About this section
In this section, you will find information on: marking policy and practices; marking scales; and consideration, approval and publication of module marks.
These procedures apply to the Leeds University Business School. If you are also studying modules in other schools, you should consult the teaching school’s CoPA for information on their process for module marking and moderation.
Each school has agreed assessment criteria which describe in detail how your performance for a piece of work will be rewarded, in respect of the learning outcomes. These statements specify the standards that must be met and what evidence is expected to show that you have achieved the learning outcomes.
Undergraduate and Taught Postgraduate assessment criteria can be found in Annex I of this document.
The process of determining final module grades is the responsibility of the school teaching each module.
In accordance with the University’s expectations, assessment is marked anonymously. However, the School may make exceptions to this rule, including:
- Where the assessment takes the form of a practical demonstration performed in the presence of examiners (such as orals, scientific practicals, lab books, clinical examinations, or performances);
- Where the assessment takes place over a period of time with support from a designated supervisor or tutor (such as projects, dissertations and portfolios); and
- Where the assessment takes place during a module for formative purposes and anonymity might prevent speedy and effective feedback.
It is students’ responsibility to follow those instructions regarding the submission of assessment that enable anonymous marking, such as the correct use of student identification numbers (SID) in electronic file names. Failure to do so may remove the ability to mark anonymously.
Exceptions to Anonymous Marking
In particular, individual and group presentations, video projects and dissertation/projects (including in some cases research proposals or reflective logs) are all exceptions to anonymous marking.
Assessment of Written English
Assessment criteria will clearly specify the approach to assessing technical accuracy in written expression and, where appropriate, the approach will be referenced in assessment rubrics.
Double Marking / Check Marking
Double marking means that in addition to the first marker, another member of staff independently marks your work. Check marking means that in addition to the first marker, another member of staff samples or audits the marking across the module to review overall marking standards and consistency between individual markers.
In cases where a student attempts more than the required number of questions, and does not clearly indicate on the script by crossing out those that should not be marked, the markers shall mark only the required number of answers.
The markers shall mark the answers in the order that they are completed in the script booklet, or as indicated by the student on the front of the booklet as the order in which they were answered, or if completed in separate script booklets, in numerical order.
Processes for Double Marking/Check Marking
On completion of first marking, marks are moderated /check marked by another marker who will look at all fails, a representative sample* of firsts, and a representative sample* of the middle range of marks, including all borderline cases. Any changes to marks should be made by the first marker/module leader in agreement with the person moderating the marks. Once agreed both the first marker/ module leader and person moderating the marks need to sign off the marks before they are sent to the External Examiner. In Leeds University Business School, with the exception of modules covered in 4.5c, it is normal practice to moderate marks.
*(Suggested representative sample 20%)
Projects and Dissertations
Projects and Dissertations must be double marked. The rationale for this is based on typically larger credit value, the student-led or independent nature of the topic, and one-to-one supervision conventions (typically supervisors support and mark some students on the module and double marking ensures that one or more of the markers is independent).
Dissertations are first-marked by the supervisor and then second-marked by another appropriate academic member of staff, allocated by the relevant Department. The first and second markers then agree the mark to be awarded, and return feedback for students to the Assessment team within the School Education Service. The marks and samples are then sent to an external examiner to be signed off.
Resolution of Discrepancies between Markers
Discrepancies between internal markers are resolved within the relevant Department before the marks are returned to the Assessment team within the School Education Service.
The External Examiner
The role of the External Examiner is to ensure comparability of the University’s standards with those in peer institutions and national benchmarks. It is not to contribute to the assessment of individual students. If an External Examiner cannot endorse the marks given to assessed work within a sample, they may require:
- Additional marking of all the student work within the group;
- Additional marking of an element of the assessed work of all students within the group; or
- Adjustment of the marks for all students within the group.
