Academic Registry

Student Office

Proposed General Regulation Changes for Introduction in 2005/6

The proposals below have not yet been circulated to academic departments for feedback.

SECTION A: DECISIONS OF PRINCIPLE FOR APPROVAL

1. Reduction of AD(T) Administrative Workload

1.1. Objectives

1.1.1. To reduce administrative workload on AD(T)s in recognition of the comments made by the QAA institutional auditors.

1.1.2. To retain AD(T) approval where programme regulation and other academic issues are concerned.

1.2. Proposals

1.2.1. Appointment of Programme Boards – it is proposed that the Academic Registrar (or nominee) takes responsibility for ensuring that Programme Boards are appointed in accordance with regulations (see para 7.2.1).

1.2.2. Approval of deferred reassessment – it is proposed that the relevant HoD takes responsibility for approving deferral (see para 4.2.1).

1.2.3. Approval of Leave of Absence after week 10, or where a student has outstanding reassessment rights – it is proposed that the HoD takes responsibility for approval. Consistency will be improved by, taking into account the assessment deadlines for individual students/modules (see para 3.2.2. below).

1.2.4. Waiver of Programme Regulations – it is proposed that the AD(T)s retain responsibility for approving waivers to programme regulations in the case of individual students.

1.2.5. Approval of credit transfer/disregard on internal transfer – it is proposed that this be delegated to HoDs (see para 3.2.1 below).

2. Award of Lesser Qualifications

2.1. Objectives

2.1.1. To simplify the process of awarding lesser qualifications as a matter of course following termination of studies.

2.1.2. To ensure that external examiners approve all lesser awards without the need for physical presence at non-finalist boards.

2.1.3. To allow students the option of transferring programme prior to lesser awards being made (currently a number of finalist students each year are automatically awarded a DipHE at a Summer board which is then conferred at the Summer degree congregation, following which the students decides to transfer to the final year of another programme, invalidating the award).

2.1.4. To ensure that the minimum number of students possible are returned to HESA as having left with no qualification (as per current policy approved by Senate).

2.1.5. To clarify the requirements for the award of Diploma of Higher Education and Certificate of Higher Education.

2.2. Proposals

2.2.1. Introduce a new programme board decision – “Studies Terminated - eligible for lesser award subject to external programme assessor approval”.

2.2.2. External examiners to be provided with all relevant information by academic department and asked to ratify the decision without attendance at the University.

2.2.3. Students to be given the option to transfer credit to another programme (if available) prior to the lesser award being ratified by external examiner.

2.2.4. Students to be returned to HESA as at 1 August as either continuing (probably in the majority of cases, given the timescales involved and the difficulty generally experienced in communicating with students during the Summer) or having received a lesser award (only when student has confirmed that they do not intend to transfer programme). Where a student confirms after 1 August that they do wish to take the lesser qualification, they will be returned as such in the following year’s HESA return.

2.2.5. Change terminology for eligibility for a lesser award as follows:

2.2.5.1. Diploma of Higher Education: Progress from Part B (note that this will mean the award of a DipHE with potentially only 100 credits in total in the case of eg direct 2^nd year entrants)

2.2.5.2. Certificate of Higher Education: Progress from Part A

3. Credit Transfer/Disregard on Transfer of Programme and Leave of Absence

3.1. Objectives

3.1.1. To clarify the procedure for treatment of previous module assessments which could potentially be considered under the programme regulations of the new programme following transfer.

3.1.2. To clarify the procedure for treatment of module registrations and component assessments when a student takes leave of absence prior to the completion of the module.

3.1.3. To reduce the administrative workload on AD(T)s.

3.2. Proposals

3.2.1. On transfer of programme, ALL previous module assessments on the same Part to be disregarded except where HoD approves transfer of credit/module mark

3.2.2. Treatment of existing module registration and assessments on granting of leave of absence to be determined as follows:

3.2.2.1. If deadlines for coursework components amounting to less than 50% (weighted) of total module assessment (including exams) have passed prior to LOA request being made, then module is automatically expunged from record.

