Hi, need to submit a 1000 words paper on the topic Investigate Curriculum Mapping. Figure 1: Curriculum Mapping’s Directionality Image courtesy of the University of Connecticut When the mapping is done, the outcomes and philosophies of the institution (e.g. whether the school has a science focus, a vocational focus, a Deweyan learned experience focus) and the learning outcomes of the academic program (e.g. the major or the grade year or whether it’s elective or main track) determine the nature of the course. The course itself is then mapped into units and individual lessons. Like any good architect, curriculum mappers start with the blueprint at the highest level then build from the lowest level, from the foundation up, brick by brick. Students may be told about the objectives and design approach, but they will experience it lesson by lesson up until the final outcomes of the institution (graduation) are achieved. Hale and Dunlap (2010, p. 2) liken it to looking at a city from a high vantage point first, getting a broad sense of its flow and design, then going down to the ground level and interacting with the individual citizens. This is all fairly intuitive thus far, but the University of Connecticut (2011) also argues for program objective-to-individual program matrices. If the institution values diversity, for example, that claim is fairly hollow unless diversity is actually represented in any classes (language classes, multicultural studies, social studies, etc.) Using the matrix design, they’d code all of the institutional goals and match them to each class: In the case of diversity, they’d match the diversity objective to social studies classes. This process is iterative and can occur multiple times: The class can in turn be broken down into objective matrices, with units and lessons mapped to make sure that there is even and full coverage of all primary objectives. The individual social studies classes, knowing that they’re supposed to fulfill a diversity requirement, can orient their units and lessons appropriately. Curriculum mapping is not just a design tool: It can also be a data-collection tool as well (Kentucky Department of Education, 2011). It’s difficult to collect data that’s not systematized. By making systematic the way curricula are designed and taught, it’s possible for teachers, instructors and administrators to quantify performance and interest and begin to adjust or improve the relevant and practicality of institutional goals. And when performance results have been achieved, it’s possible to quantify why and where the improvement took place. Curriculum mapping also allows all relevant stakeholders to participate (Rubicon, 2010. Dunlap and Hale, 2010). Since the curriculum map allows the entire curriculum to be coordinated and designed, it allows instructors to make sure their efforts aren’t excessively overlapping, allows parents and students to insure they’re getting what they deserve and value, etc. Good curriculum mapping is flexible (Rubicon, 2010). It can be changed on the spot as teachers, students and administrators discover problems and holes. But unlike change that occurs in a more conventional way, curriculum mapping can be systematic, with a change or reduction in one classroom being offset by other changes elsewhere.