Stufflebeam's CIPP model organizes NU524's Unit 9 evaluation plan around a composite BSN program, weighting outcome evidence over satisfaction and naming CCNE as accreditor without claiming anything about its standards. Searches like "nu 524 unit 9 assignment example", "nu524 unit 9 sample" and "nu524 unit 9 example" land here.
Satisfaction in One Supplementary Row: A CIPP Program Evaluation Plan for a Composite BSN Program With Triggers Attached to Every Benchmark
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU524: Curriculum Development Process, Assessment, and Evaluation Strategies
Unit 9 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The program, its data and its benchmarks are composite and bracketed; the evaluation model, standards and competencies cited are published.
Purpose
The plan exists to inform decisions, not only to demonstrate worth. Stufflebeam's CIPP model holds that evaluation's most important purpose is to improve a program, and it organizes evaluation into four components: context, which asks what needs the program should address; input, which asks whether its resources and plans are adequate; process, which asks whether it is being carried out as planned; and product, which asks what it achieves (Stufflebeam & Zhang, 2017). The decisions this plan informs are the curriculum committee's annual revisions, faculty and placement planning, and the program's accreditation self-study.
Context
Questions: what do graduates need to be able to do, and where does the curriculum fall short?
1. Regional workforce needs: new graduate vacancy data from the three main hiring systems, by specialty. Benchmark: the curriculum's clinical placements cover the [four] specialties with the most vacancies. Responsible: associate dean. Trigger: a specialty without a placement is added to the placement plan.
2. Curriculum map gaps: outcomes introduced but not assessed. Benchmark: every outcome assessed at least once in the final two semesters. Responsible: curriculum committee chair. Trigger: a missing assessment is added within one year.
Input
Questions: are faculty, placements and learning resources adequate?
1. Faculty qualifications: share of clinical faculty with graduate preparation and current practice experience. Benchmark: [90] percent. Responsible: dean. Trigger: hiring or development plan.
2. Clinical placement capacity: placements available against students enrolled, by course. Benchmark: at least one placement per student with no more than [eight] students per clinical instructor. Responsible: clinical placement coordinator. Trigger: capacity plan with partners.
3. Simulation hours per student. Benchmark: [60] hours across the program. Responsible: simulation director. Trigger: schedule revision.
Process
Questions: is the curriculum taught as mapped?
1. Syllabus and assignment audit: a sample of [four] courses each year checked against the map. Benchmark: every mapped assessment present and scored against its outcome. Responsible: curriculum committee. Trigger: course revision.
2. Clinical site evaluations by students and instructors. Benchmark: mean rating of [3.5] or above on a five-point scale for each site. Responsible: clinical coordinator. Trigger: site review meeting.
3. Clinical evaluation tool calibration: faculty agreement on shared recordings. Benchmark: weighted kappa of [.70] or above each semester. Responsible: course leads. Trigger: recalibration session.
Product
Questions: what do students and graduates achieve? This band carries the heaviest weight.
1. Achievement of each program outcome on its signature assignment. Benchmark: 80 percent of students meeting the rubric threshold on each outcome's signature assignment, set before any data are collected, because a benchmark chosen after seeing results measures the program's hopes rather than its performance. Responsible: curriculum committee. Trigger: an outcome below benchmark for one year is examined; below benchmark for two years triggers curriculum revision.
2. First-time licensure pass rate. Benchmark: at or above the accreditation expectation of 80 percent and the program's own target of [90] percent. Responsible: dean. Trigger: review of exam preparation and curriculum alignment.
3. Completion rate within [150] percent of program length. Benchmark: [80] percent. Responsible: associate dean. Trigger: attrition analysis.
4. Employment in nursing within twelve months. Benchmark: [90] percent of respondents. Responsible: alumni office. Trigger: employer consultation.
5. Employer ratings of graduates on the program outcomes, by survey at one year. Benchmark: mean of [3.5] or above on each outcome. Responsible: associate dean. Trigger: outcome-level review.
6. Supplementary: graduate satisfaction with the program. Reported for context only, never as evidence that outcomes were achieved.
Why Satisfaction Is Demoted
Satisfaction surveys are the easiest data a program collects and the most tempting to report, because the numbers are usually high. But a graduate can be satisfied with a program that did not prepare her in informatics, and dissatisfied with one that prepared her well but demanded a great deal. Satisfaction answers a real question, whether students felt supported, and that question matters for recruitment and retention. It does not answer whether they can do what the outcomes describe. The plan keeps the survey, reports it and lets it prompt questions, but it never allows a satisfaction figure to stand in for an outcome that has its own measure.
Accreditation
The plan's product indicators align with the accreditation standards for baccalaureate nursing programs, which expect programs to identify expected outcomes, including completion, licensure pass rates and employment, and to use outcome data for improvement (Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education, 2018). The signature assignments map to the domains of the 2021 Essentials (American Association of Colleges of Nursing, 2021).
Reporting and Use
Each spring, the curriculum committee receives a one-page dashboard with every indicator, its benchmark and whether a trigger fired, and records what action it took. The record of actions, not the data alone, is the evidence that the program uses evaluation to improve.
References
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2021). The essentials: Core competencies for professional nursing education.
Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education. (2018). Standards for accreditation of baccalaureate and graduate nursing programs (Amended 2018).
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Zhang, G. (2017). The CIPP evaluation model: How to evaluate for improvement and accountability. Guilford Press.
How this NU524 Unit 9 example is structured
Purpose first: the plan states what decisions it exists to inform, which is Stufflebeam's point that evaluation should improve a program, not merely prove its worth. The four bands follow in CIPP order, each opening with the questions that component asks. Benchmarks are set before any data are collected and justified individually, such as 80 percent of students meeting the rubric threshold on each outcome's signature assignment. A section on accreditation names CCNE, which accredits baccalaureate and graduate nursing programs, as the composite program's accreditor, and explains that the plan's structure keeps evidence organized for any review while claiming nothing about compliance. A reporting calendar assigns each indicator a committee and a month. The plan closes with how findings reach curriculum decisions, through an annual retreat whose minutes record each action taken.
Get an NU524 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
State the program being evaluated, its outcomes, and its accreditor if known, plus the Unit 9 prompt, rubric and whichever evaluation model the section expects. We draft the first sample free, returning it within 24-48h, with benchmarks marked illustrative while they await the program's real expected levels. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
NU524 Unit 9 questions, answered
What does CIPP stand for?
Context, input, process and product, the four components of Stufflebeam's evaluation model. Context asks what needs the program should meet, input what resources and plans it has, process whether it runs as designed, and product what it achieves. The plan organizes every indicator under one of the four, with product carrying the most weight.
Does the plan claim the program meets accreditation standards?
No. It names CCNE as the composite program's accreditor and explains that its structure keeps evidence organized, but only an accreditor can judge compliance. Claims that a plan satisfies standards are a common overreach. Some programs are accredited by ACEN or the NLN's CNEA instead, and a plan should name whichever applies accurately.
Why is satisfaction included at all?
Because it can point to problems worth investigating, such as a clinical site students consistently rate poorly. The plan keeps satisfaction as a supplementary row and never presents it as evidence that students learned or reached outcomes. Instructors generally accept satisfaction data used that way and penalize plans that rely on it.