OFFERS!
Get Expert-crafted assignments
Get Expert-crafted assignments
Save 51%
Get Expert-crafted assignments
| Category | Assignment | Subject | Management |
|---|---|---|---|
| University | Anglia Ruskin University (a.r.u | London) | Module Title | MOD009382 Finance and Governance in Health and Social Care |
| Assessment | Coursework (Report) |
| Assessment Code | 011 |
| Academic Year | 2025/2026 |
| Trimester | 1 |
| Module Title | Finance and Governance in Health and Social Care |
| Module Code | MOD009382 |
| Level | 7 |
| Module Leader | Dr Fadime Sahin |
| Weighting | 60% |
| Word Limit |
3000 This excludes the bibliography and other items listed in rule 6.83 of the Academic Regulations. |
| Assessed Learning Outcomes | LO2: Analyse and evaluate financial statements, budgets, and forecasts, and apply financial management principles to healthcare organisations to make informed and ethical financial decisions.
LO4: Analyse financial and governance challenges in healthcare organisations and formulate solutions for overcoming these challenges. |
| Submission Deadline: | Please refer to the deadline on the VLE |
This assignment must be completed individually.
All courses of study must use the Harvard referencing system for written assessments, apart from LLB/LLM courses where OSCOLA should be applied.
Your work must indicate the number of words you have used. Written assignments must not exceed the specified maximum number of words. When a written assignment is marked, the excessive use of words beyond the word limit is reflected in the academic judgement of the piece of work which results in a lower mark being awarded for the piece of work (regulation 6.74).
Assignment submissions are to be made anonymously. Do not write your name anywhere on your work.
Write your student ID number at the top of every page.
Where the assignment comprises more than one task, all tasks must be submitted in a single document.
You must number all pages.
Please read the following scenario:
You have been appointed as a financial analyst to a London-based NHS Trust Hospital. You have been told that the hospital plans to open a dental clinic in the South Wing with a budget of £6 million. Senior-level staff were only able to put up a preliminary budget and cost plan. You have been asked to consolidate and analyse the plan, perform financial forecasting and come up with innovative ways to reduce expenses and improve financial performance. Your report should include an appraisal of the proposed project; effective ways of obtaining funding for the project and a recommendation to the hospital.
According to a report commissioned by the Association of Dental Groups (2022), over the last 30 years, NHS dental services and dental workforce planning in England have been neglected. The situation has worsened significantly as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and Brexit. There were an estimated 8 million people on the NHS dentist waiting list by 2020. Due to the difficulty of getting access to an NHS dentist, the poorest patients often end up paying the price in large parts of the country. According to the most recent data, only a third of the population has visited an NHS dentist in the previous two years. England now has the fewest NHS dentists in ten years. Recruitment is now practically impossible in rural and coastal towns, especially in the East of England and funding has remained static for the previous ten years (a real terms drop after inflation). The report suggests that the only realistic solution to the crisis is overseas recruitment.
Regular dental check-ups are an essential first line of defence against type 2 diabetes and mouth cancer. Dentists frequently identify the early symptoms of these diseases and regularly provide vital referrals for specialist care for patients. The report further states that ‘the early detection of mouth cancer boosts a patient’s chance of survival from 50 per cent to 90 per cent.’
In order to raise revenues and help the country with the backlog, a London-based NHS Trust Hospital is considering opening a dental clinic in the South Wing to treat both NHS and private patients. Priority will be given to disabled patients and children. The NHS Trust will cover the initial costs out of pocket, but in the succeeding five years will receive £6 million in total from the Department of Health and Social Care that will be distributed equally over the period.
The NHS Trust will employ more dental therapists who require a shorter training period than dentists to help with the backlog. They will perform procedures such as scaling and polishing, dental X-rays and tooth extraction (Band 1).
The hospital plans to initiate the following setup: A 1000-square feet medical building will be rented for a five-year term at £22,000 per year. The clinic will incur an initial cost of £0.6 million for the purchase of dental equipment and the setup to deliver high-quality care. The clinic will operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with no closures.
