a model to build capacity through a multi-program

JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL, CONTINUING, AND ONLINE EDUCATION

JOURNAL DE LA FORMATION PROFESSIONNELLE, PERMANENTE, ET EN LIGNE

J o u r n a l o f P r o f e s s i o n a l , C o n t i n u i n g , a n d O n l i n e E d u c a t i o n , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J o u r n a l d e l a f o r m a t i o n p r o f e s s i o n n e l l e , p e r m a n e n t e , e t e n l i g n e , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J P C O E . n e t

1

ArticlesArticles

A Model to Build Capacity through a Multi-Program Curriculum Review Process

Patti Dyjur and Jennifer Lock

University of Calgary

Abstract

Curriculum reviews are becoming more

prevalent in higher educational institutions

as a means to address quality assurance and

improve program off erings. However, the

review process can be structured so that

instructors experience professional learning

benefi ts as they work with program-level

learning outcomes, map their courses, and

analyze curriculum data with their colleagues.

This paper shares an approach that was used

to conduct a 1-year, complex, multi-program

curriculum review in a faculty’s graduate unit.

This approach enhanced the instructors’ con-

tinuing growth and their ability to carry out

a curriculum review. To illustrate the dynamic

nature of the curriculum review process,

Résumé

Comme réponse à l’assurance qualité et à

l’amélioration de l’off re des programmes, les

révisions de programmes deviennent de plus

en plus communes dans les institutions d’en-

seignement supérieur. Toutefois, le processus

de révision peut être structuré de façon à ce

qu’il procure aux éducateurs des avantages

liés au perfectionnement professionnel tandis

qu’ils travaillent avec des résultats d’appren-

tissage liés au niveau du programme, qu’ils

planifi ent leurs cours et analysent les don-

nées du programme avec leurs collègues. Ce

document partage l’approche utilisée pour

élaborer une révision de multiprogramme

d’un an fort complexe au sein du cycle supé-

rieur d’une faculté. Cette approche a amélioré

la croissance continue des éducateurs, et

1

JPCOEJFPPEL

J P C O E , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J F P P E L , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J P C O E . n e t

A r t i c l e

A M o d e l t o B u i l d C a p a c i t y t h r o u g h . . . C u r r i c u l u m R e v i e w P r o c e s s

2

Keywords: collaboration, continuing professional learning, curriculum mapping, curriculum

review, CR, distributed leadership, evidence-informed, graduate attributes, higher education,

professional learning, quality assurance

Introduction

With increased demand for accountability and quality assurance, many higher educational

institutions are moving toward a review of their current programs. Through the curriculum

review (CR) process, program-level learning outcomes and/or graduate attributes are mapped

to data relating to course learning outcomes, instructional activities, and student assessments.

Additional data may be included in the process to provide greater evidence of the strength

of the program, and identify gaps and areas of enhancement. While the primary goal of a CR

is to allow for evidence-informed decisions that enrich the learning experiences of students,

there can be additional positive outcomes. By thoughtfully and deliberately structuring the CR

process in order to create learning opportunities for instructors, a tremendous opportunity for

continued growth and understanding of curriculum-related issues can be created.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, to illustrate the dynamic nature of the CR process, a

three-level and three-phase model is presented. The model provides visual representation of

rehaussé leur capacité à mener une révision

de programme. Pour illustrer le caractère

dynamique du processus de révision de pro-

gramme, on a imaginé un modèle de révision

de programme constitué de trois niveaux et

divisé trois phases.

En mettant en place ce modèle avec un

regroupement d’équipes éducatives, nous

avons relevé quatre recommandations essen-

tielles à la pratique faisant la promotion d’un

milieu d’apprentissage professionnel tout en

mettant sur pied une révision de multipro-

grammes : (1) le mentorat et la répartition des

tâches de leadership, (2) la normalisation de

structures et de processus fl exibles, (3) la per-

sonnalisation du processus pour une enquête

exhaustive et (4) la collaboration.

a three-level and three-phase curriculum

review model has been developed.

Based on our experience when implementing

the model with an array of instructional

teams, we identifi ed four key recommenda-

tions for practice that promoted a profes-

sional learning environment while imple-

menting a multi-program curriculum review:

(1) mentoring and distributed leadership, (2)

standardizing fl exible structures and pro-

cesses, (3) customizing the process for deep

inquiry, and (4) collaborating.

JPCOEJFPPEL

J P C O E , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J F P P E L , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J P C O E . n e t

A r t i c l e


3

the process and the nature of the structure and leadership used so as to enhance instructors’

continued professional learning about curriculum and teaching through participation in a com-

plex CR. Second, the paper outlines how the integrated three-level model was used to conduct

a one-year, 22-program CR in a faculty’s graduate unit. Following refl ection on the experience

and the implementation of the model, four key recommendations that foster an instructor’s

professional learning practice through a CR process have been identifi ed and discussed.

Curriculum Reviews in Higher Education

CR in higher education can be envisioned and conducted in diff erent ways that relate to the

purpose of the review (Willett, 2008). In this paper, CR is defi ned as an

academic staff -led critical examination of each undergraduate and course-based mas-

ter’s program for the purpose of optimizing the learning outcomes of that program.

Curriculum reviews are a formative component of the overall quality assurance strategy

and are focused on the continuing development of students’ learning experiences. (Uni-

versity of Calgary, 2015, p. 2)

There are typically two foci for a CR:

1. Enhancing the student learning experience, and

2. Addressing quality assurance concerns.

Higher educational institutions are accountable to numerous stakeholders, including students,

and there is an increasing need to demonstrate how programs are current, salient, and meet-

ing acceptable standards of quality. While quality assurance was a critical part of this review,

we chose a more collaborative, continuous-improvement approach that aligned with institu-

tional values and provided instructors with a vehicle to enhance both their students’ learning

and their own.

A robust CR draws upon data collected from a number of diff erent sources, such as student

data from surveys or focus groups, instructor feedback, enrollment and completion statistics,

and curriculum mapping data. Mapping is an important part of the review process because it

documents expectations for student learning at the program and course levels, facilitation of

student learning by instructors, and assessment of learning (Veltri, Webb, Matveev, & Zapatero,

2011; Zelenitsky et al., 2014). Curriculum mapping can also satisfy a variety of other purposes,

such as making implicit aspects of the curriculum explicit, conveying information about the

curriculum to students, off ering evidence of program quality to stakeholders, providing data to

use for accreditation, and ensuring that the curriculum is structured in a strategic, thoughtful

way that enhances student learning (University of Calgary, 2015).

JPCOEJFPPEL

J P C O E , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J F P P E L , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J P C O E . n e t

A r t i c l e


4

Various approaches to curriculum mapping have been described by researchers (e.g., Stef-

anidis & Fitzgerald, 2010; Veltri et al., 2011). A typical approach to curriculum mapping involves

instructors aligning each course outcome with one or more of the program-level learning out-

comes and/or graduate attributes that have been articulated for that program. Through visual

representation of the mapping data, diff erent aspects of the curriculum and their interrela-

tionships are illustrated (Harden, 2001). However, there is no standard method of conducting

curriculum mapping, and other aspects of curriculum can be mapped as well (Oliver, Ferns,

Whelan, & Lilly, 2010; Spencer, Riddle, & Knewstubb, 2012). For example, Veltri et al. (2011)

investigated the intended curriculum (learning outcomes), designed curriculum (core courses

plus two or three program-specifi c electives), communicated curriculum (analyzing syllabi to

see what is conveyed to students), and enacted curriculum (the extent to which program-level

learning outcomes were emphasized in each course). As noted by Willett (2008), in medical

curriculum the mapping process may involve articulating and aligning a wide variety of factors

relating to curriculum, such as logistics (location, dates, times, instructors), student assess-

ments, learning experiences, learning outcomes, and content. When conceptualizing the

mapping process, decisions need to be made about what to map, so that the resulting data

are informative in addressing critical questions about the curriculum.

The data that are gathered from mapping a curriculum are typically presented in a diagram-

matic format, such as a matrix, chart, or graph (Harden, 2001; Wang, 2015). Examining curricu-

lum mapping data that are presented visually and in aggregate form can result in benefi ts that

are not realized by a single instructor looking at his or her course in isolation, and mapping

is critical to understanding the curriculum at a program level. Mapping data, then, inform

faculty discussions about strengths, gaps, general patterns and trends, links between diff erent

courses, and other aspects of the curriculum, which can lead instructors to new insights about

a curriculum (Harden, 2001; Holycross, 2006; Robley, Whittle, & Murdoch-Eaton, 2005; Sumsion

& Goodfellow, 2004).

