Module Guide Academic Advice
This module guide should be posted in the ‘Module Information’ section of the StudyNet module site one
week before the start of term.
Points for consideration
Module guide front page
The picture on the front page is optional and can be replaced with a suitable one for your module or removed entirely.
Weekly Programme (section 5)
HBS Reading weeks 18 - 22 November 13 and 20 – 24 January 14
Structure of the examination (section 6(a))
Students should be notified in this section if the examination (relative to the previous year) is to be amended with a note
explaining the revised structure.
Assessment Verbs (section 6(a))
All types of assessments (coursework and examinations) will adopt verbs drawn from a listing of ‘Assessment verbs’
which will aid students’ understanding of the assessment requirement. See Appendix 1
Assessment Handbook for guidance on assessment (section 6(a))
http://www.studynet2.herts.ac.uk/intranet/lti.nsf/Teaching+Resources?Openview&count=9999&restricttocategory=Con
nect/Hertfordshire+Business+School
Assessment Guidance (section 6(a))
For Essay, Report, Poster and Oral Communication are included in the appendices. It is important that you include the
one(s) relevant to the assessment and delete any not relevant.
http://www.studynet1.herts.ac.uk/ptl/common/asu.nsf/Teaching+Documents?Openview&count=9999&restricttocategory=
Writing+and+Referencing . When students are required to follow an alternative format, this information should be clearly
detailed by the lecturer.
Coursework 30% (section 6(a)) - NEW UPR
All individual pieces of coursework that are 30% or more, must have been approved by the
Internal and external examiner before issuing it to students. Please issue a draft module
guide until the internal and external examiner has approved it.
Group work (see section 6a)
A reminder that group work cannot ever represent more than 30% of the entire module grade. Group work principles
will be available shortly, please read these and take any actions on board.
It is recommended for group work within modules at levels five and six that the StudyNet ‘wiki’ and the ‘Managing
Groups’ sections of the Module StudyNet site are employed to track the ‘process’ of group work. If not, a clear, visible
record of all student meetings will be required to be included in the assessment task as an aim with objectives to
complete the task. ASU have a guide on their website and useful downloadable templates in the Appendices of that
Guide (available in the Group Work folder)
The record of the group meetings will be required to be submitted with the assessed work if not logged on the module
StudyNet site via the ‘Wiki’ and ‘Managing Groups’.
Grading criteria (section 6b)
Assessment & Feedback Grading Criteria for Essays, Reports, Posters and Oral Communications help both lecturers
and students, see Appendix 2 or the ASU website ‘Academic Expectations’ folder available at:
http://www.studynet2.herts.ac.uk/ptl/common/asu.nsf/Teaching+Documents?Openview&count=9999&restricttocategory=
Academic%20Expectations/Assessment+and+Grading, Amend these forms to suit your assessment task and include in
your Module Handbook.
Referral/Deferral dates (section 6e)


Final StudyNet posting date for deferred/referred coursework is 28th April 14 (see section 10 (b)).
Student deadline for submission of deferred/referred coursework is 16th June 14 (see section 10(b)).
Feedback (See section 6f).
Information on how feedback / feedforward will be given to students should be clearly stated in the module guide.
Module workload (section 7)
Each standard 15 credit module has an expected student workload of 150 hours. If the module is worth 30 credits, the
total should be 300 hours. Lecturers should suggest what is suitable for their module (remember group work may require
more hours than individual work/activities).
Graduate Attributes (section 8) NEW SECTION
Indicate how your module addresses relevant graduate attributes, please highlight in section 10 of the
module guide. Delete any graduate attributes not specifically addressed in the module.
Useful Resources (section 10) and Note (section 11)
Please do not change or remove this information
Please remove any red text shown in the module guide , this is to help you and for guidance only
Module Guide 2013-14
1
Module Guide 2013-14
Module Title -
Module Code -
Academic Year - 2012/13
Semester Module Leader –
Module Guide 2013-14
2
Contents:
1
Contact details for the module leaders (and teaching team)
Name
2a
Room
Phone
extension
E mail
address
Office &
Feedback hours
Module aims
See DMD section 10 to ‘cut and paste’
2b
Learning Outcomes
See DMD section 11(a) and 11(b) to ‘cut and paste’
Knowledge and Understanding
Successful students will typically:
Skills and Attributes
Successful students will typically:
3
Format of delivery
e.g. One hour lecture and one hour tutorial each week
4
How StudyNet will be used to support this module
Describe how the StudyNet site for this module will be employed on your module. For example, FAQs,
Reading list, Discussion Board, Assignment details and submission, Wiki information for group work.
5a
Weekly programme to include:







Week / Date
Theme / Topics to be covered
Session content: Indication of likely activities in lecture / tutorial /seminar / workshop
Assessment: hand-out date if known, submission date, return date (within 4 weeks of
submission)
Seminars/Tutorial preparation required
Weekly readings with instructions,
e.g. read x before the lecture/ to prepare for...
Any other relevant information
E.g.
Semester A – Module Title
Week/Date:
Theme /Topic
1/27
September
Orientation
Session content:
Student tasks:
Reading:
Lecture: 20 minutes max. Highlight
key university features such as dropin hours, SSG, hand-in procedures,
and important locations. Guided or
self-guided tours including ‘treasure
hunt’ element with second years
leading.
Students complete
spreadsheet to
hand-in in class.
Self-study task is to
access spreadsheet
and complete
electronically for
next session.
tba
Seminar: Demonstrate accessing
StudyNet, module and programme
Module Guide 2013-14
3
Task: Students
homepages, module
handbooks/coursework deadlines.
complete a 7-day
pre-printed
spreadsheet of all
their commitments.
nb
All aspects of the module are potentially examinable.
The information given in this Module Guide is believed correct, but HBS reserves the right, at
its discretion, and for any reason, to make changes to the Guide, syllabus and/or module
without prior notice.
5b
Reading List and Key Text

