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

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?

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

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 Form

Sample Curriculum Map – How Do Courses Assess Program SLOs?

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] 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)