Content Curriculum Map Matrix Documents

With all the factors influencing curriculum explored, discussed, agreed to and documented, the Curriculum Team is able to begin developing the content, also known as the Curriculum Map or the Matrix Document. Each curriculum map will be unique for the educational activity it documents curriculum for.  Curriculum Maps are broad and complex documents, detailing as many essential aspects of curriculum as can be represented visually. Most complete Curriculum Maps will include the following:

These will be discussed in some detail below.

With an overall understanding of the context of the educational activity, the curriculum team is able to establish the content of the educational activity. In doing so, the Curriculum Team will begin to formalize the outcomes they want the graduates of the educational activity to demonstrate.  In doing this, the Curriculum Team is developing the outcomes for their program, also called Program Learning Outcomes.

Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) are learning outcomes from educational activities that occur at the program level. As learning outcomes describe a student’s ability upon culmination of an educational activity, all program level learning outcomes will speak to a student’s expected ability upon completion of a program of study. PLOs tend to be high level-learning outcomes. This means PLOs will not reference specific learning tasks or Course Learning Outcomes, but rather will speak to the graduate’s ability to synthesize and apply information available from multiple courses offered throughout the program to specific real-world situations.

Generally speaking, learning outcomes at the program level will be created before learning outcomes at the course or lesson level. Most people assume a specific number of outcomes for a program. A very general recommendation can be twelve PLOs for a degree, six PLOs for a diploma, and three PLOs for certificate, give or take two for each credential. 

Program Learning Outcomes are an essential component of curriculum maps and are included in even the most basic of Curriculum Maps. They are located in the top row of the Matrix Document. Program Learning Outcomes, like all learning outcomes, describe how a learner will demonstrate or be assessed regarding a piece of knowledge, a skill, or an attitude (KSA) and the conditions and criteria of that assessment.  It is highly recommended that the Curriculum Team constructing the Program Learning Outcomes document their ideas around the Assessment of the learning outcome during its creation.  For more information on Program Learning Outcomes and how to create them, please see our Learning Outcomes Asynchronous Resource.

2. Course Learning Outcomes

With the high-level outcomes established, the Curriculum Team begins identifying the core courses they feel will meet the Learning Outcomes for their program. 

The identified courses are plotted down the far-left column and the associated Course Learning Outcomes one column to the right.

Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) are learning outcomes from educational activities that occur at the course level. All course level learning outcomes will speak to a student’s expected ability upon completion of the course. Courses may appear at any level of the program. Some courses will introduce foundational material that other courses will reference and develop, and other courses will refine this material to an advanced state. It’s reasonable to assume that a student’s ability upon the culmination of a course with the material taught at the introductory or foundational level will be much less complex than a student’s ability with material taught at an advanced level. For this reason, Course Learning Outcomes are more challenging to create than Program Learning Outcomes. When creating a Course Learning Outcome, the Curriculum Team must be deliberate in assessing the level of complexity of the course and where it will appear in the program.

As with PLOs there are no set number of CLOs required for a course. Quality is more important than quantity in this case, and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) may use five CLOs per course, give or take 2 as a general target.  CLOs tend to be very aligned with the summative assessments for a course. Some Curriculum Teams will develop their assessments alongside the development of their outcomes to ensure this alignment.  When developing a curriculum, Program Learning Outcomes are generally developed first, followed by Course Learning Outcomes. When it comes time to assess a curriculum for quality, the curriculum is often assessed based on the intersection between the Course Learning Outcomes and the Program Learning Outcomes. These intersections are a critical component of Curriculum Mapping.

Course Learning Outcomes are another essential component of a Curriculum Map and are included in even the most basic of curriculum maps. They are located with the course titles in the far-left columns of the Curriculum Map.  Course Learning Outcomes, like all learning outcomes, describe how a learner will demonstrate or be assessed regarding a piece of knowledge, a skill, or an attitude (KSA) and the conditions and criteria of that assessment.  It is highly recommended that the Curriculum Team constructing the Course Learning Outcomes document their ideas around the assessment of the learning outcome during its creation.  For more information on Course Learning Outcomes please see our Learning Outcomes Asynchronous Resource.

3. Intersection of PLOs and CLOs (Implicit vs Explicit Intersections)

With the first draft of the program learning outcomes documented across the top of the Matrix Map, the courses with their associated Course Learning Outcomes documented in the two left columns, the Curriculum Team is in a position to identify intersections between the Course Learning Outcomes and the Program Learning Outcomes.

The Curriculum Team will review each individual Course Learning Outcome against each Program Learning Outcome. If the Course Learning Outcome supports or in some other way relates to the Program Learning Outcomes, then the intersection of the Course Learning Outcome and the Program Learning Outcome will be marked with an “X”.

Once assessed the curriculum team will assess the same Course Learning Outcome against the next Program Learning Outcome. This will continue until the Course Learning Outcome has been assessed against all of the Program Learning Outcomes. Once complete the Curriculum Team will move on to the next Course Learning Outcome and begin the process of assessing that against each of the Program Learning Outcomes. This process continues until all the Course Learning Outcome’s have been exhausted. This map of intersections between the Program Learning Outcomes and Course Learning Outcomes is called a Basic Curriculum Map.

The purpose of the Basic Curriculum Map is to determine how well the Program Learning Outcomes are represented or supported by the course choices. Will the courses selected support the achievement of the Program Learning Outcomes?  With the Basic Map completed, the Curriculum Team can begin evaluating the intersections to determine how well supported the Program Learning Outcomes are. The Curriculum Team is looking for:

Gaps – a lack of or a lower than expected number of intersections for any Course Learning Outcome or Program Learning Outcome.

