NUR 671 Module 7 Instructional Unit Portfolio Part 4: Evaluation and Reflection Example

What the Checklists Showed: Evaluating an Instructional Unit on Hand Expression and Five Revisions for the Next Cohort

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 the Checklists Showed: Evaluating an Instructional Unit on Hand Expression and Five Revisions for the Next Cohort

Introduction

This paper evaluates the instructional unit developed across the portfolio, a 90-minute session that readies new mother-baby hires to guide mothers through expressing colostrum by hand. It draws on three sources: the recorded microlesson and my self-review, the peer coaching comments I received and the results of a pilot session with six nurses during orientation. The analysis follows the unit's stages, planning, development and presentation, then recommends revisions and reflects on my own learning.

Evidence Used

The pilot session used the full plan from Part 2. All six nurses completed the summative checklists. Two weeks later, preceptors observed four of the six teaching a consenting mother; the other two had no suitable patient and were rescheduled, as the fairness plan allowed. The results were:

I also used a short exit question and the peer coaching comments.

Analysis of Planning

The learner analysis in Part 1A predicted that comfort would be the hardest outcome, and the results confirm it: the affective objective had the lowest achievement both in the session and on the unit. The analysis was right; the plan did not give that objective enough time. Only one debrief and one rated role-play addressed it. The cognitive objectives, by contrast, were met by everyone, which suggests the referral cases were too easy for this group. Planning around the learners' characteristics worked, but the time allotted did not match the difficulty of each objective.

Analysis of Development

The materials held up. Lactation consultants' review of the six-item technique checklist made it accurate, and the rater calibration produced few disagreements. The weakest material was the second role-play script. Peers said the "mother who does not want to be touched" was played as a simple refusal, so nurses never practiced offering the hands-off option under real hesitation. The script needs more detail about what the mother says and feels. The case items need one harder case, such as a mother with a history of breast surgery.

Analysis of Presentation

My microlesson recording and the peer coaching comments agreed on two problems. First, I spoke over learners during teach-back, which shortened the check. Second, the model was hard to see, which matters because the psychomotor objective depends on watching the hand position. The coaching comments also praised the opening problem, and in the pilot session several nurses repeated its question to each other during the role-play, which suggests it framed the session well. Feedback works best when it closes the gap between current and desired performance with information about the next step (Hattie & Timperley, 2007); my own presentation feedback gave me exactly that kind of information.

Recommended Revisions

1. Move 10 minutes from the explanation segment to a third role-play focused on the affective objective, because comfort had the lowest achievement and the most room to grow.

2. Rewrite the second role-play script with specific lines and feelings for the hesitant mother, so nurses practice the hands-off option under realistic resistance.

3. Add a harder referral case to make Objective 4 a true test of judgment.

4. Change the demonstration setup so the model faces the learners and the camera, and use a second educator as a demonstrator when available.

5. Add a short follow-up huddle at the two-week observation, so preceptors can coach the affective behaviors that are missed, using the same checklist.

Each revision responds to a specific result, which is the purpose of evaluating instruction rather than only delivering it. A unit evaluated this way improves with each cohort (De Gagne & Oermann, 2025).

Analysis of Personal Learning Progress

At the start of the course my instinct was to teach by explaining; my first orientation sessions were slide decks. The assumptions discussion made me name that habit, and the theory discussion gave me reasons to change it: adults learn through experience and confidence grows from mastery (Bandura, 1977). Writing objectives with observable verbs was harder than I expected, and faculty feedback on Part 1A showed me I had written objectives too low for experienced nurses. Planning evaluation alongside objectives in Part 2 was the turning point, because it forced me to decide what success would look like before choosing activities. The microlesson showed me my own habits as a presenter, especially talking too much. I now see myself as someone who designs practice and feedback rather than someone who delivers content, though I still have to work at waiting for learners to answer.

Conclusion

The pilot showed that the unit teaches knowledge well, skill reasonably well and comfort least well, which matches what the learner analysis predicted. Five revisions shift time and materials toward the hardest objective and improve the presentation. The portfolio as a whole changed how I plan teaching, from the content outward to the learner inward.

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

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.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487