Dominguez Nursing
Mental Health Specialist

inclusive-excellence

 

Skip to workshop content

How We Show Up Matters

Inclusive excellence in nursing education: practical ways to build belonging, protect meaningful standards, and support student success.

Your one workshop packet

Keep the website on the shared screen. Use the workbook for every private reflection, group task, and action step.

Download the 22-page participant workbook (PDF) Download the editable Word version

Workshop Home

One hub. One workbook. One clear path.

Each activity begins here, moves into conversation and workbook practice, then returns here for the next step.

Your reflections belong to you. Share at the level you choose. You may write privately, discuss a composite case, pass, observe, or return later. Never enter student names, disability information, grades, patient information, clinical-site details, or another person's identifiable story on this page or in a third-party tool.

How each learning cycle works

You will see the same six steps in every activity, so you always know where you are and what to do next.

1

Read the case.
Start with a realistic teaching problem.

2

Explore.
Watch, read, or compare the evidence.

3

Discuss.
Move from facts to meaning to action.

4

Learn.
Connect the discussion to one practical idea.

5

Use the workbook.
Apply the idea to a teaching decision.

6

Choose a next move.
Revise, rehearse, or commit.

Workshop path

Begin with the Opening

Review the participant agreements
Choice and privacy: Share at the level you choose. You may write privately, pass, or return later. Leave identifiable details out.
Evidence before assumptions: Work from observable facts. Do not diagnose, speculate, or assign motives.
Curiosity with accountability: Examine impact, repair when needed, and pair meaningful standards with meaningful support.
Access with dignity: Treat access needs as private and follow approved accommodation processes.
Review the 10 learning objectives
  1. Reflect on how identity, lived experience, communication, expectations, and implicit bias influence how faculty show up.
  2. Examine how educator behavior and presence affect engagement, psychological safety, belonging, and success.
  3. Demonstrate cultural competence, cultural humility, and inclusive communication.
  4. Describe how diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging shape equitable nursing learning environments.
  5. Identify barriers without treating historically underrepresented, multilingual, first-generation, veteran, or neurodiverse learners as deficits.
  6. Apply ADA, accessibility, and UDL principles to promote equitable access.
  7. Differentiate equality and equity and use an equity-minded practice lens.
  8. Use evidence-based strategies that improve engagement, critical thinking, retention, and success.
  9. Use culturally responsive and trauma-informed approaches across classroom, lab, simulation, and clinical teaching.
  10. Develop a personal action plan for a more inclusive, accessible, culturally responsive, student-centered learning environment.

Opening

Choice, dignity, and shared purpose

Begin by making privacy, choice, and accountability visible in the design of the workshop itself.

IE-00

Begin with choice, dignity, and shared purpose

Examine an opening that intends to build trust but makes disclosure mandatory. Then choose a participation route that protects reflection, dignity, and accountability.

  1. Case
  2. Explore
  3. Discuss
  4. Learn
  5. Workbook
  6. Next move
1

Read the case: when invitation becomes pressure

A workshop about inclusion can reproduce exclusion when people must disclose personal identities, defend lived experience, or prove that they are open-minded.

Read the situation

At the opening of a faculty workshop, the facilitator requires everyone to name an identity and a personal bias in a round-robin. Amir wants time to write before speaking. Renee has a relevant experience but does not want to discuss it at work. Devon worries that passing will be interpreted as resistance.

The tension: The goal is reflection, but personal disclosure has become the price of participation.

Stay with the evidence: Do not guess why someone does not want to disclose or judge commitment by how much a person shares.

Your task: Identify the requirement that removes choice. Then design another participation route that preserves reflection and accountability without requiring disclosure. Record your private route on workbook page 4.

2

Examine three participant perspectives

Read each composite perspective without deciding which participant is right.

Perspective A

“I can engage more honestly after I have had time to write privately.”

Perspective B

“I have a relevant personal experience, but I do not want it discussed at work.”

Perspective C

“I want to pass, but I worry silence will be treated as opposition.”

3

Discuss: notice before naming theory

  1. Evidence: Which requirement creates pressure, and what can we observe without guessing anyone's motive?
  2. Meaning: What learning outcome should remain the same for every participant?
  3. Next move: What speaking, writing, case-based, pass, or return-later option would preserve that outcome?
4

Learn: safety supports learning and accountability

Key idea: Psychological safety protects the interpersonal risk of learning while standards stay intact. Offer choices in how people participate, not whether the learning outcome matters.

  • Psychological safety supports interpersonal risk and learning; it does not remove standards or accountability.
  • Choice can concern the route of participation while the learning outcome stays shared.
  • Group confidentiality is an agreement to protect identifiable stories, not an absolute guarantee.
  • Repair is normal professional practice: notice impact, acknowledge it, adjust, and continue.

Evidence anchors: Edmondson on psychological safety and the nursing simulation narrative review.

5

Use the workbook: My Participation Plan

Workbook page 4Get the participant workbook

  1. Mark the two agreements that will require the most attention from you.
  2. Complete privately: “I learn best in difficult conversations when...”
  3. Choose a default route: speak, write, discuss the composite case, pass, or return later.
  4. Write one practice you will offer the group.

Output: A private participation plan and one shared agreement commitment. This page is not collected.

6

Choose a next move

What participation option protects dignity while preserving meaningful engagement?

Equivalent access and no-technology route

Use structured HTML or large-print case and agreement cards. Read agreements aloud while also displaying them in text. Participants may write or type privately and never have to report the participation route they chose.

Complete when: You chose a participation route and one agreement to practice.

Module 1

Looking in the mirror: how do we show up?

Move from identity and intent to the observable educator behaviors, interpretations, and repair practices that shape student learning.

IE-11

Identity influences attention, not destiny

Work with a composite lab case to separate what happened from the meaning assigned to it. Your private reflection stays yours.

  1. Case
  2. Explore
  3. Discuss
  4. Learn
  5. Workbook
  6. Next move
1

Read the case: observation becomes judgment

Faculty can mistake a familiar communication style for competence and an unfamiliar style for a deficit when observation and interpretation collapse into one judgment.

