Evaluating the Oregon Experiential Learning Model: Findings from Clients,Students,and Alumni

Abstract

Spanish

Chinese

Experiential learning has long been integral to planning education. For decades, the University of Oregon has offered a unique experiential model involving paying clients supported by nontenure track faculty. We utilize surveys and interviews to evaluate nine years of course delivery in relation to learning outcomes, work quality, and lessons learned. We found the model provides thorough professional training and excellent products due largely to client engagement and staffing support, but ongoing challenges include collaborative work programs, team dynamics, and integrating equity and inclusion. This model requires client and university investment, and we highlight transferable lessons for developing experiential learning programs.

Keywords

experiential learning planning pedagogy instruction service-learning

Introduction

Experiential learning “has long been highly regarded as an essential component of planning pedagogy and knowledge production” (Porter 2015, 409). In traditional learning models, an instructor provides the information, and teaching is focused on delivery (Shepherd and Cosgrif 1998). Experiential approaches are based on the benefits of learning through classroom and field-based exercises. Shepherd and Cosgrif (1998) note that it aligns with Schön’s (1987, 25) concept of the reflective practitioner in which knowledge is acquired through solving a problem or “procedural knowledge.” From a practical perspective, experiential learning is also about enhancing career readiness through “real world” experiences.

Studio courses dominated early planning instruction when the emphasis was on physical planning, but as the social sciences ascended, studios were replaced by analytic methods and concentrations; studios were also more expensive to deliver (Long 2012). The increased attention on civil rights in the 1960s and 1970s led to a new emphasis on experiential learning that supported underserved communities and increased student appreciation of civic responsibility (Levkoe, Friendly, and Daniere 2020; Meens 2014; Reardon 1998). In the 1980s, a renewed interest in developing the professional skills of planning students led to a resurgence of workshops or practicums (Long 2012; Norton et al. 2022; Roakes and Norris-Tirrell 2000), and by 2009 84 percent of planning programs required some kind of applied course (Long 2012, 437).

In this paper, we review the literature related to experiential learning and research findings from how it has been applied in the planning curriculum. We then describe the experiential model that has been used at the University of Oregon for almost fifty years and examine several questions. What have been the learning outcomes for students? What has been the impact and quality of the products for clients? What are the lessons and takeaways from this model? This evaluation is based on student assessment, alumni surveys, client surveys, and interviews with clients and instructors.

Research on Experiential Learning in Planning

Experiential learning describes the overarching concept of integrating learning with real-life settings. While we acknowledge there is no consensus on the use of these terms, we define two main types of experiential models as problem-based learning and service-learning.

Problem-based learning usually describes a situation where the instructor gives students a problem similar to a practice setting (Shepherd and Cosgrif 1998). This may be done with a client or constructed as a hypothetical scenario. Through this applied problem-solving, students gain an understanding of practice skills and understand how the work fits into the planning process (Long 2012; Roakes and Norris-Tirrell 2000).

In contrast, service-learning arose during the civil rights era, and the roots of this model include teaching students about tolerance, respect for diversity, promoting the voices of nondominant groups, and redressing power imbalances of marginalized communities (Butin 2010). Roakes and Norris-Tirrell (2000) point out that service-learning also includes community building and citizenship components, and some describe this model as university–community partnerships (Sletto 2010). Service-learning is now used in planning to describe a range of community-based approaches.

Researchers have evaluated experiential approaches using participatory action research methods (Winkler 2013), service-learning frameworks (Roakes and Norris-Tirrell 2000), course competencies (Oonk, Gulikers, and Mulder 2019), learning objectives (Levkoe, Friendly, and Daniere 2020), and administrative design and implementation criteria (Norton et al. 2022). This scholarship highlights issues related to instructors, students, active and communities, and justice, diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Instructors

A common finding from experiential learning courses is it requires more effort because instructors must spend considerable time setting up partnership arrangements and identifying client needs (Levkoe, Friendly, and Daniere 2020). Reflecting on his extensive efforts to engage with the community of East St. Louis, Reardon (1998) noted that the work created a burden for a small set of faculty and part-time researchers, and the public service role was not well represented in university promotion procedures. Experiential learning involves more work because student teams require intensive coaching and they are anxious about the uncertainty involved with the class (Levkoe, Friendly, and Daniere 2020; Oonk, Gulikers, and Mulder 2019).

Studies have shown that extra time and effort are not only inherent in experiential learning but also linked to better learning outcomes. Oonk, Gulikers, and Mulder’s (2019) comparison of five experiential learning projects in the Netherlands found that a higher level of coaching intensity was associated with higher competency scores and more interdisciplinary learning. Similarly, when Norton et al. (2022) compared the success and failure of various engagement efforts across their university, lack of faculty fully engaging in the project was one of the primary reasons for underperformance.

Students

Several studies found that students gained important technical and professional skills through experiential learning (Levkoe, Friendly, and Daniere 2020; Roakes and Norris-Tirrell 2000). Interaction with clients and professionals allowed students to understand the professional setting better. When these classes involved multiple disciplines, students also learned from each other about different professional roles (Norton et al. 2022). Oonk, Gulikers, and Mulder’s (2019) study found that working in multidisciplinary teams strengthened several key competencies of students, but students were more excited by what they learned from “real” external clients than their peers.

