Using Curriculum Maps

As discussed extensively in the previous section, there are individual identifiable stages for the process of developing a Curriculum Map and its associated documents. That said the specific intentions and experience of the Curriculum Team developing the Curriculum Map will significantly impact how each step of the process plays out.  The needs of the Team determine the specific details of creation. The same is true for the users of a created Curriculum. The same documents may be used by different groups is markedly different ways.

This section will highlight the following

  • Based on the Curriculum Mapping Process discussed in the earlier section, types of Compressed Curriculum Maps are discussed here
  • The groups of users that can benefit from Curriculum Mapping are also discussed
  • Specific use of Curriculum Mapping for different stages of program support at KPU are also discussed here

COMPRESSED CURRICULUM MAPS

Curriculum Mapping at the post-secondary primarily focuses on identifying influence at the supra, macro and meso levels, a while constructing maps and guiding assessment and instructions at the micro and nano levels in large Comprehensive Curriculum Maps. As previously discussed, these Comprehensive Maps are often compressed to purpose, and given the breadth of influencing factors and the diversity of uses, Compressed Curriculum Maps at the Post-Secondary level can take many forms:

The Essential Map

Are there intersections between CLOs and PLOs, are the intersections explicit or implicit? Is the evaluation framework applied?

Activity and Assessment Map

What are the Assessments and Instructional Activities that intersects with PLOs and CLOs?

Content Milestones Map

This map will identify key milestones of content through out the program?

Mapping Imposed Components

Many programs, will have factors imposed on them by outside sources. These maps will outline such imposed influences

Lesson Outcomes Map

These maps are created to align course learning outcomes with lesson learning outcomes and then constructively align lesson assessments and lesson content


See below a summary of what was discussed in the Curriculum Mapping Process section details.

As a reminder, the Basic Map seeks to demonstrate broad curricular alignment. These maps place Program Learning Outcomes at the top of the matrix, and Course Learning Outcomes in the left column of the matrix. Wherever a Course Learning Outcome supports a Program Learning Outcome an “X” or other mark denoting an intersection is created.

It will then determine if the intersection of the Course Learning Outcome is explicit in its support for the Program Learning Outcome, or implicit in its support. Intersections determined to be explicit remain marked with an “X” and intersections determined to be implicit replace the “X” with an “M”. Finally, each “X” is given two points, and each “M” is given one point and the resulting score is a measurement of how well each Program Learning Outcome is supported.

The next step is using the same Program Learning Outcomes as column titles and the same Course Learning Outcomes in the first column, the indicators of intersections are replaced with some form of Evaluation framework. Each of the intersections are assessed for the level of complexity with which the Course Learning Outcomes supports the Program Learning Outcome. The “X” or “M” denoting the intersection is replaced with an “I”, “D” or “A”.  Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU) currently uses an IDA Evaluation framework, which is an acronym for Introductory, Developing, or Advancing. Each intersection is assessed to see if the Course Learning Outcome is supporting the intersecting Program Learning Outcome at the Introducing, Developing, or Advancing Level, and then changed to represent the appropriate level.  Using this system, the Curriculum Team is able to assess Gaps, Redundancies and Misalignments in the Curriculum.

Activity and Assessment Curriculum Maps supplement the information provided by the evaluation framework at the site of intersection with additional columns detailing Assessments and the Instructional Activities to perform well on the assessments.

This approach is more complex and it can provide additional information such as the alignment between assessments or with their outcomes, and learning activities. Determining alignment across so many variables provides a clearer understanding of program requirements for all curriculum users.

To Begin, Curriculum Teams should first determine the purpose for the Content Milestone map. With an understanding of how the map will be used, the team is able to determine the level of detail that needs to be reflected in the map.  With this thought out the Curriculum Team is in a position to choose one of the examples provides below, or create a different version that better meets their needs.

Example 1

This map allows the Curriculum Team to explicitly measure how well each individual Content Milestone is supported by the Course Learning Outcomes. For Curriculum Teams in this situation the recommendation is that they list each Content Milestone as though it were a Program Learning Outcome, across the top of the Curriculum Map Matrix Document.  Once the list is documented, assess each Course Learning Outcome and associated Assessment and Instructional Activity against each Content Milestone to identify intersections.  At each intersection where a Course Learning Outcome supports the Content Milestone, place an “X”.  With the intersections Identified, assess with the IDA Evaluation Framework replacing each “X” with an “I”, “D”, or “A” as appropriate. Once complete, assess for Gaps, Redundancies and Misalignments.

