SJSU Annual Assessment Report
Academic Year 2012-2013
Electronic Copy of Report Due July 1, 2013
Send to Undergraduate Studies (Kim.Huynh@sjsu.edu), with cc: to your College
Associate Dean and College Assessment Facilitator
Department/Program: Urban & Regional Planning/MUP
Date of Report: June ‘13
Contact Person: Hilary Nixon email: hilary.nixon@sjsu.edu Phone: x45852
Program Accreditation (if any): Planning Accreditation Board
Please refer to expanded instructions for each item. The narrative portion of the
report should not exceed four pages. Appendices should be included as part of
the report.
1. Overview and Context:
As a result of new accreditation standards adopted by the Planning Accreditation Board,
the Urban & Regional Planning department revised its Program Learning Outcomes in
Summer 2012 during our annual assessment review. A list of all new PLOs is shown in
Appendix A. In addition, a matrix showing how our revised PLOs align with our core
MUP curriculum is shown in Appendix B and Appendix C includes our revised
assessment schedule for 2012-2017. In order to obtain a baseline report for all PLOs,
each PLO (except 1f and 3c) were assessed at least once during the 2012-2013 AY.
2. Use of Prior Assessment/Closing the Loop:
Since we developed all new PLOs at the beginning of this AY, our focus has been on
collecting baseline data and ensuring that our assessment procedures are working well.
3. Assessment Data:
A detailed assessment report for all PLOs is shown in Appendix D.
Methodologies/Measures: Our general approach has been to work with each individual
instructor assigned to teach a class where assessment data is collected so that the
assessment process is clear to all involved and to ensure that measurement tools and
the resulting data can be effectively used. Measurement tools vary but tend to include
the following: exams geared to the specific PLO and assignments or assignment
components focused on the specific PLO. The use of rubrics (particularly for URBP
298B) have been used effectively to tease out student learning directly focused on a
particular PLO, however, this approach is not consistently used across all courses. In
addition, evidence from this year’s assessment for several PLOs (e.g. PLO 2e, 2f, 3b,
3d, and 3e) indicate that the measurement tools did not produce useful assessment
data, so new measurement tools will be implemented in the future.
Data: Data collected in AY 2012-2013 indicate that the vast majority of students achieve
the stated PLO. In addition, in several instances, we have multiple assessments of the
same PLO over several courses also showing consistent data. Of particular interest was
the assessment of PLO 1e, where students were assessed on this PLO multiple times
during the same course and evidence suggests that over the course of the semester,
student learning on this PLO increased. Ideally, this type of assessment approach could
be used for all PLOs, but it should be noted that this approach is time-consuming for
instructors.
Evaluation/Reflection: As noted above, and in the detailed assessment report, additional
work on developing effective assessment tools is needed. A summer assessment
review by department faculty is planned where faculty will work collaboratively to
improve assessment processes.
4. Alignment of Course and Program Learning Outcomes:
Please see Appendix B.
5. Recommendations for Student Learning:
Our main effort this year will be to work more closely with individual instructors to share
past assessment data and procedures so that not only are assessment procedures
improved, but that we have a more consistent approach to using past data to improve
future learning. To facilitate this, our department assessment coordinator recently
worked with our chair to improve our “Instructor Course Guidelines” which provides
course-specific information to each instructor regarding how each courses fits within our
overall assessment plan, as well as information about conducting assessment. In
addition, our department assessment coordinator will work with each individual faculty
member prior to the beginning of the semester to clarify assessment expectations.
6. Plans 2013-14 Academic Year:
As shown in Appendix C, we plan to collect data on all of our PLOs again this coming
year, including PLO 1f and 3c which we were unable to collect data for this AY.
Appendix A: MUP Program Learning Outcomes
1. General planning knowledge: The comprehension, representation, and use of ideas
and information in the planning field, including appropriate perspectives from history,
social science, and the design professions. Students will be able to:
a) Describe and explain why planning is undertaken by communities, cities,
regions, and nations, and the impact planning is expected to have.
b) Describe and explain the behaviors and structures available to bring about
sound planning outcomes, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of different
ones.
c) Describe and explain the legal and institutional contexts within which planning
occurs.
d) Describe and explain the growth and development of places over time and
across space.
e) Describe and explain the relationships between past, present, and future in
planning domains, as well as the potential for methods of design, analysis, and
intervention to influence the future.
f) Describe and explain interactions, flows of people and materials, cultures, and
differing approaches to planning across world regions.
