Curriculum Mapping: Assessment’s Second Step

1. Curriculum Mapping: Assessment’s Second Step Office of Institutional Assessment & Effectiveness SUNY Oneonta Fall 2010

2. 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

3. 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

4. Assessment’s Four Steps • Setting objectives: “What you say you do” • Curriculum mapping: “How you do what you say you do” • Assessment: “How you know you are doing what you say you do” • “Closing the loop”: “What you do next based on results” • Assessment without #4 = Waste of time!

5. Curriculum Mapping: Matching Student Learning Outcomes to Curricular Activities

6. 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

7. 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”

8. 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

9. A Sample Curriculum Map: The Simplest-Case Scenario

10. Sample Curriculum Map – Do Courses Address Program SLOs?

11. 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

12. 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

13. Sample Curriculum Map – How Much Do Courses Address Program SLOs?

14. Sample Curriculum Map – At What Level Do Courses Address Program SLOs?

15. 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!

16. Sample Information Form

17. Sample Curriculum Map – How Do Courses Assess Program SLOs?

18. 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)

19. 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

20. 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

21. APAC Members • Paul French • Steve Gilbert • Michael Koch • Richard Lee • Patrice Macaluso • William Proulx • Anuradhaa Shastri • Bill Wilkerson • Patty Francis (ex officio)