Previous studies show that faculty members who participated in curriculum mapping have

experienced a number of learning benefi ts. Zelenitsky et al. (2014) noted that the process of

curriculum mapping fostered a shared terminology for faculty members to discuss curricu-

lar issues. In other studies, it has been found that instructors who have worked through the

mapping process also engaged in refl ection about their teaching and identifi ed aspects of

their course or their approach to teaching that led them to consider changing (Oliver et al.,

2010; Spencer et al., 2012; Sumsion & Goodfellow, 2004). Uchiyama and Radin (2009) reported

that the faculty members who participated in curriculum mapping benefi ted from increased

collegiality and collaboration. Oliver et al. (2010) suggested that involvement in the process

of mapping a curriculum was a catalyst for increased faculty engagement in teaching and

learning issues.

JPCOEJFPPEL

J P C O E , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J F P P E L , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J P C O E . n e t

A r t i c l e


5

Context of the Review

In 2013, the University of Calgary launched the implementation of the Academic Quality Assur-

ance Handbook: Curriculum Reviews (University of Calgary, 2015). The document, which has

since been revised, emphasized that quality improvement occurs “through a focus on setting

goals, measuring performance, and periodically re-evaluating the core mission at multiple

levels of the University academic enterprise” (University of Calgary, 2015, p. 2). Integral to this

work is the CR process that is designed with a specifi c focus on the quality of the curriculum

off ered in each degree program. As outlined in the handbook (2015),

Curriculum Reviews are a formative component of the overall quality assurance strategy

and are focused on the continuing development of students’ learning experiences. This

curriculum review process will generate an action plan for improving the program, and

the impact of the review will be determined by evidence of implementation success. (p. 2)

In 2014–2015, the University of Calgary Werklund School of Education engaged in the assess-

ment of 22 master’s-level programs through a CR process. Rather than stagger the reviews, the

faculty’s administrative team decided to examine all the programs during the same academic

year for effi ciency and simultaneously to off er workshops and suppo rt to all groups. Addition-

ally, they hoped that a common CR experience would promote collegiality, sharing of ideas,

and discussions of curricular issues.

The CR lead team was composed of senior administrators within the faculty (e.g., associate

deans of the graduate program and teaching and learning programs, and the director of pro-

fessional programs). The university’s curriculum-development specialist played a critical role in

guiding the process and ensuring expectations were met for a robust evidence-informed CR.

The team was responsible for leading and structuring the review process and for the creation

of the fi nal report. The associate dean of the graduate unit and the director of professional

programs are responsible for the implementation of the fi ve-year plan that was generated as a

result of the CR.

Methodology of the Curriculum Review

A multi-phase process was used for collecting and analyzing CR data. In phase one, concep-

tualization, the CR lead team designed the process of conducting a 22-program review and a

communication plan to accompany it. The organizational structure was planned, and stan-

dardized templates were developed and shared.

During the second phase, the academic coordinator for each program led a mapping exercise

with his or her instructional team. Instructors then used the template that was provided to

map their course outcomes to program-level learning outcomes (PLOs). They also identifi ed

how course outcomes were assessed and the teaching and learning activities used to foster

JPCOEJFPPEL

J P C O E , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J F P P E L , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J P C O E . n e t

A r t i c l e


6

student learning of the course outcomes. Instructors were asked to map courses as they were

most recently taught, not as they wanted the courses to look in future. Thus, mapping data

refl ected the current curriculum and not the desired curriculum.

Additional data were collected through surveys of alumni and/or current students. It asked for

their perceptions of the following:

• program-level learning outcome alignment with assignments,

• sequence of courses in the program,

• depth and coverage of topics in the program,

• gaps in the program, and

• aspects of the program that could be improved.

Working with their team of instructors, the academic coordinators analyzed the curriculum

mapping data, making recommendations for action. The coordinators were responsible for

documenting the analysis and action plan in their program areas in a report that was submit-

ted to the CR lead team.

In phase three the CR team reviewed and analyzed the data from the 22 program reports. A

number of tables and charts were created to consolidate the data. In addition, data from the

exit surveys from the previous spring and fall were included in the report to provide insights

into the overall graduate program. Institutional data, including enrolment numbers, attrition,

retention, fail/withdrawal statistics, completion rates and times, and relevant survey results

were also analyzed. With the data pulled together, all faculty members and sessional instruct-

ors who taught in the various graduate programs received a draft report of the CR in advance

of a consultation meeting. In facilitated large- and small-group discussions, participants ana-

lyzed diff erent sources of data and shared their perspectives on strengths and gaps in gradu-

ate programs and responded to the CR guiding questions. Findings and recommendations

from the consultation were compiled and included in the fi nal CR report.

