Embedding Transdisciplinarity in a Spatial Planning Curriculum

The four papers in this special issue illustrate that spatial planning as a profession and as an academic discipline is historically rooted in its problem-based approach to improving the wellbeing and welfare of society. This interdisciplinary nature of the planning profession should also be reflected through a significant role in the higher educational programme, in which civic engagement and social responsibility of the university is emphasized. A fundamental educational task is to understand how to advance planning education towards contemporary challenges and our common future. Each paper describes a specific competence aspect valuable for planning education with well thought-through and documented approaches in a living-lab experimental environment. Humer (2020) discusses the curriculum and learning trajectories within a masters’ seminar and he also triggers with considerations for designing future courses. He refers to Bateson’s (1972) learning theory of five levels, which offer hooks to span transdisciplinarity over several years in aplanning curriculum. Chang and Huang (2022) provides many insights in combining collaborative planning styles and pedagogy. It describes a professional learning path via stakeholder workshops and how pedagogic aspects can be built in a course using three critical planning skills and applying four levels of Kolbs’ learning cycling to prepare planning students. One of the discussion points brought forward is time. Repeating the Kolb cycle in different classes (levels) could be very beneficial for the learning trajectory. This of course requires good guidance and administration per student and per course (including learning objectives). Van Karnenbeek et al. (2020) especially highlight the students’ learning trajectory during a co-creation path using a learning triangle. The paper shows a fine overview on how to interpret the co-creative planning pedagogies related to the educational setting for planning, but this should actually not be restricted to one ‘living lab’ experience. Their reciprocal dimension supports the idea for embedding over several courses and levels. And various aspects could also be linked to a diversity of cases, not only actors. Connections of competence development are highlighted by Chen et al. (2022), with a focus on learning in a realworld environment to develop students’ competence of boundary crossing. Four important aspects are identified and were applied already over two courses. These could be functional for more courses and over more study years.