





































Listen and Learn Sessions  219

Connecting and 
Collaborating with Faculty 
through Curriculum 
Mapping
By Elizabeth Young Miller, Moravian College and Moravian Theological Seminary

ABSTR ACT In my role as the seminary liaison librarian, I utilize curric-
ulum mapping to connect and collaborate with seminary faculty. After 
sitting at the table during a recent curriculum review, I began mapping 
gatekeeping measures and course objectives to the Framework for 
Information Literacy for Higher Education. Partnering with teaching 
faculty, I flagged certain required courses and developed assessments 
and exercises to measure information literacy at various stages in the 
MATS degree program.

BACKGROUND

Before I delve into the process of curriculum mapping, I would like to 
provide some background on Moravian Theological Seminary. The 
seminary was founded in 1807 and is located in Bethlehem, Pennsylva-
nia, about sixty miles north of Philadelphia. While Moravian by affilia-
tion, the seminary is ecumenical in every sense—all faiths are welcome. 
The approximately ninety students represent sixteen denominations 
and faith traditions. Approximately 75% of students are enrolled part-
time and about 25% bring racial and/or ethnic diversity. The semi-
nary’s website (https://www.moravianseminary.edu/) also shares that 
over 40% of students are over the age of fifty. Moravian offers multiple 
degrees: the Master of Arts in Clinical Counseling (MACC), the Master 
of Arts in Chaplaincy (MACh), the Master of Arts in Theological Stud-
ies (MATS), and of course, the Master of Divinity (MDiv). In addition 
to degree programs, the seminary offers non-degree programs and 

https://www.moravianseminary.edu/


220  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

certificates in formative spirituality and spiritual direction. Seminary 
students share a library with undergraduates of Moravian College, 
and the library employs 6.5 full-time librarians and 3.5 full-time 
paraprofessionals.

Now that you have some knowledge about the institution, I would 
like to offer some context for the project. Before coming to Moravian, 
I participated in the Association of College and Research Libraries 
(ACRL) Assessment in Action (AiA) grant program, so I have some 
background in assessment. I also attended a webinar on curriculum 
mapping by Char Booth of Claremont University and was starting to 
explore this option at my previous institution. In August of 2015, I 
started at Moravian, and, during my first semester, paid what I have 
dubbed “house calls” on faculty. These house calls were scheduled 
one-on-one meetings with any interested faculty members. During 
these meetings, which lasted between sixty and ninety minutes, I 
attempted to get a “pulse” on the library and was particularly inter-
ested in ways to partner and collaborate, as well as discuss ideas 
related to information literacy and assessment. I had a sense of some 
things from regularly attending seminary faculty meetings, but the 
perspective I gained from these house calls was immeasurable. 
Then, in May 2016, I attended the annual two-day-long meeting at 
the seminary, affectionately referred to as the marathon meeting. The 
focus of this marathon meeting was curriculum review, in particular 
gating assessments for each degree program. I kept these gatekeeping 
measures in the back of my mind the following month as I attended 
my first ATLA conference in California. I was especially interested in 
Desirae Zingarelli-Sweet’s poster titled “Prepare a Way through the 
Wilderness: Transforming Library Instruction by Mapping the Curric-
ulum” and followed up with her after the conference. I eagerly began 
searching in the literature for information on curriculum mapping. 
Please see the “Resources” section of the paper for citations to useful 
articles I found during this process, including a citation to Desirae’s 
poster presentation.

PROCESS

After attending the ATLA conference and reading these articles, I 
was excited to put ideas into practice and shared my enthusiasm 



Listen and Learn Sessions  221

with the dean of the seminary during a meeting in July 2016. I was 
working on measurable information literacy outcomes and thought 
curriculum mapping would be an ideal fit. My goal was to use mean-
ingful measures for both the library and the seminary, so I explained 
the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education to the dean. 
Next, I pitched the idea of mapping the Framework to the curriculum, 
incorporating the recently approved gating assessments. The dean 
seemed receptive, so I asked which program I should start with. His 
response was MATS. The seminary’s registrar then proceeded to grant 
me access to course syllabi, so that I could use these documents in the 
curriculum mapping process.

