Assessment

Practical – Presentation

Assessment code:

010

Academic Year:

2025/2026

Trimester:

2

Module Title:

Leadership and Human Capital Management in Health and Social Care

Module Code:

MOD009384

Level:

7

Module Leader:

Weighting:

40%

Time Limit:

7 minutes per student

Assessed Learning Outcomes

LO3: Intellectual, practical, affective and transferrable skills:

Debate effective leadership strategies and skills, including approaches to decision-making, conflict resolution, and team building, in health and social care organisations.

Assessment date:

Please refer to the deadline on the VLE

ASSESSMENT MARKING RUBRIC

The work will be assessed in an integrative manner as indicated in the marking rubric, that is consistent with Anglia Ruskin University generic assessment criteria and marking standards

Criteria / Grade (marking areas and scores to be adapted by ML according to assessment)

0-29%

30-39%:

40-49%:

50-59%:

.

60-69%:

70-79%:

80-89%:

90-100%:

Demonstrable awareness of the four personality types                     with regards to people leadership, decision- making, conflict resolution            and team building, in a health and social care organisation

Little evidence of awareness of personality types in relation to people leadership, decision- making, conflict resolution and team-building.

Little identification of the two personality types with regards to traits and qualities.

Little evidence of use of taught contents and little evidence of engagement with module materials in the presentation of debate.

Limited evidence displayed of awareness of personality types in relation to people leadership, decision- making, conflict resolution and team- building.

Limited identification of the two personality types with regards to traits and qualities.

Limited evidence of use of taught contents and limited evidence of engagement with module materials in the presentation of debate

Adequate evidence displayed of awareness of personality types in relation to people leadership, decision-making, conflict resolution and team- building.

Adequate identification of the two personality types with regards to traits and qualities.

Adequate evidence of use of taught contents and adequate evidence of engagement with module materials in the presentation of debate

Sound evidence displayed of awareness of personality types in relation to people leadership, decision- making, conflict resolution and team-building.

Sound identification of the two personality types with regards to traits and qualities.

Sound evidence of use of taught contents and adequate evidence of engagement with module materials in the presentation of debate

Good evidence displayed of awareness of personality types in relation to people leadership, decision-making, conflict resolution and team- building.

Good identification of the two personality types with regards to traits and qualities.

Good evidence of use of taught contents and good evidence of engagement with module materials in the presentation of debate

Excellent evidence displayed of awareness of personality types in relation to people leadership, decision-making, conflict resolution and team- building.

Excellent identification of the two personality types with regards to traits and qualities.

Excellent evidence of use of taught contents and excellent evidence of engagement with module materials in the presentation of debate

Outstanding evidence displayed of awareness of personality types in relation to people leadership, decision- making, conflict resolution and team- building.

Outstanding identification of the two personality types with regards to traits and qualities.

Outstanding evidence of use of taught contents and adequate evidence of engagement with module materials in the presentation of debate

Exceptional evidence displayed of awareness of personality types in relation to people leadership, decision- making, conflict resolution and team- building.

Exceptional identification of the two personality types with regards to traits and qualities.

Exceptional evidence of use of taught contents and exceptional evidence of engagement with module materials in the presentation of debate

70 Marks

0-20

21-27

28-34

35-41

42-48

49-55

56-62

63-70

Support of arguments with credible facts, scholarly opinions or relavant theories

Little evidence of use of credible facts, scholarly opinions or relevant theories in supporting arguments presented in the debate on personality types

Limited evidence of use of credible facts, scholarly opinions or relevant theories in supporting arguments presented in the debate on personality types

Adequate use of credible facts, scholarly opinions or relevant theories in supporting arguments presented in the debate on personality types

Sound use of credible facts, scholarly opinions or relevant theories in supporting arguments presented in the debate on personality types

Good use of credible facts, scholarly opinions or relevant theories in supporting arguments presented in the debate on personality types

Excellent use of credible facts, scholarly opinions or relevant theories in supporting arguments presented in the debate on personality types

Outstanding use of credible facts, scholarly opinions or relevant theories in supporting arguments presented in the debate on personality types

Exceptional use of credible facts, scholarly opinions or relevant theories in supporting arguments presented in the debate on personality types

20 Marks

0-6

6-7

8-9

10-11

12-13

14-15

16-17

18-20

Clarity of

Little clarity of communication, professionalism, display of confidence and persuasiveness in the debate on personality types

Limited clarity of communication, professionalism, display of confidence and persuasiveness in the debate on personality types

Adequate clarity of communication, professionalism, display of confidence and persuasiveness in the debate on personality types

Sound clarity of communication, professionalism, display of confidence and persuasiveness in the debate on personality types

Good clarity of communication, professionalism, display of confidence and persuasiveness in the debate on personality types

Excellent clarity of communication, professionalism, display of confidence and persuasiveness in the debate on personality types

Outstanding clarity of communication, professionalism, display of confidence and persuasiveness in the debate on personality types

Exceptional clarity of communication, professionalism, display of confidence and persuasiveness in the debate on personality types

communication,

Professionalism,

Confidence, and

Persuasiveness

10 marks

0-2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9-10

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