Read the situation

During a fast medical-surgical lab huddle, Taylor does not speak during the opening exchange. Taylor later submits an accurate written priority and rationale. Dana records, “Taylor is hesitant and not confident.”

The tension: The competency is accurate prioritization and clear communication, but the informal judgment may be rewarding response speed instead.

Stay with the evidence: Do not guess why Taylor paused or infer competence from identity, accent, or speed alone.

Your task: Separate what could be seen or heard from the meaning Dana added. Then identify the actual competency and one question or additional source of evidence that would improve the judgment. Use workbook page 5.

2

Examine the evidence

On workbook page 5, underline each observable statement once. Underline Dana's interpretation twice. Use the note and competency below as your reference.

Dana's note

During the huddle, Taylor did not speak during the opening exchange. Taylor later submitted an accurate written priority and rationale. Dana wrote, “Taylor is hesitant and not confident.”

Competency being assessed

Accurately prioritize and communicate the first nursing action.

3

Discuss: what is supported, unsupported, or incomplete?

  1. Evidence: Which exact words can be verified, and which assign meaning?
  2. Meaning: Does response speed measure the stated competency here? What evidence is still missing?
  3. Next move: What behavior-based criterion, check question, or second source of evidence would produce a fairer decision?
4

Learn: professional calibration

Key idea: A fair judgment separates observable behavior from interpretation, names the competency, and seeks enough evidence to support the decision.

  • Identity and lived experience shape what educators notice, value, and treat as normal; they do not determine one fixed response.
  • Implicit associations become consequential when they influence repeated decisions, opportunities, feedback, and interpretation of ambiguity.
  • A behavioral interruption separates observation from interpretation, names the outcome, and seeks a second source of evidence.
  • Self-reflection is professional calibration, not self-condemnation.

Nursing education context: inclusive teaching strategies and processes in nursing education.

5

Use the workbook: Identity and Lens Map

Workbook page 5Get the participant workbook

  1. Name only identity or experience dimensions you are comfortable recording privately.
  2. Identify one professional experience that influences what you notice quickly.
  3. Name one behavior you may interpret too quickly.
  4. Write a check question separating observation, interpretation, and the actual outcome.

Output: A private lens map and one behavior-based check question. You may apply the tool only to the composite case.

6

Choose a next move

Convert one interpretation into an observable question or criterion.

Equivalent access and no-technology route

Use structured Observation and Interpretation text, sentence strips, and a private written or typed response. The output remains the same evidence sort and behavior-check question.

Complete when: You wrote one behavior-based check question.
IE-12

Change the response, not the standard

Compare faculty presence and language while tracking what happens to questions, reasoning, recovery, and accountability.

  1. Case
  2. Explore
  3. Discuss
  4. Learn
  5. Workbook
  6. Next move
1

Read the case: a legitimate correction closes the room

A faculty response can conceal learner reasoning even when the educator intends to uphold a necessary clinical standard.

Read the situation

After a medical-surgical clinical day, Maya asks why her prioritization decision was unsafe. Professor Brooks replies, “You should know this by now.” Maya stops asking questions, the group becomes quiet, and the clinical reasoning behind the safety concern remains unexplored.

The tension: The safety concern is legitimate, but the response hides the reasoning faculty need to assess and coach.

Stay with the evidence: Do not assign motivation or character, and do not treat silence as evidence of agreement or learning.

Your task: Predict what learners may do after hearing this response. Then rewrite it using four parts: observation, inquiry, criterion, and next step. Record and rehearse the revision on workbook page 6.

2

Watch or read: educator presence and belief

Every Kid Needs a Champion · Rita Pierson · TED

Observation lens: connection, honest repair, belief in growth, persistence, and high expectations. Translate the ideas to adult professional learners without infantilizing nursing students.

Watch full video on YouTube Read official TED transcript Read concise text alternative
Access and use note

Manual English captions and the official transcript were available when reviewed. Use the original stream or link; confirm current TED terms before using the embed in a paid workshop.

Text alternative: Learners are more willing to ask questions, reveal uncertainty, and persist after mistakes when educators combine human connection, honest repair, belief in growth, and meaningful expectations.
3

Discuss: what makes reasoning safer to reveal?

  1. Evidence: What happened after the original response, and what safety standard remained unresolved?
  2. Meaning: Which language would reveal Maya's reasoning without lowering the standard?
  3. Next move: Complete the response: “I observed __. Walk me through __. The criterion is __. Your next step is __.”
4

Learn: presence, criteria, and repair

Key idea: Firm standards work best when faculty language keeps learner reasoning visible and leaves a clear route to repair.

  • Educator presence is communicated through clarity, consistency, respect, responsiveness, and willingness to repair.
  • Psychological safety means questions and uncertainty do not trigger humiliation; it is not freedom from evaluation.
  • High standards become more usable when criteria and reasoning are visible.
  • A concise repair acknowledges impact, restates purpose, invites reasoning, and continues with criteria.

Evidence anchors: psychological safety in simulation-based nursing education and AACN Essentials.

5

Use the workbook: Behavior, Impact, and Repair

Workbook page 6Get the participant workbook

  1. Choose a familiar faculty phrase or the composite response.
  2. Name the intended purpose and a possible impact without assigning motive.
  3. Rewrite with one observation, one inquiry question, the criterion, and a next step.
  4. Practice once and revise one phrase after feedback.

Output: A behavior-impact map and one rehearsed faculty response.

6

Choose a next move

Practice: “I interrupted the reasoning. Let us return to the cue, the criterion, and your next decision.” What remains accountable?

Equivalent access and no-technology route

Provide the paired response scripts and text description before any video. Participants may annotate, write, or use text-to-speech instead of verbal rehearsal.

Complete when: You revised and practiced one faculty response.

Module 2

Cultural competence, cultural humility, and inclusive teaching

Use cultural knowledge as context, not certainty. Notice power, remove burdens from students, and redesign ordinary interactions that shape belonging.

IE-21

Cultural humility keeps expertise curious

Examine the moment when cultural context becomes certainty about a person. Practice inquiry and repair without making a student represent a community.

