This is a discussion document
and does not represent
University
policy at this stage.
Following the discussions in General Assembly and Senate in the pre-Christmas
period, the Semesterisation Review Group was reconstituted to examine means of
developing and improving the Structure of the Academic Year. The membership of
the Review Group was Professor J P Feather (Chair), Mr J Costello, Professor B
A Marples, Dr R B Wilcockson, Mr D R F Walker and Ms K Myers.
The Group has tried to accommodate the strength of feeling expressed in both
bodies, and has also been aware of the strong current of opinion within the
University which believes that, following the recent period of intensive and
radical change, there should now be a period of consolidation. The Group has
sought to identify and address the principal perceived problems on the basis
that academic issues should drive the construction of structural frameworks,
rather than vice versa. The Group will shortly address particular issues
related to postgraduate programmes, but this paper concentrates on
undergraduate programmes.
The Group noted that the principles of modularity, credit accumulation and
semesterisation were not under question and endorsed the view that there was a
need to minimise the disruption caused by any proposed change.
The major issues identified were:-
Having considered these issues the Group turned to how the structure of the
academic year might best be arranged to accommodate academic needs. The Group
is now in a position to present its interim report, welcomes the opportunity
for wide consultation over the next few weeks, and has prepared this paper as
the basis for a discussion in General Assembly.
The Group has identified strong support for increasing flexibility by
permitting the introduction of year-long modules in the following
circumstances:-
- In core subjects where development of understanding takes place gradually
alongside other material, or where concepts are difficult for students to grasp
immediately and require time to be assimilated. This may be particularly
appropriate in Part A, where adaptation to the University may be difficult in a
single semester.
- In projects, and in other summative modules.
- In laboratory-based modules where space considerations necessitate
timetabling which cannot easily be accommodated in a single semester.
The Group feels that all taught modules should continue to be weighted 10, 20,
or 30, should be of either one or two semesters' duration, and that any formal
written examination should take place during the end of semester assessment
period. The Group is also conscious of the need to retain an even balance of
student workload across the semesters. Within these constraints the Group
recognises the need to maintain flexibility and to accommodate the academic
case for year-long modules.
Accordingly it intends to recommend that in any given programme up to 50% of
the modular credit in an academic year can be derived from year-long modules,
and that a minimum amount of modular credit can be derived from modules taught
and assessed within a single semester.
The Group has recognised substantial bodies of opinion both for and against the
Special Assessment Period (September resits). The Group has considered the
proposition that a number of failed modules could be carried forward into the
next academic year subject to successful reassessment at a later stage, but
feels this is unacceptable on pedagogical grounds, particularly its impact on
weaker students. Accordingly, given that there is a consensus that credit
should be accumulated prior to progression, the main issue is whether student
progress should or should not always be delayed for a year were that credit not
to be immediately achieved.
The Group is not proposing any substantial change to the current arrangements,
but a number of amendments to existing practice will reduce some of the
problems associated with the Special Assessment Period, including:-
- Formalisation of a timetable for the Special Assessment Period to ensure
that results can be published prior to the beginning of the next academic
year
- Guidance to Programme Boards confirming their power to devise equitable
methods of reassessment which differ in kind from the original method of
assessment, particularly in coursework elements otherwise not easily
accommodated within the Special Assessment Period.
The Group recognises the workload imposed by Module Boards and intends to
recommend that they be abolished. Representations in regard to impaired
performance should in future be considered by Programme Boards. Mark sheets
for modules should be published after moderation by the Internal and, where
appropriate, External Examiner. It is intended to develop a Code of Practice
to give effect to these proposals.
Having reached the conclusions outlined above, the Group has discussed the
structure of the academic year. It feels that the modifications proposed will
substantially reduce the pressure on both staff and students at the end of
Semester One and beginning of Semester Two. Accordingly, it recommends that
the current structure of the academic year be retained, subject to the
following modifications:-
- Academic year to commence on first Monday in October
- A ten-week teaching period prior to Christmas
- A four-week Christmas Vacation
- A three- or four-week Easter Vacation
Following the meeting of General Assembly, and in the light of its discussion,
the Group will prepare a formal consultation paper for the forthcoming round of
Faculty Board meetings, before making recommendations through Teaching and
Learning Committee to Senate. These consultations are an iterative process,
and the Group encourages the widest possible involvement in them.
[Agenda]
[Minutes]