Cultivating the next generation designers: group work in urban and regional design education

Students of today need to possess professional skills of tomorrow, among which co-operation and intercultural communication skills are essential. The nature of the urban and regional challenges we are facing is complex while planning practitioners are encountering a changing urban environment full of uncertainty in the workplace. Multi-actor teams are becoming standard practice to search for solutions that can tackle the so-called wicked problem (Rittel 1972). Sometimes this more complex understanding also requires an interdisciplinary effort to facilitate the integration or synthesis of knowledge. According to Stember (1991, p. 5), the interdisciplinary effort seeks to “explicate relationships, processes, values, and context using the diversity and unity possible only through collaborative approaches”. Furthermore, our field is looking for (future) professionals who can work in transdisciplinary teams, cooperate and co-create with a variety of stakeholders seamlessly: from academics to policymakers and politicians, from business people to civil society representatives (Rooij and Frank 2016; Davoudi 2010).

These multi-actor ways of working and approaches (Table 1) have become the standard for practice and thus should be the norms of higher education. This has substantial consequences didactically, in terms of defining learning objectives, learning activities and assessment strategies (De Greef et al. 2017). They directly influence not only the cognitive domain related to disciplines (knowledge and skills), but also the attitude domain: multi-actor ways of working need collaborative attitudes such as open-mindedness, cultural awareness, and awareness of own cognitive biases when dealing with data (ibid.).

Group work, with its nature of collaboration among team members, has been used as a main method for teaching multi-actor ways of working in design education. Lawson and Dorst (2009) addressed group work in design education from the perspective of creating expertise collectively. They mentioned the value of ‘situated learning’ and ‘communities of practice’, the relationship between learning and the social situation in which it occurs. In this sense, design education should be understood in relation to practice, and in relation to developing design expertise.

In practice, people working together towards a common goal is the basis of a successful collaborative design project, which starts with and is conditioned by shared values and common ethics (Emmitt 2017). It is valuable to make a shared vision among the design team members before designing and make use of workshops for collective design activities (Rizal 2007). There are different types of meetings and workshops that could be used for collaborative design ways of working (such as design progress meetings, design team meetings, review meetings, knowledge exchange meetings, collaborative planning workshop, creative problem-solving workshop, value management and engineering workshop, team building workshop, etc.). Similarly, the design studio approach with group work is one of the main teaching activities in design education, where learning by doing (and implicit or explicit reflecting) happens. Design studios often use teamwork and the contribution of special competencies from several team members to problem analysis and solution development (Long 2012). It is where students most probably learn more from each other through the collaborative learning process than from their tutors.

In recent years, using urban living labs (Steen and Van Bueren 2017), is a new way in both research and education for developing knowledge on innovation and process—how to innovate in interactive, participatory co-creation processes. In most urban living labs, users, private sectors and public sectors work together with knowledge institutes to create and test solutions in real-life contexts. Due to the fact that design studios in universities usually involve little real interaction with stakeholders in the design process, such a setting is, only to a certain extent, mimicking the practice via role simulation. There are alternative solutions to cope with this problem though. Some role-playing and policy gaming literatures (De Caluwé and Stoppelenburg 2002; Geurts et al. 2007) describe interventions that could stir up the role simulation process. For example, invited external stakeholders with distinct input are ideal for disruption in the design studio, challenging students with responses from practice. Such an intervention may generate great impact in design education, provided that it fits the learning goals. Two of the courses to be introduced later in the article, Area (Re)Development in the Metropolitan Landscape and the Urban (Re)Development Game, both have experiences with organizing public debates. Critical responses of the local citizen of the redevelopment area towards the students’ proposals proved vividly that, in practice, there is a huge number of stakeholders to be considered in the design and strategy making process.

Group dynamics is a crucial component when students are brought together in order to design in groups, especially when the assignment involves higher levels of complexity, due to multi-actor ways of working and situated learning as mentioned above. Group work might be very synergetic when a group of students grows into a high-performance team, but group work can also be very frustrating when morale or productivity is under pressure. Barnett (2004) argues that development of skills and values involved in the learning for the uncertain future requires transformative and ‘risky’ pedagogies that expose students to dilemmas and uncertainties. Taking such risks is necessary while providing guidance on group dynamics could help students to deal with dilemmas and uncertainties more effectively.

