| Course | NUR 6053 Catalyst for Quality Improvement in Nursing Education |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Program evaluation plan |
| 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 | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NUR 6053 Module 3
Outcome, Measure, Target, Owner, Trigger: A Systematic Evaluation Plan for a Two-Campus Associate Degree Program, Organized With the CIPP Model So That It Looks at Inputs and Processes, Not Only Results
Student Name
American College of Education
NUR6053: Catalyst for Quality Improvement in Nursing Education
Module 3 Assignment
Instructor Name
November 18, 2030
Why the Current Plan Falls Short
Our associate degree program holds national nursing accreditation and keeps a program evaluation plan that consists of four lines: the share of graduates passing the licensure examination on the first try, the share completing the program, the share finding nursing jobs, and the end-of-program student learning outcomes, each with a benchmark and an annual review. The accreditor requires programs to set and assess expected levels of achievement for these outcomes (Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing [ACEN], 2023). The plan meets that requirement and does little else. Data arrive once a year, after the students they describe have graduated, and nothing in the plan looks at why an outcome was or was not met. When our pass rate dipped two years ago, the plan recorded the dip but could not tell us whether the cause was admissions, teaching, a campus difference or a change in the examination.
The CIPP Model
Stufflebeam's evaluation framework, known by the initials of its four parts and described in its current form by Stufflebeam and Zhang (2017), evaluates a program in four areas: context, the needs and environment the program serves; input, the resources, plans and strategies available; process, how the program is actually carried out; and product, its outcomes. Its purpose is improvement as well as accountability, which fits what our current plan lacks. Accreditation outcomes are products. The model directs attention to the inputs and processes that produce them, so that when a product falls short, the plan already holds data on where to look. Lewallen (2015), writing about the practical side of nursing program evaluation, stresses organizing the process so that data are tracked continuously, responsibility is assigned and information is gathered from students, graduates and employers, not only from examination results. An evaluation plan that measures only products can say that something went wrong but never why.
Product Outcomes
Each line of the plan names the outcome, the measure, the expected level of achievement, the data source, the person responsible, the timing and the trigger for action. Licensure: first-time pass rate for each campus and for the program, with an expected level of 85% for the program and no campus below 80%; source, the state board's quarterly reports; owner, the program director; reviewed quarterly; trigger, any quarter in which a campus falls below 80% for the rolling four quarters. Completion: percentage of students completing within 150% of program length, expected level 70%; source, institutional research; owner, the assessment coordinator; reviewed each semester by cohort; trigger, a cohort more than five points below the expected level. Job placement: percentage of graduates employed as registered nurses within twelve months, expected level 85%; source, a graduate survey at six and twelve months; owner, the career services liaison; trigger, a fall below 80%. End-of-program learning outcomes: for each of the six outcomes, 80% of students meeting the target on the assessment mapped to it in the final semester, such as the capstone clinical evaluation for safety; owner, the course coordinator; reviewed each semester; trigger, any outcome below 80% in two consecutive semesters.
Context, Input and Process
Context. The plan will review each year the regional workforce needs, from the partners' vacancy data, and the characteristics of admitted students, including prior academic performance, work hours and first-generation status, so that changes in outcomes can be read against changes in who is admitted. Input. The plan will track the faculty-to-student ratio on each campus, the proportion of clinical instructors who have completed rater training, simulation hours per student and the availability of clinical placements, with expected levels for each; for example, 100% of clinical instructors trained before their first rotation. Process. The plan will track course-level indicators that predict product outcomes: the proportion of students passing each skills check-off at the first try, the distribution of clinical evaluation ratings, the proportion of students completing remediation after a failed unit examination and final-semester results on the standardized predictor examination. These indicators arrive during the program, while something can still be done for the students they describe.
Using the Data
The plan will be reviewed by the program evaluation committee twice a semester, with a dashboard showing each line's current result against its expected level. When a trigger is reached, the owner will bring a short analysis to the next meeting, drawing on the context, input and process data to suggest causes, and the committee will agree on an action and a date to review its effect. Every action will be recorded in the plan with its result, so that the next accreditation self-study can show the cycle of data, decision and follow-up rather than only the outcomes. Once a year, the full faculty will review the plan and the expected levels, which should rise as the program improves. Graduates and employers will be surveyed each year, and employers' ratings of graduates' readiness will be added to the product component as the survey matures.
The Plan at Work: One Worked Example
An example shows how the components fit together. Suppose that in the spring the south campus's rolling first-time pass rate falls to 78%, reaching the licensure trigger. Under the old plan, the program would have learned this at the annual review. Under the new plan, the director brings an analysis to the next committee meeting within three weeks. The context data show that the south campus admitted more students with low prerequisite science grades in the affected cohort. The input data show that two of its clinical instructors had not completed rater training. The process data show that its students' predictor examination scores were lower than the north campus's in the final semester, and that fewer of them completed remediation after failing a unit examination. Together these suggest that weaker preparation met weaker remediation, rather than a problem in the curriculum shared by both campuses.
