Escola Americana de Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2011-Current
Curriculum Coordinator, Dean of Students, AP English Teacher
IB MYP Year 5 Language A Teacher
Escola Americana de Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2009-2011
AP English Teacher, IB MYP Years 2-5 Language A Teacher
Singapore International School, India, 2008-2009
English Teacher for grades 3, 5, 7, and 8
Ivanna Eudora Kean High School, U.S. Virgin Islands, 2007-2008
English Teacher for grades 10 and 11, ESL Teacher, Writing Teacher
Leone High School, American Samoa, 2006-2007
English Teacher for grades 10 and 11
Qualifications:
Graduate Certificate in Advanced International Baccalaureate Studies, Fast Train
George Mason University 2011-2012
Page 2
M.Ed.: Curriculum and Instruction, Advanced Studies in Teaching and Learning
George Mason University 2011-2013
B.A.: English
James Madison University 2005
Previous research experience:
Some within graduate coursework
Previous research awards (if applicable):
None
Publications (if applicable):
None
Project details Maximum of 800 words for this section
Title:
Mapping Curriculum for Alignment and Articulation
Objective(s):
To evaluate the influence of online curriculum mapping and planning software on the alignment and articulation of school curriculum with IB MYP standards and practices, by assessing influence upon –
1. Collaborative planning
2. Coverage of the Areas of Interaction
3. Summative assessment
Proposed activity and research methodology-- include at minimum in the methodology description your research question(s), methods of qualitative and or quantitative data collection, and method of data analysis:
Research Questions:
How effectively do online curriculum planning tools promote alignment, articulation and teacher collaboration in the IB Middle Years Programme?
1. In what ways does an electronic curriculum design interface influence collaborative planning of teachers in an MYP World School?
2. In what ways can teachers use online curriculum design to ensure balanced coverage of the MYP Areas of Interaction?
3. a. Does implementation of online curriculum mapping make teachers more attentive to summative assessment? If so, how?
b. In what ways does online mapping influence cross-curricular assessment?
4. Does implementation of an electronic curriculum design interface lead to greater practice and delivery of IB programmes? If so, in what ways?
Page 3
Data Collection
1. Teachers will be surveyed before implementation (Appendix A), at least four times during the process of use, and once upon project completion. Data includes self-evaluation of practices and whole school evaluation. Some question content is repeated to check consistency.
2. At least one assessment example per subject area will be collected and evaluated (once at the beginning of the project and once at the end) using a rubric that examines the presence and effectiveness of cross-curricular elements and AOI connections. Data will be cross-referenced against data collected through surveys.
Data Analysis
1. Data derived from Google Forms surveys will be compiled based on type and coded to provide assertions about collaboration, AOIs, assessment, differentiation, and 21st century skill instruction. Progressive, comparative qualitative and quantitative data will indicate the degree of influence of the online mapping software on these areas.
2. The investigator will analyse data entered and used in the electronic curriculum design interface, which will provide comparative data to the survey results, indicating collaboration occurrence, interdisciplinary teaching presence, AOI balance, and assessment success. This document review will occur using the mapping software’s “live” interface that collects unit plans and discovers connections between plans.
3. Informal classroom observations will provide information about consistency between plan elements and classroom teaching, particularly in the areas of 21st century skills, international mindedness, and IB standards and practices.
*Please note: Development of the survey, research questions, and rubric required insight from proven experts in education (Appendix F).
Timeline:
The initial survey will take place before the electronic curriculum design interface is put into use at the school, and data will be collected for two full semesters of use.
Expected outcomes including relevance to the IB and benefits to the school:
Based on initial research, it is expected that the live curriculum mapping software will prove to serve as a platform for communication and collaboration. It is expected that the integration and connections between unit plans created by using the software will improve balance and depth of AOI instruction, improve our standing in self-assessment criteria related to IB standards and practices, and enhance the sharing of best practices that will allow for improved differentiation and effective, authentic, summative assessment.
This project is directly relevant to the IB as we will evaluate and explore opportunities for improving the implementation of IB curriculum at our school. This project will assist in the alignment and articulation of the IB MYP (and following this project, the investigator will similarly explore integration of the IB PYP with this research along with our other programs of continuum). This project and its outcomes are aimed at exploration of student development as international-minded, 21st century, lifelong learners.
The created opportunities for practitioner reflection, dialogue, resources, and skill building will compensate for the limited opportunities our schedule allows for sharing practices and collaborating for interdisciplinary teaching. Therefore, this research will prove useful to many private, international schools that are looking for similar solutions.
Page 4
Proposed dissemination of results:
EABH Community
1. Reports for future IB and AdvancED accreditation visits
2. Presentation to school board for action and budgeting of resources
3. Presentation to teachers to serve as a lead-in to IB self-review: We will use this data to understand how to continuously improve our practice while compiling a wealth of curriculum that is consistently reviewed.
IB
1. Paper to be submitted to IERD
2. Presentation to workshops and conferences if deemed admissible by IB
*Following the dissemination of publications, the investigator will look to continue such research in our PYP program to lead to whole school continuum examination.
Further information
Co-investigators (if applicable):
None
Participating schools (if applicable):
None, as of yet
Evidence of investigator (or co-investigator) knowledge of applicable research methodology:
The investigator will be pursuing this project as the curriculum coordinator of EABH and will incorporate research methodology along with graduate coursework in Advanced International Baccalaureate Studies at George Mason University.
Other support (if applicable, e.g. referees, endorsements, additional funding sources):
This research will center on the use of The Mondrian Wall as our curriculum mapping software interface. This product is emerging for international use and utilizes real-time, live functionality that increases efficiency and creates connections for teaching content across curricula. As this software is in its early stages of use and without hard data or research, this project will serve as fundamental in testing the possibilities for practitioner benefit of an innovative direction for curriculum mapping design.
The investigator has discussed options with the school if he is granted partial funding from IB. If he is granted partial funding, Escola Americana de Belo Horizonte is prepared to provide additional funding.
A letter of support from the school’s director is included as Appendix E.
Curriculum and Collaboration Survey
Planning
Planning|| 1- None || 2- about 15 to 30 minutes || 3- about 30 to 45 minutes || 4- about 45 to 60 minutes || 5- 60 minutes ormore ||
None about 15 to 30minutes
about 30 to 45minutes
about 45 to 60minutes
60 minutes ormore
About how much time perweek do you spend
informally collaboratingwith other teachers about
curriculum?About how much time per
week do you spend formallycollaborating with other
teachers about curriculum?
Do you feel that you are able to give balanced coverage to the Areas ofInteraction? How or how are you not?Please discuss specific coverage of each of the Areas of Interaction (Human Ingenuity, Environments, Health and SocialEducation, Community and Service).
Which Area of Interaction do you feel is given the least attention or depth ofexploration in your teaching?-------------------------------------
To what extent do you agree with these statements?|| 1- Not at all || 2- To some degree || 3 || 4- Mostly || 5- Fully agree ||
Not at all To somedegree
Mostly Fully agree
Collaborative planning andreflection addresses the
requirements of theprogramme(s).
Collaborative planning andreflection takes place
regularly andsystematically.
Collaborative planning andreflection addresses verticaland horizontal articulation.Collaborative planning andreflection ensures that allteachers have an overview
of students' learningexperiences.
Collaborative planning andreflection is based on
agreed expectations forstudent learning.
Collaborative planning andreflection incorporates
differentiation for students'learning needs and styles.
Collaborative planning andreflection is informed by
assessment of student workand learning.
Collaborative planning andreflection recognizes that
all teachers are responsible
William Rodick
Appendix ACurriculum and Collaboration Survey
William Rodick
for language developmentof students.
Collaborative planning andreflection addresses the IBlearner profile attributes.
What makes collaboration difficult?
What might increase collaboration in our department?
Teaching
How effective is differentiation in your classroom?Please check off the effective feedback checklist options listed here from Tomlinson and McTighe's IntegratingDifferentiated Instruction and Understanding by Design, pages 44 to 57.
Get to know each student as a means of teaching him or her effectively.
Continually map the progress of students against essential outcomes.
