Additional Information

This section of the resource will provide useful information that can provide additional context on the key resources outline in the resource.

A Compressed Map is a map created from a full or complete Curriculum Map Matrix Document that has been tailored to a specific purpose involving the curriculum. A Compressed Map will only detail the material most directly relevant to the curriculum task at hand.  For example, if a task requires a Compressed Map to display the progression of Content Milestones, then all the cells in the document may be hidden except for the Course Learning Outcomes and the Content Milestones. This will provide a clear tracking of Milestone progression. Compressed Maps can be used for most curricular tasks. See below types of compressed curriculum maps:

  • Instruction Compressed Map – Excludes all material other than the Instructional Activities. This is an effective way to review the progression of instructional techniques from memorization through application and creation. This is also an effective way to assess if Instructional Techniques have been properly introduced before requiring more advanced or autonomous activities.
  • Assessment Compressed Map – Excludes all material other than the Assessment Activities. This is an effective way to review the specific assessments and how they contribute to the final Learning Outcomes, and Imposed Factors (Chan, Fong, Luk, and Ho, 2017). 
  • Course Compressed Maps – Focuses on learning intended to be completed at the same basic level, generally identified by beginning with the same course number. For example, core courses at the 2000 level. This provides an opportunity to assess that all curricular components are in alignment across the level. For example, ensuring that Emile Durkheim is introduced as a theorist in all Social Science courses before a comparison with Cloward and Ohlin’s Strain theory is introduced in a Criminology course.  These are also referred to as Horizontal Compressed Maps as assessment occurs or the curriculum is represented across a single level.
  • Vertically Compressed Maps –Focuses on the progression of discipline specific learning.  courses. For example, all courses in a particular department are assessed for Gaps and Redundancies within the discipline topic.  This can lead to more efficient courses by reducing the amount of duplication between courses. This can result in more effective courses by reducing areas of missing material and making sure the material is presented in a meaningful order.  For example, making sure the course progression introduces anatomical components before introducing symptoms associated with poor functioning of a particular anatomical structure.
  • Spiral Compressed Maps – Are less interested in learning structures like courses and instead focus on specific required concepts, often Content Milestones are appropriately distributed across the curriculum, then repeated regularly with increasing levels of complexity or in more complex applications (Bruner, 1960).  This is often used for trades, vocational and very prescribed programs. For example, in Construction Electrician, a “safety when working with electricity” may be introduced across several introductory courses in the first year. In the second year, “Safety when working with Alternating Current” may be developed across several courses. In year three Safety working with Direct Current” may be discussed across several courses. Finally, in year four, “Safety working with high voltage” may be discussed across several courses.  The course progression over those four years may focus on General Carpentry, Residential Applications, Industrial Applications, etc. For programs that are highly regulated or require significant safety protocols, a spiral approach to learning is important, and the Curriculum Map must demonstrate this approach.

While these maps have been presented individually, they are often combined to meet a particular purpose. For example, a Horizontal Assessment Maps can evaluate assessment activities across a year level of study, and Vertical Instruction Maps can provide insight into the appropriate complexity of instruction at different levels within a discipline. While four Compressed Maps have been identified, there exist as many as are needed to effectively represent a specific curriculum task

Ready to Get Back?

WHAT IS CURRICULUM

Any resource that addresses curriculum mapping must first seek to define curriculum. This is more challenging than it may initially appear as the word curriculum can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. Definitions of curriculum may include or exclude different ideological, conceptual, or philosophical understandings of the purpose and value of education. Oftentimes these definitions will focus on elements of social, political, and economic factors of particular importance to the individual seeking to construct the definition. As a result, there is no real consensus on how curriculum should be understood conceptually (O’Conner).

Since a concise definition of curriculum is elusive, this resource will focus on a more comprehensive description to address curriculum. Descriptions of curriculum range from extremely narrow to impossibly broad:

Some descriptions at the narrow end identify curriculum as “the subject comprising a course of study”.

