| Course | C920 Contemporary Curriculum Design and Development in Nursing Education |
|---|---|
| Task | Task 2 |
| Paper type | Course design and evaluation plan |
| Length | About 1,000 words, 3 pages |
| Format | APA 7 |
| School | Western Governors University (WGU) |
| Program | MSN Nursing Education |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for C920 Task 2
Course Design and Evaluation Plan: A Two-Credit Module on Nursing Care of LGBTQ+ Patients, Aligned From Objectives to Evidence
Student Name
Leavitt School of Health, Western Governors University
C920: Contemporary Curriculum Design and Development in Nursing Education, Task 2
Course Instructor
Month Day, Year
Course Design and Evaluation Plan: A Two-Credit Module on Nursing Care of LGBTQ+ Patients, Aligned From Objectives to Evidence
Course Description and Placement
Nursing Care of LGBTQ+ Patients is a two-credit module that every second-year student in the composite baccalaureate program takes, taken after health assessment and alongside pharmacology, and before medical-surgical and community rotations. It responds to the needs analysis, which found a gap in graduates' knowledge, skill and confidence in caring for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer patients. The design follows the design, development, implementation and evaluation phases of the ADDIE model, building on the analysis already completed (Branch, 2009).
Program Outcome Link
The module supports two existing program outcomes: providing patient-centered care that respects diversity, and using evidence to reduce health disparities. The evidence base for the content is the national report on LGBT health, which documented disparities across the life course and the role of clinician knowledge in barriers to care (Institute of Medicine, 2011).
Objectives, Teaching Methods and Evaluation Methods
Objectives are written at levels of the revised taxonomy of educational objectives appropriate for second-year students, from understanding to applying and analyzing (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Each row below reads across from the objective to the method chosen to reach it and the method able to detect whether it was reached.
| Objective (the student will...) | Taxonomy level | Teaching method | Evaluation method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Explain key terms for sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression and why they matter for care | Understand | Online module with short videos and a glossary; small-group discussion | Ten-item quiz with a pass mark of 80% |
| Conduct a respectful sexual orientation and gender identity history using the program's revised template | Apply | Faculty demonstration; paired role play; simulation with a standardized patient | Standardized patient checklist scored by faculty and by the standardized patient |
| Identify risks and preventive screening that change for LGBTQ+ patients at different ages | Analyze | Case studies of four patients at different ages; guideline review | Written case analysis graded with a rubric |
| Apply knowledge of gender-affirming hormones to medication and laboratory interpretation | Apply | Pharmacology integration session with worked examples | Two case-based items on the pharmacology examination |
| Use a patient's chosen name and pronouns correctly in communication and documentation | Apply | Electronic health record practice in the simulated chart; reflective discussion | Documentation audit in simulation; clinical instructor observation in rotations |
| Propose one unit-level change to make care more inclusive | Create | Group project with a clinical partner's nurse educator | Poster presentation evaluated by faculty and partner |
Learning Activities in Sequence
The first session opens with the online module and a facilitated discussion that sets ground rules for respectful conversation. The second session focuses on history-taking: faculty model the interview, students practice in pairs using the revised template, and each student completes one simulation with a standardized patient who is a transgender man seeking care for chest pain, followed by a structured debrief. The third session uses case studies across the lifespan, from an adolescent at risk for depression to an older gay man whose partner is not recognized as next of kin by his family. The fourth session is integrated with pharmacology. The fifth session launches the group project with clinical partners. Threads continue afterward: the health assessment template is revised for all students, and clinical evaluation tools include an item on respectful communication with all patients.
Learning Climate and Accessibility
Because some students identify as LGBTQ+ and others may find the content unfamiliar or uncomfortable, the learning climate is designed deliberately. Ground rules agreed in the first session protect students from being asked to speak for a group they belong to, and personal disclosure is always optional. Discussion prompts focus on professional behavior and patient outcomes, so students can engage without being asked to change personal beliefs. Online materials include captions and transcripts, readings are available in accessible formats, and the simulation can be rescheduled for students with accommodations. A faculty member is named as the contact for any student who experiences a harmful comment during the module, and concerns are handled under the college's existing conduct policy.
Implementation
Faculty development precedes launch: all faculty teaching the module or its threads complete a four-hour workshop co-led by the university's center for inclusion and the two faculty members with LGBTQ+ health experience, including practice with the standardized patient case. Standardized patients are recruited and trained through the simulation center, with at least one standardized patient who identifies as transgender advising on the case. The module is piloted with one section in the first semester, revised, and then offered to the full cohort.
Evaluation Plan
The module will be evaluated at four levels using a widely used training evaluation framework (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Reaction: an end-of-module survey on relevance, clarity and learning climate, with open comments reviewed for concerns about safety in discussion. Learning: quiz scores, standardized patient checklist scores and case analysis rubric scores, with targets of at least 85% of students meeting the passing standard on each. Behavior: clinical instructor observation of name and pronoun use and history-taking in medical-surgical and community rotations, and a documentation audit in the simulated record. Results: the end-of-program survey item on preparedness to care for transgender patients, with a target of reducing the share reporting 'not prepared' or 'somewhat prepared' from 64% to below 25% within two cohorts, and partner reports of complaints related to misgendering.
