Public Information

Learning Outcomes Assessment Process

Academic Year 2024-25 was the FAU Department of Urban and Regional Planning's 8th year of implementing the Master of Urban and Regional Planning portfolio as our primary Learning Outcome Assessment process. Eleven (11) students submitted portfolios as part of the Planning Project course offered in the Spring of 2025. For the first time, nearly all faculty were involved with the portfolio review process, as recommended by the Planning Accreditation Board’s Site Visit Team. Involved faculty included: Diana Mitsova, Yanmei Li, Louis Merlin, Melina Matos, Peter Henn, Stephanie Wakefield, and Jun Wang.  FAU’s Learning Outcomes are based upon Planning Accreditation Board’s 2022 programmatic Learning Outcomes but have been revised slightly over the years for clarification.

The instructions encourage the students to explain their comprehension and document their learning of the nine (9) Learning Outcomes as articulated by the Planning Accreditation Board requirements. Students are asked to respond to all learning outcomes under the three subsections of General Planning Knowledge, Planning Skills, and Values and Ethics. In addition, students are asked to submit an updated professional resume and a professional reflection concerning their career outlook.

For each learning outcome, students are asked to provide documented relevant evidence from their MURP work products. Students are also invited to identify which MURP courses best address the specific Learning Outcomes. These documents are provided as appendices supporting each student's Portfolio.

DURP faculty met at a retreat on Friday, October 10^th, 2025, and discussed findings from the portfolio review process. Faculty were asked to identify the program's strengths and weaknesses and propose possible improvements to the MURP curriculum in response to any shortcomings.

Findings

Ten (10) out of eleven (11) students met all the learning outcome standards (scoring at least 80 on each standard). One student significantly skewed the average results below past averages. Based on this impact, we have decided to look at medians and refine our assessment criteria in the future.

The average score for General Planning Knowledge was 89.9% with a median of 91.5%, the average score for Planning Skills was 90.3% with a median of 93.5%, and the average score for Values and Ethics was 90.9% with a median of 92.8%. All of these average scores are slightly lower than those in the 2023-24 AY, due to one outlier student.

The MURP faculty discussed areas of programmatic strength and weakness, as reflected through the portfolio reviews. Areas of high achievement with regard to learning outcomes were as follows:

• Analytical Skills and Tools (Median 92.5%)
• Planning Law and Institutions (Median 94.5%)
• Planning Process and Engagement (Median 95.0%)
• Sustainability, Resilience and Climate Justice (Median 94.5%)

Sustainability, Resilience, and Climate Justice are among the strongest areas of our curriculum. Though this area is primarily covered in our Sustainable Cities course (URP 6406), students mentioned many other courses when addressing this topic, such as Environmental Analysis in Planning (URP 6425) and Environmental Policy and Programs (URP 6429). The discussions offered by the students illustrate that sustainability and resilience concepts are well integrated throughout the curriculum.

Analytical Skills and Tools continue to be one of our programmatic strengths. Three areas of planning methods are emphasized through various course offerings, including economic and demographic analysis, statistics, and GIS. The GIS courses include the core course URP 6270 Introduction to GIS as well as other GIS courses as part of the graduate GIS Certificate. In their portfolios, students commonly mentioned three core classes as evidence of the learning outcome: Planning Methods (URP 6200), Statistics for Urban Planning (URP 6211), and Introduction to GIS (URP 6270). Students appreciated the variety of analytical tools they learned in the program and could readily speak to their utility.

Planning Law and Institutions continue to be a strong area in our curriculum. The students draw their knowledge in this area from the instruction in URP 6131 Legal Aspects of Planning and URP 6115 Urban Governance. In previous years, URP 6115 was taught by an adjunct faculty, but the course is much improved now that it is covered by our full-time Senior Instructor.

One growth area over previous Learning Outcomes Assessment concerned the 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).

Areas for improvement include criterion 1A Planning History and Theory (Median 90.0%) and criterion 1C Urban and Regional Development (Median 90.0%). Note that the faculty traditionally tasked with teaching URP 6840, Urban Spatial Structure, which essentially covers 1C, was on sabbatical in Fall 2024, which may explain the slight decline in this area. Faculty discussed that some students overemphasize the effect of planning on shaping cities, when many social and economic forces outside of plans and planning shape cities as well. Faculty discussed additional potential elective courses in this area.