Senate

 

Subject:        Condonement

 

Origin:           Learning and Teaching Committee

 

 

Background

1.   Senate at its meeting on 23 November 2005 received an update from Learning and Teaching Committee on the operation of condonement in 2004-05. It was reported that a total of 125 students had benefited from condonement over the course of the main summer and SAP Programme Boards. There had been significant diversity of practice, however, in the way that condonement had been applied. Some departments seemed to have used it excessively, whilst others had not used it at all. The submission of a full report was postponed to provide an opportunity for further consultation with departments about their experience of working with condonement provisions and about how condonement should be handled in the future.

 

2.   A consultation paper was issued on 30 November 2005, which reminded departments why condonement was introduced and asked a number of questions about the way in which condonement should be managed.  Further details are included in Appendix 1.

 

Responses to the Consultation

3.   Departmental responses to the consultation were considered by the PDQ Team at its meeting on 23 January 2006.  A summary is attached as Appendix 2.  The record of the PDQ Team’s discussion is as follows:

 

A clear difference of opinion was evident between Science and Engineering departments on the one hand and SSH departments on the other, with those in Science and Engineering wanting the condonement provisions to remain in place and those in SSH against them, with some departments asking that they be removed. 

It was the view of PDQ that in the light of the responses from Science and Engineering departments, and the support of various External Examiners, that the condonement provisions should remain in place. 

The issue therefore was whether the application of condonement could be better controlled to avoid the wide variation in practice that had been apparent in 2005 and that suggested some Programme Boards had departed from the original aims and intentions. 

A majority of departments (outside SSH) had expressed a preference for additional guidelines rather than additional conditions being written into the regulations as a means of reducing diversity of practice, and there was opposition to a formulaic approach on the basis that this would remove the additional measure of discretion that condonement had provided for examiners.

Learning and Teaching Committee Discussion

4.   In the light of these observations, the PDQ Team offered advice to Learning and Teaching Committee for handling condonement in the future. Its report was considered by Learning and Teaching Committee at its meeting on 9 February 2006. Learning and Teaching Committee’s discussion was as follows:

 

The Committee found it surprising that opinion appeared to be so starkly divided between Engineering and Science on the one hand and SSH on the other, given the data on the use of condonement presented to the previous meeting.  Although it was the case that differences in programme regulations had always militated against consistency in outcomes from one programme to another, and this had not been considered problematic, it was suggested that differences between departments in the way that condonement was or was not applied were more likely to be challenged.  It was felt that this view was shared by several SSH departments and explained their lack of support for retaining the condonement provisions. 

 

It was noted that a majority of departments (outside SSH) had expressed a preference for additional guidelines rather than tighter regulations to bring a greater measure of control over the application of condonement.  It was suggested that the key aims and intentions ((i) and (ii) highlighted in Appendix 1 of the agenda paper) should suffice as guidelines, since there was no consensus on the definition of ‘marginal failure’ or an ‘otherwise good pattern of marks’ and opposition to a formulaic approach being imposed. 

 

5.   After further discussion on the advice from the PDQ Team, the Committee agreed:

 

(i)                  That it would not be desirable to introduce tighter regulations;

(ii)                That departments themselves should be required to produce guidelines for their Programme Boards to indicate how condonement should normally be used; these guidelines should be submitted to a sub-group of LTC comprising the 3 AD(T)s for approval and cleared before the Programme Board with appropriate External Examiners who would be expected to bring a view of national standards in the discipline;

(iii)               That all departmental guidelines should be consonant with the original aims and intentions of the condonement provisions.

 

The intention is that Departmental Guidelines should be reviewed on an annual basis.

The Committee is of the view that departments should not be permitted to produce a blanket statement that they will not use condonement.

There is felt to be a strong case for insisting on students’ anonymity being maintained throughout Programme Board proceedings, including any application of condonement, and PDQ will be pursuing this issue with departments through the AD(T)s in the first instance.

 

It was resolved to advise Senate accordingly.

 

Appendix 1

 

Condonement Provisions

In June 2004, after two separate consultation exercises with departments, Senate approved an amendment to Regulations to give Undergraduate Programme Boards discretion to allow students under certain conditions to progress to the next Part of their programme, or to receive an award, without meeting all the normal programme requirements.  The conditions are now incorporated in para 28 of Regulation XX. Undergraduate Awards. 

 

(i)                  The module or modules involved must have a total weight of not more than 20 credits in any Part of the programme.

(ii)                For students in Parts B, C and D, the condonement must have the approval of the appropriate External Examiner, having regard to national standards in the discipline.