2. Planning skills: The use and application of knowledge to perform specific tasks
required in the practice of planning.
Students will be able to:
a) Assemble and analyze ideas and information from prior practice and
scholarship, and from primary and secondary sources.
b) Prepare clear, accurate and compelling text, graphics and maps for use in
documents and presentations.
c) Collect data, conduct analysis, and use modeling tools for forecasting, policy
analysis, and design of projects and plans.
d) Describe and assess when it is appropriate to use integrative tools for sound
plan formulation, adoption, and implementation and enforcement.
e) Describe and assess when it is appropriate to use different tools for
stakeholder involvement, community engagement, and working with diverse
communities.
f) Describe and assess when it is appropriate to use tools for attention, formation,
strategic decision-making, team building, and organizational/community
motivation.
3. Values and ethics: Values inform ethical and normative principles used to guide
planning in a democratic society. The program shall appropriately incorporate issues of
diversity and social justice into all required courses of the curriculum. Students will be
able to:
a) Describe and explain key issues of planning ethics and related questions of
the ethics of public decision-making, research, and client representation
(including principles of the AICP Code of Ethics).
b) Describe and explain the roles of officials, stakeholders, and community
members in planned change.
c) Describe and explain natural resource and pollution control factors in planning,
as well as how to create sustainable futures.
d) Describe and explain the roles of economic, social, and cultural factors in
urban and regional growth and change.
e) Describe and explain equity concerns in planning.
Appendix B: Mapping Program Learning Outcomes to Curriculum Courses
URBP 298A
URBP 298B
C
URBP 297P
URBP 236
A
C
C
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
A
A
C
A
C
C
A
C
A
URBP 275G
A
URBP 241
A
URBP 225
URBP 204
URBP 201
Key:
C – material covered
A – assessed
Program Learning Outcomes
1. General planning knowledge: The comprehension, representation, and use of ideas and information in the planning field,
including appropriate perspectives from history, social science, and the design professions. Students will be able to:
a) Describe and explain why planning is undertaken by communities, cities, regions, and nations, and the impact planning is
expected to have.
b) Describe and explain the behaviors and structures available to bring about sound planning outcomes, as well as the
strengths and weaknesses of different ones.
c) Describe and explain the legal and institutional contexts within which planning occurs.
d) Describe and explain the growth and development of places over time and across space.
e) Describe and explain the relationships between past, present, and future in planning domains, as well as the potential for
methods of design, analysis, and intervention to influence the future.
f) Describe and explain interactions, flows of people and materials, cultures, and differing approaches to planning across
world regions.
2. Planning skills: The use and application of knowledge to perform specific tasks required in the practice of planning.
Students will be able to:
a) Assemble and analyze ideas and information from prior practice and scholarship, and from primary and secondary sources.
b) Prepare clear, accurate and compelling text, graphics and maps for use in documents and presentations.
c) Collect data, conduct analysis, and use modeling tools for forecasting, policy analysis, and design of projects and plans.
d) Describe and assess when it is appropriate to use integrative tools for sound plan formulation, adoption, and
implementation and enforcement.
e) Describe and assess when it is appropriate to use different tools for stakeholder involvement, community engagement, and
working with diverse communities.
f) Describe and assess when it is appropriate to use tools for attention, formation, strategic decision-making, team building,
and organizational/community motivation.
3. Values and ethics: Values inform ethical and normative principles used to guide planning in a democratic society. The program
shall appropriately incorporate issues of diversity and social justice into all required courses of the curriculum. Students will be
able to:
a) Describe and explain key issues of planning ethics and related questions of the ethics of public decision-making, research,
and client representation (including principles of the AICP Code of Ethics).
b) Describe and explain the roles of officials, stakeholders, and community members in planned change.
c) Describe and explain natural resource and pollution control factors in planning, as well as how to create sustainable
futures.
d) Describe and explain the roles of economic, social, and cultural factors in urban and regional growth and change.
e) Describe and explain equity concerns in planning.
