Evaluation of Citizen–Student Cooperative Urban Planning and Design Experience in Higher Education

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the implementation and evaluation of cooperative education, which is emphasized as a means of developed citizen participation in the areas of urban planning and design, and to present implications by analyzing and discussing the results thereof. To this end, this study observed three cooperative education classes in which general citizens and students participated to learn how to cooperate planning processes for fostering experts in relevant fields in higher education courses. Additionally, the study established a research model through multiple educational performances and monitoring to review participants’ opinions. The results were quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed based on a questionnaire, and the methodology was compliant with prior research. The analysis demonstrated statistical differences in communication between students and citizens going through the same curriculum, as well as differences in the satisfaction of the two groups. Citizens and students found difficulties in coordinating opinions and reaching a consensus with counterparties. Nevertheless, all the participants expressed satisfaction over their collaboration to produce the results and ensured that related attempts were continuously made thereafter. Based on these results, this study proposed methods to enhance cooperative education for citizens in the future.

1. Introduction

The realization of citizen participation that lead to empowerment [1] and local governance embracing citizen in the field of urban and local planning has been regarded as a new urban planning methodology [2]. Definitions of local governance vary, but it can generally mean policy decentralization to respond to the changing social and economic environment [3]. Furthermore, the decentralization of urban planning and development went beyond organizations and institutions and became the background to emphasizing the importance of realization of empowerment through expansion of citizen participation, education for local stakeholders, including citizens [4]. Against this background, education has become a trigger that justifies local citizen participation in the decision-making stage of urban development, regeneration, and conservation projects, and is one way to realize governance in which citizens actively participate [5].

This traditional view goes beyond the urban planning field and continues in recent smart cities. Governance and decentralization have become essential means in forming the concept of a smart city [6]. The sustainable smart city of European countries is a background that emphasizes education as one of the means to prevent “governance failure” and provide equal development to the region and equal opportunity to the citizens [7].

This paradigm shift is based on the multi-layered theory accumulated so far. The ladder of citizen participation suggested by [8], a model that represents this, involves active actions including a public hearing and survey participation in the ‘Consultation’ stage for full participation; belonging to public bodies in the fields of education and housing in the ‘Placation’ stage; and participating, standing shoulder to shoulder, to reach the final stage, ‘Citizen control’. In other words, the education level of citizens is one of the indicators of willingness to participation [9].

However, the quality of citizen participation depends on citizen education, elitism, technological complexity, financing, and government agency behavior [9,10]. Some argue that differences in information and knowledge among citizens due to inequality in education can hinder true citizen participation. Nevertheless, the citizens’ education level also produces higher value because it can be positively linked to the government and citizen involvement mechanisms and strategic decisions [11]. In this context, education has become one of the essential means for realizing citizen participation or engagement, the starting point, in urban planning [12].

Therefore, various attempts have been made in education for the realization of citizen participation. Community Leadership Development Education (CLDE), mentioned as a representative example, attempts to bridge the knowledge gap between universities and the local governments in understanding governance that considers citizens and its process at the local level. CLDE also aims to provide professional education for citizens to develop the skills and aptitudes to prepare and respond to the various challenges of the city [13]. In other words, professional education for citizens is a tool to help cultivate community leadership through the improvement of individual abilities and to professionally understand the region.

In this context, the importance of professional education has also been emphasized in urban planning and design. The value has grown as citizen (or community) partnership has been recognized and publicized as a universal vocabulary for realizing governance in urban planning. However, in the actual field, mutually unsatisfactory results and reactions are observed between planners and citizens [14]. The main reason for this problem is that, in theory, it is difficult to establish a clear definition because citizen participation is interpreted and applied from multiple perspectives such as goal identification, attitude change, organizational stability, or education [15]. However, in reality, it can be said that it arises from the difference in knowledge and perception to accept the region between experts such as urban planning practitioners, policymakers, and public officials and citizens. To resolve this discrepancy, the concept of citizen participation, which was limited to the public hearing and decision making, is expanding to cooperative planning where citizens directly participate in planning today [16,17], and this transition requires citizens’ knowledge of urban planning and capacity building [18]. Therefore, in recent years, the importance of supplying specialized education for citizens’ capacity building [19] and the importance of citizen co-production beyond citizen control [20] are being emphasized.

Advanced civic education for the realization of cooperative planning is indispensable. In addition, to realize cooperative planning, it is also essential to implement and monitor education programs for students in higher education, although obscured by the existence of citizens and their specialization [21]. However, few studies emphasize the importance of cooperative education for cultivating the professionalism of citizens and the tolerance of experts in related fields, and there are very few cases that quantitatively verify the difference and suggest implications.

In this context, this study reviews the results of the educational programs in which citizens and students participated together three times over the past year, along with the composition of the educational program for citizens and students. The trainees are civic groups where the specialization, as mentioned earlier, is emphasized, and graduate students who will work as experts in the future. The two groups went through the same curriculum as a team to realize advanced citizen participation and cooperative planning, and this study attempted to compare and analyze the results of education from each group’s point of view. Through the analysis of the results, the research tried to achieve the secondary purpose of suggesting the need for relevant educational programs for nurturing experts, which extends citizen participation for cooperative planning and urban living lab.

2. Literature Reviews

2.1. The Citizen Participation and the Limitations of Existing Participatory Education

Higher education for the implementation of cooperative planning covered in this study is based on the aforementioned theory and background of citizen participation in the implementation of governance.

It was recognized earlier that various forms of citizen participation were essential for enhancing the function and quality of democracy [22], the basis on which the Housing Act (1949) and Economic Opportunity Act (1964), directly addressing urban renewal and housing in the post-World War II era in the United States [23], were enforced. Since then, citizen participation theories have continued to be developed and have recently led to social innovation, addressing necessary issues to change neighborhoods, cities, and communities [24]. Moreover, as [25] noted, social innovation in a built environment enables the improvement of well-being for citizens and civil society. However, the coordination and compromise between the community as citizens and experts as enablers in citizen participation have repeatedly failed [26].

Many reasons are stipulated to cause this, but the passive participation of citizens, represented by public hearings, i.e., limited citizen participation, is a sizable issue [27]. Despite efforts over recent decades to reflect the citizens’ voice in urban planning based on the encouragement of citizen participation, the field still emphasizes the efficient implementation of public programs seeking efficiency and the development of means to resolve dilemmas arising among communities with various needs [28]. As such, the public officials and local government as an entity that educates, persuades, and disciplines citizens, leads to the most contradictory form of citizen participation as wells as non-participation [8]. Therefore, policy support for empowerment must implement citizen-driven participation. For this implementation, the enlightening of citizens as negotiators at the level with the public officials is necessary [29,30], in addition to active public attitudes and education to accept empowerment.

Educating citizens is crucial to ensure the sense of the power of citizen participation [31] and, although controversial, can positively change their attitudes [15]. Additionally, numerous studies, including [25,32,33], have demonstrated that level of education is directly proportional to the level of citizen participation outcome. However, these studies were limited to proving citizen participation to be highly effective in people with “backgrounds of high educational levels” in conclusion. In addition, in most cases, the education of experts for the realization of citizen participation is limited to the methods to flexibly handle the tasks required for future or in-service administrators [34]. Therefore, as [35] noted, the experts must answer the question: “Do urban planners truly trust and work with citizens? Aren’t you dealing only with the smooth handling of administrative issues?” In other words, some education programs regarding participatory planning for the experts are negatively failing to realize multifaceted and truly inclusive public involvement [36], although administrators’ attitudes being elements that distinguish the success and failure of citizen participation [37], and professional programs for fostering experts must include cooperation and communication with citizens [38].

Early in the field of urban planning, cooperative planning and cooperative education were regarded as important factors in reaching active citizen participation. Additionally, a vigorous educational program with citizens and experts is an essential element for the realization of a successful planning program [39]. Here, experts require community development, citizen participation, and conflict resolution skills [21], and citizens are experts who are well-versed in the region and cooperate with planners or public institutions on an equal footing for the sustainable development of the region [40]. Therefore, although a forum for exchange and sufficient education to share opinions between the two groups is needed, the reality is that cooperative education is still divided into education to nurture experts or education to cultivate citizens’ abilities. Against this background, the reality is that there is a lack of empirical research that constitutes an educational field in which students and citizens become active partners and monitors this.

2.2. Element and Classification for Realizing Collaborative Education

This study noted the need and value of cooperative education for citizens and experts. As [41] mentioned, education is the means to solve planner’s inexperience with participatory methods in the field of urban planning, which is required for change and challenge, and citizens can recognize the real value in their participation changing the shape of the region [42]. To realize this, the establishment and operation of related curricula, and the establishment and implementation of monitoring systems, and the feedback of results are required to ensure the sustainability of related projects.

As will be detailed later, citizens and students registered in a class consisting of 16 weeks in this study. The class opened in graduate school, and the participants of the two groups blended to form teams and carried out the same education and project. After the end of the semester, the survey was conducted, and the results were analyzed from the perspectives of citizens and students, respectively, to suggest implications for similar education programs. As such, this study established categories for educational evaluation through reviews of previous studies as follows. Further, the study sought to guide related follow-up studies by establishing items for evaluation and implementing the evaluation. Through this process and result derivation, this study intends to examine the synergy and conflicting parts in the process of drawing mutual agreement between students and citizens in the urban planning field, as well as the problems of the educational program that led this process. In addition, based on the results, this study was intended to help follow-up research by revealing the importance of the cooperative program.

The first is the student–citizen evaluation of the quality of the class. The overall evaluation of class quality provides several implications for practical workers in measuring citizen participation [43]. Representative indicators of class quality measurement are those such as the High Education Quality Criteria, which includes internal and external quality and physical and non-physical characteristics such as overall and detailed curriculum, staff, career prospect, infrastructure, etc. [44].

The second is the difficulty level of classes and self-evaluation of each student and citizen group. In general, the planning course in which citizens participate involves consideration and planning, feedback, and evaluation of the local community [45]. In particular, understandability, tangible activities, and the resulting benefits from education simultaneously involving both citizens and students ensure the learner’s performance and sustainability of the class [46]. Therefore, individual evaluations of a curriculum consisting of multiple modules or steps may facilitate the improvement of class modules or specific groups of learners in related classes in the future.

The third is the communication between citizens and students. As many studies have noted, communication is essential in studies of citizen participation [47]. In particular, communication is the only factor that can produce visible effects and influences decision-making in citizen participation [48]. Additionally, as [49] mentioned, the quantitative evaluation is emphasized in cooperative learning and communication that positively affects participants’ academic performance.

The fourth is motivation, i.e., the self-evaluation of each respondent regarding the process and outcome. Considering that education is, in essence, the primary means, this study addresses student–citizen cooperative projects in urban planning, an interest in learning, a valuing of education, and confidence leading to self-determination [50]. Simultaneously, the support of the instructor results in improved student performance and interest in related areas. [51]. Thus, education for citizens and students to grow at equal levels to become local experts and self-directed evaluation endows expertise and sustainability in cooperative planning. Furthermore, this enables the surmounting of the limitations of the existing methods of the “the public officials or organization as the expert and opinion gatherer” and the “citizen as the participant and opinion presenter.”

Therefore, for the past year, this study used the following methods and procedures to conduct education for the understanding of mutual relationships and improvement of expertise through education in urban planning based on citizen–student cooperation and analyze the results of the two groups.

3. Materials and Methods

As mentioned in the introduction, the roles of citizens in urban planning and design education are recognized as targets of advanced and specialized education, and master’s and doctor’s course students who will become experts in related fields must grow to utilize their expertise in communicating with citizens. From this perspective, this study ran courses involving citizens and graduate students from backgrounds and by methods as follows. This study then compiled and analyzed the results and self-evaluation at the end of the semester.

3.1. Research Materials and Processes

The data used to conduct this study was collected from three of the same courses established with support from the Seoul Metropolitan Government to preserve the physio-social contexts of the community and improve citizen cooperation.

Through a program named ‘Seoul Campus Town Project’, Seoul aims to foster passionate young entrepreneurs, to create high-quality jobs for youths and residents through vigorous startup activities around universities, and to construct a local community in which partnerships among universities, youths, and local residents exist through collaboration between universities and regions. A total of 34 of the 46 universities in Seoul are participating in this program, and 11 of them are receiving approximately USD 8.5 million in funding over 4 years [52]. From the perspective of urban planning, each school is opening and operating programs to strengthen the local capacity of residents along with urban regeneration projects linked with local governments or the central government.

The data used to conduct this study were collected from the ‘Urban and Regional Planning’ course, which was opened as a university-region linkage class with the support of the Seoul Metropolitan Government and a local university. The class was opened as a graduate course three times from the first half of 2019 to 2020 and operated with the same curriculum. A total of 12 students and 12 citizens registered for each class, and it was held for 3 h each week, for a total of 16 weeks.

As presented in Figure 1, students and citizens participated under equal status in each official course. The first half of the class (from 1st to 8th week) in official track was centered on faculty-led classes on modern urban architecture theory, policies, systems, and cases. The second half (from 9th to 16th week) was composed of analysis and production of plans of the local target area selected by each team in advance under the leadership of citizens. The teams comprised two students and two citizens. In this process, a supportive track (see ‘Supportive Track’ in Figure 2) was formed to achieve the goals of theoretical classes and producing plans for the semester, enabling students to perform the selection of target areas and basic analysis from the beginning of the semester. In addition, supportive track II (see ‘Supportive Track II’ in Figure 2) was established to enable students to learn and practice theory, and to learn objective opinion statement and presentation methods and expression techniques utilizing digital tools to bridge the inevitable capability gap between students and citizens. Data for the progress of this study were collected through survey results distributed to all the students and citizens at the end of the course. In the survey, the professor’s commentary on each item and in-depth interview results of each student and citizen were also collected.

3.2. Indicators for Student–Citizen Cooperative Education Assessment

To achieve the purpose of this study, the questionnaire items were drawn and rearranged according to the four categories noted in the citizen participation and cooperation education in Section 2.2. In this course, based on the evaluation criteria presented by prior studies, items acceptable for education conducted in this study were selected, and surveys were filled out by adding, integrating, and deleting items used for the evaluation of the curriculum at the target educational institution.

In the selection and composition of evaluation items, the traditional viewpoint of education evaluation and the viewpoint of sustainability required by the recent Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) were considered. In order to derive the evaluation items of students, this study adopted the main items of Student Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ) [53], which are actively used in related fields, and Student Course Experience Questionnaire (SCEQ), which [54] suggested. More specifically, it is about the overall quality of classes, and as [55,56] mentioned, evaluation criteria according to the characteristics of the curriculum or subject were tried to be constructed. Therefore, the questionnaire was composed of items to determine the student’s achievement in the first and second half of the class and the overall curriculum.