Three-Level Approach to Curriculum Review

A complex CR necessitated a well-structured process. We constructed a model that used

a three-level approach to CR: macro-, meso-, and micro-levels. An interrelationship existed

among the three levels, yet each played a distinct role in the CR process. The macro-level

pertained to the faculty. At this level larger decisions were made that aff ected all programs

and infl uenced both the meso- and micro-levels. For example, at the macro level, the review

team wrote and revised graduate attributes, set a timeline for the CR process, formulated

guiding questions, and selected the tool and the scale for mapping course outcomes to PLOs

(e.g., introductory, competent, and advanced). Program review was situated at the meso-

level, which was critical to a rigorous review process: at the meso-level, the macro-level was

JPCOEJFPPEL

J P C O E , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J F P P E L , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J P C O E . n e t

A r t i c l e


7

enacted, and the micro-level feedback was received. The micro-level consisted of all instruct-

ors involved in CR. Instructors received guidance from both the macro- and meso-levels, but

also infl uenced them by contributing their own course data, which in turn had an impact on

people’s understanding of the program as a whole.

In the following sections, we describe the fl ow of the CR process along with three phases

of the work: conceptualizing, mapping, and informing for action. During the fi rst phase—

conceptualizing—the CR leads and academic coordinators defi ned the process and set up

structures to guide the review. The second phase involved data collection. Although data were

collected from various sources, in this paper we concentrate on curriculum mapping since

it was one of the two common sources of data for all 22 CRs. The third phase, informing for

action, involved data analysis and creating an action plan for program improvements. Figure

1 provides a model to illustrate the relationship between the three levels (macro, meso, and

micro) that structured the process and the three phases used in conducting the CR.

Conceptualizing

Faculty level

Program level

Modelling and

Mentoring

Individual level

Course level

Curriculum

Mapping

Course level

Program level

Analyzing Data

Course level

Program level

Action Plan

Course level

Program level

Faculty level

MacroConceptualizing

Meso

MicroMapping

Meso

Macro

Informing for

Action

Figure 1:

Three-Phase and Three-Level Approach to Curriculum Review

JPCOEJFPPEL

J P C O E , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J F P P E L , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J P C O E . n e t

A r t i c l e


8

Conceptualizing Phase

From the outset, the curriculum lead team used the Academic Quality Assurance Handbook

(University of Calgary, 2015) as a basis to design a CR process for reviewing 22 programs. Three

key decisions had to be made in the conceptualization phase about

• adopting of graduate attributes,

• writing questions to guide the review, and

• standardizing of processes and reporting of the review.

First, when starting to plan the review, the CR lead team identifi ed and adapted statements

from the Ministerial Statement on Quality Assurance of Degree Education in Canada (Council of

Ministers of Education, Canada, 2007). Nine statements were adapted as graduate attributes

for the 22 programs under review. The expectations of degree-level standards outlined in the

document became the foundation of the faculty’s list of graduate attributes (Werklund School

of Education, 2015, p. 8):

1. Foster a thorough understanding of a substantial body of knowledge at the forefront of

the academic discipline.

2. Develop knowledge of educational research methodologies and research practices.

3. Engage in an interdisciplinary community of scholars.

4. Acquire interdisciplinary academic competencies.

5. Recognize the contributions of other interpretations, methods, and disciplines.

6. Engage in the application of knowledge.

7. Develop communication for the mobilization of knowledge.

8. Foster an increased awareness of the limits of knowledge.

9. Foster professional capacity and autonomy.

Second, overarching questions were developed to guide CR processes and ensure that each

of the 22 program reviews examined common issues. Questions were designed to investigate

the extent to which PLOs were refl ected in the courses and the learning tasks, scope and

sequence of the courses within the program, overlaps and gaps in learning outcomes, breadth

and depth of student knowledge of the fi eld of study, and the types of signature pedagogies

used in the programs.

Third, the CR lead team standardized aspects of the process to support review teams, while

also providing fl exibility to customize their review as needed. For example, the lead team

outlined the types of data to collect, created a student survey and course-mapping templates,

and supplied review teams with a template for their report. The CR lead team defi ned the

scale that all instructors used when mapping their courses’ outcomes to PLOs. Validity of the

JPCOEJFPPEL

J P C O E , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J F P P E L , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J P C O E . n e t

A r t i c l e


9

mapping data was increased by mapping an example course with academic coordinators and

facilitating a discussion on the terminology and meaning of the scale. Working through the

mapping activities provided coordinators with an example of what they would be doing with

their instructional teams. The modelling of the activity and the facilitated discussion estab-

lished a framework that coordinators could use when working with their instructors.

