Supporting Information: Leeds University Business School
This is version 1.0 of the Supporting Information for the Leeds University Business School, which applies from the 2026/27 academic year onwards. This supporting information is owned by the Leeds University Business School. Please contact [email protected] for any matters related to this supporting document.
Contents
- Purpose and Scope
- Supplementary Information - Academic Regulations for Taught Programmes
- Supplementary Information - Assessment Policy and Procedures
- Other Supplementary Information
- Students awarded according to the Rules for Award
1. Purpose and Scope
This supporting information sets out the principles and procedures relating to assessment in the Leeds University Business School.
This supporting information underpins, and should be read alongside, the Academic Regulations for Taught Programmes and the Assessment Policy and Procedures.
This document also applies to PhD programmes, where students are enrolled on Faculty taught modules as part of their studies, and to students on Degree Apprenticeship programmes, where they are enrolled on Faculty taught modules as part of their apprenticeship. It does not cover elements of the apprenticeship outside the Faculty, such as the End Point Assessment (EPA).
2. Supplementary Information – Academic Regulations for Taught Programmes
This section contains information supplementary and complementary to the Academic Regulations for Taught Programmes.
2.1 Progression, Classification and Award of Specific Award Types (Academic Regulations section 10.1)
2.1.1 Accountancy Accreditation and Exemption Requirements
The Faculty of Business holds accountancy accreditation and exemption arrangements with professional bodies including the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. As part of these arrangements, specified modules may be approved for professional exemptions or credit towards professional qualifications.
To maintain these arrangements, specified modules must use assessment methods approved by the relevant professional body. Where an on-campus invigilated examination is required, the underlying competence standards and the need for this assessment method must be documented in the relevant programme documentation.
The modules to which these requirements apply will be published in programme documentation. Reasonable adjustments will be implemented in accordance with University policy. Any adjustment must enable the student to demonstrate the relevant competence standards while remaining compatible with the requirements of the relevant professional body.
2.1.2 Programme-Specific Postgraduate Diploma Requirements
For all Faculty programmes, students must pass 120 credits to be eligible for the award of a Postgraduate Diploma.
Approved programme-specific requirements may apply to the award of associated Postgraduate Diplomas within the Faculty of Business. Such requirements are not reproduced in this Supporting Information and are set out in the relevant programme-level documentation. Where applicable, these requirements sit alongside the standard University award requirements.
2.1.3 Business Finance Intermediate Concluding Qualifications (ICQs)
The Business Finance awards are approved ICQs only and do not form part of the standard exit award structure for the programmes listed below. Students are not registered on MSc Business Finance or Postgraduate Diploma in Business Finance as standalone programmes. These awards provide an alternative qualification route for eligible students who do not satisfy the award requirements for their original named programme. They are considered only at the point of award and do not change, replace or amend a student’s registered programme of study.
These awards are used solely for award and exit purposes for students registered on the following programmes:
- MSc Accounting and Finance;
- MSc Finance and Investment; and
- MSc Financial Risk Management.
2.1.3.2 Postgraduate Diploma in Business Finance
Eligibility for the Business Finance exit awards is based on the volume of taught credit successfully completed and is not dependent on passing specified compulsory modules.
3. Supplementary Information – Assessment Policy and Procedures
3.1 Setting and Approval of Assessment Methods (A&P section 4)
3.1.1 Examinations
The Faculty operates Departmental Examination Scrutiny Panels (DESPs) to provide formal scrutiny and approval of examination papers. DESPs meet in October for Semester 1 assessments and March for Semester 2 assessments. They are chaired by the Departmental Director of Student Education (DDSE), or their nominee, and attended by departmental academic colleagues.
Before submission to the DESP, Module Leaders are responsible for ensuring that first-sit and resit examination papers have been subject to appropriate academic review within the module team or subject area. This review should consider the suitability of the questions, alignment with learning outcomes, assessment criteria, marking guidance and overall academic standard.