The Understanding section was composed of evaluation items of whether the instructor and staff presented helpful information and feedback as an evaluation of the instructor for good teaching. In the Communication section, evaluation items were included on whether good communication was achieved between citizens and students who formed a team during this class. The motivation section is the self-evaluation referred to by the aforementioned SCEQ. It is a factor for judging the difficulty of class and the factors that affect the learning motivation for a semester, and it is a standard for judging the adequacy of classes between students and citizens. The last part is sustainability, a part to measure the sustainable participation of students and citizens in the class. In particular, considering the fact that many scholars, including [57,58], emphasize the importance of education, research, operation, and community outreach to ensure the sustainability of universities, it is an item that can examine the suitability of local government investment in such or similar programs.

As a result, items of class quality (five items), understanding of local community (four items), communication (four items), and motivation for self-determination (eight items) were selected. A total of 29 questionnaire items were organized into five categories, adding four items to identify the opening of similar courses, considering that this course was not open at all times. All processes were discussed, reviewed, and modified by two authors, urban planning experts, and education science experts, respectively, with each item composed of a 5-point Likert scale marked ‘Strongly Disagree’, ‘Disagree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘Agree’ and ‘Strongly Agree’ by the aforementioned educational researches including [54,59]. In addition, each section included descriptive questions so that the class attendees, comprising citizens and students, could freely express their opinions on difficulties in classes.

3.3. Method for Quantatative and Qualitative Analysis

For the analysis of questionnaire results, this study used a mixed methods approach [33], which includes both quantitative and qualitative methods. Here, the value of the mixed method has been verified by scholars in that it is a comprehensive tool that allows students to provide quantitative and qualitative information to them through surveys simultaneously [60] and makes it easier to collect, analyze and interpret related data [61]. In particular, [60,62] argued that mixed methodology can lead researchers to understand educational research through quantitative and qualitative data acquisition and in-depth analysis.

For the qualitative study, open-ended question results were analyzed. The questionnaires were presented the subjects to express their opinions on the five items presented in

Table 1. Evaluation criteria (questionnaires for students) for cooperative education assessment (n = 29).

Section	Code	Question 1
Quality	Q1	This class dealt with the contents that fit the learning objectives.
	Q2	I was able to keep up with the first half of the class.
	Q3	I was able to keep up with the second half of the class.
	Q4	This class was well organized in general.
	Q5	This class dealt with contents and in-class practices that I have expected.
Understanding	U1	This class provided sufficient information about regions, and/or helped me easily find relevant information.
	U2	This class served as a chance to realize the importance of understanding regions and the participation of citizens in terms of urban planning.
	U3	The final results of this class are expected to help develop, preserve and/or regenerate our region in a sustainable way.
	U4	It was relatively easy to understand the process of drawing final results compared to that of other urban planning/design classes or compared to my previous expectations.
Communication	C1	I had no difficulty in sharing my opinions with instructors.
	C2	I had no difficulty in sharing opinions with colleagues
	C3	My colleagues (students/ citizens) carefully listened to my opinions.
	C4	My thoughts were well reflected to the results of the study.
Motivation	M1	This class helped me improve my knowledge and capabilities regarding urban planning and design.
	M2	This class helped boost exchanges and friendship with my colleagues
	M3	I cooperated with my colleagues over the course of this class.
	M4	I can explain what I’ve learned from this class to others.
	M5	The lack of the instructor’s teaching skills is blamed for my poor performance
	M6	The lack of my understanding about the class is blamed for my poor performance
	M7	The lack of my efforts is blamed for my poor performance
	M8	The different and unique features of this class is blamed for my poor performance
Sustainability	S1	I am satisfied with the class in general.
	S2	I will take a similar course in the future.
	S3	I have an intention to recommend this class to my colleagues.
	S4	I’ve got to well understand the region and be interested in the issue after taking the course.

¹ All the items were assessed by the Likert 5-point scale and the assessment items were as follows: 1 point: Strongly Disagree; 2 points: Disagree; 3 points: Neutral; 4 points: Agree; 5 points: Strongly Agree.

. In addition, individual counseling was conducted at the middle and end of the semester to collect, record, and analyze citizens’ and students’ various opinions. A thematic analysis of each segment based on the criteria in [34] was conducted, and interviews and quantitative scores for each segment were linked to enable an in-depth understanding of each item.

This study aimed to compare and explore evaluations by students and citizens for each item and to discuss the implications for improvements of the understanding of the process and communication through education, in which citizens are the direct subjects of urban planning. Therefore, to verify the similarity between the two different populations, this study utilized the two-sample t-test, in which 36 samples of students and citizens were employed. The research method was adopted according to the central limit theorem [63,64], and the analysis of the populations was performed with the input of samples of virtually all students.