Check Voyager for reading list items and notify your Information Manager (Mike Mylles or Jane
Bilson) if copies are required.
 If an appropriate electronic book is available, please refer students to this as the core text.
 If more than one core text book is suggested, please indicate to students they only need to buy
one of the recommended books.
 If you want to embed links to learning resources in your StudyNet pages, please see the
guidance developed by Jane Bilson and Mike Mylles by clicking on the link below.
http://www.studynet2.herts.ac.uk/intranet/lti.nsf/Teaching+Documents?Openview&count=9999&
restricttocategory=Connect/Hertfordshire+Business+School
 Make sure you use HBS Harvard Referencing, as detailed on ASU website, setting an example
to students
e.g. Hillier, F. S. & Lieberman, G.J. (2005) Introduction to Operations Research. 9th edn. London:
McGraw Hill.
6a
Assessment details to include:
Examination / Coursework weighting:
See DMD section 14(a) and 14(b) to ‘cut and paste’
If students must pass both elements state - ‘To be awarded a pass mark for this module, both
examination and coursework must be passed’.
Examination details:
o
time / format
Coursework details:
o
o
o
o
o
include word limits/ presentation duration and percentage of the overall module grade
hand out date (if known)
submission date
return date (within four weeks of submission)
marking criteria
nb
Students obtaining less than 20% for the module overall, will not normally be eligible for a
referral.
6b
The grading criteria
ASU have generic grading criteria for essays, reports, posters, presentations, etc. These are designed
to be adopted and then adapted for your specific needs. Please, amend the details/marks to suit your
assessment. If you are using your own criteria, state it clearly. See Appendix 2.
These grading criteria will also be available on StudyNet from September 14.
http://www.studynet2.herts.ac.uk/ptl/common/asu.nsf/Teaching+Documents?Openview&count=9
999&restricttocategory=Academic%20Expectations/Assessment+and+Grading
HBS grading criteria for student coursework on this module are provided in the Appendix.
More detail on the specific criteria for each assignment will be provided by the module leader
in the assessment workshop incorporated into the teaching days and in information circulated
via StudyNet
Module Guide 2013-14
4
6c
Referencing properly and the risk of plagiarism / academic misconduct
Please note that HBS reserves the right to use electronic means to identify plagiarism.
Students are advised to ensure that they know how to reference using Harvard Referencing
System, and that all material used in their coursework is correctly referenced to indicate the
source. The Academic Skills Unit has plenty of resources to assist students in academic
writing and can be accessed via StudyNet.
HBS reserves the right to viva students as a method to test that work produced is the students’
own work.
6d
How the assessment relates to the Module Learning Outcomes
See DMD section 11(a) and 11(b) to ‘cut and paste’– exam and coursework, tick() as appropriate.
Add / delete rows and columns for required number of learning outcomes and pieces of courswork
assessment.
Learning Outcomes
Knowledge and understanding
CW1
CW2 Exam
Skills and Attributes
Key: CW – Coursework
6e
Deferral/Referral Assessment
Refer/Defer assessment details are not required within the Module Guide. However, if there are any
changes in the format of the assessment, they must be provided in the module guide.
However, all referred/deferred coursework must be written at the same time as the original coursework
and if necessary sent to the external examiner.
Specific details of the referred/deferred coursework will be put on StudyNet by 28 April 2014,
and the submission date for that work is for all referred/deferred coursework assessments will
be 16 June 2014. This deadline relates to semester A, semester B and semester A/B
referred/deferred coursework.
6f
Feedback on your module
Feedback from assessed coursework assignments will normally be provided either using the
‘StudyNet Online Feedback Form’ or by the HBS ‘Assessment Feedback Form' which will
provide feedback/feedforward on many aspects of your work and on how you can improve in
future assignments. Formative and/or general feedback may also be given in class time.
Please add any further information on how you will give feedback to the students for this module
7
Likely Module Workload
Activities
Total
Lectures
Seminars / Tutorials / Workshop
Module Guide 2013-14
12
12
5
Hours per
week
1
1
Assignment 1 (e.g. 40 hours)
- Research, writing, drafting and editing
E.g. Complete as appropriate
 Pre-lecture/ reading
 Seminar preparation, e.g. for weekly
tasks
 Exam Preparation
 other
Total
8
40
96
150 hours
per 15
credits
On average 10
hours per week
per module
Graduate Attributes
Please indicate briefly how your module addresses relevant graduate attributes. Delete any graduate
attributes not addressed in the module.
Professionalism, employability and enterprise
The University promotes professional integrity and provides opportunities to develop the skills
of communication, independent and team working, problem solving, creativity, digital literacy,
numeracy and self-management. Our graduates will be confident, act with integrity, set
themselves high standards and have skills that are essential to their future lives.
Learning and research skills
The University fosters intellectual curiosity and provides opportunities to develop effective
learning and research abilities. Our graduates will be equipped to seek knowledge and to
continue learning throughout their lives.
Intellectual depth, breadth and adaptability
The University encourages engagement in curricular, co-curricular and extracurricular
activities that deepen and broaden knowledge and develop powers of analysis, application,
synthesis, evaluation and criticality. Our graduates will be able to consider multiple
perspectives as they apply intellectual rigour and innovative thinking to the practical and
theoretical challenges they face.
Respect for others
The University promotes self-awareness, empathy, cultural awareness and mutual respect.
Our graduates will have respect for themselves and others and will be courteous, inclusive and
able to work in a wide range of cultural settings.
Social responsibility
The University promotes the values of ethical behaviour, sustainability and personal
contribution. Our graduates will understand how their actions can enhance the wellbeing of
others and will be equipped to make a valuable contribution to society.
9
Useful resources for support with your modules
o
o
o
Academic Skills Unit (ASU) http://www.studynet.herts.ac.uk/go/asu
Information Hertfordshire
Information Hertfordshire Toolkit for Business and may help you choose the best sources
for different types of business information and include Online tutorials and quizzes .
Academic Integrity
http://www.studynet2.herts.ac.uk/ptl/common/asu.nsf/Teaching+Documents?Openview&c
ount=9999&restricttocategory=Academic+Expectations/Academic+Integrity
Module Guide 2013-14
6
10
Serious Adverse Circumstances
'Serious adverse circumstances' are significant circumstances beyond a student’s control that
would have affected the student’s ability to perform to their full potential if they were to submit
or attend assessments at the appointed time. If, despite such circumstances, you decide to
