In the last post, I talked about one of the two key considerations in mapping courses to PLOs. In this post, I will discuss the second.
Mapping courses is an extremely powerful design tool in program design. The visualisation of the mapping component makes it very clear how much coverage each PLO is attracting across the year levels. In a typical program design workshop, course authors or their representatives are asked to map their courses to their respective PLOs. The resulting visual makes it clear if the coverage is sufficient, or whether some adjustments need to be made. If for example a particular PLO is not mapped sufficiently, the program team can adjust the ratio. This may mean that a course will need to alter a part of its focus to include more skills and content aligned with the newly mapped PLO. The visual below is for a 3-year undergraduate degree in the higher education sector.
This mapping process also uncovers occasions where a PLO is not mapped at a particular year level, as illustrated below:
This image reveals two omissions in the mapping of courses to PLO4 and PLO5, respectively. These omissions have implications for the courses in the year above them. Higher education, like other sectors of education, is guided by qualification frameworks. In Australia, it is the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF), and is implemented by TEQSA. One of its central tenets is that learners are supported to progress through a series of levels (AQF5 and 6) to attain higher levels such as an undergraduate degree (AQF7), an Honours degree (AQF8), a Master’s (AQF9) or a Doctorate (AQF10). In other words, learners must be provided with the opportunity to enter an AQF level having been prepared for it by engaging with the level below it.
In the image above, there are not any courses mapped to PLO4 at the first-year level (AQF5). This means that the year level 2 (AQF6) course, must ensure that learners can cope with an accelerated version of the teaching of the relevant PLO4 skills. It may also be just as likely that the introduction of the relevant skills for PLO can begin at the AQF 6 level.
The scenario outlined in PLO5 however requires a different approach. There is an introduction of the PLO in level 1, but then an omission in level 2. Space must be made in the year 3 curriculum for this as one or both of the mapped courses will need to teach the missing AQF 6 content. This highlights why the mapping process is so valuable: it holds courses to account for ensuring that learners are adequately placed to attain outcomes.
To ensure that there is a real alignment between the courses mapped to each PLO, the course authors of the respective courses could get together and plan out a learning sequence that progresses every learner through the AQF levels towards achieving the program outcome. When such calculated planning is carried out, students are guaranteed a stronger more connected learning experience.
I’m Paul Moss. I’m a learning designer at the University of Adelaide. Follow me on Twitter @edmerger
LEARNING DESIGN by Paul G Moss 