Data File
Initial Cost:
Infrastructure and equipment costs: £0.6 mln
Ongoing Operational Costs
Insurance: £1,100 per year
Utilities: £32,000 per year
Medical supply: £65,000 per year
Other running costs: £8,000 per year
Overtime costs: £26,000 per year
Treatment Costs & Revenues
Band 1: £23.80 per patient (30 patients a day)
Band 2: £65.20 per patient (21 patients a day)
Band 3: £282.80 per patient (5 patients a day)
Hygiene cleaning: £80 per patient (20 patients a day)
Dental accessories sales: £12,000 per year
Staff Costs:
Dentist: £65,000 per year (x1)
Dental Therapists: £47,000 per year (x3)
Dental Hygienists: £37,000 per year (x2)
Administrators: £24,000 per year (x2)
The required rate of return: 3.5%
Inflation: 0%
You are required to prepare a report, using the information provided above, covering the following areas:
Struggling With Your MOD009382 Assessment 011? Deadlines Are Near?
Hire Assignment Helper Now!In writing your report you are expected to use theoretical tools that you have studied during the course and from your research and make reference to credible evidence. The format for a report is available on the VLE.
At least 8 independently researched academic sources from the ARU library are expected.
Atrill, P. & McLaney, E. (2022). Accounting and Finance for Non-Specialists, 12th ed. Pearson.
Bandy, Gary (2024). Financial Management and Accounting in the Public Sector, 3rd edition, Routledge, London. Available through Kortext and/or ARU Library.
Brigham, E.F. and Houston, J.F., (2021). Fundamentals of financial management: Concise. Cengage Learning.
Bragg, S. M. (2017). Budgeting: A Comprehensive Guide, 4th ed. Accounting Tools Incorporated.
Dyson, J.R. and Franklin, E. (2020) Accounting for Non-Accounting Students, 10th edition, Pearson
Frost, S. M. (2024). Financial Accounting and Reporting for Non-Accounting Students (1st ed.). Kogan Page.
HFMA Introductory Guide to NHS Finance (2023). HFMA
Kimmel, P. D., Weygandt, J. J. & Mitchell, J. E. (2021). Financial Accounting: Tools for Business Decision Making, 10th ed. Wiley.
Please note that the sources listed are expected for your written assessment. These sources will be part of the module and their content is deemed necessary to produce a relevant assessment. Module markers will expect to see them integrated into your work and appropriately referenced.
Failure to include these sources may result in a “Viva Voce” meeting during which you would be required to explain your work and your reasons for not including these key sources.
Assignment submissions will be marked with reference to the below criteria, as summarised in Table 1, based on ARU Level 7 generic grading criteria, Table 2.
| Section | Indicative grading | Marks available |
| (1)
Spreadsheet model forecasting the impact of the proposal over the five years.