Mapping Phase

At the micro-level, each instructor was asked to map his or her own courses. As a necessary

fi rst step, instructors needed to have a sound understanding of why the task was important

and how the mapping process was to be completed. Course outcomes were mapped to PLOs,

and student assessments and teaching and learning activities were identifi ed for each course

outcome. The review process aff orded instructors the opportunity to examine their course

outcomes to ensure they were salient and well written, making revisions as needed. Once

course outcomes were clearly articulated, the instructor examined each one individually to

identify which PLOs they were aligned with and to what degree (introductory, competent,

or advanced).

At the meso-level, the mapping phase involved collating the data for each course into charts

and graphs that represented aggregate program-level data. For example, groups typically con-

structed a graph of their PLOs showing emphasis and depth across the program. Many also

created charts to present data on teaching and learning activities and student assessments,

in order to convey the diversity and placement of learning activities and student assessments

across a program. The charts and graphs presented the mapping data in diff erent ways to

facilitate interpretation and discussion of the program from diff erent perspectives.

Informing for Action Phase

During this phase the data were analyzed in order to generate an action plan to guide the

implementation of changes that would enhance the student learning experience. At the micro-

level, mapping their courses gave instructors the opportunity to pause and refl ect, evaluating

the emphasis of the course and its eff ectiveness. For example, instructors considered what their

intended learning outcomes were, how students were learning them, and how that learning

was assessed. Instructors were able to see the alignment, or lack of it, for each course outcome

in a visual way. Points of misalignment were occasionally addressed immediately.

At the meso-level, aggregate curriculum data provided robust data sets to better understand

current emphases, pedagogical approaches, and student assessment strategies across the pro-

gram as a whole. The analysis led to further action because it created a baseline understanding

of the current curriculum and fostered discussion about changes to the program.

JPCOEJFPPEL

J P C O E , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J F P P E L , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J P C O E . n e t

A r t i c l e


1 0

First, aggregating the curriculum-mapping data generated a snapshot of each program, often

for the fi rst time, which was used as a baseline. Documenting current aspects of a program

was a critical part of quality assurance. It provided evidence to ensure that students have the

opportunity to learn what is important in a program (Spencer et al., 2012; Willett, 2008).

Second, discussions based on data analysis led to revisions aimed at improving student

learning for each of the programs undergoing a review (Sumsion & Goodfellow, 2004). Many of

the revisions were curricular in nature. For example, instructional teams examined the empha-

sis and depth of PLOs, addressing gaps and redundancies. They also looked at pedagogical

approaches and variety in teaching and learning activities and assignments. However, the

teams also made recommendations in areas other than curriculum, including class scheduling,

policy, staffi ng, academic support, faculty professional learning, and marketing.

At the macro-level, the 22 program reports and other data sources fed into the development

of the overall graduate program action plan for the faculty. The action plan became the

roadmap for the faculty to enhance the curriculum over the next fi ve years. A communication

strategy accompanied the action plan as a means of keeping the CR active with the stakehold-

ers. For example, meetings with academic coordinators to follow up on the implementation

of their action plans provided a means to monitor progress, but also to identify resources and

supports to assist with the implementation. At the faculty level, sharing progress made with

students, staff , and instructors kept people informed about how the work was moving forward

and how the review had helped to inform program decisions.

It was no simple task to implement a multi-program CR. As noted in Figure 1, the fl ow in

phases and levels provided a structure for the review and guidance for the data-collection

process. In turn, data collected at the micro-level had an impact on meso- and macro-level

data analysis and fi ndings. It is at the macro-level that senior program administrators will be

responsible for implementing structures and processes to support the action plan. Also, they

will be responsible for gathering the data to evaluate their fi ve-year action plan.

Professional Learning in a Complex Curriculum Review

Not only did the CR result in program improvements that enhanced the student learning

experience but also it actively fostered professional learning experiences for instructors who

participated in the process. Each of the phases provided opportunities for learning and growth

in diff erent ways.