Some challenges include the need to keep students focused on the products, student workload and time demands, and the difficulty of getting students to reflect (Levkoe, Friendly, and Daniere 2020; Roakes and Norris-Tirrell 2000; Sletto 2010). The challenge of reflection is particularly noteworthy because reflective practice is viewed as a core concept.

Clients and communities

The research revealed varying benefits of experiential learning to clients and communities. Reardon (1998) found that efforts in East St. Louis helped empower communities, increase participation, highlighted community leadership potential, and promoted the role of nonprofit organizations. Levkoe, Friendly, and Daniere (2020) and Norton et al. (2022) both concluded that the experiential learning projects generated valuable products and very sophisticated analysis for clients.

In contrast, Winkler (2013) observed that community hierarchies created an exclusionary environment and community leaders did not treat faculty and students as partners (Winkler 2013). Similarly, Reardon (1998) noted that some community-based organizations formed elitist leadership structures that engaged in exclusionary decision-making. Sletto (2010) noted a service-learning partnership in Austin primarily facilitated the work of a community organization, rather than directly bringing marginalized children into the planning process.

Reardon (1998) also noted that while the university committed to establishing community nonprofit organizations, some did not thrive, and their failure has been a bitter disappointment to residents. Furthermore, the community emphasized physical projects over social development efforts, which limited success due to the difficulty of leveraging university resources. Dewar and Issac (1998) found that most partnerships involved a consultant-driven model in which university partners lend their legal, design, and planning expertise to increase community capacity. They contrast this with a community-led model that requires broad representation by an active community and requires planners to function as participants.

Justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI)

Some experiential models promote community empowerment and redressing power imbalances of marginalized communities (Butin 2010; Meens 2014; Reardon 1998), but there has also been criticism of its ability to truly serve these communities. Winkler (2013) found that their efforts to design a participatory action studio research project fell short in empowerment, social justice, and inclusion. Levkoe, Friendly, and Daniere (2020) found similar themes in their review of the literature. Many students come with little knowledge about social context or community development and have limited time to invest. Working in marginalized communities can reinforce power dynamics and reproduce dominant social dynamics rather than encouraging students to question the structures that lead to inequality and marginalization (Mitchell 2008).

Because faculty have limited time to invest in student support, the burden of student training often falls upon community partners (Cushman 2002). Furthermore, the duration of a typical course is rarely enough time for students to learn the necessary skills to be a useful partner (Levkoe, Friendly, and Daniere 2020). Winkler (2013) concluded that it was naïve to assume that university partners would be empowered, and the students receive the most empowerment benefits.

The Oregon Experiential Learning Model

Community Planning Workshop (CPW) is an experiential learning program delivered by the Institute for Policy Research and Engagement (IPRE), which is housed in the School of Planning, Public Policy, and Management (PPPM) at the University of Oregon (see Figure 1). IPRE supports several experiential programs, but CPW has the longest history—started by Professor David Povey in 1974.

Integration into the Curriculum

CPW is a graduate level required course in the planning program, which is delivered during the second and third quarters of the first year. This timing helps students explore professional practice, obtain applied skills, and determine the concentration they want to pursue in their second year. This model also allows CPW to hire second-year students as project managers to help work with clients, gather information, and manage teams. CPW also hires summer interns to help finalize client reports and work on related projects.

Faculty have refined CPW over the years in response to curriculum and accreditation reviews. The planning program added a required research skills class in Winter term, which exposes all students to professional practice skills such as surveys, content analysis, focus groups, and interviewing. The program added a required, one-credit professional development course to better integrate JEDI (Table 1).

Table 1.

Comparison of Experiential Models.

Element	Problem-based learning (studio model)	Oregon experiential model	Service-learning (university–community partnership model)
Typical structure	• Studio class delivered by faculty • Students mostly responsible for products	• Workshop delivered by faculty in research institute • Faculty mostly responsible for products	• Partnership developed by faculty with university support • Faculty mostly responsible for products
Instructors	• Tenure track faculty or adjuncts^a • Instructor designs problem and serves as advisor	• Full-time nontenure track faculty oversee project under grant^b • Faculty and graduate assistants mentor groups	• Faculty oversees project in collaboration with partner • Faculty and partner mentor students
Students	• Gain experience with realistic problem • Builds career readiness	• Gain experience working with real clients and engagement • Builds career readiness • Builds career networks	• Gain experience working with real communities and partners • Builds career readiness
Clients	• Developed by faculty with real or hypothetical client in mind • Receive high quality information	• Projects provided by clients or external grant funding • Receive high quality information and progress on experimental or exploratory work	• Developed through partnership with university • Receive high quality information but requires partner time and mentoring
Justice, diversity, equity, and inclusion	• Empowerment not part of model • JEDI may be brought into course	• Empowerment not part of model • JEDI brought into workshop, projects, and parallel course	• Empowerment of underserved communities traditionally key part model

Note: JEDI = Justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion.