Find alternate ways of teaching and alternate paths to learning to ensure continual growth of each student.
Provide support systems that persistently articulate to students and model for them what quality work looks like andwhat it takes to attain quality results.
Elicit and value multiple perspectives on issues, decisions, and ways of accomplishing the work of the class.
Make sure all students[...] participate regularly—with no student or group of students either dominating the class orreceding from participation in it.
Design tasks that enable each student to make important contributions to the work of the group.
Make opportunities to communicate individually with individual learners.
Work to understand each student’s profile of academic strengths and weaknesses.
Observe students working individually, in small groups, and in the class as a whole with the intent to study factorsthat facilitate or impede progress for individuals and for the group as a whole.
Create opportunities to learn from parents, guardians, and community members about students.
Explain the benefit in extending students’ strengths.
Help students acknowledge areas of weakness.
Facilitate ways to remediate or compensate for weaknesses.
Guide students in developing a vocabulary related to learning preferences and in exercising those preferences thatfacilitate their growth.
Ask students to reflect on their own growth, factors that facilitate that growth, and likely next steps to ensurecontinual growth.
Support students in setting and monitoring personal learning goals.
Allow for students’ different paces of learning.
Gather both basic and supplementary materials of different readability levels that reflect different cultures,connect with varied interests, and are in different modes (e.g., auditory and visual).
Experiment with ways to rearrange furniture to allow for whole-class, small-group, and individual learning spaces.
Vary student groupings so that in addition to meeting readiness needs, they enable students to work with peers whohave similar and dissimilar interests, similar and dissimilar learning preferences, in random groups, in groups selectedby the teacher, and in those students select themselves.
Regularly teach to the whole class, to small groups based on assessed need, and to individuals.
Teach in a variety of ways to accommodate students’ varied readiness needs, interests, and learning preferences.
Ensure that grades communicate both personal growth and relative standing in regard to specified learningoutcomes.
Help students reflect on which strategies work well for them, why that might be the case, and what that reveals tothe student about him- or herself as a learner.
Engage students in setting personal goals and evaluating progress toward those goals.
Reflect consistently on individual and group growth in order to adjust instruction in ways of greatest benefit to
individuals and the class as a whole.
William Rodick
Appendix ACurriculum and Collaboration Survey
William Rodick
individuals and the class as a whole.
Please use this box to add any other information you feel may be importantabout your responses to the last question, "How effective is differentiation inyour classroom?"
To what extent do you agree with these statements?|| 1- Not at all || 2- To some degree || 3 || 4- Mostly || 5- Fully agree ||
Not at allTo some
degreeMostly Fully agree
The content of my
instruction makes students
aware of international
issues.
My students learn how to
learn.
My students frequently solve
problems.
My students design
problems to solve
themselves.
My students communicate
and collaborate to solve
problems.
My learning environment
fosters questioning,
patience, openness to fresh
ideas, high levels of trust,
and learning from mistakes
and failures.
My students invent solutions
to real-world problems.
Please use this box to add any other information you feel may be importantabout your responses to the last question.
Assessment
Assessment|| 1- 0% || 2- about 10% || 3- about 25-40% || 4- about 50-70% || 5- 75% or more ||
0% about 10% about 25-40% about 50-70% 75% or more
What percentage of your
summative assessments
relate to subject area
objectives?
What percentage of your
summative assessments
relate to subject area
standards?
What percentage of your
summative assessments
provide information that is
used in cross-curricular
discussions with peers?
What percentage of your
summative assessments
cover standards from other
subject areas?
What percentage of your
summative assessments
cover objectives from other
subject areas?
William Rodick
Appendix ACurriculum and Collaboration Survey
William Rodick
subject areas?What percentage of your
summative assessments are
interdisciplinary with one
other teacher?
What percentage of your
summative assessments are
interdisciplinary with two
other teachers?
What percentage of your
summative assessments are
interdisciplinary with three
or more other teachers?
How effective are your summative assessments?Please check off the effective feedback checklist options listed here from Grant Wiggins's Educative Assessment, pages
22 and 49.
Provides confirming (or disconfirming) useful evidence of effect relative to intent, for example, a map and road
signs; compares work to anchor papers and rubrics.
Compares current performance and trend to successful result (standard), for example, the taste and appearance of
the food, not the recipe, guarantee the meal will come out as described; student work is compared against exemplars
and criteria.
Timely: immediate or performerfriendly in its immediacy, such as feedback from audience and conductor during a
recital.
Frequent and ongoing.
Descriptive language predominates in assessing aspects of performance, for example, you made a left turn onto
Main St. instead of a right turn; rubrics describe qualities of performance using concrete indicators and traits unique to
each level.
Performer perceives a specific, tangible effect, later symbolized by a score that the performer sees is an apt
reflection of the effect, such as the score given by a band judge in competition, based on specific criteria; the grade or
score confirms what was apparent to the performer about the quality of the performance after it happened.
The result sought is derived from true models (exemplars), for example, a first grade evaluation of reading is
linked to the capacities of a successful adult reader: the reading rubric is longitudinal and anchored by expert reading
behaviors; feedback is given in terms of the goal, such as the specific accomplishments of those who effectively read to
learn.
Enables performers to improve through self assessment and self adjustment.
Is realistic. The task or tasks replicate the ways in which a person's knowledge and abilities are "tested" in real-world situations.
Requires judgment and innovation. The student has to use knowledge and skills wisely and effectively to solve unstructured problems, such as when a plan must
be designed, and the solution involves more than following a set routine or procedure or plugging in knowledge.
Asks the student to "do" the subject. Instead of reciting, restating, or replicating through demonstration what he or she was taught or what is already known, the
student has to carry out exploration and work within the discipline of science, history, or any other subject.
Replicates or simulates the contexts in which adults are "tested" in the workplace, in civic life, and in personal life. Contexts involve specific situations that
have particular constraints, purposes, and audiences. Typical school tests are context-less. Students need to experience what it is like to do tasks in workplace and other real-life contexts, which tend to be messy and murky. In other words, genuine tasks require good judgment. Authentic tasks undo the ultimately harmful secrecy,-
silence, and absence of resources and feedback that mark excessive school testing.
Assesses the student's ability to efficiently and effectively use a repertoire of knowledge and skill to negotiate a complex task. Most conventional test items
are isolated elements of performance—
similar to sideline drills in athletics rather than to the integrated use of skills that a game requires. Good judgment is required
here, too. Although there is, of course, a place for drill tests, performance is always more than the sum of the drills.
Allows appropriate opportunities to rehearse, practice, consult resources, and get feedback on and refine performances and products. Although there is a
role for the conventional "secure" test that keeps questions secret and keeps resource materials from students until during the test, that testing must coexist with
educative assessment if students are to improve performance! if we are to focus their learning, through cycles of performancefeedback revisionperformance, on the production of known high-quality products and standards! and if we are to help them learn to use information, resources, and notes to effectively perform in -
context.
Please use this box to add any other information you feel may be importantabout your responses to the last question, "How effective are your summativeassessments?"
Submit
Powered by Google Docs
Report Abuse - Terms of Service - Additional Terms
William Rodick
Appendix ACurriculum and Collaboration Survey
William Rodick
Appendix B Assessment Rubric and Differentiation Questionnaire
Criterion A: Cross-Curricular Elements Maximum: 8 Achievement Level
Level Descriptor Teacher Comments
0 The assessment piece does not reach a standard described by any of the descriptors below.
1-2 The assessment piece meets only one or two of the following criteria: * allows students to use skills learned in more than one subject area. * allows some topical understanding of study in more than one subject area. * references either intercultural awareness or a real-world connection to some degree by the student.
3-4 The assessment piece allows students to use skills learned in more than one subject area. The assessment piece allows some topical understanding of study in more than one subject area. The assessment piece references either intercultural awareness or a real-world connection to some degree by the student.
5-6 The assessment piece requires student demonstration of knowledge that integrates at least one objective from each of more than one subject area. The assessment piece demonstrates topical understanding of study in more than one subject area. The assessment piece requires a reference to intercultural awareness by the student.