Redundancy – too many intersections for any Course Learning Outcome or Program Learning Outcome.

If the Curriculum Team finds Program Learning Outcomes with gaps, they may question the wording, structure, or content of the Program Learning Outcome. If it is not well-intersected then the Learning Outcome may not truly be reflective of the program’s intentions and needs rewording or rethinking. If the Curriculum Team find gaps for Course Learning Outcomes, they may question if the course chosen is correct to meet the intentions of the program, or they may choose to rework the Learning Outcomes for the course to be better aligned with the Program Learning Outcomes.

If the Curriculum team finds a Program Learning Outcome is over represented by intersections with Course Learning Outcomes, then the Program Learning Outcome may be too broad, requiring revision.  If the Curriculum Team finds a Course Learning Outcome that is over-represented, they may wish to review and possibly revise the course outline. With this first map comes the first opportunity to check the validity and accuracy of the Learning Outcomes for the program. It is unlikely that the Curriculum Team will be successful with the first iteration of their basic map, and will need to rethink, rework, and revise some of their ideas. These iterations, changes, and rationale for the changes should be recorded and included in the Context Document.

IMPORTANT POINT: Explicit Vs Implicit Intersections

With the intersections identified, and any gaps or redundancies revised or explained, the Curriculum Team is able to determine how the intersections express the Program Learning Outcomes. That is, do the Course Learning Outcomes at each intersection explicitly support the Program Learning Outcome, or do they implicitly support the Program Learning Outcome? To do this, the Curriculum Team will review each intersection and determine if the Course Learning Outcome is explicit or implicit in the support of the Program Learning Outcome. For example, a Program Learning Outcome that articulates a graduate’s ability to work in teams may be explicitly supported by a Course Learning Outcome from a course on Project Management. The content required to achieve the Course Learning Outcome may include “determining or leading team roles on projects” which explicitly supports the Program Learning Outcome of “ability to work in teams”.  The same Program Learning Outcome may be implicitly supported by a different course’s Learning Outcome with unrelated content presented through a group project.  This unrelated course content presented through a group project will implicitly support the achievement of the graduate’s “ability to work in teams”. If the Curriculum Team determines an intersection to be implicitly supported, then they will change the “X” to an “M” for IMPLICIT. If the intersection is determined to be explicitly supported, then the “X” will remain for EXPLICIT.

Once complete, the Curriculum Team can total the intersection score for each Program Learning Outcome. As explicit support is clearer than implicit support, each “X” will be given a score of 2 and each “M” will be given a score of 1.  The resulting scores will provide a relative value for the support of each Program Learning Outcome.  The Curriculum Team may review the Curriculum Map for Gaps and Redundancies as denoted by the intersection scores.  There is no correct answer or range of scores that will determine if a Curriculum Map is correct or not. This is simply a tool to help identify outliers and allow the Curriculum Team an opportunity to correct or explain them.

Some educational activities, disciplines or programs are more suited to this type of analysis than others. The Curriculum team should have a discussion of whether to pursue this analysis, why or why not and document the results in the Context Document.

Once the Curriculum Team has created an iteration of the Curriculum Map with no gaps or redundancies that they feel confident with, they are ready to consider adding the imposed competencies to the Basic Curriculum Map.

4. Outcomes to Demonstrate Achievement of Imposed Factors

In the previous section we discussed Imposed Factors in some detail. As a reminder these are influences from the different sites and types (Olivia link to page 84 – sites of curriculum) of curricula that result in a direct imposition on the content of the curriculum, and must be represented within the Curriculum Content Matrix to demonstrate achievement.  Some of these factors will be true outcomes as defined in our Learning Outcomes Asynchronous Resource, and others will merely denote the occurrence of the required factor. Regardless of their form or function, these Imposed Factors will be represented in either the Program Learning Outcome row or the Course Learning Outcome column. It is important for the Curriculum Team to assess the most accurate placement for representing these Imposed Factors in a curriculum map.

Tip:

To help with identifying the intersections:

As stated above Course Learning Outcomes tend to describe a demonstration of a learner’s ability tied to a practical assessment and relevant instructional activity. Program Learning Outcomes on the other hand are a broad description of a graduate’s ability upon culmination of their program study that is demonstrated over time in their career or future studies outside of the Program being Mapped.  The statements use very different language that can be challenging to reconcile. 

To make this process easier, the curriculum Development team may choose to include an additional row of cells below the Program Learning Outcomes. Key content, descriptions and examples of Course Learning Outcome language that supports Program Learning Outcomes can be put into these cells and provide clarity to the scope and limitations of each corresponding Program Learning Outcome.

Please see an example below.


Factors included in the Program Learning Outcome (PLO) row will be assessed against each Course Learning Outcome in the curriculum. The PLO row is particularly useful for measuring:

  1. Imposed factors directly related to a specific course or discipline. For example, the occurrence of a Q/A course, or a requirement for 6 credits of ENGL.

  2. The progression of development for a topic or skill.  For example, required fitness benchmarks throughout a Human Kinetics program.

Factors included at the Course Learning Outcome level will only be assessed against the three, six or twelve Program Learning Outcomes, depending on the credential awarded upon completion of the educational activity. As there are so few outcomes to verify the factors against, the Course Learning Outcome column is best for documenting the occurrence of a specific Knowledge, Skill, or Attitude by the end of the academic activity. For example, the Essential Skills outlined by the Ministry would be best represented in the CLO column and measured by the intersection with the relevant PLO.

