Translational Research

Assessment task 2

Description / conditions

Narrative and literature review

In this assessment, you are required to identify an issue in your workplace where evidence from research has either not been put into
practice or has not been effectively implemented. In your introduction, describe the issue.

PART A – Narrative: Facilitate a discussion about this issue with at least 2 other colleagues in your workplace to explore any shared
concerns and suggestions about how to address it. Using the identified issue that you have discussed with your colleagues, write
a summary of the discussions, and integrate your observations with translational research literature.

PART B – Literature review: Provide a critical review (compare and contrast the research approach and the outcomes) of the
literature that justifies implementation of this activity or innovation in relation to the identified issue and tried/tested solutions to address it. A research question can help to guide your review (E.g. Is hydrotherapy the best rehabilitation process for stroke patients?).

(Note – you are encouraged to come up with an issue from your workplace, but if this proves difficult please refer to Module 1 for
examples of issues you might wish to address).

Assessment Criteria

Download the Assessment 2 Rubric (pdf)

Criterion

Measures Intended Learning Outcome:

Criterion 1

Demonstrated understanding of an identified issue and its relevance to translational research

1,2

Criterion 2

Critical analysis: being able to understand different points of view and express opposing arguments

1,2

Criterion 3

Demonstration of search strategies using Library catalogue, Library databases and online journals

1,2

Criteria 4

Ability to communicate effectively with appropriate referencing

1,2

Task length

2000 words (approximately 1000 words for Part A and 1000 words for Part B)

PLEASE NOTE – in-text citations ARE included in the word count. Your reference list, tables, figures and appendices are NOT included in the word count. Both Harvard and Vancouver referencing styles are acceptable.