Module Leaders present both first sit and resit papers to the DESP for scrutiny and approval. DESPs consider, among other things, the level and suitability of the paper; language and tone; overlap or duplication with the resit paper or other modules; clarity of questions, instructions and rubric; and the quality of model answers and marking guidelines.
Module Leaders must provide assurance that an examination paper does not contain a significant proportion, above 20%, of questions or material used in the same form over the previous four years.
Once approved through the Faculty process, examination papers, including model answers and marking schemes, are sent to the External Examiner for comment and approval before use.
3.1.2 Coursework
Coursework assessment briefs are subject to annual academic scrutiny. Briefs are reviewed by an academic peer as part of the module review process and are approved by the relevant External Examiner before use.
3.2 Registration for Assessments (A&P section 5)
Undergraduate students who are required to undertake more than 50 credits of resit assessment in the August resit period will be offered the opportunity to defer and/or spread some resits to the next academic year as an external student; they cannot progress to the next level of study until programme progression requirements are met.
Taught postgraduate students are permitted to resit a maximum of four assessments during the August resit period. Students who are required to undertake resit assessments may choose to defer and/or spread some or all of those assessments to the following academic year. Any assessments not taken in August will be completed in the following academic year, adding a year to the programme.
Where a module is assessed by coursework, students are normally required to submit a new piece of work on a new topic, following the same submission process as first submissions. Where the original assessment format cannot reasonably be replicated, for example because it involved group work or another activity that cannot be repeated, the resit format and/or submission process may differ. Any approved alternative resit format will be set out in the module specification in the online module catalogue.
3.3 Submission of Coursework (A&P section 6)
The Faculty has no approved exceptions to the standard University coursework deadline of 2.00pm UK time but should any deviations occur, this will be highlighted in the relevant assessment brief.
Students are responsible for ensuring that coursework is submitted successfully by the published deadline. Students should familiarise themselves with the University guidance on troubleshooting issues with online submissions and should record as much information as possible if they experience a submission issue. Any issue affecting submission should be reported to the Faculty before the submission deadline, following the published University guidance. Where a student is unable to complete a submission before the deadline, any outcome must be determined through the mitigating circumstances process. Applications will not normally be considered where the issue was not reported before the submission deadline.
It is a student’s responsibility to follow instructions enabling anonymous marking (such as correct use of their Student ID in file names); failure to do so may remove the ability to mark anonymously. Individual and group presentations, video projects, and dissertations/projects (including, in some cases, research proposals or reflective logs) are exceptions to anonymous marking
3.4 Late Submission of Coursework (AP&P section 6.4)
Late submission is not normally permitted for some types of assessment, including assessed presentations where the scheduled assessment cannot reasonably be repeated, and assessments marked on a pass/fail basis. The relevant assessment brief will identify any assessment for which late submission is not permitted and set out the options available to students.
3.5 Resubmission of Own Work (AP&P section 6.5)
Students will be informed through the assessment brief whether the reworking or reuse of previously submitted work is permitted.
As a general principle, work that has already been submitted for academic credit may not be resubmitted for credit in a subsequent summative assessment. Exceptions may apply where the reuse of prior work is explicitly permitted as part of the assessment design and is aligned with the intended learning outcomes, or where the assessment specifically requires students to develop, extend, or build upon previously submitted work rather than produce an entirely new submission.
3.6 Use of Systems to Identify Academic Integrity (Assessment Policy and Procedures section 7.2)
The Faculty will provide students with an introduction to systems used to support academic integrity, such as Turnitin, during the first semester of study. This will usually form part of students’ induction to the University, although it may not take place during Welcome or Induction Week itself.
3.7 Referencing (AP&P section 7.4)
For modules in the Faculty, students should use the official University of Leeds version of the Harvard referencing style, as set out on the Library’s referencing pages. Marking of submitted coursework is informed by, and corresponds to, this guidance.
3.8 Assessment Marking and Marks (A&P section 8.1.3)
Students whose University record identifies a relevant specific learning difficulty are provided with an electronic coversheet. Students are responsible for attaching the coversheet to any coursework submitted for a Faculty module where they wish to flag their specific learning difficulty. Where accuracy of spelling, grammar and punctuation forms part of the assessment criteria, work is marked accordingly, but feedback is provided in a way that considers the developmental needs of disabled students and avoids assumptions that errors reflect a lack of care in preparing the work.