IMPORTANT POINT: Faculty or Department Imposed Factors

If the imposed factors include a series of courses required by the Faculty or Department level, for example, a shared foundation selection of courses, then the Curriculum Team may include these at both the CLO and PLO levels. The Curriculum Team may include the required courses below the educational activity courses. In some cases, these selections of courses have associated faculty level learning outcomes, and in other cases they have no learning outcomes. If learning outcomes exist for these courses, then these may be included next to the Program Learning Outcomes for the educational activity.  The Curriculum Team is then in a position to plot the intersections of all the course learning outcomes against the program learning outcomes for both the faculty requirements and the educational activity.  This will allow the Curriculum Team to assess for any gaps and redundancies between the educational activity and the imposed department/faculty factor.

Once the intersections have been assessed for Gaps and Redundancies, the Curriculum Team may review the intersections for implicit or explicit support of Program Level Learning Outcomes.  It is best for the Curriculum Team to be consistent with their previous choice, and assess the support of imposed factors if they have assessed the support previously. If the Curriculum Team chose not to assess for support of Program Level Learning Outcomes, then it is prudent to bypass assessment of imposed factors as well.

Again, the Curriculum Team determines the most appropriate way of representing these requirements, then documents the decision and rationale in the context document.

5. Map Evaluation Framework (IDA Analysis)

The basic map is effective for basic purposes. Curriculum Maps are much more informative and useful when the level or complexity of the intersections have been evaluated. There are many Curriculum Map evaluation frameworks available and each function in a very similar manner: to identify the level of complexity represented by the intersection of the Course Learning Outcome with the Program Learning Outcome.

Stated another way, the previous content explored if Program Learning Outcomes were supported by Course Learning Outcomes, the Map Evaluation Framework explores how Program Learning Outcomes are supported.  Is the content that supports the Program Learning Outcomes organized in a manner effective for learning?  The framework this resource will explore is the IDA framework.

IDA is an acronym for Introducing, Developing, and Advancing.  To apply this framework, the Curriculum Team reviews each intersection identified in the previous sections and determines if the content of the Course Learning Outcome is Introducing, Developing, or Advancing the Program Learning Outcome. Once determined, the Curriculum Team places a corresponding I, D, or A in a cell under the Program Learning Outcome, next to the cell indicating the Explicit/Implicit Statement of the Program Learning Outcome.

Once each intersection has been identified as Introducing, Developing or Advancing the Program Learning Outcomes, the Curriculum Team may examine the map for gaps, redundancies and misalignments. Similar to the earlier assessment, these are:

Gaps – a lack of or a lower than expected number of “I”, “D”, or “A”s intersections for any  Program Learning Outcome.

Redundancy – too many “I”, “D”, or “A”s intersections for any Course Learning Outcome or Program Learning Outcome.

Misalignments – “A” appearing before “D” or “D” appearing before “I” represents a misalignment of content.

Going through this process allows the Curriculum Team to measure if Program Learning Outcomes are being Introduced, Developed and Advanced appropriately. Where inconsistencies, or outliers exist, the Curriculum Team can address and revise, or provide an explanation for the content. Any description or rationale must be documented in the Context Document.

There is no correct number of “I”, “D” or “A” to attain. In general, Program Learning Outcomes are expected to occur with “I” preceding “D” preceding “A”, and there should be at least one Explicit support of each PLO at the “I” level. If the Curriculum Team has a rationale for why the format deviates from the expectation, all that is required is to document the rationale. This process is intended to make the content order visible and provide the Curriculum Team with an opportunity to review the content. With this level of content defined, evaluated and recorded, the Curriculum Team is able to turn its attention to other critical curriculum components.

6. Assessments & Instructional Activities

Most of the content this resource has discussed has been focused on learning outcomes, how they intersect, whether they support each other explicitly or implicitly, and the complexity of their intersection. While learning outcomes are critical to curriculum and curriculum mapping, there are two other components that need to be included in a curriculum map. These are:

  • Assessments
  • Instructional Activities

These three components taken together are so central and important to curriculum that they are guided by several theoretical and practical approaches. This resource will explore two in particular:

Constructive Alignment

John Biggs first posited the idea of Constructive Alignment. Constructive Alignment outlines three key components for any learning activity. These key components are:

  1. Learning Outcome – Demonstratable goal of the Learning activity. What the student will be able to do know or feel as a result of the lesson, course, program, etc.

  2. Planned learning activity – The format and method for delivering the educational material that will lead to the student meeting the planned and communicated outcome.

  3. Planned assessment – the format and type of assessment to determine that the learning articulated in the goal has been achieved

Biggs (2003) felt that these three components influenced and were influenced by each of the other components. More importantly, each of these components needs to align with the other components. For more information on Constructive Alignment, please see our Learning Outcomes resource. Learning Outcomes Resource.

Backward Design

Recognizing that all three components, (the intended learning outcomes, the learning activities, and the intended assessments) are important, influence and are influenced by each other leaves an obvious question – “where do we start?”. Wiggins and McTighe (2005) suggest that an effective approach to instructional design is to start with the end goal, also called Backward Design.

The first step in Backwards Design is to identify the desired results. What are the big ideas and skills that a student should know, do, or feel and how do they demonstrate this learning? These are also known as the Learning Outcomes

The next step is to determine acceptable levels of evidence that suggests that learning has occurred. What culminating assessment tasks are needed to provide evidence that the intended learning has taken place?

