Nursing Curriculum Development: RN-to-BSN and Case Studies
This paper examines the process of developing a nursing curriculum, focusing on three interconnected areas: the foundational steps required to implement an RN-to-BSN degree completion program, and two case studies involving nursing schools facing distinct curricular challenges. Case One analyzes Meadowvale, a school confronting declining licensure examination pass rates and the need for urgent curriculum reform. Case Two examines Rosemount, an institution with a fragmented faculty development system and resistant senior leadership. Drawing on Iwasiw et al. (2009) and Keating (2011), the paper identifies key facilitators of change, strategies for managing resistance, appropriate timelines, and leadership models suited to each institutional context.
- Curriculum Development: Implementing an RN-to-BSN Program: Steps, resources, and timeline for launching RN-to-BSN
- Case One: Meadowvale — Addressing Licensure Failures and Curriculum Reform: Meadowvale's NCLEX failures and curriculum reform strategy
- Case Two: Rosemount — Rebuilding Faculty Development: Rosemount's fragmented faculty development and resistant leadership
- Conclusion and Leadership Implications: Transformative and distributed leadership model for change
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds each recommendation in cited academic sources (Iwasiw et al., 2009; Keating, 2011), giving concrete textual authority to practical claims about curriculum change.
- The case-study format allows the writer to apply general curriculum development theory to specific institutional contexts, demonstrating analytical flexibility.
- The paper acknowledges both facilitators and sources of resistance in each scenario, producing a balanced and realistic treatment of organizational change.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied theoretical analysis: it takes established frameworks from nursing education literature and uses them to interpret real-world institutional problems. Rather than summarizing theory in the abstract, the writer embeds direct quotations from Iwasiw et al. and Keating at the precise points where theory explains a specific case finding — a technique that strengthens argument credibility and shows command of source material.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a standalone section on RN-to-BSN program initiation, covering need assessment, resources, timeline, and anticipated outcomes. It then moves through two numbered case analyses — each addressing the same five dimensions: pressing factors, sources of support, philosophical orientation, urgency and timeline, and evaluation. The paper closes with a brief leadership model recommendation for Rosemount. This parallel structure makes comparisons between cases easy to follow and signals organized, methodical thinking.
Curriculum Development: Implementing an RN-to-BSN Program
The first required step before initiating an RN-to-BSN degree completion program is determining the need for such a curricular change. This determination will ultimately require an application for accreditation in this area, meaning that the demanding process of change must be warranted within the community. The initial step, therefore, is to explore the apparent need for professional development in the research and academic capacities of nursing. If it can be determined that adding a Bachelor's program to the community's offerings would substantially address the field's demand for appropriately educated nurses, it would be appropriate to proceed with new curriculum development.
Resources required for making this a reality include funding for achieving accreditation, faculty support for developing a proper course of education, and the means for preparing faculty to administer the newly advanced path of learning. It is expected that roughly two years of application and development would be required before a new curriculum could be put into place.
Once completed, the positive outcome would be a more attractive range of course offerings for prospective students and a stronger skill set for graduates entering the job market. The only anticipated negative consequence would be the demand to bring new and differently skilled personnel on board. With an appropriate adjustment period, this drawback could be quickly addressed.
Case One: Meadowvale — Addressing Licensure Failures and Curriculum Reform
The most immediately pressing factor for Meadowvale is the apparent lack of alignment between the current curriculum and the professional standards reflected on the National Council Licensure Examination for Registered Nurses (NCLEX-RN). A 20% failure rate, combined with broadly voiced discontent among the school's graduates, suggests that the current curriculum has become outdated relative to the demands and expectations of actual professional practice. Meadowvale is therefore propelled by its declining performance to bring major change to a long-standing curricular orientation.
The primary sources of support will be those personnel with whom the lead instructor has established a strong and positive working relationship. According to the case history, the instructor benefits specifically from successful working relationships with faculty members, university administrators, and clinical and professional colleagues. This provides a significant opportunity to make inroads into development by selecting key faculty members to help drive the new curriculum forward among colleagues. According to Keating (2011), supportive faculty will be the most important resource both for developing curriculum and for working against the inevitable resistance that is likely to arise. Keating notes that "in a study of faculty perceptions of implementation of curriculum change, Powell-Cope, Hughes, Sedlak, and Nelson (2008) found that administrators, other faculty, and students who were 'champions for curricular change' were also identified as facilitators of successful implementation of the new curriculum" (Keating, p. 34). This is especially true in a case where change has been necessitated by a 15-year curricular holding pattern, during which many faculty members may have grown too comfortable with the existing system and are likely to prove a source of resistance.
For many faculty members, the philosophical orientation of the curriculum change is likely to be a determining factor. As the case history indicates, there is little central guidance on the philosophy of the nursing curriculum currently in place; as a result, patient-centered, feminist, and social justice perspectives all influence educational approach. Those who are aligned with the centrally selected philosophical orientation of the new curriculum will most likely be its strongest advocates and most stable personnel.
According to Iwasiw et al. (2009), the twin failures of high licensure exam failure rates and general graduate dissatisfaction serve as a significant impetus for immediate change. As the Iwasiw text indicates, this urgency "is influenced by the factors that prompted consideration of curriculum development initially. If, for example, two successive groups of graduates have had a high failure rate on licensing examinations, then there is pressure to improve the curriculum quickly" (Iwasiw et al., p. 19). In the present case, the results of this year's testing must be responded to quickly in light of an approaching accreditation review. A suitable timeframe for curriculum development would therefore be three months, spanning the slowest enrollment quarter — presumed to coincide with the summer months. The fall semester would then correspond with a pilot period, with refinement and full implementation following the spring semester.
Evaluation of acceptance and readiness should take the form of close consultation. Because the positive working relationship between the instructor and the faculty will be critical to effecting positive change, assessment should also be an open process of ongoing consultation. Bi-weekly conferences with faculty can help identify flaws and opportunities in the curriculum going forward.
Conclusion and Leadership Implications
At Rosemount, a Transformative Leadership orientation is required. In particular, the need to designate implementation champions suggests that this transformative approach should lead to a distributed leadership model wherein all participating faculty become drivers of change. By combining open dialogue, voluntary internal certification, and recognition-based incentives, Rosemount can build the kind of broad faculty engagement necessary to move beyond its current fragmented approach and develop a sustainable, evidence-based curriculum development program.
Works Cited
Iwasiw, C., Goldenberg, D., & Andrusyszyn, M. (2009). Curriculum Development in Nursing Education. Jones and Bartlett Learning.
Keating, S. B. (2011). Curriculum development and approval processes in changing educational environments. In Curriculum Development and Evaluation in Nursing.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.