Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Melissa Ackerly
SUNY Delhi
NURS-602-11250-201709
Kirsty Digger
Abstract
are presented in this paper. Several questions related to faculty preparation and involvement in
the readiness for change are explored. The critical elements for curriculum analysis, design, and
implementation offered. The potential impact on students learning and program outcomes will
be discussed.
Running head: CASTLEFIELD UNIVERSITY 3
who are relatively new to nursing education and those who have been tenured for some time with
Castlefield. The curriculum is at the center of the conflict. The efforts of the current school
leader to encourage and facilitate faculty development opportunities related to curriculum change
have yielded little reform in the past 12 years. The students are seeking allegiance and guidance
from the newer faculty and are openly sharing faculty and program faults. The healthcare
agencies associated with Castlefield (SON) have reported dissatisfaction with the graduates from
Question 1
There are primary concerns, which Castlefield University School of Nursing (SON)
should consider warning signals the curriculum needs attention immediately. The Castlefield
SON program philosophy does not support the curriculum or the institutions philosophy in its
current state and the reputation of the program is in jeopardy. Other factors include, but are not
limited to; NCLEX pass rate dropped, administration is pushing for increased enrollment, and a
William and Martha joined the Castlefield SON faculty 2 years earlier as newly doctoral
prepared year 2 instructors of the 4 year integrated baccalaureate program. The two were
unsuccessful in efforts to provide direct examples of program and curriculum failure to the
established faculty. This has caused some splitting of the students and the majority of the faculty
disagree that there is need for revision. The drop in NCLEX pass rates was a surprise to the
entire faculty. If William and Martha had used this information to start the conversation for
curriculum change, the faculty may have been more receptive. Utilizing existing data directly
Running head: CASTLEFIELD UNIVERSITY 4
related to the curriculum and the NCLEX test plan to begin examining the curricula course by
course could help identify gaps in instruction (Iwasiw & Goldenberg, 2015).
Question 2
changes in the curriculum, the faculty members in support of revision could present the
institution mission and SON philosophy be examined as a group. The SON philosophy and
decisions related to developing a framework for the curriculum need to be reflective of the
intuitions mission and goals (Iwasiw & Goldenberg, 2015). This process could reveal the
disparity in the foundation of the nursing curricula and encourage faculty buy-in for reform.
Question 3
The evidence collected revealed incongruence when examining the SON philosophy and
the institutions mission. The solution is for faculty to revisit the SON philosophy by delving
directly into the curricula. There is a need for a curriculum leader supported by stakeholders and
faculty, who is organized and at ease with curriculum development. The leader would be
selected as a respected member of the nursing faculty and should be versed in the accreditation
in nursing Education is used to assure faculty development, ongoing appraisal, and scholarship
are applied to any and all nursing course curricula. Personalities, knowledge, experiences, and
talents are some of the variables that are inherently evident in each SON faculty team. Faculty
may be resistant to curriculum revision related to fear of change or their position at the SON will
Question 4
Running head: CASTLEFIELD UNIVERSITY 5
development, intuitional support from leadership is critical for obtaining resources to support
faculty development in release time, funding, materials and technology, and assistive personnel
for example. There are internal and external motivators to entice stakeholders such as the
healthcare facilities, students, and community leaders to request support in curriculum revision.
The stakeholders role in assessing and informing the SON of the needs and assessment of
graduates performance and the regional healthcare needs will to provide education to students
with the knowledge, skills, and ability to meet the expectations and challenges shared in the
community and healthcare facilities. The current economic impact on student financial support
related to government aid is imperative to take into consideration as both an external and internal
motivator to make revisions (Iwasiw & Goldenberg, 2015). Students may not get funding if the
program is not accredited. The support of the community at large will provide the impetus to
Question 5
The nursing faculty are protective of their roles and curricula at Castlefield SON. The
school leader has provided and encouraged faculty development opportunities on current
curriculum approaches which did not result in any significant changes. William and Martha
were openly critical of specific content missing from courses in faculty meetings. It is
reasonable to believe the faculty responsible for the topic content mentioned in these meetings
would be defensive of the educational material they developed (Iwasiw & Goldenberg, 2015).
Question 6
Running head: CASTLEFIELD UNIVERSITY 6
important. The faculty must all be involved in curriculum revision for the best interest of the
nursing profession education regardless of the specialized topic they may instruct. Providing a
clear and consistent expectation for course appraisal to determine the effectiveness of the
teaching to be shared and discussed in full faculty. This process will identify deficiencies or
strengths and allow for change related to curriculum development, implementation, and
Question 7
The SON leader at Castlefield can influence support and participation of faculty for
curriculum revision by presenting the goals, support the institution will provide, and support for
collaborative faculty development, which are in place to the collective group. The possible
consequences of not revising the curriculum should also be discussed. The faculty members
resistant to change could be reassured every effort to retain the effective, historic practices of
Castlefield SON will be taken into consideration for every course. The opportunity for those
resistant to speak openly and honestly with their colleagues is important. By listening, concerns
are identified and addressed as the process continues. There is mitigation for the daunting task of
curriculum revision through committee work, opposed to full faculty to expedite the process of
revisions/development. The faculty concern there is no room for more material in the course
could be relieved to hear the process could reduce, condense, or offer alternate innovation to
delivery of the content. In essence, the faculty apt to be resistant to change may be influenced to
proceed with assurance of the value of their experience and knowledge is necessary to provide
work in curriculum development is evidence there is readiness to proceed. There are several
Running head: CASTLEFIELD UNIVERSITY 7
theories to determine readiness for change. The change theory selected will provide framework
to help assess faculty responses to the change (Iwasiw & Goldenberg, 2015).