Finally, the instructor designs learning activities that seek to achieve the identified learning outcomes and will support the student to complete the assessment successfully. What are the necessary learning events?

The merits of this approach are that it is deliberately thought out to identify goals, identify assessment of those goals, and develop activities that will support achieving those goals. In this way, it comes much closer to achieving the instructor’s vision of student ability and their demonstration of that ability. For more information on Backward Design, please see our Learning Outcomes Asynchronous Resource.

Constructive Alignment outlines the importance of learning outcomes, assessments, and instructional activities, and their alignment as foundational for an effective curriculum. Backwards Design shows the order to approach these foundational components. This resource has addressed Learning Outcomes, the first component, in some detail and will explore the others in order.

There are thousands of types of assessments, but really only three purposes for assessment. These are:

Diagnostic

Formative

Summative

Diagnostic assessments are used at the beginning of the educational activity to measure the learner’s current ability before instruction. This allows the instructor an opportunity to tailor the material to the level of the learner, provides a baseline to measure ability at the end of the lesson and demonstrate that learning has taken place.

Formative assessments are used to provide feedback to the learner on how well they are progressing with the material taught during the educational activity. Formative assessments are also referred to as “assessments for learning” emphasizing their purpose in providing learners with an indication of their performance.  

Summative assessments are formal and final assessments used to measure a student’s performance in the educational activity and provide a grade reflective of this performance. For this reason, summative assessments are often referred to as “assessments of learning”. Summative assessments result in a formal grade, and are most often associated with a Course, rather than a Program or Lesson. Programs that require comprehensive exams for completion will also use summative assessments.

All Learning Outcomes are a statement of how a particular level of learning will be demonstrated or assessed. When a Learning Outcome (at any level) is created, the method of assessing the learning is necessarily identified, although it is not always recorded. This practice results in educators implementing a curriculum without knowing the Curriculum Teams intended assessments.  It is best practice for the Curriculum Team to record their considered assessments when they construct their Learning Outcomes. Some Curriculum Teams will develop their assessments alongside their Learning Outcome by using a table like the one pictured below.

Using a process like this supports the Curriculum Team in creating an assessment that is aligned with the Learning Outcome, and that is documented for future use. 

For more information about diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments please explore our asynchronous resource, Foundations of Teaching Excellence (FTE). This resource covers assessment purposes in depth as well as specific classroom assessment techniques and strategies. In addition to the module on assessments this asynchronous resource also provides in-depth information on the use of learning design, learning technologies, and inclusive teaching wrapped up in reflective practice.

Instructional activities address how educators and learners will participate with content, resources, and environment to achieve meaningful understanding and retention for the learner. Instructional Activities may take place in:

  • Classrooms
  • Clinical Settings
  • Field Work
  • Laboratories
  • Online
  • Work settings

It is important for Instructional Activities to be internally aligned.  That is, it is important that the content is well-aligned with the resources chosen, the resources are in alignment with the instructional setting, and the setting is in alignment with the content.  A lecture may work well in a classroom, or online, and it will not be as effective in a Work or Clinical Setting. A Lab, or Field Work may work well for experiential learning, and a video or a 600-page text book will not be an effective resource in these settings. As another example, the content must also be aligned. A lecture in class and a text book may be effective for introducing a theory in a course on Developmental Psychology, and group-based Fieldwork at a daycare centre may be effective for identifying known theory in situ, however, introducing a theory through fieldwork, or trying to identify real world examples of a known theory in class would be less effective.

Some programs are flexible, and others are quite prescriptive in what instructional activities are possible. It is important for the Curriculum Team to have these discussions and record their thoughts, where possible, to guide future educators and curriculum teams. For more information about Instructional Activities, please explore our asynchronous resource, Foundations of Teaching Excellence (FTE). This resource covers Learning Design, Learning Technologies, Inclusive Teaching and Reflective Practice in depth. These topics are essential to effective and efficient education while allowing for educator interests and student-directed learning.

Reviewing Constructive Alignment and Backward Design

Constructive Alignment states that learning outcomes, assessments, and instructional activities are essential in creating an aligned and high-quality curriculum. Backward Design helps with this process by providing a recommended order for Curriculum Teams to work through:

1st learning outcome,

2nd assessment of the learning outcome,

3rd the instructional activities to achieve the assessments.

In the case of a program that results in a credential, the Curriculum Team begins by developing new or reviewing and revising existing Program Learning Outcomes. Through this process, assessments related to the Learning Outcomes are directly created.  The Curriculum Team then considers the Instructional Activities required to achieve the assessments. These discussions and decisions are documented in the Context Document. Here the Curriculum Team may record their discussions and intentions around traditional versus modern learning, if there is an explicit intention to highlight particular instructional design or practices.  The Curriculum Team is also able to highlight how the Outcomes, Assessments and Instructional Activities are in alignment.  This will provide guidance to future Curriculum Teams and to educators implementing the curriculum.

Continuing with the program example, the Curriculum Team then establishes the core courses that will achieve their program’s outcomes. They will gather the Course Outlines for this selection of courses and identify the Course Learning Outcomes, Assessments and Instructional Activities. As discussed earlier, Constructive Alignment requires the creation or consideration of Assessments and Instructional Activities along with the development of Learning Outcomes. All of this information will be available on the Course Outline.  If it is not available or if this is a new course, then the Curriculum Teams will develop the information or the course that supports the program. 

