| Course | NU 635 Curriculum Development and Evaluation |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Curriculum revision proposal |
| Length | About 1,010 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MSN Nurse Educator |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU 635 Unit 7
Proposal to Replace the NUR 300 Theory Paper With Three Staged Assignments, Beginning Fall 2026
Student Name
Department of Nursing, Herzing University
NU 635: Curriculum Development and Evaluation
Instructor Name
March 6, 2026
Proposal to Replace the NUR 300 Theory Paper With Three Staged Assignments, Beginning Fall 2026
The Request
In NUR 300 Professional Transition, the first course in the composite online RN-to-BSN program, replace the single 2,500-word nursing theory paper due in week 6 with three shorter staged assignments, each returned with feedback before the next is due, and add two embedded writing center workshops. The course's credits, outcomes, and place in the curriculum map are unchanged. The change would begin with the first fall 2026 session. The faculty are asked to approve the change at this meeting so that the course can be rebuilt over the summer.
The Program's Own Evidence
Measure 2 in the program's metrics specification, first-course retention, has missed its 90% target for two years: 76% of students who began NUR 300 in 2024 and 79% in 2025 enrolled in the next course within one session. The advising office contacted the 22 students from 2025 who did not continue, and 14 of them, about two thirds, named the theory paper as a main reason, often in similar words: it was the first academic paper they had written in years, it was due while they were still learning the online platform, and they received feedback only after it was graded. Rubric data support their account. On the writing criteria of the theory paper, 40% of students scored below proficient, and those students were much less likely to continue. Students who stayed and did well often had written papers recently for other courses.
Retention in online programs is shaped by early course experiences, including how well students are supported with the academic demands they meet first (Bawa, 2016), and working RN-to-BSN students name course load and competing obligations among the reasons they delay completion (Iheduru-Anderson, 2021). The evidence here points to one assignment in one course, early in the program, as a specific and fixable barrier.
The Change in Detail
Assignment 1, week 2: a 500-word reflection on how the student's practice has changed since licensure, using one course reading. Feedback within five days, focused on structure and citation.
Assignment 2, week 4: an annotated summary of two sources on a nursing theory relevant to the student's practice setting, 600 words. Feedback within five days, focused on using sources accurately.
Assignment 3, week 7: a 1,200-word analysis applying the chosen theory to a situation from the student's own practice, building on the first two. This replaces the theory paper as the course's major written assessment and carries the same weight.
Writing center workshops in weeks 1 and 3, 45 minutes each, recorded for students who cannot attend live, covering academic writing expectations and citation. Total written work falls from 2,500 to 2,300 words, but the main change is that students receive feedback twice before their largest assignment.
What It Costs
Content that leaves: the theory paper required a comparison of two nursing theories; the new sequence examines one theory in more depth. The comparison of theories was not linked to any program outcome, and no later course relies on it. Map cells: none move. NUR 300 continues to introduce the professional development and policy outcomes, through assignment 1 and an unchanged scope-of-practice reading.
Faculty time: two additional feedback cycles add about 20 minutes per student per cycle, roughly 17 hours per section of 25 students each session. The program director has agreed to reduce the section size from 25 to 22 students when the change begins, which partly offsets the time. Writing center time: two workshops per session, which the writing center has agreed to provide at no charge.
Students already enrolled: students who have completed NUR 300 are unaffected. Students enrolled in NUR 300 during the summer 2026 session complete the current version. No student will take both versions.
Who Was Consulted
The three faculty who teach NUR 300 drafted the staged assignments together and support the change; one raised the concern about grading time that led to the section size agreement. The NUR 330 course lead reviewed the new sequence and confirmed that it prepares students for the appraisal paper in that course at least as well as the theory paper did. The writing center director agreed to the workshops. Two current students and one recent graduate reviewed the assignment instructions and suggested clearer wording for assignment 2, which has been adopted.
Implementation Timeline
April: approval by the faculty. May and June: the NUR 300 team builds the three assignments, rubrics, and feedback templates in the learning management system, and records the two workshops. July: the course lead and one faculty member outside the course review the rebuilt course against the NUR 300 objectives. August: faculty teaching the course complete a one-hour orientation to the feedback cycle. First fall session: the revised course runs, with the course lead reporting any problems to the committee at mid-session.
How the Change Will Be Judged
The same measure that prompted the proposal will judge it. The committee will review first-course retention for the first three sessions after the change, with the target of 90%, and writing criterion scores on assignment 3 compared with the theory paper's scores. The advising office will continue to contact students who do not continue and record their reasons. Because retention varies from session to session, the committee will not judge the change on a single session; if retention has not improved after three sessions, the committee will review whether the barrier lies elsewhere in the course, such as the online platform orientation.
Why Not Other Options
Two alternatives were considered. Removing the writing requirement from NUR 300 entirely would improve retention but would move the problem to NUR 330, where students must write an appraisal paper with no preparation. Requiring a separate writing course before admission would add time and cost to a program whose students already name time as their main barrier. The staged approach keeps the expectation and changes the support around it, which is consistent with the program's commitment to meeting working nurses where they are (Keating & DeBoor, 2018).