Question 8
A reasonable period for curriculum revision is best suited to the Gantt chart for
curriculum development. A 2 year course is carefully plotted out for all of the curriculum
activities, design, and approvals to be completed for implementation. Castlefield SON will need
to assure every step of the curriculum changes made are documented. The faculty development
activities and stakeholder involvement should be included in the notes and activities related to
preparing for the accreditation visit 1 year after implementing the new Castlefield SON
important information for the accreditation review (Iwasiw & Goldenberg, 2015).
Reflection
questions above, I realized the whole curriculum is dependent on the institutions support and
alignment of the SON in values, goals, and mission. The SON course changes done in isolation
of the rest of the curriculum places a further distance between not only the SON values, goals,
and mission; but also the intuitions. Like dominoes; eventually there will be a collapse. When
periodic modification is applied to a curriculum over several years, it is not likely to have a
robust and current educational component or desired student outcomes as evidenced in the
Castlefield University case study. As I see it, the source of the curriculum problem at
Castlefield is the absence of a formal model to direct the faculty to develop a unified curriculum.
The faculty have a laisse fare approach to application of current practices in their courses. The
result is an unstructured program, job dissatisfaction, lack of scholarly activities to promote the
Running head: CASTLEFIELD UNIVERSITY 8
curricula, and a nursing program that failed to meet the needs of their students, and community at
large.
Gap Analysis
The use of a gap analysis (Fater, 2013) to the curriculum of a nursing program will
identify what the current situation is within a course and the difference to what the preferred
situation should be. The nursing program must first select a tool for core competencies to
measure the knowledge, attitude, and skills (KAS) to drive their curriculum development to
determine what their preferred situation would be. A gap is a deficiency and use of a gap
analysis can highlight areas of the curriculum in need of attention or areas of strength, which can
endorse the preferred situation as the process continues. Selecting the KAS tool, such as Quality
and Safety Education for Nurses (QSEN) provides a means to develop goals and objectives for
the preferred situation to be analyzed from the curriculum. Whether full faculty are performing
the analysis or a team, use of grids for documenting KAS desired behaviors from each course is
crucial to align each competency (ex: safety) to the KAS of that course to see where relevant
Outcomes
Schumacher and Risco (2017) speak to the overall picture of desirable nursing program
development. Though the article is for a NP program, the premise is the unified use of a
to allow for continuous assessment and implementation of educational strategies to meet the
healthcare population needs. The terms program outcomes, course outcomes; competency and
student level outcomes are clearly defined. This has always been difficult to decipher and a
communication as well. All components of a nursing program need to undertake the process of
using measurement to determine effectiveness of their student learning outcomes and then the
program outcomes.
It occurred to me as I read the study from Mills, Krouse, Rossi-Schwartz, and Klein
(2017), that transitioning students to a new curriculum can be a very real challenge for the
students and the instructors. From my perspective, I envisioned the new curriculum being
implemented in steps with step one applied to the new incoming cohort for the first year. The
current students would ride out the existing curriculum with their cohort to their finish line of
graduation. The reality Mills, Krouse, Rossi-Schwartz, and Klein (2017) bring to the study is
freshman 4 year students would be riding out an ineffective curriculum. This would have led to
continued low program performance and student success. The changes made to reorganize
student learning from memorization to actively participating in their learning was an emotionally
and physically stressful experience. The new curriculum design and active learning strategies
require students to prepare for class ahead of time and be responsible for their learning. There is
no opportunity to sit in the back of the class and listen to lecture to feed information, learning is
interactive and preparing ahead with reading and assignments takes work. Exams are developed
to evaluate application of knowledge through multiple choices. These are more rigorous to
Concerns related to student stress were identified by the faculty from the Mills, Krouse,
Rossi-Schwartz, and Klein (2017) study. Students grades and morale were affected during the
transition to active learning. Stress can induce a decline in the students ability to absorb content
and negatively influence their ability to be successful in the program. In this study the faculty
Running head: CASTLEFIELD UNIVERSITY 10
identified the students stress, but did not effectively intervene which led to a tense relationship.
Faculty can facilitate coping mechanisms in advance for a nursing program in preparing students
Conclusion
The curriculum for any nursing program needs to be an interactive and living series of
documents that can support every action taken to promote student success. The evolving nature
educational and nursing theories that identify with the mission and goals of the parent institution
The structure and framework for curriculum design is important to promote student
success in the nursing program. Support services for academic achievement are readily known
and available at the university level. Nursing students significant financial and personal
model that supports all aspects of a context-relevant, future-oriented, and evidence informed
References
Fater, K. H. (2013). Gap Analysis: A Method to Assess Core Competency Development in the
Curriculum. Nursing Education Perspectives (National League For Nursing), 34(2), 101-
105.
Iwasiw, C.L., & Goldenberg, D. (2015). Curriculum development in nursing education (3rd ed.).
Mills, S., Krouse, A. M., Rossi-Schwartz, R., & Klein, J. M. (2017). Curriculum Revision:
Student Stress and Lessons Learned. Journal of Nursing Education, 56(6), 337-342.
doi:10.3928/01484834-20170518-04
Schumacher, G., & Risco, K. (2017). By Faculty for Faculty: Nurse Practitioner Program