In addition, each item used for the measurement had to satisfy normality in the parametric statistics, including the analysis of means. Thus, a comprehensive review of the absolute values of skewness and kurtosis was conducted based on descriptive statistics for each item. The criteria for determining the mean difference between the two groups, including the t-test, are calculated by the standard error, where the standard error is calculated by calculating the pooled variance with the variance obtained from the two samples by the assumption of equal variance.

$$t=\frac{\overline{Y_1}-Y_2}{\sqrt{s_p^2\left(\frac{1}{n_1}+\frac{1}{n_2}\right)}}$$

(1)

where $\overline{Y_1}$ and $Y_2$ are the means of the first and second samples, respectively; $s_p^2$ is the pooled variance; and $n_1$ and $n_2$ are the sizes of the first and second samples, respectively.

In the implementation of the quantitative and qualitative research, this study focused on the t-test and analysis of means to achieve the research purpose of the comparison of means of students and citizens.

4. Results

4.1. Overview

As mentioned earlier, the pilot curriculum mentioned in Figure 2 was opened and operated three times for one year with the same purpose and content. In order to provide equal opportunities for students and citizens, students and citizens who have completed the class are not allowed to take the same class. The students completed the class for one semester through the participation and team formation of master’s and doctoral graduate students and local residents. The class went through lectures, discussions, and planning processes, as shown in Figure 3 below. Citizens and students were able to visualize the results of cooperative discussions by selecting a target site, preparing a basic plan, and preparing visual presentation results.

Before the analysis, this study sought to quantitatively verify that there was no significant deviation in students’ evaluations for each class, and to subsequently describe the results of education by qualitatively comparing the group mean for the three classes that were offered. According to the analysis, there was no significant difference in the means in each session across a total of three surveys. This is deemed to have been due to the operation of the same curriculum over the progress of education and the organization of groups with consideration to the level of students and citizens. The standard deviation of the means of the three segments containing the survey items was also relatively small at 0.33–0.51, by which it was deemed that the survey results collected for each session may be input and analyzed in the single statistical model to be later described.

Based on the aforementioned process, the means of the questionnaire results of students and citizens in each segment is as presented in Figure 4. To summarize major outcomes, sustainability drew the highest level of satisfaction among quality, understanding, motivation, and sustainability, containing a total of 29 evaluation items. In other words, the increase in overall satisfaction and local interest in classes where students (3.833) and citizens (3.920) participated were high relative to the class and motivation, from which five sections it may be deduced that the opening of a class itself entails more positive effects than the process of the class.

Contrarily, the evaluation of citizen–student communication demonstrated the lowest satisfaction regardless of the participants being students or citizens. As predicted in the introduction, the differences in local interest and capacity for practical and policy resolution may have been manifested in lower satisfaction relative to other segments, in the process where students (2.813) and citizens (3.156) shared their opinions and replaced the results with the output. Furthermore, the fact that satisfaction in communication is lower for students even though classes are based on mutually equal relationships can be interpreted as a result of emphasizing that students, as well as citizens, are important subjects to be considered in the operation of higher education courses where citizens participate.

4.2. Comparison of the Results between Student and Citizen Groups by Indicator Groups

4.2.1. Quality of Education by the Learner Groups

In addition to the analysis of student–citizen results in each of the above five sections, the differences in student and citizen means for the questions included in each category were quantitively analyzed through an independent sample t-test, and their results were interpreted, with analysis utilizing in-depth interview results as necessary. Among each segment, the comparison results for the quality segment consisting of five questions are as follows.

Among the five questions, the t-values of the relevance between class contents and learning objectives (Q1), evaluation of the systemic composition of the class (Q4), the progress of the class following the expectations (Q5) were 0.860, 0.960, and 0.447, respectively, demonstrating no difference under the significance level. In other words, there was no difference between the means of students and citizens in the administrative operation of the classes. (see

Table 2. Comparison of education quality between the two participant groups (n = 72).

Code	Mean		Std. Dev.		t-Value	p
	Student	Citizen	Student	Citizen
Q1	3.639	3.472	0.723	0.910	0.860	0.393
Q2	3.583	3.000	0.874	0.828	2.907	0.005 **
Q3	3.833	3.417	0.561	0.649	2.915	0.005 **
Q4	3.750	3.750	0.732	0.841	0.614	0.561
Q5	3.917	3.833	0.649	0.910	0.447	0.656

** p < 0.01.

).

However, questions about the “level of difficulty of the contents learned in the first half of the class (Q2)” and “level of difficulty of the contents learned in the second half of the class (Q3)” demonstrated statistically significant differences between students and citizens. The t-value of the level of difficulty of the contents learned in the first half of the class (Q2), covering urban planning and design theory, was greater than ±1.96 at 2.907, demonstrating quantitative difference (p = 0.005) in the difficulty of theoretical classes between students (3.583) and citizens (3.000). Such a trend was also found in the difficulty of the contents learned in the second half of the class (Q3), with a t-value of 2.897, demonstrating a difference between students (3.833) and citizens (3.417). In other words, it can be interpreted that the satisfaction with education and experience dealing with the overall process and technical aspects of urban planning and design was low among citizens.

