Process for Mapping and Analysing a Course

Introduction

Course mapping is the beginning of a broad and comprehensive process of curriculum renewal that involves:

  • Reviewing the current curriculum

course coordinators map and analyse each constituent course in the major

 discipline academics map the major by collating the individual course reviews and collectively analysing the results

  • Agreeing on the preferred curriculum

 discipline academics collectively determine the preferred characteristics of the major (content, weightings of the DSLOs, progression of skills, etc). It may be useful to consider how other universities or international higher education systems construct similar majors.

  • Renewing the curriculum

 course coordinators reshape the curriculum of their courses (learning outcomes, assessment, and teaching and learning arrangements) to fit the expectations of the major

  • Documenting the changes

 course coordinators complete necessary documentation and submit through the appropriate channels.

Documents

To complete this course mapping exercise you will need the following other documents:

  • HUMSS Course Mapping Tool (Excel)
  • Worked example of mapped and analysed course (ENG 1107 Shakespeare)
  • your Discipline-Specific Learning Outcomes from the HUMSS Faculty website (restricted access)
  • electronic version of your current course profile

The instructions for using the Course Mapping tool are available in this document, behind the first tab in the spreadsheet, and as a separate document. You may also find useful the discipline documents as identified in Resources for Renewal of Disciplines and Majors in the BA.

Purpose of Course Mapping

Mapping at the course level has two purposes.

First, it provides a means of reviewing the intentions of a course in its own right—the appropriateness of the course learning outcomes, assessment and teaching and learning activity, and how these aspects relate to each other.

Second, it gathers information that can be used in reviewing the major—the contribution a particular course makes to a major, and the characteristics of a major as indicated through its constituent courses.

Background

The course mapping process draws on the Graduate Attributes through the Discipline-Specific Learning Outcomes but also includes two other University priorities: , academic literacies and e-Experience. Course mapping is undertaken for each course in the major and includes:

  • learning outcomes
  • assessment
  • learning and teaching arrangements.

Learning outcomes are the University’s ‘contract’ with students with respect to a course; they are the basis for all learning activity in a course and they construct very specific expectations for students about what they will learn. Course learning outcomes should clearly and unambiguously express the focus of the course.

Course learning outcomes go beyond topics of study (syllabus) to include the various kinds of outcomes identified in the Discipline-Specific Learning Outcomes. The learning outcomes of any particular course in a major should be a subset of the Discipline-Specific Learning Outcomes for that major.

Assessment has two major functions. First, it is the means by which student learning is fostered. Student effort is understandably centred on assessment and so the way to promote particular learning is to make it the focus of assessment.

Second, assessment is the means of making judgements about the extent to which students have achieved the course learning outcomes. In order for these judgments to have validity, assessment must be aligned with course learning outcomes. Where the assessment is not directly related to course learning outcomes there are serious issues about the quality of a course, and this ultimately threatens the value and reputation of the award to which it contributes.

The mapping also gathers information about two other aspects related to the major. First, identifying the types of summative assessment (eg essay, report, oral presentation, poster) will give an indication of the variation of the forms of assessment. Second, documenting the word count of assignments will give a sense of how courses across the major support students in developing skills in extended pieces of writing.

Learning and teaching arrangements are the ways in which students are supported to succeed in the assessment. If the course learning outcomes are broadly based, valid assessment will comprise a corresponding array of activities and processes, and the teaching and learning arrangements will respond to these expectations by providing support that is targeted and timely.

This support may include a range of direct and indirect methods that are teacher controlled (lectures, seminars), student-led (student-managed groups, peer teaching, team assignments), resource-based (books, readers, journals, websites) or technology assisted (quizzes, simulations email, blogs, forums, webcasts, podcasts).

The alignment of course learning outcomes, assessment and teaching and learning arrangements is a critical aspect of course design and a major indicator of the quality of a course.

Mapping Process Using the Course Mapping Tool [1]

Introduction

Undertaking the tasks as outlined for each course you teach will provide you with valuable information in relation to the course which is necessary for the next phase of the process—the review of the major through the aggregation of information about the contributing courses.

Preparing to Map a Course

Download a copy of the Course Mapping Tool. Enter the administrative information about your course (major, course name, course code, unit value and annual enrolment) in the shaded cells at the top of the page in Task 1. Unit value is a critical field.

