Abstract
There is a popular belief that case studies and field trips result in meaningful learning, but a more theoretical analysis needs to be conducted to determine if this popular belief holds merit. This manuscript is a preliminary epistemology on the value, if any, a case study and associated field trip add to meaningful learning within the context of a real estate curriculum at Virginia Tech, a public land-grant university located in Blacksburg, Virginia. This study applies theoretical analysis to the case study and field trip added to the course and provides a preliminary empirical analysis of increased learning using a student elicitation approach. Results show that implementing a case study and associated field trip supports Kolb’s experiential learning theory. Furthermore, students perceived that the local case study and field trip augment their practical knowledge and theoretical knowledge of concepts learned in the applied real estate development class.
Since the pioneering of progressive education by John Dewey, the trend towards applied learning pedagogies continues to diffuse into higher education curricula. This trend has been documented in the academic literature, but when reviewing it through a real estate curriculum lens, less is known. This could be due to the fact that real estate as a degree program is a newer phenomenon. Historically, real estate has been a major or minor option within a degree program in business. However, since the mid-1980s, degree programs in real estate have been on the rise in the United States of America (Institute of Real Estate Management [IREM], Citation2016). As of May 2016, there were 133 universities offering some type of undergraduate or graduate program with a real estate emphasis, including 111 universities offering some type of undergraduate program with a real estate emphasis, and 62 higher education institutions specifically offering an undergraduate degree in real estate (IREM, Citation2016).
With the rise of undergraduate real estate degree programs coupled with the relative newness of many American undergraduate real estate degrees, an inquiry into curriculum components is germane. Noteworthy examples of curriculum component inquiry include real estate development, real estate finance, property management, appraisal, real estate law, and market analysis. Another equally relevant issue related to undergraduate real estate programs is a focus on the pedagogical theories applied in an effort to maximize the student’s learning experience. An improved comprehension of curriculum components and pedagogical theories in undergraduate real estate degree programs can illuminate the level of success in implementing experiential learning opportunities such as case studies and field work. However, the question of whether these types of learning opportunities generate meaningful learning outcomes remains.
Popular belief holds that case studies and field trips result in meaningful learning, but a more theoretical analysis should be conducted to determine if this belief holds merit. This manuscript is a preliminary epistemology on the value, if any, a case study and associated field trip add to meaningful learning within the context of the real estate curriculum at Virginia Tech, a public land-grant university located in Blacksburg, Virginia. This study is the first analysis to the author’s knowledge to apply a theoretical analysis and provide preliminary empirical analysis from the incorporation of a local case study and associated field trip into an undergraduate applied real estate development course. To accomplish this, the new curriculum components are analyzed from a philosophical and theoretical approach. The empirical study is then conducted by administering a short survey to students enrolled in an undergraduate applied real estate development course at Virginia Tech. The students participating in this survey were asked to assess the success of the case study and associated field trip in fostering connections between classroom theory and practical fieldwork, in contributing to their learning, and in augmenting their practical and theoretical knowledge. Furthermore, students were asked if additional practical fieldwork should be introduced into the course curriculum and if adding a local case study and associated field trip to the class curriculum was effective. The results were then used to support or refute the theoretical analysis.
This paper begins with a discussion on experiential learning and how it supports the notion of the applied field of real estate study. Next, sustainability as a contemporary issue in real estate is discussed in the context of experiential learning. A synopsis of the methodology used to analyze student perceptions on leveraging local case studies and field trips in the real estate class curriculum is presented next. This is followed by a presentation, analysis, and discussion of the study results. The manuscript concludes with a limitations and conclusions section.
Background and Theoretical Framework
Founded over a century ago, progressive education continues to pervade the American higher education curriculum. John Dewey, who many have claimed as the “Father of Progressive Education,” was instrumental in marshaling this type of education into the American education curriculum. Rather than memorization and recitation, he argued for experiential education such as field work, projects, and inquiry (Lattuca & Stark, Citation2011). Dewey even insisted that general education be based on experience with the personal and social problems of the present day (Lucas, Citation2006). Due to his influence, a chief goal of progressive education became practical relevance.