Adjunct (or Pro Tem) faculty are typically hired on a limited basis to teach a single course.

Nontenure track faculty working for Community Planning Workshop are full-time career faculty who work under twelve-month grant contingent contracts.

Course Objectives and Teaching Philosophy

The mission of CPW is to provide applied opportunities for students, planning assistance for clients, and contribute to the applied knowledge in the field. CPW’s learning objectives encompass three broad categories. First, the class simulates professional practice work by interacting with clients and communities on sponsored projects. Second, CPW student teams gather primary and secondary data, facilitate meetings, gather public input, and analyze quantitative and qualitative data. Third, CPW develops professional written, oral, and visual communication skills. A key axiom of CPW is that the experience is about the planning process not the project (e.g., the topic), which means that projects are learning platforms for building foundational professional skills.

Faculty Roles and Project Management

CPW operations are modeled on a professional planning office. Faculty “Project Directors” manage client relationships, oversee project administration, serve as technical advisors, and provide quality control. CPW instructors are nontenure track faculty with graduate degrees and professional planning experience who work full-time under twelve-month contracts in the Institute.¹ IPRE faculty are partially funded through the school teaching budget, and mostly from external grants and contracts. CPW faculty are evaluated for their teaching and service roles, including developing partnerships, writing grants, and overseeing projects.

Funding and Clients

CPW is organized around client-driven projects funded by cities, state agencies, nonprofit organizations, and external grants. Clients are located across Oregon, which means that projects must build in travel time and expenses. This funding also helps pay for graduate project managers, project expenses, and CPW faculty supervision. In the 1970s and 1980s, small projects were conducted with budgets $10,000 to $15,000. By the early 2000s, larger, multi-year projects emerged with $60,000 to $150,000 budgets that fully fund graduate assistants.

CPW projects address diverse topics including local park master plans, economic development plans, transportation studies, downtown development strategies, organizational strategic plans, local food studies, and natural hazard mitigation plans. Most projects emerge from faculty professional networks, ongoing partnerships with external organizations, external grant funding opportunities, and clients seeking more experimental or exploratory work.² CPW has also collaborated with the University of Oregon’s Sustainable City Year Program (SCYP), which aligns public clients with classes across the University to promote experiential learning. CPW faculty rarely respond to requests for proposals (RFPs), current planning projects, or work involving strict timelines. This avoids involvement in projects with political sensitivities and limits direct competition with private consultants.

Comparing the Oregon Model to Other Experiential Models

Compared with the experiential models reviewed above, the CPW model differs in several fundamental ways. First, CPW students gain experience interacting with “real world” clients, but CPW faculty and graduate assistants provide ongoing, intensive mentoring. Clients are encouraged to interact with students throughout the project, and some take on mentoring duties, but it is not required.

Second, CPW projects are funded mostly through client contracts or grants. This departs from a traditional service-learning model focused on a community-based client, where funding is provided by foundations or the university.

Third, CPW is not designed around a community empowerment model. Some projects focus on underrepresented communities and use cutting-edge engagement strategies. Classroom discussions also address power, privilege, and diversity, but community empowerment is not a core objective of every project. CPW projects are structured to expose students to some form of community engagement, but this is a contracted role with the client organization.

Fourth, CPW faculty are responsible for identifying projects, developing contracts, refining work programs, overseeing student teams, and ensuring clients are satisfied with the deliverables. Work prior to the course is required to secure contracts and provide enough preparation time for projects to be completed in six months. At the start of CPW, students help refine the scope, specify deliverables, and provide input on work program implementation.

Finally, the CPW faculty member who negotiates the contract and scope of work (e.g., the principal investigator) is responsible for the deliverables. The goal is for the student teams to generate a “90-percent” draft, which can be reviewed and finalized by faculty. In some cases, summer interns may also be hired to polish the final product. This contrasts with student-led efforts in which clients receive an “as is” final product or a model in which tenure track faculty must finalize the product.

Method

Our evaluation of Oregon’s experiential model focused on student preparation and work product quality. We also explored the lessons learned and the potential transferability of the model. We used a mixed-methods approach incorporating the perspective of instructors, students, alumni, and clients between 2010 and 2018. First, we compiled student evaluations of CPW classes administered by the university, and end of year surveys administered by the School of PPPM (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Data Sources.

Evaluation component	Data sources	Types of queries
Student preparation	• University class evaluations (2010–2018)^a Total pop = 398, Annual resp. rate: 44%–76% n = 262	• Course quality factors • Amount learned
	• School end of year survey (2010–2018)^b Total pop = 399, Annual resp. rate: 27%–59% n = 177	• Program learning objectives • Program strengths/weaknesses
	• Online alumni survey (2010–2018 cohorts)^c Total sample = 148, resp. rate: 66% n = 97	• Instructional quality • Class learning objectives • Professional preparation • Instructional support
Work quality	• Client survey (2010–2018) Total pop = 68, resp. rate: 73% n = 35 • Client interviews (2010–2018) n = 7 • Faculty focus group (2010–2018) n = 5	• Product quality • Impact of work • Role of student work • Value to organization
Lessons and takeaways	• Online alumni survey (see above) • Online client survey (see above) • Client interviews (see above) • Faculty focus groups (see above)	• Value of University partnership • Lessons learned • Keys to success/failure

Includes surveys of Winter and Spring term sections.