URBP 200
Core Courses
A
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
C
A
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
Appendix C: Assessment Schedule (2012-2017)
PLOs
1a
1b
1c
1d
1e
1f
2a
2b
2c
2d
2e
2f
3a
3b
3c
3d
3e
Courses for Assessment
200
200
225
200
200, 236
241
298B
200, 201, 204, 275G,
204, 298B
225, 298B
225
201
201
200
201
241
201, 236
201, 236
F2012
S2013
F2013
S2014
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
C,D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C,D
C,D
C,D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C,D
C,D
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C
C,I
C,I
D
D
D
D
C,D
D
C,D
C,D
C,D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C,D
C,D
Codes: C=Collect assessment data; D= discuss by faculty; I= implement changes
F2014
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
S2015
F2015
S2016
F2016
S2017
D
D
D
D
C,D
D
C,D
C,D
C,D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C,D
C,D
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
D
D
D
D
C, D
D
C,D
C,D
C,D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C,D
C,D
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
C,I
D
D
D
D
C,D
D
C,D
C,D
C,D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C,D
C,D
Appendix D: Detailed Assessment Report (2012-2013)
PLO 1a: Describe and explain why planning is undertaken by
communities, cities, regions, and nations, and the impact planning is
expected to have.
Assessment Course: URBP 200.
During AY 2012-2013, two sections of URBP 200 were taught during Fall 2012
(Joe Kott and Laurel Prevetti). Data was collected from one section (Prevetti).
Assessment Methodology/Measures: Students complete a literature review
assignment and must complete part 3 of this assignment with a grade of “B” or
better.
Data: Ninety-two percent of students met the threshold for demonstrating
knowledge of the PLO.
Evaluation and Reflection: Students received detailed feedback on the
assignment. No specific changes were noted by the instructor. Results from this
assessment, including assignment guidelines, will be shared with future
instructors.
PLO 1b: Describe and explain the behaviors and structures available to
bring about sound planning outcomes, as well as the strengths and
weaknesses of different ones.
Assessment Course: URBP 200.
During AY 2012-2013, two sections of URBP 200 were taught during Fall 2012
(Joe Kott and Laurel Prevetti). Data was collected from one section (Prevetti).
Assessment Methodology/Measures: Students complete a planning theory
assignment and must complete this assignment with a grade of “B” or better.
Data: Ninety percent of students met the threshold for demonstrating knowledge
of the PLO.
Evaluation and Reflection: Students received detailed feedback on the
assignment. No specific changes were noted by the instructor. Results from this
assessment, including assignment guidelines, will be shared with future
instructors.
PLO 1c: Describe and explain the legal and institutional contexts within
which planning occurs.
Assessment Course: URBP 225.
During AY 2012-2013, one section of URBP 225 was taught during Fall 2012
(John Davidson)
Assessment Methodology/Measures: A take-home midterm exam was used to
assess student learning.
Data: Sixty percent of students scored in the acceptable range (85 out of 100
possible points).
Evaluation and Reflection: The course instructor indicated that in the future, a
written in-class practice test will be administered so that students can get
feedback on how to structure their arguments before the exam.
PLO 1d: Describe and explain the growth and development of places
over time and across space.
Assessment Course: URBP 200.
During AY 2012-2013, two sections of URBP 200 were taught during Fall 2012
(Joe Kott and Laurel Prevetti). Data was collected from one section (Prevetti).
Assessment Methodology/Measures: Students much complete the historical
person assignment with a grade of “B” or better.
Data: One hundred percent of students met the threshold for demonstrating
knowledge of the PLO.
Evaluation and Reflection: Students received detailed feedback on the
assignment. No specific changes were noted by the instructor. Results from this
assessment, including assignment guidelines, will be shared with future
instructors.
PLO 1e: Describe and explain the relationships between past, present,
and future in planning domains, as well as the potential for methods of
design, analysis, and intervention to influence the future.
Assessment Courses: URBP 200, 236.
During AY 2012-2013, two sections of URBP 200 were taught during Fall 2012
(Joe Kott and Laurel Prevetti). Data was collected from one section (Prevetti).
Two sections of URBP 236 were taught in Spring 2013 and used for assessment
(Hing Wong/Steve Ross and Kathrine Richardson).
Assessment Methodology/Measures: In URBP 200, students participate in an
engagement assignment designed to assess this PLO. In URBP 236, a major
focus of the class is on how planners can influence the future. Three
assignments in both sections evaluated student learning and were designed to
evaluate learning over the course of the semester.