Besides practical relevance, another significant component of progressive education is the idea that teachers should serve more as facilitators in the student discovery process, so that knowledge is perceived more naturally (Jackson, Citation2008). Instead of lecturing, teachers can set up experiences for students which will nurture learning by discovery. According to the Progressive Education Network, “education must encourage the active participation of students in their learning, which arises from previous experience” (Progressive Education Network, n.d.). Additionally, progressive higher education underpinnings espouse the importance of meeting “public needs” and adapting higher education to the main role of human life vocation (Veysey, Citation1965). In other words, progressive education stresses the importance of learning by doing so that understanding and meaning can take place in addition to advancing social responsibility and democracy. The adaptive management literature reinforces this learning by doing concept in that adaptive management is concerned with practical problems of the real world, which have a plethora of uncertainty, while taking into account the complexities of the political, social, and institutional environment (Holling, Citation1978; Rist et al., Citation2013).
Influenced by Dewey’s philosophical pragmatism, Kolb was fundamental in developing the modern experiential learning theory (ELT) (Kolb, Citation1984). ELT consists of a four-stage cycle of learning (Kolb, Boyatzis, & Mainemelis, Citation2001). The four-stage learning cycle starts with concrete experiences which sets the stage for observations and reflections. Abstract concepts are then created from the observations and reflections. Conclusions can be drawn and then tested which is an experience in itself. To grasp experiences, concrete practices use the senses and are tangible. On the other hand, grasping experiences through abstract conceptualization uses systematic planning and analyzing. To process experiences, reflective observation and active experimentation are used. Kolb et al. (Citation2001) state that “the watchers favor reflective observation, while the doers favor active experimentation” (p.4).
Applying Kolb’s experiential learning theory, field-based learning components such as local case studies and associated field trips can foster deep learning through grasping and processing experiences. As Kolb et al. (Citation2001) note, a conflict arises when attempting to grasp the experience through concrete and abstract conceptualization modes simultaneously. Similarly, a conflict arises when attempting both reflective observation and active experimentation to process the experience. Implementation of a case study and associated field trip can decrease this conflict by offering learners an opportunity to grasp and transform the experience in multiple ways. The case study component offers more abstract conceptualization whereas the associated field trip component provides a tangible and sensory opportunity to grasp the experience. In regard to processing the experience, the case study helps “the watchers” who favor reflective observation and the associated field trip assists “the doers” who favor active experimentation.
As seen above, the experiential learning theory supports the notion of applied fields of study. Therefore, facilitating learning by applying the experiential learning theory seems extremely fitting to the academic field of real estate, as real estate is an applied science discipline (Diaz, Citation1993; Shi-Ming, Citation2001). Furthermore, implementing progressive education pedagogies in a real estate curriculum is helpful due to the lack of consensus on the real estate discipline (Diaz, Citation1993). Epley (Citation1996) and Diaz (Citation1993) acknowledge the identity problem within the academic discipline of real estate. For example, many practitioners who mention they are in the field of real estate are asked if they sell homes. However, the discipline of real estate encompasses a much more diverse field of study such as development, appraisal, finance, property management, asset management, construction, and market analysis. The real estate discipline knowledge base advances slowly due to this lack of consensus and identity (Diaz, Citation1993). Thus, another way to find consensus among the academic field of real estate is not necessarily on the particular topical areas covered, but perhaps by looking at the educational techniques used to teach the selected topics within a real estate curriculum.
Two paradigms through which to view educational techniques are the teaching paradigm and the learning paradigm. The teaching paradigm emphasizes the transfer of knowledge from the professor to the student whereas the learning paradigm emphasizes student discovery and construction of knowledge (Barr & Tagg, Citation1995). The textbook model, which is a passive learning technique aligned to the teaching paradigm, may not prepare students to succeed in the real estate industry (Butler, Guntermann, & Wolverton, Citation1998). Real estate professors need not teach students by rote, but rather introduce teaching styles which foster original ideas that spark creativity (Avdiev, Citation2000). The learning paradigm, which aligns with progressive education fundamentals, can help students make discoveries and solve problems by creating an experience for them (Barr & Tagg, Citation1995). The learning paradigm shift to “real world” projects is imperative so that real estate concepts are not learned in isolation by students (Butler et al., Citation1998).
The learning paradigm can be implemented in the field of real estate field study in various ways. One skillful method is to obtain input from the real estate industry. The American Real Estate Society, a leading real estate education and research organization, encourages interaction between real estate academics and the real estate industry (Black et al., Citation1996). Furthermore, as industry involvement is influencing higher education pedagogy, ignoring the real estate industry could cause the applied discipline of real estate to cease existence. A common method for soliciting input is to form an industry advisory board, which is common for university-level real estate programs. This industry advisory board can provide real-world scenarios to introduce in the classroom as well as be a partner in facilitating field-based learning opportunities for the students.
