Academic Registry

Student Office

Proposed Changes to General Regulations for Taught Programmes

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES OF PRINCIPLE

1. Reassessment Rights & Mark Capping (for new undergraduate students entering in 2005/06, and all taught postgraduates)

1.1. Rationale

1.1.1. The number of undergraduate students taking resits in the Special Assessment Period (SAP) increased by over 50% from 1999/0 to 2003/4 whilst the total undergraduate population increased by only 15%. Perhaps most concerning, over 40% of the students taking SAP reassessments are in Part B or above. 20% of Part A and 12% of Part B students now resit in the SAP or during the next academic year. Arguably, a resit culture has developed amongst some students. Academic staff frequently raise concerns about the reassessment workload and its impact on the time available for research, informally and in formal University Committees.

1.1.2. Another major issue is the extreme complexity of our current regulations which makes clear guidance to students very difficult. As a result around 20% of students attempt to register for the wrong reassessments and an inordinate amount of administrative staff time (mainly in academic departments) is wasted dealing with reassessment.

1.1.3. The University needs to be clear about the purpose of reassessment – we would suggest it is for the weaker student to demonstrate that he/she has reached the necessary standard overall, and where applicable in key subject areas, to be able to cope with the following year or to deserve the award of a degree. It should not be an exercise in collecting additional marks as this potentially disadvantages those with modest passes at the first attempt. The main proposal is therefore that resit marks should not count towards degree classifications, only towards the achievement of credit and any overall mark requirement for the year.

1.1.4. A corollary of accepting the main proposal is that we could permit the new condonement powers to be used before, rather than only after, reassessment since the student can no longer improve their overall mark through resitting. This should directly reduce the number of resits.

1.1.5. One of the outcomes of attending a University (especially one such as Loughborough, where graduate employment is a significant selling point) should be the preparation of students for the world of work. Relying on reassessment is not the best preparation for students’ working careers, where a second chance is not the norm. The proposal outlined below ensures that the policy of increasing the demands made on undergraduate students at each consecutive Part of their programme is mirrored in the reassessment process (resitting in Part A will have minimal impact but the potential impact increases in each subsequent degree level Part).

1.1.6. It is worth pointing out that, although our current approach is fairly typical across the sector, a small number of other UK universities adopt the proposed approach to reassessment (Warwick, Bradford). Other courses for which no resits are permitted (e.g. at Aberdeen and the Royal Veterinary College) have very low drop out rates.

1.2. Objectives

1.2.1. To significantly reduce the overall number of reassessments by making reassessment a less attractive option and permitting condonement before reassessment.

1.2.2. To simplify the reassessment process making it easier for students and staff to understand, thereby minimising the risk of error and/or complaints.

1.2.3. To reduce the workload on academic departments related to reassessment.

1.2.4. To improve students’ overall performances.

1.3. Proposals

1.3.1. Consider 1^st attempt module marks only towards Part and Programme marks.

1.3.2. Allow undergraduate students who fail to progress or to be awarded their main qualification aim to register for a 2^nd attempt in any module, i.e. regardless of their mark. This represents a major simplification of the regulations which must cater for students on programmes where a minimum overall mark is required for progression (e.g. MEng). Allow postgraduate taught students to register for reassessment in any module in which they have failed to gain credit (as is currently the case).

1.3.3. Use the best of the 1^st and 2^nd attempt marks for each module to determine whether minimum mark, average mark, credit requirements etc have been met – ie. ensure that a student cannot be made worse off by taking reassessment, thereby removing the “trap” which often leads to misunderstandings and sometimes to appeals (especially at PGT level).

1.3.4. Increase the reassessment fee to a flat rate of £100 per module (rather than a credit based calculation), in line with the recommendation from the Working Group on the Structure of the Academic Year.

1.3.5. Remove the right to take an alternative module as a 2^nd attempt. Whilst this opportunity is used occasionally in some departments where some modules are offered in alternate years, such cases could be dealt with by a waiver of general regulations rather than overcomplicating the general regulations. The number of students taking alternative modules at reassessment each year is believed to be in single figures.

