Curriculum mapping: the visual approach to curriculum re-engineering

Curriculum mapping feels like another added curricular document requirement that academic programs are compelled to comply with, thus adding further angst to that already piling up with respect to outcome-based education (OBE). For all the effort it calls for, the process of curriculum mapping fruitfully engages us to discover the existing strengths of our education programs and enables us to easily recognize the aspects of the curriculum that need to be amended. In the long run, curriculum mapping helps up plan and implement our curricula in a way that undisputably promotes our learners' attainment of the expected learning outcomes.

The medical educationist Ronald Harden describes a curriculum map as a “diagrammatic representation of the curriculum displaying the different elements of the curriculum and the interrelationships between these different elements.” The elements of the curriculum that can be depicted visually may include the learning outcomes, the course content, the learning experiences, the learning resources, and the staff. The curriculum map can also include the students' program of study, i.e., how they interact with the learning opportunities in different phases of the education program (Harden, 2001). The process of curriculum mapping thus offers an opportunity to reflect critically on these elements, and substantiate how they are linked to expectations about learners. Employing the diagrammatic methodology of curriculum mapping generates a helpful visual aid that expedites the task of checking how well-aligned our programs are with the expected learning outcomes. This visual also serves as a functional blueprint for putting the “designing backwards” principle of OBE into action.

Basic curriculum mapping begins with the four key clusters of curricular elements: learning outcomes, content, learning opportunities, and assessment. The most straightforward method involves checking the congruence of subject content with the learning outcomes. Determining this alignment of content with the program outcomes simply calls for identifying the specific subject(s) where the content relevant to achieving each of program outcomes is taught. This relationship is then represented in a table such as the one below.

Subsequently, we can reflect on the learning opportunities in relation to the learning outcomes using the same approach. The effective application of the outcome-based education model calls for learners to be actually doing the verbs contained in our statements of intended outcomes (Biggs & Tang, 2011). Thus, to establish the link between outcomes and learning opportunities, we have to contemplate: Which subject(s) contain learning activities where the students actually perform the verbs contained in the statements of learning outcomes? Identified matches between activities within subjects and the learning outcomes they address can be marked in a table similar to the one above.

Furthermore, we can use the curriculum map to characterize the extent of our learners’ engagement with the content related to each program outcome. After identifying the respective subjects where the content relevant to each program outcome is taken up, we can denote if the content is simply introduced (conceptually), or if there are activities involving learners’ practicing (with supervision, mostly) how to apply the content in (mostly simulated) concrete situations, or if the learners are given the opportunity to apply the content in actual, real-world settings. These can be indicated in the curriculum map as “I”, “P”, and “D”, respectively, such as in the sample below.

It could be practicable to see mostly “I” or “P” labels in the curriculum maps of the earlier year levels of our programs (like in Subjects 1 to 6 in the curriculum map above), but it would be unsuitable to have more I’s and P’s than D’s in the later years of the curriculum, when the learners are expected to have progressed to levels of proficiency that reflect more (rather than less) independent demonstrations of competence. The curriculum map for the later years of the program should look like the ones for Subjects 7 to 10 in the sample above.

I propose that we carry out curriculum mapping this way at least twice during curriculum reviews. In the first round of curriculum mapping, we indicate the level of engagement in relation to each exit outcome (I, P, or D) that is actually happening presently in our classes in all year levels of the program of study. In the second round of curriculum mapping, we construct a second curriculum map that reflects what we feel should be the intended level of engagement (again, I, P, or D) for each of the exit outcomes in every year level of the program. The first map is, in effect, mapping the enacted curriculum – the curriculum that is actually implemented, while the second map represents the intended curriculum – planned, but not yet actually realized. By comparing these two curriculum maps, we can easily identify existing gaps between what is and what should be in the way we implement our curricula.

Following this, we can apply the same process when we map our assessment activities with respect to the learning outcomes. Documenting the extent to which all program outcomes are assessed throughout the program of study helps us recognize the extent of alignment of our program outcomes and the way we measure student achievement of these outcomes. This mapping process generates yet another useful blueprint: one that will guide us as we construct the assessment system for our curriculum. Furthermore, assessment-oriented curriculum mapping can provide a richer analysis of the role of assessments in the curriculum by depicting the extent to which formative assessments (which are crucial in OBE) of the outcomes are present throughout the program of study. Similar to mapping the enacted and the intended curriculum in terms of the students’ level of active engagement with the intended outcomes during the learning activities, we can likewise map and then compare the enacted and intended curriculum in terms of the presence of formative assessments of the outcomes.