3.2.2.2. If deadlines for coursework components amounting to 50% (weighted) or more of total module assessment (including exams) have passed prior to LOA request being made, then module cannot be deleted from record and Impaired Performance claim must be submitted if all assessments are not to be completed.

4. Leave of Absence - Reassessment, Permitted Repeat Attempts

4.1. Objectives

4.1.1. To clarify the implications of a student taking leave of absence when that student has outstanding reassessment right.

4.1.2. To clarify the implications of a student being granted leave of absence when that student has an outstanding permitted repeat attempt (resulting from a successful impaired performance claim).

4.2. Proposals

4.2.1. Approval of leave of absence by HoD automatically results in deferred reassessment where student has outstanding reassessment rights. As part of the approval process, the new reassessment date should be highlighted.

4.2.2. Where a student has, as a result of an impaired performance claim, been permitted to repeat an assessment by a specified deadline, approval of leave of absence by HoD automatically results in an extension to that deadline. As part of the approval process, the new deadline should be highlighted.

5. Impaired Performance – “Further Work”

5.1. Objectives

5.1.1. To increase flexibility of impaired performance decisions, especially where an extension is required.

5.2. Proposals

5.2.1. Empower Programme and Progress Boards to decide that students who have submitted an impaired performance claim may resubmit their original piece of work with some further work for assessment as their permitted repeat attempt.

6. Degree Classification Boundary – Remove Power to Raise by 3%

6.1. Objectives

6.1.1. To reduce the potential for Regulation XIV appeals.

6.2. Proposals

6.2.1. Retain the powers to lower classification boundaries by up to 3% but remove the option of raising the boundaries. In practice this is hardly ever used and, if used, will almost certainly result in appeals and potentially legal challenge from all the students affected.

7. Programme Boards

7.1. Objectives

7.1.1. To ensure clarity in regulations.

7.1.2. To reduce the administrative burden on academic departments in the appointment of Programme Boards.

7.1.3. To ensure Programme Boards are expertly supported

7.2. Proposals

7.2.1. Amend the membership of Programme Boards as follows:

· Head of Department (Chair).

· At least four other internal examiners (one of whom shall be Deputy Chair and one of whom shall be from a department other than that responsible for the programme).

· All external examiners responsible for module which are being considered by the Programme Board

· The External Programme Assessor.

7.2.2. Amend Programme Board quoracy requirement as follows:

· Either the Chair or Deputy Chair.

· At least three other internal examiners (one of whom shall be from the co-operating department in the case of joint and combined honours programmes and one of whom shall be from a department other than that responsible for the programme in the case of all programmes).

· The External Programme Assessor where the making of awards is being considered.

7.2.3. Programme Board secretaries must be selected from an approved list of staff published by the Academic Registrar (consisting of experienced departmental administrators and appropriately skilled Academic Registry staff). Departmental administrative staff not on this list must be treated as probationers and will be accompanied in Programme boards by a member of staff who does appear on the published list.

7.2.4. SAP programme boards should have the same membership as the main Summer board and need not be reappointed. This is not currently clear and is open to interpretation.

7.2.5. Clarify exactly what decisions a Programme Board can make and introduce some new decisions as follows:

7.2.5.1. “Fail – eligible to take reassessment or to transfer to non-extended programme”. This will reduce the administrative workload and the bureaucracy involved when a student on an extended programme fails at the first attempt, chooses not to resit and must then be considered at the SAP board to formally be allowed to transfer to the relevant non-extended programme.

7.2.5.2. “Fail – Studies Terminated (not eligible for any award)”.

7.2.5.3. “Fail – Studies Terminated (eligible for lesser award subject to external examiner approval)”.

7.2.5.4. “Pass (eligible to proceed or to receive CertHE). This would enable the award of CertHE to be made automatically to students who progress from Part A and then withdraw without completing Part B.