I began by creating a spreadsheet, in which I mapped the Frame-
work to the overarching gating assessments for the MATS degree. 
(Please see below for more details.)

The frames are across the top of the spreadsheet. Each learning 
objective has its own line, and these objectives, along with the gate-
keeping measures, were developed by the faculty. I mapped “Author-
ity is Constructed and Contextual” to the Texts in Context (TiC) paper. 
With this assignment, faculty are looking for evidence of “[a]naly[sis] 
of primary research materials [that] demonstrates knowledge of larger 



222  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

contexts and the ability to interpret scripture.” The faculty are look-
ing for these same things in the New Testament interpretation paper, 
which I mapped to “Information Creation as a Process.” I struggled 
with “Information has Value,” but ultimately chose the course Learn-
ing in Context (LinC) or portfolio as a measure. The faculty objective 
paired with these measures involves “[i]dentify[ing] and engag[ing] 
diverse and overlapping cultural and social dynamics.” The last three 
frames were easier and are included for more than one frame. For 
example, the thesis falls under “Research as Inquiry,” “Scholarship 
as Conversation,” and “Searching as Strategic Exploration.” With 
the thesis, students are required to “[i]dentify a research issue, use 
primary research materials and discuss the issue in a coherent, thor-
oughly researched, integrative paper or project.”

Once I mapped the gating assessments to the frames, I solicited 
feedback from the information literacy coordinator. She primarily 
works with undergraduate students and is well versed in the Frame-
work. Once I received the green light from her, I began reviewing syllabi 
for all required courses for the MATS degree. You can see at the bottom 
of the spreadsheet, I have tabs for all these required courses—Hebrew 
Bible, New Testament, LinC, World Religions, etc.

I mapped course objectives listed in each syllabus to the Frame-
work and would like to share three examples. For Intro to New Testa-
ment, the gating assessment—an interpretation paper—falls under 
three frames: “Authority is Constructed and Contextual,” “Informa-
tion Creation as a Process,” and “Scholarship as Conversation.” As 
I was working on the curriculum mapping, I attempted to develop 
learning outcomes as well. I also noted in the spreadsheet the pres-
ence or absence of library instruction. For this specific course, library 
instruction had not been included prior to my arrival. I met with this 
particular professor during my house calls and would like to think 
that perhaps this is one of the reasons that he now invites me to meet 
with his classes.

The second course I would like to focus on is SEIP 950, the thesis 
prep course. The thesis is the culminating gatekeeping assessment 
for the MATS degree, so it is no surprise that the course objectives tie 
to many of the frames. In particular, the course objective, “To present 
tools and opportunities to strengthen research skills,” easily maps to 
four frames. I placed the annotated bibliography, which is a gating 



Listen and Learn Sessions  223

assessment, under the frame of “Scholarship as Conversation.” In my 
attempts to meet multiple frames, the information literacy training I 
offer to students has expanded from one class period to two. 

The third course I would like to discuss is Christian Theology. In 
contrast to the last two courses, this syllabus was less developed and 
included fewer course objectives. As a result, mapping course objec-
tives to the frames was more challenging. Therefore, I see this particu-
lar course as a future collaboration. Currently, library instruction is 
not in place for this course; however, it existed under the direction of 
my predecessor.

In addition to identifying some future partnerships while working 
on this project, I have also learned more about the MATS curriculum, 
which has shaped collection development. For example, I ordered 
books listed in course syllabi that the library did not own. I have also 
been able to connect with professors and, hopefully, suggest titles that 
are relevant to their teaching. For example, I learned about the impor-
tance of womanist theology, as it relates to the Old Testament, and 
have been able to suggest specific titles to the Hebrew Bible profes-
sor. Collection development has been a kind of serendipitous way of 
connecting with faculty members and relies on faculty involvement 
and communication.

