1

Grand Banks University College of Nursing:

Curriculum Case Study

Susan A. Brigham
Department of Nursing, SUNY Delhi
NURS 602: Curriculum Development and Instructional Design
Dr. Quartuccio
September 19, 2021
 2

Abstract

Implementing curriculum change is a great undertaking that takes support from school leaders,

faculty, stakeholders, and students. It is vital that there is objective data that speaks to the values

of the faculty to promote curriculum change (Iwasiw et al., 2020). Faculty and school leaders

need to be approached with firm data points that explain why the current curriculum is faulty and

needs to be updated. Some of the fiercest opponents to curriculum change are members of the

faculty because they have the largest role in developing the new curriculum. There are many

promotional internal and external influences on curriculum change that would encourage faculty,

students, school leaders, and stakeholders to agree to partake in developing a new curriculum. In

the early stages of curriculum development, open communication, respect, and flexibility are

vital in developing a new curriculum.

 3

Initiating Curriculum Change

Changing a curriculum is a very important, but very time consuming task, and it can be

difficult to convince fellow faculty, school leaders, and stakeholders that change is necessary.

Curriculum change cannot take place if everyone is not acceptant of it. Dr De Silva, Dr.

Sullivan, and Dr. Tanovich of Grand Banks University College of Nursing have set their sights

on changing the nursing curriculum. Now they need to convince school leaders, stakeholders,

students, and most important, faculty that curriculum change is needed. Dr. De Silva approached

the faculty at the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee to ask for their support, but he was met

with resistance. As expected, the workload of changing a curriculum was a deterrent for some

faculty, while others thought Dr. De Silva was trying to gain more curriculum time for his

nursing specialty of interest. It can be very difficult to promote the need for curriculum change,

and it can be expected that advocates will be met with resistance (Floor et al., 2018). For

curriculum change to take place, there needs to be open communication within the curriculum

committee to allow people to voice concerns, while keeping the debate respectful, but allow

some flexibility in the planned outcome to give the option of curriculum change a chance.

Question 1
In the discussion of curriculum change, staff nurses from the units that take most of the

newly graduated nurses found that these recently graduated nurses from Grand Banks University

College of Nursing were not prepared enough to be staff nurses on their unit. In effort to

persuade nursing faculty to review the current curriculum, curriculum change advocates would

need to gain support from the dean of the program, other faculty members, community and

healthcare stakeholders, and students (Iwasiw et al., 2020). It was noted in the case study that a

few of the faculty favored curriculum change, but a majority did not. It is vital that faculty
 4

endorse the curriculum change because they will have a large responsibility in creating the new

curriculum (Iwasiw et al., 2020). To gain the appeal of most faculty members, Dr. De Silva and

other supporting faculty should have brought concrete data to objectively show the faults in the

curriculum. Another internal factor that may influence the committee to initiate curriculum

change is the marketability of the nursing program in evidenced by the employability of its

graduates. Faculty would like their students to be competent nurses so they can succeed, it

would be important to use this value in persuading the curriculum committee to review the

curriculum (Iwasiw et al., 2020). Since the recent graduates are not meeting the requirements of

the hiring units, the hiring managers may not hire graduates from that school anymore. It is vital

that curriculum is evaluated regularly to ensure it meets the requirements of the accrediting body,

the mission and values of the institution, and it is providing the most up to date information and

skills nurses need to properly care for the public.

Question 2

When approaching the curriculum committee to encourage curriculum revisions, Dr. De

Silva should have been able to fully explain their position on why the revisions were needed.

Iwasiw et al. (2020) notes that it is important that objective data about the curriculum needs to be

brought to the forefront and discussed with the curriculum committee. It should include gaps in

the curriculum that need improvement, as well as consequences of not updating the curriculum.