3.9 Moderation: Check Marking and Double Marking (AP&P section 8.2)
3.9.1 Overview of Marking Assurance
The Faculty of Business applies moderation processes to provide assurance regarding the consistency, fairness and appropriateness of marking across all forms of summative assessment.
3.9.2 Check Marking Procedures
The Faculty's standard approach is to use check marking for most forms of summative assessment.
The criteria for determining the check marking sample marking may include failed pieces; marking undertaken by multiple assessors; marking undertaken by new markers; and assessment with a substantial weighting.
The Faculty's standard sample should normally comprise at least 20% of submissions, or a minimum of five submissions where the cohort size makes this appropriate, and should include failed assessments, borderline assessments and a representative range of marks from across the cohort.
Where issues are identified through the check-marking process, these will be discussed and resolved between the markers before marks are considered by the relevant Assessment Board with a possible extension of the original sample.
3.9.3 Internal Peer Moderation for Assessments with Multiple Markers
Where multiple markers assess the same assignment using the same marking criteria, the Faculty requires internal peer moderation. The Module Leader is responsible for organising and overseeing the process to support consistency in marking and ensure that any significant discrepancies are addressed.
Internal peer moderation enables the marking team to agree a consistent interpretation and application of the marking criteria, including the standards expected for marks and feedback. The process must be completed before the majority of marking is undertaken. It is distinct from double marking and does not require every submission to be marked by a second marker.
For assessments that are unchanged or broadly similar:
- Before submission, markers, particularly those who are new to marking the module, must independently mark three previous assignments representing high, average and low performance.
- The marking team must meet to compare marks, feedback and interpretations of the marking criteria.
- After submission, each marker must mark at least two randomly selected assignments within the first two working days and share them with the marking team.
- A moderation meeting must be held on the third working day, or earlier, to resolve discrepancies before marking continues.
For a new or substantially changed assessment:
- Before submission, the Module Leader must circulate the assessment materials and provide a detailed briefing on the task, marking criteria and grade-band expectations.
- After submission, each marker must mark at least four assignments within the first two working days.
- Each assessor should review at least two scripts marked by every other assessor.
- The marking team must consider the appropriateness and consistency of marks, whether the feedback justifies the mark awarded, the quality of developmental feedback, and any issues relating to the assessment or marking rubric.
- A moderation meeting must be held by the fourth working day, or earlier.
Where significant discrepancies are identified, the Module Leader must ensure that these are resolved and that the agreed approach is applied consistently. Any affected marks or feedback must be amended, and the agreed approach applied to similar cases. The Module Leader must retain a brief record of the samples reviewed, the matters discussed and any actions agreed.
3.9.4 Double Marking Procedures
Capstone Projects, Independent Research Projects and other substantial supervised research-based assessments will normally be subject to double marking. The first and second markers will review the work independently and agree a final mark prior to consideration by the relevant Assessment Board.
3.9.5 Resolution of Marking Differences
If a difference of judgement cannot be resolved between the first internal maker and the check marker, or between both markers if double marking is used, a third person will be appointed to receive an explanation of the difference and to contribute to the decision on the final mark or set of internal marks. The third person will be someone with appropriate seniority and experience in assessment processes.
3.10 Marks Return (A&P section 8.3)
Specific return schedules may apply to Capstone Projects, Independent Research Projects and other substantial supervised research-based assessments. Students will be informed through module documentation.
Results for assessments undertaken during formal examination periods will be released to students on the designated results publication date for the relevant semester.
3.11 Penalties for Not Meeting Assessment Requirements (AP&P section 8.4)
3.11.1 Word Limit Requirements
Where the amount of work submitted exceeds the specified word limit, or the word count declared by the student, this is reflected in the mark awarded and noted in individual feedback. The extent of the penalty is determined case by case by the Module Leader, based on the extent of the excess and the perceived advantage gained. Presenting matters of substance in appendices rather than the main body (‘appendix abuse’) or including more text than strictly necessary within graphs and diagrams to circumvent the word limit, is not permitted. Students must state an accurate word count on the assignment cover page; a fraudulent statement about a word count may be investigated as academic malpractice.
