C947 Nursing Education Capstone, catalog number NURS 6107, is the two-CU culminating course of the MSN Nursing Education specialty. It is an evidence-based curriculum proposal built directly on the field experience you completed in C946. Two CUs undersells the workload. The capstone has to be a single coherent document that survives being read by someone who has not seen your gap analysis, and assembling it from five courses of material is a harder editing job than most students expect.
What NURS 6107 is actually testing
A capstone tests integration. The specialty taught the educator role, learning facilitation, curriculum design, assessment and current challenges as separate courses. The capstone asks whether you can use all of it at once, on one problem, in one document.
That produces a specific quality bar. A proposal that shows excellent curriculum design and treats assessment as an afterthought has failed at integration even if the design is good. The assessment plan has to be as developed as the curriculum plan, the facilitation approach has to match the learning theory you invoked, and the whole thing has to sit inside the accreditation standards the earlier courses taught you to read.
The second thing being tested is proposal craft. A capstone is a persuasive document with a specific audience: people who control curriculum and resources, who did not commission your work and who have their own priorities. That changes how it should be written. It needs an executive summary that states the ask in the first paragraph, evidence organised for a reader who is deciding rather than learning, cost and effort stated honestly, and an evaluation plan that would allow the proposal to be judged a failure.
The third is closure of the argument that started in C946. The gap you found, the evidence you gathered, the stakeholder perspectives you collected and the measure you chose all have to reappear, developed rather than repeated.
Turning scored aspects into a section plan
The rubric lives in your Course of Study rather than in the WGU catalog. Count the aspects before assembling anything, and expect a capstone rubric to have more of them than a coursework rubric. Each scores independently on a three-point scale and each needs a 2.
The word budget, worked. Where a capstone proposal runs to roughly 2,600 words across eight scored aspects, reserve 180 for an executive summary and 120 for a close, leaving 2,300 across eight aspects, or about 287 each. Then weight it. The proposal itself deserves 380, since it is what everything else supports. The evaluation plan deserves 340, because a capstone with a weak evaluation section is the most common return in culminating courses. That leaves 1,580 for six aspects at about 263 each.
Write the executive summary last and put it first. It has to state the gap, the proposal, the cost and the measure in a paragraph a busy reader could act on, and you cannot write that paragraph until the rest of the document has settled.
A structure that fits a curriculum proposal capstone
Task directions govern where they specify a format. Where they do not, this arrangement reads as a proposal rather than as an assignment.
| Section | What belongs in it | What earns the aspect |
|---|---|---|
| Executive summary | Gap, proposal, cost, timeline and measure, in one tight paragraph | The ask stated first; proposals that build to their point lose readers |
| Problem and evidence | The gap from your field experience with its supporting data | Data with dates and denominators, developed beyond the C946 version |
| Literature support | What is known about addressing this kind of gap | Evidence graded, including where it is thin |
| The proposal | What changes in the curriculum, where it sits, who delivers it | Detailed enough to be implemented by someone who is not you |
| Alignment | Outcomes, standards and competencies the proposal answers | Named standards with editions, traced to specific elements |
| Teaching and assessment plan | How it will be taught and how learning will be measured | Assessment developed to the same depth as the teaching design |
| Resources and approval | Cost, faculty time, displaced content, approval route and cycle | Honest cost and a realistic governance timeline |
| Evaluation plan | Measures, baselines, intervals and the result that would count as failure | A design that could disconfirm the proposal, not only confirm it |
| Sustainability | Who owns it after implementation and how it stays current | Named ownership beyond the person proposing it |
| References | APA list across standards, education research and any programme data | Consistent, complete, and matched to in-text citations both directions |
Make the document standalone. Evaluators reading a capstone should not need your earlier submissions to follow it. Any reference to the field experience has to carry enough context to make sense on its own.
Evidence craft in a culminating proposal
A capstone aggregates evidence from several courses, and aggregation introduces errors that single assignments do not have.
- Re-verify every source you are carrying forward. Standards editions change, links break and a figure quoted in an earlier course may now be superseded.
- Check that reused material still says what you need it to say in its new position. Text lifted from an earlier assignment often supported a slightly different claim.
- Keep institutional detail anonymised as it was in the field experience, and check again now that material from several sections sits together and could be identifying in combination.
- Give the cost section real numbers. Faculty hours, materials, platform fees, released time. A proposal without a cost is not a proposal.
- Cite your own earlier work correctly if the directions allow reuse. Some programmes require self-citation for material submitted previously, so check the directions rather than assuming.
- Quote sparingly. WGU runs submissions through a similarity check, and a capstone that recycles text carries more risk than any single assignment does.
The strongest capstones name what would make the proposal the wrong choice. A condition under which the gap would be better addressed another way, or a resource level below which the plan should not start. Proposals written as though there is no alternative read as advocacy. Proposals that state their own boundary conditions read as professional judgment.
What separates Competent from a submission sent back
Aspects score on their own, and in a capstone the evaluation plan and the resource section are the usual returns.
- The document stands alone without the earlier submissions.
- Teaching design and assessment plan are developed to equal depth.
- Every standard invoked has an issuing body, an edition and a specific link to a proposal element.
- Cost is quantified and includes what gets displaced.
- The evaluation plan includes a result that would count as failure.
WGU performance assessment work can be revised and resubmitted with no grade penalty, so a return costs time rather than standing. At the end of a specialty that time is expensive in a particular way, because this is often the last course between you and completion. Terms run six months at a flat rate, and a capstone that goes three rounds can push a completion date into a term you did not intend to open.
Five mistakes that cost time in C947
- Assembling rather than integrating. Sections pasted from five courses read as five voices, and the integration aspect is the point of a capstone.
- Assuming the reader knows the field experience. The document has to work for someone who has not read your C946 submission.
- An evaluation plan that can only succeed. If no result would count as failure, it is not an evaluation.
- Costing the proposal at zero. Faculty time is money even when no invoice is raised, and a proposal that hides it will not survive a real committee.
- Leaving sustainability unowned. Curriculum changes decay when the person who introduced them moves on, and a named owner is the difference between a change and an episode.
How support works on this course
C947 is an editing and integration problem as much as a writing one, which is where most of the useful help sits. Send the rubric from your Course of Study with the task directions, and the work starts by auditing what you are carrying forward from C946 and the earlier specialty courses: which evidence still stands, which sources need re-verifying, which claims changed meaning when they moved. From there you get a proposal structured for a decision-making reader, an assessment plan built to the same depth as the teaching design, a costed resource section, and an evaluation plan that could show the proposal failing.
The boundaries hold. We do not complete field or practice hours, contact academic mentors or sites, sign placement paperwork or fill in hour logs. Objective assessments at WGU are proctored, so we prepare only, never sit them, and never ask for portal credentials.
Questions students ask about C947
Is C947 the same course as NURS 6107?
Does C947 have to use the gap I found in C946?
Can I reuse text from my earlier specialty courses?
Assembling the C947 capstone?
Send your Course of Study rubric and the task directions. We audit what carries forward, then build a standalone proposal with a real cost and a real evaluation plan.
Where C947 sits in WGU's programs
The July 2026 catalog places this code in 3 current WGU programs. Open a program page for the complete standard path and term positions. The live Degree Plan remains authoritative after transfer credit, substitutions, and mentor planning.
The assessments, one by one
The public catalog does not publish this course's PA/OA identity or task count. WGU Tutors publishes at most one PA manual per course and only from a WGU-controlled public rubric. Until that source exists, PA help begins from the student's real Course of Study and OA support remains preparation only.