The Curriculum Team will document any new information developed along with a rationale in the Context Document. As the courses are where the Summative Assessments exist, and therefore generate grades, these will be recorded on the Curriculum Content Matrix. As previously identified, Assessments are considered in conjunction with all Learning Outcomes and should be documented with the Course Learning Outcomes. Learning Activities to achieve the Assessments should also be documented with the other course information.

At its most basic level, the Curriculum Content Matrix is a record of the intersections between Learning Outcomes at the Program Level with those at the Course level.  For this reason, the Program Learning Outcomes and the Course Learning Outcomes are best represented in their complete states.  Space, on the Curriculum Content Matrix, however, is limited and the Curriculum Team will want to discuss and agree to the representation of the Assessment and Instructional Activities that are recorded on the Curriculum Content Matrix, and document this in the Curriculum Context.  Again, this is not intended to restrict future users of the curriculum from choosing a different assessment strategy or a different Instructional activity, rather, it is intended to showcase the thinking behind the curriculum and provide some guidance around alignment of curriculum components.

TIp:

Each course contains several Learning Outcomes, requiring multiple Lesson Learning Outcomes to achieve. Consider a very basic approach to learning is:

  1. Introduction of Material – Instructor-centric. Presenting and discussing a new concept.
  2. Controlled Practice – Learner and instructor activity where the learner interacts with the material and the instructor corrects the interaction so that the learner’s understanding of the concept closely resembles the instructor’s understanding.
  3. Free Practice – Learner-centric. The learner takes the new concept and incorporates it into their mental schema by applying the concept to existing understanding and new ideas, creating meaningful use of the concept unique to their understanding and outlook. 

The above approach may use any number of activities to meet each section. Introduction of Material may occur via a lecture, a reading, a video, or some other delivery method. Controlled Practice may occur through direct interaction with the instructor, a quiz, or an active learning activity such as a Think-Pair-Share. Free practice provides the learner with some structure that they use to create new meaning with the material learned. This could be a research paper, a group project or a presentation.

Each of the above-mentioned sections may be used to help learners achieve Lesson Learning Outcomes, and there are often several Lesson Learning Outcomes for each Course Learning Outcome. This is how a single Course Learning Outcome may support several Program Learning Outcomes. The support may be due to the full Course Learning Outcome, or sections of the Course Learning Outcome.  This is also why the Same Course Learning Outcome may describe different Assessments or Instructional Activities for the same Course Learning Outcome.

Each component must be reviewed by the Curriculum Team to verify that it is aligned with their corresponding components.  Learning Outcomes will describe a level of complexity and means of assessment. The Assessment component must reflect the nature of the Learning Outcome.  For example, an advanced understanding of a theory is likely not best-assessed with a True or False quiz.  Similarly, with the assessments detailed, the instructional Activity to achieve them should be aligned with the Assessment. For example, if a Learning Outcome is “identify and perform a chemical reaction to yield a prescribed result” and the assessment is “perform a single replacement reaction using zinc and hydrochloric acid to yield 50 ml of hydrogen”, then the Instructional Activity should involve lab time rather than just a lecture.  It may be possible to learn this reaction from a lecture, however, the intention of the Instructional Activity is to “achieve meaningful understanding and retention for the learner”. This would certainly improve with experiential learning in the lab.

Some disciplines, like medical schools, professional programs, and trades are very prescribed. These programs will have assessments and instructional activities established and approved for regulatory or licensing purposes.  In these cases, the Curriculum Team will likely have some significant documentation to support their process (See Al-Eyd, G. 2018 for examples). In other cases, the disciplines, like traditional academics including humanities and the arts, have extremely flexible programs with educators who may find the suggestions of assessments and Instructional activities to be offensively limiting.  In these cases, the Curriculum Team may provide guidance and recommendations around Assessments and Instructional Activities to consider, with a rationale for their suggestion.  This is a conversation the Curriculum Team must have, and document their discussion and decision in the context document.  In any event, the Curriculum Team with a prescribed program may be limited in their ability to deviate from the prescribed outcomes, assessments, and instruction, while the flexible programs may be as flexible or prescribed as they choose.  They just need to document their rationale in either case in the Context Document.

All the components discussed to this point are directly included and reported in the Curriculum Content Matrix. These next four components can be seen as essential material required to support the Curriculum Map. These will illuminate areas prone to being ignored or misunderstood as they are not located on the Curriculum Map, but most often occur on Course Outlines.

7. Course Outlines

Course Outlines are documents that presents key information regarding the course, its structure, duration and intentions.  This contrasts with the Course Syllabus, which is a document that details key information regarding a specific iteration of a course, usually with dates, times, and locations included.  Different terms are used to describe a Course Outline, including Course Presentations, Course Descriptions, and Course Prospectus, and for the purpose of this resource, the term Course Outline will be used.

Course Outlines exist for all types of courses. Informal courses will often have a truncated description outlining structure, duration, and intentions, while more formal settings like K-12, College, and Universities will include official Course Outlines that detail information required by the institution, the department, the program, and any regulating organization as well as learner-centric information around course structure, duration, and intentions. Some of this more formal information includes:

  • Official Course Title
  • Official Course Number
  • Official Course Name
  • Official Course Description
  • Academic Level
  • Faculty
  • Department
  • Implementation Date of Current Iteration
  • History of Previous Iterations
  • Subject Code
  • Descriptive title
  • Short title
  • Credits

This more formal Course Outline information is often documented in formal policies. As an example, Kwantlen Polytechnic University’s Policy AC4 and accompanying Procedure defines Course Outlines, their purpose and scope as follows”

“Course Outline: The official description of a course taught at KPU. Each active course must have an up-to-date, Senate-approved course outline. Course outlines serve four purposes:

  1. They contain the learning outcomes, content, learning activities, assessment methods, and other curricular information that ensures consistency among instructors.
  2. They are used for establishing transfer credit articulation agreements with other institutions.
  3. They represent an agreement that the instructor, as a representative of the University, will provide students with a particular learning experience.
  4. They outline the conditions for enrolment and academic credit.”

