The introduction of AI has encouraged us to look at our program designs and ensure that we are thoroughly supporting and assessing learning (Cantú-Ortiz et al., 2020; Dai et al., 2020). With the new assessment policy taking effect at the university in Semester 2 this year, it’s essential that we have a systematic and clear method for determining when assessments should be secure (Lane 1) and when they should be open (Lane 2). Curriculum mapping (also called program mapping or program learning outcome mapping) is a powerful tool for helping us with assessment design. This article outlines a curriculum mapping activity I designed for academics that has successfully been implemented in the Faculty of Medicine and Health to support unit of study design, and particularly determining where secure versus open assessments are optimally placed across a degree to ensure meaningful and effective assessment.

What is curriculum mapping?

Curriculum mapping involves intentionally identifying the learning process for program-level learning outcome (PLO) attainment across a degree. The process creates a visual roadmap of the curriculum, informing effective and efficient unit of study design by linking PLOs to unit (1) learning outcomes, (2) content, (3) learning activities (formative), and (4) assessment design (summative; Harden, 2001; Uchiyama & Radin, 2009).

The benefits of good mapping

Intentionally mapping PLOs across a program has shown to positively impact student learning and curriculum quality— when PLOs are not mapped, curricula can lack coherence, leading to a fragmented program with unclear expectations, critical knowledge gaps, unnecessary repetition of content, and poor assessment design (Boud & Falchikov, 2007; Houghton, 2004), therefore reducing student motivation and hindering their performance in the workplace (Boud & Falchikov, 2007; Gibbs & Simpson, 2004; Houghton, 2004).

In contrast, when PLOs are mapped, teachers and curriculum developers can ensure that:

• there are no gaps, redundancies, or unnecessary repetition in units and across the program
• the ordering of units is optimal, and
• unit design supports learning required at specific stages of a degree.

For students, mapping sets clear expectations and a coherent learning pathway across the degree that optimally supports their motivation and engagement (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Boud & Molloy, 2012), subsequently enhancing understanding, critical thinking, assessment outcomes, and the integration of knowledge into real-world contexts (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Uchiyama & Radin, 2009).

Program-level assessment design

For assessment specifically, curriculum mapping encompasses a program-level approach to assessment design, ensuring that we are strategically assessing students at key points in their degree, which has shown to reduce the following issues (see Beckwith et al., 2010; Eastberg, 2011; Ndoye & Parker, 2010; Simper et al., 2022):

1. assessment burden
2. redundant or repetitive assessments,
3. misalignment of learning outcomes, and
4. over-reliance on traditional assessment types.

Subsequently for teachers, mapping can reduce workload and volume of assessments by streamlining and integrating assessment design, and help us gain a clearer understanding of how our efforts contribute to the program as a whole (Harden, 2001).

Why map our programs now?

While your program and unit(s) of study may have been working very well, the rapid rise of AI is reshaping how students engage in their education or access and process information, and particularly how they demonstrate their learning through assessment (Lodge et al., 2023). This shift is challenging many of the assumptions built into traditional assessment and learning designs in universities, meaning that we need to ensure what we’re doing is optimal for the new climate. Of course, AI is not the first driver of the conversation around assessment. Challenges and limitations of assessments in university education, such as misalignment of learning outcomes with assessment design and over-reliance on traditional assessment types (Hattie, 2009; Shavelson, 2010, 2019), have been widely acknowledged by academics and researchers predating the advent of AI (see ‘assessment culture’ related literature for more information, e.g., Cardoso et al., 2019; Holzweiss et al., 2016; Ylonen et al., 2018). Rather, AI is unveiling new dimensions to existing challenges with assessment and prompting greater urgency in implementing improvements that have long been needed. Engaging in program redesign strategies like the curriculum mapping activity described below will help ensure that, even with a changing educational landscape, our degrees can optimally foster learning and prepare students for the current and emerging workplace.

The curriculum mapping process

Curriculum mapping involves discussing and identifying the learning process for each PLO across the program. By learning process, I mean the point(s) in a program at which students acquire, retain, and transfer each PLO. Acquisition, retention, and transfer of knowledge or skills is a shared, comprehensive, and rigorously understood model for learning across education and learning science related disciplines (Evans et al., 2021; Tierney, 2021). The process of how we learn provides a structure for the activity and systematic breakdown of learning for each PLO across a program (see Table 1). The curriculum mapping activity involves academics determining in which year(s) (and semester, if possible) each PLO should be (1) acquired, (2) retained, and (3) transferred. Using post it notes, teachers visually map learning attainment for each PLO across the program (see “Doing the curriculum mapping activity in your program” below for a complete step-by-step guide).

Table 1. The learning process.

Figure 1. Curriculum mapping activity outcome example.

