Before, During and After the First Cohort: An Implementation Plan for a Supported Conversation Module, With Faculty Preparation and a Pilot
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
NSG/534: Facilitating Engaged Learning
Week 5 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The school, its staff and the module are a composite written for a model paper.
In Weeks 1 through 4, I analyzed a performance gap in how junior nursing students communicate with adults who have aphasia, designed a blended module with five objectives, created engaging activities and developed a branching scenario. This paper plans implementation, the phase in which a well-designed product often fails because the people and logistics around it were not prepared.
Implementation as Its Own Phase
Branch (2009) describes implementation as preparing the learning environment and engaging learners and facilitators, not simply releasing a product. A module is implemented when the people who deliver it can do so as designed, the learners know what to expect and support is ready when something breaks.
Preparing Faculty
Three groups of faculty need preparation. The course coordinator and four clinical instructors will complete the module themselves, attend a one-hour session led by me and the speech-language pathologist on supported conversation techniques and review the simulation checklist and reflection rubric. Two simulation faculty who will run the standardized patient encounters and lead debriefings will complete an additional two-hour session on the case, the checklist and debriefing focused on communication, including how to respond when a student becomes upset. Clinical instructors on the rehabilitation unit will receive a one-page guide showing the techniques and prompts they can use to reinforce them on the unit, so that learning continues after the module.
Preparing Standardized Patients
Two standardized patients will portray Mr. Alvarez. They will receive the case script developed with the speech-language pathologist, including his history, what he understands, how his speech sounds and how he responds when spoken to directly, through family, too quickly or with too many ideas at once. They will meet with the speech-language pathologist and a person with aphasia from the peer support program to observe real communication. Each will complete three practice encounters with faculty playing students, with feedback on consistency, before the first student session.
Schedule
Week 1 of the semester: the course coordinator announces the module and its purpose in class and posts it in the learning management system. Weeks 3 and 4: students complete the online module, including the branching scenario and quiz, by the end of week 4. Week 5: peer practice sessions during the course's scheduled lab time, followed by the standardized patient encounters in the simulation center in groups of eight, each group taking about two hours including debriefing. Reflections are due within three days. Week 6: students begin the rehabilitation rotation.
Preparing Learners
Students will receive a short orientation message explaining why the module exists, what it involves and that it is graded pass or fail and designed to be safe to make mistakes in. The prebriefing at the simulation will cover the room, the standardized patient's role, the checklist's use for feedback and the rule that what happens in simulation is for learning. Because the analysis found students anxious about saying the wrong thing, the orientation will say plainly that making mistakes in the scenario and simulation is expected.
Technical Support
The branching scenario runs in the learning management system. The school's help desk will receive a brief guide to the module and the two most likely problems, videos not playing on older browsers and captions not showing, with solutions. Students will be able to report problems through a link on the first screen, which reaches me directly during the first cohort.
The Pilot
Before the full cohort, one clinical group of eight students will complete the module and simulation two weeks earlier. The pilot will check how long each part takes, whether the scenario works on students' devices, whether the quiz items are clear, whether the standardized patients portray Mr. Alvarez consistently and whether the checklist is easy for raters to use. Pilot students will complete a short survey and a 20-minute group discussion. Changes will be made before the remaining 40 students begin. Pilot testing with real learners is a standard step because designers and faculty cannot anticipate every problem learners will meet (Branch, 2009).
Contingency Plans
If the simulation center is unavailable, encounters will be run in the skills lab with the same standardized patients. If a standardized patient is ill, faculty trained in the case will substitute. If a student cannot attend the simulation, a make-up session will be offered in week 5 or 6. If technical problems prevent students from completing the scenario, a video version with written choices will be available as a backup.
Accessibility and Equity
All videos are captioned, the module works on phones and the online components have no time limits. Students who need accommodations will contact the accessibility office, and simulation arrangements will be adjusted as needed. Students who work evening jobs can complete the online parts at any time.
Communication With the Clinical Unit
The rehabilitation unit's nurse manager and staff will be told about the module so that they know what students have learned and can support them. The unit's communication boards and pictorial pain scales will be placed in a visible location on each hallway, addressing the environmental finding from Week 1 that students did not know where tools were kept.
Why the Evidence Supports This Plan
The plan's emphasis on practice with feedback, delivered by trained facilitators with consistent portrayals, reflects the features common to communication partner training programs, which a systematic review found consistently improved how well partners support conversation (Simmons-Mackie et al., 2016). The standardized patient's script was checked against the account of supported conversation given by Kagan (1998), so that the behaviors students practice are the ones shown to help.
Sustaining the Module
A module delivered once and then forgotten will not change practice. After the first semester, ownership will pass to the course coordinator, with the standardized patient case filed in the simulation center's library, the scenario maintained in the learning management system and a yearly review scheduled with the speech-language pathologist. New clinical instructors will complete the module during their orientation, so that everyone who supervises students on the unit knows the techniques students were taught.
Budget
The module uses existing resources. The main costs are standardized patient time, about 16 hours including training and sessions, simulation faculty time and a small printing cost for technique cards. These costs come from the course's existing simulation budget.
Responsibility
I will coordinate implementation, the course coordinator will announce and track completion, simulation faculty will run the encounters and the speech-language pathologist will support standardized patient training. A short checklist of tasks with dates and owners will be shared with everyone involved.
Conclusion
The implementation plan prepares faculty, standardized patients and learners, schedules every component within the existing course, provides technical support, pilots the module with one group and prepares for what could go wrong. It also connects the module to the clinical unit where students will use what they learned. Week 6 will plan evaluation.
References
Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09506-6
Kagan, A. (1998). Supported conversation for adults with aphasia: Methods and resources for training conversation partners. Aphasiology, 12(9), 816-830. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687039808249575
Simmons-Mackie, N., Raymer, A., & Cherney, L. R. (2016). Communication partner training in aphasia: An updated systematic review. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 97(12), 2202-2221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2016.03.023
How this NSG 534 Week 5 example is structured
The NSG/534 description includes implementing instructional products and preparing faculty to use them. This paper treats implementation as its own phase with its own risks: it prepares the people who will deliver the module, schedules every component, prepares learners, plans support and a pilot and names contingencies, so the product built in development reaches students as designed. Students search this week as NSG 534 Week 5, NSG534 Wk 5 or NSG/534 Wk 5; all three are the same assignment.
NSG/534 Week 5 questions, answered
What does NSG/534 Week 5 usually ask for?
Many sections ask students to plan the implementation phase of their instructional product, including faculty preparation, delivery logistics and how the product will be introduced to learners.
Why pilot an instructional product?
A small first run with real learners finds problems with timing, technology, clarity and logistics that testing by designers misses, so they can be fixed before the whole group uses it.
How are standardized patients prepared?
They receive a detailed case script, training in how to portray the condition consistently and how to respond to different learner behaviors, and practice runs with feedback before working with students.
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.