| Course | NU 635 Curriculum Development and Evaluation |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Standards gap analysis |
| Length | About 580 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MSN Nurse Educator |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU 635 Unit 5
Gap Analysis: An Online RN-to-BSN Curriculum Against Domain 3, Population Health, of the 2021 AACN Essentials
Student Name
Department of Nursing, Herzing University
NU 635: Curriculum Development and Evaluation
Instructor Name
February 20, 2026
Gap Analysis: An Online RN-to-BSN Curriculum Against Domain 3, Population Health, of the 2021 AACN Essentials
Standard and Scope
Standard: the 2021 Essentials published by the national association of baccalaureate and graduate nursing schools, Domain 3, Population Health, entry-level professional nursing competencies (American Association of Colleges of Nursing [AACN], 2021). The domain contains six competencies, each with several sub-competencies; this analysis treats each competency as an element and reviewed the sub-competencies within it. Scope: all ten nursing courses in the composite program. Population health was chosen first because the program's philosophy names it as a core commitment, which makes any gap here more serious than elsewhere.
Method
For each element, I asked course faculty where it was addressed and then checked the syllabus, assignment instructions, rubric, and a sample of graded student work from the last two terms. An element counted as covered only if an assignment required students to perform it and the rubric scored it. Faculty belief that a topic was discussed, without an assignment or rubric line, counted as partial coverage at most. This approach follows the logic of gap analysis as a method for comparing the competencies a curriculum intends to develop with those it actually develops (Fater, 2013).
Element by Element
Each element is rated covered, partial, or not covered, with the evidence found.
| Element (Domain 3 competency) | Where faculty believed it was addressed | Evidence found | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.1 Manage population health | NUR 360, 400, 405 | Community assessment in NUR 405, scored by rubric; incidence and prevalence assignment in NUR 400 | Covered |
| 3.2 Engage in effective partnerships | NUR 405 | Practice experience with a community agency; rubric scores the student's work with the agency contact | Covered |
| 3.3 Consider the socioeconomic impact of the delivery of health care | NUR 340, 400 | NUR 340 discussion on rural hospital finance; no assignment requires students to analyze costs or economic effects on a population | Partial |
| 3.4 Advance equitable population health policy | NUR 340, 400 | Policy brief in NUR 400 scored by rubric; rubric does not address equity explicitly | Partial |
| 3.5 Demonstrate advocacy strategies | NUR 300, 340, 400 | Policy brief addressed to a legislator in NUR 400 includes an advocacy request, scored | Covered |
| 3.6 Advance preparedness to protect population health during disasters and public health emergencies | NUR 400 (one faculty member thought) | One optional reading in NUR 400; no assignment, no rubric line | Not covered |
What Faculty Believed Versus What Was Found
Faculty believed all six elements were covered. The evidence supports that belief for three. The difference is instructive: in each partial or missing case, the topic had been discussed or assigned as reading, but no student was required to do anything with it that was then assessed. Disaster preparedness is the clearest example. One faculty member recalled teaching it; the syllabus shows a single optional reading, and no student work from the last two terms addresses it. For a rural region with flooding and wildfire risk and small, stretched health systems, this is a meaningful gap, not a technicality.
Closing the Gaps
Element 3.6, not covered: add a required module to NUR 400 on the nurse's role in disaster preparedness and recovery, with an assignment in which students analyze their own county's hazard plan and identify the gaps for a vulnerable population. Estimated cost: one week of NUR 400 content, displacing a review week.
Element 3.3, partial: revise the NUR 400 community assessment to require an estimate of the cost of the health problem to the community and to the local health system, using available data, scored in the rubric.
Element 3.4, partial: add a rubric line to the NUR 400 policy brief that scores whether the brief identifies which groups the policy affects unequally and how.
All three changes fall in NUR 400, which raises a separate concern: one course now carries much of the domain. The curriculum committee should consider whether NUR 340 could take on the socioeconomic element instead, to spread the load.
Limits of This Analysis
The analysis covers one of ten domains, and the method relies on documents and a sample of student work, not on observation of teaching. An element rated covered could still be taught weakly; the rating means only that students are required to perform it and are scored on it. The remaining domains will be analyzed on the same method over the next year, in the order of the program's philosophy: leadership and evidence-based practice first. The results will inform the curriculum revision and the self-study for the program's next accreditation review (Keating & DeBoor, 2018).
References
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2021). The essentials: Core competencies for professional nursing education. American Association of Colleges of Nursing.
Fater, K. H. (2013). Gap analysis: A method to assess core competency development in the curriculum. Nursing Education Perspectives, 34(2), 101-105. https://doi.org/10.1097/00024776-201303000-00007
Keating, S. B., & DeBoor, S. S. (2018). Curriculum development and evaluation in nursing education (4th ed.). Springer Publishing.