Ensure you have a copy of the Discipline-Specific Learning Outcomes (DSLOs) from the Faculty intranet, a copy of your course outline and other relevant information identified at the beginning of this document.

There are four tasks to be undertaken. Each Task sits behind a tab (TASK 1, TASK 2, TASK 3 and TASK 4 at the bottom of the spread sheet. The first Tab (Instructions) is a copy of these mapping guidelines. The final two tabs (TASK 1 Working Sheet and TASK 2 Working Sheet) are the formulae that calculate the scores and should not be altered.

When redeveloping a course (rather than creating a new course) it is often useful to undertake TASK 2 (assessment) as the first step and use this to inform the course learning outcomes. See Writing course learning outcomes for information on writing course learning outcomes.

These instructions are available in a separate document. It is always advisable to monitor the spreadsheet to ensure that data is correctly entered into the relevant cells. This is particularly the case in Task 1 and Task 2 since the cells have values ascribed to them for the purposes of calculation.

TASK 1: Mapping Course Learning Outcomes

  1. Copy/paste or type the course learning outcomes into Table 1(i).
  2. Before you start it is useful to reflect on the broad intentions of the course.
  3. Using your Discipline-Specific Learning Outcomes map the major emphasis of each course learning outcome. For most course learning outcomes this will involve a maximum of three but will often be fewer. You can open up more lines if you need them by using the + at the left hand side of the spread sheet.
  4. For each DSLO use the drop down box to identify the level of importance High, Medium or Low (H/M/L) for the overall course. The key to making this judgment is to think about how important each DSLO is in the assessment. If a DSLO is identified more than once, you need to take that into account when ascribing the H/M/L value.
  5. A single course should only address a limited number of DSLOs—the main emphases of the course. This emphasis is best seen in the assessment rather than in the range of experiences students might have.

The spread sheet will calculate the scores on the basis of the unit value of the course your H/M/L allocation these will automatically appear in Table 1.2 and in Table 4.1(i). Scores for the DSLOs aggregated at the level of the eight Graduate Attributes will appear automatically in 4.1(ii).

Once the scores are calculated it is useful to check them to see that you have not overlooked anything that is important (Table 1.2). Re-adjust the mapping or reframe the learning outcomes to account for this.

TASK 2. Mapping Assessment Tasks

  1. Copy/paste or type the assessment tasks into 2.1(i).
  2. Enter the type of assessment (essay, test, short answers, poster, etc) in 2.1(ii)
  3. Enter the word count (if applicable) at 2.1(iii)
  4. Enter the weighting of the assessment at 2.1(iv).
  5. Using your Discipline-Specific Learning Outcomes, map the major emphasis of each piece of assessment. For most assessment tasks there will be three or four DSLOs. If you have an assessment worth a significant proportion of your total (eg a research project) there may be more. You can open up more lines if you need them by using the + at the left hand side of the spread sheet.
  6. If you allocate marks for ‘Participation’, identifying more than one DSLO will result in an extremely small distribution of scores and raises questions about the method of assessing for these. Working as a member of a group (DSLO 4c) is a reasonable allocation.
  7. For each DSLO in each assessment identify the level of importance (H/M/L) for that assessment. The key to making this judgment is to think about how you allocate marks--your marking criteria/rubric for that assessment.

The spread sheet will calculate the score based on the unit value of the course, weighting of the assessment and your H/M/L allocation, and these will automatically appear in Table 2.1 and in Table 4.1(iii). Scores for the DSLOs aggregated at the level of the eight Graduate Attributes will appear automatically in 4.1(iv).

Once the scores are calculated it is useful to check them to see that you have not overlooked anything that is important (Table 2.2). Re-adjust the mapping to account for this.

TASK 3. Mapping Learning and Teaching Arrangements

  1. In Table 3(i) enter the teaching and learning arrangements for the course. Support may include a range of direct and indirect methods that are teacher controlled (lectures, seminars), student-led (student-managed groups, peer teaching, team assignments), resource-based (books, readers, journals, websites), technology assisted (quizzes, simulations email, blogs, forums, webcasts, podcasts) and individual focused (consultations, assessment feedback, email).
  2. Place X in the relevant columns to map the activities that contribute to each of your assessment tasks (ATs) in the course.

TASK 4. Alignment and Analysis

  1. Table 4.1 shows the scores that have been automatically carried across for both course learning outcomes and assessment. The values are indicative of emphasis and not intended to be used a fine level of detail.

