0x010088F6312065A70A44B630A6848498EAD80093CFEAFE161DC94D83C7C5C9A5A748B8

As usual the course was given in parallel to a fieldwork course and a methods course (AAR4525&amp;AAR4820). The students worked in Tempé/Sorgenfri -- an area in Trondheim in the vicinity of NTNUs main campus at Gløshaugen. The teaching was face-to-face. The course evaluation consisted of two components: a group paper and individual reading maps. Similar to last year students were asked to summarize the articles. The students wrote literature reviews and then provided peer feedback on each other’s reviews, so students could learn from the articles they hadn’t read.  Overall, the students appreciated the format of reading and discussing. Recommendations from last year’s course reportActions taken<ul><li>The philosophy of the peer review approach was sufficiently explained to the students at the beginning of class, so that they could buy in into this approach better than the year before.</li><li>As stipulated in the last review, we started earlier in the semester with Assignment 2.</li></ul>

From the perspective of the coordinator and the course assistant, all major learning goals of AAR5210 have been delivered. (Even if the process seemed a bit bumpy from the perspective of some students) E.g.<ul><li>The candidates have obtained a very good overview on urban challenges and relevant debates in theories of social and urban development, poverty, role of the civil society, governance and strategic action. This was achieved through eight sessions with ca 12 lectures on themes such as Social Ecology, Housing, Public Space, Methodologies of Placemaking and Studying Public Space, Planning and Urban Regeneration, Planning and Climate Change, Informality, Urban Governance and Gender &amp; Intersectionality. In terms of exercises this knowledge goal of obtaining theoretical (topical) knowledge was largely covered through Assignment 1 (Literature review).</li><li>Moreover, through its integration with the project course (AAR4525) in Sluppen/Sorgenfri, the course contributed to the students ability to examine theoretical formulations in real life contexts and to contribute to further development of these concepts based on grounded arguments. In terms of exercises this learning goal, of linking theory and practice, was largely covered through Assignment 2 (Connecting theoretical concepts to field work). Furthermore, the peer review process related to Assignment 1 and the collaborative writing process of Assignment 2 contributed to communication and scientific writing skills and to building professional competencies. As a result the class has build a foundation for further modules with a theory focus such as AAR5270 (Globalisation and Urban Development, or FP4350 Urban Theory and Planning Theory.</li><li>As a result least the course contributed building up the candidates professional profiles and competence by strengthening the candidates theoretical grounding in the field of Urban Ecological Planning as a base for professional practice. </li><li>Not least, the results of the assignments have been of a good quality (comparatively slightly better that precious years) having demonstrated a good level of achievement of learning outcomes.</li></ul>