3.11.2 Ethics Approval Requirements
For undergraduate dissertations involving primary-data collection, ethics approval is a mandatory requirement. Students must obtain written ethics approval before starting any data collection and must append their ethics approval documentation to their final dissertation submission. Where these requirements are not met, the penalty applies to the written dissertation only, as set out below.
For dissertations involving primary-data collection, where a mark deduction applies, the written-dissertation mark will not be reduced below the pass mark of 40% if the dissertation would otherwise have passed.
- Penalty 1 — approval obtained before data collection but not appended: deduct 5 marks from the written-dissertation mark. This deduction cannot reduce an otherwise passing mark below 40%.
- Penalty 2 — approval obtained after data collection began and appended: deduct 10 marks from the written-dissertation mark. This deduction cannot reduce an otherwise passing mark below 40%.
- Penalty 3 — approval obtained after data collection and not appended: deduct 15 marks from the written-dissertation mark. This deduction cannot reduce an otherwise passing mark below 40%.
- Penalty 4 — no ethics approval obtained: cap the written-dissertation mark at 40%.
3.11.3 Secondary-data dissertations
For undergraduate dissertations using secondary data, students must obtain approval and append the approval documentation to their final dissertation submission. Where these requirements are not met, the penalty applies to the written dissertation only, as set out below. A mark deduction will not reduce an otherwise passing written-dissertation mark below 40%.
- Penalty 1 — approval obtained but not appended: deduct 5 marks from the written-dissertation mark. This deduction cannot reduce an otherwise passing mark below 40%.
- Penalty 2 — no approval obtained: cap the written-dissertation mark at 40%.
A project that violates the expectations of ethical research defined by the University and further specified in the Leeds University Business School Internal Research Ethics Application Form for Taught Students will be referred to the Compliance Team or Academic Integrity Team for investigation under the applicable University procedures. This referral is separate from the penalties listed above.
3.12 Feedback to Students (AP&P section 9)
Feedback mechanisms for individual modules are described within the module information in the relevant module area of Minerva. Feedback is released alongside marks within the timeframes set out in section 8.3 of the AP&P. Most modules offer formative feedback to students during the module and before summative assessment. For assessed individual coursework, individualised written feedback is provided, which may take the form of written comments or annotations on the submitted work. For presentations, documented feedback is provided, which may be written comments or oral/recorded feedback. For group assignments the feedback will be for the group in the same format described above.
For examinations, including multiple-choice examinations, generic, cohort-level feedback is provided by the Module Leader via Minerva ; students who have failed also receive individual written feedback.
Further feedback may include feedback sessions, individual feedback sheets and module statistics, and also accompany the return of marks. Where individualised feedback cannot be provided within the normal times frames, due to the nature or timing of an assessment, group feedback is instead provided (narrative, face to face or via audio/video).
Examination scripts belong to the University. Students who wish to access their marked examination script for feedback purposes should contact the Module Leader directly. Where appropriate, the Module Leader will advise how and when access can be arranged.
3.13 Timings of Assessment Committees (AP&P section 11.4)
The Faculty and its constituent Schools operate Assessment and Progression Committees in line with the University’s standard timelines.
3.14 Publication of Module Marks and Classifications (AP&P section 12)
In the Faculty, provisional marks are normally published in late February for Semester 1 assessments, early July for Semester 2 assessments, and early September for August resit assessments. Provisional marks will be made available through the platform used for the relevant assessment. The Faculty does not publish a student’s classification, or provide written confirmation of it or discuss it, ahead of the official University publication date.
4. Other Supplementary Information
4.1 Research Students Undertaking Taught Modules
Students registered on postgraduate research programmes may undertake taught modules as part of their wider programme of study. This Supporting Information applies only to those taught modules.