Although no quantitative difference was found, the aforementioned Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q5, i.e., most items, demonstrated generally lower satisfaction in citizens than students. These results can be interpreted by some contents from in-depth interviews, as follows.

“[Citizen Respondent #21] The process of participating in urban planning to solve local problems was interesting, but there were many difficulties compared to the citizen-participating urban planning project in which I had previously participated. In particular, the theory related to the first half of the class was new to me. Also, in the past, simply stating my opinion was all I needed to do, but participating in every step of the process was harder and tougher than I thought.”

To summarize other citizen interviews, citizens are familiar with noting problems to improve the physical environment and presenting ideas for solutions. However, from the perspective of an actual planner, experience in the overall process leading to the acquisition and practice of related theories can reduce the understanding of and interest in the local community.

4.2.2. Understanding Neighborhood Area by the Educatee Groups

The class highlighted the importance of understanding the region, from the theoretical classes in the first half of the class to drawing of regeneration or renewal plans in the second half. As such, this study evaluated the difficulty of forming an understanding of whether students’ and citizens’ interest in the region had been improved and whether the output could contribute to the local community; and of the process of drawing output.

The overall evaluation consisted of four questionnaires (see

Table 3. Comparison of understanding neighborhood area between the two participant groups (n = 72).

Code	Mean		Std. Dev.		t-Value	p
	Student	Citizen	Student	Citizen
U1	4.250	4.167	0.732	0.697	0.495	0.622
U2	3.833	3.167	1.082	1.000	2.714	0.008 **
U3	3.250	3.833	0.604	0.910	−3.205	0.002 **
U4	3.250	3.917	0.841	0.874	−3.298	0.002 **

** p < 0.01.

.), among which both students (4.250) and citizens (4.167) demonstrated high satisfaction and no statistical difference in the provision of information about local areas. However, the remaining items showed statistically evident differences between students and citizens, the results of which are as follows.

The analysis demonstrated that students (3.833) believe that “the class has become an opportunity to understand the region and realize the importance of citizen participation (U2)” at a value higher than citizens (3.167) (t = 2.714, p = 0.008). However, citizens (3.833) demonstrated a higher value than students (3.250) and in “the final output will contribute to the sustainability of our city (U3)” (t = −3.205, p = 0.002). Moreover, the ease of drawing the final output (U4) was evaluated to be easier by citizens (3.917) than students (3.250), demonstrating mutual differences (t = −3.298, p = 0.002). Such difference is an advantage as citizen activity can improve the interest in the local community as in the existing citizen-participating urban planning. Additionally, it also proves as clear limitations for students who will later become experts in the field, as in the following representative in-depth interview with a student.

“[Student Respondent #5] I have been working on the project alone or as part of a student team. Sharing opinions with inexperienced residents and creating output together has been the hardest part. Sharing and collaborating with citizens, along with the process of creating physical output, was more time-consuming than I thought.”

To summarize other interviews, unlike the self-directed planning and designing projects which students previously conducted, drawing up plans in concurrence with citizens may have been a burden for the students. Meanwhile, it may be interpreted that the process of direct participation in planning may have raised their interest in the class.

4.2.3. Communication with The Counterpart by the Learner Groups

Contrary to the aforementioned positive effects, confrontation and conflict between citizens and students were found in the communication segment. As shown in the

Table 4. Comparison of communications between the two participant groups (n = 72).

Code	Mean		Std. Dev.		t-Value	p
	Student	Citizen	Student	Citizen
C1	4.2500	4.1667	0.697	1.095	0.77	0.444
C2	3.3333	2.5833	0.756	1.131	3.308	0.001 **
C3	3.1667	2.5833	0.910	0.874	2.773	0.007 **
C4	3.3333	2.0833	0.862	0.770	6.489	0.000 ***

** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

below, Satisfaction with opinion-sharing between professors and learners (C1) was relatively high for students (4.250) and citizens (4.166), with no quantitative differences. Meanwhile, the comparison of satisfaction items for mutual communication and exchange of opinions between students and citizens demonstrated quantitatively lower values for citizens than students, with implicit conflicts between students and citizens in qualitative terms.

Specifically, it was analyzed that citizens were less satisfied with the issue of student–citizen communication (C2) and mutual listening of opinions (C3). In “C2,” a significant difference was found between students (3.333) and citizens (2.583) (t = 3.308, f = 0.001). “C3” also demonstrated greater differences in communication difficulties for citizens (2.583) than students (3.166) (t = 2.773, t = 0.007). The most noticeable difference between citizens and students was the question of “whether my opinion was actively reflected in the output (C4),” where the satisfaction of students (3.333) was modest, while that of citizens (2.083) showed the lowest score out of 26 items (t = 6.489, p = 0.000). In other words, in the overall process of drawing specific output through the selection, analysis, and discussion of the target region within a specified period, some citizens were excluded due to their lack of expertise as follows, which was analyzed as the reason for the drop in satisfaction.

