| Course | NU 617 The Nurse Educator Roles |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Faculty scholarship plan |
| Length | About 630 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MSN Nurse Educator |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU 617 Unit 7
Three-Year Scholarship Plan for a Clinical-Track Assistant Professor: Evaluating Unfolding Clinical Judgment Cases in a BSN Curriculum
Student Name
Department of Nursing, Herzing University
NU 617: The Nurse Educator Roles
Instructor Name
March 24, 2026
Three-Year Scholarship Plan for a Clinical-Track Assistant Professor: Evaluating Unfolding Clinical Judgment Cases in a BSN Curriculum
What the Appointment Requires
The faculty handbook, in its section on clinical-track appointment and promotion, requires clinical-track faculty to produce "at least one peer-reviewed scholarly product per academic year," defined to include peer-reviewed presentations, publications, funded grants, and peer-reviewed educational materials. Promotion to associate professor on the clinical track, eligible after six years, requires evidence of a coherent line of scholarship with some dissemination beyond the university. The program defines scholarship broadly, following the widely used model that recognizes the scholarship of discovery, integration, application, and teaching (Boyer, 1990), and the national academic nursing position that scholarship in nursing includes all four (American Association of Colleges of Nursing [AACN], 2018). The plan below is built on those written requirements, not on a guess about expectations.
Focus
One line of inquiry: the effect of unfolding clinical judgment cases on BSN students' clinical judgment and examination performance. This is the scholarship of teaching. It builds directly on the curriculum change I proposed to the committee, which is being implemented in three medical-surgical courses in fall 2026, and it requires the evaluation data the program is already committed to collecting. A focus tied to my teaching means that the same hours serve both my courses and my scholarship.
Products, With Dates
Each product is named, with a target venue and a date.
| Year | Product | Target venue | Submission date |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (2026-27) | Poster: design and first-term implementation of the case sessions, with student evaluation data | Regional nursing education conference | Abstract by January 2027 |
| 1 | Institutional review board determination for the evaluation study | University review board | June 2026, before the fall term |
| 2 (2027-28) | Manuscript: one-year evaluation of case-based item performance compared with the previous cohort | Peer-reviewed nursing education journal | February 2028 |
| 2 | Peer-reviewed educational materials: three cases submitted to an open case repository | A peer-reviewed open repository for teaching materials | May 2028 |
| 3 (2028-29) | Podium presentation of licensure item-level outcomes for the first full cohort | National nursing education conference | Abstract by fall 2028 |
Where the Hours Come From
My workload brief estimated about 47 hours in a typical fall week, of which 3 are reserved for scholarship. That is about 90 hours across two 15-week semesters. Summer adds about 60 hours, unpaid on a nine-month appointment, which I accept as part of the job. Over three years, that is roughly 450 hours if the weekly time is protected. The table below estimates the hours each product needs.
| Product | Estimated hours | When |
|---|---|---|
| Review board application | 12 | June 2026 |
| Data collection setup (item tagging, survey) | 15 | Summer 2026 |
| Poster | 25 | Fall 2026 to spring 2027 |
| Manuscript | 80 | Summer 2027 to February 2028 |
| Three repository cases | 30 | Spring 2028 |
| Podium presentation | 30 | Fall 2028 to spring 2029 |
Why the Margin Matters
The products need about 192 hours in total, well under the 450 available. The margin is deliberate. Manuscripts are often rejected and revised, review boards ask questions, and conference abstracts are declined; experienced colleagues told me to plan for at least double the hours a product seems to need. The margin also absorbs the terms when teaching demands spike and the weekly three hours disappear. If the first year runs to plan, the spare hours will go toward a small internal grant application in year two to fund a research assistant for data entry.
Standards the Work Will Be Judged By
Scholarship of teaching is sometimes treated as less rigorous than other scholarship. To guard against that, the plan uses the standards commonly applied to all forms of scholarship: six standards Glassick (2000) set out, running from stated goals and preparation through method and results to presentation and critique. In practice, this means a stated research question, a review board determination, a comparison group, and a manuscript that reports limitations, rather than a description of a teaching innovation that students liked.
Collaborators and Support
Two of the five other faculty teaching the affected courses have agreed to co-author; one has published in nursing education and will mentor me on the manuscript. The university's teaching center offers a writing group that meets every two weeks, which I will join in fall 2026. The program's professional development fund will cover one conference registration a year.
Risks and Responses
If the curriculum change is delayed, the year-one poster can describe the design and faculty development process instead of student outcomes. If the one-year results are null, they are still publishable as an honest evaluation and are useful to other programs making the same change. If teaching demands grow, the repository cases, which serve my courses directly, are the product I will keep, and the podium presentation is the one I will move.
