| Course | NU 600 Teaching/Learning Strategies |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Instructional design packet |
| Length | About 680 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MSN Nurse Educator |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU 600 Unit 8
Instructional Design Packet: Teaching Insulin Safety to a BSN Clinical Group, From Learner Profile to Evidence of Learning
Student Name
Department of Nursing, Herzing University
NU 600: Teaching/Learning Strategies
Instructor Name
March 10, 2026
Instructional Design Packet: Teaching Insulin Safety to a BSN Clinical Group, From Learner Profile to Evidence of Learning
Part 1: Learners
Eleven BSN students in their second clinical semester, placed on a medical-surgical unit; seven work part-time, five as nursing assistants; two are bilingual with English as a second language. Relevant gaps before teaching: confusion about insulin types and timing; two students who failed first-attempt insulin and weight-based calculation items; a tendency to record findings without connecting them; hesitation to call for help. All would give insulin on the unit within two weeks.
Part 2: Objectives
O1, identify insulin type, onset, and peak from written orders, without error. O2, calculate correction doses, 5 of 5 correct. O3, recognize hypoglycemia in an unfolding case and state the first three protocol actions in order within two minutes. O4, deliver an SBAR report on a hypoglycemic event meeting a five-item checklist. O5, defend a decision about prandial insulin when a meal is delayed. The objectives run from understanding through evaluation on the revised taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), weighted toward application because the gap was in using knowledge, not in having it.
Part 3: Method
The core content is a clinical decision made under time pressure, and novice nurses most often fail at noticing and interpreting, the first two steps of clinical judgment (Tanner, 2006). The method is therefore an unfolding case with small-group decisions at each stage, followed by paired SBAR role-play, preceded by a 10-minute fact review. Lecture alone was rejected because it names the problem for the students; high-fidelity simulation was deferred to week 8 because the lab and a trained debriefer were not available for seminar and fewer students would be active at once.
Part 4: Session
A 120-minute seminar in twelve timed segments, including a 10-minute break, with four formative checks built into the timeline: an audience response check on insulin timing at minute 18, a calculation check at minute 40, group decisions read aloud at each case stage, and an exit ticket. Each check has a decision attached, such as reteaching for up to five minutes if fewer than 80% answer an item correctly. Checks that do not change what happens next do not serve learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998).
Part 5: Activity and Practice Beyond the Session
Two further pieces support the session. A 60-minute room of errors in the skills lab, the week before the first insulin administration, stages 12 hazards, including a premixed insulin vial where rapid-acting was ordered and a prandial dose due for a patient held from eating, and asks groups to find and explain them within 8 minutes. And twenty calculation items with randomly drawn numbers, built in the course site, give students repeated calculation practice twice a week between clinical days, because spaced retrieval practice produces more durable skill than a single worksheet (Dunlosky et al., 2013).
Part 6: Evidence That the Objectives Were Met
Results from the session and the following four weeks are summarized below.
| Objective | Evidence collected | Result | Met? |
|---|---|---|---|
| O1 | Insulin order worksheet; minute-18 check | At minute 18, only 64% identified the peak of intermediate-acting insulin; retaught for 4 minutes; recheck 91%. Worksheet: 10 of 11 fully correct | Met by 10 of 11 |
| O2 | Minute-40 check; LMS practice data; midterm calculation items | 9 of 11 scored 5 of 5 in seminar; the other 2 completed 14 practice sets between them and both scored 5 of 5 on the midterm insulin items | Met by all 11 by midterm |
| O3 | Group decisions at case stages | All 4 groups named hypoglycemia at the stage with a glucose of 58; 3 of 4 stated the protocol actions in the correct order | Met by 3 of 4 groups |
| O4 | SBAR checklist scores | 8 of 11 met all five items; the item most often missed was a specific request to the provider | Met by 8 of 11 |
| O5 | Four sampled pairs | 3 of 4 pairs reached a defensible decision citing insulin timing | Partly met |
| Transfer | Clinical observation, first four weeks | All 11 students gave insulin under supervision; each identified the insulin type and timing before administration when asked | Met in observed practice |
Part 7: What Will Change Next Time
Three revisions follow from the evidence. The fact review will draw the insulin timeline more slowly and ask students to predict the peak of intermediate-acting insulin before it is shown, since that point needed reteaching. The group that stated protocol actions out of order rechecked glucose before giving carbohydrate; the case will add a prompt at that stage asking what the patient needs first. And the SBAR checklist will be given to students before the role-play, with an example of a specific request, since the missing request was a gap in the model, not in the students.
How the Parts Fit
Each part can be checked against its neighbors. The objectives address the gaps in the learner profile; the method was chosen for the kind of knowledge in O3 and O4; the session's checks collect the evidence named for each objective; and the evidence table reports against the same objectives, not new ones. Where an objective was only partly met, O5, the evidence says so, and the next version of the session gives it more time.