|
Category: A qualifying evaluation
Grade Range: 0-3 marks Description: The student’s work may be incomplete, incorrect or lacking understanding in key areas. The spreadsheet model, investment appraisal techniques and their application may be missing or incorrect. The explanations may be vague or poorly organised and the conclusions may be missing or unsupported. Neither the concepts nor the requirements are understood sufficiently. The student’s work requires significant improvement. Category: An adequate evaluation Grade Range: 4-7 marks Description: The student demonstrates some understanding of the concepts and requirements. The spreadsheet model may be partially complete and contain some errors. The explanations of the investment appraisal techniques may be presented in a flawed or superficial way. The application of the techniques to the proposal may be partially correct and the conclusions are somewhat supported. The student’s work requires further development. Category: A sound evaluation Grade Range: 8-11 marks Description: The student shows a competent understanding of the subject matter. The spreadsheet model may mostly be complete and accurate but without rigorous critical insight and with minor errors. The explanations of the investment appraisal techniques are clear and concise, covering their pros and cons at the minimum expected standard. The application of the techniques to the proposal is correct/partially correct and the conclusions are supported with some analysis. Category: A good evaluation Grade Range: 12-15 marks Description: The spreadsheet model may be comprehensive, accurate and well-organised. The descriptions of the investment appraisal techniques are thorough, offering a solid justification for them that is relatively critical as well as a complete comprehension of both their benefits and drawbacks. The application of the techniques to the proposal is mostly correct and insightful and the conclusions are well-supported with analysis. Category: An excellent evaluation Grade Range: 16-19 marks Description: The spreadsheet model is sophisticated, accurate and well-designed. The explanations of the investment appraisal techniques are comprehensive, providing a deep understanding of their pros and cons. The application of the techniques to the proposal is accurate and demonstrates critical thinking and the conclusions are well-supported with indepth analysis. Category: An outstanding evaluation Grade Range: 20-22 marks Description: The student’s work surpasses expectations, demonstrating a deeper understanding and analysis of the assignment brief. The spreadsheet model is advanced, accurate and highly effective in representing the cash flows. The explanations of the investment appraisal techniques are comprehensive and insightful, demonstrating a thorough understanding of their pros and cons. The application of the techniques to the proposal is highly accurate and demonstrates advanced critical thinking and the conclusions are wellsupported with comprehensive analysis. Category: An exceptional evaluation Grade Range: 23-25 marks Description: The spreadsheet model is sophisticated, accurate and highly effective in representing the cash flows. The explanations of the investment appraisal techniques are comprehensive, insightful and showcase a deep understanding of their pros and cons. Refer to approaches of cost of capital calculations. Further critique/challenge the capital elements of the NPV. It makes links to discount rate, IRR and NPV. The application of the techniques to the proposal is precise and demonstrates advanced critical thinking and the conclusions are well-supported with comprehensive and sophisticated analysis. Answers at this level will generally display a scrupulously exact command of relevant terminology and theory and a powerfully synthetic approach to argumentation. |
30 |
| (2) Revision of the proposal and suggestions
to improve it + identification of the type of budget (25 marks) |
Category: A qualifying evaluation Grade Range: 0-3 marks Description: The student’s work may be insufficient in revising the proposal and providing innovative ways to reduce expenses and improve financial budgeting. The changes made to the original proposal may be missing or inadequate and the student may fail to demonstrate an understanding of how these changes improve the proposal. The identification and application of investment appraisal techniques may be missing/incorrect. The discussion on different types of budgeting may be lacking/incomplete. The student’s work requires substantial improvement and a better grasp of the concepts. Category: An adequate evaluation Grade Range: 4-7 marks Description: The changes made to the original proposal may be limited or lack depth. The student shows some understanding of how these changes improve the proposal but the explanations may be incomplete or lacking critical insight. The identification and application of investment appraisal techniques may contain errors/omissions. The discussion on different types of budgeting may be presented in a flawed or superficial manner. The student’s work requires further development and improvement. Category: A sound evaluation Grade Range: 8-11 marks Description: The changes made to the original proposal are appropriate and demonstrate a sound understanding of the requirements. The student presents some explanation of how these changes improve the proposal although further critical insight may be required. The identification and application of investment appraisal techniques are mostly accurate with minor errors or omissions. The discussion on different types of budgeting is clear and covers their pros and cons adequately. The student’s work demonstrates a developing proficiency in the subject matter. Category: A good evaluation Grade Range: 12-15 marks Description: The changes made to the original