Understanding how the industry works through field-based learning can be a large advantage for students entering an especially applied field of study such as real estate. Not only do real estate students at institutions of higher education believe that more practical fieldwork should be introduced into the curriculum, but also that learning can actually be improved by employing this type of active learning technique in a real estate curriculum (Butler et al., Citation1998; Callanan & McCarthy, Citation2003; Palm & Pauli, Citation2018). A way to apply this learning paradigm to real estate fieldwork is to utilize a local building case study in the classroom that can provide real estate students with an excellent opportunity to connect the dots between classroom theory and practical fieldwork. After the case study is worked through, students can then visit the building project after reading and answering questions about the case which can further contribute to their learning.
When reviewing case study implementation, educators, administrators, and practitioners at older and newer graduate real estate programs in the United States all agree that case studies are an element that enhances the curriculum (Weinstein & Worzala, Citation2008). Koulizos (Citation2006) recommends that field trips should be a required part of the property education curriculum. Among real estate education stakeholders, students have the highest interest in field trips (Tu et al., Citation2009). Even when reviewing the implementation of case studies and field trips in related disciplines such as management and landscape architecture, it is found that case studies as a pedagogical tool can assist students with the application of their new skills and knowledge, and that field trips facilitate application of experiential learning concepts through learner-centered education (Hoidn & Olbert-Bock, Citation2016; Pattacini, Citation2018). However, it is important to note that although new education paradigms such as creative thinking are needed in the academic field of real estate, some employers note the inability of graduates to relate theory to practice (Callanan & McCarthy, Citation2003; Shi-Ming, Citation2001). Therefore, it is important for students to have a base knowledge of real estate principles before implementing this type of active learning strategy. This can be achieved by adding theory to the curriculum to complement learning by doing so that students can understand the practical relevance of subject matter.
Method
Student Perceptions
Another way to assess the value-added proposition of implementing a case study and associated field trip into a real estate undergraduate curriculum is to conduct an empirical study. The first step for this study was to create the local case study which involved a contemporary issue in the real estate development industry. As one tenet of progressive education is being able to solve current and future problems in the world, teaching techniques should be aimed at creating real estate professionals who can solve current and future real-world problems (Black et al., Citation1996). One major current and future challenge in the built environment is environmental sustainability. Environmental negative externalities from the built environment are a contemporary issue which has garnered more attention in the recent decades due to climate change and environmental pollution. There are various approaches to address these negative environmental externalities caused by the built environment, with green building certifications such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and Energy Star building certifications being particularly prevalent in the United States.
Created by the author, this local case study includes an historic renovation LEED certified building project (specifics of the case study can be found in Hopkins, Citation2016). Sustainable features include components which are aimed at mitigating the negative environmental externalities of the built environment such as a green roof, natural daylighting, energy efficient heating and cooling systems, new water-efficient and waterless plumbing fixtures, low-VOC materials, a photovoltaic array, green wall systems, and preservation of portions of the existing building. The local building featured in the case study was selected due to its innovative sustainable features for the geographic area, its unique historical attributes, and its non-profit ownership idiosyncrasies. As sustainability is a contemporary issue within the real estate industry and progressive education techniques stress the importance of practical relevance, the selected building seemed like a good fit.
This case study was then employed in the classroom so students were able to acquire a base knowledge of the building, learn more about the green building features, understand the actions necessary to accomplish the renovation of the building in a sustainable way, and recognize the real-world problems the various stakeholders encountered. The learning objectives were as follows: 1) understanding the importance of sustainability in real estate development; 2) analyzing the various decisions as well as the unique challenges a developer goes through in order to bring a project to market; and 3) understanding the difference between ground-up development and redevelopment. These learning objectives were to be accomplished through the reading of the real-world local case study and answering of the local case study questions.
In addition to the local case study, a field trip to the local sustainable building featured in the case study was arranged for the subsequent class session after the case study reading and questions were due. The goal of introducing the field trip to the students in addition to the case study was to further the students’ learning and solidification of concepts already learned in class and through the case study reading and questions. Through a building tour during the field trip, students were able to tangibly experience the building from all angles including the exterior facade, interior tenant spaces and common areas, the building system spaces, and the roof. Furthermore, industry professionals representing various stakeholders of the building were on hand to answer any questions the students had about the building during the field trip. There was also ample time before and after the fieldtrip for informal discussion between the industry professionals and students enrolled in the undergraduate applied real estate development class. For example, a local chapter of a real estate trade organization sponsored a dinner on the rooftop of the sustainable building after the tour for the students and industry professionals to informally communicate and connect.