1.3.6. Introduce a University level requirement for a minimum of 60 credits for undergraduates below which SAP reassessment is not permitted – some programme regulations already include this clause but it is currently optional. This should act as a deterrent to poor performance as the student will lose a year.

2. Abolition of Postgraduate Module Boards and Introduction of Review Boards (implementation in 2005/6 for all postgraduate taught students)

2.1. Rationale

2.1.1. The abolition of undergraduate module boards not long after modularisation resulted in a demonstrable reduction in the administrative workload involved in assessment and critically released academic time for priority activities such as research. We now propose that Postgraduate Module Boards be abolished and replaced by Postgraduate Review Boards, but are conscious that any new arrangements must meet the needs of part-time students.

2.1.2. Part-time postgraduate students sometimes fall by the wayside when they do not register for a module during an academic year as they are not formally considered by any University body. A formal Review Board considering all students on a programme would ensure that all such students are brought to the University’s attention at least annually, so that action can be taken to confirm the student’s status and maintain communication with them.

2.2. Objectives

2.2.1. To reduce the administration burden on academic departments and make it easier for the Registry to officially inform students of results and rights of appeal (cf procedures for undergraduates).

2.2.2. To ensure that the overall position of every PGT student (including students not registered for current year modules) is considered at least once a year.

2.2.3. To enable Impaired Performance claim decisions to be taken based on a more complete performance dataset than is currently the case for Semester One related claims.

2.3. Proposals

2.3.1. Abolish Module Boards but permit Departments to convene Postgraduate Review Boards to consider results at their discretion as long as the Programme Board or a Review Board meets at least once annually. The Review Board would have the same constitution as the current Module Boards.

2.3.2. Provisional Semester One postgraduate module marks may be published subject to change (as is currently the case with Semester One undergraduate module marks) but Departments could hold a Review Board to confirm them if preferred.

2.3.3. A Review Board would normally be required following the Semester Two examination session (late June/early July?) to consider the position of all students registered on a programme.

2.3.4. Review Boards would be empowered to:

2.3.4.1. Confirm Module Marks

2.3.4.2. Consider Impaired Performance Panel recommendations and make appropriate decisions.

2.3.4.3. Determine reassessment rights (including component mark carry forward).

3. Strengthen Potential Sanction for Failure to Participate (implement for all students in 2005/06)

3.1. Rationale

Departments currently have no formal powers to deal with students who appear to have ceased participating in their programme but will not voluntarily withdraw. This is a cause of significant frustration for some departments and also results in the University reporting students to, e.g. the Student Loans Company, as attending when they are not, which is potentially illegal.

3.2. Objectives

3.2.1. To enable academic departments to nip failure to participate in the bud by pointing to potential sanctions early on in the academic session.

3.2.2. To provide a clear cut procedure for timely notification of failure to participate to sponsors, Student Loans Company etc.

3.2.3. To clarify tuition fee liability for students who have in effect withdrawn but have not informed the University sooner rather than later.

3.3. Proposals

3.3.1. If attendance or another form of participation (eg submission of coursework) is becoming a concern, a formal written warning from the HoD is sent to the student detailing the necessary actions to retrieve the situation. Note: there is no intention that departments should be obliged to take formal attendance registers.

3.3.2. If participation does not improve to the department’s satisfaction following the formal warning, the department will inform the Academic Registrar of the position.

3.3.3. The Academic Registrar or his/her nominee will contact the student advising that if he/she does not contact his/her department within 10 working days, he/she will be deemed to have abandoned studies and sponsors etc will be informed accordingly.

3.3.4. If the student contacts the department within 10 working days, they will be given one final chance to retrieve the situation. Failure to adhere to agreement with the department will result in the department informing Academic Registry who will then withdrawn the student immediately.

3.3.5. The student will be informed of this decision and will be given a right of appeal within 10 days. Once the right of appeal has expired or if the appeal is turned down, Academic Registry will inform the relevant sponsor/Student Loans Company/Home Office etc.

