SJSU Annual Program Assessment Form
Academic Year 2014-2015
Electronic copy of report is due June 1, 2015. Send to Undergraduate Studies
(academicassessment@sjsu.edu), with cc: to your college’s Associate Dean and college Assessment
Facilitator. List of AFs is found at http://www.sjsu.edu/ugs/faculty/programs/committee/index.html>
Department: Urban & Regional Planning
Program: Master of Urban Planning
College: Social Sciences
Website: www.sjsu.edu/urbanplanning
_X Check here if your website addresses the University Learning Goals:
http://www.sjsu.edu/urbanplanning/assessment/index.html (update in progress, current information is
outdated)
Program Accreditation (if any): Planning Accreditation Board
Contact Person and Email: Hilary Nixon, hilary.nixon@sjsu.edu
Date of Report: June 1, 2015
Part A
1. List of Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)
The Department of Urban & Regional Planning completely revised our program learning outcomes
during 2014-15. The rationale behind the revision stems from changes in our accreditation
standards. URBP faculty attended an assessment workshop conducted by the Planning Accreditation
Board (PAB) during Fall 2014 and the new PLOs are in response to information learned during that
workshop. In addition to our PLOs, the department aligns our core curriculum with the PAB’s
“Knowledge, Skills and Values.” In Table 1 below, we list all five new PLOs, indicate in which
course(s) or other direct assessment (e.g. internship supervisor direct evaluation) the PLO is
assessed, identify the assessment tool faculty collaboratively decided would be used for evaluation,
and map the PLOs to the University Learning Goals.
Table 1 Master of Urban Planning PLOs
Program Learning Outcomea
1. Conceptualize planning problems from complex, real-world situations
so that the problems are meaningful to clients, and are researchworthy.
a. Frame research questions and hypotheses
b. Design appropriate methodologies to answer research
questions
2. Communicate effectively.
a. Communicate effectively in writing.
b. Communicate effectively by expressing concepts in visual
terms.
c. Communicate effectively through public speaking.
Course(s)
When PLO is
Assessed
URBP 298
URBP 298 (2a
and 2b)
Internship (2a
and 2c)
3. Work effectively as team members and leaders of planning teams, and
to apply an understanding of interpersonal and group dynamics to
assure effective group action.
URBP 201
4. Analyze and synthesize planning knowledge and apply it to address
actual planning problems.
URBP 298
Internship
Assessment Tool
University Learning
Goal
Planning Report
rubric:
 Outcome 1.1 to
assess PLO 1a.
 Outcome 1.3 to
assess PLO 1b.
Planning Report
rubric:
 Outcomes 3.8,
3.9, 3.12 to assess
PLO 2a.
 Outcomes 3.10
and 3.11 to assess
PLO 2b.
Internship form:
 Item 2 to assess
PLO 2a.
 Item 3 to assess
PLO 2c
Peer Review rubric
ULG 1 – Specialized
Knowledge*
ULG 2 – Broad
Integrative
Knowledge
Planning Report
rubric:
 Outcome 2
Internship form
 Item 9
ULG 1 – Specialized
Knowledge*
ULG 3 – Intellectual
Skills
ULG 1 – Specialized
Knowledge*
ULG 4 – Applied
Knowledge
ULG 1 – Specialized
Knowledge*
ULG 2 – Broad
Integrative
Knowledge
5. Develop planning strategies to advance community priorities through
collaborative engagement with stakeholders, and do so in a manner
that deliberately incorporates multicultural and historical
perspectives.
URBP 201
End of Semester
Reflection grading
rubric
 Criteria 1
ULG 1 – Specialized
Knowledge*
ULG 5 – Social and
Global
Responsibilities
a
All students graduating from the MUP program at SJSU are expected to have graduate-level mastery of the key “Knowledge, Skills, and
Values” for professional planners as identified by the Planning Accreditation Board (see
http://www.sjsu.edu/urbanplanning/courses/pabknowledge.html).
* Upon successful completion of the MUP degree at SJSU, students will have a graduate-level mastery of all five program learning outcomes
which will result in graduate level mastery of ULG 1 – Specialized Knowledge (“depth of knowledge required for a degree, as identified by its
program learning outcomes”).
2. Map of PLOs to University Learning Goals (ULGs)
Please see Table 1.
3. Alignment – Matrix of PLOs to Courses
Please see Table 1.
4. Planning – Assessment Schedule
Table 2 URBP Assessment Schedule 2014-2018
PLO
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
1
X
X
X
X
2
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
X
5
X
X
X
In addition to the assessment data collection noted above, each year during the initial Fall faculty
meeting, URBP faculty will discussion the preceding year’s assessment data and discuss curricular
changes as needed.
