| Course | NURS 6351 Role of the Nurse Educator |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Mentorship plan paper |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Science in Nursing (MSN) |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NURS 6351 Week 9
Two Requests Up, Two Commitments Down: A One-Year Mentorship Plan for a Step-Down Preceptor Moving Toward Clinical Teaching
Student Name
College of Nursing, Walden University
NURS 6351: Role of the Nurse Educator
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Two Requests Up, Two Commitments Down: A One-Year Mentorship Plan for a Step-Down Preceptor Moving Toward Clinical Teaching
My competency self-assessment earlier in this course rated me a 2 of 4 for assessment and evaluation strategies, and every other low rating on that sheet sits downstream of it. Eleven orientees have come through my precepting, yet I have never written an examination item, and the one time an orientation was extended I let my manager write the reasons down. This plan therefore asks mentors for two things only: help writing items and evaluation criteria that measure what a learner can do, and help handling a learner who is not meeting the standard, from the first concern to the written record. Anything broader than those two needs would be a wish rather than a request, and a busy educator can decline a wish without guilt.
The plan also runs the other way. The same course that asks what I need from senior educators argues that the role includes developing others from the start, so the second half names two people I would develop and what each of them gets. The horizon is one year, with a checkpoint each quarter. Mentoring evidence in nursing academia supports doing this, but not blindly: a systematic review of 34 studies found that mentorship had a positive effect on behavioral, career, attitudinal, relational and motivational outcomes, while also judging the quality of those studies weak (Nowell et al., 2017). Because the evidence is encouraging but thin, every arrangement below carries its own test and a condition under which it has failed.
Upward: Two Mentors
Mentor 1: The Test Committee Chair at Our Partner Associate Degree Program
Need: writing multiple-choice and clinical evaluation items that separate a learner who understands from one who has memorized. Fit: this faculty member chairs the committee that reviews every unit examination in the program where our step-down unit hosts students, and has run item analyses for years. Ask: two hours a month, reviewing ten of my draft medical-surgical items at a time, with written comments on the stem, the distractors and the level of thinking each item demands. Standard guidance on item construction and on reading difficulty and discrimination results gives us a shared vocabulary for those reviews (Oermann & Gaberson, 2021). Cadence: monthly, in person or by video, with drafts sent a week ahead.
Checkpoint: by the end of the second quarter, 30 reviewed items, and at least ten of them accepted into the program's item bank for a pilot. Failure condition: if fewer than ten items have been reviewed by month four, the arrangement is not working, and I will ask the chair to name a committee member with more time instead of letting it drift.
Mentor 2: A Clinical Faculty Member Who Sits on the Progression Committee
Need: the process of failing a learner fairly, and the documentation that has to exist before the decision. Fit: this educator supervises students on medical-surgical units, has served on the progression committee for three years, and has written the kind of warnings I have only watched other people write. Interviews with faculty, preceptors and advisors describe failing a student as difficult, name personal, professional and structural reasons that educators sometimes pass a student who should not pass, and recommend better documentation, communication and support (Larocque & Luhanga, 2013). Those three recommendations are what I am asking this mentor to teach. Ask: permission to sit in, with the student's consent, on one midterm clinical evaluation conference each semester, plus review of two anonymized evaluation narratives I write about my own orientees. Cadence: quarterly, timed to the program's evaluation calendar.
Checkpoint: by the end of the third quarter, two narratives revised after the mentor's comments, each describing a concern with the date, the behavior, the standard it missed and the plan agreed with the learner. Failure condition: if no conference has been observed by month six, I will substitute a structured case review using a past, fully anonymized file from our own unit rather than continue waiting.
Downward: Two People I Would Develop
An integrative review of 18 studies on mentoring nurse faculty grouped the findings into prevalence, priorities, perceived quality, outcomes and challenges, and found that challenges within the relationships were common enough to count as a theme of their own (Busby et al., 2022). The two arrangements below are written with that in mind: small, specific and easy to end cleanly.
Protégé 1: A New Graduate in the First Year on the Unit
What they get: a monthly thirty-minute review of one shift they found hard, using the same talk-it-through approach I described in the first week of this course, and a named person to ask about titrations and escalation outside their preceptor's schedule. What I get: practice in feedback that the learner has not asked to be softened, and a record of which explanations worked. Checkpoint: after six months, the new graduate identifies one decision they now make without checking, and one they still check, and says whether the reviews helped with either. Failure condition: two months in a row without a review means the arrangement has stopped, and I will say so plainly rather than let it linger.
Protégé 2: A Charge Nurse Who Precepts Without Having Been Taught to Precept
What they get: my orientation checklist annotated with what each item is actually testing, and a joint debrief after each of their orientee's weekly reviews for the first month of their next orientation. What I get: a second set of eyes on my own evaluation language, since the charge nurse will ask why a line says what it says. Checkpoint: by the end of the year, the charge nurse writes their own orientee's final evaluation narrative, and I read it only after it is signed. Failure condition: if the charge nurse is not assigned an orientee this year, this entry ends and the time moves to the first protégé.
When Someone Leaves
Faculty and charge nurses change jobs. If either mentor leaves, I will ask them before they go to name one colleague who could take over the specific request, not the relationship, because the request is what the plan depends on. If I leave the unit, both protégés will be introduced to the unit's clinical nurse specialist, who already reviews our orientation materials, and the charge nurse's annotated checklist stays with the unit rather than with me. The plan is written for one year, and the last checkpoint is also the point at which each arrangement either ends on purpose or is renewed in writing.
