6007SPS Assignment Brief
Module Name: Clinical Neuroscience
Module Code: 6007SPS
Assignment Title: Portfolio – Brain image annotations and neurological disorder essay
If you do not pass this assessment you may have an opportunity to resit it. If you do need to resit, you will be asked to use the feedback provided to revise your original submission, so that it meets the pass requirements for the module. You must clearly indicate the changes you have made in the new submission. Please check your SOLAR results and the submission links on your Aula module page to see when the resit is due.
Assignment Credit: 20 Credits
Word Count (or equivalent): 2000 +/- 10%
Assignment Type: Percentage Grade(Applied Core Assessment). You will be provided with an overall grade between 0% and 100%. You have one opportunity to pass the assignment at or above 40%.
Assignment Task
Overview
This coursework is a portfolio that consists of two parts. The first part is a 500-word annotation of 3 images of the brain outlining and explaining key functioning of specific areas of the brain. The second part requires you to write a 1500-word essay that critically assesses the functionality and neurophysiology of a chosen brain region using clinical findings. You also need to identify and discuss a neurological disorder associated with the chosen brain region and argue the use of treatment methods for the disorder.
What to Include
This section will help you identify what you should include for each section.
Part 1 (500 words)
Part 1 begins with a short, broad introduction to the area of Clinical Neuroscience. Consider providing a definition of Clinical Neuroscience, what does it involve, and why is it important.
Part 1 then requires you to source and write annotations on three images of the brain. Within these annotations, you must locate and explain key behavioural and/or cognitive functionality of a variety of brain regions. This section MUST include the following:
- One image that includes your own annotations that discuss the functioning of the FOUR primary lobes of the brain:
- These are the frontal, temporal, occipital and parietal lobe. You must discuss these four regions.
- One image that includes your own annotations that discuss the functioning of THREE cortical and/or sub-cortical structures from the following list only:
- Hippocampus, Thalamus, Hypothalamus, Nucleus Accumbens, Amygdala, Cerebellum, Pons, Pituitary Gland, Corpus Callosum, Olfactory Bulb, Substantia Nigra.
- One image that includes your own annotations that discuss the functioning of ONE pathway involving the brain only:
- Dopaminergic Pathway, Serotonergic Pathway, Noradrenergic Pathway, Visual Sensory Pathway, Olfactory Sensory Pathway, Auditory Sensory Pathway, Pain Pathway, Motor Pathway.
The module team will provide you with a document that contains some images that you may use for your assignment. You may decide to source your own images from academic sources (peer-reviewed journal articles or publish scientific textbooks). Your selected images must be referenced, following
APA formatting. Avoid wiki sources and popular websites for images, as these are often inaccurate. Your images may have appropriate labelling already on them however they should have no prewritten discussion of functioning.
Part 2 (1500 words)
Part 2 requires you to write a 1500 essay on a brain region of your choice. You are to critically evaluate clinical findings relevant to this brain area, including associated behavioural and cognitive functionality. You should identify an associated disorder and suggest a treatment programme for the disorder. Throughout you should demonstrate understanding of research relating to the brain area as evidenced by mostly original evidence and critically evaluating the evidence you use. You should not write more than 1500 words. You should include:
- An introduction that acts as an opening to your essay. Here you should include the location of the brain region and the neurophysiology of the brain region selected.
- A critical discussion of the evidence supporting the behavioural and cognitive functionality of the brain region.
- Identification and explanation of associated disorders of the brain region, alongside an argument for a suggested treatment plan.
- A conclusion summing up your main points.
Assessed Module Learning Outcomes
The Learning Outcomes for this module align to the marking criteria which can be found at the end of this brief. Ensure you understand the marking criteria to ensure successful achievement of the assessment task. The following module learning outcomes are assessed in this task:
- Successfully apply and critique current debates and developments in Clinical Neuroscience and its relationship to neurological disorders.
- Recognise the variability and diversity of neuropsychological functioning and demonstrate a critical understanding of a range of factors that influence this functioning.