  1. Case
  2. Explore
  3. Discuss
  4. Learn
  5. Workbook
  6. Next move
1

Read the case: culture becomes a category assumption

Cultural knowledge becomes harmful when it turns into certainty about an individual or asks a student to represent an entire group.

Read the situation

During a family-centered discharge case, Professor Green asks Minh to explain how “Asian families” make healthcare decisions. Minh says that families differ and looks away. The patient case provides no information about this family's preferences.

The tension: The question turns cultural context into certainty and asks one student to represent a group.

Stay with the evidence: Do not assume Minh's identity or expertise, the family's preferences, or intent beyond the stated teaching goal.

Your task: Sort the case into what is known, what is assumed, and who carries the burden. Rewrite the question so it seeks information about this patient and family, then draft a brief repair on workbook page 7.

2

Watch or read: cultural humility as an ongoing practice

Cultural Humility: People, Principles and Practices - Part 1 · Vivian Chávez

Observation lens: lifelong self-reflection, power, relationship, and institutional responsibility.

Watch full Part 1 on YouTube Read text alternative
Access and use note

Use the concise text equivalent below when video is unavailable or not preferred. Use the original upload; do not download or create a derivative clip without permission.

Text equivalent: Cultural humility is ongoing, not a completed body of knowledge. It asks educators to examine themselves, notice harmful power imbalances, build respectful partnerships, and expect institutions as well as individuals to be accountable.
3

Discuss: context, curiosity, and burden

  1. Evidence: What is known about this family, and what has been assumed?
  2. Meaning: How did the question shift the teaching burden to Minh?
  3. Next move: What person-specific question and concise repair would continue learning without repeating the assumption?
4

Learn: know context, ask the person, notice power

Key idea: Cultural knowledge provides context, not a forecast. Ask the person, notice power, and repair assumptions without making a learner represent a group.

  • Cultural competence can provide useful context, but a checklist cannot predict an individual's values or behavior.
  • Cultural humility emphasizes lifelong self-evaluation, attention to power, respectful partnership, and institutional accountability.
  • Inclusive inquiry asks what is relevant to this person and situation rather than asking a learner to represent a group.
  • Repair can be concise: acknowledge the assumption, revise the question, and remove the burden from the student.

Foundational source: Tervalon and Murray-García on cultural humility. This framework originated in physician training and patient care; its faculty-student use here is an application.

5

Use the workbook: Know, Ask, Avoid, Repair

Workbook page 7Get the participant workbook

  1. List only the patient or learner information actually available.
  2. Rewrite the faculty question to seek relevant individual information.
  3. Name one category assumption to avoid.
  4. Draft a two-sentence repair that acknowledges impact and continues learning.

Output: One inclusive inquiry question and one concise repair statement. Discuss the composite case; no one must describe their own culture or stereotyping experience.

6

Choose a next move

Use the Know-Ask-Avoid-Repair check on a second nursing education prompt.

Equivalent access and no-technology route

Use the verified text equivalent and printed Know-Ask-Avoid-Repair cards. Allow writing before discussion. All routes produce the same inquiry and repair outputs.

Complete when: You wrote an inclusive inquiry question and a concise repair.
IE-22

Belonging is built in ordinary interactions

Follow four composite learners through the same course week. Locate friction in the design, then make one routine interaction clearer and more usable.

  1. Case
  2. Explore
  3. Discuss
  4. Learn
  5. Workbook
  6. Next move
1

Read the case: routine design creates uneven access

Students encounter barriers in directions, participation rules, group work, scheduling, and feedback long before anyone names an inclusion problem.

Read the situation

During one course week, students encounter vague directions without criteria, a single on-campus review option, rapid cold calls as the main participation measure, changing simulation roles without notice, and group structures in which the same people repeatedly speak.

Elena balances work and caregiving. Malik is returning after a gap in formal education. Priya's written reasoning is stronger than her rapid responses. Alex benefits from predictable structure. These profiles provide context, not diagnoses or fixed learning styles.

The tension: Routine course choices create different levels of access to the same learning opportunity.

Stay with the evidence: Do not locate the problem inside the learner or assume one change removes every barrier.

Your task: Choose one course-design decision. Identify the hidden rule or barrier, connect it to the learner action it affects, and create a before-and-after version that keeps the learning outcome unchanged. Use workbook pages 8–9.

2

Examine four learner perspectives

Read for the course-design barrier, not a diagnosis of the learner.

Elena

“I can meet the standard, but the only practice window occurs while I am at work.”

Malik

“I know what the assignment asks me to submit. I cannot see how quality will be judged.”

Priya

“By the time I finish organizing my clinical reasoning, the cold call has moved to someone else.”

Alex

“The goal makes sense. The last-minute role change uses attention I need for the simulation cues.”

3

Discuss: locate friction in the environment

  1. Evidence: What must learners infer, and who repeatedly receives access, practice, or attention?
  2. Meaning: How is the course design creating friction without locating the problem inside the learner?
  3. Next move: What specific instruction or routine will you change, and what outcome will remain the same?
4

Learn: belonging cues and transparent teaching

Key idea: Belonging grows through repeated design cues: clear purpose, usable routes, specific criteria, meaningful contribution, and recovery after error.

  • Belonging is shaped by repeated cues that a learner is expected, respected, able to contribute, and able to recover from error.
  • Transparent teaching makes purpose, task, criteria, and examples visible instead of relying on hidden academic knowledge.
  • Inclusive communication is plain and specific and separates performance from assumptions about character.
  • Learner groups are internally diverse; design for variability and ask individuals rather than assigning a need to an identity.

Nursing context: inclusive teaching strategies and processes and the current AACN Access, Connection, and Engagement concept.

5

Use the workbook: Learner Journey and Belonging Audit

Workbook pages 8-9Get the participant workbook

  1. Choose classroom, lab, simulation, or clinical and map one composite learner's path from preparation through feedback.
  2. Mark where purpose, instructions, criteria, participation, access, or recovery are unclear.
  3. Identify the faculty or course decision connected to one barrier.
  4. Rewrite one direction, participation rule, or feedback message.
  5. Name who else may benefit without claiming all members of a group need the change.

Output: A learner-journey barrier map and one inclusive communication redesign. Do not record an identifiable student's circumstances.