These more formal Course Outlines often represent a legally binding document; a contract between the learner and the institution detailing what will be covered by the course.  They also include information that is important for Curriculum Teams and educators implementing a curriculum to consider. Some examples of this include:

Instructional Activity Distribution – where or how the course was planned to be offered? In class, in a lab, or online etc. This is an important consideration as courses planned for one setting may require different practices, planning or scaffolding to optimize the content for other settings.

Prerequisites – what course work must be completed before a learner is able to take the existing course? This helps identify the content that needs to be completed in advance for a learner to be successful in achieving the Course Learning Outcomes.

Corequisites – what coursework must be undertaken simultaneously for a learner to be able to take a course? This identifies the content, often too broad in scope for one course, that must be taken concurrently for the student to successfully achieve the Course Learning Outcomes.

While this information does exist in most formal Course Outcomes, it is helpful for Curriculum Teams to consider and essential for educators implementing a curriculum to apply, in delivering an effective educational activity, this information is not essential for a Curriculum Content Matrix.  The Information from a Course Outline that is essential for the Curriculum Content Matrix is the previously discussed Course Learning Outcomes and Assessments. What hasn’t been covered is Course Content. Course Outlines may organize Course Content in different structures, from completely flexible and informal, through to rigid and prescribed.  Some examples include:

  • Learning Content
  • Learning Activities
  • Lesson Learning Outcomes
  • Content Milestones

Learning content is the least formal and most flexible way of organizing the material to be covered in a course. This is usually organized as a basic list of topics or information that will be covered. The benefits of this approach are that it is open, flexible, and allows the educators implementing the curriculum full accountability and creativity to deliver the course the way they choose to. The downside of this organizational structure is no thought process or rationale for the decisions will be recorded; meaning there is an increased possibility of inconsistent experience for students taking different iterations of the course. Additionally, as this focuses on the content that will be delivered, it is very instructor-centric and not conducive to effective instruction.  This puts the onus of designing and delivering effective instruction completely on the educator implementing the curriculum with no input from the Curriculum Development Team.  This organizational structure is most relevant to informal learning with little to no oversight.  When this organizational structure is used, it is most often included as a list of content.

Organizing Course Content into Learning Activities moves the focus from what will be covered to how it will be covered. This Learning Activities organizational structure is quite flexible in that the structure can be general or very specific. For example, Learning Activities could be as general as “attending lectures”, or as specific as “using field work placements to test successful case-studies practices in industrial settings outside of class”. The benefits of this approach are that it is as flexible or as rigid as the course needs it to be. It allows the Curriculum Team to provide guidance for educators implementing the curriculum, and as it is focused on the delivery of the learning, it is more student-centric than a basic list of content. The challenges of this approach are that it doesn’t provide a full description of the content to be learned, and the descriptions alone are often not sufficient to implement a curriculum effectively. When this organizational structure is used, it is most often a list; a sentence with active verbs as the first word.

Organizing Course Content into Lesson Learning Outcomes moves the focus from what will be covered and how it will be covered, to how will the student demonstrate they have achieved the learning intended by the course. Lesson Learning Outcomes are goals of an educational activity that occur at the lesson level. Lesson Learning Outcomes describe a student’s ability upon culmination of a lesson.  There is no specific number of Lesson Learning Outcomes required for any course, however the correct number is as many as is required to properly scaffold a learner’s experience so they are successful in the assessments associated with the Course Learning Outcomes.  Benefits of this organizational structure are that it is well thought out on creation, provides significant guidance around implementation and it is completely student centred. Challenges with this structure are that it takes time to develop and to understand during implementation (they can also be somewhat rigid).  Lesson Learning Outcomes are most often used by educators implementing a curriculum; as they prepare to deliver their lessons, they prepare the Lesson Learning Outcomes.  This is impacted by the needs of the discipline. In some cases, again, medical, vocational, and trades, the Lesson Learning Outcomes are prescribed in advance, restricting the implementation of the curriculum. Other disciplines that are more open and flexible may not prepare Lesson Learning Outcomes at the curriculum-level at all.  This is unfortunate, as this is a valuable organizational structure at the Curriculum Development Level, providing guidance and alignment with respect to the intentions of the curriculum designers. 

For more information on Lesson Learning Outcomes please see our Learning Outcomes Asynchronous Resource. For hands on experience developing Lesson Learning Outcomes, please register for the Instructional Skills Workshop (ISW). Information regarding the Instructional Skills Workshop schedule and how to register is available here.

Content Milestones function a little differently from the above. While the Learning Content, Learning Activities, and Lesson Learning Outcomes all represent a different way of organizing the content, Content Milestones are more a method of identifying the content.  While all content presented in the lessons, course, and program is important, some parts of the content is critical and must be learned first or in a particular order for the overall program to be effective.  Some examples of this may include:

  • Foundational – content (specific knowledge, skills or attitudes) that is foundational to the learning of all other content.
  • Ordinal – some content must be learned in a particular order. Learning the material out of order can significantly disrupt the overall learning. For example in an electrician program, it is important to learn about the safety requirements for Direct Current, Alternating Current and High Current before learning about their applications.
  • Thematic – required for understanding enduring themes of the discipline.
  • Essential – this could be the key indicators of learning identified as essential by the Curriculum Team.