5. Student Experience
We include information about our PLOs and Knowledge, Skills and Values in all course syllabi and on
our department website. We annually post information to our website documenting student
achievement for our PLOs (http://www.sjsu.edu/urbanplanning/pabperformancedata/index.html).
In addition, we conduct an exit survey of all graduating students to identify their perspective of our
program’s curriculum, advising, etc. This information is reviewed by faculty annually in order to
identify what changes, if any, are needed to our curriculum. We also invite student representatives
from our student planning organization to participate in faculty meetings (usually once per
semester) to discuss issues of importance and/or concern, including curriculum. As a direct result of
both the exit surveys and student meetings, we have implemented a new course designed on
technology tools for spatial visualization in planning which we will offer for the first time this fall.
Part B
6. Graduation Rates for Total, Non URM and URM students (per program and degree)
Table 3 First-Time Graduate / Fall 2011 Cohort: 3-Year Graduation Rate
Total
URM
Non-URM
All Others
Program Cohort
Size
Program Grad
Rate
49
7
32
10
81.6%
85.7%
78.1%
90.0%
College Average
Grad Rate (All
Students Who
Entered This
College)
51.0%
54.8%
50.0%
50.0%
University Average
Grad Rate (All
Students Who
Entered the
University)
60.8%
65.2%
54.2%
69.4%
Table 3 shows the 3-Year Graduate Rate for the Fall 2011 Cohort of First-Time Graduates. Since the
MUP program is a graduate-only program, we do not show any data for undergraduates. It should
also be noted that our program is specifically designed to accommodate part-time graduate
students who may choose to take longer than 3 years to graduate. On the whole, the department is
very pleased with our graduate rates. We note that they are significantly above both the College and
University and our 3-year graduation rate for underrepresented minorities is at 85.7%.
7. Headcounts of program majors and new students (per program and degree)
Table 4 Headcount of Program Majors (Fall 2014)
New Students
32
Total MUP
Continuing Student
73
Total
105
Our headcount of majors is fairly steady. In last year’s report, we had a total of 103 majors.
Currently we have 105. This is still below our peak a few years ago before the university placed strict
caps on graduate admissions and we have had to manage irregular admissions cycles for several
years (e.g. only international student admissions this past Spring, no graduate Spring admissions the
previous year, etc.). These institutional decisions have long-term ramifications because it is difficult
to build a program back up after being so severely cut.
8. SFR and average section size (per program)
Table 5 Student-Faculty Ratio and Average Headcount per Section
Student-Faculty Ratio (SFR)
Subject SFR College SFR
University
SFR
Lower
Division
Upper
Division
Graduate
Division
Average Headcount per Section
Subject
College
University
Headcount
Headcount
Headcount
per Section per Section per Section
41.8
35.6
-
40.0
31.0
7.3
26.8
25.5
3.4
27.4
28.0
11.8
12.2
20.8
10.8
8.9
15.8
The MUP Program is required by PAB guidelines (and also noted in our Program Planning Action Plan) to
maintain a SFR of 10:1. We are above this ratio, which poses a problem for the department as it may
threaten our accreditation. The numbers in Table 5 are also somewhat inaccurate and don’t reflect that
fact that our SFR ratio is probably even higher along with headcount per section. For example, with
URBP 298A and URBP 298B, faculty are paid for one 3-unit section of 12 students. However, when you
account for headcount per section, the numbers are based on two class sections (URBP 298A and URBP
298B). In addition, some classes such as URBP 234 (field study) are not paid courses but are used to
allow international students to complete off-campus internships and usually only have a few students in
each section. Finally, the numbers for undergraduate students doesn’t reflect reality because those are
not stand-alone sections, but are cross-listed with graduate courses. We usually provide up to 5 seats in
any undergraduate course that is cross-listed with a graduate course so you will never see numbers that
compare to stand-alone undergraduate courses.
9. Percentage of tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty (per department)
Table 6 Percentage of Full-Time Equivalent Faculty (FTEF), Fall 2014
Tenured/TenureTrack
Not Tenure-Track
Total
Department FTEF
#
3.1
Department FTEF
%
37%
College FTEF
%
44.9%
University FTEF
%
42.8%
5.2
8.4
63%
100.0%
55.1%
100.0%
57.2%
100.0%
The department’s FTEF ratio is not ideal. We currently have only 1/3 of our faculty tenured/tenure track.
We are planning to hire an additional faculty member next academic year to begin to address this
imbalance.
Part C
10. Closing the Loop/Recommended Actions
Our Action Plan (2/3/14) focuses on several key issues.