Throughout the curriculum mapping process, I have attempted to 
keep people in the loop. Open channels of communication are key in 
promoting collaboration, and I have been receptive to feedback and 
tweaks during the process. In addition to e-mail correspondence with 
the director of the MATS program, as well as the dean of the seminary, 
I have had meetings with both of these individuals and casual conver-
sations with other faculty members, sometimes around the lunch 
table. Much of this communication has informed which classes to flag 
and which faculty members to partner with. My aim was to identify 
classes and/or gatekeeping measures that address each gatekeeping 
assessment and/or frame.

FRAMES AND ASSESSMENTS

“Authority is Constructed and Contextual” examines context, culture, 
voice, and worldview. The two assessments that I thought exemplify 
this frame include the Texts in Context (TiC) paper for Hebrew Bible, 
which the faculty also identified as a gating assessment, and the final 



224  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

paper in Christian Ethics. I have not developed ways to assess these 
papers yet; however, I have created a rubric that ties to the frame 
“Information Creation as a Process.” (Please see below.)

The rubric measures three frames: “Authority is Constructed and 
Contextual,” “Information Creation as a Process,” and “Scholarship 
as Conversation.” The rubric focuses on number of sources, types 
of sources, and diversity of sources, and is designed to be used with 
bibliographies from Intro to New Testament. 

Identified as a gating assessment, the New Testament interpre-
tation paper ties to three frames. For “Authority is Constructed and 
Contextual,” I noted as a learning objective that students will be able to 
analyze and incorporate various viewpoints. The diversity of sources 
category attempts to measure this. The category caliber of resources 
maps to “Information Creation as a Process” and measures the qual-
ity of sources students use, with the emphasis here being placed on 
peer reviewed sources. As a learning outcome of “Scholarship as 
Conversation,” I wrote, “Students will be able to synthesize and inte-
grate secondary sources (articles, books, commentaries, etc.).” This 
learning objective speaks to all three rubric categories. In creating this 
rubric, the director of the MATS program and I collaborated closely. I 
had reached out to this professor and was hopeful that I would receive 
student bibliographies. Unfortunately, I do not think I will be receiv-
ing them since the professor has accepted a position at another insti-
tution. Moving forward, I may be able to use this rubric with student 
bibliographies from Hebrew Bible.



Listen and Learn Sessions  225

I have more work to do with other frames, such as “Information 
has Value” and “Research as Inquiry.” Discussions about plagiarism 
fall under the frame of “Information has Value,” and I use an interac-
tive plagiarism exercise with students in LinC. This is a course that all 
students, regardless of program, must take. In the future, I would like 
to explore ways to enhance this instruction and figure out how to best 
assess its impact. “Research as Inquiry” seems to be an easier frame 
to assess. The Hebrew Bible professor is an avid library supporter, 
so I look forward to working with her in the future to assess research 
proposals for her course.

Now I would like to return to Christian Theology. Based on the 
limited objectives for this course, I mapped the course only to one 
frame—“Scholarship as Conversation”—hoping that students can 
contribute to the conversation surrounding the theologians they 
study. The seminary faculty identified the final paper in this class as 
an important gatekeeping assessment. I believe a new faculty member 
is teaching this course, so the course objectives may well change. 
Regardless, I plan to contact the professor who teaches this course 
to see how we can collaborate in the future to meet class objectives.

One of my favorite frames is “Searching as Strategic Exploration.” 
This frame is a natural fit for SEIP 950, the thesis prep class. The 
learning objective that I wrote for this frame is as follows: “Students 
will create a research log in order to record their search strategies, 
identifying where and how they have searched (e.g., the keywords and 
subject terms they have employed).” With input from both the dean 
and the director of MATS, I created a research log exercise that serves 
as a guide as students develop search strategies. Ideally, students 
will complete this research log over the course of the semester. The 
research log exercise encourages students to be mindful of how and 
where they are searching and urges them to record and reflect upon 
this process. Step two prompts students to use the University of Arizo-
na’s free mind mapping tool (http://www.library.arizona.edu/help/
tutorials/mindMap/) to create a concept map, which is often an impor-
tant beginning step.