By merely stating opinions of themselves and others, it cannot convince most faculty that

curriculum change is needed. It is an extensive job, requiring a lot of time and work from many

of the faculty members, and they need to know that participating in curriculum change is

beneficial for faculty, students, and the school. Iwasiw et al. (2020) explain that it is also

important that the extent of curriculum revisions are presented to the faculty as well. Dr. De
 5

Silva should have led a discussion on what types of changes needed to be made for the

curriculum because if a limited revision was requested it would take a lot less time and effort

from faculty than a full revision. When the curriculum committee was approached by Dr. De

Silva, he should have presented a clear picture of what the problems in the curriculum are with

objective data, the extent of the curriculum change that is needed, and the timeframe expected to

make those changes (Iwasiw et al., 2020).

Question 3

As noted, Dr. De Silva should present objective data to prove curriculum change is

needed to the curriculum committee. To prove that nurse graduates from their program are not

prepared enough, a survey could be developed for completion by the unit that hire most of the

nursing graduates to identify the new nurses’ strengths and weakness and how they correlate to

the curriculum. This data would prompt faculty to examine the curriculum and decide that

curriculum change is needed. Further, recently graduated nurses could also be surveyed to

identify how they feel the nursing program prepared them for bedside nursing. If graduates of

the nursing program at Grand Banks University College of Nursing are labeled as poor

candidates based on their lack of preparedness by the school, they would be less employable

which could affect the school’s marketability. In effort to raise curriculum concerns, Dr. De

Silva and colleagues could have developed a curriculum reform community which could consist

of nursing students and faculty. Students could help review the learning objective and activities

to help identify what is working and what does not (Dalrymple et al., 2017). Dr. De Silva could

use this information to objectively show the curriculum committee what portions of the

curriculum are not working and the importance of revising them to improve the success of the

program.
 6

Question 4

It is important that Dr. De Silva, Dr. Sullivan, and Dr. Tanovich use objective data to

prove their position on curriculum change. This data could be obtained from multiple sources.

First, they could look at the NCLEX pass rates for the past couple years. By reviewing multiple

years, Dr. De Silva, Dr. Sullivan, and Dr. Tanovich would be able to report on the trends related

to the success of the program curriculum. If the pass rate is decreasing, it would prove that they

need to update the curriculum to increase the NCLEX pass rate for the school. Data could also

be obtained from a common employer of the recent graduates. The units of recent graduates

could be given surveys to determine how prepared the graduates were to transition to the work

force. If they are not meeting the expectations of the management, then curriculum change

should be addressed (Iwasiw et al., 2020). To identify what portions of the curriculum needs to

be changed, internal evaluations should be completed to determine if the class material is

meeting the standards of the accrediting agency for the school (Iwasiw et al., 2020). This would

help determine if a whole curriculum revision needs to be completed or a partial, and this data

could affect the curriculum committee’s decision of continuing with the revision or not because

it determines how much time and work needs to go into it. When this data is presented to the

curriculum committee, it is important that it is presented in a way that the data is connected to

the values of the faculty. If the data can show how the school will improve and encourage

student success, faculty will be more likely to approve of the curriculum change because it

speaks to their values as an educator (Iwasiw et al., 2020).

Question 5

For curriculum change to be approved, support from the dean, faculty, stakeholders, and

students needs to be obtained. Healthcare is constantly evolving, and nursing education needs to
 7

be able to keep with new information and skills needed to be an effective nurse. Barbour and

Schuessler (2019) explain that faculty need to look at teaching theories to help support

curriculum change. Faculty need to evaluate what they hope the outcome of the program is to

determine how they are going to get there; curriculum change needs to speak to faculty values

(Iwasiw et al., 2020). It is important to gain the support of the school leader or dean because it is

more likely that it will be accepted by faculty if it is accepted by a leader. By presenting the

need for curriculum change to the school leader first, explaining the faults in the current

curriculum and data that proves these faults exist, resources and time could be allocated for

curriculum change by the leader.

