| Course | NUR 6033 Innovation in Nursing Education |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 2 |
| Paper type | Simulation scenario design |
| Length | 1,190 words, about 4 pages plus title and reference pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | American College of Education |
| Program | Ed.S. in Nursing Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NUR 6033 Module 2
Marcus, Day One: A Standardized Patient Scenario on First-Episode Psychosis and Command Hallucinations, Designed Criterion by Criterion Against Published Simulation Standards
Student Name
American College of Education
NUR6033: Innovation in Nursing Education
Module 2 Assignment
Instructor Name
July 15, 2030
The Standards Used
Among the simulation community's published best-practice standards, the one on design sets out the steps of designing a simulation-based experience, from a needs assessment and measurable objectives through the choice of modality, the scenario, fidelity, facilitation, prebriefing, debriefing and evaluation to pilot testing before full use (Watts et al., 2021). A companion standard addresses prebriefing, the preparation and briefing that establish psychological safety and a shared understanding before the scenario begins (McDermott et al., 2021). Because this scenario uses a standardized patient, it also follows the standards of the Association of Standardized Patient Educators, which address a safe work environment for actors and learners, case development, standardized patient training, program management and professional development (Lewis et al., 2017). The design below follows those standards in order.
Needs, Objectives and Modality
The needs assessment was completed in Module 1: students lack experience of conversation with a person experiencing psychosis, and many fear it. The scenario has four measurable objectives. During a 15-minute encounter, the student will introduce themselves and explain their role in a way that the patient acknowledges; respond to the patient's description of hearing voices with at least two statements that acknowledge the experience without disputing or agreeing with its content; ask directly whether the voices tell him to harm himself or others and what he does when they speak; and, when the patient becomes more distressed, set a calm limit and offer a choice. The modality, a trained standardized patient, was chosen because each objective requires a live, responsive conversation.
The Case and the Actor's File
Marcus Hill is 24, a delivery driver admitted yesterday through the emergency department after his sister found him awake for three nights, covering the windows of his apartment with foil. He hears two male voices that comment on what he does and tell him that his neighbors are watching him through the television. On admission he denied voices telling him to hurt anyone; this morning he told the night nurse that the voices said he should "make them stop watching." He has no prior psychiatric history, smokes cannabis most days and is guarded but not aggressive.
The actor's file describes how Marcus behaves and what changes his behavior. At the start he sits on the bed facing the door, glancing at the ceiling vent, answering briefly. If the student introduces themselves and sits at a respectful distance, he relaxes slightly. If the student says the voices are not real, he becomes more guarded and asks the student to leave. If the student asks directly about what the voices say, he hesitates, then says they tell him to make the neighbors stop, and, if asked what that means, says he does not know, he just wants them to stop. At ten minutes, regardless of the student's approach, the voices become louder, and he stands, paces and raises his voice; if the student sets a calm limit and offers a choice, such as sitting down together or going to a quieter room, he accepts. Every trigger in the file is tied to an objective, so that what the actor does tells the student, and the debriefer, what the student did.
Fidelity, Prebriefing and Facilitation
Fidelity is chosen for the objectives, not for its own sake. Physical fidelity will be moderate: a simulation room set as a psychiatric unit bedroom, without cords or loose objects, with the ceiling vent visible. Conceptual fidelity, meaning that the case is clinically coherent, and psychological fidelity, meaning that the encounter feels real, matter most, which is why the case was reviewed by a psychiatric nurse practitioner and a peer support specialist with lived experience.
The prebriefing will take ten minutes for each group of four students. It will state the objectives, explain the encounter's structure and the roles of the observers, set a fiction contract in which students agree to treat the encounter as real and faculty agree that the actor will portray the case consistently, and establish psychological safety: mistakes are expected, the debriefing will be confidential to the group, and any student can pause the encounter by raising a hand. Students will also be told that the scenario involves psychosis, so that any student with relevant personal experience can speak with faculty beforehand. Facilitation during the encounter will be minimal. A faculty member will observe from behind one-way glass and will intervene only if safety requires it or if a student freezes for more than a minute, in which case the student may take a time-out and consult peers.
The Second Encounter
Each student has two encounters, and the second is designed to build on the first rather than repeat it. The second encounter takes place on Marcus's third day. He has started an antipsychotic medication, the voices are quieter but still present, and he is tired and slowed. He tells the student that he does not want to take the medication any more because it makes him feel "like a zombie" and because he is not sure he was ever ill; the neighbors, he says, may just have been loud. The objectives shift from engagement and risk assessment to collaboration: the student should explore his concerns about the medication without dismissing them, provide accurate information about common side effects and what can be done about them, and involve him in planning what to tell the psychiatric prescriber. The actor's file again ties his responses to the student's approach. If the student insists that he must take the medication, he becomes silent and turns away; if the student asks what matters to him, he says he wants to go back to work, and the conversation can connect treatment to that goal. The second encounter lets students apply feedback from the first while meeting a new challenge that is just as common in practice: a patient whose acute symptoms are easing and who now questions the treatment. Scheduling both encounters two weeks apart allows debriefing of the first to shape the second.
