Title:               Impaired Performance Summer 2003/4 Trial Review

 

Origin:            Impaired Performance Working Group 2003/4

                                                                                                                                                                        

 

1.       Background

 

All but two departments trailled the new procedures (enshrined in Regulation XVII from 2004/5) during Summer 2003/4. Feedback was sought by the Impaired Performance Working Group (IPWG) on how effective departments had found the new procedures in practice and whether any improvements could be made in the light of experience. As Regulation XVII came into force in the 2004/5 academic year, any suggested changes to regualtions will need to be incorporated in the upcoming review of the University’s general academic regulations due to be considered by Learning & Teaching Committee early in 2005.

 

2.       Feedback

 

Feedback received from departments has generally been positive. The following issues were raised:

 

2.1.       Running an IP Panel, Pre-Board and Board was onerous

          IPWG response: the IP Panel should be held as a sub-group of the pre-board rather as a entirely separate meeting.

 

2.2.       There is sometimes a lack of input from service teaching departments, especially in terms of joint honours degrees

          IPWG response: departments are reminded that they are still able to request input from module owning departments even though that input is not provided as a matter of course (ie. the input is pulled by the student owning department rather than pushed by the module owning department).

 

2.3.       Students could not find the IP form and guidance on the web easily

          IPWG response: there is a link to IP under “Student Enquiries” on the main student web page. Computing Services have also been approached about the possibility of including a more visible graphical link to IP from the main student page (as in Learn, Student’s Union, Exam Timetabling etc).

 

2.4.       Departments are unhappy with the requirement to add at least 1% for every eligible claim.

          IPWG response: some departments appear to have misinterpreted the guidance and added 1-2% for every student with an eligible valid claim without first determining whether the student’s performance was impaired. Unless the Board considers that performance has been impaired, there is no requirement to take any action. In order to determine whether performance is impaired departments should review performance against comparitive performance in assessments for which impairment is not claimed (in semester one or previous years for example). A good example of this experienced in one department follows:

 

          Four finalist students were diagnosed as dyslexic prior to the semester two exams. All were given extra time. However, only one student’s performance improved in comparison to his/her semester one performance (when extra-time was not allowed). Accordingly, only this student received a mark adjustment for the semester one exams.

 

2.5.       Departments did not necessarily adhere to the 1%-5% recommendation (with one applying a standard 3%-8%).

          IPWG response: if departments do not feel that the 1%-5% recommendation is appropriate in individual students cases, they are reminded of the possibility to “insert an alternative mark derived from an appropriate source”. It is questionable that an “appropriate source” could be identified to justify across the board application of 3%-8%.

 

2.6.       Some departments felt that the discipline of the new procedures had resulted in fewer marks changes being actioned, with fewer students being awarded additional 1%-2%

          IPWG response: unfortunately, the marks change audit feature was not added to the student information system until March 2004, so it is not possible to provide comparative statistics without a review of all programme board paperwork. Further investigation may be carried out in this area in the future.

 

2.7.       The current Programme Board report pro-forma does not lend itself to the recording of IP claim outcomes

          IPWG response: it is proposed that the Programme Board report pro-forma will be reviewed with a view to providing the opportunity for outcomes for all students to be recorded under one of the following categories:

·       Ineligible claim

·       No evidence of impaired performance

·       Action taken (including justification for insertion of an alternative mark)

 

2.8.       The whole process had changed from being “event orientated” to “impact orientated”, as a result of the requirement to consider whether performance had actually been impaired by the event. This was generally considered a good thing but some departments felt that it was more time consuming.

          IPWG response: the change to impact orientation was the intended outcome of revising the procedures. Departments which applied the criteria strictly found that the process took the same or less time than in previous years. It is expected that all departments will find the process simpler and quicker once the system beds down.

 

2.9.       Despite the fact that the form explicitly stated that the second part was compulsory (explain how these circumstances affected your performance), students were still failing to complete this section of the form.

          IPWG response: in light of the problems experienced, the design of the form has been reviewed and a proposed new version is attached (Appendix I).

 

2.10.   One department had expressed a strong preference for the IP Panels to consider students anonymously.

          IPWG response: aside from the significant additional administrative burden that this would entail, it is considered that for staff to have a knowledge of the individuals concerned is a positive thing. It is also considered unlikely that, in a panel situation, any one student would be treated more or less advantageously than another. On balance, therefore, although the working group accepts the rational behind the request for anonymous decision making, it is considered that the negative points would outweigh the benefits.

