Student Achievement
Seventy-one percent of current students pursuing a bachelor of science in regional planning at IUP have engaged in professional internships or similar professional learning opportunities. The program’s close ties with planning professionals in the private, public, and nonprofit sectors directly led to 100 percent of last year’s BS graduates’ full-time, gainful employment in county government, local government, metropolitan planning organizations, private architecture and engineering firms, or graduate school.
Program Outcome 4: Community Resiliency and Sustainability
Integrate knowledge of issues related to community resiliency and sustainability, such as social equity, inclusion, diversity in society and the environment, the human-environment interaction, public participation, and social justice.
Direct Assessment Indicator 1: Analysis of Internship Supervisor Evaluation
Data Source: RGPL 493 internship (data collected by Dr. B. Okey)
RGPL 493 Internship is required by the BS Regional Planning program. Students work as interns in various county, municipality, and other regional-level planning agencies/departments (e.g., Indiana County Office of Planning and Development regularly recruits interns from our program). Our department provides a Post-Internship Evaluation Form to on-site supervisors, who are required to evaluate students after the internship is completed. For this assessment, Post-Internship Evaluations are analyzed for seven students who completed their internships between May 2019 and July 2020.
Level of ranking obtained by seven students across the evaluation categories is reported below.
Evaluation Categories | Rankings | ∑ Sample Size |
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
NA |
||
Communication with on-site supervisor |
6 |
1 |
7 |
|||||
Cooperation with site personnel |
6 |
1 |
7 |
|||||
Enthusiasm toward assigned responsibilities |
7 |
7 |
||||||
Reliability in completing assigned tasks |
6 |
1 |
7 |
|||||
Initiative to take on additional responsibilities |
6 |
1 |
7 |
|||||
Skill in utilizing facilities and equipment |
4 |
3 |
7 |
|||||
Basic knowledge of field |
3 |
4 |
7 |
|||||
Effort to improve knowledge of field |
6 |
1 |
7 |
|||||
Flexibility/Adaptability |
6 |
1 |
7 |
|||||
Response to criticism |
6 |
1 |
7 |
|||||
Leadership potential |
4 |
3 |
7 |
|||||
Overall on-site performance |
7 |
7 |
Ranking Explanation:
1. Superior performance
2. Above average performance continued improvement over the course of the
3. Average level of performance, commitment to improve
4. Average level of performance, minimal effort to
5. Less than satisfactory
6. Unacceptable level of performance
NA. Insufficient evidence to evaluate in this category
Evaluation Categories | Summary |
---|---|
Communication with on-site supervisor |
86% students exhibited superior performance; 14% students performed above average |
Cooperation with site personnel |
86% students exhibited superior performance; 14% students performed above average |
Enthusiasm toward assigned responsibilities |
100% students exhibited superior performance |
Reliability in completing assigned tasks |
86% students exhibited superior performance; 14% students performed above average |
Initiative to take on additional responsibilities |
86% students exhibited superior performance; 14% students performed above average |
Skill in utilizing facilities and equipment |
57% students exhibited superior performance; 43% students performed above average |
Basic knowledge of field |
43% students exhibited superior performance; 57% students performed above average |
Effort to improve knowledge of field |
86% students exhibited superior performance; 14% students performed above average |
Flexibility/Adaptability |
86% students exhibited superior performance; 14% students performed above average |
Response to criticism |
86% students exhibited superior performance; 14% students scored NA as there was insufficient evidence |
Leadership potential |
57% students exhibited superior performance; 43% students performed above average |
Overall on-site performance |
100% students exhibited superior performance |
Program Outcome 2: Analytic, Design, and Communication Skills
Apply written, oral, graphic, and visual communication skills in preparation and presentation of plans and research.
The capstone course RGPL 498: Planning Practicum taught in the fall semester is used to determine program student achievement. The course introduces students to the process of formal inquiry and helps them develop the skills needed to read and evaluate the research of others. Students are exposed to the development of structured questions to guide inquiry, bibliography research to set their inquiry in the context of the work of other scholars, research design, and the selection of research methods, and are taken through the development of an original research project paper. The course uses three assessment indicators: 1) Portfolio, 2) Research Paper, and 3) Research Presentation to determine mastery of Program Outcome 2: Analytic, Design and Communication skills: Apply written, oral, graphic, and visual communication skills in preparation and presentation of plans and research. A summary of performance of graduating seniors follows:
Summary of Indicator 1: Portfolio
Students are required to develop a professional portfolio, that includes a résumé, reflective essay on the major, highlights of at least six of their best work (projects/papers), and research project paper.
Eight student portfolios were evaluated by three faculty members and two external evaluators over the fall and spring semesters of AY 2018–19. The average evaluation scores are reported here. Out of eight students, five students (62.5%) exceeded expectations of the evaluators, and three students (37.5%) met expectations of the evaluators.
Summary of Indicator 2: Research Paper
Eight student research papers were evaluated by the instructor of the course. Out of eight students, four students (50%) exceeded requirements by scoring more than 90%, three students (37.5%) met the requirement by scoring between 80-89%, and one student (12.5%) met the requirement but below expectation by scoring between 70-79%.
Summary of Indicator 3: Research Presentation
Eight students presented their research orally to a jury of at least two faculty members and the instructor. The average evaluation scores are reported here. Out of eight students, five students (62.5%) exceeded expectations of the evaluators, and three students (37.5%) met expectations of the evaluators. In addition, students are required to present their research papers at the annual IUP Scholars Forum2, sponsored by the Graduate School during Research Week, prior to a final grade for the course. During the 2019 Scholars Forum, two students received university awards—one for oral presentation and another for best poster.
In-state Residents, per full-time academic year |
$11,290 |
Out-of-state Residents, per full-time academic year |
$16,199 |
Percentage of students who began studies in fall 2022 and continued into fall 2023 |
100% |
Percentage of students graduating within four years, entering class of 2019 |
100% |
Percentage of students graduating within six years, entering class of 2017 (for accredited undergrad) |
67% |
Number of degrees awarded for 2022–23 Academic Year |
7 |
Percentage of master’s graduates taking the AICP exam within three years who pass, graduating class of 2019 |
NA |
Percentage of bachelor’s graduates taking the AICP exam within five years who passed, graduating class of 2017 (for accredited undergrad) |
100% |
Percentage of all graduates obtaining professional planning, planning-related, or other positions within 12 months of graduation, graduating class of 2022 |
71% |