| Course | NURS 8544 Strategies for Teaching Innovations in Nursing Education |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Alignment memo |
| Length | About 820 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NURS 8544 Week 9
Memorandum
To: Course Lead, Second-Semester Medical-Surgical Nursing
From: DNP student, nurse educator track
Date: Month Day, Year
Re: Two of four oxygenation unit objectives are not served as written; one fix each
Findings
I traced the four objectives of the oxygenation unit through the activities that teach them and the measures that score them. Two rows align. Two do not. In the first mismatch, an objective that asks learners to evaluate a patient's oxygenation is taught by an activity in which learners recall criteria and is measured by a quiz that checks definitions. The unit therefore teaches and tests recognition while claiming judgment. In the second, the active learning session on a patient whose saturation stays steady on rising oxygen produces exactly the reasoning we want, but no measure in the unit ever looks at that reasoning, so we cannot tell whether it was learned.
Method
Biggs (1996) argued that a course teaches well when what learners are meant to learn, what they do in class and what the assessment rewards all call on one kind of thinking, and that test is the one applied here. For each objective I recorded its verb, what learners physically do in the activity and what the measure rewards, classifying each by the revised taxonomy's cognitive process levels (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). A row aligns when all three sit at the same level.
Trace
Table 1 shows the trace.
Table 1
Alignment of Oxygenation Unit Objectives, Activities and Measures
| Objective (verb) | What learners do in the activity | What the measure rewards | Aligned? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Describe the oxygen-hemoglobin dissociation curve (understand) | Explain the curve to a partner from a diagram | Short-answer explanation on unit exam | Yes |
| 2. Select an oxygen delivery device for a given patient (apply) | Choose devices for four short cases | Case-based multiple-choice items | Yes |
| 3. Evaluate a patient's oxygenation status (evaluate) | List the criteria for adequate oxygenation from the reading | Quiz items matching terms to definitions | No |
| 4. Interpret trends in vital signs and oxygen requirement (analyze) | Two-release case on steady saturation with rising oxygen | No item addresses trends; exit question not scored | No |
Rows 1 and 2 align at the understanding and application levels. Rows 3 and 4 fail in different ways.
Mismatch 1: Objective 3
The objective's verb is evaluate, which asks learners to judge whether a patient's oxygenation is adequate using several pieces of evidence. The activity asks them to list criteria, and the quiz asks them to match terms to definitions. Both work at the level of remembering. A learner could score full marks on the quiz and still be unable to judge whether a real patient is oxygenating well. Judging oxygenation in practice involves noticing which findings matter, interpreting them together and deciding what they mean for this patient, which is how models of clinical judgment describe the work (Tanner, 2006). A definition quiz exercises none of those steps. Neither does a list of criteria, because the list arrives already sorted, while a real patient presents a mix of relevant and irrelevant findings that the nurse must sort.
Cost: The unit reports that learners have met an evaluation objective when it has only shown they can recall vocabulary, and clinical instructors will find the gap later.
Recommendation: Replace the listing activity with three short patient descriptions in which learners decide whether oxygenation is adequate and justify the decision, and add two case-based exam items that require the same judgment. Alternatively, if the course lead considers evaluation beyond this unit's scope, change the verb to identify, so the objective states honestly what the unit teaches.
Mismatch 2: Objective 4
This mismatch runs the other way. The two-release case session produces the reasoning the objective names: learners compare saturation with oxygen flow and respiratory rate over time. But the unit exam contains no item on trends, and the exit question is read for feedback but not scored. The activity may well be working; we have no way to know.
Cost: The unit's strongest activity produces no evidence, and if it were removed to save time, nothing in the course results would show the loss.
Recommendation: Add two exam items presenting a series of values and asking for the next action, and record exit question results by the trend criterion each term.
Limits
The trace used syllabi, activity materials and the current exam. It did not observe sessions, so an instructor may already draw out evaluation in discussion even though the materials do not require it. Verb classification also involves judgment, and a colleague might place objective 1 at a different level. Neither limit affects the two mismatches, which are visible in the materials themselves.
I would be glad to meet before the next course planning meeting to go through the trace. Both recommendations can be made before the spring term without changing the unit's schedule, and the second would give us, for the first time, evidence about whether the case session is doing what we built it to do. If it would help, I can draft the new exam items for the course lead to review.