Data: In URBP 200, 100% of students met the threshold for demonstrating
knowledge of the PLO (grade of “B” or better on the engagement assignment). In
both sections of URBP 236, instructors were able to see measurable
improvement in student learning related to this PLO over the course of the
semester. During the initial evaluation (using Assignment 1), 80% to 90% of
students met the threshold (“B” or better on the assignment). Assignment 3
continued to evaluated student learning on this PLO and 90% to 95% of students
met the threshold. By the end of the semester, 100% of students met the
threshold.
Evaluation and Reflection: In URBP 200, students received detailed feedback on
the assignment. No specific changes were noted by the instructor. Results from
this assessment, including assignment guidelines, will be shared with future
instructors.
In URBP 236, instructors noted that using multiple assignments over the course
of the semester enabled students to demonstrate a mastery of the PLO
PLO 1f: Describe and explain interactions, flows of people and materials,
cultures, and differing approaches to planning across world regions.
Assessment Course: URBP 241.
URBP 241 is a brand new course. It will be offered for the first time in Fall 2013.
Assessment Methodology/Measures: Not assessed in 2012-2013.
Data:
Evaluation and Reflection:
PLO 2a: Assemble and analyze ideas and information from prior
practice and scholarship, and from primary and secondary sources.
Assessment Course: URBP 298B.
During AY 2012-2013, a total of 38 students completed URBP 298B and
submitted final planning reports.
Assessment Methodology/Measures: Students must complete a professional
planning report in URBP 298B. All faculty teaching URBP 298B use a common
rubric to evaluate student learning. Outcome 1 on the rubric addresses PLO 2a.
Data: Thirty-eight students successfully completed URBP 298B. On their final
report grading rubric for Outcome 1, students received an average score of 9.9
out of 12, with a range of scores from 8 to 12.
Evaluation and Reflection: Faculty have worked consistently over many years to
improve 298 instruction and advising, which is demonstrated through the fairly
high level of student learning and achievement on this PLO.
PLO 2b: Prepare clear, accurate and compelling text, graphics and maps
for use in documents and presentations.
Assessment Course: URBP 200 (writing), 201 (graphics/maps), 204 (graphics),
275G (maps), and 298B (overall).
During AY 2012-2013, two sections of URBP 200 were taught during Fall 2012
(Joe Kott and Laurel Prevetti). Data was collected from one section (Prevetti).
Two sections of URBP 201 were taught during Fall 2012 (Richard Kos and Justin
Meek). Two sections of URBP 275G were taught (Ralph McLaughlin in Fall, and
Richard Kos in Spring). Two sections of URBP 204 were taught in Fall 2012
(Shishir Mathur). Thirty-eight students successful completed URBP 298B.
Assessment Methodology/Measures: Several courses in the department are
used to assess student learning related to this PLO. URBP 200, 204, and 275G
assess students during the early phase of their program, while URBP 201 and
298B evaluate students at the end of their program. In URBP 200, students are
assessment through the writing component on part 3 of the literature review
assignment and must complete this component with a grade of “B” or better. In
URBP 204, students are assessed specifically on the quality of their charts and
tables in the term project presentation, as well as their ability to properly link their
data/statistical tests to the correct chart/table format. In URBP 275G, students
critique existing published maps and develop their own maps using best
practices in map design. In URBP 201, student learning was assessed using
Assignment 4 that asked students to prepare posters reflecting the results of
community assessment in 4 key areas (land use, transportation, community life
and safety, and housing). Posters needed to present existing conditions in a
visual format that included data and visual images. In URBP 298B, student
complete a professional planning report and all faculty use a common rubric to
evaluate student learning and achievement on this PLO. Outcome 3 on the rubric
assesses PLO 2b.
Data: In URBP 200, 12 out of 13 students met the department standard (a “B”
grade or better on the writing component of part 3 of the literature review
assignment). In URBP 204, 15 out of 21 students met the department standard
(a “B” grade or better on this part of the assignment). In 275G, 20 out of 21
students achieved the threshold for demonstrating that they met the PLO (B+ or
better on the assignment). In URBP 201, all 34 students met the learning
outcome and were able to demonstrate their ability to prepare clear, accurate,
and compelling graphics and maps. In URBP 298B, 38 students successfully
completed URBP 298B. On their final report grading rubric for Outcome 3,
students receive an average score of 10.1 out of 12, with a range of scores from
8 to 11.6.