References
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2018). Defining scholarship for academic nursing [Position statement]. American Association of Colleges of Nursing.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Glassick, C. E. (2000). Boyer's expanded definitions of scholarship, the standards for assessing scholarship, and the elusiveness of the scholarship of teaching. Academic Medicine, 75(9), 877-880. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200009000-00007
The Herzing NU 617 Unit 7 instructions
Unit 7 asks you to create a scholarship plan for a faculty role. Expect to identify appointment or promotion requirements, choose a focus, list products with venues and dates, estimate time, describe standards for quality, name collaborators and address risks. Many versions ask you to use Boyer's model of scholarship, which includes teaching, discovery, integration and application. Check whether your section expects a specific time span; three years is common. Scholarship does not have to mean original research, but it should be public, peer-reviewed and open to critique. Linking scholarship to work you already do, such as a curriculum change, makes the plan realistic. Time estimates should come from your actual workload, not wishful thinking.
Inside the NU 617 Unit 7 example
The plan opens with the handbook requirement quoted, so every later choice is measured against it. The focus section names one line of inquiry and explains why it fits the clinical track. Products are listed in a table with venue and date, moving from a poster to manuscripts. The hours section is the plan's distinctive feature, using the workload brief to show time available and comparing it with time needed. A short section explains the margin, since manuscripts are often rejected and revised. Standards are drawn from Glassick, which guards against the view that teaching scholarship is less rigorous. Collaborators and support are named by role. Risks are paired with responses, so the plan survives a delayed curriculum change or a rejected manuscript.
Reading the NU 617 Unit 7 rubric
Herzing's rubric for a scholarship plan generally covers alignment with appointment criteria, the focus, products and timeline, feasibility, quality standards, collaboration and writing. Alignment points require the actual handbook criteria to be stated, not assumed. Focus criteria reward a coherent line of inquiry rather than scattered projects. The products table is read closely: each item needs a named venue, a type and a realistic date for the top band. Feasibility points go to time estimates tied to the workload the writer actually carries. Quality standards are scored on use of a recognized framework such as Glassick's six criteria. Collaboration and risk may be credited together. The APA 7 list should include Boyer's Scholarship Reconsidered and Glassick's criteria article.
Common NU 617 Unit 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Scholarship plans in Unit 7 commonly lose points by listing products without venues or dates, so no reviewer can tell whether it is on track. Another frequent problem is a plan with several unrelated projects, which does not build a line of scholarship a promotion committee can recognize. Students often ignore time, as if scholarship happened outside the workweek. Appointment criteria are paraphrased loosely or missing. Quality standards are not mentioned. Risks are left out, so a single rejected manuscript derails the timeline. Plans sometimes promise more products than the time allows. Finally, connect the plan to your teaching or practice, because graders look for scholarship that grows from the faculty role rather than a separate research agenda the clinical track does not support.
Get a NU 617 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 7 instructions and the rubric from your NU 617 classroom, plus the appointment type your plan belongs to and any expectations your program has published. We write a custom example with the requirement quoted, one line of inquiry narrowed, products tied to venues and dates, and the hours 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 6: Curriculum change proposal
- NU 617 Unit 8: Appointment and promotion dossier
- NU 651 Unit 7: Governance and committee review
- NU 715 Unit 7: Equipment and connectivity standard
- NSG 520 Unit 7: Plain language mechanism explainer
- NSG 521 Unit 7: Problem prioritization worksheet
NU 617 Unit 7 questions, answered
Does scholarship have to mean original research?
Not in most nursing education appointments. Boyer's categories are widely used precisely because discovery is only one of them, and the scholarship of teaching, of integration and of application all produce recognized products. What matters is that the work is peer reviewed or otherwise publicly evaluated and that it leaves evidence behind. Check how your institution defines it, since the local definition governs at review.
How far ahead should the plan run?
Take the horizon from the instructions where one is given. A three-year plan is common because it matches the interval many appointments are reviewed over, and it is long enough for a project to reach publication. Keep the first year specific to the month and let the later years hold direction rather than detail, since certainty at that distance is not credible.
Can a doctoral project become the first scholarship product?
It frequently is, and saying so makes the plan more realistic rather than less. A completed project can generate a manuscript, a conference abstract and an internal presentation, and those are genuinely different pieces of work rather than one thing submitted three times. Say what each version is for and who its audience is, and check any requirements your program sets about publishing from it.
Where can I find a free NU 617 Unit 7 sample paper?
The full NU 617 Unit 7 three-year scholarship plan is posted here at no cost, products, hours and quality standards included. Ask for a custom plan if your appointment criteria or focus differ.
Does faculty scholarship in nursing have to be original research?
No. Boyer's model includes the scholarship of teaching, integration and application as well as discovery. This sample plans scholarship of teaching that evaluates a curriculum change, judged by Glassick's criteria for clear goals, methods and dissemination.