sit/submit an assessment, the University will not normally accept a claim of serious
adverse circumstances in respect of that assessment.
If there are Serious Adverse Circumstances that have affected your assessment(s), you must
communicate details to the University together with appropriate evidence, using the form
provided by your School.
Please read the University’s guidance on Serious Adverse Circumstances before you
sit/submit an assessment. Full guidance can be found in your Programme Handbook and in
the ‘A - Z Guide’ for students on StudyNet
11
Module deadline extensions
Only module leaders have the discretion to grant individual extensions to coursework
deadlines for their module. Appropriate evidence will need to be provided to them ahead of the
original deadline, and students should ensure that they make an appointment to discuss their
extension request with their Module Leader.
Karen Robins
Associate Dean of School Learning and Teaching
July 2013
Module Guide 2013-14
7
Appendix 1
Hertfordshire Business School
Assessment Verbs for Exams and Assignments
Term
Meaning
KNOWLEDGE
Classify
Define
Describe
Identify
List
Record
State
Summarise
Arrange into groups/divide according to class/type
Explain precisely; state the meaning of; give details to show boundaries/distinguish it from others
State a detailed account; information showing what/why/when/where/how/who something/ one is
Name, specify, point out, pick out key facts, features, criteria, etc
Catalogue; name items in a sequence; mention briefly
Register data, make accurate note of facts, evidence
Express main points carefully, completely, briefly and clearly; specify
Give an account/overview of the topic /main points of; make a short general statement about
COMPREHENSION
Calculate
Work out/find out using your judgement; determine; weigh reasons carefully
Compare
Examine two or more things / ideas in order to focus on their relationship/likeness/similarities & only
mention/acknowledge differences
Discuss
Consider from several points of view & explore implications; put the case for and against a proposition & end
with some statement of your own position
Explain
Make clear and understandable; give reasons for; interpret and account for
Express
Clearly state, show an opinion/a fact/a feeling
Indicate
Show; point out; draw attention to; give evidence of; make clear;
Prepare
Present
Quantify
Recognise
Relate
Report
Review
Translate
Get ready, set up, practise and/or make something, e.g. a presentation
To introduce & deliver/depict/portray/display/demonstrate/show, put forward arguments for
and expound a case, to being to notice
Express/measure the amount or quantity of
Identify, recall, recollect, acknowledge, spot, notice, endorse, accept as valid, appreciate, pick out
Show/establish how things are linked to & impact upon each other, and to what extent they are alike
Give an account of, inform, recount, relate, record
Make a survey of, examining the subject critically; consider and judge carefully
Interpret, convert, decode and explain
APPLICATION
Apply
Explain something, e.g. theory, with links, evidence and examples, e.g. from the real business world so shows
something is understood
Demonstrate Show clearly by giving evidence/proof/examples. Develop the idea by reasoning and example
Derive
Obtain results/draw from/ develop
Find
Discover something, e.g. information, reveal meaning, locate, obtain
Forecast
Predict, estimate or calculate possible results linked to criteria, complete or incomplete facts or reasoning
Highlight
Emphasise, stress, underline, show up, focus, attention on, give prominence to
Illustrate
Make clear by using examples; use figures or diagrams to explain; show the meaning of something by giving
related examples
Implement
Put into practice or action a plan, apply, employ, instigate
Plan
Arrange something or event; with aims, times, stages, sequence, outcomes
Produce
Make, create, construct something or make clear case for
Reconcile
Bring together, settle/resolve issues, e.g. levels of acceptance of a statement/proposition
Schedule
Plan and identify the order of actions or events within a set timescale, agenda, calendar, rota, list
Solve
Unravel the issues, work out the answer, decipher and explain
Tabulate
Put things in a table or chart to show clear results/information
Use
Employ, apply something, apply and draw on experience, knowledge
Validate
Confirm, authenticate, certify, endorse, support with evidence
Verify
Make sure that something is accurate/true; check; prove that with evidence…
Approved by FLTG, 28/1/09. Updated 10/06/12
8 © HBS, 2009.
ANALYSIS
Analyse
‘Take apart’ an idea or statement; ‘unpack’; deconstruct; examine in depth & consider how the parts
interrelate, give reasons & answers to questions (e.g. Who? What? Where? When? Which? Why? How?)
Argue
Make a case based on appropriate evidence to support a point of view
Compare &
Compare two or more objects/things/people to focus on their similarities and their differences
contrast
Debate
Question/dispute/deliberate/argue a view or case
Differentiate Explain/show how something is different from something else
Distinguish
Identify the differences between/separate/discriminate
Examine
Consider; look closely at a question to find out
Interpret
Give an account of the meaning; use your judgement indicating relationships to others or way of looking at
Propose
To offer or put forward for consideration or acceptance, something to be undertaken
Question
Query subject matter; make enquiries to identify and address issues/problems, to consider and doubt facts and
possibilities, complete and incomplete knowledge/understanding
Test
Question and check out material/views; investigate and experiment to assess evidence, try to prove
SYNTHESIS
Create
Generate/construct/design/invent some original thought/idea/thing/product
Design
Devise/plan/invent/draw up plans/propose/formulate
Determine
Find out something exactly; establish/decide
Explore
Discover more about; look carefully for; investigate; seek for/after; attain by search
Formulate
Express/compose/devise something by means of a formula or model or specific words/definitions
Integrate
Incorporate, put together things; combining ideas, theories and /or practices
Justify
Argue/defend/support an issue or case; provide explanations and reasons/facts/information/
strong evidence and examples
Organise
Put in some order, sort out people, plans, facts, issues; arrange/systemise
Structure
Organise and arrange ideas/things in a clearly formulated way; construct obvious shape, by a plan with
organisation/ composition
Synthesise
Consider different materials/views to bring common points together
EVALUATION
Advise
Give suggestions based on your judgement/views about future actions, with explanations /evidence/ reasons
Appraise/
Judge the importance/value/ quality/worth of something and give reasons
Assess
Conclude
Give an answer/ summary, a final account, reach a decision about something showing the key steps/points/
reasons/judgements that assisted you in reaching your view/answer
Critically…/ Comment on the merit of data/theories/opinions/relevance; judge evidence; weigh up strengths / benefits and
faults/weaknesses
Critique
Estimate
Evaluate
Judge
Recommend
Reflect
Predict; form an opinion as to the degree/nature/ value/size/amount of
Make an appraisal as to the worth of; judge effectiveness/value/quality/nature/use of/amount of
State opinion/view based on evidence/examples; ascertain to what distance/amount; to what extent; to what