Evaluation and Reflection: In URBP 200, students received detailed feedback on
the assignment. No specific changes were noted by the instructor. Results from
this assessment, including assignment guidelines, will be shared with future
instructors. In URBP 204, the instructor noted that most students meet this
specific learning outcome for the course, but in the future a separate handout will
be created to improve student learning, specifically as it relates to linking specific
statistical tests/data with chart and table formats for presentation. The instructor
for URBP 275G noted that assignment guidelines could be clarified to avoid
confusion between critiquing published maps and creating original maps. Faculty
have worked consistently over many years to improve 298 instruction and
advising, which is demonstrated through the fairly high level of student learning
and achievement on this PLO.
PLO 2c: Collect data, conduct analysis, and use modeling tools for
forecasting, policy analysis, and design of projects and plans.
Assessment Course: URBP 204, 236, 298B.
During AY 2012-2013, two sections of URBP 204 were taught in Fall 2012
(Shishir Mathur). Two sections of URBP 236 were taught in Spring 2013 and
used for assessment (Hing Wong/Steve Ross and Kathrine Richardson). Thirtyeight students successful completed URBP 298B.
Assessment Methodology/Measures: In URBP 204, the Term Project Analysis
Report is used to evaluate student learning for PLO 2c and focuses on data
collection and analysis. In URBP 236, two assignments were used to assess
student learning focused on policy analysis over the course of the semester. In
URBP 298B, student complete a professional planning report and all faculty use
a common rubric to evaluate student learning and achievement on this PLO.
Outcome 2 on the rubric assesses PLO 2c. In URBP 298B, student complete a
professional planning report and all faculty use a common rubric to evaluate
student learning and achievement on this PLO. Outcome 2 on the rubric
assesses PLO 2c.
Data: In URBP 204, 20 out of 24 students achieving the learning outcome
(measured by a score of 20 out of 25 on the Term Project Analysis Report). In
URBP 236, for the first assignment, 90% to 100% of students met the learning
threshold (B or better on the Assignment 3) while 100% of students in both
sections met the learning threshold by the end of the semester (B or better on the
final assignment). In URBP 298B, 38 students successfully completed URBP
298B. On their final report grading rubric for Outcome 3, students receive an
average score of 12.5 out of 16, with a range of scores from 10.25 to 15.75.
Evaluation and Reflection: The instructor for URBP 204 felt that some students
struggled with linking the research question to the appropriate statistical test and
have trouble developing a well-reasoned research hypothesis. In the future,
additional instruction time will be devoted to these topics. Faculty have worked
consistently over many years to improve 298 instruction and advising, which is
demonstrated through the fairly high level of student learning and achievement
on this PLO.
PLO 2d: Describe and assess when it is appropriate to use integrative
tools for sound plan formulation, adoption, and implementation and
enforcement.
Assessment Course: URBP 225.
During AY 2012-2013, one section of URBP 225 was taught during Fall 2012
(John Davidson).
Assessment Methodology/Measures: URBP 225 assesses student learning for
this PLO through the Urban Village Plan project.
Data: All 13 students met the learning outcome (scoring 85 or better on their
Urban Village Plan).
Evaluation and Reflection: The instructor noted that students had the greatest
challenge with developing policy recommendations related to the plan and
presented possible solutions for future classes where students complete a
semester-long journal to evaluate similar plan documents, conduct field visits to
communities build under those plans, and evaluate what policies have the
greatest impact on the look, feel, and function of a neighborhood.
PLO 2e: Describe and assess when it is appropriate to use different tools
for stakeholder involvement, community engagement, and working with
diverse communities.
Assessment Course: URBP 201.
During AY 2012-2013, two sections of URBP 201 were taught during Fall 2012
(Richard Kos and Justin Meek).
Assessment Methodology/Measures: In URBP 201, all students were asked to
provide written responses to questions designed to assess their level of
knowledge regarding this PLO.
Data: There was significant inconsistency regarding student responses to this
assignment, making effective analysis of individual student learning difficult.