6

Choose a next move

Select one barrier removal that benefits multiple learners while preserving the intended outcome.

Equivalent access and no-technology route

Offer the profiles and timeline as structured text and printed learner, barrier, and course-decision cards. Allow additional processing time before discussion.

Complete when: You connected one barrier to a faculty-controlled redesign.

Module 3

ADA, accessibility, and Universal Design for Learning

Preserve essential outcomes while examining route, access, institutional roles, privacy, and proactive course design.

Educational boundary: This workshop provides general education, not individualized legal advice. Current institutional policy, the authorized disability-services process, and qualified institutional counsel control individual decisions. Do not debate a student's access need or diagnosis in public.
IE-31

Equity changes the route, not the destination

Test whether one equal practice opportunity is equally usable. Then preserve the essential outcome while redesigning the route.

  1. Case
  2. Explore
  3. Discuss
  4. Learn
  5. Workbook
  6. Next move
1

Read the case: equal access on paper, uneven access in practice

A practice can treat everyone identically and still provide unequal access to preparation, feedback, or success.

Read the situation

Every learner must complete the same sterile-technique checkoff using the same essential criteria. The only optional practice is on campus in the afternoon. A commuter is working, a caregiver must leave after class, and a learner new to the program does not know how to reserve the lab. The checklist is posted, but there is no annotated example or alternate practice route.

The tension: The destination and criteria are shared, but the route to meaningful practice is usable for only some learners.

Stay with the evidence: Do not assume every learner needs the same route, that access requires changing the standard, or that a scheduling constraint reflects commitment.

Your task: State the essential outcome first. Then identify the barrier and design another preparation route without changing the final performance criterion. Record the destination, route, and evidence on workbook page 10.

2

Examine the route, barrier, and destination

Equal offer

One optional 2:00 p.m. practice session for everyone.

Barrier evidence

Some students cannot use the time or do not know how to reserve practice.

Additional routes

A second window, reservation directions, an annotated example, or structured peer practice.

Shared destination

The same sterile-technique performance and safety criteria.

3

Discuss: what changes, and what stays?

  1. Evidence: What competency and evidence must remain fixed?
  2. Meaning: Who can realistically use the current preparation route, and what does that route assume?
  3. Next move: What broader route would increase access, and what might still require individual coordination?
4

Learn: equality, equity, and essential outcomes

Key idea: Equality offers the same route. Equity removes avoidable barriers while preserving the essential destination and valid evidence.

  • Equality offers the same resource or rule; equity asks whether routes and resources create meaningful access to the valued outcome.
  • Equity-minded analysis looks for institutional and course-design barriers before assigning the problem to motivation or ability.
  • Multiple routes do not automatically lower standards; the essential outcome and valid evidence must be explicit.
  • Universal improvements and individualized accommodations are related but not interchangeable.

Current nursing framework: AACN Access, Connection, and Engagement.

5

Use the workbook: Equality, Equity, and the Essential Outcome

Workbook page 10Get the participant workbook

  1. Name one course resource, rule, or opportunity offered the same way to everyone.
  2. Identify who may have difficulty using it and the evidence for that conclusion.
  3. State the essential learning or performance destination.
  4. Draft one additional route or barrier removal.
  5. Note whether individualized coordination may still be needed.

Output: An equity-minded redesign with an explicit, unchanged outcome. Analyze a course routine, not an identifiable learner.

6

Choose a next move

State the unchanged destination and one more usable route.

Equivalent access and no-technology route

Provide every route diagram in linear text and avoid color-only distinctions. Use printed Resource-Route-Barrier-Outcome cards or a paper sketch.

Complete when: You named an unchanged outcome and a more usable route.
IE-32

Access decisions protect learners and essential outcomes

Work through an approved testing accommodation and a separate time-sensitive simulation. Practice the faculty role without diagnosing, debating legitimacy, or making a blanket decision.

  1. Case
  2. Explore
  3. Discuss
  4. Learn
  5. Workbook
  6. Next move
1

Read the case: one time concern is applied to every assessment

Faculty can block approved access when every disability-related request is treated as a threat to nursing standards or legitimacy is decided outside the authorized process.

Read the situation

Jordan submits an approved letter providing extended time and a reduced-distraction setting for written tests. Dr. Shaw responds, “There is no extra time in nursing,” referring to a separate emergency simulation with a time-sensitive outcome. The written test and emergency simulation measure different things.

The tension: A legitimate concern about essential clinical performance is being used as a blanket reason to reject approved access in another context.

Stay with the evidence: Do not seek Jordan's diagnosis, decide a separate simulation question here, or assume all nursing tasks have the same time demands.

Your task: Mark what is already approved and what remains a separate process question. Draft an immediate response to Jordan, identify the outcome of each assessment, and write one question for disability services on workbook page 11.

2

Examine the access-response pathway

Receive

Acknowledge the approved letter and protect privacy.

Implement

Arrange the authorized access in the covered context.

Clarify

Name the actual outcome and ask only what faculty need to implement it.

Coordinate

Route unresolved or separate questions through the authorized institutional process.

Read the U.S. Department of Education plain-language postsecondary guidance.

3

Discuss: know, act, protect, coordinate

  1. Evidence: What has already been approved, and what outcome does the written test assess?
  2. Meaning: Where is speed an essential outcome, and which questions belong in the authorized process?
  3. Next move: What can Dr. Shaw say now to implement the letter, protect privacy, and coordinate the separate question?
4

Learn: access, privacy, and authorized decisions

Key idea: Faculty implement authorized access, protect privacy, and route unresolved essential-requirement questions through the designated institutional process.

  • Postsecondary students generally use established institutional processes; faculty implement authorized accommodations and coordinate questions through designated offices.
  • Faculty should not seek diagnostic details they do not need or ask a group to decide whether a request is legitimate.
  • Whether a proposed change would fundamentally alter an essential requirement requires an individualized, authorized process, not a blanket assumption.
  • Essential outcomes and valid evidence should be defined before access questions arise and should not be inferred from tradition alone.

Primary guidance: DOJ ADA Title II, 34 CFR Part 104, Subpart E, and OCR postsecondary rights and responsibilities.