Includes first- and second-year student cohorts.

Email addresses could not be located for all alumni.

Second, in 2020, we conducted an online survey of alumni who graduated between 2010 and 2018; asking them to evaluate how well CPW accomplished the identified learning objectives (see Table 2). We also asked them to evaluate the skills they gained from CPW relative to other educational activities.

Third, we conducted an online survey of sixty-eight clients involved in CPW projects during the study period (see Table 2). We asked them to evaluate work input, quality of products, the role of student-generated work, and the quality of their interaction.

Fourth, prior to analyzing the student and client data, we convened a focus group of five current and former CPW faculty to complete a formal retrospective evaluation of: instructional challenges, client complexities, student dynamics, and quality and impact of final products. This focus group discussion was recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for themes.

Fifth, we conducted seven interviews with clients to explore issues of project management, organizational value, quality of products, and lessons learned. These hour-long video interviews focused on a sample of clients who had been involved in multiple projects.

There are several limitations of these data. First, the student data collected through class evaluations suffered from low response rates, limited open-ended feedback, and anonymous responses to generic university questions. Second, the retrospective evaluations of alumni, clients, and faculty may be affected by time, selective memory, and personal bias. Finally, alumni and clients with more positive experiences may have been more likely to respond to surveys. We did not analyze data by project or year due to sample size limitations.

How Well Does This Model Prepare Students?

The generic university class evaluations had limited value, but revealed some noteworthy themes.³ First, evaluations for overall course quality, instructional quality, communication outside class, and amount learned have consistently scored higher than the School of PPPM mean. Second, there was a moderate decline in the evaluation of course quality between 2016 and 2018, which correlated with the addition of several large and complex projects. Third, in almost every year, course quality, organization, and amount learned was higher for spring quarter than winter quarter.

The School conducts an annual survey of all students to evaluate program-learning objectives and solicit open-ended feedback about strengths and weaknesses (see Table 2). Among the 177 respondents received during the period of this study, there were thirty-five positive comments about CPW as a strength of the curriculum. Although some students believed it would have been more valuable in the second year, most preferred an in-depth, hands-on experience in their first year. Only eight students highlighted weaknesses, and most of these focused on the challenge of working with a client on a deadline. For example, one student commented, “CPW is helpful, but also very stressful—unnecessarily so.” Several students noted that it is a big burden for CPW to provide skill building while also serving a client.

In terms of career readiness, 78 percent of alumni felt CPW prepared them extremely well or very well (see Table 3). When asked how well CPW met the learning objectives, a majority rated CPW extremely well or very well in almost every category, which is consistent with studies showing the value of experiential learning for professional skills (Levkoe, Friendly, and Daniere 2020; Roakes and Norris-Tirrell 2000).

Table 3.

Alumni Responses: How Well Did Community Planning Workshop Achieve Stated Learning Objectives.

Learning objective	Extremely well (%)	Very well (%)	Moderately well (%)	Slightly well (%)	Not well at all (%)	N
Overall	31	47	19	2	1	97
Professional writing	27	43	25	4	0	95
Presentations and public speaking	47	41	10	1	0	97
Meeting facilitation	26	44	21	7	2	96
Graphic communication	4	30	49	11	5	97
Data collection and analysis	20	54	19	7	0	96
Research design	15	44	27	13	2	94
Professional experience	53	36	7	2	1	96
Teamwork	44	39	14	3	1	96
Personal and professional development	44	39	14	2	0	97

This assessment of career readiness was also reinforced in the alumni open-ended responses. For example, one alum noted, “Nothing had a more profound impact on my preparation for my current career than CPW.” Many also describe how tasks of preparing memos and reports helped with professional writing, and regular presentations helped hone public speaking skills, which professionals rate as some of the highest valued skills (Guzzetta and Bollens 2003).

We also asked alumni if CPW influenced their course of study or career direction. Forty-six percent indicated it had an influence, 17 percent cited a mixed influence, and 37 percent indicated no influence. A common response was a project that exposed students to a field they decided to pursue—or not pursue. For example, several alumni noted how their CPW work led to a career in natural hazards. “I found that I was very interested and considerably adept with natural hazard mitigation planning. I wouldn’t have found this out without CPW.” Several also described that their CPW project revealed to them that work in economic development, transportation, or natural hazards was not where they wanted to focus their career.

Another common theme was that CPW influenced student decisions about public versus private work. One respondent noted, “I planned on working in the private sphere, CPW showed me that working in the public sphere is more fulfilling.” Several respondents explained that it led them to pursue jobs focused on public engagement, team dynamics, or working collaboratively.