In this way, the External Examiner has oversight of the whole cohort of marks, rather than those of individual students. However, in exceptional circumstances, an External Examiner may be permitted to determine an individual mark where they have been specifically invited to adjudicate between markers.
Requests for Re-marking
Normalisation refers to a process of adjusting mark profiles for each module so that the overall average falls within an expected range. Normalisation is used only exceptionally and if your school does normalise marks for a module, particular attention will be paid to setting and marking of assessment in that module the next time it is offered.
The University uses a number of different scales to express results at different stages of the assessment and classification process.
For the purposes of publishing module marks, all assessments are marked on a 0 – 100 scale (or a categorical marking scale aligned to a 0 – 100 scale) and all module marks are returned on a 0 – 100 scale.
For a limited number of modules, you will not receive a numerical mark but instead a “pass” or “fail” grade. Within the Leeds University Business School, the following modules are assessed on a pass/fail basis:
- LUBS8003 Year in Research
- LUBS5999M Postgraduate Study Abroad
The following modules are assessed on a distinction/merit/pass/fail basis:
- LUBS7001 Year in Enterprise
- LUBS8001 Training in the Workplace
The following modules are assessed on a merit/pass/fail basis:
- LUBS9001 Study Year Abroad
Although local marking scales for individual pieces of work may differ, a single marking scale is used when expressing module marks. All module marks are expressed on the University’s 0-100 scale.
Pass Mark and Award of Credit
If you pass a module, you will gain the entire credit for that module. However, if you do not pass a module, you receive no credit for that module (the University does not award partial credit). The pass mark for modules at levels 0, 1, 2 and 3 is 40. The pass mark for modules at level 5M is 50.
|Undergraduate Students||Taught Postgraduate Students|
(Codes numbered 0, 1, 2 or 3)
|Pass mark is 40||Pass mark is 40|
|Taught Postgraduate Modules
(Codes numbered 5….M)
|Pass mark is 50||Pass mark is 50|
Consideration of Module Marks
School Assessment Board
The School Assessment Board agrees the modules marks/grades for all students. The School adopts the standard Terms of Reference and Membership for School Assessment Boards.
Semester 1 and Semester 2
The School Assessment Board normally meets after Semester 1 to agree recommended marks and grades for completed modules. These are published via Minerva. The marks/grades are provisional at this stage.
The School Assessment Board meets again after completion of Semester 2 to agree recommended marks/grades for completed modules. The marks/grades for all undergraduate Semester 1 and 2 modules (those at levels 0, 1, 2 and 3) will be approved by the Progression & Awards Board (of which the External Examiner is a member). The marks for taught postgraduate modules (those at level 5M) may be provisional if they have not yet been endorsed by the External Examiner(s).
Taught Postgraduate Modules
For all Taught Postgraduate modules the Progression and Award board meets in November to agree externally endorsed marks and award classifications.
For all taught modules undertaken by PhD students, the School Assessment Board meets in November to agree externally endorsed marks.
Consideration of Resit Results for Undergraduate Modules
The School Assessment Board normally meets again in September to agree marks/grades for August resits.
Consideration of Resit Results for Taught Postgraduate Modules
Taught Postgraduate re-sit results are considered at the annual November School Assessment Board and the June Undergraduate Assessment Board.
Publication of Module Marks
If your school publishes provisional marks, you should be aware that these have not been approved by the School Progression & Awards Board (see 5.10b above). The final published marks may be higher or lower than the provisional marks.
Module marks are published to students by the School on specific dates published each year on Minerva and communicated to students via email. From those dates, students can view their feedback also. Module marks may be published via Minerva, the Portal, or by email.
The University will publish final confirmed marks and classifications on Minerva on 10 July 2023 for undergraduate students and on 23rd November 2023 for taught postgraduate students.
Changes to Module Marks
Once the University has published the formal decisions of the School Progression & Awards Board, module marks will not be changed. The only exception is if the School is instructed to make amendments by the University following a formal appeal or consideration of an exceptional case.