Once the case study and field trip components were completed, a survey was distributed to students during the next class session. A survey instrument was created using the questions illustrated in , which asked students to assess the success of the case study in connecting the dots between classroom theory and practical fieldwork, the building visit in further contributing to their learning, and the combined local case study and field trip in augmenting their practical knowledge and theoretical knowledge of concepts learned in class. Furthermore, students were asked if more practical fieldwork should be introduced into the course curriculum and if adding a local case study and associated field trip to the class curriculum was effective.
Table 1. Survey questions.
An anonymous survey to evaluate student learning was chosen for this study to encourage students to feel comfortable sharing their honest opinion and reflections. Furthermore, dichotomous questions of “why” or “why not” were asked as a follow up for all applicable questions to garner quantitative and qualitative information. Soliciting both types of data assists in providing a more thorough study which includes quantitative findings as well as rich qualitative results. It also helps respondents to explain their “yes” or “no” answer. There were twenty-four students enrolled in this undergraduate applied real estate development course. In order to enroll for this class, students must have been an undergraduate real estate major and have already taken the following courses: principles of real estate, careers in real estate, and professional development in real estate. Additionally, attendance was taken for all class periods to attempt to elicit as high of a participation rate as possible.
Results
There was an 88% response rate on the survey (21 respondents out of 24 students enrolled in the class). illustrates the results of the survey. In regard to the case study, 95% of students thought the case study provided them with an opportunity to connect the dots between classroom theory and practical fieldwork. 90% of the student body believed visiting the building project after reading and answering questions about the case further contributed to their learning. When asked if both the local case study and field trip augmented practical knowledge and theoretical knowledge of concepts learned in the applied real estate development class, the percentage increased to 95. 100% of students believed that adding a local case study and associated field trip to the curriculum was effective. 90% of students said more practical fieldwork should be introduced into the curriculum. The case study and field trip provoked questions and comments from 71% of the students.
Table 2. Results of survey.
Rich results were provided when examining the qualitative portion of the survey results as displayed in . For example, when asked if the case study provided an opportunity to connect the dots between classroom theory and practical fieldwork, one student wrote “yes, I liked the fact that I had some background knowledge on the building going into the field trip.” When reviewing the detailed responses regarding whether visiting the building project after reading and answering questions about the case further contributed to their learning, a student stated “yes, it helped me form a base, and background of knowledge, that allowed me to have a deeper understanding of the building.” When asked if the local case study and the field trip augmented the student’s practical knowledge and theoretical knowledge of concepts learned in this class, another student indicated “yes because I was able to see firsthand what the building was like and how it was all connected together.”
When asked if the students believed that more practical fieldwork should be introduced into the curriculum, one student believed it should as “it allows practical learners to learn better as well as cater to audio, visual learners.” When questioning if this particular case study and associated field trip were effective when added to the curriculum, one student answered by saying “it showed me what jobs I could have and what they do in development.” Students were also asked what questions they had after reading the case study and going on the associated field trip. Upon review of the response to this question, there was a lack of pattern as students asked an array of questions including the following: “if they could re-do the development what would they change and why?”; “money! How much money goes into each part of the building and what generates what kind of money?”; and “what are the ‘cons’ of building a sustainable building?”
Discussion
There was an overwhelming positive response to incorporating a local case study and associated local field trip into the undergraduate applied real estate development course curriculum. This is not entirely surprising as students may desire a different way to learn as the teaching paradigm is still the predominant learning method at the tertiary level. While the vast majority believe the local case study and associated field trip was effective, only 71% of students had questions or comments as a result of the local case study and field trip. While this percentage demonstrates that the majority of students were able to reflect on their experience, it would be interesting to know why more students did not have questions after these two components were introduced into the curriculum. Perhaps they were not engaged if sustainability in real estate development was not a topic which interested them. For example, a student may be extremely interested in the real estate entitlement process, but not at all curious about sustainability in real estate. Therefore, a field trip to a city council meeting may be more applicable as an active learning component in furthering this student’s learning. However, it is nearly if not entirely impossible to adequately address every student’s interest when creating case studies and field trips as there is a limited amount of time in the semester for a class. One potential solution may be to let students assign themselves their own field trips based on their own interests within the real estate development field and have them write a reaction paper to their field trip experience. This would provide an active learning experience as well as an opportunity to reflect on the experience.
Interestingly, only 90% of students believed visiting the building project after reading and answering questions about the case study further contributed to their learning, but 100% of the student body believed that adding a local case study and associated field trip to the curriculum was effective. This discrepancy may reveal a possible threat to the internal reliability of this research study. Question 5 may actually be capturing the 10% of students who did not like the site visit but who thought the case study combined with the site visit was effective. Additionally, this paradox between the two questions uncovers the possibility that students may not be fully confident on what types of learning opportunities best benefit their learning. There may also be a difference in terms of how "learning" is understood - the post-visit dinner, for example, was perhaps seeking to foster a kind of network-based, experiential learning that some students might struggle to recognize as valuable within an academic environment. Although not a vast difference, this 10% difference may warrant further research into assessment techniques to measure the amount of learning which takes place with progressive education techniques such as case studies and field trips being introduced into the course curriculum. However, this may prove difficult as measuring a student’s learning may vary as each unique student learns at different levels and retains different content depending on interests and capabilities. A potential solution to this problem is to employ a reaction paper assessment versus an examination after active learning strategies are incorporated into the course. This would allow students to have time to reflect on their experience and select the topic of emphasis based on what they learned, thus drawing insights from students based on lived experience.
When reviewing the qualitative results, one student mentioned that they “liked the fact that I had some background knowledge on the building going into the field trip.” This demonstrates the importance of laying groundwork information in the classroom prior to setting up field trips. Sending students on a field trip without any previous knowledge on what they are going to see and how it relates to concepts studied in the classroom can impede the learning objectives put forth for the field trip. Therefore, some type of preparation which lays out the groundwork and key concepts to keep in mind for the field trip is recommended.
When soliciting questions that students may have had after reading the case study and attending the field trip, one student asked, “if they could re-do the development what would they change and why?” This question demonstrates that the experiential learning process allowed the student to think through the building redevelopment process and wonder what could be done differently. This illustrates the student’s creative thinking which is one aim of progressive education. Furthermore, this question provides insight into how the student did not solely accept the process which they read about and saw first-hand, but asked questions about how this process could be completed differently. This demonstrates the rejection of the teaching paradigm where wisdom is transferred from professor to student and this wisdom is not questioned but accepted at face value. Instead, the learning paradigm is evident in this case which promotes learning by experience and curiosity through asking questions.
There were two additional key research findings related to the field trip component of this study. One student notes that they “learned even more from experts in the actual building as well as extras that I could never learn about in the classroom,” which confirms the promulgation of obtaining input from the real estate industry as a skillful method of implementing progressive education techniques into a real estate curriculum. Another student illuminated the idea of inclusion of all learning types by stating that the field trip “allows practical learners to learn better as well as cater to audio, visual learners.” Field trips are therefore recommended as part of a real estate course curriculum so that concept and knowledge incorporation can also be tailored to nontraditional student learners.
Limitations and Conclusions
There are various limitations to this study. One limitation of this study is that there were study participants sharing their views on incorporating a local sustainable building case study and associated field trip within one class within one higher education institution. Additionally, various faculty incorporate case studies and field trips into their course curriculum, but this study is limited as it used a local case study and associated field trip as its basis. Furthermore, this study focused strictly on an undergraduate real estate development course and may have produced different results if it were implemented in a similar class at the graduate level.
Pedagogical theories, which hypothesize how students learn, are helpful to apply in the evaluation of new curriculum components. Considering the pedagogical theory behind proposed new additions into the curriculum can provide a more critical eye to discern the likelihood of more meaningful learning. It is not enough to form an opinion on popular belief such as the belief that case studies and field trips result in meaningful learning. An opinion should be investigated to decide if it is justified. When applying Kolb’s experiential learning theory to investigate the effectiveness of a case study and associated field trip, inclusion of a case study can foster abstract conceptualization and reflective observation whereas the associated field trip can encourage concrete experiences and active experimentation.
