Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Subscribe now for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Edutainment: Role-Playing versus Serious Gaming in Planning Education

Edutainment: Role-Playing versus Serious Gaming in Planning Education This exploratory study assesses the utility, in terms of learning and conceptualizing planning, of a role-playing exercise (the Great Planning Game [GPG]) and a serious game (Polis PowerPlays [PPP]) employed in a planning theory course offered at The University of Queensland in Australia. The study reveals that role-playing and serious gaming are equally engaging and help planning students learn and embody different roles while having fun. No great differences can be discerned in terms of learning effectiveness. With regard to teaching style, the GPG is more passive and tends to encourage collaboration, whereas the PPP is more dynamic and fosters competition. Both activities help students discover aspects of planning—and planning stakeholders—which they may not have considered before. Most participating students appear to regard planning as a pluralist pursuit. Communication and public participation are viewed as central to planning processes. However, traces of incrementalism and rationality are also present. While students believe in equity planning (i.e., advocacy from within the system), radical social justice approaches that challenge the status quo are notably absent. Overall, the authors conclude that these activities cannot fully replace guided and structured instruction but, as “whole task practices,” are a desirable complement to direct instruction. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Planning Education and Research SAGE

Edutainment: Role-Playing versus Serious Gaming in Planning Education

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/edutainment-role-playing-versus-serious-gaming-in-planning-education-ojgpWlXZGv

References (42)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020
ISSN
0739-456X
eISSN
1552-6577
DOI
10.1177/0739456X20902251
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This exploratory study assesses the utility, in terms of learning and conceptualizing planning, of a role-playing exercise (the Great Planning Game [GPG]) and a serious game (Polis PowerPlays [PPP]) employed in a planning theory course offered at The University of Queensland in Australia. The study reveals that role-playing and serious gaming are equally engaging and help planning students learn and embody different roles while having fun. No great differences can be discerned in terms of learning effectiveness. With regard to teaching style, the GPG is more passive and tends to encourage collaboration, whereas the PPP is more dynamic and fosters competition. Both activities help students discover aspects of planning—and planning stakeholders—which they may not have considered before. Most participating students appear to regard planning as a pluralist pursuit. Communication and public participation are viewed as central to planning processes. However, traces of incrementalism and rationality are also present. While students believe in equity planning (i.e., advocacy from within the system), radical social justice approaches that challenge the status quo are notably absent. Overall, the authors conclude that these activities cannot fully replace guided and structured instruction but, as “whole task practices,” are a desirable complement to direct instruction.

Journal

Journal of Planning Education and ResearchSAGE

Published: Jan 1, 2020

There are no references for this article.