Curriculum Mapping

Curriculum mapping is a process developed in 1979 to discern the actual as opposed to the desired curricula being employed in schools. Mapping was based on the recognition that the curriculum as a kind of work plan for teachers to follow was actually ignored or changed much of the time in classroom delivery. Change strategies that involved writing more curricula were often based on a lack of real knowledge about what classroom teachers were actually teaching. Mapping was begun as a method to discern the actual and “real” curriculum, that is, to “map” what was actually being taught. With such information, curriculum developers could (a) revise the existing curriculum accordingly; (2) establish guidelines to rewrite the curriculum; and (c) use the data to monitor the adherence of the taught curriculum as compared to the prescribed curriculum.

There are three elements of curriculum mapping. The first is to discern the content that was taught in the classroom. The second is to understand how much time was spent delivering the content. The third is to know the sequence of the content taught. Sequencing becomes very important in matching assessment dates to curriculum content to be taught prior to children being tested. For mapping to be undertaken, two approaches to data gathering must be considered. The first is to ask teachers to keep a record of the curriculum content taught, time spent, and the sequencing employed. The second is to use trained classroom observers. Very few mapping studies use trained observers. Most maps are developed by classroom teachers following a format that is easy to use to record the actual curriculum he or she taught. Most maps are also two-dimensional; that is, they are records of what was taught and how much time was spent teaching it. The problems associated with mapping are (a) memory loss, (b) data manipulation, (c) faulty sampling, (d) faulty contextual assumptions, and, (e) overprecision. Memory loss occurs when teachers do not record their data regularly. Data manipulation occurs when there is an element of fear among teachers doing mapping; that is, there is hesitation in revealing what they actually teach. Faulty sampling can happen when only a few “representative teachers” are asked to map, instead of everyone, and the data gathered are not really what the majority of the teachers are teaching. A faulty context assumption is that the curriculum is not as fluid as often thought. The curriculum consists of not only the content of what is to be taught but also the methods and other habit patterns that provide stability for an instructional program, even when the curriculum is ambiguous. Finally, mapping is not a way to fine-tune a curriculum. It is a process to reveal the big trends of what is going into the actual curriculum being taught.

Mapping data can also be a focal point to raise important issues within the curriculum development process pertaining to balance. There are three ways to ascertain balance. The first is to consider balance as an unmet social need. In this instance, the data show that what is actually being taught does not “match” the evolving needs of society in some way. The second is to consider balance as adherence to the laws of [Page 261]learning or brain processing. In this case, one is concerned more about the delivery of the curriculum than its content. The third way curriculum balance is determined is to have some formula for what constitutes “proper content.” From this latter perspective, a balanced curriculum is one that is congruent with the criteria of “proper content.” Arguments about the classical curriculum can be heard.

...