Moving more broadly, the university of Delaware describes curriculum as “an interactive system of instruction and learning with specific goals, strategies, and measurements”.

Finally, Kelly (2009, p.13 ) provides an even broader description of curriculum with “the totality of the experiences had as a result of the educational activity”.

The three examples provided suggest that curriculum could be, “the subject taught” to “a system of instruction that includes the artifacts used to instruct, and assess learning” to “everything the learner experiences.”  While these descriptions are not consistent with each other, they all provide a similar function: that is to highlight what is recognized as curriculum and place clear boundaries on what is not. While the specifics of a curriculum are not evident, what is clear is that curriculum is a complex construct influenced by social, economic, and political factors that seeks to outline what is valued in education for a particular society. Further contributing to the complexity of curriculum is that this outline must identify educational knowledge, skills, and attitudes from the past that are relevant to the present while preparing the learner to be effective in the possible future. Curriculum is a big picture question of what matters now and where things are heading in the future, accounting for social, economic, and political reality while addressing day-to-day practical needs. Impossibly broad indeed.

Priestly (2021) argues that curriculum needs to be understood as created through the collective work of teachers, students, policy makers, families, and other agents to be effective. In this statement, Priestly (2021) provides an excellent opportunity for making a description of curriculum manageable. Curriculum is the complete whole of its purpose and guidance for a variety of user groups. By defining user groups and describing their use of curriculum, a comprehensive description of curriculum becomes possible. Priestly (2021) does this for us by defining the five separate “sites” at which curriculum work takes place. These are as follows:

  1. Supra – International curriculum policy creating organizations such as the UN and the OECD.
  2. Macro – National or system level curriculum framework led by government and agencies.
  3. Meso – Government curriculum agencies and textbook publishers.
  4. Micro – Institutional level curriculum decision-making.
  5. Nano – Classroom focused curriculum work created by instructors and students.

It is important to understand the level of influence between these different Sites of Curriculum. While some level of influence between groups is routinely evident, it is unlikely for one site to directly influence an adjacent site. For example, consider the experience of Canadian history classes at post secondary institutions. For decades, Canadian history classes (at the Nano Level) focused on studying the achievements of Europeans. Occasionally some class time would be used to discuss things like Louis Riel or other indigenous peoples would be acknowledged, however the focus was primarily on European achievements.  Then, some changes occurred at the levels described above.

At the Supra site, the international organization the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on Thursday September 13th, 2007. One hundred and forty-four nations voted in favour of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) with 11 nations abstaining from the vote, and four nations voting against the declaration. Canada was one of the votes against accepting this declaration [1].  This is not a direct challenge to existing curriculum, just a recognition of change in values and norms.

At the Macro site, and also in 2007, The Government of Canada began financially supporting the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) which was brought into existence as a result of “the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement”. The TRC continued its work between 2007 and 2015. In December of 2015, the TRC released its final six volume report with 94 “calls to action” as recommendations for reconciliation [2]. In May of 2016 Canada removed its official objection to UNDRIP[3].  Again, this was not a forceful challenge of current curriculum, but a clear indication of a change of perspective at the federal level.

At the Meso site, the province of British Columbia now requires that all teachers graduating from a BC teacher education program must complete at least three credits related to the historical context of First Nations, Inuit, and Metis learners[4].  While the province did make some direct changes to secondary curriculum, it did not do so for post-secondary, instead encouraging formal training for people studying to teach secondary education.

At the Micro site, Kwantlen Polytechnic University has identified Indigenization as a strategic priority for the University. [5] Again, this is a recognition of importance and demonstrates a change in recognized social values, however, it was not accompanied by an imposed curricular change.  

At the Nano site, the calendar description for the course history 1113, cultures in collision: Canada to 1867 identifies indigenous relations as the first topic to be covered in this course on Canadian history.[6] Now we have a direct curriculum change that reflects the changes in social values of education and promotes the understanding of the roles of indigenous people ahead of Europeans. 