In terms of Physical Facilities, we are still looking for a permanent studio space on campus. We have
been able to use on a case-by-case basis facilities in the community although these often lack key
features such as computer/internet access or suitable semester-long storage. We do make use of
our lounge area for studio classes, but this isn’t an ideal situation as it makes it difficult for this space
to be utilized by other students when a studio class is in session.
As recommended in both our last PAB report and in the Action Plan, we have made several changes
to our curriculum to increase coverage of non-California legal issues (particularly in our revised
URBP 225 land use and planning law course), equity and social justice (now imbedded in a number
of core courses in addition to several electives), and global issues (imbedded into a new required
course on planning sustainable cities). We have been less effective at addressing the opportunities
for interdisciplinary education which were recommended by the program planning committee. We
will continue to pursue these, however, without institutional support we anticipate this to be a
challenge.
As noted above, we continue to have challenges meeting our required 10:1 student-faculty ratio.
In terms of administrative staffing, we have made no progress on these issues, either. We still have
less than a half-time administrative support coordinator (40%) and the department chair has a 0.2
administrative assignment. While this is in line with the university’s policy based on FTEF, we are
aware of other department chairs across campus with smaller FTEF and FTES who have higher
administrative assignments. With external accreditation, a large number of part-time faculty who
teach only 1-2 courses per year (due to the nature of the discipline, individual instructors may not
be capable of teaching both an urban design class and a transportation planning class, for example),
and a relatively large graduate program comparatively, the 0.2 administrative time for the
department chair is insufficient. On a positive note, with the new, distributed budget model, we
have been able to support our practitioner-in-residence with paid assigned time from the
department.
11. <Please list all ongoing recommended actions for your program. Recommended actions might
arise from: the previous program planning cycle, feedback from a previous annual assessment
report, or other feedback. Indicate and describe activities undertaken this year designed to improve
learning and/or program quality and health.>
12. Assessment Data
For this academic year, we assessed PLOs 1, 2, and 4.
PLO 1. Conceptualize planning problems from complex, real-world situations so that the problems are
meaningful to clients, and are research-worthy.
a. Frame research questions and hypotheses
This PLO is assessed in URBP 298 and we use the Planning Report Rubric (Outcome 1.1) for
assessment. For 2014-2015, a total of 34 MUP students successfully completed their
Planning Report. Scores for this outcome (Are the research questions and hypotheses well
defined and clearly stated?) range from 1.38 to 2 (out of a maximum score of 2) with an
average score of 1.8. Looking at the data from a qualitative perspective, students
consistently achieved either a “good” or “excellent” rating on this outcome and no students
were rated as “marginal” by their advisor.
b. Design appropriate methodologies to answer research questions
This PLO is assessed in URBP 298 and we use the Planning Report Rubric (Outcome 1.3) for
assessment. For 2014-2015, a total of 34 MUP students successfully completed their
Planning Report. Scores for this outcome (Is the methodology appropriate to answer the
research question(s)?) range from 2.5 to 4 (out of a maximum score of 4) with an average
score of 3.26. Looking at the data from a qualitative perspective, five students (15%)
received a score that fell in between “good” and “marginal” although most received either a
“good” or “excellent” rating.
PLO 2. Communicate effectively.
a. Communicate effectively in writing.
This PLO is assessed in URBP 298 (Outcomes 3.8, 3.9, and 3.12) and on the Internship form
(Item 2). See Table 7 for the complete data.
b. Communicate effectively by expressing concepts in visual terms.
This PLO is assessed in URBP 298 (Outcomes 3.10 and 3.11) See Table 7 for the complete
data.
c. Communicate effectively through public speaking.
This PLO is assessed using the Internship Form (Item 3). See Table 7 for the complete data.
Table 7 Assessment Data for PLO 2
Communicate effectively in writing
Planning Report Rubric Outcome 3.8 (out of 4)
Average
Min.
Max.
3.61
3
4
Planning Report Rubric Outcome 3.9 (out of 2)
Planning Report Rubric Outcome 3.12 (out of 2)
Internship Form Item 2 (out of 5)
Communicate effectively by expressing concepts in visual
terms
Planning Report Rubric Outcome 3.10 (out of 2)
Planning Report Rubric Outcome 3.11 (out of 2)
Communicate effectively through public speaking
Internship Form Item 3 (out of 5)
1.62
1.72
4.53
1
1
3
2
2
5
1.73
1.66
1
1.25
2
2
4.48
4
5
PLO 4. Analyze and synthesize planning knowledge and apply it to address actual planning problems
This PLO is assessed in URBP 298 (Outcome 2) and on the Internship Form (Item 9). For 2014-2015, 34
MUP students successfully complete their Planning Report. On Outcome 2, the average score was 12.7
(out of 16) with a range from 10 to 15.75. Students consistently scored “good” with a small percentage
receiving “excellent” evaluations and a few receiving “marginal” evaluations (most commonly on the
rubric items that focused on the sophistication of the conclusions and whether the student was able to
effectively show how his/her analysis and findings fit into the larger context of the literature and current
professional practice. Internship supervisors generally rated students fairly high on this learning
outcome. The average score for all students graduating this year was 4.77 (out of 5) with a minimum of
4 and maximum score of 5.
