Five Audiences, One Set of Findings: A Communication Strategy for Sharing a Maternal-Newborn Course Evaluation and Acting on the Responses
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
NSG/533: Educational Assessment and Evaluation
Week 6 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The school, the course and its stakeholders are a composite written for a model paper.
In Week 5, I evaluated the first cohort of the maternal-newborn course after its assessments were redesigned. The results were encouraging but mixed: higher-level performance improved, the new exams were reasonably reliable and students found them harder but fairer, while reflection skills and the case analysis rubric needed work. Results that stay in a report change nothing. This paper plans how to share them and how to use the responses.
Principles for Communicating Results
Three principles guide the strategy. Each audience receives the findings that matter to its decisions, in a form it can use. Results are presented honestly, including limits and weaknesses, since stakeholders who hear only good news stop trusting evaluations. And communication is two-way: every audience is asked a specific question, and its answers are recorded and used (Oermann & Gaberson, 2021).
Audience 1: Students
Who: the next cohort beginning the course, and the cohort that was evaluated.
Message: what the evaluation found and what changed because of student feedback, especially the new rubric examples and class session, and why the exams are harder.
Format and timing: a five-minute segment on the first day of the course for the new cohort, and an email summary to the evaluated cohort within a month of the evaluation.
Question asked: in the new cohort's mid-course check, "Are the rubric examples helping you understand what each level requires?"
Audience 2: Course Faculty and Clinical Instructors
Who: the three course faculty and eight clinical instructors.
Message: the full results, including item analysis summaries, simulation rater agreement and instructor comments, and the decisions on reflection and the rubric.
Format and timing: a one-hour meeting before the next cohort starts, with a written summary.
Question asked: "What would help you coach reflection on clinical days?" Instructors are the people who will make the reflection changes happen, so their ideas shape the plan rather than follow it.
Audience 3: The Curriculum Committee
Who: the program's curriculum committee, which reviews all courses.
Message: the evaluation method, the main findings with evidence, the limits of one cohort and whether the approach could apply to other courses, since several courses share the same recall-heavy item banks.
Format and timing: a two-page written report with one figure comparing performance on shared items, presented at the next committee meeting.
Question asked: "Should the program adopt a standard that at least 60% of exam items in clinical courses be at the apply level or higher?"
Audience 4: Clinical Partners
Who: nurse managers and educators at the two hospitals where students complete maternal-newborn clinical rotations.
Message: students should arrive better at recognizing changes and prioritizing, and the program wants to know whether nurses notice a difference.
Format and timing: a short email summary and a conversation at the annual clinical partner meeting.
Question asked: "Compared with previous students, how prepared are our students to recognize a deteriorating postpartum patient?" Their answer provides evidence the program cannot collect on its own.
Audience 5: Program Leadership
Who: the associate dean for the undergraduate program.
Message: the redesign improved higher-level performance and the standardized exam score, at the cost of more faculty time for grading and simulation; continuing requires simulation time and training for faculty in item writing and debriefing.
Format and timing: a one-page summary, with the committee report attached, before the next budget cycle.
Question asked: "Can simulation center hours and a faculty development workshop on item writing be funded for next year?"
What Each Audience Needs to Trust the Findings
Different audiences need different evidence before they accept a finding. Faculty will want to see the item analysis and rater agreement, the kind of validity and reliability evidence that supports interpreting scores as intended (Downing, 2003). The curriculum committee will want the comparison between cohorts and its limits. Leadership will want the standardized exam result and the costs. Students and partners will want to know what changed in practice. Matching evidence to audience keeps each communication short without hiding anything.
Presenting the Simulation Findings
The simulation results need careful explanation, because many stakeholders are unfamiliar with rubric scoring. Faculty and the committee will see median scores on each dimension of the clinical judgment rubric, which was adapted from the rubric Lasater (2007) developed from Tanner's model, together with rater agreement. The low reflecting score will be presented as the clearest target for improvement rather than as a failure, because it identifies a specific skill that faculty can teach.
Presenting Data Clearly
Data will be presented simply. For students and partners, results will be described in words and one or two numbers. For faculty and the committee, tables will compare the two cohorts with the number of students and the limits stated beside each result. Figures will show one comparison each, with labeled axes and no unnecessary detail. Student comments will be quoted only with identifying details removed.
Protecting Privacy
No individual student's scores or comments will be shared outside the course faculty. Results reported to the committee and leadership will be aggregated. Focus group quotations will be anonymous and checked so that no student can be identified by what they said.
Using the Responses
Responses will be collected in a single log with the date, audience, question, answer and resulting action. For example, if instructors propose a reflection card for clinical post-conference, it will be tried with the next cohort and its effect checked in the next evaluation. If the curriculum committee adopts the 60% standard, the course will share its item-writing process with other faculty. If partners report no difference in students, the program will look at whether exam gains are transferring to practice.
Handling Disagreement About the Findings
Some stakeholders may challenge the results. A faculty member might argue that the lower exam mean means students learned less, or a partner might report no difference in students. The strategy treats such responses as data rather than opposition: each is recorded, the evidence behind the finding is shared and, where the challenge raises a real question, it becomes part of the next evaluation. This keeps the evaluation open to correction.
Timeline
Month 1: faculty meeting and email to the evaluated cohort. Month 2: first-day segment for the new cohort and curriculum committee report. Month 3: summary to leadership and the clinical partner meeting. Month 4: mid-course student check. End of the next cohort: repeat the evaluation and report again, closing the loop.
Conclusion
The strategy gives five audiences the findings that matter to their decisions, in formats they can use, and asks each a specific question whose answer will shape the next round of improvement. Communication completes the cycle this course has followed, from recognizing a mismatch between objectives and tests, through building and checking better tools, to evaluating the course and sharing what was learned, and it begins the next cycle.
References
Downing, S. M. (2003). Validity: On the meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Medical Education, 37(9), 830-837. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01594.x
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
Oermann, M. H., & Gaberson, K. B. (2021). Evaluation and testing in nursing education (6th ed.). Springer Publishing.
How this NSG 533 Week 6 example is structured
The NSG/533 description ends with communicating assessment and evaluation results to others, gaining their input and making curricular improvements based on stakeholder feedback. This paper builds the strategy audience by audience, tailoring what each needs to know and how they will be asked to respond, and ends with how responses feed back into the course. Students search this week as NSG 533 Week 6, NSG533 Wk 6 or NSG/533 Wk 6; all three are the same assignment.
NSG/533 Week 6 questions, answered
What does NSG/533 Week 6 usually ask for?
The course description ends with developing a communication strategy to share assessment and evaluation results with stakeholders and use their input to improve the program.
Should students see course evaluation results?
Yes, in a form that respects privacy. Showing students what their feedback changed builds trust and improves future response rates.
How should evaluation results be presented to leadership?
Briefly, with the main findings, the evidence behind them, their limits, the decisions made and any resources needed, usually in a short written summary with one or two figures.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.