NR 722 Week 7 Inclusive Design Plan Example

Inclusive Design Plan: Auditing Five Defaults in My Own Clinical Teaching, Who Each One Costs, and a Redesign That Keeps Every Standard Where It Was

Student Name

College of Nursing, Chamberlain University

NR 722: Role of the Educator in Facilitating Learning

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Inclusive Design Plan: Auditing Five Defaults in My Own Clinical Teaching, Who Each One Costs, and a Redesign That Keeps Every Standard Where It Was

The Audit Comes First

This plan audits the writer's own teaching of one clinical group, eight students in their third semester, on a medical-surgical unit, not inclusion in general. Five defaults were found by reviewing the term's syllabus, the post-conference tally taken in week five, the clinical evaluation tool and the instructor's own routines. Each default is described as it currently works, with the students it disadvantages named by circumstance rather than by identity, and each is redesigned without lowering what students must show.

Default One: Questions Answered by Whoever Speaks First

In post-conference, questions to the group are answered by the first student to speak, usually within two seconds. The week five tally showed two students taking 62% of student turns and two taking none. This default costs students who think before speaking, students reading or listening in an additional language and students who are new to speaking up in front of faculty. The redesign: two silent minutes of writing before every discussion, a first round in which every student speaks once and a count of five after each question.

Default Two: Participation Credit That Rewards Confidence

The clinical evaluation tool includes an item, "contributes actively to post-conference," which in practice has been judged by how often a student speaks. This rewards confidence rather than reasoning and costs the same students as the first default. The redesign keeps the outcome, contributing to the group's learning, and changes the evidence: each student's contribution is judged from the written moment they bring, the reasoning they offer when it is their turn and a short weekly written reflection, so a quieter student can meet the outcome fully.

Default Three: Group Tasks Where One Person Carries the Work

The weekly group concept map, built on a whiteboard during post-conference, is usually drawn by one student while others watch. This default costs everyone except the person holding the marker, and it hides who understands the patient's problems. The redesign assigns rotating roles, one student draws, one challenges each link, one checks it against the patient's data, and each student adds one link in writing before the group version is built.

Default Four: A Timed Medication Calculation Check

Each clinical day begins with a ten-minute check of ten medication calculations, and a student must score 100% to give medications that day. The 100% standard is right; a calculation error can kill. The ten-minute limit is not part of the standard and measures processing speed alongside accuracy. It costs students with documented testing accommodations, students who check each answer twice, which is what we want, and students working in an additional language who read word problems more slowly. The redesign removes the time limit within reason, allowing up to twenty minutes, and keeps 100% accuracy as the requirement to give medications. No student can give medications without meeting it.

Default Five: Feedback Only Spoken, at the Nurses' Station

Feedback has often been given aloud, quickly, at the nurses' station during a busy day. This costs students who process information better in writing, students in an additional language and anyone whose attention is on the next patient. The redesign adds a brief written note for every student at the end of each clinical day, two priorities and one task, in addition to any spoken feedback, so the message can be reread (Shute, 2008).

The Standard Does Not Move

None of the five redesigns changes what students must demonstrate. Every student still meets each clinical outcome, still scores 100% on calculations before giving medications and still contributes to the group's learning. What changes is the route to showing it. A redesign that quietly removed a requirement would not be inclusive; it would lower the standard for everyone and leave students less prepared for patients who need the same safe care regardless of who gives it.

Designed In, Not Granted Later

Each change applies to all eight students from the first day, rather than being offered only to students who ask. Students with documented accommodations continue to receive them, but the defaults no longer assume a single kind of learner, so fewer students need to ask. Universal design for learning frames this as offering multiple means of engagement, representation and expression from the start (CAST, 2018), and the plan uses those three as a check: discussion now has more than one route in, feedback has a written as well as a spoken form and students can show contribution in more than one way.

Not Treating a Category as a Person

The plan avoids assigning a single need to any group. Not every student working in an additional language reads word problems slowly, and many native speakers do. The circumstances named above are reasons a default might cost someone, not predictions about any individual. The redesign works because it changes the defaults for everyone, not because it identifies who needs help.

What the Redesign Costs

The redesign is not free, and its costs fall mostly on the instructor and on time. Written notes for eight students take about forty minutes after each clinical day. Extending the calculation check by up to ten minutes shortens the morning by the same amount, which the instructor will absorb by moving the pre-shift huddle to the medication room so students prepare while waiting. Two silent minutes and a full first round take about twelve minutes of a sixty-minute post-conference, leaving less time for open discussion. These costs are accepted because each buys participation or accuracy from students the old defaults left out, but they will be reviewed at midterm in case the notes, in particular, prove impossible to sustain.

Evidence That It Worked

Three measures will show whether the redesign worked by the end of the term. The week eleven post-conference tally should show every student taking at least three turns. Calculation check pass rates on the first attempt should rise or stay level, with no student giving medications without 100%. And the share of students meeting every clinical outcome should stay the same as last term, which tests that the standard has not moved. Students' written comments on the end-of-term evaluation will add their view, and structured discussion approaches will be adjusted if the tally does not change (Brookfield & Preskill, 2005).

References

Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (2005). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for democratic classrooms (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.cast.org

Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795