7-8 The assessment piece requires student demonstration of knowledge that integrates several objectives from more than one subject area. The assessment piece demonstrates contextual understanding of topics studied in more than one subject area. The assessment piece requires a demonstration of intercultural awareness by the student. The assessment piece expects the student to apply knowledge and skills innovatively to solve an unstructured problem, replicating real-world experience.
Appendix B Assessment Rubric and Differentiation Questionnaire
Criterion B: Area of Interaction Depth Maximum: 8 Achievement Level
Level Descriptor Teacher Comments
0 The assessment piece does not reach a standard described by any of the descriptors below.
1-2 The assessment piece’s connection to the AOI seems contrived and artificial. The assessment piece limits active involvement and engagement as the result of a faulty or absent linkage to the AOI. The assessment piece is missing conceptual understanding and a connection to a global issue context that could be expected from depth of AOI study.
3-4 The assessment piece’s connection to the AOI may be related, but integration would possibly seem forced and unnatural. The assessment piece promotes some involvement and engagement that is somehow connected to the AOI. The assessment piece allows for some conceptual exploration of an issue, although perhaps only in part, through AOI reference.
5-6 The assessment piece’s connection to the AOI seems related, but could be integrated more fully. The assessment piece promotes some active involvement and engagement as a direct result of a logical linkage to the AOI. The assessment piece expects conceptual understanding and students explore the context of a global issue, although perhaps only in part, through related AOI study.
7-8 The assessment piece’s connection to the AOI reflects fluid integration. The assessment piece demands active involvement and engagement as a direct result of valuable linkage to the AOI. The assessment piece is rich in conceptual understanding and students explore the context of a global issue as a result of AOI study.
Appendix B Assessment Rubric and Differentiation Questionnaire
Differentiation Questionnaire Question Response
1 Did this learning experience enable these particular students to learn this material well?
2 Whose needs were not met with these learning experiences?
3 Is there any portion of the expected understandings that the lessons did not address?
4 Were the lessons that guided this assessment necessary for all students?
5 How does this assessment meet the needs of students who already understood this material or who learned very quickly?
6 Does this assessment let me know that students have mastered this material?
7 How had I taken the instructional pulse of the students via formative assessments regarding this material? Did formative assessment influence instructional decisions that made this summative assessment appropriate?
8 Did this unit go the way I wanted it to go? If not, what got me off track?
Currl'cuum MapppngelOiuildinag Aollaboraio and Gomunieaion
ANGELA KOPPANG
This article explores the application and use of curriculum map-ping as a tool to assist teachers in communicating the content,skills, and assessments used in their classrooms. The process ofcurriculum mapping is explained, and the adaptation of theprocess for special education teachers is detailed. Finally, ex-amples are given of how curriculum mapping can assist bothspecial and general education teachers in meeting the needs ofstudents in the classroom. Although this article will apply theuse of curriculum mapping data at the middle school level, theprocess of mapping is equally effective at the elementary andhigh school levels.
VOL 39, NO. 3, JANUARY 2024 (P. 154-161)154 IUMVElfflOll IN SCHOOL AND CUIIIC
William Rodick
Appendix C Research Text 1
rs. Anderson, a seventh-grade life scienceteacher, has 24 students in her class, 4 ofwhom are students with disabilities. Jessehas a mild learning disability and needslittle assistance in the class, although he has
some difficulties with organization. Jenny and Brian havemild cognitive disabilities and have some modified expec-tations for vocabulary and lengthier written assign-ments. John has multiple disabilities, including moderatecogrutive impairment and physical disabilities. He is re-sponsible only for a small part of the vocabulary and con-tent, and his work is primarily designed to parallel theclassroom content In addition to these students, Mrs.Anderson has Marina, an English language learner, and 19other students of differing abilities. Twice each week, Mr.Jones, a special education teacher, joins Mrs. Anderson,and they share teaching responsibilities and group stu-dents for instruction in a variety of ways. On the remain-ing days, Mrs. Smith, a teaching assistant, is available toassistMrs. Anderson and individual students in the class-room. How do these teachers effectively communicateabout the content and skills that will be used in the class-room? They base all instructional planning-as well asdecisions about curriculum adaptations and modifica-tions-on the content, skills, and assessments found incurriculum maps developed by the teachers in the school.
What Is Ourricului Mappiilg?Curriculum mapping is a method of collecting dataabout what is really being taught in schools. It has beenadvocated as a method of aligning the written and taughtcurriculum since the early 1970s. More recent advancesin technology have expanded the use of curriculum map-ping as a tool for improving communication amongteachers about the content, skills, and assessments thatare a part of the instructional process. This new applica-tion of curriculum mapping holds great promise for en-hancing the collaboration between general and specialeducation teachers to benefit all learners.
Curriculum mapping is a process used to gather adatabase of the operational curriculum of a school (Hayes-Jacobs, 1997). Although most schools have well-developedcurriculum guides, information is often limited about howthe standards set forth in those guides directly relate towhat is actually happening in the classroom. Most cur-riculum guides identify what students should know andbe able to do but give little insight into how students ac-complish this learning or what assessment methods areused by teachers. In combination with traditional curricu-lum guides, curriculum maps can provide informationabout content and skills used for instruction, as well asthe length of time devoted to various aspects of the cur-riculum. Including assessment methods on the maps pro-vides a link to the expectations for the manner in whichstudents will be expected to demonstrate their knowl-edge. The details included in the curriculum maps give aclearer picture of what actually occurs in each classroom.
In the curriculum mapping process, teachers use acalendar-based system (see Table 1) to map the skills, con-tent, and assessments used in their classrooms (Hayes-Jacobs, 1997). Because each teacher takes an individualapproach to meeting the curriculum standards, the indi-vidual maps will reflect the differences in approaches forachieving curricular goals. The completed maps may beused for many purposes, including
o aligning instruction to the written standards;o developing integrated curriculum units;o providing a baseline for the curriculum review and
renewal process;* identifying staff development needs; and* most important, providing communication among
teachers.
One of the most powerful outcomes of the curricu-lum mapping process is using the maps as a conimunica-tion tool among teachers -within a school.
Hayes-Jacobs (1997) said, "Curriculum mapping am-plifies the possibilities for long-range planning, short-term preparation, and clear communication" (p. 5). This
Table 1. Life Science Curriculum Map
Life science Content Skills Assessment
January . Characteristics of plants * List characteristics of plants * Plant worksheet* Seedless plants * Compare vascular & nonvascular plants * Vascular plant arto Seed plants * Describe & illustrate structures of roots, * Plant drawings* Complex plants leaves, & stems * Oral presentation of group* Plant reproduction * List characteristics of seed plants & find work in plant lab* Rain forest seeds in plant lab * Flower lab report & labels
* Describe & label the functions of the * Rain forest essayflower in flower dissection lab
* Describe methods of seed dispersal* Understand the environmental impact of the rain
forest
VOL 39, NO. 3. JANUARY 2004 155
William Rodick
Appendix C Research Text 1
focus on planning, preparation, and communication facili-tates a higher level of collaboration between general ed-ucation teachers and special education staff. This processcan involve general and special educators on many differ-ent levels to enhance effective collaboration within aschool.
Curriculum Mapping ProcessWhile mapping is most effective when the entire schoolstaff is involved, many school staff members have startedthis process by mapping one or two grade levels at an el-ementary school or one interdisciplinary team or depart-ment in middle or secondary schools. The process iseasily accomplished by both novice and veteran teachers.The key to the success of the process is staff discussionsand how data are used after the maps are completed.
Each teacher begins the process of mapping by record-ing his or her content, skills, and assessments. Using acomputer program enhances the process of mapping byallowing for revision of the maps, as well as the ability toshare the maps throughout a school by posting them ona server or school Web site. Several excellent softwareprograms are specifically designed for curriculum map-ping; however, it is not necessary to purchase soffivare tocomplete the mapping process. Many schools havestarted the process with a simple computer template cre-ated in a word-processing program resembling the onefound in Table 1. This enables teachers to benefit fromthe use of technology in the mapping process, even ifthey do not have access to curriculum mapping software.