7.2.5.5. “Pass (eligible to proceed or to receive DipHE). This would enable the award of DipHE to be made automatically to students who progress from Part B and then withdraw without completing Part C.

SECTION B: HOUSEKEEPING – SIMPLIFICATION & REGULATION OF CUSTOM & PRACTICE FOR APPROVAL

8. External Examiners

8.1. Objectives

8.1.1. To enable Programme Boards to make awards without the external examiner being present where students numbers are limited and there are no controversial cases.

8.1.2. To reduce the administrative workload on departments and ensure good relationships with externals.

8.1.3. To clarify current custom and practice and to ensure consistency.

8.1.4. To develop criteria to determine the suitability of potential external examiners prior to appointment

8.2. Proposals

8.2.1. The waiver of the requirement for the external to be present is currently approved by the Academic Registrar on an ad hoc basis as requested by departments and is based on the following criteria.

8.2.1.1. That the external receives copies of all documentation before and after the board and signs the pass list etc.

8.2.1.2. That the external agrees to the non-attendance proposal.

8.2.1.3. That there are no students under consideration who would be affected by the setting of a degree classification boundary.

8.2.1.4. That there are no impaired performance claims to be considered.

8.2.1.5. That there are no students under consideration for whom condonement is a possibility.

It is proposed that, where all these conditions are met, the external examiner presence requirement will be waived as a matter of course (approved by the HoD). Under any other circumstances, the Academic Registrar should continue to consider waivers.

8.2.2. Develop criteria to measure potential external examiners against. Examples might be:

8.2.2.1. Requirement to provide a curriculum vitae detailing publications etc.

8.2.2.2. Requirement to be research active as at last RAE in home institution.

8.2.2.3. Membership of professional bodies.

9. Non-Programme Undergraduates (Socrates etc) Reassessment Rights

9.1. Objectives

9.1.1. To provide a framework for students not on formal programmes to be eligible for reassessment (as they do not “progress” or “receive and award” at present, these students do not have any formal reassessment rights).

9.2. Proposals

9.2.1. Permit non-programme undergraduate students to take reassessment in any module in which they have failed to gain credit.

10. Postgraduate Project Referral

10.1. Objectives

10.1.1. To clarify the regulations and remove the potential for confusion regarding the treatment of failed projects.

10.1.2. To clarify the regulations regarding submission of new pieces of work.

10.2. Proposals

10.2.1. Cease to use “referral” terminology, clarifying that any postgraduate module mark below 50% is a fail.

10.2.2. For failed project modules, permit students to resubmit the same piece of work with revisions for reassessment providing that they have achieve at lest 40% in the first attempt.

10.2.3. For all other failed modules, a new piece of work must be submitted in all cases (except where impaired performance impacts).

11. Carry Forward of Component Marks at Reassessment

11.1. Objectives

11.1.1. To clarify the procedure for carry forward of marks at reassessment.

11.1.2. To clarify the difference between individual pieces of work which mark up a component mark and the component mark itself.

11.2. Proposals

11.2.1. Introduce new terminology – an “assessment element” is any piece of work which contributes to the overall module mark. It will include individual examination marks as well as individual coursework marks.

11.2.2. Clarify the meaning of “component mark” as “either the total coursework or total exam mark as calculated from the appropriate assessment element marks weighted in accordance with the module specification.

11.2.3. Only component marks can be carried forward at reassessment. Individual assessment element marks cannot be carried forward.

12. Dormancy – Abandonment of Studies

12.1. Objectives

12.1.1. To reduce the number of “ghost” part-time postgraduate students on the student record (estimated number of currently 500+ or circa 4% of the total student population). The direct cost of retaining these students on the record is £500+ per year (HESA subscription etc). In addition there are many hidden costs.

12.1.2. To improve completion rates amongst part-time postgraduate students by following up registration and lack of activity more proactively.

12.2. Proposals

12.2.1. Students who have failed to register with the University at the start of an academic session and have not registered for any modules in the previous two sessions will be contacted and advised that failure to register within two weeks will result in their being deemed to have abandoned their studies.