proposal are appropriate and exhibit a solid comprehension of the requirements. The student provides clear explanations of how these changes improve the proposal, showing some critical insight. The identification and application of investment appraisal techniques are accurate and supported by relevant analysis. The discussion on different types of budgeting is comprehensive, offering a thorough understanding of their pros and cons. Category: An excellent evaluation Grade Range: 16-19 marks Description: The student’s work displays excellent understanding and analysis of revising the proposal and providing innovative ways to reduce expenses and improve financial budgeting. The changes made to the original proposal are innovative, well-justified and demonstrate a deep understanding of the requirements. The student provides detailed explanations of how these changes improve the proposal, showcasing critical thinking and insight. The identification and application of investment appraisal techniques are comprehensive and supported by thorough analysis. The discussion on different types of budgeting is insightful, demonstrating a thorough understanding of their pros and cons. Category: An outstanding evaluation Grade Range: 20-22 marks Description: The student’s work surpasses expectations by providing innovative ways to reduce expenses and improve financial budgeting. The changes made to the original proposal are highly effective and exhibit outstanding comprehension of the requirements. The student provides exceptional explanations of how these changes improve the proposal, showcasing advanced critical thinking and insight. The identification and application of investment appraisal techniques are precise and supported by comprehensive analysis. The discussion on different types of budgeting is comprehensive and demonstrates a deep understanding of their pros and cons. Category: An exceptional evaluation Grade Range: 23-25 marks Description: The changes made to the original proposal are sophisticated and highly effective, showcasing exceptional comprehension of the requirements. The student provides comprehensive explanations of how these changes improve the proposal, showcasing advanced critical thinking, insight and a meticulous command of relevant terminology, theory and its practical implications. The identification and application of investment appraisal techniques are precise and supported by comprehensive and sophisticated analysis. The discussion on different types of budgeting is thorough and showcases exceptional understanding of their pros and cons. Answers at this level will generally display a scrupulously exact command of relevant terminology and theory and a powerfully synthetic approach to argumentation. |
20 |
| (3) Discuss traditional sources of financing and explain how they differ from NHS funding by making links with corporate governance. | Category: A qualifying evaluation
Grade Range: 0-3 marks Description: The student’s work may lack understanding or clarity in identifying traditional techniques of raising capital in the corporate world and their pros and cons. The explanation of how the NHS is funded in England may be incomplete or inaccurate. The comparison between corporate and public funding options may be missing or superficial. The student’s critical thinking skills and analysis may be insufficient. There is a need for substantial improvement in demonstrating a deep understanding. Category: An adequate evaluation Grade Range: 4-7 marks Description: The student demonstrates a some understanding of identifying traditional techniques of raising capital in the corporate world and their pros and cons. The explanation of how the NHS is funded in England is presented but it may lack depth or contain inaccuracies. The comparison between corporate and public funding options may be limited or lacking critical insight. The student’s critical thinking skills and analysis require further development to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the topic. Category: A sound evaluation Grade Range: 8-11 marks Description: The student shows an understanding of identifying traditional techniques of raising capital in the corporate world and their pros and cons at the minimum expected level. The explanation of how the NHS is funded in England is clear and provides a solid overview. The comparison between corporate and public funding options is presented with some critical insight, highlighting certain similarities and differences. The student’s work demonstrates a developing ability to critically analyse the topic. Category: A good evaluation Grade Range: 12-15 marks Description: The student’s work showcases perceptive critical thinking skills and a solid grasp of the subject matter. The student demonstrates a deeper understanding of identifying traditional techniques of raising capital in the corporate world and their pros and cons. The explanation of how the NHS is funded in England is comprehensive, providing a detailed understanding of the funding mechanisms. The comparison between corporate funding options and public funding options is insightful, discussing both similarities and differences in a clear and logical manner Category: An excellent evaluation Grade Range: 16-19 marks Description: The student’s work displays excellent understanding and analysis of identifying traditional techniques of raising capital in the corporate world and their pros and cons. The explanation of how the NHS is funded in England is comprehensive and provides a deep understanding of the funding mechanisms, demonstrating an astute comprehension of the topic. The comparison between corporate and public funding options is nuanced and exhibits sophisticated critical thinking, discussing both similarities and differences with clarity. Category: An outstanding evaluation Grade Range: 20-22 marks Description: The student’s work surpasses expectations, demonstrating exceptional understanding and analysis of identifying traditional techniques of raising capital in the corporate world and their pros and cons. The explanation of how the NHS is funded in England is detailed and exhibits an understanding of the funding mechanisms, highlighting key considerations. The comparison between corporate funding options and public funding options is highly insightful and showcases exceptional critical thinking, providing a comprehensive and nuanced exploration of both similarities and differences. Category: An exceptional evaluation Grade Range: 23-25 marks Description: The student’s work is exceptional, demonstrating an understanding and analysis of identifying traditional techniques of raising capital in the corporate world and their pros and cons. The explanation of how the NHS is funded in England is thorough and exhibits a masterful understanding of the funding mechanisms, encompassing key details and complexities. The comparison between corporate funding options and public funding options is exceptional, showcasing a deep understanding and astute critical thinking, with a comprehensive examination of both similarities and differences. Answers at this level will generally display a scrupulously exact command of relevant terminology and theory and a powerfully synthetic approach to argumentation. |
20 |
| 4) Identification of a six-point government action plan for dentistry | Category: A qualifying evaluation Grade Range: 0-3 marks
Description: The student’s work may lack a clear identification of the six-point government action plan outlined in the white paper. The critical analysis of these points by referring to other sources may be missing or inadequate. The evaluation of potential impacts on patient care may be superficial or unsupported. The student’s ability to make clear connections with the financial and operational pressures the NHS faces may be insufficient, resulting in weak or inconclusive conclusions regarding the viability of these actions. Category: An adequate evaluation Grade Range: 4-5 marks Description: The student may identify less than six-point government action plan outlined in the white paper. The critical analysis of these points by referring to other sources may be limited or lacking depth. The evaluation of potential impacts on patient care may be presented with some support but further analysis is needed. The student attempts to make connections with the financial and operational pressures the NHS faces but the conclusions regarding the viability of these actions may be weak or incomplete. Category: A sound evaluation Grade Range: 6-7 marks Description: The student correctly identifies all six-point government action plan outlined in the white paper. The critical analysis of these points by referring to other sources is clear and provides some insightful challenges. The evaluation of potential impacts on patient care is supported by relevant evidence and demonstrates a sound understanding of the topic. The student makes connections with the financial and operational pressures the NHS faces and the conclusions regarding the viability of these actions are reasonable. Category: A good evaluation Grade Range: 8-9 marks Description: The student correctly identifies all six-point government action plan outlined in the white paper. The critical analysis of these points by referring to other sources is thorough and exhibits well-supported challenges. The evaluation of potential impacts on patient care is comprehensive, considering various perspectives and providing a solid understanding of the topic. The student effectively makes connections with the financial and operational pressures the NHS faces, leading to well-founded conclusions regarding the viability of these actions. Category: An excellent evaluation Grade Range: 10-11 marks Description: The student’s work displays excellent understanding and analysis of the six-point government action plan outlined in the white paper. The critical analysis of these points by referring to other sources is supported by showcasing nuanced and well-substantiated challenges. The evaluation of potential impacts on patient care is comprehensive and demonstrates a deep understanding of the topic, incorporating diverse viewpoints and providing insightful conclusions. The student’s connections with the financial and operational pressures the NHS faces are clear and well-developed, leading to highly informed conclusions regarding the viability of these actions. Category: An outstanding evaluation Grade Range: 12-13 marks Description: The student’s work surpasses expectations by identifying and critically challenging the six-point government action plan outlined in the white paper. The critical analysis of these points by referring to other sources is exceptional, showcasing sophisticated and well-supported challenges. The evaluation of potential impacts on patient care is comprehensive, incorporating a wide range of perspectives and offering highly perceptive insights. The student’s connections with the financial and operational pressures the NHS faces are highly developed and provide a comprehensive understanding of the viability of these actions, resulting in exceptional conclusions. Category: An exceptional evaluation Grade Range: 14-15 marks The student’s work is exceptional, demonstrating an understanding and analysis of identifying the six-point government action plan outlined in the white paper. The explanation and critical analysis and insights of the six-point government action plan is masterful, include insightful and convincingly critical discussion of all or most of the following factors and perhaps others with specific relevance to the context. Answers at this level will generally display a scrupulously exact command of relevant terminology and theory and a powerfully synthetic approach to argumentation. |
