| Course | NR 722 Role of the Educator in Facilitating Learning |
|---|---|
| Week | 5 |
| Paper type | Feedback exchange write-up |
| Length | About 1,120 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN, Nurse Educator |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 722 Week 5
Feedback Exchange: A Written Message to a Student After a First Call to a Provider About Low Urine Output, With the Reasoning Behind Every Line
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 722: Role of the Educator in Facilitating Learning
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Feedback Exchange: A Written Message to a Student After a First Call to a Provider About Low Urine Output, With the Reasoning Behind Every Line
Context
On the eighth clinical day, a third-semester student caring for a 74-year-old patient two days after hip surgery noticed that the urine output was 90 milliliters over the previous eight hours. With the instructor standing beside the phone, the student paged the hospitalist and made the call. The call lasted about three minutes. The student opened with the patient's full admission history, mentioned the urine output in the second minute, did not give the blood pressure trend, which had drifted from the 130s to 104/62, and ended without asking for anything. The hospitalist asked three questions, ordered a bladder scan and a fluid bolus, and hung up. The student, visibly relieved, asked afterward how it had gone. The instructor said they would talk after the day and wrote the message below that evening.
The Message, as the Student Received It
You noticed the low urine output and acted on it within the hour, which is exactly the right instinct; that is what kept this from becoming a problem overnight.
Two things for your next call. First, put the reason for the call in your first sentence: "I'm calling about the patient in room 12 because the urine output has been 90 milliliters over eight hours." Start there, then give the background only as far as it explains the problem.
Second, end every call by asking for something specific, such as "Would you like a bladder scan, a fluid bolus or labs?", and read back what is ordered. Today the hospitalist had to work out what you needed.
Before our next clinical day, write the opening sentence and the closing request for one of your current patients, as if you had to call about them, and bring it on Thursday.
Why Two Priorities and Not Six
The call had at least six things worth improving: the order of information, the missing blood pressure trend, the absent request, no read-back, a hesitant tone and an incomplete assessment of pain. Feedback that lists everything tends to produce little change, because a learner cannot work on six things at once and may hear the list as a verdict on their competence (Shute, 2008). The two chosen, stating the reason first and ending with a request, are the ones that would most change how the next call goes and that the student can practice without a patient. The others were noted for later.
Why the Message Is Written the Way It Is
The first sentence names what the student did well and why it mattered, so the student knows which behavior to keep; it is about the action, not the person. The two priorities are phrased as what to do next, with an example sentence, because feedback is most useful when it tells the learner how to close the gap between current and expected performance rather than only that a gap exists (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Each priority is attached to an observable part of the call, not to a judgment such as "be more organized," which the student could not act on. The final line gives a task that can be done before the next clinical day, so the feedback leads to practice rather than to reflection alone.
What Was Withheld, and Why
Four things were deliberately left out of the message. The missing blood pressure trend was a real omission, but the student had collected the values and simply did not report them; it will be addressed when the student practices the opening sentence, which naturally pulls in supporting data. The hesitant tone is likely to improve with practice and would only add self-consciousness if named now. The incomplete pain assessment was a separate issue from the call and belongs in a different conversation. And the instructor's own discomfort at standing silent during a call that was clearly going poorly was not the student's concern. Withholding is not hiding; the instructor's notes record all six points, and the next two will be raised after the student has mastered these.
Climate Inside the Wording
The wording does climate work as well as instruction. It uses "you noticed" and "you acted" rather than "you failed to," it treats the hospitalist's questions as information rather than as a reprimand and it does not mention the student's visible anxiety. The student had asked how the call went, which is a request for reassurance as much as for information; the opening sentence gives honest reassurance tied to a real strength. A student who leaves a first call feeling judged may avoid the next one, and the most important outcome of this exchange is that the student makes the next call sooner.
Why in Writing, and Why That Evening
Two other forms were considered. Immediate spoken feedback at the nurses' station would have been timely, but the student was still flushed from the call and the unit was busy, so little would have been heard. Raising the call in post-conference would have let other students learn from it, but it would have made one student's hesitant first call the group's example, which costs more in climate than it gains in teaching. A short written note that evening gave the student something to reread and act on, and the call was discussed in post-conference only in general terms, as a structure everyone would use.
How the Exchange Fits the Evaluation
The call was recorded in the student's file as formative, not as an evaluation event, because nothing in it put the patient at risk; the student recognized the problem and escalated it. The student's clinical evaluation records progress in responding, one of the phases of clinical judgment, and the next call will show whether the progress holds. Rubrics built on that model describe a learner moving from beginning to developing to accomplished on each phase, which fits a sequence of calls better than a single grade (Lasater, 2007).
