| Course | NR 723 Role of the Educational Leader Across Settings |
|---|---|
| Week | 7 |
| Paper type | Program evaluation plan |
| Length | About 1,110 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN, Nurse Educator |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 723 Week 7
Program Evaluation Plan for Shared Clinical Judgment Grading in the Junior-Year Clinical Course, Organized by Level and Set to the Academic Calendar
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 723: Role of the Educational Leader Across Settings
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Program Evaluation Plan for Shared Clinical Judgment Grading in the Junior-Year Clinical Course, Organized by Level and Set to the Academic Calendar
The Decision This Evaluation Informs
The evaluation exists to inform two decisions. In April 2028, the curriculum committee will decide whether to extend the clinical judgment reflection and shared grading to the other two junior-year clinical courses, which together run 15 more sections. And in the FY2029 budget round, the department chair will decide whether to keep paying adjunct instructors for calibration. Every indicator below was chosen because it bears on one of these two decisions; indicators that would be interesting but would not change either decision, such as time spent on each reflection, were left out.
The Model and How It Governs the Rows
The plan uses the well-known four-level model of training evaluation, which moves from reaction through learning and behavior to results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The model is not decoration here; it decides which rows exist and how much weight each carries. Reaction is measured, because instructors deserve to be asked, but it is given no weight in either decision. Learning and behavior carry the weight for the chair's funding decision, because calibration is meant to change how instructors grade. Results, students' clinical judgment, carries the weight for the committee's extension decision, because extending the assignment is justified only if students benefit, not only if grading becomes consistent.
The Rows
Table 1
Evaluation Rows for Shared Clinical Judgment Grading
| Level | Outcome | Indicator | Where the data lives | Who pulls it | When | Value that triggers a change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reaction | Instructors find calibration worthwhile | Rating of each session, 1 to 5 | Session survey | Coordinator | After each session | None; reported only |
| Learning | Instructors apply the rubric as agreed | Share of rubric items matching agreed ratings on 10 exemplars | Online module | Coordinator | Two weeks before each term | Any instructor below 70% receives a call before teaching |
| Behavior | Grading is consistent across sections | Spread between highest and lowest section in share below standard on analyzing cues | Gradebook export | Coordinator with the school's data analyst | Week 10 and end of each term | Spread above 20 points prompts a midterm check |
| Behavior | Instructors return first drafts with comments | Share of first submissions returned with comments rather than grades | Gradebook | Coordinator | Week 3 | Below 80% prompts a reminder |
| Results | Students reason better about patients | Mean score on the clinical judgment case items of the course final examination | Examination software | Course faculty | End of each term | A fall from baseline of more than 5 points prompts a review |
| Results | Students experience fair grading | Share of course evaluation comments about inconsistent expectations | Course evaluations | Coordinator | End of each term | More than 10% of comments prompts review |
Note. Note. Every indicator comes from a system the school already uses. The data analyst has agreed to run the gradebook export twice a term.
The Baseline, Taken Now
Baseline values are being collected in the fall 2027 term, before the exemplar module and full calibration begin in spring 2028. Exemplar agreement before calibration was 44% of items. The section spread on analyzing cues was 17 points in spring 2027, from 22% to 39%, using the new reflection; the fall 2026 care plans are not comparable and are not used. The mean on the clinical judgment case items of the final examination in fall 2027 is the results baseline. Student comments about inconsistent expectations were 14 of 61 in spring 2027. Once the program is fully running, the before can no longer be measured, which is why these figures are being taken this term rather than reconstructed later.
Timing Set by the Term
Every measurement is placed on the academic calendar. The exemplar module runs two weeks before each term, so results reach the coordinator before any instructor grades a real reflection. The behavior measure is taken at week ten, early enough for a midterm check to matter, and at the end of term. Results measures come at term end. The full evaluation report for the committee must reach its chair by 1 March 2028 to be on the April agenda, so it will use fall 2027 baseline data and the first weeks of spring 2028; a fuller report follows in June for the budget decision.
The Rule for Stopping or Changing
The plan states in advance what would end or change the program. If, after two full terms, exemplar agreement has not reached 80% for most instructors and the section spread has not fallen below 15 points, the calibration approach is not working and the chair should stop funding it in its current form. If grading becomes consistent but examination scores on the clinical judgment items fall by more than five points from baseline, the assignment itself, not the grading, needs review before any extension. If both improve, the evidence supports extending the program to the other two courses.
Who Sees the Results
Results go to three audiences in different forms. The instructors see their own exemplar agreement privately and the course-level section spread at the January and midterm meetings, never a ranking of individuals, because the point is calibration, not judgment of colleagues. The department chair receives the full table each term for the funding decision. The curriculum committee receives a two-page summary focused on the results level and the stopping rule, since its question is whether students benefit enough to justify extending the assignment. Students see a short note in the next term's syllabus describing how grading consistency is checked, which answers the complaint that prompted much of this work. Keeping individual instructors' scores private is a deliberate choice; adjuncts who feared their agreement scores would be used in contract decisions would stop taking the module seriously.