Gaining the support of stakeholders is a key part of curriculum change. This support can

be gained through empowering the stakeholders (Belita et al., 2020). If stakeholders feel like

they can contribute to the program through their experience in the nursing field, they will support

curriculum change. Finally, students are also important to curriculum change. Students could be

questioned about the current curriculum and how they think the curriculum could change to

foster improvement. Students are the ones that are most affected by curriculum change, and if

they feel like they have power to assist in making decisions about the curriculum change, they

are likely to support it. Resistance may come from faculty because they do not want to take the

time to develop new curriculum. Faculty may not believe data points that favor curriculum

change. Resistance will be present when discussing curriculum change, it is important to

acknowledge it, discuss it, and explain that inaction may cause more harm to the school’s

nursing program (Iwasiw et al., 2020).

 8

Question 6

Faculty that created the current curriculum may feel adamant that their curriculum is not

out of date. They may hold the view that it is still relevant to current nursing practice, regardless

of the objective data supporting curriculum change. In effort to address the critics, the

curriculum change advocates should have a one-on-one conversation with the person that feels

their curriculum is being attacked (Floor et al., 2018). This will allow that faculty member to

voice their concerns and resistance in an appropriate manner and allow a conversation about it.

It is helpful for Dr. De Silva, Dr. Sullivan, and Dr. Tanovich to explain what the changes are

going to be, but they can adjust some of the plan if that means they can get more people in

agreement for the curriculum change (Floor et al., 2018). Education is an evolving and needs

ongoing appraisal, even during curriculum change. Floor et al. (2018) explained the reflection

strategy that some developers use to ensure the change is complete. The reflection strategy can

be helpful when curriculum change advocates are met with resistance, they can look at the

proposed plan to see if it fits the reality of what their aim is, and if the proposed change could be

intertwined with the current plan. It allows them to be flexible and not dismiss all other ideas

because it does not fit their own. Being understanding is an important part in gaining the trust of

the people that have the most resistance, which can be the faculty members that developed the

current curriculum.

Question 7

Curriculum change is a collaborative process, and it involved many people in its

development. However, regardless of how convincing the data points are, there will always be

people that are resistant to the curriculum change, and they also need to be addressed. Some

faculty may think that their specialty nursing curriculum needs a larger part in the whole
 9

curriculum, but it may not be beneficial to the students. In effort to be diplomatic, faculty should

have the opportunity to discuss their proposed changes to the curriculum plan even if they do not

match the current agenda. By giving faculty the option to be a part of the change process, it will

make them feel involved and part of the project instead of making them feel like it is just more

work (Floor et al., 2018). However, even in a diplomatic decision it may be in the best interest

of the group to ask someone to leave and not contribute anymore if their contribution is negative

(Floor et al., 2018). If a faculty member cannot compromise with the group and demands their

nursing practice specialty have a larger part in the curriculum, but it does not benefit the

curriculum or students, they can be asked to leave because they are no longer a constructive part

of the group. It is aggressive, but diplomatic because healthy change requires teamwork and if

someone is not able to work as part of the team they are not giving helpful ideas and they are not

helping the teamwork towards their goals.

Question 8

Curriculum should undergo constant evaluation to test the effectiveness of its content and

ensure it has the most up to date information. Especially in nursing education, curriculum should

be revised or changed to ensure it has the most up to date information for the students to learn.

However, how often it should change is variable. There are many parts of nursing education

curriculum, and it is hard to develop a clear timeline of when it needs to be changed because the

field of study is everchanging. Anakin et al. (2018) explain that curriculum can be updated or

changed based on accrediting body guidelines and policies or if there is a breakthrough in

nursing education, like a new teaching technology or lab simulation. However, it is difficult to

know when these changes are going to happen. Further, curriculum may be forced to change

based on current world events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Nursing schools were forced
 10

to halt clinical experiences, and they had to move them online. Curriculum needed to be

changed to allow this to happen and be successful. Curriculum should have a constant feedback

loop to help evaluate its effectiveness in reaching the goals of the program (Anakin et al., 2018).

