NUR 671 Module 5 Portfolio Part 2 Evaluation Plan Example

Course	NUR 671 Teaching in Nursing and Health-Related Settings
Module	Module 5
Paper type	Instructional unit portfolio paper (evaluation strategies and instructional plan)
Length	About 873 words, 6 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Arizona State University
Program	MS in Nursing
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for NUR 671 Module 5

Aligned From Objective to Evidence: Evaluation Strategies and a 90-Minute Instructional Plan for Teaching Hand Expression

Student Name

Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University

NUR 671: Teaching in Nursing and Health-Related Settings

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title states the principle the paper follows, alignment between objective and evidence, and names its two deliverables.

Aligned From Objective to Evidence: Evaluation Strategies and a 90-Minute Instructional Plan for Teaching Hand Expression

Part 1B: Revisions to Objectives

Faculty feedback on Part 1A noted two problems. The cognitive objective asked nurses to "explain two reasons," which is accurate but sits low for nurses who must judge when hand expression is needed. The affective objective named three behaviors but no standard. The revised objectives are:

1. Using a scripted case, each new hire will tell a simulated mother whether hand expression suits her situation on the first day and why, in words a layperson understands, with an observer confirming both reasons are correct (cognitive: understand moving to apply).

2. Working on a breast model, each new hire will perform the technique, a C-shaped hold set back from the nipple, then pressing toward the chest, compressing and releasing without sliding, and will complete the six-step checklist in no more than two tries (psychomotor: guided response moving to mechanism).

3. In a rated role-play, when the simulated mother signals embarrassment, each new hire will close the curtain, ask before touching and propose a hands-off way to learn, with a peer observer recording all three (affective: responding).

4. Presented with three short written cases, each new hire will choose the mother who should see a lactation consultant and defend the choice, getting all three right (cognitive: analyze moving to evaluate).

Formative and Summative Evaluation

Formative assessment is used during learning to guide it, while summative evaluation judges achievement at the end and supports decisions such as sign-off (De Gagne & Oermann, 2025). Each objective has one of each.

Beyond the session, the unit includes a delayed summative step: within two weeks, each nurse's preceptor observes her teaching hand expression to a consenting mother and completes the same six-item and three-item checklists. This tests transfer to the real setting, which a model cannot.

Objective	Formative assessment	Summative evaluation
1. Explain when and why	Teach-back to a peer during the first role-play, with immediate coaching	Observer checklist during the final role-play
2. Demonstrate technique	Guided practice on the breast model with educator feedback	Return demonstration on the model, six-item checklist, two attempts
3. Respond to embarrassment	Debrief after round one: what did you say, what would you change?	Peer observer rating in round two, three-item checklist
4. Decide on referral	Think-aloud with one practice case	Three written cases with justification, scored by the educator

Validity and Reliability

Validity. Each checklist item comes directly from an objective, so the evaluation measures what the unit teaches. The six technique items were reviewed by both lactation consultants, which supports content validity. The written cases describe situations nurses will meet on the unit, including a mother with flat nipples and a sleepy late preterm infant, so the decisions resemble real ones.

Reliability. Checklists with observable items improve agreement between raters. Before the first cohort, the educator and two preceptors will rate the same recorded demonstration and discuss any item they scored differently until they agree on what each item means. Peer observers receive the same brief calibration with an example.

Fairness

Fairness in evaluation means every learner has an equal chance to show what she has learned (De Gagne & Oermann, 2025). Four choices support it in this plan. First, every learner gets two attempts at the return demonstration, because nervousness on a first attempt does not reflect skill. Second, criteria are shared at the start of the session, so no one is judged on hidden standards. Third, accommodations requested before the session, such as extra time or a different model, are provided through the hospital's process. Fourth, the delayed observation uses a consenting mother and allows the nurse to reschedule if no suitable patient is available, so a busy assignment does not count against her.

Instructional Plan and Learning Activities

The session runs 90 minutes in the unit's education room with two breast models, a printed technique card and three role-play scripts. Activities follow the experiential cycle planned in the theory discussion.

Time	Activity	Objectives
0-10 min	Opening problem: a mother at 18 hours whose sleepy baby has not fed well asks, "Do I even have milk?" Learners say what they would do.	1, 4
10-20 min	Short explanation with images: colostrum volumes, why expression helps, when to refer. Evidence from a trial of hand expression versus pumping (Flaherman et al., 2012) and from a study combining hand techniques with pumping (Morton et al., 2009).	1, 4
20-40 min	Demonstration, then guided practice on models in pairs with educator feedback.	2
40-55 min	Role-play round one in triads (nurse, mother, observer), with teach-back.	1, 3
55-65 min	Debrief: what felt awkward, what language worked.	3
65-75 min	Role-play round two with a harder script: a mother who refuses hands-on help. Peer ratings.	1, 3
75-85 min	Return demonstration on models; written referral cases.	2, 4
85-90 min	Exit question: one thing you will say differently tomorrow.	All

Conclusion

Part 2 connects each revised objective to evidence collected during and after the session, with checks on validity, reliability and fairness, and gives the unit a timed plan that puts practice ahead of summary. Part 3 will deliver a portion of the plan as a microlesson and gather peer coaching feedback.