Many types of Content Milestones may exist, and it is the responsibility of the Curriculum Development Team to Identify them. Identifying the Content Milestones allows the Curriculum Development Team to identify important content, basic indicators of effectiveness, evaluate for the presence of this content, document and record the key content in the Context Document. This also allows for more detailed assessment of the curriculum. Content Milestones that are not identified may lead to unintended Curriculum Road Blocks, where learners are required to take a particular course before being able to proceed and the institution struggles to keep up with the demand.  Identifying Milestones allows them to be deliberately distributed across more of the program.

With the Content Milestones identified, the educator implementing the curriculum is aware of which part of the content are essential instead of important, improving transparency and consistency across iterations of the course and program.  Finally, it is entirely possible that Content Milestones do not exist in every course.  Again, it is important that the Curriculum Team ask themselves what Content Milestones are required to achieve the Learning Outcomes at the Program Level, and then document them where they exist.  This can occur in the Context Document, or for a more in-depth perspective, this can occur in the Curriculum Map. There are two main ways to reflect this in the Curriculum Content Matrix.

Option 01

The first is to add Content Milestones as column headers after the Program Learning Outcomes.  Content Milestones can vary in complexity, occur across years of study or across a year of study. Assessing against the Course Learning Outcomes provides a better perspective on the scope of development of the Milestones.

Option 02

The second option would be to add the Content Mile stone as a comment to the cell. This will result in a simpler Curriculum Map Matrix Documents at the loss of information immediately available.

TIp: cONTENT MILESTONES VS kEY TERMS

Creating a Curriculum Map Matrix Document is an onerous task.  It requires the Curriculum Team to identify and assess intersections between Course Learning Outcomes and Program Learning Outcomes.  Course Learning Outcomes are often easier to conceptualize as it includes practical demonstrable material the Curriculum Team works with on a regular basis.  Program Learning Outcomes on the other hand describe learning that is demonstrated outside the areas that the Curriculum Team works.  In some cases, it is helpful for the Curriculum Team to develop a list of Key Terms to illustrate more concrete ideas that are represented by the Program Learning Outcomes. These may be included in a row below the Program Learning Outcomes similar to the Content Milestones. 

Although these will look similar to the Content Milestones, the important distinction is that Content Milestones are explicitly identified and measured as key components that are developed throughout the program.  Content Milestones Support the Program and may be included in the Curriculum Map Matrix Document.  Key Terms support the Curriculum Team and are never included in the Curriculum Mapping Matrix document.  They may be included in the Context Document to support future Curriculum Development Teams.

SUMMARY

The different content structures and identification discussed all have different strengths and challenges associated with them. It is important to note that adopting one structure does not exclude the other structural options.  It is recommended that the Curriculum Team use as many of these content options as possible when developing Course Outlines and when using these Course Outlines to populate the Curriculum Content Matrix.  Using multiple structures will gain the cumulative identified benefits while ameliorating the challenges associated with individual structures.

It is strongly recommended that the Curriculum Team Developing the Curriculum Map consider and integrate as much of this content as they feel is necessary. For some of the more rigid and prescribed programs, this option will be mandated, and for other programs this represents an opportunity to provide a clearer record, and more transparent guidelines for future colleagues implementing the curriculum.  For Curriculum Teams considering developing relevant Lesson Learning Outcomes, a sub Curriculum map that assesses the alignment of the Lesson Learning Outcomes with the Course Learning Outcomes can be helpful. see below for an example.

NOT INCLUDED IN THE CURRICULUM MAP MATRIX DOCUMENT

The preceding section has described various items components and considerations to include in a Curriculum Content Matrix. At its most basic, the Curriculum Content Matrix documents factors that support the Program Learning Outcomes identified by the Curriculum Team. Anything that doesn’t support the Program Learning Outcomes or is not an imposed factor does not need to be included in the Curriculum Content Matrix. This does leave room for subjectivity by the Curriculum Team. One topic that comes up regularly regarding inclusion are electives.

The question of whether to include electives or not is quite challenging as some programs have electives that are designed to fulfill the Learning Outcomes required for an additional stream of learning.  On the other end of the spectrum some programs include electives just to bring the total number of credits completed up to the level required for a particular credential. In the first case, it is clear that the electives that support particular Learning Outcomes be included in the Curriculum Content Matrix, and it is equally clear that courses included just to bring a credit total up to a required level not be included. But this does leave a rather large and questionable area in the middle.

When considering what to include in the Curriculum Content Matrix, the first question a Curriculum Team should ask themselves is “does this support the Program Learning Outcomes?”. If the answer is yes then the elective in question should be included, and if the answer is no then the elective may be excluded from the Curriculum Content Matrix. If this is a challenging question to answer, the Curriculum Team can look at the disciplines the electives fall under. If the discipline the electives fall under is the same discipline as the program, then it is more likely that these courses will be related or relevant to the Program Learning Outcomes. It is also probable that members of the Curriculum Team will have the expertise to assess these discipline specific electives and their alignment with the Program Learning Outcomes. If the electives fall under multiple disciplines, or disciplines outside of those covered by the program, then it is less likely that these courses will be relevant to the Program Learning Outcomes, and it is probable that the curriculum team will not have the expertise required to assess these electives and their alignment with the Program Learning Outcomes.