Reflection

Open Communication

Communication between curriculum change advocates and stakeholders and faculty is

vital to developing a cohesive plan to create a new curriculum. It is important that Dr. De Silva

encourages communication between him and the faculty members. Dr. De Silva and the other

advocates were met with resistance from other faculty members, which was expected. It is

appropriate to have an open dialogue about the changes proposed by the faculty members to

encourage faculty buy in for the curriculum change. Without having open communication

faculty members will not know the true intentions of the curriculum change advocates, and other

faculty may feel as if Dr. De Silva is creating a power play (Floor et al., 2018).

Throughout the case study at Grand Banks University College of Nursing, Dr. De Silva

and the other advocates were criticized that they did not bring adequate objective data to support

their actions in asking for curriculum change, so the discussion was closed for that meeting.

Even though that was not an outcome Dr. De Silva wanted, it was very important that this

problem was communicated with him. Without knowing the lack of objective date was

preventing curriculum change, he would not know to gather it to further the discussion of

curriculum change. Dr. De Silva, Dr. Sullivan, and Dr. Tanovich have the information they need

to create a better proposal for the next meeting. Floor et al. (2018) explain how small and large

group discussion can help develop a curriculum change plan, gather objective data, and more
 11

faculty buy in. Communication is the key to promoting curriculum change and encouraging

faculty acceptance. If faculty do not know the plan for the curriculum change, and they feel their

voice will not be heard, they will have a difficult time accepting the plan. Communication can

change that.

Respect

Throughout this case study, convincing other faculty and stakeholders to agree to the

curriculum change has been the focus in initiating curriculum change at Grand Banks University

College of Nursing. Repeatedly, the research has shown an important quality that Dr. De Silva

and the other change advocates should have is respect for their other colleagues. It is important

that there is a mutual respect between the faculty and Dr. De Silva because if the faculty do not

believe in his intentions for the curriculum, then it will not succeed (Iwasiw et al., 2020).

Faculty members will respond better if they feel respected as well. It is a balance that needs to

be maintained for curriculum change to succeed.

Flexibility

Throughout the discussion of initiating curriculum change, it was prominent that other

faculty members had thoughts that were viewed as resistance to the curriculum change, but it is

important to discuss these alternate thoughts to see if they can be intertwined with the existing

plan. This will help faculty members feel more involved in the development of the new

curriculum plan. Floor et al. (2018) explained that if another faculty’s ideas do not match the

original plan, it is important to not dismiss them right away. If they can be combined with the

existing plan or if the plan needs to be change slightly, it should be done. It is important to be

flexible when developing a new curriculum because it will help everyone feel part of its
 12

development and they will feel invested in the work. Further, Dr. De Silva proposed the

curriculum change, but it was not accepted by the faculty. He needs to take their criticisms and

use them to develop a proposal that would be accepted by the faculty. His approach to

curriculum change needs to be flexible to gain approval from the faculty.

 13

References

Anakin, M., Spronken-Smith, R., Healey, M., & Vajoczki, S. (2017). The contextual nature of

university-wide curriculum change. International Journal for Academic Development,

23(3), 206-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2017.1385464

Barbour, C., & Schuessler, J. (2019). A preliminary framework to guide implementation of the

flipped classroom method in nursing education. Nurse Education in Practice, 34, 36-42.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2018.11.001

Belita, E., Carter, N., & Bryant-Lukosius, D. (2020). Stakeholder engagement in nursing

curriculum development and renewal initiatives: A review of the literature. Quality

Advancement in Nursing Education, 6(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17483/2368-6669.1200

Dalrymple, S., Auerbach, A., & Schussler, E. (2017). Taking a community approach to

curriculum change. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,

11(2). https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2017.110205

Floor V., Varpio, L., Helmich, E., Dekker, H., & Jaarsma, D. (2018). Navigating the

complexities of undergraduate medical curriculum change: Change leaders’ perspectives.

Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 93(10), 1503-1510. doi:

10.1097/ACM.0000000000002165

Iwasiw, C., Andrusyszyn, M., & Goldenberg, D. (2020). Curriculum development in nursing

education. Jones & Bartlett Learning.

14