Abstract
We analysed university students’ opinions about their gained educational and personal benefits and challenges faced during an international and interdisciplinary workshop on urban regeneration, organised with the collaboration of Babeș-Bolyai University, in Cluj-Napoca, Romania, in the period 31st May-2nd June 2018. The M.Sc. and Ph.D. students taking part at this workshop were from Romania, Estonia and Italy. Besides these students, participants were researchers, practitioners, activists, public authorities’ representatives, senior planning officials, community leaders, academics, private stakeholders interested in city development, policy makers, investors/entrepreneurs, urban planners, etc. from Romania, Italy, Russia, Estonia, and Poland. Their fields of study were also different: Geography, Sociology, Architecture, and Urban Planning. To find out the learning challenges and benefits these students experienced during the workshop, we collected data by administering a questionnaire. We questioned them about their motivation to participate at the workshop, their interest level in urban regeneration, the sources of their knowledge about urban regeneration processes, their satisfaction degree about participating at the workshop, the challenges they had to cope with during the proceedings, the participation benefits for their professional and personal development, etc. We assessed their learning experience and suggested ways to improve it.
Keywords: University students; learning; interdisciplinarity; transculturalityterritorial development
Introduction
In the educational sphere, the Romanian post-socialist context required curricular changes in the field of Geography, both in the pre-university system (Jucu, 2012; Ilovan et al., 2018) and in the university one (Dulamă & Ilovan, 2016; Jucu, 2014). However, this focus on improving geographical education was not singular, the entire Romanian educational system requiring amendments, from very diverse perspectives: competence-based curriculum (Andronache, Bocoș, & Neculau 2015; Peculea, Andronache, & Bocoș, 2017), learning styles and development of professional skills (Catalano & Chiș, 2016; Chiș & Grec, 2017), didactic communication (Cuc, 2013b, 2014), assessment (Stan & Manea, 2015), cultural diversity (Cuc, 2013a), educational management (Manea, 2014; Precup & Chiș, 2017), etc.
On urban regeneration/redevelopment, there is a vast amount of published papers and books. There is a general reference to urban regeneration in the specialised literature as the large-scale process of adapting the built environment to the rigours of the state (Jones and Evans, 2008, p. 2). Jones and Evans (2008) focus on the emergence of urban regeneration as a policy domain, urban economic regeneration, issues of sustainability, of design and cultural elements of regeneration. Other authors review the concept of cultural quarter and of making a typology (Montgomery, 2003, 2004). In Romania, redevelopment is discussed related to territorial identity (Ilovan, Jordan, & Havadi-Nagy, & Zametter 2016a; Ilovan, Scridon, Havadi-Nagy, & Huciu 2016b; Nicula, Stoica, & Ilovan 2017; Scridon & Ilovan, 2016), to resilience (Bănică & Muntele, 2015, 2017; Bănică, Istrate, & Muntele, 2017), to social economy (Drăgan & Popa, 2017), to spatial restructuring (Jucu, 2016) or to industrial restructuring (Voiculescu & Jucu, 2016).
In international scientific literature, urban regeneration was discussed also from the necessity of having qualified professionals that aim at improving our cities in a sustainable and creative manner (Stangel & Twardoch, 2016). Therefore, field trips proved to be essential for stimulating university students’/citizen’s “involvement, critical thinking and sensitivity to place” (Stangel & Twardoch, 2016, p. 58). In this context, a series of educational experiments were realised recently, involving university students into urban regeneration projects (Buzasi & Csete, 2017; Caneparo & Bonavero, 2016; Fumo, Violano, & Castelluccio, 2017; Higueras, Gonzalez, & Lamiqiuiz, 2016; Sassano, Graziadei, Amato, & Murgante, 2017; Stangel & Witeczek, 2015; Stangel & Twardoch, 2016), with a strong emphasis on participants’ interdisciplinary cooperation for urban identity recovery, while answering the needs of the local community (i.e. empowering it and involving it in urban planning choices).