References
Bawa, P. (2016). Retention in online courses: Exploring issues and solutions. A literature review. SAGE Open, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015621777
Iheduru-Anderson, K. C. (2021). Students' perspectives of factors related to delayed completion of online RN-BSN programs. BMC Nursing, 20, Article 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-021-00574-7
Keating, S. B., & DeBoor, S. S. (2018). Curriculum development and evaluation in nursing education (4th ed.). Springer Publishing.
What the NU 635 Unit 7 instructions ask for
Unit 7 asks you to propose a revision to a nursing curriculum based on evaluation data. Expect to state the request, present the program's evidence, describe the change in detail, identify costs including content that leaves, describe consultation, set a timeline, plan evaluation and consider alternatives. Many versions ask you to use a measure from your earlier metrics specification. Check whether your section expects a real committee structure. The strongest proposals use the program's own data to show the problem and the same measure to judge the fix. Be honest about trade-offs, since every change displaces something. Consulting the faculty who teach the course shows the change is workable and gives the committee confidence it will be implemented as written.
How the NU 635 Unit 7 example is put together
The proposal opens with the request in a paragraph, naming the course, what changes and when. The evidence section uses the retention measure and exit survey findings. The change is described assignment by assignment, with weeks, lengths and feedback. The cost section is honest about content that leaves and grading time that increases. The consultation section names who was involved and the concern one faculty member raised. A timeline runs from approval to the first term. The evaluation section uses the same measure that prompted the proposal, with a target and review date. The alternatives section explains why removing the writing requirement or adding a writing course were rejected, which shows the choice was considered rather than assumed.
Reading the NU 635 Unit 7 rubric
A revision proposal at Herzing is usually graded on its rationale, its description of the change, costs and trade-offs, stakeholder consultation, implementation, evaluation and writing. Evidence points reward the program's own data tied to a defined measure. Description criteria look for enough detail to implement. Trade-offs draw close reading, because graders want displaced content and added workload stated plainly rather than hidden. Consultation points go to faculty involvement with concerns addressed. Implementation criteria reward a dated timeline. Evaluation earns credit when the same measure judges the change, with a target. Alternatives may be scored within rationale. Bawa's review of online retention and Keating and DeBoor belong in the APA 7 references.
NU 635 Unit 7 help before you submit
Revision proposals in Unit 7 commonly lose points by proposing a change without program data showing the problem. Another frequent problem is ignoring what the change costs, especially faculty grading time. Students often skip consultation. Evaluation uses a different measure from the one that prompted the change, so success cannot be judged. Alternatives are not considered. Timelines are vague, such as next year. The change is described in general terms, such as more scaffolding, without assignments and weeks. Finally, link the proposal to your earlier evaluation work, because graders look for a curriculum process in which measures lead to revisions and revisions are judged by the same measures.
Get a NU 635 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 7 instructions and the rubric from your NU 635 classroom, naming the change on the table and where it would land. We write a custom example with the request stated first, local evidence attached, the displaced content named, downstream effects traced and a transition written for enrolled learners. First custom sample free, back 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 5: Standards gap analysis
- NU 635 Unit 6: Program metrics specification
- NU 635 Unit 8: Curriculum design and evaluation package
- NSG 520 Unit 7: Plain language mechanism explainer
- NSG 521 Unit 7: Problem prioritization worksheet
- NU 600 Unit 7: Examination item analysis
- NU 617 Unit 7: Faculty scholarship plan
NU 635 Unit 7 questions, answered
How large should the proposed change be?
Small enough to carry through every section, which usually means one course, one sequence position or one block of content rather than a redesign of the program. A modest change lets you name the displaced hours, the affected map cells and the transition precisely. A sweeping revision forces generalities everywhere, and specificity is where the marks sit in this one.
Do I need a real committee structure?
Name the approval route in whatever form your instructions allow. Describing a plausible path, from a program faculty group onward to whatever body approves catalog changes, is enough to show the proposal has been aimed at somebody. What matters is that the document knows who decides, since a request addressed to nobody in particular reads as an opinion piece instead.
What if the change would affect accreditation?
Then say so explicitly and treat it as a constraint rather than a footnote. Note which requirement the change touches, what notification or approval it might trigger, and confirm current expectations with the accrediting body itself. Nothing in an example should be relied on as a statement of what a specific accreditor requires, and instructors generally expect that caution to be visible in the writing.
Where can I find a free NU 635 Unit 7 sample paper?
The full NU 635 Unit 7 staged assignments proposal can be read free here, from the retention data to costs, timeline and alternatives. A custom proposal can address the revision your own program's data support.
How do I use program evaluation data to propose a curriculum change?
Name the measure that missed its target, show what the data point to, describe the change, state its costs and judge it by the same measure. This sample uses first-course retention of 76 percent against a 90 percent target.