References
Busby, K. R., Draucker, C. B., & Reising, D. L. (2022). Exploring mentoring and nurse faculty: An integrative review. Journal of Professional Nursing, 38, 26-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2021.11.006
Larocque, S., & Luhanga, F. L. (2013). Exploring the issue of failure to fail in a nursing program. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 10(1), 115-122. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijnes-2012-0037
Nowell, L., Norris, J. M., Mrklas, K., & White, D. E. (2017). Mixed methods systematic review exploring mentorship outcomes in nursing academia. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 73(3), 527-544. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13152
Oermann, M. H., & Gaberson, K. B. (2021). Evaluation and testing in nursing education (6th ed.). Springer Publishing.
NURS 6351 Week 9 instructions, in plain terms
The Week 9 assignment in Role of the Nurse Educator usually asks you to develop a mentoring plan for your growth as a nurse educator: identify what you need to learn, who could mentor you and how the relationship would work. Many sections add that you should describe how you would mentor others, and some ask for the evidence on mentoring in nursing education. The plan typically runs two to four pages in APA format, sometimes with a table. Prompts may ask for goals, timelines and methods of evaluation. Read the wording on direction carefully, since plans that describe only the mentoring the writer will receive miss the half of the prompt about developing others.
Inside the NURS 6351 Week 9 example
The opening paragraph ties the plan to the writer's Week 3 rating of 2 for assessment and evaluation, then limits the requests to two needs. It uses the Nowell review to explain why each arrangement needs its own test: the evidence for mentorship is positive but methodologically weak. The upward half names two mentors by position, a test committee chair and a clinical faculty member on the progression committee, and each entry states the fit, a small ask with hours and cadence, a checkpoint and a failure condition. Larocque and Luhanga's findings on failure to fail shape the second request. The downward half repeats the same fields for a new graduate and a charge nurse, and the closing paragraph covers what happens when someone leaves.
Reading the NURS 6351 Week 9 rubric
Rubrics for the mentorship plan usually score identification of development needs, selection of appropriate mentors, a clear plan with goals and timelines, evaluation of the relationship, use of evidence and writing. Needs are judged by specificity, so two named skills outscore a wish for growth. Mentor selection is judged by fit, which is why each entry explains why that person matches that need. The plan row wants hours, frequency and dates. Evaluation is the row most plans leave thin, and a checkpoint with a failure condition answers it directly. Evidence is scored on whether sources shaped the plan, and the writing row checks APA headings, citations and references.
Common NURS 6351 Week 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most common mistake is a plan built around impressive people rather than specific needs, which reads as networking. Another is an ask so large, such as ongoing guidance and support, that no busy educator could agree to it or be measured against it. Many plans skip evaluation entirely or place one vague review at the end of the year. Some leave out the mentoring the writer will give, which many prompts require. Naming real colleagues is rarely necessary, and positions are safer in a document that will be stored. If your mentors are informal, say so and still attach a cadence and a checkpoint, because the plan is judged on whether it could actually be followed.
Get a NURS 6351 Week 9 example written to your instructions
Send the prompt, the rubric and any template your section requires, and a NURS 6351 Week 9 mentorship plan comes back on it, both directions built out and checkpoints attached. The first custom one is free and returns inside 24 to 48 hours. Who actually mentors you is a relationship only you can name.
More NURS 6351 papers and MSN samples
- NURS 6351 Week 1: Discussion post
- NURS 6351 Week 2: Role analysis
- NURS 6351 Week 3: Competency self-assessment
- NURS 6351 Week 4: Educator interview
- NURS 6351 Week 5: Teaching philosophy
- NURS 6351 Week 6: Ethics case
- NURS 6351 Week 7: Observation write-up
- NURS 6351 Week 8: Discussion post
- NURS 6351 Week 10: Role development plan
- NURS 6351 Week 11: Portfolio
- NURS 6341 Week 9: Practice recommendation
- NURS 6331 Week 9: Discussion post
- NURS 6321 Week 9: Evaluation plan
- NURS 6241 Week 9: Discussion post
NURS 6351 Week 9 questions, answered
Do the mentors have to be real people?
The example names them by role, which is the safer choice and is what most prompts accept: a simulation lead, a course chair, a preceptor coordinator. Naming an actual colleague in a document that gets marked and stored is rarely required, and a plan built on positions still shows the fit and the ask that a rubric is scoring.
Why does the plan include people the writer would mentor?
Because the assignment sits inside a course about holding the role, and the role includes developing others from early on. Plans written only upward read as career management, which is a different document entirely. The downward half is also where failure conditions get concrete, since a stalled arrangement is easier to describe from the mentor side.
How far ahead does the plan run?
The example works on a one-year horizon with quarterly checkpoints, which is long enough for evidence to exist and short enough to be argued with. Prompts sometimes name a different span, and the structure holds at any length as long as each entry keeps its own date and its own test rather than sharing one at the end.
Where can I find a free NURS 6351 Week 9 sample paper?
The full mentorship plan, with both mentors, both people the writer would develop and the references, is laid out in full here. If your needs differ, the desk will draft a plan around them at no cost, typically inside two days.
Does the NURS 6351 mentorship plan need a table?
Not usually. A table can summarize mentors, asks and dates, but the reasoning behind each choice belongs in prose, and many rubrics score that reasoning. The example uses headed entries instead so each one carries its own explanation.