Year Two to Four

Year 2 to 4

Summary for year 2 to 4

Curriculum mapping

  •  a brief explanation: steps
  • Sample
  • links to the tool
  • a form to request access

CMAP tutorial

Year 2 – Key emphasis:  Alignment

Having delegated issues identified in the previous program review report for further action by subcommittee or program designee, Year 2 takes up those issues first by expecting those delegated program members to research and report to the program as a whole on the program’s alignment within the Institution and sector.

Program members should typically review and familiarize themselves with a) York’s governing documents and institutional planning priorities and identify how the program relates to these.  To prepare to describe program distinction within its field(s) of study, subcommittees will normally research, review, and report back on innovations in b) non-York corollary and competitor programs, to describe the program’s alignment with or orientation with regard to such comparators in an informed, data-rich way.  Mindful that inputs have a bearing on successful outcomes, programs will normally explore c) their alignment with primary and secondary education trends.  In order to know better the sorts of post-degree lives for which they are preparing students, programs will usually consider d) alignment with post-degree circumstances, including job markets, industry demands, etc.  Finally, to benefit from the wisdom of colleagues elsewhere within the university, programs will usually consider e) alignment with other York programs.  Each of these alignment foci should be taken up within programs’ subcommittees or delegated groups with regard to that subgroup’s particular emphasis (curriculum, teaching, students, research, etc.)

Internal deliverables:

  1. Subcommittee interim reports to program on alignment
  2. Subcommittees develop specific plans for:
    1. “Year 3 – Program Outcomes,” including researching comparator programs’ teaching to better describe program pedagogical approaches, variety, innovation, and effectiveness in context
    2. “Year 4 – Curriculum,” including researching comparator programs’ curricular to better describe program distinctness, quality, scope, depth, innovation, and coherence in context
  3. Program interim draft overview on alignment

Provostial deliverables:

  1. Workshop(s) on alignment planning
  2. Info-sharing that showcases features of York programs worth knowing about

 

Year 3 – Key emphasis:  Program Outcomes

Subcommittees or program-delegated area representatives will consider broadly the program’s outcomes (past, current, and anticipated), especially with regard to student success, defined expansively to include:

Course outcomes,

Learning outomes

Degree outcomes,

Student recruitment, satisfaction, and retention, and

Post-graduation pathways and trends.

Subcommittee will normally work to understand such outcomes a) within the program itself and b) in relation to meaningful comparators (institutional, regional, sectoral, etc.)  Programs will identify data deficits and plan to address them.  Normally, the work of subcommittees or program members focused on curriculum and teaching/learning will be foregrounded this year.  However, all subcommittees and program members will link their areas to the consideration of program outcomes.

Internal deliverables:

  1. Draft student questionnaire
  2. Program draft recommendations for pedagogy and curriculum, including implementation and review plans.

Provostial deliverables:

  1. Program data sheets and available analysis
  2. Liaising between and consultation with program and relevant institutional stakeholders (e.g. Office of Institutional Planning and Analysis, Career Centre, Alumni Affairs)
  3. Workshops on student retention

 

Year 4 – Key emphasis:  Curriculum

A central responsibility of any CPR is the program’s discussion of its curriculum.  This year the curriculum subcommittee or program representatives will be foregrounded as the program develops or updates:

program mission statement,

program degree requirements and pathways,

program year-level expectations, etc.

In developing a full “map” of the program’s curriculum, curricular plans and rationales, normally programs will reflect on preceding discussions with regard to alignment and program outcomes.  In order to support the eventual work of the program’s external reviewers, the program will usually develop a commentary about its map, noting design rationales, notable responses to sectoral developments, innovations, obstacles and challenges, etc.  The program’s teaching/learning subcommittee or delegated members will normally support this year’s work by reporting on the program’s various instructional modes and platforms, its pedagogical innovations and rationales, its alignment with institutional and other priorities (e.g. experiential learning, technology-enhanced learning), and its noteworthy comparator programs.

Internal deliverable:

  1. Draft curricular map, degree expectation chart, and commentary

Provostial deliverable:

  1. Liaising between program and relevant institutional supports (e.g. Teaching Commons)