Example 2

For curriculum teams mapping a very flexible program, a much less detailed approach may be taken. For this less detailed approach, Content Milestones are listed in a cell under the relevant program learning outcome. The idea being that as the program learning outcome is developed so too is the content milestone. The Content Milestone is merely identified but its progress is tied to the progress of the program learning outcome.  This row of Content Milestones is considered part of the formal Curriculum Map Matrix Document and is to be included in the map.

Example 3

For Curriculum Teams looking for more information without the intensity of the first option, a third approach is possible. This hybrid approach we’ll see the Content Milestones listed underneath the relevant Program Learning Outcome as above. Where it differs is that the Curriculum Team will input the Content Milestone information into the relevant cell of an intersection between a Course Learning Outcome and the relevant Program Learning Outcome. The comment in this cell will identify the Content Milestone being supported. This will provide a visual indication of which Course Learning Outcomes intersecting with Program Learning Outcomes also support the development of Content Milestones.

As discussed earlier, many programs will have factors “imposed” on them by outside sources (Chan, Fong, Luk, and Ho, 2017). These Imposed Factors may be directly related to, or completely removed from, the program content.  It is important for the Curriculum Team to determine how these imposed factors may be best represented in the Curriculum Map. Once the Curriculum Team has identified how best to account for any Imposed Factors, they may Include them as a distinct component on the Curriculum Map.

Examples:
1. Qualitative / Analytical and 6 Credits of English.
2: Essential Skills
3: Core Program or Foundation

The Curriculum Team will:

  1. Map the Course Learning Outcomes’ support of the Program Learning Outcomes for the Educational Activity (quadrant 1). 
  2. Input the Program Learning Outcomes for the Core or Foundation program (quadrant 2)
  3. Input the Course Learning Outcomes for the Core or Foundation program (quadrant 3)
  4. Plot the Curriculum Map for the Core or Foundation program in the intersection rows and columns (quadrant 4).

While curriculum Maps tend to focus on complex high-level information presented in an attainable matrix document, the same process can be used to clearly illustrate low level detail.  Some departments may need some insight into the distribution of content throughout their program.  If a course, or selection of courses is proving to be too challenging for learners, as indicated by a uniform and repeatable drop in grades, Curriculum Teams may use this approach to explore and assess the demands on the learners.  The Curriculum Team may find that information is not being scaffolded properly, too many new concepts are being introduced at the same time or there is nothing identifiable that is misaligned, rather it is merely a challenging time of the program.

Some departments implementing a very formal and rigid programs that has Lesson Learning outcomes prescribed may choose to create Lesson Learning Outcome Maps. This involves mapping out how the Lesson Learning Outcomes may support the Course Learning Outcomes for a program.  This follows the same process as previously described and includes the Course Learning Outcomes as the top row of information. The Lesson Learning Outcomes take the first column.  It is important to note that there are around five Course learning Outcomes per course, around thirteen Lesson Learning Outcomes per course, and up to 40 courses for a degree. Planning this for a full degree program would yield a grid of 200 columns for Course Learning Outcomes and 520 Rows for Lesson Learning Outcomes.  This is far to big to be manageable. As a result, Curriculum Teams planning to explore this approach may choose to limit themselves to on year of study at a time, (resulting in a grid of 50 x130) or, if this is still too large to be manageable, a single course (resulting in a grid of 5 x 13).  Once this is decided, the Curriculum Team will assess for and mark with an “X” the intersections of Lesson Learning Outcomes against Course Learning Outcomes.