Mapping Content, Skills, and Assessment
Teachers begin by recording the content for the courseor subject area. A curriculum map does not represent adaily lesson plan but reflects the major concepts and con-tent that will be covered during that period. In facilitat-ing the process with teachers in a variety of settings, Ihave found that on average, a teacher can map the con-tent for one course or subject for the entire school yearin 30 to 45 minutes.
After completing the content, the teacher identifiesthe key skills that will be used. The list of skills is oftensignificantly longer than the list of content, and as a re-sult, the skills portion of the map takes the greatestamount of time for teachers. I have found that it takesmost teachers 1 to 1N hours to complete the skills portionof the map for one course or subject area for the schoolyear.
It is critical to identify the new skills that will be usedand to be specific enough in that description and identi-fication that it is clear to other readers. For example, in-stead of indicating that the students will be identifying
the animals found in the rain forest, you would indicatethat they would classify the animals by kingdom, phylum,and genus. When mapping skills, it is important to iden-tify the new skill or the new context in which the skill willbe applied. The more clearly the skill is identified, themore useful the map will be to other teachers. Clarity re-garding skills will enable special education teachers toprepare a learner for the skills that will be used and helpthe learner compensate for deficits in the skills so he orshe can fully participate in the classroom.
The final element of the curriculum map is assess-ment-both formal and informal. Assessment strategiesshould be identified for all content and skills on themap. These could include informal assessments, such asteacher observation and student self-assessments, as wellas formal assessments, such as student projects, presen-tations, quizzes, and traditional tests. The process ofmapping assessments takes about 30 to 45 minutes tocomplete for one course or subject area for the year.
Mapping Time Frame
Mapping one course or subject area for the year will takeabout 2 to 3 hours and can be accomplished in severalways. Mapping can be completed in advance of teachingby projecting ahead for a month, a semester, or a entireyear. Mapping can be done at the completion of a school
156 lITERVElTIOU III SCHOOL AtD CLIUIC
William Rodick
Appendix C Research Text 1
year in preparation for the next year, or it can be com-pleted month-by-month as you progress through theschool year. Many teachers find it easiest to map as theygo through the course of the school year and generallyfind that it takes only about 15 to 20 minutes a month tocomplete the map in this manner. Using a software pro-gram or computer template for mapping allows teachersto refine and realign their maps in an ongoing processand facilitates sharing the maps with other teachers in thebuilding.
After all teachers complete their maps, copies of allthe maps are given to all teachers in the building. Every-one reads the maps to gain an understanding of the con-tent, skills, and assessments that will be covered in eachgrade level or course. Sharing maps allows teachers togain information and identify repetitions, gaps, and po-tential areas for integration. Teachers then come to-gether in mixed groups to discuss the maps and comparetheir findings. They determine any immediate revisionpoints and identify any areas that require research andplanning. Subcommittees are then formed to researchthese issues and make recommendations to the staff re-garding curriculum alignment. The powerful impact ofthis process is that it puts decisions about curriculumalignment in the hands of the teachers who deliver.thCinstruction.
Increased collaboration and communication amongteachers ultimately benefits the students. As the curricu-lum alignment is achieved, students' educational experi-ences are enhanced. The curriculum is more coherentand clear for building knowledge and skills. In addition,instruction becomes more closely aligned to the state finddistrict standards on which students will be tested. Fi-nally, as teachers share infornation about what they teach,they begin to dialogue and share effective instructionalstrategies. General and special education teachers learnfrom each other and build strong partnerships that pro-vide instruction to best meet the needs of their students.
currioulum Mappingfor Special rducaiiov Teachers
Special education teachers use curriculum maps to get aclear picture of the content, skills, and assessments usedin the general education classroom so they can assist stu-dents with disabilities in inclusive classroom settings.The information the map provides is critical in helpingspecial education teachers understand the instructionalprocesses students will experience in the general educa-tion classroom. For those students with more severe dis-abilities, instruction is often so highly individualizedthat maps would have to be specific for each student togive a clear picture of the instruction. To truly communi-cate the appropriate information, traditional maps as com-pleted by general education teachers would need to becreated for each individual student. Because this is al-ready done as a part of Individualized Education Programs(IEPs) the process would only increase the paperworkload for special education teachers. A different processmust be used to develop communication among specialeducation staff members.
In working in schools with special education teachersinvolved in curriculum mapping, I adapted a process thathas been used by library media specialists for special ed-ucation staff. The special education staff began to com-pile a list of curriculum-based resources that supportedthe content, skills, and assessments outlined in generaleducation teachers' curriculum maps. These resourceswere entered into a searchable database that was accessi-ble by all staff in the building (see Table 2). The databaseincluded information about the content and skills con-tained in the materials, along with information such as anapproximation of reading level and/or the grade-levelequivalency of the materials. It included any other spe-cialized adaptive information that would assist anyonesearching the database in understanding how the mater-ial might support classroom instruction. The database in-
Trees and Plants in Steck Vaughn Reading Level 3 7th January Mental retardationthe Rain Forest Includes photos, stories, & Life Science classroom
activities about conservationand environment
Flower parts Teacher made Includes digital photos of 7th January English as a secondparts of flowers with terms- Life Science language classroomcan be matched to actualflower dissection
Johnny Tremain Recorded books Tape recording of full book 7th February Learning disabilitiestext Language Arts classroom
The Call of the Wild Steck Vaughn Reading Level 4 8th December LibraryLanguage Arts
VOL. 39. NJO. 3, JAIIUARY 2004 157
William Rodick
Appendix C Research Text 1
dicated where in the building these materials were lo-cated and the contact staff person in charge of these ma-terials.
Thus began a process of sharing curriculum materialsand other supportive resources among special educationstaff members, as well as between special and general ed-ucation teachers. Any staff member can access these ma-terials to support the learning needs of students who arenot identified for any type of special service programs,but who may have specialized learning needs. Curricu-lum materials that parallel the classroom content to alower grade-level equivalency reading level could be usedto support English language learners (ELL) or studentswith other learning delays. Teachers searching for mate-rials to assist students in their classrooms can determineif materials that may fit their purposes are available. Inaddition, they know whom to contact about these mate-rials. This often began a dialogue about strategies andmaterials that support learning needs of students and cre-ated a situation in which the special education teacherswere able to share their specialized skills in teaching strate-gies with general education teachers. As teachers borrowand adapt these materials for students in the classroom,they gain more knowledge and skills in working with spe-cialized learning needs of students with disabilities. Theyare better prepared to serve not only students with dis-abilities in their classrooms but all students in their class-rooms.
After general education teachers complete their maps,special education staff code the resource database to theclassroom teachers' maps, indicating those resources thatspecifically support the content, skills, and assessmentsused by the general education teachers. Not only doesthis facilitate the sharing of resources, it also clearly iden-tifies those areas in which the school does not currentlyhave many resources to support the classroom curricu-lum. Available budget moneys can then be directed to-ward the purchase or development of materials in thoseareas. Rather than having each special education staffmember create his or her own adapted materials, educa-tors can pool resources and expertise to find or developappropriate materials.
Sharing this information helps all educators better di-rect limited budget resources and gives educators time toacquire and develop materials that best support the actualgeneral education classroom curriculum and curriculumstandards. Sharing is facilitated not only between generaleducation teachers and special education teachers butalso among program areas within and outside of specialeducation.
Deviefits of OurriculuiAMv1appivigAlthough curriculum maps facilitate communicationamong teachers, the key benefit is improving the learn-
ing needs of all students, especially individuals with dis-abilities. Special education teachers are able to develop aclearer understanding of the general education classroomcurriculum, along with knowledge of the skills and as-sessments that will be used. This information is vital forgeneral and special education teachers who collaborate tosupport learning in the general education classroom. Themaps also provide a strong basis for making decisionsabout inclusion and acquiring knowledge about the nec-essary level of classroom adaptation and modification toassist students with disabilites to participate in the gen-eral education classroom and curriculum. Beneficial in-formation gained from mapping includes preteachingskills, correlating community-based outings with upcom-ing curriculum-based content, and using alternative as-sessments.
