Studio teaching in Australian planning curriculum

Planning studio pedagogy has long been a part of planning education and has recently re-emerged as a topic of investigation. Scholarship has: 1) critically examined the fluctuating popularity of studio teaching and the changing role of studio teaching in contemporary planning curricula in the USA and New Zealand; 2) challenged conceptualizations of the traditional studio and considered how emerging strategies for blended and online learning, and ‘real world engagement’ are producing new modes of studio delivery; 3) considered the benefits and outcomes of studio teaching, and; 4) provided recommendations for teaching practice by critically analysing studio experiences in different contexts (Aitken-Rose & Dixon, 2009; Balassiano, 2011; Balassiano & West, 2012; Balsas, 2012; Dandekar, 2009; Heumann & Wetmore, 1984; Higgins, Thomas & Hollander, 2010; Lang, 1983; Long, 2012; Németh & Long, 2012; Winkler, 2013). Twenty-three universities in Australia offer accredited planning degrees, yet data about the use of studio teaching in planning programs are limited. How, when and why are studio pedagogies used? If it is not a part of the curriculum – why?, and has this had any impact on student outcomes? What are the opportunities and limitations of new models of studio teaching for student, academic, professional and institutional outcomes? This paper presents early ideas from a QUT seed grant on the use of studio teaching in Australian planning education to gain a better understanding of the different roles of studio teaching in planning curricula at a National level and opportunities and challenges for this pedagogical mode in the face of dilemmas facing planning education.