What Happened Next
On Thursday the student brought two prepared openings and closings. On the following clinical day the student called about a different patient and opened with the reason in the first sentence, ended with a specific request and read back the order. The blood pressure trend was again left out, which became one of the two priorities in the next message.
References
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Lasater, K. (2007). Clinical judgment development: Using simulation to create an assessment rubric. Journal of Nursing Education, 46(11), 496-503. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20071101-04
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
Reading the NR 722 Week 5 instructions
Give the context in a few lines, then present the feedback itself as text a learner could be handed unchanged. Keep the message short, address it to the work rather than the person, and limit it to two priorities rather than every flaw you noticed. Say what to do next in language specific enough to act on before the next session, with an example if possible, and end with a small task. Follow the message with a rationale longer than the message, explaining with citations why you chose these priorities, why the wording is as it is and what you deliberately withheld and why. Explain your choice of timing and form. Show how the feedback fits the learner's evaluation, and report what happened next if you can.
How this NR 722 Week 5 example is built
The sample sets the scene: a post-operative patient, a three-minute call, the history given first, the blood pressure trend omitted and no request made. The message follows in four short paragraphs a student could receive as written. The rationale explains selecting two of six possible issues, phrasing them as next steps with example sentences and ending with a task, citing research on feedback. A section lists four things withheld, including the missing blood pressure trend and the instructor's own discomfort. Another explains why the note was written that evening rather than given at the nurses' station or in post-conference. The call is recorded as formative under a clinical judgment rubric, and the next call shows both priorities met and the trend still missing.
NR 722 Week 5 rubric: what full points look like
The most costly loss is feedback that is kind and useless, several sentences of encouragement with nothing the learner could do differently tomorrow. Close behind is the corrected artifact, where the reviewer rewrites the work and hands it back, which removes the learning. The everything list, fifteen observations of equal weight, reliably produces no change at all. Marks are also lost when the rationale does not explain what was withheld and when the wording judges the person rather than the work. Graders reward messages short enough to be read in a minute, with two priorities and a next step, and rationales that justify each choice with evidence and show what happened next.
NR 722 Week 5 help: mistakes that cost points
Writing a short message and then explaining every word of it is an unusual assignment, and most drafts run the other way, long feedback and short reasoning. Describe the learner's work and what you noticed, and the write-up can choose two priorities, phrase them as next steps with examples, end with a task and then justify the choices, including what you left out. Thinking about timing and whether the note should be written or spoken belongs in the rationale too. The feedback and the learner's work come from your own teaching.
Get a NR 722 Week 5 example written to your instructions
Send the artifact or scenario your section supplied, the rubric and any required length for each part, and a custom NR 722 Week 5 example is returned inside 24 to 48 hours, free the first time. Tell us the learner's level, since feedback to a first-term student and to a graduating one differ in what they leave unsaid.
More NR 722 papers and MSN samples
- NR 722 Week 1: Teaching Claim Post
- NR 722 Week 2: Educator Role Analysis
- NR 722 Week 3: Teaching Philosophy Statement
- NR 722 Week 4: Facilitation Case Analysis
- NR 722 Week 6: Learner Difficulty Case Study
- NR 722 Week 7: Inclusive Design Plan
- NR 722 Week 8: Scholarly Synthesis Paper
- NR 622 Week 5: Feedback Summary
- NR 524 Week 5: Sequencing Rationale
- NR 621 Week 5: Setting and Stakeholder Analysis
- NR 535 Week 5: Active Learning Activity Write-Up
NR 722 Week 5 questions, answered
Does the example include the learner's response?
Only if your section asks for it, and some do build a reply and a second round into the assignment. The default example ends with the writer anticipating how the message might land and what would follow. If your prompt requires an exchange with turns on both sides, send it and the example is written with the learner's reply and the reviewer's adjustment included.
Can the feedback be about clinical performance?
Yes, and many sections supply exactly that kind of scenario. What we write is built on the supplied case or a role play, so the performance being reviewed is the one your prompt describes. Anything documenting an actual learner you supervise, including forms your institution requires, is yours to complete rather than ours to draft.
How long should the rationale be compared with the message?
In most rubrics the rationale carries more points, and the example reflects that by running noticeably longer than the message. The message stays compact because compactness is part of what is being assessed. Send the word allocations if your section publishes them, since a few prompts invert this and want an extended message with a brief justification.
Where can I find a free NR 722 Week 5 sample paper?
A full feedback write-up on a student's first call to a provider, with the message and its rationale, is available on this page.
What did the NR 722 Week 5 sample deliberately leave out of the message?
The missing blood pressure trend, the student's hesitant tone, an incomplete pain assessment and the instructor's own discomfort, all noted for later.