The second page of the research log contains a sample entry, 
including a screenshot of a very basic concept map. I distributed 
the research log exercise when I met with the students in SEIP 950 
during the fall 2017 semester, and the professor was in favor of making 

http://www.library.arizona.edu/help/tutorials/mindMap/
http://www.library.arizona.edu/help/tutorials/mindMap/


226  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

this a course requirement. Although I did not receive any completed 
research logs, I will pursue this with the professor teaching the course 
in the fall.

As I was working on the research log exercise and having conver-
sations with the dean, faculty members, and students, I noticed a 
need for additional exercises. As a result, I developed the research 
prescription. My inspiration for this worksheet came from a similar 
exercise developed by Fenwick Library at George Mason University. 
I have used this adapted one during one-on-one appointments with 
students and have found that it prompts students to not only think 
about the research process, but to take ownership of this process 
as well. Students are invited to brainstorm and identify keywords 
and subject terms. They are also encouraged to note where they are 
searching. Offering students something tangible that they can take 
with them after a research appointment also reinforces these sources 
and skills—at least I hope.

Overlap exists between the research prescription and the search 
strategies form; the search strategy exercise also encourages students 
to think about the search process and include citations. Both of these 
exercises can be mapped to “Research as Inquiry” and “Searching 
as Strategic Exploration.” In the curriculum mapping that I did for 
Intro to New Testament, I developed the following learning outcome 
for “Research as Inquiry”: “Students will be able to use concordances 
and BibleWorks to aid in their interpretation of scripture.” This could 
certainly be expanded to include commentaries, books, and articles. 
During the spring 2018 semester, I asked students in Intro to New 
Testament to complete this form at the end of their library session. 
Before I share these results, I would like to return to the research log 
recommendations for the thesis prep class.

Again there are similarities among this exercise and the search 
strategies form and the research prescription. However, I have 
attempted to scaffold these exercises, beginning with the research 
prescription, moving to the search strategies form, and culminating 
with the research log exercise. Ideally, I would like to gather longitudi-
nal data, analyzing data from the search strategies form and compar-
ing it to data from the research log recommendations. Clearly, this 
will take some time. My hope, however, is to show that, as students 
progress through the MATS program, their information literacy skills 
become more advanced.



Listen and Learn Sessions  227

Working toward this goal, I have started with the data I have—from 
the search strategies form—and created a search strategy checklist. I 
am interested to see where students are searching and what modifi-
cations they are making to their search. The options included in the 
checklist represent concepts I covered during the library session.

Of the eight students, all searched a database. Three students made 
one modification to their search, and one student made five changes; 
the rest of the students fell somewhere in between. The most popular 
search modifications included refining by date and by source type 
(for example, checking the scholarly peer-reviewed box in the ATLA 
Religion Database); six students chose each of these options. Other 
common modifications included limiting to full text, as well as limit-
ing to a particular language; both of these options were selected three 
times. Two students refined their searches by using subject terms. 
One student used the Scripture/Bible citation search feature in the 
ATLA Religion Database, and surprisingly, no students modified their 
search by adding another search term. Generally, I think of adding 
another keyword as the most basic way to modify a search, and this is 
a concept I cover with first-year undergraduates. Nonetheless, I was 
delighted to see some students chose more sophisticated limiters. I 
will keep all of this information in mind as I prepare to teach a future 
library session for Intro to New Testament.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Now that I have some data and some exercises, it only seems logical 
to reflect on the process. Therefore, I would like to offer a few sugges-
tions. First, give yourself time and flexibility. Consider creating exer-
cises and assessments that can be reused and easily repurposed; 
this is very important as changes in faculty impact course objectives, 
assignments, and programs. Also, try not to put too much pressure on 
yourself. The curriculum mapping that I have shared is still in many 
ways a work in progress. Another recommendation involves scalabil-
ity and sustainability. Some important questions to consider include:

 • How many librarians will participate in this project?
 • How much time do you have to devote to this project?

