Title: Regulation XIV: Student Appeals against Programme or
Module Board Decisions, Report for years 2002, 2003 and 2004
1.
Background
The current
Regulation XIV came into force in March 2002, following amendments proposed by
the Academic Registrar (AR) in a report on the operation of the regulation in
Summer and Autumn 2001. This report includes appeals considered in the 2002,
2003 and 2004 calendar years.
2.
Analysis of Appeals
An analysis
of appeals is provided below, and in Appendices I, II and III. Given the
relatively small number of appeals, care should be taken not to overstate
relatively minor differences between the characteristics of the appellant
population, and that of the total student population for each year*. Data are
provided by Department as well as aggregated for the University for
information. However, given the small number of students involved in each
department, it does not seem reasonable to draw any conclusions from the
figures presented in this format.
2.1
Incidence of Regulation XIV Appeals against Total Population (Appendix I)
In total,
176 appeals were submitted in 2002 (1.2% of the total population), 112 in 2003
(0.7%), and 144 in 2004 (0.8%). The profile of appellants broadly matched that
of the total population, but some points are noteworthy:
2.2
Analysis of Appeal Outcomes (Appendix II)
In all
three years, the majority of appeals were dismissed at the first stage of the appeals
process, by the AR (63.1% in 2002, 75% in 2003, and 66.7% in 2004). A similar
proportion of appeals in all three years were dismissed by a Dean (7.4% in
2002, 6.2% in 2003, and 6.9% in 2004). In 2002, a quarter (25.6%) of all
appeals were ultimately upheld by a Dean. This figure fell to 16.1% in 2003,
when a larger proportion of appeals were rejected by the AR, but increased
again to 21.5% in 2004. Only a very small number of appeals in each year
progressed as far as the Academic Appeal Committee (AAC); 2 in 2002 (both
upheld), 1 in 2003 (dismissed), and 4 in 2004 (2 upheld, 2 dismissed).
The most
common reasons for the dismissal of appeals were lack of evidence, and cases
based on late disclosure of impaired performance for which good cause was not
established. The majority of successful appeals related to impaired performance
where the student was able to establish good cause for not submitting a timely
claim with a small number relating to errors on the part of academic
departments. In relation to the former category, sensitive personal
circumstances and mental health difficulties were treated sympathetically.
The
analysis in Appendix II indicates that appeal outcomes did not vary
significantly depending on the characteristics of appellants. The following
points, however, are noteworthy:
3.
Issues Arising from the Consideration of Appeals
A number of
matters of general principle have been brought to light through appeals
submitted under Regulation XIV.
3.1
Students undertaking reassessments without tuition
Several
appeals arose through uncertainty about the extent to which students should
receive academic and administrative support when undertaking reassessments
without tuition, particularly in relation to project and dissertation modules.
It is suggested that steps are taken to ensure all students are explicitly
advised that they will not be entitled to anything more than basic
administrative support (i.e. provided with details of the work required, and
deadline dates) if they opt for reassessment without tuition, and that
assistance such as proof-reading of dissertation drafts will not be provided.
3.2
Problems (perceived or real) with project / dissertation supervision
A
significant number of appeals (including three of the four cases considered by
the AAC in 2004) related to the
supervision of postgraduate and final year undergraduate projects and
dissertations. Most frequently, the appeal was based on an allegation that the
supervision was inadequate in some way. In several cases, the appellant claimed
they had not raised the matter earlier because they were unaware that there was
a mechanism for them to do so, or because they were concerned about the
repercussions of making what was seen to be a complaint against a member of
academic staff. The following actions are suggested:
3.3
Guidance on marking schemes for multiple-choice examinations
It emerged
from a number of appeals that students were not always provided with clear
advice on the marking scheme that would be applied to multiple-choice
examinations. Where a scheme involves subtracting a quarter of a mark for an
incorrect answer, students might legitimately adopt a different strategy than
if no such penalty is applied. It is therefore suggested that it should be compulsory
for all multiple-choice examination papers to include guidance on the marking
scheme in the rubric at the head of the paper.
3.4 International students returning to their home country for long periods during the academic year
A number of
appeals were submitted by international students, who for reasons normally
related to illness (their own, or that of family members back home) left
Loughborough for periods of up to 6 months, during the academic year, to return
home, without applying for leave of absence, impaired performance, or even
telling anyone within their Department or elsewhere within the University. The
success of such appeals depended on the particular circumstances of each case,
and whether the student had good cause for leaving abruptly, and remaining
incommunicado for an extended period. However, wider issues were raised about
how the University keeps track of its (particularly international) students,
especially those residing in University accommodation. It is suggested that
consideration is given to reviewing, and if appropriate, standardising
procedures in Academic Departments and Halls of Residence for chasing and/or
noting absent students.
* Note
on Total Population
The total
student population for the purposes of this report includes all students who
had the opportunity to appeal against a Module or Programme board decision in
each year.
· For undergraduates, the total population includes students considered by a Programme Board in the Summer, and those considered by a Programme Board following the Special Assessment Period (SAP). Those students who were considered by Programme Boards in both Summer and SAP were double-counted, as they could have appealed against the decisions of both Boards.
· For postgraduates, the total population includes all students who were considered by at least one Module or Programme Board during each year.