| Course | NR 536 Teaching Core Nursing Concepts: Strategies for Nurse Educators |
|---|---|
| Week | 5 |
| Paper type | Concept-based lesson 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 536 Week 5
Concept-Based Lesson Plan: One Ninety-Minute Perfusion Class Built Around Two Very Different Patients, With a Return to the Concept Written Into the Plan Every Twenty Minutes So Neither Case Takes the Lesson Hostage
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 536: Teaching Core Nursing Concepts: Strategies for Nurse Educators
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Concept-Based Lesson Plan: One Ninety-Minute Perfusion Class Built Around Two Very Different Patients, With a Return to the Concept Written Into the Plan Every Twenty Minutes So Neither Case Takes the Lesson Hostage
The Risk the Plan Guards Against
A good case can take a lesson hostage. Give a class forty minutes with a vivid patient and they will leave knowing that patient's disease, having used the concept only as the road to get there. In a concept-based course, that is a failure even if the discussion was excellent. This plan is for the opening perfusion class of the third-semester concepts course, 90 minutes with 32 students. Its two exemplars, heart failure and compartment syndrome, were picked because they look nothing alike, and it writes a return to the concept into the plan at the end of every case segment, so that the class repeatedly lifts what it learned from the patient back to perfusion itself.
Objectives
By the end of the class, students will be able to: (1) state the three defining attributes of impaired perfusion; (2) identify the attributes in two patients who share no surface features; (3) explain, for each patient, how reduced flow produces the tissue signs observed; and (4) apply the attributes to classify a third, unfamiliar patient as a perfusion problem or not, and justify the classification.
The Plan
Table 1 sets out the class.
Table 1
Perfusion Class, 90 Minutes
| Minutes | Segment | Activity | Return to the concept |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 to 10 | The concept | Brief definition and the three attributes: flow, tissue consequence, mechanism. Students write them on a card they keep. | Not applicable |
| 10 to 30 | Patient A: heart failure | Groups of four read an admission note for a 74-year-old with heart failure, rising creatinine and cool hands, and answer: what is the flow problem, what tissue shows it, what is the mechanism? | Minutes 27 to 30: each group reads its answer to one attribute question only, and the instructor writes the attributes, not the diagnosis, on the board |
| 30 to 50 | Patient B: compartment syndrome | Same groups, same three questions, for a 23-year-old with a tibial fracture and pain out of proportion. | Minutes 47 to 50: same format; the board now has two columns of attributes side by side |
| 50 to 65 | Comparison | Groups list everything the two patients share, then cross out anything that is not part of the concept. The instructor collects lists. | The whole segment is a return: only reduced flow and its tissue consequences should survive |
| 65 to 80 | Patient C, unfamiliar | Individually, students classify a patient they have not studied, a person with pallor and breathlessness from anemia, and justify it using the card. | Minutes 77 to 80: two students explain their reasoning, one who classified it as perfusion and one who did not |
| 80 to 90 | Close | Each student writes one sentence: the attribute that decided Patient C, and why. | The exit sentence is the final return |
Why the Returns Are Built In
Each case segment ends with three minutes in which groups report only on attributes, not on the diagnosis or treatment. This is the key design feature. Without it, groups naturally report what they found most interesting: the medication list, the fasciotomy, the patient's history. The instructor's role in those minutes is to write the attributes on the board in two columns and to redirect any report that slips into disease detail. The comparison segment that follows makes the return explicit. Research on analogical encoding found that comparing two cases that share a principle helps people abstract that principle and apply it to new problems, far more than studying the same cases separately (Gentner et al., 2003). The comparison segment asks students to do exactly that abstraction, and the crossing-out step forces them to decide what belongs to the concept.
Why These Two Patients
The two patients were chosen because they share almost nothing except reduced flow. One is older, chronically ill and on a medical unit, with a normal blood pressure and a problem in the heart. The other is young, previously healthy and on an orthopedic unit, with a problem in a closed space in the leg. If the comparison produces a list that contains only flow, tissue signs and mechanism, the students have found the concept. If it produces "low blood pressure" or "elderly," the instructor knows the abstraction has gone wrong and can address it before the unfamiliar patient.
The Unfamiliar Patient
Patient C is chosen to test the boundary. Anemia shares signs with impaired perfusion, and many students will classify it as such. The class learns more from the disagreement between two students' explanations than from the instructor's correction. A concept-based curriculum succeeds when students can spot a concept in a patient no lecture described (Giddens & Brady, 2007). Patient C is the first test of that, inside the class itself, where errors can still be corrected.
Materials and Setting
Timing is tight, and the plan protects the comparison segment above all. The class runs in a flat classroom with movable tables for eight groups of four. Materials are the attribute cards, two one-page admission notes written from composite patients, the Patient C description and a whiteboard. No slides are used after the first ten minutes, because slides tend to pull attention to the instructor and away from the groups' work. The admission notes are written in the style of the hospital's real records, including abbreviations students will meet on the units, so that reading them is itself practice. Each note is one page, because a longer note invites groups to hunt for disease details rather than apply the attributes, which would reopen the door to the captivity the plan is designed to prevent.