With the intersections identified, the Curriculum Team will determine if the Lesson Learning Outcome is a formative assessment of the intersecting Course Learning Outcome, or a summative assessment. If the intersection is formative, then the “X” is replaced with an “F”, and if the intersection is summative, then the “X” is replaced with an “S”.  With the summative assessments identified, the Curriculum Team may note the Assessment percentage in the appropriate column.  It is important to note that the use of the word assessment here refers to the summative measurement of the learner’s ability to demonstrate the Course Learning Outcome, that is, this is an opportunity for the Curriculum Team to document the value of the outcome assessment. Generally, it is expected that the assessment of each course learning outcome will be roughly equal. For example, if there are five Course Learning Outcomes, then the assessments for each outcome will be expected to be 20%. There may be situations where the Curriculum Team feels one Course Learning Outcome should be weighted more than the others. This provides an opportunity to document that different weighting and provide a rationale for it. With the Assessments documented, the Curriculum Team can describe the Instructional Activities they recommend to help the learners perform well on the Assessments

This approach to Lesson Mapping can provide significant clarity around Course and Lesson content, how it is assessed and laddered in a course and program. It is very useful for highlighting unusual weightings for the different parts of a single course.  The challenges are it is a very unwieldy document given the number of items being intersected, and it is very rigid, requiring prescribed Lesson Learning Outcomes.

User groups

The uses for Curriculum Maps have been discussed, along with the concept of Maps compressed for purpose.  Different user groups may also have different need of Curriculum Maps, which may result in unique Compressed Maps.

The benefit of Curriculum Maps for learners and learner supporters’ rests in the transparency of communication around the intentions of the program. At the micro level, the Curriculum Map helps the learner understand what is expected of them in their lessons, courses, and programs. All the information they require around the structure and expectations around outcomes, assessments, and learning activities are included within the Curriculum Map. This clearly communicates to students what is expected of their involvement in the educational activity, how their involvement will be assessed, and what activities, resources and structures will be used to help them perform well on the assessment.

Moving to a more macro level, the Curriculum Map helps learners and learner supporters choose the right program for their educational and career goals. A clear Curriculum Map helps learners determine which program fits their goals. For example, with clear, accurate, and well-articulated Curriculum Maps, a student interested in “computers” will be able to determine whether a bachelor in computing science is more or less aligned with their goals then a diploma of computer information systems.  This will help the student make a correct choice, rather than languish in a program that is not aligned with their goals.

Tip: Helpful, not a critical to curriculum mapping

As this information is course focused, it is much more relevant and easier to understand by the Subject Matter Experts who deliver the courses. Therefore, the value of this map can be overrepresented.  While a very effective tool for identifying challenges or strengths within specific course offerings and the progression of those offerings, it is important to recognize the key focus of curriculum mapping is in supporting the overall program.  It is imperative that this and other course-focused maps are not promoted above that of the Course Learning Outcomes supporting the Program Learning Outcomes.

Included in the category of student supporters are non-university friends and relatives supporting the student and enrollment professionals including advisors, recruiters, and other staff.  Well-thought-out and transparent Curriculum Maps will support enrollment professionals in being able to better direct students towards programs most closely aligned with their goals. A student in a program misaligned with their goals are wasting their time, effort, and financial resources. Misaligned students are detrimental to the institution as well.  Student in the wrong program keep the seat away from a student who is interested in the program. Students in the wrong program impact institutional graduation rate, and increase the workload for admissions professionals who process applications for misaligned students.  A well-developed Curriculum Map that clearly communicates the goals and outcomes of a program is an excellent means of ameliorating the issues.

Comprehensive Curriculum Maps provides new instructors, or instructors new to the program, with an overall perspective of the program’s goals and outcomes.  With this overall perspective understood, Instructors have more insight into their own role and how they may support achieving the programs outcomes. This can help instructor’s planning by guiding key content to deliver, selecting instructional resources, creating clarity around assessments, and providing recommendations for instructional techniques or strategies that support the achievement of these assessments. Again, this isn’t intended to restrict instructors from making pedagogically sound choices, rather it’s providing people with limited experience with a starting point to build a consistent and effective learner experience.