degree
Suggest possible actions/routes/outcomes; linked to and based on previously shown knowledge and
understanding, may include your views and advise
Consider and assess strengths & weaknesses/usefulness/quality/ performance and draw conclusions
Approved by FLTG, 28/1/09. Updated 10/06/12
9 © HBS, 2009.
UG Standard Assessment & Grading Criteria for HBS Coursework (Report)
Module Code:_______________________________
REPORT
Presentation & structure
Task details
Follows report structure &
keeps to word limit of ...
/marks
80-100
Outstanding
70-79
Excellent
60-69
Very Good
50-59
Good
40-49
Satisfactory
30-39
Marginal Fail
20 – 29
Clear Fail
1 – 19
Little or
Nothing of
merit
Lecturer:________________________________
Use & presentation of Harvard
Referencing
Follows Harvard style for in-text
citation & Reference List
Use a minimum of ... sources
/e.g. 10 Marks
/e.g. 5 Marks
Content/ Terms/ Findings/
Definitions/ Calculations
Content included - specify task
requirements as in module
guide & coursework guidance
/ e.g. 30 Marks
Penalty:
Student: ________________________________________
Business Application &
Integration of Data/Literature
Integration & application of
information - from coursework
guidance /module guide
Discussion /Analysis /Critical
evaluation &/or Reflection
Line of argument, development of
discussion add instructional verbs
to suit the task & level
/e.g. 15 Marks
/e.g. 40 Marks
Outstanding... Presentation &
report structure, with numbered
paragraphs, list of
contents/figures &appendices.
Articulate & fluent academic
writing style with ideas cross
referenced. No grammatical /
spelling errors.
Excellent ... Presentation &
report structure, with numbered
paragraphs, list of
contents/figures, appendices &
cross referencing.
Articulate & fluent academic
writing style. Only a minor error.
Very good... Presentation &
report structure, paragraphing,
use of numbering, list of
contents/figures, appendices &
cross referencing.
Fluent academic writing style.
Very few grammatical errors &
spelling mistakes.
Good... Clear presentation &
report structure, use of
numbering & appendices.
Writing is mainly clear but some
spelling &/ or grammatical
errors.
Satisfactory... Basic report
structure.
Not always written clearly & has
grammatical & / or spelling
errors.
Outstanding... Standard of
referencing within text & consistent
use of Harvard referencing system.
Accuracy of in-text references &
full details shown in Reference list.
Outstanding... Exploration of topic
showing excellent knowledge &
understanding through thorough &
appropriate research.
Impressive choice and range of
appropriate content.
Outstanding... Business insight
& application.
Breadth, depth & integration of
literature/data into work.
Outstanding... Level of
discussion/analysis/ critical
evaluation &/or reflection.
Highly developed/ focused work.
Excellent... Standard of
referencing within text & consistent
use of Harvard referencing system.
Accuracy of in-text references &
full details shown in Reference list.
Excellent ... Level of knowledge &
understanding demonstrated.
Evidence of appropriate reading.
Covers all relevant points & issues.
Excellent ... Business insight &
application.
Breadth, depth & integration of
literature/data into work.
Excellent... Level of
discussion/analysis/ critical
evaluation &/or reflection clearly
developing points in the appropriate
way with thorough consideration of
all possibilities.
Very good... Standard of
referencing within text & consistent
use of Harvard referencing system.
Accuracy of in-text references &
full details shown in Reference list.
Very good... Level of knowledge &
understanding demonstrated.
Covers most relevant points &
issues.
Few errors / omissions in
content/calculations.
Very good... Business insight &
application.
Breadth, depth & integration of
literature/data into work.
Very good... Level of
discussion/analysis/ critical
evaluation &/or reflection & a few
ideas/points could benefit from
further development &/or
evaluation/comparison.
Good... Standard of referencing
within text & consistent use of
Harvard referencing system.
Accuracy of in-text references &
full details shown in Reference list.
Good... Grasp of the topic & some
of its implications presented.
Knowledge & understanding is
demonstrated.
Minor errors / omissions in content/
calculations.
Satisfactory... Content / level of
knowledge of the topic. Addresses
part of the task. Some errors /
omissions in content/ calculations.
May benefit from further research.
Good... Business insight &
application.
Breadth, depth & integration of
literature/data into work.
Good... Level of discussion/analysis/
critical evaluation &/or reflection but
more ideas/points could be
addressed /developed further.
Satisfactory... Business insight
& application. Limited integration
with literature/ data.
Use of literature/data but limited
in breadth OR depth.
Satisfactory... Basic evidence of
discussion/analysis/ critical
evaluation &/or reflection but some
points superficially made so need
further development.
Weak... Report format, limited or
poor structure.
Muddled work with many
spelling & / or grammatical
errors.
Weak...Use of Harvard referencing
system with errors & inconsistently
applied. Limited referencing within
the text. Limited accuracy of in-text
references compared to those in
the final Reference list.
Inadequate... Use of Harvard
referencing with many errors &/or
inconsistencies.
Weak... Limited content /
knowledge/ calculations. Limited or
muddled understanding of the
topic/question.
Does not meet all the learning
outcomes.
Inadequate... Lacking in relevant
content/ knowledge/calculations.
Content irrelevant / inaccurate.
Does not meet all the learning
outcomes.
Weak... Unsatisfactory evidence
of business application & insight
Work needs to show better links
between practical application
and theory.
Weak... Limited evidence of
discussion/analysis/ critical
evaluation &/or reflection.
More development & comment
needed. May need to do more than
describe.
Inadequate... Lacking / inadequate
level of discussion/ analysis/critical
evaluation & /or reflection.
Descriptive.
Must see ASU
Nothing of merit... Unsatisfactory
level of knowledge demonstrated.
Content used irrelevant / not
appropriate/ to the topic. Does not
meet the learning outcomes.
Nothing of merit... No
evidence of appropriate
business application & insight.
Inadequate... Report format and
poor paragraphing / signposting.
Inappropriate writing style
Poorly written &/or poor spelling
& grammar.
Must see ASU
Nothing of merit... Poorly
written work, lacking structure,
paragraphing / signposting.
Many inaccuracies in spelling &
grammar.
Must see ASU
Satisfactory... Basic referencing
within text & consistent use of
Harvard referencing system.
Accuracy of in-text references &
full details shown in Reference list.
Must see ASU
Nothing of merit... No or little
attempt to use the recommended
Harvard referencing system.
Must see ASU
This form is used by staff & students to provide feedback to assist students’ future work.
Approved by FLTG, 28/1/09. Updated 10/06/12
10 © HBS, 2009.
Inadequate... Lacks evidence of
business application & insight.
Some literature irrelevant to
topic.
Nothing of merit... Unsatisfactory
level of discussion/analysis/critical
evaluation &/or reflection
Must see ASU
Total Mark Awarded:
Any other lecturer instructions
Lecturer comments:
UG Standard Assessment & Grading Criteria for HBS Coursework (Essay)
