Senate

Subject: Regulation Changes

Origin: Learning and Teaching Committee 14 February 2002

The Committee considered proposals for amendments to General and Assessment Regulations for Undergraduate Awards (GRUA/ARUA 2000), to clarify issues concerning re-assessment, notably

· The position of students who having submitted impaired performance claims were required to complete further assessed work, but also had reassessments to undertake in other modules.

· The position of students who transferred between programmes where there were modules common to both programmes.

In the first of these situations, the intention was to allow students to undertake deferred first attempt assessments and second attempt assessments at the same time, without being forced to lose a year. The relevant regulation changes had proved somewhat problematic , since in certain cases the extent of students' reassessment rights could not be determined before the deferred assessments had been completed. This was the case where progression was dependent on the achievement of an average mark for the part. In order to avoid students being granted reassessment rights to which ultimately they might not be entitled, it would be assumed that they would achieve 100% in all parts of the module assessment they were taking as a deferred first attempt. The Committee was assured that no students would be in a worse position than under the present regulations; many could benefit from being able to exercise their reassessment rights without delay.

It was noted that the proposed amendments had already been submitted to Ordinances and Regulations Committee, and a report from that committee was included in the supporting papers. A number of additional changes had been requested, which Learning and Teaching Committee was content to endorse. Particular consideration was given to an alteration to GRUA para.19(c) proposed by O&R Committee. This concerned students whose programme regulations required them to achieve a combination of a minimum number of credits and a minimum module mark in a number of unspecified modules. The Committee agreed with reference to the example given in the papers that such students should have the option to be reassessed in any module or modules in which they had failed to obtain credit at the first attempt, provided that in modules in which they had already met the minimum mark requirement, their reassessments were limited to the minimum total modular weight necessary to make up their credit deficit. Attention was drawn to the fact that the wording of para.19(c) as presented would require further amendment to prevent students opting to resit all modules in which they had failed to obtain credit.

Subject to the above, the Committee ENDORSED the changes proposed which would be applied to both GRUA/ARUA 2000 and GRUA/ARUA 1999.

Note: The explanatory note submitted to both Ordinances and Regulations Committee and Learning and Teaching Committee is appended. Additional changes requested by Ordinances and Regulations Committee are detailed in the report of that Committee included elsewhere on this agenda.

It was noted that a more thorough redrafting of GRUA and ARUA was proposed, with a view to their simplification and consolidation. It might be necessary however to standardise the many and varied progression requirements in programme regulations in order to achieve a more straightforward set of regulations at the institutional level. Equity would continue to be a guiding principle, but it was acknowledged that the complexity of the current regulations led to inequities because to some students they were unclear or confusing. It was suggested that a set of flow diagrams might be helpful.

APPENDIX

Loughborough University

Academic Registry

Student Office

Proposed Changes to GRUA and ARUA re Impaired Performance and Reassessment Rights

1. Introduction

1.1. Changes to GRUA 2000 and ARUA 2000 are being proposed in order to tackle real issues in the current regulations which are causing difficulties in determining students reassessment rights and the Module Mark at which capping should be applied, especially in cases where:

· Students submit impaired performance claims and the Programme Board r requires that they complete further assessed work.

· Students transfer to a new programme having failed to progress from the existing programme or without having taken up their reassessment rights under the old programme.

1.2. It is intended that the revised regulations will make the procedures more transparent for students and staff alike, especially in that current custom and practice will be formally legislated for.

1.3. These proposed changes are intended to be a “quick fix” to allow time for a more thorough review of GRUA and ARUA, with a view to further simplification and their consolidation to form a new regulation (possibly Regulation XV).

2. Proposed Changes to GRUA 2000

2.1. Paragraph 9 has been amended to remove the reference to paragraph 10, which has been deleted, as it no longer serves a useful function and is unreasonable. For example, the Programme Board would presently not be empowered to consider a claim for impaired performance submitted by a student with examinations in two or more 100% exam weighted Semester Two modules, who is hospitalised for a month from week 12 of Semester Two and, therefore, entirely misses the assessments.

2.2. Paragraphs 19 and 20 now include a reference to “second attempt” Module Assessment. It is intended that the introduction of “first attempt” and “second attempt” terminology will assist in making the proposed procedure in ARUA 13 more transparent.

2.3. Paragraph 19c now includes a reference to students repeating Module Assessments with the minimum total modular weight necessary to meet the requirements of the Programme Regulations, especially where Programme Regulations require a combination of minimum Module Marks.

For example, to progress from Part B in the BSc Business Studies (Peterborough), candidates must achieve 100 credits (at 40%) and 30% in all modules in which credit has not been achieved. This in effect means a minimum of 40% in modules with a total weight of 100 and a minimum 30% in modules with a total weight of 20. Assuming that a student obtained over 40% in all modules with the exception of:

PBB113 Managerial Economics (weight 10) 29%

PBB114 Business Modelling (weight 10) 30%

PBB115 Financial Accounting (weight 10) 39%

the student would not be permitted to progress, since he/she has not achieved the 100 credits, nor has he/she obtained a minimum 30% in all modules.