Such an educational experiment, apart from its strong research aim, was the international three-day urban regeneration workshop that we organised in Cluj-Napoca, Romania, in the period 31st May-2nd June 2018, where the participants were exposed to four different case studies with obvious social and economic benefits of urban renewal. According to its Call for papers, this workshop aimed at:
“exploring the challenges and issues of urban regeneration in shrinking cities world-wide (setting the scene for the following debate on post-socialist cities); sharing critical views and research results (theoretical and empirical) of current issues on urban regeneration in post-socialist cities, theoretical discussions and developments among researchers coming from different countries and scientific background, who demonstrate a critical engagement with urban regeneration policies; creating a network among participants with common research and urban development interests and, thus, enabling the submission of research projects with national and EU funding; facilitating know-how and experience transmission to public administration; connecting the academic ideas to the practitioners’ area in a joint experience of collaboration; engaging the associations and practitioners involved in sustainable urban projects, that have innovative ideas and want to share their experience (chances and challenges) and methods, and to come with ideas and support for their colleagues; bringing in public institutions, sharing and exchanging experiences, because the public administration (first of all the local government) has strategic relevance for development at diverse territorial levels (local, regional, national) and it is crucial for the sustainability of regeneration initiatives, based on culture, new welfare services, economic activities, and ways of providing housing for low-income and vulnerable families and so on; covering a range of issues on “urban mainstreaming”, such as: urban design, territorial and environmental development, community participation, local/strategic planning, smart cities, urban renewal and resilient cities, urban gardening, community action in the regeneration process, urban development, and management strategies.” (Ilovan & Havadi, 2018).
The proposed topics of interest in the context of post-socialist cities were the following: “urban regeneration and community development; urban regeneration processes and regional development; research methodology for the study of urban regeneration; social inclusion and cultural innovation; sustainable urban regeneration through multicultural heritage; (re)inventing urban (re)generation: building the present by (re)constructing the past; urban renewal and resilience: a comparative perspective; fragmented cities: governance and urban renewal; urban regeneration as displacement; innovative approaches to urban regeneration in the EU; urban regeneration and territorial planning; urban regeneration and public policy.
This international workshop was supported by WeRise (Urban Regeneration Collective), Italy, U-RISE (Urban Regeneration and Social Innovation Master), IUAV University of Venice, Italy, and by
Besides scientific paper presentations during the diverse workshop sections, it included field trips to four locations representative for the diversity of urban regeneration initiatives in Cluj-Napoca. The first was Liberty Technology Park: a private, investment intensive, economic initiative for the regeneration of a former industrial derelict space, which turned a brown-field into a modern, ecologically friendly office area used by different stakeholders, and with various services offered to them by the management). La Terenuri [At the Playgrounds] – Mănăștur is an initiative developed and led by the local community, in a residential area: a group of activists and residents use a green area and adjacent rather derelict sport area for community activities. They try to raise awareness, to involve the population in activities and decision-making applying the principles of participative bottom-up approaches. H33 is a grass-root initiative of industrial reconversion of a former distillery into a space for cultural and other activities, and the Paintbrush Factory is a contemporary artists’ regeneration initiative for a former derelict industrial space through cultural activities.
Problem Statement
The problem was the little knowledge about the impact of scientific workshops on M.Sc. and Ph.D. students’ educational and personal development (i.e. Urban Regeneration Workshops).
Research Questions
What are the university students’ opinions and impressions about their educational and personal benefits and challenges participating at scientific workshops? What are the results of assessing their experience?
Purpose of the Study
The aim was assessing students’ learning experience and finding solutions for improving it. Secondly, it was gaining insight from the participants for a more effective organisation of future workshops.
Research Methods
Research took place during and after the international workshop on Urban Regeneration, in May and June 2018. Details about data collecting and processing, participants, and research material are presented below.
Data collecting and processing
Student participants at the workshop were kindly asked to complete an online questionnaire, a few weeks after the workshop ended. The questionnaire was realised using the Google Forms application from Google Drive. We collected their answers in an Excel file. The questionnaire data were completed by the authors’ observations made during the event.