In the conceptualization phase, the academic coordinators and their teams used a collabora-

tive process to develop program-level learning outcomes that aligned with graduate attrib-

utes and were unique to their program. Writing and revising the PLOs fostered discussion

about the intent of the program, fostered discussion about the intent of the program, future

JPCOEJFPPEL

J P C O E , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J F P P E L , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J P C O E . n e t

A r t i c l e


1 1

directions, increased knowledge of the graduate attributes and faculty-level requirements,

and prompted teams to articulate tacit aspects of the programs. Through discussion some par-

ticipants realized there were subtle diff erences in their understanding of the curriculum, and

there was illumination of new perspectives of it. The review teams also examined the guiding

questions set by the CR lead team to identify specifi c lines of inquiry and add guiding ques-

tions for them. Through this process they learned about strategic priorities at the faculty level,

such as signature pedagogies.

Mentoring played a particularly important role at the meso-level. The CR lead team provided

ongoing information sessions and mentoring throughout the CR process. The mentoring

process helped coordinators to develop their knowledge and ability to lead a CR with their

instructional teams. It also developed their confi dence in interpreting the mapping data and

identifying action items for next steps in program refi nement.

The mapping phase presented rich opportunities for continuing professional learning. Using

a template to align course outcomes with PLOs was a new process for most instructors. Thus,

they learned a structure or technique to ensure the constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang,

2007) of their course. Working through the mapping process prompted instructors to consider

questions such as:

• What are the strengths of the course in terms of its alignment and contributions

to PLOs?

• Do I have the right course outcomes and are they clearly written?

• Are the teaching and learning activities helpful in fostering student understanding?

• How well do the student assessment methods align with intended learning outcomes?

Careful consideration of such questions led instructors to think deeply about course design

and helped inform the action plan for improving the program. Similar fi ndings were reported

in the literature by Sumsion and Goodfellow (2004). Zelenitsky et al. (2014) found that curricu-

lum mapping helped instructors evaluate their courses and make changes to content, peda-

gogy, and teaching and learning activities.

Course mapping also reinforced the focus of PLOs and encouraged instructors to think about

how their courses fi t into the larger context of the program. This program-level perspective

provided a diff erent way of thinking about a course: rather than a discrete piece of learning,

instructors were prompted to look at their courses as part of a complete educational experi-

ence and to think about how they complemented and built on other courses in the program

JPCOEJFPPEL

J P C O E , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J F P P E L , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J P C O E . n e t

A r t i c l e


1 2

with an eye to enhancing student learning. As a result some instructors made changes to their

courses to better align with PLOs or better scaff old1 student learning through the program.

Instructors who completed course mapping in a group setting experienced additional pro-

fessional learning benefi ts during the mapping phase. Informal discussion during the activity

allowed them to check with one another about how they were capturing course information

and prompted sharing of ideas about teaching and learning activities, grading practices, and

so on. Through meaningful discussion, instructors gained new ideas and perspectives that

informed their own practice. These collaborative hands-on sessions fostered a better under-

standing of the curriculum, especially for sessional instructors who are sometimes excluded

from curriculum committees and decision making.

The third phase, informing for action, also provided rich opportunities for professional learning.

Here, many instructors learned how to analyze curriculum data in new ways. At the program

or meso-level, once curriculum mapping data were aggregated, each academic coordinator

invited their instructional teams to discuss the charts and graphs. Instructors had intentional

and purposeful conversations about focused curriculum issues such as scaff olding student

learning through successive courses and building student writing abilities throughout a

program. Several of the instructional teams commented that they had rarely devoted the time

to conversations about such topics prior to the review. Consistent with the literature, these

curricular conversations served as professional learning opportunities on a wide range of

topics, including writing learning outcomes and validity in assessment. Uchiyama and Radin

(2009) found that instructors who participated in curriculum mapping also discussed teaching

strategies and activities with one another, generating new ideas and reducing duplication

between courses. Spencer et al. (2012) noted that, through discussions, coordinators identifi ed

program strengths and areas for improvement.

Recommendations for Fostering Professional Learning

during a Curriculum Review

Conducting a CR with the goal of improving student learning is laudable in and of itself.

However, the process can be leveraged to enhance continuing professional development for

instructors in an authentic way. Four key recommendations emerged from our refl ections for

fostering professional learning during a CR.

1 Instructional scaff olding provides support to students, particularly in the initial stages of learning, to move stu-

dents progressively toward more complexity and advanced understanding. Common scaff olding techniques

include gradually moving from simplifi ed examples to more sophisticated ones and building on students’

experiences and knowledge (Great Schools Partnership, 2014).