The intent of this exercise is to get a sense of whether the course as expressed through the learning outcomes is consistent with the assessment. Where the scores are similar vertically, there is good alignment. Where there are major differences some adjustment may be needed, or you may need to think how you have interpreted the DSLOs. If you believe the assessment is appropriate and that you have realistically represented the DSLOs, then it is likely that the course learning outcomes need to be adjusted.

Table 4.1 (ii) and (iv) show the scores aggregated at the level of Graduate Attribute. This allows comparison at a higher level of generality, a useful measure when considering changing the emphases.

  1. Table 4.2 is a reflective summary of the process—what you have learned about your course and what needs to change. The reflective questions below are intended to assist you to develop or review your course in relation to the Graduate Attributes and other University priorities. If you are reviewing your course it will help you to think through how it might be improved. In developing/re-developing a course there are two dimensions to consider.

First, the nature of the course itself will suggest particular course learning outcomes, assessment and teaching and learning arrangements.

Second, the course is part of a major and will make a contribution to the learning outcomes of the major as identified in the Discipline-Specific Learning Outcomes.

The final manifestation of the course must bring together both these aspects. That is, while maintaining its own integrity, a course must also demonstrably contribute to the major.

Reflective Questions (to be summarised in Table 4.2)

General

  • Does the mapping reflect what you actually do in this course? On reflection, are there DSLOs you have overlooked?
  • Does this course have a particular function within the major (eg core, SGDE, Level I, capstone) and, if so, what expectations/constraints/opportunities does this function bring with it?
  • What is the main contribution this course makes to the major?

Course Learning Outcomes

  • Do the course learning outcomes represent what you do in this course? (Table 2)
  • Are the Course Learning Outcomes expressed in terms of:
  • stem—in future tense—‘On the completion of this course the student will be able to: ....’
  • active verb—indicating the nature of the student activity –specifically what you want them to know, consider or do—typically expressed in verbs such as ‘understand’, ‘synthesise’, ‘write’, ‘debate’ and ‘differentiate’.
  • focus—indicating the process, product or outcome of the action such as ‘theories’, research plan’ and ‘principles of ethical research’
  • condition—(optional) indicating any conditions that may apply such as ‘...using the appropriate referencing system’, ‘...as identified in ..’, and ...relevant to...’
  • Are the Course Learning Outcomes very content focussed (Graduate Attributes 1 and 3) or do they include reference to the broad range of outcomes referred to across the Graduate Attributes (Table 4.1)

Assessment

  • Are all the course learning outcomes assessed? (Table 4.1)
  • Is all of the assessment directly related to the learning outcomes? (Table 4.1)
  • Are some learning outcomes over assessed? Is there a mismatch with the weightings? (Table 4.1)
  • Are the weightings of the assessment appropriate? (Table 2.1(iv))
  • Considering where this course sits in the major (Level 1, Capstone etc.), are the length of assessments appropriate?
  • Considering the forms of the assessment, and the weighting, are the lengths of the assessments appropriate?
  • Is the assessment valid i.e. is the type of assessment an appropriate way to judge achievement of the outcome? What other forms of assessment might do this better or could work just as well? (Table 2.1(ii))
  • Could you introduce other kinds of assessment which would be more appropriate? See Assessing graduate attributes for ideas.

Teaching and Learning Arrangements

  • Is each aspect of the assessment supported through the learning and teaching arrangements: i.e. understanding content; development of academic processes and skills such as working in groups, online learning, and academic literacies such as academic writing and accessing resources? (Table 3)
  • Are there other ways you could support students. See Teaching and learning activities and graduate attributes for ideas.
  • Could any of the resources you use be shared with other courses?
  • Do you know of any other courses where there are resources that could be used or referred to in your course?

Alignment

  • Is there alignment between the DSLO Course Learning Outcomes and the Assessment (i.e. similar scores)?

If there is an issue with alignment, what needs to change? Does the assessment need to be brought into line with the Course Learning Outcomes, or do you need to change the Course Learning Outcomes to reflect the assessment, or do both need to change in some way.

Process for Mapping and Analysing a CoursePage 1

March 2014

[1] The original version of this mapping used a Word template and required manual calculation of the scores. In this version the scores are calculated using an Excel spreadsheet.