Participants
15 university students participated at the workshop and 14 of them completed the questionnaire. Out of the 14 students, 9 were M.Sc. (4 from Romania and 5 from Italy). Four of the five Ph.D. students were from Romania and one was from Estonia. They graduated Geography (5 students), Architecture (2), Urban Regeneration (5), Regional and Urban Planning (1), and Regional Development (1). One could notice that they were quite specialised on urban areas (Geography, Architecture, Urban Regeneration), complemented by Humanities (social innovation) or technical focus (GIS, environmental engineering).
Research material
The research material is represented by the answers to the online questionnaire.
Findings
Findings are based on the analysis of students’ feedback (i.e. their answers to the online questionnaire). The foreign participants attended all the events (presentations and field trips) during the Urban Regeneration Workshop or participated at least at 80% of this scientific event. Romanian participants’ level of participation was lower, ranging from 40 to 80%, whereby it is important to mention that most of them volunteered in the event organisation and could not attend the entire manifestation due to organisational duties.
Over 85% of the respondents had a high satisfaction level with the event, being very content (57%) or content (28%). 14% of the respondents noticed some pleasing aspects, but, at the same time, considered that some organisational issues needed improvement.
Regarding their decisive reasons for attending this event, the respondents named the possibility to meet and interact with specialists in different fields (78%), followed by the possibility to learn new ideas (64%) as a very important motive for attending the workshop. The chance to present their own ideas to others seemed to be less important, for 14% even not important at all. The internationality of the event, the chance to learn about urban regeneration chances and challenges from different regions and countries were also quite important (35%) or very important (57%) for most of the respondents.
The three-day full workshop programme, with presentations and field trips, seems to be differently challenging for the participants (Table
Students were also asked to grade
They also wrote concerning
The respondents also named the fieldtrips, which illustrated their focus of interest: social innovation or collective work for H33, reconversion of industrial areas for the Liberty Park, or bottom-up initiatives related to La Terenuri [At the Playgrounds] – Mănăștur and to the Paintbrush Factory. Important to point out might be one student’s affirmation that:
The field trips illustrated effectively the topic of the event, gave opportunity to discuss with local people involved in urban regeneration initiatives and pointed out the differences between various approaches. Further on, the visits enabled interesting debates about the peculiarities and limitations/difficulties of urban regeneration processes. Students also had the opportunity to experience similarities and differences of urban regeneration initiatives compared to those from their home country.
Answering the question about
About
Dependent on the level of involvement in urban regeneration projects (complemented by the focus of their study), there were noticeable differences between students concerning the source of knowledge about urban regeneration processes: those who were directly involved in urban regeneration initiatives, indicated project participation as main source of their knowledge in the field. The others gained information mainly through literature research and conferences.
The input, which the participants gained during the workshop can have various and multiple further uses. Writing about
Conclusion
The proposed activities, involving the members of the academic community going on field trips and interacting with the local community, promoted a series of highly valuable results for the educational process: education centred on forming active citizens, for the benefit of the society; cognitive transfer and outreach, characteristic for learning and teaching in a Humboldtian university; initiating collaboration among participants and between them and representatives of the local social and economic environment, thus strengthening knowledge transfer and this relationship. The Humboldtian model is completed by the entrepreneurial one, enabling involvement in solving societal problems. These results are to be included under didactic excellence enabling the academic community’ sustainability and civic empowerment.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the students’ contribution of participating in our survey. We would also like to gratefully acknowledge our hosts' significant contribution to the success of the four field trips: the representatives of Liberty Technology Park, La Terenuri - Mănăștur, H33 and of The Paintbrush Factory. We thank them very much indeed for warmly welcoming us, for their time and effort. H33 also hosted in their precinct one of our afternoon sessions and we thank them for finding the time for us in their busy schedule. The research for this article was supported by a STAR-UBB Institute Fellowship (The Institute of Advanced Studies in Science and Technology, belonging to Babeș-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca, Romania) won by Associate professor Oana-Ramona Ilovan, Ph.D., during the 2018-2019 academic year (for the October-November 2018 period):
References
- Andronache, D., Bocoș, M. & Neculau, B.C. (2015). A systemic-interactionist model to design a competency-based curriculum. 6th International Conference Edu World 2014: Education Facing Contemporary World Issues, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 715-721.
