Senate

Subject: Regulation XIV: Student Appeals against Programme or Review Board Decisions, Report for 2008 (Calendar Year)

Origin: Chris Dunbobbin, Assistant Registrar, Programme Quality and Teaching Partnerships

1. Analysis of Appeals

1.1 Number of Appeals (Appendix I)

A total of 147 appeals were submitted in the 2008 calendar year, 47 more than in 2007.

1.2 Incidence of Appeals (Appendix II)

The characteristics of those who appealed were broadly in line with those of appellants in previous years. Figures are provided by Academic Department, as well as aggregated for the University, for information. However, given the small number of appellants from each department, it is difficult to draw any strong conclusions.

1.3 Appeal Outcomes (Appendices III and IV)

Just over two-thirds (70.7%) of all appeals were dismissed by the Academic Registrar, and a further 8.2% were dismissed by a Dean. The remaining 21.1% of appeals were upheld by a Dean. No appeals were referred to an Academic Appeal Committee.

The most common reasons for the dismissal of appeals were lack of evidence, and late disclosure of impaired performance (IP) for which good cause was not established. The majority of successful appeals related to IP where the student was able to establish good cause for not submitting a timely claim, with a small number involving procedural irregularities. In relation to the former category, sensitive personal circumstances and mental health difficulties were treated sympathetically.

Appendices III and IV contain further analysis of appeal outcomes in the context of the characteristics and owning department of appellants. Again, however, relatively small numbers are involved, and care must be taken not to overstate minor differences between years.

2. Issues Arising from Appeals

2.1 Notification of outcome of Impaired Performance (IP) claims

One case highlighted the absence of an institutional policy requiring departments to formally notify students of the outcome of IP claims. The student submitted an IP claim in relation to which no action was taken (the Board could find no evidence of impairment). However, the student received no notification of this, and did not ask about the consideration of his claim until much later, well beyond the deadline for him to submit an appeal against the Board’s decision. He claimed that he had been disadvantaged because he had not been informed of the Board’s decision on his claim in time for him to submit an appeal. The appeal was ultimately dismissed by one of the Dean’s, but the student submitted a complaint to the OIA, and its ruling on the case, and this issue in particular, is awaited.

2.2 Raising concerns regarding dissatisfaction with a project/dissertation supervisor

In one appeal, the appellant argued that she had good cause for not having submitted an IP claim relating to alleged shortcomings in the supervision of her final year project, because the University’s IP Policy and Procedures Guide for Students makes no reference to submitting a claim in such circumstances.

Ultimately this question was not central to the appeal, but the Dean of Engineering felt that the IP guidance should be enhanced to provide explicit advice to students who feel that their performance has been affected by a procedural irregularity such as a perceived shortcoming in supervisory support. It is proposed that in such circumstances, students are advised not to submit an IP claim, but to raise their concern within their department (e.g. personal tutor, module tutor, Head of Department) as soon as it occurs, and well before their marks for the module are promulgated.

2.3 Condonement for students undertaking repeat first attempts in SAP

In one case, the appellant had submitted an IP claim relating to ill-health which had affected him during Semester 2. The Programme Board allowed a repeat first attempt of a failed module in the SAP. The student very narrowly failed the module again in SAP, and appealed on the basis that he had been affected by the same ongoing medical condition (but had not submitted a further IP claim). In his submission on the appeal, the Chair of the Programme Board noted that the Board would have condoned the student’s SAP failure had he been a resit candidate. As it was, the student was in the somewhat perverse position of having to resit the failed module in 2009-10 as a consequence of his being allowed to retake it in the SAP as a repeat first attempt rather than as a resit (meaning that condonement could not be applied when it otherwise would have been).

Ultimately the appeal was upheld because the student was found to have had good cause for not submitting a further IP claim in the SAP. However, in relation to the issue above, the Dean of Engineering suggested that consideration be given to amending the University’s regulations to allow the condonement of students undertaking repeat first attempts in the SAP. It is noted, though, that condonement is currently restricted to resit candidates in order to avoid the possibility of a student being denied the opportunity to raise their Part Mark by undertaking reassessments rather than being condoned, and it may be difficult to achieve greater flexibility as suggested without undermining this important principle.

2.4 Student expectations in relation to supervision of final year projects/dissertations

A considerable number of appeals were submitted by students who were dissatisfied with the supervision of their final year project or dissertation. In some cases, it was alleged that there had been procedural irregularities in the supervisory provision; in others, there were allegations of prejudice or bias on the part of the supervisor. A common underlying theme was the perception on the part of the student that their supervisor had not done enough to guide them towards a mark that was in line with their own degree classification objectives (e.g. “my supervisor knew that I was aiming for a 2(i), and should have told me that I needed to do x, y and z in order to get that kind of mark for my project”). These cases therefore betrayed a misconception as to the limits of the role of the supervisor.

Although the number of students submitting appeals of this nature represents a tiny fraction of the total number of students undertaking final year projects and dissertations, it is suggested that the guidance given to students on the role/remit of project and dissertation supervisors, across all departments, be reflected upon and enhanced as appropriate, so that student expectations in this area are effectively managed.

Chris Dunbobbin

June 2009