(iii)               The reasons for the exercise of discretion must be recorded in the Programme Board report.

 

For non-finalist students to be considered for condonement, they must have already taken advantage of their reassessment rights.  Finalists can have first attempt marks condoned without undergoing reassessment, but Boards should not condone marks where this would result in candidates losing an opportunity to improve their degree classification through reassessment.

 

 

Aims and intentions of condonement

In the recent consultation paper, Departments were reminded of the following:

 

(i)                 the condonement provisions were introduced to increase the discretion available to undergraduate Programme Boards in dealing with cases of marginal failure

(ii)               the purpose was to give scope to Programme Boards to ‘rescue’ students who failed to achieve the requirements for progression or the award of a degree because of a poor performance in one or two modules that was out of line with the rest of their mark profile

(iii)               it was proposed in initial consultations that the margin of permissible failure be defined (a figure of up to 3% in the module mark was suggested) but there was no consensus either on specifying such a margin or on what it might be

(iv)              it was also proposed in initial consultations that there should be a definition of a mark profile or ‘otherwise good pattern of marks’ which might warrant condonement being exercised (one suggestion was that a student should be required to have marks of 50% or above in modules with a value of at least 60 credits) but this was also dropped because of failure to reach a consensus

(v)                the condonement provisions were introduced alongside an amendment to the regulations requiring students to obtain a minimum mark of 20% in every module as well as 100 credits in each part of their programme

(vi)              the reason for insisting that condonement be applied only after reassessment was to avoid students appealing on the grounds that through condonement they were forced to accept a lower degree classification than they might have obtained had they been allowed to resit

(vii)             condonement was intended to be applied in individual cases, for exceptional reasons: it was therefore important that these reasons be indicated in the Programme Board report on a case by case basis

(viii)           it was not intended that condonement would be applied in addition to the discretion already permitted to examiners if a student entered a claim for impaired performance.

 

 

Consultation questions

Question 1:

Does your Department wish the current condonement provisions (Regulation XX, para 28) to remain in place?

 

Question 2: 

What approach would your Department wish to see adopted as a means of reducing the current diversity of practice across the University in the way in which condonement is applied:

 

(a)               Additional conditions written into the regulations

(b)               University guidelines, short of regulations

(c)               Other means (please elaborate)

 

Question 3: 

If additional conditions were written into the regulations, what should these be?

(a)               Definition of a margin of permissible failure (ie maximum percentage below the normal mark required in the module(s) concerned that could be condoned).

(b)               Definition of an ‘otherwise good pattern of marks’ (ie a minimum standard of performance in the other modules that would be required for condonement to be exercised).

(c)               Alternative conditions (please define).

 

Question 4: 

If the University were to produce guidelines for departments, would your Department wish to suggest any guidelines beyond those stated in (i) and (ii) under ‘Aims and intentions’ above?

 

 

Appendix 2

 

LTC Consultation on ‘Condonement’, November 2005:  Summary

 

 

1. Does Dept wish current condonement provisions to remain in place

2. What approach to reduce diversity of practice

(a) conditions in regs

(b) guidelines short of regs

(c) other means

3. If additional conditions written into regs, what should they be

(a) margin of failure

(b) otherwise good pattern of marks

(c) alternatives

4. If guidelines produced, any suggestions beyond those in consultation paper[1] [2]

AAE

Yes

(a)

(a), (b) and (c)

Yes

Chem Eng

Yes

(c)

None

-

Civ Eng

Yes

(a)

(c)

-

Elect Eng

Yes

(b)

None

Yes

Wolfson

Yes

(b)

None

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Chemistry

Yes

(b)

(c)

Yes

Comp Sci

Yes

(c)

(b)

-

Hum Sci

Yes

(c)

-

Yes

Inf Sci

Yes

(b)

-

No

IPTME

Yes

(b)

-

Yes

Math Sci

Yes

(b)

-

No

Physics

Yes

(b)

None

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Bus Sch

No

(c)

-

-

Economics

No

(a)

(a)

Yes

Geography

No

(a)

(a)

Yes

LUSAD

No preference

(b)

-

-

PIRES

No

-

-

-

Soc Sci

No

(a)

(a) and (b)

Yes

 

Conclusions

 

 


[1] the condonement provisions were introduced to increase the discretion available to undergraduate Programme Boards in dealing with cases of marginal failure

[2] the purpose was to give scope to Programme Boards to ‘rescue’ students who failed to achieve the requirements for progression or the award of a degree because of a poor performance in one or two modules that was out of line with the rest of their mark profile