Therefore, implementing case studies and associated field trips into the higher education curriculum can be significant methods to augment a student's learning experience. This type of pedagogy can harness contemporary issues faced in the global economy to the theory that undergraduate students are exposed to in the classroom. Furthermore, after reviewing and analyzing the results of the short survey completed by students enrolled in an undergraduate applied real estate development course at Virginia Tech, it is evident that the vast majority of students believe incorporating active learning components such as a local case study and field trip involving the case study augmented their practical and theoretical knowledge. However, this research study was based on a small sample size so there is the possibility that the significant findings of this study may not be replicated in a larger study. Thus, generalizations to a larger population should be used with caution (Ioannidis, Citation2005; Simmons, Nelson, and Simonsohn, Citation2011). Future research is recommended with a larger sample size across multiple universities offering an undergraduate real estate program to compare and contrast results against this study. It would also be interesting to see a longitudinal study undertaken within the same course but across multiple semesters to compare and contrast results.
This study is unique as it incorporated a local case study and field trip which were associated with each other. While others have looked at these components separately, this is the first analysis to the author’s knowledge to explore student perceptions on the incorporation of a local case study and associated field trip into an undergraduate applied real estate development course. Although rigorous research is needed in the future, this manuscript offers preliminary findings for students in real estate curricula based on existing learning theories and literature, as well as empirical study. This type of learning experience is ripe for further academic research using a theoretical learning lens, especially within a real estate curriculum context.
References
- Avdiev, R. (2000). Golden apple or poisoned chalice? The influence of education on careers. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 6(2), 3–5.
- Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning—A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), 12–26.
- Black, R.T., Carn, N.G., Diaz, J., & Rabianski, J.S. (1996). The role of the American real estate society in defining and promulgating the study of real property. The Journal of Real Estate Research, 12(2), 183–193.
- Butler, J., Guntermann, K., & Wolverton, M. (1998). Integrating the real estate curriculum. Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education, 1(1), 51–66.
- Callanan, J., & McCarthy, I. (2003). Property education in New Zealand: Industry requirements and student perceptions. Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education, 6(1), 23–32.
- Diaz, J. (1993). Science, engineering, and the discipline of real estate. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 1(2), 183–195.
- Epley, D. R. (1996). The current body of knowledge paradigms used in real estate education and issues in need of further research. Journal of Real Estate Research, 12(2), 229–236.
- Hoidn, S., & Olbert-Bock, S. (2016). Learning and teaching research methods in management education: Development of a curriculum to combine theory and practice–a Swiss case. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(1), 43–62.
- Holling, C. S. (1978). Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley and Sons.
- Hopkins, E.A. (2016). Incorporating sustainable features into historic renovation projects: A case study of Roanoke’s Center in the Square. Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education, 19(2), 175–190.
- Institute of Real Estate Management. (2016). https://www.irem.org/File%20Library/Careers/REPMDegrees.pdf
- Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124.
- Jackson, R. (2008). Pedagogues, periodicals, and paranoia. Society, 45(1), 20–29.
- Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles, 1(8), 227–247.
- Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential education: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
- Koulizos, P. (2006, January). Property education: How should it be taught. In The 12th Annual Conference of the Pacific Rim Real Estate Society, Auckland, New Zealand.
- Lattuca, L. R. & Stark, J. S. (2011). External influences on curriculum: Sociocultural context. In S. R. Harper & J. F. Jackson (Eds.), Introduction to American higher education (pp. 93- 128). Routledge.
- Lucas, C. J. (2006). American higher education. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Palm, P., & Pauli, K. S. (2018). Bridging the gap in real estate education: Higher-order learning and industry incorporation. Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education, 21(1), 59–75.
- Pattacini, L. (2018). Experiential Learning: The field study trip, a student-centered curriculum. Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, 11(2).
- Progressive Education Network. (n.d.). Our history. http://www.progressiveeducationnetwork.org/who-we-are/history/
- Rist, L., Felton, A., Samuelsson, L., Sandström, C., & Rosvall, O. (2013). A new paradigm for adaptive management. Ecology & Society, 18(4), 63.
- Shi-Ming, Y. (2001). New paradigms in real estate education. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 7(2), 79–88.
- Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366.
- Tu, C. C., Weinstein, M., Worzala, E., & Lukens, L. (2009). Elements of successful graduate real estate programs: Perceptions of the stakeholders. Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education, 12(2), 105–121.
- Veysey, L.R. (1965). The emergence of the American university. The University of Chicago Press.
- Weinstein, M., & Worzala, E. (2008). Graduate real estate programs: An analysis of the past and present and trends for the future. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 16(3), 385–414.