A challenge in curriculum designing and refining is to ensure that objectives for knowledge, skills and attitudes are clear, structured within the learning opportunities of modules, and aligned with assessment formats, outcomes,...
moreA challenge in curriculum designing and refining is to ensure that objectives for knowledge, skills and attitudes are clear, structured within the learning opportunities of modules, and aligned with assessment formats, outcomes, competencies and content taxonomies. Curriculum mapping entails a process of matching learning outcomes with elements of the curriculum [1] and provides the required visual representation of these various curriculum components, attributes and relationships. [2] The challenge of alignment can therefore be met by mapping on an electronic platform, which provides for the systematic organisation and linking of various curriculum elements into a database. [3-5] Harden [3] describes curriculum mapping as a blueprint that provides a multidimensional overview of four interrelated key areas: content (learning objectives), learning outcomes, learning opportunities (events contributing to outcomes) and the related assessment. Viewing the map through these four 'windows' reveals what has to be learnt, how it can be learnt and how it must be assessed. Curriculum mapping visually represents key elements of a programme that contributes to student learning. [1] A relational curriculum database as described above makes the curriculum transparent owing to the online accessibility and search ability. It allows users to browse through the information in different ways [6] to view aligned content by using descriptors in various hierarchies of the outcomes, competencies and content taxonomies as keywords to filter data. The power of the map clearly lies in the links between curriculum elements [7] on which these searches are based. The transparency of the curriculum map enables the visibility of students' prior exposure to particular content and planning of the level and breadth of new learning. [3] Viewing the learning spiral by filtering the progression in terms of breadth, depth, utility and proficiency, as reflected in learning objectives, [4] clarifies students' and educators' understanding of where students are going and the steps they need to take to get there. [4,8] Revision of a curriculum is facilitated through multiple searching and reporting features of a curriculum map. Educators are enabled to check for redundancies, inconsistencies, misalignments and weaknesses. [9] This includes reviewing whether the content is congruent with expected learning outcomes, [3,5,6] considering the availability of teachers and suitable patients, [5] identifying learning objectives that are not covered or overlap with other content domains and detecting inconsistencies between objectives and assessment. [10] The map provides for a review of assessment methods, [9] and by correcting inconsistencies and possible mismatches between teaching and assessment, valid examinations can be constructed. [3] Viewing the scope of these patterns and relationships, complexity and cohesion of the curriculum [11] are important for the purposes of curriculum management, analysis and reporting. [7,12,13] A web-based curriculum platform facilitates constant evaluation, updating and improving of curricula in real time, driving improvements to learning and teaching practices, [14] and is seen as an essential tool to Background. A web-based curriculum is made transparent by providing multidimensional overviews of content (learning objectives) aligned with learning outcomes and frameworks, opportunities and assessment formats. A South African university embarked on the mapping of its curricula on the web-based learning opportunities, objectives and outcome platform (LOOOP). Objectives. To reflect on the customisation of LOOOP and training of lecturers, and to determine lecturers' perceptions of the usability and value of LOOOP. Methods. The project manager reflected on the initiating processes, and a survey determined the lecturers' perceptions of the usability and value of curriculum mapping, using a 4-point Likert scale questionnaire. The convenience sample comprised the first 30 lecturers who had uploaded their curriculum content and consented to partake in this ethics-approved study. Descriptive statistics portray the percentages of agreement on the positive statements of the questionnaire. Results. Challenges related to slow staff buy-in and development were experienced. Required modifications to LOOOP were promptly dealt with. The majority of participants agreed on the usability (≥89%), as well as structure and transparency (≥87%) of LOOOP. Mapping is expected to enhance curriculum revision (≥95%) and communication (≥96%), viewing the curriculum scope, complexity and cohesion (97%), as well as abstracting data for management analysis and reporting (100%). Conclusions. The lecturers agreed on the usability and values of curriculum mapping, which indicates that online mapping is sufficiently beneficial to justify the time and resources invested. Mapping should be a product of collaborative participation and planned as a long-term commitment, which can also be used to research the impact of mapping on student learning.