Maps give more detail about the skills and processesthat will be used in the general education classroom thando traditional content-based lesson plans. Knowing theskills that will be used in upcoming lessons, special edu-cation teachers can begin to preteach skills to studentsbefore the skills are introduced in the general educationclassroom. This gives students more time and repetitionto learn skills. When the skill is introduced in the generaleducation classroom, these students will be able to par-ticipate at a level more comparable to their peers and willgain confidence in the ability to more fully participate inthe general classroom.
Students in Mrs. Anderson's science class will be work-ing on a rain forest project that will culminate in an essayabout the rain forest. Mr. Jones, the special educationteacher, works with Mrs. Anderson's curriculum map toidentify the key concepts of the lesson. He prepares agraphic organizer or concept map for the students to usein class. This concept map is organized in a manner thatreflects the structure and relationship of the concepts thatwill be highlighted in Mrs. Anderson's instruction aboutthe rain forest. This is a type of content-enhancement rou-tine that improves the organization of the instruction bypresenting it in a learner-friendly format that emphasizesthe "big picture" ideas (Boudah, Lenz, Bulgren, Schu-maker, & Deshler, 2000).
Mrs. Anderson and Mr. Jones model using the con-cept map for organizing instruction while students takenotes or create their own concept maps. Students withdisabilities receive a partially completed concept mapthat contains the key ideas and issues from the instruc-tion (see Figure 1). The students add details to the con-cept map in each of the identified key categories duringthe instruction. Mr. Jones and Mrs. Anderson model howto appropriately use the concept map by adding informa-tion to a template of the map on an overhead project.Having students fill in the information on this conceptmap not only helps them stay organized but providesthem the multisensory approach of seeing the key con-cepts on the graphic organizer, hearing concepts from the
158 IIIIERVYEDIOII IN SCHOOL AID CUnIIC
William Rodick
Appendix C Research Text 1
Figure 1. Rain forest concept map.
teacher, and writing concepts on the map. All of thishelps them retain information while focusing on themost important concepts (Friend & Bursuck, 2001).
At the end of the lesson, students review the conceptson the map and prepare questions for review, which theycan then use in class or at home to review and prepare fora test. Students can use another template of the map as anorganizer to outline the key ideas from their reading as-signment. Finally, concept maps can become the frame-work for the information students will use to write theiressays on the rain forest.
To assist students in writing these essays, Mr. Jonesproposes to Mrs. Anderson that he teach a compositionstrategy called DEFENDS (Ellis & Lenz, 1987) to thescience class. Mrs. Anderson is not familiar with thisstrategy but recognizes that the DEFENDS strategy willassist students as they write a paper defending their posi-tion on the destruction of the rain forest (see Figure 1).The strategy uses the following steps:
D Decide on an exact positionE Examine the reasons for the positionsF Form a list of points that explain each reasonE Expose the position in the first sentenceN Note each reason and supporting pointsD Drive home the point in the last sentenceS Search for errors and correct
After Mr. Jones teaches the strategy to the class, heworks with a small group of students who need additionalassistance in the use of the strategy. When students have
completed their essays, all students are asked to use thesteps of the strategy to self-assess and refine them.
Curriculum maps also give special education teachersmore time to develop appropriate classroom activitiesthat parallel the classroom content for those studentswho may need significant modifications to participate inthe general education classroom. Knowledge of the con-tent, skills, and assessments used in the classroom willhelp special education teachers identify activities that willparallel general education activities and reinforce thesame skills at a different level. Teachers can analyze theskills involved and determine if the student can performthe same task as other students, perform the same taskwith an easier step, perform the same task with differentmaterials, or perform a different task with the same theme(Lowell-York, Doyle, & Kronberg, 1995).
In Mrs. Anderson's science class, students are classify-ing types of animals by kingdom, phylum, and genus. Astudent who is able to do the same task with an easier stepmay be classifying an animal only by kingdom. A studentwho needs to undertake the same task with differentmaterials may be using picture cards with the name andpictures of animals. A student who needs to tackle a dif-ferent task with the same theme may be naming animalsor detertnining if they live on land or water.
Knowledge of the content, skills, and assessments thatare part of the general education curriculum assists specialeducation teachers in planning community-based learn-ing experiences that support the content being taught ininclusive settings. Using the community-based experiencesto support inclusive classroom learning can also provide
VOL. 39, NO. 3. JAIIUARY 2094 159
William Rodick
Appendix C Research Text 1
Table 3. DEFENDS StrategyD Decide on an exact position
E Examine the reasons for the positions
F Form a list of points that explain each reason
E Expose the position in the first sentence
N Note each reason & supporting points
D Drive home the point in the last sentence
s Search for errors and correct
opportunities for special education students to share whatthey have gained with the general education students. Ifthe science class is studying reptiles, a community-basedlearning experience might include a trip to a local petstore or zoo. Students may take along an instant pictureor digital camera to record the reptiles they see on theouting, or they may gather information about the reptilesto share with their classmates when they return to school.The photos and information gathered can become a partof the curriculum materials for the special education stu-dents as well as supporting materials for the general edu-cation teachers and students.
One particularly successful community-based outinginvolved having students purchase and prepare lab kitsfor use in the science classroom. The science teacher pre-pared a list of materials needed for an upcoming lab inwhich students would dissect and label parts of a flower.On a community-based outing, students purchased thematerials for the lab activity. They also visited a green-house to learn about plants and to purchase the flowersto be used in the lab. Students then worked with a teach-ing assistant to learn how to assemble the materials intolab kits to be used in the science lab. This collaborationsupported the learning needs of the special education stu-dents and assisted the general education teacher in pre-paring lab materials. The greatest benefit was the pridestudents had later that day when they participated in thelab activity that they had prepared. The science teacherrecognized their efforts, and they were able to share ma-terials and photos they had gathered in their trip to thegreenhouse for the benefit of all students.
Finally, assessment information included on the cur-riculum maps will help special education teachers under-stand how general education teachers will be assessingstudents' accomplishment in terms of the knowledge,skills, and processes in the curriculum. Special educationteachers can assist students in developing study guidesand equip students with test-taking strategies that fit theassessments used by general education teachers.
The student decides on his or her personal position about thedestruction of the rain forestThe student determines & explains why he or she holds thesebeliefsThe student makes a list of points about the rain forest thatsupports his or her beliefsThe student composes a topic sentence that supports his orher positionThe student creates short paragraphs that elaborate on thepoints identified earlierThe student restates his or her position & reasons in thesummary statementThe student self-edits the essay
Special education teachers can use samples of class-room projects and assessments to build a portfolio thatwill demonstrate the attainment of EEP goals. In addi-tion, information on the curriculum map offers generaland special educators the opportunity to collaborate onalternative methods of assessing student knowledge. Be-cause of the needs of their students, many special educa-tion teachers have a great deal to offer general educationteachers in the development of assessment methods thatdo not rely solely on traditional tests and quizzes. As gen-eral education teachers collaborate on designing these al-ternate assessments, they improve their own skills inusing multiple assessment methods.
1 BO IIITERVEIITID III SCHOOL AND CIDIIC
William Rodick
Appendix C Research Text 1
The greatest benefit of using curriculum maps is theimproved communication among all teachers in the school.As special and general education teachers have a betterlevel of understanding of the content, skills, and assess-ments used in classrooms, they can build stronger collab-orations to assist all students with special learning needs.General education teachers can gain a wealth of knowl-edge about strategies and structures that support learningfrom special education teachers. Special education teach-ers benefit from curriculum mapping by gaining a deeperunderstanding of the general classroom curriculum andhow they can create meaningful curricular connectionsfor students. Improved communication among all teach-ers in the school provides professional educators with an-other tool for effectively enhancing the learning of allstudents in the classroom, especially students with dis-abilities.