- Bănică, Al. & Muntele, I. (2015). Urban vulnerability and resilience in post-communist Romania (Comparative case studies of Iași and Bacău cities and metropolitan areas). Carpathian Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 10(4), 159-171.
- Bănică, Al. & Muntele, I. (2017). Urban transitions and resilience of Eastern European Union cities. Eastern Journal of European Studies, 8(2), 45-69.
- Bănică, Al., Istrate, M. & Muntele, I. (2017). Challenges for the resilience capacity of Romanian shrinking cities. Sustainability, 9(12), Article Number 2289.
- Buzasi, A. & Csete, M.S. (2017). Ex-ante assessment of urban development projects. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 6(4)SI, 267-278.
- Caneparo, L. & Bonavero, F. (2016). Neighborhood regeneration at the grassroots participation: Incubators’ co-creative process and system. ARCHNET-IJAR International Journal of Architectural Research, 10(2), 204-218.
- Catalano, C. & Chiș, O. (2016). Comparative study between students’ teaching practice activities in Hungary and Romania. 4th ERD Conference, European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 18, 74-78.
- Chiș, O. & Grec, C. (2017). Valuing student’s learning styles in the development of professional skills. 4th ERD Conference, 81-85.DOI:
- Cuc, M.C. (2013a). Educational strategies to promote cultural diversity. Lumen 3rd International Conference on Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty (LUMEN) - Current Paradigms in Social Sciences, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 92, 220-224.
- Cuc, M.C. (2013b). Ways to streamline didactic communication. Lumen 3rd International Conference on Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty (LUMEN) - Current Paradigms in Social Sciences, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 92, 225-230.
- Cuc, M.C. (2014). Development of a communication system for capitalizing cultural diversity. 3rd Cyprus International Conference on Educational Research (CY-ICER), Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143, 63-67.
- Drăgan, Al. & Popa, N. (2017). Social economy in post-communist Romania: What kind of volunteering for what type of NGOs? Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 19(3), 330-350.
- Dulamă, M.E. & Ilovan, O.-R. (2016). How powerful is feedforward in university education? A case study in Romanian geography education on increasing learning efficiency. Educational Sciences-Theory & Practice, 16(3), 827-848.
- Fumo, M., Violano, A. & Castelluccio, R. (2017). Experimental design on field: teaching methodology and educational experience. 11th International Conference on Technology, Education and Development (INTED), INTED Proceedings, 2765-2775.
- Higueras, E., Gonzalez, I. & Lamiqiuiz, F. (2016). Learning for parallel virtual urban workshop: An innovate method for teaching planning. World Multidisciplinary Civil Engineering-Architecture-Urban Planning Symposium (WMCAUS), Procedia Engineering, 161, 1806-1812.
- Ilovan, O.-R. & Havadi-Nagy, K. X. (2018). International Workshop on Urban Regeneration. Recycling Urban Voids in Post-Socialist Cities – Methods and Actions to Achieve Urban Regeneration. (2018, June 27). Retrieved from http://territorial-identity.ro/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/UR_2018-programme-.pdf
- Ilovan, O.-R. (2018). Excelență didactică pentru sustenabilitatea comunității academice și responsabilizare civică [Didactic excellence for the sustainability of the academic community and civic awareness]. (2018, June 27). Retrieved from http://territorial-identity.ro/urban_regeneration/
- Ilovan, O.-R., Dulamă, M.E., Botan, C.N., Havadi-Nagy, K. X., Horváth, C., Nițoaia, A., Nicula, S. & Rus, G.M. (2018). Environmental education and education for sustainable development in Romania. Teachers’ perceptions and recommendations. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 19(1), 350-356.
- Ilovan, O.-R., Jordan, P., Havadi-Nagy, K.X. & Zametter, T. (2016a). Identity matters for development: Austrian and Romanian experiences. Transylvanian Review, 25(Supplement 1), 261-276.