JPCOEJFPPEL

J P C O E , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J F P P E L , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J P C O E . n e t

A r t i c l e


1 3

First, mentoring and a distributed leadership model can be used to foster ownership of the

initiative and build capacity of those involved. For example, at the meso-level, academic

coordinators learned what was required of them in leading their programs’ CR. At the micro-

level, instructors took on the responsibility of mapping their courses, conveying nuances that

are not evident from merely reading a course outline. They then shared their fi ndings with

the instructional team and had a critical role in discussing the course mappings in relation

to the program. A distributed leadership model not only strengthened the initiative but also

enhanced the understanding and skills of those involved. Similarly, Oliver et al. (2010) stated

that discussions, ownership, and engagement of teaching staff in the CR process were critical

to the success of CR.

Second, standard templates for the student survey, course mapping, and the program report

provided necessary structure for individuals who were unfamiliar with the process, thereby

fostering their success. Providing a solid foundation on which to build gave people the know-

ledge, skills, and confi dence needed to conduct their reviews. It also provided a common

vocabulary for instructors to use with broader curriculum discussions in future. Zelenitsky et al.

(2014) noted that common templates increased consistency and reliability of mapping data,

while improving data collection and management processes.

Third, allowing groups the fl exibility to customize their reviews encouraged them to identify

and investigate aspects of the curriculum that were interesting to them as a team. Exploring

things such as pedagogical approaches within their own program led to professional growth.

Fourth, working collaboratively led to a better understanding of the program. As individuals dis-

cussed their perspectives on the courses and the program, they gained a richer understanding

of strategic priorities, intentions, future directions, and ideas they could incorporate into their

own practice. Some also refi ned specifi c skills such as writing eff ective learning outcomes.

Conclusion

As a response to the need for quality assurance, many higher educational institutions are

beginning to implement CR processes. We have shared strategies that were employed in

conducting a complex multi-program CR where the CR lead team developed a model that

clearly outlined the roles, expectations, and timeline for faculty leaders, academic coordinators,

and individual instructors to manage the process. This model provides a dynamic framework

to inform practice and recommendations for future actions in support of robust programs in

higher education. The multi-phase model off ers a structured environment that allows many

people to assume leadership roles. In addition, it builds capacity for curriculum development

within a faculty, encourages a collaborative approach to CR, and supports continuous profes-

sional learning. In our multi-program review, the process resulted in action plans for individ-

ual programs and the faculty, including recommendations for improving courses, teaching

JPCOEJFPPEL

J P C O E , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J F P P E L , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J P C O E . n e t

A r t i c l e


1 4

practices, professional development, and policy implementation, with the ultimate goal of

improving the student learning experience.

In addition to quality assurance, the CR process off ers professional learning experiences for

all involved through the conceptualization, mapping, and action phases of the review. Pro-

fessional learning through this process provides opportunities for faculty to engage in clarify-

ing the intent of a program, increase understanding of graduate attributes and faculty-level

policies, gain new perspectives on a program, strengthen skills in curriculum mapping tech-

niques and interpreting curriculum data, and apply concepts of constructive alignment to a

course. This learning experience shifts the focus from a course to a program-level perspective.

A CR process not only fosters quality assurance but also fosters rich professional learning for

instructors who engage in it.

References

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Quality learning at university (3rd ed.). Maidenhead, UK: Open

University Press.

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (2007). Ministerial statement on quality assurance of

degree education in Canada. Retrieved from http://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists

/Publications/Attachments/95/QA-Statement-2007.en.pdf

Great Schools Partnership. (2014). The glossary of education reform: Scaff olding. Retrieved from

http://edglossary.org/scaff olding/

Harden, R. M. (2001). AMEE guide no. 21: Curriculum mapping: A tool for transparent and

authentic teaching and learning. Medical Teacher, 23(2), 123–137.

Holycross, J. (2006). Curriculum mapping—an essential tool for curriculum development. Jour-

nal of Physician Assistant Education, 17(4), 61–64. Retrieved from http://www.paeaonline.

org/index.php?ht=action/GetDocumentAction/i/25408

Oliver, B., Ferns, S., Whelan, B., & Lilly, L. (2010). Mapping the curriculum for quality enhance-

ment: Refi ning a tool and processes for the purpose of curriculum renewal. Proceedings

of the AUQF 2010 Quality in Uncertain Times, June 3, 2010, 80–88. Retrieved from http://

espace.library.curtin.edu.au/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=155120&local_base=

GEN01-ERA02

Robley, W., Whittle, S., & Murdoch-Eaton, D. (2005). Mapping generic skills curricula: Out-

comes and discussion. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29(4), 321–230. doi:

10.1080/03098770500353342

Spencer, D., Riddle, M., & Knewstubb, B. (2012). Curriculum mapping to embed gradu-

ate capabilities. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(2), 217–231. doi:

10.1080/07294360.2011.554387

JPCOEJFPPEL

J P C O E , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J F P P E L , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J P C O E . n e t

A r t i c l e


1 5

Stefanidis, A., & Fitzgerald, G. (2010). Mapping the information systems curricula in UK universi-

ties. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(4), 391–409.