A final common theme was that CPW helped provide students with networking and job connections. Alumni noted that the connections they made through a CPW project led to interviews for internships or jobs. Several alumni also noted that the applied experience helped them during job interviews. “It is the thing that interests most employers when you meet with them and provides direct, applicable job skills to both the public and private sector.” A few alumni described how specific projects led to job leads. “My first job out of school (during recession) resulted from a private firm asking me to apply to the job after seeing my name on a planning document I worked on with CPW.”

For those indicating that CPW did not influence career direction, the most common response was that they came in with a clear idea and it did not change. A few noted that it helped them explore skills or areas of work that they chose not to peruse. “No [it did not influence my career direction]—it reinforced that I liked planning and let me try out other types of planning besides transportation.”

What Is the Quality of the Work?

A key issue in experiential learning is client deliverables. Under the CPW model, the instructor/principal investigator is contractually obligated to produce deliverables outlined in the scope of work. Instructors noted that relying on teams of relatively inexperienced students to produce the deliverables is a potential risk.

In open-ended critical comments about product quality, three clients noted that the CPW teams sometimes generated recommendations that were not fully vetted. One client noted that “there was not enough discussion and understanding of what kind of information and analysis was needed.” Another client noted, “These ‘ideal’ recommendations can be helpful aspirations, but don’t always take into account the many different competing forces of government—funding being one.”

When asked about the quality of work products, 96 percent of responding clients were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied, and clients were also very positive about the usefulness and value of the products (see Table 4). When asked to compare CPW work with professional consultants, twenty-eight of thirty-two respondents rated it the same or better and four indicated that it was not as good. One client noted that their city “still relies on the Economic Opportunities Analysis and strategic plan for work we are completing today.” Another local government client noted,

We have very high expectations for our consultants. The CPW team was about the same as the best consultants we work with and better than some. I attribute the quality of the work to both the quality of the students and the guidance and oversight by the faculty.

Table 4.

Client Evaluation of Community Planning Workshop (n = 32).

Statement	Strongly agree (%)	Agree (%)	Neither agree nor disagree (%)	Disagree (%)
The product(s) developed for this project were useful for my organization and/or community	66	28	3	3
The project(s) achieved the anticipated or intended results	50	41	3	6
The product(s) were a good value for the resources my organization invested	56	41	0	3
My organization would work with the Community Planning Workshop on another project in the future	66	28	6	0

This is consistent with other studies that have found high levels of satisfaction with experiential learning products (Levkoe, Friendly, and Daniere 2020; Norton et al. 2022).

What Are the Lessons Learned?

Another objective of this study was to explore strengths and weaknesses that would help identify lessons for improving CPW and translating it to other institutions.

Importance of Client and Public Interaction

A key goal of CPW is to provide opportunities for students to interact with clients and the public, so this is built into every project. Alumni and students consistently described their field work in communities as a major benefit of CPW, which is consistent with other experiential learning studies (Levkoe, Friendly, and Daniere 2020; Roakes and Norris-Tirrell 2000). One alum noted, “working for a real client added pressure that a class can’t offer, so learning how to actually prepare for a meeting or presentation was good.” Another alum noted that a strength was “learning how to manage large group meetings with diverse participants with wide ranging perspectives and agendas. I utilize these skills frequently.” Similarly, another alum noted that “the big difference between a class project and CPW is that you ARE doing a real professional project.”

However, not every project provides students with the full range of interaction experiences. One alum noted that they were disappointed that they “missed out on community meeting facilitation that other groups gained experience with.” To address this, CPW has been integrated with a research skills class during the first term to expose all students to the spectrum of methods used in applied projects. However, this has also created challenges, which is exemplified by a student who commented, “Everyone’s project is running at such different paces and involves different methods. CPW can’t expose students to every aspect of an experiential learning experience while they are in the midst of their own complicated experiential learning process.”

Support Structures

CPW is structured to provide several layers of support for students. A majority of alumni rated CPW faculty and student managers as “very supportive” (70% for each); 24 percent listed CPW faculty as “somewhat supportive” and 21 percent listed project managers as “somewhat supportive.” A key pedagogical premise of CPW is that students learn more if they are challenged and occasionally fail. This approach is complemented by time for reflection, and it is contained within a controlled learning environment where faculty help shelter students from complete failure (see also Sletto 2010).

The CPW structure allows students to practice professionalism by simulating the support approach of a professional office. CPW faculty usually meet with teams at least weekly. They provide guidance on how to do project work, check on the quality of the work, and explain how it relates to planning practice. Faculty and alumni indicated that this can be disorienting for students accustomed to a class-based learning environment. One student characterized the CPW process as “guided discovery,” and several commented on this approach:

The combination of guidance towards a high quality project from CPW project management and direct goals or expectations from the clients provided a more realistic experience of a work environment than most internships, where expectations seemed to be quite a bit lower.

It created a learning environment where we were supported in learning planning information and details on our own. Many of the skills I receive positive feedback about in my work life were developed in CPW. These are skills that many of my peers did not learn in their time in graduate school.

