Curriculum Development Teaching Modules - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

curriculum development teaching modules n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Curriculum Development Teaching Modules PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Curriculum Development Teaching Modules

play fullscreen
1 / 143
Curriculum Development Teaching Modules
200 Views
Download Presentation
dalton-woods
Download Presentation

Curriculum Development Teaching Modules

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. 8-Mar-2005 PICT, Final WP6 Curriculum DevelopmentTeaching Modules ALEX DEFFNER VASSILIS BOURDAKIS Dept. of Planning and Regional Development, School of Engineering, University of Thessaly (UTH), Volos, Greece

  2. Contents • PARTICIPANTS CLASSIFICATION • 4 CORE TEACHING MODULES • 4 TEACHING MODULES FOR THE PUBLIC • 3 TEACHING MODULES FOR THE PLANNERS

  3. I. PARTICIPANTS CLASSIFICATION

  4. II. 4 CORE TEACHING MODULES (6 units) • Introductory • Introduction to PICT(0,5 unit=0,5 teaching hour) 1.1. What is PICT(0,1 unit) • PICT (Planning Inclusion of Clients through e-training)is a transnational project financed in part by the European Commission in the context of Leonardo Da Vinci's Community Vocational Training Action Programme. It is implemented by local authorities, universities, private consultancies and social partners in four European countries: Belgium, Greece, Hungary and the United Kingdom

  5. Core 2 1.2. Project aims(0,1 unit) • The project aims to promote effective public participation in planning, through the development and use of advanced ICT (Information Computer Technology) applications that may promote interaction and dialogue between planners and the public

  6. Core 3 1.3. Who can benefit? (0,1 unit) • The citizen who cares about planning and wants to be involved in the decisions • The local entrepreneurs who are affected by planning decisions and would like to take part in the planning process • The planners who want to promote participatory procedures through an effective dialogue with the local stakeholders and improve their skills on new planning and design technologies

  7. Core 4 • The local competent authorities who can set the course for a democratic planning process and train planning personnel to that effect • The universities which can jointly formulate learning material, develop further and test laboratory applications of "user-friendly" design and mapping tools, for public participation and teaching purposes at the national and European level

  8. Core 5 1.4. Actions planned and expected results(0,2 unit) Step 1: Define the conceptual and operational framework for public participation in planning. To that effect the project reviews and encodes theory and practice of public participation across Europe and compiles characteristic examples of good or not so good practice and legislation Step 2: Set up four pilot projects, one in each participating local authority. The pilot projects are launched by determining the needs of citizens and planning professionals in order to encourage dialogue between them

  9. Core 6 Step 3: Focus the participatory procedure on a planning issue and develop suitable ICT applications. Information Computer Technology applications are used to illustrate points for discussion and interaction between the public and planners. A learning methodology is also compiled to enable all stakeholders involved to increase their capacity for participation Step 4: Self-manage the process. Each pilot area establishes a Local Consultative Committee and a "task force" to offer advice and practical help to individuals Step 5: Host local workshops and an international conference. The purpose is to raise public awareness and to widely announce project products and results

  10. United Kingdom Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (Project Contractor) Liverpool John Moores University, School of the Built Environment European Council of Town Planners (ECTP) Greece PRISMA Centre for Development Studies (Project Coordinator) Municipality of Agia Varvara in the Prefecture of Athens University of Thessaly, Dept of Planning & Regional Development Core 7 Project partners

  11. Belgium Hogeschool voor Wetenschap & Kunst Sint Lucas Architectuur Project duration The project started in November 2002 and will end in October 2005 Hungary Budapest University of Technology and Economics WEBhu Kft. ICT Consultancy For more information please visit the project website www.e-pict.co.uk Core 8 Project partners

  12. Core 9 B. Planning & participation(2,5 units) 2. Planning (1,5 units) 2.1. General concepts of urban planning (1 unit) 2.1.1. Space, time and culture (0,5 unit) • Avoidance of spatial determinism: urban interventions can strengthen or weaken already existing social tendencies BUT they cannot by themselves create new ones

  13. Core 10 • Importance of temporal dimension:Focus on daily life but also raising attention for a prospective view over longer periods of time • Multiculturalism: in a multicultural area it is ‘easier’ to argue for the importance of culture. e.g. in Brussels the different ethnic groups are rather large & connected, though not often integrated in a context of diversity

  14. Core 11 2.1.2. Creativity, innovation and leisure (0,1 unit) • Use of creativity(process from consumption to production) as a dynamic tool for urban innovation and imaginative action, focusing on culture • Having an open mind for innovative practices (as well as theoretical approaches) • Importance of leisure activities especially for areas that have unemployed people who are rich in time (they have more, albeit ‘forced’, leisure time) and poor in money a general contradiction