Evaluation and Reflection: Instructors noted that the method used to evaluate
student learning did not lend itself to precise measurement and that, in the future,
instructors need to devote more effort to integrating the PLO into specific course
assignments and designing effective assessment tools.
PLO 2f: Describe and assess when it is appropriate to use tools for
attention, formation, strategic decision-making, team building, and
organizational/community motivation.
Assessment Course: URBP 201.
During AY 2012-2013, two sections of URBP 201 were taught during Fall 2012
(Richard Kos and Justin Meek).
Assessment Methodology/Measures: In URBP 201, all students were asked to
provide written responses to questions designed to assess their level of
knowledge regarding this PLO.
Data: There was significant inconsistency regarding student responses to this
assignment, making effective analysis of individual student learning difficult.
Evaluation and Reflection: Instructors noted that the method used to evaluate
student learning did not lend itself to precise measurement and that, in the future,
instructors need to devote more effort to integrating the PLO into specific course
assignments and designing effective assessment tools.
PLO 3a: Describe and explain key issues of planning ethics and related
questions of the ethics of public decision-making, research, and client
representation (including principles of the AICP Code of Ethics).
Assessment Course: URBP 200.
During AY 2012-2013, two sections of URBP 200 were taught during Fall 2012
(Joe Kott and Laurel Prevetti). Data was collected from one section (Prevetti).
Assessment Methodology/Measures: Students complete an ethics assignment
and must received a grade of “B” or better on the specific component of the
assignment used to assess learning related to this PLO.
Data: One hundred percent of students met the department standard for this
PLO.
Evaluation and Reflection: Students received detailed feedback on the
assignment. No specific changes were noted by the instructor. Results from this
assessment, including assignment guidelines, will be shared with future
instructors.
PLO 3b: Describe and explain the roles of officials, stakeholders, and
community members in planned change.
Assessment Course: URBP 201.
During AY 2012-2013, two sections of URBP 201 were taught during Fall 2012
(Richard Kos and Justin Meek).
Assessment Methodology/Measures: In URBP 201, all students were asked to
provide written responses to questions designed to assess their level of
knowledge regarding this PLO.
Data: There was significant inconsistency regarding student responses to this
assignment, making effective analysis of individual student learning difficult.
Evaluation and Reflection: Instructors noted that the method used to evaluate
student learning did not lend itself to precise measurement and that, in the future,
instructors need to devote more effort to integrating the PLO into specific course
assignments and designing effective assessment tools.
PLO 3c: Describe and explain natural resource and pollution control
factors in planning, as well as how to create sustainable futures.
Assessment Course: URBP 241.
URBP 241 is a brand new course. It will be offered for the first time in Fall 2013.
Assessment Methodology/Measures: Not assessed in 2012-2013.
Data:
Evaluation and Reflection:
PLO 3d: Describe and explain the roles of economic, social, and cultural
factors in urban and regional growth and change.
Assessment Course: URBP 201, 236 (not assessed in 236 for 2012-2013).
Assessment Methodology/Measures: In URBP 201, all students were asked to
provide written responses to questions designed to assess their level of
knowledge regarding this PLO.
Data: For URBP 201, there was significant inconsistency regarding student
responses to this assignment, making effective analysis of individual student
learning difficult.
Evaluation and Reflection: Instructors for URBP 201 noted that the method used
to evaluate student learning did not lend itself to precise measurement and that,
in the future, instructors need to devote more effort to integrating the PLO into
specific course assignments and designing effective assessment tools. In order
to more fully assess student learning, this PLO will also be assessed in URBP
236 in the future.
PLO 3e: Describe and explain equity concerns in planning.
Assessment Course: URBP 201, 236 (not assessed in 236 for 2012-2013).
Assessment Methodology/Measures: In URBP 201, all students were asked to
provide written responses to questions designed to assess their level of
knowledge regarding this PLO.
Data: For URBP 201, there was significant inconsistency regarding student
responses to this assignment, making effective analysis of individual student
learning difficult.
Evaluation and Reflection: Instructors for URBP 201 noted that the method used
to evaluate student learning did not lend itself to precise measurement and that,
in the future, instructors need to devote more effort to integrating the PLO into
specific course assignments and designing effective assessment tools. In order
to more fully assess student learning, this PLO will also be assessed in URBP
236 in the future.