Again, the above examples are fairly easy to identify and follow through to a logical conclusion. It is much more challenging to follow the logic of one or two electives being selected from a short list of elective options.  If a program indicates 15 credits of electives taken from any university level course, then clearly these elective choices are not furthering any specific Program Learning Outcome and instead are offering an opportunity for a student selected breadth of knowledge. Additionally, the Curriculum Team needs to document and assess the options, not the selection. That is, if a program states “15 credits at the 3000 or 4000 level”, a Curriculum Team documenting this would need to list every possible course that could fulfil this requirement, and the Course Learning Outcomes for each of these courses, then go through the assessment for each intersection of outcomes.  It quickly becomes too onerous to complete and would be too confounding a Map to review.  If the Curriculum Team finds their program is using electives to reach the required credit level, it is a good opportunity to review their Program Learning Outcomes.  This reliance on electives can be an indicator of too few, narrowly written, or incorrect Program Learning Outcomes.  Of course, if the Curriculum Team has a rationale for the number of electives they are using then that is their decision to document in the Context Document.

If a program indicates, for example, 6 credits of electives that must be selected from a specific group of four courses, then it is likely that this selection of four courses were selected specifically to further the Program Learning Outcomes.  It also means the Curriculum Team would only need to map out the additional four courses the electives are selected from. This is much more achievable, and results in a much cleaner Curriculum Content Matrix. 

Following from this it is a recommendation of this resource that electives be included in the Curriculum Map if:

  1. They clearly support the Program Learning Outcomes, or
  2. They are from the same discipline as the program or a significantly similar discipline to the program (for example, a marketing course as an elective option for a business program), or
  3. The elective options in question represent five or fewer courses.

If the elective options meet any of the above criteria, they should be recorded in the Curriculum Content Matrix. If the elective options are more general or generic than what is described here, they should be omitted from the Curriculum Content Matrix.

Curriculum Content Matrix Summary

This resource has explored in extensive detail what may be included in a Curriculum Content Matrix and how these items may be used. Where possible, specific roles for Curriculum Teams or educators implementing the curriculum were identified and expanded on. Finally, what shouldn’t be included in the Curriculum Content Matrix was explored.  The recommendations come down to include anything that:

  • supports the Program Learning Outcomes
  • is an imposed factor
  • helps to illustrate the complexity of the curriculum

A Curriculum Team working to reflect a prescriptive program may use every item, component and consideration discussed. A Curriculum Team working on a very flexible program may choose to exclude the majority of this information. As always, this resource represents a starting point for Curriculum Mapping and the final result will look different from what this resource describes.  How it looks upon completion is the responsibility of the Curriculum Team. It is completely appropriate for a Curriculum Team to deviate from the recommendations if they have a rationale for doing so that is documented in the Context Document.

TIp:

It is also important to remember than many institutions will have their own formal process for developing Curriculum Maps or that involve Curriculum Maps. These may be more detailed or less detailed than the descriptions provided in this resource.  While internal processes may ask for the Curriculum Team to deliver a fraction of a Curriculum Map for specific purposes, it is recommended that the Curriculum Team produce as comprehensive a Curriculum Map as is warranted by the program.  Having a comprehensive Curriculum Content Matrix document with accompanying Exploration of Factors and Context documents will provide greater clarity to the team, program and learners regarding where the program came from, is currently, and is going in the future.  The full map will make future curriculum work much easier as the program’s solid foundation is documented.  This also provides the option of using compressed versions of the full map to achieve purposes requiring an abbreviated map.

This is not a required part of the Curriculum Mapping Process, and this point in the process is an excellent opportunity to consider the admission requirements for the program. With clarity around what learning is occurring, how it is being demonstrated through the program, the learning outcomes at the course and lesson level, assessments, learning activities, and content milestone progression, now is a good time to consider or review admission requirements. Admission requirements should be considered and implemented to provide the average learner with the Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes (KSAs) to be successful in the program being developed. These should also consider prerequisites and corequisites for early progression.

Some programs traditionally used admission requirements as a form of gatekeeping, measuring (presumed) student commitment to the program by requiring an onerous application package. This practice is no longer acceptable as it creates needless barriers for student access. It also provides administrative challenges as any change to admission requirements requires a trip through Senate or Education Council.  Instead it is good practice to establish admission requirements as the baseline for learner success. This results in admission requirements that are objectively tied to the Program’s Outcomes, reducing subjectivity and unintended bias.

If the program becomes oversubscribed, then competitive acceptance may be adopted, For example, higher application scores may receive priority for admission. The program starts by admitting students early who significantly exceed the admission requirements and admitting the students remaining based on the highest remaining admissions score until the program is filled. Another option for dealing with an oversubscribed program is moving to a “first come, first served” option where all applicants who meet the eligibility will be admitted in the order that their applications were received.  Both of these options provide flexibility in meeting changing enrollment needs without requiring a change to pass through Senate or Education Council.

In the event a program becomes undersubscribed, no admission requirements need to be changed as they are based on the Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes (KSAs) a learner needs to be successful.  If the admissions requirements are established based on what is required for program success, then there is no reason they should drop below this point. Dropping admission requirements below the level required for success means setting admitted learners up for failure. These practices are a risk to reputation and can lead to legal risk as well.

In any event, it is best practice to establish admission requirements based on the program and this point in the process provides the most clarity around what that looks like.

Click for Exploration of Factors Document
Click for Curriculum Context Document