It is clear that the student must be reassessed in PBB113 and custom and practice would indicate that this is the students only reassessment option (since obtaining over 40% in the reassessment will result in the student being permitted to progress). However it could (and has been) argued that the student is entitled to reassessment in one of PBB115 or PBB114 (in an attempt to bring that Module Mark up to 40%) as well as in PBB113 (in an attempt to bring that Module Mark up to 30%). In such a case, assuming that the student was permitted to take reassessment in PBB113 and PBB114 and achieved a Module Mark after capping of 40%, this would result in the average mark for the Part being 0.8% higher than if the student took PBB113 only. The proposed change makes the position absolutely clear.

2.4 Paragraph 21 relates to the timing of reassessment and has been amended to:

§ legislate for occasions when a student has not registered for reassessment in a module within the normal time limits, but that module is not actually being assessed in the next academic year (it may have been discontinued, or may be offered in alternate years, for example). There have been arguments that, since the module has not been routinely assessed, that a student has not missed their reassessment opportunity. This amendment clarifies the position and continues throughout GRUA.

§ Incorporate the impact of new paragraph 22 (see below).

2.5. New paragraph 22 and the associated amendment to paragraph 21 are intended to cover the current practice, whereby Programme Regulations place restrictions on a candidate’s right to choose between SAP and the next time that the module is routinely assessed, if the candidate has not achieved a minimum number of credits.

2.6. New paragraph 23 is intended to cover current practice and make more transparent the power of Faculty Boards to permit reassessment to be deferred for one year in exceptional circumstances. This is currently covered in the provisions for termination of studies under paragraph 31 (new para 34), which has also been amended accordingly.

2.7. Paragraph 24 (ex-para 22) has been expanded to specify what level capping should be at when a student transfers from one programme or qualification aim to another in order to progress following reassessment. The intention is to ensure that the outcome is fair where two students, originally registered on different qualification aims or programmes have exactly the same results. For example:

A student on part B of a MEng programme needs 50% in a particular module to progress and achieves 39% in the first attempt and 49% in the second attempt.

The student then transfers to the BEng (in accordance with the provisions of Appendix 3 of GRUA) in order to progress and a Module Mark of 49% is used in calculating the Part B mark.

If the same student had been registered on the BEng throughout, a Module Mark of 40% would be used in calculating the Part B mark.

2.8. New paragraph 25 is to clarify the implications of a student transferring programmes, where there are modules common to the new and existing programmes, per the recommendation from PDQ Team. The Faculty Board is empowered to determine which Module Marks are carried forward from one programme to another, possibly resulting in credit transfer and/or the restriction of reassessment rights on the new programme.

2.9. Paragraph 28 (referring to part-time students) has been amended to clearly specify the time limit for reassessment, which is presently not referred to. The provision for assessment in a module on a third occasion, by permission of the relevant Faculty Board, has also been removed.

2.10. Paragraph 29 (ex-para 26) has been amended to specify who has the authority to designate the deadline for reassessment registration (the Director of Registry Services).

2.11. Paragraph 30 (ex-para 27) has been amended to clarify that tuition fees are payable when a student repeats a module with attendance.

2.12. Paragraph 32 (ex-para 29) has been amended to make specific reference to termination of studies in the event of failure to progress or to be awarded a degree after a “second attempt” reassessment, and includes an exception under ARUA 13 (relating to impaired performance).

2.13. Paragraph 33 (ex-para 30) has been amended to specify that the Programme Board will award Certificates of Higher Education and Diplomas of Higher Education.

2.14. Paragraph 34 (ex-para 31) has been amended to reflect the provisions of new paragraph 23.

3. Proposed Changes to ARUA

3.1. Paragraph 10 has been amended to empower the Director of Registry Services to dispense with the requirement for the External Programme Assessor to attend a Programme Board held for the award of degrees. At present, the Vice Chancellor formally gives approval but this is normally based on the recommendation of the Director of Registry Services.

3.2. Paragraph 13 has been significantly changed to detail the procedure for the determination of reassessment rights for candidates upon whom the Programme Board has deferred a decision. Deferred decision terminology has been replaced by reference to first attempt and second attempt classification of Module Assessments. Specific points to note are:

§ The main objective of the proposed change is to give a student upon whom the Programme Board has deferred a decision (in current terminology), in the light of circumstances referred to in a claim for impaired performance, reassessment rights in modules which were not affected by these circumstances.

§ In determining what these reassessment rights should be, it is important that a candidate is not given rights to reassessment that it later transpires, based on the results of the further assessed work (current terminology), they are not entitled to.

§ Assumption of any Module Mark other than that resulting from the student achieving 100%, which results in a student being potentially allowed reassessment rights, could result in a final degree mark which is significantly above that which they would have achieved without these reassessment rights.

§ No student will be disadvantaged compared to the current system (which does not permit any reassessments until the result of the further assessed work is known).

· Only students registered on programmes with an average mark for the Part required for progression will be significantly affected by the 100% assumption. The worst possible outcome for these students will be that they will not be able to take reassessments concurrent with repeating any part of any Module Assessment required by the Programme Board. This worst case scenario is the current state of play across the board for all students. In many cases, these students will still be entitled to reassessment rights.

· Under the proposed system, students who do have the option to take reassessment concurrent with repeating the parts of the Module Assessment required by the Programme Board, will not be compelled to take up this option and may choose to wait until all final Module Marks and reassessment rights are determined before they decide on which reassessments to take.

4. Impact on GRUA 1999 and ARUA 1999

If the proposed changes to GRUA 2000 and ARUA 2000 are agreed, it is proposed that these be replicated in GRUA 1999 and ARUA 1999.

Author - Robert Bowyer

Date - February 2002