| Course | C922 Emerging Trends and Challenges in 21st Century Nursing Education |
|---|---|
| Task | Task 2 |
| Paper type | Program response 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 C922 Task 2
Program Response Plan: Building Clinical Judgment Across an Associate Degree Nursing Curriculum After the Next Generation NCLEX
Student Name
Leavitt School of Health, Western Governors University
C922: Emerging Trends and Challenges in 21st Century Nursing Education, Task 2
Course Instructor
Month Day, Year
Program Response Plan: Building Clinical Judgment Across an Associate Degree Nursing Curriculum After the Next Generation NCLEX
Executive Summary
After the licensure examination began measuring clinical judgment directly, the composite three-semester associate degree program's first-time pass rate fell from 88% to 79%, below the state benchmark. This plan responds across the whole program over two academic years. It trains all faculty to teach and test clinical judgment using the clinical judgment model published by the licensing examination's developer, rebuilds course examinations so that a growing share of items are case-based, adopts a common clinical judgment rubric for clinical and simulation evaluation, and adds structured practice for every student within existing course hours. It is funded mainly from the college's existing professional development budget and a state workforce grant. Success will be judged by a first-time pass rate of at least 85% within two graduating cohorts, together with rising clinical judgment rubric scores and faculty confidence in writing case-based items.
Goal and Guiding Framework
Goal: every graduate can recognize and analyze relevant cues, prioritize hypotheses, generate and take appropriate actions and evaluate outcomes in unfamiliar patient situations, and demonstrates this consistently in simulation, clinical practice and course examinations. The guiding framework is the clinical judgment model used by the licensure examination, which aligns with the clinical judgment frameworks nursing education already uses and can help faculty target specific cognitive operations in teaching and assessment (Dickison et al., 2019). Using one model across every course gives students and faculty a shared language from the first semester to graduation.
Component One: Faculty Development
All 11 full-time faculty and the program's regular adjunct clinical instructors will complete a structured development series in the first semester of the plan. It includes a two-day workshop on the clinical judgment model and case-based item writing, followed by monthly item-writing sessions in which faculty draft, review and revise items together in pairs. Each faculty member will write at least ten case-based items in the first year, reviewed by a two-person item review committee for alignment with course outcomes and for bias in language. Two faculty members will serve as clinical judgment leads and complete additional training through the testing organization's educator resources (National Council of State Boards of Nursing [NCSBN], 2023). Faculty development continues in the second year with sessions on item analysis and on coaching reasoning in clinical settings.
Component Two: Curriculum Mapping and Classroom Teaching
In the first semester, the curriculum committee will map each course's outcomes and major learning activities to the six cognitive operations of the clinical judgment model, identifying where each operation is taught, practiced and assessed. Gaps will be filled without adding course hours by replacing some lecture time with unfolding case studies that release patient information in stages, so that students must decide what matters as the situation develops. Each classroom course will include at least one unfolding case study per unit, and first-semester courses will emphasize recognizing and analyzing cues while third-semester courses emphasize prioritizing, acting and evaluating in complex patients. Students will practice explaining their reasoning aloud, in writing and in small groups.
Component Three: Examinations
Course examinations will change gradually so students build familiarity without being overwhelmed. Case-based and next-generation item types will make up at least 15% of items on every course examination in the first year and at least 30% in the second, with partial-credit scoring rules published to students in advance. Each examination will be followed by item analysis, reviewed by the course team and the item review committee, to remove or revise items that perform poorly or disadvantage particular groups of students. Students will receive a brief breakdown of their performance by cognitive operation so they can see whether they struggle more with recognizing cues or with choosing actions.
Component Four: Clinical and Simulation Evaluation
The program will replace task-based clinical evaluation items with a clinical judgment rubric that rates four phases of judgment (noticing, interpreting, responding, reflecting) on a four-step scale from beginning to exemplary, an approach developed through simulation research to make clinical judgment observable and to give students language for their own development (Lasater, 2007). Clinical instructors will use the rubric at midterm and final evaluations and in weekly post-conferences, and all simulation debriefs will be structured around the same stages. Instructors will complete a calibration session each semester in which they score the same recorded simulation and discuss differences, so that ratings are consistent across sections.
Student Support and Equity
Because case-based items are reading-intensive, the plan includes explicit teaching of examination vocabulary, a weekly open lab where students work through case studies with a peer tutor, and extended practice for multilingual students. All practice materials are provided within the program at no extra cost, so success does not depend on purchased review products. Students who score below the benchmark on a standardized clinical judgment practice test in the third semester will receive an individualized remediation plan with faculty coaching.
Timeline, Resources and Responsibilities
Semester one: faculty workshop, clinical judgment leads named, curriculum mapping completed, rubric adopted and instructors calibrated (director of nursing and curriculum committee). Semester two: unfolding case studies added to all courses, 15% case-based items on examinations, open lab launched (course coordinators). Year two: 30% case-based items, item analysis routine, remediation process in place, outcomes reviewed each semester (director and assessment committee). Costs are modest: about $9,000 for workshop facilitation and educator resources from the professional development budget, stipends for the two clinical judgment leads and the peer tutors from a state workforce grant, and faculty time within existing workload for item writing and calibration.
