| Course | NR 524 Curriculum Development |
|---|---|
| Week | 8 |
| Paper type | Curriculum evaluation plan |
| Length | About 1,120 words, 3 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN, Nurse Educator |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 524 Week 8
Curriculum Evaluation Plan: Seven Signals, Each Collected on a Stated Cycle by a Named Role, That Could Show the End-of-Life Revision and Its Sequence Are Not Working
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 524: Curriculum Development
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Curriculum Evaluation Plan: Seven Signals, Each Collected on a Stated Cycle by a Named Role, That Could Show the End-of-Life Revision and Its Sequence Are Not Working
Purpose
The curriculum revision approved this year places end-of-life care inside three existing courses: online modules and a care plan in Adult Health I, the remaining modules and an assessed simulation in Adult Health II, and a required palliative or hospice clinical day with evaluation items in Complex Care. It also removes a fluid and electrolyte review from Adult Health II to make room. This plan sets out how the program will find out whether the revision is working. It is written to produce evidence that could show the design is wrong, because a plan that can only confirm a decision is not an evaluation. Each signal has a named role responsible, a cycle and a threshold that would trigger action.
The plan also guards against a quieter failure. Before the revision, end-of-life content was spread thinly across courses, a pattern a multisite study found in other programs too (Lippe, 2019). A revision can drift back toward that pattern if faculty change, if the online modules become an unmonitored checkbox, or if the required hospice day is quietly allowed to lapse when placements are tight. Several of the signals below are chosen to catch that drift as well as outright failure.
Signal 1: Simulation Performance
What. The proportion of students who pass the end-of-life communication simulation in Adult Health II on the first attempt, and the rubric items most often missed.
Who and when. The Adult Health II course lead, each semester, reported to the program evaluation committee.
Threshold. If fewer than 80% pass on the first attempt for two consecutive cohorts, the committee will review whether the Adult Health I modules and care plan prepare students adequately, or whether the rubric is miscalibrated.
Signal 2: Clinical Evaluation in Complex Care
What. Ratings on the four clinical items adapted from the undergraduate palliative care competency list (Ferrell et al., 2016), completed by clinical faculty after the palliative or hospice day.
Who and when. The Complex Care course lead, each semester.
Threshold. Any item rated below expectations for more than a quarter of students triggers review of the preparation for that competency.
Signal 3: Examination Items
What. Performance on the end-of-life items added to Adult Health I and the existing items in other courses, analyzed by item.
Who and when. Each course lead, each semester, as part of routine item analysis.
Threshold. Items answered correctly by fewer than 60% of students are reviewed for quality and for gaps in teaching.
Signal 4: Graduating Students' Preparedness
What. The exit survey item on readiness to speak with relatives when a patient is dying. The baseline, before the revision, was 22% agreement among 41 graduates.
Who and when. The program director, annually each spring.
Threshold. The program expects agreement to rise above 50% within two cohorts of full implementation. If it does not, the committee will ask whether the simulation and clinical day are reaching students as intended. Self-report is not competence, so this signal is read alongside Signals 1 and 2.
Signal 5: Employers' Observations
What. A short structured survey sent to the direct supervisors of graduates six months after hire, including two items on end-of-life care, and discussion at the advisory committee.
Who and when. The program director, annually.
Threshold. Consistent employer reports that new graduates are unprepared for end-of-life care, after two post-revision cohorts, would suggest the revision has not changed practice even if internal measures look good.
Signal 6: A Test of the Sequence
The revision rests on a sequencing claim: that rehearsing an end-of-life conversation in simulation before the hospice day makes the clinical experience safer and more useful. That claim can be tested. Hospice preceptors have rated our students on the optional day for several years using a brief form. Comparing those ratings for students who attended before the revision, without simulation, with ratings for students after it, with simulation, gives a rough before-and-after comparison.
Who and when. The Complex Care course lead, after the first two post-revision cohorts.
Threshold. If ratings do not improve, the committee will question whether the simulation, as designed, transfers to practice. The comparison has limits: students who chose the optional day before the revision were self-selected and may have been more interested than the whole cohort now required to attend.
Signal 7: What Was Removed
What. Performance on fluid and electrolyte items in Adult Health II and Complex Care examinations, since the review lecture was removed to make room.
Who and when. Course leads, each semester, compared with the three years before the revision.
Threshold. A drop of more than five percentage points in mean performance on those items for two consecutive cohorts would indicate that the removed review was doing more work than the faculty believed, and the committee will consider restoring it or teaching it another way. This signal exists because a revision that fixes one gap by opening another has not succeeded.
What the Plan Does Not Measure
The plan measures preparation, performance in simulation and clinical settings, and early practice. It does not measure what matters most to patients: whether graduates' care makes dying patients more comfortable or their families better supported. Measuring that would require following graduates into practice and collecting patient or family outcomes, which is beyond the program's resources. The committee should say so openly when it reports results, so that improvements in the program's signals are not mistaken for proof of better care at the bedside.
How the Signals Are Used
The program evaluation committee will review all seven signals each spring and record, for each, whether it supports the design, contradicts it or is inconclusive. The curriculum map will be updated each year from the courses as taught, since mapping is useful only when it reflects current practice (Harden, 2001). The committee will report to the faculty and to the advisory committee, and any threshold crossed will lead to a written decision: keep, revise or reverse. The first full report is due after the spring semester of 2029, when the first cohort will have completed all three revised courses.