12.2.2. Record may be resurrected at a later date if a student gets in touch with the University.

12.3. Potential Problems

12.3.1. There would be a one-off hit on total head line student numbers (although this is not necessarily a bad thing, depending on the audience).

12.3.2. There would be a one off increase in reported withdrawals.

13. Minimum Component Mark Requirements

13.1. Objectives

13.1.1. Remove the potential reassessment trap for students who must achieve a minimum mark in one component of a module (usually for health and safety purposes) but who have already achieved credit in that module – see Chemistry programme regulations: “In addition, in order to gain credit for a module which contains a coursework/laboratory component, candidates must obtain at least 40% in the coursework/laboratory component of that module”.

13.2. Proposals

13.2.1. This trap would be removed if students who are not permitted to progress are permitted to register for reassessment on any module (item elsewhere on LTC agenda).

13.2.2. If the above proposal is not introduced, the procedure for the determination of reassessment rights will need to be adjusted to take account of minimum component marks requirements.

14. Transferring in Credit from Other Institutions

14.1. Objectives

14.1.1. To clarify in the general regulations the restrictions on the maximum aggregate weighting of credit transfer from other HEIs.

14.1.2. To legislate for students who have failed to achieve their main qualification but have sufficient credit (including credit transfer) for a lesser award.

14.2. Proposals

14.2.1. Senate 1995 confirmed that the maximum transfer of credit into the University should be one-third of the total. Permitted exceptions are NEBOSH diploma where PGT credit transfer of 80 is permitted and credit transfer from specific HEIs (approved by Senate). It is proposed that this be enshrined in the general regulations.

14.2.2. To cover the lesser qualification aim problem, it is proposed that a minimum 50% of total credit weight under consideration must have accrued from Loughborough University modules.

15. Permitted Exceptions for BEng/MEng (GRUA Appendix 3)

15.1. Objectives

15.1.1. To simplify the general regulations in line with latest guidance from accrediting bodies.

15.2. Proposals

15.2.1. Remove GRUA Appendix 3. This was originally created to satisfy the requirements of accrediting bodies. The Associate Dean (Teaching) for the Faculty of Engineering has confirmed that these requirements are no longer in existence and the regulations can be simplified according.

SECTION C: STARRED ITEMS ALREADY APPROVED ELSEWHERE (BUT NOT YET LEGISLATED FOR)

16. * Exceptional Permission for 185 Credits (Postgraduate Students)

16.1. Background

Learning & Teaching Committee June 2002 (minute 02/26):

“RESOLVED, following further discussion, that whilst the standard expectation would remain that PGT students should register for 180 credits, in exceptional circumstances and for good academic reasons, they may be permitted to register for 185 credits, subject to the approval of the relevant AD(T). AD(T)s were asked to alert the Registry to any cases as they were approved.”

NB: Not formally approved by Senate thereafter.

16.2. Proposals

16.2.1. AD(T) approval required.

16.2.2. Approval must be given prior to registration for the module which takes total weight over 180.

17. *Publish Unfixed Semester One Undergraduate Marks – Moderation to Take Place Prior to Programme Board

17.1. Background

Senate June 2004 (minute 04/66.1):

“Senate RESOLVED to accept the recommendations as presented in the report and to forward the report to Council.”

Recommendation 6 of Working Group on the Structure of the Academic Year:

“The requirement to send module marks to external examiners at the end of Semester One should be abolished. External examiners would have the opportunity to moderate the marks as part of the end of year Programme Board procedures. Prior to the Boards the provisional nature of these marks should be further stressed to students.”

17.2. Proposals

17.2.1. Module marks to be moderated and approved by external examiners prior to Programme Board.

17.2.2. Marks released to students are flagged as provisional and subject to moderation.

17.2.3. Moderation of marks downwards is clearly stated as not being grounds for Regulation XIV appeal

SECTION D: OUTSTANDING ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED IN A FUTURE REVIEW

18. PGT Condonement