Applying curriculum mapping results to your unit and assessment design

For unit of study design specifically, activity outcomes clarify how individual units contribute to the overall learning process within a program. This helps educators more systematically:

• Refine unit-level learning outcomes—for example, determining whether students should define concepts or apply knowledge and skills;
• Design teaching strategies, learning activities, and feedback opportunities that support students in achieving the required learning attainment for the unit,
• Ensure assessments are appropriately focused on demonstrating retention and/or transfer of learning, aligned with both the unit outcomes and relevant PLOS, and
• Decide whether assessments should be Lane 1 (secure) or Lane 2 (open), depending on whether students need to demonstrate retention and/or transfer of relevant PLOs.

Considering the new Sydney Assessment Framework, let’s look at how you can apply activity outcomes to your assessment design.

Help find gaps or redundancies

Activity outcomes can help us ensure that the content and design of our assessments, whether secure or open, purposefully demonstrates or supports learning. For example, the activity outcomes in Figure 1 show that PLO1 needs to be transferred by Year 2. Let’s say you teach a second-year unit of study that addresses PLO1. Your respective assessment design should therefore aim to demonstrate transfer of learning (e.g., case-based questions are a great way to demonstrate transfer of knowledge to different scenarios in written exams). However, if your assessment design is focused on basic recall of information, the design may require attention. The curriculum map ultimately helps keep the purpose of our assessments clear and aligned with both unit learning outcomes and PLOs.

Help determine secure versus open assessments

Activity outcomes allow for the systematic identification of key points across a degree where students need to demonstrate their learning through assessment (i.e., Lane 1 secure). Figure 2 outlines how the PLO mapping outcomes guide where Lane 1 (secure) and Lane 2 (open) assessments occur across a program. As transfer is an advanced stage of learning (e.g., accreditation bodies often expect that students can demonstrate transfer), this indicates where Lane 1 (secure) assessments should be placed across the degree. While “retention” is well on the road to transfer, the learner is not yet at the stage where they can demonstrate transfer of their knowledge and skills into different contexts and conditions, therefore Lane 2 (open) assessment is appropriate to continue to support the student learning process. Acquisition does not require assessment, unless a unit of study is linked to PLOs that only require acquisition in a respective year, in which case Lane 2 (open) assessment would suffice.

Let’s look at two scenarios from the example activity outcomes in Figure 1 for how to use the map to determine lanes of assessment:

Example 1: Let’s say you teach to PLO1 in your unit, and that your unit is in Year 1. The example curriculum map in Figure 1 shows that PLO1 needs to be acquired and retained in Year 1. Your relevant assessments would therefore be open (Lane 2) to support learning (see Figure 2). It’s ok if the curriculum map indicates that you don’t need any secure assessments in your unit of study. Each PLO must be securely assessed at least once within an entire program.

Example 2: This scenario involves a single PLO that encompasses substantial content and may need to be broken down and assessed at various points across a program. Let’s say you teach a Year 3 unit that addresses part or all of PLO3. The curriculum map in Figure 1 indicates that students need to retain and transfer PLO3 in Year 3, indicating both Lane 2 (open for retention) and Lane 1 (secure for transfer) assessments are required. However, there’s other important information in the map. Results indicate that PLO3 was previously assessed for retention in Year 2 and will be assessed again for transfer in Year 4. To avoid unnecessary repetition (i.e., over assessment), it’s important to assess only the specific aspect(s) of the PLO that your unit covers. To further reduce redundancy and workload, and promote integration of learning across units, this scenario may lend itself to a combined or integrated assessment with other relevant units (for guidance, see the Program level assessment design Teaching@Sydney article).

Figure 2. How activity outcomes may assist in determining whether your assessments should be open or secure.

Doing the curriculum mapping activity in your program

Before commencing the activity:

• I recommend the activity be done in-person and on paper, with no devices used (unless otherwise required for accessibility purposes) to encourage engagement.
• Include Unit Coordinators and academic staff who teach into the degree program, representing as many units from your program as possible.
• There is no need to provide detailed unit content or current assessment information. Keeping information high-level will more optimally attain academic perspectives on the overall picture of learning across the degree (Whitfield & Hartley, 2019).

Tell me more!

As our assessment practices evolve, ensuring continued alignment with program learning outcomes becomes critical. This curriculum mapping activity offers a timely and practical tool for guiding program redesign and maintaining that alignment as we move to the new Sydney Assessment Framework.

If you’re planning a program design or redesign, and you’d like to hear more about this activity or have assistance running it in a workshop with academics, reach out to [email protected].

About me

Introducing myself as this is my first Teaching@Sydney contribution! My PhD and Masters research looked at how learning sciences may improve teacher education and professional development for higher education teachers, particularly teacher use of instruction, demonstration, and feedback for supporting learning and autonomy. While my research started by applying learning sciences to teaching in higher music education, I’ve had the recent privilege of applying the same knowledge to teaching and curriculum developments in the Faculty of Medicine and Health, and now the broader university community.