Instructions: During Week 4, we learned how to develop a clinical educational teaching (CET) plan for clinical instruction. However, did you know that Chat GPT-1.pngChatGPT can help same time, effort, and come up with ideas for developing lesson plans? It can also help you align with the learning outcomes. Yet, generative A.I. tools cannot think for themselves. Content that is generated is dependent upon effective prompts by human input.
The purpose of this assignment is to learn how to generate and critique a Clinical Educational Teaching Plan (CET) using Gen-AI tool, ChatGPT.
Steps to generate ideas for a CET,
Make a free ChatGPT Links to an external site. account and create a chat by typing into the chat bar. You can “ask” it to formulate a lesson plan about your chosen clinical topic selected during Week 6.
Use the TRACE framework for prompt engineering:
(T) Title of Job
(R) Request
(A) Audience
(C) Constraints
(E) Examples .
Remember, your “audience” (A) will be your selected UG student population chosen during Week 6. The lesson plan should meet the EBP criteria learned in Week 4 CET
Copy the ChatGPT lesson plan into a Word doc (only).
***writer – I’ve already done the above steps. Please complete the instructions below. *** The chat GPT teaching plan is attached below. Please use this doc to complete the critique.
Critique the ChatGPT lesson plan to identify:
a) was all the necessary information included and is appropriate for students to meet the lesson outcomes? (e.g., AACN Essentials, Bloom’s objectives, resources, assessments, and teaching/learning strategies)?
b) was the information included irrelevant or incorrect, which leads to an ineffective lesson plan?
c) was the lesson plan information ordered logically?
d) was the lesson plan outline for approx. 30 mins of instruction?
5. Critique should be approximately 2 pages in length (excluding the ChatGPT lesson plan) and includes a minimum of 3 citations (do not have to be scholarly).
Here was the chat GPT prompt I used: Write a clinical education teaching plan for undergraduate nursing students on mental health and depression.
Include the following sections: the course, learners characteristics, the topic, lesson purpose, discussion questions, related vocabulary, AACN competencies, learning objectives, resources, materials, technology requirements, assessment criteria, lesson structure and procedures, learning activities using VARK, and interprofessional partnerships. I also gave it an example.
***Use this infoormation for the TRACE part of the crituque.
Rubric:
GNRS 660+CET Plan with ChatGPT Rubric 2024
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Created a CET with ChatGPT
10 to >7.0 pts
Exceeds expectation
Created a CET plan with ChatGPT. Formulated plan using chosen clinical topic previously selected. Followed TRACE framework for prompt engineering.
7 to >4.0 pts
Meets Expectations
Partially created a CET plan with ChatGPT. Formulated plan using chosen clinical topic previously selected. Followed TRACE framework for prompt engineering.
4 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Poorly created a CET plan with ChatGPT. Formulated plan using chosen clinical topic previously selected. Followed TRACE framework for prompt engineering.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Necessary information and appropriate for students
30 to >20.0 pts
Exceeds expectation
All the necessary information was included and was appropriate for students to meet the lesson outcomes (e.g., AACN Essentials, Bloom’s objectives, resources, assessments, and teaching/learning strategies)
20 to >10.0 pts
Meets Expectations
Partially included the necessary information and was appropriate for students to meet the lesson outcomes (e.g., AACN Essentials, Bloom’s objectives, resources, assessments, and teaching/learning strategies)
10 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Poorly included information was not appropriate for students to meet the lesson outcomes (e.g., AACN Essentials, Bloom’s objectives, resources, assessments, and teaching/learning strategies)
30 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Irrelevant or incorrect information
20 to >14.0 pts
Exceeds expectation
Identified information that was irrelevant or incorrect, which lead to an ineffective lesson plan.
14 to >8.0 pts
Meets Expectations
Partially identified information that was irrelevant or incorrect, which lead to an ineffective lesson plan.
8 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Poorly identified information that was irrelevant or incorrect, which lead to an ineffective lesson plan.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Logical lesson plan
5 to >3.0 pts
Exceeds expectation
Identified whether the lesson plan was logically created.
3 to >2.0 pts
Meets Expectations
Partially identified whether the lesson plan was logically created.
2 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Poorly identified whether the lesson plan was logically created.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Time management
5 to >3.0 pts
Exceeds expectation
Identified that the lesson plan and sections within the plan were appropriately planned for time management.
3 to >2.0 pts
Meets Expectations
Partially identified that the lesson plan and sections within the plan were appropriately planned for time management.
2 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Poorly identified that the lesson plan and sections within the plan were appropriately planned for time management.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Critique of ChatGPT lesson plan
15 to >10.0 pts
Exceeds expectation
Written critique was approx 2 pages in length (excluding the lesson plan) and included a minimum of 3 citations (do not have to be scholarly). Followed APA format.
10 to >5.0 pts
Meets Expectations
Partially written critique was approx 1 page in length (excluding the lesson plan) and included a minimum of 2 citations (do not have to be scholarly). Partially followed APA format.
5 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Poorly written critique was approx 2 pages in length (excluding the lesson plan) and included a minimum of 1 citation (do not have to be scholarly). Poor use of APA format.
15 pts
Total Points: 85