It follows a presentation of student feedback and also a discussion of some critical comments (based on the reference groups feedback).Participants approved the course, among others, in the following way: <ul><li>The students found the theory course to be one of the more engaging classes in UEP, this was both due to the course consisting primarily of arguments which allowed for open conversations and discussions about the various topics and theories presented in the course.</li><li>It is also noted that the guest lecturers brought into the course were helpful, enthusiastic, and liked by the students. </li><li>The mandatory readings for the class were noted as being interesting by the students,</li><li>It was also noted that the theory course was the course that best adapted itself to the group which lost 50% of their team members. ... the theory course easily provided a framework for the group to work with, providing an altered delivery list which included a lowered word count, which helped the group in question to adjust their priorities to match. This was noted to be very helpful.</li><li>.. overall multiple students noted the course was useful .</li><li>The students noted a challenging learning curve when approaching the theory course in large part due to the long and complex papers needed to be read and reviewed. Those students with little to no academic background especially noted struggling with the time needed to complete this task, especially on the longer papers.</li></ul>&gt; The last comment reflects the situation in class very well - with a composition of students from diverse disciplinary and cultural/geographic backgrounds At the same time the reference group report also raises a significant level of criticism. For example: <ul><li>Some students noted that the theory classes did not feel very helpful to their degrees nor to the completion of the course work... and that from their point of view consisted of unstructured discussions within the group itself, with long periods without input from the teacher.</li></ul>&gt; From our (pedagogic) point of view it is very important to promote self responsibility, self driven learning (including discussions) as part of a masters programme. This is not always "easy" from the perspective of some students who are used to be continuously instructed and guided. So we hope that this assessment (and perspective) of some students will change as they progress with their studies. As a consequence we need to promote more reflection and scission. on the teaching philosophy. <ul><li>Some students noted these lectures were a bit too heavily focused on climate change, which had little relevance for the course work this semester</li></ul>&gt; We can't follow the impression that the course was to heavily focused on climate change when we look at the range of topics covered - from social ecology, housing, public space, to informality and gender etc.<ul><li>The mandatory readings for the class were noted as being interesting by the students, but multiple students noted problems completing the readings and writing summaries. Some noted the length of the papers</li></ul>&gt; The assignment at hand reflects to the ongoing challenge by students from various background and disciplines (e.g. architecture, planning, sociology), learning cultures, and nationalities to master scientific reading and writing. The discussion sessions and weekly review assignments at hand are are result of a lengthy optimisation and refection process of the course instructors to cover a minimal work load while still keeping the "ambitious" students happy.<ul><li>It was suggested that future semesters focus more on theory that directly affects the project.</li></ul>&gt; A significant amount of topics covered have been related to the project work, but not all. The course needs to deliver a balance between a general relevance towards the degree and providing inputs to the project-work. The project work is very often also done in least developed and emerging county contexts. This is one important reason why the theory course can not be exclusively linked to the project work. Even so, we see a certain gap here to understand the relevance if all course contents which needs to be addressed in future classes.

NTNU:TIA:REST

Institutt for arkitektur og planlegging

Department of Architecture and Planning

Engelsk

Teorier i Byøkologisk Planlegging

Byforming og planlegging

Afrikastudier

Geografi

Urban Ecological Planning (Master's Programme)

Arkitektur - masterstudium (5-årig)

Arkitektur - masterstudium (2-årig)

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(24093)/FieldValuesAsText

The course was given in parallel to a fieldwork course and a methods course (AAR4525&amp;AAR4820). After two years of digital teaching and doing fieldwork in Trondheim and/or home countries, the students went to India. A combination of face-to-face and digital teaching was provided, as some sessions happened while the students were away for the fieldwork. The course evaluation consisted of two components: a group paper and individual reading maps. Similar to last year students were asked to summarize the articles. While last year the students wrote literature reviews and then provided peer feedback on each other’s reviews, the students this year made reading maps that were then discussed in smaller groups, so students could learn from the articles they hadn’t read.  Overall, the students appreciated the format of reading and discussing. Recommendations from last year’s course reportActions takenIt was agreed thought that peer reviews should be the students own process and thing, which should be highlighted in the beginning of the semester. A template was provided for the reading maps but it was made clear that they could adapt this template and could select the most important questions. academic writing: It would be good to have some explanation on this in the beginning of the semester and then revise it at the end with the teaching team. General input on academic writing was given at the beginning of various sessions and on Toledo earlier feedback from the supervisors to one of the initial literature reviews would be helpful in the beginning of the semester Students received feedback in group and individual feedback on 1 or 2 reading maps It was recommended by the reference group that the students could have the possibility to choose the reviews they wanted to be graded since some of the readings were more complex than others. This time the assessment was done internally, and all reading maps were included in the evaluation. It would be better start with this paper (Group Assignment) earlier in the semester to have a base to work on towards the end of the semester. Students pitched and received feedback on their ideas a month before the final deadline