To begin with, this is a very simple description of isolated occurrences around an exceptionally complex topic. This is not to suggest that any measurable or significant progress on reconciliation has been made, rather the intention is to explore how a change in stated social values influenced at one curricular site appears to influence changes at adjacent sites, and how these changes have reflected the curricular changes that occur in a classroom.  It does illustrate that adjacent sites of curriculum are more likely to express influence than directly control other sites of curriculum. Luke (2013) describes this by saying the different sites cannot capture or control curriculum work rather they can constrain and enable certain practices. The strongest influence is between the Mezzo, Micro, and Nano sites.  This is most evident when the Meso site develops an expected framework or guideline document that seeks to guide the parameters around how curriculum is interpreted within institutions at the Micro site, and how that is enacted in classrooms at the Nano site.

Through this model of different sites, some ideas around curriculum can be clarified.  Curriculum, the complex construct influenced by social, economic, and political factors also has different functions and functions differently at different sites. It follows from this that curriculum users at these different levels are using it differently.  This recalls Maslow’s (1966) quote, known as Malow’s Hammer, and the Law of The Instrument “I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail”.  Users will be acquainted with different functions and aspects of curriculum based on their setting.  This means people who are exceptionally familiar or experienced with Curriculum at their Curricular site may be unaware of Curriculum and its functions at other sites. 

This recognition is exceptionally helpful in understanding why descriptions of curriculum are inconsistent and so difficult to formulate. Looking back to the description examples from earlier in this resource, “The subjects comprising a course of study” speak clearly to a description of curriculum most familiar to students and instructors who are curriculum users, and inhabit the Nano site.  The second description, from the University of Delaware, “an interactive system of instruction and learning with specific goals, strategies, and measurements” Speaks clearly to a description of curriculum most familiar to instructors and institutional curriculum users who tend to inhabit the Micro site for Curriculum. From these two examples, it is clear that the curricular site a user inhabits significantly influences their understanding of and therefore description of curriculum.

This leaves Kelly’s (2009) description of Curriculum, which is “the totality of the experiences had as a result of the educational activity”.  It seems to include aspects of the Nano site of Curriculum. “Experiences had as a result of the educational activity” suggests the focus is on the actors in an educational activity, meaning the students and the instructors.  The phrase “Totality of experiences” add suggestions around both the Micro and Meso sites of curriculum.  From the student’s perspective alone, they will experience institutional strategy, culture, and priorities through an educational activity, emblematic of the Micro site.  Institutional strategy around enrollment and retention will be experiences through access to supports, services, and extra-curricular opportunities for students.  Institutional culture around education will be experienced through exposure to traditional educational practices like lecture and exams vs active learning and other data driven practices. Institutional priorities will be experienced through things like the currency or wear of facilitates such as lab equipment, computers, and study spaces. It is arguable that student will experience aspects from the Meso level such as a standardized testing, requirements for a professional organization or to meet industry standards.  From this it is evident that while the sites are distinct, that some users may have access (and thus awareness of curricular functions) to more than one site at a time. These users’ descriptions of curriculum will be broader than users who work at or are aware of only one site of curriculum.

Understanding that curriculum exists at multiple sites helps contextualize why some descriptions are very narrow and others are impossibly broad. Another reason for broad descriptions of curriculum like Kelly’s above, is because there are multiple categories of curriculum involved in any individual educational activity. When first exploring the concept of curriculum it is common for people to think of the curriculum they are familiar with. This is usually the curriculum people have used before as students, which is found in the classroom, located at the Nano site. This tends to be the written or identified instructions, learning goals and practices documented as the Implementation of an educational activity, which can also be referred to as the written curriculum. In most cases, the written curriculum is only one category of the curriculum involved in any individual educational activity.

Elliot Eisner (1985) felt that there were multiple curricula at work at any given time in any given educational activity. These curricula were the following:

  • The Explicit Curriculum – the explicit curriculum is the public or publicly stated goals and intentions promoted by the organization offering the educational activity.
  • The Implicit Curriculum – the implicit curriculum is the learning and interaction that occurs and is required for the explicit curriculum to transpire. Implicit curriculum may be intentional, or it may be unintentional.
  • The Null Curriculum – the null curriculum refers to what is explicitly systematically excluded, neglected, or not considered part of the curriculum. As an example, a course on Canadian history that addresses the achievements of European explorers without mentioning or while ignoring the experience of indigenous populations would include the experience of indigenous peoples in its null curriculum.