20 |
| (5) Report structure and presentation | Category: A qualifying evaluation
Grade Range: 1-2 marks Description: The student’s report may lack an executive summary, introduction and conclusion section, which are essential components of a well-structured report. The use of academic language may be inconsistent and contractions or social language may be present. Spelling and grammar errors may be evident, affecting the clarity and professionalism of the writing. The report’s referencing may not adhere to Harvard or APA styles and in-text citations may be incorrect or incomplete. The number of academic sources used may fall below the expected minimum of 10 and the majority of the sources may not be current, internationally peerreviewed articles/journals or accredited textbook references. The report may include sources such as Wikipedia or online-only sources. Formatting and submission requirements, such as the document format, font, spacing and numbering of pages may not be fully met. The word count may exceed the specified limit or tables and figures may be incorrectly labeled. Some concepts in the report may lack proper citation and irrelevant references may be included. The student’s work requires significant improvement. Category: An adequate evaluation Grade Range: 3-4 marks Description: The student’s report includes an executive summary, introduction and conclusion section, contributing to a reasonably comprehensive structure. The use of academic language is mostly consistent, with limited instances of contractions or social language. Spelling and grammar errors may be present but do not significantly hinder understanding. The report generally adheres to Harvard or APA referencing styles, with some minor errors in in-text citations. The number of academic sources used meets the minimum requirement of 10 but the majority may not be current, internationally peer-reviewed articles/journals or accredited textbook references. The report may include a few sources from platforms such as Wikipedia or online-only sources. The submission format largely follows the specified requirements with minor inconsistencies in font, spacing or numbering of pages. The word count is within the specified limit and tables and figures are mostly labeled correctly. Category: A sound evaluation Grade Range: 5-6 marks Description: The student’s report includes a well-developed executive summary, introduction and conclusion section, providing a comprehensive structure to the document. The use of academic language is mostly consistent with minimal contractions or social language. Spelling and grammar errors are infrequent, contributing to clear and effective communication. The report adheres to either Harvard or APA referencing styles with accurate in-text citations. The number of academic sources used meets the minimum requirement of 10, with a reasonable majority being current, internationally peer-reviewed articles/journals or accredited textbook references. The report avoids sources such as Wikipedia or online-only sources. The submission format strictly follows the specified requirements, including the correct font, spacing and numbering of pages. The word count is within the specified limit and tables and figures are correctly labeled. The report demonstrates proper citation of all concepts, with relevant and appropriate references. Category: A good evaluation Grade Range: 7 marks Description: The student’s report includes a well-crafted executive summary, introduction and conclusion section, contributing to a comprehensive and engaging structure. The use of academic language is consistently demonstrated, with no contractions or social language present. The report exhibits a high level of accuracy in spelling and grammar, resulting in a polished and professional writing style. The report strictly adheres to either Harvard or APA referencing styles with precise and accurate in-text citations. The student utilises a minimum of 10 different academic sources, with the majority being current, internationally peerreviewed articles/journals or accredited textbook references. The report avoids sources such as Wikipedia or online-only sources. The submission format adheres meticulously to the specified requirements, including the correct font, spacing and numbering of pages. The word count is within the specified limit and all tables and figures are correctly labeled. The report demonstrates proper citation of all concepts, with no irrelevant references. Category: An excellent evaluation Grade Range: 8 marks Description: The student’s report encompasses a well-constructed executive summary, introduction and conclusion section, exemplifying a comprehensive and cohesive structure that effectively engages the reader. The use of academic language is consistently proficient with the absence of contractions or informal expressions. The report showcases meticulous attention to detail resulting in impeccable spelling and grammar. Strict adherence to either Harvard or APA referencing styles is evident, with precise and accurate in-text citations that seamlessly incorporate sources. The student incorporates a minimum of 10 different academic sources, with the majority being current, internationally peer-reviewed articles/journals or recognised textbook references. The report strictly avoids sources such as Wikipedia or online-only platforms. The submission format meticulously adheres to the specified requirements, encompassing the correct font, spacing etc. The word count adheres to the specified limit and all tables and figures are appropriately labeled. Category: An outstanding evaluation Grade Range: 9 marks Description: The student’s report includes a well-crafted executive summary, introduction and conclusion section, demonstrating a comprehensive and coherent structure that engages the reader effectively. The use of academic language is consistently strong, with no contractions or social language present. The report showcases meticulous attention to detail, resulting in flawless spelling and grammar. The report strictly adheres to either Harvard or APA referencing styles, with precise and accurate in-text citations that seamlessly integrate sources. The student utilises a minimum of 10 different academic sources, with a substantial majority being current, internationally peer-reviewed articles/journals or accredited textbook references. The report does not include sources such as Wikipedia or online-only sources. The submission format precisely follows the specified requirements, including the correct font, spacing and numbering of pages. The word count is within the specified limit and all tables and figures are correctly labeled. |
