calendars; students reported this lecture to be much more effective. Perhaps awareness of the remote link serves to distract and detract from the lecture. Even though it would cost more, we now believe that more time needs to be devoted to joint lecture-discussion sessions than would be if the sessions were only local.

In addition, this course involved considerable teamwork, and that is problematic under normal circumstances. We hoped to monitor team activity via their communications; we were only partially successful. When more traditional controls such as FTF teacher-student contact or peer evaluations and presentations are eliminated, we now wonder whether students are less likely to feel responsible. In previous years, some teams would meet frequently, even if for twenty minutes before class, to discuss the assigned readings and the assigned project task. In Spring 1997, we did not get a sense that this happened very frequently, if at all.

9. Avoid Information Overload
Some of the technologies did not facilitate learning as much as we hoped. Through a project manual on the course Web site, we provided detailed instructions on how the different assignments were to be completed. We hoped that students would use this information to plan their work ahead of time. As it turned out, however, very few students used this resource. Most relied exclusively on a brief summary of these instructions that was presented in class, and as a result the assignments were much less effective than they could have been. We do not have a good explanation for why this happened. Perhaps it was a matter of access to these materials. The project manual page was three links away from the main course page, and not directly accessible. This was certainly true of the schedule for handing in homework assignments. It was buried in the project manual, and students were constantly asking for this information when it was already available on the Web. Perhaps it was because the information in the Web site kept changing and it was not up to date. Delivering course material via the Web makes it easy to revise this information, but sometimes it was difficult to keep the material current given the pace at which changes were being made. Perhaps it was a case of information overload: to be current on requirements, students had to monitor both FirstClass and the Web.

10. Set Realistic Expectations for Students, Instructors and Participants
Our decision to establish the project site in a third city proved to be especially problematic. We were overly optimistic about students’ ability to travel to the site, as well as the availability of community residents to participate in FirstClass discussions on a daily basis. As a result, the link to the project site proved to be extremely tenuous. (See Figure 4 for travel among the sites that became necessary over the duration of the semester.) The three-hour drive to ESL from UIUC is manageable and regularly made by many students of this campus, but the five-hour drive from UIC was significantly longer and much more difficult to organize. Inclement weather also forced us to abandon one trip at the beginning of the semester. As a result, students made fewer trips to the site than we planned, and they did not establish the close link to the site that is so essential for the course to be effective. Some groups used HyperSpace to visit or revisit the site, but students at UIC were particularly hampered by lack of convenient access to Macintosh computers required to run the software. Teams were also not able to make full use of HyperSpace because of bugs in the software that were yet to be ironed out, and because it imposed an additional burden on students. To provide simpler access to the site, we also attempted to provide photographs of the site on the web.

We could not get as much input from our resident participant using FirstClass as we had hoped, but his participation in the end-of-semester project review was very effective. Teams were required to analyze two different aspects of the site every week. To keep up this rapid pace, students need information quickly or else they cannot use it. Several questions were posed to the resident participant using FirstClass and he responded as soon as he could, but some questions were not asked because of lack of time and in some cases students had already moved on to another topic by the time an answer was posted.

Our resident participant helped us solve the problem of conducting the end-of-semester project review by driving to UIUC and participating in the team presentations. Connecting three locations via videoconferencing is quite complex, and we were not sure of finding the necessary facilities in ESL. A presentation in ESL was logistically problematic since it was the end of the semester and it would take the UIC students an extra day to make the trip. We held the presentations in UIUC since it represented a central location. The presentations were held on a Saturday, and at least one representative from each UIC team and all members of the UIUC teams participated

As a learning experience, the course was diminished by students’ inability to frequently visit and establish a good understanding of the site. Our original intent was for students to work on a common site and share insights. As we explained, our students did not visit the site as frequently as we hoped, and they were applying concepts to the site in a second-hand manner rather than directly. We now believe that students should preferably work on a local site. While they may not be able to share insights, comparisons and contrasts between the different sites might generate different but equally useful insights.

 

Figure 4: Travel Among the Three Locations.

IV. CONCLUSION

In retrospect, we were probably overly ambitious in what we were trying to accomplish. We were trying to connect students and instructors on two campuses. We were also trying to connect the campuses with a very poor neighborhood, whose residents have little access to or experience with computers. We were probably more successful in doing the former than the latter.