The student Project Manager is responsible for day-to-day coordination of the project, often meeting several times per week with the team and individual student consultants. They are coached to help support their teams, but these student managers were cited as one of the most common challenges. In surveys, students noted that the experience could be “hit or miss” depending on their project manager. Some alumni also noted that their project managers were “overwhelmed” or “micromanaging.” But as one alum noted, “It is really hard (and an important experience) to work together on a project like this, and under someone that may not have much management experience themselves . . . because that’s the real world!!”

Some clients observed that the support layers had the potential for “things getting lost in translation [between faculty and students] . . . like a game of telephone.” However, they noted this was more of a challenge for the faculty member than themselves as the client.

The Challenges of a Collaborative Work Program

Another challenge cited by students and alumni were scoping issues with the client and project. One alum noted their project was “nebulous” and “there was no clear[ly] defined outcome that we could work toward.” Other challenges cited by alumni included the following:

. . . miscommunication about the expected CPW project outcomes/deliverables. We probably needed a bit more oversight from CPW staff during the first term to ensure all participants and the client were on the same page . . .

Client changing deliverables or eliminating portions of the project.

We tried to get a clear answer from our client throughout the project about goals for the plan and implementation mechanisms and resources, but never got a good answer. This somewhat hamstrung our project . . .

Faculty and project managers develop a scope of work in consultation with the client but build in flexibility for refinement. Many students and alumni praised this preparation. For example, one alum noted, “The advance work by the faculty and manager was outstanding. The range of issues to engage had been thought through very well and client(s) were already onboard for the project.”

Many alumni also understood the value of working through ambiguity and changing ideas. One alum noted that their deliverable evolved throughout, “which in a way was fun.” Another alum commented that they assumed that the project was straightforward, but it was beneficial to realize “things in the real world are just often ambiguous . . . and to become comfortable with that ambiguity.” Similarly, an alum cited problem-solving as a strength of CPW. “Our project was fairly nebulous at first and we worked together with our project manager, CPW faculty, and client to hone the scope to a manageable set of tasks for us to deliver by the end of the year.”

In the faculty focus group discussion about scoping work, they noted that projects usually have a built in degree of uncertainty, and these challenging and unexpected encounters are an intentional hidden lesson of CPW (Sletto 2010). They also noted that students often don’t realize at the time that there is a natural arc to a project as the client clarifies their needs and the students become more familiar with the objectives, work program, and methods.

The Issue of Team Dynamics

Another highly rated outcome related to working with teams of students, faculty, and professionals. Team dynamics generated many comments from students and alumni related to interpersonal conflict, work styles, and varying levels of effort. Alumni cited challenges of “deadweight in the team,” “rough team dynamics,” and “teammates who were less than fully engaged.” These were also exacerbated by other student work and life commitments.

Many alumni recognized that their team difficulties mimicked real-life workplaces, but in a controlled setting. One alum commented, “It’s really the teamwork and project management that I took away from the experience.” Another noted that

CPW gave me real life experience dealing with people and real issues. Although it was often very uncomfortable, it was real and forced me to develop in ways that I preferred developing in class rather than on a real job.

Instructors noted that team dynamics has been an emphasis of the foundational work in the classroom. Before projects begin, faculty ask each team to develop a team agreement that spells out team expectations, work styles, availability, goals, and agree on operating principles. If issues arise, one faculty member stated that the “team agreement is the go-to document for managing conflict within teams.” Frequent team meetings, individual meetings, reflections, and discussions about teamwork in the classroom also help to avoid significant conflict. One instructor noted, “conflict is part of the learning process for CPW—so it is critical to call it out for the team, talk about it, and work through conflicts when they emerge.”

The Challenge of Integrating JEDI

While JEDI has been an important part of the Oregon curriculum for many years, it has been difficult to integrate into CPW. For many years, CPW faculty pushed to include JEDI issues with mixed reception from clients, but recently there has been more interest among students and clients. In some cases, JEDI issues are a central part of a project; in other cases, faculty encouraged clients to integrate it into a project. When it was not a significant part of the scope of work, students were still encouraged to consider equity in their analysis. Exposing all students to JEDI issues has been challenging, and even when planners design experiential learning around empowering marginalized communities, their efforts have sometimes fallen short (Levkoe, Friendly, and Daniere 2020; Winkler 2013).

In 2012, CPW started to integrate JEDI more explicitly through classroom-based workshops on topics such as cultural competency, working with diverse teams, and engaging with diverse communities. However, a handful of workshops delivered through abstract scenarios was insufficient, particularly when each team was simultaneously managing real projects and timelines.

By 2016, school and institute faculty concluded that there was too much reliance on CPW to deliver this content, and they began school-wide efforts to better integrate these topics across the curriculum. Faculty increased the content and integration of JEDI issues in core classes and created a second required professional development class focused on JEDI that runs parallel to CPW. The class addresses topics using faculty and alumni workshops related to theory and practice. With the hiring of additional faculty focusing on inclusive urbanism, engaging diverse communities, and access and equity, CPW faculty have also been working with clients to promote these in project work.

Takeaways from Oregon’s CPW Model

The literature on experiential learning highlights the challenges of delivering the model in a university curriculum and providing genuine service to clients (Oonk, Gulikers, and Mulder 2019; Reardon 1998; Winkler 2013). Reflecting on the information from students, alumni, and clients, we identified two important takeaways for translating this model.