References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347-364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
Tanner, C. A. (2006). Thinking like a nurse: A research-based model of clinical judgment in nursing. Journal of Nursing Education, 45(6), 204-211. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20060601-04
NURS 8544 Week 9 instructions, in plain terms
For the alignment week, expect to compare the objectives of a unit or course with its learning activities and assessments and to report where they do not match. A short memo, often under two pages plus a table, is the usual format. Address it to someone who can act on it, and put the findings first. Explain the standard you used for alignment and how you classified each element. Present a trace table with one row per objective. For each mismatch, describe it, state what it costs and give one recommendation. Note where alignment holds as well, and close with the limits of a document-based trace.
How this NURS 8544 Week 9 example is built
The memo header addresses the course lead and the subject line states that two of four objectives are not served. A findings section summarizes both mismatches in one paragraph. A method section uses Biggs on alignment and Anderson and Krathwohl's taxonomy to classify verbs, activities and measures. Table 1 holds the trace, marking objectives 3 and 4 as unaligned. The first mismatch section explains, with Tanner's model of clinical judgment, why listing criteria and matching definitions cannot show evaluation, then offers two remedies including a change of verb. The second explains that the strongest activity produces no evidence. A limits section and an offer to draft new exam items close the memo.
Where the marks sit in the NURS 8544 Week 9 rubric
Alignment memos are generally assessed on accuracy of the trace, clarity of findings, practicality of recommendations and professional format. A memo that states its findings first earns more than one that walks through method before reaching a conclusion. Faculty reward correct classification of objectives and measures by cognitive level. Each mismatch should come with a consequence the reader cares about and a recommendation they can act on. Noting a mismatch that runs the other way, an activity with no measure, often impresses graders. Concise writing, a usable table and APA references complete the score. Offering to help with the fix, such as drafting the exam items, signals the collegial tone a memo to a course lead should carry.
Common NURS 8544 Week 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Alignment memos often compare objectives with activities and forget the measures, which is where most mismatches hide. Others list every minor wording issue instead of the problems that matter. Some are written as essays, losing the format marks. Trace each objective through all three elements, classify each by its verb and report only the rows that fail and why. Offer a recommendation per mismatch, and allow for the possibility that the objective, not the activity, should change. Our writers can prepare an alignment memo for the unit you are reviewing, with a trace table and practical recommendations. Keep the table to one row per objective so the course lead can read it at a glance.
Get a NURS 8544 Week 9 example written to your instructions
Send the prompt, the rubric and the design the memo examines, and a Week 9 example returns with the trace built and findings priced. The first custom sample is free and comes back within 24 to 48 hours. Where the design belongs to a course that really runs, its syllabus and item bank stay with the school that owns them.
More NURS 8544 papers and DNP samples
- NURS 8544 Week 1: Teaching Innovation Post
- NURS 8544 Week 2: Learning Problem Analysis
- NURS 8544 Week 3: Learner Analysis Paper
- NURS 8544 Week 4: Theory Application Paper
- NURS 8544 Week 5: Active Learning Design
- NURS 8544 Week 6: Simulation Scenario Example
- NURS 8544 Week 7: Clinical Teaching Plan
- NURS 8544 Week 8: Peer Critique Response
- NURS 8544 Week 10: Teaching Innovation Proposal
- NURS 8544 Week 11: Teaching Design Reflection
- NURS 8542 Week 9: Approval Pathway Memo
- NURS 8600 Week 9: DNP final report discussion section
- NURS 8540 Week 9: Faculty Incivility Post
- NURS 8512 Week 9: DNP Project Drift Audit
NURS 8544 Week 9 questions, answered
Is a memo really shorter than a paper here?
Usually, and the length is part of what gets graded. A memo running six pages has become a report, signaling that the writer could not decide what the reader needed. Two pages with a table forces the findings to be selected, and selection is a judgment the rubric can see. Sections that set a page ceiling are testing precisely this.
What if nothing turns out to be misaligned?
That result is acceptable and rare, and it has to be earned the same way. A memo reporting agreement still shows the trace, because the reader is being asked to accept a conclusion that removes work from their list. Submissions claiming full alignment without a table almost always turn out to have compared the objective with the activity and skipped the measure.
Where can I find a free NURS 8544 Week 9 sample paper?
The memo, its four-row trace table and both recommendations are published above for anyone to read without payment.
Which objectives fail in the NURS 8544 Week 9 alignment memo?
The objective asking learners to evaluate oxygenation, which is taught and tested only at the level of recall, and the objective on trend interpretation, which has an activity but no measure.
Why does the memo suggest changing a verb as an alternative?
Because if evaluation is beyond the unit's scope, rewriting the objective to say identify would make it state honestly what the unit teaches.