10 |
| Category: An exceptional evaluation
Grade Range: 10 marks Description: The student’s report includes a meticulously crafted executive summary, introduction and conclusion section, exemplifying a comprehensive and coherent structure that captivates and engages the reader effectively. The use of academic language is consistently impeccable, devoid of contractions or informal expressions. The report showcases attention to detail resulting in flawless spelling and grammar throughout. Strict adherence to either Harvard or APA referencing styles is evident with precise and accurate intext citations that seamlessly integrate sources. The student incorporates a significant number of reliable academic sources with the substantial majority being current, internationally peerreviewed articles/journals or recognised textbook references. The report strictly avoids sources such as Wikipedia or online-only platforms. The submission format meticulously adheres to the specified requirements, encompassing the correct font, spacing and numbering of pages. The word count is within the specified limit and all tables and figures are appropriately labeled. The report demonstrates a report that is exceptionally well-structured, well-referenced and professionally executed. |
Table 4.3: Anglia Ruskin University Generic Assessment Criteria and Marking Standards – Level 7 Taught Masters
Level 7 is characterised by an expectation of students’ expertise in their specialism. Students are semi-autonomous, demonstrating independence in the negotiation of assessment tasks (including the major project) and the ability to evaluate, challenge, modify and develop theory and practice. Students are expected to demonstrate an ability to isolate and focus on the significant features of problems and to offer synthetic and coherent solutions, with some students producing original or innovative work in their specialism that is worthy of publication or public performance or display.
| Mark Bands | Outcome | Characteristics of Student Achievement by Marking Band for ARU’s Generic Learning Outcomes (Academic
Regulations, Section 2) |
|
| Knowledge & Understanding | Intellectual (thinking), Practical, Affective and Transferable Skills | ||
| 90-100% | Achieves module outcome(s) | Exceptional analysis of key issues/
concepts/ethics with very clear originality and autonomy. Exceptional development of conceptual structures and argument making an exceptional use of scholarly conventions. Demonstrates exceptional independence of thought and a very high level of intellectual rigour and consistency. Work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication. |
Exceptional analysis of key issues/concepts/ ethics. Exceptional development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Exceptional research skills, independence of thought, an extremely high level of intellectual rigour and consistency, exceptional expressive/professional skills, and substantial creativity and originality. Exceptional academic/ intellectual skills. Work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication. |
| 80-89% | Outstanding analysis of key issues/ concepts/ethics with clear originality and autonomy. Outstanding development of conceptual structures and argument making an exemplary use of scholarly conventions. Demonstrates outstanding independence of thought and a very high level of intellectual rigour and consistency | Outstanding analysis of key issues/concepts/ ethics. Outstanding development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Outstanding research skills, independence of thought, a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency, outstanding expressive/professional skills, and considerable creativity and originality. Outstanding academic/intellectual skills | |
| 70-79% | Excellent analysis of key issues/ concepts/ethics. Excellent development of conceptual structures and argument making excellent use of scholarly conventions. Demonstrates excellent independence of thought and a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency. | Excellent analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. Excellent development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Excellent research skills, independence of thought, excellent level of intellectual rigour and consistency, excellent expressive/ professional skills, and considerable creativity and originality. Excellent academic/ intellectual skills, and considerable creativity and originality. | |
| 60-69% | Good analysis of key issues/concepts/ ethics. Development of conceptual structures and argument making consistent use of scholarly conventions | Good analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. Development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions | |
| 50-59% | A marginal pass in module outcome(s) | Sound knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in discipline.Occasionally descriptive but some ability to synthesise scholarship and argument.