The progression, continuation and award requirements for postgraduate research students are governed by the relevant research degree regulations and procedures. References within this document to programme progression and award should therefore be read in conjunction with the University Ordinance IX and associated University procedures.
4.2 Assessment Criteria and Marking Standards
Assessment criteria describe the standards of performance expected in relation to the learning outcomes of an assessment.
Leeds University Business School has developed Faculty Generic Marking Criteria, in a student friendly language to be used where appropriate or used as a base to be amended where applicable by module leaders. Where assessment-specific criteria are provided, these must be read in conjunction with the Faculty Generic Marking Criteria. Assessment criteria and marking rubrics will be made available to students through module documentation and/or assessment briefs.
4.3 Group working
Where students work collaboratively but submit individual assessments, the work submitted must be entirely their own.
Shared discussion, analysis, data collection or preparation does not permit the copying or close paraphrasing of another student's work. Requirements relating to collaborative activities and group assessment will be set out in the relevant assessment brief.
Where students submit group assessments, they receive the same mark. Peer evaluation may be used to redistribute the group assessment mark between individual group members to reflect their contribution. It is available on modules with an element of group work and is completed anonymously. Students experiencing difficulties within their group should raise these with the Module Leader at an early stage. Peer evaluation can affect no more than 10% of the mark awarded for the group assessment.
However, the Module Leader may request evidence of group working and/or engagement throughout the process and may amend an individual mark where there is insufficient contribution and no mitigating circumstances apply. Evidence may include attendance at group meetings, contributions to shared online platforms, use of Minerva, reflections, peer scoring, or any procedure approved by the Assessment and Quality Team. This will be considered only where concerns are raised by the Module Leader, another member of the teaching team or a member of the group.
4.4 Additional Consideration for Low-Weighted Assessment Components
Where additional consideration is granted under the Mitigating Circumstances Policy and Procedure, the Faculty permits a low-weighted assessment component to be discounted only where the component is weighted 30% or less of the overall module mark and discounting is an appropriate and proportionate outcome.
Discounting applies only where the affected component cannot reasonably be replicated as a resit, for example group work or a presentation. The component weighting must be checked against the module catalogue, and the Module Leader must be consulted before an exemption is recommended to the Special Cases Committee.
Where the component is weighted more than 30%, or where discounting would compromise the module learning outcomes, discounting must not be applied. An alternative assessment must be used where an assessment outcome is required to preserve the module learning outcomes.
4.5 Registration Status for Postgraduate First Attempt Resits of Independent Research Projects
Taught postgraduate students granted a first-attempt resit of an Independent Research Project or dissertation will normally complete the resit with internal registration status. This reflects the Faculty requirement that students undertaking a first-attempt resit of this type receive a further period of supervision, which may include face-to-face engagement.
Internal registration status may have fee and attendance implications. Students must be informed of these implications before confirming their registration status for the resit period.
5. Students awarded according to the Rules for Award
The Academic Regulations for Taught Programmes superseded the Rules for Award following the 2023/24 academic year. Awards for students who commenced their current programme at Leeds before the 2022/23 academic year or commenced their final year of study before 2024/25 academic year will be determined using the degree classification algorithm from the Rules for Award (iteration A), which includes provision for academic discretion.
Academic discretion, as described in the Rules for Award, applies to students being awarded under these circumstances:
Any student with a Classification Average falling within the discretionary band should be selected for consideration. The discretionary band is 0.05 below a classification threshold for Bachelor’s Degrees with Classified Honours and 0.10 below a classification threshold for Foundation Degrees, Undergraduate Diplomas, Graduate Diplomas and Certificates, and Taught Postgraduate Awards
In the Leeds University Business School, the following criteria for academic discretion apply:
Rule 1 – At least 60 credits of final year credits are in the higher class
Rule 2 – At least 120 credits of year 2 & 3 credits are in the higher class
Rule 3 – At least 100 credits of year 2 & 3 compulsory and optional credits in the higher class
In making the judgement, any one result of 49, 59 or 69 may be interpreted as if it belonged to the higher class.