Trace each shared outcome across the ordered course sequence. Separate planned learning opportunities from actual student achievement, then review the gap before changing a marker.
Three original modules and shared outcomes
The fictional Practical Data Storytelling program uses this order: C01 Read Tables, C02 Compare Evidence, C03 Present Recommendation. The example contains no student work, scores, approved standards or credit requirements.
Its original shared outcomes are:
- O01: Interpret a table with the correct denominator.
- O02: Compare claims using supplied evidence.
- O03: Explain a limitation to an audience.
Use this explicit planning legend: I = introduce, R = reinforce, D = planned opportunity to demonstrate. D does not mean that a learner has demonstrated mastery. A blank means no opportunity is mapped in this baseline, not proof that the topic never appears in practice.
| Ordered module | O01: denominator | O02: claim comparison | O03: audience limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| C01 Read Tables | I | — | — |
| C02 Compare Evidence | R | I | — |
| C03 Present Recommendation | D | D | I |
The matrix has 3 × 3 = 9 cells: six mapped and three blank. Keep all course/outcome IDs, including the blanks, so a review can trace the same relationships across revisions.
Add criterion links, not a general grade
The original planned assessment records are:
| Assessment | Planned student work | Aligned criterion and outcome |
|---|---|---|
| A01 | Read Table worksheet in C01 | Correct denominator → O01 |
| A02 | Comparison notes in C02 | Evidence supporting the comparison → O02 |
| A03 | Recommendation presentation in C03 | Correct denominator → O01; evidence-based claim comparison → O02 |
| S01 | Student confidence survey | Indirect perception evidence; no direct work criterion |
A03's overall presentation grade does not isolate O03. Its two named criteria currently address O01 and O02, not explaining a limitation. A confident survey response likewise does not show the learner actually performing that task.
UConn's curriculum-mapping guidance explains the limits of simple presence marks, distinguishes direct work from indirect perceptions and discusses outcome-aligned assessment criteria. CU Boulder's alignment guide connects program outcomes, course maps, assessment plans and group review. The original I/R/D legend here deliberately uses planned demonstration rather than an assertion of achieved mastery.
Trace the three different planning questions
O01 follows I → R → D. Its planned A03 denominator criterion provides a named later demonstration opportunity. The map still contains no observed results; it cannot establish how many learners meet that criterion.
O02 follows blank → I → D. A02 supplies earlier comparison work and A03 a later criterion, but no separate R cell is mapped. Ask whether sufficient reinforcement exists in the actual tasks. A missing R marker is a review question, not an automatic failure or proof that the program must add another course.
O03 follows blank → blank → I. It is introduced only in the final module, with no D cell and no aligned direct assessment criterion. The actionable gap is the absence of a planned criterion and earlier opportunity—not a finding that students have failed.
Compare a proposed revision with the baseline
One original proposal adds I at C02/O03 and changes C03/O03 from I to D. Keep the baseline rather than overwrite it during discussion.
The proposed change needs actual task and criterion design:
- In C02, introduce a limitation statement and provide a rehearsal task: learners identify one limit of the supplied evidence, then explain why it narrows their comparison claim. Specify the materials and feedback opportunity rather than add an isolated checkmark.
- In C03, add planned criterion A03-L: explains a relevant evidence limitation to the audience. Define the actual performance wording and review it with the teaching team. Do not invent a scoring threshold or completed rubric approval.
Only under that planned task/criterion change does the proposed D marker describe a corresponding opportunity. The variant has seven mapped cells and two blank cells. More mapped cells alone do not prove a better curriculum or improved learning.
Record the changed cells, proposed task, criterion ID, rationale, responsible reviewer and actual decision status. Approval remains to confirm until the maintained process records it.
Keep the map usable in the required workflow
Maintain the official workbook, course documents, rubrics and approval records in the school or training workflow. A portable worksheet can retain course IDs/order, outcome IDs/text, markers, task/criterion links, evidence type and revision decisions.
A future outcome view should reveal its whole sequence and relevant criteria, including blanks and indirect measures. It must not mark students proficient, save an approval or certify external standards merely because the map is displayed. Confirm real standards, credits, calendar and authority separately when required.
Copy an outcome-and-criterion map brief
Prepare a curriculum-planning map in US English in the required native format.
Program scope, ordered course IDs and shared outcome IDs/text: [paste]
Explicit introduction/reinforcement/demonstration marker definitions: [paste]
Current course/outcome cells, including blanks: [paste]
Planned tasks, assessment IDs and exact aligned criteria: [paste]
Direct work, indirect measures and actual evidence status: [paste]
Proposed revisions and real standards/approval inputs: [paste or TO CONFIRM]
Trace each outcome across courses and criterion links. Planning presence is
not actual achievement; general grades and confidence surveys are not automatic
outcome-specific direct evidence. Flag missing opportunities/criteria without
inventing results or treating every missing reinforcement marker as failure.
Preserve baseline and proposal separately. A changed marker requires a named
task/criterion change, not just another checkmark. Show cell counts accurately.
Keep actual student work, scores and approval status unknown when not supplied.
Return the proposed map, criterion-gap review and revision-decision log.
If requested, specify an HTML teaching-team review copy with local outcome views.
No automatic mastery, certification, saved edits or approval controls.
Trace O03 with the teaching team from its first planned task to the proposed A03-L criterion before revising the official map. NOS can save and display an HTML map-and-gap review copy for that discussion. Keep rubrics and decisions in the maintained workflow, and verify the new task and criterion together before changing a planning marker into a demonstration opportunity.