Overall teaching and learning activities were of a very good level. Given that students would leave for an intensive fieldwork, some adjustments were made to the themes compared to last year to limit the amount to 10. This was discussed with the teaching team.  The course was structured into lectures, discussion of lectures, readings and discussion of reading maps in smaller groups students. This exercise was intended to provide a sound theoretic knowledge basis for all students. Some of the lectures also included some general feedback extracted from the readingmaps, which was linked to key concepts of academic writing (e.g. referencing). The lectures aimed to be interactive and included discussion and role play. A general discussion was based on reflective questions that students posed in the reading maps, which proved to be a good way to bring out more individual reflection. Upon return from the fieldwork, the students worked on theory papers in group. These papers intended to connect the theory learned to the case studies the students worked in during the field work (AAR 4525). Overall, students provided positive feedback on the implementation of the course as well as on the learning results.  Challenges:-        on the reading maps: indivudual students pointed out that they expected more feedback on the reading maps during the semester. The coordinator and teaching staff agree to these. We should think about how to make this into a format that fits the resources. An attempt was made through collective feedback, but students indicate that they want individual. Maybe reintroduce the peer review so they receive feedback from each other throughout the semester? -        EVALUATION: individual students felt that the group paper was not fully in line with the learning goals, and that too much of the grading goes to this. They propose to flip to 40% on the group assignment and 60% on the reading maps. The teachers don*t fully agree to this. -        READING MAPS: Students propose to take the template wider than the current focus on the fieldwork and the course. The conclusion is that we need to communicate better the teaching approach and philosophy of the class at the beginning and ensure every participants buys in.

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(18611)/FieldValuesAsText

The last course has been taught fully digitally with students in their home countries. This was different this time. Students were in Trondheim and physical teaching was the norm. Compared to last year (and the years before) it was new that students wrote regular literature reviews and that they provided regular peer feedback on literature reviews of other peers. The results of all literature reviews were then submitted as exercise 1 and 3 random assessments were graded for each student. The process got a very good feedback both from students (see below) and from the external examiner. When UEP goes back to the "normal" with fieldwork being conducted abroad (e.g. in India) the situation will change again and some of these practices need another verification and reassessment.

The teaching and learning activities in the course: All teaching and learning activities have been completed to a high level of satisfaction. The course was structured into lectures, discussion of lectures, readings, the writing of weekly literature reviews on the readings and the providing fo comments on literature reviews between students. This "exercise was intended to provide a sound theoretic knowledge basis for all students. In the second 30% of the semester the students worked on a theory papers in groups. These papers intended to connect to connect the theory learned to the case studies the students worked on the there field work class (AAR 4525). The students provided very good feedback on the implementation fo the course as well as on the learning results. Minor recommendations included a better management of deadlines and a better explanation fo the literature peer review process in the beginning. The coordinator and teaching staff agree to these comments. The assessment was developed and shared well in advance. Some students proposed to let the candidates chose which 3 literature reviews the external examiner should read. The coordinator does not agree to this approach. We prefer a random process that we deem providing more objectivity . Compared to previous courses the course exceeded the quality of learning results for the participants and also provided valuable knowledge for further modules in the programme, mainly thorough providing core theoretical knowledge and through promoting research writing skills and the ability to work independently. A problem has been the combination of 2 groups iin the last exercise, so that the group papers have been completed by 8-9 students instead of 4-5 students each. This problem has also been identified as part of the student feedback (see below). As the recombination occurred due to en emergency situation, it is likely not to happen again. Indeed groups that collaborate on exercise 3 (group paper) should not be larger than 4-5 students. Another points that the students raised that the majority of students does not support the extension of deadlines because this would proportionally favours those students who were not working as hard as this who would be able to meet the original deadline. The next time the class will be taught, it will be as part of a fieldwork abroad again. This will require some further modifications and adjustments according to the situation that we don't know in details yet! Nonetheless I is highly recommended to keep the peer preview approach as assignment 1 and combine this with the group report of a smaller group in assignment 2.