Minor lapses in use of scholarly conventions. |
Sound knowledge of key issues/concepts/ ethics in discipline. Occasionally descriptive but some ability to synthesise scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in use of scholarly conventions. |
| 40-49% | A marginal fail in module outcome(s). Satisfies default qualifying mark | Limited knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in discipline. Fairly descriptive, with restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and limited argument. Limited use of scholarly conventions. | Limited research skills impede use of learning resources and problem solving. Significant problems with structure/accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/Professional skills not yet secure. Limited academic/ intellectual skills. Limited use of scholarly conventions. |
| 30-39% | Fails to achieve module outcome(s). Qualifying mark not satisfied
|
Inadequate evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Largely descriptive, with little synthesis of existing scholarship and inadequate evidence of argument. Inadequate evidence of use of scholarly conventions. | Inadequate evidence of research skills, use of learning resources and problem solving. Major problems with structure/ accuracy in expression. Team/ Practical/Professional skills virtually absent. Inadequate evidence of academic/intellectual skills. Inadequate evidence of use of scholarly conventions. |
| 20-29% | Little evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Largely descriptive, with little synthesis of existing scholarship and little evidence of argument. Little evidence of use of scholarly conventions. | Little evidence of research skills, use of learning resources and problem solving. Major problems with structure/ accuracy in expression. Team/ Practical/Professional skills virtually absent. Little evidence of academic/intellectual skills. Little evidence of use of scholarly conventions | |
| 10-19% | Deficient knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ ethics in discipline. Wholly descriptive, with deficient synthesis of existing scholarship and deficient argument. Deficient use of scholarly conventions. | Deficient use of research skills, learning resources and problem solving. Major problems with structure/accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/Professional skills absent. Deficient academic/intellectual skills. Deficient use of scholarly conventions | |
| 1-9% | No evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Incoherent and completely but poorly descriptive, with no evidence of synthesis of existing scholarship and no argument whatsoever. No evidence of use of scholarly conventions. | No evidence of use of research skills, learning resources and problem solving. Incoherent structure/accuracy in expression. Team/ Practical/Professional skills non-existent. No evidence of academic/intellectual skills. No evidence of use of scholarly conventions | |
| 0% | Awarded for: (i) non-submission; (ii) dangerous practice and (iii) in situations where the student fails to address the assignment brief (e.g., answers the wrong question) and/or related learning outcomes | ||
Hire Experts to solve This MOD009382 Assessment 011 Coursework (Report) Before Deadline
Pay & Buy Non Plagiarized AssignmentStruggling with your MOD009382 Finance and Governance in Health and Social Care Assessment 011 Coursework (Report) at a.r.u | London ? Let us help! We offer professional, affordable assignment writing services that are AI-free, plagiarism-free, and delivered on time. Our team of PhD experts understands what universities expect and creates high-quality content tailored to your needs. We also offer a free Anglia Ruskin University Assignment Samples so you can check our quality before booking. Our expert team provides Management Assignment Help that has been designed for the students. We’re available 24/7 to support you. Don’t wait until the last minute—contact us now and make your academic life easier with trusted expert assignment help!
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content