Assessment and Follow-Up
The exit sentences are read the same day, by the instructor, before the next class is planned. If fewer than two-thirds of students correctly identify that Patient C fails the flow or mechanism attribute, the next class opens with a short return to the boundary before the second pair of exemplars, peripheral arterial disease and septic shock. The same attribute questions will be used in the clinical setting: students caring for a patient with a perfusion problem will answer them in their clinical paperwork, which carries the concept from the classroom into practice, as concept-based clinical education recommends (Nielsen, 2016).
References
Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 393-408. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.393
Giddens, J. F., & Brady, D. P. (2007). Rescuing nursing education from content saturation: The case for a concept-based curriculum. Journal of Nursing Education, 46(2), 65-69. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20070201-05
Nielsen, A. (2016). Concept-based learning in clinical experiences: Bringing theory to clinical education for deep learning. Journal of Nursing Education, 55(7), 365-371. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20160615-02
The Chamberlain NR 536 Week 5 instructions
The Week 5 assignment usually asks you to write a lesson plan for teaching a concept using concept-based strategies. Prompts ask for objectives, exemplars, activities, timing, materials, assessment and the rationale for the approach. Guard against the case taking over: a vivid patient will draw attention to disease details unless the plan brings the class back to the concept. Build a return into the end of each case segment. Use two exemplars that differ on the surface and include a comparison step. Test learning with a patient the students have not studied. Say how you will use the results. Present timing in a table and cite concept-based and learning research in APA 7.
How this NR 536 Week 5 example is built
The plan opens with the risk of case captivity and its response, a planned return to the concept every twenty minutes. Four objectives follow. Table 1 divides 90 minutes into six segments, each with a return. A section explains why the returns report attributes only and why a comparison asks groups to cross out anything not part of the concept, supported by analogical encoding research. A section explains the choice of two patients who share only reduced flow. Another explains the unfamiliar anemia patient as a boundary test. Materials are listed, including one-page notes and no slides after ten minutes. The plan closes with exit sentences and follow-up in clinical paperwork.
Reading the NR 536 Week 5 grading rubric
Concept-based lesson plan rubrics generally reward clear objectives, well-chosen exemplars, activities that emphasize the concept over content, realistic timing, assessment of learning and a sound rationale. Graders favor plans that anticipate how cases can distract from the concept and build in structures to prevent it. Comparison of exemplars and a test with an unfamiliar patient show understanding of transfer. Explaining why each segment is designed as it is demonstrates pedagogical reasoning. A timing table that adds up and assessment tied to objectives support feasibility. Linking the class to clinical practice shows curriculum thinking. Citations to concept-based and learning research complete the grade. Where a course asks for it, a brief note on adapting the plan for a larger class shows the design can scale.
NR 536 Week 5 help: mistakes that cost points
The most common weakness is a plan built around a single rich case, with the concept mentioned at the start and end. Build returns into the middle. Another is two exemplars that look alike, which teaches their shared surface. Choose differing patients. Students also skip the test with an unfamiliar patient, so the plan cannot show whether the concept was learned. Add one. Avoid long case notes that invite hunting for disease details. Do not let group reports drift into treatment; ask for attributes only. Finally, decide in advance what you will do if the exit results are poor, so the next class can respond. Rehearse the timing once, since the comparison segment is the easiest to lose when earlier segments overrun.
Get a NR 536 Week 5 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 5 instructions and the lesson plan template your classroom uses, along with the concept, the audience and the time you have been given. A custom example is written into that template with timings, debrief prompts and the second case included, returned inside 24-48h, and the first one is free.
More NR 536 papers and MSN samples
- NR 536 Week 1: Discussion Committing to a Concept
- NR 536 Week 2: Concept Definition Brief
- NR 536 Week 3: Exemplar Selection Rationale
- NR 536 Week 4: Concept Map as Propositions
- NR 536 Week 6: Case Study Analysis
- NR 536 Week 7: Transfer Assessment Design
- NR 536 Week 8: Teaching Unit Synthesis
- NR 535 Week 5: Active Learning Activity Write-Up
- NR 524 Week 5: Sequencing Rationale
NR 536 Week 5 questions, answered
How specific do the timings need to be?
Specific enough to be checked. Round numbers across a whole hour usually signal a schedule written after the activities and never tested against them. What markers look for is a block whose described work fits the minutes it claims, and a plan that says out loud where the time comes from when discussion runs long. That single line often reads as the most experienced thing on the page.
Can the plan use a case from an earlier week?
Yes, and reusing one you already defended saves you an argument. What matters is the second case, which should be a patient the earlier weeks did not touch and whose surface differs sharply from the first. If both cases come from the same set you built the course around, the lesson cannot show whether the idea travels past the material it was taught with.
Does a lesson plan for one hour need a full literature base?
Usually two or three sources, placed where they justify a teaching decision rather than gathered at the end. A citation beside the choice of grouping, or beside the reason the definition arrives after the case instead of before it, does visible work. Sources collected into a paragraph of their own tend to read as a requirement met rather than as a plan defended.
Where can I find a free NR 536 Week 5 sample paper?
Displayed above, the two-patient perfusion lesson plan is the complete NR 536 Week 5 sample, with no fee attached. If your class teaches another concept, share your exemplars with us and a plan with built-in returns to the concept can be prepared.
How do I stop a case from taking over an NR 536 lesson?
End each case segment with a short return in which students report only on the concept's attributes. The sample does this every twenty minutes and follows the cases with a comparison and an unfamiliar patient.