The widely accepted FSNP model by Tuckman and Jensen (1977) illustrates the group development process convincingly. They state that teams progress through different stages: forming, storming, norming and performing (Table 2). Within those stages, many interdependent themes and issues play a role, which co-define success or failure. Literatures on group dynamics (Forsyth 2010; Levi 2015; Castka et al. 2001; Stember 1991) focus on themes and issues such as (1) group formation and development, (2) ambitions, goals, values and team ground rules, (3) measures of performance, (4) group culture, inclusion, identity and relationships, for the sake of psychological safety, (5) leadership, (em)power(ment) and influence, (6) the variety of needs, knowledge and skills of group members, as well as (7) communication, decision making, negotiation strategies, conflict management.

In group work, it is important for team members to commit to the collaboration, to understand, appreciate or embrace other perspectives—intellectual hospitality (Stember 1991, p. 8). There are literatures trying to offer solutions to this. For example, suggestions for interdisciplinary work are made including allocating appropriate group members and leaders, establishing ground rules, explicating and resolving epistemological and methodological differences, and gaining infrastructure support (Stember 1991). Nevertheless, the socio-personal and socio-cultural (international teams) challenges come with collaborative design (Rizal 2007), which also pose challenges to teaching and assessment.

The review above shows existing literatures on the emerging multi-actor ways of working that requires skills of co-operation and communication. Group work simulating these ways of working in practice could enhance these skills with ‘situated learning’, in which group dynamics are essential for success. The existing literature contributes to the understanding of group work in design education in general. However, there is a knowledge gap on learning from group methods, particularly from the perspective of teaching quality in the specific field of urban and regional design education: what are the pros and cons of group work; how effective it is in regard to achieving learning objectives; what are common challenges in implementing group work as a teaching method; and how to assess individual performance in group work? The following sections contribute to bridging this gap by comparing four urban and regional design courses of TU Delft, which have been running for several years until now.

‘Neighbourhood of the Future’ is a minor course at Bachelor level that focuses on developing future-proof neighbourhoods in Rotterdam South, in response to climate change and socio-economic crisis. It has an interdisciplinary character and thus will assemble students into groups to create a balanced variety of backgrounds (Fig. 2a). Students come from Delft (60%) and other Dutch and international universities (40%), in the fields of architecture, urban planning, regional planning, civil engineering, landscape architecture, management, industrial design engineering, social science and others disciplines related to climate change. The course aims to have students from various backgrounds—future actors involved in transforming the built environment—to experience the collaborative process of developing integrated solutions for problematic neighbourhoods (Fig. 2b). To create effective groups, students are recruited based on relevant interest and academic curiosity.

Given the Bachelor level, we defined learning objectives according to the lower cognitive levels of the Bloom’s taxonomy, mainly applying existing knowledge. Nevertheless, in some domains, we also challenged students with higher cognitive levels, such as reflecting on their design choices. By the end of the course, students should be able to work in interdisciplinary teams: giving relevant feedback to peers and reacting on feedback from others; collaborating with students from other disciplines to improve own research, design and writing skills and help others. Besides, students should demonstrate understanding on integrated planning and design: selecting and arguing development goals for a future-proof neighbourhood; formulating a neighbourhood transformation strategy and integrated spatial intervention plan based on criteria of sustainability; presenting a spatial strategy convincingly in writing, visuals and verbally. The students, with varied knowledge and culture background, work in groups of 4–6 people in the research and design studio, supervised by two tutors with backgrounds in urban planning and urban design. They get additional input from visualization, GIS and writing workshops. Two other course elements on urban design and sustainable development support students with theories and practices on sustainability and urban redevelopment. The assessment is based on a report on a development strategy for neighbourhoods in Rotterdam South, and oral presentations, which are all group work. Peer review on each individual’s contribution to group work is incorporated in assessment.

According to students’ feedback of 2016, students were mostly interested in the interdisciplinary setting of the group work. Architecture students from abroad, who never worked in interdisciplinary groups, were especially excited about working with peers from different disciplines, universities and countries. Peer feedback implemented in mid-term was well received. Students found it helpful to improve their studio work. There were also critics in relation to group work. Some students experienced the group work as not ‘real’ interdisciplinary. Some of the architects in the group were very dominant, and eventually, the spatial interventions were architectural instead of integrated. This was partly due to the fact that students without design background find it difficult to visualize their design concepts. They felt in a weak position when working with ‘designers’. Besides, there was a lack of knowledge support for students from other disciplines than urban/landscape design, especially the technical fields, which also led to more ‘design’ oriented results.