  15. Core 12 2.1.3. Sustainability (0,8 unit) • Three dimensions of sustainable development in planning: Social – Economic – Environmental • Definition of a sustainable city: ‘organised so as to enable all its citizens to meet their own needs and to enhance their well-being without damaging the natural world or endangering the living conditions of other people now or in the future’ (

  16. Man made city (Tokyo)

  17. Reckless urban sprawl (Phoenix, Arizona))

  18. The endless city (Mexico City)

  19. China’s urban miracle?Shenzhen

  20. Core 13 • Attributes of a sustainable city: ‘just, beautiful, creative, ecological, of easy contact & mobility, compact & polycentric, diverse’ • Initial considerations of sustainability: ‘sustainability is future preservation involving actions ethically or aesthetically accepted, so that they become satisfying things to do now: ‘as historical preservation requires the disposal of the irrelevant past, so future preservation requires the elimination of the irrelevant future’

  21. Curitiba Brazil, promoting urban sustainability (the first university of the environment)

  22. Core 14 • Peoples Needs as a Starting Point • Clean air & water, healthy food, good housing • Quality education, vibrant culture, good health care, satisfying employment or occupation • Safety in public spaces, equal opportunities, supportive relationships, freedom of expression • Meeting the special requirements of the young, the old and the disabled

  23. Core 15 • culture of sustainability: development of concepts of real sustainability • Involve the whole person • Place long term stewardship above short term satisfaction • Ensure justice and fairness informed by civic responsibility • Identify the appropriate scale of viable human activities • Encourage diversity within the unity of a given community • Develop precautionary principles,anticipating the effects of our actions • Ensure that our use of resources does not diminish the living environment

  24. Core 16 • Sustainable cities-best practice initiatives according to International Council for Local Environment Initiatives (ICLEI) • Improved production/consumption cycles • Gender & social diversity • Innovative use of technology • Environmental protection & restoration • Improved transport & communication • Participatory governance & planning • Self-help development techniques

  25. Core 17 • Checklist of key questions for sustainability: Does my city- • Compile an annual environmental report? • Use life cycle analysis in its own purchasing decisions? • Support public environmental education? • Create jobs for environmental regeneration? • Have polices for transport integration and pedestrianisation? • Encourage ecological businesses? • Support ecological architecture and urban villages?

  26. Core 18 • Commission of the European Communities (1998) - 4 policy aims • strengthening economic prosperity and employmentin cities • Promoting equality, social inclusion and regeneration in urban areas • Protecting and improving the urban environment: towards local & global sustainability • Contributing to good urban governance and local empowerment

  27. Core 19 • 5 lessons for policy development according to Wally N’ Dow, former Dir. Gen. of UNCHS (United Nations Centre for Human Settlements) • Use the power of good examples • Understand the complexity of urban issues • Local level action has large scale repercussions • Exchanges take place between (similar) peer groups in different cities • There is a need to change the way urban institutions work

  28. Core 20 • Local Agenda 21 as a tool for sustainability • Process of developing local policies for sustainable development and building partnerships between local authorities and other sectors to implement them • Product of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit (UNCED) endorsed by 150 nations • Integrative goal seeking to break down barriers between sectors in both public and private life – it is a continuing process

  29. Core 21 • Range of practised methods: traditional consultation on draft plans, public meetings, bringing together of representatives from different interests, round tables, focus groups • Sustainability indicator: asking people to identify specific measurable aspects, parts of their living environment which, to them, indicate their health • Support mechanism: no setting out by Local Agenda 21 but local authorities have been leaders among governments in addressing sustainability issues (even before the adoption of LA 21)

  30. Core 22 2.2. Vision for local development & Community Planning (0,5 unit) 2.2.1. Vision for local development (0,1 unit) • Abony: quality of roads in questionnaire • Developing a sense for integrated local development (housing AND public space AND social-economic background) • Importance of local economic development – ‘new localism’: from outward- to inward-looking societies

  31. Core 23 2.2.2.Community planning (0,4 unit) • Focusing on the needs of particular groups (e.g. elderly and Roma in A. Varvara: the first, along with housewives, are willing to participate in PICT but are IT illiterate-on the other hand, young people are IT literate but do not seem willing to participate in PICT)

  32. Core 24 • Principles of community planning • Agree to the rules and boundaries • Be visionary yet realistic • Build local capacity • Encourage collaboration • Have fun • Learn from others • Have personal motivation and take initiatives • Respect the cultural context of others • Be receptive to training • Visualisation of result