- Identify, access, and interpret scientific, evidence-based reasoning to evaluate neuropsychological research and information about neurological disorders
- Show evidence of autonomy and initiative in learning and research skills via use of original and independently sourced reading and/or literature
Assessment Marking Criteria
| Fail/Referred (0-35%) | Pass / Third (40-49%) | Pass / Lower Second (50-59%) | Merit / Upper Second (60-69%) | Distinction / First (70-100%). | |
| Identify critical brain regions, including lobes, cortical / subcortical, and pathways that underpin brain functionality. (LO 2 4; 20%) | – A poor level of relevant annotations are provided. Two or more of the following sets of annotations may be missing: – lobes – cortical/sub-cortical regions – pathways. – Minimal points regarding behavioural and cognitive functionality are presented. These contain little to no evidence to support. Factors that may influence functioning are not considered. – Images provided not clear, inaccurate, inappropriate or missing. | – A fair level of relevant annotations are provided. One of the following sets of annotations may be missing: – lobes – cortical/sub-cortical regions – pathways. – Some points regarding behavioural and cognitive functionality are presented clearly, supported with evidence, and include factors that may influence functioning, but several may need further clarification and/or further support. – Images provided somewhat clear and accurate. Some images may be missing or inappropriate. | – A good level of relevant annotations provided for all lobes, cortical/sub-cortical regions, and pathways. – Mainly points regarding behavioural and cognitive functionality are presented clearly, supported with evidence, and include factors that may influence functioning, but some may need further clarification and/or further support. – Images provided mainly clear and accurate. | – A very good level of relevant annotations provided for all lobes, cortical/sub-cortical regions, and pathways. – The majority of points regarding behavioural and cognitive functionality are presented clearly, supported with evidence, and include factors that may influence functioning. – Images provided are mostly clear and accurate. | – An excellent level of relevant annotations provided for all lobes, cortical/sub-cortical regions, and pathways. – All points regarding behavioural and cognitive functionality are presented clearly, supported with evidence, and include factors that may influence functioning. – Images provided are clear and accurate. |
| Critical analysis and evaluation of literature that examines behavioural and cognitive functioning of a specific brain area/region. (LO 1, 2, 3, 4; 20%) | – There little to no attempt to identify behavioural and/or cognitive functioning of a specific brain region. – Little to no attempt has been made to analyse or critique evidence presented, or no evidence is presented. Work is mostly descriptive in nature. – Over reliance on seminal evidence with little to no attempt to provide contemporary examples. | – There is fair attempt to identify behavioural and/or cognitive functioning of a specific brain region. – A fair attempt at critically analysing and evaluating the evidence presented. Discussion is in part critical in nature. Work is mostly descriptive in nature with some critical points missing. – Some over reliance on seminal evidence presented. Some attempt to provide contemporary examples, but may be limited. | – There is good attempt to identify behavioural and/or cognitive functioning of a specific brain region. – A good attempt at critically analysing and evaluating the evidence presented. Discussion is mainly critical in nature. In places, some overly descriptive elements are included. – Seminal evidence or explanations are briefly outlined, and there is a good attempt to support with contemporary examples. | – There is very good attempt to identify behavioural and/or cognitive functioning of a specific brain region. – A very good attempt at critically analysing and evaluating the evidence presented. Discussion is mostly critical in nature and typically contains relevant descriptive elements. – Seminal evidence or explanations are briefly outlined, and there is a very good attempt to support with contemporary examples. | – There is an excellent attempt to identify behavioural and/or cognitive functioning of a specific brain region. – An excellent attempt at critically analysing and evaluating the evidence presented. Discussion is mostly critical in nature and contains only relevant descriptive elements. – Seminal evidence or explanations are briefly outlined, and the majority of examples are contemporary.
|
| Identification of a relevant neurological disorder and critical evaluation of the literature regarding the disorder. (LO 1, 2, 3, 4; 20%) | – There is a little to no attempt to identify an appropriate neurological disorder, or that disorder contains no appropriate link to the previously discussed brain area/region. There is little consideration of critical discussion of prevalence/risk factors, symptomology, aetiology, prognosis, and other aspects. Detail presented needs significant clarification and further development. – There is little to no provision of literature, and the relevance of what is included may be very unclear.
| – There is a fair attempt to identify an appropriate neurological disorder that contains a somewhat appropriate link to the previously discussed brain area/region. This is likely to include fair or minimal critical discussion of prevalence/risk factors, symptomology, aetiology, prognosis, and other aspects, though some areas may need clarification and further development. – A fair provision of literature is presented that is fairly well analysed and/or evaluated, but is limited. The relevance of literature provided may be unclear.
| – There is a good attempt to identify an appropriate neurological disorder that contains an appropriate link to the previously discussed brain area/region. This is likely to include good critical discussion of prevalence/risk factors, symptomology, aetiology, prognosis and other aspects, though some areas may need clarification and/or further development. – A good provision of contemporary literature is presented that is analysed and evaluated to a good standard. The relevance of some literature may be unclear.
| – There is a very good attempt to identify an appropriate neurological disorder that is fully linked to the previously discussed brain area/region. This is likely to include very good critical discussion of prevalence/risk factors, symptomology, aetiology, prognosis, and other aspects. – A very good provision of contemporary literature is presented that is analysed and evaluated to a very good standard.
| – There is an excellent attempt to identify an appropriate neurological disorder that is fully linked to the previously discussed brain area/region. This is likely to include excellent critical discussion of prevalence/risk factors, symptomology, aetiology, prognosis, and other aspects. – An excellent provision of contemporary literature is presented that is outstandingly analysed and evaluated.
|
| Demonstrate an understanding and critical evaluate treatments for the identified disorder. (LO 1, 2, 3, 4 20%) | – There is little to no demonstration and understanding of appropriate treatments methods to the disorder is provided. Most points made need further clarification and development. – There is little to no attempt to critically evaluate the chosen treatment path for the disorder selected using contemporary literature. A little or no argument is made for the provision of treatment. Work is almost all descriptive in nature. Treatments provided may not be relevant to the disorder. | – A fair demonstration and understanding of appropriate treatments methods to the disorder is provided, though a number of areas may need clarification and/or further development. – There is a fair or minimal attempt to critically evaluate the chosen treatment path for the disorder selected using contemporary literature, and a good argument is made for the provision of treatment. Work is mostly descriptive in nature. Treatment options provided are mostly seminal or out dated. | – A good demonstration and understanding of appropriate treatments methods to the disorder is provided, though some areas may need clarification and/or further development. – There is a good attempt to critically evaluate the chosen treatment path for the disorder selected using contemporary literature, and a good argument is made for the provision of treatment, though some elements may be descriptive in nature. There is some insight into future or developing treatment options.
| – A very good demonstration and understanding of appropriate treatments methods to the disorder is provided. – There is a very good attempt to critically evaluate the chosen treatment path for the disorder selected using contemporary literature, and a very good argument is made for the provision of treatment. There may be some insight given into future or developing treatment options. | – An excellent demonstration and understanding of appropriate treatments methods to the disorder is provided. – There is an excellent attempt to critically evaluate the chosen treatment path for the disorder selected using contemporary literature, and an excellent argument is made for the provision of treatment. There is insight given into future or developing treatment options. |
| Line of argument and continuity within functionality, disorder, and treatment programme (LO 3, 4; 10%)
| – Individual points are difficult to follow, therefore the overall line of argument is unclear and lacks clarity. – Lack of continuity / link between the explanation of behaviours, disorder, and treatment. | – Individual points are somewhat difficult to follow, with some lack of clarity noted. – Elements of argument attempted but somewhat unclear. – Some/minimal continuity and link between the explanation of behaviours, disorder, and treatment. | – Individual points are addressed and able to follow with clarity. – Line of argument is mostly clear with little to no aspects unclear. – Good continuity and link between the explanation of behaviours, disorder, and treatment. | – Individual points are addressed and able to follow with very good clarity. – Line of argument is clear and somewhat concise with evidence of understanding throughout. – Very good continuity and link between the explanation of behaviours, disorder, and treatment. | – Individual points are addressed in an excellent line of argument with clarity throughout. Line of argument is very clear and concise with evidence of full understanding. – Excellent continuity and link between the explanation of behaviours, disorder, and treatment. |
| Writing Style; Adherence to word count, academic writing style, referencing to APA standard (LO4; 10%) | – Writing style is difficult to follow and significant clarification is needed. – Overall the work is in need of a much higher level of quality in relation to more than one or all (lower end) of the following: – Structure and cohesion – Standard of writing (including colloquial tonality) – Reference list missing, incomplete, and/or poorly formatted. – In text formatting of references needs substantial improvement. – Significantly under/over word count | – Some clear sections within the writing style but most need further clarification. – The overall quality of the work is satisfactory. The script is somewhat structured with elements of cohesiveness. The standard of writing is fair with some colloquial tonality. – Some omissions and/or errors in formatting of citations and reference list are evident but most information is provided (albeit this might be poorly formatted). – Assignment within the proposed word count. | Mainly clear points within the writing style but several may need further clarification. – The overall quality of the work is good. The script is structured and cohesive. The standard of writing is most academic in tonality. – Little to no omissions and/or errors in formatting. For the most part accurate intext citations and correct formatting of reference list. – Assignment within the proposed word count. | – Most points presented are clear but one or two may need further clarification. – The overall quality of the work is very good. The script is structured and cohesive. The standard of writing is academic in tonality throughout. – The majority of the references (in text citations and in the reference list) are correctly formatted. There might be the odd omission but, overall, the referencing is complete. – Assignment within the proposed word count. | – Writing style is excellent with clear points presented throughout and no need for additional clarification. – The overall quality of the work is excellent. The script is exceptionally structured and cohesive. The standard of writing is excellent with academic tonality throughout. – All evidence is correctly cited in the intext citations as well as the reference list. If there are errors these are very minor (e.g. missing comma). – Assignment within the proposed word count. |
Facing Problems with 6007SPS Assessment? Get Academic Support
The post 6007SPS Clinical Neuroscience Assignment Brief 2026 | Coventry University appeared first on Students Assignment Help UK.
