| Course | NUR 670 Curriculum Design for Nursing and Health Professions Education |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Analytical discussion checkpoint post and peer post |
| Length | About 471 words |
| Format | Discussion post with APA 7 citations |
| School | Arizona State University |
| Program | MS in Nursing |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NUR 670 Module 6
Module 6 Checkpoint: Four Kinds of Evidence, and the One That Surprised Our Faculty
Knowing It Works: Four Kinds of Evidence for Judging a Clinical Judgment Thread Across a Nursing Curriculum
Initial Post
In Module 3 I found that our program taught clinical judgment in class but never evaluated it in clinical. We have since added clinical criteria. This checkpoint asks the next question: how would we know whether the connections across courses are actually working?
A frame. The CIPP model evaluates context, input, process and product, and it was designed for improvement as much as for proving results (Stufflebeam & Zhang, 2017). For a curriculum thread, context asks whether the outcome still fits what graduates need, input asks whether courses have the time and resources to teach it, process asks whether it is taught as planned and product asks whether graduates achieve it. I would gather four kinds of evidence, each answering a different part.
1. Licensure results by area (product). Our pass rate alone says little. The program's report from the testing service breaks performance into content areas, and a falling score in management of care or physiological adaptation would point at the thread.
2. Clinical ratings (product and process). Our clinical faculty now score students on the rubric Lasater (2007) built from simulation research, which rates four phases of judgment, each from beginning to exemplary. If students in the final semester score no higher than students in the third, the thread is not building across courses.
3. Employer feedback (context and product). A short survey of nurse managers six months after hire asks how graduates handle a deteriorating patient. This is where we learned the most last year: managers rated our graduates well on recognizing change but low on speaking up about it.
4. Student course evaluations (process and input). Students tell us whether simulation time is protected or squeezed and whether cases repeat across courses.
When to revise. The accreditor already expects a written plan for evaluating end-of-program outcomes, with set levels of achievement and a schedule (Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing, 2023), so the thread can sit inside that plan. One weak term is noise. I would treat two consecutive terms of decline in any product measure, or agreement between two sources, as a signal to revise, and I would bring the evidence to the working group before the committee.
The surprise from employers, that graduates notice but do not speak up, has already changed our plans. We are adding a communication step to the clinical judgment worksheet, which is exactly the kind of loop this module describes.
Peer Post (Reply to Grace on Small Cohorts)
Grace, you noted that your program graduates only 18 students a year, so percentages swing widely. Combining two or three years of data and relying more on qualitative sources, such as manager interviews, might give a steadier picture. Have you tried pooling cohorts?
References
Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing. (2023). ACEN 2023 accreditation manual: Section III, 2023 standards and criteria. https://www.acenursing.org/
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
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Zhang, G. (2017). The CIPP evaluation model: How to evaluate for improvement and accountability. Guilford Press.
NUR 670 Module 6 instructions, in plain terms
Curricular Connections, Module 6, looks at alignment across a whole curriculum and at evaluation and improvement. Its checkpoint asks how educators know when curriculum connections are working, and, like the earlier five, it pairs an opening analysis with a reply to a peer. Answer with a plan for evidence. Choose one outcome or thread, say which data would show it is working, explain what each source can and cannot tell you and set out when the evidence should lead to revision. An evaluation model from the readings or the wider literature can organize the plan. The syllabus describes this module's discussion as examining the evidence that informs ongoing evaluation and improvement, so evidence should be the center of the post.
How this NUR 670 Module 6 example is built
The post links back to the writer's Module 3 finding so the evaluation has a clear target, the clinical judgment thread. CIPP is introduced in a short paragraph that explains each of its four parts for a curriculum thread. Four numbered kinds of evidence follow, each labeled with the CIPP parts it informs: licensure results by area, ratings on a published clinical judgment rubric, employer feedback and student evaluations. A paragraph on when to revise sets a rule of two terms or two sources. The post closes with a finding from employers that has already changed the program's plans, which shows the loop working. Two sources anchor it, the CIPP model and the Lasater rubric, and the peer post addresses small cohorts.
NUR 670 Module 6 rubric: what earns full marks
As the sixth of six 12-point checkpoints, this post is graded in Canvas for applying module concepts, use of evidence and sources, and engagement with peers. A specific plan with named measures earns more than a general statement that programs should evaluate outcomes. Matching each source to what it can show, and admitting what it cannot, demonstrates evaluative thinking. A decision rule for when to revise addresses the improvement half of the module topic. Using a recognized model or tool, cited accurately, connects the plan to the literature. The peer post should engage a classmate's real constraint with a practical response. Clear organization, such as numbered evidence types, helps the grader see the plan.
NUR 670 Module 6 help from the desk
Posts often name the licensure pass rate as the only evidence and stop. A pass rate is useful but blunt, so add sources that show process and context. Another weakness is collecting data with no rule for acting on it; say what result would lead to revision. Describe tools accurately, including what they measure. Tell the desk which outcome or thread you want to evaluate, and a draft plan can be built around the data your program already has. Keep the post to one thread so each source gets attention. In the peer post, respond to a classmate's practical problem with a method rather than agreement.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Arizona State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More NUR 670 and MS in Nursing sample papers
- NUR 670 Module 1: Checkpoint: What Drives Curriculum Priorities?
- NUR 670 Module 2: Checkpoint: What Is Shaping Your Curriculum Decisions?
- NUR 670 Module 3: Checkpoint: How Do Alignment and Accountability Shape Curriculum Integrity?
- NUR 670 Module 4: Checkpoint: How Do Beliefs Become Structure?
- NUR 670 Module 5: Checkpoint: How Does Curriculum Development Evolve Over Time?
- NUR 670 Module 7: End-Course Learning Synthesis (Course Exit Reflection)
- NUR 547 Module 1: Cultural Competency and Social Determinants Discussion
- NUR 552 Module 5: Critical Reflection Discussion Board: Social Justice Issues and Access to Care
- NUR 548 Module 4: PDSA Cycles and Run Charts Discussion
- NUR 544 Module 4: Application to Practice Theory Paper
NUR 670 Module 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free NUR 670 Module 6 sample paper?
A full NUR 670 Module 6 checkpoint sample is above, with four kinds of evidence organized by the CIPP model, a rule for revision and a peer post.
How do you evaluate a nursing curriculum?
Programs use several sources, such as licensure results, clinical evaluations, employer and graduate surveys and course evaluations, often organized by a model.
What is the CIPP evaluation model?
Stufflebeam's model evaluates context, input, process and product, and it is designed to improve programs as well as judge them.
What is the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric?
A rubric that rates noticing, interpreting, responding and reflecting at four developmental levels, from beginning to exemplary.
When should a curriculum be revised?
When evidence shows a sustained decline or several sources point to the same gap; a single weak term is often noise.