The committee's actions follow from that analysis rather than from guesswork: the south campus's remediation process is brought into line with the north's, the two instructors are trained before the next rotation, and the admissions committee is asked to review the prerequisite criteria. Each action is recorded in the plan with a date to check its effect, which will be the predictor scores and remediation completion of the next cohort, long before its licensure results arrive.
Keeping the Plan Alive
Evaluation plans tend to come to life before accreditation visits and sleep in between. Three features are meant to prevent that. Each line has a named owner, so that responsibility does not rest with a committee as a whole. Triggers are checked on a schedule tied to the academic calendar, not the accreditation cycle. And the dashboard is shared with all faculty each semester, so that the plan is seen as a tool for teaching rather than a report for the accreditor. The assessment coordinator will report to the faculty each year on how many triggers were reached, what actions were taken and which worked.
References
Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing. (2023). ACEN 2023 accreditation manual: Section III, standards and criteria.
Lewallen, L. P. (2015). Practical strategies for nursing education program evaluation. Journal of Professional Nursing, 31(2), 133-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2014.09.002
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Zhang, G. (2017). The CIPP evaluation model: How to evaluate for improvement and accountability. Guilford Press.
The NUR 6053 Module 3 assignment instructions
The Module 3 prompt in NUR 6053 commonly asks for a written plan to evaluate an entire nursing program, not a single course. Expect to choose or describe a program, name an evaluation model, and lay out outcomes with measures, targets, data sources, responsible people and timelines. Many versions tie the plan to accreditation language, so check whether your prompt mentions ACEN, CCNE or a state board, and use that body's terms for outcomes and expected levels of achievement. Some instructors want the plan as a table with a short narrative, others as a paper with a table appended. Length is usually five to eight pages plus the table. Read the Canvas rubric before you pick a model, since a few prompts name one.
Inside the NUR 6053 Module 3 example
The paper begins by showing what the program's current plan cannot do, using the dip in pass rates that nobody could explain. It then introduces the CIPP model and says why it suits a program that needs to improve, not only to report. The product section writes out four plan lines in full, each with its measure, expected level, source, owner, timing and trigger, which is the part graders read most closely. A second section adds context, input and process indicators, such as admitted student profiles, rater training rates and first-attempt check-off passes, so that causes can be traced. The paper then explains how the committee uses a dashboard, walks through a worked scenario in which one campus falls below its trigger, and ends with three features that keep the plan in use between accreditation visits.
Where the points sit in the NUR 6053 Module 3 rubric
On most versions of this rubric the heaviest criterion is the plan itself: whether each outcome has a clear measure, a realistic expected level, a named data source, an owner and a timeline. Papers reach the top band when the plan also says what happens when a target is missed, which is why every line here carries a trigger. A second criterion covers the evaluation model, and it rewards a model that is explained and actually used to organize the plan, not merely cited. Alignment with accreditation standards usually earns separate points, so the paper names the accreditor and its requirement early. Scholarly support, clarity and APA 7 formatting make up the rest. A worked example is not always required, but it shows the grader that the plan can function.
NUR 6053 Module 3 help: mistakes that cost points
Evaluation plans often lose points for listing outcomes with no expected level, or with targets copied from an accreditor's minimum without reasons. Another weak spot is naming a model in the introduction and then ignoring it; if you choose CIPP, the plan's sections should follow its four parts. Writers also forget ownership and timing, so the plan reads as a wish list. Keep data sources realistic for your program, since a plan built on surveys nobody will run is not a plan. Finally, show what the program does with results, not just how it collects them. If your prompt asks for a specific accreditor, program type or table layout, the desk can build a custom version to match, and your first sample is free.
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 6053 and Ed.S. in Nursing Education sample papers
- NUR 6053 Module 1: Formative and Summative Assessment
- NUR 6053 Module 2: Validity and Reliability Analysis
- NUR 6053 Module 4: Quality Improvement Project Plan
- NUR 6053 Module 5: Remediation and Learner Support
- NUR 6053 Module 6: Program Evaluation Report
- NUR 6063 Module 6: Vision and Future-Casting Plan
- NUR 6003 Module 5: Learner Characteristics Analysis
- NUR 6013 Module 6: Professional Development Plan
- NUR 6003 Module 4: Community Needs Analysis
NUR 6053 Module 3 questions, answered
What does NUR6053 Module 3 usually ask for?
NUR6053 Module 3 usually asks you to draft a systematic evaluation plan for a whole nursing program, giving each outcome a measure, an expected level of achievement and a plan for using results. Your classroom's instructions decide the format.
What is the CIPP model?
An evaluation model that examines a program's context, inputs, processes and products, so that outcomes can be explained and improved rather than only reported.
What should each line of an evaluation plan include?
The outcome, the measure, the expected level of achievement, the data source, the person responsible, the timing and the result that triggers action.
Where can I find a free NUR 6053 Module 3 sample paper?
Right here. The whole Module 3 program evaluation plan is posted on this page, from the title page through the CIPP sections, the plan lines, a worked example and the reference list, with margin notes explaining each part.
Which evaluation model works best for a nursing program evaluation plan?
Several work. The example uses the CIPP model because it looks at context, inputs and processes as well as outcomes, so a missed target can be traced to a cause; logic models and the Kirkpatrick model are other common choices.