Module Code:_______________________________
ESSAY
Presentation & structure
Task details
Follows essay structure &
keeps to word limit of ...
/marks
80-100
Outstanding
70-79
Excellent
60-69
Very Good
50-59
Good
40-49
Satisfactory
30-39
Marginal Fail
20 – 29
Clear Fail
1 – 19
Little or
Nothing of
merit
Lecturer:________________________________
Use & presentation of Harvard
Referencing
Follows Harvard style for in-text
citation & Reference List
Use a minimum of ... sources
/e.g. 10 Marks
/e.g. 5 Marks
Content/ Terms/ Findings/
Definitions/ Calculations
Content included - specify task
requirements as in module
guide & coursework guidance
/ e.g. 30 Marks
Penalty:
Student: ________________________________________
Breadth / Depth / Integration
of Literature
Integration & application of
information - from coursework
guidance /module guide
Analysis /Critical evaluation
/Discussion /Exposition/Reflection
Line of argument, development of
discussion add instructional verbs
to suit the task & level
/e.g. 15 Marks
/e.g. 40 Marks
Outstanding... Presentation &
essay structure, with flowing
paragraphs.
Articulate & fluent academic
writing style
No grammatical / spelling errors.
Outstanding... Standard of
referencing within text & consistent
use of Harvard referencing system.
Accuracy of in-text references &
full details shown in Reference list.
Outstanding... Exploration of topic
showing excellent knowledge &
understanding through thorough &
appropriate research.
Impressive choice and range of
appropriate content.
Outstanding... Business insight
& application.
Breadth, depth & integration of
literature/data into work.
Outstanding... Level of
discussion/analysis/ critical
evaluation &/or reflection.
Highly developed/ focused work.
Excellent ... Presentation &
essay structure, with flowing
paragraphs.
Articulate & fluent academic
writing style.
Only a minor error.
Very good... Presentation &
essay structure, with flowing
paragraphs.
Fluent academic writing style.
Very few grammatical errors &
spelling mistakes.
Good... Clear presentation &
essay structure with
paragraphing.
Writing is mainly clear but some
spelling &/ or grammatical
errors.
Satisfactory... Basic essay
structure.
Not always written clearly & has
grammatical & / or spelling
errors.
Excellent... Standard of
referencing within text & consistent
use of Harvard referencing system.
Accuracy of in-text references &
full details shown in Reference list.
Excellent ... Level of knowledge &
understanding demonstrated.
Evidence of appropriate reading.
Covers all relevant points & issues.
Excellent ... Business insight &
application.
Breadth, depth & integration of
literature/data into work.
Very good... Standard of
referencing within text & consistent
use of Harvard referencing system.
Accuracy of in-text references &
full details shown in Reference list.
Very good... Level of knowledge &
understanding demonstrated.
Covers most relevant points &
issues.
Few errors / omissions in
content/calculations.
Good... Grasp of the topic & some
of its implications presented.
Knowledge & understanding is
demonstrated.
Minor errors / omissions in content/
calculations.
Satisfactory... Content / level of
knowledge of the topic. Addresses
part of the task. Some errors /
omissions in content/ calculations.
May benefit from further research.
Very good... Business insight &
application.
Breadth, depth & integration of
literature/data into work.
Good... Business insight &
application.
Breadth, depth & integration of
literature/data into work.
Excellent... Level of
discussion/analysis/ critical
evaluation &/or reflection clearly
developing points in the appropriate
way with thorough consideration of
all possibilities.
Very good... Level of
discussion/analysis/ critical
evaluation &/or reflection & a few
ideas/points could benefit from
further development &/or
evaluation/comparison.
Good... Level of discussion/analysis/
critical evaluation &/or reflection but
more ideas/points could be
addressed /developed further.
Satisfactory... Business insight
& application. Limited integration
with literature/ data.
Use of literature/data but limited
in breadth OR depth.
Satisfactory... Basic evidence of
discussion/analysis/ critical
evaluation &/or reflection but some
points superficially made so need
further development.
Weak... Essay format, limited or
poor structure.
Muddled work with many
spelling & / or grammatical
errors.
Weak...Use of Harvard referencing
system with errors & inconsistently
applied. Limited referencing within
the text. Limited accuracy of in-text
references compared to those in
the final Reference list.
Inadequate... Use of Harvard
referencing with many errors &/or
inconsistencies.
Weak... Limited content /
knowledge/ calculations. Limited or
muddled understanding of the
topic/question.
Does not meet all the learning
outcomes.
Inadequate... Lacking in relevant
content/ knowledge/calculations.
Content irrelevant / inaccurate.
Does not meet all the learning
outcomes.
Weak... Unsatisfactory evidence
of business application & insight
Work needs to show better links
between practical application &
theory.
Weak... Limited evidence of
discussion/analysis/ critical
evaluation &/or reflection.
More development & comment
needed. May need to do more than
describe.
Inadequate... Lacking / inadequate
level of discussion/ analysis/critical
evaluation & /or reflection.
Descriptive.
Must see ASU
Nothing of merit... Unsatisfactory
level of knowledge demonstrated.
Content used irrelevant / not
appropriate/ to the topic. Does not
meet the learning outcomes.
Nothing of merit... No
evidence of appropriate
business application & insight.
Inadequate... Essay format &
poor paragraphing / signposting.
Inappropriate writing style
Poorly written &/or poor spelling
& grammar.
Must see ASU
Nothing of merit... Poorly
written work, lacking structure,
paragraphing / signposting.
Many inaccuracies in spelling &
grammar.
Must see ASU
Good... Standard of referencing
within text & consistent use of
Harvard referencing system.
Accuracy of in-text references &
full details shown in Reference list.
Satisfactory... Basic referencing
within text & consistent use of
Harvard referencing system.
Accuracy of in-text references &
full details shown in Reference list.
Must see ASU
Nothing of merit... No or little
attempt to use the recommended
Harvard referencing system.
Must see ASU
This form is used by staff & students to provide feedback to assist students’ future work.
Approved by FLTG, 28/1/09. Updated 10/06/12
11 © HBS, 2009.
Inadequate... Lacks evidence of
business application & insight.
Some literature irrelevant to
topic.
Nothing of merit... Unsatisfactory
level of discussion/analysis/critical
evaluation &/or reflection
Must see ASU
Total Mark Awarded:
Any other lecturer instructions
Lecturer comments:
UG Standard Assessment & Grading Criteria for HBS Coursework: Oral Communication (Presentation, debate, exposition of process /poster)
Module Code/ Title:
1.
2.
3.
Title/Topic chosen:
Presentation Date & Time:
Pathway / Level:
Name(s) of Group Members (provide family name first):
4.
5.
Time allocated to present:
80-100
Outstanding
TICK APPROPRIATE GRADE BOX
Note: The performance indicators in this grid may not accurately constitute the grade
70-79
Excellent
60-69
Very Good
CONTENT OF PRESENTATION (Lecturer to advise task detail & %, e.g. TOTAL 50% - based on the criteria listed
below)
QUALITY OF CONTENT/ANALYSIS/EVALUATION