13. Analysis
This was the first year using our revised PLOs although we were able to make use of existing
evaluation documents that the department had been using for several years. In general, results
were as expected. We will use this year as a baseline evaluation for PLOs 1, 2, and 4 and track
progress in the coming years. Starting next year, we will expand our annual evaluation to include
PLOs 3 and 5.
14. Proposed changes and goals (if any)
Our major goal for next year is to expand our assessment focus to include a complete assessment of
all 5 PLOs and begin regular tracking of progress. In addition, we will discuss results from 2014-2015
and identify if there are curricular improvement to be made and also discuss the effectiveness and
usefulness of our existing evaluation tools.
Assessment Tool: Planning Report Rubric
PLANNING REPORT
-
ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
Student:
Semester:
Evaluator:
Project title:
CRITERIA
Excellent
Goo
d
Marginal
Unaceptable
N
A
Rating
Weigh
t
0
Outcome 1. Demonstrates ability to conceptualize problems from complex, real world
situations so the problems are meaningful to clients, and are research worthy (maximum
score: 12)
1. Are the research questions and hypotheses well defined and clearly stated?
4
3
2
1
0.5
0
2. Does the author demonstrate in-depth familiarity with relevant literature on the
subject?
4
3
2
1
1.5
0
3. Is the methodology appropriate to answer the research question(s)?
4
3
2
1
1
0
0
Outcome 2. Demonstrates ability to collect, analyze, and synthesize information from
multiple sources (maximum score: 16)
4. Is the data collected sufficient in quality and depth to answer the research question?
4
3
2
1
1.5
0
5. Is the analysis direct, competent, and appropriate?
4
3
2
1
1.5
0
6. Are the conclusions sophisticated and based on the results of the analysis, as a logical
extension of the findings?
4
3
2
1
0.5
0
7. Does the author show how his/her analysis and findings fit into the larger context of
the literature and current professional practice?
4
3
2
1
0.5
0
0
Outcome 3. Demonstrates ability to communicate effectively in writing and by
expressing concepts in visual terms (maximum score: 12)
8. Is the material logically organized, so that a reader can easily follow the writer’s train
of thought?
4
3
2
1
1
0
9. Is the writing grammatically correct and free of typos?
4
3
2
1
0.5
0
10. Do tables and figures add useful/important information for the reader?
4
3
2
1
0.5
0
11. Is the report attractive and professional in appearance?
4
3
2
1
0.5
0
12. Are citations included where appropriate, and are footnotes and bibliography
properly formatted?
4
3
2
1
0.5
0
Overall Assessment:
Excellent
Good
Marginal
Unacceptable
Overall Score
Excellent: As a supervisor, you would consider this work ready for public distribution without any substantial modification.
Good: As a supervisor, you would consider this work essentially sound, but in need of some refinement before public distribution.
Marginal: As a supervisor, you would conclude that the work contained some worthwhile elements, but required major revisions before public
distribution.
0
Unacceptable: The work needs to be entirely redone.
Note: Passing reports must receive at least a score of 8, 10, and 8 on Outcomes 1, 2 and 3, respectively. To be considered for honors, reports must
receive at least 36 points and demonstrate exceptional originality and creativity in the choice of research question, methodology, or analysis
techniques.
Comments:
Assessment Tool: Internship Form
Rating of Intern/Employee Performance:
Please rate the student’s performance on the following criteria on a scale from 1 (very low
performance) to 5 (very high performance).
1. Ability to work effectively on a team
1
2
3
4
5
 Not assessed
2. Ability to compose written reports and memos
1
2
3
4
5
 Not assessed
3. Ability to make an oral presentation
1
2
3
4
5
 Not assessed
4. Ability to interface with the public or clients
1
2
3
4
5
 Not assessed
5. Ability to solve problems and think creatively
1
2
3
4
5
 Not assessed
6. Initiative and ability to work independently
1
2
3
4
5
 Not assessed
7. Knowledge expected of an entry-level employee
1
2
3
4
5
 Not assessed
8. Understanding of professional planning issues
1
2
3
4
5
 Not assessed
9. Ability to synthesize planning knowledge and apply it to actual planning problems
1
2
3
4
5
 Not assessed