“[Citizen Respondent #19] Although I learned it in class, it was difficult to use the 2D and 3D programs for the presentation. Hence, while preparing for the final presentation, the students worked busily in class to meet the deadline. There were many things I wanted to discuss in the process of creating data for the presentation, but I did not want to cause inconvenience for the students, so I naturally became a bystander.”

Along with these citizen opinions, in-depth interviews found that students could not communicate with citizens because an evaluation entailed involving the class, and there were practical problems in smooth communication with citizens due to delays in producing output following revisions thereof.

4.2.4. Motivation of Self-Determination by the Educatee Groups

The difference between the student and citizen awareness of the motivation of self-determination may be interpreted through the context and results of the aforementioned communication. In particular, self-determination is the driving force for improving positive and active intentions to participate in similar future projects (see

Table 5. Comparison of self-determination between the two participant groups (n = 72).

Code	Mean		Std. Dev.		t-Value	p
	Student	Citizen	Student	Citizen
M1	4.000	3.667	0.828	1.042	1.503	0.137
M2	3.167	3.500	0.910	0.878	−1.581	0.118
M3	4.000	4.333	0.717	0.756	−1.919	0.059
M4	2.833	2.833	0.697	0.910	0.000	1.000
M5	2.667	2.667	0.632	0.862	0.000	1.000
M6	2.250	2.833	0.604	0.561	−4.249	0.000 ***
M7	2.500	2.417	0.775	0.967	0.403	0.688
M8	4.250	3.583	0.604	0.874	3.765	0.000 ***

*** p < 0.001.

) Six out of eight items demonstrated citizen–student differences within statistically insignificant ranges, while there were statistically significant differences in two items (M6, M8). The details are as follows.

Through this course, the citizens evaluated more highly than students that intimacy with fellow learners had improved (M2) and that there was a mutual collaboration in classes (M3), but this was not statistically significant; other items, likewise, did not demonstrate significant student–citizen differences.

The quantitative difference between citizens and students was found to be self-criticism regarding the results (M6). Citizens (2.833), relative to students (2.250), evaluated that “if I believe there is a shortcoming in learning, it is because of my lack of understanding” (t = −4.249, p = 0.000). This may be a result of implying the improvement of the curriculum for the expansion of citizen participation, as in the aforementioned interview wherein citizens expressed regret that they were not able to actively cooperate with students in the process of drawing the output. Meanwhile, students (4.250) demonstrated higher values than citizens (3.583) in the item regarding “if I believe there is a shortcoming in learning, it is because of class methods different from existing ones” (M8) (t = 3.765, f = 0.000). The fact that the range of the change which the class has to overcome is greater for students familiar with classes than for citizens, suggests that classes, where citizens participate, are still in their early stages, and that the quantity and quality of education where students and citizens can participate must be improved by further verification in the future.

4.2.5. Sustainability by the Learner Groups

As explained above, the importance of urban planning with citizen participation is recognized for its value, but education for actual student–citizen collaboration and capacity cultivation has only been discussed in recent years. Therefore, to examine the sustainability of similar curricula, the overall satisfaction with classes and intentions to participate and recommend similar classes in the future were explored, with results as follows (see

Table 6. Comparison of willingness to further participation between the two groups (n = 72).

Code	Mean		Std. Dev.		t-Value	p
	Student	Citizen	Student	Citizen
S1	3.944	4.250	0.715	0.906	−1.588	0.117
S2	4.083	3.667	0.874	0.956	1.93	0.058
S3	3.750	3.917	0.937	0.770	−0.824	0.413
S4	4.250	3.500	0.732	0.655	4.583	0.000 ***

*** p < 0.001.

).

There were no statistically significant differences between students and citizens in the overall satisfaction of the class (S1, students: 3.944, citizens: 4.250); additional intention to take similar classes (S2, students: 4.083, citizens: 3.668); and recommendation of the class (S3, students: 3.750, citizens: 3.917). However, relatively high levels of satisfaction and intention for future participation were observed between 3.5 and 4 points.

Statistically significant differences were found in the formation of high understanding and interest in the region (S4). Students (4.250) demonstrated higher values (t = 4.583, p = 0.000) than citizens (3.500), quantitatively verifying that the establishment and operation of a curriculum based on the region could help students in the mid-to-long term. However, considering the low values measured for the communication with students (C2, C3) and intents to take similar classes (S3) in terms of citizens, an emphasis is placed on the importance of establishing realistic measures to draw effective and sustainable intention to participate from students and citizens in opening and operating similar curricula in the future.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The topic covered by this study is a concept expanded from citizen participation-based urban planning and design, which has been emphasized in the past. Related studies have noted that opening and operating courses simultaneously involving citizens and students can help develop the capacity as active participants and planners for citizens, and help improve the understanding of the local community, and foster expertise in students. However, the empirical verification thereof remains at the discussion stage. Therefore, this study sought to qualitatively and quantitatively verify the effectiveness of the education through the running of relevant courses. The analysis revealed relatively clearly the advantages and disadvantages of conducting cooperative projects evaluated by citizens and students.