Focused on the task & addresses it

Displays knowledge & understanding: Inclusion of appropriate/relevant theories; accurate/relevant application of
data/theory/practice/examples
EVIDENCE OF RESEARCH

Appropriately used relevant research

Harvard referencing system used
DELIVERY (Lecturer to advise % allocated to criteria for group/individual, e.g. TOTAL: 50% - based on the criteria listed
below)
PLANNING/ORGANISATION OF MATERIAL/TOPICS

Coherent structure/organisation evident in the process/distribution between speakers
LINKAGE/SIGNPOSTING

Logical sequence
USE OF LANGUAGE

Articulate & fluent; language is clear & concise
USE OF BODY LANGUAGE

Enhances the presentation

Appropriate use of gestures/posture/hands/ body movement/facial expressions- eyes, smile

Position: in relation to the screen
SUPPORT MATERIALS (e.g. PowerPoint slides, poster, etc)

Professional/business-like quality; clear images & ‘audience friendly’ i.e. use of colour/font/not overcrowded

Interesting & attractive; appropriately used
TIMING OF DELIVERY

Keeps to allocated time & effective pacing
TEAM/INDIVIDUAL WORKING

Cohesive/co-ordinated group

Business-like style; rehearsed & smooth
DELIVERY

Interesting

Natural & confident /positive attitude

Excellent use of memory/recall without over-reliance on reading cue cards

Appropriate: volume/speed/eye-contact/animation & humour
APPROPRIATE DRESS

Business-like
AUDIENCE

Effective impression; useful/persuasive for/to the audience/client

Rapport with the audience - their interest is well maintained
Q&A / GROUP VIVA

Appropriate/convincing argument/responses to questions asked; confident

Everyone ready to join in and make valid points
OTHER COMMENTS/OVERALL IMPRESSION
Marks for Content
Peer
Tutor
Marks for Presentation Skill
Peer
Tutor
Overall Agreed Mark
For Group Work: a Group Log is likely to be used as part of the assessment grade (Available in ‘Participating in Group Work’ Guide:
http://www.studynet2.herts.ac.uk/ptl/common/asu.nsf/Teaching+Documents?Openview&count=9999&restricttocategory=Groupwork)
Approved by FLTG, 28/1/09. Updated 10/06/12
12 © HBS, 2009.
Tutor Signature:
Second Signature:
6.
Time allocated for Q&A:
50-59
40-49
Good
Satisfactory
30-39
Marginal
Fail
20 – 29
Clear Fail
1-19
Little or
Noth
ing
of
Merit
UG Standard Assessment & Grading Criteria for HBS Coursework (POSTER
PRESENTATION)
Penalty:
Module Code:___________________________ Lecturer:________________________________ Student/s: _________________________________________________
POSTER
Task details
Presentation design &
structure
Clear poster design, message
& structure in line with the
brief, word limit of ...
/e.g. 20 Marks
Use of Harvard Referencing
Harvard style in-text citation (&
Reference List on reverse)
Use a minimum of ... sources
/e.g. 5 Marks
Content/ Terms/ Findings/
Definitions/ Calculations
Content included - specify task
requirements as in module
guide & coursework guidance
/ e.g. 30 Marks
Business Application &
Integration of Data/Literature
Integration & application of
information – thru a Q&A
session or as in module guide
/e.g. 20 Marks
Discussion /Analysis /Critical
evaluation &/or Reflection
Line of argument, development of
discussion, add instructional
verbs/ recommendations to suit
the task & level
/e.g. 25 Marks
/100marks
80-100
Outstanding
70-79
Excellent
60-69
Very Good
50-59
Good
40-49
Satisfactory
30-39
Marginal Fail
20 – 29
Clear Fail
1 – 19
Little or
Nothing of
merit
Outstanding... Innovative, eyecatching effective design.
Finished to a professional
standard. Easy to follow with
creative use of varied graphics,
e.g. figures & tables; appropriate
colour, legible font, size & style.
No grammatical / spelling errors.
Excellent ... Innovative, eyecatching effective design. Easy
to follow with clear title, message
creative use of varied graphics,
e.g. figures & tables; appropriate
colour, legible font, size & style.
No grammatical / spelling errors.
Very good... Eye-catching,
effective & easy to follow with a
clear title, message & use of
varied graphics, e.g. figures,
tables; appropriate colour,
legible font, size & style. A minor
grammatical /spelling error.
Good... Interesting, neat &
clear. Some use of creative
design: graphics, e.g. figures,
tables; appropriate colour,
legible font size & style. Minor
grammatical or spelling error.
Satisfactory... Use of graphics
&/or colour. Limited visual
impact/creative design but not
always clear. Some grammatical
& / or spelling errors.
Outstanding... Standard of
Harvard referencing within text.
Accurate in-text references & full
details shown in Reference list, on
reverse of poster.
Outstanding... Exploration of topic
showing excellent knowledge &
understanding through thorough &
appropriate research.
Impressive choice & range of
appropriate content.
Outstanding... Convincing
business insight, application &
examples.
Individual/group members coordinate & participate effectively
– confidently, clearly &
respectfully.
Outstanding... Level of
discussion/analysis/ critical
evaluation &/or reflection.
Highly developed/ focused work.
Excellent... Standard of Harvard
referencing within text.
Accurate in-text references & full
details shown in Reference list, on
reverse of poster.
Excellent ... Level of knowledge &
understanding demonstrated.
Evidence of appropriate research.
Covers all relevant points & issues.
Excellent... Level of