This is a compulsory course for the first year Urbanism Master students, focusing on regional design, steering regional development in the direction of more sustainable future. “It is a reflection on prevailing spatial conditions, political agendas and planning regimes, meant to improve good (democratic) decision-making and to inform long-term strategic planning approaches to desirable spatial change” (Quarter guide Q3 2016–2017) (Fig. 3a, b). Prior education of students includes mainly Architecture, Urbanism and Landscape design. Generally speaking, these education backgrounds are not as diverse as students of the Minor course NotF. Nevertheless, due to the composition of the group—50% to 70% international MSC students—starting skills of students vary largely. Based on the nature of regional design, which involves processes of collaboration and negotiation among various stakeholders and professionals, as well as thorough understanding on global trends that are influencing urban regions, the course deliberately focuses on group work, so that students could learn to cooperate, debate and compare.

Students at Master level of Urbanism should be able to obtain knowledge by themselves and reach higher cognitive levels after the course, suggested by Bloom’s taxonomy. By the end of the course, students should be able to understand roles/instruments of strategic spatial planning; understand the nature of regional spatial development; critically reflect on roles/impacts of regional design; formulate a comprehensive regional vision and development strategy; use communication media in collaborative decision-making; and explain the ethical issues involved. Students work in mixed groups (nationalities, disciplines, genders) of 4–5 people in the research and design studio, supervised by 2–3 tutors with backgrounds of urban planning, urban design and governance. They get input from supporting course elements on spatial development strategies and methodology. The assessment is based on group work products of a report on visions and strategies for a chosen region in the Netherlands (e.g. Amsterdam metropolitan region for the class of 2016–2017), oral presentations, and individual reflection on own group strategy. The assessment is graded on the quality of group work (80%), with individual variations based on the individual reflection and performance in the group.

In the evaluation of the MSc Urbanism regional design studio (POLIS 2017) students were asked to reflect on their group dynamic experiences. Comments on workload topped out and communication within the team was mentioned second most. For some, the English language was seen as a barrier. Other topics concerned the team working approach, team productivity and the ambiance among team members. Students were asked if they found ‘working in a group beneficial for your own skills and progress as a student’. The overall response was positive (8.0), with a few negative experiences in their groups. Generally speaking, the results suggested that working in teams was appreciated but group working can also be very difficult and frustrating for students. Many students found that group work was tough but necessary, especially in a complex project. Group members could help and learn from each other. However, the discussion and communication are time-consuming. There are highly productive moments, but also confusing, counterproductive and frustrating times. Managing the level differences in skills (writing, visualization, oral presentation) among group members is an issue and strength at the same time. It causes uneven distribution of workload, in case necessary skills are not evenly spread among group members. On the other hand, in case there are balanced skills, group work can be done with effective collaboration—sharing tasks of writing, drawing and oral presentations. Last but not least, free riders do exist. Students suggested that tutors should have more focus on group dynamics—a call for additional teaching professionalization.

In the sequence of the six large (10 ECTS) design courses in the Bachelor of Architecture, this course is the 5th one, introducing the complexity of governance with many stakeholders involved and the more abstract level of designing a strategy instead of a tacit building or plan. Being a compulsory course in the third year of a Dutch BSc, both cultural and educational backgrounds of students are rather homogeneous: students are mostly Dutch; the diversification of the compulsory curriculum among students is mainly reflected in the chosen minor courses, in which the above-mentioned first course has been one of many options.

The course pays a lot of attention to developing expertise in group work and to the design process. It covers a full range of cognitive levels, but focuses more on the remembering, understanding and applying knowledge. The learning objectives include: to develop integrated strategies for area development; understand the link between the project and regional scale; work in the iterative design process and collaborative research; reflect on the practice of urban planning and development based on research outcomes; document the design process and report the expert input. Based upon interests, students are given a role as project leader, economic affairs, urbanist, landscape architect, developer, real estate user, transportation planner, environmental consultant or regional planner. In the first part (4 weeks) of the course (10 weeks in total), students will familiarise themselves with the study case, from the perspective of their role. Different study cases of area redevelopment are provided each year: e.g. a deteriorated area in Schiedam in 2016/17; the redevelopment of a harbour area in Rotterdam and Schiedam in 2017/18. The purpose of the first 4 weeks is to develop a strategy, which is individual and role specific. Only starting in week 5, after completion of a supporting course that provides knowledge on urban management and (re)development, groups composed of different roles are formulated, to design the integrated strategy. The second part of the course consists of different phases—exchange, negotiation and elaboration—to reach an integral strategy of the group in the end. Next to didactics on course structure and phasing, elements of explicit design education (Cross 2006; Van Dooren et al. 2014) and policy gaming (Geurts et al. 2007; Bruil and Van der Toorn Vrijthoff 2011) are used to set up this course (De Jong et al. 2015).

