Curriculum Mapping: Assessment’s Second Step

Office of Institutional Assessment & EffectivenessSUNY OneontaFall 2010

Important Assessment “Basics”

Establishing congruence among institutional goals, programmatic and course objectives, learning opportunities, and assessments

Linkages to disciplinary (and, as appropriate, accreditation/certification) standards

Using a variety of measures, both quantitative and qualitative, in search of convergence

Value of course-embedded assessment

Most Important: Done correctly, assessment:

Initiates a “never-ending” dialogue among faculty members regarding programmatic priorities, objectives and effectiveness

Offers multiple, rich opportunities for faculty development

Provides (mostly) affirming data in support of existing program

Provides a focused direction for change and future activities

Assessment’s Four Steps

1. Setting objectives: “What you say you do”

2. Curriculum mapping: “How you do what you say you do”

3. Assessment: “How you know you are doing what you say you do”

4. “Closing the loop”: “What you do next based on results”

Assessment without #4 = Waste of time!

Curriculum Mapping:

Matching Student Learning Outcomes to Curricular Activities

Introduction

“Curriculum development is an ongoing process of evaluation, a continuous effort to incorporate new technologies, research, and methodologies into the overall scheme, even as the goal remains constant: a curriculum that prepares our students to reach the highest standards. Curriculum maps are the tools of the practitioner, the foundation upon which other work is based . . . They reveal a wealth of information. Gaps in the content become evident, and repetitions also are easily spotted.”

H. H. Jacobs, 1997

Why Do It? Increased clarity as to extent to which –

and where – outcomes are being covered and accomplished

Increased awareness by faculty of their – and others’ – responsibilities in delivering the curriculum, as well as a better understanding of the entire program

Multiple opportunities for establishing consensus about the curriculum as well as faculty ownership and contributions

Positive implications for developing a comprehensive “assessment database”

Basic Steps in Curriculum Mapping

Involve all faculty teaching in program as much as possible

Survey faculty with respect to their coverage of learning objectives

Share information with faculty for review and discussion

Reach consensus regarding extent to which program is addressing objectives adequately and develop strategies for change as necessary

A Sample Curriculum Map:

The Simplest-Case Scenario

Sample Curriculum Map – Do Courses Address Program SLOs?

COURSE

SLOs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Introductory Course X X History/Theories X X X Methods X X X Required Course 1 X X X X Required Course 2 X X X

Required Course 3 X X X Required Course 4 X X Capstone X X X X X

Some Observations Even simplest approach reveals important

information Redundancies and gaps in coverage of objectives Similarities and differences among courses (and course

sections) Notice “shift down” to the right, reflecting SLOs that are

arranged hierarchically But, there are problems

No indication of extent to which courses cover objectives Possible over-estimation of coverage by faculty (with no

check on the process) Still much effort, without much information yielded

Maximizing Information Gained Through

Curriculum Mapping Have faculty indicate the extent to which they cover the learning objectives for each course they teach

Other information of interest: At what level are SLOs being covered across the curriculum? Provides additional insight into coherence of

curriculum, and might be helpful when it’s time to assess program

Sample Curriculum Map – How Much Do

Courses Address Program SLOs?

COURSE

SLOs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Introductory Course 4 2 History/Theories 4 4 3 Methods 4 4 4 Required Course 1 3 3 2 4 Required Course 2 4 3 4

Required Course 3 4 4 4 Required Course 4 4 4 Capstone 4 3 3 2 4

Sample Curriculum Map – At What Level Do Courses Address

Program SLOs?

COURSE

SLOs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Introductory Course I I History/Theories I R R Methods I R R Required Course 1 R R R R Required Course 2 R M M

Required Course 3 R R M Required Course 4 M M Capstone M M M M M

Assessment Key:

I-Introduced R-Reinforced M-Mastery

Linking Curriculum Mapping to Step #3 (Assessment)

During mapping exercise, ask faculty if they are assessing students’ mastery of the objectives This requires construction of assignments that link

specifically to the SLOs If so, have them indicate the type of measure

they are using, and even the specific assessment activity being utilized This will make transition to “Step 3” much easier!

Sample Information FormGENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT INFORMATION FORM

Objective: #8 – Students will demonstrate understanding of at least one principal form of artistic expression and the creative process therein.

Course: ART 110 Instructor: K. Haring

1. Indicate the extent to which this course emphasizes the stated learning objective: ________ No emphasis __________ Some emphasis ________ Moderate emphasis _____X____ Great emphasis

2. Does your course include a direct assessment measure of the stated

learning objective? _____X___ Yes __________ No

3. If so, classify this measure: _____ Exam _____ Paper __X__ Portfolio _____ Oral Presentation _____ Lab Assignment _____ Internship

_____ Other (please specify: _____________________________________)

4. If so, describe this measure in some detail: Students submit at the end of the semester a “photographic essay” including 10 color prints, 8 contact sheets, and 5 slide pages. The photographs must reflect a theoretical and practical understanding of the color photographic system as well as knowledge of the various techniques covered in the course.

Sample Curriculum Map – How Do

Courses Assess Program SLOs?

COURSE

SLOs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Introductory Course E E History/Theories E P P Methods E, L E, L L Required Course 1 E E E, P P Required Course 2 P P P

Required Course 3 E E P Required Course 4 I, PO I, PO Capstone PO PO PO PO PO Assessment Key:

P-Paper E-Exam PO-Portfolio O=Oral Presentation L-Lab Assignment I-Internship

Summarizing the Benefits of Curriculum Mapping

Effective tool for consensus- and community-building in a department or program

Makes it clear that intended curriculum is indeed being “delivered”

Promotes “holistic” perspective of a curriculum Clarifies relationships between courses (e.g.,

course sections, prerequisites) Can result in prolific assessment database

through “extraction;” sets program up for Step 3 (Assessment)

Some Important Questions Do all courses in a program have to be mapped?

No, but should include all required courses as well as those taken by large number of majors

Is redundancy always bad? No, some majors (e.g., mathematics, the sciences) may

intentionally “build in” redundancy – that’s a faculty decision

Do cognates have to be mapped? No, but good opportunity to:

Review rationale for cognates Discuss with departments offering cognates the student

learning outcomes you intend students to achieve in those courses

Developing an Assessment Plan:

Some Important Dates May 3, 2010: Submission of Step 1 (Establishing Objectives) of college guidelines Some programs still need to submit revisions

December 1, 2010: Submission of Step 2 (Activities & Strategies) of guidelines

June 1, 2011: Submission of Steps 3 (Assessment) and 4 (Closing the Loop) [plans only]

2011-12 academic year: First round of data collection

APAC Members

Paul French Steve Gilbert Michael Koch Richard Lee Patrice Macaluso

William Proulx Anuradhaa Shastri Bill Wilkerson Patty Francis (ex

officio)