One thing to consider around null curriculum is in some cases material and concepts fall into the null curriculum not due to any explicit intentionality of the educator, but merely due to happenstance. For example, an instructor may choose to show a particular video or explore a particular book in class because they appreciate the writing style or the engagement of the material. This selection of material may exclude key or critical components that are not being intentionally excluded but are excluded due to their absence from the chosen material. This is an example why it is so important to understand the categories and sites of curriculum, its breadth and depth, its artifacts, and influences so Curriculum may be engaged with consciously, dynamically, and reflectively.

Larry Cuban (1993) proposed a framework of multiple curriculum as well. In his view, curriculum fell into four categories:

  1. Official curriculum – this can be found in curriculum guides and conforms with provincial, institutional, or departmental mandates.
  2. Taught curriculum – this is what individual teachers focused on and emphasize throughout the educational activity. Often these choices represent the teacher’s knowledge, beliefs and interests regarding how a subject should be taught.
  3. Learned curriculum – this encompasses all that students learn. The learned curriculum may be what teachers have planned or unrelated to the planned material.  It includes things students have learned directly through their interaction with their instructor, classmates and the subject matter or it may be learning adjacent to all the intended curriculum.  For example, a student may learn ideas around professionalism through observing and instructor’s modeling behaviour, or a student who has completed an undergraduate degree may come away from their program with the ability to successfully navigate a bureaucracy.
  4. The Tested curriculum – this refers to the assessments related to the educational activity.  More specifically the summative assessments that generate the grades that the students will receive for the educational activity.

Other theorists argue for as many as eight different curricula at work for any individual educational activity. There is no absolute answer to how many curriculum categories exist. Different curricular categories perform different functions, and as many exist as need to for the specific functions of the educational activity. Instead of detailing names of curriculum categories, it may be helpful to identify the functions of these categories. Looking at the identified categories from several theorists, categories seemed to fall into three separate themes:

  1. Instructor/Institution/System with intention,
  2. Instructor/Institution/System without intention,
  3. Student Learning/Experience.

The first theme, with intention, refers to all aspects of curriculum that are involved in a particular educational activity that have been consciously deliberately and reflectively considered for the educational activity and either included or rejected. This includes official and formal aspects of the curriculum that will be taught, and assessed and are expected to be learned or concepts that will not be covered. Each of these areas will have been considered and likely will have a rationale around their inclusion or exclusion. Obviously, this is the theme in which most educational professionals work and can make the most gains or improvements.

The second theme, without intention, refers to all aspects of the curriculum that are involved in a particular educational activity that have not been considered at all. this may involve artifacts that have been included or excluded in the educational activity, and this has been done so blindly. There has been no consideration, consciously deliberately or reflectively on this material. All actors involved in the planning of the educational activity are oblivious to these artifacts. This theme represents the areas where educational professionals do not work or consider at all. It is in the best interest of all students and educational professionals associated with an educational activity to try to reduce the material in this theme to the minimal amount possible. The less that exists was within this theme, the more material that has been consciously considered and decided upon. This yields the lowest number of confounding variables possible.

The third theme, student learning, involves all knowledge skills attitudes values or beliefs developed by the student relevant to the educational activity between the beginning and sometime after the end of that activity. This accounts for the totality of the students experience for the duration of the impact of the educational activity. If it were possible to have the student complete a diagnostic assessment at the beginning and end of the educational activity it would be possible to measure the total welcome. The reason this theme is described with the phrase “sometime after the educational activity is complete” is many institutions will try to instill reflective practice in their learners, and the outcome of the learning continues for some time in the student’s life following the end of the specific educational activity (For more information on reflective learning please see the following material on E portfolios).

