Accredited Programs Directory

Recreation, Parks, & Tourism Administration Program

The Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo Recreation, Parks, & Tourism Administration major is highly impacted with nearly 350 students, eight full-time and six part-time faculty. The program, established in 1976 has been accredited by COAPRT since 1985.

6 Year Graduation Rate: 94%
  • Outcome 1:
    In RPTA 101 Introduction to the Experience Industry, students were required to craft an essay on the final exam as a response to this prompt: “Please explain the shift to the experience economy in the United States and its impact on the interrelated areas of recreation, parks, tourism, special events, hospitality, and sport. (Note. By listing each of those areas, the intent is not for the student to cover each one, but rather, to focus on 1-2 and provide examples of how/why there has been a shift). In the essay, the students reflected on the history of the field and the future of the experience industry.”
  • Outcome 1 Measure Type:
  • Outcome 1 Assessment Method:
    Student grades out of 100 points were based on the following (equal weight of 20 points each): writing (grammar & flow), essay development, critical/creative thought, effectiveness in addressing the topic, and support for their points. Responses were graded using a qualitative grading rubric: A (90-100 points): Student displays an elevated understanding of the experience economy and is very effective in critically analyzing its impact. B (80-89 points): Student displays an acceptable level of understanding of the experience economy and is effective in critically analyzing its impact. C (70-79 points): Student displays limited understanding of the experience economy and is only marginally effective in critically analyzing its impact. D (60-69 points): Student displays little to no understanding of the experience economy and is ineffective in critically analyzing its impact. F (Less than 60 points): Student shows little to no regard for completing the essay in a manner reflective of engagement with the course and course material, and it is obvious that the student gave only minimal effort in crafting an essay.
  • Outcome 1 Result:
    Of the 60 students enrolled in the class in Fall 2017, the distribution of grades for the final exam essay were as follows: Grade Level Frequency Percent A (90-100 points) 25 students 41.67% B (80-89 points) 22 students 36.67% C (70-79 points 11 students 18.33% D (60-69 points) 2 students 3.33% F (under 60 points) 0 students 0.00% The goal of 80% of students reaching the threshold of 80% or greater was nearly achieved with 78.34% of students reaching the 80% threshold based on the grading rubric.
  • Outcome 2:
    In Spring 2018 (n=38) students in RPTA 360 Assessment and Evaluation in Experience Industry Management were assessed in an exam to determine achievement of the following learning objectives: Determine criteria for evaluation and assessment projects that are clear, specific, measurable, and relevant. • Determine and implement the best sampling techniques. • Identify and determine the appropriate course of action regarding ethical and legal issues associated with data collection and evaluation projects. • Design, plot, and implement appropriate instruments for gathering data. • Create a plan and gather data. • Analyze data using one or more common social sciences methods, both qualitative and quantitative. • Interpret findings, make conclusions, and provide recommendations.
  • Outcome 2 Measure Type:
  • Outcome 2 Assessment Method:
    Students in RPTA 360 in Spring 2018 (n=38) were assessed using a 55-item final exam that consisted of 41 multiple choice and 14 short answer questions.
  • Outcome 2 Result:
    According to the exam scores, students struggled the most with data levels, non-sampling error, sampling error, and behavioral observations Specific results for incorrect responses were: (1) Levels of data (2Qs) 33% incorrect, multiple choice; (2) Non-sampling error 33% incorrect, multiple choice; (3) sampling error, 27% incorrect, multiple choice; (4) Behavioral observations – latency timing, 27% incorrect, multiple choice; (5) Sampling/Non-sampling errors in drawing samples/giving surveys, 40% incorrect, short answer. Almost all of the students were able to explain specific methods for drawing a sample but were not able to explain or answer questions about sampling and non-sampling error. This topic is discussed in one course unit and reviewed briefly in a subsequent unit. To illustrate both sampling and non-sampling errors, the instructor used election results which may not have been applicable to student experience in a way sufficient to coalesce for the students.
  • Outcome 3:
    Four items from the student self-assessment conducted at the end of their Internship RPTA 465 pertain specifically to COAPRT Standard 7.03: coordinate operations and management of employees and participants in programs, effectively supervise program staff, understand issues relating to sustainability, and interpret budgets and analyze basic financial documents.
  • Outcome 3 Measure Type:
  • Outcome 3 Assessment Method:
    Following the internship, students were asked to rate their perceived competence on a particular dimension on a 1-4 Likert-type scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’ on statements indicating their perceived abilities. This assessment was collected using a SurveyMonkey questionnaire provided to the students on their course management system website.
  • Outcome 3 Result:
    Eighty-six students were enrolled in the RPTA 465 internship between Fall 2017 and Summer 2018, though only 70 completed the self-assessment using the online form. Students felt strongest about their ability to coordinate operations and manage employees and participants in programs, events, and service-based experiences (x Ì…=3.37, SD=.938). However, they also felt similarly about their abilities to effectively supervise program staff, understand issues pertaining to sustainability, and interpreting budgets and financial documents. The only item with a percentage below agree and strongly agree of at least 90% was interpreting budgets and financial documents.
    COAPRT Standard 2.05.05:  STD_20505
    COAPRT Standard 3.06:  STD_306
    COAPRT Standard 3.07:  STD_307