| Course | NR 622 Nurse Educator Concluding Graduate Experience II |
|---|---|
| Week | 5 |
| Paper type | Participant feedback summary |
| Length | About 1,130 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN, Nurse Educator |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 622 Week 5
Participant Feedback Summary: Seven Forms From Eight Attendees on the Heparin Practice Sessions, Questions Shown as Asked, Distributions Instead of Averages and the Line Where Ratings Stop Meaning Anything
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 622: Nurse Educator Concluding Graduate Experience II
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Participant Feedback Summary: Seven Forms From Eight Attendees on the Heparin Practice Sessions, Questions Shown as Asked, Distributions Instead of Averages and the Line Where Ratings Stop Meaning Anything
Who Answered
Feedback forms were handed out at the end of the group session and at the end of each individual slot, and collected in a box. Eight people attended at least one sitting; 7 returned a form. The one who did not had been called away from the group session and missed the individual slot. These seven are mostly the people who attended both sittings; their views may be warmer than the group's as a whole.
Questions, as Asked, With Distributions
Question 1: "The scenarios were like real titrations on our unit." Strongly agree 3; agree 3; neutral 1; disagree 0; strongly disagree 0.
Question 2: "Practicing at the pump helped me more than watching." Strongly agree 5; agree 2; others 0.
Question 3: "I feel ready to titrate heparin on my own." Strongly agree 1; agree 3; neutral 2; disagree 1.
Question 4: "The session time was enough." Strongly agree 0; agree 2; neutral 2; disagree 3.
What the Distributions Show
Question 2 is unanimous and strong. Question 3 is split: four agree, two are neutral and one disagrees. An average for question 3 would have looked moderately positive and hidden the three who are not yet confident. Question 4 leans toward not enough time, which matches the timing problems in the progress report.
Free Text, Sorted by Request
Six of seven forms had comments.
More pump time (four comments): "Wish I could do more than three." "The pump part was the most useful."
A pocket card (two comments): a smaller version of the job aid for badge reels.
Practice on nights (one comment): "I will be on nights in December and nobody there knows about this."
Praise without a request (two comments): "Really helpful." "Good to practice without patients."
Some comments contained more than one request.
What Ratings Cannot Show
The ratings show that the attendees found the practice useful and realistic, and that some do not yet feel ready. They do not show whether anyone's skill improved, whether anyone will titrate correctly on the unit or whether errors will fall. Reaction to training is a different level of evaluation from learning or behavior change (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006), and this summary stays at that level.
The Line Where Responses Stop
It would be tempting to write that the sessions improved readiness. Four of seven agreeing that they feel ready, after the sessions, says nothing about readiness before, since the question was not asked before. The summary does not claim a change.
How Feedback Will Be Used
More pump time: the handover package will recommend 20-minute individual slots rather than 15. Pocket card: a badge-reel version of the job aid will be made in version 1.3. Nights: the handover will flag the need for the night preceptors to receive the preceptor sheet.
Comparing With the Confidence Finding Earlier
In the needs assessment, seven of nine new graduates rated themselves fairly or very confident before any teaching, while performance showed errors. After the sessions, four of seven agree they feel ready. The lower self-rating may reflect more accurate self-assessment after seeing their own errors, which is a plausible effect of practice with feedback (McGaghie et al., 2011), but the forms cannot show it.
Anonymous and Optional
Forms had no names. Completing one was optional, and two attendees asked whether it would affect their evaluation; they were told it would not, and the educator confirmed this.
How the Form Was Built and Handed Out
The form had four statements on a five-point scale and two open questions: what helped most and what should change. It fit on half a page so it could be finished in two minutes before the new graduate went back to the floor. It was handed out by the educator rather than the student, and the box was left in the conference room so nobody watched a form go in. These choices aimed at honesty more than detail. A longer form would have asked about each scenario, but would also have been returned by fewer people on a busy unit.
Reading the One Disagreement
One person disagreed with "I feel ready to titrate heparin on my own." Seven forms are too few to treat one answer as noise. The form was anonymous, so the student cannot link the answer to a result, and did not try. What can be said is that the disagreement is consistent with objective 3, where four of nine had not yet completed two real titrations with the preceptor only checking. Someone who has practiced only in a room may reasonably not feel ready for the unit. New nurses tend to rate readiness by experience with real patients rather than by practice scores (Benner, 1982), and this answer may be exactly that.
Free Text That Was Not a Request
Two comments praised the sessions without asking for anything. They are reported, not used. Praise tells the next facilitator that the format was acceptable to learners, which matters for getting release from the manager again, but it does not tell anyone what to change.
What Would Make the Next Round More Useful
Asking question 3 before the first sitting as well as after, so that a change in self-rated readiness can be seen. Adding one statement about the job aid at the workstation, which no question covered. Asking the preceptors a single question at the November meeting about whether they now let the new graduate finish titrations. Each of these would add less than a minute and would answer a question this summary had to leave open.
