University of Leeds
Curriculum Enhancement Project
Core Threads Sub-Group
Research-Based Learning: Mapping a Curriculum
We have agreed the Leeds definition of Research-Based Learning (RBL), which involves:





Programmes actively developing students’ research skills;
Providing students with opportunities to practice those skills;
The latest research, including that produced by our own staff, contributing to the curriculum
Students undertaking a supervised but autonomous piece of research;
Programmes being characterised more by research-led (RL) teaching at the programme’s start,
and research-based (RB) at the programme’s culmination.
Any curriculum-mapping exercise should identify:
1. What should be mapped (by programme, by level, by module, by lecture/taught session).
2. Who should do the mapping and who should audit that process.
3. Which tools are necessary: Healey matrix (Appendix 1), Adelaide descriptors (Appendix 2),
mapping ‘template’ (Appendix 3).
4. Learning outcomes which focus on the elements set out above.
5. Taught activities in support of these elements.
6. Assessment activity in support of these elements.
7. How the balance of modular activity shifts from research-led (teaching structured around
content, with the students as audience, and mainly communicating that knowledge to each other
and assessors) to research-based (emphasising students undertaking research, often
determining the research questions and methods to address such questions).
8. A meaningful but brief output/outcome/deliverable (perhaps a template) which permits
programmes to demonstrate to their students, STSECs, FTSECs, etc that the programme takes
the student on the research skill development journey.
NB RBL mapping necessarily differs from thread exemplar identification for two important reasons:
1. RBL is argued to be pervasive within programmes and this needs to be demonstrated;
2. RBL is characterised as a journey such that experiences for students at the start and finish of
their programmes should be explicitly different, and that programmes should be able to articulate
how this transition is demonstrated.
What should be mapped?
1. There is value in mapping by module, because at this level, it should be possible to identify if a
module’s focus is situated mainly within one quadrant of the Healey matrix. For example, if the
module centres typically on lecture material to encourage students to know more about the
discipline content, though often with references to material indicating the origins of that material, this
would be described as ‘research-led’.
2. It should also be possible to describe in simple terms how modules early in the programme focus
more on research-led experiences, shifting over the levels such that students experience more
research-based activity in their final year. But this would effectively mean identifying which
components (ie modules) perform which task, and how the balance of modules shifts from RL to RB
from level to level, so the programme description itself relies on module mapping.
3. In order to identify a module’s characteristics with some degree of assurance, lecture and
assessment material needs to be examined, though it’s possible that simply modes of delivery (e.g.
the nature of contact time) could be used as a higher level descriptor, to allow module teams to
identify if a module is predominantly RL or sits more naturally within another Healey quadrant.
1
4. Therefore, the focus should be on the module, derived from contact time, content, or assessments
methods, and subsequently, modules in combination can map the programme, demonstrating the
transition from RL via research-tutored (students focus on analysis of papers or writing critical
essays) and research-oriented (students concentrate on learning how to do research) to RB.
5. There is one more important aspect for consideration; the programme’s learning outcomes must
articulate (they should anyway, if appropriately aligned with the FHEQ, and typical QAA Benchmark
Statements) the RBL journey. So it should be straightforward to describe programme level LOs at
Cert HE level as predominantly RL, with LOs at Honours Degree level as more RB.
Who should do the mapping and who should audit that process?
6. Given the account above about what should be mapped, it follows that only module leaders and/or
their teams are in a position to do this. A sensible approach would be to start with either a detailed
module outline or the original module specification, for the team to familiarise itself with both the
Healey Matrix and the Adelaide Research Skills Development Framework (RSDF), and then to
interrogate the module learning outcomes, content, delivery mode, and assessment type to
determine where within the Matrix and Framework a module is best positioned. For example, if a
level 2 module is designed to expose students to research methods, and gives them the opportunity
to practice those methods, then it aligns straightforwardly with ‘research-oriented’ (RO) in the Healey
matrix, and if the assessment methods require some critical analysis and development of methods –
with guidance – to address a research question, then the module aligns with Facet C in Facets of
Inquiry in the RSDF, and as students are required to use prescribed methods, then it sits best with
Level II in the RSDF Level of Student Autonomy.
7. In this case, the Matrix describes the general aims of the module, and the RSDF describes what
students actually do. This is why both tools are valuable in the mapping exercise.
8. The module team would merely need to come to this determination, identify those elements (LOs,
delivery, content, assessment, etc) and label the module accordingly, at least with the Quadrant in
the Matrix to which it best fits but also ideally with the RSDF C II, as that fosters a more explicit
articulation – for the school and its students – of how modules will build across the programme, in
assessment terms for example, to a research-based culmination.
9. STSEC, or a sub-group thereof (perhaps the group tasked with Module and Programme Evaluation)
would act as the auditor; the subgroup would check each module in terms of identified elements and
the labels applied from the Matrix and RSDF, and confirm that the module in question has been
appropriately labelled, and that the elements are consistent with those labels. This subgroup would
collate results from modules to arrive at a programme mapping.