Evaluation and Pilot
Each encounter will be evaluated in two ways. Faculty observers will complete a checklist of the four objectives, rating each as met, partly met or not met, and the actor, trained to give feedback from Marcus's perspective, will tell the student in two or three sentences what made him feel more or less safe. The debriefing, designed in the next module, will use both. The scenario will be pilot tested in August with four volunteer students from last year's class and two faculty members, as the design standard recommends before full implementation. The pilot will check the timing of the escalation, whether the actor's responses are consistent across students, whether the checklist can be completed reliably by two observers and whether the case is portrayed respectfully, which the peer support specialist will observe and comment on. The standardized patient standards' emphasis on a safe work environment will be applied to the actor as well: breaks every hour and a short debriefing at the end of each day.
References
Lewis, K. L., Bohnert, C. A., Gammon, W. L., Hölzer, H., Lyman, L., Smith, C., Thompson, T. M., Wallace, A., & Gliva-McConvey, G. (2017). The Association of Standardized Patient Educators (ASPE) Standards of Best Practice (SOBP). Advances in Simulation, 2, Article 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-017-0043-4
McDermott, D. S., Ludlow, J., Horsley, E., & Meakim, C. (2021). Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best Practice: Prebriefing: Preparation and briefing. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 58, 9-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.08.008
Watts, P. I., McDermott, D. S., Alinier, G., Charnetski, M., Ludlow, J., Horsley, E., Meakim, C., & Nawathe, P. A. (2021). Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best Practice: Simulation design. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 58, 14-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.08.009
Reading the NUR 6033 Module 2 instructions
NUR 6033's second module often has you build a simulation scenario to published standards. Expect to name the standards, write objectives from a needs assessment, choose and justify the modality, write the case and any role files, plan fidelity, prebriefing and facilitation, and describe evaluation. Many sections ask for a progressive or second encounter and a pilot plan. Simulation designs commonly reach five pages with the case and files attached. Canvas lists which standards must be addressed and whether the scenario must be run before submission. Some instructors also ask for a run sheet with timings for the actor and facilitator.
Inside the NUR 6033 Module 2 example
The design starts by naming the standards and why each applies, including the separate standards for standardized patient practice. Objectives are written as observable behaviors, such as asking directly about command hallucinations and safety, tied to the Module 1 need. The case section gives Marcus's history and presentation, and the actor's file specifies how he responds to each student action, with a scripted shift when a student validates his fear. The fidelity section explains choices driven by the objectives, and the prebriefing section sets a fiction contract and orientation following the prebriefing standard. A second encounter on day three adds new objectives and responses. The evaluation section combines faculty ratings with the actor's feedback, and a pilot checks timing, realism and actor well-being.
Reading the NUR 6033 Module 2 rubric
Scenario designs are graded criterion by criterion. Standards credit requires the governing standards named from their published sources. Objective marks reward measurable, observable objectives tied to a need. The case and actor file row usually counts most: enough detail for realism and responses scripted to each objective. Fidelity and prebriefing marks go to choices justified by objectives and a prebriefing that follows its standard. A progressive second encounter earns credit for supporting skill development. Evaluation and pilot plans, including actor well-being, finish the rubric alongside APA 7. Watch too for actor well-being in the pilot plan, since portraying psychosis repeatedly can be draining. A second encounter with new objectives shows the scenario supports growing skill.
Common NUR 6033 Module 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Scenario designs most often write a rich case and vague objectives. Another frequent weakness is an actor file that says act psychotic without scripted responses. Students also skip prebriefing or treat it as a reading of rules. Write objectives as behaviors. Script how the patient responds to good and poor communication. Justify fidelity by what students must practice. Use a fiction contract. Pilot the scenario and check the actor's experience. If your scenario is in pediatrics, labor and delivery or end-of-life care, the desk can prepare a simulation design for it. Script at least one response to a poor student reply as well as to good ones.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official American College of Education document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More NUR 6033 and Ed.S. in Nursing Education sample papers
- NUR 6033 Module 1: Technology Needs Analysis
- NUR 6033 Module 3: Debriefing and Facilitation Plan
- NUR 6033 Module 4: Gamified Learning Activity Design
- NUR 6033 Module 5: Technology Implementation Plan
- NUR 6033 Module 6: Innovation Evaluation Plan
- CAP 6003 Module 3: Intervention Design
- NUR 6023 Module 1: Active Learning Strategy Analysis
- NUR 6023 Module 3: Deep Learning Strategy Analysis
- NUR 6053 Module 6: Program Evaluation Report
NUR 6033 Module 2 questions, answered
Which standards should a simulation design follow?
The Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best Practice are widely used in nursing, with separate standards for design, prebriefing, facilitation and debriefing. Standardized patient scenarios also draw on the ASPE standards.
What goes in a standardized patient case file?
The patient's history and presentation, how the actor should behave, and how the behavior changes in response to what the learner does, with each trigger tied to a learning objective.
Where can I find a free NUR 6033 Module 2 sample paper?
No sign-up needed. The NUR 6033 Module 2 simulation scenario design above covers "The Standards Used", then "Fidelity, Prebriefing and Facilitation", then "Evaluation and Pilot".
What is a fiction contract in simulation?
It is an agreement made in prebriefing that the facilitator will make the simulation as real as possible and learners will engage as if it were real, while acknowledging its limits.
How many objectives should a simulation scenario have?
Usually three to five. More than that is hard to observe in a short encounter, and each objective needs scripted responses and a way to evaluate it.