References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266
Tanner, C. A. (2006). Thinking like a nurse: A research-based model of clinical judgment in nursing. Journal of Nursing Education, 45(6), 204-211. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20060601-04
Reading the NU 600 Unit 8 instructions
In Unit 8 you assemble an instructional design packet that integrates the course's work. Expect to summarize the learners, objectives, method, session plan, activities and assessment, report evidence of learning and describe revisions. Many versions ask you to show alignment across parts, sometimes in a table. Check whether your section wants the earlier units attached or summarized. A packet should read as one design, not a stack of assignments, so each part should be brief and refer to the next. Evidence of learning can be actual results or a realistic plan for gathering them. Revisions based on evidence show reflective practice and are often the part graders weigh most when they judge whether the design improved.
How this NU 600 Unit 8 example is built
The packet uses numbered parts, each a short paragraph or table. Learners and objectives are summarized in a few lines each, with the objectives labeled so later parts can refer to them. The method part explains the choice in one paragraph tied to the kind of knowledge. The session and activity parts describe structure and checks without repeating full plans. Evidence is summarized in a table showing each objective, the measure and the result. The revisions part names three changes, each linked to a specific result. The final section explains how the parts align, so a reader can trace each objective from the learner gap that prompted it to the evidence that it was met.
NU 600 Unit 8 rubric: what full points look like
Herzing's rubric for the closing packet generally covers integration and alignment, the learner and objective summary, the method and activities, assessment and evidence, revisions, and writing. Alignment usually counts most, and the strongest packets let a reader follow each objective from the learner gap that prompted it to the evidence that it was met. Evidence points reward measures matched to objectives, with results or a realistic plan for gathering them. Revision criteria look for changes tied to specific findings rather than general intentions to improve. Summary criteria reward concision over repetition of earlier units. Professional presentation includes clear headings, numbered parts and tables where they help. The reference list, in APA 7, should carry the taxonomy text, the formative assessment review by Black and Wiliam and Dunlosky's review of learning techniques.
NU 600 Unit 8 help: mistakes that cost points
Packets in Unit 8 commonly lose points by stapling earlier assignments together without integrating them, so the same learners are described three different ways. Another frequent problem is evidence of learning that does not match the objectives, such as a satisfaction survey offered as proof of a calculation skill. Students often skip revisions or list changes not tied to any result. Alignment is claimed in a sentence but not shown. Some packets run far beyond the expected length by repeating full lesson plans rather than summarizing them. Objectives change wording between parts, which breaks alignment. Finally, add a short section on how the parts fit, because graders look for a design they can trace from start to finish, and that section makes the logic visible in one place.
Get a NU 600 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 8 instructions and the rubric from your NU 600 classroom, plus the subject your packet has to carry and the length of the session. We write a custom example with the parts built to inherit from each other, objectives matched to evidence and one constraint carried through all of it, returned in 24 to 48 hours. The first custom sample is free.
More NU 600 papers and nurse educator samples
- NU 600 Unit 1: Learner group profile
- NU 600 Unit 2: Learning objective set
- NU 600 Unit 3: Teaching method rationale
- NU 600 Unit 4: Class session lesson plan
- NU 600 Unit 5: Active learning activity design
- NU 600 Unit 6: Educational technology selection
- NU 600 Unit 7: Examination item analysis
- NU 760 Unit 8: Peer review response
- NU 780 Unit 8: Population outcome evaluation
- NU 480 Unit 8: Practice readiness statement
- NU 602 Unit 8: Study protocol outline
NU 600 Unit 8 questions, answered
Can I reuse the earlier units in the packet?
Usually yes, and many sections expect it, because a final submission is where the separate pieces are finally required to agree. Check what the instructions say about citing your own work, revise rather than paste, and expect changes: objectives set before the session was timed almost always promise more than one period can deliver.
How long should the packet be?
Take the length from the instructions, and watch for padding rather than for coming up short. Dense parts that agree with one another do better than a long set restating the course, and a standalone theory section is usually wasted space. Where educational theory belongs is inside a decision, explaining why the method or the instrument is the one chosen.
Is the closing unit always a full packet?
Not necessarily. Herzing publishes no list naming the deliverable for a particular unit, and sections vary while instructions are revised between terms. What a final unit commonly asks in a teaching strategies course is that the instruments built earlier be pointed at one piece of content, and that is the shape of this example. Take the format from the assignment you were given.
Where can I find a free NU 600 Unit 8 sample paper?
This page shows the whole NU 600 Unit 8 insulin safety packet for free, all seven parts and how they fit together. Ask for a custom packet if your topic or learner group is different.
What is an instructional design packet for a nurse educator course?
It brings together the learner profile, objectives, teaching method, session plan, activities, evidence of learning and planned revisions into one aligned design. This sample does that for teaching insulin safety to a BSN clinical group.