Senate

Subject: General Regulations for Undergraduate Awards/
Assessment Regulations for Undergraduate Awards

Origin: Unconfirmed Minutes of Ordinances and Regulations Committee on 11 February 2002.

.1 The Committee considered amendments to GRUA (1999 and 2000) and ARUA (1999 and 2000) to address issues in the wake of the 2001 Special Assessment Period, with immediate effect, noting that the proposal was subject to Learning and Teaching Committee's approval on 14 February 2002. Members expressed concern at the complexity of the Regulations as presented, particularly for students. It was noted that the diversity of progression requirements in Programme Regulations contributed to the complexity, as did regulations designed to curtail students' rights to take resit examinations. The Committee was informed that the amendments were intended to legislate for custom and practice, and that a subsequent more thorough review of GRUA and ARUA with a view to their consolidation and simplification was intended.

The Committee suggested that, in any such review, the possibility of students being allowed to resit all failed papers should be considered, and resits to demonstrate the ability to pass thresholds be allowed but the original mark be carried forward, and that there was a case for introducing some standardisation into Programme Regulations.

.2 The Committee did not support the proposed penultimate sentence of GRUA para 19(c) that: 'If Programme Regulations stipulate a minimum credit requirement combined with a minimum module mark requirement in a number of unspecified modules, candidates may repeat Module Assessments with the minimum total modular weight necessary to meet the requirements of the Programme Regulations', which it considered to be inequitable. In the example presented in para 2.3 of the covering note, the student could argue that it was arbitrary and unfair of the University to force them to resit only the module with the lowest mark.

.3 The Committee considered the proposed para 24 of GRUA to be excessively complex and requested a simpler redrafting along the lines that upon transfer to an alternative qualification aim a student's reassessment would be interpreted as if this was the student's original qualification aim. It was also requested that GRUA para 25 be revised to make clear the default position (..no module marks will be carried forward unless…) and to make reference to first attempt module assessment. It was noted that the first clause of GRUA para 32 should read: 'A Programme Board… following a second attempt module assessment…'.

.4 The Committee was informed that the proposed para 13 of ARUA was intended to allow some reassessment in SAP where a claim for impaired performance has resulted in a deferred decision for a module(s) by the Programme Board. The Committee requested the following changes to the proposed GRUA para 13:

13(b)(i) required recognition of the reassessment and capping position

13 (b)(iii) should not be a subsection of para 13 but either a subsequent separate paragraph in ARUA or incorporated into GRUA. The requirements of this para were seen as a potentially difficult task for Programme Boards.

.5 It was AGREED that the Committee's proposed amendments be incorporated into the paper to be received by Learning and Teaching Committee, and that any further amendments to GRUA/ARUA be emailed to members for approval prior to submission to Senate.

Author - Jennie Elliott

Date - February 2002