10. STSEC would then consider the programme’s mapping and confirm that the patterns of modules
indicated that students made the transition from RL via RT and RO to RB, or, in terms of the RSDF,
moved from lower levels of student autonomy to higher, and similarly from facets of inquiry lower in
the table to facets higher.
Which tools are necessary?
11. Module teams would need the module descriptor, or some other authenticated outline of module
LOs, content, delivery, assessment etc. In addition, they would need to have access to, and be
familiar with both the Healey matrix and the RSDF. At the level of the module, there may be little
value in developing a template, as module teams need merely to identify which elements support
which label from the Matrix and the RSDF.
12. For the programme mapping activity, the STSEC subgroup would benefit from some simple
template, with level, module, elements, labels, and a column for confirmation (proposed draft
template attached).
13. For STSEC, no additional tools are needed; SLTC confirms the balance of modules meeting various
aspects of the Matrix/RSDF aligns with a transition from RL to RB and from F1 to AIV or AV, and
includes the mapping template as evidence for Annual Health Checks, SAERs, IPE, etc.
2
Learning Outcomes, taught components and assessment elements
14. Module teams should examine these within a module to determine which quadrant in the Matrix and
which facets/levels best describe the assessment or other activity. SLTC should confirm that
programme LOs are also consistent with the RBL transition as described by the definition.
Demonstrate how the balance of modular activity shifts
15. It should be clear within a programme template that modules labelled RL, and lower levels of facet
and autonomy (on the axes of the Adelaide RSDF) would predominate at level 1, there should be
greater evidence of RO and RT, facets D and C, autonomy levels II and III, in subsequent years,
and in the final year, the expectation that RB, and facets B and A, at levels of autonomy III and IV,
and possibly V would be demonstrated. As this balance will vary from programme to programme, it
is arguably difficult to go further than this expectation. STSECs could confirm that the balance
meets the School’s requirements and may need to defend this at FTSEC, AHCs etc.
16. There may be value in a final column to the right on the template, to allow schools to indicate the
balance between types of modules by level, to more easily see that this transition does occur.
Provides a meaningful but brief output/outcome/deliverable
17. The template as outlined should suffice. An additional column for STSEC purposes to confirm that
the module balance, by level, allows the school to indicate that students journey from RL to RB.
Schools could simply use this completed template at AHCs, and other review points to confirm that
programmes meet the RBL definitional requirements. Schools can also use this information to
discuss with students how students will transit from being taught to being more autonomous as they
progress through the programme.
Final thoughts
18. Critical in this process is that module teams, and STSECs familiarise themselves with both the
Healey Matrix and the RSDF. It is possible that a process even more mechanistic could be
conceived but the outline above provides sufficient flexibility I believe for schools to find their own
specific mechanisms for the mapping.
19. Though we believe the guidance outlined above would be an effective audit process, we
acknowledge that both the Healey Matrix, and especially the Adelaide RSDF may be perceived to
be challenging for some programmes/schools. The arguments in favour of a common auditing
process are robust (eg single approach, transparent, convergent thinking, consistent terminology,
consistent translation for students, relates clearly to student and staff activity). However, in
recognition of the potentially challenging nature of the Matrix and RSDF, we can conceive of a less
demanding audit process in which programmes might identify simply the extent to which modules
showcase and engage students in current research, research debates, or research methods, and
the extent to which the tutor explores and uses their own research in teaching. These do impact on
the students’ engagement with research, and types of research activity with which students can
engage. These too might be mapped to research-led, -tutored, -oriented and –based, though we
should be cognisant of the risks associated with different audit processes being applied. If we are to
be emphasising the value of RBL, and in a position to demonstrate how we achieve RBL in all
programmes, and articulate the benefits of such for our students and other stakeholders, I would
argue that the more robust approach has greater utility, though may be more demanding.
Mitch Waterman,
Chair, Core Threads Subgroup
26th October 2011
(v12: updated DG 2 April 2012)
3
Appendix 1: The Healey Matrix
Healey, M., 2005. Linking Research and teaching: disciplinary spaces. In Barnett, R., (ed) Reshaping the university: new relationships between research, scholarship and
teaching. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.
4
5
Appendix 3
Curriculum Enhancement Project: Mapping Template for Research-Based Learning
School:
Level
1
Programme:
Module
Code and
Title
Elements Identified
(L.Outcomes/content/delivery/assessment)
Healey Quadrant
(RL/RT/RO/RB)
RSDF labels
(Facet of Inquiry:
F to A; Level of
Student
Autonomy: level I
to V)
STSEC Subgroup
confirmation
(Elements confirmed
as aligned with
labels)
STSEC confirms
module balance
by level:
RL/RT/RO/RB
1
1
2
2
3
1
Completing the template for each Level of study will demonstrate the shift in the balance from RL to RB
6