Excerpts from the reference group's feedback.Positive Feedback<ul><li>The dialogue with the course coordinator was very constructive in terms of that the voices of the students was listened to, and changes were trying to be made in the course of the semester.</li><li>- In general, it came clear, that addressing problems and issues right when they occur has proved</li><li>to be very valuable for the further course of the lecture.</li><li>The structure of the lectures has highly valued by the students and the selection of topics was interesting for the students. </li><li>Also, the guest lectures were extremely positive and considered very precious.</li><li>The structure of the literature reviews worked very well.</li></ul>Challenges<ul><li>some students were a lot behind in giving reviews</li><li>Good relevance of readings but the comprehension of them was around 50-50 as declared by the students in an open survey.</li><li>Group assignment – task: due to the high workload towards the end of the semester, it was proposed by the teaching staff to work in large groups for the final paper to better distribute the workload. However, this didn’t make things easier as there was a larger number of team members to agree with. So perhaps the assignment is not that coherent.</li><li>Postponing the deadline rewarded the ones that were usually delayed and there were no benefits for those who submitted (always) on time.</li><li>Students got stressed with this task (Final group paper) since it was done mostly in the last 2 weeks before the end of the semester with little feedback from the supervising team due to little time capacity both from students and supervisors. </li><li> </li></ul>Recommendations<ul><li>It was agreed thought that peer reviews should be the students own process and thing, which should be highlighted in the beginning of the semester.</li><li>academic writing:It would be good to have some explanation on this in the beginning of the semester and then revise it at the end with the teaching team.</li><li>earlier feedback from the supervisors to one of the initial literature reviews would be helpful in the beginning of the semester</li><li>It was recommended by the reference group that the students could have the possibility to choose the reviews they wanted to be graded since some of the readings were more complex than others.</li><li>It would be better start with this paper (Group Assignment) earlier in the semester to have a base to work on towards the end of the semester.</li><li> </li></ul>

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(13054)/FieldValuesAsText

This course is taught together with AAR4525 and AAR4820 and aims to provide a theoretical basis on relevant urban challenges and to link it to practice, as the theories learned support student’s understanding of their case study during fieldwork (course AAR4525). These objectives were achieved and, according to the reference group, the course provided good lectures and learning materials. The final grades were 12 Cs, and 5 Ds, which can be attributed to the challenges this semester posed given the extraordinary situation of the pandemics: the course was taught fully digitally, and students were spread in different countries resulting in challenges for group work and organization and management of time by the students.

The learning outcomes are communicated in written form through the official website and the syllabus made available on Blackboard, and orally in lectures, since the very beginning of the course. The course is taught together with two other courses, AAR4525 and AAR4820, which are interlinked and complement each other: in AAR4525 students do a case study, for which the methods they learn in AAR4820 and the theories they learn in this course (AAR5210). These three courses form the basis for the master’s program in Urban Ecological Planning.

Learning activities included lectures, colloquiums, and journaling. For every theory/topic presented, there was an input from an expert (program staff or guests) and a group of students was responsible to hold a colloquium. Students were also recommended to write blog/journal posts on Blackboard after every session, relating the theory discussed to their case study. Few students followed this recommendation, and the main reason reported was lack of time. However, the students who did journal found the activity very helpful to both process and retain knowledge. As students were in their own home country, in different time zones, there were challenges to conduct group work and, even though they were overall satisfied with the three courses taken, they reported missing physical contact, which might have influenced efforts and motivation.

The evaluation was based on a theoretical paper written collaboratively by the groups, that should relate theory and practice. Students chose a few theories learned to illustrate and discuss in relation to their case studies.

Teorier i sosial-økologisk  planlegging

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(6908)/FieldValuesAsText

This report was published in the "old" way

Teorier i byøkologisk planlegging

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(6309)/FieldValuesAsText

There was a joint evaluation with AAR4525 and AAR5120

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(84)/FieldValuesAsText

Teorier i Byøkologisk Planlegging - AAR5210