What the Forms Add to the Other Evidence
Feedback is one of three sources the project uses. The progress report shows what was delivered, and the outcome evaluation shows what learners could do. The forms add one thing neither of those can: the learners' own account of which part of the teaching they would keep. On that, the answer is clear and consistent across ratings and comments. Time at the pump is what they valued, and it is what they asked for more of. The handover package treats that as a design input for the March cohort, not as proof that the sessions worked.
Limits
Seven forms. Questions written by the student, without testing. No pre-session ratings to compare against.
References
Benner, P. (1982). From novice to expert. American Journal of Nursing, 82(3), 402-407. https://doi.org/10.2307/3462928
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler.
McGaghie, W. C., Issenberg, S. B., Cohen, E. R., Barsuk, J. H., & Wayne, D. B. (2011). Does simulation-based medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence. Academic Medicine, 86(6), 706-711. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318217e119
The Chamberlain NR 622 Week 5 instructions
Begin with how many returned the form against how many attended, and say who is missing, since a response rate shapes every figure that follows. Print each question exactly as worded, so readers can see what was actually asked. Report the spread of answers, not a mean, because a mean can hide a minority who struggled. Sort free text by what it requests, and keep praise separate. State clearly what ratings can and cannot show, and do not turn a rating taken only after teaching into a claim about change. Describe how the form was handed out and collected, because that affects honesty. Close with what you will do with each request, and with the questions you would add next time to fill the gaps this round left.
How the NR 622 Week 5 example is put together
The sample reports seven forms from eight attendees, noting that the missing person was called away. Four statements appear as worded, with counts at each point of the scale. Pump practice is valued by all seven, while readiness to titrate alone splits four agreeing, two neutral and one disagreeing, and session time leans toward too short. Comments fall into requests for more pump time, a pocket card and night-shift coverage, with two comments of praise held apart. The summary cites the four-level evaluation model to keep reaction separate from learning, reads the single disagreement against the unfinished on-unit titrations, and proposes asking the readiness question before the next first session, so that any change in how ready the nurses feel can actually be seen.
Where the points sit in the NR 622 Week 5 rubric
The most common fault in feedback summaries is an average of a satisfaction scale offered as evidence that teaching worked, which graders see as confusing reaction with learning. Another is paraphrasing questions in kinder words than the form used. Summaries that leave out the response rate or who did not answer let a small, keen group speak for everyone. Free text is often quoted selectively, favoring praise. Writers also tend to claim a change in confidence from a single post-session question, which cannot show change at all. Finally, a summary with no plan for each request reads as a report about the writer rather than about what participants said.
NR 622 Week 5 help: mistakes that cost points
Turning a stack of forms into a fair summary is mostly a matter of layout and restraint. We can help you set out returns, questions and full distributions clearly, sort free-text comments by what they request and write the paragraph on what ratings cannot show. We can also help you connect the feedback to your progress report and outcome data without claiming more than the forms support. Your forms and your data remain yours throughout, and you alone choose what goes into the final summary you hand in.
Get a NR 622 Week 5 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 5 instructions, the rubric, the feedback form your project used, and the responses if you have them. A custom example summary is written around those items and returned inside 24-48h, with the first one free. Where nothing has come back yet, the example is built to shape with your own totals left as gaps to fill.
More NR 622 papers and MSN samples
- NR 622 Week 1: Delivery Change Post
- NR 622 Week 2: Session Run Sheet
- NR 622 Week 3: Materials Package
- NR 622 Week 4: Progress Report
- NR 622 Week 6: Outcome Evaluation
- NR 622 Week 7: Handover Package
- NR 622 Week 8: Dissemination Summary
- NR 621 Week 5: Setting and Stakeholder Analysis
- NR 537 Week 5: Item Analysis Write-Up
- NR 524 Week 5: Sequencing Rationale
- NR 536 Week 5: Concept-Based Lesson Plan
NR 622 Week 5 questions, answered
Can positive feedback count as a result?
As a result about the experience, yes; as evidence of learning, no. Ratings tell you whether people found the session useful, well paced and worth the hour, which genuinely matters for whether it runs again. They cannot tell you whether anybody can do something new. Summaries scoring well report the ratings fully and then say that in one unambiguous sentence.
How are comments quoted without identifying anybody?
By choosing lines that stand for a group rather than lines that stand out, and by removing anything role specific in a small cohort. Where six people attended and one is the only person on nights, a comment about night shift names them. The summary says which comments were edited for that reason, which reads as care rather than as tampering.
What if only a few people returned the form?
Report the rate, say who is likely missing, and hold every later claim inside that. Three returns from a group of fourteen is worth reporting as three, with the caution stated once rather than repeated. Sections rarely penalize a low rate itself; they penalize a summary presenting three enthusiastic responses as though the room agreed.
Where can I find a free NR 622 Week 5 sample paper?
The full feedback summary built from seven anonymous forms, with each question and its distribution, is reproduced on this page.
Why does the NR 622 Week 5 summary avoid averages?
An average for the readiness question would have looked positive and hidden the three nurses who did not yet feel ready.