 

2.11.   One department felt strongly that all claims should be considered by the full board.

          IPWG response: the working group noted that this department received a very limited number of claims in comparison to some other departments and did not perhaps appreciate the potential academic staff time saving which can result from dealing with claims on a panel basis. It is also worth pointing out that the IP Panel can only make recommendations to the Programme Board and it is for the Programme Board to make the final decision.

 

2.12.   There is a need to differentiate between group claims and individual claims.

          IPWG response: there is a recognized need for system development to differentiate between different types of “representation” (eg. project extension, group IP claim, individual IP claim etc.). a development request to cover this is already in the CIS request system and will be covered in the student system redevelopment programme or possibly before (if CIS resource allows).

 

3.         Number of Semester Two 2003-4 Impaired Performance (IP) Claims

 

One of the objectives of the IPWG was to reduce the number of “frivolous” IP claims. It will be difficult to identify whether any progress has been made until the new procedures have been in place for at least a full academic year, but early indications are that the number of Semester 2 claims relative to the student population fell slightly from 2002-3. Further investigation will take place at the end of the academic year.

 

4.         Sporting and Cultural Activity Impact on Performance

 

IPWG originally proposed that an IP claim should be eligible for consideration if it related to “participating in sporting and cultural activities at the highest level”. PDQ requested that these circumstances be specifically excluded from the eligibility criteria. This is now becoming a significant issue which the working group recommends that the University needs to make a definitive policy decision on. During the trial period, many departments continued to accept sporting commitments (especially intenational sport) as eligible criteria for IP claims.  It seems sensible that the impact of participation in sporting and cultural activities should be dealt with outwith the IP system, but there is currently no system or University policy to deal with this. Appendix II (attached) is a suggested starting point for the formulation of such a policy.

 

APPENDIX I – Proposed Revised Impaired Performance Form

 

Impaired Performance Form

Semester One 2004/2005

 

Read the guidance notes: www.lboro.ac.uk/admin/ar/student/exams/ip/

 

 

Last Name                                                                       Other Names                                                            

 

Programme                                                                     Year                      ID No.                                          

 

Modules affected:  Complete columns 1 & 2 for relevant modules and columns 3 & 4 for affected elements only.

 

1.  Module Code

2.                      Module Title

3.   Cwk Deadline/

       Cwk Test Date

4.  Exam Date

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please give ALL the information required:

1.   What happened?                              2.   When did it happen? (give dates)

3.   For each Module listed, give details of its impact on your exam and/or coursework performance.

 

 
 
Supporting Evidence (forms without supporting evidence are not normally eligible for consideration)

    

Submitted to Department                             To be submitted later

 

Declaration: The information I have provided is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 

Signed___________________   _______   _   ______           Date__________

 

Forms must be received at Student Enquiries, Admin Building 2, Loughborough University, LE11 3TU by 2 Feb 2005 (except where a claim relates to an exam held after this date, when the deadline will be 2 working days after the exam)

 

 

APPENDIX II

 

 Impaired Performance Working Group 2004

 

DRAFT PROPOSAL: Guiding Principles for Dealing with Student Absences for Participation in Sporting and Cultural Activities

 

1.    Students are responsible for the successful management and completion of their studies.

 

2.    The University’s Impaired Performance system is not normally to be used to assist students who studies and assessments are affected by sporting and cultural commitments.

 

3.    The University will normally only help those students whose assessments are affected by sporting and cultural commitments if the activity in question is an international level competition and/or a specific training or selection event directly related to an international competition.

 

4.        Coursework Assessments. Students qualifying under principle 3 above would be eligible to seek coursework deadline extensions or submit coursework early or, at the discretion of the department concerned, be allowed special alternative coursework completion arrangements.

 

5.        Formal Examinations. Students qualifying under principle 3 above who miss formal examinations will be eligible to take them as first sits in the Special Assessment Period.  Only in highly exceptional circumstances would an examination paper be allowed to be sat at a venue away from the University.

 

6.        Students qualifying under principle 3 above should keep their department fully informed about international competitions and any linked activity that will affect their assessments. Students should notify their department about such absences at the earliest possible time. Supporting evidence must be provided confirming the international nature of the competition and any specifically linked events and the student’s participation in them.