The plan will itself be reviewed after its first full cycle. If a signal proves impossible to collect, or never changes a decision, it will be replaced; an evaluation plan is subject to the same test it applies to the curriculum.
References
Ferrell, B., Malloy, P., Mazanec, P., & Virani, R. (2016). CARES: AACN's new competencies and recommendations for educating undergraduate nursing students to improve palliative care. Journal of Professional Nursing, 32(5), 327-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2016.07.002
Harden, R. M. (2001). AMEE Guide No. 21: Curriculum mapping: A tool for transparent and authentic teaching and learning. Medical Teacher, 23(2), 123-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590120036547
Lippe, M. (2019). Assessment of primary palliative care content within prelicensure nursing education: A multisite feasibility study. Journal of Hospice & Palliative Nursing, 21(5), 373-381. https://doi.org/10.1097/NJH.0000000000000535
What the NR 524 Week 8 assignment asks for
The final assignment asks for a plan to evaluate a curriculum or a curriculum change. Prompts usually ask for evaluation questions, data sources, methods, timelines, responsible parties and how results will be used, often linked to a model of program evaluation. A strong plan includes evidence that could show the design is wrong, not only evidence likely to confirm it. Name who collects each measure and when, and set thresholds for action. Include unintended effects of the change. Address how results will reach faculty and stakeholders. Cite evaluation and curriculum sources in APA 7. Length varies by section, and some sections require a named evaluation model or accreditation standards.
How the NR 524 Week 8 example is put together
The example opens with the revision being evaluated and its principle: evidence that could contradict the design. It adds a paragraph on drift back to scattered content. Seven signals follow, each with what, who and when, and a threshold: first-attempt simulation passes, clinical evaluation ratings on four competency items, examination item analysis, exit survey preparedness against a baseline, employer surveys at six months, a before-and-after comparison of hospice preceptor ratings to test the sequence, and fluid and electrolyte performance after the review was removed. A section explains how the committee will use the signals and update the map, and a final section names what the plan does not measure.
NR 524 Week 8 rubric: what full points look like
The rubric for the evaluation plan usually rewards clear evaluation questions, appropriate measures, feasible methods, named responsibilities, timelines and use of results. Graders favor plans with thresholds for action and measures that could reveal problems, including unintended effects. Links to evaluation models or accreditation expectations strengthen the plan. Honest discussion of limits, such as self-report data and self-selected comparison groups, earns credit for critical thinking. The plan should be organized so a faculty committee could carry it out. Citations in APA 7 complete the grade, and a statement of what the plan cannot measure often lifts the score. A threshold attached to every measure turns the plan from a list into a commitment.
NR 524 Week 8 help: mistakes that cost points
The most common weakness is a plan that lists measures without saying who collects them, when, or what result would change anything. Add roles, cycles and thresholds. Another is choosing only measures likely to show success. Include at least one that could show harm, such as performance on content removed. Students also rely on self-report alone; pair it with performance measures. Test the sequence, not only the content. Say how results will be reported and to whom. Finally, admit what the plan cannot show. Improvements in program measures are not proof of better patient care, and a plan that says so reads as honest rather than weak. A plan is only as good as the role named to run it.
Get a NR 524 Week 8 example written to your instructions
Send the prompt, the rubric and any program material your section supplies, and we will write a custom NR 524 Week 8 example against it, table and reasoning together, returned inside 24-48h with the first one free. Use it to see how thresholds and ownership are written before you build your own schedule of signals.
More NR 524 papers and MSN samples
- NR 524 Week 1: Discussion Post on a Program Promise
- NR 524 Week 2: Curriculum Philosophy Statement
- NR 524 Week 3: Program Outcome Set
- NR 524 Week 4: Curriculum Map With Empty Cells
- NR 524 Week 5: Sequencing Rationale
- NR 524 Week 6: Curriculum Gap Analysis
- NR 524 Week 7: Curriculum Revision Proposal
NR 524 Week 8 questions, answered
What separates this from evaluating individual courses?
Scope and signal. Course level review asks whether an hour of instruction worked, while this plan asks whether the arrangement of courses delivers the outcome set. The evidence differs accordingly: progression between terms, results at the point where each outcome is first demonstrated, and patterns visible only across whole cohorts. A plan built from course surveys alone answers the wrong question.
How often should a program review its curriculum?
Most plans distinguish continuous signals from periodic ones. Some data arrives every term because it is generated anyway, while a full review of the outcome set and the sequence typically runs on a multi-year cycle tied to accreditation. Say which of your signals is which, and name the cycle explicitly rather than committing the program to ongoing review.
Should the plan include a stakeholder who might disagree?
Including one strengthens the document considerably. Clinical partners, employers and recent graduates see the program from outside and notice what faculty stopped noticing years ago. Name the group, say what question their feedback answers, and state how it reaches the review body. A plan drawing only on internal opinion reproduces the blind spot it was built to correct.
Where can I find a free NR 524 Week 8 sample paper?
The seven-signal evaluation plan above is the complete NR 524 Week 8 sample, available to read without charge. If you are evaluating a different change, describe it on the form and a plan with its own signals and thresholds follows.
What separates a program evaluation plan from course evaluation in NR 524?
Program evaluation asks whether the curriculum as a whole achieves its outcomes and whether its design choices work. The sample evaluates a revision across three courses and tests its sequencing claim.