OBE will help our students (if we do it right)

The curricula of our ASEAN neighbors’ medical schools are designed and implemented following the principles of Outcome-Based Education (OBE). With the 2015 regional integration fast approaching, we have to play major catch-up these days. The effort we will need to exert to implement the four basic principles of OBE in our higher education programs in the health sciences will pay off for our students because:

1. OBE provides clarity of focus. Explicitly defining the endpoints of learning makes it clear to our learners what they are working for. They can spend their learning effort and time more efficiently when they see how the knowledge, skills and attitudes that they are learning are connected to future professional tasks, functions, and responsibilities, along with how their professional practice is expected to influence societal outcomes.

Designing an outcome-based health sciences curriculum therefore starts with a clear definition of the intended outcomes that the students are expected to achieve by the end of the program. These culminating exit outcomes serve as the focus of what the students are aiming for.

2. Designing the curriculum backwards à la OBE ensures that planning and implementation of teaching and testing are truly connected to the learning outcomes. After setting the exit outcomes, all planning, teaching and assessment decisions are then made to ensure that the students will achieve the desired end results. Content is selected based on the extent that they directly contribute to accomplishing the outcomes. Learning experiences that will engage the learners in actively processing knowledge, practicing skills, and internalizing valued professional traits are chosen. Assessment activities that provide useful feedback to the learners are regularly conducted to guarantee successful achievement of the expected learning.

  

      3. Setting high expectations and helping students to achieve them enhances our learners’ self-efficacy. In the OBE framework, we clearly expect students to meet particular standards. At the same time, we also have to motivate them in a positive way to engage actively with their learning tasks so that they can achieve the challenging standards that have been set. By helping them succeed in their learning, we are setting the stage for future successful learning.

 4. Providing expanded opportunities for all students to achieve the high standards addresses the unique learner characteristics each of them brings into the learning situation. Not all learners can learn the same thing in the same way and in the same time. This is addressed in an OBE context by employing assorted learning activities and frequent assessments with genuine, helpful feedback. It is not necessarily a matter of exactly matching our teaching styles to our students’ learning preferences, but more of tapping into their multiple intelligences: allowing them to go about their learning tasks using their more developed learning mannerisms, but at the same time helping augment their less developed learning approaches.

If we really put our hearts to it (and not just for the sake of complying with the Commission of Higher Education’s Memorandum Order No. 46 of 2012) in applying these four principles of OBE, we can achieve our goal of providing genuinely world-class learning experiences for our university and college students.

Saccades and pursuits at AMEE 2014

Academics gotta eat, too. The lunch crowd at AMEE 2014.

Last month, I was one of about 3,600 attendees representing 93 countries at the annual conference of the Association for Medical Education in Europe (AMEE) in Milan, Italy. What a fascinating, enormous array of the state-of-the-art in health professions education over five days! The body of 1,699 works in medical education that were presented consisted of 531 short communications, 13 PhD dissertation reports, 42 themed research reports, 745 poster presentations, and 205 e-poster presentations, along with evidence-based, innovative medical education strategies tackled in 37 pre-conference workshops, 6 Meet-the-Expert sessions, 88 conference workshops, 8 Fringe presentations, as well as 3 plenary sessions, 22 symposia, and 66 meetings. My saccades and pursuits were challenged to the max with these 415 sessions! But, as one fellow delegate had reflected, the AMEE 2014 experience was, I quote: interesting, busy, and productive. More on the latest in health professions education in future posts.

Keeping an eye on things

 

I’ve been a health professions educator for nearly twenty years – of these, ten have been spent as an educationist. Since completing my Master in Health Professions at the University of the Philippines National Teacher Training Center for the Health Professions, I’ve been more keenly  involved in education research, curriculum innovation and evaluation, and faculty development.

Health professions education is a vast landscape, with so many fascinating principles and frameworks that one can draw from and build good teaching practice with. Sorting through this extensive field, picking out what is genuinely helpful for our students, and keeping track of the evolution of best teaching practices is a complex, constant endeavor, especially when everything in the field catches my eye. I’m no ophthalmologist, but I’ve realized that how I delve into topics in  health professions education is comparable to the movements our eyes employ in order to get clear vision on targets of interest – hence, this blog’s name.

Saccades are quick, scanning eye movements made for the purpose of locating specific things (usually stationary objects) in the environment. Meanwhile, pursuits are tracking eye movements that allow us to fix our gaze and follow moving objects. In the last ten years, I have fixed and moved my educational gaze back and forth, up and down, here, there, and everywhere in cognitive psychology, behavioral economics, visual sciences, measurement and evaluation theory, management science, persuasion and rhetoric, and just about any field that can be drawn from and applied to promote better student learning. Through this blog I hope to share my reflections on all these years of saccades and pursuits.

Let me now invite you to what can be a fruitful dialogue on our concerns in health professions education. Comments are very much welcome: do share your own experiences along with your reactions to these posts, as well as your questions. Let’s keep an eye on things together, and focus on good education practice that will help our learners.