Course-level evaluation will also examine alignment itself. At the end of each offering, faculty will map every assessment item back to an objective and remove or revise items that do not measure any objective or that more than 40% of students miss for reasons unrelated to the content, such as confusing wording.
Conclusion
The module turns the gap identified in the needs analysis into a sequence of aligned objectives, activities and evaluations, supported by faculty development and a pilot. Its success will be measured not only by what students know at the end of the module, but by how they speak to and care for LGBTQ+ patients in their clinical rotations and after graduation.
References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09506-6
Institute of Medicine. (2011). The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people: Building a foundation for better understanding. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13128
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation. ATD Press.
What the C920 Task 2 instructions ask
The second C920 task asks you to design the course or module your needs analysis recommended. Most versions ask for a course description and placement, links to program outcomes, measurable objectives aligned with teaching methods and evaluation methods, a sequence of learning activities, attention to the learning climate and accessibility, an implementation plan and a plan for evaluating the course itself. Alignment is the heart of the task: each objective should have a way to teach it and a way to measure it. The evaluator also reads for a design that fits the program's real constraints, such as credit hours and faculty readiness. Many versions also ask how the design will be piloted before it becomes permanent.
How this C920 Task 2 example is built
The design opens with where the module sits and why that placement makes sense after health assessment. The program outcome link shows the module is not a stand-alone addition. Objectives, teaching methods and evaluation methods are aligned in one table so each row can be checked. The sequence walks session by session from foundations to simulation. The learning climate section anticipates discomfort and sets ground rules, and accessibility covers formats and pacing. Implementation puts faculty development first and pilots the module before full rollout. The evaluation plan uses four levels, from reaction to results, with a named measure at each level and a schedule for review. Because the pilot runs with one cohort first, faculty can revise activities before the whole program adopts them.
Where the C920 Task 2 rubric puts the marks
For C920 Task 2 the evaluator marks each aspect competent, approaching competence or not evident. A course description aspect checks placement and purpose. A program outcome aspect looks for a clear link to existing outcomes. Alignment aspects are central: objectives must be measurable and matched with teaching and evaluation methods. Activity, climate and accessibility aspects look for specific, inclusive design. Implementation and evaluation aspects want concrete plans, including how the course itself will be judged. Evaluators check that the design follows from the Task 1 analysis. APA citations for design frameworks and professional writing are scored as well. Evaluators look closely at whether every objective can be traced to a teaching method and an assessment on the same row.
C920 Task 2 help: what sends it back
The most common return is weak alignment. If an objective says students will apply a skill, the evaluation method should observe them applying it, not a multiple-choice quiz on definitions. Build a table and check every row. Second, objectives use verbs that cannot be measured, such as understand or appreciate. Choose observable verbs matched to the right level. Third, the learning climate is treated as an afterthought; for sensitive topics, plan ground rules and faculty preparation. Fourth, course evaluation is confused with student grading. Plan how you will judge whether the module worked, at several levels. Finally, keep the design realistic for the credits and faculty you described in the needs analysis.
Get a C920 Task 2 example written to your instructions
Send the C920 Task 2 requirements and rubric together with whatever you settled on in the first task, including the outcomes the program already publishes. We write a custom example with the alignment worked through row by row and the course evaluation part included, returned in 24 to 48 hours. The first custom sample is free.
More C920 papers
Other Nursing (MSN) sample papers
- D159 Task 2 Data Collection and Reporting Plan
- D024 Task 2 Force Field Analysis
- D030 Task 2 Nursing Service Line Finances, Risks and KPIs
- C790 Task 1 Informatics E-Portfolio
C920 Task 2 questions, answered
Is a table required for the alignment?
Usually not required and almost always helpful. A table makes each objective testable against its own method and evidence, which is exactly what an evaluator checks, and it stops the design hiding a mismatch inside prose. If you use one, keep the surrounding prose doing the reasoning, because a table on its own explains none of the choices behind the design.
How many objectives should the course carry?
Enough to reach the course outcomes and no more, which usually means a handful per outcome rather than a page of them. Each objective must be taught and then evidenced, so quantity doubles the work. Read your requirements first, since some versions set the number, and where they do not, a lean set that aligns cleanly is worth more than a full one that does not.
What does evaluating the course itself involve?
Deciding in advance what would tell the program the design worked and what would tell it the design failed. Learner performance against the objectives, learner feedback, peer review of teaching, and later evidence from practice partners all count. The piece that gets skipped is the trigger: naming the result that would send the design back, and saying who reviews it and when.
Which evaluation model fits C920 Task 2?
Kirkpatrick's four levels, reaction, learning, behavior and results, are widely used and easy to apply to a nursing course. The sample names a measure and timing for each level.
Where can I find a free C920 Task 2 sample paper?
Everything from the alignment table to the four-level evaluation is reproduced above with comments. Share your C920 task and the module you are designing, and a first custom plan is prepared free.