Program: Urban & Regional Plan (MURP)
Degree: Master's
Date: Sun Nov 11, 2018 - 3:23:37 pm
1) Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs)
1. Critically and creatively develop planning inquiries or processes to foster solutions-oriented decision-making;
(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study.)
2. Effectively collaborate as a planning team to work with a client and/or stakeholders to assess and address a relevant planning problem to create a plan or professional report;
(7. Interact professionally with others.)
3. Effectively present oral and written work (as a plan, professional report, or research paper) in a coherent, persuasive and professional manner; and
(5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 7. Interact professionally with others.)
4. Reflect upon the ethical implications of the choices planners make as professionals.
(6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives.)
5. Explain, critique and apply prominent planning theories/concepts to analyze a planning issue(s);
(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study.)
6. Demonstrate an understanding of urbanization processes and rationales for planned interventions;
(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study.)
7. Apply planning methods to organize, analyze, interpret and present information;
(2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study., 3. Apply research methodology and/or scholarly inquiry techniques specific to one’s field of study.)
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update asneeded.
Department Website URL: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/durp/academics/murp/ Student Handbook. URL, if available online: http://manoa.hawaii.edu/durp/files/2014/12/DURP-bulletin-2017-2018-10.03.17.pdf
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: UHM Catalog. Page Number: http://www.catalog.hawaii.edu/schoolscolleges/arts-sciences/departments/urp.htm Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: http://socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/esyllabi/index.cfm?subject=plan Other: Other: 3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.
- File (03/16/2020)
4) For your program, the percentage of courses that have course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a website, or other publicly available document is as follows. Please update as needed.
0% 1-50% 51-80% 81-99%
100%5) Does the program have learning achievement results for its program SLOs? (Example of achievement results: "80% of students met expectations on SLO 1.")(check one):
No Yes, on some(1-50%) of the program SLOs Yes, on most(51-99%) of the program SLOs Yes, on all(100%) of the program SLOs6) Did your program engage in any program learning assessment activities between June 1, 2015 and October 31, 2018?
Yes No (skip to question 17)7) What best describes the program-level learning assessment activities that took place for the period June 1, 2015 to October 31, 2018? (Check all that apply.)
Create/modify/discuss program learning assessment procedures (e.g., SLOs, curriculum map, mechanism to collect student work, rubric, survey) Collect/evaluate student work/performance to determine SLO achievement Collect/analyze student self-reports of SLO achievement via surveys, interviews, or focus groups Use assessment results to make programmatic decisions (e.g., change course content or pedagogy, design new course, hiring) No (skip to question 17) Investigate other pressing issue related to student learning achievement for the program (explain in question 7) Other: 8) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place.
During June 1, 2015 to October 31, 2018, faculty conducted the following program-level learning assessment activities:
1. Discussed and modified the curriculum map.
2. Formed a curriculum sub-committee to discuss and develop assessment tools for student learning objectives (SLOs). The committee i) reviewed SLOs for the program's core courses to ensure they meet the standards and requirements of the Planning Accreditation Board and ii) discussed appropriate rubrics for practicum and capstone assessment and iii) collected and evaluated students' work to assess key SLOs.
9) What types of evidence did the program use as part of the assessment activities checked in question 7? (Check all that apply.)
Artistic exhibition/performance Assignment/exam/paper completed as part of regular coursework and used for program-level assessment Capstone work product (e.g., written project or non-thesis paper) Exam created by an external organization (e.g., professional association for licensure) Exit exam created by the program IRB approval of research Oral performance (oral defense, oral presentation, conference presentation) Portfolio of student work Publication or grant proposal Qualifying exam or comprehensive exam for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation (graduate level only) Supervisor or employer evaluation of student performance outside the classroom (internship, clinical, practicum) Thesis or dissertation used for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation Alumni survey that contains self-reports of SLO achievement Employer meetings/discussions/survey/interview of student SLO achievement Interviews or focus groups that contain self-reports of SLO achievement Student reflective writing assignment (essay, journal entry, self-assessment) on their SLO achievement. Student surveys that contain self-reports of SLO achievement Assessment-related such as assessment plan, SLOs, curriculum map, etc. Program or course materials (syllabi, assignments, requirements, etc.) Other 1: Other 2: 10) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
The curriculum sub-committee assesses student learning objectives every two years. This is done by evaluating all students taking the core courses that reflect the learning objectives. For instance, the committee evaluated all 11 students taking a required course (PLAN 601: Planning Methods) to assess their achievement of SLO 4 and SLO 7. Similarly, it evaluated all 23 students in another required course (PLAN 600: Public Policy and Planning Theory) to assess their achievement of SLO 6. In addition, all students graduating from the program were assessed for the achievement of SLO 3 and SLO 5 using a capstone rubric.
11) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)
Course instructor(s) Faculty committee Ad hoc faculty group Department chairperson Persons or organization outside the university Faculty advisor Advisors (in student support services) Students (graduate or undergraduate) Dean/Director Other: 12) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)
Used a rubric or scoring guide Scored exams/tests/quizzes Used professional judgment (no rubric or scoring guide used) Compiled survey results Used qualitative methods on interview, focus group, open-ended response data External organization/person analyzed data (e.g., external organization administered and scored the nursing licensing exam) Other: 13) Summarize the results of the assessment activities checked in question 7. For example, report the percentage of students who achieved each SLO.
- Out of a score of 5, students who graduated between Fall 2015 and Summer 2018 got an average score of 4.1 for SLO 3 [effectively present oral and written work (such as a plan, professional report, or research paper) in a coherent, persuasive and professional manner]. Students scored an average of 3.9 for presenting a professionally written document, and an average of 4.3 for presenting a professional oral presentation.
- 73% of the students evaluated achieved SLO 4 [reflect upon the ethical implications of the choices planners make as professionals]. Out of a score of 4, students evaluated scored an average of 3.6 for SLO 4.
- Out of a score of 5, students who graduated between Fall 2015 and Summer 2018 got an average score of 4.0 for SLO 5 [explain, critique and apply prominent planning theories/concepts to analyze a planning issue(s)]. Students scored an average of 4.2 for demonstrating working knowledge of the stated planning sub-field, and an average of 3.8 for presenting a clear analysis and cohesive argument/logic.
- Out of a score of 4.5, students score an average of 3.3 for SLO 6 [demonstrate an understanding of urbanization processes and rationales for planned interventions]. Students evaluated received an average of 2.7 out of 4.5 for understanding urbanization processes with an average coverage of 65%. They received an average of 3.8 out of 4.5 for understanding planning history with an average coverage rate of 81%.
- 73% of the students evaluated achieved SLO 7 [apply planning methods to organize, analyze, interpret and present information]. Out of a score of 12, students evaluated scored an average of 9.4 for SLO 7.
14) What best describes how the program used the results? (Check all that apply.)
Assessment procedure changes (SLOs, curriculum map, rubrics, evidence collected, sampling, communications with faculty, etc.) Course changes (course content, pedagogy, courses offered, new course, pre-requisites, requirements) Personnel or resource allocation changes Program policy changes (e.g., admissions requirements, student probation policies, common course evaluation form) Students' out-of-course experience changes (advising, co-curricular experiences, program website, program handbook, brown-bag lunches, workshops) Celebration of student success! Results indicated no action needed because students met expectations Use is pending (typical reasons: insufficient number of students in population, evidence not evaluated or interpreted yet, faculty discussions continue) Other: We are in the midst of preparing for reaccreditation for which we will be hosting a retreat in January 2019 to discuss the results and how they may be used for program improvement.15) Please briefly describe how the program used the results.
The results have been used to revise the curriculum map. We added core courses to the master's curriculum to meet SLOs and planning accreditation board (PAB) requirements. We requested all instructors to clearly state student learning objectives in their syllabi. We now advise students to take courses in a sequence so that they can meet SLOs. Based on the assessment results, we are revising a current course to focus on mixed methods to help students develop a better understanding/application of research methodologies. Furthermore, the curriculum sub-committee is in the process of developing a rubric for the practicum to assess SLO1 and SLO2. The discussion about assessment process and results will continue in the upcoming faculty meetings and curriculum sub-committee meetings.
16) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries? This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, and great achievements regarding program assessment in this reporting period.
It was heartening to see that a majority (i.e. over 70%) of the students in the master's program have achieved SLO 4 [ethical implications] and SLO 7 [quantitative methodology application].
Students also made improvements in achieving SLO 3 [effective presentation] and SLO 5 [applying theory to analyze planning issues]. Compared with the period of Fall 2012 to Summer 2015, students’ average scores have increased more than 50% in terms of presenting a professionally written document, professional oral presentation, demonstrating working knowledge of the stated planning sub-field, and presenting a clear analysis and cohesive argument. Finally, regarding SLO 6, we found that while a majority of students understood planning history and design rationale (i.e. over 80%), relatively fewer students understood the urbanization process and legal foundations (i.e. between 60% to 70%).