ABOUT THE AUTHORAngela Koppang, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Educa-tional Leadership Department at the University of North Da-
kota and specializes in the areas of curriculum, instruction, as-sessment, and school leadership. She is a former elementary andmiddle school teacher and administrator and serves as a consul-tant in the areas of curriculum development and alignment.Address: Angela Koppang, Department of Educational Leader-ship, Box 7189, Grand Forks, ND 58201; e-mail: [email protected]
REFERENCESBoudah, D. J., Lenz, B. K, Bulgren,J. A., Schumaker,J. B., & Deshler,
D. D. (2000). Don't water down! Enhance content learning throughthe unit organizer routine. Teacbing Exceptional Cbildren, 32(3), 48-56.
Ellis, E., & Lenz, K (1987). A component analysis of effective learningstrategies for LD students. Learning Disabilities Focus, 2, 94-107.
Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (2001). Including students witb specialneeds: A practical guide for classroom teachers (3rd ed.). NeedhamHeights, MA. Allyn & Bacon.
Hayes-Jacobs, H. (1997). Mapping the big piCtture: Integrating curriculum& assessmtent K-12. Alexandria, VA. Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.
Lowell-York, J., Doyle, M. E., & Kronberg, R. (1995). Curriculum aseverytbing students learn in scbool: Individualizing learning opportzni-ties. Baltimore: Brookes.
VOL. 39, rUO. 3. JAIIUARY 2DO4 161
William Rodick
Appendix C Research Text 1
Curriculum Mapping in Higher Education:A Vehicle for Collaboration
Kay Pippin Uchiyama & Jean L. Radin
Published online: 24 June 2008# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008
Abstract This qualitative study makes the case for the implementation of curriculummapping, a procedure that creates a visual representation of curriculum based on real timeinformation, as a way to increase collaboration and collegiality in higher education.Through the use of curriculum mapping, eleven faculty members in a western stateuniversity Teacher Licensure program aligned and revised the teacher education curriculumacross a sequence of courses. An increase in collaboration and collegiality among facultyemerged as an unintended outcome as a result of participation in the project.
Key words curriculummapping . collaboration . collegiality . higher education
“To go fast, go alone. To go farther, go together.” (African proverb)
The norms of the higher education community at large encourage autonomy andindependence. Junior faculty often speak of the loneliness and isolation that they encounter
Innov High Educ (2009) 33:271–280DOI 10.1007/s10755-008-9078-8
Kay Pippin Uchiyama is currently the Assessment Coordinator for the Poudre School District in FortCollins, Colorado. During this study, she was an Assistant Professor of Teacher Education at ColoradoState University and a co-primary investigator for the Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Datagrant. She received her Ph.D. in Instruction and Curriculum in the Content Areas with an emphasis onTeacher Education and Learning to Teach from the University of Colorado at Boulder. Her interestsinclude data driven instruction, assessment for learning, teacher education, professional developmentschools, and mathematics education. Her email is [email protected].
Jean L. Radin is an adjunct professor at Colorado State University and a co-primary investigator for thePreparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Data grant. She received her Ph.D. from Colorado State University.Her interests are brain-based teaching and learning, data driven instructional practices, teacher educationand professional development schools. Her email is [email protected].
K. P. Uchiyama (*)Poudre School District, 513 Skysail Lane, Fort Collins, CO 80525, USAe-mail: [email protected]
J. L. RadinColorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USAe-mail: [email protected]
William Rodick
Appendix D Research Text 2
and frequently cite this as a reason for leaving an institution (Barnes et al. 1998). Tierneyand Rhoads (1994) found that a lack of a sense of community was a key determinant in thedecision to leave academia. Trower noted, “the single most important concern [of faculty]was autonomy in the workplace” (as cited in Fogg 2006, p. 1). Furthermore, in the pursuitof tenure and promotion, single-authored publications are more highly rated than are thosewith two or more authors, which can add to the pressure and sense of isolation. As Palmer(1998) summarized,
Academics often suffer the pain of dismemberment. On the surface, this is the pain ofpeople who thought they were joining a community of scholars but find themselves indistant, competitive and uncaring relationships with colleagues [emphasis added] (p. 20).
Organizations beyond higher education have shifted toward cultures where the norms ofautonomy and independence are replaced by the norms of collegiality and collaboration.For example, the U.S. Department of Labor (1991) established skills and competencies forthe workplace; and two of these elements, sociability and interpersonal skills, directly relateto norms of collegiality and collaboration. Sociability is defined as “demonstrate[ing]understanding, friendliness, adaptability, empathy, and politeness in group settings” (U.S.Department of Labor 1991, p. x). Interpersonal skills are defined as “participate[ing] as amember of a team, contributing to group efforts, negotiation, working toward agreement,and resolving divergent interests” (U.S. Department of Labor 1991, p. xi). Employers haveidentified these two elements as desirable traits for the workplace.
Tierney (1999) compared the values and norms of higher education to those of theworkplace. He argued that the values of competition and individualism in higher educationare replaced by cooperation and teamwork outside of the higher education arena. He alsoargued that the culture of higher education encourages employees to “fly solo” whereasmost workplace organizations expect their employees to “fly in formation” (Tierney 1999).Whereas in higher education individuals often complete their own projects in isolation whichmay or may not have relevance to the department’s or school’s goals, workplaceorganizations tend to rely on teams that work together toward a common goal (Tierney 1999).
While it is not universally true that the culture of higher education is individualistic,experts in the field of higher education research suggest that, in order to survive, the culturemust shift from one that values individualism and autonomy to one that values collegialityand collaboration (Simpson and Thomas as cited in Van Patten 2000; Tierney 1999). Fogg(2006) reported that collegiality is an important factor in job satisfaction for today’s juniorprofessors, often more important than salary. Furthermore, funding organizations encouragecollaborations between and among individuals, departments, institutions of highereducation, and the community. For example, the National Science Foundation GrantProposal Guide (2007) encourages group proposals and interdisciplinary projects withspecific funding solicitations often requiring collaborations.
This article describes a project where eleven school of education faculty members usedcurriculum mapping to align and integrate the curriculum across a sequence of courses.Curriculum mapping is a procedure which promotes the creation of a visual representationof curriculum based on real time information (Jacobs 1997). Using a template withpredetermined categories and format, instructors “map” their curriculum as it occurs, in realtime. Real time in this context means when the curriculum is delivered, rather than asprojected in a course syllabus prior to the course or after the course is completed. Thecurriculum maps are aggregated first horizontally by course and then vertically across allcourses in a sequence. All faculty members review the maps, identifying strengths, gaps,
272 Innov High Educ (2009) 33:271–280
William Rodick
Appendix D Research Text 2
and overlaps. Once the review is complete, the faculty determines what and where to add oreliminate content and/or strategies, which results in a more streamlined curriculum andintegrated program. These maps become living documents for course instructors; and theycan be frequently revisited and revised as courses are adapted to the needs of the establishedcurriculum, the needs of students, or the incorporation of new instructors into the program.
While the original intent of our project was to align and revise the teacher educationcurriculum, an unexpected and beneficial outcome emerged: we found that collaborationand collegiality increased as a result of participation in the project. To explain this outcome,we first define the meaning of collaboration and collegiality as it applies in the context ofthe curriculum mapping process. Next, we describe how the process was implementedincluding background information, a rationale for selecting curriculum mapping, andmethods of data collection. Our findings follow; and finally, we share our conclusions, andimplications.
Collaboration and Collegiality
In any community, collaboration and collegiality are sought after ideals. Haworth andConrad (1997) noted that collegial and supportive cultures are an important component ofhigh quality programs. As Grossman et al. (2001) eloquently explained, “The associationbetween community and the good life reaches across religious, cultural, and philosophicaltraditions where the value of individuals working together for the common good is upheldand respected” (p. 945). The English language is replete with common sayings thatillustrate the values of collegiality and collaboration. For example, “united we stand,divided we fall”, “many hands make light work”, and “circle the wagons.” Other examplescome from famous individuals in history. Isaac Newton (1675) wrote, “If I have seenfurther than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants” (as cited in Kaplan 1992),and Henry Ford (n.d.) the developer of the assembly line stated, “If everyone is movingforward together, then success takes care of itself” (Thinkexist.com 2008). In short, thesevalues allow communities to function and grow productively.
