| Course | NU 617 The Nurse Educator Roles |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Curriculum change proposal |
| Length | About 980 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MSN Nurse Educator |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU 617 Unit 6
Proposal to the Curriculum Committee: Replace One Lecture Hour a Week With Unfolding Clinical Judgment Cases in Three Medical-Surgical Courses
Student Name
Department of Nursing, Herzing University
NU 617: The Nurse Educator Roles
Instructor Name
March 17, 2026
Proposal to the Curriculum Committee: Replace One Lecture Hour a Week With Unfolding Clinical Judgment Cases in Three Medical-Surgical Courses
The Change and the Decision Requested
Proposed change: in NUR 310, NUR 410, and NUR 420, the three medical-surgical theory courses, replace one of the three weekly lecture hours with a structured unfolding case session built on the clinical judgment model used by the national licensure examination, beginning in fall 2026. Credit hours, clinical hours, and course outcomes are unchanged. Decision requested: approval of the change for fall 2026, and approval of 30 hours of faculty development time for the six faculty who teach these courses, to be completed during summer 2026.
Evidence From the Program
The program's first-time licensure examination pass rate fell from 91% in 2022 to 83% in 2024, the first full year of the revised examination, which measures clinical judgment through case-based item types. The state board's minimum standard and the program's own benchmark are both at risk if the trend continues. Item-level reports from the testing vendor show that our graduates scored lowest on the clinical judgment steps of analyzing cues and prioritizing hypotheses, and highest on recall of content. Course evaluations from the class of 2025 asked for "more practice with the new question types," in those words, in 41 of 88 responses. Faculty in the three courses report that current lecture time is spent mainly on content, with application left to clinical days, where students' exposure to a given condition depends on which patients happen to be on the unit.
Evidence From the Literature
The national clinical judgment model describes a sequence of cognitive steps, from spotting relevant cues and making sense of them, through ranking possible explanations and choosing and carrying out a response, to checking whether it worked, and its developers have described how it can be integrated into existing nursing education frameworks rather than added as a separate course (Dickison et al., 2019). Unfolding cases, in which patient information arrives in stages and students must interpret and act at each stage, give practice in exactly these steps, and a study of unfolding case-based learning among undergraduate nursing students reported favorable effects on clinical judgment (Liu, 2024). The evidence is still modest, and the proposal includes an evaluation for that reason.
What One Case Session Looks Like
An example from NUR 310 illustrates the format. Students arrive having read the heart failure chapter and completed a five-question quiz. The case introduces a 74-year-old woman admitted with shortness of breath. In the first stage, groups receive her admission findings and must list which cues matter and why. In the second, a morning weight gain of 1.8 kilograms and new crackles appear, and groups rank the likely explanations. In the third, they choose and justify nursing actions, and in the fourth they receive her response and decide whether the plan worked. Each stage ends with two groups presenting and the instructor correcting reasoning, not only answers. The session closes with three examination-style items on the same patient. The same structure is used in every case, so students learn the steps as well as the content.
Courses Affected and What Changes in Each
The table shows what each course gives up and gains.
| Course | Current weekly lecture hours | After change | Content moved | Where it goes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NUR 310 Medical-Surgical I | 3 | 2 lecture + 1 case | About 14 hours of lecture across the term | Pre-class readings with short quizzes; cases reinforce the same content |
| NUR 410 Medical-Surgical II | 3 | 2 lecture + 1 case | About 14 hours | Pre-class readings; two topics moved to the existing online module |
| NUR 420 Complex Care | 3 | 2 lecture + 1 case | About 14 hours | Pre-class readings; cases replace two review lectures |
Content Displaced, Honestly Stated
The change removes about 14 hours of lecture from each course. Faculty mapped every lecture topic and found that about half of the displaced time covered content already in the assigned textbook chapters, which will be assigned as pre-class reading with a short quiz. The remaining topics will be taught within the cases themselves: for example, the heart failure case in NUR 310 will carry the content previously delivered in the heart failure lecture. Two topics in NUR 410 that fit neither approach, endocrine laboratory interpretation and burn fluid calculation, will move to the existing online module. No course outcome is removed.
Accreditation and Board Requirements
The change affects no required clinical hours and no course credit, so it does not require notification to the state board of nursing under its program change rules. For accreditation, the change supports the expectation that the curriculum is regularly revised in response to outcome data, including licensure pass rates, and that it prepares graduates to meet the competencies expected of entry-level professional nurses (Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education [CCNE], 2018; American Association of Colleges of Nursing [AACN], 2021). The proposal and its evaluation will be recorded in the program's systematic evaluation plan.
Cost and Faculty Development
Faculty development: 30 hours per faculty member over the summer, covering the clinical judgment model, case writing, and facilitation, delivered by the program's two faculty with prior case-writing experience. The program's professional development fund can cover summer stipends for the six faculty. Materials: cases will be written by faculty, with no licensing cost; the first year's case library, 14 cases per course, is the main labor. No new rooms or technology are required.
Evaluation
The committee will receive a report after one year. Measures: student performance on course examination items written in the case-based format, compared with the previous cohort; item-level licensure results for the class of 2027, the first to complete all three revised courses, recognizing that one cohort is a small sample and that other factors affect pass rates; student course evaluations; and faculty reports of workload. If case-based item performance does not improve after one year, the committee will review whether the problem lies in the cases, the facilitation, or the approach itself.