5

Use the workbook: Faculty Access Response Pathway

Workbook page 11Get the participant workbook

  1. Sort case facts into Know, Do Not Need to Know, Faculty Action, or Coordinate.
  2. State the outcome measured by the written exam and by the simulation.
  3. Draft a reply that acknowledges the letter, confirms implementation, protects privacy, and routes questions appropriately.
  4. Write one question for the authorized disability-services office rather than the student or class.

Output: A privacy-preserving faculty response and an authorized coordination question. Use only the composite facts.

6

Choose a next move

State one action faculty should take now and one question to route through the authorized process.

Equivalent access and no-technology route

Provide official guidance summaries in structured text and print. Use untimed analysis and role-sort cards. No participant must disclose disability or accommodation experience.

Complete when: You drafted an implementation response and a coordination question.
IE-33

Design for variability before the barrier appears

Audit a flawed pre-simulation packet, then apply UDL and accessibility principles to one real teaching artifact.

  1. Case
  2. Explore
  3. Discuss
  4. Learn
  5. Workbook
  6. Next move
1

Read the case: an online packet is not automatically accessible

Information, navigation, timing, and response routes can block access even when content is posted online for everyone.

Read the situation

Preparation for a respiratory simulation includes an image-only PDF, an uncaptioned video without a transcript, a map that uses red and green alone, and a fixed desktop quiz that cannot be paused. The learning objective is to recognize deterioration cues and explain the first nursing actions.

The tension: The material is online for everyone, but several design choices block perception, navigation, or response.

Stay with the evidence: Do not guess who has a disability, assume UDL removes every accommodation need, or change the clinical objective.

Your task: Choose one artifact. Identify the learner action its design blocks, select one immediate repair, name one later improvement, and provide an equivalent route while keeping the objective unchanged. Use workbook pages 12–13.

2

Watch or read: UDL at a glance

UDL At A Glance · CAST

Watch for multiple means of engagement, representation, and action or expression.

Watch on YouTube Read text alternative Open current CAST Guidelines 3.0
Access and use note

A named English caption track and an automatic track were available when reviewed. This 2010 overview predates the 2024 CAST Guidelines 3.0. A human-reviewed text equivalent is required, and UDL does not replace individual accommodations.

Text equivalent: UDL anticipates learner variability rather than an assumed average learner. Faculty clarify the goal, locate barriers in methods and materials, and provide meaningful options for engagement, access to information, and demonstration of learning.
3

Discuss: prioritize by impact on the learner action

  1. Evidence: Does each barrier prevent perception, navigation, understanding, or response?
  2. Meaning: What is the smallest high-impact repair, and which learner action would it restore?
  3. Next move: What could remain inaccessible, and when might an individualized accommodation still be needed?
4

Learn: proactive design and individualized access

Key idea: UDL anticipates learner variability, accessibility removes technical barriers, and accommodations address individual access needs that remain.

  • UDL proactively plans multiple means of engagement, representation, and action or expression around a clear goal.
  • Accessibility addresses headings, reading order, captions, meaningful links, contrast, keyboard operation, and usable timing.
  • UDL and accessible design reduce predictable barriers but do not replace individualized accommodations.
  • Equivalent access preserves the learner action and evidence; it does not require an identical format.

Current sources: CAST UDL Guidelines 3.0 and the DOJ Title II web and mobile-app rule fact sheet. Do not assign a compliance deadline to a college without institutional review.

5

Use the workbook: Accessible Artifact and UDL Audit

Workbook pages 12-13Get the participant workbook

  1. Name the artifact and learner action it supports.
  2. Check perception, navigation, understanding, timing, interaction, and response routes.
  3. Identify three barriers and rank them by impact.
  4. Plan one immediate revision, one later revision, and one equivalent low-tech route.
  5. Note any individualized accommodation that still requires implementation.

Output: A prioritized three-change accessibility and UDL plan. Audit material, not a student's disability history.

6

Choose a next move

Name the first revision, the barrier it addresses, and the unchanged learner action.

Equivalent access and no-technology route

The activity itself uses headings, keyboard operation, captions/text alternatives, contrast, and untimed use. A structured Word or print checklist and flawed paper packet preserve the same audit.

Complete when: You prioritized three revisions and an equivalent route.

Module 4

Evidence-based teaching strategies that work

Replace passive familiarity with visible learner thinking, purposeful practice, feedback, metacognitive coaching, and timely support.

IE-41

Make every learner's thinking visible

Experience a retrieval-and-feedback cycle, then redesign one lesson segment so students retrieve, commit, explain, receive feedback, and transfer.

  1. Case
  2. Explore
  3. Discuss
  4. Learn
  5. Workbook
  6. Next move
1

Read the case: clear presentation can feel like learning

Students can appear attentive during a polished lecture yet produce little evidence that they can retrieve, discriminate, explain, or transfer the knowledge independently.

Read the situation

Professor Mei Chen delivers a clear, well-organized lesson on early recognition of sepsis. Students say the material makes sense and ask few questions, but they do not independently retrieve the information or make a clinical decision until the later unit exam. Many then miss the most urgent cue and cannot justify the first action.

The tension: The lesson created familiarity without producing early evidence of durable, independent reasoning.

Stay with the evidence: Direct instruction can be useful, activity alone does not guarantee learning, and the result does not prove students failed to study or care.

Your task: Commit to an independent first action before seeing the explanation. Then redesign one lesson segment using Retrieve–Commit–Compare–Explain–Feedback–Transfer. Mark where learner thinking becomes visible on workbook pages 14–15.

2

Watch, retrieve, and compare

Retrieval Practice · The Learning Scientists

Before playing the video, retrieve one key principle from the previous module and commit it to paper.

Watch on YouTube Read the creator's retrieval-practice article Open accessible strategy posters Read text alternative
Access and use note

Automatic English captions were available when reviewed. Treat them as a convenience, not a verified equivalent; use the original stream or link and provide the reviewed text equivalent below.

Text equivalent: Retrieval practice asks learners to bring information to mind without first seeing the answer. A low-stakes attempt reveals what is available, strengthens later access, and becomes more useful when followed by corrective feedback, spacing, and another opportunity to apply the idea.
3

Discuss: when did thinking become visible?