For this article we use the following definitions: “collegiality—cooperative interactionamong colleagues” and “collaboration—to work together, especially in a joint intellectualeffort” (www.Dictionary.com).
The values of collegiality and collaboration are embedded in the curriculum mappingprocess by providing a structure for all to engage in collective dialogue about thecurriculum, instruction, and students’ learning (Donald 1997; Udelhofen 2005). Curriculummapping fosters respect for the professional knowledge and expertise of all instructors. Itallows all participants to examine, or re-examine, their individual and collective beliefsabout teaching and learning in a structured and safe setting.
The Process of Curriculum Mapping
Curriculum mapping is a cyclical process that consists of five stages. Figure 1 provides agraphic representation of this process. In Stage 1, individual instructors develop maps oftheir courses in real time as they teach over the span of a semester. Stage 2 begins with allinstructors of a particular course working together to aggregate the maps. In Stage 3, allfaculty members involved review all the maps in a program or set sequence of courses. If
the number of faculty members or the number of instructors per course is small, this can bedone as one large group. If not, Jacobs (1997) suggested creating a number of heterogeneousgroups consisting of those who represent all courses and having these groups review thevertical array of maps, looking for alignment, gaps, overlaps, inconsistencies, and strengths.A representative from each group records the findings, aggregates them, and then reportsout to the large group. Stage 4 includes all faculty members and focuses on identifyingareas in need of alignment, revision, and/or elimination. The group prioritizes those areasthat need attention first and those that need further study. The group then develops a planfollowing with action in Stage 5. The process comes full circle in Stage 6. The result is acurriculum that is fluid and adaptable as the needs of students, policies, and new researchfindings change over time.
The Project
This section details background information leading up to the project, the sequence forimplementation of curriculum mapping, data collection for documentation, and dataanalysis.
Background of the Project
In the fall of 2005, the School of Education (SOE) at an institution in a western state waspart of a grant project involving four institutions of higher education across the state. Thisproject focused on developing and integrating data driven instructional practices intoTeacher Licensure curricula. As part of the grant, the four institutions together developedInformation-Based Educational Practice (IBEP) standards, which accurately described the
Stage 1 Develop Individual Maps
for each course
Stage 6 StageRepeat the process Review and aggregate
maps (horizontally) by course
State 5 Stage 3Revise courses and Aggregate the mapsimplement revisions (horizontally) by course
Stage 4
The group identifies strengths, gaps, overlaps, etc.
2
Fig. 1 The process of curriculum mapping.
274 Innov High Educ (2009) 33:271–280
William Rodick
Appendix D Research Text 2
process of data driven instruction. From there, each institution determined its own methodsfor data collection and procedures for the integration and implementation of the IBEPstandards into the curriculum.
At our institution we, as the primary investigators for the grant and members of thelicensure faculty, needed to establish if, where, and when the IBEP standards occurred inthe Teacher Licensure program’s course sequence. To do that meant closely examining thecurriculum in place. We were aware that K-12 schools and districts were using curriculummapping to form a picture of their curriculum, so we decided to employ the same process.We recognized that this work would mean a change in how the Teacher Licensure facultyoperated. As Jacobs (2004) had stated, “[through curriculum mapping] colleagues createnew pathways in a shared profession” (p. x). First, we examined the current literature onchange to structure this process. We drew heavily on Fullan’s (2001) work, noting thatsuccessful change depends on shared meaning among all involved. While the TeacherLicensure faculty members were all involved with preparing pre-service teachers though aset course sequence, the challenge was to create shared meaning and buy-in to the project.
Sequence for Implementation of Curriculum Mapping
We had a two-year time period based on our grant funding. To facilitate the work, weorganized to follow the university semester system. During the first semester, we developeda timeframe for the work and identified and planned the use of available technology forimplementation. We also reviewed and aligned the licensure program’s foundation andbelief statements with our state’s Department of Education Performance-Based TeacherEducation Standards, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Educationstandards, principles from the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortiumstandards, performance indicators from our state’s Council on Higher Education, and theInformation-Based Educational Practice Standards developed by the four institutions. Theresult was a written document that outlined our program. However, having a writtendocument was no guarantee that these standards and beliefs were translated into our teachereducation courses. We also suspected that course syllabi might or might not reflect what wasactually implemented in the classroom. For example, when we reviewed the course syllabi,we found that not all faculty members were teaching to the state’s performance standards forteachers, even though these standards were mandated. In fact, one colleague commentedduring a licensure faculty meeting discussion, “Teach to standards? What happened toacademic freedom?” At this point, we knew mapping the curriculum would provide a forumfor sharing, discussing, analyzing, and realigning coursework with standards.
Using data to develop commitment. Research has shown that “change takes place at theindividual level prior to the organizational level” (Hall and Hord 2006, p. 7). In order forchange to be successful, there must be pressure and support for those engaged in the change(Fullan 2001). We knew we needed to instill a sense of urgency to show licensure facultymembers that change was necessary so we reviewed student satisfaction data such asindividual course evaluations. These data indicated that students felt there was considerableoverlap and repetition among the courses in the program sequence. An upcoming stateaccreditation visit and a national accreditation visit also provided pressure to review thecurrent curriculum. Using data to inform practice was an ongoing theme of our work.
Inviting participation, constructing a timeframe, collecting data. We provided support forchange by using existing scheduled meetings to inform the licensure faculty about the data
Innov High Educ (2009) 33:271–280 275
William Rodick
Appendix D Research Text 2
William Rodick
and the process of curriculum mapping, by offering professional development activities tohelp implement the mapping process, and by disseminating handouts and articles. We alsooffered small stipends from the grant monies to those who volunteered to engage in thework. At the beginning of the project, nine instructors of two key licensure courses in thesix-course sequence volunteered to participate in the process. In return, over the two-yearperiod of the project, these participants agreed to map their courses for a minimum of onesemester in real time, attend meetings to aggregate the maps, complete an open endedsurvey of the process, and participate in an end of the project interview.
To supplement the survey and interview data, we employed participant observation datacollection methods to include detailed field notes of each meeting.
Initially our colleagues were skeptical about curriculum mapping, but their thinkingchanged once they engaged in the process. For example, one colleague commented: “Myvery first reactions were that I wasn’t exactly sure what curriculum mapping was, but whenI learned about it and discovered what the purpose of it was, I was very interested”(Participant A). Still another colleague stated,
I must admit that I was a little concerned because I thought it was going to be anadditional job, additional work to do around something that I thought I had already fairlywell gotten a handle on. I was one of those people that looked at what I taught after Itaught it, and then made changes before I went on. And so I didn’t see much differencebetween what I was doing and what [curriculum mapping] was doing. (Participant C)
Technology decisions. We placed a mapping template for all to use on the TeacherLicensure WebCT page. The nine instructors mapped their courses onto the template in realtime throughout this first semester. Technology made creating, storing, and sharinginformation smooth and also easy to revise. It increased collaboration among the facultymembers as we did not have to deal with using unwieldy posters or large sheets of butcherpaper covered with sticky notes.
Implementing the curriculum mapping process. The curriculum mapping process addressedthree critical questions:
& Who is doing what?& How does the work align with the Teacher Licensure program’s goals and
standards?& Are we working efficiently and effectively? (Jacobs 2004)
Over the course of the first semester, each instructor completed a map independently,without influence from colleagues. In the first month of the next semester, the instructorsfor each particular course met to aggregate their maps. During this process, the courseleaders were encouraged to keep in mind the need for individual creativity but to maintainfidelity to the state’s established Performance-Based Standards for Teachers. The result wasa course map, a visual representation of what was taught in that specific course, whichincluded content, materials, standards, and assessments.