Risks
Faculty unfamiliar with case facilitation may default to lecturing through the case; the summer training and peer observation in the first term address this. Students may not complete pre-class reading; the quizzes provide an incentive. And one fewer lecture hour may concern faculty who feel content coverage is already thin; the mapping exercise, which will be shared with the committee, shows where each displaced topic is now taught.
References
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2021). The essentials: Core competencies for professional nursing education. American Association of Colleges of Nursing.
Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education. (2018). Standards for accreditation of baccalaureate and graduate nursing programs (Amended 2018). Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education.
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
Liu, W. (2024). Effect of unfolding case-based learning on clinical judgment among undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Educator, 49(3), 141-146. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000001526
What the NU 617 Unit 6 instructions ask for
In Unit 6 you propose a curriculum change to a committee. Expect to state the change and the decision requested, present evidence from the program and the literature, describe the change in practice, identify affected courses and displaced content, address accreditation and regulatory requirements, estimate costs and faculty development, plan evaluation and name risks. Many versions ask you to align the change with the AACN Essentials or NLN competencies. Check whether your section wants a real program or a composite. A change sized for one committee decision is more realistic than a full redesign. Be honest about what content is displaced, because committees look for that. Include an example of the new format so members can picture it in a classroom.
How the NU 617 Unit 6 example is put together
The proposal opens with the change and the decision requested in two sentences, the way committee documents should. Program evidence comes first, using pass rates and item performance, followed by literature on clinical judgment. A sample case session shows what students and faculty would actually do. A table lists each course and what changes. The displaced content section maps lecture topics and shows where each moves, which answers the committee's likely first question. Accreditation and board requirements are addressed directly. Cost and faculty development are estimated in hours. Evaluation measures are set for a one-year report. Risks, such as faculty lecturing through cases, are named with responses. Each section is short enough for a committee packet.
Reading the NU 617 Unit 6 rubric
Herzing's rubric for a curriculum proposal usually covers the rationale and evidence, the description of the change, the impact on courses and content, accreditation and regulatory alignment, resources, evaluation and professional writing. Evidence points reward both program data, such as pass rates and item performance, and literature. Description criteria look for enough detail that a committee member could picture one class session. The impact row is where many proposals rise or fall, since committees and graders both want displaced content named and relocated, not waved away. Alignment points require accurate references to accreditation standards and the Essentials. Resource criteria look for faculty development hours and any cost. Evaluation points go to measures with a reporting date. Dickison's clinical judgment model article and the CCNE standards anchor the APA 7 list.
Common NU 617 Unit 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Curriculum proposals in Unit 6 usually lose points by describing a new method enthusiastically without saying what it replaces. Another frequent problem is evidence from the literature only, with no program data to show the need locally. Students often ignore accreditation or assume any change needs board approval. Faculty development is underestimated or missing, though it decides whether the change works in practice. Evaluation measures lack timelines. Risks are left out entirely. The proposal is sometimes written as an essay rather than a committee document with a clear request. Finally, size the change realistically, because a committee is more likely to approve one hour a week in three courses than a full curriculum redesign, and graders reward that judgment.
Get a NU 617 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 6 instructions and the rubric from your NU 617 classroom, plus the change your proposal has to carry and its program. We write a custom example with the motion stated first, internal evidence assembled, effects traced course by course, external requirements checked and the current cohort accounted for, returned in 24 to 48 hours. The first custom sample is free.
More NU 617 papers and nurse educator samples
- NU 617 Unit 1: Faculty workload allocation brief
- NU 617 Unit 2: Academic integrity case review
- NU 617 Unit 3: Clinical performance decision record
- NU 617 Unit 4: Learner remediation plan
- NU 617 Unit 5: Advising and referral protocol
- NU 617 Unit 7: Faculty scholarship plan
- NU 617 Unit 8: Appointment and promotion dossier
- NU 726 Unit 6: Interprofessional collaboration analysis
- NU 730 Unit 6: Budget impact analysis
- NU 760 Unit 6: Dissemination plan
- NU 780 Unit 6: Coalition and partnership plan
NU 617 Unit 6 questions, answered
Do I need to know how curriculum committees actually work?
Enough to write for one, which the unit readings generally supply. What a proposal has to reflect is that a committee approves or declines a specific item, that its members represent courses your change will affect, and that some decisions travel onward to a higher body. Where you can describe your own program's structure, say which body would hold the final vote.
How big should the proposed change be?
Small enough to argue completely. Adding a simulation requirement to one course, resequencing two courses, or changing a progression rule can each be evidenced, traced and costed inside one submission. A proposal to redesign an entire program turns general at exactly the point where a committee would begin asking questions, and the effects section is where that shows first.
Where do accreditation standards come from?
From the body that accredits the program, and from the current version of the standards rather than a summary of them. Nursing programs commonly answer to a national nursing accreditor and to a state board of nursing, and those requirements are not identical. Cite the standard by its own numbering where you can, and check the issuing body's current publication instead of relying on a textbook.
Where can I find a free NU 617 Unit 6 sample paper?
This page holds the complete NU 617 Unit 6 clinical judgment curriculum proposal free, from the decision requested to displaced content, cost and evaluation. A custom proposal can address the change your own program needs.
How do I write a curriculum change proposal for a nursing program?
State the change and the decision requested, show program data and literature, describe one session, list affected courses and displaced content, address accreditation, cost and evaluation, and name risks. This sample does that for three medical-surgical courses.