BIO0262 Managing People (FHEQ Level 5) Individual Assessment Brief Term 2, 2025 | UOH

90-100

80-89

70-79

60-69

50-59

40-49

30-39

20-29

10 - 19

0 – 9

 Level

Exceptional

(Outstanding+)

Outstanding

(Excellent +)

Excellent

Very good

Good

Pass

Unsatisfactory

Unacceptable

Unacceptable

Unacceptable

Fulfilment of relevant learning outcomes

Met

Met

Met

Met

Met

Met

Not met or partially met

Not met or partially met

Not met or minimal

Not met or minimal

Response to the question /task

Full command of assessment task; imaginative approach demonstrating flair and creativity

Clear command of assessment task; sophisticated approach

Very good response to task; elements of sophistication in response

Well-developed response to assessment task with evident development of ideas

Secure response to assessment task but not developed sufficiently developed to achieved higher grade

Adequate response that meets minimum threshold, but with limitations of development

Nearly a sufficient response but lacks key aspects.

Insufficient response

Little response

No response

Knowledge and understanding (F, I and H)

Knowledge requirements are different at F, I and H level.  Please use the relevant level knowledge assessment criteria

Detailed knowledge and critical understanding of relevant knowledge in the subject (I)

Skilfully integrate ideas from beyond the module or disciplinary areas to provide original/ creative insights into the subject, tensions, and ambiguities in a considered individual voice. Shows an ease with contingency and ambiguity.

Skilfully integrates extended knowledge/ ideas from

beyond the module, and disciplinary areas to provide excellent critical insights.  Shows a level of comfort with contingency and ambiguity.

Comprehensively draws on an extended knowledge to show well-developed critical insights and good knowledge integration.

No major errors or misunderstandings or gaps.

Accurately demonstrates extended knowledge showing good critical insights and some knowledge integration.

No major errors or misunderstandings or gaps.

Accurately demonstrates most basic knowledge offers a basic critical understanding.

Lacks depth of integrating ideas.

Few errors and/or gaps in coverage and relevance. 

Adequately demonstrates relevant basic knowledge and some, but limited, critical understanding

No integration of ideas.

Some errors and/or gaps in coverage and relevance   

Mentions some terminology relating to theories, concepts 

Little critical understanding of relevant well-established area(s) of knowledge with a many of errors, misunderstandings, and omissions

Very poor knowledge or critical understanding of relevant well-established theories / principles.  Major misunderstandings or omissions.

Negligible coverage of knowledge or critical understanding of well-established / major theories / principles

Wholly irrelevant.

Cognitive / Intellectual skills

A range of means of framing cognitive and intellectual skills are provided to reflect the variety of assessment tasks across the School.  Module leaders should consider the following criteria and select the one(s) that best reflect the assessment tasks. Assessment task briefs should be designed with sufficient information to provide students with a clear understanding of the core intellectual skills expected within the bounds of the module– corresponding with the appropriate level of study

Module leaders should be clear about the nature of information / data to be analysed, as well as the ‘tools’ of analysis expected.  Analytical tools can be based on logic (comparison, connection, categorisation, evaluation, justification) and/or numerical (e.g. statistics, financial) or other.

Use of referenced* evidence and sources to support task

*Normally APA 7^th or OSCOLA

Systematic and rigorous use of evidence/ sources beyond the normal bounds of the module to robustly support purpose of the work. Evidence of independent reading and research.

Referencing fully competent and accurate

Comprehensive use of high-quality evidence and sources beyond the normal bounds of the module and shows evidence of independent reading and research.

Referencing fully competent and accurate

Task is very well supported by very extensive use of evidence / sources.  

All points fully substantiated.  

No unsubstantiated points.

Referencing fully competent and accurate

Task is well supported by more developed use of sources/evidence

Most points are substantiated and no major unsubstantiated points

Referencing largely competent and accurate.  Some minor errors in citations or references.

Task is supported by several sources /evidence.

Some points are unsubstantiated.

Referenced appropriately

Referencing largely competent and accurate but may include errors

Task supported by basic evidence and sources but is over-reliant on very few sources.

Significant number of points are unsubstantiated.

Some effort to reference, but frequent errors and omissions

One or two apparent references to concepts introduced in the assessment task

Very few points are substantiated using evidence / sources.  

Significant errors and omissions in referencing

Little or no evidence

Significant errors and omissions in citation and application of referencing

Unsupported

Very little attempt to cite or reference

No evidence

No citations

Structure and, style in supporting the development of ideas

(criteria relevant for essay-style work)

Elegant flow and structure is integral to the argument. An exceptional demonstration of academic writing which effectively guides the reader.

Elegance of flow that skilfully through the work and excellently supports key message.

Well-ordered logical flow of material in a fluid style which contributes well to the development of the key messages and guides the reader through the writer’s thinking.  

Clear logical and structured flow of material that guides the reader and supports the development of key messages.  

Basic logical flow of material with elements of signposting for the reader which supports key messages to some extent, but which can lapse in places.

Some logical flow of material with some observable elements of signposting for the reader but elements of disorganisation

May contain repetition or irrelevant material which obscures the key messages.

Some attempt at structure, but disorganized and ineffectual in reflecting argument or analysis.

No evident intent of structure.  Disorganised, irrelevant or repetitive content.

None

Insufficient evidence

Formatting of work (font, pagination, labelling)

Impeccable formatting entirely consonant with assessment brief expectations

Excellent formatting.  Polished and consonant with the assessment brief expectations.

Formatting consonant with assessment brief expectations.  No formatting issues.  

Formatting very largely free from major presentational problems and consonant with assessment brief.

Formatting broadly consonant with assessment brief but some breaches of guidance.

Acceptable formatting, but some breaches of guidance.  Some unprofessional aspects

Formatting not sufficiently consonant with assessment brief. Multiple formatting issues.

Formatting not consonant with assessment brief. Very poor with multiple formatting issues

No discernible attempt format work.

No formatting

Oral presentation criteria

Reflection criteria