  1. Evidence: When did you retrieve an answer rather than recognize one, and what thinking became visible?
  2. Meaning: Where does the current lesson wait too long for an independent decision or feedback?
  3. Next move: Where will every learner commit, receive feedback, and transfer the reasoning to a new case?
4

Learn: durable learning loops

Key idea: Learning becomes more durable when every learner retrieves, commits, compares, receives feedback, and transfers the reasoning to a new situation.

  • Retrieval strengthens access to learned information and reveals what is not yet retrievable; feedback corrects the attempt.
  • Spacing and varied practice support retention and transfer better than one concentrated exposure alone.
  • Active learning matters when it requires relevant thinking, produces evidence, and enables feedback; motion or talk alone is not enough.
  • Metacognitive prompts help learners predict, monitor, explain, and choose a next strategy instead of relying on familiarity.

Evidence anchors: retrieval-practice review, active-learning meta-analysis, and clinical judgment and reflection in nursing.

5

Use the workbook: Evidence-Based Learning Loop

Workbook pages 14-15Get the participant workbook

  1. Name one learner-facing outcome and a common point of false familiarity.
  2. Write a retrieval or prediction prompt every learner can answer before explanation.
  3. Require an individual commitment, then a comparison or explanation.
  4. Plan concise corrective feedback and a second attempt or transfer prompt.
  5. Add an accessible participation route and name the evidence faculty will observe.

Output: A Retrieve–Commit–Compare–Explain–Feedback–Transfer lesson blueprint. Use nonconfidential content; do not reproduce restricted exam items.

6

Choose a next move

Show where every learner thinks, where feedback arrives, and what usable evidence faculty obtain.

Equivalent access and no-technology route

Present prompts in speech and text; offer untimed private response and multiple response modes. Use paper response cards and delayed answer sheets. Every route includes retrieval, commitment, feedback, and transfer.

Complete when: You built a complete learning loop with observable evidence.
IE-42

Pair high expectations with a usable next step

Practice observation, inquiry, strategy coaching, support, and follow-up without diagnosing, rescuing, or lowering the standard.

  1. Case
  2. Explore
  3. Discuss
  4. Learn
  5. Workbook
  6. Next move
1

Read the case: a performance concern becomes a character judgment

Judgment-first language can close a conversation before faculty clarify the standard, reveal a barrier, teach a strategy, or connect an appropriate support.

Read the situation

Sam has two missing assignments, a late lab arrival, and limited participation in the most recent debrief. The syllabus identifies deadlines but no early-support process. Professor Coleman drafts, “You need to take this program seriously.” The program offers tutoring, advising, disability services, counseling, and emergency-support pathways.

The tension: The concern is legitimate, but the message assigns motive before inquiry and does not teach a usable next step.

Stay with the evidence: Do not infer trauma, disability, family status, finances, or motivation. Support does not erase consequences.

Your task: Cross out words that assign motive or character. Compare the two possible openings, then draft an observation-based opening, strategy question, support option, and follow-up on workbook pages 16–17.

2

Compare two conversation openings

Opening A: judgment first

“You need to take this program seriously. If you keep this up, you will not make it.”

Opening B: observation and inquiry

“Two assignments are missing, and you arrived after the lab start time. That puts the course requirements at risk. What is getting in the way of completing the next step?”

Strategy prompt

“Show me how you planned your last study session. Where did you retrieve, check, and revise?”

Boundary and follow-up

Faculty clarify, coach, document, and refer; they do not diagnose, provide therapy, or promise unavailable resources.

3

Discuss: which opening creates usable information?

  1. Evidence: Which details are observable performance facts, and which are character judgments?
  2. Meaning: Which opening creates useful information while maintaining the standard and learner agency?
  3. Next move: What first sentence, strategy prompt, next action, and referral boundary will you use?
4

Learn: support without forced disclosure

Key idea: Support begins with observable evidence and a usable next step, not an explanation of the learner's character or private life.

  • Trauma-informed teaching emphasizes safety, trustworthiness, transparency, collaboration, choice, and empowerment without requiring disclosure or diagnosis.
  • Culturally responsive support connects high expectations to learner assets, relevant context, clear feedback, and usable pathways rather than deficit assumptions.
  • Metacognitive coaching asks learners to predict, monitor, explain, and select a new strategy; “study harder” is not a strategy.
  • Faculty can observe, clarify, coach, document, and refer. They should not provide therapy or exceed their institutional role.

Practice anchors: SAMHSA trauma-informed principles and trauma-informed teaching in higher education.

5

Use the workbook: Supporting a Struggling Student

Workbook pages 16-17Get the participant workbook

  1. List only observable performance facts.
  2. Write a neutral impact statement and relevant standard.
  3. Draft one open inquiry question that does not seek private disclosure.
  4. Offer one learning-strategy coaching prompt and appropriate support options.
  5. Define the follow-up date, evidence, and referral boundary.

Output: An early-support conversation and follow-up plan. Use Sam's composite case or a de-identified pattern; do not record a real student's private information.

6

Choose a next move

Rehearse or annotate the opening, then revise the first sentence for clarity, inquiry, agency, and accountability.

Equivalent access and no-technology route

Provide scripts before discussion. Written rehearsal or an observer role is equivalent to spoken role-play; rapid role-play is never required. Printed scripts and support maps preserve the output.

Complete when: You rehearsed an observation-based support conversation.

Module 5

Practice difficult moments

Practice a useful first response to a difficult moment, then move to the final action plan.

IE-51

Practice your first response

Respond to a biased comment during simulation debrief without ignoring communication evidence, humiliating anyone, or asking the targeted learner to teach the room.

  1. Case
  2. Explore
  3. Discuss
  4. Learn
  5. Workbook
  6. Next move
1

Read the case: biased framing and real performance evidence collide

Silence can normalize harm, while a reactive response can humiliate people and obscure the performance issue that also needs attention.

Read the situation

During debrief after a deteriorating-patient simulation, Cole says he could not trust Amina's handoff “because of her accent.” Amina becomes quiet. The rubric shows that the team omitted the oxygen trend, response to intervention, and a direct recommendation; multiple team members contributed.