Administration may use Curriculum Maps the number of different ways. Departmental Administration may use it to demonstrate the strengths of their specific program. Without a Curriculum Map, a Bachelor of Arts majoring in English looks the same as every other Bachelor of Arts major in English program across the country. With clarity and transparency around outcomes, assessments and learning activities, specific abilities or themes can be extracted and promoted as key strengths in an academic program. Administration may also be asked about the quality of the curriculum. With the Curriculum Map Matrix Document available, they are able to clearly describe and demonstrate how the curriculum aligns thematically, in content, horizontally, vertically, and if necessary spirally. With a Comprehensive Curriculum Map, Administration would be able to plot the progression of any individual Content Milestones from Introduction through Advanced Assessment.

Administration often oversees the development of new programs. Developing a program and Curriculum Map simultaneously provides clarity and transparency around the program’s intentions and provides a solid foundation for future Curriculum Teams to conduct their reviews from. With the Curriculum Map demonstrating the alignment of key curricular components, the ability to demonstrate curricular quality is more accessible.  Institutional Administration is better able to compare programs across departments, when they are prepared using a consistent Curriculum Mapping Process.  For this reason, Institutional Administration will often define their own process for Curriculum Mapping that will be as broad or as compressed as required for their purpose.

Ministries and Regulatory agencies use Curriculum Maps as a means to measure curricular quality. For open and flexible programs, this can be through the Imposition of Factors on the Curriculum with an expectation that they will be met. For rigid or highly prescribed programs this can be through overtly shaping the Learning Outcomes at the course and lesson Level.  The standard intention of these organizations is to maintain a consistent level of quality that is demonstrated through the use of a Curriculum Map.

KPU Specific Uses for Curriculum Mapping

Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU) encourages the development and use of Curriculum Maps across the institution.  This resource can be seen as a starting point for the development of a consistent KPU Curriculum Mapping Process.  There are many applications for Curriculum Maps across the KPU Community; most are voluntary, and others are required in certain situations.  This resource will address some of these below.

The development of new programs is a complex process involving many different people, ideas, and concepts over an extended period of time. It is very difficult for all involved to share the same understanding on the breadth of curricular components for the duration of the development process.  Going through the comprehensive mapping process can provide a record of discussions and agreements, and can provide clarity around individual curricular components. It is not unusual to find Subject Matter Experts struggling to recognize the differences between Program Learning Outcomes, Course Learning Outcomes, Program Descriptions, and Course Descriptions.  If there is a lack of clarity around one component, there will be misunderstanding around the purpose of all components. Going through the Comprehensive Curriculum Mapping Process allows the Subject Matter Experts working as part of the Curriculum Team to address these components directly and define their purpose and structure.  This makes the process of Program Development easier for all involved.

With a Curriculum Map created during the development of a new program, all the benefit and value of Curriculum Maps are included in the program and its structure.  As important, clarity around curricular alignment and quality are transparent and communicable.  Finally, this makes the act of future mapping, reviews and revisions much easier as a well-defined Curriculum Map will exist for the program.

Some may balk at what might feel like extra work during an already demanding process.  It should be noted that the current development process involves the creation of a full program proposal that details the social, economic, and political factors that have led to the need for the new program. Also documented are curricular details, structural details for offering the program etc. Most of the information required for a Curriculum Map is already explored and documented. This information may be easily reworked to fit the Curriculum Mapping structure, requiring only the development of the Matrix document to complete the process.

Program change is a process that is undertaken following a program review.  Generally, some required program alterations are recommended through the program review process. During the Program Revision process, the recommended changes are explored, and if possible, implemented and documented. This involves changing the Curriculum Map (created in the Program Review Process) to reflect the changes made to the program. It is recommended that the program change team develop the comprehensive components of the curriculum map at this stage.

Program Implementation is when an instructor is given a course to teach within the program and they review the curriculum documents to help place their course offering in a larger context. 

The Curriculum Map Matrix Document can provide a quick visual regarding the course’s placement within the overall program.  With a deeper exploration, the Curriculum Map can illustrate outcomes to be achieved in the course, the assessments to evaluate the outcomes, and the instructional activities to help the learner perform well on the assessments. Looking even more deeply, the Instructor can identify any Content Milestones that occur in their course so they can be well prepared to promote its exploration in their course.  Finally, looking even deeper to the supporting documents, the instructor may gain insight into the specific content covered in their course.  The Curriculum Map can provide insight, context and details that support the instructor in making their work more accessible and effective for their learners.

Ready for next

Summary

Go to Summary