The Herzing NU 635 Unit 5 instructions
Unit 5 asks you to analyze a curriculum against a professional standard and identify gaps. Expect to state the standard and scope, describe your method, rate each element with evidence, compare what faculty believe with what you find, propose ways to close gaps and acknowledge limits. Many versions use the AACN Essentials, NLN competencies or a specialty standard. Check whether your section limits the analysis to one domain; a single domain analyzed thoroughly is usually better than ten skimmed. Evidence should come from documents and student work, not from faculty assurance alone. Gaps can often be closed within existing courses, so adding a course is rarely the first recommendation. State how you would confirm each fix worked.
Inside the NU 635 Unit 5 example
The analysis opens by naming the standard, the domain and the courses examined. The method section explains the two-step check, asking faculty and then verifying in documents and graded work. A table lists each element with its rating and the evidence behind it. The section comparing belief with findings is the most revealing, showing that faculty overestimated coverage and explaining why, such as topics mentioned in a reading but never assessed. Recommendations close each gap within existing courses where possible, naming the course and the assignment. The limits section is specific about what a document review can and cannot show. Each step cites Fater's gap analysis approach, which gives the method a published basis.
Where the points sit in the NU 635 Unit 5 rubric
Herzing's rubric for a gap analysis usually covers the identification of the standard and scope, the method, the rating of elements with evidence, the analysis of findings, recommendations, limitations and writing. Evidence-based ratings carry the most weight, because a rating supported only by faculty belief does not count as an analysis. Method points reward a clear, repeatable process. Analysis criteria look for explanation of why gaps exist. Recommendation points go to specific changes tied to each gap, preferably within existing courses. Limitation points reward honest statements about scope and method. A readable table helps. The APA 7 list should include the 2021 Essentials and Fater's article on gap analysis.
NU 635 Unit 5 help: mistakes that cost points
A frequent weakness in Unit 5 gap analyses is marking elements as covered because a topic appears in a syllabus, without checking whether it is taught or assessed. Another frequent problem is relying on faculty assurance alone. Students often try to analyze every domain and end up with shallow ratings. Recommendations default to adding a new course. Limits are not discussed. The comparison between belief and evidence is skipped, though it is often the most useful finding. Finally, cite the exact edition and element numbers of the standard, because the 2021 Essentials renumbered and rewrote the earlier domains, and a reader will compare your element list against that edition.
Get a NU 635 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 5 instructions and the rubric from your NU 635 classroom, together with the standard being worked against and the program it governs. We write a custom example with the standard split into answerable elements, verdicts defined in advance, evidence tied to graded work, and remediation costed against real course hours. First custom sample free, delivered in 24 to 48 hours.
More NU 635 papers and nurse educator samples
- NU 635 Unit 1: Curriculum philosophy statement
- NU 635 Unit 2: Program outcomes framework
- NU 635 Unit 3: Curriculum map
- NU 635 Unit 4: Course sequencing plan
- NU 635 Unit 6: Program metrics specification
- NU 635 Unit 7: Curriculum revision proposal
- NU 635 Unit 8: Curriculum design and evaluation package
- NU 480 Unit 5: Collaborative agreement review
- NU 602 Unit 5: Bias and confounding review
- NU 651 Unit 5: Competing capital bid
- NU 715 Unit 5: Coverage and payment assessment
NU 635 Unit 5 questions, answered
Which standard should the analysis use?
Whichever the instructions name, and if the choice is open, the one the program would actually be reviewed against for its credential. Use the current edition, cite it properly, and check the issuing body directly rather than relying on a secondary summary, since these documents get revised and an analysis run against a superseded version reaches conclusions nobody can act on.
What counts as evidence that an element is met?
Graded work a learner produces, sitting in a course you can name, judged against something recognizable as the element in question. Attendance in a course is not evidence, and neither is a subject appearing in a schedule. Where the evidence exists but is not scored against the element, partly met is the honest verdict and it usually makes the stronger analysis anyway.
Should the analysis recommend adding courses?
Rarely, and only with the displacement named. Faculty groups can almost never grant a new course, so recommendations assuming one tend to sit unread. Closing a gap inside existing hours, by changing an assignment or moving content between courses, is both more realistic and harder to write, which is precisely why it earns more credit when it is done properly.
Where can I find a free NU 635 Unit 5 sample paper?
You can read the whole NU 635 Unit 5 population health gap analysis here for free, element by element with the evidence and fixes. A custom analysis can test your own curriculum against the domain or standard your section names.
How do I do a curriculum gap analysis against the AACN Essentials?
Choose a domain, ask faculty where each element is taught, then verify in syllabi, assignments, rubrics and graded work before rating it. This sample found faculty believed all six population health elements were covered, but evidence supported only three.