The tension: Professor Lee must interrupt the biased framing while still addressing the actual handoff evidence.

Stay with the evidence: Do not assign Cole's intent, ask Amina to explain the harm, or infer competence from accent. Bias and performance both require attention.

Your task: Write the first sentence you would say before viewing the response framework. Then build a Pause–Name–Ask–Anchor–Repair response and identify what requires private follow-up on workbook pages 18–19.

2

Pause and decide what to say first

Content note: This composite includes a biased comment about accent. Work from the printed facts and rubric; no one must share a personal experience or role-play a targeted identity.

Person

A learner has been singled out through an identity-linked framing.

Process

The debrief needs immediate containment and a route back to learning.

Standard

The rubric requires specific handoff content, structure, intelligibility, and a direct recommendation.

Impact to address

The comment can distort evaluation, narrow participation, and move attention away from team evidence.

Pause point: Before reviewing options, write the first sentence you would say.

3

Discuss: contain harm and return to evidence

  1. Evidence: What must be interrupted immediately, and what objective handoff evidence is available?
  2. Meaning: How can Professor Lee return to the rubric without ignoring bias or asking Amina to educate the group?
  3. Next move: What first sentence, criterion-based question, re-practice step, and private follow-up will you use?
4

Learn: Pause–Name–Ask–Anchor–Repair

Key idea: Interrupt the harmful framing, return to observable criteria, and create a clear route for accountability and re-practice.

  1. Pause the exchange so the framing is not normalized.
  2. Name the concern or impact without assigning an unverified motive.
  3. Ask a clarifying or reflective question that does not burden the targeted learner.
  4. Anchor evaluation in the actual performance criteria and evidence.
  5. Repair through re-practice, support, accountability, and appropriate private follow-up.

Accent is not a substitute measure for communication quality. Psychological safety includes the expectation that harmful behavior will be addressed, while standards and performance evidence remain visible.

Evidence anchors: psychological safety and learning behavior, psychological safety in nursing simulation, and the AACN Essentials.

5

Use the workbook: What Would You Say Next?

Workbook pages 18-19Get the participant workbook

  1. Write your first sentence before reviewing the scaffold.
  2. Mark the person, process, standard, and impact that need attention.
  3. Draft a Pause–Name–Ask–Anchor–Repair response for the immediate moment.
  4. Rehearse as facilitator, learner, or observer; a silent written-analysis route is always available.
  5. Use feedback to revise one sentence and identify necessary private follow-up.

Output: A behavior-specific response and follow-up plan. Use the composite case; no personal bias story or targeted-identity role-play is required.

6

Choose a next move

Revise one sentence, then name how the response changes in a classroom, lab, clinical, committee, or immediate-safety setting.

Equivalent access and no-technology route

Provide the content note, case, rubric, and response sequence in advance. Observer and written-analysis roles are equivalent to spoken rehearsal. Printed case and response cards preserve the same output.

Complete when: You rehearsed a behavior-specific response and follow-up.

Action Plan and Close

Turn one insight into your next teaching move

The printed or digital workbook is the primary place for this final work. Build one bounded 30-day test, schedule it, and finish with a private future-self cue.

IE-52

Turn reflection into a 30-day test

Choose one behavior or artifact, name when and where it will change, decide what evidence you will notice, and schedule a follow-up.

  1. Case
  2. Explore
  3. Discuss
  4. Learn
  5. Workbook
  6. Next move
1

Read the case: a worthy aspiration cannot direct Monday's action

“I will be more inclusive” is too broad to guide a decision on a busy teaching day or show whether anything changed.

Read the situation

Professor Pat Williams leaves the workshop with the goal, “I will be more inclusive.” Pat has already identified an unclear assignment and a discussion routine that needs improvement, but the goal names no specific action, context, evidence, or follow-up.

The tension: The aspiration is worthwhile but cannot yet guide a busy teaching decision.

Stay with the evidence: Limited follow-through does not prove limited care, and a large redesign is not always more valuable than a focused test.

Your task: Select one faculty behavior or course artifact. Name the context, trigger, action, evidence, likely barrier, response to that barrier, and follow-up. Complete the plan on workbook pages 20–21.

2

Compare an aspiration with a testable plan

Broad aspiration

“I will be more inclusive.”

Bounded test

“When I revise the Week 3 assignment next Tuesday, I will add a model response and criterion checklist.”

Observable evidence

Track how many clarification emails concern the task directions and sample three rationales against the criteria.

Follow-up

Review the evidence in 30 days, keep what helps, and revise what does not.

3

Discuss: what makes a change testable?

  1. Evidence: What action and evidence are missing from Pat's broad aspiration?
  2. Meaning: What small, faculty-controlled change is meaningful enough to test?
  3. Next move: Complete: “When __ occurs, I will __. I will look for __ and review what happened on __.”
4

Learn: intention, evidence, iteration

Key idea: A plan becomes usable when it names a trigger, a specific behavior, observable evidence, a likely barrier, and a review point.

  • Implementation intentions link a situation to a behavior: when this occurs, I will do this.
  • A small test lowers the cost of learning and creates evidence before a full-course redesign.
  • Measures may show a faculty behavior, learner process, quality of work, access, or participation; one measure need not prove long-term impact.
  • Accountability works best when it supports reflection and adjustment instead of public performance.
5

Use the workbook: My 30-Day Inclusive Teaching Test

Workbook pages 20-21Get the participant workbook

  1. Choose one faculty behavior or course artifact from today's work.
  2. Name the setting and implementation date.
  3. Complete: “When this situation occurs, I will…”
  4. Choose one observable faculty or learner evidence measure.
  5. Name a likely barrier and an if–then response.
  6. Schedule a follow-up and choose a private or shared accountability check.

Output: A scheduled, measurable 30-day action plan. Sharing is optional and limited to the parts you choose.

6

Choose a next move

Peer-check or privately review the plan for specificity, then schedule the first action and follow-up.

Equivalent access and no-technology route

Use accessible HTML, Word, or print fields. Public commitment is never required. A paper calendar or private follow-up card is equivalent to a digital reminder.