I have the tendency to be overly ambitious. Starting with one 
program and/or one course makes a lot of sense, especially if only 



228  ATL A 2018 PROCEEDINGS

one librarian is working on this project. In my case, I am the primary 
librarian for the seminary, and technically, my time is split, with only 
a third dedicated to library responsibilities for the seminary. More-
over, it is hard and perhaps unrealistic to assess everything, so I am 
trying to focus on one new class a year. You may also want to create 
a timeline to aid in this process. The last thing you want to do is get 
overwhelmed and burned out before you even start. And last, but 
not least, determine measures that are meaningful for you and your 
institution. Meaningful measures will go a long way with buy-in from 
colleagues. After all, curriculum mapping is all about making connec-
tions and collaborating.

NEXT STEPS

In order to continue this work and to close the assessment loop, it is 
imperative to share my progress with the seminary faculty. I am meet-
ing with the dean the end of June and will ask if I can have some time 
during either the opening meeting in August or a fall faculty meet-
ing to share an update on the curriculum mapping and assessment. 
This may be a nice opening for future collaborations. During these 
meetings, I can highlight that I started with the overall gating assess-
ments for the MATS degree and moved on to mapping course objec-
tives from required classes to the Framework for Information Literacy for 
Higher Education. All of this information will be important to impart 
to the new director of the MATS program. I can also share the assess-
ments and exercises I have created and the corresponding frames. For 
example, the rubric to assess bibliographies of New Testament inter-
pretation papers maps to “Authority is Constructed and Contextual,” 
“Information Creation as a Process,” and “Scholarship as Conversa-
tion.” The search strategy form for Intro to New Testament maps to 
“Research as Inquiry” and “Searching as Strategic Exploration,” as 
does the research log for the thesis prep course SEIP 950. “Informa-
tion has Value” is the remaining frame, which I have mapped to LinC, 
a class that is under revision. In addition to assessing the plagiarism 
exercise currently in LinC, I am especially interested in reaching out 
to the incoming MATS director, as well as the new faculty member 
teaching Christian Theology and Christian Ethics. Moreover, I do not 
want to overlook the existing Old Testament/Hebrew Bible professor. 



Listen and Learn Sessions  229

I certainly have my work cut out for me! Nonetheless, I will try to do 
this incrementally. Spreading the word is important, and at the very 
least, I can mention curriculum mapping and some of the exercises 
I have developed when I contact faculty members about scheduling 
a library session.

My end goal in all of this is to demonstrate that the library is a 
partner in learning. I would like to be able to show that through infor-
mation literacy, students can meet not only gating assessments, but 
also course objectives. I would like to see those of you interested in 
curriculum mapping achieve this goal, too.

RESOURCES

Archambault, Susan Gardner, and Jennifer Masunaga. “Curriculum 
Mapping as a Strategic Planning Tool.” Journal of Library Adminis-
tration 55, no. 6 (2015): 503-519.

Badke, William. “The Framework for Information Literacy and 
Theological Education: Introduction to the ACRL Framework.” 
Theological Librarianship 8, no. 2 (October 2015): 4-7. https://theo-
lib.atla.com/theolib/article/view/385 

Baggett, Kevin, Virginia Connell, and Allie Thome. “Frame by 
Frame: Using the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy 
to Create a Library Assessment Plan.” College & Research Librar-
ies News 79, no. 4 (5 April 2018). https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/
crlnews/article/view/16932/18640.

Oakleaf, Megan. “A Roadmap for Assessing Student Learning: Using 
the New Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Educa-
tion.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 40 (2014): 510-514.

Zingarelli-Sweet, Desirae. “Prepare a Way through the Wilderness: 
Transforming Library Instruction by Mapping the Curriculum.” 
Poster presented at the American Theological Library Associa-
tion Conference, Long Beach, CA, June 17, 2016.

https://theolib.atla.com/theolib/article/view/385
https://theolib.atla.com/theolib/article/view/385
https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/16932/18640
https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/16932/18640