The end-of-semester project review suggested that most students had internalized many of the concepts and ideas discussed in class. Nonetheless, the various technologies used to bridge the distances among the campuses and the site posed severe barriers of their own. As a result, many students felt this course did not meet the expectations set up in the course syllabus. For us instructors, we were not able to focus on course content as much we should have because we were struggling with making the technologies and the course design work.

When teams presented their project work at the end of the semester, it made much of the earlier struggle with course design and learning technologies seem worthwhile. The teams demonstrated—through application to the project site—that they had internalized and mastered many of the concepts presented to them. For instance, we discussed in class how ‘concepts’ or ‘themes’ could be used to generate design ideas, enhance creativity, and provide cohesion to the different parts of urban design schemes. At the review, several teams used metaphors and analogies in very effective ways: the notion of the site as a garden that needed tending; the image of the site as a phoenix rising from the ashes.

In connecting two campuses, we believe we made some important first steps. We learned about what to do and what not to do, as well some of the limitations of the technology we were trying to use. We confirmed that the technology must supplement, rather than take the place of, some of the traditional methods of learning. We learned that virtual learning environments (as opposed to FTF environments) afford different behaviors in students. Most importantly, we learned that it can be done, which is exciting. It opens up opportunities for future collaborations between the two campuses, which can only enhance the quality of planning education for students on both campuses.

In future collaborations, however, we must take into account the enormous effort that is necessary to plan, implement, and trouble-shoot these collaborations. Until the various systems and facilities are in place and working smoothly, the extra effort necessary to pull this kind of collaboration must be acknowledged. Both principal instructors during spring 1997 taught a second course along with the urban design course. We had thought that sharing the teaching load might compensate for the extra effort necessary. This proved to be wishful thinking: at times, coping with the two courses was a crushing burden and it limited our ability to quickly respond to technology and course-design problems, and it affected the quality of both courses.

Perhaps it would be better to more gradually scale up to full collaboration. First, the course could be taught separately on each campus using the learning technologies that we used. This would highlight local technological and course-design problems, which could be addressed under less stressful conditions. This was the case at UIUC. It is vital that students who enroll already possess many of the computer skills required to successfully participate in the course. Several students suggested a prerequisite course where much of the technological skills can be acquired (one such course already exists at UIUC). Once the local situation is under control and relatively trouble-free, then we could collaborate across campuses.

A similar approach should be adopted for linking the campuses to a client community. In order for community participation to be meaningful, we would almost have to run a semester-long course to prepare the residents, so they are comfortable with the technology. We would have to ensure that they have adequate access to the technology. To match the residents’ investment in the project, we would need a workshop or studio-type course where students receive more credit and devote more time to the project.

In closing, we would like to highlight an issue that must be addressed in all experimental courses. About a month into the course, after the many changes made to the course plan and schedule in order to make things work, one student posted an angry message to the feedback conference. This student was paying fees for taking the course, and was upset at being the subject of an experiment. While we do not believe this view was widely shared, it is nonetheless a valid and troubling question. Is it enough for instructors to make clear the experimental nature of the course at the start of the semester? Would an orientation session in the prior semester, before students register for courses, adequately address this problem? Clearly, we must experiment with courses or we run the risk of stagnating and not making progress, but what can we do to make sure that lessons are not learned on the backs of students?

REFERENCES

1. Al-Kodmany, Kheir, Advancing Visual Thinking for Planners: The Use of Imaging Technology. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association, 1998.
2. George, R. Varkki, HyperSpace: Communicating Ideas About the Quality of Urban Spaces, Journal of Planning Education and Research 17: 63-70, 1997.
3. Harasim, Linda, Hiltz, Starr Roxanne, Teles, Lucio, and Turoff, Murray. Learning Networks: A Field Guide. MIT Press, 1995.
4. Hiltz, S. R. The Virtual Classroom: Learning Without Limits via Computer Networks. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1994.
5. Petrie, Pattsi, and George, R. Varkki, Experiences With Asynchronous Learning In Urban Planning. Paper presented at the Joint International Congress of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning and the Association of European Schools of Planning, Toronto, Canada, July 1996.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was supported by a grant from the Office of the Vice President of Academic Affairs of the University of Illinois. We are also grateful for generous technical and other support from the Sloan Center for Asynchronous Learning Environments (UIUC), Department of Extramural Programs and Guided Individual Study (UIUC), and Department of Telecommunications (UIC). The illustrations in this paper were created by So-Yon Park (UIC). An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1997 ACSP Conference in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.