The remainder of the second semester was spent with the nine instructors meeting everyother week to develop an aggregated map that represented what was taught in both coursesin the licensure sequence. The meetings were held in a comfortable conference room withcomputer access so that the work could be projected on a screen for all to see. The groupelected a meeting facilitator from within itself and then began by looking at the courses
276 Innov High Educ (2009) 33:271–280
William Rodick
Appendix D Research Text 2
sequentially to identify strengths, gaps, redundancies, and misalignments for these keycourses while combining the two maps. The group came to agreement as to what contentshould be kept in the course sequence, what should be dropped, and what new contentshould be added. For example, during a combined course meeting the group discovered thatthe same activity around learning theory was contained in both courses. Together, theydecided in which course this content and activity belonged and eliminated it from the othercourse. One participant commented:
I really liked the accountability piece of the mapping. It was exciting to see, as the twoteams met together, that one [course in the sequence] would introduce something, thenext [course] would go a little bit more in depth, the next [course] would have thestudents do that benchmark, standard, concept or topic full-blown. (Participant D)
Another colleague stated:
I began to look at the mapping as a way of bringing life to the syllabus, that it was notonly a work done in isolation where I thought something was done “right” or“wrong”, but all the work done in the process of collaboration, which of course weknow is the strongest way to have collegiality. (Participant F)
A third colleague noted,
We identified specific needs for professional development as we shared ourknowledge base and pedagogical practices. We were communicating, collaborating,articulating, and aligning! We were building the shared meaning that is so important tosuccessful change. (Participant B)
For the remainder of the semester, the group continued to meet, discuss, and revise theirrespective syllabi, always keeping in mind the three critical questions for curriculummapping. This cycle concluded at the end of the second semester of implementation.
At the beginning of the second year, we invited instructors from the other licensurecourses to participate. Two faculty members representing two additional courses in the coursesequence volunteered to participate, thus increasing our group to eleven members in total.
Data Analysis
We analyzed our interview data, survey data, and observation notes employing Miles andHuberman’s (1994) four step process: “underline key terms, restate key phrases, reduce thephrases and create clusters, and reduce clusters and attach labels” (p. 87). The clusters ofcollaboration and collegiality unexpectedly emerged across all data sources.
Finding
Although the original intent of curriculum mapping was to align the Teacher Licensurecoursework with the state standards, we were surprised by the unexpected finding—that thecurriculum mapping process fostered increased collegiality and collaboration among the 11participating faculty members. These faculty members became more energized and engagedwith colleagues, mitigating the isolation often felt by many in higher education (Damrosch1995; Goodlad 1984; Lortie 1975; Sarason 1996). Throughout this process, facultymembers discussed which state standards and related topics should be included in which
Innov High Educ (2009) 33:271–280 277
William Rodick
Appendix D Research Text 2
courses. Some topics were eliminated in certain courses and added to others. Faculty alsodiscussed strategies and activities that they used in classes, again eliminating duplicationsand filling gaps. Furthermore, the discussions sparked new ideas for teaching the coursecontent. For example, after one mapping meeting a faculty member commented, “It wasreally exciting to talk about what we were doing in our classes and to get ideas for differentways to teach the same content. I have never seen so much energy!” (Participant E).Another participant wrote in the end of the semester survey of the process:
It was really fun to exchange ideas and determine how each of us taught the majorcomponents of [our course]. We shared numerous materials, activities, and resourceswith each other. As a result of the mapping, I’m energized to teach a number of thingsdifferently next year. (Participant A)
Still another colleague noted:
I have found both the mapping exercise and the discussion with colleagues to beinvaluable. Armed with the knowledge of my own pedagogical skills, tools, anddesires, I attended meetings with others who brought their own toolbox to thecommon table. I am appreciating both the similarities and differences in the ways mycolleagues approach our common course. (Participant D)
One participant stated in the final interview, “it’s been good for our faculty, my curriculumis far richer because of [curriculum mapping]” (Participant C).
Other collaborative efforts developed from the curriculum mapping process. Theaggregated curriculum map was enlarged to poster-size and prominently displayed andreferred to at every Teacher Licensure meeting, and, most recently, during our externalreview visit. This large map was used to clarify the licensure program, coursework, andstandards for the Teacher Licensure faculty and SOE faculty members other than licensurefaculty. The map was also used to clarify the program for instructors from other schools andcolleges across the university who teach content methods courses for our students. TheSOE annual report featured the map as well.
Our desire to collaborate on scholarly work increased as a result of participation in thisproject. With input from colleagues, several faculty members prepared joint presentationsand papers for three different national education conferences on the topic of curriculummapping in higher education. In addition, three faculty members presented a poster sessionon the same topic at the 2007 American Educational Research Association conference inChicago. This collaboration broke down the academic barriers of competition that keep usfragmented (Palmer 1998).
Conclusion
In our experience, curriculum mapping provided a method to not only align and articulatethe curriculum, but also a way to foster collaboration and collegiality of those participatingin the process. The interaction among participants in this project promoted collaborationand collegiality, allowing the participants to share knowledge and beliefs about teachingand learning. Participants in our study examined and reflected upon their practice in thiscollegial setting. Our experience with this process exemplified the following:
Curriculum mapping shatter[s] the glass ceiling of teaching in isolation. It move[s] ustoward clear communication, meaningful connections, and understanding the power of
278 Innov High Educ (2009) 33:271–280
William Rodick
Appendix D Research Text 2
professional collaboration that truly [makes] a difference. (Chapman, as cited inJacobs 2004, p. 79)
As Massy and Wilger (1994) have found, keeping the curriculum modern and relevantthrough shared participation increases faculty members’ interest and engagement inteaching and learning as well as updating disciplinary knowledge and meeting students’needs. We have continued to engage in this process, knowing “there is no epilogue once theprocess begins” (Jacobs 2004, p. 8).
Curriculum mapping is an ongoing, dynamic process. Our faculty recognizes that, byaccepting this as an ongoing process, we will continue to grow as a collaborativecommunity, to connect with each other to decrease isolation, to consider curricular changescarefully, and to promote collegiality. We highly recommend curriculum mapping as avehicle for other institutions or departments who wish or need to improve not only coursealignment and articulation, but also want to promote a supportive, collaborative culture thatenhances the learning of all stakeholders (Donald 1997; Haworth and Conrad 1997).
References
Barnes, L. L. B., Agago, M. O., & Coombs, W. T. (1998). Effects of job-related stress on faculty: Intention toleave academia. Research in Higher Education, 39(4), 457–469.
Damrosch, D. (1995). We scholars: Changing the culture of the university. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.
Dictionary.com (2007). Retrieved January 21, 2008, from http://www.dictionary.comDonald, J. (1997). Improving the environment for learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Fogg, P. (2006, September 29). Young Ph.D.’s say collegiality matters more than salary. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, p. 1.Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers
College Record, 103(6), 942–1012.Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.Haworth, J., & Conrad, C. (1997). Emblems of quality in higher education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Jacobs, H. H. (1997). Mapping the big picture: Integrating curriculum and assessment K-12. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Jacobs, H. H. (2004). Getting results with curriculum mapping. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.Kaplan, J. (Ed.). (1992). Familiar quotations: A collection of passages, phrases, and proverbs traced to their
sources in ancient and modern literature (16th ed.). Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, p. 281.Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Massy, W. F., & Wilger, A. K. (1994). Overcoming “hollowed” collegiality. Change, 26(4), 11–20.Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.National Science Foundation. (2007). Grant Proposal Guide. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from www.nsf.
gov/publications/Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher's life. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.Sarason, S. B. (1996). Revisiting the culture of the school and the problem of change. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.ThinkExist.com (2008, April 1). Henry Ford quotes. Retrieved May 1, 2008, from http://en.thinkexist.com/
quotes/Henry_Ford/Tierney, W. G. (1999). Faculty productivity and academic culture. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Faculty
productivity: Facts, fictions, and issues (pp. 39–54). New York, NY: Falmer Press.
Tierney, W. G., & Rhoads, R. A. (1994). Faculty socialization as a cultural process: A mirror of institutionalcommitment. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 93-6. Washington, DC: The GeorgeWashington University School of Education and Human Development.
Udelhofen, S. (2005). Keys to curriculum mapping: Strategies and tools to make it work. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
Van Patten, J. J. (2000). Higher education culture: Case studies for a new century. Lanham, NY: UniversityPress of America, Inc.