What This Evaluation Cannot Show
It cannot show that the reflection, rather than other teaching in the course, caused any change in examination scores, since there is no comparison group of sections without it. It cannot show long-term effects on graduates' practice. And the examination items, though aligned with the clinical judgment model used in licensure (Dickison et al., 2019), are the school's own and have not been tested for reliability beyond item statistics. These limits are reported so the committee weighs the results accordingly, and they are the reason sustained faculty development is evaluated mainly on changes in teaching behavior, where the link is direct (Steinert et al., 2016).
References
Dickison, P., Haerling, K. A., & Lasater, K. (2019). Integrating the National Council of State Boards of Nursing clinical judgment model into nursing educational frameworks. Journal of Nursing Education, 58(2), 72-78. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20190122-03
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation. ATD Press.
Steinert, Y., Mann, K., Anderson, B., Barnett, B. M., Centeno, A., Naismith, L., Prideaux, D., Spencer, J., Tullo, E., Viggiano, T., Ward, H., & Dolmans, D. (2016). A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to enhance teaching effectiveness: A 10-year update: BEME Guide No. 40. Medical Teacher, 38(8), 769-786. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2016.1181851
What the NR 723 Week 7 assignment asks for
Start with the decision the evaluation will inform and who will make it, and leave out indicators that would not change that decision. Name an evaluation model and let it govern the rows, not just the introduction, separating what instructors did from what students can do. Present the plan mainly as a table: for each outcome, the indicator, where the data lives, who pulls it, how often and the value that would trigger a change. Take the baseline now, before the program starts, and explain any data you exclude. Set timing by the academic term, so results arrive when they can still be used. Write the rule for stopping or changing the program before any data arrive. Say who sees which results and in what form, and name what the evaluation cannot show.
How the NR 723 Week 7 example is put together
The sample opens with two decisions: a curriculum committee vote on extension and a budget decision on calibration funding. It explains that the four-level model assigns weight, with reaction collected but unweighted. A table gives six rows: session ratings, exemplar agreement with a 70% call trigger, section spread with a 20-point trigger, first-draft comments, examination case item scores and student comments. Baselines are listed for fall 2027, including 44% agreement and a 17-point spread, and earlier care plan data are excluded. Timing places the module before each term and the analysis at week ten. A stopping rule separates calibration failure from assignment failure. Results go privately to instructors and in summary to the chair, committee and students, and three limits are named.
Where the points sit in the NR 723 Week 7 rubric
Weak plans measure activity: sessions delivered, attendance counted and modules completed, none of it able to show whether anything improved. Second is the absent baseline; once the program has started, the before is gone. Third is a decision rule nobody wrote, so data are gathered but nothing is ever stopped or changed. Points also go when the model appears only in the opening and plays no part in the rows, and when timing ignores the academic calendar. Plans score well when every row carries an owner and a trigger, baselines are taken before the program begins, a stopping rule is written in advance and the plan says plainly what it cannot show.
NR 723 Week 7 help: mistakes that cost points
Evaluation plans are easiest to write as lists of things to count and hardest to write as tools for a decision. Share the program, the decisions it feeds and the data your institution already collects, and the plan can be built as a table with owners and triggers, organized by evaluation level, timed to the term and closed with a stopping rule written before any results exist. Deciding who sees which results, and in what form, protects the people being evaluated. The program and the data are your own.
Get a NR 723 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Send the prompt, the rubric and any required table columns, and a custom NR 723 evaluation plan is written to your instructions and returned inside 24 to 48 hours, the first one free. If you name the program you have in mind, the indicators in the example will be ones that setting could actually collect.
More NR 723 papers and MSN samples
- NR 723 Week 1: Leadership Seat Post
- NR 723 Week 2: Setting Analysis
- NR 723 Week 3: Governance and Stakeholder Map
- NR 723 Week 4: Change Leadership Case
- NR 723 Week 5: Faculty Development Plan
- NR 723 Week 6: Budget Justification Brief
- NR 723 Week 8: Strategic Proposal
- NR 524 Week 7: Curriculum Revision Proposal
- NR 722 Week 7: Inclusive Design Plan
- NR 535 Week 7: Clinical Teaching Plan
- NR 622 Week 7: Handover Package
NR 723 Week 7 questions, answered
Can the plan evaluate a program that does not exist yet?
That is the usual case, and it is an advantage. Designing evaluation before launch lets the baseline be captured, the indicators be built into normal workflow and the decision rule be agreed while nobody is defending anything. Plans written after a program is running spend most of their effort reconstructing a before that was never recorded, which is why the timing of this assignment matters.
Which evaluation model do reviewers prefer?
Preference matters less than consistent use. A logic model, a levels framework or a context and process approach will each satisfy a rubric if the table underneath genuinely follows it. What loses points is a named model in the opening paragraph with rows that ignore it. The example states why the chosen model suits an educational program spread across a school and a partner site.
Is it acceptable to write in a threshold that would end the program?
It is one of the strongest things the plan can contain. An educational leader who names the result that would end it is treating the program as a decision rather than as a possession, and reviewers read that as maturity. It also protects the writer, because a threshold agreed in advance prevents the goalposts from being moved once results arrive.
Where can I find a free NR 723 Week 7 sample paper?
This page holds the full program evaluation plan for shared clinical judgment grading, with its table and stopping rule.
What would stop the program in the NR 723 Week 7 sample?
If after two terms most instructors are below 80% agreement and the section spread is above 15 points, calibration in its current form would no longer be funded.