- Ilovan, O.-R., Scridon, I., Havadi-Nagy, K.X. & Huciu, D. (2016b). Tracing the Military Frontier District of Năsăud. Territorial identity and regional development. Mitteilungen Der Osterreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft, 158, 215-244.
- Jones, P. & Evans, J. (2008). Urban regeneration in the UK. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
- Jucu, I.S. (2012). Rethinking geography in Romanian schools: curricular changes in geography learning in post-socialist Romania. 4th World Conference on Educational Sciences (WCES-2012), Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 5440-5448.
- Jucu, I.S. (2014). The role of Regional Geography in the Romanian students’ training, as future specialists in tourism. 4th World Conference on Learning, Teaching and Educational Leadership (WCLTA-2013), Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 551-555.
- Jucu, I.S. (2016). Recent issues of spatial restructuring in Romanian medium-sized towns: Spatial conversion and local urban regeneration. Ecology, Economics, Education and Legislation Conference Proceedings, SGEM 2016, vol. III, International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference-SGEM, 493-500.
- Manea, A.D. (2014). Promoting interculturalism at the level of management in educational establishments. 2nd International Conference on Globalization, Intercultural Dialogue and National Identity, Globalization and Intercultural Dialogue: Multidisciplinary Perspectives - Economy and Management, 508-512.
- Montgomery, J. (2003). Cultural quarters as mechanisms for urban regeneration. Part 1: conceptualising cultural quarters. Planning, Practice & Research, 18(4), 293-306.
- Montgomery, J. (2004). Cultural quarters as mechanisms for urban regeneration. Part 2: a review of four cultural quarters in the UK, Ireland and Australia. Planning, Practice & Research, 19(1), 3-31.
- Nicula, Al.-S., Stoica, M.S. & Ilovan, O.-R. (2017). The cultural-historical and political spheres of influence of Alba Iulia. Transylvanian Review, XXVI, Supplement 2, 299-315.
- Peculea, L., Andronache, D. & Bocoș, M. (2017). Independent learning and reflective thinking of the future teachers. 7th International Edu World Conference (Edu World), European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 23, 798-806.
- Precup, A. & Chiș, O. (2017). Educational marketing – academic action and identity. 5th ERD Conference, European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, XLI, 685-691.
- Sassano, G., Graziadei, A., Amato, F. & Murgante, B. (2017). Involving citizens in the reuse and regeneration of urban peripheral spaces. Local Government and Urban Governance in Europe, Urban Book Series, 193-206.
- Scridon, I. & Ilovan, O.-R. (2016). Approaching the Other in the Zipser Community. Identity issues and methodological insights into geographical cross-cultural research. Transylvanian Review, 25(1), 55-73.
- Stan, C. & Manea, A.D. (2015). The divergent relationship between assessment and self-assessment in higher education. Experimental results. 3rd ERD Conference, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 209, 497-502.
- Stangel, M. & Twardoch, A. (2016). Students and the city. Real-live urban analysis and evaluation in urban design education. 8th Architecture in Perspective Conference, 58-60.
- Stangel, M. & Witeczek, A. (2015). Design thinking and role-playing in education on brownfields regeneration. Experiences from Polish-Czech cooperation. Architecture Civil Engineering Environment, 8(4), 19-28.
- Voiculescu, S. & Jucu, I.S. (2016). Producing urban industrial derelict places: The case of the Solventul petrochemical plant in Timișoara. European Urban and Regional Studies, 23(4), 765-781.
Copyright information
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
Publication Date
25 June 2019
Article Doi
eBook ISBN
978-1-80296-062-4
Publisher
Future Academy
Volume
63
Print ISBN (optional)
-
Edition Number
1st Edition
Pages
1-613
Subjects
Teacher, teacher training, teaching skills, teaching techniques, special education, children with special needs
Cite this article as:
Ilovan, O., Havadi-Nagy, K. X., Dulamă, M. E., Mutică, P., Adorean, E., Colcer, A., & Paula Olivia, P. O. (2019). Learning Challenges And Benefits During The International Workshop On Urban Regeneration. In V. Chis, & I. Albulescu (Eds.), Education, Reflection, Development – ERD 2018, vol 63. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 330-338). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.06.41