C920 – Contemporary Curriculum Design and Development in Nursing Education
Curriculum Committee
Curriculum development in nursing education demands a deliberate and structured approach that emphasizes shared governance and scholarly foundations. The example of Sycamore University College of Nursing highlights the necessity for academic institutions to regularly evaluate the relevance of their curricula to meet evolving healthcare needs. The guiding questions within this case study serve as a critical analytical framework to aid in decision-making regarding curriculum structure, committee organization, faculty engagement, and instructional design.
Sycamore University College of Nursing Scenario
The undergraduate nursing curriculum at Sycamore University was developed over three years and has largely remained unchanged for nearly a decade. Since its implementation, faculty composition has shifted significantly, with only about one-third of current faculty involved in the original design. This change has contributed to growing concerns among faculty, administrators, and alumni about the curriculum’s adherence to a traditional medical model.
Critics argue that the curriculum insufficiently addresses vital areas such as community-based nursing, population health, and social determinants of health. These areas are now considered fundamental to modern nursing practice. While there is no unanimous agreement, there is a broad consensus that minor revisions are inadequate; instead, a comprehensive redesign of the curriculum is necessary and timely.
In response, Dr. Isabel Perkins, the academic leader, appointed Dr. Lakeisha Williams as chair of the Curriculum Committee to lead this redesign. Dr. Williams was chosen for her expertise in curriculum development, leadership abilities, and deep understanding of the institution’s culture. The Curriculum Committee decided to function as a Steering Committee to oversee the process, ensure stakeholder engagement, monitor timelines, and maintain transparent communication.
Initial discussions focused on whether curriculum development should be centralized within a single design team or distributed among multiple specialized committees. The committee also identified key stakeholders and began drafting a project timeline. Dr. Williams planned to formalize these preliminary discussions into a structured proposal with clear milestones for presentation at an upcoming faculty meeting. These organizational decisions were viewed as critical for launching curriculum development effectively and efficiently.
Reflection Questions and Responses
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the curriculum structures under consideration?
A single design team can provide consistency, coherence, and a unified philosophical approach across all curriculum components. However, it risks overwhelming a small group and may limit faculty participation and ownership. On the other hand, multiple committees encourage shared governance, distribute workload, and bring in diverse expertise. Yet, they risk fragmentation and misalignment if coordination is poor.
The most effective approach appears to be a hybrid model, which combines centralized oversight with specialized working groups. This balances coherence with broad faculty involvement and expertise sharing.
Which committees could best facilitate curriculum development, and what are their responsibilities?
| Committee Name | Primary Responsibilities |
|---|---|
| Curriculum Design Committee | Define curricular philosophy, program outcomes, and conceptual framework |
| Course Content Committee | Develop course objectives, content outlines, and sequencing |
| Assessment and Evaluation Committee | Design student assessments and program evaluation methods |
| Faculty Development Committee | Provide faculty training, mentoring, and scholarly support |
Committee membership should extend beyond full-time faculty to include clinical partners, alumni, students, and community representatives. This inclusive approach helps ensure curricular relevance and stakeholder buy-in.
How can scholarship be promoted in curriculum development?
Dr. Williams can emphasize curriculum development as a scholarly activity by framing it as a form of inquiry. Encouraging evidence-based decision-making, fostering collaborative research on teaching and learning, and recognizing curriculum-related scholarship in promotion and tenure processes can motivate faculty engagement. Additionally, embedding ongoing evaluation and sharing outcomes further validates curriculum development as an academic endeavor.
What faculty development activities are essential to support curriculum redesign?
Effective redesign requires targeted faculty development such as workshops on curriculum theory, instructional design, assessment methods, educational technologies, and integration of community health principles. Ongoing mentoring, peer review, and interdisciplinary collaboration also enhance faculty competence and engagement throughout the process.
Instructional Design Models and Frameworks
Model Selection and Application
Instructional design models offer structured frameworks that accommodate the complexity of nursing education. The ADDIE model (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation) is popular for its clear, systematic approach and emphasis on continuous improvement. Alternatively, learner-centered models such as Morrison, Ross, and Kemp allow more flexibility and iterative adaptation, which suits evolving educational and healthcare contexts.