discussion/analysis/ critical
evaluation &/or reflection clearly
developing points in the appropriate
way with thorough consideration.
Very good... Standard of Harvard
referencing within text. Accurate
in-text references & details shown
in Reference list, on reverse of
poster.
Very good... Level of knowledge &
understanding demonstrated.
Covers most relevant points &
issues.
Few errors / omissions in
content/calculations.
Excellent ... Convincing
business insight, application &
examples.
Individual/group members coordinate & participate effectively
– confidently, clearly &
respectfully.
Very good... Business insight,
application & some examples.
Individual/group members coordinate & participate effectively,
generally confident, clear &
respectful.
Good... Standard of Harvard
referencing within text. Accurate
in-text references & details shown
in Reference list, on reverse of
poster.
Good... Grasp of the topic & some
of its implications presented.
Knowledge & understanding is
demonstrated.
Minor errors / omissions in content/
calculations.
Satisfactory... Content / level of
knowledge of the topic. Addresses
part of the task. Some errors /
omissions in content/ calculations.
May benefit from further research.
Good... Level of discussion/analysis/
critical evaluation &/or reflection but
more ideas/points could be included.
Weak...structure & muddled
design with sloppy appearance
&/or errors. Lacks visual impact.
Weak... Limited referencing within
the text, many aspects incorrect or
references missing &/or
inconsistencies/ lacking references
on reverse.
Weak... Limited content /
knowledge/ calculations. Limited or
muddled understanding of the
topic/question.
Does not meet all of the learning
outcomes.
Inadequate... inappropriate style
Poorly presented – either too
cluttered or too limited.
Must see ASU
Inadequate... limited use of
Harvard referencing with many
errors &/or inconsistencies.
Unethical use of images, without
copyright. Must see ASU
Nothing of merit... No or little
attempt to use Harvard
referencing. Unethical use of
images, e.g. without copyright.
Must see ASU
Inadequate... Lacking in relevant
content/ knowledge/calculations.
Content irrelevant / inaccurate.
Meets few of the learning
outcomes.
Nothing of merit... Unsatisfactory
level of knowledge demonstrated.
Content used irrelevant / not
appropriate/ to the topic. Does not
meet the learning outcomes.
Good... Business insight,
application & some examples.
Individual/group members show
some effective co-ordination /
participation, generally confident,
clear & respectful.
Satisfactory... Business insight.
Limited integration, application
&/or examples. Limited coordination, participation &/or
confidence, basically clear &
usually respectful.
Weak... Unsatisfactory evidence
of business insight, application &
few examples.
Individual/group members show
insufficient co-ordination &
participation or may lack clarity,
confidence &/or respect.
Inadequate... Lacks evidence of
business insight, application &/or
co-ordination.
Nothing of merit... No
evidence of business insight,
application or co-ordination.
Nothing of merit... Unsatisfactory
level of discussion/analysis/critical
evaluation &/or reflection
Must see ASU
Nothing of merit... without
visual impact. Inappropriate
style. Either too cluttered or too
limited.
Must see ASU
Approved by FLTG, 28/1/09. Updated 10/06/12
Satisfactory... Basic standard of
Harvard referencing. A few
aspects incorrect or references
missing.
13 © HBS, 2009.
Very good... Level of
discussion/analysis/ critical
evaluation &/or reflection & few
ideas/points missed.
Satisfactory... Basic evidence of
discussion/analysis/ critical
evaluation &/or reflection but some
ideas/points missed.
Weak... Limited evidence of
discussion/analysis/ critical
evaluation &/or reflection.
May not fully address the task.
Inadequate... Lacking / inadequate
level of discussion/ analysis/critical
evaluation & /or reflection.
Must see ASU
Total Mark Awarded:
Any other lecturer instructions
Lecturer comments:
Standard Assessment & Grading Criteria for HBS Coursework Undergraduate Dissertation
Undergraduate
dissertation grading
profile
80-100%
Outstanding
1st Class honours
Clarity, purpose and
achievement of
objectives
Either: Clear and fully
achieved,
Or: Clear with critical
evaluation explaining
failure to achieve.
The topic will be current
and original.
Research and
referencing
Methodology
Critical understanding
of relevant theory
Analysis of field work,
research, topic
Structure and coherence
Management of dissertation
preparation
Extensive and up to date
research reflected in the
text. Wide range of
current and relevant
references from a variety
of sources. Accurate
citations using Harvard
referencing system.
Outstanding and
extensive elaboration of
relevant concepts, theory
or models, all of which are
well synthesised and
critically evaluated.
Either: Clear and fully
achieved.
Or: Clear with critical
evaluation explaining
failure to achieve.
Extensive and up to date
research reflected in the
text. Accurate citations
using Harvard referencing
system.
Outstanding and
professional presentation.
Material is well organised
and the dissertation is well
structures with clear links
between chapters. Clear
and lucid writing. Accurate
grammar, spelling and
punctuation.
Excellent presentation and
organisation of material.