What this page is doingLaying formative and summative measures side by side for each objective, then justifying validity, reliability and fairness separately, addresses each Module 2 outcome under its own heading.

References

De Gagne, J. C., & Oermann, M. H. (Eds.). (2025). Teaching in nursing and role of the educator: The complete guide to best practice in teaching, evaluation, and curriculum development (4th ed.). Springer Publishing.

Flaherman, V. J., Gay, B., Scott, C., Avins, A., Lee, K. A., & Newman, T. B. (2012). Randomised trial comparing hand expression with breast pumping for mothers of term newborns feeding poorly. Archives of Disease in Childhood: Fetal and Neonatal Edition, 97(1), F18-F23. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2010.209213

Morton, J., Hall, J. Y., Wong, R. J., Thairu, L., Benitz, W. E., & Rhine, W. D. (2009). Combining hand techniques with electric pumping increases milk production in mothers of preterm infants. Journal of Perinatology, 29(11), 757-764. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2009.87

NUR 671 Module 5 instructions, in plain terms

Module 2, Evaluating Learning and Planning Instruction, covers formative assessment and summative evaluation, validity and reliability in educational measurement, diverse learners and clinical and other special settings. Its assignments are the Part 1B revisions to objectives and Portfolio Part 2. The module outcomes describe what Part 2 needs: tell formative from summative evaluation, select evaluation strategies aligned with specific objectives, contexts and learners, justify plans that support fairness in evaluation and develop instructional plans and learning activities for the group and context. Start by revising your Part 1A objectives in light of feedback, since every later choice depends on them. Canvas holds the detailed criteria, and a practice quiz on aligning evaluation with objectives comes in the same module.

How this NUR 671 Module 5 example is built

The paper opens with the Part 1B revisions, explaining what faculty feedback changed and restating all four objectives. An alignment table follows, with a formative and a summative measure for each objective, and a paragraph adds a delayed observation with a real mother to test transfer. Validity and reliability each get a short section with specific steps, including review by lactation consultants and rater calibration on a recorded demonstration. A fairness section justifies four choices. The instructional plan appears as a timed table mapping each activity to its objectives, with two evidence sources cited in the explanation segment. A brief conclusion points to Part 3. Three sources support the paper.

Reading the NUR 671 Module 5 grading rubric

Within the portfolio's 85%, Part 2 is where alignment is tested, so expect the Canvas rubric to look for evaluation strategies matched to each objective, a clear distinction between formative and summative uses, attention to validity and reliability, a justified fairness plan and an instructional plan with activities tied to objectives. Tables that show the alignment directly make the grader's task easy. Revisions that respond to Part 1A feedback show growth, which faculty notice. Evaluation that extends into the real setting, not only the classroom, shows an understanding of transfer. Specific fairness measures, such as two attempts and shared criteria, earn more than a general statement that evaluation will be fair.

NUR 671 Module 5 help from the desk

The most common gap is a measure that does not fit its objective, such as a written quiz used to judge a hands-on skill. Check every pair in your table. Another is treating formative and summative as interchangeable; say how each one is used. Fairness sections often stay abstract, so name the actual choices. Instructional plans sometimes run over time; add minutes and check they total the session. If you send the desk your Part 1A objectives and the feedback you received, a Part 2 draft can be aligned to them. Keep the plan realistic for your setting's room, equipment and time, and note any backup if a model or room falls through.

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 671 and MS in Nursing sample papers

NUR 671 Module 5 questions, answered

Where can I find a free NUR 671 Module 5 sample paper?

Above is a full NUR 671 Portfolio Part 2 sample with revised objectives, aligned formative and summative evaluation, fairness measures and a timed plan.

What is the difference between formative and summative evaluation?

Formative assessment guides learning while it happens; summative evaluation judges achievement at the end and supports decisions such as sign-off.

What does NUR 671 Portfolio Part 2 include?

Evaluation strategies aligned with each objective, fairness and measurement considerations and an instructional plan with learning activities.

How do you make a skills checklist reliable?

Use observable items and have raters score the same recorded performance, then discuss differences until they agree on each item's meaning.

What is Part 1B in NUR 671?

Revisions to the Part 1A learning objectives, submitted in Module 2 before the evaluation and planning work of Part 2.

NUR 671 Module 5 Instructional Unit Portfolio Part 2: Evaluation and Instructional Plan Example