What are the benefits of conducting a needs analysis in nursing education?
A thorough needs analysis identifies gaps between current educational outcomes and clinical practice requirements. It aligns curriculum content with workforce needs, student diversity, community health priorities, and institutional resources. This ensures learning objectives are targeted, resources are efficiently used, and professional nursing roles are adequately prepared.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the ADDIE model?
The ADDIE model’s strengths lie in its structured phases, clarity of roles, and built-in evaluation for quality improvement. However, its linear nature can hinder responsiveness if applied rigidly. In fast-changing healthcare environments, simultaneous or flexible phase execution may be necessary to meet emerging needs effectively.
How can the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp model be used to build a learning activity?
An instructional problem was identified in the course “The Role of the BSN Nurse in Promoting Community Health,” where students needed improved skills in community engagement and health promotion. Considering learners’ diverse backgrounds, the instructional objectives focused on community health needs analysis, culturally responsive intervention development, and effective communication with stakeholders.
Using the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp model allows for non-linear alignment of objectives, learner characteristics, content, teaching strategies, and evaluation methods. This flexible approach helps tailor instruction to diverse learner needs and dynamic contexts.
Approaching Course Design and Construction
Alignment between course concepts, context, and content is achieved through curriculum mapping, which links learning objectives to program outcomes and clinical practice expectations. This mapping helps faculty visualize coherence, identify redundancies, and spot gaps. When conflicts arise, a structured gap analysis followed by collaborative faculty discussion aids resolution. Iterative revisions and transparent communication ensure curricular integrity.
Faculty development that supports course creation includes training in curriculum mapping, assessment design, instructional technology, and scholarly teaching. Peer collaboration and mentoring further enhance course quality and consistency.
Developing for Distance Learning: Cardol College School of Nursing Case
Scenario Summary
Cardol College School of Nursing, known for community-responsive education, offers a Bachelor of Science in Nursing program via traditional and hybrid formats. As web-based technology grows, faculty opinions on expanding distance learning diverge. Supporters highlight increased accessibility, alignment with institutional goals, and preparation for technology-driven healthcare. Opponents worry about diminished interpersonal interaction, challenges in role modeling, and increased faculty workload.
Dr. Grace Ingersmith, the college leader, endorses strategic distance learning integration aligned with the university’s mission to expand access without compromising quality. She stresses that technology adoption must be pedagogically sound and well supported.
Why are faculty motivated to propose more technology-based courses?
Faculty interest in technology-based courses is driven by student demand for flexible learning options, alignment with institutional strategic priorities, and recognition of technology’s growing role in healthcare. Innovations in pedagogy and potential efficiencies also contribute to this motivation.
What questions should the Curriculum Committee consider when reviewing distance learning?
| Key Review Questions |
|---|
| How does distance learning impact student engagement and outcomes? |
| What technological and pedagogical support is necessary? |
| How can interpersonal skills and professional behaviors be modeled online? |
| What are the resource and faculty workload implications? |
| How does technology use align with curriculum goals and community needs? |
What are the advantages and disadvantages of increased technology-based learning?
Advantages include greater flexibility, expanded access, improved digital literacy, and innovative instructional approaches. Disadvantages may involve reduced face-to-face interaction, faculty resistance, increased preparation time, and inequities due to variable technology access.
Requiring all nursing theory courses to include web-based components can be appropriate if thoughtfully implemented. Such integration reflects current healthcare practices and supports diverse learning styles but must safeguard relational learning, ensure equitable access, and provide adequate faculty support.
References
Billings, D. M., & Halstead, J. A. (2020). Teaching in nursing: A guide for faculty (6th ed.). Elsevier.
Iwasiw, C., Andrusyszyn, M. A., & Goldenberg, D. (2020). Curriculum development in nursing education (4th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Obizoba, M. C. (2015). Building a learning activity in nursing education using the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp instructional design model. Nursing Education Perspectives, 36(4), 231–235.