Clear and lucid writing.
Accurate grammar,
spelling and punctuation.
60%-69%
Very good
2(i) Class honours
Either: Clear and
achieved.
Or: Clear with additional
explanation for failure to
achieve.
Good and up to date
research reflected in text.
Good citation using
Harvard referencing
system.
Clear and achieved to
some extent.
Adequate research
reasonably reflected in
text. Satisfactory citations
using Harvard referencing
system.
Methodology understood,
explained and justified,
alternative methodologies
may be considered.
Very good presentation
and organisation of
material. Clear writing.
Good standard of
grammar, spelling and
punctuation.
Generally well presented
and organised. Clarity of
writing satisfactory.
Acceptable standard of
spelling and punctuation.
Deadlines fully met.
Evidence of development
between different stages of
preparation.
50%-59%
Good
2(ii) Class honours
standard
Very good understanding
and discussion of relevant
concepts, theory or
models. Well synthesised.
Some evidence of critical
evaluation.
Good identification of
relevant concepts, theory
or models.
Some attempt to
synthesize material. May
lack critical evaluation.
Rigorous and creative
analysis of topic/ field
work demonstrating
independence of thought.
Empirical data and
theories are clearly linked
to generate pertinent,
insightful and thorough
conclusions.
Rigorous and creative
analysis of topic/ field
work. Ability to link theory
and use empirical data to
generate pertinent and
insightful conclusions.
Very good analysis of
data/topic/field-work.
Good linkages between
theory and empirical data.
Sound conclusions
showing some reflection.
Good attempt to analyse
topic/ field work/data.
Reasonable linkages
between theory and
empirical data. Generation
of conclusions.
Deadlines met or exceeded
with evidence of development
between stages of preparation.
All meetings are proactive as
student is very well prepared.
70-79%
Excellent
1st Class honours
Methodology is very
clearly explained, justified
and employed.
Alternative methodologies
given full consideration
leaving the reader with no
doubt that the chosen
method was the most
appropriate.
Suitable methodology
employed, understood,
well explained and
justified, alternative
methodologies
considered.
Suitable methodology
employed, understood
explained and justified,
alternative methodologies
considered.
40%-49%
Satisfactory
3rd Class honours
standard
Not clearly defined or
defined but not met and
reasons for non
achievement not valid.
Limited research not fully
reflected in text. Citations
and referencing, using the
Harvard system, not fully
accurate.
Methodology described,
alternative methodologies
not adequately
considered.
Satisfactory
understanding of theory,
concepts or models. Basic
attempt at synthesis or
critical evaluation.
Satisfactory analysis of
topic. Few linkages
between theory and
empirical data. Limited
conclusions.
Reasonable presentation
and organisation. Writing
lacks clarity. Inconsistent
spelling, grammar and
punctuation.
Some deadlines not met.
Limited evidence of
development between different
stages of preparation.
30-39%
Marginal fail
Unclear definition.
Basic and limited research
that demonstrates minimal
reading around the topic.
Weak methodology. Not
entirely clear why method
was chosen. Alternative
methods not considered.
Limited understanding of
theory, concepts or
models. Unsuccessful
attempt at synthesis or
critical evaluation.
Basic attempt to analyse
topic. Few or no linkages
between theory and
empirical data. Brief and /
or limited conclusions.
Poor presentation and
organisation. Writing lacks
clarity. Inconsistent
spelling, grammar and
punctuation.
Most deadlines not met.
Limited or no
evidence of development
between different stages of
preparation.
15-29%
Clear fail
Unconvincing attempt at
definition.
Inadequate research not
reflected in text. Citation
and references missing
and confused.
Methodology not
described, alternative
methodologies not
considered.
Very limited attempt to
analyse topic. No links
between theory and
empirical data. Very brief
and limited conclusion.
Unsatisfactory
presentation. Writing
muddled and unclear.
Very poor spelling,
punctuation and grammar.
Deadlines not met. No
evidence of development
between different stages of
preparation.
0-14%
Little or nothing of
merit
No definition
Minimal research. No
citation and most
references missing.
No attempt at including a
methodology
Very limited
understanding of relevant
theory, concepts or
models. Completely
lacking in synthesis and
critical evaluation.
No understanding of
relevant theories,
concepts or modules.
No attempt to analyse
topic. No links between
theory and empirical data.
No conclusion.
Very poorly presented.
Difficult to read due to
poor sentence
construction, spelling and
punctuation errors.
No recorded meetings with the
supervisor so they cannot
comment on the stages and
development process.
10%
10%
10%
40%
15%
5%
10%
Weights
100% maximum
Approved by FLTG, 28/1/09. Updated 10/06/12
14 © HBS, 2009.
Excellent and extensive
elaboration of relevant
concepts, theory or
models. Well synthesised
and critically evaluated.
Deadlines fully met. Evidence
of development between
different stages of preparation.
Deadlines fully met.
Satisfactory evidence of
development between different
stages of the preparation.
Approved by FLTG, 28/1/09. Updated 10/06/12
15 © HBS, 2009.