Delivering an Experiential Model

Several evaluations of experiential learning note that success depends on a higher level of coaching and support (Norton et al. 2022; Oonk, Gulikers, and Mulder 2019; Reardon 1998). For example, Oonk, Gulikers, and Mulder’s (2019) comparison of five projects in the Netherlands found that a higher level of coaching intensity was associated with higher competency scores and more interdisciplinary learning. Reardon (1998) noted that university promotion procedures usually don’t recognize the service roles of experiential learning and additional unrewarded burden for tenure track to deliver a final product.

We suggest that CPW has been successful because it utilizes full-time, nontenure track faculty focused on client products and teaching. CPW faculty must focus on products because they are built into contracts and project budgets. Because CPW faculty are not required to publish academic literature, they can dedicate more time to products and teaching. This focus also ensures satisfied clients who become repeat customers or recommend CPW to others. Partnering with tenure track faculty has led to some of this work being published in academic journals, but CPW faculty are not required to publish.

This model is workable through a multipronged funding approach. First, CPW operates within an institute managed by two tenure track faculty who help with administration, external relations, grant funding, and campus wide faculty networks. Second, the School of PPPM funds CPW faculty for a small portion of their time to cover their teaching and some grant writing. The School also funds a portion of a grant administrator, and one or two graduate teaching assistants. Third, approximately 75 percent of CPW faculty salaries are funded by external grants for the applied projects, which also support additional research assistants, travel and project expenses, and summer hourly workers to finalize deliverables.

However, the School faces continual challenges by the university’s central budget administrators who do not understand the model and criticize the use of general funds to “subsidize a research institute.” In other words, the model aligns with university academic priorities related to research productivity, experiential learning, and career readiness, but because of it its integration of functions, central budget administrators don’t know how to analyze a funding model that does not match their definition of a research institute.

The Niche for University Experiential Work

One of the most enlightening themes from this research were the reasons clients work with CPW. One was the flexibility and freedom of utilizing student teams on exploratory or experimental work. Several clients noted that their projects were less defined and more nebulous. One stated they “wanted to work with a student team to help define better what the project could be.” An economic development specialist noted, “Students didn’t come in with preconceived notions, and conversations could be more organic. It led them through some very interesting conversations about how to think more broadly about the economy.” A city client noted that CPW “can do more creative things than a typical consultant; we feel like they’re really trying to do a new innovative approach to investigating an issue that they really want to experiment with.”

Second, clients stated that they preferred student teams to address sensitive and exploratory topics. One client noted that “having a student team behind the project allows that sensitivity to be diffused a little bit because we’re doing this with students, and this is a learning experience.” Another client echoed this perspective, stating, “It is diffusing to have the students leading the process because often people are more respectful and willing to engage with students in a different way than a standard consultant.” A third client described how the business community was reluctant to engage with the city:

A consultant would have been more direct and seen as more representative of the city. The students were asked to be more empathetic and contextualize their work in terms of research . . . they don’t have much at stake—their hours aren’t contingent on the outcome of the project.

Finally, a client noted, “students have an energy and optimism that career consultants lose over time. They bring a level of energy that is contagious to the community—there seems to be more interest from the community because of working with students.” These benefits of community facing student teams have come from clients based in large, liberal cities and those based in rural, conservative communities.

A third reason cited by clients was the appeal of supporting educational work that trained future professionals. Faculty explain that CPW projects don’t require clients to teach, but they understand this is part of the mission. One client noted,

My sense was that [the faculty member] was kind of observing the student team . . . letting the student team kind of take the lead in the conversations to a certain extent, but then helping them to kind of work together with each other.

Clients cited this more intensive interaction as a benefit, noting that the project involved, “lots of iterative feedback that made it better overall—instead of just doing one round of feedback with a consultant that doesn’t have the time to do more in depth back-and-forth.”

A final reason is the ability of the University to help clients by adding capacity and leveraging external funding. Although CPW works with large cities and state agencies, they have also undertaken projects in very rural and poorly resourced parts of the state. CPW and tenure track faculty are often able to secure funding from external grants and contracts that focus on communities with higher need. CPW projects also tend to be very cost effective due to the educational role and student workers, which is attractive to external funders. Finally, the oversight layers and flexibility also help small organizations that have less capacity to work with professional firms. Some clients have less experience managing teams and projects, and CPW faculty have assisted with these roles.

Conclusion

The findings from nine years of student and alumni data suggest that for a significant majority, CPW has consistently achieved its learning objectives. The student and client data also revealed high levels of satisfaction with CPW work products. Importantly, CPW has also been sustained for almost fifty years through changes in university leadership, budget models, and levels of funding support.

While CPW was inspired by service-learning, it is built on a paying client and university as consultant relationship. This model is a contrast with models that promote more grass roots engagement with underserved communities, but it also avoids burdening these communities with teaching and mentoring expectations. The ongoing challenge facing CPW and program faculty is how to further integrate JEDI issues, and push clients to consider this for all analysis and engagement efforts.