  33. Core 25 3. Participation (1 unit) 3.1. General concepts of public participation (0,7 unit) 3.1.1. Methodology & various concepts (0,3 unit) • Developing an appropriate methodology of discussion between the public and the planners (two separate groups, and then together, e.g. assembly in Brussels) • combination of simplified versions of SWOT Analysis & Delphi method (internal environment: Strengths, Weaknesses, external environment: Opportunities, Threats)

  34. Core 26 • Synergetic distribution of information: Integration of different sorts of communication channels to invite and inform people, in respect of the existing of associations, planners and authorities • Self-help and independence: Enable involvement by providing means to inform oneself (empowering one’s viewpoints and points of view) • Joined development: Enable interaction and discussions

  35. Core 27 • different views of Public Participation (pp) depend on the degree of involvement of the experts and the criteria of the representing the public • lack of experience and consequently of participatory culture in Greece (however, participatory experience in A. Varvara) • Brussels: in respect & connected to the existing strong elaborated participatory fabric • Abony: inviting the public to participate in planning decisions & consultation with public (result of questionnaire)

  36. Core 28 3.1.2. ‘Schema of Public Participation’ (0,2 unit) • Hampton-two major objectives behind the introduction of greater public participation in planning during the late 1960s • policy-making and decisions can benefit from better information about public preferences and residents’ concerns. • Public participation can draw people into a stronger and longer-term relationship with government and enhance their current and future ability to play a significant role in policy-making • Relationship of specific techniques to subsidiary objectives in public participation

  37. Core 29 • the involved groupsare distinguished in: • major elites (e.g. local business groups, major employers, Chambers of Commerce, trade unions) • minor elites (local interest groups, community associations, action groups • public as a collection of individuals

  38. Core 30 3.1.3.Equal Opportunities Guide (0,1 unit) • London Government ManagementBoard -conditions for success within LAs, selection of relative factors: • race • women • disabled • elderly • children • part time & casual workers

  39. Core 31 3.1.4. Key principles for good practice in pp (0,1 unit) • Clear aims of participation at the outset • insurances of the central role of local politicians at the programme • link of motives, objectives and intentions of the participation programme with the appropriate techniques • interpretation of the nature and implications of policies and plans for the users • identification of the procedures for information collection from the public in order to evaluate and act

  40. Core 32 3.2. Key skills (0,3 unit) 3.2.1. Citizenship, democracy & participation(0,1 unit) • definitions • changing patterns • new arrangements

  41. Core 33 3.2.2. Alternative viewpoints (0,1 unit) • stakeholder mapping • equality of opportunity • conflict and diversity

  42. Core 34 3.2.3. Negotiation and conflict resolution (0,1 unit) • the skills • the process • Civil rights perception

  43. Core 35 C. IT (6 units) 4. Methods & techniques 4.1. Methods for helping people to get involved in planning (3 units) • e.g. electronic map, gaming, simulation

  44. Core 36 • Technology support: having group sessions in which tools and technologies play a supportive role. • Space and time: Combining scheduling tools with spatial models ('4D-viewer'), • Joined perspectives: Combining eye-level views and bird’s-eye views ('3D-projection')

  45. Core 37 • Complementary expertise: Considering different background of people (literacy of architectural concepts, drawing and imaging techniques), • Compact information and complexity delimitation: Considering universal limits and characteristics of human perception (e.g. mind can only keep seven plus or minus two ‘chunks of information’ in the short term memory at a time)

  46. III. 4 TEACHING MODULES FOR THE PUBLIC (6,5 units) A. Planning & Participation (1,5 units) • Planning-Introductory themes to urban planning (1 unit) 1.1. Why plan? (0,1 unit) • Necessity of planning even after so many failures • Necessity of introducing order into chaos? • urban planning is more than restrictions, it is also potentialities • Focus on basic needs, but urban interventions can not save everything • Importance of the lack of planning culture (e.g. in Greece)

  47. Public 2 1.2. Definition of planning(0,1 unit) • ‘deliberate social or organizational activity of developing an optimal strategy of future action to achieve a desired set of goals, for solving novel problems in complex contexts, and attended by the power & intention to commit resources & to act as necessary to implement the chosen strategy’

  48. Public 3 1.3. Perception of planner’s job (0,1 unit) • in A. Varvara association with technical services authority that controls building construction and grants building permissions, rather vague concept of designing towns, streets layouts & traffic management • Halewood: negative view of planning, confusion (need for more consultation with the community) • Abony: no knowledge of what a planner does

  49. Public 4 1.4. Definition of the problem(0,1 unit) • It depends on the analytical orientations of the individual: • academic expert: ‘if the shoe fits, wear it’ • strategic expert: ‘the shoe you’re wearing doesn’t fit, and you should try one like this instead’ • clinical expert: ‘if the shoe doesn’t fit, then there’s something wrong with your foot’