Sumsion, J., & Goodfellow, J. (2004). Identifying generic skills through curriculum mapping:

A critical evaluation. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(3), 329–346. doi:

10.1080/0729436042000235436

Uchiyama, K. P., & Radin, J. L. (2009). Curriculum mapping in higher education: A vehicle for col-

laboration. Innovative Higher Education, 33(4), 271–280. doi: 10.1007/s10755-008-9078-8

University of Calgary. (2015). Academic quality assurance handbook: Curriculum reviews (Rev. ed.).

Retrieved from http://www.ucalgary.ca/provost/fi les/provost/curriculum_review

_handbook_gfc_dec_2015.pdf

Veltri, N. F., Webb, H. W., Matveev, A. G., & Zapatero, E. G. (2011). Curriculum mapping as a tool

for continuous improvement of IS curriculum. Journal of Information Systems Education,

22(1), 31–42.

Wang, C.-L. (2015). Mapping or tracing? Rethinking curriculum mapping in higher education.

Studies in Higher Education 40(9), 1550–1559. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2014.899343

Werklund School of Education. (2015). Werklund School of Education Graduate Programs

in Education: Course-based programs curriculum review report executive summary.

Retrieved from https://www.ucalgary.ca/provost/fi les/provost/werklund_gpe

_curriculum_review_executive_summary_sept_25_2015.pdf

Willett, T. G. (2008). Current status of curriculum mapping in Canada and the UK. Medical Edu-

cation, 42, 786–793.

Zelenitsky, S., Vercaigne, L., Davies, N. M., Davis, C., Renaud, R., & Kristjanson, C. (2014). Using

curriculum mapping to engage faculty members in the analysis of a pharmacy program.

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(7). doi: 10.5688/ajpe787139

Corresponding Author

Patti Dyjur

Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning

University of Calgary

2500 University Drive NW

Calgary, AB

T2N 1N4

403-220-2440

[email protected]

JPCOEJFPPEL

J P C O E , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J F P P E L , V o l 2 . 1 , 2 0 1 6

J P C O E . n e t

A r t i c l e


1 6

Biographies

Patti Dyjur is a curriculum development specialist at the University of Calgary. She works with

curriculum committees when they review their programs to help them identify strengths and

areas for improvement. Currently she is investigating various ways of representing complex

curriculum data sets in ways that foster insightful curriculum discussions and diff erent models

for conducting a curriculum review.

Patti Dyjur est spécialiste en élaboration de programmes à l’Université de Calgary. Elle travaille

avec les comités de curriculum lorsqu’ils revoient leurs programmes afi n de les aider à en rele-

ver les forces et les faiblesses. Elle fait présentement de la recherche sur les diff érentes façons

de représenter les données de programmes complexes d’une manière qui favorise de riches

discussions sur les programmes et diff érents modèles de révision de programme.

Jennifer Lock is a professor and the associate dean of teaching and learning in the Werklund

School of Education at the University of Calgary. Her area of specialization is in the learning

sciences. Her research focus is on online learning; technology integration in education and

teacher education; change and innovation in education (teaching, learning, and leading), with

a specifi c interest in leading innovation involving educational technology; and educational

development and the scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education.

Jennifer Lock est professeure et vice-doyenne à l’enseignement et à l’apprentissage au Werklund

School of Education de l’Université de Calgary. Elle se spécialise en sciences de l’apprentissage.

Ses recherches portent surtout sur l’apprentissage en ligne; l’intégration de la technologie

en éducation et la formation des enseignants; les changements et l’innovation en éducation

(enseignement, apprentissage et direction), avec un intérêt particulier pour l’innovation en

matière de direction impliquant la technologie éducative; et le perfectionnement de l’enseigne-

ment, ainsi que la science de l’enseignement et de l’apprentissage en enseignement supérieur.

a model to build capacity through a multi-program

Documents