NUR 640 Module 9 Final Project Example

Final Project: An Integrated Assessment and Evaluation Plan for a Second-Semester Medical-Surgical Nursing Course

[Student Name]

Southern New Hampshire University

NUR 640: Assessment and Evaluation in Nursing Education

Module Nine Final Project

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Final Project: An Integrated Assessment and Evaluation Plan for a Second-Semester Medical-Surgical Nursing Course

Most nursing courses accumulate assessments over time: an exam added here, a paper there, a clinical tool inherited from a previous coordinator. The result can be a grade that measures some outcomes several times and others not at all. Lakemont's second-semester medical-surgical course, in a composite nursing school, has four outcomes, 60 students in lecture and six clinical groups of ten. After a fall in licensure pass rates and complaints about inconsistent grading, the faculty team agreed to rebuild the course's assessment system from its outcomes. This final project presents that plan. It argues that an assessment system is valid when every outcome is measured more than once by methods suited to it, when formative evidence shapes teaching, when summative tools are reliable and fair and when the course itself is evaluated each term.

Outcomes and the Assessment Map

Table 1 maps each outcome to evidence. Every outcome is measured summatively by at least two methods, which reduces dependence on any single tool and allows faculty to check whether methods agree. Outcome 3, communication, was previously assessed only through clinical impressions; it now has formative simulation and a structured behavior on the clinical tool.

Table 1. Course Outcomes Mapped to Formative and Summative Evidence

Note. Every outcome has at least one formative and two summative sources, so no single tool decides whether an outcome is met.

Grading Scheme

The course grade combines three unit exams (20% each), a comprehensive final exam (20%) and the care plan (20%). Clinical performance and the summative simulation are graded pass or fail, and a student must pass clinical to pass the course regardless of the theory grade, because safe practice cannot be averaged against test scores. Exams carry 80% of the theory grade because they are the most reliable measures available and the closest match to the licensure examination format. Formative work carries no grade weight, so students can make mistakes without penalty, but completion of the practice cases is required before each exam. Students must reach 77% on the exam average to pass, a threshold set by the program; the care plan cannot compensate for a failing exam average, which prevents a strong paper from masking weak judgment on exams.

Formative Assessment

Formative checks are built into every week. Lectures end with muddiest point cards, and the first ten minutes of the next class address the most common confusion. Weekly practice cases with automatic feedback give students retrieval practice and give faculty item-level data on misconceptions. The care plan is submitted first as a draft with a self-assessment on the rubric and returned with feedback before the graded version. Black and Wiliam (1998) found that strengthening formative assessment produced substantial learning gains, especially for lower-achieving students, which matches the course's concern about students who struggle silently until the first exam.

Examinations

Each exam is built from a blueprint that allocates items to outcomes and content in proportion to teaching time, with at least 40% of items in unfolding clinical judgment cases. Items follow the guidelines consolidated by Haladyna et al. (2002): clear stems, no negative wording, plausible distractors drawn from real student errors and no "all of the above." Before each exam, a second faculty member reviews every item and key. After each exam, item difficulty and discrimination are calculated. Items that fewer than 30% of students answer correctly, or that discriminate poorly, meaning strong students miss them as often as weak students, are reviewed for flaws; if an item is flawed, it is removed from scoring for that exam and revised before it is used again. A summary of this review goes to students so that they see the exam process as accountable.

Clinical, Care Plan and Simulation

Clinical performance is rated with the revised tool from Milestone One: observable behaviors, four anchored levels, weekly anecdotal notes and a formative midterm conference, with Accomplished required on essential behaviors at the final evaluation. The care plan uses the analytic rubric developed earlier, with a safety override, double weighting for priority problem and interventions and calibration before the term. Simulations are formative except one end-of-rotation scenario scored from video by two trained faculty. All clinical instructors complete a calibration session each term, rating recorded performances and discussing disagreements. These three tools together provide the multiple sources of evidence that Table 1 requires for outcomes 2 through 4.

Fairness and Integrity

Fairness is built into the process rather than left to individual graders. Care plans are marked anonymously and criterion by criterion; plans within three points of the passing line receive a second, independent score. Exam items are reviewed for idioms and culturally specific references that could disadvantage multilingual students. Accommodations are applied as documented. The clinical data sheet asks only for personally observed findings, with a column for findings not assessed, and the course begins with a documentation integrity session. Violations go to the program's integrity panel so that responses are consistent across instructors. Each year, grades are reviewed by student group and by instructor to look for unexplained differences.

Evaluating the Course

The course itself is evaluated each term using an adapted version of Kirkpatrick's levels (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). Reaction is measured with a short end-of-term student survey focused on clarity of expectations and usefulness of feedback. Learning is measured through exam performance by outcome and care plan scores by criterion. Behavior is measured through clinical evaluation ratings on essential behaviors and simulation results. Results, which the course can influence only in part, are tracked through the cohort's later performance in the capstone course and on the licensure examination. At a meeting two weeks after each term, faculty review these data along with item analysis and rater agreement, agree on no more than three changes for the next term and record them, so that each term begins with changes based on the last.

Conclusion

This plan replaces an accumulated set of assessments with a system built from the course's outcomes. Each outcome is measured more than once by suitable methods, formative evidence shapes teaching every week, exams and performance tools include safeguards for reliability and fairness, integrity is supported by design and the course is evaluated and improved each term. Together these give Lakemont faculty a course grade that means what it claims to mean and a way to keep it that way.

References

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102

Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 309-333. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324818AME1503_5

Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler.