Discuss the evidence that specific language functions are localised to distinct brain regions.
MARKING CRITERIA
The essay aims to assess whether you can (1) formulate a theoretical argument based on the essay question, and (2) cite experimental evidence in support of that argument. Below are some suggestions to help you structure your essay and decide what to include.
The essay should contain the following sections, which address the following points:
I. Introduction (1-2 paragraphs)
• What is the focus of the essay question?
• What are its implications?
• Are there contrasting theories or points of view? What claims do they make?
II. Evidence (most of the essay)
• What experiments have been conducted to test the claims raised in the introduction?
• What do the findings suggest?
• Are there any problems with individual experiments (methods, interpretation)?
• Are there other findings that contradict these results?
• Can you think of an experiment that hasn’t been conducted that would address the issue?
III. Conclusions (1-2 paragraphs)
• What was the essay question again?
• What evidence was presented (brief summary)?
• What does the evidence suggest?
• What further evidence is needed?
As they mark your essay, the examiners will consider whether it has the following qualities:
Clear. Does the writing set out the arguments and present the evidence plainly and effectively?
Succinct. Could the key points be expressed in fewer words and/or with greater precision? Is there repetition?
Well structured. Does the essay contain all of the above sections in the correct order, and does the argument flow logically?
Accurate. Are there errors in the presentation of methods or findings, the interpretation of results, or the attribution of source materials?
Insightful. Is there evidence of sophisticated critical analysis and/or novel ideas?
Good understanding of core issues/evidence. Does the essay demonstrate reasonable general comprehension of the topic as a whole?
Well balanced. Does the essay present too much theoretical background with too little experimental evidence, or vice versa?
Comprehensive. Do the reported studies provide an overview of the experimental literature on the topic? Have critical studies been omitted?
Concise/focused. Does the essay address a single, well-defined argument? Are all of the reported studies directly relevant to the argument?
Answers the question. Does the essay address the specific question it is supposed to answer? Is it off-topic or overly general?
Appropriate level of detail (methods/findings). Does the descriiption of each study include specific information about: who conducted the experiment (author, date); the purpose of the experiment (what hypothesis was being tested?); the predictions; the methods (task, experimental manipulations, dependent variable); and the results (the effect of the experimental manipulations on the dependent variable)? Is this information conveyed succinctly, i.e., in a few sentences or (at most) a short paragraph?
Chronological. Are the theoretical perspectives and evidence presented in an order that reflects the history and advancement of the field? Are key points presented out of sequence?
Effective introduction. Does the introduction set out the core argument clearly and concisely?
Evidence used in support of argument. Do the reported experiments provide evidence for or against a particular theoretical perspective that relates directly to the core argument?
Conclusion based on evidence. Does the conclusion follow logically from the experimental findings?
Original/thoughtful suggestions for future research. Does the essay raise research questions that have not been addressed by the reported experiments? Have novel predictions and experiments been proposed?
Independent literature search. Are the reported studies limited to references that appear on the reading list? Has an effort been made to locate additional relevant sources (especially recent ones, i.e., from the past five years)?
Up-to-date sources and arguments. Do the reported claims and experiments reflect the current state of the debate? Have there been more recent advances in thinking
