| Course | NUR 6033 Innovation in Nursing Education |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Innovation evaluation plan |
| Length | 1,200 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 6
Did the Standardized Patients Change What Students Do on the Unit? A Four-Level Evaluation Plan for a Mental Health Simulation Program That Refuses to Stop at Satisfaction
Student Name
American College of Education
NUR6033: Innovation in Nursing Education
Module 6 Assignment
Instructor Name
August 12, 2030
The Question and the Framework
Over this course I have analyzed a learning need, designed a standardized patient scenario, planned its debriefing, built a gamified activity and planned the expansion of the standardized patient program to three courses. Permanent funding now depends on what this evaluation shows. The question the evaluation must answer is not whether students like the encounters, which the pilot already showed, but whether they change what students do with real patients.
Kirkpatrick's framework classifies the outcomes of training into four levels: reaction, learning, behavior and results. A systematic review of 13 studies evaluating debriefing after high-fidelity simulation in health care education found a paucity of studies at the highest levels of evaluation, identifying this as an area where research is needed (Johnston et al., 2018). Most simulation evaluations stop at reaction and learning because behavior and results are harder to measure. This plan tries to reach all four, while being honest about how firmly each can be measured. Satisfaction is where evaluation is easiest and where it matters least.
Level One: Reaction
After every encounter and its debriefing, students will complete a brief questionnaire rating relevance, realism, psychological safety and the usefulness of the debriefing on five-point scales, with one open question on what the student will do differently. Reaction data are useful for improving the program, for example by identifying a debriefer whose sessions students find unsafe, but they will not be used as evidence that the program works. A review of published simulation evaluation instruments found that many instruments existed but that evidence of their reliability and validity varied, and recommended that educators choose instruments with reported psychometric evidence (Adamson et al., 2013). For reaction I will use a brief locally developed survey, since the stakes are low, but for learning and behavior I will use instruments with reported evidence.
Level Two: Learning
Learning will be measured by performance, not by self-report. For the mental health encounters, faculty will score each student's first and second encounters against the four objectives, as in the pilot, with two raters scoring a random 20% of encounters to check agreement. I will also compare the cohort's scores on the mental health course's therapeutic communication examination items with the two cohorts before the program began. For the health assessment and leadership encounters, each course's faculty will define a comparable checklist. The main learning measure is the change between first and second encounters within each student, which shows whether practice with debriefing produces improvement, and the comparison with previous cohorts, which shows whether the program adds to what the course achieved before.
The published evidence gives a sense of what to expect. A meta-analysis of 62 studies of mental health simulation found that standardized participants produced large pretest-to-posttest gains in competence and confidence and reduced anxiety, and were particularly effective for clinical preparedness (Zhang & Wang, 2025). Most of those gains were measured within the simulation itself, so a similar within-student improvement here would confirm that the program works as others have, but it would not yet show that the improvement carries into practice. That question belongs to the next level.
Level Three: Behavior
Behavior means what students do in clinical practice, and measuring it is the heart of the plan. During the four-hour psychiatric placement that follows the encounters, the preceptor, a staff nurse, will complete a short rating of each student's interaction with a patient experiencing psychosis on the same four behaviors as the simulation objectives: introducing themselves and their role, responding to the patient's experience without disputing its content, asking about risk and setting limits calmly. Preceptors will be given a 15-minute orientation to the rating. To give the ratings a comparison, preceptors on the same unit will rate a cohort of students from the program's evening section, who will receive the standardized patient encounters one term later, during their placements this term. The two groups are similar in admission criteria and curriculum, although not randomized. A difference between the two groups in preceptor ratings would be the strongest evidence the evaluation can produce that the encounters change behavior.
Level Four: Results
Results are the effects on patients and the organization, and here the plan must be most modest. A four-hour student placement will not change patient outcomes on a psychiatric unit in any measurable way. What can be measured is a result that matters to the program and its partners. The psychiatric partner reduced student access because students were seen as a burden on a stressed unit. I will ask the unit's nurse manager to rate, on a short survey at the end of each term, whether students were helpful, neutral or burdensome, and whether the unit would accept more student hours. An increase in the partner's willingness to host students would be a real result for the program, since it addresses the original problem of shrinking placements. I will also track whether graduates who choose psychiatric nursing as their first job increase over three years, recognizing that many factors affect that choice.
Ethics and Data Handling
Evaluation data about students are educational records and must be handled accordingly. Encounter scores, preceptor ratings and survey responses will be stored in the program's secure system, identified by study number rather than name for analysis, and only the simulation committee will have access to identified data. Because the evaluation may be published, the plan will go to the university's human subjects review before any data are gathered, and students will be asked for consent to include their de-identified data in any publication; students who decline will still take part in the encounters, and their data will be used only for internal program improvement. Preceptors will be told that their ratings are for program evaluation, not for student grades, which should make them more candid, and the ratings will not be shared with course faculty in identified form. Video recordings of encounters, used in debriefing, will be deleted at the end of each term unless a student consents to their use in faculty training. These steps take time to set up, but they protect students, allow the results to be shared beyond the program and prevent the evaluation from compromising the psychological safety the encounters depend on.
