Curriculum Mapping – Instructions, Rubric, and Template
A curriculum roadmap is a chart that connects various university and program goals and outcomes. It adds the concept of “scaffolding,” where later experiences build on earlier ones to achieve a deeper and more complete understanding of ideas introduced earlier.
Curricular Mapping in the program review focuses on three areas:
- Program-level student learning objectives: Connects a course to the field and the major
- Campus student learning outcomes: Connects a course to broad campus initiatives and goals.
- LSP Component outcomes: Based on specific curricular elements in the LSP.
The LSP component mapping is being newly implemented for this cycle of program reviews, and departments should focus on the broad initiatives first. Skills like writing and speaking, and those where the program has a special connection to one or more LSP elements (i.e., History major program with the Historical mode) should be the focus.
1 – Introduced
2 – Emphasized
3 – Reinforced
4 – Advanced
Truman’s version of the roadmap uses a 1-4 scale to show the development of the knowledge, skill, or attitude. Some classes only obliquely cover an outcome in passing, or cover it at a very basic level, and such a class would deserve a one(1) on our scale. A class that builds on knowledge from earlier classes and experiences, or that spends a large portion of the course covering the material may rise to a two(2) or a three(3). A value of four(4) should be reserved for something that really achieves capstone-level competency and understanding of an outcome or goal.
Although LSP courses are the main way Truman fulfills LSP outcomes, it is hoped that every program has courses that build on the outcomes and proficiencies of LSP courses, even in cases where the particular LSP requirement may not be a formal prerequisite of the course. For instance, many courses around campus build on outcomes contained in a Mode of Inquiry,
A Curricular Mapping Excel Document is available to help programs walk through the outcomes, and the Academic Affairs office will be available to help with other parts of the process. It includes a list of the campus-wide outcomes and a template for program-level student learning objectives.
The most important aspect of Curricular Mapping is to ensure that the Program-Level Student Learning Goals and Objectives are updated and appropriate. Goals are broad, general statements of what the program expects to accomplish. Objectives are brief, clear statements that describe the desired learning outcomes of instruction (knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes) expected by those who successfully complete the program. Objectives are often listed as subsets of Broader Goals. As a quick guideline, Program Goals may be broad, ethereal, philosophical, or hard to assess, while Program Objectives are clear and (relatively) easy to assess. Both are of use, but mapping focuses on Objectives.
The chart below may be helpful as you work to refine your program-level objectives and/or course outcomes.
| Outcome #1 | Outcome #2 | Etc. | |
| Describes what students should represent, demonstrate, or produce? | |||
| Relies on active verbs? | |||
| Aligns with collective intentions translated into the curriculum and co-curriculum? | |||
| Maps to curriculum, co-curriculum, and educational practices? | |||
| Is collaboratively authored and collectively accepted? | |||
| Incorporates or adapts professional organizations’ outcome statements when they exist? | |||
| Can be assessed quantitatively and/or qualitatively? |
The attached rubric describes several different pedagogical frames to help with the designation. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, but may help as you map your courses to the framework. Other models may be more helpful for a particular department or outcomes.
Plaza, et. al. (2007) focus on the intention of the course, and how well that intention aligns with the broader goal. http://www.xula.edu/cop/documents/Assessment-Curriculum/Curriculum%20Mapping%20in%20Program%20Assessment%20and%20Evaluation.pdf
Biggs and Collis (1982) uses a sequence of ascending verbs to describe deeper levels of understanding. It is sometimes called the SOLO framework (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome), and has been used for analyzing levels of argument in communication and even politcal frames as well as educational.
http://www.johnbiggs.com.au/academic/solo-taxonomy/
Knefelkamp (1982 and later) combines Perry’s model of development (1970, 1998) with Bloom’s taxonomy with a focus on the context of the activity. Specifically, after the course or experience, what can students do? http://www.cmu.edu/teaching/designteach/design/yourstudents.html