Working in two different groups at the same time (role group and design group) makes group work rather complex. To deal with this challenge, the course emphasizes communication skills. Besides, a specific workshop focusing on group dynamics is provided. Consideration is given to the composition of the groups using different tests on management profiles, styles of influencing and the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers 1962), as well as ways of dealing with conflicts. Furthermore, the role of project leader, a specific element of project management, is guided by the group instructor. (S)He is not a design tutor as in previous studios, but one monitoring the group. Lastly, students give peer reviews to each other: the first round during the process enabling adjustment of attitude and the second round in the end.

Evaluation of the course is done in multiple ways. Firstly, the statistical quality control is done by regular enquiries of the dedicated department of the faculty, with increasing positive results over the years. Improvements are not only reflected in the detailed questions in this enquiry but even more in the evaluation done by student panels immediately after the course. The course is given twice a year, therefore quick adjustments based on feedback from student panels are possible and necessary, especially for case adjustment. Above all, students have to complete the course with a role report including reflection on their own performance and comments on the course, including suggestions for the team. Usually, students ask for more steering on production in the first phase, which is always pushed by the tutors. However, it seems that only the peer pressure in the second half really enables top performance on production, especially in the last week before the final presentations (Fig. 4a, b).

URG is a compulsory course in Management in the Built Environment at the end of the first-year master programme, with an inflow of students from other tracks in the faculty and other (international) universities. The number of international students is increasing, with an expected number of 30% in 2018. Such changes in the diversity of cultural and professional training background have increased the challenge of communication or mutual understanding in group work. The course is built up around a Dutch urban development project—an area that needs regeneration, like docklands or a train station area. Through role-simulation, students are asked to play different stakeholders within a large group. Different from the above-mentioned role simulation course in the Bachelor programme, URG emphasizes the interaction between public parties and market players and simulates the negotiation process in project initiation, land transfer, property development and phasing.

Given the problem-solving nature of the course, objectives are defined covering all cognitive levels suggested by Bloom’s taxonomy, with the special focus towards the higher levels of applying, analysing, evaluating and creating. With regard to group work, learning objectives include: (1) to understand group dynamics by identifying the problem perceptions and positions of actors and their relations and interaction rules through actor, game, and network analysis; (2) to develop negotiation, decision making and conflict management skills through role-simulation; (3) to develop urban development strategy, including functional programs, budget, institutional and financial plans for different phases in multidisciplinary setting. In this course, students work in simulated transdisciplinary teams of around 10–14 members, with 9–11 different roles related to urban development projects in practice, based on their preference and previous knowledge. To direct students smoothly into their role, a series of mentorship have been organised so that students gradually establish ground rules for procedures and for approaches towards each other within the group. During the game, students receive regular role supervision to intensify the special knowledge; at the same time, students work in the same group inform and educate other colleagues by presenting both theoretical and methodological views under the supervision of group supervisors. To prepare students for the co-creation process, we organize a highly intensive workshop—urban development charrette—just before students enter the negotiation phase for land and property transaction and development. Students first experiment with innovative development concepts and then work in their own groups to integrate the different perspectives into one vision (Fig. 5a).

URG is considered by students as very thought-provoking, reflective of complex urban reality and possible confrontations that may happen between actors. Students show their gradual understanding in the transdisciplinary features of urban development and the appreciation of multi-discipline solutions. In role-simulation, specialized knowledge development and understanding of simulated transdisciplinary problem-solving by individuals are both valued. Students are guided to critically reflect, assess and suggest improvement in their collaborative design process collectively and individually in group reflection and peer review. Besides, the close link between the design of roles and assignment and the real case used in the course created situated learning experience, which is cherished by students. Most challenges recognised in the reflection of students are related to understanding and appreciation of the different disciplines, task sharing when the rule is not clearly written in group work and workload distribution among different roles during the process. Different cultural backgrounds and personalities add to the challenge of communication and conflict management between roles.