HFR 2000 Critical Writing task 4 25th November Read the 3 extracts and decide which one is !

escri"tive #nal$tical %val&ative

'sing di((erent colo&rs) highlight what is descri"tive) what is anal$tical and what is eval&ative in each extract* +here ma$ not be all three in each extract*

Re(lect on $o&r own writing st$le and write a""rox 250 abo&t how $o& can im"rove to become more anal$tical and eval&ative*

Extract 1 ,arahoo et al -2000. investigated the extent to which learning disabilit$ n&rses in Northern /reland &sed research in their "ractice* +he$ also examined the attit&des o( these same n&rses to the im"ortance o( research &tilisation in general* 01 learning disabilit$ n&rses res"onded to the 2&estionnaire* 34*55 o( res"ondents said that the$ 6never7seldom8 &sed research -,arahoo et al) 2000) "* 904.* +he investigating team concl&ded that there was still a great deal o( work to be done i( evidence:based "ractice was to become the norm in learning disabilit$ n&rsing*

Extract 2 /n their 2000 "a"er) ,arahoo et al investigated the &se o( and attit&des towards research o( Northern /rish learning disabilit$ n&rses* +he$ concl&ded that research &tilisation was "oor and the goal o( evidence:based "ractice was still some wa$ o((* +he research was cond&cted b$ wa$ o( 2&estionnaires distrib&ted amongst a convenient sam"le o( n&rses* #ltho&gh) the a&thors acknowledged the limitations o( this method -,arahoo et al) 2000) "* 904. the$ arg&ed it was necessar$ d&e to lack o( reso&rces* However) this &ndo&btedl$ a((ects an$ ;&dgement on the val&e o( the data collected* # strati(ied random sam"ling techni2&e wo&ld have ens&red a tr&l$ random sam"le o( n&rses were selected) making it "ossible to draw more general concl&sions (rom the res&lts* /n addition) the low res"onse rate to the 2&estionnaire and the small n&mber o( learning disabilit$ n&rses in the res"onse set (&rther limit an$ generalisations to other "o"&lations*

H#C< $r*3

HFR 2000 Critical Writing task 4 25th November Extract 3 Whilst ,arahoo et al -2000. arg&e that evidence:based "ractice is some wa$ o(( being a realit$ in learning disabilit$ n&rsing) more recent work b$ =ckendr$ and >o$d -2009. has s&ggested a more o"timistic "ers"ective* +he latter "a"er &sed a 2&estionnaire to investigate attit&des towards research amongst learning disabilit$ n&rses in <cotland and %ngland* Research &tilisation amongst this "o"&lation seemed to be m&ch higher than was the case with ,arahoo8s sam"le (rom Northern /reland* >oth "a"ers &sed the same method o( research) b&t =ckendr$ and >o$d were able to draw concl&sions (rom a m&ch greater n&mber o( res"ondents) 932 as o""osed to 01* +his is likel$ to mean their (indings are more rob&st* /n addition) as the a&thors "oint o&t) the ma;orit$ o( their res"ondents had 2&ali(ied a(ter the changes to n&rsing ed&cation which took "lace (rom 2000 onwards -=ckendr$ and >o$d) 2009) "*33.* #s s&ch it is likel$ to "rovide a more &" to date "ict&re o( attit&des to n&rsing* +he change to degree:level learning ma$ well have res&lted in a greater &se o( and involvement in research amongst learning disabilit$ n&rses as the$ are trained in evidence:based "ractice at &niversit$*

+arget date (or com"letion Wednesda$ 32th !ecember

H#C< $r*3