In the spirit of reflective practice, this review also highlights that CPW and the associated planning curriculum has never been a static model. Feedback from students, clients, alumni, and accreditation teams over the years has resulted in new approaches, experiments, and adjustments. These experimentations allow this model to adapt, learn from mistakes, and build upon successes to continuously improve its goals of preparing graduates for planning practice and providing clients with high quality and innovative products.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their excellent suggestions for improving this article. They also thank alumni and former clients who participated in this study. They are also grateful for the nearly fifty years of students and instructors who built and developed the reputation of this program over time.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Richard D. Margerum

Notes

Author Biographies

Robert Parker is the former Director of the Institute for Policy Research and Engagement at the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. He is currently Director of Strategic and Technical Solutions. He studies growth management, housing, and economic development.

Richard D. Margerum is Professor in the School of Planning, Public Policy, and Management and Associate Dean for the College of Design at the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. He studies collaborative governance, community engagement, and environmental planning. He has worked with three Community Planning Workshop (CPW) projects that led to refereed journal publications.

Bethany Steiner is a former Instructor and Project Manager with the Institute for Policy Research and Engagement at the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon.

Aniko Drlik-Muehleck is an Instructor and Project Manager with the Institute for Policy Research and Engagement at the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. She studies community engagement and community and economic development.

Josh Bruce is an Instructor and Associate Director of Applied Research with the Institute for Policy Research and Engagement at the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. He studies approaches to achieving community resilience.

Mike Howard is an Instructor, Project Manager, and Director of the Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience with the Institute for Policy Research and Engagement at the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. He studies natural hazard mitigation and climate adaptation strategy.

References

Butin

Dan W.

2010. Service-Learning in Theory and Practice: The Future of Community Engagement in Higher Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230106154

Cushman

Ellen

. 2002. “Sustainable Service Learning Programs.” College Composition and Communication 54 (1): 40–65. doi:10.2307/1512101.

Dewar

Margaret E.

Isaac

Claudia B.

1998. “Learning from Difference: The Potentially Transforming Experience of Community-University Collaboration.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 17 (4): 334–47. doi: 10.1177/0739456X9801700408.

Guzzetta

Jacqueline D.

Bollens

Scott A.

2003. “Urban Planners” Skills and Competencies: Are We Different from Other Professions? Does Context Matter? Do We Evolve?” Journal of Planning Education and Research 23 (1): 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0325542

Levkoe

Charles Z.

Friendly

Abigail

Daniere

Amrita

. 2020. “Community Service-Learning in Graduate Planning Education.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 40 (1): 92–103. doi:10.1177/0739456X18754318.

Long

Judith Grant

. 2012. “State of the Studio: Revisiting the Potential of Studio Pedagogy in U.S.-Based Planning Programs.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 32 (4): 431–48. doi:10.1177/0739456X12457685.

Meens

David E.

2014. “Democratic and Social Justice Goals in Service-Learning Evaluation: Contemporary Challenges and Conceptual Resources.” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 21 (1): 41–54.

Mitchell

Tania D.

2008. “Traditional vs. Critical Service-Learning: Engaging the Literature to Differentiate Two Models.” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 14:50–65. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0014.205.

Norton

Richard K.

Gerber

Elisabeth R.

Fontaine

Paul

Hohner

Gail

Koman

Patricia D.

2022. “The Promise and Challenge of Integrating Multidisciplinary and Civically Engaged Learning.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 42:102–17. doi:10.1177/0739456X18803435.

10.

Oonk

Carla

Gulikers

Judith

Mulder

Martin

. 2019. “Educating Boundary Crossing Planners: Evidence for Student Learning in the Multistakeholder Regional Learning Environment.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 39 (3): 360–73. doi:10.1177/0739456X17737598.

11.

Porter

Libby

. 2015. “Partnerships of Learning for Planning Education Who Is Learning What from Whom? The Beautiful Messiness of Learning Partnerships.” Planning Theory & Practice 16 (3): 409–14. doi:10.1080/14649357.2015.1060688.

12.

Reardon

Kenneth M.

1998. “Enhancing the Capacity of Community-Based Organizations in East St. Louis.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 17 (4): 323–33. doi:10.1177/0739456X9801700407.

13.

Roakes

Susan L.

Norris-Tirrell

Dorothy

. 2000. “Community Service Learning in Planning Education: A Framework for Course Development.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 20 (1): 100–10. doi:10.1177/073945600128992636.

14.

Schön

Donald A

. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

15.

Shepherd

Anne

Cosgrif

Bryna

. 1998. “Problem-Based Learning: A Bridge between Planning Education and Planning Practice.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 17 (4): 348–57. doi:10.1177/0739456X9801700409.

16.

Sletto

Bjørn

. 2010. “Educating Reflective Practitioners: Learning to Embrace the Unexpected through Service Learning.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 29 (4): 403–15. doi:10.1177/0739456X10362771.

17.

Winkler

Tanja

. 2013. “At the Coalface: Community-University Engagements and Planning Education.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 33 (2): 215–27. doi:10.1177/0739456X12474312.