Unit: Urban & Regional Planning
Program: Urban & Regional Plan (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Fri Oct 12, 2012 - 11:10:54 am

1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.

Upon completion of the PhD/MURP degree, students should be able to:

  1. Describe and explain historic, social and economic processes leading to the transformation of human settlements and their habitats;
  2. Articulate justifications for planned interventions;
  3. Think critically about how to create more socially just and environmentally sustainable regions, cities and communities.
  4. Apply methods of social and spatial analysis to gather, organize, display and interpret social-spatial information at a variety of scales;
  5. Work with clients to clarify organizational, neighborhood or regional problems, generate and assess potential strategies to address these problems and assemble strategies in a plan or professional report.
  6. Collaborate with residents, agency officials and others to design and implement strategies for identifying, acknowledging, gathering, and collectively assessing and prioritizing individual and group perceptions and knowledge;
  7. Make a public presentation of a plan, professional report or public commentary in a coherent and persuasive fashion;  
  8. Acknowledge and take responsibility for the ethical implications of the choices we make as professionals. 

2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.

Department Website URL: http://www.durp.hawaii.edu/
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: NA
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:

3) Select one option:

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2012:

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.


5) Did your program engage in any program assessment activities between June 1, 2011 and September 30, 2012? (e.g., establishing/revising outcomes, aligning the curriculum to outcomes, collecting evidence, interpreting evidence, using results, revising the assessment plan, creating surveys or tests, etc.)

No (skip to question 14)

6) For the period June 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012: State the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goals. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.


7) State the type(s) of evidence gathered to answer the assessment question and/or meet the assessment goals that were given in Question #6.

8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

9) 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)

10) 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)

11) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #6:
Summarize the actual results.

12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.

13) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries?
This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, program aspects and so on.

14) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.
Or, if the program did engage in assessment activities, please add any other important information here.

The Department is currently undergoing accreditation for its Master Degree Program and thus assessment activities have centered around the MA.  That said, we have engaged in substantial faculty discussion on ways to more systematically review PhD student files and ensure timely progress towards degree completion.  We are implementing a new way to review PhD applications as well as helping advisors to more systematically update current student files.