Analysis, Reporting and Limits
Within-student change in encounter scores will be analyzed with paired comparisons, and differences between the program and comparison groups in preceptor ratings with independent comparisons, reporting effect sizes as well as statistical significance, since the samples will be modest. Qualitative comments from surveys will be analyzed for recurring themes. Results will be reported each term to the simulation committee and each year to the curriculum committee and the dean, and the full evaluation after two years will be prepared as a scholarly paper. The plan has limits. The comparison groups are not randomized, preceptors may know which students received the encounters, and the four-hour placement gives only a brief view of behavior. I will report these limits alongside the findings, because a program funded on overstated evidence is vulnerable when the next budget is set.
References
Adamson, K. A., Kardong-Edgren, S., & Willhaus, J. (2013). An updated review of published simulation evaluation instruments. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 9(9), e393-e400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2012.09.004
Johnston, S., Coyer, F. M., & Nash, R. (2018). Kirkpatrick's evaluation of simulation and debriefing in health care education: A systematic review. Journal of Nursing Education, 57(7), 393-398. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20180618-03
Zhang, X., & Wang, H. (2025). Comparative effectiveness of mental health simulation techniques in nursing education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 34(1), Article e13502. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.13502
Reading the NUR 6033 Module 6 instructions
NUR 6033 Module 6 asks for a plan to evaluate an educational innovation. Most prompts expect an evaluation question, a framework, measures and methods for each level or component, comparisons where possible, ethics and data handling, analysis, reporting and limitations. Many sections push you to go beyond learner satisfaction to learning, behavior or outcomes. An evaluation plan of this kind usually fills five to six pages, often with a measures table. Canvas specifies the framework and whether the plan must evaluate the innovation implemented in Module 5. Some instructors also ask for the evaluation instruments as appendices, so choose them early and check their permissions.
How the NUR 6033 Module 6 example is put together
The plan opens with the question, whether standardized patient practice changes students' conversations with patients in clinical settings, and with Kirkpatrick's model and evidence that few simulation evaluations reach behavior. The reaction section uses a short survey and explains when a validated instrument is needed. The learning section rates observed performance in a second encounter against the objectives, checks agreement between raters and compares within students and against earlier cohorts. The behavior section asks preceptors to rate the same behaviors during real care and uses the phased rollout to create a concurrent comparison group. The results section admits patient outcomes cannot be measured and chooses organizational results instead. Ethics, recordings, analysis, reporting and limits finish the plan.
Where the points sit in the NUR 6033 Module 6 rubric
Evaluation plans are graded on reach and rigor. Question credit requires behavior change at the center. Framework marks reward the model explained and evidence on why reaching higher levels matters. Each level earns credit when measured appropriately: reaction with its limits stated, learning through observed performance with reliability checks, behavior in the clinical setting with a comparison group. The results row rewards honesty about what can be measured. Ethics and data handling marks go to consent, privacy and separation from grading. Analysis matched to each comparison, reporting and limits, together with APA 7, round out the marks. Credit also goes to separating evaluation data from course grades, which protects students and the honesty of the data.
NUR 6033 Module 6 help: mistakes that cost points
Simulation evaluations most often stop at a satisfaction survey. Another frequent weakness is measuring learning with a knowledge test when the goal was a skill. Students also claim patient outcome effects they cannot measure. Measure the behavior you taught. Ask preceptors to rate it in real care. Use the rollout to create a comparison group. Separate evaluation data from grades. State limits plainly. If your innovation is a gamified course, a virtual reality program or a new clinical model, an evaluation plan for that innovation can be prepared on request. Train preceptors on the rating form before the term begins. Keep recordings only as long as needed.
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 2: Simulation Scenario Design
- NUR 6033 Module 3: Debriefing and Facilitation Plan
- NUR 6033 Module 4: Gamified Learning Activity Design
- NUR 6033 Module 5: Technology Implementation Plan
- NUR 6003 Module 1: Health Care Trend Analysis
- NUR 6063 Module 3: Accreditation Follow-Up Plan
- NUR 6003 Module 6: Synthesis of Influencing Forces
- NUR 6063 Module 6: Vision and Future-Casting Plan
NUR 6033 Module 6 questions, answered
What does NUR6033 Module 6 usually ask for?
NUR6033 Module 6 frequently asks for an evaluation plan for an educational innovation, using a named model and specifying measures, design and analysis. Your classroom's instructions decide the model.
What are Kirkpatrick's four levels?
Reaction, learning, behavior and results. Most simulation evaluations stop at the first two; stronger plans also measure behavior in practice and results for patients or organizations.
How do I measure behavior after simulation?
Ask clinical preceptors to rate the same behaviors the simulation targeted during real patient care, ideally with a comparison group of students who have not yet had the simulation.
Where can I find a free NUR 6033 Module 6 sample paper?
It is on this page. Read "The Question and the Framework" first, then "Level Three: Behavior", then "Analysis, Reporting and Limits"; the NUR 6033 Module 6 reference list closes it.
Why do most simulation evaluations stop at satisfaction?
Satisfaction surveys are quick and cheap, while measuring behavior in clinical settings takes time, trained raters and cooperation from preceptors. A strong plan builds those steps in from the start.