| Course | NURS 6331 Teaching Learning Strategies: Integrating Technology Into Nursing Education |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Discussion post with two peer replies |
| Length | About 550 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Discussion post, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Science in Nursing (MSN) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NURS 6331 Week 9
Week 9 Discussion: Initial Post
The Screen Platform Will Cost About 41 Faculty Hours a Term, and Nobody Has Counted Them
My estimate is that running the screen-based medication simulation platform as optional rehearsal for one term will take about 41 faculty hours, none of which appears in anyone's workload. The license was approved; the hours were not.
Here is where the number comes from, line by line, for one cohort of 64 second-year students. Setup: linking the platform to the learning management system, choosing cases and setting gradebook rules, 6 hours. Authoring: our objective needs cases with interruptions at varied points, and the platform has only two, so building three more at about 4 hours each is 12 hours. Troubleshooting: students report login failures, frozen room views and lost scores, and at an hour a week across a 15-week term that is 15 hours. Retraining: every new cohort needs a 1-hour orientation, and each new adjunct needs about 2 hours before they can answer student questions; with two new adjuncts, that is 5 hours. Updates: the vendor releases a version each term, and retesting the five cases takes about 3 hours. The total is 41 hours, roughly a full working week.
This pattern is not unique to our platform. Simulation educators have proposed formal models for counting simulation work in faculty assignments because preparation, facilitation and debriefing time did not fit traditional workload categories (Blodgett et al., 2018), and research on blended learning adoption has found that institutional support structures, including technical and pedagogical support, shape whether faculty take up new technology (Porter & Graham, 2016). Technical problems are also among the most commonly reported disadvantages of virtual simulation (Shorey & Ng, 2021), which is why my troubleshooting line is not zero.
I am not arguing against the platform. I am arguing that cost belongs in the decision, and that the cost is mostly faculty time.
Reply to Rachel
Rachel, you rebuilt my estimate at 24 hours by assuming the vendor authors new cases on request and that the institution's help desk takes login problems. That is a different arrangement, not a different count, and I think you are right that it is the better one. Your version moves 12 authoring hours to the vendor's contract, which has a price, and about a third of the troubleshooting, the login problems, to the help desk, which has a queue. I would accept your 24 hours if both are written into the renewal. Without that, I think the work quietly returns to faculty in week 3, when the first student cannot log in the night before lab.
Reply to Marcus
Marcus, you accepted the 41 hours and asked the harder question: who is paid for them? In your program, you said, lab coordinators are staff paid by the hour and faculty are salaried, so the same hour costs differently depending on who does it. I had not considered that. If the troubleshooting and retraining lines go to the lab coordinator, they become a visible budget item, which might be the best way to make the hidden hours count. The authoring hours still need faculty expertise, though, so at least 12 hours stay with faculty. Does your program give course release for that kind of development work, or does it happen on evenings?
References
Blodgett, N. P., Blodgett, T., & Kardong-Edgren, S. E. (2018). A proposed model for simulation faculty workload determination. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 18, 20-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2018.01.003
Porter, W. W., & Graham, C. R. (2016). Institutional drivers and barriers to faculty adoption of blended learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 748-762. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12269
Shorey, S., & Ng, E. D. (2021). The use of virtual reality simulation among nursing students and registered nurses: A systematic review. Nurse Education Today, 98, Article 104662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104662
What the NURS 6331 Week 9 instructions ask for
The ninth NURS 6331 thread asks you to examine a practical side of technology adoption. Make an argument, support it with an estimate or evidence and give classmates something concrete to respond to. Later threads are graded on whether an argument is advanced, so a post that lists pros and cons earns less. Cite sources in APA 7. The 41 hours in the example is an estimate built from listed tasks, not a published statistic. A post can argue against a technology if reasoning supports it. Show how you reached any number. Replies should test the assumptions behind the estimate.
How the NURS 6331 Week 9 example is put together
The post opens with an estimate rather than an opinion: the writer commits to a figure for what one term of running the tool would take, then spends the following sentences showing where that figure came from. Setup, item authoring, troubleshooting during class, and the retraining arriving with every new cohort are each accounted for separately, so a peer can dispute one line without rejecting the whole. A source supports the claim that this labor is systematically undercounted. The post does not conclude that the tool is unworthy. It concludes that the cost belongs inside the decision, and it names who currently absorbs the hours. Two replies follow, one contesting the estimate with different arithmetic, one accepting it and asking who gets paid for the work.
Reading the NURS 6331 Week 9 rubric
Threads in the later weeks are usually graded on whether an argument was advanced and whether peers were given something to work with. The example earns both by being specific enough to disagree with, the quality separating a post that reads as participation from one that reads as thinking. Sources carry their own row, and the example stays honest by citing for the pattern rather than for the number. Losses are predictable. A post restating assigned reading has produced attendance. A post condemning or praising a technology in general terms gives peers nothing to extend. Replies that agree, compliment and stop land in the bottom band wherever the rubric asks for extension, and a missed posting window costs its own points.
NURS 6331 Week 9 help from the desk
Later posts score poorly when they repeat earlier weeks. Advance a new argument. A second weakness is a number with no build. Show each task and its hours. Writers also stop at the problem. Propose a fix, such as a workload estimate with every request. Avoid treating faculty time as free. Count it. In replies, ask which line of a classmate's estimate is most uncertain. A table of tasks and hours makes the estimate easy to challenge and improve. End with the request you would put to the program director. Keep the main post to one argument so replies can focus.
Get a NURS 6331 Week 9 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 9 prompt and your section's rubric, and the desk writes a thread on the workload question using the tool and the setting you actually work in. The first sample is free, back inside 24-48 hours, replies included, so you have something to read beside the numbers you would be willing to defend.
More NURS 6331 papers and MSN samples
- NURS 6331 Week 1: Discussion Post
- NURS 6331 Week 2: Tool Review
- NURS 6331 Week 3: Modality Comparison
- NURS 6331 Week 4: Evidence Review
- NURS 6331 Week 5: Accessibility Audit
- NURS 6331 Week 6: Teaching Plan
- NURS 6331 Week 7: Simulation Scenario
- NURS 6331 Week 8: Media Storyboard
- NURS 6331 Week 10: Implementation memo
- NURS 6331 Week 11: Reflection
- NURS 6341 Week 9: Practice recommendation
- NURS 6321 Week 9: Evaluation Plan
- NURS 6351 Week 9: Mentorship plan
- NURS 6241 Week 9: Discussion Post
NURS 6331 Week 9 questions, answered
Is the number in the example a real statistic?
No, and it is not presented as one. It is the writer's own estimate, built line by line inside the post so a reader can rebuild it differently. The cited source supports the broader claim that this labor goes uncounted. Any figure in a custom version is likewise yours to defend, never a published finding.
Does a thread post need citations?
Most sections say yes for the initial post, and many ask for one in each reply as well. The example cites once in the post and once in a reply, both mid sentence, with a reference list that matches. Whatever your own rubric names is what a custom version follows.
Can a post argue against the technology?
It can, and this one comes close without doing it. What a rubric usually rewards is a position that survives the strongest counterargument, not the direction the position takes. The example puts cost on the table and leaves the decision open, which is what earns the replies it gets.
Where can I find a free NURS 6331 Week 9 sample paper?
The 41 faculty hours post is reproduced here with the estimate, the argument about hidden workload, the proposal and replies to Rachel and Marcus.
Where does the 41-hour figure come from in NURS 6331 Week 9?
It is the writer's estimate, built line by line from tasks such as account setup, scenario selection, monitoring and answering questions.