Evaluation
Outcome measure: first-time licensure pass rate, with a target of at least 85% for the second graduating cohort after the plan begins. Intermediate measures: mean clinical judgment rubric scores at final clinical evaluations in each semester, the share of students meeting the benchmark on the third-semester practice test, and student performance by cognitive operation on course examinations. Process measures: the percentage of faculty who completed training, the number of reviewed case-based items in the item bank, the proportion of examinations meeting the case-based item targets and instructor calibration agreement. A faculty survey at the end of each year will measure confidence in writing items and in coaching clinical reasoning. The plan will be revised each semester based on these data.
References
Dickison, P., Haerling, K. A., & Lasater, K. (2019). Integrating the National Council of State Boards of Nursing clinical judgment model into nursing educational frameworks. Journal of Nursing Education, 58(2), 72-78. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20190122-03
Lasater, K. (2007). Clinical judgment development: Using simulation to create an assessment rubric. Journal of Nursing Education, 46(11), 496-503. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20071101-04
National Council of State Boards of Nursing. (2023). Next Generation NCLEX. https://www.nclex.com/next-generation-nclex.page
What the C922 Task 2 instructions ask
The second C922 task asks you to plan a program's response to the issue you analyzed. Most versions ask for a goal, a guiding framework, specific components or strategies, attention to students and equity, a timeline with resources and responsibilities, and an evaluation plan with measures. The response should follow from the challenges and opportunities in Task 1 and be realistic for the program you described. The evaluator reads for a plan that names who does what and when, uses evidence or a framework to guide choices and defines how success will be measured. It should be clear how each part of the plan will be paid for and staffed.
How this C922 Task 2 example is built
The plan begins with an executive summary so a program director could grasp it in a minute. The goal is stated in terms of the clinical judgment model. Each of four components has its own section describing what will change, who is involved and how it builds on the others, from faculty development to clinical evaluation. Student support addresses reading load, vocabulary and practice. The timeline runs semester by semester with the responsible person named for each step. Evaluation sets an outcome target and intermediate measures, including rubric scores, so the program can see progress before licensure results arrive. The components are ordered so faculty are trained before courses and examinations change.
Where the C922 Task 2 rubric puts the marks
C922 Task 2 aspects are rated one by one as competent, approaching competence or not evident. A goal and framework aspect checks that the plan has a clear aim grounded in evidence. Component aspects look for specific strategies tied to the issue. A student support or equity aspect asks how the plan serves all learners. Timeline, resources and responsibility aspects want dates and owners. An evaluation aspect looks for outcome and intermediate measures with targets. Evaluators favor plans that follow from the Task 1 analysis. APA citations and professional writing are also scored. Evaluators also check that the timeline is realistic for the faculty numbers the plan describes, since a plan that asks eleven people to redesign every course in one term will not convince.
C922 Task 2 help: what sends it back
Response plans are returned most often because they list good ideas without owners or dates. Assign each step to a role and a time period. Second, components are sometimes unrelated to the issue analyzed; each should answer a challenge or use an opportunity from Task 1. Third, faculty development is assumed rather than planned. Describe the training, its length and how faculty will practice. Fourth, evaluation often waits for the final outcome. Add intermediate measures so the program can adjust early. Finally, include students explicitly. A plan that changes teaching and testing without supporting learners through the transition may widen the gaps the analysis identified.
Get a C922 Task 2 example written to your instructions
Send the C922 Task 2 requirements and rubric, plus the pressure you analyzed in the first task and the kind of program the response has to fit. We write a custom example with owners, resources and an evaluation part attached to every change, returned inside 24 to 48 hours. The first custom sample is free.
More C922 papers
Other Nursing (MSN) sample papers
- D161 Task 1 Final Status Report
- C921 Task 1 Assessment and Evaluation Plan
- D159 Task 2 Data Collection and Reporting Plan
- C798 Task 1 SDLC Plan and Gantt Chart
C922 Task 2 questions, answered
How many changes should the response contain?
Three or four defended changes usually outperform eight thin ones, because every change needs a reason, an owner, resources and evidence before it earns anything. A short set also lets you sequence honestly and say which change a program should make before the others. Read your own requirements before deciding, since a few versions fix the count, and where they do not, keep the set adoptable.
Does the plan have to name who is responsible?
In current versions it does, and this is where a plan stops sounding hypothetical. Name roles rather than people: program chair, course lead, simulation coordinator, clinical placement officer, faculty development committee. A change assigned to the program in general is assigned to nobody, and an evaluator reading for feasibility has nothing to accept. Named roles also make the sequencing part possible.
How is the response plan different from the analysis?
The analysis proves a pressure is real and draws its edges. The plan assumes it and produces changes a program could adopt, with owners, resources, barriers and evidence. Everything that felt like source gathering earlier belongs in one paragraph here, and the space goes to the changes themselves. Submitting the analysis again with recommendations attached leaves the feasibility aspect unmet.
How many components should a C922 response plan have?
Enough to address the main challenges from your analysis, often three to five. The sample uses four components, covering faculty development, curriculum, examinations and clinical evaluation, each with an owner.
Where can I find a free C922 Task 2 sample paper?
The complete response plan, with its timeline and measures, appears above with margin notes. For a plan answering your own issue, share the C922 instructions and the first custom plan costs nothing.