The more comprehensive we are with the first theme, the fewer challenges are represented by the 2nd theme, and the better we can anticipate the totality of the third theme.

Understanding the functions of the different sites and types (or themes) of curriculum will support educators in moving beyond awareness of the explicit, formal, Nano curriculum they are familiar with, to recognize the deep influences on curriculum made by environment, values, metaphors, power relationships, and the norms that affect educators’ and stakeholders’ ideas about what is correct or appropriate for an educational activity.  With this recognition, curriculum users are in a better position to fully consider the total sphere of influence on and functioning in curriculum, allowing for the construction of a description that is more reflective of the totality of curriculum. Even if the description is narrower in scope, the recognition of total curricular breadth suggests that curriculum users were intentional in narrowing the scope of their description of curriculum.  With this recognition in mind, most operational curriculum operating at an institutional level will focus on all characteristics or themes of curriculum at work in the final three sites of curriculum; that is the Meso, Micro, and Nano sites.  

As this resource progresses it will lean towards a much broader description of curriculum, this is “the totality of all content, material, resource and environment inside the class and the economic, social and political influences outside the class for the educational activity that impact all aspects of what is learned and not learned.” This is a very wordy description to be explicit in including factors of distinction for this resource. The breadth of this description will sufficiently allow for the scope of information needed to provide an acceptable foundation for exploring the components and functions of curriculum and its mapping.

Aside from a broader perspective on curriculum, there is value in understanding what is driving curriculum. Inquiry into curriculum, or Curricular Inquiry is a means of seeking to understand the ideological, conceptual, and philosophical structures of educational purpose (O’Conner, 2023). As educators understand more about the factors that shape the environment, content and culture that they work and teach in, educators are able to examine their beliefs and actions and take control of their instruction and work (Short, 2001). With a clear understanding of the factors behind the curriculum they work with, educators are more able to be intentional about their instructional delivery. They may be able to select materials or examples that accentuate the influences that underlie the curriculum, they are able to choose examples that illustrate a counter point to the factors driving curriculum and with a deeper understanding of their own, they are able to construct assessments that measure understanding of the content and the rationale background and intention behind the material.  With a better understanding of what is to be taught, how it is to be taught and why it is to be taught, educators are better prepared to facilitate a fuller education for their students.

For curriculum designers this is even more important. Designing a curriculum becomes about much more than just content when there is a recognition of the factors involved in the structures that shape the curriculum. Engaging in inquiry as a curriculum development team allows the team to identify the factors they want to promote, those they want to acknowledge, and those they reject during the development of the curriculum. It also makes clear the biases of individual team members, discipline decisions based on developing learner capacity and discipline decisions based on political trends.  As important as these nuances are too detail during the creation of the curriculum, they become even more important for future reviews of the curriculum. Having this information documented takes the guesswork out of the future review teams’ process.

Curriculum Inquiry provides valuable insight for educators implementing a curriculum and curriculum design teams now and in the future. With curriculum being as complex as previously described, inquiry into curriculum is equally varied. Numerous research modes, forms, genres and purposes exist including action research, narrative inquiry, the scholarship of teaching and learning and others, each representing a different historical or epistemological tradition.

Each of these traditions have merit and represent a very formal and rigorous perspective on curriculum. This resource recommends a less daunting and more focused approach, intended for the practitioner who is implementing curriculum or the practitioner who is on a curriculum development team that will be developing, reviewing, or revising curriculum. Exploring the different methodologies outlined by the more formal forms of inquiry, consistent components become evident.