To summarize the important implications of the quantitative and qualitative research that this study has explored, the first point to note is the limitation of communication. In particular, due to differences in capacity to produce the result, there were limitations in citizens actively communicating with their student team members toward the second half of the class. Such negative results appeared in most of the teams in the planning and design stage at the end of the class, and it was judged that the active participation of citizens was reduced. This is a clear limitation of the education in which citizens directly become the subjects of planning, unlike existing methods of citizen participation where education exclusive to residents or public hearing is provided. These limitations must be considered in the future by similar education programs, and instructors must also consider the importance of processes and experiences, not the outcome-oriented value of cooperative planning classes. From this point of view, this education method, which emphasized the importance of producing results, needs improvement. Therefore, in the composition of related education, there need to be preparations in tandem for methods to reduce the burden of results for students, who are potential experts, and education for citizens to participate in producing the output. The interview of a citizen below clearly shows that the balance of education level is very important.

“[Citizen Respondent #19] I wanted to talk directly about the results presented by public officials or planners in the area where I live, but it was not easy because I lacked my expertise. In this regard, this class was able to learn a lot of specialized things. And I learned how much the experts are doing to improve the area. Most importantly, I think I will be able to quickly understand and easily present opinions, such as drawings and business manuals presented by public officials. It was a pity that I remembered that the citizen participation class I joined in a few years ago ended with only putting a post-it on the map, but this class is satisfactory.”

Second, cooperative education for cooperative planning needs to be continued. In particular, citizens and students assessed at relatively high values of mutual exchange of assistance (M3) and determined that the output would help improve local sustainability (U3). In addition, considering that both students and citizens expressed satisfaction with the class at relatively high values (S1) and that the intentions to recommend classes of such methods were also relatively high (S3), the related education needs to be improved based on continued attempts and feedback.

Third, it is necessary to improve the operation method of education with mutual consideration of citizens and students. As stated earlier, the low achievement of citizens relative to students in theoretical classes (Q2) conducted within the framework of classes was found to be a limitation; both citizens and students experienced difficulties in mutual communication (C2, C3). Thus, it was quantitatively verified that there arose differences in the perspectives on producing an output based on the collection of mutual opinions (C4). The following open-ended question of students and citizens clearly shows the differences and commonalities between theory and practical classes.

“[Student Respondent #1] It was great to learn both theory and practice, but I did not have much time to talk and share opinions with citizens. Also, it was a new experience to do city planning in concert with the citizens, but in the end, it takes much time to create the final result centered on the students, so I think I may have suffered alone in the end.”

“[Citizen Respondent #3] It was good to have access to theory like a liberal arts course. However, it was not easy to have many conversations with the students about creating the results, and it will not be easy to fix. It would be better to keep the general theory as little as possible and to know how to talk together or use related programs, or to know existing laws and policies.”

Based on these implications, related education and research should be conducted as follows. First, there should be an overall analysis and interpretation of a series of processes leading to learning motivation, communication, self-evaluation, and satisfaction and sustainability of students and citizens. In other words, it is necessary to identify factors that induce continuous participation of students and citizens in education for cultivating the capabilities of citizens as local experts in urban development, regeneration, urban planning and design projects at the higher education level, and improvement of education is needed to draw objective results.

First, it is important to establish a research model for the diagnosis of education in which citizens and students participate simultaneously. Many diagnostic models for students and schools have been introduced and utilized, but no specific research models for diagnosing cooperative education. To this end, it seems necessary to have a framework for objective research that includes analyzing the characteristics of students and citizens and establishing research methodologies through multiple educational performances and monitoring. Second, it is important to collect prior opinions targeting the two groups. The results show a clear difference in the scope of education expertise perceived by the two groups of students and citizens. Although the two groups recognized the importance of theoretical education, some unsatisfactory results were found in practice due to the difference in ability between the two groups. Citizens were satisfied with changing their opinions into professional results, but they felt alienated, and students were optimistic about collecting various opinions, but there was a burden of communication with citizens between the production and revision of the results. In order to realize cooperative induction, their differences must be recognized in advance to fill this gap, and the accumulation of experience on this is expected to contribute to related research significantly.

However, as mentioned earlier, it is essential to expand discussions on cooperative planning, and establish sophisticated educational programs to strengthen the capabilities of citizens and experts. The biggest problem is that the difference in knowledge and understanding between the two groups is different even in the urban planning education program. Therefore, if education aims to cultivate long-term talent, it should play a role as a bridge to bridge the gap between the two groups.

From this perspective, the study is limited in obtaining sufficient samples, interpreting results from an expanded perspective, presenting specific applications of education output, and not being able to provide implications for enhancing the capabilities of instructors. These issues will have to be improved by further conducting the aforementioned research. Nevertheless, this study is significant as it conducted empirical research to improve the sustainability of cooperative urban planning beyond the existing perspectives on participation, based on the participation and collaboration of students and citizens in the field of urban planning.