Embedding Employability: A Case Study Using ePortfolios in Studio Learning and Teaching

  • Caryl BosmanEmail author
  • Deanna Tomerini


Teaching Urban and Environmental Planning, like most Professional degree programs, requires overt and significant linkages to the relevant industry and or professional practice. Student employability is largely implicated by the type and level of professional competencies they have achieved during their education. The embedding of employability skills has been successfully achieved in studio-based learning and teaching environments in the Urban and Environmental Planning program at Griffith University. Through the use of ePortfolios and the PebblePad Personal Learning Environment, students identify as Trainee Planners from week one of their studies. Over the four years of the program, students build upon, critique, and develop their professional identity in conjunction with their resume and ePortfolio. By the time of graduation, students leave the program as Professional Accredited Planners with a professional portfolio to launch them into their professional life. Current indicators show that 90% of Griffith Urban and Environmental Planning graduates obtain industry-related employment after graduating. This is significant given the changing nature of the workforce and employment prospects.


ePortfolio Urban planning Higher education Employability Studio learning Professional capabilities PebblePad 


  1. Balassiano, K. (2011). Tackling “wicked problems” in planning studio courses. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(4), 449–460. Scholar
  2. Balassiano, K., & West, D. (2012). Seeking the studio experience outside of the studio course. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(4), 465–475. Scholar
  3. Balsas, C. (2012). What about plan evaluation? Integrating evaluation in urban planning studio’s pedagogy. Planning Practice and Research, 27(4), 475–494. Scholar
  4. Bosman, C., Vella, K., & Shutter, L. (2016). Planning studio in the 21st century. Final Report, Office of Learning and Teaching, Australian Government.Google Scholar
  5. Briggs, C. L. (2003). Interviewing, power/knowledge, and social inequality. In J. F. Gubrium and J. A. Holstein. Postmodern Interviewing (243–254). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  6. Careers and Employment Service Griffith University. (2015). Employability: Linking scholarly learning with industry connections and student engagement. Retrieved November 19, 2018, from
  7. Chan, J. K. H. (2019). Urban ethics in the anthropocene. Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CEDA. (2015). Australia’s future workforce, CEDA, Melbourne. Retrieved November 19, 2018, from
  9. Cole, D., & Tibby, M. (2013). Defining and developing your approach to employability. York: The Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
  10. Dunn, K. (2000). Interviewing. In Hay, I., (Ed.), Qualitative Research Methods In Human Geography (50–82). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Eynon, B., Gambino, L. M., & Török, J. (2014). Reflection, integration, and ePortfolio pedagogy. Retrieved November 19, 2018, from
  12. Forester, J. (1983). The coming design challenge. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 3(1), 57–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foundation for Young Australians. (2017). The new work smarts: Thriving in the new work order. Retrieved November 11, 2018, from
  14. Griffith University. (2017). Academic Plan 2017–2020 A Remarkable Student Experience. Retrieved November 19, 2018, from
  15. Griffith University. (2017). Strategic Plan 2018–2019. Brisbane: Griffith University. Retrieved November 19, 2018, from
  16. Gunder, M. (2002). Bridging theory and practice in planning education. Australian Planner, 39(4), 202–206. Scholar
  17. Heumann, L., & Wetmore, L. (1984). A partial history of planning workshops: The experience of ten schools from 1955 to 1984. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 4, 120–130.Google Scholar
  18. Hoellwarth, C., Moelter, M., & Knight, R. (2005). A direct comparison of conceptual learning and problem solving ability in traditional and studio style classrooms. American Journal of Physics, 73, 459–462.Google Scholar
  19. Hollander, J., & Thomas, D. (2009). Commentary: Virtual planning—Second life and the online studio. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29, 108–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kotval, Z. (2003). Teaching experiential learning in the urban planning curriculum. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 27(3), 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lobo, D. G. (2004). Playing with urban life: How SimCity influences planning culture. The Next American City, (6).Google Scholar
  22. Long, J. G. (2012). State of the studio: Revisiting the potential of studio pedagogy in U.S. Based planning programs. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(4), 431–448. Scholar
  23. Lusk, P., & Kantrowitz, M. (1990). Teaching students to become effective planners through communication: A planning communications studio. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 10(1), 55–59. Scholar
  24. Malopinsky, L., Kirley, J., Stein, R., & Duffy, T. (2000). An instructional design model for online problem based learning (PBL) environments: The learning to teach with technology studio. Paper presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Denver.Google Scholar
  25. Mathews, J. (2010). Using a studio-based pedagogy to engage students in the design of mobile-based media. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 9(1), 87–102.Google Scholar
  26. Nemeth, J., & Long, J. (2012). Assessing learning outcomes in U.S. planning studio courses. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(4), 476–490. Scholar
  27. Planning Institute of Australia. (2016). Policy for the accreditation of Australian planning qualifications. Canberra: Kingston. Retrieved November 19, 2018, from
  28. Planning Institute Australia. (2018). What is planning? Retrieved November 19, 2018, from
  29. Punch, K. (1999). Introduction to social research: Quantitative & qualitative approaches. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  30. Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  31. Senbel, M. (2012). Experiential learning and the co-creation of design artifacts: A hybrid urban design studio for planners. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(4), 449–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shepherd, A., & Cosgriff, B. (1998). Problem-based learning: A bridge between planning education and planning practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17, 348–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Spronken-Smith, R., Walker, R., Batchelor, J., O’steen, B., & Angelo, T. (2011). Enablers and constraints to the use of inquiry-based learning in undergraduate education. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(1), 15–28.Google Scholar
  34. Thomas, D., & Hollander, J. (2010). The city at play: Second Life and the virtual urban planning studio. Learning, Media and Technology, 35(2), 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tyson, B., & Low, N. (1987). Experiential Learning in Planning Education. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 7(1), 15–27.Google Scholar
  36. Viswanathan, L., Whitelaw, G., & Meligrana, J. (2012). Evaluating the role of the project course in professional planning education and its influence on planning policy and practice. Planning Education, 27(3), 387–403.Google Scholar
  37. Wetmore, L., & Heumann, L. (1998). The changing role of the workshop course in educating planning professionals. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 7, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yabes, R. (1996). Cooperative learning in planning education. Paper presented at the ACSP- AESOP Joint International Conference, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Environment and Science, Griffith University, Gold Coast CampusSouthportAustralia
  2. 2.School of Environment and Science, Griffith University, Nathan CampusNathanAustralia

Personalised recommendations