These are:

  • Reflection
  • Critical Thought
  • Investigation

The reflection stage seeks to define the questions that need to be asked in an inquiry of curriculum, to define the scope of the content and context of the curriculum; that is what is important about the educational activity, to the curriculum development team, to the instructor, to the learner, and to all who the learner will interact with as someone who has completed the educational activity in questions. Reflection is partly driven by the discussion of curriculum above. Reflection will consider the five sites of curriculum, the various types of curriculum and their implied values. Reflection seeks to answer “What must be considered regarding the context and content of curriculum?” “What are the factors and actors that influence, enable, and restrict curriculum, and how do they do this?”  Most importantly this includes reflection on the practitioner’s own values. What do they feel is particularly important about the content or context, why is this important? Also considered is the purpose and intention of likely learners of the educational activity related to the curriculum in question. Reflection will support:

  • Practitioners implementing a curriculum, by establishing iteration specific situations that the instructor may promote and have a greater potential to appeal to the learner meaningfully
  • Practitioners developing a curriculum, by clearly defining and identifying all the external influences that will shape the curriculum while providing deliberate space for the interests of the Subject Matter Experts developing the curriculum to include their interests related to the discipline
  • Practitioners reviewing or revising a curriculum by clearly identifying the external and Curriculum Development team relevant factors that were intentional an integral to the development of the existing curriculum.

Critical thinking will be used to evaluate the ideas generated during reflection. This is an important component of Curriculum Inquiry as the questions generated need to be proven to be both valid and reliable for a curriculum representing a particular educational activity. During the critical thinking stage, practitioners must look for biases, gaps and falsehoods in the questions and ideas identified through the reflection stage. Some questions to help this process include:

  • Why is this discipline question important for the instructor/Subject Matter Expert/learner?
  • Why is this discipline important?
  • Who is impacted by this discipline?
  • How are they impacted?
  • How does this curriculum address the needs of those who are impacted?
  • What external factors impact this discipline?
  • What skill sets or abilities will people need to be successful in this discipline; as a career? for future study?
  • What are the possible future directions of this discipline?
  • What are the benefits and challenges of these directions?
  • Does the curriculum development team prefer future direction of this discipline?
  • If so, what and why?
  • What were the key factors that resulted in the development of this educational activity?
  • What prevailing ideas have not been included?
  • What are the biases that the curriculum development team brings?
  • What has been excluded?

This is not a comprehensive list, but is included as a starting point to support validating the ideas generated in the Reflection stage and identify ideas that were overlooked. It is also expected that during this phase broader, unanswerable questions will be broken down into their component parts that are answerable. With the questions verified and validated, the next stage may begin.

Investigation will seek to answer the questions constructed and validated in Reflection and Critical Thinking respectively. Determining answers for these questions will support:

  • Practitioners implementing a curriculum by, providing insight into the factors and influences that led to the curriculum documented on the syllabus they have been asked to teach
  • Practitioners developing a curriculum by, outlining the factors, that the Curriculum Development Team must respond to through their choices on what to include or exclude in the documented curriculum
  • Practitioners reviewing or revising a curriculum by, providing insight into the factors influencing and restricting the decisions made by the Curriculum Development Team who created the written curriculum under reviewer revision, and if these are still relevant.

With all components of the Curriculum Inquiry complete, the practitioners have a clearer and valid understanding of the scope of the curriculum they’re working with, and the factors that are influencing and restricting it.

No form of inquiry can engage with all curricular elements at all sites at the same time (O’Conner, 2023), however a heuristic exists that provides the means for us both to see and the question explicit practice, underlying beliefs about teaching and learning implementation questions of curricular work and implicit social and political visions. This is to use culture as a form of Curricular Inquiry.

This is explicit open this provides framework with which to conceive of the culture under which the curriculum has been developed. This framework allows a targeted a comprehensive mode of inquiry for all curriculum users. There are many frameworks that have been recommended however the one this resource supports are as follows.

FocusDescriptionWhat are the Existing Beliefs and Norms in Classrooms and Institutions?What are your Beliefs?How can these Beliefs be Reflected in Practice?
VisionsWhat is the ultimate purpose of education   
StudentsStudent needs and how they learn?   
TeachersRole of teachers   
ContentSubject matter   
ContextEnvironment of the classroom in school   
PlanningHow curriculum should be planned and who should be involved?   
EvaluationHow students should be assessed in curriculum evaluated   

Ready to Get Back?

Ready to Get Back?