4. Abolition of Maximum 80 Weight Year Long Module Restriction (implement for all modules in 2005/06)

4.1. Rationale

The move towards more year long modules has resulted in some problems regarding module choice especially in joint and combined honours programmes. At the heart of this is the ruling that no undergraduate student should be permitted to register on more that 80 weight total of year long modules in any Part. In order to ensure that assessment is spread over the year, the policy was further extended to state that a minimum 20% of the overall assessment for year long modules must take place in Semester One.

4.2. Objectives

4.2.1. To facilitate an increase in the move to year long modules, especially regarding joint and combined honours programmes.

4.3. Proposals

4.3.1. Abolish the maximum 80 weight year long module rule.

4.3.2. Retain the requirement for 20% of the overall assessment for year long module to take place in Semester One.

5. Programme Board Changes

5.1. Rationale

There is currently some confusion regarding Programme Board membership (set out in Ordinance XIX and Programme Board quoracy (set out in GRUA and GRPMA). The rules need to be clarified and set out in the same regulation. Departments often have difficulty in securing Faculty and Senate representatives for Programme Boards because of the very limited pool of eligible staff. Changes to membership and quoracy are required which maintain the role of an experienced independent academic whilst increasing the size of the available pool from which to select the individual.

5.2. Proposals

5.2.1. Amend Programme Board membership.

5.2.1.1. Current Membership

· Head of Department (Chair).

· at least three other appointed Examiners (one of whom shall be Deputy Chair).

· any member of the Senate (from a department other than that which owns the programme).

· any member of the appropriate Faculty Board (from a department other than that which owns the programme).

· The External Programme Assessor if the Programme under consideration is at postgraduate level or the Board is considering Part B, C or D at undergraduate level.

5.2.1.2. Proposed Membership

· Head of Department (Chair).

· at least three other appointed Examiners (one of whom shall be Deputy Chair).

· One “independent board member” (see 5.2.1.3.below) who shall not be from either the department which owns the programme or, in the case of joint degree programmes, the partner department.

· All external examiners responsible for modules which are being considered by the Programme Board.

· The External Programme Assessor if the Programme under consideration is at postgraduate level or the Board is considering finalist undergraduate level students.

5.2.1.3. Independent Board Members

Departmental administrators currently expend an inordinate amount of time and energy attempting to identify Faculty Board and Senate representatives. One of the main reasons for this is that the available pool is very limited and a large percentage of the potential candidates are Heads of Department. It is intended that the replacement of the Faculty Board and Senate representatives with an Independent Board Member will fulfil the impartiality requirement. It is recognised that one of the other main benefits which accrue from the current Faculty Board and Senate representative system is that these individuals will generally have significant Programme Board experience. It is proposed, therefore, that departments are asked to nominate 4 independent board members for a particular academic year (departments may wish to rotate suitably experienced individuals every three years but this decision would be left to individuals departments). It is proposed that to qualify as an independent board member, an individual must be a non probationary internal examiner and fall into at least one of the following categories.

· Programme Director or equivalent

· A present or past member of Senate.

· A present or past member of Learning and Teaching Committee.

· A present or past member of a Faculty Board.

· A current external examiner at another UK higher education institution.

5.2.2. Amend Programme Board Quorum.

5.2.2.1. Current Quorum

· the Chair or the designated Deputy Chair.

· either the member of Senate or the member of the Faculty Board.

· At least two other internal examiners.

· The External Programme Assessor Part B, C, D or postgraduate level.

5.2.2.2. Proposed Quorum

· the Chair or the designated Deputy Chair.

· The independent board member

· At least two other internal examiners (one of whom shall be from the partner department in the case of joint honours programmes).

· The External Programme Assessor if undergraduate finalist or postgraduate level.

5.2.3. Clarify Special Assessment Period (SAP) Programme Board Membership.

There is currently a lack of clarity regarding the relationship between a main summer undergraduate Programme Board and the associated SAP Programme Board. Some departments believe that there is a requirement to appoint a new Programme Board, with others working on the understanding that the membership for the SAP board should be the same as the main Summer board.Where possible, SAP programme boards should have the same membership as the related main Summer board and need not be reappointed. Where for good reason it is not possible for the membership to remain the same, the Programme Board report should refer to the change in membership and should outline the reasons for the change of membership.

Chris Spendlove and Jennifer Nutkins

20 June 2005