Public Information

Out of ten (10) students and eight (8) learning outcomes (a total of 80 possibilities), there was one student who did not meet one learning outcome standard. This student was graded a 77.5/100 on the Planning History and Theory learning outcome. This student’s essay did not address any formal planning theories, even though many students were clearly familiar with such theories as demonstrated from their portfolios.

All other students met all learning outcome standards, and this student met all other learning outcome standards. The average score for General Planning Knowledge was 92.6, the average score for Planning Skills was 95.6 and the average score for Values and Ethics was 92.5. This was the highest score yet attained on Planning Skills, which we attribute to the improvements in the areas of Planning Process and Engagement and Professional, Communication, and Leadership skills. This was the second highest score with regards to General Planning Knowledge. This may have to do with the removal of the topic “Global dimensions of planning” which are not a strength of our program. The portfolio’s Values and Ethics score was rough in line with previous years, and quite respectable at 92.5%, though this year may not be comparable to past years due to changing requirements from PAB and the State of Florida. We have developed a new Values and Ethics target which we look forward to evaluating in future academic years.

The MURP faculty discussed areas of programmatic strength and weakness, as reflected through the portfolio reviews. Areas of strong marks respecting learning outcomes were identified as follows:

• Analytical Skills and Tools
• Planning Law and Institutions
• Planning Process and Engagement
• Sustainability, Resilience, and Climate Justice

Concerning Analytical Skills and Tools, students commonly mentioned three core classes: Planning Methods (URP 6200), Statistics for Urban Planning (URP 6211), and Introduction to GIS (URP 6270). Students were appreciative of the variety of analytical tools they learned in the program and could readily speak to their utility.

Another area of strength is Sustainability, Resilience, and Climate Justice. Though this is primarily covered in our Sustainable Cities course, (URP 6406), students mentioned many other courses when discussing this topic, such as Environmental Analysis in Planning (URP 6425) and GIS Applications in Planning (URP 6277). Generally the discussions offered by the students illustrate that sustainability and resilience concepts are integrated throughout the curriculum.

One area of growth over previous Learning Outcomes Assessments concerned Planning Process and Engagement. Previously students had struggled with finding adequate evidence and coursework related to Planning Process and Engagement. Changes implemented to Planning Project (URP 6979) and Site Planning (URP 6873) have shown clear dividends, as students mentioned both of these courses in addition to Planning Workshop (URP 6920) as courses that taught them about Planning Process and Engagement.

Areas of programmatic weaknesses were also discussed. These include:

• Professional Ethics and Responsibility
• Urban and Regional Development

Students seemed to be confused regarding the Learning Outcome related to Urban and Regional Development. Indeed, the current instructions seem to fuse positive and normative concepts within one learning outcome. We think that this Learning Outcome should be more narrowly crafted to focuses on the various forces shaping city growth and decline, and the impact of urban form on human activities, and leaving the issues of sustainability and resilience to Learning Outcome 3.B.