Complete when: You scheduled one bounded action and follow-up.

Optional digital alternative

Use the workbook first

Primary route: complete the 30-day test on workbook pages 20-21, then finish the future-self cue on page 22. If a paper or fillable workbook is not usable for you, an optional unsaved web form is available below.

Open the optional digital action-plan form
Your privacy: This form does not save entries in the browser or send them to the site owner. Copy, download, or print before leaving the page if you want to keep the text. Do not enter student names, diagnoses, accommodation details, personnel matters, or other sensitive information.

Plan preview

Your generated plan will appear here. Blank fields will be labeled “Not yet set.”

Return to Action Plan and Close

Close

The next class is the real test

Use one ordinary teaching moment to practice notice, choice, action, evidence, and repair. Improvement does not require perfection.

IE-90

Notice, choose, act, review

Connect a future teaching moment to an action, evidence measure, repair practice, and follow-up date.

  1. Case
  2. Explore
  3. Discuss
  4. Learn
  5. Workbook
  6. Next move
1

Read the case: insight fades without an ordinary trigger

Workshop insight becomes practice only when faculty notice the next decision, use a tool, gather evidence, and repair when the first attempt is imperfect.

Read the situation

After beginning her action plan, Dana notices that she has interrupted a multilingual student twice during a clinical-conference explanation. She pauses, acknowledges the interruption, invites the learner to finish, and returns the group to the same prioritization criteria. Dana records the pattern and later adds private planning before case responses.

The tension: Inclusive excellence appears through a small repair and design adjustment, not a claim that the work is complete.

Stay with the evidence: One repair does not resolve every pattern, the learner does not have to reassure Dana, and improvement does not require perfection.

Your task: Trace the sequence—notice, repair, criteria, evidence, and redesign. Then write a future-self cue and confirm how and when you will review your evidence on workbook page 22.

2

Trace the future-scene sequence

Notice

An interruption pattern becomes visible.

Repair

Dana acknowledges the behavior without asking the learner to manage Dana's feelings.

Anchor and evidence

The same criteria remain, and the pattern is recorded for review.

Redesign

A brief planning interval gives every learner a more usable route to the response.

3

Discuss: what made reflection observable?

  1. Evidence: What did Dana notice, do in the moment, and preserve for review?
  2. Meaning: Why is repair a professional practice rather than proof of failure, and what standard stayed unchanged?
  3. Next move: What ordinary moment will trigger your plan, and what will you notice, do, and review?
4

Learn: inclusive excellence is iterative

Key idea: Inclusive excellence is a repeatable loop: notice, repair, gather evidence, redesign, and try again.

  • Reflective practice connects an observed event to a revised action and another opportunity to test.
  • Repair protects dignity and learning when it acknowledges impact without asking the learner to manage the educator's feelings.
  • Inclusive excellence is a cycle: notice, choose, act, gather evidence, and revise.
5

Use the workbook: Exit Synthesis and Future-Self Cue

Workbook page 22Get the participant workbook

  1. Complete: “I will notice… I will do… I will know because…”
  2. Write one sentence for your future self to read before implementation.
  3. Confirm the 30-day review date and where evidence will be kept.
  4. Choose one resource below to revisit.

Output: A private exit synthesis connected to the scheduled 30-day plan. No public commitment is required.

6

Choose a next move

Name privately what you will notice, what you will do, and when you will review the evidence. Sharing is optional.

Equivalent access and no-technology route

The future scene is available in text. Private typed, written, or dictated reflection and a paper calendar or exit card produce the same action, evidence, and review date.

Complete when: You confirmed your first action and follow-up date.

Keep learning

Glossary and evidence shelf

Use primary or authoritative sources for policy and current frameworks. Videos are discussion prompts; they are not substitutes for the evidence base.

Use with care: Confirm local institutional policy and authorized processes before applying legal guidance. UDL does not replace accommodations. Automatic captions are not a verified equivalent. Recheck links, captions, licenses, and framework versions before each reuse.
Workshop downloads and facilitator materials

The participant workbook is the work surface for reflection and activities. The facilitator guide is a separate run-of-show resource for the person leading the workshop.

Working glossary

Inclusive excellence
The ongoing alignment of educator behavior, course design, support, standards, and evidence so a diverse student body can participate, learn, belong, and succeed.
Access, connection, and engagement
A current AACN concept describing conditions that support equitable participation and development across nursing education.
Belonging
A learner's experience of being accepted, valued, and able to participate as a legitimate member of the learning community.
Cultural competence
Developing knowledge and skills for effective cross-cultural interaction while recognizing that competence is never a finished checklist.
Cultural humility
Lifelong self-evaluation, attention to power, and accountable partnership rather than mastery of another person's culture.
Psychological safety
A shared belief that questions, uncertainty, mistakes, and respectful challenge can be expressed without humiliation; standards and accountability remain.
Equality and equity
Equality offers the same resource or rule. Equity examines barriers and provides usable routes and resources toward a shared, explicit outcome.
Accessibility
Design that makes information, navigation, interaction, timing, and response usable by people with disabilities, including compatible digital structure.
Accommodation or academic adjustment
An individualized, authorized change that provides access without removing an essential requirement; use the terminology and process established by the institution.
Modification and fundamental alteration
Terms with legal and institutional implications. Faculty should not make a blanket determination alone; route questions through the authorized individualized process.
Universal Design for Learning
Proactive planning for learner variability through multiple means of engagement, representation, and action or expression around a clear goal.
Retrieval practice
Bringing learned information to mind without first seeing the answer, followed by feedback and later use.
Metacognition
Planning, monitoring, explaining, and adjusting one's learning strategies using evidence rather than familiarity alone.
Trauma-informed teaching
Teaching shaped by safety, trustworthiness, transparency, collaboration, choice, and empowerment without diagnosing or requiring disclosure.
Repair
Acknowledge a behavior or impact, restate purpose and criteria, adjust the response, and create the next opportunity to learn.

Access, ADA, Section 504, and UDL

Culture, humility, belonging, and safety

Learning, engagement, and reflection

Nursing education frameworks

Back to top: Workshop Home

Download participant workbook
Download workshop slides