NR 300A Week 7 typically asks you to evaluate your study: take each objective from the learning agreement, set it against the evidence in your log, and say whether it was met, partly met or unmet, and why. Your section may print the code as NR300A; it is the same course. Chamberlain publishes no syllabi outside Canvas. The placement here is our teaching judgment from the course's catalog description; your section's rubric decides what your week actually asks.
What NR 300A Week 7 asks for
This is where the early planning pays off or does not. If your Week 2 objectives carried a number and a date, and your log recorded the evidence they promised, the evaluation almost writes itself. If they did not, this week exposes it.
The scoring usually rewards honesty and reasoning over success. An objective that was partly met, explained with a clear account of why and what you would do differently, often scores better than an objective declared fully met with no evidence behind it.
Keep evaluation and reflection separate. Evaluation asks whether the objective was achieved; reflection, which usually comes next, asks what the experience meant for you as a nurse.
The NR 300A Week 7 method, step by step
Five moves that make an evaluation section credible.
-
Copy each objective exactly as written in Week 2
Do not quietly revise objectives at the end. Evaluating what you actually promised is the point.
-
Pull the matching evidence from your log
Counts, materials distributed, feedback cards, dated entries. Quote the evidence briefly beside each objective.
-
Rate each objective and say why
Met, partly met or unmet, followed by one or two sentences explaining the rating with reference to the evidence.
-
Explain shortfalls without excuses
Low turnout, a cancelled date or a change at the agency are reasons. Describe them factually and say what you did about them.
-
Suggest one improvement for the agency or a future student
A short, practical recommendation shows that the evaluation produced something useful.
A layout and word budget for the evaluation
About 400 to 600 words in our frame, or a table plus commentary if your rubric allows it. Your section's format comes first.
| Section | What belongs in it | Word target |
|---|---|---|
| Introduction | One or two sentences on what is being evaluated. | 30 to 50 |
| Objective 1 evaluation | The objective, the evidence, the rating, the reason. | 90 to 120 |
| Objective 2 evaluation | Same structure for the second objective. | 90 to 120 |
| Growth objective evaluation | How you will show you practiced the skill you named. | 70 to 100 |
| What limited the results | Factual account of any barriers and your response. | 60 to 90 |
| Recommendation | One practical improvement for the agency or the next student. | 40 to 70 |
Evidence craft for evaluation
Let numbers be small. Eight attendees across two sessions is a perfectly good one credit result if that is what happened. Accurate small numbers are better than vague large claims.
Separate what you saw from what you infer. Write that six people took the handout, then, separately, what you think that suggests. Graders notice when the two are blended.
Cite only where it helps. If you compare your result to a published approach, cite it. Otherwise the evidence in this section is your own log.
Five mistakes that cost points in this week's territory
- Rewriting objectives after the fact. Evaluate the objectives you submitted, not improved versions.
- Declaring everything met without evidence. Ratings need log entries behind them.
- Blaming the agency. Describe barriers factually; avoid criticism of staff or clients.
- Mixing evaluation with reflection. Keep how you felt for the reflection section.
- No recommendation. A study should leave something useful behind.
Before you submit
- Each Week 2 objective is quoted as originally written
- Every rating is supported by evidence from your log
- Partly met and unmet ratings explain why
- Barriers are described factually, without blame
- One practical recommendation is included
- No client or staff member is identifiable
Writing the NR 300A evaluation?
Send your learning agreement, a summary of your log and the rubric. A premium original draft returns in 24 to 48 hours with each objective rated against your evidence. The log and the hours remain your own record.