Learning and Teaching Committee

Subject: Changes in Academic Regulations

Origin: Senate: unconfirmed Minutes of 29 June 2005

Learning and Teaching Committee is invited, further to M.05/27 of its previous meeting, to note discussions at the meeting of Senate held on 29 June 2005 on the changes in Academic Regulations which went forward through this Committee and, in parallel, through Ordinances and Regulations Committee.

The relevant minutes of Senate are as follows:

05/53 Changes in Academic Regulations

SEN05-P29

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/admin/committees/senate/papers/sen05-a3/sen05-p29.htm

.1 Further to Minute 04/67 of Senate’s 368^th meeting on 23 June 2004, Senate considered a summary of further proposals for the restructuring of Academic Regulations. (The proposed revised Regulations were included in a later item on the agenda.) The Academic Registrar outlined the proposed main changes to the Regulations, which had been the subject of wide consultation and would result in streamlined and simplified Regulations. Chris Spendlove was thanked for his considerable effort in developing the proposals. Senate RESOLVED to approve the principles within paragraphs 1, 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), 2(e) and 3 of paper SEN05-P29.

.2 In regard to the proposal in paragraph 2(a) that only the mark achieved at the first attempt at a module would contribute to Part and Programme marks, Senate was informed that data for 2003/04 indicated that only 35 of approximately 3000 students would have received a lower class degree under the proposed new rule and this assumed no change in their behaviour or that of Programme Boards. As a consequence of the new rule, Programme Boards would be able to condone failed modules without resit. Senate’s view on the proposal was polarised. In support of the proposal views were expressed that it would help address the increasing resit culture and was fairer to students who passed modules at the first attempt. In opposition to the proposal views were expressed that the proposal was punitive and could affect the weaker or under-performing students and would result in a larger number of failures or pass degrees. The existence of a resit culture was also questioned. After much discussion, it was AGREED that a decision on this difficult issue be deferred for a year pending further analysis of the impact of the proposal on degree results on a departmental basis over more than one year. It was suggested that further consideration also be given to other possible ways of reducing the burden of the Special Assessment Period on staff and students. The proposed Regulations included under item 16 on the agenda would require revision in the light of Senate’s decision. Members were invited to send any further comments to the Academic Registrar.

.3 In regard to the proposals in paragraph 2(c) on Sanctions for Failure to Participate, a member sought and was given reassurance that implementation of the proposals would be sensitive to the situation of students with particular health problems which prevented them from meeting specified deadlines. In regard to the proposal in paragraph 2(e) on Membership of Programme Boards, it was commented that the list of staff able to serve as independent Board members should be clearly defined to ensure that all eligible staff were included. It would be up to Departments whether they wished to change the independent Board member each year.

05/60 Ordinances and Regulations Committee

(v) New Regulation XXII: Taught Programme Internal and External Examiners and Review and Programme Boards

SEN05-P41

A member questioned the need for an External Programme Assessor to be physically present at a Special Assessment Period Programme Board, as required by paragraphs 13 and 14 of the proposed new Regulation XXII. This was not always practical and other forms of communication with the External Programme Assessor had shown themselves to be workable. It was, however, considered crucial that the External Programme Assessor was able to contribute to decisions and was not presented with a fait accompli. It was AGREED that the wording of Regulation XXII be revised such that telephone/video conferencing be deemed as attendance at the SAP Programme Board where attendance could not be waived by the Head of Department under the provisions of paragraph 14 of Regulation XXII. The physical presence of the External Programme Assessor would remain a normal requirement for the main final Programme Boards in June.

Author – Robert Bowyer

Date – November 2005